impact of national fadama development project on ..._nigeria… · development project (nfdp) and...
TRANSCRIPT
i
ii
MESHACK, JONATHAN IKPI PG/M.SC/12/63607
IMPACT OF NATIONAL FADAMA DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ON
AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION IN TARABA STATE, NIGERIA
DEPARTMENT OF GEOGRAPHY
FACULTY OF THE SOCIAL SCIENCES
Fred Attah
Digitally signed by: Content manager’s
Name
DN : CN = Webmaster’s name
O= University of Nigeria, Nsukka
OU = Innovation Centre
iii
IMPACT OF NATIONAL FADAMA DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ON AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION
IN TARABA STATE, NIGERIA
BY
MESHACK, JONATHAN IKPI PG/M.SC/12/63607
DEPARTMENT OF GEOGRAPHY,
FACULTY OF THE SOCIAL SCIENCES
UNIVERSITY OF NIGERIA, NSUKKA
NOVEMBER, 2015
i
TITLE PAGE
IMPACT OF NATIONAL FADAMA DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ON AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION IN TARABA STATE, NIGERIA
BY
MESHACK, JONATHAN IKPI PG/M.SC/12/63607
A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE SCHOOL OF POSTGRADUATE ST UDIES AND THE DEPARTMENT OF GEOGRAPHY, UNIVERSITY OF NIGERIA, NSUKKA IN
PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE (AGRICULTURAL GEOGRAPHY )
DEPARTMENT OF GEOGRAPHY,
UNIVERSITY OF NIGERIA, NSUKKA
NOVEMBER, 2015
ii
CERTIFICATION
Mr. Meshack, Jonathan Ikpi, a postgraduate student in the Department of Geography,
specializing in Agricultural Geography has satisfactorily completed the requirements for the
course and research work for the award of the Degree of Master of Science (M.Sc) in
Geography. The work embodied in this thesis is original and has not been submitted in part
or full for any other Diploma or Degree of this or any other University.
___________________ _________________________ PROF. I.A. MADU PROF. O.S. AKPOGHOMEH
(Supervisor) (External Examiner)
_____________________________ PROF. (MRS.) P.C. ONOKALA (Head, Department of Geography)
______________________ PROF. I.A. MADU
(Dean, Faculty of Social Science)
November, 2015
iii
DEDICATION
To my Late Parents:
Mr Meshack Metulai
and
Mrs. Jenet Meshack
iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I appreciate God for his grace which sustained me during this academic journey. May
his name be lifted high. The Head of Department (Geography), Professor (Mrs) Patience
Chinyelu Onokala deserves a special commendation for providing the needed leadership
which facilitated a conducive atmosphere for learning in the Department.
I acknowledge with profound gratitude the effort of my Project supervisor, Professor
Ignaitus A. Madu. He made insightful criticism and input to this work, which enhance the
content of this thesis. The entire academic staff of the Department (Geography) made useful
contributions to this work. I am grateful to them.
My colleagues (Godwin Shampan, Chinedu Ogbodu, Uchege, Eberechukwu Eze,
Danmaigona Basho Bako, Nnosori Oyenkachi, Chukwudi, Ocheja Johnmark) at the
postgraduate class, contributed in diverse ways towards the success of this work. I appreciate
their concern.
I owe a big thank you to the following persons; Paul Auta Didan, Samuel Naorti,
Unenge, D.D., Gambo Mohammed, Dicha Danladi, Abdulkarim Suleiman Mr. Irmiya S.
Musa, Mr and Mrs. Zorto, Mr. and Mrs Samuel Galem, Mr. Emmanuel Adi, Mr. and Mrs
Bemuah, Mr and Mrs Udeh, Alhaji Jauro Mafindi and Rt. Hon. Istifanus H. Gbana. Also, the
Taraba State government deserves a special recognition for their support.
My friends and siblings were always available to assist towards the success of this
academic journey. I appreciate the effort of the following persons; Idihwere, Ikosty, Worship,
Zubairu, Bulus, Isuwa, Glory Igudu, Adi Daniel, Ayo, James, Emosema, Emo Zorto,
Ndouhwe, Indo, Emmanuel and Mbasiru. Miss Blessing Micah Daniel was a towel of
strength. She motivates me to continue the journey even when things seem to be tough. I can
see the reason for her name: “Ebwaseh”.
Finally, Nkechi was meticulous in typing this work. I appreciate her patience,
diligence and understanding. I am thankful to U.K Computer for brining to bear her skills of
computer (typesetting) on this work. May God bless you.
Jonathan Ikpi Meshack
November, 2015
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Title Page i
Certification ii
Dedication iii
Acknowledgement iv
Table of Contents v
List of Figures viii
List of Plates ix
List of Tables x
Abstract xi
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background to the Study 1
1.2 The Research Problem 3
1.3 Aim and Objectives 5
1.4 Significance of the Study 5
1.5 Delimitation of the Study 6
1.6 The Study Area 6
1.7 Literature Review 16
1.8 Theoretical Framework 22
1.9 Related Empirical Studies 27
1.10 Summary of Related Empirical Studied 30
1.11 The Research Hypothesis 30
1.12 Presentation and Analysis of Data 37
1.13 Plan of the Project 37
CHAPTER TWO: PATTERNS AND FACTORS OF DISTRIBUTION O F NATIONAL FADAMA DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (NFDP) IN THE STUDY AREA
2.1 Introduction 39 2.2 Test of Hypotheses 39
2.3 Test of hypothesis I 39
2.4 Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) of Hypothesis I 40 2.5 Multiple Comparison of Hypothesis I 41
vi
2.6 Patterns of Distribution of National Fadama Development Project (NFDP) in Taraba State 42
2.7 Test of Hypothesis 2 44
2.8 Mean Rating of Respondents on the factors of Distribution of National Fadama Development Project (NFDP) and Agricultural Production in Taraba State 44
2.9 Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) of Hypothesis 2 45
2.10 Multiple Comparison of Hypothesis 2 45
CHAPTER THREE: SPATIAL IMPACT OF NATIONAL FADAMA DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ON AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION IN TARABA STATE
3.1 Introduction 47
3.2 Impact of National Fadama Development Project (NFDP) Based on Local Government Areas of Respondents 47
3.3 Introduction of New Ideas on Fadama Farming by the National Fadama Development Project Boost Agricultural Production 50
3.4 National Fadama Development Project (NFDP) Increased Income of Fadama Users through awareness Campaign on effective use of Fadama Resources 53 3.5 The Extent of Provision of Physical Infrastructures in Communities by Fadama User Groups (FUGs) 55
3.6 The Extent of Acquisition of Productive Assets by Fadama User Groups (FUGs) in Communities 57 3.7 The Extent of Implementation of Community Driven Development Strategy (CDDs) in Project Execution in Communities 59 CHAPTER FOUR: TREND IN AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION WITH IN THE
PERIOD OF IMPLEMENTATION OF NATIONAL FADAMA DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (NFDP) IN TARABA STATE
4.1 Introduction 60
4.2 Annual Production of Maize (2004 – 2013) 61
4.3 Annual Production of Pepper (1999 – 2013) 62
4.4 Annual Production of Rice (1999 – 2013) 63
4.5 Annual Production of Melon (2003 – 2013) 64
4.6 Annual Production of Okra (1999 – 2013) 66
vii
4.7 Annual Production of Onions (1999 – 2013) 67
4.8 Relationship between Fadama Project and Agricultural Production in Taraba State 68
4.9 Significant Test 70
CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATI ONS 5.1 Summary 71
5.2 Conclusions 72
5.3 Recommendations 72
5.4 Limitation of the Study 73
5.5 Suggestion for Further Studies 74
REFERENCES 75
APPENDICES 85
APPENDIX 1a: Letter of Validation of Instrument 85
APPENDIX 1b: Validation of Instruments Form 86
APPENDIX 2: Appointment of Research Assistant 87
APPENDIX 3: Letter of Introduction 88
APPENDIX 4: Questionnaire on impact of National Fadama Development Project 89
APPENDIX 5a: Test for Significant of Hypothesis 1 93
APPENDIX 5b: Test for Significance of Hypothesis 2 94
APPENDIX 6: Critical Values of F in Snedecor’s Variance Ratio Test 95
APPENDIX 7: Computation of Crop Production Record for a Duration of 10years
(2004-2013) Adopted from Table 13 97
APPENDIX 8: Table of student’s “T” Distribution 98
APPENDIX 9: Reliability Test 99
viii
LIST OF FIGURES
Fig. 1: The Study Area (Taraba State) 7
Fig. 2: Relief of Taraba State 10
Fig. 3: Drainage of Taraba State 12
Fig. 4: National Fadama Development Project (NFDP) in six LGA Taraba State. 36
Fig. 5: Patterns of Distribution of National Fadama Development Project (NFDP), Taraba State (2015). 43
Fig 6: Annual Production of Maize 62
Fig. 7: Annual Production of Pepper 63
Fig. 8: Annual Production of Rice 64
Fig. 9: Annual Production of Melon 65
Fig. 10: Annual Production of Okra 66
Fig. 11: Annual Production of Onions 67
ix
LIST OF PLATES
Plate 1a: Bridge Construction, Wuro-sembe, Jalingo, LGA 49
Plate 1b: Cattle Fattening, Kungana, Bali LGA 49
Plate 1c: Advisory Service, Bambur, Karim Lamido LGA 49
Plate 2: Rice Farm, Suntai-Bakundi, Bali LGA 52
Plate 3a: Garden Egg, Maihula, Bali LGA 54
Plate 3b: Garden Egg farm, Maihula, Bali LGA 54
Plate 3c: Grains Storage, Angwan-Ahmadu, Karim Lamido LGA 54
Plate 4: Road Rehabilitation, Bibinu, Donga LGA 56
Plate 5a: Grains Milling Machine, Gazabu, Bali LGA 58
Plate 5b: Grains Milling Machine, Zaggah, Bali LGA 58
x
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Mean Ranting of Respondents on the Impact of National Fadama Development Project in Taraba State 40
Table 2: Hypothesis One ANOVA 40 Table 3: Multiple Comparisons 41
Table 4: Mean Ranting of Respondents on the Impact of National Fadama Development Project in Taraba State 44
Table 5: Hypothesis Two ANOVA 45 Table 6: Multiple Comparisons 46 Table 7: Perception of the Impact of National Fadama Development Project on Agricultural Production based on Local Government Areas of the Respondent 47
Table 8: Introduction of New Ideas on Fadama Farming by the National Fadama Development Project (NFDP) Boost Agricultural Production 50
Table 9: National Fadama Development Project (NFDP) Increased Income of Fadama Users through Awareness Campaign on effective use of Fadama Resources 53
Table 10: The Fadama Project and Provision of Physical Infrastructure in Communities by Fadama User Groups (FUGs). 55
Table 11: The Extent of Acquisition of Productive Assets by Fadama user Groups (FUGs) n Communities 57
Table 12: The Extent of Implementation of Community Driven Development Strategy (CDDS) in Project execution in Communities 59
Table 13: Crop Production Record 61 Table 14: Fadama Project and Agricultural Production 68
xi
ABSTRACT
This study examined the impact of National Fadama Development Project (NFDP) on agricultural Production in Taraba State, Nigeria. Specifically, the study identified the: patterns of distribution of the Project (NFDP); Factors responsible for the distribution of the project (NFDP); spatial impact of the project (NFDP) on agricultural production and trend in agricultural production within the period of implementation of the Project (NFDP). The study adopted a survey research, and the population comprised of 27,376 participants of the Project (NFDP), sample size is 400. Questionnaire were used for data collection, the internal consistency of the questionnaire were tested using cronbach alpha index, it indicates a reliability coefficient of .857 and .761 for the two clusters and an overall coefficient of .804, this depicts the instrument as reliable. The coordinates of the Project (NFDP) was recorded using Garmin GPS receiver for the purpose of geo-referencing and location of sub-projects. Data were analyzed with the aid of Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS), mean interpretation was done inline of 5-points likert-type scale, while Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was employed to test the two null hypotheses at 0.05 level of significance. Results from the test of the null hypotheses shows that, the Project (NFDP) is not evenly distributed, the project (NFDP) is cluster in certain parts of the state and disperse in some areas. This is due to: efficient awareness campaign, availability of fadama land, increase in income of fadama users. Also, findings from this study indicate a significant improvement in agricultural production in few places in Taraba State, and crop production increases, substantially. The study recommends; public awareness campaign on the project (NFDP) be intensified across the study area, and advisory service be extended to rural areas. Implementation of sub-projects be supervised, effectively.
1
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background to the Study
The Nigeria agricultural sector has not fulfilled the expectations of the farmers as
most of them are poorly fed (FAO, 2001). Poor access to inputs, poor storage facilities, poor
infrastructures and lack of access to Information and Communication Technology (ICT) are
being view as handles yet to be crossed to achieving the greater goal of the sector (Ini,
2013).To worsen the condition, the crash of agricultural productivity in the 1980s adversely
affected many Nigerians, while deteriorations in economy threatened and imposed greater
responsibilities on them on a daily basis (Onuoha, 2014). The persistently high level of
poverty facing most of the world’s underdeveloped countries severely handicaps economic
growth and development planning (Hartshorn and Alexander, 2010). Poverty, an
institutionally defined concept refers to a level of resources below which it is not possible to
achieve the standard of living considered to be the minimum norm in a given society at a
given time (Pacione, 2009). In Nigeria, two of the every three Nigerians live below one
United States dollar per day and poverty is concentrated in rural areas, which is home to 70%
of the nation’s poor, most of them farmers (Edache, 2006). The reason why poverty still
abounds in Nigeria is because growth has been concentrated on sectors that are less labour
intensive, such as oil, telecommunication and banking (Afolani, 2014).
However, agriculture is yet to be fully developed so as to drive growth in the
economy, trigger sustainable development and enhance the standard of living of the people
(Ini, 2013). As a result, agricultural development initiatives in the country have not achieved
the desire goals, despite the potential inherent in the sector (Ini, 2013). Agriculture,
especially small-scale irrigation Fadama plays a key role in the economic of Nigeria as a
2
basic of food, income and employment, especially for women in the “Slack” period of rain-
fed agriculture (Ogunjimi and Adekalu, 2002).
Government intervention is greater in agriculture, than in any other sector of the
economy and is an international phenomenon (Bowler, 2013). Consequently, the state has
become one of the most important factors shaping both the structure of farming and location
of agricultural production (Bowler, 2013). Agricultural Production is the Process of
transforming agricultural resources into a form that will gives us maximum satisfaction
(Arene, 2008).
Agricultural and rural development project form important and integral part of policy
agenda in less developing countries (LDCs). Their purpose is to significantly promote the
upliftment of the well-being of the rural people thereby bringing about a general
enhancement of life of the majority (Arene, 2008).
Agricultural is the largest sector in many developing countries most of the developing
countries have to depend much upon the development of agriculture for economic
development in order to meet the demand for food and agricultural raw materials, earn
foreign exchange for overhead investment and expansion of industries to meet the growing
demand for employment and to raise cash income of rural people to stimulate industries
expansion (Narasaiah and Suresh, 1999). It includes the cultivation of crops as well as
rearing of animals for human uses. Today in Nigeria about 70% of its population is engaged
in these activities (Abu, 2004). Development is a process of economic growth (that is
increasing collective wealth), along side a trend towards social change, such social change
usually implies a movement in the direction of modern, urban and industrial society.
According to Muaghalu (2004), the major traditional sector, agriculture is yet to be integrated
to the overall modern sector.
3
1.2 The Research Problem
Literature is replete with evidences of enquiries on the National Fadama
Development Project (NFDP) from diverse fields of disciplines as shown in the studies of:
Bala, 2007; Adebite et al. 2008; Oladoja and Adeokun, 2009; Tanko et al. 2010; Kenri-
Ukoha, 2011; Umar, 2012; Innih and Dimelu, 2013 and Nwachukwu, 2014.The National
Fadama Development Project (NFDP) is a comprehensive action program developed by the
Federal Ministry of Agriculture in close collaboration with federal ministry of environment
and other federal and state government ministries, local governments and key stakeholders
(donor, private operators, Non-governmental organization) to sustainably increase the
incomes of fadama users (SFCO, 2008). Fadama are flood plains and shallow aquifers found
along Nigeria’s major river systems (Abubakar, 2012). The project has sustainably increase
the income of fadama users through expansion of farm and non-farm activities with high
value added output (FMARD 2003 in Vosanka Madugu, and Donye, (2010).
The study by Vosanka et al. (2010) further opined that, the beneficiaries of National
Fadama Development Project (NFDP) are in youthful and economically productive age, and
also the assets acquired were owned by groups. According to Akinleye, Awoniyi, and
Fapojuwo, (2006), when people are in groups, it sets priority on participatory approach, by
giving control of decision and resources to community groups. The participatory process
elicits community commitment and reduces conflict or sustainability of local projects.
