W"IO XLMI DU ri-i iME-ml__________`__W_

tn,URIluD TO HEPORTS DESK 1 Q TI TNT ,1

I( Io 1-1' 1-

REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA

NORTH WESTERN STATE

Gusau Agricultural Development Project

June 15, 1973

This report was prepared at the request of the Federal Military Governmentof Nigeria and the Government of the North Western State. The views andrecommendations contained in the report are those of the authors rather thanthose of the World Bank Group. The Federal Military Government of Nigeria,the Government of the North lrestern State and the authors are responsible forthe release and distribution oE the report.

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Currency Equivalents

Current Unit: Naira (w)

US1i = NO.66

Wi ~~~= TJStl. 2

WI = Koho) (K') 100

Fiscal Year

April 1 - March 31

Tyle s 41 4-- e t A .I'l ,A mm4-l-~ 1 ~,A " v, 0

report are metric.

1 metric m ton =0.98 long ton

1 long ton =1.016 m ton

1 hectare (ha) =2.47 acres (ac)

1 acre 0 .405 hectares

Abbrevi-ations used in RtepOrt

ABU - Ahmadu Bello UniversityBOGA British Cotton Growers' AssociationCRC =Cotton Research CorporationERLS =Extension Research Liaison ServiceFDA =Federal Department of AgricultureFMG = Federal Mi-litary Government!AR =institute of Agricultural1 ResearchIBRD =International Bank for Reconstruction and DevelopmentICB =International Comapetitive BiddingSLA Sokoto Local AuthorityLBA =Licensed Buyving AgentMAN~R' = Ministry of Agriculture and Natural ResourcesMOH = Ministry of Healthmow = Ministry of WorksMTIC = Ministr~y of Trade, Industry and CooperativesNAB = Nigerian Agricultural BankNPMC =Nigerian Produce Marketing CompanyNSMB Northern States Marketing BoardPID =Produce Inspection DivisionUNDP = United Nations Development ProgramUSAID = United States Agency for International DevelopmpentWASC = Wdest African School Certificate

INTERNATIONAL BANK FOR RECONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPM$ENT

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION

OFFICE MEMORANDUM

TO: Mr. Wilfried Thalwitz DATE: June 15, 1973

FROM: Ralph Wa\rth

SUBJECT: NIGERIA: North W'estern StateGusau Ag,ricultural Develonment. Provc~t

1. The attached preparation report is nnA of thrppl/ qsmnlIhnl(olragricultural projects for northern Nigeria prepared by this Division.Conies of the rAnort have been forwarded to the Nigerian. Federal Gover-ment and to the Government of the North Western State.

2. The report would be reviewed by the Governments concernedover the next two months and subject to Government approval plans arebeing made to appraise the project in September and October of this year.

1/ The three projects are: the Funtua Agricultural Development Project(North C 4 entral ,Sta.t.e); tN.4e G-us--u Ag-iLc- a

Development Project (North WIestern State); andtheu Go,,lbetz: Atricultural D tlevelupmfle nt rroject.(North Eastern State).

ROrims haw: jrcc: Messrs. Chaufournier Messrs. Grimshaw (30)

van der Takl BevanYudelman Brochu (FAO/IBRD Rome)VVwLrighb1 u Grosjeande la Renaudiere Ettingerde 'Vries AguehMlirza KanchanalakPovey Read (Consultant)Rowe Rice (Consultant)Gillette Pickering (Consultant)Pouliquen Reusse (Consultant)Davisvan Gigch HMWA (2)Oursin IBRD Lagos Office (3)SogesKrombach Federal Ministrv of Finance -

Lagos (25)Federal Ministry of Agriculture and

Natural Resources - Lagos (31)State Government (50)

NIGERIA

NORTH WESTERN STATE

Gusau Aericultural DeveloDment Proiect

Table of Contents

Page No.

SUMMARY ........................... i

I. INTRODUCTION .......................... 1

II. PROJECT AREA .......................... 2

A. General .......................... 2B. Institutions .6 ...................., 6C. Processing and Marketing ..... .................... 10

III. THE PROJECT . ........................................... 12

A. Description .......... ............................ 12D. T:0a-ile-d Fe-a:lur, w ....................................... 1 13U. L 16. L.L U E W L.A~.

TIY f' rVC P VCP1T'UA'PVC AKT VTrTAkj,T AT A Dn A 7Mr1V1VTrL', 10TV~ . CJU.L EcTT-^Ec tUx.J FINtlA{CIA..LtU Am .. .. . . .. .. . .t L 10

A T l ect C.. 4 . l

B. Tentative Proposal for Financing .... ............. 20C. rrocurement ......... ............................. 2D. Disbursements ........ ............................ 22E. Accounts and Audit ...... ......................... 22

V. ORGANIZlATION AND MANAGENT ......N...................... 23

A. Organization ......... ............................ 23B. Staffing ............ ............................. 26C. Staff Training ....... ............................ 27D. Farm Inputs - Credit and Cash Sales .... .......... 28

VI. PRODUCTION, MARKETS, FARMERS' BENEFITS ANDGOVERNIMENT BENEFITS ....... .......................... 31

A. Yields and Outputs ...... ......................... 31B. Markets and Prices ...... ......................... 32C. Farmers' Benefits ....... ......................... 34D. Financial Implication to Government .... .......... 38

VII. BENEFITS AND JUSTIFICATION ............................ 39

VIII. OUTSTANDING ISSUES ........ ............................ 40

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd)

ANNEXES

1. tBas4c riCL a2. Research and Seed Multiplication

J Ag~riclua ..ads "- 1 and- Wtr-- -- `- -1- Copl ^n,s tr uC t ion3. .LLU.L%_U L C.L dLCLZ,CLU CA_V'i0 OLL.ujFA.Ly % L,.LLw

Table 1: Road and Dam Construction Schedulerakl e :) Pltequire-uen.ts

Table 3: Capital Costs Construction PlantTrabl-e 4: T abor a. dI Par.t prtn ^

-'t * LUIJ dJU L..L L. 'JIF aLj.LL J . A L.

Table 5: Construction Labor Costs.abU.Le U: Construction SuppliesTable 7: Mechanical Workshop Capital CostsITalLCe 08 r= chLIan 'Lcl a wurthOp VPerL_.L'g CosLtsTable 9: Cost SummaryTaule IV. ,os UL UalsisLb

Table 11: Unit Plant Capital and Operation Costsr _ ri 1 n _ ^J _ _ _ _ o _ _ ~ _ ~ _ _ _

Chart ; Road Section s and Specificdations

4. Water and Soil ConservationTable 1: Reservoir Operation for i0 year Drought Year

5. Training6. Staffing of Field Services

Table 1: Staff Requirements (in field)Table. 2: incremerntal Staffing - Fleld ServLce

7. Farm and Crop DevelopmentTable 1: Seed Cotton Purchases by Northern States

Marketing Board by YearsTable 2: Groundnut Purchases by Northern States

Marketing Board by YearsTable 3: One Hectare Cotton BudgetsTable 4: One Hectare Sorghum BudgetsTable 5: One Hectare Maize BudgetsTable 6: One Hectare Groundnut BudgetsTable 7: One Hectare Cowpea BudgetsTable 8: Summary Model Budget of Advanced Farmer Utilizing

Project Services: CottonTable 9: Summary Model Budget of Advanced Farmer Utilizing

all Project Services: GroundnutsTable 10: Estimated Effect of Project on Cotton Area and

Production by YearsTable 11: Estimated Changes in Area of CerealsTable 12: Estimated Changes in Cereal ProductionTable 13: Summary of Yields of Promising Maize Varieties

and Hybrids: IAR Samaru8. Farm Inputs and Credit

Table 1: Seasonal Fertilizer InputsTable 2: Seasonal, Seeds, Insecticide and Battery Set Inputst

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd)

Table 3: Summary FMG Fertilizer Subsidies, Cash Sales andSeasonal Credit Requirement

Table 4: Medium Term Inputs, Farm Down Payments and CreditRequirements

Table 5: Model Budget 7.5 ha Mixed Farmers (Cotton)Table 6: Model Budget 7.5 ha mixed Farmers (Groundnuts)Table 7: Revolving Credit Fund

9. Project CostsTable 1: Summary of Project CostTable 2: Vehicles, Plant and Equipment CostsTable 3: Houses, Buildings, Furnishings and Construction

Materials for Roads and DamsTable 4: Staff Salaries and AllowancesTable 5: Running Costs of Vehicles and PlantTable 6: General Services

10. Marketing and Prices for Cotton and GroundnutsTable 1: Economic and Farm Gate Seed Cotton Price CalculationTable 2: Economic and Farm Gate Groundnut Price Calculation

11. Markets, Prices and Marketing of Maize, Sorghum and CowpeasTable 1: Market Prices and Marketing of Maize, Sorghum and Cowpeas

12. Table 1: Cash Flow to Government13. Rate of Return Calculation

Table 1: Project BenefitsTable 2: Incremental Farm Labor CostTable 3: Economic Rate of Return Calculation - Project CostsTable 4: Economic Cash FlowTable 5: Economic Rate of Return (%) Sensitivity Analysis

MAPS

1. Pro4ect T~mation2. Project Area

FIGUTRES

1. Project Oganlzatonn2. Hydrology Reservoir Operation during 10 Year Drought Year

3. 4- Typca Seton %f Tna E."nlkmn.vat

4. Rainfall Distribution5. .-net an.d Closure of Wet Season

NIGERIA

NORTH WESTERN STATE

Gusau Agricultural De-velopment Project

Summary

i. Tnis report presents a project to the International Bank for Re-construction and Development for the development of 3,800 square kilometersfarmed by about 68,000 smailhoiders in East Sokoto Division of the NorthWestern State of Nigeria.

ii. The project follows the pattern of integrated agricultural develop-ment which is being currently undertaken by other developing countries inAfrica with the aid of Bank Group funds. The project would be a package ofinfrastructural improvement, project services and supply and credit for farminputs. Specifically the project would construct 850 km of agricultural cropextraction roads; 65 earth dams of about 100,000 mi' capacity; the developmentof 40 village service centers; the provision of administrative, extension,credit, training, engineering and market liaison services; seasonal creditfor fertilizer, insecticides, seeds and other farm inputs; and medium termcredit for ox drawn equipment, cotton sprayers, tractors and ancillary equip-ment.

iii. The total cost of the project including import duties, excise taxesand local costs is estimated at N 16.7 million (US$25.3 million), of whichN 7.2 million (US$11.0 million) equivalent to 43% of project costs are foreigncosts. A loan of N 8.4 million (US$12.7 million) is being sought from theInternational Bank for Reconstruction and Development equivalent to 50% ofthe financial requirement. The balance would be financed by the FederalMilitary Government, N 4.6 million; the North Western State Government N 3.0million; and the participating farmers N 0.7 million. The main items of ex-penditure are vehicles, plant, equipment (inclusive of operating) - N 3.1million; houses, buildings, furnishings and road and dam construction materials- N2.3 million; salaries N 3.4 million; general services - N 0.7 million;seasonal inputs (incremental) - N 1.7 million; medium term inputs - N 1.2million; Federal Military Government fertilizer subsidies N 1.0 million; andan unallocated amount for physical and price contingencies - N 3.3 million.

iv. The project would result in an incremental increase in productionfor seed cotton 24,000 tons; for maize 70,000 tons; for groundnuts 11,000tons; and for cowpeas 2,700 tons. Farm incomes are likely to be doubled overthe project period. The project would cause an increase of farm family laboremployment of about 11,000 man years per annum, resulting in a net return toincremental labor of about N 1.5 per man day (US$2.31) from the 5th year ofthe project onwards. The estimated internal economic rate of return would liebetween 11 and 14%.

I. INT RD4DULIIL ON

1.01 This report is in support of a loan application to the InternationalBank 'or Reconstruction and Development by the Federal Military Government(FMG) of the Republic of Nigeria. The purpose of the loan would be to assistthe Go-vernment or the North Western State to finance the execution of an agri-cultural development program for about 68,000 small farmers in the Gusau areain the north eastern part of the State. It would involve the construction ofvital crop extraction roads and water supplies, and would provide the farmerswith technical and credit services and the accompanying inputs to insure sub-tantial inureases in production and farmer incomes.

1.02 The project is large, and is deliberately so, in order to createthe necessary impact in such a large and populous country. If successful,and there is no reason why it should not be, the concept could be repeatedmany times over elsewhere in northern Nigeria. The project in itself wouldprovide a practical training ground to Nigerian project staff in technicaland administrative management techniques.

1.03 The project follows policies outlined within the Federal Ministryof Agriculture's "Perspective Plan for Agricultural Development to 1985"which outlines a preliminary version of the agricultural portion of theThird National Development Plan. In particular it follows FMG policies toincrease industrial crops, cotton and groundnuts, to supply the expandingcapacities of local cotton and groundnut mills. It also does much to in-crease cereal production for northern consumption and sales for human andlivestock requirements in the southern states of Nigeria. In respect tolivestock dejolopments the project should cause a fall in cereal priceswhich could b.ing about greater incentives for livestock fattening whichindirectly would affect the long-term future of Nigeria's livestock industryin which the Bank has been requested to participate. The project would alsoassist in the general development of sound Agricultural Credit policies towhich the Bank has already shown willingness to assist as executive agentfor the Nigerian Agricultural Bank development.

1.04 The project report refers to similar projects at Funtua (NC State)and Gombe (NE State). These projects are currently under preparation, aresimilar in nature and are linked in respect to production policies, techniquesand services. All three projects should be considered together as substan-tial Federal and State Government efforts at increasing production and rais-ing living standards of the rural population.

1.05 The preparation of this project followed an identification missionfrom the Bank which visited Nigeria in November/December 1972, the resultsof which were agreed after full discussions with Federal and State Governmentofficials. The report was prepared in close conjunction with officials ofthe Ministry of Agriculture and Natural Resources from the North WesternState who actively participated in its preparation. The main participants

- 2 -

from the State were Alhaji Tanko Kuta (Permanent Secretary Ministry of Agri-'cU.Lture andu Natural RPwsources) , LAaJi & -1.mar r%. (r.4.ief r '

and appropriate field staff from the Ministry; from the Bank a mission composedofL Mw 1esrs. Criushaw rgueLhx, Ltir0. nger, Kan=hanalak "lan"b and Pickerin.g, 10-ad,tJ1 L~~~L . .LLuziLa 9 L~U LL , 1- LL.LL ~ , L% %-ALL La' Izm L&%J aiu L L%L .L.I , LX Us.

Reusse and Rice (Consultants) assisted in preparation and took responsibility,or the ,,nL-a'l preparation ofL the report.

II. PROJECT AREA

A. General

Location

2.01 Occupying a rectangular block of land on a South East/North Westaxis between latitudes 11040? and 12°40' N and longitudes 6020? and 71010E, the project area covers some 3,800 km2 or about two percent of the totalarea of the State. It comprises about half of the Gusau and Kaura NamodaDevelopment Areas within the Sokoto Administrative District in the northeastern part of North Western State. The project area comprises the wholeof Kaura Namoda, Chafe and Kotorkoshi districts, and those parts of Gusauand Bungudu districts north of the Sokoto river (see map).

Climate

2.02 Few climatic data are available but, in general terms, the areaenjoys a climate similar to that of the Zaria area, some 120 km to the south.On the Thornthwaite system this is classified as dry sub-humid with a severerainfall deficit from October to May and ^ surplus from June to September.Annual rainfall is in the range 1,000-1,20.0 mm. Average annual evaporationfrom an open water surface is about 1,900 mm, of which approximately 75 per-cent occurs in the dry season, between October and April. Such a climaticregime, which is rendered harsher during the November/March period by thedrying, north easterly 'harmattan' wind from the Sahara, means that there isa severe water shortage for vegetation for at least five months.

2.03 Vn the other hand, the water regime is well suited to the produc-tion of annual crops. Thieir water requirements normally increase with in-creasing size and decline as maturity, and harvest, approaches. This patternof water requirement is well matched by the pattern of water availability. Itenables a wide range of crops to be grown successfully. However, some limita-tions are of major significance, particularly water shortage at the end of thegrowinR season for cotton if late planted, and wet conditions at harvest forshort season crops, such as millet.

Water

2.04 There are few perennial streams in the area and groundwater suppliesare severely curtailed due to the presence of the impervious underlying basement

- 3 -

complex. With increasing pressure on land, the length of flow of streams hasdiminished markedly in recent years. Wells also commonly fail during the drymonths, leading to prolonged water shortages which are becoming an increasing-ly critical issue for both humans and livestock within the area. As notedbelow, topography is such that construction of small reservoirs appears apracticable solution to the water problem. Details are given in para. 3.04and Annex 4.

Topography and Soils

2.05 The area is underlain by rocks of the basement complex which ispredominantly granite in nature. The landform is gently undulating at analtitude of 600 to 900 m with occasional massive granite inselbergs particu-larly in the southeast. Many small, ephemeral streams occur throughout thearea, pointing to its suitability for the proposed program of small reservoirconstruction.

2.06 Leached ferruginous tropical soils are most common with well devel-oped sub soil horizons containing some 30 percent clay. Drainage ranges fromgood to rather poor. More particularly in the southern half of the area, siltcontent is somewhat high which leads to surface capping.

2.07 Soils are normally moderately to weakly acid, with pH in the range5.5 to 6.5. They are generally deficient in nitrogen and available phosphate,particularly after prolonged cropping. Some attempts to maintain the fertilityof farms close to settlements is made through the apDlication of animal manureat between two to three tons per ha. Recent investigations have demonstratedan annarent boron defisiencv and its solution- hv thp uisp nf hnrnnatdA qsnper-

phosphate. Fertilizer responses by most major crops have been establishedwith some nrerision at low annliiratinn rates Frileld trinla inunluing higherlevels of application, 1/ mainly for cereals such as maize and sorghum, arenresentlv underwav in the n?niprt area=

Vaoetation

2.OR NatuirAl veoatAtinn is anvanna woodlInne tunifiedt b-y isanhirliniadoka in association with grasses mainly of Andropogon and Hyparrheniasperies. Tn many nlares the savanna woodland has hben irpnlaced, fnllhwingclearing and farming, by parkland dominated by such trees as Parkia clap-nprtonina nn Anti &Ananonia Aig i tata (Ranhbha) Th.aae are prntaectaed b law a t

minimum densities. Further, they provide valuable dietary supplements fromseeds and leaves respectivelyu Tn wttear avrgeno .whic-h hanva baen hnanir4l

farmed, spear grass (Imperata cylindrica) is a troublesome weed. Addition-ally, on some farms of declning favtility which have been heavily croppedwith sorghum, the parasitic weed Striga hemontheca causes significant but,-nnuantified -ield reductioSn.

1/ Approximating 150 kg/ha of nutrient nitrogen plus 80 kg/ha of nutrientphosphate together with potassium and a selection of trace elements.

-4-

Pqpulation

2.09 The project area is occupied by people of the Hausa tribe most ofwhom are comparatively devout moslems. Literacy in English (Nigeria's officiallanguage) and Hausa is low among adults in rural areas but is rising rapidlywith the younger generation.

2.10 Data on population have been derived from the 1963 census assumingan annual 2.5 percent growth rate. Average family size has been taken as6.5 persons, which is in reasonable accord with demographic studies in Nigeria.Numbers of farm families are assumed to be about 70 percent of total familiesin the project area. Thus, at the onset of the proposed project the picturewould be as follows:

Estimated total poDulation 633.000Estimated number of families 97,000Estimated number of farm families 68,000

2.11 This nanulation would be divided between the five distrirts intn40 village areas and numbers as shown below:

Village Areas Population

Gusau 6 179,000K1otorkvoshi 4 40,50nChafe 6 100,500B .n ngu.. .d 8 75Rnnn

Kaura Namoda 16 238,000

2.12 The social structure of the area is of significance to the projectbDecause of the .-elae4v strength and -Influence of~ the- Aarica . -L structure

of the Local Authority. In this context, the project comes within the juris-di4tion of t.U Sultr. ta of Sokoto 'J whlose hereLuC1ttary autht .Iori.y is delegatedthrough salaried district heads, one in each of the five districts, to salariedvillage h eads, o.ne in each oAf tL he 40n V.1llage areas.

A..3 I_ Jl1Unog their other fuLnc.iLonsL, V.L.L.LagC headUs &LC ae= O e Lor

village level administration of land tenure arrangements. The system is basedor. isam.Jc law ar,U on customUary -USu- UfuCtLLy rigiLtS. ALn LALCULy, itL pFruvidU

for the allocation of such rights on land which is not so allocated, to anynative Ni'geri'an who expresses thie InteritLorn of settliag a using land within

the village area. In practice most land has been allocated to families, theheads of which suballocate to family members in accordance with assessed need

1/ In addition to his position as hereditary ruler of the people within theSuiltanate of Sokoto, the Sultan, who has the titie Sarkin Musulmi (Chiefof the Moslems), is the acknowledged religious leader of all moslems with-in Nigeria. His potential influence is consequently very considerable.

and capability. However, in the event of dispute, village heads are normallythe first sources of appeal.

2.14 As representatives of the Local Authority, village heads have con-siderable potential influence within their areas. Although this influenceis being eroded in urban areas, such as the wards of Cusau town, it is stillconsiderable in rural localities where the bulk of project activities wouldbe focused. For this reason, but without sacrificing control, every effortwould be made to obtain the support of village heads by acquainting them withproposed a .-! ongoing developments within their areas. District heads wouldbe similarly consulted and informed. Furthermore, as indicated in Capter V,provision is made for Local Authority representation on the Project Committee.

Farm Size

2.15 Information on farm size is scant due to the overall weakness ofthe data base. It is possible to impute a possible mean farm size however,on the basis of assumed population, family size and estimated area ofcultivated land. The latter figure is estimated to be about 236,000 ha orsome 60 percent of total project area. This comparatively high figure isbased on a series of random traverses across photo mosaics of about half ofthe project area, which yielded a somewhat more intensive (66 percent) landuse pattern; and the fact that the proposed project area excludes some1,300 km2 of forest/grazing reserve in the north east of two districts withinthe project area. Given 68,000 farm families (para. 2.10) then average sizeof cultivated holding i.e. excluding fallow would be 3.5 ha. This figure isin reasonable accord with mean farm size established by detailed survey in asimilar area some 120 km to the south. Annex 7 gives details.

2.16 It is likely that the project would have some influence on farmsize, probably in the direction of somewhat larger and more specialized enter-prises. However, it is unlikely that this would occur to a significant extentin the short (five year) term. For this reason an average farm size of 3.5ha, of which about three ha would be in crop in any one season, has been as-sumed. See Annex 7 for details.

Cropping Patterns

2.17 Assumed cropping patterns take account of the dominance of sorghumand millet as food grains, purchases of cotton and groundnuts by the NorthernStates Marketing Board (NSMB) and the diversity of minor crop enterprises,including maize. Local knowledge and socio economic surveys in neighboringparts of the northern States indicate that cereals (mainly sorghum and millet)typically occupy 45-55 percent of average cultivated areas, and cotton about20 percent in the southern two thirds of the area. In the remaining, drierDart. cotton tends to given wav to aroundnuts. Other crons. usuallv grownin mixtures with staple cereals, NSMB crops and/or each other, include maize,chillies. kenaf; okra and a ranve of veaetahles. Details are In Annex 7-

Communications

2.18 The project area is served by two main roads (see map). The trunkhighway connecting the north west with Lagos passes through its southern parts;a branch road to Kaura Namoda and Katsina starts at Gusau and serves thenorthern and western parts. These are tarred and are maintained by the Federaland State Governments. In addition, the Nigerian Railway Corporation has aspur line from the main nortnern route, which branches at Zaria and runs viaFuntua and Gusau to Kaura Namoda in the north west corner of the area. Thisline runs parallel with the road through the west of the project area. Thereis an airport operated by the Federal Government at Gusau but no flights arecurrently scheduled. Telephone facilities exist at Gusau, operated by thePosts and Telegraphs Department of the Federal Ministry of Communications.

2.19 Unfortunately, the basic communication network barely extends beyondthat described above. Minor roads are nonfexistent or in poor repair. Com-munities are seasonally cut off from each other and the outside world.Transportation of produce and inputs to rural areas is both-difficult and ex-pensive. Attempts to improve the situation by self help activities and by theDevelopment Area Works Department are hampered by shortages of funds and com-petent executive capacity. The project proposes major improvements in therural road network of the area as detailed-in para. 3.03 and Annex 3.

B. Institutions

2.20 Institutions directly and indirectly affecting the proposed projectcover a broad spectrum of ctivity and responsibility. They include the LocalAuthority, a number of North Western State ministries, the Institute of Agri-cultural Research (IAR), the Nigerian Agricultural Bank (NAB), the NorthernStates Marketing Board (NSMB) and its ginning agent, the British Cotton Growers'Association (BCGA). All have a part to play, and the success of the projectis to a large extent dependent on the cooperation afforded to project manage-ment as outlined by individual institutions below.

The Local Authority

2.21 AS indicated above (para. 2.01) the project area comes under thecontrol of the Sokoto Local Authority (SLA) and the Gusau and Kaura NamodaDevelopment Boards. The main functions of the former include the collec-ticn of tax in respect of people and cattle (haraji and jangali respec-Zively); the administration of farming land allocations; the latter ischarged with provision of services such as feeder road construction andmaintenance, dispensaries, and primary education as a complement to Stategovernment activities in these fields.

2.22 One function of the SLA is of immediate and direct importance tothe project. It relates to the need for onpn supnort and encoura-ement of

- 7 -

project activities and the cooperation of SLA officials with project manage-ment. Project concept and proposed activities were discussed at severallevels with the SLA (including a meeting with the Sultan of Sokoto) duringpreparation. Reactions were favorable and full cooperation was promised.An important function of the two Development Area Boards relates to the main-tenance of the road network which the project would construct. In the courseof the development period the road construction unit of the project wouldliaise closely with the Works Department of the Development Area Boards inorder to foster a smooth handover of responsibility at full development.Para. 3.17 gives details of proposed procedures.

The Ministry of Agriculture and Natural Resources (MANR)

2.23 The most important State Government agency concerned with the project,MANR would provide policy guidance, staff, and a pronortion of local funding.Paragraphs 5.01 - 5.13 and Annexes 6 and 9 give details. The Ministry has re-presentatives of its four technical divisions within the nrniAnt area. It isalso in course of operating a 240 ha cotton seed multiplication farm at Gusau.While the functfons of the Field Servicps and Prndiuce Tnnspet'inn nivfsiQnncwould be largely assumed by the project, those of the Veterinary and ForestryDivisions would not hp diretlyv Affected. Thus animal health, organniztinn ofgrazing facilities 1/ and livestock improvement services, largely for the seminomadic Fulani nnqtn-l-,1it-s wilew11 tcont-inue ton hb pv.Mideda b1y the 1.Jee4riu'

Division. The Forestry Division of MANR is concerned mainly with regulationnf resrveupd Lane and plannting nf wnoo%dlots. These funct4ons would be largely

unaffected by the project.

The Ministry of Works (MOW)

2.24 Responsible for State financed public works programs, MOW has asmall technical staff and limited ac 41 4li withi the project area, centeredon Gusau. The Ministry is concerned mainly with road maintenance, buildingconstr;ction, b;y force account, or supervi.ion of contracLtors, ,and he ma.-n=tenance of State financed structures. Executive capacity relative to the Stateconst.L.a%ctaLon program 'Ls a mc-j Lor limita.t tLo 'i;LL' operations. ,,IA._s 'actor wasof prime importance in formulating the procedures proposed for the civil worksprogram of the project T.hus, the project would do little to increase - heworkload of MOW. Annex 3 gives more details.

The Ministry of Health (MOH)

2.25 Responsible for all aspects of human health in the State, MOH isiin process ofL UdevelopiLng Lts services anu facilJities. Within One projectarea, a general hospital provides treatment services for both in-and out-patients at Gusau. T'his and a n-atber of planned Rural Health Centers will

1/ This aspect would be affected by the Bank's proposed Livestock Project,No. 127uN, wnicn inciudes provision for improvement of facilities andservices to pastoralists utilizing a grazing reserve in the north eastcorner of the project area.

- 8 -

provide the referral link between the sparse network of distr1ct dispensaries,and the specialized hospital facilities operated and planned by MCH at theState headquarters, Sokoto.

2.26 It is expected that additional Rural Health Centers and a closernetwork of dispensaries providing more comprehensive services are to beincluded in the forthcoming development plan (1974-1978) of MOH. Th.e import=#ance of improved rural health is such that provision might be made in thenronert for construction and equipment of health facilities with4n the project::rea. This possibility was discussed with senior officials of MOH in Sokoto.'onnsidera1be interest was expressed and concrete proposals m-ay well be forth-coming before appraisal of the Agricultural Development Project by the Bank.

The Ministry of Trade, Industry and Cooperatives (MTIC)

2.27 Responsibility for the cooperative movement in North Western Statewas transferred recently from ,MNR to MTIC. In common with other nortLe..lStates, cooperatives in North Western have made little impact on the bulk ofthe rural opulation. Successne hase been hamped.n.pe by shortage olf. support;a sr,supervisory staff, and by political interference in the early to mid-1960'sleading to widespread, indebt.-eAness.

2.28 Primary producer and marketin societies yorganized in the projectarea at this time formed the Zamfara Cooperative Union. Neither the primarysocieties no5r the union 6z*ineA th1 e full support ol farm.ers. IQn c.or*uio w'IthIthe cooperative movement elsewhere, these groups are to a greater or lesserextent indebted to the State government for preseason an'd marketing loans andare consequently inoperative. For these reasons, little emphasis is placed onthe cooperative movemnent ir, proposeud crediL and marketing arrangements for theproject (paras. 5.17 and 6.06, and Annexes 8, 10 and 11). On the other hand,part'cipation by suitable and viable cooperative societies in project activitieswould not be excluded.

The Institute of Agricultural Research (IAR)

2.29 Created in the early 1960's from the Research Division of the thenNorthern Nigeria Ministry of Agriculture, IAR is a semi autonomous body linkedwith Ahmdu Bello University (ABU), Zaria. Its governing body has represen-tation from Ministries of Agriculture and Natural Resources of the six northernStates. Its main research station is located at Samaru, near Zaria, in NorthCentral State, some 120 km from Gusau. Further details on the organizationand output of IAR are in Annex 2.

2.30 IAR preserves close contacts with headquarters and field staff ofMANR. Field trials are carried out on an agency basis on MANR sites, sup-ervised by ministry staff under the technical guidance of IAR researchers.Research recommendations are conveyed to extension staff via the ExtensionResearch Liaison Service (ERLS) of IAR which assesses research results in thecontext of farm conditions and the likely level of technical assistance avail-able to farmers in the six northern States. As noted elsewhere, the latter

-0=

is somewhat limited and, for this reason, research recommendations have beenmodi'ied to u£'1'ze researcn finuings in keeping witn ene starfing ievei pro-posed for the project. This information is provided in detail in Annexes 2anu 7.

TLe Nigerian Agricultural Bank (NAB'

2.31 NAB is a Federai Government institution wnich was formally inauguratedin March 1973 with its head office in Kaduna. UNDP has provided assistancein financing the project to organize and manage NAB during its tirst threeyears. IBRD is the executing agency for the project. A small team of expatriatesenior management personnel has been recruited. Recruitment of senior Nigerianstaff is proceeding along with familiarization tours by senior management with-in Nigeria. Tne Federal Government is making available N 12 million for NAB'sinitial operations and is likely to continue to provide funds in substantialamounts.

The Northern States Marketing Board (NSMB)

2.32 Headquartered in Kaduna, NSMB is the exclusive ultimate purchaserof controlled commodities for export or for designated domestic uses. Cotton,groundnuts and a number of comparatively minor crops, such as soyabeans andbenniseed are the controlled commodities. NSNB arranges for the ginning ofseed cotton (para. 2.36) and the resale of produce either within Nigeria, oroverseas through the Nigerian Produce Marketing Company (NPMC). Until re-cently NSMB operated in all of the six northern States. Its responsibilitiesin Kwara and Benue Plateau States have now been assumed by individual StateMarketing Boards.

2.33 Crop purchases from farmers take place at legally gazetted marketsor buying points by Licensed Buying Agents (LBA's) of NSMB. In 1972 therewere 29 cotton markets and 21 groundnut buying points within the project area.LBA's may be private traders or cooperatives who are supposed to pay the pro-ducer prices fixed in advance of each planting season by the NSMB and widelypublicized to farmers. The NSMB includes representation from each State'sMinistries of Natural Resources and Finance and selected Local Authorities.Operation of the marketing board system is far from satisfactory and itsfuture is presently under serious consideration in Nigeria. More detailsare given in para. 6.08 and Annex 10.

The British Cotton Growers' Association (BCGA)

2.34 BCGA has been the organization solely responsible for ginningNigerian cotton since exports began over half a century ago. With Nigerianheadquarters in Zaria and a network of ginneries throughout the cotton growingzones of the northern States, BCGA arranges for seed dressing against BacterialBlight, seed distribution to village dumps, and transportation of lint andseed as directed by NSMB. These functions are additional to its primary func-tion of ginning seed cotton and classification of lint. BCGA is efficientand is capable of expanding its operations to meet the needs of the project.Further details on ginning canacitv and onerations are given below (nara- 2.35).

- 10 -

C. Processing and Marketing

Cotton

2.35 All cottoa purchased for NSMB in the project area is ginned at BCGAfacilities located at Gusau. Present optimum capacity is 50,000 bales 1/ butthis level has been exceeded by some 20 percent on occasion. At present aver-age production levels the ginnery operates at about 60 percent capacity. The- 4 nning season normally extends for 24 weeks from December to June. Prolonga-tion is impracticable due to rain damage to seed cotton and ginned seed. Someadditional facilities would be needed to cope with expected production towardsthe end of the development period as illustrated below:

Projected Production Projected Production Projected Number Surplu1s!of Seed Cotton of Lint /1 if Bales (Deficit)

------------------- tons ------------------- CapacitYear in Bales

0 10,330 3,615 20,000 30,0001 12,100 4;235 23,400 26,6002 15,300 5,355 29,600 20,4003 20,600 7,210 39s800 10,2004 27,000 9,450 52,200 (2,200)5 34,200 11.970 66,100 (16,100)

/1 Assuming ginning percentage with wastage factor = 35 percent.

2.36 Senior Nigerian management of RCGA in Zaria has indicated its will=ingness to increase ginning capacity as required within the project area.Further, BCGA has exDressed keen Interest in promoting improved field marketand collection procedures for seed cotton.

2.37 Seed cotton is purchased from farmers at gazetted cotton markets.The latter are normally temporary structures made from grass mats and polesto a standard design, and financed by NSMB. Market sites are approved byNSNB on the basis of anticipated purchases and distance between markets.Minimum anticipated purchases are 50 tons and markets are rarely placedcloser than eight km. A minimum of two buyers /LBAs i'Ls rmandatory at eachmarket. Markets are supposed to be controlled by a Produce Examiner (PE)from the Produce Inspection Division (PID) of the .N-'R. Produce Examiners,posted to markets for the buying season, are responsible for the visualgrading of seed cotton into orne of two grades on the basis of stained anddamaged lint, and trash content. They should also ensure that LBA's paycorrect amount- to farmers for their produce. In fact, PE's seldom performthese functions; grading is virtually non-existent and many PE's are alleged(with apparent Justification' to assist LBA's to cheat farmers. The project

1/ One bale weighs 181 kg (400 lb).

would seek to rectify this situation. Detailed proposals are made in para.5.05 and Annex 10.

Groundnuts

2.38 All groundnuts purchased for NSMB in the proiect area are inspectedand graded by the staff of PID at one of five stations. Purchases from farmersby LBA's take place at buying points licensed by the Lonal Authnrity Ground-nut buying -oints are not supervised and it is frequently alleged that farmersare cheatec by LBA's who manipulate weight scales and prires at the expenseof farmers. Measures to improve groundnut purchasing procedures under theproject are proposed in para. 5.05 and Annex 10=

Other Crops

2.39 No control is normally exer^ised nn 1-he marketing or handling ofthe other crops, such as sorghum, maize and cowpeas, with which the projectis concerned. However, the Sokoto LA in consu1tal4on *74th State authoritieshas power to restrict movement of foodcrops in times of shortage. Such powershave been invoked following bad cropping seasonrs from time to time.

2.40 Marketing of food CrnOS is comparatively highly orgnized througha network of village and urban markets and a chain of traders linking producerswith consumers. No detailled studies have been carried out in the projec- area.It has been estimated that overall, about 10 percent of total sorghum productionis marketed. however; this figure is probably higher in the project area wheresorghum is a recognized cash crop. A recent investigation of sorghum andmillet marketing In the Zarla area 1r / is of probable relevance to -the project.In addition to providing valuable insights into market organization, thisconcluded that tamers normally received some 69 percent of the price inurban markets.

2.41 Project activities are expected to promote a marked increase inmaIze nrnductinn, from an estimated 6,000 tons in 1974 to over 76,00 tonsby 1979. This increase would be largely at the expense of sorghum and milletarea. Production of sorghum is only expected to decline by abour eight per-cent, however, due to the uptake of more highly productive varieties alongwith improved maagement practices. TLhe effece of these production changeson marketed surpluses of maize and sorghum cannot be quantified with anyprecision. Nevertheless, it is probable that maize would be substitutedto some extent for sorghum in local diets. Further details are provided atA.nnex 7.

'-i Dv staLL of IAR, shortly ro oe puDiisnea.

12 -

III. THE PROJECT

A. Description

3.01 The project would be the first phase of the Gusau AgriculturalDevelopment Project and would be carried out over a five year investmentperiod 1974/75 - 1978/79. The project would involve:

- constructing about 250 km of all weather agriculturalroad and 650 km of dry weather crop evacuation tracks65 small earth dams each with a capacity of 100,000 m5' 2and rainfall diversion ditches to protect an average 4 km'catchment area for each dam;,.

- constructinR an administrative center in Gusau. 4 devel-opment unit centers and 40 village service centers; suchcenters would include associated buildings, houses andoffices, in addition each village center would have a 500ton fertilizer/seedstore, a storage plinth (50 x 10 m) forgrains and a security fence enclosing about 1/2 ha;

- development of a new 240 ha seed multiplication farm nearGusau to iunnply nrnient farmers with improved cotton andcereal seeds;

- constructing a Farmer Training Center at Gusau to providetraining fnv nrnoe-ct staff 2nd farmpres

- fex-adin- the extensionQ servicesf frnm 30- dexisting staffto about 310 to provide services to some 68,000 farmers;and to pr-eAi with supporting a4m4n4atrat4nnand vehicles;

- developing a credit service to ensure supervised creditto project faj. .. rs;

developing a .market intelligence unit to report on anliaise with the various marketing agents within the projectareas; construLct'Ling new facilities fLor cotton reception at'

the Northern States Marketing Board (NSMB) depots; andestabl'.ish ing auto,-.at ic self recording scaAles at th-I-e present,and new markets in the project area;

providing seasonal loans for seeds, fertilizers, insecticidesand' Dattery sets (J'[Or ultrLa lUW VolUUIItI co;LLWLM, Upk%yCeLJ LtU

project farmers by the means of a revolving credit account tobe established by the project administration;

- 13 -

providing medium term credit for ox carts and ox drawnequipment, cotton sprayers and a limited number oftractors and equipment;

establishing a Project Administration office in Gusauto administer all project activities within the Gusauproject area;

establishing a Development Committee responsible toState Government for policy matters, and budgetaryapproval and control, to which the Project Managerwould be solely responsible;

establishing a Project Committee which would provideadequate coordination between Project Administrationand various State Government agencies and LocalAuthority;

establishing a Federal Coordinating Committee to ensureadecuate coordination between other prolects in thenorthern States and to ensure State Governments arefollowine accentable policies in their resDective devel-opment proj ects;

- developing plans for second phase development, and forcertain disinventments of Proiect Administrationresponsibilities by the end of the project development

- developing~ a nprosect evaluantion nit to be administeredby the project but to be directed by Ahmadu Bello Universitythrough 4t8 Tn8tit-uat-e nf Agrlcutltiural Respart-h at Ramaru.

B. Detailed Features

3.02 Agricultural roads, damn cnnstruction antd soil conservation. As in-

dicated in chapter II of the report, the major infrastructural constraints toag:4cultura develo-mnt in the pro4ect area are the tnotal 1rk nf repa0nnahlbe

agricultural roads for crop extraction and farm input supplies, and a veryrea'l con.straint: or. watter a-vailab"ility for% In,,man andA A^-atic. 14ua-tnok rnniu-

sumption. Construction would be undertaken by the project, rather than bycontractors. Conta_tors w..u.uAl n^t b flx4ble anough tn orel:a)lv cArrv nit

the required works, and their costs would be almost double (Annex 3). Theproposedu sc5ieuuIL wou'd bu as Lllvs:

- 14 -

1974/75 1975/76 1976/77 1977/78 1978/79 Total

Roads: kmall-weather (7.5 m wide) - 50 50 50 50 200dry-season (5.0 m wide) 50 150 150 150 150 650

Dams 5 20 20 20 - 65

Soil conservation km2 20 80 80 80 - 260

3.03 The nroiprt would nrovide for a n.etork of laterit 4 e surfaced agri--cultural roads and unsurfaced dry season crop extraction roads to link upwith the two maOrn asphalt roads (7nr±a-G-sau-Sokoto and Gusau=Kaura 'amoda-Katsina) which pass through the project area. Each kilometer of road wouldsere about 45 0 ha of land, about 80 fa-..4ng famu41ies, and woudI result inthe most distant farmer being only 2-1/2 km from a motorable track. Theseroads and tracks Lwould enable reasonable access for marketing agents, sup-pliers of inputs, crop extraction and extension staff. They would also enablefarmers to use ox drawn carts for water and crop transport. Due to the largesize of the project area (3,800 km2) it is necessary to construct 200 km ofall-weather laterite a,r,.icultural roads Ato 14nk -le smaller crop extractionItracks with the existing road system. These laterite surfaced roads (see Annex3) would be 7.5 m, wide with 4 drains. Te surface wouLd hIA ave 0. L LaterLlteand would be 1 m above drain bottom. The 650 km of dry weather crop extrac-tion tracks would be 5 m wide, with 4 m Ldrains and the road surface would be1 m above drain botton. These tracks would not be surfaced. For both typesof road the accent would be on good drainage. To this end, costs includenecessary culverting and side (mitre) drains. All the agricultural roads wouldbe properly aligned on the ridges to assist drainage and to enable upgradingat some future date, as demanded by traffic needs, without the necessity forreali,5gn rt. No major bridging Is included, since construction costs wouldbe high. Road alignment would therefore allow a one ended access to trafficduring the wet season, ard two ended during the dry season when traffic wouldbe able to cross dry sandy river beds.

3.04 About 65 earth dams would be constructed to provide water in thefirst instance to about 30%u of the project population. At Annex 4 it isshown that well water supplies from January to August can be critical andare becoming more so as the ground water table is reduced. Boreholes arenot possible due to geological form in the area, and therefore surfacewater storage is the only practical alternative. The average dam would hold,after allowance for siltation, about 100,000 m3 of water, which would bemore than sufficient to supply the needs of 2,000 people and accompanyinglivestock, after allowance for evaporation losses. Each dam would be fullyfenced and plans include the construction of gravity fed water to troughsand hardstands for livestock and farmers respectively. The villagers wouldprovide voluntary labor for finishing off the dams after the major earth-works have been completed. To ensure that the chances of dam breaks areminimized, the average catchnent area would be limited to about 4 km", andspillway design would be adequate to take the 1 in 50 year peak run off thatcan be expected (details at Annex 4).

- 15 -

3.05 There are serious soil erosion problems in parts of the projectarea caused mainly by overstocking and stream bed cultivation. It would bevirtually impossible to develop full soil conservation measures for the projectarea during the life of the project. Therefore soil conservation would be in-itially developed in the catchment area of each dam. in order to reducesheet erosion and the consequent siltation of the dams. Under the project,'vee' shaped diversion ditches would be constructed. Each ditch would bedesigned to carry the runoff from 40 ha; and therefore some 14 km of ditchwould be constructed for each dam catchment area. The diversion ditches wouldbe about 1,500 m long, 250 m apart, have a cross sectional area of about 0.8 m22ad a canacitv of 0.6 m3Osec and would rain at a rate of 1:400 into anartificial waterway. Between the diversion ditches, the project would con-struct wfth a trartor And nlonih - smal1l marker ridgpn to art as a guiide forfarmers to plant on the contour. With these precautions soil erosion lossesare likely to he siuhqtantia11v reduicedV. (T1Ptai1. at Annex 4)=

I n0 Villioip qpruire rpntPrC_ Thp hn.i < for farm developnmnt wouldirevolve around the village center and its satellite hamlets. Thus underthe prorect a service center would be created at each village. It wouldinclude a 500 ton village store for seeds and fertilizer, a 50 x 10 m plinthfor outdoer storage of grains and nrondnuts,a security fence, office, andhousing for extension and credit staff. These centers would initially becon*tro lle1 b- that proj I .. t no te,l F-r'm Assor.i4 ation at -4 "1 1eoo level a1 aval-

ops and takes over more group responsibilities, the centers and their main-tenance would c ..e under Assoc-4ation cont:ol (see par 5. Ft

would be established during the first two years of the project, starting inthose areas whlere reason=-bable access exists, and would prog.ess with. th construction of the all weather agricultural roads. Service centers would, wherepossible, bue constructed c.LOs Lt. ULM Village LLrU.ading centers. 8L.L at

Annexes 5 and 9).

3.07 Development Unit and Head Office Centers The project area would bedivided into 5 development units coinciding with District boundaries; at eachDistrict Center houses and offices would be built for the development unit ex-tension, credit and market intelligence staff. A head office would be con-structed at Gusau, and staff houses would be developed in the Governmentreseravt'Lo Area, so that aLLer connpletion oL Lhe proJect Lic Lhoubes calnrevert to Government pool and can be used for other purposes. A workshop andancillary facilities would be constructed near the Local Authority workshopsfor the maintenance of project construction equipment and personnel vehicles.A railhead store for project inputs would be constructed in the vicinity ofthe railwayline in Gusau's industrial area. (Detail at Annex 9).

