Document of The World Bank FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Report No: PAD 1887 INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION PROJECT PAPER ON A PROPOSED ADDITIONAL CREDIT IN THE AMOUNT OF SDR 35.3 MILLION (US$50 MILLION EQUIVALENT) TO THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA FOR THE THIRD NATIONAL FADAMA DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (FADAMA III) May 24, 2016 Agriculture Global Practice Africa Region This document has a restricted distribution and may be used by recipients only in the performance of their official duties. Its contents may not otherwise be disclosed without World Bank authorization. CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS (Exchange Rate Effective April 30, 2016) Currency Unit = Nigerian Naira (NGN) NGN 199.25 = US$1 SDR 0.70555199 = US$1 FISCAL YEAR January 1 – December 31 ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ADP Agricultural Development Project BPP Bureau of Public Procurement AF-1 First Additional Financing AF-II Second Additional Financing CAP Community Action Plan CPAR Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System CPS Country Partnership Strategy CSIA Continuous Social Impact Assessment CSDP Community and Social Development Project CSO Civil Society Organization EA Extension Agent EIG Economic Interest Group ERR Economic Rate of Return EU European Union FAO Food and Agriculture Organization FCA Fadama Community Association FGN Federal Government of Nigeria FM Financial Management FSTG Food Security Thematic Group FUG Fadama User Group GDP Gross Domestic Product GHS General Household Survey GoN Government of Nigeria GoS State Government GRS Grievances Redress Mechanism HH Household ICC Information and Communication Campaign ICR Implementation Completion Report ICT Information and communications technology IDA International Development Association IDPs Internally Displaced Persons IOM International Organization for Migration LDP Local Development Plan LGA Local Government Area M&E Monitoring and Evaluation MTR Midterm Review NE North-East NEMA National Emergency Management Agency NFCO National Fadama Coordination Office NGOs Nongovernmental Organizations PAD Project Appraisal Document PCNI Presidential Coordination Committee on North East Interventions PDO Project Development Objective PIM Project Implementation Manual PMU Project Management Unit PPR Post Procurement Review PS Procurement Specialist RPBA Recovery and Peace Building Assessment RF Results Framework SBD Standard Bidding Documents SFCO State Fadama Coordination Office SMS Subject Matter Specialist SSI Safe Schools Initiative TA Technical Assistance UN United Nations VCA Value Chain Analysis YESSO Youth Employment and Social Support Operation WAAPP West Africa Agriculture Productivity Project Regional Vice President: Makhtar Diop Country Director: Rachid Benmessaoud Senior Global Practice Director: Juergen Voegele Practice Manager: Simeon Kacou Ehui Task Team Leader: Adetunji A. Oredipe FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA ADDITIONAL FINANCING FOR THE THIRD NATIONAL FADAMA DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (FADAMA III) TABLE OF CONTENTS CONTENTS ADDITIONAL FINANCING DATA SHEET ........................................................................................................................ i I. Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................................... 7 II. Background and Rationale for Additional Financing .................................................................................................... 8 III. Proposed Changes ....................................................................................................................................................... 13 IV Appraisal Summary .................................................................................................................................................... 20 V. Governance and Accountability .................................................................................................................................... 23 VI Communication ............................................................................................................................................................. 23 VII World Bank Grievance Redress .................................................................................................................................. 23 Annex 1: Updated Results Framework and Monitoring ....................................................................................................... 25 Annex 2: Detailed Project Description ................................................................................................................................. 41 Annex 3: World Bank Team’s Supervision Strategy ............................................................................................................ 55 Annex 4: Summary Of The Independent Evaluation Report On The Special Third Fadama North East Initiative In Borno, Adamawa, And Yobe States ................................................................................................................................................. 59 Annex 5: Procurement .......................................................................................................................................................... 61 Annex 6: World Bank Engagement Framework in Northern Nigeria .................................................................................. 64 Annex 7: Guiding Principles on the Incorporation of RPBA Findings in the Proposed Additional Financing .................... 69 Annex 8: Map of Nigeria ...................................................................................................................................................... 75 ADDITIONAL FINANCING DATA SHEET Nigeria Second Additional Financing to the Third National Fadama Development Project ( P158535 ) AFRICA . Basic Information – Parent Parent Project ID: P096572 Original EA Category: B - Partial Assessment Current Closing Date: 31-Dec-2017 Basic Information – Additional Financing (AF) Additional Financing Project ID: P158535 Scale Up Type (from AUS): Regional Vice President: Makhtar Diop Proposed EA Category: Expected Effectiveness Country Director: Rachid Benmessaoud 07-Sep-2016 Date: Senior Global Practice Juergen Voegele Expected Closing Date: 31-Dec-2019 Director: Practice Simeon Kacou Ehui Report No: PAD1887 Manager/Manager: Team Leader(s): Adetunji A. Oredipe Borrower Organization Name Contact Title Telephone Email Deputy Federal Ministry of Finance Benson Odama 08034519993 Director Project Financing Data - Parent ( THIRD NATIONAL FADAMA DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (FADAMA III)-P096572 ) (in US$50 million) Key Dates Approval Effectiveness Original Revised Closing Project Ln/Cr/TF Status Signing Date Date Date Closing Date Date 01-Jul- P096572 IDA-44940 Effective 24-Nov-2008 23-Mar-2009 31-Dec-2013 31-Dec-2017 2008 28-Jun- P130788 IDA-52930 Effective 09-Sep-2013 21-Oct-2013 31-Dec-2017 31-Dec-2017 2013 i Disbursements % Project Ln/Cr/TF Status Currency Original Revised Cancelled Disbursed Undisbursed Disbursed P096572 IDA-44940 Effective XDR 153.40 153.40 0.00 153.38 0.02 99.99 P130788 IDA-52930 Effective XDR 132.60 132.60 0.00 27.86 104.74 21.01 Project Financing Data - Parent ( THIRD NATIONAL FADAMA DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (FADAMA III)-P096572 ) (in US$50million) [ ] Loan [ ] Grant [ ] IDA Grant [X] Credit [ ] Guarantee [ ] Other Total Project Cost: 50.00 Total Bank Financing: 50.00 Financing Gap: 0.00 Financing Source – Additional Financing (AF) Amount BORROWER/RECIPIENT 0.00 International Development Association (IDA) 50.00 Financing Gap 0.00 Total 50.00 Policy Waivers Does the project depart from the CAS in content or in other significant No respects? Explanation Does the project require any policy waiver(s)? Yes Explanation The proposed AF sought and was granted approval for the deferral of the first ICR to six months after approval of the waiver, and a supplemental ICR upon the full Project completion. According to paragraph 58 of BP 10.00, it is required that if an Additional Financing extends the closing date of the parent project to more than 10 years from the original approval date, an ICR be prepared before Management’s decision on appraisal and negotiations and a supplemental ICR will be prepared upon the full project completion. Given the emergency nature of the operation, a waiver was requested to allow the first ICR to be completed six months after the approval date of the waiver. Has the waiver(s) been endorsed or approved by Bank Management? Yes Explanation The waiver was approved by Management on May 3, 2016 with the advice that the ICR be completed within 6 months from the date of approval of the waiver. ii Team Composition Bank Staff Name Role Title Specialization Unit Adetunji A. Oredipe Team Leader Senior Agriculture Project Management GFA01 (ADM Economist Responsible) Oyewole Oluyemi Procurement Procurement Procurement GGO01 Afuye Specialist (ADM Specialist Specialist Responsible) Akinrinmola Oyenuga Financial Sr Financial Financial GGO25 Akinyele Management Management Management Specialist Specialist Specialist Abiodun Elufioye Team Member Program Assistant Program Assistant AFCW2 Amos Abu Safeguards Senior Senior Environmental GEN07 Specialist Environmental Specialist Specialist Ayaz Parvez Team Member Senior Disaster Disaster Risk GSU19 Risk Management Management Specialist Donald Herrings Team Member Lead Financial Financial GGO31 Mphande Management Management Specialist El Hadj Adama Toure Team Member Lead Agriculture Lead Agriculture GFA01 Economist Economist Adam Shayne Counsel Lead Counsel Legal LEGAM Juvenal Nzambimana Team Member Senior Operations Senior Operations GFA01 Officer Officer Michael Gboyega Safeguards Social Social Safeguard GSU01 Ilesanmi Specialist Development Specialist Specialist Samuel Taffesse Team Member Senior Economist Project Management GFA01 Sheu Salau Team Member Agric. Economist Monitoring and GFA01 Evaluation Tolulope Oluseun Team Member Temporary Technical Assistant GFADR Idowu Vikas Choudhary Team Member Senior Economist Senior Economist GFAGE Extended Team Name Title Location Adetayo Adewunmi National Project Coordinator Abuja, Nigeria iii Institutional Data Parent ( THIRD NATIONAL FADAMA DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (FADAMA III)-P096572 ) Practice Area (Lead) Agriculture Contributing Practice Areas Cross Cutting Topics [ ] Climate Change [ ] Fragile, Conflict & Violence [ ] Gender [ ] Jobs [ ] Public Private Partnership Sectors / Climate Change Sector (Maximum 5 and total % must equal 100) Major Sector Sector % Adaptation Mitigation Co-benefits Co-benefits % % Agriculture, fishing, and forestry Crops 28 Agriculture, fishing, and forestry General agriculture, 21 fishing and forestry sector Industry and trade Agro-industry, 20 marketing, and trade Health and other social services Other social services 17 Agriculture, fishing, and forestry Agricultural extension 14 and research Total 100 Themes Theme (Maximum 5 and total % must equal 100) Major theme Theme % Rural development Rural services and infrastructure 43 Social dev/gender/inclusion Participation and civic engagement 22 Environment and natural resources Land administration and management 13 management iv Rural development Other rural development 11 Environment and natural resources Water resource management 11 management Total 100 Second Additional Financing to Third National Fadama Development Project: P158535 Practice Area (Lead) Agriculture Contributing Practice Areas Environment & Natural Resources, Governance, Social Protection & Labor, Social, Urban, Rural and Resilience Global Practice Cross Cutting Topics [ ] Climate Change [X] Fragile, Conflict & Violence [X] Gender [X] Jobs [ ] Public Private Partnership Sectors / Climate Change Sector (Maximum 5 and total % must equal 100) Major Sector Sector % Adaptation Mitigation Co-benefits Co-benefits % % Agriculture, fishing, and forestry General agriculture, 100 fishing and forestry sector Total 100 I certify that there is no Adaptation and Mitigation Climate Change Co-benefits information applicable to this project. Green House Gas Accounting Net Emissions 0.00 Gross Emissions 0.00 Themes Theme (Maximum 5 and total % must equal 100) Major theme Theme % Human development Nutrition and food security 40 v Rural development Rural markets 5 Rural development Rural non-farm income generation 5 Rural development Rural services and infrastructure 40 Rural development Global food crisis response 10 Total 100 Consultants (Will be disclosed in the Monthly Operational Summary) Consultants Required: Consulting services to be determined vi I. Introduction 1. This Project Paper seeks the approval of the Executive Directors to (a) provide a Second Additional Financing (AFII) in the amount of US$50 million (equivalent) to the Third National Fadama Development Project - Cr.44940-NG (Fadama III); and (b) undertake a Level I restructuring of the on-going Fadama III operation. The proposed project is being processed under OP 10.00 paragraph 12, referring to projects in situations of urgent need of assistance or capacity constraints. 2. The proposed additional credit would be fully dedicated to help finance the costs associated with supporting the recovery of the agriculture sector in the North East (NE) of Nigeria as part of the overall Bank response to support the Government’s recovery and reconstruction initiative. The proposed AF seeks to respond to the urgent food and livelihood needs of farming households who have been affected by conflicts in the six North East states in Nigeria—Borno, Yobe, Adamawa, Taraba, Bauchi, and Gombe. 3. The restructuring is aimed to consolidate the gains made under the parent project and to further enhance the development effectiveness of the parent project by aligning it closely with the evolving new policy of the Government of Nigeria (GoN) that is focused on arresting the dwindling food situation and supporting the transformation of agriculture. 4. The following are the main changes to be made as part of the restructuring: (a) the Project Development Objective (PDO) will be amended to reflect the focus on the North East states. The new PDO will be: “to increase the incomes for users of rural lands and water resources in a sustainable manner and to contribute to restoration of the livelihoods of conflict affected households in the selected area in the North East of the Recipient’s territory”. The original objective was “to increase the incomes of users of rural land and water resources within Fadama areas on a sustainable basis throughout the Recipient’s territory”; (b) the project closing date will be extended by two years from December 31, 2017 to December 31, 2019; (c) the Result Framework for the parent project will be revised to reflect the new scope and closing date of December 31, 2019 and to also include indicators to track the outcome and results of activities to be implemented in the NE financed under the new additional financing (AFII); and (d) cost allocation by component and category will be updated to accommodate the new additional Component 7; and (e) Two new safeguard policies will be triggered including Physical Cultural Resources (OP) (BP 4.11) and Safety of Dams (OP) (BP 4.37). 