Assessment of Fadama Farming in Ile-Ife, Osun State

Assessment of Fadama Farming in Ile-Ife, Osun State

Oyedele Olajide, Ignatius Akerele

Obafemi Awolowo University

DOI: https://doi.org/10.51244/IJRSI.2024.1104027

Received: 17 March 2024; Revised: 02 April 2024; Accepted: 05 April 2024; Published: 08 May 2024

ABSTRACT

The notion of food security in the global system has been a major issue in the sustainable development programme. The global system has been very keen on the nutritional and hunger eradication level of the world’s population. In line with global initiatives and strategic planning on food security, this study focuses on the impact of Fadama farming on the socio-economic transformation of Ife Central Local Government Area of Osun State. The data were collected through a structured questionnaire from a sample of 160 respondents drawn from five (5) randomly selected communities from the study area. The data collected were analyzed by using descriptive statistics such as percentage, frequency and tables. The findings from this study showed that the majority (60.6%) of them joined their respective Fadama User Groups after it was registered. When compared with their income after joining Fadama, there was a significant increase in their income level as 21.9% of the respondents claimed they received ₦40,000 and above and none of them received below ₦18,000 as just 12.7% received ₦18,000-₦28,000 per month. From the findings, the majority (75.7%) of the respondents fell within the working age or active population. 21.8% agree that Fadama has increased food production, 6.3% of the respondents have built houses out of it and 3% have acquired motorcycles.. The findings from this study implied that the males were more actively involved in Fadama farming than the females; also, enough profit was generated to sustain individual families involved. It was recommended that Government should encourage the education of farmers and also provide loans, agricultural inputs and research assistance

Keywords: Fadama Project, socio-economic, income and sustainable.

INTRODUCTION

The concept of urbanisation has brought about a population explosion in the urban communities. It birthed the concentration of the rural populace seeking solace, physically, economically and socially in urban areas (Kwawuvi & Yanguoliba, 2023). The phenomenon has occasioned an exponential increase in the need for improved nutrition and sustainable agriculture (Sustainable Development Goal 2, 2015) to cushion the effects of hunger and food in security among the urban populace. The intent of the world leaders in the achievement of sustainable development goals (SDG2, 2015) covers food insecurity, hunger eradication, improved nutrition and sustainable agriculture; these are targeted toward ensuring the well-being of the people in the spatial system. Good nutrition among the urban populace promotes good health and enhances productivity at working places. These show the importance of improved nutrition sourced through sustainable agriculture (Patel, 2023).

Sustainable agriculture is a multidimensional concept. It connotes the conservation and management of natural resources that comprised technological orientation and institutional dynamics that focused on the realisation of human needs for present and future generations (FAO, 2006; Patel, 2023). The realisation of sustainable agriculture for present and future generations hinges on requisite agricultural infrastructure. The importance of agricultural infrastructure in the achievement of sustainable farming is a boulevard to food sufficiency in a nation’s economy. In essence, a nation’s food security plan must be well articulated ata commercial scale as conceived insustainable farming against peasant farming techniques. The concept of good agricultural infrastructure and large-scale farming is toward standardisation of agro-economy;fast-tracks food surplus; and increases the nutritional level of children and adults in the spatial system (Nengparmoi, Gohain, Devi, & Anal,2023)

In most developing countries of the world, food insecurity, hunger and poor nutrition especially among children have been very endemic. This situation has set world leaders, governments, non-governmental organisations and even religious bodies on their toes in mapping out policies that could guard against hunger proliferation among the people (Patel, 2023). For instance, the Fadamafarming projectis a governmental initiative in Nigeria that was established and has for years of existence demonstrated an intricate level of significance between modern large-scale farming and needed support for farmers and people at large. The program aimed at solving a plethora of issues limiting the livelihood of the people towards achieving and maintaining a food-secured economy (Amadia, Nwanyanwub, Amadic, Nkorod, 2019).In essence, the Fadama project in Nigeria is a vital arm of the Government Economic Sustainability Programme(ESP)that seeks to find solutions to the food insecurity and increased nutrition of Nigerians. It comprised a holistic roadmap for sustainable farming in the country.

