Document of
The World Bank
Report No: ICR00003895
IMPLEMENTATION COMPLETION AND RESULTS REPORT
(IDA-44940IDA-52930 IDA-58490)
ON A
CREDIT
IN THE AMOUNT OF SDR 153.4 MILLION
(US$ 250 MILLION EQUIVALENT)
TO THE
FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA
FOR A
THIRD NATIONAL FADAMA DEVELOPMENT (FADAMA III) PROJECT
November 2nd, 2016
Agriculture Global Practice
Western Africa Country Department 2
Africa Region
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
ii
CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS
(Exchange Rate Effective 00000000)
Currency Unit = Naira Naira155 = US$1 US$1.62976 = SDR1
FISCAL YEAR: March 29, 2009-December 31st, 2013
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
AfDB African Development Bank
ADP Agricultural Development Program
APS Agricultural Production Survey
ATA Agricultural Transformation Agenda
BMPIU Budget Monitoring and Price Intelligence Unit
CAADP Comprehensive African Agricultural Development Program
CDD Community Driven Development
CPAR Country Procurement Assessment Report
CPS Country Partnership Strategy
CSDP Community and Social Development Project
DA Designated Account
EIA Environmental Impact Assessment
EIG Economic Interest Group
EMCAP Economic Management Capacity Building Project
ERGP Economic Reform and Governance Project
ERR Economic Rate of Return
ESIA Environmental and Social Impact Assessment
ESMF Environmental and Social Management Framework
FA Financing Agreement
FCA Fadama Community Association
FCT Federal Capital Territory
FDF Fadama Development Facilitators
FEM Finance and Expenditure Management
FGN Federal Government of Nigeria
FIKS Fadama Information and Knowledge Services
FM Financial Management
FMAP Financial Management Action Plan
FMAWR Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Water Resources
FMD Financial Management Department
FMEnv Federal Ministry of Environment
FMF Federal Ministry of Finance
FMR Financial Monitoring Report
FMS Financial Management System
FPM Financial Procedures Manual
FRR Financial Rate of Return
iii
FUEF Fadama Users’ Equity Fund
FUG Fadama User Group
GEF Global Environment Facility
GDP Gross Domestic Product
GES Growth Enhancement Scheme
GPN General Procurement Notice
IAR Institute of Agricultural Research
IAR&T Institute for Agricultural Research and Training
IAU Internal Audit Unit
ICB International Competitive Bidding
ICR Implementation Completion Report
IDA International Development Association
IFPRI International Food Policy Research Institute
IFR Interim Financial Report
IITA International Institute of Tropical Agriculture
ILRI International Livestock Research Institute
IPMP Integrated Pest Management Plan
IP/DO Implementation Progress /Development Objective
IRR Internal Rate of Return
LCRI Lake Chad Research Institute
LDP Local Development Plan
LFD Local Fadama Desk
LFDC Local Fadama Development Committee
LG Local Government
LGA Local Government Authority
LGC Local Government Council
M&E Monitoring and Evaluation
MDG Millennium Development Goal
MIS Management Information System
MOU Memorandum of Understanding
MTR Mid-Term Review
NARIS National Research Institute
NCAM National Centre for Agricultural Mechanization
NCRI National Cereal Research Institute
NEEDS National Economic Empowerment and Development Strategy
NEPAD New Partnership for African Development
NFCO National Fadama Coordination Office
NFDO National Fadama Development Office
NFDP National Fadama Development Project
NFRA National Food Reserve Agency (previously Project Coordinating Unit under FMAWR)
NFTC National Fadama Technical Committee
NGO Non-governmental Organization
NPV Net Present Value
NRCRI National Root Crop Research Institute
OP/BP Operational Policy/Bank Procedures (of the World Bank)
PDO Project Development Objective
PEMFAR Public Expenditure Management and Financial Accountability Review
PFM Project Financial Management
PFMU Project Financial Management Unit
PHRD Policy and Human Resource Development Fund
PIM Project Implementation Manual
PMP Pest Management Plan
PNA Participatory Needs Assessment
PRA Participatory Rural Appraisal
iv
RPF Resettlement Policy Framework
RRA Rapid Rural Appraisal
RSS Rural Sector Strategy
SA Special Account
SACA State Action Committee on AIDS
SEEDS State Economic Empowerment and Development Strategy
SGCBP State Governance and Capacity Building Project
SFCO State Fadama Coordination Office
SFDC State Fadama Development Committee
SFTC State Fadama Technical Committee
SIP Strategic Investment Program
SLM Sustainable Land Management
SOE Statement of Expenditure
SPA Subproject Agreement
Senior Global Practice Director: Juergen Voegele
Sector Manager: Simeon Ehui
Project Team Leader: Adetunji Oredipe
ICR Team Leaders: Vikas Choudhary, Abimbola A. Adubi
v
NIGERIA
THIRD NATIONAL FADAMA DEVELOPMENT (FADAMA III) PROJECT
CONTENTS
Data Sheet
A. Basic Information
B. Key Dates
C. Ratings Summary
D. Sector and Theme Codes
E. Bank Staff
F. Results Framework Analysis
G. Ratings of Project Performance in ISRs
H. Restructuring
I. Disbursement Graph
1. Project Context, Development Objectives, and Design .............................................. 1
2. Key Factors Affecting Implementation and Outcomes .............................................. 7
3. Assessment of Outcomes .......................................................................................... 17
4. Assessment of Risk to Development Outcome ......................................................... 30
5. Assessment of Bank and Borrower Performance ..................................................... 32
6. Lessons Learned ....................................................................................................... 34
7. Comments on Issues Raised by Borrower/Implementing Agencies/Partners .......... 37
Annex 1. Project Costs and Financing .......................................................................... 38
Annex 2. Outputs by Component ................................................................................. 39
Annex 3. Economic and Financial Analysis ................................................................. 42
Annex 4. Bank Lending and Implementation Support/Supervision Processes ............ 57
Annex 5. Beneficiary Survey Results ........................................................................... 59
Annex 6. Stakeholder Workshop Report and Results ................................................... 61
Annex 7. Summary of Borrower's ICR and Comments on Draft ICR ......................... 62
Annex 8. Comments of Cofinanciers and Other Partners/Stakeholders ....................... 63
Annex 9. List of Supporting Documents ...................................................................... 64
Annex 10. Project Results Framework for FADAMA-III Additional Financing (Till
June 2016) ……………………………………………………………………………….65
MAP …………………………………………………………………………………..73
vi
Data Sheet
A. Basic Information
Country: Nigeria Project Name:
THIRD NATIONAL
FADAMA
DEVELOPMENT
PROJECT (FADAMA
III)
Project ID: P096572 L/C/TF Number(s): IDA-44940, IDA-
52930, IDA-58490
ICR Date: 08/09/2016 ICR Type: Interim ICR
Lending Instrument: SIL Borrower: FEDERAL REPUBLIC
OF NIGERIA
Original Total
Commitment: USD 250.00M Disbursed Amount: USD 235.00M
Revised Amount:
Environmental Category: B
Implementing Agencies:
National Fadama Coordination Office, Fadama Coordination Offices of the 36 States of the
Federal Republic of Nigeria and the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Federal Ministry of
Agriculture and Rural Development
Cofinanciers and Other External Partners:
Federal Government, State Government, Local Governments, Beneficiaries, IDA
B. Key Dates
Process Date Process Original Date Revised / Actual
Date(s)
Concept Review: 06/27/2006 Effectiveness: 03/23/2009 03/23/2009
Appraisal: 02/25/2008 Restructuring(s): 03/19/2012
Approval: 07/01/2008 Mid-term Review: 11/07/2011 01/26/2012
Closing: 12/31/2013 12/31/2019
AF1 was approved on 06/28/2013 and AFII was approved on 06/07/2016.
C. Ratings Summary
C.1 Performance Rating by ICR
Outcomes: Moderately Satisfactory
Risk to Development Outcome: Moderate
vii
Bank Performance: Satisfactory
Borrower Performance: Satisfactory
C.2 Detailed Ratings of Bank and Borrower Performance (by ICR)
Bank Ratings Borrower Ratings
Quality at Entry: Highly Satisfactory Government: Satisfactory
Quality of Supervision: Satisfactory Implementing
Agency/Agencies: Satisfactory
Overall Bank
Performance: Satisfactory
Overall Borrower
Performance: Satisfactory
C.3 Quality at Entry and Implementation Performance Indicators
Implementation
Performance Indicators
QAG Assessments
(if any) Rating
Potential Problem
Project at any time
(Yes/No):
No Quality at Entry
(QEA): None
Problem Project at any
time (Yes/No): No
Quality of
Supervision (QSA): None
DO rating before
Closing/Inactive status: Satisfactory
D. Sector and Theme Codes
Original Actual
Sector Code (as % of total Bank financing)
Agricultural extension and research 14 14
Agro-industry, marketing, and trade 20 20
Crops 28 28
General agriculture, fishing and forestry sector 21 21
Other social services 17 17
Theme Code (as % of total Bank financing)
Land administration and management 13 13
Other rural development 11 11
Participation and civic engagement 22 22
Rural services and infrastructure 43 43
Water resource management 11 11
viii
E. Bank Staff
Positions At ICR At Approval
Vice President: Makhtar Diop Obiageli K. Ezekwesili
Country Director: Rachid Benmessaoud Onno Ruhl
Practice
Manager/Manager: Simeon Ehui Karen Mcconnell Brooks
Project Team Leader: Adetunji A. Oredipe Simeon Ehui
ICR Team Leader: Vikas Choudhary and Abimbola
Adubi
ICR Primary Author: Vikas Choudhary and Abimbola
Adubi
F. Results Framework Analysis
Project Development Objectives (from Project Appraisal Document) The development objective of Fadama III Project is to increase the incomes of users of rural land
and water resources on a sustainable basis.
Revised Project Development Objectives (as approved by original approving authority) The development objective of Fadama III Project was not revised during Project implementation.
The development objective of Additional Financing I was same as Fadama III.
ix
(a) PDO Indicator(s)
Indicator Baseline Value
Original Target
Values (from
approval
documents)
Formally
Revised
Target
Values*
(AF1)
Actual Value
Achieved at
Completion or
Target Years
Indicator 1 75% of Fadama User households who benefit directly from Project supported activities
have increased their average real incomes by at least 40%.
Value: N170,548.27
Value: 75%
30,000
beneficiary
have increased
their income to
151,902.46
Value: 204,814.10
Comments
(Incl. %
achievement)
Analysis of the administrative record and National database showed that the average
nominal income increased by 62.0% for direct project beneficiaries. However, by
discounting with the prevailing CPI at project closure, the average real income of
beneficiaries was 204,814.10 representing 20% increase in real income of beneficiaries.
Indicator 2 20% increase in yield of primary agricultural products (disaggregated by crops / agro
forestry, livestock and fisheries) of participating households.
\|w
Value: 0 The baseline
value for crops:
Rice: 2.24mt/ha
Maize: 1.6mt/ha
Sorghum: 1.26mt/ha
Millet: 1.14mt/ha
G/Nut: 1.16mt/ha
Cowpea: 0.68mt/ha
Soybean: 1.21mt/ha
Yam: 11.53mt/ha
Cassava 11.14mt/ha
20%
40%
29.7%
Comments
(Incl. %
achievement)
The productivity of nine (9) key enterprises indicated an overall average increase of
29.7% in the yields of major crops ranging from rice to cassava as listed above at the end
of the project.
Additional financing 1 changed this indicator to “40% increase in yield of cassava, rice,
sorghum and horticulture of participating households”
Indicator 3 10% of the replacement value of the common assets used for income generating activities
of FUGs is saved annually (with effect from year 2).
0 10% 10% 7.32%
Comments
(Incl. %
achievement)
As at project implementation completion, in December, 2013, a total of 39,715 FUGs
had acquired 247,069 various assets valued at N11,499,789,040.85 with a total of
N842,047,315.41 saved in FUEF. Accounts across the 36 states representing 7.32% in
savings. The 7.32% may not have been the true position of financial /savings, as the
majority of the FUGs were at different status of implementation, and of which some of
the savings had been given out as loan to group members for expansion of their business.
Indicator 4
Surveys at midterm and at Project closure to show that at least 75 percent of Fadama
users are satisfied with operations, maintenance & utilization of community-owned
infrastructure & capital assets.
0 75% 75% 87.87%
x
Comments
(Incl. %
achievement)
The PDO study on the contribution of SSCI and assets conducted at mid-term in 2011
showed that 81.3% of the assets’ beneficiaries were satisfied with the operation,
maintenance, and utilization of productive assets acquired by them. The RRA conducted
at Project end reported that 87.87% of the assets’ beneficiaries were satisfied with the
operation, maintenance, and utilization of productive assets acquired by them.
Indicator 5
Physical verification of operations, maintenance, and utilization of assets at mid-term and
at Project closing by surveys of randomly selected sites shows that at least 50% of assets
& community0owned Infrastructure are operating satisfactorily and are maintained and
utilized.
0 50% 50% 83%
Comments
(Incl. %
achievement)
The PDO study on the contribution of SSCI and assets showed that 89% of the
infrastructure and assets acquired were in good condition and working satisfactorily.
However, the RRA survey conducted at the end of the Project in December 2013
indicated that 83% of the infrastructure and assets acquired were in good condition and
working satisfactorily.
* The targets in this column represent those from AF1. The targets have since been adjusted further for AF2, approved in
May 2016.
(b) Intermediate Outcome Indicator(s)**
Indicator Baseline Value
Original Target
Values (from
approval
documents)
Formally
Revised
Target
Values
Actual Value
Achieved at
Completion or
Target Years 1. By Mid-Term
Review, 75% of
participating
communities have
Local
Development Plans
(LDPs) developed
through a
participatory
process.
0 75%
At endline (December
2013) a total of 4,726
(87.4%) out of 5,407
registered FCAs
prepared LDPs through
participatory processes.
2. By end of
Project, 75% of
FUGs and FCAs
have fully (100%)
implemented
approved LDPs.
0 75%
At endline 3,438 out of
the 4,561 approved
LDPs representing
75.4% has been
implemented.
3. By end of
Project, 20% of
participating Local
Government
Authorities
integrate Local
Development Plans
into their annual
plans.
0 20%
At endline a total of 685
LGAs participated in
the project, while 396
(57.8%) LGAs have
integrated LDPs in their
annual work plan and
budget (AWPB).
xi
4. 40% of
participating
Fadama
Communities have
at least one
productive rural
infrastructure
constructed /
rehabilitated
(disaggregated by
feeder roads,
culverts/small
bridges).
0 40%
Out of 5,407 registered
FCAs, 3,717 (68.7%)
FCAs have
at least 1 productive
infrastructure
disaggregated by Feeder
road
constructed/rehabilitated
, culverts, and market
stalls etc.
Small Bridges 0 67 Culverts 0 405
market stalls 0 1736
lock up shops 0 709
Cold Room 0 177
Feeder Roads
Rehabilitated 0 153 roads (531 KM in total)
Feeder Roads
Constructed 0 137 roads (413 KM in total)
5. 30% increase in
the number of
Fadama users
procuring rural
advisory services
in the participating
communities (EIG
disaggregated by
gender and
vulnerable groups).
0 30
A total of 31,673
(49.2%) out of 64,347
registered Fadama users
procured advisory
services.
6. 50% increase in
the number of
Fadama farmers
with access to
agricultural inputs
(EIG disaggregated
by gender and
vulnerable groups,
age and farm size,
land use, crop,
classes of
technology, etc.).
0 50
Fadama Farmers with
access to Agric inputs at
endline was 373,211
out of 965,157(38.7%).
7. 20% increase in
income from sales
of value-added
agricultural
products. 0 20
Available administrative
records showed that
beneficiaries realized ₦
419,016,976.95 as
against ₦
215,925,522.25 income
after value addition to
products representing
94% increase in
income.
8. 30% of FCAs
have access to
market
information. 0 30
2,811 (52%) FCAs out
of 5,407 FCAs had
access to market
information at endline.
xii
9. 30% increase in
the number of
Fadama farmers
receiving extension
services from
ADPs
(disaggregated by
gender, vulnerable
groups, and land
use).
0 30
373,625(38.7%) out of
965,157 Fadama
farmers had access to
extension services from
the ADP at closing of
the project.
Disaggregation by
vulnerable groups.
72,226 out of 373,625
(19.3%) of vulnerable
groups had access to
extension services.
Disaggregation by
Gender (Male)
Male Groups: 206,448
(55.3%) had access to
extension services at
endline.
(Female)
Female Groups: 94,006
(25.2%) accessed
extension services at
endline.
10. 20% increase in
new technology
adopted in Fadama
communities
(disaggregated by
gender, vulnerable
groups, age, land
use and farm size).
0 20
350 out of 5,407 (6.5%)
FCAs registered have
adopted new technology
e.g., Sawah Technology,
floating fish feed,
artificial insemination,
Bio-gas production, and
utilization.
Livestock
At endline 26 (7.4%)
FCAs have adopted
new technology in
livestock production
e.g., artificial
insemination.
Agro forestry
At the close of the
project, 187 (53%)
FCAs have adopted new
technology in agro
forestry. Enhanced
activities on Agro
forestry due to Up
scaling of SLM
practices
Crops
137 (39%) FCAs have
adopted new technology
in crop production e.g.,
Sawah rice production.
** Result framework of AF1 was revised significantly which is attached in Annex 10.
xiii
G. Ratings of Project Performance in ISRs
No. Date ISR
Archived DO IP
Actual
Disbursements
(USD millions)
1 12/26/2008 Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 0.00
2 06/23/2009 Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 1.46
3 12/18/2009 Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 23.78
4 06/23/2010 Satisfactory Satisfactory 47.42
5 11/30/2010 Satisfactory Satisfactory 77.03
6 02/11/2011 Satisfactory Satisfactory 86.63
7 09/20/2011 Satisfactory Satisfactory 115.79
8 05/19/2012 Satisfactory Satisfactory 146.39
9 09/19/2012 Satisfactory Satisfactory 168.00
10 05/16/2013 Satisfactory Satisfactory 200.10
11 11/19/2013 Satisfactory Satisfactory 235.29
12 03/12/2014 Satisfactory Satisfactory 260.29
13 09/02/2014 Satisfactory Satisfactory 264.86
14 02/20/2015 Satisfactory Satisfactory 266.52
15 07/08/2015 Satisfactory Satisfactory 270.58
16 01/11/2016 Satisfactory Satisfactory 273.54
17 07/14/2016 Satisfactory Satisfactory 289.26
H. Restructuring (if any)
Restructuring
Date(s)
Board
Approved
PDO Change
ISR Ratings at
Restructuring
Amount
Disbursed at
Restructuring
in US$,
Millions
Reason for Restructuring and
Key Changes Made DO IP
03/19/2009 N S S 115.79 Reallocation of proceeds
between project components
06/28/2013 N S S 200.10
Additional financing 1 of $200
million, revision to the results
framework, focus on priority
value chains of cassava, rice,
sorghum, and horticulture;
geographic focus on 6 priority
states.
06/07/2016 Y S S
Second Additional Financing of
US$50 million, revision to the
Results Framework, focus on
six conflict affected states,
AF1 closing date extended to
December 31, 2019.
xiv
I. Disbursement Profile
1
1. Project Context, Development Objectives and Design
The Third National Fadama Development Project (P096572) was approved by the Board on June
1, 2008, for a total IDA Credit of US $250 million. It became effective on March 23, 2009, and
the planned closing date was December 31, 2013. However, the project benefited from a first
Additional Financing (AF) of US $200 million that was approved by the Board on June 28, 2013
and became effective on October 21, 2013. The revised closing date following the first AF was
then shifted to December 31, 2017. Recently the Federal Government requested a second AF of
US $50 million for the project under emergency processing procedure. This proposed AF2 (North
East Food Security and Livelihood activities – P158535) seeks to respond to the urgent food and
livelihood needs of households who have been affected by conflicts in the six North East states in
Nigeria -- Borno, Yobe, Adamawa, Taraba, Bauchi, and Gombe. The request for the second
Additional Financing was going to bring the age of the project to 11.5 years since the AF2 is now
slated to close on December 31, 2019. Accordingly, a policy waiver was requested for the
deferral of the first ICR. However, according to paragraph 58 of BP 10.00, if an Additional
Financing will extend the closing date of the parent project by more than 10 years from the
original approval date, an interim ICR is required to be prepared before Management’s decision
on appraisal and negotiations of such additional financing, and a supplemental ICR is to be
prepared upon the full Project completion. Given the emergency nature of the operation, a waiver
was requested to allow the first ICR to be completed six months after approval of the waiver
rather than before Management’s decision on appraisal and negotiations. This interim ICR is
being prepared under that broader context.
This ICR only deals with the implementation of FADAMA-III and covers the implementation
period from 2009 to December 2013. This ICR does not deal with the implementation of
FADAMA-III Additional Financing (AF1) which has disbursed 26.81% till June 2016.
Nonetheless, this ICR does provide a brief summary of implementation progress of the additional
financing.
“Fadama” is a Hausa name for irrigable low land, usually low-lying plains that overlay shallow
aquifers that straddle Nigeria’s major river system. The World Bank supported FADAMA-I
project to help develop irrigable Fadama land. Since then, the World Bank have supported a
series of successive projects under FADAMA Series. These projects are now working beyond
Fadama lands, but the brand name of Fadama has stuck for these Community Driven
Development (CDD) agricultural projects. The table 1below provides a summary and evolution
of FADAMA series of projects.
Table 1. Summary of FADAMA Series of Projects
Duration IDA Loan Project approach Geographical Coverage
FADAMA-I 1992-
1999
$67.5
million
Top-down, building on
Agriculture Development
Program and emphasis on
infrastructure investment.
Seven core states (Bauchi,
Gombe, Jigawa, Kano,
Kebbi, Sokoto, and Zamfara).
FADAMA-II 2003-
2009
$69.9
million
Bottom-up, CDD building on
FADAMA-I with the
incorporation of local
development plans for a more
inclusive model.
11 states (Adamawa, Bauchi,
Gombe, Imo, Kaduna, Kebbi,
Lagos, Niger, Ogun, Oyo,
and Tarana) and the Federal
Capital Territory (FCT), with
the African Development
Bank covering six additional
2
states (Borno,Katsina, Kogi,
Kwara, Pleateau, and
Jigawa), bringing the total to
18.
FADAMA-III 2008-
2013
$250
million
Bottom-up, CDD, building on
FADAMA-II with the
incorporation of FADAMA
User Equity Fund for a more
sustainable model.
