World Bank Document...2016/11/02 · Document of The World Bank Report No: ICR00003895 IMPLEMENTATION COMPLETION AND RESULTS REPORT (IDA-44940IDA-52930 IDA-58490) ON A CREDIT IN THE

Document of

The World Bank

Report No: ICR00003895

IMPLEMENTATION COMPLETION AND RESULTS REPORT

(IDA-44940IDA-52930 IDA-58490)

ON A

CREDIT

IN THE AMOUNT OF SDR 153.4 MILLION

(US$ 250 MILLION EQUIVALENT)

TO THE

FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA

FOR A

THIRD NATIONAL FADAMA DEVELOPMENT (FADAMA III) PROJECT

November 2nd, 2016

Agriculture Global Practice

Western Africa Country Department 2

Africa Region

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

ii

CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS

(Exchange Rate Effective 00000000)

Currency Unit = Naira Naira155 = US$1 US$1.62976 = SDR1

FISCAL YEAR: March 29, 2009-December 31st, 2013

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

AfDB African Development Bank

ADP Agricultural Development Program

APS Agricultural Production Survey

ATA Agricultural Transformation Agenda

BMPIU Budget Monitoring and Price Intelligence Unit

CAADP Comprehensive African Agricultural Development Program

CDD Community Driven Development

CPAR Country Procurement Assessment Report

CPS Country Partnership Strategy

CSDP Community and Social Development Project

DA Designated Account

EIA Environmental Impact Assessment

EIG Economic Interest Group

EMCAP Economic Management Capacity Building Project

ERGP Economic Reform and Governance Project

ERR Economic Rate of Return

ESIA Environmental and Social Impact Assessment

ESMF Environmental and Social Management Framework

FA Financing Agreement

FCA Fadama Community Association

FCT Federal Capital Territory

FDF Fadama Development Facilitators

FEM Finance and Expenditure Management

FGN Federal Government of Nigeria

FIKS Fadama Information and Knowledge Services

FM Financial Management

FMAP Financial Management Action Plan

FMAWR Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Water Resources

FMD Financial Management Department

FMEnv Federal Ministry of Environment

FMF Federal Ministry of Finance

FMR Financial Monitoring Report

FMS Financial Management System

FPM Financial Procedures Manual

FRR Financial Rate of Return

iii

FUEF Fadama Users’ Equity Fund

FUG Fadama User Group

GEF Global Environment Facility

GDP Gross Domestic Product

GES Growth Enhancement Scheme

GPN General Procurement Notice

IAR Institute of Agricultural Research

IAR&T Institute for Agricultural Research and Training

IAU Internal Audit Unit

ICB International Competitive Bidding

ICR Implementation Completion Report

IDA International Development Association

IFPRI International Food Policy Research Institute

IFR Interim Financial Report

IITA International Institute of Tropical Agriculture

ILRI International Livestock Research Institute

IPMP Integrated Pest Management Plan

IP/DO Implementation Progress /Development Objective

IRR Internal Rate of Return

LCRI Lake Chad Research Institute

LDP Local Development Plan

LFD Local Fadama Desk

LFDC Local Fadama Development Committee

LG Local Government

LGA Local Government Authority

LGC Local Government Council

M&E Monitoring and Evaluation

MDG Millennium Development Goal

MIS Management Information System

MOU Memorandum of Understanding

MTR Mid-Term Review

NARIS National Research Institute

NCAM National Centre for Agricultural Mechanization

NCRI National Cereal Research Institute

NEEDS National Economic Empowerment and Development Strategy

NEPAD New Partnership for African Development

NFCO National Fadama Coordination Office

NFDO National Fadama Development Office

NFDP National Fadama Development Project

NFRA National Food Reserve Agency (previously Project Coordinating Unit under FMAWR)

NFTC National Fadama Technical Committee

NGO Non-governmental Organization

NPV Net Present Value

NRCRI National Root Crop Research Institute

OP/BP Operational Policy/Bank Procedures (of the World Bank)

PDO Project Development Objective

PEMFAR Public Expenditure Management and Financial Accountability Review

PFM Project Financial Management

PFMU Project Financial Management Unit

PHRD Policy and Human Resource Development Fund

PIM Project Implementation Manual

PMP Pest Management Plan

PNA Participatory Needs Assessment

PRA Participatory Rural Appraisal

iv

RPF Resettlement Policy Framework

RRA Rapid Rural Appraisal

RSS Rural Sector Strategy

SA Special Account

SACA State Action Committee on AIDS

SEEDS State Economic Empowerment and Development Strategy

SGCBP State Governance and Capacity Building Project

SFCO State Fadama Coordination Office

SFDC State Fadama Development Committee

SFTC State Fadama Technical Committee

SIP Strategic Investment Program

SLM Sustainable Land Management

SOE Statement of Expenditure

SPA Subproject Agreement

Senior Global Practice Director: Juergen Voegele

Sector Manager: Simeon Ehui

Project Team Leader: Adetunji Oredipe

ICR Team Leaders: Vikas Choudhary, Abimbola A. Adubi

v

NIGERIA

THIRD NATIONAL FADAMA DEVELOPMENT (FADAMA III) PROJECT

CONTENTS

Data Sheet

A. Basic Information

B. Key Dates

C. Ratings Summary

D. Sector and Theme Codes

E. Bank Staff

F. Results Framework Analysis

G. Ratings of Project Performance in ISRs

H. Restructuring

I. Disbursement Graph

1. Project Context, Development Objectives, and Design .............................................. 1

2. Key Factors Affecting Implementation and Outcomes .............................................. 7

3. Assessment of Outcomes .......................................................................................... 17

4. Assessment of Risk to Development Outcome ......................................................... 30

5. Assessment of Bank and Borrower Performance ..................................................... 32

6. Lessons Learned ....................................................................................................... 34

7. Comments on Issues Raised by Borrower/Implementing Agencies/Partners .......... 37

Annex 1. Project Costs and Financing .......................................................................... 38

Annex 2. Outputs by Component ................................................................................. 39

Annex 3. Economic and Financial Analysis ................................................................. 42

Annex 4. Bank Lending and Implementation Support/Supervision Processes ............ 57

Annex 5. Beneficiary Survey Results ........................................................................... 59

Annex 6. Stakeholder Workshop Report and Results ................................................... 61

Annex 7. Summary of Borrower's ICR and Comments on Draft ICR ......................... 62

Annex 8. Comments of Cofinanciers and Other Partners/Stakeholders ....................... 63

Annex 9. List of Supporting Documents ...................................................................... 64

Annex 10. Project Results Framework for FADAMA-III Additional Financing (Till

June 2016) ……………………………………………………………………………….65

MAP …………………………………………………………………………………..73

vi

Data Sheet

A. Basic Information

Country: Nigeria Project Name:

THIRD NATIONAL

FADAMA

DEVELOPMENT

PROJECT (FADAMA

III)

Project ID: P096572 L/C/TF Number(s): IDA-44940, IDA-

52930, IDA-58490

ICR Date: 08/09/2016 ICR Type: Interim ICR

Lending Instrument: SIL Borrower: FEDERAL REPUBLIC

OF NIGERIA

Original Total

Commitment: USD 250.00M Disbursed Amount: USD 235.00M

Revised Amount:

Environmental Category: B

Implementing Agencies:

National Fadama Coordination Office, Fadama Coordination Offices of the 36 States of the

Federal Republic of Nigeria and the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Federal Ministry of

Agriculture and Rural Development

Cofinanciers and Other External Partners:

Federal Government, State Government, Local Governments, Beneficiaries, IDA

B. Key Dates

Process Date Process Original Date Revised / Actual

Date(s)

Concept Review: 06/27/2006 Effectiveness: 03/23/2009 03/23/2009

Appraisal: 02/25/2008 Restructuring(s): 03/19/2012

Approval: 07/01/2008 Mid-term Review: 11/07/2011 01/26/2012

Closing: 12/31/2013 12/31/2019

AF1 was approved on 06/28/2013 and AFII was approved on 06/07/2016.

C. Ratings Summary

C.1 Performance Rating by ICR

Outcomes: Moderately Satisfactory

Risk to Development Outcome: Moderate

vii

Bank Performance: Satisfactory

Borrower Performance: Satisfactory

C.2 Detailed Ratings of Bank and Borrower Performance (by ICR)

Bank Ratings Borrower Ratings

Quality at Entry: Highly Satisfactory Government: Satisfactory

Quality of Supervision: Satisfactory Implementing

Agency/Agencies: Satisfactory

Overall Bank

Performance: Satisfactory

Overall Borrower

Performance: Satisfactory

C.3 Quality at Entry and Implementation Performance Indicators

Implementation

Performance Indicators

QAG Assessments

(if any) Rating

Potential Problem

Project at any time

(Yes/No):

No Quality at Entry

(QEA): None

Problem Project at any

time (Yes/No): No

Quality of

Supervision (QSA): None

DO rating before

Closing/Inactive status: Satisfactory

D. Sector and Theme Codes

Original Actual

Sector Code (as % of total Bank financing)

Agricultural extension and research 14 14

Agro-industry, marketing, and trade 20 20

Crops 28 28

General agriculture, fishing and forestry sector 21 21

Other social services 17 17

Theme Code (as % of total Bank financing)

Land administration and management 13 13

Other rural development 11 11

Participation and civic engagement 22 22

Rural services and infrastructure 43 43

Water resource management 11 11

viii

E. Bank Staff

Positions At ICR At Approval

Vice President: Makhtar Diop Obiageli K. Ezekwesili

Country Director: Rachid Benmessaoud Onno Ruhl

Practice

Manager/Manager: Simeon Ehui Karen Mcconnell Brooks

Project Team Leader: Adetunji A. Oredipe Simeon Ehui

ICR Team Leader: Vikas Choudhary and Abimbola

Adubi

ICR Primary Author: Vikas Choudhary and Abimbola

Adubi

F. Results Framework Analysis

Project Development Objectives (from Project Appraisal Document) The development objective of Fadama III Project is to increase the incomes of users of rural land

and water resources on a sustainable basis.

Revised Project Development Objectives (as approved by original approving authority) The development objective of Fadama III Project was not revised during Project implementation.

The development objective of Additional Financing I was same as Fadama III.

ix

(a) PDO Indicator(s)

Indicator Baseline Value

Original Target

Values (from

approval

documents)

Formally

Revised

Target

Values*

(AF1)

Actual Value

Achieved at

Completion or

Target Years

Indicator 1 75% of Fadama User households who benefit directly from Project supported activities

have increased their average real incomes by at least 40%.

Value: N170,548.27

Value: 75%

30,000

beneficiary

have increased

their income to

151,902.46

Value: 204,814.10

Comments

(Incl. %

achievement)

Analysis of the administrative record and National database showed that the average

nominal income increased by 62.0% for direct project beneficiaries. However, by

discounting with the prevailing CPI at project closure, the average real income of

beneficiaries was 204,814.10 representing 20% increase in real income of beneficiaries.

Indicator 2 20% increase in yield of primary agricultural products (disaggregated by crops / agro

forestry, livestock and fisheries) of participating households.

\|w

Value: 0 The baseline

value for crops:

Rice: 2.24mt/ha

Maize: 1.6mt/ha

Sorghum: 1.26mt/ha

Millet: 1.14mt/ha

G/Nut: 1.16mt/ha

Cowpea: 0.68mt/ha

Soybean: 1.21mt/ha

Yam: 11.53mt/ha

Cassava 11.14mt/ha

20%

40%

29.7%

Comments

(Incl. %

achievement)

The productivity of nine (9) key enterprises indicated an overall average increase of

29.7% in the yields of major crops ranging from rice to cassava as listed above at the end

of the project.

Additional financing 1 changed this indicator to “40% increase in yield of cassava, rice,

sorghum and horticulture of participating households”

Indicator 3 10% of the replacement value of the common assets used for income generating activities

of FUGs is saved annually (with effect from year 2).

0 10% 10% 7.32%

Comments

(Incl. %

achievement)

As at project implementation completion, in December, 2013, a total of 39,715 FUGs

had acquired 247,069 various assets valued at N11,499,789,040.85 with a total of

N842,047,315.41 saved in FUEF. Accounts across the 36 states representing 7.32% in

savings. The 7.32% may not have been the true position of financial /savings, as the

majority of the FUGs were at different status of implementation, and of which some of

the savings had been given out as loan to group members for expansion of their business.

Indicator 4

Surveys at midterm and at Project closure to show that at least 75 percent of Fadama

users are satisfied with operations, maintenance & utilization of community-owned

infrastructure & capital assets.

0 75% 75% 87.87%

x

Comments

(Incl. %

achievement)

The PDO study on the contribution of SSCI and assets conducted at mid-term in 2011

showed that 81.3% of the assets’ beneficiaries were satisfied with the operation,

maintenance, and utilization of productive assets acquired by them. The RRA conducted

at Project end reported that 87.87% of the assets’ beneficiaries were satisfied with the

operation, maintenance, and utilization of productive assets acquired by them.

Indicator 5

Physical verification of operations, maintenance, and utilization of assets at mid-term and

at Project closing by surveys of randomly selected sites shows that at least 50% of assets

& community0owned Infrastructure are operating satisfactorily and are maintained and

utilized.

0 50% 50% 83%

Comments

(Incl. %

achievement)

The PDO study on the contribution of SSCI and assets showed that 89% of the

infrastructure and assets acquired were in good condition and working satisfactorily.

However, the RRA survey conducted at the end of the Project in December 2013

indicated that 83% of the infrastructure and assets acquired were in good condition and

working satisfactorily.

* The targets in this column represent those from AF1. The targets have since been adjusted further for AF2, approved in

May 2016.

(b) Intermediate Outcome Indicator(s)**


Original Target

Values (from

approval

documents)

Formally

Revised

Target

Values

Actual Value

Achieved at

Completion or

Target Years 1. By Mid-Term

Review, 75% of

participating

communities have

Local

Development Plans

(LDPs) developed

through a

participatory

process.

0 75%

At endline (December

2013) a total of 4,726

(87.4%) out of 5,407

registered FCAs

prepared LDPs through

participatory processes.

2. By end of

Project, 75% of

FUGs and FCAs

have fully (100%)

implemented

approved LDPs.

0 75%

At endline 3,438 out of

the 4,561 approved

LDPs representing

75.4% has been

implemented.

3. By end of

Project, 20% of

participating Local

Government

Authorities

integrate Local

Development Plans

into their annual

plans.

0 20%

At endline a total of 685

LGAs participated in

the project, while 396

(57.8%) LGAs have

integrated LDPs in their

annual work plan and

budget (AWPB).

xi

4. 40% of

participating

Fadama

Communities have

at least one

productive rural

infrastructure

constructed /

rehabilitated

(disaggregated by

feeder roads,

culverts/small

bridges).

0 40%

Out of 5,407 registered

FCAs, 3,717 (68.7%)

FCAs have

at least 1 productive

infrastructure

disaggregated by Feeder

road

constructed/rehabilitated

, culverts, and market

stalls etc.

Small Bridges 0 67 Culverts 0 405

market stalls 0 1736

lock up shops 0 709

Cold Room 0 177

Feeder Roads

Rehabilitated 0 153 roads (531 KM in total)

Feeder Roads

Constructed 0 137 roads (413 KM in total)

5. 30% increase in

the number of

Fadama users

procuring rural

advisory services

in the participating

communities (EIG

disaggregated by

gender and

vulnerable groups).

0 30

A total of 31,673

(49.2%) out of 64,347

registered Fadama users

procured advisory

services.

6. 50% increase in

the number of

Fadama farmers

with access to

agricultural inputs

(EIG disaggregated

by gender and

vulnerable groups,

age and farm size,

land use, crop,

classes of

technology, etc.).

0 50

Fadama Farmers with

access to Agric inputs at

endline was 373,211

out of 965,157(38.7%).

7. 20% increase in

income from sales

of value-added

agricultural

products. 0 20

Available administrative

records showed that

beneficiaries realized ₦

419,016,976.95 as

against ₦

215,925,522.25 income

after value addition to

products representing

94% increase in

income.

8. 30% of FCAs

have access to

market

information. 0 30

2,811 (52%) FCAs out

of 5,407 FCAs had

access to market

information at endline.

xii

9. 30% increase in

the number of

Fadama farmers

receiving extension

services from

ADPs

(disaggregated by

gender, vulnerable

groups, and land

use).

0 30

373,625(38.7%) out of

965,157 Fadama

farmers had access to

extension services from

the ADP at closing of

the project.

Disaggregation by

vulnerable groups.

72,226 out of 373,625

(19.3%) of vulnerable

groups had access to

extension services.

Disaggregation by

Gender (Male)

Male Groups: 206,448

(55.3%) had access to

extension services at

endline.

(Female)

Female Groups: 94,006

(25.2%) accessed

extension services at

endline.

10. 20% increase in

new technology

adopted in Fadama

communities

(disaggregated by

gender, vulnerable

groups, age, land

use and farm size).

0 20

350 out of 5,407 (6.5%)

FCAs registered have

adopted new technology

e.g., Sawah Technology,

floating fish feed,

artificial insemination,

Bio-gas production, and

utilization.

Livestock

At endline 26 (7.4%)

FCAs have adopted

new technology in

livestock production

e.g., artificial

insemination.

Agro forestry

At the close of the

project, 187 (53%)

FCAs have adopted new

technology in agro

forestry. Enhanced

activities on Agro

forestry due to Up

scaling of SLM

practices

Crops

137 (39%) FCAs have

adopted new technology

in crop production e.g.,

Sawah rice production.

** Result framework of AF1 was revised significantly which is attached in Annex 10.

xiii

G. Ratings of Project Performance in ISRs

No. Date ISR

Archived DO IP

Actual

Disbursements

(USD millions)

1 12/26/2008 Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 0.00



4 06/23/2010 Satisfactory Satisfactory 47.42














H. Restructuring (if any)

Restructuring

Date(s)

Board

Approved

PDO Change

ISR Ratings at

Restructuring

Amount

Disbursed at

Restructuring

in US$,

Millions

Reason for Restructuring and

Key Changes Made DO IP

03/19/2009 N S S 115.79 Reallocation of proceeds

between project components

06/28/2013 N S S 200.10

Additional financing 1 of $200

million, revision to the results

framework, focus on priority

value chains of cassava, rice,

sorghum, and horticulture;

geographic focus on 6 priority

states.

06/07/2016 Y S S

Second Additional Financing of

US$50 million, revision to the

Results Framework, focus on

six conflict affected states,

AF1 closing date extended to

December 31, 2019.

xiv

I. Disbursement Profile

1

1. Project Context, Development Objectives and Design

The Third National Fadama Development Project (P096572) was approved by the Board on June

1, 2008, for a total IDA Credit of US $250 million. It became effective on March 23, 2009, and

the planned closing date was December 31, 2013. However, the project benefited from a first

Additional Financing (AF) of US $200 million that was approved by the Board on June 28, 2013

and became effective on October 21, 2013. The revised closing date following the first AF was

then shifted to December 31, 2017. Recently the Federal Government requested a second AF of

US $50 million for the project under emergency processing procedure. This proposed AF2 (North

East Food Security and Livelihood activities – P158535) seeks to respond to the urgent food and

livelihood needs of households who have been affected by conflicts in the six North East states in

Nigeria -- Borno, Yobe, Adamawa, Taraba, Bauchi, and Gombe. The request for the second

Additional Financing was going to bring the age of the project to 11.5 years since the AF2 is now

slated to close on December 31, 2019. Accordingly, a policy waiver was requested for the

deferral of the first ICR. However, according to paragraph 58 of BP 10.00, if an Additional

Financing will extend the closing date of the parent project by more than 10 years from the

original approval date, an interim ICR is required to be prepared before Management’s decision

on appraisal and negotiations of such additional financing, and a supplemental ICR is to be

prepared upon the full Project completion. Given the emergency nature of the operation, a waiver

was requested to allow the first ICR to be completed six months after approval of the waiver

rather than before Management’s decision on appraisal and negotiations. This interim ICR is

being prepared under that broader context.

This ICR only deals with the implementation of FADAMA-III and covers the implementation

period from 2009 to December 2013. This ICR does not deal with the implementation of

FADAMA-III Additional Financing (AF1) which has disbursed 26.81% till June 2016.

Nonetheless, this ICR does provide a brief summary of implementation progress of the additional

financing.

“Fadama” is a Hausa name for irrigable low land, usually low-lying plains that overlay shallow

aquifers that straddle Nigeria’s major river system. The World Bank supported FADAMA-I

project to help develop irrigable Fadama land. Since then, the World Bank have supported a

series of successive projects under FADAMA Series. These projects are now working beyond

Fadama lands, but the brand name of Fadama has stuck for these Community Driven

Development (CDD) agricultural projects. The table 1below provides a summary and evolution

of FADAMA series of projects.

Table 1. Summary of FADAMA Series of Projects

Duration IDA Loan Project approach Geographical Coverage

FADAMA-I 1992-

1999

$67.5

million

Top-down, building on

Agriculture Development

Program and emphasis on

infrastructure investment.

Seven core states (Bauchi,

Gombe, Jigawa, Kano,

Kebbi, Sokoto, and Zamfara).

FADAMA-II 2003-

2009

$69.9

million

Bottom-up, CDD building on

FADAMA-I with the

incorporation of local

development plans for a more

inclusive model.

11 states (Adamawa, Bauchi,

Gombe, Imo, Kaduna, Kebbi,

Lagos, Niger, Ogun, Oyo,

and Tarana) and the Federal

Capital Territory (FCT), with

the African Development

Bank covering six additional

2

states (Borno,Katsina, Kogi,

Kwara, Pleateau, and

Jigawa), bringing the total to

18.

FADAMA-III 2008-

2013

$250

million

Bottom-up, CDD, building on

FADAMA-II with the

incorporation of FADAMA

User Equity Fund for a more

sustainable model.

36 states and the Federal

Capital Territory (FCT).