Contextually, agricultural infrastructure comprises facilities, utilities and services. These encompass issues such as road construction leading to farms, agro-allied services for farmers, technical support and supply chain performance in agriculture (Olabomia, Ogundolab, Yakubuc, Abimbola, Adetorob and Nwubanib, 2021). These activities have been well captured in the Fadama projects antecedents in Nigeria. It was noted that the activities of the Fadama projects in the 36 states of the Federation have revolutionalised the economic and social status of the Fadama project beneficiaries in the country (Amadiaet al., 2019); Southwest Nigeria has been one of the beneficiaries of various agricultural transformational agro-projects in Nigeria. However, owing to tall importance of Fadama projects to the socioeconomic development of the people in Nigeria. There are still sparse evidence-based studies on its importance in eradicating hunger and malnutrition in Southwest, Nigeria. In the 1960s, the region experienced the move of farm settlement initiative, which has gone moribund especially the installed agricultural facilities (Olabomiaetal., 2021). This paper is however set to examine the activities of the Fadama farming projects in Ile-Ife as the cradle. Hence, the prospects and impact of the Fadama farming projects in Ile-Ife.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Previous and present governments in Nigeria have tried to sustain agriculture by embarking on different agricultural and rural development programmes such as the National Accelerated Food Production Programme (NAFPP-1973), River Basin Development Authority (RBDA-1975), Operation Feed the Nation (OFN-1978) and the likes (Ajayi, 2001; Daudu, 2008). These programmes were fashioned to revolutionize the agricultural sector of the Nigerian economy which was derailing from its normal contribution to the economy (Oriola, 2009). According to Akinbile (2007; Amadia, 2019), Nigeria has had many intervention programmes in the agricultural sector, which have not had a lasting impact on either agricultural development nor yielded the expected result of a sustained increase in food production. This study therefore will assess the National Fadama Development Project (NFDP) to prevent the programme from suffering the same outcome as the previous intervention programmes. This study also will assess the impact of Fadama activities on the socio-economic transformation of the study area. The problems militating against Fadama activities in Nigeria are numerous. For instance, according to Akinbile et al. (2006), thousands of Fadama lands were still uncultivated due to the problem of accessibility or remoteness, which tends to inhibit the spread of new ideas and concepts of Fadama development. Another major constraint to Fadama development is the problem of pests, insects and diseases. According to Oladoja et al. (2008a), they form a major limiting factor to crop yields. Pests such as locusts, and grasshoppers have devastating effects and can cause crop losses as high as 25-30%. Ladele and Omotoso (2000) indicated that urban agriculture in Nigeria has not been given much policy consideration. This has resulted in deficiencies in some technical and managerial skills of Fadama resource users. Produce from low land Fadama usually command high farm gate prices due to high demand for the produce at a time of low supply. Since farmers are generally encouraged to increase their income and consequently their outlook therefore, the need to improve their skills and knowledge in Fadama farming is of paramount importance.

Historically, Fadama areas are typically waterlogged in the rainy season but retain moisture during the dry seasons. Fadama areas are considered to be of high potential for economic development through appropriate investment in productive assets, rural infrastructure and technology assistance (Amadia et al., 2019). The desire to harness the potentials of Fadama in Nigeria culminated in the design of National Fadama Development Project I, II and III. Fadama I (phase I of the National Fadama Development Project) was implemented during the 1993-1999 period. While Fadama I focused mainly on crop production, downstream activities such as processing, preservation and marketing were largely neglected. The design did not take into cognizance the need for spatial integration of the markets (creating physical and market infrastructure). It also failed to take into consideration other Fadama resource users such as livestock producers, pastoralists, hunters, and fishermen as well as post-harvest technology, which manifested in the reduction of crop prices and increased storage losses during the period (Momoh et al, 2007).