36 states and the Federal
Capital Territory (FCT).
FADAMA-
AF1
2013-
2019
$200
million
Bottom-up, CDD, and Value
chain approach with focus on
cassava, rice, sorghum, and
horticulture with export
potential.
Six chosen states (Anambra,
Enugu, Kano, Kogi, Lagos,
and Niger).
FADAMA-
AF2
2016 -
2019
$50 million Bottom-up, CDD approach for
restoration of the livelihoods
of conflict affected
households.
Six North East states affected
by conflict in Nigeria (Borno,
Yobe, Adamawa, Taraba,
Bauchi, and Gombe).
1.1 Context at Appraisal
Nigeria is one of the largest economies in Africa and has a very large agricultural sector which, in
2005, accounted for almost 60 percent of the total labor force, generated one-third of GDP, and 5
percent of total exports. Until the early 1970s, Nigeria was self-sufficient in food production with
a small surplus for export and agriculture was the main foreign exchange earner. However, the
sector stagnated thereafter for a number of reasons, key among them was the discovery,
exploitation, and exports of oil that resulted in a subsequent policy shift and resources allocations
from agriculture to the oil-industry. Since agriculture employs an overwhelming share of the
Nigerian labor force, stagnation of the sector resulted in increased poverty incidence.
The National Economic Empowerment and Development Strategy (NEEDS) explicitly
recognized the strategic importance of the agricultural sector and lists special initiatives that the
federal government intends to pursue in increased food and agricultural production. The NEEDSs
sets out a series of quantitative performance targets to be achieved, including 6 percent annual
growth in agricultural GDP, US $3 billion per year in agricultural exports, and 95 percent
national food self-sufficiency. The agricultural policy objectives outlined in the NEEDSs were
complemented by those contained in the New Agricultural Policy.
In addition to the special initiatives outlined in the NEEDSs, the government developed a seven-
point agenda for economic development based on the recognition that achievement of substantial
and sustainable growth can be realized only if productivity and competitiveness of Nigerian
agriculture can be improved. Pursuant to these overarching strategic goals, the government
professed to adopt the following key policy option: a) promote a fully integrated and coordinated
agricultural revolution through a functional public-private sector collaborative approach; b)
promote a private sector-led input supply and distribution system; c) provide the enabling policy
environment; d) support all-season farming by promoting rainfed and irrigated farming with an
emphasis on Fadama agriculture; e) develop markets and agribusiness with the provision of
adequate infrastructure, such as, rural feeder roads, good rail network and water transportation,
communication, power and water resources. The expected outcomes were: (a) diversified
economy; (b) food security; (c) employment generation; (d) economic linkages; (e) increased
exports; (f) poverty reduction; and (g) environmental sustainability.
3
To support the Government of Nigeria in increasing rural income and reducing poverty in rural
areas, the World Bank approved The Third National Fadama Development Project (Fadama III)
as a Specific Investment Loan (SIL) in June 2008. Fadama III was a national project operating in
all 36 Nigerian States and the Federal Capital Territory (FCT). The project became disbursement
effective on March 23, 2009, launched on August 23, 2009, and was closed on December 2013.
The total cost of $450 million was slated to be shared amongst the World Bank (55.6 percent) and
the Federal, State, and Local Governments in the ratio of 5.1 percent, 17.1 percent and 8.9 percent
respectively while the participating communities were expected to contribute about 13.3 percent.
About 20 percent of beneficiary contributions were estimated to be in kind (materials and/or
labor).
The project builds upon two previous projects. The first National Fadama Development Project
(NFDP- I), implemented from 1992-1999 emphasized exploiting the aquifers using simple drilling
techniques to increase dry season crop production. Wash bores were also provided to crop farmers
through simple credit arrangement aimed at boosting aggregate crop output. The lessons learnt in
the NFDP-I informed the design of the Second National Fadama Development Project (NFDP II)
to include as beneficiaries, non-crop farmers, marketers and other stakeholders who are directly or
indirectly affected by the Fadama resource. NFDP-II adopted a community driven development
(CDD) approach to provide productive assets to the poor and economically vulnerable groups and
was implemented in 12 states. African Development Bank also supported the initiative in additional
six states bringing the total participating states to eighteen. Encouraged by the positive results of
NFDP-II, the Government of Nigeria decided to roll out the project to the entire country and sought
World Bank assistance to finance the third phase of the project.
Fadama III’s primary objective was to support the growth of non-oil sectors through the
development of productive infrastructure that will enhance agricultural productivity and the
diversification of livelihoods. It involves building participating communities’ social capital and
their capacity to provide rural services to the poor. It also promotes the socially inclusive and
environmentally sustainable management of natural resources. The project covered up to 20 Local
Government Authorities (LGAs) in the States that did not benefit from Fadama II and up to 10 new
LGAs in the Fadama II states.
The project aligned with The National Economic Empowerment and Development Strategy
(NEEDS), which aimed to empower the poor to escape poverty by creating a conducive
environment for engaging in economic activities. The project was also aligned with the goals of the
New Agricultural Policy (NAP) and the Rural Sector Strategy (RSS) as well as the Comprehensive
African Agriculture Development Program (CAADP).
Rationale for Bank Involvement
The project was appraised in this context. It builds on the achievements of the two predecessor
projects (NFDP I and II) which has yielded positive outcomes and helped introduced the concept
of community-driven development in Nigeria. The proposed project supports the government’s
strategic objective to enhance growth in sectors other than oil to achieve increased food security,
reduce poverty, and create employment and improved opportunities in rural areas. The project
focused on: (i) financing investments in productive community infrastructure to increase
agricultural productivity and diversity source of livelihood; (ii) building the capacity of
4
community organizations to increase the stock of social capital; (iii) strengthening the capabilities
of participating states and local governments to deliver services to the rural poor; and, (iv)
promoting socially inclusive and environmentally sustainable management of natural resources.
The project approach relied on facilitation for demand-driven investments and empowerment of
local community groups to improve productivity and land quality.
Fadama III aligned with Country Partnership Strategy 2005-2009 which supported the
implementation of Nigeria’s economic growth and poverty alleviation strategy as outlined in the
National Economic Empowerment and Development Strategy (NEEDS) and the state-level State
Economic Empowerment and Development Strategy (SEEDS). The Bank’s continued support for
the Fadama program and rolling it out nationwide was expected to facilitate implementation over
a broad geographic area and innovation in the environmental and financial sustainability of
interventions.
1.2 Original Project Development Objectives (PDO) and Key Indicators (as approved)
The development objective of Fadama III Project is to increase the incomes of users of rural land
and water resources on a sustainable basis. The project had the following outcome indicators:
1. 75% of FADAMA user households who benefit directly from project supported activities,
have increased their average real incomes by at least 40%.
2. 20% increase in yield of primary agricultural products (disaggregated by
crops/agroforestry, livestock and fisheries, etc.) of participating households.
3. 10% replacement value of the common asset used for income-generating activities of
FUGs is saved annually (with effect from year 2).
4. Surveys at mid-term and at project closing to show at least 75 percent of Fadama users
are satisfied with operations, maintenance and utilization of community-owned
infrastructure and capital assets acquired through the project.
5. Physical verification of operations, maintenance, and utilization of assets at mid-term and
at project closing by surveys of randomly selected sites shows at least 50% of assets and
community owned infrastructure are operating satisfactory and are maintained and
utilized.
1.3 Revised PDO (as approved by original approving authority) and Key Indicators, and
reasons/justification
The PDO was not revised during the course of project implementation.
1.4 Main Beneficiaries
The Project had a national coverage and in each of the 36 States and the FCT, the Project fully
covered up to 20 Local Government Authorities (LGAs) for the 19 states that did not benefit from
Fadama II operation, while in the Fadama II states, up to ten LGAs were added to the ten LGAs
that have already benefited. The Project’s target groups include: (a) the rural poor engaged in
economic activities (farmers, pastoralists, fishermen, nomads, traders, processors, hunters and
gatherers as well as other economic interest groups); (b) the disadvantaged groups (widows, the
5
handicapped, the sick and other vulnerable groups, including people living with HIV/AIDS and
unemployed youths; and (c) service providers, including government agencies, private operators,
and professional/semi-professional associations operating in the Project areas. The main
beneficiaries of the project were:
A total of 965,157 households comprising of 383,058 (40 percent) female and 582,099 (60
percent) male, grouped into 64,347 FUGs and 5,407 FCAs benefited directly from the
project.
Also, it was expected that the project would reach at least 2 million indirect beneficiaries
households, as members of the Fadama communities not benefitting directly from
subprojects, and non-Fadama communities who will gain from the investments in public
infrastructure and additional income and employment effects.
1.5 Original Components
The project had the following six components:
Component 1. Capacity Building, Local Government, and Communications and Information
Support (US$87.5million): This component includes: (a) capacity building support for community
organizations; (b) capacity building support to local governments; and (c) communications and
information support. The objective of this component is to support measures to build the capacity
of Fadama Community Associations (FCAs) and their constituent Economic Interest Groups
(EIGs), Fadama User Groups (FUGs), to access project advisory services and project funding and
that of the project staff to successfully implement the project.
Component 2. Small-Scale Community-owned Infrastructure (US $73.57 million)
The objective of Component 2 is to support the creation of economic infrastructure and local public
goods that would improve the productivity of Fadama user households. Under this component,
beneficiaries are required to pay 10 percent of the costs of construction and rehabilitation. The sub-
component was geared to finance community-owned infrastructure, such as surface and ground
water irrigation facilities; farm land clearing and development; on farm storage facilities; farm
internal roads; market infrastructure; access roads linking farm to markets/processing centers; and
hydraulic structures to enhance production capacity of farmers in a sustainable manner.
Component 3. Advisory Services and Input Support (US $39.5 million)
Under this component the Project financed: (a) advisory services - the Project provided support to
empower Fadama users -- farmers/pastoralists and other economic interest groups (EIGs) working
within their organizations and through their LGAs--to purchase advisory services from both public
and private sources; and (b) input support - this facility involves the adoption of new technology
by the farmers to enhance their financial capacity to purchase farm inputs (mainly seeds, fertilizers
and agrochemicals) and to build savings from incremental earnings to finance future purchases.
The Project used matching grant arrangement to deliver advisory services and input support.
6
Component 4. Support to the Agricultural Development Programs (ADPs), Sponsored
Research, and On-Farm Demonstration (US $37.43 million)
The Project provided support to the ADPs to carry out the following specific and limited functions:
(a) support to advisory service providers; (b) quality assurance of advisory services; (c) training of
facilitators; (d) sponsored research and on-farm demonstrations; and (e) training of extension staff.
Component 5. Asset Acquisition for Individual FUGs/EIGs (US $150 million)
A matching grant was used as seed money to empower smallholder and poor farmers to acquire
capital assets which they used to undertake a broad range of small-scale income generating
activities as well as improve farmers' access to markets and complementary support that added
value to farm produce. This approach to financing is adopted due to the low performance of rural
financial markets in Nigeria, which are particularly deficient and limited in terms of outreach in the
rural areas.
Component 6. Project Management, Monitoring and Evaluation (US $59.30 million)
This component was arranged to provide coordination and oversight function through: (a) technical
assistance to national and state level implementation coordination; (b) project coordination; and (c)
project monitoring and evaluation.
1.6 Revised Components
N/A
1.7 Other significant changes
At mid-term review on 19th March, 2012, the Project Management did a level II restructuring of
the project by re-allocating the balance of Project (IDA) fund for Grants and Fund across
subprojects components to carry out capacity building of stakeholders, provide support for farmers
to procure necessary inputs, and acquire productive assets needed for effective operation of their
farming activities. This reallocation of funds was considered necessary to align better with the
Federal and State Governments agenda on the implementation of the Agricultural Transformation
Agenda and achieve better harmonization of agricultural programs and enjoy political support. No
major changes were made to the implementation arrangements, but emphasis was made on
consolidating project gains and strengthening the M&E/MIS system. Resulting from the south –
south learning exchange from India and Srilanka, the project introduced the concept of federation
of FCA at local government and state levels.
1.8 Progress Report on the Fadama III Additional Financing
Background: The Nigeria government launched an Agricultural Transformation Agenda (ATA),
in 2011 specifically to improve value chains of prioritized agricultural commodities. The Bank
responded to the request of the government for support by providing additional financing to the
Fadama III project to meet the urgency of ATA and provide an existing well known and successful
platform to transform agriculture in the country. As such, a sum of US $200 million was approved
in June 2013, by the board of the World Bank as Additional Financing to Fadama III Project.
7
The Additional Financing (AF) is aimed at scaling up the impacts made under Fadama III and also
support clusters of farmers in six selected states with comparative advantage and high potential to
increase production and productivity of cassava, rice, sorghum and horticulture value chains.
These farmers will be linked to organized markets including the planned Staple Crop Processing
Zones (SCPZs) when established. The project also plans to facilitate linkages between the
federation of producers and existing processors. The selected States under additional financing are
Kogi, Anambra, Enugu, Niger, Kano, and Lagos. Provision was also made for other States to
join, under a strict criterion to participate in Fadama III AF. The objective of the additional
financing is the same as the parent Fadama III Project which is to sustainably increase the incomes
of Fadama Users across the 36 States and the FCT. In addition, the Fadama III AF targets a narrower
geographical focus on selected value chains with cluster farmers. On the average, the project is
expected to reach about 317,000 direct beneficiaries households in clusters and 1.4 million indirect
beneficiaries.
Achievement: The project is on track for most activities, and significant progress has been
recorded. The disbursement rate as at August, 2016 stood at 26.8 percent. The slow progress is
attributable to the steep learning curve experienced by the project following the introduction of the
Treasury Single Account system by the Federal Government of Nigeria. The performance of States
in payment of counterpart fund is satisfactory as the governments of the six States paid their
counterpart fund for 2015, while those of additional four States paid theirs for 2016. Others States
have got approvals for the payment of their counterpart fund but are awaiting release of the fund.
Out of a total of 2,224 business plans prepared, 1,551 have been approved for disbursement while
663 are being implemented across the States. These 663 business plans would support 6,234
hectares of farms across the four value chains in the core and production cluster States. The number
of business plan implemented is expected to drastically rise now that the rains have been well
established across the participating States. Harvesting of tomatoes cultivated during the dry season
has been completed in Kano while sorghum, rice, and cassava have been planted during this year’s
rainy season across all the participating States. The construction/rehabilitation of the Agricultural
Equipment Hiring Enterprises (AEHE) centers has been completed in Anambra, Niger, and Kogi
States, while those of other States are at varying stages of completion. In Niger, the AEHE has
generated about N 2.5 million during this growing season. In addition, the
construction/rehabilitation of roads and irrigation infrastructure around different value chains is on-
going across the entire core States.
Given that the project has just started full implementation, its achievement and factors affecting
implementation and outcomes to date cannot be evaluated. However, to provide a progress update
on the results so far, its current result framework, as of June 2016, is attached in Annex 10.
2 Factors Affecting Implementation and Outcomes
2.1 Project Preparation, Design and Quality at Entry
The Fadama III project design built on the major lessons and experiences that emerged from the
implementation of Fadama II. It was designed to scale up the intervention of the Fadama II project
in additional states while deepening the approach and coverage of the existing states. Fadama II
introduced an innovative local development planning (LDP) tool and built on the success of the
community-driven development mechanisms. The Fadama I and II successfully refined approaches
for improved utilization of the Fadama land. The cumulative positive impact of these earlier
successful Bank-assisted projects provided a robust platform for the design of Fadama III as a
8
small-scale and community-based approach to Fadama development in an environmentally
sensitive manner. The project was designed to cover 20 LGAs in each of the 36 states of the country
and the FCT.
The project was in line with the CPS for Nigeria -- Report No. 32412-NG; which was designed to
support the implementation of Nigeria’s economic growth and poverty alleviation strategy as
outlined in the NEEDS. The National Economic Empowerment and Development Strategy
(NEEDS) explicitly recognized the strategic importance of the agricultural sector and lists some
special initiatives that the federal government intended to pursue to promote increased production.
The NEEDS sets out a series of quantitative targets to be achieved as from 2008, including 6 percent
annual growth in agricultural GDP, US $3 billion per year in agricultural exports, and 95 percent
national food self-sufficiency. The agricultural policy objectives outlined in the NEEDS were
complemented by those contained in the New Agricultural Policy. In addition to the strategic
objectives outlined in the NEEDS, the Government also unveiled a seven-point agenda for
economic development. The Fadama program was explicitly recognized as part of the plan.
The design of the project therefore built on the CDD approach which was successful in the
implementation of the previous project and also introduced an innovative savings mechanism called
FUEF. The latter provided for the setting aside of 10 pecent for depreciation of assets in order to
serve as sustainability provision on the project and to facilitate the observed desire of participants
to continue investment after completion of the matching grant. As part of the lessons from Fadama
II project, the design also incorporated the strengthening of the extension system through support
to the Agricultural Development Programs (ADPs), sponsored research and on adaptive farm
research.
Given the success of the past project, the design engendered partnerships. The Government of Japan
financed over eight studies as part of the preparation of the Project through a Policy and Human
Resources Development (PHRD) Fund grant. The TerrAfrica Partnership of NEPAD also provided
technical support in design of the agenda for sustainable land and watershed management which
was supported under the Project. Thus GEF was utilized as part of the Project design which fell
under the umbrella of the GEF Strategic Investment Program for Sustainable Land Management in
Sub-Saharan Africa.
The Quality at Entry was assessed as satisfactory.
Assessment of Project Design
The Project design supported the government’s strategic objective to enhance growth in sectors
other than oil to achieve increased food security, reduce poverty, and create employment and
improved opportunities in rural areas. The Project aligned to achieve the goals of the New
Agricultural Policy and the Rural Sector Strategy, as well as the Comprehensive African
Agriculture Development Program’s (CAADP) target of 6 percent agricultural growth, objectives
of TerrAfrica Partnership and its GEF Strategic Investment Program (SIP) for Sustainable Land
Management (SLM) in Sub-Saharan Africa (SIP, led by the Bank and NEPAD).
The PDO was also relevant, appropriate and consistent with the project’s planned activities and
with the government’s long term rural development strategy. The indicators were both qualitative
and quantitative and made adequate provision to support evidence of impact. As compared with
the previous project, the PDO extended the coverage of the project to the “users of rural land and
water resources on a sustainable basis.” This allowed inclusiveness and a target that covered more
vulnerable groups than the users of “Fadama land” alone.
9
The project components were properly aligned to the objectives and articulated properly to address
the needs identified. The scope of a component under Fadama II; “Demand responsive advisory
services” was expanded to include “Input support” based on lessons of Fadama II. An appropriate
indicator was introduced for its measurement. This was very effective and it enhanced the
achievement of the PDO and also accelerated the disbursement of the project. The design also
introduced a new component IV on “Support to ADP” sponsored research and on-farm
demonstration in order to strengthen the quality of extension systems and support for on-farm
adaptive research. This was an important addition because of the weak adaptive research system,
but the design made it be counterpart fund driven and this reduced its expected impact on the
outcome, given the delays and non-payment of the counterpart funds in some participating states.
Therefore, implementation of the component could not be coordinated appropriately. Moreover,
there was a lack of cordial relationships between the Programme Manager of ADP and the Project
Coordinator at the state level in some states, which also affected the implementation of the
component. It was more of a struggle for control of resources and expected roles of the NFCO and
ADP on the component implementation, which the design did not clearly spell out during project
preparation.
Assessment of Risks
The major risks identified at appraisal were: (i) inadequate sustainability of subprojects after the
project has closed and/or the grant in completed; (ii) faltering government commitment to the CDD
approach; (iii) non-payment of Counterpart Contributions; (iv) gender biases curtail involvement
of women and undermine principles of inclusion and equity; (v) collusion and/or intimidation at
the community level to subvert procedures of transparency and accountability in management of
funds; (vi) bureaucratic resistance to the initiative on the part of communities; (vii) potential elite
capture and/or abuse of matching grant/grant programs; (viii) insecurity and violence in the Niger
Delta zone may hinder community involvement and project implementation. The overall risk was
assessed Moderate. These risks were correctly identified and appropriate mitigation measures
provided. Given that Fadama III was building on a previous project, the experience under the
Fadama II was expected to provide a guide for addressing any major issues during implementation.
Adequacy of participatory process
The project was prepared in a highly participatory manner. The government assembled a multi-
sectoral team of stakeholders who played a critical role in the implementation of the project. The
team, working under the NFRA (National Food Reserve Agency, previously Project Coordinating
Unit under FMAWR), included key staff of the Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Rural
Development (FMARD), Federal Ministry of Environment, Federal Ministry of Information, The
Agricultural Development Programmes (ADPs) , State Ministries of Agriculture, National Fadama
II Coordinating Office, Federal Ministry of Finance, and some notable NGOs. At design, extensive
consultations were held with beneficiaries, local governments, local communities, NGOs,
researchers, donors, and technical specialists to discuss the project ideas. Moreover, the
government had written to express a strong interest in having the project implemented in all 36
states of the federation including the Federal Capital Territory (FCT).
Therefore, the project design at appraisal was considered adequate and had high degree of
relevance. There was high government commitment and the overall project design was satisfactory.
2.2 Implementation
10
The Board approved the IDA credit of USD 250 million on July 1, 2008, to assist the Federal
Government of Nigeria to increase the income of users of rural lands and water resources in a
sustainable manner throughout the country. Fadama III Project was implemented at the Federal
level, and in all 36 States, including the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) as well as in 20 Local
Government areas of each state, by the respective State Ministries of Agriculture. The project
became effective on March 29, 2009, and the local development plans (LDPs) was used as an
innovative instrument to aggregate the participatory investment plans of the communities and
promote community-driven development (CDD) in implementation through disbursement to
communities for project implementation. To scale up impacts and development effectiveness of the
project, the Board of the Executive Directors also approved on June 28, 2013, an additional Credit
amount of US $200 million in line with OP/BP 10.00 by aligning it more closely with the new
Agricultural Transformation Agenda (ATA) of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
The project hit the ground running regarding implementation, given that it was a follow-on project
to a very successful Fadama II. Implementation began well after effectiveness in 2009, and the
project was well received and recognized by many at national and local levels. The project had
offices at the national, state, and local government levels which facilitates interaction and dialogues
with the government officials and project beneficiaries. There was no major restructuring of the
project apart from the restructuring on Funds re-allocation that was carried out during the mid -
term of the project in April 2012.
