LIVELIHOOD DIVERSIFICATION STRATEGIES AMONG FADAMA AND NON-FADAMA USERS IN IMO STATE, NIGERIA

ATTENTION:

BEFORE YOU READ THE ABSTRACT OR CHAPTER ONE OF THE PROJECT TOPICS BELOW, PLEASE READ THE INFORMATION BELOW.THANK YOU!

INFORMATION:

YOU CAN GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT OF THE TOPIC BELOW. THE FULL PROJECT COST N5,000 ONLY. THE FULL INFORMATION ON HOW TO PAY AND GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT IS AT THE BOTTOM OF THIS PAGE. OR

YOU CAN CALL: 08068231953, 08137701720

WHATSAPP US ON: 08137701720

LIVELIHOOD DIVERSIFICATION STRATEGIES AMONG FADAMA AND NON-FADAMA USERS IN IMO STATE, NIGERIA

ABSTRACT

The study examined the livelihood diversification strategies among Fadama and Non Fadama users in Imo State. Nigeria. Data used for the study were collected with the aid of structured questionnaire administered to 150 randomly selected Fadama users and 150 non-Fadama user making it a total of 300 questionnaires. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, net farm income model, Gini coefficient model, Ordinary Least Squares (OLS), multiple regression analysis, and logit model. Result of the analysis showed that farming activities is the major source of income generation among Fadama and non Fadama users in the study area, contributing 63.6% and 51.9% of Fadama and non Fadama users’ total household income. Non-farm activities contributed 36.4% of the Fadama users’ total household income. In the same vain, non-farm activities among non Fadama users contributed 48.1% of their total household income.  The analysis further showed that Fadama users mean household income was N560, 050 per annum while non Fadama users mean household income was found to be N467, 383 per annum. The Gini coefficient of 0.249 and 0.233 were estimated for Fadama and non-Fadama users in the study area. Livelihood diversification strategies among Fadama users were influenced by household size, age, educational level, extension visit and access to credit. Livelihood diversification strategies among Non Fadama users were influenced by household size, age, educational level and cooperative membership.  It was also noted that household size, gender, age, cooperative membership and farm size were among the socio economic factors that affected value addition among Fadama users, while household size, gender, age, educational level, cooperative membership and farm size affected value addition among non Fadama users. In addition, the result showed that there was a significant difference between Fadama and non Fadama users’ income. Also there was a significant difference between the livelihood diversification strategies of Fadama and non Fadama users in the study area.  Despite growing concern that farming alone may not provide sufficient income for sustainable livelihood, it still dominates livelihood activities and income generation among Fadama and non Fadama users. It is therefore recommended that Government policies aimed at sustainable livelihood and income generation should focus on both farm and non-farm sectors. Hence farming as a primary source of income may not guarantee sufficient livelihood for most Fadama and non-Fadama users’ households in Imo State.

Key words: livelihood, livelihood diversification strategies, household income, value addition, Fadama users and Non-Fadama users.    

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Title page                                                                                                                 i

Certificate Page                                                                                                       ii

Dedication Page                                                                                                                      iii

Acknowledgements                                                                                                                iv

Table of contents                                                                                                                      v

List of tables                                                                                                           viii

List of figures                                                                                                           ix

Abstract                                                                                                                    x

CHAPTER ONE:  INTRODUCTION                                                                          1

1.1       Background information                                                                                          1

1.2       Statement of the problem                                                                                        7

1.3       Objectives of the Study                                                                                             10

1.4       Hypotheses tested                                                                                                      11

1.5       Justification for the Study                                                                                         11

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW                                                               14

2.1       Conceptual and Theoretical Framework                                                                 14

2.1.1 Concept of household income                                                                                     17

2.1.1.1 Measures of income diversification                                                                        24

2.1.2 The concept of value addition                                                                                     27

2.1.3 The concept of Fadama                                                                                                28

2.1.3.1 Fadama I                                                                                                                     31

2.1.3.2 Fadama II                                                                                                                    32

2.1.3.3 Fadama III                                                                                                                  34

2.1.3.3.1 Financing plan                                                                                                        39

2.1.3.3.2 Project objectives                                                                                                   39

2.1.3.3.3 Target population                                                                                                   39

2.1.3.3.4 Project strategy                                                                                                       40

2.1.3.3.5 Project components                                                                                                42

2.1.3.3.5.1 Capacity building                                                                                                42

