analysis of impact of national fadama development projects on beneficiaries income and wealth in...

8/13/2019 Analysis of Impact of National Fadama Development Projects on Beneficiaries Income and Wealth in FCT, Nigeria

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/analysis-of-impact-of-national-fadama-development-projects-on-beneficiaries 1/14

Journal of Economics and Sustainable Development www.iiste.org

ISSN 2222-17 !"aper# ISSN 2222-2$%% !&nline#

'ol.() No.17) 21*

11

Analysis of Impact of National Fadama Development Projects on

Beneficiaries Income and Wealth in FCT, Nigeria

+unana ,agai ature1) /buba0ar /liu Sanni2 3rancis &o /debao*4 1. 5entral an0 of Nigeria) 5entral usiness District) /bua) Nigeria. Email6 mbaturecbn.gov.ng

2. National Institute for 8egislative Studies) National /ssembl) /bua-Nigeria.

*. 3iscal "olic /nalsis 5enter) /bua) Nigeria.

4 E-mail of t9e corresponding aut9or6 francisadebao*1a9oo.com

Astract

:9is stud evaluates t9e impact of 3adama III proect on income and wealt9 of beneficiar farmers in 35:.

;wagwalada /rea 5ouncil was selected for t9e stud. :9e met9odolog adopted includes descriptive and

analtical met9ods using primar data. Data were obtained from two 9undred !2# fadama users and non-

fadama users< farmers respectivel. :9e findings of t9e stud s9owed t9at t9e value of productive assets of

fadama beneficiaries increases from N$1) 2(.=7 before fadama III to N$() =%77.% after 3adama III proect.

5onversel) t9ere was a decrease in t9e net farm income of fadama beneficiaries from N1=$2>1.% to N171$.(

during 3adama III proect. :9e reduction in income despite t9e ac?uisition of productive assets could be due tolimitations encountered b t9e farmers. /lso) some of t9e beneficiaries are ust ac?uiring t9e productive assets

and t9e pament of t9e beneficiar contribution !*@# for pilot asset ac?uisition could 9ave crowded out

investment in s9ort-term activities t9at could 9ave increase income. It is eApected t9at t9e increase in income

will come significantl after starting to benefit from t9eir investment in productive assets. :9e stud recommend

among ot9ers t9at strategies suc9 as rotating saving and credit associations t9at can 9elp t9e poor to access

productive assets s9ould be promoted) t9e low capacit of t9e poor and t9e vulnerable in managing productive

assets efficientl could be addressed t9roug9 training and development of complementar services.

!ey "ords# 3adama "roect) eneficiar) 3adama 5ommunit /ssociation) 3adama Bser ;roup

$% Introd&ction Nigeria is a countr blessed wit9 potentiall good land and water resources re?uired for sustainable agricultural

development. :9e fact t9at man government agricultural intervention development programmes in Nigeria 9ave

not 9ad lasting impact on agricultural development and t9at man 9ave not ielded t9e eApected results ofsustained increase in food production is well documented !aba and Sing9) 1==$#. :9oug9) man attempts b

governments) international development agencies) local organiCations and non-governmental organiCations

!N;&s# wit9 main focus in rural liveli9ood improvement) in t9e past few decades did not realiCe a desired

results in terms of affirmative impact and its sustainabilit !,o9ammed) 2*#.

/gricultural production met9ods 9ave remained undeveloped despite man ears of efforts on tec9nolog

generation and transfer in Nigeria. ural financial supports are scarce and t9e rural finance policies implemented previousl 9ave impaired rat9er t9an assisted !Simonan and &mole9in) 212#. owever) in an attempt to

alleviate povert among rural Nigerians and also to increase t9e incomes and productivit of t9e rural in9abitants

as an approac9 of meeting up wit9 t9e millennium development goals !,D;s# of food sufficienc and povert

eradication) t9e 3ederal ;overnment of Nigeria t9roug9 t9e pooled Forld an0 loan came up wit9 3adama

proect) to finance t9e development of fadama lands b introducing small-scale irrigation in states wit9 fadamadevelopment potentials. :9e proect aimed at ensuring t9at 3adama facilities in 3adama areas are full utiliCed to

ensure all ear round production of crops. 3adama are low laing lands subect to seasonal flooding or water

logging along t9e ban0s of streams or depressions. It is a ausa word meaning) t9e seasonall flooded or flood

able plains along maor savanna9 rivers and or depressions or adacent to seasonall or perenniall flowing

streams and rivers. It is called /0uro in +oruba land.

:9e 9uge potentials for irrigated agriculture in t9e fadama and flood plain are un?uestioned. /ccording to abaand Sing9 !1==$#) t9e fadama lands 9ave 9ig9 potentials and agricultural values several times more t9an t9e

adacent upland. 3adama development is a tpical form of small scale irrigation practice c9aracteriCed b

fleAibilit of farming operations) low inputs re?uirement) 9ig9 economic values) minimal social and

environmental impact and 9ence conform wit9 t9e general criteria for sustainable development !/0inbile et al .)

2>#.

:9e N3D" is widel being implemented in all t9e *> states of t9e federation and t9e 3ederal 5apital :erritor!35:#) w9ic9 9ave been categoriCed into t9e core states and t9e facilit states. :9e core states include auc9i)

;ombe) Jigawa) Gano) Gebbi) Hamfara and So0oto) w9ile t9e remaining states and t9e 35: constitute t9e

facilit states !aba and Sing9) 1==$#. 35: is t9erefore one of t9e facilit states.

owever) t9e main obective of t9e programme is to sustainabl increase t9e incomes of 3/D/,/ users) b





'ol.() No.17) 21*

12

increasing t9eir incomes) t9e proect would 9elp reduce rural povert) increase food securit and contribute tot9e ac9ievement of a 0e millennium development goal. /lso) sustaining t9e increase of incomes of 3adama

resource users b directl delivering resources to t9e beneficiar rural communities) efficientl and effectivel)

and empowering t9em to collectivel decide on 9ow resources are allocated and managed for t9eir liveli9ood

activities and to participate in t9e design and eAecution of t9eir subproects.It is t9erefore) indispensable to assess t9e N3D" in t9e 35: to prevent t9e programme from suffering. :9e broad

obective of t9is stud is to assess t9e impacts of 3adama proect on income and wealt9 in t9e ;wagwalada /rea5ouncil of 35:) Nigeria. :9e specific obectives are to assess t9e impact of t9e proect on t9e socio-economic

status of t9e people eAamine t9e impact of t9e proect on income and wealt9 and identif t9e c9allenges faced

b beneficiaries in t9e proect. :9is stud will t9erefore) assess t9e eAtent to w9ic9 t9e farmers perceived t9at

desired benefits from t9e N3D" 9as been realiCed as well as t9e eAtent to w9ic9 t9e obectives of t9e N3D" 9as

been ac9ieved in t9e 35:.