Some of the key factors that affected the implementation of the project and its outcomes are the
following:
i. Partnership for Innovative activities: About thirty identified innovative activities were
introduced into the project implementation across the States through partnerships. These
activities increase the level of benefits to FCAs/FUGs, enhance the achievement of the
PDO and also ensure sustainability of sub-projects. These innovative activities can be
categorized as collaboration/partnership and sole initiatives. Such collaborations are with
research institutes, donors, regional bodies, agro firms, and other units within the World
Bank, etc. The sole efforts include bio-gas production, improved use of ICT services,
Fadama village concept, etc. These innovative activities enhanced the outcome of the
project and it won an Innovation Day Award based on its activities on “Conversion of
Waste to Wealth” during the competitive selection of projects for Innovation in 2011, for
the World Bank Innovation Day Celebration. The project also collaborated with AFTCS
and TWICT units of the Bank through, a programme on “ICT for Social accountability”
which was piloted for the project in two states in Nigeria. The programme primarily
deployed the use of information and communication technologies (ICT) –primarily the
mobile phone –to engage Fadama communities and enhance social accountability.
Through a mobile reporting tool and a network of reporters, beneficiaries of the project
were reporting on quality of service received. The citizen feedback was then integrated into
the monitoring and evaluation (M&E) system of the project. The project won “ICT for
Accountability” team award in 2012. Before the end of the project life, it was yielding
positive results and almost achieving the set targets set for its PDO. It won the Africa
Region VPU Award in 2013. The project also collaborated with National Center for
Agricultural Mechanization (NCAM)/Kinki University, Japan in 2010, on Sawah Eco-
technology for Rice Farming (SERIF) in five pilot States of Benue (North Central), Delta
(South South), Ebonyi (South East), Kebbi (North West), Lagos (South West) as well as
FCT. Results obtained from the demonstration sites was very positive and it indicated that
it is possible to have paddy yield increase of 6.5t/ha and 7.2t/ha as witnessed in the
demonstration sites in Ebonyi and Kebbi States respectively, against traditional paddy yield
of 1.5-2.5t/ha. The adoption by farmers increased yield of rice in states.
11
In collaboration with JICA, the project also initiated the Fadama information and
knowledge services (FIKS) project to complement and enhanced its objectives and
activities through JSDF funding support. FIKS supported mobile based advisory services
in four piloted states in order to enhance the farmers’ problem identification and response
system. To assist this initiative, the Project undertook sponsored research through entering
into a Performance-Based Contract with public and private research centers, including
centers of excellence such as the International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA), the
West African Rice Development Center (WARDA) and the International Livestock
Research Institute (ILRI) to develop technical propositions/recommendations/solutions to
problems and agronomic issues on crop, livestock and other activities. The project also
visited India in a south-south learning exchange visit to review various models on mobile-
based agricultural advisory services and eventually collaborated for guidance support with
IFFCO Kisan Sanchar Ltd. (IKSL) that operates the mobile-based agro advisory services.
Both are headquartered in New Delhi, India. The FIKS platform eventually provided a
valuable framework for the government’s growth enhancement scheme under the
Agricultural Transformation Agenda. (ATA) in 2013.
The project also collaborated with USAID-MARKETS to train the FCA members on
business plans and farm management through its National Agricultural Enterprise
Curriculum (NAEC) modules.
ii. Effective Supervision system: The coverage of Fadama III in 36 states including FCT and
operation in about 685 local councils as well as the formation and monitoring of over
200,000 FCAs was seen as a major challenge during the design stage. Therefore, the project
put in place a rigorously thought-out and designed supervision strategy, that includes ad-
hoc utilization of third-party monitoring, use of independent consultants, and ad-hoc state
and zonal implementation support missions. The project also established six zonal offices
which were well staffed to coordinate activities of a group of six to eight states and conduct
zonal supervision missions. This enhanced data collection, competitive spirits, and
achievement of project outcomes. The Zonal Coordinators reported to NFCO on regular
basis and coordinate reports and activities at the regional level. This assistes an oversight
function at the National level and also creates layers of a monitoring system for the Bank’s
implementation team. The regular workshops, rendition of M&E reports, comparison of
results across states, coupled with an effective communication system facilitates support
and coordination on the project.
iii. Federation of Fadama Community Associations (FFCAs): Under the South-South
Cooperation, the Fadama project undertook a study tour of India and Sri Lanka for learning
experiences on intensification of federation of community groups, use of agricultural
technological innovations and ICT, as well as promoting rural savings-credit revolving
scheme. This resulted in the organization and establishment of the Federation of Fadama
Community Associations (FFCA) with a revolving funds scheme and a pilot of mobile-
based agricultural advisory services on the project. Most of the states with strong FFCAs
have diversified their earnings and also served as strong aggregating units for their
members. This has helped the sustainability of project activities. Many FFCAs have
accumulated their FUEF savings and are in the process of establishing microfinance banks
on lines of the Plateau state that established “Fadama Farmers Microfinance Bank.” To
12
provide input to farmers, FFCA in Bauchi State, built and established a One-Stop-Shop-
Centre for farmers.
iv. Irregular payment of Counterpart Funds: One of the factors that delayed project
implementation was the irregular payment of counterpart funds by the states and local
governments. Irregular payments led to high staff turnover in some cases and delayed some
aspects of the project specified for support through counterpart funding. This affected
component IV implementation and the functioning of some local Fadama desk office
operations at local government councils. However, given that the project was effective and
functional in 37 states and 685 LGAs, the effects of default/delay in some states was not
significant on the project outcome.
v. Delayed payment /unwillingness to pay beneficiary contribution: At the inception of
the project, implementation was sluggish and only few LDPs could be implemented
because of lack of beneficiary contribution. This was because of high poverty rate and
sometimes the lack of trust and unwillingness of the beneficiaries to commit their funds.
As such, at the beginning of the implementation especially during the first year of
implementation, the grant/ beneficiary contribution ratio started with 50:50 and later to
60:40 and then to 70:30 for Assets. The 10 percent contribution for community
infrastructure was also not forthcoming initially until the project management carried out
a rigorous awareness campaign for community participation in order to prevent elite hijack.
vi. Communication support and establishment of Fadama Community Radio: The
project funded extensive communication and electronic media materials in order to create
awareness and prevent elite hijack. The communication strategy was well established and
adequate. It supported the establishment of one pilot community radio (CR) station in
Kutigi, in Niger state. The Community radio is owned, operated, and run by the Fadama
community on a volunteer basis. The increased awareness and access to information
enhanced the achievement of the project outcome.
vii. Gender and Governance: The project took commendable steps to ensure inclusive and
equitable Community participation at the FUG and FCA levels, thus addressing the issues
of gender and governance. Steps were also taken to strengthen the feedback loop between
beneficiaries, facilitators, and SFCOs. To enable this, hotlines were established to allow
beneficiaries report to SFCOs on cases of concerns or complaints on sub-project
implementation. The gender gap was substantially reduced and gender mainstreaming was
largely complied with. The project made it mandatory to have a third of executive members
of FCAs as women. It also established project support for the vulnerable population of
which gender was well classified. The project data was well disaggregated on gender basis,
and the evidence of many of the women groups were very successful. At closing, the
targeting was very efficient and women participation was about 40 percent. According to
the impact evaluation report, the targeting had significant impact on income increase. For
example, impact across gender shows that FIII female beneficiaries income increased by
31% compared to 28% for male-headed beneficiaries. Comparison of impact across
poverty tercile also indicated that FIII had significant impact among land poor beneficiaries.
These results underscores Fadama success in targeting the poor and women.
viii. Re-alignment of project implementation with ATA of the Federal Government of
Nigeria: The project was able to re-align its implementation to the government’s
Agricultural Transformation Agenda (ATA) in 2012/13. This was significant because the
13
presence of the project in all states provided the momentum to scale up of activities under
selected value chains of the ATA and the federal government decided to utilize the project
platform to ramp up the production system of selected value chains. This enhanced
participation of the states prioritized by ATA. It led to increased resource inflow to Fadama
by the state governments to support the project interventions. This was the case in Kogi,
Niger, and Kano states. The renewed interest by states to participate on the ATA
programme also made most states to pay counterpart contributions on Fadama. Other
benefits that accrued to project implementation included seed multiplication across value
chains, massive on-farm demonstration of new technologies, demand driven extension
system, collaboration with research institutes on development of value chains, value
addition through promoting women and youth in agribusiness, input support on
mechanization and tractorization, supporting agricultural statistics, data bank, and ATA
M&E system.
ix. Insurgence of Boko Haram Militant group: Though the project identified potential
insecurity and violence as one of the major risks during the preparatory stage, it was
envisaged for the Niger Delta only and the project was ill prepared for the Boko Haram
insurgency that erupted in the North Eastern states of Adamawa, Borno and Yobe States
and Bauchi, Gombe and Taraba states. These were also major Fadama states and most of
the project gains were eroded. Though the Bank and the government reacted, in form of
additional financing for the affected states, it will take some time to reverse the adverse
effects on the beneficiaries and the loss of social cohesion in some of the displaced
communities. The project through the additional financing is now building up the asset
base of the displaced beneficiaries that have returned back to their communities and have
prepared a strategic plan of support for the next 3 years.
x. Mid Term Review: At mid-term, the Project Management took steps to re-allocate the
balance of Project (IDA) fund for Grants and Fund across subprojects components to carry
out capacity building of stakeholders and provide support for farmers to procure necessary
inputs and acquire productive assets needed for effective operation of their farming
activities. This was considered necessary to achieve better harmonization of agricultural
programs and enjoy political support. No major changes were made to the implementation
arrangements but emphasis was made on consolidating project gains and strengthening the
M&E/MIS system.
2.3 Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) Design, Implementation, and Utilization
M&E Design: The Fadama III project had well-developed results based Participatory Monitoring
Evaluation and Learning (PME&L) system with a strong focus on project processes, results, impact,
and outcome in addition to input and output monitoring. Based on the experience of Fadama II, the
results-based M&E system was strengthened to support the quality and spread of implementation
under Fadama III. This improved real-time monitoring of the entire project cycle with a renewed
emphasis on results reporting. M&E capacity at all levels of implementation was strengthened with
the recruitment of qualified and experienced professionals, who were fully equipped to work full
time on M&E. The M&E activities were designed to accomplish the following: (i) generate Project
specific information on progress, processes, and performance; (ii) analyze and aggregate data
generated at various levels to track progress, process quality and project sustainability; and (iii)
document and disseminate feedback and key lessons learnt to relevant users and stakeholders. The
system consisted of self-monitoring at the community level, input-output monitoring through the
MIS, process monitoring system, comprehensive impact evaluation, and the methodical
incorporation of knowledge management. The comprehensive impact evaluation was incorporated
14
to measure income, welfare, environmental performance, and social capital gains. Taken together,
this system strengthened implementation and the planned intensive supervision regimes,
strengthened the technical quality of investments and upscaling by transferring knowledge across
settings, and support adaptive management by the Project.
Given the coverage, complexity and huge spread of the project across so many local governments
with small scale community sub-projects across the country, the guiding principle of the project
from the outset was to establish a robust and user friendly M&E system, including an operational
MIS. The project also established a robust web-based management information (MIS) system,
albeit which was not operationalized till the project completion, for regular monitoring of results
at FUG, FCA levels and aggregate for states and federal level. This has become operational and is
supporting the project through the second additional financing. This would allow implementing
agencies to report project performance in quarterly and mid yearly reports thereby creating a
database for performance indicators baseline and impact evaluation. The outcome indicators were
both quantitative and qualitative and were easy to collect and measure. There were facilitators at
project level, M&E system at the Local Fadama Desk (LFD), which collect data at local level while
each PIU has a functional M&E Specialist which monitor and aggregate data at state and federal
levels. Participatory M&E was undertaken and fed upwards into the national level Project MIS and
Knowledge Base.
M&E Implementation: The implementation of the system was thorough and forms the basis for
the baseline survey, mid- term survey and the impact evaluation of the project carried out by IFPRI.
The Mid-term review mission carried out an assessment of the M&E system, found it satisfactory
and recommended measures designed to strengthen it. The Monitoring and Evaluation Unit
prepared annual workplans, monitored project implementation particularly through the monthly
progress review meetings (MPRMs), Facilitators’ forum, monthly progress reports, physical
monitoring visits to subprojects sites and coordinated a number of studies to identify constraints as
well as project impact. The Project financed the costs for carrying out and managing the M&E
system, including data collection, aggregation, and analysis, training on M&E, impact evaluation,
reporting, and supervision. Experts in information technology and M&E were funded by the Project
to support the supervision system and ad-hoc studies were conducted to determine the
impact/challenges of sub-projects as a feedback mechanism for project improvement. Data were
collected on cost indicators and physical parameters of sub-projects and led to frequent changes in
management capacity and adjustment of subproject eligibility criteria and positive lists of sub-
projects. All stakeholders were trained to record and report their activities to facilitators and the
PIUs periodically. Periodic surveys were also carried out in order to provide additional information
needed by the project to populate the results framework of the project. Monthly and Quarterly
reports were developed for the Ministry of Agriculture at the state levels and the FMARD at the
Federal level and the Steering Committees of the project (SFTC and NFTC), The M&E Specialist
also provide support for internal controls for the different departments within the SFCO and NFCO.
There was a proposal to have software based automated M&E system, however, due to procurement
issues, this was not finalized as at December 2013 and the system relied on excel spreadsheet based
M&E system with its own limitations. Also, there were state wide variation in M&E data capture
and some states did not collate the data on time which affected overall quality, consistency, and
accuracy of M&E data for the project. The transition to software based automated M&E system in
the additional Financing is expected to greatly improve the quality and consistency of M&E data.
M&E Utilization
The quarterly reports generated from data collection process were used for decision making and
evaluation process. The required quarterly, bi-annual and annual reports of the project were
generated using the data from the M&E system. These included the price data, mobile based
15
advisory data carried out in collaboration with the ADP system, and used to strengthen the
extension system. Other reports were the beneficiary score cards, GRM mechanism baseline survey
report, and the beneficiary assessment survey report. The yield and production figures were made
specific to Fadama sites and were collected annually and form the basis for comparing efficacy of
interventions across different states of the country. The robust data base provided the platform for
carrying out the impact assessment of the project using Heckman’s Difference-In-Difference (DID)
approach, which was used to determine the impact of the project. The evaluation was able to
establish impact on production, yield income, and assets acquisition. The post completion
Economic and Financial analysis was also carried out based on the robust data produced by the
M&E system.
Lastly, a knowledge base consolidated best practice report was prepared using data and studies on
the project including experience from other parts of the world. This information was used by the
CDD Global solution group of the World Bank as an IEG learning product.
Overall, the performance of the Monitoring and Evaluation and Management Information System
unit of the project was adequate and satisfactory.
2.4 Safeguard and Fiduciary Compliance
Environmental and Social Safeguards: The overall environmental and social safeguards compliance
of FADAMA III has been consistently satisfactory. This Project falls into Environmental category
B as no adverse long-term, or cumulative impacts were anticipated. The project and the AF
triggered 8 World Bank safeguards policies dealing with Environmental Assessment (OP/BP 4.01);
Natural Habitats (OP/BP4.04); Pest Management (OP/BP 4.09); Physical and Cultural Property
(OP/BP 4.11); Involuntary Resettlement (OP/BP 4.12); Forests (OP/BP 4.36); Safety of Dams
(OP/BP 4.37); and Projects on International Waters (OP/BP 7.50). During the preparation of the
project the exact location of the proposed project activities were not known in sufficient details. As
a result, the client prepared and disclosed Environmental and Social Management Framework
(ESMF); Resettlement Policy Framework (RPF); and Integrated Pest Management Plan (IPMP).
The Environment and Social Management Framework (ESMF) and Resettlement Policy
Framework (RPF) provided guidance on managing the environmental and social impacts. The
ESMF and RPF outlined the general principles, protocols process, and procedures that were
followed when preparing site specific safeguard instruments under FADAMA III when any activity
that will be financed by the Fadama-III and has the potential to trigger any of the World Bank
safeguard policies and subsequent significant adverse environmental and social impacts. The
ESMF, IPMP and RPF that were prepared during the original project were subsequently re-
disclosed in-country and at the Info Shop for the purposes of the additional financing.
During actual implementation, the borrower demonstrated satisfactory goodwill and capacity to
address impacts of projects funded activities, with most states having a dedicated safeguards officer.
A series of training for safeguards officers have been provided by the Bank and other specialists at
different points over the life of the project. World Bank’s supervision missions to the project
showed that the project's capacity to implement the ESMF, IPMP, and RPF properly is adequate.
Specifically, the borrower demonstrated her commitment to mitigating adverse social and
environmental impacts. Regarding Safeguards compliance under the parent project, nationally a
total of 45,475 site specific ESMP were Prepared, 44,518 ESMP Screened, 44,275 ESMP
Approved, 39,057 and ESMP Implemented. The level of compliance in the six states of the North
East was also encouraging. The North East States had a total of 5,416 ESMP Prepared, 5246 ESMP
Screened, 5,246 ESMP Approved, and 4,216 ESMP Implemented. These safeguards instruments
have provided mechanisms to identify impacts beyond the generic ones for which standard
16
mitigation measures are built and to be applied during the implementation phase. In addition,
Environmental protection clauses were included in the contract documents for small-scale
infrastructure like rehabilitation and construction of feeder and Fadama access roads, culverts and
bridges, aggregation storage facilities, and markets. In terms of resettlement compliance, the
safeguards officers documented adequate processes of community consultation and decision
making, where community land was required for infrastructure development.
Beyond compliance, the project should be commended for its continual focus on genuine
community consultation and ownership of sub-projects. Further, the project has focused on
ensuring women and marginalized groups can effectively participate and has supported action
research and impact evaluations to improve targeting and access pathways. The project has
continually demonstrated a capacity to reach marginalized and disadvantaged groups in contexts
where other projects have not.
Financial Management: The overall FM risk exposure at project appraisal stage was rated high
before mitigation and Substantial following implementation of agreed mitigation measures.
Identified control risks at design were mitigated by the adoption of robust FM arrangements at the
Federal and State levels; these included the use of Project Financial Management Units (PFMU),
adoption of sound financial management procedures, and use of computerized accounting system
and qualified staff trained in Bank FM procedures. During project implementation there was
relative stability in the tenor of the project FM staff.
There was a progressive improvement in the FM performance throughout the project
implementation. The project’s internal controls were considered adequate. Annual project audit
reports contained unqualified audit opinion on the annual financial statements throughout the
project’s life, and the audit reports were consistently rendered timely to the Bank. The quarterly
Interim Financial Reports were prepared and submitted generally on time to the Bank and were of
acceptable quality.
Issues of inadequate documentation for incurred expenditures and unretired advances were
flagged during the FM implementation support missions conducted over the life of the project.
The recommended action plans following these observations were adequately implemented by the
NFCO and the SFCOs.
Procurement Management: The project was implemented by the Federal, 36 States and the
Federal Capital Territory making a total of 38 PIUs. The implementation arrangement was adequate,
but the initial procurement capacity at the Federal (NFCO) and a few States were weak. Weak
procurement capacity were observed following the conduct of Procurement Post Review (PPR) by
the Bank where many procurement lapses were observed. Consequently, and to implement the
Bank’s PPR recommendations, the PS of the NFCO and Procurement Officers of States with weak
capacity were replaced with more qualified and experienced procurement staff.
The engagement of a qualified and experienced PS by the NFCO brought positive changes in
procurement implementation of the entire project. This was because they hit the ground running
by embarking on a capacity training programme for all the POs of the States/FCT PIUs. To
further strengthen the contract management skills of the POs, a qualified Procurement Consultant
with Engineering background was engaged for one year. With the above arrangement and
training, procurement capacity was satisfactory for the remaining years of the project
implementation.
2.5 Post-completion Operation/Next Phase
17
During implementation, arrangements were made to ensure sustainability of project outcomes. The
assets provided by the project were clearly “marked” out to show the entity that owns it and
advisory services were provided to support operation and maintenance of the assets. In alignment
with the design expectation, the FUGs and FCAs kept 10 percent of the income generated from the
assets as depreciation allowance for future sets maintenance. At the local government level, the
FCAs were linked with the planning and the agricultural department so that the Plans and Budgets
of the local governments recognized the sub-projects of the FUGs and FCAs. The institutional set
up for the project at the federal, state, and local government levels was strong, integrated, and had
the necessary motivation to drive the project after closure. The community institutional set up was
further strengthened through the Federation of the FCAs which was carried out across states.
Building on the experience and learning from the implementation of the on-going Fadama III, the
World Bank approved a loan of US $200 million for Additional Financing (AF) for the Third
National Fadama Development Project in September 2013. The PDO of Additional Financing
(AF) is to increase the incomes for users of rural lands and water resources within the Fadama
areas in a sustainable manner throughout the recipient's territory. The additional financing will
focus on improving farm productivity performance of clusters of farmers engaged in priority food
staples namely rice, cassava, sorghum and horticulture in six selected states with high potential.
Taking a value chain orientation, while retaining the CDD approach, the AF seeks to attract
private investment in processing and milling, and other commercial aspects of agriculture around
nucleus farms, with associated small-holder linkages such as out-grower schemes and contracting
farming arrangements.
To meet the need of conflict-affected Northern regions of Nigeria, in June 2016, the Board
approved (US $50 million equivalent) for the Second Additional Financing (AFII) of the Third
National Fadama Development Project. The additional financing seeks to respond to the urgent
food and livelihood needs of farming households who have been affected by conflicts in the six
North East states in Nigeria-- Borno, Yobe, Adamawa, Taraba, Bauchi, and Gombe. The objectives
of the Project are to increase the incomes for users of rural lands and water resources in a sustainable
manner and to contribute to restoration of the livelihoods of conflict-affected households in the
selected area in the North East of the Recipient’s territory. Building on FADAMA III, the project
will involve a community driven development approach to benefit producer organizations, women,
youth, and vulnerable groups. The project will reduce vulnerability to food crisis among returning
Internally Displaced Peoples (IDP) and host farmers through increased and revitalized production.
It will also support rehabilitation of existing rural community agricultural related infrastructure and
farm settlements.
3. Assessment of Outcomes
As indicated earlier, this interim ICR assesses the outcome of the FADAMA-III as at the first
proposed closing date and provides a synopsis of the progress of FADAMA-III Additional
Financing till June 2016 (because of insignificant disbursement and implementation delays).The
final ICR will assess the impact of the Fadama III as a whole incorporating the AF1 and AF2.
