world bank documentdocuments.worldbank.org/curated/en/254591468292893960/... · 2016-07-12 ·...

Document ofThe World Bank

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Report No. 16767

IMPLEMENTATION COMPLETION REPORT

NIGERIA

THIRD MULTI-STATE AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT(CREDIT 2035-UNI)

June 25, 1997

Agriculture Group 2Africa Region

This document has a restricted distribution and may be used by recipients only in theperfornance of their official duties. Its contents may not otherwise be disclosed withoutWorld Bank authorization.

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

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

CURRENCY EQUIVALENTSCurrency Unit Naira

US$1.0 4.7 Naira (at appraisal, 1988)US$1 .0 = 80.0 Naira (at completion, 1996)

WEIGHTS AND MEASURESMetric System

FISCAL YEAR OF BORROWERJanuary 1 - December 31

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

ADP - Agricultural Development ProjectADPEC - Agricultural Development Project Executive Council

AISC - Agricultural Input Supply Companiy

APMEU - Agricultural Projects Monitoring and Evaluation UJnit

ATSF - Agricultural Technology Support FundERR - Economic Rate of Return

FACU - Federal Agricultural Coordinating UnitFAO - Food and Agriculture Organi7ationFDF - Federal Department of FisheriesFMANR - Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Natural Resources

FMF - Federal Ministry of FinanceFRMCSU - Fisheries Resources Monitoring Control and Surveillance Unit

FUA - Fadama Users AssociationICR - Implementation Completion ReportIDA - International Development AssociationIFAD - International Fund for Agricultural DevelopmentLGC - Local Government CouncilMANR - Ministry of Agriculture and Natural ResourcesM & E - Monitoring and EvaluationMSADP - Multi-State Agricultural Development ProjectMTRM - Monthly Technology Review MeetingNFDF - National Fadama Development FundNIOMR - Nigerian Institute for Oceonography and Marine Research

NOLCHEM - National Oil and Chemical Marketing CompanyOFAR - On-Farm Adaptive ResearchPCC - Project Coordinating CommilteePME - Planning, Monitoring and EvaluationPMU - Project Management tJnitPRSD - Planning Research and Statistics DepartmentSDR - Special Drawing Right

SMS - Subject Matter SpecialistSPAT - Small Plot Adoption TechniqueTSC - Technical Services ContractUAES - Unified Agricultural Extension ServicesUNDP - United Nations Development ProgramVEA - Village Extension Agent

WIA - Women in Agriculture

Vice President Jean-Louis SarbibDirector Yaw Ansu

Technical Manager Joseph Baah-DwomohTeam Leader Samuel Eremie

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Table of Contents

PREFACE

EVALUATION SUMMARY .................................. i-iv

PART I: PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION ASSESSMENTIntroduction ..........................Project Objectives ... 1.....................IAchievement of Project Objectives ......................... 2Factors Affecting Project ......................... 8Project Sustainability .......................... 9Bank Performance ........................ 10Borrower Performance ........................ 10Assessment of Outcome ........................ 10Future Operations ........................ I IKey Lessons Learned ......................... 11

PART II: STATISTICAL ANNEXESTable 1: Summary of Assessments .13Table 2: Related Bank Loans/Credits .15Table 3: Project Timetable .16Table 4: Credit Disbursements: Cumulative, Estimated and Actual .16Table 5: Key Indicators for Project Implementation .17Table 6: Key Indicators for Project Operation .20Table 7: Studies Included in Project .21Table 8A: Project Costs .................... 24Table 8B: Project Financing .................... 25Table 9: Economic Costs and Benefits .26Table 10: Status of Legal Covenants .27Table I 1: Compliance with Operational Manual Statements .30Table 12: Bank Resources: Staff Inputs .30Table 13: Bank Resources: Missions .31

APPENDICES:Appendix A: Mission's Aide-memoire .33Appendix B: Sector-Specific Data:

Table 1: Achievements of ADPs in Extension, Technical Services. 63Fisheries and Commercial Services

Table 2: Achievements of the ADPs in Infrastructure and Management 64Appendix C: Borrower Contribution to the ICR .65

MAPS: IBRD 20798IBRD 20799

This document has a restricted distribution and may be used by recipients only in theperformance of their official duties. Its contents may not otherwise be disclosed withoutWorld Bank authorization.


NIGERIA

THIRD MULTI-STATE AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT[CREDIT 2035 - UNII

Preface

1. This is the Implementation Completion Report (ICR) for the Third Multi-StateAgricultural Development Project (MSADP III), for which Credit 2035-UNI in theamount of SDR 75.0 million (US$100.9 million equivalent) was approved on June 13,1989 and made effective on March 29, 1990.

2. The Credit was closed on March 31, 1996, one year behind the original closingdate of March 31, 1995. Final disbursement took place on October 18, 1996, at whichtime a balance of SDR 5,974.9 (US$8,497.0 equivalent) was canceled.

3. The ICR was prepared by Mr. Samuel Eremie, AFMNG, and reviewed by Messrs.Moti B. Rambocus, AFMNG, and James Sackey, AFTI1. The Borrower providedcomments that are included as an appendix to the ICR.

4. Preparation of this ICR was begun during the joint Bank/Borrower finalsupervision and completion mission, April 15 to June 19, 1996. It is based on material inthe project file, field visits to all the project units and discussions with governmentofficials and project beneficiaries. The Borrower's staff from the Federal Ministry ofFinance (FMF), the Federal Agricultural Coordinating Unit (FACU) and the AgriculturalProjects Monitoring and Evaluation Unit (APMEU) participated in the completionmission. The views of state level officials and those of the Federal Ministry ofAgriculture and Natural Resources (FMANR) and the Federal Ministry of Finance havebeen reflected in the aide-memoire (Appendix A). A summary of the Borrower's finalevaluation report is included in Appendix C.


NIGERIA


Evaluation Summary

Introduction

1. Nigeria had implemented Bank-assisted agricultural development projects (ADPs)for 13 years by 1988 when the Third Multi-State Agricultural Development Project(MSADP III) was appraised for an International Development Association (IDA) creditof SDR 75.0 million (US$100.9 million equivalent). Among the lessons from thecompleted ADPs were the need for: close research-extension linkages to provide relevanttechnology for the farmers; effective unified extension services; a privatized and efficientinput distribution system; private sector involvement in the provision of ruralinfrastructure and of the local government councils (LGCs) in their maintenance; andefficient organizational structures for agricultural development. This experience, coupledwith the emphasis of the 1988 Agricultural Policy for Nigeria on the development ofinstitutional capacity and an increased role for the private sector, influenced the design ofthe MSADP III, which provided assistance to Lagos, Ondo, Osun, Oyo and Rivers states.

Project Objectives

2. The main objectives of the project were to: (i) assist in the preparation andcarrying out of programs that would stimulate agricultural growth, exports andemployment; (ii) improve agricultural services for 1,059,000 farm families, and ruralinfrastructure, especially the rehabilitation of 2,230 km and maintenance of 9,990 km ofrural roads, the rehabilitation of 800 existing wells and construction of 2,400 new wells;and (iii) focus attention at federal and state levels on the critical issues affectingagricultural and fisheries development in Nigeria. The objectives were realistic andconsistent with Nigeria's priority for smallholder agricultural development at the time.They were also relevant for the Bank's Sector Assistance Strategy of the late 1980s whichaimed at strengthening agricultural support services, agricultural marketing and pricesystems and the capacity for sector planning, policy formulation and expenditureprogramming [paras. 2, 3].

3. Covenants. The main covenants stipulated in the Credit Agreement were:(i) provision of adequate counterpart funds; (ii) establishment of semi-autonomousproject implementation units; (iii) maintenance of structures for coordination, monitoringand evaluation; (iv) review of the state agricultural institutions; (v) establishment ofagricultural input supply companies (AISCs); (vi) involvement of the LGCs in road

- 11

maintenance; and (vii) harmonization of the agricultural data collection systems [para. 4,Table 10].

Implementation Experience and Results

4. Project Costs, Financing and Timetable. Total project cost was estimated atUS$159.4 million at appraisal, with IDA financing of US$100.9 million accounting for63 percent. Actual project cost as of October 18, 1996, was about US$133.1 million withIDA contribution accounting for 80 percent, mainly because of inadequate counterpartfunding. The project was implemented in six years instead of the five years estimated atappraisal [para. 24, 25].

5. Achievement of Objectives. The project substantially achieved its objectives ofbuilding local capacity for the preparation and implementation of agriculturaldevelopment programs, improving the agricultural services and rural infrastructure, andraising awareness for the sustainable management of fisheries resources. The project wasinstrumental in the unification of extension services in Nigeria. The adaptive researchcomponent developed improved technologies for crops, aquaculture and soyabeanutilization. The most widely adopted technologies in the project area include: improvedcassava varieties, especially TMS 30572, 50395 and 30555, adopted by over 60 percentof the farmers; improved upland (ITA 150) and lowland (FARO 36 and 37) rice varieties;homestead fish ponds, sometimes combined with livestock production; and incorporation,by women, of soyabean into the family menu. Private outgrowers accounted for 78percent of the 2,717T of grain seed produced. Only 40 percent of the revised target forwell construction was achieved but communities were effectively organized to maintainthe water points. About 62 percent of the revised 2,606 km target for rural roadrehabilitation was achieved but LGC involvement in the maintenance of these roads waspoor because of the frequent changes in the leadership of the councils.

6. The commercial services of four ADPs were successfully transformed intoagricultural input supply companies (AISCs) and preliminary results suggest that they canbe self-sustaining if allowed a free hand by the government. There was an improvementin the analytical capacity of the ADP staff, which showed in the improved quality of thereports. Over the project life, project staff benefitted from about 22,500 short trainingcourses in various aspects of agriculture. The Federal Agricultural Coordinating Unit(FACU) contributed to the articulation of rural development policy, providedimplementation support to agricultural projects, and made outstanding technicalcontributions to joint missions with the Bank. The Agricultural Projects Monitoring andEvaluation Unit (APMEU) cleared the backlog of unanalyzed survey reports andintroduced improved data collection and analysis procedures into the ADP system. Thefederal Planning Research and Statistics Department (PRSD) established the NationalAgricultural Data Bank while the Fisheries Resources Monitoring Control andSurveillance Unit (FRMCSU) is regulating sea fisheries through the enforcement of theenabling decree in collaboration with the Nigerian Navy [paras. 5 to 25].

- iii - i

7. Factors Affecting Implementation. The key factors which adversely affectedimplementation were: (i) inadequate counterpart funding; (ii) unilateral changes in projectmanagement; (iii) political interference in project management, especially in staffing,procurement and the use of project equipment; (iv) irregular meetings of the projectexecutive committees; (v) political and fuel crises; and (vi) problems in fundmanagement. On the positive side, the Federal Government has been consistent in itssupport of the ADP system as an effective arrangement for smallholder agriculturaldevelopment and the state governments have scheduled the ADPs to benefit from theregular planning and budgetary processes [paras. 26 to 29].

8. Bank Performance. The performance of the Bank was satisfactory in projectappraisal and implementation. The appraisal mission took into consideration thecountry's agricultural development priorities, the economic environment as well as theBank's sector strategy but implementation targets and guidelines were not clearly definedfor some components. State PRSDs, however, complained that Bank supervisionmissions seldom met them [para. 31].

9. Borrower Performance. The Borrower's performance was generally satisfactory.One of its agencies, FACU, prepared the project and, along with APMEU, providedimplementation support to the ADPs and participated in Bank supervision missions.Most of the Credit covenants, except those related to counterpart funding and thefrequency of meeting of the executive committees, were complied with [para 32].

10. Project Sustainability. The strengthening of implementation structures andcapacity, the increase in agricultural production and the associated satisfactory economicrate of return (ERR), the scheduling of the ADPs, the increasing participation ofbeneficiaries in project activities, the establishment of the AISCs, the allocation ofoperating funds from the Fadama and Technology Support facilities to most of the projectcomponents, as well as the operational plans prepared suggest a good probability ofsustainability of the key project benefits. It is expected that with improved macro-economic management, there would be an increase in private sector participation whichwould help strengthen sustainability. As for the ADPs themselves, their sustainability isuncertain given the unsatisfactory past record of poor counterpart funding and a lack ofpublic awareness of the results achieved by the ADPs [para. 30].

11. Project Outcome. Overall, the outcome of the project is satisfactory, consideringthe likely sustainability of the project benefits and the increase in agricultural production,as reflected by the re-estimated ERR of 26.1 percent compared to the appraisal estimateof 17.0 percent. The project has also enhanced the country's capacity to implementagricultural development programs and contributed to rural poverty alleviation [para. 33].

Summary of Findings, Future Operations, and Key Lessons Learned

12. Key Findings of Implementation Experience. The key findings ofimplementation experience are that: (i) government needs to continuously prioritize itsobjectives and strategies since its simultaneous involvement in a large number of

- lv -

agricultural interventions dilutes its effectiveness in funding the activities, especially withdwindling public budgets; (ii) political interference in project management impedessmooth implementation and stifles the development of an accountable managementculture; and (iii) private sector and beneficiary community participation need to bevigorously encouraged by government to reduce the pressure on scarce public resources.With respect to the latter, input supply, road rehabilitation and maintenance, provisionand maintenance of water points, multiplication of all types of seeds, adaptive research,extension and training are some of the areas where project experience has shown thatprivate participation could be fostered. Such participation should start at the planningand project preparation stage, and continue through implementation to evaluation [para.371.

13. Future Operations. The technical and administrative proposals in the operationalplans prepared by the project units are adequate. The plans focus on the maintenance ofcore activities, which at the ADP level include technology adaptation and extension andthe promotion of private sector involvement in project activities, and at the federal levelthe coordination, monitoring and evaluation of agricultural policy and programs. Theeffectiveness of the plans will, however, depend on the prioritization by the governmentof its interventions in the agricultural sector, the implementation of the recommendationsof the institutional reviews, and the implementation of various proposals to enhanceprivate sector participation in fertilizer distribution [para. 35, Table 6].

14. Key Lessonsfor Future Projects. For future related projects, there is a need forthe Bank to: (i) instil a sense of ownership by ensuring the participation of all agencies tobe included in a project right from the preparation stage; (ii) promote responsibility andaccountability by allowing project components reporting to different governmentdepartments to have separate special accounts; (iii) carefully define implementationtargets during appraisal to facilitate implementation and ultimate evaluation; and(iv) closely monitor during supervision missions compliance with institutionalarrangements.

15. The government, has to: (i) focus on a few priority interventions in line withdwindling public budgetary resources, and encourage private sector participation;(ii) adequately fund the selected interventions to facilitate implementation; and(iii) minimize interference in the management of projects to promote the development ofan accountable management system. The implementing agencies also need to involvecommunities and the private sector in their activities, and maintain good externalrelations to ensure the sustainability of project benefits [para. 36 to 38].


NIGERIA


PART I: PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION ASSESSMENT

Introduction

1. Nigeria by 1988, when the Third Multi-State Agricultural Development Project(MSADP III) was being appraised for an International Development Association (IDA)credit of SDR 75.0 million (US$100.9 million equivalent), had implemented Bank-assisted agricultural development projects (ADPs) for 13 years. Some of the lessonslearned from the completed ADPs include the need to ensure that: (i) technical packagesare based on proven technology and close research-extension linkages are established sothat research programs respond to problems at the farm level; (ii) extension services areunified for increased effectiveness; (iii) agricultural input distribution is privatized forefficiency; (iv) rural infrastructure is constructed by the private sector and maintained bythe local government council (LGC); and (v) state organizational structures become moreefficient The 1988 Agricultural Policy for Nigeria also emphasized an increasing role forthe private sector in agricultural production, processing, distribution and marketing andthe need to build institutional capacity for agricultural services. The MSADP III whichwas designed with these considerations in mind was approved on June 13, 1989 and wasexpected to close on March 31, 1995. It actually closed one year later on March 31,1996.

Project Objectives

2. The main objectives of the MSADP III as stated in the Credit Agreement were to:

(a) assist in the preparation and carrying out of programs that would stimulateagricultural growth, exports and employment;

(b) improve agricultural services (for about 1,059,000 farm families in Lagos,Ondo, Osun, Oyo and Rivers states) and rural infrastructure (rehabilitationof 2,230 km, recurrent maintenance of 7,960 km and routine maintenanceof 9,990 km of rural roads, rehabilitation of 800 existing wells andconstruction of 1,600 wells); and

(c) focus attention at federal and state levels on the critical issues affectingagricultural and fisheries development in Nigeria.

-2-

The seven project components were: Agricultural Services; Fisheries; CommercialServices; Rural Roads and Water Supply; Project Management, Planning, Monitoring andEvaluation; Institutional Development of the State Ministry of Agriculture and NaturalResources (MANR); and Federal Component to support capacity building of the FederalAgricultural Coordinating Unit (FACU), Agricultural Projects Monitoring and EvaluationUnit (APMEU), Planning, Research and Statistics Department (PRSD) of the FederalMinistry of Agriculture and Natural Resources (FMANR), and establish a FisheriesResources Monitoring, Control and Surveillance Unit (FRMCSU).

3. The project objectives were realistic and in line with Nigeria's agricultural policyas well as past experience in implementing ADPs. They were also consistent with theBank's Sector Assistance Strategy of the late 1980s which aimed, among others, tostrengthen the agricultural support services, the agricultural marketing and price systemsand the capacity for sector planning, policy formulation and expenditure programming.A mid-term review in 1993 maintained the project objectives but revised or establishedthe physical targets, where the appraisal report did not provide clear indicators.

4. Covenants to Achieve Project Objectives. Apart from the general covenantsrelating to work plans, budgets and audits, the Credit Agreement required: (i) theprovision of adequate counterpart funds by the state and federal governments;(ii) establishment of semi-autonomous project implementation units; (iii) establishmentand maintenance of structures for policy formulation, coordination, monitoring andevaluation; (iv) the review of the state agricultural institutions; (v) establishment of stateagricultural input supply companies (AISCs); (vi) conclusion of arrangements withresearch institutes to assist the ADPs in the adaptive research programs; (vii) reachingagreement with LGCs to undertake routine maintenance of roads; and(viii) harmonization of agricultural data collection systems and procedures. Most of thecovenants were complied with except those relating to the provision of adequate andtimely counterpart funds, the regular meetings of the executive committees and theagreements with the LGCs for road maintenance, The status of the covenants issummarized in Table 10.