Some of the lessons learnt in Fadama I brought about the birth of Fadama II. Fadama was targeted at dry season farming agro-processing, preservation and marketing. It also allows for the acquisition of productive assets, and provision of rural infrastructure to ensure the efficient transportation of farm output to market as well as marketing activities. The project development objective was to sustainably increase the incomes of the beneficiaries by empowering communities to take charge of their development agenda through a Community Drive Development (CDD) approach in project implementation in a socially inclusive manner. Fadama II also allow special preferences to groups of youth, women (especially widows), physically challenged, the elderly and people with HIV/AIDS (ADF, 2003). Fadama III project is a follow-up to the Fadama II project which was assessed to have impacted the lives of rural farmers, raising their incomes by 63%. The project just like Fadama II takes the Community Drive Development (CDD) approach which places beneficiaries in the driver’s seat. Local community members under the umbrella of Fadama Community Association (FCAs) and Fadama User Groups (FUGs) oversee the design and implementation of the project and are empowered through skills and capacity building to improve their livelihoods by increasing income-generating activities. Fadama III project established standardised procedures to guide the local people on how to take part in the decision-making process. It established platforms for participants, such as local consultation meetings to identify and select the needed infrastructure to be funded by the project.

Beneficiaries (participants) were trained to identify the needed infrastructure, execute and manage small-scale development projects in their communities. Community people through FUGs and FCAs were designated to be executing agencies of local development projects. Capacity-building activities were conducted to ensure that they can manage the different aspects of project implementation including financial management, procurement management and quality control at a level acceptable to the project. According to the International Development Agency (IDA, 2010), the project was designed to focus on increasing the incomes of rural people, the project will also help reduce rural poverty, increase food security and contribute to the achievement of a key Millennium Development Goal (MDG). Financing of the Fadama III project is funded by 250millionfrom the World Bank through International Development Agency (IDA) credits and 200 million US dollars counterpart contribution from Nigeria’s federal, state and local governments and beneficiaries (World Bank, 2010).

As a developing nation, Nigeria is plagued by the problems of underdevelopment, which include widespread illiteracy, endemic poverty, unemployment, uneven distribution of resources and incomes, low productivity, food insecurity, and poor public infrastructure among others (Ekong, 2003). The design of the National Fadama Development Project (NFDP) was thus a strategic response by the stakeholders to alleviate the aforementioned scourges. According to Kudi et al (2002), the word “FADAMA” in Hausa language means a low–lying area which is susceptible to periodic flooding. Fadama farming, therefore, implies the cultivation of crops under irrigation in the dry season because flood plains are inaccessible during the normal season.

According to Ike (2012), Fadama is a tripartite–funded intervention by the World Bank in 1996, the Federal Government of Nigeria and participating states with objectives targeted towards poverty reduction and thus designed to improve the capacities of beneficiary groups. Fadama projects are mainly aimed at sustaining an increase in the income of users of rural land and water resources. The need for all-year-round improved production in Nigeria is inevitable with a projected annual population growth of 2.47% (United Nations Population Fund, 2014) and food production at an annual growth of 3.2% (World Bank, 1996). Presently, the NFDP is widely implemented in all 36 states of the federation and the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), which have been categorized into the core states and the facility states. The core states include Bauchi, Gombe, and Jigawa. Kano, Kebbi, Zamfara and Sokoto, while the remaining states and the FCT constitute the facility states (Baba and Singh, 1998). In Osun state, 8000 farmers in the state have benefitted from the 3 phase of the project. Some of the communities benefitting from this Fadama project include Egbedore, Ife-east, Oriade, Ila, Odo-Otin, Orolu, Atakumosa-West, Iwo, Irewole, Ola oluwa, Olorunda, Atakumosa-East, Ifelodun, Boripe, Boluwaduro, Isokan, Ife-Central, Ife-South and Ede-North. For any Fadama Community Association/Fadama User Groups (FCA/FUG) to benefit from the project, certain guidelines have been put in place by the Osun State Fadama Coordination Office (OSSFCO). These include:

1. Payment of counterpart fund (10% for rural infrastructure, 30% for pilot asset acquisition and 50% for input support). This gives the farmers have sense of belonging.
2. Farmers are instructed to pay first to pay their counterpart funds to Service Providers that would execute such projects and inspection would be done before the counterpart fund from the NFDP is released.
3. It is ensured that FUG/FCA open bank accounts for FUEF (Fadama Users Equity Fund) savings and pay into such accounts immediately operation of activities commence.
4. There is efficient monitoring and evaluation as well as record keeping.

