28 CHAPTER 5
Table 5.1 Sources of income for Fadama II beneficiaries and nonbeneficiaries Nonbeneficiaries
Beneficiaries 56,868 84,602 48,724 41.100 in FII LGAs 72,860 26,566 38.700 4.900 0.001
–7,754 4,444 2.100
13,755 0.001 14,043 0.130 7.430 86,514 46,367 39.900 3,504 3.500 26,552 0.140
Nonbeneficiaries outside FII LGAs
Source of income Before FII After FII Before FII After FII Before FII After FII Crops (nairas)
51,851
Share of total income (%)
46.600
Nonfarm (nairas) 34,428 Share of total income (%)
Livestock (nairas) 2,067 Share of total income (%)
Other (nairas) Share of total income (%)
5,050 48.500 56.800 53.800 56.500 46.900 46,416 43.300 3,931 9.700 6,665 0.190 68,677 60.200 51,805 39.300 2,219 0.050 7,390 0.540
Notes: “Before FII” indicates the year before Fadama II started (October 2004–September 2005). “After FII” indicates the year after the project started (October 2005–September 2006). FII, Fadama II; LGA, Local government authority.
hoods are among the activities the project encourages but that did not con- tribute significantly to the global average of household incomes reported in Table 5.1. However, for households that heavily depend on these enterprises (for example, in pastoral communities in northern Nigeria), their contribution to household income is large. Because the project is a CDD, the limited con- tribution of those activities suggests that few beneficiaries demanded them.
Impact of Fadama II on PAA
PAA is the second-largest investment undertaken by Fadama II, after rural infrastructure investments (World Bank 2003). Because Fadama II supported PAA by FUGs rather than by individual households, we divided the produc- tive assets into those owned by individual farmers and those owned jointly by EIGs. It was not easy to determine the share of value that each member of a group held in jointly owned productive assets. The intensity of use of the productive assets also differed across households within groups. For example, members of an EIG owning a borehole for watering animals used the equipment not according to how much they contributed but according to their needs as determined by the number of animals they owned. Our data collection focused on the household-level assets and did not capture the group-level management of productive assets. Figures 5.1 and 5.2 show that Fadama II had a large and statistically significant impact on the value of pro-
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