52 CHAPTER 5
taken bold steps to promote pluralistic advisory services. However, the pres- ence of NGOs and projects has created opportunities for introducing demand- driven advisory services funded by nonpublic sources. Fadama II is one of the projects that provides such services. The project has also introduced the user-fee approach that could help in promoting pluralistic extension ser- vices in developing countries (Umali-Deininger 1997). Fadama II beneficiaries contribute 10 percent of the cost of the advisory services they receive. The establishment of a user fee in Fadama II, demonstrating a demand-driven approach, is likely to serve as a good case study for the government to use to design policies for implementing pluralistic extension services in Nigeria and other developing countries. Below we discuss the performance of Fadama II in providing demand-driven extension services and how that has affected provision of production, processing, financial management, and marketing advisory services.
Impact of Fadama II on the Types of Technologies Adopted and Demanded
Table 5.12 shows that a technology used by a large percentage of households surveyed (about one-quarter) was improved crop varieties. Another one- quarter of Fadama II beneficiaries also used financial management technolo- gies, probably because such use was one of the conditions for joining the proj- ect. The technology that was demanded by the largest share of households differed across types of household. Fadama II beneficiaries asked for post- harvest technologies more than did nonbeneficiaries. The difference in demand for postharvest technologies was significant at p = 0.10. This difference could be a reflection of beneficiary demand to make use of the productive assets they had acquired through the PAA component. Surprisingly, nonbeneficiaries demanded financial management technologies more than did beneficiaries. This finding could be the result of having project facilitators who supply ben- eficiaries with financial management technologies, preempting the need to ask for such technologies.
There was no significant difference between adoption and demand for improved crop varieties. Nonbeneficiary demand for soil fertility management was significantly higher (at p = 0.05) than that of beneficiaries (10 percent versus 4 percent). That reflects the limited emphasis of Fadama II on soil fer- tility technologies. However, the project has addressed soil fertility problems by launching an agricultural input–support component in 2006 (NFDO 2006). Fadama II beneficiaries also used significantly more livestock manage- ment, postharvest handling, financial management, and agricultural market- ing services than did nonbeneficiaries. The results suggest that Fadama II
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