International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, Volume 7, Issue 12, December 2017
ISSN 2250-3153
The Impact of Microfinance in Improvement of
Livelihoods Conditions of Rural Women's in Sinnar State
- Dindir Locality Sudan
Adam Adoma Abdalla
University of Sinnar, Faculty of Agriculture, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development, Abu Nama, Sinnar State
Abstract- The objective of this research is to assess the impact
of the funds offered by the Microfinance institution in Sudan and
administrated jointly between the Sudanese Agricultural Bank
(ABSUM) and the International Fund for Agricultural
Development (IFAD) on the development of rural women in
Dindir locality in Sinnar state. Specific objectives were set to
identify the socioeconomics characteristics of the beneficiaries
(loan receivers), assess the effect of microfinance on increasing
the cultivated land and animal holding, assess the effect of
microfinance on improving the productivities, identify the
benefits generated by the microfinance on crop production,
identify the benefits generated by the microfinance on the
livestock production, determine the types of most effective loans
offered by microfinance, assess the overall revenue of
microfinance compared to revenue prior to microfinance, and to
assess the effect of microfinance on the life of the beneficiaries.
The study has been conducted early 2017. The methodology used
for this research was the direct interviews of the beneficiaries
using structured questionnaire prepared specially for this
purpose. Stratified random sample technique was used for the
selection of sample. A statistical formula was used for
determining the sample size. The collected data were tabulated
and analyzed using Excel package facilities to produce tables and
graphs. The analyzed data has concluded into a number of
findings included: The microfinance has reflected a number of
impacts on the livelihood of the respondents included: little
impact on the area cultivated by different crops, significant
increase in the number of animal holdings for different animal
species, significant increase productivities of different cultivated
crops and animal species, remarkable increment of the revenues
of respondents on both farming and livestock with extra increase
on farming revenues, significant improvement on the livelihood
of the respondents with regard to potable water, connection of
electricity, and acquirement of gas cookers.
Index Terms- Microfinance, Dindir, women, Sinnar state,
Adam Adoma
I. INTRODUCTION
M icrofinance has evolved as an economic development
approach intended to benefit low income people and helps
in poverty reduction. The term refers to the provision of finance
serves to low-income clients and self-employed financial
363
services generally including saving, credit, and insurance and
payment services. Microfinance aims at designing and providing
access to suitable financial instrument for persons hitherto
excluded from conventional and formal financial system .The
excluded people tend to be the worst off section of any society.
The power people are particularly women in
poverty,(predominately in the formal sector) living mostly in
rural areas, but also urban slums, migrants ,habitations,
resettlement neighborhoods for displaced (Unicons, 2006).
Microfinance arose in 1980s after many started to question the
viability and effectiveness of subsidizes, state-delivered credit to
poor farms. In mid 1980's the subsidized target credit model
supported by many donors was the object of steady criticisms
because most programs accumulated large loans losses and
required frequent recapitalization to continue operation. It
became more and more evident that market based solution were
required. This has led a new approach that considered
microfinance as an integral part of the overall financial system.
Emphasis shifted from the top-down rapid disbursement of
subsidized loans to target population towards the building up of
the local sustainable institutions to serve the poor.
II. OBJECTIVES
The main objective of this research is to assess the impact
of the funds offered by the Microfinance and administrated
jointly between the Sudanese Agricultural Bank (ABSUM) and
the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) on
the development of rural women in Dindir locality in Sinnar
state.
Sub objective of the Research were as follows:-
1. To identify the socioeconomics characteristics of the
beneficiaries (loan receivers).
2. To assess the effect of microfinance on increasing the
cultivated land and animal holding.
3. To assess the effect of microfinance on improving the
productivities.
4. Identify the benefits generated by the microfinance on
crop production.
5. Identify the benefits generated by the microfinance on
the livestock production.
6. To determine the types of most effective loans offered
by microfinance.
www.ijsrp.org
International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, Volume 7, Issue 12, December 2017
ISSN 2250-3153
7. To assess the overall revenue of microfinance compared
to revenue prior to microfinance.
To assess the effect of microfinance on the life of the
beneficiaries.
III. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The methodology used for this research was the direct
interviews of the beneficiaries using structured questionnaire
prepared specially for this purpose. Stratified random sample
technique was used for the selection of sample. A statistical
formula (n = N/]1+N(e2)[,Yamane and Taro. 1967).)
was used for determining the sample size, this has resulted into a
total of 338 households was determined as sample size for this
study. For actual selection of those households, the entire area
was divided into two main areas East Dindir and West Dindir,
another step involved the determination of the villages were
those households are residing. Thirty villages were determined
for the conduction of the study. The entire sample size was
allocated to the two main areas and the villages proportionally
according to population size. The households were selected in
each village were selected using random selection technique. The
respondents were questioned about their socio-economic
characteristics, aspects related to their farming and animal
holdings with regard to use of microfinance and the outcome of
those activities and the impact of the outcome of their activities
on their life, etc
IV. STUDY AREA
Sinnar state is located in the south east of Sudan, the study
area (Dindir locality) is located in south east of the state and
adjacent of the border with Ethiopia and characterized by
relatively rich rainfall. Sinnar state was selected for the purpose
of this study for many reasons. Firstly: the microfinance was
implemented in this state for five years consecutively. Secondly:
The whole beneficiaries were women. Thirdly: the area has been
described by severe backward of women in many aspects
including poverty and illiteracy. Fourthly: The study area is
accessible.
Socio-economic Characteristics of Respondents
Respondents Ages
Table 1. Respondent's distribution by age
Age group
Young(20-40)
Middle(41-60)
Old(Greater than 60)
Total
Source: Field (field survey (2017).
Table 1 is presenting the distribution of respondent ages. In
order to get clear picture about the structure of the population in
the study area, the respondents ages have been categorized into
364
V. SAMPLE SIZE
The sample size was obtained by the following formula:
(1) ss = Z2 * (p)*(1-p)
c2
(2) Sample size = ss 1 + ((ss-1) pop.
Z = Z value (e.g. 1.96 for 95% confidence level). P =
Percentage picking a choice, expressed as decimal (0.5 used for
sample size needed).
c = Confidence interval, expressed as decimal (e.g., .05 =
5). pop = Population
The sample size was determined by the desired level of
precision. Scientifically, it is known that the degree of precision
increases as sample size increases. Also the level of precision can
be increased by strata issuing more homogeneous sub-samples
(Abdalla, H. S., 2008).
VI. ANALYSIS TECHNIQUES
The data which had been collected using structured
questionnaires have been initially tabulated using Excel sheet for
capturing the data. The tabulated data has been analyzed using
Excel package techniques for producing averages, graphs and
comparison of the results. The analyzed data were sorted into the
two main areas of the study area for comparison. The analysis
had included the averages of land and animal ownerships, the
productivities of the area cultivated and the livestock species; it
also included the revenues of both farming and livestock per
household in Sudanese pounds and impact on the livelihood of
the beneficiaries.
VII. RESULTS
This chapter focuses on the analysis of the primary and
secondary data, but the main emphases were devoted towards the
analysis of the primary data which was included the socio-
economic characteristic of the respondents (age, educational
level, marital status of the respondents and the family size) and
the household economic activities which was dominated by the
farming of different crops and rearing of domestic animals.
Frequency Percentage%
196 57
110 33
33 10
388 100
three categories mainly included young age farmers, middle age
farmers, and old age farmers. This classification was based on
the fact that the age is an important factor for the adoption of
www.ijsrp.org
International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, Volume 7, Issue 12, December 2017 365
ISSN 2250-3153
new technologies, improvement of productivities and the only 10% of the total respondents. This high number of young
potentionality of participating in the programme activities and middle age respondents indicates that the most of farmers in
(Hassan2002). In addition to that is to examine importance of the study area were in the age of economic production,
different ages in the proper utilization of the funds. potentially have good awareness that allow them to access and
As it has been illustrated in table 1, the majorities (90%) of adopt the new technologies, and have good responses to change
respondents were a combination of young's and middle age, for improving their living conditions
while the old age respondents were by far the minority; they are

