Executive Summary

Introduction and background

Evaluation objectives, methodology and process. The objectives of the country programme evaluation (CPE) are to assess the performance and impact of the IFAD country programme in Nigeria and develop findings and recommendations. These will serve as building blocks for preparation of the new country strategic opportunities programme (COSOP) by the Fund's Western and Central Africa Division (PA) and the Federal Government of Nigeria. This represents the first full evaluation of the Nigerian portfolio since project funding commenced in 1985. The CPE covers the ten-year period 1998-2008, and analyses the seven loan projects (out of a total of nine) that were still ongoing at the time of the COSOP in 2000, or whose implementation is about to start. The findings of the CPE are based on: (i) a desk review of existing documentation; (ii) self-assessments by PA and three of the programme management teams including the Roots and Tuber Expansion Programme (RTEP), Community-based Agricultural and Rural Development Programme (CBARDP), and the Community-based Natural Resource Management Programme (CBNRMP); (iii) a country portfolio review undertaken by PA in 2007, and a performance assessment study of two of the projects commissioned as part of the CPE; and (iv) four weeks of work by seven mission members in the country including key informant and focus group discussions with stakeholders and partners.  

A preparatory mission fielded in October 2007 was followed by the main mission in November/December 2007. Comments from the Government, programme managers and PA were taken into account in preparing this report. A round-table workshop was held in Nigeria in November 2008, the outputs of which inform the preparation of the Agreement at Completion Point between the Government and IFAD.

Country perspective. Nigeria is the world's twelfth largest producer of oil. Its Gross Domestic Product (GDP) has increased fivefold since 1990 and stands in 2007 at US$140 billion, giving a GDP per capita of over US$1,000 and expected, consistent current-account surpluses of ten per cent of GDP per year. However, the country's 140 million people are still among the poorest in the world: the country is ranked 158 out of 177 nations in the Human Development Index of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and 80 out of 108 in the Poverty Index. Income disparity and widespread poverty persist despite burgeoning foreign revenues. Until the return of democratic government in 1999, Nigeria was characterized by a series of military dictatorships, economic mismanagement and blatant corruption; some of these issues remain as challenges to this day.

Apart from the oil sector, the economy is agrarian-based and the bias of poverty is to the rural areas; the incidence of poverty reaches as much as 80 per cent in some northern States compared with the 64 per cent national average. Agriculture is the mainstay of rural livelihoods and social fabric and still accounts for about 45 per cent of GDP and 60-70 per cent of employment, but its importance is declining in the face of growth of other sectors and diminishing farm returns. Government and donor efforts to stimulate expansion and commercialization, in line with the prioritization of agriculture as a main plank in the poverty reduction and economic growth strategy, have yet to yield the desired change. The sector is dominated by smallholders: small farms, ranging in size from one to five ha, account for over 90 per cent of output; over half of all farmers produce only food crops in the production, processing and marketing of which women play the major role. Nigeria is Africa's largest producer of yam and cowpea, and the world's leading producer of cassava¹, and a major fish producer with annual outputs of over 300,000 tons.

Government policy for rural and regional development is set out in the National Empowerment and Economic Development Strategy (NEEDS) and complementary state and local strategies. The goals of NEEDS include: poverty reduction, wealth creation, and employment generation, to be achieved through: (i) empowering people and improving the delivery of social services; (ii) fostering private-sector-led growth in an appropriate enabling environment; and (iii) enhancing the efficiency and effectiveness of government.

In Nigeria's 2008 budget, NGN121 billion (US$1bn) is to be devoted to agriculture, more than trebling the previous allocation. The budget does not specify poverty funding separately, but the implied allotment for NEEDS in 2007 was NGN1,391 billion (US$11.6bn). Total official development assistance (ODA) in 2006 reached US$280 million, equivalent to US$2 per capita, compared with the average of US$28 per capita for Africa. ODA plays a minimal role in Nigeria. Principal donors are the European Union, World Bank, UNDP, Department for International Development (DfID) of the United Kingdom and the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). The current annual IFAD allocation of US$51.85m places it as one relatively minor donor and IFAD expenditures are also minimal compared with state and Local Government Area (LGA) budgets. By general consent, IFAD funding - and experience and expertise - are valued mainly for their catalytic effect.

