




































Economy 
ISSN: 2313-8181 
Vol. 1, No. 3, 79-88, 2014 
www.asianonlinejournals.com/index.php/Economy 

 

 

* Corresponding Author 

 

 

79 

 

Evaluation of Third National Fadama Development 

Programme (Fadama 111) on Poverty Reduction in Rural 

Communities of Buruku Local Government Area of Benue 

State, Nigeria 
 

Apesughur Dominic Achiv
1
 --- Idoma Kim

2*
 --- Ashiki Godwin Masin

3
 --- Ibrahim 

Umaru Abdullahi
4
 

 
1,2,4

Department of Geography, Faculty of Science, Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria Nigeria 
3
Department of Geography, Nassarawa College of Education, Akwanga, Nigeria 

 

Abstract 

Abstract 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 

 

 

 
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License 

Asian Online Journal Publishing Group 

 

Contents 
1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................................... 80 

2. Methodology .............................................................................................................................................................................. 81 

3. Findings ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 82 

4. Conclusion .................................................................................................................................................................................. 87 

5. Recommendations ..................................................................................................................................................................... 87 

References ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 88 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fadama111 is a World Bank assisted programme designed to reduce poverty in the rural areas of 

Nigeria.  The objective of the programme is to sustainably increase the incomes of fadama users.  By 

increasing their incomes the programme would help reduce rural poverty, increase food security and 

contribute to the achievement of the Millennium Development Goal (MDG). The objectives of this 

study are to; examine status of the benefiting rural communities in the study area, assess the impact of 

the Fadama111 programme on the beneficiary community members’ livelihood activities and socio-

economic development in the study area, identify constraints to effective intervention of Fadama111 

programme in the study area. The method of data collection was the use of questionnaire, personal 

observation and structural interview. All the five funded FCAs and thirty three fadama user groups 

(FUGs) in the study area were selected as sample frame.  380 respondents were purposively chosen as 

sample size for this study. The questionnaire was administered to ten respondents in each FCA and 

FUG. Performance index and satisfactory level were the measurement variables. Descriptive 

techniques were used for data analysis. The conclusion was that Fadama111 programme did not 

improve the condition of members of the benefiting communities especially in the area of food 

production. Corrupt practices such as embezzlements and mismanagement of funds by both rural and 

state management officials of Fadama111 programme, untimely and inadequate supply of inputs and 

difficulties of member communities to pay counterpart funds were major constraints to effective 

implementation of Fadama111 programme in the study area.  
 
Keywords: Rural, Poverty, Participation, Sustainability, Empowerment, Evaluation, Fadama, Nigeria. 

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/


Economy, 2014, 1(3): 79-88 

 

 

 

 

80 

 

1. Introduction 
The reduction of poverty is universally accepted as a primary development objective.  Poverty is a vicious circle 

which keeps the poor in a state of destitution.  The concept of poverty is multi-dimensional in nature.  Poverty 

according to Kankwenda et al. (2000),Robb (2002),UNDP (1994) and Kwaghe (2006) is multi-dimensional, because 

it affects many aspects of the human condition, including physical, moral and psychological. For many societies, 

poverty is a concrete phenomenon and can easily be identified. It is also relative because the population that may be 

classified as poor in developed countries could be regarded as materially well off in least developed countries.  Each 

society as pointed out by Agumagu (2000) defined poverty in its own terms. Conventional measures of poverty count 

the number of people below the poverty line and define the poverty rate as the proportion of total population below 

the poverty line.  Poverty, according to him, is therefore, a normative concept and setting the poverty level requires a 

judgment about social norms. Therefore, irrespective of how poverty is defined, the poor have been described as 

those who could not obtain adequate income, find stable job, own property or maintain healthy condition (Obadan, 

1997), they also lack adequate level of education and cannot satisfy their basic needs (Ebenehi et al., 2012). Thus, the 

poor are often illiterate, live in poor condition of health and have short life spans (World Bank, 1996).Moreover, they 

have no access to basic necessities of life; lack skills and gainful employment, Possess fewer economic assets and 

sometimes lack self esteem (Ajayi, 2009).Concurringly, (Joseph, 2005)  submitted that the poor are those with 

income below the poverty line, who lack access to basic services, practical contacts and other forms of support. They 

can also be seen as people isolated in rural areas and the marginal urban zones where essential infrastructure are 

lacking.  Admittedly, The rural areas of the world particularly those of the developing countries have their unique 

identity. The rural areas are at disadvantageous positions when comparison is made between the urban and the rural 

areas. For instance, the rural communities generally have low population size and low density, poor infrastructural 

facilities, poor education, poor housing qualities and they produce more primary products (Ehisuoria, 2012).  