Achievement of Objectives

5. The project achieved, substantially, its objectives. Tables 1 and 2 in Appendix Bgive details of the achievements in the various components. The technical services of theADPs through the on-farm adaptive research (OFAR) process adapted technologiessuitable for the ecological zones, the most prominent of which were improved varieties ofcassava, rice and maize, cultural practices for sole and mixed cropping, and local feedsfor livestock. The Women in Agriculture (WIA) unit adapted gender-specifictechnologies for product storage, processing and utilzation. Some of the ADPs haveinvolved the LGCs in the funding of the monthly technology review meeting (MTRM),which portends well for the sustainability of the activity. Private outgrowers accountedfor 78 percent of the 2,717T of grain seed produced. The project also assisted farmers to

-3-

rehabilitate 68,049 ha of cocoa (119 percent of the target of 57,125 ha) and to replant6,588 ha of cocoa (target 2,204 ha) and 4,410 ha of oil palm (target 4,300 ha).

6. Through the unified agricultural extension services (UAES), the ADPs reached1,273,000 farm families (120 percent of the appraisal target) with improved technologieson crops, livestock, fisheries and agro-forestry, mainly using the small plot adoptiontechnique (SPAT). The project attained a village extension agent (VEA) to farm familyratio of 1:1,411 as compared with a target of 1:1,000 and conducted 365,200 SPAT (78percent of the target). The most widely adopted technologies include: (i) improvedcassava varieties (TMS 30572, 30555, 50395 and 4{2} 1425), adopted by over 60 percentof the farmers and resulting in yield increases from about 8T/ha to 13T/ha; (ii) downymildew resistant maize varieties, which substantially reduced yield losses in the savannaareas of Ondo, Osun and Oyo states; (iii) improved upland rice variety (ITA 150) andlowland varieties (FARO 36 and 37); (iv) local cowpea variety, 'iya iyawo', with lowplant protection requirements; (v) soyabean utilization to improve family protein intake;and (vi) homestead fish ponds. There was an increase in the yields of the major crops inthe project area and in the average farm size (from 1.0ha to 1.5ha). However, soilmaintenance measures, including alley farming, were not well adopted because of theland tenure issues. Women farmers were integrated into the mainstream of the extensionservices. About 1,745 women groups were formed out of a target of 2,083, and most ofthem were registered as cooperatives to enhance their ability to obtain inputs and credit.

7. The ADP fisheries component developed technologies for homestead fish pondsas well as the preparation of fish feed from local materials. The demand for fingerlingswas met through supplies from the hatcheries established in Lagos and Ondo, from 31outgrowers, and by sourcing from the wild. Lagos and Rivers were not fully successfulin developing technological packages for shrimps. Lagos developed technology for theextensive culture of the freshwater shrimp using juveniles from the wild but was unableto hatch the larvae beyond the fifth stage (out of 1 1 stages). Rivers developed a packagefor the extensive culture of the marine shrimp but discontinued the hatchery production ofthe larvae because of financial constraints. Lagos, Ondo and Rivers supported capturefisheries through the distribution of fishing gear, and by training fishermen on gearhandling and mechanics on outboard engine maintenance. Only Ondo constructed fourfuel depots to ease fuel and lubricant supply to coastline fishermen, but these had notbeen put into use as at the end of the project.

8. The commercial services were transformed into the agricultural input supplycompany (AISC) in all the states except Osun where the government intended to establishone before the end of 1996. No attempt has been made to divest of some of the shares tocooperative groups and the private sector and the AISCs were still subject to governmentdirection. Although preliminary results from Lagos, Ondo and Oyo suggest that AISCscan be profitable if given a free hand to operate, past experience with similar government-owned companies in other states, however, suggests otherwise. Private retailers for inputdistribution were only appointed in Ondo. Some 307,856T of fertilizer (72 percent of thetarget), 834T of grain seed (41 percent) and 779T of agrochemicals (64 percent) were

-4 -

distributed. Fertilizer distribution was controlled by government and the supply ofteninadequate.

9. Altogether, 1,622 km of rural roads (62 percent of the revised target) wererehabilitated. The roads opened up the rural areas and facilitated the movement of goodsand people. About 64 percent of the achievement in Ondo, Osun and Oyo states was byforce account rather than contract. The performance in routine maintenance was poor (40percent of the 7,100 km target) because of the inability of the ADPs to establish effectivelinkages with the LGCs whose leadership went through frequent changes. For watersupply, the ADPs met 40 percent of the revised well construction target of 970 and 58percent of the borehole target of 145, and the communities were organized to maintainthe facilities. Oyo and Osun together constructed five dams and reticulated eleven, someof which are beyond the maintenance capacity of the ADPs and the communities andneed to be handed over to the state water agencies. The sanitation and community healthaspects of water supply were not adequately emphasized by most ADPs. All the ADPsestablished pilot irrigation schemes and formed fadama users associations (FUAs) tomanage them.

10. The ADPs established 1 1 (out of the 16) pilot agro-processing centers,demonstrated technologies sourced from the research institutes, and trained blacksmithsto fabricate simple equipment. Technologies for processing of palm oil and tomato pureewere well received in Osun and Lagos, respectively, but most farmer groups requiredcredit support in order to pay the full cost of the processing equipment. Ondo and Osunconstructed headquarters buildings and all the ADPs constructed, rehabilitated orextended their service structures. The maintenance, after credit closure, of the heavyequipment procured by the ADPs is of concern to the state governments. The alternativesbeing considered for these equipment include: public auctioning; hiring out to generaterevenue; use by the ADP staff for contract work; and transfer to autonomous publicleasing companies. Past experience in Nigeria has not demonstrated the viability of thelast three options.

11. The ADP management units met regularly to plan and review work programs.Credit disbursement was, however, adversely affected by: (i) state government directiveswhich lowered the permitted management expenditure limits; (ii) infrequent meeting (46percent of the target of 112) of the Agricultural Development Project ExecutiveCommittee (ADPEC); and (iii) political interference in project management, notably inthe procurement process, in the use of project vehicles and equipment, and throughfrequent changes in management staffing. The infrequent meeting of the ADPECsubcommittees for Agriculture and Infrastructure also resulted in the ineffectivecoordination of the activities of the ADP with those of other agencies operating in therural areas. As a sign of positive government support, however, all the ADP staff nowenjoy state pension benefits and the ADP budget can be incorporated into the rolling planand annual budget. The image of most ADPs needs to be improved by the programmanagers through better attention to the publicity of ADP activities and the maintenanceof good external relations, including those with the parent ministry. Staff turnover was

-5 -

high in Lagos and Rivers ADPs because of the lure of the oil companies who offeredbetter staff pay packages.

12. The ADP training programs contributed substantially to the enhancement of thecapacity and skills for agricultural development. Apart from the regular fortnightly andmonthly training of the extension staff, staff benefitted from a total of 21,624 shortcourses, 99 percent of them locally, helping to strengthen the capacity of local traininginstitutions. Many staff have readily picked up more lucrative jobs elsewhere after beingtrained by the ADP. The Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation (PME) departmentsprepared annual work plans, monitored project activitites especially through the monthlyprogress review meeting, and undertook 473 studies (92 percent of the target of 513) toidentify constraints and assess project impact. There was an improvement in theanalytical capacity of staff as evidenced by the improved quality of periodic reports butsubmission was usually late, with the exception of Osun ADP.

13. To strengthen the sector policy and strategy capacity of the PRSD of the MANR,the ADPs provided training, vehicles and equipment but the positions of Planning andEconomic Advisers were not filled. Although institutional reviews were done in all thestates, except Oyo where the draft report was yet to be discussed, no seriousreorganization has occured in any of the states as a result of the review. Most of thePRSDs would prefer to directly manage IDA funds rather than these being channelledthrough the ADP. The state governments would like future Bank assistance to theMANR to be extended to other units beside the PRSD.

14. FACU strengthened its capacity to articulate rural development policy and tosupport the implementation of the ADPs in Nigeria, mainly through supervision missions.It conducted 56 thematic supervision missions (out of a target of 60), 26 comprehensivemissions and 29 joint missions with the Bank, with outstanding technical inputs by thestaff. There was, however, a weakness in the support to the ADPs on portfoliomanagement, probably because of the centralization of the finance and expendituremanagement function in FACU headquarters. FACU coordinated the preparation of nineprojects, and conducted ten project facilitation teams and eight mid-term reviews. FACUalso successfully relocated its headquarters from Ibadan to Abuja in 1993 and achieved asmooth transition from expatriate staff (12 in 1990 to four in 1995) to local professionals.FACU would probably be best remembered for its contribution to the unification ofextension services in Nigeria.

15. APMEU built up the in-house capacity of the ADPs in analytical work throughtraining in computer application and the development of new softwares. About 480 staffof state PRSDs and ADPs were trained. Apart from clearing the backlog of 80unanalyzed surveys, APMEU prepared a field enumerators' handbook to increase thereliability of data and installed a local area network to enhance data processing.APMEU's rigorous training program infused sufficient confidence into the staff to trainnon-ADP staff and its training plan was commended by the Bank. The twinning

-6 -

arrangement with the University of East Anglia, however, did not come through becauseof changes in government and the consequent delay in approving the program.

16. The unification of the extension services in the country and Bank funding ofseparate project coordinating units for crops, livestock, forestry and agricultural research,have raised the issue of coordination among these units under the FMANR. The FederalGovernment undertook a review of some of the units in 1995, but the outcome is yet to bemade public. There is a view that only two coordinating units are needed and theseshould be in the office of the Director General of the FMANR. One would be forplanning and implementation support and the other for monitoring and evaluation for allthe subsectors of agriculture. Although FMANR requested Bank assistance on aninstitutional review and a piece of sector work was planned for FY97, there has been nofurther focused response from FMANR.

17. The project substantially increased the capacity of the PRSD of FMANR tocoordinate the collection of data and analyze agricultural policy. Four zonal offices wereestablished, 17 staff were trained in statistical analysis and agricultural planning, andbacked with twelve micro-computer units, staff can now process, store and retrieve datafor all the subsectors. The National Agricultural Data Bank was established with co-financing from the UNDP/FAO. The National Agro-Statistics Coordinating Committeeand its state counterparts were also established and the national committee is now theclearing house for all agricultural data. Three planning workshops organized by PRSDbenefitted 350 staff of the state MANRs as well as other agricultural agencies.

18. The FRMCSU resulted from the upgrading of the Inspection Section of theFederal Department of Fisheries. Two decrees, the Sea Fisheries Decree and the InlandFisheries Decree, were revised and gazetted in 1992, containing stiffer penalties forinfringement. The enlightenment campaign on the decrees as well as the enforcement byFRMCSU in collaboration with the Nigerian Navy are bringing some orderliness into seafisheries. Between 1992 and 1995, three foreign poaching vessels were arrested andprosecuted, 22 trawl nets with undersize cod end meshes were confiscated, four trawlinglicences were withdrawn, and ten cases of conflict within the five nautical mile zonebetween trawlers and artisanal fishermen were resolved. Although FRMCSU did notcomplete the rehabilitation of its patrol vessel, basic equipment for monitoring wasprocured. The Nigerian Institute for Oceonography and Marine Research (NIOMR),contracted by FRMCSU to undertake the stock assessment of the commercial fish andshrimp species, was unable to complete the work because of the lack of funds to recruitenumerators for data collection. The institute's preliminary work on sea fisheries,however, indicates that the demersal stock (croaker and shrimp) caught by the trawlersare already showing signs of over exploitation.

19. An amendment to the Credit Agreement was made in 1991 to provide SDR 2million for funding work-in-progress for the Watari Irrigation Scheme in Kano State.About SDR 0.2 million had been utilized for the payment of some consultancy and civilworks before Kano ADP started drawing on the National Fadama Development Project

-7 -

funds for this scheme. The Kano State Government considers the assistance from theMSADP III credit very useful for sustaining the activities of the former Kano ADP beforefunds from the fadama project loan became available.

20. Technical Assistance. About 32 man-years were utilized by the ADPs for localfinancial controllers, out of the 72 man-years provided for various specialist positions,consultancies and studies. Most of the other specialist positions were filled by existingproject staff, MANR-assigned staff, and local engineering consultants. Lagos ADPrecruited expatriate technical partners for about seven man-months to assist in thedevelopment of the technology package for the freshwater shrimp. The quality of thelimited technical assistance procured by the states was satisfactory. FACU recruited aCommercial Coordinator and additional engineering staff to improve the support to theADPs.

21. Studies. The project provided for three major studies by the ADPs: (i) review ofthe agricultural institutions in each state; (ii) review of the responsiveness of the privatesector and farmer organizations to participation in input distribution; and (iii) assessmentof the potential of rivers and shallow aquifers for small-scale irrigation development. Theaquifer study was concluded in all states except Rivers whose management did notinitially consider it a priority, and the institutions review in all states except Oyo wherethere was disagreement over the implementation procedures between the state MANRand the ADP. The response of the private sector to participation in input distribution wasnot systematically analyzed but AISCs were established in all states except Osun.

22. FACU conducted four out of the six studies specified by the project. The studyon the comparison of force account and private contractors in road construction was notcompleted because FACU was dissatisfied with the competence of the consultants. Thestudy on fuel distribution was not done because of the reluctance of the FederalDepartment of Fisheries to involve FACU. FACU also planned to do 37 other studies butachieved only nine mainly because of counterpart fund constraints. APMEU wasexpected to conduct an unspecified number of policy studies related to the ADPs. Itconducted 17 such studies as well as five other studies and eight ICRs, the results ofwhich have been used by the ADPs, researchers and the government. The NIOMR didnot conclude the stock assessment study that was to guide the fisheries resourcesmanagement program (para. 18). The federal PRSD conducted three out of the sixstudies it planned. The rest were considered of low priority. Overall, the quality of theconcluded studies was satisfactory. The information guided management in projectimplementation and government in agricultural policy formulation, especially in suchareas as the unification of extension services, the establishment of an endowment fund forthe ADPs to mitigate the effect of dwindling donor assistance, commercialization of inputdistribution, increased cost recovery, food security, and beneficiary participation. Table 7presents the details of the status of the studies.

23. Overall, by establishing a framework for sectoral refonn, promoting agriculturalgrowth, supporting private sector participation, and enhancing the role of women in the

-8 -

sector, the project also contributed to the attainment of the sectoral developmentobjectives of promoting rural growth, reducing rural poverty and enhancing thesustainability of the resource base, especially in fisheries.

24. Project Costs, Financing and Timetable. Project costs as at October 18, 1996,when the final credit disbursement was made, stood at about US$133.1 million ascompared with US$159.4 million at appraisal. The state components cost aboutUS$106.3 million, 94 percent of the appraisal estimate of US$113.5 million. The federalcomponents cost US$26.8 million as against the estimated US$45.9 million. The foreigncost totalling US$73.1 million was 55 percent of total cost, and close to the appraisalestimate of 54 percent.

25. The IDA financing of US$106.1 was 105 percent of its expected contribution ofUS$100.9 million, due to fluctuations of the exchange rate of the SDR to the US dollar.The IDA financed 80 percent of project cost as compared with the appraisal estimate of63 percent. The states counterpart contribution of US$12.3 million was 91 percent of theexpected contribution of US$13.5 million while beneficiary contribution, which islumped with internally generated revenue, stood at an impressive US$3.0 million, 200percent of the appraisal estimate of US$1.5 million. The Federal Governmentcontribution of US$11.7 million was only 27 percent of the expected US$43.5 million.The total federal contribution of N 230.3 million was less than the N 273.8 millionexpected even if there was no change in exchange rate. The poor performance of theFederal Government was due to dwindling real budgets. The remarkable performance inbeneficiary contribution gives hope for greater participation of beneficiaries in futureprojects. Due to delays in achieving loan effectiveness, the project was implemented insix years as compared with the five years estimated at appraisal.

Factors Affecting the Project

26. The major factors that adversely affected the project were: (i) inadequatecounterpart funding; (ii) frequent changes in management; (iii) political interference inmanagement; (iv) irregular meetings of the project executive councils; (v) political andfuel crises; and (vi) high staff turnover. The first five factors are subject to governmentcontrol while the sixth is beyond its control. Inadequate federal counterpart fundingaffected all the project components except the PRSD. For the ADPs, only 79 percent ofthe approved federal budget of N 128.8 million was released. The approved provisionswere themselves lower than the appraisal requirements. State counterpart funding whichwas often released late, was very inadequate in Rivers while Lagos and Ondo ADPsreceived more than their appraisal estimates.

27. The long break in activities in Rivers ADP during 1994 and 1995 following theunilateral replacement of the management by the state government without consulting theother parties to the agreement, led to a large number of civil works not being completed.The other ADPs had similar problems, although on a smaller scale, with changes in themanagement. Political and official interference in project management bordered on:

-9-

prescription of spending limits below the stipulations of the Credit Agreement; thedetermination of staffing of the units, including embargoes on recruitment; therequirement for approval of procurements which are within management limits; and theutilization of project vehicles and equipment. The situation was compounded by theinfrequent meeting of the executive committees leading to delays in the approval of workprograms and poor disbursement.

28. The political and fuel crises that dominated the period, 1992-95, increased localcosts and adversely affected staff movement and construction activities. FACU,APMEU, and Lagos and Rivers ADPs suffered from very high staff turnover because ofthe uncompetitive project incentive packages, the case of Lagos and Rivers beingworsened by the influence of the high paying oil industry.

29. The Bank's conservative approach to management of special accounts anddisbursements were considered by affected agencies as obstacles to smoothimplementation. The implementation of the federal PRSD was hampered by themanagement of its accounts by FACU. Most of the time, the PRSD did not have anaccurate knowledge of the disbursement made on its behalf. The implementation of theFRMCSU component suffered an initial delay because of objections raised by the FederalDepartment of Fisheries to FACU's management of the credit funds. The amendment ofthe Credit Agreement to rectify the problem took more than a year. The state PRSDs alsowere not satisfied with the control and operation of their funds by the ADPs. Given thepast experience with special accounts in Nigeria. the Bank had to be cautious and shouldcontinue to be.

