african development fund · adf african development fund ... the 2016 outlook is for slow economic...
TRANSCRIPT
AFRICAN DEVELOPMENT FUND
NIGERIA
PLATEAU STATE POTATO VALUE CHAIN SUPPORT PROJECT (PS-PVCP)
RDNG/AHAI/PGCL DEPARTMENTS
March 2017
P
ubli
c D
iscl
osu
re A
uth
ori
zed
P
ubli
c D
iscl
osu
re A
uth
ori
zed
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page Currency Equivalents…………………………..………………………………………………………… i
Fiscal Year……………………………………………………………………………………………… i
Weights and Measures ...................................................................................................... i
Acronyms and Abbreviations…………………………………………………………… i
Program information sheet .............................................................................................. iii
Project Summary ............................................................................................................. iv
1. STRATEGIC THRUSTRATIONALE................................................................ 1
1.1 Project Linkages with Country Strategies and Objectives .......................................1
1.2 Rationale for Bank’s Involvement ...........................................................................1
1.3 Donors Coordination ................................................................................................3
2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION.......................................................................... .....3
2.1 Project objectives ....................................................................................................3
2.2 Project Components ................................................................................................3
2.3 Technical Solutions Retained and Other Alternatives Explored .............................4
2.4 Project Type ...........................................................................................................5
2.5 Project Cost and Financing Arrangements .............................................................5
2.6 Project Beneficiaries ..............................................................................................7
2.7 Participatory Process for Project Formulation, Design and Implementation .........8
2.8 Bank Group Experience, Lessons Reflected in Project Design .............................8
2.9 Project’s Performance Indicators ...........................................................................9
3. PROJECT FEASIBILITY............................................................................. 10
3.1 Economic and Financial Performance ..................................................................10
3.2 Environmental and Social Impacts .......................................................................11
4. IMPLEMENTATION............................................................................. 13
4.1 Implementation Arrangements ............................................................................13
4.2 Procurement and Disbursement Arrangements ...................................................14
4.3 Financial Management ........................................................................................14
4.4 Monitoring & Evaluation ....................................................................................15
4.5 Governance ..........................................................................................................16
4.6 Risks, Management and Mitigation measures .....................................................16
4.7 Sustainability .......................................................................................................16
5. LEGAL INSTRUMENTS AND AUTHORITY......................................... 17
5.1 Legal Instrument ..................................................................................................17
5.2 Conditions Associated with Bank Group Intervention .........................................17
5.3 Compliance with Bank Policies ............................................................................18
6. RECOMMENDATION ........................................................................................18
List of Tables Page
Table 1.1 Donor Support to Agriculture in Nigeria ..........................................................2
Table 2.1. Table 2.1: Program Components ......................................................................4
Table 2.2. Technical Alternatives Considered and Reasons for Rejection .......................5
Table 2.3. Project Cost Estimates by Components ...........................................................5
Table 2.3. Source of financing ..........................................................................................6
Table 2.5. Project Cost by Category of Expenditure .........................................................7
Table 2.6. Category of Expenditure by Sources of Financing ..........................................9
Table 2.7. Expenditure Schedule by Component (UA million) ........................................9
Table 2.8. Consideration of Lessons Learnt in Project Design .......................................10
Table 3.1. Summary of Sensitivity Analysis ...................................................................11
Table 4.1. Potential Risk and Mitigation Measures ........................................................17
Appendices
Appendix 1a: Country Comparative Socio-Economic Indicators
Appendix 1b: Unemployment Rates by states in Nigeria
Appendix II: AfDB’s portfolio in Nigeria
Appendix III: Map of the Project Area
Appendix IV: Organizational Structure for Program Implementation
i
Currency Equivalents
October, 2016
1 UA 1.40 US$
1US$ 312.28 Naira
1 UA 435.43 Naira
Fiscal Year
01 January – 31 December
Weights and Measures
1 metric ton 2204 pounds (lbs)
1 kilogram (kg) 2.200 lbs
1 meter (m) 3.28 feet (ft)
1 millimetre (mm) 0.03937 inch (“)
1 kilometre (km) 0.62 mile
1 hectare (ha) 2.471 acres
Acronyms and Abbreviations
ADF African Development Fund
AfDB African Development Bank
AgSS Agricultural Sector Strategy of the African Development Bank
APPB Annual Performance Plan and Budget
APP Agricultural Promotion Policy
ADWG Agriculture Donor Working Group
ATA Agricultural Transformation Agenda
CBN Central Bank of Nigeria
CIDA Canadian International Development Agency
CSP Country’s Strategy Paper
CPM Country Portfolio Manager
CPMT Country Project Management Team
CPPR Country Portfolio Performance Review
DANIDA Danish International Development Agency
DfID Department for International Development
DPs Development Partners
ERR Economic Rate of Return
EU European Union
RBLF Results-Based Logical Framework
FMARD Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development
FAO Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations
FIRR Financial Internal Rate of Return
FGN Federal Government of Nigeria
GAP Gender Action Plan
GDP Gross domestic product
GIZ German Technical Cooperation
GoN Government of Nigeria
GoP Government of Plateau State
GPRS-I Nigeria Poverty Reduction Strategy-Phase I
GPRS II Growth and Poverty Reduction Strategy-Phase II
ii
IE Interim Evaluation
IFAD International Fund for Agricultural Development
IMF International Monetary Fund
JICA Japan International Cooperation Agency
MDA Ministries, Departments and Agencies
M&E Monitoring and Evaluation
MGF Matching Grant Fund
MOFEP Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning
MSME Micro Small and Medium Scale Enterprise
MTNDP Medium Term National Development Plan
MTR Mid-Term Review
NGO Non-Governmental Organization
NBS National Bureau for Statistics
NGN Nigerian Naira
NCO National Coordination Office
NRCRI National Root Crop Research Institute Kuru
PDR Project Design Report
PFI Participating Financial Institution
PIU Project Implementation Unit
PCVPMT Potato Value Chain Project Management Team
PCR Project Completion Report
PSC Project Steering Committee
PS-PVCP Plateau State Potato Value Chain Support Project
QA Quality Assurance
SC Steering Committee
SSC State Steering Committee
SIUs State Implementation Units
SI Sensitivity Indicator
SDC Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation
SDF Skills Development Fund
SSE Small Scale Enterprises
SV Switching Value
TA Technical Assistance
UN United Nations
UNDP United Nations Development Project
UNICEF United Nations International Children’s Education Fund
UNODC United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime
USD United State Dollar
USAID United States Agency for International Development
WHO World Health Organisation
iii
Loan Information
Client’s information
__________________________________________________________________________________
BORROWER: Federal Republic of Nigeria (for the Plateau State Potato Value Chain Support
Project)
EXECUTING AGENCY: Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (FMARD)
Table 1. Financing plan
S/N Source Amount (Million) Instrument
UA US$ 1 ADF 8.0 11.2 Loan
4 Plateau State Government 1.3 1.82 Own Fund
5 Beneficiaries 0.1 0.154 Own Fund (In-kind)
TOTAL PROJECT COST 9.4 13.2 -
Table 2. ADF’s key financing information
Loan currency UA
Interest type 1% fixed
Interest rate spread None
Commitment fee 50 bps
Other fees: Service Charge 75 bps/yr on undisbursed amount
Tenor 30 years
Grace period 5 years
Table 3. Project Financial and Economic Performance
FIRR Project 49%
ERR Overall Project 29%
Sensitivity Analysis
Item Change NPV IRR % SI (NPV) SV(NPV)
Base Case 4.2
Investment +20% 3.9 24.9 10.1 10%
Benefits -20% 3.2 21.4 13.2 9%
Implementation delays one year 3.6 25.8 12.1 7%
SI = sensitivity indicator, SV = switching value
Table 4. Timeframe - Main Milestones (expected)
S/N Description Timing
1 Concept Note approval August, 2016
2 Project Preparation August, 2016
3 Project Appraisal mission October, 2016
4 Preparation of draft PAR including
Internal Review Process to (Peer
Reviewers, Country Team Meetings, etc)
November, 2016
5 Proposed Negotiation Dates February, 2017
6 Project approval March, 2017
7 Effectiveness June, 2017
8 Completion June, 2020
9 Disbursement closing Date December, 2020
iv
Project Summary 1. Project Overview
1.1 The Federal Government of Nigeria (FGN) through the present Agricultural Promotion
Policy (APP) has placed high priority on developing value chains of crops and livestock as a
key instrument to drive sustained prosperity for all Nigerians in domestic food security goals,
exports, improve the competitiveness of the Potato commodity value chain and supporting
sustainable income and job growth. The APP is anchored on three main pillars (Pillar 1:
Promotion of agricultural investment; Pillar 2: Financing agricultural development projects and
Pillar 3: Research for agricultural innovation and productivity. This project will contribute to
the APP (2016-2020) strategic pillar of “Promotion of agricultural investment & Financing
agricultural development projects”.
1.2 The economic situation in the 36 States of Nigeria is worsening daily. Poverty has risen
with almost 113 million people living on less than a $1 (£0.63) a day, with 69% of Nigerians
in 2010 living in absolute poverty (The Nigeria Poverty Profile 2010-National Bureau of
Statistics 2014)-this figure had risen from 54.7% in 2004 and this rising trend continues to the
present recession period. According to the National Bureau of Statistics, Plateau State is among
the 10 poorest states in Nigeria with over 70% poverty rate. Plateau State recognised the need
to explore its comparative advantage in the area of agriculture to move the vision of
transforming the state economic fortunes for the better. Therefore, the agenda of the present
Plateau state government is to diversify into agriculture through supporting an intervention that
the state has comparative advantage to boost economic activities in the state, region and nation;
yield the desired goal of employment generation; improve competitiveness of the potato
commodity value chain; and increase incomes of the commodity value chain stakeholders.
1.3 The proposed Potato Value Chain Support Project aims to contribute to employment
generation and shared wealth creation along the potato commodity value chain, as well as food
security through increased access to rural infrastructure. The project’s specific objective is to
increase, on a sustainable basis, the income of smallholder farmers and rural entrepreneurs that
are engaged in the production, processing, storage and marketing of Potato. Key Indicators of
outcomes of the Potato Value Chain Support Project include: additional income of farmers and
rural entrepreneurs (50% of which for women), increased access to social and rural
infrastructure works in the project area; and an improvement in the food security situation of
food secure beneficiaries in the Project area (50% of which for women). An impact indicator is
the additional jobs created (of which 50% are women). The total number of direct household
beneficiaries targeted by the project is estimated at 11,500 households creating 60,000 jobs
along the value chain of priority commodity of which 50% will be women.