It is important to note that  Nigeria is gripped by both income and food poverty, and poor access to the means of 

supporting rural development (FGN/WHO, 2004).Outstandingly, poverty in Nigeria has been described as 

widespread and severe (World Bank, 1996).  The Federal Office of Statistics/World Bank in their analysis of the 

poverty trend in Nigeria noted that poor families are in higher proportion in farming household and are mainly in the 

rural areas (Adeolu and Taiwo, 2004). Accordingly, Nigeria is faced with the challenge of providing adequate food 

supply for its teaming population of about 140 million. Similarly, Food and Agricultural Organization has 

consistently listed Nigeria among countries that are technically unable to meet their food needs from rain-feed 

agriculture at low level inputs. Lamentably, the devastating effect of desertification and drought in the last three 

decades on the dry sub-humid and semi-arid agro-ecological zones of Nigeria have made the Nigerian government to 

embark on massive investment in small-holder irrigation (Adeolu and Taiwo, 2004).Hence, the goal of increasing 

food production and reducing food import has elicited many programmes and policies at the various level of 

government. For example, in 1993, the federal government of Nigeria in collaboration with the World Bank and 

State government started a new programme referred to as the National Fadama Development programme. The First 

National Fadama Development Programme (Fadama I) is a World Bank assisted programme designed to promote 

simple and low cost improved irrigation technology.  The widespread adoption of the technologies enabled farmers 

to increase production.  Federal government impressed by the achievements, approached the African Development 

Fund (ADF) of the African Development Bank (ADB) for support in expanding the achievement of Fadama in scope 

and size. This led to the formation of fadama II programme (Agbarevo and Okwoche, 2014). 

Fadama II programme was implemented in 17 states and Federal Capital Territory between 2004 to February 

2009. The programme adopted community driven development Approach with extensive participation of the 

stakeholders at early stage of the programme cycle.  This approach was in line with African Development Bank 

policies and development strategies for Nigeria which emphasizes poverty reduction to beneficiary participation 

(Ker, 2008).  

However, Fadama III programme is a follow-up of fadama II programme, which covers the remaining nineteen 

states of the country with 380 local government areas that did not participate in fadama II programme (Agbarevo and 

Okwoche, 2014). 

 

1.2 Statement of the Research Problem  
The objective of the Fadama III programme is to sustainably increase the incomes of fadama users.  By 

increasing their incomes, the programme would reduce rural poverty, increase food security and contribute to the 

achievement of the Millennium Development Goal (MDGs). Its target beneficiaries are the private economic sector 

or those who indirectly benefits from the exploitation of the natural resources in a given fadama area.  

In each benefiting community, people form groups known as fadama users groups (FUGs) with membership of 

between 10-20 people to participate in Fadama111 activities.  In each community, all the FUGs have to formally 

come together, democratically elect members among them to form a body to be known as fadama community 

association (FCA).This  serves as apex body overseeing the activities of all fadama user groups in that rural 

community (Agbarevo and Okwoche, 2014).The programme would empower the fadama community associations 

(FCAs) with resources, the needed training and technical assistance or support to properly manage and control these 

resources for their own development.  The FCAs would take charge of their own destiny through real empowerment. 

It would also adopt a socially inclusive and participatory process whereby all fadama users would collectively 

identify their development priorities and agree on their investment activities which would be outlined in a 

community development plan. initiallyIn Benue State the fadama III programme started disbursement of money to 

beneficiaries on 23
rd

 March 2009 with twenty participating local government areas, these were; Agatu, Buruku, 

Gboko, Gwer, Gwer-west, Katsina-Ala, Konshisha, Kwande, Logo, Makurdi, Ogbadibo, Oju, Okpokwo, Otukpo, 

Tarka, Ukum, Ushongo and Vandeiky Primarily, the major thrust of Fadama III programme is to practically 

demonstrate the concept of community driven development in line with the emerging paradigm of bottom-to-top 

approach in rural development. Thus,Fadama111 programme is to serve as facilitator to the benefiting communities 



Economy, 2014, 1(3): 79-88 

 

 

 

 

81 

 

in achieving the programme objective such as infrastructural investment ( feeder roads rehabilitation, culverts, drifts, 

stock routes, grazing reserves etc, market infrastructure (toilets, boreholes, warehouses, stores etc),  pilot assets 

acquisition ( water pumps, watering cans, tube well and sprinklers for irrigation, fishing traps, canoes, agro 

processing equipment, oil processors, rice threshers and processors, garri processing equipment, groundnut 

dehiscing, honey collection and processing equipment, soap production etc).Thus, with a special arrangement, the 

beneficiary would pay 10% of the total cost (known as counterpart funds) while the balance of 90% would be paid by 

the programme. For Input support like seeds and seedlings, Veterinary drugs for livestock, feeds and fingerlings, 

herbicides etc. the beneficiary would pay 30% of the total cost while the programme would pay the balance of 70%. 

