Abstract
The study sought to determine the Impact of National Fadama Development Project Phase 11 on Rural Development in Kaduna state. Six research questions were posed to guide the study while five hypotheses were formulated and tested at 0.05 level of significance. The study adopted the survey research design. Structured questionnaire was employed as instrument for data collection. The population for the study was 12,430, made up of 12,177 fadama project farmers (FPFs) and 253 Agricultural Development Projects Extension Agents (E.As) contracted as fadama project facilitators. The sample of the study was 465 consisting of 415 FPFs and 50 EAs. Findings of the study revealed that infrastructural facilities were more available in the study area after the implementation of the project than before it was implemented. It was also revealed that the innovations provided by the project were at various levels of adoption. Findings on impact of the project on farm yield and farm income indicated that farmers recorded increases in their farm yield and income as a result of participation in the project. The study also revealed that there were positive changes in the living conditions of the rural farmers after project participation. Findings of the study on constraints to the National Fadama Development Project Phase 11 indicated that problems such as poverty, late disbursement of input, political interference etc. affected the realization of the project objectives. It was therefore recommended that policies aimed educating rural farmers should be adopted as illiteracy seems to be the major restriction to farmers adopting modern and better farming practices, Government should be more serious in implementing policies aimed at revamping agriculture by avoiding unnecessary bottlenecks and politics. This would help in making sure all project benefits get to the target farmers.
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
Background of the study
Agriculture is a rural occupation as pointed out by Ifeanyi and Chima (2007). The abundance of human and material resources in the rural areas makes the rural areas favorable for agricultural production. Majority of Nigerian population reside in the rural areas and are mostly peasant farmers. According to Gana (2001), about 70% of the Nigerian population reside in the rural areas and depend largely on agriculture for sustenance.
Ironically, this sizeable population of the country is the most poor and neglected with little or no presence of infrastructure and support services to encourage meaningful agricultural productivity. In line with this observation, the International Fund for Agricultural Development, IFAD (2009) stated that social services and infrastructure are limited or non-existent in the rural Nigeria. Poverty in the rural communities of Nigeria makes them underdeveloped because it contributes to poor agricultural productivity as many farmers can not afford to procure farm inputs which would help them to increase productivity. As a result of low agricultural productivity, farmers are unable to earn enough income to maintain a good standard of living. Given the critical place of agriculture in the
economy therefore, there is the need to come up with measures geared towards developing the rural areas where most agricultural activities take place.
Rural development connotes a sustained improvement in the quality of life of the rural people. Jibowo (2005) viewed rural development as a systematic process aimed at improving the living conditions of the rural dwellers through the provision of rural infrastructure. Rural infrastructural program according to the author involves the provision of infrastructural facilities particularly feeder roads, rural water through earth dams, wells and bore holes. It involves extending the benefits of development to the poorest among those who seek a livelihood in the rural areas.
In the context of this study, rural development is the upliftment of the living condition of the rural dwellers due to increase in their farm yield, increase in farm income and adoption of improved farm production technologies as a result of their participation in Fadama Phase II.
Rural development has been viewed as synonymous with agricultural development (Ifeanyi and Chima 2007). Oyaide (2003) however looked at agricultural development differently from rural development. According to Oyaide, agricultural development involves structural and institutional transformations within the community which leads to acquisition of the capacity to produce in
increasing diversity and improved quality. Such structural changes include advancement in knowledge, technology, education, institutional advancements and an adaptive orientation. According to the author, rural development on the other hand is a strategy designed to improve the economic and social conditions of the rural poor. Ifeanyi and Chima (2007) pointed out that agriculture is predominantly a rural activity. That being the case therefore, efforts at rural development target the economic welfare of farmers who are the focus of agricultural development.
It is in realization of the place of agriculture in the national economy that various governments in Nigeria past and present have come up with several programs, approaches, policies and strategies aimed at developing the sector and improving the conditions of the rural poor. Some of these efforts are still on course while many have since gone moribund.
Some of the programs embarked upon by various governments in Nigeria aimed at developing agriculture and improving rural living conditions according to (Ajayi 2001, Akinleye, Awoniyi, and Fapojuwo (2005) and Daudu (2008) include the National Accelerated Food Production Program (NAFPP-1972), the Nigerian Agricultural and Cooperative Banks (NACB-1972), the Operation Feed the Nation (OFN-1976), the Agricultural Credit Guarantee Scheme (ACGS-1978) and the River Basin Development Authority (RBDA-1979). Others are the Green
Revolution (GR-1980), Directorate of Food, Roads and Rural Infrastructure
(DFRRI-1987) and the Family Economic Advancement Program (FEAP-1993).