2. Needs Assessment
2.1 Nigeria’s economy is currently witnessing a slow growth rate which is due to the fall in
global oil prices. This development has impacted on Nigeria’s economic activity, fiscal revenue
and international reserves. Growth slowed from 6.3% in 2014 to an estimated 2.7% in 2015.
The 2016 outlook is for slow economic recovery with real GDP growth to decline to 2.3%
before recovering to 3.5% in 2017. This downward trend has called for the need for the various
State Governments to diversify the economy through agriculture and solid minerals. Agriculture
(both upstream and downstream) has the capacity to employ the larger percentage of the 4 to 5
million young people that annually enter the labour market without finding formal employment.
The 5 Pillar Policy of the present Government of Plateau State reveals the critical need for
interventions namely: (i) Peace, Security and Good governance; (ii)Human Capital
Development and Social welfare; (iii) Agriculture and Rural Development; (iv)
v
Entrepreneurship, Industrialization and Wealth Creation; (v) Physical Infrastructure and
Environment.
3. Bank’s Added Value
3.1 The proposed intervention is in line with the Bank’s Group “HIGH 5” goals of ‘Feed
Africa’ and ‘Improve the quality of life of Africans’. It is also aligned with the Bank’s Feed
Africa – Strategy for Agricultural Transformation in Africa (2016 – 2025). The Project will
contribute to the four strategic goals of the African Agricultural Transformation Agenda which
includes 1. Contribute to ending Extreme Poverty by 2025; 2. End Hunger and Malnutrition by
2025, 3. Turn Africa into Net Food Exporter by 2025; and 4. Move Africa to the top of key
global agricultural value chains by 2025.
3.2 The project is consistent with the Bank’s CSP for Nigeria (2013-2017) and is hinged on
two strategic pillars: (i) supporting the development of a sound policy environment and (ii)
investing in critical infrastructure to promote the development of the real sector of the economy.
In March 2016, a Mid-Term Review of the CSP was conducted. This proposed modification of
the first pillar of the CSP to –“Supporting the Development of a Sound Policy Environment for
Social Inclusion” in alignment with the Federal Government aspirations of curbing inequalities
and poverty. The project is aligned with Pillar II - Investing in critical infrastructure to promote
the development of the real sector of the economy, of the Country’s Strategy Paper (CSP)
(2013-2017). The project (under component-1) will support rehabilitation of existing
production infrastructure and restoration of community infrastructure such as access roads,
diffused storage stores, small earth dams, processing centers, community markets and
establishment of tissue culture laboratory for seed tubers production that will promote
development of the real sector of the economy.
4. Knowledge Management
The experience gained from the implementation of this project will be well documented in the
various project reports including project completion reports, quarterly progress reports, audit
reports, supervision reports and midterm review reports. The knowledge will be disseminated
within the Bank to be applied in the design and implementation of new operations on value
chains in the agricultural sector in other countries. Lessons from the project will be a valuable
opportunity to improve project design in general.
vi
Table 4: Result-Based Logical Framework (RBLF)
NAME OF PROJECT AND COUNTRY: PLATEAU STATE POTATO VALUE CHAIN SUPPORT PROJECT (PS-PVCP)
PROJECT GOAL: Contribute to employment generation; Improve the competitiveness of the Potato commodity value chain; and increase incomes of the commodity
value chain actors.
Results chain Performance indicators Means of verification Risk/Mitigation Measures Indicators (including CSI) Baseline (2016) Target (end of project)
IMP
AC
T
Contribute to creation of shared wealth;
employment, and food
and nutritional security.
Real agricultural GDP growth 3.09% in 2016 Growth of at least 10%
per year
National Statistics and project
reports
Unemployed as % of population 12.1% in 2016 Unemployment reduced
by 5% by 2019
disaggregated by Gender.
National Statistics and project
reports Nigeria living standards
surveys,
National household expenditures surveys
OU
TCO
MES
Outcome 1: Creation of
jobs and Improvement of rural household
incomes
Average additional
income
90,870 Household income
increased by at least 50%
State statistics
Local Government (LGA)
statistics, Project reports.
Reference surveys, studies
Risks: Policy reversal due to change in Government
leadership and policy.
Mitigation: Agricultural Promotion Policy remains
consistent and acceptable to Government.
Number of jobs created of which
50% will be women
0 60,000 additional jobs to
be created in Plateau State
including 50% women
Yield of the targeted crop increased 12T/ha 20T/ha
Outcome 2: Improved
food security and nutrition
An improvement in the food security
situation of food secure households in the Project area (50% of which
are for women).
0 Percentage of food secure
households increased by 40% in Plateau State?
State statistics
Local Government (LGA)
statistics, Project reports.
Reference surveys, studies
COMPONENT 1: Infrastructure Development
OU
TPU
TS
Results chain Performance indicators Means of verification Risk/Mitigation Measures
Indicators (including CSI) Baseline Target (end of project)
1.1 Small water
catchment structures
constructed
1.2 Rehabilitated
irrigation structures
1.3 Roads linking
farms to markets rehabilitated
1.4 Produce storage facilities functional,
1.5 Constructed wash bore/ tube wells
1.6 Constructed
community markets
1.1 No. of small water catchment
structures constructed
1.2 No of small earth dams rehabilitated
1.3 Km of all-weather feeder roads rehabilitated
1.4. No. of Diffused Light stores
1.5 No. of wash bore/ tube wells constructed
1.6 No. of community market constructed
1.7 No. of water pumps supplied
1.1: 0
1.2: 0
1.3: 0
1.4: 0
1.5: 0
1.6. 0
1.7: 0
1.8: 0
1.9: 0
1.1: 34
1.2: 10
1.3: 320
1.4: 9
1.5: 1150
1.6. 9
1.7: 1,000
1.8: 3
1.9 1
Project supervision reports;
Project Monitoring and Evaluation reports
Project reports
Mid-term review;
Supervision reports
Risk: Infrastructures are not well maintained, and under-utilized.
Mitigation: Proper t usage and maintenance mechanism put in place for the developed infrastructure.
vii
1.7 Water pumps
supplied
1.8 Processing centers
constructed
1.9 Tissue culture
laboratory established
1.8 No. of Processing centers
constructed
1.9 No. of Tissue culture laboratory
established
COMPONENT 2: Capacity Building Support
OU
TPU
TS
Results chain Performance indicators Means of verification
Means of verification
Risk/Mitigation Measures
Indicators (including CSI) Baseline Target (end of project)
2.1 Capacity of potato
value chain
stakeholders on
improved technical
and managerial skills built
2.2 Improved access to financial services
(credit, insurance) and
markets
2.3 Farm advisory
services provided on potato blight diseases
control, storage and
processing techniques.
2.4 Potato farmer’s capacities for Potato
seed production
strengthened.
2.5 Linking Potato
farmers to research institutions
2. 6 Capacity development for
Plateau ADP
Extension services,
relevant Ministries
and Departments of
government, farmer groups, private (MFIs,
agro-dealers, etc.) and
community-based organisations
(producers
organizations, cooperatives, inter-
professional bodies,
etc.).
2.1 No. of potato value chain
stakeholders capacities improved
on technical and managerial skills
built ( of which 50% are women)
2.2 No. of farmers with Improved access to financial services (credit,
insurance) and markets. ( of which 50% are women)
2.3 No. of farm advisory services provided on potato blight diseases
control, storage and processing
techniques etc. ( of which 50% are women)
2.4 No. of Potato farmer’s
capacities strengthened on Potato
seed production ( of which 50% are women)
2.5 No. of Potato farmers linked to potato research institutions( of
which 50% are women)
2.6 No. of ADP Extension services, staff of relevant
Ministries and Departments of government, farmer groups,
private (MFIs, agro-dealers, etc.)
and community-based
organisations (producers
organizations, cooperatives, inter-
professional bodies, etc.) capacities enhanced. ( of which
50% are women)
2.7 No. of market information systems developed. ( of which
50% are women)
2.8 No. of beneficiaries trained on
methodologies for post-harvest losses reduction etc. ( of which
50% are women)
2.1: 0
2.2: 0
2.3: 0
2.4: 0
2.5: 0
2.6. 0
2.7: 0
2.8: 0
2.9 0
2.1: 1000
2.2: 1400
2.3: 4000
2.4: 6000
2.5: 3000
2.6. 100
2.7: 15
2.8: 2500
2.9 50%
Project supervision reports;
Project Monitoring and
Evaluation reports
Project reports
Mid-term review;
Supervision reports
Risk: Risk: Limited capacity of service providers
involved in the project
Mitigation: Experienced services in Potato value chain
development.
viii
2.7 development of
market information systems
2.8 training of beneficiaries in
methodologies for
post-harvest losses reduction etc.
2.9 Percentage of women in
position leadership in water catchment structures and
community market committees.
COMPONENT 3: Project Management
OU
TPU
TS
Results chain Performance indicators Means of verification Risk/Mitigation Measures
Indicators (including CSI) Baseline Target (end of project)
Output 4.1:
Project management team
validated and
operational at state level.
State Implementation team validated
and fully functional
State
Implementation Team
State Implementation
Team functional Project supervision reports;
Project Monitoring and
Evaluation reports
Project reports
Mid-term review; Supervision reports
Risk: Limited capacity of PIU members
Mitigation Measures: Training in Bank procedures,
close monitoring and half-yearly supervision to quickly
correct shortcomings in management.
4.2; Procurement
of transport and office equipment;
technical
assistance, studies and surveys
Procurement completed Transport and office
equipment; technical assistance, studies
and surveys.
Transport and office
equipment; technical assistance, studies and
surveys.
Risk: Cumbersome procurement procedures will slow
disbursement. Mitigation: Procurement simplified to ensure timely
disbursements
KEY
AC
TIV
ITIE
S
Component 1: Infrastructure Development Inputs/Activities
Rehabilitation of irrigation structures; rehabilitation of access roads; construction of
washbores/tube wells, establishment of tissue culture laboratories; construction of
processing centers; construction of community markets and produce storage facilities; preparation and implementation of ESMPs.
Sources of Financing: In million UA
• ADF Loan = UA 8..0 million (USD 11.2 million)
• Government = UA 1.4 million (USD 1.96 million)
Missions: Appraisal, supervision, MTR, PCR and donor
coordination
Component 2: Commodity Value Chain Development Inputs/Activities
Capacity development for relevant Ministries’ departments; private and community-based institutions ; training value chain actors in technical and managerial skills;
training in post-harvest reduction methods; business and entrepreneurship training;
training on potato diseases control; potato seed production development of market information system (MIS); management of environmental and social impacts;
implementation of policies to promote private investment in agriculture.