Agricultural production was improved through upgrading of physical infrastructures (Roads,
Culverts, storage-stores, market-stores) and productive assets (Rice milling machines,
Groundnut processing machines, fishing tools, irrigation facilities) were acquired. This is a
result of the study on impact of National Fadama Development Project on Beneficiaries
Income and Wealth in Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, Nigeria conducted by Bature, Sani,
4
and Adebayo, (2013). The findings of research by Bature et al (2013) also indicates a
decrease in the net income of Fadama beneficiaries, despite the acquisition of productive
assets.
The initial study on National Fadama Development Project (NFDP) in Taraba state
was carried out by Vosanka et al. (2010), Oruonye (2011) and Abubakar (2012). Vosanka et
al. (2010) evaluated the participation of beneficiaries in 10 participating local government
areas and found out that, economic activities of participants was enhanced through
acquisition of grinding/milling machines, pick-up vans and cooling facilities. The potential
benefits of Fadama farming through irrigation was examined by Oruonye (2011), and results
from the enquiry showed that, Fadama farming has the capacity to reduce rural poverty,
substantially. Consequently, a study on medium-term impact of Fadama III project in Taraba
state, by Abubakar (2012) that Fadama III Project has created a large number of rural jobs
through agriculture.
The afore-mentioned studies are deficient in identifying the impact of National
Fadama Development Project (NFDP) in Taraba State from spatial Perspective. Hence the
inability to identify the distribution of National Fadama Development Project (NFDP) in the
study area (Taraba state) and also the pattern and factors of such distribution with a view to
identifying its impact on agricultural production, this is the main thrust of this research. This
study became necessary in order to ascertain whether the National Fadama. Development
Project (NFDP) has achieve the purpose intended in Taraba State and also to advance the
frontier of knowledge.
5
1.3 Aim and Objectives
The aim of this study is to investigate the spatial Impact of National Fadama
Development Project on Agricultural Production in Taraba State, Nigeria. In realization of
the above stated objective, the study intend:
i. To identify the patterns and factors of distribution of National Fadama Development
project in the study area.
ii. To determine the spatial impact of National Fadama Development Project in Taraba
State.
iii. To examine the trend in agricultural production within the period of implementation of
the project (NFDP), in Taraba state.
1.4 Significance of the Study
The findings of this enquiry will be useful to: State Fadama coordinating office
(SFCO), Fadama Community Associations (FCAs) and Fadama User Groups (FUGs), as it
will identify the distribution of National Fadama Development Project (NFDP) and factors
responsible for the distribution of the Project (NFDP). Also the trend of agricultural
production with reference to crop production will enable the stakeholders in business of
agriculture make concise decision that will enhance the effectiveness of National Fadama
Development Project (NFDP), thereby boosting agricultural production. This will enable
them make concise decision that will enhance the effectiveness of the project (NFDP) in
Taraba state. The study will inform Fadama users the significance of embracing the National
Fadama Development Project (NFDP) as it is capable of assisting them utilize the potentials
of Fadama land.
6
The research findings will assist the government re-direct her focus on other
development needs of the populace that was not captured by the National Fadama
Development Project (NFDP).
1.5 Delimitation of the Study
This study determined the distribution of National Fadama Development Project
(NFDP) in Taraba State, Nigeria. The Patterns of distribution of the project (NFDP) are
identified, and also the factors responsible for the distribution of National Fadama
Development Project (NFDP) are analyzed. The trend in agricultural production within the
duration of implementation of the project (NFDP) was examined.
1.6 The Study Area
1.6.1 Location
Taraba state lies roughly between latitude 6030’ and 9030’N, and longitude 9010’ to
1105’E. It is bounded on the north by Bauchi state and Gombe state in the north-east, and
Adamawa state on the East, by plateau state in the north-west (Fig 1). The state is further
bounded to the west by both Nasarawa and Benue State, while it shares an international
boundary with the Republic of Cameroon to the south and South-east (TSG, 2012). The
location of Taraba State makes it strategic for agricultural activities of diverse dimensions
due to the abundant resources in the area.
7
Fig. 1: The Study Area (Taraba State) Source: Dept. of Geography and Environmental Mgt. UNIPORT, (2014)
8
1.6.2 Geology
The study area is underlain by the undifferentiated Basement complex rocks which
consist mainly of the magnetite’s, gneisses and other Granites. Tertiary to Recent basalts also
occurs in the area (Ishaku, Kwada and Adekeye, 2009). The undifferentiated Basement
complex particularly the migmatities, generally vary from coarsely mixed gneisses to
diffused textured rocks of variable grain size and are frequently porphyroblastic (Macleod,
Turner, and Wright, 1971 in Ishaku, Kwada and Adekeye, 2009). This rock unit constitutes
principally the undifferentiated igneous and metamorphic rock of Precambrain age (Grant,
1971in Ishaku Kwada,. and Adekeye, 2009).
The pan African older Granites are equally widespread in the area. They occur either
as basic or intermediate intrusive (Turner, 1964 in Ishaku Kwada, and Adekeye, 2009).
Different Kinds of texture ranging from fine to medium to coarse grain can be noticed on the
older Granites (McCurry, 1976 in Ishaku, et al 2009) other localized occurrences of minor
rock types include some Doleritic and Pegmatitic rocks mostly occurring as intrusive dykes
and vein bodies. These occurrences are common to both the undifferentiated Basement
complex and the older Granite rocks (Grant et al. 1971 in Ishaku et al. 2009). The Tertiary
basalts on the other hand are found in the Mambila Plateau mostly formed by Trachytic lavas
and extensive basalts which occur and Nguroje (Dupreez and Barber, 1965 in Ishaku,,
Kwada, and Adekeye,. 2009).
1.6.3 Relief and Drainage
The state is divided into three topographical regions. West of River Benue, covering
mostly Ibi and Karim Lamido local Government Areas, are the extensive FADAMA swamps
of the muri plains. This region is very thinly settled and virtually uncultivated. A marked
contrast to flood-plains is the undulating lowland of the eastern muri plains. This is broken
9
by high rising hills such as the Kungana, Fali and Bali hills which developed on sandstones
standing above 350m contour; hills are developed on both sedimentary and crystalline rocks
(Shenpam, 1995 in Yakubu, 2014). (Fig. 2). The existing water resources in Taraba State is
capable of improving agricultural production using irrigation facilities to boost dry season
farming in order to guarantee food sufficiency. Also, the area has the potentials of fish
production as the available water bodies transverse many communities.
10
Fig. 2: Relief of Taraba State
Source: Department of Geography, University of Nigeria Nsukka (2015)
11
The mambilla plateau is a unique topographical region with some of the largest and
highest mountains in Nigeria, with peaks reaching over 1840M. The Waddi-henda, for
example, is over 2000m above sea level. The plateau which developed on basement complex
rocks measures about 96km along its curved length and 40km wide bounded by an
escarpment which is about 900m high in some places. The Mambilla plateau forms the water
shed from which the major drainage system in Taraba state take their source: River Benue,
Donga and Taraba (from which the state derived it’s name), are the dominant drainage
systems which flow across the muri plains to drain the entire state, together with the minor
ones, such as the Lamurde and Mayo Ranewo, they form extensive flood plains in the central
part of the state, providing sufficiently fertile agricultural land which is presently under
utilized (Mamman, Oyebanji and Petters, 2000) (Fig. 3)
12
.
Fig. 3: Drainage of Taraba State Source: Dept. of Geography and Environmental Mgt. UNIPORT, (2014)
13
The undulating hill surface of the plateau is uniquely attractive for its scenic beauty.
The basket of egg like surface of the plateau with its blend evergreen low-growing grass
vegetation, neatly demarcated into some kind of ranches/grazing reserves and the sharply
meandering road with hair-pin corners across hill slopes, ravines and deep gorges (Mamman
et al. 2000). The climate of Taraba state is suitable for the grow of different types of crops,
because of the availability of rainfall at a large quantity. It has a temperature that is needed to
support the process of photosynthesis in plants and also enable fruits to ripe for harvest.
Rearing of animals is done at a large scale in Taraba state, due to the climate that has
encourage the growth of pastures, which serves as a feds to the animals. The available water
bodies (streams, rivers) is use for dry season farming, thereby boosting food sufficiency and
generating cash income to the farmers, who resides mostly at the rural areas.
1.6.4 Climate
Taraba state has a tropical climate, characterized by dry and wet seasons. The dry
season reach its peak in January and February, when the dusty north east trade winds blow
across the state (Taphee and Janguar, 2014). Rainfall starts in the month of April and ends in
November in the southern part, while in the north, rainfall starts in May/June and ends in
October/November. Thus, the southern part of the state usually has 7-8months of rainfall,
while, the North has about 6-5months of rainfall. The mean annual rainfall is 1,350mm
whereas the maximum annual rainfall is 1,650mm with peaks around August (Mamman,
Oyebanji and Petters, 2000). The mean temperature varies from place to place and according
to season. Maximum temperature ranges between 300C and 39.40C, while minimum
temperatures range between 120C and 230C (Oruonye, 2011). The state is well endowed with
surface water resources from rivers and ponds (Oruonye, 2011). The climate of Taraba State
14
is suitable for growth of various types of crops, in view of the large quantity of rainfall and
temperature.
1.6.5 Vegetation
The vegetation of Taraba state comprises three types of vegetational zones, namely;
Guinea savannah, which is marked by forest and tall grass, are found in the southern parts of
the state (Wukari, Ibi, Takum, Donga). The sub-sudan type characterized by short grasses is
found in: Jalingo, Ardo-Kola, while the semi-temperature zone marked by luxuriant pasture
and short tress is found on the Mambilla plateau (TRSG, 2010).The study area (Taraba State)
has a vegetation that support the rearing of diverse animals which serves the demand for
local consumption and export. The Mambilla plateau has the largest concentration of cattle in
Nigeria and this is attributed to a number of factors, one of which is the vegetation.
1.6.6 Soils
Most of the lowland areas are made up of Ferruginous tropical soils which developed
on crystalline acid rocks and sandy parent materials. The upland area, especially the
Mambilla plateau, area covered by humid fero-soils and litho soil which are highly weathered
and lateritic in nature due to leaching (Mamman, Oyebanji, and Petters, 2000). The soil in
Taraba state encourage the grow of different species of crops and the large portion of Fadama
land using irrigation facilities, especially at dry season.
1.6.7 Population
Taraba state has a population of 2,294,8000 (NPC, 2006), and a population density of
27 people per square kilometers (Yakubu, 2008). Taraba state is made up of sixteen local
government areas, and covers a land area approximately 60,000Km2 and a land mass total
15
area of 60,29182KM2 which makes it the third largest in the country (Ambinkanme et al.
2014).
Taraba state has vast potentials of Fadama land as a result of the numerous rivers that
transverse the state such as Rivers Benue, Taraba, and Donga. River Benue transverse the
state for a distance of over 240 kilometers with wide extensive flood plain on both side of the
river suitable for irrigation farming (Oruonye and Bashir, 2010). There are a substantial
number of people in the area that explore the potentials of Fadama land as a means of
sustaining their livelihood.
1.6.8 Agricultural and Marketing Activities
It is an agrarian state with more than 70% of the population engaged in agricultural
and closely related industries. Taraba has a land mass of over 4, 153 square kilometers which
subtends tropical and subtropical crops and large population of livestock and poultry
(Abubakar, 2012).
1.6.8.1 Agricultural Activities
Agricultural activities refers to any activity directly related to the production and
processing of crops, diary products, poultry or livestock for initial commercial sale or as a
principal means of personal subsistence. The agrarian nature of the state makes it conducive
for the growth of wide range of crops; such as cocoa, coffee and tea, palm trees, cashew,
Mango and food crops such as maize, yam, cassava millet, sorghum, sesame and beans
among others (TRSG, 2014). Livestock production plays on integral role in the state’s
economy. Taraba State has the highest concentration of livestock (mainly cattle), in Nigeria.
The climatic condition especially on the Mambilla plateau is suitable for local and exotic
breeds of livestock (TRSG, 2014). It has consistently contributed over 30% of the local
agricultural out-put over the years. Livestock industry creates employment and income for
16
the larger proportion of the rural dwellers. It is estimate that 25% of the state labour forces
are engaged in livestock production (TRSG, 2014). Communities living on the banks of:
River Benue, River Taraba, River Donga and Ibi engage in fishing activities all year round
(Oruonye and Bashir, 2011).
1.6.8.2 Marketing Activities
Marketing activities involves the interface between the sellers and buyers in a
specific area. The interface between the sellers and buyers in the state is done at periodic
markets, with the exception of some communities where daily markets are gradually
replacing the periodic markets and agricultural products, dominate most of the markets
(TRSG, 2014).
1.7 Literature Review
This section reviewed literatures relating to the study and is organized as follows:
• Overview of Agricultural Development projects in Nigeria
• National Fadama Development Project (NFDP)
� Theoretical/Conceptual Framework
• Theory of Comparative Advantage
• Agricultural Land Location Theory
• Growth pole Theory
• Diffusion of Innovation Theory
• Game Theory
� Related Empirical Studies
17
1.7.1 Overview of Agricultural Development projects in Nigeria
In order for Nigeria to get out of poverty circle, the government needs to focus on
development of agricultural sector, which has high labour absorptive capacity and
simultaneously promote industrialization through devising correct policies particularly those
that will make agriculture attractive to the teeming youths that now dominate the
unemployment market (Afolami, 2014). The dwindling price of crude oil in the global
market and its adverse effects on revenue generation makes agriculture the major source of
cash income in Nigeria. According to World Bank, a mere one percent increase in
agricultural productivity will decrease a Person’s likelihood of been poor by between two
and three percent (Tyohemba, 2014).
The relationship between food output and population growth varies according to the
scale and the period considered (Grigg, 2013). In many rural areas population growth has
reduced the size of farms, increased the extent of rural unemployment and underemployment,
and led to falling real incomes for some of the rural population (Grigg, 2013). The solution to
population increase and food insecurity in Nigeria lie in increasing agricultural production
with special regard to crops, livestock’s and fisheries, couple with improve access to market
and infrastructures (Odili, 2014). Food security is a situation in which people do not live in
hunger or fear of starvation (Pacione, 2009). It is, therefore clear that without agricultural
development, the economic base of the rural masses can not be strengthened and without
such an economic base, the ability of the local institutions to develop and maintain social
overheads and infrastructures get seriously impaired (Nwafor and Madu, 2002).
Previous and present government in Nigeria, have tried to sustain investment and
support for agriculture by embarking on different agricultural and rural development
Programmes such as: National Accelerate Food Production Programme (NAFPP, 1973);
18
River Basin Development Authority (RBDA, 1975); Operation Feed the Nation (OFN,
1976); Agricultural credit Guarantee Scheme (ACGs, 1977); Green Revolution (GR, 1980);
Integrated Rural Development (IRD, 1980); Agricultural Development Programme (ADP,
1985); Directorate of Food Roads and Rural Infrastructure (DFRRI, 1987); National Land
Development Authority (NALDA, 1992); National Fadama Development Project (NFDP,
1992); National Economic Empowerment and Development strategy (NEEDs, 2004);
Agricultural Transformation Agenda (ATA, 2012); Ajayi, 2001). These Programmes were
fashioned to revolutionize agricultural sector of the Nigeria economy, which was derailing
from its normal contribution to the economy (Oriola, 2009).
1.7.1.1 National Fadama Development Project (NFDP)
The National Fadama Development Project (NFDP) is one of the numerous
agricultural development projects being implemented in Nigeria. It is a development
intervention to enhance food security with the overall purpose of reducing poverty among
farm families in Nigeria (Idoghe and Ovwigbo, 2003). It is a project of the Federal
Government of Nigeria through the pooled World Bank loan to finance the development of
Fadama lands by introducing small scale irrigation with Fadama development Potentials
(Oladoja and Adeokun, 2009).
Fadama, a nomenclature adopted by the World Bank, is a local: “Hausa language”,
word referring to low lying swampy areas consisting alluvial deposits and containing
extensive exploitable aquifers (Adesoji, 2006). Aquifer is a geological formation which
contains ground water and at the same time which is sufficiently permeable to transmit and
yield in usable quantities (Ocheri and Chukwu, 2012). Fadama lands are normally water
logged during the rainy season and retain moisture during the dry season (Ingawa et al.
2004). Baba and Singh (1998) further noted, that in agricultural usage, the word Fadama
19
commonly refers to all low-lying relatively flat areas either in streamlets depression or
adjacent to the seasonally or perennially flowing streams and rivers. These are areas
considered to be of high potential for economic development through appropriate investment
in infrastructure, production assets and technical assistance. This is underscored by Baba and
Singh (1998) in Mohammed, Baba and Tanko, L. (2014), who observed that Fadama lands
have high potentials and agricultural value several times more than the adjacent upland. This
necessitated the need to investigate the impact of National Fadama Development Project on
agricultural production in Taraba State.