'% Brief (iterat&re )evie"

:9e review of literature is organised into t9ree sub-sections 3irstl) conceptual framewor0) t9eoretical review

and overview of empirical studies.

2.1 Conceptual Framework

:9e conceptual framewor0 guiding t9is stud is t9e bod of wor0 0nown as t9e liveli9oods approac9 orframewor0 !Scoones) 1==$ ebbington) 1=== 5arne et al) 1=== Ellis and 3reeman) 2%#. / liveli9oodcomprised of t9e capabilities) assets !including bot9 material and social resources# and activities re?uired to

ma0e a living !59ambers and 5onwa) 1==2#. 8iveli9oods are based on income !in cas9) 0ind) or services#

obtained from emploment) and from remuneration t9roug9 assets and entitlements. Different members of a

9ouse9old engage in different tpes of liveli9ood activities and eac9 9ouse9old member above a certain age

attempts to procure different sources of food) fuel) animal fodder and cas9 t9ese sources are li0el to var

according to t9e mont9 of t9e ear. In water sector) liveli9oods analsis is essential because it assesses gains and

losses of t9e rural or urban poor from irrigation activities !8an0ford) 2%#. It improves t9e 0nowledge of t9e

conteAt from t9e local level upwards and 9elps to analse opportunities and constraints of t9e rural or urban poor

to benefit from t9e c9anges wit9in t9e given conteAt !Nicol) 2#. It 9elps to identif w9at options 9ave better

potential to reduce povert wit9in t9e given conteAt and w9at enabling conditions) policies and incentives are

needed for t9e poor to increase t9e range of better liveli9ood options !Scoones) 1==$ Ellis) 2 ,oriart et al)

2( 8an0ford) 2%#.Some of t9e distinctive features of t9e liveli9oods framewor0 are t9at it ta0es an all-round< view of people<s

means of gaining a living) including t9e social and institutional circumstances in w9ic9 people<s liveli9oods are

embedded. /t t9e centre of t9e approac9 is a relations9ip between t9e assets or resources t9at people own or can

obtain access to) including land) irrigation water) s0ills and education levels of famil members) w9ic9 are

categorised as natural) 9uman) social) financial and political capitals !Scoones) 1==$ Nicol) 2 Ellis and

3reeman) 2%#. :9e 9ouse9olds utilise t9ese assets in t9eir productive activities in order to create income and

satisf t9eir consumption needs) maintain t9eir asset levels and invest in t9eir future activities. :9e access to t9e

assets is strongl influenced b t9e vulnerabilit conteAt and policies and institutions.

2.2 :9eoretical eview

2.2.1 An Overview of Fadama III

Small9older agriculture is t9e dominant occupation of rural Nigerians w9ic9 is mainl rain-fed and c9aracteriCed

b low land and labour productivit. +et) Nigeria 9as a potential comparative advantage in t9e production of a

variet of fres9 and processed 9ig9 value crops) especiall vegetables during t9e dr season and livestoc0 product !meat and mil0# and fis9eries products t9roug9out t9e ear. :9is is because t9e countr is endowed wit9

underground and surface water reserves) ric9 pastures and favourable agro ecological conditions in t9e countr<s

low-ling plains wit9 alluvial deposit called fadama. :9e desire to realiCe t9e full potential of 3adama resources

in Nigeria led to t9e design of t9e National 3adama Devepment proect) mainl funded b t9e Forld an0) wit9

counterpart funding b t9e federal and benefiting state government.

:9e 3adama I and II proects successfull refined approac9es for improved utiliCation of t9ese lands. 3adama II

is implementing an innovative local development planning !8D"# tool and building on t9e success of t9e

communit-driven development mec9anisms. :9e cumulative impact of t9ese earlier successful an0-assisted

proects attests to t9e robustness of t9e small-scale and communit based approac9 to fadama development in an

environmentall sensitive manner. :9e 3adama III operation will support t9e financing and implementation of

five main components designed to transfer financial and tec9nical resources to t9e beneficiar groups in6 !i#

institutional and social development !ii# p9sical infrastructure for productive use !iii# transfer and adoption of

tec9nolog to eApand productivit) improve value-added) and conserve land ?ualit !iv# support eAtension andapplied researc9 and !v# provide matc9ing grants to access assets for income-generation and liveli9ood





'ol.() No.17) 21*

1*

improvements. 2.2.2 Implementation Strategy of Fadama III

:9e "roect initial implementation is for period of five ears) from Jul 2$ to June 21* but 9as been eAtended

to 217. It will now close in December 217. :9e "roect is anc9ored on t9e 5DD approac9. 5ommunit

organiCations decide on 9ow t9e resources are been allocated among t9e priorities t9at t9e t9emselves identifand t9e manage t9e funds. EAtensive facilitation) training) and tec9nical assistance were provided t9roug9 t9e

"roect to ensure t9at poor rural communities) including women and vulnerable groups) especiall t9e p9sicallc9allenged) participate in t9e collective decision-ma0ing process. :9e "roect 9elps b giving voice to t9e

communities as well as promotes t9e principles of transparenc and accountabilit in planning and management

of public investments wit9in t9e 8;/s.

Eiofor !27# eAplained t9at t9e 5DD strateg ma0es it possible for beneficiaries to pla leading roles in6-

!a# Identification and prioritiCation of t9eir needs

!b# Deciding and preparing of micro- proects re?uired to address t9e identified needs!c# 5o- financing t9e micro- proects

!d# 5ontinue to operate and maintain t9e micro- proects t9ereb ensuring sustainabilit

!e# 8earn to do t9ings for t9emselves and in so doing t9eir capacities are built and

!f# &wners9ip of t9e micro- proects is guaranteed b active participation of beneficiaries in all t9e p9ases

of t9e micro-proects ccle !identification) planning) prioritiCation) designing) implementing and maintenance ofintervention measures#2.2.3 Fadama III Strategic Choice

:9e main strategic c9oices made in t9e proect design include t9e following#

!a# o addre!! con!traint! to productive infra!tructure6 Inade?uacies in rural infrastructure and essential

support services) road access and dr season irrigation) and availabilit of relevant agricultural and land

management tec9nologies constrain growt9 and adoption of more sustainable approac9es to land management.

:9e core activities funded b t9is "roect address t9is constraint.

!b# o improve livelihood opportunitie!" :9e "roect supports productive activities) tec9nical assistance and

investment in assets and land ?ualit and services identified b communities as relevant to generation of 9ig9er

incomes and better liveli9oods.