Educational Levels of Respondents

Table 2. The educational levels of respondents

Educational level Frequency Percentage

Illiterate 275 81.3
Elementary 30 9
Secondary 28 8.2
Above secondary 5 1.5
Total 338 100
Source: Field survey (2017).
illiterate or without formal education, while only about 19% of
Table 2 is presenting the educational level of respondents. respondents had different level of formal education of whom 9%
Number of years of attending formal education could be an were obtained elementary educational level, 8.2 % obtained
important factor in accelerating the rate of adoption of new secondary and only 1.5 % were managed to progress above
technologies and the farmers awareness and access to social and secondary school level. The high percentage of illiteracy among
economic services (Hassan2002). According to table 2, this table the respondents could indicate the level of challenges facing the
has indicated that the illiteracy rate is very high among the participants in order to achieve the programme benefits which
population under the study. Almost 81% of the respondents were assumed to determine standard of living.

Marital Status
Table 3. Distribution of respondents by material status

Status Frequency Percentage

Married 293 87
Single 35 10
Divorced 10 3
Total 338 100%
Source: Field survey (2017).

The marital status is quite essential in the rural areas,
especially with regard to household management and the
diversification of income for the family. As it has been illustrated
in table 3, about 87% of the respondents were married. There is
high potentiality that the married respondent could have larger
household size than those not married. The increasing number of
the family members is the sign of the availability of labor within
the family, which they could contribute for increasing the family
income and the improvement of the household livelihood status.

