ABSTRACT
Irrigated agriculture provides a very important part of
national food security strategies as
well as individuals’ and communities livelihoods at the
local level. Yet the performance
of many irrigation and drainage systems in Nigeria is
generally below potential due to a
variety of shortcomings. The monopolistic nature of the
sector and its social sensitivity
has fostered extensive government intervention that has not
always been conducive to
financial sustainability. Insufficient cost recovery and
lack of direct linkages between
revenue and expenditure, and between the client and the
service agency are the root of the
problems resulting to lower performance. Globally, there is
a consensus for irrigation
sector reform to increase water productivity, bothering on
the institutional structure for
irrigation management and the incentives for agencies and
farmers. These reforms
suppose that irrigation water is to be priced and that
farmers will have to pay for the cost
of water supply and related services. While such
arrangements are important, some
questions arise: would it work in situations where the
physical infrastructure is
dilapidated; user ability to pay is severely constrained by
macro-economic factors; market
concepts and institutions are absent or in their infancy;
and capability in both
management and regulation is limited.
These concerns informed the need for this study.
The broad objective of this study was to analyze the
financing and sustainability of irrigated agriculture in the Lower Anambra
(LAIP) and Lower Benue (LBIP) Irrigation Projects. The specific objectives of
this study were to (i) describe the sources and volume of investment;(ii)
determine levels of cost recovery achieved, (iii) analyze the institutional and
management patterns of irrigated farming in the two schemes; (iv)describe
gender participation in the schemes; (v)Describe gender division of farm decision
making and performance of activities; (vi) measure resource productivity and
enterprise profitability in both schemes; (vii) determine farmers willingness
to pay for
irrigated agriculture ; and (viii) Identify the
socio-economic factors that influence their willingness to pay.Data for this
study was collected mainly through focus group discussion and administration of
structured questionnaire to farmers randomly selected from the two projects. In
the LAIP, a total of 143 farmers were randomly selected for the interview,
while in the LBIP a total of 33 farmers were randomly selected and interviewed.
In both schemes key management and technical staff were also
interviewed.
Information collected includes socio-economic
characteristics of farmers like educational
status, income, age, years of experience; institutional and
management patterns of
irrigated farming; farmers’ input costs and output price
data, and amount they are willing
to pay for improved water service. Data collected was
analyzed using frequencies,
percentages, gross margin, financial self-sufficiency
indicator, Cobb-Douglas Production
function, and Tobit regression model.The LAIP scheme is not
able to sustain itself for
operation and maintenance as the financial self-sufficiency
indicator is 0.60. In both
projects, the major interests identified by the farmers
include water quality, quantity and
availability and also timely maintenance and repair of
irrigation infrastructure. Headship
of household was indicated by 81.81% of the respondents in LAIP
as a factor affecting
access to land in the project. Another major factor is
community membership which was
indicated by 79.29% respondents. Major farming decisions
like leasing land, fertilizer and
pesticide use, were taken by male heads of households. The
Cobb -Douglass production
function analysis showed that for the LAIP rice enterprise
the variables that are
significant are fertilizer, seed and land; with seed being
negatively related to output. The
overall F-Value of the regression was significant at 5%
leading to a rejection of the null
hypothesis that resources used in the production do not
significantly influence the output.
Seed, Land and fertilizer were significant in the analysis
of potato production in LBIP