FADAMA-

AF1

2013-

2019

$200

million

Bottom-up, CDD, and Value

chain approach with focus on

cassava, rice, sorghum, and

horticulture with export

potential.

Six chosen states (Anambra,

Enugu, Kano, Kogi, Lagos,

and Niger).

FADAMA-

AF2

2016 -

2019

$50 million Bottom-up, CDD approach for

restoration of the livelihoods

of conflict affected

households.

Six North East states affected

by conflict in Nigeria (Borno,

Yobe, Adamawa, Taraba,

Bauchi, and Gombe).

1.1 Context at Appraisal

Nigeria is one of the largest economies in Africa and has a very large agricultural sector which, in

2005, accounted for almost 60 percent of the total labor force, generated one-third of GDP, and 5

percent of total exports. Until the early 1970s, Nigeria was self-sufficient in food production with

a small surplus for export and agriculture was the main foreign exchange earner. However, the

sector stagnated thereafter for a number of reasons, key among them was the discovery,

exploitation, and exports of oil that resulted in a subsequent policy shift and resources allocations

from agriculture to the oil-industry. Since agriculture employs an overwhelming share of the

Nigerian labor force, stagnation of the sector resulted in increased poverty incidence.

The National Economic Empowerment and Development Strategy (NEEDS) explicitly

recognized the strategic importance of the agricultural sector and lists special initiatives that the

federal government intends to pursue in increased food and agricultural production. The NEEDSs

sets out a series of quantitative performance targets to be achieved, including 6 percent annual

growth in agricultural GDP, US $3 billion per year in agricultural exports, and 95 percent

national food self-sufficiency. The agricultural policy objectives outlined in the NEEDSs were

complemented by those contained in the New Agricultural Policy.

In addition to the special initiatives outlined in the NEEDSs, the government developed a seven-

point agenda for economic development based on the recognition that achievement of substantial

and sustainable growth can be realized only if productivity and competitiveness of Nigerian

agriculture can be improved. Pursuant to these overarching strategic goals, the government

professed to adopt the following key policy option: a) promote a fully integrated and coordinated

agricultural revolution through a functional public-private sector collaborative approach; b)

promote a private sector-led input supply and distribution system; c) provide the enabling policy

environment; d) support all-season farming by promoting rainfed and irrigated farming with an

emphasis on Fadama agriculture; e) develop markets and agribusiness with the provision of

adequate infrastructure, such as, rural feeder roads, good rail network and water transportation,

communication, power and water resources. The expected outcomes were: (a) diversified

economy; (b) food security; (c) employment generation; (d) economic linkages; (e) increased

exports; (f) poverty reduction; and (g) environmental sustainability.

3

To support the Government of Nigeria in increasing rural income and reducing poverty in rural

areas, the World Bank approved The Third National Fadama Development Project (Fadama III)

as a Specific Investment Loan (SIL) in June 2008. Fadama III was a national project operating in

all 36 Nigerian States and the Federal Capital Territory (FCT). The project became disbursement

effective on March 23, 2009, launched on August 23, 2009, and was closed on December 2013.

The total cost of $450 million was slated to be shared amongst the World Bank (55.6 percent) and

the Federal, State, and Local Governments in the ratio of 5.1 percent, 17.1 percent and 8.9 percent

respectively while the participating communities were expected to contribute about 13.3 percent.

About 20 percent of beneficiary contributions were estimated to be in kind (materials and/or

labor).

The project builds upon two previous projects. The first National Fadama Development Project

(NFDP- I), implemented from 1992-1999 emphasized exploiting the aquifers using simple drilling

techniques to increase dry season crop production. Wash bores were also provided to crop farmers

through simple credit arrangement aimed at boosting aggregate crop output. The lessons learnt in

the NFDP-I informed the design of the Second National Fadama Development Project (NFDP II)

to include as beneficiaries, non-crop farmers, marketers and other stakeholders who are directly or

indirectly affected by the Fadama resource. NFDP-II adopted a community driven development

(CDD) approach to provide productive assets to the poor and economically vulnerable groups and

was implemented in 12 states. African Development Bank also supported the initiative in additional

six states bringing the total participating states to eighteen. Encouraged by the positive results of

NFDP-II, the Government of Nigeria decided to roll out the project to the entire country and sought

World Bank assistance to finance the third phase of the project.

Fadama III’s primary objective was to support the growth of non-oil sectors through the

development of productive infrastructure that will enhance agricultural productivity and the

diversification of livelihoods. It involves building participating communities’ social capital and

their capacity to provide rural services to the poor. It also promotes the socially inclusive and

environmentally sustainable management of natural resources. The project covered up to 20 Local

Government Authorities (LGAs) in the States that did not benefit from Fadama II and up to 10 new

LGAs in the Fadama II states.

The project aligned with The National Economic Empowerment and Development Strategy

(NEEDS), which aimed to empower the poor to escape poverty by creating a conducive

environment for engaging in economic activities. The project was also aligned with the goals of the

New Agricultural Policy (NAP) and the Rural Sector Strategy (RSS) as well as the Comprehensive

African Agriculture Development Program (CAADP).

Rationale for Bank Involvement

The project was appraised in this context. It builds on the achievements of the two predecessor

projects (NFDP I and II) which has yielded positive outcomes and helped introduced the concept

of community-driven development in Nigeria. The proposed project supports the government’s

strategic objective to enhance growth in sectors other than oil to achieve increased food security,

reduce poverty, and create employment and improved opportunities in rural areas. The project

focused on: (i) financing investments in productive community infrastructure to increase

agricultural productivity and diversity source of livelihood; (ii) building the capacity of

4

community organizations to increase the stock of social capital; (iii) strengthening the capabilities

of participating states and local governments to deliver services to the rural poor; and, (iv)

promoting socially inclusive and environmentally sustainable management of natural resources.

The project approach relied on facilitation for demand-driven investments and empowerment of

local community groups to improve productivity and land quality.

Fadama III aligned with Country Partnership Strategy 2005-2009 which supported the

implementation of Nigeria’s economic growth and poverty alleviation strategy as outlined in the

National Economic Empowerment and Development Strategy (NEEDS) and the state-level State

Economic Empowerment and Development Strategy (SEEDS). The Bank’s continued support for

the Fadama program and rolling it out nationwide was expected to facilitate implementation over

a broad geographic area and innovation in the environmental and financial sustainability of

interventions.

1.2 Original Project Development Objectives (PDO) and Key Indicators (as approved)

The development objective of Fadama III Project is to increase the incomes of users of rural land

and water resources on a sustainable basis. The project had the following outcome indicators:

1. 75% of FADAMA user households who benefit directly from project supported activities,

have increased their average real incomes by at least 40%.

2. 20% increase in yield of primary agricultural products (disaggregated by

crops/agroforestry, livestock and fisheries, etc.) of participating households.

3. 10% replacement value of the common asset used for income-generating activities of

FUGs is saved annually (with effect from year 2).

4. Surveys at mid-term and at project closing to show at least 75 percent of Fadama users

are satisfied with operations, maintenance and utilization of community-owned

infrastructure and capital assets acquired through the project.

5. Physical verification of operations, maintenance, and utilization of assets at mid-term and

at project closing by surveys of randomly selected sites shows at least 50% of assets and

community owned infrastructure are operating satisfactory and are maintained and

utilized.

1.3 Revised PDO (as approved by original approving authority) and Key Indicators, and

reasons/justification

The PDO was not revised during the course of project implementation.

1.4 Main Beneficiaries

The Project had a national coverage and in each of the 36 States and the FCT, the Project fully

covered up to 20 Local Government Authorities (LGAs) for the 19 states that did not benefit from

Fadama II operation, while in the Fadama II states, up to ten LGAs were added to the ten LGAs

that have already benefited. The Project’s target groups include: (a) the rural poor engaged in

economic activities (farmers, pastoralists, fishermen, nomads, traders, processors, hunters and

gatherers as well as other economic interest groups); (b) the disadvantaged groups (widows, the

5

handicapped, the sick and other vulnerable groups, including people living with HIV/AIDS and

unemployed youths; and (c) service providers, including government agencies, private operators,

and professional/semi-professional associations operating in the Project areas. The main

beneficiaries of the project were:

A total of 965,157 households comprising of 383,058 (40 percent) female and 582,099 (60

percent) male, grouped into 64,347 FUGs and 5,407 FCAs benefited directly from the

project.

Also, it was expected that the project would reach at least 2 million indirect beneficiaries

households, as members of the Fadama communities not benefitting directly from

subprojects, and non-Fadama communities who will gain from the investments in public

infrastructure and additional income and employment effects.

1.5 Original Components

The project had the following six components:

Component 1. Capacity Building, Local Government, and Communications and Information

Support (US$87.5million): This component includes: (a) capacity building support for community

organizations; (b) capacity building support to local governments; and (c) communications and

information support. The objective of this component is to support measures to build the capacity

of Fadama Community Associations (FCAs) and their constituent Economic Interest Groups

(EIGs), Fadama User Groups (FUGs), to access project advisory services and project funding and

that of the project staff to successfully implement the project.

Component 2. Small-Scale Community-owned Infrastructure (US $73.57 million)

The objective of Component 2 is to support the creation of economic infrastructure and local public

goods that would improve the productivity of Fadama user households. Under this component,

beneficiaries are required to pay 10 percent of the costs of construction and rehabilitation. The sub-

component was geared to finance community-owned infrastructure, such as surface and ground

water irrigation facilities; farm land clearing and development; on farm storage facilities; farm

internal roads; market infrastructure; access roads linking farm to markets/processing centers; and

hydraulic structures to enhance production capacity of farmers in a sustainable manner.

Component 3. Advisory Services and Input Support (US $39.5 million)

Under this component the Project financed: (a) advisory services - the Project provided support to

empower Fadama users -- farmers/pastoralists and other economic interest groups (EIGs) working

within their organizations and through their LGAs--to purchase advisory services from both public

and private sources; and (b) input support - this facility involves the adoption of new technology

by the farmers to enhance their financial capacity to purchase farm inputs (mainly seeds, fertilizers

and agrochemicals) and to build savings from incremental earnings to finance future purchases.

The Project used matching grant arrangement to deliver advisory services and input support.

6

Component 4. Support to the Agricultural Development Programs (ADPs), Sponsored

Research, and On-Farm Demonstration (US $37.43 million)

The Project provided support to the ADPs to carry out the following specific and limited functions:

(a) support to advisory service providers; (b) quality assurance of advisory services; (c) training of

facilitators; (d) sponsored research and on-farm demonstrations; and (e) training of extension staff.

Component 5. Asset Acquisition for Individual FUGs/EIGs (US $150 million)

A matching grant was used as seed money to empower smallholder and poor farmers to acquire

capital assets which they used to undertake a broad range of small-scale income generating

activities as well as improve farmers' access to markets and complementary support that added

value to farm produce. This approach to financing is adopted due to the low performance of rural

financial markets in Nigeria, which are particularly deficient and limited in terms of outreach in the

rural areas.

Component 6. Project Management, Monitoring and Evaluation (US $59.30 million)

This component was arranged to provide coordination and oversight function through: (a) technical

assistance to national and state level implementation coordination; (b) project coordination; and (c)

project monitoring and evaluation.

1.6 Revised Components

N/A

1.7 Other significant changes

At mid-term review on 19th March, 2012, the Project Management did a level II restructuring of

the project by re-allocating the balance of Project (IDA) fund for Grants and Fund across

subprojects components to carry out capacity building of stakeholders, provide support for farmers

to procure necessary inputs, and acquire productive assets needed for effective operation of their

farming activities. This reallocation of funds was considered necessary to align better with the

Federal and State Governments agenda on the implementation of the Agricultural Transformation

Agenda and achieve better harmonization of agricultural programs and enjoy political support. No

major changes were made to the implementation arrangements, but emphasis was made on

consolidating project gains and strengthening the M&E/MIS system. Resulting from the south –

south learning exchange from India and Srilanka, the project introduced the concept of federation

of FCA at local government and state levels.

1.8 Progress Report on the Fadama III Additional Financing

Background: The Nigeria government launched an Agricultural Transformation Agenda (ATA),

in 2011 specifically to improve value chains of prioritized agricultural commodities. The Bank

responded to the request of the government for support by providing additional financing to the

Fadama III project to meet the urgency of ATA and provide an existing well known and successful

platform to transform agriculture in the country. As such, a sum of US $200 million was approved

in June 2013, by the board of the World Bank as Additional Financing to Fadama III Project.

7

The Additional Financing (AF) is aimed at scaling up the impacts made under Fadama III and also

support clusters of farmers in six selected states with comparative advantage and high potential to

increase production and productivity of cassava, rice, sorghum and horticulture value chains.

These farmers will be linked to organized markets including the planned Staple Crop Processing

Zones (SCPZs) when established. The project also plans to facilitate linkages between the

federation of producers and existing processors. The selected States under additional financing are

Kogi, Anambra, Enugu, Niger, Kano, and Lagos. Provision was also made for other States to

join, under a strict criterion to participate in Fadama III AF. The objective of the additional

financing is the same as the parent Fadama III Project which is to sustainably increase the incomes

of Fadama Users across the 36 States and the FCT. In addition, the Fadama III AF targets a narrower

geographical focus on selected value chains with cluster farmers. On the average, the project is

expected to reach about 317,000 direct beneficiaries households in clusters and 1.4 million indirect

beneficiaries.

Achievement: The project is on track for most activities, and significant progress has been

recorded. The disbursement rate as at August, 2016 stood at 26.8 percent. The slow progress is

attributable to the steep learning curve experienced by the project following the introduction of the

Treasury Single Account system by the Federal Government of Nigeria. The performance of States

in payment of counterpart fund is satisfactory as the governments of the six States paid their

counterpart fund for 2015, while those of additional four States paid theirs for 2016. Others States

have got approvals for the payment of their counterpart fund but are awaiting release of the fund.

Out of a total of 2,224 business plans prepared, 1,551 have been approved for disbursement while

663 are being implemented across the States. These 663 business plans would support 6,234

hectares of farms across the four value chains in the core and production cluster States. The number

of business plan implemented is expected to drastically rise now that the rains have been well

established across the participating States. Harvesting of tomatoes cultivated during the dry season

has been completed in Kano while sorghum, rice, and cassava have been planted during this year’s

rainy season across all the participating States. The construction/rehabilitation of the Agricultural

Equipment Hiring Enterprises (AEHE) centers has been completed in Anambra, Niger, and Kogi

States, while those of other States are at varying stages of completion. In Niger, the AEHE has

generated about N 2.5 million during this growing season. In addition, the

construction/rehabilitation of roads and irrigation infrastructure around different value chains is on-

going across the entire core States.

Given that the project has just started full implementation, its achievement and factors affecting

implementation and outcomes to date cannot be evaluated. However, to provide a progress update

on the results so far, its current result framework, as of June 2016, is attached in Annex 10.

2 Factors Affecting Implementation and Outcomes

2.1 Project Preparation, Design and Quality at Entry

The Fadama III project design built on the major lessons and experiences that emerged from the

implementation of Fadama II. It was designed to scale up the intervention of the Fadama II project

in additional states while deepening the approach and coverage of the existing states. Fadama II

introduced an innovative local development planning (LDP) tool and built on the success of the

community-driven development mechanisms. The Fadama I and II successfully refined approaches

for improved utilization of the Fadama land. The cumulative positive impact of these earlier

successful Bank-assisted projects provided a robust platform for the design of Fadama III as a

8

small-scale and community-based approach to Fadama development in an environmentally

sensitive manner. The project was designed to cover 20 LGAs in each of the 36 states of the country

and the FCT.

The project was in line with the CPS for Nigeria -- Report No. 32412-NG; which was designed to

support the implementation of Nigeria’s economic growth and poverty alleviation strategy as

outlined in the NEEDS. The National Economic Empowerment and Development Strategy

(NEEDS) explicitly recognized the strategic importance of the agricultural sector and lists some

special initiatives that the federal government intended to pursue to promote increased production.

The NEEDS sets out a series of quantitative targets to be achieved as from 2008, including 6 percent

annual growth in agricultural GDP, US $3 billion per year in agricultural exports, and 95 percent

national food self-sufficiency. The agricultural policy objectives outlined in the NEEDS were

complemented by those contained in the New Agricultural Policy. In addition to the strategic

objectives outlined in the NEEDS, the Government also unveiled a seven-point agenda for

economic development. The Fadama program was explicitly recognized as part of the plan.

The design of the project therefore built on the CDD approach which was successful in the

implementation of the previous project and also introduced an innovative savings mechanism called

FUEF. The latter provided for the setting aside of 10 pecent for depreciation of assets in order to

serve as sustainability provision on the project and to facilitate the observed desire of participants

to continue investment after completion of the matching grant. As part of the lessons from Fadama

II project, the design also incorporated the strengthening of the extension system through support

to the Agricultural Development Programs (ADPs), sponsored research and on adaptive farm

research.

Given the success of the past project, the design engendered partnerships. The Government of Japan

financed over eight studies as part of the preparation of the Project through a Policy and Human

Resources Development (PHRD) Fund grant. The TerrAfrica Partnership of NEPAD also provided

technical support in design of the agenda for sustainable land and watershed management which

was supported under the Project. Thus GEF was utilized as part of the Project design which fell

under the umbrella of the GEF Strategic Investment Program for Sustainable Land Management in

Sub-Saharan Africa.

The Quality at Entry was assessed as satisfactory.

Assessment of Project Design

The Project design supported the government’s strategic objective to enhance growth in sectors

other than oil to achieve increased food security, reduce poverty, and create employment and

improved opportunities in rural areas. The Project aligned to achieve the goals of the New

Agricultural Policy and the Rural Sector Strategy, as well as the Comprehensive African

Agriculture Development Program’s (CAADP) target of 6 percent agricultural growth, objectives

of TerrAfrica Partnership and its GEF Strategic Investment Program (SIP) for Sustainable Land

Management (SLM) in Sub-Saharan Africa (SIP, led by the Bank and NEPAD).

The PDO was also relevant, appropriate and consistent with the project’s planned activities and

with the government’s long term rural development strategy. The indicators were both qualitative

and quantitative and made adequate provision to support evidence of impact. As compared with

the previous project, the PDO extended the coverage of the project to the “users of rural land and

water resources on a sustainable basis.” This allowed inclusiveness and a target that covered more

vulnerable groups than the users of “Fadama land” alone.

9

The project components were properly aligned to the objectives and articulated properly to address

the needs identified. The scope of a component under Fadama II; “Demand responsive advisory

services” was expanded to include “Input support” based on lessons of Fadama II. An appropriate

indicator was introduced for its measurement. This was very effective and it enhanced the

achievement of the PDO and also accelerated the disbursement of the project. The design also

introduced a new component IV on “Support to ADP” sponsored research and on-farm

demonstration in order to strengthen the quality of extension systems and support for on-farm

adaptive research. This was an important addition because of the weak adaptive research system,

but the design made it be counterpart fund driven and this reduced its expected impact on the

outcome, given the delays and non-payment of the counterpart funds in some participating states.

Therefore, implementation of the component could not be coordinated appropriately. Moreover,

there was a lack of cordial relationships between the Programme Manager of ADP and the Project

Coordinator at the state level in some states, which also affected the implementation of the

component. It was more of a struggle for control of resources and expected roles of the NFCO and

ADP on the component implementation, which the design did not clearly spell out during project

preparation.

Assessment of Risks

The major risks identified at appraisal were: (i) inadequate sustainability of subprojects after the

project has closed and/or the grant in completed; (ii) faltering government commitment to the CDD

approach; (iii) non-payment of Counterpart Contributions; (iv) gender biases curtail involvement

of women and undermine principles of inclusion and equity; (v) collusion and/or intimidation at

the community level to subvert procedures of transparency and accountability in management of

funds; (vi) bureaucratic resistance to the initiative on the part of communities; (vii) potential elite

capture and/or abuse of matching grant/grant programs; (viii) insecurity and violence in the Niger

Delta zone may hinder community involvement and project implementation. The overall risk was

assessed Moderate. These risks were correctly identified and appropriate mitigation measures

provided. Given that Fadama III was building on a previous project, the experience under the

Fadama II was expected to provide a guide for addressing any major issues during implementation.

Adequacy of participatory process

The project was prepared in a highly participatory manner. The government assembled a multi-

sectoral team of stakeholders who played a critical role in the implementation of the project. The

team, working under the NFRA (National Food Reserve Agency, previously Project Coordinating

Unit under FMAWR), included key staff of the Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Rural

Development (FMARD), Federal Ministry of Environment, Federal Ministry of Information, The

Agricultural Development Programmes (ADPs) , State Ministries of Agriculture, National Fadama

II Coordinating Office, Federal Ministry of Finance, and some notable NGOs. At design, extensive

consultations were held with beneficiaries, local governments, local communities, NGOs,

researchers, donors, and technical specialists to discuss the project ideas. Moreover, the

government had written to express a strong interest in having the project implemented in all 36

states of the federation including the Federal Capital Territory (FCT).

Therefore, the project design at appraisal was considered adequate and had high degree of

relevance. There was high government commitment and the overall project design was satisfactory.

2.2 Implementation

10

The Board approved the IDA credit of USD 250 million on July 1, 2008, to assist the Federal

Government of Nigeria to increase the income of users of rural lands and water resources in a

sustainable manner throughout the country. Fadama III Project was implemented at the Federal

level, and in all 36 States, including the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) as well as in 20 Local

Government areas of each state, by the respective State Ministries of Agriculture. The project

became effective on March 29, 2009, and the local development plans (LDPs) was used as an

innovative instrument to aggregate the participatory investment plans of the communities and

promote community-driven development (CDD) in implementation through disbursement to

communities for project implementation. To scale up impacts and development effectiveness of the

project, the Board of the Executive Directors also approved on June 28, 2013, an additional Credit

amount of US $200 million in line with OP/BP 10.00 by aligning it more closely with the new

Agricultural Transformation Agenda (ATA) of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

The project hit the ground running regarding implementation, given that it was a follow-on project

to a very successful Fadama II. Implementation began well after effectiveness in 2009, and the

project was well received and recognized by many at national and local levels. The project had

offices at the national, state, and local government levels which facilitates interaction and dialogues

with the government officials and project beneficiaries. There was no major restructuring of the

project apart from the restructuring on Funds re-allocation that was carried out during the mid -

term of the project in April 2012.