Notably, in Buruku L.G.A., fadama III programme started disbursement of funds to beneficiaries in 2011.In view 

of the foregoing, the researchers intend to assess the impact of fadama III programme in improving benefiting rural 

community members in Buruku local government area, Benue State( 2011-2013 intervention period).  

 

1.3 Aim 
The aim of this study is to assess the performance of fadama III programme interms of improvement of the 

beneficiary member communities’ livelihood activities and socio-economic development of the study area.  

 

1.4 Objectives  
The objectives of this study are to; 

i. Examine the socio -economic status of the benefiting rural communities in the study area.  

ii. Assess the impact of  fadama III programme on the livelihood activities and socio-economic development of 

the benefiting communities in the study area.  

iii. Identify constraints to effective intervention of fadama III programme in the study area.  

 

1.5 Study Area  

1.5.1 Location  

Buruku Local Government Area (L.G.A.) is located between latitude 7
o
500 North and longitude 8

o
5600 and 

9
o
2000 East.  It shares boundaries with Logo L.G.A to the north, Katsina-Ala LGA to the east, Ushongo L.G.A to 

the south, Gboko L.G.A. to the west and Tarka L.G.A. to the north-west. 

 

1.5.2 Climate and Drainage 
Mean annual rainfall in the area ranges between 150-180mm.  The L.G.A. experience two main seasons; dry and 

wet season. The wet season starts from April and last till October while the dry season lasts from November to 

March. Buruku L.G.A. falls within the Koppen’s Aw (wet and dry) climate type.  The rains are usually intense and 

torrential sometimes accompanied by storms. Temperature is mostly high throughout the year ranging between 23
o
C-

28
o
C with a peak of about 35

o
C. The coolest part of the season is around the harmattan period between December 

and February. 

The major river in the L.G.A. is river Katsina-Ala and other smaller rivers.  The L.G.A. lies in the guinea 

savannah vegetation of typical grassland.  

 

1.5.3 People and Socio-Economic Activities  
The L.G.A. is inhabited by the Tiv people who are farmers.  There are other ethnic groups like Etulo and 

Abakwa who engage in both cropping and fishing activities. 

 

2. Methodology  
A reconnaissance survey was carried out in order to have in depth knowledge of the activities of fadama III 

programme in the study area.  

 

2.1. Data Needed for the Study  
The data needed for this study were: data on socio-economic status of the respondents, data on projects of 

fadama III programme,impact of Fadama111programme on the benefiting communities and data on constraints to 

effective implementation  of fadama III programme. 

 

2.2. Data Collection  
The methods of data collection for this study are questionnaire, personal observation and structural interview. 

The questionnaire is divided into three sections namely; status of the respondents, impact  of the programme on the 

livelihood activities and socio-economic development of the benefiting communities, constraints to fadama III 

programme activities and recommendations for improvement  of fadama III programme in the study area. 

 

2.3. Source of Data  
For this research work, both primary and secondary sources were used. 

 

2.4. Sample Frame and Sampling Technique  
Fadama III programme have been implemented in five Fadama Community Associations (FCAs) and thirty three 

Fadama User Groups (FUGs) in Buruku L.G.A.  All the funded FCAs and FUGs have been chosen as sample frame 

for this study.  However, 380 respondents were selected as sample size. This constitutes 50% of the total population 

of the benefiting member communities in the study area. Structurally, fadama III programme, is expected to have a 

membership of twenty people per FCA and FUG.  Purposive methods have been used for sample size selection. Ten 

questionnaires were administered in each fadama community association and fadama user group. 



Economy, 2014, 1(3): 79-88 

 

 

 

 

82 

 

2.5. Measurement of Variables  
Performance index was determined by asking the respondents to indicate the actual quantity of hectares of land 

cultivated and crop yields in kilogrammes.  The beneficiaries are to rate in qualitative terms, their level of 

satisfaction, using a three point likert type scale ranging from highly satisfactory 1: moderate satisfactory 2; and not 

satisfied 3. 

 

3. Findings  
3.1. Socio-Economic and Demographic Characteristics of Respondents 

The age distribution of the samples respondents shows that, those between 21-25 were 6%(21), those between 

26-30 were 23%(87), those between 31-35 were 24% (91), those between 36-40 were 29% (111), those between 41-

45 were 15% (60) and those between 46-50 were 3%(10) (Table 1).This implies that majority(68%) of the 

respondents were youths(31-45 years). 

 
Table-1. Age of Sampled Respondents in the Study Area 

Age group  Respondents Percentages 

21 – 25 21 6 

26 – 30 87 23 

31 – 35 91 24 

36 – 40 111 29 

41 – 45 60 15 

46 – 50  10 3 

Total  380 100 
                                                          Source: Authors’ field work, 2014. 

 

3.2. Sex Distribution of Respondents 
On the pattern of sex distribution, 53 %( 200) were male while 47 %( 180) were female (table 2).Table 2 has also 

revealed that the gender disparity in the study area is moderately low. 