2.1.3.3.5.2 Rural infrastructure investments                                                                       42

2.1.3.3.5.3 Productive asset acquisition support                                                                43

2.1.3.3.5.4 Demand responsive advisory services                                                              43

2.1.3.3.5.5 Project management monitoring and evaluation                                            43

2.2       Theoretical literature                                                                                                  44

2.2.1 The sustainable livelihoods framework                                                                     44

2.2.2 Components of the livelihood system                                                                        48

2.2.3 Livelihood resources                                                                                                   48

2.2.4 Access                                                                                                                           49

2.2.5 Livelihood activities                                                                                                    51

2.2.6 Household vulnerability                                                                                               52

2.2.7 Livelihood asset                                                                                                            53

2.2.7.1 Human assets                                                                                                             55

2.2.7.2 Social assets                                                                                                              55

2.2.7.3 Natural assets                                                                                                             57

2.2.7.4 Physical assets                                                                                                           57

2.2.7.5 Financial assets                                                                                                          58

2.2.8   The role of capital assets in livelihood choices                                                      58

2.2.9 The role of structures and processes in shaping livelihoods                                   61

2.2.10 Livelihood outcomes                                                                                                  62

2.2.11 Livelihood strategies                                                                                                  63

2.2.12 Classification of livelihood strategies                                                                      66

2.2.13 Livelihood diversification                                                                                        68

2.2.14 Determinants of livelihood diversification                                                              82

2.2.14.1 Access to markets                                                                                                   82

2.2.14.2 Climate variability                                                                                                  84

2.2.14.3 Available assets portfolios                                                                                     85

2.2.14.4 Education and skills                                                                                                87

2.2.14.5 Access to credit markets                                                                                        88

2.2.14.6 Gender relationships                                                                                               89

2.2.14.7 Seasonality                                                                                                              91

2.2.14.8 Adaptation to risk                                                                                                   92

2.2.14.9 Local economic boom opportunities                                                                    93

2.2.15 Livelihood diversification approaches                                                                     94

2.3       Empirical literature                                                                                                    96

2.4       Analytical frame work                                                                                           103

2.4.1   Logit model                                                                                                   103

2.4.2 Measuring income inequality                                                                           104

2.4.2.1 Gini coefficient as a measure of income inequality                                      105

2.4.2.2 Lorenz curve as a measure of income inequality                                          106

2.4.2.3 Quintile method as a measure of income inequality                                     107

2.4.3 Aggregate household income model                                                                108

2.4.3.1 Calculating household income from farm activities                                          113

2.4.3.2 Calculating the household income from off-farm activities                            115

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY                                                                    117

3.1       Study Area                                                                                                               117

3.2       Sample Selection                                                                                                    119

3.3       Data Collection                                                                                                        120

3.4       Data Analysis                                                                                                           121

3.5      Empirical model to ascertain the extent of value addition                                 129

3.6       Hypotheses Testing                                                                                                132

 CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1      Socio-Economic Characteristics of Fadama and Non Fadama Users          137

4.1.1   Educational attainment of respondents                                                                 137

4.1.2   Household Size                                                                                                       139

4.1.3   Extension visits                                                                                                        140

4.1.4:  Farming Experience                                                                                                142

4.1.5   Gender                                                                                                                      143

6: Age                                                                                                                             144

4.1.7   Farm size                                                                                                                  145

Income Generating Activities (Farm and Non-Farm) among Fadama

and Non Fadama Users                                                                                          147

Farm Activities and Nonfarm Activities of Fadama users                             147

Farm Activities and Nonfarm Activities of Non Fadama users          149

Household Income, Determinants of Income and Size Distribution

among Fadama and non Fadama users                                                                 151

Household Income                                                                                  151

Determinants of income among Fadama and non Fadama Users      152

Analysis of income distribution of Fadama and non Fadama Users          159

Forms of Value Addition and Associated Income among Fadama

                and Non Fadama Users                   164

4.5     Areas of Value Addition on Fadama Activities in Imo State                 167

4.6.     Determine the Extent of Value Added in Fadama Activities                      168

4.8       Determinants of Household Livelihood Diversification Strategies                    among Fadama and Non- Fadama Users                                                  171

4.9:     Determine the Effects of Household Socioeconomic Characteristics  on Value Addition of Fadama and Non- Fadama Users                       176

4.10    Hypotheses testing                                                                                                  181

CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1    Summary                                                                                                                  186

5.2    Conclusions                                                                                                             190

5.3    Recommendations                                                                                                  191

5.4    Contribution to knowledge                                                                              192

References                                                                                                              194

Appendix                                                                                                                216

CHAPTER ONE

                                                  INTRODUCTION

         1.1      BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY

Agriculture is the major sector upon which the majority of Nigeria’s rural poor depend on for their livelihood. It provides employment for over 60% of the population (Oseni & Winter, 2009; Liverpool-Taise, et al. 2011; Oladimeji, et al. 2014).  However, it has been established that Farming as a primary source of income has failed to guarantee sufficient livelihood for most farming households in developing countries (Babatunde, 2012), hence diversification into non-farm activities is seen as a form of selfinsurance. This is because diversification offers people options for coping with crisis. The resultant effect of this is that, rural households diversify their income sources by combining two or more jobs (multiple job holding) to enhance consumption smoothing and acquire other basic needs, (Oluwatayo, 2009). This goes to prove that one of the most established characteristics of rural households in developing countries is that they obtain their incomes from many different sources (Davis, et al. 2010). 

Presently the concept of livelihood diversification is emerging as a survival strategy of rural households in developing countries (Ellis, 2000; Bryceson, 2000). The rural people are looking for diverse opportunities to increase and stabilize their incomes, which are determined by their portfolio of assets, social, human, financial, natural and physical capital (Sudan, 2007). There has been an increased recognition among researchers especially in the past one or two decades that Africans diversify their livelihood strategies, including on-farm (crop, livestock, fisheries and off-farm activities or market and non-market activities to mitigate risks inherent in unpredictable agro-climatic and politico-economic circumstances (Ellis, 2000;

Bryceson, 2002).

In different areas of the world impact of livelihoods diversification is different and varies from negative to positive effects like- the withdrawal of critical labour from the family farm for the alleviation of credit constraints and a reduction in the risk of innovation. The contribution made by livelihood diversification to rural income sources is a significant one which has often been ignored by policy makers who chose to focus their activities on agriculture (Sudan, 2007). Scholarly, literature on rural livelihoods diversification portrays it as a continuously occurring phenomenon that results from the increased importance of off-farm wage labour in the household livelihood portfolio or through the development of new forms of on-farm commodities. Consistent with this observation, Warren (2002) argued that in either case diversification can be both temporary (occasional diversification) or can be a deliberate attempt to optimize household capacity of the ever changing opportunities (strategic diversification). Livelihoods diversification is important because it can lead to some form of household specialization and also increase the household’s ability to cope with risk. Diversified households are said to be more likely to enjoy higher flexibility and resilience capacity than households that are completely dependent on agriculture, (Simtowe, 2010). Furthermore, the perceived advantage of livelihoods diversification are increasingly becoming important in the light of reiterated environmental, economic and political shocks affecting the rural areas of developing countries, (Simtowe, 2010).

Livelihood literature suggests that though exogenous trends and shocks play a significant role in approaching rural people towards a diversified livelihood strategy, diversification choices are also confidently embedded in the micro-economic reason of farming households (Ellis, 2000). The availability of key-assets (such as savings, land, labour, education and/or access to market or employment opportunities, access to Common Property Resources (CPRs) and other public goods is an evident requisite in making rural households and individuals more or less capable to diversify ( Abdulai & Crole, 2001; Sudan, 2007).  Diversification may also develop as a coping response to the loss of capital assets needed for undertaking conventional non-farm land, increased producer/consumer ratio, credit delinquency, and environmental deterioration can be indeed important drivers towards diversification (Sudan, 2007; Herani, et al, 2007).

In Nigeria, majority of the farm household populace either depend entirely on farming for survival and generation of income, or depend on farming to supplement their main sources of income (World-Bank, 2010). Sample studies of rural income portfolios derived from both large-scale, national representative sample surveys and purpose households studies converge on the once starting figure that on average, roughly 50 percent of rural households income in sub-Saharan African are generated from engagement in non-farm activities and transfer from urban areas or abroad, with remittance and pension payments being the chief categories of such transfer, (Ellis 2000; Ellis and Freeman, 2004). Evidence from a sample of rural villages in Tanzania,(Chapmen & Tripp 2004; Ellis & Madox, 2003) shows that an average half of the household income came from crops and livestock and the other half from nonfarm wage employment, self employment and remittance. The proportion of non-farm income was higher for the upper income groups than for the lowest income groups. Therefore, the poorest households were more reliant on agriculture, and the reliance on agriculture decreased with increased diversification into non-farm activities.

