4.2 Simulations and Analysis
4.2.1 Synthesized Model Device Utilization
The findings from this study made it to concludes that Fadama GEF project has impacted positively on beneficiaries of the project. The estimation of the total impact of the GEF project on Fadama GEF beneficiaries compared with Non GEF Non Fadama beneficiaries clearly reveals this fact. The GEF project had a large impact on the change in the level of expenditure of beneficiaries when compare to the non beneficiaries with a net impact of N8667
The project was able to exceed expectations in the area of establishing watershed management coordination capacity in at least 60 percent of participating state and having sustainable watershed management practices mainstreamed into LDP in at least 35percent of participating states.
Fadama GEF beneficiaries experienced higher impact in the area of how capacity building, Integrated Ecosystem Management, Sustainable land Management and Monitoring and Evaluation component of the project affect their livelihood than the Fadama and Non Fadama Non GEF beneficiaries. The effect of capacity building on livelihood felt by Fadama GEF includes enhanced yield and savings and better agricultural practices and afforestation. Provision of better water source leading to enhanced productivity was the impact that Integrated Ecosystem Management components had on livelihood. Anticipated enhanced income from sale of firewood and increase in land use for planting of trees were the key impact that sustainable land management had on livelihood, while group formation was the main contribution of Monitoring and Evaluation to Livelihood. There is therefore a need to integrate the gains from these four components to complement each for in order to achieve better results for the project.
Fadama GEF respondents’ level of empowerment in all the seven identified areas seems to be at the same level with Fadama respondents after the implementation of Fadama GEF project. This can be attributed to the well organized M&E components of the project as well as the robust contribution of SWS to the project. Fadama and Non Fadama Non GEF were however better empowered in the seven identified empowerment areas before the implementation of Fadama GEF project. Fadama GEF respondents were better empowered in the area of awareness on
UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY
97
sustainable land management, up scaling sustainable land management practices and sustainable water management practices. The Fadama GEF project therefore needs to improve on empowerment of its beneficiaries in the other empowerment areas such as training on decision making; Funds transfer procedure and procurement procedures.
State and Local Government Areas in the six participating states allowed for proper use of functioning and Institutional arrangement as documented in the project manual. Local Government Areas also extended necessary institutional support expected from them to the projects. However the area of improvement expected of State and Local government Area in terms of institutional support as suggested by project staff include assisting the SFCO and the LFDO with funds outside PAD guidelines especially when necessary, Provision of funds to support vulnerable and poor groups to pay their beneficiaries’ contributions and mainstreaming FCAs into LGA decisions making process.
More than 50% of Fadama GEF beneficiaries are ready to continue with all sub projects after the support of GEF/CEMP World Bank support. Community Forest, Grass cutter, snailry, woodlot and Orchards were the subproject high in their response profile in terms of willingness of respondents being ready to continue with the project after the support of the world Bank. Key reasons adduced for highly rating projects in terms of sustainability (especially for sub projects such as Grass cutter, snailry, Woodlot, Orchard and Apiary) include enhanced income potential of sub project, High productive capability of subproject, low technical requirement of sub project and sub project being easy to manage. The lesson learnt from this finding is that sub projects must be managed in such a way that beneficiaries finds it very easy to manage, must be highly productive with income enhancing potentials and not too technical to manage in order to guarantee sustainability.
Higher proportion of Fadama GEF farmers confirmed that erosion has reduced considerably when compared to the responses of other categories of non beneficiaries of GEF. GEF project however did not have significant impact on the beneficiaries of Fadama GEF as regards achieving significant reduction in Soil erosion when compared to non beneficiaries. CEMP/GEF project however had significant impact on the beneficiaries of GEF as regards achieving significant reduction in bush burning when compared to non beneficiaries. There is therefore the need to put in place trainings that will make GEF project have significant impact on Fadama
UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY
98 GEF farmer in the drive to reduce soil erosion.
Things to be put in place to make the SWS functions go beyond the funding period of GEF /World Bank include SWS members being retrained and more technical staff of Fadama project being injected into the SWS and be trained . Suggestion were also put forward that SWS members should be trained in their area of specialization locally and internationally, while the forestry department were expected to make provision for other related ministry in the SWS to implement SLM and water resources management in order to sustain the implementation of these sub-projects after the GEF project. Finally the four selected subprojects, Apiary, Teak woodlot, Grass cutter and Sheep were estimated to be feasible projects in terms of remuneration with Apiary having the highest remuneration over the five year analytical framework.
UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY
99
Appendix
Table A: Estimated Cost and Returns from Establishing and Operating Apiary for Production of Honey S/
N
ITEMS QUANTITY UNIT
COST (N)
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
1 Hive (60x120cm) 10 6500 65000
2 Hive stand (steel) 10 2800 28000
3 Bee suit (Large) 2 8000 16000
4 Veil 2 1800 3600
5 Smoker 2 3500 7000
6 hive tool 2 1500 3000
7 rain boot 2 3000 6000
8 Brush 2 600 1200
9 plastic buckets 10 1000 10000
10 processing machine 1 38000 38000
11 swarm catcher 2 3000 6000
12 Cutlass 1 800 800
13 1 litre plastic container 100 containers for the 1st year; 120 for other years
100 10000 12000 12000 12000 12000
14 gloves (2 pairs each of rubber and woolen gloves)
4 600 2400 2400 2400 2400 2400
15 Knife 2 600 1200
16 Bait 10 1200 12000
17
transportation (of hives, stand and swam catchers to the site;
10 hives 10 stands 2 swam catchers
200 200 100
2000 2000 200
18 fortnight inspection of 24 visits 500 12000 12000 12000 12000 12000
UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY
100 hives
19 transportation of harvested honey
140 litres in the 1st year; 200 litres in others
20 2800 4000 4000 4000 4000
20 labour for spot weeding of hive site (3x/annum)
3 manday 2000 6000 6000 6000 6000 6000
21 firetracing of 5m round the apiary
3 manday 2000 6000 6000 6000 6000 6000
22 Sub total 241200 42400 42400 42400 42400 24120
23 Contingency (10%) 24120 4240 4240 4240 4240 24120
24 Grand total 265320 46640 46640 46640 46640 26532
Returns (N) from honey yield
25 average honey yield of 7 litres /hive for the 1st year and average of 10 litres/ hive in subsequent years harvestable
2x/annum @N1200/litre for 10 hives
168000 240000 240000 240000 240000 240000
Table B: Discounted Cash Flow Analysis for Apiary for Honey Production Year Cost (N) Benefit (N) D.F at 16%
prime lending rate
PVC (N) PVB (N)
1 265320 168000 0.86 228724.14 144827.6
2 46640 240000 0.74 34661.118 178359.1
3 46640 240000 0.64 29880.274 153757.8
4 46640 240000 0.55 25758.857 132549.9
UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY
101
5 46640 240000 0.48 22205.911 114267.1
Total 451880 1128000 341230.3 723761.5
NPV = 723761.5-341230.3 = 382531 B/C = 2.12
UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY
102
Table C: Discounted Cash Flow Analysis for 3x3m Teak Woodlot for Pole Production Year Cost (N) Benefit (N) D.F at 16% prime
lending rate
PVC (N) PVB (N)
1 716111 177780 0.86 615855.5 152890.8
2 157300 177780 0.74 116402 131557.2
3 157300 177780 0.64 100672 113779.2
4 66000 0.55 36300 0
5 66000 0.48 31680 0
6 66000 0.41 27060 0
7 66000 0.35 23100 0
8 66000 0.31 20460 0
9 33000 0.26 8580 0
10 33000 0.23 7590 0
11 33000 0.20 6600 0
12 33000 4000000 0.17 5610 680000
Total 1492711 4533340 999909.5 1078227
NPV = N1078227 - N 999909.46 = N 78317.74 B/C = 1.08
UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY
103
Table D: Estimated Cost and Returns from the Establishment of Grasscutter Farm with Start Up Size of Two Families
S/N ITEMS QTY UNIT
COST (N)
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4
1 Site clearing and excavation for
foundation LS LS 15000
2 Supply and laying of 150mm blocks as side walls/main partition for
grasscutter pen and plastering 40 2000 80000
3 Supply and erection at the frontages of the hutches a 600mm x750mm
steelburglary proof 12 5000 60000
4 Supply and erection of
600mmx750mm burglary proof as
partition between the hutches 12 5000 60000
5 Casting of reinforced concrete as 100mm slab between the upper and lower layers and as roof on the upper
layer of the grasscutter house 3 24000 72000
6 Erection of 3mx5mx7m high wire
gauze fence+door+padlock LS LS 50000
7 Casting of mass concrete on the
surrounding floor of 3mx5mx0.1m 2 24000 48000
8 Padlocks for the hutches 8 400 3200
9 Breeding stock (2 families comprising