Component D: Project Management Unit Inputs/Activities
4.1 State Implementation team validated and fully functional
4.2 Plan and coordinate project implementation activities;
4.3 Monitoring and Evaluation; 4.4 Management of relevant studies
4.5 Management of procurements
ix
Table 5: Project Timeframe
ACTIVITY 2016
2017 2018 2019 2020
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Preparatory/Preliminary activities
Conducting baseline studies
Project work plans and budgets
Prepare, approve and float Bid docs
and contract awards
Contracts execution for works,
goods and services
Quarterly reports submission
Annual reports submission
Steering committee meetings
Bank’s supervision missions
Audit
Mid-term review
Project Completion Reporting
Disbursement
Closing Date
1
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MANAGEMENT TO THE BOARD OF
DIRECTORS ON A PROPOSED LOAN TO THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA FOR
THE PLATEAU STATE POTATO VALUE CHAIN SUPPORT PROJECT
Management submits the following Report and Recommendation on proposed ADF loan of UA 8
million to finance the Plateau State Potato Value Chain Support Project in the Plateau State of the
Federal Republic of Nigeria.
1. STRATEGIC THRUST & RATIONALE
1.1. Project Linkages with Country Strategies and Objectives
1.1.1 This Project will contribute to Nigeria’s Agricultural Promotion Policy (APP: 2016 – 2020)
“Building on the Successes of the ATA” and strategy document. The goal of APP is to drive forward
Federal priorities in partnership with State Governments in the following four areas: food security;
import substitution; job creation; and economic diversification. The policy is anchored on three main
pillars (Pillar 1: Promotion of agricultural investment; Pillar 2: Financing agricultural development
projects and Pillar 3: Research for agricultural innovation and productivity. This project will contribute
to the APP (2016-2020) strategic pillars of “Promotion of agricultural investment & Financing
agricultural development projects”.
1.1.2 The project will support the vision of the present Government of building an agribusiness economy
capable of delivering sustained prosperity in meeting domestic food security goals, generating exports,
and supporting sustainable income and job growth. The principal focus of the Plateau State Potato Value
Chain Support Project is to contribute to employment generation; improve the competitiveness of the
potato commodity value chain; and increase incomes of the commodity value chain actors. The proposed
project has the potential to create 60,000 jobs in the state of which 50% will be women. The project will
contribute to Nigeria’s emerging Vision 2016 – 2020 which seeks to integrate agricultural commodity
value chains into the broader supply chain of Nigerian and increasing the contribution of agriculture to
wealth creation.
1.1.3 The project is aligned with the Country’s Strategy Paper (2013-2017) Pillar II–Investing in Critical
Infrastructure to Promote the Development of the Real Sector of the Economy. Nigeria’s agricultural
sector suffers from an infrastructure challenge. The project will support restoration of farm access roads,
establishment of market and storage structures; and processing centers to boost farm productivity, raise
the level of marketable surplus and expand value chain participants’ access to low cost infrastructure in
Plateau State.
1.2 Rationale for Bank’s Involvement
The rationale for the Bank to support Plateau State Potato Value Chain Support Project includes the
following:
i) Nigeria’s economy is a confederation of the economies of her 36 states and the FCT. Economic
situation in the 36 States of Nigeria is worsening daily. Poverty has risen with almost 113 million
people living on less than a USD1 a day, with 69% of Nigerians in 2010 living in absolute
poverty (The Nigeria Poverty Profile 2010-National Bureau of Statistics2014) - this figure had
risen from 54.7% in 2004 and predicted this rising trend will likely to continue. The current fiscal
crisis is a sufficient signal that all is never going to be the same again thus Governments at all
levels recognise the critical importance of developing a broad-based economy, with productive
activities in every region and state. Insufficient government revenue is invested in infrastructural
development; the infrastructure system is extremely poor prohibiting growth and expansion.
Plateau State recognised the need to explore their comparative advantage in the area of
2
agriculture to move the vision of transforming the state economic fortunes for the better. The
State accounts for about 95% of the total potato production in Nigeria, and exports to other
countries including Ghana, Chad and Niger. However, the subsector has very serious constraints
to overcome in order to achieve its potential. Thus, there is a strong case for the provision of
resources from the Bank to support Plateau state government initiative to diversify into
agriculture through supporting the proposed intervention that the state has comparative
advantage to boost economic activities in the state, region and nation.
ii) The government’s new Agricultural Promotion Policy asserts that Nigeria’s agricultural sector
suffers from an infrastructure challenge. Further, infrastructure such as farm access roads,
railroads and irrigation dams are either insufficient, or when available, not cost competitive.
They are thus unable to operate to support scale-driven agriculture. That imposes an added cost
(up to 50% - 100%) on the delivered price of agricultural produce in Nigeria, making it
uncompetitive compared to global peers. This proposed intervention which is largely in rural
infrastructure will contribute significantly to agricultural productivity increase in Plateau state,
the region and nation as a whole. Agricultural productivity growth is a critical step in the process
of economic transformation and growth.
iii) Among priorities emerging from the aspirations of the APP is the need to integrate agricultural
commodity value chains into the broader supply chain of Nigerian and global industry, driving
job growth, increasing the contribution of agriculture to wealth creation, and enhancing the
capacity of the country to earn foreign exchange from agricultural exports. The Bank will
improve competitiveness of the potato commodity value chain through the proposed project to
yield the desired goal of employment generation along the value chain.
iv) The proposed intervention is in line with the Bank Group’s “HIGH 5”priorities that are crucial
for accelerating Africa’s economic transformation. It is aligned with the Bank’s Strategy for
Agricultural Transformation in Africa (2016 – 2025). The Project will contribute to the four
strategic goals of the African Agricultural Transformation Agenda which includes 1. Contribute
to ending Extreme Poverty by 2025; 2. End Hunger and Malnutrition by 2025, 3. Turn Africa
into Net Food Exporter by 2025; and 4. Move Africa to the top of key global agricultural value
chains by 2025.
v) The intervention is also consistent with the Bank’s Ten Year Strategy (2013-2022). The desired
long-term goal of the strategy is to scale up infrastructure financing to the continent significantly
not just through its own lending but by leveraging its financial resources. The proposed project
is also aligned with Gender Strategy 2014-2018 aims to operationalize the Bank’s commitment
to gender equality.
1.3 Donor coordination
Table: 1.1 Donor Support to Agriculture in Nigeria Players - Public Annual Expenditure (average)
Government Donors AfDB: 21.5% FAO 9.7%*
UA 164.3m UA
821.4 m IFAD: 12.1%*
WB 35.8%
% Tot 16.7% 83.3%
Level of Donor Coordination
Existence of Thematic Working Groups (this sector/sub-sector)
[Y]
Existence of SWAPS or Integrated Sector Approaches [Y]
ADB's Involvement in Donors Coordination [M]
Key: L: Leader. M: Member but not leader. N: No involvement. Y: Yes. N: No.; *indicative announced
3
1.3.1 Donor co-ordination in Nigeria is managed by the National Planning Commission and the
Federal Ministry of Finance in close collaboration with the Central Bank of Nigeria. In the agriculture
sector, the Bank actively participates in donor coordination/harmonization activities in the country via
the Agriculture Donor Working Group (ADWG). The ADWG, which is currently co-chaired by World
Bank & GIZ consist of 15 members: Philanthropic Organizations (1); Bilateral Institutions (7); Financial
Institutions (4); and Multi-Lateral Institutions (3). Amongst the mandate of ADWG is to promote
coherence and consistency in development assistance to agriculture, through coordination of
Development Partners’ support to the sector. It is aimed at achieving harmonization, promoting
coordinated policy dialogue and reducing transaction costs. Intervention Pillars of the ADWG are: i)
Production and Productivity Enhancement ii) Nutrition and Food Security iii) Value Chain
Development/Market Access iv) Natural Resources Management/Climate Change Adaptation v)
Financial Inclusion vi) Enterprise Development and vii) Rural and Agro-Infrastructure (irrigation, roads,
etc.) viii) Sector Policy Reforms and Institutional Development.
2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2.1. Project Components
2.1.1 The overall goal of the Plateau State Potato Value Chain Support Project is to contribute to
employment generation and shared wealth creation along the potato commodity value chain, as well as
food security through increased access to rural infrastructure. The project’s specific objective is to
increase, on a sustainable basis, the income of smallholder farmers and rural entrepreneurs that are
engaged in the production, processing, storage and marketing of Potato. Gender will be a cross-cutting
issue in all the components of the project.
2.1.2 Key Indicators of outcomes of the Plateau State Potato Value Chain Support Project include: (i)
additional income of farmers and rural entrepreneurs (50% of which for women), and increased access
to social and rural infrastructure works in the project area; and (ii) an improvement in the food security
situation of beneficiaries in the Project area (50% of which for women). An impact indicator is the
additional jobs created (of which 50% are women).
2.1.3 The Project has three components: (i) Infrastructure development, which entails the
rehabilitation of existing production infrastructure; restoration of community infrastructure such as
access roads, diffused light storage stores, small earth dams, processing centres, establishment of tissue
culture laboratory and gender sensitive community markets (70% of project cost); (ii) Capacity building
support, which is aimed at enhancing agricultural productivity and production through use of science
and technology, capacity development to strengthen the sector institutions (public, private and
community-based institutions) to deliver quality services to potato commodity value chain actors; train
beneficiaries in post-harvest reduction methods, food processing, business and entrepreneurship,
prevention and management of common human diseases; sanitation and hygiene practices; and promote
access of beneficiaries to financial services. It will further develop market information systems and
implement policies to promote private investment in agriculture (20% of Project cost); and (iii) Project
management, which entails the day-to-day project management based on adequate results measurement
framework (10% of Program cost).
4
Table 2.1: Program Components
Component Total Costs
(UA million)
Component Description
1. Infrastructure
Development
6.58
(70%)
Rehabilitation of 320km access roads, small-scale hydrological
structures for irrigation including 1000 wash bores; 150 tube wells,
20 water catchment structures and 20 spring catchment structures.
Small earth dams – 10, Community markets – 9, Diffuse light stores
– 9, Processing centres - 3; 1000 water pumps, 9 storage
infrastructure (Diffused Light Stores); 9 processing machines, 3
community markets. Preparation of ESMPs for the project areas.
2. Capacity
Building support
1.88
(20%)
Capacity building for ADP, relevant value chain actors, potato
farmers, private (MFIs, agro-dealers, etc.) and community-based
(producers‟ organizations, cooperatives, inter-professional bodies,
etc.) institutions; training value chain actors in technical and
managerial skills; training in post-harvest reduction methods
including food processing; business and entrepreneurship training;
training in managing and maintaining these rural infrastructures;
diseases control management; development of market information
system (MIS); management of environmental and social impacts;
implementation of policies to promote private investment in
agriculture.
