1
ASSESSING THE VULNERABILITY OF FADAMA (FLOODPLAIN) AGRICULTURE TO
CLIMATE VARIABILITY AND CHANGE:
A CASE STUDY OF SEMI-ARID NORTHERN NIGERIA
By
Daniel Davou DABI (Ph.D)
Department of Geography & Planning, Faculty of Environmental Sciences
University of Jos, P.M.B. 2084 Jos, Nigeria.
E-mail: davoo65@yahoo.com
ABSTRACT
Floodplain (fadama) agriculture is critical to survival and economic development in the rural areas of
semi-arid Northern Nigeria. This area is experiencing significant climatic and anthropogenic changes
that have exacerbated the food insecurity in the region. Most floodplains in this area are suffering
from declining rainfall which has forced farmers to shift their attention to floodplain agriculture. The
dependence of nomadic herdsmen on this resource (Fadama) brings about additional pressure,
competition even conflict. These renewed pressures, coupled with the possibility of an increase in
drought occurrences as projected by the Third Assessment Report of the IPCC, could spell disaster
for the sustainability of floodplain agriculture and food security in the region. The paper investigates
the vulnerability of floodplain agriculture in the Hadejia River valley in north central Nigeria to the
effects of droughts, the risks that fadama farmers are exposed to and how they can adapt. Primary
data were collected by means questionnaires, participatory rural appraisal, and focus group
discussions, augmented with secondary data. The paper describes and analyses current vulnerability
of Fadama agriculture in the area. It also evaluates current coping strategies and suggests effective
adaptation measures to reduce the vulnerability of farming households. Results show that almost all
farmers in the area are male household heads working together with household members. Two
household types were identified: (i) farmers that use ground and surface water and employ a
combination of traditional methods and new technologies (tube wells and water pumping machines)
and (ii) those that use surface water released by government from a barrage (dam) by means of
gravity. The former category of farmers, although find difficulty in carrying out their activities, in
terms of cost of pumping water and other inputs, are less vulnerable because they have some amount
of control over their sources of water and they can also use residual moisture along floodplains after
the rainy season. This gives them the advantage of cultivating a greater variety of crops and even a
second crop using residual moisture at the end of the rainy season, in addition to rain-fed (first) crop
and irrigated (third) crop. Conversely, the later category, suffer from occasional delay in the release
of water from the barrage and are restricted to a limited variety of crops. However, both categories
have developed coping strategies during past and present droughts. They are also willing to adapt
some and even new strategies as adaptation measures against future droughts.
2
INTRODUCTION
Background
Floodplain agriculture is critical to survival and economic development in the rural areas of
Sahel West Africa. Semi-arid Northern Nigeria, like the entire West African Sahel, is experiencing
significant climatic and anthropogenic changes that have exacerbated the food insecurity in the
region rendering poor rural households more vulnerable. Following widespread failure of large-scale
irrigation projects throughout much of Sub-Saharan Africa, many policy makers, stakeholders and
donor agencies have become convinced that the security offered by floodplains could become the
basis for rural economic transformation and food security in semi-arid Africa, as they contribute
significantly to domestic food production (Adams and Carter, 1987; Morgan and Solarz, 1994;
Vaishnav, 1994).
Whereas, rain-fed agriculture lasts about three months, floodplain (fadama)1 agriculture is
practiced throughout the dry season, which may last from six to nine months. The floodplains support
residual moisture agriculture at the end of the rainy season and small-scale irrigation during the dry
season, thus providing opportunities for agricultural diversification not found in the uplands, and
allowing for double, or even triple cropping during one year.
During the past two decades, however, most floodplains in semi-arid northern Nigeria have
come under severe pressure from several sources. First, rainfall has been declining in the area
(Anyadike, 1993; Hess etal, 1995) especially since after the “jump point” which lies after the predrought2 period before 1964 and during the drought period between 1964 and 1972 (Tarhule and
Woo, 1998). This change, which increased the vulnerability3 of rain-fed agriculture, has caused many
farmers to shift their attention to fadama agriculture (Adams, 1986; Kimmage, 1991; Dabi and
Anderson, 1998). Declining rainfall has also led to water scarcity in the more arid regions, which
were used by nomadic herdsmen for grazing their herds during the dry season. Now, these herdsmen
routinely spend the entire dry season in the semi-arid region, bringing added pressure and
competition on fadama resources, principally, alluvial aquifers but also the surrounding land in the
area.
Secondly, widespread acknowledgement that the Green Revolution Initiative of the 1970’s
failed to ensure food security in Sub-Saharan Africa, compelled policy makers to shift attention away
from the large-scale government irrigation projects to fadama agriculture. For example, in Northern
Nigeria, funding by the World Bank facilitated the drilling of thousands of tube wells in floodplains
and the distribution of petrol-driven irrigation pumps at subsidized prices to farmers to stimulate
adoption of irrigated agriculture (World Bank, 2001). Such large-scale investment in small-scale,
floodplain irrigation sanctioned by the World Bank, illustrates the extent of the expectation that
policy makers have come to place on alluvial aquifers. But these investments have increased pressure
on the floodplains. This pressure coupled with the possibility of an increase in drought occurrences as
Turner (1985, p. 18) defined fadama as “land seasonally flooded or waterlogged.” Fadama has also been
defined as “low lying land seasonally inundated due to water intrusion (naturally or artificially and can be used
for the cultivation of irrigated crops” (Dabi and Anderson, 1998).
1
“Drought is a normal, recurrent feature of climate... Drought originates from a deficiency of precipitation
over an extended period of time, usually a season or more. This deficiency results in a water shortage for some
activity, group, or environmental sector.” Conceptually, drought is seen as a “protracted period of deficient
precipitation resulting in extensive damage to crops, resulting in loss of yield.” (National Drought Mitigation
Center, 2005).
2
3
Several definitions of vulnerability and adaptation are found in the literature and have been summarized in
Huq et al (2003).
3
projected by the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC), could spell disaster for the sustainability of floodplain agriculture and food security in the
region (IPCC, 2001).
Study Area
The study area is the Hadejia River valley stretching from the Kano area through Hadejia and
Nguru to Gashua and covering an area of about 4,000 ha of farmland. About 8,000 farmers from
different village areas are engaged in some form of fadama farming along this river valley which
forms part of the Hadejia-Jama’are – Yobe River Basin (see Figure 1). The entire Basin covers an
area of 45,000 km2 and is situated in semi-arid Northern Nigeria. The three main rivers in the Basin
are the Hadejia, Jama’are and Yobe rivers. The Hadejia and Jama’are meet in the Hadejia-Nguru
Wetlands to become the Yobe River. The traditional farming system in the Basin, particularly in the
downstream areas is flood farming. This flood farming depends on residual moisture for the second
crop while rainfed farming is relied upon for the growth of the first crop. Since the early 1980s,
small-scale irrigation which pumps water from the river and floodplain (shallow wells) has been
stimulated in the basin through subsidies (see for example Adams, 1986; Kimmage, 1991; Dabi and
Anderson, 1998), permitting the introduction of the third crop during the dry season, while
intensifying the cultivation of the second. A combination of these activities has increased the
productivity and income of farmers in the area.
The choice of the study area is hinged on three main factors. First, background data on
important hydro-geologic variables (e.g. stream flow stage and discharge, water level measurements,
and meteorological data) for the floodplain exist from prior research conducted in the area by the
researcher and other collaborators. Second, rapport has already been established and maintained with
the local inhabitants since 1994 and particularly, 2003; this will be critical in assuring participation
by villagers in project design, data collection, and monitoring. Third, the entire Hadejia-Jama’are –
Yobe River Basin is a very important economic hub, with about 800,000 fadama farmers engaged in
all year round crop production. The all-year round agricultural production, besides providing steady
income to the rural populace, encourages the retention and attraction of productive labour force into
the rural areas, thereby enhancing productivity and development in the rural areas as well as checking
rural-urban migration with all its attendant problems.
The adverse impact of climate change in the economic sustainability of this area, is therefore of
great importance. For example, the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC, 2001) emphasised the need for the assessment of the impact of climate
change on food and agricultural production.
For the case study, two areas were selected – Bunkure and Hadejia areas. Two villages from
each area were then selected. In Bunkure area, Zangon Buhari and Barkum villages were selected.
Zongon Buhari has an ‘organized system’ that uses surface water released from a barrage (dam) in a
network of canals for irrigation. Contrary, Barkum has a ‘traditional system’ that uses surface and
groundwater from natural sources (tributary streams) for irrigation. Similarly, in Hadejia area, Matsa
and Gamsarka-Zimoni villages were selected. Matsa has a ‘traditional system’ while GamsarkaZimoni, an ‘organized system’. These two farming systems are considered here as two distinct
household typologies. Consequently, the two household types (traditional and organized) formed the
basis of the study (unit of enquiry). These subdivisions are necessary in other to make comparisons
between household types and between locations. Varying the household types according to farming
system will reveal the level of vulnerability of each category to farm inputs, especially water
availability, especially during and after drought events.
