54 CHAPTER 5
support may have given the beneficiaries incentives to use new technologies and may have contributed to the higher incomes that beneficiaries realized. Table 5.13 shows that the ADP is the major provider of production tech- nologies (improved crop varieties, soil fertility management, and livestock production) for both beneficiaries and nonbeneficiaries. The ADP’s focus on providing mainly agricultural production technologies is similar to the pattern of public extension services observed in other developing countries (Qamar 2005). However, it is interesting to note that the State Fadama Development Offices (SFDOs) are the source of production technologies for about 30 per- cent of the beneficiary households who adopted those technologies. For both Fadama II beneficiaries and nonbeneficiaries, the sources of postharvest, marketing, and financial management advisory services are mainly NGOs and projects (Table 5.14). As expected, SFDOs are the major source of information for postharvest, financial management, and marketing advisory services for Fadama II beneficiaries. This predominance demon- strates Fadama II’s support for such technologies, which Fadama I did not provide. Surprisingly, the SFDOs also provided postharvest, financial manage- ment, and marketing technologies to nonbeneficiaries. However, the share of nonbeneficiaries who received advisory services for those technologies from SFDOs was lower than the share of nonbeneficiaries who received the corresponding technologies from the ADP. The results suggest that there is a spillover effect of Fadama II to nonbeneficiaries through these advisory services. Thus free riding is occurring: Fadama II beneficiaries contribute 10 percent of the costs of advisory services, whereas nonbeneficiaries presum- ably do not contribute.
The results have implications on the user-fee arrangement that Fadama II employs. Collection of user fees from non–Fadama II households could be difficult, because they may not be in organized groups and may not have any form of contract that could facilitate the collection of fees. Additionally, some advisory services are provided using mass media, which makes it dif- ficult to collect fees from those who benefit from such services. Even though Ozor et al. (2007) observed that most farmers expressed willingness to pay for advisory services, payment of user fees by poor farmers who produce low-value crops is a major problem in low-income countries (Qamar 2005), and 100 percent public funding of advisory services for such farmers may still remain the only viable option.
It is also interesting to note that farmer groups and individual farmers are important providers of some advisory services. For example, 25 percent of nonbeneficiaries received agricultural marketing advisory services from fellow farmers. Fadama II has also used radio and television programs to promote various technologies. Radio is an especially important tool for dis-
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