NATIONAL SPECIAL PROGRAMME FOR FOOD SECURITY ......operational decision making from PCU Abuja to the State ADPs. 7. The irrigation and water control component increased access to irrigation

1

NATIONAL SPECIAL PROGRAMME

FOR FOOD SECURITY, 2002 – 2006

(UTF/NIR/047/NIR)

EVALUATION REPORT

October 2008

2

TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS........................................................................................................... 2

LIST OF TABLES ..................................................................................................................... 5

LIST OF FIGURES.................................................................................................................... 6

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ....................................................................................................... 7

GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS................................................................................................. 8

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...................................................................................................... 10

I. INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................ 14

A. Evaluation Methodology ........................................................................................... 14

(i) The Impact Study................................................................................................... 14

(ii) The Evaluation Mission ......................................................................................... 15

(iii) Comparison with the NSPFS Implementation Completion Report (ICR)............. 15

B. Evaluation arrangements and modalities................................................................... 16

C. Outline of the report .................................................................................................. 16

II. Background to the NSPFS................................................................................................ 17

A. The process of programme formulation .................................................................... 17

B. Programme objectives ............................................................................................... 17

C. Resources for the NSPFS .......................................................................................... 18

D. Programme components ............................................................................................ 19

III. NSPFS ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT STRUCTURES.......................... 20

A. Achievements ............................................................................................................ 20

B. Assessments............................................................................................................... 21

IV. FOOD SECURITY PROJECT...................................................................................... 21

A. Targeting.................................................................................................................... 21

B. Weather Monitoring .................................................................................................. 24

C. Irrigation and Water Control ..................................................................................... 24

(i) Concept .................................................................................................................. 24

(ii) Achievements......................................................................................................... 25

(iii) Assessment............................................................................................................. 25

D. Intensification of Crop Production ............................................................................ 26

(i) Concept .................................................................................................................. 26

(ii) Achievements......................................................................................................... 26

(iii) Assessment............................................................................................................. 27

E. Supply of Inputs......................................................................................................... 28

(i) Concept .................................................................................................................. 28

(ii) Achievements......................................................................................................... 28

(iii) Assessment............................................................................................................. 28

F. Farm Mechanization...................................................................................................... 30

(i) Concept .................................................................................................................. 30

(ii) Achievements......................................................................................................... 31

(iii) Assessment............................................................................................................. 31

G. Agro-forestry ............................................................................................................. 31

(i) Concept .................................................................................................................. 31

(ii) Achievements......................................................................................................... 31

(iii) Assessment............................................................................................................. 31

3

H. Human Nutrition and Health ..................................................................................... 32

(i) Concept .................................................................................................................. 32

(ii) Achievements......................................................................................................... 32

(iii) Assessment............................................................................................................. 32

I. Farm Diversification - Livestock .................................................................................. 32

(i) Concept .................................................................................................................. 32

(ii) Achievements......................................................................................................... 33

(iii) Assessment............................................................................................................. 34

V. SOIL FERTILITY INITIATIVE (SFI) ............................................................................ 38

A. Concept...................................................................................................................... 38

B. Achievements ............................................................................................................ 38

C. Assessment ................................................................................................................ 39

VI. AQUACULTURE AND INLAND FISHERIES PROJECT ........................................ 41

A. Concept...................................................................................................................... 41

B. Achievements ............................................................................................................ 42

C. Assessment ................................................................................................................ 43

VII. ANIMAL DISEASES AND TRANS-BOUNDARY PEST CONTROL PROJECT (Annex III)................................................................................................................................ 44

AA.. Concept...................................................................................................................... 44

B. Achievements ............................................................................................................ 44

C. Assessment ................................................................................................................ 45

VIII. MARKETING OF AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES AND FOOD STOCK MANAGEMENT PROJECT ................................................................................................... 45

A. Concept...................................................................................................................... 45

B. Achievements ............................................................................................................ 46

C. Assessment ................................................................................................................ 48

IX. RURAL CREDIT.......................................................................................................... 53

A. Concept...................................................................................................................... 53

B. Achievements ............................................................................................................ 54

C. Assessments............................................................................................................... 54

X. SOUTH-SOUTH COOPERATION (SSC)...................................................................... 57

A. Concept...................................................................................................................... 57

B. Achievements ............................................................................................................ 58

C. Assessment ................................................................................................................ 59

XI. CROSS-CUTTING ISSUES......................................................................................... 62

A. Monitoring & Evaluation........................................................................................... 62

(i) Concept .................................................................................................................. 62

(ii) Achievements......................................................................................................... 63

(iii) Assessments ........................................................................................................... 66

B. Capacity Building ...................................................................................................... 67

(i) Concept .................................................................................................................. 67

(ii) Achievements......................................................................................................... 67

(iii) Assessments ........................................................................................................... 68

C. Group formation and use ........................................................................................... 70

(i) Concept. ................................................................................................................. 70

(ii) Achievements......................................................................................................... 70

(iii) Assessment............................................................................................................. 70

XII. GLOBAL IMPACTS OF NSPFS ................................................................................. 71

A. Effect on crop and livestock productivity.................................................................. 71

4

B. Effect on household food security ............................................................................. 72

C. Effect on Non-beneficiaries - Spill over effects ........................................................ 75

D. Sustainability of Programme Benefits ....................................................................... 76

XIII. SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................ 78

A. Main Findings............................................................................................................ 78

B. Implications for the Expanded NPFS ........................................................................ 80

C. Technical Assistance to NPFS................................................................................... 82

ANNEX 1: TERMS OF REFERENCE ................................................................................... 84

ANNEX 2: SUMMARY OF CV OF EVALUATION TEAM MEMBERS ........................... 95

ANNEX 3: EVALUATION MISSION ACTIVITY SCHEDULE.......................................... 97

ANNEX 4: NSPFS IMPACT STUDY REPORT .................................................................... 99

5

LIST OF TABLES Table 1: NSPFS budget by Component ................................................................................... 18

Table 2: Mean household size of NSPFS farmers, 2007.......................................................... 23

Table 3: Objectives and indicators for NSPFS......................................................................... 64

Table 4: Overview of M&E activities in NSPFS from 2002 – 2005 ....................................... 65

Table 5: Training achievements during NSPFS....................................................................... 68

Table 6: Mean field sizes (ha) of five most important farmers fields ...................................... 71

Table 7: Mean crop area (ha upland + fadama fields) by most important crop ....................... 72

Table 8: Change in crop production between 2001 and 2007 for selected food crops ............ 72

6

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Map of Nigeria showing the 109 NSPFS Sites......................................................... 22

Figure 2: Roofing materials of dwelling houses of NSPFS households .................................. 23

Figure 3: Main sources of livelihood of NSPFS households ................................................... 24

Figure 4: Access to Irrigation equipment by NSPFS households ............................................ 25

Figure 5: Access to Irrigation infrastructure by NSPFS households ....................................... 26

Figure 6: Adoption of new crops by NSPFS farmers............................................................... 27

Figure 7: Access and use of improved seed by NSPFS farmers .............................................. 29

Figure 8: Access and use of agrochemicals by NSPFS farmers .............................................. 29

Figure 9: Extent to which farmers practice soil conservation techniques in NSPFS areas...... 40

Figure 10: Time farmers have practiced soil conservation techniques in NSPFS areas .......... 41

Figure 11: Access and use of agro processing equipment by farmers in NSPFS areas ........... 49

Figure 12: Access and use of storage facilities by farmers in NSPFS areas ............................ 49

Figure 13: Marketing difficulties faced by farmers in NSPFS areas ....................................... 53

Figure 14: Farmers access to credit in NSPFS areas................................................................ 55

Figure 15: Repayment of credit by farmers in NSPFS areas ................................................... 55

Figure 16: Farmers sources of information about new crops................................................... 60

Figure 17: Farmers sources of information about improved soil conservation techniques ..... 60

Figure 18: Farmers perceptions about changes in techniques in NSPFS areas........................ 69

Figure 19: Farmers access to technical advice in NSPFS areas ............................................... 69

Figure 20: Percent of NSPFS households that grew enough food in 2002 and 2007 .............. 73

Figure 21: Percent of households that grew enough food in 2007 in NSPFS areas................. 73

Figure 22: Number of months food lasted in a household in NSPFS areas ............................. 74

Figure 23: Perception of changes in quantity of food eaten by households............................. 75

Figure 24: Perception of changes in quality of food eaten by households............................... 75

7

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The Evaluation Team wishes to express its appreciation to all those from FAO, the Federal Government, State and Local Governments of Nigeria and all stakeholders who were so helpful and willingly provided information and their thoughts on the National Special Programme for Food Security during field visits. Particular thanks go to Dr S. A. Ingawa the Director of the Projects Coordinating Unit in the Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development and his colleagues, Mr Cheikh Sarr, the FAO Chief Technical Adviser and his colleagues, as well as members of the FAO Representation in Nigeria particularly Ms Evelyn Yeye for making all the necessary administrative and logistics arrangements for the Impact Assessment Study and the Evaluation mission.

8

GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS

Acronyms/Abbreviations Meaning

ADP Agricultural Development Project

ADPEC Agricultural Development Project Executive Committee

ADTPCP Animal Disease and Trans-boundary pest control project

AfDB African Development Bank

BADEA Arab Bank for Agriculture and Economic Development

BTOR Back to Office Report

CBPP Contagious bovine plueuropneumonia

CTO Chief Technical Officer

DTC Demonstration Technology Centre

FAO Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations

FCT Federal Capital Territory

FDF Federal Department of Fisheries

FDLPCS Federal Department of Livestock and Pest Control Services

FGN Federal Government of Nigeria

FISON Fisheries Society of Nigeria

FMARD Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development

GOC Government of People’s Republic of China

GPS Global positioning System

GRAPAN Grain Producers Association of Nigeria

HFIAS Household Food Insecurity Access Scale

HIV/AIDS Human Immunodeficiency Virus/Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome

IAR&T Institute of Agricultural Research and Training

ICR Implementation Completion Report

IDB Islamic Development Bank

IFAD International Fund for Agricultural Development

IFDC International Fertiliser Development Centre

IITA International Institute of Tropical Agriculture

JCC Joint Consultative Committee

LGA Local Government Area

LSMC Local Site Management Committee

M&E Monitoring and Evaluation

MCC Ministerial Coordinating Committee

MDG Millennium Development Goal

MISTOWA Market Information Systems and Traders Organizations of West Africa

MOU Memorandum of Understanding

NAPRI National Animal Production Research Institute

NCA National Council on Agriculture

NCIS National Consultant for Impact Studies

NEEDS National Economic Empowerment and Development Strategy

NELO National Expert Liaison Officer

9

Acronyms/Abbreviations Meaning

NIFFR Nigerian Institute for Fresh Water Fisheries Research

NPC National Project Coordinator

NPFS National Programme for Food Security (Expanded Phase of NSPFS)

NPK Nitrogen, Phosphorus, Potassim

NSPFS National Special Programme for Food Security

NVRI National Veterinary Research Institute

PACE Pan-African Control of Epizootic diseases

PCU Project Coordination Unit PRA Participatory Rural Appraisal

SFI Soil Fertility initiative

SFPSO Senior Field Project Support Officer

SFR Strategic Food Reserve

SGR Strategic Grains Reserve

SPFS Special Programme for Food Security

SSC South-South Cooperation

SSC South-South Cooperation

TCOS FAO Technical Cooperation Service

TMC Technical Management Committee

TOR Terms of Reference

TOT Training of Trainers

TPA Tri-Partite Agreement

UNEG United Nations Evaluation Group

10

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1. The evaluation of the National Special Programme for Food Security (NSPFS) is a comprehensive study of the activities that took place over the period 2002-06, and of the outcomes produced. The study had two main components, an impact study which aimed to obtain a qualitative and quantitative assessment of the economic benefits of the micro-investments made in NSPFS and the existence of a multiplier effect, and an evaluation mission, which utilized the results of the impact study and other information to assess relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, impact and sustainability of the NSPFS.

2. The impact study covered 24 randomly selected sites in 17 states across the country out of the 109 in the NSPFS and made cross-sectional comparisons between participating and non-participating farmers and longitudinal comparisons, i.e. comparisons of available information in 2002, i.e. baseline data and recall information, with current information on participating farmers in the same sites after project implementation. The sites were grouped as urban/peri-urban and rural sites in each of the six geopolitical zones of the country and four randomly selected per zone, of which one was urban/peri-urban and three rural.

3. As foreseen in the TORs the evaluation mission used the results of the impact study and directly collected information on the other components and other issues not covered in the impact study, i.e. the “Aquaculture and Inland Fisheries”, the “Animal Disease and Transboundary Pest Control” and the “Marketing of Agricultural and Food Stock Management” components which were stand-alone projects and were not implemented in all NSPFS sites. The team visited stakeholders in 20 NSPFS sites located in 16 states many of which were not sample sites of the impact study but were purposely selected since they had activities for the three stand-alone NSPFS projects. During each visit individual interviews were conducted with State Agricultural Development Project staff, NSPFS Site Management Staff, Apex Committee members, technology developers, and other stakeholders. Focus group interviews were also conducted with NSPFS participants always in the presence of NSPFS site management staff. A check list of questions for the individual and focus group interviews was prepared by the evaluation team at the onset of the mission to ensure consistency of data collection by the different teams.

Main Findings

4. Relevance of the Programme: The NSPFS was designed to be a pilot initiative for improving national and household food security and reducing rural poverty in Nigeria through increasing food productivity, reducing year to year variability in agricultural production and improving access to food. This broad objective is highly relevant and perfectly in line with the overarching government objectives of poverty alleviation and sustainable food security, to be pursued through greater emphasis on agriculture and rural development.

5. Increasing food production and food security: The NSPFS had a positive impact on food production and productivity among beneficiary farmers but there was minimal or no impact on the level of food security of the households. The project basically adopted a supply-driven approach to food security alleviation which needs to be buttressed by other interventions, particularly in enhancing marketing systems that ensure improved access.

11

6. NSPFS organization and management structure: The NSPFS established and successfully operated a management structure that allowed it to achieve most of the programme objectives. Weaknesses included insufficient delegation of authority for operational decision making from PCU Abuja to the State ADPs.

7. The irrigation and water control component increased access to irrigation structures and equipment to a minority of farmers located in the northern parts of Nigeria, especially to a new group of farmers in the country.

8. In the intensification of crop production component, the NSPFS commendably did not force farmers to apply its recommended mono-cropping system allowing them to make the choice about which and how many crops or combination of crops to grow in their fields. Crop intensification modules were under-funded. A very positive aspect of the NSPFS was that it successfully led to substantial increases in food productivity among participating households.

9. The input supply activities of the NSPFS successfully delivered subsidized fertilizer and improved seeds to farmers, including some of the most disadvantaged. However, insufficient amounts of inputs, especially fertilizers, were provided and were generally supplied late in the cropping season impacting negatively on NSPFS farmers’ production and yields. The cash-and-carry method of sale for fertilizers was very successful and allowed 100 percent recovery of advances to State ADPs.

10. On farm diversification, the inclusion of livestock in the food security project was sound. However, the propagation of intensive livestock management systems in the project was inappropriate. Semi-intensive systems are more suitable to Nigerian smallholding farmers. Genetically improved sires are hard to find in Nigeria and farmers had to buy unimproved small ruminants and pig breeds in the open market.

11. In the soil fertility initiative, the NSPFS commendably produced digitised maps of Nigerian soils. However, the programme failed to make use of the large pool of knowledge generated to produce site-specific recommendations for farmers. The mass of agronomic trial data has only been partly analysed to show farmers the advantage of adopting the technical packages proposed.

12. The inventory of fish farms and feed producers was commendably used to guide project implementation in the aquaculture component. However, stocking of lakes and reservoirs was a failure due to gross under stocking. The objective of establishing core small to medium fish farms was only partially achieved as operators were not given essential incentives and training on fingerling production. Stand-alone aquaculture projects should be discouraged.

13. The animal disease control project started late and was not known by beneficiaries because it was implemented as a stand-alone project. Stand-alone livestock projects such as this should not be undertaken in future, but should be integrated in other agricultural development activities.

14. The agro-processing component was probably the least successful aspect of NSPFS implementation. It was unsatisfactorily implemented and sometimes improperly handled as a critical aspect of the food security project by some beneficiary groups. For post-harvest milling machines, the community ownership concept failed, and most of the machines were transferred to individuals. In some sites spare parts were either expensive or difficult to obtain. On-farm storage devices were not introduced on any meaningful scale.

15. Rural credit was regarded by farmers as the major NSPFS benefit. Repayment rates were much higher where modules could be down-sized and split into smaller amounts and still the

12

amounts received could be invested in profitable enterprises. NSPFS credit got to some of the neediest beneficiaries thanks to the system of loan disbursement via the Apex Bodies. However, these associations showed weaknesses in managing the loans as compared to private market microfinance institutions.

16. South-South Cooperation did not achieve its objective of transferring technical know-how to NSPFS farmers. Most if not all of the technologies introduced were not new to ADP staff and virtually all were already known and available in Nigeria. The existence of alternative national technology developers in both the public and private sector raises serious questions regarding the comparative advantage and cost-effectiveness of the South-South Cooperation arrangement.

17. The NSPFS M&E system was deficient in many aspects, including lack of an efficient set of monitoring indicators, reporting upstream, under-utilization of baseline data and lack of utilization for management purposes of the considerable amount of data collected on inputs, productions and ADP support activity. No impact data collection was undertaken during NSPFS implementation.

18. On capacity building, the NSPFS commendably contributed to improved learning by farmers, a critical element in ensuring the sustainability of programme benefits although farmers regard the NSPFS much more as a source of cheap credit and subsidized inputs than as a source of knowledge.

19. The group-based development strategy enhanced the capacity of the beneficiary communities to plan and manage enterprises. The groups also provided for the distribution of improved farm inputs, credit, improved facilities, extension and other services. However, the strategy was not effective in putting in place sustainable enterprise units.

20. Based on analysis of a number of factors that affect the likelihood of the sustainability of

the benefits of the NSPFS including availability of financial resources, socio-political factors, institutional factors, and the degree to which beneficiaries have acquired and are using new knowledge, the NSPFS was a successful pilot programme with demonstrated prospects for sustainability of its programme benefits in the short to medium term. Major Recommendations

21. The evaluation team made 16 recommendations for consideration during the current expanded NPFS among the most important of which are the following:

22. Recommendation No 2: The NPFS should continue the practice of providing subsidized fertilizer to beneficiaries on a cash-and-carry basis, but should ensure more equitable distribution by limiting the maximum amounts that can be sold to each group member. Furthermore, all input delivery to farmers should be timely, fully complying with the crop calendar in different project areas.

23. Recommendation No 10: In view of the general failure of group/community ownership of post-harvest machinery under the NSPFS, and the clearly expressed wish of most communities for individual ownership of such assets, the post-harvest component of the NPFS should focus on empowering the private sector to more appropriately provide such services by giving advice on equipment choices and sources of spare parts, appropriate location of such facilities and continuous training in business management including record keeping, sourcing of raw materials and marketing of outputs.

13

24. Recommendation No 3: The NPFS should pay great attention to establishing channels of supply for improved livestock breeds. Where local improved breeds have been developed and released (e.g. Shika Brown poultry developed by NAPRI) arrangements should be made to contract the developer to supply project needs. Where no local breeds exist (e.g. broilers and pigs) private sector suppliers either in the country or overseas should be contracted to supply the project requirements.

25. Recommendations No 4 and No 7: The propagation of the intensive livestock system and stand-alone aquaculture projects should be abandoned. Instead, the NPFS should propagate adoption of semi-intensive livestock management systems and integrate aquaculture with arable farming, horticulture and livestock production.

26. Recommendation: No 9: No stand-alone projects such as the Animal Disease and Pest Control Project or the Soil Fertility Initiative should be implemented in the NPFS. All such projects should be integrated with agricultural production activities such as the Food Security component of the NSPFS.

27. Recommendation No 12: The NPFS should give much more emphasis to improved farm storage and agricultural marketing than the NSPFS did. Systematic on-farm trials of all equipment such as small metal storage bins in which the cost effectiveness is to be assessed should be conducted under real farm conditions, including an assessment of the actual amount of subsidies (if any) that would be needed to encourage widespread adoption.

28. Recommendation No 13: The system of disbursement and management of loans through farmer-managed Apex Bodies should be continued. However, in order to ensure the sustainability of the activity which is a critical component of the programme, increased efforts should be made to enhance the capacity of such bodies through improved training in loan management systems, and linkages with micro finance associations so that the production credit disbursed through the NPFS be complementary to the credit disbursed by such organizations that tend to be more directed to trade. Furthermore, in order to prevent possible mismanagement of the Apex Recovery Loan Accounts at the different sites, members of the Apex Bodies should be made to understand that they are accountable not only to the farmer-members they represent, but also to the ADP programme manager through the site coordinator.

29. Recommendation No 14: The South-South Cooperation programme as operated in the past with large numbers of Chinese technicians should be modified to one in which a small number (say 20) of highly specialized and English-speaking Chinese experts are engaged to provide training and mentoring to Nigerian counterparts in the various fields of expertise focusing on innovative technologies, which could be tested and divulgated as described in the Joint China-Nigeria-FAO SSC Implementation Report of July 2007 on a limited number of micro-projects. Instead of Chinese technicians, national technicians should be engaged to carry out extension work.

14

I. INTRODUCTION

A. Evaluation Methodology

30. The Terms of Reference (TOR) define the evaluation of the National Special Programme for Food Security (NSPFS) as a comprehensive study of the activities that have taken place over the period 2002-06, and of the outcomes that have been produced to the benefit of participating farmers.

31. The NSPFS Evaluation TORs, presented in Annex 1, originate from an approach paper prepared by the FAO Evaluation Service which was discussed and agreed with stakeholders during a scoping mission to Abuja, undertaken in October 2007 by the evaluation team leader and the responsible FAO evaluation officer.

32. The study had two main components, an impact study which aimed to obtain a qualitative and quantitative assessment of the economic benefits of the micro-investments made in the NSPFS and the existence of a multiplier effect, and an evaluation mission, which utilized the results of the impact study and other information to assess relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, impact and sustainability of the NSPFS.

(i) The Impact Study

33. As foreseen in the TORs, the impact study covered the main NSPFS components, i.e. the “Food Security Project”, the “Soil Fertility Initiative” and the “South-South Cooperation”, since these three components were implemented in all the 109 sites of the NSPFS in all 36 states.

34. The impact study set out to answer three key questions: (a) were there any changes recorded by the NSPFS beneficiary farmers with respect to some key variables between 2002 and 20061? (b) were the beneficiaries of the NSPFS programme better off than their non-participating counterparts? and (c) did the benefits of the programme go beyond the initial communities in which they were introduced? – the spill-over effects. The key variables assessed were livelihoods and food security; levels of production and sales; access to and use of inputs; and outreach to non-project farmers (see Annex 4).

35. The impact study covered randomly selected sites in 17 states across the country and utilized a cross-sectional (comparison between participating and non-participating farmers) and longitudinal (comparison of available information in 2002, i.e. baseline data and recall information, with current information on participating farmers in the same sites after project implementation)2. A stratified sampling technique was used to select the sites for the survey. The sites were grouped as urban/peri-urban and rural sites in each of the six geopolitical zones of the country. Four sites were randomly selected per zone, of which one was urban/peri-urban and three rural giving a total of 24 sites were selected from the 109 NSPFS sites.

36. A team of 12 enumerators, each with a minimum of a Masters degree in agriculture or related discipline, collected data in the impact study using a household questionnaire which

1

With respect to changes recorded across time, the study took advantage of a baseline study that was conducted

at the commencement of the programme in 2002 (NSPFS Baseline Report 2002).

2 Also called “double difference” methodology.

15

included the Household Food Insecurity Access Scale indicator for the measurement of food access (Coates et al 2007) and the use of GPS equipment field sizes and crop areas.

37. Each enumerator covered two of the 24 project beneficiary sites and in addition randomly selected and interviewed farmers in two nearby and two distant sites respectively. One site was selected randomly from the same LGA as the NSPFS beneficiary site - known as the nearby site; another known as the distant site was selected randomly from another LGA that does not border with the NSPFS site/LGA but is located within the same senatorial zone. Selection of the non-participatory nearby and distant sites was also guided by the requirement that they should have similar population characteristics and similar agro ecological features as the NSPFS sites, and as much as possible that there should be an absence of other projects in the selected non-participatory sites.

38. In each of the NSPFS beneficiary sites, 16 farmers were randomly selected. The sample frame is based on the six geopolitical zones, with 64 farmers selected randomly per zone (i.e. 16 farmers selected in four sites per zone). This gives a 90 percent confidence level on a total sample frame of 3,678 farmers per zone. Similarly, eight farming households were randomly selected from the nearby site and another eight farming households were randomly selected from the distant non-beneficiary sites using a simple random sampling procedure.

(ii) The Evaluation Mission

39. As foreseen in the TORs, the evaluation mission used the results of the impact study and directly collected information on the other components and other issues not covered in the impact study, i.e. the “Aquaculture and Inland Fisheries”, the “Animal Disease and Transboundary Pest Control” and the “Marketing of Agricultural and Food Stock Management” components, which were stand-alone projects and were not implemented in all the NSPFS sites.

40. The evaluation team broke into four teams and visited stakeholders in 20 NSPFS sites located in 16 states (Annex 3). Many of the sites visited were not sample sites in the impact study but were purposely selected since they had activities for the three stand-alone NSPFS projects.

41. During each visit individual interviews were conducted with State Agricultural Development Project (ADP) staff, NSPFS site management staff, Apex Committee members, technology developers, and other stakeholders. Focus group interviews were also conducted with NSPFS participants always in the presence of NSPFS site management staff. A check list of questions for the individual and focus group interviews was prepared by the evaluation team at the onset of the mission to ensure consistency of data collection by the different teams.

(iii) Comparison with the NSPFS Implementation Completion Report (ICR)

42. It should be noted that the methodology used in the ICR of the NSPFS which was undertaken in 20063 was different from that used in this evaluation report and described above in a number of key aspects. First, unlike the ICR, this study undertook an impact assessment with a statistically selected sample of participating and non-participating farmers that allowed objective quantitative measurement of longitudinal as well as cross-sectional impact variables, measurement of food security levels among farmers, using an internationally accepted

3

The consolidated report of the internal implementation completion review of the National Special Programme

for Food Security (NSPFS), by PCU, FMARD, Abuja. March 2006.

16

technique – the HFIAS standard and direct measurement of crop areas using GPS equipment. Furthermore, assessment of achievements went beyond assessment of achievements of project output targets to include assessments of the quality of the outputs by the evaluation team members all of whom are recognized experts in their areas of assignment and were selected in consultation with and cleared by NSPFS management.

43. The conclusions and recommendations in this evaluation report were developed independently of the ICR. While a few are similar to those of the ICR, most are different from the conclusions of the ICR. The evaluation team’s position is that it is unnecessary to detail similarities or differences between its conclusions and recommendations and those of the ICR, as the TORs do not require such comparisons and the team does not regard this evaluation as an exercise to compare the results of the two methodologies.

B. Evaluation arrangements and modalities

44. In full respect of FAO norms and quality standards for evaluation and in compliance with the United Nations Evaluation Group (UNEG) Ethical Guidelines and Code of Conduct, the NSPFS evaluation was conducted by a mixed team of fully independent national and international specialists, none of whom were previously involved with the NSPFS (Annex 2). The team was led by an externally-recruited team leader, and was managed by the FAO evaluation officer-in-charge. The evaluation team consisted of the following: Dr D. S. C Spencer (Sierra Leone) – Agricultural Economist, Team Leader, Dr M. Akoroda (Nigeria) – Agronomist, Dr A. Ikpi (Nigeria) – Economist, Dr E. Sonaiya (Nigeria) – Livestock Specialist, Mr P. Amiengheme (Nigeria) – Fishery Specialist, and Mr C. Carugi (Italy) – FAO Evaluation Officer, who also task managed and quality ensured both the evaluation report and the impact study. The impact study was led by Dr C. Ezedinma (Nigeria) – Agricultural Economist.

45. The FAO Evaluation Service exercised a quality assurance function of the overall process, including in the impact study phase, by ensuring at all stages the adherence to the highest professional standards in evaluation.

46. The FAO Technical Cooperation Service (TCOS) and NSPFS management and staff in the Project Coordination Unit (PCU) of the Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (FMARD), as well as farmers and other stakeholders, provided the information to the team conducting the study. The evaluation costs were supported by a provision to that effect within the FAO/Nigeria Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) of the NSPFS Expansion Phase (UTF/NIG/048/NIG).

47. During the scoping mission, the administrative and financial disbursement modalities were discussed and agreed with NSPFS management, the FAO Representation in Nigeria and the FAO Regional Office in Accra.

C. Outline of the report

48. The next chapter presents the background to the NSPFS, followed by one describing the programme management structures and organizational aspects of the programme. Chapters 4 to 10 are structured according to the NSPFS components, with each chapter consisting of a part describing the concept followed by a second part listing the achievements and a third presenting the assessment of achievements by the evaluation team.

49. Chapter 11 discusses cross cutting issues (monitoring and evaluation, capacity building, group formation and use) followed by a chapter discussing the global impact of the NSPFS

17

including the effect on household food security and sustainability of programme benefits. The final chapter summarizes the evaluation conclusions and recommendations and discusses the implications for the expanded NPFS Phase.

II. BACKGROUND TO THE NSPFS

A. The process of programme formulation

50. As a follow up to the 1996 World Food Summit, Nigeria requested assistance from FAO under the Special Programme for Food Security (SPFS). A tripartite participatory review of the Government’s request involving FAO, the Federal Government of Nigeria (FGN) and other stakeholders was held in Nigeria, and in March 1998 an advance allocation was approved under TCP/NIR/88221 to support the finalization of the SPFS pilot phase in Kano State.

51. The success obtained by the Kano SPFS pilot activities conducted in three sites induced the FGN to ask for FAO’s assistance in rapidly expanding the programme nationwide, covering all 36 states plus the Federal Capital Territory (FCT). The National Special Programme for Food Security (NSPFS) was therefore formulated with a strategy of working in three sites per state, one urban/peri-urban and two rural, directly involving about 23,000 farming families in a total of 109 sites in the whole country. The criteria for site selection included visible evidence of poverty in a community of 250-300 farming families, but with potential resources for increased agricultural production4.

52. The NSPFS project document was developed by a Joint Consultative Committee (JCC) comprising the FGN and FAO officials. On 11 May 2000, the FGN and FAO signed an Agreement on implementation of the NSPFS5. The programme, declared operational by FAO in November 2001, devoted the first implementation year essentially to preliminary activities such as Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) for identification of sites and for farmers’ needs assessment; formation of farmers’ groups; opening of bank accounts; and procurement of fertilizers. The programme was initially to be executed over a three-year period at a total cost of US$45.2 million totally funded by the FGN, but the various budget revisions made it possible to spread execution over five years from the date the programme was declared effective in 2001. Field activities effectively started during the 2002/2003 cropping season.

B. Programme objectives

53. The broad objective of the NSPFS was to contribute to sustainable improvements in national food security through increases in food productivity and food production on an economically and environmentally sustainable basis, reduce year to year variability in agricultural production and improve people’s access to food6.

54. The specific objectives of NSPFS were to: a. Assist farmers in achieving their potential for increasing output and incomes on a

sustainable basis;

4 NSPFS activities were established at three selected sites in each of the 36 States (i.e. one per senatorial district) and one in the FCT. 5 The project document # UTF/NIR/047/NIR was published by FAO in September 2001. 6 National Programme for Food Security: the Nigeria experience; Federal ministry of Agriculture and rural development, and FAO, December, 2006.

18

b. Strengthen the effectiveness of research and extension services in bringing technology and new farming practices developed by research institutes to farmers and ensuring greater relevance of research to the farmers;

c. Concentrate initial efforts in pilot areas for maximum effect and ease of replication by non-project farmers;

d. Train and educate farmers in the effective utilization of available land, water and other resources and facilities to produce food and create employment on a sustainable basis; and

e. Utilize international experience for integrated farming practices in Nigeria to maximize use of existing facilities and knowledge to spread benefits to wider areas.

55. The specific objectives correspond to the general strategy and trust of most of FAO-implemented SPFS programmes in developing countries. These are:

a. improving food security and livelihoods at household level; b. increasing productions and sales by way of intensification and diversification of rural

enterprises (including activities in staple and cash crops, livestock, storage and processing of agricultural production, and fisheries sectors);

c. improving access to inputs, (including agricultural inputs, training and technical advice, and rural credit); and

d. promoting outreach of NSPFS-introduced techniques and innovations to non-beneficiary rural communities for maximum spread of expected project benefits.

C. Resources for the NSPFS

56. The NSPFS in Nigeria was wholly financed by the FGN with a budget of US$45.2 millions. This amount was predominantly dedicated to the Food Security Component (or Annex 1, as it is called in the NSPFS project document), which constituted the main thrust of the programme (Table 1). The Food Security Component was complemented by five other components, namely the Aquaculture and Inland Fisheries Component, the Animal Disease and Transboundary Pest Control Component, the Marketing of Agricultural Commodities and Food Stock Management Component, and finally the Soil Fertility Initiative.

Table 1: NSPFS budget by Component

Component Budget (US$)

Food Security 30,417,840

Aquaculture and Inland Fisheries 6,989,616

Animal Diseases and Transboundary Pest Control 4,495,020

Marketing of Agricultural Commodities and Food Stock management 1,239,670

Soil Fertility Initiative 2,094,150

Sub-Total 45,256,296

South-South Cooperation 22,245,600

Sub-Total 22,245,600

TOTAL 67,481,896

19

57. The NSPFS project document did not include the China/Nigeria South-South Cooperation (SSC) Component, which was formulated in 2003 to provide technical assistance to the NSPFS by fielding 500 Chinese technicians and experts to work in introduction of Chinese small-scale technical innovations suitable to Nigeria conditions, and to support the NSPFS extension service. The SSC was also totally financed by the FGN at a cost of US$22.2 million.

D. Programme components

58. As indicated above, the Food Security Programme was the main programme component. It was sub-divided into 3 sub-components as follows:

a. Water control component, to increase efficiency of existing irrigation schemes and develop efficient low-cost irrigation techniques aimed at increasing crop production, productivity and profitability through formation and support of water users’ groups. It also supports improved irrigation and drainage practices in relevant sites covered by NSPFS, sinking of tube wells and wash bores, promotion of rain harvesting techniques, participatory construction of micro-earth dams, provision, maintenance and use of irrigation pumps, and participatory construction and/or rehabilitation of drainage structures.

b. Intensification component, to assist farmers in increasing crop output, productivity, profitability and household income. Activities include support for crop production, production of improved seeds and seedlings and supply of inputs, farm mechanization, storage/preservation of agricultural products, rural credit, agroforestry, processing and marketing of agricultural commodities, human nutrition, sanitation, hygiene and health care, and research and extension.

c. Diversification component, to promote efficient, innovative and profitable diversification of farm activities. Its focus is mainly on livestock and fisheries. In livestock, the packages include broiler and cockerel production, layer production, ram fattening, cattle fattening (for meat and draught animal power), pig fattening, small ruminant improvement, pig production and animal health delivery through paravet services. The component also seeks the integration of monogastric and ruminant livestock production systems with crops and fisheries systems. In fisheries, the modules promoted included integrated livestock and/or crop / aquaculture systems, introduction and strengthening of inland fishery and aquaculture activities, participatory construction and maintenance of fish ponds, stocking ponds with fingerlings, supporting local production of fingerlings, hands-on training of farmers and technicians in fish production, processing, storage and marketing practices and support to the establishment of homestead fish farms, among others.

59. The other NSPFS components had complementary objectives to the Food Security component and in general all related to the improvement of food security and livelihoods, increase of production and sales, and increased access to improved farm inputs. The Aquaculture and Inland Fisheries component aimed at improving freshwater fish production through increased output from aquaculture including greater harvests from fish farms and culture-based fisheries. The Animal Disease and Transboundary Pest Control component was to reduce epidemic animal diseases (poultry diseases, small ruminant diseases, swine diseases, etc.) affecting farm and household production hence improving the animal health situation in Nigeria and enhancing livestock production and trade.

20

60. The development objective of the Marketing of Agricultural Commodities and Food Stock Management component was to improve access and availability to food storage infrastructures, and provide the fall-back marketing systems for producers through the Buyer of Last Resort Scheme to guarantee a sustained agricultural product, household income and poverty alleviation. The Soil Fertility Initiative aimed at promoting soil fertility awareness among stakeholders, expanding availability of low-cost and high-quality sources of plant nutrients and promoting their efficient use by farmers, reducing land degradation and promoting sustainable land use for soil fertility improvement.

61. The South-South Cooperation aimed at providing Chinese expertise to support the NSPFS in the fields of water control and management, including small-scale irrigation and soil and water conservation; horticultural production, post-harvest technologies (storage and processing) and marketing; animal production (including husbandry, feed preparation and health); and aquaculture production and extension.

III. NSPFS ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT

STRUCTURES

A. Achievements

62. The programme established an administrative and management component which involved collaboration within and between the national, state and local government levels. Its aim was to promote effective project implementation and demand-driven participatory community development by creating farmers’ groups or grassroots organizations with the objective of linking them to public and private sector support services. Capacity building of staff and beneficiaries was a key element of this strategy.

63. The established institutional framework of the NSPFS at the federal level included the Project Coordinating Unit (PCU) under the aegis of the Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (FMARD) and FAO. The PCU and FAO were responsible for nationwide implementation of the programme through the Agricultural Development Projects (ADPs) in the states and FCT Abuja ADP. PCU and FAO responsibilities entailed coordination of NSPFS components, monitoring and evaluation and supervision of activities at state and site levels. The PCU Director was the National Project Coordinator (NPC) of the NSPFS. FAO was represented by the Senior Field Project Support Officer (SFPSO), who provided technical guidance for the implementation of the programme. Support in terms of policies and technical assistance was provided by the SPFS team (TCOS) at FAO headquarters in Rome.

64. Steering committees were set up at the federal level (the National Council on Agriculture (NCA), the Ministerial Coordinating Committee (MCC), which dealt with policy and strategy issues, and the Technical Management Committee (TMC), which reported to the MCC. The TMC was the inter-departmental technical committee chaired by the Permanent Secretary of FMARD which provided overall coordination of the programme. The PCU Director was the TMC Secretary.

65. Mirroring the situation at the federal level, state level steering committees included the Agricultural Development Project Executive Committee (ADPEC), which was the policy/strategy body, and the State TMC. The ADPEC was chaired by the Governor with the Commissioner of Agriculture as his deputy, while the Programme Manager of the State ADP

21

was the TMC Secretary. The State TMC was chaired by the Permanent Secretary of the State Ministry of Agriculture.

66. The ADP Programme Manager served as the NSPFS State Coordinator, and was assisted by seven facilitators with responsibility respectively, for crops, livestock, fisheries, water use, health/nutrition, M&E and finance. The State ADPs were the local implementation agencies and provided the required services under the unified extension services system.

67. At the local site level, there was the Local Site Management Committee (LSMC), chaired by the Local Government Area (LGA) chairman, with the NSPFS site manager as the secretary. The site manager had responsibility for project implementation at the site level, and was assisted by three extension agents. These four staff members were expected to reside and work permanently in the NSPFS sites.

68. The implementation strategy also involved the formation of groups supervised by an Apex Committee at each of the sites. During the PRA sessions held in all the 109 NSPFS sites farmers were informed about the conditions for delivery of inputs, including group formations, election of office bearers within the groups, the registration of the groups as cooperative societies, opening of a bank account, and development of constitutions for the Apex Committees responsible for selection of beneficiaries, distribution of improved farm inputs, funds disbursement, maintenance of accounts, loan repayment and linkages with facilitators and the ADPs.

B. Assessments

69. An assessment of the efficiency of the NSPFS governance and management systems against best practice norms is beyond the mandate and remit of this evaluation. They have been the subject of many confidential FAO Audit reports.