THE STUDY AREA

Ile-Ife is a town in Osun State, Southwestern Nigeria (Figure 1.1). It lies at the intersection of roads from Ibadan (40miles [64km] west), Ilesha and Ondo. Ile-Ife has an area of 111km²and a population of 167,254 at the 2006 population census. It has coordinates of latitude 7^o33’N to 7^o55’N and longitude 4^o32’E to 4^o53’E (Figure 1.2). It is one of the larger towns and probably the oldest town of the Yoruba people. It is considered by the Yoruba to be a holy city and the legendary birthplace of humankind. Ile-Ife is traditionally said to have been founded by a son of the deity Oduduwa and was certainly the capital of a well-established kingdom by the early 11^th century. Its traditional ruler is known as the Ooni (king) of Ife. According to the myth, the Ooni of Ife claims direct descent from Oduduwa and is counted first among the Yoruba kings. He is traditionally considered the 401^stSpirit (Orisha), the only one who speaks. Ife is home to both the Obafemi Awolowo University and the National History Museum of Nigeria. Ife Central is a Local Government Area in Osun State with its headquarters situated in the city of Ile-Ife.

Figure 1.1: Map Showing the LGAs in Osun State.

Source: National Space Research and Development Agency

Figure 1.2: Map Showing Ile-Ife

METHODOLOGY

Two sources of data which was used for this study. These include primary and secondary data. Primary data was obtained by the administration of structured questionnaires to interview respondents and physical observation. Secondary data for this study list of Fadama User Groups and list of Fadama Community Associations.

Sampling Procedure

The multi-stage sampling method was adopted. There are 7 Fadama Community Associations (FCAs) in the study area. The first stage involves selecting five FCAs randomly from the FCAs.

S/N	FCA	FUG	ACTIVITIES	COST OF PROJECT	LIFESPAN OF PROJECT
1	ADESANMI	Manna fish	Fishery	10,37,000	10 years
		Divine computer	Trading	3,50,000	5 years
		Alakowe piggery	Piggery	11,44,200	10 years
		Elekute fishery	Fishery	11,00,000	10 years
		Crown pig	Piggery	11,90,000	10 years
		Oduco fish	Pork production	10,97,100	7 years
		Igbehinadun cassava	Cassava growing	3,99,500	7 years
		Ife-oluwa traders	Trading	8,96,000	7 years
		Ireti Ayo PK	Palm kernel proc.		7 years
		Agbeloba fish	Fish production		7 years
		Grace fish	Fish prod & proc.	11,37,000	7 years
		Hope and grace	Chicken &egg prod	36,000	7 years
2	AGBEYEMI	Charity fish	Fish production	3,50,000	7 years
		Obalagbe women	Trading	3,99,000	5 years
		Ilare grace women	Trading	3,99,000	5 years
		Ilare blessing	Trading	3,99,000	5 years
		Asejere women	Trading	3,74,000	5 years
		God’s favor	Trading	3,98,000	5 years
		Toluwalase	Crop production	3,99,000	4 years
		Ogo-oluwa	Crop production	3,99,000	4 years
		Alaseyori women	Trading	3,98,400	4 years
		Executive	Poultry	2,55,000	7 years
3	AJEBAMIDELE	Iredapo poultry	Chicken &egg prod	13,45,000	7 years
		HR poultry	Chicken &egg prod	10,98,000	7 years
		Iranlowooluwa widows	Trading	3,50,000	5 years
		Victory petty traders	Trading	3,50,000	5 years
		Mercy fish	Fishery	3,60,000	7 years
		Owolowo poultry	Chicken &egg production	14,94,100	10 years
		Abagboro palm kernel	crop production	3,99,000	4 years
4	ELEFON	Oju-oluwa	Trading	3,97,000	5 years
		Ore-ofe women	Trading	3,99,600	5 years
		Aduragbemi	Trading	3,98,300	5 years
		Ibukun oluwa	Frozen foods trading	3,99,500	5 years
		Oke-ake palm kernel	Palm kernel nut prod.	3,96,250	7 years
		Miracle	Trading	3,97,000	5 years
		Goodnews women	Locust bean proc.	3,98,000	7 years
		Favor women	Trading	3,99,000	7 years
		Ooni-ilare women	Trading	3,99,000	7 years
		Abagboro fishing	Cat fish production	3,17,000	7 years
		Divine women	Trading	3,99,000	7 years
5	ERUOBODO	Aanu-oluwa poultry	Chicken &egg prod	10,84,600	10 years
		Ibukun-oluwa	Chicken &egg prod	8,00,000	8 years
		Blessing maize	Trading	3,91,500	5 years
		Api honey	Honey production		7 years
		oluwadunsin widows	Poultry production	4,00,000	7 years
6	IGBOYA	Oluwalose	Locust bean proc.	3,99,000	7 years
		Ede road maize	Trading	3,50,000	5 years
		Idoosun bee keepers	Honey production	5,39,000	5 years
		Glory petty traders	Trading	4,00,000	7 years
7	OPA	Divine favor widows	Trading	4,00,000	6 years
		Abagboro palm oil processing	Palm oil production	4,58,136	10 years
		IkoreNla fish	Fishery	6,29,750	10 years
		God’s hand bee keepers	Honey production	3,96,000	7 years
		Opa locust bean processors	Locust bean proc.	9,75,400	5 years
		Oluwadawapo bee keeping	Plantain plantation & honey prod.	9,41,500	7 years
		Moyinoluwawomem	Trading	11,00,000	4 years
		Ashe iddo	Chicken &egg prod	6,75,000	7 years
		Abagboro cassava	Pork production	11,09,500	7 years

