| The overall objective of this study was to analyse the impact of Hadejia Valley Irrigation Project (HVIP) on crop productivity and poverty reduction in the study area. The specific objectives were to: Describe the socio-economic and institutional characteristics of beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries of the Project; Analyse the impact of the Project on access to irrigation water between beneficiaries at head, middle and tail-ends of the Project; Evaluate the impact of the Project on cropped area under irrigation activities of beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries; Determine the impact of the Project on the poverty status of beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries; Assess the determinants of poverty among beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries; and Identify constraints faced by the beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries in the implementation of the project in the study area. The theoretical framework underpinning this study was the Social Change Theory and the Perspectives on Social Impact Assessment Out of a list of 7036 respondents, 207 beneficiaries and 146 non-beneficiaries were selected using a multi-stage random sampling making a total of 353 as the sample size of the study. Data were obtained using a structured questionnaire, analysed by descriptive statistics, t-and F tests and P-alpha poverty measures (Foster-Greer-Thorbecke Index) method. The results showed that with exception of off-farm income that ranged from a mean of N 137, 797 = 00 and N 237, 104 = 00 Naira and cost of hired labour of N 33,641 = 00 and N 55, 709 = 00 Naira all other measured characteristics of Beneficiaries were greater than that of Nonbeneficiaries. However, the results of t-test on access to irrigation water were significant between head, middle and tail-end at 0.05%. The mean cropped area under irrigation activities of beneficiaries was significantly different from that of non-beneficiaries. The calculated F (1, 410) value (225), exceeded (F critical = 3.86), showed a highly significant difference between beneficiaries‘ and non-beneficiaries‘ crop productivity. Equally, the calculated F (1, 410) value (726.3) exceeded (F critical = 3.86), so there was highly significant difference in terms of net farm income between beneficiaries and nonbeneficiaries. The mean employment opportunities between beneficiaries were significantly different from that of non-beneficiaries. The poverty measures indicated that 17% of beneficiaries were classified to be living below the poverty line of N 12,489.00 while 36% of non-beneficiaries lived below the poverty line of N 9,961.20. The poverty head count, depth and severity were 0.72, 0.12 and 0.088 for beneficiaries and 0.8, 0.28 and 0.23 for non-beneficiaries respectively. This meant that 72% and 80% of beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries were above the poverty line respectively. But, 12% and 28% of beneficiaries‘ and non-beneficiaries‘ expenditure were required to bring them up to the poverty line. Similarly, the poorest accounted for 9% and 28% of the beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries. Among the list of constraints that posed threats, beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries perceived environmental, physical, health, croprelated and institutional risks as causes of the general constraints they faced. Consequently, from the results of the t-and F-tests and Foster-Greer-Thorbecke index, it was concluded that Hadejia Valley Irrigation Project had impacted on crop productivity and poverty reduction among its beneficiaries. It was therefore, recommended that government should encourage productivity and access in both farm and non-farm occupations; The project authority should have a uniform water fee collection policy; government should intensify family planning services efforts and activities; the project authority should address inadequate access to extension; Project beneficiaries should form farmers‘ cooperatives; the project authority to promote cost-saving and appropriate technologies. |
Thank you for choosing us!