70. The evaluation team would only like to note that, as indicated later: there are indications of insufficient delegation of authority for operational decision making from PCU Abuja to the State ADPs in such areas as design of programme activities and modules; the envisaged oversight committees did not meet as often as required by the project document explaining some of the delays in responsiveness “from above” reported by site management staff; and there was a general slowness or total lack of response to recommendations by supervising missions and technical consultants by both FAO and local administrators.

IV. FOOD SECURITY PROJECT

A. Targeting

71. The Food Security project of the NSPFS programme was conducted in 109 sites (Figure 1), each of which was expected to cover 250-300 farm families. Thus, the livelihoods of about 23,000 farm families were targeted to be affected by the activities of the NSPFS.

22

Figure 1: Map of Nigeria showing the 109 NSPFS Sites

72. A site was defined as a geographically defined area with a village as a central point and including some outlying hamlets in which most NSPFS programmes were implemented. The sites served as platforms for demonstration of improved production and agro processing technologies with a view to establishing cottage agro-based enterprises in those locations7.

73. Initial selection of the priority areas within each senatorial district was based on existing secondary data relating to the potential for rapid improvement and to their representation of major ecological zones. Subsequent selection of specific sites in each state was based on PRA needs assessment conducted by state/local implementing teams.

74. The target group of beneficiaries was the rural poor, who represent the overwhelming majority of the inhabitants, including women, youth and other vulnerable groups at the sites. Implementation cuts across various agricultural and institutional sub-sectors.

75. From its field visits the evaluation team confirmed that site selection in the NSPFS followed the guidelines set in the project document, was independent of political interference and was objective, avoiding many of the pit falls of such exercises in the past. Programme

7 NPFS Programme Sites in Nigeria as at September, 2007. Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Water Resources.

23

beneficiaries were largely genuine farmers and largely representative of the rural community in Nigeria as confirmed by the results from the impact study.

76. The impact study report gives details of the socio-demographic and livelihood characteristics of sampled households showing that there was no statistical difference in the key characteristics of household size (Table 2), types of roofing materials – a good indicator of household wealth in sub-Saharan Africa (Figure 2), and main sources of livelihood (Figure 3) between beneficiary and non-beneficiary households.

Table 2: Mean household size of NSPFS farmers, 2007

Beneficiary Farmers Non-Beneficiary farmers Statistics

Men

> 15 years

Women

> 15 years

Children

< 15 years

Men

> 15 years

Women

>15 years

Children

< 15 years

Mean 3.66 3.8 5.03 3.8 3.5 4.9

N 352 351 354 352 359 366

Std. Dev 2.93 3.67 4.28 2.93 4.41 7.52

Variance 8.573 13.452 18.353 31.67 19.47 36.60

Minimum 0 0 0 0 0 0

Maximum 24 45 36 20 25 37

Source: NSPFS Evaluation Impact Study, Table 2

Figure 2: Roofing materials of dwelling houses of NSPFS households

Figure 10: Percentage of households by type of roof material in dwelling

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Thatch C Iron Asbestos Other

Type of roof material

Pe

rce

nt

of

ho

us

eh

old

s

Ben

Nben

Source: NSPFS Evaluation Impact Study, Figure 10

24

Figure 3: Main sources of livelihood of NSPFS households

Figure 11: Main Sources of Livelihood

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Farming Livestock

Raising

Fishing Off farm other

Source

Pe

rce

nt

of

HH

Ben

NBen


B. Weather Monitoring

77. There was to be weather data collection to help guide farmers on when to conduct certain field operations. These, together with existing data of the national meteorological office, were to help the process of aligning agricultural field work with weather conditions. Changes of weather occur imperceptibly. For that reason, we need to follow the changes to be able to map the direction of proper actions relating to field work for both crops and livestock components.

78. However, there was a paucity of weather data in NSPFS reports. In a few cases, data was reported just for the current season without any relationship to long-term trends. The influence of observed weather on yield was not always stated. These are important considerations for the assessment loans’ repayment by farmers whose production might have been affected by natural disasters. The paucity of weather information is unusual for a large agricultural programme of the magnitude of the NSPFS and needs much improvement in collaboration with the National Meteorological Organization.

C. Irrigation and Water Control

(i) Concept

79. The immediate objective of this component was to increase the efficiency of existing irrigation schemes and develop efficient low-cost irrigation techniques for increasing crop productivity and profitability. The aim was to provide portable water and irrigation facilities that would allow an increase in production especially of vegetables thus leading to an increase in household food security.

25

(ii) Achievements

80. By the end of the project, 2,867 replicates of interventions had been realized, including 89 boreholes, 41 open wells, 24 micro earth dams, almost 2,000 irrigated plots, 480 tube wells, 189 wash bores, 54 rain harvesting and drainage structures, and 10,044 water pumps. It is reported that about 10,000 tons of vegetables were produced under irrigation.

81. However, some of the investments were non-productive, e.g. dry wells. Other constraints noted during implementation included poor hydro-geologic survey data on water holding aquifers, farm families being unable to raise additional funds where funds provided under the project were inadequate to finance the water project, political and parochial interferences, and the nature of land holding in the Niger Delta which makes it difficult to obtain contiguous land for construction of irrigated perimeters for community use.

(iii) Assessment

82. Field visits undertaken by the evaluation team showed that some irrigation structures were well constructed but some were poorly constructed. Because of the lack of records, it was not possible for the evaluation team to assess what proportion of the claimed 10,000 tons increase in vegetable production could be attributed to NSPFS activities.

83. Indications from the impact study are that participation in the NSPFS allowed farmers to have increased access to irrigation facilities and equipment. The relative difference in access to irrigation equipment varies by type of equipment (Figure 4) with participants having much higher access to pumps and PVC pipes compared to non-participants, but only slightly higher access to buckets.

Figure 4: Access to Irrigation equipment by NSPFS households

Figure 47: Percentage of beneficiary and non beneficiary households by

access to irrigation equipments

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

Pump PVC pipe Bucket Other

Type of equipment

Pe

rce

nt

Ben

Nben


84. Figure 5 shows that slightly more beneficiary farmers had access to irrigation infrastructure such as dams, terraces and canal than non-beneficiary farmers, although the differences were quite small, e.g. 3 percent of beneficiary farmers with access to terraces versus 0.5 percent of non-beneficiary farmers, and about 9 percent with access to canals compared to 7.5 percent of non-beneficiaries.

26

85. We therefore see that the NSPFS programme improved the access of its beneficiary farmers to irrigation structures and equipment relative to the non-beneficiary farmers. However, the proportion of NSPFS households that had access was small, the maximum being only 18 percent with access to pumps. This is probably because irrigation facilities and infrastructure are found mostly in the northwest and north east zones of the country.

Figure 5: Access to Irrigation infrastructure by NSPFS households


access toirrigation facilities and infrastructure

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

terrace dam earth canal well other

Type of facility/infrastructure

Perc

en

t

Ben

Nben


86. Another positive aspect of this component was that irrigation was introduced to a new group of farmers in Nigeria. The project also had a catalytic effect in three states (Lagos, Ekiti and Enugu), which allocated state resources to expand the number of modules implemented in the states.

D. Intensification of Crop Production

(i) Concept

87. The immediate objective of crop intensification activities was to assist farmers in increasing crop output, productivity, profitability and household incomes. The aim was to intensify production on existing crop lands by using seeds of improved or superior varieties cultivated under improved management. Supplies of inputs were to be made available to farmers who were also to be provided with loans to acquire the inputs. Farmers were also to be trained and encouraged to adopt modern agronomic practices. Thus, better know-how, more inputs, more cash to operate their farms was expected to lead to increased yields resulting in increased household incomes.

(ii) Achievements

88. It is reported that about 30,000 ha of 12 major staple food crops were put under intensive cultivation and that yields increased as a result of increased use of improved techniques (fertilizer, seeds, etc.) and knowledge in crop agronomy acquired by participating farmers.

27

Overall, it is estimated in the ICR that profit per ha increased from an average of N30,633 to N55,830, an increase of 82.3 percent.

(iii) Assessment

89. Record keeping that would allow objective assessment of achievements under this component as well as the NSPFS in general was inadequate both at NSPFS and farmer levels. The evaluation team was therefore not able to quantify the impact of claimed achievements. Reports such as “the pepper yield obtained from the plot treated with Booster-xtra fertilizer was higher than that of the untreated plots and the crops also had good responses such as good interim pigmentation, early flowering, bigger fruit size and number and less pest infestation” or “maize crop performances in responses to the application of Boost-xtra were early flowering, big size of cobs and stalks, vibrant and greenish leaves and more cobs. The yield is encouraging too” are not very useful. Obviously this is an area which needs much improvement in the future.

90. The impact study revealed that only a minority of NSPFS farmers (25 percent) claimed to

have grown new crops over the four years of the NSPFS programme (Figure 6). Although the

proportion was even lower for non-beneficiary farmers (17 percent) the difference was not

statistically significant, implying that the NSPFS did not have much impact in this area.

However, as discussed later in Section 12, the impact study report confirmed that NSPFS

farmers achieved significant increases in crop production and productivity as a result of use of

the inputs and crop production techniques provided by the programme.

Figure 6: Adoption of new crops by NSPFS farmers

Figure 31: Percentage of Farmers that grew new Crops

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

No Yes

Perc

en

t o

f H

ou

seh

old

s

Ben

Nben


91. The dominant system of crop production in Nigeria as in many African countries is intercropping with multiple crop species growing on the same land, planted at different times during the crop season. It is also well known that farmers, despite decades of extension recommendations, have not adopted the mono cropping recommendations emanating from research stations. It was therefore not surprising that NSPFS farmers did not in general adopt the recommended geometry and spacing of the project. What is surprising is that such recommendations were made in the first place.

28

92. That the recommendations were not enforced and that the project allowed the farm families to choose the crops or combination of crops to grow was commendable. This flexibility allowed farmers to continue with the habits, culture, and local preferences of the families in meeting their diverse food needs across the year, reducing the risks of crop failures resulting from seasonal weather variations, and for meeting the demand of the local markets, while adopting such practices as improved varieties and fertilizer use.

93. The need to understand cropping systems is impossible without mastery of the weather and its effects on crop production. In this regard, the emphasis on rainfall information gathering and use was low or non-existent in many NSPFS sites. Future efforts would require that a weather unit be created within the NSPFS to liaise with the National Meteorological Agency of Nigeria. In this way, better guidance can be given to farmers on when to plant and how to reduce risks of crop failure and spoilage.

94. The evaluation team observed that in many instances the crop intensification modules were under funded. For example, Ondo ADP estimated about N87,000 was needed to fund the cassava production module as against the planned N54,000. Also, in some states such as Bayelsa, there was no contiguous land available for community-based or group activities. Thus, modules needed to be provided for individual rather than group work. Such flexibility calls for greater management ability at each ADP working with Apex committees.

95. Recommendation No 1: There is a need to adjust module costs to the reality at each site. The NFPS should allow much more flexibility in module design and delegate such responsibility to state ADPs.

E. Supply of Inputs

(i) Concept

96. The immediate objective of this activity was to provide high-quality seeds/seedlings and planting materials, disease resistant crop varieties adapted to the relevant agro-ecological zones, fertilizers and other relevant inputs to farmers on a cost recovery basis.

(ii) Achievements

97. NSPFS farmers received supplies of inputs through their groups. Apex committees organized acquisition of supplies and distribution to group members with the assistance of project staff.

98. Supplies distributed between 2002 and 2006 were: 1.2 t of seed dressing, 30.8 t of pesticides, 38.74 t of herbicides, 5.48 t of storage chemicals, 16,478 t of fertilizers [NPK, and Urea], 4,743 t of Agrolyser, 2,307 tonnes of Cystalliser, and 1942 t of lime . Also 136 community seed development farms were established in 2005 and produced 304 t of improved seeds of maize, millet, sorghum, groundnut and rice, about 143,309 bundles of cassava cuttings, and 1.9 million yam setts, were distributed in all NSPFS sites.

(iii) Assessment

99. As expected, the impact study revealed that farmers participating in the NSPFS had increased access to inputs. Figure 7 shows that about 58 percent of the beneficiary farmers had access to improved seeds of cereals compared to about 47 percent of the non-beneficiary farmers. About 48 percent of the beneficiary farmers had access to improved seeds of root and

29

tuber crops compared to 37 percent of the non-beneficiary farmers. The same is observed for improved seeds of vegetables and other crops.

100. Figure 8 shows similar increased access rates for beneficiary farmers for agrochemicals. For example, 72 percent of the NSPFS beneficiary farmers have access to fertilizers compared to about 55 percent of non-beneficiary farmers. Access to fertilizers by over half of the non-beneficiary farmers suggests that these farmers benefited from the state-wide subsidized fertilizer programmes during the NSPFS implementation period or were able to obtain supplies on the open market at unsubsidized market prices. Several state governments provided subsidized fertilizers to their farmers outside the NSPFS.

Figure 7: Access and use of improved seed by NSPFS farmers


access to improved seeds

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

cereals roots/tubers vegetables other

Type of improved seed

Perc

en

tag

e

Ben

Nben


Figure 8: Access and use of agrochemicals by NSPFS farmers

Figure 45: Percentage of beneficiary and non beneficiary by access to

agrochemicals

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

fertilizers herbicides insecticides

Type of agrochemical

Perc

en

t

Ben

Nben


101. A universal complaint made by both farmers and field staff of the NSPFS was the late delivery of inputs, especially fertilizers, to project sites. This is a critical shortcoming in an agricultural development project and was a major failure of NSPFS implementation. This poor service delivery greatly hampered the implementation of correct planting and application

30

dates for NSPFS supplied inputs, and no doubt had a negative impact on crop yields obtained by farmers.

102. Furthermore, as confirmed by the impact study, the quantity of many inputs supplied to individual farmers was insufficient to meet their crop production needs. Consequently, squabbles, scrambles and struggles ensued among group members. For example, the 16,478t of fertilizer supplied for use by 23,000 beneficiaries is equivalent to 14 bags per beneficiary, only enough for about one and a half hectares per beneficiary. Although this was more than enough for the one hectare target of the crop production module, it was much less than the average crop area of the farmers. Even NSPFS farmers therefore had to purchase additional inputs on the open market to supplement the supplies from the NSPFS. In one site, the evaluation team estimated that most farmers purchased 25–50 percent additional quantities of fertilizers, although some of the poorest including women were unable to purchase any additional supplies and had to rely only on what they could buy from the NSPFS at subsidized prices.

103. Some inputs provided were not used by farmers even though they were made available for free. These included lime, Agrolyser, and Cystalliser, confirming that despite positive agronomic results in trials (see discussion in Section VI), the economics of the use of the inputs at farm level is questionable.

104. The evaluation team noted the following positive aspects of the input supply system of the NSPFS:

• The cash-and-carry method of sale meant that loans advanced to ADPs and Apex associations were fully repaid.

• Although there was some elite capture, the system allowed subsidized fertilizers and other inputs to get to actual farmers, including some of the most disadvantaged – a major achievement compared to past attempts at delivering subsidized inputs to farmers.

• Subsidization reduced the cost of NPK and Urea by about 50 percent to beneficiary farmers allowing use by some farmers who would not have used fertilizers otherwise, with resulting increases in crop productivity.

• Through the system the shortfall in fertilizer supplies to NSPFS farmers was reduced by half.


F. Farm Mechanization

(i) Concept

106. The immediate aim of the farm mechanization component was to improve the efficiency of tillage using animal drawn equipment, power-tillers, hand tools and conservation

31

tillage implements. Mechanization is expected to reduce farm drudgery and thereby enable farmers to increase the land area under cultivation.

(ii) Achievements

107. A total of 945 work animals and 713 ox-drawn equipments were financed by the project. Use of the oxen cultivation enabled beneficiaries to increased their own crop area, provide custom hire services to other community members, improve the timeliness of their crop cultural practices, and turn a profit from sale of used animals at the end of the crop season

(iii) Assessment

108. The evaluation team had indications that the supply of work oxen by the NSPFS made a positive contribution to the slight increase in crop area among participating farmers in the northern parts of the country and reduced the drudgery associated with the preparation of land at the beginning of the season. But the project did not introduce machines, such as power-tillers and or small-sized tractors as envisaged, for use in the Tsetse fly areas of the middle and southern belts of Nigeria.

G. Agro-forestry

(i) Concept

109. The immediate objective in this component was to increase the efficiency and profitability of tree crop production in relevant sites. The NSPFS was to provide loans for farmers for growing of fruit and other tree crops for food and cash. The seedlings of such crops were to be produced by individuals and in community nurseries.

(ii) Achievements

110. Using loans given to farmers, 560 nurseries were established from which seedlings of a variety of tree species were produced and planted in 60 homestead orchards and community lands across the nation. Two modules were implemented - a 0.5 ha orchard costing N60,000 each and a 2,500 seedling nursery (private or community) costing N100,000.

111. Also established were a microbiology laboratory at the Forestry Research Institute of Nigeria base in Ibadan to produce mushroom seeds, a micro-project on sericulture, two micro-projects on apiculture in Osun and Nasarawa states, collaboration with Ogun State on the development of bamboo as an enterprise, and training provided for many beneficiaries on horticulture production

(iii) Assessment

112. The introduction of a variety of trees into the cultivation system of local farmers is a positive achievement by the NSPFS. Such introductions contribute to increased fruit supply in the communities, improvements in the environment due to the spread of trees that provide shade in the hot season and produce leaf drop that is used to mulch homestead gardens and help combat desertification in savannah areas.

32

H. Human Nutrition and Health

(i) Concept

113. The immediate objective of this component was to improve the level of human nutrition and health in all sites of the NSPFS, especially among vulnerable rural households. Three activities were implemented: promotion of homestead and school gardens that grow a variety of vegetables and fruits, raising the level of awareness and farmer knowledge of human nutrition issues especially complementary feeding for the young, and education and sensitization of the population at rural and peri-urban sites of the NSPFS on the major killer diseases such as malaria and HIV/AIDS.

(ii) Achievements

114. Some 245 demonstrations on health and nutrition-related issues were undertaken, 383 health campaigns mounted and 290 homestead vegetable gardens and 58 school gardens established. Pit latrines and equipment for health centres were provided at each NSPFS site. Also 113 trainers were trained.

115. In complementary feeding programmes, a recipe for a new baby food has been formulated from soybean, groundnut and cereals packed as flour and perfected by the Federal Institute of Industrial Research, Oshodi, Lagos, and a comprehensive booklet [62 pages] has been written entitled ‘Nutrition and health guidelines and recipes’ for facilitators and extension agents although it is yet to be published.

(iii) Assessment

116. The NSPFS has contributed to a significant increase in knowledge of the beneficiaries through demonstrations and training. This is a durable contribution to making the farm families eat better and more nutritionally balanced meals based on locally available feeding stuffs.

117. However, there are some questions about sustainability of the school garden efforts post-project, since some are no longer operational one year after the end of the project.

I. Farm Diversification - Livestock

(i) Concept

118. The aim of the Farm Diversification component for livestock was to promote efficient, innovative and profitable diversification into livestock activities which are adapted to local conditions, custom and available resources. The expected outputs of these activities include a significant rise in the production of livestock that will enhance the food security of the beneficiary sites and lead to additional income particularly for the women’s groups.

119. The objectives were to:

• Minimize losses associated with free range village poultry;

• Make small-scale egg and broiler production possible;

• Reduce pre-weaning losses associated with village sheep, goats and pigs;

• Make small-scale rearing and fattening of sheep, goats and pigs feasible; and

33

• Support the rehabilitation and maintenance of local veterinary clinics and enhancing community-based animal health service delivery systems.

120. The intended target group beneficiaries were the rural poor, including women, youth and other vulnerable groups at the sites.

121. The objectives were to be achieved through a set of activities which included:

• technical support, including disease control, for small-scale commercial production of eggs and meat;

• intensive small-scale rearing and fattening of sheep, goats, pigs and cattle;

• interventions aimed at adding value through improved on-farm and local processing of animal products (meat, milk, hides and skins);

• rehabilitation and maintenance of local veterinary clinics, paying particular attention to the involvement of local governments and the development of community-based animal health service delivery; and

• training and extension service provision to livestock farmers among participating communities.

122. The strategy to be adopted was the intensive management system with minimal losses and housing but with immunization and medication of all purchased livestock.

123. There were seven livestock production packages (or modules): poultry broiler; poultry layer; ram fattening; small ruminant upgrading; pig fattening; peri-urban dairy; and veterinary care support services. The focus of the production modules was on feeding strategies based on locally available materials, improvement of animal health care delivery and better husbandry methods. The project aimed at increasing the capacity of village communities to plan, finance and manage enterprises leading to sustainable increases in production, income and food security through ownership of short-cycle farm animals.

(ii) Achievements

124. Overall, the project demonstrated the potential for increasing income and livelihoods through livestock enterprises. Livestock modules were successfully executed, with training workshops for facilitators and beneficiaries on livestock management, husbandry methods, feeding strategies, feed compounding and animal health care. However, some farmers incurred losses from poor brooding, feeding and animal health practices indicating the need for further training before commencement of NPFS activities. The livestock modules will only reach optimum performance if proper management, nutrition and health control strategies are followed.

125. The percentage of planned modules that were implemented were as follows:

• Poultry - 64 percent

• Small ruminants – 81 percent

• Pig improvement – 64 percent

• Fattening – over 70 percent

• Peri-urban dairy – nil

• Paravet – 100 percent

34

126. The technology used for poultry modules was simply the standard commercial poultry production practice of the use of proprietary feeds, vaccinations and other health controls. The broiler module was designed as a 250-bird unit and the beneficiaries were assisted with N137,991, on cost recovery basis, to cover the cost of day-old chicks, housing, equipment, drugs and vaccines.

127. In the small ruminant improvement component the farmers provided housing for the animals and generally maintained good sanitation. Animal health control, including vaccinations, de-worming and antibiotics, was in most cases administered at purchase and on schedule. Mortality was generally low (overall under 6 percent) except in a few cases where initial prophylactic measures were neglected or where animal health care services were lacking. Lambing and kidding rates were high and ranged from 60 to 70 percent within one year after purchase and, generally, the stock of the beneficiaries increased by 50 to 100 percent.

128. Pig improvement component, farrowing rates were high (nearly 90 percent) while litter sizes averaged about 11 or 12 piglets. However, mortality averaged about 20 percent mainly due to poor housing and sanitation which affected output.

129. Although the In ram fattening module was based on an intensive production system additional grazing was used to reduce cost and provide bulk. Marketing problems were reduced by targeting local festivities and eateries.

(iii) Assessment

130. The evaluation team is of the opinion that the inclusion of livestock in the Food Security project (Annex I) was a sound idea as the result of the impact study indicated that about 30 percent of the farmers on the NSPFS sites, both beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries, indicated that livestock was a main source of their livelihood. During the NSPFS, the emphasis on short-cycle livestock was appropriate as the impact study showed that 40 percent and 30 percent of the households, respectively, kept small ruminants and poultry. About 10 percent kept cattle, 5-10 percent raised fish and less than 5 percent raised pigs. The concept of livestock modules presented by the project was of direct relevance to the livelihood of the beneficiaries.

131. The results of the impact study showed that the project was not able to provide access to improved livestock breeds. About 50 and 30 percent of non-participants, respectively, had access to improved breeds of broilers and layers compared to 35 and 26 percent of participants. For goats, participants had the clear advantage as 20 percent had improved breeds compared to 10 percent of non-participants. The same relationship was maintained in access to improved pig breeds, but for sheep there was no difference in access to improved breeds for NSPFS participants and non-participants. This constraint was highlighted in every site as a serious one.

132. The impact study also showed that the project did not make livestock feed and micronutrients more available as 50 percent of participants and 52 percent of non-participants had access to feed and micronutrients. About 25 percent of participants received technical advice on livestock rearing while about 22 percent of non-participants had technical advice.

133. Significantly, the impact study showed that beneficiary farmers recorded much higher mortality rates for all categories of livestock than those recorded by non-participants, raising the question as to whether the beneficiary farmers were originally livestock farmers or just took advantage of the programme to capture the benefits in livestock production.

35

134. Overall, the evaluation team is of the opinion that the propagation of the intensive livestock management system in the NSPFS was inappropriate and had design flaws. It is well known, for example, that laying birds are more suitable to mixed farms and smallholdings than broilers. The adoption of a semi-intensive poultry management system has been shown repeatedly to contribute directly to reduce poverty among communities and to improve living standards of the farmers through increase in household poultry production and to promote efficient, innovative and profitable diversification in poultry activities (such as the local water-bath hatchery introduced by the Chinese in various states during the NSPFS) which are adapted to local conditions, custom and available resources and would improve farmers productivity and ownership of farm animals. Providing support for minimizing losses associated with free range, backyard and small-scale family poultry production systems, as some ADPs are doing, is more appropriate.

135. The evaluation team also found that in all the sites visited, a great deal of attention was paid to loan disbursement for the livestock modules and much less to farmer training and proper introduction of new technologies.

136. Poultry Modules: Interviews conducted by the evaluation team, and project reports indicate that at the beginning of the NSPFS, most of the 109 sites in the country implemented the poultry modules but by the end of the project most had withdrawn especially from the broiler module. Some of the factors working against efficient production included high cost and unavailability of day-old chicks (chicks were transported long distances leading to high mortality), high cost of feed, inadequate access to veterinary services and poor market access. At all the sites visited, mortality rates were above acceptable limits, about 19 percent on average.

137. The group approach to management proposed by the programme was not followed in most of the sites. The beneficiaries either agreed to take turns or fragmented the modules. The budget for the module was also found to be inadequate in some cases. For instance, housing was generally higher than budgeted. For the layers, the designers provided funds for feed for 20 weeks for day-old chicks, expecting that feed cost from the point of lay would be covered from the revenue. This turned out to be a wrong assumption in that egg production at age 20 weeks was grossly inadequate due to less than optimal performance. This created enormous problems for some farmers.

138. Small Ruminant Improvement: The module was highly successful in terms of uptake of recommended practices on farm operations, feeding strategies, health control and general management. There was a high uptake of modern feeding strategies utilizing locally available feed resources and mineral supplements (Kanwa).

139. The programme has also been relatively successful in promoting small ruminants (especially sheep) as an integral part of small-scale production systems on account of their short generation intervals (gestation is 5 to 6 months), high fecundity and prolificacy, fast growth rates, high meat yields and ability to utilize as feed cheap, locally available agro-industrial by-products. However, either to cut expenses or because they were not fully aware of what to do, farmers did not fully adopt the recommended practices. For instance, with training and optimal management practice, lambing can be achieved twice-yearly or even every 15 months.

140. The evaluation team found, however, that one of the major objectives – that of introducing improved breeds to farmers - was only partially achieved as a major constraint

36

experienced by the farmers was that genetically improved sires were hard to come by. Therefore, farmers had to purchase males of unimproved breeds on the open market.

141. Pig Improvement: The module was popular only where farmers were conversant with the production system and had acquired related knowledge and skills on husbandry practices over the years. In such areas, it was very profitable as live animals could be sold for N900 per kg live weight, with a profit margin of about N3,000 per animal. Marketing of live pigs did not pose a problem and beneficiaries had good contact with marketing outlets. However, profit margins enjoyed by the farmers could be doubled or increased significantly if cheaper sources of feed and good housing and sanitation could be maintained.

142. This component also failed to achieve one of its major objectives – that of introducing improved breeds to farmers due to the scarcity of improved breeds and therefore ended up as merely a pig production module.

143. The evaluation team believes that the failure of the poultry and piggery modules to introduce improved breed stocks to farmers compared to the other livestock components was due to the fact that the ADP staff took responsibility for the supply of these two species while other species were bought on the open market by a combined team of beneficiaries, site manager and livestock facilitator.

144. Poultry and pigs are highly commercialized and the product of their breeding and improvement is no longer a public good but a private good with trademarks, patents and intellectual property rights. Improved breeds of broilers and layers as well as pigs are not available on the open market in Nigeria as it is for small ruminants and cattle. In order to obtain the large numbers of day-old-chicks required for the project throughout the country, long-term planning was required as the hatcheries are pre-booked and cannot accommodate a large order on short notice. The supply problem is even worse with improved breeds of pigs as there is no single grandparent or purebred pig farm in Nigeria, not even within the universities and research institutes. The project, therefore, failed in the objective of supplying improved breeds of poultry and pigs to beneficiaries.

145. Cattle Fattening: Uptake of this technology was high in parts of the country where farmers had prior experience with the enterprise, where there was available grazing land and cattle breeds were suitable for animal traction. Profitability analysis by the evaluation team, as well as responses from beneficiaries, showed that the enterprise was highly profitable. Animals bought for N30,000 were sold for about N60 000 after fattening. Mortality was rare due to good animal health control strategies.

146. However, there was very little use of the recommended feed package due to the high cost. Many beneficiaries resorted to agro-industrial by-products with little protein concentrate. As a result, the target daily body weight gain of 1 kg could not be achieved. Also, some of the beneficiaries opted for older female animals which, though cheaper, were not profitable when used for fattening because of their low feed conversion efficiency.

147. Ram Fattening: This was a very popular enterprise among beneficiaries who targeted the lucrative Eid-el Adha festival market. The ram of clear preference was the Balami which has been established as the predominant ram breed in all the agro-ecological zones of Nigeria.

148. The technology for ram fattening was popularly accepted by farmers as a short-term approach to increase household income. Most farmers already used this technology but the support from the NSPFS afforded them an opportunity to maximize use of agro-industrial by-

37

products. The technology was easy to adopt, highly efficient with achievable gains and generally quick results. It was possible to split this module and still achieve good returns.

149. This was an activity in which the module was under funded. On average, the actual cost of animals was N3 000 against the budget of N2 000. Also, many farmers did not keep to the feeding regime. They attempted to reduce cost by excluding the more expensive high protein diets which affected rate of body weight gains and consequently prolonged duration of fattening. Nontheless, profits were high.

150. Pig Fattening: Pig fattening technology has been used by the farmers for a long time. It was therefore easy to adopt and the use of commercial feed combined with food waste made it attractive for farmers.

151. The modules were split among some of the beneficiaries and the amounts allocated were in the range of N20,000 to N50,000 while others were allocated full modules. With the split, housing maintenance was poor and proper sanitation was lacking. Feed ingredients needed for ration formulation were available but poor feeding strategies, especially in amounts fed and lack of protein sources, prolonged the duration of fattening and, in some cases, only one fattening cycle was achieved per annum.

152. Mortality, though low (5 percent) could have been avoided with better prophylaxis, e.g. de-worming and sanitation. The poor health management was compounded by the absence or long distances from veterinary support (usually 30 km) which hampered health control.

153. Another major problem faced by the farmers was the scarcity of weaners and growers. This necessitated contracting supplies from research institutes (NAPRI and NVRI) and the Federal Department of Livestock, in addition to private sources.

154. Veterinary Care Support Services: The evaluation team found it difficult to assess the impact of this activity as implementation was bureaucratized allowing some of the paravets (and most of the fully qualified veterinarians) to live or even practise in locations different and, in some cases, quite distant from the project site.

155. Generally, there was a strong correlation between the availability of veterinary services and low mortality, and there was improvement in the delivery of this service when the paravets were available and accessible. As shown by the baseline survey, prior to the commencement of the NSPFS, especially in the rural sites, veterinary support was on average about 30 km from beneficiaries, less than 50 percent of respondents had regular veterinary service and follow-up for confirmatory diagnosis was absent. There is no evidence that the NSPFS has changed the situation.

156. Recommendation No 3: The NPFS should pay great attention to establishing channels of supply for improved livestock breeds. Where local improved breeds have been developed and released (e.g. Shika Brown poultry developed by NAPRI) arrangements should be made to contract the developer to supply project needs. Where no local breeds exist (e.g. broilers, pigs) private sector suppliers, either in the country or overseas, should be contracted to supply the project’s requirements

157. Recommendation No 4: The propagation of the intensive livestock system should be abandoned. Instead, the NPFS should propagate adoption of semi-intensive management systems using minimal livestock housing and focusing on reducing mortalities by immunization and medication of the farmers’ livestock.

38

V. SOIL FERTILITY INITIATIVE (SFI)

A. Concept

158. The immediate objective of the Soil Fertility Initiative (SFI) was to introduce simple soil conservation and fertility improvement practices in all sites. The objectives were:

• To promote soil fertility awareness among stakeholders (with 5 outputs);

• To expand availability of low-cost and high-quality sources of plant nutrients and promote their efficient use by farmers (with 7 outputs);

• To reduce land degradation and promote sustainable land use for soil fertility improvement (with 5 outputs).

159. The aim was to develop and promote awareness on soil fertility issues, to expand the availability of low-cost and high-quality sources of plant nutrients and promote their efficient usage, to reduce land degradation and promote sustainable land use practices for soil fertility improvement.

B. Achievements

160. The project:

• created digitized maps of soil status for key crop nutrients for all six geo-political zones of the country;

• generated a national soil nutrient data bank on soil fertility .from analyses of surface soil [0-15 cm depth] and sub-soil [15-30 cm depth] of 5,232 soil samples taken from 109 NSPFS sites as well as 13 specific detailed soil descriptions from profiles of two sites per geo-political zone;

• developed proposals for use of raw materials for waste management and bio-gas production to generate organic materials for enriching the arable soils. Technical guidelines for organic fertilizer and biogas production were produced and circulated to private entrepreneurs;

• renovated a fertilizer quality control laboratory in Kaduna to enable it to analyse 50,000 fertilizer samples annually;

• Initiated training on compost making and use;

• conducted on-farm trials on lime, Agrolyzer, crystallizer and Booster xtra at NSPFS sites;

• developed a draft document for a new land use policy that was intended to usher in a new way of land usage;

• made available Conference proceedings and training publications (10) for sensitization of the relevant stakeholders;

• guidelines on fertilizer supply as regards quantity, types/formulations and appropriate usage written up but were not reflected in the actual formulation of the fertilizers made available for sale and use during the NSPFS implementation period;

• land degradation practices, numbering about 24 themes were the focus of training sessions for high- and medium-level ADP staff as well as agricultural extension agents; and

39

• sustainable land use practices for soil fertility improvement through the use of organic fertilizers and organic farming were proposed.

C. Assessment

161. The digitized mapping of Nigerian soils was a positive achievement of the component and revealed widespread soil infertility largely due to soil acidity, low phosphorus, low nitrogen as well as low organic matter reserve among other nutrient deficiencies. As much as 70 percent of arable land in Nigeria (28 states) is acidic.

162. However, the large pools of knowledge generated during the mapping exercise have not been used in developing site-specific recommendations for farmers. The conspicuous absence of crop budgets is a major failure limiting development of useful recommendations to farmers. Enumerators, farmers, and field assistants working on trials have not kept adequate records to enable crucial socio-economic decisions to be reached.

164. The results of the many trials conducted on lime, Agrolyser, and Cystalliser [P+Mg], and micronutrient Booster-Xtra were analysed and used to prepare digitized maps. However, there were no plans or support for local and qualified staff to use those maps to adjust fertilizer or lime usage and application.

165. The trials clearly showed yield increasing benefits of soil amendments. For example, regular lime application to fields in 28 of the 36 states of Nigeria produced an increase of 63-94 percent in maize grain. Analysis of various rates of lime with two cassava cultivars showed that cultivar NR 8082 had the highest benefit to cost ratio of 2.40 when lime was applied at 0.5 t/ha in Abia State. Sorghum grain yield of 1.16 t/ha was obtained from plots treated with 500kg/ha of lime followed by 1.07 t/ha in plots with 250kg/ha of lime, while no lime plots gave 0.83 t/ha. The yield increase was over the un-limed plot of 40.64 percent (500kg/ha lime) and 29.62 percent (250kg/ha lime). Micronutrient from Agrolyzer and Booster-xtra increase of crop yields varied from positively very low to very high. The application of crystallizer produced significant yield increase while boosting the soil P status and increasing the soil pH of acid soils. As a local phosphate rock, it is a source of phosphorus to foster sustainable crop intensification.

166. The evaluation team observed that the mass of agronomic trial data has only been partly analysed to show the advantage to be gained if farmers adopted these interventions. The number of users and the proportion of their farms receiving any of these interventions are not yet known.

167. The impact study showed that there was no difference in use of soil conservation techniques between participating and non-participating farmers. About 86 percent of the NSPFS beneficiary farmers and 88 percent of the non-beneficiary farmers practise soil conservation techniques (Figure 9). However, the key revelation is that both NSPFS beneficiary farmers and non-beneficiary farmers have been practising soil conservation techniques before 2001, i.e. before the commencement of the NSPFS programme (Figure 10), implying that the programme did not have much impact on soil conservation. Farmers were practising these techniques as part of the traditional farm production systems long before the programme commenced.

168. Bio-gas development efforts in SFI were not related to immediate food production or cash generation of the beneficiaries and the evaluation team could find no evidence of adoption of such systems.

40

169. Soil test kits were to form the basis on which soil fertility management was to be administered. A total of 40 kits were bought and one kit was supplied per state. States were supposed to establish a unit for soil sampling and extension agents were to assist farmers to obtain soil samples for subsequent analyses. The kits were calibrated at Rotas Laboratory in Ibadan to run on general reagents that could be sourced locally. The associated chemicals were to be re-stocked by the SFI office in Abuja. The evaluation team could find no evidence that states used the kits for the destined purpose. The investment in soil test kits has proved to be a waste of resources.

170. Fertilizer formulations were not altered to reflect site or state soil requirements. The blanket supply of 15-15-15 fertilizer to all sites did not take into account the variation in the levels of the major nutrients shown on the maps for each crop.

171. Recommendation No 5: Blanket fertilizer application recommendations should be discontinued. Instead, the NPFS should take steps to exploit the vast national database on soil conditions and formulate at least state-specific recommendations for soil nutrient amendments, and procurement of fertilizers for the states should be strictly according to guidelines established.

Figure 9: Extent to which farmers practise soil conservation techniques in NSPFS areas

Figure 37: Percentage of households that practice Soil Conservation

Techniques

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Yes No

Pe

rce

nt

of

Fa

rm H

ou

se

ho

lds

Ben

Nben


41

Figure 10: Time farmers have practised soil conservation techniques in NSPFS areas

Figure 43: Period over which farmers had practised Soil Conservation

Techniques

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

2 years before 2001 other (sp

Pe

rcen

t o

f H

ou

seh

old

s

Ben

Nben


VI. AQUACULTURE AND INLAND FISHERIES PROJECT

A. Concept

172. To bridge the fish supply-demand gap and to substitute for fish imports, the Aquaculture and Inland Fisheries components were incorporated into the National Special Programme on Food Security (NSPFS) with the beliefs that:

• Nigerian capture fisheries have in recent times been described to be in a crisis. Stocks have been over-fished. The major fishing water bodies (Rivers Niger, Benue and Lake Chad) have receded and silted up, the smaller rivers have dried up due to environmental changes. The fishing grounds have consequently been drastically reduced. The rising costs of fuel in the world market, the high costs of purchasing fishing boats and equipment make fishing in the wild expensive and no longer worthwhile.

• Feasibility studies have shown that rural Nigeria is endowed with land resources suitable for integrated aquaculture (fish farming) but it has yet to exploit this resource. With a potential of at least 5 million tonnes of fish annually from aquaculture alone, Nigeria was only able to produce about 30,000 million tonnes per annum in 2002-2003 (barely 3 percent of fish production in Nigeria).

• Aquaculture has been the world’s fastest growing food production sector for nearly two decades; the sector has shown an overall growth rate of over 11 percent per year since 1984, compared with 3.1 percent for terrestrial farm animal meat production and 0.8 percent landings from capture fisheries (FAO).

• It has been established that from the economic point of view, it is cheaper to farm aquatic animals than terrestrial animals. The rate of returns on investment is higher than in poultry, pig farming, and ocean fishing (FAO).

42

• Aquaculture could be used in attaining the goals of the National Economic Empowerment and Development Strategy (NEEDS) programmes of Nigeria, the United Nations Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and the 7-Point Agenda of the present administration of Nigeria (employment generation, wealth creation, food security, balanced mart anal and infant nutrition and discouragement of rural–urban migration, etc.).