2bucks, 8 does) 2 28000 56000
10 Feed concentrates 24 3000 72000 108000 162000 243000
UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY
104
11 fodder transportation /month 12 1000 12000 18000 18000 36000
12 Cassava feeds/month 12 1500 18000 27000 40500 60750
13 Drugs
(Antibiotics+multivitamins)/month 12 1500 18000 27000 40500 60750
14 Deep well (water) LS LS 50000
15 Water and feed trough 2 350 700
16 weighing balance 1 3500 3500
17 rain boot 1 1100 1100
18 Cutlass 1 750 750
19 bucket (metal) 1 700 700
20 Rake 1 750 750
21 broom, packer, waste bin, bowl 1 400 400
22 water container 1 3500 3500
23 Shovel 1 800 800
24 wheel barrow 1 8000 8000
25 Sacks 12 250 3000
26 Glove 6 300 1800
27 Labour wages/month 12 5000 60000 60000 120000 180000
28 Total 699200 240000 381000 580500
29 10% contingency 69920 24000 38100 58050
30 GRAND TOTAL
UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY
769120 264000 419100 638550105
Table E: Returns from a Grasscutter Farm with a Start up Size of Two Families
S/N ITEMS QTY UNIT
COST (N)
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4
1 Revenue from cropping of 5 adults from the first filial
5 4000 20000
2 Revenue from cropping of at least six families from the second filial
6 25000 150000
3 Revenue from cropping of 10 adults from the second filial
10 4000 40000
4 Revenue from cropping of at least six families from the third filial
6 25000 150000
5 Revenue from cropping of 10 adults from the third filial
10 4000 40000
6 Total Revenue for year II 400000
7 Revenue from cropping of at least six families from 4th filial
6 25000 150000
8 Revenue from cropping of 10 adults from the 4th filial
10 4000 40000
9 Revenue from cropping of 17 families and 15 adults from 5th filial
17 25000 425000
10 Revenue from cropping of 15 adults from the 5th filial
15 4000 60000
11 Revenue from cropping of at least 6 families from 6th filial
6 25000 150000
12 Revenue from cropping of 10 adults from the 6th filial
10 4000 40000
13 Revenue from cropping of at least 6 families from the 7th filial
6 25000 150000
UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY
106
14 Revenue from cropping of 10 adults from the 7th filial
10 4000 40000
15 Revenue from cropping of the parent stock (10 adults)
10 6000 60000
16 Revenue from cropping of 2 families from the 1st filial
2 25000 50000
17 Total Revenue for year III 1165000
18 Revenue from cropping of at least 6 families from 8th filial
6 25000 150000
19 Revenue from cropping of 10 adults from the 8th filial
10 4000 40000
20 Revenue from cropping of at least 6 families from the 9th filial
6 25000 150000
21 Revenue from cropping of 10 adults from the 9th filial
10 4000 40000
22 Revenue from cropping of at least eight families from the two fawnings (10th filial) of the 3rd filial
6 25000 150000
23 Revenue from cropping of 10 adults from the 10th filial
10 4000 40000
24 Revenue from cropping of at least 6 families from the 11th filial
6 25000 150000
25 Revenue from cropping of 10 adults from the 11th filial
10 4000 40000
26 Revenue from cropping of at least 6 families from the 12th filial
6 25000 150000
27 Revenue from cropping of 10 adults from the 12th filial
10 4000 40000
UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY
107
28 Revenue from cropping of at least 6 families from the 13th filial
6 25000 150000
29 Revenue from cropping of 10 adults from the 113th filial
10 4000 40000
30 Revenue from cropping of at least 6 families from the 14th filial
6 25000 150000
31 Revenue from cropping of 10 adults from the 14th filial
10 4000 40000
32 Total Revenue for year IV 1330000
PRODUCTION SCHEDULE FOR THE GRASSCUTTER YEAR 1:
Parent Stock: 2 Families (10 grasscutter)
The parent stock will give birth once in the first year. Production of the parent stock is once in the first year because the animals need time to acclamatize to the new environment.