4
Figure 1: Study Area
OBJECTIVES
The aim of this study is to investigate the vulnerability of floodplain agriculture to the potential
effects of future climate change, particularly droughts, and how the farmers can adapt to such
climatic hazards. The study will focus on the risks that fadama farmers are exposed to under current
climate conditions, the way they adapt to such risks, and the possible variations in these adaptations
that might arise in the face of global environmental change, especially further decline in rainfall
leading to droughts, reduction in stream flow, lowering of groundwater levels, and increased water
scarcity for livestock and humans. Understanding the relationships that have evolved to cope with
current climate hazards is a critical first step in identifying possible adaptations to manage future
climate risks. Therefore, the study will analyse current vulnerability and evaluate current adaptation
strategies to determine their present and potential future effectiveness in reducing this vulnerability.
This aim can be achieved through the following specific objectives:

To determine how farmers are experiencing the impacts of drought in the floodplains;

To document farmers’ past and current coping strategies to climate variability and change and
to evaluate the success of the current measures that have been adopted to cope with drought;

To determine which of the coping strategies or measures fadama farmers are willing to adopt in
an event of future droughts in the light of global environmental change.
METHODOLOGY
The objectives of the present study will be met by documenting past and current coping
strategies and analysing the current coping strategies of farming households in the floodplain area in
the face of increasing incidence of drought. The household is the main unit of analyses. The analysis
will compare the two household typologies (traditional and organized) among the four villages and
between the two study areas.
The method of study involved the stages enumerated below:
5





An extensive literature search to conceptualize the study and to develop appropriate survey
and analytical tools;
A “transect walk” in the study area that facilitated the selection of the two sample villages from
the two study areas (sites). The sample villages were selected based on the following criteria:
(i) a concentration of fadama farmers within a fairly closed section of the basin; (ii) existence
of organized and traditional systems with well demarcated farm plots; (iii) their proximity to
sources of secondary data; and (iv) ease in communication with farmers and accessibility to the
farm plots;
A reconnaissance survey during which arrangements were made for data collection including
visits to sources of information, selection of keys informants (community/religious leaders,
household heads, a few farmers, Local Government representatives, and other stakeholders),
development of the survey instrument (questionnaire), and selection of samples from two
farming systems (i) The traditional irrigation system in which local farmers use stream
(surface) water, direct from source and groundwater pumped with water pumping machines to
irrigate their crops and (ii) The organized irrigation systems in which local farmers are
provided with surfaced water from a barrage (reservoir) released through a main canal,
distributory and field channels;
Field data collection (questionnaire survey and focus group discussions – FGDs). The field
survey was carried out with the farming household as the unit of analysis (see Stephen and
Downing, 2001). The questionnaire was the major tool for data collection. The questionnaire
designed for data collection is divided into six sections as follows:
(a) Identification and demographic characteristics;
(b) Educational attainment and employment (income generation economic activities);
(c) Drought history and environmental concerns (vulnerability);
(d) Impacts of droughts (and water availability) on Fadama (floodplain) agricultural
activities;
(e) Impacts of droughts (and water availability) on household livelihood; and
(f) Coping strategies and Adaptation.
The questionnaires were administered to a sample of fifty (50) farmers randomly selected from
each of the four communities (villages). This gives a total of 200 questionnaires in all. Effort
was made to include farmers in different age groups (20 to 49 years and 50 years and older).
Both male and female respondents were considered but it was not possible to get a gender
balance because only a few females participated as a result Islamic religion restrictions on
women (the purdah system). The focus group discussions (FGD) with 10 to 12 members were
conducted for the two areas separately, irrespective of farming system (household type). The
FGD, were conducted by the researcher (as facilitator) with the two earlier research assistants
taking the notes (see Ney, 2002);
Data analysis at this stage only involved the documentation, evaluation and description of
farmer responses to the questions asked in the questionnaire as well as comments generated
during the focus group discussions (FGD). This was done using descriptive statistics including
frequencies, percentages and averages (means) and presented on tables and graphs (figures).
Furthermore, the several coping strategies identified from the questionnaire administration and
focus group discussions were analyzed to ascertain appropriate adaptation measure against
future droughts based on farmer knowledge and preferences, using a participatory rural
appraisal (PRA) technique (see Kidd, et al. (1991), Walker, et al, (2002), Roncerel, et al,
(2003), and Downing (2004)).
6
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Demographic and Socioeconomic Characteristic of fadama farmers
Demographic characteristics
In Zangon Buhari, there were 47 males and only 3 females (females are not usually allowed to meet
with strangers because of the religious restriction called pudah). Respondents were between the ages
of 25 years and 93 years. 48% were less that 50 years and 52% of them were 50 years and above. All
but one of the respondents was married. The unmarried respondent is an elderly woman who is now a
widow. Majority (46%) of those married had two wives. The highest category of respondents (34%)
had between 5 and 9 children. Majority (62%) of them had between one and four other dependants.
The highest category (34%) of respondents had household sizes of between 10 and 14 members. This
is closely followed by those who had between 5 and 9 members (28%). From the 50 households
interviewed, there are 650 members with an average household size of 13 people.
In Barkum, There were also 47 males and only 3 females between the ages of 20 years and 80 years.
44% were less that 50 years and 56% of them were 50 years and above. Almost all the respondents
were married except the elderly women who participated that are widows. Majority (60%) of the
married respondents had two wives. The highest category of respondents (30%) had between 10 and
14 children. The highest category (38%) of respondents had between one and four dependants. The
highest category (30%) of respondents had household sizes of between 15 and 19 members. This is
closely followed by those who had between 10 and 14 members (26%). From the 50 households
interviewed, there are 968 members with an average household size of about 19 people.
All respondents in Matsa were males between the ages of 20 years and 80 years. 60% were less that
50 years and 40% of them were 50 years and above. Almost all the respondents were married but
one. Majority (54%) of the married respondents had two wives. This is followed by those with one
wife (36%). The highest category of respondents (44%) had between 5 and 9 children. The highest
category (38%) of respondents had between one and four dependants. This is closely followed by
those (34%) who did not have dependants. The highest category (38%) of respondents had household
sizes of between 10 and 14 members. This is closely followed by those who had between 15 and 19
members (20%). From the 50 households interviewed, there are 819 members with an average
household size about 16 people.
While in Gamsarka-Zimoni, all respondents were males between the ages of 21 years and 70 years.
54% were less that 50 years and 46% of them were 50 years and above. All the respondents here
were married, majority (56%) of whom had two wives. This is followed by those with one wife
(32%). The highest category of respondents (44%) had between 5 and 9 children. The highest
category (42%) of respondents had between one and four dependants. This is followed by those
(26%) who had ten or more dependants. The highest category (28%) of respondents had household
sizes of between 10 and 14 members. This is closely followed by those who had between 5 and 9
members (26%). From the 50 households interviewed, there are 713 members with an average
household size about 14 people. Barkum had the highest household size followed by Matsa,
Gamsarka-Zimoni and lastly Zangon Buhari.
Educational status of respondents
Most (86%) of the respondents in Zangon Buhari had Koranic education, one had no formal
education, four with primary and two with secondary education. Most those in Barkum (72%) had
Koranic education, four had no formal education, eight with primary and two with secondary
education. For the respondents in Matsa, most of them (76%) of the respondents had Koranic
7
education, one had no formal education, ten with primary education and one with secondary
education. Whereas those in Gamsarka-Zimoni, a little less than half (48%) had Koranic education,
only eight had no formal education, 15 with primary education and three with secondary education.
Major source of income
Generally speaking, agriculture (farming and animal husbandry) is the major economic activity for
most people in the study area. For Zangon Buhari, the major source of income for a majority of the
respondents (72%) is farming. Few others are traders (8%), while the remainder provide off-farm
labour or do some crafts as artisans (20%). Most (78%) of the farmers are engaged in a combination
of rainfed and irrigated farming, producing the first crop and third crop respectively. (The second
crop is cultivated at the end of the rainy season using residual moisture and when the first is maturing
and awaiting harvesting). Only two (4%) practice irrigation farming alone and nine others (18%)
farm only in the wet seasonal. Those engaged in rainfed and irrigated agriculture, work during both
seasons and spend between eight to twelve months of the year farming. The others work during any
of the seasons and spend only about four months of the year working off-farm. Most of the farmers
(38%) earned between N50,000 and N99,000 from farming at the end of the season. This is followed
by those who earn between N10,000 to N49,000 in a season, accounting for 22%. A reasonable
percentage (14%) of the respondents earn more than N200,000 at the end of the farming season.