Project Sustainability

30. The project has raised agricultural production, strengthened the institutionalstructures in the affected states for the delivery of critical services to smallholder farmers,and produced skilled manpower for a more effective management of agriculturalinterventions. Research-extension linkages have improved to produce more relevanttechnologies for the farmers. Beneficiary participation has increased in extension,adaptive research, seed multiplication, and the provision and maintenance of water points.Since the preliminary results from the AISCs are encouraging, private participation ininput distribution should be strongly pursued to reduce the pressure of this activity on thepublic budget. The ADPs have been scheduled and will benefit from the state budgetallocations. Operating funds have been earmarked for most of the project units from theFadama and Agricultural Technology Support facilities, and possibly the Bank-assistedEnvironmental Management Project, while future activitities of the FRMCSU may befunded from the Petroleum Trust Fund. The Federal Government continues to stress itssupport for the ADP system and plans to meet the recurrent costs of FACU and APMEU.All these elements point to a likely sustainability of the project benefits. Someimprovement would, however, be required in macro-economic management, especially inthe strategies for fertilizer distribution and credit to farmers for production and processingactivities to encourage private sector activity. The key factors that will determine the

- 10-

sustainability of the ADPs are the level of budgetary resources and the perception of thegovernment and the beneficiaries of the value of the services provided by the ADPs.Given the already unsatisfactory record of counterpart fund support, frequent changes instate political heads, the inadequate publicity of the ADPs' results and the low level ofbeneficiary consultations by officials, their sustainability is uncertain.

Bank Performance

31. Bank performance was satisfactory during project appraisal and implementation.Supervision was fairly regular and the response to project implementation issues prompt.The state PRSD components, however, complained that they were not usually contactedby supervision missions. Some of the project units also complained about the non-specification in the appraisal report of clear targets in several activity areas and theabsence of detailed implementation guidelines in areas such as the involvement of LGCsin road maintenance. Part of the second problem was addressed during the mid-termreview when targets were specified in some areas while the coordinating agencies wereexpected to provide implementation guidelines to the project units as part of their supportto them.

Borrower Performance

32. The project was prepared by FACU based on Nigeria's experience in theimplementation of earlier ADPs but units such as the FRMCSU and the PRSD claim notto have been involved at the preparation phase. Federal Government commitment to theproject was demonstrated through the regular release of counterpart funds, although theamounts fell short of appraisal targets. Government handling of fertilizer distributionremained one area of weakness throughout project implementation. The stategovernments supported the ADPs by taking care of the salaries of most of the staff, inaddition to the counterpart fund contributions. Most of the credit covenants werecomplied with, except the timely release of adequate counterpart funds, infrequentmeetings of the executive committees, and interference in project management. On thewhole, Borrower performance was satisfactory.

Assessment of Outcome

33. Overall, the outcome of the project is satisfactory. The major objectives ofstimulating agricultural growth and improving agricultural services and ruralinfrastructure were achieved. The re-estimated economic rate of return of 26.1 percentexceeds the 17.0 percent estimated at appraisal. The factors highlighted in para. 30support sustainability of the project benefits provided there is macro-economic stabilityand a substantial policy thrust to enhance private sector participation in project activities.

34. The ERR is calculated for a period of 20 years (1990-2009). Benefits and coststaken into account are those for the 5 state ADPs only. costs and benefits peak in the sixthyear of the project and stabilize for rest of the period. Sixty percent of the peak-yearbenefits are derived from incremental production of cocoa originating from rehabilitation

and new cocoa plantings initiated by the project (para. 5). Yam and maize account for 14and 12 percent, respectively, with the introduction and promotion by the project ofimproved/disease-resistant varieties and new propagation techniques. It is assumed thatpart of the agricultural benefits are attributable to better infrastructure and 50 percent ofthe cost of the road works have been included in the cost stream. Selection f roads forrehabilitation/maintenance under the project was based on a minimum ERR of 15 percentderived from vehicular cost savings. Thirty-three percent of annual project costs from1995 onwards are for roads. A standard conversion factor of 0.85 is applied to non-tradeables.

Future Operations

35. The technical and institutional arrangements in the operational plans prepared bythe project units are adequate (annex to Appendix A). Focus is on the maintenance of thecore activities, which in the ADPs include technology adaptation and extension andpromotion of private sector involvement in project activities, and for the federal units, theeffective coordination, monitoring and evaluation of agricultural development policy andprograms. The effectiveness of the operational plans will, however, depend on: (i) theselection by the government of a few priority agricultural services to support at a time inline with dwindling public resources; (ii) implementation of the recommendations of theinstitutional reviews, especially, with respect to the duplication of functions and theinvolvement of communities and the private sector in project activities; and(iii) implementation of the various proposals to enhance private sector participation infertilizer distribution. The key performance indicators during the operational phase areshown in Table 6.

Key Lessons Learned

36. The lessons from the implementation of the MSADP III are significant for theimplementing agencies, the government and the Bank. The key lessons for the Bank are:(i) all agencies to be included in a project should be involved from the project preparationstage to instil a sense of ownership. The FRMCSU and the state and federal PRSDcomponents regarded their inclusion in the project as accidental because the relevantdepartments were not rigorously involved at preparation; (ii) while proliferation ofspecial accounts is not desirable, there is a need to devise a system that providesrevolving fund proceeds efficiently to units that do not manage special accounts. Thestate and federal PRSD components were dissatisfied with the management of theiraccounts by the ADP and FACU, respectively, and the FRMCSU lost more than one yearin its attempt to have a separate special account; (iii) a careful definition of targets duringappraisal facilitates project implementation and ultimate evaluation; and (iv) institutionalarrangements, such as the frequency of executive committee meetings, as well as thepolicy environment need to be monitored more closely during supervision missions. Thiswill enable remedial measures, including sanctions, to be introduced to facilitateimplementation.

- 12 -

37. For the government, the lessons are: (i) it should focus on a few priorityinterventions in agriculture at a time, especially in the face of dwindling public resources,and the private sector should be encouraged to participate in project activities in order totake the pressure off lean public resources; (ii) for the selected priority interventions,counterpart fund provisions should be adequate and released on time to facilitate projectimplementation and credit disbursement; and (iii) political and official interference in theday-to-day management of projects should be minimized while broader policy supportshould be enhanced for effective implementation. The setting of arbitrary staffing andspending limits, interference in procurement and the use of project equipment, andirregular meetings of the project executive councils denied the project the needed policyguidance and impeded the development of an accountable management system.

38. The major lessons for the implementing agencies are: (i) the involvement of theprivate sector and other beneficiaries in project activities is very important for thesustainability of project benefits. The involvement of communities in water supply,LGCs in funding the MTRM, and private outgrowers in seed multiplication reduced thepressure on ADP resources during implementation and will ensure the continuation of theactivities after the project; and (ii) publicity and the maintenance of good externalrelations are vital for the survival of the ADP system in the competitive environment ofmultiple government interventions in the agricultural sector. Project managers have animportant role to play to create the right image of their projects in the minds ofgovernment and the public.

- 13 -

PART II: STATISTICAL ANNEXES

Table 1: Summary of Assessments

A. Achievementof Objectives Substantial Partial Negligible Not ApDlicable

(0,'/ () (V)

Macro Policies E E E 0

Sector Policies E E E E

Financial Objectives E 0 0 0

Institutional Development 0 0El

Physical Objectives El 0 al ElPoverty Reduction E 0 E E

Gender Issues 0 0 0 0

Other Social Objectives [ E E 0

EnvironmentalObjectives E E E EPublic Sector Management E 0 E E

Private Sector Development E 0 E EOther (specify) E E E E

B. Project Sustainability Likelv Unlikely Uncertain

Cont'd....

- 14 -

HiehlyC. Bank Performance Satisfactorv Satisfactory Deficient

(V) (V) (1)

Identification E niPreparation Assistance

Appraisal

Supervision E [zi

HiehlyD. Borrower Performance Satisfactory Satisfactory Deficient

(- ) (V) (1)

Preparation

Implementation

Covenant Compliance

Operation (if applicable) q q

Hiehly HiehlyE. Assessment of Outcome Satisfactory Satisfactory Unsatisfactory Unsatisfactory

E/ S/ / /

- 15 -

Table 2: Related Bank Loans/Credits

Year ofLoan/Credit Title Purpose Approval Status

Preceeding Operations

. Ln. 1092-UNI, Funtua ADP Integrated Rural Dev. 1975 Completed

2. Ln. 1099-UNI, Gusau ADP 1975 "

3. Ln. 1164-UNI, Gombe ADP 1975

4. Ln. 1454-UNI, Lafia ADP 1977

5. Ln. 1455-UJNI, Ayangba ADP 1977

6. Ln. 1667-UNI, Bida ADP 1979

7. Ln. 1668-UNI, Ilorin ADP 1979

8 Ln. 1719-UNI, ARMTI Agric./Mgt. Training 1979

9. Ln. 1838-UNI, Oyo North ADP Integrated Rural Dev. 1980

10. Ln. 1854-UNI, Ekiti-Akoko ADP 1980

11. Ln. 1981-UNI, Bauchi ADP 1981

12. Ln. 1982-UNI, Kano ADP 1981

13. Ln. 2029-UNI ATAP 1981

14. Ln. 2185-UNI, Sokoto ADP 1982

15. Ln. 2436-UNI, Kaduna ADP 1984

16. Ln. 2733-UNI, MSADP I 1986

17. Ln. 2988-UNI, MSADP 11 1988

Following Operations

1. Ln. 3183-UNI, Nat. Seed Improved Seed Supply 1990 Ongoing

2. Ln. 226 1-UNI, Nat. Agric. Res. Improved Applied Research 1991

3.. Ln. 345 1-UJNI, Nat. Fadama Small Scale Irrigation 1992

4. Ln. 3483-UNI, Agric. Tech. Extension/Adaptive Research 1992

- 16-

Table 3: Project Timetable

Steps in Project Cycle Date Planned Date Actual/Latest Estimate

Identification (EPS) 1979-86 March 16, 1987

Preparation 1986/87

Pre-appraisal - October 1987

Appraisal March 1988 May 1988

Negotiations November 1988 November 14, 1988

Board presentation May 15, 1989 June 13, 1989

Signing June 6, 1989 August 4, 1989

Effectiveness September 4, 1989 March 29, 1990

Mid-term review December 1991 Oct.-Nov., 1993

Project completion June 30, 1994 October 18, 1996

Credit closing March 31, 1995 March 31, 1996

Table 4: Credit Disbursements -- Cumulative, Estimated and Actual(US$ million)

Bank Fiscal Year FY89 FY90 FY91 FY92 FY93 FY94 FY95 FY96 FY97

Appraisal estimate (a) 3.0 17.0 20.0 21.0 28.0 11.9

Cumulative 3.0 20.0 40.0 61.0 89.0 100.9

Actual(b) 14.2 17.5 18.7 31.0 10.2 14.0 0.5

Cumulative(c) 14.2 31.7 50.4 81.4 91.6 105.6 106.1

Actual as % of 0.0 0.0 35.5 52.0 56.6 80.7 90.8 104.7 105.2estimate

Date of final disbursement: October 18, 1996

(a) It was anticipated at appraisal that disbursement would start in the last quarter of FY89.(b) Credit was extended beyond the original closing date of March 31,1995 by one year.(c) Actual cumulative disbursement exceeded appraisal estimate because of exchange rate changes of SDR to US$.

- 17-

Table 5: Key Indicators for Project Implementation

Key ImplementationIndicators in SAR Estimated Actual

1. Agricultural Services

(a) Unification of All advice on crop, livestock, Advice in all subsectors was givenextension services fisheries, tree crops, and home by a single staff, but a few female

economics to be given by a single agents interacted with women onstaff (the VEA). group activities.

(b) VEA/farm family ratio 1:800 - 1,000 1:1,411

(c) Adaptive research Support to ADPs to be formalized Each ADP signed a contract with aarrangements with research institutes by September research institute between 1990 and

1989. 1992.

(d) Seed and planting ADPs to identify and train outgrowers Outgrowers produced 2,107 tonnesmaterial production to produce tree seedlings, and all the of grain seed by 1995, but tree

arable crop seeds. seedlings were produced by the ADPor the ministry.

2. Fisheries

(a) Fingerling production Public hatcheries to be established Public hatcheries established only inonly if arrangements with private two states. 31 outgrowers identified.hatcheries fail.

(b) Technology for prawns Lagos to develop package for giant None successfully concluded theand shrimps prawn and Rivers for marine shrimp. hatchery and larvae production

stages.

(c) Fuel distribution Ondo, Lagos and Rivers to provide Only Ondo established four depots,facilities and agree on operation with but these were not in use as at end offuel companies. project.

3. Rural Infrastructure

(a) Road rehabilitation and Rehabilitate 2,230 km, recurrent Rehabilitation 1,622 km, recurrentmaintenance maintenance 7,960 km, routine 9,990 maintenance 4,601 km, routine 2,850

km, waterways construction 180 km. km. No waterways construction.

(b) Development of private No expansion of force account . 53 percent of rehabilitation done oncontractors for road Contractors to handle most force account. Most maintenance onworks rehabilitation and maintenance. force account.

(c) Rural water supply and Construct 2,400 wells. Each com- 388 wells, 84 boreholes and somemaintenance munity to contribute 10 percent of dams built. Communities

capital cost and all maintenance cost contributed 10 percent for wells andthrough users association. maintained them.

- 18-

Table 5: Key Indicators for Project Implementation (cont'd)

Key ImplementationIndicators in SAR Estimated Actual

4. Commercial Services

(a) Privatization of input ADPs to establish input supply Input companies established in fourdistribution companies in collaboration with out of five ADPs but with government

cooperatives and private sector, and as sole owner. Only one appointedappoint private retailers. private retailers.

5. Project Management

(a) ADPEC Meeting Four times a year, target of 112. 52 meetings only.

(b) Technical assistance ADPs to utilize 72 man-years for About 32 man-years utilized for localvarious positions and consultancies. financial controllers, the rest for

consultancies.

6. Institutional Development

(a) Sector policy and Appointment of Planning and Advisers not appointed. Equipmentstrategy Economic Advisers and provision of provided, but often inadequate.

equipment.

(b) Institutional review Each state to do institutional reviews. Review done by four out of five states.

7. FACU

(a) Project facilitation team To be organized for Ondo and Oyo Organized for Ondo, Osun and Oyo(MSADP III) and others. (MSADP III) and 7 others.

(b) Implementation To be organized to assist ADPs in Many missions done but constrainedassistance missions various technical areas. by funding problems.

(c) Mid-term review To be done for MSADP III (by Done for MSADP III in 1993, sixDecember 31, 1991) and other other ADPs and National Agric.projects as due. Research Project.

(d) Studies for rural FACU planned 43. Only 13 done because of fundingdevelopment policy constraints.

(e) Supervision of ADPs FACU planned 83 missions. Total of 82 done.

8. APMEU

(a) Survey design APMEU to focus on design of Done.surveys.

(b) Training on evaluation To be given to ADP staff to improve Training given to 480 staff out ofanalytical capability. APMEU target of 837.

- 19-

Table 5: Key Indicators for Project Implementation (cont'd)

Key Implementation [ IIndicators in SAR Estimated Actual

(c) Policy analysis APMEU to establish Policy Analysis Section established and 22 (out ofSection. 29 studies) done.

(d) PCRs and ICRs To be done for relevant ADPs. Total of 8 done.

9. PRSD

(a) Agricultural data bank Establish one. Established.

(b) Agro-statistics Establish national and state All had been established by 1995.committees committees.

(c) Policy studies Conduct as appropriate. Three done out of six.

10. FRMCSU

(a) Resources survey and To be done on contract by research Not completed because of fundingstock assessment institute (NIOMR). constraints.

(b) Monitoring, control and System to be designed and established FRMCSU formed. Full operation yetsurveillance for 200 mile EEZ. to start.

Modified Indicators Estimated Actual


(a) Small plot adoption Establish 467,800 plots covering all 365,200 plots established, 89.0technique subsectors. percent of it on crops.

(b) Women groups Establish 2,083. 1,745 formed, most registered.

(c) On-farm adaptive Establish 2,420 trials. 2,128 trials established.research


(a) Rural roads Rehabilitate 2,606 km, recurrent Rehabilitated 1,622 km, recurrentmaintenance 6,401 km, routine 7,100 maintenance 4,601 km, routine 2,850km. km.

(b) Rural water supply Construct 970 wells and 145 388 wells and 84 boreholesboreholes. constructed.

3. Monitoring and Evaluation

(a) Special studies Conduct 127 studies. 108 studies done.

(b) Monthly progress Organize 332 meetings. 240 meetings organized.

- 20 -

Table 6: Key Indicators for Project Operation(no indicators were specified in the SAR)

Modified Indicators forFuture Operation Estimated


(a) Unified extension Extension agents to conduct annually a total of 72,160SPATs covering crop and non-crop subsectors.

(b) Adaptive research Extension agents to conduct annually 902 on-farm adaptiveresearch trials on crop and non-crop subsectors.

(c) Seed production Outgrowers to produce annually 550 tonnes of certified grainseed.

(d) Funding of monthly workshops Local government councils to take up all cost of monthlyand fortnightly training workshop and fortnightly training except staff transport to

venue from January 1997.


(a) Rural roads Users/beneficiaries to maintain annually 500 km. ADP only toprovide training and technical advise.

(b) Rural water supply Water users associations to finance all capital costs of newwells, and also maintenance.

(c) Dams All big dams in Oyo and Osun to be handed over to StateWater Board by December 1996.


(a) Input distribution Government to divest of 50 percent of shares of inputcompanies to cooperatives and private sector by December1997 and by December 1998, retain not more than 25 percent.

- 21-

Table 7: Studies Included in Project

Purpose as Defined atStudy Appraisal/Redefined Status Impact of Study

1. Review of agricultural To rationalize the role of Completed in four out Report still being studiedinstitutions service institutions in each state of five states in 1995. by government.

for sustainability.

2. Responsiveness of the To ascertain responsiveness of No systematic review Not applicableprivate sector to private sector to become done but licensedparticipation in input licensed dealers ,and farmer dealers appointed indistribution organizations' constraints in one state.

input distribution.

3. Potential of shallow To provide information on Completed in four out Complying states haveaquifers and rivers for irrigation development of five states. got allocations fromsmall scale irrigation potentials. Fadama Facility for

fadama development.

4. Additional wage incen- To determine motivational Completed 1995. Report being circulatedtive scheme for ADP schemes for ADP staff in line by FACU for comments.staff with their responsibilities.

5. Comparison offorce To determine the proportion of Not done. Not applicable.account and private resources to devote to eachcontractors in road method, related to itsconstruction effectiveness.

