This page contains a Flash digital edition of a book.
42 CHAPTER 5


proportionate to the increase in productive assets from September 2005 (at the beginning of project implementation) to September 2006 (the date for measuring changes in productive assets after project start), because many of the investments in productive assets occurring between September 2005 and September 2006 may not have come soon enough to affect agricultural production and income during the 2005–06 production year. We would expect the full effects of those assets acquired by September 2006 to be felt during 2006–07. Further research on the impacts of Fadama II is needed to more fully assess income changes resulting from the project.


The effects of Fadama II varied across the three major agroecological zones of Nigeria (Table 5.7). The project had a significant impact (at p = 0.10) in the dry savannah zone, where participation in the project led to an average increase in income of 79 percent. Increase in the absolute ATT value was also greatest in this zone. Corresponding results of the unmatched sample also showed significant impact of Fadama II only in the dry savannah zone, where income increased by 60 percent (Table 5.8). In the humid forest and moist savannah zones, the changes in net income resulting from participation in the project were positive but smaller than in the dry savannah zone and not statistically significant. The large net increase in income in the dry savan- nah zone, where limited rainfall is a major problem, could be explained by


Table 5.7 Impact of Fadama II on household income across agroecological zones, gender, and asset terciles (matched sample)


Net real annual household income (nairas)


Characteristic / treatment type Before FIIa


Agroecological zone Humid forest zone FII beneficiaries (n = 176)


All nonbeneficiaries (n = 282)


Moist savannah zone FII beneficiaries (n = 118)


All nonbeneficiaries (n = 251)


Dry savannah zone FII beneficiaries (n = 205)


All nonbeneficiaries (n = 335) After FIIa ATTb


Net change due to


participationc (%)


87,431


(292,102) 12,307


(257,170) 70,578


(203,342) 96,498


(258,137) 79,113


(255,967) 106,066


(255,201)


112,626


(299,102) 14,963 17.1 31,343


(276,530) 74,295


(280,596) 33,522 47.5 77,384


(271,796) 124,458


(225,341) 142,708


(254,173) 62,664*/†† 79.2


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