The second stage involves the systematic selection of four Fadama User Groups each from the five Fadama Community Associations (FCAs) totalling 20 Fadama User Groups.

Selected Fadama Community Associations and Fadama User Groups
Adesanmi FCA	Elekute fishery, Crown pig, Oduco fish, Igbehinadun cassava
Ajebamidele FCA	Iredapo poultry, HR poultry, Iranlowooluwa widows, Mercy fish.
Eruobodo FCA	Ibukun-oluwa, Blessing maize, Aanu-oluwa poultry, Api honey.
Igboya FCA	Oluwalose, Ede road maize, Idoosun bee keepers, Glory petty traders.
Opa FCA	Divine favour widows, Abagboro palm oil processing, IkoreNla fish, Opa locust bean processors.

The third stage involves the random selection of 8 members each. Hence, a total of 160 questionnaires were administered to the user groups.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

Data collected were analysed using descriptive statistical methods.

Socio-Economic Characteristics of Respondents              

Information gathered on the socio-economic characteristics of the respondents comprises the gender, age, educational level, occupation, tribe, income and marital status of the respondents. Below is the information gathered on the socio-economic characteristics of the respondents.

Table 1

Gender	Frequency	Percentage
Male	120	75
Female	40	25
Total	160	100.0

Information on the gender of the respondents showed that Fadama farming in the study area is gender sensitive. The results as presented in Table 1revealed that majority (75%) of the respondents were male, while 25% of the sampled respondents were female. It can be implied that more males engaged in Fadama farming in the study area than their female counterparts.

Table 2

Age	Frequency	Percentage
20-29	40	25.0
30-39	45	28.2
40-49	50	31.3
Above 50	25	15.5
Total	160	100.0

Documented in Table 2 is the age of the respondents, the results revealed that majority of the sampled respondents are the active population. Proportion of respondents that represented the 40-49 age group accounted for 31.3%, while 28.2% represented the proportion of respondents that were between 30 and 39 years. Similarly, the proportion of respondents above 50 as well as those between 20 and 29 years accounted for 15.5% and 25.2% respectively. The implication of this result is that it shows majority of the respondents are within the active population class.