6. Review of FACU's skill To draw up program of Completed. FACU managementrequirements recruitment and training of restructured based on

Nigerians to senior posts. program approach.

7. Update jointly with To improve the availability of Not done. Not applicable.Federal Fisheries the fuel and lubricants to coastalNOL CHEM study on fishermen.fuel distribution

8. Review of caliber, To determine the need for TSC Completed. Result used by FACU toperformance and need staff. guide recruitment andfor TSC staff and succession planning.counterparts

9. Rural markets (FACU) To assess the rural marketing Completed. Proposal submitted tosystem for food crops. Bank for funding.

10. Fertilizer consumption, To analyze fertilzer distribution Completed in 1990 Used for formulatingdemand and stock parameters. by APMEU. fertilizer policy.

-22-

Table 7: Studies Included in Project (cont'd)

Purpose as Defined atStudy Appraisal/Redefined Status Impact of Study

11. Rural water supply To determine implementation Completed in 1991 Used to assess benefitsscheme in Sokoto and and beneficiary utilizaiton , and and 1995 by APMEU. of scheme and impactImpact assessment of impact. in selected ADPs.rural water supply.

12. Buffer stock To determine the magnitude Completed in 1991 by Used for buffer stock

and quality of existing stock. APMEU. policy.

13. ADP M&E Resource To determine the capacity of Completed by Used to evaluateAvailability human and other resources for APMEU in 1992. sustainability of M&E

effective M&E. activities.

14. Analysis offarm size, To generate information on Completed by Used by researcherscropping pattern and smallholder cropping patterns APMEU in 1992. for analysis of farmingproductivity of selected and productivity. patterns andcrops in northern productivity.Nigeria

15. Seasonal and spatial To determine price trends. Conducted in 1992 Used by researchersvariation in commodity and 1994 by APMEU. for price trend studies.prices

16. Farmers adoption of To generate information on Completed in 1992 by Used in ICRs.technical packages adoption rates. APMEU.

17. Extension performance To evaluate the performance of Completed in 1992 by Used in ICRs.in Bauchi, Kano and the extension system. APMEU.Sokoto ADPs

18. Crop area and To obtain information for Completed in 1993 by Used by researchersproduction data in improvement. APMEU. and government forNigeria - sources and policy.quality

19. Growth trend in area, To predict future growth rates. Completed in 1993 by Used for growthproduction and APMEU. projections.productivity

20. Contributions of M&E To stimulate ADP management Completed by Increased appreciationto Nigeria's agric. understtanding of importance APMEU in 1993. of M&E function bydevelopment of M&E. ADP managers.

21. Degree of women To determine level of Conducted in 1994 by Used by governmentparticipation in involvement. APMEU and others. for policy and byagriculture various implementing

____________________________________________ _I ± . , agencies.

- 23 -

Table 7: Studies Included in Project (cont'd)

Purpose as Defined at 1 lStudy Appraisal/Redefined Status Impact of Study

22. Crop and weather To generate planning data. Conducted in 1994 Used for policysituation in Nigeri and 1995 by APMEU. formulation.

23. Socio-economic impact To evaluate impact of ADP Completed draft report Report being studiedofJADP system system. in 1995. by government.

24. Agricultural policy and To analyse impact of fiscal Completed in 1993. Issues raised in PER tobudget analysis (PRSD) measures on agriculture. Study on public be discussed at

expenditure review National Council ofstill on going in the Agriculture.states.

25. Food security (PRSD) To analyse food security Concluded in 1993. Aided policy on foodsituation in Nigeria. self-sufficiency.

26. Comprehensive tarrif To develop model for Concluded in Aided review of banreview (PRSD) reviewing tarrif issues. collaboration with on importation and

Finance and Customs. exportation of cassavaand grains.

27. Agricultural technology To establish data base of Not done by PRSD. Not applicable.in Nigeria current technology.

28. Cost ofproduction of To determine profitability of Not done by PRSD. Not applicable.majorfood items production.

29. Food stock and prices To determine production, Not done by PRSD. Not applicable.supply and marketing of majorstaples.

30. Resources survey and To provide data for monitoring Not completed. Not applicable.stock assessment and management of coastal(FRMCSU) fisheries.

- 24 -

Table 8A: Project Costs

Appraisal Estimate Actual/Latest Estimate(US$M) (US$M)(a)

Local Foreign Local ForeignItem Costs Costs Total Costs Costs Total

1. Project Management 5.6 3.7 9.3 5.3 3.4 8.7

2. Technical Services 7.0 4.7 11.7 6.6 4.4 11.0

3. Extension Services 11.3 6.7 18.0 10.8 6.3 17.1

4. Infrastructure 16.2 32.0 48.2 15.2 30.3 45.5

5. Commercial Services 2.4 10.5 12.9 2.2 10.0 12.2

6. Fisheries 1.5 3.1 4.6 1.2 2.3 3.5

7. State PRSD 2.3 6.5 8.8 2.2 6.1 8.3

8. Federal Fisheries 3.2 3.4 6.6 [.0 1.1 2.1

10. FACU 15.7 8.3 24.0 11.3 5.9 17.2

11. APMEU 8.8 5.5 14.3 4.0 2.6 6.6

12. PRSD 0.2 0.8 1.0 0.2 0.5 0.7

13. Watari Irrgation 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2

Total 74.2 85.2 159.4 60.0 73.1 133.1

Note: (a) Actual as at October 18, 1996.

- 25 -

Table 8B: Project Financing

Appraisal Estimate Actual/Latest(US$M) Estimate(US$M)(a)

Local Foreign Local ForeignSource Costs Costs Total Costs Costs Total

IDA 15.7 85.2 100.9 15.0 91.1 106.1

Federal Government 43.5 0.0 43.5 11.7 0.0 11.7

State Government 13.5 0.0 13.5 12.3 0.0 12.3

Beneficiaries 1.5 0.0 1.5 3.0 0.0 3.0

Total 74.2 85.2 159.4 42.0 91.1 133.1

Note: (a) Actual as at October 18, 1996.

- 26 -

Table 9: Economic Costs and Benefits*(Naira million)

Year Project Costs Total Benefit Net Benefit

1990 132.7 113.8 -18.9

1991 229.9 92.6 -137.3

1992 323.6 63.0 -260.6

1993 596.3 61.2 -535.1

1994 747.8 648.5 -99.3

1995 878.3 1,285.4 407.1

1996 878.3 1,285.4 407.1

1997 878.3 1,285.4 407.1

1998 878.3 1,285.4 407.1

1999 878.3 1,285.4 407.1

2000 878.3 1,285.4 407.1

2001 878.3 1,285.4 407.1

2002 878.3 1,285.4 407.1

2003 878.3 1,285.4 407.1

2004 878.3 1,285.4 407.1

2005 878.3 1,285.4 407.1

2006 878.3 1,285.4 407.1

2007 878.3 1,285.4 407.1

2008 878.3 1,285.4 407.1

2009 878.3 1,285.4 407.1

Note: Costs and benefits are only for the five ADPs.Discount rate = 0.104NPV (Naira million) = 1,101.6ERR = 26.1

*Details of costs and benefits are available from the ICR mission notes in the Project Files.

Table 10: Status of Legal Covenants

Agree- Covenant Present Original Revisedment Section Type Status Fulfilment Fulfilment Description of Covenant Comments

Date Date

Credit 2.02 (b) I C 06/89 - Borrower shall open and maintain in dollars, special accounts in a20350 commercial bank satisfactory to the Association.

3.01(e) 4 CP 01/90 - Borrower shall: (i) provide in the annual budget amounts sufficient to The accounts werecover Borrower's counterpart fund contributions to the costs of the opened butproject; (ii) open and maintain the Federal Project Account; (iii) pay budgetaryinto the Federal Project Account the equivalent of $1,500,000 for provisions wereFACU, $700,000 for APMEU. and $90,000 for PRSD; (iv) pay into generallyeach State Project Account, $230,000 for Lagos, $330,000 for Ondo, inadequate and$380,000 for Oyo and $275,000 for Rivers; and (v) thereafter pay in payments wereadvance its quarterly counterpart fund contributions. often delayed.

Borrower to provide sufficient funds to cover full salary costs of3.01(f) 4 C 01/90 - Borrower staff assigned to FACU and APMEU.

Borrower to establish and maintain a FADPEC. FADPEC to meet at Only five meetings3.02(a) & 5 C 12/90 - least four times a year to formulate policies for APMEU and FACU were held out of 20.Sch. 4B and approve budgets, accounts, work programs, staffing and relevant

contracts of the units.

Covenant Types: Present Status:

1. Accounts/audits 10. = Project implementation not covered by categories 1-9 C = covenant complied with2. = Financial performance/revenue generation 11. = Sectoral or cross-sectoral budgetary or other resource allocation CP = complied with partially

from beneficiaries 12. = Sectoral or cross-sectoral policy/regulatory/institutional action CD = complied with after delay3. Flow and utilization of project funds 13. = Other NC = not complied with4. = Counterpart funding5. = Management aspects of the project or

executing agency6. = Environmental covenants7. = Involuntary resettlement8. = Indigenous people9. = Monitoring, review, and reporting

Table 10: Status of Legal Covenants (cont'd)


Date Date

Credit 3.02 (b) 5 C 12/90 - Borrower to establish and maintain PCC, FACU, APMEU and Six out of nine PCC20350 & Sch. 4A PRSD in satisfactory form and functions. PCC to meet at least meetings were held.

twice yearly to review progress of all federal and state FACU, APMEU andagricultural development projects and resolve coordination PRSD were satisfactorilyissues. established.

3.02 (c) 5 C 06/91 12/95 Borrower to cause states to prepare under PRSD's guidance, All states now have agro-an action plan to harmonize data collection. statistics committees.

4.01 (a) I C 01/90 - Borrower to cause to be maintained records and accounts for Records were examined(i) & (iii) SOE, and enable Bank staff examine such records. by Bank supervision

missions.4.01 (a) I NYD - - Borrower to ensure that records are retained until at least one

(ii) year after the Association has received the audit report for the 0year in which the last withdrawal from the Credit Account wasmade.

Sch. 4C 3 NC 12/91 - FACU to, jointly with the states and the Association review Performance of consultantthe costs and benefits of using force account and private unsatisfactory to FACU.contractors for road works.

Sch. 4C 5 CD 12/91 03/93 FACU to, jointly with the states and other project units carry Done two years behindout a mid-term review of the project. schedule.

Sch. 4C 5 CP 12/89 12/94 FACU to organize at least two seminars to plan and discuss Only one full seminar heldthe institutions review. after Kwara review.

Sch. 4C 5 C 06/89 - FACU to, among others support the programs of the ADP's FACU supported theand the FMANR which affect on-farm activities of programs throughsmallholders. missions and workshops.

Table 10: Status of Legal Covenants (cont'd)


Date Date

Credit Sch. 4C 5 C 09/89 12/89 FACU to employ additional engineering staff for Benin and20350 Enugu regional offices.

Sch. 4D 5 C 12/89 01/90 APMEU to prepare project completion reports, carry outpolicy studies arising from ADPs, publish annual digest andreports on ADPs.

Sch. 6 5 CP 12/91 03/96 Borrower to arrange with fuel distribution companies for Done in Ondo. Studyinstallation of distribution system for fishermen. done in Lagos and Rivers.

Sch. 6 5 C 06/89 12/92 Borrower to review use of Technical Services contract.

Sch. 6 5 C 09/89 12/89 FMANR to conclude arrangements with FMST for support in Agricultural researchcarrying out adaptive research in the ADPs. institutes now in FMANR. ,

Project 2.01 (b) 4 CP 06/89 12/89 Each state to pay into the State Project Account 25% of its Initial payments made, butcounterpart contribution to the first year's project costs, and subsequent onesthereafter in advance, its quarterly contribution. inadequate or released

late.3.01 (c) 4 C 0 1/90 - Each state to provide in budget sufficient funds for assigned

staff.

2.02 (a) 5 C 06/89 - Each state to establish ADPEC and ADPMU. Only 52 ADPEC meetingsheld out of target of 112.

2.02 (b) 5 CP 12/89 03/96 Each state to establish AISC. Osun did not.

Sch. 2 5 CP 06/89 - ADPEC to have two sub-committees for Agriculture and Rivers did not.Infrastructure.

Sch. 2 5 NC 12/89 - ADPMU to arrange with LGC for routine road maintenance. Frequent changes inleadership of LGCs.

- 30 -

Table 11: Compliance with Operational Manual Statements

The Project complied with all applicable Bank Operational Manual Statements.

Table 12: Bank Resources -- Staff Inputs

Stage of Project Cycle ActualWeeks US$('000)

Preparation to appraisal 84.5 194.5

Appraisal 59.6 133.4

Negotiations thru Board-effectiveness 21.9 45.2

Supervision 495.5 888.5

Completion 16.7 13.8

TOTAL 678.3 1275.4

-31 -

Table 13: Bank Resources -- Missions

Performance Rating

Stage of Project Month/Year Number Days Specialized Implemen Develop- Types of ProblemsCycle of in StaffSkills -tation ment

Persons Field Represented Status Objectives

Through Appraisal 10/79- 5/88 13 58 a.b.e,h.ij

Appraisal through 6/88 - 6/89 10 33 a,b.e.hjBoard Approval

Board Approval thru 7/90 - 3/90 2 45 ejEffectiveness

Supervision I 2/90 - 3/90 2 30 ij I I Establishmentofeffectivemanagementunits.

Supervision2 11/90 2 17 gJ Delay in counterpartfund ing.

Supervision3 11/90- 12/90 3 11 c,e.f - - Disbursementof federalcomponents.

Supervision4 5/91 - 6/91 3 53 a,f,g 2 2 Disbursementof federalcomponents

Supervision5 6/91 2 20 f,h - - Delay in effectivenessofFisheries component.

Supervision6 6/91 - 7/91 3 43 b,d - - Improvementof Extensioncomponent.

Supervision 7 9/91 3 9 e,f 2 2 Disbursementof PRSDComp.

Supervision8 10/91 1 5 a - - Accounts of FACU andADPLA.

Supervision9 12/91 I 7 g - - Inadequatecounterpartfunding by FGN.

Supervision 0 2/92 1 3 f 3 2 Disbursementof PSRDcomponent.

Supervision I1 3/92 & 5/92 4 36 a,e,f.g 2 2 lmplementationof FACUand APMEU components.

Supervisionl2 3/92 3 15 b,g - - Implementationof Lagoscomponent.

Supervision 13 6/92 3 15 b.g - - Implementationof Riverscomponent.

Supervision 14 7/92 - 8/92 3 81 a,e,g 2 2 Slow pace of infrastructurecomp. in Oyo, Osun andOndo.

- 32 -

Table 13: Bank Resources -- Missions (cont'd.)

PerformanceRating

Stage of Project Month/Year Number Days Specialized Impleme Develop- Types of ProblemsCycle of in StaffSkills n-tation ment

Persons Field Represented Status Objectives

Supervision 15 11/92 2 20 fJ 2 2 Mgmt.ofFACU'sReg.Offices& cost estimates ofcivil works.

Supervision 16 2/93 1 3 f 2 2 Fisheries componentprogress.

Supervision 17 10/93 - 11/93 6 120 c.d.e.f,g 2 2 Mid-Term Review.

Supervision 18 11/93 4 28 a,c,e,f - - ImplementationofPRSD,APMEU & Fish.. comp.

Supervision 19 2/94 4 17 c,f,g 2 2 Implementationof FACU,APMEU and Fisheries.components.

Supervision2O 5/94 - 6/94 3 37 c.f,h 2 2 Fisheriescomponent.

Supervision21 12/94 3 18 a,c,f 2 2 APMEU,FisheriesandPSRD components.

Supervision22 3/95 4 16 a,c,f,g, - FACU component.

Supervision23 1/96 2 30 b,g Pre-ICRmission.

Completion 4/96 - 6/96 2 56 b,g ICR Preparation.

Key to Staff Skills:

a = Financial Analyst b = Agriculturist c = Procurement Analystd = Extension Specialist e = Economist f= Coop./Credit Specialistg = Operations Officer h = Fisheries Specialist i = Roads Engineerj = Rural Engineer

Performance Rating:

2 = Satisfactory3 = Unsatisfactory

Note: This project involves six state and four federal units which were supervised by several state-specific missions, sometimes in parallel. Since most of the missions submitted only Back-to-Office Reports or Aide-Memoires rather than forms 590, performance ratings were not availablefor some supervision missions. Form 590 updates were, however, prepared for the ARPP andmid-year reviews.

- 33 -

Appendix A

NIGERIATHIRD MULTI-STATE AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT

(Credit 2035-UNII

IMPLEMENTATION COMPLETION MISSION

AIDE-MEMOIRE

1. A World Bank mission assisted by staff of the Federal Ministry of Finance (FMF), theFederal Ministry of Water Resources (FMWR), the Federal Agricultural Coordinating Unit(FACU) and the Agricultural Projects Monitoring and Evaluation Unit (APMEU)I undertook afinal supervision of the Third Multi-State Agricultural Development Project (MSADP 111) duringApril 15 to June 19, 1996, in preparation of the Implementation Completion Report (ICR). Ajoint mission of the Bank and the Borrower had, during January 15 to February 2, 1996,reviewed with the implementing units the process and data requirements for the ICR, agreed on atimetable for its delivery, and assisted the Borrower to commence action on the preparation of itsFinal Evaluation Report (FER) on the project.

2. The mission visited the Agricultural Development Projects (ADPs) in Lagos, Ondo,Osun, Oyo and Rivers states, the Fisheries Resources Monitoring, Control and Surveillance Unit(FMCSU) in Lagos, FACU and the Planning, Research and Statistics Department (PRSD) of theFederal Ministry of Agriculture and Natural Resources (FMANR) in Abuja, APMEU in Kaduna,and the Watari Irrigation Scheme in Kano State. The mission visited some of the project sites,discussed with the staff and clients as well as the senior officials of the supervising ministries,and paid courtesy calls on the military administrators in the states to brief them on its objectives.A wrap-up meeting held in Abuja on June 19, 1996, and attended by the heads of theimplementing units, officials of the FMANR and FMF, and representatives of the state ministriesof agriculture discussed the observations of the mission as reflected in the draft aide-memoire.Their comments have been utilized, as appropriate, in this aide-memoire. The mission is gratefulfor all the courtesies extended to it by the management and staff of the federal ministries and theproject units.