Family Size
Table 4. Family Size

Family size Frequency Percent

Small size(1-5) 98 29
Medium (6-10) 199 59
Large(11 and more ) 41 12
Total 338 100
Source: Field survey (2017).

Table 4 is presenting the average family of household head, and the other members which might
respondents. Family size consists of the all family include the couple in case of married, the children,
members living in one house and sharing the family and any other members living within the house
resources, the household members include the premises and sharing the available resources. The

www.ijsrp.org
International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, Volume 7, Issue 12, December 2017 366
ISSN 2250-3153

household size is a crucial issue in development
programme planning as the services that any
programme planning, as the services that any
programme can distribute is ought to be based on the
number of family for whom the living condition is to
be improved, and then adjust the programme
activities accordingly (Nasr dine 2002).
Table 4 shows that the total respondents have
been dominated by medium age category. The
average family size was estimated as eight family
members per householders.

Households Economic Activities

Table 5. Households Economic Activities

Activities Frequency Percentage

Farming and Animal rearing 290 86
Employment 48 14
Total 338 100
Source: field survey (2017).
farming or rearing of domestic animals or both
Table 5 is showing the different activities for activities, about 14% of the respondents were found
the different households. The table has indicated that to be with regular jobs.
about 86% of the respondents were engaged in

Households Economic status

Households Economic Status prior to use of Credit
Crop Production
The most crops of cultivated by the
householders were included sorghum, sesame,
groundnut and etc (Hassan2012).

Table 6. Crop Production Status prior to use of Credit

Area cultivated in Yield in ton per Ha Revenue in SDG

Ha
Crops West East West East West East
Dindir Dindir Dindir Dindir Dindir Dindir
Sorghum 0.43 0.44 0.44 0.45 579 595
Sesame 0.43 0.42 0.16 0.14 605 615
Groundnut 0.42 0.43 0.13 0.12 188 193
Total 1.30 1.30 0.73 0.71 1462 1402
Source: Field survey 2017

Table 6 shows the area cultivated in hectares per
household and yield in tons per hectare, and total
revenue per crop and per household for all the
cultivated crops in the two regions in the study area in
2012. This is indicating the status prior to use of
credit. On average the total area cultivated by
different crops including sorghum, sesame, and
Livestock Production:
groundnut was approximately 1.3 hectares in both
administrative units, while the yield was estimated at
about 0.73 and 0.71 tons per hectare in West and East
Dindir administrative units respectively. And also the
total revenue per household was estimated
approximately 1400 Sudanese pounds.

Livestock Production status prior to credit

Table 7. Average Production of Milk in liters per Animal per day prior to microfinance.

Animals Ownership of different Yield milk(liter) Revenue

animal species per household
Animal species West East West East West East
Dindir Dindir Dindir Dindir Dindir Dindir

www.ijsrp.org
International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, Volume 7, Issue 12, December 2017 367
ISSN 2250-3153

Cattle 7.7 8 3.3 3.4 460.1 464.1

Sheep 4.8 5.5 0.6 0.5 35.8 39.2
Goats 1.8 1.08 0.4 0.5 9.4 9.3
Total 4.3 4.4 505.41 512.6
Source: Field survey 2017.
Table 7 is showing the ownership of different about three liters per household from the cattle; which
animal species by household. Cattle was dominated means that only about half a liter per cow per day.
the different animal species in both administrative But about the production of milk by sheep and goats
unit. On average there are about eight cows per was very low and only about quarter of liter of milk
household. This is followed by sheep on average per sheep or goat per day. The low productivities of
about five sheep per household, the least ownership animal has affected the overall revenue of from
was goats, and there are only about two gats per animal production. On average there are only about
household. On relation to animal products, there are five hundred per household.

The Impact of Microfinance on Production Activities

Table 8. Microfinance Donors

Institutions Objects Focus Contribution%

Sudanese Bank(ABSUM) Increasing income Poorest households 50%
IFAD(ABSUM) Reduce poverty Poorest households 50%
Total 100%
Source: Field survey 2017
in the study area, also indicated the objectives of
Table 8 is determining the institutions that every institution behind the funding and communities
contributed in financing farming and animal benefited from the microfinance.
production through microfinance approach over time

The Historical Background of Microfinance in the Study Area:

Table 9. Microfinance Development over years

Year No of financed households Percentage

2013 40 12
2014 74 22
2015 100 30
2016 124 36
Total 338 100
Source: Field survey (2017).