Table 3

Marital status	Frequency	Percentage
Single	17	10.6
Married	120	75
Widow	13	8.2
Divorced/separated	10	6.2
Total	160	100.0

As presented in the Table 3 above, findings revealed that the majority (75.0%) of the respondents were married household heads. Other household heads who were single and divorced accounted for 10.6% and 6.2% respectively. The proportion of household heads who were widows accounted for 8.2%.

Table 4

Educational level	Frequency	Percentage
Primary	22	13.8
Secondary	55	34
Tertiary	30	18.8
No formal education	29	18
Technical/vocational	24	15.4
Total	160	100.0

The result on the distribution of respondents by educational level is presented in Table 4. The study revealed that 34% of the respondents had secondary education. This accounted for the most among the sampled respondents. The proportion of respondents that had primary and tertiary education accounted for 13.8% and 18.8% respectively.15.4% represented the proportion of respondents with technical/vocational education. Respondents with no form of education accounted for 18.0%. Impliedly, respondents who engage in fadama farming have a decent level of education.

Table 5

Tribe	Frequency	Percentage
Yoruba	152	95.4
Hausa	3	1.7
Igbo	5	2.8
Total	160	100.0

Information on the ethnicity of the respondents is presented in Table 5. The results showed that the majority of the respondents who engaged in Fadama Farming were Yoruba people as they accounted for 95.4%. respondents from other tribes accounted for 4.5%. these include 1.7% from Hausa tribe and 2.8% from the Igbo tribe.

Table 6

Occupation	Frequency	Percentage
Agro-processing	95	59.4
Farming	25	15.6
Rearing animal	8	5
Poultry production	25	15.6
Fishing production	7	4.4
Total	160	100.0

The occupation of the respondents is documented in Table 6. Findings revealed that 59.4% of the respondents are involved in agro-processing. Those who were involved in farming and poultry production were both 15.6% of the sampled respondents. The proportion of respondents who were involved in rearing animals and fish production accounted for 5.0% and 4.4% respectively. This is an indication that agro-processing is the most common occupation respondents are engaged in.

Table 7

Period	Frequency	Percentage
Before FUG was registered	63	39.4
After FUG was registered	97	60.6
Total	160	100.0

As presented in Table 7, information on the number of people engaging in fadama farming before and after FUG was registered was sought in this study. Findings revealed that shows that 39.4% of the sampled respondents joined their respective Fadama User Groups (FUG) before the group was registered. Similarly, 60.6% of the respondents represented the proportion that joined their Fadama user groups after the group was registered.

Table 8

Income Group	Frequency	Percentage
Below ₦18,000	40	25
₦18,000- ₦28,000	80	50
₦29,000- ₦39,000	30	18.8
₦40,000 and above	10	6.2
Total	160	100.0

The income level of the respondents before they joined the Fadama programme was sought in this study. As documented in Table 9, the study revealed that 50% of the respondents receive an average monthly income between ₦18,000 and ₦28,000, while 25% of the respondents earns below ₦18,000. Furthermore, 18.8% of the respondents received a monthly income of between ₦29,000 and ₦39,000, while 6.2% of the respondents were earning above ₦40,000 before they joined the Fadama programme.

Table 9

Income Group	Frequency	Percentage
Below ₦18,000	Nil	Nil
₦18,000- ₦28,000	20	12.7
₦29,000- ₦39,000	95	59.4
₦40,000 and above	35	21.9
Total	160	100.0

Table 9 discussed the income of the users after joining fadama initiative. The study revealed that majority (59.4%) of the respondents received income within ₦29,000 and ₦39,000. The proportion of respondents who earned above ₦40,000 accounted for 21.9%. Similarly, 12.7% represented the proportion of respondents who earned between ₦18,000 and ₦28, 000 (Table 9). This analysis indicated that the respondents’ income before joining fadama was sparsely up to 40,000, but after joining Fadama there was a significant increase in their monthly income.