The Country Strategy and IFAD-funded operations

The 2001-2007 COSOP, the first formal strategic planning document on Nigeria to be submitted to the Executive Board, was the result of a two-year consultative process, much of it carried out in-country among a broad group of stakeholders and including a number of workshops and studies. The document reflected IFAD's sound project track record and both government and IFAD strategic priorities, as well as those of other donors and the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). Key elements of the COSOP strategy are: (i) policy advocacy for pro-poor reforms and improved local governance; (ii) development of effective rural institutions; and (iii) productivity and natural resources management. Major strategic thrusts are: empowerment of core target groups and community-based organizations (CBOs) to generate higher on- and off-farm incomes; supporting expansion of access to information, communication, infrastructure and technologies; and improving access of the poor to financial and social services.

The COSOP strategy has proved to be a workable framework for the IFAD/Government partnership and for identification of development themes. The areas in which the strategy might have been stronger and more detailed were in the analysis and deduction of findings on: poverty and targeting; emphasis on agriculture; IFAD's comparative advantage; lessons of failure in credit, enterprise development and income-generating activities; implementation difficulties; the importance of partnerships; and donor collaboration. Of the key elements, development of effective rural institutions has had the greatest effect; policy advocacy has been problematic without an IFAD country presence, which was not established until 2006. Agricultural productivity and natural resources management initiatives have been relegated in importance in project funding and have proved difficult to implement owing to constraints of poverty and affordability and to households having alternative sources of income. Overall, the value of the IFAD input and the quality of the strategy output are rated as moderately satisfactory, a score of 4.2 on the IFAD evaluation scale.

The CPE covers two completed projects: Katsina State Agricultural and Community Development Project (KSACDP) and Sokoto State Agricultural and Community Development Project (SSACDP), which closed in 2001; and the three ongoing programmes: the Community-Based Agricultural and Rural Development Programme (CBARDP); Roots and Tubers Expansion Programme (RTEP); and the Community-Based Natural Resource Management Programme-Niger Delta (CBNRMP), which form the core of the CPE. The two projects not yet effective – the Rural Finance Institutions-Building Programme (RUFIN) and the Rural Microenterprise Development Programme (RUMEDP) – are assessed only in terms of quality of design and strategic consistency. The geographical spread of IFAD assistance encompasses all except a few central and eastern States.

The CPE also covers 11 technical assistance (TA) and eight grants dating from 1997/1999. The value of IFAD programme loans has been US$187.2 million out of a total cost of US$641.9 million, with IFAD contributing 29 per cent; while for the grants included in the CPE, the IFAD amounts allocated have been US$9.4 million for technical assistance grants and US$0.85 million for early implementation support grants. The World Bank was the only cooperating institution involved until 2007 in the supervision of IFAD supported projects, but the RTEP, RUFIN and RUMED programmes are to be supervised directly by IFAD.

Performance and impact of IFAD-funded operations

The evolution of the portfolio up to 2006 followed a logical pattern of synergy of coverage and content, building on and expanding successful aspects of previous projects. This is best seen in the community-driven development (CDD) modality and LGA involvement; in capability–building from the Katsina and Sokoto Projects being incorporated in the CBARDP and CBNRMP; and the latter drawing lessons also from the Cassava Multiplication and Artisanal Fisheries Development Projects. Synergy in the portfolio also contributes to performance, coinciding on strong themes of enhancing social facilities and services and improving food security and incomes of poor rural households. The new RUFIN and RUMED programmes take IFAD into a different spectrum of development as to content, institutional framework for implementation and some new States.

The prevailing pattern of funding of earlier projects was planned as: IFAD contribution, 40–60 per cent; Federal Government, 12–15 per cent; and state and local governments, three or four per cent. The remaining funding relates to participating local institutions, cofinancing, and beneficiaries. Actual out-turns were of the order of: IFAD, 60–70 per cent; Federal Government, five per cent; and state and local governments 15–16 per cent. In recent programmes, LGAs have increased their contribution, with a norm of: IFAD, about 40 per cent; and all levels of government, 60 per cent. In many instances, cofinancing did not materialize as planned. Of the TA grants, all except two have been devoted to supporting regional research and development associated mainly with cassava. The exceptions were grants to NGOs for assistance in community development and benefit assessment. The early implementation support grants range from almost US$20,000 up to the US$400,000 now scheduled for RUMEDP, typical of the larger amounts now available through the IFAD grant window.