5. As part of the response to the Government’s request for support in its recovery and reconstruction initiative for the NE Nigeria, a number of development partners and United Nations (UN) agencies are providing support through 42 planned or on-going activities. In all, only 255,965 affected people, representing 7 percent of the 1.5 million target set by the food security group, have been reached with one form of assistance or the other. This project will be implemented in parallel and as a complement to the efforts of other development partners. The project will also partner with agencies active in the North East in the execution of some project activities, such as with World Food Program in provision of food assistance. 7 II. Background and Rationale for Additional Financing Original Project Design and Change in Scope 6. The Fadama III project was originally approved by the Board on June 1, 2008. The parent IDA Credit of US$250 million became effective on March 23, 2009 and the closing date was December 31, 2013. The project also benefited from an additional financing (AFI) of US$200 million that was approved by the Board on June 28, 2013 and became effective on October 21, 2013. As part of the AF1 restructuring, the closing date was extended to December 31, 2017. 7. The development objective of the original Fadama III Project is “to increase the incomes of users of rural land and water resources within Fadama areas on a sustainable basis throughout the Recipient’s territory.” The project delivers resources directly to the beneficiary rural communities in 36 states and the Federal Capital Territory and empowers beneficiaries to collectively decide on how resources are allocated and managed in support of improvement in their livelihood activities. The AFI is implemented in only six states (Kano, Niger, Kogi, Lagos, Enugu, and Anambra) with a focus on improving farm productivity performance of clusters of farmers engaged in priority food staples namely rice, cassava, sorghum and horticulture. Original Project Performance 8. The project is on track to achieving the stated PDO. The Project implementation performance and progress toward the achievement of the PDO has been consistently rated satisfactory. As of March 31, 2016, the project had disbursed XDR 178.8 million (a disbursement rate of 62.5 percent). The project is making substantial contributions to both the quality of life of the beneficiaries and the economy of the beneficiary states. The monitoring and evaluation data reveal that the Project’s impact has been consistent with the expectations set out in the Project Appraisal Document (PAD) as evidenced by over 40 percent increase in average income of 48 percent of project beneficiaries. The project was also instrumental in bringing about the 8.9 percent productivity increase achieved in major crops. Furthermore, it was revealed that 88.6 percent of Fadama users are satisfied with operations, maintenance, and utilization of community-owned infrastructure and capital assets. There are report that indicate that project beneficiaries have realized 25.4 percent additional increase in income from value addition to agricultural products. At output level, the Project has made significant progress in all components, which were all rated satisfactory. 9. Procurement, financial management and other fiduciary ratings have been consistently rated satisfactory and the counterpart has delivered the necessary audits as required. Implementation of legal covenants are in compliance and has been followed to the satisfaction of the Bank. Rationale for the Borrower’s Request 10. The request for the AFII is to respond to an emergency related situation to support quick recovery and reconstruction of the North East States that suffered huge losses and damage to property, economic infrastructure, and livelihoods because of the insurgency. The Federal Government of Nigeria (FGN) established the Presidential Coordination Committee on North East Interventions (PCNI) with key objectives of: (a) promotion of civic culture that is 8 supportive of peaceful co-existence; (b) access to basic services and infrastructure; (c) increase in the production capacity and wealth creation in the zone; (d) acceleration of access to quality education, and; (e) development and well-being of citizens living in the North-East. As part of PCNI, the FGN initiated a rapid recovery and reconstruction efforts in collaboration with international and national humanitarian agencies. The GoN requested assistance from the World Bank, in collaboration with the EU and UN, to assess the needs associated with peace building and crisis recovery in the affected region. This proposed AFII directly responds to the Government’s request and will contribute to the key objectives of the Government. 11. The restructuring to be undertaken to the on-going project will provide opportunity for delivering valuable results that will make a difference in income and livelihood of beneficiaries and contribute to agricultural sector productivity and growth. Alternatives to Additional Financing Considered 12. Four major alternatives to AFII were considered: (a) financing by the Government’s own resources: the Government is facing a huge fiscal constraint due to oil price crises, which has led to a significant drop in revenues to the Federation Account. Hampered by its budgetary situation to self-finance the recovery of the NE region, the Government has requested the Bank (and other development partners) for support; (b) restructuring and reallocation of credit proceeds for Fadama III: since all project resources are already allocated to project activities in the participating states under a subsidiary credit agreement, it would be difficult for the Government to backtrack on its earlier commitments and reallocate the credit proceeds to finance the intervention in the NE. Most importantly, it would pose a reputational risk to the Bank if the earlier commitment is reversed and would compromise the good relationship established through Fadama. Further, the reallocating of resources would compromise the achievement of the PDO if already planned activities are not properly funded; and (c) Financing by other donors: while other donors are actively supporting the recovery of the NE, the demand far outstrips the commitment made for funding. Country and Sector Context 13. Nigeria became the largest economy in Africa after rebasing its gross domestic product (GDP) in 2014. With an abundant and diversified agricultural base, Nigeria’s economy has a very large agricultural sector accounting for about 22 percent of the rebased GDP and employing about 70 percent of the labor force. Until the early 1970s, Nigeria was self-sufficient in food production with a small surplus for export and agriculture was the main foreign exchange earner. However, the sector stagnated thereafter for a number of reasons, key among them was the discovery, exploitation and export of oil that resulted in a subsequent policy shift and resource allocations from agriculture to the oil-industry. 14. The new Government that took office in 2015 has prioritized national food security in staple foods while also supporting development of value chains in agriculture. There have been concerted efforts in recent years to increase agricultural productivity, reduce poverty and increase rural incomes (particularly via agricultural transformation), but nutritional outcomes have not improved. Malnutrition remains a serious problem, especially in the northern parts of the country and among the (mostly rural) poor. 9 15. The NE region was renowned for its large agricultural potential, with 80 percent of the population engaged in farming and contributing significantly to the regional and national GDP. Over the past two decades, however, the region has regressed with low education levels, limited access to healthcare and other basic amenities, and low GDP per capita. A once promising zone now trails the other regions of Nigeria across all socio economic indicators. The NE region in most recent times has also borne the brunt of human casualty, loss of properties and diminished livelihoods emanating from the Boko Haram terrorist insurgency. 16. Poverty incidence is higher in the North East than in any other regions of the country, with headcount estimates of 50.2 percent while in the South West it was only 16 percent. See figure 1(2012/2013 GHS survey). Figure 1. Poverty Incidence of Rural Agriculture Households in Different Regions of Nigeria 17. Agriculture, fishery and livestock are the dominant economic sectors in the NE of Nigeria. Unemployment, especially among young men, is very high. Agriculture production capacity is impaired in the region due to the high state of insecurity that hindered activities involving supply of seeds/fertilizer, provision of advisory services by agriculture extension officers, timely farm maintenance and transport of harvest. Conflict and instability in Northern Nigeria have impacted all segments of crop production, livestock rearing and agricultural services. Restriction in food availability and access in Borno, Yobe and Adamawa States has generated a localized food crises during the lean period. As a result, food insecurity has increased dramatically, not only among the internally displaced persons (IDPs) but also within the host communities. The human insecurity situation and the associated massive displacement of communities have greatly exacerbated household food insecurity and malnutrition in the region, especially among young children and women. 18. There are about 1,855,810 IDPs out of which 94 percent expressed willingness to return to their places of origin and practice agriculture (International Organization for Migration, 2015; FAO, 2016). The majority of these IDPs declared that agriculture was their main source of 10 livelihood. The majority of displaced people are living in host communities and depend on their hosts for food assistance. These host communities who continue to bear an enormous responsibility of providing support for the IDPs have some of the highest levels of poverty and malnutrition in the country. About 2,690,946 people across the three NE States are in food crisis situation and will need humanitarian assistance (1,627,266 in Borno, 940,750 in Yobe and 122,930 in Adamawa state). Revamping the agricultural production system will therefore require addressing the food crisis first. 19. In summary, the insurgency has impacted economic activity in general and agricultural activity in particular through multitude of channels: (a) reduced human mobility that has hampered the free movement of inhabitants outside protected areas; (b) reduced access to farm land, inputs and markets; (c) increased theft: the agriculture sector became a target for insurgents in need of cash and food; (d) increased prices for transportation, inputs and products; (e) debilitation of important infrastructures such as community irrigation schemes, rural feeder roads and market posts; (f) emigration of the population to settle outside NE; and (g) existence of mined fields with explosives that make movement and starting economic activities difficult. The reduction in mobility resulted in higher transportation costs making farm inputs more expensive, thereby limiting their access. Overall Risk Rating and Explanation of Key Risks 20. The Project faces High implementation risk. There are still flashpoints in the six selected NE States although the frequency and intensity is now at a much lower level compared to recent past. However, political and governance will remain an important High risk. The North East also suffers from limited institutional capacity for implementation and service delivery. Macroeconomic risk is Substantial mainly driven by the fuel price crisis that has a cascading impact on the overall economic performance and mainly through loss of Government revenue – fuel accounted for 70 percent of the budget. Sector strategies and policies risk are rated Substantial due mainly to past neglect of the agriculture sector and lack of reforms to revitalize it. Institutional capacity for implementation and sustainability will be a Substantial risk given that the NE States have seen the erosion of human capital and demonstrate a limited presence of qualified and competent Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) and Nongovernmental Organizations (NGOs). A number of States and areas in the NE, have remained inaccessible, especially for Bank staff, limiting the frequency of providing close implementation support and monitoring of project execution. Conflict risk is considered to be High. There are increasing security challenges and conflict situations in the north east part of the country. The absence of a political reconciliation process and the risk of renewed conflict may cast doubts over the return of displaced persons Also, a number of areas in the North East remain out of reach for Bank staff. Furthermore, and while the type of issues and challenges being faced by conflict and displacement affected states have been identified, both the magnitude and spatial locations of these have yet to be determined. 