173. The two major constraints to aquaculture and inland fisheries in Nigeria are:

• Acute scarcity of good quality high yielding fish seeds/fingerling. The demand for fish fingerlings/seeds is about 5 billion while local supply is less than 0.6 billion (Federal Department of Fisheries).

• Acute scarcity of high-quality fish feeds. When available, they are generally not unaffordable to the local farmers. Feeds most often constitute 80 percent of production costs. The national demand for formulated fish feeds is about 3.5 million tons while local supply is less than 1.5 million tons (Federal Department of Fisheries).

174. The overall development objective of the Aquaculture and Inland Fisheries project was therefore to increase the output of the country’s inland fresh waters by:

• quantifying and evaluating aquatic resources and developing appropriate monitoring and evaluation systems;

• optimizing outputs from dams, reservoirs and lakes with improved culture-based techniques;

• establishing core small/medium fish farms with private sector support, hatcheries and feed supplies; and

• giving technical support for fisheries in the Food Security project.

B. Achievements

175. Inventories of aquatic resources, fish farms and feed producers throughout Nigeria were compiled and published. Six pilot lakes with a total area of 813 ha were identified for stocking, the largest being Sabke in Katsina State (770 ha). However, only five (5) were stocked. Five fish farm clusters were identified in five states (one per zone) in order to have a critical mass of potential fish farms that could be supported to substantially increase fish production within the selected states.

176. Under the South-South Cooperation project operators were trained in hatchery management. Brood stocks for farmers were either sourced from the Mando Brood stock repository or certified sources such as Durante Fish in Ibadan and Idomor Fish Farm in Delta State. Also, a brood stock repository was established in Kaduna This farm was to be used for rearing brood stock for sale to private fish farmers and for training of all categories of aquaculture personnel including on-farm training for NSPFS fish farmers in the North West and North Central zones. Eleven thousand catfish fingerlings were stocked out of which over 90 percent were lost due to management problems on the farm.

177. Under the Food Security project, 23 communities in 16 states were assisted by:

• demonstration of chokor fish smoking technology

• demonstration of long-tail engine technology

• construction of integrated irrigation aquaculture/rice culture farms at SPFS sites in three states to serve as a demonstration

43

C. Assessment

178. The inventory of fish farms and feed producers throughout Nigeria was successfully completed and commendably was used to guide project implementation in the area of fish farms cluster development in the South and lake/ reservoir fisheries development in the North.

179. By contrast, the stocking of lakes and reservoirs was a failure as the reservoirs were grossly under stocked. Stocking a reservoir such as Sabke with a surface area of 770 ha with 70, 000 tilapia fingerlings and 140,000 clupeids, and Yamama Lake (17.5 ha surface area with 1,700 heterotis fingerlings, 6,125 clarias fingerlings and 2,500 tilapia fingerlings is under-stocking, and is a drop in the ocean and compares very unfavourably with rates of 5,000 – 10,000 fingerlings in normally stocked households to stock backyard ponds. The ratio of stocking should have been 1 clarias and 10 tilapia per s.q.m.. Furthermore, the stocking did not take into consideration the inevitable natural fingerling mortality of about 10-20 percent (due to cannibalism and stress) which usually takes place in a reservoir aquatic ecosystem. Preferably juvenile adult fishes should have been stocked. They withstand stress and are able to adapt quicker to the new environment.

180. The objective of establishing core small-to-medium fish farms with private sector support was only partially achieved as only a small number of operators of small/medium fish farms (about 300) were not given essential incentives and training on fingerling production. By contrast, the technology is now being taught to groups and individuals on demand in Nigeria by the FDF and the Fisheries Society of Nigeria (FISON) with over 9,000 participants trained. Encouraging development of fish farm estates is a potential way of creating the desired impact in rural aquaculture in Nigeria.

181. Establishment of a brood stock repository in Kaduna was a total failure because of management problems in the Federal Department of Fisheries. Such activities are best handled by the NIFFR or the organized private sector.

182. The development of aquaculture is site-specific. To optimize food production, it is more effective to integrate the aquaculture with arable farming, horticulture and livestock production in integrated fish farm estate clusters. This will diversify the livelihood of the farmers, keep the farmers busy throughout the year and discourage rural-urban migration. Such fish farm estates have been developed in the Lagos State of Nigeria. A typical one is the Ebute -Afuye Fish Farm Estate in Epe local Government area of Lagos State sponsored by UNDP and the Lagos State Government. Under the SSC, Chinese experts have also experimented with integrated fish-crop and fish-livestock production systems. All the stand alone fish farms established by the NSPFS visited by the evaluation team in the North Central and South West of Nigeria were found to have been abandoned.

183. Recommendation No 6: Since the stocking of lakes and reservoirs and the management of the stocks as well as brood stock repositories are highly professional and multi-disciplinary activities, such exercises should in future be assigned to the Nigerian Institute for Fresh Water Fisheries Research (NIFFR), which has the official national mandate and staff for stocking and management of reservoirs.

184. Recommendation No 7: Stand-alone aquaculture projects should be discouraged. Instead the promotion of aquaculture development should be integrated with arable farming, horticulture and livestock production.

185. Recommendation No 8: Training in fingerling production and fish feed formulation should be intensified and given topmost and urgent priority.

44

VII. ANIMAL DISEASES AND TRANSBOUNDARY PEST

CONTROL PROJECT (ANNEX III)

AA.. Concept

186. The Animal Disease and Transboundary Pest Control Project (ADTPCP) focused on control and surveillance of animal diseases. This was meant to curtail or eliminate livestock disease epidemics and the resultant socio-economic disruptions. The project was designed to promote and ensure sustained livestock production through efficient delivery of animal health care services. The ultimate goal of the project was the improvement of animal health in Nigeria, with enhancement of livestock production and trade leading to improved household food security and rural income.

187. The adopted strategy sought to reduce animal disease epidemics that directly impact production at farm and household levels.

B. Achievements

188. The ADTPCP commenced fully in 2004 with the recruitment of the Chief Technical Officer (CTO) and the National Expert Liaison Officer (NELO). The project established collaboration with the Pan-African Control of Epizootic (PACE). PACE focuses on rinderpest eradication and control of Contagious bovine plueuropneumonia (CBPP) in large ruminants while ADTPCP focused on epizootic diseases of small ruminants and poultry commonly encountered by small holder rural farmers. ADTPCP also had a budget for the rehabilitation of selected facilities at the National Veterinary Research Institute (NVRI) in Vom.

189. The CTO and NELO developed a detailed work plan and procedures to be adopted in project implementation after wide consultation with various stakeholders including the Federal Department of Livestock and Pest Control Services (FDLPCS), state veterinary departments and ADPs, research institutes, NSPFS beneficiaries at the project sites, private farms and technical missions from FAO, Rome. The Paravet module was reviewed and is already operational in some states and the TADinfo has been customized. There seems to have been a great deal of double counting of the Paravet activities by both Annex I, where it rightly belongs, and Annex III reports. On the field, however, there is no such confusion as the veterinary services were fully appreciated.

190. A work plan for the implementation of the project was developed and some of the work plan activities were implemented. For instance, to develop a cost effective, community-based approach to disease surveillance and control, the project identified pilot areas based on the PACE epidemiological zones and cluster states. Several stakeholder consultations were held. Some of the states disbursed funds to their Paravets who then started operations. The CTO and NELO visited some NSPFS sites to create awareness of disease reporting. They also visited pilot sites to test the community-based disease surveillance scheme. The CTO and NELO held consultationswith PACE and FDLPCS Epidemiological Units to fine tune strategies for animal disease surveillance. The information systems to be adopted by PACE and ADTPCP for data collation and analysis were established. Annexure Table 2 shows the level of activity during the project life in the north central zone where the ICR showed there was the greatest achievement.

45

C. Assessment

191. ADTPCP’s slow takeoff had little or no impact on the overall success of the livestock aspect of the farm diversification component. This is because ADTPCP was a stand alone project, different from an integrated activity that the livestock module on veterinary care represented. If all animal health activities were restricted to Annex III, then the success of the livestock production activities would have been in jeopardy. As it is, the lack of achievement of the ADTPCP project had little effect on the livestock activities in Annex I. In all the sites visited by the evaluation team, farmers knew nothing about Annex III activities. State ADPs knew of it as a late starting project that could not get off the ground before the NSPFS ended.

192. Recommendation No 9: No stand alone animal disease and pest control project should be implemented in the NPFS. All animal health activities should be integrated with agricultural production activities such as the Food Security component of the NSPFS.

VIII. MARKETING OF AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES

AND FOOD STOCK MANAGEMENT PROJECT

A. Concept

193. The Agricultural Commodity Marketing and Food Stock Management Project consisted of three key modules, namely: the agro-processing, the strategic grains reserves, and the agricultural commodity marketing modules.

194. The Agro-processing Module had the following major objectives:

• To develop and promote down-stream post-harvest activities by rapidly upgrading post-harvest technologies as a means of expanding employment and adding value to raw agricultural commodities produced under the NSPFS;

• To introduce farmers to and provide them with labour-saving devices that could help expand their operations and reduce drudgery in their post-harvest operations;

• To create income-generating activities other than farming itself by using simple and viable processing technologies that the beneficiaries themselves can operate, and that can lead to the establishment of commercially profitable and sustainable ventures with positive outreach effects;

• To mill all crops produced by beneficiaries under the NSPFS (such as maize, sorghum, millet, cassava, rice, ground nuts, palm produce, fruits and vegetables) that can be processed into value-added products with longer storage life and improved nutritional value;

• To develop a marketing system that will ensure that agricultural produce wastage is reduced to an absolute minimum, if not completely prevented; and

• To provide enhanced opportunities for expanded spread of production units of beneficiaries.

195. The Strategic Grains Reserve Module had the following primary objectives:

• The attainment of national food security by increasing the availability of and access to basic food throughout the country. This is to be achieved through: (i) establishing on-

farm storage structures that would hold as much as 85 percent of all national food

46

stock; (ii) establishing state-level buffer-stock silos that would store 10 percent of all food produced nationwide for price stabilization during lean seasons; and (iii) establishing national strategic grains reserve depots that would store 5 percent of all national food production for use in the event of national food emergencies;

• The preservation and storage (under sanitary and phytosanitary conditions) of all excess grains and other processed food commodities produced during periods of glut at harvest time for strategic purposes;

• The release of stored grains, etc. during periods of national food emergencies to meet consumer demand; and

• The indirect regulation or control of food (especially grain) prices in the economy by normalizing food supply/demand situations in the country.

196. The Agricultural Commodity Marketing and Food Stock Management Module had as its primary objective the establishment of a marketing system that enhances food security of consumers by:

� Improving access and availability of food through improved storage infrastructure, agricultural commodity development and the establishment of marketing companies that guarantee food and grain availability;

� Developing an appropriate institutional and management structure for the Strategic Food Reserve (SFR);

� Constantly appraising and evaluating SFR silo management, operation and maintenance;

� Developing improved on-farm storage structures; � Developing a workable marketing information system; and � Developing marketing extension manuals, posters and flyers for marketing extension

training.

B. Achievements

197. Globally, the first phase of the National Special Programme for Food Security has recorded a number of achievements.

Agro-processing Facilities

198. Under the agro-processing component of the NSPFS, different post-harvest technologies have been developed and installed in different sites throughout the country. These include the following: i) Four Demonstration Technology Centres (DTCs) were created and established in the

country: one in Ebonyi State for rice milling, another in Benue State for cassava processing, a third in Imo State for palm fruit processing, and a fourth in Katsina State for cereal grain and groundnut oil extraction;

ii) Six hundred and eighty-nine (689) units of assorted processing equipment consisting of 205 1.5 to 2.0-tonne per day units of cassava processing machines, 160 spaghetti-producing machines, 50 rice milling equipment, 46 3.0 to 3.2-tonne per day oil palm processing machines, and 28 units of grain flour, tomato, and fish processing equipment were installed to serve the 1,440 groups of beneficiaries established;

iii) Altogether, a total of 184 agro-processing modules were allocated to 2,861 farm families; and

iv) The processing of harvested commodities into various food products (cereal flour, spaghetti, groundnut oil and cake, palm oil and palm kernels, cassava gari, starch, chips

47

and pellets, tomato products and smoked fish) was successfully introduced under the project and accepted by beneficiaries.

Agricultural Commodity/Food Storage Facilities

199. Under this component, the NSPFS was expected to help the Federal Government with rehabilitation of the 10 Strategic Grains/Food Reserve (SGR/SFR) Silos in selected areas of the federation by preparing an institutional arrangement for the management of food reserve and storage, preparing maintenance manuals and regimes for the complexes, identifying, training and developing the capacities of staff. At the same time, the state governments were to establish buffer stock depots in selected parts of their states, and local governments were to develop farm-level storage silos at individual farms. Under this arrangement, the Federal Government is expected to purchase and store 0.5 percent of all grains/processed storable foods produced in each part of the country where the SGR/SFR silos are located, while the states are expected to buy and store 10 percent of the grains/processed foods produced by their farmers, and local governments are to assist farmers in the LGAs to store 85 percent of the grains/processed foods produced in their areas.

200. Achievements in this component are mixed and very varied, namely: i) The NSPFS provided assistance in establishing maintenance regimes and training

of staff of the silo complexes; ii) At the federal level, 10 SGR/SFR depots/silos were successfully rehabilitated in

Akure in Ondo State, Gombe in Gombe State, Ibadan in Oyo State, Ilorin in Kwara State, Irua in Edo State, Jahun in Jigawa State, Jos in Plateau State, Makurdi in Benue State, Minna in Niger State, and Ogoja in Cross River State. However, none of these silos were stocked to even one-tenth of their established capacity during the NSPFS implementation phase;

iii) Less than two-thirds of the states successfully established their expected buffer stock depots and many of them have not started buying and storing buffer stocks in the completed silos. Thus, not all states have implemented their mandatory purchase and stocking of the 10 percent of all grains/processed foods produced by their farmers; and

iv) Farm-level storage bin development has been poor. In a few farms in the northern and central parts of the country old traditional mud-built and grass-thatched silos are still being used by farmers, while in the southern portions of the country, some NSPFS beneficiaries are still seen to be using earthen-ware pots for storing grains mostly for replanting. Metal-plated silos that could store two-and-a-half tonnes of grains were supposed to be fabricated by the SGR depots in the country for use by farmers in their catchment areas and NSPFS management claims that about 20,000 have been fabricated. In Minna, Niger State SGR Depot, 20 such metal storage silos were fabricated as part of the training of fabricators, but are yet to be distributed to farmers. For the rest of the country, only 78 one-tonne metal silos were fabricated during training exercises and distributed for on-farm storage; and

v) The collaboration that is supposed to have been forged between the SGRs/SFRs and Agricultural Commodity Development Associations (particularly the Grain Producers Association of Nigeria, GRAPAN) in order to operate the contractual programme of Buyers of Last Resort has not yet been successfully established.

48

Development of agricultural commodity marketing systems

201. This is one component of the project that achieved nothing. No agricultural commodity marketing system has been developed as such by the NSPFS; no marketing information system was established. The only partial achievement one can report in this component is the ineffective and non-sustained collaboration the project had with MISTOWA and IITA through which market prices of 38 agricultural commodities were disseminated by email to users in some agricultural information points.

202. Marketing extension handbooks and training manuals/pamphlets developed by consultants have up till now not been produced due to lack of funds.

C. Assessment

(a) The agro-processing module

203. The impact study showed that the NSPFS did not increase access to, and use of, agro processing assets by beneficiary farmers (Figure 11), or to improved storage facilities (Figure 12)

204. Furthermore, zonal performance in this module left much to be desired. The specific shortcomings are discussed below: In the south-east zone:

i) Insufficient seed money was provided by the project to support the purchase of raw materials by beneficiaries so that the processing units could operate continuously. This made optimal functionality, viability and adequate loan repayment by beneficiaries difficult;

ii) The ADPs in the zone did not offer any training on agro-processing to beneficiaries and their operators outside of the initial few days provided by the fabricators during the equipment purchase, and they lacked facilities for aiding and training beneficiaries on equipment maintenance;

iii) The ADPs had no quality-control monitoring provisions and training for its staff (who usually acted as consultants to farmers in the purchase of equipment and linked them up with fabricators), the facilitators, beneficiaries, and their operators;

iv) The post-harvest DTC in Ebonyi State for rice processing lacked the adequate next-level quality control technology needed for rice parboiling, rubber-roller type rice hullers, rice de-stoning and packaging systems that would ensure conformity with acceptable modern food standards, food quality and hygiene. Furthermore, the ownership and control of the DTC at Ebonyi is not clear, and no training had been undertaken as at the close of the first phase;

v) The Ebonyi DTC has only some equipment for rice processing, but does not cover other very important crops in the state and catchment area like cassava and oil palm fruit processing; and

vi) Out of a total of 76 processing modules targeted for the south-east zone, only 66 were achieved, giving a target achievement of 86.84 percent.

49

Figure 11: Access and use of agro processing equipment by farmers in NSPFS areas


access to processing assets

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

cassava mills cereals mills rice mills, other yam processing other

Type of processing asset

Perc

en

t

Ben

Nben


Figure 12: Access and use of storage facilities by farmers in NSPFS areas


access to storage facilities

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Improved Traditonal

Type of storage facility

Pe

rcen

t

Ben

Nben


In the south-south zone:

i) Much of the machinery and equipment introduced by the ADPs in this zone is either faulty or abandoned awaiting repairs by fabricators whose expertise and ability to train beneficiaries are doubtful. For example, the horizontal-type of oil palm digesters that were supplied at all sites in the zone have been abandoned by the beneficiaries in favour of the more user-friendly vertical type being used by non-beneficiary oil palm processors;

ii) Palm oil clarifiers supplied to all beneficiaries are not in use due to lack of exposure and training of these beneficiaries, while palm fruit boilers/cookers are very rarely used. Gari tray fryers supplied are also not being used partly because of improper installation with no chimneys provided for smoke outlet, and partly because of lack of training and exposure of beneficiaries on how to operate the equipment;

50

iii) There was no provision for quality control training of facilitators, extension agents and veterinary extension agents on monitoring and enforcement of processing procedures, and all of these staff who were interviewed confirmed that they were ignorant of quality control measures and obnoxious cultural practices that they were supposed to know concerning these processing procedures;

iv) Lack of group cohesion and inability of group to either operate machinery directly or hold down and train operators created management and operational difficulties of the processing units, thereby resulting in long idle time, loss of viability, and inability to repay project loans;

v) Out of 42 processing modules targeted in the zone, only 30 (or 71.43 percent) were achieved throughout the south-south zone; and

vi) In what appears to be an extreme case of positive outreach effect, the Akwa-Ibom State government established a State FSP site similar to the three set up under the NSPFS, and it is working out very well with its equipment and machinery properly maintained.

In the south-west zone:

i) Processing modules (especially for cassava and fish) were made to interested individual beneficiaries instead of groups (to solve ownership problems), and these men and women procured their equipment themselves with the aid of the ADPs as consultants;

ii) Most cassava processors were aware of new products coming online (like cassava chips and flour) but did not receive any training for their production or credit with which to procure additional necessary equipment;

iii) Most of the equipment lay idle because the ADPs did not provide any training to aid the beneficiaries and their operators both for the equipment operations and maintenance;

iv) The ADPs did not have in place any arrangements for training staff, beneficiaries and machinery operators on monitoring and enforcement of quality control;

v) All targeted processing modules were 100 percent achieved in this zone, but only about 88 percent of them are still actively functioning.

In the north-central zone:

i) A post-harvest DTC cassava processing equipment set up by the NSPFS at Mu-Agboughi in Makurdi has for a while now needed simple repairs and modifications by fabricators to accommodate both gari frying and cassava chips drying. These have not been effected up to the time for the evaluation visit;

ii) Meanwhile, the state government has, as an outreach effect, also established for the beneficiaries processing equipment for mangos and tomatoes but not oranges, even though oranges are abundant in the state;

iii) There is no standing programme for continuous demonstration and training at the DTC whose management is in the hands of the Community Chief, and so the expected effect of the DTC on the quality control aspect of the finished products is non-existent; and

iv) Of the expected 150 agro-processing modules that were to be developed, only 138 have been achieved, giving a target achievement rate of 92 percent.

51

In the north-east zone:

i) Agro-processing modules were allocated to individuals rather than groups for ease of ownership, loan repayment and monitoring. It was generally discovered that female processors were more comfortable with personalized smaller units of simple processing equipment (like plate mills and spaghetti mills) which they can operate more conveniently in their homes than with larger communally owned machinery;

ii) Some agro-processing modules were wrongly allocated to areas where there was no adequate raw material. For example, a rice mill was allocated to Boro site which had no sufficient rice to process;

iii) Although 100 percent of the expected 172 processing modules were established and achieved, the ADPs neither organized training for the beneficiaries and their operators nor made provisions for monitoring and enforcing quality control.

In the north-west zone:

i) The DTC established at Batsa in Katsina State provided training for facilitators and not beneficiaries and their operators;

ii) Allocation of processing modules to women groups was extremely problematic and so such allocation was either abandoned or large processing modules like rice hullers and hammer mills had to be allocated to individual women from within the groups, while smaller processing units like spaghetti machines and tomato grinders were allocated to women strictly on an individual basis;

iii) The ADPs did not organize training programmes for processors and their operators on equipment operations and maintenance, and did not have any provisions for quality control monitoring and enforcement for processed food materials sold to the public;

iv) Out of 385 targeted processing modules, only 283 were achieved, giving a target achievement of 73.51 percent.

Overall Assessment

205. The evaluation mission found that as a functionally necessary component, the agro-processing module was unsatisfactorily implemented by the project managers/coordinators in both Abuja and the ADPs. It was also improperly handled as a critical aspect of the food security project by some beneficiary groups. In fact, the module was not implemented in some sites either because funds were not sent from Abuja to cover the module or because the entire project was started rather late towards the end of the first phase in those sites. Consequently, the down-stream activities that were expected to have rapidly upgraded post-harvest technologies, expanded employment, and added value to harvested raw agricultural commodities were not developed and/or promoted.

206. Where post-harvest milling machines had been installed, the following general shortcomings were observed:

• It is obvious that the concept of community/group ownership and operation of the equipment failed. Communities found it almost impossible to operate the machines as group ventures. Most of the functioning machines have been transferred to individual ownership, in a few cases to non-group members, with the support of Apex Committees and ADP managers and are being successfully operated. This has confirmed that in Nigeria, as in some other African countries, group ownership and

52

operation of such private sector assets are difficult to operationalize. Attempting to introduce such machines as group owned and operated assets was a failure in project design in a country where private ownership and operation of such assets is widespread.

• Some milling facilities communally installed were found not to be functioning either because their spare-parts were expensive and difficult to obtain, or they could not be mechanically maintained by the farmers themselves, or the men hired to operate them fraudulently stole the proceeds;

• The locations of some of the communally established machines were inappropriate in terms of input supply, access by farmers and output marketing.

207. Furthermore, no post-harvest labour-saving device operated by the farmers to help expand farmers’ operations and reduce their drudgery was successfully introduced under the project. The few such devices introduced by the Chinese technicians for such purposes only ended up as prototypes which were considered either too expensive or difficult to operate by intended individual beneficiary-farmers.

208. No income-generating post-harvest activities using simple and viable processing technologies that the beneficiaries themselves can operate and that can lead to the establishment of commercially profitable and sustainable ventures with positive outreach effects were created under the NSPFS project anywhere in the country.

209. Unfortunately, no marketing system that beneficially ensures appreciable reduction in the wastage of agricultural produce was developed within any of the project communities. In fact, some farmers listed poor implementation of marketing arrangements as a major problem in the NSPFS. Failure here is particularly telling as over 60 percent of beneficiary and non-beneficiary farmers reported that they had difficulties marketing their farm produce. These difficulties are mainly low prices and transport costs which affect equally both categories of farmer. Other reasons for market difficulties include storage, especially for the NSPFS beneficiary farmers, and labour costs especially for the non-beneficiary farmers (Figure 13). (b) The agricultural commodity and food storage module

210. The provision of agricultural commodity and food storage facilities has been achieved to varying levels throughout the country. The Federal Government has successfully established large storage silos in 10 designated strategic grain reserves in Akure, Gombe, Ibadan, Ilorin, Irua, Jahun, Lafiagi, Makurdi, Minna and Ogoja, although their use has been far from optimal.

211. However, the state-level buffer-stock programmes have not been developed to the desired level by all states, and the on-farm storage improvement component has had no impact on farm storage. Throughout its field visits the evaluation team found no evidence that the 20,000 metal silos claimed to have been fabricated by NSPFS were in use by farmers who continue to use the old traditional storage systems.

53

Figure 13: Marketing difficulties faced by farmers in NSPFS areas

Figure 26: Percentage of households by reasons for market difficulties

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

storage transport low prices time/labour other

Reasons

Perc

en

t o

f H

ou

seh

old

s

Ben

Nben



213. Recommendation No 11: The NPFS should support the establishment of Post-harvest and Farm Storage (or Business Development) Units, within each ADP, adequately staffing them with well-trained subject matter specialists who would provide the necessary backstopping to the individual farmers in the private sector. Such staff should receive constant in-service training and upgrading to ensure that they are up-to-date with the most appropriate techniques and systems for their states.

214. Recommendation No 12: The NPFS should give much more emphasis to improved farm storage and agricultural marketing than the NSPFS did. Systematic on-farm trials of all equipment, such as small metal storage bins in which the cost effectiveness is to be assessed, should be conducted under real farm conditions, including an assessment of the actual amount of subsidies (if any) that would be needed to encourage widespread adoption.

IX. RURAL CREDIT

A. Concept

215. The Credit Module was a distinct and critical component of the entire NSPFS and had as its principal objective the disbursement, proper utilization and recovery of funds provided under the project to facilitate the production, processing, and marketing components of the project. It was, therefore, under this module that loan management arrangements were supposed to be put in place and implemented so that benefiting farmers are:

54

• encouraged to organize themselves into enterprise groups for joint activities along commodity-specific lines as against individual efforts;

• taught the culture of resource management in general;

• exposed to banking facilities even in rural areas;

• encouraged to keep records of their enterprises; and

• generally supported to achieve an increase in output and income on a sustainable basis.

B. Achievements

216. Between 2002 and 2006, a total of N1,192,738,378 worth of loans was provided to bridge the credit needs of the participating farmers within all the formed and registered groups of beneficiaries in the 109 project sites established throughout the country, to cover the various modules in crop production, livestock, fisheries, agro-processing, health and nutrition, and input distribution including fertilizer as specified in the project;

217. The disbursed loans were distributed among the project modules as follows: � Crop production module � Water management module � Soil conservation module � Livestock management module � Fisheries module � Agro-processing module � Community seed development module � Participatory project monitoring and evaluation module � Other components;

218. As of February 2007, N605,911,096 had been paid back by farmers, constituting a loan recovery rate of only 50.8 percent. It is relevant to note that the loans to ADPs for the fertilizer which was sold to farmers on a cash-and-carry basis have been 100 percent recovered from all states except Imo State whose ADP NSPFS-loan recovery account has been ‘locked’ up in a distressed bank in Owerri since 2005.

C. Assessments

219. Although credit was provided to all 109 project sites in the country between 2002 and 2006 for the implementation of all the modules specified in the project, the level of credit provided differed from site to site due to the varying starting times of the project in the different states. In response to questions from the evaluation team, farmers almost universally indicated that the credit activity was the major benefit from the NSPFS. This is the major area of success of the NSPFS.

220. This confirmed the results obtained in the impact study which showed that there was a huge difference between participants and non-participants in their access to loans and their repayment pattern (Figures 14 and 15). Participants had access to seasonal and long-term credit for production but only 30 percent indicated that they had repaid the loans fully, about 60 percent repaid partly and 10 percent did not repay at all, compared to 50 percent of non-participants who repaid their credit fully, 20 percent partly and 30 percent that did not repay at all.

55

Figure 14: Farmers access to credit in NSPFS areas


access to credit

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

seasonal long-term both none

Type of credit

Perc

en

t

Ben

Nben


Figure 15: Repayment of credit by farmers in NSPFS areas

Figure 56: Percentage of households by Repayment of credit

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

yes partly no

Perc

en

t o

f H

ou

seh

old

s

Ben

Nben


221. The evaluation team found that in general the modules were under-funded, in the sense that the amounts provided for each module even when fully disbursed to the targeted individuals or groups was insufficient to finance the implementation of the module.

222. Furthermore, and more importantly, although the amount of credit disbursed to the Apex bodies for the various modules was as per the specification of the economic-size enterprises, the actual amount of loan given to individual beneficiaries was reduced for two main reasons. Firstly, the total available funds per site per given module were usually insufficient for the number of potential and interested beneficiaries in each; and secondly, the Apex body members in all sites often decided that some of the approved loan packages were too large for one person. It was, therefore, often decided that the money be split into smaller packages in order to accommodate more members in the group. The average crop enterprise

56

loan granted a beneficiary in the sites visited by the evaluation team was N 15,000, with a range of from a meagre N 1,125 in some sites to an overwhelming N 1,578,950!!

223. It was evident to the evaluation team that where groups could split the amounts for modules and disburse smaller amounts to who could still invest the money in profitable enterprises (e.g. crop enterprises, intensive poultry modules converted into semi-intensive backyard operations, etc.), there was a much greater likelihood of repayment than where such down-sizing was not possible (e.g. processing) and the resulting under funded operations failed.

224. The loans disbursed by ADPs to the Apex bodies were of two distinct accounts - fertilizer loans and the commodity module loans. The fertilizer loans were meant to be recovered and paid back fully to the PCU, while the credit for the crop and livestock modules was meant to be recovered and retained in the Apex Loan Recovery Account which was to be managed at each site by the Apex body and used as a revolving loan account for the benefit of the farmers in the project communities.

225. Thus, as far as beneficiary farmers were concerned the fertilizer loan component was not actually a loan component, but rather a component that provided them access to fertilizers at subsidized prices. As discussed earlier, although there was evidence of elite capture, the NSPFS succeeded in making fertilizers available to some of the most disadvantaged members of communities (e.g. women farmers) at the subsidized rate. It therefore proved to be a successful mechanism for distribution of subsidized fertilizers.

226. For the commodity loan scheme the credit recovery rate throughout the country was poor, averaging only 27.3 percent and ranging from zero percent repayment in some sites to 75 percent repayment in a few others, with one site in Osun State recording 100 percent recovery, even after three cycles of loan disbursement.

227. In general, the evaluation team observed that the revolving loan concept had only been rudimentarily achieved in a few sites – the site in Osun State being the outstanding exception. Most Apex bodies seem to have been waiting for permission that never came from Abuja to recycle the recovered loans.

228. The evaluation mission also observed that repayment rates were much worse than other micro credit operations in localities close to NSPFS sites. There is a general claim among NSPFS managers and other observers that the poor recovery rate is partly attributable to the wrong signal that was given to the farmers by PCU officials at the start of the project when it was said that the monies provided under the loan component of the project were a gift from the Federal Government that was not expected to be paid back. This information made farmers see the loans as their share of the “national cake” which they felt should never be paid back even after a correction had been made in the explanation later in the project.

229. Loan funds management and credit recovery by some Apex bodies have also been inadequate. While some have performed creditably in disbursing and recovering their loans, others have been found to have badly managed their Apex Loan Recovery Account either by trading with the funds or giving more than one loan to some individuals who are not even farmers. Also, it was generally observed that because the NSPFS loans were interest-free, beneficiaries under the scheme did not consider its repayment a serious requirement when compared to non-NSPFS project farmers who had to borrow funds at varying interest rates from micro-credit banks or money-lenders. They therefore either deliberately ignored the request for them to repay the loans on time, or felt no compulsion whatsoever to set aside monies for loan repayment even when they had such funds. Maybe a low interest charge

57

attached to the loan component but which can be refunded somehow to the beneficiaries in subsequent loans might act as an inducement during the second phase of the project. Generally, the evaluation team found that through decentralized community control established by the NSPFS, subsidized credit got to some very needy farmers – a success for the project.

230. Recommendation No 13: The system of disbursement and management of loans through farmer-managed Apex bodies should be continued. However, in order to ensure the sustainability of the activity which is a critical component of the programme, increased efforts should be made to enhance the capacity of such bodies through improved training in loan management systems, and linkages with micro finance associations so that the production credit disbursed through the NPFS would be complementary to the credit disbursed by such organizations that tend to be more directed to trade. Furthermore, in order to prevent possible mismanagement of the Apex Recovery Loan Accounts at the different sites, members of the Apex bodies should be made to understand that they are accountable not only to the farmer-members they represent, but also to the ADP programme manager through the site coordinator.

X. SOUTH-SOUTH COOPERATION (SSC)

A. Concept

231. Article II of the Tri-Partite Agreement (TPA) between the Government of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (FGN), the Government of People’s Republic of China (GOC) and FAO signed in March 2003 states that the GOC shall:

“provide the most appropriate technology and upon the request of the Host Government and at the expense of the Programme provide material and equipment to maximise technical cooperation in the various fields in question (water control, plant production, small animal husbandry, artisanal fishery and aquaculture, etc.) and to improve living conditions of the poor and vulnerable groups in rural areas”.

232. The underlying concept of the South-South Cooperation (SSC) initiative within the framework of the NSPFS is that China has a considerable comparative advantage in expertise in a number of technical areas in need of support, including:

i. Water control, including smallholder irrigation;

ii. Crop intensification, including production of field crops and horticulture, as well as marketing and agro-processing;

iii. Diversification, including small short-cycle animal production, breeding and nutrition, as well as aquaculture and artisanal fisheries.

233. The joint FAO-China-Nigeria formulation mission of September/October 2002 foresaw the phased fielding of up to 20 Chinese experts and 504 technicians in the domains and technical areas mentioned above. Their support was to be provided within the framework of NSPFS activities, but not limited to it. The mission stressed that the focus of Chinese assistance should complement national development efforts in critical areas where expertise was considered a constraint, or was lacking.

58

B. Achievements8

234. A total of 496 Chinese personnel, of which 24 experts, 468 technicians and 3 doctors arrived in Nigeria between 2003 and 2005 in two batches and were placed in all 36 states of Nigeria. With the exception of 55 technicians assigned to private farms, the rest worked in state ADPs. Eleven were placed in scientific institutes. National counterparts were attached to each expert and technician. Only one interpreter out of the 12 initially foreseen worked in the national SSC Coordination Office in Abuja. The last contingent left Nigeria during the last quarter of 2007.

235. In the area of small-scale irrigation and drainage, only 15 new dams were constructed with a total water storage capacity of 1.6 million m3 out of 300 planned,9 and 5 rehabilitated out of 200 planned. The irrigation systems cover 460 ha compared to 3000 ha initially envisaged. The average size of dams constructed is much larger than envisaged in the project document, requiring the use of contractors for their construction rather than manual labour. Underground water development included a number of wells and borehole constructions and rehabilitations, hand-pump well development, well equipped with hand-pump-for water lifting device and hand-pump well construction. Water-saving irrigation works comprised one U-shaped channel construction and a number of irrigation systems, including half-fixed sprinkler irrigation, low-pressure pipeline irrigation, micro-irrigation and drip irrigation.

236. Under soil and water conservation, various soil and water conservation micro-projects were realized, including sloping farmland conversion into terraces and half-moon pit land preparation for tree planting among others.

237. In the area of crop intensification, activities included rice production, fish production in rice fields, introduction of Chinese millet and high-yield cultivation techniques for maize production, and hybrid sorghum. For other crops (legumes, oil crops and roots), activities included improved soybean planting, introduction of mung bean, introduction of sunflower, cassava production and forage crops. On fruit trees, the work included seedlings production, orchard management, banana de-budding, protection techniques of the banana fruit, mango and citrus fruit cultivation, reforming mature seed-bed trees and other orchard management techniques. Several horticulture activities were implemented, comprising trials and demonstrations on vegetable production such as home gardens, organic composting and plant protection, and soil improvement and sloping arable land improvement.

238. In the area of post-harvest handling, activities included construction of a multi-purpose firewood drying house, dryer platforms and a number of agro-processing techniques and products, including solar fish drying, extracting yam starch by grating process, fresh bread and bagel processing, processing pickled vegetable, spiced beef sauce and soybean curd processing among others. Farm machinery and tool activities included wooden thresher fabrication, introduction of the long-handle hoe and the fruit picker, the grain winnower fabrication and a simple seeding device.

239. In the Diversification component of the NSPFS, SSC interventions included poultry and duck production, setting up of hatcheries, 12 different types of poultry incubators of various scales, poultry artificial insemination, pig production, sheep and goats production,

8 For a detailed reporting on achievements, see Joint China-Nigeria-FAO Implementation Completion Review (ICR), July 2007. 9 As of December 2007, 7 earth dams were under construction.

59

cattle production, rabbit production, forage grasses and silage ammonia treatment, integrated animal-fish production systems, livestock disease prevention and control

240. A diverse range of activities were implemented in aquaculture, including the introduction of integrated fish farming systems combining fish with rice, poultry, pig and vegetables. Out of the 300 new ponds foreseen, about 200 were implemented, including rehabilitation of existing and/or new construction of fish production infrastructures. This includes rehabilitation of natural burrow pit (Katsina), construction of new earthen ponds (Kano, Ogun, Edo) and concrete tank systems (Kebbi, Edo). Other activities included cage culture, fingerlings production, fish feed formulation and processing, feeding practices, disease and water quality control, fish processing and preservation, and finally the improvement of artisanal net and fishing equipment. No activities appear to have been implemented in the area of involvement of the private sector for the rehabilitation and operation on a commercial basis of the 37 state fish farms.

241. Other diversification activities included beekeeping rural energy activities which concentrated on design and construction of biogas digesters and construction of firewood saving stoves (made with mud, pre-fabricated concrete, brick and concrete and solar-powered stove).

C. Assessment

242. Two questions related to technical assistance were posed to beneficiaries and to non-beneficiaries in the impact study. The first was on sources of information on new crops and the second on sources of information on new soil conservation techniques. Figure 16 shows that only about 12 percent of NSPFS farmers reported that they got information on new crops from the Chinese, compared to over 45 percent from ADP staff and 25 percent from other farmers. In the case of information on new techniques (Figure 17) an even smaller percentage (about 5 percent) indicated that the SSC cooperants were a source of information. Despite a relatively consistent presence of the SSC cooperants assigned in the country10, it is clear that the SSC did not achieve one of its major objectives – the transfer of technical know-how to NSPFS farmers.

243. Furthermore, in most of the sites visited by the evaluation team, ADP staff declared that most if not all of the technologies introduced by the Chinese were not new to them and virtually all were known and already available in Nigeria; if not in particular states, the existence of national alternative technology developers in both the public and private sectors was confirmed as existing everywhere by ADP staff. Most of the farmers interviewed by the evaluation team reported that there was no difference between Chinese and ADP staff in giving technical advice.

244. Reflecting the phenomenon well known in African rural development – that a prophet is not recognized in his own home – a number of ADP staff indicated that before the SSC was operational, micro-project proposals prepared by ADP technicians and submitted either to federal or state government institutions for financing of testing and eventual demonstration of the innovations, went unheeded. The situation changed with the SSC as the Chinese presence facilitated the ‘downloading’ of funding for similar ideas (e.g in Niger, Bauchi and Osun

10 The SSC technicians were sent to Nigeria in two batches and normally most of them stayed 2 years: an average of 200 technicians stayed the same time in Nigeria, i.e. an average presence of 2 SSC technicians per site at all times.

60

States) as funds were more easily released for activities in which Chinese technicians were involved.