!c# o empower the rural poor" :9e poor lac0 power and voice to access basic services) identif

opportunities) and eAercise legal rig9ts. Information is scarce. ouse9old) village) and local government

decision-ma0ing processes are often opa?ue and eAclusionar. ,ec9anisms to ensure accountabilit in deliverof state and local government services are wea0. :9e "roect<s facilitators wor0ing wit9 t9e 3adama groups will

9elp t9em overcome barriers deriving from lac0 of 0nowledge or insufficient cooperation among groups.

!d# o promote !ocially#inclu!ive and community#$a!ed approache!6 Integration of social inclusion and

communit-driven principles 9as proven to be cost-effective) responsive to local priorities and effective in

reducing conflicts over use of natural resources. :9is proven approac9 9as demonstrated t9at t9e 0e is to

promote investments t9at bring bot9 private profitabilit and public benefits.

!e# o accord ade%uate attention to technical %uality a!!urance" 8imited capacit in supervising t9e

tec9nical aspects of communit subproects contributed to dela in implementing local development plans and

subproects funded under t9e 3adama II "roect. :9e 3adama development facilitators and service providers will

receive ade?uate training before t9e are deploed in t9e communities. :9e 3acilitators< training program will be

designed to increase t9eir sector-specific tec9nical s0ills and provide t9em wit9 t9e s0ills to perform feasibilit

wor0 and tec9nical supervision wit9 t9e participation of t9e farmer groups. :9e /gricultural Development

"rogram !/D"# offices will train t9e service providers.2.2.& 'ro(ect )eneficiarie!

:9e "roect coverage is national. It include t9e 1= states t9at did not benefit from t9e ongoing ID/ 3adama II

"roect and t9e 3adama II states t9at meet t9e eligibilit criteria for continued participation) including6 !i#

satisfactor disbursement performance as indicated b at least 7% percent of t9e ID/ credit disbursed b

appraisal of t9e proposed 3adama III "roect !ii# demonstrated pro-poor impact from t9e resources disbursed

directl t9roug9 communit subproects !as indicated b impact evaluation and beneficiar assessment studies)

including t9e mid-term review !,:# of 3adama II "roect# !iii# establis9ment and funding of t9e operations of

t9e core teams of t9e State 3adama 5oordination &ffices !S35&s# and !iii# commitment to t9e "roect as

demonstrated b pament of counterpart contributions towards t9e costs of t9e proect preparation wor0 and

implementation. :9e "roect covers up to 2 8ocal ;overnment /ut9orities !8;/s# for t9e 1= states t9at did not

benefit from t9e 3adama II operation. In t9e 3adama II states) up to ten ( 8;/s are added to t9e ten 8;/s t9at

9ave alread benefited. :9e ;E3 support will focus especiall but not eAclusivel on t9e states of orno) 5ross-

iver) and &sun) selected b t9e ;overnment<s newl founded National S8, 5ommittee for t9eir ecologicaland geograp9ic diversit. :9e beneficiaries were assisted to organiCe t9emselves in economic interest groups)





'ol.() No.17) 21*

1(

named 3adama Bser ;roups !3B;s#) eac9 9aving on average around 2 members !plus t9ese individuals<9ouse9olds#. :9e 3B;s establis9 3adama 5ommunit /ssociations !35/s#) w9ic9 are apeA organiCations of 1%

3B;s on average at t9e communit level.

2.* /n &verview of Empirical Studies

:9e N3D" was introduced as a strateg to tac0le rural development problems. :9ere are ?uite a number ofstudies on rural development in general and fadama proect in particular. :9ese studies 9ave been carried out in

different parts of Nigeria and on different aspect of t9e impact analsis of t9e National 3adama Development"roect. 3or eAample) aoga et al !2># eAamined t9e impact of t9e proect specificall on t9e living standard

of dr season farmers w9o benefited from t9e fadama loans in ;ombe state. :9e stud revealed t9at t9e proect

did not ma0e an impact on t9e beneficiaries of t9e fadama loan b increasing t9eir income) improving t9e living

standard of an access to more personal belongings.

5orrespondingl) /degbite et al !2$# carried out an assessment on t9e impact of fadama II on small-scale

farmer<s income in &gun state wit9 emp9asis on t9e implication for agricultural financing in Nigeria. Bsing amulti-stage stratified random sampling in t9eir stud) t9eir villages were selected eac9 for bot9 beneficiaries and

non- beneficiaries in fadama endowed communities of &bafemi-&wade local government area of &gun State.

Evidence from t9eir stud also revealed no significant increased in t9e income of t9e fadama beneficiaries

compared to non-beneficiaries of t9e fadama proect in t9e stud area.

In anot9er stud) Gudi et al !2$# eAamined t9e impact of t9e fadama II on povert alleviation among farmersin ;iwa local government area of Gaduna State) especiall 9ow t9e proect 9as affected t9e socioeconomic statusof t9e farmers and production efficienc. :9e found t9at t9ere was a little improvement in t9e income of

farmers. :9e implication is t9at better income give better purc9asing power and 9ence t9e improvement of living

standard.

/deoe et al !211# also undertoo0 a stud to eAamine rural infrastructure and profitabilit of farmers under

fadama II proect in &o state) using infrastructural indeA and gross margin. :9e compared t9e infrastructural

development between fadama II local government areas and non- fadama II areas. :9eir findings revealed t9at)

more t9an 9alf of t9e villages in fadama II local government areas 9ave more infrastructures t9an non fadama II

villages. :9is implies t9at 3adama II proect 9ad contributed significantl to t9e development of infrastructures

in &o state.

:9e cross sectional studies as s9own above 9ave eAposed t9at societies are subect to a process of development)

w9ic9 is itself not arbitrar) but regular and t9at no social fact can be reall understood apart from its 9istor.

*% +ethodological Frame"or

3.1 he Study Area

35: comprises of > /rea 5ouncils. owever) t9is stud will be underta0en in ;walgwalada /rea 5ouncil of t9e

35:. :9e primar focus s9all be t9e 3adama Development /reas !3D/s# in t9e /rea 5ouncil. 3igure1 is a map

of 35: s9owing ;wagwalada % 35/<s location.

3igure 16 ,ap of 35: S9owing 35/<ss 8ocation in t9e 1 3adama Development /reas

In ;wagwalada /rea 5ouncil) t9e proect was implemented in % selected 3adama 5ommunit /ssociation





'ol.() No.17) 21*

1%

!35/#. :9is includes /na0ada) Dobi) ;wagwalada) "ai0oKGore and :ungamae 35/s) respectivel. owever)t9e participants s9all be selected from t9ese 35/s.