3. Project
Management
0.94
10%
Coordination and supervision of program activities; program day to
day management based on adequate results measurement
framework; baseline studies and surveys; ESMP supervision;
program procurement, disbursement, financial management, audit
and reporting.
Total costs 9.4
2.2 Technical Solutions Retained and Other Alternatives Explored
2.3.1 The technical solutions retained are based on criteria that will help ensure the project’s success
and sustainability. Three technical alternatives were considered and rejected for their weaknesses in
generating the expected impact on a sustainable basis. The technical solutions retained are also in line
with Government preferences.
2.3.2 The technical alternative retained by the project has been reviewed with the project objectives
in focus and found desirable. Value chains are organized linkages between groups of producers, traders,
processors, and service providers (including nongovernment organizations) that join together to improve
productivity and the value added from their activities. The premise for adopting a value chain approach
is that higher financial returns can be realized through value -enhancing inputs than can be obtained
from simple supply chains. Similarly, the approach is widely considered to be a suitable approach to
inducing growth in rural areas, increasing marketed food surpluses and enhancing rural livelihoods.
2.3.3 The diffused light potato storage structure (DLS) proposed by the project will reduces storage
losses at farmers level from 40% to less than 10% and can store potato tubers for 4 – 5 months. Access
roads under the intervention will reduce transport costs which is about 38 per cent of the retail prices.
Market structures will facilitate better coordination and access. The hydraulic structures proposed will
guarantee year round production there by increasing the yield of potato by about 100%. The Tissue
Culture Laboratory will generate quality potato seeds and strengthen sustainable seed potato production
in the project areas. Processing centres will add value to the potatoes produced in the project area.
5
2.3.4 The alternative technical solutions explored and the reasons for their rejection are summarized in
Table 2.2 below.
Table 2.2: Technical Alternatives Considered and Reasons for Rejection
Alternative Solution Brief Description Reasons for Rejection
1. Considering single Value Chain
intervention point for the Potato
commodity (producer-driven
model).
In this scenario, entry point for the
project is at the primary production
level
Inherent to a single VC approach is less
beneficial impact on target groups. For
example, improving the efficiency and
capacity of processors or other
downstream actors can create additional
demand and higher prices for crops,
with direct benefits for small-scale
producers.
2. Supporting only hydraulic
structures for year round potato
production
Construction of dams, conveyance
canals and water catchment
structures in the project areas
Very high costs and not a suitable
approach to induce growth in the
project areas. The alternative is not in
line with Value Chain Approach.
3. Provide support to the project
through NGOs/Donors working in
the State.
In this scenario, project activities
will be implemented by NGOs
working in the state.
The coordination of the intervention
would be unwieldy with too many
project implementation entities.
2.3 Project Type
The Potato Value Chain Support Project is an investment project that will be financed by an ADF loan to
the FGN.
2.4 Project Cost and Financing Arrangements
2.4.1 The total project cost, net of taxes and customs duties, is estimated at 9.4 million Units of
Account (UA), or approximately NGN 4.096 billion. This cost comprises UA 2.8 million in local
currency and UA 6.6 million in foreign exchange. Base cost for price contingency is (UA 0.6 million)
and physical contingencies is (UA 0.42) million. The summary of estimated costs by component,
expenditure category, sources of financing as well as an expenditure schedule are presented in the tables
below. Detailed project cost tables are presented in the Technical Annexes to this report.
Table 2.3: Project Cost Estimates by Component Component Naira million UA million %
F.E
%
Base
Costs Local Foreign Total Local Foreign Total
Component 1: Infrastructure
Development 653.15 2,394.87 3,048.01 1.5 5.5 7.0 83% 83%
Component 2: Capacity Building
Support 261.26 130.63 391.89 0.6 0.3 0.9 5% 11%
Component 4: Project Management
and Coordination 174.17 43.54 217.72 0.4 0.1 0.5 2% 6%
Baseline Costs 1,088.58 2,569.04 3,657.61 2.5 5.9 8.4 89% 100%
Price contingencies 76.20 179.83 256.03 0.18 0.41 0.6 6% 14%
Physical contingencies 54.43 128.45185 182.88 0.13 0.30 0.42 4% 5%
Total Project Costs 1,219.20 2,877.32 4,096.53 2.8 6.6 9.4 70% 119%
2.4.2 The project will be financed by an ADF loan of UA 8.0 million (about USD 11.2 million), State
Governments UA 1.3 million (USD 1.82 million), and the beneficiaries UA 0.11million (USD 0.154
million). The respective contributions are as shown in Table 2.4 below.
6
Table 2.4: Sources of Financing
Source of financing UA, million Percent
Local Currency Foreign Currency Total
ADF Loan 1.4 6.6 8.0 85.0%
Government contribution 1.3 0 1.3 13.8%
Beneficiaries 0.1 0 0.1 1.2%
TOTAL COST 2.8 6.6 9.4 100%
2.4.3 The cost of the project by category of expenditure is presented in Table 2.5 to 2.7 below
Table 2.5: Project Cost by Category of Expenditure
Categories of expenditures Naira million UA million %
F.E
%
Base
Costs Local Foreign Total Local Foreign Total
1. Investment costs
A. Civil Works 653.1 2,394.9 3,048.0 1.4 5.6 7.0 85% 83%
B. Goods 174.17 43.54 217.72 0.4 0.1 0.5 2% 6%
C. Services 174.17 43.54 217.72 0.4 0.1 0.5 2% 6%
Total Investment Costs 1,001.49 2,481.95 3,483.44 2.3 5.7 8.0 88% 95%
Total Recurrent costs 130.63 43.54 174.17 0.3 0.1 0.4 2% 5%
Total Baseline Costs 1,132.12 2,525.49 3,657.61 2.6 5.8 8.4 89% 100%
Price contingencies 79.25 176.78 256.03 0.18 0.41 0.6 6% 14%
Physical contingencies 56.61 126.27 182.88 0.13 0.29 0.4 4% 5%
Total Program Costs 1,267.97 2,828.55 4,096.53 2.8 6.6 9.4 69% 119%
Table 2.6: Category of Expenditure by source of financing Disbursement categories ADF GOP F.E Local
E.R Amount % Amount % Amount %
A. Civil Works 6.6 83% 0.0 0.0% 6.60 70.2% 4.10 1.50
Sub Total 6.6 83% 0.0 0.0% 6.60 70.2% 4.10 1.50
B. Goods
1. Vehicle 0.20 2.5% 0.1 7.1% 0.30 3.2% 0.40 0.3
2. Office furniture 0.10 1.3% 0.1 7.1% 0.20 2.1% 0.30 0.1
3. Equipment 0.20 2.5% 0.1 7.1% 0.30 3.2% 0.20 0.1
Sub Total 0.50 6.3% 0.3 21.4% 0.80 8.5% 0.90 0.5
C. Services
0.30 3.8% 0.6 42.9%
0.90 9.6%
1.00 0.3
Sub Total 0.30 3.8% 0.6 42.9% 0.90 9.6% 1.00 0.3
D. Operating Costs 0.60 7.5% 0.5 35.7% 1.10 11.7% 0.60 0.5
Total 8.0 100.0% 1.4 100.0% 9.40 100.0% 6.6 2.8
7
Table 2.7 Expenditure schedule by component Component Baseline Costs ( UA million)
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Total
Component 1: Infrastructure Development 2.80 3.80 0.40 7.00
Component 2: Capacity Building Support 0.40 0.40 0.10 0.90
Component 4: Project Management and Coordination 0.10 0.3 0.10 0.50
Baseline Costs 3.30 4.50 0.60 8.4
Price contingencies 0.10 0.2 0.30 0.60
Physical contingencies 0.02 0.3 0.10 0.42
Total Program Costs 3.42 5.00 1.00 9.4
2.5 Project Area and Beneficiaries
Project Area
2.5.1 Plateau State will be the sole beneficiary state of the Potato Value Chain Support Project. The
project will be implemented in the 17 Local Government Areas of the state, and these are: Bassa, Jos
North, Jos East, Jos South, Riyom, Barkin Ladi, Mangu, Bokkos, Pankshin, Lantang North, Langtang
South, Kanke, Kanam, Mikang, Qua’an Pan, Wase and Shendam. The Local Government Areas were
selected based on their potential for producing potato in large quantities. Under this project, 15,780 ha
have been earmarked for development.
Project Beneficiaries
2.5.2 The project will benefit at least 100,000 farm families. The total number of direct household
beneficiaries targeted by the project is estimated at 11,500 households. Many farm families in the project
area are organized in Fadama Resource User Groups (FRUGs), most of whom were created during the
FADAMA Development Project. The indirect beneficiaries of the project are estimated at over 300,000
thousand farmers. The project will principally target organized structures like cooperatives, the youths
and women involved in potato farming. The project will benefit other value chain actors including
processors, marketers, albeit to varying degrees, in the value chain. Plateau ADP Extension services,
relevant Ministries and Departments of government, farmer groups, private (MFIs, agro-dealers, etc.)
and community-based organisations (producers organizations, cooperatives, inter-professional bodies,
etc. will benefit from the project capacity development.
2.6 Participatory Approach to Project Formulation, Design and Implementation
2.6.1 The project identification, preparation and design were highly participatory. Broader
consultation during the formulation missions was made with the Government authorities at the Federal,
Plateau State and their Local Government levels, Development Partners, value chain actors including
producers, marketers, processors, private sector and civil society. The mission held consultations with
many stakeholders in Plateau state including commercial farms as well as smallholder farmers and
women’s groups.
2.6.2 The Project concept and components were discussed with the major project stakeholders
including women and men in poor rural communities, state and local governments, service providers
and NGOs who all expressed keen interest to participate. State and Local Governments, in particular,
did not object to the principle of counterpart contribution to the Project. Discussions were also held
with representatives of the major donor community, such as, GIZ and DFID in Plateau which indicated
that the project concept and activities were within the context of the intervention pillars of the ADWG.