The Fadama farming system are predominantly subsistence in nature and highly
dependent on the vagaries of the weather, while the potential for irrigation using underground
and surface water, remains under developed (World Bank, 2003). The Fadama Project is one
of the Community Driven Development (CDD) Programmes of the government, aimed at
poverty reduction and attainment of self sufficiency in food production (Abubakar, 2012).
The community organizations decide on how resources are been allocated among the
priorities that they themselves identify and manage their funds (Bature et al. 2013). Its
beneficiaries are small scale resources, poor rural dwellers who achieve their livelihood
directly or indirectly from the exploitation of the natural resources in a given Fadama area
(Abubakar, 2012). The project aimed to empower the Fadama Community Association
(FCA) with the resources, training and technical assistance, to properly manage and control
these resources for their own development (Abubakar, 2012).
The National Fadama Development Project (NFDP), was designed in phases, namely:
the first National Fadama Development Project (NFDP-I); The second National Fadama
Development Project (NFDP-II) and third National Fadama Development Project (NFDP-
20
III). A project is a series of activities designed to achieve specific outcome and objectives
within a set budget and times scale (Sule, 2006).
The first National Fadama Development Project (NFDP-1), was designed in the early
1990s to promote simple and low cost improved irrigation technology under World Bank,
financing. The focus of this project (NFDP-1) was mainly on crops production with less or
no attention paid to post harvest activities such as processing, preservation and marketing
(NFCO, 2003). The project (NFDP-1) was carried out in six (6) states of the federation:
Kogi, Katsina, Jigawa, Plateau, Borno and Lagos (Abubakar, 2012). The study area (Taraba
State) is not part of the pilot project on Fadama (NFDP-1), hence our focus is on the second
National Fadama Development Project (NFDP-II) and Third National Fadama Development
Projects (NFDP-III), respectively.
The second National Fadama Development Project (NFDP-II). Started in the month
of May, 2004 mainly funded by international development associations represented by the
World Bank, with counterpart funding from the: Federal government, participating state
governments, and local governments, and the communities (Mohammed et al. 2014). The
main objectives of the project (NFDP-II) is to sustainably increase the income of all inclusive
Fadama users, namely: Farmers, Pastoralists, fisher folks, hunter and services providers,
through empowering communities to take charge of their development agenda and reducing
conflicts among users (Girei and Dire, 2013). This project (NFDP-II) is implemented in
eleven (11) states in the country (Lagos, Ogun, Oyo, Imo, Kebbi, Kaduna, Gombe,
Adamawa, Taraba, Bauchi, Niger), and Federal capital territory (Abubakar, 2012). In Taraba
State, according to Oruonye (2011), findings from his study shown that out of 2, 060, 347
people of the state, only 30,929 (1.5%) people participated in the second National Fadama
Development Project (NFDP-II).
21
The third National Fadama Development Project (NFDP-III) is a follow up to the
second National Fadama Development Project, which rolled out the Fadama Community
Driven Development (CDD) programme in all thirty six (36) states, and federal capital
Territory (Abubakar, 2012). The Project (NFDP-III) was scheduled for implementation
within a duration of five (5) years (July, 2008-June, 2013), but was reviewed by extending
the period of implementation to December, 2017 (Bature et al. 2013).
To facilitate the achievement of the Fadama project objectives, five components,
namely: (1) Capacity Building (1) Infrastructure; (3) Advisory services; (4) project
management and (5) Pilot Asset Acquisition Support (PAAS) have been entrenched
(Vosanka et al., 2010). In order to meet the aforementioned components, a benchmark for
achieving the set objectives was designed inline with the following targets: (i) income of the
participating households to increase by 40%; (ii) yields of agricultural products to increase
by 20%; (iii) capacities of the participating household adequately built to enable them
sustainably manage their economic activities efficiently and effectively; (iv) conflicts arising
from water and land resources would have been significantly reduced (SFCO, 2008).
Movements of cattle have often pitted Fulani herdsmen with local farmers whose crops are
destroyed by the cattle. More often that not these incidents have ended in bloody
confrontation between the farmers and the Fulani herdsmen (Gaya, 2012).
There is an inclusive collaboration of relevant stakeholders/Federal Ministry of
Agricultural and Rural Development, National Food Reserve Agency and Ministry of Water
Resources) towards the attainment of the set objectives of the National Fadama Development
Project (SFCO, 2008). The National Fadama Technical Committee (NFTC) embarks on
periodic review of the projects, and also approves work plans and budgets. The State Fadama
Coordination Office (SFCO), is responsible for executing a communication strategy,
22
recruiting and organizing training of all relevant stakeholders, tracking financial and physical
progress of sub-projects implemented by Fadama community Associations (FCAS). The
oversight policy and strategic orientation functions is performed by the State Fadama
Technical Committee (SFTC). There is a local Fadama Desk (LFD) and Local Fadama
Development Committee (LFDC), established at various participating local government, and
is charge with the mandate of local level review and approval of subprojects (SFCO, 2008).
1.8 Theoretical Framework
This section reveals the theories that explain constructs, ideas that are major variables
in the study to aid the explanation of the impact of National Fadama Development Project on
agricultural production in Taraba State, from spatial perspective.
A theory may be defined as a set of interrelated constructs and propositions that
presents an explanation of phenomena and makes prediction and relationship among
variables relevant to the phenomena (Jacob, Sorensen and Razavieh, 2010). Kerlinger (1979)
in Oliver (2013) further stated that in a sense, they in themselves are potential source of
further information and discussion. They are seen as a source of new hypotheses and hitherto
to unasked questions. A theory identifies critical area for further investigation discloses gaps
identified and enable a researcher to postulate the existence of previously unknown
phenomena.
1.8.1 Theory Comparative Advantage
David Richards in the year, 1877 worked on the: “principle of political economic and
taxation”, propounded the theory of comparative advantages. The theory argues that, both
parties of an international trade can reap mutual benefits and it is not necessary for such a
relation to be a one way affair (one country only importing and the other only exporting).
23
The theory of comparative advantage explains the tendency for advanced nations to
specialize in capital intensive activities, while less developed areas focus on labour intensive
products. By emphasizing activities that yield that greatest return on investment (Hartshorn
and Alexander, 2010). The theory states that an agricultural region or area tends to produce
these goods or crops for which it is perceived to have a special or physical advantage or has
least disadvantage when compared with other area (Mba, 2012). The theory rest on the
following simplifying assumption of state of perfect competition exist in which there is
complete flexibility of wages and process. In other words, farmers gain and minimize loss
(Mba, 2012). The farmer has to decide what combination of crops and livestock will give
the most profit or, in the case of the subsistence farmer, what crop will satisfy most of his or
consumption needs (Grigg, 1995).
The theory of comparative advantage aid agricultural development initiatives
(National Fadama Development Project) as participants in the project (NFDP) engage in a
specific agricultural activity that they perceived to have a special advantage and is capable of
attracting profit, this will in-turn enhance agricultural production.
1.8.2 Agricultural Land Location Theory
The first model of agricultural location was put forward by a German economist,
Johnun Von Thunen, in his book: “The Isolated state”, published in 1826. He argued that,
distance from the market was the main determine of what combination of crops a farmer
should grow and with what intensity (Grigg, 1995). He divided an imaginary world where all
other factors that could influence farming practice, such as soil type or imports were held
constant (Grigg, 1995).
Von Thunen reasoned that, production costs decrease with distance, whereas
transportation cost increase. In consequence, items that are heavy or bulky in relation to their
24
value should be produced near the town since it would be more expensive to transport them
from more distance. Perishable goods should be grown near the town to avoid losses from
spoilage (Smith, 2013). Land more distance from the town should be used for providing
goods that are lighten in relation to their value and can therefore justify higher unit transport
costs (Smith, 20113).
Von Thunen argued that three factors influenced the types of production at any
particular location: (i) distance to market; (ii) selling price of product at the market, and (iii)
land rent, which is roughly equivalent to economic rent (Hartshorn and Alexander, 2010).
Von Thunen used two terms in his analysis which need explanation. He did not refer
to profit but to land rent, usually called economic rent by modern writers. This was the total
revenue received by the farmer for the sale of his or her goods minus production costs on the
farm, interest on the capital invested in the land and building, the cost of the farmers own
labour and a wage for the farmer’s managerial skills land rent was thus a residual, a return
due to the land alone as a factor of production (Grigg, 1995). Von Thune, also used the term
intensity and by this meant the cost of labour per hectare (Grigg, 1995).
This theory (Von Thunen) indicates that, distance from the market is the major
determinant of an agricultural activity within a region. The National Fadama Development
Project (NFDP) provides for the upgrading of physical infrastructures through rehabilitation
and construction of roads thereby boosting agricultural production, hence the relevance of
this theory.
1.8.3 Growth Pole Theory
Francois Perroux’s concept of a growth pole was propounded in 1949 and
emphasized that, the spatial distribution of economic activity does not fluctuate around a long
term equilibrium norm, but tend to promote the concentration of growth in some area at the
25
expense of others. As he says; “the plain fact is that growth does not happen every where at
the same times, it shows itself in certain points or growth points, with different intensities”.
His (Perroux), main policy conclusion was that government should establish counter-
poles to those which had been established in faster growing regions through the free working
of the market, and in due course hope to harness polarization in favour of less-developed
regions.
The central idea of growth pole theory indicates that, economic development or
growth is not uniform over an entire region but instead it takes place around a specific pole
(cluster). This is in conformity with the aimed of National Fadama Development Project
(NFDP) which take a developmental initiative to an area of less-development, where the
populace are peasant farmers thereby creating a channel through which they can improve
their standard of living by accessing the potentials of the project (NFDP). This underscore
the significance of the growth pole theory to this study based on the intervention of
government in agriculture that focus on extension of development project to the hinterland.
1.8.4 Diffusion of Innovation Theory
The theory and process of diffusion of new products (innovation), was first
propounded by Everett Rogers in 1962. According to this theory, people differ in terms of
their risk-taking and in their attitudes towards change. This affects their willingness to try
and adopt a new product. Hagerstand (1967) as quoted by Libery (2013), conceptualized the
adoption of innovation as the outcome of a learning or communications process, in which
interpersonal information flows were very important.
Patterns of farming are constantly being changed by the adoption of new crops and
new methods. The rate of adoption of innovation varies among farmers, according to their
perception of their potential profit which will result (Grigg, 1995). The spatial diffusion of an
26
innovation takes some time to complete, so that at any one moment geographical limits of a
crop or implement may be a result of the rate of diffusion rather than of any climatic or
economic factor (Grigg, 1995).
There are four (4), main elements which influence the spread of a new idea; (i) the
innovation itself, (ii) communication channel (iii) Time, and (iv) social system. This process
relies on human capital, and the innovation must be widely adopted in order to be self-
sustenance.
The challenges of food deficit, in a country where agriculture still employs a majority
of the population, demand the adoption of new farming methods that can increase
agricultural production in a manner that will guarantee food security, through government
intervention in agriculture (National Fadama Development Project), which is the focus of this
enquiry hence the significance of diffusion of innovation theory.
1.8.5 Game Theory
The mathematician John Von Neumann, propound a game theory in the year 1927
which has been applied successfully to the explanation of complex decision making
problems.
Game theoretic models attempts to provide a normative solution to decision making,
in the light of a farmer’s incomplete knowledge and uncertainly (Libery, 2013). They
introduce probabilistic formulations into decision making, associated with conditions of
uncertainty caused by such variables as weather patterns and market prices. Therefore, game
theory is concerned with the rational choice of strategies in face of competition from an
opportunity, usually the environment (Libery, 2013). The choice of solution depends very
much upon the type of farmer concerned and his attitude towards risk avoidance. In an early
27
application of game theory, Gould (1963) in Libery (2013), determined the choice of
strategies (crops) which would help to win the basic struggle for survival in the barren
middle zone of Ghana.
The relevance of game theory to this search is manifested on the ability of a farmer to
take decision on a new approach to agriculture, using techniques that are alien to his
environment in a state of uncertainty.
1.9 Related Empirical Studies
This sub-section reviewed studies on the National Fadama Development Project
(NFDP) from diverse fields of discipline: Akinleye, Ashimolowo and Oladoja, 2006; Bala,
2007; Kudi, Usman, 2008; Baba and Singh, 1998 Akpolo and Banta, 2008; Adegbite,
Oloruntoba, Adubi, Oyekunle and Sobanke, 2008; Oladoja and Adeokun, 2009; Tanko,
Jirngi and Ogundeji 2010; Vosanka, Maduga and Donye, 2010; Echeme and Nwachukwu,
2010; Edozie, 2010; Oyigoga, 2010; Mohammed, 2011; Ike, 2012, 2012; Akangbe,
Ogunyika, Ayanka, Achem and Adisa, 2012; Umar, 2012; Madu and Phva, 2012; Abubakar,
2012; Olaolu, Akinnagbe and Agber, 2013; Baure, Sani and Adebayu, 2013; Balogun, 2013;
Girei and Dire, 2013; Adeolu and Taiwu, 2014; Mohammed, Baba and Tanko, 2014.
The impact of National Fadama Development Project (NFDP) on Beneficiaries
income and wealth in Abuja, Nigeria, was reviewed by Bature et al. (2013). They adopted a
descriptive survey and obtained data from two hundred (200) fadama users, results of the
study indicates a decrease in the net income of farm income of fadama beneficiaries.
Conversely, productive assets of fadama users increases, significantly. In the same view,
Girei and Dire (2013), assessed the impact of Fadama II crop farmers on income beneficiary
farmers in Adamawa state, Nigeria. The study is a descriptive survey and a sample size of
160 farmers was used. Their investigation showed that, Fadama II Project has enhanced crop
28
productions and income of beneficiaries more than before the implementation of the Project.
Adegbite et al. (2008) explored the impact of Fadama II project on small-scale farmers in
Ogun State, using a descriptive survey and a sample population of 90 respondents. The
findings shows more cash income is earn by participants of fadama II project than non-
participants of the project. The problems associated with fadama II crop farmers in Adamawa
state was investigated using 160 farmers and findings from the enquiry showed that,
inadequate and high cost of fertilizer was reported to be very severe and serious problem
affecting the crop farmers of fadama (Girei et al. 2014).
In similar perspective, Vosanka et al. (2010), evaluates beneficiaries participation of
fadama II project in Taraba State. The study focused on 183 respndents in 10 participating
local government areas and results shown that, income of respondents who participated in the
pilot Asset Acquisition Support (PAAs) component of Fadama II project, increased by 36
percent and major sub-projects (Grining/milling machine, Pick-up vans and cooling
facilities) were implemented by 19.68 percent. Mohammed et al. (2014), investigates the
impact of second National Fadama Development Project on income and wealth of crop
farmers in Niger State, Nigeria. Data were generated from a field survey, comprised of 103
household heads who benefited from fadama II project and 105 persons who did not
participate in the project (NFDP). The result showed that, the fadama II project did not
improve the income of its beneficiaries. Conversely, the project increased the wealth of
beneficiaries.
The impact of third National Fadama Development Project (NFDP-III) in Taraba
State, Nigeria was evaluated by Abubakar (2012). It is a descriptive survey, which used a
total of two hundred and thirty-four (234) households and the results indicates a significant
impact of Fadama III on crop production and income generation. The implications is that,
29
better income give better purchasing power, hence an improvement in living standard
(Olaolu et al. 2013). The findings further revealed a large number of rural jobs are created
through agriculture, and also physical infrastructures (rural roads, culverts, market-stores))
were funded through the National Fadama Development Project (NFDP). This has
established that, distance and travel time to the nearest town has been reduced thereby
facilitating market access and marketing of agricultural produce, thus encouraging a
structural departure from subsistence based agriculture to commercialization (Iheanocho, et
al. 2007), Whilst distance may have declined in importance, the market remains one of the
most potent factors in agricultural production (Libery, 2013). Split over efforts also manifest
in the adjoining communities as the use of the infrastructure were not limited to only the
participants (Madu et al. 2013).
The design and implementation of Fadama II project is participatory whereby
potential beneficiary groups are assisted by facilitators to collectively identify and prioritizes
their development and production (Audu, 2006). The evaluation of socio-economic status of
Fadama II Beneficiaries in Fadama crop production in Yola-North Local Government Area
of Adamawa State, Nigeria by Audu (2006), adopted a descriptive survey and a sample size
of two hundred (200), findings of the study showed a high rate of participation of Fadama
users in the design and implementation of developmental agenda in their communities. The
success level of implementation of Fadama Project is low and is attributed to the use of non-
professional in the management of rural development project (Echeme and Nwachukwu,
2010).
The literatures reviewed indicate a significant impact of National Fadama
Development Project (NFDP) on the populace. However, none of these researchers view it
from the spatial perspective and also few of these studies were done in the study area. This
30
has created a gap in knowledge which this study intends to explore for the purpose of
advancing the frontier of knowledge by determining the impact of National Fadama
Development Project on Agricultural Production in Taraba State, Nigeria.