Figure 16: Farmers sources of information about new crops

Figure 32: Percentage of farmers by source of Information on new crops

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

ADP extension staff Chinese technicians other

farmers/friends

other (sp

Information Source

Perc

en

t o

f H

ou

seh

old

s

Ben

Nben


Figure 17: Farmers sources of information about improved soil conservation techniques

Figure 39: Source of information on Soil Conservation techniques

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45


farmers/friends

other

Information source

Pecen

t o

f H

ou

seh

old

s

Ben

Nben


245. The amount and diversity of the techniques promoted at state snd Site levels in each SSC area of concentration are commendable, and a number of successes were achieved. These included the introduction of an interesting threshing/winnowing machine in Kano which has been sent to 9 other states for promotion11. In Bauchi State, the ADP agroforestry facilitator was very happy with his Chinese counterpart, who taught him fruit tree growing and pruning techniques and localized fertilizer applications with mangoes grafted on to calabash. In Kogi, Katsina, Adamawa, Kano and Anambra States, small low-cost water bed incubators for poultry locally made at N30-50,000N were successfully introduced and adopted by a few producers. In Gidan Mangoro site (Niger State), there was a demand for a biogas drier from a non-participating farmer, who is still using it and in Dankoemisheshi site (not an NSPFS site)

11 Twenty-six carpenters were trained from the 9 states and 10 prototypes are being tested, at a cost of N16,000/unit.

61

the rice+fish system was adopted by a few farmers. In Ondo State, the half sprinkler irrigation technique introduced by the Chinese is reported by ADP staff to have been incorporated into state agricultural policy for irrigated lands. In Akwa Ibom State, five farmers in Okanowa site have adopted the rice+fish system, and the rubber tapping device fabricated using local materials is being demonstrated with some potential of success. Duck meat production raised interest in the Akwa Ibom State Government. In Kogi, the Ajokpachi/Icheke micro-earth dam was successful and the State Government is now funding 9 new dams. According to Osun State ADP staff, following a demonstration a small number of interested farmers residing near the demonstration centre located at OSSADEP headquarters constructed improved beehives using their personal funds.

246. However, there have been many failures. A few examples include in Niger State, Nasarawa site, where the Chinese livestock technician proposed to utilize the Postlin plant to heal sheep with diarrhoea, but it did not work. In fish hatchery, they had to call the National Fishery Research Centre to finish the job started by the Chinese technician. In Anambra State, the rice-fish farming was a disaster. In Imo State, the solar fish drier in bamboo was presented to ADP facilitators coming from other states at a workshop in Port Harcourt, and the Imo State funded the demonstration; however, farmers did not pick it up as use is limited during the rain season. Also in Imo State, farmers complained about the pipeline irrigation system introduced by the Chinese in a communal land subject to inundation. In Osun State, Osogbo Central site, a farmer complained that he planted some tomato seeds introduced by the Chinese as being disease resistant, to discover that they were diseased12. In Imo State, ADP health and nutrition staff declared that the SSC had not brought any significant change in women agricultural production and processing activities, and complained about the difficulties experienced in communicating with the Chinese technicians, due to language barriers. Also, the evaluation team did not agree with the technical choice made during implementation to build larger dams than envisaged in the project document, and considered it a lost opportunity for the NSPFS to have served with irrigation water a higher number of small-holder farmers.

247. It was clear to the evaluation team that the successes were outweighed by the failures. The reputed comparative advantage of China in supplying low-cost agricultural technology to Nigeria was not borne out during the implementation of the NSPFS. The evaluation team agreed with the Joint China-Nigeria-FAO SSC ICR of July 2007 that lack of planning and poor linkages of Chinese expertise input with extension work with insufficient counterpart training and lack of post-demonstration follow-up have hindered the performance of Chinese support. This is confirmed by the team’s finding of the lack of involvement of the states in the planning and selection of Chinese expertise, which was perceived as imposed from the top by the NSPFS Project Coordination Unit (PCU). In this regard, the poor response by the states to the recent request from the PCU that they indicate what Chinese expertise they need for the NPFS expansion phase is a negative signal and should alert decision-makers to the risk of incurring many of the same problems encountered at state level during the implementation of the SSC in support of the NSPFS 2003-06. The perception the evaluation team had during its field visits was that the states still feel that the SSC is something imposed from above, and have a certain reticence/difficulty to adapt to it.

248. The team was particularly struck by the general sense of unease of ADP staff in dealing and working with the Chinese technicians in the states. This was no doubt partly due

12 Introducing new crop varieties without quarantine and adequate testing and certification from the authorized Nigerian authorities is prone to failure.

62

to the language difficulties alluded to by ADP staff everywhere. Problems also included health, security, as well as jealousy by the ADP facilitators because of the higher economic remuneration of Chinese technicians.

249. The evaluation team concluded that the SSC had not been cost-effective in supporting NSPFS extension activities. On average, a Chinese technician with a diploma/certificate or BSc plus 5 years’ work experience has been budgeted in the reformulated SSC report at US$7,200/year, to which one-time costs up to US$5,200/technician have to be added for installation, travel and language training costs. Also, there are additional costs for translation of documents and interpretation during working hours. According to the information collected in the ADPs visited by the evaluation team, a qualified Nigerian technician holding a BSc and 6 years’ work experience (same level as the Chinese technicians), costs considerably less. Graduate extension agents with 6 years’ work experience recruited by ADPs and assigned to specific government programmes such as FADAMA or IFAD-funded projects, are paid N348,492 per year plus N180,000 per year allowance and N30,000 per year motorbike allowance, which corresponds to about US$4,800/year at the current exchange rate, i.e. less than half the cost of Chinese technicians13.

250. Recommendation No 14: The SSC programme as operated in the past with large numbers of Chinese technicians should be modified to one in which a small number (say 20) of highly specialized and English-speaking Chinese experts are engaged to provide training and mentoring to Nigerian counterparts in the various fields of expertise, focusing on innovative technologies which could be tested and divulgated as described in the Joint China-Nigeria-FAO SSC ICR of July 2007 and a limited number of micro-projects. Instead of Chinese technicians, national technicians should be engaged to carry out extension work.

XI. CROSS-CUTTING ISSUES

A. Monitoring and Evaluation

(i) Concept14

251. It was expected that monitoring and evaluation (M&E) activities of the NSPFS would cover monitoring of activities, outputs and services, resources and impact. The project was designed to use the ADP M&E system supplemented by occasional supervision missions. This was based on the knowledge that most, if not all, of the ADPs had the necessary staff with experience in monitoring and evaluation of development programmes. The PCU and project headquarters also had adequately qualified staff with substantial experience in supervision.

13 As of February 2008, the costs of South-South technicians have been revised by FAO. The experts’ monthly

allowance goes from US$1,000 to US$1,500 and for technicians from US$600 to US$900; the one-time installation goes from US$300 to US$450. This revision further increases the cost-effectiveness of using national rather than Chinese expertise. 14 Derived from the technical reports of Dagmar Kunze, Food Security Officer, FAO-TCOS.

63

252. Activity monitoring at site level was to involve farm household groups established at all sites. They were expected to conduct the planning and monitoring of activities, in which they would be assisted by government and NSPFS personnel. Monitoring of activities at site level was also carried out by the ADP staff, site managers and extension agents and other people intervening at the sites (Nigerian and FAO experts, National Programme Officers, etc.). At the state level, activity monitoring was to involve community planning sessions and submission of a planning document to NSPFS project management containing the site level planning and consolidated activities at the state level, mostly including budget proposals and timeframes. Activity monitoring at the federal level was to cover “outputs”.

253. Impact monitoring describes the long-term changes that occur because of a project, the effects of the changes on the living conditions of beneficiaries and other stakeholders during the implementation and after the project has ended. This includes changes in the natural resource base and capability of the population and their needs in terms of these parameters.

254. Impact monitoring at the NSPFS site level was expected to be participatory. It was to include a number detailed surveys and measurements, such as yield measurement, livestock assessment, irrigation infrastructure plan, etc., to be done as much as possible by the participating farm households of the community themselves and supplemented as necessary by ADP staff, the site managers and the extension agents. At the state level, analysis of this data was to take place. At federal level the measures of project success were to be summarized. A first step towards measuring achievements was to define the objectives in more detail by indicators. Then it was necessary to obtain a database for measuring these indicators starting with as baseline survey with a sample of 30 farm households per site and 15 households outside the project intervention area.

(ii) Achievements

255. At the start of implementation of the NSPFS, an attempt was made to revise the logical framework for the project to better define impact indicators with the assistance of FAO and they are shown in Table 3. A number of other activities were undertaken as summarized in Table 4.

64

Table 3: Objectives and indicators for NSPFS

SPFS Development

objective Indicator What is measured

Sources of

verification Responsible

To contribute to sustainable improvements in national food security through rapid increases in productivity and food production on an economically and environmentally sustainable basis, reduce year to year variability in agricultural production, and improve people’s access to food.

X farmers in x sites (per State) have increased their household food production by at least 30% and their productivity in staple food crops by 20% and have reduced their food insecure period by 1 to 2 month

Family income; self sufficiency of staple crops in month;

Baseline survey in 2002; baseline survey in 2004

M&E/PCU Abuja and State M&E

Immediate objective 1

Increase the efficiency of existing irrigation schemes and develop efficient low-cost irrigation techniques

10 men and 5 women farmers (per state in year one) have new access to irrigation; 10 men and 5 women farmers (per state) have access to improved irrigation; total area under irrigation increases per site; 90% of targeted pumps are installed and operational

M&E site reports; baseline survey

M&E State; NPO/SPFS irrigation


Assist farmers in achieving their potential for increasing crop output, productivity, profitability and household income

X farmers have 50 % increases in crop output, increased cropping intensity, 20% increase in staple crops profitability and 10% in total household income

Total crop output in monetary values; gross margins and labour productivity for major upland + fadama fields; household income from crops

Field surveys; Nigeria Farm Management survey 2000/01

M&E/PCU Site managers and state personnel


Promote efficient, innovative and profitable diversification into livestock and fishery activities adapted to local conditions, customs and available resources

X (y poorest) farm households participating in SPFS have taken up improved livestock rearing, new types of husbandry, new livestock (broiler, layers, ram fattening) or fisheries activities; reduction in livestock losses; increases in catch per effort (per fishing); increases in fish output per square meter pond surface

No. of women and men farmers, who adopt the proposed new husbandry activities; no. of farmers who establish commercial broilers/ram fattening activities; no. of trained village helpers who immunize etc. and earn income

M&E site reports; field baseline surveys 2002/04; backstopping missions report

Livestock Dept. Abuja; Backstopping personnel FAO/SPFS


Systematic conduct by stakeholders of baseline data collection and constraint analyses in order to identify limiting factors to increased productivity and household income and to proffer solutions

At least x farmers groups conduct planning, monitoring and evaluation activities, in which they are assisted by government/SPFS personnel. The latter report to SPFS management by planning documents, progress reports and field studies. Collection of baseline data will provide information on all indicators of the planning document.

Farm household groups are established at all sites; x groups are assessing project activities annually on their own;

Participatory M&E forms at communal level; monitoring reports from site managers and site visitors; site reports;

M&E PCU Abuja; State M&E; site managers, extension agents

Source: Kunze, BTOR, 2002

65

Table 4: Overview of M&E activities in NSPFS from 2002 – 2005

Activity Implementer Participants Date Output

Pre-PRA activities Dixon Director PME, facilitator, site manager, extension agent

beg Mar 02? reports

Preparation of training materials by consultants for the 2 PRA training workshops (South and North) at PCU HQ

Molokwu, Mahmoud, Sinkaiye, Kunze

Director PME, facilitator, site manager, extension agent

14-24 Mar 02 training guidelines on PCP

PRA Training Workshop for the Southern ADPs (Inst of Agric. Research & Training Moor Plantation (IAR&T)), Ibadan



25-27 Mar 02 PCP trained staff

PRA Training Workshop for the Northern ADPs (Nat. Water Resource Inst, Kaduna)



2-4 Apr 02 PCP trained staff

Conduct of PRA in the Southern States including Kwara


Communities 2-12 Apr 02 PCP based site plans

Start of the PRA for the Northern States including the FCT.


Communities 4-17 Apr 02 PCP based site plans

deadline for receipt of the PRA reports (incl work plans f site and State) by FAO/PCU

Directors PME 24 Apr 02 state plans of xx states

Backstopping of M&E activities;, working session during which M&E at the various levels of the project, documentation and reporting was discussed. The project’s objectives were defined in more detail and specified by measurable indicators

Kunze 10 participants, project staff, PCU staff, national consultants and FAO personnel from Accra and Rome

24 Sep-5 Oct 02 indicators at project goal level developed (from logframe), BTO & Technical Report

Training of trainers workshop on “data collection and analysis for monitoring and evaluation in SPFS” + participatory M&E

Molokwu, Okelola, Ajala, Kunze

Extension agents & M&E Directors

21–25 Oct 02 trained staff, questionnaires for baseline survey

Baseline survey at site level how many states?? xx baseline reports

Development of Handbook on data recording planning, monitoring and evaluation

Ogunfowora, Vaughan, Okelola

June 2004 47 PMER formats (185 entries in average)

Workshop on PME & Loan management

Ogunfowora et al 3 days 04

Review of all M&E documentation Abalu, Ajala, Yaro, Oklobia, Majiyagbe, Chude

April 2005 Indicators 285+ 61 (regarding management)

Meeting on NSPFS ICR Briefing Okunjo M&E Unit All M&E directors states 28 Oct 05 Reporting update, presentations MIS systems for M&E, review data collection

Backstopping mission Kunze M&E unit, M&E directors states

23 Oct-3 Nov 05 Start-up operational & workplanning M&E unit, training, BTO

Source: Kunze, BTOR, November, 2005

66

(iii) Assessments

256. An effective M&E system can only be implemented if there are well defined indicators for all logframe levels of activities and a well structured work plan is established and followed. It was clear to the evaluation team that such a situation was never effectively achieved in the NSPFS.

257. The team that developed the M&E system for the programme made a number of pertinent observations about the then existing system including the following15.

• The PRA carried out before the programme began was deficient in scope and could not provide useful monitoring and evaluation indicators or a sound basis for a realistic budget.

• Site-level monitoring was ad hoc, not based on a specific format and, quite often, undocumented.

• State-level monitoring focused mainly on production of quarterly reports with emphasis on input delivery, loan disbursement and farm output and was incapable of generating useful data.

• Monitoring and evaluation exercise by NSPFS headquarters, which is statutory and should be annual, was carried out when due.

258. Throughout project implementation many observers noted that:

• Reporting from the states to the PCU Abuja was not satisfactory and did not allow the establishment of a relevant data base on performance.

• Data collection is made using and transmitting hard copies of data collection forms from the site level to the state level where they are collated and used for preparation of the state report. The data are then transferred as Excel or text files to the PCU Abuja. One report overview regarding all state reports showed that only about 50 percent of the expected reports were received at the PCU Abuja.

• The baseline carried out in 2002 allowed the creation of a basic data base which should have been further exploited in terms of analysis and presentation. The baseline report for the whole project (teamwork of M&E PCU) needed to be improved in terms of presentation and data summary.

• It was apparent that the involvement of the zonal/regional PCU units was not clearly defined and TORs for such M&E units needed to be established.

• Considerable volume of data was being collected on inputs, production, and ADP support activity but was not assimilated, summarized or analysed to provide meaningful information (e.g. ratios between inputs and outputs, partial budgets, etc.), i.e. raw data was not converted into information and unexpected variations are not highlighted for explanations.

• There was hardly any M&E information on the SSC component.

• There was very little linkage between the narrative and statistical elements in the state quarterly M&E report.

259. During its field visits, the evaluation team confirmed all the above deficiencies. In addition, the team noted that site and state level M&E data collection was virtually only on project activities with hardly any impact monitoring data collected, despite the addition of enumerators to the ADP site level staff. Furthermore, state and site level staff did not use the resulting quarterly or annual reports to adjust programme implementation.

15 National Programme for Food Security – Review, 2002 – 2004. FAO, TCP/NIR/2905, July 2005.

67

260. The evaluation team is aware that NSPFS management realized the limitations of its M&E activities midway through the implementation phase and attempted to develop a system that could develop a database for site and state level analysis. However, not much progress was achieved. A road map for implementation of an effective M&E system for the expanded NPFS was prepared in 2007 involving a revision and streamlining of the logical framework for the programme and adoption of a web-based M&E system (SPHERE)16.

261. Recommendation No 15: The NPFS should continue to take the necessary steps to revise and streamline the proposed logical framework to include simplified and monitorable impact as well as activity and output indicators and implement a web based M&E system.

B. Capacity Building

(i) Concept

262. Capacity building in the NSPFS covered in-service training of ADP and PCU staff who were the managers of the programme, workshops and training courses for farmers and other participants, and such activities as field days.

263. Capacity of farmers was to be improved using a modification of the ADP “Unified Extension Service” in which a single extension agent covers all aspects of agriculture. The NSPFS was to apply a modified ‘Training and Visit’ extension system to facilitate the demonstration and rapid dissemination of the technical messages promoted by the NSPFS. A team of specialists in various fields of agriculture, i.e. the ADP facilitators, were expected to interact with farmers on a regular basis. Secondly, in order to increase the extension agent to farmer ratio, a team of three extension agents was to permanently reside in each of the NSPFS sites. Thirdly, extension staff were to work with a group of farmers as opposed to a single contact farmer as is the case in the regular system. The aim was not only to serve as an extension education purpose but also to improve social cohesion (including women and youths) and enable members to access other project support services. Finally, NSPFS extension staff were supposed to be given improved incentives in terms of travel/motorbike allowances in order to enhance their mobility.

(ii) Achievements

264. A total of 664 trainings and workshops were undertaken in all the implementing sites with over 9,300 beneficiaries (Table 5). Areas of emphasis were crop production, water management, soil conservation, etc.

265. Motorbikes were provided to all extension staff through an arrangement that allowed them to own the bikes after a pay-back period of 10-12 months during which their allowances were withheld to cover the cost of the bikes. Subsequently, they received the allowances to cover the cost of using the bikes which had become their personal property for work.

16 Di Chiara, Carlo, Review and Discussion of Monitoring Systems for the NPFS in Nigeria, Consultants Report, March 2007.

68

Table 5: Training achievements during NSPFS

Component No Conducted Beneficiaries

Crop production 159 1,386

Water Management 39 46

Soil concervation 142 61

Livestock management 76 416

Fisheries 30 61

Processing 34 290

Community seed gardens 4 146

Participatory PME 1 848

Others 179 6,122

Total 664 9,376

Source: FMARD and FAO, 2006, Table 3

(iii) Assessments

266. Commendably, the NSPFS had demonstration and capacity building as an important activity, recognizing that the sustainability of its programmes would depend on its ability to build human capacity in the local communities and develop constructive, operational and management skills in appropriate technology areas involving the upgrading of skills and creation of technology awareness where lacking.

267. The incentive system used to provide extension agents with motorbikes was commendable and worked well during the main implementation phase of the NSPFS. In future, more attention needs to be paid to the type of motorbikes supplied – they must be models for which local sources of spare parts are available, and staff should receive their allowances on a timely basis.

268. However, the evaluation team noted that the situation observed during the mid-term review in 2004 did not change much by the end of 2006:

• No target was set for training in the project document but funds were allocated for training farmers by the ADPs and for training to be provided by FAO for supervisory staff, facilitators and beneficiaries including workshops, study tours and orientations. Assorted training activities, usually TOT workshops targeted at improving implementation capacity, were held for the facilitators. However, training at field staff and farmer level was erratic and scanty, and many received no training at all. TOT workshops do not add much value if the knowledge gained is not transferred downstream.

• Funding for training at the field level appeared to be limited, as all the ADPs complained of inadequate funds for training. Generally, the budgetary provision for training in each project or component is small, less than 1 percent (only the SFI allocated 3.7 percent for training). This is strange for a programme which has demonstration and capacity building as its main focus.

• One other major handicap of the training programme was the lack of skill gap analysis. In the absence of a set target, the project document provided for skill gap analysis but this was not done yet, and most of the ADPs have not done any recently on their own. Training needs assessment is an important and necessary factor in human resource development as it addresses the issue of specific skills that would enable staff members to improve their performance and overall efficiency.

69

269. The impact study revealed that the NSPFS contributed to improved learning by farmers, a critical element in ensuring the sustainability of programme benefits, although as discussed later farmers regard the NSPFS much more as a source of cheap credit and subsidized inputs than as a source of knowledge.

270. Thus, 83 percent of the NSPFS beneficiary farmers said that they learned new

techniques under the programme, which contrasts significantly with 37 percent of the non-

beneficiary farmers who learned new techniques (Figure 18), and 75 percent had access to

technical advice on cropping compared to 41 percent for non-beneficiaries (Figure 19). More

of the beneficiary farmers also had access to technical advice on soil conservation, livestock-

raising and food processing.

Figure 18: Farmers perceptions about changes in techniques in NSPFS areas

Figure 66: Major changes with SPFS Program: new activities

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Same activities as before Practice new activities

Pe

rce

nt

of

Ho

us

eh

old

s

Ben

Nben


Figure 19: Farmers access to technical advice in NSPFS areas


access to technical advice

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

cropping soil conservation livestock raising food processing

Type of technical advice

Perc

en

t

Ben

Nben


70

271. Recommendation No 16: The NSPFS should continue to pay closer attention to farmer capacity building and consider adopting a more intensive learning extension system such as the FFS. In addition, a thorough training needs assessment of ADP staff should be undertaken, on the basis of which a training master plan should be prepared and implemented.

C. Group formation and use

(i) Concept.

272. The strategy of groups’ formation adopted by the NSPFS was expected to give the farmers the opportunity for collective decision making, drawing membership from women and youths as well as adult men. The groups were expected to have responsibility for enterprise and beneficiary selection, fund disbursement, maintenance of accounts, loan repayment and linkages with facilitators and the ADPs. Each enterprise promoted by the programme was supposed to benefit a group/association of 20 to 25 members on average. Thus, it was expected that there would be 10 to 15 groups/associations in each site, corresponding to the targeted 250-300 beneficiaries per site.

273. The strategy was based on the belief that technology transfer is more cost effective through community groups as compared to individual contacts, that credit recovery is significantly enhanced by peer pressures in community groups and that collaboration and mutual support between group members enhance prospects for sustainability of development activities.

(ii) Achievements

274. Groups were formed for all enterprises promoted by the programme. The number of groups per site varied but were less than 20 for most sites. The groups functioned as enterprise groups and jointly shared responsibilities and benefits of the enterprise.

275. Through the groups, the farmers met and discussed the types of enterprises to select and who should benefit at any given season. The representative of each group elected an Apex chairperson and gave him/her the responsibility to oversee the various associations and serve as the principal linkage between the farmers and the state ADPs.

276. The majority of groups were newly formed although some members had participated in group activities before the NSPFS, such as cooperative associations and in community farm work groups.

(iii) Assessment

277. The groups have served extension purposes, improved social cohesion and enabled members to engage in joint efforts to gain better access to other project support services. Specifically, the groups have provided for the distribution of improved farm inputs, credit, improved facilities, extension and other services. Working in groups has enhanced the capacity of the beneficiary communities to plan and manage enterprises.

278. However, as most groups were formed exclusively to get NSPFS benefits, with few members in groups previously they might not be sustainable post-NSPFS. Farmers almost universally admitted to the evaluation team that they were in groups to access NSPFS benefits but prefer individual operations. Attendance at meetings declined after the loans and inputs were divided and shared among the members. Thus, the group drive to pay back loans so that

71

other community people could benefit was not realized. The groups were only set up to ‘draw-down’ or ‘down-load’ the inputs and cash loans. Thereafter, group cohesion declined to inactivity leading to low member-to-member encouragement to pay back loans.

279. Furthermore, the group-based development strategy was effective mainly as a basis for input distribution and provision of support services but not as enterprise units. Members usually rotated in operating the modules or split modules thereby losing the advantage of scale. Although the groups have all opened bank accounts, most of the primary groups are not making regular contributions or deposits into their accounts. Generally, the groups are not cohesive.

XII. GLOBAL IMPACTS OF NSPFS

A. Effect on crop and livestock productivity

280. Participating farmers appear to have increased their crop area with average upland field sizes of NSPFS beneficiary farmers being 13 percent bigger than those of non-beneficiary farmers, and fadama fields being 33 percent bigger (Table 6).

Table 6: Mean field sizes (ha) of five most important farmers fields

Beneficiary Non-Beneficiary Fields

Upland Fadama Upland Fadama

Field 1 1.0727 0.6398 0.6398 0.6677

Field 2 1.6606 0.9129 0.9129 0.4714

Field 3 0.5240 0.3940 0.3940 0.5170

Field 4 0.7663 0.3691 0.3691 0.2216

Field 5 0.3328 0.4211 0.4211 0.1783

Average 0.8713 0.5474 0.7707 0.4112


281. There were some differences in crop area by crop for beneficiary and non-beneficiary farmers (Table 7). Crop areas are relatively the same for both categories of farmers for fields devoted to cassava, maize, and millet. Non-beneficiary farmers seem to have larger areas devoted to rice while the area devoted to sorghum, plantain and yam are larger for NSPFS beneficiary farmers than the non-beneficiary farmers.

282. Apart from upland rice in which the programme did not intervene, NSPFS farmers achieved significantly increased crop production compared to non-beneficiary farmers (Table 8). Although yields were not measured directly, i.e. there were no crop cuts, it is clear that the production increases in Table 8, which were the result of comparing production recorded in local units of measure, reflect substantial yield increases by beneficiary farmers compared to non-beneficiaries. This is because, with the exception of sorghum and yams, crop areas were lower or the same for beneficiary farmers while crop production was higher.

72

Table 7: Mean crop areas (ha upland + fadama fields) by most important crop

Crop Mean N Std Dev Minimum Maximum

Beneficiary Farmers

Cassava 0.5425 88 0.7564 0.04 4.78

Maize 1.9235 66 2.135 0.06 12.92

Millet 1.1088 54 0.9 0.01 4.33

Plantain 0.3605 10 0.3906 0.05 1.21

Rice 1.2277 13 0.8627 0.06 2.78

Sorghum 1.568 26 0.9109 0.11 3.55

Yam 1.0083 62 1.2233 0.06 5.81

Non-beneficiary Farmers

Cassava 0.4764 131 0.6015 0.03 5.4

Maize 1.9304 55 3.9973 0.05 29.66

Millet 1.1535 61 1.2684 0.12 8.3

Plantain 0.266 15 0.1648 0.08 0.57

Rice 2.0686 4 2.3125 0.09 4.99

Sorghum 1.2003 21 0.8148 0.18 3.35

Yam 0.7405 48 0.7113 0.05 2.66


Table 8: Change in crop production between 2001 and 2007 for selected food crops

Beneficiary

households

Non-beneficiary

households Crop

% change % change

Upland Fields

Cassava 66 34

Maize 50 -25

Millet 44 -4

Plantain 87 55

Rice 71 106

Sorghum 29 -4

Yam 73 57

Fadama Fields

Pepper 0.77 1.42

Rice 0.45 -0.19

Sorghum 0.24 -0.13

Source: NSPFS Evaluation Impact Study, Tables 6 & 7

B. Effect on household food security

283. The impact study showed that the proportion of participating households that reported growing enough food has increased from 55 percent in 2002 to 87 percent in 2007 implying a significant increase in the level of household food security among beneficiaries (Figure 20).

73

284. However, when we compare participating and non-participating households in 200717 (Figure 21) we see that there is only a minor, non-statistically significant difference indicating that the increase in food security as measured by the percentage that grew enough food could not be ascribed to NSPFS activities.

Figure 20: % of NSPFS households that grew enough food in 2002 and 2007

Percentage of households that grew enough food, 2002 and 2007

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Yes No

Pe

rce

nt

of

ho

us

eh

old

s

2002

2007

Source: NSPFS Evaluation Impact Study Figure 18

Figure 21: Percent of households that grew enough food in 2007 in NSPFS areas

Figure 17: Percentage of household that grew enough food

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Yes No

Pe

rce

nt

of

HH

Ben

Nben


285. Furthermore, among households that did not grow enough food in 2007, about 46 percent of the beneficiary farmers said their food stock lasted for 5 to 6 months, 25 percent said it lasted for 7-8 months while about 30 percent said it lasted for 9 to 11 months. Nearly the reverse is the case for non-beneficiary farmers. About 25 percent of the non-beneficiary households said their food stock lasted between 5 to 6 months, 42 percent said it lasted for between 7 to 8 months while 38 percent maintained that their food stock lasted for 9 to 11 months. Figure 22 suggests that among households which did not produce enough food, most

17 There is no information on the situation among non-beneficiary households in 2002.

74

of the non-beneficiary farmers produced enough food to last a little longer (i.e. more than 7 months) than is the case with the beneficiary farmers.

Figure 22: Number of months food lasted in a household in NSPFS areas


number of months food lasted

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

5-6 months 7-8 months 9-11 months

Number of months

Perc

en

t

Ben

Nben


286. Computation of other food security indicators in the impact study yielded the following results:

• Household Food Insecurity Access-related Conditions – no difference between

beneficiary and non-beneficiary farmers with respect to household food insecurity

access related conditions.

• Household Food Insecurity Access-related Domains – no difference in the percentage of households experiencing prevalence in one or more behaviours in each of the three domains (of anxiety and uncertainty, insufficient quality, and insufficient food intake and its physical consequences) between beneficiary and non-beneficiary farmers as shown for all (geopolitical zones). However, specific differences are observed between both categories of farmers especially in the south east (with non-beneficiary farmers having better access) and south west and to a certain degree in the north central zones where the beneficiary farmers seem to have better access.

• Household Food Insecurity Access Scale Score - very low (<5%) for both beneficiary and non-beneficiary farmers across all the geopolitical zones suggesting that both category of households experienced less food insecurity (access). On the whole, there does not seem to be any difference between beneficiary and non-beneficiary households in terms of the household food insecurity access scale score

• Household Food Insecurity Access Prevalence – 31 percent of the beneficiary

households were moderately food insecure (access) compared to 26 percent of the

non-beneficiary households. However, about 18 percent of the non-beneficiary

households expressed a severe food insecurity (access) compared to 9 percent of the

NSPFS beneficiary households, but the difference was not statistically significant

75

287. Overall therefore the above indicators revealed that there are no statistically significant differences between participating and non-participating households. The evaluation team concludes that the NSPFS had no significant impact on household food security as measured by the HFIAS measures.

288. However, participating households had a greater positive perception of the changes in their food security between 2002 and 2007 than non-participating households. More believe that they eat more (86 percent versus 68 percent) and better (89 percent versus 62 percent) every day (Figures 23 and 24). The NSPFS can therefore claim to have contributed to a positive perception of increasing household food security among farmers in their areas of operation.

Figure 23: Perception of changes in quantity of food eaten by households

Figure 58: Major Changes with SPFS program: household eats more

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

no change eats more every day eats less

Perc

en

t o

f H

ou

seh

old

s

Ben

Nben


Figure 24: Perception of changes in quality of food eaten by households

Figure 59: Major Changes with SPFS Program: household eats better

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

no change eats better every day eats worse

Pe

rce

nt

of

ho

us

eh

old

s

Ben

Nben


C. Effect on Non-beneficiaries - Spill over effects

289. The impact study showed that only 40 percent of the non-participating farmers interviewed indicated that they had any knowledge of the NSPFS programme. When this

76

percentage is further disaggregated by nearby and distant respondents it emerged that 50 percent of the nearby farmers had knowledge of the NSPFS while only 30 percent of the farmers located in distant villages knew about the NSPFS. As expected, more of the peri-urban non-beneficiary farmers (58 percent) had knowledge about the activities of the NSPFS compared to the non-beneficiary farmers (35 percent) located in the rural villages.

290. Among non-participating farmers that knew about the NSPFS, 51 percent of those located in peri-urban areas had visited the NSPFS plots compared to only 38 percent of rural-based non-participating farmers.

291. The percentages above are much lower than those achieved in agricultural development programmes in other West African countries18. In the view of the evaluation team, the spill over effect of the NSPFS was low.

D. Sustainability of Programme Benefits

292. There are a number of factors that affect the likelihood of the sustainability of such agricultural development programmes as the NSPFS – the likelihood of continued benefits after the end of the programme. They include financial resources, socio-political factors, institutional factors, and the degree to which beneficiaries have acquired and are using new knowledge.

293. With regard to financial resources, the issue relates to the risks of financial resources not being available to sustain those programme activities that should continue beyond the end of the programme to ensure that the benefits stream is achieved. In the view of the evaluation team, critical activities are the supply of subsidized inputs especially of fertilizer.

294. The analysis in Section IV-D of this report shows that, through the NSPFS, subsidized fertilizer got to “actual” farmers including some of the neediest, a major achievement of the programme compared with many previous attempts at delivering subsidized inputs to farmers. By providing about 50 percent of the fertilizer needs of participants at a subsidy rate averaging about 50 percent the total fertilizer costs were reduced by 25 percent through the NSPFS. How long can such an intervention be sustained? Unless the returns to fertilizers increase sufficiently to obviate the need for the subsidy, the length of time the programme is maintained will impact on the sustainability of NSPFS benefits. The fact that supplies dried up after the end of the NSPFS, with the expectation that they would resume with the commencement of the expanded programme, clearly indicates the vulnerability of the activity.

295. As in the case of fertilizer, the discussion in Section IX shows that NSPFS credit got to some of the neediest beneficiaries. However, the low credit repayment rates severely threaten the sustainability of the revolving credit nature of the programme. Only if repayment rates can be increased, as is the case in some sites visited by the evaluation team, can the national situation be improved.

296. It is evident though that the financial resources for continuation of the activities over the next five years or so are available. The Government of Nigeria at federal, state and local government levels has already committed substantial resources to the follow-up programme, the NPFS. Multilateral and bilateral donors (AfDB, BADEA, and IDB) have also committed

18 For example a recent study of farmers’ field schools in Sierra Leone by a member of the evaluation team showed that over 70 percent of non-participants knew of the programme and had visited the FFS group plots.

77

resources to the follow-up programme.19 From the point of view of availability of financial resources, the NSPFS can therefore be regarded as likely to be sustainable.

297. Socio-political factors refer to the risks that programme outcomes might not be sustained because of insufficient ownership by local stakeholders including the government. Again, the indications to the evaluation team are that stakeholders in Nigeria, from the federal government to local governments have embraced the programme. This was obviously enhanced by the fact that the massive programme was funded exclusively by the Nigerian Government. It is clear that the various stakeholders, including foreign donors, are interested in ensuring that the benefits of the programme continue to flow.

298. Furthermore, in all aspects of the NSPFS, programme implementation efforts were made to ensure that the disadvantaged, especially women and youths were included in programme activities by making sure they were members of the NSPFS groups. Sometimes, women-only groups were formed to implement modules. In the view of evaluation team, the NSPFS succeeded in including a high enough proportion of women and youths in its programmes (usually over 40 percent) to class the programme as gender neutral and enhance the likelihood of its sustainability.

299. With regard to the risks associated with inappropriate Institution Framework and Governance there are no indications that the legal framework, policies and governance structures of the NSPFS posed any risks that jeopardized the sustenance of programme benefits. Virtually the same framework is being used successfully in the follow-up programme and there are indications of sufficient flexibility to allow any needed adjustments over time.

300. On the acquisition of new knowledge, the analysis in Section X1-B pointed out that as revealed by the impact study, the NSPFS contributed to improved learning by farmers, a critical factor in ensuring the sustainability of programme benefits.

301. Based on the above discussion, it is evident that the SPFS was a successful pilot programme with demonstrated prospects for sustainability of its programme benefits in the short to medium term. It is the view of the evaluation team that the prospects for programme sustainability would be improved further if recommendations in this report on capacity building, input supplies and credit are adopted and implemented. The evaluation team is aware that action is already being taken in some of these areas in the implementation of the follow-up NPFS.

19 External donors are expected to provide about US$146m for the expanded phase, out of which loan agreements have already been signed totaling US$70m with additional amounts expected from BADEA (US$10m) and AfDB (US$32m). The government is expected to contribute US$218m distributed as follows: Federal budget 47%, State budgets 26%, Local government budgets 19%, and 8% contribution from local communities.

78

XIII. SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS

A. Main Findings

302. Relevance of the programme: The NSPFS was designed to be a pilot initiative for improving national and household food security and reducing rural poverty in Nigeria through increasing food productivity, reducing year to year variability in agricultural production and improving access to food. This broad objective is highly relevant and perfectly in line with the overarching government objectives of poverty alleviation and sustainable food security, to be pursued through greater emphasis on agriculture and rural development20.

303. Increasing food production and food security: This report has clearly shown that the NSPFS had a positive impact of food production and productivity among beneficiary farmers but that there was minimal or no impact on the level of food security of the households and confirms that household food production increases may be a necessary condition but are not a sufficient condition for attainment of household food security.

304. With the exception of the first PRA exercise run in all of the NSPFS sites during the first year of implementation, the evaluation team did not find much evidence on any further efforts undertaken by the programme towards assessment of food security and development needs and priorities at the household level. This revealed what the team regards as basically a supply-driven approach to food insecurity.

305. Production increases at the household level may not necessarily imply consumption increases or income increases. They need to be buttressed by other interventions, particularly in enhancing marketing systems that ensure improved access. It was evident to the evaluation team that one of the greatest problems faced by NSPFS farmers in terms of increasing their incomes and food security related to the inability of the programme to provide a guaranteed market for their commodities. The programme took a supply-driven/production-based approach rather than a demand-driven/value-chain approach and there was minimum multiplier effects as evidenced by the low spill over effects of the programme.

306. NSPFS organization and management structure: The NSPFS established and successfully operated a management structure that allowed it to achieve most of the programme objectives. Weaknesses included insufficient delegation of authority for operational decision making from PCU Abuja to the state ADPs in the design of programme activities and modules; delays in responsiveness “from above” to site management staff backstopping needs; and a general slowness or total lack of response to recommendations of supervising missions and technical consultants by both FAO and local administrators.

20 The New Agricultural Policy and the Rural Development Policy (both issued in 2001) provide the necessary framework, which emphasises the enhancement of growth and development of all aspects of agriculture in a sustainable manner.

79

307. The irrigation and water control component increased access to irrigation structures and equipment to a minority of farmers located in the northern parts of Nigeria, especially to a new group of farmers in the country.

308. The performance of the intensification of crop production was difficult to ascertain due to poor record keeping. The NSPFS commendably did not force farmers to apply the recommended mono-cropping system allowing them to make the choice about which and how many crops or combinations of crops to grow in their fields. Crop intensification modules were under-funded. A very positive aspect of the NSPFS was that it successfully led to substantial increases in food productivity among participating households.

309. The input supply activities of the NSPFS successfully delivered subsidized fertilizer and improved seeds to farmers, including some of the most disadvantaged. However, insufficient amounts of inputs, especially fertilizers, were provided and were generally supplied late in the cropping season impacting negatively on NSPFS farmers’ production and yields. The cash-and-carry method of sale for fertilizers was very successful and allowed 100 percent recovery of advances to state ADPs.

310. On farm diversification, the inclusion of livestock in the food security project was sound. The propagation of intensive livestock management systems in the project was inappropriate. Semi-intensive systems are more suitable to Nigerian smallholding farmers. Genetically improved sires are hard to find in Nigeria and farmers had to buy unimproved small ruminants and pig breeds in the open market.

311. In the soil fertility initiative, the NSPFS commendably produced digitized maps of Nigerian soils. However, the programme failed to make use of the large pool of knowledge generated to produce site-specific recommendations for farmers. The mass of agronomic trial data has only been partly analysed to show farmers the advantage of adopting the technical packages proposed.

312. The inventory of fish farms and feed producers was commendably used to guide project implementation in the aquaculture component. But stocking of lakes and reservoirs was a failure due to gross under stocking. The objective of establishing core small to medium fish farms was only partially achieved as operators were not given essential incentives and training on fingerling production. Stand-alone aquaculture projects should be discouraged.

313. The animal disease control project started late and was not known by beneficiaries because it was implemented as a stand-alone project. Stand-alone livestock projects such as this should not be undertaken in future but should be integrated into other agricultural development activities.

314. The agro-processing component was probably the least successful aspect of NSPFS implementation. It was unsatisfactorily implemented and sometimes improperly handled as a critical aspect of the food security project by some beneficiary groups. For post-harvest milling machines, the community ownership concept failed, and most of the machines were transferred to individuals. In some sites spare parts were either expensive or difficult to obtain. In spite of the rehabilitation of the 10 designated grain depots by the federal government across the country, storing of agricultural production continues to be done in the farm using traditional structures. On-farm storage devices were not introduced on any meaningful scale.