8
2.6.3 Key recommendations of the Stakeholders consultation meeting held during the preparation
mission are:
i. Establishment of Tissue Culture Laboratory for production of high quality seeds
ii. Support farmers in marketing activities; assist in developing and strengthening of existing
linkages and continue to facilitate new business linkages with existing and prospective retail
chains as well as processors Improvement of pre- and post-harvest management
iii. Efficient linkages between farmers, processors and retailers
iv. Capacity building in areas along the value chain such as crop management, logistics, transport,
processing, marketing and retailing
v. Improvement of infrastructures along the value chain including access roads, markets, storage
facilities and processing centres
vi. Late Blight is widespread and an important disease contributing to low yields, high harvest losses
and poor quality of farm saved seeds. The project should support advisory services and
strengthened extension support on potato diseases.
vii. Plateau Agricultural Development Project (PADP) and the Potato Research Centre should be
strengthened to provide adequate extension services to the farmers to enable them adhere strictly
to best practices for optimum yields as size and quality of ware potato is of essence at the
marketing/processing chains
viii. Improve seed potato distribution network
2.7 Bank Group Experience, Lessons Reflected in Project Design
2.7.1 Lessons learned by Bank Group during implementation of its projects and those of donors in
Nigeria and elsewhere have been incorporated in the design. With the exception of the agreement for
USD 700,000 MIC Grant for Strengthening FMARD, which is pending signature, conditions precedent
to first disbursement of previously approved loan/grant agreements of the Bank in the sector have been
satisfied by the Borrower/recipient. Similarly, experiences shared with stakeholders during the
preparation missions have been incorporated in developing the Project strategy. The table below
summarizes key lessons learnt from closed and on-going agriculture sector interventions in the country,
and indicates how they have informed the design of Potato Value Chain Support Project.
Table 2.8: Consideration of Lessons Learnt in Project Design
Lessons learnt Actions incorporated into the design of Potato Value Chain
Support Project
The need for participatory and socially inclusive
formulation and implementation of development
interventions
The organization of the stakeholders meeting that attracted
all stakeholders in the State and their potential involvement
in implementing the Project would ensure ownership and
sustainability after project investment period
The need for decentralisation of implementation to
States where the projects are located using existing
organs
The implementation arrangement of Potato Value Chain
Support Project is a highly decentralized one located where
the actual day-to-day actions are taking place and using or
building capacity of existing Government systems to ensure
efficiency and ownership
The need for baseline survey at project start-up and
robust result oriented monitoring and evaluation
system
The various site technical assessments carried out during the
preparatory stages would allow for tracking of changes,
monitoring progress, evaluating outcomes and assessing
impact
The need to mainstream gender and environmental
concerns (including climate change) into project
design and activities
The inclusivity and mainstreaming of gender and
environmental issues across the various components would
ensure inclusiveness, as well as positive social and
environmental impacts.by ensuring equal access to resources
and taking into account the specific needs of women and
Men proposed ratio for participation is 50:50
9
2.7.2 Taking into account experiences with presently on-going projects, Government preferences, the
recommendations of the past project PCRs and Project Evaluations including internal Bank reviews, the
Project has been simplified both in conceptual terms and in the structure of activities.
2.8 Project’s Performance Indicator
2.8.1 Project’s Performance Indicator Indicators of outcomes of the project are: (i) creation of jobs
and improvement of rural household incomes 60,000 additional jobs to be created including 50%
women; (ii) improve competitiveness of targeted value chain (VC); (iv) an improvement in the food
security situation of food secure households in the Project area (50% of which for women); (v) access
to rural infrastructure facilities in the project area increased by 30%. The key performance indicators for
monitoring progress in achieving Potato Value Chain Support Project objectives are in the Results Based
Logical Framework (RBLF).
2.8.2 Output indicators for the project include number of small water catchment structures constructed,
number of rehabilitated irrigation structures, roads linking farms to markets rehabilitated, number of
produce storage facilities functional, number of constructed wash bore/ tube wells, constructed
community market, number of water pumps supplied, processing centres constructed and number of
tissue culture laboratory established. The indicators also include number of potato value chain
stakeholders capacities improved on technical and managerial skills built. Project management team
validated and operational at state level.
2.8.3 The annual and quarterly reports will provide information on the progress made in achieving
outputs. The mid-term review and end-of-project reports will indicate progress made towards achieving
the expected project outcomes. An impact assessment study at the end of the project will focus on project
achievements and issues of sustainability.
2.8.4 Supervision and mid-term reports will assist in the formulation of the second phase of the Potato
Value Chain Support Project and contribute to knowledge building.
3. PROJECT FEASIBILITY
3.1. Economic and Financial Performance
Financial Analysis
3.1.1 Project financial analysis was carried out based on representative crop and farm budgets for the
various farming systems of the project areas, using the prevailing cropping pattern and looking at
incremental costs and benefits due to the project interventions. Most of the data used for the analysis
was derived from field survey conducted in October 2016. Prices used to calculate outputs and inputs
were obtained during Project Appraisal in October 2016 and they are expressed in constant October
2016 Naira.
3.1.2 Existing farm production practices in the project area are poor hence there is high potential for
improvements. Assuming farmers adopt good practices with the project intervention in areas of
infrastructure and value chain capacity development, increased level of productivity will result in
incremental returns to an estimated 35,000 farm families directly and through the effect of project
intervention will affect about 100,000. At full development, the project will be expected to realize
incremental income of Naira 120,500 per ha.
10
3.1.3 Two crop production models were selected for the project farming areas. Model A focused on
appraising seven non-irrigated crops, maize, soybean, sorghum, vegetables and fruits, potatoes, onions,
and tomatoes. Model B considered the irrigated crops mainly Potatoes, tomatoes, Vegetables and onions.
3.1.4 To determine the financial viability of each model, Net present values (NPV) and Internal Rate
of Return of the Project were estimated. Cost and benefits streams were built on the basis of actual
Project data. IRR and NPV were estimated using a 20% discount rate. The aggregate financial benefits
from crop production, storage and processing activities when computed against the investment costs for
the Project activities generate overall FIRR of 49%. Similarly, at 20% real required rate of return, the
base case financial results indicate that the Project is attractive to the beneficiaries as the NPV of the
real net cash-flows is positive, amounting to a value of NGN5.3 billion (USD 17.0 million) for the entire
project area. A summary of the financial analysis is attached in Annex B7 of this report.
Economic Analysis
3.1.7 The economic analysis assesses how the Project is viable to the entire society. It is derived from
the financial analysis by adjusting the financial prices for any market distortion that drives a wedge
between the economic value and the financial values of the items. The financial value does not reflect
the true economic value of a resource employed, thus the need to adjust it for distortions using
conversion factors. Particularly, the economic value of the exported crops includes the foreign exchange
premium associated with the distortions in the market for traded goods. Assumptions underlying the
economic analysis of the proposed Value Chain Support Project are:
The net benefit stream has been estimated over a period of 20 years.
The prevailing exchange rate is 1UA=312.28NGN
Financial value does not reflect the true economic value of a resource employed, thus were
adjusted.
Financial prices were adjusted for distortions using conversion factors particularly for the
exported crops
Inflation rate in Nigeria is expected to average 15.7% in 2016 and will remain constant
throughout the life span of the Project.
The Nigerian market is a free market and the prices are determined by the market forces.
3.1.8 An economic analysis was carried out to estimate the economic return of the project using a 12%
discount rate. The results of the analysis show that the project is economically rewarding, with an overall
economic internal rate of return (EIRR) of 29%. The summary of the economic analysis is presented in
Annex B7.
Sensitivity Analysis
3.1.9 Analysis comparing the sensitivity of the EIRR to changes in costs and revenues indicated that
returns are more sensitive to changes in costs than to revenues. The sensitivity analysis results are
summarized below:
3.1.10 in the base case, the ENPV is NGN4.2 billion and the EIRR is 29 percent. The sensitivity of the
base case ENPV has been analysed for (adverse) changes in several key variables, as follows:
(i) an increase in investment cost by 20 percent
(ii) a decrease in economic benefits by 20 percent
(iii) a delay in the period of project implementation by one year
11
The effects of the above changes are summarized in table 3.1
Item Change NPV IRR % SI (NPV) SV(NPV)
Base Case 4.2
Investment +20% 3.9 24.9 10.1 10%
Benefits -20% 3.2 21.4 13.2 9%
Implementation delays one year 3.6 25.8 12.1 7%
SI = sensitivity indicator, SV = switching value
3.2 Environmental and Social Impacts
3.2.1 Environment
3.2.1.1 The PS-PVCP was classified category 2 in accordance with the Bank’s Environmental and Social
Assessment Procedures (ESAP), and validated by the Quality Assurance and Results Department
(ORQR) on September 2nd, 2016. The proposed project is expected to bring significant environmental
and social benefits to Plateau State through increased access to improved irrigation and agricultural
support infrastructures and capacity development interventions that will facilitate the adoption of
climate smart agricultural practices. Specifically, the project will enhance potato production, processing,
storage and marketing capacities thereby improving the livelihoods of rural farmers and other value
chain actors, reduce vulnerability of farmers to precarious weather conditions, create employment
opportunities, and stimulate private sector engagement through value-addition investments. The project
interventions may, however, pose localized, and mostly temporary negative impacts that can be readily
mitigated per measures recommended for effective environmental and social management during project
implementation. Some of the potential negative impacts anticipated at this stage include those typically
associated with construction works and temporary disturbance during the construction phase including
loss of vegetation due to land clearing, sedimentation, occupational and public health risks, and
disruption to hydrological systems. Impacts anticipated during operation phase relate to the value chain
activities including soil and land degradation due to excessive use of agro-chemicals, inefficient water
management practices and solid wastes generated from processing and other value-addition activities.
An Environmental and Social Management Plan (ESMP) has been prepared which provides guidelines
for the mitigation and enhancement of all potential environmental and social aspects of the project.
Mitigation measures proposed to manage the negative impacts during construction and implementation
phases of the project include (i)limiting vegetation clearing to the utmost necessary situations, (ii) land
and water conservation activities, (iii) proper handling and management of construction wastes, (iv)
maintain environmental flows and monitoring hydrological systems, and other construction best
management practices. The capacity building component of the project will support the training of
farmers and other value chain actors to promote the adoption of integrated pest management (IPM),
integrate sustainable fertilizer management (ISFM), water management for irrigation schemes, and
waste management initiatives for storage and processing facilities.
3.2.2 Climate change
Nigeria is vulnerable to the impacts of climate change and projected to experience rising temperatures
and changes in the distribution of rainfall, and increase in the frequency and intensity of extreme weather
events. The 2014 World Climate Change Vulnerability Index classifies Nigeria as one of the ten most
vulnerable countries in the world1. The northern part of the country is predicted to experience decreased
precipitation, which may result in increased drought events and reduction of surface water resources.
Per its Intended Nationally Determined National Contributions (INDC)/Climate Action Plan, the
11 Referenced in Nigeria’s INDC report to the UNFCCC
12
increasing aridity witnessed in the northeast (with spill over effects to the north central) of Nigeria
threatens the opportunities for sustainable agriculture and overall security in the region.