3.08 Seed Multiplication and Research. The project would develop a seedmultiplication farm (240 ha) near Gusau. Suitable land would De made avail-able through the Local Authority. The project would provide buildings andfarm macninery, and plan the output of the farm to fit in with the needs ofproject farmers and other farmers in the State with respect to improved cottonseed and other seeds, with an emphasis on high yielding composite and hybridmaize, dwarf and hybrid sorghums, and improved groundnut seeds. The multi-plication farm would also serve for project research work. (Detail at Annex 2).

- 16 -

3.09 Training. The proiect would construct and operate a new trainingcenter at the proposed Gusau seed multiplication farm, to train projectfarmers. The center would have a capacity of about 9,000 trainee mar.daysper year. Initially the center would concentrate on staff training, but asthe project progresses, farmers would be encouraged to come in for weeklycourses. (For further details see Annex 5).

3.10 Extension Service. The present ratio of extension workers to farmersis in the order of 1:2,300. t1.der the project, the Agricultural AsIstant (AA)nd Agricultural Instructor (AI) would be the main contact between project

administration and farmer. The project would increase the staff in thesecategories from 30 to 211, which would be equivalent to a ratio of 1:3201/.SimiLar intensit-es of extension staffing in other Bank financed projectshave proved satlsfactory. (Detail at Annex 6). The AA's and AI's would besupervised by staff stationed at District Centers (development unit centers),who in turn would be responsible to Head Office staff. Where necessary theproiect would provide vehicles and equipment fLor reLe±vant staff.

3.11 Credit Seice. There is no existing credit service to farmerswithin the project area, except for a rather unsatisfactory Local AuthorityScheme and an unpopular (to farmers) and defunct Cooperative Union locatedin Gusau. Annex 8 outlines the credit proposals for the project. Theproject would train credit staff so as to init'ally provide a supervisedcredit service to farmers. It is anticipated that 40-50% of the projectfar.mers would take credit. They would be serviced by 80 credit assistants(CA) at a maximum ratio of 1 CA to 375 farmers receiving credit. It isantiLci.Lpated that the ratio would be narrowed as group lending evolves. Thecredit assistants would be responsible to Credit Officers at DevelopmentUnit level. LTle project would also provide for a central machine accountingsystem for the credit scheme.

3.12 Market Service. The project would provide for the development ofa smL,all market intelligence unit to provide market information to farmersand to report on and liaise with the various marketing agencies and agentswithin the project area. Tne project would provide automatic self recordingweight scales to each market within the project area, and would improve theMarketing Board Depots alongside the project ginnery currently owned andmanaged by BCGA, in order to allow a more efficient flow of cotton fromthe markets to the gins.

3.13 Seasonal Loans. Proposed arrangements for seasonal loans to farmersare described in para. 5.17-5.28 and Annex 8. It is estimated that duringthe project period 75% of total seasonal input supplies would be providedon credit, the remainder being sold for cash. Credit would be issued tosome 35,000 farmers by 1978/79. During the five years development periodseasonal loans totalling N 2.6 million for 36,000 m tons fertilizer, 0.8 mil-lion liters insecticide, 39,000 battery sets for spraying machines, and

1/ The difference in ratio of staffing between this project and proposals forFuntua is that a greater proportion of the project farmers grow groundnutsT'-ch requires a less intensive extension effort for the dissemination ofimprovements, where greater reliance is placed on the AA rather than theAI.

- 17 -

1,500 tons of improved seeds. These loans would be net of FMG subsidy on

fertilizer which would amount to N 1.0 million over the project life. Cash

sales for seasonal inputs are expected to amount to N 0.9 million for 12,000

tons of fertilizer,0.3 million liters insecticide, 40,000 batteries and 500

tons of improved seed.

3.14 Medium Term Loans. Proposed arrangements for medium term loans are

described in para. 5.18 and Annex 8. Medium term loans (totalling N 1.0 mil-

lion) wou'-' be made for a limited number (35) of tractor, trailer and imple-

ment kits ti replace the Government owned tractor hire service planned to be

phased out by the last year of the project. Loans would be made for 3,000

ox drawn equipment kits (ox cart and plough) and for 32,400 ultra low volume

(ULV) cotton sprayers.

3.15 Pro ject Administration. The project would establish a Project

Administration Unit in Gusau which would be responsible for managing theproject (for further details see para. 5.05). The Project Manager would be

responsible to a Development Committee chaired by the Permanent Secretaryof the Ministry of Agriculture and Natural Resources.

3.16 Project Committees. The project would establish two other coordinat-

ing committees. First a Project Committee would be established at the SokotoEast Divisional level to coordinate project activities with other State andLocal Government programs; second a Federal Coordinating Committee would be

established to ensure both coordination between other projects in the northern

States of Nigeria and that States are generally following Federal Government

policies in agricultural development.

3.17 Post Project Administration. The project would prepare plans for

either a phase II project or for a phasing out of the project administration.

If the latter situation were to occur then road maintenance would be the

responsibility of the Local Authority, credit services would be taken over

by the Nigerian Agricultural Bank or a State Credit Bank if and when developed,

and the extension services would revert to the control of the Ministry of

Agriculture and Natural Resources.

3.18 Project Evaluation. The project would provide for an evaluation

unit to monitor the progress of the project and to compare its development

with adjoining areas outside the project. The evaluation unit would come

tnder the direction of the Ahmadu Bello University through its Institute of

Agricultural Research (IAR) at Samaru and would provide the project management,

State Government and Federal Government with data and recommendations. IAR

would also provide a suitable evaluating link between the other projects at

Funtua and Gombe.

3.19 The Environment. The ecology of the developed areas would be sub-

stantially improved. Soil erosion over the most vulnerable parts of the

project areas would be substantially reduced, water conservation would be

improved. With the increased use of fertilizers greater surpluses of crop

- 18 -

residues would evolve which in turn would reduce overgrazing and consequenterosion. Existing and planned health services would be able to reach thevillages and hamlets through improved access. The villages would receivemore dependable and cleaner water supplies, which together with greaterefforts through project supported home economics and welfare courses couldalleviate the distress presently caused by water borne diseases etc.

IV. COST ESTIMATES AND FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENTS

A. Project Costs

4.01 Estimated project costs would total N 16.7 million (US$25.3 million)of which the foreign exchange component is about N 7.2 million (US$11.0 mil-lion) or 43% of total costs.

4.02 Costs include a 5% physical contingency on all items and a 6% com-pounded contingency for inflation during the project life. All imported itemsare, under Federal Law, subiect to import duties; State Governments are notexempted from duties and therefore project costs, where applicable, includeduties. Costs are based on current quotations for vehicles, heavy plant,equipment, materials and farm inputs (only incremental seasonal farm inputsare included); on current contract rates for building construction; and upto date salary and wage scales inclusive of allowances based on Federal Gov-ernment regulations. Cost of expatriate staff follow arcentable internationalrecruitment salaries and include standard benefits and allowances. Projectcosts include N 1.0 million for fertilizer subsidies. Subsidisation of fer-tilizer is an established FMG practice throughout Nigeria, and the policy isunlikely to change during the nroiect disbursement nperind. The breakdnwn ofcosts is detailed in Annex 9 and is summarized in the following table.

S"nlLaarof Project Costs

Naira '000

Cost Cost Cost Foreign Cost

Project Administration

Vehicles, plant, equipment 112 43 69 62Houses, buildings and furnishings 391 313 78 20Salaries 963 696 267 28Vehicle running 46 28 18 40

Genei,al services 661 440 221 IL

Sub=total 2,173 1,520 653 30

Technical Services

Vehicles, plant and equipment 188 69 119 63Houses, buildings and fumrishings 407 325 82 20Salaries 1,038 894 144 14Vehicle ruinning 133 80 53 L

Sub-total 1,766 1,368 398 23

Farm Credit Services

Vehicles, plant and equipuent 178 71 107 60Houses, buildings wand fbrnishmings 4-00 320 80 20Salaries 753 631 122 16Vehicle running 34 20 _ 40

Sub-total 1,365 1,042 323 24

Market Services

Vehicles, plant and equipment 89 35 54 54Houses, buildings and furnishings 24 19 5 20Salaries 54 49 5 10Vehicle running 9 5 4 ID

Sub-total 176 108 68 43

Elgineering Services

Vehicles, plant and eq2ipment 1,085 152 933 86Houses, buildings and furnishings 514 356 158 31Salaries 627 330 297 47Vehicle running 50 30 20 40Plant running and casual labor 918 797 121 13Workshop and spare parts 284 170 114 40

Sub-total 3,478 1,835 1,643 47

Oinnery cotton depots 115 88 27 24

Ville servce…(to enter 4,32 346 8620

Far Inputs:Fer ulzes seeds, battarysetsand insecticides (incremental) 1,738 279 1,459 84

Farm machinery, equipment andsprayers 1,208i 404 804 67

Sub-total 2,946 683 2,263 77

Fertilizer subsidies 1,005 643 362 36

Contingencies:Price (6% compounded) 2,594 1,479 1,115 43Physi l 5A ) 63,1

Sub-total 3,267 1,861 1,406 43

TOTAL, NATRA '000 16,723 9,4L94 7,229 43

TOTAiL US$ !000 25,336 114,382 10,954 43

DistrijuLion 1Z 100 57 43 -

- 20 -

R. Tentative Prnnnps1 fnor Financing

4.03 The Federal Military Government (FiMG) of Nigeria requests an IBRDIn:n for TUS$127 minllion o-r 50% of total proniat cost wl jh rich …l A … 4…4"-

the foreign component of the project (US$11.0 million) and 12% of the localcosts armuonting to TS$1.7 m4llion. The loan to FMG would be made for 20 yearwith a grace period of 4 years for principal. The IBRD loan to FMG would beonlent at the same rate to the North Western State Governmnt. T.he remaining50% of project costs (N 8.3 million) would be financed as follows:

(a) FMG would make a direct grant to the North WesternState of u 1.2 Umlllion or 77O of tot.all proJectl. costlto cover subsidies on fertilizer;

(b) FMG would lend the North Western State Government afurther N 3.4 Lmilion or 20% of total project costat a suggested 1% over 50 years with a grace periodon principal of 10 years;

(c) rthe Iarmers would finance N 0.7 miiiion or iZ of totalproject to cover cash purchase of seasonal inputs andduown payr,,ents on farmi machinery and equipment; and

(d) the North Western State Government would finance N 3.0million or 18% of total project cost to cover therequired balance.

Tne project would be therefore financed as follows:

- 21 -

Summary of Proposed Financing

N'000

Total IBRD FMG FMG StateCost Loan Loan Grant Government Farmers

Vehicles, plant andequipment 1,652 1,281 371 - - -

Houses, buildings andfurnishings 2,283 1,370 913 - - -

Vehicle and plantrunning 1,474 884 590 - - -

Salaries 3,435 2,061 - - 1,374 -

General Services 661 - - - 661 -Seasonal inputs

(incremental) 1,738 1,043 260 - - 435Medium term inputs 1,208 725 304 - - 179Fertilizies subsidies 1.005 - - 1,005 - -Unallocated 3,267 1,018 962 201 963 123

Total N'000 16,723 8,382 3,400 1,206 2,998 737

Total US$ '000 25,336 12,700 5,152 1,827 4,541 1,116

Percentage Dis-tribution 100 50 20 7 18 5

The abnve nronosaln are Axtrpmelv tentative but are inrlu,dedso asto provide a basis for discussions between the parties concerned.

C. Procurement

4.04 International competitive bidding (ICB) would be employed for allcontrart gonnA And sev' icus in __cs nf TS$25,000n Purchasae uinder TrR arexpected to amount to US$11.3 million. Goods and services procured in thismanner would include contracts for houses, offices, stores, furnishings andfittings thereof N 2.3 million (US$ 3.5 million); vehicles, plant and equip-ment, N 1.7 m4llion (US$2.5 m4114n); fert-414zers bateery se:s ar.d ir.zecticidesN 3.1 million (US$ 4.6 million); and ULV spraying machines, ox drawn equip-ment, a.n.d tra---t--.s ,ct and-. - -q uip -u 0. milli _n y.J . ,7 mill. 4 on). DlJom es ta.lly

manufactured goods would be allowed a 15% preference when comparing domesticbiAs withU tose- of foeC -.. uacu s - - 4 construIc:ion ofpo- rasL~ UI* LJSW. 'JL W.LL ~.L flf Ub"&'A~C. L%, UA. I r-U L. * . LLIA L7L L.. UL.LW.LL %J.L jJLUJJ C.L LW""O,U

dams and soil conservation earthworks would be by force account under theengiLneeriLng section of thlle project management unli. Internati.Lonally. rLecruLitLed

staff at a cost of about N 802,000 (US$1.2 million) would be recruited along_ ___& L 1 _- I____ _, 1 _ --- I__ Al - ,L -___ 1 J acceptabu.le prUocUULrS LU DVAl& ClLIU U3JVCtLl1=zLL L. tL.L UL=LL pLUL;ULICILeL- WUULU UC

by locally advertized competitive bidding procedures, to be agreed with the

- 22 -

Bank. except for small itemq which would be purchased directly. Nigeria hasno preferential import tariff arrrangements, and competition between foreignmaniufartuirers rn the donmest-ic -markt- ic Iran.

D. Disbursements

4.05 The proceeds of the B_ank loan, would be diU sbursedv

(a 1/ I ~ exL-ILLL= echange expendituresr /8 /o 1of totalexpenditures (US$1.9 million) for vehicles, plantar d equipr,ent;

( 60%., (UJ$2.7 IILAL.L±ULL of £tLl zers, irisecticides,seeds, battery sets sprayers, tractors and other farm

_n- ..C-11 4 _J 11 __b .

(c) 60% (Us$2.1 ilUliloLon) of houses, buildings and furnish-ings costs;

(d) 60% (US$1.4 million) of vehicle and plant operatingcosts;

fe 4/ (TTQe-S .J11i

( Ue kuo9..? HU±.LUlJon) ofL stafL cost and/or 100/o cost ofexpatriate costs; and

(f) US$1.5 million for unallocated.

The Bank would not disburse against items categorized under general services(Annex 9, Table 6) nor against FnG subsidies. Disbursements would, for directimports be against CIF documentation, for contract buildings etc. against con-tract documentation, and for all other items against a certificate of expen-diture from project authorities, the documentation for which would not be sub-mitted for review but rather made available for inspection by the Bank duringsupervision missions.

E. Accounts and Audit

4.06 It is proposed that a project account would be set up in the Branchof the Central Bank of Nigeria in Sokoto, or in any other bank acceptable toFIG and the State Government into which funds required for the project wouldbe placed three months in advance on the basis of the annual budget approvedby the Development Committee and on quarterly estimates prepared by the ProjectManager. All accounts maintained by the Project Management would be auditedannually be independent auditors acceptable to the Bank and FMG, and certifiedcopies of the audited accounts, together with the auditors' reports would besubmitted simultaneously to the Bank and FMG within 4 months of the end ofeach financial year.

- 23 -

4.07 Separate accounts would be established in the Central Bank for therevolving credit fund and for the cash sales ac-e-ount for nrniert nrorured in-puts. These two accounts would also be subject to annual audit by independ-ent auditors.

V. ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT

A. Organization

5.01 The project would be carried out by a project unit responsible toa Development Committee, the Chairman of which would be the Permanent Sec-retary of the Ministry of Agriculture and Natural R4esource, of the NorthWestern State Government. Project administration and financial controlwoud be exercised frorn a project head office tobe est-blished in - au,

the administrative and commercial center for the project area. The pro-4ect administration would c %rdinate its ativities at. a TD.visi4al l.evel

through a Project Committee, and at a Federal level with other northernStates pro^4ts hrogh Fedea-1 Cordinatin- Co-4.it A---- -w+ithinj J.-J ... ~L&t/AL --- -a.. *JP~ .wLa.L, ...8UL. b.&a . n . .aa WAL.LAt. LL

the Division but outside the project area would continue to be administereddrcly My -PNR.

a.V02 L=opA.etU-[IIV.LIC_ -,'.LiLL.L WoJUU pJL±LiaLA.L±y U=Lt:LL±LLL po±Lcy;, CUorUdinate

other Ministries and Departments at State level, and would exercise budget-ary control on the project. IULle CoJt-unittee wouIldU ml-teet at least twice a year

and would comprise:

Permanent Secretary - Ministry of Agriculture and Natural Resour-ces - Cnairman

Permanent Secretary - Ministry of FinancePermanent Secretary - Ministry of Local GovernmentPermanent Secretary - Ministry of HealthPermanent Secretary - Ministry of Transport ana worKsDirector of Federal Agricultural DepartmentCnief Agricultural Orricer for the North Western StateGeneral Manager of the Northern States Marketing BoardGeneral Manager of the Nigerian Agricultural BankThe Project Manager would be the Executive Secretary of the

Committee.

5.03 Project Committee would primarily advise the Project Administra-tion and coordinate activities between the project and other agencies ordepartments at project and/or Divisional level. Tne committee would meetonce a month and would comprise:

- 24 -

Proiect Manager - ChairmanDivisional Secretary - Sokoto DivisionDivisional Officer - Ministry of Works

Divisional Officer - Ministry of HealthDivisional Agricultural Officer - East SokotoDirector of Agricultural Research Institute SamaruAgricultuiral Advisor to His Highness The Sultan of SokotoRepresentative from the Gusau Area Development BoardRepresentative from the Koura Namoda Area Development BoardFarmer Representative from each Development UnitProjesct Senior Administrative Officer - Secretary

5.04 Federal Coordinating Conmmttee would nrimarilv ensure that the

progress of the project was running according to plan, that FMG general

agricultural policies were being follnwed, that nroiect evaluation was sat-…-- …~~~C -

isfactory, and that an adequate exchange of views and techniques was occur-

ring between staff of the F,ntua, Gusau and GouLbe Agricultural DevelopnmentProjects. The committee would serve all three projects and would meet atleLst twice a year and would comprise:

Mrector of Federal Ag4icultural Department - Ain 4man

Chief Agricultural Planning Officer FAD - SecretaryrL rJ cLt Manager -Llsau

Project Manager - GombeProject Marnager - 1ntua

Director - Institute of Agricultural Research - Samaru*~~1 r.1 tcon-. I-erl 11if,,4 IAD - zi -

Heau - Rural Ecn, ReaIrLcL 'a .it IAR - Sa&r.

General Manager - Nigerian Agricultural BankRepresentative - Federal Minis try of Finance

(It would be recommended that CMIG consider appointing the Agriculturalist at-

tached to the IBRD Lagos office to this committee.)

5.05 Project Administration. The project would fall under the directresponsibility of the Project 17manager who would be assisted by the follow-ing key staff: Senior Administrative Officer; Financial Controller, ChiefTechnical Officer, Credit Manager, Senior Engineer, Market Officer and Se-

nior Evaluat"ion Officer. These key staff, all reporting direct to the Pro-ject Manager, would each be responsible for a major service section within

the project:

a) Administration headed by the Senior Administrative Officer

(Deputy Project Manager) would be responsible for projectpersonnel, transportation, registry, security and public

relations;

b) Finance headed by the Financial Controller would beresponsible for project accounts, procurement, stores,internal audit and general budgetary control;

- 25 -

c) Technical Services headed by the Chief Technical Officerwould be responsible for seed multiplication and research,training, extension services, and tractor hire services.Seed multiplication, research and training would be under-taken at the Gusau seed multiplication farm under the super-vision of a Research Officer and Training School principalrespectively. Extension would be the responsibility of theSenior Extension Officer under whom would be 4 DevelopmentOfficers centered at Chafe, Kotorkoshi, Bungudu and KauraNamoda. These 4 officers would supervise field extensioncenters based on 40 village units, each center being theresponsibility of an Agricultural Assistant (AA) each ofwhom on average would supervise 4 Agricultural Instructors(AI). Each Al would work with the farmers from 3 - 4 hamletssurrounding the main village. Thus the extension servicewould work alongside the traditional village structure, asystem which is already being encouraged by the State.Existing tractor hire services, until phased out in thelast year of the project, would continue to be providedto those farmers requiring machine cultivation, but encour-agement would be given to contractor services to be intro-duced during the project;

d) Credit Services. The project would place great emphasis onthe development of credit services alongside the extensionservice and the traditional village. Full details aregiven at Annex 6 and para 5.20. The credit service wouldbe headed by a Credit Manager and would be in two sections:

( i) Accounts Section at head office responsible forcentral accounting using machine accounting pro-cedures;

(ii) Field Section divided on a similar zonal system tothat described for extension services. There wouldbe two Credit Assistants (CA) at each village.

e) Market Services, headed by a Marketing Officer, would be asmall unit to act as an intelligence agency for both projectand farmers, adid to liaise with buyers and the NorthernStates Marketing Board. There would be 1 Senior MarketingAssistant attached to each Development Unit office. Detailscan be found at Annexes 10 & 11 and para 6.08.

f) Engineering Services headed by a Senior Engineer would aspecialized service responsible for planning and land use,water and soil conservation, road construction, buildingsupervision and workshop management, the latter for bothengineering plant and equipment as well as vehicles andequipment belonging to other project services. Detailson each sub section are found at Annexes 3, 4 and 9.

- 26 -

g) Evaluation Section headed by a Senior E-valuatLonL Ofricer,who although administratively responsible to the Projectr.ager, would coLme under the technical direction or the

Director of IAR at Samaru. He would be assisted by threeeconomists and sufficient enumerators to undertake the sur-veys, evaluation and statistical data required of the unit.ILAR, veLng part of tne A''nmadu Bello University, would drawon university staff from other disciplines when required.

B. Staffing

5.06 The project would need to be run by an efficient administrationteam and field staff, which would require management of the highest calibreat the senior level, and interested and hardworking individuals at themiddle and lower levels. Both the State and Federal Governments recognizethe need for good staffing and would be prepared to recruit internationallyexpatriate staff so long as there are no properly qualified and capableindividuals within the State to fill the post. Medium level technical andadministrative staff are available in Nigeria, though there may be someneed to recruit from other States for certain posts. Some lower level staffare available and more can be made available through existing trainingschemes currently operating in the northern States, or through in-servicestaff training courses to be operated under the project.

5.07 High Level Staff. It would be necessary to recruit internation-ally the following: Project Manager, Financial Controller, Credit Manager,Senior Evaluation Officer, Research Officer; Senior Engineer, PlanningOfficer, Conservation Officer, Road Enginner and Workshop Manager. Fromwithin the State the project would recruit the Senior Administration Officer(Deputy Project Manager), Chief Technical Officer, Marketing Officer andSenior Extension Officer. (Annex 9). ABU would be responsible for theappointment of the evaluation & research staff.

5.08 Medium Level Staff at a level of professional officer grade orsenior technical grade (Annex 9) would be recruited from within the Stateof from other States in Nigeria. However, all technical service staff andthe field sections of credit and evaluation services should be Hausaspeaking, preferably from the North Western State. Administrative staff,accounting staff and engineering service staff need not necessarily beHausa speaking.

5.09 Lower Level Staff at a comparable level of AA and below would allbe indigenous to the State.

5.10 Expatriate staff to the State, whether from other States inNigeria or from outside Nigeria, would be offered 3 year contracts, to berenewed on negotiation. Each contract would comprise two eighteen monthtours. Indigenous State staff would be either seconded from Government

- 27 -

Ministries to the project or would be offered contracts which at the dis-cretion of the Public Service Commission, might later be converted to per-manent and pensionable posts.

5.11 All staff with salaries of more than N 1,000 per annum would beprovided with project houses, AA's with a salary of less than N 1,000 wouldreceive a project house in the village centers as additional inducement.General service staff, including AI's, clerical assistants, typists, drivers,messengers and casual labor would be expected to find their own accommodationin the towns or villages.

5.12 Staff at certain levels and duties would be provided with projectvehicles for project work, and would not be expected to use their privatevehicles. However, all staff who qualify under State regulations wouldreceive normal car allowances, and other benefits.

5.13 For full details of staff requirements see Annex 9, table 4 andAnnex 6.

C. Staff Training

5.14 The proiect would undertake the training of lower level staffat the training centers to be established under the project, see para 3.09.The training of higher level technical and management stnff ca n onlyi beundertaken on an in-service basis. Technical staff would be trained by ex-perienced personnel in new teehniques and management skills renuired forundertaking a development program of this type. Management and administra-tive staff would also receive training on new procedures and managem-nttechniques which may evolve during the project.

5.15 The project would make positive efforts at training selected pro-4ect staff as future managers for other developnents which would take placeelsewhere in the State. The project would not include counterparts, butrather from the m.lddle of the second -ear onwards selected officers fromvarious levels in the project management would be seconded for periods of4 - 6 weeks to different sections of the project for practical training innew disciplines. For example the Senior Extension Officer and DevelopmentUlnit Officers would be seconded to the er.ginneering services to learn thesurvey and engineering aspects of infrastructure development, along withthe nroaramming and day to day management aspects involved. .Teir ownpositions would be filled temporarily by their junior staff, until theyreturned. T.his would apply, after a reasonable period, to sen'Lor Nigerianstaff who would act for expatriates when away from the project. Thus staffwith management potential would be trained in management, but at the sametime would retain responsibility for a specific part of the project develop-ment. In this way Government and Project Marnagen-Lent would be able to selectpeople with proven ability to manage, and with a broad enough experience toenable them at some future date to organize and manage othler agrLculturaLdeve )pment schemes.

- 28 -

5.16 Proiect costs show expatriate staff in position for the five yearsdisbursement period. It is likely that most of them would remain for thefull period. However, contracts would be renegotiated after 3 years, andif Nigerian project staff, by that time, have proven their ability to manage,then it would be appropriate for the particular post to be Nigerianized forthe remaining period of project disbursement. It should be remembered thatthe development of 68,000 farmine families would be dependent on good manage-ment and that this factor would remain the prime concern of both Governmentand the Bank when evaluating project services and associated management re-quirements.

D. Farm Tnnpit - Credit and Cash Sales

5.17 Fertilizers, seeds, insecticides, batteries, sprayers, ox carts,ox drawn- ploughs, tratorn and nncillarv enuinment would be made availableto project farmers by the Project Administration on credit (in kind) andfor cash. The total value of such inputs l s1 expected to inrreraa from aninsignificant level before the project starts to about N4.7 million in 1979for whlich .the net- cash1 requi- , u-- d14 b-e Qhout9 0mi4 I11 on. -Ahoit 75%

of the seasonal inputs and all sprayers, ox drawn equipment and tractorswould be expected to be supplied on credit

5.10 All Item,. except for fertilizers which are sold at a State wide

fixed price, would carry a 10% service charge. Seasonal inputs including…erta'li zers, seed,s, insecticides a.nd batteries When sol-d on credit, woul

include in the price an additional 10%, and would be repayable after har-vest, equivaLentL 'Lo arL effective annual C-1harge of -out 12%)/. p- t

of cotton sprayers would be in two equal annual installments including 10%it1LeretL. ux drawnI eq4U±pmenILt comUprL_Isi cdaL diiU p±AoUr"i, would Ue supp1i.A

as a package against a 20% down payment. The balance would be repaid overtnree years at 10% iLnterest iLn1 equadl annua1L installm.-nt0s. V . N crdtol

be made available for oxen, as there is no shortage of oxen in the projectarea, and in any case the type of farmer receiving ox drawn equipment. wouldbe the larger farmer of 6-10 ha who would probably already own oxen. Con-tractors would be encouraged to take out 'Loans for traCtOrs and ancIllaryequipment (inclusive of 5 ton trailer, ridger, and chisel plough). A downpayment of 30% wouid be made by tne contractor and the balan.ce would be re-paid over four years at 10% in equal annual installments. Interest ratesas quoted above are in line with existing coummercia; rates.

5.19 Procurement of all inputs would be made under ICB by the proJectadministration and all sales whether for cash or credit would be handled byproject credit staff.

5.20 The Credit System. Previous credit channels have generally failedin the northern States of Nigeria. Cooperative Societies are unpopular sincethey have tended to cut across traditional administration at village level,have been exploited politically, and have operated mainly to the benefit of

- 29 -

the trader in the towns. In any event the village farmer is not preparedto set up cooperative systems along conventional patterns. During the lastfew years there has been a growth of Farmer Associations at village level.Each Farmer Association automatically comprises the total village population(whether active or passive) and is managed by a committee, including re-presentatives of each statellite hamlet, and is normally chaired by thevillage head. These Farmer Associations have already made significant ef-forts in purchasing fertilizer in bulk for their members, and make readyand willing focal points for dissemination of new techniques. The projectwould therefore exploit the traditional systems of village management forcredit distribution and recovery.

5.21 Credit Distribution. The success of the project would depend up-on the bperations of the credit service and the farmers' ability to repaytheir loans. Thus credit, which would be intensively supervised with oneCA to 200-300 accounts, would be made on an individual basis. On receiptof advice from the village center extension AA on the farmer's technicalability the Credit Assistant would review the farmer's credit-worthinesswith his hamlet head and Farmers Association Committee. After approval,the agent would calculate the farmer's credit needs which would be checkedand authorized by the Development Unit Credit Officer. Once authorized,the farmer would collect his requirements in kind from the village centrestore at the appropriate time. The amounts would be debited on the farmer'scredit card, (there being three copies, held by farmer; CA and Credit Ac-counting Section at HQ), using a cash register printout machine with codedprefixes to indicate the tvye of item debited to farmer.

5.22 Credit Recovery. Since all marketing in the proect area isundertaken by private traders or licensed buying agents, it would be in-appropriate to recover credit navments through the markets. Th,,- a systemusing the basis of mutual liability would be developed. The mutually liableunit would be the hamlet, and right from the start the hamlet would decideon farmer creditworthiness (see para 5.20). On acceptance, the farmer woulddeposit with the Credit Assistant 10% of the value of the required credit.The 10% deposit would be held in trust by the project in a hamlet account.At the end of the season the farmer would repay his loan to the project au-thorities. If a hamlet only achieved 95% repayment then the project woulddeduct the outstandine 5% from the hamlet trst accot. The foll0wingyear the hamlet would have to make up the trust account to 10% value ofcredit renuire-ment nrior to receiving credit. The hamlet conatittee wouldbe informed on any outstanding debtors, and it would remain for the hamletto col lect the bad debts. If the repayments fell below 90% then the -wholehamlet would be penalized and would receive no credit services whatsoeverLtmtl1 the credit re-ayments were brought up to the required level. Tissystem would apply to all seasonal credit and cotton sprayers. It wouldnot applyr to tractors anA anc a-.Jar equip.-,.ent, as suc5h `.ans wouWlUd be hand-led from the project head office under the direct supervision of the CreditMnager and Senior Credit Officer, whI -would draw up special loan agree-ments between project and borrower. Similarly, ox drawn equipment loanswould be made against special loan agrLeements and would be approved by theDistrict Credit Officer.

- 30 -

5.23 Farmers renilring farm 4-npits for *ash would puirrh2s the inniltQfrom the Credit Assistant at the village center at cost price plus 10%service charge.

5'.2 T.he'M use of coded cash register m chn esnp n , _q^ni g n-^-n a c u ting

systems would minimize the amount of book-keeping at village level; andwould & thus reuc the ___ ir. ad-d-nstratio.. of credit at one of --- most

vulnerable points.

5.25 It is planned that by the third or fourth year of the project theh-amlets would purchase inputs, through a ham.let credit accont- rather thanL Idi±L i L. JUU J Li A.il~ L .L9L LALL JL 6 L1 L& L0*J_ L. U~ I. L~..AU. L. =LL LItCLLA

on an individual basis, thus reducing the number of accounts, and perhapsuriingiing back 'nto use a proper Uooperaltive LtLUtUL, UasU ULo a LLad-

itional system. Eventually each village might become a primary societyreceiving funds throuug1 -a Lentral "uudau FaLUers' UnJlon".

40 e crea±l.t l'us hiIanduleud LbLy the Project APd1UUI±a.- -L W U Ub

held in a separate revolving credit account in the Central Bank of Nigeria'sbrancn at Sokoto. To irLvoLve the Nig-e riLan Agricultural Bank (1iAB) whLicLLI

was recently formed, the General Manager of NAB would be invited to sit onthe project Development COMnmiLttee and Federal Coordinating CtoUUULttLee, thusgiving NAB the opportunity to monitor the credit fund, advise the projecton credit matters, and perhaps pro-v'de audit and comiputer services. If atsome future date project credit funds were found to be inadequate NAB wouldbe in a good position to supply such needs.

5.27 A separate account for farm input casn saies would be also estab-lished in the Central Bank, and the Central Bank or an approved commercialbank would provide any short term working capital which mignt be requiredto finance the procurement of the inputs. By the fifth year of the projectthe procurement for cash sales would be valued at NO.4 million annually.The finance charges for this working capital would be recovered from the10% service charge added to all inputs.

5.28 The Federal Government would pay into revolving credit accountand the project account the fertilizer subsidy, due to the project immedi-ately after the award of contract.

5.29 Presently less than 3,000 tons of fertilizer per annum are soldby the MANR in the project area - an amount which is unattractive to com-mercial agencies for distribution. By 1980 an approximate 25,000 tons offertilizer would be sold in the area, and efforts would be made to drawcommercial agencies into the project area as fertilizer demand increasesduring the latter years of the project.

5.30 By 1980 the average sesonal credit to farmers receiving creditwould be in the order of N 40-50 per farmer. The seasonal credit per hawould be about N 20. For further details see Annex 8.

- 31

VI. PRODUCTION, MARKETS, FARMERS' BENEFITS AND GOVERNMENT

BENEFITS

A. Yields and Outputs

6.01 The large number of farm families (about 68,000) in the projectarea, and the complexity of cropping mixtures and patterns are such thatyield variations are inevitable and substantial. It has been assumed thatproject farmers would fall into one or other of two or three categories foreach of the five crops affected by the project. Details are given in Annex7. Advanced cotton growers, who would comprise 36 percent of total numbersand 45 percent of total cotton area by 1979, are expected to obtain yieldsaveraging 1,100 kg/ha of seed cotton by using fertilizer and insecticides.Traditional cotton farmers, on the other hand, who are expected to ignoreproject advice and assistance, would obtain no more than the present aver-age yleld of 250 kg/ha of seed cotton. The overall average seed cottonyield from the project area is expected to increase to about 675 kg/ha by1979. The feasibility of achieving such a level is demonstrated by yieldsof well over 2,000 kg/ha obtained in trials in the area. Similar yieldshave been achieved on a sustained basis by cotton growers under similarecological conditions and technical improvements in other West Africancountries.

6.02 Advanced maize growers using hybrid seed, fertilizers and goodmanagement practices are expected to approximate 12.000 each with one haof maize by 1979. Intermediate maize growers would total 26,000 each with0.5 ha of improved varieties and lower levels of fertilizer application.Yields of shelled grain obtained by these two categories are expected to be4.000 and 2.500 kg/ha respectively. The feasibility of achievine theselevels is demonstrated by yields of over 5,500 and 3,500 kg/ha obtained fromadvanced and intermediate maize technologv on trials in the nroiect area.Further, ongoing development of improved maize types at the neighboringInstitute of Aericultural Research (IAR) is predlic-ted to provide matrFialwith even higher yielding potential in the near future. The project is ex-pected to effect a substantial change in the nattern of cereal nroductionin the area. Area planted is expected to increase from an estimated 7,000ha in 1974 to 27,000 ha in 1979, largely at the expense of sorphum andmillet. Production would increase from 6,000 tons to about 76,000 tonsand the average yield would increase from Q.9 ton/ha to 2.7 tons per ha overthe same period.

6.03 Sorghum yields from hybrids grown under improved management andheavy fertilizer dressings are expected to reach 2000 kgIha in thre-shedgrain. Yields from dwarf varieties at intermediate technology levels areexpected to be abouit 1X500 kg/ha. These vields compare with estimated pro-ject area yield of unimproved sorghum, unfertilized, of 750 kg/ha of thre-shed arain. Trials in neighboring areas with similar climate and soilconditions yielded some 3.700 and 2,800 kg/ha from advanced and intermediate

- 32 -

technology treatments respectively. These yields and the continued pro-gram of sorghum research on a West African regional basis with foreigntechnical assistance argue the feasibility of expected project yields. Anexpected 20 percent decline in total sorghum area would be substantiallycountered by the uptake of improved practices. Production would decreasefrom an estimated 66,000 tons. The average yield would be 0.9 tons/ha in1974 to about 61,000 tons in 1979. Annex 7, Table 12 gives details.

6.04 Only one level of improved groundnut technology has been assumed-ar the project. This would incorporate improved seed, fertilizer and goodmanagement practices. Its effect is expected to increase yields of shellednuts from the present average of 650 kg/ha to 1,200 kg/ha. Numbers of far-mers following improved practices are expected to approximate 26,000 bv1979, or 52 percent of estimated growers, each with 0.75 ha planted withgroundnuts. The feasibility of this rate of uptake rests on the familia-rity of project area farmers with proposed improved technology, the adop-tion of which has been constrained by inadequate technical assistance, inputsupplies and credit. Incremental production due to the project would be about11,000 tons. Expected averaRe yields are in line with levels nredicted bythe Extension Research Liaison Section (ERLS) of IAR, on the basis ofevaluation of extensive field trials in the northern States. Average yveldswould be raised to 0.94 tons/ha.

6.05 Cowpea production is expected to be increased as a function of up-take of advanced cotton t.chnolozg. This is because current average yields;of about 200 kg/ha of shelled peas, are severely restricted by insect attack.Application of insecticide to sole crops of cowneas (the rrOn iS normnllyinterplanted) given phosphate fertilizer has increased yields tenfold undertrial conditions. Under the proiect. yields of cowneas under intermediatetechnology are expected to reach 900 kg/ha, and under advanced technology,involving improved seed and a heavier fertilizer dressing, some 1200 kg/ha.In each case, the cowpeas would be sprayed with insecticide, utilizing thesame equipment and similar materials to those renommended for rnttnn Therate of uptake is expected to approximate 50% of farmers utilizing advancedcotton production techniques or about 12;000 farmers by 1979. Plot size iexpected to approximate 0.25 ha, and incremental production some 2,800 tonsby 1979. Details are in Annex 7.

B. Markets and Prices

6.06 AYriuiilt-iirq1 rornrs in the prni-t- aa wl b marketed -A

the existing channels:

a) food crops (maize, sorghum, cowpeas) would be marketedvia the rral markets or bUy direct contract Lo wLole-salers; and

- 3,3 -

b) cotton and groundnuts would continue to be marketedthrough Marketing Board markets where statutory pricesare guaranteed. These crops are either exported or usednationally for industrial use.

6.07 The free marketing of food crops would appear to be satisfactorysince competition is strong and the traders, who generally own their own

transport, are efficient and compete at many of the local rural markets.Studies by IAR indicate that the farmer receives about 70% of the retailprice at the northern urban markets, which under any system can be con-sidered satisfactory.

6.08 The statutory marketing system in the four most northern states

of Nigeria is controlled by the Northern States Marketing Board (NSMB). Asis the case with most marketing boards in Nigeria the NSMB has been critici-

zed for unnecessarily high taxation on the marketed crops, for excessiveoverhead costs and unsatisfactory services to farmers. The FMG has givenserious consideration to the formulation of new policies, which are to beintroduced during the current financial year. The changes include:

a) reduced taxation;b) reduced Board overheads;c) transfer of export profits to producers; andd) federal responsibility for producer price determination,

produce inspection, and support price policies, whichmight eventually include subsidization of Board overheadcosts.

6.09 The statutory marketing system in the project area requires to beimproved on a number of counts. These include:

a) timely announcement and wide publicity of producer prices;b) provision of adequate funds for produce purchases;c) establishment and enforcement of quality standards;d) dismissal of inefficient or dishonest LBA's and produce

inspection staff.

Such improvements would necessitate close contact and cooperation with NPMC,NSMB, the Central Bank and commercial banks; provision of the right of veto

to the project administration in the selection and licensing of LBA's; and

the emnloyment of well trained proJect staff concerned with market control,liaison, and marketing research. Details are given in Annex 10, para 11.

6.10 Producer prices, presently at peak level for industrial and exportcrops, are exnected to fall during the proiect period by up to 1/3 of their

present level. Cotton and groundnut world market prices are expected todecline as projected hv the Bank's commodity division, though the producers'farm gate price may not be reduced so dramatically, depending in interpre-tation of the proposed amendments in the market system (para 6.08). Thefood crop prices are expected to remain at present levels which reflects

- 34 -

expectations of positive results from FMG's policies and support towardsintensive cereal production on a national scale, thus assuring supplies tothe steadily growing urban population.

6.11 The following table summarizes present and future prices for pro-ject crops (in N/m ton):

Cotton Groundnuts Maize /1 Sorghum Cowpeasfob fob cif cif cif

Nigerian port /2

1972 490 156 50 47 -

1973 520 220 - - -

1980 (at 1973 prices) 340 97 - - -

Producer price in projectarea /3

1972 110 67.6 - - -1973 132 80.6 70 65 951980 (at 1973 prices) 80 50 79/49 75 91

Economic price at farmgatr /3

1980 89 57 54/34 51 99

/1 Producer prices for 1980 show N 79 is sold in northern markets and N 49if sold in Ibadan or other southern markets. A similar variation is pro-jected for the 1980 economic price at farm gate.

/2 Cotton prices at Nigerian port are for cotton lint./3 Cotton prices in project area and at farm gate are for seed cotton.

The crop budgets shown in Annex 7 use the projected 1980 producer price asshown in the above table. Price reductions as projected for cotton andgroundnuts would necessitate at least a 50% yield increase to compensatefor the market-incurred loss in producer income, apart from the yield in-creases required to cover the cost of inputs as proposed under the project.The project would therefore encourage the farmers to produce high qualitycrops such as the more uniform cotton required by the local mills, andwhere applicable the development of confectionary groundnuts. However, suchimprovements cannot be quantified at this stage.

C. Farmer Benefits

6.12 Farmers participating in project activities would obtain substan-tial dt:ect income benefits through utilizing project services and inputs.

- 35 -

In addition benefits due to improved road, water supplies, soil conserva-tion and marketing would be of indirect benefit to about 40% of the projectfarmers who in the first instance do not avail themselves of project ser-vices.

6.13 Estimated direct benefits have been calculated on a unit areabasis for the crops which would be affected. Estimated returns summarizedbelow and presented in detail in Annex 7, tables 3-7, are based on producerprices referred to in para 6.11. They illustrate the considerable finan-cial attractions of cereal, particularly maize, cultivation using advancedtechnology, relative to other crops. They also show the overall benefits ofimproved technology over traditional practices.

Gross Revenue (.N/1ha)

.3.1 .J.. T A -2J~~~ .LaLLtJLona.L InL-n ULtUermetate Aduva.rcedu Traditional:

___________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ________ Adv anced

Cotton 20 43 83 1: 5.05GroundtUs 32L. - 0 i; i .8

Maize 58 128 256 1: 4.41Sorghum 56 112 150 1: 2.68Cowpeas 18 82 109 1: 6.06

Net Revenue Including Labor Costs (N/ha)

Cotton (18) (19) (13) 1: 1.38Groundnuts (29) - (24) 1: 1.21Maize (2) 36 137 1:70.50Sorghum 3 42 51 1:17.00Cowpeas (23) 5 26 1: 3.13

Net Revenue Excluding Labor Costs (N/ha)

Cotton 119 31 45 1: 2.37Groundnuts 28 - 50 1: 1.79Maize 55 106 215 1: 3.91Sorghum 54 101 121 1: 1.24Cowpeas 16 57 80 1: 5.00

Returns to Labor (N/man day)

Cotton 0.31 0.37 0.46 1: 1.48Groundnuts 0.30 - 0.41 1: 1.37Maize 0.58 0.91 1.65 1: 2.84Sorghum 0.64 1.03 1.04 1: 1.63Cowpeas 0.25 0.64 0.88 1: 3.52

- 36 -

6.14 Tables 8 and 9 of Annex 7 are model budgets for typically sizedholdings of 3.5 ha in the project area. They compare the effects of pro-ject activities at full development on cotton and groundnut producers fol-lowing advanced technological practices for these crops, cereals and cow-peas, with results ob tained by a traditional producer. Expected returnsare shown in summary form below per holding (in N):

1, Pe L' u rn s IL ia .lU -L mu Av ar ed Ad-vanced Traditionai: Traditional:Cotton Groundnut Adv. Cotton Adv. Gnut.

Gross: 113 455 404 1: 403 1: 3.58

Net revenueIncludingLabor Costs: (28) 154 142 1: 7.50 1: 7.07

Net revenueExcludingLabor Costs: 107 345 340 1: 3.22 1: 3.18

Returns to Labor(N/Manday): 0.39 0.94 0.90 1: 2.41 1: 2.31

Thus, at full development, farmers taking full advantage of project facili-ties and growing either cotton or groundnuts in addition to improved cerealscould be expected to more than triple their gross and net revenues ex-cluding labor costs.

6.15 Projected numbers of farmers benefiting from the project are de-tailed under each crop in Annex 7. Expected numbers at full developmentare shown below by crops.

Number of Farms Percentage of TotalCrop Traditional Intermediate Advanced Total Intermediate Advanced

Cotton: 31,000 7,100 21,400 59,500 12 36Groundnuts: 24,000 - 26,000 50,000 - 52Maize: 10,000 26,000 12,000 48,000 54 25Sorghum: 46,000 18,000 4,000 68,000 26 6Cowpeas: 56,000 7,000 5,000 68,000 10 7

The expected popularity of maize is largely explained by the substantialpotential benefits (para 6.12). The comparatively low uptake of improvedcowpea technology expected is due largely to its proposed linkage to imp-roved cotton technology (the same sprayers and spraying techniques would beused).

- 37 -

6.16 Expected area benefiting from the project is detailed by crops andlevels of technology in Annex 7. The table below summarized this informa-tion on a crop basis (in ha) at full development:

Area (ha) Percentage of Totalcrop Traditional Intermediate Advanced Total Intermediate Advanced

Cotton: 22,200 5,500 23,100 58,800 11 45Groundnuts: 17.500 - 19.500 37,000 - 53Maize: 2,500 13,000 12,000 27,500 47 44Sorghum: 59,300 9,000 1,500 69,800 13 2Cowpeas: 9,000 1,750 1,250 12,000 15 10

6.17 Expected production increases derived from the project at fulldevelopment are summarized by crops below (in tons).

Estimated Production IncrementalWith Prnoe-t- Withonut Prniprt Prndutionn

Gnttonn '4jO00 10,000 24,000Groundnuts: 35,000 24,000 11,000Maize.: 76,000 6, 000 70,000Sorghum: 61,000 66,500 (5,500)Other Cereals: 2,500 , 4Ann (QnnCowpeas: 5,000 2,200 2,800

Details are in Annex 7.