3. This aide-memoire, which is subject to review by Bank management, summarizes themission's findings and conclusions, the agreements reached with the Borrower and theimplementing units, the operational plan of the project and the follow-up actions required underthe ICR process. It assesses the objectives of the project and their achievement, the majorfactors that affected project implementation, the performance of the Bank and the Borrower, thesustainability of the benefits of the project and the key lessons learned from implementation.

The mission comprised Messrs: Samuel Eremie (Mission Leader), Ogbonnaya Nduaka (Consultant, World Bank), M.Shaba (FMF), J. Kwanashie, N.J. Afolayan, Chris Maduabuchi (FMWR), Bola Ajala, Reni-Callie Okoro, BolaAdepoju, Santokh S. Cheema, I.M. Ogunsuyi, Onyekaozuru Okeke, John Eboigbe (FACU) and Ben Aniakor(APMEU).

- 34 -

Project Background and Objectives

4. Background. The credit of SDR 75.Om (US$100.9m equivalent) was approved by theBank on August 4, 1989, to support some of the initiatives of the Federal Government of Nigeria(FGN) in boosting small farmer production and incomes and in creating suitable managementsystems for the agricultural sector. Nigeria was at this time trying to exploit its agriculturalpotential in order to boost growth and raise living conditions in the rural areas through thestructural adjustment program launched in 1986. The government had also found the ADP to bean effective management system for smallholder agricultural development and was willing tosupport, albeit with considerations for the sustainability of the system. The credit was to bedisbursed in five years.

5. Obiectives and Components. The objectives of the project as stated in the CreditAgreement were to:

(d) assist in the preparation and carrying out of programs that would stimulateagricultural growth, exports and employment;

(e) improve agricultural services and rural infrastructure; and

(f) focus attention at federal and state levels on the critical issues affectingagriculural and fisheries development in Nigeria.

6. The project had the following seven components, the first six of which were for thestates:

(a) Agricultural Services, with provision for the establishment of unified extensionservices for about 1,059,000 farm families, farm and crop development, on-farmadaptive research,planting material multiplication, small-scale pilot irrigation,improvement of small ruminant livestock husbandry, agro-processing, andadditional agricultural sector programs satisfactory to the Bank;

(b) Fisheries, with provision for fisheries development, adaptive research for thedevelopment of technological packages for the culture of the freshwater giantprawn in Lagos State and the marine shrimp in Rivers State, fish feeddevelopment, a marine inshore capture fisheries program, and an adaptivetechnology program;

(c) Commercial Agricultural Services, with support for input supply services andthe commercialization of agricultural services;

(d) Rural Roads and Water Supply, for the rehabilitation of 2,330km, recurrentmaintenance of 7,960km, and routine maintenance of 9,990km of feeder roads,the establishment of 180km waterways in the coastal areas of Lagos, Ondo andRivers states, the assistance of village communities to rehabilitate existing waterpoints and construct new ones and the organization and training of the waterusers to maintain the facilities;

- 35 -

(e) Project Management. Planning. Monitoring and Evaluation, to establish asustainable management and provide for monitoring, evaluation and training;

(f) Institutional Development, to strengthen the sector policy and strategy capacityof the PRSDs of the state Ministries of Agriculture and Natural Resources(MANRs), and assist in the review of the agricultural institutions in each state;and

(g) Federal Components, comprising fisheries resources management, establishmentof a monitoring, control and surveillance system for the fisheries within the 200nautical miles Exclusive Economic Zone, fuel supply for fishermen, and supportto FACU, APMEU and PRSD.

7. Among the covenants to facilitate project implementation were the provision of adequatecounterpart contributions through the annual budgets of the state and federal governments, theestablishment of semi-autonomous project implementation units, and the establishment andmaintenance of structures for coordination, monitoring and evaluation. The objectives andcomponents of the project remained unchanged during the mid-term review of the project in1993 but some of the targets were revised in line with implementation experience. Theobjectives are relevant for Nigeria and in line with the country's agricultural policy as well as theBank's experience in providing assistance to smallholder agricultural development. Thephysical targets and performance indicators were, however, not adequately defined for mostcomponents during the appraisal, making evaluation more problematic.

Achievement of Objectives at State Level

8. Tables I and 2 summarize the targets and achievements of the five ADPs.

9. Extension Services (Table 1). All the ADPs operated the unified agricultural extensionservice (UAES) with livestock, fisheries and agro-forestry components coming in from 1992.Fisheries extension was initially separate in Lagos and Rivers states but was later integrated withthe rest of the extension system. The project reached 1,273,000 farm families as compared withthe appraisal estimate of 1,059,000. The difference was mainly from Lagos and Rivers stateswhose farm family population was underestimated. Between 1990 and 1995, there were anaverage of 902 village extension agents (VEAs), giving a VEA/farm family ratio of 1:1,411 ascompared with the target of 1:1,000. Technology dissemination was mainly through the smallplot adoption technique (SPAT) and 365,200 SPATs were established, 89 percent of them oncrops since technologies on the non-crop subsectors came in later. The SPAT was supported byfield days, radio and television programs and publications. Rivers ADP had an outstandingachievement in the number of field days conducted (93 percent of 7596) because of its emphasison this activity.

10. The most prominent technologies adopted by the farmers include: (i) improved cassavavarieties (TMS 30572, 30555, 50395 and 4[2]1425), adopted by over 60 percent of the farmersand resulting in the increase of yields from about 8T/ha to 13T/ha; (ii) downy mildew resistantmaize varieties, especially in Ondo, Osun and Oyo states; (iii) improved upland rice variety (ITA150) and lowland varieties (FARO 36 and 37); (iv) local cowpea variety, 'iya iyawo', with lowplant protection requirements; (v) plant protection in vegetables and tree crops; (vi) use of localfood items and residues in livestock feed; (vii) soyabean utilization; and (viii) homestead fish

- 36 -

ponds. One technology that has not been well adopted is alley farming whose demand for land isconsidered to conflict with that for other crops, and which appears acceptable only when it iscombined with livestock production.

I. Technical Services (Table 1). All the ADPs successfully strengthened their linkageswith the research institutions for the generation and adaptation of technology and for the trainingof the subject matter specialists (SMSs). About 14 diagnostic surveys were done on the basis ofwhich 2,128 on-farm adaptive research trials (OFAR) were conducted, some of them genderspecific. Monthly technology review meetings (MTRMs) were held regularly, usually precededby field visits to serve as case for discussions. Among the technologies developed by the projectwere improved varieties of cassava and rice, downy mildew resistant maize varieties, culturalpractices for Cassava/Maize/Yam/Egusi Melon mixtures, fertilizer application and spacing forvarious crops, and local feeds for livestock. The later part of the project coincided with Bankassistance to agricultural research in the country resulting in a clearer definition of the workingrelationships between the ADPs and the research institutes in technology development anddissemmination. The ADPs are now to concentrate on simple on-farm trials that will beimplemented by the VEAs.

- 37 -

Table 1: Achievements of the ADPs in Extension, Technical Services, Fisheries andRural Infrastructure

AchievementItem Target* Quantity % Remark

Extension ServicesFarm families ('000 No.) 1059 1273 120 Rivers had more than

appraisal estimate.Village ext. agents (No.) 998 902 90Farm families per VEA (No.) 1000 1411 71SPAT ('000 No.)

- crops 428 325 76 Oyo had 42% of total.- others 39.8 40.2 101 Ondo had 32% of total.

Field days (No.) 6920 7596 110 Rivers had 93% of total.Radio/TV programs (No.) 3797 3050 80 Oyo had 36% of total.Women groups formed (No.) 2083 1745 84 Osun had 42% of total.

Technical ServicesDiagnostic surveys (No.) 14 14 100OFAR trials (No.)

- crops 1946 1715 88 Ondo had 32% of total.- non-crop subsectors (excl.

fisheries) 403 342 85 Ondo had 35% of total.- gender specific 71 71 100

Grain seed production (T)- direct 777 610 79 Ondo had 65% of total.- outgrowers 2348 2107 90 Ondo had 45% of total.

Breeding stock prod. (No.)- rabbit 5874 4947 84 Ondo had 54% of total.- sheep and goat 3800 820 21 Lagos had 41 % of total.

FisheriesOFAR trials (No.) 91 79 87Fingerling production

- direct ('000 No.) 950 715 75 Lagos had 87% of total.- outgrowers assisted (No.) 31 31 100 Oyo had 39% of total.

Rural InfrastructureRoad (Kmb 2606 1622 62 53% by force account.

- rehabilitation- recurrent maintenance 6401 4601 72 Oyo had 57% of total.- routine maintenance 7100 2850 40 Oyo had 71% of total.

Water (No.)-Waell Nonst o 970 388 40 Ondo had 43% of total.-well constructionborehole construction 145 84 58 Lagos had 44% of total.

- WUA formation 843 496 59 Ondo had 35% of total.- earth dam construction 37 5 14 Only Oyo did it.

Pilot irrigation (Ha.) 229 115 50 Oyo had 42% of total.- FUA formation (No.) - 172 -

Agro-processing centers (No.) 16 11 69 Ondo had 55% of total.

* As specified at appraisal and revised at mid-term review. Figures are for 1990 - 95, except for Osun,1992 - 95.

- 38 -

12. The Women in Agriculture (WIA) unit moved between the Extension ServicesDepartment(ESD) and the Technical Services Department (TSD) of the ADPs, depending on theperception of WIA either as primarily a technology disemmination arrangement to meet theneeds of women farmers, or as a subject matter area for which technology sourcing andadaptation are the key requirements. As at the end of the credit, the unit was in the TSD inLagos, Ondo and Osun states and in the ESD in Oyo and Rivers states. Where the head of theWIA unit is in the TSD and the WIA field level staff are in the ESD, the mission observed gapsin information flow on women activities between the headquarters and the field. In FACU, theNational Coordinator for WIA is in the Extension Program. It is planned that the Bank andFACU would jointly assess the relative effectiveness of the WIA unit in the two departments.Despite the organizational hiatus, the WIA unit has made a lot of impact in popularizingsoyabean utilization and rabbitory production, the organization of women into self-supportinggroups, and evaluation of gender-specific tehnologies. In Oyo ADP, the head of the WIA Unithas been made a member of the Project Management Unit (PMU) and her contributions foundvery helpful for shaping the ADP's interventions for women farmers.

13. Emphasis is well placed on the production of seeds by outgrowers. Outgrowersaccounted for 78 percent of the 2,717T of grain seeds and 80 percent of the 176,500 bundles ofimproved cassava cuttings produced. Outgrower input was, however, low in the production oftree seedlings as well as breeding stock of rabbits, sheep and goats. Ondo ADP had a Tree CropUnit which produced about 6.8m seedlings, mainly of cocoa, before the unit was moved to theMANR. Osun ADP collaborated effectively with the Tree Crop Unit of the MANR to distributeabout 1.3m seedlings to farmers through the extension services. The linkages with otherseedling producing agencies were weak in Oyo and Rivers states. The ADPs were not veryeffective in incorporating soil erosion control measures into their technologies for farmers.

14. Fisheries (Table 1). Lagos, Ondo and Rivers ADPs had major fisheries componentsinvolving adaptive research, aquaculture development and support to inshore capture fisheries,while the other ADPs concentrated on the promotion of aquaculture. Lagos successfullydeveloped a package for the extensive culture of the freshwater shrimp using juveniles from thewild but only got up to Stage V (out of eleven stages) in the laboratory hatchery trial because oftechnical constraints. Rivers also developed technology for the extensive culture of the marineshrimp but discontinued the hatchery production of the larvae because of financial constraints.The three ADPs trained some fishermen on gear handling and a few mechanics on themaintenance of outboard engines. Various fishing gear were also distributed, Lagos being themost outstanding in this regard. Only Ondo established four fuel depots to ease fuel andlubricants supply to coastline fishermen, although even these depots were yet to becommissioned at the end of the credit and the private sector was insufficiently involved forsustainable operations.

15. Hatcheries for fingerling production were established in Lagos and Ondo states and atotal of 31 fingerling outgrowers were identified and assisted in Lagos, Osun, Oyo and Riversstates. The demand for fingerlings was reasonably met through the combination of direct andoutgrower production, in addition to sourcing from the wild. Homestead fish pond waspopularized by the fisheries component. Rivers had 894 of these and Ondo 640. Some of theponds have been integrated with livestock production. Adaptive research in fisheries has led tothe development of fish feed using locally available materials, polyculture and pond fertilizationand the production in Rivers of Moina species as a live feed for the juveniles of fin and shellfish.

- 39 -

16. Rural Infrastructure (Table 1). The ADPs rehabilitated 1,622km of rural roads, 62percent of the revised target, 64 percent of it through force account rather than privatecontractors in Ondo, Osun and Oyo states. Some of the roads have already been taken over bythe state governments for permanent surfacing, a testimony to the high quality of work. A totalof 4,601km (72 percent of the revised target) was achieved in recurrent maintenance.Performance in routine maintenance was low (40 percent of the 7,1 00km revised target) becausethe ADPs were unable to establish effective linkages with the local government councils (LGCs)whose leadership went through frequent changes during the project. There was no routinemaintenance of roads in Lagos and Rivers. None of Lagos, Ondo and Rivers ADPs constructedwaterways although the studies for them were done. Only Ondo maintained about 10km ofwaterways to facilitate the movement of fishermen.

17. Little was achieved in the rehabilitation of water points, except in Oyo (26 wells) andRivers (75 boreholes). Achievement in well construction was 40 percent of the target of 970,while borehole construction was 58 percent of the target of 145. Oyo emphasized dams,constructing five and reticulating nine. In Osun two dams were reticulated. In all the states, thecommunities were actively involved in the rehabilitation and maintenance of the water points.Some of the dams in Oyo and Osun are, however, beyond the technical capacity of the ADPs andcommunities to maintain. These need to be handed over to appropriate state agencies and infuture greater support needs to be given to the ADPs by FACU in determining the threshold forADP engineering activities. Issues of community health and sanitation around water points werenot emphasized in the project documents and were poorly addressed in most states. All theADPs established pilot irrigation schemes and formed fadama users associations to managethem. Aquifer studies have been done in all the states except Rivers, and allocations have beenmade to the four states from the National Fadama Development Fund Facility (NFDFF) tosupport small-scale irrigation.

18. Agro-processing was promoted in the five ADPs through the establishment of 11 (out of16) pilot centers, the sourcing of technology from research institutes, the demonstration of thesetechnologies, and the training of blacksmiths to fabricate simple equipment. Palm oil processing(Osun) and preparation of tomato puree (Lagos) have been well received. Some ADPs have soldthe processing equipment below market price. Many user groups would need to be linked tocredit agencies to raise the funds required to buy the equipment. Although little provision wasmade in the SAR for buildings, all the ADPs constructed or rehabilitated their service structures.Headquarters office buildings were constructed in Ondo and Osun, and extensions made in theother states to facilitate project implementation. The maintenance of the fleet of heavyequipment procured by the ADPs is of concern to most of the state governments. Some of theADPs are considering the hiring out of the equipment to generate revenue, but previousexperience indicates that this operation is not viable and would lead to the rapid demise of theequipment. The public auctioning of the equipment, contract work by ADP staff and theestablishment of autonomous leasing companies may be alternatives. As at the close of thecredit, about N 56m was tied up as spare parts in the states, most of this in slow moving parts.Only Lagos and Rivers did not maintain spare parts stock.

19. Commercial Services (Table 2). Agricultural input supply companies (AISCs) weresuccessfully established in all the states except Osun where the state government intends to startone before the end of 1996. In all the states with AISC, the government is the sole owner and noattempt has been made to divest of some of the shares to cooperative groups and the privatesector. This has affected the level of capitalization and constrained the management of the

- 40 -

companies as the government sometimes instructed on input distribution. Preliminary resultsfrom Lagos, Ondo and Oyo suggest that AISCs can be profitable if given a free hand to operate.Apart from Ondo, none of the ADPs appointed private retailers for input distribution. Some ofthe AISCs are still maintaining too many primary distribution points and farm service centers forprofitable operations.

Table 2: Achievements of the ADPs in Commercial Services, Planning, Monitoringand Evaluation, Training, Management and Funding

l | AchievementItem Target* Quantity % Remark

Commercial ServicesInput companies est. (No.) 5 4 80 Osun did not establish.Input distribution

- fertilizer ('000 T) 426 308 72- grain seed (T) 2059 834 41 Oyo had 53% of total.- agrochemicals (T) 1212 779 64 Ondo had 54% of total.

Groups formed (No.) - 2381 -Credit facilitated (Nm) - 24.5 - Lagos had 43% of total

Plan., Mon. & Eval. (No.)Annual work plans 32 32 100Core surveys 386 365 95Special studies 127 108 85 Lagos had 50% of total.Monthly progress review 332 240 72 Oyo was most regular.Periodic reports 812 742 91

Training (No. of staff)Local - in house 12860 12637 98Local - off project 11132 8783 79Overseas 513 204 40

Management (No.)ADPEC Meeting 112 52 46 Ondo had the least (8).ADPEC Sub-committees est. 10 8 80 None in Rivers.

Funding (US$m)* *State Government 13.5 12.3 91 Excludes salaries.Federal Government 20.0 6.8 34Beneficiaries/Internal Revenue 1.5 3.0 200IDA 78.5 77.0 98Total 113.5 99.1 87

* As specified at appraisal and revised at mid-term review. Figures are for 1990 - 95except for Osun, 1992 - 95.

** Counterpart fund contributions are converted at prevailing average exchange rates inyear of release. Achievement is as at March 31, 1996.

- 41 -

20. About 307,856T of fertilizer (72 percent of the target), 834T of grain seed (41 percent oftarget) and 779T of agrochemicals (64 percent of target) was distributed by the project.Fertilizer distribution was constrained by the scarcity of the commodity and its control by thegovernment. The pricing of non-fertilizer inputs was generally satisfactory and although pricesof some inputs were higher than market price, the ADPs were still patronized by the farmers whowere asssured of genuine products. With the formation of AISCs, there tended to be a dilution ofthe effort to mobilize farmer groups for increasing self-reliance. In one ADP, the groupmobilzation function was spread between two departments and in another, completelyabandoned. The AISCs do not consider group mobilization and formation profitable activitiesand the responsibility may have to be undertaken by some Rural Institutions Development (RID)unit in the ADP, an action that is eing promoted by FAC[J.

21. Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation (Table 2). The Planning Monitoring andEvaluation (PME) departments of the ADPs prepared annual work plans, monitored projectimplementation especially through the monthly progress review meeting (MPRM) and undertooka number of studies to identify constraints as well as project impact. There has been animprovement in the analytical capacity of staff as evidenced by the clearing of the backlog ofsurvey reports. The presence of the PME in the PMU has enhanced its independence butmanagement support to PME needs to improve in some states. Although the quality of reportinghas improved, periodic reports are still submitted late by the projects, with the exception of OsunADP.

22. Human Resources Development (Table 2). This is one area of remarkable achievementin the ADPs. Apart from the regular training of extension staff during fortnightly training andMTRMs, 21,624 staff benefited from short courses, 99 percent of them locally, helping to furtherstrenghten the capacity of local training institutions. Training was based on skill gap analyses ofstaff and the multiplier effect was increased through post-course seminars organized for trainedstaff to share their experience with others. Many staff have readily picked up more lucrative jobselsewhere after being trained by the ADP, a further contribution of the system to the economy.

23. Management (Table 2). The PMUs of the ADPs met regularly to plan and review theirprograms and consist largely of qualified and experienced staff. There was relative stability inthe management of the ADPs with each having on the average two program managers during thelife of the project. There was a long break in activities in Rivers ADP during 1994 and 1995following the unilateral sack of the PMU by the state government and the refusal of the otherparties to the credit to recognize the new management. Directives from the state governmentslowered the expenditure limits of the PMUs resulting in longer clearance procedures andconsequent slowing down of disbursement. The meeting of the ADPEC was infrequent in manyADPs (only 46 percent of the target of 112 meetings was achieved) leading to delays in approvalof ADP programs. The two ADPEC subcommittees for Agriculture and Infrastructure wereestablished in all the states except Rivers, but their meetings were very infrequent. This resultedin poor coordination of the interventions of the ADPs and other agencies and duplication ofeffort in the rural areas. Program managers need to regard publicity as well as the maintenance ofgood external relations, including those with the parent ministry, key responsibilities. The fiveADPs have been scheduled so that all the staff now enjoy state pension benefits. All the stategovernments asked for a continuation of the ADP.

24. Funding (Table 2). As at March 31, 1996, about US$99.1m has been spent in the fiveADPs compared with the US$1 13.5m estimated at appraisal. State counterpart fund accounted

- 42 -

for 12 percent of this amount similar to the appraisal estimate. Federal Government funding wasseven percent as compared with 18 percent while IDA funding accounted for 78 percent ascompared with 69 percent. The performance in beneficiary contribution which is merged withinternally generated revenue in most ADPs is outstanding, being 3 percent of the totalexpenditure as compared with the appraisal estimate of one percent. Over the six year period,the Federal Government budgeted N 128.8m for the five ADPs and released 79 percent(N101.3m) while the State Governments budgeted N 337.6m and released 65 percent (N218.3m).Federal and state government funding was affected by the dwindling real budgets and adversechanges in exchange rate, and the releases were often late. State counterpart fundingperformance was very poor in Rivers State while Lagos and Ondo provided their ADPs morethan the appraisal amount.

25. Institutional Development. All the ADPs provided support in varying degrees to thePRSD of the MANR through training and the provision of vehicles and equipment, helping tostrengthen the sector policy and strategy capacity. None filled the positions of Planning andEconomic Advisers. The institutional review was completed in all the states except Oyo where adraft report is yet to be discussed. No serious reorganization of agricultural institutions hasoccured in any of the states as a result of the review. Most of the PRSDs would prefer to directlymanage credit resources for their support rather than channeling them through the ADP. Mostgovernments also called for support to the MANR beyond the PRSD.

Achievement of Objectives at Federal Level

26. Table 3 shows the achievements of some of the federal components of the project.

27. FACU. The assistance to FACU was to strengthen its capacity to support theimplementation of the ADPs as well as assist with the articulation of Federal Government policyfor rural development. The supervision mission was to be the main medium for contact with theADPs. Between 1990 and 1995, FACU conducted 56 thematic supervision missions (out of atarget of 60), 26 comprehensive missions and,with the Bank, 29 joint missions. The technicalinput of FACU staff to the missions was outstanding. Support to the ADPs in loan portfoliomanagement was however weak, probably because of the centralization of finance and accountsmanagement in FACU headquarters. FACU coordinated the preparation of seven Bank- andIFAD-assisted projects as well as two FGN projects, the National Economic Recovery Programfor Agriculture (NERPA) and the Roots and Tubers Expansion Program (RTEP). Ten projectfacilitation teams (PFTs) were conducted for the new ADPs resulting from the bifurcation ofstates in 1991as well as the National Agricultural Technology Support Project (NATSP), theNational Fadama Development Project (NFDP), the National Agricultural Research Project(NARP) and IFAD-assisted projects. Mid-term reviews were done for eight projects and theresulting redesign incorporated the lessons of experience as well as new initiatives.

28. A total of 13 studies were done, 30 percent of the target of 43. Six of these werespecified in the MSADP 111. The studies contributed to FACU's input to the development ofpolicies for sustained agricultural development. The recommendations of the study include theunification of the extension services, the establishment of an endowment fund for the sustainedfunding of the ADPs with diminishing donor assistance, commercialization of input distribution,and increased cost recovery and beneficiary participation. Overall, FACU has well exceeded themandate prescribed by the MSADP III and gained national and international recognition as acoordinating unit for agricultural development. It has received a large number of officials from

- 43 -

other African countries who have come to study the FACU and ADP system. FACU wouldprobably be best remembered for the unification of extension services in Nigeria. It has put inplace a succession plan involving training and understudy that has enabled a smooth transitionfrom expartriate staff to local professionals. The expartriate staff strength of FACU has reducedfrom 12 in 1990 to four in 1995. FACU successfully relocated its headquarters from Ibadan toAbuja in 1993. It has, however, been plagued by a high staff turnover in recent years. BetweenJanuary 1993 and March 1995, 71 staff resigned, 28 of them professional staff.

29. APMEU. This unit has become much stronger following a change in the management atthe beginning of the credit. The unit has built up the in-house capacity of the ADPs in analyticalwork through training in computer application and the development of new softwares. The back-log (80 altogether) of unanalyzed survey data has been cleared and a comprehensive fieldenumerators' handbook developed to increase the reliability of data. APMEU conducted 22studies (out of a target of 29), the results of which have been used by researchers, the ADPs andthe government for policy. A local area network has been installed to enhance data processingand ICRs done for eight projects. APMEU's rigorous training program has infused confidenceinto the staff who now train staff of projects other than the ADPs. About 420 APMEU staff weretrained locally and 33 overseas, although the twinning arrangement with the infused confidenceinto the staff who now train staff of projects other than the ADPs. University of East Anglia didnot come through because of changes in government and the consequent delay in approving theprogram. About 480 staff of state PRSDs and ADPs were trained and APMEU's training planhas been commended by the Bank and circulated in the Africa Region as "Best Practice". TheFMANR considers APMEU reports relevant and the working relations between APMEU and theFederal PRSD have improved.

30. The performance of FACU and APMEU has been limited by delays in procurement, lowgovernment-prescribed spending limits, inadequate counterpart funding and high staff turnover.The unification of the extension services in the country raised the issue of the coordination of theactivities of the coordinating agencies under the FMANR, two of which are funded by theMSADP III credit. In additon to FACU and APMEU, there are coordinating units for forestry,livestock, and agricultural research all of which have been funded by the Bank. The FederalGovernment has appreciated the need for the harmonization of the activities of the apex units andundertaken a review of some of the units in 1995, the outcome of which is yet to be made public.Some of the officials look on the Bank whose funding support has contributed to theproliferation of the coordinating units to help in the harmonization process. One possibilty is theestablishment of two apex units in the office of the Director General of the FMANR, one forplanning and implementation support and the other for monitoring and evaluation, for all thesub-sectors of agriculture.

31. PRSD. The project substantially increased the capacity of the PRSD of the FMANR tocoordinate data collection and to analyze agricultural policy initiatives. Seventeen staff weretrained, ten of them locally in areas such as statistical analysis, agricultural planning andcomputer programming and engineering. Twelve micro-computer units were procured and thestaff are now capable of processing, storing and retrieving data for all the subectors ofagriculture. Four zonal offices have been established and linked up with the headquarters andother agencies by radio. The National Agricultural Data Bank was established with co-financingfrom the UNDP/FAO. The National Agro-Statistics Coordinating Committee and its statecounterparts were also established with the national committee now acting as a clearing housefor all agricultural data. Three planning workshops have been organized benefitting 350 staff of

- 44 -

the state MANRs and other agricultural agencies. PRSD undertook three out of the six studiesincluded in the project. Funding of the PRSD component by the Federal Government was verygood but there were serious implementation problems with the management of the PRSDaccounts by FACU. The PRSD operated most of the time without accurate knowledge of thecredit disbursements made on its behalf.

- 45 -

Table 3: Achievements of the Federal Components

AchievementItem Target* Quantity % Remark

FACUSupervision missions (No.)

- thematic/comprehensive 83 82 99 FACU's participation-jointly with Bank 15 29 193 in missions spread to

PFT 1 1 10 91 other apex units.Mid-term review 7 8 114Studies 43 13 30Staff training (No.) - local 325 228 70

- overseas 158 80 51Funding (U$$m)** -FG 16.2 3.0 19

-IDA 13.6 13.0 96-Total 29.8 16.0 54

FADPEC Meetings (No.) 20 5 25PCC Meetings (No.) 9 6 67

APMEUSupervision missions (No.)

- implementation assistance 183 169 92- ICR 8 8 100

Studies and reviews (No.) 29 22 76Staff training (No.) - local 553 420 76

- overseas 35 33 94ADP staff training (No.) 837 480 57Funding (US$m)** - FG 5.9 1.6 27

- IDA 5.6 4.6 82- Total 11.5 6.2 54

PRSDStudies and reviews (No.) 6 3 50Staff training (No.) - local 10 10 100

- overseas 8 7 88Training of other staff (No.) 350 350 100Funding (US$m)** - FG 0.1 0.1 100

- IDA 0.5 0.5 100- Total 0.6 0.6 100

FRMCSUStaff training (No.) - local 92 -

- overseas - 9 -

PIC Meeting 18 4 22Funding (US$m)** - FG 1.3 0.2 15

- IDA 2.5 1.8 72- Total 3.8 2.0 53

* As specified by the project unit and revised at mid-termn review** Counterpart fund is converted at prevailing average exchange rates in

year of release. Achievement is as at March 31, 1996.

- 46 -

32. FRMCSU. This component had a delayed start because of the objection of the FederalDepartment of Fisheries (FDF) to implement the project with the funds under FACUmanagement. The Credit Agreement had to be amended to allow the unit have its own SpecialAccount. The credit facilitated the upgrading of the Fisheries Inspection Section of FDF into theFRMCSU with subrunits for Enforcement, PME, Administration and Accounts and four zonesfor effective monitoring and control. Two decrees were revised and gazetted in 1992, the SeaFisheries Decree and the Inland Fisheries Decree. A seminar on the Inland Fisheries Decree wasorganized in 1994, involving all the state departments of fisheries, the ADPs, the river basindevelopment authorities (RBDAs) and the ministries of justice and the states are expected toenact edicts in line with the decree. The Sea Fisheries Decree contains stiffer penalties forinfringement and its enforcement by the FRMCSU is bringing sanity into sea fisheries. Threeforeign poaching vessels have been arrested and prosecuted, 22 trawl nets with undersize codend meshes have been confiscated, and four trawling licences have been withdrawn. Goodworking relationships have been established with the Nigerian Navy, Marine Police, trawleroperators and artisanal fishermen. Ten cases of conflicts within the five nautical mile zonebetween trawlers and artisanal fishermen have been resolved. Awareness for the sustainabledevelopment of the fisheries resources is being created.

33. About 22 staff of the unit are undergoing a masters degree program in FisheriesResource Management at the University of Lagos with assistance from the FAO and with a focuson practical training. Rehabilitation of the patrol vessel, the Sea Porcupine, is yet to becompleted but the unit has acquired eight vehicles, six computers, a radar boat, radiocommunication and navigation equipment. With the refurbishing of the patrol vessel, it isexpected that there would be effective patrol of the 200 nautical miles Exclusive EconomicZone. The unit needs to have a maintenance arrangement for the equipment. The NigerianInstitute for Oceonography and Marine Research (NIOMR) contracted by the unit to assess thestock of commercial fish and shrimp species could not complete the job because funds were notmade available for the employment of about 210 enumerators for data collection and because ofa communication gap between the agencies. NIOMR has, however, compiled data on fishingvillages, number of fishermen and gear, assessed the profitability of six types of canoe fisheries,and documented the migration pattern of the major species. The preliminary results indicate thatthe demersal stock (croaker and shrimp) caught by the trawlers are already showing signs of overexploitation. Project implementation was affected by poor counterpart funding, lowmanagement autonomy in spending and infrequent meetings of the project ImplementationCommittee (PIC) to approve plans and procurements.

34. Watari Irrigation Scheme. An amendment to the Credit Agreement was made in 1991 toprovide SDR 1.979m for the completion of the scheme following a request from the FGN to thateffect. Before Kano ADP started drawing on the NFDP funds to continue with the scheme, atotal of SDR 0.153m had been utilized for the payment of some consultancy and civil works atthe scheme. The Government of Kano State considers the assistance from the MSADP Ill creditas very useful for the maintenance of the operations of Kano ADP during the transition betweenthe former Kano ADP loan and the NFDP.

Factors Affecting Project Performance

35. Inadequate counterpart funding and the late release of approved funds was a major causeof poor implementation performance at both the state and federal levels. With the rapiddeterioration of the exchange rate of the local currency, high inflation and dwindling public

- 47 -

resources, it became very difficult for the governments to meet their targets. Outsideinterference in project management, especially in staffing, procurement, the setting up ofarbitrary expenditure limits and in the utilization of project vehicles and equipment alsoadversely affected implementation. Political and fuel crises that dominated most of the life ofthe project in some cases crippled operations for months. There was also inadequate policysupport for the project units from their executive committees whose meetings were irregular.The irregular meetings of the ADPEC sub-committees for Agriculture and Infrastructure in thestates deprived the ADPs the opportunity of harmonizing more effectively their operations withthose of other agencies operating in the rural areas. Staff turnover was also very high in some ofthe units. The commitment of the federal and state governments to the ADP system as well asthe support provided by the federal apex units were two positive factors for projectimplementation.

Performance of the Bank and the Borrower

36. The performance of the Bank at appraisal and during implementation was satisfactory.There was prompt response to proposals from the units, fast reimbursements for completedactivities and fairly regular supervision. The state PRSD components complained of poorintensity of Bank supervision. There were also complaints from most of the units about the non-specification in the appraisal report of monitorable targets in most activity areas and the absenceof clear implementation guidelines in areas such as the involvement of local governments in roadmaintenance.

37. The performance of the Borrower was also satisfactory. FACU prepared the MSADP IIIand together with APMEU and other federal agencies provided the units with the desiredimplementation support, but improvement is needed in helping the units to manage their loanportfolio and in deciding reasonable thresholds for engineering activities. The level ofcounterpart funding was poor especially from the Federal Government.

Project Outcome and Sustainability

38. Overall, the outcome of the project is satisfactory. There has been a capacity build up atboth the state and federal levels for the effective management of agricultural developmentinitiatives. Farmers have experienced modest increases in yield and area under cultivation andthe re-estimated econmic rate of return of 25 percent compares favorably with the 17 percentestimated at appraisal. With the increasing trend towards beneficiary participation, costrecovery, commercialization of input distribution, and clearer definition of priorities and roles ofthe different agencies, the project activities are likely to be sustainable.

Future Operations and Key Lessons Learned

39. The operational plans of the project units for the period 1996 to 1998 are attached to thisaide-memoire. Most of the units would benefit from resources from the NFDFF and the NATSPFacility. Some of the programs have already been incorporated in the National Rolling Plan forfunding and there are assurances from the government for continued funding of the activities.

40. The key lessons learned include: (i) the need to involve all units to be included in aproject right from the preparation stage and to have separate special accounts for project unitsthat fall in different departments. The implementation of the PRSD and FRMCSU components

- 48 -

was hampered by the low involvement of the departments at the preparation stage and theoperation of joint special accounts with FACU; (ii) the need to more carefully define theimplementation targets during appraisal in order to arrive at meaningful evaluation at the end ofthe project; (iii) the need to adequately fund a few key priority interventions in agricultureespecially in the face of dwindling public resources, and to include the deduction at source ofcounterpart funds for the state project units; (iv) the need for the regular monitoring by Bankmissions of the fulfilment of institutional conditions such as the regular meeting of the ADPECand its sub-committees; and (v) that outside interference in project management, notably instaffing, in the procurement process and in the use of project vehicles and equipment can undulydelay project implementation.

Next Actions

41. The following are the proposals for the delivery of the ICR:

06/28/96: Send aide-memoire to Borrower07/12/96: Send draft ICR (with Borrower's FER) for Divisional review07/29-08/16: Mission Leader revises draft ICR at Divisional headquarters08/30/96: Send final draft ICR to Borrower12/06/96: Submit final ICR to Board.

Samuel EremieMission LeaderAbujaJune 19, 1996.