21. Remnants of the conflict continue to pose a threat to the lives and livelihoods of returning farmers and aid workers, contributing to a climate of fear, and are amongst the obstacles to the safe and sustainable return of IDPs and refugees in the NE. Demining is therefore seen as a critical first step in guaranteeing the return and participation of returning farmers in livelihood activities. This applies to all Bank projects proposed for the NE. Thus, an additional risk 11 (Conflict) is added to account for this and is rated High. The project approach will be to work in communities that have been declared safe by the Government. Certified clearance for safety would have to be obtained from the State Government before going into any intervention site. That is, the recognized security protocol must be followed. In addition, all stakeholders (project staff, NGOs, and service providers) must undergo security training. The responsibility for providing clearance lies with the Government and the Bank role is limited to providing information on the planned project activities and where they will be implemented. The Project will not be financing de-mining activities. It was agreed that the GoN (federal and concerned states) will establish a shared and joint approach among Bank supported projects for NE, as it applies to demining awareness. Institutional or Capacity Issues 22. Due to the conflict, the states of the NE have seen a marked erosion of the already low- level capacity that existed before the conflict. NGOs and CSOs operating in the area demonstrate a very low capacity as their capable manpower left the area. While low-level capacity of institutions and organizations is a shared problem across the six states, the Fadama project has a structure in the region that will be important in supporting project implementation. At state level, Fadama has the structure to ensure that project implementation and coordination is supported very closely. A dedicated desk to coordinate project activities in the NE will be established within the Fadama project coordination office. Donors are now increasing their presence in the region and this could help in ameliorating institutional capacity by crowding-in capacity improvement and technical assistance (TA) to agencies involved in the restoration of NE livelihood. The project also plan to actively seek the partnership of universities and higher-level learning institutions to provide support in project implementation and monitoring. Factors that help implementation 23. There are a number of factors that will contribute positively to the successful implementation of the AFII. On general level, the following factors bode very well for successful implementation: (a) the Government’s unwavering commitment to recovery and reducing the service deficit and improving livelihoods in the NE; (b) determination of the farmers to return and start their farming practices; (c) high number of donors that are willing to provide support and expressed demonstrated willingness to work together; (d) the awareness created and the interest generated toward this proposed project by the communities, state and local officials and their demonstrated readiness to support. Specific to Fadama project, the pilot intervention undertaken in the region has provided informative lessons that will be instrumental in project implementation. Details of lesson learnt is attached as Annex 4 to the project paper. Project Design 24. As an emergency project, the design focuses on agricultural related activities that are critical now while supporting the start-up of the recovery process in the short-run. Further, the project relies on activities that have proven successful in providing quick response in an emergency situation while allowing communities to start building their livelihood. Within that framework, the project opted to start with provision of agricultural inputs as farmers return and start establishing their livelihood. However, recognizing the dire need for food and cognizant of 12 the fact that the new returnees have no food supply until they harvest their first crop, the project will supply them with food packages to fill the temporary gap. In designing the delivery of food packages and inputs, the project design focused on utilizing the delivery mechanism of institutions and agencies already involved in similar activities in the NE region. The design also reflected the need for complementary infrastructure to support the revitalization of the sector and therefore rehabilitation of rural roads, market posts, and community irrigation schemes will be financed. Homestead and garden farming will be supported as part of the community irrigation rehabilitation work that will allow farmers to support their food need and generate additional income. At the center of the design is community participation and capacity strengthening that will allow beneficiaries to receive the required support through their local organizations and extension agents (EAs). III. Proposed Changes Summary of Proposed Changes The following are the main changes to be made as part of the restructuring: (a) the PDO will be amended to reflect the support to the restoration of agricultural livelihoods in the North-East. The new PDO will be: “to increase the incomes for users of rural lands and water resources in a sustainable manner and to contribute to restoration of the livelihoods of conflict affected households in the selected area in the North East of the Recipient’s territory” while the original objective was “to increase the incomes for users of rural lands and water resources within the Fadama Areas in a sustainable manner”; (b) the project closing date would be extended by two years from December 31, 2017 to December 31, 2019; (c) the Result Framework for the parent project will be revised to reflect the change in scope and the new closing date of December 31, 2019 and to also include indicators to track the outcome and results of activities to be implemented in the NE financed under the new additional financing (AFII); (d) cost allocation by component and category will be updated to accommodate the new additional Component 7; and (e) two new safeguard policies will be triggered including Physical Cultural Resources (OP/BP 4.11) and Safety of Dams (OP/BP 4.37). Change in Implementing Agency Yes [ ] No [ X ] Change in Project's Development Objectives Yes [ X ] No [ ] Change in Results Framework Yes [ X ] No [ ] Change in Safeguard Policies Triggered Yes [ X ] No [ ] Change of EA category Yes [ ] No [ X ] Other Changes to Safeguards Yes [ X ] No [ ] Change in Legal Covenants Yes [ ] No [ X ] Change in Loan Closing Date(s) Yes [ X ] No [ ] Cancellations Proposed Yes [ ] No [ X ] Change in Disbursement Arrangements Yes [ ] No [ X ] Reallocation between Disbursement Categories Yes [ ] No [ X ] 13 Change in Disbursement Estimates Yes [ X ] No [ ] Change to Components and Cost Yes [ X ] No [ ] Change in Institutional Arrangements Yes [ ] No [ X ] Change in Financial Management Yes [ ] No [ X ] Change in Procurement Yes [ ] No [ X ] Change in Implementation Schedule Yes [ X ] No [ ] Yes [ ] No [ X ] Other Change(s) Development Objective/Results PHHHDO Project’s Development Objectives Original PDO The development objective of Fadama III Project is to increase the incomes of users of rural land and water resources in Fadama areas on a sustainable basis throughout the Recipient’s territory Change in Project's Development Objectives PHHCPDO Explanation: The change in the PDO will allow the project to support the restoration of agricultural livelihoods in the North-East. Proposed New PDO - Additional Financing (AF-II) The new PDO will be: “to increase the incomes for users of rural lands and water resources in a sustainable manner, and to contribute to restoration of the livelihoods of conflict affected households in the selected area in the North East of the Recipient’s territory”. Change in Results Framework PHHCRF Explanation: The Result Framework for the parent project will be revised to reflect the change in scope and the new closing date of December 31, 2019 and to also include indicators to track the outcome and results of activities to be implemented in the NE financed under the new additional financing (AFII). Compliance Change in Safeguard Policies PHHCSPT Triggered Explanation: The new policies triggered are Physical Cultural Resources (OP/BP 4.11) and Safety of Dams 14 (OP/BP 4.37). Explanation: (OP/BP 4.11) is triggered because the project will involve elements of excavation from the construction of small dams and earth roads, therefore it is not inconceivable that cultural relics may be found. Chance Find guideline and procedures that would be adopted by the project and the Additional Financing are contained in the ESMF. Explanation: (OP/BP 4.37) is triggered because the project may involve the construction, strengthening or modification of small dams, weirs and water impoundments. For this reason, the safety of dams policy (OP 4.37) is triggered, even though the project is not supporting any large dams. The ESMF provides guidance, and qualified engineers will be engaged for design and supervision. Current and Proposed Safeguard Policies Current(from Current Proposed(from Triggered: Parent ISDS) Additional Financing ISDS) Environmental Assessment (OP/BP 4.01) Yes Yes Natural Habitats (OP/BP 4.04) Yes Yes Forests (OP/BP 4.36) Yes Yes Pest Management (OP 4.09) Yes Yes Physical Cultural Resources (OP/BP 4.11) No Yes Indigenous Peoples (OP/BP 4.10) No No Involuntary Resettlement (OP/BP 4.12) Yes Yes Safety of Dams (OP/BP 4.37) No Yes Projects on International Waterways (OP/BP Yes Yes 7.50) Projects in Disputed Areas (OP) (BP 7.60) No No Other Changes to PHHOCS Safeguards Explanation: OP 7.50 is triggered for AFII but the scope of activities to be financed was captured in the notification undertaken for the parent project. Explanation: OP 7.50 as triggered for AFII but during project design, it became clear that the scope of activities to be financed by the AFII was already fully captured in the notification undertaken for the parent project. This conclusion was reached taking into account the following factors: (i) that the geographic area in which AFII will finance activities was conveyed as part of the Fadama III notification which was national in scope; (ii) that the nature of activities to be financed under the AFII is the same as those that have been financed under the parent project to date, and that no new types of activities that involve the use or potential pollution of international 15 waterways will be financed. As designed, the project activities will be demand driven. Going by the nature of activities financed so far under the parent Fadama III project, the only water related activities demanded and funded in the 36 states during the 9 years of operation were 612 boreholes and 322 open wells totaling 934 numbers out of 15,596 items funded under the infrastructure component. What was committed to water related activities was thus less than 2 percent of the total project cost of $250Million. The same trend of demand driven activities is expected under the AFII. The ESMF provides guidance, and qualified engineers will be engaged for design and supervision. The client has processed and formally disclosed site specific safeguard instruments that were prepared during the implementation of the parent Fadama III project. Covenants - Second Additional Financing to Third National Fadama Development Project ( North East Food Security and Emergency Livelihood Support Project - P158535 ) Source of Finance Description of Funds Agreement Date Due Recurrent Frequency Action Covenants Reference Conditions: Signing of Subsidiary Agreement by the Participating States Source Of Fund Name Type Description of Condition: The concerned Participating State has signed a Subsidiary Agreement with the Recipient, satisfactory to the Association Conditions: Receipt by the Association the Legal Opinion Description of Condition: The Association has received an opinion pursuant to Section 8.02(b) of the General Conditions that the Subsidiary Agreement has been duly authorized or ratified by the Recipient and the concerned Participating State and is legally binding upon the Recipient and the Participating State in accordance with its terms. Risk PHHHRISKS Risk Category Rating (H, S, M, L) 1. Political and Governance High 2. Macroeconomic Substantial 3. Sector Strategies and Policies Substantial 4. Technical Design of Project or Program Moderate 5. Institutional Capacity for Implementation and Sustainability Moderate 16 6. Fiduciary Moderate 7. Environment and Social Moderate 8. Stakeholders Moderate 9. Other: (Conflict) High OVERALL High Finance Loan Closing Date – Second Additional Financing to Third National Fadama Development Project ( North East Food Security and Emergency Livelihood Support Project - P158535 ) Proposed Additional Financing Loan Closing Source of Funds Date IDA recommitted as a Credit 31-Dec-2019 Loan Closing Date(s) - Parent ( THIRD NATIONAL FADAMA PHHCLCD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (FADAMA III) - P096572 ) Explanation: The extension of the closing date will allow the full implementation of the new Additional Financing (AFII) and consolidation of the results of the on-going project. Status Original Current Proposed Previous Ln/Cr/TF Closing Date Closing Date Closing Date Closing Date(s) IDA- Effective 31-Dec-2013 31-Dec-2017 31-Dec-2019 31-Dec-2017 44940 IDA- Effective 31-Dec-2017 31-Dec-2017 31-Dec-2019 31-Dec-2017 52930 Change in Disbursement (including all sources of Financing)PHHCDE Estimates Explanation: To account for the balance of AF1 and AFII resources and with the extension of the closing date, disbursement estimate have been revised. Expected Disbursements (in US$, millions)(including all Sources of Financing) Fiscal Year 2016 2017 2018 2019 Annual (AF-II) 0.00 25.00 20.00 5.00 Annual (AF-I) 60.00 80.00 40.00 20.00 17 Cumulative 60.00 165.00 225.00 250.00 Allocations - Additional Financing ( North East Food Security and Livelihood Emergency Support Project - P158535 ) Disbursement Source of Category of Allocation Currency %(Type Total) Fund Expenditure Proposed Proposed (1) Food supply under 3,500,000 100 IDA XDR Part G.1 of the Project (2) Goods, Works, 31,800,000 100 Non-consulting Services, Consultants’ Services (including for IDA XDR audits), Training and Operating Costs for Parts F and G of the Project Total: 35,300,000.00 Components Change to Components and PHHCCC Cost Explanation: The AF proposes to finance two components. A new component will be introduced to the on- going project, (Component 7: Food Security and Livelihoods Support Investment Program) and an existing component (Project management and evaluation (M&E) will be scaled-up to support project implementation. Details of the components are as follows: Component 6: Project Management and Evaluation (US$5.00 million). This component would include providing incremental capital and incremental operating costs for implementation of the project; TA for quality delivery and impact assessments including functional reviews and third party monitoring; a functional and well-communicated complaints handling system; and studies for the preparation of a longer-term program aimed at economic restructuring and diversification of the North East region’s economy; drawing largely from the findings of the recovery and peace building assessment (RPBA) in the region. The AF will be implemented in a conflict prone environment that is unpredictable and which could worsen depending on the situation, hence, the project would leverage on third party monitoring where possible and use other technology to monitor project activities in areas not accessible. The project will make provision for building partnership with academics and universities for monitoring of the project as a way of building capacity of national institutions. The project would deploy the use of ICT driven geotagging via phone calls and remote monitoring systems. 