Farmers in this community earn as much as N 4,233,600 at the end of the farming season. This gives
an average income of about N84,600 per household.
Similarly, in Barkum, the major source of income for a majority of the respondents (74%) is farming.
A few others are traders (4%), while the remainder provide farm labour or do some crafts as artisans
(22%). Almost all (90%) of the farmers are engaged in a combination of rainfed and irrigated
farming. Only two of them (4%) practice irrigation farming alone and three (6%) farm only in the
wet seasonal. Farmers earned reasonable income from farming. The highest category of the farmers
(26%) earned up to N200,000 and more at the end of the farming season. This is followed by those
who earn between N10,000 to N49,000 in a season, accounting for 20%. A reasonable percentage
(16%) of the respondents earn between N50,000 and N99,000 at the end of the farming season.
Farmers in this community earned as much as N7,045,450 at the end of the farming season with an
average household income of about N140,900.
In Matsa also, farming is the major source of income for most of the respondents (78%). A few
others are traders (12%), while the remainder provide farm labour or do some crafts as artisans
(10%). Almost all (88%) of the farmers are engaged in rainfed and irrigated farming. Only two (6%)
of the farmers practice irrigation farming alone while three (6%) farm only in the wet season. These
earned the highest category of the farmers (32%) between N10,000 and N49,000 at the end of the
farming season. This is followed by those who earned between N50,000 to N99,000 in a season,
accounting for 22%. A reasonable percentage (16%) of the respondents earn between N100,000 and
N149,000. Farmers in this community earn as much as N 4,189,000 at the end of the farming season
and gave an average income of about N83,700 per household.
While in Gamsarka-Zimoni, even a greater majority of the respondents (88%) have farming as their
major source of income. Very few are traders (2%), with the remainder engaged in farm labour and
off-farm activities (craftsmen and artisans) accounting for only 10%. Virtually all (98%) of the
farmers are engaged in rainfed and irrigated farming. Only one (2%) practice irrigation farming alone
and none farm only in the wet seasonal. Their major economic activity earned them a lot of income.
The highest category of the farmers (48%) earned N200,000 or more at the end of the farming
season. The next higher category earned between N100,000 to N149,000 in a season, accounting for
18%. A reasonable percentage (16%) of the respondents earn between N50,000 and N99,000. In
8
total, farmers in this community earned as much as N 10,201,000 with an average income of about
N204,000 per household. This high income can be attributed to contribution of five farmers who
earned large sums. Four earned as much as half a million and one earned up to one million.
Other sources of income
Most respondents from the four villages have additional (secondary) sources of income from
activities undertaken during the wet and/or dry season. In Zangon Buhari, majority (62%) do some
kind of trading and other off-farm jobs for additional income from which they generated some
income. A majority of the respondents (45.6%) earned between N10,000 and N49,000, followed by
those who earned less than N10,000. Only two persons (2.5%) earned more than N200,000 from
secondary sources of income.
Similarly, majority of respondents (62%) in Barkum do some kind of trading and other off-farm jobs
for additional income from which most of them (about 46%) earned between N10,000 and N49,000.
This is followed by those who earned less than N10,000. Only two persons (2.5%) earned more than
N200,000 from secondary sources of income.
On the other hand, a higher percentage of the respondents (68%) in Matsa are engaged in trading and
other off-farm jobs for additional income. These earned them between N10,000 and N49,000 for a
majority of the respondents (about 54%). The next category earned between N50,000 and N99,000.
But as in the case of Barkum, only two persons (1.4%) earned more than N200,000 from secondary
sources of income.
Lastly, respondents in Gamsarka-Zimoni also earned income from secondary activities. However, a
lower percentage of the respondents (54%), compared to the other three villages trade and do other
off-farm jobs for additional income. Consequently, less income is generated from these sources. A
small majority of respondents (39.7%) earned between N10,000 and N49,000 from these other
sources. This is followed by those who earned between N50,000 and N99,000.00 (22.1%).
Incidences of Drought and Impacts on Fadama Farming
Farmers’ experience of drought
All respondents from the four communities agreed that they have observed changes in rainfall.
However, the nature of observation and experience vary from one community to another. In Zangon
Buhari, almost all of the respondents (98%) indicated that they have observed a decrease. However,
only one person representing only 2% of respondents indicated an increase. These changes were
observed within the last three decades (1974 to 2003) with the highest frequency being in 1984,
followed by 1985. These dates coincide with the drought period of 1984/85.
In Barkum, most of the respondents (88%) indicated that they have observed a decrease. However,
six persons representing 12% of respondents indicated an increase in rainfall in the area. These
changes were observed within the last four decades (1964 to 2004) with the highest frequency being
in 1985, followed by 2003. These dates also coincide with the drought period of 1984/85 and another
in 2003/2004.
In Matsa, most of the respondents (88%) indicated that they have observed a decrease as the case in
Barkum. However, six persons representing 12% of respondents indicated an increase in rainfall.
These changes were observed within the last four decades (1963 to 2004) with the highest frequency
9
being in 2004, followed by 1985, then 2003. These dates also coincide with the drought period of
1984/85 and another in 2003/2004.
Finally, in Gamsarka-Zimoni, most of the respondents (80%) indicated that they have observed a
decrease in rainfall. However, six persons representing 20% of respondents indicated an increase in
rainfall. These changes were observed within the last four decades (1963 to 2004) with the highest
frequency being in 2004. This date coincides with the drought period of 2003/2004.
Table 1 summarizes farmers’ observations with changes in rainfall and other indicators of water
availability.
Table 1: Number of respondents who have observed changes in water availability
Changes observed
Total rainfall
Time of onset
Time of cessation
Frequency of events
Intensity of events
Level of groundwater
Timing of recharge
Timing of discharge
Level of stream flow
Recharge of stream flow
Discharge of stream flow
Frequency of floods
Total number of
observations
Percentage (%)
Zangon Buhari
Decrease Increase
49
1
28
19
29
16
34
7
31
8
17
31
27
17
25
19
32
8
34
6
32
8
34
4
372
72.1
144
27.9
Barkum
Decrease Increase
44
6
26
20
20
23
42
3
41
4
30
17
31
10
18
23
36
11
40
5
19
25
37
5
384
71.6
152
28.4
Matsa
Decrease Increase
44
6
23
8
7
20
27
6
29
2
21
9
21
9
5
25
18
16
10
16
10
15
8
28
223
58.2
160
41.8
Gamsarka-Zimoni
Decrease Increase
40
6
34
6
7
33
40
3
40
1
11
11
14
9
7
16
13
29
10
13
17
9
11
28
244
59.8
164
40.2
From the table, it can be observed that in Zangon Buhari, There was a decrease in water for all the
observations made, except for the level of groundwater. This shows a general decline in water
availability, which coincided with the drought periods of 1984/85 and 2002/2003 noted by the
respondents. In Barkum, There was also a general decrease in water for all the observations made,
except for time of cessation of rainfall, as well as timing of discharge of groundwater and stream
flow. This also shows a general decline which coincided with the drought periods of 1984/85 and
2002/2003. In Matsa, again, there was a general decrease in water for all the observations made,
except for time of cessation of rainfall and timing of discharge of groundwater. There was also an
increase in recharge and discharge of stream flow and frequency of floods. This general decline in
water coincided with the drought periods of 1984/85 and 2002/2003/2004. While in GamsarkaZimoni, there was a general decrease in water for all the observations made, except for time of
cessation of rainfall, timing of discharge of groundwater, level of stream flow, recharge of stream
flow, and frequency of floods. This general decline in water coincided with the drought period
2002/2003/2004.
Whereas in the more southerly locations, Zangon Buhari and Barkum decreases in water availability
with less frequencies of floods were observed, in the more northerly locations, Matsa and GamsarkaZimoni, although there were decreases in water availability, there were increases in the incidences of
floods. However, this was perhaps superseded with increased frequencies in flooding. This may be
attributed to the fact that these two locations are at the downstream section of the River Hadejia.
10
These fluctuations between water shortages and excesses certainly affected farming activities in the
area. If such conditions prevail in the future, fadama farming will surely be affected due to droughts
and flood insurgences.
Other environmental problems affecting fadama farming
Farmers were asked to rank environmental problems as they affect their farming activities. The
outcomes are summarized on Table 2 below.