315. Rural credit was regarded by farmers as the major NSPFS benefit. Repayment rates were much higher where modules could be down-sized and split into smaller amounts and

80

still the amounts received could be invested in profitable enterprises. NSPFS credit got to some of the neediest beneficiaries thanks to the system of loan disbursement via the Apex bodies. However, these associations showed weaknesses in managing the loans as compared to private market microfinance institutions.

316. South-South Cooperation did not achieve its objective of transferring technical know-how to NSPFS farmers. Most if not all of the technologies introduced were not new to ADP staff and virtually all were already known and available in Nigeria. The existence of alternative national technology developers in both the public and private sector raises serious questions regarding the comparative advantage and cost-effectiveness of the South-South cooperation arrangement.

317. The NSPFS M&E system was deficient in many aspects, including lack of an efficient set of monitorable indicators, reporting upstream, under-utilization of baseline data and lack of utilization for management purposes of the considerable amount of data collected on inputs, productions and ADP support activity. No impact data collection was undertaken during NSPFS implementation.

318. On capacity building, the NSPFS commendably contributed to improved learning by farmers, a critical element in ensuring the sustainability of programme benefits although farmers regard the NSPFS much more as a source of cheap credit and subsidized inputs than as a source of knowledge.

319. The group-based development strategy enhanced the capacity of the beneficiary communities to plan and manage enterprises. The groups also provided for the distribution of improved farm inputs, credit, improved facilities, extension and other services. However, the strategy was not effective in putting in place sustainable enterprise units.

320. Based on analysis of a number of factors that affect the likelihood of the sustainability of the benefits of the NSPFS, including availability of financial resources, socio political factors, institutional factors, and the degree to which beneficiaries have acquired and are using new knowledge, the NSPFS was a successful pilot programme with demonstrated prospects for sustainability of its programme benefits in the short to medium term.

B. Implications for the Expanded NPFS

321. The evaluation team recommendations for the expanded NPFS contained in this report are repeated here grouped under different headings for each responsible party:

For NPFS Management

322. Recommendation No 1: There is a need to adjust module costs to the reality at each site. the NPFS should allow much more flexibility in module design and delegate such responsibility to state ADPs.

323. Recommendation No 6: Since the stocking of lakes and reservoirs and the management of the stocks as well as brood stock repositories are highly professional and multi-disciplinary activities, such exercises should in future be assigned to the Nigerian Institute for Fresh Water Fisheries Research (NIFFRI), which has the official national mandate and staff for such stocking and management of reservoirs.

81

324. Recommendation No 11: The NPFS should support the establishment of post-harvest and farm storage (or business development) units, within each ADP, adequately staffing them with well-trained subject matter specialists who would provide the necessary backstopping to the individual farmers in the private sector. Such staff should receive constant in-service training and upgrading to ensure that they are up-to-date with the most appropriate techniques and systems for their states.

325. Recommendation No 8: Training in fingerling production and fish feed formulation should be intensified and given topmost and urgent priority.

For NPFS Management, State ADPs and Apex Bodies


327. Recommendation No 5: Blanket fertilizer application recommendations should be discontinued. Instead, the NPFS should take steps to exploit the vast national database on soil conditions and formulate at least state-specific recommendations for soil nutrient amendments, and procurement of fertilizers for the states should be strictly according to established guidelines.


For State ADPs and Apex Bodies

329. Recommendation No 3: The NPFS should pay great attention to establishing channels of supply for improved livestock breeds. Where local improved breeds have been developed and released (e.g. Shika Brown poultry developed by NAPRI) arrangements should be made to contract the developer to supply project needs. Where no local breeds exist (e.g. broilers and pigs) private sector suppliers, either in the country or overseas, should be contracted to supply the projects requirements.

For NPFS Management and State ADPs

330. Recommendation No 4: The propagation of the intensive livestock system should be abandoned. Instead, the NPFS should propagate adoption of semi-intensive management systems using minimal livestock housing and focusing on reducing mortalities by immunization and medication of the farmers’ livestock.

331. Recommendation No 7: Stand-alone aquaculture projects should be discouraged. Instead, the promotion of aquaculture development should be integrated with arable farming, horticulture and livestock production.

82

332. Recommendation No 12: The NPFS should give much more emphasis to improved farm storage and agricultural marketing than the NSPFS did. Systematic on-farm trials of all equipment such as small metal storage bins in which the cost effectiveness is to be assessed, should be conducted under real farm conditions, including an assessment of the actual amount of subsidies (if any) that would be needed to encourage widespread adoption.

333. Recommendation No 13: The system of disbursement and management of loans through farmer-managed Apex bodies should be continued. However, in order to ensure the sustainability of the activity which is a critical component of the programme, increased efforts should be made to enhance the capacity of such bodies through improved training in loan management systems, and linkages with micro finance associations so that the production credit disbursed through the NPFS would be complementary to the credit disbursed by such organizations that tend to be more directed to trade. Furthermore, in order to prevent possible mismanagement of the Apex Recovery Loan Accounts at the different sites, members of the Apex bodies should be made to understand that they are accountable not only to the farmer-members they represent, but also to the ADP programme manager through the site coordinator.

For NPFS Management, FGN and FAO

334. Recommendation No 9: No stand-alone animal disease and pest control project should be implemented in the NPFS. All animal health activities should be integrated with agricultural production activities such as the Food Security component of the NSPFS.

335. Recommendation No 14: The SSC programme as operated in the past with large numbers of Chinese technicians should be modified to one in which a small number (say 20) of highly specialized and English-speaking Chinese experts are engaged to provide training and mentoring to Nigerian counterparts in the various fields of expertise focusing on innovative technologies, which could be tested and divulgated as described in the Joint China-Nigeria-FAO SSC ICR of July 2007 and a limited number of micro-projects. Instead of Chinese technicians, national technicians should be engaged to carry out extension work.

336. Recommendation No 15: The NPFS should continue to take the necessary steps to revise and streamline the proposed logical framework to include simplified and monitoring impact, as well as activity and output indicators, and implement a web-based M&E system.

337. Recommendation No 16: The NSPFS should continue to pay closer attention to farmer capacity building and consider adopting a more intensive learning extension system such as the FFS. In addition, a thorough training needs assessment of ADP staff should be undertaken, on the basis of which a training master plan should be prepared and implemented.

C. Technical Assistance to NPFS

338. The TORs for this evaluation require that the team produce recommendations on the utilization of the US$1,832,700 unallocated technical assistance budget of the NPFS Expansion Phase. In the view of the evaluation team, technical assistance from FAO could most usefully buttress the NPFS in the areas of farmer capacity building and implementation of an efficient M&E system which should include independent impact monitoring.

339. In the area of farmers’ capacity building FAO’s vast experience in designing and running FFS should be made available to the NPFS. This intensive system of farmer education has only been sporadically tested in Nigeria. The evaluation mission is aware that

83

the management of the NPFS has expressed interest in adopting the FFS approach as an extension method in the NPFS. FAO should assist the management in designing, testing and dissemination of the method as the preferred extension mechanism in the NSPFS, drawing on the experience in other African countries.

340. FAO is already providing technical assistance to the NPFS in the design and

implementation of its M&E system. This assistance should continue to ensure that Recommendation no 15 is fully implemented, especially implementation of a web-based system. Funding should be set aside for a fully independent end of project evaluation.

84

ANNEX 1: TERMS OF REFERENCE

Evaluation of the National Special PROGRAMME FOR Food Security –

UTF/NIR/047/NIR

Rome, November 5, 2007.

Introduction

1. The evaluation of the National Special Programme for Food Security Programme (NSPFS) is a comprehensive study of the activities that have taken place over the period 2002-06, and of the outcomes that have been produced to the benefit of participating farmers.

2. Information on the impact of the NSPFS on the livelihoods of the participating farm households and rural poor and specifically what has proved cost-effective in delivering benefits to rural households and what not will constitute an essential input for FAO in providing technical advice and support for the NPFS Expansion Phase (2007-2011). As it will also provide valuable information on the overall effectiveness of the NSPFS, this information will be a key focus of the evaluation.

3. Based on evidence from beneficiaries and other sources, the evaluation will indicate which of the NSPFS interventions have been most useful and identify other opportunities. It will also tackle issues such as whether having separate project components (annexes) for the NSPFS has been helpful. It will reflect on the utility of the South-South Cooperation Programme (SSC) with China. It will produce useful information for the further refinement of the baseline for evaluating the NPFS as well as give recommendations for improving the NPFS monitoring and evaluation system, including suggested indicators. Finally, it will produce recommendations on the utilisation of the $ 1,832,700 unallocated technical assistance budget of the NPFS Expansion Phase.

4. From October 10th to November 1st 2007 a first scoping mission has been undertaken by the selected Evaluation Team Leader and the Evaluation Officer, as a result of which these terms of reference have been finalised.

Objective, scope and phasing

5. The evaluation process will pass through two main steps:

i. Impact studies, aiming at obtaining a qualitative and quantitative assessment of the economic benefits of the micro-investments made in NSPFS Phase 1 (improved farming technologies, improved animal husbandry, improved water management, etc.), and the existence of a multiplier effect.

ii. Evaluation mission, which will utilise the results of the impact studies and other information gathered to assess relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, impact and sustainability of the NSPFS.

6. The evaluation will cover, through the impact study phase, the main NSPFS component, the “Food Security Project”, the “Soil Fertility Initiative” and the “South/South

85

Cooperation’, as these three components have been implemented in synergy at 109 sites in all 36 States. The other components and other issues, e.g. the “Aquaculture and Inland Fisheries”, the “Animal Disease and Transboundary Pest Control” and the “Marketing of Agricultural and Food Stock Management”, will be assessed during the evaluation mission.

The impact study

3.1 Rationale

7. While many achievements have been recorded for the NSPFS, it is important to have firm evidence on the positive changes which can be attributed to the NSPFS and an estimate of their costs and benefits. A major part of the evidence base for drawing conclusions will be an impact study, comparing results at NSPFS sites with baseline information and with other “control” areas, including nearby areas (to see if there is a demonstration effect) and in more distant but similar agro-ecological and socio-economic contexts, to see the differences with NSPFS areas.

8. The results of the impact study will then provide an important feedback to the main evaluation mission, which will inter alia attempt to determine the causal factors for the results of the impact study.

3.2 Methodology

9. Following participatory focus group discussions in the North and South, undertaken during the scoping mission to gain qualitative information, instruments will be designed for quantitative surveys, which will utilise farmers’ recall and other means as appropriate, such as the existing 2001 baseline household survey data. Surveys will relate the levels of input received (extension, inputs, credit, etc.) to changes in agricultural production and livelihoods and will concentrate on changes and comparisons with other non-project areas for:

i. levels of production and sales (agricultural, livestock, fish and other);

ii. livelihoods (levels of nutrition, income and standards of living);

iii. local food availability and prices throughout the year;

iv. access to irrigation water (including the quality of water management);

v. input use and availability (including access to and repayment of credit);

vi. access to and use of technical advice (including capacity building from the SSCP China/Nigeria);

vii. food availability and value added of the households’ production due to improved processing and food storage systems;

viii. outreach to nearby non-project farmers and differences in standards of living with other more distant farmers; and

ix. Likely sustainability of the interventions undertaken so far. Sampling

86

10. For the field survey related to the impact studies, it is proposed to visit 4 NSPFS sites in each geo-political zone, one urban/peri-urban and three rural for a total of 18 sites per zone. This would give a coverage rate of 22% of the NSPFS sites, an acceptable sampling percentage (16% of urban/ peri-urban sites and 25% of rural sites). The sites will be randomly selected before the second scoping mission.

11. The farmers having benefited of credit in the framework of the “Food Security Project”, estimated being 22,277 in the 109 sites, are considered as the main beneficiaries’ population. With a confidence level of 95% and a confidence interval of ± 5, this gives a sample size of 378 participating farmers to interview in the 24 NSPFS sites21, plus the same amount of non participating farmers, half of them from nearby areas and half from more distant, but similar areas.

12. Within the randomly selected 4 sites in each zone (one urban / peri-urban and 3 rural) 16 participating farmers in each site will be randomly selected for the interviews. The procedure for selecting the two groups of non participating farmers is as follows:

A) Nearby farmers:

i. list all “comparable”22 villages and randomly select one village within the same Local Government Area (LGA) of the selected site;

ii. randomly select 8 farmers from the selected village.

B) Distant farmers:

i. randomly select one LGA village within the same Senatorial District of the selected site, other than the LGA of the selected site;

ii. list all “comparable” villages within the selected LGA and randomly select one village;

iii. randomly select 8 farmers within the selected village.

13. Twelve enumerators (six teams of two enumerators each) will be used in the six geo-political zones23 in a three weeks’ survey. Transport will be provided by the NSPFS for each team.

14. The preliminary survey design is presented in the following tables.

21 To make it even, 384 households will be interviewed, at the rate of 16 farmers per site in the 24 sites. 22 “comparable” villages are villages with the same characteristics of the selected sites in the sense of being rural or peri-urban. 23 North-Central, North-East, North-West, South-South, South-East and South-West.

87

NSFSP - Site listing - Phase 1

Sokoto

Kano

Jigawa

Kebbi

Katsina

North West

Kaduna

Zamfara

Gombe

Taraba

Yobe

Adamawa

Borno

Bauchi

North Central

Benue

Kogi

Nasarawa

Kwara

Niger

Sampled siteGeo-political zoneFederal

State

Senatorial

DistrictNSFSP site

Local

Government

Area

Type (R=rural;

P=peri-urban)

Plateau

North East

88

Federal Capital Territory

NSFSP - Site listing - Phase 1continued

Type (R=rural;

P=peri-urban)

Sampled site

Ogun

Ondo

Anambra

Ebonyi

Enugu

Imo

Senatorial

DistrictNSFSP site

Oyo

Osun

Ekiti

South West

Lagos

South East

Abia

Geo-political zoneFederal

State

Edo

Akwa-Ibom

Cross-River

Rivers

Bayelsa

South South

Delta

Local

Government

Area

89

N Name Type * Name Population Name Number Name Number

1 16 8 8

2 16 8 8

3 16 8 8

4 16 8 8

5 16 8 8

6 16 8 8

7 16 8 8

8 16 8 8

9 16 8 8

10 16 8 8

11 16 8 8

12 16 8 8

13 16 8 8

14 16 8 8

15 16 8 8

16 16 8 8

17 16 8 8

18 16 8 8

19 16 8 8

20 16 8 8

21 16 8 8

22 16 8 8

23 16 8 824 16 8 8

* R=rural; P=Peri-urban

Total

beneficiaries (farmers having

received credit)

Sampled siteLocal

Government Area

NSFSP - Impact study sampling - Phase 1

Participating

farmers

Field interviews

Non participating farmers

Nearby areas Distant areas

90

3.3 Phasing

Preliminary phase

15. The scoping mission has been able to launch the first steps of the impact study, which consist of :

i. the collection and analysis of locally available information (raw data of the 2001 baseline households survey, map of the project sites, list of project beneficiaries for some NSPFS sites with typology of repayment rates);

ii. the interview and selection of the National Consultant for Impact Studies (NCIS), and his participation in one of the two site visits;

iii. the site visits in two states, Kaduna in the North (savannah zone) and Edo in the South (tropical zone) to have focus groups discussions with beneficiaries, non-beneficiaries and site project staff24;

iv. an assessment of the feasibility of recruiting the 12 enumerators from other than NSPFS and Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development staff;

v. an assessment of the feasible and available modalities for the data entry and analysis.

Study design phase

16. Between the end of the scoping mission and the year end, once recruited, the NCIS will:

i. participate in the drafting of the job description of the 12 enumerators, identify and select them, so that they can be recruited to start working in the second week of January;

ii. provide to the Evaluation Officer alternatives for the data entry exercise, all of them with technical features (quality control) and budget implications;

iii. work with Evaluation Team Leader and the Evaluation Officer in preparing drafts of the questionnaire.

iv. work with the Evaluation Team Leader and the Evaluation Officer in finalising the sampling of the study based on the information collected during and after the scoping mission and the draft questionnaires.

Field work phase

17. The field survey will start in January 2008. In the second week of January 2008 a second one week mission will be undertaken by the Evaluation Officer to assist the NCIS in training the enumerators and start field-testing the questionnaires during three days in the Federal Capital Territory in Abuja. The NCIS will continue the field testing of the questionnaire in two other sites, one in the north, and another in the South, for three days each.

18. The NCIS, contracted for 85 days in split missions over the impact study period, will be the local independent reference point for the whole duration of the impact studies.

24 In Kaduna, the mission visited Buruku, the peri-urban site, while in Edo the mission visited Warrake, a rural site.

91

Backstopped by the Evaluation Team Leader and the Evaluation Officer, he will have the responsibility of, among other25:

i. organizing the logistics of the field work;

ii. leading and coordinating the enumerators’ teams;

iii. overseeing and monitoring the field work;

iv. validating the questionnaires by re-interviewing 5% of the sampled households after the end of data collection;

v. ensuring the quality of the data entry;

vi. carrying out the data analysis26;

vii. preparing a final report of the impact study.

19. The enumerators, under the coordination of the NCIS, will:

i. translate the questionnaires into the national languages of the states in which they will carry out the field survey ;

ii. randomly choose the households to interview, both treatment and control, by rigorously applying the criteria indicated in the study methodology;

iii. ensure the questionnaires data quality and the matching of interviewees’ answers with what will be recorded in the questionnaires.

Analysis and report writing phase

20. In April 2008 the NCIS will complete the data analysis and report writing.

21. He will prepare an advanced draft report, to be submitted to the Evaluation Team Leader and the Evaluation Officer. Based on their observations, he will then finalise the report in English.

The Evaluation mission

22. After the conduct and analysis of the impact studies, a 28 days’ evaluation mission will be carried out with a mixed team of international and national consultants, none of whom having been involved in any way in the formulation and implementation of the NSPFS.

23. The Evaluation Team Leader, a food security specialist, is responsible for the transparency and quality of the whole evaluation process, the evidence-base of its findings, the independence of its conclusions and the operational character of its recommendations. He will ensure the leadership and coordination of the evaluation team, the division of the work and the integration of everybody’s outputs in the final evaluation report.

24. The Evaluation Officer is responsible for the launching and management of the overall evaluation process. He will ensure that the quality standards of the FAO Evaluation Service are respected. He will contribute to the evaluation by assessing the NSPFS

25 Detailed TORs have been prepared for the NCIS. 26 FAO will exercise a quality control function on the data analysis.

92

capacity building / agricultural extension & research activities and outcomes, including the SSCP with China.

25. Apart from the Evaluation Team Leader and the Evaluation Officer, 4 more national specialists are required. Specific TOR will be prepared for all of them.

26. Two of them, an agro-economist and an agronomist, will be contracted for the whole evaluation mission. The agro-economist will cover agricultural marketing, processing - food stocking systems, and financial - economic analysis, including group savings behaviour and cost recovery issues. The agronomist will be dealing with agricultural production (staples, cash crops), and water management - irrigation.

27. Two of them, a fishery expert and a livestock/animal diseases specialist, will be contracted for 14 days each. The fishery expert will cover the evaluation of the activities and outcomes of the “Aquaculture and Inland Fisheries” component. The livestock/animal disease specialist will cover the activities and the outcomes of the “Animal Disease and Transboundary Pest Control” component. As both those experts will be involved in assessing the impact using a population of beneficiaries other than that of the Food Security Component, it is envisaged that they will start to work one week before the evaluation mission and overlap with it during the first week of the mission.

28. As extensive field work will be carried out during the impact study, which is supposed to adequately represent the NSPFS activities in different zones of the country, it is envisaged that about 14 days of field work will be sufficient for the overall evaluation mission.

TIMEFRAME

29. The timeframe of the overall NSPFS evaluation encompasses 30 weeks over a 35 weeks’ time. A preliminary activity schedule with deadlines, main responsibilities and support function has been discussed and finalized with the NSPFS staff during the scoping mission. This schedule is reported in the following table.

93

2007 2008

Activity

22/1

0 –

28

/10

29/1

0 –

4/1

1

5/1

1 –

11/1

1

12/1

1 –

18

/11

19/1

1 –

25

/11

26/1

1 –

2/1

2

3/1

2 –

9/1

2

10/1

2 –

16

/12

17/1

2 –

23

/12

24/1

2 –

30

/12

31/1

2 –

6/1

7/1

– 1

3/1

14/1

– 2

0/1

21/1

– 2

7/1

28/1

– 3

/2

4/2

– 1

0/2

11/2

– 1

7/2

18/2

– 2

4/2

25/2

– 2

/3

3/3

– 9

/3

10/3

– 1

6/3

17/3

– 2

3/3

24/3

– 3

0/3

31/4

– 6

/4

7/4

– 1

3/4

14/4

– 2

0/4

21/4

– 2

7/4

28/4

– 4

/5

5/5

– 1

1/5

12/5

– 1

8/5

Dea

dli

ne

Main

Res

pon

sib

le

Su

pp

ort

ed

by

1. Conduct 1st scoping mission, launch evaluation process 4/11

i. NSPFS sites field visits in the North (Kaduna) and South (Edo) 28/10

ii. Select/contract national consultant, define team members, other 4/11

TL / EO NSPFS /

NC

2. Draft TOR of the evaluation for evaluation team members 2/12

3. Select/contact evaluation team members for their availability 23/12 TL / EO ES

4. Focus group discussions in 2 NSPFS sites 4/11 TL / EO NSPFS

5. Questionnaire design, sample sites selection 23/12 TL / EO NC

6. Conduct 2nd

scoping mission for impact study 20/1

i. Training enumerators in FCT 13/1 NC EO / En

i. Translate and start field-test questionnaire in FCT 20/1 NC En

7. Field test the questionnaire in the North and in the South 3/2

8. Conduct field surveys 24/2

9. Validate the data collected 2/3

10. Carry out the data entry 23/3

11. Carry out data analysis & impact studies report writing 20/4

NC

TL / EO

12. Oversight impact study 23/3 TL / EO NC

13. Contract fishery & livestock/animal disease specialists 13/4 EO HRD

14. Assess the Fishery & Animal Disease Components 27/4 TL TM / EO

15. Contract (agro-economist and agronomist) 20/4 EO HRD

16. Conduct evaluation mission 18/5

17. Write the evaluation report C

hri

stm

as

Holi

days

18/5

TL TM / EO

Legenda: TL Evaluation Team Leader NC National Coordinator for impact studies

TM Evaluation Team Members En Enumerators

EO Evaluation Officer (PBEE) HRD FAO Human Resource Division

NSPFS National Special Programme for Food Security staff ES Evaluation Service

94

BACKGROUND DATA FROM NSPFS

30. A data set in electronic format is required from NSPFS. This includes:

i. The complete NSFSP site listing by geo-political zone and by state, with indication of the Senatorial District, the Local Government Area and the typology of the site (rural or peri-urban).

action: NSFSP Facilitator for M&E

ii. A list of project beneficiaries by activity (crops, livestock, agroforestry, fishery, agro-processing, etc.) for the sites selected for the impact study and by component, including credit and the repayment rates for the main project component, i.e. the Food Security Project. In addition to that, provide a complete list of beneficiaries from the Fishery and Inland aquaculture Project, the Animal Disease and Transboundary Pest Control Project, the Marketing of Agricultural and Food Stock Management Project.

action: NSFSP Facilitator for M&E,

NSFSP Facilitator for Fishery,

NSFSP Facilitator for Animal Disease,

NSFSP Facilitator for Food Stock Management.

BUDGET

31. The costs of the NSPFS evaluation will be covered under the Nigeria/FAO MoU of the Expansion Phase (UTF/NIR/048/NIR).

32. The administrative and financial disbursement modalities have also been discussed and agreed during the scoping mission. Following instruction from the Evaluation Officer, based upon the agreed budget, the FAO Chief Technical Adviser (CTA) of the NSFP Expansion Phase, in his quality of Budget Holder, will instruct FAO/RAF in Accra to authorize expenditures for all local costs, including transport (drivers’ DSA, fuel, internal flights) and any other expenses incurred locally, through Field Disbursement Requirements (FDR) to the FAO Representation in Nigeria, which in turn will arrange direct payments to the parties concerned. The FAOR Nigeria will then communicate information on the actual expenditure to the CTA and the Evaluation Officer in order to ease budget management.

33. The FAO Evaluation Service will make separate contractual provision for the Evaluation Team Leader, as well as international air tickets and DSAs for him and for the Evaluation Officer, who will communicate to the CTA the actual expenditures incurred to the CTA.

34. The estimated evaluation costs have been discussed and agreed with the project partners during the scoping mission. As the expenditures for the logistics of the field survey will be subject to the final selection of the sampled sites, the budget can be further modified upon approval by the National Project Coordination.

95

ANNEX 2: SUMMARY OF CV OF EVALUATION TEAM

MEMBERS Dunstan Spencer, Agricultural Economist Professionally qualified agricultural economist, with graduate level training in animal science, and undergraduate level training in agronomy. Taught agricultural and development economics, including policy analysis, to undergraduate students in Sierra Leone, and graduate students in the USA. Leader of major farming systems research projects in international research organizations in the CGIAR system. Team member and leader in a number of agricultural project identification, design, appraisal, supervision and evaluation missions. Expert in development policy, research system management, environmental assessment, impact evaluations, and poverty alleviation issues. Carlo Carugi, Evaluation Officer

Agronomist specialized in Environment and Development, with extensive international experience in Project Cycle Management and Monitoring & Evaluation at project, programme and policy levels. Team leader of large poverty reduction programmes for IFAD in Vietnam and UNDP in Cameroon. He participated in and/or led a number of project and programme identification, design, appraisal, monitoring and evaluation missions. He was senior evaluator in the evaluation of the Italian bilateral aid to Sub Saharan Africa in the decade 1988-2000. He has been Project Cycle Management and Logical Framework Approach Trainer at the PCM Helpdesk of the European Commission. Malachy Akoroda, Agronomist Agronomist with a solid work experience in agricultural research and extension. Taught courses and supervised student research projects in seed production, plant breeding, root crops, agro-meteorology, tropical agricultural systems and agricultural statistics at the University of Ibadan. Was senior scientist at the International Institute of Tropical Agriculture in Ibadan, Nigeria. Was Agricultural Consultant for varied types of assignments for IFAD, FAO, IFS, World Bank, USAID, SADC, IITA, and others in Ghana, Nigeria, Benin, Togo, Cộte d’Ivoire, Cameroon, DR Congo, Burundi, Rwanda, Uganda, Malawi, Zambia, Guinea, Mozambique, Tanzania, Sierra Leone, Liberia, Zimbabwe, Peru, Italy, and Kenya. Anthony Ikpi, Agricultural Economist Professor of Policy Analysis & Agribusiness Management at the University of Ibadan in Nigeria. Taught over 6500 university students and supervised over 550 undergraduate and graduate research projects in agribusiness management, farm management, agricultural finance, development and cooperative economics, managerial accounting and financial management, agricultural planning and farm/project analysis, crop and livestock marketing. He consulted on agricultural policy issues related to livestock production, marketing and development policy issues in Nigeria and West Africa, for FAO, UNICEF,

96

UNECA, WARDA), ILRI, IITA, WINROCK International, World Bank, DFID, CIDA, EC, USAID. Philip Amiengheme, Fishery Specialist Senior Nigerian Fishery Specialist with a long career in the Federal Civil Service of Nigeria, culminated with the position of Head (2001-2006) and later Director (2006-2007) of the Aquaculture Division in the Federal Department of Fisheries. He initiated and developed various marine fisheries, aquaculture and inland fisheries development projects in various parts of Nigeria and worked directly in all the geo-political zones of Nigeria. He consulted on fisheries matters for FAO, UNIDO and the World Bank within and outside Nigeria. Emmanuel Sonaiya, Animal Health Specialist Professor of Animal Science, he was Director of the centre for Distance Learning and Dean of the Faculty of Agriculture at the University of Ile-Ife in Nigeria. Various scientific coordination and advice positions held in international institutions, including ILRI, IITA, the International Foundation for Science and the International Network for Family Poultry Development moderated by FAO. In addition to the numerous consultancy assignments undertaken in Nigeria, he consulted internationally for FAO, Denmark, Canada and the Netherlands on meat technology, small stock management and rural poultry in Tanzania, Zambia, Ghana, Sierra Leone, Kenya and the Gambia.

97

ANNEX 3: EVALUATION MISSION ACTIVITY SCHEDULE

Sun.

27

Mon.

28

Tue.

29

Wed.

30

Thu.

1

Fri.

2

Sat.

3

Sun.

4

Mon.

5

Tue.

6

Wed.

7

Thu.

8

Fri.

9

Sat.

10

Sun.

11

Mon.

12

Tue.

13

Wed.

14

Thu.

15

Fri.

16

Sat.

17

Sun.

18

Mon.

19

Tue.

20

Wed.

21

Thu.

22

Fri.

23

Sat.

24

Sun.

25

Mon.

26

Tue.

27

Wed.

21

Thu.

28

Fri.

29

Sat.

30

Sun.

31

Mon.

1

Tue.

2

Wed.

3

Thu.

4

Fri.

5

Dunstan

Spencer

Team Leader

Responsible for

the overall

evaluation Arr

ival in

Abuja

Tra

vel from

Abuja

Tra

vel back to A

buja

Abuja

: th

e w

hole

Team

meets

for overlappin

g

Tra

vel from

Abuja

Tra

vel back to A

buja

Abuja

: th

e w

hole

Team

assem

ble

s

Fin

al E

valu

ation W

ork

shop

Departure

fro

m A

buja

Carlo Carugi

Evaluation

Officer/PBEE

Capacity

building

Extension

South-South

Cooperation

Arr

ival in

Abuja

Tra

vel from

Abuja

Tra

vel back to A

buja

Abuja

: th

e w

hole

Team

meets

for overlappin

g

Tra

vel from

Abuja

Tra

vel back to A

buja

Abuja

: th

e w

hole

Team

assem

ble

s

Fin

al E

valu

ation W

ork

shop

Departure

fro

m A

buja

Malachy

Akoroda

Agronomist

Food Security

Component/

Soil Fertility

Initiative

Arr

ival in

Abuja

Tra

vel from

Abuja

Tra

vel back to A

buja

Abuja

: th

e w

hole

Team

meets

for overlappin

g

Tra

vel from

Abuja

Tra

vel back to A

buja

Abuja

: th

e w

hole

Team

assem

ble

s

Fin

al E

valu

ation W

ork

shop

Departure

fro

m A

buja

Anthony Ipki

Aricultural

Economist

Marketing

Food stock

Management

Component

Credit schemes

Arr

ival in

Abuja

Tra

vel from

Abuja

Tra

vel back to A

buja

Abuja

: th

e w

hole

Team

meets

for overlappin

g

Tra

vel from

Abuja

Tra

vel back to A

buja

Abuja

: th

e w

hole

Team

assem

ble

s

Fin

al E

valu

ation W

ork

shop

Departure

fro

m A

buja

Philip

Amiengheme

Fishery

Specialist

Aquaculture

and inland

Fisheries

Component

Arr

ival in

Abuja

Tra

vel from

Abuja

Tra

vel back to A

buja

Abuja

: th

e w

hole

Team

meets

for overlappin

g

Departure

fro

m A

buja

Emmanuel

Sonaiya

Livestock

Animal Health

Specialist/

Animal Disease

and

Transboundary

Pest Control

Component

Arr

ival in

Abuja

Tra

vel from

Abuja

Tra

vel back to A

buja

Abuja

: th

e w

hole

Team

meets

for overlappin

g

Departure

fro

m A

buja

Report writing

Document

review.

Workshop

logistics

preparations

(invitations,

etc.)

Document

review.

Workshop

logistics

preparations

(invitations,

etc.)

Document

review

Document

review

Report writing

Field visits

Report writing

Report writing

Field visit South

JUNE

Field visits

Field visit South

Field visit North

Field visit South Report writing

Final

Workshop

preparations

Final

Workshop

preparations

Field visit North

Report writing

Field visit South

Field visit North

Field visit North

Evaluation

Team Member

APRIL

Briefings in Abuja with

NSPFS in PCU,

FAOR, Government

partners. Documents

review.

Draft overall mission

workplan. Selecte

sites for field visits.

Report outline.


NSPFS in PCU,

FAOR, Government

partners. Documents

review.

Draft mission

workplan

MAY


NSPFS in PCU,

FAOR, Government

partners. Documents

review.

Draft mission

workplan.

Select sites for field

visits.


NSPFS in PCU,

FAOR, Government

partners. Documents

review.

Draft mission

workplan.

Select sites for field

visits.


NSPFS in PCU,

FAOR, Government

partners. Documents

review.

Draft mission

workplan


NSPFS in PCU,

FAOR, Government

partners. Documents

review.

Draft mission

workplan.

98

Geo-political

zoneState Site Type

People to

meet

Where

to sleepArrival Departure

Geo-political

zoneState Site Type

People to

meet

Where


- 01-May - 01-May

NC Niger Gidan

Mangoro

Peri-

Urban

Minna 01-May 03-May SE Anambra Amansea Peri-

Urban

Awka 01-May 03-May

NW Kano Kalgo-

Tarai

Rural Kano 03-May 05-May SS Edo Eko-Ibadin Rural Benin 03-May 05-May

NE Bauchi Biro Rural Bauchi 05-May 07-May SW Ondo Oba-Akoko Rural Akure 05-May 06-May

07-May - 06-May -

Geo-political

zoneState Site Type

People to

meet

Where


Geo-political

zoneState Site Type

People to

meet

Where


- 11-May `- 11-May

SW Osun Osogbo Peri-

Urban

Osogbo 11-May 13-May NW Katsina Gorar Rural Zaria 11-May 13-May

SE Imo Uboma Rural Owerri 13-May 15-May NC Plateau Hirrakuru Urban Jos 13-May 14-May

SS Akwa-

Ibom

Ikot-

Essien

Rural Uyo 15-May 16-May NE Gombe Laisale Rural Bauchi 14-May 15-May

Makurdi 16-May 17-May 15-May -

17-May -

Geo-political

zoneState Site Type

People to

meet

Where


Geo-political

zoneState Site Type

People to

meet

Where


- 01-May - 01-May

NE Gombe A/Agari &

Kwadon

Rural

Urban

Gombe 01-May 03-May Plateau Hirrakuru Urban Jos 01-May 02-May

NW Kano Tassa Rural Kano 03-May 04-May Benue Mu-Agbol

KatsinaAla

Rural

Rural

Makurdi 02-May 04-May

Niger Nasarawa Rural Abuja 04-May 05-May Ekiti Osin-Ikole Rural Ado-Ikiti 04-May 06-May

Kogi Ayetoro Rural Lokoja 05-May 06-May Oyo Akufo Rural Ibadan 06-May 07-May

06-May - 07-May -

Travel from Abuja

Travel to Abuja

Travel from Abuja

SW

Travel to Abuja

Travel to Abuja

Beneficiaries,

APEX, Site

managers,

Technology

Developers

South field trip North field trip

Travel to Abuja

Team 1: Ikpi and Carugi Team 2: Spencer and Akoroda

Beneficiaries,

APEX, Site

managers,

Technology

Developers

Travel to Abuja

Travel from Abuja

Beneficiaries,

APEX, Site

managers,

Technology

Developers

Travel from Abuja

Beneficiaries,

APEX, Site

managers,

Technology

Developers

North field trip South field trip

Team 3: Sonaiya Team 4: Amiengheme

Travel from Abuja Travel from Abuja

Beneficiaries,

APEX, Site

managers,

Technology

Developers

Travel to Abuja Travel to Abuja

NC

NC Beneficiaries,

APEX, Site

managers,

Technology

Developers

99

ANNEX 4: NSPFS IMPACT STUDY REPORT

100

Evaluation of National Special Programme on Food Security

(NSPFS: 2002 – 2006)

Impact Study Report

C. Ezedinma

101

Acknowledgements

This national survey would not have been possible without the time, human and financial assistance of

key persons. We are particularly grateful to Dr S.A. Ingawa, Director, Projects Coordinating Unit

(PCU) for providing the financial assistance that enabled the completion of the field survey. We are

also grateful to Dr O. Oyebanji, Prof Chude, Dr C.C. Molokwu, Ms Fanny Micah, Ms Edache, Ms

Tonia, Ms Florence, and to the drivers, namely Simon David, Terkimbe and Abdulahi who made it

possible for effective monitoring of enumerators in all the sites.

We are grateful to the FAO Representative to Nigeria, Mr M. Muteia and to Mr Cheikh Sarr, the FAO

Chief Technical Adviser on the NSPFS programme in Nigeria, for providing office space and

administrative support to the team during the enumerators’ training and field survey. Exceptional

thanks also go to the administrative staff at the FAO Representative Office in Nigeria, namely Ms

Evelyn Yeye, Mrs Gloria Ndupu, and Mrs Florence Ohiaukwu for their unsurpassable assistance

throughout the course of this study.

We thank all the enumerators who risked their lives on the roads across the country to execute the

survey that led to this study. They include Messrs Moses Okwusi, Ibrahim Gaya, Oladipo Akinpelu,

Ifeanyi Ojiako, Mike Asekome, Nkang Moses Nkang, Dr Ahmad Ladan, Chyka Okarter, Alhaji Abba

Makinta, Ben Ilesanmi, Dr Olufemi Adesope, and Dr (Ms) Lami Samaila.

Thanks also go to all those who assisted with data entry and analysis, namely Dr Richardson

Okechukwu, database manager, Root and Tuber Systems Programme of the IITA, on the analysis of

data for the 2007 survey, and Ms Anna Guerraggio at FAO headquarters in Rome who did excellent

work on the 2002 baseline data. Thanks also go to the data clerks who promptly entered the data,

namely Ms Stella Irene, Uzoma Okechukwu, Christiana Akintimehin, and Messrs Paul Obasi and

Oliver Osuagwu.

We are particularly grateful to all the State Managers and staff of all the State Agricultural

Development Programs (ADP), namely Abuja, Kaduna, and Ogun for their assistance during the pre-

test of the survey questionnaire and to the ADP project managers and staff in Abia, Adamawa, Akwa

Ibom, Bayelsa, Benue, Edo, Ekiti, Enugu, Gombe, Katsina, Kebbi, Kogi, Kwara, Nasarawa, Osun,

Oyo, and Sokoto states for varied assistance during the field survey. Finally, we thank all the NSPFS

beneficiary farmers and the non-NSPFS beneficiary farmers who left their respective engagements to

answer all our questions during the interviews.