Some of the key factors that affected the implementation of the project and its outcomes are the

following:

i. Partnership for Innovative activities: About thirty identified innovative activities were

introduced into the project implementation across the States through partnerships. These

activities increase the level of benefits to FCAs/FUGs, enhance the achievement of the

PDO and also ensure sustainability of sub-projects. These innovative activities can be

categorized as collaboration/partnership and sole initiatives. Such collaborations are with

research institutes, donors, regional bodies, agro firms, and other units within the World

Bank, etc. The sole efforts include bio-gas production, improved use of ICT services,

Fadama village concept, etc. These innovative activities enhanced the outcome of the

project and it won an Innovation Day Award based on its activities on “Conversion of

Waste to Wealth” during the competitive selection of projects for Innovation in 2011, for

the World Bank Innovation Day Celebration. The project also collaborated with AFTCS

and TWICT units of the Bank through, a programme on “ICT for Social accountability”

which was piloted for the project in two states in Nigeria. The programme primarily

deployed the use of information and communication technologies (ICT) –primarily the

mobile phone –to engage Fadama communities and enhance social accountability.

Through a mobile reporting tool and a network of reporters, beneficiaries of the project

were reporting on quality of service received. The citizen feedback was then integrated into

the monitoring and evaluation (M&E) system of the project. The project won “ICT for

Accountability” team award in 2012. Before the end of the project life, it was yielding

positive results and almost achieving the set targets set for its PDO. It won the Africa

Region VPU Award in 2013. The project also collaborated with National Center for

Agricultural Mechanization (NCAM)/Kinki University, Japan in 2010, on Sawah Eco-

technology for Rice Farming (SERIF) in five pilot States of Benue (North Central), Delta

(South South), Ebonyi (South East), Kebbi (North West), Lagos (South West) as well as

FCT. Results obtained from the demonstration sites was very positive and it indicated that

it is possible to have paddy yield increase of 6.5t/ha and 7.2t/ha as witnessed in the

demonstration sites in Ebonyi and Kebbi States respectively, against traditional paddy yield

of 1.5-2.5t/ha. The adoption by farmers increased yield of rice in states.

11

In collaboration with JICA, the project also initiated the Fadama information and

knowledge services (FIKS) project to complement and enhanced its objectives and

activities through JSDF funding support. FIKS supported mobile based advisory services

in four piloted states in order to enhance the farmers’ problem identification and response

system. To assist this initiative, the Project undertook sponsored research through entering

into a Performance-Based Contract with public and private research centers, including

centers of excellence such as the International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA), the

West African Rice Development Center (WARDA) and the International Livestock

Research Institute (ILRI) to develop technical propositions/recommendations/solutions to

problems and agronomic issues on crop, livestock and other activities. The project also

visited India in a south-south learning exchange visit to review various models on mobile-

based agricultural advisory services and eventually collaborated for guidance support with

IFFCO Kisan Sanchar Ltd. (IKSL) that operates the mobile-based agro advisory services.

Both are headquartered in New Delhi, India. The FIKS platform eventually provided a

valuable framework for the government’s growth enhancement scheme under the

Agricultural Transformation Agenda. (ATA) in 2013.

The project also collaborated with USAID-MARKETS to train the FCA members on

business plans and farm management through its National Agricultural Enterprise

Curriculum (NAEC) modules.

ii. Effective Supervision system: The coverage of Fadama III in 36 states including FCT and

operation in about 685 local councils as well as the formation and monitoring of over

200,000 FCAs was seen as a major challenge during the design stage. Therefore, the project

put in place a rigorously thought-out and designed supervision strategy, that includes ad-

hoc utilization of third-party monitoring, use of independent consultants, and ad-hoc state

and zonal implementation support missions. The project also established six zonal offices

which were well staffed to coordinate activities of a group of six to eight states and conduct

zonal supervision missions. This enhanced data collection, competitive spirits, and

achievement of project outcomes. The Zonal Coordinators reported to NFCO on regular

basis and coordinate reports and activities at the regional level. This assistes an oversight

function at the National level and also creates layers of a monitoring system for the Bank’s

implementation team. The regular workshops, rendition of M&E reports, comparison of

results across states, coupled with an effective communication system facilitates support

and coordination on the project.

iii. Federation of Fadama Community Associations (FFCAs): Under the South-South

Cooperation, the Fadama project undertook a study tour of India and Sri Lanka for learning

experiences on intensification of federation of community groups, use of agricultural

technological innovations and ICT, as well as promoting rural savings-credit revolving

scheme. This resulted in the organization and establishment of the Federation of Fadama

Community Associations (FFCA) with a revolving funds scheme and a pilot of mobile-

based agricultural advisory services on the project. Most of the states with strong FFCAs

have diversified their earnings and also served as strong aggregating units for their

members. This has helped the sustainability of project activities. Many FFCAs have

accumulated their FUEF savings and are in the process of establishing microfinance banks

on lines of the Plateau state that established “Fadama Farmers Microfinance Bank.” To

12

provide input to farmers, FFCA in Bauchi State, built and established a One-Stop-Shop-

Centre for farmers.

iv. Irregular payment of Counterpart Funds: One of the factors that delayed project

implementation was the irregular payment of counterpart funds by the states and local

governments. Irregular payments led to high staff turnover in some cases and delayed some

aspects of the project specified for support through counterpart funding. This affected

component IV implementation and the functioning of some local Fadama desk office

operations at local government councils. However, given that the project was effective and

functional in 37 states and 685 LGAs, the effects of default/delay in some states was not

significant on the project outcome.

v. Delayed payment /unwillingness to pay beneficiary contribution: At the inception of

the project, implementation was sluggish and only few LDPs could be implemented

because of lack of beneficiary contribution. This was because of high poverty rate and

sometimes the lack of trust and unwillingness of the beneficiaries to commit their funds.

As such, at the beginning of the implementation especially during the first year of

implementation, the grant/ beneficiary contribution ratio started with 50:50 and later to

60:40 and then to 70:30 for Assets. The 10 percent contribution for community

infrastructure was also not forthcoming initially until the project management carried out

a rigorous awareness campaign for community participation in order to prevent elite hijack.

vi. Communication support and establishment of Fadama Community Radio: The

project funded extensive communication and electronic media materials in order to create

awareness and prevent elite hijack. The communication strategy was well established and

adequate. It supported the establishment of one pilot community radio (CR) station in

Kutigi, in Niger state. The Community radio is owned, operated, and run by the Fadama

community on a volunteer basis. The increased awareness and access to information

enhanced the achievement of the project outcome.

vii. Gender and Governance: The project took commendable steps to ensure inclusive and

equitable Community participation at the FUG and FCA levels, thus addressing the issues

of gender and governance. Steps were also taken to strengthen the feedback loop between

beneficiaries, facilitators, and SFCOs. To enable this, hotlines were established to allow

beneficiaries report to SFCOs on cases of concerns or complaints on sub-project

implementation. The gender gap was substantially reduced and gender mainstreaming was

largely complied with. The project made it mandatory to have a third of executive members

of FCAs as women. It also established project support for the vulnerable population of

which gender was well classified. The project data was well disaggregated on gender basis,

and the evidence of many of the women groups were very successful. At closing, the

targeting was very efficient and women participation was about 40 percent. According to

the impact evaluation report, the targeting had significant impact on income increase. For

example, impact across gender shows that FIII female beneficiaries income increased by

31% compared to 28% for male-headed beneficiaries. Comparison of impact across

poverty tercile also indicated that FIII had significant impact among land poor beneficiaries.

These results underscores Fadama success in targeting the poor and women.

viii. Re-alignment of project implementation with ATA of the Federal Government of

Nigeria: The project was able to re-align its implementation to the government’s

Agricultural Transformation Agenda (ATA) in 2012/13. This was significant because the

13

presence of the project in all states provided the momentum to scale up of activities under

selected value chains of the ATA and the federal government decided to utilize the project

platform to ramp up the production system of selected value chains. This enhanced

participation of the states prioritized by ATA. It led to increased resource inflow to Fadama

by the state governments to support the project interventions. This was the case in Kogi,

Niger, and Kano states. The renewed interest by states to participate on the ATA

programme also made most states to pay counterpart contributions on Fadama. Other

benefits that accrued to project implementation included seed multiplication across value

chains, massive on-farm demonstration of new technologies, demand driven extension

system, collaboration with research institutes on development of value chains, value

addition through promoting women and youth in agribusiness, input support on

mechanization and tractorization, supporting agricultural statistics, data bank, and ATA

M&E system.

ix. Insurgence of Boko Haram Militant group: Though the project identified potential

insecurity and violence as one of the major risks during the preparatory stage, it was

envisaged for the Niger Delta only and the project was ill prepared for the Boko Haram

insurgency that erupted in the North Eastern states of Adamawa, Borno and Yobe States

and Bauchi, Gombe and Taraba states. These were also major Fadama states and most of

the project gains were eroded. Though the Bank and the government reacted, in form of

additional financing for the affected states, it will take some time to reverse the adverse

effects on the beneficiaries and the loss of social cohesion in some of the displaced

communities. The project through the additional financing is now building up the asset

base of the displaced beneficiaries that have returned back to their communities and have

prepared a strategic plan of support for the next 3 years.

x. Mid Term Review: At mid-term, the Project Management took steps to re-allocate the

balance of Project (IDA) fund for Grants and Fund across subprojects components to carry

out capacity building of stakeholders and provide support for farmers to procure necessary

inputs and acquire productive assets needed for effective operation of their farming

activities. This was considered necessary to achieve better harmonization of agricultural

programs and enjoy political support. No major changes were made to the implementation

arrangements but emphasis was made on consolidating project gains and strengthening the

M&E/MIS system.

2.3 Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) Design, Implementation, and Utilization

M&E Design: The Fadama III project had well-developed results based Participatory Monitoring

Evaluation and Learning (PME&L) system with a strong focus on project processes, results, impact,

and outcome in addition to input and output monitoring. Based on the experience of Fadama II, the

results-based M&E system was strengthened to support the quality and spread of implementation

under Fadama III. This improved real-time monitoring of the entire project cycle with a renewed

emphasis on results reporting. M&E capacity at all levels of implementation was strengthened with

the recruitment of qualified and experienced professionals, who were fully equipped to work full

time on M&E. The M&E activities were designed to accomplish the following: (i) generate Project

specific information on progress, processes, and performance; (ii) analyze and aggregate data

generated at various levels to track progress, process quality and project sustainability; and (iii)

document and disseminate feedback and key lessons learnt to relevant users and stakeholders. The

system consisted of self-monitoring at the community level, input-output monitoring through the

MIS, process monitoring system, comprehensive impact evaluation, and the methodical

incorporation of knowledge management. The comprehensive impact evaluation was incorporated

14

to measure income, welfare, environmental performance, and social capital gains. Taken together,

this system strengthened implementation and the planned intensive supervision regimes,

strengthened the technical quality of investments and upscaling by transferring knowledge across

settings, and support adaptive management by the Project.

Given the coverage, complexity and huge spread of the project across so many local governments

with small scale community sub-projects across the country, the guiding principle of the project

from the outset was to establish a robust and user friendly M&E system, including an operational

MIS. The project also established a robust web-based management information (MIS) system,

albeit which was not operationalized till the project completion, for regular monitoring of results

at FUG, FCA levels and aggregate for states and federal level. This has become operational and is

supporting the project through the second additional financing. This would allow implementing

agencies to report project performance in quarterly and mid yearly reports thereby creating a

database for performance indicators baseline and impact evaluation. The outcome indicators were

both quantitative and qualitative and were easy to collect and measure. There were facilitators at

project level, M&E system at the Local Fadama Desk (LFD), which collect data at local level while

each PIU has a functional M&E Specialist which monitor and aggregate data at state and federal

levels. Participatory M&E was undertaken and fed upwards into the national level Project MIS and

Knowledge Base.

M&E Implementation: The implementation of the system was thorough and forms the basis for

the baseline survey, mid- term survey and the impact evaluation of the project carried out by IFPRI.

The Mid-term review mission carried out an assessment of the M&E system, found it satisfactory

and recommended measures designed to strengthen it. The Monitoring and Evaluation Unit

prepared annual workplans, monitored project implementation particularly through the monthly

progress review meetings (MPRMs), Facilitators’ forum, monthly progress reports, physical

monitoring visits to subprojects sites and coordinated a number of studies to identify constraints as

well as project impact. The Project financed the costs for carrying out and managing the M&E

system, including data collection, aggregation, and analysis, training on M&E, impact evaluation,

reporting, and supervision. Experts in information technology and M&E were funded by the Project

to support the supervision system and ad-hoc studies were conducted to determine the

impact/challenges of sub-projects as a feedback mechanism for project improvement. Data were

collected on cost indicators and physical parameters of sub-projects and led to frequent changes in

management capacity and adjustment of subproject eligibility criteria and positive lists of sub-

projects. All stakeholders were trained to record and report their activities to facilitators and the

PIUs periodically. Periodic surveys were also carried out in order to provide additional information

needed by the project to populate the results framework of the project. Monthly and Quarterly

reports were developed for the Ministry of Agriculture at the state levels and the FMARD at the

Federal level and the Steering Committees of the project (SFTC and NFTC), The M&E Specialist

also provide support for internal controls for the different departments within the SFCO and NFCO.

There was a proposal to have software based automated M&E system, however, due to procurement

issues, this was not finalized as at December 2013 and the system relied on excel spreadsheet based

M&E system with its own limitations. Also, there were state wide variation in M&E data capture

and some states did not collate the data on time which affected overall quality, consistency, and

accuracy of M&E data for the project. The transition to software based automated M&E system in

the additional Financing is expected to greatly improve the quality and consistency of M&E data.

M&E Utilization

The quarterly reports generated from data collection process were used for decision making and

evaluation process. The required quarterly, bi-annual and annual reports of the project were

generated using the data from the M&E system. These included the price data, mobile based

15

advisory data carried out in collaboration with the ADP system, and used to strengthen the

extension system. Other reports were the beneficiary score cards, GRM mechanism baseline survey

report, and the beneficiary assessment survey report. The yield and production figures were made

specific to Fadama sites and were collected annually and form the basis for comparing efficacy of

interventions across different states of the country. The robust data base provided the platform for

carrying out the impact assessment of the project using Heckman’s Difference-In-Difference (DID)

approach, which was used to determine the impact of the project. The evaluation was able to

establish impact on production, yield income, and assets acquisition. The post completion

Economic and Financial analysis was also carried out based on the robust data produced by the

M&E system.

Lastly, a knowledge base consolidated best practice report was prepared using data and studies on

the project including experience from other parts of the world. This information was used by the

CDD Global solution group of the World Bank as an IEG learning product.

Overall, the performance of the Monitoring and Evaluation and Management Information System

unit of the project was adequate and satisfactory.

2.4 Safeguard and Fiduciary Compliance

Environmental and Social Safeguards: The overall environmental and social safeguards compliance

of FADAMA III has been consistently satisfactory. This Project falls into Environmental category

B as no adverse long-term, or cumulative impacts were anticipated. The project and the AF

triggered 8 World Bank safeguards policies dealing with Environmental Assessment (OP/BP 4.01);

Natural Habitats (OP/BP4.04); Pest Management (OP/BP 4.09); Physical and Cultural Property

(OP/BP 4.11); Involuntary Resettlement (OP/BP 4.12); Forests (OP/BP 4.36); Safety of Dams

(OP/BP 4.37); and Projects on International Waters (OP/BP 7.50). During the preparation of the

project the exact location of the proposed project activities were not known in sufficient details. As

a result, the client prepared and disclosed Environmental and Social Management Framework

(ESMF); Resettlement Policy Framework (RPF); and Integrated Pest Management Plan (IPMP).

The Environment and Social Management Framework (ESMF) and Resettlement Policy

Framework (RPF) provided guidance on managing the environmental and social impacts. The

ESMF and RPF outlined the general principles, protocols process, and procedures that were

followed when preparing site specific safeguard instruments under FADAMA III when any activity

that will be financed by the Fadama-III and has the potential to trigger any of the World Bank

safeguard policies and subsequent significant adverse environmental and social impacts. The

ESMF, IPMP and RPF that were prepared during the original project were subsequently re-

disclosed in-country and at the Info Shop for the purposes of the additional financing.

During actual implementation, the borrower demonstrated satisfactory goodwill and capacity to

address impacts of projects funded activities, with most states having a dedicated safeguards officer.

A series of training for safeguards officers have been provided by the Bank and other specialists at

different points over the life of the project. World Bank’s supervision missions to the project

showed that the project's capacity to implement the ESMF, IPMP, and RPF properly is adequate.

Specifically, the borrower demonstrated her commitment to mitigating adverse social and

environmental impacts. Regarding Safeguards compliance under the parent project, nationally a

total of 45,475 site specific ESMP were Prepared, 44,518 ESMP Screened, 44,275 ESMP

Approved, 39,057 and ESMP Implemented. The level of compliance in the six states of the North

East was also encouraging. The North East States had a total of 5,416 ESMP Prepared, 5246 ESMP

Screened, 5,246 ESMP Approved, and 4,216 ESMP Implemented. These safeguards instruments

have provided mechanisms to identify impacts beyond the generic ones for which standard

16

mitigation measures are built and to be applied during the implementation phase. In addition,

Environmental protection clauses were included in the contract documents for small-scale

infrastructure like rehabilitation and construction of feeder and Fadama access roads, culverts and

bridges, aggregation storage facilities, and markets. In terms of resettlement compliance, the

safeguards officers documented adequate processes of community consultation and decision

making, where community land was required for infrastructure development.

Beyond compliance, the project should be commended for its continual focus on genuine

community consultation and ownership of sub-projects. Further, the project has focused on

ensuring women and marginalized groups can effectively participate and has supported action

research and impact evaluations to improve targeting and access pathways. The project has

continually demonstrated a capacity to reach marginalized and disadvantaged groups in contexts

where other projects have not.

Financial Management: The overall FM risk exposure at project appraisal stage was rated high

before mitigation and Substantial following implementation of agreed mitigation measures.

Identified control risks at design were mitigated by the adoption of robust FM arrangements at the

Federal and State levels; these included the use of Project Financial Management Units (PFMU),

adoption of sound financial management procedures, and use of computerized accounting system

and qualified staff trained in Bank FM procedures. During project implementation there was

relative stability in the tenor of the project FM staff.

There was a progressive improvement in the FM performance throughout the project

implementation. The project’s internal controls were considered adequate. Annual project audit

reports contained unqualified audit opinion on the annual financial statements throughout the

project’s life, and the audit reports were consistently rendered timely to the Bank. The quarterly

Interim Financial Reports were prepared and submitted generally on time to the Bank and were of

acceptable quality.

Issues of inadequate documentation for incurred expenditures and unretired advances were

flagged during the FM implementation support missions conducted over the life of the project.

The recommended action plans following these observations were adequately implemented by the

NFCO and the SFCOs.

Procurement Management: The project was implemented by the Federal, 36 States and the

Federal Capital Territory making a total of 38 PIUs. The implementation arrangement was adequate,

but the initial procurement capacity at the Federal (NFCO) and a few States were weak. Weak

procurement capacity were observed following the conduct of Procurement Post Review (PPR) by

the Bank where many procurement lapses were observed. Consequently, and to implement the

Bank’s PPR recommendations, the PS of the NFCO and Procurement Officers of States with weak

capacity were replaced with more qualified and experienced procurement staff.

The engagement of a qualified and experienced PS by the NFCO brought positive changes in

procurement implementation of the entire project. This was because they hit the ground running

by embarking on a capacity training programme for all the POs of the States/FCT PIUs. To

further strengthen the contract management skills of the POs, a qualified Procurement Consultant

with Engineering background was engaged for one year. With the above arrangement and

training, procurement capacity was satisfactory for the remaining years of the project

implementation.

2.5 Post-completion Operation/Next Phase

17

During implementation, arrangements were made to ensure sustainability of project outcomes. The

assets provided by the project were clearly “marked” out to show the entity that owns it and

advisory services were provided to support operation and maintenance of the assets. In alignment

with the design expectation, the FUGs and FCAs kept 10 percent of the income generated from the

assets as depreciation allowance for future sets maintenance. At the local government level, the

FCAs were linked with the planning and the agricultural department so that the Plans and Budgets

of the local governments recognized the sub-projects of the FUGs and FCAs. The institutional set

up for the project at the federal, state, and local government levels was strong, integrated, and had

the necessary motivation to drive the project after closure. The community institutional set up was

further strengthened through the Federation of the FCAs which was carried out across states.

Building on the experience and learning from the implementation of the on-going Fadama III, the

World Bank approved a loan of US $200 million for Additional Financing (AF) for the Third

National Fadama Development Project in September 2013. The PDO of Additional Financing

(AF) is to increase the incomes for users of rural lands and water resources within the Fadama

areas in a sustainable manner throughout the recipient's territory. The additional financing will

focus on improving farm productivity performance of clusters of farmers engaged in priority food

staples namely rice, cassava, sorghum and horticulture in six selected states with high potential.

Taking a value chain orientation, while retaining the CDD approach, the AF seeks to attract

private investment in processing and milling, and other commercial aspects of agriculture around

nucleus farms, with associated small-holder linkages such as out-grower schemes and contracting

farming arrangements.