Table 2: Ranking of environmental problems in the study area
Environmental
Problem
Decline in rainfall
Dust storms
Desertification
Deforestation
Soil erosion
Decline in soil moisture
Declining soil fertility
Loss of biodiversity
Total
No of respondents that rank each problem
Zangon Buhari
Barkum
Matsa
Gamsarka-Zimoni
1st 2nd 3rd 1st 2nd 3rd 1st 2nd 3rd 1st 2nd
3rd
19
6
2
34
7
1
36
9
2
37
5
1
2
3
3
1
3
5
2
2
8
1
8
7
1
3
9
0
3
4
3
1
1
1
5
2
5
4
3
0
4
1
1
1
5
0
0
3
3
4
6
2
3
11
0
4
6
0
2
3
4
11
6
2
8
12
0
3
9
3
4
11
4
6
5
4
11
7
6
26
4
2
19
1
0
1
4
1
3
2
1
0
2
0
1
14
38
38
38
44
42
43
49
46
37
44
44
42
The table demonstrates an assessment of respondents' ranking of environmental problems. Whichever
environmental problem has more respondents in any rank category, it is selected as the dominant
rank in that category. In Zangon Buhari, declining rainfall is ranked 1st by the majority. Therefore,
declining rainfall is considered as the most serious problem. This is followed by decline in soil
moisture (which is drought related) and then desertification in a descending order of severity. In
Barkum, Therefore, declining rainfall is considered as the most serious problem followed by decline
in soil fertility and declining soil moisture. These rankings are similar to those of Zangon Buhari. In
Matsa, declining rainfall is the most serious problem. This is followed by declining soil fertility, then
declining soil moisture. Lastly, in Gamsarka-Zimoni, declining rainfall is also the most severe
environmental problem. This is followed by declining soil fertility and declining soil moisture.
From all villages, declining rainfall ranked 1st meaning that it is a common problem in the Hadejia
river floodplain. This is confirmed by the ranking of other problems which are quite similar among
the four villages.
Definition of drought from farmers’ perspectives
Farmers’ definition of drought also followed a similar pattern as seen on Table 3.
Table 3: Farmers' definition of drought
Definition
Lack of rain
Shortage of rain during rainy
season
Lack of water
Cessation of rain during rainy
season
Zangon Buhari
Freq
%
6
12
Barkum
Freq
%
26
52
Matsa
Freq
%
13
26
Gamsarka-Zimoni
Freq
%
34
68
24
3
48
6
13
3
26
6
10
18
20
36
11
1
22
2
10
20
5
10
1
2
1
2
11
When rainfall starts and stops
midway and crops dries due to
lack of water
Lack of both rain and
underground water
Total
5
10
2
4
5
10
2
4
2
50
4
100
1
50
2
100
3
50
6
100
1
50
2
100
From Table 3 above, farmers’ definitions were concentrated as follows: In Zangon Buhari, almost
half of the farmers (48%) defined drought as shortage of rain during the rainy season followed by
those (20%) that defined it as cessation of rain during the rainy season. In Barkum, most of the
farmers (52%) defined drought as lack of rain followed by those (26%) that defined it as shortage of
rain during rainy season. In Matsa, most of the farmers (36%) defined drought as lack of water
followed by those (26%) that defined it as lack of rain. Yet a reasonable percentage (20%) that
defined it as shortage of rain during rainy season. While in Gamsarka-Zimoni, Most of the farmers
(68%) defined drought as lack of rain followed by those (22%) that defined it as shortage of rain
during the rainy season.
From these definitions, it is almost certain that farmers have a fair conceptualization or understanding
of what drought is and its effects.
Vulnerability to drought
Farmers were also asked to indicate the level of dependence or vulnerability of their activities to
drought. Their responses and observations are presented on Table 4 below.
Table 4: Farmers' vulnerability to drought
Extent
Entirely dependent
Partially dependent
Neutral (Not sure)
Very slightly dependent
Not dependent at all
Total
Zangon Buhari
Freq
%
7
14
19
38
20
40
1
2
3
6
50
100
Barkum
Freq
%
17
34
26
52
5
10
1
2
1
2
50
100
Matsa
Freq
%
33
66
3
6
6
12
5
10
3
6
50
100
Gamsarka-Zimoni
Freq
%
35
70
8
16
3
6
4
8
0
0
50
100
In Zangon Buhari, most farmers (40%) in this area were neutral about their vulnerability to drought.
This is closely followed by those (38%) who believed that they are partially dependent (vulnerable)
to drought. This may be attributed to the fact that they are located more southerly or because they
rely on water released from the barrage (dam). In Barkum, most farmers (52%) believed that they are
partially vulnerability to drought followed by those (34%) who believed that they are entirely
dependent (vulnerable) to drought. This may be attributed to the fact that Barkum is located further
north than Zangon Buhari and the people of Barkum rely on natural sources of water (stream flow
and groundwater).
In Matsa, majority of farmers (66%) in this area believed that they are entirely dependent
(vulnerability) to drought. This is followed by those (12%) that are neutral about the dependence of
their activity to drought. This may also be attributed to the fact that they are located further north than
Zangon Buhari and even Barkum. Secondly, fadama farmers in this area are also dependant on
natural sources of water (stream flow and groundwater). While in Gamsarka-Zimoni, majority of
farmers (70%) in this area believed that they are entirely dependent (vulnerability) to drought
followed by those (16%) that thought their activities are partially dependent on drought. This may
also be attributed to the fact that Gamsarka-Zimoni are located further north as Matsa, although the
12
fadama farmers in this area are also dependant on water supplied from the barrage (dam) through
canals.
However, all the farmers (from the four villages) agreed that water is necessary for farming,
especially during droughts which they have all experienced. A majority of the farmers (44%) in
Zangon Buhari experienced the drought in 1984. Other droughts they experienced were in1976,
1982, 1984, 1985, 1986, 2002, 2003, and 2004 and most of them (58%) also agreed that the most
devastating drought was in 1984. In Barkum, farmers were more diverse in their experience of
drought. Majority of them (18%) experienced the drought of 1984, followed by those of 2000 and
2003 (16% each), then 1985 (14%). A greater majority (30%) also agreed that the most devastating
drought was in 1984. This is closely followed by those (28%) who believe that the drought of 1985
was the most devastating.
Similarly, in Matsa, a majority of the farmers (30%) experienced the drought in 2004, followed by
those the experienced it in 1985 (16%), then 1983 (14%). A greater majority (36%) also agreed that
the most devastating drought was in 1985. Although this does not conform to the majority that
experienced the 2004 drought, it conforms to the next, 1985. While in Gamsarka-Zimoni, the story is
fairly different. Most of the farmers (70%) experienced the drought in 2004, followed by those the
experienced it in 1985 (6%). Albeit, a smaller majority of the farmers (24%) agreed that the most
devastating drought was in 2004. This is closely followed by those that believed the 1983 drought
was devastating (20%), then 1985 (18%). These observations conformed to the majority that believed
the 2004 drought was the most devastating. The devastating effects of the droughts are shown on
Figure 2.
50
Number of Respondents
45
40
35
Crops dried up and destroyed
30
25
Food scarcity and starvation
20
Reduction in quantity of food
intake
15
10
5
0
Zangon Buhari
Barkum
Matsa
Gamsarka-Zimoni
Name of Village (Community)
Figure 2: Devastating Effects of Drought
From the figure above, it is obvious that the devastating effects of drought vary from one community
to the other. For example, in Zangon Buhari, where farmers rely on surface water channelled from a
barrage (dam), almost all the farmers (92%) indicated that the most devastating effect of the drought
was that their crops dried up and were destroyed. But in Matsa, a community that depends on both
surface water and groundwater, the effects are fairly (almost evenly) distributed.
13
However, for all communities, the most devastating effect of droughts experiences by fadama
farmers was that their crops dried up and destroyed. The next effect that cut across all communities is
food scarcity and starvation. Reduction in quantity of food intake (including skipping of meals) was
less intense in all villages.
Coping with Drought
Coping with drought depends on the severity of the stressors or level of vulnerability and the
resilience or decisions and/or actions farmers may take to minimise the impacts. The myriad of
decisions taken by farmers were documented and are discussed in the subsequent sections.
Major decisions taken to cope with drought
Farmers from the different villages took a variety of decisions to cope with the most devastating
drought. Figure 3 shows the variations in farmer decision.