Table 10

Activities undertaken	Frequency	Percentage
Cassava Plantation	20	12.5
Leaf vegetables	5	3
Tomatoes/pepper	10	6.3
Maize	15	9.4
Oil palm processing	20	12.5
Fish production	10	6.3
Poultry (egg production)	30	18.8
Locust beans processing	50	31.3
Total	160	100.0

As shown in Table 10, 12.5% and 3.0% of the sampled respondents represented those who were into cassava farming& processing and cultivation of leaf vegetables. Proportion of respondents who were maize farmer accounted for 9.4%. Similarly, 12.5%, 6.3% and 18.8% represented those who were into oil palm processing, fish production and poultry. Other respondents who were into locust bean processing and tomatoes/pepper cultivation accounted for 31.3% and 6.3% respectively. From this, it is an indication that respondents explored various activities that could bring about all year food production.

Plate 1: Cassava plantation

Plate 2: Fish pond

Plate 3: Maize plantation

Table 11

Types	Frequency	Percentage
Income	80	50
Increase in food production	35	21.8
Car acquisition	10	6.3
Motorcycle acquisition	5	3
Building of house	10	6.3
Better exposure	10	6.3
Total	160	100.0

As shown in Table 11 above, the benefits derived from engaging in fadama farming was documented. The results revealed that 50% of the respondents benefitted from fadama farming in form of increased income. While 21.8% of the respondnets represented those who benefitted in form of increased food production. In the same vein, 6.3% and 3.0% accounted for those who benefitted through car and motorcycle acquisition respectively. Respondents who benefitted by building a house and having better exposure were 6.3% and 6.3% respectively. This implies that fadama farming have high potentials to improve the livelihoods of its users.

From the analyses so far, it can be established that the National Fadama Development Project (NFDP) has been a complete and veritable package that has occasioned a Community-Driven Development (CDD) approach to rural socioeconomic development and rural dwellers capacity building. It is an initiative that enhances farmers’ open attitude and the willingness of the government authorities to share, influence and partner with citizens using the CDD approach. Hence, creating jobs through the value chain process and thereby reducing poverty as well as offering opportunities to rural dwellers to earn a sustainable livelihood. More specifically, the Fadama program in Ife Central Local Government has increased the socioeconomic status of the participating rural farmers in the communities. Furthermore, the study revealed that the program has been appreciable and impactful on the farmer’s income generation.

CONCLUSION

Fadama farming plays a crucial role in promoting agricultural productivity, income generation, enhancing food security, employment opportunities, environmental conservation and fostering community development in areas like Ile-Ife. Embracing and supporting fadama farming initiatives can lead to sustainable rural development and improved livelihoods for local communities, while also contributing to broader national food security goals.