More so, potato production is water dependent and sensitive to changes in weather conditions; hence
climate variability can hamper the sustainability of the potato value chain interventions. The proposed
Potato Value Chain Support Project is aimed and designed to advance the resilience of the potato value
chain actors to climate variability and change. The core activity of the project is the development of
small-scale irrigation and agriculture infrastructures that will reduce dependence on rainfall and promote
all-year round potation production. Other PVCSP activities that will facilitate climate change adaption
to improve resilience in the potato value chain include (i) increasing the knowledge of all value chain
actors on issues of climate change while increasing their capacity to adopt climate smart/sustainable
agriculture technologies such as improved potato varieties, integrated soil fertility management (ISFM),
and integrated pest management (IPM) (ii) climate proofing infrastructure (roads, storage facilities,
irrigation) that can withstand increases and frequencies of extreme weather events and prolong their
lifespan, (iv) strengthening capacity and knowledge of service providers and farmers on development
and use of climate information systems, and (v) watershed management.
3.2.3 Gender
During the project appraisal it emerged that women have peculiar challenges with regard to access to
farm lands. This is due to the patrilineal inheritance system in the area, which is disadvantageous to
women. The project will address gender issues through mainstreaming across the project activities. The
project will seek to ensure socio economic empowerment, increase the involvement of both genders in
the development of potato value chain in Nigeria; create conditions for equitable access by men and
women to project resources and increase decision-making for women along the potato value chain. The
project will promote a gender transformative approach by combining: a) Capacity building and
knowledge sharing especially by facilitating women led business cooperatives/ associations and the
development of their technical, leadership entrepreneurial skills; b) Strengthen gender mainstreaming
of PVCMT, c) Promote gender sensitive approach in Public-Private Sector agreements. Potato
production and marketing activities are mainly done by women in the project areas; infrastructure
development the intervention will benefit mostly women who do most of the marketing of potatoes. The
Project will also support monitoring and evaluation information activities that will be disaggregated
along gender lines in the reports that would be generated.
3.2.4 Social Impact
3.2.4.1 The proposed development activities will result in the improvement of local community
infrastructure as well as upliftment of social structure in the affected communities. The people residing
in the identified project catchment areas will directly or indirectly benefit. The major benefit due to the
proposed project will be in the sphere of income generation, stimulation of industrial growth and
employment generation.
3.2.4.2 The overall economy of the nation will benefit from availability of potato for individuals and
companies which will reverse the current situation to export of potato to other countries.
Implementation of the project will result in the following benefits:
• Improved local infrastructure especially in rural access.
• Rekindle youth interest in agriculture leading to much more agricultural output.
• Employment generation thereby reducing level of crime in the society.
• Increased revenue to government through taxation.
• Improved market structures, processing and storage.
• Full utilization of irrigated areas hitherto under-utilized.
13
3.2.5 The project will empower youth and women for self-reliance through processing and value
addition of potato and marketing. The will also offers new investment opportunities in the project areas
that can lead to development, value chain services and emergence of new markets that can stem the tide
of rural-urban migration.
3.2.6 Involuntary Resettlement: No involuntary resettlement is envisaged with this project.
Subproject investments will be carried out on land that belongs to the Government or the beneficiary
groups. Should the scope of the activities change in such a way that result in land acquisition, the Bank’s
involuntary resettlement policies and procedures will be followed.
4. IMPLEMENTATION
Implementation Arrangements
4.1.1 The project will be implemented over a period of three years, between January 2017 and
December 2019. The Executing Agency of the project is the Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Rural
Development (FMARD). Given that the project covers Plateau State alone, the implementing agency
(IA) will be at the State level. The Plateau State PIU already established under the AfDB closed Fadama
II project is still functional, and will be strengthened to implement this project.
4.1.2 State Steering Committee: The State Steering Committee (SSC) will assure general oversight
functions, including policy and strategic orientation of the project. The SSC will be chaired by the
Executive Governor, or his/her representative with Commissioner of Agriculture & Natural Resources
as member, and will comprise representation from FMARD, the Federal Ministry of Finance and the
National Fadama Coordination Office (NFCO), Permanent Secretary State Ministry for Agriculture,
relevant State Ministries including FinanceWomen Affairs, Environment, Commerce and Industry,
representatives of participating Local Governments, representatives of civil society, representative from
research centers in the state, the State Project Coordinator as Secretary, representatives of the private
sector and priority value chain actors and Potato famer organizations including women organisations.
The SSC will convene at least once a year or as determined by the chair. The SPIU will be the secretariat
of the SSC.
4.1.3 Project Implementation Unit: The Plateau State PIU (now known as Potato Value Chain
Management Team – PVCMT) already established under the closed Bank supported Fadama-II project,
will be the Implementing Agency, under the supervision of the State Ministry of Agriculture & Natural
Resources. The PIU’s project implementation capacity is assessed as adequate. The PIU will be
responsible for the day to day implementation of the project, and these include:
- Project planning, implementation and monitoring;
- Implementation of the annual work plan and budget, and organize periodic participative
reviews;
- Preparation of quarterly and annual project implementation reporting;
- Signing contracts with service providers and beneficiaries;
- Monitoring and supervising the established subprojects;
- Report to the State Steering Committee
Procurement Arrangements
4.1.4 Procurement Arrangements - Procurement of goods (including non-consultancy services), works
and the acquisition of consulting services, financed by the Bank for the project, will be carried out in
accordance with the “Procurement Policy and Methodology for Bank Group Funded Operations”
(BPM), dated October 2015 and following the provisions stated in the Financing Agreement.
Specifically, Procurement would be carried out following:
14
4.1.4.1 Bank Procurement Policy and Methodology (BPM): Bank standard PMPs for contracts that are
either: (i) above the thresholds indicated in Annex B5, Para. B.5.3;2, or (ii) in case BPS is not relied
upon for a specific transaction or group of transactions; and (iii) in case BPM have been found to be the
best fit for purpose for a specific transaction or group of transactions, and using (a) the relevant Bank
Standard Solicitation Documents (SDDs), (b) relevant Borrower Standard Solicitation Documents
(SDDs), or (c) relevant Third Party Standard or Model Solicitation Documents (M/SSDs) that have been
assessed as fit-for-purpose.
The use of the Bank’s Procurement Methods and Procedures (BPM) is justifiable considering the
substantial country risks and the high prohibitive procurement practices risks identified in Annex B5.
However, the Borrower Procurement Systems will be progressively used after implementation of the
Action plan that will address the identified risks. The strategy is to adopt a risk-based approach to
procurement execution and oversight to significantly improve efficiency and transparency in
procurement thereby reducing waste in public expenditure.
4.1.4.2 Procurement Risks and Capacity Assessment (PRCA): the assessment of procurement risks at
the Country, Sector, and Project levels and of procurement capacity at the Executing Agency (EA), were
undertaken for the project and the output have informed the decisions on the procurement regimes (BPS,
Bank or Third party) being used for specific transactions or groups of similar transactions under the
project. The Plateau State has recently passed the State Public Procurement Act, however, the State
Regulatory body is yet to be constituted. In this regard, the Bank’s Procurement Methods and Procedures
will be used under project. The Executing Agency implemented the FADAMA I and FADAMA II under
the Bank’s and World Bank financing, and therefore has the requisite capacity to execute the Potato
Value Chain Project. In addition, the proposed staffing were the same who implemented the listed
projects and have therefore capacity to implement the project. Market analysis of the service providers
in the Plateau State shows that they are sufficient to ensure competition and the historic analysis of
contracts awarded for similar activities through the FADAMA I and II show that no foreign firms won
any of the contracts.
The appropriate risks mitigation measures have been included in the procurement PRCA action plan
proposed in Annex B5, Para. 5.3.8.
Financial Management Reporting, Auditing and Disbursement
Financial Management
4.1.5 The Bank’s latest Country Fiduciary Risk Assessment (CFRA) of the Federal Republic of
Nigeria’s Public Financial Management (PFM) systems was conducted in 2012 and updated in March
2016 rated the overall fiduciary risk in Nigeria as Substantial. This project will be implemented in
Plateau State, whose Public Financial Management (PFM) is independent of the Country’s overall
fiduciary risk. The latest Plateau State’s Public Expenditure Financial Accountability (PEFA) was
finalized in August 2009 and has not been updated since then. In line with the Paris Declaration on Aid
Effectiveness and Accra Agenda for Action, the project will make use of the existing State Fadama
Development Project (now known as Potato Value Chain Project) financial management systems. The
overall responsibility of financial management (including Budgeting, Accounting system, and Internal
Control, Treasury Management/Funds Flow, Financial Reporting and External Audit arrangements)
rests with the PIU already established under the AfDB closed Fadama II project.
4.1.6 The Project Financial Management Function will be implemented within the structure of
PVCPMT under the leadership of the Project Accountant (PA) supported by other staff. The Project
Accountant who has adequate qualifications and well experienced in the Bank’s and World Bank’s
funded projects will be assigned to carry out the finance function of the Project. However, the PA still
15
needs training in the Bank’s currents financial reporting requirements and International Public Sector
Accounting Standards (IPSAS) which is now the framework for financial reporting in all public entities
in Nigeria. To effectively manage and implement the Project, a Project Implementation Manual (PIM)
with specific provisions for Financial Management (FM) will need to be developed to guide the FM
staff in the discharge of their terms of reference.
4.1.7 In term of reporting, the project will prepare quarterly reports (Financial and Physical) in format
acceptable to the Bank and submit them to the Bank 45 days after the end of each quarter. The project
will also prepare annual financial statements in line with IPSAS Accrual Basis to be audited by a private
audit firm. The current flexible accounting software would be changed to a robust accounting software
that is compliant with IPSAS and capable of generating the required financial report for the proposed
project.
Audit
4.1.8 In terms of the Nigerian Constitution, the Office of The State Auditor General is responsible for
the audits of the State Government expenditures, inclusive of funds sourced from donors. In practice
however, the Auditor General normally outsources the audit of donor financed projects to acceptable
independent private audit firms, on terms of reference acceptable to the Bank. The audited financial
statements and associated management letter shall be submitted to the Bank within six months after the
end of the financial year audited. The audit fees will be included in the project costs.
Disbursement Arrangement
4.1.9 The project will have access to two disbursement methods: Special Account and Direct Payment
as prescribed in the Bank’s Disbursement Handbook. The project will open a USD Special Account and
Naira denominated Draw-down account at a commercial Bank acceptable to the Bank.