Number of Respondents
35
30
25
20
Migrated
15
Irrigated
10
Off-farm labour
Prayed
5
Sold Assets
0
Zangon Buhari
Barkum
Matsa
Gamsarka-Zimoni
Name of Village (community)
Figure 3 Major Decisions Taken to Cope with Drought
From the figure, it can be observed that in Zangon Buhari, majority (52%) of farmers sold their assets
in order to cope with the drought. This is followed by those (28%) who intensified irrigation (fadama
farming) in order to cope. In Barkum, farmers were moderate in their decisions. Majority of the
farmers (28%) intensified irrigation (fadama farming), followed by those who migrated (24%), then
those that embarked on off-farm labour and trade (20%) in order to cope. In Matsa, half (50%) of
farmers migrated (in search of jobs, money and food) in order to cope with the drought. This is
followed by those who intensified irrigation (20%) and those who embarked on off-farm labour and
trade (16%). While in Gamsarka-Zimoni, more than half (58%) of farmers intensified irrigation in
order to cope with the drought, followed by those who migrated (22%). A reasonable proportion of
the farmers embarked on off-farm labour and trade (16%) in order to cope.
It can be seen that all four villages had different major strategies to cope with drought. However,
irrigation was the first in Barkum but second in the other three villages. This signifies the importance
14
of irrigated (fadama) farming in the Hadejia River Valley. The main reasons for their decisions are
the need to feed their families for those that intensified irrigation or sold assets and to look (search)
for money and food for those that migrated or embarked on off-farm labour.
Almost all farmers from all four villages (81%, 100%, 86%, and 84% of farmers in Zangon Buhari,
Barkum, Matsa, and Gamsarka-Zimoni respectively) agreed that the will make decisions based on the
same reasons, should another drought occur.
Assistance and Advice for farmers during and after drought
Farmers expect assistance from family members, neighbours, the community, government, and nongovernmental organizations. The basic assistance they require from these bodies is food but in some
cases, fertilizer (and other farm inputs), money and prayer. They also require advice as to what to due
after a drought event. They seem not to be familiar with the need to plan against a future occurrence.
Fewer farmers had ever received advice in order to cope with a drought or prepare against another.
Figure 4 shows the extent of lack of information dissemination in the area.
50
Number of Respondents
45
40
35
30
25
Yes
20
No
15
10
5
0
Zangon Buhari
Barkum
Matsa
Gamsarka-Zimoni
Name of Village (community)
Figure 4 Receipt of Assistance or Advice by Farmers
\
From the figure, it is obvious that majority of farmers received neither assistance nor advice. For
example, in Zangon Buhari and Barkum in Bunkure area of Kano State, very few farmers received
any advice or assistance from any agency on how to prepare for or cope from a drought. The few
received advice from the Kano State Agricultural Development Authority (KNADA), Kano State
Corporative (KASCO) and government extension workers. The assistance offered included most
especially food (grains), clothes, shelter, money, and farm inputs (fertilizers, pesticides, seeds). These
advice and assistance were given during the drought years, 1984 to 1988, especially in 1984 in
Zangon Buhari; as well as some of the drought years, 1975, 1985, 1987, 1998, 2000 and 2002 in
Barkum.
15
Matsa and Gamsarka-Zimoni in Hadejia area, Jigawa State had faired better in term is receipt of
advice and assistance although majority did not receive any. For those that received, the assistance
came from the government organizations including Jigawa Agricultural and Rural Development
Authority (JARDA), the radio and extension workers as well as community development
associations. Most of the assistance and advice were offered very recently (2000, 2001, 2002, 2004
and 2005) and included food stuff, farm inputs, cash loans and a water pump.
Existing plans in an event a drought occurs very soon
As far as existing plans in an event of another drought, there is variation among the four villages.
Most of the farmers had existing plans to cope in the future in an event of another drought. A few
farmers, however, did not have any existing plan for coping with drought in the near future but to
pray. Such attitude may be attributed to their level of education or lack of access to information (e.g.
warning signs). Figure 5 below illustrates some of the variations among farmers in respect to future
plans to cope with drought.
Number of Respondents
45
40
35
30
25
20
Yes
15
No
10
5
0
Zangon Buhari
Barkum
Matsa
Gamsarka-Zimoni
Name of Village (community)
Figure 5 Existing Plans in an Event of another Drought
In Zangon Buhari, most farmers (64%) have no existing plans. Only a few (36%) have existing plans.
But for such group of farmers, prayer was their main reason or plan in an event of another drought. In
Barkum, however, the opposite is the case since majority of the farmers here (82%) have existing
plans. Only 18% of them have no existing plans. There is a similar trend in Matsa and GamsarkaZimoni with 64% and 60% of farmers respectively, having existing plans.
Major strategies to cope with future droughts
For the group of farmers who had existing plans, such plans are considered as coping strategies.
Figure 6 below shows some of the major strategies farmers plan to adopt in an event of another
drought soon.
16
30
Number of Resondents
25
20
Migrate
15
Intensify irrigation
10
Off-farm labour
Prayer
5
Store food
0
Zangon Buhari
Barkum
Matsa
Gamsarka-Zimoni
Name of Village (community)
Figure 6 Major Strategies to Cope with Future Drought
From the graph, it can be observed that the existing plans or coping strategies vary from one village
to the other. In Zangon Buhari for example, fewer farmers had existing plans. Majority of the farmers
(33%) plan to commit the problem to prayers in an event of another drought. This is closely followed
by those that plan to intensify irrigation (28%) and embark on off-farm labour (22%). In Barkum
however, more farmers have planned coping strategies. Majority of them (59%) plan to intensify
irrigation in an event of another drought. This is followed by those (20%) that plan to commit the
problem to prayers. This is a departure from the first village where fewer farmers have plans.
Matsa and Gamsarka-Zimoni have similar plans, with intensification of irrigation topping the list in
each case with 41% and 80% respectively. Both villages have corresponding strategies tailing plans
to intensify irrigation. These are plans to migrate (22%) and to embark on off-farm labour (22%) for
Matsa 7% for each case in Gamsarka-Zimoni.
Impacts of Droughts on Fadama (Floodplain) Agricultural Activities
Majority of farmers in the Hadejia river valley own land ranging from 0.2 hectares to as much as 35
hectares for both irrigated and rainfed agriculture. A few may rent land from others or use
community land. Some portion of this land is dedicated for irrigation (fadama) farming, especially
land located along the floodplains of stream channels (tributaries) of the Hadejia River. Land located
along the dam canals are particularly used for irrigation. The reason why farmers may dedicate land
or want to intensify irrigation farming in the floodplains (fadama) will depend on access to surface or
groundwater as well as the the impacts of drought on their activities. Table 5 presents data on land
dedicated for fadama farming in the study villages.
Table 5 Area extent of land under irrigation (fadama) farming
Farm size (ha)
Zangon Buhari
Freq
%
Barkum
Freq
%
Matsa
Freq
%
Gamsarka-Zimoni
Freq
%
17
Less than 1
1 - 1.99
2 - 2.99
3 - 3.99
4 - 4.99
5 - 5.99
6+
Total
4
12
14
6
9
3
2
50
8
24
28
12
18
6
4
100
18
8
8
5
2
7
2
50
36
16
16
10
4
14
4
100
13
5
7
4
4
3
14
50
26
10
14
8
8
6
28
100
2
4
1
2
2
5
34
50
4
8
2
4
4
10
68
100
In Zangon Buhari, majority of the farmers (20%) have farm sizes of between 3.00 and 3.99 ha. This
is followed by those with 2.00 to 2.99 ha (14%). In Barkum, farmers have smaller land masses with
the majority (36%) having farm sizes of less than one hectare. This is followed by those with farm
sizes ranging from 1 to 1.99 ha and 2.00 to 2.99 ha (16% each). In Matsa, farmers dedicated larger
pieces of land for irrigation. Majority of the farmers (28%) here have farm sizes of six hectares or
more. This is closely followed by those with farm sizes of less than one hectare (26%), then 2 to 2.99
ha (14%). While in Gamsarka-Zimoni, just as in Matsa, farmers dedicated large pieces of land for
irrigation. Most of the farmers (68%) here have farm sizes of six hectares or more. This is followed
by those with farm sizes between 5 to 5.9 hectares (10%), then between 1 and 1.99 (8%).
Sources of water for fadama farming
Fadama farmers obtain water from different sources for farming. Some of these sources include: rain
harvesting, flood water (residual moisture), surface water (direct from stream or river, direct from
pond, dam or barrage) and groundwater (hand dug wells {up-land}, shallow wells {river bed}, and
boreholes or tube wells).
Almost all of the farmers (98%) in Zangon Buhari used surface water from the dam via canals mostly
during the rainy season. The only farmer (2%) that does not use water from the canal got water from
shallow wells dung in the farm (used in-situ). In addition, 56% of them used rainwater harvesting in
the rainy season for their farms. No farmers in Zangon Buhari used water direct from a stream,
residual moisture or borehole (tube well).