 
Table-2. Sex distribution of sampled respondent in the study area 

Sex   Respondents Percentages 

Male  200 53 

Female  180 47 

Total  380 100 
                                                               Source: Authors’ Field Work, 2014 

 

3.3. Education of the Sampled Respondents  
Concerning education of the sampled respondents, non-formal education 54%(208), those with primary 

education were 29%(111), those with post-primary education were 13%(50), those with NCE, OND qualification 

were 1%(3), those with vocational education were 2%(6) and those with university degree were 1%(2) (table 3). This 

indicates that illiteracy level of the respondents is relatively high and this could impede reception to positive changes. 

 
Table-3. Educational attainment of sampled respondents in the study area 

Educational attainment  Respondents Percentages 

Non-formal education  208 54 

Primary education  111 29 

Post primary education  50 13 

N.C.E., OND  3 1 

Vocational Education  6 2 

University degree  2 1 

Total  380 100 
                                           Source: Authors’ Field Work, 2014 

 

3.4. Occupation of the Sampled Respondents  
Out of 380 sampled respondents, 92%(351) were farmers, 1%(4) were civil servants, 1%(5) were traders, 3%(10) 

were artisans and 3%(10) were other categories of occupations,( table 4). This has shown clearly that the benefiting 

communities in  Buruku LGA is an agrarian community. Hence, Fadama programme if properly implemented would 

benefit them immensely. 

 
Table-4. Occupation of Sampled respondents in the study area 

Occupation  Respondents  Percentages  

Farmer  351 92 

Civil servant  4 1 

Trader  5 1 

Artisan  10 3 

Others  10 3 

Total  380 100 
                                                          Source: Authors’ Field Work, 2014 

 



Economy, 2014, 1(3): 79-88 

 

 

 

 

83 

 

Impact of Fadama111on the Livelihood Activities of the Benefiting Community Members and Socio-Economic 

Development of the study area. 
 

3.5. Rice Processing Projects  
Concerning the rice processing projects, Mbaapen fadama community association and Etulo Fadama community 

association (FCA) chose rice processing as their priority project, table 5.  

 
Table-5. Rice Processing Machine in the Study Area 

S/N Community  No. of machine Execution 

1. Mbaapen 1 Completed 

2. Etulo 1 Completed 
                                                   Source: Authors’ Field Work, 2014 

 

A sampled of twenty respondents was carried out to determine the level of satisfaction of rice processing 

machines in the study area.  The breakdown of the respondents was: 40 %( 8) of respondents were highly 

satisfactory, 35 %( 7) were moderately satisfactory and 25 %( 5) were not satisfied, table 6. This implies that the 

benefiting communities in  Buruku LGA were greatly impacted by the programme, for the reason that 75% indicated 

they were satisfied. 
 

Table-6. Level of Satisfaction of processing machine 

Satisfaction level  Respondents Percentage 

Highly satisfactory  8 40 

Moderately satisfactory  7 35 

Not satisfied  5 25 

Total  20 100 
                                            Source: Author’s field work, 2014. 

 

3.6. Market Stall Project  
Mbaya Fadama community association (FCA) was the only fadama III programme benefiting community that 

selected market stall as their development project in the study area; table 7.  
 

Table-7.Construction of market stall in the study area 

S/No. Community  No. of block  No. of rooms  Execution  

1. Mbaya 1 6  Completed  
                  Source: Authors’ Field Work, 2014 

 

On assessment of satisfactory level on market store in the study area 70 %( 7) of the sampled respondents were 

highly satisfactory, 20% (2) said moderately satisfactory and 10 %( 1) said not satisfied (table 8). Table 8 has further 

shown that Fadama programme had great impact on the benefiting communities in Buruku LGA through the 

construction of market store. Only 10% of the respondents signified they were satisfied. 
 

Table-8. Satisfactory level on market store in the study Area 

Satisfactory level  Respondents Percentages 

Highly satisfactory  7 70 

Moderately satisfactory  2 20 

Not satisfied  1 10 

Total  10 100 
                                                    Source: Authors’ Field Work, 2014 

 

3.7. Warehouse Projects  
It is not always possible to produce good as at when required.  Production is usually done ahead of consumption 

for various reasons.  Thus, there is need for warehousing and storage facilities. Atiikyaa fadama community 

association and Bineu fadama community association chose warehouse as their intervention project. (Table 9). 
 

Table-9. Warehouse project in the study area 

S/No. Community  No. of Block  Execution  

1. Atiikyau 1 Completed  

2. Bineu 1 Completed  
                                                Source: Authors’ Field Work, 2014 

 

On the whole twenty respondents were sampled on assessment of warehouse in the study area.  The breakdown 

of the responses was 80 %( 16) of the sampled respondents said moderately satisfactory while 20 %( 4) were not 

satisfied (table 10).Table 10 portrays that the impact of Fadama 111 programme on the benefiting communities in 

Buruku LGA regarding warehouse project was relatively high for the fact that only 20% of the respondents were not 

satisfied. 
 

