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.