In Barkum, majority of the farmers (86%) used only groundwater by means of tube wells mostly
during the rainy season. Only 14% of the farmers use groundwater from shallow wells, hand dug
wells or draw water direct from the stream using water pumping machines. In addition to
groundwater sources, only nine farmers (18%) used rainwater harvesting techniques in the rainy
season for their farms. One other farmer used residual moisture at the end of the rainy season to grow
his crops (this is the second crop). No farmer in this area has access to water from a dam conveyed in
canals unlike Zangon Buhari area.
In Matsa, most of the farmers (43%) used groundwater from either shallow wells, borehole or hand
dug wells mostly during the dry season. This is closely followed by those farmers (40%) that used
surface water abstracted directly from the stream or ponds usually at the end of the rainy season.
Water abstraction by both groups of farmers is done by means of petrol-driven water pumping
machines. In addition to groundwater sources, only seven farmers (10%) use rainwater harvesting
techniques in the rainy season for their farms in this area. Five other farmers (about 7%) use residual
moisture at the end of the rainy season to grow a second crop. However, no farmer in this area has
access to water from a dam conveyed in canals.
18
While as many as 80% of the farmers in Gamsarka-Zimoni used only surface water drawn by
gravity from the canals fed by the barrage (dam) mostly during the dry season. Only 10% of the
farmers used groundwater from shallow wells, hand dug wells or borehole in this area usually during
the rainy season. In addition to groundwater sources, a few farmers (about 10%) used rainwater
harvesting techniques in the rainy season for their farms. No farmer here used residual moisture at the
end of the rainy season to grow his crops.
Crops cultivated and quantities produced in the area
Table 6 presents data on crop production by fadama farmers in the selected four villages in the
Hadejia River Valley.
19
Table 6 Crops Cultivated and Quantities Produced and Income Generated by Fadama Farmers in the Four Villages
Zangon Buhari
Farm Quantities
Size
Produced
(ha)
(kg)
56.2
32265
Income
Generated
(Naira)
1,613,250
Number
of
Farmers
48
Farm
Size
(ha)
64.1
Barkum
Quantities
Produced
(kg)
50355
Income
Generated
(Naira)
2,517,750
Number
of
Farmers
47
Farm
Size
(ha)
253.9
Matsa
Quantities
Produced
(kg)
198315
Income
Generated
(Naira)
9,915,750
Number
of
Farmers
46
138.6
54.8
93.7
1.0
2.0
65.7
45.1
5.0
70.6
21.7
22.0
1.0
1.0
39.0
1.0
0.5
5,628,150
1,262,520
20,195,748
132,300
40,000
2,389,632
1,138,320
46,800
107,100
793,500
159,500
120,000
13,500
4,637,500
4,500
5,750
48
43
41
1
36
43
42
24
31
39
17
22
3
26
4
1
146.7
46.5
64.8
0.3
87.9
72.7
46.4
23.7
48.7
70.1
14.9
22.2
2.2
39.8
3.0
0.1
142560
45135
124075.8
252
1,573,000
59270.4
9916.8
9450
109260
430550
14625
63100
2700
9390
1300
150
10,692,000
2,031,075
17,370,612
52,500
7,856,000
4,741,632
842,928
302,400
3,824,100
6,458,250
292,500
2,524,000
27,000
65,730
13,000
3,750
45
49
48
42
4
12
42
19
45
13
39
4
2
12
23
6
149.2
159.3
184.4
168.0
8.0
20.9
103.9
50.1
176.2
34.3
118.2
14.1
5.0
19.6
41.0
11.1
87813
64680
271594.8
122220
10,000
8859.2
25776
5275
117320
17100
47950
1500
200
24050
16230
5175
6,585,975
2,910,600
38,023,272
25,666,200
50,000
708,736
2,190,960
168,800
4,106,200
256,500
959,000
60,000
2,000
168,350
162,300
138,000
37
43
46
16
0
7
42
7
18
29
3
0
0
1
2
0
45.6
58.7
108.6
20.1
0.0
3.0
24.0
3.6
12.4
25.1
1.5
0.0
0.0
0.5
1.0
0.0
46332
63155
392274
53298
0
2900.8
15648
2300
31120
78500
400
0
0
200
400
0
3,474,900
2,841,975
54,918,360
10,001,880
0
232,064
1,330,080
73,600
1,089,200
1,177,500
8,000
0
0
1,400
4,000
0
Total
403 618.9
1064438.5
38,288,106
Note: *Guna is a local drought resistant variety of crop.
469
753.6
2645090
59,615,227
452
* N 130,00= US$1.00
1517.1
1024058
92,072,643
297
372.1
764692.8
79,061,209
Crops
Cultivated
Along
Fadamas
Millet
Guinea Corn
(sorghum)
Maize
Rice
Wheat
Sugar Cane
Groundnut
Beans
Potatoes
Tomatoes
Onions
Peppers
Carrots
Cabbages
Water Melon
Guards
Guna
Number
of
Farmers
42
49
41
48
1
2
43
47
7
45
21
22
1
1
31
1
1
75042
28056
144255.6
630
8,000
29870.4
13392
1462.5
3060
52900
7975
3000
1350
662500
450
230
Gamsarka-Zimoni
Farm Quantities
Income
Size
produced Generated
(ha)
(kg)
(Naira)
68.1
78165
3,908,250
20
From the table (zx) above it can be seen that almost all farmers from the four villages cultivate
traditional crops (millet, sorghum, maize, rice, ground nuts, and beans). They also cultivate some
vegetables (tomatoes, onions, peppers, water melon). In addition to these, the following observations
came be made:
In Zangon Buhari, only two farmers cultivated sugar cane; one, wheat; another, carrots and cabbages;
and one other guards and guna. Farmers committed a total of about 620 hectares of land to these
crops. Most of the land was used for the cultivation of sorghum and the least to guna. Farmers here
produced as much as 1064400 kg (about 1060 tonnes) of grains and vegetative crops. The highest
output is from rice (about 140 tonnes). Farmers earned as much as N38.2 million from their produce.
The highest earning came from rice (N20million) and the least from guards (N4,500). With this,
farmers have an average income of about N77,000 per household from farming activities.
In Barkum, as many as 36 farmers cultivated sugar cane, 24 cultivated potatoes, only one cultivated
wheat, three cultivated cabbages, four cultivate guards and only one guna. Farmers committed a total
of about 753 hectares of land to these crops. Most of the land was used for sorghum and the least to
wheat and guna. Farmers produced as much as 2645090kg (about 2645 tonnes) of grains and
vegetables. The highest output is from sugar cane (about 157 tonnes). They earned as much as N59.6
million from these produce. The highest earning came from rice (N17million) and the least from
guards (N3,750). Therefore, farmers had an average income of about N1.1million per household.
In Matsa, on the other hand, as many as 42 farmers cultivated wheat, 23 cultivated guards, 19
cultivated potatoes, four cultivated sugar cane and carrots, two cultivate cabbages, and six cultivate
guna. The farmers committed a total of about 1,517 hectares of land to all crops they cultivated. Most
of the land was used for millet and the least for cabbages. Consequently, farmers produced as much
as 1024058kg (about 1024 tonnes) of grains and vegetables. The highest output is from rice (about
271 tonnes). Farmers earned as much as N92million from their produce. The highest earning come
from rice (N38million) and the least from cabbages (N2,000). This gives an average income of about
N1.8million per household.
While in Gamsarka-Zimoni, no farmer cultivated sugar cane, carrots, cabbages, and guna. Instead,
they concentrated on wheat, potatoes and guards in addition to the main traditional crops. Farmers
committed a total of about 372.1 hectares of land to all crops they cultivated. Most of the land was
used for rice and the least, water melons. The total produce was as much as 764692.8kg (about 765
tonnes) of grains and vegetables. The highest output was from rice (about 392 tonnes). The total
money earned by farmers here was as much as N79million. The highest earning come from rice
(N54million), the least from water melon (N200). This give each households an average income of
about N1.5million.
In summary, farmers in Matsa earned the highest among the four villages. This is followed by
farmers in Gamsarka-Zimoni, then Barkum, and Zangon Buhari as the least earner. Regrouping the
farmers according to their areas and household types: In Bunkure area, groundwater users in Barkum
(who have control over their water resources and can use residual moisture) cultivated a greater
variety of crops, produced more and earned more money from almost the same area extent of land
than their surface water user counterparts in Zangon Buhari (who rely on government controlled and
artificial channels conveying water from the barrage). The case is the same in the Hadejia area
between surface and groundwater users in Matsa and their surface water users contemporaries in
Gamsarka-Zimoni.
Coping and Adaptation Strategies for fadama farmers
Table 7 below summarizes data on farmer past and present coping strategies in the four villages.