Table-10. Assessment of Satisfactory Level on warehouse project in the study area 

Satisfactory level  Respondents Percentages  

Moderately satisfactory  16 80 

Not satisfied  4 20 

Total  20 100 
                                                  Source: Authors’ Field Work, 2014 



Economy, 2014, 1(3): 79-88 

 

 

 

 

84 

 

3.8. Rice Production  
On the rice production Atsozi fadama user group (FUG), EtuloBrande FUG and Ogilazi FUG in Etulo fadama 

community association (FCA); Mbagbagh FUG, Angbo/bar in Mbaya FCA; Mbatsaese FUG in Mbaapen FCA; 

Anyol FUG, and Dajo FUG in Atiikyaa and Wuav rice FUG in Binev fadama community association chose rice 

cultivation as their priority project, table 11. 

 
Table-11. Rice Production 2011-2013 in the Study Area 

S/N FCA FUG Hectares of Land cultivated and year  Quantity harvested in kilogrammes and year  

   2011 2012 2013 2011 2012 2013 

1. Etudo Atsozi - - 20 - - 2000 

2.  EtuloBranda - - 20 - - 2100 

3.  Ogilazi - - 20 - - 1800 

4. Mbaya Mbagbagh 17 18 19 400 700 1200 

5.  Mngbo/Bar 17 18 19 500 600 800 

6. Mbaapen Mbatsaese 15 14 13 400 500 200 

7. Atiikyaa Anyol - 20 20 - 1200 1400 

8.  Dajo - 18 18 - 1000 1200 

9. Binev Wuav Rice  16 14 12 400 300 300 
   Source: Authors’ Field Work, 2014. 
 

Out of the 90 sampled respondents, 7 %( 6) said the quantity of the harvested rice is moderately satisfactory 

while 93 %( 84) of the sampled respondents were not satisfied, table 12. In addition, table 12 has revealed that 

Fadama 111 benefited the communities in the study area immensely through rice production; only 7% of the entire 

population indicated not satisfied. 

 
Table-12. Assessment of satisfactory level on rice production in the study area 

Satisfactory level  Respondents Percentages 

Moderately satisfactory  6 7 

Not satisfied  84 93 

Total  90 100 
                                                Source: Authors’ Field Work, 2014 
 

3.9. Groundnut Production  
Mbanor fadama user group (FUG) in Mbaya fadama community association; Mbatsaase fadama user group 

(FUG), Mbaagir FUG and Mbaagir II FUG in Mbaapen fadama community association (FCA) and Wuav G/nut FUG 

in Biev FCA chose groundnut production as their intervention project, table 13.  

 
Table-13. Groundnut Production 2011-2013 in the study area 

S/N FCA FUG Hectares of Land cultivated and year Quantity harvested in kilogrammes and year 

   2011 2012 2013 2011 2012 2013 

1. Mbaya Mbanor 6 5 5 700 700 500 

2. Mbaapen Mbatsaase 5 3 3 400 200 400 

3.  Mbaagir I 4 4 3 500 300 200 

4.  Mbaagir II 4 4 4 300 200 400 

5 Binev Wuav G/nut 5 4 4 200 300 400 
   Source: Authors’ Field Work, 2014 

 

Assessment of the satisfactory level of groundnut production in the study area show that, 6% (3) of the sampled 

respondents were moderately satisfactory and 94 %( 47) were not satisfied, (table 14). Also, table 14 portrays that 

Fadama 111 had low impact on the beneficiary communities with regards to groundnut production as 94% of the 

respondents indicated not satisfied. 

 
Table-14. Assessment of Groundnut Production in the study Area 

Satisfactory level  Respondents   Percentages  

Moderately satisfactory  3 6 

Not satisfied  47 94 

Total  50 100 
                                           Source: Authors’ Field Work, 2014 

 

3.10. Soybeans Production  
Concerning soybean production in the study area, Mbaghagh fadama user group (FUG) in Mbaya Fadama 

community association (FCA); Mbaadatso FUG in Atiikyaa FCA and Wuavsoyb FUG in Binev FCA chose soybeans 

production, (table 15).  

 
Table-15. Soybeans production 2011-2013 in the study area 

S/N FCA FUG Hectares of Land cultivated and year  Quantity harvested in kilogrammes and year  

   2011 2012 2013 2011 2012 2013 

1. Mbaya Mbaghagh 15 14 15 600 550 500 

2. Atiikyaa Mbaadatso 14 14 14 500 400 450 

3. Binev Wuavsoyb 12  12½  12 250 200 200 
      Source: Authors’ Field Work, 2014 



Economy, 2014, 1(3): 79-88 

 

 

 

 

85 

 

On the satisfactory level of soybeans production in the study area, 100 % ( 30) of the sample respondents were 

not satisfied with improvement of soyabeans by fadama III programme in the study area( table 16).Moreover, table 

16 reveals that Fadama 111 could not improve on soya bean production in the beneficiary communities. 