18 Component 7: Food Security and Livelihoods Support Investment Program (US$45.0 million). This component aims at reducing vulnerability to food crisis among returning and host farmers through provision of emergency food assistance support for increasing own production and improving postharvest handling and management. This will include subprojects for generating livelihoods opportunities within the crops, fisheries, and livestock subsectors. The project will partner with international and national organizations to provide complementary food assistance to farming households who are involved in the livelihood activities. The project would also support smallholder farmers with critical inputs to ensure direct support for their livelihoods beyond subsistence farming, and promoting value chains. It will also support rehabilitation of existing rural community agriculture related infrastructure and rehabilitation of farm settlements using materials such as laterite blocks molded from hydra forms. This component would finance the following activities : (a) food assistance and a cash-for-work program in which the most vulnerable farming households get cash transfers in exchange for labor and participation in construction of community agricultural related infrastructure that enhance agricultural productivity (roads, storage facilities and so on), including other community-led activities such as tree planting and soil conservation. This involves allocation of 60 working days per farming household during the period leading to the first harvest. In addition, the most vulnerable households will also get food assistance for 60 days until their next harvest; (b) restoring the agricultural production activities through provision of the required advisory and extension services, agricultural inputs and acquisition of on-farm and off-farm productive assets including provision of starter packs to support economic opportunities for affected families with special focus on women and youth. This will help to empower the farming communities and households in creating economic opportunity for self-reliance activities; (c) social mobilization and capacity building of farmers and local communities through the locally based indigenous organizations through training, peer learning and mentoring by more established organizations; and (d) community agriculture related infrastructure and services including rehabilitation and investment in new infrastructure - fences, markets, storage facilities including aggregation centers, production pens and houses for livestock, rural network of roads, with priorities to be established in consultation with the community groups. The project would finance selected damaged irrigation schemes, canals, and ponds to enable farmers to have a reliable supply of irrigation water for crop, livestock, and fisheries. Current Proposed Current Component Proposed Component Cost (US$, Cost (US$, Action Name Name million) million) Capacity Building, Capacity Building, Local Government, Local Government, and and Communications 87.50 87.50 No Change Communications and and Information Information Support Support Small-Scale Small-Scale Community-owned Community-owned 75.00 75.00 No Change Infrastructure Infrastructure Advisory Services and Advisory Services and 39.50 39.50 No Change Input Support Input Support 19 Support to the Agricultural Support to the ADPs Development Projects 36.50 36.50 No Change and Adaptive Research (ADPs) and Adaptive Research Asset Acquisition Asset Acquisition 150.00 150.00 No Change Project Administration, Project Management 58.80 63.80 Revised Monitoring and and Evaluation Evaluation Food Security and Livelihoods Support 0.00 45.00 New Investment Program Total: 447.30 497.30 Other Change(s) An adaptation of implementation mechanisms and the relaxation of implementation requirements of the AFII is proposed, including the adoption of one category of disbursement and 100 percent funding of interventions to provide a flexible conditions for fund flow and to raise the pace of implementation. Given the emergency nature of this operation, the AF-II proposal includes a provision for retroactive financing to the tune of US$10 million to enable immediate financing of eligible activities. IV. Appraisal Summary Economic and Financial Analysis PHHASEFA Explanation: An economic and financial analysis for the AFII was done. The analysis utilized the dominant crops grown in the NE Nigeria that include: (a) Sorghum/maize/millet; (b) Rice/maize; (c) cassava/maize; and (d) irrigated vegetables such as spinach/tomato/pepper/okra/maize (at times punctuated by cash and medicinal crops such as onions, ginger, and garlic). These four representative cropping patterns were selected as products that farmers in the region will plant to support their livelihood. The rehabilitation/reconstruction of roads and markets that will provide income to the beneficiaries through cash-for-work program that create 60-days employment for the IDPs were also included in the analysis. An average of 15 percent productivity increase was assumed. Using six representative farm models the estimated Economic Rate of Return (ERR) was 31 percent, with net present value of the incremental benefit of N 7,572.6million, approximately US$37.86million. Results of the sensitivity analysis indicate that the project remains viable under the various assumptions considered. In general, all the models were sensitive to changes in the output price, 20 operating, and investment costs. A 10 percent drop in the output prices reduces the project ERR to 25 percent, and a 10 percent increase in either investment or operating costs reduces the project ERR to 28 percent. The analysis of the switching value shows that the ERR is sensitive to changes in project costs and benefits. A reduction in benefits by 30 percent; or increase in the total cost by 35 percent; and a simultaneous reduction of benefits by 20 percent coupled with an increase of cost by 20 percent reduces the ERR to 12 percent. Thus, overall the analysis shows that the returns from project financed activities is robust. Technical Analysis PHHASTA Explanation: No change is proposed on the technical aspect of the parent project. As to the new activities financed under new Component 7, predominantly these are mostly simple labor-intensive works that can be designed and implemented without intensive technical feasibility studies. In addition, National Fadama Coordination Office (NFCO) and ADPs have experience in implementing similar programs. The proposed rehabilitation of public sector infrastructure (for example, rural roads) and community agricultural related infrastructures (such as, micro irrigation schemes) may require the deployment of civil works contractors at least to supervise the work. The government agencies responsible for these works have the required skill and qualification with well- established technical guidelines and procedures, and long experience in supervising such works. These government agencies will be involved in: (a) appropriate design of rehabilitation works and estimation of the bills of quantities required for the work; (b) choice and use of appropriate construction materials; and (c) diligent monitoring and supervision of the works with necessary quality norms and technical specifications. The project includes provisions to hire independent technical consultants to verify and certify construction quality and specifications as well as final payments to the civil works contractors. With regard to agricultural inputs, selection of beneficiaries will be made according to agreed criteria as spelt out in the implementation manual and delivery will be contracted out to institutions active in the region in delivering similar support. Communities will play a significant role in selection of rehabilitation works and identifying beneficiaries for food and agricultural input support. The experience gained through the parent Fadama project, which empowered local groups, will be instrumental in working with communities in the beneficiary North-East states. Social Analysis PHHASSA Explanation: The AF will be implemented in a slightly different context that will take into account the conflict sensitive environment. The parent Fadama project has a successful track record in working with communities, supporting the strengthening of their local organization in managing their productive services and in implementing social safeguards. With this background, and coordination structures at all levels of the project, it is expected to contribute to positive social benefits, poverty reduction, and livelihood restoration opportunities for project beneficiaries in the North East. The project is expected to improve opportunities for poor and vulnerable groups, farming households, individual (including women, youth and IDPs); lead to collective 21 empowerment through membership in farmer cooperatives; and contribute to improved access to agricultural facilities and rural infrastructure (such as markets, farm access road, production pens and aggregation centers). Given the context of the NE, as part of project implementation, a conflict sensitive analysis will be done at the initial design stage of every subproject (and reviewed on a regular basis as part of project monitoring) to avoid exacerbating existing tension or conflict as well as creating the space for dialogue among project beneficiaries. Environmental Analysis Explanation: Two new safeguard policies will be triggered including Physical Cultural Resources (OP/BP 4.11) and Safety of Dams (OP/BP 4.37). The safeguard instrument under the parent project have been updated and re-disclosed. Risk Explanation: The overall risk is High. The main factors contributing to the high risk are discussed below: Political and Governance risks are considered to be High in light of delay in the take-off of the proposed programs of the GoN in rebuilding the economy of the conflict affected North Eastern states of Nigeria. More importantly, there are still substantial concerns about the dynamic nature of the conflict as well as the lack of clarity on government policies related to the emergency transition and stabilization phases. However, the internal and independent oversight of public expenditure is relatively satisfactory, as demonstrated by the well performing implementing agencies and the technical and fiduciary coordination unit under the parent Fadama III+AF project and should help mitigate this risk. Macroeconomic and Sector Strategies and Policies, the risks are also rated as Substantial. The high dependency of Nigeria on oil revenues and the recent sharp decline in oil prices has given rise to major challenges in the form of external imbalance, steep falls in government revenues, and slower economic growth. The national currency has depreciated by 50 percent between November 2015 and March, 2016, leading to a significant import contraction that has alleviated some of the pressure on the naira. New currency controls on the forex market should bring further significant import contraction, although they are also expected to negatively impact trade and GDP growth. The new government has not come out clearly on its agricultural roadmap and programs for the North East, Nigeria. However, agriculture sector is one area that the government has targeted to diversify its economy and reduce its dependency on oil. The North East region of Nigeria contributes the most to the agricultural sector, and the government is committed to reviving the economy of the region as outlined in the Recovery and Peace Building Assessment. 22 Conflict Risk is considered to be High. There are increasing security challenges and conflict situations in the North East part of the country which has been heavily hit by the Boko Haram insurgency. In an environment where transition from conflict to peace remains fragile, the implementation of the proposed AF is expected to face a number of challenges. These relate to the dynamic nature of the conflict as well as to the lack of clarity on government policies related to the emergency transition and stabilization phases. There are increasing security challenges in the region part of the country which pose an implementation risk for the Government and a supervision risk for the World Bank team. In terms of mitigation, the use of third party monitors, local NGOs and other civil society groups for supervision, monitoring and evaluation will be explored and if the situation escalates the World Bank and the Borrower will reassess the operation. In addition, the nature of population displacement resulting from the conflict is complex and the lack of displacement management process is a challenge. The World Bank will work with the Federal Government and the Governments of the NE States, under the auspices of the Presidential Committee on North East Initiative (PCNI), to articulate a displacement management policy and guideline. V. Governance and Accountability 25. The project aims at strengthening institutional effectiveness and accountability at three levels: Federal and State levels for the coordination and management of a project activities and community level for the targeting of beneficiaries and social accountability. To help restore public trust in the Government, which is at a low level as a result of the conflict, the project has established a robust grievance redress system, which should help mitigate endemic fraud and corruption, including at the point of delivery across public programs. Communities will be trained and supported to be able to report on petty fraud and corruption through the grievance redress system, which will ensure that individual complaints are adequately addressed as well as the systemic issues they reflect. Given the need to restore social cohesion, the GRM is also designed as a conflict resolution mechanism. Details are provided in the revised Project Implementation Manual. VI. Communication 26. Communication was incorporated into the Third National Fadama Development Project as a tool for enhancing and showcasing results, citizen’s engagement and participation and provisions were made to mainstream communication into project implementation. There is an existing communications strategy and communications specialists have been recruited at the Federal and State PIU levels. This AF will benefit from the already existing communication arrangements which anticipate the scaling-up of the implementation of the communication strategy, including a communication action plan further detailed in the revised Project Implementation Manual. VII. World Bank Grievance Redress 23 27. Communities and individuals who believe that they are adversely affected by a Bank supported project may submit complaints to existing project-level grievance redress mechanisms or the Bank’s Grievance Redress Service (GRS). The GRS ensures that complaints received are promptly reviewed to address project-related concerns. Project affected communities and individuals may submit their complaint to the Bank’s independent Inspection Panel which determines whether harm occurred, or could occur, as a result of Bank non-compliance with its policies and procedures. Complaints may be submitted at any time after concerns have been brought directly to the Bank's attention, and Bank Management has been given an opportunity to respond. For information on how to submit complaints to the Bank’s corporate Grievance Redress Service (GRS), please visit http://www.worldbank.org/GRS. For information on how to submit complaints to the Bank Inspection Panel, please visit www.inspectionpanel.org. 24 Annex 1: Updated Results Framework and Monitoring Revisions to the Results Framework Comments/ Rationale for Change PDO Current (PAD) Proposed The objective of the Project is to increase the To increase the The PDO is being revised due to the incomes for users of rural lands and water incomes for users of emphasis on returning farmers and host resources within the Fadama Areas in a rural lands in a communities in the north east states that sustainable manner throughout the Recipient’s sustainable manner have been affected by the Boko Haram territory and to contribute to insurgency. The package of support will restoration of the help beneficiaries to resume their livelihoods of conflict agricultural livelihood activities affected households in (including livestock) and increase their the selected area in the incomes. The AF will also support North East of the beneficiaries with food distribution and Recipient’s territory. Cash for Work awaiting the harvesting period. PDO indicators Current (PAD) Proposed change* Number of direct Project beneficiaries New (AFII) To assess impact of project on household in the North East (%of which is beneficiaries female) Number of farming households provided with New (AFII) To identify target framers and locations livelihood support for support under Component 7 Number of farming households receiving food New (AFII) To assess the level of food secured Assistance participating farmers 75% of Fadama and Non-Fadama user Revised: New Closing Project beneficiaries also include non- household, who benefit directly from Project Date Fadama user Households under AF-I supported activities, have increased their average real incomes by at least 40%. 