The first measure of relevance is comparison of project content with the key elements of the COSOP; on this count, there is a large degree of consonance. On other factors of relevance, including orientation to poverty, livelihood, and implementation, most of the interventions record positive results; the major exception is the second phase of RTEP, which is promoting an approach to cassava processing that is of questionable viability. The CPE observed a considerable range of implementation progress across the portfolio. Effectiveness is just one of a number of exemplary results, for instance under the CDD approach; and less impressive results, as in agricultural and natural resources conservation. The CPE has particular concerns about the prospective performance of RTEP, phase-2, RUFIN and RUMEDP. The determination of efficiency is more complex, but in Nigeria the crucial constraints of the long duration of project preparation and the prevalent delays and denials of funding militate against efficient performance. Despite these factors, individual projects have reported marked economies in construction of social infrastructure and reasonable costs per beneficiary.

The rural poverty impact of the country programme is assessed primarily on the results of KSACDP, SSACDP and the first phase of RTEP; for CBARDP and RTEP Phase-2, the discernible likely impact is also taken into account. The CPE finds that outreach to the targeted population has been less than planned. Nevertheless, there has been positive change in the predicament of direct and indirect beneficiaries across all of the projects in terms of enhanced household food sufficiency, as well as modest increases in family incomes; better accessibility of health, education and transport services; and a marked change in community and women's confidence and self-reliance. Notable impacts have been attained in the enhancement of physical and financial assets, social capital and empowerment, and food security. Less impressive impacts have been recorded in agricultural productivity, environment and common resources, and market access.

The sustainability of impact is mainly determined by project design and implementation effectiveness, but also by the Government emphasis on, and funding for, agriculture. Thus the political, economic and social facets of sustainability are reasonably assured, while institutional sustainability is less certain. IFAD interventions have clearly been innovative, as demonstrated by the replication and scaling up to 26 States of the cassava productivity activities during the first phase of RTEP; and by adoption of the CDD approach in African Development Bank (AfDB) projects and in other States, LGAs and communities, often without external funding. The RUFIN and RUMED programmes have been designed to be replicated and scaled up, but the CPE has concerns that the environment in which they are to be implemented - and the less than certain commitment of potential partners – may make this difficult to occur.

The performance of partners in delivery of the country programme has been overshadowed by the inordinate time taken for project preparation and implementation, the problems of inconsistent fund flows and the lack of urgency and decisiveness in taking action to resolve problems and improve progress. These factors impinge on the performance of all parties. IFAD's performance has been constrained by lack of an in-country presence and the complexities of dealing with government without field presence and relying on cooperating institutions for supervision. The performance of federal government agencies has been variable. It is unclear whether the present arrangement with the Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Water Resources (FMAWR) and the National Food Reserve Agency (NFRA) will be sufficient for the developing of more diverse programmes. The performance of States and LGAs has been reasonable, but not always as strong as it could have been. Where it has been lacking, the performance of programme managements has been mostly due to deficient project design and is not a reflection on the calibre or dedication of the staff cadre. The performance of the cooperating institution is judged as proficient in supervision and moderately satisfactory. The performance of partners is assessed as moderately satisfactory.

The aggregate achievement of the portfolio is rated as 4.4, moderately satisfactory, with individual ratings lying between 4.0 and 4.5, except for efficiency, which is 3.5, between moderately satisfactory and moderately unsatisfactory. Innovation, replication and scaling up is rated 4.8, satisfactory.

Overall performance and impact of IFAD-funded operations in Nigeria

Rating scale: 6-Highly satisfactory; 5-Satisfactory; 4-Moderately satisfactory; 3-Moderately unsatisfactory; 2-Unsatisfactory; and 1-Highly unsatisfactory.

an overall project achievement reflects the combined assessment of relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, rural poverty impact, sustainability and innovation. As per the evaluation guidelines of IFAD's Office of Evaluation, the performance of partners is not included in the aforementioned calculation. The overall portfolio achievement is calculated in a similar way.

Conclusions

The pro-poor development environment in Nigeria presents an unusual set of circumstances and conditions compared with those of most IFAD borrower countries in Africa owing to its vast oil and gas reserves that provide it with high volumes of hard currency export earnings. The country therefore has adequate financial resources to promote economic and social welfare, including agricultural and rural development activities that are crucial to reducing poverty. In fact, Nigeria allocated about four per cent of its federal public expenditure to agriculture in 2007; this figure has risen to seven per cent in 2008.