To meet the need of conflict-affected Northern regions of Nigeria, in June 2016, the Board

approved (US $50 million equivalent) for the Second Additional Financing (AFII) of the Third

National Fadama Development Project. The additional financing seeks to respond to the urgent

food and livelihood needs of farming households who have been affected by conflicts in the six

North East states in Nigeria-- Borno, Yobe, Adamawa, Taraba, Bauchi, and Gombe. The objectives

of the Project are to increase the incomes for users of rural lands and water resources in a sustainable

manner and to contribute to restoration of the livelihoods of conflict-affected households in the

selected area in the North East of the Recipient’s territory. Building on FADAMA III, the project

will involve a community driven development approach to benefit producer organizations, women,

youth, and vulnerable groups. The project will reduce vulnerability to food crisis among returning

Internally Displaced Peoples (IDP) and host farmers through increased and revitalized production.

It will also support rehabilitation of existing rural community agricultural related infrastructure and

farm settlements.

3. Assessment of Outcomes

As indicated earlier, this interim ICR assesses the outcome of the FADAMA-III as at the first

proposed closing date and provides a synopsis of the progress of FADAMA-III Additional

Financing till June 2016 (because of insignificant disbursement and implementation delays).The

final ICR will assess the impact of the Fadama III as a whole incorporating the AF1 and AF2.

3.1 Relevance of Objectives, Design and Implementation of FADAMA-III

Promoting sustained economic growth, reducing poverty, inequality, and unemployment is at the

core of development challenge for Nigeria. Improving income, especially of the rural population

considering the high poverty rates in the rural areas, is fundamental for meeting the Government

18

of Nigeria’s development agenda and the World Bank’s twin goals. The project remains fully

consistent with the objectives of the Bank’s CPS for FY 2014-2017 which focuses on promoting

diversified growth and job creation by enhancing agricultural productivity as one of the strategic

clusters.

The PDOs of increasing the incomes of users of rural land and water resources on a sustainable

basis were, and continue to be, highly relevant to the poverty alleviation goals. The Community

Driven Development (CDD) approach of prioritizing investments; group mechanisms for

providing productive investments; beneficiary contributions for investments; and contributions

from federal, state and local government, are some of the design features of FADAMA-III that

are highly relevant and appropriate for meeting Nigeria’s development challenges. Project design

and implementation were directly relevant to the above objectives.

Additional Financing: The additional funding of US $200 million was under the context of the

launch of the Agricultural Transformation Agenda (ATA) and leveraging the existing FADAMA

platform to support clusters of farmers in six selected states in priority value chains of cassava,

rice, sorghum, and horticulture. The objective of the additional financing was to increase the

incomes of farmers in the prioritized Staple Crops on a sustainable basis. This is consistent with

the development objective of the Fadama III Project which is to sustainably increase the incomes

of Fadama beneficiaries. The objective and the design (community driven development, group

mechanism, value chain approach, beneficiary contribution, etc.) are highly relevant and

appropriate for meeting Nigeria’s development challenges and consistent with World Bank

country partnership strategy for Nigeria. In order to meet the need of conflict-affected Northern

regions of Nigeria, the board of the Bank also approved a sum of US $50million in June 2016, for

the Second Additional Financing (AFII) of the Third National Fadama Development Project.

Based on the description above, relevance of objectives, design and implementation is rated

Substantial.

3.2 Achievement of Project Development Objectives

PDO: To increase the incomes of users of rural land and water resources on a sustainable basis.

The project was expected to increase the incomes of Fadama beneficiaries by organizing

individuals into Fadama user groups and associations and helping them acquire assets for

pursuing agricultural livelihood opportunities, making investments in community infrastructure,

providing advisory services and inputs, building the capacity of beneficiaries, and improved

access to markets.

The Financing agreement (FA) of Fadama-III states, “the Objective of the project is to increase

the incomes for users of rural lands and water resources within the Fadama Areas in a sustainable

manner throughout the Recipient Territory”. As per the PAD and other project documents,

however, the PDO of the project was “o increase the incomes of users of rural land and water

resources on a sustainable basis.” The incontinency between the two PDOs is in terms of their

geographical scope. While the FA limits the geographical scope of the project “within the

Fadama areas”, the PAD on the other hand does not put any such restriction. Considering the

project was not restricted to work only in the irrigable low-land area, technically termed as

Fadama lands, and was meant to work beyond Fadama lands, the ICR team choose to use the

PDO as defined in the PAD for the purpose of ICR review.”

19

From a baseline of ₦170,548.00, the average income, in nominal terms, of Fadama beneficiaries

increased to ₦276,294 indicating average nominal income increase of 62 percent. The project

achieved its development objectives as measured by the set of monitoring indicators presented in

the data sheet. The project has resulted in the following benefits regarding achieving the

development objectives.

Increase in Income: To help improve income of the project beneficiaries, the project envisaged the

following two impact pathways: (i) provide productive assets to beneficiary groups to scale-up their

existing farm or on-farm livelihoods or undertake new livelihood activities, and (ii) provide support

for increasing the yield of their agricultural enterprises. Component 5 of the project provided seed

money, through matching grants, to help project beneficiaries acquire capital assets which they

used to undertake a wide range of small-scale income generating activities, improve their access to

market, and higher value-additions to their farm produce. Component 3 financed advisory service

delivery to improve the performance of their on-farm and off-farm activities and input support

(mainly seeds, fertilizes, and agrochemicals) while component 4 supported research, on-farm

demonstrations, and training of extension staff, all of which contributed to yield improvements. To

track this development outcome, the project tracked the following two indicators: (a) income of

participating households, and (b) yield of primary agricultural products of participating households

which were both influenced by the activities financed by the project. The following sections

highlights the project achievements against these two indicators.

Achievement of this objective is rated Substantial, based on the following

Indicator 1: Income of participating households.

The target of this indicator was that 75 percent of beneficiaries would increase their average real

income by at least 40 percent. The project lead to a big increase in average household income, but

technically using the M&E data, it is difficult to estimate whether 75 percent of the beneficiaries

increased their real income by 40 percent or not. All the states provided baseline income data and

then towards the end of the project, conducted household income surveys on the beneficiaries.

But the report captured income increase for all beneficiaries which is an indication that states

with income increase up to 40% had more than 75% of the beneficiaries achieving the PDO

target. However, seven states, namely Lagos (97 percent), Ogun (75 percent), Ondo (75 percent),

Osun (85 percent), Abia (70.1 percent), Anambra (75 pecent), and Kwara (75 percent) provided

data on what proportion of household increased income against the set target.

End term impact evaluation by International Food and Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) in May

2016, indicate that in comparison to the control group, the household income of 36 percent of

Fadama III beneficiaries increased by at least 40 percent. However, 46 percent of female

beneficiaries reached the target, illustrating that Fadama III better targeted female beneficiaries.

The impact assessment indicate that average income increase of Fadama beneficiaries, in

comparison to the control group, was 28.4 percent, however, the increase was much higher for

female-headed households (31.3 percent) as compared to male-headed households (27.8 pecent).

The external evaluation’s comparison of impact across poverty tercile shows that the project had

a significant impact among land poor beneficiaries and non-significant impact among

beneficiaries with medium and high land endowment. These results underscores Fadama success

in targeting the poor and women.

20

Data received from the project indicate that at the national level, average nominal income

increase had increased from ₦170,548.00 to ₦276,294), a 62 percent increase at project

completion. However, during the project implementation period, Nigeria experienced high

inflation rate of 10-14 percent annual inflation (see graph below), which eroded the income gains

in real terms. After factoring in the inflation, the real income increase for project beneficiary was

20 percent, much below the target of 40 percent. If there was no unprecedented inflation during

this period, and the cost of living was normal like the previous years, the real income of the

farmers would have reach up to the target of the PDO based on the significant nominal increase.

Graph 1: Nigeria Inflation Rate (2006-2016)

The above-description indicate that at the overall project level, while the in nominal terms the

average income increased by 62 percent, however, the high inflation eroded the gains and in real

terms, the average beneficiary income was 20 percent. The project was unable to meet the target

for this indicator.

Indicator 2: Yields of primary agricultural products of participating households.

The target for this indicator was to achieve a 20 percent increase in yield of primary agricultural

products (disaggregated by crops/agroforestry, livestock, and fisheries etc.) of participating

households. To measure against this indicator, yields of primary production were to be obtained

through the annual survey called the Agricultural Production Survey (APS). These APS were

conducted by the Agricultural Development Projects (ADPs) of each of the participating states

which has the state mandate for production surveys. The project contracted the ADPs in each

state to carry out annual yield surveys on fadama intervention sites. The baseline survey was also

carried out by the Fadama project on the intervention communities and the average yield data

formed the baseline of the project which was set at 2008 as 100, index. The yield obtained from

21

the enterprises was computed from APS and tracked over time on the project. At project closing,

the project reported an average yield increase of 29.7 percent.

The project was initially supposed to create a commodity basket index to capture the yield

increase over the project period. However, the commodity index was not created because the

project did not have a focus on any specific commodities and the demand-driven nature of the

project meant the beneficiaries were free to choose any commodity or enterprise. This made it

quite difficult to create a commodity basket index.

Nonetheless, the project did capture baseline information of many crops from the baseline study

and captured the yield increase of beneficiaries. At the end of the project, the bulk of the

intervention in the crops focused on these nine commodities: Maize, rice, sorghum, millet,

groundnut, cowpea, soybean, yam, and cassava. The project resulted in significant yield increase

in these commodities.

It is important to note that livestock assets (33.93 percent) constituted the largest number of

productive assets acquired during the project because it is capital intensive. As such the coverage

is not as widespread as crops. Thus only seven states, out of total of 36, provide data on yield

increase for small ruminant, poultry, and fisheries indicating 8.38 percent yield increase for small

ruminants; 2.35 percent increase for poultry, and 6.53 percent increase for fisheries. The lack of

yield data for livestock assets can be explained by a number of factors: (a) not many states

collected baseline data on livestock yields, unlike for crops, because of methodological

challenges and not knowing (owing to demand-driven CDD approach) whether livestock will be

the preferred assets for beneficiaries in their states or not; and (b) livestock investments are

capital intensive and requires more capital than investment in crops. Therefore, it is no surprise

that it accounts for 1/3 of total productive investments and not widespread like crops. (c) It is also

important to understand that for many beneficiaries, this was a relatively new enterprise activity

with steeper learning curve, than that of staple crops, and may require many years before reaching

the productivity peaks. As a result, the available data on livestock stock yields does not fully

capture the yield improvement benefit of project interventions in providing livestock assets to

beneficiary groups.

IFPRI end evaluation study did not measure the yield improvement; however, it measured

adoption of good agricultural practices. The evaluation demonstrates that Fadama II and FIII had

positive impact on adoption of soil fertility management practices reported. Fadama II showed a

significantly higher impact on adoption of integrated soil fertility management than Fadama III

(FIII) or Fadama II & III combined. This means that over a long period of time, FII has had a

much bigger impact on sustainable land management practices. Impact of both FII & FIII on

adoption of crop production technologies shows that both phases of Fadama projects increased

adoption of improved varieties by at least 30 percent, and as high as 46 percent for FIII. FIII

impact on adoption is significant and largest for improved seed, inorganic fertilizer, and

irrigation. Participation in FIII alone significantly increased area receiving inorganic fertilizer by

48 percent and irrigated area by 32 percent. Adoption of soil fertility management practices,

improved seed varieties, inorganic fertilizer, and irrigation, have strong causal links with

improving yields of agricultural production.

Based on the available data, the project resulted in significant yield improvement and achieved its

targets.

Sustainability: The project had a big emphasis on sustainability as reflected in the PDO “To

increase the incomes of users of rural land and water resources on a sustainable basis.” To ensure

22

sustainability, the project focused on FCA; FUGs; established FUEFs; and focused to operations,

maintenance, and replacement of group and community assets. Small-scale community-owned

infrastructure was financed under component 2 for creation of economic infrastructure and local

public goods (irrigation facility, farm land clearing and development, storage infrastructure, farm

internal roads, marketing infrastructure, access roads, hydraulic structure, etc.) which helped

improve productivity of Fadama user households but also contributed to longer term sustainability

of their enterprises. Component 1 of the project was primarily focused on ensuring sustainability

of project outcomes by supporting community organizations and building capacity of FCAs, FUGs,

FUEFs, and Economic Interest Groups, and building capacity of local governments and

strengthening local development plans. To help report on the sustainability aspect of the project,

the following three indicators were tracked.

Achievement of this objective is rated Substantial, based on the following

Indicator 3: Savings of participating groups.

The project promoted the creation of Fadama User Group (FUG), Economic Interest Groups

(EIGs) and Fadama Community Associations (FCA) and promoted the setting aside of funds,

called Fadama User’s Equity Fund (FUEFs), as a capitalization/revolving fund. These funds were

promoted to ensure sustainability of project interventions by providing resources for asset

replacement and business expansion. The project targeted is to have a 10 percent replacement

value of the common asset used for income-generating activities of FUGs saved annually (with

effect from year two). By the end of the project, a total of 39,715 FUGs benefitted and owned

245,756 assets valued at ₦11,449,789,040.85. Of them, a total of 21,126 FUGs (representing 53.2

percent of FUGs with assets) saved the sum of ₦842,047,315.41, which is 7.32 percent of the

replacement value of the assets acquired.

Furthermore, the project was able to federate many FCA into a statewide Fadama Farmers

Community Association (FFCA). A total of 37 FFCA were created, one for each state and FCT,

with the objective of transforming some of the vibrant FFCA into self-sustaining institutions. At

the time of ICR mission in June 2016, a total of 15 FFCA were still functional and providing

services to their members. Of them, seven institutions have generated enough capital and

expertise to have applied for license to operate as a Microfinance Bank. They are waiting for the

Central bank’s approval before commencing operations as microfinance Bank. In the state of

Plateau, the Central Bank of Nigeria awarded their banking license in 2015, and the Plateau State

Fadama Farmers Microfinance Bank has been operational since January 2016. It is expected that

the other seven FFCA will also get banking licenses and will contribute to providing requisite

financing.

Indicator 4: Satisfaction with operation, maintenance and utilization of assets.

Surveys at mid-term and at project closing show at least 75 percent of Fadama users are satisfied

with operations, maintenance, and utilization of community-owned infrastructure and capital

asset acquired through the project.

Monitoring Data as of December 2013 showed that 30,179 out of 64, 347 FUGs participating in

the project own Productive assets. Out of these, 27,528 (91.4 percent), 26,485 (87.76 percent) and

26,129 (86.58 percent) claimed to be satisfied with the operation, maintenance, and utilization of

assets, respectively. This gives an 88.58 percent satisfaction rate on the average.

Indicator 5: Physical verification of operations, maintenance, and utilization of assets.

23

Physical verification of operations, maintenance and utilization of assets at mid-term and at

project closing by surveys of randomly selected sites shows at least 50 percent of assets and

community-owned infrastructure are operating satisfactorily and are maintained and utilized.

Monitoring data at the end of the project indicated that Infrastructure and asset acquired by

communities are in good condition and functional. Physical verification of operations, maintenance

and utilization of assets at project closing by surveys of randomly selected sites shows that out of

150,187 productive assets acquired, 125,582 (84 percent) are in good condition and 116,894 (78

percent) of users are satisfy with the condition of assets.

FADAMA III Additional Financing I Outcome Achievements: The Additional Financing I end date

has been extended till December 2019, and the disbursement rate for AF I till June 2016 stood at

26.81 percent. The yield data collected for initial few seasons is showing good yield increase (rice

(31 percent), Sorghum (84.21 percent), Horticulture (128 percent) and Cassava (32.21 percent). No

data is yet available on the other four PDO indicators (Income, savings of replacement value,

satisfaction, and operations, maintenance and utilization). Till June 2016, a total of 2920 BPs has

been developed across the value chain through participatory process, of which 676 business plans

has been fully funded. A total of 9593 beneficiaries have procured advisory services across the

value chain, which represents 24 pecent of the targeted total beneficiaries of the project. 5994

(18.74 percent) of the targeted 31977 beneficiaries have received extension services from public

service providers and of them 4864 (81 percent) beneficiaries who received extension services from

public service providers are satisfied. 2,863 (7 percent) of targeted 24,000 beneficiaries have access

to market information, and they have negotiated contracts for inputs purchase -- Agro dealers and

output sales. It appears from the Annex 10 that the progress of intermediate indicator is on track

and might meet its targets, but due to lack of data on PDO indicators and small disbursement till

now, the team is unable to comment on the potential achievement of project development outcomes.

Based on the sub-ratings above, efficacy is rated Substantial

3.3 Efficiency: Substantial

The economic analysis adopted the methodologies, patterns, and assumptions employed during the

design and preparation of the FADAMA-III project. As carried out during the preparation stage,

representative enterprise models were used as the analytical units, or subprojects, supported by the

intervention in order to estimate the project’s benefits and costs. The economic life of the project

was also taken as 15 years, consequently, cropping patterns, inputs applications, costs and benefits

were projected for 15 years and the computation of performance indicators and decision criteria

namely rates of return and net present values were based on the values of net aggregate incremental

benefits for 15 years (see details in Annex 3). High inflation rate and macroeconomic effects were considered while conducting the economic

and financial analysis. As more money pursues limited goods prices rise. The Effect of inflation is

escalation of the nominal prices of goods but ‘price relatives’ are assumed to be unaffected. In the

economic and financial analysis, the team used constant prices as at mid-June 2007. This is to

obviate the effect of inflation on the calculation. Note that in the calculation of “value = quantity x

price” the team allowed for changes in the quantities between 2008 and 2014, while the prices were

held constant. This provided us the basis to compare the estimates obtained during the ICR with

the ones made during appraisal because between the time of APPRAISAL and ICR the prices were

held constant while only the Achieved Quantities changed. The same mid-June 2007 set of prices

24

were used during the appraisal and ICR. This consequently eliminated the effect of rising prices

over time (due to inflation).

Economic Rate of Return (ERR)

The estimated overall Economic Rate of Return (ERR) for the project is 35 percent; an NPV of N

47,468.2 million or USD 365.1million; the BCR is 1.29, and Annual Incremental Net Benefit

(AINB) of N 21,611.6 million or USD 166.2 million, assuming an opportunity cost of capital of 12

percent.

The estimated ERR of 35 percent implies that if the incremental benefits due to the project are

discounted at the rate of 35 percent, then benefits will equate the costs, and the NPV will be equal

to zero. The decision rule is that once the ERR is greater than the opportunity cost of capital (hurdle

rate) the project is passed as successful. The estimated NPV of N 21,611.6 million or USD 166.2

million is the amount or net worth of the project when all costs have been accounted for including

family labor, and the benefits which the resources committed to the project would have generated

without the project. The decision rule is to pass or regard the project as successful once the NPV is

greater than zero. The estimated BCR of 1.29 implies that for every one Naira spent on the project

there is a corresponding profit of 29 Kobo only. The decision rule is to accept the project as

successful once the BCR is greater one. The estimated Annual Incremental Net Benefit (AINB) of

the project was N 21,611.6 million or USD 166.2 million. This is the amount left to the disposition

of the equity contributors when all costs have been duly paid including, family labor and the

benefits which the resources committed to the project would have generated without the project.

The decision rule is to pass or regard the project as successful once the (AINB) is greater than zero.

The details of estimating the decision indicators for the project are presented in Table 2.

Table 2: Estimation of the Project ERR and NPV

Project year

Aggregate

Incremental Benefit Overhead Costs

Net Aggregate

Incremental Benefit

0 0 -128416262 -128416262

1 -8060618885 -2454259561 -10514878446

2 -3263781176 -4557854084 -7821635260

3 88838678.62 -4944688288 -4855849609

4 3469554671 -2407945609 1061609062

5 7827471941 -841722948.3 6985748993

6 19379238407 19379238407

7 20606250299 20606250299

8 21611547714 21611547714

9 22588748992 22588748992

10 21237727348 21237727348

11 21237727348 21237727348

12 21237727348 21237727348

13 21237727348 21237727348

14 21237727348 21237727348

15 22514060451 22514060451

ERR = 35 percent

NPV = NGN 47,468,196,960;

NPV = USD 365,139,980

BCR = 1.29

25

In the preparation report the estimated overall ERR for the project was 29 percent; an NPV of N

57,073.9 million or USD 439.1 million; and incremental net benefit of N 32,513.3 million or USD

250.1 million, assuming an opportunity cost of capital of 12 percent.

From Table 3 below it is apparent that at the completion of the project relative to the appraisal, the

Economic internal rate of return increased by 6 percent, the Net Present Value decreased by about

17 percent, and the annual incremental net benefit decreased by 33 percent.

Table 3: Estimated Values of Economic Indicators at Preparation and Completion of the

Project (in ‘000)

Indicators ICR (2016) Preparation (2007) Difference

Percentage

Difference

In millions

ERR 35 29 6 20.7

NPV(NGN) 47468.2 57073.9 -9605.7 -16.8

NPV(USD) 365.2 439.1 -73.9 -16.8

BCR 1.29 N/A N/A N/A

AINB 21,611.50 32,513.30 -10901.8 -33.5

Sensitivity Analysis

Sensitivity tests indicated that the project remains viable under a variety of assumptions. In general,

all the enterprise models were sensitive to changes in the output prices and operating costs. A 10

percent drop in the output prices reduces the project ERR to 23 percent, which is a decrease of 34

percent. A 10 percent increase in operating costs reduces the project ERR to 27 percent, which is a

decrease of 22 percent.

The analysis of the switching value shows that the ERR is sensitive to changes in project costs and

benefits. A reduction in benefits by 18 percent or an increase in the total cost of 23 percent reduces

the ERR to 12 percent (the hurdle rate). Similarly, a reduction of benefits by 10 percent coupled

with a simultaneous increase of cost of 10 percent, reduces the ERR to 12 percent, which is the

hurdle rate.

Sensitivity tests indicated that the project remains viable under a variety of assumptions. In

general, all the enterprise models were sensitive to changes in the output prices and operating

costs. A 10 percent drop in the output prices reduces the project ERR to 27 percent, that is a

decrease of 34 percent; and a 10 percent increase in operating costs reduces the project ERR to 31

percent, that is a decline of 24 percent. Annex 3, Table 6, presents the estimated economic

indicators (ERR, NPV, AINB, and BCR) for the enterprise models. From the Table it was

apparent that the ERR ranged from a minimum of 18 percent in borehole to a maximum of 92

percent in rural roads. The NPV ranged from a minimum of NGN 85,280 in Tomato processing to

a maximum of NGN 177.1 million in borehole. The BCR ranged from a minimum of 1.07 in

borehole to a maximum of 2.57 in rural roads.