On the assumption that one Doe(female animal will give birth to an average of four kids at a time, the eight does in the two families of parent stock are expected to give birth to 32 kids. Assuming a mortality rate of 20%, there will be 25 kids left out of the 32. The25 animals are regarded as 1st Filial
YEAR 2:
The parent stock (2 Families) will give birth twice in the second year to 50 kids. These 50 animals will be regarded as 2nd Filial.
On the assumption that there will at least be 4 bucks in the 25 kids (Fisrt Filial) produced by the parent stock, there will be at least four families (20 animals) in the first Filial. Being relatively young, it is assumed that each of the four families will give birth at once to produce a total of 50 kids since 2 families will produce on the average 25 kids less the mortality. These 50 animals are regarded as 3rd
UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY
108
Fillial. So at the end of second year, it is expected that there should be 135 animals comprising 10 parent stock, 25 first filial, 50 each for third and fourth Filial.
YEAR 3:
The parent stock will give birth twice to 50 kids less mortality. These 50 kids are regarded as 4th Filial The four families of the first fillial will give birth twice to a total of 100 kids. These 100 animals are regarded as 5th Filial
Two families retained from 2nd Filial will give birth twice to 50 kids. These 50 animals are regarded as 6th Fillial
Two families retained from 3rd Fillial will give birth twice to 50kids. These 50 animals are regarded as 7th Fillial
So at the end of third year, it is expected that there should be 305 animals comprising 10 Parent Stock, 25 from 1st fillial, 10 retained from 2nd fillial, 10 retained from 3rd fillial, 50 from 4th fillial, 100 from 5th fillial, 50 from 6th fillial and 50 from 7th filial
YEAR 4:
Two families retained from 1st fillial will give birth twice to 50 kids. These 50 animals are regarded as 8th fillial
Two families retained from 2nd fillial will give birth twice to 50 kids. These 50 animals are regarded as 9th fillial
Two families retained from 3rd fillial will give birth twice to 50 kids. These 50 animals are regarded as 10th fillial
Two families retained from 4th fillial will give birth twice to 50 kids. These 50 animals are regarded as 11th fillial
Two families retained from 5th fillial will give birth twice to 50 kids. These 50 animals are regarded as 12th fillial
UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY
109
Two families retained from 6th fillial will give birth twice to 50 kids. These 50 animals are regarded as 13th fillial
Two families retained from 7th fillial will give birth twice to 50 kids. These 50 animals are regarded as 14th fillial
Table F: Discounted Cash Flow Analysis for Grasscutter Farming with a Start Up Size of Two Families Year Cost (N) Benefit (N) D.F at 16% Prime Lending Rate PVC (N) PVB (N)
1 769120 - 0.86 661443.2
2 264000 400000 0.74 195360 296000
3 419100 1165000 0.64 268224 745600
4 638550 1330000 0.55 351202.5 731500
Total 2090770 2895000 1476230 1773100
NPV = N1773100 - N 1476230= N296870.3 B/C = 1.20
UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY
110
Table G: Estimated Cost and Returns from Rearing of 30 Males and 10 Females of Balami Sheep
S/
N
ITEMS QTY UNIT
COST (N)