102

Table of contents

Acknowledgements

List of acronyms

List of tables

List of figures

1. Introduction

2. Background and context

3. The study methodology

3.1. Selection of survey sites

3.2. Field work

3.3. Selection of respondents

3.4. Questionnaire design and administration

3.5. The use of GPS equipment

3.6. Limitations to the study

3.7. The study hypotheses

3.8. Data entry, analysis and report writing

3.9. Results and discussions

4. Results and discussions

4.1. Socio demographic status of NSPFS participating and non-participating households

4.2. Sources of livelihood and food security

4.2.1. Sources of livelihood

4.2.2. Household food security

4.3. Levels of production and sales

4.3.1. Production levels and sales: Crops

4.3.2. Production levels and sales: Livestock

4.3.3. Production levels and sales: Fish

4.4. Access to and use of inputs

4.4.1. Use of new technology

4.4.2. Access to production assets

5. Project perceptions and outreach to non-project sites

5.1. Project perceptions

5.2. Outreach to non-project sites

6. Conclusions

Appendix

Appendix A: Confidence levels and sample size by geopolitical zone

Appendix B: Selected NSPFS beneficiary sites by geopolitical zone

103

Appendix C: Impact study survey sites

Appendix D: Survey site selection criteria

Appendix E: Questionnaire

104

List of acronyms

FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

FCT Federal Capital Territory

FGN Federal Government of Nigeria

GPS Geographic Positioning System

HFIAS Household Food Insecurity Access Scale

IITA International Institute of Tropical Agriculture

JCC Joint Consultative Forum

LGA Local Government Area

NSPFS National Special Programme for Food Security

PCU Projects Coordinating Unit

SPFS Special Programme for Food Security

USD United States Dollars

105

List of tables

Table 1: Number of selected SPFS sites by State

Table 2: Mean household size of NSPFS beneficiary and non-beneficiary farmers, 2007

Table 3: Food insecurity access scale score for beneficiary and non-beneficiary households

Table 4: Mean field size (ha) of farmers in five important fields in upland and fadama areas

Table 5: Mean field size (ha) by most important crop for NSPFS beneficiary and non-beneficiary households

Table 6: Percentage change in crop production (between 2001 and 2007) for beneficiary and non-beneficiary farmers

for selected major food crops in upland fields

Table 7: Percentage change in crop production (between 2001 and 2007) for beneficiary and non-beneficiary farmers

for selected major food crops in fadama fields

Table 8: Proportion of produce (out of 10 parts) sold or consumed at home by NSPFS beneficiary and non-beneficiary

farmers

Table 9: Livestock production and sales for SPFS beneficiary and non-beneficiary farmers

106

List of figures

Figure 1: (a&b): Random selection of farmers for interview using the ballot/hat system in the field

Figure 2: Enumerators interviewing a farmer and his wife during the survey

Figure 3: A household interviewed by the enumerator (in cap) during the survey

Figure 4: Map of NSPFS impact study sites

Figure 5: Using the GPS equipment to measure farmers’ fields

Figure 6: Methodology and analysis of the NSPFS impact study

Figure 7: Percentage of beneficiary and non-beneficiary farmers by literacy

Figure 8: Percentage of beneficiary and non-beneficiary farmers by age distribution

Figure 9: Percentage of households by type of dwelling walls


Figure 11: Main sources of livelihood

Figure 12: Crops produced as percentage of total households

Figure 13: Percentage of households by livestock-raising and fishing

Figure 14: Percentage of households by off farm employment

Figure 15: Percentage of households by type of off farm work

Figure 16: Percentage of households by relative contribution of off farm work to livelihood

Figure 17: Percentage of households that grew enough food

Figure 18: Percentage of households that grew enough food in 2002 and 2007

Figure 19: Number of months food lasted in household

Figure 19a: Number of months food lasted in household, 2002 and 2007

Figure 20: Coping strategies in times of food insecurity

Figure 21: Household food insecurity access-related domains by zone and type of farmer

Figure 22: Percentage of beneficiary and non-beneficiary households by food insecurity access prevalence

Figure 23: Percentage of households by marketing of farm produce

Figure 24: Location of markets

Figure 25: Percentage of households by difficulties in marketing farm produce

Figure 26: Percentage of households by reason for marketing difficulties

Figure 27: Reasons for losses in livestock

Figure 28: Percentage of fish producing households

Figure 29: Fish production objective

Figure 30: Percentage of households by location where fish is produced

Figure 31: Percentage of farmers that grew new crops

Figure 32: Percentage of farmers by source of information on new crops

Figure 33: Problems/experience associated with the adoption of new crops

Figure 34: Problems associated with the adoption of new crops

Figure 35: Farm area devoted to new crops

Figure 36: Willingness to keep farming new crops

Figure 37: Percentage of households that practice soil conservation techniques

Figure 38: Type of soil conservation techniques practised by farmers

Figure 39: Source of information on soil conservation techniques

Figure 40: Percentage of households by area of farm land devoted to soil conservation techniques

Figure 41: Problems/experiences with soil conservation techniques

Figure 42: Problems associated with soil conservation techniques

Figure 43: Period over which farmers had practised soil conservation techniques

107

Figure 44: Percentage of households that are willing to keep practising soil conservation techniques

Figure 45: Percentage of beneficiary and non-beneficiary households by access to agrochemicals

Figure 46: Percentage of beneficiary and non-beneficiary households by access to improved seeds

Figure 47: Percentage of beneficiary and non-beneficiary households by access to irrigation equipments

Figure 48: Percentage of beneficiary and non-beneficiary households by access to irrigation facilities/infrastructure

Figure 49: Percentage of beneficiary and non-beneficiary households by access to processing assets

Figure 50: Percentage of beneficiary and non-beneficiary households by access to technical advice

Figure 51: Percentage of beneficiary and non-beneficiary households by access to storage facility

Figure 52: Percentage of beneficiary and non-beneficiary households by access to improved breeds

Figure 53: Percentage of beneficiary and non-beneficiary households by access to livestock health

Figure 54: Percentage of beneficiary and non-beneficiary households by access to fish feed

Figure 55: Percentage of beneficiary and non-beneficiary households by access to credit

Figure 56: Percentage of households by repayment of credit

Figure 57: Percentage of households by reasons for non-repayment

Figure 58: Major changes with NSPFS programme: household eats more

Figure 59: Major changes with NSPFS programme: household eats better

Figure 60: Major changes with NSPFS programme: household feeds more people

Figure 61: Major changes with NSPFS programme: production

Figure 62: Major changes with NSPFS programme: sales and revenue

Figure 63: Major changes with NSPFS programme: household expenditure

Figure 64: Major changes with NSPFS programme: household work load

Figure 65: Major changes with NSPFS programme: farm size

Figure 66: Major changes with NSPFS programme: new activities

Figure 67: Major changes with NSPFS programme: techniques

Figure 68: Major changes with NSPFS programme: access to inputs

Figure 69: Major changes with NSPFS programme: access to credit

Figure 70: Major changes with NSPFS programme: access to irrigation facility

Figure 71: Percentage of non-beneficiary farmers that had knowledge about NSPFS

Figure 72: Percentage of nearby and distant farmers that had knowledge about NSPFS

Figure 73: Source of information about NSPFS

Figure 74: Knowledge about NSPFS farmers by rural and peri-urban farmers

Figure 75: Source of knowledge by rural and peri-urban farmers

Figure 76: Farmers’ perception about NSPFS activities

Figure 77: Percentage of farmers who have tried to join the NSPFS programme

Figure 78: Percentage of farmers who have tried to join the NSPFS programme in rural and peri-urban areas

Figure 79: Reasons for inability to join NSPFS programme

Figure 80: Percentage of non-beneficiary farmers that visited NSPFS sites

Figure 81: Percentage of rural and peri-urban farmers that have visited NSPFS sites

Figure 82: Percentage of non-beneficiary farmers that have tried NSPFS techniques in their farm

Figure 83: Percentage of non-rural and urban farmers that have tried NSPFS techniques

Figure 84: Activities and practices tried by NSPFS farmers

Figure 85: Results of non-NSPFS farmers’ experimentation with programme activities

Figure 86: Percentage of non-beneficiary farmers that continue to practise NSPFS activities and techniques

Figure 87: Percentage of farmers that desire to join NSPFS

108

1. Introduction

The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations evaluates the first phase of the

National Special Programme for Food Security (NSPFS) in Nigeria. The programme commenced in

2002 and was implemented under the leadership of the Project Coordinating Unit (PCU) of the

Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Water Resources in 109 sites in the 36 States and the Federal

Capital Territory (FCT). The NSPFS was concluded in 2006.

The NSPFS evaluation includes an impact study to provide evidence-based information that will guide

further programme improvement of the ongoing expanded phase of the NSPFS. The general objective

of the study is to provide a qualitative and quantitative assessment of the economic benefits of the

micro-investments made during the first phase of the NSPFS (such as improved farming technologies,

improved animal husbandry, improved water management, etc.) as well as ascertain the existence of a

multiplier effect that may (or may not) have occurred during the implementation of the programme.

Specifically, the study set out to answer three key questions, namely:

i. Were there any changes recorded by the SPFS beneficiary farmers with respect to some key

variables between 2002 and 2006?

ii. Were the beneficiaries of the NSPFS programme better off than their non-participating

counterparts? and

iii. Did the benefits of the programme go beyond the initial communities in which they were

introduced?

The key variables that were assessed for the impact study were:

i. Livelihoods and food security;

ii. Levels of production and sales;

iii. Access to and use of inputs;

iv. Outreach to non project farmers.

With respect to changes recorded across time, the study took advantage of a baseline study that was

conducted at the commencement of the programme in 2002 (NSPFS Baseline Report 2002). The study

also took into consideration the differences across space during the design phase as described in the

study methodology below.

2. Background and context

A pilot phase of the SPFS (TCP/NIR/88221(A)) started in Kano State in March 1998. In May 2000,

the Federal Government of Nigeria (FGN) and FAO signed an agreement (UTF/NIR/047/NIR) to

implement the SPFS nationwide over a five-year period, at a total cost of USD 45.2 million to be

borne entirely by the FGN as recommended by the joint consultative committee (JCC) comprising

FGN and FAO officials. The first phase of the programme was implemented by the Project

Coordinating Unit on a pilot scope in 109 sites (communities) across the country with the following

components: Food Security, Aquaculture and Inland Fisheries, Animal Diseases and Transboundary

109

Pest Control, Marketing and Agricultural Commodities and Food Stock Management, Soil Fertility

Initiative, and South-South Cooperation. The broad objective of SPFS is to attain food security and

alleviate rural poverty in Nigeria.

The specific objectives include to:

• Assist farmers in achieving their potential for increasing output, productivity and

consequently their incomes on a sustainable basis;

• Strengthen the effectiveness of research and extension services in bringing technology and

new farming practices developed by research institutes to farmers and ensuring greater

relevance of research to the practical problems faced by small farmers;

• Concentrate initial efforts in pilot areas for maximum effect and ease of replicability;

• Improve upon experience gathered internationally for broader outlook and approach;

• Consolidate the gains from ongoing and closing external loan-assisted programmes and other

projects for continuity;

• Complement and refine the ongoing efforts of Government in the promotion of simple

technologies for self-sufficiency and surplus production in small-scale rain fed and irrigation

farming;

• Train and educate farmers in the effective utilization of available land, water and other

resources and facilities to produce food and create employment on a sustainable basis; and

• Utilize international experience on farming practices to maximize use of existing facilities

and knowledge.

The whole evaluation exercise aims to ascertain to what extent the above objectives were achieved.

The impact study provides field-based evidence on the observed changes in the four identified key

variables. The impact study is therefore a technical input to the evaluation of the first phase of the

NSPFS in Nigeria.

3. The study methodology

3.1. Selection of survey sites

The impact study covered randomly selected sites in 17 States across the country and utilized a cross

sectional (comparison between participating and non-participating farmers) and longitudinal

(comparison of available information in 2002, i.e. baseline data and recall information, with current

information on participating farmers in the same sites after project implementation) methodology27

. A

stratified sampling technique was used to select the sites for the survey. The sites were grouped as

urban/peri-urban and rural sites in each of the six geopolitical zones. Four sites were surveyed per

zone, of which one was urban/peri-urban and three rural. Within each zone, the sites were grouped by

type (urban/peri urban and rural) and sorted by name in alphabetical order. For the urban/peri urban

category, the first site in the first zone, second site in the second zone, third site in the third zone and

so on were selected for the survey. For the rural group, the first, the last and the middle sites were

selected for the survey. In zones where the number of rural sites in the group were even (e.g. North

Central, Northwest, South-South, and Southeast), the first, upper middle and last sites in the list were

selected for the survey. For the second zone, the first, lower middle and last sites were selected and so

27 Also called “double difference” methodology.

110

on. Using this process, a total of 24 sites were selected from the NSPFS sites. The sites selected for

the survey are presented in Appendix B. The distribution of NSPFS sites selected by state is presented

in Table 1.

Table 1: Number of selected NSPFS sites by State

S/no State Number of Sites

1 Abia 3

2 Adamawa 1

3 Akwa Ibom 1

4 Bayelsa 2

5 Benue 1

6 Edo 1

7 Ekiti 1

8 Enugu 1

9 Gombe 3

10 Katsina 1

11 Kebbi 1

12 Kogi 1

13 Kwara 1

14 Nasarawa 1

15 Osun 1

16 Oyo 2

17 Sokoto 2

Total 24

3.2. Field work

The study was coordinated by a national consultant resident in the country and 12 enumerators

engaged from all over the country to administer the questionnaires. One of the enumerators was

female. The whole process from the training of enumerators to the documentation of the report took

about six months to complete. Efforts were made to engage enumerators from within the geopolitical

zones, each speaking the local language/s. The minimum qualification of the enumerators was a

Masters degree in agriculture or related discipline. The enumerators were trained between

14-16 January 2008. During the training, the questionnaire and the guide to the use of the Household

Food Insecurity Access Scale indicator for the measurement of food access (see Coates et al 2007)

were reviewed. The use of GPS equipments was practiced. A field guide was also reviewed and later

provided to the enumerators at the training. A pre-test of the questionnaire was conducted in one of

the NSPFS sites (Kalankwu) within the FCT, Abuja and the enumerators’ observations and inputs

were incorporated in the questionnaire. In line with the multicultural nature of the country, the

questionnaire was further pre-tested in one site (Likoro in Kudani LGA of Kaduna State) in the north

of Nigeria and in another site (Ajegunle in Odeda Local Government Area of Ogun State) in Southern

Nigeria. Further improvements were made to the questionnaire before it was found generally

acceptable for the survey.

111

Each enumerator covered two project beneficiary sites and in addition randomly selected and

interviewed farmers in two nearby and two distant sites respectively. One site was selected randomly

from the same LGA as the NSPFS beneficiary LGA, known as the nearby site; another distant site was

selected randomly from another LGA that does not border with the NSPFS site/LGA but is located

within the same Senatorial zone. For the nearby site, a community with no NSPFS programme was

selected from a list of communities within the LGA. These were numbered from 1 to n separately on a

piece of paper, wrapped for each number and one was picked out at random. Again the villages within

the LGA were listed separately on a piece of paper and one village selected randomly. The village

selected becomes the nearby representative site for the survey for non-participating farmers. A similar

procedure was followed for selection of the representative distant site. After having applied the

administrative criterion above for selecting the comparison sites, the selection of both distant and

nearby sites was further guided by the following criteria (see Appendix D):

i. similar population characteristics;

ii. similar agro ecological features; and

iii. absence of other projects in the selected sites.

Finally, the National Coordinator of the impact study monitored the field work activities of the

enumerators and re-contacted about 8 percent of the households that were previously interviewed by

the enumerators to verify that the interviews were conducted properly.

3.3. Selection of respondents

In each of the NSPFS beneficiary sites, 16 farmers were randomly selected. The sample frame is

based on the six geopolitical zones, with 64 farmers selected randomly per zone (i.e. 16 farmers

selected in four sites per zone). This gives a 90 percent confidence level on a total sample frame of

3,678 farmers per zone. (The confidence level, sample frame and size per village are presented in

Appendices A and B). Similarly, eight farming households were randomly selected from the nearby

site and another eight farming households were randomly selected from the distant non-beneficiary

sites (see Appendix C). In the field, a simple random sampling procedure was applied in which the

farmer, who must have accessed credit from the programme over the implementation period, was

selected from a global list obtained from the secretary of the Apex farmer group. Participating

farmers’ names on the list were numbered from 1-n and a child was usually asked to pick a number

from the hat/box, as shown in Figure 1 (a&b). The same procedure was followed in the selection of

farmers in the nearby and distant sites, but in this case the enumerators had first to compile a list of

farmers (provided by the village head) in the selected village to create a sample frame for the random

selection of eight farmers in the nearby and distant sites respectively.

112

Figure 1(a&b): Random selection of farmers for interview using the ballot/hat system in the field

3.4. Questionnaire design and administration

Questionnaires (Appendix E) were used to collect information from the farmers and questions from

the 2002 baseline survey were included whenever possible in order to make maximum use of the 2002

baseline information. The questionnaire focused on assessing the NSPFS impact by: (i.) presenting

wherever possible the same questions as in 2002 and then comparing the answers provided28

and (ii)

analysing any differences in the household livelihood outcomes between participating and non-

participating farmers. To aid recall during the interview, the year of the re-election of President

Obasanjo was used as the benchmark before the SPFS programme commenced (i.e. before 2002). The

questionnaire was drafted with the key variables (as listed in the introduction above) in mind. The

questionnaire was sub-divided into six different sections:

• Household information;

• Livelihood activities (crops, livestock, fishing, assets, farm diversification, soil conservation,

labour and marketing);

• Livelihood outcomes (including the Household Food Insecurity Access Scale);

• Participating households’ perceptions about NSPFS-induced impacts;

• Non-Participating households’ perceptions about recent changes; and

• Outreach to nearby non-SPFS households.

Before initial testing, the questionnaire was translated into four languages, namely Hausa, Yoruba, Ibo

and Pidgin. The questionnaire was administered by the enumerators in the selected farmer’s

homestead (see Figure 2). A household was defined in dejure terms which rely on the concept of

normal residence whether or not an individual member to the household was present at the time of

interview. Two other criteria were important in classifying the household members. A household was

28 The first analysis of the 2002 baseline data indicate that not all the information could be used as a significant benchmark for the impact assessment exercise. This is particularly true with respect to the economic value of goods (i.e. crops/livestock/fish) for production and sale, due to the highly volatile inflation in Nigeria.

113

recognized as people who usually live and eat together in a dwelling. Second, they acknowledge the

authority of a single head of household, regardless of whether the latter is living with the household

members or living away (see Figure 3).

Figure 2: Enumerators interviewing a farmer and his wife during the survey

Figure 3: A household interviewed by the enumerator (in cap) during the survey

3.5. The use of GPS equipment

Geographic Positioning System (GPS) devices were used for two purposes during the field survey.

The first is to be able to locate the survey village/homestead. This was used to provide the map of the

surveyed sites along with the nearby and distant sites (see Figure 4). The second purpose was to

measure the farmers’ cropped areas using the field area measurement option in the GPS device (see

Figure 5).

The GPS-measured cropped areas enabled the enumerators to assess the yields quoted by the farmers

from the precise fields where such yields were obtained, by triangulating this information with

114

information previously obtained from extension agents and key informants in the area. In fact, the

enumerators obtained two yield conditions for each crop, i.e. yields/ha under perfect conditions (e.g.

good agronomic practice, fertilizer application and improved seeds) and yields/ha under farmers’

conditions in the area. This procedure sharpened the farmer’s recall while standing on his field as

compared with what he had earlier declared at the homestead during the interview (question B3 of the

questionnaire).

Figure 4: Map of NSPFS Impact Study sites

Non Humid

Sub Humid

Humid

Beneficiary

Near

Distant

Survey sites

Broad Agro-ecology

115

Figure 5: Using the GPS equipment to measure farmers’ fields

3.6. Limitations to the study

One of the bases for the selection of participating farmers for this survey was that the farmers were

provided credit. However, the non-availability of comprehensive data/site on farmers who obtained

credit obliged the use of an equal number of questionnaires in all the surveyed sites (see Appendix C).

The 2002 baseline data were used as much as possible, but due to poor data quality, the data could

only be used to a limited extent (see Figures 17, 18, 19 and 19A). This limitation was overcome by

before-and-after comparisons based on recall, which was used in production levels (Tables 6 and 7),

practice of soil conservation (Figure 43), in the whole analysis on perceptions and outreach, and in the

cropped areas’ measurements reported in the last section (annex) of the questionnaire (see

Appendix E).

Results obtained in the field in 2007 could not be compared with baseline data for eight sites located

in the Northwest and Southwest of Nigeria due to technical hitches with the storage media.

3.7. The study hypotheses

Three null hypotheses guided the study:

i. There is no difference in the four key variables between the NSPFS beneficiaries and

non-participating farmers in the programme in 2007;

ii. There is no difference in the four key variables for NSPFS beneficiaries between 2002

when the programme started and 2006 when the programme ended; and

iii. There was no spill over effect of the project benefits to non-project sites over the last

fours years of project implementation.

116

As indicated earlier, the impact of the NSPFS was analysed based on differences in the four key

variables emerging over time and across space. Differences over time were analysed by: (i) comparing

the answers provided to some of the questions in the 2002 baseline survey with those in the 2007

questionnaire for the same questions; and (b) by the use of recall, with the year of the second election

of President Obasanjo as a memory prompt. Differences across space were analysed by comparing

answers provided by farmers that participated in the NSPFS programme and those who did not. This

comparison was crucial in the assessment of the contribution of NSPFS to change (impact). The

impact of the NSPFS was also assessed through the households’ perceptions of the programme-

induced changes (see sections D and E of the questionnaire in Appendix E). The method of analysis is

presented in Figure 6.

Figure 6: Methodology and analysis of the NSPFS Impact Study

In order to assess the programme outreach (Key variable 4 – outreach to nearby non-project farmers,

see section F of the questionnaire in Appendix E), data from both nearby and distant non-NSPFS

beneficiaries were used to compare differences with the NSPFS participants, the assumption being

that outreach is mostly observed in the nearby sites. For purposes of analysis, the nearby and distant

sites were used to compare differences with the NSPFS sites (treatment site) while the nearby sites

were used to assess NSPFS project outreach.

T-tests were done where necessary to show significant differences. The information on production

output was modified by removing the upper limit outliers and units of measure that had only one case.

This variable is interpreted from the farmers’ point of view to include changes in both yield and field

size.

BEFORE (Baseline 2002)

AFTER (Survey 2007)

Sections B, C, D

Sub - Sections: some

Sections: B, C, D, E, F and Annex 1

Sub - sections: some

NEARBY DISTANT

Sections: E, F

Sections: B, C and Annex 1

Baseline

(8 sites only)

Key variables 1, 2, 3

Key variables 1, 2, 3, 4


WITHOUT NSPFS WITH

NSPFS


117

Analysis by agro ecological zone is not presented. A higher level of aggregation can be attained if the

analysis is done on the basis of the three major agro-ecological zones (see Figure 4). From Figure 4

we observe that the sites selected in the Northeast and Northwest zones correspond to the non-humid

agro ecology, the sites in the North central zone correspond to the sub-humid agro ecology while the

sites in the Southeast, Southwest and South-south zones correspond to the humid agro ecology. Even

though this would have provided another option in the method of analysis (i.e. if the analysis is

collapsed to three major agro ecological zones as presented in the map in Figure 4), the results and

conclusions of the study would remain the same. This is because while the analysis was done on a

zone-by-zone basis in line with the site selection process, the results were aggregated and presented on

a national basis. Some results were also presented on the basis of geopolitical zones.

3.8. Data entry, analysis and report writing

Data entry formats were developed using the Microsoft Access software. Data was entered into the

MS Access database over a period of 12 days by five (5) data clerks. The transcribed data was cross-

checked for quality and cleaned before analysis commenced. Data in Microsoft Access was translated

into Microsoft Excel and the statistical software SPSS for analysis. Tables and charts were produced

with Microsoft Excel.

3.9. Results and discussions

The results are presented in two sections. The first section introduces the socio demographic

characteristics of the NSPFS participating farmers and those of non-participating farmers. The second

section presents results of the survey based on comparisons between participating farmers in the

NSPFS programme and non-participating farmers. This cross-sectional analysis is used to assess the

present contextual situation between farmers who participated in the programme over the four-year

period and those that did not participate in the programme. The spillover effect of the programme to

non-participating farmers and perceptions of both participating and non-participating farmers were

also presented in this section. Within the two sections a comparison was made for NSPFS

participating farmers in the same sites in 2002 and in 2007 using baseline data from 16 revisited

beneficiary sites29

. The report was prepared based on the results of the survey and was finalized by the

study team, after circulating a draft version to all stakeholders.

29 Until the time this report was documented the Programme could not provide baseline data for eight of the 24 surveyed sites due to technical problems with data storage system.

118

4. Results and discussions

4.1. Socio demographic status of NSPFS participating and non-participating

households

Table 2 shows the mean number of men and women above 15 years and children below 15 years in

the NSPFS beneficiary and non-NSPFS beneficiary households. The number of men and women

above 15 years is nearly the same in the beneficiary households and non-beneficiary households.

Similarly, the number of children below 15 years is the same among both categories of farmer groups.

There is no difference in the household characteristics (size) between NSPFS beneficiary farmers and

non-beneficiary farmers. This result confirms the criteria that guided the selection of both categories

of farmers, i.e. similar population characteristics.

The percentage of female-headed households was the same (18 percent) for both beneficiary and non-

beneficiary households respectively. About 81 percent of the NSPFS beneficiary households were

headed by men while about 79 percent of the non-NSPFS beneficiary households were headed by

men. The balance of one percent for beneficiary households and three percent for non-beneficiary

households were headed by others, namely uncles, which could still be classified as male-headed

households.

Table 2: Mean household size of NSPFS beneficiary and non-beneficiary farmers, 2007

Beneficiary Farmers Non-Beneficiary farmers

Statistics No of men in

HH over 15

years

No of women

in HH over

15 years

No of children

in HH less than

15 years

No of men in

HH over 15

years

No of

women in

HH over

15 years

No of children in

HH less than 15

years

Mean 3.66 3.8 5.03 3.8 3.5 4.9

N 352 351 354 352 359 366

Std. Deviation 2.93 3.67 4.28 2.93 4.41 7.52

Variance 8.573 13.452 18.353 31.67 19.47 36.60

Minimum 0 0 0 0 0 0

Maximum 24 45 36 20 25 37

Among the beneficiary farmers (Figure 7), 66 percent were literate while 34 percent were not literate.

Similarly, among non-beneficiary farmers 59 percent were literate while 41 percent were not literate.

The number of literate farmers is much higher than non-literate farmers among both categories of

farmer, but the percentage of literate farmers was higher among the NSPFS beneficiaries while the

number of non-literate farmers was found mostly among non-NSPFS participating farmers. These

observed differences were however marginal.

119

Figure 7: Percentage of beneficiary and non beneficiary farmers by

literacy

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Ben Non Ben

Type of farmer

perc

en

t o

f H

ou

seh

old

Literate

Non literate

The age distribution (Figure 8) seems to take a normal curve for both beneficiary and non-beneficiary

farmers. In both farmer categories the highest age interval frequency is between 36 and 50 years. This

is followed by 51 to 65 years. While more (13 percent) non-beneficiary farmers seem to fall within the

26 to 35 age interval, both farmer groups were equally found (11 percent each) in the over 65 years of

age interval.

Figure 8: Percentage of Beneficiary and non Beneficiary farmers by

Age distribution

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

15 - 25 26 - 35 36 - 50 51 - 65 0ver 65

Age Interval

Pe

rce

nt

of

Re

sp

on

de

nts

Ben

Nben

Figure 9 shows the type of dwelling walls observed in the homesteads of both beneficiary and non-

beneficiary farmers. Mud and cement walls are the dominant types of dwelling walls for both

categories of farmers, with NSPFS beneficiary farmers having more cement walls.

120

Figure 9: Percentage of households by type of dwelling walls

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Wood Mud Cement other

Type

Perc

en

t o

f h

ou

seh

old

s

Ben

NBen


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Thatch C Iron Asbestos Other

Type of roof material

Perc

en

t o

f h

ou

seh

old

s

Ben

Nben

Similarly, Figure 10 presents the percentage of beneficiary and non-beneficiary households by type of

roofing material in their homesteads. The dominant type of roofing material is the corrugated iron

sheet for both categories of farmers. Only few farmers of both category (8 percent for beneficiary

farmers and 13 percent for non-beneficiary farmers) had thatched roof over their houses. Houses

roofed with asbestos were found mostly in the Southwest zone where beneficiary farmers of the

NSPFS were located in the old farm settlement buildings.

121

4.2. Sources of livelihood and food security

4.2.1. Sources of livelihood

The main sources of livelihood for both NSPFS beneficiary farmers and non- beneficiary farmers are

farming followed by livestock raising, fishing and off farm employment.

Figure 11: Main Sources of Livelihood

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Farming Livestock

Raising

Fishing Off farm other

Source

Perc

en

t o

f H

H

Ben

NBen

The major food crops produced are maize, cassava, yam, vegetables, sorghum, rice, groundnut, millet,

sweet potato and other crops. More of the non-beneficiary households produce maize (73 percent),

sorghum (44 percent), groundnut (34 percent), and millet (32 percent) while more of the NSPFS

beneficiary farmers produce cassava (59 percent), yam (43 percent), vegetables (39 percent), and rice

(26 percent).

Figure 12: Crops produced as percentage of total households

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Maize

Cass

ava

Yam

Veg

etab

les

Sor

ghum

Rice

Gro

undn

ut

Mille

t

S.P

otat

o

Oth

er

Crop

Perc

en

t o

f H

ou

seh

old

s

Ben

Nben

The major livestock produced were mostly goat and sheep followed by poultry, and cattle. Cattle were

found mostly among the beneficiary and non-beneficiary households in the Northeast and Northwest

zones of the country. Both beneficiary and non-beneficiary households produce cattle in equal

proportions (18 percent for beneficiary households and non-beneficiary households). Poultry, goat and

sheep were produced by both categories of farmers in all the geopolitical zones of the country. The

122

percentage (38 percent) of non-beneficiary households that produce poultry exceeds that of the NSPFS

households (32 percent). However, production techniques for both categories of households may

differ as the NSPFS activities encouraged its farmers to produce poultry under intensive systems,

while most of the non-beneficiary farmers maintain a free range system. What was introduced to the

beneficiary farmers were improved species, while the non-beneficiary farmers owned both improved

species and local species, such that most non-beneficiary farmers would own poultry either for sale or

as store for wealth, while the beneficiary farmers were likely to produce poultry principally for sale as

encouraged by the programme. The percentages of households that produce pigs were 5 percent and

even less for non-beneficiary households (3 percent). Fish production was captured during the survey

mostly in the South-south zone, more in beneficiary households (10 percent) than in non-beneficiary

households (5 percent).

Figure 13: Percent of households by livestock raising and fishing

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Cattle Sheep &

goat

Pig Poultry Fish Other

Type of livestock and fish

Perc

en

t o

f h

ou

seh

old

s

Ben

Nben

Off farm employment was also another source of livelihood for less than 10 percent of the total

households surveyed. Off farm employment is a source of livelihood more for non-beneficiary farmers

(54 percent) than for the NSPFS beneficiary farmers (51 percent).

Figure 14: Percentage of households by off farm employment

42

44

46

48

50

52

54

56

yes No

Perc

en

t o

f fa

rm h

ou

seh

old

s

Ben

Nben

123

Figure 15:Percentage of households by type of off farm work

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

hired labour trading artisans other (sp

Type of off farm work

Perc

en

t o

f F

arm

ho

useh

old

s

Ben

Nben

The types of off farm employment include trading especially for the beneficiary farmers, artisan

activities for both categories of farmers equally, hired labour and other types of farm activities. Both

categories of farmers maintain that the relative contribution of off farm employment to the livelihood

is important. This is expected because some of the activities such as trading were related to their farm

and livestock production activities. Without such trading activities income from farm and livestock

produce will be jeopardized and consequently threaten household food security.

Figure 16: Percentage of households by relative contribution

of off farm work to livelihood

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Important Negligible

Perc

en

t o

f fa

rm h

ou

seh

old

s

Ben

Nben

4.2.2. Household food security

In this section, household food security is assessed across beneficiary and non-beneficiary farmers.

First, we begin with the general questions on household food related scarcity and how the food

insecure households cope with the situation, and then we move on to a much more structured analysis

following Coates et al (2007) Household Food Insecurity Access Scale (HFIAS) for measurement of

food access among the beneficiary and non beneficiary households.

124

4.2.2.1. Food insecurity and coping strategies

The focus here is on the number of households that said they were not growing enough food. More

(25 percent) of the non-beneficiary households said they were not growing enough food compared to

20 percent of the NSPFS farmers who said that they were not growing enough food for their

households.

Figure 17: Percentage of household that grew enough food

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Yes No

Pe

rce

nt

of

HH

Ben

Nben

In comparing the number of beneficiary farmers to those who responded to this same question in 2002

we observe (from Figure 18 below) that 81% of the farmers grew enough food in 2007 compared to

55% in 2002. This suggests that the percentage of beneficiary farmers that grew more food in 2007

increased relative to 2002 in the same locations.

Figure 18: Percentage of households that grew enough

food, 2002 and 2007

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Yes No

Perc

en

t o

f h

ou

seh

old

s

2002

2007

Of the households who said that they did not grow enough food in 2007, about 46 percent of the

beneficiary farmers said their food stock lasted for 5-6 months, 24 percent said it lasted for 7-8 months

while 29 percent said it lasted for 9-11 months. Nearly the reverse is the case for non-beneficiary

farmers. About 25 percent of the non-beneficiary households said their food stock lasted between 5-

6 months, 41 percent said it lasted for between 7-8 months while 34 percent maintained that their food

stock lasted for 9 to 11 months. Figure 19 may seem to suggest that most of the non beneficiary

farmers produce enough food stock that lasted a little longer (i.e. more than 7 months) than is the case

125

with beneficiary farmers. The number of farmers in the Southern geopolitical zones (i.e. Southeast,

South-south, and Southwest) who responded to this question in 2002 was five or less than five in all

categories, but the number of farmers who responded to this question in 2002 in the Northern

geopolitical zones was more than five in most categories. Observations seem to suggest that the non-

beneficiary farmers in the northern zone have food stock that lasted from 5-6 months (88 percent),

7-8 months (82 percent) and 9-11months (81 percent) but fewer non-beneficiary households in the

South zones stated that their food stock lasted for 5-6 months (12 percent), 7-8 months (18 percent)

and 9-11 months (19 percent). A similar trend is also observed for beneficiary farmers. As a matter of

fact, most households in the South depend on staple food produced in the North and trucked down to

the Southern States. These households may depend substantially on purchased rather than produced

stock, even though they may specialize in other agricultural ventures such as intensive poultry or fish

production for cash income. Household food stock may therefore depend on the availability of cash to

buy food as and when needed and not from own production as is the case in most of the Northern

States.


number of months food lasted

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

5-6 months 7-8 months 9-11 months

Number of months

Perc

en

t

Ben

Nben

When the number of months food lasted in households is compared for beneficiary farmers in the

same NSPFS sites between 2002 and 2007, we observe that the percentage of farmers who responded

that food lasted for 5-6 months reduced from 34 percent in 2002 to 24 percent in 2007. The percentage

also reduced from 24 percent to 13 percent for farmers who responded that food lasted for 7-8 months

and from 21 percent to 15 percent for farmers who responded that food lasted for 9-11 months. The

fact that there is some reduction in the percentage of farmers by number of months food lasted in the

same beneficiary sites suggests that there have been some improvements. However, the trend in terms

of number of months food lasted remains the same with the modal month falling between 5-6 months

in both 2002 and 2007.

126

Figure 19a: Number of months food lasted in

household, 2002 and 2007

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

<5 months 5 -6 months 7 - 8 months 9 - 11 months

Months

Perc

ent of Household

Y2002

Y2007

The coping strategies in times of food insecurity include off farm income and sale of assets,

particularly for the beneficiary farmers. Other coping strategies include working as hired labour and

borrowing, especially for the non-beneficiary farmers.

Figure 20: Coping Strategies in times of food insecurity

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

sale of

assets

off-farm

income

work as

hired labour

borrowing gifts other (sp)

Coping Strategies

Pe

rce

nt

of

Ho

us

eh

old

s

Ben

Nben

4.2.2.2. Household Food Insecurity Access Scale

As stated earlier, the HFIAS analysis is based on guidance from Coates et al, (2007)30

. The HFIAS

module yields information on food insecurity (access) at the household level. Four types of indicators

were calculated to help understand the characteristics of food insecurity (access) and compared

between beneficiary and non-beneficiary households in the surveyed villages. These indicators

provide summary information on the following:

30 A major limitation to HFIAS as used in this study is the fact that it was administered to the respondents after the harvest (food abundant) season. The Scale may not be robust enough to capture food insecurity given the fact that it has only a 30 day recall period.

127

i. Household food insecurity access-related conditions

These indicators provide specific, disaggregated information about the behaviours and perceptions of

the surveyed households. The indicators present the percentage of households that responded

affirmatively to each question, regardless of the frequency of the experience. Thus, they measure the

percentage of households experiencing the condition at any level of severity. Each indicator is further

disaggregated to examine the frequency of experience of the condition across beneficiary and non-

beneficiary households. In general, there does not seem to be any difference between beneficiary and

non-beneficiary farmers with respect to household food insecurity access-related conditions. ii. Household food insecurity access-related domains

These indicators provide summary information on the prevalence of households experiencing one or

more behaviours in each of the three domains reflected in the HFIAS - anxiety and uncertainty,

insufficient quality, and insufficient food intake and its physical consequences.

Figure 21: Household Food Insecurity Access-related Domains by zone and

type of farmer

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

North

Central

North

East

North

West

South

South

South

East

South

West

All

Zone/Type of farmer

Perc

en

t o

f h

ou

seh

old

s

Ben

Non_Ben

On the whole, there does not seem to be any difference in the percentage of households experiencing

prevalence in one or more behaviours in each of the three domains (of anxiety and uncertainty,

insufficient quality, and insufficient food intake and its physical consequences) between beneficiary

and non-beneficiary farmers as shown for all (geopolitical zones). However, specific differences are

observed between both categories of farmers especially in the Southeast (with non-beneficiary farmers

having better access) and Southwest, and to a certain degree in the North central zones where the

beneficiary farmers seem to have better access (Figure 21).

iii. Household food insecurity access scale score

The HFIAS score is a continuous measure of the degree of food insecurity (access) in the household in

the past four weeks. The HFIAS score is very low (<5 percent) for both beneficiary and non-

beneficiary farmers across all the geopolitical zones, suggesting that both categories of household

experienced less food insecurity. On the whole, there does not seem to be any difference between

beneficiary and non-beneficiary households in terms of the household food insecurity access scale

score (Table 3).

128

Table 3: Food insecurity access scale score for beneficiary

and non beneficiary households

Zone Beneficiary Non

Beneficiary

North Central 3.22 4.39

North East 0.80 1.13

North West 1.38 2.68

South South 3.29 3.39

South East 1.33 1.67

South West 1.95 0.86

Total 2.00 2.35

iv. Household food insecurity access prevalence

The Household Food Insecurity Access Prevalence (HFIAP) indicator is a categorical indicator of

food insecurity status. The indicator categorizes households into four levels of household food

insecurity: food secure and mild, moderately and severely food insecure. Figure 22 below suggests

that 31 percent of the beneficiary households were moderately food insecure compared to 26 percent

of the non-beneficiary households. However, about 18 percent of the non-beneficiary households

expressed a severely food insecure access unlike 9 percent of the NSPFS beneficiary households. The

difference is still less than 10 percent between both categories of farmers.

Figure 22: Percentage of Beneficiary and non beneficiary households by

food insecurity access prevalence

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Food secure Mildly food insecure

access

Moderately food

insecure access

Severely food

insecure access

Access prevalence

Perc

en

tag

e o

f H

H

Ben

Nben

129

4.3. Levels of production and sales

4.3.1. Production levels and sales: Crops

Farmers’ field sizes (cropped areas) were measured using GPS devices and so were more precise than

using the farmers’ estimate or the pacing methods. Cropped areas were relatively bigger for

beneficiary farmers than non-beneficiary farmers. On the whole, upland fields for NSPFS beneficiary

farmers were 13 percent bigger than for non-beneficiary farmers. Fadama fields cultivated by NSPFS

beneficiary farmers were also 33 percent bigger than those cultivated by non-beneficiary farmers

(Table 4).

Table 4: Mean field size (ha) of farmers in five important fields

in upland and fadama areas

Beneficiary Non beneficiary Fields

Upland Fadama Upland Fadama

Field 1 1.0727 0.6398 0.6398 0.6677

Field 2 1.6606 0.9129 0.9129 0.4714

Field 3 0.524 0.394 0.394 0.517

Field 4 0.7663 0.3691 0.3691 0.2216

Field 5 0.3328 0.4211 0.4211 0.1783

Average 0.8713 0.5474 0.7707 0.4112

There seems to be some limited differences in field size by crop for beneficiary and non-beneficiary

farmers (Table 5). Field sizes were relatively the same for both categories of farmers for fields

devoted to cassava, maize, and millet. Non-beneficiary farmers seem to have an advantage in terms of

field size devoted to rice (which is almost twice that cultivated by NSPFS beneficiary farmers), while

the fields devoted to sorghum, plantain, and yam are relatively higher for NSPFS beneficiary farmers

than for the non-beneficiary farmers.