However, one important means of income generation that rural farmers have not paid much attention to is the value addition. Value addition is any act that takes a (raw) product a step closer to the form in which it can conveniently meet the need(s) of the user(s) or any improvement made to agricultural produce to bring it to a form in which the consumer wants it (Ngore,2010).

In recent years, the pro-poor growth approach has become one of the key concerns of developmental organizations. The focus of the approval lies in the promotion of economic potentials of the poor and disadvantaged groups of people (OECD, 2006). The main aim is to enable them to react and take advantage of new opportunities arising as a result of economic growth, and thereby overcome poverty (Berg & Kumbi, 2006). Value addition is useful as a poverty-reduction tool if it leads to increase on and off-farm rural employment and income. Increased agricultural productivity alone is not a sufficient route out of poverty within a context of globalization and increasing natural resource degradation. A focus on post-harvest activities, differential value added products and increasing livelihood with access to market for goods produced by low-income producers would appear to be the strategy open to smallholders (Lundy, et al. 2002).The poverty reducing potential of value addition is not only in generating rural income and employment but also complemented by improvements in processing that reduce traditional food preparation times.

In recognition of the importance of the agricultural sector in Nigeria, the government has initiated and endorsed many national and international projects, programs and policies aimed at increasing farmers’ income, supporting livelihood activities and thereby reducing poverty. Laudable among these programs is the National Fadama development programme. Fadama is a Hausa word for an irrigable land usually flood plains with shallow aquifers found along Nigeria major river system. Such lands are especially suitable for irrigated production, fish farming, traditional fish feed and water for livestock. (Ingawa, et al.2004; Nwachukwu & Onyenweaku, 2007). The Fadama I project focused basically on crop production through supplementary water supply which resulted in conflict amongst common resource users.Fadama II project was implemented to address the problems identified in Fadama I by involving all the stakeholders in the common resource utilization and some downstream activities such as value addition and marketing were equally implemented. Fadama III project is a follow up to the Fadama II which is now implemented in 36 states and Federal capital territory (FCT). The National Fadama Development project is a major instrument for achieving Government’s poverty reduction objective in the rural areas of Nigeria. Its beneficiaries are the private economic agents who achieve their livelihood directly or indirectly from the exploitation of the natural resources in a given Fadama area. The project empowers Fadama Community Associations (FCAs) with the resources and the needed training cum technical assistance and support to properly manage and control these resources for development. Fadama adopts a community demand-driven (CDD), socially inclusive and participatory process whereby users of the Fadama collectively identify their development priorities and agree on their intervention activities outlined in Local Development Plans (LDPs) (National Fadama Development office, 2010).

Imo State is among the states that benefited in both Fadama I and II and presently in Fadama III whose development objective is to increase the incomes of users of land and water resources on a sustainable basis. It also seeks to reduce conflict among users and aims to address some factors that militate against the full realization of the potential benefits of agricultural production activities- poor development of infrastructure, storage, processing and marketing facilities (National Fadama Development Office; NFDO, 2010). Consequent upon the lessons learnt from NFDPI, the Fadama II and III project injected a lot of innovations, which includes that participation was not limited to Fadama crop farmers, but extended to all the users of Fadama resources-pastoralist, hunters, fisher-folks, vulnerable and marginalized groups among others. Fadama I was implemented in three local government areas of the State, while Fadama II was implemented in eleven local government areas, and presently Fadama III is being implemented in twenty local government areas out of twenty seven local government areas of the state. Local Fadama desks were established and operational in these participating LGAs in the State.

1.2   STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

In Sub-Saharan Africa, reliance on agriculture tends to diminish continuously as income level rises, i.e. the more diverse the income portfolio the better-off is the rural households. Elsewhere, a common pattern is for the very poor and the comparatively well off to have the most diverse livelihoods, while the middle ranges of income display less diversity (Ellis, 2000). It is widely agreed that a capability to diversify is beneficial for households at or below the poverty line. Having alternatives for income generation can make the difference between minimally viable livelihoods and destitution. However, diversification does not have an equalizing effect on rural incomes overall. Better-off households are typically able to diversify in more favourable labour markets than poor rural households. The tendency for rural households to engage in multiple occupations is often remarked, but few attempts have been made to link this behavior in a systematic way to household income generation. In the past it has often been assumed that farm output growth would create plentiful non-farm income earning opportunities in the rural economy via linkage effects. However, this assumption is no longer tenable; for many poor rural families, farming on their own are unable to provide sufficient means of survival, and the yield gains of new technology displays signs of leveling off, particularly in those regions where they were most dramatic in the past.