It is, however, still less than the ten per cent target established by African governments at the African Union Summit on Food Security, held in Abuja in December 2006.

Despite this, Nigeria has not yet managed to resolve its rural poverty problems. The per capita gross national income was around US$620, based on 2005 data (World Bank, 2008). More recent statistics² put the GDP purchasing power parity at US$1,256 for 2007. The challenge of poverty is illustrated by the fact that around 25 per cent of all the rural poor in sub-Saharan countries live in Nigeria. The population living below the poverty line in 2006³ is 64 per cent, down from 71 per cent in 2003.

Poverty incidence has a rural bias, with an overall rural prevalence in excess of 67 per cent for all households and 77 per cent for woman–headed households. The rural population has extremely limited access to infrastructure and services such as education and health.

The ODA that Nigeria receives is extremely limited compared with the federal budget. It comprises only around 0.5 per cent of GDP, which is significantly lower than the eight per cent for developing countries as a whole and is equivalent to only US$2 per capita compared with the average of US$28 per capita for Africa. ODA figures make up around one per cent of overall public spending, which is US$14.1 billion. In such a context, therefore, the resources that IFAD provides for rural poverty reduction are minimal in terms of volume when compared with total government revenues and with the contributions of some other donors, such as the European Union and the World Bank.

In spite of this, IFAD is seen by Nigeria as an important development partner because of: its focus on sustainable agriculture and rural development as a means of reducing rural poverty; the comparative advantage of the flexibility and quality of its interventions; and its experience in participatory and bottom–up approaches and in innovative solutions to poverty alleviation that can be replicated and scaled up by the Government, the private sector, donors and others. Nigeria is entitled to more than 40 per cent of the Fund's overall financial allocations to the PA region. This high level of allocation has significant implications for the resources required and for the way IFAD manages its strategy and operations in the country.

Agriculture and rural development are crucial to Nigeria's rural economy and social fabric. Around 45 per cent of GDP is generated from agriculture and almost 70 per cent of the poor live in rural areas and derive their livelihoods primarily from small–scale agriculture and rural activities. Small farmers account for about 90 per cent of the country's food production. Limited accessibility to inputs, equipment, new technology, and markets has kept agricultural productivity low. Small farmers are also more acutely affected by exogenous factors such as climate change and rising commodity prices. Thus, given its mandate, IFAD is a natural choice as development partner, and the Government has clearly indicated its commitment to the sector in the NEEDS, the National Policy on Integrated Rural Development and the New Agricultural Policy Thrust.

On the question of the importance of agriculture, the CPE findings indicate that, with programmes devoted to rural finance and rural enterprise development in recent years, the Fund has not devoted adequate levels of attention to agricultural activities in its Nigerian operations, which would have been commensurate with the centrality of agriculture in the overall economy and as the main means of income and food security of the rural poor. In spite of its modest financial contributions, IFAD has a distinct and catalytic role, in collaboration with Government and other donors, in supporting achievement of the MDGs relating to the elimination of poverty and hunger. In sum, with its focus on enhancing the productivity of small and landless farmers, IFAD is well positioned to support the Government in improving the livelihoods of small farmers, including women, artisanal fisher folk, pastoralists and other disadvantaged communities.

Promotion of replicable innovations

The Fund has been fairly successful in promoting pro-poor innovations in its operations. The grant-funded support to the International Institute of Tropical Agriculture for research on developing new cassava varieties and for promoting CDD in projects in Katsina and Sokoto States and ongoing community-based programmes, are examples of successful innovations. The CPE finds that a number of successfully tested innovations in IFAD operations have been replicated and scaled up by local governments and others. A more systematic and organized effort by IFAD might have ensured a wider replication and scaling up of successfully promoted innovations in IFAD operations.

Related to the above, the evaluation found that insufficient human and financial resources and time were devoted to IFAD engagement in policy dialogue, knowledge management and the development and nurturing of strategic partnerships with key players in agriculture. These are important ingredients for replication and scaling up, which is in fact the ultimate test of IFAD's capacity to promote innovations. Even though there are some improvements in such activities as a result of the recent establishment of the country presence office, IFAD's performance in non-lending activities was only moderately satisfactory.