1.10 The Research Hypothesis
This study intends to provide answer to the following hypotheses:
H01: There is no significant difference in the mean rating of respondents on the patterns of
distribution of National Fadama Development Project (NFDP) and Agricultural
Production in Taraba State.
H02: “There is no significant difference in the mean rating of respondents on the factors of
distribution of National Fadama Development Project (NFDP) and Agricultural
Production in Taraba State”.
1.11 Research Methodology
This section unveils the procedures adopted in the process of investigating the impact
of National Fadama Development Project on agricultural production in Taraba State, Nigeria
and is achieved under the following sub-headings; Reconnaissance Survey, research design,
population of the study, sample size, sampling/sampling technique, sources of data collection
(primary and secondary sources), instrument of data collection, validation of instrument,
reliability of instrument and presentation and analysis of data.
1.11.1 Reconnaissance Survey
Reconnaissance survey was conducted in the study area in order to identify the sub-
projects, like: roads, bridges, storage facilities, market stores, culverts, poultry farms, rice
farms, Groundnut milling machines, fish ponds, initiated through the National Fadama
Development Project (NFDP), and also to ascertain the distributions of these sub-projects. In
the course of this exercise (reconnaissance survey), an interaction was held with the various
31
stakeholders of National Fadama Development Project (NFDP) in Taraba state (State
Fadama coordination office, Local Fadama Coordination Office, Fadama user Groups,
Taraba state Agriculture Development Programme, (TADP) Ministry of Agriculture and
Water Resource), so as to elicit information on the project (National Fadama Development
Project), as regard the achievement and challenges encounter in the process of implementing
the project (National Fadama Development Project).
1.11.2 Research Design
Design can be described as an outline, a general arrangement or plan from which
something may be made (Uzoagulu, 2011). According to Nworgu (1991) in Uzoagulu
(2011), a research design is a plan or blue print which specifies how data relating to a given
problem should be collected and analyzed. In other words, a research design provides the
framework for anticipating and taking decisions on the issues that will arise in the conduct of
a particular investigation (Nworgu, 2009). This is a survey research, aimed at eliciting
information that will enhance decision on an enquiry on a case study. The various Fadama
Community Association (FCAs), Fadama user Groups (FUGs) and the total number
beneficiaries of the project (NFDP), will be identified for the purpose of this study.
1.11.3 Population of the Study
Population of the study is the people or objects that the researcher is studying or has
studied. It includes all members of the target of the study as defined by the purpose of the
study and reflected in the research questions or the hypotheses (Jen, 2002). Target population
refers to the actual or definite population that is to be studied (Uzoagulu, 2011). The
population for this study is the total number of participants of the National Fadama
Development Project (NFDD), in the six (6) local government areas of Taraba State (Fig. 4),
32
their population is 27, 376 (Oruoye, 2011). These local government areas are selected from
the three (3) senatorial districts, and each of the two (2) local government areas are
representing a senatorial district.
1.11.4 Sample Size
A sample is a small group of elements or subjects drawn through a definite procedure
from a specific population. Samples are meant to represent population when the entire
population can not be studied (Uzoagulu, 2011). The sample size of this study was
statistically determined using: “Yaro Yamane,” as quoted from Uzoagulu (2011) and the
formula is given as:
( )1)(1 2
−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−+
=eN
Nn
Where
n = the sample size
N = the finite population
e = level of significance (or limit of tolerable error)
I = Unity (a constant)
The total number of participants of the project (National Fadama Development
Project) in the study area is 27, 376 (Oruonye, 2011). Thus, using the number of participants
of the project to substitute the formula (Yaro Yamene):
( )21 eN
Nn
+=
Where:
n = sample population
N = Number of participants of National Fadama Development Project (NFDP)
33
e = level of significance
I = constant
( )
( )sizesampleour
n
400
99.399
4425.68
376,27
0025.0376,271
376,27
)05.0(376,271
376,272
≅
=
=
+=
+=
Thus, the sample size for this study is 400.
1.11.5 Sampling/Sampling Technique
The process of selecting a sample from a population is known as sampling (Ofuebe
and Izueke, 2011). In sampling, a sample (i.e a portion) of a population is composed or
drawn and studied as representative of the population in order to make generalization of the
research findings (Jen, 2002). In sampling the population of this study, a total of 400 hundred
target population was used, based on the sample size. Sampling technique is the strategy
adopted in composing a representative sample of the population in a sample study (Jen,
2002). A representative sample is a sample that is drawn randomly from the target
population. The sample technique used for this study is the random sampling.
1.11.6 Sources of Data Collection
In this research, data were obtained from both the primary and secondary source. A
primary source of data is a direct report of an individual who actually observed or
participated in it (Mereith, Joyce and Walter, 2007 in Shenpam, 2015). Data were derived for
34
the purpose this work through direct observation and administration of questionnaire to the
target population.
According to Mereith, Joyce and Walter, 2007 in Shenpam, 2015, secondary sources
are publications written by authors. The secondary sources of data collection in this study
included: textbooks, articles in Journals, newspapers publications, internet facilities,
government publications obtained from state Fadama Coordination office (SFCO), Jalingo,
Federal ministry of Agriculture and water Resources and National Population Commission
(NPC).
1.11.7 Instrument of Data Collection
A research instrument is a measurement device or tool used to collect, record or
measure data which are required to provide answers to research questions or test hypotheses
(Jen, 2002). Data collection for this study is achieved through the use of questionnaire,
administered to respondents that participated in the National Fadama Development Project
(NFDP) in the study area and non-participants of the Project (NFDP). A total of 400 copies
of questionnaire were administered, based on the sample size and 350 copies of
questionnaires were collected and considered valid. This yielded a return rate of 88%, a total
of 50 copies of questionnaire were discarded for being improperly filled and not returned by
the respondents. A questionnaire is a carefully designed instrument for collecting data in
according with the specifications of the research questions and hypotheses (Uzoagulu, 2011).
The coordinates of sub-project of National Fadama Development Project (NFDP) were
recorded using portable Garmin GPS receiver for the purpose of identifying the location of
sub-projects so as to ascertain the patterns of distribution of National Fadama Development
Project (NFDP) in the study area.
35
1.11.8 Validation of Instrument
Validation of instrument is meant to ensure that the instrument measures what it is
supposed to measure and nothing else (Jen, 2002). The instrument validated for this research
is the questionnaire and is done by three (3) seasoned experts in the fields that has
relationship with this study, which comprised of one lecturer from the department of
Geography and two (2) lecturers outside the Department (Geography). The validates are from
the university of Nigeria, Nsukka. The validates were provided with the objectives of this
study and research hypotheses, which they used to verify whether the items on the
questionnaire were relevant to the study, and capable of eliciting the right responses from the
respondents. Based on their comments and inputs, the items on the instrument were
appropriately modified to make the instrument more valid.
1.11.9 Reliability of Instrument
Reliability of research instrument is the decree to which the instrument consistently
measures what it is supposes to measure (Jen, 2002). Cronbah Alpha (σ) was used to
determine the internal consistency of the instrument. Fourty (40) questionnaires was
administered to a sample population in Taraba state, for a trial study, because they have
common characteristic with those respondents in the main area of study, and the responses
of the trial study were used to calculate the reliability coefficient. The reliability coefficients
for the two clusters were .857 and .761, respectively. The reliability coefficient of the clusters
was calculated and the result obtained was .804, hence the instrument is sufficiently reliable
for this study.
36
Fig. 4: National Fadama Development Project (NFDP) in six sample LGA Taraba State. (Source: Department of Geography, University of Nigeria Nsukka, 2015)
37
1.12 Presentation and Analysis of Data
The data are presented in the following formats, namely: Tabular, textual and graphic.
The Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS) was used to analyze the data, which
generates the cross tabulation table, mean and standard deviation and one-way Analysis of
variance (ANOVA). The interpretation of data was done inline with the points of 5-point
likert-type scale. One-way Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was deployed to test the
hypotheses at 0.05 level of significance.
1.13 Plan of the Project
This project is divided into five (5) chapters, namely:
1.13.1 Chapter One: Introduction
This chapter (1) provided background information to the study, identified the research
problem, aims and objectives, and presented an over-view of the study area. Literature
review and theoretical/conceptual framework are made, hypotheses postulated. The research
methodology and plan of the project are unveiled.
1.13.2 Chapter Two: Patterns and Factors of Distribution of National Fadama Development Project (NFDP) in the Study Area
The patterns of distribution of National Fadama Development Project (NFDP) in
Taraba State were depicted in this chapter (3) and factors responsible for the distribution of
the project (NFDP) were identified.
1.13.3 Chapter Three: Spatial Impact of National Fadama Development Project on Agricultural Product in Taraba State, Nigeria
This chapter (2) showed the distribution of National Fadama Development Project
(NFDP) in the study area.
38
1.13.4 Chapter Four: Trend in Agricultural Producti on within the Period of Implementation of National Fadama development Project (NFDP) in Taraba State
This chapter (4), examined the rate of agricultural production within the duration of
Implementation of National Fadama Development Project (NFDP) in the study area, this was
done with reference to crop production to determine the trend in agricultural production.
1.13.5 Chapter Five: Summary, Conclusion and Recommendations The research findings are presented in a precise form in this chapter (5), conclusions
are drawn based on the research findings and recommendations that will ensure the
efficiency of subsequent intervention in agriculture (National Fadama Development Project)
are profiled.
39
CHAPTER TWO
PATTERNS AND FACTORS OF DISTRIBUTION OF NATIONAL FA DAMA
DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (NFDP) IN THE STUDY AREA 2.1 Introduction
Data were generated form the copies of questionnaire administered to respondents in
order to test the two null hypotheses and is done by investigating their variablility using the
analysis of variance (ANOVA). The coordinates of each of the sub-project of National
Fadama Development Project (NFDP) were recorded using a Portable Garmin GPS receiver
for the purpose of geo-referencing and identification of the location of the Project (NFDP).
2.2 Test of Hypotheses
The two null hypotheses are subjected to a test at 0.05 level of significance inline
with the focus of this enquiry and is shown thus:
2.3 Test of Hypothesis I:
H01: There is no significant difference in the mean rating of respondents on the patterns of
Distribution of National Fadama Development Project and agricultural production in
Taraba State”.
40
Table 1: Mean Rating of Respondents on the Patterns of Distribution of National Fadama Development Project (NFDP) and Agricultural Production in Taraba State.
Items for Hypothesis one Bali Jalingo Wukari Sardauna Karim Lamido Donga
To what extent would you rate government intervention in agric through Fadama development project in your community.
3.97 3.39 2.00 2.05 2.00 2.00
Has the introduction of new ideas on Fadama farming by the national Fadama development project boasted agricultural production in your area
3.52 3.07 2.03 2.03 2.00 2.00
Has the national Fadama development project increase the income of Fadama users through awareness campaign on an effective use of Fadama resources
3.68 3.22 2.06 2.00 2.00 2.00
To what extent did Fadama user groups be able to provide physical infrastructure in your community
3.81 3.22 2.09 2.05 2.00 2.00
The Fadama user groups are to acquire productive assets, to enable beneficiaries own such assets, did you think this objective is achieved?
3.16 3.07 2.03 2.02 2.00 2.00
To what extent has this strategy facilitated development?
3.77 3.64 2.06 2.02 2.00 2.00
Cluster mean 3.65 3.27 2.05 2.23 2.00 2.00
N Bali = 31, Jalingo = 148, Wukari = 32, Sardauna = 61, Karim Lamido = 21, Donga = 61 (Source: Fieldwork, 2015)
2.4 Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) of Hypothesis I
Table 2 shows the analysis of variance for hypothesis I indicating the sum of squares
(between and within groups).
Table 2: Hypothesis 1 ANOVA
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Between Groups 17.077 5 3.415 159.250 .000
Within Groups .643 348 .021
Total 17.720 353
Post Hoc Tests
(Source: Fieldwork, 2015)
41
2.5 Multiple comparison of Hypothesis I
The multiple comparison table (3) indicates the difference in the pattern of
distribution of National Fadama Development Project (NFDP) and Agricultural Production
in Taraba State, Nigeria.
Table 3: Multiple Comparisons
(I) Group_1 (J) Group_1 Mean Difference (I-J) Std. Error Sig. 95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound Upper Bound
Bali
Jalingo .38333* .08455 .001 .1262 .6405 Wukari 1.60667* .08455 .000 1.3495 1.8638 Sardauna 1.62333* .08455 .000 1.3662 1.8805 Karim Lamido 1.65167* .08455 .000 1.3945 1.9088 Donga 1.65167* .08455 .000 1.3945 1.9088
Jalingo
Bali -.38333* .08455 .001 -.6405 -.1262 Wukari 1.22333* .08455 .000 .9662 1.4805 Sardauna 1.24000* .08455 .000 .9828 1.4972 Karim Lamido 1.26833* .08455 .000 1.0112 1.5255 Donga 1.26833* .08455 .000 1.0112 1.5255
Wukari
Bali -1.60667* .08455 .000 -1.8638 -1.3495 Jalingo -1.22333* .08455 .000 -1.4805 -.9662 Sardauna .01667 .08455 1.00 -.2405 .2738 Karim Lamido .04500 .08455 .994 -.2122 .3022 Donga .04500 .08455 .994 -.2122 .3022
Sardauna
Bali -1.62333* .08455 .000 -1.8805 -1.3662 Jalingo -1.24000* .08455 .000 -1.4972 -.9828 Wukari -.01667 .08455 1.00 -.2738 .2405 Karim Lamido .02833 .08455 .999 -.2288 .2855 Donga .02833 .08455 .999 -.2288 .2855
Karim Lamido
Bali -1.65167* .08455 .000 -1.9088 -1.3945 Jalingo -1.26833* .08455 .000 -1.5255 -1.0112 Wukari -.04500 .08455 .994 -.3022 .2122 Sardauna -.02833 .08455 .999 -.2855 .2288 Donga .00000 .08455 1.00 -.2572 .2572
Donga
Bali -1.65167* .08455 .000 -1.9088 -1.3945 Jalingo -1.26833* .08455 .000 -1.5255 -1.0112 Wukari -.04500 .08455 .994 -.3022 .2122 Sardauna -.02833 .08455 .999 -.2855 .2288 Karim Lamido .00000 .08455 1.00 -.2572 .2572
*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level. (Source: Fieldwork, 2015)
42
From the test of significance of hypothesis I (Appendix 5a), critical value is 2.48 and
table 2 of Analysis of variance (ANOVA) showed a calculated value as 159.250, at 0.05 level
of significance. Therefore, since the calculated value of 159.25 is greater than the critical
value of 2.48 at 0.05 level of significance, Ho is rejected. Thus, “There is a significant
difference in the pattern of distribution of National Fadama Development Project and
agricultural production in Taraba state”.
2.6 Patterns of Distribution of National Fadama Development Project (NFDP) in Taraba State
Fig 5 shows the patterns of distribution of the project (NFDP) in Taraba State and
findings of the analysis of hypothesis (I) revealed that, National Fadama Development
Project (NFDP) is not evenly distributed, the project (NFDP) is clustered in certain parts of
the state and disperses in some areas.
43
Fig. 5: Patterns of Distribution of National Fadama Development Project (NFDP), Taraba State (2015).
(Source: Department of Geography, University of Nigeria Nsukka, 2015)
44
2.7 Test of Hypothesis 2:
H02: “There is no significant difference in mean rating of respondents on the factors of
distribution of National Fadama Development Project and agricultural production in
Taraba State”.
2.8 Mean Rating of Respondents on the factors of Distribution of National Fadama Development Project (NFDP) and Agricultural Production in Taraba State.
Table 4 showed the mean rating of respondents on the impact of National Fadama
Development Project (NFDP) in Taraba state, Nigeria.
Table 4: Mean Rating of Respondents on the Impact of National Fadama Development Project in Taraba State.
Items for Hypothesis two Bali Jalingo Wukari Sardauna Karim Lamido Donga
The awareness campaign on the importance national Fadama development project is responsible for the distribution of the project in your community
3.13 3.26 2.97 3.03 3.00 3.00
The face to face communication between Fadama users is a factor which lead to the adoption of national Fadama development project in your area
3.45 3.43 2.97 3.02 3.00 3.00
The availability of Fadama land in your area necessited the adoption of the project
3.36 3.34 3.06 2.98 3.00 3.00
The substantial increase in income of the Fadama user groups attracted other Fadama users to the project in your community
3.65 3.43 2.88 3.00 3.00 3.00
Cluster mean 3.40 3.37 2.97 3.01 3.00 3.00
N Bali = 31, Jalingo = 148, Wukari = 32, Sardauna = 61, Karim Lamido = 21, Donga = 61
(Source: Fieldwork, 2015)
45
2.9 Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) of Hypothesis 2
The result in table 5 is the analysis of variance for hypothesis 2, indicating the sum of
squares (between and within groups).