3.1 Relevance of Objectives, Design and Implementation of FADAMA-III
Promoting sustained economic growth, reducing poverty, inequality, and unemployment is at the
core of development challenge for Nigeria. Improving income, especially of the rural population
considering the high poverty rates in the rural areas, is fundamental for meeting the Government
18
of Nigeria’s development agenda and the World Bank’s twin goals. The project remains fully
consistent with the objectives of the Bank’s CPS for FY 2014-2017 which focuses on promoting
diversified growth and job creation by enhancing agricultural productivity as one of the strategic
clusters.
The PDOs of increasing the incomes of users of rural land and water resources on a sustainable
basis were, and continue to be, highly relevant to the poverty alleviation goals. The Community
Driven Development (CDD) approach of prioritizing investments; group mechanisms for
providing productive investments; beneficiary contributions for investments; and contributions
from federal, state and local government, are some of the design features of FADAMA-III that
are highly relevant and appropriate for meeting Nigeria’s development challenges. Project design
and implementation were directly relevant to the above objectives.
Additional Financing: The additional funding of US $200 million was under the context of the
launch of the Agricultural Transformation Agenda (ATA) and leveraging the existing FADAMA
platform to support clusters of farmers in six selected states in priority value chains of cassava,
rice, sorghum, and horticulture. The objective of the additional financing was to increase the
incomes of farmers in the prioritized Staple Crops on a sustainable basis. This is consistent with
the development objective of the Fadama III Project which is to sustainably increase the incomes
of Fadama beneficiaries. The objective and the design (community driven development, group
mechanism, value chain approach, beneficiary contribution, etc.) are highly relevant and
appropriate for meeting Nigeria’s development challenges and consistent with World Bank
country partnership strategy for Nigeria. In order to meet the need of conflict-affected Northern
regions of Nigeria, the board of the Bank also approved a sum of US $50million in June 2016, for
the Second Additional Financing (AFII) of the Third National Fadama Development Project.
Based on the description above, relevance of objectives, design and implementation is rated
Substantial.
3.2 Achievement of Project Development Objectives
PDO: To increase the incomes of users of rural land and water resources on a sustainable basis.
The project was expected to increase the incomes of Fadama beneficiaries by organizing
individuals into Fadama user groups and associations and helping them acquire assets for
pursuing agricultural livelihood opportunities, making investments in community infrastructure,
providing advisory services and inputs, building the capacity of beneficiaries, and improved
access to markets.
The Financing agreement (FA) of Fadama-III states, “the Objective of the project is to increase
the incomes for users of rural lands and water resources within the Fadama Areas in a sustainable
manner throughout the Recipient Territory”. As per the PAD and other project documents,
however, the PDO of the project was “o increase the incomes of users of rural land and water
resources on a sustainable basis.” The incontinency between the two PDOs is in terms of their
geographical scope. While the FA limits the geographical scope of the project “within the
Fadama areas”, the PAD on the other hand does not put any such restriction. Considering the
project was not restricted to work only in the irrigable low-land area, technically termed as
Fadama lands, and was meant to work beyond Fadama lands, the ICR team choose to use the
PDO as defined in the PAD for the purpose of ICR review.”
19
From a baseline of ₦170,548.00, the average income, in nominal terms, of Fadama beneficiaries
increased to ₦276,294 indicating average nominal income increase of 62 percent. The project
achieved its development objectives as measured by the set of monitoring indicators presented in
the data sheet. The project has resulted in the following benefits regarding achieving the
development objectives.
Increase in Income: To help improve income of the project beneficiaries, the project envisaged the
following two impact pathways: (i) provide productive assets to beneficiary groups to scale-up their
existing farm or on-farm livelihoods or undertake new livelihood activities, and (ii) provide support
for increasing the yield of their agricultural enterprises. Component 5 of the project provided seed
money, through matching grants, to help project beneficiaries acquire capital assets which they
used to undertake a wide range of small-scale income generating activities, improve their access to
market, and higher value-additions to their farm produce. Component 3 financed advisory service
delivery to improve the performance of their on-farm and off-farm activities and input support
(mainly seeds, fertilizes, and agrochemicals) while component 4 supported research, on-farm
demonstrations, and training of extension staff, all of which contributed to yield improvements. To
track this development outcome, the project tracked the following two indicators: (a) income of
participating households, and (b) yield of primary agricultural products of participating households
which were both influenced by the activities financed by the project. The following sections
highlights the project achievements against these two indicators.
Achievement of this objective is rated Substantial, based on the following
Indicator 1: Income of participating households.
The target of this indicator was that 75 percent of beneficiaries would increase their average real
income by at least 40 percent. The project lead to a big increase in average household income, but
technically using the M&E data, it is difficult to estimate whether 75 percent of the beneficiaries
increased their real income by 40 percent or not. All the states provided baseline income data and
then towards the end of the project, conducted household income surveys on the beneficiaries.
But the report captured income increase for all beneficiaries which is an indication that states
with income increase up to 40% had more than 75% of the beneficiaries achieving the PDO
target. However, seven states, namely Lagos (97 percent), Ogun (75 percent), Ondo (75 percent),
Osun (85 percent), Abia (70.1 percent), Anambra (75 pecent), and Kwara (75 percent) provided
data on what proportion of household increased income against the set target.
End term impact evaluation by International Food and Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) in May
2016, indicate that in comparison to the control group, the household income of 36 percent of
Fadama III beneficiaries increased by at least 40 percent. However, 46 percent of female
beneficiaries reached the target, illustrating that Fadama III better targeted female beneficiaries.
The impact assessment indicate that average income increase of Fadama beneficiaries, in
comparison to the control group, was 28.4 percent, however, the increase was much higher for
female-headed households (31.3 percent) as compared to male-headed households (27.8 pecent).
The external evaluation’s comparison of impact across poverty tercile shows that the project had
a significant impact among land poor beneficiaries and non-significant impact among
beneficiaries with medium and high land endowment. These results underscores Fadama success
in targeting the poor and women.
20
Data received from the project indicate that at the national level, average nominal income
increase had increased from ₦170,548.00 to ₦276,294), a 62 percent increase at project
completion. However, during the project implementation period, Nigeria experienced high
inflation rate of 10-14 percent annual inflation (see graph below), which eroded the income gains
in real terms. After factoring in the inflation, the real income increase for project beneficiary was
20 percent, much below the target of 40 percent. If there was no unprecedented inflation during
this period, and the cost of living was normal like the previous years, the real income of the
farmers would have reach up to the target of the PDO based on the significant nominal increase.
Graph 1: Nigeria Inflation Rate (2006-2016)
The above-description indicate that at the overall project level, while the in nominal terms the
average income increased by 62 percent, however, the high inflation eroded the gains and in real
terms, the average beneficiary income was 20 percent. The project was unable to meet the target
for this indicator.
Indicator 2: Yields of primary agricultural products of participating households.
The target for this indicator was to achieve a 20 percent increase in yield of primary agricultural
products (disaggregated by crops/agroforestry, livestock, and fisheries etc.) of participating
households. To measure against this indicator, yields of primary production were to be obtained
through the annual survey called the Agricultural Production Survey (APS). These APS were
conducted by the Agricultural Development Projects (ADPs) of each of the participating states
which has the state mandate for production surveys. The project contracted the ADPs in each
state to carry out annual yield surveys on fadama intervention sites. The baseline survey was also
carried out by the Fadama project on the intervention communities and the average yield data
formed the baseline of the project which was set at 2008 as 100, index. The yield obtained from
21
the enterprises was computed from APS and tracked over time on the project. At project closing,
the project reported an average yield increase of 29.7 percent.
The project was initially supposed to create a commodity basket index to capture the yield
increase over the project period. However, the commodity index was not created because the
project did not have a focus on any specific commodities and the demand-driven nature of the
project meant the beneficiaries were free to choose any commodity or enterprise. This made it
quite difficult to create a commodity basket index.
Nonetheless, the project did capture baseline information of many crops from the baseline study
and captured the yield increase of beneficiaries. At the end of the project, the bulk of the
intervention in the crops focused on these nine commodities: Maize, rice, sorghum, millet,
groundnut, cowpea, soybean, yam, and cassava. The project resulted in significant yield increase
in these commodities.
It is important to note that livestock assets (33.93 percent) constituted the largest number of
productive assets acquired during the project because it is capital intensive. As such the coverage
is not as widespread as crops. Thus only seven states, out of total of 36, provide data on yield
increase for small ruminant, poultry, and fisheries indicating 8.38 percent yield increase for small
ruminants; 2.35 percent increase for poultry, and 6.53 percent increase for fisheries. The lack of
yield data for livestock assets can be explained by a number of factors: (a) not many states
collected baseline data on livestock yields, unlike for crops, because of methodological
challenges and not knowing (owing to demand-driven CDD approach) whether livestock will be
the preferred assets for beneficiaries in their states or not; and (b) livestock investments are
capital intensive and requires more capital than investment in crops. Therefore, it is no surprise
that it accounts for 1/3 of total productive investments and not widespread like crops. (c) It is also
important to understand that for many beneficiaries, this was a relatively new enterprise activity
with steeper learning curve, than that of staple crops, and may require many years before reaching
the productivity peaks. As a result, the available data on livestock stock yields does not fully
capture the yield improvement benefit of project interventions in providing livestock assets to
beneficiary groups.
IFPRI end evaluation study did not measure the yield improvement; however, it measured
adoption of good agricultural practices. The evaluation demonstrates that Fadama II and FIII had
positive impact on adoption of soil fertility management practices reported. Fadama II showed a
significantly higher impact on adoption of integrated soil fertility management than Fadama III
(FIII) or Fadama II & III combined. This means that over a long period of time, FII has had a
much bigger impact on sustainable land management practices. Impact of both FII & FIII on
adoption of crop production technologies shows that both phases of Fadama projects increased
adoption of improved varieties by at least 30 percent, and as high as 46 percent for FIII. FIII
impact on adoption is significant and largest for improved seed, inorganic fertilizer, and
irrigation. Participation in FIII alone significantly increased area receiving inorganic fertilizer by
48 percent and irrigated area by 32 percent. Adoption of soil fertility management practices,
improved seed varieties, inorganic fertilizer, and irrigation, have strong causal links with
improving yields of agricultural production.
Based on the available data, the project resulted in significant yield improvement and achieved its
targets.
Sustainability: The project had a big emphasis on sustainability as reflected in the PDO “To
increase the incomes of users of rural land and water resources on a sustainable basis.” To ensure
22
sustainability, the project focused on FCA; FUGs; established FUEFs; and focused to operations,
maintenance, and replacement of group and community assets. Small-scale community-owned
infrastructure was financed under component 2 for creation of economic infrastructure and local
public goods (irrigation facility, farm land clearing and development, storage infrastructure, farm
internal roads, marketing infrastructure, access roads, hydraulic structure, etc.) which helped
improve productivity of Fadama user households but also contributed to longer term sustainability
of their enterprises. Component 1 of the project was primarily focused on ensuring sustainability
of project outcomes by supporting community organizations and building capacity of FCAs, FUGs,
FUEFs, and Economic Interest Groups, and building capacity of local governments and
strengthening local development plans. To help report on the sustainability aspect of the project,
the following three indicators were tracked.
Achievement of this objective is rated Substantial, based on the following
Indicator 3: Savings of participating groups.
The project promoted the creation of Fadama User Group (FUG), Economic Interest Groups
(EIGs) and Fadama Community Associations (FCA) and promoted the setting aside of funds,
called Fadama User’s Equity Fund (FUEFs), as a capitalization/revolving fund. These funds were
promoted to ensure sustainability of project interventions by providing resources for asset
replacement and business expansion. The project targeted is to have a 10 percent replacement
value of the common asset used for income-generating activities of FUGs saved annually (with
effect from year two). By the end of the project, a total of 39,715 FUGs benefitted and owned
245,756 assets valued at ₦11,449,789,040.85. Of them, a total of 21,126 FUGs (representing 53.2
percent of FUGs with assets) saved the sum of ₦842,047,315.41, which is 7.32 percent of the
replacement value of the assets acquired.
Furthermore, the project was able to federate many FCA into a statewide Fadama Farmers
Community Association (FFCA). A total of 37 FFCA were created, one for each state and FCT,
with the objective of transforming some of the vibrant FFCA into self-sustaining institutions. At
the time of ICR mission in June 2016, a total of 15 FFCA were still functional and providing
services to their members. Of them, seven institutions have generated enough capital and
expertise to have applied for license to operate as a Microfinance Bank. They are waiting for the
Central bank’s approval before commencing operations as microfinance Bank. In the state of
Plateau, the Central Bank of Nigeria awarded their banking license in 2015, and the Plateau State
Fadama Farmers Microfinance Bank has been operational since January 2016. It is expected that
the other seven FFCA will also get banking licenses and will contribute to providing requisite
financing.
Indicator 4: Satisfaction with operation, maintenance and utilization of assets.
Surveys at mid-term and at project closing show at least 75 percent of Fadama users are satisfied
with operations, maintenance, and utilization of community-owned infrastructure and capital
asset acquired through the project.
Monitoring Data as of December 2013 showed that 30,179 out of 64, 347 FUGs participating in
the project own Productive assets. Out of these, 27,528 (91.4 percent), 26,485 (87.76 percent) and
26,129 (86.58 percent) claimed to be satisfied with the operation, maintenance, and utilization of
assets, respectively. This gives an 88.58 percent satisfaction rate on the average.
Indicator 5: Physical verification of operations, maintenance, and utilization of assets.
23
Physical verification of operations, maintenance and utilization of assets at mid-term and at
project closing by surveys of randomly selected sites shows at least 50 percent of assets and
community-owned infrastructure are operating satisfactorily and are maintained and utilized.
Monitoring data at the end of the project indicated that Infrastructure and asset acquired by
communities are in good condition and functional. Physical verification of operations, maintenance
and utilization of assets at project closing by surveys of randomly selected sites shows that out of
150,187 productive assets acquired, 125,582 (84 percent) are in good condition and 116,894 (78
percent) of users are satisfy with the condition of assets.
FADAMA III Additional Financing I Outcome Achievements: The Additional Financing I end date
has been extended till December 2019, and the disbursement rate for AF I till June 2016 stood at
26.81 percent. The yield data collected for initial few seasons is showing good yield increase (rice
(31 percent), Sorghum (84.21 percent), Horticulture (128 percent) and Cassava (32.21 percent). No
data is yet available on the other four PDO indicators (Income, savings of replacement value,
satisfaction, and operations, maintenance and utilization). Till June 2016, a total of 2920 BPs has
been developed across the value chain through participatory process, of which 676 business plans
has been fully funded. A total of 9593 beneficiaries have procured advisory services across the
value chain, which represents 24 pecent of the targeted total beneficiaries of the project. 5994
(18.74 percent) of the targeted 31977 beneficiaries have received extension services from public
service providers and of them 4864 (81 percent) beneficiaries who received extension services from
public service providers are satisfied. 2,863 (7 percent) of targeted 24,000 beneficiaries have access
to market information, and they have negotiated contracts for inputs purchase -- Agro dealers and
output sales. It appears from the Annex 10 that the progress of intermediate indicator is on track
and might meet its targets, but due to lack of data on PDO indicators and small disbursement till
now, the team is unable to comment on the potential achievement of project development outcomes.
Based on the sub-ratings above, efficacy is rated Substantial
3.3 Efficiency: Substantial
The economic analysis adopted the methodologies, patterns, and assumptions employed during the
design and preparation of the FADAMA-III project. As carried out during the preparation stage,
representative enterprise models were used as the analytical units, or subprojects, supported by the
intervention in order to estimate the project’s benefits and costs. The economic life of the project
was also taken as 15 years, consequently, cropping patterns, inputs applications, costs and benefits
were projected for 15 years and the computation of performance indicators and decision criteria
namely rates of return and net present values were based on the values of net aggregate incremental
benefits for 15 years (see details in Annex 3). High inflation rate and macroeconomic effects were considered while conducting the economic
and financial analysis. As more money pursues limited goods prices rise. The Effect of inflation is
escalation of the nominal prices of goods but ‘price relatives’ are assumed to be unaffected. In the
economic and financial analysis, the team used constant prices as at mid-June 2007. This is to
obviate the effect of inflation on the calculation. Note that in the calculation of “value = quantity x
price” the team allowed for changes in the quantities between 2008 and 2014, while the prices were
held constant. This provided us the basis to compare the estimates obtained during the ICR with
the ones made during appraisal because between the time of APPRAISAL and ICR the prices were
held constant while only the Achieved Quantities changed. The same mid-June 2007 set of prices
24
were used during the appraisal and ICR. This consequently eliminated the effect of rising prices
over time (due to inflation).
Economic Rate of Return (ERR)
The estimated overall Economic Rate of Return (ERR) for the project is 35 percent; an NPV of N
47,468.2 million or USD 365.1million; the BCR is 1.29, and Annual Incremental Net Benefit
(AINB) of N 21,611.6 million or USD 166.2 million, assuming an opportunity cost of capital of 12
percent.
The estimated ERR of 35 percent implies that if the incremental benefits due to the project are
discounted at the rate of 35 percent, then benefits will equate the costs, and the NPV will be equal
to zero. The decision rule is that once the ERR is greater than the opportunity cost of capital (hurdle
rate) the project is passed as successful. The estimated NPV of N 21,611.6 million or USD 166.2
million is the amount or net worth of the project when all costs have been accounted for including
family labor, and the benefits which the resources committed to the project would have generated
without the project. The decision rule is to pass or regard the project as successful once the NPV is
greater than zero. The estimated BCR of 1.29 implies that for every one Naira spent on the project
there is a corresponding profit of 29 Kobo only. The decision rule is to accept the project as
successful once the BCR is greater one. The estimated Annual Incremental Net Benefit (AINB) of
the project was N 21,611.6 million or USD 166.2 million. This is the amount left to the disposition
of the equity contributors when all costs have been duly paid including, family labor and the
benefits which the resources committed to the project would have generated without the project.
The decision rule is to pass or regard the project as successful once the (AINB) is greater than zero.
The details of estimating the decision indicators for the project are presented in Table 2.
Table 2: Estimation of the Project ERR and NPV
Project year
Aggregate
Incremental Benefit Overhead Costs
Net Aggregate
Incremental Benefit
0 0 -128416262 -128416262
1 -8060618885 -2454259561 -10514878446
2 -3263781176 -4557854084 -7821635260
3 88838678.62 -4944688288 -4855849609
4 3469554671 -2407945609 1061609062
5 7827471941 -841722948.3 6985748993
6 19379238407 19379238407
7 20606250299 20606250299
8 21611547714 21611547714
9 22588748992 22588748992
10 21237727348 21237727348
11 21237727348 21237727348
12 21237727348 21237727348
13 21237727348 21237727348
14 21237727348 21237727348
15 22514060451 22514060451
ERR = 35 percent
NPV = NGN 47,468,196,960;
NPV = USD 365,139,980
BCR = 1.29
25
In the preparation report the estimated overall ERR for the project was 29 percent; an NPV of N
57,073.9 million or USD 439.1 million; and incremental net benefit of N 32,513.3 million or USD
250.1 million, assuming an opportunity cost of capital of 12 percent.
From Table 3 below it is apparent that at the completion of the project relative to the appraisal, the
Economic internal rate of return increased by 6 percent, the Net Present Value decreased by about
17 percent, and the annual incremental net benefit decreased by 33 percent.
Table 3: Estimated Values of Economic Indicators at Preparation and Completion of the
Project (in ‘000)
Indicators ICR (2016) Preparation (2007) Difference
Percentage
Difference
In millions
ERR 35 29 6 20.7
NPV(NGN) 47468.2 57073.9 -9605.7 -16.8
NPV(USD) 365.2 439.1 -73.9 -16.8
BCR 1.29 N/A N/A N/A
AINB 21,611.50 32,513.30 -10901.8 -33.5
Sensitivity Analysis
Sensitivity tests indicated that the project remains viable under a variety of assumptions. In general,
all the enterprise models were sensitive to changes in the output prices and operating costs. A 10
percent drop in the output prices reduces the project ERR to 23 percent, which is a decrease of 34
percent. A 10 percent increase in operating costs reduces the project ERR to 27 percent, which is a
decrease of 22 percent.
The analysis of the switching value shows that the ERR is sensitive to changes in project costs and
benefits. A reduction in benefits by 18 percent or an increase in the total cost of 23 percent reduces
the ERR to 12 percent (the hurdle rate). Similarly, a reduction of benefits by 10 percent coupled
with a simultaneous increase of cost of 10 percent, reduces the ERR to 12 percent, which is the
hurdle rate.
Sensitivity tests indicated that the project remains viable under a variety of assumptions. In
general, all the enterprise models were sensitive to changes in the output prices and operating
costs. A 10 percent drop in the output prices reduces the project ERR to 27 percent, that is a
decrease of 34 percent; and a 10 percent increase in operating costs reduces the project ERR to 31
percent, that is a decline of 24 percent. Annex 3, Table 6, presents the estimated economic
indicators (ERR, NPV, AINB, and BCR) for the enterprise models. From the Table it was
apparent that the ERR ranged from a minimum of 18 percent in borehole to a maximum of 92
percent in rural roads. The NPV ranged from a minimum of NGN 85,280 in Tomato processing to
a maximum of NGN 177.1 million in borehole. The BCR ranged from a minimum of 1.07 in
borehole to a maximum of 2.57 in rural roads.
Financial Rate of Return
The estimated overall financial rate of return (FIRR) for the project is 24 percent; an NPV of N
26,234.1 million or USD 201.8 million; the BCR is 1.02 and annual incremental net benefit of N
17,755.4 million or USD 136.6 million, assuming an opportunity cost of capital of 12 percent. The
26
details of estimated financial indicators for the project are presented in Table 8. The estimated
Financial Rate of Return for the representative enterprise models in the project presented in Table
8 ranged from a minimum of 21 percent in groundnut processing to a maximum of 82 percent in
rural road infrastructure model.
The estimated Net Present Value (NPV) for the representative enterprise models ranged from a
minimum of NGN 38,220 or USD 290.0 in Tomato/Pepper processing to NGN 6898,380 or USD
53,060 in rural roads model.
The estimated incremental benefits per annum for the models ranged from a minimum of NGN
14,360 or USD 110 per annum in tomato/pepper processing to NGN 1,427,586.00 or USD 10,980
per annum in rural roads model. However, rural roads are community sub-projects consequently
their benefits do not accrue to any particular individual.