THIRD MULTI-STATE AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT

OPERATIONAL PLANS (APRIL 1996 TO DECEMBER 1998)

t. Lagos State Agric. Development Program (LSADP)

l Physical Target Financial Resources (N'000)

S/No.1 Item | Unit 1996 1997 1998 Total| 1996 1997 1998 Total

A. Application of Fund

1. Management and Administration

Administration Lump I I 1 3 6,104 7,057 7,462 20,623

Human Resources Development Lump I I 1 3 1,950 2,300 2.350 6,600

Finance, Salaries and Intemal Audit Lump I I 1 3 15,075 17,678 20,697 53,450

Sub-total 23,129 27,035 30,509 80,673

2. Extension

SPAT No. 2,000 4,200 4,200 10,400 39 39 48 126

Fortnightly Training No. 45 60 60 165 35 43 42 120

Field Visit No. 50,500 70,700 70,700 191.900 230 230 230 690

Media Lump I I 1 3 590 592 626 1,808

Equipment and Maintenance Lump I I 1 3 4,755 3.476 3,407 11,638

Sub-total 5,649 4,380 4,353 14,382

3. Technical Services

Agroprocessing Lump I I 1 3 1,670 670 779 3,119

Crops Lump I I 1 3 1,120 1.340 1.350 3,81

Fisheries Lump I I 1 3 1,230 1,160 1.080 3,470

Livestock Lump I I 1 3 1,207 1,176 1,128 3,511

Agroforestry and Land Use Lump I I 1 3 170 270 340 780

WIA Lump I I I 3 1,690 1,860 950 4,500

Seed Multiplication Tonne I I 1 3 300 400 100 800

Sub-total 7,387 6,876 5,727 19,990

4. Engineering

Fadama Development Lump I I 1 3 1,000 1.500 0 2,500

Farm Mechanization Lump I I 1 3 450 160 120 730

Rural Infrastructure Maintenance Lump I I 1 3 2.000 300 100 2.400

Equipment and Maintenance Lump I I 1 3 8,200 8,079 7,755 24,034

Sub-total 11,650 10,039 7,975 29,66

1. Lagos State Agric. Development Program (LSADP) (cont'd)

Physical Target Financial Resources (N'000)

S/No. Item Unit 1996 1997 1998 Total 1996 1997 1998 Total

5. Planning, Monitoring and Eval.

Studies Lump I I 1 3 500 630 800 1,930

Equipment and Maintenance Lump I 1 3 1,595 2,950 2,366 6,911

Sub-total 2,095 3,580 3,166 8,841

TOTAL 49,910 51,910 51,730 153,550

B. Sources of Fund

1. Intemally Generated Revenue 4,000 5,000 6,000 15,000

2. Counterpart Funding - Federal 4,000 4,000 4,000 12,000

Counterpart Funding - State 22,230 33,230 41,730 97,190

3. IBRD - ATSF 11,480 9,680 0 21,160

IBRD - NFDF 8,200 0 0 8,20

TOTAL 49,910 51,910 51,730 153,550

2. Lagos State Agric. Input Supply Company (LSAISC)




Input Distribution

Fertilizer Tonne 10,000 15,000 20,000 45,000 93,000 105,000 120,000 318,000

Agrochemical Tonne 1,000 1,000 1,000 3,000 750 750 750 2,250

Seed Tonne 50 65 80 195 1,950 2.675 3,400 8,025

Fishing Inputs Lump I I 1 3 119,000 133,000 147,000 399,000

Farm Equipment Lump I I 1 3 1,600 2,600 3,600 7,800

TOTAL 216,300 244,025 274,750 735,075

B. Sources of Fund

1. Fertilizer purchases will be made with budgetary provisions of State Govemment

2. Purchase of other inputs will be with proceeds from sales

3. Ondo State Agric. Development Program (ODADP)





Administration Lump I I 1 3 5,848 4,773 3,182 13.803

Human Resources Development No. 5 7 8 20 2,780 2,020 772 5,572

Finance, Salaries and Internal Audit Lump I I 1 3 9,524 10,303 11,122 30,949

Sub-total 18,152 17,096 15,076 50,324

2. Extension

SPAT No. 18,400 18,400 18,400 55.200 922 803 567 2,292

Fortnightly Training No. 59 78 78 215 407 641 500 1.548

Media Lump I I 1 3 1.904 1,359 1.202 4,465

Equipment and Maintenance Lump I I 1 3 3,868 3,324 2,347 9.539

Sub-total 7,101 6,127 4,616 17,844

3. Technical services

Crops Lump I I 1 3 4,995 4,350 2,519 11,864

Livestock Lump I I I 3 1,274 1,110 783 3,167

Fisheries Lump I I 1 3 370 220 100 690


WIA Lump I I 1 3 401 393 277 1.071

Seed Multiplication Ha. 180 132 99 411 1,092 951 668 2.711

Sub-total 8,274 7,147 4.435 19,856

4. Engineering

Agroprocessing No. 6 6 6 18 182 159 112 453

Fadama Development Lump I I 1 3 1,456 1,268 569 3,293


Sub-total 3,640 3,171 1,912 8,723

5. PME and PRSD

Studies No. 3 5 5 13 2,319 1,714 1.400 5,433


Group Formation Lump I I 1 3 886 1,540 1,441 3,867

PRSD Lump I I 1 3 910 793 560 2,263

Sub-total 7,181 6,905 5,961 20,047

TOTAL 44,348 40,446 32,000 116,794

3. Ondo State Agric. Development Program (ODADP) (cont'd)



B. Sources of Fund




3. IBRD - ATSF 9,348 8,446 0 17,794

TOTAL 44,348 40,446 32,000 116,794

4. Ondo State Agric. Input Supply Company (ODAISC)


S/No. Item Unit 1996 1997 1998 Total 1996 1997 1998 TotalLu


1. Input Distribution

Fertilizer Tonne 15,000 20,000 25,000 60,000 45,000 60.000 75,000 180,000

Agrochemical Tonne 74 60 80 214 7,340 6,380 8,970 22,690

Seed Tonne 153 117 142 412 978 752 892 2,622

Other inputs Lump I I I 3 968 880 1,230 3,078

Renovation of FSCs No. 26 10 10 46 2,600 1.000 1,000 3,600

Sub-total 56,886 68,335 87,092 211,313

2. Public Enlightenment and Training

Public Enlightenment Lump I I 1 3 128 155 180 463

Training No. 243 275 325 843 1,525 2,000 2,550 6,075

Sub-total 1,653 2,155 2,730 6,538

3. Building and Oftice Equipment Lump I I I 3 840 2010 0 2850

TOTAL 59,379 72,500 89,822 221,701

B. Sources of Fund

Cost of all activities will be met from sales proceeds.

5. Osun State Agric. Development Program (OSADP)





Administration Lump I I 1 3 1,738 595 1,500 3,833

Human Resources Development No. 50 50 0 100 1,535 1,435 3,000 5,970


Sub-total 28,069 30,770 34,750 93,589

2. Extension

Fortnightly Training No. 20 26 26 72 386 656 351 1,393

Media Lump I I 1 3 950 950 340 2,240

Equipment and Maintenance Lump I I 1 3 1.530 1,530 2,517 5,577

Subtotal 2,866 3,136 3,208 9,210


Crops Lump I I 1 3 455 654 1,273 2,382 w

Livestock Lump I I 1 3 910 730 372 2,012

Fisheries Lump I I 1 3 888 518 1,500 2,906

Agrorestry and Land Use Lump I I I 3 260 260 303 823

WIA Lump I I 1 3 225 125 315 665

Sub-total 2,738 2,287 3,763 8,788

4. Engineering

Agroprocessing Lump I I 1 3 660 210 0 870

Fadama Development No. 118 0 0 118 16,650 0 0 16,650

Rural Water No. 7 22 13 42 6,001 3,700 850 10,551

Road Maintenance Km. 50 195 244 489 2,167 12,112 10,930 25,209

Sub-total 25,479 16,022 11,780 53,280

5. PME and PRSD

Studies No. 2 2 0 4 480 480 0 960


PRSD Lump I I 1 3 766 366 200 1,332

lSub-total 3,386 4,605 2,589 10,50

5. Osun State Agric. Development P rogram (OSADP) (cont'd)

Physical Target Financil Resources (N'000)S/No. Item Unit 1996 1997 1998 Total 1996 1997 1998 Total


Input Distribution Lump I I 1 3 1,253 2,810 1,910 5,973

Cooperative Development Lump I I 1 3 1,275 925 0 2,200

Sub-total 2,528 3,735 1,910 8,173

TOTAL 65,065 60,555 58,000 183,620

B. Sources of Fund




3. IBRD - ATSF 12,385 10,330 0 22,715

IBRD - NFDF 18,614 0 0 18,614

TOTAL 69,999 58,330 55,291 183,62

I,

6. Oyo State Agric. Development Program (OYADP)



A. Application of Fund1. Management and Administration

Administration Lump I I 1 3 I,100 1,280 895 3,275Human Resources Development Lump I I 1 3 2,300 2,700 1,790 6,790

Cooperative Development Lump I I 1 3 860 1,100 358 2,318


Sub-total 42,258 43,690 49,588 135,536

2. Extension

SPAT No. 7,500 7,600 7,600 22,800 115 180 150 430

Fortnightly Training No. 20 26 26 72 280 440 589 1,309

Field Visit No. 42,500 42,500 42,500 127,500 100 180 150 430

Media Lump I I 1 3 1.795 1,915 2,165 5,875

6. Oyo State Agric. Development Program (OYADP) (cont'd)


S/No. Item llnit 1996 1997 1998 Total 1996 1997 1998 Total

Skill Development Center No. 3 2 0 5 2,100 1,900 0 4,000

Equipment and Maintenance Lump I I 1 3 790 1,285 1.600 3,675

Sub-total 5,180 5,900 4,654 15,734


MTRM No. 9 12 12 33 464 530 412 1,406

OFAR (all sub-sectors) No. 156 192 136 484 1.856 2,120 1,647 5,623

Seed Multiplication Ha. I1 15 11 41 464 530 412 1,406

Livestock Development Lump I I 1 3 232 265 206 703


Sub-total 4,640 5,300 4,117 14,057


Road Rehabilitation and Maintenance Km. 50 50 47 147 820 1,045 980 2.845

Rural Water No. 7 8 7 22 2,020 1,530 40 3,590 ' '

Equipment and Maintenance Lump I I 1 3 3,310 2.075 2,925 8,310

Farm Mechanization Lump I I 1 3 702 350 195 1,247

Fadama Development Lump I I 1 3 10,000 14,000 0 24,000

Sub-total 16,852 19,000 4,140 39,992

5. PME and PRSD

Studies Lump I I I 3 565 950 650 2,165

Equipment and Maintenance Lump I I I 3 3815 4,350 2.214 10,379

PRSD Lump I I 1 3 690 810 537 2.037

Subtotal 5,070 6,110 3,401 14,581

TOTAL 74,000 80,000 65,900 219,900

B. Sources of Fund

1. Counterpart Funding - Federal 10.000 10.000 12,000 32.000


2. IBRD - ATSF 6,000 8,000 5,900 19,900

IBRD - NFDF 10,000 14,000 0 24,000

TOTAL 74,000 80,000 65,900 219,900

7. Oyo State Agric. Input Supply Company (OYAISC)

Physical Target Financial Resources (N'000)S/No. Item Unit 1996 1997 1998 'I'otal 1996 1997 1998 Total



Administration Lump I I 1 3 5.930 7,119 8,540 21,589

Training and Consultancy Lump I I 1 3 3,427 4,112 4,935 12,474

Sub-total 9,357 11,231 13,475 34,0632. Input Distribution

Agrochemicals Tonne 16 20 22 58 9.023 10,460 22,427 41.910

Seed Tonne 97 130 112 342 2.680 3.982 3,725 10,387

Minor Equipment No. 2,000 2,750 3.500 8.250 2.465 2.750 3.500 8,715

Sub-total 14,168 17,192 29,652 61,012

TOTAL 23,525 28,423 43,127 95,075

B. Sources of Fund

Costs wkill be met through grants from the ADP and sales proceeds.

8. Rivers State Agric. Development Program (RVADP)

Physical Target Financial Resources (N'000)S/No. Item tinit 1996 1997 1998 Total 1996 1997 1998 Total



Administration Lump I I I 3 2,780 2,950 2.720 8.450Human Resources Development Lump I I 1 3 1.410 1.520 720 3,650

Finance, Salaries and Intemal Audit Lump I I I 3 21.510 22.710 22.540 66,760

Rural Institutions Development Lump I I 1 3 1.200 1,190 1.090 3.480

Sub-total 26,900 28,370 27,070 82,3402. Extension

SPAT Lump I I 1 3 650 710 200 1,560Fortnightly Training No. 153 204 204 561 1,190 1,580 400 3,170Field Visit No. 8.333 8,333 8.333 25,000 1,550 1,600 280 3.430

8. Rivers State Agric. Development Program (RVADP) (cont'd)



WIA Lump I I 1 3 370 550 230 1,156

Media Lump I I 1 3 610 820 390 1,820

Sub-total 4,370 5,260 1,500 11,130


MTRM and Field Visits Lump I I 1 3 670 670 280 1,620

Crops Lump I I I 3 320 270 110 700

Livestock Lump I I 1 3 870 940 490 2,300

Fisheries Lump I I 1 3 470 500 270 1,240


Seed Multiplication Lump I I I 3 560 610 250 1,420

Sub-total 3,220 3,340 1,590 8,150

4. Engineering

Building and Maintenance Lump I I 1 3 620 810 900 2,330

Fadama Development Lump I I 1 3 200 260 240 700

Farm Mechanization Lump I I 1 3 80 130 160 370

Sub-total 900 1,200 1,300 3,400

5. Planning, Monitoring and Eval.

Studies No. 6 5 4 15 800 250 150 1,200

Field Monitoring Visits No. 15 15 10 40 350 250 100 700

Equipment and Maintenance Lump I I 1 3 1,280 900 400 2,580

Sub-total 2,430 1,400 650 4,480

TOTAL 37,820 39,570 32,110 109,500

B. Sources of Fund

1. Intemally Generated Revenue 500 650 800 1,950

2. Counterpart Funding - Federal 3,500 3.500 3,500 10,500

Counterpart Funding - State 25,060 27,410 27.940 80,410

3. IBRD - ATSF 9,200 7,440 0 16,640

TOTAL 38,260 39,000 32,240 109,500

9. Rivers State Agricultural Input Supply Company (RVAISC)


S/No Item Unit 1996 1997 1998 Total 1996 1997 1998 Total


I. Management and Administration

Administration Lump I I I 3 1,400 1,750 2,200 5,350

2. Input Distribution

Fertilizer Tonne 9,000 10,800 12,960 32,760 27,000 32,400 15,552 74,952

Agrochemicals Tonne I1 12 12 35 12,960 13,280 13,920 40,160

Fishing Inputs Lump I I I 3 18,600 21,744 26,960 67,304

Planting Materials Lump I I 1 3 538 595 652 1,785

Farming Implements Lump I I I 3 935 1,183 1,431 3,549

Food Staple Tonne 17 20 23 60 2,790 3,310 3,925 10,025

Sub-total 62,823 72,512 62,440 197,775

TOTAL 64,223 74,262 64,640 203,125

B. Sources of Fund

Costs will be met through sales proceeds. c

10. Planning, Research and Statistics Department (PRSD)




1. National Agric. Data Bank Lump 1 l 1 3 1,709 4,042 4,042 9.793

(Networking, Publication of Annual

Agro-statistics Document)

2. Macro-Economic Policy and Analysis Lump I I 1 3 1,021 2,415 2,415 5,851

(Capacity Building Workshop, Studies

on Impact of GATT, PER for the

States, Poverty Alleviation. Agric

Marketing, Sector Budget Analysis)

10. Planning, Research and Statistics Deprtment (PRSD) (cont'd)



3. Agric. Sector Feasibilty and Research Lump I I I3 317 750 750 1,817

Studies

(Two Policy and Research Studies,

Publish Journal on Agric. Dev.)

4. Improvement ofAgric. Planning Lump I I I3 681 1,611 1,611 3.903

Capacity

(Training, Agric. Planning Workshop)

TOTAL 3,728 8,818 8,818 21,364

B. Sources of Fund

Costs would be met from budgetary allocations.