Financial Rate of Return

The estimated overall financial rate of return (FIRR) for the project is 24 percent; an NPV of N

26,234.1 million or USD 201.8 million; the BCR is 1.02 and annual incremental net benefit of N

17,755.4 million or USD 136.6 million, assuming an opportunity cost of capital of 12 percent. The

26

details of estimated financial indicators for the project are presented in Table 8. The estimated

Financial Rate of Return for the representative enterprise models in the project presented in Table

8 ranged from a minimum of 21 percent in groundnut processing to a maximum of 82 percent in

rural road infrastructure model.

The estimated Net Present Value (NPV) for the representative enterprise models ranged from a

minimum of NGN 38,220 or USD 290.0 in Tomato/Pepper processing to NGN 6898,380 or USD

53,060 in rural roads model.

The estimated incremental benefits per annum for the models ranged from a minimum of NGN

14,360 or USD 110 per annum in tomato/pepper processing to NGN 1,427,586.00 or USD 10,980

per annum in rural roads model. However, rural roads are community sub-projects consequently

their benefits do not accrue to any particular individual.

The estimated BCR ranged from a minimum of 1.02 in borehole to a maximum of 2.57 in rural

roads model. The estimated benefits per annum for a production unit ranged from NGN 23,256.00

in Tomato/Pepper processing to 3917112.00 in rural roads. The estimated benefits per unit of labor

employed in production ranged from NGN 197.93 in honey production to NGN 97,927.80 in rural

roads model. The details are in Table 8 of Annex 3.

The Internal Rate of Return at Project Completion Compared to Preparation Estimates

The estimated financial Internal Rates of Return were compared to the estimates made at the

preparation of Fadama III project, and the results are presented in Table 9 of annex 3. From Table

9 it is apparent that Sheep/Goat upgrading decreased by 2 percent; North Irrigation module

decreased by 9 percent; Earth pond aquaculture decreased by 3 percent; palm fruit processing

decreased by 1 percent; and rice milling decreased by 1 percent. The FIRR for other enterprise

models increased at the completion of the project relative to the preparation. The increases ranged

from a minimum of 1 percent in groundnut processing and honey production, to a maximum of 142

percent in southern Rain fed Yam/Maize/Cassava model.

It, therefore, follows from above that Efficiency is rated Substantial given the positive rate of return,

significant positive change from project inception and a cost effective ratio which is comparable

with other similar projects in the region.

3.4 Justification of Overall Outcome Rating

Rating: Moderately Satisfactory

FADAMA III was an ambitious project which aimed to replicate the success of the FADAMA-II.

The ambitious nature of the project is reflected by the following factors:

a. Nationwide coverage: While FADAMA-II was operating in 12 states of Nigeria, the

new project aimed to cover 36 states and FCT, providing nationwide coverage.

b. Doubling of PDO targets: FADAMA-II project had a quantitative target of “increasing

the average real income of 50 percent of the targeted project beneficiaries by twenty

percent.” The quantitative target of FADAMA-III was to increase the average real

income of 75 percent of targeted project beneficiary by 40 percent.

27

c. Introduction of new elements: The new project introduced new elements such Fadama

User Equity Fund, increased contribution from state and local government, federating

farmers users into apex organizations, beneficiaries contribution towards payment of

advisory services and inputs, which all increases the complexity of the project.

The project’s target achievement needs to be viewed in light of its ambitious targets and

challenges of taking a successful pilot to scale. Furthermore, rather than full US $450 million

being available for financing, only US $290.44 million was finally made available (due to much

lower counterpart financing provided by local governments, states, federal government) to

implement the project.

The project’s approach and PDO are highly relevant to the Nigeria’s development agenda and the

World Bank’s strategy. The project overachieved three of the PDOs targets on yield

improvement, beneficiary satisfaction, and operations of assets and almost achieved the target on

saving mobilization, but fell short of meeting targets on real income improvement. With ERR of

41 percent the projects use of resources was highly efficient. Based on the exiting information

and considering all these factors, the overall outcome rating of moderately satisfactory is well

justified.

3.5 Overarching Themes, Other Outcomes and Impacts

(if any, where not previously covered or to amplify discussion above) (a) Poverty Impacts, Gender Aspects, and Social Development

Poverty Impact: IFPRI study highlights that Fadama III beneficiaries as a percent of total

households were highest in the northern GPZs, where severity of poverty is highest. This suggests

that targeting of Fadama III placement in areas with severe poverty was relatively successful. The

Northeastern GPZ had the highest share of people under extreme poverty and reported the highest

beneficiaries as a share of total number of households. However, the number of beneficiaries as

percent of people in extreme poverty is highest in SE, the third GPZ with lowest share of people

in extreme poverty. This indicates that even though Fadama III poverty targeting was successful,

the large number of people living in extreme poverty is so high in some GPZs that proportionate

targeting could have heavily skewed – thus denying other GPZs with lower poverty incidence the

opportunity to benefit from Fadama III.

IFPRI’s study highlights that impact of crop income for the land-poor beneficiaries was much

greater than the case of land-rich beneficiaries. This illustrates successful targeting of Fadama

project on women and the poor.

Gender Aspects: Targeting of women was successfully enforced as the number of Fadama III

women beneficiaries was 41 percent. As was the case for the midline results (Nkonya et al. 2012),

female beneficiaries in SE GPZ accounted for the highest share (53 percent) of all beneficiaries

while those in the NW accounted for the lowest share (24 percent). IFPRI’s impact evaluation

study highlights that the impact is much larger for female-headed households whose crop income

increased by 43 percent - - about double the 23 percent impact level of the male-headed

households.

Impact across gender shows that FIII female beneficiaries income increased by 31 percent

compared to 28 percent for male-headed beneficiaries. Comparison of impact across poverty

tercile shows that FIII and FII had significant impact among land poor beneficiaries and non-

28

significant impact among beneficiaries with medium and high land endowment. These results

underscore Fadama success in targeting the poor and women.

Social Development: The project had a specific focus on vulnerable population and created

FUGs as vulnerable groups. Vulnerable groups were identified as elderly, youth, widows, and

people living with HIV or with disabilities. 11 percent of the total amount allocated for

productive assets was disbursed among vulnerable groups.

IFPRI’s evaluation concluded that the Results of Fadama III project impact has further shown that

the community-driven development (CDD) approach is successfully targeting women and the

poor in increasing household income from all sources.

(b) Institutional Change/Strengthening

(particularly with reference to impacts on longer-term capacity and institutional development)

The project has proliferated the concept of FUG as a community institution as established under

Fadama I and II. It has strengthened and resourced the FUGs and FCAs by providing capacity

building, training, and constant advisory services for value addition. It contributed significantly to

enhancing the capability and leadership skills of youth and women and provided a linkage with

many other government initiatives and donors support. Capacity of local government staff was

also strengthened in land use planning and community CDD. The utilization of the instrument of

LDPs and local facilitators brought a paradigm shift and a new dimension into community

planning and social inclusion. Based on experience from South-South exchange, the project was

also able to federate the FCAs across local governments and at state level into FFCAs that further

strengthen and provide stability for the community institution.

As part of its sustainability agenda, the project initiated the utilization of FUEF, which had

significantly aggregated in each state into establishing the Fadama Microfinance Banks. A total of

15 FFCAs applied to Central Bank of Nigeria for license and as at the time of ICR, the Plateau

state FFCA had been granted license and had started a microfinance bank that has so far

accumulated a sum of N100 million Naira capital base within 6 months and has given credit

worth more than 30 million to its members.

The Fadama project was able to attract GEF funding which also assisted with building the

capacity of local government on Land Use Planning. Cartographic equipment as well as structural

and departmental strengthening were carried out for the local governments to further strengthen

their service delivery mechanism. Furthermore, the project incorporated a JSDF funding support

for information and knowledge management. Through this process, Fadama Information and

Knowledge management Centres (FIKS) were established in four states to provide real time

mobile-based advisory services for farmers. It also provided a platform for marketing of farmers’

products. Finally, given the broad farmer base and national coverage of the project, the Growth

Enhancement Scheme (GES) of the government in its agricultural transformation agenda relied

heavily on Fadama farmers’ platform for smart subsidy on targeting of input support and de-

risking of agricultural lending activities.

(c) Other Unintended Outcomes and Impacts (positive or negative) One major occurrence that had significant impact on the project was the Boko Haram insurgency

that affected the Northeastern parts of the country during the implementation period. There were

also agitations in the Niger Delta region. These significantly draw back some of the benefits of

the project and negatively affected implementation of field activities. This was contributory to the

draw-down on the PDO indicators nationally as it brought down the average significantly.

29

3.6 Summary of Findings of Beneficiary Survey and/or Stakeholder Workshops

S/N STUDIES CONDUCTED PERIOD MAJOR FINDINGS

1. Baseline survey 2009 Baseline information on key performance indicators such as income, socio-

economic characteristics, production, etc. was captured. Average household

income was N170,548.27.

2. Agricultural Production Survey (APS) 2010, 2011 &

2012.

The 2010 and 2011 APS published result indicated considerable increases in

the yield of major crops supported by the Fadama Project. Overall, there was

an average increase of 13.6% increase in yields of major crops in the midline

and a 29.7% in yield of major crop through RRA at the project completion.

3. Household income generation, progression

and sustainability to the achievement of

Fadama III PDOs.

2011 Average nominal household income at mid-term was N237, 118.11 over the

baseline of N170,548.27. This indicates 39% increase over the baseline average

nominal household income of N170,548.27.

4. Social capital formation and implication for

the achievement of Fadama III PDOs.

2011 - The FUEF had about 7.32% of the value of the productive assets in the

FUEF account for maintenance of assets.

- The Project has created social capital as evidenced by formation of

additional FUGs, increased participation in decision making, enhanced

subprojects ownership and management by members of FUGs, social

inclusion and democratic election of membership of standing committees.

5. Contribution of Advisory Services and

Inputs Support, Support to ADP Adaptive

Research to the attainment of Fadama III

PDOs.

2011 - About 50% Fadama users use advisory services.

6. Midline Impact Assessment 2012 Completed and final report of the study submitted.

7. Adoption study 2012 / 2013 The study is concluded and final report submitted. Encouraging level of

adoption of improved technologies was reported. Please see summary of

findings in Annex 2 of this report

8 Pest survey 2012 / 2013 The survey had been conducted.

9. Rapid Rural Appraisal (RRA) 2013 / 2014 - At least (81% (29/36 *100)7 of Fadama users have increased their average

incomes by at least 40%.

- Average nominal income increased by 62.0% over the baseline income.

Yield of agricultural products increased by 29.7%.

- 88% of the assets’ beneficiaries were satisfied with the operation,

maintenance, and utilization of their assets.

- 83.1% of the infrastructure and assets acquired were in good condition

and working satisfactorily.

30

4. Assessment of Risk to Development Outcome

Rating: Moderate

The project had built-in sustainability mechanisms at part of the design, which has contributed to

low risk to development outcomes for project beneficiaries. Some of those mechanisms include:

a. FUEFs: Establishment of FUEFs to ensure enough savings to facilitate replacement and

maintenance of the assets created by the project. Considering the wear and tear and

natural attribution of assets, access to capital for replacement and maintenance is critical

to ensure benefits from the assets for a long time.

b. Federating beneficiaries into FFCA and FCA: The project strived to build strong local

institutions in the form of FFCA and FCA which could contribute to providing support to

the beneficiaries after the project closures.

c. Focus on capacity building: The project provided extensive support for capacity

building in terms of training on group formation, financial management, advisory

services and extension, which is much needed to ensure optimum utilization and benefit

from the hard assets being provided by the project.

d. Provision of the integrated package: The project also provided an integrated package

comprising of assets to the group, community infrastructure, advisory services, and

capacity building, to ensure that all the relevant aspects to provide gains from the project

investments are in place to ensure longer term sustainability of the project outcomes.

e. Demand-driven: Rather than providing pre-selected menus of assets, the project

followed a bottom-up demand-driven approach wherein beneficiaries themselves

identified assets and procured relevant advisory services to help them in their selected

livelihood.

IFPRI evaluation study also analyzed the Fadama II beneficiaries who did not benefit from

Fadama III and concluded that those beneficiaries were able to sustainably increase their incomes

from high paying activities including non-farm activities, horticultural crops, and agro-

processing. This further shows that the Fadama beneficiaries have successfully and sustainably

operated profitable businesses even after Fadama support stopped seven years ago. Fadama II

beneficiaries’ value of household-owned productive assets increased significantly -- further

illustrating the prolonged and sustainable impact on key outcomes.

The ICR team visited eight FUGs in two states and all the projects assets and groups were

functioning after three years of project completion. In most of the cases, assets were replaced by

the FUGs using their own resources and saving, new assets were acquired by the groups, and the

group expanded their enterprises. This sharing of the results from a very small sample is

illustrative of the sustainability of development outcome of Fadama III.

However, there are a number of external factors, which could potentially erode the sustainability

gains of the project and increase the risk to development outcome, some of them being:

a. Continued Government commitment to the CDD approach: There is a commitment to

the approach as Federal and State government ensured effective needs assessment,

enhanced ownership, and maintenance of Project benefits. At the local government levels,

the Local Development Plans were integrated in Annual Work Plans of the participating

local governments.

31

b. Payment of counterpart contributions: On the whole, States attained only 64.9 percent

(3,079,515,192.17 out of 5,367,916,271.72) of the counterpart contribution required. On

the other hand, the participating local governments fulfilled only 47.8 percent, with the

highest fulfillment coming from local government areas in the Northeastern zone. The

Government is using the project as one of the platforms to implement its agricultural

transformation agenda and therefore the possibility of continuous support to the project is

high. However, the case of irregular and inconsistent payment of counterpart funding is a

real issue.

c. The sustainability of the project outcomes: The future of the CDD approach is likely to

be threatened by potential social risk of resistance from stakeholders, who are yet to be

divulged from the culture of business-as-usual, and are associated with the tradition bound

top-down approach. However, the CDD Project has developed a sense of ownership in the

beneficiaries and this probably will be a sufficient deterrent against such a risk.

d. Diversion of funds: Another possible risk has to do with potential diversion of funds, elite

capture and outright corruption, both at the state and local levels. Improvements in project

governance and enforcement of strict procurement guidelines and funds management

would go a long way in minimizing this risk.

e. Risks to program infrastructure: There is also the added risk of inappropriate

maintenance of the existing infrastructure and equipment, absence of agricultural credit for

future development, and inadequate production support services for training, extension, or

counseling.

f. Gender biases: Gender biases curtail involvement of women and undermine principles of

inclusion and equity. Collusion and/or intimidation at the community level may be used to

subvert procedures of transparency and accountability in the management of funds. This

will be mitigated through continuous capacity building.

g. Insecurity and violence: Insecurity and violence in some part of the country may hinder

the continuity of the arrangement for community development. This is especially of

importance the Northeast zone, where the incidence of Boko Haram Insurgency has

displaced people and thus the social arrangement in place. Improvement in security

arrangements and better governance would also help in the Niger Delta zone where

conflicts that occurred in the oil producing communities may hinder community

involvement and Project implementation.

h. Macro-economic risks: The macro-economic situation and inflationary pressure can be

another serious risk factor, which can significantly impact the risk of development

outcomes.

Considering all these risk factors, the overall risk to development outcome is rated moderate.

32

5. Assessment of Bank and Borrower Performance

5.1 Bank Performance

(a) Bank Performance in Ensuring Quality at Entry

Rating: Highly Satisfactory

The Bank’s performance in the identification, preparation, and appraisal of the project was Highly

Satisfactory. The design of the project was well conceived and responded to the development

agenda of government as well as the CPS. During preparation, and appraisal, the Bank took into

account the adequacy of project design and all the major relevant aspects, such as technical,

financial, economic, and institutional including procurement and financial management. The

project was a follow-on to the previous award winning Fadama II and there was a high demand by

the government for scale up and expansion to cover all the states of the country. The design,

therefore, incorporated the lessons from Fadama II and addressed the constraints of rural

infrastructure observed in the previous project as well as enhanced the sustainability status of the

project through the introduction of Fadama User Equity Fund (FUEF). Under the scheme, the FUGs

set aside 10 percent of income from assets as depreciation and constitutes capitalization/revolving

fund called the FUEF. The design also paid special attention to the technical quality assurance by

ensuring that the Fadama development facilitators received adequate training before deployment to

the various communities. This enhanced their capacity in supervising the technical aspects of

community subprojects and assisting communities to prepare and implement their local

development plans (LDPs) and subprojects. During the design, the team also envisaged the

enormous challenge that the spread and coverage of the project would present during

implementation and prepared a supervision plan. The Supervision plan presented an effective and

functional template for adequate monitoring of project activities and providing oversight.

The project preparation was carried out with an adequate number of specialists who provided

technical skill mix necessary to address sector concerns and a good project design. The Bank also

provided sufficient resources concerning staff weeks and funds to ensure quality preparation and

appraisal work. The Bank had a consistently good working relationship with the borrower during

preparation and appraisal. Given the experience from Fadama II, the PDO and related indicators at

design stage were specific and the M&E system was made functional.

(b) Quality of Supervision (including of fiduciary and safeguards policies)

Rating: Satisfactory

The Bank’s performance during project implementation was Satisfactory. The Bank allocated

sufficient budget and staff resources, and the project was adequately supervised and closely

monitored. There was only two Task Team Leaders (TTLs) throughout the life of the project and

there was consistency in project monitoring approach. The task team carried our regular

implementation support and was responsive to the needs of the borrower, maintaining a consistent

team of local and international staff and consultants to provide fresh perspectives and specific

expertise as required. The team regularly prepared aide memoirs and alerted the government on

required innovative changes. The team maintain good dialogues with all implementation states and

was very active to engage government in policy dialogues to resolve project issues. Fiduciary and

33

environmental compliance was maintained on the project and despite implementation with 37 PIUs

including the national project office, the project was never flagged during its implementation period.

The team introduced several innovations that further enhanced the achievement of the PDOs. It

initiated the South-Ssouth learning exchanges that eventually led to the Federation of FCAs. It

brought JSDF funding into the implementation to facilitate mobile based advisory services and

incorporated the GEF project for sustainable land management. It also encouraged collaboration

with partners on activities that further enhanced the implementation of the project. The project won

several implementation awards, some of which are; the Innovation Award in 2011; ICT for

Accountability Team Award in 2012, Peoples Award in 2010, and the Africa VPU Award in 2013.

During implementation, different aspects of the project were competitively selected several times

as feature stories on the Bank’s intranet. One of the stories, “Culture of feedback: Key to boosting

community participation and building rural livelihoods” was selected as one of IDA Results stories

for IDA16. The team also collaborated with many units within the Bank in order to bring multi

sectoral dimensions into its implementation. When the federal government started its economic

diversification agenda, the team was able to align the implementation of the project to the demands

of Agricultural Transformation Agenda (ATA). This facilitated the inflow of more resources into

project implementation and the project became a major national platform for mobilization of

farmers’ production for targeted Staple Crop Processing Zones (SCPZ) identified under the ATA.

(c) Justification of Rating for Overall Bank Performance


The project was relevant and appropriate and adequate attention was paid at the design stage to all

critical areas that eventually enhanced the achievement of the PDOs. During implementation, the

task team also introduced several collaborations, exchanges, and innovations that further enhanced

the implementation of the project. Supervision of the project from the field contributed to a hands-

on approach and rapid problem solving. The Project team was proactive and prepared ISR regularly,

highlighting implementation issues, and preparing action plans to address them which were well

monitored. With a highly satisfactory rating for quality at entry and satisfactory rating for quality

of supervision, overall Bank performance is rated Satisfactory.

5.2 Borrower Performance

(a) Government Performance


The government commitment and support for the project was one of the major success factor for

the project implementation. There was a high level of ownership and the government laid a solid

policy and political platform for the project by recognizing the project in its seven-point agenda for

rural transformation in 2008. It was a major rural agricultural project with a paradigm shift and

covering all the 36 states of the federation including the FCT. The government was responsive to

many of the issues that could not be resolved at the project level and gave priority to the rural

mobilization and CDD mechanism of the project. All the necessary institutional arrangements for

implementation including NFTC, SFTC, LFDC, NFCO, SFCO and LFD were appropriately set up

and made functional. Most of the participating states paid their counterpart contributions regularly

and participated at national level coordinating meetings. Significantly, however, the delay and non-

payment of counterpart funds affected implementation negatively and was responsible for the

different results presented from implementation across states. Though, most of the counterpart

contributions were later paid. When the government started its ATA and Fadama was selected as a

major project for production intervention, it affected the commitment of some state governments

34

and delayed implementation of component iv activities. Towards the end of the project, most state

governments responded to the success and good results of the project, either by setting up a rural

developments structure to operate similar to Fadama using CDD approach, or transforming Fadama

state PIU into rural development agency, or by making extra budget allocation to Fadama PIU to

cover additional areas/LGAs/communities and continuing its implementation. Most LGAs, in fact,

adopted the Fadama approach in delivering services at the local level. The government also fulfilled

all its obligations towards the project and complied with all legal covenants.