6.18 Financial benefits of proposed project activities over traditionalpractices measured in terms of estimated net returns including and ex-cluding labor charges are shown below by crops (in N) at full development.

T. unt eLm.edla+e Asva.c A .Tota

Incremental Net Returns Including Labor Costs.

Cotton (10,615) 111,110 100,495Groundnuts - 98,865 98,865Maize 493,350 1,661,400 2,154,750Sorghum 352,350 72,075 424,425Cowpeas 50,660 60,625 111,285

Total 885,745 2,004,075 2,889,820

- 38 -

Incremental Net Returns Excluding Labor Costs

Cotton 67,100 611,225 678,325Groundnuts - 426,465 426,465Maize 664,950 1,920,600 2,585,550Sorghum 422,550 99,975 522,525Cowpeas 72.710 80.125 152.835

Total 1.227.310 3.138.390 4.365,700

Thus, farmers' net cash benefits are expected to range between N 2.8R millinnand N 4.3 million at full development. This would be between N 42 and N 64for each farming family throughout the 9roiect area. or ahout N 100 fnr eachfarming family availing itself of credit for inputs (para 3.11).

D. Financial Implication to Government

6.19 .el.ral Militwrv rnvurnmant. Unless policies regarding fertilizersubsidies are changed prior to the completion of the project, FMG would becommitted to an annual fertilizer subsidv to the State Gvpr nmnt nf N 0=6million.

6.20 North Western State Government. During the development period ofthp nrni'et the Strate rvuPrnment wntil,l hp rani,irad tn 4inranct- U ' a m41lI4^n

as its share of project costs. If surpluses from the revolving credit ac-count (Annex 8, Table 6) andA t on cotton and groundnuts are take irntoaccount then the net requirement would be reduced to N 2.5 million. The grossincremer.tal income turnover within the -roJecIt arashould net oer.na revenue equivalent to at least 10% of income turnover through direct andindirect taxation., and would result in an actuall net cost to 'Goverrmentduring the development period of N 2.0 million. (Annex 12, Table 1).

6.21 After the development period the Government would be committed toar. ar.nual cost to pro-jectL farmers 'or -le conffinuation of-itlprJcal llL~. I~ .LU j)LLJ.L L .aLUL. LL L_LL LV LJ.U L±UJLL 1)1 Vi.LLd.L PLj)fU CL

services of N 0.8 million from Years 6-10 and N 0.7 million from Year 11onwards. TakIng account of other revenues gen d by the project, andthe repayment of IBRD and FMG loan the net cost to Government from Year 6-20 would average about N 600,000 per anLiui. Ai Eth IBRD loan had beenrepaid in Year 20, the project would generate a net surplus of N500,000annually. It should be noted that the foregoing estimates are based on thesurmise that no significant increases in production would occur after Year5. mlIis is unlikely to be the actual case.

- 39 -

VII. BENEr-TTS AND JUbTIF-IC±ATION

7.01 The project's direct economic benefits would comprise of produc-tion increases resulting from farmers taking up the use ot tarm inputs in-cluding fertilizers, seeds, insecticides, spraying machines and other farmequipment. The economic rate of return has been calculated comparing thenew situation with the existing situation and can be best summarized in thecrop budgets shown at Annex 7. Estimates of incremental production aresummarized in Annex 13 Table 1 and are described in paras 6.01 - 6.05.This production is valued at world prices projected for 1980, which in thecase of cotton and groundnuts is substantially lower than current pricesand those expected during the first years of the project life. Projectcosts take account of gross cost of farm inputs and the cost of infrastruc-tural and administrative services, less any taxes or duties which are posi-tively identified. Incremental farm family labor has been shadow pricedand amounts to Nl.l million annually, hired labor for road constructionhas likewise been shadow priced. In this instance the shadow cost of for-eign exchange rate has not been included, but consideration for its in-clusion should be given at appraisal. Calculated as above the internaleconomic rate of return is 11%. Since the project only directly affects50% of the project area farmers it is considered that only 50% of the roadand water development costs should be costed against the project, which wouldresult in an economic rate of return of 14%.

7.02 A sensitivity analysis has been undertaken to test the projectunder various assumptions which might occur. For instance if all the maizewas to be sold in northern markets the rate of return would increase byabout 7 percentage points, and if the shadow price of farm family laborlabor was taken as zero the rate of return would increase by about 15 per-centage points. Conversely if all the maize was sold in the southern mar-kets, which is most unlikely, the rate of return would drop by 8 percentagepoints. Road user benefits have not been quantified, but if included wouldshow a distinct improvement in the rate of return. Under these variouspossibilities and assumptions it would seem that the fairest estimate forthe internal rate of return would fall between 11-14% (see Annex 13).

7.03 Full project induced production would be reached in the fifth yearafter the start of the project. Project produced groundnuts would resultin additional foreign exchange earnings, while the production of cotton.sorghum and maize would substitute for imports and thus save foreign exchange.Net export earnings and savings at full development are expected to reachabout N20 million annually, and would thus further add to Nigeria's alreadyfavorable balance of payments situation.

7.04 The prolect's indirect benefits would be substantial. It woulddirectly affect some 35,000 farm families, and a further 33,000 farmfamilies would receive benefits from improved water supplies, roads andsome 'rub off' from extension services. All farmers and their familieswould be brought that minh closer to hetter health faci1itfe anti othAr

- 40 -

social servi Ppe anrl nm niti4p nlann bf y hu tho (yravnn mnt dAi,vr,n" the n

five years. In total some 630,000 people would be affected one way or an-nthpr by nrni ot-t activities1th In addition withou the project at Gu-au i4tis more than likely that the agro industries being developed for groundnutAnl nti t rn_ 4 1 _^^4- - 4 rmsIS T'V -; __+ . . . -1A __t>_and cn~o-- -- 4--- , in which _ part cpatig - iswould makesubstantial losses. Furthermore the northern textile mills would be depen-dent on the project's cotton production. MIze produced by project farmersis essential both for local consumption by a steadily rising population,and by the commercial livestock and poultry indu- try situated mA inly in tesouthern states.

7.05 With the considerable increase in gross income and the resultant-- 4e- ci rculating with-in the- profec are it ---- ___tth;ualtru~ L..L L.LaL.L L W. LLL.L& LALCV pi JJ=ULL "&~ JL L.- ± J1=U = L.LlaL LUL di. -LLUUe

and small industries are likely to expand and benefit from the project.w,Wpareud withAL1 many ruraUL cor± nunities in other coun-rUes local trade is f erce

and brisk and is likely to take full advantage of the project investmentsand' expected' benefits.

7.06 The project in itself will create substantial empioyment oppor-tunities during and after the development period. Government staff in thearea will expand from some 30 at present to about 500 employees. The roadand water development program would require about 300 manyears of paidcasual labor aind would call on about the same amount of voluntary labor.Employment of existing farm family labor, currently under-utilized, wouldamount to an annual increase of 11,000 manyears of incremental labor fromthe 5th year onwards. This is equivalent to net income per mnmday of in-cremental employment of N 1.5 (US$2.31).

7.07 Tne project would cause improvement to Government institutionsand would work in close conjunction with the local administration and LocalAuthority. The project would test new credit systems which would be dis-seminated by NAB. The project would add strength to the present MANR act-ivities and should lead the way for further developments elsewhere in theState. The project should cause NSMB to be more proficient and would as-sist NSnB_ in developing new and improved marketing methods and liaisonwithin the project area.

7.08 The project would be essential for the training of Nigerian admin-istrators and technicians in the methods of development techniques and manmanagement.

VIII. OUTSTANDING ISSUES

8.01 Preparation of the project report and the general conclusions andimplications likely to be drawn from it were discussed with the State re-presentatives at Jos in March 1973. However, now that the detail has beenput together certain conclusions, implications, and possible issues for both

- 41 -

the Federal Government, North Central State Government and the World Bank,have become more apparent and should be fully discussed prior to and duringthe appraisal of the project. These include:

a) updating of field staff requirements for the projectwith' special reference to current training efforts ofAgricultural Assistants to meet project requirementsin Years 1 and 2;

b) progress on commercial seed multiplication at Bacita SugarEstate or any other commercial organization;

c) policy on fertilizer subsidy for fertilizer other thansulphate of ammonia and single superphosphate and FMGgeneral policy on subsidization throughout the northernStates;

d) clarification on cereal prices, particularly projectedmovements of maize and sorghum, their interrelationshipand market prospects in urban centers in both northern andsouthern States. The substitution effect of sorghum bymaize on local northern rural diets;

e) Marketing Board organization and clarification of ne-wFederal pricing policies and procedures;

f) the role of produce inspectors in the NSMB and the relatedquality control for cotton and groundnuts;

g) the role of the Ahmadu Bello University. through TAR,in project evaluation;

h) the role of NAB in relation to project credit;

i) the need for key management, technical and engineeringstaff to be recruited through international channel-c andthe role of Bank assistance in this matter;

j) agreement on using the project as the construction Agencyfor road and water development:

k) agreement on an overall financina plan; the degree ofBank, FMG and State funds to be made available; theprocedures for onlending and the term- of Federal 1oansto the State Government;

1) project funding and accounting procedures; and

m) the concept of project organization, controlling committees,and Federal coordination between other projects in thenorthern States.

ANNEX 1Page 1

NIGERIA

NORTH WESTERN STATE

Gusau Agriuiiltiiral lP-vgP1nnmPnt Prnirt

Basic Data

Population

1. Population data are among the most fundamental of the basic data.eeAdeAu to fom..ulatae th.e proJect. Available f-bures are sant. The last

census, which was carried out in 1963 is the best source of population data.l..e or,ly IothLer possilble s .e, .LS0urC.L ocal Aut. horit re-urns on numbers ofL-- tx

payers, whilst collected annually vary in accuracy in accordance with theUdLLgerice o'L the dlfferen officials chlargeLu with L-axcollect.ionL.U Lrponsi-bilities in the districts. It appears to represent no more than 60-80 per-cent of adult male population imputed from cen,sus data.

2. According to th~e cerisus, pLpulation of those parts of the fivedistricts constituting the project area totalled 470,500 in 1963. A growthrate of 2.5 percent annually is thLe one nornmally used In cornection withrural populations in the northern States. At this rate, population of theproject area would be 620,000 by 1974.

3. Data on numbers of persons per family in the project area are alsosparse. No demographic surveys have been carried out. However, indicationsfrom tax data point to a figure ot 4.72. Local opinion does nor contirmthis, suggesting that family size approximates 6.5 individuals. This figurein turn is lower than that obtained in a detailed survey of three villagesin Zaria Province, some 120 km south of the project area. The latter arrivedat a mean figure of 8.5 persons per family. This is substantially higherthan the figure suggested by the Federal Office of Statistics for the Stateas a whole. Because of the spread between family size derived from taxdata on the one hand, and a microsample in a roughly comparable area on theother, 6.5 was arbitrarily selected as representing average tamily size.This was in accordance with local opinion and roughly between the extremessuggested from elsewhere. Thus, on the basis of a family size of 6.5, anda population of 620,000, there would be some 95,380 families in the area by1974.

4. Numbers of farming families was calculated on the assumpt'ion thatabout 28 percent would be engaged primarily on non agricultural activities.This figure was derived from census data and observations on non agriculturalactivities in the area. On this basis, there would be about 68,000 farmingfamilies in the project area by 1974.

ANNEX 2Page 1

NIGERIA

INORTh WESTERN STATE

Gusau Agricultural Development Project

Research and Seed Multiplication

Institutions

1. Technical and rural economic research pertaining to the proiectarea is the responsibility of the semi-autonomous Institute of AgriculturalResearch (IAR). The Institute was created in the early 1960's and is linkedto the Ahmadu Bello University (ABU) at Zaria. It has its main station andadministrative headquarters at Samaru, adjoining the ABU campus, some 120 kmsouth of proposed project headquarters at Gusau. IAR serves the six nor-thern States. Senior officials from their Ministries of Agriculture andNatural Resources (MANR) help to formulate IAR policy and approve researchprograms.

2. The Institute has a staff of over 200 professionals, modern nndexpanding facilities. It has established apparently good working relationswith other research institutions in Nigeria and the West Afritan region.Its standing in research circles is acknowledged to be high. Over the yearsit has produced a wide ranae of research resuslt relating to most of thecrops commonly grown in the northern States. Implementation of the resultshas been hamnered by lack of tpehnical asistance annd innipt delvetr=y srx 1cesat the village and farmer levels; and a tendency to be unrelated to theconditions encoint-ered on farmrc' farmQs. The latter weakness has been high=lighted recently as a result of the activities of the Rural EconomicsRpeearcrh Unit (RERU) nf TAR, Staff of PFTU are cooperating with technicalpersonnel in the formulation of research recommendations more nearly re-lated to farmerq' need and capahilities than has hitherto been the case.

3. sponnnsihi1ity for trannmission of research results to extensionstaff is vested in the Extension Research Liaison Service (ERIS) of IAR.11-eado e hTadeput- Direc-t of heD tiue, FR:TC --- or... audioand visual aids materials suitable for use by farmer contact extension staff.The Service is responsible for fo-mulating draft reco,nunended practices forfarmers. These are based on research results and an assessment of the levelof sup ervisior. and technical competence of field level extension staff em-ployed by the State MAJR's. This is generally low, hence recommended pra-Cti,mv_ tendA to- be --Ap] an onservative in- 'rer to avoid the 'aazard o.- 1- -- -IL111 -- A .V LVW., 4.LL UL U~ L.) dV LU LIL iLdL U Ut

loss of confidence by farmers in extension staff who give wrong advice (dueto lack ot compreheson)l or wIlo are unable to arranLge fLor supplies ofnecessary inputs. ERLS has a staff of some 20 professionals and supportpersonnel. LLts chief would ue willing to tailor extension material to meetproposed project needs, and to assist with its production.

ANNEX 2Page 2

Research Programs and Recommendations

4. Programs on the five crops proposed for the project have been on-

going for many years. Thus, cotton has been the subject of continuing re-

search in the maior disciDlines over the past four decades. Programs are

staffed mainly by personnel of the Cotton Research Corporation (CRC). They

have resulted in the develonment of improved varieties. Thus S71, which is

recommended for the project area, has a yield potential under Samaru con-

ditions of well over 2,0oo kg of seed cotton per ha. Its main characteris-

tics are listed in Annex 7. In addition, agronomic practices, fertilizer

responses, pest and disease nroblems of the crop have been clearly defined

and, at least, partially solved.

5. The cotton research program has provided definite recommendations

on variety, cultural practices and fertilizer applications in the project

area. It is in the course of evaluating systems of insect control usingulta-=low-volume (ULV) spraying techniques on a field scale at different

sites in the project area. Advice on techniques suitable for farmers is

likely to be forthcoming in late 1973. These would be similar to tech-

niques used by small scale cotton producers in other parts of Africa. Annex

7 contains the essence of research recommendations for the cotton crop plus

proposals for ULV spraying based on experience elsewhere. These proposals

should be confirlmed with the outcome of proposed 1973 field trials in the

project area.

6. Groundnuts have been the subject of close research interest and

substantial effort over the past two decades. High yielding varieties

suitable for the project area have been developed and a package of inputs

and practices capable of at least doubling farmers' yields has been formu-

lated for some years.

7. Improved practices proposed for.the project are based on current

recommendations by ERLS. Lney include the use of the seed of the variety

S61, seed dressing with Aldrea T or Fernasan D, single superphosphate fer-

tilizer at 75 kg per ha, early planting and close spacing. It may be that

ongoing research on control of cercospora leaf spot will lead shortly to

the possibility of incorporating this treatment in practices proposed for

groundnuts in the project area. This should be kept in mind, along with

opportunities for production expansion through new varieties anrd or varia=

tions in fertilizer dressing, all of which are under investigation.

R. Sorghum research has moved from attempts to improve local varieties

into the development of dwarf varieties and hybrids suitable for the diL-

fering ecological conditions encountered in the northern States. Such

material has a yield potential of at least five time greater than farmers pre-

sently obtain. Selection and breeding programs have been underway for the

past 20 years with substantial assistance in the past decade from the US

through USAID programs involving USDA, USARS and several universities.

Cooperative programs with other West African sorghum producers have also

been operated through IAR.

ANNEX 2Page 3

9. The outcome of this work, and related agronomic investigations,hias not yet reached the stage at which ERLS is able to issue a series ofrecommended practices for general distribution. However, highly promisingresults have been obtained from a number of trials, replicated at Gusau anda number of sites at other locations. These have formed the basis for twoproposed levels of technology, outlined in Annex 7, involving the use ofdwarf varieties and hybrid sorghums. Proposed levels of fertilizer applica-tion and the specific types of sorghum most suitable for the project areashould be reviewed after the 1973 and 1974 cropping seasons in the light ofresults of ongoing and proposed field trials scheduled for Daudawa and othersites .

10. Maize is the most exciting crop in the project. Recent researchresults in Nigeria, and experience in other African countries having similarecoloaical conditions point to the probability of a substantial expansion ofarea and production in the short to medium term. Yields of over 7,000 kg/hahave been obtained under trial conditions over several years at Samaru fromsynthetic varieties and hybrids. Trials in the project area have yieldedsimilarly, and promising new material is presently being tested.

11. These developments are comparatively recent in the northern States.They have been initiated by a number of cooperative and regional programs,partly funded by the US. Table 13 of Annex 7 indicated yield potential ofsome of the material being developed. Agronomic practices established else-where have been, and continue to be, tested under Nigerian conditionsn Somerefinements are likely to be forthcoming but basic production techniquesutilizing comparatively heavy fertilizer application can be safe!- assumedon the basis of existing trial results.

12. Annex 7 sets out two levels of recommended maize technology basedon Nigerian research results and exnperience in other African countrieshaving similar ecological conditions. These differ from current recomm-ended practices since they nresuppose a much closer degree of technicalassistance to farmers plus the provision of the inputs necessary to obtainpredirted production levels, As for sorghum, proposed technology should bereviewed in the light of 1973 and 1974 field trials and amended as necess-arv before incornoration in project activities.

13. The cwpea i grown throughout the project area, and widelyin Nigeria. Research has centered mainly on control of insect pests, towhich it is highly susceptible both in the field and in store. However,some improved varieties have been established and recommendations are avail-able on cultural practices. Responrses to phospLatic fertilizer (sinlsuperphosphate) have been demonstrated.

14. Control of insect pests is possible, provided the crop is soleplanted, using high volume sprays and DDT/uIIC mixtures. The probability ofinsect control using UILV techlniques is currently under investigation at IAR.Results suitable for dissemination lo farmers are expected to be forthcomingin the near future. In anticipation of this, two levels of improved tech-nology are proposed-J1 fLor tLkie project. They are detaiiecl in Annex 7. Bothinvolve ULV spraying and fertilizer application to sole crops planted as

ANTNEX 2Page 4

recommended by ERLS. The advanced level involves the use of improved

planting material and a somewhat heavier fertilizer dressing. Confirmation

or possibly modification of these treatments should be sought before their

Implementation, following from the results of ongoing and planned investi-

,gations by IAR staff.

15 The proiect management would undertake field trials in close

cooperation with IAR at the proposed Gusau farm. Investigations would form

part of ongoing research programs in major commodities in the project area.

-Ic-y would pay particular attention to the applicability of results under

proectr conditionis. Provision of staff and funds is outlined at paras 5.05

and Annex 6.

Seed M-ultlnlication

1. Seed m.ultinlicationi is the responsibility of State I-lnistries of

Aoriculture and Natural Resources from parent nucleus material developed by

IAR. At the present tin!i there is no private sector seed industry. With

the exception of a cotton seed multiplication scheme at Daudawa in the pro-

posed Funtua project area, efforts to produce and distribute improved

planting material are generally inadequate to meet the needs of the northern

States.1. -7

L 7. Project proposaLs for a substantial untake of improved planting

material of four of the five crops considered dictate that adequate multi-

plication facilities should be developed i1 the area, MANR is in the pro-

cess of acquiring a 240 ha farm near Gusau at which cotton seed for North

Western State, would be bulked up. The project would take over and develon

this farm as indicated below.

18. Seed production is a specialized business calling for good manage-

ment standards and a high level of technical competence. These characteris-

tics are absent from most MANR staff at farm manager level. Existing 11ANR

personnel could not operate a hlybrid production program as is proposed

for both maize and sorghum under the project. Quantities of seed would not

be large initially. They would be expected to build up, as shown in summary

form belowq (in tons) by year:

Year

Crop 1 2 3 4 5

Groundnut - 80 120 220 460

^Iaize varieties - 12 37 iOu 185

laize hybrids - 7 48 170 410

Sorgh,um dwarf varieties - 6 12 36 60

Sor;gitnm lhybrids - 2 4 8 24

Cowpea varieties - 2 5 3 9

ANNEX 2

Hybrid seed would be replaced annually; other seed has been assumed a farml.ife of th-L-ree years, i.e. replacemer.t eachi- fourth year. I;t sh'ouldA b''e noteduthat, although no improved seed requirement is visualized until Year 2,multi"plication woulUd bue requiLredu in 'Lear 'L.I n -, - - -- - - - ~ - - - _ _. - 1 I -

19. Ciotto,, seed requ1LeIne[IL5 are LIOL shown. They would initially bemet through the ongoing multiplication scheme at Daudawa in North Centralotate ksee almex ,I. nis woula be taKen over by tne proposea runtua agri-cultural Development project and operated on behalf of MANR by project man-agement througnout the development period. However, during tnis time, cottonseed multiplication for the proposed Gusau project and cotton growers inNorth Western State as a wnole would be initiated by the project management.Cotton seed requirements for the project area would approximate 900 tons in-creasing to 1,100 tons over the development period. MANR would be expectedto indicate estimated seed requirements for the remainder of the State, toenable formulation of production plans for the farm.

20. Provision is made for the development and operation of some 240 haof seed multiplication facilities at the Gusau farm. This is essential inthe current absence of commercial seed production activities in Nigeria.However, a sugar plantation company with irrigation facilities located atBactia in Kwara State is understood to be interested in entering this field.IRA staff have had discussions with company management with particular re-ference to cereal seed production. This possibility should be investigatedfurther during appraisal since development of a commercial seed industry isessential for the future well being of Nigerian agriculture.

ANNEX 3Page 1

NIGERIA

NORTH WESTERl'iN STATE.

_usau Aigricultural Development Project

Agricultural Roads and Water Supply Construction

General

1. The lack of reasonable farm access and adequate domestic water

suLpplies constitute an immeasurable constraint to development, the rectifica-

tion of wlhich is essential to the success of the project. To enable most

farmers to be within two km of good road requires cievelopment of 350 km of

agricultural roa(ds in the Gusau area. These roads are important to the

farmer so that vital agricultural extension work can reacn him during the

wet season when his crops are growing, and so that he can get farm inputs

in and produce out during the dry season. In addition, social benefits by

wav of easier and more economical haul of other supplies, and better bus

services would be possible with the improved road system, as well as easier

travel by the farmer's own modes of transport such as bicycle, donkey, ox

cart, or even tractor.

. "'raffic densities are difficult to predict withi accuracy, but it

is certain that most of the heavy lorrv traffic would occur in the dry sea-

son when haul of farm inputs and produce is at its peak. Light traffic

would continue throughout the year, mostly consisting of local movement

between villages. Because of this traffic pattern, where tihe heavier axle

loads occur in the dry months, it should be possible to use most of the roads

throughout the year, the main obstacle being those roads intersected by a

major river crossing which could cut off traffic for several months in the

wiet season. Careful road location is necessary to reduce the frequenicy of

such obstacles.

3. As an attempt to relieve tlhe dire shortage of domestic water dlur-

ing the dry season, the project plans to develop 65 small reservoirs by con-

struction of low earth dams, each to contain about 100,000 m of water.

'I'hese would be sited according to local neecd and availability of suitable

dame sites. In conJunction with eachi reservoir, soil conservation work would

be undertaken in the watershed area to reduce silt runoff into the pondage

(for details see Annex 4).

4. The roads, dams and soil conservation work would be undertaken as

a joint project to maximize use of personnel and resources. Thlis part of

the nroject would consist of various construction 'units' undertaking

specific tasks, but where possible these units would be made flexible to

assist other uits aconrdiing to seasonal or emergency demands.

ANNEX 3Page 2

Construction Agency

5. For construction of the roads and dams, several possibilitieshave been considered. These include contract construction, use of hired

equipment under project supervision, construction by existing state agencies

such as the Ministry of Works or Local Authority, or by the project's own

plant. Of these the last has been chosen for the following reasons:

a) Contractors in northern Nigeria are geared up for majorhighway work. At present work is plentiful, and contractprices are high. Because of the lack of secondary road

construction of any kind, medium sized contractors arevirtuallv non-existent.

b) Hired plant. There is very little good plant availablefor hire. Also, because of the problems of servicing andrenairing plant in remote areas, the iob is not attractiveto owners of a few items of plant.

c) State agencies. Ministry of Works and Local Authoritiesare not equipned with sufficient plant or experiencedpersonnel to take on this work in addition to theirpresent work load. It is, however, likely that most of

the project roads would revert to the Local Authoritiesfor mainternanre on comnletion of construction.

6. Having decidedd aginst the alternatives listed above, construction

by the project is proposed. This would require strict controls, but would

provide somre decided long-term advuntnap_ The main constraint seems to bethe lack of locally available competent personnel. This problem would beovercome bya requiring -thant- kV nprsonnel nre hiahly exnprienrcd and rcom-

petent to control an operation of this nature, probably requiring mostsenior4- positior.s t-o be f:l led 1_1 expatrates. Or.ce placed, these people

would use the opportunity to make the project an intensive training ground

Lor indigenous trca,n=ees. Thtis trainin.g would includle all phases from bgra-duiate engineers in the technical positions to plant operators, surveyassista Ln d fLor men.UI:L. l eLo pportu nitf such -- --. U -- J a-. - A AA

essential to the long-tern hopes of extending the project impact to otherareas in thi'e future. But it caiot bLeU overemLphasized that high calbr

personnel are required to head this project.

7. Construction by the project's own organization has been chosen

only because present conditions seem to favor it. Future conditions may bedifferent, and any follow-up to the project may well find that contract or

hired plant is advantageous. in any or these situations personnei trained

on the present project would be a vital asset to plan, organize and controlsuch a future project.

ANNEX I

Page 3

Organization

8. The basic construction organization consists of a number of opera-tional 'units', each of which has appropriate personnel and plant to performa particular function (which may be survey or a phase of construction). These'units' and their functions are indicated in Tables 1 and 2 of this Annex.The intention is that each unit would always operate as a unit, althoughits work function may change from time to time according to circumstances.The head of each unit would report to the Project Road Engineer or the Soiland Water Conservation Engineer whichever was appropriate. A total of nineunits are involved.

9. In addition to the production units, a supporting mechanicalworkshop organization is planned. This operation includes a base workshopplus mobile workshop units, together with a lowbed unit for moving plantaround the project area and fuel/water tank trailers which the same lowbedtractor would place and replenish in the various main work areas. Detailsof the workshop operation are provided in Tables 7 and 8. Table 8 indicatesthat provision has been made for 'Special Services', such as support fromtyre specialists and manufacturers agencies to perform certain repairs forwhich they are particularly equipped.

10. It should be noted that the capital and operating costs for theworkshop operation are fully covered by the repair allowance provided forin the plant operating costs (Table 4). Thus the costs in Tables 7 and 8are merely an exnlanation of the renair allowance figures appearing in othersummaries. They are used for calculation of project costs shown in Annex 9.

Terrain

11- The G-usau pronect area lies tn the Guinea cas7nvn nh zone of nor-thern Nigeria. The area itself is gently rolling, although the southernnart in hrnkpn hv mnint:ainmic rit icpc- The ;nlcnt,n River hnn-rdarg thi nvn nn

the west, and the Gagere River borders it on the east except where it cutsthrough the nnrth-ePasr c-rner nf the ar-ea . nIQ Sol ae p g inelly a MAindy-Qs t

loam, although clay occurs in lower lying area and in lower strata. Late-rita -deoit occur frqn,,itly throughout the area, envet i the northeastwhere deposits are less common.

AQrlultralRoad Sa.ad

12. Proposed road standards are attached to this Annex, and toclasses of road are indicated:

All-weather agricultural roads (Class 1): Two-lane, all weatherlaterite surfaced-. Inn h,,prLoedLL L.UL U .U -ILI

proposed.

ANLrAEX 3Page 4

Dry-weather crop extraction tracks(Class 2): Single-lane, normally

unsurfaced, 650 km pro-posed. (Laterite sur-facing will be appliedwhere soil conditionswarrant. This Class ofroad would be usableby vehicles under allexcept extreme wet sea-son conditions).

13. The 'flat-terrain' cross-section would apply in most instances,

and because of the sensitivity of the local soils to water erosion, properdrainage is of utmost importance. The wide ditches and high grade formation

are designed to keep the road surface well above ground saturation level,

and to accommodate heavy runoff with low water velocities. Frequent run-outchannels are necessary to drain water away from the road and ditches as

quicklv as possible.

14. Because of the generally easy terrain there should be no problemto meet the horizontal and vertical alignment specifications. Since it is

quite possible that some of the roads may be upgraded for highway use at

some future date, good horizontal alignment is all-important. If this is

achieved, vertical alignment can be improved as required.

Survey Technique

13. Roads. With the open terrain, long sight distances are possible

and location survey should be fast and efficient. The main aims should be:

a) locate on the ridge tops wherever possible to minimizedrainave problems:

b) locate to provide access to the vicinity of heavily

populated areas, but avoid actual interference withbuildings, villages, or highly nroductive farm land;

c) locate to take cognizance of favorable soil conditions

and proximity to laterite deposits;

d) locate to avoid 'dead-end' roads as much as possible, eventhough the 11ink ma1 y i-volve a m-i?or f rivxePr rcrong.%jncY

The long dry season would enable such roads to be useable

for much of the year.

ANNEX 3

Page 5

16. Survey scheduling is shown to allow at least six months lead-timeahead of construction, to enable the State Department of Lands and Surveysadequate time to complete right-of-way acquisition procedures. This alsoallows farmers time to harvest their crops and to avoid wasted cultivationof areas due for construction.

17. Dams. Ideally, dams should be located:

a) where the terrain is favorable for reasonable earthwork

b) where the watershed i8q f a sizp sufftri ent to fill the

reservoir but not so large as to cause spillway problemsby excessive runoff;

c) where suitable clay soils can be found for constructionof an impervious core for the dam.

Dam sites to meet the above basic requirements should not be difficult tofi.dn. SurLvey scheduling sho;lld. have a lead=time of at least six m.Jonths for

the same reasons as the road survey. (See Annex 4 for details).

Construction Technique

18. Roads. ConstructLon involves the following phases:

a) Clearing and Grubbing. No heavy clearing will be required.Grubbing will involve bulldozing off any vegetation and top-soil for the full right-of-way width. If left as a windrowat the edge of the right-of-way this would help to reduceerosion of adjacent soil into the road ditch.

b) Grade Construction. This involves sidecasting materialobtained from the ditch excavations towards the road center-line to provide fill material for the raised roadway. Pro-posed plant for this construction consists of tracked angle-dozers (with rippers) and wheel dozers with straight dozerblades. The latter are selected because of their high man-euverability between Job locations and the advantages of ty-res over tracks in the highly abrasive sandy soils. Scrapersare not proposed because of the very short earth movement in-volved. However, the dam construction unit scrapers would beavailable seasonally for road construction work. A vibratorycompactor is recommended for compaction of the grade, espe-cially at the shoulders. In soils heavy to slit and clay theproject staff may prefer a pneumatic tyred roller, and finalselection of this item should be left to them. In the dryseason it would not be practicable to provide water for

ANNEX 3Page 6

optimum compaction, and in suchl cases the compactor may well

be left idle until suitable moisture conditions prevail. A

motor grader is included for final road shaping.

c) Drainage Structures. Requirements for culverts would nor-

mally be reduced by wise route location along the higher

ground. Locally, all current culvert construction consists

of installing precast concrete pipe and encasing this in site-

poured concrete. Metal pipe would not withstand the acid

soil conditions. It is recommended to use the precast pipe

method or else to completely pour a concrete box culvert in-

situ. Sand and fine aggregate are plentiful in all areas.

Coarser aggregate is more difficult to find. Being highly

labor intensive, it is quite possible that local volunteer

labor can be recruitpc' for culvert construction. The costs

developed, however, allow for paid labor to perform this

work. No bridging is proposed, but a:lilowance is made for

this cre.w to construct causewYay crossing at some of the more

important, but preferably not wide, river crossing.

d) .urfacino. Surfaning is anplied only to Class 1 and deserv-

ing sections of Class 2 road. Hlaul of laterite for surfacing

should not need to exceed about 5 lnm in most instances.

Plant proposed includes a dozer with ripper for excavation

in the nit, a front-end loader feeding a fleet of 10 cy tip-

pers, and a small dozer for spreading on the road.

e) Maintenance. Tle only maintenance plant proposed consists of

a mnotor grader commencing operation in the second year.

Allowance is made in the costs for this unit to continue

operation through to Year 20, but it would be preferable for

the local authrority to accept this responsibility as soon

after co;;st-ruct-oui as possible.

19. Dams

a) Clearing and Grubbing. This applies only to the immediate

dam site area ansd shouli he quickly accomplished by bull-

dozing topsoil and vegetation to a spoil area.

b) EarthworkL. A unit comprising dozers with rippers and self-

propelled scrapers is proposed. The scrapers would provide

some compaction to the dam fill, but a separate watering and

compaction operation would be necessary to obtain optimum

results. Normally an earth spillway would be excavated

clear of the dam tfiLJ.

ANNEX 3Page 7

c) Soil Conservation. In the watershed area, a dozer, grader,and agricultural plough would be used to construct soilconservation ditches and marker furrows.

Prnductivitv

20. Because of spanc limitntinp. , a detailed analysis of productionby each item of plant is not included. Suffice to say that the plant andpersonnel -omnlement of e-ch conrstruction unit 4- 40 oma.ined fro., the pro-

posed productivity of each individual item and the time available for com-pletion. I!ith-1 a tot-1 five=year project life mos phase can.oexec

more than about four years actual productive time. Some phases, such asdma* con stction, are b y nature season.aL andLU prouducti.vitLy is calculatedaccordingly. However, in all cases plant is directed to other work whenthVere are seasor.al i.LL itati4o.0LLZS or. its primLlary functiOn.

Costs

21. Construction costs are all based upon the most reliable 1973 fig-ures obtainable, and Tables 9 and 10 sum up the basic costs involved andprovide a brief analysis. Detailed costs appear in other tables. The basicphilosophy in arriving at these costs has been to develop figures which canbe achieved on the job, but which do not allow for extravagance or in-eflficiefncy.

ANNEX 3NIGERIA Table 1

NORTH WESTLRN STATE

Gusau Agricultural Development Project

Road qnd DIm Construation qchedulJ

Year 2 1 A 2 131 4 [ 5Season 'W D W D W D W D JD W D

ROAD SURVTTPEY I - I ,

GRADE |

CON3T"U J'ION

D '.'>INA.GE STRUCTURE;S I _ _ - __

SURFACING 4I __ _ _ _____IMAINTENANCE | 4 z 1[Izj

DAMfl SURVEY 6CI\ ri r l\' -TWA nI-

SURVEY _1_7!I

DAIi CONSTRUCTION ||

SOI.L COIJISThRVATION 1 294 ____ 1 | |

Notes: 1. Figures indicate specific construction

units involved in each phase ( see Table 2 )

2. Working days allowed Wet season 105 da!s

Dry seas on 1-45 da ys

ANNEX 3

N IGERIA Table 2

NORTH WESTERN STATE

Gu3au Agricultural Development Project

Plant Requirements _

Year 1 2 3 4 5

Season n D W D W D W D r i- D D

UNIT 14 A-1D Crew7 Vehicle __._ _ _ = _ _

'IJ IT 2 .

Tractors:180 JIP>-WA/Dozer+Ripper . _ __i

170 lIP llheel Tract.+S/Do7,er __.__2 _

75 BJPAgric . - .'I.. i&.pm,actor -_ 1 _____

I'otor Grader 125 HP _ _1 _ _-

Pickup) Truck 2- Ton ___ - _

Dwelling Trailer 1 1 ______

Generator 2.5 KW _ _1 _ iUNIT 3 I I 1 ._

Tippers 10 c.y. I2 IConcrete liixer 1 c,y. 2 LW,ater Trailer 500 galls. _ _____12

TWIT 4 _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Tippers 10 c.yr. . 4 _

W1heel loa.der 1301Lv 3 c.<r. _|__l_ _____

Tra.ctor :l4-0H4PS/dozer+rippet ____ __ I __

65HP " +xiinch l __.___

Pickup truck 2- ton ,_1_________Ij

UITT T 5._ .

NIotor Grader 125 HP l-

Pickup truck 2 ton . _ 11UNTIT .6 _

4 ID Crew Vehi.cle _ _ 1_

UNIT 7 . ___ _

4 W D Crew Vehicle 1 .9_

UNIT 8Tractors: _ _

180 IIP+A/Dozer+Ripper L 275 HP Agric.+Vib.Comra.cto 1r 1.

+ l000valT w-ter t.nl . ___-

Scra.pers 30r)9P self-prop. I 2Piclup truck -4-- ton .. ____1_

.ilobile eater pumrn + hose L______ L _ __._

Generator 2.5 KW _ _____

DwTelling trailer I ____

IJI T 9Tractor: _ , 1____

140 hP+A/Dozer+Ripper 1|

75 HP P.gric. + Plough _|1__

;;otor Grader 125 UT _ _ __ ._1___

Pickup truclxk -2 ton __ _ ____1__II

r1 t C ' r CTP1TAL 0 Ya 5 ' -ICost Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 lYear 4 Year TOTALTHs.~~~~~~~~~Co-St Yea .-T RA.C - PS f

T7TT77A.Dozer/Rip. 66.3 (3)198.9 1 198.9 _

170C) HF- _ ',J-HEEL/S.Doz. 50.5 ( 2) 101.0 101. I10 014K) T-P/A.Dozer,;.'ip. 4-6.0 (2) 92.0 92.065 TiF/S.Dozer/Wnch 28.0 (1) 28.0 28.0 P. z

MOTORC FRADER o + E

225 HP slp - - ~(36.8 ( 2) 73.6 (1) 36.8 (2r)73.6 1840 .''

S C AP Pj ERS 1K Ct300 BFTelf-prop. 80.2 ( 2) 160.4 160.4

WFEEL OADER . c3z8. 8- (1) 38.8 38.8

A C-IC. 1 C' C TCT RS -P. tI

75 HP + cowmpactor 8.0 1(2) 16.0 16.0 ::75 r ± plough (1) 5.0 5.0

\T3-J ODES I cvf4 WD CREW4 Vehicle 3.7 1k) 11.1 (3r)11.1 22.2 C+

Pick,u-r truck 42 ton 3.2 (4) 12.8 ( 1) 3.2(4r)12.S (3r) 9.6 38.4

Dvelling trailer 3.0 1(2) 6.0 6.0Generaitor 2.5 KV11 1.0 (2) 2.0 2.0Watcr pur-.p + hose 0.5 (1) C.5 0. 5. . tenr t riler 1 000C) 1.0 !V1) 1.0 1.(

it 5soog C. B 0 (() 0.8Tipper8 lOc.y. 116.0 I(6) 96.0 96.0Concrete Mixer 2.0 (2) 4.0 4.0

.1 l842.9 5.0 639 8t2 .l , , r 95

'1n. 0Ao lrl CRtS t>std N 'ira. 2. t'lr indi ;t cet erit.

j c a at n S

a- -'o -c at~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~co wL

'A ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~te1.60.l.BJ11'.9 S W22.0304.95 Repa1Irl a c

5!1.651.0173. (132838.3jl.72 3.034.3 Optig '.0 40 04 .040 - 0 A40!0.4010.40 0.40 0.40 Op'tor '

48~)440240 W, 400 480 240 400 720 flours17-11 p 1.711: 3 C)41 II. ; 2 - 1. I . 6 1. 3. 6Repai rse 2

CA.) 1 1 ~ 0 1 -

28.3. 192 3 s ' BP, 0 -, 2 . 2 . .2 -9. Ia3S.1.4' 2.4A G. 4-2 1.1 3.4 7.0C Total '

30170 "250 11(0~ 40P'Ob2000 2"00 4000O ,00012S3 A 2000 4000 &6000 Hou'rs -< mg 6 a -1162, - 1 7 0. 5i 5 19.3. 't 22.2: 9.2. 9.0114.0 29.7 Repairs W 'II~~ Ia <2 3 61

1770 G.6 j 4.4 3.7 7 3' r- A,3 8 P-7 7120 )33 6:241.7 3.4 12,t:25.9 Op'ting 54.1, 26.9. C r, 4 80.8' 1 6~ '1. 1.6 08 1 2.4 Op'tor

3;4 9,1,3 5.9T 6.3 5.4 2.211. & 67.8 12 .0 5 57.3:34.I 9.2 27. 7!58.0 Total

-.4 ~~~'I-. -7 (1.13.I I ~ ~~~~ -4i3Cc)'1) C'.6 .922-) .2 5.0 s2 a7Teptr19: 5 t 3.7 2 2 6 19 43 83 7. 1. 3. l2. 3.4,12 1125.9Otn

P 1;9 7 ~~~~~~0.8 1 6 4.8: 0.8 2.4 1.6, 1.6 0.8 1.64 2.4 Op'tor - W3aC32.--).33.7 71 5 A' 3.0, 1.16.67.8i12.1 30.6~57.3134. . 21.7158-.0 Total

3n750. 2201 IN 400012000 20?(0 40O(04000 2000 400~ 6000 H lours

V 5. IVI 19' :1~~~~~9.2 5.0 7'Rpair5 4' 7: 2. 2 43.8 7.8 19.3 33.¶ 47 . 12.1 2 5:9;0p It ing

5 P. rt 0 .rIlr A,P 0fl .51. . 0.8 I.., 2.410p'to-r'0. 3". 7. a~ 5.3 3.07 6Ir ;7. 0. 12.2, 30. 1 ~ 7.1 31. 9q.3- 27.7, 5F0.01 Totala

I 22rn1 100)1' - 2~0~00441 21000' 20001 4flOJ-1 4001 200(~ 001 00 Pur

: 115.9 3.3 1.< 3.4j 33. 5)p0 24 7.0 O.);etr27.5 15. 0-.0 4.06 I 0 ;9 1, P,00 0.0 0.8 1 0p'tor 1"

a' uL'3~~~~~~~~~~~ '~~~~2' 2.3 ~~~~~~~~ 5.9 67.8 12. 34. i~ 91 13/1 10.3, Total2% 21 3 63 2' .3 - 2 c

17: 23. 5' Ii V. ;3 I p' tor I

I 1700,X0000 51rQ4& 9408A54trL4&Ik6 4m 8240314481207210i flours 40" £ I?. 4 7' 211.70771 2260 1)3' 47926 710;2.6: Ocpa irn

c1 ".2~ 3/ C 5.7 2 4. ';I051'1 '"i' rQ ? 94314. " A3.0 941 &tt11531 L161 006 '~~2 5.0~-B19.8533 22,~50 3.3.5.1 ".3,OpFt2r I

2l.131 1' 51 5. 23.8 . 42.01279.4' C7II 16¶383 tzuustu -.

A 1TiTLI V 73

Table 5ITr Tl ' A

NORTH WESTERN STATE

Gusau Agricultural Developnent Project

Construction Labor Costs

(Plant Operators "--"- s-rt -n T

rNo1 N/v -. Yr.1 :Yr.2 -Yr.3 'Yr.4 Yr.5 TotalROAD Si1H1TEY I Dav !Annui

Rural Engineer tF3 "-j ---.->ninr Tenh Asst.2 I 1124i' 2.6 1 2.7! 2r, 2.7 . 2 -11.8Labourers I3, 2 1.5 1.5! 1.5 1.5 0 6 6.6

7 I i 1 4 .~I A 1 A_J 9 iA .1 4 1 A- .I + Ar GRADE CONSTRIJCN1CW I A 4 4 1 l 84

Senior Tech. Asst 2+ 1324 3 3 3.21 2.7112.6*a ourers 3 I 0. 1 J- 1

Elm,,TTrlmr, 0 4.7 4.7 4.7. 4. 2i18.8TE T" A Tr t\T A tl nM e MTTT r" m n liJrj m1A_L1R_T 01tUG1 ui iof

Senior Foreman | 1 1644 0.8 1.6 1.6' 1.6 1.61 7.2jDriver J - uoo 1i 3o8 Qe8 3e3 iLabourers 18 2 0.5 4, ! 40- 4.0. A0 ' 15.5

1.4 6.4 6.4 6. 4; 6. 4j 27.0SURFACING ISenior Foreman 11 164.41 0.8j 161 1.7 1.6 1.6 7.4 1Labourers 13 2_ 0.2 1.' 1. 1.5 1.5' 6.2

1.0 1 3.1 . 3.2 1 3.11 3-.1 13.6TOTAI, POAD CONST. - ___ 7.0 118.4 118.4 118.4 115.5 i77.7

DAII SpJRVrRY rrY -nwural Enrgineer ± ))UU 2.1*Senior Tech. Asst.2 1324! 2.61 2.7] 2.6 2.71 - 10.6Labourers 2 .5 .5 i.5 - 6.0

.U1.1j U j. j 0A4.1 4.2; 4.1 4.2, - 1-.6SOII, CC)rT-S. S-uRVEY IRural Engineer 1 13300Senior Tech. Asst.3 11324 4.0! 4.01 4.0 4.01 - 116.0Labourers I 81 2 I 4 4C 4 4. 4.0 - 16.0

DAN COI'TSTPUCTION 8.0 8.0 8.O 8.0 - 32.0DAM COUSTRUCTION 2| | i l | i Rural Engineer 11 13300 , *Senior Tech. Asst.1+ 1324 - 08 0.8 0.8! _ 2.4Labourers 51 2 ! _ 1.4 ! 4 1.4 _ 4i.2

I i - , ~~~2.2i 2.2, 2.2 - 6.gSOTL CONSERVATION! !Senior Foreman '1 16A41 - i 1.61 1.7 1.6 4o )Senior Tech. Asst.1| - - 1.6 1.3. 1.3 - 3.4Senior Te .l 113241 0.811313 .Labourprs I 8 2 - 1.7 A.0 '1.0 - 9.7

:4.1 7.0 6.9 - 1 .0rrt0'T DATT, CTST f12 1 I 21.3213 - 73_2

MnT,0TJ - 4ADS + DA1' -4S 4 - TT. / -' '

otes:- b .L. L - UA11 c 11ost i 11n t hos-. ndA l CL.L I I-

2. * indicates cost included elsewhere in

3. + indicates portion of salary moved fromdanr to road co,ts according to time spenton road work.

