1 / 10

Ephraim Nkonya, IFPRI April 13-16, 2009

Impact evaluation of Fadama II project in Nigeria: Lessons learnt. Ephraim Nkonya, IFPRI April 13-16, 2009 Impact evaluation of Agricultural CDDs in Africa, Addis Ababa Ethiopia. Outline of presentation. Program description Focus areas for the evaluation

dutch
Download Presentation

Ephraim Nkonya, IFPRI April 13-16, 2009

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Impact evaluation of Fadama II project in Nigeria: Lessons learnt Ephraim Nkonya, IFPRI April 13-16, 2009 Impact evaluation of Agricultural CDDs in Africa, Addis Ababa Ethiopia. Page 1

  2. Outline of presentation • Program description • Focus areas for the evaluation • An ideal evaluation strategy & constraints that led to the adoption of the chosen evaluation strategy • Other implementation challenges • What did we learn from the evaluation about the program? • How has this informed policy? 8/23/2014 – Page 2

  3. Fadama II project • Fadama II was a community driven development (CDD) project, whose effective implementation started in 2005. Project designed to run for 6 years (2004 – 2009) • Covered 12 states, supporting six components • Project achieved significant progress in the first three years and was therefore elevated to the third phase three years ahead of time. • Fadama II targeted the poor, vulnerable (women, people living with HIV/AIDS, the elderly, people with disabilities, the youth, etc) • The project supported: productive asset acquisition, rural infrastructure development, demand-driven extension services, natural resource conflict resolution 8/23/2014 – Page 3

  4. Focus area of evaluation • Quantitative methods to conduct impact of Fadama II on: • Household income • Productive asset acquisition • Rural infrastructure • Demand-responsive advisory services • Using qualitative and simple statistical methods, conducted impacts of Fadama II on: • Conflict resolution • Communication • Capacity building Page 4

  5. Ideal evaluation strategy & constraints that led to an alternative method • As observed in previous presentations, social experiment is the ideal strategy. • We could not use the social experiment approach outlined above due to the following constraints: • Project placement was already determined before impact assessment was done. Page 5

  6. Constraints that led to using alternative method • Baseline data collected before the project started did not cover the control group and lacked key data required to measure some outcomes • Hence conducted only one survey, after the project implementation has started. Used recall memory to collect baseline data • To overcome the selection bias and placement bias), we used matching methods and double difference (difference-in-difference) approaches • Took a large sample size 3756 but only 50% of these matched Page 6

  7. Measuring spillover • Due to development of rural infrastructure and other services that can be used by non-beneficiaries, Fadama II project had significant spillover to non-beneficiaries. • To capture spillover, we took two a sample of two control groups: Fadama II beneficiaries Non-beneficiaries in Fadama II communities Non-benecifiaries outside Fadama II communities Page 7

  8. What have we learnt from Fadama II project? Some key results • Targeting of the poor and vulnerable was successful for asset acquisition component : • Women private asset value increased 32% and group assets increased by 1565%. Value of men’s private asset increased by 75% but the value of their group assets increased by only 331% • Value of asset acquisition of the poorest increased more than any other poverty group • Well-targeted and involvement of people reveals the potential that the CDD have Page 8

  9. What have we learnt from Fadama II impact assessment? • The impact of the project on the income of the poorest and women was not significant – due to the large investment that the beneficiaries had to commit to participate in the project. • The lagged impact of the productive asset acquisition will be larger – hence the need to do a follow up impact assessment. • There was spillover of Fadama II to non-beneficiaries • Income of non-beneficiaries in Fadama II communities increased by 6% compared to non-beneficiaries outside Fadama II communities Page 9

  10. How has Fadama II impact evaluation informed policy? • Design of Fadama III was based on Fadama II evaluation. Following are the key elements that used the impact assessment: • The outcome indicator adjusted from 20% increase for 6 years for 50% of beneficiaries to 40% increase for 75% of beneficiaries • Credit provision is one of the Fadama III services to ensure sustainability of the project • Government investment in Fadama III scaled to cover all states – to replicate the success story reported in the impact evaluation • Food security strategy is using Fadama II results Page 10

More Related