The CPE concludes that the innovation promotion process was not systematic, and that the synergies between grant- and loan-funded activities could have been greater. Moreover, the innovations promoted were not sufficiently integrated into broader project activities that would have allowed them to contribute more effectively to achieving project objectives. For instance, while the demand-driven CDD approach was appreciated by the rural poor and their organizations, little attention was devoted to positioning CDD within the broader local governance framework with linkages to the private sector, such as banks that could have provided credit for enterprises and income–generating activities.

Local governance

IFAD interventions have contributed to changing the mind-set of the local governments and community leaders towards local governance through an inclusive process of decision making. Positive results include, in particular, under the community-driven development (CDD) approach: (i) pioneering of participatory processes to empower beneficiaries, and foster group and community cohesion and self-reliance for development actions; (ii) involvement of LGAs in development planning and execution and the consequential support of improved local governance; and (iii) contribution to construction, cost-effective completion, timely achievement and organization for operation, maintenance and management of social infrastructure.

Furthermore, the approach and content of IFAD supported programmes have lent themselves to rapid and sound expansion and replication at both National, State and LGA level, as demonstrated by the broad support of the CDD model by both State and Federal government and other donors as best practice for local development.

However, while the demand-driven CDD approach was appreciated by the rural poor and their organizations, little attention was devoted to positioning this approach within the broader local governance framework with linkages to the private sector, such as rural banks that could have provided credit for enterprises and income–generating activities. The strengthening of the capacity of other key players at the local level such as local government and local elected bodies at the state and LGA level could have been pursued most strongly.

Country strategy issues

The CPE found the analysis of opportunities and constraints in the agriculture and rural sectors, as well as of rural poverty in the 2001 COSOP, to be limited. This may reflect inadequate capacity and skills on the part of the Fund to undertake thorough analytic work while preparing COSOPs. However, the COSOP provided a useful framework for cooperation with the country. Its attention to policy advocacy in agriculture and rural development, to promoting effective rural institutions and to productivity and natural resources management were, and remain, relevant and important in today's aid architecture in Nigeria.

The strategy did not, however, pay adequate attention to smallholder agriculture activities. The vast geographic coverage of IFAD's activities in Nigeria, with near national coverage of some operations, also raises concerns related, inter alia, to synergies within and across projects and programmes, as well as to the sustainability of benefits. With regard to the latter, for example, a wide geographic spread of activities would cause greater challenges to the Government in providing the technical assistance and follow–up, needed by the rural poor after project completion.

The CPE underlines three specific issues related to partnerships that call for reflection. Firstly, the recent development of operations outside the purely agricultural sector has created new challenges in terms of defining the respective institutional roles and responsibilities within federal agencies, for which a clear solution is yet to be found. Secondly, while the evaluation recognizes the importance of working with federal and state governments it has found that the various administrative layers introduce complexity in operations, for example, in terms of delays and denials of funds flows, arising from difficulties in securing counterpart funding, as well as implementation, coordination, monitoring and communication issues. Thirdly, there has been only limited cofinancing of IFAD interventions, so that opportunities for replication, scaling up and joint pro-poor policy dialogue have not been maximized.

Finally, the evaluation acknowledges that the sound move towards direct supervision and implementation support in recent operations should contribute to better development effectiveness on the ground. Similarly, the evaluation commends IFAD for strengthening its presence by establishing an office in such a large and important country as Nigeria. However, its view is that the current human resources arrangements, level of delegation of authority and resources deployed for the country presence are not of a calibre that would ensure that the country office can play an appropriate role in improving IFAD assistance.

Recommendations

The CPE includes three overarching recommendations that would contribute towards improving IFAD's development effectiveness in Nigeria. These are: (i) renewing the focus on agricultural development for rural poverty reduction; (ii) promoting pro-poor innovative solutions; and (iii) adapting IFAD's operating model to changing circumstances.

Renewing the focus on agricultural development for rural poverty reduction. The evaluation recommends that IFAD's future strategy and activities in Nigeria should pay critical attention to addressing the main challenges related to the low productivity of smallholder farmers. This would serve as the main vehicle for improving small farmers' competitiveness, including enhancing their incomes and promoting better livelihoods. Among other issues, this entails ensuring more systematic access to markets by adopting a value–chain approach, as well as linkages with the private sector, for example, for the provision of sustainable rural financial services and agro processing. Moreover, the heterogeneity of small farmers requires different approaches that cater to the needs of both subsistence and market-oriented individuals and groups.