Table 5: Hypothesis 2 ANOVA
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Between Groups .804 5 .161 16.323 .000
Within Groups .177 348 .010
Total .981 353
(Source: Fieldwork, 2015)
2.10 Multiple Comparisons of Hypothesis 2
Table 6 shows the multiple comparison of mean rating of respondents on the factors
of distribution of National Fadama Development (NFDP) and Agricultural Production in
Taraba State, Nigeria.
46
Table 6: Multiple Comparisons
(I) Group_2 (J) Group_2 Mean Difference (I-J)
Std. Error Sig. 95% Confidence Interval
Lower Bound Upper Bound
Bali
Jalingo .03250 .07017 .997 -.1905 .2555 Wukari .42750* .07017 .000 .2045 .6505 Sardauna .39000* .07017 .000 .1670 .6130 Karim Lamido .39750* .07017 .000 .1745 .6205 Donga .39750* .07017 .000 .1745 .6205
Jalingo
Bali -.03250 .07017 .997 -.2555 .1905 Wukari .39500* .07017 .000 .1720 .6180 Sardauna .35750* .07017 .001 .1345 .5805 Karim Lamido .36500* .07017 .001 .1420 .5880 Donga .36500* .07017 .001 .1420 .5880
Wukari
Bali -.42750* .07017 .000 -.6505 -.2045 Jalingo -.39500* .07017 .000 -.6180 -.1720 Sardauna -.03750 .07017 .994 -.2605 .1855 Karim Lamido -.03000 .07017 .998 -.2530 .1930 Donga -.03000 .07017 .998 -.2530 .1930
Sardauna
Bali -.39000* .07017 .000 -.6130 -.1670 Jalingo -.35750* .07017 .001 -.5805 -.1345 Wukari .03750 .07017 .994 -.1855 .2605 Karim Lamido .00750 .07017 1.000 -.2155 .2305 Donga .00750 .07017 1.000 -.2155 .2305
Karim Lamido
Bali -.39750* .07017 .000 -.6205 -.1745 Jalingo -.36500* .07017 .001 -.5880 -.1420 Wukari .03000 .07017 .998 -.1930 .2530 Sardauna -.00750 .07017 1.000 -.2305 .2155 Donga .00000 .07017 1.000 -.2230 .2230
Donga
Bali -.39750* .07017 .000 -.6205 -.1745 Jalingo -.36500* .07017 .001 -.5880 -.1420 Wukari .03000 .07017 .998 -.1930 .2530 Sardauna -.00750 .07017 1.000 -.2305 .2155 Karim Lamido .00000 .07017 1.000 -.2230 .2230
*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level. (Source: Fieldwork, 2015)
From the test of significance of hypothesis 2 (Appendix 5b), critical value is 2.62 and
from table 5, the Analysis of variance (ANOVA) shows a calculated value of 16.32 at 0.05
level of significance. Therefore, since the calculated value of 16.32 is greater than the critical
value of 2.62 at 0.05 level of significance, H02 is rejected. This attests that: “There is a
significant difference in the factors of distribution of National Fadama Development Project
and agricultural production in Taraba State”.
47
CHAPTER THREE
SPATIAL IMPACT OF NATIONAL FADAMA DEVELOPMENT PROJE CT ON AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION IN TARABA STATE
3.1 Introduction
Data were obtained through administering copies of questionnaire to respondents in
order to show the spatial dimension of National Fadama Development Project (NFDP) in
Taraba State, distribution of sub-projects; introduction of new ideas on Fadama farming,
increased in income generation of Fadama users, provision of physical infrastructures,
acquisition of productive assets and implementation of community Driven Development
Strategy (CDDS) at various communities.
3.2 Impact of National Fadama Development Project (NFDP) On Agricultural Production Based on Local Government Areas of Respondents
Table 1 indicates the extent of government intervention through National Fadama
Development Project (NFDP) in improving agricultural production in the study area.
Table 7: Perception of the Impact of National Fadama Development Project on Agricultural Production based on Local Government Areas of the Respondents.
Local
Government Very Low
Extent
Low Extent
High Extent
Very High
Extent
Total
Bali 0 0 1(3%) 30 (97%) 31(100%)
Jalingo 2(1%) 39(26%) 7(5%) 100(68%) 148(100%)
Wukari 1(3%) 30(94%) 1(3%) 0 32(100%)
Sardauna 0 59(96.7%) 1(1.6%) 1(1.6%) 61(100%)
Karim Lamido 0 21(100%) 0 0 21(100%)
Donga 0 61(100%) 0 0 61(100%)
Total 3(1%) 210(59%) 10(3%) 131(37%) 354(100%)
Source: Fieldwork, 2014-2015
48
The result on table 7 showed that, respondents from Bali local government area
asserted that the impact was very high (97%), while in Jalingo local government, 26% of the
respondents were of the opinion that such an intervention in agriculture is low, and 68% see
it as very high. Wukari local government recorded a low extent in government intervention in
agriculture by the National Fadama Development Project (NFDP) at 96.7%. Consequently,
the findings from Karim Lamido and Donga local government areas, reflects that the
intervention in such areas were low (100%).
The implication of this findings attest to the spatial impact of National Fadama
Development Project on Agricultural Production in Taraba Sate, as showed in plates: 1a, 1b
and 1c, through the implementation of various sub-projects: Provision of physical
infrastructures (construction of bridge); advisory services (cattle rearing) and acquisition of
productive assets (Grain Milling Machines).
49
Plate 1a: Bridge Construction Wuro-sembe, Jalingo, LGA
Plate 1b: Cattle Rearing
Kungana, Bali LGA
Plate 1c: Grain Milling Machine
Bambur, Karim lamido LGA
50
3.3 Introduction of New Ideas on Fadama Farming by the National Fadama Development Project (NFDP) Boost Agricultural Production
Table 8 shows the perception of introduction of new ideas on Fadama farming
through the National Fadama Development Project (NFDP) and its impact on agricultural
production in Taraba state, Nigeria. On the whole, the table 8 shows that most of the
respondents (60.50%) perceived the contribution of new ideas in the Fadama project as
having impacted on agricultural production to a low extent.
Table 8: Introduction of new ideas on Fadama farming by the National Fadama Development Project boost agricultural production.
Local Government
Very Low Extent
Low Extent
High Extent
Very High Extent
Total
Bali 0 1(3%) 13(42%) 17 (55%) 31(100%)
Jalingo 3(2%) 40(27%) 48(32%) 57(39%) 148(100%)
Wukari 0 31(97%) 1(3%) 0 32(100%)
Sardauna 0 60(98%) 0 1(2%) 61(100%)
Karim Lamido 0 21(100%) 0 0 21(100%)
Donga 0 61(100%) 0 0 61(100%)
Total 3(0.8%) 214(60.5%) 62(17.5%) 75(21.2%) 354(100%)
Source: Fieldwork, 2014-2015
When disaggregated table 8 shows that, the introduction of new ideas on fadama
farming by the National Fadama Development Project (NFDP), boosted agricultural
production in Bali (55%) and Jalingo (39%) area. The other local government areas of
Wukari, Sardauna, Karim-Lamido and Donga all reported that the introduction of new ideas
on agricultural production to a low extent of 97%, 98%, 100% and 100% respectively.
The findings from the table 8 could be interpreted to mean that the rate of adoption of
innovation on Fadama farming by the Fadama users were high in Bali and Jalingo Local
Government Areas, this provided for the spread of information on modern farming
51
techniques, and also strategies for marketing of agricultural produces are inculcated. All
these necessitated for the expansion of farms due to high yield. Plate 2 shows a rice farm
which was expanded as a result of adoption of innovations on Fadama farming introduced by
the National Fadama Development Project (NFDP). On the other hand, the introduction of
new ideas on Fadama farming through the National Fadama Development Project (NFDP)
were adopted at a low extent in areas like: Wukari, Sardauna, Karim lamido and Donga local
governments, hence the inadequacy in the optimum use of the Fadama resource.
52
Plate 2: Rice Farm Suntai-Bakundi, Bali LGA
53
3.4 National Fadama Development Project (NFDP) Increased Income of Fadama users through Awareness Campaign of Effective use of Fadama Resource
Table 9 indicates the relationship between Fadama resources and the increase in the
income of Fadama users. Generally most (59%) of respondents perceive the relationship
between the project and increased income as low.
Table 9: National Fadama Development Project (NFDP) Increased Income of Fadama users through Awareness Campaign on effective use of Fadama Resources
Local Government
Very Low Extent
Low Extent High Extent Very High Extent
Total
Bali 0 0 10(32%) 21 (68%) 31(100%)
Jalingo 7(5%) 38(26%) 18(12%) 85(57%) 148(100%)
Wukari 0 30(94%) 2(6%) 0 32(100%)
Sardauna 1(1.6%) 59(96.7%) 1(1.6%) 0 61(100%)
Karim Lamido 0 21(100%) 0 0 21(100%)
Donga 0 61(100%) 0 0 61(100%)
Total 8(2%) 209(59%) 31(9%) 106(30%) 354(100%)
Source: Fieldwork, 2014-2015
The responses on Table 9 when disaggregated by local government areas indicate the
National Fadama Development Project (NFDP) impacted positively on the income of
Fadama users to a very high extent in Bali (68%) and Jalingo (57%) local government areas.
For the other local government areas of Wukari (0%), Sardauna (0.7%), Karim Lamido (0%)
and Donga (0%), income generation was perceived to be low.
The findings in table 9 implies that, National Fadama Development Project (NFDP)
has improved the income of participants of the project (NFDP), through an awareness
campaign that focus on effective use of Fadama land in a manner that has enhance
agricultural production in few areas of Taraba State. Plates: 3a, 3b and 3c shown the
agricultural produce obtained through crop production.
54
Plate 3a: Garden Egg Maihula, Bali LGA
Plate 3b: Garden Egg farm
Maihula, Bali LGA
Plate 3c: Grains Storage Angwan-Ahmadu, Karim Lamido LGA
55
3.5 The Extent of Provision of Physical Infrastructures in Communities by Fadama User Groups (FUGs)
Fadama User Groups (FUGs) are economic interest groups, each having an average of
around 20 individual’s members. They liaise with the Fadama officials to facilitate the design
and implementation of sub-project in their communities (SFCO, 2008). Data for Table 10
were obtained from respondents by administering questionnaire.
Table10 shows the provision of physical infrastructures by the Fadama user Groups
(FUGs) in various communities. As in the earlier cases, most (59.6%) of the respondent
perceived the relationship between the provision of infrastructure and Fadama project is low.
Table 10: The Fadama Project and provision of physical infrastructure in communities by Fadama user Groups (FUGs)
Local Government
Very Low Extent
Low Extent High Extent Very High Extent
Total
Bali 0 1(3%) 4(13%) 26 (84%) 31(100%)
Jalingo 4(3%) 39(26%) 25(17%) 80(54%) 148(100%)
Wukari 0 30(94%) 1(3%) 1(3%) 32(100%)
Sardauna 0 59(96.7%) 1(1.6%) 1(1.6%) 61(100%)
Karim Lamido 0 21(100%) 0 0 21(100%)
Donga 0 61(100%) 0 0 61(100%)
Total 4(1.1%) 211(59.6%) 31(8.8%) 108(30.5%) 354(100%)
Source: Fieldwork, 2014-2015
Respondents in Bali (84%) and Jalingo (54%) local government areas as presented in
table 10, opined that provision of physical infrastructure in communities by Fadama user
Groups (FUGs) has increased at a high extent at 84% (Bali) and 54% (Jalingo), respectively.
While respondents from Wukari (94%), Sardauna (96.7%), Karim Lamido (100%) and
Donga (100%) perceived the relationship between Fadama project and provision of physical
infrastructure by Fadama User Groups (FUGs), at a low extent.
56
The afore-mentioned findings indicates that, provision of physical infrastructures by
Fadama User Groups (FUGs) in Bali and Jalingo local government areas is to a large extent
more than other local government areas (Wukari, Sardauna, Karim Lamido and Donga).
Plate 4 depicts a physical infrastructure in Donga local government (road rehabilitation).
Plate 4: Road Rehabilitation Bibinu, Donga LGA
57
3.6 The Extent of Acquisition of Production Assets by Fadama User Groups (FUGS) in Communities
Questionnaire were employed to generate data from respondents and the results
shows that, acquisition of productive assets was low (60.2%) at various communities as
indicated in Table 11.
Table 11: The extent of Acquisition of Productive Assets by Fadama user Groups (FUGs) in communities.
Local Government
Very Low
Extent
Low Extent
High Extent
Very High Extent
Total
Bali 0 5(16.1%) 16(51.6%) 10 (32.3%) 31(100%)
Jalingo 1(0.7%) 36(24.3%) 63(42.6%) 48(32.4%) 148(100%)
Wukari 0 31(96.9%) 1(31.1%) 0 32(100%)
Sardauna 1(1.65%) 59(96.7%) 0 1(1.65%) 61(100%)
Karim Lamido 0 21(100%) 0 0 21(100%)
Donga 0 61(100%) 0 0 61(100%)
Total 2(0.6%) 213(60.2%) 80(22.6%) 59(16.6%) 354(100%)
Source: Fieldwork, 2014-2015
The respondents from other local government areas (Wukari, Sardauna, Karim
Lamido and Donga) as disaggregated in Table 11 indicates that, acquisition of productive
assets by Fadama User Groups (FUGs) is low at 96.9%, 96.7%, 100% and 100%
respectively. This is attest that, few productive assets were acquired by Fadama User Groups
(FUGs) in most areas in Taraba state. Plate 5a and 5b (Grain milling machine).
58
Plate 5a: Grains Milling Machine
Gazabu, Bali LGA
Plate 5b: Grains Milling Machine
Zaggah, Bali, LGA
59
3.7 The Extent of Implementation of Community Driven Development Strategy (CDDS) in Project Execution in Communities
The data were collected from respondents using questionnaire and the results shows
that implementation of National Fadama Development Project (NFDP) as contained in a
development model (community Driven Development strategy). The implementation of
community Driven Development Strategy (CDDS) Project in communities in the study area
(Taraba state) is low (60.2%).
Table 12: The Extent of Implementation of Community Driven Development Strategy (CDDs) in Project execution in communities
Local Government
Very Low Extent
Low Extent
High Extent
Very High Extent
Total
Bali 0 5(16%) 16(52%) 10 (32%) 31(100%)
Jalingo 1(1%) 36(24%) 63(43%) 48(32%) 148(100%)
Wukari 0 31(97%) 1(3%) 0 32(100%)
Sardauna 1(1.6%) 59(96.7%) 0 1(1.6%) 61(100%)
Karim Lamido 0 21(100%) 0 0 21(100%)
Donga 0 61(100%) 0 0 61(100%)
Total 2(0.6%) 213(60.2%) 80(22.6%) 59(16.7%) 354(100%)
(Source: Fieldwork, 2014-2015)
Further review of the implementation of community Driven Development Strategy as
reflected in each local government area in table 12 indicates that Bali (32.3%) and Jalingo
(32.4%) implemented the community Driven Development strategy is at a high extent, while
in Wukari (97%), Sardaunal 96.7%) Karim Lamido (100%) and Donga (100%) is at a low
extent. This is an indication that, the adoption of community Driven Development Strategy
(CDDs) was not used in most areas.
60
CHAPTER FOUR
TREND IN AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION WITHIN THE PERIOD OF IMPLEMENTATION OF NATIONAL FADAMA DEVELOPMENT PROJE CT
IN TARABA STATE 4.1 Introduction
The data for crop production were obtained from government publication (Federal
Ministry of Agriculture and Water Resources, Abuja), analyses of these data were done with
bar chart for each crop within a specified duration, with a view to identifying the trend of
crop production. Table 14 are data on Fadama Project (X) and amount of crops harvested in
tones per hectare (Y) for 10years (2004-2013) in Taraba State of Nigeria for the purpose of
establishing the relationship between Fadama Project and agricultural production.
61
Table 13: Crop Production Record
Year Maize Pepper Rice Melon Okra Onion
1999 6.52 232.85 4.46 5.92
2000 8 210.71 4.4 6.66
2001 8.91 202.81 5.1 7.07
2002 8.91 202.81 5.1 7.07
2003 8.93 226.24 2.14 5.34 6.12
2004 502.1 27 240 20 11.29 9.7
2005 396 33 268 11.85 10.32 29
2006 400 37 306.13 12.6 10.85 30
2007 391.2 28.9 281.5 57.2 4.8 49.4
2008 405.1 200 298 36 49.8 36
2009 350 350 392 40.8 25 48
2010 390 492 192.7 20 53 59
2011 391 285 200 21 52 60.2
2012 426 302 241 27 57 48
2013 459 125 250 31 60 59
(Source: Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Water resources, Abuja, 2014)
4.2 Annual Production of Maize (2004-2013)
Fig. 6 shows an annual Production of maize within the duration of implementation of
National Fadama Development Project (NFDP) in the study area.