3.2 *ulti#!tage Sample Selection

In order to analCe t9e impact of 3adama III proect on beneficiaries and t9e spillover of benefits to non-

participants) a sample of respondents was selected from eac9 of t9ree strata6 !i# 3adama III proect participants!ii# respondents w9o live in 3adama III proect communities but did not participate in t9e proect and !iii#

respondents w9o live in communities outside t9e 3adama III 35/s but wit9 socio-economic and biop9sicalc9aracteristics comparable to t9e 3adama III proect communities and in t9e same stateKneig9bouring state. :9is

stratification will capture t9e spillover effect of t9e proect to non-participants and also provide a good control

group for comparing participants and non-participants.

/ total of 1 3adama BsersKeneficiaries wit9in ;wagawalada 3D/ 35: 3/D/,/ III and 1 3adama

BsersKNon-eneficiaries outside 3/D/,/ III 35/s in ;wagwalada /rea 5ouncil were selected for t9e stud.

/ total of 1( potential 3B;s were loo0ed out for in t9e process of developing t9e stud<s sampling frame)namel6 5rop 3armers) 3is9er fol0s) "astoralists) unters) /gro-"rocessors) Service "roviders) :9e Elderl)

Fidows) "8F/) Bnemploed +out9s) /groforestr) 8ivestoc0 3armers) "9sicall 59allenged and ;at9erers.

Selections of male and female respondents under eac9 3B; were randoml selected) but ensuring no more t9an

% females and 1% males per 35/.

:9e stud also uses 3ocus ;roup Discussion and Ge Informant Interview to corroborate t9e information fromt9e 2 respondents. ;enerall) 2 respondents will be interviewed) 1 3ocus ;roup Discussing !3;Ds# will be9eld and % 0e informants interview.

3.3 echni%ue of +ata Analy!i!

:9e tec9ni?ue of data analsis is based on descriptive analsis to be complemented b Statistical "ac0age for

Social Science !S"SS# version 1>..1 computer software analsis for t9e data. 5ontent analsis will be used to

analCe information resulting from focus group discussions. :9is met9od of analsis 9as been defined as a

sstematic) replicable tec9ni?ue for compressing a large number of words in t9e form of teAt into a compressed

content of categories based on eAplicit rules of coding !Stemler) 21#.

3.& Sampling de!ign

:9e sample siCe will be determined in ;wagwalada /rea 5ouncil in relation to t9e population of t9e 5ouncil.

owever a purposeful sampling met9od will be adopted in t9e selection of sample in t9e 5ouncil. :9is met9od is

statisticall ade?uate since t9e population of citiCens in t9is 5ouncil is relativel small compared to t9e

population of 35:. :9e met9od will also permit t9e stud to concentrate on t9e citiCens w9o can suppl usefulinformation for t9e stud.

-% Data Analysis

:9is section is divided into t9ree sub-sections for clarit presentation. :9e first analses t9e assessment of socio-

economic activities b respondents. :9e second evaluates t9e impact of rural infrastructure in 3adama III

activities. :9e t9ird presents t9e constraints) and suggestions for improved farming.

(.1 Data "resentation

&.1.1 Socio ,conomic Characteri!tic! of -e!pondent!

:able (.1 /ge ;roup of espondents

3re?uenc "ercent

'alid Bp to 2% * 1.%

2>-*% 1> $.

*>-(% 11 %.%

(>-%% % 2%.

%>->% 2% 12.%

>> and above % 2.%

:otal 2 1.

Source6 3ield surve) 21*.

,aorit of t9e respondents !%.%@# are between t9e age brac0ets of *>-(% ears. &t9ers include (>-%% ears

wit9 2%@) %>->% ears wit9 12.%@) 2>-*% ears wit9 $.@) and >>-above wit9 2.%@. :9e age group of up to 2%

ears respondents recorded t9e least wit9 1.%@.:9e trend in t9e age brac0ets is a good indicator t9at bot9 fadama

users and non-fadama users respondents are among adult members w9ic9 could provide necessar informationfor t9e stud.





'ol.() No.17) 21*

1>

:able (.26 5lients ig9est level of 3ormal Education

3re?uenc "ercent

'alid "rimar 2% 17.%

Secondar *% 22.%

N5EK&ND *% 12.%

'ocationalK:ec9nical 2 1.

/rabic 1 %.

/dult Education 11 %.%

NDKSc

"ost graduate

(%

%

17.%

2.%

None 1( 7.

:otal 2 1.

,issing Sstem .:otal 2 1.


It was indicated from t9e surve t9at secondar education recorded t9e 9ig9est level wit9 22.%@. &t9er formal

education respondents include primar 17.%@) NDKSc 17.%@) N5EK&ND 12.%@) 'ocationalK:ec9nical

education 1@) /dult education %.%@) and /rabic education %@. 7@ of t9e respondents 9ave no formal

education. :9e composition of t9e level of education is a good indicator for proper compre9ension of activities

of fadama and non-fadama proect. :9e result suggested t9at maorit of t9e respondents are literate and could

en9ance transformation and innovation. /n educated person could be easil transformed because 9eKs9e is

trainable. Illiterac posses t9reat to povert alleviation. In fact) it 9as t9e tendenc to aggregate povert.

:able(.*6 5rops cultivated

3adama users Non-fadama users

3re?uenc "ercent 3re?uenc "ercent

'alid ;rains *% *%. ( (.

'egetable (= (=. *% *%.

:uber 1> 1>. 2% 2%.

,issing sstem

:otal 1 1. 1 1.


:9e surve s9owed t9at maorit of fadama users cultivates vegetable crops !:able (.*#. :9e surve revealed

t9at t9ere are (=@ in t9is categor. &t9ers include grains wit9 *%@ and tuber wit9 1>@. ut t9e situation is

different for non-fadama users. ,aorit of non-fadama users cultivate grains wit9 (@. 'egatable cultivation

was *%@ and tuber 2%@) respectivel. :9e result suggested t9at bot9 fadama users and non fadama userscultivate different tpes of crops.

:able (.(6 ,et9od of land ac?uisition



'alid 8ease 27 27. 21 21.

In9eritance %* %*. %= %=

"urc9ase 1$ 1$. 1% 1%.

;ift 2 2. % %.

,issing sstem

:otal 1 1. 1 1.






'ol.() No.17) 21*

17

:9e results for bot9 fadama users and non-fadama users followed t9e same pattern. /mong fadama users foreAample) In9eritance recorded t9e 9ig9est wit9 %*@) lease wit9 27@) purc9ases wit9 1$@ and t9roug9 gift wit9

2@. In t9e case of non-fadama users) in9eritance recorded t9e maorit wit9 %=@) leasing-21@) purc9ase-1%@

and gift-%@) respectivel. :9e results suggest t9at about $@ of t9e lands are ac?uired t9roug9 in9eritance.