In addition, the renewed focus should be accompanied by a more narrowly defined geographic concentration of IFAD operations in Nigeria. This would facilitate project implementation and coordination, as well as ensure wider synergies within and across projects. The levels of rural poverty and gender inequality could be amongst two of the main criteria for choosing the states and LGAs upon which to focus. The CPE also recommends that IFAD should reflect upon the pros and cons of working with the Federal Government on the one hand and with the state governments on the other hand. Opportunities for direct lending to State authorities could be explored, as this is likely to contribute to building more ownership and to facilitate the flow of funds and allocation of counterpart financing by the States themselves, which has in fact been a constraint in the past.

Finally, IFAD needs to ensure that the federal partner agencies selected have the required skills, experience and competencies to ensure effective implementation and support to IFAD-financed activities. In this regard, it is important to expeditiously develop a mutually satisfactory understanding on pending institutional issues, in terms of coordination, division of labour and implementation, especially as they relate to RUMEDP, which is not yet effective; and around future project activities that may demand different competences. In the absence of such an understanding, IFAD management may consider a cancellation of the corresponding loan in the near future, thereby allowing IFAD to devote its limited resources to other pressing country strategy, programme development and implementation issues.

Promoting pro-poor innovative solutions.  The total volume of ODA to Nigeria is small in relation to the government budget, and IFAD's financial contribution corresponds to a very small portion of total ODA. Therefore, the CPE recommends that IFAD should focus its future country strategy and programme on promoting pro-poor innovative solutions to rural poverty, which can be replicated and scaled up by the Government, donors, private sector and others. This requires a more systematic approach to finding and piloting innovations, and greater attention to policy dialogue, knowledge management and development of strategic partnerships, which are important factors in achieving the replication and scaling up of successful innovations.

Similarly, proactive efforts are required to link grants to loan-funded investment projects. Grants may be used for testing innovative solutions, which can then be applied more broadly through loan operations. Among other areas, innovations could be centred on the objective of improving smallholder farmer productivity, taking account of the challenges currently facing farmers, including those caused by rising commodity prices. This should also include due consideration being given to adaptive research oriented to the needs of small farmers. Likewise, innovative solutions that would assist farmers to limit the effects of climate change should be explored.

Strengthening local governance. It is recommended to devote more attention to positioning CDD within the broader local governance framework and strengthening local governance, including all actors at the local level such as States and LGAs, elected local bodies, the private sector, local NGOs, and other actors involved at the local level together with CBOs. In particular, at the State and LGA level, there is a need to reinforce grass roots and local government capabilities in development planning, delivery and improvement of service provision.

Empowerment and consolidation for progressive devolution of governance to the local level should be supported through policy dialogue and improved knowledge management⁴. The CDD paradigm needs to be adopted wherever relevant as the basis for development action.

The development of robust farmer associations as part of a stronger local governance framework that can lead to better empowerment of the poor would be another area of innovation for IFAD and the Government to pursue in the future. In this regard, IFAD's positive experience of promoting farmer associations in both Western and Central Africa and in other regions might prove valuable.

Adapting IFAD's operating model. Nigeria is a large country of importance to IFAD. Given the vast number of rural poor, the increasing financial allocations under the performance–based allocation system (PBAS) and the proposed re-emphasis on promotion of replicable innovations, it is recommended that IFAD should seek ways and means of strengthening its country presence. In this regard, the option of out-posting the country portfolio manager should be explored. Such a country presence might also have a sub regional dimension. A stronger country presence would allow IFAD to be more fully engaged in policy dialogue, further its commitment to meeting the provisions of the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness, improve its knowledge management, and ensure even better implementation support.

The introduction of the PBAS has important implications for the projects funded by IFAD in Nigeria. Increasing the total volume of resources allocated to the country under the PBAS calls for serious thought as to the number of projects to be developed and the corresponding volumes of loans. Given the current levels of IFAD human resources allocated to Nigeria, financing fewer projects with larger loan amounts would appear to be the most plausible option.

---

1/ Partly as a consequence of an earlier support of IFAD, working in conjunction with the International Institute of Tropical Agriculture and the Federal and State Governments.

2/ From the Central Bank of Nigeria.

3/ As estimated by the Government Core Welfare Indicator Survey.

4/ As advocated by the recent thematic evaluation on IFAD's Performance and Impact in Decentralizing Environments, Office of Evaluation, July 2005.