The estimated BCR ranged from a minimum of 1.02 in borehole to a maximum of 2.57 in rural
roads model. The estimated benefits per annum for a production unit ranged from NGN 23,256.00
in Tomato/Pepper processing to 3917112.00 in rural roads. The estimated benefits per unit of labor
employed in production ranged from NGN 197.93 in honey production to NGN 97,927.80 in rural
roads model. The details are in Table 8 of Annex 3.
The Internal Rate of Return at Project Completion Compared to Preparation Estimates
The estimated financial Internal Rates of Return were compared to the estimates made at the
preparation of Fadama III project, and the results are presented in Table 9 of annex 3. From Table
9 it is apparent that Sheep/Goat upgrading decreased by 2 percent; North Irrigation module
decreased by 9 percent; Earth pond aquaculture decreased by 3 percent; palm fruit processing
decreased by 1 percent; and rice milling decreased by 1 percent. The FIRR for other enterprise
models increased at the completion of the project relative to the preparation. The increases ranged
from a minimum of 1 percent in groundnut processing and honey production, to a maximum of 142
percent in southern Rain fed Yam/Maize/Cassava model.
It, therefore, follows from above that Efficiency is rated Substantial given the positive rate of return,
significant positive change from project inception and a cost effective ratio which is comparable
with other similar projects in the region.
3.4 Justification of Overall Outcome Rating
Rating: Moderately Satisfactory
FADAMA III was an ambitious project which aimed to replicate the success of the FADAMA-II.
The ambitious nature of the project is reflected by the following factors:
a. Nationwide coverage: While FADAMA-II was operating in 12 states of Nigeria, the
new project aimed to cover 36 states and FCT, providing nationwide coverage.
b. Doubling of PDO targets: FADAMA-II project had a quantitative target of “increasing
the average real income of 50 percent of the targeted project beneficiaries by twenty
percent.” The quantitative target of FADAMA-III was to increase the average real
income of 75 percent of targeted project beneficiary by 40 percent.
27
c. Introduction of new elements: The new project introduced new elements such Fadama
User Equity Fund, increased contribution from state and local government, federating
farmers users into apex organizations, beneficiaries contribution towards payment of
advisory services and inputs, which all increases the complexity of the project.
The project’s target achievement needs to be viewed in light of its ambitious targets and
challenges of taking a successful pilot to scale. Furthermore, rather than full US $450 million
being available for financing, only US $290.44 million was finally made available (due to much
lower counterpart financing provided by local governments, states, federal government) to
implement the project.
The project’s approach and PDO are highly relevant to the Nigeria’s development agenda and the
World Bank’s strategy. The project overachieved three of the PDOs targets on yield
improvement, beneficiary satisfaction, and operations of assets and almost achieved the target on
saving mobilization, but fell short of meeting targets on real income improvement. With ERR of
41 percent the projects use of resources was highly efficient. Based on the exiting information
and considering all these factors, the overall outcome rating of moderately satisfactory is well
justified.
3.5 Overarching Themes, Other Outcomes and Impacts
(if any, where not previously covered or to amplify discussion above) (a) Poverty Impacts, Gender Aspects, and Social Development
Poverty Impact: IFPRI study highlights that Fadama III beneficiaries as a percent of total
households were highest in the northern GPZs, where severity of poverty is highest. This suggests
that targeting of Fadama III placement in areas with severe poverty was relatively successful. The
Northeastern GPZ had the highest share of people under extreme poverty and reported the highest
beneficiaries as a share of total number of households. However, the number of beneficiaries as
percent of people in extreme poverty is highest in SE, the third GPZ with lowest share of people
in extreme poverty. This indicates that even though Fadama III poverty targeting was successful,
the large number of people living in extreme poverty is so high in some GPZs that proportionate
targeting could have heavily skewed – thus denying other GPZs with lower poverty incidence the
opportunity to benefit from Fadama III.
IFPRI’s study highlights that impact of crop income for the land-poor beneficiaries was much
greater than the case of land-rich beneficiaries. This illustrates successful targeting of Fadama
project on women and the poor.
Gender Aspects: Targeting of women was successfully enforced as the number of Fadama III
women beneficiaries was 41 percent. As was the case for the midline results (Nkonya et al. 2012),
female beneficiaries in SE GPZ accounted for the highest share (53 percent) of all beneficiaries
while those in the NW accounted for the lowest share (24 percent). IFPRI’s impact evaluation
study highlights that the impact is much larger for female-headed households whose crop income
increased by 43 percent - - about double the 23 percent impact level of the male-headed
households.
Impact across gender shows that FIII female beneficiaries income increased by 31 percent
compared to 28 percent for male-headed beneficiaries. Comparison of impact across poverty
tercile shows that FIII and FII had significant impact among land poor beneficiaries and non-
28
significant impact among beneficiaries with medium and high land endowment. These results
underscore Fadama success in targeting the poor and women.
Social Development: The project had a specific focus on vulnerable population and created
FUGs as vulnerable groups. Vulnerable groups were identified as elderly, youth, widows, and
people living with HIV or with disabilities. 11 percent of the total amount allocated for
productive assets was disbursed among vulnerable groups.
IFPRI’s evaluation concluded that the Results of Fadama III project impact has further shown that
the community-driven development (CDD) approach is successfully targeting women and the
poor in increasing household income from all sources.
(b) Institutional Change/Strengthening
(particularly with reference to impacts on longer-term capacity and institutional development)
The project has proliferated the concept of FUG as a community institution as established under
Fadama I and II. It has strengthened and resourced the FUGs and FCAs by providing capacity
building, training, and constant advisory services for value addition. It contributed significantly to
enhancing the capability and leadership skills of youth and women and provided a linkage with
many other government initiatives and donors support. Capacity of local government staff was
also strengthened in land use planning and community CDD. The utilization of the instrument of
LDPs and local facilitators brought a paradigm shift and a new dimension into community
planning and social inclusion. Based on experience from South-South exchange, the project was
also able to federate the FCAs across local governments and at state level into FFCAs that further
strengthen and provide stability for the community institution.
As part of its sustainability agenda, the project initiated the utilization of FUEF, which had
significantly aggregated in each state into establishing the Fadama Microfinance Banks. A total of
15 FFCAs applied to Central Bank of Nigeria for license and as at the time of ICR, the Plateau
state FFCA had been granted license and had started a microfinance bank that has so far
accumulated a sum of N100 million Naira capital base within 6 months and has given credit
worth more than 30 million to its members.
The Fadama project was able to attract GEF funding which also assisted with building the
capacity of local government on Land Use Planning. Cartographic equipment as well as structural
and departmental strengthening were carried out for the local governments to further strengthen
their service delivery mechanism. Furthermore, the project incorporated a JSDF funding support
for information and knowledge management. Through this process, Fadama Information and
Knowledge management Centres (FIKS) were established in four states to provide real time
mobile-based advisory services for farmers. It also provided a platform for marketing of farmers’
products. Finally, given the broad farmer base and national coverage of the project, the Growth
Enhancement Scheme (GES) of the government in its agricultural transformation agenda relied
heavily on Fadama farmers’ platform for smart subsidy on targeting of input support and de-
risking of agricultural lending activities.
(c) Other Unintended Outcomes and Impacts (positive or negative) One major occurrence that had significant impact on the project was the Boko Haram insurgency
that affected the Northeastern parts of the country during the implementation period. There were
also agitations in the Niger Delta region. These significantly draw back some of the benefits of
the project and negatively affected implementation of field activities. This was contributory to the
draw-down on the PDO indicators nationally as it brought down the average significantly.
29
3.6 Summary of Findings of Beneficiary Survey and/or Stakeholder Workshops
S/N STUDIES CONDUCTED PERIOD MAJOR FINDINGS
1. Baseline survey 2009 Baseline information on key performance indicators such as income, socio-
economic characteristics, production, etc. was captured. Average household
income was N170,548.27.
2. Agricultural Production Survey (APS) 2010, 2011 &
2012.
The 2010 and 2011 APS published result indicated considerable increases in
the yield of major crops supported by the Fadama Project. Overall, there was
an average increase of 13.6% increase in yields of major crops in the midline
and a 29.7% in yield of major crop through RRA at the project completion.
3. Household income generation, progression
and sustainability to the achievement of
Fadama III PDOs.
2011 Average nominal household income at mid-term was N237, 118.11 over the
baseline of N170,548.27. This indicates 39% increase over the baseline average
nominal household income of N170,548.27.
4. Social capital formation and implication for
the achievement of Fadama III PDOs.
2011 - The FUEF had about 7.32% of the value of the productive assets in the
FUEF account for maintenance of assets.
- The Project has created social capital as evidenced by formation of
additional FUGs, increased participation in decision making, enhanced
subprojects ownership and management by members of FUGs, social
inclusion and democratic election of membership of standing committees.
5. Contribution of Advisory Services and
Inputs Support, Support to ADP Adaptive
Research to the attainment of Fadama III
PDOs.
2011 - About 50% Fadama users use advisory services.
6. Midline Impact Assessment 2012 Completed and final report of the study submitted.
7. Adoption study 2012 / 2013 The study is concluded and final report submitted. Encouraging level of
adoption of improved technologies was reported. Please see summary of
findings in Annex 2 of this report
8 Pest survey 2012 / 2013 The survey had been conducted.
9. Rapid Rural Appraisal (RRA) 2013 / 2014 - At least (81% (29/36 *100)7 of Fadama users have increased their average
incomes by at least 40%.
- Average nominal income increased by 62.0% over the baseline income.
Yield of agricultural products increased by 29.7%.
- 88% of the assets’ beneficiaries were satisfied with the operation,
maintenance, and utilization of their assets.
- 83.1% of the infrastructure and assets acquired were in good condition
and working satisfactorily.
30
4. Assessment of Risk to Development Outcome
Rating: Moderate
The project had built-in sustainability mechanisms at part of the design, which has contributed to
low risk to development outcomes for project beneficiaries. Some of those mechanisms include:
a. FUEFs: Establishment of FUEFs to ensure enough savings to facilitate replacement and
maintenance of the assets created by the project. Considering the wear and tear and
natural attribution of assets, access to capital for replacement and maintenance is critical
to ensure benefits from the assets for a long time.
b. Federating beneficiaries into FFCA and FCA: The project strived to build strong local
institutions in the form of FFCA and FCA which could contribute to providing support to
the beneficiaries after the project closures.
c. Focus on capacity building: The project provided extensive support for capacity
building in terms of training on group formation, financial management, advisory
services and extension, which is much needed to ensure optimum utilization and benefit
from the hard assets being provided by the project.
d. Provision of the integrated package: The project also provided an integrated package
comprising of assets to the group, community infrastructure, advisory services, and
capacity building, to ensure that all the relevant aspects to provide gains from the project
investments are in place to ensure longer term sustainability of the project outcomes.
e. Demand-driven: Rather than providing pre-selected menus of assets, the project
followed a bottom-up demand-driven approach wherein beneficiaries themselves
identified assets and procured relevant advisory services to help them in their selected
livelihood.
IFPRI evaluation study also analyzed the Fadama II beneficiaries who did not benefit from
Fadama III and concluded that those beneficiaries were able to sustainably increase their incomes
from high paying activities including non-farm activities, horticultural crops, and agro-
processing. This further shows that the Fadama beneficiaries have successfully and sustainably
operated profitable businesses even after Fadama support stopped seven years ago. Fadama II
beneficiaries’ value of household-owned productive assets increased significantly -- further
illustrating the prolonged and sustainable impact on key outcomes.
The ICR team visited eight FUGs in two states and all the projects assets and groups were
functioning after three years of project completion. In most of the cases, assets were replaced by
the FUGs using their own resources and saving, new assets were acquired by the groups, and the
group expanded their enterprises. This sharing of the results from a very small sample is
illustrative of the sustainability of development outcome of Fadama III.
However, there are a number of external factors, which could potentially erode the sustainability
gains of the project and increase the risk to development outcome, some of them being:
a. Continued Government commitment to the CDD approach: There is a commitment to
the approach as Federal and State government ensured effective needs assessment,
enhanced ownership, and maintenance of Project benefits. At the local government levels,
the Local Development Plans were integrated in Annual Work Plans of the participating
local governments.
31
b. Payment of counterpart contributions: On the whole, States attained only 64.9 percent
(3,079,515,192.17 out of 5,367,916,271.72) of the counterpart contribution required. On
the other hand, the participating local governments fulfilled only 47.8 percent, with the
highest fulfillment coming from local government areas in the Northeastern zone. The
Government is using the project as one of the platforms to implement its agricultural
transformation agenda and therefore the possibility of continuous support to the project is
high. However, the case of irregular and inconsistent payment of counterpart funding is a
real issue.
c. The sustainability of the project outcomes: The future of the CDD approach is likely to
be threatened by potential social risk of resistance from stakeholders, who are yet to be
divulged from the culture of business-as-usual, and are associated with the tradition bound
top-down approach. However, the CDD Project has developed a sense of ownership in the
beneficiaries and this probably will be a sufficient deterrent against such a risk.
d. Diversion of funds: Another possible risk has to do with potential diversion of funds, elite
capture and outright corruption, both at the state and local levels. Improvements in project
governance and enforcement of strict procurement guidelines and funds management
would go a long way in minimizing this risk.
e. Risks to program infrastructure: There is also the added risk of inappropriate
maintenance of the existing infrastructure and equipment, absence of agricultural credit for
future development, and inadequate production support services for training, extension, or
counseling.
f. Gender biases: Gender biases curtail involvement of women and undermine principles of
inclusion and equity. Collusion and/or intimidation at the community level may be used to
subvert procedures of transparency and accountability in the management of funds. This
will be mitigated through continuous capacity building.
g. Insecurity and violence: Insecurity and violence in some part of the country may hinder
the continuity of the arrangement for community development. This is especially of
importance the Northeast zone, where the incidence of Boko Haram Insurgency has
displaced people and thus the social arrangement in place. Improvement in security
arrangements and better governance would also help in the Niger Delta zone where
conflicts that occurred in the oil producing communities may hinder community
involvement and Project implementation.
h. Macro-economic risks: The macro-economic situation and inflationary pressure can be
another serious risk factor, which can significantly impact the risk of development
outcomes.
Considering all these risk factors, the overall risk to development outcome is rated moderate.
32
5. Assessment of Bank and Borrower Performance
5.1 Bank Performance
(a) Bank Performance in Ensuring Quality at Entry
Rating: Highly Satisfactory
The Bank’s performance in the identification, preparation, and appraisal of the project was Highly
Satisfactory. The design of the project was well conceived and responded to the development
agenda of government as well as the CPS. During preparation, and appraisal, the Bank took into
account the adequacy of project design and all the major relevant aspects, such as technical,
financial, economic, and institutional including procurement and financial management. The
project was a follow-on to the previous award winning Fadama II and there was a high demand by
the government for scale up and expansion to cover all the states of the country. The design,
therefore, incorporated the lessons from Fadama II and addressed the constraints of rural
infrastructure observed in the previous project as well as enhanced the sustainability status of the
project through the introduction of Fadama User Equity Fund (FUEF). Under the scheme, the FUGs
set aside 10 percent of income from assets as depreciation and constitutes capitalization/revolving
fund called the FUEF. The design also paid special attention to the technical quality assurance by
ensuring that the Fadama development facilitators received adequate training before deployment to
the various communities. This enhanced their capacity in supervising the technical aspects of
community subprojects and assisting communities to prepare and implement their local
development plans (LDPs) and subprojects. During the design, the team also envisaged the
enormous challenge that the spread and coverage of the project would present during
implementation and prepared a supervision plan. The Supervision plan presented an effective and
functional template for adequate monitoring of project activities and providing oversight.
The project preparation was carried out with an adequate number of specialists who provided
technical skill mix necessary to address sector concerns and a good project design. The Bank also
provided sufficient resources concerning staff weeks and funds to ensure quality preparation and
appraisal work. The Bank had a consistently good working relationship with the borrower during
preparation and appraisal. Given the experience from Fadama II, the PDO and related indicators at
design stage were specific and the M&E system was made functional.
(b) Quality of Supervision (including of fiduciary and safeguards policies)
Rating: Satisfactory
The Bank’s performance during project implementation was Satisfactory. The Bank allocated
sufficient budget and staff resources, and the project was adequately supervised and closely
monitored. There was only two Task Team Leaders (TTLs) throughout the life of the project and
there was consistency in project monitoring approach. The task team carried our regular
implementation support and was responsive to the needs of the borrower, maintaining a consistent
team of local and international staff and consultants to provide fresh perspectives and specific
expertise as required. The team regularly prepared aide memoirs and alerted the government on
required innovative changes. The team maintain good dialogues with all implementation states and
was very active to engage government in policy dialogues to resolve project issues. Fiduciary and
33
environmental compliance was maintained on the project and despite implementation with 37 PIUs
including the national project office, the project was never flagged during its implementation period.
The team introduced several innovations that further enhanced the achievement of the PDOs. It
initiated the South-Ssouth learning exchanges that eventually led to the Federation of FCAs. It
brought JSDF funding into the implementation to facilitate mobile based advisory services and
incorporated the GEF project for sustainable land management. It also encouraged collaboration
with partners on activities that further enhanced the implementation of the project. The project won
several implementation awards, some of which are; the Innovation Award in 2011; ICT for
Accountability Team Award in 2012, Peoples Award in 2010, and the Africa VPU Award in 2013.
During implementation, different aspects of the project were competitively selected several times
as feature stories on the Bank’s intranet. One of the stories, “Culture of feedback: Key to boosting
community participation and building rural livelihoods” was selected as one of IDA Results stories
for IDA16. The team also collaborated with many units within the Bank in order to bring multi
sectoral dimensions into its implementation. When the federal government started its economic
diversification agenda, the team was able to align the implementation of the project to the demands
of Agricultural Transformation Agenda (ATA). This facilitated the inflow of more resources into
project implementation and the project became a major national platform for mobilization of
farmers’ production for targeted Staple Crop Processing Zones (SCPZ) identified under the ATA.
(c) Justification of Rating for Overall Bank Performance
Rating: Satisfactory
The project was relevant and appropriate and adequate attention was paid at the design stage to all
critical areas that eventually enhanced the achievement of the PDOs. During implementation, the
task team also introduced several collaborations, exchanges, and innovations that further enhanced
the implementation of the project. Supervision of the project from the field contributed to a hands-
on approach and rapid problem solving. The Project team was proactive and prepared ISR regularly,
highlighting implementation issues, and preparing action plans to address them which were well
monitored. With a highly satisfactory rating for quality at entry and satisfactory rating for quality
of supervision, overall Bank performance is rated Satisfactory.
5.2 Borrower Performance
(a) Government Performance
Rating: Satisfactory
The government commitment and support for the project was one of the major success factor for
the project implementation. There was a high level of ownership and the government laid a solid
policy and political platform for the project by recognizing the project in its seven-point agenda for
rural transformation in 2008. It was a major rural agricultural project with a paradigm shift and
covering all the 36 states of the federation including the FCT. The government was responsive to
many of the issues that could not be resolved at the project level and gave priority to the rural
mobilization and CDD mechanism of the project. All the necessary institutional arrangements for
implementation including NFTC, SFTC, LFDC, NFCO, SFCO and LFD were appropriately set up
and made functional. Most of the participating states paid their counterpart contributions regularly
and participated at national level coordinating meetings. Significantly, however, the delay and non-
payment of counterpart funds affected implementation negatively and was responsible for the
different results presented from implementation across states. Though, most of the counterpart
contributions were later paid. When the government started its ATA and Fadama was selected as a
major project for production intervention, it affected the commitment of some state governments
34
and delayed implementation of component iv activities. Towards the end of the project, most state
governments responded to the success and good results of the project, either by setting up a rural
developments structure to operate similar to Fadama using CDD approach, or transforming Fadama
state PIU into rural development agency, or by making extra budget allocation to Fadama PIU to
cover additional areas/LGAs/communities and continuing its implementation. Most LGAs, in fact,
adopted the Fadama approach in delivering services at the local level. The government also fulfilled
all its obligations towards the project and complied with all legal covenants.
(b) Implementing Agency or Agencies Performance
Rating: Satisfactory
Overall, the NFCO and its state counterparts had dedicated staff who were well trained and
collaborated with the Bank team and carried out most aspects of project management in compliance
with Bank procedures and guidelines. Fiduciary ratings were satisfactory despite the complex
nature of the project and the level of risk exposure involving multiple transactions and layers of
agencies. There were initial challenges and the complexity of providing guidance and monitoring
compliance in 37 PIUs, but the NFCO adopted the supervision plan prepared by the Bank during
the design stage and made it functional. The zonal offices were well established, and several studies
were carried out to support and fine-tune project implementation. It also introduced an award
scheme that engendered healthy competition among states in terms of achieving results towards
achieving the PDO in an innovative way. All the PIUs maintain and replaced retired staff, and all
had a full complement of staff at closing. There was strong coordination between the federal, state
and local governments on the implementation of the project with clear delineated roles and
responsibilities. Systems, procedures, and processes were not new to the implementing agencies as
most of them transited from the previous project and the learning curve was not steep. The project
team demonstrated a strong commitment to the implementation and utilized much of the capacity
support provided to be effective in delivering results. Annual work plans and budgets were
regularly prepared and the social inclusiveness of the CDD approach was adhered to, at the
community level which assisted in fostering participation and commitment of beneficiaries. But
the non-performance of some states and not being able to meet the key PDO indicator prevented a
highly satisfactory rating for the implementing agency.
(c) Justification of Rating for Overall Borrower Performance
Rating: Satisfactory
Given that Government performance is rated as Satisfactory and the Implementing Agency is rated
Satisfactory, the overall Borrower’s performance is rated as Satisfactory.