ANNEX 3Tahle 6

NIGERIA

NORTH 'WESTERN STATE

Gusau Agricultural 1 volopmnt. P'oe

Construction ^uppliosN!-OO

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Total

Survey Equipment & Supplies 12.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 20.0

Cement, Formwork and ConcreteSupplies 5.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 5.0 70.0

Hand Tools 1.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 3.0

Reservoir Fittings and DamFencing 18.0 72.0 72.0 72.0 - 234.0

36.0 94.5 94.5 94.5 7.5 327.0

ANNEX 3Ta-ble 7

NTQlERTA

NORTH WWFS'R.N STATE

Gusaul Ag¢riculltural Dvelopmr,ent Projec-t-

Michani. 5,.Workshop Capital CostsN '000

wSHOP T_ILDING_ S Year 1 eear 2 IYear 3 Year 4 |Year 5 ,Yr 6-201 TIO Ti,4 T-hyv W'shop (1)11.7 | i7Office & Parts Rm(l) 5.4 1 . AFurnishin{gs 3.0 3 1 3.0fllrdstandin I I' I 3.51I.Pence 2_4 .2e

W 'k-jIIOP )QUTIrMENT IFuel .>tora-,e 2.0. 2.0Lube equipt. 1.0 . 1.0( verh'd H o s t 1.0 i 1Welding Equipt . 3.5 3.5

T yre equipt . 14. 5 i 1 1 1 'Air co,ipressor A 0.8 0.8I-T. Duty jDcks 1(4) 0.3 1 1 0.3 1Eench equipt. 1.8 0.2 | 2 0.2 0.2 2.6Major t,ools 3.2 402 0.2 0.2 0.2 4 |Mechanics' tools 0.6 0.11 0.1 0.1 0.1 1.0O'u,,her I_4,2 ! 012 1 0.2] 0.2 0.2 1 ___5_°

ure 4.2 1 0.71 0 0.7° 0.7 T22.7FIELD EQUIPVMENT j I4 ',,D Mob. Wkshop (2) 20.0 j(2r)20.0 410.0Lowbed &. Tractor (1) 20.0 20.QTank trailer 4) 36.0 16.0Pickup - ton 4. __)34.0 --- [r3.0

so I3 . (lr) 24.OL , ___ 1()4.0TOTAI, CAPITAI i 1 25,. J 0.7, 24. 071 1O.1

( r dienotes replacement unit )

ANNEX 3Table g

NIGERIA

NORTH I"ESTERN STATF

iisau Agricultural Deveponnrent. Pro,iect

MAeh,nni C1 W67rVchen Qn ravt,ng rG.rcstsN'I000

*T ,~~TTTh ~ t ~ 1TW. , ,, '~7... ..7 _f~-- .. , _ . _.. , _~n~i". .OcUR Ia ! iJi1Un1 I t5cl± L I j.U I 3, Y I - rellti Tq t 5 ! t--2IU.I j; LkI . T,i

1 WS F'rnan 1644 |1 Cl'ei-k 726| 1 Partsma.n 9145 Mechanics 1324 14.0 14.0 | 14.0 | 14.01 14.0| 70.()0o5 r7erh .TTelper928 I1 Lowbed Op. 8781 " helnper 28R

'lOPIST:OP VEIHICLE,' OP-T7ATING &. P'.)AIRS |

i Lo wbed 6hrs/dvay 5.0 10.0 10.0 10.0! 7.0 1 4202 I:ob. Wks .4 " I 5 5.6 5 5.6 5.6 5.61 28.01 -- T.PU 4 1.01 1.8 1.8 1.8_ 1._ I 7.5

r 1161 L7. 4 f 17 4 1 17: 41 15:>71 77-5-!

OFFICE SIJPPLIES 0.5 0 .5 I . 5 0 _ 5 0 0.5 | 2.5PAPT'S & i- ech.buppso. lO.o 1 U IO. 2 i,777ortl ,5"ICES 5.0 5.0 7.0 10.0 10.0 51. | .9-Tv';- (.I ri I .0 2.0 2?. ,f c j rn .

'q:'yltf Cl'E'? A I U:G ' 12.1 i 3.Q) __ __ ______ |_ __ _ _____9'- tr z. . ;2

PLANT 5 ROADS __DAMS)

TRAC TOR 0 H rs. Capit. Repis. Opg. Lbr. To t.' Hrs,.iCapit. Reps. upg>. Lbr. I'ot.Track ~~~~~ 32.6 28.2~~~~~ 6906628 3.180 EIP Track 3 13760; 132.1 68.1 59.3 5.5 265.0 6960 66.8 34.5 30.1 2.8 134.2-40 tH,P ., 2 93201 59.21 32.6 28. 2 i3.7 123.7 5160 3;2.8 18.1 15.7 2.1 68.765 HP 1 8240j 28.0 20.6 14.2 3i3 66.1

]L70 HP Wh hee l 2 16480 101.0 37.9 99.3 6.6 244.8Scraper 300HP 2 5520 71.0 30.6 46.3 2.2 150.1 6960 89.4 38.7 58.2 2.B 189.1Motor Grader 2 3 45320 152.6 67.5 145.9 18.1 384.1 5160 31.4 7.7 16.6 2 .1 57.8LIoader 1L30HP 1 8240 38.8 14.8 31.9 3.3 88.8TZippers 6 49440 96.0 79.1 180.5 19. 375.4 coAg.Tract.+Com .2 11000 12.2 8.8 18.7 4. 44.1 3400 3.8 2.8 5.9 1.4 13.9

+ ]?lough 1 5160 5.0 2.1 5.7 2.0 14 84WD Crew Veh. 3 3 3310 7.4 2.5 5.5 - 15.4 6690 14.8 4.9 10.9 - 30:6Pickup ~2 ton 5 7 22500 32.0 14.4 32.6 - 79.0 4500 6.4 2.9 6.6 15.9 cDwelling trlr. 21 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0Generator 2 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0Water pump 1 0.5 0.5Water trailer 2 0.8 0.8 1.0 1.0t'onc. Yixer 21 3.0 3.0 1.0 1.0

___4 _ ___ 739 E 924 :f 8i4,.3 = 2 111.7 149.7 13.2 ,To7 t,er than plant operators) 7'7.'i 77,.7 73.3 73.3SUPPLIES

Survey Equi pt. 10.0 10.0Concrete Supplies 50.0 20.0Hland tools 2.0 1.0Rleservoir F'ittings & Fencing_ .234.o

_ _ 1984.0 _ _ _ _ _ 869.8

L2:HEL'XI

ANNEX 3Table 10

NIGERIA

NORTIH WESTERN STATE

Gusau Agricultural DeveloPment Project

Cost Analysis

P1< a -s oa ls 2Ra t-Ras Dams-200 km 650 km 850 km 60

Plant - Capital 30h.1 434.0 738.1 25609-I 19. 017 7 37A6. " 1 7

Operating 279.9 382.5 662.4 149.7

Labor - Operating 28.3 38.6 66.9 13.2Other 32.8 1.19 77.7 '733

oI~ A ~ '7 n A

829.3 1,154.7 1,984.0 869.8

Unit Cost N4,146/km Nl,775/km N2,330/km al3s822/dam

c , �) I (, ! , -Cn 0� ID C,� CZ c n T>4 0 Q-:j T -�j

E-4C cz o

CO, 0 0 C) U�� 0 C,,8 o o (IL

C,\ 0 �7 a A O.zUSC LI CZ

�l LPIC;_ 0 ou c :,-�T 'T Z), a Lc U 00'17 (O C) c Io 0�7

09 IT' s 0 0�,_ - 0 OT Su, au IL00, I 0-1, 0 O-l'! 0 o- -v

4_3 U)ri)0 !� c� I -L ov, o cz c)) ST, 0 S L I 0 0,�0 U

Sao') J'C.1-11 Tv.31J.'i'v

r. 4�, iL9 1� 09 11 0(l_ I o �.E) 0 o 05- 9 I e 6, T I -v, o -E 1 T0 Cd0H TIL't, 16V :s S 14� 0 -o I 0�.

OS C) 'G� 'T 02, 0 a - a CT, o.1 (i-j -L a 2pq 10),tD ce 2 0 9 ?,I LS co ri

Sao a -0, a Z)z 4.5 A 0,- 909, 0 L(d

a a Lip., F:j_a, �;-L,

_2�� ot` < 10 lo� I T C) I II C) T '17 0 Z Z� U, Ul + a z 0 +,i S 90 71 0 L 'E 19.9 o� 0','v 2� 1v I C) Z� e 0 T

:o C) T jS'lT. b- 0'-f Os! I.7 :i _-Z a d'c. -�.l �z o z o -pL* IV- 'L9

S.1 C) Q'Zl 7,L

�-3 Jz: NId

CDF-`- 'r-I 61

IO �l o pC+ 0 C+

t7io P

0. C+

00 0 17 Q rllf T T -]'VD�__l 71,

ROAD SECTIONS AND SPECIFICATIONS

TYPICAL SECTIONFLAT TERRAIN I tch droined

frequently byrun-out channels

20~ 2 2

7- - f !-j \m 2

I ~I I I iICLASS i _ 4O0 ,2 _ 75 -__ 20, 4_0 metres

CLASS 2 20 __5-0 20 4 0-- ~~~ ~~ 1' ' f- - _- 'I - I

TYPICAL SECTION

SIDEHILL F

I~~~~ M.

r% LA( I 1 7 7 520 metres

I i jCLASS 2 5-0 2O

SPECIFICATIONSCIASS 1 Road CLASS 2 Pon9d

SURFACING (miinimum) 0.2m Ni-lGRAD%S ( i a xIJIm uIm) 6I % 8 %CURVATURE (Minimum) 10 degrees 20 degreesRI GHl T0 F-WAY ( Ninirmum) 30m 25mSUPERETLEVATTON (50'm/hr.) Curve degree under 5

6-7- .1 iii ,le

8-9 " 30)rlOTE*4; Alove .cmc 4Jri- _at ions n.re -I r - 10 t 20 max.

minimum rcquirerncnts, but may be reducedin di ficLult terrain cunorlitions.

ANNEX I

Page 1

NIGERIA

NORTH WESTEPN STATE

GUSAUT AGRICULTTURT DEVETLPMFNT PROJEmCT

Wate- and So4 1 Conservation

1. The project area suffers from extreme shortage of water for domes-t1c purposes during the Ary season, and par- of the we- seaso. until villagewells start to yield properly. The area is also prone to soil erosion, prin-cipally in the catchmi,ent areas of2 small streLTi-is andU rLivers. UndLer tLie eco-logical and climatic conditions prevailing in the Project area soil and waterconservation are SYL.onLYLIIUU,ou Lo each other, andh possible should betreated together, particularly as proposed under the project, water develop-ment -oulU be ti'roughL1 the construction of surface water dams.

A. Water Conservation and Rural Water Supplies

2. Shortage of water supplies for domestic use during the dry seasonand beginning of the wet season, January through to August, is acute in theProject area. It is estimated that the existing wells, dams and tapkis(ponds) can serve only 10-20% of the total demand. Villagers depend fortheir supplies on water from wells that on average can only be dug to 10-20 m, most of which dry up during the dry season. An alternative source ofwater are tapkis and smali earth dams, but these are infrequent, and attimes poorly sited and constructed, resulting in poor holding capacity andat times breakages. The final alternative is stream bed wells. These areseasonally hand dug in water bearing sands of some, but not all, rivers andstreams. In many instances these are the last resort supplies resulting incarry distances of up to 5 miles for many farmers. Water collected fromsuch sources is either head or donkey carried, and during the crisis period(from February to June) is sold at a standard rate of KIO (US$0.20) per 20litres. The lack of water is a serious social constraint, and unless effortsare made in the project to conserve and improve water supplies the projectis likely to only partially succeed.

3. Existing plans by the State Government to improve State watersupplies in rural areas is high on budaetary priority. Plans are being pre-pared to improve water supplies to larger towns, but for rural villagesefforts rarely go beyond providing assistance for well improvements. Thelatter is not the correct policy since the ground water available in theshallow aquifer is limited and new wells are found to dry up and cause ex-istin- wells to dry up as well. In othler words it would seem that thedraw off of ground water is greater than its reservoir supply.

4. Possibilities of utilizing ground water from deep aquifers havebeen reviewed. UJnfortunately the geological conditions in the area are

ANNEX 4Page 2

sulci tliat the Basement complex, whiclh is an aquici-udie, is of shallow

formation and precludes the possibilities of deep aquifers. Furthermore

evell if utilization were possible some form of mechanical pumping would be

necessary, and it has been found that evea the most simple hand operated

pimp is impracticable due to complete lack of maintenance and appreciation

by villag,ers of such modern appliances. Most pumps are broken within a

year of installation and are rarely repaired.

5. T1,us for reasons outl ined above duqwells and/or deep boreholes

are linpracticable, there remains the recourse to exploit surface water

supplies and to imnpound wqet seasonr (Jine-Sepntember) run off in small earth

dams. The topography and stream pattern for the project area indicate a

,ro. n potential fo-r eairfth rd.aTonstfriirtion. This is further substan-

tiated by the 1:50,000 topographical maps with 50 and 25 foot contour inter-

vals which indicated a lar,e number of notenntal locations for small dam

sites.

6). The hydrological data are generallv poor, but enough to give in-

dlcations for dam,i d.-velooment purposes. T.h.e annual rainfall in the project

arga 17,1ries from 700 mm-1, 2 50 mm. A runoff yield varying from 0.0180-0.150

FTn/hillcanbe e . The evaporation from thle natural water surface is

v.^ry high being about 1,600 mm per year. The basin erosion iTn terms of the

sediment yield established by NEDECO arnd FAO was 0.16 mn and, 0.23 mrm per

year, respectively. This should be increased by about 0.3 m,m per year for

tiie project area duet -- the .-- sn typ of sol a .- overs

7. A c--re-Lu- L analysis of t4-1. --,avilabilit-y of l ot:al con-

struction of materials and hydrology indicates thiat a network of small dams

of about, 120,000 Tmi in total capacity each, 2 s1-ould be bul,t. Lach wouldi be

fed by runoff from a catchment of 3 to 5 km in area, and would be capable

of meeting the year-round demands of 2,000 people and 1,000 livestock.

Details of the hydrological features and reservoir operation study are

given in paras 10 - 12 of this annex. The dams and reservoLrs would be

properly constructed and would provide a gravitational distribution system

to convey water from the reservoir outlet to the delivery poitS in. separate

locations for people and livestock. The construction costs of the dam and

facilities would average N12,000.

S. A typical earthdam for the project area wouio 'have specifications

as detailed below.

(1) Features of average dam

- 'I'otal height of dam from streambed 5.00 m

- free board 1.50 m- Deptli at spillway level 3.50 m3

- Total capacity 120,000UiU- De,d storage or sediment space 20,000 M

- ULsefuil storage capacity 100,000^ m- Spillway - free-overflow (witih concrete surface in special

ANNEX 4Page 3

cases) capable of discharging 1.5 m3 per second ner kxr! ofcatchment. For 4 km of catchment, the spillwag would be20 m wide with 0.30 m afflux; di harging 6.0 m ___r

-Dam - earth-fill with clay core if necessary, having 4 mtoD width and 1:2 to 1:3 side slones with rin-rnn on uin-stream face, containing about 5,000 m3 of fill.

-Foundation - Treated tn imnperuivio zon. Cre wall wouldbe installed to an impervious foundation.

- Oitlet work - Oittlt pipes of 15 cm in diameter with atleast tliree concrete flanges, equipped with a strainer in-let on uinstream ite, and a onato va-l , the ownstream.

-Dam design - Portions of the project area have soils whichcontai-n a hi-Fal, percentage of ca, w-;le in -Me locationsthere is considerable depth of soil that contains a largeamount of sand particles, the design of da, should be basedon the results of the soil tests of the proposed borrowma-terials ar.d of the foundation .materials as well.

Main gravLty p1ie --1it - AsUestsL pLpt of 15 cm in diarneter

laid at 1:300 slope for a distance of at least 150 m fromthe reservoir outlet gate valve.Branch pipe-line - Asbestos of 10 cm in diameter conveyingwater rorUi tLhe main pipe to the separate deiivery points ata distance of at least 50 m for villagers and 100 m forlilvestock from the main pipe.

- Villager delivery points - Installed with an adequate con-crete platform and faucets for villagers: consumption.

- Livestock delivery point - Installed with an adequate bricktrough and faucets.

Criteria used for estiinating capacity of dam is as follows:

(i) Estimated Demand on Water Supply

Assumptions: - reopie - 100-125 litre/day (standard) 54 litre/day/person (adopted)

- Livestock - average 1/ 45 litre/day/head

Cattle 20 litre/daySiheetp 10 litre/dayGoats 10 litre/dayHforses 45 litre/dayDonkeys 30 litre/day

ANiEX 4Page 4

1 - Water requirements for 2,000 people:

2,000 x 54 = 108,000 litre/day = 1,000 m /10 days (approximately)

2 - Water requirements for 1,000 heads livestock:

1,000 x 45 litre/day = 45,000 litre/day = 400 m3 /10 days

(ii) Demand from tank for each 10-day period in each month-

Water Year People Liveqtock Total---------------m

April. 1,000 400 1,400lay

June.Julv

August I ,September " OctoberNovemberDecemberJanuary " " FebruaryMarch " "I

Annual 36,000 14,400 50.400

(iii) Estimated sediment Load:

Assumptions: Annual Erosion O)epth 0.3 rm!/year0.3 x 4 x 106 = 1,200T m

(iv) UseLul liLe oL tank:. 20 years

3Design sediment space in tank: 12,x 2x U .35 = 2,00, m

Total tank capacity:

- Active or useful storage 0l0,00v T013

- Soace for sediment deposit 20,000 m- Totai capacity i20,0U0 m

1/ For this purpose, the first 20 years after completion of the tank arernrtnqidprpd as "Pro(luctive life of the reservoir" and the other years beyondthis are considered as "falli.ag."'Tor depleting life, during which time ascondX or higher develonment starP is exoected. The dam mav be heiThtened

to retain its capacity against sedimentation in future.

ANNEX 4Page 5

Summary of reservoir operation studies

10. On the basis of a rare drought year (1 year out of 10), the annual

rainfall anticipated at about 700 mm would be sufficient. In order to as-

sess the adequacy on a seasonal basis and during such period of the drought,

reservoir operation studies have been performed using the storage capacity

and demands adopted. The operation indicates that though the evaporation

losses from the reservoir are very high, the reservoir is still capable of

meeting the full demands throughout the dry season.

11. Tie results of the operation are as follows:

(i) The surfase runoff emptied into the reservoir woull be about

450,000 m from the typical catchment area of 4 km .

(ii) During the dry season, the release for domestic consumption Sor

2,000 people and for 1,000 livestock would be about 35,000 m , and

tje losses through evaporation and waste would amount to 70,000

m .

(iii) The spillage f5om the reservoir during the rainy season would be

about 300,000 m .

(iv) No shortages are expected, yet about 20,000 m would remain in

the reservoir dead storage.

12. The following table simulates the hydrology and reservoir opera-

tions for the 10 year drought year of a typical dam to be constructed.

NIGERIANORTP WESI'RERW STATR

nusau f nricult,zral Developnent ProjectReservoir Operation for 10 Year Drought Year

Approx.10-Day Total 2/ ReservoirPeriods Rainfall Inflow 1/ Evaporation Release Losses Outflow LS - Se - / Scm11 Short Elevation

mm- 000 m120.0

Oct. 10 0.4 - 3.4 1.4 0.1 4.9 -4.9 U5.1 - - 3.5020 - - 3.3 n a 4.8 -4.8 110.3 - -

3. 5.8 _ 3.2 " 4.7 -4.7 107.1 - -

Nov. 10 - - 3.4 4.9 -4.9 102.3 - - 3.40

20 - _ 3.4 n 4.9 -4.9 97.3 - -

30 - _ 3.3 n 4.8 -4.8 92.5 - -

Dec. 10 - - 3.2 . 4.7 -4.7 87.8 - - 3.30

20 - - 3.2 4.7 -4.7 83.1 - -

31 - - 3.1 4.6 -4.6 78.5 - -

Jan. 10 - - 3-6 5.3 -5.3 73.2 - - 3.0020 - - 3.5 n 5.0 -5.0 68.2 - -

31 - _ 3.2 " 4.7 -4.7 63.5 - -

Feb. 10 - - 3.2 4.7 -4.7 58.8 - - 2.80

20 - - 3.1 4.6 -4.6 54.2 - -

28 - 3.0 45 -4.5 49.7 - -

Mar. 10 - - 2.7 " 4.2 -4.2 45.5 - - 2.50

20 - - 2.5 4.0 -4.0 I41.5 - -

31 6.8 _ 2.2 3.7 -3.7 37.8 - -

Apr. 10 14.4 - 1.7 3.2 -3.2 34.6 - - 2.2020 - - 1-5 n 3.0 -3.0 31.6 - -

30 3.3 - 1.4 " 2.9 -2.9 28.7 - -

may 10 1.7 - 1-3 2.8 -2.8 25.9 - - 2.0020 17.3 - 1.1 2.6 -2.6 23.3 - -

31 6.8 - 1.0 n 2.5 -2.5 20.8 - - 1.00Jiue 1 58.4 8 0.7 2.2 +5.8 26.6 - - 2.00

20 16.2 - 0.9 n 2.4 -2.4 24.2 - -

30 24.5 4 0.8 2.3 +1.7 21.9 - -Jul. 10 36.7 8 0.5 2.0 +6.0 27.9 - - 2.00

20 57.5 32 0.7 n n 2.2 +29.8 57.7 - -

31 83.2 48 1.5 Is 3.0 +45.0 102.7 - -

Aug. 10 89.5 80 2.3 n n 3.8 +17.3 120.0 58.9 - 3.5020 45.8 44 2.5 n n 4.0 - 120.0 40.0 -

31 56.3 6o 2.5 " " 4.0 - 120.0 56.0 -

Sept.10 103.9 88 2.5 n 't 4.0 - 120.0 84.0 - 3.5020 70.5 72 2.5 ft of 4.0 - 120.0 68.0 -

30 14.0 4 2.5 4.0 - 120.0 -

Annual 713.0 I48 84.6 50.4 3.6 138.6 309.9 -

Dry period(Oct.-June) 56.5 - 64.7 33.6 2.4 100.7 - - tI/ Inflow ?ram 4 k1m of catchment.2/ Changes in storage.3/ Storage at end of period.

1UNrA A 4

Page 7

13. Tne project could not in the first instance provide adequatecoverage of dams to satisfy all project farmers. However, it would attemptto satisfy the more critical areas, and provide reserve capacity for mostvillage unit areas. 65 dams would be constructed over 4 years of the pro-ject. 5 would be built in year 1, followeq by 20 each in year 2, 3 and 4. Thuson average there would be one dam to 60 km , which approximates to onevillage area of 2,000 farming families. Thus about 25% of the populationwould be served by the program. However, over the years the ground watertable should also improve, thereby indirectly affecting a large number ofthe remaining 75%. If successful this dam construction program could becontinued in another phase.

B. Soil Conservation Measures

14. In a project of this size (3,800 km 2) it would be nearly impossibleto construct all the necessary conservation measures that are theoreticallyrequired, and neither would it be economically justified at this stage ofdevelopment. However, as mentioned in para 1 of this annex, erosion pro-blems can be considered serious, particularly in the catchment areas ofstreams and rivers. It is therefore proposed that under the project thecatchment areas of the earth dams to be constructed under the project wouldreceive certain soils conservation measures. In this way eroding catchmentareas would be conserved, and siltation of the dams would be reduced.

15. Virtually no soil conservation measures have been undertaken on alarge scale in northern Nigeria and there are no practical specificationsthat can be followed, and it will remain for the prolece conservation en-gineer to modify the proposed design and layout as experience is gainedduring proiect implementation.

16. However, the project topography is similar in tvye to that of theLilongwe Land Development Program in Malawi, an IDA financed project, andhas other similar features such as rainfall nattern (4 months wet RsoAdn)_amount of rainfall 1 , 2 0 0 - 1 ,5S 0 mm/annum ,2land use intensity, and verysimilar runoff factors 1-5 m /sec per km . During the last four or fiveyears the type of layout has been improved at Lilongwe and has proved ad-equate for the Drevailinc conditions. It is nrooosed that a similar layoutis used for Gusau.

17. The system is relatively simple in that a series of large "vee"shaned cut off drains, with a catrhmont of A0 ha, are conr,ucted to drainstorm water into artificial or natural waterways, and thence to streams orrivers. Rptween thp ctut off drains the project lays out master ridges onthe contours to assist the farmers with his direction of cultivation. The cutoff drain system is tied in with the general road planning for the areasconcerned, and when planned correctly are built as extensions to road mitretl r n.

ANMM1E 4Page 8

Specif ications

,. ~T.he dI"version d i t chcut 4off dri.4 w . ouldb ot1,0r.lngJLL LVtO.I.Lt JUL..L ~L.LL ~tL UtL k~I, W S..Lu IJC atuUt I -JJU LIi LULL6,

250 m apart and have a cross sectional area of about 0.8 m (37 cm deep and3.6 A-% ,- wie) T,i dsch woull Ira-- at a raeof1;0 an' wouldhv"V II WUJ. LLL LL.L It LJUU U. aLLI ciL di rLLLC U~ lk. -* VJU dL LU WLU± u Vte ad

capacity of 0.6 m /sec. The diversion ditch would drain into water ways,wI. thL training b)anik's. On adverage, eachiL catch [-1 le-Lnt area would Lequire oLLewate yay of 500 m in length fith an outflow capacity for the runoff from

- rW _ _ r -- 1 ^ _ _ _ -- -_ I 1 - _ - - I -_ .q uM i.e. a Cap)acLity Ut U II IFEC. 1L1e toI) end OI L[le wauerway would pro-oably be about 10 m wide, widening to 30-40 m at the point of discharge.

19. Master lines are constructed, using a tractor and plough, betweendivision ditches. Normally three lines between ditches are sufficient toserve the farmers as master lines. This is equivalent to about 1,500 m ofmarket line to 4 ha. For the small additional cost much unnecessary runoffand silting into newly constructed ditches is avoided.

C. Construction

20. Both dams and soil conservation works would be treated as one andwould come under the development responsibility of the Conservation engineerwho would be overall responsible for their survey, design and construction.In order to make optimum use of equipment the engineering services havebeen designed as a single unit and a substantial interchange of equipmentbetween road construction and conservation would take place.

21. The basic construction equipment for the dams would comprise two180 HP Bulldozers and two 300 TIP motorized Scrapers. Compaction equipmentwould be necessary in those areas where soil types are very light. Theequipment used for soil conservation would be one 140 HP Bulldozer andtwo 125 .-IP Mfotor Graders. Details are given in Annex 3. It should be notedthat darls can only be constructed during the dry season. Including surveywork it is estimated that the average dam would be constructed in aboutthree weeks (2 units), and that a similar time would be required to com-plete the conservation works in a given catchment area.

22. During the first year of the project, most of the time would bespent in staff training, in surveying, designing and engineering. It isestimated that only about five dams are likely to be constructed.

ANNEX 5Page 1

NIGERIA

NOKRI WESTERN STATE

Gusau Agricultural Development ProJect

Training

Training Staff

1. The Division of Agriculture and Livestock Services Training (DALST)of Ahmadu Bello University, Samaru, Zaria, has the responsibility of trainingstudents for certificates or diplomas in agriculture or related subjectsleading to their employment in the Ministries of Natural Resources, in thenorthern States of Nigeria.

2. There are 4 schools under DALST, they are:

a) Samaru (N. Central State)Offering, at present, certificate courses in Extension,Farm Mechanics, Home Economics and a diploma course inHome Economics. Expansion of this school planned forcompletion by 1975 would add diploma courses in FarmMechanics and Extension to the syllabus.

b) Bakura (NW State)Offering a certificate course in Irrigation Agronomv andpresently located at Samaru pending completion of the newschool at Bakura.

c) Kaduna Livestock Service Training Center (NC State)Offering certificate courses in Livestock and RangeManagement and diploma courses in Animal ProductsInspection, and Range Management.

d) Kabba (Kwara State)Offering diploma courses in Agriculture at present andcertificate courses in Agriculture from 1974.

3. Present enrollment at these schools is as follows:

ANNEX 5Page '

School Course 1st Year Students 2nd Year Students

Samaru 1st year Agricultural /1 215AA. Farm Mechanics 16

AA Extension 59A Home EcoRnomics 40 22

Diploma Home Economics 12

Bakura Irrigation Agronomy 40 25

Kaduna Livestock Assistant /1 81 41

Diploma A-.-mal P1 1- 13Diploma Range Management 12

Kabba Doploma in Agriculture /2 198 -

TOTAL 590 200

The capacity of all of these schools is being increased and it is

forecast that by 1975 S&amaru would have a capacity for 600 students and theother schools 300 students each.

4. In addition to DALST, individual northern States are developing

their own schools of agrLculture offering certificate courses th-us:

State School Reuarks

North East Bauchi Under construction, termporarily training 40students, will rise to 60 when opened.

Kano Kadawo Due to open in 1973 with similar courses asSamaru.

5. With the majority of the AA (Extension) receiving their trainingat Samaru, it is important to see if the output is adequate for the projects.

6. N. Western State (Project)

In 1973 52 students from NW State started certificate courses at

Samaru. Of these 8 are taking livestock courses, 6 are taking Home Economics

and 38 are taking Agriculture. Another 40 students enrolled at Bakura to

study irrigation.

1/ 1st year general course with opportunity to specialize in the second

year.'l Special course to gi4e AAS the o-portur.it- to upgrade to Aq (1972 onnv).

ANNEX 5Page 3

7. The 38 students taking Agriculture will have the choice of specia-lizing in Farm Mechanilcs or Extenslon kin 197 2 17 cnose Farm 'Mecnanics ana44 chose Extension out of a class of 61 at Samaru). Their course will endin December 1974 and by that time the Gusau Project wiii need 24 AA-S.

8. In order to ensure that 24 AA's are working in the project byJanuary 1975 it would be desirable to (a) post as many of the December 1973output to Gusau as is possible (D) persuade tne majority of students intraining to opt for the AA (Extension) course, posting them to Gusau atthe end of their course, e.g.

AA's in post now 5AA's 1973 output 7AA"s 1974 output 12

Total by Jan. 1975 24

9. The project would require a further 25 AA's in December 1975, ifadequate numbers can go for training at Samaru or Bakuru in April 1974 noproblem should be encountered in fully staffing the project.

10. No similar problems are expected to arise over the AO, AS or Alstaffing requirements as the numbers of AO's and AS's are relatively smallin relationship to the numbers at present in Post or in Training, and theAI's would be trained by the project from local WASC holders.

Farm Training

11. At present, farmer training consists of a nine month course for 22farmers' sons at Gusau Farm Institute. At the end of their course thegraduates receive 2 work oxen, a ridger, 1 bag groundnut seed, 1/2 bag ofsorghum seed and 1/2 bag millet. In addition, those that did well may re-ceive fertilizers and insecticides as well. The oxen and ridgers are to berepaid over 5 years; the other items are free. The training is free, allexpenses being paid by MANR. The graduates are expected to work on theirfathers' farms at the end of the course.

12. The project proposes to increase the capacity of the Farm Insti-tutes to 40 residential students per day and to broaden the range ofcourses so that more farmers have training opportunities on shorter courses.The institute would also serve farmers outside the project area but withinthe Sokoto East Division. The Home Agents Training Center would continueto operate and should perhaDs broaden its intake to include farmers' wives.

ANNEX 6Page 1

NIGERIA

NORTH WESTERN STATF

G.usau Aerirultitral Tlevlnrnspent Prniect

qtaffinai of Fhieltd qpr-ef t

Technical Service

1. The technical service headed by a Chief Technical Officer wouldarovid s taff for (a) seed .. O1tfla14- and^" A*A (b) t:ai4n for

staff and farmers; (c) extension services and (d) tractor hire service.

2. Seed Multiplication and Research. The Gusau seed multiplicationfarm Yw0o-1d provide the- initial -ukn up f coton -ee -,d thpodct-

of high yielding maize, sorghum, groundnut and cowpea seeds for sale tofarmers. The fam would also Le a center for research .ialsoThe farm would come under the overall control of an Agricultural ResearchOffice-r (expatriate withi W an1- Agriculturl --eitedn as -F A, M -ager.~~~ W41u / . L& =ALL £

5J U. Ua. 0)UV=L.LII =LLU=LLL. 42 £'1LLL J:U1CZ ,=LL

Two Agricultural Assistants would be available for field duties, plus anAgrLcl-url L nsIruaor Udueonstrate ox traA n L nga.LL dLU a' euIIIpmLL ue.

raCL1&.LL&r for Staff dnd a-LIIuCLS

J. P-Lrreseint Situation. 'universities cater for tne uraining orAgricultural Officers (AO) whose qualifications is a degree in Agriculture.Schools of Agriculture cater for diploma or certificate courses for Agri-cultural Superintendents (AS) or Agricultural Assistants (AA). Farm Train-ing Centers train school certificate holders (or less) for 9 months andproduce Agricultural Instructors (Field Overseers) (AI). Farm Institutesgive training courses for farmers or farmers's sons. (see Annex 5)

4. In Gusau the Agricultural Assistant would have qualified at theSchool of Agriculture, Samaru, and the Assistant Agricultural Superinten-dents or Agricultural Superintendents would either have risen through theranks on experience and length of service or would have received diplomalevel training at Samaru. Tnere are no training establishments above thelevel of Farm Institute in the project area. There is one Farm Instituteat Gusau with a capacity of 22 students and a home economic training centerfor 10 students.

5. Future Proposals. The capacity of the Gusau Farm Institute wouldbe raised to 40 residential students. An Agricultural Superintendent wouldbe the Principal assisted by three AA's, one AI and one Home Agent (Agri-cultural Instructress) (HA). The courses should be widened to include:

ANNEX 6Page 2

a) initial training for AI's;b) in-service and induction courses for all staff; andc) farmer training.

Extension Services

6. The extension services would provide the farmer with the technicalsupervision and encouragement to imorove his farming syste.ms. Th.e Gcsau.roject would be divided into 4 development units based on the presentdistrict boundaries (Cusau and Kotnrknshi would ha prenineAl nnA saoffed by1 AO (or AS) at the top and one AA in each of the major villages, each AAbeing assisted by AT's aceording tn the demand in that an-re A am1ll of Home Agents would be employed to teach farmers' wives on the basis ofone HA ner development unit.

Tractor Hire Service

7. This provides a ploughing and ridging service to farmers, mainlythe larger ones and TwoulA cntinu urntil s a-T, me as private contractorservices are available. The service requires one AS in overall charge andan AA in rhhnrap nf Poe-h t-rqrt-tnr init which T.old,1z be basea in each - vA-el_ment unit. A workshop for maintenance and repairs would be incorporatedwithin theo HQ0 ore TO

Credit Servl.,ce-

8. T71,Le cred,t se4c wou4 - ld a r l e th extension service a d w r

very closely with it. The service would provide the farmer with his inputson creAdt or cor cash, recover paymiLents, procure a.i distribut th Le inputsand keep accounts. The service would be headed by a Credit Manager. Therewould be a Credit Offcer at each Development Unit for control of the creditservices to farmers in that area. In each village there would be two CreditAssistants who would disburse inputs, collect repayments and, in liaisonwith the extension service, scrutinize applications and defaulters. (SeeAntnex 0 Lor deta±i)

Mr'arketing Service

9. rne marketing service would maintain an inspection team and or-ganize market liaison to ensure smooth operation at markets. The servicewould be headed by a Senior Marketing Ofricer. Each Development Unit wouldhave a Marketing Assistant (Senior Agricultural Assistant grade) who wouldtour markets regularly and report on prices, organization and producequality and quantities.

ANNEX 6Page 3

NIGERIA

NORTH WESTERN STATE

Gusau Agricultural Development Project

Table 1

Staff Requirements (in field)

Branch AO AS AA AI HA

1. Seed multiplication and research 1 1 2 2

Training 1 3 2 1

Extension Services 2 2 4o 158 4

Tractor Flouah Service _ 4

Total 3 5 49 162 5

Go CA

2. Greiit Srvie.s 80

mn MA

ANNEX 6Page_ 4

NIGERIA

NOXRTH WESTERN STATE

GTusau Agricultural Development Project

Table 2

Tncrermnt.lI Sitaffinq - Field Service I/

In Post before Proj,ect YearGrade _ Projiect I TT III TIV T

AO Increment _ R _ _ _

Total 3 3 3 3 3

AS Incr ent 3 - - - -

Total 2 5 5 5 5 5

AA .- 19 -

Total 5 24 49 49 49 49

AT T_ cres-nn= 1'7 40 i40 Lo

Total 25 42 82 122 162 162

HA Icremen t - 3 2 - - -

Total - 3 5 5 5 5

Co Increment - 4 - - - -

Total - 4 4 4 14

CA Increment - i 25 - - -

Total - 15 40 80 80 80

MA Increment - 4 - - - -

Total - 4 4 4 14 4

MO Increment - 1 - - - -

Total - 1 1 1 1 1

1/ Exclude senior staff.

ANNEX 6Page 5

10. Sources of staff would be as follows:

- Agricultural Officers. Qualified officers from within MANR;

- Agricultural Superintendents and Assistant AS. Qualified officersfrom within MANR:

- Agricultural Assistants. Certificate holders from within MANRsupplemented by newly qualified AA's coming out of Samaru orBakora annually;

- Agricultural Instructors. Preferably West Africa SchoolCertificate holders who come from the area and who would receivetheir training in the project;

- Home Agents. Certificate holders trained at Samaru or fromwithin MANR;

- Credit Officers. Degree holders preferably with commercial orbanking experience;

- Credit Assistants. WASC holders selected and trained by theproject;

- Marketing Officers. Degree holder or experience in marketorganization; and

- Marketing Assistants. WASC holders selected and trained by theproiect.

ANNEX 7Page 1

NIGERIA

NORTH WESTERN STATE

Gusau Agricultural Development Project

Farm and Crop Development

A. General

1. The major crops in the project area are sorghum and millet, cotton,groundnuts and cowpeas. Minor crops include maize, sugarcane, peppers andokra. Data on production of cotton and groundnuts can be compiled from pur-chases by the Northern States Marketing Board (NSMB) (Tables I and 2). Noproduction data are available for other crops; nor is there other than qual-itative information on farmers' yields, farm sizes or cropping patterns.However, a detailed economic survey of three villages within 220 km of theproject area has been carried out and published recently. 1/ Ecological andsociological conditions are comparable in many respects between the twoareas and, for this reason, the survey has been used as a basis for the for-mulation of assumptions on present and projected farming activities.

2. Cattle, sheep and goats are kept throughout the project area byvillagers, and in substantially larger numbers bv semi-nomad i c pastoralists(Fulani). The latter utilize fallow land, forest and grazing reserves, andcrop residues for their livestock. Thev exist in an increasingly uneasysymbiosis with settled cultivators as pressure on land increases with risingpopulations. Livestock management svstems are generally poor and produc-tivity is low. There are no reliable data on stock numbers.

3. Cultivations are carried out mainly by hand hoe and cutlass.However, a small, and tnnuantified number of farmers are knon. to own workoxen and equipment. The MANR tractor hiring service plows and ridges landfor farmers at subsidized rates but its overa1l impact is negligible.

B. Farming Systems

Farm Size

4. Although no detailed surys have been carried out, field obser-vations tend to verify estimates based on population and proportion ofcronnpd land derived from stud- of aerial photography mosaics of the area.These point to a mean farm size of 3.5 ha.

1/ A.n Economic Survey of three -villages in Zatia Province, Samaru Miscellan-eous Paper 37,1972: D.W. Norman.

ANNEX 7Page 2

Size of Farm Family

5. The Norman study 1/ reports an average farm family of 8.5. This

is not considered to be typical of the project area, where local opinion

considers that an average family approximates 6.5 persons. Composition ofsuch a family has been assumed to be as follows:

Small Large Female Male Total

Child Child Adult Adult Residents

1.7 1.0 2.2 1.6 6.5

Labor Availability

6. Labor availability in mandays per day, on the basis of manday

equivalents used by Norman 1/ would be as follows:

Small Large Female MaleChild Child Adult Adult Total

Farm family 1.7 1.0 2.2 1.6 6.5Manday equivalents - 0.5 0.75 1.0Available mandays 0.5 1.65 1.6 3.75

In the Zaria study 1/, male adult labor accounted for 89 percent of the totalfamily labor input; female adult labor was insignificant. Thus, assuming50 percent availability of labor from the large child in an average farm

family, daily labor availability would approximate 2 mandays.

7. Labor requirements assessed by Norman 1/ on traditional methods of

cultivation, which imply mixed cropping and low yields, appear to be low re-

lative to data on similar crops grown under comparable conditions in otherareas. Substantially higher labor requirements have been assumed for pro-

posed project crops as shown in the model crop and farm budgets (Tables 3throuah 9!.

8. Adequate labor profiles are not available and, while it appears

that total labor availability (at 2.0 manday equivalents per day) is ade-

quate, there may be seasonal labor shortages, particularly at planting and

weeding periods in some seasons. However, the project would appeal pri-

marily to the most vigorous and efficient farmers and for this reason. labor

availability is not regarded as a serious constraint on development.

Cropping Patterns

9,. I.nterroppi-n4gi comon-ly racticed in a wide variety of combina-

tions. The cropping pattern of an average farm, on the basis of adjusted

1,op cit.

ANNEX 7Page 3

areas of sole crops might be as follows (ha):

Sorghum and Other Cereals 1.50Cotton 0.70Groundnuts and Cowpeas 0.70Others and Fallow 0.60

Total 3.50

10. This pattern may be expected to change as a result of the projectwhich would promote sole cropping and the introduction of improved produc-tion practices for cotton, sorghum, maize, groundnuts and cowpeas. Thesewould result in changes in areas planted, but overall farm size would notbe affected by the project.

11. Samples of model cropping patterns resulting from project activi-ties are compared with the assumed traditional pattern below (in ha):

Cotton & GroundnutsTraditional Cereals & Cereals

Traditional cotton /1 0.70 Improved cotton - 1.10 -Traditional sorghum 1.30 - 0.45Improved sorghum - 0.50 0.50Traditional maize 0.10 - -Improved maize - 1.00 1.00Traditional millet andother cereals /2 0.10 - -

Traditional eroundnuts /1 0.54 - -Improved groundnuts - - 0.75Traditional cowpeas 0.16 - 0.16Improved cowpeas - 0.25 -Other traditional crops and fallow 0.60 0.65 0.64

Total 3.50 3.50 3.50

/1 Areas nlanted to traditional cotton and groundnuts are to some extent in-terdependent and vary between different locations. Cotton predominatesin the south of the uroiect area. groundnuts in the north.

/2 Traditional sorghum and traditional millet are frequently interplanted.

12. The anticipated effect of the project on the five crops selectedfor deplopmene vaz: rnttnn; sorghum, maize, groundnuts; and cowpeKa ficonsidered in subsequent paragraphs. Proposed improved practices are de-fined, and their likely impact Js analyz7d in tpm-sQ nf aa, number ofgrowers, and production on a crop by crop basis.

ANNEX 7

C. Cotton

13. Cotton of the Improved Allan type (Gosypium hirsutum) has beengrown in the project area for the past half century. Production fluctuateswidely due to the effects of climate and producer price. Tne mean level inrecent years approximates 15,000 tons of seed cotton, some 11 percent of-- san total proAuction Ifrm the northeri-i States (ai )

14. Seed of improved varieties produced at the Institute of AgriculturalResearch (IAR) at Samaru is bulked up at the Daudawa seed multiplicationfarm -in North Central State before distribution to farmers throughout thenorthern States as shown below:

… ------------…Seed------------Received Produced Destination

S;age Location ---------------tons------------ Remarks

A IAR Samaru nucieus piots - - B Breeders0.1 ha nucleus

B IAR Samaru nucleus plots - 2 Ch na

C Daudawa Farm 2 50-70 D Variety S71

D Daudawa Market Area 70 500 E

E North Central State /1 500 3,000 F

F NC and NW States /1 1,900 9,500 C Distribu-tion to allarea

/1 Selected areas under tight control.

Farmers at stage E receive new material three years after selection. Seedsupplies are provided free by the NSMB at a series of dumps throughout theproject area. Seed for planting is treated at the ginnery against BacterialBlight (Xanthomonas malvacearum) which is endemic to the area. One of threedressings: mercurial (3 percent) at 1:180; copper (45 percent) at 1:180; orBronopal (12 percent) at 1:170; are effective and may be used.

AYNEX 7Page 5

Variety

15. The present variety, S71 has been bred to yield highly and to meetthe needs of the textile industry. Under farmers' conditions, yields averageno more than 250 kg of seed cotton per ha, about 10% of the variety's yieldpotential. Its main characteristics are shown below:

Cinning percentage 35.9Fibre length (32nds of an inch) 37.3Fibre strength (g per tex) 20.9Yarn strength (40 count) 2,386Blight grade (0 = none, 7 = max). 2.4

Recommended Production Practices

16. Research carried out by the IAR at Samaru and at outstations hasgiven rise to a set of recommended practices for the crop. These presupposea low level of technical assistance to farmers and do not reflect optimalproduction conditions. More advanced techniques including the use of ultralow volume (ULV) snraving for insect control are being tested under farmers'conditions at several sites in the northern States. They are likely to befully annrnved for use on a field scale under the conditions proposed forthe project in the near future. Given adherence to the full package of im-proved practie-cs euitlined below, average yields of seed cotton are predicted

to approximate 1,200 kg/ha.