4.2 Monitoring
4.2.1 The Monitoring and Evaluation Unit of Plateau State Ministry of Agriculture and Rural
Development will be responsible for the overall monitoring and evaluation of Project activities. The
FMARD and the Federal Ministry of Finance will also monitor project performance. In the project,
M&E officer will plan, monitor and evaluate key project outcomes and output results. The M&E Officer
will collect data and provide guidance to the project on tracking KPIs. The key functions of the M&E
Officer will be to regularly track, document and report the Project progress and results; facilitate
knowledge building; and share knowledge on monitoring and evaluation. The M & E Officer will
develop monitoring plans based on the Project’s Results-Based Logical Framework (RBLF). In using
the performance indicators and targets specified in the RBLF, Project implementers tracking progress
towards achievement of results, are expected to record changes that reflect advancement towards the
translation of outputs into development outcomes. In developing monitoring and planning indicators,
they would be disaggregated by age, gender and State. The RBLF will form the basis for measuring
outputs, outcomes and impact. The M&E Officer supported by the project team will prepare: (i) Annual
Work Project and Budgets; (ii) Quarterly Progress Reports; (iii) Mid-year Progress Reports; (iv) Annual
Progress Reports; (v) Status Reports for Supervision Missions; (vi) Mid-term Review Report; and (vii)
Project Completion Report.
4.3 Governance
4.3.1 Project Governance provides the structure through which the objectives of the project are set,
and the means of attaining those objectives and monitoring performance are determined. Based on
Bank’s experience in implementing projects in Nigeria, the existing governance practices and controls
16
have been deemed satisfactory. The implementation of Potato Value Chain Support Project requires
good governance at State and Local Governments including FMARD, NFCO, PIU and States’ Ministries
of Agriculture. This is in relation to better responsiveness, transparency, accountability and efficiency
in the use of resources. Hence, the institutional arrangement has been designed to ensure good
governance, and will serve as an instrument for achieving Project objectives.
4.3.2 The Public Procurement Act 2007 established the Bureau of Public Procurement in Nigeria as
the regulatory authority responsible for the monitoring and oversight of public procurement,
harmonizing the existing government policies and practices by regulating, setting standards and
developing the legal framework and professional capacity for public procurement at Federal and State
levels. The Bureau of Public Procurement has established general policies and guidelines relating to
public sector procurement, and for supervising procurement implementation as well as reviewing the
procurement and award of contract procedures of every public entity to which the Public Procurement
Act applies, including certifying all Federal wide procurement (subject to the Bureau’s prior review)
prior to the award of contracts.
4.4 Sustainability
4.4.1 The proposed project has been designed in a participatory and consultative manner. Actual and
potential beneficiaries have participated in the consultative process undertaken by the Bank Group and
Government Officials at various stages of the preparation process. The technologies proposed are well
accepted and will be complemented with investments in downstream processing and marketing. The
construction and rehabilitation of rural infrastructure works such as roads, market centres and storage
facilities will ensure that the communities concerned will improve their incomes and be enabled to meet
maintenance cost of their investments beyond project financing. The project will train communities on
how to maintain these works and provide simple equipment for recurrent maintenance. The periodic
maintenance of rural roads however, will be ensured by the Local Governments with the assistance of
the State Road Maintenance Agency. Project preparation involved field visits to consult with potential
beneficiaries and the project will ensure that all project beneficiaries would be involved in decision-
making. The value chain approach will fill the gap, through an efficient process technology and increased
utilization of potato as an industrial raw material to reduce the losses arising due to the perishability of
the harvested product.
4.5 Risk Management
The Project Result Based Log-frame has identified certain risks and proposed some mitigation measures
summarized in Table 4.1.
Table 4.1: Potential Risks and Mitigation Measures
Risks Rating1 Mitigation Measures
Policy reversal due to change in
Government leadership and policy.
M
Agricultural Promotion Policy remains consistent and
acceptable to Government.
Infrastructures are not well maintained,
and under-utilized.
H
Proper usage and maintenance mechanism developed
for the infrastructure developed.
Fulfilment of loan conditions significantly
delayed
M Work out easily fulfilled loan and grant conditions
1M = Medium; L = Low; H= High
17
4.6 Knowledge Building
4.8.1 The premise for adopting a value chain approach for supporting the project is that higher financial
returns can be realized through value-enhancing inputs than can be obtained from simple supply chains.
The project will innovate in the form of products, technologies, management, marketing, distribution,
and so on. The chain often establishes coordination between its participants by moving beyond spot
market transactions and utilizing contracts, vertical integration, supply networks, alliances, and other
forms of coordination. The project will strengthen existing linkages between different stakeholders
along the potato value chain which goes beyond a narrow view of agricultural development as only
based on production. Collectively, these changes contribute to a paradigm shift in the way potato is
produced, processed, and sold. The Potato Value Support Project will generate knowledge through the
monitoring/evaluation system, research centres, surveys, as well as the mid-term and final reviews. Also,
the project will develop innovative ways to track the diffusion of new behaviours and business models
through the potato value chain. Lessons from the project will be a valuable opportunity to design new
operations on value chains in the agricultural sector, and to improve project design in general.
5. LEGAL INSTRUMENTS AND AUTHORITY
5.1. Legal Instrument
The legal instrument to finance this project is an ADF loan agreement for UA8.0 million between the
Federal Republic of Nigeria and the Fund.
5.2. Conditions Associated with the Fund’s Intervention
The following loan conditions are envisaged:
5.2.1 Condition Precedent to entry into force of the Loan Agreement. The entry into force of the Loan
Agreement shall be subject to the fulfilment by the Borrower of the provisions of section 12.01 of the
General Conditions applicable to Loan Agreements and Guarantee Agreements of the Fund.
5.2.2 Conditions Precedent to First Disbursement. The obligations of the Fund to make the first
disbursement of the Loan shall be conditional upon the entry into force of the Agreement as set forth in
Section 4.01 and the fulfillment by the Borrower, in form and substance satisfactory to the Fund, of the
following conditions:
(i) the opening in Plateau State, of a United States Dollar denominated special account in a bank
acceptable to the Fund for the deposit of the proceeds of the Loan;
(ii) the opening in Plateau State, of a local currency account in a bank acceptable to the Fund; and
(iii) an on-lending and/or subsidiary agreement between the Borrower and the Plateau State
Government, relating to the proceeds of the Loan, in form and substance acceptable to the Fund, has
been duly executed by the Borrower and the Plateau State Government.
5.2.3 Other conditions:
(a) The Borrower shall implement and report on the implementation of the Environment and Social
Management Plans (ESMP), and shall submit on a quarterly basis, a progress report, in a form acceptable
to the Fund.
18
(b) The Borrower shall communicate to the Bank, within three (3) months of the signature of the
Loan Agreement, the names and composition of staff validated in the Potato Value Chain Management
Team (PVCMT).
5.3. Compliance with Bank Policies
This project complies with all applicable Bank policies.
Non-standard conditions (if applicable): N/A
RECOMMENDATION
Management recommends that the Board of Directors approve an ADF loan of UA 8.0 million to the
Federal Republic of Nigeria, for the purposes and subject to the conditions stipulated in the present
report.
I
Appendix I (a) NIGERIA COMPARATIVE SOCIO-ECONOMIC INDICATORS
Year Nigeria Africa
Develo-
ping
Countries
Develo-
ped
Countries
Basic Indicators
Area ( '000 Km²) 2014 924 30,067 80,386 53,939Total Population (millions) 2014 178.5 1,136.9 6.0 1.3Urban Population (% of Total) 2014 51.5 39.9 47.6 78.7Population Density (per Km²) 2014 193.2 37.8 73.3 24.3GNI per Capita (US $) 2013 2 710 2 310 4 168 39 812Labor Force Participation - Total (%) 2014 56.2 66.1 67.7 72.3Labor Force Participation - Female (%) 2014 42.4 42.8 52.9 65.1Gender -Related Dev elopment Index Value 2007-2013 0.839 0.801 0.506 0.792Human Dev elop. Index (Rank among 187 countries) 2013 152 ... ... ...Popul. Liv ing Below $ 1.25 a Day (% of Population)2008-2013 62.0 39.6 17.0 ...
Demographic Indicators
Population Grow th Rate - Total (%) 2014 2.8 2.5 1.3 0.4Population Grow th Rate - Urban (%) 2014 4.0 3.4 2.5 0.7Population < 15 y ears (%) 2014 44.4 40.8 28.2 17.0Population >= 65 y ears (%) 2014 2.7 3.5 6.3 16.3Dependency Ratio (%) 2014 85.8 62.4 54.3 50.4Sex Ratio (per 100 female) 2014 103.7 100.4 107.7 105.4Female Population 15-49 y ears (% of total population) 2014 22.5 24.0 26.0 23.0Life Ex pectancy at Birth - Total (y ears) 2014 52.9 59.6 69.2 79.3Life Ex pectancy at Birth - Female (y ears) 2014 53.2 60.7 71.2 82.3Crude Birth Rate (per 1,000) 2014 40.9 34.4 20.9 11.4Crude Death Rate (per 1,000) 2014 12.9 10.2 7.7 9.2Infant Mortality Rate (per 1,000) 2013 74.3 56.7 36.8 5.1Child Mortality Rate (per 1,000) 2013 117.4 84.0 50.2 6.1Total Fertility Rate (per w oman) 2014 5.9 4.6 2.6 1.7Maternal Mortality Rate (per 100,000) 2013 560.0 411.5 230.0 17.0Women Using Contraception (%) 2014 15.2 34.9 62.0 ...
Health & Nutrition Indicators
Phy sicians (per 100,000 people) 2004-2012 40.8 46.9 118.1 308.0Nurses (per 100,000 people)* 2004-2012 160.5 133.4 202.9 857.4Births attended by Trained Health Personnel (%) 2009-2012 48.7 50.6 67.7 ...Access to Safe Water (% of Population) 2012 64.0 67.2 87.2 99.2Healthy life ex pectancy at birth (y ears) 2012 46.0 51.3 57 69Access to Sanitation (% of Population) 2012 27.8 38.8 56.9 96.2Percent. of Adults (aged 15-49) Liv ing w ith HIV/AIDS 2013 3.2 3.7 1.2 ...Incidence of Tuberculosis (per 100,000) 2013 338.0 246.0 149.0 22.0Child Immunization Against Tuberculosis (%) 2013 80.0 84.3 90.0 ...Child Immunization Against Measles (%) 2013 59.0 76.0 82.7 93.9Underw eight Children (% of children under 5 y ears) 2005-2013 31.0 20.9 17.0 0.9Daily Calorie Supply per Capita 2011 2 724 2 618 2 335 3 503Public Ex penditure on Health (as % of GDP) 2013 1.1 2.7 3.1 7.3
Education Indicators
Gross Enrolment Ratio (%)
Primary School - Total 2011-2014 84.8 106.3 109.4 101.3 Primary School - Female 2011-2014 81.0 102.6 107.6 101.1 Secondary School - Total 2011-2014 43.8 54.3 69.0 100.2 Secondary School - Female 2011-2014 41.2 51.4 67.7 99.9Primary School Female Teaching Staff (% of Total) 2012-2014 48.2 45.1 58.1 81.6Adult literacy Rate - Total (%) 2006-2012 51.1 61.9 80.4 99.2Adult literacy Rate - Male (%) 2006-2012 61.3 70.2 85.9 99.3Adult literacy Rate - Female (%) 2006-2012 41.4 53.5 75.2 99.0Percentage of GDP Spent on Education 2009-2012 ... 5.3 4.3 5.5
Environmental Indicators
Land Use (Arable Land as % of Total Land Area) 2012 38.4 8.8 11.8 9.2Agricultural Land (as % of land area) 2012 0.8 43.4 43.4 28.9Forest (As % of Land Area) 2012 9.0 22.1 28.3 34.9Per Capita CO2 Emissions (metric tons) 2012 0.5 1.1 3.0 11.6
Sources : AfDB Statistics Department Databases; World Bank: World Development Indicators; last update :
UNAIDS; UNSD; WHO, UNICEF, UNDP; Country Reports.