Table 5: Mean crop areas (ha) by most important crop for

NSPFS beneficiary and non-beneficiary households

Mean N Std Dev Minimum Maximum Crop

Beneficiary Farmers

Cassava 0.5425 88 0.7564 0.04 4.78

Maize 1.9235 66 2.135 0.06 12.92

Millet 1.1088 54 0.9 0.01 4.33

Plantain 0.3605 10 0.3906 0.05 1.21

Rice 1.2277 13 0.8627 0.06 2.78

Sorghum 1.568 26 0.9109 0.11 3.55

Yam 1.0083 62 1.2233 0.06 5.81

Non beneficiary Farmers

Cassava 0.4764 131 0.6015 0.03 5.4

Maize 1.9304 55 3.9973 0.05 29.66

Millet 1.1535 61 1.2684 0.12 8.3

Plantain 0.266 15 0.1648 0.08 0.57

Rice 2.0686 4 2.3125 0.09 4.99

Sorghum 1.2003 21 0.8148 0.18 3.35

Yam 0.7405 48 0.7113 0.05 2.66

130

Table 6: Percentage change in crop production (between 2001 and 2007) for beneficiary

and non-beneficiary farmers for selected major food crops in upland fields

Beneficiary Non-

beneficiary Crop

% change % change

Cassava 66 34

Maize 50 -25

Millet 44 -4

Plantain 87 55

Rice 71 106

Sorghum 29 -4

Yam 73 57

Percentage change in crop production is based on farmers’ response to output measured in local units

in 2007 and compared in the same units to what the farmers recalled obtaining of the crop in 2001.

Hence, the farmers’ response was likely to reflect increase or decrease in both crop output and field

area, which is equivalent to change in crop production and not absolute yield. The percentage change

in production for selected food crops between 2001 (i.e. before the programme) and 2007 (i.e. after

the programme) is presented in Table 6. Increases in crop production were recorded for cassava (by

66 percent) and yam (by 73 percent) among the participating NSPFS farmers. Production also

increased by 87 percent for plantain, 71 percent for rice, 50 percent for maize, 44 percent for millet,

and 29 percent for sorghum among the NSPFS beneficiary farmers. In contrast, the non-beneficiary

farmers recorded disappointing production declines in maize (by 25 percent) and relative production

declines in sorghum and millet (by 4 percent respectively) between 2001 and 2007. The non-

beneficiary farmers, however, recorded increases in production for cassava, yam, plantain, and an

exceptional increase in rice production between 2001 and 2007. As noted earlier, the area dedicated to

rice production by non-beneficiary farmers was twice that cultivated by the NSPFS beneficiary

farmers and so this may be an important factor in the relatively higher rice output among non-

beneficiary farmers. The general trend is that production increases were recorded for all the major

crops among the NSPFS beneficiary farmers while a decline in production was recorded for some

crops among the non-beneficiary farmers. It is possible that these positive changes in production

among the NSPFS farmers, especially for maize, millet and sorghum, can be attributed to the

programme.

Table 7: Percentage change in crop production (between 2001 and 2007) for beneficiary

and non-beneficiary farmers for selected major food crops in fadama fields

Beneficiary Non

beneficiary Crop

% change % change

Pepper 77 142

Rice 45 -19

Sorghum 24 -13

131

Similar results were also observed for beneficiary and non-beneficiary farmers for selected crops

planted in the fadama fields (Table 7). For instance, while non-beneficiary farmers recorded much

higher production for pepper planted in fadama fields than beneficiary farmers, production declines

were actually recorded for non-participating farmers for rice (by 19 percent) and sorghum (by

13 percent). The NSPFS beneficiary farmers recorded increases for rice (by 45 percent) and sorghum

(by 24 percent) in the fadama fields.

Figure 23: Percentage of households by marketing of farm produce

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Yes No

Perc

en

t o

f H

ou

seh

old

s

Ben

Nben

Nearly all beneficiary and non-beneficiary farmers market their farm produce (Figure 23). Farm

produce is sold in the village market by 45 percent of the NSPFS beneficiary farmers and by

37 percent of the non-beneficiary farmers. Farm produce is sold in the nearby village by 33 percent of

the non-beneficiary farmers and by 26 percent of the NSPFS beneficiary farmers. Both categories of

farmers equally sell their farm produce in the town markets and some other markets.

Figure 24: Location of Markets

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

in the village in nearby village in town other

Location

Perc

en

t o

f H

H

Ben

Nben

Farmers were asked to indicate in terms of proportion out of 10 how much of their produce they

consumed at home and how much they sold in the market in terms of the major crops they produced.

This question gives an indication of which crop is a commercial crop and which one is a food security

crop. There does not seem to be any major difference in responses by the different categories of

132

farmers for each crop (Table 8). For instance, millet and sorghum are food security crops since both

categories of farmer produce these crops for home consumption especially in the North East and North

West zones of the country. Rice and plantain are produced for commercial purposes by both

categories of farmer. Cassava is produced both for food and for sale equally for both categories of

farmer. The non-beneficiary farmers produce yams mostly for sale while the beneficiary farmers

produce yams for home consumption and for sale equally. The beneficiary farmers also produce maize

mostly for sale, while the non-beneficiary farmers produce maize both for sale and for home

consumption equally. Melon is produced by the non-beneficiary farmers for sale while the beneficiary

farmers produce melon for home consumption and for sale equally. The summary here is that millet

and sorghum are produced principally for household consumption especially in the Northern states,

while all other crops have income potential as they are also produced for sale.

Table 8: Proportion of produce (out of 10 parts) sold or consumed

at home by NSPFS benefiting and non benefiting farmers

Beneficiary Non-beneficiary Crop

Consumed Sold Consumed Sold

Cassava 5 5 5 5

Maize 4 6 5 5

Melon 5 5 4 6

Millet 9 1 8 2

Plantain 3 7 2 8

Rice 4 6 4 6

Sorghum 8 2 10 0

Yam 5 5 4 6

More than 60 percent of the beneficiary and non-beneficiary farmers have difficulties marketing their

farm produce (Figure 25).

Figure 25: Percentage of households by difficulties in marketing Farm

Produce

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Yes No

Perc

en

t o

f H

ou

seh

old

s

Ben

Nben

Difficulties in marketing farm produce (Figure 26) are mainly low prices and transport costs, which

affect both categories of farmers equally. Other reasons for market difficulties include storage,

especially for the NSPFS beneficiary farmers, and labour costs, especially for the non-beneficiary

farmers.

133

Figure 26: Percentage of households by reasons for market difficulties

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

storage transport low prices time/labour other

Reasons

Perc

en

t o

f H

ou

seh

old

s

Ben

Nben

4.3.2. Production levels and sales: Livestock

Cattle were found mostly in the Northeast and Northwest zones of the country. Goat and sheep were

found in all the zones of the country. Poultry was also found in all zones but to a limited extent in the

South-south zone. Pigs were found mostly in the Northeast zone.

Table 9 presents the livestock management situation for beneficiary and non-beneficiary farmers. The

mean stock at the beginning of the year and at the end of the year for cattle seems to be higher for the

non-beneficiary farmers than for the beneficiary farmers. The NSPFS beneficiary farmers recorded

relatively higher losses and lower sales with their cattle than the non-beneficiary farmers.

In the case of goats, the beneficiary farmers seem to have a relatively higher stocking rate at the

beginning of the year than the non-beneficiary farmers, this being due probably to NSPFS assistance.

However, they recorded relatively lower stocks at the end of the year unlike the non-beneficiary

farmers, who recorded a higher stock at the end of the year maintaining almost the same number as at

the beginning of the year. Stock for goats and sheep at the end of the year for non-beneficiary farmers

was found to be significantly higher (for t-calculated value of 2.22 greater than t-tabulated value of

1.28 at 10 percent probability) than for beneficiary farmers. While both category of farmers recorded

almost an equal number of sales, the NSPFS beneficiary farmers recorded higher losses (almost twice)

than the non-beneficiary farmers, raising the question as to whether the beneficiary farmers were

originally livestock farmers or whether they took advantage of the programme to capture the benefits

in the production of goats and sheep as well as cattle.

134

Table 9: Livestock production and sales for SPFS beneficiary and non-beneficiary farmers

Beneficiary Non Beneficiary

Type Statistics Stock at

beginning

of the year

Sales Losses

Stock at

end of

the year

Stock at

beginning

of the year

Sales Losses

Stock at

end of

the year

Mean 4.06 1.42 0.66 4.91 6 1.91 0.41 6.33

N 67 52 38 68 69 45 37 70

Std. Deviation 7.62 1.55 1.74 8.78 6.5 1.98 0.76 7.12

Minimum 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0

Cattle

Maximum 61 9 9 69 30 9 3 35

Mean 13.76 3.54 3.36 8.34 11.67 3.39 2.26 11.05

N 209 176 165 209 190 153 148 189

Std. Deviation 32.78 3.95 5.15 7.81 10.57 3.35 2.66 12.3

Minimum 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0

Goat & Sheep

Maximum 354 32 34 72 75 22 15 100

Mean 63.37 39.39 94.23 30.77 31.47 16.03 14.68 19.1

N 152 129 127 145 196 155 168 194

Std. Deviation 176.38 123.41 878.67 67.01 78.37 76.6 72.31 26.14

Minimum 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0

Poultry

Maximum 1800 1000 9913 600 950 910 910 210

Mean 20.32 12.21 6.23 8.71 14.11 7.93 2.33 8.17

N 25 24 22 24 18 14 15 18

Std. Deviation 28.61 22.98 4.97 14.09 18.69 18.86 2.41 10.31

Minimum 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0

Pigs

Maximum 110 110 18 69 75 73 9 45

Mean 216.38 128.67 14.6 82.62 12.67 2.63 3.94 11.19

N 13 12 10 13 18 16 17 16

Std. Deviation 552.07 342.35 15.47 197.04 10.31 3.22 5.58 8.18

Minimum 5 0 0 1 1 0 0 1

Other

Maximum 2000 1200 50 700 40 10 20 28

Similarly, the NSPFS beneficiary farmers had a higher poultry stock at the beginning of the year

(almost twice more) than their non-beneficiary counterparts. This difference in stocking rate was

however not statistically significant (at 10 percent probability) between beneficiary and non-

beneficiary farmers. Their stocking rates at the end of the year were also higher than the non-

beneficiary farmers but the difference is again not statistically significant (at 10 percent probability).

The beneficiary farmers recorded higher poultry sales but also recorded higher losses than the non-

beneficiary farmers. A similar trend is observed between beneficiary farmers and non-beneficiary

farmers in the case of pigs and other livestock (which in this case includes rabbits).

135

Figure 27: Reasons for losses in Livestock

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Disease Predators Theft Other

Reasons

Pe

rce

nta

ge

Ben

Nben

The major reasons for livestock losses (Figure 27) were disease in more than 60 percent of the cases

for both beneficiary and non-beneficiary farmers. Other reasons to a limited percentage (<20 percent)

were predators, especially for non-beneficiary farmers who keep a free range livestock system,

followed by theft especially for the beneficiary farmers and other reasons.

4.3.3. Production levels and sales: Fish

About 19 percent of the NSPFS beneficiary and 10 percent of the NSPFS non-beneficiary households

surveyed produce fish.

Figure 28: Percentage of fish producing households

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Yes No

Pe

rce

nt

of

Ho

us

eh

old

s

Ben

Nben

The fish production objective for both categories of farmers is both for sale and home consumption,

among 91 percent of the beneficiary farmers and among 83 percent of the non-beneficiary farmers

respectively.

136

Figure 29: Fish Production Objective

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Consume Sale both

Production Objective

Pe

rce

nt

of

Ho

us

eh

old

s

Ben

Nben

Fish is produced in ponds by both beneficiary and non-beneficiary farmers and in the river by both

categories of farmer almost equally. Fish is also produced in lakes by both categories of farmer. The

beneficiary farmers almost exclusively produce fish in dams.

Figure 30: Percentage of households by location where fish is produced

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Dam Lake River Sea Pond

Location

Perc

en

t o

f H

ou

seh

old

s

Ben

Nben

Fish producing farmers were identified during the survey in the Northeast, Southeast, and South-south

zones. However, the number of farmers observed that produce tilapia fish were very limited: 11

beneficiary farmers and only 3 non-beneficiary farmers producing tilapia fish were observed. Catfish

producing farmers captured during the survey were also few: only 14 beneficiary farmers were

observed and 4 non-beneficiary farmers. Further analysis was not undertaken due to the smallness of

the sample size.

137

4.4. Access to and use of inputs

4.4.1. Use of new technology

i. New crops

The percentage of farmers that claimed to have grown new crops over the last four years of the

NSPFS programme was less than 30 percent for both beneficiary and non-beneficiary farmers. About

25 percent of the NSPFS farmers affirmed that they grew new crops, while 17 percent of the non-

beneficiary farmers stated that they grew new crops. The percentage difference between the two

groups is not statistically significant, suggesting that the growing of new crops may be more a

function of market forces than a supply driven function.

Figure 31: Percentage of Farmers that grew new Crops

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

No Yes

Perc

en

t o

f H

ou

seh

old

s

Ben

Nben

The source of information on new crops was mostly the ADP extension agents (Figure 32). This

applies more for the NSPFS beneficiary farmers (47 percent) than the non beneficiary farmers (35%).

Other farmers and/or friends come second, more for non beneficiary farmers (43%) than for the

beneficiary farmers (27%). Similarly, other sources of information apply more for the non beneficiary

farmers (22%) than for the beneficiary farmers (14%), and finally the Chinese technicians only for the

NSPFS beneficiary farmers (13%).

These results suggest that the NSPFS farmers obtained information on new crops mainly from ADP

extension agents, confirming a high degree of interaction between the programme beneficiaries and

the ADP extension staff. On the other hand, the source of information on new crops for non

beneficiary farmers seems to be mostly from their friends. As we shall see later, this observation on

sources of information is consistent with information provided in the outreach chapter of the report.

Field observations done by the enumerators during the field survey show that farmers usually

responded to market forces and may have taken advice on what crop to plant from itinerant traders as

well as the ADP extension agents. Information on market prices of the previous year coming from the

above-mentioned sources may also inform what crops farmers’ plant in the current year.

138

Figure 32: Percentage of farmers by source of Information on new crops

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50


farmers/friends

other (sp

Information Source

Perc

en

t o

f H

ou

seh

old

sBen

Nben

About 52% of the beneficiary farmers encountered problems with the planting of new crops compared

to 37% of the non beneficiary farmers. In a few surveyed sites, farmers indicated to the survey team

that there were new crops brought in by NSPFS that did not do well. Some of these crops were

brought directly from China without passing through the official quarantine system in Nigeria.

Figure 33: Problems/Experience associated with adoption of new crops

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Yes No

Perc

en

t o

f F

arm

Ho

useh

old

s

Ben

Nben

The major problems experienced by farmers who tried to adopt new crops were lack of funds for both

beneficiary (25%) and non beneficiary farmers (24%) almost equally. Many of the non beneficiary

farmers (24%) maintain that the new crop increased their workload compared to beneficiary farmers

(21%).The non beneficiary farmers (15%) also maintained that the new crops adopted lacked a market

compared to the NSPFS beneficiary farmers (9%). The beneficiary farmers (18%) complained of the

fact that the new crop required a difficult technique compared to the non beneficiary farmers (10%).

There were also other problems associated with the adoption of new crops, for both the beneficiary

(28%) and the non beneficiary farmers (27%).

139

Figure 34: Problems associated with the adoption of new crops

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

lack of funds difficult

technique

workload lack of market other (specify)

Problems

Perc

en

t o

f F

arm

Ho

useh

old

s

Ben

NBen

Figure 35: Farm area devoted to new crop

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

all more than half less than half

Perc

en

t o

f H

ou

seh

old

s

Ben

Nben

Out of the farmers who adopted new crops, less than 20 percent of the beneficiary and non-beneficiary

farmers devoted all their farmland or more than half of their farmland to the new crop. Both

beneficiary and non-beneficiary farmers (66 percent) stated that they devoted less than half of their

farmland to the new crop.

Figure 36: Willingness to keep farming new crops

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Yes No Don’t Know

Perc

en

t o

f F

arm

Ho

useh

old

s

Ben

Nben

Nearly all the beneficiary (95 percent) and non-beneficiary (98 percent) households who adopted new

crops maintained a willingness to keep farming the new crop.

140

ii. Soil conservation techniques

About 86 percent of the NSPFS beneficiary farmers and 88 percent of the non-beneficiary farmers

practice soil conservation techniques.

Figure 37: Percentage of households that practice Soil Conservation

Techniques

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Yes No

Perc

en

t o

f F

arm

Ho

useh

old

s

Ben

Nben

The types of soil conservation techniques practiced by farmers include shifting cultivation31

, more by

non-beneficiary farmers (25 percent) than beneficiary farmers (21 percent), crop rotation by both

categories of farmer equally (22 percent), manure application more by beneficiary farmers

(19 percent) than non-beneficiary farmers (16 percent), mulching by non-beneficiary farmers

(15 percent) and beneficiary farmers (16 percent), cover cropping by beneficiary farmers (11 percent)

and non-beneficiary farmers (9 percent). Other soil conservation practices of limited importance

include contour farming, alley farming and others (less than 10 percent of the farmers practised these

soil conservation activities).

Figure 38: Type of soil Conservation Techniques practised by farmers

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Cont

our F

arm

ing

Mulch

ing

Alle

y fa

rming

Man

ure A

pplicat

ion

Cove

r Cro

pping

Cro

p Rot

ation

Shiftinn

g Cultiv

ation

Oth

er S

p

Soil Conservation type

Perc

en

t o

f fa

rm H

ou

seh

old

s

Ben

Nben

Again, the source of information on soil conservation techniques was ADP extension agents, to a

higher extent for the NSPFS beneficiary farmers (38 percent) relative to the non-beneficiary farmers

31 Shifting cultivation is a widely applied traditional soil conservation technique in rural Nigeria, which has its own rationale from the point of view of the farmer. For this reason, although shifting cultivation is obviously not an NSPFS-promoted technique, it cannot be excluded from the analysis.

141

(25 percent). Other farmers and/or friends were more important for the non-beneficiary farmers

(42 percent) compared to the beneficiary farmers (35 percent). Other sources applied more to the non-

beneficiary farmers (30 percent) than to beneficiary farmers (21 percent), and the Chinese technicians

mainly for the NSPFS beneficiary farmers (6 percent).

These results are consistent with sources of information on new crops, suggesting that the NSPFS

farmers obtained information on soil conservation techniques mainly from ADP extension staff. On

the other hand, the source of information on soil conservation techniques for non-beneficiary farmers

seems to be mostly from their friends.

Figure 39: Source of information on Soil Conservation techniques

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45


farmers/friends

other

Information source

Pecen

t o

f H

ou

seh

old

s

Ben

Nben

Out of the 86 percent of the beneficiary farmers and 88 percent of the non-beneficiary farmers who

practice soil conservation techniques, about 47 percent of the beneficiary farmers and 56 percent of

the non-beneficiary farmers stated that they devoted all their farmland to it. About 28 percent of the

beneficiary farmers and 27 percent of the non-beneficiary farmers devoted more than half of their

farmland to soil conservation techniques. About 25 percent of the NSPFS beneficiary farmers devoted

less than half of their farmland to soil conservation techniques, while 17 percent of the non-

beneficiary farmers devoted less than half of their farmland to soil conservation techniques.

Figure 40: Percentage of households by area of farmland devoted to soil

conservation

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

All more than half less than half

Perc

en

t o

f fa

rm H

ou

seh

old

s

Ben

Nben

142

Figure 41: Problems/Experiences with Soil Conservation Techniques

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

yes No

Perc

en

t o

f fa

rm H

ou

seh

old

sBen

Nben

About 44 percent of the beneficiary farmers and 48 percent of the non-beneficiary farmers stated that

they encountered problems with soil conservation techniques, including lack of funds, increased

workload and inadequate land. This applies in near equal proportions to both categories of farmer.

Figure 42: Problems Associated with Soil Conservation Techniques

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

lack of funds inadequate land workload other (sp

Perc

en

t o

f F

arm

Ho

useh

old

s

Ben

Nben

These observations suggest that both NSPFS beneficiary farmers and non-beneficiary farmers claim

that they have been practising soil conservation techniques before 2001, i.e. before the NSPFS

programme commenced. A closer look at the different types of soil conservation techniques (Figure

38) suggests that farmers may have been practising these techniques as part of the traditional farm

production systems long before the programme came on board. About 10 percent of the beneficiary

farmers and 7 percent of the non-beneficiary farmers claim to have started practising soil conservation

techniques in the last two years within the NSPFS implementation period. On the other hand, it may

be necessary to take a closer look at these soil conservation activities as some may be unique and

more site-specific and so may not be captured in a survey of this nature.

143

Figure 43: Period over which farmers had practised Soil Conservation

Techniques

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

2 years before 2001 other (sp

Perc

en

t o

f H

ou

seh

old

s

Ben

Nben

Figure 44 shows that nearly all the beneficiary and non-beneficiary farmers intend to continue

practising soil conservation techniques. In smallholder farming systems they may not have a choice:

they need to maintain soil fertility, but often cannot afford to buy fertilizers and soil amendment

minerals.

Figure 44: Percentage of households that willing to keep practising soil

conservation techniques

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

no yes don’t know

Perc

en

t o

f F

arm

Ho

useh

old

s

Ben

Nben

4.4.2. Access to production assets

Production assets include improved seeds, agrochemicals, improved breeds, animal health, livestock

feed, fish feed, technical advice, irrigation facilities and infrastructure. The extent of access to these

production assets differ by participating and non-participating farmers. We anticipate that NSPFS

beneficiary farmers would have better access to all these production assets than non-beneficiary

farmers. Access to production assets is calculated out of a total sample of 384 participating households

and non-participating households respectively.

144

Figure 45: Percentage of beneficiary and non beneficiary by access to

agrochemicals

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

fertilizers herbicides insecticides

Type of agrochemical

Perc

en

tBen

Nben

Figure 45 shows that more (72 percent) of the NSPFS beneficiary farmers have access to fertilizers

than the non-beneficiary farmers (about 55 percent). Most of the beneficiary and non-beneficiary

farmers had access to fertilizers. Access to fertilizers by the non-beneficiary farmers may suggest that

these farmers benefited from the State-wide subsidized fertilizer programmes within the NSPFS

implementation period. Several State governments provided subsidized fertilizers to their farmers.

More beneficiary farmers had access to herbicides (about 58 percent) and insecticides (about

62 percent) compared to the non-beneficiary farmers, of which about 36 percent had access to

herbicides and about 40 percent had access to insecticides.


access to improved seeds

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

cereals roots/tubers vegetables other

Type of improved seed

Perc

en

tag

e

Ben

Nben

Again, more beneficiary farmers had access to improved seeds (Figure 46) than non-beneficiary

farmers. About 58 percent of the beneficiary farmers had access to improved seeds of cereals

compared to about 47 percent of the non-beneficiary farmers. About 48 percent of the beneficiary

farmers had access to improved seeds of root and tuber crops compared to 37 percent of the non-

beneficiary farmers. The same is observed for improved seeds of vegetables and other crops.

145


access to irrigation equipments

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

Pump PVC pipe Bucket Other

Type of equipment

Perc

en

t

Ben

Nben

Irrigation facilities and equipment are found mostly in the Northwest and Northeast zones of the

country, and the population of farmers that had access to irrigation equipment was relatively few.

Access to irrigation equipment varied by type of equipment (Figure 47) with more of the beneficiary

farmers having access to pumps (18 percent), PVC pipes (11 percent), buckets (12 percent) and other

equipment (about 4 percent) while less of the non-beneficiary farmers had access to pumps (10

percent), PVC pipes (4 percent) and buckets (about 11 percent). It is likely that the NSPFS programme

has improved access of its beneficiary farmers to such facilities relative to the non-beneficiary

farmers.


access toirrigation facilities and infrastructure

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

terrace dam earth canal well other

Type of facility/infrastructure

Perc

en

t

Ben

Nben

The NSPFS beneficiary farmers seem to have better access to irrigation facilities such as terraces,

dams, earth dams, canals, wells and other irrigation facilities than the non-beneficiary farmers, as

depicted in Figure 48. More beneficiary farmers had access mainly to canals and wells than any other

irrigation facility.

146


access to processing assets

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

cassava mills cereals mills rice mills, other yam processing other

Type of processing asset

Perc

en

t

Ben

Nben

Access to processing assets (Figure 49) is almost equal for beneficiary and non-beneficiary farmers.

With the exception of rice mills, to which the beneficiary farmers seem to have a slight dominance in

access, the non-beneficiary farmers seem to have slightly more access to cassava mills and cereal

mills. The observed absence of statistically significant differences in access to these facilities between

beneficiary and non-beneficiary farmers is explained by the existence of many processing facilities

operated as privately owned services in the Nigerian rural agricultural economy. Failure to take into

consideration the private sector might prevent this NSPFS-promoted activity from succeeding.


access to technical advice

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

cropping soil conservation livestock raising food processing

Type of technical advice

Perc

en

t

Ben

Nben

More beneficiary than non-beneficiary farmers had access to technical advice (Figure 50) in the areas

of cropping, soil conservation, livestock raising and food processing. About 75 percent of the

beneficiary farmers had access to technical advice on cropping compared to about 42 percent of the

non-beneficiary farmers. For beneficiary farmers, access to technical advice on cropping was higher

than the one on soil conservation, livestock raising and food processing, which is not the case for non-

beneficiary farmers. More beneficiary farmers received technical advice on soil conservation

(42 percent), livestock raising (49 percent), and food processing (about 26 percent) than non-

beneficiary farmers.

147


access to storage facilities

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Improved Traditonal

Type of storage facility

Perc

en

t

Ben

Nben

Incidentally, beneficiary and non-beneficiary farmers seem to have equal access to traditional and

improved storage facilities (Figure 51). Overall, a low proportion of both categories of farmers (less

than 20 percent) had access to improved storage facilities, suggesting that the NSPFS has been

unsuccessful in introducing this activity.


access to improved breeds

0

5

10

15

20

25

broilers layers goats pigs sheep other

Type of breed

Perc

en

t

Ben

Nben

Figure 52 indicates that more beneficiary farmers (about 23 percent) than non-beneficiary farmers

(17 percent) had access to improved broilers. A similar situation is observed in terms of access to

layers where 18 percent of beneficiary farmers had access to layers compared to 11 percent of non-

beneficiary farmers. 12.5 percent of beneficiary farmers had access to goats compared to 4 percent of

non-beneficiary farmers. A similar situation is observed for sheep and to a lesser extent for pigs.

148


access to livestock health

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

vaccines anti-parasite drugs both none

Type of health access

Perc

en

t

Ben

Nben

In terms of access to livestock health drugs (Figure 53), the beneficiary farmers (32 percent) seem to

have better access especially to both vaccines and anti-parasite drugs than the non-beneficiary farmers

(about 23 percent). About 15 percent of the non-beneficiary farmers said that they do not have access

to livestock health drugs.


access to fish feed

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

feeds lime and fertilizer both none

Type of fish feed

Perc

en

t

Ben

Nben

The number of farmers who practised fish farming was very limited and constitutes about 14 percent

of the beneficiary farmers and 7 percent of the non-beneficiary farmers. Both interviewed beneficiary

and non-beneficiary farmers declared not having access to fish feed. However, some (less than

5 percent) of the beneficiary farmers have access to fish feed. A lesser percentage of the beneficiary

households have access to both fish feed lime and fertilizer (less than 3 percent). The beneficiary

farmers also have better access to fishing equipment than the non-beneficiary farmers. It was also

observed that the beneficiary farmers seem to have greater access to fish fingerlings, especially cat

fish fingerlings, than the non-beneficiary farmers.

149


access to credit

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

seasonal long-term both none

Type of credit

Perc

en

t

Ben

Nben

Access to credit is perhaps the area where the NSPFS has made a clear contribution to the rural

economy. However, the effectiveness of the credit component is doubtful. Figure 55 indicates that

about 56 percent of the beneficiary farmers had access to seasonal credit compared to less than

5 percent of the non-beneficiary farmers. 26 percent of the beneficiary farmers had access to long-

term credit compared to about 2 percent of the non-beneficiary farmers. About 10 percent of the

beneficiary farmers had access to both long-term and seasonal credit compared to less than one

percent of the non-beneficiary farmers. While about one percent of the beneficiary farmers stated that

they did not have access to credit, about 62 percent of the non-beneficiary farmers did not have access

to credit.

With respect to the beneficiary farmers who had access to credit, about 58 percent have partly repaid

their loans, 32 percent have repaid their loans in full, and 10 percent have not repaid their loans at all.

About 50 percent of the non-beneficiary farmers have fully repaid their loans, 20 percent have partly

repaid their loans and 30 percent have not repaid their loans at all. The fact that half of the non-

beneficiary farmers have fully repaid their loans highlights the existence of alternative credit systems

in the private and/or informal sector, which operate more efficiently than the NSPFS credit scheme.

Figure 56: Percentage of households by Repayment of credit

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

yes partly no

Perc

en

t o

f H

ou

seh

old

s

Ben

Nben

150

The reasons for non repayment or partial repayment of loan are low profitability, especially for the

NSPFS farmers (58 percent), and other reasons for non-beneficiary farmers (58 percent). High interest

rate was also another reason for non-repayment but only for the non-beneficiary farmers who usually

obtained their loans from the informal sector.

Figure 57: Percentage of households by Reason for Non Repayment

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

high interest rate low profitability other

Reasons

Perc

en

t o

f H

ou

seh

old

s

Ben

Nben

151

5. Project perceptions and outreach to non-project sites

5.1. Project perceptions

This section of the report analyses farmers’ perceptions about the NSPFS. These are discussed under

three sub-headings related to: (i) food security; (ii) changes in household activities; and (iii) changes

due to programme activities.

i) Changes in food security

About 86 percent of the NSPFS beneficiary farmers stated that the households eat more, but so did

68 percent of the non-beneficiary farmers. However, about 21 percent of the non-beneficiary farmers

said that there was no change in the amount of food they eat compared to 12 percent of the beneficiary

farmers. About 11 percent of the non-beneficiary farmers said that they eat less, unlike 2 percent of

the beneficiary farmers.

Figure 58: Major Changes with SPFS program: household eats more

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

no change eats more every day eats less

Perc

en

t o

f H

ou

seh

old

s

Ben

Nben

About 89 percent of the beneficiary farmers said they eat better compared to 62 percent of the non-

beneficiary farmers. About 31 percent of the non-beneficiary farmers maintained that there was no

change compared with 9 percent of the beneficiary farmers. Less than 10 percent of the non-

beneficiary farmers said they eat worse compared with only 2 percent of the beneficiary farmers.

Figure 59: Major Changes with SPFS Program: household eats better

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

no change eats better every day eats worse

Perc

en

t o

f h

ou

seh

old

s

Ben

Nben

152

About 88 percent of the beneficiary farmers and 70 percent of the non-beneficiary farmers maintain

that their household feeds more people. About 20 percent of the non-beneficiary farmers said there has

been no change in the number of people they feed compared to 9 percent of the beneficiary farmers.

Less than 10 percent said their households feed less especially among the beneficiary farmers.

Figure 60: Major changes with SPFS program: household feeds more

people

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

no change feeds more people feeds less

Pe

rce

nt

of

Ho

us

eh

old

Ben

Nben

ii) Household activities

About 88 percent of the beneficiary farmers maintained that the NSPFS programme helped them to

increase production compared to 63 percent of the non-beneficiary farmers. Production actually

decreased for 21 percent of the non-beneficiary farmers compared to 5 percent of the NSPFS

beneficiary farmers. About 16 percent of the non-beneficiary farmers said there was no change in their

production compared to 6 percent of the beneficiary farmers.

Figure 61: Major changes with SPFS program: production

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

no change increased decreased

Perc

en

t o

f h

ou

seh

old

s

Ben

Nben

About 86 percent of the NSPFS beneficiary farmers stated that there was an increase in their

household sales and revenue compared to 59 percent of the non-beneficiary farmers. In fact,

25 percent of the non-beneficiary farmers said that their sales and revenue actually decreased

compared to 7 percent of the beneficiary households. 16 percent of the non-beneficiary farmers said

that there was no change in their sales and revenue compared to 7 percent of the beneficiary farmers.

153

Figure 62: Major changes with SPFS program: Sales and Revenue

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100


Perc

en

t o

f H

ou

seh

old

s

Ben

Nben

Household expenditure increased for most of the beneficiary farmers (87 percent) and non-beneficiary

farmers (82 percent) alike. There was no change in household expenditure for 10 percent of the non-

beneficiary households and 6 percent of the beneficiary households and actually decreased for

8 percent of the non-beneficiary households and 7 percent of the beneficiary households.

Figure 63: Major changes with SPFS program: household expenditure

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100


Perc

en

t o

f H

ou

seh

old

s

Ben

Nben

Similarly, workload increased for beneficiary (86 percent) and non-beneficiary farmers (80 percent)

alike but decreased for less than 10 percent of the households for both categories of farmer. No change

in household expenditure was recorded for 15 percent of the non-beneficiary farmers and 5 percent of

the beneficiary farmers.

154

Figure 64: Major changes with SPFS program:Household workload

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100


perc

en

t o

f H

ou

seh

old

s

Ben

Nben

Beneficiary farmers (86 percent) perceived that thanks to NSPFS they increased their farm size. Farm

size also increased for non-beneficiary farmers (62 percent) even though 32 percent recorded no

change in their farm size and 6 percent actually recorded a decline in farm size. These results seem to

confirm earlier observations about the fact that farm sizes increased more for NSPFS beneficiary

farmers than for non-beneficiary farmers.

Figure 65: Major changes with NSPFS: Farm Size

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100


Perc

en

t o

f H

ou

seh

old

s

Ben

Nben

iii) Programme activities

The NSPFS programme introduced new techniques and activities and provided inputs including

agrochemicals, credit and irrigation. Farmers’ perceptions about these activities are presented below.

About 70 percent of the beneficiary farmers stated that the NSPFS enabled them to practise new

activities. This contrasts with 34 percent of the non-beneficiary farmers that practised new activities.

In fact, 66 percent of the non-beneficiary farmers practised the same activities as before compared to

30 percent of the beneficiary farmers.

155

Figure 66: Major changes with SPFS Program: new activities

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Same activities as before Practice new activities

Perc

en

t o

f H

ou

seh

old

s

Ben

Nben

About 83 percent of the NSPFS beneficiary farmers said that they learned new techniques under the

programme. This contrasts significantly with 37 percent of the non-beneficiary farmers who learned

new techniques. About 62 percent of the non-beneficiary farmers said that there was no change in

techniques compared to 17 percent of the beneficiary farmers.

Figure 67: Major changes with SPFS program: Techniques

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

No change Learned new techniques

Perc

en

t o

f H

ou

seh

old

s

Ben

Nben

Consistently with previous data, about 81 percent of the NSPFS beneficiary farmers maintained that

they used better inputs. This again contrasts significantly with the non-beneficiary farmers

(39 percent). Understandably, 51 percent of the non-beneficiary farmers said that there had been no

change in access to inputs compared to 14 percent of the beneficiary farmers. About 10 percent of the

non-beneficiary farmers maintained that they had less access to inputs compared to 6 percent of the


156

Figure 68: Major changes with SPFS program: access to inputs

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

no change use better inputs less inputs

Perc

en

t o

f H

ou

seh

old

s

Ben

Nben

As observed earlier, the NSPFS programme clearly improved beneficiary access to credit. About

85 percent of the NSPFS beneficiary farmers perceived that access to credit increased. This contrasts

significantly with 13 percent of the non-beneficiary farmers. In fact, 83 percent of the non-beneficiary

farmers perceived that there had been no change in access to credit. Very few (14 percent) of the

NSPFS beneficiaries perceived that there was no change in access to credit.

Figure 69: Major changes with NSPFS: access to Credit

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90


Perc

en

t o

f H

ou

seh

old

s

Ben

Nben

About 41 percent of the NSPFS beneficiary farmers perceived that access to irrigation water increased

compared to 9 percent of the non-beneficiary farmers. The percentage here is small because irrigation

facilities were mostly observed in the Northwest and Northeast zone of the country. Nearly 90 percent

of the non-beneficiary farmers perceived that there was no change in terms of access to irrigation

water compared to 59 percent of the beneficiary farmers.

157

Figure 70: Major changes with SPFS program: access to irrigation water

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100


Perc

en

t o

f H

ou

seh

old

s

Ben

Nben

5.2. Outreach to non-project sites

The outreach of the programme is measured with questions directed to non-beneficiary farmers. There

are two categories of these farmers: those in nearby villages and those interviewed in distant villages.

Ideally, it is expected that the activities of the programme influence more the nearby farmers than the

distant ones.

About 40 percent of the non-participating farmers interviewed indicated that they had knowledge of

the NSPFS programme.

Figure 71: Percentage of non beneficary farmers that had

knowledge about NSPFS

40

60

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

yes no

Perc

en

t o

f H

H

When this percentage is further disaggregated by nearby and distant respondents, we observe that

50 percent of the nearby farmers had knowledge of the NSPFS while only 30 percent of the farmers

located in distant villages knew about the NSPFS. This is consistent with the assumption that outreach

to nearby farmers by the programme is easier to achieve, but the observed rate of outreach to nearby

villages is low.

158

Figure 72: Percentage of nearby and distant farmers that had knowledge

about NSPFS

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Yes No

Perc

en

t o

f h

ou

seh

old

s

Near

Distant

For those who knew about the NSPFS, their source of information had usually been from participating

farmers in the case of farmers located in nearby villages, while farmers in distant villages knew about

the NSPFS from ADP staff and from other sources, especially the radio.

Figure 73: Source of information about NSPFS

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

ADP ext staff Part. Farmer other sp

Source

Perc

ent

of

Household

s

Near

Distant

More of the peri-urban non-beneficiary farmers (58 percent) seemed to have knowledge about the

activities of the NSPFS compared to the non-beneficiary farmers (35 percent) located in the rural

villages. This was expected since NSPFS purposely worked in urban/peri-urban sites for one third of

the total 109 targeted sites, and the information flow is much higher in the peri-urban than rural

villages.

159

Figure 74: Knowledge about NSPFS by Rural and Peri Urban Farmers

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Yes No

Perc

en

t o

f F

arm

ers

Rural

P.Urban

The source of knowledge about the NSPFS also differs by location (i.e. rural versus peri-urban) of the

non-beneficiary farmers. The source of knowledge about the NSPFS for non-beneficiary rural-based

farmers is from participating farmers (44 percent), while for non-beneficiary peri-urban based farmers

it is mostly from other sources (40 percent) including mainly media and friends. The ADP extension

staff was almost equally a source of knowledge for both rural and peri-urban farmers.

Figure 75: Source of knowledge about NSPFS by rural and Periurban

farmers

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

ADP Staff Part Farmers Other

Source

Perc

en

t o

f F

arm

ers

Rural

P. Urban

Most of the farmers located in nearby (43 percent) and distant (35 percent) villages perceived the

NSPFS as a project providing improved farming practices. Less than 20 percent of this category of

farmers viewed the NSPFS as providing improved livestock, improved fish, irrigation water, food

processing facilities and other activities which was specified mainly as provision of credit.

160

Figure 76: Farmers perception about NSPFS activities

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Improve

farming

Improve LS Improve Fish Irrigation

water

Food

Process

Other

Perc

en

t o

f h

ou

seh

old

s

Nearby

Distant

Out of the 40 percent of the non-beneficiary farmers who knew about the activities of the NSPFS

about 63 percent of them had tried to join the programme but were unable to.

Figure 77: Percentage of farmers who have tried to join NSPFS

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Yes No

Perc

en

t o

f H

ou

seh

old

s

Near

Distant

Incidentally, a much higher proportion (82 percent) of the non-beneficiary farmers located in the peri-

urban sites had tried to join the NSPFS than the rural non-beneficiary farmers (58 percent) as can be

observed from the figure below.