40% increase in yield cassava, rice, sorghum, Revised: New Closing Indicators for the original project would and horticulture and 20% increase in yield of Date be retained. primary agricultural products (disaggregated by crops/agroforestry, livestock and fisheries, etc.) of participating households. 10% of replacement value of the common asset Revised: New Closing Indicators for the original project would used by the beneficiaries for income generating Date be retained. activities is saved annually (with effect from year 2). 75 percent of Fadama and Non-Fadama users Revised: New Closing Indicators for the original project would are satisfied with operations, maintenance, and Date be retained. utilization of community-owned infrastructure and capital assets acquired through the Project. 50% of assets and community-owned Revised: New Closing Indicators for the original project would infrastructure are operating satisfactorily and Date be retained. are maintained and utilized. Direct Project beneficiaries (%of which is Revised: New Closing Indicators for the original project would female) Date be retained. 25 Revisions to the Results Framework Comments/ Rationale for Change Intermediate Results indicators Current (PAD) Proposed change* Days of work provided to returnees and New (AFII) To capture the Cash-for-Work conflict affected households Component Community/farmer organizations trained for New (AFII) technical and managerial skills Villages/settlements engaged in participatory New (AFII) processes for site and beneficiary selection By midterm review (MTR), 75% of Revised: New Closing Indicators for the original project would participating communities have Local Date be retained Development Plans (LDPs) developed through a participatory process. By end of Project, 75% of Fadama Users Revised: New Closing Indicators for the original project would Groups (FUGs) and Fadama Community Date be retained Association (FCAs) have fully (100%) implemented approved LDPs. By end of Project, 20% of participating Local Revised: New Closing Indicators for AF-I is retained Government Authorities (LGAs) integrate Date Local Development Plans into their annual plans. 40% of participating Fadama Communities Revised: New Closing have at least one productive rural infrastructure Date constructed/rehabilitated (disaggregated by feeder roads, culverts/small bridges and land/water conservation technologies). 100% of selected project intervention areas Revised: New Closing have at least one of their irrigation systems/ Date access roads constructed/rehabilitated. Roads constructed, Rural Revised: New Closing Indicators for the original project would Date be retained 100% of selected project intervention New AF-II communities have at least one of their irrigation systems/ access roads rehabilitated. 30% increase in the number of beneficiaries No change Indicators for the original project would procuring advisory services in the selected be retained. project intervention areas (Economic Interest Group disaggregated by gender and age). 60% increase in the number of beneficiaries No change Indicators for the original project would with access to improved seed, fertilizer, and be retained. mechanization (Economic Interest Group disaggregated by gender, age and farm size, land use, crop, and so on). - 30% increase in the number of beneficiaries No change Indicators for the original project receiving extension services from both public would be retained. and private providers (disaggregated by 26 Revisions to the Results Framework Comments/ Rationale for Change gender, age, and land use). 20% of new technology adopted in Fadama No change Indicators for the original project would communities and AF intervention areas be retained. (disaggregated by gender, age, and land use and farm size). By the end of the project, at least 50% of No change beneficiaries will be receiving e-extension services At least 50% of all on-farm demonstrations are No change conducted on a yearly basis for all of the value chains in selected project intervention areas under AF1 By the end of the project, at least 50% of No change beneficiaries would have increased nutrition awareness (disaggregated by gender). By the end of the project, at least 20% of No change beneficiaries will be using inputs rich in micro – nutrients 20% increase in income from sales of value- No change For original project only. Indicators for added agricultural products. the original project would be retained. 30% of FCAs have access to market No change Indicators for the original project would information be retained. By the end of the project, at least 1,800 number – No change youth-graduates would serve as Nagri - preneurs NFCO and State Fadama Coordination Office No change Indicators for the original project would (SFCOs) conduct satisfactory project be retained. management as evidenced by effective supervision, M&E, impact evaluation, financial management, and financial auditing arrangements (To be submitted at the end of the original project) Document and disseminate specific No change information on project performance to users and stakeholders. Note.* Indicate if the indicator is Dropped, Continued, New, Revised, or if there is a change in the end of project target value 27 Annex 1: Result Framework Second Additional Financing to Third National Fadama Development Project Project Development Objectives Original Project Development Objective - Parent: The development objective of Fadama III Project is to increase the incomes of users of rural land and water resources on a sustainable basis. Proposed Project Development Objective - Additional Financing (AF): The new PDO will be: To increase the incomes for users of rural lands and water resources in a sustainable manner, and to contribute to restoration of the livelihoods of conflict affected households in the selected area in the North East of the Recipient’s territory. Results Core sector indicators are considered: Yes Results reporting level: Project Level Project Development Objective Indicators Status Indicator Name Core Unit of Measure Baseline Actual(Current) End Target New Direct Project beneficiaries Number Value 0.00 0.00 192000.00 household in the North East Date 06-May-2016 06-May-2016 31-Dec-2019 (%of which is female) Comment New Households provided with Number Value 0.00 0.00 24000.00 livelihood support Date 28-Apr-2016 28-Apr-2016 31-Dec-2019 Comment New Farmers receiving food Number Value 0.00 0.00 24000.00 assistance Date 28-Apr-2016 28-Apr-2016 31-Dec-2019 Comment Revised 75% of beneficiaries, who Text Value N70,604/ N184,241.34 N257,937 benefit directly from Project Annum/House supported activities, have hold increased their average real 30-Jun-2008 05-Feb-2015 31-Dec-2019 Date 28 incomes by at least 40%. Comment End target date changed to the new closing date Revised 40% increase in yield cassava, Percentage Value 0.00 8.59 40.00 rice, sorghum, and horticulture Date 30-Jun-2008 05-Feb-2015 31-Dec-2019 and 20% increase in yield of primary agricultural products Comment End target date (disaggregated by changed to the crops/agroforestry, livestock new closing date and fisheries, etc.) of participating farmers Revised 10% of replacement value of Percentage Value 0.00 8.40 10.00 the common asset used by the Date 30-Jun-2008 05-Feb-2015 31-Dec-2019 beneficiaries for income generating activities is saved Comment End target date annually (with effect from year changed to the 2). new closing date Revised 75 percent of beneficiaries are Percentage Value 0.00 88.58 90.00 satisfied with operations, Date 30-Jun-2008 05-Feb-2015 31-Dec-2019 maintenance, and utilization of community-owned Comment End target date infrastructure and capital assets changed to the acquired through the Project. new closing date Revised 50% of assets and community- Percentage Value 44.70 447.00 5000.00 owned infrastructure are Date 30-Jun-2008 12-Apr-2016 31-Dec-2019 operating satisfactorily and are maintained and utilized. Comment End target date changed to the new closing date and Target revised to capture Infrastructure under AF-II 29 Revised Direct Project beneficiaries Percentage Value 700000.00 75000.00 1014000.00 (%of which is female) Date 30-Jun-2008 05-Feb-2015 31-Dec-2019 Comment End target date changed to the new closing date New Female Beneficiaries Percentage Value 0.00 388234.00 450000.00 Sub Type Date 30-Jun-2008 05-Feb-2015 31-Dec-2019 Breakdown Comment Intermediate Results Indicators Status Indicator Name Core Unit of Measure Baseline Actual(Current) End Target New Days of work provided to Days Value 0.00 0.00 720000.00 returnees and conflict affected Date 28-Apr-2016 28-Apr-2016 31-Dec-2019 households Comment New Community/farmer Number Value 0.00 0.00 600.00 organizations trained for Date 07-Apr-2016 07-Apr-2016 31-Dec-2019 technical and managerial skills Comment No Change Number of ADP staff trained in Number Value 0.00 1933.00 2000.00 the management and delivery Date 30-Jun-2008 06-Feb-2015 31-Dec-2017 of extension services Comment New Villages/settlements engaged in Number Value 0.00 0.00 600.00 participatory processes for site Date 07-Apr-2016 07-Apr-2016 31-Dec-2019 and beneficiary selection Comment Revised Number of equipment acquired Number Value 0.00 187654.00 110000.00 by FUGs and FCAs in the Date 30-Jun-2008 06-Feb-2015 31-Dec-2019 30 participating states Comment End target date (disaggregated by Crop changed to the production, livestock, fisheries, new closing date forestry, agro-processing) Revised Crop Production Number Value 0.00 57415.00 8000.00 Sub Type Date 30-Jun-2008 06-Feb-2015 31-Dec-2019 Breakdown Comment End target date changed to the new closing date Revised Livestock Production Number Value 0.00 66680.00 5000.00 Sub Type Date 30-Jun-2008 06-Feb-2015 31-Dec-2019 Breakdown Comment End target date changed to the new closing date Revised Fisheries Number Value 0.00 13935.00 4000.00 Sub Type Date 30-Jun-2008 06-Feb-2015 31-Dec-2019 Breakdown Comment End target date changed to the new closing date Revised Forestry Number Value 0.00 6121.00 2000.00 Sub Type Date 30-Jun-2008 06-Feb-2015 31-Dec-2019 Breakdown Comment End target date changed to the new closing date Revised Agro Processing Number Value 0.00 12507.00 5000.00 Sub Type Date 30-Jun-2008 06-Feb-2015 31-Dec-2019 Breakdown Comment End target date changed to the new closing date 31 Revised Roads constructed, Rural Kilometers Value 0.00 449.00 500.00 Date 30-Jun-2008 06-Feb-2015 31-Dec-2019 Comment End target date changed to the new closing date Revised Number of research institutes Number Value 0.00 6.00 12.00 that received research grant Date 30-Jun-2008 06-Feb-2015 31-Dec-2019 under the project Comment End target date changed to the new closing date Revised Number of FUGs and FCAs Number Value 44186.00 50000.00 receiving matching grant for Date 30-Jun-2008 06-Feb-2015 31-Dec-2019 the purchase of agricultural inputs under the project Comment This is only End target date applying to changed to the AF2 new closing date Revised Number of FUGs and FCAs Text Value 0 53253 117668 receiving grant resources for Date 30-Jun-2008 06-Feb-2015 31-Dec-2019 procuring rural advisory services under the project Comment End target date changed to the new closing date Revised Number of productive rural Number Value 0.00 15444.00 120000.00 infrastructure constructed in the Date 30-Jun-2008 06-Feb-2015 31-Dec-2019 participating communities (disaggregated by feeder roads, Comment End target date culverts / small bridges) changed to the new closing date Revised Culverts Number Value 0.00 405.00 600.00 Sub Type Date 30-Jun-2008 06-Feb-2015 31-Dec-2019 32 Breakdown Comment End target date changed to the new closing date Revised Markets Number Value 0.00 1733.00 2000.00 Sub Type Date 30-Jun-2008 06-Feb-2015 31-Dec-2019 Breakdown Comment End target date changed to the new closing date Revised Feeder Roads Number Value 0.00 305.00 400.00 Sub Type Date 30-Jun-2008 06-Feb-2015 31-Dec-2019 Breakdown Comment End target date changed to the new closing date Revised Storage facilities Number Value 0.00 302.00 400.00 Sub Type Date 30-Jun-2008 06-Feb-2015 31-Dec-2019 Breakdown Comment End target date changed to the new closing date Revised Small Bridges Number Value 0.00 67.00 100.00 Sub Type Date 30-Jun-2008 06-Feb-2015 31-Dec-2019 Breakdown Comment End target date changed to the new closing date Revised Number of information Number Value 0.00 9.00 10.00 dissemination media available Date 30-Jun-2008 06-Feb-2015 31-Dec-2019 in participating states (disaggregated by media types) Comment End target date changed to the new closing date 33 Revised Number of Local Government Number Value 0.00 2713.00 3000.00 Authority (LGA) staff trained Date 30-Jun-2008 06-Feb-2015 31-Dec-2019 in Project Management Skills (Project planning, Cost Benefit Comment End target date Analysis, Financial Mgt., M&E changed to the & Social Mobilization new closing date Revised Number of FUGs and FCAs Number Value 0.00 53253.00 117680.00 trained Date 30-Jun-2008 06-Feb-2015 31-Dec-2019 Comment End target date changed to the new closing date Revised FCAs Number Value 0.00 4462.00 6680.00 Sub Type Date 30-Jun-2008 06-Feb-2015 31-Dec-2019 Breakdown Comment End target date changed to the new closing date Revised FUGs Number Value 0.00 48791.00 111000.00 Sub Type Date 30-Jun-2008 06-Feb-2015 31-Dec-2019 Breakdown Comment End target date changed to the new closing date Revised Number of Fadama User Number Value 0.00 69754.00 118280.00 Groups (FUGs) and Fadama Date 30-Jun-2008 06-Feb-2015 31-Dec-2019 Community Association (FCAs) registered Comment End target date changed to the new closing date Revised FCAs Number Value 0.00 5407.00 6680.00 Sub Type Date 30-Jun-2008 06-Feb-2015 31-Dec-2019 34 Breakdown Comment End target date changed to the new closing date Revised FUGs Number Value 0.00 64347.00 111600.00 Sub Type Date 30-Jun-2008 06-Feb-2015 31-Dec-2019 Breakdown Comment End target date changed to the new closing date Revised 20% increase in new Percentage Value 100.00 8.30 20.00 technology adopted in Fadama Date 30-Jun-2008 06-Feb-2015 31-Dec-2019 communities (disaggregated by technology, gender, vulnerable