The sustainment of agricultural development projects in Osun State Nigeria

Abstract

The main objective of this study was to assess the impact and sustainment of NPFS (ADP) and FADAMA III projects for rural farmers in Osun State in Nigeria. The specific objectives of the NPFS project were to foster the development of smallholder agriculture and income generation in the rural areas, improve national food security and reduce poverty on an economically and environmentally sustainable basis. The development objective of the FADAMA III project was to increase the incomes of users of rural land and water resources on a sustainable basis. The NPFS (ADP) project study was carried out in five local governments, while the FADAMA III project study was carried out in six local governments. The research method used involved the administration of structured and semi-structured questionnaires as the research instrument. The study used a sample of 316 project beneficiaries from respectively NPFS (216) and FADAMA III (100) randomly selected. The study also conducted research on 43 project staff and facilitators from these two selected projects. Descriptive statistics involving percentage frequency distribution and correlation analysis was used to analyze the impact and sustainability of these two projects on the beneficiaries in Osun State. The findings showed that few youths (less than 30 years) were involved in the projects and 42.4% of the households have a household size of more than five with relative high numbers of dependants. Majority of respondents (78.5%) has relative small land size (<5ha) where respondents rear poultry (13%) and livestock (12.7%). 89.1% respondents combined farming with other sources of household income. Fifty seven percent of the respondents are depending mainly on off-farm income and more than 50% of their household income. NPFS project beneficiaries were a bit more satisfied with their involvement and participation during all the stages of the project cycle than FADAMA III project beneficiaries. Staffs of both projects showed dissatisfaction with beneficiaries‟ involvement during the planning and evaluation stages. All three tiers of government were satisfactorily linked to the two projects while the World Bank was a strong external donor for FADAMA III project. Both project beneficiaries and staff were well trained prior to the projects as the extension workers, project facilitators and service providers were effectively involved in beneficiaries‟ training. The respondents perceived that the scope of FADAMA III project was overall more relevant in addressing food security and agricultural development needs than the scope of NPFS project. Beneficiaries perceived both NPFS and FADAMA III projects to have relative high impact on their household feeding status, means and easiness of transport, and household water supply. However, the impact of the two projects on electricity supply to households was generally perceived to be low. Beneficiaries from both projects showed dissatisfaction with the selection criteria used to select participants for these projects, while project staff on the other hand perceived it to be acceptable. The speed of releasing funds to beneficiaries was perceived to be very slow by beneficiaries of both projects. Sixty eight percent of NPFS and 84.7% of FADAMA III project beneficiaries are still participating in the projects since its inception, which is a good indicator of sustainability of these projects. Currently, only 38.6% of NPFS project beneficiaries are directly benefitting from the project while even FADAMA III beneficiaries who had not made their counterpart fund payments are still participating through their membership of the FADAMA User Group (FUG). The major challenges participants of both projects revealed were: poor weather conditions, poor communication and road network, poor participation and cooperation of beneficiaries, political attitudes and interference, unstable government tenure and policies and incompetent and dishonest project officials. This study therefore recommends that future projects should endeavour to attract and sustain stakeholders‟ interest in agricultural development projects through loans, credits, grants and other incentives so as to increase the sustainability level of these projects. The use of the agricultural innovation system approach in agricultural development projects was recommended in order to yield impact on different facets of beneficiaries‟ livelihood and the society at large. To ensure better effectiveness of future related projects, beneficiaries and staff recommended timely necessary support; discouragement of politics; quality extension support; support in identifying of appropriate markets; full participation of the youth and possible subsidizing of agricultural inputs.