Note : n.a. : Not Applicable ; … : Data Not Available.
May 2016
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
20
00
20
05
20
08
20
09
20
10
20
11
20
12
20
13
Infant Mortality Rate( Per 1000 )
Nigeria Africa
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
20
00
20
05
20
07
20
08
20
09
20
10
20
11
20
12
20
13
GNI Per Capita US $
Nigeria Africa
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
20
00
20
05
20
08
20
09
20
10
20
11
20
12
20
13
20
14
Population Growth Rate (%)
Nigeria Africa
01020304050607080
20
00
20
05
20
08
20
09
20
10
20
11
20
12
20
13
20
14
Life Expectancy at Birth (years)
Nigeria Africa
II
Appendix I (b)
Plateau State Socio-economic indicators
Source: NBS (2012); CBN Annual Report and Statement of Account
Source: National Population Commission
Source: Human Development Report. Nigeria 2008-2011
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Year 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Unemployment 11.8 0.4 1.6 2.8 2.9 8.7 7.1 7.1 8.1 25.3
0
10
20
30
40
50
Unemployment Rate Plateau State 2002-2011
0
500,000
1,000,000
1,500,000
2,000,000
2,500,000
3,000,000
3,500,000
Male Female Total Male Female Total
POPULATION OF PLATEAU STATE BY SEX, 1991 AND 2006
0.392 36.5 0.393 0.415 0.5
HumanDevelopment
Index (HDI)Value
Human PovertyIndex (HPI)
Value
GenderDevelopment
Measure
GenderEmpower- ment
Measure
InequalityMeasure
HUMAN DEVELOPMENT INDICES PLATEAU STATE, 2008-2011
III
Appendix II
Table of ADB’s portfolio in Nigeria
AFRICAN DEVELOPMENT BANK - NIGERIA COUNTRY OFFICE
(ORNG)
ON-GOING PORTFOLIO: NIGERIA
PUBLIC SECTOR August-16
Sub-Sector Loan Numbers Grant Numbers
Number of Projects
Net amount Approved (UA)
Sector Share of Portfolio
Amount Disbursed (UA)
Disbur 't Rate
Average Amount Dibursed
Date Approved
Closing Date Last Date of Disbur't
Finance Source
AGRICULTURE
2 138,930,000 13% 35,023,161 46.34%
CGIAR: SUPPORT TO AGRICUTURAL RESEARCH FOR DEVELOPMENT OF STRTEGIC CROPS IN AFRICA (SARD-SC)
2100155022217
1 39,900,000 - 35,023,161 87.78%
18/03/2009
31/12/2016
ADF
AGRICULTURAL TRANSFORMATION AGENDA (ATASP 1)
2100150029994
1 99,030,000 - 5,324,836.1 5.38%
30/10/2013
29/12/2018
ADF
INFRASTRUCUTURE
10 866,292,800 80% 573,997,973
66.26%
RURAL WATER SUPPLY AND SANITATION SUB-PROJECTMES (OSUN & YOBE - RWSS)
2100150015645
1 51,000,000 - 31,934,566 62.62%
10/10/2007
31/12/2016
ADF
URBAN WATER SUPPLY AND SANITATION PROJECT FOR OYO AND TARABA STATES (UWSSP)
2100150025696
1 50,000,000 - 17,714,411 35.43%
02/09/2009
30/04/2016
ADF
ZARIA WATER SUPPLY AND SANITATION PROJECT
2100150026597
1 63,920,000 - 21,884,724 34.24%
08/02/2012
31/12/2015
ADF
IV
URBAN WATER SECTOR REFORM AND PORT-HARCOURT WATER SUPPLY AND SANITATION PROJECT
2100150025696
1 134,800,000 - 778,039.17 0.58%
26/3/2014
31/8/2019
ADB/ADF
ECONOMIC AND POWER SECTOR REFORM PROJECT (EPSERP)
2100150027946
1 100,000,000 - 100,000,000 100.00%
28/10/2009
31/12/2015
ADF
TRANSPORT SECTOR AND ECONOMIC GOVERNANCE (TSERP)
2000130009730
1 195,050,000 - 195,050,000 100.00%
27/05/2013
31/12/2015
ADB
RURAL ACCESS MOBILITY PROJECT CROSS RIVER STATE-(CR-RAMP)
2100150014595
1 35,270,000 - 31,120,036 88.23%
18/07/2007
30/12/2015
ADF
TRANSPORT FACILITATION PROJECTME FOR THE BAMENDA-- MAMFEABAKALILKI ENUGU CORRIDOR-Nigeria(NCH&TFP)
2100150019643
1 98,092,800 - 52,273,107 53.29%
25/11/2008
31/12/2016
ADF
TRANSPORT FACILITATION PROJECTME FOR BAMENDA-MAMFE- ABAKALIKI ENUGU CORRIDOR-ECOWAS (NCH&TFP)
2100155015166
1 16,160,000 - 1,243,089 7.69%
25/11/2008
31/12/2016
ADF
PRG-PARTIAL RISK GUARANTEE FOR NIGERIA POWER SECTOR PRIVATIZATION PROJECT [Capacity Building Component]
2100150031093
1 122,000,000
122,000,000 100.00%
18/12/2013
19/10/2028
ADF
SOCIAL SECTOR
4 43,320,000 4% 36,316,713 83.83%
SKILLS TRAINING AND VOCATIONAL EDUCATION (STVEP)
2100150010394
1 30,000,000 - 23,710,880 79.04%
27/07/2005
31/12/2016
ADF
SUPPORT TO NETWORK OF REGIONAL AFRICAN INSITUTIONS OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY (AUST &2iE) PROJECT
2100155014816
1 12,000,000 - 11,285,833 94.05%
18/03/2009
31/12/2016
ADF
NIGERIA - EMERGENCY ASSISTANCE TO BORNO STATE TO REHABILITATE & PROMOTE SAFE SCHOOLS FOR GIRLS EDUCATION (SSI) (Equivalent of USD 1,000,000) - CHIBOK
5000199003568
1 660,000
660,000.0 100.00%
21/7/2014
30/9/2015
SRF
EBOLA - EMERGENCY ASSISTANCE TO FIGHT EBOLA VIRUS DISEASE EPIDEMIC (SRF)
5000199003619
1 660,000
660,000.0 100.00%
18/8/2014
30/9/2015
SRF
V
ENVIRONMENT
2 30,000,000 3% 21,313,393 63.21%
LAKE CHAD BASIN SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT PROJECTME/PROJECTMEDE DEVELOPPEMENT DURABLE DU BASSIN DU LAC TCHAD(PRODEBALT)
2100155013766
1 30,000,000 - 21,313,393 71.04%
12/12/2008
31/12/2016
ADF
LAKE CHAD BASIN SUSTAINABLE & RESILIENCE DEVELOPMENT PROJECTME/PROJECTMEDE DEVELOPPEMENT DURABLE DU BASSIN DU LAC TCHAD(PRESIBALT) New Project
Project Not yet Started in
Nigeria
1 - - 0 0.00%
17/12/2014
- ADF
POLICY BASED NON-LENDING
4 847,566 0% 712,534 79.79%
CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT FOR MEMBERS OF THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY COMMITEES ON FINANCE, APPROPRIATION &AID, DEBTS& LOANS(MIC-TAF GRANT)
5500155007252
1 144,755 0% 144,755 100.00%
28/03/2014
30/04/2014
MIC
ASSET MAPPING OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITIES (MIC- TAF)
5500155007901
1 513,000 0% 381,067 74.28%
13/05/2014
31/03/2017
MIC
TRADE MISPRICING, HIDDEN DRAINAGE OF RESOURCES OUT OF NIGERIA (MIC-TAF)
5500155008452
1 189,811 0% 186,712.00 98.37%
18/11/2014
31/03/2016
MIC
TOTAL PUBLIC SECTOR
21 1,079,390,366
100% 672,307,543
67.09%
REGIONAL PROJECTS
6 196,310,000
99,625,736 50.7%
VI
TRANSPORT FACILITATION PROJECTME FOR THE BAMENDA -MAFE-ABAKALIKI ENUGU CORRIDOR-NIGERIA (NCH&TFP)
98,250,000
50,384,959 51.3%
25/11/2
008 31/12/20
14
TRANSPORT FACILITATION PROJECTME FOR THE BAMENDA -MAMFE- ABAKALIKIENUGU CORRIDOR-ECOWAS (NCH&TFP)
16,160,000
1,216,391 3.6%
25/11/20
08 31/12/20
14
SUPPORT TO NETWORK OF REGIONAL AFRICAN INSTITUTIONS OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY (AUST&2IE) PROJECT
12,000,000
7,946,317 62.7%
18/03/20
09 31/12/20
13
CGIAR:SUPPORT TO AGRICUTURAL RESEARCH FOR DEVELOPMENT OF STRATEGIC CROPS IN AFRICA (SARD-SC)
39,900,000
24,589,054 22.7%
18/03/20
09 31/12/20
13
LAKE CHAD BASIN SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT PROJECTME/ PROJECTME DE DEVELOPPEMENT DURABLE DU BASSIN DU LAC TCHAD(PRODEBALT)
30,000,000
15,489,015 38.6%
12/12/20
08 31/12/20
15
LAKE CHAD BASIN SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT PROJECTME/ PROJECTME DE DEVELOPPEMENT DURABLE DU BASSIN DU LAC TCHAD(PRESIBALT)
-
VII
Appendix III Map of Plateau State: Showing the project areas
VIII
Appendix IV Organizational Structure of the Project
Structure of the Project
Donor
State Steering Committee including
FMARD/FMF/NFCO
PVCMT
Collaborating Research Institution (NATIONAL ROOT CROP RESEARCH
INSTITUTE KURU JOS)
SERVICE PRODIVERS/CONSULTANTS