62
Fig 6: Annual Production of Maize (2004-2013) (Source: Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Water Resource, Abuja. 2014)
The production rate in figure 6 shows an increased in production of maize from the
period of the introduction of National Fadama Development Project in the study area, and the
increase in crop (maize) production is not consistent, as it fluctuates along certain period
(years), this is attributed to number of factors, namely; ineffective advisory service as on how
best to embark on the cultivation of maize that has high yielding capacity, inadequate farm
machineries, and poor storage facilities.
4.3 Annual Production of Pepper (1999-2013)
Fig. 7 is annual Production of Pepper within the period of implementation of National
Fadama Development Project in Taraba State.
63
Fig. 7: Annual Production of Pepper (1999-2013) (Source: Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Water Resource, Abuja. 2014)
The fig. 7 indicates an improvement in the production of pepper in the study area, as a
result of innovation on cultivation of the crop (pepper), made available through the National
Fadama Development Project in Taraba State, which enable the farmers boost their
production capacity. The accelerated increase in yield of pepper could not be sustained, as it
declined drastically due to non-availability of market to sale this agricultural produce
(pepper), resulting to low cultivation of the crop in the preceding years.
4.4 Annual Production of Rice (1999-2013)
The annual production of rice is depicted in fig. 8 within the duration of
implementation of National Development Project (NFDP) in the study area.
64
Fig. 8: Annual Production of Rice (1999-2013) (Source: Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Water Resource, Abuja. 2014)
Rice production increase steadily as shown in fig 8, due to incentives granted to
farmers, and also the restriction made on the importation of foreign rice, accelerate the
demand for local consumption of rice, the production rate of rice, begin to fluctuate
following the importation of foreign rice into the market, thereby reducing the demand of
rice that is produced in the study area.
4.5 Annual Production of Melon (2003-2013)
Fig. 9 shows the annual production of melon in Taraba State, within the period of
implementation of National Fadama Development Project (NFDP).
65
Fig. 9: Annual Production of Melon (2003-2013) (Source: Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Water Resource, Abuja. 2014)
The production rate of melon ascended rapidly, and also declined as revealed in fig. 9
due to inadequate processing facilities that will guarantee storage, hence the high lost of the
crop (melon) as a result of spoilage at the time of harvest; this is responsible for low rate of
cultivation of melon in the study area.
66
4.6 Annual Production of Okra (1999-2013)
Fig. 10 shows the annual production of Okra in the study area within the period of
implementation of National Fadama Development Project (NFDP).
Fig. 10: Annual Production of Okra (1999-2013) (Source: Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Water Resource, Abuja. 2014)
There is inconsistency in the production of the crop in the study area, and is attributed
to increase demand of Okra in the market, and also the provision of production assets
(irrigation facilities) made available through the National Fadama Development Project
(NFDP), as shown in fig. 10.
67
4.7 Annual Production of Onions (1999-2013)
Fig. 11 contained information on the annual production of onion in Taraba State
within the duration of implementation of National Fadama Development Project (NFDP).
Fig. 11: Annual Production of Onions (1999-2013) (Source: Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Water Resource, Abuja. 2014) The introduction of National Fadama Development Project (NFDP), had enhance the
production of Onion, this is because irrigation facilities were made available to the farmers,
and also with an effective advisory service that educate the farmers on how best to cultivate
onion in a manner that will produce high yield. The high demand of the crop (onion) in the
market is a factor that contributed to high cultivation of onion in the study area (Fig. 11).
68
4.8 Relationship between Fadama Project and Agricultural Production in Taraba State.
Table 14 are data on Fadama Project (x) and amount of crops harvested in tones per
hectare (y) for ten years in Taraba State. The data on Fadama Project (x) is adopted from a
computation of crop production record in appendix 7.
Table 14: Fadama Project and Agricultural Production
X Y X2 Y2 XY
50 810.09 2500 656245.81 40504.5
76 748.17 5778 559758.35 56860.92
93 796.58 8649 634539.69 74081.94
85 813 7225 660969 69105
125 1024.9 15625 1052265.64 1281122.5
148 1205.8 21904 1453953.64 178458.4
70 1206.7 4900 1456124.89 84469
100 1009.2 10000 1018484.64 100920
189 1101 35721 1275989841 2088089
200 984 40000 968256 196800
Σx = 1136 Σy = 9699.44 Σx2 = 152302 Σy = 128,445,04399 Σxy = 3017401.26
Source: Fieldwork, 2015
69
( ) ( )
Σ−Σ
Σ−Σn
yy
n
xx
22
22
( ) ( )10
44.9699113626.3017401 −=
( ) ( )
−
−
10
44.969999.043,445,128
10
1136152302
22
( )( )63.990791399.043,445,12838.01856.1126.30174016.129049152302 −
−=−
( ) ( )88.19155444.1990371304.23252
=
88.19155447678988971.2
=
112.115376
663700385.1
88.1915544
=
=
r
( )( )n
xyxxy
ΣΣ−Σ=γ
70
4.9 Significance Test
Ho: “There is no significance relationship between Fadama Project and Agricultural
Production in Taraba State.
r
r
nr
21
2
−
−=
21
210112.1151376
r−
−=
( )32666695.1(1
8112.1151376
−=
326666951.0
83.2112.1151376
−=
5715478554.0
42.1926914=
= 3388892.82
r = 3388893
At 0.05 level of significance and 8 degree of freedom, critical value of ‘t’, from table table
(Appendix: 8) is 1.86. Since the calculated‘t’ of 3388893 is greater than 1.86, the null
hypothesis is rejected. Therefore, there is significant relationship between Fadama Project
and agricultural production in Taraba State.
71
CHAPTER FIVE
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
5.1 Summary
This study reviewed the National Fadama Development Project (NFDP) in Taraba
State, with reference to: patterns and factors of distribution of the Project (NFDP), spatial
impact of the Project (NFDP) in Taraba State, and trend in agricultural Production within the
duration of implementation of the Project (NFDP) was examined. This is aim at determining
its impact on agricultural production. Data were obtained from six (6) local government areas
of the state (Taraba), each of the 3 senatorial district is represented by two (2) local
governments. The data were generated using questionnaire, Garmin GPS, government
publications, field observation and conduct of interview. Analysis of data were done with the
aid of a statistical package for social science (SPSS) and mean interpretation was carried out
with 5-points likert-type scale.
The findings of this research implies that, National Fadama Development Project
(NFDP) is not evenly distributed in Taraba State, as the project (NFDP) is cluster in certain
parts of the state and disperse in some areas. This is attributed to some factors, namely;
efficient awareness campaign, availability of Fadama lands and high income generation of
fadama users. Also, the Project (NFDP) has made a significant improvement on agricultural
production in few areas in Taraba State, base on the low income generation of most
participants of the Project (NFDP), and acquisition of productive assets (irrigation facilities,
grinding machines, poultry farms, fish ponds) are less in many areas. Consequently,
participants of the Project (National Fadama Development Project) initiates the provision of
few physical infrastructures (bridges, market-stores, culverts). This result is in consonance
with the previous studies on National Fadama Development Project (NFDP): Echeme and
72
Nwachukwu (2010); Bature et al. (2013); Girei et al. (2014) and Mohammed et al. (2014).
Specifically, Mohammed et al. (2014) opined that, agricultural productivity is low and most
resources as idle. The trend in agricultural production revealed a significant increased in crop
production of certain species of crops. This finding is inline with Oruonye (2011), which
shows the potential benefits of fadama farming through irrigation in Taraba State.
5.2 Conclusion
The findings of this enquiry form the basis for making the following conclusion, as
thus:
i. The National Fadama Development Project (NFDP) is not evenly distributed in Taraba
State. It is cluster in certain parts of the state and disperse in some places (areas).
ii. The distribution of National Fadama Development Project (NFDP) is due to a number of
factors, these are: efficient awareness campaign, availability of fadama land, increase in
income of fadama users and face to face communication between fadama users.
iii. The Project (NFDP) has improved agricultural production significantly, in few areas of
Taraba Sate.
iv. Crop production has increased substantially within the period of implementation of
National Fadama Development Project (NFDP) in Taraba State.
5.3 Recommendation
Based on the findings made and conclusion drawn, the following recommendations
were made:
i. Public awareness campaign that will inform the populace about the intent and benefits
of National Fadama Development Project (NFDP) be intensified across the study area,
and it should be done in collaboration with relevant stakeholders (traditional rulers,
73
religious organization, age-groups, political leaders) this is capable of winning the
confidences of the people towards embracing the project (NFDP).
ii. The advisory services of the project (NFDP) be extended to the rural areas so as to
convince the people on the need to embrace the project (NFDP).
iii. Implementation of sub-projects be supervised, adequately and periodically to ensure
compliance with specific standard.
iv. There should be transparency in the disbursement of funds and this should be done
using the window provided through Information Communication and Technology
(ICT) to ensure that funds are made available to the target audience.
v. Grazing areas be created to enable the herdsmen tend their cattle without hindrance and
any herdsmen found to contravene this arrangement be fined. The traditional rulers
should organize regular interface with the herdsmen and farmers on issues as it affect
their occupation (agriculture) and mediate between the farmers and the Fulani
herdsmen.
5.4 Limitation of the Study
There are limitations in this study, some of which include:
i. Inability to access some communities due to communal crises.
ii. Bad road network in most rural communities, hence affecting coverage of rural areas.
iii. Inadequate data from relevant government agencies.
iv. Inadequate information of the project (National Fadama Development Project) amongst
the populace.
74
5.5 Suggestion for Further Studies
The following areas need to be explored in subsequent research on National Fadama
Development Project (NFDP) in Taraba State;
i. The need to expand the scope of the study by investigating the impact of agricultural
financing on small-scale farmers, and also identify the distance between Fadama
Project and the nearest market.
ii. There is need to extend the areas of coverage (study area) to other participating local
government areas.
75
REFERENCES
ABUBAKAR, I.U. (2012): Medium Term Impact of Fadama III Project in Taraba State. Unpublished Report, Taraba State Fadama Coordination Office, Jalingo Nigeria.
ABUI, Y.M. (2004): “The Constraints of Agricultural Development in Zango-Kafa Local
government Area.” Kaduna State Journal of Agricultural Technology. Vol. 12, No.4. Pp. 47-51.
ADEBISI A. O., OLAJIDE-TAIWO, F. B. and ADEOYE T. B. (2011); “Analysis of
Production Constraints Facing Fadama Vegetable Farmers in Oyo State, Nigeria”. World Journal of Agricultural Science. Vol. 7, No. 2. Pp. 189-192.
ADEGBITE, D.A; OLORUNTOBA, A.O: ADUBI, K.O., OYEKUNLE, O. and SOBANKE,
O. (2008): “Impact of National Fadama Development Project II on Small-Scale Farmers’ Income in Oyo State: Implications for Agricultural Financing in Nigeria”. Journal of sustainable Development in Africa. Vol. 10, No. 3, Pp 103-126.
ADESOJI, S.A., FARINDE, A.J. and AJAYI O.A. (2006): Assessment of the Training Needs
of Fadama Farmers for Future Agricultural Extension Work in Osun State, Nigeria. Journal of Applied Science. Vol. 6, No.15, Pp. 3089-3095.
ADEWUMI, M.O. and OMOTESHO, O.A. (2002): “An Analysis of Production Objective of
Small Rural Farming Households in Kwara State, Nigeria”. Journal of Rural Development. Vol. 25. Pp. 201-211.
ADINNA, E.N. (2001): “The Adverse Impacts of Agriculture on the Environment”. In
OFOMATA, G.E.K. and Phil-EZE, P.O. (eds), Geographical Perspective of Environment Problems and Management in Nigeria. Jamoe Enterprises, Abakp-Nike, Enugu. Pp. 215-235.
ADUGAH, E.O. (2008): “The Impact of Fadama II Project on Agricultural Development in
Donga Local Government Area”. Unpublished HND Project College of Agriculture Jalingo. Nigeria.
AFOLAMI, C. (2014): “Multidimensional Poverty Alleviation in Nigeria and National
Development: The Inseparable Siamese twins”. An Inaugural lecture, federal University of Agriculture, Abeokuta, Ogun State. No. 47.
AJAYI, C.O.A. (2001): The Role and Expectation of Agricultural Extension in poverty
Alleviation in Democratic and deregulated economy. In AGBAMU, J.J. (ed), Perspectives in Agricultural Extension and Rural Development. Pp. 87-90.
76
AKANGBE, J. A., OGUNYINKA, W., AYANKA, I.F., ACHEM, B. and ADISA, R.S. (2012): “Assessment of Effects of Fadama II Project on Livelihood of Farmers in Orire Local Government Area of Oyo State, Nigeria”. Nigeria Journal of Agriculture, Food and Environment. Vol. 8, No. 1, Pp. 27-32.
AKINBILE, L.A., ASHIMOLOWO, O.R., and OLADOJA, M.A. (2006): “Rural Youth
Participation in Infrastructural Development of Ibarapa East Government Area of Oyo State”. Journal of Rural Sociology. Vol. 6, No. 2. Pp 40-48.
AKINLEYE, S.O., AWONIYI. S.M. and FAPOJUWO, E.O. (2006): “Evaluation of the
National Fadama Development Project Approach to Rural Development: Lessons for local Councils in Nigeria”. FAM a journal. Vol.8, No. 1, Pp. 50-57.
AKUBUILO, C.J.C. (1987): “Adoption of Innovation among Farmers in Anambra State”.
Unpublished M.Sc. Project, University of Nigeria, Nsukka. ALABI, O. O., OGBONNA, I.E., LAWAL, A.F and AWOYINKA, Y.K. (2014):
“Assessment of Fadama Project Phase II in Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, Nigeria”. Journal of Agricultural Extension and Rural development. Vol. 6, No. 1, Pp. 44-47.
AMBINKANME, A. H., SULE, S.S., AHMED, A., PETERS, D. and MAGAJI, Y. A.
(2014): “Taraba State within the Nigeria Centenary (1914-2014)” Jalingo, Nigeria. ARENE, C.J. (2008): Agricultural Economic: A Functional Approach Prize Publishing,
Enugu. ARENE, C.J. (2008): Economic Analysis of Agricultural and Rural Development Projects.
Planning, Appraisal, Implementation and Evaluation, SNAAP, Enugu Pp. 1-17. AROKOYO, T. (2002): “Sustaining Development and the Problem of Priority Setting”. A
paper presented at the workshop on the methodology for Determination of priorities Themes in Agriculture. Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria Nigeria.
ATALA, T.K. (1990): “Diffusion and Adoption of Innovations, Strengthening Agricultural
Extension in Nigeria” Report Manuals for Workshop on Extension Training Principles and Methods. NAERLS, Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria, Nigeria.
BABA, K.M. and SINGH, B.R. (1998): “Sustainable Development of Fadama Lands in
Northern Nigeria: A review of Potentials and Challenges”. Nigerian Journal of Rural Sociology. Vol. 2, Pp. 95-105.
BABATUNDE, R.O. FAKAYODE, S.B. and OBAFEMI, A.A. (2008): “Fadama Maize
Production in Nigeria”. Research Journal of Agricultural Science. Vol. 4, No. 5. Pp. 340-345.
77
BALA, B. (2007): “Assessment of Fadama II Project Among Beneficiaries of Ardo-Kola Local Government Area”. Unpublished HND Project, College of Agriculture, Jalingo. Nigeria.
BALOGUN, O.S., ALIYU, T.H. and MUSA, A.K. (2013): “Perception of Fadama III
Participation Farmers on Pests and Diseases and the Use of Integrated Pest Management Control Strategy in Kwara- State, Nigeria.” Ethiopian Journal of Environmental Studies and Management. Vol. 6, No. 6, Pp 601-610.
BATURE, M..Y. SANNI, A.A, and ADEBAYO, O.F. (2013): “Analysis of Impact of
National Fadama Development Projects on Beneficiaries Income and Wealth in Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, Nigeria”. Journal of Economic and Sustainable Development Vol. 14, No. 17. Pp. 11-23.
BOWLER, I.R. (2013): “Government Agricultural Polices”, in PACIONE M.(ed), Progress
in Agricultural Geography Routledge, London. Pp. 124-148. CARTER, J.D., BARBER, W. and TAIT, E. A. (1963): “The Geology of Parts of Adamawa,
Bauchi and Bornu Provinces in North-Eastern Nigeria”. Bull. No. 30, Geological Survey of Nigeria. Pp. 108.
CLARK, G. (2013): “Diffusion of Agricultural Innovations”, In PACIONE, M. (ed).