 
Table-16. Assessment of soybeans production in the study area 

Satisfactory level  Respondents Percentages 

Not satisfied  30 100 

Total  30 100 
                                                       Source: Authors’ Field Work, 2014 

 

3.11. Yam Production  
On yam production, Angi fadama user group (FUG) in Atiikyaa fadama community association (FCA); Mbanor-

Abera FUG in Mbaya FCA and Otsitzi FUG in Etulo FCA chose yam production as their intervention project in the 

study area, table 17. 

 
Table-17. Yam production 2011-2013 in the study area 

S/N FCA FUG Hectares of Land cultivated and year  Quantity harvested in kilogrammes and year  

   2011 2012 2013 2011 2012 2013 

1. Atiikyaa Angi 12 13 13 400 600 650 

2. Mbaya Mbanor-Abera 12 12½  13 500 500 700 

3. Etulo Otsitzi - - 14 - - 1500 
    Source: Authors’ Field Work, 2014 

  

Out of 30 sampled respondents 13 % ( 4) were moderately satisfactory with the production of yam in the study 

area, while 87% (26) were not satisfied, table 18. Table 18 has reveals poor performance of Fadama111on yam 

production in the study area. 

 
Table-18. Assessment of Yam production in the study area 

Satisfactory level  Respondents  Percentages  

Moderately satisfactory  4 13 

Not satisfied  26 87 

Total  30 100 
                                           Source: Authors’ Field Work, 2014 

 

3.12. Production of Mellon  
Ortese fadama user group (FUG) in Mbaya fadama community association (FCA) and Mbatsaase FUG in 

Mbaapen FCA selected production of mellon as their intervention project in the study area, table 19. 

 
Table-19. Production of Mellon 2011-2013 in the study area 

S/N FCA FUG Hectares of Land cultivated and year  Quantity harvested in kilogrammes and year  

   2011 2012 2013 2011 2012 2013 

1. Mbaya Ortese 12 ½  13 13 300 350 350 

2. Mbaapen Mbatsaase 12 12 12 200 150 100 
     Source: Authors’ Field Work, 2014 

 

Out of the total sampled respondents 100% (20) were not satisfied with the intervention in the study area, table 

20. Table 20 portrays poor performance of Fadama111 on the production of Mellon. 

 
Table-20. Assessment of Mellon production in the study area 

Satisfactory level  Respondents  Percentages  

Not satisfied  20 100 

Total  20 100 
                                                Source: Authors’ Field Work, 2014 
 

3.13. Millet Production  
Ugye fadama user group in Etulo fadama community association is the only user group in the study area that 

chose millet production as their intervention project, table 21. 

 
Table-21. Millet production 2013 in the study area 

S/N FCA FUG Hectares of Land cultivated and year  Quantity harvested in kilogrammes and year  

   2011 2012 2013 2011 2012 2013 

1. Etulo Ugye - - 14 - - 600 
          Source: Authors’ Field Work, 2014 

 

Sampled of 10 respondents was carried out to assessed millet yield.  The results show that 20% (2) were 

moderately satisfactory, while 80 % (8) respondents were not satisfied table 21. Table 21 again revealed poor 

performance of Fadama 111 regarding millet production as 80% of the respondents indicated not satisfied. 
 

 

 

 

 



Economy, 2014, 1(3): 79-88 

 

 

 

 

86 

 

Table-22. Assessment of millet production in the study Area 

Satisfactory level  Respondents Percentage 

Moderately satisfactory  2 20 

Not satisfied  8 80 

Total  10 100 
                                                     Source: Authors’ Field Work, 2014 

 

3.14. Cassava Production  
On cassava production, Etulo widows fadama user, Otsefadama user group (FUG) in Etulo fadama community 

association (FCA); Mbaju FUC in Mbaya FCA and Akongu FUG, Dooshima FUG in Atiikyaa Fadama community 

association chose production of cassava, table 22.  

 
Table-23. Cassava production 2011-2013 in the Study Area 

S/N FCA FUG Hectares of Land cultivated and year  Quantity harvested in kilogrammes and year  

   2011 2012 2013 2011 2012 2013 

1. Etulo Etulo widows  - - 14 ½  - - 1500 

2.  Otse - - 15 - - 1700 

3. Mbaya Mbaju 14 15 15 1000 1400 1500 

4. Atiikyaa Akongu 13 15 15 700 1300 1500 

5  Dooshina 14 15 15 800 1600 1500 
      Source: Authors’ Field Work, 2014 

  

On the level of satisfaction on cassava production, 100 %( 50) of the sampled respondents were moderately 

satisfactory, table 23.Table 24 shows further that Fadama 111 has greatly improved the production of cassava as the 

entire respondents i.e. 100% indicated moderate satisfaction.  