Table 9 is indicating the development of
microfinance overtime in the study area. It has been
indicated that the funding was started since 2012 but
it was in small scale; the size of households funded in
2013 was only represented about 12% of the
households included in the sample size related to the
study. The funding continued since 2012 in ascending
manner. The largest group of households received
microfinance was during the physical years 2015 and
2016 with 30% and 36% of the total sample size of
the study. This is indicates the awareness of the
communities by the usefulness of this type of funding
in increasing their income and the improvement of
their livelihood. The upcoming paragraphs would
explain the impact of funding on the life of the
communities dealt with microfinance.

The impact of Microfinance on Production Activities

The Impact of Microfinance on Crop Production
Table 10. Allocation of Funds to Cultivated Crops

Crops Frequency Percentage

Sorghum 130 38
Sesame 110 33
Groundnut 98 29

www.ijsrp.org
International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, Volume 7, Issue 12, December 2017 368
ISSN 2250-3153

Total 338 100

Source: Sudanese bank 2015

Table 10 is presenting the allocation of funds
between the different crops cultivated in the study
area. Seemingly there is no significant difference in
relation to the importance of the crops cultivated in
the study area. It should be noted that sorghum was
mainly cultivated for the household consumption,
however; the surplus is also sold out in many
occasions. The other two crops were included sesame
and groundnut both of them were cultivated for the
cash income purpose, nevertheless; 38%, 33%, and
29% of the funds were allocated for sorghum,
sesame, and groundnut respectively.

Crops Production
Table 11. The Impact of Microfinance on Area Cultivated in 2016

Crop Area cultivated in Ha Yield in ton per Ha Revenue in SDG

West East West East West East
Dindir Dindir Dindir Dindir Dindir Dindir
Sorghum 0.44 0.45 0.86 0.85 1651 1675
Sesame 0.43 0.44 0.23 0.22 2040 1959
Groundnut 0.59 0.58 0.29 0.28 906 867
Total 1.45 1.47 1.38 1.35 4597 4501
Source: field survey 2017.

Table 11 shows the area cultivated in hectares
per household and yield in tons per hectare, and total
revenue per crop and per household for all the
cultivated crops in the two regions in the study area in
2016. This is indicating the status prior to use of
credit. On average the total area cultivated by
different crops including sorghum, sesame, and
groundnut was approximately 1.45 hectares and 1.47
hectares in West Dindir and East Dindir
administrative units respectively, while the yield was
estimated at about 1.38 and 1.35 tons per hectare in
West and East Dindir administrative units
respectively. And also the total revenue per
household out of those cultivated crops was estimated
approximately to be 4597 and 450 Sudanese pounds
for West Dindir and East Dindir administrative units
respectively.

Analysis of Areas Cultivated

The Impact of Microfinance on the Area Cultivated by Different Crops
Table 12. Average Area Cultivated, over years

Crops Area Cultivates in Hectares Percentage of

increment
West Dindir West Dindir West West
2012 2016 2012 2016 Dindir Dindir
Sorghum 0.44 0.45 0.43 0.44 2% 2%
Sesame 0.42 0.44 0.43 0.43 5% 0%
Groundnut 0.43 0.58 0.42 0.59 35% 40%
Total 1.30 1.47 1.30 1.45 13% 12%
Source: Field survey 2017
administrative. But the significant increasing was
Table 12 is showing the comparison of area observed in cultivation of the groundnut, it has been
cultivated in 2012 prior to funding with area increased by 35% and 40% for West Dindir and East
cultivated in 2016 after the funding for all cultivated Dindir administrative units respectively. But in
crops. The increasing of area cultivated for sorghum general the area was increased by 13% and 12% in
was not significant in both administrative units; it was West Dindir and East Dindir administrative units
only about 2% in both of them. The area for sesame respectively.
was only increased by 5% in West Dindir

The Impact of Microfinance on the Productivities of cultivated crops

www.ijsrp.org
International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, Volume 7, Issue 12, December 2017 369
ISSN 2250-3153

Table 13. The yield in ton per hectare

Crops Yield in ton per hector Percentage of

increment
West Dindir West Dindir West West
2012 2016 2012 2016 Dindir Dindir
Sorghum 0.45 0.85 0.44 0.86 89% 95%
Sesame 0.14 0.22 0.16 0.23 57% 44%
Groundnut 0.12 0.28 0.13 0.29 133% 123%
Source: Field survey 2017

Table 13 is showing yield of hectare per ton for
different cultivated crops in the study area. Unlike
the area cultivated, the average productivities for all
cultivated crops have been increased significantly
after the funding. The yield for sorghum was
increased by 89% and 95% for West Dindir and East
Dindir administrative units respectively; the yield for
sesame was increased by 57% and 44% for West
Dindir and East Dindir administrative units
respectively; but the increase of yield for the
groundnut was very remarkable in both
administrative units; it was increased by 133% in
West Dindir administrative unit and 123% in East
administrative unit. The increasing of productivities
for all crops was on the contrary for the average area
cultivated it indicates that the funds were used for
farming technologies such as improved seeds,
pesticides, mechanized cultivation rather than for
increasing the area cultivated. It also indicates that the
microfinance has played very significant role in
increasing the productivities; which means that
increasing fund for an extra land cultivated in the
future would guarantee the improvement of the
livelihood for the communities using the
microfinance and general development in the area and
ultimately the alleviation of poverty of the population
which is the objectives of the funding donors.