17. Land should be ridged at 0.91 m (3 ft) centers slightly off thecottur to promote drainage, andn 20-25 cm (8-10 in) high- Al ternate fivrrews.

should be tie ridged to promote water retention. Ridges should be completedto allow for planting in mid June. 6-8 seeds should be sown 2.4 a (1 in)deep at 45 cm (18 in) along the top of each ridge. 125 kg of boronatedsi4ngle supephoshat hsa nnoua hbanpr1i.nat hafore vidging' (0.7 1kg/

*5...~~~ o.j.J~~. jJ*-*- - -- - - - -…-*-- - - .. -1

ha of boron). Three weeks after planting, 125 kg of sulphate of ammonia perha should be applied close to planting holes. (ralrimu arimmoniiuim nitvrte is

a possible future substitute for sulphate of ammonia). Plants should be&thired to two per stand tthree weeks after planting and preferablyafter a good rain, to minimize the effects of root disturbance. Weedingar,d' ridUge ri-rintenance should bue unAertaken. before weed com.petition is

serious. Normally three weedings are required.

18. The cotton crop is attacked by a range of pests at different stagesJn the gro-wing period.ILL LALI ~LjWL ~L LU.

a) rPeriodU ubetween gerination and fltoering:

No major pests, Aphis goss-r- ., may occur but selAombuild up to serious proportions.

ANNEX 7Page 6

Empoasca spp occur but as the cotton is bred for jassidresistance no serious damage is caused.

b) Period of flowering and boll growth:

Pests of vegetation include the mirid Camplyommawhich can be serious, Lygus which is less serious,Sylepta derogata (F) (the cotton leaf roller), various grass-hoppers, leaf hoppers, and leaf eating beetles occur inAugust and September and are of varying seriousness dependingon the season.

Pests of the flowers and bolls include stainers, mainlyDysdercus superstitiosus (F) but also D. Fasciatus. and thered bollworm Diparopsis watersi (Roths) which are usuallymore serious than the American bollworm Heliothis armigera(Hb), the spiny bollworms Earias insulana (86isd) and Eariasbiplaga (WLK), the False codling moth Cryptophlebia leucotreta(Meyr) and the pink bollworm Pectinophora gossypiella (Sound).

c) Pests of bolls after the rains:

Bollworms (particularly the red) and adult stainersincrease until the bolls have all matured. but the npet8 nfvegetation decrease.

19. Application of insecticides would be timed in accordance with pestidentification in the field. A carbaryl/molasses mixture (48 percent car-baryl) is currently being evaluated and, if satisfactory, this should pro-vide effective insect control. It would nrobablv involve some 17 liters/tha/annum.

20. Harvesting should begin in October and be continued at regularintervals to prevent boll snoilage. Picking should aim to avoid dirt, trashand stained or damaged lint in order to qualify seed cotton for purchase asGrade 1.

21I All contton plants should be uprooted and burnt by Marc.h 1 and fromthat date until June 1, no cotton may be grown.

Future Production

22. Increased production is expected to derive partly from increasedaraplant-ed but- ma4Iny from th-e alop-lon of new techniques.area ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~ L L ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ LIL~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Uk LL~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~L. L%A& u L . . L

23. Aea expansion over the project period is expected to be ffrom42,000 ha in 1975 to about 51,000 ha in 1979. This would come largely fromLnLcreased numbers of cotton farmers bUt there would be some area redistribu-tion. It is estimated that the average farmer currently grows 0.7 ha. of

ANNEX 7Pagoe 7

cotton. At the end of the project period those using advanced techniqueswould average 1.1 ha; those using intermediate techniques would average0.8 ha; and those continuing to use traditional methods would average 0.7ha.

24. AdoDtion of new techniques would be at two levels. The us,e ofearly planting, sole cropping, fertilizer and ULV spraying for insect con-trol is described as 'advanced'. Such meqsures would recult in yieldsaveraging 1,100 kg seed cotton per ha. The omission of insect control byULV spraving' from the above techninues would -give an 'intermediate' leve-lof cotton production. Farmers applying intermediate technology shouldaverage 540 kg of seed cotton per ha.

25 rCotton produced under 'tradI 4ivn.' syste.e of late plnting andintercropping without fertilizer or insect control would be unlikely to ex-ceed average yieldAs of 2550 k-g seed cotton per hla.

26. T* 4s asSU- - the basis.UL o.l ongl

26. It is assumed, on the basis of o ng prograwo, that at the startof the project (1974) some 0.6 percent of farmers would be using advancedtechniques and 1.7 percent would be us'ing intermediate techniques. Projectedbuild up in terms of percentages of farm families in the three categoriesis sh-vqn be"--:~ ~LIJLI U~L%JW

±eartL AuvuAvaceu Ilntermeaiate Traditional

.l .3 3 942 8 5 873 .160 7 774 26 10 64J 36 12 52

A-verage size of cottonplot (ha) 1.1 0.8 0.7

Average yield of seedcotton (kg/ha) 1,100 540 250

Production/plot. (kg) 1,210 432 175

27. On the basis of the foregoing assumptions, cotton productionwould increase as follows, in tons of seed cotton:

Year Production

0 10,3301 12,1302 15,3003 20,6004 27,0505 34,250

ANNEX 7Page 8

Table 10 provides additional details.

28. A model budget for one ha of cotton grown under the three levelsof technology outlind eabove is given at Table 3. Thhis show's, assuming afarm gate price for seed cotton of NO.08/kg that net returns per ha, ex-cluding labor costs and returns to labor would become increasingly attrac-tive as the level of technology is improved, as summarized below:

Net Returns excluding Returns to Labor perLabor Costs per ha of Cotton (N) ha of Cotton (N/manday)

Traditional 19.00 0.31Inte mediate 31.a 20 0.37Advanced 45.46 0.46

D. Sorehum

Background and rraditional

29. Sharing with bulrush millet, the role of the traditional grainstaple ofL the nausa people, sorghum Ls grown widely tnroughout the projectarea. White to yellowish grained, open headed Guinea race types, knownlocally as Rral'ara, predouilinate. Ine grain is normally ground to a coarseflour and eaten as porridge. The stalks, which are seldom less than fourrm,eters in heLght, are used for a variety of purposes of which building andfencing are among the most important.

30. Under the traditional systems of cultivation, mean yields aresaid to approximate 750 kg of threshed grain per ha, but they vary widelyin response to intensity of intercropping, soil and climatic effects. Nodata are available on sorghum production in the project area. Nevertheless,it is safe to conclude that the crop is grown on all holdings, alone or ina variety of mixtures.

31. Norman:s studies 1/ indicate that sorghum occupied approximately30% of total area planted and, whilst most commonly grown in a two cropcombination with bulrush millet, was also planted alone or with up to fouradditional crops. It is probable that sorghum occupies a somewhat greaterproportion of land in the project area than the Norman study suggestsbecause of its popularity as a cash crop. For this reason sorghum's shareof cropped area is assumed to be about 37% or 89,000 ha. At an averageyield of 750 kg/ha this would produce some 67,000 tons or about 10 percentof estimated production from North Western State.

1/ op cit.

ANNEX 7Page 9

32. Althougn its effects have not been quantified, the parasitic weedStriga hermontheca is probably the most significant pest of sorghum. Othersinclude a range of stalk borers, but particularly Busseola fusca, and Sor-ghum Midge Contarinia sorghicola. Major diseases include Downy Mildew,Scierospora sorghi, a variety of leaf disease causing spotting and striping,and a number of smut diseases, mainly of the genus Sphacelotheca. The lat-ter are to a considerable extent controlled by seed dressing with copperfungicides which are readily available commercially.

33. i befits a staple grain, sorghum is normally planted on the mainfarms in close proximity to the compound. Land is ploughed and ridged byhand hoe or occasionally mechanically, prior to planting at approximately0.9 meters between rows and varying distances within rows according to in-tercropping practices. Sorghum is planted in the project area in May/June,after such crops as early millet, when the rains are firmly established.Two or three weedings and earthings-up are normally carried out. The cropflowers at the onset of the dry season, in late September/early October,and matures, utilizing residual soil moisture, by late November/December.

34. The stalks are cut near ground level and stacked in the field afterremoval of the heads, which are bundled and stored in mud plastered gran-aries (rumbus) in the farm compound. Heads are removed from the granariesas required for domestic consumption or for sale following threshing.Storage losses are variable, one estimate is that on average 20% of thecrop is lost in store, and though control methods involving granary sanita-tion and the use of insecticides have been developed, they are not commonlyused.

Improved Practices

35. Research on sorghum has been carried out in the northern Statesof Nigeria for the past 20 years. Higher vielding varieties have beenselected from local types. A number of dwarf varieties and hybrids havealso been developed. This work has been accompanied by investigations in-cluding time of planting, spacing, and fertilizer responses. Improvedlocal varieties grown under improved agronomic practices showed yield gainsover traditional types of six to 25 percent (averaging 18.6% or about 240kg/ha) in over 90 trials planted at different sites in main sorghum pro-duction areas up to 1970. Such increases are of little interest to farmers.The main thrust of sorghum research is now directed towards production ofhigh yielding dwarf varieties or hybrids. Material now available has ayield potential under field conditions of around 2,500 kg/ha and 4,00 kg/hafrom dwarf varieties and hybtids respectively. The grain from these typesis not yet widely acceptable for human food in rural are-n but it car. besold readily in urban areas for human and livestock food.

Project Proposals

36. Within the proposed project area, production of sorghum is expec-ted to decline slightly despite a probable switch by some far.mers towardsimpr -ed technology utilizing project services. Many farmers are likely to

ANNEX 7Page 10

continue to grow some local sorghums traditionally but a substantial pro-portion are expected to move part of their sorghum area to maize, seeTables 11 and 12 and paragraph 40.

37. Two levels of improved technology have been assumed, based uponresults from field trials and research recommendations.

Level of Technology Traditional Intermediate Advanced

Variety local dwarf hybrid

Plant population/ha 19,200 34,800 48,000

Fertilizer application Nil IQ0 kg sulphate of 300 kg sulphate ofin kg/ha /1 ammonia + 100 kg ammonia + 150 kg

single superphos- single super-phate phosphate + 50 kg

muriate of potash

Borer control /2 Nil Nil Nil

Anticipated yield ofthreshed grain (kg/ha) 750 1,500 2,000

/1 At the advanced level of technoloevy two thirds of the nitro"no n- fer-tilizer would be applied as a side dressing about four weeks afterplanting. ThF other fertilizer would be broadanst and worked in beforeplanting. Although sulphate of ammonia is quoted as the source of N,calcium ammonium nitrate would be preferable, particularly at high.application rates.

/2 No recommendations are currently available; insecticidal dusti.ng withlindane or its equivalent may well prove to be economic however.

38. In addition to the major elements indicated, farmers would be ad-vised on field preparation, planting methods and other improved practicesby project extension staff who would be responsible for ensuring the acqui-sition and delivery of dressed seed and fertilizer as required.

39. It is estimated that numbers of farmers using improved sorghumproduction methods would increase as follows:

Year Intermediate Advanced

12 1,000 2003 3,000 5004 9,000 1,0005 118,000 4.000

ANNEX 7Page 11

In percentage terms, farmers using improved sorghum technology would in-crease from about pet two peren in Year 2 to about 32 pe:cen. by vear Sowhich some six percent would be producing sorghum at the advanced level.

40. As noted above, sorghum area is likely to be affected by promotionof maize production under the proposed project. T^ble 1l shows that thearea of sorghum grown under traditional methods would decline from an es-tim.ated 89,000 ha to 59,000 ha between Years 1and 5. Som.Ie 10,000 ha wouldbe planted with improved sorghum and most of the balance would go into maize.This would result in an eight percent net decree 'n production betweenYears 1 and 5 (see Table 12). Estimated changes in sorghum area and pro-duction a.e summularized bbel;rw firomu Tables L.A and 12:4

Year

1 2 3 42 5

Est'imated trauitional sorghum area (hna) 89,000 88,000 85,000 77,000 59,000Estimated intermediate sorghum area (ha) - 500 1,500 4,500 9,000Esti'mated advanced sorgnum area (ha) - 100 250 500 1,500

Estimated total sorghum area (ha) 89,000 88,600 86,750 82,000 69,500

Estimated total sorghum production inthreshed grain (tons) 67,000 67,000 66,000 65,000 61,000

41. Estimated decreased production is such that prices are unlikely tobe affected directly. However, the estimated substantial increase in thevolume of maize produced (see below) could have a depressant effect on sor-ghum prices.

42. A comparison of costs and returns from sorghum grown at the threelevels of technology assumed for the project is made in Table 4. This shows,on the basis of an assumed farm gate price of NO.075/kg, that net returnsper ha, excluding labor costs and returns to labor become increasingly att-ractive as the level of technology is improved. The following table sum-marizes the information.

Net Returns excluding Return to LaborTechnology Labor Costs in N/ha in N/manday

Traditional 54.25 0.64Intermediate 101.20 1.03Advanced 120.90 1.04

ANNEX 7Page 12

E. Maize

Backgro und43. Although well Vna..n, mnq7a is presently a Tninr rop in the prn-

ject area. Cultivated mainly in crop mixtures on swampy areas (fadamas)primal as a1-,,e .g-ettab-le e^ -a, 44 , tvr hk1rn_A arn 1f4o obh - 4 -HJ. .nL.at s.*3 a 6v~ 5a wv L- - .te a

is unlikely that total area exceeds 7,000 ha.

44. High yielding, short season maize varieties and hybrid have beendeve'lopedu recentlIy- bly I^AR ar.d oth1-er researcher in th'Le nr.the... Seta~tes.

Their promising performance under Northern Guinea zone conditions have cre-atedU Iua1Lked interest iL. ,,L.aze as a gain. crop Afor the srea. FerfoLII.L ofJ_

promising types is summarized in Table 13. Trials at Gusau under differentlevels of plant population. ard fertilizer rates using variety (096) Bulk 3gave yields ranging from 1,500 to some 5,600 kg/ha of threshed grain depend-ing on tne level of treatments applieu. ac5poutsLLi -1urdL JaLiUmLb CULLUELrtUL5i

in neighboring North Central State in 1969/71 ranged from 1,400 through2,400 to 4,000 kg/ha using co0iiparable reatmenlts. Planting mUaterial withfurther improved yield potential is in course of development and is likelyto be avaiEa±Le for mULL.p [.LcdL[ .LULI and distributior tVo faLumers wLtIhIln LWo

years.

Project Effects

45. Tnese facts and the observation that the yelalow grained varietiesproduce meal which is an acceptable (some say a preferred) substitute forsorghum meal in traditional porridge in North Western State, indLcate theprobability that maize area and production could be increased markedly underthe project. Recent trends in maize prices, the burgeoning urban populationin the southern States along with the increasing demand for livestock feedsprovide further Justification for maize promotion under the project. Pro-bable area increases are expected to be at the expense of sorghum and mil-let area. They would occur mainly on the farms of the progressive individ-uals who are expected to be affected by the project. The expected changein cereal area is shown in Table 11. This indicates an expected increasein maize area from 7,000 to 27,500 ha of which 2,500 ha (nine percent) wouldbe grown traditionally, on 0.25 ha plots, 13,000 ha (47 percent) would bemaize grown under intermediate technology on 0.5 ha plots, and 12,000 ha(44 percent) would be grown under advanced technology on one ha plots.

46. Numbers of maize growers are expected to increase from an estimated27,000 in 1975 to 48,000 by 1979 of which 21 percent would continue astraditional producers, 54 percent would produce at the intermediate levelof technology, and 25 percent would produce maize at the advanced level.The expected rate of build-up is shown below in numbers of growers:

ANNEX 7Page 13

Year

Estimated Numbers 1 2 3 4 5

Traditional 27,000 26,000 24,000 16,000 10,000

Intermediate - 1,000 4,000 12,000 26,000

Advanced - 200 1,400 5,000 12,000

Total aff.-.cted by project - 1,200 5,400 17,000 38,000

Incremental affected by project - 1,200 4,200 11,600 21,000

47. Levels of technology selected for application in the project area

have been based on field trials and practices advocated by workers at the

IAR. They are summarized in the following table:

Levels of Technology Traditional Intermediate Advanced

Variety /1 local improved variety hybrid

Plant population/ha 19,200 34,800 48,000

Fertilizer (kg/ha) /2 nil 250 kg of 375 kg sul-

sulphate of phate of am-

ammonia + 150 monia + 200

kg of single kg singlesuperphosphate superphos-

phate + 50kg muriateof potash +trace ele-ments

Borer control /3 nil nil ntl

Projected yield of shelledgrain in kg/ha 900 2,000 4,000

/1 Presently recommended varieties such a 096 (Bulk 3) and hybrids of Biu

Yellow (BY) with other parents, such as BY x C-10, may well be superseded

by 1974./2 Although present recoumendations are for sulphate of ammonia as a nitrogen

source, it is probable that calcium ammonium nitrate will be substituted

at these levels of application in the future.

/3 No recommendations are made for control of stalk borers. These may prove

to be serious pests as area of maize increases, and a dusting treatment

with lindane or an equivalent insecticide could well be required.

ANNEX 7Page 14

48. The expected effect of the project on production of maize is afunction of the increased nunibers of growers, increased size of maize plotand enhanced yields. Together these are projected to result in productionincreases from estimated total production in 1975 (Year 1) of 6,000 tons toover 76,000 tons by 1979 (Year 5) as summarized below:

Year1 2 3 4 5

Traditional (0.25 ha plot)Nunber of growers 27,000 26,000 24,000 16,000 10,000Area planted (ha) 6,750 6,500 6,000 4,000 2,500Production at 900 kg/ha (tons) 6,000 5,850 5,400 3,600 2,250

Intermediate (0.5 ha plot)Number of growers - 1,000 4,000 12,000 26,000Area planted (ha) - 500 2,000 6,000 13,000Production at 2,000 kg/ha (tons) - 1,000 4,000 12,000 26,000

Advanced (1.0 ha plot)Number of growers - 200 1,400 5,000 12,000Area planted (ha) - 200 1,400 5,000 12,000Production at 4,000 kg/ha (tons) - 800 5,600 20,000 48,000

49. A del b-Aget for maifze, camparing traditional, intermteiate andadvanced technology on the basis of the above yield assumrptions and a priceof =0 O'.064/k (trbl 5), sws that r.et retu=Iso -per IL-a excluding1 lauv

costs, and returns to labor improve markedly as technology levels are lifted:

NLe.t tunns/,a exc ' cu gturLrs to LiaborTechnology - Labor Costs () (PN/manday)

Traditional 54.60 0.58L.Mtermuedt:i'ate= J.UJ . I i JAdvanced 214.65 1.65

F. urcunidnuts

Backoi d

50. Grouridnuts (Arachis hypogea) are grown throughout the project areabut are of greatest commercial imporrance in drier, northern locations whichare clirmatically less well suited to cotton production. Production levelsmay be inferred froim purchases by the NSiM which have averaged 21,000 tonsannuallv in recent years (Table 2). State authorities estimate that dom-estic disappearance is equivalent to 15 percent of NSMB purchases. On

ANNEX 7Page 15

this basis therefore, total production is probably of the order of 24,000tons.

51. The Nigerian groundnut crop is grown primarily for oil and aver-age kernels contain about 45% oil with a Free Fatty Acid (FFA) content oftwo to three percent. Kernel size is typically small but a small propor-tion of larger than average kernels is bought by the NSMB in its Hand Pic-ked Selected (HPS) grade which commands a premium price. HPS kernel pro-duction is mnlikely to be of major significance in the project. Yieldsof groundnuts grown under traditional systems, which include multiple in-tercropping wide spacing and late planting, vary considerably but areprobably of the order of 650 kg/ha of shelled nuts. At this yield leveland accepting the above production assumption, area planted, on a solecrop basis, is about 37.000 ha. The high labor requirement and the presentcomparatively unattractive returns from the crop probably limit averagegroundnut plot sizes to about 0.5 ha. However, plot sizes are nrobablvsomewhat larger on farms which grow the crop for sale to the NSMB. Theseare located mainly in the north of the nroject area.

52. A long series of agronomic trials and a number of selection andbreeding programs by staff of the IAR have resulted in the formulation ofa number of recommended nractices for gronldnut production. These re-gularly lead to a doubling of kernel yields over traditional practices.More advanced technolog, including the us1e of fungicidal sprays to controlcercospora leaf spot disease is still under investigation and may be avail-able for dissem4nation in the near future. However, a number of questionsstill attach to the technical and economic viability of certain factors.

53. For these reasons, only one level of improved technology hasbeen suggested. This approximates to the practices recommiended by ETLS.The practices proposed, which are outlined below, would be fostered by theprov-.ision of a phys4calI pack-age of input-s -including seed, see' dressing,fertilizer and advice. This would follow the lines of a successful ground-nut~ J- sedpouto po ti eghnborling Kano StCate.

54. The proposed level of improved technolo would incorporate earlyplanting, i.e. shortly after the first rains, on land which has been pre-pared as for cotto-L (para 17) FertiLizer, slngle sprhp at 75 kg

per ha, should be applied as a band in the old furrows before splitting tomIIale new ri.Udges. S eed wo-LUd lue of th vardlet .y SJV.L which should bue shelledshortly before planting and dressed with Aldrex T or Fernasan D againstseed anLdA soiL borne diseases . Seed sloull be planted at two weverky 23 cm-(9 in) on the top of the ridges i.e. ,a seed rate of 35-40 kg/ha. Weedingand eartL'IILng up should bUe carri'Ledu out to minim.ize coUitpet'LtLion but shouidcease once pegging starts. Harvesting should begin immediately the cropreaches matur'Lty. Pod aamage should be avoided by carefui lifting. Tnecrop should be dried by inverting plants on the ridge i.e. with pods up-permost for about six days. Thereafter the pods should be handpicked andtransported to an appropriate site for decortication. Care is needed,

A?N,EX 7

Page 16

paricu nla~rly Iin li fting, d ~,4ing &ndA p^kin to zv4 th crato cn--…~~b' '~J '-~ k'~ '--' " W CXVWLU AL1IC %.;LC:LIUL[ UI. CUH-

ditions favoring the development of the fungus Aspergillus flavus, res-ponsible for the carcingogen, aflatoxln which has been …r-smit… - -n-1LCUd10U.L~LLWU UHl

mouldy groundnuts.

Effect of the Project

55. The improved groundnut technology proposed for the project is al-ready well established, Its rate of spread has been limited largely by tbeinadequacy of technical assistance and input supply services. For these re-asons, the rate of uptake under the project is expected to be rapid. ByYear 5 (1979), some 26,000 farmers (52 percent) are expected to be usinghe ir.provedU technology as shown below:

YearGroundnut Farmers 1 2 3 4 STraditional 50,000 47,300 43,300 36,000 24,000Improved /1 - 2,700 6.700 14,000 26,000

Total 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000

/1 There are undoubtedlv some farmers applvine fertilizer and 8eA A dveagingto their groundnuts in the project area. However, it is unlikely thatmore than a handful will be applying the full pai-kagie nf inn,its whenthe project is initiated.

56. It is not expected that the average farmer producing groundnutsfor sale to NSh" will increase the size of his plot beyond 0.75 ha. Onthis basis then, the area of commercial groundnuts could be expected to in-crease as follows (in ha):

YearAra 2 3 4 5

Traditional 37,000 35,000 32,000 26,500 17,500I roved - 2,000 5,000 10,500 19,500

Total 37,000 37,000 37,000 37,000 37,000

,, P L r Louct.ion oL groUILUIIULt WUU±U L[Us 'Lncrease trom an estimatea24,000 tons in Year 1 to about 35,000 tons by Year 5 as detailed below (intons).

ANNEX 7'I- - 4-7

nrage: i I

YearP rod.4ucItin1 3 o4

TradU.L.tiona'al (650. kg/ha) 2 0 2LLaI 2t2,JJ5 20,'-8I0 OV 17,22.,I 1L,37J

Improved (1,200 kg/ha) - 2,400 6,000 12,600 23,400

Ioal 24,0 2,1U z02,ouu 29,Z8 J4,775

58. A model budget for groundnuts comparing traditional and improvedtechnology on the above yield assumptions is given in Table 6. At an as-sumed farm gate price of NO.05/kg, net returns per ha excluding labor costs,and returns to labor are both significantly improved by the adoption ofthe technology recommended under the project thus:

Net Returns per ha Return to Laborexcludine Labor (N) (NWmandav)

Traditional technolozv 28.50 -03Improved technology 50.37 0.41

G. Cowneas

Background

59. Cowpeas (vigna unguiculata) occupy an important place in trad-iitlnnl Niavin4n d4ets= They prvnudd valuablea U000tahlea protein feor sbshis-… ______ ~__ -- 1I…- - - - - - - -

tence farmers and some cash income when surplus production is sold. The cropis seldom. -!anted sole a-id norma- forms one part of a number of crop mix-'tures of varying complexity. Under these circumstances yields vary widely.Futrther, betause of Y.e an of i pet to wt. b

before and after flowering, yields rarely average more than 200 kg/ha ofshelled peas. Local varieties have both upright and spre ohra.teretithose producing a pale (whitish) colored seed are preferred.

60. Research on the crop has isolated major insect pests and estab-llish.-Leud the I.mportance of. their control fLor iLncreasedU production. * ij2 'rpests include Ootheca mutalilis, a leaf eating beetle, Alcidodes leucogrammus,a weevil which, in both the adult and larval for.-…-Maruca testulalis, the larva of whicV bore into and feed on young flowerscausi g A _~ _n_~__;them_ _w U V _ L v kta___u_ J .__ _-- .1-

LLO.LLI~ LLLLIL LU ULUp r~ULLd.LIL~ VdL±U1U~a WCCV±i. WILLU1LLy±d A. ±LS eggs LIn

green pods wherein thelarvae feed and pupate within the seeds. Further, antL.Ub L o ugs Lin LAM order H'em iLLa feedu on green pods caus'ng premature

drying and shrivelling.

61. Improved practices, including sole cropping, the use of improveduprLght varieties, such as Kwarra, phosphatic fertilizer and insecticidal

ANNEX 7Page 18

spraying result in ten fold yield increases over traditional yields. The

latter treatment on sole cropped cowpeas is the most significant Presenl:

recommendations are for six weekly sprays containing 20 percent DDT and two

percent gamma BHC at the rate of 5.5 liters of concertrate mixed in 109 l:i-

ters of water per ha. This recommendation is under review following inves-

tigation of ULV techniques.

Project Proposals

62. No data are available on area presently planted with cowpeas but

it is unlikely that the crop is grown widely in sole stand. Th1e project

would introduce cowpeas as a sole crop to those farmers who wished to grow

cotton using advanced technology since such farmers would already own ULV

sprayers and be competent in their use. It is not expected that large plots

would be planted on average and a mean size of 0.25 ha has been asswuned,

63. Two levels of technology are proposed. Their main elements are

summarized below in comparison with the traditional system.

Traditional Intermediate Advanced

Cropping Mixed Sole Sole

Variety Local Local Improved

Type Upright or Upright Upright

spreading

Spacing Variable 30 cm x 1 m 30 cm x 1 m

Fertilizer Nil 50 kg single 100 kg single

superphosphate/ha superphosphate/ha

Insect control Nil ULV spraying as recommended by IAR

Average yieldshelled peas(kg/ha) 200 900 1,200

64. It is expected that uptake of improved technology would closely

follow cotton since materials, equipment and techniques for spraying cow-

peas aDproximate those used for cotton, and the benefits are considerable

(para 65). For these reasons, it is expected that most farmers with one

season's exnperience of spraying cotton would also grow cowpeas with project

advice and assistance. Estimated number of such farmers, the area under im-

proved techniques and their effects on production are as follows:

A 1 CTrJ /

Page 19

Year1 2 3 4 5

Number of Farmers

Intermediate - 1,000 2,000 4,000 7,000Advanced 500 1,600 3,500 5,000

Total - 1,500 3,600 7,500 12,000

Area (ha)

Intermediate )Plots - 250 500 1,000 1,750Advanced )0.25 ha - 125 400 875 1,250

Total - 375 900 1,875 3,000

Incremental Production

Intermediate (0.7 tons/ha) - 175 350 700 1,225Advanced (1.0 tons/ha) - 125 400 875 1,250

Total - 300 750 1,575 2,475

65. Model budgets for one ha of cowpeas grown under traditional, in-termediate and advanced technology are at Table 7. They show that attrac-tive net returns excluding labor costs, and returns to labor can be obtainedusing improved technology, assuming a farm gate price of NO.091/kg - whichis well below current prices in the project area.

Technology Traditional Intermediate Advanced

Net returns excluding laborcosts (N/ha) 16.20 56.75 80.30

Return to labor (N/manday) 0.25 0.64 0.88

ANNEX 7Page 20

H. Summary and Conclusions

66. Absence of basic data on farming systems in the proiect areaseverely hampers assessment of project effects on a farm holding basis.Tables 8 and 9 Dresent Droduction costs and returns on the basis of hypo-thetical farmers at full development, one of whom applies the full packageof the most advanced nractices to all Droiect crops except groundnuts: theother does the same to all project crops except cotton. This distinctionis drawn because it is unlikely that any farmer would have both advancedcotton and advanced groundnuts on his farm simultaneously. The salientnninte of Tahlpe R and 9 are oresented below on the basis of farms of 3.5ha and assumptions made in model budgets for individual crops presented inTabhleQ through 7.

Per Farm of 3.5 ha Advanced Advancedat Full Develeopment TvrnFtinnal rntotnn Crmiineinita

-------- N -------

Gross returns 113.34 455.10 404.18Total direct costs 141.29 300.93 262.13Net returns with labor (27.95) 154.17 142.05Net returns without labor 107.26 345.19 339.84Mandays 276 368 377

Ru to lzbor (=/I.u..d,.,A., 0. A 0. 0.90

67. Although the above figures represent hypothetical situations, theyr.evertheless i'lluOstrate the volmUCe of benefit&sJ possible Ur.eAr the pro J

In terms of individual crops, on a per ha basis, farmers could expect toobUta'Ln thle follo-wing range of net returns, includingU and exc.LUUdiLn labcosts at the different levels of proposed technology:

ANNEX 7Page 21

Level of Technology Traditional Intermediate Advanced

Net Return/ha including LaborCotton (18.05) (19.48) (13.24)

Groundnuts (29.10) - (24.03)

Sorghum 3.25 42.40 51.30

Maize ( 1.80) 36.15 136.65

Cowpeas (22.80) 5.15 25.70

Net Retun/ha excluding LaborCotton 19.00 31.20 45.46Groundnuts 28.50 - 50.37

Sorghum 54.25 101.20 120.90

Maize 54.60 105.75 214.65

Cowpeas 16.20 56.75 80.30

Return to Labor -------- N per manday -----

Cotton 0.31 0.37 0.46Groundnuts 0.30 - 0.41

Sor2hum 0.64 1.03 1.04

Maize 0.58 0.91 1.65Cnwneas 0.25 0.64 0.88

68. Although all proposed improved technology gives good returns in

comparison with traditional methods, the attractions Of Rrain crops, and

particularly maize, at the advanced level are most striking. They present

good reasons for the pnroected ra id incorporation of maize in farming sy-stems and the implied decline in popularity of sorghum and millet grown

-nder traditional conditions.

69. At intermediate technoloay levels the crons are more competitive.

Cotton and cowpeas still lag, however, and contribute no more than 29 and

54 percert res-ectively of expected net returns excluding labor obtained

from maize.

70. Too much should not be read into the above figures in view ofthe weakness of the data upon which they are based. They are comparable.

however, and are thus indicative of the relative costs and returns obtain-

ab'le fromm proposeA p:o4pect crons.

ANNEX 7Table 1

NIGERIA

NORTH WESTERN STATE

Gusau Agricultural Development Project

Seed Cotton Purchases by the Northern States Marketing Board by Years (long tons)

Northern Sokoto ProjectYear States Province Area 2/

1960/61 148,962 28,697 - 3/q~~~~~~) /> IZ o nen - a,

196O1/2 83,) 3 73 1U 047

1962/63 144,004 31,285 _1963/63 128,585 26,215 -1964/65 128,684 21,661 -1965/66 127,296 27,522 -1966/67 146,368 23,9051967-/8 75,519 12,157 -1968/69 166,276 36,331 15,407

1969/70 271,597 59,201 25,1591970/71 111,389 25,425 9,5231971/72 - 19,353 8,3281972/73 4/ - - 16,400

Mean 139,277 26,883 14,964

Mean as % ofnorthern Statespurchases 100 19 11

l/ Derived from the National Agricultural Development Committee, Report of theStudy Group on Cotton and other Fibers, Lagos 1971.

2/ Data supplied by MANR North Western State.3/ Not available.12/ Estimate.

ANNEX 7Table 2

NIGERIA

NORTH hESTERN STATFE

Gusau Agricultural Development Project

Groundnut Purchases by the Northern States Marketing Board by Years (long tons) -/

Northern Sokoto ProjectYear States Province Area _ /

1960/61 619,051 85,923 -

1961/62 687,987 84,002 -1962/63 870,795 106,849 _1963/64 802,500 113,782 _1964/65 675,884 90.,797 _1965/66 921,358 97.141 -1966/67 1,053,668 134,125 -1967/68 665,372 85.968 35001968/69 753,626 76,206 26,0001969/70 633,782 70;986 20q000n1970/71 280,173 43,294 13,0001971/72 301,775 912,000

Mean 688.831 85932 21,200

Mean as T ofnorthern Statespurchases in 12 3

1T/ tim-" Tr from Na+t onal Agric-ltural Develop,nt Co-4- - Report of the St-udyGroup on Groundnuts, Lagos 1971.

2/ Estimated from V data on groundnut grading at stationsj swEing the project area.3/ Not available.

N IGERIA

NORTH Wv ESTERN STATE

Gusau AgricujLtura]l Develo pen Pro,,ect

COe Hectare Cotton Budgets (Naira)

Actual IncremientaLF'aLrmer Catiegorf 1/ .E II IIT I II III

Yield seed cotton (,k,Ahia) 250 54° 1..100 - 290 8',0

Gross return alt NO.,08/kg 2/ 20.00 43.20 88.oo - 23.20 68.00

ExpenditureCultivations 3/ 27.30 28.4o 28.4o - 1.10 1.10

Fert,iliz,er appliation 3/ ._ 5. 5.OO 5 .00 5.0C

Spraying 3/ - 1.10 - - 1.10

Elarvesting 3/ 9.75 17.28 24.20 - 7.53 ]4.45

Sub total: Labor 37.O5 5o.68 58.70 - 14l3 21.65

Tools 1.00 1.00 1.00 - - -

Fertilizer: I'J 4/ 5/ - 5.50 5 50 - 5.50 5O50

,2 5 i 6/ 5.5 - 550 55(

Insecticide 20).40 - - 20.4(

Sprayer / 7/ 7'.50 - - 7.5(Batteries 47 2.64 - 2.64

Sub tota:L: Materials 1.00 1.2.00 42.54 - 11.00 ,L .514

Tote'l Costs 38.o5 62.68 101.24 - 2'.13 - 63.19

ReturnsNet return with :Labor (18-05) (19.h48) (13.24) - (1.93) 4.81L

Net return without labor 19.00 31.20 45>.46 - 12.20 26.h46

Total mandays 8/ 62.00 84.o0 98.00 - 23.00 36.00

Return to l)'bor (N/manday) 0.31 0.37 (.46 - 0.53 0.7.3

1/ Fairmer Category I: Traditional cotton growers; Categoriy I],: Intermediate us,ing fertilizers; Category III: Advanced

uEing fertilizers and insecticidies. - 0,

2/ Projected farn gate price. 3/ Labor charged at P0.10 per manhour ](all fami.ly labor).

. Includes interest at; 100% and service charge 10%.§/ At NO.C44/kg:12' sulphate of amnmonia.

tA At 4O.C0U4,/kg:1615 kg boronated single sur.erphosphate.7/e Renlaced after two -earr.7/t AVerage six hours ner -mFnd&v.

NIGERIA

NORLTH VESTEN STATE

Gusau Agricultura]l Deveolop int Pro ectOne Hectare Srhum w gts (Naira)

Actual Incrementsl.Farmer Categor. 1/ o II II E II I

Tield threshed grain (kNgha) 750 1,500 2,000 - 750 1,250,ross ireturns at NO.075Ahg 1 0/ 56.25 112.50 5CI.OO - 56.25 93.75

,xpendLtureCultivations 3/ 43.80 46.80 50C.40 - 3.00 6.60Fertilizer applicatio0 7.20 3.00 7.20Harvesting 3/ 7.20 9.00 12.00 _ 1.80 4.80

Sub total: Lalbor 51.00 58.80 69.60 - 7.80 18.60

.Fertilizer: N' 4/ 5/ - 4.40 13.20 - 4&.40 13.20: 5 O /6/ 3.510 5.25 - 3.50 5.25

2 5 :/ 7/ 3.25 - _ 3.25Seed etc., 4/ 8/ 1.00 2.40 6.40 - 1.40 5.40Tools 1.00 1.00 1.00 - - -

'Sub total: Materials 2.00 U.30 259.10 - 9.30 27.10

T'otal: Costs 53.00 70.10 98.70 - 17.10 45.70Returns

'Net return with labor 3.25 42.40 51.30 - 39.15 48.05'Net retum without lalbor 54.25 101.20 120.90 - 46 .9 5 66.65Total mandays 9/ 85 98 116 - 13 31Returns to labbor (N/manday) o.64 1.03 1.04 - 3.61 2.15

7 Category I: Traditional sorghum grower; Category UI; Intermediate level of improved technology: Category III; Advancedlevel ol' imrproved techno-Logy4

2/ Based on a calculated price in the northern States (Kaduna) assuniing import substitutiorL.3/ Labor at NO.10/manhour (alL family labor).7/ IncLudes interest at 10% and service charIge 10%.7/ At NO.0144/kg :100 lcg sulphate of amnonia in Category II, and 300 kg/ha in Category III.§/ At 140O.035/kg:100 kg single superphosphate in Category7 II, and :L50 kg/ha in Categor-y TTI.7/ At NiO.0)5/kcg: 50 kg muriate of potash in Category III./ Local varieties at 110 kg/ha in Category I. Dwarf varieties at 12 kg/hAE in Category II. HIbrids at 16 kg/ha in cr

Category III. Prices include dressing costs. IB/ Average manday of siK hours.

NIGEELIA

NORTH WeESTE;RN STATE

Gusauriicultur a1 Deavelopment ProjectOne HectMare Iaize Budg (Na Lra)

Actual IncrementalFarnxKr Cate.or3r 1 I i ; III

Yield shelled grain (Icg/ha) 900 2,,000 4.000 - 1,100 :3.100Gross Return at N0.061i/kg 2/ 57.60 128.00 2%6.00 - 70.40 198.140

jEcpenditureWLttva8 on 3/ 4-5.60 51.60 5;2.20 - 6.00 6.60Fertilizer appJication 3/ - 3.00 7.20 - 3.00 7.20Harvesting 3/ 10.80 15.00 :L8.6o - 4.20 7.80

Sub total: Labor 56.40 69.60 7r8.oo - 13.20 21.60

Fertilizer: N 14/ /- 11.o00 l6.50 - 11.00 16.50: P~ 0, t6/ 5.25 7.00 - 5.25 7'.00

: 2' 11/7/ _. 3.25 - _ 3.25

Seed etc. 4/ 8/ 2.00 5.00 13.60 - 3.00 11.60Tools 1.00 1.00 1.OC) - - -

Sub total: Materia3Ls 3.00 22.25 la1.35 - 19.25 38.35

Total Costs 59.40 91.85 119.35; - 32.45 59.095

RleturnsNet return with labor (1.80) 36.15 136.65 - 37.95 138.45Net return without labor 54.60 105.75 214.65 - 51.15 160.05Total mandays 9,/ 94 LL6 130 - 32 36Returns to -labor (N/Ansanday) o.58 0.91 1.65 _ 1.6o 14.45

17i.tegory I: Traditional maize growers; Category II: Inter7ediate, usinig improved varieties and fertilizer;Category III: Advanced, using hybrid and heavy fertilizer.

2/ Average of the estimated producer prices derived from the probable prices of imported maize at northern and soulherrLmarkets; tlhese would be NO.79/kg and NO.049 respectively.3/ Labor at NO.10/manhour (family :Labor). 4/ Includes interest at 10%0 and service charge.7/ At NO.044A-g:25>0 ksg: sulphate of ammonia in Category II, and 375 kg in Category III.Z/ At, NO.035/cg:l5O kg; single superphosphate in Category II, and 200 kg in Category III.7/ At, NO.065/kg:50 kg muriate of potash in Catelgory III (based on Sheill list price + 10%).

TS/ Local varietie's at 20 kg/ha and NO.10/kg in Category I; improved varieties at, 25 kg/ha costing NO.20/kg for Category II;hybrids at 314 kg/ha costing N0.140/kg for Category III.

9/ Average mandayr of 6 hours.

NIGERIA

NORTH WE,STERN STATEt}usau Agricultoural Devlopment; Pro-ject

One Hect,are Grotmdnut Budgets (Naira)

Ac tuaL IncrementalFarrmer ,ategorv l/ I II I I

Yield of shelled kernels (kg/hA) 65() 1,200 - 550Gross retun1 �x NO.05/kg 2/ 32.50 60.)00 - 27.50

Mndi-turesCultivation 3/ 32.4o 38.13o0 6. 4OHarvesting 37 25.20 348 -0 _ 9.60Ferti-Lizer application 3/ - O. 0. - o.80P,70 fertilizer 4/ 5/ _ 2.D63 2.63S8ed :3.00 6.00 ( L 5/ - 3.00Tools 1.00 1.00 - _

Total Cost 6:L.60 84.03 - 22.43

Net return with labor (29.10) (24.03) - 5.07Net return without labor 28.50 50.37 - 21.87Total mandays 7/ 96 1L24 - 28Return to labor' (N/manday) 0).30 O.4l 0.78

T7hategory I: Traditional grouLndnut grower; Category II employs a package of recomnmended practices including improvedseed and fertilizer.

2/ Projected farm gate price.3/ Labor at MO.l0 per rranhour (all family labor).1/ Includes interest at, 10%q and ser'vice charge 10%,.&/ Single superphosphate at, NO., 035/kg and 75 kgr/ha

m/ Improved seed at, 40 kg/ha and costing NO(.15/kg with seed dressing.7/ Average of six hours per manday,r.

NIGERILANORTH ESTERN STATE

Gusau AgricuturaL. Dnvecpmerlt Project

One Hectare Copea ets (Naira)

ActuaL IncrementalFarmer CadteRcL - I II III I II III

Yield shelled c wpeac (kg/ha) 200 900 1,200 - 700 1,000Gross return 4 N0.091/kg 2/ 113.20 81.94) 109.20 - 63.70 91.00

!bcpenditureCultivatorL 3/ 293.40 32.40l 32.40 - 3.00 3.00Harvesting 37 9.60 15.0) 18.00 - 5.40 8.40FertiLizer application 3/ 3.00 3.00 - 3.00 3.00Spraying 3/ 1.20 1.20 - 1.20 1.20

Subt total: Labor 39.00 51.60 54.60 o 12.60 15.60

FertiliLzer hi 5/ 1.75 3.50 - 1.75 3.50Insecticide s 47 6/ 20.40 20.40 - 20.40 20.40Tools :L.0O 1.00 1.00 - -Seeads 1/ 7/ 1.00 2.0) 4.00 - - 3.00

Subi total: Materials 2.00 25.15 28.90 - 22.15 26.90Subi total: Labor 39'.0C 51.60 54.60 - 12.60 15.60

Tot-al Cost 41.00 76.75 83.50 - 34.75 42.50

NtJet retumn with labor (22.80) 5.15 25.70 - 28.95 48.50lNet retumn without labor 16.20 56.715 80.30 - 41.55 64.10Total marLdays 8/ 65' 89 91 - 24 26Return to labor in N per manday 0.25 0.614 0.88 - 1.73 2.47

17 Tategory I: Traditional covpea grower; Category, II: Internrdiate, using local seecd, low fertilizer and insecticide;Category III: Advanced using improved seed, higher fertilizer application and insecticide.

2/ Projected farm gate price.3/ Labor at NO.10 per manhour (all family labor).

17/ Includies interest at 10% and service charge 10%.'/ Single superphosphate at NC.035/kg and 5'0 kg/ha in Cate-gory jI and 100 kg/ha in Categoriy III. HCDt57 Assuming six sprav3 with ULV equipment charged to cotton crop_.'/ Intermediate frrme'rs use 18 kg/ha lonal seed at NO.11k/kg; Advanced fa>rmers use inproved seed, 18 kg/ha at N0.22/kg.8/ Average six houars per manday.

!IIGERIA

NORTH wIESTERN STATE

Gusiau Aericultural DeveloPment Project

Sunmary de! Budget of Advanctd Faratr UtiliLtinR all Project Services- 'otton -'

Other Ground-Cotton sorg= Miaitze Cereals CoDeas auts Others 2/ Total

Area (ha)Traditional 0.70 1.30 0.10 0.10 0.16 0.54 0.60 3.50

Advwned 1.10 0.50 1.00 - 0.25 0.65 3.50

Increnental 0.40 (0.80) 0.90 (0.10) 0.09 (0.54) 0.05 ()

Yields (kg/ba)Traditional 250 150 900 - 200 650 -

Advanced 1,:100 2,000 4,000 - 1,200 - - -

Incremental 850 1,250 3,100 - 1,000

Production (kg/plot)Traditional L75 975 90 - 32 351Advanced 1,:210 1,o00 4,o0o - 300 -

Incremental 1,035 25 3,910 - 268 (351)

Gross Returns (N/kg) 0.08 0.075 0.064 - 0.091 0.05 -

Trarditional (N/Plot) 14.00 73.12 5.76 - 2.91 17.55 - 113.34Advanced (N/plot), 96.80 75.00 256.00 - 27.30 - - 455.10

Incrementa.l (N/plot) 82.80 1.88 250.24 - 24.39 (17.55) - 341.76

labor Coats (N/plot)Troiditional 25.93 66.30 5.64 - 6.24 31.10 - 135.21

Advanced 64.57 34.80 78.00 - 13.65 - - 191.02Incremental 38.64 (31.50) 72.36 - 7.41 (31.10) - 55.81

Material Cos4ts (N/plot)Traiditlonail 0.70 2.60 0.30 - 0.32 2.16 - 6.08

Advanced 46.79 14.55 41.35 - 7.22: - - 109.91

Increnental 46.09 11.95 41.05 - 6.90 (2.16) - 103.83

Total Costs (N/plot:)Tratditiomal 26.63 68.90 5.94 - 6.56 33.26 - 141.29

Advanced 111.36 49.35 119.35 - 20.87 - - 300.93

Incremental 84.73 (19.55) 113.41 - 14.31. (33.26) - 159.64

Net leturna with Labor (N/plot)Traditioals (12.63) 4.22 (0.18) - (3.65) (15.71) - (27.95)

Advanced (14.56) 25.65 136.65 - 6.4:1 - - 154.17Incresental (1.93) 21.43 136.83 - 10.08 1]5.71 - 182.12

Net Naturna vithout Labor (N/plot)Traditional 13.30 70.52 5.46 - 2.5 9 15.39 - 107.26Advanced 50.01 60.45 214.65 - 20.08 - - 345.19

Io:rewntal 36.71 (10.07) 209.19 - 17.49 (15.39) - 237.93

NandsvL (per plot)Traditional 43 llo 9 7 10 52 45 276Advanced 108 58 130 - 23 - 49 368Increoental 65 (52) 121 (7) 13 (52) 4 92

Returns to Labor (9/manday)Traditional 0.31 0.64 0.61 - 0.215 0.30 - 0.39

Advanced 0.46 1.04 1.65 - 0.87 - - 0.94

Incre,,ental 0.15 0.40 1.04 - 0.6i _ 2.56

1/ Aestueing uptake of inproved technology at the advanced level for cottonr,sorgh-a, maize and ioapeas, but vith otheir crop. so longer occupying a major part of farm °a,ctivities. Data based on unit roodel budgets for indivi-ual crops, Tables 3 through 7.