 
Table-24. Assessment of Cassava production in the Study Area 

Satisfactory level  Respondents  Percentages  

Moderately satisfactory  50 100 

Total  50 100 
                                           Source: Authors’ Field Work, 2014 
 

3.15. Guinea Corn Production  
Kaaku widows fadama user group (FUG) in Atiikyaa fadama community association (FCA); Mbatsaase FUG, 

Mbaagir I G/nut FUG, Mbaagir II G/nut FUG in Mbaapen FCA and Mbanor G/nut FUG in mbaya fadama 

community association chose guinea corn production as their project in the study area. Table 24. 

 
Table-25. Guinea corn production in the study area 

S/N FCA FUG Hectares of Land cultivated and year  Quantity harvested in kilogrammes and year  

   2011 2012 2013 2011 2012 2013 

1. Atiikyaa Kaaku widows  15 15 15 1000 1100 1300 

2. Mbaapen Mbatsaase 13 14 13 ½  500 600 500 

3.  Mbaagir I G/nut  14 14 13 400 500 400 

4.  Mbaagir II G/nut  14 14 14 500 600 500 

5 Mbaya Mabanor G/nut  15 16 16 ½  1400 1600 1500 
  Source: Authors’ Field Work, 2014 

 

On the whole 50 respondents was assessed on satisfactory level of guinea corn production the result was that, 

20%(10) of the sampled respondents rate the production as moderately satisfactory while 80% (40) were not 

satisfied, table 25.Table 26 further portrays that Fadama111 did not have significant impact on the production of 

Guinea corn as only 20% of the respondents were moderately satisfied. 

 
Table-26. Assessment of Guinea corn production in the study area 

Satisfactory level  Respondents  Percentages  

Moderately satisfactory  10 20 

Not satisfied  40 80 

Total  50 100 
                                           Source: Authors’ Field Work, 2014 
 

3.16. Constraints to Fadama III Programme in the Study Area.  

3.16.1. Financial Constraints  
On financial constraints 350 respondents were sampled. The breakdown of the responses were 13.1 % ( 50) said 

mismanagement of money by community project management committee, 26.3%(100) said inadequate capital to 

execute the projects, 26.3%(100) said untimely release of money from the state fadama coordination office to rural 

beneficiary and 34.2%(130) said corrupt practices by the programme managers, table 27.Table 27 further depicts that 

corruption is the bane of poor performance of Fadama 111 since 34% of the respondents indicated it.   
 

 

 

 

 

 



Economy, 2014, 1(3): 79-88 

 

 

 

 

87 

 

Table-27. Financial constraints to effective intervention of fadama III programme in the study area 
          

Source: Authors’ Field Work, 2014 

 

3.17. Constraints Arising from Inputs  
On constraints relating to inputs, 50%(190) sampled respondents said untimely supply of inputs to beneficiaries 

by the state coordination office.  While 50%(190) were of the opinion that inadequate supply of inputs was the main 

constraints(Table 28). 

 
Table-28. Constraints arising from inputs in the study area 

Constraints   Respondents  Percentages  

Untimely supply of input  190 50 

Inadequate supply of inputs  190 50 

Total  380 100 
                                           Source: Authors’ Field Work, 2014 
 

3.17.1. Constraints from the Fadama III Programme Benefiting Communities  
On the constraints relating to fadama III programme benefiting communities in the study area, 100%(380) of the 

sampled respondents said difficulty to members of fadama communities to pay counterpart funds. (Table 29). 

 
Table-29. Constraints from the benefiting communities in the study area 

Constraints  Respondents  Percentages 

Difficulty to member of fadama communities to pay counterpart fund  380 100 

Total  380 100 
                       Source: Authors’ Field Work, 2014 

 

3.18. Rural Community Comments for Effective Implementation of Fadama III Programme in the 

Study Area  
On the whole 380 respondents were sampled on community recommendations. The breakdown of the sampled 

respondents were as follow: 19%(68) said payment of counterpart funds should be encouraged to fadama 

communities by way of contributing small amount of money by members, 23%(90) said adequate funds should 

allocate to projects for proper execution by the beneficiary communities, 23%(89) said timely release of money and 

inputs and 35%(133) said appointment of good leaders should be encouraged to all organizations. Table 30. 

 
Table-30. Rural community suggestions for effective implementation of fadama III programme in the study Area 

Suggestions  Respondents  Percentages 

Fadama communities should be encouraged to Pay counterpart fund through donations   68 19 

Adequate funds should allocated to projects for proper execution  90 23 

Timely release of money and input  89 23 

Appointment of good leaders should be encouraged   133 35 

Total  380 100 
         Source: Authors’ Field Work, 2014 
 

4. Conclusion  
From the findings, 4%(15) of the total sampled respondents were highly satisfactory with the activities of fadama 

III programme on poverty reduction, 26%(100) were moderately satisfactisfied and 70%(265) were not satisfied. 