The Impact of Microfinance on the Revenues of Cultivated Crop per Household

Table 14. Outputs of cultivated crops over years

Crops Crop Revenue per household in Percentage of increment

Sudanese pounds
West Dindir West Dindir West West
2012 2016 2012 2016 Dindir Dindir
Sorghum 595 1675 579 1651 182% 185%
Sesame 615 1959 605 2040 219% 237%
Groundnut 193 867 188 906 349% 382%
Total 1402 4501 1462 4597 221% 214%
Source: Field survey 2017

Table 14 is clearly presenting the revenues of
crops cultivated in the study in Sudanese pounds per
household. It also attempting to describe the actual
changes occurred as the result of using the
microfinance. The table has indicated significant
increase in the revenues of all crops in both
administrative units. In West Dindir administrative
unit it has been indicated the increase in the revenue
of different crops was included 182% for sorghum,
219% for the sesame, and 349% for the groundnut;
the overall increase was estimated at 221%. While in
East Dindir the increase in the revenues was included
185% for the sorghum, 237% for the sesame, 382%
for the groundnut, and 214% as overall increase in the
revenues. These increments could only be attributed
to the use of microfinance which tremendously
increased the productivities which resulted in total
production beside the stability of the area cultivated.
The Impact of Microfinance on Livestock
Production
Livestock form an important component of the
agricultural sector, with production mainly based on
traditional pastoral systems (90% of the livestock in
the country belong to the traditional pastoral
production systems). The Ministry of Animal Wealth
estimated the camels, cattle, sheep and goats
population in 2004 with about 3.3, 38.3, 48.0 and
42.0 million heads respectively as well as 37.0
millions of poultry.
Livestock provide milk, meat, hides and skins,
hair, manure, transport, subsistence and income

www.ijsrp.org
International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, Volume 7, Issue 12, December 2017 370
ISSN 2250-3153

generating for many households. The production of
milk and meat by different classes of livestock is
shown in Table 2. The contribution of agriculture
sector to GDP in 1999 was accounted for 49.8%, of
which 22.3% was from the livestock component.
Live animals (especially sheep e.g. in 2003 some
1,351,685 live sheep were exported, meat and hides
and skins are important items in the countrys exports
(Table 2) and significantly contributes to foreign
exchange earnings. Despite the significant roles
played by animal production in Sudan but still
government spent huge amounts of hard currencies
for importing animal product to country this for
example in 2013 imported considerable quantities of
dairy products amounted to 66,104 tons of milk with
cost about US$ 18,332,000. (Ministry of Animal
Wealth Resources).

Table 15. Households with livestock in the study area

Livestock Frequency Percentage

Cow 125 37
Sheep 108 32
Goat 105 31
Total 338 100
Source: Field survey 2016

Table 15 is presenting the household own of the households own the different of the animal
different animal species in the study area. The table species. This indicates that besides farming there are
has indicated that 37% of the households own cattle, many household own livestock as another activity
32% own sheep, and 31% own goats. However; some besides farming.

The Impact of Microfinance on Livestock Population & Production

Table 16. Average Animal Holdings per Household

Crops Number of Animal Heads per Percentage of

Household Increment
West Dindir West Dindir West West
2012 2016 2012 2016 Dindir Dindir
Cattle 7.7 12.77 8 12.92 66% 62%
Sheep 4.8 4.86 5.5 5.04 1% -8%
Goats 1.8 2.09 1.08 2.06 16% 91%
Source: Field survey 2017

Table 16 is presenting the average animal
holding per household in the two administrative units
prior of microfinance funding and after the funding.
There is no variation in the average of animal holding
per household in the two administrative units. The
current average animal holding per household is
approximately thirteen cows, five sheep, and only tow
goats. Different animal species have been increased
tremendously in both administrative units with
exception of sheep which only increased by 1% in
West Dindir and decreased by 8% in East Dindir
administrative unit. This is probably indicates that
most communities tend to sold out sheep for their
needs because the price of sheep is relatively higher
compared to goats.