6. Lessons Learned
a. Agile Bank Operation: Fadama series of operation have demonstrated the agility of this
bank operation to evolving and dynamic contexts and using proven platforms and
mechanisms to deliver results on the ground. Responding to client needs, Fadama III was
scaled up at national level, while AF I layered a value chain approach, on top of CDD, to
sync with ATA, and AF II is now delivering results in a conflict zone to rehabilitate
livelihoods of conflict affected households. There are significant lessons learned from the
35
Fadama series of operations that can inform design and delivery of agile bank operations
elsewhere.
b. Convergence of Federal and State government on the same result agenda and
approach: Fadama III introduced elements of financial contribution from all government
level (local, state, and federal) and beneficiaries; aligned with government development
priorities (local development plans and national and state priorities); provided
implementation autonomy and flexibility; and involved beneficiaries in determining and
sharing development priorities. This brought governments at different level (local, state,
and national) on the same platform and the core approaches of the project have been
replicated and scaled up in other development programs being implemented by the
federal and state governments.
c. Mainstreaming Gender in a large development program: The gender mainstreaming
of the project was highly effective and number of Fadama III women beneficiaries was
over 40 percent. IFPRI’s impact evaluation study highlight that Fadama III female
beneficiaries income increased by 31 percent compared to 28 percent for male-headed
beneficiaries. The project took commendable steps to ensure inclusive and equitable
Community participation at the FUG and FCA levels, thus addressing the issues of
gender and governance. The gender gap was substantially reduced and gender
mainstreaming was largely complied with. The project made it mandatory to have a third
of executive members of FCAs as women. It also established project support for the
vulnerable population of which gender was well classified. The project data was well
disaggregated on gender basis. Fadama’s experience and approaches can help inform
other agricultural development programs in mainstreaming gender.
d. South-South Collaboration: Fadama is a good example of facilitating south-south
collaboration. The exposure trip to CDD projects in South Asia and elsewhere help
inform the design of this operation and incorporation of new elements, such as Fadama
User Equity Funds. At the same time, Fadama help inform a series of new bottom-up
operations in other parts of the World on agile operations, mainstreaming gender, and
adaptive learnings.
e. Tailor Best Practices to Local Conditions: The Fadama series of projects is a clear
example of how country-level projects can benefit from international experience. The
broad acceptance of the emerging CDD model within Nigeria resulting in part from the
information gathered on how similar projects had succeeded in other environments,
together with careful tailoring to the Nigerian context and use of existing institutional
arrangements.
f. Adaptive Learning: Design of the FADAMA project has embraced a model of trial,
errors, and adaptation. From piloting targeted small-scale community investments to
introducing fundamentally new mechanisms for community participations in agriculture
development, the project has been a laboratory of experiments. The process of adaptive
learning has encouraged innovation at every stage, enhancing project results and
sustainability.
g. Divergent state capacity: The capacity to implement, monitor, and co-finance
interventions at sub-national level can be quite different which can have tremendous
bearing on the project outcomes at individual states level and aggregate project level.
36
The project should keep in mind the various resource endowments, governance
structures, technical and management capabilities, and political commitments of
individual states during project design and resource allocation decisions, rather than
allocating all the states the same resources and timeline for implementation.
h. Setting up Realistic targets: The success of Fadama II slightly crowded the judgement
in setting up the result framework during preparation. Many of the targets were doubled
without understanding of the fact that 19 new states will just be joining the Fadama
project which will require steep learning curve and might face implementation challenges
to meet the project targets.
i. Responsive to geopolitical realities and dynamics: Some of the states went through
significant geopolitical turmoil, especially due to Boko Haram and Niger Delta
insurgencies, which adversely impacted the project implementation. Having some
mechanism to in place to adjust the implementation of the project considering the unique
needs of each states and responding to their geopolitical realities could improve the
performance of lagging states.
j. Community institution building: Presence of good local institutions is very important
to translate local demands and often a core element of good community-driven
development project. The project was able to create a number of local institutions (FUGs
and FCAs) and were able to federate them into state level FFCA. Most of these local
institutions are currently sustaining and operating, albeit at different capacities, providing
vital services to the project beneficiaries. This local institution development through
CDD approach has been relatively successful with far reaching implications and can have
wider application within and beyond Nigeria.
k. Integrated approach: The project combined hard investments (FUG asset creation and
community infrastructure) with soft support (capacity building and advisory support) to
provide an integrated package of interventions to ensure optimum utilization of assets
created by the project and their sustenance beyond the project life.
l. Demand-orientation: Rather than pre-determining the asset to be supported by the
project, the menu of options for investment support was rather broad, to ensure the
project meets the actual demands of the project beneficiaries. This approach was
relatively successful as demonstrated by the utilization and satisfaction surveys and could
be a good approach to be emulated in other projects.
m. Decentralization of decision-making: The adoption of CDD and the use of LDP as a
planning tool for investment enhanced the decentralization of fiscal and investment
decision making process at the community level. The mechanism devolved management
decision making and coordination to Management Committees of FCAs, Desk Officers,
and Facilitators in addition to the State Project Implementation Unit. The CDD–LDP
approach enhanced empowerment, social inclusion, participation, ownership, and
sustainability. This is a major success lesson of Fadama III Project.
n. Harmonization of Local Development Plans. The experience of Bank assisted CDD
projects shows greater impact, synergy and complementary from harmonization of tools
and approaches. This lesson was employed in project implementation through
collaboration with CSDP and SACA by ensuring good working relationships between the
relevant project teams and removal of project overlap and duplication in communities.
37
7. Comments on Issues Raised by Borrower/Implementing Agencies/Partners (a) Borrower/implementing agencies
(b) Co-financiers
(c) Other partners and stakeholders (e.g. NGOs/private sector/civil society)
38
Annex 1. Project Costs and Financing
(a) Project Cost by Component (in USD Million equivalent)
Components Appraisal Estimate
(USD millions)
Actual/Latest
Estimate (USD
millions)
Percentage of
Appraisal
Capacity building 74.59 42.34 56.76
Small scale community owned
infrastructure 73.40 41.74 56.86
Advisory services/input support 39.56 38.21 98.81
Support to ADPs, sponsored
research and on-farm
demonstration
31.96 10.42 32.35
Asset acquisition for individual
FUGs/EIGs 150 68.21 46.08
Project management 50.6 88.50 174.90
Total 289.44
Total Baseline Cost 420.17
Physical Contingencies
3.20
0.00
Price Contingencies
23.86
0.00
Total Project Costs 447.23 0.00
Front-end fee PPF 2.77.00 0.98
Front-end fee IBRD 0.00 0.00
Total Financing Required 450.00 290.42 64.54
(b) Financing
Source of Funds Type of Co-
financing
Appraisal
Estimate
(USD
millions)
Actual/Latest
Estimate
(USD
millions)
Percentage of
Appraisal
Borrower (Federal Government) 23.00 7.953 34.58
Borrower (State Governments) 77.00 14.448 18.76
Local Communities 60.00 16.633 27.72
International Development
Association (IDA) 250.00 235.924* 94.37
Local Governments 40.00 15.481 38.70
Total 450.00 290.442 64.54
*PCU indicates that the USD15 million shortfall was due to SDR-USD rate fluctuations.
39
Annex 2. Outputs by Component The project had the following six components:
Component 1. Capacity Building, Local Government, and Communications and Information
Support (US$87.5million): This component includes: (a) capacity building support for community
organizations; (b) capacity building support to local governments; and (c) communications and
information support. The objective of this component is to support measures to build the capacity
of Fadama Community Associations (FCAs) and their constituent Economic Interest Groups
(EIGs), Fadama User Groups (FUGs), to access project advisory services and project funding and
that of the project staff to successfully implement the project.
Under this component, the project formed 685 LGAs, 64,347 FUGs and 5,407 FCAs. At ICR a
total of 4,726, 4561 and 3,438 LDPs were prepared, approved, and fully implemented. The project
resulted in 48,791 (43.96%) FUGs having benefited from various kinds of trainings on book
keeping & financial records, marketing strategy, group dynamics, cost effective environmental
plan, conflict resolution etc., and 4,462 FCAs have benefited from training on Community Based
procurement, Financial Management, Environmental safeguards, group dynamics, cost effective
environmental plan, conflict resolution etc., while 2,713 LGA staffs against the project target of
3000 staff have been trained on project management, financial analysis, participatory M&E,
environmental safeguards, group dynamics, cost effective environmental plan, and conflict
resolution, etc., in the course of the implementation of the Project.
The Project financed technical assistance, training, equipment, and other institutional support to
the participating 685 local governments of which 387 LGAs integrated LDPs in their annual work
plan and budget (AWPB) against the target of 148 LGAs. To strengthen the capacity of
participating Local Government Authorities for participatory planning, a total of 810 training on
capacity building were attended by staff of LGAs.
Component 2. Small-Scale Community-owned Infrastructure (US $73.57 million)
The objective of Component 2 is to support the creation of economic infrastructure and local public
goods that would improve the productivity of Fadama user households. Under this component,
beneficiaries are required to pay 10 percent of the costs of construction and rehabilitation of surface
and ground water irrigation facilities, farm land clearing and development, on farm storage
facilities, farm internal roads, market infrastructure, access roads linking farm to
markets/processing centres, and hydraulic structures to enhance the production capacity of farmers
in a sustainable manner.
This component supported a total of 15,596 small scale community owned infrastructure
comprising of 137 constructed feeder roads, covering 413 km in addition to 165 feeder roads
covering 563 km that were rehabilitated. Others include: 49 drainages, 405 culverts, 67 small
bridges, 709 lockup shops, 1,493 market stalls, 125 cooling shed constructed, 11 drying slabs, 21
water harvesting infrastructure, 612 boreholes, 465 VIP toilets, 177 cold room housing, 125 storage
facilities, 2,591 poultry houses, 1,416 concrete fish ponds, 2,765 housing for processing machine,
61 watering points constructed, 13 Abattoirs, and 16 small earth dams. Also 3,438 of 5,407 FCAs
registered representing 64 percent of beneficiaries benefited under the component.
Component 3. Advisory Services and Input Support (US $39.5 million)
40
Under this component the Project financed: (a) advisory services - the Project provided support to
empower Fadama users--farmers/pastoralists and other Economic Interest Groups (EIGs) working
within their organizations and through their LGAs--to purchase advisory services from both public
and private sources; and (b) input support - this facility involves the adoption of new technology
by the farmers to enhance their financial capacity to purchase farm inputs (mainly seeds, fertilizers
and agrochemicals) and to build savings from incremental earnings to finance future purchases.
The Project used matching grant arrangement to deliver advisory services and input support.
Across the states, 6,650 service providers were certified and 4,587 service providers (3,460 private
and 1,127 public) were engaged in various project interventions. A total of 31,672 FUGs out of
total 64,347 FUGs procured advisory services.
The Project leveraged on the matching grant arrangement which was successfully tested under
Fadama II. Matching grant of 50 percent of the purchase price of the input per FUG, was given
while the remaining 50 percent was the FUG beneficiary counterpart contribution. A total number
of 493,805 Farmers had access to agricultural inputs comprising of 120,593,679 Farmers in 4760
FUGs procured Improved Seedlings; 87,596 Farmers in 9,324 FUGs procured Improved Seeds;
110,706 Farmers in 9,137 FUGs procured Inorganic Fertilizer; 80,354 Farmers in 7,442 FUGs
procured Agrochemicals; and 94,556 Farmers in 3,602 FUGs procured Organic Manure.
Component 4. Support to the Agricultural Development Programs (ADPs), Sponsored
Research, and On-Farm Demonstration (US $37.43 million)
The Project provided support to the ADPs to carry out the following specific and limited functions:
(a) support to advisory service providers; (b) quality assurance of advisory services; (c) training of
facilitators; (d) sponsored research and on-farm demonstrations; and (e) training of extension staff.
The project undertook sensitization workshops for the PMs/Managing Director ZPCs, SPCs, and
NPFS Regional Heads; organized meetings with PMs/MDs and Directors of Technical Services of
the ADPs, organized Zonal collaboration workshops for all the Director Technical Services (DTS),
Director Program Monitoring and Evaluation (DPME), Director Extension Services and a
representative of Women In Agriculture (WIA) of all ADPs, as well as the Fadama III SPCs and
research institutes in the zone; organized sensitization workshops of facilitators, SMSs and EAs;
organized orientation workshops of Service Providers; set up ICT resource center in each state;
conduced 481 training and trained 1855 ADP staff.
A collaborative workshop on sponsored Research was carried out with International and National
Research Centers in September 2009. Subsequently, MOUs with the International Institute for
Tropical Agriculture (IITA) and the National Research Institutes (NARIS) Institute for Agricultural
Research and Training (IAR&T), NCRI, National Institute for Freshwater Fisheries (NIFFR), IAR,
Lake Chad Research Institute (LCRI) and NRCRI were successfully concluded and signed.
However, the Project could not implement the sponsored research activity considering the gestation
period of a sponsored research programme. Meanwhile, effort was later centered on pushing proven
on-shelf technologies that are capable of increasing farmers’ yields.
A comprehensive needs assessment was conducted in all zones to ascertain farmer’s priorities. The
needs were matched with available (on-shelf) technologies, and interventions were packaged by
the research institutes coordinated by IITA. IITA organized four trainings in seed production
41
training for cereals, legumes, and tubers and six trainings in floating fish feed formulation. IITA
also organized seed multiplication trainings in two states and in collaboration with the National
Institute for Fresh Water Fishes Research (NIFFR), conducted floating fish production trainings in
two states. In collaboration with NCAM/Kinki University, demonstration of Sawah Rice
Technology was organized in 5 states.
These activities resulted in strengthened capacity of ADPs to provide extension services to Fadama
farmers and strengthened links between Fadama users and the research institute. A total of 195,503
(crop), 163,991 (livestock), and 17,685 (fisheries) beneficiaries received extension services from
ADPs. The major outcome of this component includes a 38.7 percent increase in the number of
Fadama farmers that received extension services from ADPs.
Component 5. Asset Acquisition for Individual FUGs/EIGs (US $150 million)
A matching grant was used as seed money to empower smallholder and poor farmers to acquire
capital assets which they used to undertake a wide range of small-scale income generating activities
as well as improve farmers' access to markets and complementary support that added value to farm
produce. This approach to financing is adopted due to the low performance of rural financial
markets in Nigeria, which are particularly deficient and limited in terms of outreach in the rural
areas.
M&E data show that Fadama III beneficiaries acquired mainly agricultural productive assets worth
N11.6 billion equivalents to about US$72 million. Livestock assets (33.93%) and crop assets
(33.33%) constituted the largest number of productive assets. A total of 245,756 various productive
Assets were procured by the groups, against the target of 100,000. The biggest category of asset
acquired includes Poultry production (53,348); Animal traction (41,984); water pumps (20,395);
sprayers (14,842); Fisheries (13,089); goat production (11,296); sheep production (10,695); and
distribution of assets to vulnerable population (47,643).
Component 6. Project Management, Monitoring and Evaluation (US $59.30 million)
This component was arranged to provide coordination and oversight function through: (a)
Technical assistance to national and state level implementation coordination; and (b) Project
coordination; and (c) Project monitoring and evaluation.
42
Annex 3. Economic and Financial Analysis
NIGERIA: THIRD NATIONAL FADAMA DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Implementation Completion Report: Economic and Financial Analysis
Dr. Molokwu C. Christopher1
Introduction
Project Development Objective and Components
The project development objectives (PDOs) of Fadama III were to increase the incomes of users of
rural land and water resources on a sustainable basis by directly delivering resources to the
beneficiary rural communities, efficiently and effectively, and empowering them to collectively
decide on how resources are allocated and managed for their livelihood activities and to participate
in the design and execution of their subprojects. By increasing their incomes, the Project will help
reduce rural poverty, increase food security and contribute to the achievement of a key Millennium
Development Goal (MDG).
The PDOs were achieved through an integrated approach including provision of matching grants
for small-scale economic infrastructure and asset acquisition subprojects, as well as the associated
training and skills development for the fadama user groups and Community Associations. The
Project was anchored on a Community-Driven Development approach. It had six components
namely:
(i) Capacity Building, Communication and Information Support
Capacity building support for community organizations; (b) Capacity building support to local
governments; and (c) Communications and information support.
The objective of this component is to support measures to build the capacity of Fadama Community
Associations (FCAs) and their constituent Economic Interest Groups (EIGs), Fadama User Groups
(FUGs), to access project advisory services and project funding and that of the project staff to
successfully implement the project.
(ii) Small-Scale Community-Owned Infrastructure
Is to support the creation of economic infrastructure and local public goods that would improve the
productivity of Fadama user households. Under this component, beneficiaries are required to pay
10% of the costs of construction and rehabilitation of surface and ground water irrigation facilities,
farm land clearing and development, on farm storage facilities, farm internal roads, market
infrastructure, access roads linking farm to markets/processing centres and hydraulic structures to
enhance production capacity of farmers in a sustainable manner.
(iii) Advisory Services and Input Support
The project finance: (a) Advisory services - the Project will provide support to empower Fadama
users--farmers/pastoralists and other economic interest groups (EIGs) working within their
organizations and through their LGAs--to purchase advisory services from both public and private
sources; and (b) Input support - this facility involves the adoption of new technology by the farmers
1 Molokwu C. Christopher, Economics Programme, Salem University, Lokoja, [email protected];
[email protected]; 0806 349 7859.
43
to enhance their financial capacity to purchase farm inputs (mainly seeds, fertilizers and
agrochemicals) and to build savings from incremental earnings to finance future purchases. The
project provided matching grant arrangement successfully tested under the Fadama II Project.
(iv) Support to the Agricultural Development Programs (ADPs), Sponsored Research, and
On-Farm Demonstration The Project provided support to the ADPs to carry out the following specific and limited functions:
(a) Support to advisory service providers; (b) Quality assurance of advisory services; (c) Training
of facilitators; (d) Sponsored research and on-farm demonstrations; and (e) Training of extension
staff.
(v) Asset Acquisition for Individual FUGs/EIGs
A matching grant was used as seed money to empower smallholder and poor farmers to acquire
capital assets which they used to undertake a wide range of small-scale income generating activities
as well as improve farmers' access to markets and complementary support that added value to farm
produce. This approach to financing is adopted due to the low performance of rural financial
markets in Nigeria, which are particularly deficient and limited in terms of outreach in the rural
areas.
(vi) Project Management, Monitoring and Evaluation
This component was arranged to provide coordination and oversight function through:
(a) Technical assistance to national and state level implementation coordination; and
(b) Project coordination; and (c) Project monitoring and evaluation.
Data Collection and Subproject Models
Analysis was based on data extracted from implementation database, administrative, monitoring
and evaluation records kept by the project. The notable documents consulted included the
following:
i. Aide memoires of various supervision missions,
ii. Reports of the supervision missions from 1st to the 8th mission,
iii. Midterm review reports,
iv. Management information system (MIS) reports, and
v. Borrowers Implementation Completion Report (ICR).
The actual achievements in various representative enterprise models; significant demands of
various assets were extracted and used in preparing this report. In situations where implementation
data did not exist, the scenario that obtained during project preparation was assumed.
Estimation of Benefit Capacity building for communities
The benefits of this component were largely indirect; difficult to disentangle and quantify; the
equity provider derived no direct benefit from the component but the component greatly improved
the effectiveness and efficiency of project implementation and indirectly improved productivities
and income of beneficiaries. The benefits of the capacity building were entangled and embodied in
the utilization of infrastructure or assets applied in the representative enterprises. For the purpose
of this analysis the budget for capacity building was regarded as an overhead cost incurred in
implementing the major components of the project. Consequently, no enterprise model was
constructed to represent capacity building.
44
Rural Infrastructure
This component was concerned with rehabilitation and/or construction of feeder and fadama access
roads, culverts and small bridges; and infrastructure for sustainable natural resources management,
including improved conservation of soils and agronomic practices, and water harvesting techniques.
In addition the project financed cross-FCA infrastructure—infrastructure that cuts across FCAs
and/or LG boundaries, including stock routes, pastures and watering points. Following the project’s
preparation report procedures; the enterprise models formulated to represent this component were:
(i) construction/rehabilitation of rural roads; (ii) markets and (iii) construction of boreholes.
Rural roads
Rural roads were used for evacuating produce from farms to markets. Higher prices of commodities
accrue to producers when they transport their commodities from the farms to markets (where the
commodities command higher prices). The benefits from rural roads were determined from the
difference between farm gate and market prices of commodities.
Rural markets
The benefit from the market model was the timely disposal of perishable fadama crops at
competitive prices. Farmers obtained more reasonable prices as they sold produce at competitive
prices due to increased demand and influx of traders to buy their produce. This led to increased
income. On market days fees were charged for the use of stalls, packing for lorries, cars, wheel
barrows and for the use of conveniences (toilet facilities) in the market.
Boreholes
The expected benefits from the boreholes were firstly pure drinking water for people and processing
activities then for livestock and other domestic purposes. Secondly it minimized the incidence of
water borne diseases in the communities and improved rural health. These also led to increased
production.
Productive activities
The models formulated for the productive activities included: Cattle/ram fattening, Sheep/goat
upgrading, Layer production, Northern Rain fed Module (Sorghum/cowpea/maize/millet),
Southern Rain fed Module (Yam/maize/Cassava), Northern Irrigation module, Southern Irrigation
module, Earth pond aquaculture, Palm fruit processing, Rice milling, Tomato/pepper processing,
Ground-nut Processing, Garri processing, and Honey Production. The economic benefits of this
component were derived from the incremental net income they generated; the increased
employment; improved quality of processed food; minimization of malnutrition and elimination of
hunger in the society.
Advisory services and input support
Advisory services component was concerned with mainly diversified problem-solving research and
extension services that are responsive to production, processing, marketing and supply chain
management needs of fadama users. The benefits of advisory services were indirect while the
benefits of the inputs were directly in form of improved production. No enterprise model was
therefore formulated for the component.
Main Assumption
The economic analysis was carried out for the project as a whole. Financial analysis was carried
out for the various representative enterprises to assess the incentives for farmers, managers, and
owners (including governments) who participated in the project. The financial analysis was based
on constant market prices, direct costs and benefits. Financial flows were calculated for both the
“with” and “without” project cases.
45
Period of Analysis
The period of analysis was 15 years. The cash flows for investment, operating inputs, labour; costs
and benefits streams were estimated and projected for 15 years. An incremental cost-benefit
analysis was used to estimate benefits from investments in the enterprises. Full cost-benefit analysis
was used to estimate returns from new business enterprises to capture the effects of diversification.
Methodology of economic analysis
The economic analysis for the Implementation Completion Report (ICR) adopted the
methodologies, patterns, and assumptions employed in the project’s preparation report. As in the
preparation report representative enterprise models were used as the analytical units or subprojects
supported by the intervention in order to estimate the project’s benefits and costs. As in the project’s
preparation report, the economic life of the project was taken to be 15 years consequently, cropping
patterns, inputs applications, costs and benefits were projected for 15 years and the computation of
performance indicators and decision criteria namely rates of return and net present values were
based on the values of net aggregate incremental benefits for 15 years.