:able (.%6 Source of capital



'alid "ersonal savings *$ *$. 2% 2%.

5ommercial ban0 * *. 1 1.

5ooperative societ (( ((. %% %%.

elations and friends 1% 1%. 1 1.

,issing sstem

:otal 1 1. 1 1.

Source6 3ield surve) 21*.:9e :able (.% s9ows for fadama users t9at ((@ of respondents sourced for capital t9roug9 cooperative societ.

&t9ers include personal savings-*$@) relations and friends-1%@ and commercial ban0s-*@. :9e trend followed

almost t9e similar pattern for non-fadama users. 3or eAample) %%@ sources for fund t9roug9 cooperative societ)

2%@-personal savings) 1@-relations and friends and 1@-commercial ban0s. :9e stud implies t9at

cooperative societ is t9e most predominant source of capital for t9e respondents.

:able (.>6 Source of labour



'alid ired = =. >% >%.

3amil 1 1. *% *%.

,issing sstem

:otal 1 1. 1 1.


:able (.> s9ows t9at =@ of t9e respondents used 9ired labour to operate 3adama w9ile >%@ used 9ired labourto operate non-3adama. :9us) t9ese impl t9at t9e operation of t9e 3adama farmers in t9e area of stud is largel

commerciall oriented.

:able (.76 ,et9od of land cultivation



'alid ,anual 1% 1%. (% (%.,ec9anical $ $. ($ ($.

/nimal power % %. 7 7.

,issing sstem

:otal 1 1. 1 1.


:able (.7 revealed t9at $@ of t9e fadama users< respondents used mec9anical means of land preparation w9ile($@ s9ows for non-fadama users. :9is ma suggest t9at land preparation via mec9anical means ensures 9ig9er

output in 3adama operation.





'ol.() No.17) 21*

1$

:able (.$6 5rop varieties planted



'alid Imported seed $% $%. %% %%.

8ocal seed 1% 1%. (% (%.

,issing sstem

:otal 1 1. 1 1.


/ccording to t9e result $%@ of t9e fadama users< respondents planted improved seeds w9ile %%@ is for non-

fadama users. ,ore of non-fadama !(%@# users planted local seeds t9an fadama users !1%@#. :9is implies t9at

fadama users respondents in t9e stud area 9ave access to use of improved varieties of seeds.

:able (.=6 Source of planting material



'alid "revious 9arvest = =. *% *%.

/D" $> $>. 2$ 2$.

,ar0et % %. *7 *7.

,issing sstem

:otal 1 1. 1 1.


Statistics in table (.1 revealed t9at $>@ of t9e fadama users< respondents got t9eir planting materials from

;overnment !/gricultural Development "roect# w9ile maorit !*7@ and *%@# of non-fadama users got t9eir

own from t9e mar0et and previous 9arvest. Since non-fadama users are not beneficiaries of t9e fadama proectt9e mig9t not 9ave access to government opportunities in terms of planting materials. :9is implies t9at t9e

maor source of planting materials for 3adama farming in t9e stud area is t9roug9 t9e government.

:able (.116 /ccess to implement



'alid ired %% %%. $% $%.

3ree (% (%. 1% 1%.

,issing sstem

:otal 1 1. 1 1.

Source6 3ield surve) 21*.:9e statistics in table (.11 opined t9at most !%%@# fadama users 9ired implements w9ile (%@ 9ave access to free

implement. :9e statistics is encouraging t9an t9e non-fadama users. 3or eAample) $%@ of t9e respondents made

use of 9ired implements w9ile onl 1%@ are free. :9e implication is t9at non-fadama users don<t 9ave enoug9

capital to purc9ase farm implements instead t9e continue to 9ire.

:able (.126 /vailabilit of input !fertiliser#



'alid /vailabilit =% =%. (% (%.

Non-availabilit % %. %% %%.

,issing sstem

:otal 1 1. 1 1.






'ol.() No.17) 21*

1=

,ore so) =%@ of t9e fadama users< respondents made use of available input of fertiliCer w9ile onl (%@ is fornon-fadama respondents !:able (.12#. :9e implication of t9is is t9at maorit of t9e fadama users 9ave access to

fertiliCer t9an t9e non-fadama users.

:able (.1*6 /vailabilit of pesticides



'alid /vailabilit %7 %7. *% *%.

Non-availabilit (* (*. >% >%.

,issing sstem

:otal 1 1. 1 1.


/lso) %7@ of t9e fadama users< respondents made use of available input of pesticides w9ile *%@ is for non-

fadama users !see :able (.1*#. :9e result suggests t9e availabilit of pesticides to fadama users t9an non-fadama

users.&.1.2 Impact of Fadama III on Income and ealth

:9e occupation of t9e respondents in t9e 35: 9as been categoriCed b t9e use of Economic Interest ;roups!EI;#. owever) t9e male respondents< occupation are in6 crop farming) livestoc0) 9unting and fis9ing w9ile

processing) gat9ering and mar0eting are maor occupation of t9eir female counterparts.

3adama III focus more on agricultural based sub-proects because t9e maor occupation of t9e people is in

agriculture. :9is is supported b t9e fact t9at 3adama III is a 5ommunit Driven Development !5DD# proect.

:9e proect supported bot9 agricultural and non-farm activities and t9e demand of t9e 9ouse9olds. ot9 t9e

agricultural and non-farm activities contribute to t9e income of t9e beneficiaries w9ic9 9appens to be one of t9e

obectives of t9e 3adama III proect.

:able (.1(6 'alue of "roductive /ssets before and after t9e 3adama III "roect !In Naira#

$

Before

$

After

Paired test of change in asset

val&e

3adama eneficiaries$12(.=7!27>72.7#

$(=%7.%!$*2*>7.1#

a) b

Non 3adama

Fit9in

2*=*%.7

!2=(=7.%%#

27=2*.%$

!(2*=.>=#

Non 3adama

&utside

(==*7.=>

!=1*$$.=2#

1*=$=.7

!2(7%1=.7#


1. )efore pro(ect i! a period $efore 2/1/ and after pro(ect i! 2/11#2/13 the !urvey wa!

conducted

Figure! in parenthe!i! are !tandard deviation!

a 0 Significant difference in difference $etween Fadama and non#Fadama within at

$ 0 Significant difference in difference $etween Fadama and non#Fadama out!ide at .