Milk Production
Table 17. The Status of Milk Production per Household over years

Milk production per household in liters per day

West Dindir Percentage of East Dindir Percentage of
2012 2016 increment 2012 2016 increment
Cow 3.3 6.47 96% 3.4 7 106%
Sheep 0.6 0.60 0% 0.5 0.61 22%
Goat 0.4 0.41 2% 0.5 0.49 -2%

www.ijsrp.org
International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, Volume 7, Issue 12, December 2017 371
ISSN 2250-3153

Table 17 is showing the comparison of milk West Dindir administrative unit and by and 106% in
productivities prior to funding and after funding. East Dindir administrative unit. While the sheep milk
Seemingly the milk production in the study area was was only increased by 22% in East Dindir, but the
almost generated from the cattle rather than sheep or production of milk for goats was very little or not
goats. The milk production was increased by 96% in used for milk production.
The Impact of Microfinance on the Revenues of Livestock Production
Table 18. Productivities and Revenues of Animal Production

Livestock No. of animals Yield of milk(liter) per Revenue per year

household per day
West East West Dindir East West East Dindir
Dindir Dindir Dindir Dindir
Cattle 12.77 12.92 6.47 7.0 4465 4884
Sheep 4.86 5.04 0.60 0.61 52.3 54.2
Goat 2.09 2.06 0.41 0.49 16.7 18.1
Total 4534 4956
Source: field survey

Table 18 is showing the average productivities average the revenue out of the animal production per
of milk production per household per day, average household in 2016.
animal holdings for all the different animal species,

Table 19. Outputs of livestock Production over years

Crops Milk Revenues per household in Percentage of

Sudanese pounds increment
West Dindir West Dindir West West
2012 2016 2012 2016 Dindir Dindir
Cattle 2278 4465 2371 4884 96% 106%
Sheep 53 52.3 44 54.2 0% 22%
Goats 16 16.7 18 18.1 2% -2%
Total 2347 4534 2434 4956 93% 104%
Source: field survey

Table 19 is presenting the comparison of animal
production revenues for the period prior to
microfinance funding and after the funding. The
study has indicated that there significant increase of
the revenues out of the milk production. The revenue
out of milk production was increase 96% in west
Overall Analysis of Microfinance Impact on the
Beneficiaries in the Study Area
The below paragraphs are attempting to
summarize the overall benefits generated by the
Dindir and 106% in east Dindir. In consideration of
the different animal species the overall increase of
revenues of milk production was increased by 93% in
West Dindir administrative unit and by 104% in East
Dindir administrative unit for each household.
funding of the microfinance on the life of the
beneficiaries and the changes occurred in the
community due to the use of the microfinance by
some of the community members in the study area.

www.ijsrp.org
International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, Volume 7, Issue 12, December 2017 372
ISSN 2250-3153

Area Cultivated
Figure 1. The Impact of Microfinance on Area Cultivated

Figure 1 is presenting the details of average
holdings per household in the study area. The use of
microfinance did not show significant increase in the
area cultivated for all the crops with exception of
groundnut area cultivated which was increased by
35% in West Dindir and 40% in East Dindir. Actually
the original area cultivated in 2012 was
approximately only half a hectare. Therefore, despite
the significant increase in the percentage of the area
cultivated by the groundnut but the area cultivated
remained quite small. The increase in area cultivated
by other crops was not exceeded five percent. The
overall increment of the area cultivated was 13%
West Dindir and 12% in East Dindir. It should be
concluded that the funds allocated to farmers were
not directed for increasing the area cultivated and it
seems that it was directed for the other farming
activities for increasing the productivity which looks
positive sign that the traditional farmers think about
increasing the productivity through best practices
when they get resources.

Animal Holding
Figure 2. The Impact of Microfinance on Average Animal Holding per Household

Figure 2 is presenting the details of average
animal holding per household in the study area. The
average animal holding of different species per
household prior to the introduction of the
microfinance in the study area was about seven cattle,
approximately five sheep, and about two goats in
West Dindir administrative unit and about seven
cattle, six sheep, and two goats per household in East
Dindir unit. The introduction of the microfinance has
increased the cattle by 66%, sheep by only 1% and
goats by 16% in West Dindir administrative unit.
Also in East Dindir unit has increased the cattle by