Nigeria, with a population of over 140 million, is Africa’s most populous country and the continents fourth largest economy (NPC, 2006). The economy is still basically agrarian, but since the advent of petroleum in the mid-1970s the relative share of agriculture which was 65.5 percent in 1960/61 (with the agriculture subsector accounting for 56.6 percent), has declined with the agricultural subsector accounting for only 32 percent per annum in the 1990s, (Oluwatayo, 2009). However, the sector still constitutes the source of employment and livelihood for about three quarters of the population and it is also the dominant activity in terms of linkages with the rest of the economy. The patterns of diversification and changing income levels indicate that agriculture is not a path out of poverty in many areas.

In a case study of a Cocoa production area in Nigeria, for example, household Rural Non-farm Income (RNFI) rose on average from 33% in the mid-80s to 57% in 1997, with the poorest households showing the strongest move towards RNFI over the period (Mustapha, 1999). Livelihood strategies are therefore likely to be influenced by relative income levels and in particular the number of options that become available to different income classes (Ellis, 1999). While recognizing the urgent need to maintain a robust agricultural sector, it is increasingly becoming clear that the agricultural sector alone cannot be relied upon as the core activity for rural households as a means of improving livelihood and reducing poverty. One phenomenon that is gaining prominence in the rural development literature is the promotion and support for nonfarm diversification opportunities (Stifel, 2010).

Despite the plethora of poverty reduction strategies adopted in Nigeria like National Fadama Development Program, the poverty incidence in the rural areas of the country still remain high (HDR, 2006, 2007 (2008). The reason for this may not be farfetched. It may be because the common view on rural poverty reduction in Nigeria has been that of a sector driven almost entirely by production of crops and livestock; hence there is need to reconsider the potentials of livelihood diversification within the Nigeria rural economy. Several studies (Marter, 2002; Matshe & Young 2004; Serra, et al. 2005; Kijima, et al, 2006; Haggbade, et al. 2007; Jan, et al, 2009) reported that livelihood concept and diversification of income help in minimizing household income variability, providing an additional source of income and even employment which have implications for rural poverty reduction and contribute substantially towards improving households’ welfare. Inspite of the existence of projects like National Fadama Project that support value addition,farm households in the state carry out limited value addition and hence lose margins and jobs that could be created if they added value to their products.

Government through her agricultural transformation agenda has continued to emphasize the need for farm households to add value to their farm produce inorder to enhance their income generation, yet most farmers have continued to sale their produce without adding value. Also other factors that hinder value addition to farm produce need to be determined inorder to comprehensively address constraints to value addition and hence spur rural development.Besides, an understanding of the significance and nature of farm and off-farm activities (especially its contribution to rural household income) is of utmost importance for policy makers in the design of potent agricultural and rural development policies. Further, the rising incidence of low level of welfare of farm households in Nigeria and Imo State in particular, that remains unabated despite various policy reforms undertaken in the country, requires a deeper understanding of the problem and the need to proffer solutions to the problem through approaches that place priority on the poor and ways on which farm households through diversification can maintain their livelihood.

This study therefore seeks to provide an in-depth understanding of the different livelihood activities that Fadama and non-Fadama households in Imo State engage in to generate incomes and also examine the contribution of livelihood diversification and value addition to household income of Fadama and non-Fadama users.

         1.3       OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

The broad objective of the study is to analyze livelihood diversification strategies among Fadama and non Fadama users in Imo State, Nigeria

The specific objectives are to:

examine the socio-economic characteristics of Fadama and Non-Fadama users, ii. identify the income generating activities and their income share (farm and non- farm) engaged by Fadama and non-Fadama users in the study area, iii. determine the household income, its determinants and distribution among Fadama and non-Fadama users in the study area, iv. determine the forms of value addition and associated income among Fadama and non Fadama users,

identify the areas of value addition on fadama activities in Imo State,

determine the extent of value added in fadama activities in Imo state,

analyse the determinants of household livelihood diversification strategies among fadama and non- fadama users, and

determine the effects of household socioeconomic characteristics on value addition of Fadama and non- Fadama users.