3rom :able (.1() 35: 3adama III proect 9as succeeded in increasing t9e value of productive assets in an

attempt to increase t9e income of t9e beneficiaries. :9is is because t9e value 9ad increased b about 1 times

w9at it was before t9e proect for t9e 3adama beneficiaries. :9is is an indication t9at t9e issue of productive

assets before t9e 3adama III proect was ver low compared wit9 w9at is now on ground ust t9ree ears after

t9e ta0e-off of t9e proect./lso from :able (.1() t9ere was a slig9t increase wit9 non-3adama wit9 t9e 3adama areas w9ic9 is li0el to be

due to spill-over effects of 3adama III proect.

:9ere is a large increase !from onl N$1) 2(.=7 to N$() =%77.%# in productive assets among 3adama

beneficiaries. :9is ver large increase mig9t be due to t9e fact t9at t9e owners9ip of suc9 assets was almost non-

eAistent or ver limited before t9e commencement of 3adama III proect. :9e increase in value of ointl owned

productive assets includes t9e value of t9e cas9 transfer from t9e proect to t9e beneficiaries.F9en compared to all nonLbeneficiaries) and non-beneficiaries wit9in and outside communities) t9e value of

privatel owned productive assets of 3adama III beneficiaries increased significantl due to participation in t9e

proect. It could be noted t9at even t9oug9 3adama III did not interfere wit9 t9e owners9ip of t9e productive

assets. :9is is probabl responsible for t9e significant !%@ level# increase in t9e value of productive assets b

t9e beneficiaries. It could also be as a result of t9e fact t9at 3B; members were re?uired to bu complementar





'ol.() No.17) 21*

2

inputs to support t9e ointl owned productive assets.:able (.1%6 Net income !naira# before and after t9e 3adama III "roect !in Naira#

$

Before

Project

$

After

Project

Paired test of change

3adama

1=$2>1.%

!2>*>(*.1#

171$.(

!2>(*7.2#

a Non 3adama

Fit9in

2>==$.(

!2$1=1*.(#

1($1(*.$

!*27**.>#

Non 3adama

&utside

11(7(.>

!21$=(2.*#

%(>>.7*

!2(>7*.>#

Source6 3ield surve) 21*.1. )efore pro(ect i! a period $efore 2/1/ and after pro(ect i! 2/11#2/13

Figure! in parenthe!i! are !tandard deviation!.

a0 Significant difference in difference $etween Fadama and non#Fadama within at .

$ 0 Significant difference in difference $etween Fadama and non#Fadama out!ide at.

:9e ac?uisition of productive assets is eApected to contribute significantl to increased income. owever) from

:able (.1%) t9ere is a reduction in income after t9e proect among t9e 3adama III proect beneficiaries. :9e samewas reflected in t9e ot9er 2 categories) t9at is) non-3adama wit9in and non-3adama outside from :able (.1%)

t9ere is a significant impact of t9e productive assets on t9e income between t9e 3adama beneficiaries and non-

3adama wit9in at %@ level of significant. :9e non significant impact of 3adama III on income among non

beneficiaries outside could be due to a relative distant of t9e c9oice of respondents among t9e group !a distant of

1-1% 0m radius#.

:9e reduction in income despite t9e ac?uisition of productive assets could be due to constraints encountered b

t9e farmers. /lso) some of t9e beneficiaries are ust ac?uiring t9e productive assets and t9e pament of t9e

beneficiar contribution !*@# for pilot asset ac?uisition could 9ave crowded out investment in s9ort-term

activities t9at could 9ave increase income. It is eApected t9at t9e increase in income will come significantl after

starting to benefit from t9eir investment in productive assets. :9e impacts of t9e proects are not full captured

b t9is stud since t9e stud centered on selected proects in 35:) and 9ence does not capture t9e lagged impacts)

especiall t9ose related to productive assets and rural infrastructure. owever) t9e stud could serve as a

baseline data for t9e conduct of follow-up studies to capture t9e lagged impacts of t9e proect.

(.2 5onstraints and suggestions for improved farming

:able (.1>6 59allenges encountered in farming



'alid Inade?uac of e?uipment 11 11. 1% 1%.

"oor price of farm product * *. % %.

Bnavailabilit of fertiliCer ( (. 1% 1%.

Bnavailabilit of improved seed $ $. % %.

Inade?uac of eAtension /gents 1 1. 7 7.

Non implementation of researc9 recommendation 1* 1*. % %.

Inade?uac capital 1 1. 1* 1*.

Inade?uac of storage facilities 11 11. 1 1.

ig9 cost transportation 1* 1*. 1( 1(.

Inade?uate access agric land 11 11. 7 7.

Bnavailabilit of credit facilities * *. 2 2.

Inade?uate of mar0et * *. 2 2.

:otal 1 1. 1 1.


Evidence from t9e above revealed t9at all !1@# of t9e respondents fadama and non-fadama farmers 9ad oneconstraints or t9e ot9er !:able (.1>#. :9is ma impl t9at more are still needed to be done in order to 9elp t9e





'ol.() No.17) 21*

21

fadama farmers to overcome source problems t9at are associated wit9 fadama farming.

:able (.176 Suggestions for improved farming



'alid New tec9nolog 2= 2=. = =.

Input suppl 21 21. 2= 2=.

/de?uate funding *1 *1. 2$ 2$.

"rovision of infrastructure 1= 1=. 7 7.

,issing sstem 27 27.

:otal 1 1. 1 1.

Source6 3ield surve 21*.

:9e need for improved farming to facilitate fadama coordination proect in t9e 35: cannot be over emp9asised

!:able (.17#. Statistics investigated for fadama users t9at 2=@ suggested new tec9nolog) *1@ suggestedade?uate funding) 21@ suggested improved input suppl w9ile) 1=@ suggested provision of infrastructure.

.% /&mmary of +ajor Findings, )ecommendation, and Concl&sion

.1 Summary of *a(or Finding!

In t9e first ear of operation) 35: L 3adama III proect made considerable impacts on access to mar0ets) assets

ac?uisition and on 9ouse9old income. :9e statistical analsis carried out found t9at t9e 3adama III proect 9asgreatl reduced beneficiaries< distance and travel time to t9e nearest communit and t9ere 9as been a great

reduction in waiting time for transport and transport fares) relative to 9ouse9olds in non-3adama 5oordination

areas. It was also evident t9at 9ouse9old access to productive assets 9as increased especiall for t9e poorest

9ouse9olds) largel because of t9e subsid given to finance ac?uisition of suc9 assets. In t9e first ear)

9ouse9old income in t9e stud area did not improve because most of t9e assets are ust been ac?uired and a lot of

investment is still on-going. owever) t9ere will be cas9-in-flow in subse?uent ears t9at will be greater t9an

cas9-out Lflow to give a positive income balance. :9e income impacts of t9e proect are li0el to be 9ig9er in t9efuture since t9e beneficiaries ac?uired productive assets t9at are li0el to increase t9eir income significantl.