www.ijsrp.org
International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, Volume 7, Issue 12, December 2017
ISSN 2250-3153
62%, sheep was decreased by 8%, and the goats
increased by 91%. This is clearly indicating the
usefulness of the microfinance for supporting the
poor families. Apparently the majority of the
communities prefer to keep the cattle for milk
Productivities:
The productivities are meant by average yield
per unit of production, in this regard it means the
productivity of crop production unit for different
cultivated crops in which ton per hectare was used for
Crops Productivities
Figure 3. The Impact of Microfinance on Average Productivities of Cultivated Crops in tons per hectare
Figure 3 is presenting the details of average
productivities of different crops cultivated in the
study area. The microfinance has influenced the
productivities of all cultivated crops in the study area.
The influence was varying from crop to another,
however; the increment of productivities was very
significant and profitable to all farmers. Sorghum
productivity was increased by 89% in West Dindir
administrative unit and by 95% in East Dindir
administrative unit. While increment in the
productivities of sesame was slightly lower than
sorghum but it was also noticeable, in West Dindir it
Livestock Productivities
Figure 4. The Impact of Microfinance on Average Productivities of Milk Production in liters per Household
Figure 4 is presenting the increment of milk
production per household. The increase of milk
373
production and the sheep and goats for selling for
different purpose, because the populations of the
aforementioned animal species in most cases have not
been increased but in some case decreased.
measuring the productivity and the animal production
the average liters produced per day per animal for the
different animal species had been used.
was increased by 57% and in East Dindir by 44%. At
the same time the increments for groundnut is also
remarkable it reached 133% in West Dindir and
123% in East Dindir. The increments in the
productivities of those crops are the main advantages
of the microfinance. It should be noted that the area
cultivated was almost remained unchanged or minor
changes, but the real change was occurred in the
productivities of crops which is matching the
objectives of the donors (increasing income and
reduction of poverty).
productivities from cattle is quite remarkable; it has
been increased by 96% in West Dindir and by 106%
www.ijsrp.org
International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, Volume 7, Issue 12, December 2017 374
ISSN 2250-3153

in East Dindir which represent the core production of (sheep and goats) were not supported by the
milk in each family. The productivities of milk from microfinance. The major support was directed toward
the other animal species were very low and the the cattle. Nevertheless, the production of cattle is
increments were not significant. This could be compensating the production of the other species.
attributed to the fact that those other animal species
The Revenues
The Revenues of Cultivated Crops
Figure 5. The Impact of Microfinance on Average Revenue of Cultivated crops in Sudanese pounds per
household

Figure 5 is presenting the increments in
revenues of cultivated crops per household. Now it
has become obvious that the introduction of
microfinance on funding of farming activities of
cultivated crops in the study area has significantly
increased the farmers income out of the farming
activity. The returns of sorghum and sesame have
been almost increased by approximately 200% or
more, while groundnut was increased by near 349%
in West Dindir and 382% in East Dindir.

Table 20. Crops Revenues in Sudanese Pounds

Crops Crop Revenue per Household in Percentage of increment

Sudanese Pounds
West Dindir West Dindir West Dindir West Dindir
2012 2016 2012 2016
Sorghum 595 1675 579 1651 182% 185%
Sesame 615 1959 605 2040 219% 237%
Groundnut 193 867 188 906 349% 382%
Total 1402 4501 1462 4597 221% 214%

The Revenue of Milk Production

Figure 6. The Impact of Microfinance on Average Revenue of Animal Production in Sudanese pounds per
household

Figure 6 is presenting the increments in study area. It is clear that the percentage of revenue
revenues of milk production per household in the increments for animal production is lower than the

www.ijsrp.org
International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, Volume 7, Issue 12, December 2017 375
ISSN 2250-3153

percentage of revenue increments of farming activity. animal production, the revenue of those animal
The revenue of cattle milk was increased by 96% in categories were not significantly increased with
West Dindir and 106% in East Dindir. But the low exception of sheep in East Dindir which increased by
increments in the productivities of sheep and goats only 22%.
production have been reflected in the revenues of
Table 21. Milk Revenues in Sudanese Pounds

Animal Milk Revenues per household in Percentage of

species Sudanese pounds increment
West Dindir West Dindir West West
2012 2016 2012 2016 Dindir Dindir
Cattle 2278 4465 2371 4884 96% 106%
Sheep 53 52.3 44 54.2 0% 22%
Goats 16 16.7 18 18.1 2% -2%
Total 2347 4534 2434 4956 93% 104%

Overall Revenues
Figure 22. The Impact of Microfinance on the Overall Revenue of Farming and Livestock Production in
Sudanese Pounds per Household

Overall Revenues in Sudanese Pounds

West Dindir East Dindir West West
Dindir Dindir
Year 2012 2016 2012 2016
Farming 1402 4501 1462 4597 321% 314%
Livestock 2347 4534 2434 4956 193% 204%
Overall 3749 9035 3896 9553
Increments percentages 241% 245%
Table 22 is presenting the overall revenue of This indicates that the microfinance in higher in
both farming and livestock production of the farming compared to livestock. The overall influence
household economy. The microfinance has increased of the microfinance has indicated that the revenue has
farming revenue by 321% in West Dindir and 314% been increased by 241% in West Dindir for both
in East Dindir; it also increased the livestock revenue farming and livestock production and 245% in East
by 193% in West Dindir and 204% in East Dindir. Dindir.