(b) Implementing Agency or Agencies Performance


Overall, the NFCO and its state counterparts had dedicated staff who were well trained and

collaborated with the Bank team and carried out most aspects of project management in compliance

with Bank procedures and guidelines. Fiduciary ratings were satisfactory despite the complex

nature of the project and the level of risk exposure involving multiple transactions and layers of

agencies. There were initial challenges and the complexity of providing guidance and monitoring

compliance in 37 PIUs, but the NFCO adopted the supervision plan prepared by the Bank during

the design stage and made it functional. The zonal offices were well established, and several studies

were carried out to support and fine-tune project implementation. It also introduced an award

scheme that engendered healthy competition among states in terms of achieving results towards

achieving the PDO in an innovative way. All the PIUs maintain and replaced retired staff, and all

had a full complement of staff at closing. There was strong coordination between the federal, state

and local governments on the implementation of the project with clear delineated roles and

responsibilities. Systems, procedures, and processes were not new to the implementing agencies as

most of them transited from the previous project and the learning curve was not steep. The project

team demonstrated a strong commitment to the implementation and utilized much of the capacity

support provided to be effective in delivering results. Annual work plans and budgets were

regularly prepared and the social inclusiveness of the CDD approach was adhered to, at the

community level which assisted in fostering participation and commitment of beneficiaries. But

the non-performance of some states and not being able to meet the key PDO indicator prevented a

highly satisfactory rating for the implementing agency.

(c) Justification of Rating for Overall Borrower Performance


Given that Government performance is rated as Satisfactory and the Implementing Agency is rated

Satisfactory, the overall Borrower’s performance is rated as Satisfactory.

6. Lessons Learned

a. Agile Bank Operation: Fadama series of operation have demonstrated the agility of this

bank operation to evolving and dynamic contexts and using proven platforms and

mechanisms to deliver results on the ground. Responding to client needs, Fadama III was

scaled up at national level, while AF I layered a value chain approach, on top of CDD, to

sync with ATA, and AF II is now delivering results in a conflict zone to rehabilitate

livelihoods of conflict affected households. There are significant lessons learned from the

35

Fadama series of operations that can inform design and delivery of agile bank operations

elsewhere.

b. Convergence of Federal and State government on the same result agenda and

approach: Fadama III introduced elements of financial contribution from all government

level (local, state, and federal) and beneficiaries; aligned with government development

priorities (local development plans and national and state priorities); provided

implementation autonomy and flexibility; and involved beneficiaries in determining and

sharing development priorities. This brought governments at different level (local, state,

and national) on the same platform and the core approaches of the project have been

replicated and scaled up in other development programs being implemented by the

federal and state governments.

c. Mainstreaming Gender in a large development program: The gender mainstreaming

of the project was highly effective and number of Fadama III women beneficiaries was

over 40 percent. IFPRI’s impact evaluation study highlight that Fadama III female

beneficiaries income increased by 31 percent compared to 28 percent for male-headed

beneficiaries. The project took commendable steps to ensure inclusive and equitable

Community participation at the FUG and FCA levels, thus addressing the issues of

gender and governance. The gender gap was substantially reduced and gender

mainstreaming was largely complied with. The project made it mandatory to have a third

of executive members of FCAs as women. It also established project support for the

vulnerable population of which gender was well classified. The project data was well

disaggregated on gender basis. Fadama’s experience and approaches can help inform

other agricultural development programs in mainstreaming gender.

d. South-South Collaboration: Fadama is a good example of facilitating south-south

collaboration. The exposure trip to CDD projects in South Asia and elsewhere help

inform the design of this operation and incorporation of new elements, such as Fadama

User Equity Funds. At the same time, Fadama help inform a series of new bottom-up

operations in other parts of the World on agile operations, mainstreaming gender, and

adaptive learnings.

e. Tailor Best Practices to Local Conditions: The Fadama series of projects is a clear

example of how country-level projects can benefit from international experience. The

broad acceptance of the emerging CDD model within Nigeria resulting in part from the

information gathered on how similar projects had succeeded in other environments,

together with careful tailoring to the Nigerian context and use of existing institutional

arrangements.

f. Adaptive Learning: Design of the FADAMA project has embraced a model of trial,

errors, and adaptation. From piloting targeted small-scale community investments to

introducing fundamentally new mechanisms for community participations in agriculture

development, the project has been a laboratory of experiments. The process of adaptive

learning has encouraged innovation at every stage, enhancing project results and

sustainability.

g. Divergent state capacity: The capacity to implement, monitor, and co-finance

interventions at sub-national level can be quite different which can have tremendous

bearing on the project outcomes at individual states level and aggregate project level.

36

The project should keep in mind the various resource endowments, governance

structures, technical and management capabilities, and political commitments of

individual states during project design and resource allocation decisions, rather than

allocating all the states the same resources and timeline for implementation.

h. Setting up Realistic targets: The success of Fadama II slightly crowded the judgement

in setting up the result framework during preparation. Many of the targets were doubled

without understanding of the fact that 19 new states will just be joining the Fadama

project which will require steep learning curve and might face implementation challenges

to meet the project targets.

i. Responsive to geopolitical realities and dynamics: Some of the states went through

significant geopolitical turmoil, especially due to Boko Haram and Niger Delta

insurgencies, which adversely impacted the project implementation. Having some

mechanism to in place to adjust the implementation of the project considering the unique

needs of each states and responding to their geopolitical realities could improve the

performance of lagging states.

j. Community institution building: Presence of good local institutions is very important

to translate local demands and often a core element of good community-driven

development project. The project was able to create a number of local institutions (FUGs

and FCAs) and were able to federate them into state level FFCA. Most of these local

institutions are currently sustaining and operating, albeit at different capacities, providing

vital services to the project beneficiaries. This local institution development through

CDD approach has been relatively successful with far reaching implications and can have

wider application within and beyond Nigeria.

k. Integrated approach: The project combined hard investments (FUG asset creation and

community infrastructure) with soft support (capacity building and advisory support) to

provide an integrated package of interventions to ensure optimum utilization of assets

created by the project and their sustenance beyond the project life.

l. Demand-orientation: Rather than pre-determining the asset to be supported by the

project, the menu of options for investment support was rather broad, to ensure the

project meets the actual demands of the project beneficiaries. This approach was

relatively successful as demonstrated by the utilization and satisfaction surveys and could

be a good approach to be emulated in other projects.

m. Decentralization of decision-making: The adoption of CDD and the use of LDP as a

planning tool for investment enhanced the decentralization of fiscal and investment

decision making process at the community level. The mechanism devolved management

decision making and coordination to Management Committees of FCAs, Desk Officers,

and Facilitators in addition to the State Project Implementation Unit. The CDD–LDP

approach enhanced empowerment, social inclusion, participation, ownership, and

sustainability. This is a major success lesson of Fadama III Project.

n. Harmonization of Local Development Plans. The experience of Bank assisted CDD

projects shows greater impact, synergy and complementary from harmonization of tools

and approaches. This lesson was employed in project implementation through

collaboration with CSDP and SACA by ensuring good working relationships between the

relevant project teams and removal of project overlap and duplication in communities.

37

7. Comments on Issues Raised by Borrower/Implementing Agencies/Partners (a) Borrower/implementing agencies

(b) Co-financiers

(c) Other partners and stakeholders (e.g. NGOs/private sector/civil society)

38

Annex 1. Project Costs and Financing

(a) Project Cost by Component (in USD Million equivalent)

Components Appraisal Estimate

(USD millions)

Actual/Latest

Estimate (USD

millions)

Percentage of

Appraisal

Capacity building 74.59 42.34 56.76

Small scale community owned

infrastructure 73.40 41.74 56.86

Advisory services/input support 39.56 38.21 98.81

Support to ADPs, sponsored

research and on-farm

demonstration

31.96 10.42 32.35

Asset acquisition for individual

FUGs/EIGs 150 68.21 46.08

Project management 50.6 88.50 174.90

Total 289.44

Total Baseline Cost 420.17

Physical Contingencies

3.20

0.00

Price Contingencies

23.86

0.00

Total Project Costs 447.23 0.00

Front-end fee PPF 2.77.00 0.98

Front-end fee IBRD 0.00 0.00

Total Financing Required 450.00 290.42 64.54

(b) Financing

Source of Funds Type of Co-

financing

Appraisal

Estimate

(USD

millions)

Actual/Latest

Estimate

(USD

millions)

Percentage of

Appraisal

Borrower (Federal Government) 23.00 7.953 34.58

Borrower (State Governments) 77.00 14.448 18.76

Local Communities 60.00 16.633 27.72

International Development

Association (IDA) 250.00 235.924* 94.37

Local Governments 40.00 15.481 38.70

Total 450.00 290.442 64.54

*PCU indicates that the USD15 million shortfall was due to SDR-USD rate fluctuations.

39

Annex 2. Outputs by Component The project had the following six components:

Component 1. Capacity Building, Local Government, and Communications and Information

Support (US$87.5million): This component includes: (a) capacity building support for community

organizations; (b) capacity building support to local governments; and (c) communications and

information support. The objective of this component is to support measures to build the capacity

of Fadama Community Associations (FCAs) and their constituent Economic Interest Groups

(EIGs), Fadama User Groups (FUGs), to access project advisory services and project funding and

that of the project staff to successfully implement the project.

Under this component, the project formed 685 LGAs, 64,347 FUGs and 5,407 FCAs. At ICR a

total of 4,726, 4561 and 3,438 LDPs were prepared, approved, and fully implemented. The project

resulted in 48,791 (43.96%) FUGs having benefited from various kinds of trainings on book

keeping & financial records, marketing strategy, group dynamics, cost effective environmental

plan, conflict resolution etc., and 4,462 FCAs have benefited from training on Community Based

procurement, Financial Management, Environmental safeguards, group dynamics, cost effective

environmental plan, conflict resolution etc., while 2,713 LGA staffs against the project target of

3000 staff have been trained on project management, financial analysis, participatory M&E,

environmental safeguards, group dynamics, cost effective environmental plan, and conflict

resolution, etc., in the course of the implementation of the Project.

The Project financed technical assistance, training, equipment, and other institutional support to

the participating 685 local governments of which 387 LGAs integrated LDPs in their annual work

plan and budget (AWPB) against the target of 148 LGAs. To strengthen the capacity of

participating Local Government Authorities for participatory planning, a total of 810 training on

capacity building were attended by staff of LGAs.

Component 2. Small-Scale Community-owned Infrastructure (US $73.57 million)

The objective of Component 2 is to support the creation of economic infrastructure and local public

goods that would improve the productivity of Fadama user households. Under this component,

beneficiaries are required to pay 10 percent of the costs of construction and rehabilitation of surface

and ground water irrigation facilities, farm land clearing and development, on farm storage

facilities, farm internal roads, market infrastructure, access roads linking farm to

markets/processing centres, and hydraulic structures to enhance the production capacity of farmers

in a sustainable manner.

This component supported a total of 15,596 small scale community owned infrastructure

comprising of 137 constructed feeder roads, covering 413 km in addition to 165 feeder roads

covering 563 km that were rehabilitated. Others include: 49 drainages, 405 culverts, 67 small

bridges, 709 lockup shops, 1,493 market stalls, 125 cooling shed constructed, 11 drying slabs, 21

water harvesting infrastructure, 612 boreholes, 465 VIP toilets, 177 cold room housing, 125 storage

facilities, 2,591 poultry houses, 1,416 concrete fish ponds, 2,765 housing for processing machine,

61 watering points constructed, 13 Abattoirs, and 16 small earth dams. Also 3,438 of 5,407 FCAs

registered representing 64 percent of beneficiaries benefited under the component.

Component 3. Advisory Services and Input Support (US $39.5 million)

40

Under this component the Project financed: (a) advisory services - the Project provided support to

empower Fadama users--farmers/pastoralists and other Economic Interest Groups (EIGs) working

within their organizations and through their LGAs--to purchase advisory services from both public

and private sources; and (b) input support - this facility involves the adoption of new technology

by the farmers to enhance their financial capacity to purchase farm inputs (mainly seeds, fertilizers

and agrochemicals) and to build savings from incremental earnings to finance future purchases.

The Project used matching grant arrangement to deliver advisory services and input support.

Across the states, 6,650 service providers were certified and 4,587 service providers (3,460 private

and 1,127 public) were engaged in various project interventions. A total of 31,672 FUGs out of

total 64,347 FUGs procured advisory services.

The Project leveraged on the matching grant arrangement which was successfully tested under

Fadama II. Matching grant of 50 percent of the purchase price of the input per FUG, was given

while the remaining 50 percent was the FUG beneficiary counterpart contribution. A total number

of 493,805 Farmers had access to agricultural inputs comprising of 120,593,679 Farmers in 4760

FUGs procured Improved Seedlings; 87,596 Farmers in 9,324 FUGs procured Improved Seeds;

110,706 Farmers in 9,137 FUGs procured Inorganic Fertilizer; 80,354 Farmers in 7,442 FUGs

procured Agrochemicals; and 94,556 Farmers in 3,602 FUGs procured Organic Manure.

Component 4. Support to the Agricultural Development Programs (ADPs), Sponsored

Research, and On-Farm Demonstration (US $37.43 million)

The Project provided support to the ADPs to carry out the following specific and limited functions:

(a) support to advisory service providers; (b) quality assurance of advisory services; (c) training of

facilitators; (d) sponsored research and on-farm demonstrations; and (e) training of extension staff.

The project undertook sensitization workshops for the PMs/Managing Director ZPCs, SPCs, and

NPFS Regional Heads; organized meetings with PMs/MDs and Directors of Technical Services of

the ADPs, organized Zonal collaboration workshops for all the Director Technical Services (DTS),

Director Program Monitoring and Evaluation (DPME), Director Extension Services and a

representative of Women In Agriculture (WIA) of all ADPs, as well as the Fadama III SPCs and

research institutes in the zone; organized sensitization workshops of facilitators, SMSs and EAs;

organized orientation workshops of Service Providers; set up ICT resource center in each state;

conduced 481 training and trained 1855 ADP staff.

A collaborative workshop on sponsored Research was carried out with International and National

Research Centers in September 2009. Subsequently, MOUs with the International Institute for

Tropical Agriculture (IITA) and the National Research Institutes (NARIS) Institute for Agricultural

Research and Training (IAR&T), NCRI, National Institute for Freshwater Fisheries (NIFFR), IAR,

Lake Chad Research Institute (LCRI) and NRCRI were successfully concluded and signed.

However, the Project could not implement the sponsored research activity considering the gestation

period of a sponsored research programme. Meanwhile, effort was later centered on pushing proven

on-shelf technologies that are capable of increasing farmers’ yields.

A comprehensive needs assessment was conducted in all zones to ascertain farmer’s priorities. The

needs were matched with available (on-shelf) technologies, and interventions were packaged by

the research institutes coordinated by IITA. IITA organized four trainings in seed production

41

training for cereals, legumes, and tubers and six trainings in floating fish feed formulation. IITA

also organized seed multiplication trainings in two states and in collaboration with the National

Institute for Fresh Water Fishes Research (NIFFR), conducted floating fish production trainings in

two states. In collaboration with NCAM/Kinki University, demonstration of Sawah Rice

Technology was organized in 5 states.

These activities resulted in strengthened capacity of ADPs to provide extension services to Fadama

farmers and strengthened links between Fadama users and the research institute. A total of 195,503

(crop), 163,991 (livestock), and 17,685 (fisheries) beneficiaries received extension services from

ADPs. The major outcome of this component includes a 38.7 percent increase in the number of

Fadama farmers that received extension services from ADPs.

Component 5. Asset Acquisition for Individual FUGs/EIGs (US $150 million)


capital assets which they used to undertake a wide range of small-scale income generating activities

as well as improve farmers' access to markets and complementary support that added value to farm

produce. This approach to financing is adopted due to the low performance of rural financial

markets in Nigeria, which are particularly deficient and limited in terms of outreach in the rural

areas.

M&E data show that Fadama III beneficiaries acquired mainly agricultural productive assets worth

N11.6 billion equivalents to about US$72 million. Livestock assets (33.93%) and crop assets

(33.33%) constituted the largest number of productive assets. A total of 245,756 various productive

Assets were procured by the groups, against the target of 100,000. The biggest category of asset

acquired includes Poultry production (53,348); Animal traction (41,984); water pumps (20,395);

sprayers (14,842); Fisheries (13,089); goat production (11,296); sheep production (10,695); and

distribution of assets to vulnerable population (47,643).

Component 6. Project Management, Monitoring and Evaluation (US $59.30 million)

This component was arranged to provide coordination and oversight function through: (a)

Technical assistance to national and state level implementation coordination; and (b) Project

coordination; and (c) Project monitoring and evaluation.

42

Annex 3. Economic and Financial Analysis

NIGERIA: THIRD NATIONAL FADAMA DEVELOPMENT PROJECT

Implementation Completion Report: Economic and Financial Analysis

Dr. Molokwu C. Christopher1

Introduction

Project Development Objective and Components

The project development objectives (PDOs) of Fadama III were to increase the incomes of users of

rural land and water resources on a sustainable basis by directly delivering resources to the

beneficiary rural communities, efficiently and effectively, and empowering them to collectively

decide on how resources are allocated and managed for their livelihood activities and to participate

in the design and execution of their subprojects. By increasing their incomes, the Project will help

reduce rural poverty, increase food security and contribute to the achievement of a key Millennium

Development Goal (MDG).

The PDOs were achieved through an integrated approach including provision of matching grants

for small-scale economic infrastructure and asset acquisition subprojects, as well as the associated

training and skills development for the fadama user groups and Community Associations. The

Project was anchored on a Community-Driven Development approach. It had six components

namely:

(i) Capacity Building, Communication and Information Support

Capacity building support for community organizations; (b) Capacity building support to local

governments; and (c) Communications and information support.

The objective of this component is to support measures to build the capacity of Fadama Community

Associations (FCAs) and their constituent Economic Interest Groups (EIGs), Fadama User Groups

(FUGs), to access project advisory services and project funding and that of the project staff to

successfully implement the project.

(ii) Small-Scale Community-Owned Infrastructure

Is to support the creation of economic infrastructure and local public goods that would improve the

productivity of Fadama user households. Under this component, beneficiaries are required to pay

10% of the costs of construction and rehabilitation of surface and ground water irrigation facilities,

farm land clearing and development, on farm storage facilities, farm internal roads, market

infrastructure, access roads linking farm to markets/processing centres and hydraulic structures to

enhance production capacity of farmers in a sustainable manner.

(iii) Advisory Services and Input Support

The project finance: (a) Advisory services - the Project will provide support to empower Fadama

users--farmers/pastoralists and other economic interest groups (EIGs) working within their

organizations and through their LGAs--to purchase advisory services from both public and private

sources; and (b) Input support - this facility involves the adoption of new technology by the farmers

1 Molokwu C. Christopher, Economics Programme, Salem University, Lokoja, [email protected];

[email protected]; 0806 349 7859.

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

43

to enhance their financial capacity to purchase farm inputs (mainly seeds, fertilizers and

agrochemicals) and to build savings from incremental earnings to finance future purchases. The

project provided matching grant arrangement successfully tested under the Fadama II Project.

(iv) Support to the Agricultural Development Programs (ADPs), Sponsored Research, and

On-Farm Demonstration The Project provided support to the ADPs to carry out the following specific and limited functions:

(a) Support to advisory service providers; (b) Quality assurance of advisory services; (c) Training

of facilitators; (d) Sponsored research and on-farm demonstrations; and (e) Training of extension

staff.

(v) Asset Acquisition for Individual FUGs/EIGs


capital assets which they used to undertake a wide range of small-scale income generating activities

as well as improve farmers' access to markets and complementary support that added value to farm

produce. This approach to financing is adopted due to the low performance of rural financial

markets in Nigeria, which are particularly deficient and limited in terms of outreach in the rural

areas.

(vi) Project Management, Monitoring and Evaluation

This component was arranged to provide coordination and oversight function through:

(a) Technical assistance to national and state level implementation coordination; and

(b) Project coordination; and (c) Project monitoring and evaluation.

Data Collection and Subproject Models

Analysis was based on data extracted from implementation database, administrative, monitoring

and evaluation records kept by the project. The notable documents consulted included the

following:

i. Aide memoires of various supervision missions,

ii. Reports of the supervision missions from 1st to the 8th mission,

iii. Midterm review reports,

iv. Management information system (MIS) reports, and

v. Borrowers Implementation Completion Report (ICR).

The actual achievements in various representative enterprise models; significant demands of

various assets were extracted and used in preparing this report. In situations where implementation

data did not exist, the scenario that obtained during project preparation was assumed.

Estimation of Benefit Capacity building for communities

The benefits of this component were largely indirect; difficult to disentangle and quantify; the

equity provider derived no direct benefit from the component but the component greatly improved

the effectiveness and efficiency of project implementation and indirectly improved productivities

and income of beneficiaries. The benefits of the capacity building were entangled and embodied in

the utilization of infrastructure or assets applied in the representative enterprises. For the purpose

of this analysis the budget for capacity building was regarded as an overhead cost incurred in

implementing the major components of the project. Consequently, no enterprise model was

constructed to represent capacity building.

44

Rural Infrastructure

This component was concerned with rehabilitation and/or construction of feeder and fadama access

roads, culverts and small bridges; and infrastructure for sustainable natural resources management,

including improved conservation of soils and agronomic practices, and water harvesting techniques.

In addition the project financed cross-FCA infrastructure—infrastructure that cuts across FCAs

and/or LG boundaries, including stock routes, pastures and watering points. Following the project’s

preparation report procedures; the enterprise models formulated to represent this component were:

(i) construction/rehabilitation of rural roads; (ii) markets and (iii) construction of boreholes.

Rural roads

Rural roads were used for evacuating produce from farms to markets. Higher prices of commodities

accrue to producers when they transport their commodities from the farms to markets (where the

commodities command higher prices). The benefits from rural roads were determined from the

difference between farm gate and market prices of commodities.

Rural markets

The benefit from the market model was the timely disposal of perishable fadama crops at

competitive prices. Farmers obtained more reasonable prices as they sold produce at competitive

prices due to increased demand and influx of traders to buy their produce. This led to increased

income. On market days fees were charged for the use of stalls, packing for lorries, cars, wheel

barrows and for the use of conveniences (toilet facilities) in the market.

Boreholes

The expected benefits from the boreholes were firstly pure drinking water for people and processing

activities then for livestock and other domestic purposes. Secondly it minimized the incidence of

water borne diseases in the communities and improved rural health. These also led to increased

production.