2/ Ass.msing 75 andays per ha for 'others'.

May 7, 1973

NIGERIA

CRT WESRN STATE

Dusau Rricul urLl ve Pt Pro1eet

_urHodel Budtet of advanced Parmier tiUzins all ProJect 8ertie Grodnuts

other Groumd-Cotton Sor Maine Ce -U 5a nuot Qt l 3!/ Total

Ara (ba)Traditional 0.70 1.30 0.10 0.10 0.16 0.54 0.60 3.50Advaced 0.50 1.00 0.45 0.16 0.75 0.64 3.50Incrmntal (0.70) (0.80) 0.90 0.35 - 0.21 0.04 -

Yields (a/ba)Traditional 250 750 900 500 200 650 - -Advanced' - 2,000 4,000 750 - 1,i'00 - -Incremental (250) 1,250 3,100 250 - 550 - -

Production (kg/plot)Traditional 175 975 90 50 32 351 - -Advanced - 1,000 4,000 337 - S00 - -Incremental (175) 25 3,910 287 - 549 - -

Gross Return (N/lkg) 0.08 0.075 o.064 0.075 0.091 0.05 - -Traditional (N/plot) 14.00 73.12 5.76 3.75 2.91 17.55 - 117.09Advanced (N/plot) - 75.00 256.00 25.27 2.91 45.00 - 404.18Incremental (N/plot) (14.00) 1.88 250.24 21.52 - 27.45 - 287.09

Labor Costs (N/plot)Traditional 25.93 66.30 5.64 5.10 6.24 31.10 - 140.31Advanced - 34.80 78.00 22.95 6.24 55.80 - 197.79Incremental (25.93) (31.50) 72.36 17.85 - 24.70 - 57.48

Materials Costs (N/plot)Traditional 0.70 2.60 0.30 0.20 0.32 2.16 - 6.28Advanced - 14.55 41.35 0.90 0.32 7.22 - 64.34Incremental (0.70) 11.95 41.05 0.70 - 5.06 - 58.06

Total Costs (N/plot)Traditional 26.63 68.90 5.94 5.30 6.56 33.26 - 146.59Advanced - 49.35 119.35 23.85 6.56 63.02 - 262.13Incremental (26.63) (19.55) 113.41 18.55 - 29.76 - 115.54

Net Returns with Labor (N/plot)Traditional (12.63) 4.22 (0.18) (1.55) (3.65) ([15.71) - (29.50)Advanced - 25.65 136.65 1.42 (3.65) (18.02) - L42.05Incrematal 12.63 21.43 136.83 2.97 - (2.31) - 171.55

Net Returns without Labor (N/plot)Traditional 13.30 70.52 5.46 3.55 2.59 15.39 - 110.81Advanced - 60.45 214.65 24.37 2.59 37.78 - 339.64Incremental (13.30) (10.07) 209.19 20.82 - 22.39 - 229.03

Nandsn (per plot)Traditional 43 110 9 8 10 52 45 277Advanced - 58 130 38 10 93 48 377Incremental (43) (52) 121 30 - 41 3 100

Returins to Labor (Ntmanday)Tralitional 0.31 0.64 0.61 0.44 0.26 0.30 - 0.40Advanced - 1.04 1.65 0.64 0.26 0.41 - 0.90Incremental 0.40 1.04 0.20 - 0.11 _ 2.29

1/ ~Aswsmang aptake ovf 1npr,aved technology at th, advanced level for sorghu,, maize and groumdnuts, but with ccotton no longeir cultivated. Data based on unit model abudgets for individual ,crops, Tables 3 through 7. m2/ Assuming 'other cereals' at the advanced lev,el consist of sorghum grown traditionally.

3/ Assuming 75 mandays per ha for 'others'.

May 7. 1973

NIGERIANORTH ViESrERI STATE

Guisau &riaultural Devel2ent 2oect

Estimated Effect of Project on Cotton Area and Prodution ?y Years

YearBefore Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 14 Year 5Develop- Incre- In cre- Incre- Incre- Incre-Mnnt mental. 2otal menital Total raental Total mental Total mental Total

Nunber of Cotton GrowersTradlitional 55,200 53,900 50,,700 45,200 37,500 31,0)00

Inte rmediate 950 940 1..890 1,010 2,,900 1,200 4,100 1,700 5,80oo 1,300 7,100

Advanced 350 1,34o 1.,690 2,810 14,500 4,800 9,.300 5,900 15,200 6,200 21,4(0)

Total 56,500 5i',480 58,,100 58,60oo 58,500 59,5(0

Estimated Cotton Area (ha)Traciticnal (ainsing 0.7 haper grower) 39,530 38,600o 36,200 32,100 27,000 :22,200

Intermediate (arsuming 0.8 haper grower) 750 710 1l,460 1,140 2,600 900 3,500 1,000 4,500 1,0CO 5,500

Advanced (as sumiLng 1.1 haper grower) 380 1,,440 1,820 3,040 14,860 5,114i lOOOO 6,3o0 16,300 6,800 23,100

Tota,l 40,660 4:L2, 88() 43,660 45,600 47,800 50,800

Estimated Production of SeedCotl tons

Traditional (at 250 kg/ha) 9,500 9,30() 8,800 7,800 6,1400 5,300

Intermediate (at 540 kg/ha) 400 390 790 410 1,200 500 1,700 750 2,450 500 2,950

Advamced (at. 1,100 kghaa) 430 1,610 2, 04(0 3,260 55,300 5,,800 11,100 7,100 18,200 7,8c00 26,000

Total 10,,330 1:2,130 15,300 20,600 27,050 34,250

CD U

0

NIGERIA

NORH 'WESTERN STATE

Gusau Agricul.tural Development Prcoject,

Estiimated _Chaes in Area o±C Cereals

Year1 2 3 I4. 5

SorghulmEstimated area grown traditlonaLly 88,700 87,800 &E4,900 76,60t) 59,300Estimated area grown under intermediate technology - 500 1,500 [4,500 9,000Estimated area grown under advanced technology 1(OO 250 500 1,500

Estimated total sorghum areaL 88,700 88,400 86,650 8L,600 69,800

Ma.izeEstimated area grown traditionally 6,800 6,600 6,oc h4,000 2,500Estimated area grown under Lntenediate technology - 500 2,000 6,003 13,000CIEstimated area grown under advanced technoloigy 200 ,4co 5,o00o 12,00CI

Fstimated total maize area 6,800 7,300 9,400 15,000 27,500

Other Cereals,Estimated area in other cereals 6,800 6,600 6,25;0 5,700 5,000

2ercDLtje of Total Cereal Area under Different Cereals %……- 86.8 ~~~~ ~ ~~~~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~85.9 82.4T.8 58.0

Tradit:ionl sorghum 86.8 B92.9Intermediate sorghum - 0.5 1.5 4.4 8.8Advanced sorghtim - 0.1 0.3 0.5 1-.5Tradit:ional maize 6.6 6.4 5.9 3.9 2.4Intermediate maize - 0.5 1.9 5.9 12.7Advanced maize - 0.2 1.4 4.9 11.7Ot'her cereals 6.6 6.4 6.1 5.6 4.9

Total cereals 100 100 l()O 100 100

I-i--

NIGERLA

NORTH UESTERN STALTE

GusaL Agricultural Devel0Oent Project

Estimatet1 Changes in GereaLl Production

Erfect'Year ofr thel

1 2 3 4 5 Project- .m , 4-tOflS . e a

Sorgh-um 6 5,30 6.65 5j40 4,7Traditional prodiaction at, 0.75 tonsAha 66,525 65,850 63,675 57,,450 4,475 (:22,050)

Intermediate technology production at 1.5 tons/ha - 750 2,250 6,j750 13,500 :13,500

Advanced technol0gy production at 2.0 tons/ha - 200 500 1,,000 3,000 3,000

Total production 66,525 66,800 66,425 65,,200 60,975 (5,5550)

.1/_ _ _ _ _ ._ _. __ _,% __.. _.- .ee. ._ .___ _

Traditional production 100 98.6 95.9 88,.2 73.0

Intermediate tec'hnology production - 1.1 3.4 10.3 .22.1

Advancedl technology production - 0.3 0.7 1.5 4.9

MaiizeTraditional production at 0.9' tons/ha. 6,12C0 5S9140 5,k4co 3,600 2,250 (3,870)

Intermediate technology production at, 2 tons/ha - l,OO 4,0100 12,000 26,C)00 26,00wo

Advanced technology procilLtion at 4 tons/ha _ 800 5,600 20,0010 48,ooo 48,OO0

TotaL prcduction 6,120 7,740 15,0CK) 35,600 76,250 70,130

Traditional production 10C) 76.B 36.0 10.1 3.C)

Intermeeiiate technology production - 12.'9 26.7 33.7 34.1

Advanced technology production - 10.3 37.3 56.2 62.co

Other CerealsTraditional production at 50D kg/ha 3,1400 3,300 3,125 2,850 2,500 (900)

lPrcentage ofia1, i pro,duction.

ANNEX 7Table 13

NIGERIA

NORTH WESTERN STATE

Gusau Agricultural Development Project

Summary of Yields of Promisi Maize Varieties and Hybrids: IAR SamarukKg/llad

Average1970 1971 1967/1970

Federal Zonal Trial

NC-A 6,308 7,171

NC-B 6,128 6,753

A306 - 7,237-

1West African Regional Trials

Ghana Composite 3 6,140

094 (096) 6,011 9,137X306 - 0,i -

XB10l - 9,734NCB - 7,723

NCB X NCB - 8,119

Samaru Trials

C-8 X A-196 7,252 - 6,786

A-49 X C-33 7,059 - 7,267

BY X C-12 5,968 - 7,o07

BY X C-10 6,931 - 7,148

ANNEX 8Page 1

NIGERIA

NORTH WESTERN STATE

Gusau Agricultural Development Project

Farm Inputs and Credit

1. Cash Sale and Credit Arrangements

Crops presently grown in the project area are mainly traditional,and production has been subject oniy to limited improvements in variety anduse of inputs. The projected project output would be dependent on the in-troduction of technical improvements. Tnese would include the use of im-proved seed, insecticides and fertilizers which are generally beyond the reachof most farmers due to either (a) avaiiability or (b) lack of cash or creditfacilities. Both constraints would be considerably reduced under the project.

2. With improved communications being developed as part of the projectand with increasing demand by some of the larger farmers for ploughing ser-vices, the project would expand an existing Government scheme for mediumterm credit for ox drawn equipment and tractors and medium term credit forULV cotton sprayers.

3. Supply of Inputs. At present there is no commercial retailing offarm inputs in the project area, although this is likely to occur as the proj-ect progresses. Consequently the project, during the disbursement period,would be responsible for procuring farm inputs for cash, and for seasonaland medium term credit. Total inputs valued at N 4.7 million would be procuredby the project under ICB during the development period which would involvenet cash requirements of about N 2.9 million. These inputs would be railedto the project center at Gusau. Under the project, storage facilities, suf-ficient for about 4,000 tons of fertilizer and other inputs, would be con-structed at the Gusau railway yards, together with village stores each with500 ton capacity. Rail to village transportation and handling would be un-dertaken by contractors who in many cases would be LBA transport contractorsusing the back haul from the gins to the village market. A handling chargeof 10% is included in the fertilizer cost to the farmer which would coverhandling and transporting, plus any short term finance charges for inputssupplied for cash.

4. Seasonal inputs include fertilizer, insecticides, seeds and batterysets. Fertilizer would be purchased in 25 kg bags, color marked to differen-tiate between nitrogenous and phosphatic fertilizer. The landed price per mton in the village inclusive of a 10% service charge would be ammonium sulphateN58, single superphosphate N55, boronated single superphosphate N58, and muriate

ANNEX 8Page 2

of potash 1465. Cotton insecticide containing 48% carbaryl would be 141.1 per

liter, and battery sets about N2.4 per set. Improved seeds would be provided

at varying costs (see Tables 1 and 2).

5. Subsidies. It is Federal Government policy to subsidise nitrogenousand phosphatic fertilizers. At presernt fan ers pay 14 40 per m ton for ainnoniunsulphate and N 32 per m ton for single superphosphate (approximately equiva-lent to cif Nigerian ports price). U'nder the project subsidies for these twofertilizers would continue to provide incentive to the farmers and would re-

main in line (and therefore prevent smuggling) w' th farm-Lers outside the project

area within the State and neighboring States. FMG would discuss with projectmanagement any proposed changes of this subsidisation policy. To date miuriate

of potash has hardly been used in northern Nigeria, has not been subsidised,

and would remain so under the project. Conversely it has been Government

policy to subsidise cotton insecticides. In the expectations of increasing

yields by 400% under the project through spraying, and because some 27,000

farmers will be involved compared to the negligible number at present, cottoninsecticides will not be subsidised. Tne subsidy element for fertilizers is

shown in Table 1.

6. Sales of Seasonal Inputs. It is expected that 25% of seasonal in-

puts would be sold for cash at village centers. Payments including the 107%

service charge, would be made to the credit assistants, recorded by cash re-gister, and simultaneously entered in the stores register at the viliage

center. The remaining 75% of seasonal inputs would be sold on credit and an

additional charge of 10% would be made to cover interest (effective interest12%). Sales on credit would by in kind and would be similar to the system

for a cash sale except that they would be registered on the farmer's credit

card. Tables 1, 2, and 3 show the amounts involved. Crop budgets on a per

hectare basis and probable farm budgets are shown in Annex 7. All farm inputs

include service charges and interest charges where relevant. The budgets in-

dicate that generally net incomes per hectare are about doubled as the farmer

moves from a lower to higher production level, and this would provide suf-

ficient incentives for farmer response to project actions.

7. Farm equipment would be procured by the project for sale to farmers

on credit. ULV cotton spraying machines, together with protective gloves and

face mask would be sold for N 15 and the farmer would not be expected to make

a down payment (Table 4). The cost would include a 10% service charge and

interest for two years at 10% per annum. Larger farmers owning from 6-10 ha

of land under cultivation would be offered three year credit terms for the

purchase of an ox drawn equipment set at N 165. The farmer would be expectedto make a down payment of 20% or N 33, and would receive a loan of N 132 re-

payable in three equal installments at 10%, i.e. N53 per annum. Tables 5 and

6 show model budgets for this type of farmer. It should be noted that a rea-

sonable income can be made by contract carting of crops for other farmers.

Farmers receiving ox drawn kits should be experienced farmers using advanced

techniques. Table 4 shows the number of loans likely to be made under the

proiprt. Loans would not be given for oxen since the type of farmer receiv-

ing the ox drawn kit (plough and cart) would be likely to own or have the

means to purchase oxen.

ANNEX 8Page 3

8. Tractor and Equipment. At present the Government supports a totally

uneconomic and inefficient tractor hire service within the project area. This

service would be phased out during the project period and would be replaced

by making loans available for contract tractor operators. About 40 such loans

would be made initially to borrowers with the capacity to make a down payment

of 30% (N 180O) on the cost of the 'kit' N 6,000 (inclusive of service charge).

This would deliberately exclude the small farmers, but would provide sufficient

incentive for existing transport contractors and small businessmen who would

be encouraged to take up tractor hiring. The project would provide mainten-

ance serices-, short training courses for tractor drivers, and would direct

operators to selected area. The 'kit' would include a 65 hp tractor, trailer,

chisel plough and ridger. The proiect management would decide on the standard

make and specifications for the kit, taking into account bidding prices and

local maintenance servires. Thereafter all 'kits' would be of the same make.

The trailer is essential since it extends the operating season and enables

the contractor to enter the transnort business. Each borrower would receive

the equivalent of N 4,200 at 10% interest with equal repayments of N1,325 per

annum for 4 years. The project management would establish realistic and fair

minimum hire rates for contractors and farmers. A typical tractor contractor

budget WoUlA be a- follows:

Table: Tractor Owner Budget

Revenue N

900 hours n 5 per hour = 4,500

Expenditure

1,000 hours N 2.5 per hour -2,500-

Gross income 2,000

Repayment of loan (N 4,200 at 10%

for 4 years) 1,325

Net income 625

(Return on capital N 1,800 = 35%)

9. At the end of the project the tractors could be handling some 3,000-4,000 ha annually, and if successful could be further expanded through lending

from the Nigerian Agricultural Bank.

ANNEX 8Page 4

10. Credit Documents. Seasonal loans would be registered on a farmcredit card against signature of the recipient and medium term loans (exclud-ing loans for sprayers) would be recorded in individual project-farmer creditdocuments. Seasonal credit and medium term credit for sprayers and ox drawnequipment would be established by the Credit Assistant for authorization bythe District Credit Office. Recommendations for tractor loans would be madeby the District Credit Office and authorized by the Credit Manager, afterconsultation with the Senior Credit Officer.

11. (rrdit Recoverv. Marketing within the proiect area is undertakenby private traders and LBA, the latter under very inadequate supervision fromproduce exaniners UJnder this system, which is unlikely to change radically.

it would be impossible to recover credit at the point of sale. Land as asecurity against a loan is also inapprnnriate and in the event of foreclosurewould be impossible to enforce. Security in loan recovery is therefore de--endent on the abilit- of the farmer to substantially inerpeae yields as nro-posed under the project. However, the project would lend to properly super-vised farmers and would recover the loans thronigh a mutual liability systemwhereby a hamlet group of farmers would in the first instance have the rightto ree-Ct individuals whose local 'credit rating' was bad; if a farmer isaccepted the group would be mutually responsible for repayments and for col-lec-tlng aony b%A debts. To ensure that the nroieert recovered its loans fArm-

ers would have to make a 10% deposit which would be held in trust by theproject against seasonal loans. At the end of the crop year (March 31), ifthere were outstanding loans from a particular hamlet, the project would re-cover through .he trust fundd. This fund would have to be increased annuallvto the required amount before any farmers receive credit. If a hamlet repaidl.ess thlan 90% t h en the who.l-e h-muletL would be nenalized and would receive nofurther credit until debts had been fully paid. The hamlets, which are nor-mal.ly coupposedu of familly clans with close ties and disciplines, have beenchosen as the mutually liable units. The essence of this type of system isthat Loa.is wouLUd fLrstL le made and re.ed on an individual basis; secondlVthe system should evolve into group borrowing and repayments and eventualcooperat'ive ty.e 'lendi1ng chann.els; and th4irdly ad most im ortantly the farm-ers make their own rules and regulations for inter farmer relationships.

12. Revolving Credit Fund. The project would set up a revolving creditfund in the Central Bank ofilce at Sokoto. This would be solely for the ueof the project but would be transferred to a State Credit Bank at some futuretime as and when established. Initially the credi;t und would be under thecontrol of the project Administration. Details of the fund are shown atTable 5.

13. A separate account would be established by the project for cashsales, and any necessary short term financing should be made available fromthe Central Bank.

14. FMG would pay into the accounts the fertilizer subsidy due eachyear on receipt of documentary evidence supplied by the Project Management.

NiGERI

NOBRM WESTERN STATE

Gu.su Agricultural Develoemmt Prolect

Seasonal Fertilizer Inputs

e-r1

Year 2 yoar 3 Year 4 Ynnr S Totl1

Sulhate of _nSis 1/Cotton n tons 410 935 1,690 2,600 3,575 9,210MaiSe a tons 2/ 10 200 1,025 3,375 7,750 12,360Sorghum m tons 2/ 10 80 225 600 1,350 2,265

Total a tons 430 1,215 2,940 6,575 12,675 23,835

Total cost f.o.r. Cusau N 3/ 22,790 64,395 155,820 348,475 671,775 1,263,255Project handling charges 10 2,279 6,440 15,582 34,848 67,178 126,327

Tot-- c...t 0457C09 7In3 fl 1 .7fl40 38i 32 738,953 1,309 502

Cotton o tons if 410 935 1,690 2,600 3,575 9,210Maize a tam 1/ 5 115 580 1,900 4,350 6,950Sorgho a tes 2/ 5 125 375 1,125 2,250 3,880Groundaut a toni / 5 150 375 800 1,475 2,805

r-_a = ton 2/ 5 25 '65 1140 215 4S0

Total a tons 430 1.350 3.085 6.565 11.865 23.295

Total cost f.o.r. Cusau N 5/ 21,500 67,500 154,250 328,250 593,250 1,164,750Add boron charge N 6/ 1,353 3,086 5,577 8,580 11,797 30,393,.ojct handln-, . g,. chare 2,2 7,059 5,983 ; 3,683 60,505 il9,5i

Total coat Naivr 25.138 77.645 175.810 370.513 665.552 1,314,6S8

luriate of ?otaxhKaie matnsj7 2 10 70 250 600 932Sorghm ru ton6 21 2 5 i5 25 75 122

Total atons 4 15 85 275 675 10 A54

Total cost f.o.r. Gusau N 7/ 236 885 5,015 16,225 39,825 62,186Project handling charge Ivl 24 89 502 1,623 3,983 6,221

Total cost Naivr 260 974 5,517 17,848 43,808 68,407

Total tons (i) fertilizer 864 2,580 6,110 13,415 25,215 48,184

Total coat fertilizer N 50,467 149,454 352,729 771,684 1,448,313 2,772,647

Pament. Received fr armer.Sulphate of nia 8/ 17,200 48,600 117,600 263,000 507,000 953,400Sinale sunersobouhate 9/ 13.760 43 0 98,720 210,0nan 3 680 745 440huriate of potaub 10/ 260 974 5,517 17 ,848 43,808 68,407

Total paynts 31,220 92,774 221,837 490,928 930,488 1,767,247

Balance - nt: fertilizer subsidy 19,247 56,680 130,892 280,756 517,825 1,005,400

Credit requirement fl/ 23,415 69,581 166,378 368,196 697,866 1,325,436

Cash sales 2/ 7,805 23,193 55,459 122,732 232,622 441,811

1/ Farmers preaently use sulphate of amonia, research recmends CAN or urea. CAN costs 5V0 more per unit of N, whereas urea which is moredifficult to handle ha a ceoarable value omr omit nf N lpe of I. T r t ' used -or t- purpose of project eatta.

2/ NonnlaI ount of year 1 to cover _perSumstal and other uses.5/ Landed cost at Gusau N53/ton inclusive of railaes, port and handling charges.4/ Boronated superphomphate including 51 bora.- -sa at JV. per I ton.

6/ e X3.3 per ton of sigle superphosphate for cotton only.7/ e 159 per m ton.

0 e40 per a ton.9/ eN32 per m ton.0 No subsidy therefore full payment.

61/ 751 of paymets., Bla-C- between rit requiree ana total payments.

May 8, 1973

NIGERIA

NORTH :WSTERN ;TATE

Gusau Agricultural Develor.0tfro1ect

Seasonal Seeds, Insecticides ad Battery Set Inpts

Year I Year 2 Yesr 3 Year 4 Yeat 5 Total

SeedsSorghu« ~dwarf m toons 6 U 36 60 114Sor*sI hybrid a tans 2 4 8 24 38maize synthetic a to" - 13 38 100 188 339MLize hybrid m tons 7 48 170 408 633Groutdants - EQ 120 220 460 880Cowpeas - 2 5 9 9 25

Total o tons - 110 227 543 11,149 2,029

insecticide 1/Cowpeas liters 30,940 82,62'0 170,000 277,100 392,,700 953,360Cotton liters - 6,375 13,300 31,875 51,000 104,550

Total liters 3Q,940 88,9S15 183,300 308,975 443,,700 1,057,910

Battery Sets 2/ 1,690 4,500 9,300 15,200 21,,400 52,090

B. COSTS 31 Naira

SeedsSorgbom dwarf 4/ - 1,0912 2,184 6,552 10,920 20,748Sorghum hybrid 5/ _ 728 1,456 2,912 8,736 13,832Maize synthetic Al - 2,346 15,916 28,200 34,,216 61,698maize hybrid 7/ - 2,548 17,472 61,880 148,,512 230,412Grovmdnuts 8/ - 10,890 115,320 29,920 62,,560 119,680Coupeas 9/ - 4ce 1,000 1,80 1,,800 5,000

Sub total - 18,014 45,348 121,264 266,,744 451,370

insectitide 10/ 34,034 97,895 203,830 339,872 488,,070 1,163,701

Sattery Set I1V 4,056 10,800 22,320 36,480 51,,360 125,016

Total costs 33,090 126,709 27'1,498 497,616 806,174 1,740,087

Total cash sales 12/ 9,523 31,677 67,875 124,404 201,,544 435,023

Total credit sales. 1/ 28,567 95,032 203,623 373,212 604,,630 1,305,064

/ 2 x 6 voLt or 16 x 1.5 volt.2/ ILclusiv3 of Ift service chaxge.

J 11182/ is ton.§/ e N364/u too.y/ Q 1182/r ton.J/ @ N364/n ton./ eI136/rn ton.

V @81200/r ton..Lo e NI.2 per lits.r. Ii/ ( N2.4 per set.

R/ e 25% of total cost.Q3 ( 75% of total -ost.

May E, 1973

NIGERIA

NOBTH WESTERN STATE

Guiau ALricutural Developnt Prolect

Sury FNG Fertilizer Subsidies, CLagh Sales and SeasonaL Credit R_quirljewnti (N' )

Foreigii Exchange Local. YearYear 1 Year 2 Year 3! Year 4 Year 5 Total % Cost Cost 6-20

F1E fertilizer subsidy 19 57 131 281. 517 1,005 315 362 6431 517

Cash SalesFertiLlizer 8 23 55 123 233 442 100 442 - 233Seeds, battery sets and insecticides 9 32 68 124 202 435 68 296 1351 202

Total cash sales. 17 55 123 247 435 877 84 738 139 435

Iacreasutal cash sales, 17 38 68 124 188 435, 84 365 70 -

Seasonal CreLdit

Fertilizer 23 70 166 368 698/ 1,325 100 1,325 - 698Seed, battery sets and insectiLcideEs 28 95 204 373 605 1,305 68 887 418 605

Total seasonal credit 51 165 370 741 1,303 2,630 84 2,212 418 1,303

Incremental seasonal credit 51 114 205 371 562 1,303 84 1,094 20'3 -

Total iseasonal inputs 68 220 493 988 1,738- 3,507 84 2,950 557 -

Total incrementaIL seasonal inputs 68 152 273 495 750 1,738. 84 1,459 279

Note: (a) FOreign exchange cost of fertilizer at farm gate is about 707..(b) Foreign exchange cost of insecticides and batteries 85% - seeds 100% local - average F.E. 68%. , x

May 8, 1973

NIGERIA

NORTH WESTERN STATE

Gusgau Az:riculturaL Devel oEgnt Proec2ft

Medium Term Insnput,_armer DM Pagmts and Credit Recurments

Foreigrn Cost LocalYear . Year 2 Yealr 3 Year 4 Year 5 Total Cos,t Cost

A. QUANITIESSprayer kit 1/ 1,65,0 2,810 6f,490 8,710 12,,690 32,390Tractor kit 2/ - 5 10 10 10 35Ox drawn equiJpment kit 3/ - 500 750 1,000 1,250 3,500

B. CODSTSSprayer kit 21,97'0 36,530 84,370 113,230 164,970 421,070 85 357,91-0 63,160Tractor kit _ 30,000 60,000o 60,c00 60,000 210,000 75 1!7,500( 52,500Ox drawn eqtipment kit - 82,500 123,750 165,000 206,250 577,50O 50 288,750 288,750

Total 21,970 149,030 2681,120 338,230 431,220 1,208,570 33 804.,160 1404.,410

C. FARMERS DNM PAYMENTSTraCtor kit ¶T - 9,000 18,oOC) 18,C0O0 18,000 63,000Ox drawn eqLipment kit J/ - 16,500 214,750 33,CO0 41,250 115,500

Total _ 25,500 42,75() 51,C000 59,250 178,500

D. cREDiTRE RumENmSSpray3r kit 6/ 21,97J0 36,530 814,370 313,230 164,970 421,070Traetor kit 7/ _ 21,000 442,000 42,000 C 42,000 147,000Ox ,drawn equipment kit 8/ - 66,ooo 99,000 132,000 165,000 462,000

Total 21,970 123,530 225,370 287,230 371,970 1J,030J,070

67 tncludes U g:Loves and 1 pair of ggIios 113 inclusive of 10% service charge.Includes 65 hp tractor @ N3,800; 5 ton trailer @ N670; ridger @ N660; chisel plough @G 1360; service charge @ 14510 1N6000.

/ Includes lploug4ph @ N50, ox cart @ LOO; service charge 115 - N165).30% down payment.20% down payment.

/ 100% loan for 2 years a 10%./ 70% loan for 1I years g 10%.

E/ 80% loan for 3 years @ 10%.

141GEsRI

NOiN WE E ST IATE

);!888..M'duatrae.l Deve1o0nt Pro.j45tDVIpen P ,dFrej"

11111at/ Graa:ia, ti 1/

kI M (Ia)Ttaditgl 1.0 - 3.0 0. 1.0 2.0 7.5MyiwI .!i 2.0 1.0 o.5 1.0 1.5 L.I71cr~itt 0.!i 2.0 (2.0) * -0.3)

T1loMi (kA/ba)Traditlal 20 - 750 2C0

.d_ IZOO1.00 4.0a0 - toDD0aewtal 95 0 - -IOD

h,v:cjm (IM/tlot)Traditiamal 250 - 2.50 LOD

I.5m 5.000 730 .5001acr,ta 1,3IO a 00o (1500) sao

Col 8.i 9 (/Mg) 0.06 0.054 0.075 0.091(U/ 1 Let) 20.00 - 168.75 9.10 1U..00

Usaco(l (RIpl:) 144.010 512.0) 16.23 54.60 120.00t1ac ta1l (U/plot) 124.10 S12.0) (1L2.30) 45.50

Id}Lbr CO!-f (U) _J'Truditiamal 37.1i0 - 92.40 i8.55 2A,00A6me1dI 91.10 110.60 30.80 27.30 24.00locr,tal 54.10 110.640 (61.60) 8.75

Materigl C'j (U)Traditkiaal 1.10 - 6.00 I.00 5.00M,eIead 63.811 82.70 2.00 14.45 5.00lmrewt.1 62.81 82.70J (4.00) 13.45

IptalC Cst; (U)Traditicmal 38.810 - 98.40 19.53 214.00Mwca6I 135.61 193.31) 32.80 41.75 214.00Iuereltal 116.811 193.30) 65.60 22.20

I9!t getur with 1Abor (N)Traditieal (18.801) - 70.35 (10.45) 91.00 710.55AMvecl (11.li1) 272.70) 23.45 12.85 91.00 406.4!neram ,tal 7.1L9 272.710 (46.90) 23.30 - -

A!t fAturcJ vto. w t h Abr (5)Tr.ditikrl 19.110 - 162.75 s.0 t 13.00 306.85Advceedl so0.19 429.30 54.25 40.15 I11.00 718.890nraemtal 61.19 429.3iD (109.50) 32.05 - 414.05

M.ad-n 11'T,-diti.I 63.0D - 154.co 31.OD 60.00 t.30.00 4.00 375.00M"nmed 153.10 14.0) 51.00 45.00 60.00 22.00 40.00 555.00Iwr,ta l 950.0O 184.0a (103) 14.00 - (7) - 177.00

0a.. Hear 3/Traditicwal 53 - 177 31 244) 507Adyo.ed 96 114 59 45 24(4 5467.cr.ernt.1 43 114 (118) _ - 39

OxCD Houra 3/Traditca-l 53 - 177 31 240 307Adv-eed 96 114 59 45 24o 546I-erereta1 43 114 (118) - - 39

R.tare, to Labor (N4/u.d,y)Traditftal 0.10 - 1.06 0.26 2.87 0.81Adaeced 0.52 2.3 3 1.06 0.89 .2 .87 1.29I-cre00 to) 0.68 2.3.3 1.06 2.29 2.34

1/ Aasu,ed at 4 hoar. per day for 60 days char-ed at N0.50 per boo.- l4otorial oosts i.ac- b-e arbitraxily a-Sete d at N5.00 pot year.2L Labor itpot. derived ftoe IAR aed ai-sidn data. Labor iDpUtJ -:alrlatod o- the basit of a 6 hbor day charSed at N0.70/day, this iY a h-orter day tha toi-xpecred of goSero.ret hired Labor for the arn .rate of payaenI:.3/ Derived fro- IAR dot..

M t. . L973

N IGEPILA

NORTI WESTISRN TATE

twsau Aar cultujral Develcint Poiect

ItodlL Budget 7.5 ha lilxed Fnaur:m t;roamnyuLtjL

MiLlet & CraaLnStotton Gramdnnu" !aize SA g 0tber! lmd pal! Ta oet Totul

Area (ha)Traditional 1.0 - 3.0 0.5 1.0 2.0 7.5Advamced . 1.5 2.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 - 7.5Incrantal (1.0) 1.5 2.0 (2.0) (0.5)

LIAed (kgfha)Traditional 22i0 - 750 210 - - -Advanced 1.200 4.000 --locremoL. ..--t..

]bvducti (kg/plot)Traditional 250 * - 2,250 10D -Advanced 1,80l 0 (000 750Iocremtal (250) 1,800 ,000 (1,,50) (D10) - _ _

Gosa Ratsug (NAgW) 0.08 0.05 0.064 0.075 0.091Traditional (plot) 2O. 00 - - 168.75 9.10 - - 120.00 317.85Advanced (U/plLot) * 510.00 512.00 56.25 - - 120.00 778.25Iocrental (U/plot) (2!0.00) 90.ao 512.00 (1t2.50) (9.10) . - 460.40D

Labor Cosp_ (N) 2/Traditiaml 317.80 - 92.40 18.55 - 24.00 172.75Advanced * 511.80 110.60 30.80 - - 24.00 257.20Increotal (317.80) 511.80 110.60 (61.60) (18.55) - * _ 84.45

Material Costs (Pr)TraditLional 1.O - 6.00 1.00 - - 5.00 13.0)Advanced 1 14.45 82.70 2.00 5.00 10a.15Icreraeatal (1.00) 14.45 82.70 (4.00) 1:1.00) - - 91.1S

TgtaI Coats i()Traditional I8.80 * 98.40 19.55 - - 29.00 185.75Advance * IC06.25 193.30 32.80 - - - 29.00 361.55Increntai (38.80) IC06.25 193.10 65.60 (1.9.55) - - 306.80)

Nct R tis w Lbor (i)Traditional (18.80) - 70.35 (10.45) _ _ 91.00 132.10ALdvanced . (16.25) 272.70 23.45 * * 91.100 370.9tIncrecmtal 18.80 (16.25) 272.70 (46.90) 1.0.45 - - 238.840

Net Ret i thout lJhbor1 )Traditionl 19.00 - - 162.75 8.10 - - 115.00 304.85Advanced - 75.55 429.30 54.25 * . 115a00 574.14)lvcrnertal (19.00) 75.55 429.30 (108.50) (8.10) - - - 369.25

Traditional 63 - 1.54 311 60 30 40 378AdvanceI . 153 184 51 * 's 30 403 518Itcrueotal (63) 153 184 (103) (211) - - - 140

tcen Ho r 3/TraditiLonal 5-3 - - 177 211 - 240 507Advanced - 162 114 58 * - - 240 574lacresental (53) 162 114 (118) (311) - 68

Returns toA Labor (foamdgty)traditiomal 0.30 - * 1.06 0.26 - - - 0.BlLAdvanced - 0.49 2.33 - * - - - 1.3tlIocre.oktal - - - - -6 - - - 264

1/ Assoed at 4 boors per day for 60 days charged at NO.50 per hour. Material costs of 'Tr.asport' have bees arbitrarily .s..ned at N5.00 per y,ar.I Labor i.nputs derived fro IAE and nmissii data. Labor inputs calc-lated oa the basis of a 6 hon work day, charged at NO.70. This is a shorter vork day than isexpected of goverv-nmn hired labor for the nose rate of payint.

3/ Deried fron 22LAR data.

May 9, 193

AAn,flv 0t114t11 Z.A 0

Table 5 and 6Page 2

Returns from Mixed Farmers with Ox Carts

The models compare farmers each with 7.5 ha. In one case, Table 5the comparison is between traditional farming and advanced techniques involv-ing maize and cotton. In the other, (Table 6) the comparison is between

traditional farming and advanced techniques involving maize and groundnuts.Both are based on the following assumptions:

1. Advanced AdvancedCropping Pattern (ha): Traditional Cotton (Table 5) Groundnuts (Table 6)

Cotton 1.0 1.5Groundnuts - - 1.5Maize - 2.0 2.0Sorghum/Millet 3.0 1.0 1.0Cowpeas 0.5 0.5 -Others 1.0 1.0 1.0

Grazing and fallow 2.0 1.5 2.0

Total 7.5 7.5 7-5

2. Yields would be as assumed for hand farmer, except that traditionalcotton was allocated 250 kg/ha seed cotton as the crop would probably tend tobe planted somewhat earlier.

3. Price and cost of materials are as for hand farmer budgets.

4. Labor costs have been increased to reflect the need for employmentof labor seasonally; 6 hour mandays costing N 0.70 have been assumed.

5. Oxen inputs are based on IAR data. These have been incorporated in

the assessment of labor inputs.

Returns

If labor is costed, annual returns from the traditional farm, N 70.are inadequate to enable repayment at the proposed rate of N 53.00 per annum.The farmer using advanced nractiees would obtain N 486 per year and thuscould well afford to repay at the proposed rate. If labor is not costed,traditiona1 and both advanced farmers could repay at the proposed rate, sinceannual farm income would be N 300 and N 700 respectively. However, at least aproportion of farm labor would need to be hired - estimated labor needs are

378 and over 500 mandays on the traditional and two advanced farms respectively.

For these returns, it would be inadvisable to make loans for oxdrawn equipment un.less farmers concerned are prepared to accent assistance

from the project which would enable them to increase their production andfar-m incomes.

NIGERIA

NoErH WTESlN 5TA23

Gusau jkhricultura. Deve:lot ro ljct

R1<DR Credit Fu-luara OCLO)

L 2 3I ,2 3 16 7 10-20CashL leE L

IEoRD ft;6 for ssonal lans 41 So1 164 297 450 . -nII funls for seasonal LoI 1D i!3 41 74 113D,8D fond for tdiLum tear loans LS 89 161 203 259no0 fondi for di- term louts 34 64 84 113

Sub total 73 2317 430 658 935

Seasonal loams I - 56 1.82 4 07 815 1.433 1,433 1,43:3 1,433 1,4338F.ayer. loam7 . 1U 34 69 113 160 160 160D I2 94Tractor kit louasll - - 7 20 33 46 9 26 ISO drmm kit loans - 27 67 110 159 119 615

Sub total - 69 250 561 1,071 1.798 1,751 1.68S 1,518 1,527Allowance for bad debts 2I _ 3) (13) (28) (54) (90) (88) (8S) (9) i(76)

Total cash inflow 7:3 303 667 1,191 1,92 '1,706 1,663 1,60D 1,509 1,451C"b Outf-IO

Seasonal credit 51 165 370 741 1,303 1,303 1,303 1,303 1,343 1,303Sprayer loZs 22 37 84 113 164 113 164 82 132 82eTractor kit loans - 21 42 42 42 - - - -Ox drln kit loans 66 99 132 165 _ _ _ -

Total cash outflow 73 289 595 1,028 1,674 :1,416 1,467 1,38.5 1,385 1,385

Balance before capital debit service - 14 72 163 278 292 196 215 124 661/ Inputs include 10. borrowing charge - slippaget into following year allowed.2/ Repaid at 107X per annum over 2 years in iequal annual installments - slippage int:o following year allowed. Hi3/ Repaid at l07. per annum over 4 years in equal annual installments - slippage into followirn year allowed.4/ Repaid at 1070 per annum over 3 years in equal annual installments - slippage into following year allowed.5/At 5%.

May 8, 1973

G-6.1 Ati,1.lt6-I Dgvplget PrXoleot

SVry of Prolsot Coots 01OW)

Total Lotal For-igo

Ys IL Yom 2 7 3 Y- r 4 Y S. Cost Coet Cost

Pfteoit AdAt.1tratioaVWhI.lee. plsnt tmd sqr.1p.t 68 13 3 25 3 112 43 69

un . btildigc. ned 0 Ishing 340 S1 - - - 391 313 78

Salade. 129 204 20o 2iO 210 963 696 267

nh1Itlo runnio' 6 10 10 10 1t 46 28 18

General .. ei_es - 85 128 149 151 148 661 440 221

Sob tot.l 628 406 372 396 371 2,173 1,520 653

Ttbchtc.l Set-i'..:.h: l:-, pant .- d =.::i=-. . 84 33 10 45 16 18S 69 119

H-o..e, b.lldi.g. nd fr.-riehing. 307 100 - - 407 *Z5 8i

5-'--.. 126 198 222 246 246 1,038 894 144

V9h1,1. r-fnio8 12 30 30 30 31 133 80 53

Sab tt0.1 529 361 262 321 293 1.766 1,368 398

Fr.- Credit Serves-Vehicle., pI , -d eqip.-t 89 76 - 13 - 178 71 107

ocea, boildi.g. .d f-nt.hbtng. 160 92 148 - - 400 320 80

S^larois 61 134 186 186 186 753 631 122

Vehicle -u.niog 4 7 2 8 8 34 20 14

SOb t6t.1 314 309 341 207 194 1,365 1,042 323

Market Servt,..Vehicle., plsnt nod equo ent 44 40 2 2 38 34

00.600, boId.go. nd f-r.eiebng. 24 - - - - 24 19 5

Serie. 6 12 12 12 12 54 49 5

Vehitle ruien 1 2 2 2 2 9 5 4

Sub total 75 54 is 16 16 176 108 68

Oneteerink Ser,iceSV.hinleC, plant nd eq/ipeert 1/ 971 6 65 42 i 1,06; ;;2 93

H60,. bWildie. f= f t ihiogt sod nto.testioe -tetials 197 125 93 93 6 514 356 158

Salaries 95 145 145 145 97 627 330 297

VMhicl rtnieg 6 11 11 11 11 S0 30 20

Plint otmine td taeand cul Ibor ;°4 244 246 142 918 797 121

workthop * d epeeo prt. 42 54 61 69 58 284 170 114

S,6 tot.! 1,561 575 621 606 315 3,478 1,835 1,643

Cinr.ry Cotton h 1t 113 - - - 115 88 27

Vill.e. Seevte istor.) C nr 162 270 - - 432 346 86

Fart Innot.Fertilm-re * seed, battery ats Wd i-titide.lrrcro.eortt.1 68 1352 273 495 750 1,738 279 1,459

F*ern aechinery, *quip et ta; *rt3t 22 149 269 A3I 431 1,208 404 804

Sub t6t.1 90 301 541 833 1,181 2,946 683 2.263

Ferttli-er Subeidv 19 57 131 281 517 1,005 643 Ib2

Cnti"ter-ti.Prt-e @ 67 e d 198 287 436 697 976 2,594 1.479 1,115

Phyti 18 55 i65 i;7 ii4 133 14463

Sub totel 363 404 550 830 1,120 3,267 1,861 1,406

T.t0l Project Cost V 000 3,656 2,737 2,833 3,490 4,067 16,723 9,494 7,229

T.t.1 ProJect Cost US090o0 3.539 4,147 4,292 5,287 6,071 25,336 14,382 10,934

Di.trbutiobt of Co.t 7 22 16 17 21 24 100 57 43

1/ This coet J dcev by en Inslmpifi..nt N6,000 due to error in Anne- 9 Table 2, -oc cor-ected. Thie table and ithe-e coltisng to it oill b corteccrd e tpproitol

ry S, 1973

1" ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~;i "-

009090 00o096 09 )0:00099:g kz ooo o) O' 0:z -_ ..09....9. ' 9090 qo! q..