Considering the fact that the project was demand driven: some subprojects were actually demanded
and implemented namely: Small Ruminant upgrading (sheep and goat production); Poultry
Production; Earth pond aquaculture (fisheries production); Palm fruit processing; Rice milling;
Tomato/pepper processing; Groundnut processing; Garri (cassava) processing; Fadama Roads
(road rehabilitation and construction); Fadama Markets including lockup shops and go-downs;
Boreholes and Honey Production. Some subprojects were not explicitly directly demanded rather
beneficiaries demanded the major pilot assets that were employed in these enterprises. In those
cases the same approach used in the project’s preparation in determining enterprise models and
their coverage based on the assets the beneficiaries demanded were followed to determine the
enterprises, and estimate the area covered by the enterprises. These subprojects are: Northern
(Savannah) rain fed agriculture; Southern (Rain forest) rain fed agriculture; Northern Irrigation
agriculture and Southern Irrigation agriculture.
The notable departures from the projects preparation models are:
The preparation report did not include Fadama Roads (road rehabilitation and construction)
and Tomato/pepper processing but these enterprises are included in the ICR because of the
highly significant achievements made by the project in these areas.
The preparation report included Tailoring but this enterprise was not included in the ICR
because the project did not support this enterprise it is in the negative list
In the preparation report expected values of project achievement were based on the pattern
of demand for rural infrastructure, pilot assets and advisory services by the beneficiaries of
Fadama II project.
In this ICR, the actual achievements recorded from implementation monitoring reports,
MIS and technical review missions were used as project achievements.
The details are presented in table 1.
Quantities/numbers of subprojects achieved during implementation
The number or quantities of the representative subprojects/enterprises achieved during
implementation and their estimates applied during project’s preparation are presented in table 1.
Evident from table 1, the project’s implementation achieved 134 percent in small ruminant
upgrading; 475 percent in poultry production; 96 percent in savannah (northern) rain fed
agriculture; 2 percent in rain forest (southern) rain fed agriculture; 165 percent in earth pond
aquaculture; 313 percent in palm fruit processing; and 193 percent in cassava (garri) processing.
On the other hand the project’s implementation was associated with decrease of 48 percent decrease
in northern irrigation agriculture; 65 percent decrease in southern irrigation agriculture; 75 percent
46
decrease in rice milling; 67 percent decrease in ground nut processing; 53 percent decrease in
fadama markets; 94 percent decrease in boreholes and 73 percent decrease in honey production.
Table 1: Quantities of Enterprise Models During Project’s Preparation and Implementation
Periods
S/
No ENTERPRISES IMPLEMENTATION
APPR
AISAL
Percent
age
YR 1 YR 2 YR 3 YR 4 YR 5
TOTA
L
increase
1 Cattle/Ram Fattening 2139 2139 2139 2139 2139 10695 3650 193
2 Small Ruminant Upgrading 2259 2259 2259 2259 2259 11296 4825 134
3 Poultry Production 10670 10670 10670 10670 10670 53348 9283 475
4 Savannah rain fed agric 4283 4283 4283 4283 4283 21416 10948 96
5 Rain forest rain fed agric 1484 1484 1484 1484 1484 7421 7299 2
6 North Irrigation agric 4079 4079 4079 4079 4079 20395 39362 -48
7 South Irrigation agric 2483 2483 2483 2483 2483 12413 35712 -65
8 Earth pond aquaculture 2011 2011 2011 2011 2011 10053 3798 165
9 Palm fruit processing 319 319 319 319 319 1593 386 313
10 Rice milling 181 181 181 181 181 904 3631 -75
11 Tomato/pepper processing 486 486 486 486 486 2432 N/A
12 Groundnut processing 106 106 106 106 106 529 1587 -67
13 Garri processing 749 749 749 749 749 3743 1277 193
14 Fadama Roads 189 189 189 189 189 944 N/A
15 Fadama Market 347 347 347 347 347 1736 3717 -53
16 Borehole 122 122 122 122 122 612 9425 -94
17 Honey Production 413 413 413 413 413 2067 7762 -73
Crop Yields
For crop production, at project preparation the yield rates applied were generic data derived from
Cropped Area and Yield Surveys (CAYS) conducted by the Ministry of Agriculture. In the ICR the
yield rates applied are the actually achieved yield rates recorded by implementation monitoring
unit. The actual yield rates were however not available for all crops. The available data are
presented in table 2. In table 2 it is apparent that the project’s implementation yield rates for
sorghum, millet, yam, cassava, tomato, pepper, amaranthus (vegetables) and onion were higher
than their values at the project’s preparation stage. The percentage increase ranged from 1 percent
in yam to 188 percent in pepper. The details are in table 2.
47
On the other hand, the project’s implementation yield rates for rice, maize, cowpea, and okro were
lower than their values at the project’s preparation stage. The percentage decrease ranged from -26
percent in okro to -5 percent in rice.
On processing (palm fruit processing, rice milling, tomato/pepper processing, groundnut
processing, and garri processing); earth pond aquaculture and infrastructure models (roads,
boreholes, markets) there were no monitoring data about their transformation coefficients
(processing conversion factors) consequently, the same transformation coefficients applied during
the project’s preparation stage were also applied at the project’s ICR stage.
Table 2: Crops’ Yields (kg/Ha) During Project’s Preparation and Implementation Stages
Crops Implementation (kg/Ha) Preparation (kg/Ha) Percentage change
Rice 3170 3334 -5
Maize 2340 2883 -19
Sorghum 1600 1300 23
Millet 1400 1300 8
Cowpea 950 1200 -21
Yam 14300 14175 1
Cassava 15980 14700 9
Okro 3860 5186 -26
Tomato 4260 3112 37
Pepper 5830 2023 188
Amaranthus 3750 2644 42
Onion 5830 4630 26
Inputs
During projects preparation it was assumed that the project’s implementation will provide farmers
with fertilizers, herbicides, insecticides and other inputs. There was no quantitative data on the
application of other inputs during project’s implementation. It was therefore assumed that the same
situation that applied during preparation also occurred during implementation. Consequently, there
was no change in the application of the other inputs during project’s preparation and
implementation. For fertilizers, herbicides and insecticides it was assumed that beneficiaries will
on the average, on per hectare basis apply 8 bags of fertilizers; 3 liters of herbicides and 3 liters of
insecticides. From implementation reports it was evident that on the average the farmers applied 5
bags of fertilizers; 2 liters of herbicides and 2 liters of insecticides per hectare (a decrease of 38, 33
and 33 percents respectively). The details are in table 3. The ICR report reduced the application
rates of these inputs accordingly.
48
Table 3: Farm Input Application Per Hectare During Project’s Preparation And
Implementation
Inputs Implementation Preparation Percentage Change
Fertilizers (50Kg bag) 5 8 -38
Herbicide (Lt) 2 3 -33
Insecticide(Lt) 2 3 -33
Prices of inputs and outputs
In the economic analysis for the ICR, constant prices as at mid June 2006 were used. These were
the same prices used in the project’s preparation on the assumption that all inputs and outputs will
be equally affected by changes in the price level over time. The use of constant prices obviates the
need for adjusting for the effects of inter-temporal price movements and inflation. In moving from
financial to economic analysis the following variables were eliminated namely: all taxes, subsidies
(included), loans, grants repayment of loans and interest charges. The Nigerian economy was
visualized to have no ownership rights to resources; no resources’ underutilization was permitted;
all constraints to free trade of resources and outputs were assumed away; no monopoly effects exist
in the economy and government interference was limited to ensuring free competitive economy
tending to perfect market situation. Consequently, all possible institutional constraints were
removed. Shadow Exchange Rate was not calculated because it was considered that the premium
on foreign exchange was small and even if large would not alter the analyses because the costs of
the imported components of Fadama III project were not critical to the outcome of the project
(Pedro et al 1998)2. As was assumed in the preparation report, the NGN was not over valued
consequently no overvaluation adjustment (standard conversion factor) was applied to non traded
goods. The exchange rate used is NGN 130.00 = USD 1.00. This was the exchange rate used in
the project’s preparation.
Aggregation
The achievements in the representative enterprise models on year-wise basis for the five years of
the project’s funding life were used as aggregation weights to sum the incremental benefits of the
representative enterprise models and obtain a single valued Aggregate Incremental Benefit (AIB)
for each of the 15 projected years of the project life. It is noted that the expenditures made on
Capacity Building, Support to the Agricultural Projects (ADPs) and Project Management,
Monitoring and Evaluation were not directly ascribed to any of the representative enterprise models.
They were regarded as overhead costs. For each of the funding project years from year zero to
year five, the associated overhead costs were deducted from the aggregated Incremental Benefit
(AIB) for that year to obtain the Net Aggregate Incremental Benefit (NAIB). The Net Aggregate
Incremental Benefit was the basis for computing the Internal Rate of Return (IRR) and the Net
Present Value (NPV) of the whole project. The achievements in the representative enterprise
models on year-wise basis for the five years of the project’s funding life were also used as
aggregation weights to sum the project’s benefits and costs for each of the representative enterprise
models and obtain single valued aggregated benefits and costs for each of the 15 projected years of
the project life. The net present values of the streams of the aggregated benefits and costs were used
2 Pedro Belli, Jack Anderson, Howard Barnum, John Dixon and Jee-Peng Tan (1998), Handbook on
Economic Analysis of Investment Operations: Operational Core Services Network Learning and
Leadership Center.
49
to compute the projects Benefit-Cost Ratio (BCR). The opportunity cost of capital used in
computing the NPV and BCR remained 12 percent as in the appraisal period.
Economic Analysis
Economic Rate of Return (ERR)
The estimated overall ERR for the project is 35%; an NPV of N 47,468.2 million or USD
365.1million; the BCR is 1.29 and Annual Incremental Net Benefit (AINB) of N 21,611.6 million
or USD 166.2 million, assuming an opportunity cost of capital of 12%.
The estimated ERR of 35% implies that if the incremental benefits due to the project are discounted
at the rate of 35 percent, the benefits will equate the costs and the NPV will be equal to zero. The
decision rule is that once the ERR is greater than the opportunity cost of capital (hurdle rate) the
project is passed as successful. The estimated NPV of N 21,611.6 million or USD 166.2 million is
the amount or net worth of the project when all costs have been accounted for including family
labour and the benefits which the resources committed to the project would have generated without
the project. The decision rule is to pass or regard the project as successful once the NPV is greater
than zero. The estimated BCR of 1.29 implies that for every one Naira spent on the project there is
a corresponding profit of 29 kobo only. The decision rule is to accept the project as successful once
the BCR is greater one. The estimated Annual Incremental Net Benefit (AINB) of the project was
N 21,611.6 million or USD 166.2 million. This is the amount left to the disposition of the equity
contributors when all costs have been duly paid including family labour and the benefits which the
resources committed to the project would have generated without the project. The decision rule is
to pass or regard the project as successful once the (AINB) is greater than zero. The details of
estimating the decision indicators for the project are presented in table 4.
Table 4: Estimation of the Project ERR and NPV
Project year
Aggregate
Incremental Benefit Overhead Costs
Net Aggregate
Incremental Benefit
0 0 -128416262 -128416262
1 -8060618885 -2454259561 -10514878446
2 -3263781176 -4557854084 -7821635260
3 88838678.62 -4944688288 -4855849609
4 3469554671 -2407945609 1061609062
5 7827471941 -841722948.3 6985748993
6 19379238407 19379238407
7 20606250299 20606250299
8 21611547714 21611547714
9 22588748992 22588748992
10 21237727348 21237727348
11 21237727348 21237727348
12 21237727348 21237727348
13 21237727348 21237727348
14 21237727348 21237727348
15 22514060451 22514060451
ERR = 35%
NPV = NGN 47,468,196,960;
NPV = USD 365,139,980
50
BCR = 1.29
In the preparation report the estimated overall ERR for the project was 29%; an NPV of N 57,073.9
million or USD 439.1 million; and incremental net benefit of N 32,513.3 million or USD 250.1
million, assuming an opportunity cost of capital of 12%.
Table 5: Estimated Values of Economic Indicators at Preparation and Completion of The
Project (in ‘000)
Indicators ICR (2016) Preparation (2007) Difference
Percentage
Difference
In millions
ERR 35 29 6 20.7
NPV(NGN) 47468.2 57073.9 -9605.7 -16.8
NPV(USD) 365.2 439.1 -73.9 -16.8
BCR 1.29 N/A N/A N/A
AINB 21,611.50 32,513.30 -10901.8 -33.5
From table 5 it is apparent that at the completion of the project relative to the appraisal, the
Economic internal rate of return increased by 6 percent, the Net Present Value decreased by about
17 percent and the annual incremental net benefit decreased by 33 percent.
Sensitivity Analysis
Sensitivity tests indicated that the project remains viable under a variety of assumptions. In general,
all the enterprise models were sensitive to changes in the output prices and operating costs. A 10
percent drop in the output prices reduces the project ERR to 23 percent, that is a decrease of 34
percent; and a 10 percent increase in operating costs reduces the project ERR to 27 percent, that is
a decrease of 22 percent.
The analysis of the switching value shows that the ERR is sensitive to changes in project costs and
benefits. A reduction in benefits by 18 percent or an increase in the total cost by 23 percent reduces
the ERR to 12 percent (the hurdle rate). Similarly, a reduction of benefits by 10% coupled to a
simultaneous increase of cost by 10% reduces the ERR to 12 percent which is the hurdle rate.
Table 6 presents the estimated economic indicators (ERR, NPV, AINB and BCR) for the
enterprise models. From the table it was apparent that the ERR ranged from a minimum of 18
percent in borehole to a maximum of 92 percent in rural roads. The NPV ranged from a minimum
of NGN 85,280 in Tomato processing to a maximum of NGN 177.1million in borehole. The BCR
ranged from a minimum of 1.07 in borehole to a maximum of 2.57 in rural roads.
51
Table 6: Estimated Economic Indicators (ERR, NPV, AINB and BCR) for the Enterprise Models
PROJECT ENTERPRISES PERCENT 000 NAIRA 000 USD
IRR NPV
INCR
BENEFIT NPV
INCR
BENEFIT
BCR
1 Cattle/Ram fattening 0.56 445.01 109.39 3.42 0.84 1.74
2 Sheep/Goat upgrading 0.80 577.04 127.97 4.44 0.98 1.26
3 Layer production 0.45 685.97 193.46 5.28 1.49 1.17
4 Sorghum/cowpea/maize/millet 0.47 237.32 58.73 1.83 0.45 1.50
5 Rain fed Yam/maize/Cassava 0.55 326.47 77.64 2.51 0.60 1.51
6 North Irrigation module 0.53 364.70 97.13 2.81 0.75 1.20
7 South Irrigation module 0.49 449.95 109.74 3.46 0.84 1.37
8 Earth pond aquaculture 0.58 342.66 85.98 2.64 0.66 1.54
9 Palm fruit processing 0.29 264.32 95.61 2.03 0.74 1.23
10 Rice milling 0.74 1274.36 287.33 9.80 2.21 1.42
11 Tomato/pepper processing 0.68 85.28 20.20 0.66 0.16 1.15
12 Groundnut Processing 0.73 674.01 155.69 5.18 1.20 1.27
13 Garri processing 0.41 252.46 76.33 1.94 0.59 1.12
14 Rural Roads 0.92 7066.00 1427.59 54.35 10.98 2.57
15 Rural Market 0.20 388.65 219.21 2.99 1.69 1.16
16 Borehole 0.18 177078.16 133.91 1362.14 1.03 1.07
17 Honey Production 0.52 308.38 83.45 2.37 0.64 1.24
Project 0.35
47,468,196.96
21,611,547.71
365,139.98
166,242.67 1.29
Min 0.18 85.28 20.20 0.66 0.16 1.07
Max 0.92 177078.16 1427.59 1362.14 10.98 2.57
52
The Economic Rate of Return at Project Completion Compared to Preparation Estimates
The estimated economic Internal Rates of Return (ERR) were compared to the estimates made at
the preparation of Fadama III project and the result is presented in table 7. From table 7 it is apparent
that the economic rates of return for the following 7 enterprises decreased namely: South Irrigation
model decreased by 46 percent; aquaculture by 3%; palm fruit processing by 28%; garri processing
by7%; Rural Market by 49%; Borehole by 67%; and Honey Production by 12% while that of the
ERR for other 10 enterprises increased at the completion of the project relative to the preparation.
The increases ranged from a minimum of 31 percent in Sorghum/cowpea/maize/millet model to
a maximum of 196 percent in Sheep/Goat upgrading. Details are in table 7.
Table 7: The ERR at Project Completion Compared to Preparation Estimates
PROJECT ENTERPRISES ICR(2016) Preparation(2007) Percentage
ERR ERR Increase
Cattle/Ram fattening 0.56 0.28 100
Sheep/Goat upgrading 0.8 0.27 196
Layer production 0.45 0.34 32
Sorghum/cowpea/maize/millet 0.47 0.36 31
Rain fed module
Yam/maize/Cassava 0.55
0.38
45
North Irrigation module 0.53 0.35 51
South Irrigation module 0.49 0.9 -46
Earth pond aquaculture 0.58 0.6 -3
Palm fruit processing 0.29 0.4 -28
Rice milling 0.74 0.38 95
Tomato/pepper processing 0.68 N/A N/A
Groundnut Processing 0.73 0.3 143
Garri processing 0.41 0.44 -7
Rural Roads 0.92 N/A N/A
Rural Market 0.2 0.39 -49
Borehole 0.18 0.54 -67
Honey Production 0.52 0.59 -12
Project 0.35 0.29 21
Min 0.18 0.27 -67
Max 0.92 0.9 196
Financial Analysis
The Financial analysis focused on the profitability of the agricultural project to the providers of
equity capital in the Fadama III project. It determined the financial impact of the project on equity
contributors (farmers and implementing agencies). In the analysis constant (June 2006) market
prices were used to determine values of inputs and outputs. Taxes and interests on loans were
regarded as costs while grants and subsidies were regarded as benefits. In the farm models the
source of benefits were the revenues from crops, livestock, fish and other farm outputs while costs
were made up of investment, operating expenses and taxes. In the processing models, the benefits
were derived from the values of the product and bye-products while costs were made up of
53
investment, operating expenses and taxes. Market values were imputed for commodities used at
home or given out as gifts or payment in cash.
Under infrastructure (community subprojects), there were externalities: the benefits were diffused
and may not be fully estimated. The road being a public good, the ownership right was not defined;
consequently claims to the benefits were also not defined. The readily evident benefit to the
community is the margin of higher prices they gained as the road assisted the community to
evacuate produce to markets where they obtained higher prices and as it opened the community to
traders and middlemen and their farm produce attracted competitive prices which were not possible
without the roads. The costs were made up of investment and maintenance expenses.
In the market model the benefits were mainly market charges for users of market facility including
stalls, stores, sheds, parking lots, toilets etc. The costs were made up of investment and maintenance
expenses.
In the borehole model the benefits were mainly water charges paid by users of the delivered water
while the costs were made up of investment and maintenance expenses.
The benefits of Advisory services were indirect. Since training enables the recipient to improve
productivity, the benefit were determined as a fraction of the incremental benefit arising from the
primary occupations while the costs were the consultancy fees and expenses incurred in organizing
the trainings.
Financial Rate of Return
The estimated overall financial rate of return (FIRR) for the project is 24%; an NPV of N 26,234.1
million or USD 201.8 million; the BCR is 1.02 and annual incremental net benefit of N 17,755.4
million or USD 136.6 million, assuming an opportunity cost of capital of 12%. The details of
estimated financial indicators for the project are presented in table 8. The estimated Financial Rate
of Return for the representative enterprise models in the project presented in table 8 ranged from a
minimum of 21 percent in groundnut processing to a maximum of 82 percent in rural road
infrastructure model. The details are in table 8.
The estimated Net Present Value (NPV) for the representative enterprise models ranged from a
minimum of NGN 38,220 or USD 290.0 in Tomato/pepper processing to NGN 6898,380 or USD
53,060 in rural roads model.
The estimated incremental benefits per annum for the models ranged from a minimum of
55
NGN 14,360 or USD 110 per annum in Tomato/pepper processing to NGN 1,427,586.00 or USD
10,980 per annum in rural roads model. However, rural roads are community sub-projects
consequently their benefits do not accrue to any particular individual. The estimated BCR ranged
from a minimum of 1.02 in borehole to a maximum of 2.57in rural roads model. The estimated
benefits per annum for a production unit ranged from NGN 23,256.00 in tomato/pepper processing
to 3917112.00 in rural roads. The estimated benefits per unit of labour employed in production
ranged from NGN 197.93 in honey production to NGN 97,927.80 in rural roads model. The details
are in table 8.
Table 8: Summary of the Decision Statistics for the Representative Enterprise Models.
PROJECT
ENTERPRISES
PER
CEN
T 000 NAIRA 000 USD Benefits in Naira
BCR
IRR NPV
INCR
BENEFI
T NPV
INCR
BENEFI
T
Per Prodn
Unit
Per Unit
of
Labour
1
Cattle/Ram
fattening 0.32 263.85 91.25 2.03 0.70 256,638 1642 1.60
2
Sheep/Goat
upgrading 0.24 244.15 115.93 1.88 0.89 139,334 1810 1.22
3 Layer production 0.31 464.19 165.62 3.57 1.27 171,647 376 1.11
4
Sorghum/cowpea/
maize/millet 0.62 235.00 52.55 1.81 0.40 89,192 918 1.42
5
Rain fed
Yam/maize/Cassav
a 0.48 270.28 71.81 2.08 0.55 113,532 985 1.44
6
North Irrigation
module 0.27 186.90 81.25 1.44 0.62 97,886 746 1.14
7
South Irrigation
module 0.30 276.23 96.42 2.12 0.74 117,495 849 1.29
8
Earth pond
aquaculture 0.41 214.48 69.24 1.65 0.53 111,358 917 1.43
9
Palm fruit
processing 0.27 178.08 73.34 1.37 0.56 273,625 912 1.17
10 Rice milling 0.29 602.71 237.43 4.64 1.83 796,185 839 1.33
11
Tomato/pepper
processing 0.27 38.22 14.36 0.29 0.11 23,256 323 1.10
12
Groundnut
Processing 0.21 212.35 123.19 1.63 0.95 233,444 1086 1.20
13 Garri processing 0.34 206.64 64.08 1.59 0.49 116,813 201 1.06
14 Rural Roads 0.82 6898.38 1427.59 53.06 10.98 3,917,112 97928 2.57
15 Rural Market 0.42 700.73 187.96 5.39 1.45 209,514 600 1.09
16 Borehole 0.80 474.20 112.92 3.65 0.87 112,923 941 1.02
17 Honey Production 0.45 241.10 71.26 1.85 0.55 71,255 198 1.17
Project 0.24
2623408
3.3
1775543
4.2
201800.