Productive activities

The models formulated for the productive activities included: Cattle/ram fattening, Sheep/goat

upgrading, Layer production, Northern Rain fed Module (Sorghum/cowpea/maize/millet),

Southern Rain fed Module (Yam/maize/Cassava), Northern Irrigation module, Southern Irrigation

module, Earth pond aquaculture, Palm fruit processing, Rice milling, Tomato/pepper processing,

Ground-nut Processing, Garri processing, and Honey Production. The economic benefits of this

component were derived from the incremental net income they generated; the increased

employment; improved quality of processed food; minimization of malnutrition and elimination of

hunger in the society.

Advisory services and input support

Advisory services component was concerned with mainly diversified problem-solving research and

extension services that are responsive to production, processing, marketing and supply chain

management needs of fadama users. The benefits of advisory services were indirect while the

benefits of the inputs were directly in form of improved production. No enterprise model was

therefore formulated for the component.

Main Assumption

The economic analysis was carried out for the project as a whole. Financial analysis was carried

out for the various representative enterprises to assess the incentives for farmers, managers, and

owners (including governments) who participated in the project. The financial analysis was based

on constant market prices, direct costs and benefits. Financial flows were calculated for both the

“with” and “without” project cases.

45

Period of Analysis

The period of analysis was 15 years. The cash flows for investment, operating inputs, labour; costs

and benefits streams were estimated and projected for 15 years. An incremental cost-benefit

analysis was used to estimate benefits from investments in the enterprises. Full cost-benefit analysis

was used to estimate returns from new business enterprises to capture the effects of diversification.

Methodology of economic analysis

The economic analysis for the Implementation Completion Report (ICR) adopted the

methodologies, patterns, and assumptions employed in the project’s preparation report. As in the

preparation report representative enterprise models were used as the analytical units or subprojects

supported by the intervention in order to estimate the project’s benefits and costs. As in the project’s

preparation report, the economic life of the project was taken to be 15 years consequently, cropping

patterns, inputs applications, costs and benefits were projected for 15 years and the computation of

performance indicators and decision criteria namely rates of return and net present values were

based on the values of net aggregate incremental benefits for 15 years.

Considering the fact that the project was demand driven: some subprojects were actually demanded

and implemented namely: Small Ruminant upgrading (sheep and goat production); Poultry

Production; Earth pond aquaculture (fisheries production); Palm fruit processing; Rice milling;

Tomato/pepper processing; Groundnut processing; Garri (cassava) processing; Fadama Roads

(road rehabilitation and construction); Fadama Markets including lockup shops and go-downs;

Boreholes and Honey Production. Some subprojects were not explicitly directly demanded rather

beneficiaries demanded the major pilot assets that were employed in these enterprises. In those

cases the same approach used in the project’s preparation in determining enterprise models and

their coverage based on the assets the beneficiaries demanded were followed to determine the

enterprises, and estimate the area covered by the enterprises. These subprojects are: Northern

(Savannah) rain fed agriculture; Southern (Rain forest) rain fed agriculture; Northern Irrigation

agriculture and Southern Irrigation agriculture.

The notable departures from the projects preparation models are:

The preparation report did not include Fadama Roads (road rehabilitation and construction)

and Tomato/pepper processing but these enterprises are included in the ICR because of the

highly significant achievements made by the project in these areas.

The preparation report included Tailoring but this enterprise was not included in the ICR

because the project did not support this enterprise it is in the negative list

In the preparation report expected values of project achievement were based on the pattern

of demand for rural infrastructure, pilot assets and advisory services by the beneficiaries of

Fadama II project.

In this ICR, the actual achievements recorded from implementation monitoring reports,

MIS and technical review missions were used as project achievements.

The details are presented in table 1.

Quantities/numbers of subprojects achieved during implementation

The number or quantities of the representative subprojects/enterprises achieved during

implementation and their estimates applied during project’s preparation are presented in table 1.

Evident from table 1, the project’s implementation achieved 134 percent in small ruminant

upgrading; 475 percent in poultry production; 96 percent in savannah (northern) rain fed

agriculture; 2 percent in rain forest (southern) rain fed agriculture; 165 percent in earth pond

aquaculture; 313 percent in palm fruit processing; and 193 percent in cassava (garri) processing.

On the other hand the project’s implementation was associated with decrease of 48 percent decrease

in northern irrigation agriculture; 65 percent decrease in southern irrigation agriculture; 75 percent

46

decrease in rice milling; 67 percent decrease in ground nut processing; 53 percent decrease in

fadama markets; 94 percent decrease in boreholes and 73 percent decrease in honey production.

Table 1: Quantities of Enterprise Models During Project’s Preparation and Implementation

Periods

S/

No ENTERPRISES IMPLEMENTATION

APPR

AISAL

Percent

age

YR 1 YR 2 YR 3 YR 4 YR 5

TOTA

L

increase

1 Cattle/Ram Fattening 2139 2139 2139 2139 2139 10695 3650 193

2 Small Ruminant Upgrading 2259 2259 2259 2259 2259 11296 4825 134

3 Poultry Production 10670 10670 10670 10670 10670 53348 9283 475

4 Savannah rain fed agric 4283 4283 4283 4283 4283 21416 10948 96

5 Rain forest rain fed agric 1484 1484 1484 1484 1484 7421 7299 2

6 North Irrigation agric 4079 4079 4079 4079 4079 20395 39362 -48

7 South Irrigation agric 2483 2483 2483 2483 2483 12413 35712 -65

8 Earth pond aquaculture 2011 2011 2011 2011 2011 10053 3798 165

9 Palm fruit processing 319 319 319 319 319 1593 386 313

10 Rice milling 181 181 181 181 181 904 3631 -75

11 Tomato/pepper processing 486 486 486 486 486 2432 N/A

12 Groundnut processing 106 106 106 106 106 529 1587 -67

13 Garri processing 749 749 749 749 749 3743 1277 193

14 Fadama Roads 189 189 189 189 189 944 N/A

15 Fadama Market 347 347 347 347 347 1736 3717 -53

16 Borehole 122 122 122 122 122 612 9425 -94

17 Honey Production 413 413 413 413 413 2067 7762 -73

Crop Yields

For crop production, at project preparation the yield rates applied were generic data derived from

Cropped Area and Yield Surveys (CAYS) conducted by the Ministry of Agriculture. In the ICR the

yield rates applied are the actually achieved yield rates recorded by implementation monitoring

unit. The actual yield rates were however not available for all crops. The available data are

presented in table 2. In table 2 it is apparent that the project’s implementation yield rates for

sorghum, millet, yam, cassava, tomato, pepper, amaranthus (vegetables) and onion were higher

than their values at the project’s preparation stage. The percentage increase ranged from 1 percent

in yam to 188 percent in pepper. The details are in table 2.

47

On the other hand, the project’s implementation yield rates for rice, maize, cowpea, and okro were

lower than their values at the project’s preparation stage. The percentage decrease ranged from -26

percent in okro to -5 percent in rice.

On processing (palm fruit processing, rice milling, tomato/pepper processing, groundnut

processing, and garri processing); earth pond aquaculture and infrastructure models (roads,

boreholes, markets) there were no monitoring data about their transformation coefficients

(processing conversion factors) consequently, the same transformation coefficients applied during

the project’s preparation stage were also applied at the project’s ICR stage.

Table 2: Crops’ Yields (kg/Ha) During Project’s Preparation and Implementation Stages

Crops Implementation (kg/Ha) Preparation (kg/Ha) Percentage change

Rice 3170 3334 -5

Maize 2340 2883 -19

Sorghum 1600 1300 23

Millet 1400 1300 8

Cowpea 950 1200 -21

Yam 14300 14175 1

Cassava 15980 14700 9

Okro 3860 5186 -26

Tomato 4260 3112 37

Pepper 5830 2023 188

Amaranthus 3750 2644 42

Onion 5830 4630 26

Inputs

During projects preparation it was assumed that the project’s implementation will provide farmers

with fertilizers, herbicides, insecticides and other inputs. There was no quantitative data on the

application of other inputs during project’s implementation. It was therefore assumed that the same

situation that applied during preparation also occurred during implementation. Consequently, there

was no change in the application of the other inputs during project’s preparation and

implementation. For fertilizers, herbicides and insecticides it was assumed that beneficiaries will

on the average, on per hectare basis apply 8 bags of fertilizers; 3 liters of herbicides and 3 liters of

insecticides. From implementation reports it was evident that on the average the farmers applied 5

bags of fertilizers; 2 liters of herbicides and 2 liters of insecticides per hectare (a decrease of 38, 33

and 33 percents respectively). The details are in table 3. The ICR report reduced the application

rates of these inputs accordingly.

48

Table 3: Farm Input Application Per Hectare During Project’s Preparation And

Implementation

Inputs Implementation Preparation Percentage Change

Fertilizers (50Kg bag) 5 8 -38

Herbicide (Lt) 2 3 -33

Insecticide(Lt) 2 3 -33

Prices of inputs and outputs

In the economic analysis for the ICR, constant prices as at mid June 2006 were used. These were

the same prices used in the project’s preparation on the assumption that all inputs and outputs will

be equally affected by changes in the price level over time. The use of constant prices obviates the

need for adjusting for the effects of inter-temporal price movements and inflation. In moving from

financial to economic analysis the following variables were eliminated namely: all taxes, subsidies

(included), loans, grants repayment of loans and interest charges. The Nigerian economy was

visualized to have no ownership rights to resources; no resources’ underutilization was permitted;

all constraints to free trade of resources and outputs were assumed away; no monopoly effects exist

in the economy and government interference was limited to ensuring free competitive economy

tending to perfect market situation. Consequently, all possible institutional constraints were

removed. Shadow Exchange Rate was not calculated because it was considered that the premium

on foreign exchange was small and even if large would not alter the analyses because the costs of

the imported components of Fadama III project were not critical to the outcome of the project

(Pedro et al 1998)2. As was assumed in the preparation report, the NGN was not over valued

consequently no overvaluation adjustment (standard conversion factor) was applied to non traded

goods. The exchange rate used is NGN 130.00 = USD 1.00. This was the exchange rate used in

the project’s preparation.

Aggregation

The achievements in the representative enterprise models on year-wise basis for the five years of

the project’s funding life were used as aggregation weights to sum the incremental benefits of the

representative enterprise models and obtain a single valued Aggregate Incremental Benefit (AIB)

for each of the 15 projected years of the project life. It is noted that the expenditures made on

Capacity Building, Support to the Agricultural Projects (ADPs) and Project Management,

Monitoring and Evaluation were not directly ascribed to any of the representative enterprise models.

They were regarded as overhead costs. For each of the funding project years from year zero to

year five, the associated overhead costs were deducted from the aggregated Incremental Benefit

(AIB) for that year to obtain the Net Aggregate Incremental Benefit (NAIB). The Net Aggregate

Incremental Benefit was the basis for computing the Internal Rate of Return (IRR) and the Net

Present Value (NPV) of the whole project. The achievements in the representative enterprise

models on year-wise basis for the five years of the project’s funding life were also used as

aggregation weights to sum the project’s benefits and costs for each of the representative enterprise

models and obtain single valued aggregated benefits and costs for each of the 15 projected years of

the project life. The net present values of the streams of the aggregated benefits and costs were used

2 Pedro Belli, Jack Anderson, Howard Barnum, John Dixon and Jee-Peng Tan (1998), Handbook on

Economic Analysis of Investment Operations: Operational Core Services Network Learning and

Leadership Center.

49

to compute the projects Benefit-Cost Ratio (BCR). The opportunity cost of capital used in

computing the NPV and BCR remained 12 percent as in the appraisal period.

Economic Analysis

Economic Rate of Return (ERR)

The estimated overall ERR for the project is 35%; an NPV of N 47,468.2 million or USD

365.1million; the BCR is 1.29 and Annual Incremental Net Benefit (AINB) of N 21,611.6 million

or USD 166.2 million, assuming an opportunity cost of capital of 12%.

The estimated ERR of 35% implies that if the incremental benefits due to the project are discounted

at the rate of 35 percent, the benefits will equate the costs and the NPV will be equal to zero. The

decision rule is that once the ERR is greater than the opportunity cost of capital (hurdle rate) the

project is passed as successful. The estimated NPV of N 21,611.6 million or USD 166.2 million is

the amount or net worth of the project when all costs have been accounted for including family

labour and the benefits which the resources committed to the project would have generated without

the project. The decision rule is to pass or regard the project as successful once the NPV is greater

than zero. The estimated BCR of 1.29 implies that for every one Naira spent on the project there is

a corresponding profit of 29 kobo only. The decision rule is to accept the project as successful once

the BCR is greater one. The estimated Annual Incremental Net Benefit (AINB) of the project was

N 21,611.6 million or USD 166.2 million. This is the amount left to the disposition of the equity

contributors when all costs have been duly paid including family labour and the benefits which the

resources committed to the project would have generated without the project. The decision rule is

to pass or regard the project as successful once the (AINB) is greater than zero. The details of

estimating the decision indicators for the project are presented in table 4.

Table 4: Estimation of the Project ERR and NPV

Project year

Aggregate

Incremental Benefit Overhead Costs

Net Aggregate

Incremental Benefit

0 0 -128416262 -128416262

1 -8060618885 -2454259561 -10514878446

2 -3263781176 -4557854084 -7821635260

3 88838678.62 -4944688288 -4855849609

4 3469554671 -2407945609 1061609062

5 7827471941 -841722948.3 6985748993

6 19379238407 19379238407

7 20606250299 20606250299

8 21611547714 21611547714

9 22588748992 22588748992

10 21237727348 21237727348

11 21237727348 21237727348

12 21237727348 21237727348

13 21237727348 21237727348

14 21237727348 21237727348

15 22514060451 22514060451

ERR = 35%

NPV = NGN 47,468,196,960;

NPV = USD 365,139,980

50

BCR = 1.29

In the preparation report the estimated overall ERR for the project was 29%; an NPV of N 57,073.9

million or USD 439.1 million; and incremental net benefit of N 32,513.3 million or USD 250.1

million, assuming an opportunity cost of capital of 12%.

Table 5: Estimated Values of Economic Indicators at Preparation and Completion of The

Project (in ‘000)

Indicators ICR (2016) Preparation (2007) Difference

Percentage

Difference

In millions

ERR 35 29 6 20.7

NPV(NGN) 47468.2 57073.9 -9605.7 -16.8

NPV(USD) 365.2 439.1 -73.9 -16.8

BCR 1.29 N/A N/A N/A

AINB 21,611.50 32,513.30 -10901.8 -33.5

From table 5 it is apparent that at the completion of the project relative to the appraisal, the

Economic internal rate of return increased by 6 percent, the Net Present Value decreased by about

17 percent and the annual incremental net benefit decreased by 33 percent.

Sensitivity Analysis

Sensitivity tests indicated that the project remains viable under a variety of assumptions. In general,

all the enterprise models were sensitive to changes in the output prices and operating costs. A 10

percent drop in the output prices reduces the project ERR to 23 percent, that is a decrease of 34

percent; and a 10 percent increase in operating costs reduces the project ERR to 27 percent, that is

a decrease of 22 percent.

The analysis of the switching value shows that the ERR is sensitive to changes in project costs and

benefits. A reduction in benefits by 18 percent or an increase in the total cost by 23 percent reduces

the ERR to 12 percent (the hurdle rate). Similarly, a reduction of benefits by 10% coupled to a

simultaneous increase of cost by 10% reduces the ERR to 12 percent which is the hurdle rate.

Table 6 presents the estimated economic indicators (ERR, NPV, AINB and BCR) for the

enterprise models. From the table it was apparent that the ERR ranged from a minimum of 18

percent in borehole to a maximum of 92 percent in rural roads. The NPV ranged from a minimum

of NGN 85,280 in Tomato processing to a maximum of NGN 177.1million in borehole. The BCR

ranged from a minimum of 1.07 in borehole to a maximum of 2.57 in rural roads.

51

Table 6: Estimated Economic Indicators (ERR, NPV, AINB and BCR) for the Enterprise Models

PROJECT ENTERPRISES PERCENT 000 NAIRA 000 USD

IRR NPV

INCR

BENEFIT NPV

INCR

BENEFIT

BCR

1 Cattle/Ram fattening 0.56 445.01 109.39 3.42 0.84 1.74

2 Sheep/Goat upgrading 0.80 577.04 127.97 4.44 0.98 1.26

3 Layer production 0.45 685.97 193.46 5.28 1.49 1.17

4 Sorghum/cowpea/maize/millet 0.47 237.32 58.73 1.83 0.45 1.50

5 Rain fed Yam/maize/Cassava 0.55 326.47 77.64 2.51 0.60 1.51

6 North Irrigation module 0.53 364.70 97.13 2.81 0.75 1.20

7 South Irrigation module 0.49 449.95 109.74 3.46 0.84 1.37

8 Earth pond aquaculture 0.58 342.66 85.98 2.64 0.66 1.54

9 Palm fruit processing 0.29 264.32 95.61 2.03 0.74 1.23

10 Rice milling 0.74 1274.36 287.33 9.80 2.21 1.42

11 Tomato/pepper processing 0.68 85.28 20.20 0.66 0.16 1.15

12 Groundnut Processing 0.73 674.01 155.69 5.18 1.20 1.27

13 Garri processing 0.41 252.46 76.33 1.94 0.59 1.12

14 Rural Roads 0.92 7066.00 1427.59 54.35 10.98 2.57

15 Rural Market 0.20 388.65 219.21 2.99 1.69 1.16

16 Borehole 0.18 177078.16 133.91 1362.14 1.03 1.07

17 Honey Production 0.52 308.38 83.45 2.37 0.64 1.24

Project 0.35

47,468,196.96

21,611,547.71

365,139.98

166,242.67 1.29

Min 0.18 85.28 20.20 0.66 0.16 1.07

Max 0.92 177078.16 1427.59 1362.14 10.98 2.57

52

The Economic Rate of Return at Project Completion Compared to Preparation Estimates

The estimated economic Internal Rates of Return (ERR) were compared to the estimates made at

the preparation of Fadama III project and the result is presented in table 7. From table 7 it is apparent

that the economic rates of return for the following 7 enterprises decreased namely: South Irrigation

model decreased by 46 percent; aquaculture by 3%; palm fruit processing by 28%; garri processing

by7%; Rural Market by 49%; Borehole by 67%; and Honey Production by 12% while that of the

ERR for other 10 enterprises increased at the completion of the project relative to the preparation.

The increases ranged from a minimum of 31 percent in Sorghum/cowpea/maize/millet model to

a maximum of 196 percent in Sheep/Goat upgrading. Details are in table 7.

Table 7: The ERR at Project Completion Compared to Preparation Estimates

PROJECT ENTERPRISES ICR(2016) Preparation(2007) Percentage

ERR ERR Increase

Cattle/Ram fattening 0.56 0.28 100

Sheep/Goat upgrading 0.8 0.27 196

Layer production 0.45 0.34 32

Sorghum/cowpea/maize/millet 0.47 0.36 31

Rain fed module

Yam/maize/Cassava 0.55

0.38

45

North Irrigation module 0.53 0.35 51

South Irrigation module 0.49 0.9 -46

Earth pond aquaculture 0.58 0.6 -3

Palm fruit processing 0.29 0.4 -28

Rice milling 0.74 0.38 95

Tomato/pepper processing 0.68 N/A N/A

Groundnut Processing 0.73 0.3 143

Garri processing 0.41 0.44 -7

Rural Roads 0.92 N/A N/A

Rural Market 0.2 0.39 -49

Borehole 0.18 0.54 -67

Honey Production 0.52 0.59 -12

Project 0.35 0.29 21

Min 0.18 0.27 -67

Max 0.92 0.9 196

Financial Analysis

The Financial analysis focused on the profitability of the agricultural project to the providers of

equity capital in the Fadama III project. It determined the financial impact of the project on equity

contributors (farmers and implementing agencies). In the analysis constant (June 2006) market

prices were used to determine values of inputs and outputs. Taxes and interests on loans were

regarded as costs while grants and subsidies were regarded as benefits. In the farm models the

source of benefits were the revenues from crops, livestock, fish and other farm outputs while costs

were made up of investment, operating expenses and taxes. In the processing models, the benefits

were derived from the values of the product and bye-products while costs were made up of

53

investment, operating expenses and taxes. Market values were imputed for commodities used at

home or given out as gifts or payment in cash.

Under infrastructure (community subprojects), there were externalities: the benefits were diffused

and may not be fully estimated. The road being a public good, the ownership right was not defined;

consequently claims to the benefits were also not defined. The readily evident benefit to the

community is the margin of higher prices they gained as the road assisted the community to

evacuate produce to markets where they obtained higher prices and as it opened the community to

traders and middlemen and their farm produce attracted competitive prices which were not possible

without the roads. The costs were made up of investment and maintenance expenses.

In the market model the benefits were mainly market charges for users of market facility including

stalls, stores, sheds, parking lots, toilets etc. The costs were made up of investment and maintenance

expenses.

In the borehole model the benefits were mainly water charges paid by users of the delivered water

while the costs were made up of investment and maintenance expenses.

The benefits of Advisory services were indirect. Since training enables the recipient to improve

productivity, the benefit were determined as a fraction of the incremental benefit arising from the

primary occupations while the costs were the consultancy fees and expenses incurred in organizing

the trainings.

Financial Rate of Return

The estimated overall financial rate of return (FIRR) for the project is 24%; an NPV of N 26,234.1

million or USD 201.8 million; the BCR is 1.02 and annual incremental net benefit of N 17,755.4

million or USD 136.6 million, assuming an opportunity cost of capital of 12%. The details of

estimated financial indicators for the project are presented in table 8. The estimated Financial Rate

of Return for the representative enterprise models in the project presented in table 8 ranged from a

minimum of 21 percent in groundnut processing to a maximum of 82 percent in rural road

infrastructure model. The details are in table 8.