Progress in Agricultural Geography. Routledge, Lodnon. Pp. 70-92. COE, N.M., KELLY, P.F. and YENUG, H.W.C. (2012): “Economic Geography: A
contemporary Introduction. Blackwell, Australia. Pp. 59-86. DAUDA, S. (2008): Determinants of Role Performance Effectiveness among facilitators in
the second National Fadama Development project in Nigeria. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, University of Nigeria, Nsukka.
DUPREEZ, J.W. AND BARBER, W. (1965): The Distribution and Chemical quality of
Ground Water in Northern Nigeria. Bull. 36. Geological Survey of Nigeria, pp. 93. ECHEME, I.I. and NWACHUKWU, C.C. (2010): “An Investigation on the Impact of
Fadama II Project Implementation in Imo State”. American Journal of Scientific and Industrial Research. Vol. 1. No. 3. Pp. 532-538.
EDACHE, O. (2006): Agricultural Revolution in Nigeria”. The Punch, Vol. 7, No. 19973,
Pp. 1 EDOZIE, E.C. (2010): “Impact of Assessment of Fadama II Project on Fadama Household in
Anambra-East Local Government Area of Anambra State”. Unpublished HND Project, College of Agriculture, Jalingo. Nigeria.
78
EMAH, G.N. (1995): Participation of Small Scale Farmers in Programmes of Rivers State Agricultural Development Project. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, University of Nigeria, Nsukka.
EZEIBE, A.B.C. (2012): “Women Labour Utilization in Crop Production in Abia State”.
Unpublished Ph.D Thesis, University of Nigeria, Nsukka. FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF NIGERIA (2006). National Population commission, FEDERAL MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT (2003):
National Fadama Development Project Appraisal Report, Nigeria. FEDERAL MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND WATER RESOURCES (2008): Fadama
III Project Implementation Manual. National Fadama Coordination Office Vol. 1. Abuja.
FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION (2001): Food Sufficiency and National
Development, Lagos, Nigeria. GAYA, S. U. (2012): Grazing Field for Fulani Herdsmen Leadership, April 3, Vol. 13, No.
120. Pp. 3. GIREI, A.A. and DIRE, B. (2013): “Impact of National Fadama II Project on the Social-
Economic Characteristics of Crop Farmers in Adamawa State, Nigeria”. International Journal of Innovative Agricultural and Biology Research. Vol. 1, No. 2, Pp. 31-38.
GIREL, A.A. and DIRE, B. (2013): “Profitability and Technical efficiency among the
beneficiary crop farmers of National Fadama II project in Adamawa State Nigeria”, Journal of Agricultural Science. Vol. 1, No.3, Pp. 87-92.
GIREL, A.A; ILIYA, M.M. and SALIHU, M. (2014): “Assessment of Problems Associated
to Fadama Crop Farming: An Experience of the Fadama II Beneficiary Crop Farmers in Adamawa State, Nigeria”. Journal of Agriculture and Veterinary Science. Vol. 7, No. 1, Pp. 18-22.
GRANT, N.K. (1971): “A Compilation of Radiometric Age from Nigeria”. Journal of
Mining Geology No. 6, Pp. 37-54. GRIGG D.B. (2013): “The World Food Problem,” in Pacione, M. (ed), Progress in
Agricultural Geography, Croom Helm, London. Pp. 239-263. GRIGG, D. (1995): “An Introduction to Agricultural Geography”, New York, 2nd ed.
Routledge. Pp 60-69. HARTSHORN, T.A. and ALEXANDER, J.W. (2010): Economic Geography P.H.L.
Learning Private Limited, New Delhi. 3rd edition.
79
HENRI-UKOHA, A., OHAJIANYA D. O., NWOSU, F. O., ONYEAGOCHA, S.U. O. and NWANKO, U.E. (2011): “Effect of World Bank Assisted Fadama II Project on the Performance of Fish Farming in Imo State, South East Nigeria: A Comparative Evaluation”. American Journal of Experimental Agriculture. Vol.1. No. 4, Pp. 450-457.
IDOGHE, D.E. and OVWIGHO, B.O. (2003): “the Socio-Economic Impact of the National
Fadama Development Project on Heads of Farm Families in Delta State, Nigeria”. International Journal of Economic and Development Issues. Vol. 3, No.1, Pp. 58-67.
IDOKO, I.F. and IYADI, R.C. (2012): “Alleviating High Agricultural Input and Product
Prices as an Imperative for Nigeria to attain Food Security for vision 20;20;20.” TSU Journal of Arts and Social Science. Vol. 1, No. 2. Pp.1-2.
IHEANACHO, A.C., NDAGU, A. and HARUNA, L. (2007): Beneficiary Assessment of the
Second National Fadama Development State Fadama Coordination Office (SFCO), Adamawa State, Nigeria.
IKE. P. C. (2012): “An Analysis of the impact of Fadama III Project on Poverty Alleviation
in Delta State, Nigeria”. Asian Journal of Agricultural Science. Vol. 4. No. 2. Pp. 158-164.
INGAWA, S., OREDIPE, A.A., IDEFOR, K. and OKAFOR, C. (2004): “Facilitators
Projects Implementation Manual”. Second National Fadama Development Project. Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development. Abuja, Nigeria.
INI, H. (2013): “The land Holds the Aces”, TELL February 4, No. 5, P. 67-68. INNIH, C.D. and DIMELU, M.U. (2013): “Participation and Attitude of Beneficiaries to the
Third National Fadama Development Project in Kogi State, Nigeria”. Journal of Agricultural Extension. Vol. 17, No. 2. Pp.
ISHAKU, J.M., KWADA, I.A. and ADEKEYE, J.I.D. (2009): “Hydro geological
Characterization and Water Supply Potential of Basement Aquifers in Taraba State, North-East Nigeria”. Nature and Science. Vol. 7, No.3, Pp. 40-48.
JACOD L. C., SORENSEN, C. and RAZAVIEH, A. (2010): Introduction to research in
Education. Belmonth, USA. JEN, S.U. (2002): Fundamentals of research methodology. Paraclete publishers Yola. KALU, B.A. (2008): “Interplay of the Components and the Value control Mechanism of
Productivity Pathways in Farming System.” An Inaugural Lecture, University of Agriculture, Makudi. No.7.
KERLINGER, F. N. (1979). Foundation of Behavioural Research University Press, New
York.
80
KHAN, M.H. (2008): “Rural Poverty in Developing Countries”. Finance and Development, Washington: IMF.
KUDI, T.M., USMAN, I., AKPOLO, J.G and BANTA, A.L. (2008): “Analysis of the Impact
of National Fadama Development Project II (NFDP) in Alleviating Poverty among Farmers in Giwa Local Government Area of Kaduna State, Nigeria”. Ozean Journal of Applied Science. Vol. 1, No. 1. Pp. 8-15.
LIBERY, B.W. (2013): Theory and Methodology in Agricultural Geography in PACIONE,
M. (ed), Progress in Agricultural Geography, Routledge, New York. Pp. 13 - 37 MACLEOAD, W.N., TURNER, D.C. and WRIGHT, E. P. (1971): The geology of Jos,
Plateau State Geological Survey of Nigeria. No. 32, Pp. 18. MADU, U. A. and PHOA, J. (2012): “The Effect of Fadama II on Agro-Processing Among
Farmers in Adamawa State, Nigeria”. Global Advanced Research Journal. Vol. 1, No. 5, Pp. 117-122.
MAJUMDAR, D.K. (2004): Irrigation Water Management Principles and Practice. Prentice,
India. Pp. 1-31. MAMMAN, A.B., OYEBANJI, J.O. and PETTERS, S.W. (2000): Nigeria a people United, a
future Assured. Vol. 2 Survey of State, Gabumo. Yola. Nigeria. MAYHEW, S. (2006): Dictionary of Geography. Oxford University Press, New Delhi. MBA, L.C. (2012): “Status of agricultural Geography” Unpublished M.Sc/Ph.D Project,
University of Nigeria, Nsukka. MCCURRY, P. (1976): “A Generalized Review of the Geology of the Precambians to Lower
Paleozoic Rocks, Northern Nigeria”. In KOGBE, C. A. (ed), Geology of Nigeria. Elizabethan Press. Lagos. Pp. 13-38.
MOHAMMAD, H.U., UMAR, B.F., ABUBAKAR, B.Z. AND ABDULLAHI, A.S. (2011):
“Assessment of Factors Influencing Beneficiary Participation in Fadama II Project in Niger State, Nigeria”. Nigeria Journal of Basic and Applied Science. Vol. 19, No. 2, Pp. 248-252.
MOHAMMED, M.I., BABA, K. M. and TANKO, L. (2014): “Impact of Second National
Fadama Development Project on Income and Wealth of Crop Farmers in Niger State, Nigeria”. International Journal of Agriculture Science. Vol. 4, Pp. 224-234.
MUOGHALU, L. N. (2014): “Functionality, dysfunctionality or neutrality of growth poles
and growth centres in Nigeria via-a-vis National Planning Objectives”, IN NWAFOR, J.C., BOB-DURU, R.C. and ANYADIKE, R. N. C (eds), Geographical Report of the University of Nigeria, Essays in Honour of Professor G.E.K. Ofomata. Jamoe Enterprises, Enugu, Nigeria. Pp. 103-127.
81
MUOGHALU, L.N. (1986): “Structures and Patterns of Community Development Projects in Anambra State, Nigeria: An Appraissal”. Community Development Journal. Vol. 21, No. 1, Pp. 34-41.
NARASAIAH, M.L. and SURESH, K. (1999): Agricultural Production. Discovery
Publishing, New Delhi. NATIONAL FADAMA COORDINATION OFFICE (2008): Fadama II Project
Implementation Manual. Vol. 1. Abuja, Nigeria. NWACHUKWU, I.N; AGWU, M.M; EZEH, C.T; MBANASOR, J.I; ONYENWEAKU,
E.E., and KAMU, C.E (2014): “Evaluation of second National Fadama Development Project in Nigeria: Rapid Appraisal”.
NWAFOR, J.C. and MADU, I.A. (2002): Issues in Population and Rural Development
Fulladu, Enugu. NWORGU, B.G. (1991): Educational Research: Basic Issues and Methodology. Wisdom
Publishers, Ibadan. NWORGU, B.G. (2009): “Research Design and Data Analysis Techniques” In
ANYAKOHA, E. U. (ed) Development Research Skills: Concept and Conceptual Frameworks, Great AP Express Publishers, Nsukka-Nigeria. Pp. 121-140.
OBIECHINA, C.O.B. (2000): Increased Food Production and Alleviating Poverty Through
Fadama Small scale Irrigated Farming in Anambra State, Awka (ADP) Nigeria Pp. 1-4.
OCHERI, M. and CHUKWU, M. (2012): “Ground Water”, In ANYADIKE, R.N.C. and
OBETA, M.C. (eds), Fundamentals of Hydrology Chuka Education. Nsukka. Pp. 81-93.
ODILI, C. (2014): “Agriculture is High Yield Investment”, New Telegrah, July II, Vol. 1, No.
143, Pp. 35. OFUEBE, C. AND IZUKEKE, E. (2011): Data Demand for Development Research. Prince
Digital Press, Enugu. OGUNDELA, S.O. (2001): “Fadama Production in Ondo and Osun State, Nigeria”.
Unpublished B. Tech, Thesis, Federal University of Technology, Akure. Nigeria. OGUNJIMI, L.A.O. and ADEKAU, K.O. (2002): “Constraints of Small Irrigation (Fadama)
in Nigeria” . Food Review International Vol. 8, No.4, Pp. 295-304. OGUONDU, C.N. (2012): “Fiscal Management and Grassroots Development: Issues and
Concerns in the Nigerian Context’’. An Inaugural Lecturer, University of Nigeria, Nsukka No. 71.
82
OJO O.O. (2012): “Resource Use Efficiency Among Fadama Crop Farmers in Ibadan/Ibarapa Agricultural Zone of Oyo State Nigeria”. Unpublished M.Sc. Thesis, University of Nigeria. Nsukka.
OJO, O.M. (2011): “Impact of the National Fadama Development Project Phase II on Rick
Farmers Beneficiaries in Kogi State, Nigeria”. Unpublished M.Sc. Project, University of Nigeria, Nsukka.
OLADOJA, M.A. and ADEOKUN, O. A. (2009): “An Appraisal of the National Fadama
Development Project (NFDP) in Ogun State, Nigeria”. Medwell Journals. Vol. 4, No. 3, Pp. 124-129.
OLAOLU, M. O., AKINNAGBE, O.M. and AGBER, T. (2013): “Impact of national Fadama
Development Project Phase (II) on Poverty and Food Security among Rice Farming Beneficiaries in Kogi State, Nigeria”. Vol. I No. 10, Pp.280-295.
OLATUNBODE, A.A. (1990): “Financing Nigeria Agriculture”: Challenges of the 1990s. A
journal of the Nigerian Agricultural and Cooperative Bank Ltd, Vol. 2, No. 3, Pp 8-20.
OLIVER, Y. B. (2013): “Development and Validation of Business Communication Training
Programme for Small Business Operation in North-East, Nigeria”. Unpublished Ph.D Thesis, University of Nigeria, Nsukka.
OLOROTIMO, O. and DODO, F. (2014): “Researchers Advocate Community Driven
Agriculture”. New Telegraph, September 12. Vol. 1. No. 206 P. 34. ONUOHA, R. (2014): “Why Many Nigerians Live Below $ 1 A Day.” Nigeria News World,
Vol. 17, No. 23, P. 20-21. ORIOLE, E.D. (2009): “A Framework for Food Security and Poverty Reduction in Nigeria”.
European Journal of Social Science. Vol.8, No.1. ORUONYE, E.D. (2011): “Assessment of Fadama Dry Season Farming Through Small
Scale irrigation System in Jalingo LGA, Taraba State”. International Research Journal of Agricultural Science and Soil Science. Vol. 1, No. 1. Pp. 014-019.
ORUONYE, E.D. (2011): “Reducing Rural poverty and Development Livelihood
Opportunity Through Irrigation Farming in Taraba State, Nigeria”. International Journal of Plant Animal and Environmental Science. Vol. 1, No. 1. Pp. 144-150.
ORUONYE, E.D. and BASHER, A. (2010): The Geography of Taraba State, Nigeria. Fab
Educational Books (In-Press). OYIGOGA, O.G. (2010): “Economic Assessment of the National Fadama Development
Programme in Kano State: A Comparative Study of Beneficiaries and Non-Beneficiaries”. Unpublished M.Sc. Project, University of Nigeria, Nsukka.
83
PACIONE, M. (2009): Urban Geography. A global perspective: Routledge, New York. 3rd
edition. PHIL-EZE, P.O. (2001): “Biodiversity and Environmental problems in Nigeria”. In
OFOMATA, G.E.K. and PHIL-EZE, P.O (eds), Geographic Perspective on Environmental Problems and Management in Nigeria”. Jamoe Publishers, Enugu, Nigeria. Pp. 33-52.
RICHARD, O.K. (1987): “Mobilizing People for Development”. The Nigerian Interpreter,
November 10, Pp. 6-7. ROGERS, F.M. and SHOEMAKER, F.F. (191). Communication of innovation: a cross-
cultural approach. Free press, New York. SHAGUFTA, C.J. (2010): Dictionary of environmental science, A.P.H. Publishing
Corporation, New Helhi. SHEMPAM, G.D. (1995): “Solid waste Disposal management: A case of Jalingo
Metropolis”. Unpublished B. Tech Project, Federal University of Technology, Yola. Nigeria.
SHENPAM, D.G. (2015): “Effects of Kaduna Metropolitan Landuse on Kaduna River Water
quality”. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, University of Nigeria, Nsukka. SIMONYA, J.B. and OMOLEHIN, R.A. (2012): “Analysis of Impact of Fadama II Project
on Beneficiary Farmers Income in Kaduna State; A double Difference Method Approach”. International Journal of Economic and Management Science. Vol. 1, No. 11, Pp 01-08.
SIMONYAH, J.B., OLUKOSI, J.O., OMOLEHIN, R. A. and ATALA, T.K.A.(2012):
“Productivity and Technical Efficiency among Beneficiary Farmers of Second National Fadama Project in Kaduna State, Nigeria”. American Journal of Experimental Agriculture. Vol. 2, No. 1, Pp. 102-110.
SMITH, W. (2013): “Agricultural Marketing and Distribution In PACIONE, M. (ed),
Progress in Agricultural Geography. Routledge, New York. Pp. 219-238. STATE FADAMA COORDINATION OFFICE (2008): “Paper Presented on State Fadama
Development Committee Sensitization Workshop”. May 8, Jalingo. SULE, J.Y. (2006): Rural Development in Perspective Diolus, Ikorodu-Lagos. TANKO, L., JIRGI, A. J. and OGUNDEJI, A. A. (2010): “Impact of Fadama II Project on
Income of Tomato Farmers in Nigeria State, Nigeria.” African Journal of Agricultural Research Vol. 5, No. 15. Pp. 1937-1942.