0900' z 0C9009 09, OD000 ZS 0000z (0 ) 0('9)0 0£ 0 00S9£ I-d991 i-I100 ... 99 p.. 90)0 B. 0oav

0969!i 0'n,",I9 £s 00',' LE 9) 001 )00 9*o0ol 909

000", 000½: 0s 000'! ODO0'', (0£) 09£',' (OZ) o', 09£ I os ... I... ftln;a .j 2.od9ob. II[- p0..10I.000'I o£o' oo 000 - - -D', (I ) I '£, J.'s oo.; n.-qo .. :,ooo,d,b. 11-S0on' 009½s- 09 000½! OO- 00L (9£) 00' L (',z) 69, 00£ .. , OO.S00£00 9½DO . 09 000' - ' (0£) 00',; (0£) 09 09) 90) 90 19-f00out'! 0)96'! 09 000£E - - 09'!I (9 00')'! (0 ) 09', 10WIl .. iI d/00* 019£' 09 OOD - 000'! (z ) 009I (z ) ' 00 900s Op!. 00019

0*9'!! 0:991 09 OO!''! - - 0oo'!! 000£, 1090I-i q0

00£'! 019*'! 09 000£C OWE--00' (09) 0! ODE ... , .0J*00* 09£'! 09 000' - £' £o,z ( I oD'£ ..- 1 -)191-1 V.,Ld.09! 090 09 00* - O-- 0 (I I 099 .10.,u 10900ldoa00',£ OD9gc 0- 00. 090'! (0)) 0)DD', (0£) 00 09£ '.W'* III000909000 on9" 09 000' 090'', (9 ) OD'', 9', ) * OD' 90w))g $1.00 .I 00009900 £'OD 09 000'!! ' D - 090" (91) OOD'! (0£) 0f 09' 10)0ql SO!Old00D9'! OD/'£ 09 000`I- 090£ (I ODD0'£ (I ) £ OO'£ 9"! 2.-d)6 10b90000)-Ovi '9 09!'6 09 0D9'!! OD ' 09'91 (9) El o0z'!I 90q.* 000'do!0 09p0'

099'El 0ZS09' 09 00£'99 ' 00!'Ll - -DI00 900190

090! 06'' 09 009'£ - 0*'! 9! 9 - 00'! (I 9 0o90' .90.I9 -999 091 9000)0 ...0OO' 009'!!z 09 000'!! 00009 (9 000:0! (9 09 00'! 10D ! :109099' 0 96'!1 09 009" 9- )DE'9 (I ) -- 09 (I 9 090' 10) 0110 1010A

09'! 0900 we00's 0D9'! 000'! 009'1 009£c q00090

099'! £99'! 00 00*'' O009'! 9 ) 99' (I 9 009'! (9 ) £ 099 9094 090009)009' CO','l 09 o' ' 000'0 (9 9 o000 (I 9 oo'z 09)19 1009

099'0 0)96'!C 09 009"q O,' 0!' (0El09 ( 9' 10990* 0*110 q 010S )

00)')v 00',",! 09 000", 000'', (9) 00 (9 9 - 000') Om9 0') (99 9 009 09*99 090

0',9*I o994' 09 O 0091') -D I D909'! (CZ 00, g)- 0 - (Z OD90'6 (n9 9 0 09!! 109*01. *00

00' !)O!' 09 ODO£'01 OC 9 099£9 (I ) 'g 00)90 9 9 9 0DO9*! 190 09099 ! 0£009 (I ) ( V-1~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~0l1! 0990

009'', Wo09' 09 000", Si00) (99 I00) I9 9 A 009' 109)910 *19)06' (969! 09 0096 - 966C It (9 o - -0096 9£ 9 9 ODE9' --990 0*0910100)099"., 996' 09 cog'!! 09!'! (9 9 - - 00*' (9Z £1 09!'E 1.9909 n91990 SOIl) 90-0( -1I0

0900)) )9 09 900. 911101a ( o 010 9100 109) o900 IT-

M lm,11 09 009'61. 006,6 (E OW 6 (c 9 ocx' E M090. 9900909 P0 909,) -9,90,

0", 1F *96'9 09 00,9,11 oot's (I (I z ooe's 900904 U"Na0 9 902091)-910 f.-II

3191! 9900990 609009 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~IT.v 3--

NIGEM1A

N808TH WESTERN STATE

Gunau Asi..cl roal Oeel.een.t Proiect

V*hJL.le. PIeat ead Eeoleeet Costs

orit F-.cige Becieeg L-o.1Ilcit Coat Nc.rb Year- 1 Ye. 2 Ye." 3 'l-a 4 Ye.r 5 Total I Ceet Co-at

Eogi-aeri SericeSoevey eq.ip.Inr ecd her,d tool. Bet 15.500 1 9.800 1.500 1,300 1.500 1.500 15,800 60 9,480 6,32-0T..t.ge Sat 3,1320 1 3.000 --- 3 5.00(1 20 600 2,400

SOb wotl 12,800 1,100 1.500 1,500o 1.500 1s,00 34p 4 I208W 8.710

Cooat-,cti.. Eqoi~p..ITrack type -rgl., d-aerfipp- 1)10 hp I/ V-ber 46,300 3 (3) 198,900 -- -198,90(2 90 178,010 19,8s,0Track type .. gl., do-aelippa- 140 hp I/ N.ceha 46,I300 2 (2) 92,000 - -- 92,000i 90 82.800 9,2(0Track type atr.:Lght deaer/.I..h 615 hp I/ W..br 28.000 I 1) 28,000 28,000 90 15,200 2,800)Wheal type etraIght d-,c 170 hp I/ wd-e 10,30D 2 (2) 101,000 ---- 101,000 90 90.900 10,10S.lf propelled c-p-r IACY 130 hp 1/ ab- 80,2100 2 C2) 160,400 - -- 160.400 90 160,38.0 16.0(,0Ilot- rader 1325 hp 1./ Lb-a 36.800 3 C2) 73,600 C1) 36,800 -- 110.400 90 99.360 11.0(0

Wheltrdar 3IN 150 hp f/ b-. 38,800 5 ( ) 38,80 -- 38,800 90 30,920 3,860Agrlcolt-le Ct-ctr ilth vibrat.r .. p-t. 75 hp H..b.r 8.000O 2 C2) 16,000 --- 16,000 90 10.400 1,600Agri-Ilt-r1 t-.ctor elth pl.ogb 75 hp N,.,ar 5.003 1I 13 5,300OO 5, =l 90 6,500 51)0

Preheel dcli- c-. -rhclal Nb.ar 3,700 6 (3) 11.100 -C 3) 11,100 -- 22,200 6.0 13,320 0,800Pcoptcrock toe Noa8.e 3,2 00 9 4 ) 13,800 - 5) 16,000 -28,800i 60 17,280 11 320

Seelliog trailer 8,b.r 3:,DD0 2 C2) 6,000 -- -6,000 80 MO80 1.2110G-crat-r 2.5 leo 9,a- 1.1)00 2 C2) 2,00ooo 2.0oo1 80 1,800 400Water poop P,.r 6500 1 (1) 300- s4x 80 400 11)0Were trailer 6,300 lit.-r ftb-a 1, 000 1I 1) 1,000 - .,e oo( ' 600 61)0Wat-r t-aller 2,230 lit-ra W..r- 600 I 1) 800 -- -801D 60 460 320Coocrete eic- ICY lIc.e- 2,5000 2 (2) 4,000 4 ,000) 90 3,60 GM MITipper t-ok 53CY )Ote- 16,000 06 6) 96,000 -8,0 90 86,400 9,600

Sob total 842,900 5,000 03.900 -911,80( 88 805,930 107,5870

klIeh..ical WocAh 8,PoeI eco-ga N-,b- 2,200 1 C1)) 2,00- 2,000 50 1,000 10(30L.bolcacor ad q9oipoect N-er 1,2000 1 1) .I ODD- 1.002 so 8ao 2100lII. Ite (15 Coca) l6-a- 500 2 (2) 1,00 - -- 1.001) 90 gm0 100Woldiog q9oip.an Sat 3,500 1 1) 3.500 - .505 80 2,800 7)00Tyre eq.,P-er Sat 1.500 1 C1) 1.300 -- 1.501) 80 1,200 300Co.apre.... N,-ber BOO I 1) SW - -- 0 so 64.0 1650H.e.r dotYjack. 3ar 75 4 4) 300 --- 303 80 240 60Beec h eqopa,ec S-c- 1.800 200 200 21)0 200 2, 603 80 2,080 3)0

I aS Sat - -8,000 500 300 500 So0 10,0035 so 8,000 2.030Poor h,Oe d,l-r eoil. etk.hep N..ber 10.00 4 (2) 20,000 -- C2) 20.030 -40.0015 so 312,000 8.030Lee bad aed trator ftb- 20, M I C1) 20.000-- 20,001D 90 18,000o 2,020-Tack traile Mo,i,e 9,55)0 4 4 ) 36,0g O - 36.000 90 32,400 3.61)0PIcOo 3/ Coo..o=r 4,000 2 (1) 4',ODO-- 1) 6,020O 8,002 60 4.800 3.220

lS. -tota 99.900 700 700 24,70)0 200 126.700 83 106,880 21,6611

...e. Seed FernT- etee 65 Op ?1o.er 3.800 2 C2) 7,600 - -- 7.60D 80 4,080 1,520T-ok 5 tOe fto~, 6.oco I C1) 6,000 - -6,003 60 3.600 2,400PIoogha 8,.br 380 2 (2) 760 - -763D 75 370 1900Dia haro,. 8,b- 200 2 2 ) 1.400 -- 1,400 75 1,050 350Seed dIl e,r 1,200 I 1) 1,20 - - - 1,205 75 900 130

Cotti,,vato- e.1-b- 500 2 C1) 1,00 ODO- 1,000 75 750 230Rol-ye alaher 8..br 720 1 (1)) 720 ---- 710 75 340 1SOKele -balN-b-~e 1,00 1 I 1 1,( - -- 1,)000 75 730 250Sprayilog -ahl.. 8..b- 300 1 ) 300 - - 3100 75 2373

S.b tota1 19,980 - 19.980 72 14.465 5151.5

TUTAL 1,258,200 169,500 800500 128,00X) 22,600 !,658,981 78 1,287.775 371,105

17 Indc203for apa- parta at tI- of I.Itia1 p.-rhaee.

-p/ioooEm 9ny.1-j.T. pn. .2u; nIl ~did -- '- ,~l .10 I -''P " t

1P-' p":I.p.. - - .- p- -s!j;o d0,~*pO '. CIL . .'0006e ,...dpb. pn. CO S(nnJ 000 ..- IO .,lni spd '009'9M -II" '0010M 1104 HnluP '000'01M O0/4 0 "009 I (E) -0.v Oz' t 4solq .Uo096O0 t

OD'W- Z~ 0 ' oo ,WEnnnonunn 0 -HP'0 R' '009-1..I'ME C P1l0 qO'9OSn- 'O9 * -M,- *'OD9CT -S 110 090990 1 &90 910 00 009'0900 0000 000'06 000 000 0006(9 ~~Z OW-1-W-- 009(0'" .d..1A-'00g l O 10100.. -1)v

00'9009 099D 00g o DOZ 000, - 00000L 0000019 1.,, q"S

00119K 0096 o 0 DD0091 - - 00'00 (s o) ooo09e (ST) 00? D001 .n1W09 Sn~ £n-n.000.99 009 00 ~0IP06 OO- D0000 (00z) OOD'0( (01) 007 OD 000 .-- 00110ODS*0 CZ 00-I9 00 00's 0 000o0000 000Z) 00001Z (00) oo u --pm 0I - S 002(Ou

000'010 (0990 00 0OO0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~0 - - -~~~~~000,001 (00) 0o0000 (0i) O., 009*9 .SY01

I -4o ODS I

00099 og Li90 40 GOOOOU - -- 001110019

00*00 -D- 00"*0,i - oo,Ol ( ) 0 000'00 100 (-od. 9 .od ") qMIllOd006 004 00 0000 - - -D oZ1 (0 - 00&9g .0l90l (l..o;o) -.o. ood.M.

0D0010 300O? 09 0001 9z O- 000' (0 ) 0 001 .0l.090 .n pj L11.OIO

0oo0900 DOVM0 10 0D00V)0 00D19 OO0'6 00900OD0SZ 0001'961 1"100 900

Om0L1 :at 011 0 0 00000 ~ 00L (00) ODO000 (0Z) OO'00 ((00) 0x0:91 (0 ) 9 DOVE -nS iT 2l-1-i1: P- ThR10j -a90'0 - - OZ ODS 0'0 00OD00 ' DO000O 0000 0000 'l .1.JP

0011014 -z 0o'4 900'!. z 1 o'1 g1 00 Ii *-00- d0-w400- C9 00091 00 000 00 0) 08o 9) 09C99 4II 10~0X0)'49 00091 00( 0009:6 - -'V I 00 0009, (0I 0I 00L9E ..W9I l i'( 300 0010f

00w91 ,0 00 OOD'00 - DO 00 o.o'i q"-P

ov 'It O%1r ol we'vi~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~9'~' OoOii909000 090'09 00 000o'00 009 00 0D0601 101D,1 '0K .70

009900 00060 00 000960 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 91V1 (0~~' 001'06 (00) 00000 (01) 09 000'0 ~~ODS'gq(I I6 001,09 3I* jm 000000

00I0 9C 009'65 00 000'96Z OOD - - -OVZ 000'C90 (ST De1 OOL1 00093. 09 .0000

0D90'OL 009'41 00 000990 --- 046 0 090 0101q"

oo00n 00000 00 00000 - - 00000n (0 ) Il W000 l*9q 19q Un0000019000VU 0090 00 00090 - - - - 000'90 (1 ) 1 000'g0 :0.9 I? 2010003 p00 OSolIpIIllq 9'1(0I0100 .9 .0q01d11!0 9. 91-

00090t 09049e 00 04t 00900666 00L401 (9) 9 09 .01 51.30 qs9* 00P~~

099000I 009601 00or 10 00000006, Qz 00960 a) 101 9010 -7

0060 CZ I0 04.- 0090'O (O 0 00CC ji"1 001 5000011Om49 01 00 0901 - 0000 ( 000 0400o (9 0 00DD.9'S 095100 9109 00000000000

00U4li oolOo CZ 000'46 - - - 00096C (10 1 009 001 OOOo000

001'91 00901 00 coo' -- -00 (I I 0 'v'91 011909 * y- -3z 0j0.99j 000(n.0

ou's 0"I (Pr 0 , 1. '0:96 U I OD0:96 i- 00V9 g._p_lolig' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~01 00*l1T00 0*04 10I100, AL *01000 D0191-;n9 99909jj

Ozl:TZ oz OD9:svt ODZ'fX (v ODIVOL (O r~~~_______i w'IT- - M "T - -

ocal DOD." Olt 000.08 000191 (I COO' " (v s ow' 91 ~~~~~~Z-a -q ;;.3. -01900

20RTH 600Rt)) STATE

Staff S.larti.. -d Altl-ac.-

Uni r tr-igo Etot2age L.-s 20)1St Coat 6~N-.er Tes- I Y-a 2 Y-a 3 Year 4 Yea 6 Ot-t 2Co Cost

Project Ad-inttier.s t),fro)-t Ma-g-r 2/ .Mar- e 25.000 5 1 ) 26000 2 2) 26,000 2) 26.000 2 12 2t,003 1) 26.OtY2 130,0'00 '35 97,500 32.5DOFtn... t1.1 C-ctro11, 1 MaI/et 2 2,00 MO 1) 22,000 L 2) 22,000 ( ) 22,000 L 2) 22,000 21) 22.~ 2 ,OC 10,00 '25 82.500 27.500Senior Aftaii.-ti-t. OffSon- M., 'rear 13,400 5 21) 10,400 21) 10,400 L 2) 10,400 01) 10O400 12 10.400' 52,000 LO 5.200 46.8200Sarto- Eaotoo fficer 2/ 1a er 2,000 41, It4 6,000o 1) 12,000 21) 12,000 212 12,000 1) 12.000 54,000 25 40,200 13,540'Aarti-lno-l Et-1.os Mtrer 5,200 13 2 S 5,200 23) 15,600 03) 15,600 23) 15,600 L3) 15.600l 62,600 10 6,760 60.840'Priocip.1Al --toorrc M.. 'rea- 7.800 9 ( ) 7,800 2)2 15,600 2 2) 15.600 2 22 15,600 2) 22 sI,600' 20,200 'l0 7,020 6 3,180',st--oat. M1.. frt 5,200 20 2) IC,400 (4/ 20,800 L 4) 2C.800D 4) 20.000 24) 20.80OCr 93,600 L0 9,360 84.240'fa-ctfr Offic.. K- 88. -ft 5,200 23 23) 19,600 25) 26,000 252 28,000 25) 26,000) 5) 26,000' 119,600 'L0 11,960 107.84CrC.nfid-nttal SetrNaey K-a yearn 3,100 9 2 ) 3,100 22) 6,200 2)2 6.200 22) 6,200 2 2) 6.200) 22,900 L0 2.790 25,110,CleIre-1 Officer -rd St ... siph-r Ma rec .000 36 242 4)000 2) 02 000 282 8,~ 2tt 02 8,000 282 8,ooo 36,00 to 3,600 32.400'Cl-it.1e rOs.fr. cososCp ypi.t Moera 800 207 2192 25,200 244) 35,200 (08) 38,400 240) 38.400 (48) 38.400) 165,600 '- 165,600'Dtfna-/f8.. eeg-e/C-sol 1,a1-o Mcess 600 60 5) 3,00)0o 2202 6,000 (35) 9,000 (13) 0,000 (132 9,000' 36,000 .36.00)

Sob t-0sr 128,700 203,800 210,000 :10,000 210.000 962,500 28 262,290 695,310'

"" -taf -T-rf,rItaiOutcs a 'er 8,800 3 () 2 ,800 2 ) 8,800 2 ) 8.800 2 ) 8,800 2 ) 8,800) 44,000 10 4,400 39,6300iSed MtltipLitrati- sod R5.--rh Offit-e 2/ Mofas 16,000 44 2 ) 8,000 1) 26,000 21) 16.000O 1) 16,000 212 16.00Cr 72,000 73 54,00 18,00',Teetio OMfoe Ma- fa.- 3,900 3 1) 3,900 212 3.900 212 2.900 2 2 3,900 2L2) 3.90Cr 19,500 L0 1.950 17,550Ssolee Ra--at- Offt-a Maofets 4,400 4ff 2 ) 2,200 21) 4.400 21) 4,400 1) 4,4oo 1) 4.400' 19,800 10 1,980 17,820)M.shsnft.1 S.p-riet- Ma .-er 4,300 3 2 ) 4,300 21) 4,300 L 1) 4.300 21) 4,300 21) 4,300D 22,500 10 2,150 19.350'D-vl.p-n Offce Ma -fas 3,900 20 4) 15,600 24) 15,600 24) 13.600 24) 15,600 24) 15,600' 78,0030 00 7,800 20,200Or-fL.Lg ichool potof-pelsK 88. -sr 3,900 5 21) 3.900 21) 3.90D 15 7,900 212 3,900 2 2 3.900) 19,300 50 1.950 17,550'Pam Ma..ger Ifrfas 3,900 5 L ) 3,000 2 ) 3,800 21) 2,900 212 3,900 L 1) 3,900) 19,500 10 1.950 17.550Ag"-colt-l Aaaiara-ta Man ece 2,300 220 (24) 31,200 (49) 63.700 (49) 63.700 (49) 63,200 249) 63,700, 296,000 'L0 28,600 257,40C'H8o ARents M fa.- 1,300 23 < 32 3,900 2 3) 6,300 2 5) 8.500 2 5) 6,500 2 1) 6.500) 29,900 10 2,990 26,910Aoeiro-rcrs1 Y...toa a f5. 600 120 (42) 23,200 (821 49,200 (122) 73.200 (162) 97,200 2262) 97.200' 3,42, 000 L0 34,200 307,800'Cleical. Ofiftt- Ma er ,OO 27 < 3) 3,000 2 6) 6.000 ( 63 8000o ( 6) 6,000 2 62 6, 000 27,000 10 2,700 24,100)iioteee/Ils-h- ot ./ rFao/. eeire a fears 600 100 (20) 12,000 220) 12,000 (20) 12,OOD 220) 12.000 2202 12.00' 60,000 '.60,00),

lob reril 225,900 098,200 223,200 2146,200 246,200, 1.036,700 14 144,670 894.030

Pare Credt SerriraCred"It ifnag-r 2/ ener. 16,000 419 2 ) S,Ooo 1) 24,000 0 ) 16.000 1) 16,00 L 1) 1600OC 72,000 75 34,000 l8.000)Senior Cs'etn Wficer Mnecs 5,200 44 ( ) 2,600 21) 5,200 212 5.200 2 ) 5,200 2 1) 5,20C, 23,400 L0 2.340 21,10'0Peonnipal 0A- -a,at Ma ers- 7,800 4f 0 4) 3,900 2 ) 7,800 1) 7,800 I 1) 2,800 L 0) 2,600) 35,100 10 3.510 35,580)Aonsoet-OtI a fa.- 4,200 1 8 22) 8.1400 24) 16,800 24) 18.900 4) 16,800 24) 16,800' 25,600 10 7,560 68,060)Mhi4shn ope-atr. Ma -ero 2,600 36 24) 10,400 28) 20,800 28) 26I,800 8) 20,600 2 ) 20.800 93,600 10 9.560 84,240)Ceedin Officer. Mao faces 3,900 58 2 2) 7,900 2 45 15,600 2 4) 15,600 2a 2 42 2034.61500004) 1 600 4) 513,000'1570,2070,20D 17.0202 63,180Credin A.i, .at. 280pas 1,500 295 (153 19.9SW (401 52,000 (8)0) 101 ,00 (B0) i0)t,000 280) l0)a, 00 383,500 10 59,330 345.150)

S.6 rt.ul 60,600 134,200 180.200 i86,200 186,200) 753,400 16 122.140 631,260l

Ma-tarMrrnn Officer Ma - 5ar ,200 ise ) 2.600 21) 5,200 2 ) 5,200 2 ) 5,200 212 5,200) 23,'40 10 2,340 21.060)liarkar Aaai.tants ~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~ ~~ ~~Ma Year 1,700 1is 2) 3.400 24) 6,800 24) 6,800 242 6,8000 4) 6,800) 30,600 10 3.060 27,540)

Sob noni,l 6,0o00 12.000 12,000 12,000 12, 0010 34,00 10 5,400 68.600)

Sni I= Enine 12 Ma er 20,0o03 5 2 ) 20, 000 1 ) 20,000 2 ) 2c),00 1 20,000 2I1 20,00) 100, 15 75,0)30 2 5.00C)PleontrA O fti.er j/ Mt fears 16,000 4 ) 22 61,000o 1) 16,000 1) 16,000 I 2) 26,000 -64.'00 55 48,000 18,001C--retart- Oogi--ir2 Man oncrs 16,00 3-3/4 (3/4) 22,000 21) 16.000 1)2 18,,000 212 16,o03 OD6,00 75 453,OO 15,008)Road Onilcs,er 2/ Mac~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~K Ye... 16,080 4-7/4 (3/4) 22,000 2 ) 4,00 2) 21,.000 2 2 19,0)03 ) 260 76,03 2 700 1.0Work.h.p MI-5rg-r2 Ma- fra- 16,0093 4c L 42 ,000 2) 16,000 21) 18,003 2 1) 16,0000 24 8,00)) 64, ~ 7 900 1,0Irspscnnr cC Worba Mar peero ~~~~~~ ~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~~~~~4, 300C 4 2,150 2 ) 4.300 212 ,300 2 2 4300 15,050 10,55 354Rcrsf RE)gt,.sar 20Yeer 4.300 224t 224) 10,750 2 S 22,500 25) 25,500 2 9 21,500 2 3 21,30)) 96,750 10 9,623 87.07)2.acanta Oo ..e Mar far. 4,300 13 L 2) 4,300 23) 12,900 /3) 12.,9(00 32 12,900 (3) 12,900) 55,900 20 5,590 50,31))lotc onlffier Mac years 3,403 44 ) 42 6700 21) 3,400 2 ) 21,400 0 ) 3,000 2 1) 3.40)1 13,300 10 1.550 13,77)1S--rter Man .ear 2,300 44 2 ) 2,150 L 12 2,300 2 2 2,300 212 2.300 I"1/ 2,3002 10,350 10 1,035 9, 325ttrcneo/Orafneroer Mac~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Y. eaa 1,300 35 23) 3,900) 20) 10,400 0 ) i)).400 2 2 0,4(9 2 9 10,400) 45,500 10 4,550 40,95))T ..s. /Ty1.1. Maier 600 40 52 3,0o0 (102 6.000 O'Er) 8.,000 2202 6,0)30 2L52 3,000) 24,000 - - Z4,D00)

S~b tot),)l 9,4,950 24,0,00 144.0800 144 ,803 97,500) 626,850 47 296,003 329,962i

.02,61 1,6.6020S AND A2LLOWASCES 416,250 693,400 775.200 799,200 751,00)2 3,435,450 24 036,285 2,599, 16).

I/ Salaie .207 alJnoe o opt ste d307. .2 Ioat f,cr. Soca saff ato- Al 4rsd-Coa-td Sr t .11-Sa opt L cm enl-reec nIcecesssro

3/Reocl rt-p-ot. r-gistr, .... r Ity -cd p.bl)toltlo rfle.

'Scy 2, fyL)

NIGERIA

NORTH WESTERN8 STATE

R...i.g C-ot of VehLcle. ood Ploct

unit Foroig. E,c.oh-g LcU.1

(Jolt Coot M4,bre lee Yea0r 2 Soot 3 Ye,,r 4 Year 5 cot £lj(,,.

VehicL.sfrteot- dl0o1ot.,t0oc

Fo-, citl drloe, -.bio1C K.Uy.er 0.06 30.00c0 I) 1,8003 1) 1,8000 1) 1.000 (1) 1,000 1 ) 1.000 9.000 40 3,600 3,600

WW-tra Utro KeJyco 0.06 30,000(l 2) z.400 ( 3) 3,600 13) 3,600 13) 3.600 )3) 3,600 14.000, 40 6,720 10,000

M.torca ecOl 80/peo 0.03 20,00(l 2) 1.20) 4) 2,40D 4) 2,400 74) 2.1.00 (4) 2,400 10.800 40 4,320 6,400

I. ttor 7 cee80yea 0.01 20.000 (3) 60) (9) 1.000 (11) 2 .20C0 (11) 2.2oo (11) 2,200 0i,000 40 3,000 3,400

Sob ut.1O 6,003 9,600 [0,000 10.000 10,000 41,600 40 10.260 27,360

Poo obeel fteo ,etSl. W0Year 0.06 30,000 1) 1,8003 2) 3,600 2) 3.600 72) 3,600 72) 3.600 11,200 40 6.400 9,720

Motoc-o Serge 0.i'y.. 0.04 30,0001 1) 1,200 71) 1.200 1:1) 1,200 11) 1.200 ) ) 1.200 1,0),0 4,0 2,400 3,600

4otore,, eai1 Ke/por 0.03 40,0)00 4) 4.00o 7 ) 8,400 7: 7) 8,400 77) 8.400o 71 8,4030 36,400 40 15,340 23,060

T-oka S o fl,,t K.)'per 0.00 40.001 j 1.400 2) 5,600 : 2) 5.600 7 2) 5,600 2) 3, )0 21,B00 40 9,520 14,200

PerconoA cerri- 1/po 0.06 40,00) I000 Sa 1) 1,600 1:1) 1,603 1) 1,600 71) 1.600 7,200 40 2,8a0 4,320

Mct=r3I.. 80/pee 0.01 20.001) (12) 2,400 (49) 9.80 (6i:9) 9.000 (49) 9.000 749) 9.800 41,600 40 16,640 24,960

Sob t,ot.1 12,400 10.200 50,20) 30.200 30,200 133,200 40 53.200 79.920

Fa.- Crellit Srilbtoro, WYnc eceo 0.016 40,001 Soo 00 1) 1,600 11) 5,600 71) 1,600 71) 1,60D 7,200 40 2,880 6,320

-oocr 11 Ia.'pro 0.03 40.003) (21k) 3.000 ( ) 6,000 7 5) 6,00 1 ) 6,000 (5) 6,0DO 27,000 40 10.800 16.200

sboO tot1 3,OCO 7,600 7,600 7,600 7,600 34,200 40 13,600 20.520

Marker S-i"lceM.ctn-c,r -11 K0.le.o 0.03 40.0O0OD 4 600D ( 7) 1,200 (1) 1. 200 1) 1,200 (1) 1,200 5.400 40 2.160 3.260

(lotorcytlre Xe/~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~year- 0.01 20.003 (2) 400o 4) 800 (6) 800 (4) 000 4) 020 3,600 40 1,040 2.160

Sub t,,tal 1.10o 2.OD 2,00 0,000 2,000 9,000 40 3,600 4,400

Oeeeoc5 large Xelpoe 0.06 00,000 1 0) 00D IL) 1,600 (1) 1.600 71) 1,600 71) 1,600 7,200 40 2,080 4,320

Hotnon,,r 11 WY/oo 0.0o3 40,000 (2) 3,00o 7 3) 6,000 (5) 6,0DO 7 ) 6,000 55 6,C00 27,000 40 10,600 16.20)

Foo cite froon -obi.S. K0 1

yea 0.06 60.000 ( ) ,800 ( L 3,600 71) 3,600 (1) 3,600 11) 3,600 1.6,200 60 6,600 6.720

Sob octol 5,600 11,200 11.200 11.200 11.20) 50,4oo 40 20,160 3(1,240

Pl[et 1/rcktr-ttore 5.54,0 46,260 46,260 46,260 20.2.00 144,040 3 8,242 156,590

Wh-oI cocetor 3.141o 25,720 23,720 25.720 25,720 105,980 15 15.a02 94o.063

Orropor 4,2:10 35,120 35,120 35.120 .11)9,500 13 16,432 931,043

Hotor grd1,7:10 14,400 21,720 21.720 14.,400 - (,150 13 110,2' 65,.020

Load,r 1,030o 0,340 0,540 8,540 0.5640 31.190 13 5.2711 20.,912

Tipper 3.010 40,600 48.600 40,600 40,400 200.340 15 20,034, 1702,204

OArSJ tr-tt- with copre...r 1,0K10 0,400 8.400 8,40c 4,2l00 10,420 15 4,56:, 25,057

AgrS trctor, ctth ploogh 1.740 3.00) 3,000 7,740 13 0,167 6,579

Pon ekedI ftlco -r, nlitle 3.710o 3.710 3.710 3.710 1.650 16,490 13 2,47:1 1.,017

Pctk up jtoo 4.360 4,330 5,440 5.440 3.260 Z2,640 13 3,42(1 19,414

006hr lelco 19,1)0 36,870 39.640 29,607, 15,120 130.900 - 22,6351 12B.265

Sob toEd1 49.730 233,790 :146.190 246,190 142,470 910,370 13 121,27.3 797, 100

Workoho Oerotoog,Labor1,50-. 13:9.30 3:,937 13.950 69.750 . . 69,7350

Vehclel op.-aing0 ra tpacr 160) 1730 730 735)13,8000 77,430 2) 14,362 63,000

Offoto eupplie. wo eoro..t. 320 300 500 507; 500 2.500 60 1,309 1,000

P-.00 .od -chaucoeco.l 2 10,020 13 OCEO 20.000 25,00' 10.300 09,500 90 79,603 6.030

Spool.1

cornIce. 3/ 5,000 1.7000 7,00 10.001 10.DO 37,000 50 10,502 10,500

pn-o1ht 1,000 2.000 2,030 2.0000, 1.30') 6.500 - 8,500

Sob local 42,050 531.600 60.010 68.010 50.250 283,707 40 114,012 160,606

TOrAL, 120.580 34 .6.1 90 5M,099 3 7 5 .9 9 C.27 .4 74.70 2)3 347.242 1,170.226

2/ PolIo ool .uppli.c f.r h-ooy .... tc c q.ipeo- only - carlo fcc- o1hcc yth4l..t i0, udrd L.. 141-i00 -Otu of -ohilO,

it R.poli,.N o by rOtJ.,t eloc1- o-

NI]GERIOA

NORTP WE:STERN STaE

GCea. Aaricultur-l flvsosvew t Project

Cenera]. Se-vic e.N l.r.

Unit Foreign El.hange Lcce;Unit Cost Nuraber Year Y year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Total 7 Cost Ccst

Pr,:j-t hed offic 3,0 6,000 700 7,000 28,000 50 14,0X 14,000Devooloomeot Ur.it ol'ftcr tEch 300 IS ( 2) 600 ( 4) 1,200 ( 4) 1,20t ( 4) 1,200 ( 4) 1,200 3,400 50 2.70C 2,700I, lSe oto.er off:L;, E-ch 1iC 240 (20) 2,000 (44) 4,400 (44) (44) 4,400 (44) 4,400 19.600 50 9,80t 9,800

I.e" l-ono 2,000 5,(000 6,000 6,000 6,00 25,000 - 25.000Fi,r1d radio aej,tecanco 2.000 4,1000 6,000 6,00 6,000 24,000 - 24,0DO

Sub1 tote] 9,600 19,600 23,600 24,1500 24,600 102,000 26 26,500 75,500

CrediL QOeal:ig Cot:-:a r, c *n .ao, and bt,.or.r. 000 1, (1 2,000 4,D000 5,000 12,500 60 7,502C 5,000

l fi ., jl .so .... -, ' ;.7. a.:a I,ca . -c- 32,595 48,570 54,595 56,920 192,680 20 38,536 154,144

o,-cd MolttOi,cOation Fare, lW.a-o,t 170 2C0 34,000 34,000 34,000 34,U00 34,000 170,000 50 85,00tl 85,000

,r-<7<, . bire Service eI cor 2,250 t 6 (15) 33,750 (15) 33,150 (15) 33.750 (12) 27,000 ( 9) 20,250 148,500 40 59,4DCI 89,100

Far-Lor Yroin:w.I Ce.tLr 2: tratning 7,000s 5 ( 1) 7,000 ( 1) 7,00) ( 1) 7,0 ( 1) 7,0DO ( 1) 7,ODO 35,000 10 3,500 31,500

Tot.l 84,850 127.945 :148,920 151,195 147,770 66C.680 33 220,436 440.244

Cuoun see .. m 3. 34,40o 34, 00 344.0 34,34,40 172,000 - -Tr-rtor hire sex-cI - / 27,000 27,000 27,000 21,600 16,200 118,800

707.1 61,400 614.400 61,400 56,000 50,600 290,a6o800 -

1 X 900 hours an 82.5 per hoar. Iractor tArt nrrv,cn to hr pi,.,rrd o, r 90cr 6.2/ 8,800 scleor days r(r y-or L 80.8 9cr do,3/ 607. cotto- at N12, per ha 407 aol" at N250 p-0 '04/ A-orage rievecue at Y2 per It-r !.t Yl.800 p- voer

may 3, 1973

ANNEX 10Page 1

NIGERIA

NORTH WESTERN STATE

Gusau Agricultural Development Project

Marketing and Prices for Cotton and Groundnuts

A. Demand Projections for Major Crops in Project Area

1. Cotton. Against the background of an expected 1980 world consump-

tion of over 60 million bales of lint cotton (representing a world seed cot-

ton cron of about 33 million m tons) and expected world exports of about 20

million bales (11 million tons seed cotton equivalent), projected incremental

production of the Gusau. Funtua and Gombe prolects of approximately 100,000

tons seed cotton, representing only 0.3% of world production and (if wholly

exported) 0.Q9 of world exports, would have practically no impact on the

international supply and demand situation.

2. However, local demand by the domestic textile industry is expected

to ashnrh the inrrpmental production as well as the existing production from

outside the project area. The total production for 1980 is estimated at

210,000 tonns asd cnttnn- or nearly 400.000 bales of lint.

3. Demand prorections for lint cotton reauirements by the domestic

textile industry, as made by CSNRD, FAO and others around 1966-68, have

been over estimated. Fibre consnmntinn nper head of nonulation; cotton's

share in this consumption, real income development and income elasticity

of demanAd were over optimistic. The nro1erted requirements for 1970/71

was put at 377,000 bales, whereas, the industry's actual absorption was

168~Q,000 bales and had regressed to ___nnn in 1971-72.

4. A comprehensive survey of the indusitrv's situation is beine car-

ried out at present (results being expected by July 1973). Present assess-

ments made by industry anrd Government are often rontradirtory and in some

cases are probably politically influenced. It seems certain that there are

som Le f…act-ors preve.ting th.e 4iAustry from ex-andin- towards production levels

as previously projected, i.e. 680,000 bales for 1980 and 870,000 for 1985.1LZrut La%LVL.L 1LLLL.LuULL

Thes facor in14clude: lmAn n

(a) tLu e.ifl.atAio.znary ris-e lr. c- - --in -i -a h ao

tracting effect on the scope of textile consumption, accen-

tuatedU uy th=e speLcif ic pric..e rise for cotton prdt i l

with increasing world market and producer prices;

(b) the growing trend towards suiting material, generallysynthetic-based, in dressing habits of the young generation;

A1NINj I U

Page 2

(c) the inability of the domestic industry to satisfy thedemand for variety of style and texture; and

(d) the competitive force of the legal and illegal importtrade.

5. The projected decline of world cotton prices over the projectperiod would further the pressures on (d) above, since the marginal profit-ability of Nigeria's cotton economy would not permit a proportionate declinein local producer and consequently material prices. Without Government sup.-port-price policies for seed cotton and/or drastic and unpopular import re-striction measures, absorption of Nigerian lint by the domestic industryshould be modestly estimated at about 400,000 bales by 1980. This wouldmean that any incremental seed cotton production, apart from that generatedin the three northern project areas, could create a surplus that might haveto be exported at a loss to Government. It is unlikely that there will bea general increase in Nigerian cotton production with falling producer prices.Rather the project areas could develop as relatively strong supply bases forthe industry, with other non project areas remaining static as prices decline.The project investment in cotton development would be essential for the ade-quate supply of the Nigerian textile industry. Similarly the seed crushingindustry, presently being established under joint (State/private) entrepre-neurship in each of the project areas, would be dependent on project cotton,and cotton mills would require 120-160,000 tons cotton seed, (their economicutilization depends on a seed cotton crop of 180-240,000 tons).

6. For the time being 90% or more of the mills' output would be con-fined to the export market, and cotton seed price as a factor in the pro-ducer price calculation for seed cotton, is unlikely to improve above thoselevels for direct cotton seed exports. The situation will not change untilthe development of livestock fattening schemes in northern Nigeria has provedfeasible on a large scale. This in turn is dependent, among other factors,on a further rise of meat prices which are still below incentive levels forprofitable fattening schemes.

7. Groundnuts. The projected incremental production of groundnutsin the project areas (approximately 17,000 tons) will be of insignificantinfluence on the world (2% of world export trade) and domestic markets.(3% of average Nigerian crop, 5% of average NSMB purchases). With rapidincrease in local crushing facilities, a production increase of at leastthree times the projected incremental increase in the project area willbe needed to keep the crushing industry running at capacity (approximately700,000 tons nuts by 1975/76). With the anticipated decline in world marketprices and their direct impact on NSMB purchase prices, and a consequentdecline in production, the increased groundnut production from the Droiectshould therefore be regarded as an essential contribution to providing rawmaterial for the expanding crushing industry.

ANNEX 10Page 3

B. The Marketing Board System

8. The statutory marketing system in Nigeria comprises three (ground-nuts) and four (cotton) franchise operations, all with natural tendencies toexploit their monopolistic position. The breakdown of marketing costs as a% of the fob price for 1972 is shown below:

Groundnuts Cotton Lint

N1PMC 1% 1%NSMN 3.3% ) 5% )BCGA n.a. ) 9.3% 8% ) 22%LBA 5% ) 7%)

Transportation, handling bags, insurance,storage, including port charges 13% 13% 13%

Produce sales tax 2% ) 2%)) 18% ) 17%

Export duty 16% ) 15% )

NSMB profits 4.7% -

45% 52%

9. Due to the largely fixed character of most marketing cost items, adecline in world prices, as foreseen for the course of the project period,would be reflected more than proportionately in subsequent producer prices,although the NPMC, NSMB and LBA allowance could be made flexible and moreproportionate with producer price changes. This would mean adaptation ofmarketing agency operation to the general degree of prosperity in the re-spective industry served, i.e. sharing times of economic hardship with theproducers and thereby maintaining a producer price above disincentive levels.This policy may be assumed under new federal marketing policies discussed inparas 18 and 19.

10. The statutory marketing system could break down should this flexi-bility prove impossible. The textile and oil crushing industries, whichare vitally dependent on continued production of these crops, are soon like-ly to absorb the entire cotton and groundnut crop, and may obtain approvalto short-cut existing (statutory) arrangements in order to save a marginallyremunerative producer price. Such action would be Justifiable unless theservices rendered by the present system are considerably improved.

11. For the time being, the project would operate within the existingstatutory marketing system. It is therefore necessary to identify the maiordeficiencies of the system and measures by which improvements can be made.

ANNEX 10Page 4

(a) Late announcement of guarantee purchasing prices for theseason. The requirement that prices are fixed and announc-ed well ahead of the planting season, is of particular im-portance for the project, as the producer price level couldhave an important bearing on seasonal loan policies and the

contingent procurement of seed and fertilizer to be issued

before planting.

(b) Short-supply of working capital for crop finance to LBA in

the protect area. LBA currently receives working capital

from commercial banks. Under the project the managementwould have veto rights on undesirable LBA, and would expect

commercial banks to increase the amounts of working capitalto nronect approved LBA so that the large increases in ex-

pected output can be satisfactorily financed. Effortsshould be made to induce NSMB to draw down sufficient crops

finance from the Central Bank and arrange for timely reimbur-sement to commercial banks, there by allowing the commercial

banks to release more of their own funds to LBA.

(c) Under-payment of producers by LBA and their sub-agents. This

apparently is done by direct and indirect methods:

(i) direct: by under - weighing and imposition of "dash"

payments for purchasing and inspection services at the

gazetted markets;

(1i) indi-t: bIy de-.iberatelv deteriorating nurchasing and

inspection services in the gazetted markets (e.g. bystar.ing a market of purchasing funds or blocking itby absence of buying agents and/or produce inspectors)in order to pressurize producers to sell outside the

markets where the statutory price regulations do not

apply.

Effective market control in the project areas i8 there-

fore of foremost importance. With better supervision at themarkets due to ger.eraL project act-i-VIte4 the ist.llat-ion of

self recording scales, and a special project market intelligenceunit, the farmers should '.ncrease their gross receipts by about

10%. The cotton producer receives undue discriminatory treat-

ment since he cannot sell outs'de the statutory system. and isrings.

(d) The seasonal and/or institutional lack of competitive buying

in the markets.

ANNEX 10Page J

(i) seasonal: After the seasonal peak produce deliveriesbecome sporadic. As the markets continue to operatedaily, maintenance of full-time sub-agents in the marketsbecomes uneconomical for LBA, and the number of sub-agentsare reduced which further reduces competition. To furthercomplicate the situation the produce inspectors slacken offand are absent from the markets for considerable periods.The project would consider having set market days, duringthe offpeak periods, thus making the business of buyingmore economic. It would also allow LBA or their sub-agentsto attend more than one market and thereby foster a greatdegree of competitiveness. LBA could be committed, withoutundue demands to be represented at each market on the al-located market day. Produce inspectors would be better sup-ervised and would be expected to be present at the marketthroughout the day.

(ii) institutional: Cooperative orientated state governments'policies have tended to favor replacement of LBA bycooperative monopoly buying in the markets. This hasgenerally resulted in an even lower service to the pro-ducer than that provided by the LBA, with the result thatthe producer is now demanding re-installation of LBArepresentation at the markets involved. It should benoted that most cooperatives are not truly producers'cooperatives but rather are dominated by trading groups.While cooperatives should be encouraged to apply for anLBA licence, they should not be allowed monopoly rights,even in seed multiplication areas where other means ofsecuring unadulterated supplies can be employed. Theprinciple of competitive servicing of producers in themarkets should be given priority.

12. To summarize, the main points for control and improvement ofstatutory marketing within the project are as follows:

(a) that producer prices are announced well in advance of theseason;

(b) that sufficient and timely procurement of purchasing fundsbe available;

(c) that a system of controls is effected to enforce higherstandards, and to exclude dishonest or inefficient LBAand nroduce inspectors; and

(d) that ronnideration be given to rescheduling market days toonce or twice weekly occurrence during the latter part ofthe market season-* n aR tn Pnsure comnetitive buving. Pre-

ferably cotton market days should be limited to traditionalm.arket days in the area,

ANNEX 1 0

13. Pre-conditions for successful implementation of these measureswould b)-e:

\a/ costLantL contacLL an1U cUUooperaUlo WLLII Nlrnu, -i1-D, CentralBank and local commercial banks;

(b) veto right by project administration in selection and annual±lcensing oL LBA; and

(c) we'L'L tralrLed proj'ect staff dealing with marketing research,liaison, and control tasks.

C. Producer Price Projections for Cotton and Groundnuts

14. The following producer price projections take into considerationthe declared new federal marketing policy for export crops. This policy aimsat: reducing the burden of taxation; reducing statutory marketing overheads;and transferring gains out of fob price developments to producers.

15. The April.1973 Budget abolished the export duty and the "producesales tax" which together represented about 17-18% of fob price (25-40% offarm gate price) and instead introduced a 10% "produce tax". it is, however,not yet clear if the 10% tax is applicable to the producer price or to ahigher value eg millgate or fob price.

16. Overheads of the statutory marketing system are mainly found under"NSMB administrative overheads"; "LBA (Licenced Buying Agents) allowances";and IINPMC (Nig. Prod. Marketing Co.) agency commission". These overheadscould be reduced per unit of turnover with increased volume of turnover and/or improved efficiency and/or subsidization. Under new federal policy actionmay be taken on any or all of these items.

17. In the past the Marketing Board has generally withheld more thanproportionate increases in price when favorable world market conditiotspre-vail. This has resulted, particularly for cotton, in a virtually static in-dustry, and unless measures are taken to more positively reflect changes inworld market prices a further degeneration of Nigeria's cotton industry canbe expected. Producer prices could be kept from disproprotiona.e fluctua-tions by developing a more closely linked market-producer price policy.

18. The following producer price projections are derived from threealternative cost data series, (all presumptuous since the present situationof changing government policies does not provide a firm basis for marketingcost data. It is assumed that by the time the project is appraised govern-ment policies will be more clear):

ANNEX 1 0Page 7

Alternative I (only of comparative value): implies all taxesnnd ma-kf4ng, costs as pea41i,n unti-41 the 1071 budget,+ 1.u.t-. *, J S~A

5t. uLA

definitely undergoing some changes in favor of a higher producerprice with gdl pm ao fl~w ne Govern*u.entpoU.Liciesannounced in the April 1973 Budget Speech.

Alternative II: implies new principles of statutory marketingopratiot

4ns oA -ax-ation - -1 -4-A 1.y. `e T e.e__

_k-^Xv, c.. .U)' LIA v I rU=L dtfUVCL1LL11I"L L

under pessimistic assessment of the mode and scope of theirimp le-en tat ion..

~~ J.J.L. ~~CO AL, U.AL U&1UC-L UPL.LUL±.LI$.Lk i15t5511_1 U]

new policies, and (in case of cotton) assuming successfulproject impU=L1Leatio.Ln wiLLch WoUUl a;L leaL Uouble the pre-sent national seed cotton crop with the impact of loweringg in-nir.g an.d baling Lfees.