21
Table 7 Farmers' Past and Present Coping Strategies
Coping Strategy
Zangon Buhari
Change activity
Number
Adopted Present
Past
Barkum
Change activity
Number
Adopted
Present
Past
Drought resistant crop
varieties
18
13
5
28
19
9
Crop diversification
15
10
5
19
17
2
Livestock diversification
23
20
3
22
19
3
Early mature crop varieties
40
40
0
34
33
1
High yield varieties
9
3
6
13
11
2
Low input varieties
7
1
6
12
8
4
Irrigated crops
34
32
2
29
27
2
Replanting
14
14
0
9
7
2
Herd movement
6
1
5
3
0
3
Herd supplementation
5
2
3
4
4
0
Culling animals
25
22
3
11
10
1
Labor migration
8
4
4
5
3
2
Selling assets
16
15
1
16
15
1
Herd sedentarization
3
1
2
4
4
0
Farm location
3
2
1
6
3
3
Herd/farm sizes
3
1
2
5
4
1
Water exploitation methods
3
2
1
10
9
1
Water use changes
3
2
1
7
6
1
Water storage methods
3
2
1
5
3
2
Food storage
20
18
2
19
18
1
Assistance from relations
15
14
1
15
8
7
Assistance from Community
12
11
1
10
4
6
Assistance from Government
11
10
1
9
3
6
Assistance from NGOs/CBOs
4
1
3
7
2
5
Abandoned activity
3
1
2
6
1
5
Migrated
12
11
1
8
3
5
Note: Culling of animals means getting rid of older animals and paving way for the younger ones.
Matsa
Change activity
Number
Adopted
Present
Past
16
21
19
31
17
20
25
4
4
7
20
9
19
5
10
5
6
4
5
11
7
8
8
9
8
10
15
20
19
23
16
14
25
3
1
6
19
8
18
5
8
5
6
2
4
10
1
1
1
2
1
3
1
1
0
8
1
6
0
1
3
1
1
1
1
0
2
0
0
2
1
1
6
7
7
7
7
7
Gamsarka-Zimoni
Change activity
Number
Adopted Present
Past
27
27
12
29
14
4
35
1
1
1
20
4
10
1
8
3
5
1
3
23
3
4
4
1
3
3
27
27
12
29
14
4
35
1
1
1
20
4
10
1
8
3
5
1
3
21
3
4
4
1
3
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
22
From the table above, several observations can be made. For example, considering Zangon
Buhari, in the past, not many farmers adopted the strategies for coping with droughts. However,
recently, after the most devastating drought, farmers became more vulnerable and adopted the
coping strategies. The five most widely used new adaptation strategies in a descending order of
importance are the use of early maturing crops, and irrigated crops, keeping of livestock, culling
animals, and food storage. The least newly adopted strategies are use of low input varieties, herd
movement, herd sedentarization, reduction in herd and farm sizes, receipt of assistance fron
NGOs and CBOs, and abandonment of activity.
At Barkum, the situation was similar to that of Zangon Buhari in the past, not many farmers
adopted the strategies for coping with droughts until the most recent devastating drought before
farmers started adopting coping strategies. The five most widely used new adaptation strategies in
a descending order of importance are early maturing crops, irrigated crops, drought resistant crop
varieties, livestock diversification, and food storage. The least newly adopted strategies are herd
movement, herd supplementation, herd sedentarization, labour migration, reduction in herd/farm
sizes, and water storage methods.
In Matsa, on the other hand, in the past, very few farmers adopted coping strategies. But with the
most devastating drought, their attitude changed as they began to adopted some coping strategies.
The five most widely used new adaptation strategies in a descending order of importance are early
maturing crops, irrigated crops, crop diversification, low input varieties, and culling animals. The
least newly adopted strategies are replanting, herd movement, water use changes, herd
sedentarization, reduction in herd/farm sizes, and water storage methods.
While in Gamsarka-Zimoni, in the past (earlier than 10 years ago), there was virtually no
adaptation of strategies for coping with droughts by farmers. They too had to adopt some coping
strategies with the most recent devastating drought. The five most widely used new adaptation
strategies in a descending order of importance are irrigated crops, early maturing crops, drought
resistant crop varieties, crop diversification, and food storage. The least newly adopted strategies
are replanting, herd movement, herd supplementation, water use changes, herd sedentarization,
water storage methods, and assistance from NGOs/CBOs.
Future Adaptation Strategies (measures)
The coping strategies farmers have adopted in the past and present will obviously become
adaptation strategies for the fadama farmers during future droughts.
Willing to adopt present coping strategies as future adaptation measures
Table 8 presents information on farmers’ willingness to adopt certain coping strategies to serve as
adaptation measures in the future.
23
Table 8 Coping Strategies Farmers are Willing to Adopt as Future Adaptation Measures
Zangon Buhari
Barkum
Adaptation Measures
Willingness to adopt
Willingness to adopt
Yes
No
Total
Yes
No
Total
Drought resistant crop varieties
4
14
18
25
3
28
Crop diversification
4
11
15
19
0
19
Livestock diversification
14
9
23
20
2
22
Early mature crop varieties
28
12
40
32
2
34
High yield varieties
1
8
9
12
1
13
Low input varieties
1
6
7
12
0
12
Irrigated crops
23
11
34
29
0
29
Replanting
12
2
14
9
0
9
Herd movement
1
5
6
1
2
3
Herd supplementation
0
5
5
4
0
4
Culling animals
15
10
25
10
1
11
Labor migration
4
4
8
4
0
4
Selling assets
8
8
16
16
0
16
Herd sedentarization
0
3
3
4
0
4
Farm location
0
3
3
6
0
6
Herd/farm sizes
1
2
3
5
0
5
Water exploitation methods
0
3
3
10
0
10
Water use changes
0
3
3
7
0
7
Water storage methods
3
0
3
4
1
5
Food storage
15
5
20
18
1
19
Assistance from relations
6
9
15
13
2
15
Assistance from Community
4
8
12
8
2
10
Assistance from Government
7
5
12
7
2
9
Assistance from NGOs/CBOs
0
4
4
5
2
7
Abandoned activity
0
3
3
2
4
6
Migrated
9
3
12
5
3
8
Note: Culling of animals means getting rid of older animals and paving way for the younger ones.
Matsa
Willingness to adopt
Yes
No
Total
14
2
16
14
7
21
12
7
19
24
7
31
11
6
17
15
5
20
25
0
25
2
2
4
2
2
4
4
2
6
12
8
20
4
5
9
11
8
19
3
2
5
2
8
10
3
2
5
4
2
6
1
3
4
1
4
5
7
4
11
1
6
7
1
7
8
1
7
8
1
8
9
1
7
8
1
9
10
Gamsarka-Zimoni
Willingness to adopt
Yes
No
Total
27
0
27
25
2
27
11
1
12
29
0
29
14
0
14
4
0
4
35
0
35
1
0
1
1
0
1
1
0
1
18
2
20
3
1
4
9
1
10
1
0
1
8
0
8
3
0
3
5
0
5
1
0
1
3
0
3
23
0
23
1
2
3
2
2
4
3
1
4
1
0
1
2
1
3
3
0
3
24
The table above shows that farmers across the four villages are willing to adopt some of the
coping strategies as future adaptation measures. Such willingness is distributed as follows:
In Zangon Buhari, the five most widely acceptable strategies farmers are willing to adopt in the
future are the use of early maturing crops, irrigated crops, culling animals, food storage, and
keeping of livestock. Replanting of crops when affected by a drought is the sixth most important
strategy fadama farmers are willing to adopt in the future. The most important strategies farmers
are not willing to adopt in the future are planting of drought resistant crop varieties, crop
diversification, use of high yield and low input crop varieties, keeping of livestock and selling of
assets.
In Barkum, the five most widely acceptable strategies farmers are willing to adopt in the future
are early maturing crops, irrigated crops, drought resistant crop varieties, livestock
diversification, and crop diversification. Crop diversification has displaced food storage in this
case which comes as the sixth strategy farmers are willing to adopt. The most important strategies
farmers are not willing to adopt in the future are to abandon their activity, migrate, or cultivate
drought resistant varieties.
In Matsa on the other hand, the five most widely acceptable strategies farmers are willing to
adopt in the future are irrigated crops, early maturing crops, low input varieties, drought resistant
crop varieties, and crop diversification. The most important strategies farmers are not willing to
adopt in the future are migrate, culling animals, selling assets, change farm location, get
assistance from NGOs.