161

Figure 78: Percentage of farmers who have tried to join NSPFS in peri

urban and rural sites

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Yes No

Perc

en

t o

f fa

rmers

Rural

P. Urban

The reasons for their inability to join were mainly others (E) which were specified as the fact that their

village was not included officially in the selection or that they did not know how to join. Other reasons

included that they were told to wait (B), or that they first wanted to see how other participants

benefited (A) or the farmer was not there at that time (D). The least reason for inability to join was

that the farmers were not able to get enough money to pay back (C).

Figure 79: Reasons for inability to join NSPFS

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

A B C D E

Reasons

Perc

en

t o

f H

ou

seh

old

s

162

Figure 80: Percentage of non beneficiary farmers that visited NSPFS sites

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Yes No

Perc

en

t o

f H

ou

seh

old

Of the percentage (40 percent) that knew about the NSPFS, 65 percent of them had visited the NSPFS

sites (Figure 80). A much higher proportion (51 percent) of the non-beneficiary farmers located in

peri-urban areas had visited the NSPFS plots than the non-beneficiary rural-based farmers, for which

only 38 percent of them had visited the NSPFS plots (Figure 81). This suggested that access

(especially by road) was a key factor for effective outreach of the NSPFS programme.

Figure 81: Percentage of farmers in rural and periurban sites that have

visisted NSPFS sites

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Yes No

Perc

en

t o

f fa

rmers

Rural

P. Urban

163

Figure 82: Percentage of non beneficiary farmers that have tried NSPFS

Techniques in farm

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

No Yes

Pe

rce

nt

of

Ho

us

eh

old

s

About 35 percent of the non-beneficiary farmers had tried the NSPFS techniques in their fields. The

percentage of non-beneficiary farmers that have tried the NSPFS techniques in their fields was much

higher for peri-urban resident farmers (44 percent) than for rural-based non-beneficiary farmers

(32 percent). This may not be unconnected with the issue of accessibility, which is likely to be better

in the peri-urban sites than in the rural sites.

Figure 83: Percentage of rural and urban farmers that have tried out NSPFS

techniques

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Yes No

Perc

en

t o

f fa

rmers

Rural

P. Urban

164

Figure 84: Activities and practices tried by Non-SPFS farmers

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

A B C D E F G H I

Activities

Perc

en

t o

f H

ou

seh

old

s

The activities and practices in Figure 84 include improved seeds (A), improved breeds (B), new

farming techniques (C), new soil conservation techniques (D), new food processing techniques (E),

new livestock feeds, vaccinations and drugs (F), new fishing techniques (G), livestock fattening (H),

and others (I). These activities and practices were tried by non-beneficiary farmers as follows:

improved seeds (28 percent), use of improved breeds (13 percent), new farming techniques

(2 percent), new soil conservation techniques (17 percent), new food processing techniques

(15 percent), new livestock feeds vaccinations and drugs (6 percent), new fishing techniques

(1 percent), livestock fattening (1 percent), and others (17 percent).

Figure 85: Results of Non SPFS farmer experimentation with Program

activites

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Bad Fair Good

Result

Perc

en

t o

f h

ou

seh

old

s

Most of the non-beneficiary farmers who tried NSPFS activities and practices indicated that it was

good (74 percent), 18 percent claimed it was fair, while less than 10 percent claimed it was bad. About

88 percent of the non-beneficiary farmers who tried the NSPFS activities and practices are continuing

with the practice. It should be noted that this percentage value is a subset of the 40 percent who said

that they knew about NSPFS activities.

165

Figure 86: Percentage of Non-beneficiary farmers that continue to practice

NSPFS activities and techniques

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Yes No

perc

en

t o

f h

ou

seh

old

s

Nearly all the non-beneficiary farmers stated that they would like to join the NSPFS programme next

year. Only one farmer said that he would not like to join the programme.

Figure 87: Percentage of farmers that desire to join the NSPFS

99.5

0.50

20

40

60

80

100

120

Yes No

Perc

en

t o

f H

ou

seh

old

s

166

6. Conclusions

The conclusions and major observations of the impact study are presented under the four key

variables, namely livelihoods and food security, levels of production and sales, access to and use of

inputs and outreach of project activities to non-project farmers.

i. Livelihoods and food security

The impact study shows clearly that there were no major differences in the sources of livelihood

between beneficiary and non-beneficiary farmers. Sources of livelihood, namely farming, livestock

raising, fish farming and off farm employment in that order were the same for both categories of

farmer. With respect to farming, the major food crops were maize, cassava, yam, vegetables, sorghum,

groundnut, millet, rice, sweet potato and several others including cash crops like oil palm, cashew and

cocoa. The major livestock raised were goats and sheep, poultry and cattle.

The HFIAS score is very low (<5 percent)32

for both beneficiary and non-beneficiary farmers across

all the geopolitical zones suggesting that both categories of household experienced less food insecurity

(access). On the whole, there does not seem to be any difference between beneficiary and non-

beneficiary households in terms of the HFIAS score, suggesting that the NSPFS programme did not

make any major impact on the food security of its beneficiaries. It was observed that the non-

beneficiary farmers seemed to produce enough food stock that lasted a little longer (i.e. more than 7

months) than was the case with the beneficiary farmers, especially in the northern parts of the country.

ii. Levels of production and sales

Field sizes (cropped areas) on average were relatively bigger for beneficiary farmers than non-

beneficiary farmers, but there were variations with respect to crop type. For instance, while the field

size for rice for non-beneficiary farmers was twice the size of that observed for NSPFS beneficiary

farmers, the beneficiary farmers had relatively larger fields devoted to sorghum, plantain and yam.

The changes in field size cannot effectively be attributed to the NSPFS interventions since field sizes

were likely to have increased over the years (see Ezedinma et al, 2007) for beneficiary and non-


The beneficiary farmers recorded significant (X2 = 320.09; p<0.10, d.f. = 6) increases in production

for important food crops namely cassava, yams, maize, sorghum, millet and rice. On the other hand,

non-beneficiary farmers recorded a decline in some food crop productions, especially for maize, millet

and sorghum. While production increases could be attributed to some extent to the programme, it may

not be for all crops for which there were Presidential Initiatives (e.g. cassava) at the same time as the

implementation period.

In the case of livestock, it was observed that the non-beneficiary farmers seem to be better managers

of their livestock than the beneficiary farmers. This was observed especially for cattle and goat/sheep,

32 This is probably due to the fact that the HFIAS was administered to the respondents after the harvest (food abundant) season.

167

raising the question as to whether the beneficiary farmers within the programme were originally

livestock farmers or whether they took advantage of the programme to capture the benefits in the

production of goats and sheep as well as cattle.

The NSPFS beneficiary farmers seem to have managed their poultry better than the non-beneficiary

farmers. Beneficiary farmers had a higher poultry stock at the beginning of the year (almost twice)

than their non-beneficiary counterparts. Their stocking rates at the end of the year were also higher

than the non-beneficiary farmers. These increases in stocking rates and sales could be attributed to the

NSPFS programme, which emphasized intensive production systems especially for poultry.

iii. Access to and use of inputs

The percentage of farmers that claimed to have grown new crops over the last four years of the

NSPFS programme was less than 30 percent for beneficiary farmers. While the NSPFS programme

emphasized soil conservation techniques, the study shows that both NSPFS beneficiary farmers and

non-beneficiary farmers have been practising soil conservation techniques before the NSPFS

programme commenced. This raises the question as to whether the programme impacted on farmers’

soil conservation techniques.

There does not seem to be any difference between NSPFS beneficiary farmers and non-beneficiary

farmers in terms of access to processing facilities and storage facilities. However, some clear

differences were observed between both categories of farmers in terms of access to agrochemicals,

technical advice, irrigation facilities and infrastructures, access to improved breeds and seeds and the

practice of new activities. The beneficiary farmers had more access to these facilities than the non-

beneficiary farmers most likely as a result of the activities of the NSPFS over its first four years.

The major difference with respect to the NSPFS programme was observed with regard to access to

credit. However, the repayment of credit by beneficiary farmers was very poor raising the question as

to the ability of a public institution to effectively administer credit on a sustainable basis.

iv. Outreach of project activities to non-project farmers

Although low accessibility might have negatively affected outreach in rural areas, all in all the rate of

project outreach is relatively low at 40 percent. Outreach to nearby farmers was relatively higher at

50 percent, but only about 35 percent of the farmers had tried the NSPFS techniques in their fields.

Expectedly, the percentage of non-beneficiary farmers that have tried the NSPFS techniques in their

fields is much higher for peri-urban resident farmers (44 percent) than for rural-based non-beneficiary

farmers (32 percent).

v. Overall conclusions

Aside from improving access to improved inputs including credit, agrochemicals, technical advice,

irrigation facilities and infrastructure, improved breeds and seeds that may have contributed to

production increases in major food crops, the NSPFS has made minimal impact on food security and

outreach to non-project farmers. However, production increases cannot be totally attributed to NSPFS

168

for those crops (e.g. cassava and rice) for which there were Presidential Initiatives at the same time as

the NSPFS implementation.

169

References

Coates J, A. Swindale, P. Bilinsky 2007. Household Food security Access Scale (HFIAS) for Measurement of Food Access: Indicator Guide Version 3 Food and Nutrition Technical Assistance Project (FANTA)/United States Agency for International Development, Academy for Educational Development Washington DC

Ezedinma C., A.G.O. Dixon, L. Sanni, R. Okechukwu, M. Akoroda, J. Lemchi, F. Ogbe, and E. Okoro 2007. Trends in Cassava Production and Commercialization in Nigeria, International Institute of Tropical Agriculture, Ibadan, Nigeria, 70pp FMARD/FAO, 2004. National Special Programme for Food Security (NSPFS): the Journey so Far FMARD/FAO Kormawa, P., and A.T. Ogundapo 2004. Local Weights and Measures in Nigeria: a handbook of conversion factors, IITA Monograph, International Institute of Tropical Agriculture, 38pp

NSPFS. 2002. Report of the baseline (Household) Survey, Draft Report

170

Appendix A: Confidence levels and sample size by geo political zone

Confidence level 95% 94% 93% 92% 91% 90%

Confidence interval ALFA 5% 6% 7% 8% 9% 10%

Population/zone 3,678 3,678 3,678 3,678 3,678 3,678

Z-score 1.96 1.89 1.82 1.76 1.70 1.64

Sample size needed 384 248 169 121 89 65

Sample size needed/zone 348 232 162 117 87 64

Sample size needed/zone/site 87 58 40 29 22 16

171

B: Selected NSPFS beneficiary sites by geopolitical zone

Geo-political zone NSFSP survey

sites

Total HHs

receiving NSPFS

credit / zone

Sample size /

zone

HH to

interview in

each of the 4

sites / zone

Alapa 16

Agbaduma 16

Karmo 16 North Central

Otobi/Oju

3,678 64

16

Kwadon 16

Ashaka gari 16

Laisale 16 North East

Wuto

3,678 64

16

Kware 16

Ajiwa 16

Kurawa 16 North West

Yauri

3,678 64

16

Odi 16

Eko-Ibadin 16

Ofoni 16 South South

Ukana Uwa

3,678 64

16

Ihim 16

Adani 16

Obi Osaa 16 South East

UmuobasiUku

3,678 64

16

Ilora 16

Esa Oke 16

Akufo 16 South West

Osin Ikole

3,678 64

16

Federal Capital Territory 204

TOTALS 24 22,270 384 384

172

C: Impact Study survey sites

Field interviews

Non participating farmers Sampled site

Nearby sites Distant sites

N Name Type

* State LGA Population

To

tal

ben

efic

iari

es f

arm

ers

hav

ing

rec

eiv

ed c

red

it

Pa

rti

cip

ati

ng

farm

ers

Name # Name LGA #

1 Alapa P Kwara Asa 126435 204 16 Onikoko 8 Gaa

Ayelbowo Ilorin South 8

2 Agbaduma R Kogi Ofu 192169 204 16 Ogenezaria 8 Ajomakoji Omala 8

3 Karmo R Nasarawa Toto 119077 204 16 Loko Goma 8 Saura Keffi 8

4 Otobi/Oju R Benue Otukpo 261666 204 16 Ogobogwu 8 Aikwu Ogbadigbo 8

5 Kwadon P Gombe Yamaltu Deba 255248 204 16 Zambok 8 Tabra Akko 8

6 Ashaka Gari R Gombe

Funa Kaye 138185 204 16 Sangaru 8 Kurugu Kwami 8

7 Laisale R Gombe Billiri 202144 204 16 Sansani 8 Latur Shongom 8

8 Wuto R Adamawa Michika 155302 204 16 Bazza Marghi 8 Gyadkwara Mubi South 8

9 Kware P Sokoto Kware 133899 204 16 Kware 8 Gunbi Wamakko 8

10 Ajiwa R Katsina Batagarawa 184575 204 16 Masabo 8 Tambu Daura 8

11 Kurawa R Sokoto S/Birni 207599 204 16 Kurawa 8 Dinawa Sabon Birni 8

12 Yauri R Kebbi Yauri 99777 204 16 Jalbabu 8 Tangun Zamare Yauri 8

13 Odi P Bayelsa Kolokuma/opokuma 353344 204 16 Kaiama 8 Igbogen Yenagoa 8

14 Eko-Ibadin R Edo

Esan N.west 125842 204 16

Onewa-Uromi 8

Ukhuanlen-Ubiaja Esan S.E. 8

15 Ofoni R Bayelsa Ekeremor 270257 204 16 Tungbo 8 Adagbabiri Sagbama 8

16 Ukana Uwa R

Akwa Ibom

Essien Udim 192668 204 16 Nto Nsek 8 Mbiafun Ikono 8

17 Ihim P Abia Ikwuano 137993 204 16 Amawom 8 Agalabaise Umuahia

South 8

18 Adani R Enugu Uzouwani 124480 204 16 Ogurugu 8 Ichi Igboeze South 8

19 Obi Osea R Abia Ukwawest 88555 204 16 Umuiku 8 Abayi

Amaugwo Osisioma

Ngwa 8

20 UmuobasiUku R Abia Bende 192111 204 16 Uzuakoli 8

Amacharaleru

Ummunneochi 8

21 Ilora P Oyo Afijio 134173 204 16 Alaga Amao 8 Sukuru Lagelu 8

22 Esa Oke R Osun Obokun 116511 204 16 Etioni 8 Ijebu Ijesha Oriade 8

23 Akufo R Oyo Ido 103261 204 16 Ajibade 8 Geke (Igbo

Ora) Ibarapa Central 8

24 Osin Ikole R Ekiti Ikole 168436 204 16 Osin Ekiti 8 Iworoko

Ekiti Irepodun/Ifel

odun 8

384 192 192

* R = rural; P = peri-urban / urban, 768

173

D: Survey Site Selection Criteria

Selection Criteria

Nearby sites

Sa

me

ad

min

istr

ati

ve

area

Sa

me

dem

ogra

ph

ics

Sa

me

agro

-

eco

logy

Ab

sen

ce o

f

oth

er p

roje

cts

Distant sites

Sa

me

ad

min

istr

ati

ve

area

Sa

me

dem

ogra

ph

ics

Sa

me

agro

-

eco

logy

Ab

sen

ce o

f

oth

er p

roje

cts

Onikoko Yes Yes Yes Yes

Gaa Ayelbowo Yes Yes Yes Yes

Ogenezaria Yes Yes Yes Yes

Ajomakoji Yes Yes Yes Yes

Loko Goma Yes Yes Yes Yes

Saura Yes Yes Yes Yes

Ogobogwu Yes Yes Yes Yes

Aikwu Yes Yes Yes Yes

Zambok Yes Yes Yes Yes

Tabra Yes Yes Yes Yes

Sangaru Yes Yes Yes Yes

Kurugu Yes Yes Yes Yes

Sansani Yes Yes Yes Yes

Latur Yes Yes Yes No

Bazza Marghi Yes Yes Yes Yes

Gyadkwara Yes Yes Yes Yes

Kware Yes Yes Yes Yes

Gunbi Yes Yes Yes Yes

Masabo Yes Yes Yes Yes

Tambu Yes Yes Yes Yes

Kurawa Yes Yes Yes Yes

Dinawa Yes Yes Yes Yes

Jalbabu Yes Yes Yes Yes

Tangun Zamare Yes Yes Yes Yes

Kaiama Yes Yes Yes Yes

Igbogen Yes Yes Yes Yes

Onewa-Uromi Yes Yes Yes Yes

Ukhuanlen-Ubiaja Yes Yes Yes Yes

Tungbo Yes Yes Yes Yes

Adagbabiri Yes Yes Yes Yes

Nto Nsek Yes Yes Yes Yes

Mbiafun Yes Yes Yes Yes

Amawom Yes Yes Yes Yes

Agalabaise Yes Yes Yes Yes

Ogurugu Yes Yes Yes Yes

Ichi Yes Yes Yes Yes

Umuiku Yes Yes Yes Yes

Abayi Amaugwo Yes Yes Yes Yes

Uzuakoli Yes Yes Yes Yes

Amacharaleru Yes Yes Yes Yes

Alaga Amao Yes Yes Yes Yes

Sukuru Yes Yes Yes Yes

Etioni Yes Yes Yes Yes

Ijebu Ijesha Yes Yes Yes Yes

Ajibade Yes Yes Yes Yes

Geke (Igbo Ora) Yes Yes Yes Yes

Osin Ekiti Yes Yes Yes Yes

Iworoko Ekiti Yes Yes Yes Yes

Evaluation of the National Special Programme for Food Security FAO project UTF/NIR/047/NIR

NSPFS Nigeria 174

E : IMPACT STUDY

HOUSEHOLD QUESTIONNAIRE

Questionnaire N° |__|__|__|

GPS location of village/site : _________N : __________E

SECTION 0 Questionnaire base data

VARIABLES RESPONSE OPTIONS CODE

01. Interview result 1 = Totally filled 2 = Partially filled 3 = Refused |__|

02. Time of interview Date: |__|__|__|__|__|__| Minutes: |__|__|__|

03. Household typology 1 = Beneficiary 2 = Near Non-project 3 = Far Non-Project |__|

AGENT NAME CODE DATE

(day/month/year) SIGNATURE

04. Enumerator |__|__| |__|__|__|__|__|__|

05. Enumerator Team Leader

|__| |__|__|__|__|__|__|

06. Data clerk |__| |__|__|__|__|__|__|

VARIABLES RESPONSE OPTIONS CODE

07. Geo-political zone 1 = North Central 2 = North East 3 = North West

4 = South South 5 = South East 6 = South West |__|

08. Federal state see coding in guidelines |__|__|

09. Senatorial District Name Senatorial Zone: |__|__|

10. Local Government Area Name LGA: |__|__|

11. Site Name Site: |__|__|

12. Site typology 1 = Peri-urban/Urban

0 = Rural |__|


NSPFS Nigeria 175

Questions for all respondents

SECTION A. Household information

QUESTIONS RESPONSE OPTIONS CODE

A1. Name of respondent

A2. Respondent role in the household 1 = household head 2 = spouse

3 = child 4 = other (specify)____________ |__|

A3. Approximate age 1 = 15-25 years 2 = 26-35 years

3 = 36-50 years 4 = 51-65 years 5 = > 65 years |__|

A4. Sex 1 = male 0 = female |__|

A5. Ethnic group / tribe See coding from 1 to 55 |__|__|

A6. Education 1 = illiterate 0 = literate (can read, write and calculate) |__|

A7. N° men in household over 15 years count |__|__|

A8. N° women in HH over 15 years count |__|__|

A9. N° children in HH 15 years or less count |__|__|

A10. Dwelling walls 1 = wood 2 = mud

3 = cement blocks 4 = other (specify) _______________ |__|

A11. Dwelling roof 1 = thatch 2 = corrugated iron

3 = asbestos 4 = other (specify) _______________ |__|

SECTION B. Livelihood activities


B1. Which are your main sources of livelihood? (classify in order of importance)

B1a. Farming |__|__|

B1b. Livestock raising |__|__|

B1c. Fishing |__|__|

B1d. Off-farm (specify) |__|__|

B1e. Other (specify)

1 = most important as contribution to HH income

2 = 2nd

most important

3 = 3rd

most important

enter ‘99’ if not practiced |__|__|

CROP PRODUCTION

B2. Which crops do you farm/practice/produce? (classify in order of importance)

B2a. Rice |__|__|

B2b. Maize |__|__|

B2c. Sorghum |__|__|

B2d. Millet |__|__|

B2e. Groundnut |__|__|

B2f. Cassava |__|__|

B2g. Yam |__|__|

B2h. Sweet potato |__|__|

B2i. Vegetables (specify) |__|__|

B2h. Other (specify)


2 = 2nd

most important

3 = 3rd

most important

enter ‘99’ if not practiced

|__|__|


NSPFS Nigeria 176

B3. How much did you produce from your 5 most important crops in the last cropping season, and how much

did you produce of it before 200133

?

(estimate)

Total crop output per household Crop

Local unit of measure Last crop season Before 20011

B3a. First (specify) |__|__| |__|__|__| |__|__|__|

B3b. Second (specify) |__|__| |__|__|__| |__|__|__|

B3c. Third (specify) |__|__| |__|__|__| |__|__|__|

B3d. Fourth (specify) |__|__| |__|__|__| |__|__|__|

B3e. Fifth (specify) |__|__| |__|__|__| |__|__|__|

B4. If your total production of the last cropping season is 10, how much did you consume and sell of it?

(estimate)

Crop Consumed Sold Total

B4a. First (specify) |__|__| |__|__| 10

B4b. Second (specify) |__|__| |__|__| 10

B4c. Third (specify) |__|__| |__|__| 10

B4d. Fourth (specify) |__|__| |__|__| 10

B4e. Fifth (specify) |__|__| |__|__| 10

LIVESTOCK RAISING

B5. Which livestock do you raise?

(classify in order of importance)

B5a. Cattle |__|__|

B5b. Small livestock (goat, sheep) |__|__|

B5c. Pig |__|__|

B5d. Poultry |__|__|

B5e. Other (specify)


2 = 2nd

most important

3 = 3rd

most important

enter ‘99’ if not practiced |__|__|

B6. How many animals did you raise, and how many did you sell and loose (deaths) in 2007?

(estimate)

Stock in 01/07 Sales Losses Stock in 12/07

B6a. Cattle |__|__| |__|__| |__|__| |__|__|

B6b. Small livestock (goat, sheep) |__|__| |__|__| |__|__| |__|__|

B6c. Pig |__|__|__| |__|__|__| |__|__|__| |__|__|__|

B6d. Poultry |__|__|__| |__|__|__| |__|__|__| |__|__|__|

B5e. Other (specify) |__|__| |__|__| |__|__| |__|__|

B6d. What were the losses due to?

1 = disease 2 = predators

3 = theft 4 = other (specify) ______________

|__|__|

|__|__|

FISHING

B7. Do you practice fishing? 1 = yes

0 = no (skip to B8) |__|

B7a. Where? (choose more than one option if relevant)

1 = dam 2 = lake 3 = river

4 = sea 5 = pond

|__| |__|

|__| |__| |__|

B7b. What do you do of your production?

1 = consumption 2 = sale 3 = both |__|

33

Use the year of President Obasanjo’s first election as a memory prompt.


NSPFS Nigeria 177

B8. How much fish did you produce and sell last year (2007)?

(estimate)

Produced Sold Fish species

Local unit of measure Quantity Local unit of measure Quantity

B8a. Tilapia (local name___________) |__|__| |__|__|__|__| |__|__| |__|__|__|__|

B8b. Catfish |__|__| |__|__|__|__| |__|__| |__|__|__|__|

B8c. Other (specify) |__|__| |__|__|__|__| |__|__| |__|__|__|__|

PRODUCTION ASSETS

B9. To which of the following processing/storage assets do you have access and use?

(choose more than one option if relevant)

B9a. Irrigation equipment 1 = pump 2 = PVC pipe

3 = bucket 4 = other (specify) ________________

|__| |__|

|__| |__|

B9b. Irrigation facilities/infrastructures 1 = terrace 2 = dam 3 = earth canal

4 = well 5 = other (specify) ________________

|__| |__| |__|

|__| |__|

B9c. Processing asset

1 = cassava mills (flour, gari, chips, akpu)

2 = cereals mills (flour of maize, sorghum and/or millet)

3 = rice mills, other (flour, parboiled)

4 = yam processing (flour, chips)

5 = other (specify) _______________

|__|

|__|

|__|

|__|

|__|

B9d. Food storage facility 1 = traditional 0 = improved |__|

B10. Which of the following production assets do you have access to and use?


B10a. Improved seeds 1 = cereals 2 = roots/tubers

3 = vegetables 4 = other (specify ) _________________

|__| |__|

|__| |__|

B10b. Agro-chemicals 1 = fertilisers 2 = herbicides 3 = insecticides |__||__||__|

B10c. Technical advice 1 = cropping 2 = soil conservation

3 = livestock raising 4 = food processing

|__| |__|

|__| |__|

B10d. Credit 1 = seasonal 2 = long-term 3 = both 4 = none |__|

B10d1. Repaid? 1 = yes (skip to B10e) 2 = partly 3 = no |__|

B10d2. Why? 1 = high interest rate 2 = low profitability 3 = other (specify) _________ |__|

B10e. Improved breeds 1 = broilers 2 = layers 3 = goats

4 = pigs 5 = sheep 6 = other (specify) _______________

|__||__||__|

|__||__||__|

B10f. Livestock feeding 1 = feeds 2 = salt lick, minerals

3 = both 4 = none |__|

B10g. Livestock health 1 = vaccines 2 = anti-parasite drugs 3 = both 4 = none |__|

B10h. Fingerlings 1 = tilapia 2 = catfish 3 = other (specify) ____________ |__||__||__|

B10i. Fishery equipment 1 = nets 2 = gears

3 = twines 4 = other (specify) ___________________

|__| |__|

|__| |__|

B10l. Fish feeding 1 = feeds 2 = lime and fertiliser 3 = both 4 = none |__|


NSPFS Nigeria 178

FARM DIVERSIFICATION

B11. Did you farm any new crops last year? (list three most important)

1 = yes

0 = no (skip to B12) |__|

B11a. First crop (specify)_____________ |__|

B11b. Second crop (specify)__________ |__|

B11c. Third crop (specify)____________ |__|

B11d. How did you learn about these new crops?

1 = ADP extension staff 2 = Chinese technicians

3 = other farmers/friends 4 = other (specify) ___________

|__| |__|

|__| |__|

B11e. How much of your farm do you put under new crops?

1 = all 2 = more than half

3 = less than half |__|

B11f. Did you experience any problem associated with these new crops?

1 = yes

0 = no (skip to B11h) |__|

B11g. Which one(s)?

1 = lack of funds 2 = difficult technique

3 = workload 4 = lack of market

5 = other (specify) __________________

|__| |__|

|__| |__|

|__|

B11h. Will you keep on farming these new crops?

1 = yes 2 = no 3 = don’t know |__|

SOIL CONSERVATION

B12. Did you practice any soil conservation techniques in the last season? (choose more than one option if relevant)

1 = yes

0 = no (skip to B13) |__|

B12a. Contour farming |__| B12e. Cover cropping |__|

B12b. Mulching |__| B12f. Crop rotation |__|

B12c. Alley farming |__| B12g. Shifting cultivation |__|

B12d. Manure application |__| B12h. Other (specify) _______________ |__|

B12i. How did you learn about these techniques?

1 = ADP extension staff 2 = Chinese technicians

3 = other farmers/friends 4 = other (specify) ______________

|__| |__|

|__| |__|

B12l. How much of your farm do you put under soil conservation?

1 = all 2 = more than half

3 = less than half |__|

B12m. Did you experience any problem associated with these techniques?

1 = yes

0 = no (skip to B12o) |__|

B12n. Which one(s)? 1 = lack of funds 2 = inadequate land

3 = workload 4 = other (specify) _________________

|__| |__|

|__| |__|

B12o. For how long were you doing these techniques?

1 = 2 years 2 = before 2001 3 = other (specify) ___________ |__|

B12p. Will you keep on practice these techniques?

1 = yes 0 = no 3 = don’t know |__|

LABOUR

B13. Did you hire labour for your UPLAND fields in the last

season?34

1 = yes

0 = no (skip to B14) |__|

B13a. For which operations did you need it most?


1 = land preparation 2 = planting

3 = weeding 4 = harvesting

5 = transport 6 = other (specify) ________________

|__| |__|

|__| |__|

|__| |__|

B13b. Is hired labour more or less than your unpaid family labour?

1 = more 2 = less 3 = equal |__|

34

It can be family labour paid in kind.


NSPFS Nigeria 179

B14. Did you hire labour for FADAMA

fields in the last season? 35

1 = yes

0 = no (skip to B15) |__|

B14a. For which operations did you need it most?


1 = land preparation 2 = planting

3 = weeding 4 = harvesting

5 = transport 6 = other (specify) _________________

|__| |__|

|__| |__|

|__| |__|

B14b. Is hired labour more or less than your unpaid family labour?

1 = more 2 = less 3 = equal |__|

B15. Did any household member work off-farm last year?

1 = yes

0 = no (skip to B16) |__|

B15a. To do what?


1 = hired labour 2 = trading

3 = artisans 4 = other (specify) __________________

|__| |__|

|__| |__|

B15b. How was their off farm work contribution to the household livelihood?

1 = important

2 = negligible |__|

MARKETING

B16. Did you market any of your production last year?

1 = yes

0 = no (skip to C1) |__|

B16a. Where, which market?


1 = in the village 2 = in nearby village

3 = in town 4 = other (specify) ___________________

|__| |__|

|__| |__|

B16b. Did you experience any difficulties in marketing your production?

1 = yes

2 = no (skip to C1) |__|

B16c. What are they?


1 = storage 2 = transport

3 = low prices 4 = time/labour

5 = other (specify) _______________

|__||__|

|__||__|

|__|

SECTION C. Livelihood outcomes


C1. Did you grow enough food for the household in the last year?

1 = yes (skip to C4)

0 = no |__|

C2. How many months did it last? 1 = 5-6 months 2 = 7-8 months

3 = 9-11 months 4 = 12 months |__|

C3. How does the household cope when the food stocks run out?


1 = sale of assets

2 = off-farm income (salaries, handicraft, else)

3 = work as hired labourer

4 = borrowing

5 = gifts

6 = other (specify) ________________________

|__|

|__|

|__|

|__|

|__|

HOUSEHOLD FOOD INSECURITY ACCESS SCALE

The questions C4-C12 in the following page are extracted from the Household Food Insecurity Access Scale (FAO-AGNA, 2007). Please refer to the HFIAS guidelines for correct questioning. The respondent should be the person usually preparing meals in the household.

35

It can be family labour paid in kind.


NSPFS Nigeria 180


C4. In the past four weeks, did you worry that your household would not have enough food?

1 = yes

0 = no (skip to C5) |__|

C4a. How often did this happen?

1 = Rarely (1 or 2 in the past 4 weeks)

2 = Sometimes (3 to 10 times in the past 4 weeks)

3 = Often (> 10 times in the past 4 weeks)

|__|

C5. In the past four weeks, were you or any household member not able to eat the kinds of foods you preferred because of a lack of resources?

1 = yes

0 = no (skip to C6) |__|





|__|

C6. In the past four weeks, did you or any household member have to eat a limited variety of foods due to a lack of resources?

1 = yes

0 = no (skip to C7) |__|





|__|

C7. In the past four weeks, did you or any household member have to eat some foods that you really did not want to eat because of a lack of resources to obtain other types of food?

1 = yes

0 = no (skip to C8) |__|





|__|

C8. In the past four weeks, did you or any household member have to eat a smaller meal than you felt you needed because there was not enough food?

1 = yes

0 = no (skip to C9) |__|





|__|

C9. In the past four weeks, did you or any other household member have to eat fewer meals in a day because there was not enough food?

1 = yes

0 = no (skip to C10) |__|





|__|

C10. In the past four weeks, was there ever no food to eat of any kind in your household because of lack of resources to get food?

1 = yes

0 = no (skip to C11) |__|





|__|

C11. In the past four weeks, did you or any household member go to sleep at night hungry because there was not enough food?

1 = yes

0 = no (skip to C12) |__|





|__|

C12. In the past four weeks, did you or any household member go a whole day and night without eating anything because there was not enough food?

1 = yes

0 = no |__|





|__|


NSPFS Nigeria 181

Questions for Participating households only

SECTION D. Households’ perceptions about NSPFS-induced impacts


D1a

1 = household eats more every day

2 = eats less

0 = no change |__|

D1b

1 = household eats better every day

2 = eats worse

0 = no change

|__| D1. Since you have been involved in NSPFS,

what do you think have been the main changes on your household livelihood?

D1c

1 = household feeds more people

2 = feeds less

0 = no change |__|

D2a

1 = production increased

2 = decreased

0 = no change

|__|

D2b

1 = sales and revenues increased

2 = decreased

0 = no change

|__|

D2c

1 = expenditures increased

2 = decreased

0 = no change

|__|

D2d

1 = use better inputs than before36

2 = more inputs

0 = no change

|__|

D2e

1 = workload has increased

2 = decreased

0 = no change

|__|

D2f 1 = learned new techniques (crops, livestock, etc.)

0 = no change |__|

D2g

1 = access to credit has increased

2 = decreased

0 = no change

|__|

D2h

1 = access to irrigation water has increased

2 = decreased

0 = no change

|__|

D2i

1 = farm size has increased

2 = decreased

0 = no change

|__|

D2. What are the main changes you think NSPFS brought about on your production activities?

D2l 1 = practice new activities (crops, livestock, etc.)

0 = same activities than before |__|

D3. Other changes (specify)

36

Improved seeds, fertilisers, pesticides, agricultural tools.


NSPFS Nigeria 182

Questions for non-participating households only

(nearby and far)

SECTION E. Households’ perceptions about recent changes


E1a

1 = household eats more every day

2 = eats less

0 = no change |__|

E1b

1 = household eats better every day

2 = eats worse

0 = no change

|__| E1. Since 2001

37 did you experience changes on

your household livelihood?

E1c

1 = household feeds more people

2 = feeds less

0 = no change |__|

E2a

1 = production increased

2 = decreased

0 = no change

|__|

E2b

1 = sales and revenues increased

2 = decreased

0 = no change

|__|

E2c

1 = expenditures increased

2 = decreased

0 = no change

|__|

E2d

1 = use better inputs38

than before

2 = more inputs

0 = no change

|__|

E2e

1 = workload has increased

2 = decreased

0 = no change

|__|

E2f 1 = learned new techniques (crops, livestock, etc.)

0 = no change |__|

E2g

1 = access to credit has increased

2 = decreased

0 = no change

|__|

E2h

1 = access to irrigation water has increased

2 = decreased

0 = no change

|__|

E2i

1 = farm size has increased

2 = decreased

0 = no change

|__|

E2. What are the main changes you think came forward since 2001

5 on your production

activities?

E2l 1 = practice new activities (crops, livestock, etc.)

0 = same activities than before |__|

E3. Other changes (specify)

37

Use the year of President Obasanjo’s first election as a memory prompt. 38

Improved seeds, fertilisers, pesticides, agricultural tools.


NSPFS Nigeria 183

SECTION F. Outreach to non-NSPFS households


F1. Do you know of the NSPFS? 1 = yes

0 = no (skip the entire section) |__|

F2. How did you know of NSPFS?

1 = ADP extension staff

2 = participating farmers

3 = Other (specify) __________________

|__|

F3. Could you please describe what the NSPFS does?


1 = help to improve farming

2 = help to improve livestock raising

3 = help to improve fishing

4 = ease access to irrigation water

5 = help to improve food processing

6 = other (specify) __________________

|__|

|__|

|__|

|__|

|__|

|__|

F4. Have you tried joining the NSPFS?

1 = yes

0 = no (skip to F5) |__|

F5. Why didn’t you join?


1 = first wanted to see how other participants benefit

2 = was told to wait as the list was closed

3 = as it is credit, not able to get enough money to pay back later

4 = was not there at that time

5 = other (specify) ____________________________________

|__|

|__|

|__|

|__|

|__|

F6. Have you visited the NSPFS plots?

1 = yes

0 = no (skip to F10) |__|

F7. Have you tried by yourself anything that you have seen there on your farm?

1 = yes

0 = no (skip to F10) |__|

F8. What did you try?


1 = improved seeds

2 = improved breeds

3 = new farming techniques

4 = new soil conservation techniques

5 = new food processing techniques

6 = new livestock feeds, vaccinations and drugs

7 = new fishing techniques

8 = livestock fattening

9 = other (specify) ____________________________________

|__|

|__|

|__|

|__|

|__|

|__|

|__|

|__|

|__|

F9. With what results? 1 = bad 2 scarce 3 = fair 4 = good |__|

F10. Are you continuing the practice? 1 = yes

0 = no |__|

F11. Do you belong to any other agricultural project?

1 = yes

0 = no (skip to F14) |__|

F12. What have you done with the help of this project?


1 = improved seeds

2 = improved breeds

3 = new farming techniques

4 = new soil conservation techniques

5 = new food processing techniques

6 = new livestock feeds, vaccinations and drugs

7 = new fishing techniques

8 = livestock fattening

9 = other (specify) ____________________________________

|__|

|__|

|__|

|__|

|__|

|__|

|__|

|__|

|__|

F13. With what results? 1 = bad 2 scarce 3 = fair 4 = good |__|

F14. If possible, would you like to join the NSPFS next year?

1 = yes

0 = no |__|


NSPFS Nigeria 184

Annex 1 - FIELD MEASUREMENTS (for all respondents)

1 Use the year of President Obasanjo’s first election as a memory prompt;

8 Indicate conversion factor for unit of measure (e.g. Heap – 100 tubers of yam; 1 pickup load of cassava – 1.2 tons)

G1. How much did you produce from your 5 most important fields in the last cropping season and how much did you get from this type of field before 2001?

Total output per plot

1=owner

2=lease

3=sharecrop

4=renter

Square Meters (GPS

measurement)

Local unit of

measure, main crop

8

Last cropping season

Before 20011


Before 20017


Before 20017


Before 20017

G1a. UPLAND/rain-fed land production

Main crop (specify)_________ Intercrop 1 (specify)________ Intercrop 2 (specify)________ Intercrop 3 (specify)________ G3a1 – Plot 1 |__| |__|__|

|__|__|__| |__|__|__| |__|__|__| |__|__|__| |__|__|__| |__|__|__| |__|__|__| |__|__|__|


|__|__|__| |__|__|__| |__|__|__| |__|__|__| |__|__|__| |__|__|__| |__|__|__| |__|__|__|


|__|__|__| |__|__|__| |__|__|__| |__|__|__| |__|__|__| |__|__|__| |__|__|__| |__|__|__|


|__|__|__| |__|__|__| |__|__|__| |__|__|__| |__|__|__| |__|__|__| |__|__|__| |__|__|__|


|__|__|__| |__|__|__| |__|__|__| |__|__|__| |__|__|__| |__|__|__| |__|__|__| |__|__|__|

G3b. FADAMA/irrigated land production

Main crop (specify)_________ Intercrop 1 (specify)________ Intercrop 2 (specify)________ Intercrop 3 (specify)________ G3b1 - Plot 1 |__| |__|__|

|__|__|__| |__|__|__| |__|__|__| |__|__|__| |__|__|__| |__|__|__| |__|__|__| |__|__|__|


|__|__|__| |__|__|__| |__|__|__| |__|__|__| |__|__|__| |__|__|__| |__|__|__| |__|__|__|


|__|__|__| |__|__|__| |__|__|__| |__|__|__| |__|__|__| |__|__|__| |__|__|__| |__|__|__|


|__|__|__| |__|__|__| |__|__|__| |__|__|__| |__|__|__| |__|__|__| |__|__|__| |__|__|__|


|__|__|__| |__|__|__| |__|__|__| |__|__|__| |__|__|__| |__|__|__| |__|__|__| |__|__|__|