19. The followiL6 cust elements nave been varied in constructing alter-natives II and III:

(a) export duty: deleted in line with Budget proclamation;

(b) NPMC and NSMB commission and overhead charges, includingcontingencies: reducea in adaptation to more reasonablemarketing margins narrowed by Federal price fixing com-mittee;

(c) nanaling, storage and transport cost: slight reduction inline with improved efficiency and better handling conditionswithin Nigeria;

(d) Dags: reduction in line with expected regression of importprices and increasing scope and efficiency of local bagproduction;

Ce) LBA allowance: reduced in proportion with producer pricedecline; this measure as proposed may find vehement objec-tion from LBA. However, since the share of direct expensesin the LBA allowance is negligible, while the major elements -financing and risk taking - are value related, and "overheadcosts" are relatively adaptable in a typical LBA operation,the proposal is justified. The LBA, as well as otherstatutory institutions, should realize that they have toshare the bad as well as the good times with the producer,lest the latter abandons the crop altogether.

(f) finance charges: adjusted according to value of transactions;and

ANNEX 10Page 8

(g) "produce sales tax": deleted in line with Budget proclama-tinn and rpnlanced by "nroduce tax" rating "10% ad valorem"(still awaiting interpretation as to the basis for the per-centagp calrulation).

20. The producer pripe nroneations are derived from export calcula-tions, though a progressively larger share of groundnut export will reachthe market in fo_rm f o41 nnd cak- e a- prnd-t of rhe rxpnnding local crush-ing industry, and most or all of the cotton crop will be absorbed by thelocal textile ir.Adustry. T pr-4ic4ng mdis apnnliepd in airnnlvinc the ground-

nut crushing industry is that of export substitution, i.e. securing an NSMBand prAUc 4 - - -..1 f*^ t ^n- ghtn4n:.hla fvi-n ul4ra-ct a'rnelnmnitu nor rnttntn

exportation. The only factor that could enable the crushing industry topay S1AnevCIMra pay higher th-1-an exportu substitution prices mwould be an ir.creasingsaeo

domestic sales in their operations. With the fast rate of expansion en-visaged, however, this shlare will Aecline during th- p04 ectperiod. The.

same principle is applied in pricing cotton lint supplies to the localLex]e mlls uu UA;lUULII 61C.LI= ^ uu-) &-LV1 OL-W WL -- v_ V

ducts are sold locally. The poor cotton crops over the past two years, comr-bined witn generous demari.d proJections luy lle industry, induced One introduc=tion of an "Extra Charge" of 2.5 k/kg (raising the lint price of 53 k/kgspot Zari'a)j resultir.g in a producer price increa-se from 12 /kg to 14k/k

SPOL £~~i±~J L~~U.LL.LLA~ I.AA ~ ~ r~ - -I -, -- -1 "b

seed cotton. While this "extra charge" temporarily raised the lint priceabo-ve (econ[omic) export substitution level's, the- fimn up4 of prices cif

Liverpool quotations has meanwhile covered the "extra charge". However,

it is likeLy that witl proJecteU decreases i. worLU priLces the li,t pricefor the local industry would be maintained up to 10% above export substitu-

tion level, in order to prevent producer (seed cotton) priLces fromULa fallingbelow incentive levels.

21. The following tables summarize the economic and farm gate pricecalculations for cotton and groundnuts.

ANNEX 10

Table I Page 9

ECUNUOM!C ANDi- FARM GATE SEED CUCiTOVi PRICE CAMuMATAION -

(N per m tonJ

I II IIIUnder

Early 1973Conditions Under New Federal Policy

Pessimistic OptimisticAssumption Assumption

fob Apapa 346.0 346.0 346.0Export duty 15% 52.0 - -fob net sales income 294.0 346.0 34600

NPMC agency commission, estimated 4.0 ) 2.0Dues, handling, and storage charges at )port, estimated 3.55 ) 3.10

Insurance 2.15 ) 71.65 1.60Rail freight gins ('base Zaria') - port 21.60 ) 21.60Handling and storage at gins, and cotton )lint classification 2.35 ) 1.60Ginning and baling fees 38.00 ) 31.10

lint: 222.35 274.35 255.00seed cotton: 74.10 91.4b5 9.00

Handling and storage at dumps 0.60 ) 0.50Transport markets - dumpts 4.35 ) 20.55 3.95LBA allowance 11.30 ) 7.90Baas: 4.30 ) 2.95NSMB overheads, including 'capital )expenditure' and BmA fee 3.m5 ) 2.00 l.ho

Finance charge (presently 2.25) 2.55 ) 2.85 3.15'Contingencies' 1.30 ) 0.90 -

46.5 -65.15 75.15Net income from cotton seed sales 3 o.8o 1=0o 12.00Economic producer price 4/ 46.95 (64.30) 6 87.15Produce tax 5/ 3.25 11.f q 6/ 7-9. 7/

Financial producer price 43.70 55.20 79.20= per kg Kobo 4.37 Kobo 5.52 Koho 7-92

1/ Assumed seed cotton crop: 110,000 tons for I and II; 220,000 tons for III.2/ Projected (World Bank) cif %Erone price 1980/81: for 1YxiC. SM 1-1 /6

US030 per lb, for Niger NA lB US¢ 28.5 per lb. Equivalent to 1973 prices(assuming 29 annual production cost inflation trend) TjS24.8 per lb. Freightand insurance uS1.25 per lb thus fob Apapa US¢ 23.55 per lb or N346 per metricton. Last 12-18 months. 1971-earlv 1973: 36-P2 A- April 1973 40-56¢.

3/ % expenses on cotton seed distribution.Tn Tlnti I only the price in bracks+q i.. ex-luding exrort duty.

§/ Presently 'produce sales' tax10 (o nn fob value (e-to+.+.nm scge equiA%ty!1an')

/ 10% on producer price.

ANNEX 1n

Table 2 Page TU

ECONOMIC AND FARM GATE GROUNDNUT PRICE CALCUATION (N per m ton)

I II IIIUnder

Early 1973Conditions Under New Federa. Policy

Pessimistic OptimisticAssumption Assumption

fob Apapa 1/ 97-5 97.5 97.5Export duty 15% 14.6 - -

fob net sales income 9 77 9 97.7

NPMC agency commission 2.00 ) 1.00Dues, handling and storage charges at port 2.50 j 2.00

Rail freight, depots - port, including )insurance 16.80 ) 16.80

Depot running cost, including pest )control, tarpaulins, etc. 0.80 ) 41.10 0.70

Road freight markets - depots 3.60 ) 3.20

Bags 6.00 ) 5.70

LBA allowance 9.40 ) 6.ooFinance charges 1.80 ) 2.00 2.40

NSMB overheads 2/ 2.40 ) 1.00

'Contingencies' o.80 ) 2.00

Economic producer price 3/ 36.60 (51.40)327.L0 S.7o

Produce tax 4/ 3.50 9-75 / 5.35/

Financial producer price 33.30 42.65 53.35

Remarks: Prodiucer nrice 1970-72 of N66.50 allowed WN4-12 profit to NSMB. The

increase to N78.50 for the 1972-73 season absorbed all potential profits under1972 prevailing fnb nrices. Actual fob prices. however, rose from November

1972-March 1973 by 20-45%. A producer price increase to N120 and even 130 would

still have allowTed the Board with -ample profits, the crushing industry being

charged with N148 (February 1973) 'spot - Kano' in correlation with fob price

development for nuts.

1/ Projected (World Bank) cif Europe price 1950 per metric ton = Lstg 78.8 =

in 1973 prices (assumed anniual production- cost inflation trend 2%) =6stg 67.14

less freight and insurance Lstg 6.5 = fob Apapa Lstg 60.9 = N97.5. cif pricedeveloper.nt 1970-72: L95-105, present (April 1973) qrnund 9145-150.

2/ Including produce inspection overtime charges.Wi U1der IL only tLhe price in b-akes-, i.e excluding export du ty

7/ Presently produce sales' tax./ 10% oI fuo price.6/ 10% of producer price.

ANNEX 1 0P_o P 1 1

22. On the foregoing evidence it would seem that a case can be madefor a producer price forecast falling beeween alternatie TI and TTT, and

that it would in fact be nearer alternative III than II on the followinggrounds

(a\ that M.". is more thar. 1ikely to base the lo70 produce t-C, L*USL L V. , ErM L / --.S** _- s j--

on the first point of sales, rather than on an fob basis;

(b) that if the statutory marketing system is unable to operateor. a low cost basis t1hen direct produ.e buying arran.gements

by respective industries is likely to occur; and

(c) present high NSMB profits could provide sufficient pricesupport reserves for the projected low price period oL thelate 1970's. Should FMG, under the new policy, distributethese profits in the form of 'ncreased producer prices,then it is likely that it would give support to producerprices in the years of expected export price decreases.

23. Tne cotton price as shown in Lthe preceding Lable shioulU be grdeUU

upwards by 10% to allow for an application of import subsitution pricing,which will have to be accepted by the textile industry, to prevent producerprices falling below minimum incentive levels of about kobo 8 per kg. Theblend between alternative II ana III as snown below arrives at an average oiK7.83 per kg. (Alternative III having twice the weighting factor to alter-native IIj. This can be further projected upward to K8/kg to take intoaccount the narrowing of price differential between Mexican and Nigeriancotton lint prices, as currently quoted on the Liverpool market. (April 16quotation Mexican SM 1-1/16 at 46.25 ct/lb and Nigerian NA 13 at 45.45 ct/lb,a difference of 1.8% as compared to 5% used in the price calculation).

24. Producer price projections for the project are therefore taken asfollows:

Groundnut m ton Cotton kgNaira Kobo

Pessimistic 46.25 5.52Optimistic 53.35 7.92Weighted average 50.00 7.1210% import substitution - 0.71

50.00 7.83

Recommended rounded price 50 8

ANNEX 1 0

Page 12

25. The economic price projections for project commodities are asfollows:

Groundnut m ton Cotton m tonNaira Naira

Pessimistic 52.40 66.75Optimistic 58.70 87.15Weighted average 56.60 80.3510% import subsitution - 8.04

56.60 88.39

Rounding 57 89

ANNEX 11Page 1

NIGERIA

NORTP. WESTERN STATE

Gusau Agricultural Development Project

MLa rkets A l:rices a rAMarketing oF Maize, Sorghum and Cow-teas

A. Preser.t SitLuat40r

1. Traditionally Nigeria has been nearly self-sufficient in all cer-eals except wLeat. SorghuLim. and maize are the most im.portant staple grains 4n

Nigeria, with sorghum mainly produced and consumed in the northern part ofthe country ana maize produced m-ore widely but beling consumed mainly in thesouthern states. Data on food production and consumption are insufficient.The FAO Commodity Balance Work Sheets for Niger'a and the Food Balance Sheetfor the year 1968/69 computed for the National Agricultural Development Co-mmittee provided some indications on the exist.ng situation. While it is

difficult to quantify amounts of those commodities entering the country, itwould appear that foreign trade on maize, millet, sorghum aid cowpeas wasrather insigificant in the past.

2. This situation, however, has changed significantly in recent years.Food shortages are persistent and more magnified in some areas. Maize im-ports for food and poultry feed have been rising rapidly. Factors such asrepeated droughts and the effect of the civul war account partly for thisrecent tendency, though the basic problem is that food production has re-mained static in contrast to increasing population growth and urbanization.This has been compounded by the growth of per capita income, in the urbanareas, that resulted from economic recovery, reconstruction and the boostingof oil earnings.

3. Consequently, food prices have tended to increase steadily. Foodprices in urban areas increased by 24% in 1970 and 27% in 1971, accountingfor the bulk of the increase in the consumer price index in those years.Prior to the recent gains in world prices, Nigerian prices were double theUS farm price for coarse grains and three times the world level for rice.Prices observed in recent years for the commodities considered are shown inTable 1.

4. Trasnport bottlenecks and constraints in distribution constitute a

major item of marketing cost for all commodities. High freight rates hin-der, to a great extent, long distance hauling of low unit value commoditiesand thus constitute a major constraint to expanding market-oriented foodcrops. A cut in transportation costs would be of the greatest impact onboth input distribution costs and produce marketing expenses.

5. A number of detailed studies have concluded that the staple foodmarketing system in Nigeria is performing fairly efficiently. This systemfunctions entirely in the hands of the private sector. However, Govern-

ANNEX 11Page 2

ment Local Authorities and Cooperatives run small scale storage programswhich are rather inefficient and have little impact, except on local shortagesdue to droughts and floods. Most studies found that the food crop markets,and activities of their intermediaries approximate the conditions necessaryfor a competitive marketing system, leaving little room for exploitativepractices. An Institute for Agricultural Research study indicates that theproducers' share in the retail price of grain, mainly for sorghum and millet,averaged 69%, while incomes of marketing intermediaries were low relativeto their services.

6. Despite this, some improvements to the marketing system commandsattention. Spatial and temporal erratic price differences occur which arerelated to the imperfections inherent in the system. The erratic nature ofsupply, a lack of adequate dissemination of information on prices, demandand Aupnnlv result in a lack of integration of the total network of markets.This accounts for the extreme variation in prices which tends to occur morefreqniently in small and relative isolated markets.

7. Stnrage dnes not appear t-n he a critieal matter under the nresentcircumstances, except for cowpeas. Most of the grain storage takes place,f-irlv r1PmiAItlV.v_ St the farm level. Farmers eenerallv do not sell all

their surplus of grain (which is small) at the harvest season. Very little!on--term storage occurs at t-hp rurnl and urban market levels. Although the

seasonal increase in grain prices was above estimated storage costs, them-rgin, it is believed, is not large, nor suff4ipntly denpendable to en-courage development of specialized storage service.

8. The deceptive outcome of several small-scale public storage pro-g,,- m.s carried out to date suggest that some reliance should be -laced on the

responsiveness of the market to increasing marketable volumes. Althoughseasonal peak storage of grain (a,irlu.4no on-far,,, storage for subsistence)

is forecasted to grow from 1.5 million tons at present to 3.3 million tons1b 1085, there is only l4lkely to b- a role for larger centr-l --rehouses 4f

uy U. 1L . - -.a~ t- -t it - ..8

-6 - - - -... ct....a~

the rise in production is achieved through increased regional specializationandu .if frelghl clharges are drasti.ally reduced. Concerning the latter, some

improvements may be expected from recent investments for trunk and feederroadus andU thLe proJectelU reorganization. of the railways. 1t .ts n.likely that

traders will need special credit facilities to construct the additionalstorage neeueud ir 'Lo thle Lor ese e-aUle produ io. Concerning on-farmOsto

special efforts should be devoted to cut down the excessive cowpea storagelosses due to insect pests. Adequate and economical storage facilities arestill to be devised for that commodity.

9. Thus, the present food crop marketing system is able to absorb quiteadequately the impact of the project without major changes. Furthermore,introducing improvements will be made easy by the extensive facilities plannedwithin the framework of the project. The market intelligence units should beable to insure a better collection and dissemination of information concern-ing crop prospects, market supplies and prices.

ANNEX 11Page 3

B. Mark1et and PriceP Prosnects

Markets

10. There are a number of projections of food demand and supply for'IA n ,Fq,irr Pn,rp,nt ,nnlips and Demand in

Niseia. "A uantitive Analysis of Food Requirements up'eanDmndi

Nigeria 1968-85" is the most recent, and one of the most comprehensive

studies. Some -uncertainties surronA the findings of that study, due to

quality of the basic data. For this reason, materials from the study used

in this report snoulu ub given UonL±y an 4-Acauo«v -1-

11. Food demand project'ons for 1975,1980 and 1985 have been based on

the 1968/69 food balance sheet, which leaves much to be desired in many re-

spects. Annual rate of population increase was estimated at 37 and annual

growth of per capita income at 4%. Estimates of income elasticities of de-

mand are shown in the table Delow. ML"ost assupILlos a recon ssten wi,,t.r

rent rBank projections.

Nigeria Demand for Selected Footstuffs 1968-1985tons '000

1968 1975 1980 1985

Ponulation: 62,985,000 75,135,000 87,526,000 102,456,000

Commodity IncomeElasti C4 tv

Maize 0.4 832 1,034 1,200 1,423

Millet 0.4 1,909 2,373 2,755 3,267

Sorghum 0.4 2,985 3,710 4,308 5,108

Cowpeas 0.3 431 510 574 660

Sour--: S.0. Ola,ide "A nuqntitivp Analyvis ,.."

Mean Annual % increase in demand

1968/69-1974/75 1975/76-1979/80 1980/81-1984/85

Maize )

Millet ) 3.47 3.69 4.18

Sorghum )

Cowpeas 2.61 2.77 3.14

ANNEX 11Page 4

12. It is noteworthv that the above projections do not take into ac-count odemand for animal feed. About 45,000 tons ot maize was ted commerciallyto livestock (mainly poultry) in 1971. This use is expected to expand at thefollowing annual compound rates: 1971-74: 33.3%; 1975-79: 25% and 1980-85:20%. On this basis demand for feed will amount to 106,000 tons in 1974,323,000 tons in 1979 and level off at 804,000 tons in 1985. Sorghum has lesspotential as stock feed and demand was estimated at 5,000 tons in 1971 andprojections for 1985 are 220,000 tons.

13. Food supply has been projected assuming the continuing of the exist-ing production system. Present growth rates estimated to that purpose areshown in the table below. USAID provides the source for the followinginformation. The rates and consequently the estimates derived from themcarry the same degree of reliance as that for the production, acreage andyield estimates contained in the Sample Survey. Thus, the projected sur-plus and deficit should be regarded as a very broad order of magnitude.

Nigeria: Projlections of Supply for Selected Foodstuffs* Ions. InnnSJ

r L~~~LLL u1 Jp± in OUPL .LLI LJUPjJ.Ly .LLLrresent Supply i upyi upy4Growth Rate 1975 1980 1985

Maize 2.4 982 1,106 1,2450 1,977 2,027 2,07

Sorghum -0.3 2,923 2,879 2,836e - OO % 1ACowpeas 5.7 fl3J 0.30 1,105

Source: Olayiae "A uuantlitative Analysis...

i4. Comparison between demand and supply projections for tne periodshows a deficit for all the crops considered except for cowpeas.

Proiected Food Surpluses for Selected Crops(tons '000)

1975 1980 1985

'Maize -52 - 94 - 178rMi1llet -396 - 728 -1,189

Sorghum -787 -1,429 -2,272_owpeas +129 + 264 + 445

15. It should be noted that demand and supply for stock feed have notbeen counted; neither has consideration been taken of possible changes dueto regional differences or adequacy diet. Possible adjustments will resultin a higher deficit for maize and a reduced deficit for sorghum. This ishowever difficult to quantity since no information exists about present orfuture rate of substitution of sorghum by maize in the north. The surplus

A NMIVY - -. T - I.

Page 5

showLn fLor coiwpeas is hi' 'Lghf ly quest-ionable. Lack. of data on this commLodity

are fragmentary and persistent trend in prices rather indicates a situationOL tjIU L LlU .L & 11 :5 P L t UL 'LllA t Iles reeva-tions, it iLs a ' acu- suypp'y shouldU 41-t

crease steadily in the future to keep up with demand.

16. The National Agricultural Committee suggests the following annualgrowtl rates:

Nigeria: Growth Rates of Food Supply

Average Annual Suggested Annual Suggested AnnualGrowth Rate of Growth Rate of Growth Rate of

Demand Food Supply Farm Production

Maize 3.8 6.5 8Millet 3.8 6.5 8Sorghum 3.8 6.5 8Cowpeas 2.8 5.7 7.5

Those projections appear somewhat conservative, compared to USAIDprojections based on supply for both food and feed.

Source: Olayide "A Quantitative Analysis..."

AiNEX ilPage 6

Northern Nigeria Rural Development Projects

Economic and Financial Farm-gate Prices

Estimates (in 1972 N/metric ton)

MAIZE

I II(Ibadan) (Kaduna)

E F E F

FOB US Gulf 36 36 36 36Ocean freight insurance 14 14 14 14

CIF 50 50 50 50

Handling - Port charges 2 2 2 2Duty (42% of CIF) - 21 - 21

Value landed Lagos 52 73 52 73Inland Transport 6 8 16 23

Wholesale Market valueat consumption area 58 81 68 96

Transport from productionarea (Funtua-Gusau) -16 -23 -6 -8

Wholesale Market Priceat production area 42 58 62 88

Local Transport (assembly) -3 -4 -3 -4Intermediaries Martin -5 -5 -5 -5

Farm Gate Price 34 49 54 79

SORGHUM

FOB US Gulf 33 33Ocean frelght-insurance 14 14CIF 47 47HanTdlin- - port char-es 2 2

49 49DUt- (42Z of rTF) _ nValue landed Lagos 49 69Inland transport 1C 6Wholesale market value 65 92

aL conswiption area

ANNEX 11Page 7

TT

(Kaduna)

Transport from production

area (Funtua-Gusau) -6 -8

Wholesale Market Price

at production area 59 84

Local transport -3 -4

Intermediaries margin -5 -5

Farm-gate price 51 75

I(Ibadan)

E F

COWPEAS

Market wholesale pricein the South (Ibadan) 165 165

Transport from Northernproduction area(Funtua-Gusau) -16 -23

Local transport - 3 - 4

Intermediary margin -

storage losses(about 30% marketwholesale price) 47 47

Farm-gate price 99 91

Basis for the above Estimates

1. Maize and sorghum prices nave been. computed on. an im,port substitu-

tion basis.

2. FOB prices for maize and sorghum are Bank projections for the 1972-

80. They are expressed in 1972 US$. Price used for cowpeas corresponds to

the harvest season price.

rLcW 11

Page 8

3. Inland transport is based on road transport. due to the presentcongestion of the Railways. Costs used are the miminum freight chargesqotnted by Inoal firmn Economic transoort costs have been extracted from re-

cent studies, particularly "The Nigerian Railways Corporation" Canac Con-sultant 19Q72. Shonild thpse rnmmodities be transDorted bv rail costs willbe about half of that shown by the estimates.

4. Cowpeas intermediary margin and storage loss has been estimatedaeSiirniny an loss of 90T nf tho farmPrs' salpe and an intermediarv margin ofN 10/metric ton.

N I G IE R I A

Market Prices and Marketing of Maize. Sorithua and Coypegs

Recent Market Prices for Maize, Millet, Sorghum tnd- rwpeas

Jan. Feb. March April Ma Jime July !q Sept. Oct. I1ov. Dec.

Market Prices 1971 tor Metric tons

Sorghum 60.13 65.14 70.15 86.918 86.98 90.19 95.20 95.20 95.20 90.19 150.13 60.13

Millet 57.51 62.30 67.10 76.68 76.68 82.4:3 84.35 86.27 67.10 57.51 67.10 67. 10

Maize 82,67 88.18 99.21 110.23 110.23 110.2:3 132.28 110.23 93.70 88.18 88.18 55.12

Conress - - 220.46 244.96 244.96 293.95 293.95i 293.95 293.95 244.96 208.21 195.96

Market Prices 1972 in Metiric tons

G Corn 73.15 80.17 -80.17 80.17 85.18 90. 19 90.19 100.21 90.19 90.19 130.17 80.17

Millet 76.68 76.68 76.158 76.68 76.68 86.27 91.06 57.51 76.68 76.68 82.43 91.06

Maize 132,28 132.28 110.23 110.23 110.23 132.28 132.28 110.23 110.23 115.74 115.74 127.87

Cowpeas 244.96 257.20 269.45 269.45 269.45 293.95 342.94 342.94 293.95 293.95 195.96 171.47

Market Prices 1973 in Metric tons

G'Corn 92.19 100.21 100.21

Millet 115.02 115.02 115.02

Maize 132.28 132.28 132.28

Cowpeas 176.37 176.37 176.37

Source: Crop and weatherReport GusauInformation collected on 10-20 of each month.Sample alleged to be from 5 - 10 sellersPrice per bag and converted into price per metric ton.

NIGERIA

NORTH WESTEVN STATE

Gusau _r&icultural Drvelocent Pro1ect

Cash F]Lo to GovernmLent _4'000)

1 2. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11-20 21-50

Sources of Ftmdl(a) Loans and Grants (including contirgencies)

DIBRD loam 2,245 1,444 1,390 1,618 1,685 - - - - - -FM.' loan 979 609 528 6:17 667 - - - - - - -FM'. grant: (subsidies) 42 82 165 3:32 585 585 585 585 585 585 585 585

Sub total 3,266 2,1L35 2,083 2,567 2,937 58.5 585 585 585 585 585 585

(b) Re-venueBalance fErom revolving crediLt fuUnl - 14 72 163 278 292 196 215 124 66 66 66Cotton produce tax / 97 1L22 165 216 274 274 274 274 274 274 274 274GrDundnut produce tax 2/ L30 136 145 161t 188 188 188 188 188 188 188 188Income from farmer tractor hire service 61 61 61 56 51 34 34 34 34 34 34 34

Sub total 288 :133 443 5906 791 78S 692 711 620 562 562 562

Total -sDurce 3,554 2,468 2,526 3,163 3,728 1,373 1,277 1,296 1,:205 1,147 1,147 'L,147

ApplicatLon of F3ndsIncremental credit to farmners 73 237 430 658 935 - - - - - - -Develo,pment infrastructure and services 3,184 1,975 1,611 1,546 1,189 546 546 546 546 546 473 473Contingenciet; 3/ 327 :164 493 750 1,011 218 218 218 218 218 189 189Subsidt - fertilizer 4/ 42 82 165 3:32 585 585 585 585 585 585 585 585

Sub total 3,626 2,;58 2,699 3,286 3,720 1,349 1,349 1,349 1,349 1,349 1,247 1,247

Debt ServiceRepayment of IBRD loan 5/ 163 267 368 486 608 1,102 1,102 1,102 1,102 1,102 1,102 -Repayrment of FK loan 6/ 10 16 21 .27 34 34 34 34 34 34 104 104

Sub t:otal 173 283 389 513 642 1,136 1,136 1,136, 1,136 1,136 1,206 104

Total Application of Funds 3,799 2,!41 3,088 3,799 4,362 2,485 2,485 2,485 2,485 2,485 2,453 1,351

Balance (245) (473) (562) (636) (634) (1,112) (1,208) (1,189) (1,280) (1,338) (1,306) 204

Revenue iue to Gross Income Guararnteed 7/ - 14 61 159 357 677 677 677 677 677 677 677

Government Surplus or Deficit 8/ (245) (459) (501) (477) (277) (435) (531) (512) (603) (661) (629) 473

17 @ N5 per ton ) Based on grosis production from project area since project inputs benefit befEore ankd after development.2/ N15.4 per ton 3/ Continigenciets exclude conitingericies on fertilizer,, from Year 6 40% contingencies on pro"ect serviceEl only.4/ Includes coritingencies.5/ 20 year loarn @

7k% interest with 5 year grace peri.od for principal (1N8.382 million). -3

6/ 50 year loark @ 17 with 10 year grace period for principal (113.4 million).7/ Estimated at: 10% of incremental gross income due to project generated outpuit in year following produIction.8/ Note existing Government costs in the project area which are minimal are not included. - -

May 8, 1973

ANNEX 13Page 1

NIGERIA

NORTH WESTERN STATE

Gusau Agricultural Development Project

Rate of Return Calculation

1. The annual costs and returns used in calculating the economicrate of return for the project are shown in Tables 1-4. A sensitivityanalysis concerning changes in costs and benefit levels assumed in themain calculation are shown in Table 5.

2. The following assumptions and data have been used in the calcula-tions:

(a) Proiect Area. At full development, the area cropped willamount to 202,000 ha as opposed to 191,000 ha without thenro4ect. Thus an additional 11.000 ha of fallowed or un-used land would be brought into production as a resultof the nroject. No value has been attributed to thatadditional land because land is relatively abundant andal1nrnted s1most at no cost on the hasis of the tradi-tional right of occupancy.

(b) Project Life. Project life is assumed to be 20 years asfrom Year 1.* Most construction works will be completedby Year 5. Consequently, salvage value of equipment andof some buildings is sho.n in project benefits in Year 6(N793,000).

(c) Project Benefits.

(i) Yields and outputs used in the calculation arer4,.,. 4. T_S t

(i) 'Or-ices used in te cal.ulation are sho-wn below.

Prices for cotton, maize and sorghum have beencompultedu on an JI.J1L p oJrt subsitit. J. LtUo.LnLL Ubasis, Us±igA

the Bank's Economic Department's projections forloon -in 1'973 US$L. Si-. 1arly, price 'or ground-

IJ U%J .LL IJI.J Uo9 O.)LIu.L.LaLL, )L.t~.LL~LUI

nut has been computed using the projected FOBpr'Lce. izeLA..t prLoUULp U ULrUdL LLth PLUJMLL is

assumed to be sold in the north and the southequally. IlhU8 s thIe maze priLce useu LlIn the maincalculation is N42/metric ton.

ANNEX 13Page 2

Econo,mic PrIce ceed C0tton Groundnuts Mlaize SorghuTm Cowpeas

Basis CIF FOB CIF CIF Dom--ti-marketprice

Economic pr'ce fN) 54

(NI metric ton) 89 57 (S) 34 51 99(Av) 42

(d) Project Costs

(i) Project incremental labor requirement anrd cost is

shown in Table 2. A shadow wage rate of NO.40 permanday has been used for both family and hired labor.The shadown price of labor used in the economicevaluation is a weighted a-verage of the esti'matedshadow prices during different seasons. During thepeak agricultural months, labor appears to be fullyutilized, and the shadow wage is close to the actualaverage market wages paid by farmers of about 50K/day.During the slack season, the creation of employmentwould not reduce output elsewhere but would require

additional effort to which the workers themselves

attach a disutility, measured by their unwiiiingnessto work for returns of less than at least 25K/day.

The workers' preferences are taken into account in

the economic evaluation. Family labor is treated

the same as hired labor because the two are inter-changeable. When both work on the same farm, thereis no reason to consider either more productive.Also, a mnan working his farm alone with his family

may hire himself out part-time when the wage ex-

ceeds his expected marginal productivity on his

own land, and may hire labor when the marginalproductivity on his land is above the wage.

(ii) All other costs used in the calculation exclude

identified direct tax and import duties. The full

unsubsidized cost of farm inputs and implements has

been charged in the rate of return calculation.

(iii) A 5% physical contingency on all costs, except farm

labor, has been included in rate of return calculation.

3. On the above basis the economic rate of return is 11% as calculated

from Table 4.

ANNEX 13

Page 3

4. Sensitivity Analysis has been calculated using the following

variLables:

(a) sirce 4.he is sensitive to the price of maize an analysis

has been made for maize being sold all in the north or all

in the south, giving a rate of return varying from 1 to 18%:

(b) it could be argued, 11 comparisons are made with other Bank

financed projects under similar situation, that incremental

labor should be shadow priced at a zero opportunity costs,

in which case the rate of return would be 23% with a range

of 17-29% depending on proportion of maize sold in the

north or south; and

(c) the project includes a considerable development of water and

road infrastructure the econormic costs of which have beentotally charged to the project. Since only 50% of thepopulation derives direct production increases under the

project it is argued that only 50% of the water and roadinfrasturcture should be treated as an economic cost. Ifso the return increases from 13% to 14% with a range from

5% to 21% depending on location of maize sales. ThLis

return would be further increased if road user savingbenefits were quantified and included in the calculations.These benefits are likely to be quite considerable.

ANNEX 13Table 1

-NIGERIA

NORTWH WE.STWRN STATE.

Gusau Agricultural Development Project

Project Benefits

Incremental Production (metric tons)

Without Project 1 2 3 h 5

Seed Cotton 10,330 1,800 4,970 10,270 16,720 23,920Grund.,uts 2h,000 - 1,150 2,800 5X825 in

Maize 6,150 - 1,620 8,880 29,480 70,130Sorgh-w, 66,52f - 279 (100) (7,325) (550)

Other Cereals 3,400 - (100) (275) (550) (900)wspeas 2,2% - 300N0 70r) 1-I 2, 66

Econornic V a- lue of Incrementl rI-oduction (N'000)

a) Ail maize sold in the north

Seed cotton (N89/metric ton) 160 4iu2 914 1,488 2,129Groundnuts (N57/metric ton) - 66 160 332 614Maize (N54/metric ton) 0 87 480 1,592 3,787Sorghum (N51/metric ton) - 14 (5) (68) (283)Other Cereals (-N50/metric ton) - (5) (14) (28) (I5)Cowpeas (N99/m6tric ton) - 30 78 117 264

Total Value 160 634 1,6i3 3,433 6,466

b) All maize sold in the south

Seed cotton (N89/metric ton) 160 442 914 1,488 2,129Groundnuts (N57/metric ton) - 66 160 332 614

Maize(N34/metric ton) - 55 302 1,002 2,384Sorghum (X51/metric ton) - 14 (5) (68) (283)

Other Cereals (N50/metric ton) - (5) (14) (28) (45)Cowpeas (N99/metric ton) - 30 78 117 264

Total Value 160 602 1,435 2,843 5,063

c) Maize equally sold in thenorth and the south

Total Value 160 618 1,524 3,138 5,765

ANNEX 13NiCLJLA C

Gusau Arricu1tural Development Project

Incremental Farm Labor Cosst

Incremental Labor Requirement (mandays)

WithoutProject 1 2 3 4

Seed Cotton 36536,500 129,680 291,500 521,700 765,300 1,079,100Groundhuts 3,552,000 - 56,000 140,000 294h000 546,oooMaize 639,200 - 65,200 338,800 1,082,800 2,663,800Sorghum 7,539,500 - (15,900) (147,000) (529,50o) (1,h43,000)Other Cereals 5,780,000 - (17,000) (k46 750) (93,500) (153,000)Cowpeas 707,200 - 17,050 439200 90,300 144,050

Total 21,754,400 129,680 396,850 849,950 1,609,400 2,836s950

Total Economic Value (N'O00)

NO.40/manday - 52 159 340 644 1,135

NiG L;RIANORTH WESTR STATE

Gusau Agricultiral DeveloEent Project

Economic Rate of Return Calculat:Lon *Prcject Costs

1 6 j7-10 11-20

TIcretnental Faxm labor ',2 159 .31 0 644 1,135 1,13!5 1,135 1,135

Farm Input (imsubsidized) 109 1426 892 1,608 2,685 2,685 2,685 2,685

Pro2ect Achinistration 628 4.06 372 396 371 513 58 55less tawes e 36 9 3 9 3 - - -

Siub total 5'32 397 369 387 368 58 58 55

TRchniLcal Serv ices 529 361 262 321 293 299 299 299LlSE; twZl86E 139 21 10 19 12 19? 19 19

Sub total 45)o 340 252 302 28. 280 280 280

Crediti Services 314 309 .341 207 194 199 199 128Less taxes 31 26 9 5 2 5 5F 5

Sub total 283 283 332 202 12 1917 194 123

Market Services 75 54 15 16 16 - - -LMss taxes 12 11 1 1 1 - -

Sub total 6 3 1,3 14 15 15 _ - -

Erzln&erimamrvices 1,361 575 621 606 315 914 94 94Less taxes 53 61 78 80 45 19 159 19

Sub total 1,268 514 5743 526 27 715 75 75

CottorLnPmot and VMLe Stores 277 270 -- - -Less taxes 14 14

Sub total 263 256 _

Ptyoica1 Contingencies (5% 1 16,5 120 125 158 A 167 167 16l

Total Economic Coslt 3,2d• 2,1338 2,3(67 3 s842 ' -4 51')

NIGERIANORTH WESSTERN STATE

Gusau ARricultural DevreloimntbProjet

Economiic Cash rlow D'O)

1] 2 3 4 5 6 7-10 LL-20

3nefitsa ma:Lze sold in the north ].60 634 1,61:3 3,433 6j1466 7,259 1/ 6,466 6,466b) AL:L maize sold in the south 1.60 602 L,43 5 2,8143 5,063 5,856 1/ 5,063 5,063c) A1L maize sold equally in the

north and the south 1.60 618 :1,5214 3,1.38 5,765 6,558 1/ 5,765 5,765

)StsTincremental farm labor 2/ 52 159 34o 6i44 1,:135 1,135 1,135 1,135Incremental farm inputs unsubsidized 3/ 1]09 426 89:2 1,60&8 2,685 2,685 2,685 2,685Development, construction and AdcministrativeCosts ne-b of taxes 2,95 9 1 833 :.,510 1,432 1,:L26 607 607 533Physical contingencies L/ ].65 120 125 15 8 194 167 167 163

Total Economic Cost 3,285 2 ,538 2,867 3,8142 5:,140 4.,594 4,594 4,516

et Retuarna . maize sold in the north (3,125) (1,9014) (]L2514) (4lD9) 1,326 2,665 1,872 1,950b) ALL maize sold in the south (3,125) (1,936) (L,1432) (999) (77) 1,262 469 547c) All maize sold equally in the

north and thB south (3,125) (1j,920) (I,3)43 (04) 6)25 1,964 1,171 1l,249

rEncludes N793,000 salvage value construiction equipie-nt and some bui:Ldings./ he totaL incremental farm labor has beein costed using a shadow wage rate of NO.140 per manday./ to tax or du-by is levied on farm inputs and implements./ 5% on alL costs rexcluding farm labor

AINEX 13Table 5

NIGERIA

NORTH WESTERN STATE

Gusau Agriciltural Development Project

Economic Rate of Return (%) Sensitivity AnaLlysJs

Changes in Producer Prices

I. Changes in Benefits -10% 0% LI

(a) Selling all the maize in the south -20 1 9

(b) Selling all the maize in the north 11 18 24

(c) Selling maize equally in the southand the north 3 fBi7 18

II. Changes in Costs Opportunity Cost With only 50% ofof Incremental Road & Water CostsFarm Labor charged against

_______ ______ _____ RR.

( K4O/day @ Zero

(a) Selling all the maize in the south 1 17 5

(b) Selling all the maize in the north 18 29 21

(c) Selling maize equally in the southnnde t.hp nnr+.h 11 9R / T 17

IBRD-104873- 4° 5- _~ ~ ~~ ~~-h'7T. 1-1- ' ~ 12- 1, ,,

-- ~~~~~~~CHAD

. AEON I G___ EAIFL R

NOMU~ ~ ~~~r'

DAHOMEY~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-.iCMRO

I.~~~~~~~~~~~~~I

v- voLA~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~- ~j0 0 2 U W 1 2

0020MEV) ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ AMRO

(ANNUAL PATTERN OF EVAPORATION AND PRECIPITATION

-. FROO. IN AREAS DEMARCATED BY THIESSON POLYGONS5* 00~~~~0 Th,boIIOdC"772

0I,Ofl OR Au mop 10 702 RAINFALL~~~~~~~~~~~--- --- RAIFAL

AU/Vt mplv 0000,IRRIRII 0' ocoop07o~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ b~~EA-A2O

[BRD 10490IDU aoi 10OttI UN 1973

NIGERIA

NORTH WESTERN STATE

GUSAU AGRICULTURALDEVELOPMENT PROJECT

KAUA NAMDA I \* Prnjenr He-dquorlers

_ Proposed All We-sher Agr,curol Roodsy -7 w Proposed Dry Weather Crop Etoton Tracks

..... D-lpe J.t Cators

w / \ | t \ / \ KUKAR JUNGARI|/ _s [ tt ) ~~~~~~~<< \ ~GRAZING RESERVE

KO H M.d. ~ aron MrnRod

E ,N:fu~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~chA e U Skk*.,- ' 'o

> < > \\ 0 / z \ ~ ~ ~~~~~~/ KUA JUnGARI

V I\ V \ ' I >

.~~ o 0\ 5 tO/

t__,<s~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 0s tO' tO 2

,- , I.t^ .. B:bonaf *\ 0tl005t5|

r _ - ~~~ o P1 1 G E 2 t o _ _ s { ~~- . rJSakrco om| DnSot

0,°1 " U 1 f, .>A

IYIGERIANORTH WESTERN STATE

GUSAU AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECTPROJECT ORGANIZATION

DEVELOF'MENT COMMITTEE

EDERAL CO( RDINAI rGUSAU AGRICULTURALFED:RAL CEVELOPMENT PROJECT] No I A COMMITTEE

COMNITTEE -__ . AOMINISTRATION

[ PROJECT MANAGER_]

_ il _ _ __ _ _ _ _A_IECHNICAL SERVICES CREDIT SERVICES FINANCE ADMINISTRATION EVALUATION MAFRKET SERVICES ENGINEERING SERVICESHIEF TECH' OFFICER CREDIT MANAGER FINANCIAL CO[ER] SL. ADMIN. OFFICER S,. EVALUATION1 OFFICIER S, MARKET OFFICER SENIOR E14GINEER

FI~~~~YMULTIPLICATION] [ 1. F 1 F 1 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~MAPFKET PLANNING &UTPIAIO ACCOUNJTS - ACCOLINTS - PERSONqNEL SURVEYS INTELLIGENCE LANE) USE

__] : GUSAI__I ___ ___

TRAI NI 1 FIELL ROCUREMENTS 1TRANSPORT EVALIATION MARKET G O A 3OER &ATNN

C _XTENSION STORES J REGISTRY J STATISTICS LIMARKET ROAD TN IRAFTI N

TRATOR HIRE 177 7 7~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~IASNCOSRUTO

T~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ WORKSHOP SURVEY________] _____}{____ ________ _________ ____R_V_YSE RVHICESHF UNIT FARMERS SECUIRITY

KOTORKOSHI 1 FARMERS PUBL IC BU IDI NG

rLXIT 1L176 500j RELA0IONS SUPERVISION

|LIJ1 rFARMERT]UNUU UNIT 1~12,200

KAURA/AMMODA F FARMERT

I UNIT C 26,500W

W I.d 8 k-1,7E410

NIGERIANORTHERN STATES

HYDROLOGY AND RESERVOIR OPERATIONDURING TEN YEAR DROUGHT YEAR

rIJAN FEB MAR APR MAY [JUN JUL I AUG SEPT OCT NOV | DEC

1z 00i T-9 R 0 E STORAGEFULLRETENTION

0 60

_ _ _ _ F | lr I I I I I DEA SORAGE

r~~~~~Xt~1 I II 'I f 60t

L ( .oYEAR DROU SHT RAINPAItL 713MM/Y[AR I A I [I, _s 80,

I0 NDT- OURIN4iVDRY SES IIi Af1 .1Iu.uL: ~ N4 i aeaefor 200AOR A 1iIRd ( l e I

> 50 _ ~~~1,001f 2000ocs- , ol......... UN5F INTqI ,11 | 1 65foM REFSERVOIR ABOUT |UU ~~~~ii Loss thru Evaporal ion i 3j ^ 50.00

3/ R FRO 3-THMN KM OFl

uu ~~~~~and aste- - 1- - 70, 0oM3 5 At; u IC H M E NT I I

O 40 _ Total 105 0oM3 I ]|-|z;

0 30 L | | | | RETURN TO[STORAOE | S A't ' 1 SPILLAGE^ 1|

!30k

20 RELEAE+ LOSSES IjJ I _1

14! iiiV§tI/t5 , 0 1| 1000 1EAR A I, l;|t il

80 III IA I II I 6

World Sav1k-.7E2E

NIGERIANORTHERN STATES

TYPICAL SECTIONS OF SMALL DAM EMBANKMENT FOR TANK SCHEME

I -1 A4nn Reif.orced Concrete Corewall

Max. Flood ILevel 1 50

Sand Gravel0 50 Dumped ,Ground Surface

Riprap

lImpervious Rock

1 DESIGN FOR SITE WHERE ONLY SAND IS AVAILABLE,FOUNDATION IS PERVIOUS FOR CONSIDERABLE DEPTH

0 50 Dumiped Riprap on/020 of Graded Gravel \

0 50 umped- I : :<\'r t

Rirap on 0(20t/ Cors 1Coars .Il \ P

otGrdd Gravel Sand Slt Grun

| _ \ / Coarse Sand / Fiow/

Impervious Bed 12. DESIGN FOR SITE WHERE CLAYEY SILT & COARSE SAND

ARE AVAILABLE, FOUNDATION IS SAME AS 1.

Same as 2 inla v e eaio2 2 T j |4 11 [tXCoarsc Send ClSiity Coarse Sand F// e NS\ 111 |4k||

Impervious Consolidated Clay I A _-I 11{h}

3. DESIGN FOR SITE WHERE CLAYEY SILT & COARSE SAND I A K 1 |||

AVAILABLE, FOUNDATION IS IMPERVIOUS / ;

C|evec, Same as n 2 Same as in 2 E| / ' II

Si,lt\ Sand Sand ravel Filter o| Blanket \ Gravel / Gravefai,, _i

______ ______ _____ ______ ______ _____ ______ _____D rain- ge -

| ~ ~~~~~~~~~Sand Gravel / - llT 4. DESIGN FOR SITE WHERE CLAYEY SILT & COARSE SAND j : | /r

ARE AVAILABLE, FOUNDATION IS PERVIOUS FOR GREAT DEPTH.

Sodded Slope on Top Soil

Same as in 2 m Poc Toesilty Clay

i tFPlastic Siltr Cla \Filen r of Sand Gvelv1

5. DESIGN FOR SITE WHERE ONLY SILTY CLAY IS AVAILABLE,FOUNDATION IS UNCONSOLIDATED SILTY CLAY IPLASTIC)

Same as in 2 7 Sodded Slope

Fi. a.I- Ca S-

gmpervious Revers Filt.<

6 DESIGN FOR SITE WHERE CLAY & SAND ARE AVAILABLE, i '4f n

FOUNDATION IS IMPERVIOUS

Woidld Ra-rk - 767Fi

IBRD -10488

O JON 't .F0 I* ^. APR 17 MAY , JUN ,, JJL *00 IJ . SR a c 3 o 3 C *

,,.j ~ ~~~ ~ ~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~ 34 SE .5^ CC 30 00 302t .

,._ _. e .POtIS8U \ ^ "^|I, 0, 0

)~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ A A M?<_

N G E R--

1g-~~~~~ ~ ~ S I ." X\ <--

.- _ ,.USA

-j

L A~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~CA

DAHOMEY 3 0Eb * R I A>R 12 MAY 15 JJN 1 JUL *1 vJC *4 SEP 27 OCT 30 ZoDCME OO

- CODED DECAC A

J~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~S.0

Al~ ~~~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~'

-. (~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~0y o

IBRD 10486

VOC H A SDN

. /w

AHOMEY ) R T H W N E R T R

N .T EAGRICUTUERALDVLPETPOET

8 B e h t o f e en in \K BNC E N T R SLuthern r en

0*

\t t T~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.IMBR_nternotlonol boundor,es

L~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

G0 4 F0 CO CO 00 20 EA 40X 60 rt

4. 6. 6 -%, r 12- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~MAY 1973