84
TAPHEE, G.B. and JANGUR, A.A. (2014): “Productivity and Efficiency of Groundnut Farming in Northern Taraba state, Nigeria”. Journal of Agriculture and Sustainability Vol. 5, No. 1. Pp. 45-56.
TARABA STATE GOVERNMENT (2012): Official Diary Vol. 12. No 12. Jalingo. Nigeria. TAYLOR, P.J. (1977): Quantitative methods in Geography. Houghton Mifflin, Boston in
ANYADIKE, R.N.C. (2009): Statistical methods for the social and Environmental Science. Spectrum, Ibadan.
TROUGHTON, M.J. (2013): “Farming System in the Modern World”. In PACIONE, M.
(ed), Progress in Agricultural Geography. Routledge. New York: Pp. 93-123. TURNER, D.C. (1964): “Notes on Field Work on the Basement Rocks of 1:250,000 Sheets 7
and 8”. Geological/Survey of Nigeria. No. 5503. TYOHEMBA, K. (2014): “Driving Agricultural Development: World Bank to Rescue”. New
Telegraph, July 18, Vol. 1, No. 150. Pp. 34. UMAR, A.M., PHOA, C. L. and KAHALQUE, M. (2012): “An Investigation on the Impact
of Fadama II Project on the Adoption and Demand for Advisory Services in Adamawa State, Nigeria”. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Science. Vol. 2, No. 1. Pp. 62-71.
UZOAGULU, A.E. (2011): Practical guide to Writing Research Project Reports in tertiary
Institutions. Cheston, Enugu, Nigeria. Pp. 53-122. VOSANKA, I.P: MADUGU, A.J. and DONYE, A.O. (2010); “Evaluation of Beneficiaries
participation in Fadama II Development Project: A study of Taraba State, Nigeria”. Journal of Middle East Applied Science and Technology (JMEASI) Vol. 102 No. 202 Pp. 131-140.
WORLD BANK (1990): “Poverty, World Development Report, Oxford Press. WORLD BANK (2003); Second National Fadama Development Project. Appraisal
Document. WORLD BANK (2008); Managing Land in changing climate: An Operation perspective for
Sub-sahara African. World Bank Mimeo. YAKUBU, G.C. (2014): “Public Perception of the Performance of the Legislature in Taraba
State (1999-2011)”. Unpublished M.Sc. Thesis, Benue State University Makurdi. Nigeria.
85
APPENDIX: 1A
LETTER OF VALIDATION OF INSTRUMENT Department of Geography, University of Nigeria, Nsukka. November, 2014.
----------------------------- ----------------------------- ----------------------------- Dear Sir/Madam
LETTER OF VALIDATION OF INSTRUMENT
I am a postgraduate student in the Department of Geography of the above named
institution. I am carrying out a research on: “Impact of National Fadama Development
Project on Agricultural Production in Taraba State, Nigeria”.
Attached herewith are a draft copy of the developed questionnaire, which contained
the aim and objectives of the study, hypotheses and also validation of instrument form. You
are requested to vet and make inputs so that the intent of the study can be achieved.
Thanks.
Yours faithfully, Meshack, Jonathan Ikpi PG/M.Sc/12/63607
86
APPENDIX: 1B
VALIDATION OF INSTRUMENT FORM
UNIVERSITY OF NIGERIA
NSUKKA, ENUGU STATE
DEPARTMENT OF GEOGRAPHY
VALIDATION OF INSTRUMENT FOR A TOPIC TITLED:
“ IMPACT OF NATIONAL FADAMA DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ON
AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION IN TARABA STATE, NIGERIA”.
This is to certify that I, ………………………………….. validated the above
mentioned instrument and made corrections on the following areas:-
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………
After the amendments, I considered the instrument fit for the study which it was
designed.
Name: ………………………………………………………………………………………
Signature:…………………………………………………………………………….……..
Date: ………………………………………………………………………………………..
87
APPENDIX: 2
APPOINTMENT OF RESEARCH ASSISTANT
Department of Geography, University of Nigeria, Nsukka. Enugu State. January, 2015
-------------------------
-------------------------
--------------------------
Dear Sir/Madam
APPOINTMENT OF RESEARCH ASSISTANT
I am a postgraduate student in the Department of Geography of the above mentioned
institution. I am conducting a study towards examining the: “Impact of National Fadama
Development Project on Agricultural Production in Taraba State, Nigeria”.
You are to serve as a research assistant and your duty is to assists in the course of this
research. Further information will be made available to you as you accept this assignment.
Thanks.
Yours faithfully,
Meshack, Jonathan Ikpi PG/M.Sc/12/63607
88
APPENDIX: 3
LETTER OF INTRODUCTION
Department of Geography, University of Nigeria, Nsukka. Enugu State. June, 2014
-------------------------
-------------------------
--------------------------
Dear Sir/Madam
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN
The bearer, MESHACK, JONATHAN IKPI is a bona fide Postgraduate student of
the Department of Geography, University of Nigeria, Nsukka. His registration number is
PG/M.Sc/12/63607.
The purpose of this letter is to identify him as our student. Please accord him all the
necessary assistance he may require.
Thanks.
Prof. I. A. Madu Head of Department
89
APPENDIX: 4
QUESTIONNAIRE ON IMPACT OF NATIONAL FADAMA DEVELOPM ENT PROJECT ON AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION IN TARABA STATE, NIGERIA
Department of Geography University of Nigeria, Nsukka. Enugu State.
Dear Sir/Madam
Questionnaire on impact of National Fadama Development Project on Agricultural
Production in Taraba State, Nigeria
I am a postgraduate student, conducting an enquiry on the above topic, the result of
this study will help to ascertain the extent at which the National Fadama Development
Project (NFDP), has achieve it’s objectives in the study area (Taraba State).
I am interested in your responses, because it will contribute significantly in enhancing
the quality of this research, and also advance the frontier of knowledge. In view of this, I
request that you answer the questions below and return the questionnaire. Whatever
information you supply will not be disclosed.
Thanks.
Yours faithfully,
Meshaok, Jonathan Ikpi Pg/M.Sc/12/63607
90
1. Local Government Area ----------------------------------------------------
2. Community -------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Sex Male [ ]; Female [ ]
4. Age (years): Less than 20 [ ]; 20 – 29 [ ]; 30–39 [ ]; 40 – 49 [ ];50 – 59 [
]; 60 and above[ ].
5. Marital status: (a) Single [ ]; (b) Married [ ]; (c) Divorced [ ]; (d) Widowed [
].
6. Educational Qualification: (a) None [ ]; (b) FSLC [ ]; (c) JSC [ ]; (d) SSC [
]; (e) ND/NCE [ ]; (f) University Degree/HND [ ]; (g) Masters Degree [ ];
(h) Ph.D [ ].
7. Occupation: (a) Farmer [ ]; (b) Civil Servant [ ]; (c) Public Servant [ ]; (d)
Artisan [ ]; (e) Others [ ].
Please indicate by a tick (√) your opinion on the questions below using the scale: VHE =
Very High Extent, HE = High Extent, LE = Low Extent, VLE = Very Low Extent. Use the
scale to answer: 1- 6.
1. To what extent would your rate government intervention in agricultural through the
National Fadama Development Project in your community. VHE [ ]; HE [ ]; LE [
]; VLE [ ].
2. Has the introduction of new ideas on Fadama farming by the National Development
Project boasted agricultural production in your area? VHE [ ]; HE [ ];
LE [ ]; VLE [ ];
3. Has the National Fadama Development Project increase the income of Fadama users
through awareness campaign on an effective use of Fadama resources.
VHE [ ]; HE [ ]; LE [ ]; VLE [ ].
91
4. To what extent did Fadama user groups be able to provide physical infrastructure
(Feeder-Roads, Bridges, culverts) etc in your community. VHE [ ]; HE [ ]; LE [ ];
VLE [ ].
5. The Fadama user groups are to acquire productive asserts (Groundnut oil extracting
machine, grain milling machine, maize shelter etc) to enable beneficiaries own such
assert. Did you think this objective is achieve VHE [ ]; HE [ ]; LE [ ]; VLE [ ].
6. The National Fadama Development Project adopted a community driven Development
strategy (CDDs) which afford Fadama users the opportunity to initial a project to be
executed in their community. To what extend has this strategy facilitate development.
VHE [ ]; HE [ ]; LE [ ]; VLE [ ].
Answer the following questions by ticking an option base on your opinion, using this scale:
SA = Strongly Agree, A = Agree, D = Disagree, SD = Strongly Disagree.
1. The awareness campaign on the importance of National Fadama Development Project
is responsible for the distribution of the project (NFDP) in your community.
SA [ ]; A [ ]; DA [ ]; SD[ ].
2. The face to face communication between Fadama User is a factor which lead to the
adoption of National Fadama Development Project in your area. SA [ ];
A [ ]; DA [ ]; SD[ ].
3. The availability of Fadama land in your area necessitated the adoption of the project
(NFDP) SA [ ]; A [ ]; DA [ ]; SD[ ].
4. The substantial increase in income of the Fadama user Groups attracted other Fadama
users to the Project (NFDP) in your community. SA [ ]; A [ ]; DA [ ]; SD [ ].
5. List one problem affecting Fadama farming ------------------------------------------
92
6. Make recommendation on how best to ensure an effective and efficient service
delivery by the National Fadama Development Project (NFDP) in Taraba State.
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
93
APPENDIX: 5A
TEST FOR SIGNIFICANCE OF HYPOTHESIS 1.
The degrees of freedom (table 9) V are:
V – Numerator = k – 1 = 6 – 1 = 5
V – Denominator = N – K = 42 – 6 = 36
From the table of F – distribution (Appendix 6), critical value of F at 0.05 = 2.48.
94
APPENDIX: 5B
Test for Significance of Hypothesis 2
The degree of freedom (table 12) V are:
V – Numerator = k – 1 = 6 – 1 = 5
V – Denominator = N – K = 30 – 6 = 24.
From the table of F – distribution (Appendix 6), critical value of F at 005 = 2.62.
95
APPENDIX 6
CRITICAL VALUES OF F IN SNEDECOR’S VARIANCE RATIO T EST
Greater Variance Estimate
D/2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 12 24
1 161.4 199.5 215.7 224.6 230.2 234.0 236.8 238.9 241.9 243.9 249.0 254.3
2 18.5 19.0 189.2 19.2 19.3 19.3 19.4 19.4 19.4 19.4 19.5 19.5
3 10.13 9.55 9.28 9.12 9.01 8.94 8.89 8.85 8.79 8.74 8.64 8.53
4 77.71 6.94 6.59 6.39 6.26 6.16 6.09 6.04 5.96 5.91 5.7 5.63
5 6.61 5.79 5.41 5.19 5.05 4.95 4.88 4.82 8.74 4.68 4.53 4.36
6 5.99 5.14 4.76 4.53 4.39 4.28 4.21 4.15 4.06 4.00 3.84 3.67
7 5.59 4.74 4.35 4.12 3.37 3.87 3.79 3.73 3.64 3.57 3.41 3.23
8 5.32 4.46 4.07 3.84 3.69 3.58 3.50 3.44 3.35 3.28 3.12 2.93
9 5.12 4.26 3.86 3.63 3.48 3.37 3.29 3.23 3.14 3.07 2.90 2.71
10 4.96 4.10 3.71 3.48 3.33 3.22 3.14 3.07 2.98 2.91 2.74 2.54
11 4.84 3.98 3.59 3.36 3.20 3.09 3.01 2.95 2.85 279 2.61 2.40
12 4.75 3.89 3.49 3.26 3.11 3.00 2.91 2.85 2.75 2.69 2.51 2.30
13 4.67 3.81 3.41 3.18 3.03 2.92 2.83 2.77 2.67 2.60 2.42 2.21
14 4.60 3.74 3.34 3.11 2.96 2.85 2.76 2.70 2.60 2.53 2.35 2.13
15 4.54 3.68 3.29 3.06 2.90 2.79 2.71 2.64 2.54 2.48 2.92 2.07
16 4.49 3.63 3.24 3.01 2.85 2.74 2.66 2.59 2.49 2.42 2.24 2.01
17 4.45 3.59 3.20 2.96 2.81 2.70 2.61 2.55 2.45 2.38 2.19 1.96
18 4.41 3.55 3.16 2.93 2.77 2.66 2.58 2.51 2.41 2.38 2.19 1.96
19 4.38 3.52 3.13 2.90 2.74 2.63 2.54 2.48 2.38 2.31 2.11 1.88
20 4/35 3/49 3.10 2.87 2.71 2.60 2.51 2.45 2.35 2.28 2.08 1.84
96
21 4.32 3.47 3.07 2.84 2.68 257 2.49 2.42 2.32 2.25 2.05 1.81
22 4.30 3.44 3.05 2.82 2.66 2,55 2.46 2.40 2.30 2.23 2.03 1.78
23 4.28 3.42 3.03 2.80 2.64 2.53 2.44 2.37 2.27 2.20 2.00 1.76
24 4.26 3.40 3.01 2.78 2.62 2.51 2.42 2.36 2.25 2.18 1.98 1.73
25 4.24 3.39 2.99 2.70 2.60 2.49 2.40 2.34 2.24 2.16 1.96 1.71
26 4.23 3.39 2.98 2.74 2.59 2.47 2.39 2.32 2.22 2.15 1.95 1.69
27 4.24 3.35 2.96 2.73 2.57 2.46 2.37 2.31 2.30 2.13 1.98 1.67
28 4.20 3.34 2.95 2.71 2.56 2.45 2.36 2.29 2.19 2.12 1.91 1.63
29 4.18 3.33 2.93 2.70 2.55 2.43 2.35 2.28 2.18 2.10 1.90 1.64
30 4.17 3.32 2.92 2.69 2.53 2.42 2.33 2.27 2.16 2.09 1.89 1.62
32 4.15 3.29 2.90 2.67 2.51 2.40 2.31 2.24 2.14 2.07 1.86 1.59
34 4.13 3.28 2.88 2.65 2.49 2.38 2.29 2.23 2.12 2.05 1.84 1.57
36 4.11 3.26 2.87 2.63 2.48 2.36 2.28 2.21 2.11 2.03 1.82 1.55
38 4.10 3.24 2.85 2.62 2.46 2.35 2.26 2.19 2.09 2.02 1.81 1.53
40 4.08 3.23 2.84 2.61 2.45 2.34 2.25 2.18 2.08 2.00 1.79 1.51
60 4.00 3.15 2.76 2.53 2.37 2.25 2.17 2.10 1.99 1.92 1.70 1.39
120 3.92 3.07 2.68 2.45 2.29 2.18 2.09 2.02 1.91 1.83 1.61 1.25
3.84 3.00 2.60 2.37 2.21 2.10 2.01 1.94 1.83 1.75 1.52 1.00
97
APPENDIX 7
COMPUTATION OF CROP PRODUCTION RECORD FOR A DURATIO N OF
10YEARS (2004-2013) ADOPTED FROM TABLE 13.
Y = x1 + x2 + x3 + x4 + x5 + x6
1. 2004 = 502.1 +27 + 240 + 20 + 11.29 + 9.7 = 810.09
2. 2005 = 396 + 33 + 268 + 11.85 + 10.32 + 29 = 748.17
3. 2006 = 400 + 37 + 306.13 + + 12.6 + 10.85 + 30 = 796.58
4. 2007 = 391.2 + 28.9 + 281.5 + 57.2 + 4.8 + 49.4 = 813
5. 2008 = 405.1 + 200 + 298 + 36 + 49.8 + 36 = 1024.9
6. 2009 = 350 + 350 + 392 + 40.8 + 25 + 48 = 1,205.8
7. 2010 = 390 + 492 + 192.7 + 20 + 53 + 59 = 1,206.7
8. 2011 = 391 + 285 + 200 + 21 + 52 + 60.2 = 1009.2
9. 2012 = 426 + 302 + 241 + 27 + 57 + 48 = 1101
10. 2013 = 459 + 125 + 250 + 31 + 60 + 59 = 984
98
APPENDIX 8
TABLE OF STUDENT’S ‘T” DISTRIBUTION
99
APPENDIX 9
RELIABILITY TEST
Cluster One Reliability Test
Case Processing Summary
N %
Cases
Valid 40 100.0
Excludeda 0 .0
Total 40 100.0
a. Listwise deletion based on all variables in the
procedure.
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's
Alpha
N of Items
.857 6
Cluster Two Reliability Test
Case Processing Summary
N %
Cases
Valid 40 100.0
Excludeda 0 .0
Total 40 100.0
a. Listwise deletion based on all variables in the
procedure.
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's
Alpha
N of Items
.761 4
100
Overall Cluster Reliability Test
Case Processing Summary
N %
Cases
Valid 40 100.0
Excludeda 0 .0
Total 40 100.0
a. Listwise deletion based on all variables in the
procedure.
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's
Alpha
N of Items
.804 10