:9e impact of 35: 3adama III proect on productive asset ac?uisition is large. :9is is due mainl to cas9

transfer from t9e matc9ing funds t9at t9e proect provides to 3adama user groups. :9e large cas9 transfer mig9t

be an important factor t9at could impede t9e replication of t9is success stor. 3urt9ermore) it is necessar to

eAamine t9e issues t9at could lead to scaling up t9e success stor. :9ese issues are better targeting of t9e poorand vulnerable) funding sustainable met9ods of promoting development of rural financial users to manage t9e

productive assets efficientl. :9ese issues are interrelated and t9erefore need to be considered simultaneousl.

.2 -ecommendation

:9e following recommendation will be useful6

• Strategies suc9 as rotating saving and credit associations t9at can 9elp t9e poor to access"roductive assets s9ould be promoted.

• :9e low capacit of t9e poor and t9e vulnerable in managing productive assets efficientl could be

addressed t9roug9 training and development of complementar services.

• :9ere is also a need to assess t9e productive assets t9at t9e beneficiaries 9ave demanded and t9e

local capacit to service and provide maintenance services to t9ese productive assets) and 9ow to

invest in improving t9is capacit.

• :9e 3ederal ;overnment t9roug9 t9e National /ssembl s9ould increase t9e pulse of 8and reform

in t9e countr.

• /ll farmers s9ould be given access to credit for farm eApansion and purc9ase of farm input. :9is is

to encourage t9e use of farm inputs as recommended b researc9.

• 3armers s9ould embrace bul0 purc9ase of farm inputs in order to reduce cost

• :9e 3adama proect s9ould assist t9e farmer to assess ?ualit seed.

.3 Conclu!ion

3or meaningful and reliable conclusions to be drawn it is possible t9at t9e poor found it difficult in t9e s9ort time

proect implementation to adust because t9e 9ave to borrow mone at 9ig9 premiums. :9is) 9owever) raisest9e necessit to 9elp t9e poor to access affordable credit facilities. :9e beneficiar contribution could be

reduced for t9e benefit of t9is people. owever) it ma not be sustained in t9e long-term. :9e solution for t9e





'ol.() No.17) 21*

22

failure of t9e poor to pa for productive assets is to 9ave affordable rural credit services. :9ere is t9e need toinvolve t9e credit service providers b 9elping t9em to give low interest rate loans to t9e poor.

;enerall) t9e 3adama III proect 9as ac9ieved its goal of increasing t9e incomes of t9e beneficiaries in t9e

period of stud. :9e proect 9as also succeeded in targeting t9e poor and vulnerable in its productive-asset

component) even t9oug9 t9at did not appear to increase significantl s9ort-term 9ouse9old incomes among t9e poorest asset tercile. :9e uni?ue feature t9at could 9ave contributed to t9e significant impact of t9e proect in a

s9ort time is its broad-based approac9) w9ic9 addresses t9e maor constraints limiting t9e success of 5DD proects t9at address onl one or two constraints. :9is 9as implications on planning povert reduction efforts in

35:. ;iven t9at t9e poor face numerous constraints) a 5DD proect t9at simultaneousl addresses man

constraints will li0el build snergies t9at will lead to larger impacts t9an will a proect t9at addresses onl one

or two constraints. :9is suggests t9e need for t9e government and donors to pool resources and initiate

multipronged 5DD proects rat9er t9an man isolated proects.

)eferences

/degbite) D. /.) &loruntoba) /. &) /dubi) G. &) &e0unle) &. Soban0e) S .) !2$#. Impact of National

3adama Development "roect II on Small Scale 3armers in &gun State" Implication for /gricultural 3inancing in

Nigeria) ournal of Su!taina$le +evelopment in Africa) 'ol. 1) No.* 5larion Bniversit) "ennslvania.

/deoe) /.) +usuf S. /. alogun) &. 8. 5arim-Sanni) /. !211#) ural Infrastructural Development and"rofitabilit of 3armers Bnder 3adama II "roect in &o State) Nigeria) orld -ural O$!ervation6 * !2#) Science"ublication.

/deolu) ./. and :aiwo) /.!2(#) 4 :9e Impact of National 3adama 3acilit in /lleviating ural "overt and

En9ancing /gricultural Development in Sout9-Festern Nigeria<. ournal of Social Science) 5!*#.

/0inbile 8./.) /s9imolowo &..) and &ladoa ,./. !2>#) ural +out9 "articipation in infrastructural

Development of Ibarapa East 8ocal ;overnment /rea of &o State. 6igerian ournal of -ural Sociology7 'ol. >

!12#6(-($.

/lene) '.) ,anong) , ;oc0ows0i) J 5oulibal) & /bele )S. !2>#) A framework for conceptuali!ing

impact a!!e!!ment and promoting impact culture in agricultural re!earch7 International In!titute of ropical

Agriculture) pp. 1-*.

aba and Sing9) !1==$#) cited in &ladoa) ,./ and /deo0un) &./ !2=#) /n /ppraisal of t9e National 3adama

Development "roect !N3D"# in &gun State) Nigeria) Agricultural ournal7 Scientific -e!earch 'u$li!hing

Company) 'olume6 () Issue6 *) pp. 12(-12=.aoga) +. B. /debao) /./. !2>#) :9e Impact of 3adama Development "roect on t9e 8iving Standard of

Dr Season 3armers of ;ombe State) ournal of ,nvironment7 'ol. No. 1.

ebbington /. !1===#) 5apitals 5apabilities6 / 3ramewor0 for /nalCing "easant 'ariabilit) ural

8iveli9oods and "overt. orld +evelopment 27!12#6 1===) 221-((.

5arne D) Drin0water ,) usinov :) Neefes G) Fanmali S) Sing9 N. !1===#) 8iveli9oods /pproac9es

5ompared) 8ondon6 +epartment for International +evelopment 8+FI+9.

59ambers ) 5onwa ;. !1==2#) Sustainable rural liveli9oods6 practical concepts for t9e 21st centur. IDS

Discussion "aper No. 2=>) rig9ton) BG) Institute of Development Studies.

Eiofor !27#) cited in Ibeawuc9i) I. Ec9eme Nwac9u0wu) 5.5. !21#) /n Investigation on t9e Impact of

3/D/,/ II "roect Implementation in Imo State. American ournal of Scientific and Indu!trial -e!earch7

Science uM) 9ttp6KKwww.sci9ub.orgK/JSI ISSN6 21%*->(= doi61.%2%1Kasir.21.1.*.%*2.%*$.