Comment End target date groups, age and farm size). changed to the new closing date Revised Livestock Percentage Value 100.00 43.85 20.00 Sub Type Date 30-Jun-2008 06-Feb-2015 31-Dec-2019 Breakdown Comment End target date changed to the new closing date Revised Agro forestry Percentage Value 0.00 14.92 20.00 Sub Type Date 30-Jun-2008 06-Feb-2015 31-Dec-2019 Breakdown Comment End target date changed to the new closing date Revised Crops Adoption Rate Percentage Value 100.00 41.20 120.00 Sub Type Date 30-Jun-2008 06-Feb-2015 31-Dec-2019 Breakdown Comment End target date changed to the new closing date 35 Revised 30% increase in the number if Percentage Value 49.50 53.75 79.50 Fadama farmers receiving Date 30-Jun-2008 06-Feb-2015 31-Dec-2019 extension services from ADPs (Disaggregated by gender and Comment End target date vulnerable groups) changed to the new closing date Revised Disaggregation by vulnerable Percentage Value 0.00 19.31 20.00 groups Sub Type Date 30-Jun-2008 06-Feb-2015 31-Dec-2019 Breakdown Comment End target date changed to the new closing date Revised Disaggregation by Gender Percentage Value 0.00 19.31 20.00 Sub Type Date 30-Jun-2008 06-Feb-2015 31-Dec-2019 Breakdown Comment End target date changed to the new closing date Revised 30% of FCAs have access to Percentage Value 0.00 62.20 30.00 market information Date 30-Jun-2008 06-Feb-2015 31-Dec-2019 Comment End target date changed to the new closing date Revised 20% increase in income from Percentage Value 0.00 37.32 20.00 sales of value added Date 30-Jun-2008 06-Feb-2015 31-Dec-2019 agricultural products Comment End target date changed to the new closing date Revised Livestock Percentage Value 2.72 7.02 3.27 Sub Type Date 30-Jun-2008 06-Feb-2015 31-Dec-2019 36 Breakdown Comment End target date changed to the new closing date Revised Fisheries Percentage Value 7.75 9.11 60.89 Sub Type Date 30-Jun-2008 06-Feb-2015 31-Dec-2019 Breakdown Comment End target date changed to the new closing date Revised Crops Percentage Value 69.40 88.20 83.28 Sub Type Date 30-Jun-2008 06-Feb-2015 31-Dec-2019 Breakdown Comment End target date changed to the new closing date Revised 50% increase in the number of Percentage Value 0.00 41.92 50.00 Fadama farmers with access to Date 30-Jun-2008 06-Feb-2015 31-Dec-2019 agricultural inputs (disaggregated by gender and Comment End target date vulnerable groups) changed to the new closing date Revised In Organic fertilizer Percentage Value 30.00 26.40 50.00 Sub Type Date 30-Jun-2008 06-Feb-2015 31-Dec-2019 Breakdown Comment End target date changed to the new closing date Revised Agro-Chemicals Percentage Value 30.00 18.83 50.00 Sub Type Date 30-Jun-2008 06-Feb-2015 31-Dec-2019 Breakdown Comment End target date changed to the new closing date 37 Revised Organic manure Percentage Value 14.31 19.54 50.00 Sub Type Date 30-Jun-2008 06-Feb-2015 31-Dec-2019 Breakdown Comment End target date changed to the new closing date Revised Improved Seeds Percentage Value 24.25 35.22 50.00 Sub Type Date 30-Jun-2008 06-Feb-2015 31-Dec-2019 Breakdown Comment End target date changed to the new closing date Revised 30% increase in the number of Percentage Value 0.00 44.89 30.00 Fadama users procuring rural Date 15-Jul-2008 06-Feb-2015 31-Dec-2019 advisory services in the participating communities Comment End target date (disaggregated by gender and changed to the vulnerable groups). new closing date Revised Disaggregation by Vulnerable Percentage Value 0.00 13.63 30.00 Group Sub Type Date 15-Jul-2008 06-Feb-2015 31-Dec-2019 Breakdown Comment End target date changed to the new closing date Revised Disaggregation by Gender Percentage Value 0.00 13.63 30.00 Sub Type Date 15-Jul-2008 06-Feb-2015 31-Dec-2019 Breakdown Comment End target date changed to the new closing date Revised 40% of participating Fadama Percentage Value 0.00 63.58 40.00 Communities have at least one Date 30-Jun-2008 06-Feb-2015 31-Dec-2019 38 productive rural infrastructure Comment For the original constructed / rehabilitated project only. (disaggregated by feeder roads, Target already culverts/small bridges) achieved. End target date changed to the new closing date Revised Small Bridges Percentage Value 0.00 1.83 40.00 Sub Type Date 30-Jun-2008 06-Feb-2015 31-Dec-2019 Breakdown Comment End target date changed to the new closing date Revised Culverts Percentage Value 0.00 6.11 40.00 Sub Type Date 30-Jun-2008 06-Feb-2015 31-Dec-2019 Breakdown Comment End target date changed to the new closing date Revised Feeder Roads Percentage Value 0.00 7.24 40.00 Sub Type Date 30-Jun-2008 06-Feb-2015 31-Dec-2019 Breakdown Comment End target date changed to the new closing date Revised By end of project, 20% of Percentage Value 0.00 55.18 20.00 participating Local Date 30-Jun-2008 06-Feb-2015 31-Dec-2019 Government Authorities integrate Local Development Comment For the original Plans into their annual plans. project only. Target already achieved. End target date changed to the 39 new closing date Revised By end of project, 75% of Percentage Value 0.00 73.90 75.00 FUGs and FCAs have fully Date 30-Jun-2008 06-Feb-2015 31-Dec-2019 (100%) implemented approved LDPs Comment For the original project only. End target date changed to the new closing date Revised By Mid Term Review, 75% of Percentage Value 0.00 87.41 75.00 participating communities have Date 30-Jun-2008 06-Feb-2015 31-Dec-2019 Local Development Plans (LDPs) developed through a Comment For the original participatory process project only. Target already achieved. Revised for the new closing date 40 Annex 2: Detailed Project Description Nigeria – Second Additional Financing to Third National Fadama Development Project in support of Food Security and Livelihood Activities in the North East – (P158535) 1. This annex presents a detailed description of the new activities to be introduced under the proposed Additional financing II to support North East Food Security and Livelihood Activities. The detailed description of original project activities can be found in the PAD for the Third National Fadama Development Project (Report No: 39489-NG). The initial intervention geographical areas and locality is proposed based on three parameters: (a) areas declared cleared by the Government, accessible for development work and where local populations are actively involved in maintaining peace; (b) coordination with other ongoing/planned investments through Bank resources to provide comprehensive support that will have a major impact; and (c) potential for ensuring adequate coverage in an area and where demonstration effect is generated through this project’s interventions for creating opportunities for livelihoods and providing infrastructure—to scale up the project coverage. The project will adopt a sequential approach to scaling up interventions to other areas within the participating states. Background 2. The project will be operational in six states of the North East that are among the worst affected by Boko Haram insurgency. The level of livelihood loss and disruption is huge and these includes:  About 89 percent of the IDPs has lost their entire property to the insurgency. On the average, before displacement, an IDP HH owned about 10 cows, 16 sheep/goats, 32 poultry birds but many of them have lost everything. Only 6 percent of the IDPs indicated partial recovery living below U$2 per day, and about 7 percent of IDPs had access to farmlands.  About 98 percent of the overall IDP households do not have means of livelihood. The remaining 2 percent were subsisting mainly on crop, livestock and poultry farming and menial jobs carried out on a daily basis. However, before their displacement, most of the IDP relied on livelihood activities such as crop farming, gardening, livestock and poultry keeping, fishing and trading in dry fish, trade, commercial transport, manufacturing/handicraft, and so on.  The region is facing a serious food crisis as a result of a number of factors. Conflict situation has made it difficult for farmers to access government agricultural assistance in the form of seeds, fertilizers, and tools. Farmers who have grain to sell are having difficulty transporting it to local markets for fear of attacks. Borno State relies both on locally produced food and on imports of rice, maize, sorghum, millet, potato, wheat, yam, and sugar cane from Taraba, Kaduna, Kano, Katsina and Benue States. However, these supplies have dwindled as some traders are too frightened to bring goods into the region. 41 3. Table 3.1 shows the estimated total cost of damage, population affected and cost of recovery. It shows that Borno has the highest amount of damages (N 1,601,295,800,000) and number of IDPs (1,430,000). This is commensurate with the number of local governments affected and the impact of the conflict in the state. Second to Borno is Adamawa, with a total of N 91,570,930 as estimated cost of damage and 140,000 IDPs (NEMA). Yobe, Bauchi, Taraba, and Gombe followed. This disparities in intensity of impact among the affected states will inform the support that will be provided. Table 3.1. Total Cost of Damage and Population Affected in States S/N State Total Cost of Damage (N) Cost of Damage (US$) IDPs 1. Borno 1,601,295,800,000 8,006,479,000 1,430,000 2. Adamawa 91,570,930,600 457,854,653 140,000 3. Gombe 976,889,300 4,884,447 30,000 4. Bauchi 1,512,510,000 7,562,550 70,000 5. Yobe 173, 743,576,673 868,717,883 135,810 6. Taraba 2,394,165,000 11,970,825 50,000 Grand Total 1,871,493,871,573 9,357,469,358. 1,855,810 Source: RPBA February, 2016.1 4. Borno State. Borno State is located in the north-eastern corner of Nigeria. It has an area of 61,435 km2 and is the largest state in the Federation with regard to land mass. Borno State lies between latitudes 100 and 140 N, and longitudes 11030' and 14045' E. The State occupies the greatest part of the Chad Basin and shares borders with the Republics of Niger to the North, Chad to the North-East and Cameroon to the East. It is among the adversely affected states. It had an estimated population of 4,171,104 (census, 2006), but an annual growth rate of 3.4 percent. Borno State has a total of 27 local governments of which 14 were ravaged by insurgency. 80 percent of the population is engaged in either crop farming or animal rearing. The State has an inventory capacity of over 560,097 infrastructures and a robust functioning service delivery system across the State. The major crops grown are millet, sorghum, maize, cowpea and groundnut. 5. Adamawa State. Adamawa State is also among the directly affected State. It has an estimated population of 3,178,950, which grew at 2.9 percent. The major occupation of the people is farming. It has a total of 21 local governments out of which 7 were affected. Adamawa has a very fertile farming land and the state is notable for the cultivation of crops such as rice, cotton, maize, guinea corn, groundnuts, millet, and cassava. 6. Yobe State. Yobe State is a main agriculture state boarded by Bauchi, Borno, Gombe, and Jigawa States. It has an estimated population of 2,321,339 (Census, 2006), which grew at 3.5 percent. Of the 17 LGAs, 8 were reported to be affected by the insurgency. The agricultural 1 Table 3.1 presents the total damage cost (N and US$) for each state. This includes infrastructure and non- infrastructure components. 42 produce of the state include maize, millet, rice, wheat, sorghum, gum arable, cotton, groundnut, beans etcetera. These crops are raised both for subsistence and cash economy by the farmers. 7. Bauchi State. Bauchi State is located between latitude 903’ and 1203’ north of the Equator and longitude 8050’ and 110 east of the Greenwich meridian. The State is bordered by seven states: Kano and Jigawa to the North, Taraba, and Plateau to the South, Gombe and Yobe to the East and Kaduna to the West. Bauchi State occupies a total land area of 492,359km2, representing about 5.3 percent of Nigeria’s total landmass. With a total of 18 LGAs, Bauchi State has an estimated population of 4,653,066, which grew at 3.4 percent. Agriculture dominates the economy, and millet, sorghum, corn (maize), yams, rice, cassava (manioc), tomatoes, and vegetables are produced. Bauchi is one of the country's main cotton-producing States; coffee and peanuts (groundnuts) are the other cash crops. Cattle, goats, and sheep are also raised across the State. 8. Gombe State. Gombe State has a total of 11 local governments and a population estimate of 2,365,040, a growth rate of 3.2 percent. It is located in the north eastern zone, right within the expansive savannah allowing the state to share common borders with the States of Borno, Yobe, Taraba, Adamawa and Bauchi. The State has an area of 20,265 km². The people of Gombe State are primarily farmers producing food and cash crops. They include cereals such as maize, sorghum, rice and wheats, legumes such as cowpeas, groundnuts, soya beans and bambara nuts. Fruits such as orange, lemon, mango, guava, paw-paw and grapes. Vegetables such as tomatoes, pepper, onions, okra, pumpkin and melon. 9. Taraba State. Taraba State equally falls among the IDPs’ host states and has a population of 2,294,800. This is projected to about 2,730,940 by 2016 at a growth rate of 2.9 percent. The major occupation of the people of Taraba State is agriculture. Cash crops produced in the State include coffee, tea, groundnuts, and cotton. Crops such as maize, rice, sorghum, millet, cassava, and yam are also produced in commercial quantity 10. The project design follows several principles to be able to maximize its development impact. First, the enormous humanitarian needs of IDPs, host communities and communities of origin remain far from being fully met. Therefore, AFII would complement the Government’s initiatives and related operations leveraging the resources from the Government and other development partners. 11. Second, project activities would target urgent agriculture related rehabilitation that are largely under-funded by other ongoing and planned programs or not funded at all. The major project component has been designed on this basis. Therefore, project support would focus on providing immediate food support to returning farmers, farmers in conflict affected areas that never left their farms, farmers in host communities, and restoration of agriculture livelihoods. 12. Third, the level of investments supporting return and infrastructure rehabilitation, and the timing and sequencing of those investments have to be carefully tailored to the degree of damage and needs for recovery and return accounting for specific situations and circumstances of individual states and LGAs within the States. The NE States were unevenly affected with Borno, Yobe and Adamawa severely impacted while Bauchi, Gombe and Taraba mainly bearing the humanitarian and economic burden of the spill-over of IDPs into their administrative boundaries. 43 Borno, the epicenter of the violence, is the most directly affected State, immediately followed by Yobe and Adamawa; Bauchi, Gombe, and Taraba can be considered at this stage as being stabilized to some extent, being mainly the receiving states of the displaced populations. Without selectivity and community/geographic targeting, there is a risk that project resources would be thinly spread over the entire state and activities are picked up on the basis of accessibility and implementation convenience rather than the actual needs, thereby depriving the resources available for the most needy villages and the people. 