11. Federal Agric. Coordinating Unit (FACU)


S/No. Item llnit 1996 1997 1998 Total 1996 1997 1998 Total


1. Financing and Expenditure Manage.

Supervision Missions No. 18 18 18 54 3.538 3.343 4.338 11,266

Workshops and Meetings No. 7 7 7 21 1,001 1.101 1,211 3.313

Research, Studies and Publications No. 5 5 5 15 272 299 329 900

Equipment and Maintenance Lump I I 1 3 719 791 870 2,380

Sub-total 5,577 5,534 6,748 17,859

2. Adaptive Research

Supervision Missions No. 168 144 134 446 7,376 7.511 7,641 22,528

Workshops and Meetings No. 80 76 76 232 4,839 4,725 4,845 14,409

Research and Studies No. 49 28 28 105 4,390 2,830 2,830 10.050

Publications and Documentaries Lump I I I 3 1.455 1,470 1,490 4,415

Equipment and Maintenance Lump I I I 3 1,250 4,350 3.380 8,980

Sub-total 19,310 20,886 20,186 60,382

II. Federal Agric. Coordinating Unit (FACU) (cont'd)



3. Extension

Supervision Missions No. 226 193 177 596 10,487 11,987 16,389 38,863


Research, Studies, Publication and Library Lump I I 1 3 6,122 5,851 6,270 18,243

Sub-total 27,071 31,521 38,069 96,661

4. Program Development and Planning

Supervision Missions No. 108 91 94 293 9,606 4,070 5,463 19,139


Research and Studies No. 7 10 6 23 3,608 5,257 1,165 10,030

Publications No. 4 4 4 12 75 90 115 280


Sub-total 26,092 19,070 12,936 58,098

5. Ettgineering

Supervision Missions No. 47 43 38 128 802 886 816 2,504 O

Workshops and Meetings No. 23 25 23 71 440 490 400 1,330 l

Research, Studies and Publications No. II 10 8 29 490 450 450 1,390

Civil Works, Equipment and Maintenance Lump I I 1 3 9,375 68,425 8.900 86.050

Sub-total 11,107 70,251 10,566 91,924

6. Nlanagement and Administration

Administration Lump I I 1 3 27.456 23,315 15,219 65,990

Salaries and Allowances Lump I I 1 3 6,048 6.346 7,233 19,627

Subtotal 33,504 29,661 22,452 85,617

TOTAL 122,661 176,923 110,957 410,541

B. Sources of Fund

1. Federal Grant and RTEP 30.000 67,109 92,682 189,791

2. IBRD - NATSP 78,911 93,089 0 172,000

IBRD - NFDP 8,500 9.350 9.775 27,625

3. IFAD Sokoto ACDP 4,250 6,375 8.500 19.125

4. UNDP 4th Country Program 1,000 1,000 0 2,000

TOTAL 122,661 176,923 110,957 410,541

12. Agric. Projects Monitoring and Evaluation Unit (APM EU)


S/No. Item Uinit 1996 1997 1998 Total 1996 1997 1998 Total



Administration Lump I I 1 3 4.959 5,020 5.085 15.064

Training and Twinning Arrangement Lump I I 1 3 9.121 8,520 8.165 25,806

Civil Works Lump I I 1 3 50.890 50.890 50,890 152.670

Vehicles and Equipment Lump I I 1 3 64.120 5,370 0 69,490

Finance and Salaries Lump I I 1 3 9,794 10.750 11,428 31.972

Sub-total 138,884 80.550 75,568 295,002

2. Monitoring Program

Periodic Report Production No. 26 26 26 78 500 500 440 1,440

Quick Monitoring and Other Studies No. 5 4 3 12 875 675 523 2,073

PBMS Development Lump I I 1 3 1,200 256 1,104 2,560

Data Storage and Retrieval and Op. Costs Lump I I 1 3 2,234 1,954 1,719 5,907

Sub-total 4,809 3,385 3,786 11,980 a

3. Evaluation Program

Mid-year Review and ICR No. 31 33 31 95 310 710 310 1.330

Core Surveys Supervision and Op Costs Lump I I 1 3 1,277 1,477 2,292 5,046

Evaluation Instruments and Supervision Lump I I I 3 842 842 842 2,526

Remote Sensing Survey No. 0 1 0 1 0 5,000 0 5,000

Evaluation Studies Lump I I 1 3 850 850 850 2,550

FAMSU Survey No. I I 1 3 1,500 1,500 1,500 4,500

Sub-total 4,779 10,379 5,794 20,952

4. Engineering Program Lump I I 1 3 2,471 3.188 400 6,059

5. Special Services Program Lump I I 1 3 7,011 5,434 6,362 18,807

TOTAL 155,695 99,916 87,529 343,140

B. Sources of Fund

Federal Grant 67,890 73.131 101,890 242,911

IBRD - ATSF 13.764 7,764 0 21.528

IBRD - NFDP 54.620 24.081 0 78,701

lTOTAL 136,274 104,976 101,890 343,140

13. Fisheries Resources Monitoring Control and Surveillance Unit (FRMCSU)





Office Refurbishment No. 30 0 0 30 43,050 0 0 43.050

Vehicles and Equipment

INMARSAT No. 30 0 0 30 27.675 0 0 27.675

Motor Vehicles No. 9 6 6 21 25,584 15.744 15.744 57.072

Patrol Vessel No. 1 0 0 1 110.700 0 0 110.700

Boats No. 3 3 0 6 8.200 8,200 0 16,400

Technical Assistance MM 2 2 2 6 2,460 2,460 2,460 7.380

Local Staff Salaries Lump I I I 3 11.808 14.170 17,003 42.981

Sub-total 229,477 40,574 35,207 305,258

2. MCS Operating Costs

Repair and Maintenance Lump I I 1 3 8.118 8.856 9,758 26,732 I ay

Vessel Management Lump I I 1 3 59,122 6.150 6,150 71,422

Vessel Fuel Lump I I 1 3 16,400 16.400 16.400 49.200

Sub-total 83,640 31,406 32,308 147,354

TOTAL 313,117 71,980 67,515 452,612

B. Sources of Fund

Costs will be met with resources from the Pctroleum Trust Fund and budgetary releases by Federal Government.

- 63 -

Appendix B

SECTOR-SPECIFIC DATA

Table 1: Achievements of the ADPs in Extension, Technical Services, Fisheriesand Commercial Services

Lagos Ondo Osun (a) Oyo Rivers All ADPs

Item T A T A T |A T A T A T A

Extension

Farm families ('000 No.) 60 45 300 288 25(0 592 344 107 346 1059 1273Village extension agents (No.) 60 64 300 192 262 2(0 269 261 107 178 998 902Farm families/VEA (No) 1000 703 1000 1500 - 1208 1000 1318 I0(J( 1944 1000 1411

SPAT ('000 No.):- Crop 20.9 18.7 112 77.8 71.8 57.2 174 136 49.6 35 6 428 325- Others 5.1 7.9 11.6 12.7 6.6 7 0 13.4 10 2 3.1 2.4 39.8 40.2

Field days (No.) 200 203 135 68 116 91 165 135 6304 7099 6920 7596Radio/TV programs (No.) 292 208 995 645 855 681 1085 1085 570 431 3797 3050Women groups formed (No.) 160 143 296 260 870 734 177 177 580 431 2083 1745

Technical Services

Diagnostic surveys (No.) 2 2 4 4 5 5 2 2 I I 14 14OFAR trials (No.) 371 327 702 670 317 245 580 451 450 435 2420 2128

Grain seed production (tonnes):- direct 92 10 371 397 25 22 244 136 45 45 777 610- outgrowers 23 0 1200 958 271 326 714 683 140 140 2348 2107

Breeding stock production (No.)- rabbit 3124 1540 2100 2672 100 143 0 0 550 592 5874 4974- sheep and goat 3120 335 280 273 100 68 0 0 300 144 3800 820

Fisheries

OFAR trials (No.) 31 26 18 13 6 6 24 24 12 I( 91 79Fingerling production:- direct ('000 No.) 850 625 100 90 0 0 0 t) 0 0 950 715- outgrowers (No.) 6 6 0 0 8 8 12 12 5 5 31 31

Commercial Services

Input distribution:- fertilizer ('000 T) 55 33 52 52 83 37 143 93 93 93 426 308- grain seed (T) 234 105 864 275 0 0 950 443 11 11 2059 834- agrochemicals (T) 45 33 630 421 149 104 367 200 22 22 1212 779

Note: T = TargetA = Achievement(a) = Figures are for 1992 - 95 for Osun and 1990 - 95 for the rest.

- 64 -

Table 2: Achievements of the ADPs in Infrastructure and Management

Lagos | Ondo Osun (a) Oyo Rivers All ADPsItem T A T A T A T A T A T A

Infrastructure

Rural roads (Km):- rehabilitation 705 307 500 387 417 479 867 324 117 125 2606 1622- recurrent maint. 900 326 650 285 1426 1072 2875 2624 550 294 6401 4601- routine maint. 490 0 1000 387 1306 450 3304 2013 1000 0 7100 2850

Water supply (No.)- well construction 270 131 400 167 30 46 120 42 150 2 970 388- borehole constr. 46 37 12 10 7 7 5 1 75 29 145 84- earth dam constr. 0 0 32 0 0 0 5 5 0 0 37 5- WUA formation 168 168 432 175 55 55 40 40 148 58 843 496

Pilot irrigation (Ha.) 60 25 60 20 21 14 78 48 10 8 229 115Agro-processing centers (No.) I 1 6 6 4 1 1 1 4 2 16 I

Management

ADPEC Meeting 24 9 24 8 16 13 24 12 24 10 112 52

Funding (US$m) (b):- State Government 2.5 3.2 3.2 3.6 0.0 0.8 4.8 3.3 3.0 1.4 13.5 12.3- Federal Government 3.8 1.3 5.5 I.4 0.0 0.5 6.2 1.9 4.5 1.7 20.0 6.8- Beneficiaries 0.4 0.6 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.1 1.2 0.5 0.8 1.5 3.0- IDA 15.1 16.0 24.4 23.0 0.0 9.1 24.3 17.2 14.7 11.7 78.5 77.0Total 21.8 21.1 33.6 28.0 0.0 10.8 35.4 23.6 22.7 15.6 113.5 99.1

Training (No.)- local -in house 2020 1476 2900 1949 1151 1653 3511 3285 3278 4274 12860 12637- local -offproject 355 277 5900 5878 527 382 1113 1399 3237 847 11132 8783- overseas 38 34 113 67 53 19 253 53 56 31 513 204

Planning,, Monitoring andEvaluation (No.): 7 7 7 7 4 4 7 7 7 7 32 32- annual work plan 83 81 83 78 54 50 83 76 83 80 386 365- core survey 57 54 1 1 9 1 1 11 30 26 18 18 127 108- special study

monthly progress:- review meeting 72 55 72 52 48 44 72 68 72 21 332 240- periodic report 174 174 174 157 116 102 174 174 174 135 812 742

Note: (a) = Figures are for 1992 - 95 for Osun and 1990 - 95 for the rest.

(b) = Achievement as at March 31, 1996. Counterpart fund contributions are converted at prevailingaverage exchange rates in year of release.

- 65 -

Appendix C

BORROWER CONTRIBUTION TO ICR

1. Borrower's Implementation Completion Report

PREFACE

This is the Borrower's Implementation Completion Report (ICR) forthe Third Multi-State Agricultural Development Project (MSADP-III), IDA Credit NO 2035 UNI in the amount of 75m SDR (US$100.9m)

The loan was approved in August 1989 and became effective inMarch 1990. A Mid-Term Review was conducted in November, 1993.

The loan closed on 31 March 1996 after one year extension. Theloan was almost fully drawn down. Final disbursement is expectedto be 31st Juily, 1996.

The Borrower's ICR was prepared by the Agricultural ProjectsMonitoring and Evaluation Unit (APMEU) in March 1996. All dataand information used in the preparation of this document werederived from project documents, reports, discussions with projectstaff, and field visits carried out by the ICR team between 10 -26 March, 1996. The first draft was reviewed by the Head of Unit,APMEU which was further reviewed at a workshop held on the 8thJuly, 1996 and chaired by the Director, Federal Department ofAgriculture with the implementing agencies in attendance.

i

- 66 -

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1. The agreement for the Third Multi-State AgriculturalDevelopment Project which covered Ondo, Osun, Oyo, Lagos, RiversStates and the Federal Components of APMEU, FACU, FederalDepartments of Planning Research and Statistics and Fisheries wassigned on the 4th of August 1989 and became disbursementeffective in March 1990. The project lasted for six years after aone year extension to March 1996.

2. The main objective of the project was to increase food cropproduction and incomes of small holder farmers through a progammeof integrated unified extension, adaptive 'research, seedmultiplication, agro-forestry and land use, fisheries, roadrehabilitation and maintenance, water supply and farm inputsupply and distribution.

3. The total project costs at appraisal was US$159.4m out ofwhich IBRD was expected.to provide .63.3k US$100.9m. The FederalGovernment of Nigeria and State Governments were to provide 27.3%US$43.5m (N187.05m) and 8.5% US$13.5m (N58.05m) respectively,while the beneficiaries were to contribute 0.9% US$1.5m (N6.45m).The overall credit draw down was utilized for the purpose it wasmeant for at closing. Drawdown from IDA stood at US$96.40m as at31st January, 1996 out of US$100.9m. The FGN contributedUS$11.57m (N237.96m) against US$43.50m (N187.05m) while the SGscontributed US$12.40m (N228.15m) against US$13.50m (58.05m) andthe beneficiaries contributed US$3.17m (N51.38m) against US$1.Sm(N6.45m) SAR targets. The local counterpart funding of theFederal and State Governments and the beneficiaries when comparedwith the appraisal estimates is significant in Naira terms.

4. All the state agencies implemented the Unified ExtensionSystem. The VEA:FF ratio was 1:1778 against SAR target of 1:1000.A total of 307,073 (69k) of targeted of 443,070 SPAT plots wereestablished and the WIA componient formed 25940 (70%) of 36918target groups.

5. The main activities of Technical Services sub-program weredirected at the conduct of diagnostic surveys, On-Stationresearch and On-farm Adaptive research towards developingappropriate technologies for dissemination through SPATs byextension. Tlhe performance of. the component was satisfactory.Many packages of recommendations on improved crop varieties,optimum plant population, pest control, cropping systems etc weredeveloped. About 19 diagnostic surveys, 301 On-Station trials,and 1204 OFAR covering all subsectors were conducted. Theextension research linkage has been strengthened with all ADPsworking closely with FACU and Research Institutes to establishthe trials arid traiii research - extension staff.

ii

- 67 -

6. Under the rural roads rehabilitation and maintenance andthe provision of potable water, the project performedsatisfactorily. However, due to high cost of materials resultingfrom inflation and initial early delays, the targets of mostengineering components were reduced during MTR and supervisionmissions. The project rehabilitated 1685km, maintained 4884Km(recurrent) and 2497Km (routine) out of revised targets of1504Km, 3993Km and 3144Km respectively. The rural waterdevelopment component drilled 95 boreholes out of 184, dug 417open wells against 663 and constructed 6 dams. Thirty (30) out ofthe 42 targeted Agro-processing centres were established.Building programme was satisfactory as most required buildingswere completed.

7. Ondo, Oyo and Lagos States established Agricultural InputSupply Companies (AISC) from their Commercial Services sub-programmes. About 392,569Mt of fertilizers and 465Mt of agro-chemicals were distributed.

8. Support services components of Planning Monitoring andEvaluation (PME), Administration, Finance and Human ResourcesDevelopment performed satisfactorily by providing the desiredsupport. Quantitative indicators emanating from PME surveys andstudies provided necessary data and information for decisionmaking and assesment of project implementation particularly atthe Monthly Progress Review Meetings (MPRMs).

9. The ADPECs and PMUs of the ADPs were fully composed, howeveronly 53 out of expected 112 ADPEC meejtings were held. Thefrequency of PMU meetings was satisfactory, 297 out of 336scheduled meetings were held.

10. All projects except Oyo ADP did not recruit the requirednumber of staff. About 4,015 staff were on board against a targetof 4,414 different categories of staff. A total of 210 staffwere trained overseas against a target of 413 and 23,085 staffbenefited from local/inhouse trainings against 25,326 planned.

11. The Federal components of APMEU, FACU, PRSD, and FRMSCUperformed satisfactorily in implementing their respectivesupporting roles.

12. The key factors that affected project implementationincluded delays in project take-off, political and fuel crisis,Structural Adjustment Programme, limited management autonomywhich affected implementation decisions. The economic environmentduring implementation was also not favourable due to foreignexchange fluctuations and high inflation. The cumbersomeness ofthe procurement and approval proceedures slowed the rate of drawdown and delayed execution of some vital services and delivery ofgoods. The experience gained during the implemeiitation of theearlier projects assisted in project

iii

- 68 -

execution. The FGN and World Bank support was satisfactorythroughout project life.

13. Overall project outcome was satisfactory. The overall ERRfor the project was 26k against SAR estimate of 17%. The projecthas in place institutional and physical structures that couldensure sustainability and future development efforts.

14. The various states and Federal components have becomeinstitutional realities and important organs of governmentagricultural development efforts. The operational plan for thenext three years is realistic and attainable provided bothFederal and State Governments continue with and improve on theirlevels of committment to the ADP system.

15. The project is sustainable as it has put in place the basicstructures and institutions necessary for delivery of criticalservices to the small-holder farmers for increased agriculturalproductioni in the states if only the Federal and the StateGovernments' funding are timely and adequate.

16. One major lesson learnt was that the AISCs were viable ifgiven a free hand to operate. This was proved by the performanceof Ondo, Lagos and Oyo State AISCs. The AISCs will perform betterif state Governments divest majority of the shares to cooperativefarmer groups, other relevant private sector organizations andindividuals for the AISCs to achieve higher levels ofcapitalization and privatization.

17. Other Lessons Learnt included:

- The need to ensure the education of political appointees onloan/credit conditionalities/aggreements to improve implemen-tation.

- The low level of renumeration within the ADP system relativeto other sectors created difficulty in retaining high levelprofessional/technical staff in posts.

- The group formation concept within the WIA and otherbeneficiary user's associations has enabled these groups toembark on laudable projects which benefitted them asindividuals, groups as well as the community.

iv

NIGERIA:"e Cs Eel s , e R > \ XMULTI-STATE

AGRICULTURAL-ake DEVELOPMENT

'6 / {:A'e ', J-.O0AI>S=PROJECT IIIPROJECT STATES:

MSADP III

BORNO i agog StateOnido) State

MAIDUGURI Oyc State

Rivers State

s tr: t ^; ( nvJ t K*4s >U\t Ss \, r i d { E COMPLETED:

Ceser,So/rA I 9 BAUCHI Sy __ 1 Funtua (Loan 1092-UNI)Resenwir BAUCHI ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~2 Gusau (Loan 1099-UNI)

3 Gomnbe (Loan 1164-UNI)

ml > \ANA e2 p <4 Ayangba (Loan 1455-UNI)

5 Lafia (Loan 1454-UNI)

v; 79 2 X-) ) v < YOLA J , > 6 Bida (Loan 1667-UNI)

7 lorin (Loan 1668-UN!)

E Ikiti Akoko (Loan 1854-UNI)

0- YO 4 u gNJ / a_5gJ <g9 Oyo North (Loan 1838-UNI)

EXIST!ING:

I. ~~~Bauchi St. (Loan 1981 -UN!)Sokoto St. (Loan 2185-UN!)

Ct 4 ,X NITY 2ffiS > P at^ ^ Y y Rivers Kano St. (Loan 1982-UNI)__________ IC~~~~~~~~~~~~~~r aduna St. (Loan 2436-UN!)

readen and,s tcIusivt for the l*Z n National Capital MSADP I (Loan 2733-UNI)

.sed ad -. -olye shown ® State Capitals Borno (Loan 2741-UNi)

nD,:!tLAA Gulf e3f Guir7ea K z ' ' 'APPROVED: MSADP if9 Gulf of Guinea ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~International Boundaries - 1g.S?

CT KILOMETERS OL ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~40 80 120 160 K-aaStateMILES 6 20 40 60 80 100 Niger State

xr _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

IBRD 20799

/ ~~~~ o~~~- -~~~~ N I G E R _>

BU RKINA FASO . SOKOTO I _ KAT.S INA - . rV. ti/\ _

z X a W -. \ 1- K~~~~~~KA N O - i2;j 79 )Sl/

KANO Br 0 R N 0 1

j I cNp 4'-~~~~~~ ~~ ~ ~~~~~KADN -- I

or < \-- xp--/ K A D U N A t Z X - F <~~~B AU C/ I B E N I N g essezvos \ * < ( ' ) ~~~~-KADUNA C ) ,,_ y,w

( tC N I G-E R gtsNA S t 1 > / ) 9 \ 4 - HAD 1~~~BLICHI

AD//S\tf\ TER/ORS LA EA /9 _N I G-ERIA>/~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~,tN .HADI

b ( G LAL= GIUTUA EEOMN

fE9R L @

-6' 4 .z 7 J F S ~lp - ,/ tS5_, Nl I G E R Iwm Ao

e. ;_ILMO > ROSS MULhTICCAATRScsCF elfv -POETSTATES

_ieww~~ YO Q Q_ 0mlk Nf G 0 EA lARICULTRA,) DEEcl gclZns lce}|tnhs OP1<lMblE NdlTe

S |~~~~ E N UY E 8

IMAGING

Report No.: 16767Type: ICR

world bank documentdocuments.worldbank.org/curated/en/254591468292893960/... · 2016-07-12 ·...

Documents