1.4       Hypotheses of the study:

The following hypotheses are tested in this study; i             there is no significant difference between Household income of Fadama and non-Fadama users in Imo state.

socio-economic factors (household size,gender, age, educational level, extension visit, cooperative memebership and farm size) of Fadama and non Fadama users have no significant influence on their household income.

there is no significant difference in the livelihood diversification strategies of fadama and non fadama users in the study area.

socio-economic characteristics (household size,gender, age, educational level, extension visit, cooperative memebership and farm size ) of Fadama and Non

Fadama users have no significant influence on their value addition.

         1.5       JUSTIFICATION FOR THE STUDY

This study will yield information on the income generating activities. Practically this information would be vital in identifying appropriate intervention, which can enhance the capacity of farm households and make them more secure. Indirectly this will contribute to the attainment of one of the Millennium Development Goals (MDG)eradication of extreme poverty.

The result of this study will also help in understanding the household income and the factors affecting such income. Since one of the project development objectives (PDOs) of Fadama Project is to sustainably increase the income of users, this finding would help to ascertain the contribution of Fadama in income generation among users and when compared to non-users would guide donor agencies, Government and nonGovernment organization to form opinion.

Data that would be generated by this study will be a valuable tool to advance the role of donor assisted projects in sustainable livelihoods in Nigeria. It would also be expected to be of help to development institutions and development workers to review their development strategies, so that they can address the needs and problems of farming households. The identified diversity of livelihood strategies will increase our understanding to how farm households survive.

The information will also help to build a balanced picture of farm households as they struggle to adjust to the livelihood challenges they face. Information generated by this study would indicate the extent to which livelihood diversification strategies affect farm and off-farm income. These findings will guide policy makers and development planners who are concerned with poverty alleviation while designing agricultural projects within the zone and elsewhere in the country.

This study will also generate information that would expose the constraints that need to be addressed to facilitate value addition in order to help farm households enhance their income generation as well as creating employment opportunities. The result of this study will also help to focus efforts to promote value addition to areas that farm households consider to be important.

The result will be expected to lay a benchmark for study on the situation of participation in Fadama projects. It will also serve as a source of information for assessing the performance and impact of the project in the state and equally stand as a reference cum useful guide for the next phase of this programme. The study will further generate data and information that would encourage participation and also expose linkage opportunities to potential partners, credit agencies, and nongovernment organizations etc. of the projects.

The result of this research is expected to achieve similar outcomes in the long run when adopted by policy makers, sectoral planners and the government at various levels.

HOW TO RECEIVE PROJECT MATERICAL(S)

After paying the appropriate amount (#5,000) into our bank Account below, send the following information to

08068231953 or 08168759420

(1)    Your project topics

(2)     Email Address

(3)     Payment Name

(4)    Teller Number

We will send your material(s) after we receive bank alert

BANK ACCOUNTS

Account Name: AMUTAH DANIEL CHUKWUDI

Account Number: 0046579864

Bank: GTBank.

OR

Account Name: AMUTAH DANIEL CHUKWUDI

Account Number: 3139283609

Bank: FIRST BANK

FOR MORE INFORMATION, CALL:

08068231953 or 08168759420

AFFILIATE LINKS:

easyprojectmaterials.com

googleprojectsng.blogspot.com

myprojectsng.blogspot.com.ng

https://projectmaterialsng.blogspot.com.ng/
https://foreasyprojectmaterials.blogspot.com.ng/
https://mypostumes.blogspot.com.ng/
https://myeasymaterials.blogspot.com.ng/
https://eazyprojectsmaterial.blogspot.com.ng/
https://easzprojectmaterial.blogspot.com.ng/

easyprojectmaterials.com.ng

http://graduateprojects.com.ng/

http://freshprojects.com.ng/

http://info247.com.ng/

projectgtaduates.com.ng

projectmarket.com.ng

projectschool.com.ng

projectstudent.com.ng

projectshop.com.ng

projectstores.com.ng

projectarena.com.ng

projectbases.com.ng

projectwisdom.com.ng

projectsense.com.ng

projecttorch.com.ng

projectlamp.com.ng

projectmentor.com.ng

projectteacher.com.ng

projectjunction.com.ng

projectstop.com.ng

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *