This page contains a Flash digital edition of a book.
Summary


he community-driven development (CDD) approach has become in- creasingly popular because of its potential to develop projects that are sustainable, are responsive to local priorities, empower communi- ties, and more effectively target poor and vulnerable groups. The purpose of this study is to assess the impacts of Fadama II, which is a CDD project and the largest agricultural project in Nigeria. This study used propensity score matching (PSM) to select 1,728 comparable project beneficiaries and nonbeneficiaries. The study also used double difference methods to compare the impact indicators.


T


Our results show that Fadama II succeeded in targeting the poor and female household heads in its group-owned productive asset acquisition component. Participation in the project also increased the income of beneficiaries by about 60 percent, which is well above the targeted increase of 20 percent in the six- year period of the project. However, incomes of beneficiaries in the poorest asset tercile and among female household heads did not change significantly in the first year. Thus even though the program successfully targeted the poor through its group-owned productive assets component, there was an unmet need to support beneficiaries to invest in complementary inputs required to make full use of their productive assets. The impact of the program also needs to be verified by monitoring its trend over a longer time—especially among the poorest households and those headed by women. Comparison of nonbeneficia- ries residing in Fadama II local government authorities (LGAs) and those out- side Fadama II LGAs showed a significant spillover of Fadama II to nonbenefi- ciaries. The incomes of nonbeneficiaries residing in Fadama II LGAs increased by 18 percent because of spillovers from the Fadama II program through public investments, such as community roads, advisory services, and other services. We also observed that Fadama II increased the demand for postharvest handling technologies but did not have a significant impact on the demand for financial management and market information. Fadama II reduced the demand for soil fertility management technologies. The decline likely reflects the project’s focus on providing postproduction advisory services and suggests the need for the project to increase its support for soil fertility management and thus limit the potential for land degradation resulting from increased agricultural productivity. However, the program increased the probability


xiii


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93