6 136580.3 1.22
Min 0.21 38.22 14.36 0.29 0.11 23256.0 197.93 1.02
Max 0.82 6898.38 1427.59 53.06 10.98 3917112.0 97927.8 2.57
56
The Internal Rate of Return at Project Completion Compared to Preparation Estimates
The estimated financial Internal Rates of Return were compared to the estimates made at the
preparation of Fadama III project and the result is presented in table 9. From table 9 it is apparent
that Sheep/Goat upgrading decreased by 2 percent; North Irrigation module decreased by 9 percent;
Earth pond aquaculture decreased by 3 percent; palm fruit processing decreased by 1 percent; and
rice milling decreased by 1 percent. The FIRR for other enterprise models increased at the
completion of the project relative to the preparation. The increases ranged from a minimum of 1
percent in groundnut processing and honey production, to a maximum of 142 percent in southern
Rain fed Yam/maize/Cassava model.
Table 9: The IRR at Project Completion Compared to Preparation Estimates
S/No PROJECT ENTERPRISES ICR IRR (2016)
PREPARATION
IRR (2007) Percentage
Increase
1 Cattle/Ram fattening 0.32 0.19 68
2 Sheep/Goat upgrading 0.24 0.24 -2
3 Layer production 0.31 0.27 16
4 Sorghum/cowpea/maize/millet 0.62 0.34 81
5 Rain fed Yam/maize/Cassava 0.48 0.2 142
6 North Irrigation module 0.27 0.3 -9
7 South Irrigation module 0.30 0.26 15
8 Earth pond aquaculture 0.41 0.42 -3
9 Palm fruit processing 0.27 0.27 -1
10 Rice milling 0.29 0.29 -1
11 Tomato/pepper processing 0.27 N/A N/A
12 Groundnut Processing 0.21 0.21 1
13 Garri processing 0.34 0.34 0
14 Rural Roads 0.82 N/A N/A
15 Rural Market 0.42 0.29 46
16 Borehole 0.80 0.34 136
17 Honey Productio 0.45 0.45 1
Project 0.24 0.2 20
Min 0.21 0.19 12
Max 0.82 0.45 83
57
Annex 4. Bank Lending and Implementation Support/Supervision Processes
(a) Task Team members
Names Title Unit Responsibility/
Specialty
Lending
Lucas Kolawole Akapa Consultant GSU01
Macmillan Ikemefule Anyanwu Senior Country Officer SACAA
Bayo Awosemusi Lead Procurement Specialist GGO01
Simeon Kacou Ehui Practice Manager GFA01
John Amedu Eimuhi Paralegal AFCW2
Issa Faye Economist AFTA1 -
HIS
Abigael Bunmi Ipinlaiye E T Temporary AFCW2
Sidi C. Jammeh Consultant SASDA -
HIS
Azra Sultana Lodi Senior Program Assistant AFTA1 -
HIS
Chukwudi H. Okafor Senior Social Development Spec GSU07
Africa Eshogba Olojoba Lead Environmental Specialist GEN05
Adenike Sherifat Oyeyiola Sr Financial Management Specialist GGO24
Jeanette M. Sutherland Consultant GTC07
Obadiah Tohomdet Senior Communications Officer AFREC
Wendy A. Wiltshire Consultant GFA13
Supervision/ICR
Adetunji Oredipe Senior Agriculture Economist GFA01
Amos Abu Senior Environmental Specialist GEN07
Abimbola Adubi Sr Agricultural Spec. GFA01
Lucas Kolawole Akapa Consultant GSU01
Akinrinmola Oyenuga
Akinyele Sr Financial Management Specialist GGO25
Mary Asanato-Adiwu Senior Procurement Specialist GGO01
Bayo Awosemusi Lead Procurement Specialist GGO01
Stephen Danyo Sr Natural Resources Mgmt.
Specialist GEN01
Azra Sultana Lodi Senior Program Assistant AFTA1 -
HIS
Ngozi Blessing Obi Malife Program Assistant GEN02
Chita Azuanuka Obinwa Program Assistant GEE01
Chukwudi H. Okafor Senior Social Development
Specialist GSU07
Africa Eshogba Olojoba Lead Environmental Specialist GEN05
Modupe Dayo Olorunfemi Investigative Assistant INTOP
Adenike Sherifat Oyeyiola Sr Financial Management Specialist GGO24
Wendy A. Wiltshire Consultant GFA13
58
(b) Staff Time and Cost
Stage of Project Cycle
Staff Time and Cost (Bank Budget Only)
No. of staff weeks USD Thousands (including
travel and consultant costs)
Lending
FY06 158.56
FY07 184.00
FY08 298.63
Total: 641.19
Supervision/ICR
Total: 0.00
59
Annex 5. Beneficiary Survey Results The State had conducted ten studies since the inception of Fadama III in 2009 todate as
highlighted below:
S/N STUDIES CONDUCTED PERIOD MAJOR FINDINGS
1. Baseline survey 2009 Baseline information on key performance indicators such as income,
socio0economic characteristics, production etc. was captured. Average real
household income was N170,548.27
2. Agricultural Production Survey (APS) 2010, 2011 &
2012.
The 2012 APS is at data collation/analysis stage. However, the result of 2010 and
2011 APS had been published with result indicating considerable increases in the
yield of major crops. Overall, there was an average increase of 13.6% increase in
yields of major crops in the midline APS, and a 29.7% in yield of major crop at the
RRA.
3. Household income generation, progression
and sustainability to the achievement of
Fadama III PDOs.
2011 Average real household income at mid-term was N237, 2118.11. This indicates 39%
increase over the baseline average household income of N170,548.27.
4. Social capital formation and implication for
the achievement of Fadama III PDOs.
2011 - The FUEF had about 7.32% of the value of the productive assets. in the FUEF
account for maintenance of assets.
- The Project has created social capital as evidenced by formation of additional
FUGs, increased participation in decision making, enhanced subprojects
ownership and management by members of FUGs, social inclusion and
democratic election of membership of standing committees
5. Contribution of Advisory Services and Inputs
Support, Support to ADP Adaptive Research
to the attainment of Fadama III PDOs.
2011 - About 50% Fadama users use advisory services
6. Midline Impact Assessment 2012 Completed & final report of the study submitted.
7. Adoption study 2012 / 2013 The study is concluded and final report submitted. Encouraging level of adoption
of improved technologies was reported. Please see summary of findings in Annex
2 of this report
8 Pest survey 2012 / 2013 The survey had been conducted.
9. Rapid Rural Appraisal (RRA) 2013 / 2014 - At least 81% of Fadama users have increased their average incomes by at least
40%.
- Average income increased by 62.0% over the baseline income.
Yield of agricultural products increased by 29.7%
- 88% of the assets’ beneficiaries were satisfied with the operation, maintenance
and utilization of their assets.
- 83.1% of the infrastructure and assets acquired were in good condition and
working satisfactorily.
Summary of Midline impact assessment report conducted at mid-term:
The midline impact assessment report conducted at mid-term revealed the following:
1. Fadama III Project has positive impact on beneficiaries in terms of Agricultural
productivity, small-scale community owned infrastructure, household income and
productive assets of Fadama users. Factors such as level of educational attainment seem to
contribute positively to the positive impact observed.
60
2. Majority of the beneficiaries have complied and adopted the guidelines of saving 10
percent of net earnings per annum from income generating activities of the Fadama Users
Groups.
3. Also, the value of non-productive assets was significantly increased.
4. Fadama III Project has positively impacted on Crop Production, with about 30% increase
in yield of major crop production when compared to the baseline.
5. On Gender, Fadama III Project has significant impact on income of men as at midterm
suggesting the need to target women in the remaining period of the Project. The report
showed that the major outcomes show bias against women in multiple folds. This result
could be due to the inability of the women groups to pay the counterpart funds. The result
is however contrary to the overall national report which revealed that the greatest impact
was on the income of women and the poorest among the beneficiaries
6. Fadama III Project has significant impact on the poor category, but not on the middle rich
and the very rich categories. This is in line with the Project targeting of the poor and
vulnerable.
7. Fadama III Project has statistically insignificant effect on non-farm income of the project
beneficiaries in the State.
8. It was evident that Fadama III Project has supported agro-processing activities to create
value addition of agricultural products. These agro-processing activities include Gari
processing, palm oil processing and feed milling. This implies that women who are the
vulnerable benefited more from these activities than in farming activity.
9. The findings revealed that the rural communities participating in Fadama III Project had
benefited from the provision of advisory services, capacity building, provision of input
support, and Small Scale Community owned infrastructure.
61
Annex 6. Stakeholder Workshop Report and Results NA
62
Annex 7. Summary of Borrower's ICR and/or Comments on Draft ICR
63
Annex 8. Comments of Cofinanciers and Other Partners/Stakeholders NA
64
Annex 9. List of Supporting Documents Updated National Report for FADAMA III ICR, August 2016, National FADAMA
Coordination Office, Government of Nigeria.
Updated National Database for FADAMA III, August 2016, National FADAMA Coordination
Office, Government of Nigeria.
End-Term Impact of FADAMA III in Nigeria, May 2016, International Food Policy Research
Institute (IFPRI), Washington DC.
Medium-Term Impact of FADAMA III Project, 2012, International Food Policy Research
Institute (IFPRI), Washington DC.
Project Performance Assessment Report Nigeria Second FADAMA Development Project
June, 2014, Independent Evaluation Group, World Bank, Washington DC
The Third Fadama National Development Series: How to Build a Pilot into a National Program
Through Learning and Adaptation, March 2016, Global Delivery Initiative, Washington DC
Third National Fadama Development Project Joint FGN/World Bank Mission Aide Memoires
(2010, 2011, 2012, 2013) Nigeria
State Fadama Coordinating Office. Third Fadama Development Project Baseline Study Report;
Independent Assessment on Third National Fadama Development Project
State Fadama Coordinating Office. Third Fadama Development Project Mid Term Review;
Independent Assessment on Third National Fadama Development Project, State Fadama
Coordinating Office, Nigeria
PDO Studies Reports; Independent Assessment on Third National Fadama Development
Project, State Fadama Coordinating Office, Nigeria
Report of Rapid Appraisal Study of Fadama III Implementation
Report of Assessment of Technology Adoption Studies; Independent Assessment on Third
National Fadama Development Project
World Bank. 2008. Project Appraisal Document for the Third Fadama Development Project.
Implementation Status and Results Reports (2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014), World
Bank Washington DC.
65
Annex 10: Project Results Framework for FADAMA III Additional Financing (Till June
2016)
Project Development Objective (PDO): The objective of the Project is to increase the incomes for users of
rural lands and water resources within the Fadama Areas in a sustainable manner throughout the Recipient’s
territory.
Indicator Baseline Value Original End
Target Values Current Achievement
Indicator 1: 75% of beneficiaries, who
benefit directly from Project
supported activities, have
increased their average real
incomes by at least 40%.
Value (Quantitative or
qualitative) 108,501.76
30,000 beneficiaries
have increased their
income to
151,902.46
Study ongoing
Date achieved 2014 2017 June 2016
Comments (incl. %
achievement) Study ongoing
Indicator 2 :
40% increase in yield of cassava,
rice, sorghum and horticulture of
participating households.
Rice
Sorghum
Cassava
Horticultural crops
40%
The change in yield from
4.8mt/ha for rice to 3.7mt/ha
could be attributed to more
production cycle recorded
(dry and wet seasons).
However a study is being
conducted to validate these
results.
In the case of cassava more
harvest data were recorded
from more production groups
resulting in a lower average
Value (Quantitative or
Qualitative)
Rice----------------2.84
Sorghum-----------1.14
Cassava------------
11.92
Horticultural crops---
12.56
Rice----------------
3.98
Sorghum-----------
1.60
Cassava------------
16.69
Horticultural crops
17.58
Rice------- 3.72(31%)
Sorghum--------2.1(84.21%)
Cassava-----------
15.76(32.21%)
Horticulture------
28.60(128%)
Date achieved 2014 2017 February 2016
Indicator Baseline Value
Original End Target
Values (from
approval
documents)
Actual Value Achieved at
Completion or Target
Years
Comments (incl. %
achievement)
66
Indicator 3: 10% of replacement value of the
common asset used by the
beneficiaries for income
generating activities is saved
annually (with effect from year
2).
Value (Quantitative or
qualitative) 0 10% NA
Date achieved 2014 2017 June 2016
Comments (incl. %
achievement) Savings yet to commence.
Indicator Baseline Value
Original End
Target Values
(from approval
documents)
Actual Value Achieved at
Completion or Target Years
Indicator 4 : Surveys at Project closing to show
that at least 75 percent of
beneficiaries are satisfied with
operations, maintenance and
utilization of community-owned
infrastructure and capital assets
acquired through the Project.
Value (Quantitative or
qualitative) 0 30,000(75%) NA
Date achieved 2014 2017 June 2016
Comments (incl. %
achievement) Assets are being procure across States and value chain.
Indicator 5 :
Physical verification of
operations, maintenance and
utilization of assets at Project
closing by surveys of randomly
selected sites shows that at least
50% of assets and community-
owned infrastructure are
operating satisfactorily and are
maintained and utilized.
Value (Quantitative or
qualitative) 0 50% NA
Date achieved 2014 2017 June 2016
Comments, (incl. %
achievement)
67
Indicator Baseline Value
Original End
Target Values
(from approval
documents)
Actual Value Achieved at
Completion or Target Years
Component 1: Capacity Building, Communications and Information Support
Intermediate result indicator 1.
By Mid-Term Review, 75 % of
participating beneficiaries have
Business Plans developed
through a participatory process.
Value (Quantitative or
qualitative) 0 30,000(75%)
2920(9.7%)
Date achieved 2014 2017 June 2016
Comments , (incl. %
achievement)
As at date, a total of 2920 BPs have been developed across the value
chain through participatory process, giving a percentage of 9.7 out of the
target of 75.
Intermediate result indicator 2.
By end of Project, 75%
beneficiaries have fully (100%)
implemented approved business
plans.
Value (Quantitative or
qualitative) 0 30,000 (75%)
676(2.3%)
Date achieved 2014 2017
June 2016
Comments, (incl. %
achievement)
As at date, 676 Business plans has been fully funded, representing 2.3% of
the developed Business plan.
Indicator Baseline Value
Original End
Target Values
(from approval
documents)
Actual Value Achieved at
Completion or Target Years
Intermediate result indicator 3
By the end of the 1.5 years of
implementing AF, at least 75
percent of the beneficiaries
would have successfully
negotiated contracts
(disaggregated for inputs
purchase and output sales)
68
Value (Quantitative or
qualitative) 0 30,000 (75%)
676 (2.3%)
Date achieved 2014 2017 June 2016
Comments, (incl. %
achievement) 676 Production Groups have successfully negotiated contracts.
Component 2: Small-scale Community-owned Infrastructure (SCI)
Intermediate result indicator 1
100% of selected project
intervention areas have at least
one of their irrigation systems /
access roads
constructed/rehabilitated.
Value (Quantitative or
qualitative) 0 71 (100%)
0
Date achieved 2014 2017 June 2016
Comments, (incl. %
achievement)
There are 71 intervention sites currently, these constitutes 20 irrigation
sites and 51 access roads at various implementation stages.
Indicator Baseline Value
Original End
Target Values
(from approval
documents)
Actual Value Achieved at
Completion or Target Years
Component 3: Advisory Services and Input Support (ASIS)
Intermediate result indicator 1
30% increase in the number of
beneficiaries procuring advisory
services in the selected project
intervention areas (EIG
disaggregated by gender and
age).).
Value (Quantitative or
qualitative) 57% 12000(30%)
9593(24%)
Date achieved 2014 2017 June 2016
Comments, (incl. %
achievement)
A total of 9593 beneficiaries have procured advisory services across the
value chain. This represents 24% of the estimated total beneficiaries. This
was disaggregated by;
Male-------7133(74.4%)
Female------2460(25.6%)
Intermediate result indicator
2.60% increase in the number of
beneficiaries with access to
improved seed, fertilizer and
mechanization (EIG
disaggregated by gender, age and
farm size, land use, crop,
etc).Improved Seeds
Organic manure
Agro-Chemicals
Mechanization
9413 (29.4%) of the 31977
beneficiaries procured agric
input.
Value (Quantitative or
qualitative)
52% (Average)
31% (Male) 2.6%
69
21%(Female)
30%(Youth)
Date achieved 2014 2017 June 2016
Comments, (incl. %
achievement)
Indicator Baseline Value
Original End
Target Values
(from approval
documents)
Actual Value Achieved at
Completion or Target Years
Component 4: Support to ADPs, Sponsored Research, and On-Farm Demonstration
Intermediate result indicator 1
30% increase in the number of
beneficiaries receiving extension
services from both public and
private providers (disaggregated
by gender, age, and land use and
public/private service provider).
5994 (18.74%) of 31977
Beneficiaries received
extension services from
public service providers.
Female ------1338 (22.3%) of
5994
Male ----4656 (77.7%) of
5994
Value (Quantitative or
qualitative) (57%) 79.5%
Date achieved 2014 2017 June 2016
Comments, (incl. %
achievement)
Intermediate result indicator 2
At least 75% of beneficiaries are
satisfied with the extension
services from both public and
private providers.
Value (Quantitative or
qualitative) 0 75%
4864 (81%) of 5994
beneficiaries who received
extension services from
public service providers are
satisfied.
Date achieved 2014 2017 June 2016
Comments, (incl. %
achievement)
No formal study has been undertaken
Indicator Baseline Value
Original End
Target Values
(from approval
documents)
Actual Value Achieved at
Completion or Target Years
Intermediate result indicator 3
At least, 75% of beneficiaries
have adopted 20% of new
technology (disaggregated by
gender, age, land use and farm
size).
Value (Quantitative or
qualitative) 0 30,000
NA
70
Date achieved 2014 2017 June 2016
Comments, (incl. %
achievement) A survey will soon be conducted to determine the adoption rate.
Intermediate result indicator 4
By the end of the project, at least
50% of beneficiaries will be
receiving e-extension services
Value (Quantitative or
qualitative) 0 20,000(50%)
1052(2.63%)
Date achieved 2014 2017 June 2016
Comments, (incl. %
achievement)
The project has rolled out e-extension messages to 982 in Kogi and 70 in
Niger States for AF and Non AF farmers.
Indicator Baseline Value
Original End
Target Values
(from approval
documents)
Actual Value Achieved at
Completion or Target Years
Intermediate result indicator 5
At least 50% of all on-farm
demonstrations are conducted on
a yearly basis for all of the value
chains in selected project
intervention areas
Value (Quantitative or
qualitative) 0 30 (50%)
20 (33.3%)
Date achieved 2014 2017 June 2016
Comments, (incl. %
achievement)
On-farm demonstrations on rice value chain was carried out in Kano (3Nos),
Anambra (3Nos), Niger (4Nos) for tomatoes in Kano state (4 Nos) while 6
Nos demonstrations were established in Kogi for cassava.
Intermediate result indicator 6
By the end of the project, at least
50% of beneficiaries would have
increased nutrition awareness
(disaggregated by gender).
Value (Quantitative or
qualitative) 0 20,000(50%)
NA
Date achieved 2014 2017 June 2016
Comments, (incl. %
achievement)
A TOT workshop on nutrition sensitive Agriculture has been scheduled to
hold on 24th of October,2016, where 40 front line extension officers
would be trained for subsequent step down.
Intermediate result indicator 7
By the end of the project, at least
20% of beneficiaries will be
using inputs rich in micro –
nutrients
Value (Quantitative or
qualitative) 0 8000(20%)
NA
Date achieved 2014 2017 June 2016
Comments, (incl. %
achievement)
A study will soon be conducted to determine the percentage of
beneficiaries using inputs rich in micro nutrients.
71
Indicator Baseline Value
Original End
Target Values
(from approval
documents)
Actual Value Achieved at
Completion or Target Years
Component 5: Acquisition for Individual FUGs/EIGs ( especially women and youths)
Intermediate result indicator 1
At least 30% of Production
Clusters have access to market
information .
Value (Quantitative or
qualitative) 0 24,000 (60%)
2,863 (7%)
Date achieved 2014 2017 June 2016
Comments, (incl. %
achievement)
2,863 beneficiaries have access to market information, they have negotiated
contracts for inputs purchase – Agro dealers and output sales
Intermediate result indicator 2
10% annual increase in
beneficiaries adopting improved
techniques in investment areas
(EIG disaggregated by gender,
land use, crop, classes of
technology, etc.).
Value (Quantitative or
qualitative) 0 4000 (10%)
7%
Date achieved 2014 2017 June 2016
Comments, (incl. %
achievement)
Indicator Baseline Value
Original End
Target Values
(from approval
documents)
Actual Value Achieved at
Completion or Target Years
Intermediate result indicator 3.
By the end of the project, at least
1,800 number youth-graduates
would serve as Agri – preneurs
Value (Quantitative or
qualitative)
0 1,800
200
Date achieved 2014 2017 June 2016
Comments, (incl. %
achievement)
The 1800 is the project target for the 6 Core States with 300 as each core
State
72
Indicator Baseline Value
Original End
Target Values
(from approval
documents)
Actual Value Achieved at
Completion or Target Years
Component 6: Project Management, Monitoring and Evaluation
Intermediate result indicator 1.
NFCO and SFCOs conduct
satisfactory project management
as evidenced by effective
supervision, M&E, impact
evaluation, financial
management, and financial
auditing arrangements.
Value (Quantitative or
qualitative)
Date achieved 2014 2017 June 2016
Comments, (incl. %
achievement)
Indicator Baseline Value
Original End
Target Values
(from approval
documents)
Actual Value Achieved at
Completion or Target Years
Intermediate result indicator 2
Document and disseminate
specific information on project
performance to users and
stakeholders.
Quarterly reports rendered
and the Project has received
five (5) Joint WB/FGN
Supervision Mission to date
Value (Quantitative or
qualitative)
Date achieved 2014 2017 June 2016
Comments, (incl. %
achievement)
73
MAP