13. Fourth, the situation in the North East is still not stable. The project design will include provisions to add flexibility to take into account changing needs on the ground. The vast majority of the displaced appear to wish to return home. In the survey on intention to return, 94 percent expressed the intention to return. Among the IDPs surveyed by IOM, about 80 percent of those who want to return home identify security as the main condition to return while 17 percent put the improvement of the economic situation in their area of origin as the main factor for their return. In Borno from where most IDPs originate, return is gradually taking place. In Adamawa, it has been reported that many of the IDPs that initially settled in communities have begun to return. However, they are unable to fully settle as they lack the resources and conditions to restore their livelihoods, and access to basic services (UNHCR, 2015). 14. Fifth, discussion of safe and voluntarily return need to be also considered along with discussions for safe resettlement of IDPs. Even though it is true that most of IDPs have expressed their desire to return, a closer look by age shows that the willingness to return varies among age groups. While adult and elderly IDPs expressed their intention to return provided that safety is guaranteed, younger IDPs (aged 20 and under) seem to prefer to stay in the urban areas where they have settled, as they have become used to the urban settings and want to pursue urban livelihood opportunities. These dynamics are more pronounced in States such as Gombe and Bauchi where the State Government (GoS) have already put in place initiatives oriented to the integration of IDPs and provision of basic services, such as shelter. Any changes on the target areas and activities to be financed will be agreed between the Bank and the Government during the implementation based on priority and need. AF II plans to reach 192,000 beneficiaries out of the total 1,855,810 IDPs. 15. A systematic prioritization and targeting of the activities to be financed under the project through the on-going multi stakeholder needs assessment in the region is underway. There is a high sense of urgency to start the rehabilitation activities and the Government has already accelerated the rebuilding process and started the reconstruction activities of its plan. The project has made provision for retroactive financing to the tune of US$10million to enable immediate financing of eligible items. A draft six-month activity plans will be reviewed and agreed with the Bank. It is expected that the next activity plan after six months would be done after taking stock of the progress of the initial plan and assessment of further needs on the ground in consultation with beneficiaries. 16. Sixth, to address the issue of sustainability the project designs includes arrangements for facilitation within the project areas as follows: (a) Facilitation of community and household activities; the project would work to reorganize community associations with the specific requirement for mutual 44 economic interests. Nevertheless, the quality of facilitation will be important to ensure that the information provided to communities is clear enough to promote participatory planning where priorities are being identified based on community needs and not based on the amount available to them. The project will mobilize its community facilitators and appointed NGOs to undertake consultation and carry out needs assessments leading to selection of community level infrastructure priorities to be funded, soon after IDPs return to the villages. (b) The design of the cash-for work is such that communities will choose and prioritize the activities being supported (such as clearing of agricultural lands, cleaning dug wells, drain repairs, debris clearing and so on) during the consultations. The project will also involve returning farmers in the planning and prioritizing of repair and clearing works of irrigation canals. 17. Seventh, successful implementation of the project will depend on speedy securing of the return areas, livelihood areas and areas surrounding the essential infrastructure to be rehabilitated by the project. Free and safe access for the Bank, project staff, and staff of partner agencies (universities, professional bodies, consultants, etc…) for implementation and supervision is also a primary requirement for speedy implementation of the project. 18. Eighth, past experiences with project implementation shows that projects often faced delays in implementation as institutions struggle to comply with implementation requirements. The deterioration in institutional systems during the conflict has made this process even more complex and challenging. It is proposed that an adaptation of implementation mechanisms and the relaxation of implementation requirements of the AFII, including the adoption of one category of disbursement and 100 percent funding of interventions to provide a flexible conditions for fund flow and to raise the pace of implementation. 19. Subject to the above guiding principles, the proposed additional financing is intended to fund one additional component to the parent project, (Component 7: Food Security and Livelihoods Support Investment Program) and scale up one of the six components of the parent project, namely; Component 6: Project Management and Evaluation. 20. Component 6: Project Management and Evaluation (US$5 million). The AFII would finance incremental cost of continued operation of the NFCO to fund coordination work in the implementation of the project operation in the NE, while the six beneficiary states will be made to support their SFCOs. SFCO staff will receive their regular salaries from the State Ministries which seconded them to the Fadama III Project. This component will fund: (a) TA to national, state, and community level implementation coordination; (b) Project coordination as it applies to the six states; and (c) M&E. The eligible expenditures will include: goods, equipment, special studies (including gender research, and agricultural development strategy for the NE), incremental operating costs, including small contribution to the operations and maintenance of Fadama House. This component will finance the hiring of technical review consultants to verify and ensure technical quality and standards of civil works contracts and quality delivery and impact assessments including functional reviews and third party monitoring. It will also finance public information awareness campaigns; needs assessments; a functional and well- communicated complaints handling system; independent technical, financial management, 45 procurement, and safeguard audits. It will also support provision for building partnership with NGOs, academics and universities in the project areas for monitoring of the project as a way of building capacity of national institutions. If necessary, the project will also finance any surveys, consultations, strategic studies, and feasibility studies required to improve the development effectiveness of this project as well as for future longer-term agricultural development and diversification of the NE region’s economy. 21. The AF will be implemented in a conflict prone environment that is unpredictable and which could worsen depending on the situation, hence, the project would leverage on third party monitoring where possible and use other relevant technologies to monitor project activities in areas not accessible. The project would deploy the use of ICT driven geotagging via phone calls and remote monitoring systems. While Fadama State Coordination Offices may have the capacity to organize and provide goods and services to farmers as successfully done under the Original project, the peculiarity of the situation in the North East and lessons learned from the pilot operation ran in 2014 by the project require that partnering with active organizations delivering such services on the ground in order to be much more effective. In spite of the FAO’s effort to adequately capture detailed information on intervention on the ground, there are still important information gaps, and additional effort need to be deployed through the FAO-led FSTG to close those gaps as soon as possible. Fadama NCO will support the FAO team to collect those information and complete the DP mapping and intervention matrix in the North East. Once the areas for intervention are identified in each states, NFCO with TA from FAO/WFP would support the states to select technical partners among most effective/efficient partners on the ground to implement, monitor and report on project activities at either state level or a cluster of LGAs. FAO, through the FSTG will assist NCO/SFCOs on overall quality assurance of inputs delivered and agricultural production activities to be carried out, and for adequate coordination with other interventions to avoid duplication of efforts, but rather ensure synergy and complementarity. 22. Component 7: Food Security and Livelihoods Support Investment Program (US$45.00 million). The aim of this component is to address the observed vulnerability to food crisis through provision of emergency food assistance to returning farmers, farmers in conflict affected areas that never left their farms, and farmers in host communities and it provides support for increasing own production and rehabilitating supporting agricultural infrastructure for start- up activities in agricultural production. This will include subprojects for generating livelihoods opportunities within the crops, fisheries, and livestock subsectors. The project will partner with international and national organizations to provide complementary food assistance to farming households who are planning to go back to start their farming activities or those who are in dire need of support to take full advantage of their existing farm production. Vulnerable households will be supported with non-farm activities. This component includes five subcomponents. 23. The component will also finance the rehabilitation works that will contribute toward improving conservation and reducing natural resource degradation. This intervention involves allocation of 60 working days per household during the period leading to the first harvest. The major areas of intervention include; (a) restoring the agricultural production activities through provision of the required advisory services and extension services, agricultural inputs and acquisition of on-farm and off-farm productive assets including provision of starter packs to support economic opportunities for affected families with special focus on women and youth. 46 This will help to empower the farming communities and households in creating economic opportunity for self-reliance activities; (b) social mobilization and capacity building of farmers and local communities through the locally based indigenous organizations through training, peer learning and mentoring by more established organizations; and (c) community agricultural infrastructure and services including rehabilitation of existing rural infrastructure (rehabilitation of fences, markets, storage facilities including aggregation centers, production pens and houses for livestock, rural network of roads), with priorities to be established in consultation with the community groups. The project would finance rehabilitation of selected damaged irrigation schemes, canals, and ponds to enable farmers to have a reliable supply of irrigation water for crop, livestock, and fisheries. This component is composed of five subcomponents: 24. Subcomponent 7.1: Food assistance program, (US$5 million). The aim of this subcomponent is to meet immediate survival needs of returning farmers, farmers in conflict affected areas that never left their farms, and farmers in host communities while enabling people to continue their agricultural/food production activities (or resume such activities as soon as conditions permit). The rationale is to ensure that farmers will have relatively sufficient food to work on the farm and also utilize seeds for planting. While this is a stop-gap measure to cover the deficit until they produce their first harvest, it also acts as an incentive mechanism to ensure farmers will follow any additional advisory and technical support that will be provided either by this project or other Bank/donors’ supported projects. In delivering the food assistance for the first two month for participating farming households, the project will partner with other agencies, such as WFP and FAO, to implement this activity as a way of improving food security to household who are involved in the livelihood activities. The beneficiaries will have opportunity to access their food allocation during the Food and Input fairs to be organized by the project. The Food and Input fairs are platform for bringing Food and Agro-dealers to the communities for the purpose of getting the supplies close to the community. The food assistance to be given as a one- off package to support the benefitting household for 60 days with an approximate cost of N 40,000 (US$200)/household will include 200 kg of cereal, 25 kg of beans and 20 kg of vegetable oil. This may be reviewed from time to time based on the established nutritional needs in the project area. A sum of US$5.0 million will be spent on food assistance, targeting 24,000 farming households. 25. Subcomponent 7.2: Support to revitalize agricultural production and livelihood (US$15.0 million). The revival of pre-conflict livelihoods of the affected population would not only be imperative to restart and sustain life, but is also important to rejuvenate the rural economy and ensure food security to the people of the North East. This subcomponent will support restoration of agricultural production activities through provision of the required advisory and extension services, agricultural inputs and acquisition of on-farm and off-farm productive assets including provision of starter packs to support economic opportunities for affected families with special focus on women and youth. This will help to empower the communities and households in creating economic opportunity for self-reliance activities. The project would provide livelihood interventions for specific settlements/villages where there is willingness to organize groups, the needs are clearly identified and detailed partnership plans are prepared. The focus will be on “starter packs” particularly those conducive for climate smart agriculture. All livelihood support would include training on technical and managerial skills through various methodologies including farmer field schools etc... Each participating household will receive livelihood support to the ceiling of N 125,000 (US$625) for their household 47 livelihood plan. About 24,000 direct farming households and 192,000 indirect household members will benefit from this subcomponent. Details of the livelihood subproject implementation, selection criteria and demonstration-adoption approach are included in Project Implementation Manual. 