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
1 Procurement of 30 balami males for fattening 30 10000 300000
2 Procurement of 10 balami females for breeding 10 10000 100000
3 Shed and feed barn Aldx roofing sheet) 60m2 LS 150000
4 Wooden Feeding troughs (60x180cm) 10 3500 35000
5 Drinking troughs (plastic) 10 600 6000
6 Salt lick 10 2000 20000 6000 6000 6000 6000
7 Well for water 1 LS 50000
8 vet care LS 5000 5000 5000 5000 5000
9 Transportation of sheep from point of purchase to where they are kept for rearing)
40 200 8000
10 Feeding of 30 males who can take maximum of 1 kg of feed/day for 6 months
5400 30 162000
11 Feeding of 10 females who can take maximum of 1 kg of feed/day for 6 months
1800 30 54000 54000 54000 54000 54000
12 Feeding of the 2 retained males who can take maximum of 1 kg of feed/day for 6 months
360 30 0 10800 10800 10800 10800
13 Feeding of 12 kids @1/2 the feeding rate of the adults
1080 30 32400 32400 32400 32400 32400
14 Total 922400 108200 108200 108200 108200
15 Contigency 92240 10820 10820 10820 10820
16 Grand Total 1014640 119020 119020 119020 119020
17 RETURNS
UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY
111
18 Sales of 28 fattened male balami sheep 28 30000 840000
19 Sales of at least 12 animals 12 20000 240000 240000 240000 240000
Table H: Discounted Cash Flow Analysis for Sheep Rearing Year Cost (N) Benefit (N) D.F at 16% prime
lending rate
PVC (N) PVB (N)
1 1014640 840000 0.86 872590.4 722400
2 119020 240000 0.74 88074.8 177600
3 119020 240000 0.64 76172.8 153600
4 119020 240000 0.55 65461 132000
5 119020 240000 0.48 57129.6 115200
Total 1490720 1800000 1159429 1300800
NPV = 1159429 – 1300800 = 141371.4 B/C = 1.12
UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY
112 REFERENCES
Andiwa lake watersheds Strategic and baseline studies/survey(2008),. Final report submitted to the National Fadama Development Office, No 2 Sakono Crescent, Wuse11, Abuja.
Cedar Grove Management Consultants (2008). Final report on the Strategic and Baseline Studies / Survey of Eriti Watersheds, Ogun State, Nigeria. Submitted to National Fadama Development Office Second National Fadama Development Project, No 2 Sakono Crescent, Wuse11, Abuja.
Clarke, P. and Jupiter, S. (2010): Principles and practice of ecosystem-based management: A guide for conservation practitioners in the tropical western pacific.
Critical Ecosystem Management Project: Final Mid-Term –Review 2009.
De Commission on Ecosystem Management: www.icn.org/about/union/commission/cem (8th November 2010).
Ecosystem Management:
http://www.unep.org/ecosystemmanagement/Introduction/tabid/293/Default.aspx ( 9th of November 2010).
Geodata and Environmental Options Limited (2008). Final Report on ‘Strategic and Baseline Studies/Survey of Koton-Karfe Watersheds’. Submitted To National Fadama Development Office- Critical Ecosystem Management Project (NFDO-CEMP).
Heckman, J., H. Ichimura, J. Smith, and P. Todd. (1998). “Matching as an econometric evaluation estimator.” Review of Economics and Statistics 86(1): 4-29.
Midterm Report on GEF/CEMP (2009); Submitted To National Fadama Development Office- Critical Ecosystem Management Project (NFDO-CEMP)
Nkonya, E.; Dayo, P.; Tewodaj, M.; Kuta Yahaya, M., Adewale, G.; Pender, J.; Arokoyo, T. and Kato, E. (2007). Beneficiary Assessment/Impact Evaluation of the Second National fadama