Generally speaking, fadama III programme did not improve the condition of members of the benefiting 

communities especially in the area of food production. In addition, corrupt practices such as embezzlements and 

mismanagement of funds by both rural and state management officials of fadama III programme, untimely and 

inadequate supply of inputs and difficulties of member communities to pay counterpart funds were major constraints 

to effective implementation of fadama III programme in the study area.  

 

5. Recommendations  
Based on the major findings, the following recommendations are made: 

i. Government is to give zero tolerance to corrupt practices to ensure effective utilization of funds. 

ii. There should be timely and adequate provisions of fadama inputs and infrastructures like fertilizers, 

herbicides, insecticides etc since agricultural operations are time –bound. 

   iii.  Government should ensure improved technologies to for storage, transportation, processing and marketing of 

 fadama produce. 

   iv.  Project farmers should be encouraged to participate actively in the FUAs via trainings and consistent 

 payment of counterpart fund.  

 

Constraints  Respondents  Percentages  

Mismanagement of money by fadama III Programme rural community 

project management committee  

50 13.1 

Inadequate capital to execute the projects  100 26.3 

Untimely release of money by the state coordination office to beneficiary  100 26.3 

Corrupt practices by the programme managers  130 34.2 

Total  380 100 



Economy, 2014, 1(3): 79-88 

 

 

 

 

88 

 

References  
Adeolu, B.A. and A. Taiwo, 2004. The impact of national fadama facility in alleviating rural poverty and enhancing agricultural development 

in South-Western Nigeria. Journal of Social Science, 9(3): 157-161. 

Agbarevo, M.N.B. and A.V. Okwoche, 2014. Evaluation of effect of the third national fadama development project (Fadama 111) on food 

production among farmers in Kwande local government area of Benue State, Nigeria. European Journal of Agriculture and Forestry 

Research, 2(2): 27-32. 

Agumagu, A.C., 2000. Poverty alleviation in Nigeria: Can agricultural extension help? In: Agbamu ,J.U. (ed.) (2009); Perspectives in 

agricultural extension and rural development. Lagos: Springfield PublishersLtd. pp: 345. 

Ajayi, A.R., 2009. The role expectation agricultural extension in poverty alleviation in democratic and deregulated economy. In: Perspectives 

in agricultural extension and rural development, J.U.Agbamu (ed.). Lagos: Springfield Publishers Ltd. 

Ebenehi, O., N.M. Saddiq, O. Oyinbo, A.A. Muhammad and J.O. Ichi, 2012. Impact of the national poverty eradication programme (NAPEP) 

on rural livelihood in Kogi State,Nigeria. Sokoto Journal of the Social Sciences, 2(1): 26-36. 

Ehisuoria, S.E., 2012. The role of non-agro based industries in rural development in Esan Land. Edo State, Nigeria. Ph.D Thesis Department of 

Geography and Regional Planning. Ambrose Alli University, Ekpoma. 

FGN/WHO, 2004. Millennium development goals report. Abuja: FGN/WHO. 

Joseph, I.O., 2005. An assessment of impacts of poverty reduction programme in Nigeria as development strategy. PhD Dissertation,St. 

Clement University of Turks Caicoos, Island. 

Kankwenda, M., L. Gregoire, H. Legros and H. Ouedraogo, 2000. Poverty eradication; where stands Africa? London: UNDP. Economical 

Limited. 

Ker, J., 2008. General overview of Fadama III programme. State programme coordinator. A Publication of Communication and Information 

Support Unit Benue State Fadama Coordination Office, Makurdi, Printed by Vital Gate Ltd. 

Kwaghe, P.V., 2006. Poverty profile and its determinants among farming household in Bomo State Nigeria. In: Department of Agricultural 

Economics. University of Maiduguri, Borno States, Nigeria. 

Obadan, M.O., 1997. Analytical framework for poverty reduction: Issues of economic growth versus other strategies. In: Proceedings of the 

Nigerian Economic Society’s Annual Conference. pp: 1-18. 

Robb, C., 2002. Can the poor influence policy? Participatory poverty assessment in the developing world. Washington,D.C.: The World Bank. 

pp: 1-27. 

UNDP, 1994. United nations development programme. Sustainable Human Development and Agriculture, UNDP Guidebook Series UNDP 

New York: 48. 

World Bank, 1996. Nigeria: Poverty in the most of plant, the challenge of growth with inclusion. A world bank poverty assessment. 

Washington D.C: World Bank. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Views and opinions expressed in this article are the views and opinions of the authors, Economy shall not be responsible or answerable for any loss, 

damage or liability etc. caused in relation to/arising out of the use of the content. 

 