REFERENCES

1. African Development Fund (ADF) (2003). A Republic of Nigeria Fadama Development Project, Technical Appraisal Report.
2. Ajayi C.O.A. (2001). The role of adult education in rural poverty alleviation in Nigeria. A long essay submitted to the Department of Adult Education, University of Nigeria, Nssuka, 10-33.
3. Akinbile, L.A. (2007). Agricultural technology development and dissemination in Nigeria. Faculty of Agric and Forestry, University of Ibadan.
4. Akinbile, L.A.; M.A. Oladoja; F.M. Awoniyi and B.O. Adisa, (2006). Effects of community participation on perception of sustainability of rural water projects in Oyun Local Government Area of Kwara State, Nigeria.
5. Amadia, C., Nwanyanwub, H., Amadic, N. and Nkorod, E. (2019). Evaluation of national Fadama III development project: Catalysim for rural development in Rivers State, Nigeria. Bussecon Review of Social Sciences, Vol., 1 (1).
6. Baba, K.M. and Singh, B.R. (1998). Sustainable Development of the Fadama Lands of Northern Nigeria. A review of the potential and challenges in Nigeria. Journal of rural sociology.
7. Daudu, S. (2008). Determinants of role performance effectiveness among facilitators in the second National Fadama Development Project in Nigeria. A PhD thesis presented to the Department of Agricultural Extension, University of Nigeria, Nssuka.
8. Dick, R.M.; Gregorio, M.D. & McCarthy, N. (2004). Political institutions and development: Failed expectations and renewed hopes, Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, Massachusetts, USA.
9. Ekong, F.E. (1996). Effect of climate and weather on food crops in Nigeria. Macmillian Press Limited.
10. Ekong F.E. (2003). An introduction to rural sociology. Second edition, Dove Educational Publisher, 80 Wellington Bassey way, Uyo, Nigeria, 209.
11. Emielu, S.A. (2000). Geography of modern Nigeria.
12. Iheanacho, A.C.; Abaja, A. &Harina, L. (2007). Beneficiating assessment of the second National.
13. Fadama Development Project: A draft report submitted to State Fadama Development Office (SFDO).
14. Ike P.C. (2012). An analysis of the impact of Fadama III project on poverty alleviation in Delta State, Nigeria, Asian Journal of Agricultural Sciences.
15. International Development Agency, (2010). Funding Fadama Projects in Nigeria.
16. Kparmeng, T. &Esu, I.E. (1990). Characteristics and agricultural land-use of Fadama soils in the savanna region of Nigeria. 11: 116 – 131.
17. Kwawuvi, D. and Yangouliba, G.L. (2023). Urbanization, Changed Lifestyles and Environmental Sustainability in Accra, Ghana. Where is the Balance? A Review. Ethiopian Journal of Environmental Studies & Management 16(1): 44 – 59. Doi: https://ejesm.org/doi/v16i1.4.
18. Kudi A.M.; Ani, S.O. and Oredipe, A.A. (2002). Poverty reduction and increased productivity through empowerment.
19. Ladele, A.A. and O.A. Omotoso, (2000). Some features of city farming in two Nigerian cities, Ibadan and Ilorin agricultural extension and poverty alleviation in Nigeria. Proceedings of the Agricultural Extension Society of Nigeria, 17-21.
20. Momoh, S.; Fakoya, E.O.; GbadamosiLasun; Oladapo Tunde; Salawu, R.A. and Onasanya, I.A. (2007). Beneficiary impact assessment of second National Fadama Development Project in Ogun state- A Technical Report.
21. National Population Commission (2006). National Population Commission Census Figure, Nigeria.
22. Nengparmoi T., Gohain, T., Devi, M. and Anal, H. (2023). Sustainable Agriculture: Principle, Concepts and Challenges.
23. Okechukwu, E.O. (2011). Co-operative business, principles and practice.
24. Oladoja, M.A.; B.O. Adisa and A.O. Adeokun, (2008utions of Fadama farming to household food security amongst youth in rural communities of Lagos State, Nigeria.
25. Olabomia, R., Ogundolab, J., Yakubuc, A, Abimbola G, Adetorob, V and Nwubanib, O. (2021). Sustainable Agricultural Infrastructure and Development of Rural Economy in Nigeria. Socio Economy and Policy Studies. DOI: http://doi.org/10.26480/seps.02.2021.72.78.
26. Olaniyi, A.O; Ajiboye, A.; Adegbite, B.A. & Abdullah, A.M. (2011). Comparative assessment of the impact of National Fadama Development Project on beneficiaries’ welfare in Nigeria.
27. Olubunmi, A.O. (2005). Rise and fall of the Yoruba race.
28. Oriola E.O. (2009). A framework for food security and poverty reduction in Nigeria, European Journal of Social Sciences.
29. Patel, S. (2023). Sustainability of Sustainable Agriculture. Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research (JETIR), Vol., 10 (8).
30. Pandolfelli, L.; Meinzen-Dick, R. &Dohm, S. (2007). Gender and collective action: A conceptual framework for analysis. Collective Action Working Paper.
31. Singh, B.R. (1990). Fertility and salinity/solidity status of Fadama soils in north-western Nigeria (Kebbi state), Nigeria Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, 8:1-14.
32. Singh, B.R. & Baba, G.A. (1990). The Fadama Soil of University Farm, Nigeria Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, 4:29–30.
33. World Bank (1996). Project Appraisal Development (PAD) for the second National Fadama Development Project, Unpublished Document