The estimated Net Present Value (NPV) for the representative enterprise models ranged from a

minimum of NGN 38,220 or USD 290.0 in Tomato/pepper processing to NGN 6898,380 or USD

53,060 in rural roads model.

The estimated incremental benefits per annum for the models ranged from a minimum of

55

NGN 14,360 or USD 110 per annum in Tomato/pepper processing to NGN 1,427,586.00 or USD

10,980 per annum in rural roads model. However, rural roads are community sub-projects

consequently their benefits do not accrue to any particular individual. The estimated BCR ranged

from a minimum of 1.02 in borehole to a maximum of 2.57in rural roads model. The estimated

benefits per annum for a production unit ranged from NGN 23,256.00 in tomato/pepper processing

to 3917112.00 in rural roads. The estimated benefits per unit of labour employed in production

ranged from NGN 197.93 in honey production to NGN 97,927.80 in rural roads model. The details

are in table 8.

Table 8: Summary of the Decision Statistics for the Representative Enterprise Models.

PROJECT

ENTERPRISES

PER

CEN

T 000 NAIRA 000 USD Benefits in Naira

BCR

IRR NPV

INCR

BENEFI

T NPV

INCR

BENEFI

T

Per Prodn

Unit

Per Unit

of

Labour

1

Cattle/Ram

fattening 0.32 263.85 91.25 2.03 0.70 256,638 1642 1.60

2

Sheep/Goat

upgrading 0.24 244.15 115.93 1.88 0.89 139,334 1810 1.22

3 Layer production 0.31 464.19 165.62 3.57 1.27 171,647 376 1.11

4

Sorghum/cowpea/

maize/millet 0.62 235.00 52.55 1.81 0.40 89,192 918 1.42

5

Rain fed

Yam/maize/Cassav

a 0.48 270.28 71.81 2.08 0.55 113,532 985 1.44

6

North Irrigation

module 0.27 186.90 81.25 1.44 0.62 97,886 746 1.14

7

South Irrigation

module 0.30 276.23 96.42 2.12 0.74 117,495 849 1.29

8

Earth pond

aquaculture 0.41 214.48 69.24 1.65 0.53 111,358 917 1.43

9

Palm fruit

processing 0.27 178.08 73.34 1.37 0.56 273,625 912 1.17

10 Rice milling 0.29 602.71 237.43 4.64 1.83 796,185 839 1.33

11

Tomato/pepper

processing 0.27 38.22 14.36 0.29 0.11 23,256 323 1.10

12

Groundnut

Processing 0.21 212.35 123.19 1.63 0.95 233,444 1086 1.20

13 Garri processing 0.34 206.64 64.08 1.59 0.49 116,813 201 1.06

14 Rural Roads 0.82 6898.38 1427.59 53.06 10.98 3,917,112 97928 2.57

15 Rural Market 0.42 700.73 187.96 5.39 1.45 209,514 600 1.09

16 Borehole 0.80 474.20 112.92 3.65 0.87 112,923 941 1.02

17 Honey Production 0.45 241.10 71.26 1.85 0.55 71,255 198 1.17

Project 0.24

2623408

3.3

1775543

4.2

201800.

6 136580.3 1.22

Min 0.21 38.22 14.36 0.29 0.11 23256.0 197.93 1.02

Max 0.82 6898.38 1427.59 53.06 10.98 3917112.0 97927.8 2.57

56

The Internal Rate of Return at Project Completion Compared to Preparation Estimates

The estimated financial Internal Rates of Return were compared to the estimates made at the

preparation of Fadama III project and the result is presented in table 9. From table 9 it is apparent

that Sheep/Goat upgrading decreased by 2 percent; North Irrigation module decreased by 9 percent;

Earth pond aquaculture decreased by 3 percent; palm fruit processing decreased by 1 percent; and

rice milling decreased by 1 percent. The FIRR for other enterprise models increased at the

completion of the project relative to the preparation. The increases ranged from a minimum of 1

percent in groundnut processing and honey production, to a maximum of 142 percent in southern

Rain fed Yam/maize/Cassava model.

Table 9: The IRR at Project Completion Compared to Preparation Estimates

S/No PROJECT ENTERPRISES ICR IRR (2016)

PREPARATION

IRR (2007) Percentage

Increase

1 Cattle/Ram fattening 0.32 0.19 68

2 Sheep/Goat upgrading 0.24 0.24 -2

3 Layer production 0.31 0.27 16

4 Sorghum/cowpea/maize/millet 0.62 0.34 81

5 Rain fed Yam/maize/Cassava 0.48 0.2 142

6 North Irrigation module 0.27 0.3 -9

7 South Irrigation module 0.30 0.26 15

8 Earth pond aquaculture 0.41 0.42 -3

9 Palm fruit processing 0.27 0.27 -1

10 Rice milling 0.29 0.29 -1

11 Tomato/pepper processing 0.27 N/A N/A

12 Groundnut Processing 0.21 0.21 1

13 Garri processing 0.34 0.34 0

14 Rural Roads 0.82 N/A N/A

15 Rural Market 0.42 0.29 46

16 Borehole 0.80 0.34 136

17 Honey Productio 0.45 0.45 1

Project 0.24 0.2 20

Min 0.21 0.19 12

Max 0.82 0.45 83

57

Annex 4. Bank Lending and Implementation Support/Supervision Processes

(a) Task Team members

Names Title Unit Responsibility/

Specialty

Lending

Lucas Kolawole Akapa Consultant GSU01

Macmillan Ikemefule Anyanwu Senior Country Officer SACAA

Bayo Awosemusi Lead Procurement Specialist GGO01

Simeon Kacou Ehui Practice Manager GFA01

John Amedu Eimuhi Paralegal AFCW2

Issa Faye Economist AFTA1 -

HIS

Abigael Bunmi Ipinlaiye E T Temporary AFCW2

Sidi C. Jammeh Consultant SASDA -

HIS

Azra Sultana Lodi Senior Program Assistant AFTA1 -

HIS

Chukwudi H. Okafor Senior Social Development Spec GSU07

Africa Eshogba Olojoba Lead Environmental Specialist GEN05

Adenike Sherifat Oyeyiola Sr Financial Management Specialist GGO24

Jeanette M. Sutherland Consultant GTC07

Obadiah Tohomdet Senior Communications Officer AFREC

Wendy A. Wiltshire Consultant GFA13

Supervision/ICR

Adetunji Oredipe Senior Agriculture Economist GFA01

Amos Abu Senior Environmental Specialist GEN07

Abimbola Adubi Sr Agricultural Spec. GFA01

Lucas Kolawole Akapa Consultant GSU01

Akinrinmola Oyenuga

Akinyele Sr Financial Management Specialist GGO25

Mary Asanato-Adiwu Senior Procurement Specialist GGO01

Bayo Awosemusi Lead Procurement Specialist GGO01

Stephen Danyo Sr Natural Resources Mgmt.

Specialist GEN01

Azra Sultana Lodi Senior Program Assistant AFTA1 -

HIS

Ngozi Blessing Obi Malife Program Assistant GEN02

Chita Azuanuka Obinwa Program Assistant GEE01

Chukwudi H. Okafor Senior Social Development

Specialist GSU07

Africa Eshogba Olojoba Lead Environmental Specialist GEN05

Modupe Dayo Olorunfemi Investigative Assistant INTOP

Adenike Sherifat Oyeyiola Sr Financial Management Specialist GGO24

Wendy A. Wiltshire Consultant GFA13

58

(b) Staff Time and Cost

Stage of Project Cycle

Staff Time and Cost (Bank Budget Only)

No. of staff weeks USD Thousands (including

travel and consultant costs)

Lending

FY06 158.56

FY07 184.00

FY08 298.63

Total: 641.19

Supervision/ICR

Total: 0.00

59

Annex 5. Beneficiary Survey Results The State had conducted ten studies since the inception of Fadama III in 2009 todate as

highlighted below:

S/N STUDIES CONDUCTED PERIOD MAJOR FINDINGS

1. Baseline survey 2009 Baseline information on key performance indicators such as income,

socio0economic characteristics, production etc. was captured. Average real

household income was N170,548.27

2. Agricultural Production Survey (APS) 2010, 2011 &

2012.

The 2012 APS is at data collation/analysis stage. However, the result of 2010 and

2011 APS had been published with result indicating considerable increases in the

yield of major crops. Overall, there was an average increase of 13.6% increase in

yields of major crops in the midline APS, and a 29.7% in yield of major crop at the

RRA.

3. Household income generation, progression

and sustainability to the achievement of

Fadama III PDOs.

2011 Average real household income at mid-term was N237, 2118.11. This indicates 39%

increase over the baseline average household income of N170,548.27.

4. Social capital formation and implication for

the achievement of Fadama III PDOs.

2011 - The FUEF had about 7.32% of the value of the productive assets. in the FUEF

account for maintenance of assets.

- The Project has created social capital as evidenced by formation of additional

FUGs, increased participation in decision making, enhanced subprojects

ownership and management by members of FUGs, social inclusion and

democratic election of membership of standing committees

5. Contribution of Advisory Services and Inputs

Support, Support to ADP Adaptive Research

to the attainment of Fadama III PDOs.

2011 - About 50% Fadama users use advisory services

6. Midline Impact Assessment 2012 Completed & final report of the study submitted.

7. Adoption study 2012 / 2013 The study is concluded and final report submitted. Encouraging level of adoption

of improved technologies was reported. Please see summary of findings in Annex

2 of this report

8 Pest survey 2012 / 2013 The survey had been conducted.

9. Rapid Rural Appraisal (RRA) 2013 / 2014 - At least 81% of Fadama users have increased their average incomes by at least

40%.

- Average income increased by 62.0% over the baseline income.

Yield of agricultural products increased by 29.7%

- 88% of the assets’ beneficiaries were satisfied with the operation, maintenance

and utilization of their assets.

- 83.1% of the infrastructure and assets acquired were in good condition and

working satisfactorily.

Summary of Midline impact assessment report conducted at mid-term:

The midline impact assessment report conducted at mid-term revealed the following:

1. Fadama III Project has positive impact on beneficiaries in terms of Agricultural

productivity, small-scale community owned infrastructure, household income and

productive assets of Fadama users. Factors such as level of educational attainment seem to

contribute positively to the positive impact observed.

60

2. Majority of the beneficiaries have complied and adopted the guidelines of saving 10

percent of net earnings per annum from income generating activities of the Fadama Users

Groups.

3. Also, the value of non-productive assets was significantly increased.

4. Fadama III Project has positively impacted on Crop Production, with about 30% increase

in yield of major crop production when compared to the baseline.

5. On Gender, Fadama III Project has significant impact on income of men as at midterm

suggesting the need to target women in the remaining period of the Project. The report

showed that the major outcomes show bias against women in multiple folds. This result

could be due to the inability of the women groups to pay the counterpart funds. The result

is however contrary to the overall national report which revealed that the greatest impact

was on the income of women and the poorest among the beneficiaries

6. Fadama III Project has significant impact on the poor category, but not on the middle rich

and the very rich categories. This is in line with the Project targeting of the poor and

vulnerable.

7. Fadama III Project has statistically insignificant effect on non-farm income of the project

beneficiaries in the State.

8. It was evident that Fadama III Project has supported agro-processing activities to create

value addition of agricultural products. These agro-processing activities include Gari

processing, palm oil processing and feed milling. This implies that women who are the

vulnerable benefited more from these activities than in farming activity.

9. The findings revealed that the rural communities participating in Fadama III Project had

benefited from the provision of advisory services, capacity building, provision of input

support, and Small Scale Community owned infrastructure.

61

Annex 6. Stakeholder Workshop Report and Results NA

62

Annex 7. Summary of Borrower's ICR and/or Comments on Draft ICR

63

Annex 8. Comments of Cofinanciers and Other Partners/Stakeholders NA

64

Annex 9. List of Supporting Documents Updated National Report for FADAMA III ICR, August 2016, National FADAMA

Coordination Office, Government of Nigeria.

Updated National Database for FADAMA III, August 2016, National FADAMA Coordination

Office, Government of Nigeria.

End-Term Impact of FADAMA III in Nigeria, May 2016, International Food Policy Research

Institute (IFPRI), Washington DC.

Medium-Term Impact of FADAMA III Project, 2012, International Food Policy Research

Institute (IFPRI), Washington DC.

Project Performance Assessment Report Nigeria Second FADAMA Development Project

June, 2014, Independent Evaluation Group, World Bank, Washington DC

The Third Fadama National Development Series: How to Build a Pilot into a National Program

Through Learning and Adaptation, March 2016, Global Delivery Initiative, Washington DC

Third National Fadama Development Project Joint FGN/World Bank Mission Aide Memoires

(2010, 2011, 2012, 2013) Nigeria

State Fadama Coordinating Office. Third Fadama Development Project Baseline Study Report;

Independent Assessment on Third National Fadama Development Project

State Fadama Coordinating Office. Third Fadama Development Project Mid Term Review;

Independent Assessment on Third National Fadama Development Project, State Fadama

Coordinating Office, Nigeria

PDO Studies Reports; Independent Assessment on Third National Fadama Development

Project, State Fadama Coordinating Office, Nigeria

Report of Rapid Appraisal Study of Fadama III Implementation

Report of Assessment of Technology Adoption Studies; Independent Assessment on Third

National Fadama Development Project

World Bank. 2008. Project Appraisal Document for the Third Fadama Development Project.

Implementation Status and Results Reports (2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014), World

Bank Washington DC.

65

Annex 10: Project Results Framework for FADAMA III Additional Financing (Till June

2016)

Project Development Objective (PDO): The objective of the Project is to increase the incomes for users of

rural lands and water resources within the Fadama Areas in a sustainable manner throughout the Recipient’s

territory.

Indicator Baseline Value Original End

Target Values Current Achievement

Indicator 1: 75% of beneficiaries, who

benefit directly from Project

supported activities, have

increased their average real

incomes by at least 40%.

Value (Quantitative or

qualitative) 108,501.76

30,000 beneficiaries

have increased their

income to

151,902.46

Study ongoing

Date achieved 2014 2017 June 2016

Comments (incl. %

achievement) Study ongoing

Indicator 2 :

40% increase in yield of cassava,

rice, sorghum and horticulture of

participating households.

Rice

Sorghum

Cassava

Horticultural crops

40%

The change in yield from

4.8mt/ha for rice to 3.7mt/ha

could be attributed to more

production cycle recorded

(dry and wet seasons).

However a study is being

conducted to validate these

results.

In the case of cassava more

harvest data were recorded

from more production groups

resulting in a lower average


Qualitative)

Rice----------------2.84

Sorghum-----------1.14

Cassava------------

11.92

Horticultural crops---

12.56

Rice----------------

3.98

Sorghum-----------

1.60

Cassava------------

16.69

Horticultural crops

17.58

Rice------- 3.72(31%)

Sorghum--------2.1(84.21%)

Cassava-----------

15.76(32.21%)

Horticulture------

28.60(128%)

Date achieved 2014 2017 February 2016


Original End Target

Values (from

approval

documents)

Actual Value Achieved at

Completion or Target

Years

Comments (incl. %

achievement)

66

Indicator 3: 10% of replacement value of the

common asset used by the

beneficiaries for income

generating activities is saved

annually (with effect from year

2).


qualitative) 0 10% NA


Comments (incl. %

achievement) Savings yet to commence.


Original End

Target Values

(from approval

documents)


Completion or Target Years

Indicator 4 : Surveys at Project closing to show

that at least 75 percent of

beneficiaries are satisfied with

operations, maintenance and

utilization of community-owned

infrastructure and capital assets

acquired through the Project.


qualitative) 0 30,000(75%) NA


Comments (incl. %

achievement) Assets are being procure across States and value chain.

Indicator 5 :

Physical verification of

operations, maintenance and

utilization of assets at Project

closing by surveys of randomly

selected sites shows that at least

50% of assets and community-

owned infrastructure are

operating satisfactorily and are

maintained and utilized.


qualitative) 0 50% NA


Comments, (incl. %

achievement)

67


Original End

Target Values

(from approval

documents)



Component 1: Capacity Building, Communications and Information Support

Intermediate result indicator 1.

By Mid-Term Review, 75 % of

participating beneficiaries have

Business Plans developed

through a participatory process.


qualitative) 0 30,000(75%)

2920(9.7%)


Comments , (incl. %

achievement)

As at date, a total of 2920 BPs have been developed across the value

chain through participatory process, giving a percentage of 9.7 out of the

target of 75.


By end of Project, 75%

beneficiaries have fully (100%)

implemented approved business

plans.


qualitative) 0 30,000 (75%)

676(2.3%)

Date achieved 2014 2017

June 2016

Comments, (incl. %

achievement)

As at date, 676 Business plans has been fully funded, representing 2.3% of

the developed Business plan.


Original End

Target Values

(from approval

documents)



Intermediate result indicator 3

By the end of the 1.5 years of

implementing AF, at least 75

percent of the beneficiaries

would have successfully

negotiated contracts

(disaggregated for inputs

purchase and output sales)

68



676 (2.3%)


Comments, (incl. %

achievement) 676 Production Groups have successfully negotiated contracts.

Component 2: Small-scale Community-owned Infrastructure (SCI)


100% of selected project

intervention areas have at least

one of their irrigation systems /

access roads

constructed/rehabilitated.


qualitative) 0 71 (100%)

0


Comments, (incl. %

achievement)

There are 71 intervention sites currently, these constitutes 20 irrigation

sites and 51 access roads at various implementation stages.


Original End

Target Values

(from approval

documents)



Component 3: Advisory Services and Input Support (ASIS)


30% increase in the number of

beneficiaries procuring advisory

services in the selected project

intervention areas (EIG

disaggregated by gender and

age).).


qualitative) 57% 12000(30%)

9593(24%)


Comments, (incl. %

achievement)

A total of 9593 beneficiaries have procured advisory services across the

value chain. This represents 24% of the estimated total beneficiaries. This

was disaggregated by;

Male-------7133(74.4%)

Female------2460(25.6%)

Intermediate result indicator

2.60% increase in the number of

beneficiaries with access to

improved seed, fertilizer and

mechanization (EIG

disaggregated by gender, age and

farm size, land use, crop,

etc).Improved Seeds

Organic manure

Agro-Chemicals

Mechanization

9413 (29.4%) of the 31977

beneficiaries procured agric

input.


qualitative)

52% (Average)

31% (Male) 2.6%

69

21%(Female)

30%(Youth)


Comments, (incl. %

achievement)


Original End

Target Values

(from approval

documents)



Component 4: Support to ADPs, Sponsored Research, and On-Farm Demonstration


30% increase in the number of

beneficiaries receiving extension

services from both public and

private providers (disaggregated

by gender, age, and land use and

public/private service provider).

5994 (18.74%) of 31977

Beneficiaries received


public service providers.

Female ------1338 (22.3%) of

5994

Male ----4656 (77.7%) of

5994


qualitative) (57%) 79.5%


Comments, (incl. %

achievement)


At least 75% of beneficiaries are

satisfied with the extension

services from both public and

private providers.


qualitative) 0 75%

4864 (81%) of 5994

beneficiaries who received


public service providers are

satisfied.


Comments, (incl. %

achievement)

No formal study has been undertaken


Original End

Target Values

(from approval

documents)




At least, 75% of beneficiaries

have adopted 20% of new

technology (disaggregated by

gender, age, land use and farm

size).


qualitative) 0 30,000

NA

70


Comments, (incl. %

achievement) A survey will soon be conducted to determine the adoption rate.


By the end of the project, at least

50% of beneficiaries will be

receiving e-extension services



1052(2.63%)


Comments, (incl. %

achievement)

The project has rolled out e-extension messages to 982 in Kogi and 70 in

Niger States for AF and Non AF farmers.


Original End

Target Values

(from approval

documents)




At least 50% of all on-farm

demonstrations are conducted on

a yearly basis for all of the value

chains in selected project

intervention areas



20 (33.3%)


Comments, (incl. %

achievement)

On-farm demonstrations on rice value chain was carried out in Kano (3Nos),

Anambra (3Nos), Niger (4Nos) for tomatoes in Kano state (4 Nos) while 6

Nos demonstrations were established in Kogi for cassava.



50% of beneficiaries would have

increased nutrition awareness

(disaggregated by gender).



NA


Comments, (incl. %

achievement)

A TOT workshop on nutrition sensitive Agriculture has been scheduled to

hold on 24th of October,2016, where 40 front line extension officers

would be trained for subsequent step down.



20% of beneficiaries will be

using inputs rich in micro –

nutrients


qualitative) 0 8000(20%)

NA


Comments, (incl. %

achievement)

A study will soon be conducted to determine the percentage of

beneficiaries using inputs rich in micro nutrients.

71


Original End

Target Values

(from approval

documents)



Component 5: Acquisition for Individual FUGs/EIGs ( especially women and youths)


At least 30% of Production

Clusters have access to market

information .



2,863 (7%)


Comments, (incl. %

achievement)

2,863 beneficiaries have access to market information, they have negotiated

contracts for inputs purchase – Agro dealers and output sales


10% annual increase in

beneficiaries adopting improved

techniques in investment areas

(EIG disaggregated by gender,

land use, crop, classes of

technology, etc.).



7%


Comments, (incl. %

achievement)


Original End

Target Values

(from approval

documents)





1,800 number youth-graduates

would serve as Agri – preneurs


qualitative)

0 1,800

200


Comments, (incl. %

achievement)

The 1800 is the project target for the 6 Core States with 300 as each core

State

72


Original End

Target Values

(from approval

documents)



Component 6: Project Management, Monitoring and Evaluation


NFCO and SFCOs conduct

satisfactory project management

as evidenced by effective

supervision, M&E, impact

evaluation, financial

management, and financial

auditing arrangements.


qualitative)


Comments, (incl. %

achievement)


Original End

Target Values

(from approval

documents)




Document and disseminate

specific information on project

performance to users and

stakeholders.

Quarterly reports rendered

and the Project has received

five (5) Joint WB/FGN

Supervision Mission to date


qualitative)


Comments, (incl. %

achievement)

73

MAP