Ellis 3. !2#) ural 8iveli9oods and Diversit in Developing 5ountries 7 O:ford" O:ford ;niver!ity 're!! Inc.

Ellis 3) 3reeman .) 5onceptual 3ramewor0 and &verview of :9emes) in6 Ellis 3) 3reeman !eds.# !2%#)ural 8iveli9oods and "overt eduction "olices) <ondon and 6ew =ork" -outledge7 pp*-1%.

3adama III "roect Information Document !"ID# /ppraisal Stage.

3adama Development "roect andboo0) !2*#) "p %-2.

3adama Development "roect /ppraisal eport) !2%#) pp2.

Ibeawuc9i) I. Ec9eme Nwac9u0wu) 5.5. !21#) /n Investigation on t9e Impact of 3/D/,/ II "roect

Implementation in Imo State. American ournal of Scientific and Indu!trial -e!earch7 Science uM)

9ttp6KKwww.sci9ub.orgK/JSI ISSN6 21%*->(= doi61.%2%1Kasir.21.1.*.%*2.%*$.

Impact /ssessment and Evaluation ;roup !I/E;#) !1===#) 5rop ;ermplasm Impacts Stud6 /

"rovisional eport) 5;I/ c9aired b .E. Evenson) September eport.

Gudi) :. ,.) Bsman) I.) /0po) J. ;. anta) /. 8. !2$#) /nalsis of t9e Impact of National 3adama

Development "roect II !N3D"-II# in /lleviating "overt /mong 3armers in ;iwa 8ocal ;overnment of

Gaduna State) Nigeria) O>ean ournal of Applied Science 1!1#. l. $) No 2.

8an0ford .) Irrigation7 <ivelihood! and -iver )a!in!7 in6 Ellis) 3. and 3reeman !eds#) !2%# ural8iveli9oods and "overt eduction "olices) <ondon and 6ew =ork" -outledge" 27(-=*.





'ol.() No.17) 21*

2*

,anong) '., Dout9waite) 5oulibal) & Geatinge)J.D..) !21#) "articipator impact assessment at t9eInternational Institute of :ropical /griculture 3unctions and ,ec9anism !/nneA#. :9e 3uture of Impact

/ssessment in t9e 5;I/6 Needs) 5onstraints and options) 'roceeding! of a work!hop organi!ed $y the

!tanding panel on Impact A!!e!!ment of echnical Advi!ory committee7 FAO) ome Ital) 2-% ,a) 2) "p >=-

7(.,oriart ") utterwort9 J) van Goppen ) Soussan J. !2(#) Fater) "overt and "roductive Bses of Fater at

t9e ouse9old 8evel) in6 " ,oriart) J utterwort9) van Goppen !eds#) !2(#) eond Domestic. 5aseStudies on "overt and "roductive Bses of Fater at t9e ouse9old 8evel) the 6etherland!" International ater

and Sanitation Centre7 "p. (=-7(.

,o9ammed) G.+. !2*#) Determinants of +out9 "articipation in 59ange "rogramme in ural Nigeria.

Anthropologi!t %!*#6 11L12.

,u9ammad) .B Bmar) )3. /buba0ar) .H /bdulla9i) /.S !211#) /ssessment of 3actors

Influencing eneficiar "articipation in 3adama II "roect in Niger State) Nigeria. /vailable online at9ttp6KKwww.aol.infoKindeA.p9pKnbasKindeA) 6igerian ournal of )a!ic and Applied Science) 1= !2#6 pp. 2($-2%2.

Nicol /. !2#) /dopting a Sustainable 8iveli9oods /pproac9 to Fater proects6 Implications for "olic and

"ractice) For0ing "aper) No. 1**) <ondon" Over!ea! +evelopment In!titute 8O+I9.

&ruone E.D) /bbas . !21#) :9e ;eograp9 of :araba State) Nigeria. Fa$ ,ducational )ook! !inLpress#.

"aul) 5. !21#) Strategies and :ec9ni?ues for En9ancing "articipation in ural Development) International ournal of Agriculture and -ural +evelopment 1!1#6 pp. 1(*-1((.Scoones I. !1==$#) Sustainable ural 8iveli9oods. / 3ramewor0 for /nalsis) For0ing "aper) No. 72 7 )righton"

In!titute of +evelopment Studie! 8I+S97 Bniversit of SusseA.

Simonan) J. &mole9in) ./. !212#) /nalsis of Impact of 3adama II "roect on eneficiar 3armers

Income In Gaduna State6 / Double Difference ,et9od /pproac9) International ournal of ,conomic! and

*anagement Science!7 'ol. 1 No. 11) pp.1-$.

Has9a) :ersoo Has9a. !21*#) State) Forld an0 and ural Development in Nigeria6 Snergies and

5ontradictions. International ournal of Social Science! and ?umanitie! -eview!7 'ol.( No.1 !ISSN6 227>-

$>(%#) ,a) p.227 L 2*(.

Forld an0 !21#) /gricultural Development "roect in NigeriaL&perations Evaluation Development. he

orld )ank @roup.



This academic article was published by The International Institute for Science,

Technology and Education (IISTE). The IISTE is a pioneer in the Open Access

Publishing service based in the U.S. and Europe. The aim of the institute is

Accelerating Global Knowledge Sharing.

More information about the publisher can be found in the IISTE’s homepage:http://www.iiste.org

CALL FOR JOURNAL PAPERS

The IISTE is currently hosting more than 30 peer-reviewed academic journals and

collaborating with academic institutions around the world. There’s no deadline for

submission. Prospective authors of IISTE journals can find the submission

instruction on the following page: http://www.iiste.org/journals/ The IISTE

editorial team promises to the review and publish all the qualified submissions in a

fast manner. All the journals articles are available online to the readers all over the

world without financial, legal, or technical barriers other than those inseparable from

gaining access to the internet itself. Printed version of the journals is also available

upon request of readers and authors.

MORE RESOURCES

Book publication information: http://www.iiste.org/book/

Recent conferences: http://www.iiste.org/conference/

IISTE Knowledge Sharing Partners

EBSCO, Index Copernicus, Ulrich's Periodicals Directory, JournalTOCS, PKP Open

Archives Harvester, Bielefeld Academic Search Engine, Elektronische

Zeitschriftenbibliothek EZB, Open J-Gate, OCLC WorldCat, Universe Digtial

Library , NewJour, Google Scholar

http://www.iiste.org/


http://www.iiste.org/journals/


http://www.iiste.org/book/



http://www.iiste.org/conference/






analysis of impact of national fadama development projects on beneficiaries income and wealth in...

Documents