A recent effort towards boosting agricultural productivity and enhancing the rural household income was the introduction of the Fadama Development Project Phase II (NFDP-II). Fadama phase II is a follow-up to Fadama 1 (phase one of National Fadama Development Project) which was implemented during the period
1993-1999. The Fadama Project Implementation Manual (PIM 2004) reported that Fadama II had some shortcomings. It failed to support other economic ventures in the rural areas such as livestock production, honey production, fishing, hunting, marketing, processing, transportation etc. another shortcoming of the Fadama I was that it did not provide basic rural infrastructure such as access roads, culverts, water supply, etc. According to the Program Implementation Manual, despite the shortcomings of Fadama Phase I, it recorded a number of achievements. Some of the achievements of Fadama 1 include:
o It increased farm income by encouraging all year production of crops
o It encouraged irrigation technology through the provision of tube wells, wash bores, bore holes and petrol driven irrigation pumps.
After an impressive achievement of Fadama phase one, the second phase of the project was launched in 2004 and was to last till 2010 (2004-2010). The NFDP-
II is co-funded by the World Bank and the African Development Bank, (ADB) to the tune of 100million and 30million US dollars respectively. The Fadama Project Implementation Manual (PIM) (2004) reported that fadama two is coordinated at the state level by the State Fadama Development Offices (SFDOs) housed at the Agricultural Development Projects (ADPs). The source stated further that farmers (project potential beneficiaries) are encouraged to form economic activity specific groups referred to as Fadama Resource User Groups (FRUGs). These groups were to be the basis for support under the project. ADP extension agents (EAs) who are communicators of change were contracted as project facilatators. According to the National Fadama Development Office, (NFDO) (2004), eighteen (18) states of the federation are participating in the Fadama Phase II and they include Adamawa, Bauchi, Gombe, Imo, Kaduna, Kebbi, Niger, Lagos, Ogun, Oyo, Taraba, Kogi, Katsina, Jigawa, Plateau, Kwara, Borno and the Federal Capital Territory, FCT, Abuja.
The NFDP phase two was initiated in order to consolidate on the achievements and expand the size and scope of the first phase of the project which had the broad objective of improving the quality of life of the rural dwellers by ensuring all year production of crops in areas that depend directly or indirectly on fadama resources ( PIM, 2004). Fadama phase one had helped in increasing farm yield in crop production but failed to provide support to other economic activities,
infrastructure and building the capacity of the beneficiaries. The objective of the second phase of the project was to be achieved through the exploitation of shallow aquifers and surface water potentials in each state using tube wells, wash bores and petrol driven technology. Specifically, the project aimed at addressing some of the factors that militated against the full realization of the potential benefits of agricultural activities in the rural areas. Some of these factors according to Akinleye, Awoniyi and Fapojuwo (2005) included among others:
Poor development of rural infrastructure
Low investment in irrigation technology
Poor organization of farmers
Limited access to foreign exchange for the importation of irrigation equipment.
The extent to which the objectives of the project have been achieved can only be appreciated if an impact evaluation is carried out. Impact evaluation is the difference between outcomes with a project and those without it. Ken,Anders and Sabbarao (1999) viewed impact evaluation as involving the analysis of cause and effect in order to identify impacts that can be traced back to interventions. Impact evaluation tries to find out what would have happened in the absence of an
intervention program, what would have been the welfare levels of particular communities, households and individuals without the intervention. In the context of this study therefore, impact evaluation is an attempt to find out changes in the welfare of rural households in Kaduna state that are attributable to their participation in Fadama Phase two project.
Statement of the Problem
About 70% of the Nigerian population resides in the rural areas where agricultural production is mostly favored. Unfortunately, due to the absence of basic rural infrastructural and other support services necessary for meaningful agricultural productivity, Nigerian agriculture continues to be characterized by low farm yield, low farm income cultural belief and use of local farm tools. The resultant effect of this is that the living condition in the rural areas is poor.
The National Fadama Development Project was initiated with the aim of increasing the income and living conditions of the rural households through increased agricultural productivity. The phase one of the project helped to increase crop farm yield. This phase of the project failed to provide support to other economic groups such as livestock production, fish production, honey production, marketers, processors etc. Fadama Phase I also failed to consider other important
rural development components such as provision of rural access roads, provision of water supply, provision of storage facilities and farmer’s capacity building.
Considering the shortcomings of the first phase of Fadama Project, the second phase was set up to be more encompassing in terms of rural development agenda. The Fadama Phase II was to provide support in all the economic activities in the rural areas such as crop production, livestock production, fish production, marketing, processing, transportation etc. the second phase of the project was also set up to provide infrastructure and services necessary for the improvement of rural life which were not addressed by the phase one.
A lot of human and material resources have been committed in to the national fadama development project phase two. The federal, state and local government areas in collaboration with the funding agencies have put in a substantial sum of money for the realization of the project’s objectives. The project is at the sixth and final year of its implementation. There is therefore the need to count the gains and the losses. The strengths and weaknesses of the project need to be established in order to find justification for the huge investments that have been put in to it. It is only an evaluation of this nature that can show whether project has achieved its objective of bettering the living condition of the rural dwellers or not.
Purpose of the Study
The main purpose of the study was to evaluate the impact of the National Fadama Development Project Phase II on rural development in Kaduna state. Specifically, the study sought to:
1. Determine and compare the respective levels of availability of infrastructural facilities in the area before and after the project.
2. Determine the level of adoption of the innovations provided to the beneficiaries by the project
3. Determine and compare the respective levels of house hold farm yield before and after the project.
4. Determine and compare the respective levels of house hold farm income before and after the project.
5. Determine and compare the respective levels of house hold farm income before and after the project intervention.
6. Identify the constraints to full realization of the project’s objectives as perceived by the project contracted facilitators (extension agents) and participants.
Significance of the Study
The findings of this study shall be of invaluable benefits to government policy makers, non-governmental organizations, ministries of agriculture, the beneficiary farmers and future researchers. Results of the study shall be of use to government policy makers in that it will reveal the weaknesses and strengths of the project design and implementation. The result of the study will therefore serve as a useful guide in design and implementation of future projects and programs.
Non-governmental organizations and donor agencies shall find the study beneficial to them in that it will show the rural community development needs in the area of study such as roads, portable water supply, and agricultural credit facilities among others.
It is hoped that the study shall find out the levels of rural household farm yield and farm income due to Fadama II intervention. This information will be of immense benefit to the ministries of agriculture in adopting appropriate policies that will boost farm productivity and consequently raise farm income. Some of the policies that could be adopted towards improving agricultural productivity as a result of the study are provision of credit facility, farmer education among others. The study will also indicate to the ministries of agriculture the approaches to adopt in helping farmers adopt new farm technologies that will boost their productivity.
Findings of the study shall be of use to the project beneficiaries in that information about impact of the project’s innovations on farm yield will encourage the wide acceptance of such innovations if the results are made available to them.
Finally, it is hoped that the study will benefit other researchers on related studies who shall find the result of the study as a source of reference material as well as open up new areas of further research.
Research Questions
Based on the objectives of the study, the following research questions are posed to guide the study:
1. What are the respective levels of availability of infrastructural facilities in the area before and after the project intervention?
2. What are the levels of adoption of the new technologies provided by
Fadama Phase II in the area?
3. What are the respective levels of house hold farm yield before and after the project intervention?
4. What are the respective levels of house hold farm income before and after Fadama Project Phase II?
5. What are the respective levels of house hold quality of life before and after the project intervention?
6. What do the project contracted facilitators (ADP extension agents) and NFDP-II participants perceive as constraints to the successful implementation of the project?
Research Hypotheses
The following null hypotheses were tested at 0.05 level of significance:
HO1: There is no significant difference between the Mean ratings of project participants on the levels of availability of infrastructural facilities in the area before and after the project intervention.
HO2: there is no significant difference between the Mean ratings of project participants on their levels of farm yield before and after the project intervention.
HO3: There is no significant difference between the Mean ratings of Fadama II project participants on their levels of farm income before and after the project intervention.
HO4: There is no significant difference between the Mean ratings of Fadama project farmers on their quality levels of life before and after participation in the project.
HO5: There is no significant difference between the Mean ratings of Fadama II project participants and Fadama II project contracted facilitators (ADP extension agents) on the constraints to effective implementation of Fadama Phase II.
Scope of the Study
The study was delimited to the rural development impact of Fadama two project in Kaduna state. However, the study was limited in scope to some rural development indices such as infrastructural provision like portable water supply, provision of access roads, provision of market stalls etc. other aspects of rural community development that the study covered included increase in farm yield, increase in farm income and improvement in quality of life such as acquisition of basic household assets, better consumption basket, affordability of good health services, training of children in good schools among others.
This material content is developed to serve as a GUIDE for students to conduct academic research
IMPACT OF THE NATIONAL FADAMA DEVELOPMENT PROJECT PHASE TWO (NFDP-11) ON RURAL DEVELOPMENT IN KADUNA STATE>
A1Project Hub Support Team Are Always (24/7) Online To Help You With Your Project
Chat Us on WhatsApp » 09063590000
DO YOU NEED CLARIFICATION? CALL OUR HELP DESK:
09063590000 (Country Code: +234)
YOU CAN REACH OUR SUPPORT TEAM VIA MAIL: [email protected]
09063590000 (Country Code: +234)