Whereas in Gamsarka-Zimoni, the five most widely acceptable strategies farmers are willing to
adopt in the future are irrigated crops, early maturing crops, drought resistant crop varieties, crop
diversification, and food storage. The most important strategies farmers are not willing to adopt
in the future are crop diversification, culling animals, get assistance from relations, assistance
from community among others.
Farmers that are not willing to adopt scientific strategies have exhibited their level of
vulnerability involved with some of these strategies. This may be attributed to the lack
information, extension services or the required inputs to grow the crops. In fact, some of the
scientific (biogenetic) crops have high requirements to thrive well (produce good yields).
However, those that are more willing to adopt scientific strategies may be less vulnerable. This
may be attributed to the fact that they have access to advice and information from extension
services or government. Sometimes they are provided with farm inputs to grow the crops. In fact,
some of the scientific (biogenetic) crops have high requirements to thrive well (produce good
yields).
Choice of Appropriate Future Adaptation Strategies (Measures)
Farmers were given the option to choose from a number of strategies they will adopt in the future
in an event of another drought. The five most important options (in a descending order of
importance) from the four villages are illustrated on Table 9 below.
25
Table 9 Farmers' views of Top Five Most Appropriate Future Adaptation Measures
Zangon Buhari
%
Strategy
Response
Irrigated
crops
28
Early mature
crop varieties
24
Crop
diversification
22
Barkum
Strategy
Matsa
%
Response
Irrigated crops
Early mature crop
varieties
36
Strategy
Early mature
crop varieties
26
Irrigated crops
18
Culling
animals
20
Food storage
Water
exploitation
methods
Migrated
Total
6
100
Livestock
diversification
Total
%
Response
30
Gamsarka-Zimoni
%
Strategy
Response
33
27
Irrigated crops
Early mature
crop varieties
Culling animals
20
Food storage
19
10
Migrated
16
10
100
Food storage
Total
7
100
High yield
varieties
Drought
resistant crop
varieties
Total
25
15
8
100
From the table irrigation of crops ranked highest in the choice of strategy to be adopted in the
future in an event of a drought in three of the villages (Zangon Buhari, Barkum, and GamsarkaZimoni). All three villages had planting of early maturing crops as the second most important
strategy. The reverse is the case for Matsa where the highest (topmost) strategy is planting of
early maturing crops while irrigation of crops is the next strategy. Food storage appeared third in
two of the villages (Barkum and Gamsarka-Zimoni) and fifth in one village (Matsa). Other
strategies vary from one village to the next as seen on the table.
This result indicates that the best strategy for the future will be a combination of strategies since
they are not mutually exclusive. For example, while fadama farmers can intensify irrigated
farming, they can plant early maturing crops in the process and even try different other crop
varieties (diversification) including high yield varieties and drought resistant varieties.
CONCLUSION
From the analyses and observations made in the preceding sections, it is clear that intensifying
irrigation is the most important coping strategy for fadama farmers in the Hadejia valley. The
issue is how well this activity can be carried out considering the fact that there is no clear divide
between groundwater and surface water users. Farmers in Barkum are groundwater users who
depend on their local knowledge (technology) and petrol-driven machines to pump water for
irrigation. Farmers in Matsa use both groundwater and surface water from a nearby tributary
(stream) also by means of petrol-driven water pumping machines. While farmers from GamsarkaZimoni are surface water users depending on water released by government from the barrage
(dam) through a network of canals and flowing by gravity. Farmers from Zangon Buhari are also
surface water users but located upstream.
Groundwater users (households) may suffer from high cost of accessing water (the prohibitive
cost of pumping machines or sinking boreholes) but have a more dependable source. They can
also use residual moisture from a natural stream channel. This is unlike the surface water users
may enjoy easy access to water flowing gravitationally but run the risk of dry spells, when water
is not released by government. And because of the artificial nature of the water channel
(constructed), may not have the added advantage of residual moisture for a second crop at the end
of the rainy season.
26
It can be concluded therefore, that groundwater users (households) who depend on their local
technology and petrol-driven machines to pump water for irrigation and who have access to
residual moisture for a second crop are less vulnerable to drought than surface water users who
depend on government-controlled water sources from the barrage (dam) released through a
network of canals and flowing by gravity to their farm for irrigation. Surface water users are
therefore more vulnerable.
In order to sustain fadama (floodplain) agriculture in the area, farmers must be willing to try the
adaptation measures they themselves suggested (chose). They will also require advice and
assistance from the government (extension workers and the media). They require early warning
signs and/or information by direct contact and the media (especially radio) in a language they can
comprehend and utilize.
REFERENCES
Adams, W.M. (1986) Traditional agriculture and water use in the Sokoto valley, Nigeria. - The
Geographical J., 152 (1): 30-43.
Adams, W.M. and Carter, R.C. (1987) Small-scale Irrigation in Sub-Saharan Africa. Progress in
Physical Geography, 11, pp. 1-27.
Anyadike, R.N. (1993) Seasonal and annual rainfall variations over Nigeria. International Journal
of Climatology, 13, 567-580.
Dabi, D.D. and Anderson, W.P. (1998) Water Scarcity and sustainable agricultural development
in drought-prone semi-arid zone of West Africa. In Demaree, G., Alexandre, J., and De
Dapper, M. (Eds.) Proceedings of the International Conference “Tropical Climatology,
Meteorology, and Hydrology, held in Brussels, Belgium, pp 693-709.
Downing, T.E. (2004) Vulnerability in NAPA Assessments: Guidance, examples and team
exercises for developing rapid, participatory vulnerability assessments in National
Adaptation Programmes of Action.
Hess, T.M., Stephens, W., and Maryah, U.M. (1995) “Rainfall trends in the North Eastern Arid
zone of Nigeria.” Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 74 (1995), 87-97.
Huq, S., Rahman, A., Konate, M., Sokona, Y., and Reid, H. (2003) Mainstreaming Adaptation To
Climate Change in Least Developed Countries(LDCs). The International Institute for
Environment and Development. Russell Press, Nottingham, UK. April 2003
IPCC (2001) Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis, Contributions of Working Group I to
the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Kidd, A.D., Adepetu, A.A., Adinna, E., Daniel, E.A., Aguigwo, E.N., Ajeagbu, H.I., Danjos, S.,
Dogo, B., Ishaya, R.P., Ihemegbulem, V.C., Tanko, N.M., Schoeneich, K. (1991) Project
Identification using rapid rural appraisal. Part III Wereng Village Report. Jos Plateau
Environmental Resources Development Programme Interim Report No. 23. pp35.
Kimmage, K. (1991) Small-scale irrigation initiatives in Nigeria: the problems of equity and
sustainability. Applied Geography, 11: 5-20.
National Drought Mitigation Center (2005) What is Drought? Understanding and Defining
Drought. Drought Impact Reporter. University of Nebraska-Lincoln.
http://www.drought.unl.edu/whatis/concept.htm
Ney, S. (2002) Focus Groups, Citizen Participation and Governance in Europe. http://www.iccrinternational.org/pen-ref/
Morgan, W. B. and Solarz, J. A. (1994) Agricultural crisis in Sub-Saharan Africa: Development
constraints and policy problems. Geographical Journal 160(1): 57-73.
Roncerel, A., Boyer, B., Alam, M. and Rahman, A. (2003) Participatory Approaches for NAPA
Preparation: An Overview. Geneva: UNITAR.
http://www.unitar.org/ccp/Addis/STEP%205%20documentation%20Overview.pdf
27
Stephen, L. and Downing, T. (2001) Getting the scale right: A comparison of analytical methods
for vulnerability assessment and household level targeting. Disasters 25(2): 113-115.
Tarhule, A.A. and Woo, M-K. (1998) Changes in rainfall characteristics in Northern Nigeria.
International Journal of Climatology 18: 1261-1271.
Turner, B. (1985) The classification and distribution of fadamas in central northern Nigeria. In
Thomas, M.F. and Goudie, A.A. (eds) Dambos: small channelless valleys in the tropics,
formation and utilization. Stuttgart: Zeitschrift Fur Geomorphologie, Supplementband 52,
222pp.
Vaishnav, Thakurdas (1994) Small Scale Irrigation: The Answer to Africa's Food Production
Problems. African Technology Forum, Business 7(3).
Walker, B, Carpenter, S., Anderies J., Abel, N., Cumming, G.S., Janssen, M., Lebel, L., Norberg,
J., Peterson, G.D., and Pritchard, R. (2002) Resilience management in social-ecologica
systems: a working hypothesis for a participatory approach. Conservation Ecology 6(1):14.
World Bank (2001) Smallholder Irrigation Market Initiative: Study on the Dissemination
Potential of Affordable Drip and Other Irrigation Systems and the Concrete Strategies for
Their Promotion. The World Bank Washington, DC, USA.