The Impact of Microfinance on Improvement of Households Conditions

Table 23. Households Asset Improvement in West Dindir Administrative unit.

Before funding After Funding Percentage

Participation on community water sources 8 25 313%
Sending of children to school 3 16 533%
Connection of electricity to house 5 10 200%
Acquirement of Gas Cooker 20 120 600%
Source: field survey 2017.

Table 24. Households Asset Improvement in East Dindir Administrative unit.

Before funding After Funding Percentage

Participation on community water sources 2 15 750%
Sending of children to school 2 9 450%
Connection of electricity to house 3 40 133%
Acquirement of Gas Cooker 10 103 1030%
Source: field survey 2017.

www.ijsrp.org
 International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, Volume 7, Issue 12, December 2017
ISSN 2250-3153
It is highly expected that the improvement of
the households returns would automatically get
reflected into the life of the households and increases
their assets specially those unaffordable items when
the resources are limited. In addition to the analysis
of the impact of microfinance on items directly
funded, the study also attempted to study the change
Potable Water
The communities in those areas are in most
cases depending on shallow wells on their home
consumption and watering of their animals. Due to
increasing income of households as the result of
funding; great numbers of households have managed
Education
The number of children sent to school has been
increased by almost 500%. Indeed the original
number of pupils enrolled in schools was quite low.
However; that number has been increased
Electricity Power
The rural communities in most case they were not able to
use the essential facilities such as connection of water or power
to their house. In this study the number of households who
managed to connect power supply (electricity) to their houses has
been significantly increased (see table 23 and 24). At the same
time also the number of households who managed to own gas
cooker has been increased. This is not only useful to their
families, but it is quite useful for the environment, definitely it
conserves the environment which is the source of life for those
communities and mankind in general. Because in the absence of
those facilities the communities are compelled use the forest for
their relevant needs.
VIII. RECOMMENDATIONS
The study recommends the following:
1. Expansion of the micro-finance beneficiaries.
2. Extension of the project life span to cover other
activities.
3. Encouragement of the communities to form their own
cooperatives for lending.
Periodic evaluation of the project to measure the impact of the
project on the beneficiaries and the community
REFERENCES
[1] Abdullah, A.A., (1995). Towards a better and sustainable agricultural
development, the National Centre for Research, Khartoum, Sudan.
[2] Ali,A.I.,(2001). Economic of groundnut production in New Halfa
Agricultural Production Corporation.
[3] M.Sc thesis, faculty of agriculture, University of Khartoum.
376
occurred in the livelihood level of the households.
Tables 23 and 24 are presenting the level of
improvements on the life of the communities in the
study area. Three main items were investigated
including the improvement of the water, education,
and power. The study had indicated tremendous
improvements on those items.
to contribute with other for constructing communal
shallow wells for their communities. This has
increased the amount of water per household and
shortened the distance for getting the water and time
saving.
tremendously. Funding the children was very
laborious to most families; in most cases the drop out
of schools was quite high.
[4] ELHadi, N.M, (1999). The development of agricultural sector case study of
the Bank of Sudan.
[5] M.S.C thesis, faculty of Agriculture, university of Khartoum, Sudan.
[6] Musa, A.M., (1994). History of the Banking System in the Sudan. Strategy
for the national development of the Agricultural horizon, Ministry of
finance and Economic Planning 2000, Sudan.
[7] Ali Mirgani, (2004). Impact of participation in Group-Based Credit
Programmes Activities on Rural woman Empowerment. Ph.D. thesis,
University of Sudan for Sciences and Technology.
[8] Bello,A., (1998). Some Environmental and socio-economic Impacts of
Intermediate Technology in rural development. A Case study of Nuba
Mountains Rural Development Project. Ph.D thesis, Faculty of Economics
and social studies, Khartoum University.
[9] Al Tahir.M.(1996). Poverty Alleviation in Sudan between Banks of Saving
and Development Khartoum.
[10] Lela , Uma(1975). The Design of rural development lesson from Africa,
World Bank, London.
[11] Sudan Rural Development Company, Annual Reports (1987 - 1996).
[12] The National Economic Salvation Programme(1190-195)Ministry of
Finance and Economic Planning, Khartoum, Sudan.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microfinance
[13] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rural_poverty
AUTHORS
First Author Adam Adoma Abdalla, PH.D holder in
Management of Resources, Assistant Professor in Agricultural
Economics (Faculty of Agriculture, University of Sinnar, Sudan).
He acquires multi-experiences in academic research,
humanitarian and civil affairs, integrated development projects,
and long experience in socioeconomic research related to conflict
analysis, project management, and environmental issues
www.ijsrp.org
International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, Volume 7, Issue 8, August 2017 377
ISSN 2250-3153

www.ijsrp.org