26. Subcomponent 7.2.1: Agricultural based livelihoods. In the project area, agriculture is the key pillar for the economy and small farmers largely practice farming at subsistence level, characterized by underutilization of land and cultivation of low input crops. The climatic conditions favor a verity of crops, however productivity has remained low due to insufficient investments in agricultural inputs especially seed quality, low level of use of other inputs, and proper water management. Additionally, most of the crop area is planted with cereals, which indicates that household level food security remains priority for farmers. The subcomponent will address the major constraints faced by the returnees in resuming their agricultural livelihood activities: (a) there could be numerous contested land and property issues that could delay or prevent the returnees from reengaging in agricultural activities; (b) quality agricultural seeds may not be available on time or in sufficient quantities to start the first paddy crop after the return; and (c) farmers may have lost basic agricultural, implements and need support. Therefore this component will include provisions to meet costs associated with: (a) the conducting of mine awareness programs; (b) operation of mobile land task forces, surveys and studies required to rapidly restore contested property rights of returnees; (c) clearing of thick vegetative growth of paddy lands to be able to resume land preparation for cultivation; and (d) provide seeds, basic and miscellaneous agricultural implements including provision of starter packs to support economic opportunities to the people to be able to start farming after their return. This would also include providing farming households with livelihoods subprojects. The project would utilize the local input and output marketing and distribution network to ensure sustained availability of inputs and services. The participating household members will receive agriculture packages based on the needs assessment. The agriculture packages would include (but not limited to) improved cereal and/or vegetable seed varieties, improved technology and farm inputs (for example, high efficiency irrigation, tools, machinery, and so on), TA on post-harvest techniques (especially for highly perishable horticultural crops), training and TA for improved water conservation and farming practices, promoting off-season and tunnel farming, and so on. Homestead and backyard gardening will be promoted. The type and size of the agriculture package will be determined jointly by the participating community, the agriculture specialists facilitated by the social mobilization partners, with the object to increase the yield per acre while benefiting the most number of farmers. 27. Subcomponent 7.2.2: Livelihoods through livestock development. This would support livestock production as an important source of income and nutrition for poorer farming households. Livestock rearing is an equally essential contributor for household economy. Animals are the key source of milk, meat and provide draught power and dung used as fuel and fertilizer. Similarly, poultry farming is an additional supplement to household diets and much- needed income support. Form most household livestock also serves as a buffer in times of drought and other unpredictable externalities. Livestock productivity is challenged by feed shortages, inadequate veterinary cover, inferior genetic potential, and poorly developed market facilities. The project would identify target farming households to provide livelihoods subprojects including restocking of livestock – mainly ruminants, backyard poultry and small rudiments (goats/sheep); backyard dairy development; improved veterinary health care through 48 campaigns, vaccinations, de-worming; provision of mobile veterinary services for the communities as well as capacity building for livestock farmers; and supporting the local veterinary dispensaries and existing artificial insemination centers for dairy farmers. The project would also promote activities such as increasing fodder and feed supplies by joint and rotational farming amongst farming households and developing “pilot areas” for dairy production with linkages with agro-industry for marketing and service delivery. The inputs and technologies provided through the subprojects are envisaged to enhance production and reduce animal mortality within a short period of time. The beneficiaries for livestock development would be identified by the community through the involvement of local leaders and with the help of the social mobilization partners. However, preference will be given to those farming households where women are involved in livestock management and to the household which agree for the women or a male member of their household to participate in the animal husbandry and health improvement campaigns and trainings. 28. Subcomponent 7.2.3: Livelihoods through fisheries development. Small-scale fishery is a pro-poor activity because it is an economic sector that is labor-intensive and relatively easy to enter -therefore providing livelihoods to a large number of unskilled people – including women through their involvement in fish processing activities. Fisheries and related activities (processing and trade) play a significant role especially for the poorest farming households who depend more heavily on these activities. For the farming households with limited or no access to land and/or other factors of production (for example, access to financial capital) small-scale fisheries, processing and trading play an extremely important role in supplementing alternative low per capita food production options and in providing one – or even the main – source of cash income. Similarly, the displaced fishermen in the Lake Chad areas have lost their fishing boats and fishing gear. It is estimated that the total cost of the support required would be several million dollars and the full extent of the requirements cannot be fully financed under this project. However, part of the funds allocated under this Component may be used to procure and distribute basic and essential fishing implements to the returnees. The project will fund livelihood activities in fish production, processing, marketing, and distribution. 29. Subcomponent 7.3: Social mobilization and capacity building (US$2.2 million). This subcomponent will support capacity improvement—mainly goods (vehicles, computers, etc…) to research and extension agencies; farmers’ organizations and others as necessary. Support will be provided for re-integration of returning farmers back in to the society and make them see farming as an occupation that is lucrative and safe. Special activities that will build such social capital would be integrated into advisory services. Such activities will include counseling to support attitudinal change, channeling their energies into project activities, building new skills and so on. This will address mobilization and capacity building of farmers and local communities through the locally based indigenous organizations through training, peer learning and mentoring by more established organizations. The project would hire and train facilitators to guide the community to go through community planning process leading to developing Community Action Plan (CAP) which will be the basis on which project infrastructure financing will be funded. The CAP will comprise at a minimum: (a) an agreed list of priority private and public infrastructure subprojects that are technically and economically feasible, environmentally sustainable, and will contribute toward raising the productivity and incomes of participating EIGs; (b) a list of constraints and opportunities to be addressed through advisory services; (c) agreed mechanisms for financing the operations and maintenance of household Investment plans 49 (HIP)s; (d) a plan for training and building the capacity of Community members in financial management, community-based procurement, social and environmental impact screening of subprojects, conflict mitigation and management and other aspects of organization and management of the associations; (e) identification of beneficiary household; (f) identification of beneficiaries of the Cash –for work programmes; and (g) an agreed mechanism to manage and resolve conflicts, especially concerning user group rights. The project will also finance information dissemination about the project and its guidelines to potential beneficiaries; and implementation of communications program. The Community and Social Development Project (CSDP) may also be intervening in the same communities, to help them cope with the aftermath of the conflict. The complementarity of the two projects was established as part of the preparation of the parent projects for the two operations. The two projects will follow the Community Driven Development approach but the difference will be that Fadama project main focus is on farming households and agriculture related activities. The project operation manual will define the coordination mechanism between the two projects. It is also noted that in emergency situation, there is a need for both social support and productive activities that will revamp the agricultural production. 30. Subcomponent 7.4: Technical and advisory (US$2 million). This subcomponent will finance the following cross-cutting services’ activities including integration of nutritional advice/information to extension delivery; promotion of e-extension services; adaptive research and on-farm demonstrations; and support to Seed Multiplication. (a) Improving utilization/demand for nutritious foods in farming households. Nutrition advice will be integrated with extension via multiple means, based on findings of a global good practice study. The options include for example, nutrition in the extension curricula, training of agents, nutrition via e-extension (such as community radio, media vans) and targeted nutrition advice to women EIGs, promotion of consumption of nutritious foods (to increase demand side for nutrition) especially by the most nutritionally vulnerable age groups (women and children). This would also include provision of basic information on infant and young child nutrition, communications on basic nutrition messages for rural families; incorporation of indigenous foods in family diets; improved water, sanitation and hygiene practices; Food Preparation techniques (nutrient preservation; new recipes); The module will identify and exemplify diverse delivery channels, for example, formal training of farmers, ICT based nutrition programs, coordination with health ministry and other concerned agencies. (b) Promotion of e-extension services and strengthening the capacity of extension service providers. The extension service providers need continuous access to new knowledge and its applications. Similarly, farmers increasingly need timely information on weather, prices, as well as production aspects. The project will support establishment of a Subject Matter Specialist (SMS) service to registered farmers/EIGs for delivery of, for example, agricultural, price and weather information based on findings of a farmer needs assessment. A Public-Private Partnership will be pursued to identify an appropriate combination of public content development (for example, Agricultural Development Programs, research, universities, etc...) and private delivery. Short-term training will be provided to EAs 50 and Subject Matter Specialists at the ADPs and Local Government Councils, private service providers, and youth, women and new graduates in the project areas to promote uptake of proven on shelf technologies among production farming households. The advisory and extension services as well as other proposed capacity building activities of farmers and local communities, will be tailored with the goal to increase climate awareness and build an enabling skillset for the adoption of Climate Smart Agriculture methods and technologies. The training programs will build both technical (production, processing, agribusiness, business development) as well as practical skills related to delivery of extension (for example, participatory extension management, value chain-oriented, demand-responsive and ICT-driven agricultural extension and professional and social skills), in close partnership and collaboration with the ongoing ICT-driven advisory services under the parent project. (c) Adaptive research and on-farm demonstrations. Improved technologies are necessary to help producers and private actors respond to changing circumstances, raise productivity and real income, and thus ensure competitiveness. The project will coordinate with West Africa Agriculture Productivity Project (WAAPP) to ensure that the WAAPP Research Focal Areas are aligned with adapted research needs. The project will also support Farmers Field School in production communities to establish on-farm demonstrations and seed multiplication activities on topics identified by value chain actors and on topics arising from the WAAPP research collaboration with the National Research Institutes. The results of the research will be disseminated via the e-extension program and media vans to other zones in coordination and partnership with the ADPs. (d) Support to seed multiplication. The project will provide additional financing to promote the development and availability of improved genetic materials in the prioritized value chains in the emerging household plans, including proposal based grants to the National Agricultural Research Institutes to enhance capacity in seed multiplication, on-farm adoption, including support for the establishment of a community-based seed system, whereby seed companies train communities on seed multiplications and facilitate adoption. Farmers will be encouraged to embark on foundation seed multiplication, and special schemes will be made available for farmers who choose to participate in the schemes. 31. Subcomponent 7.5 – Community agricultural infrastructure and services (US$15.00 million). The objective of this component is to restore damaged irrigation infrastructure; village inter-connectivity and mobility, market linkages and irrigation water supply. It includes the following three main subcomponents. This would include (a) rehabilitation of existing rural infrastructure (rehabilitation and investment on new infrastructure - fences, markets, storage facilities including aggregation centers, production pens and houses for livestock, rural network of roads), with priorities to be established in consultation with the community groups. It will also support rehabilitation of damaged irrigation schemes, canals, water harvesting tanks, diversion weirs, canals and ponds that provide water for irrigated farming and ponds to enable farmers to have a reliable supply of irrigation water for crop, livestock, and fisheries. Other areas of support would include rehabilitation of access roads and culverts linking production sites to the processing/marketing zones, storage facilities and preservative technologies which are all related 51 to the priority value chains and rehabilitation of farm settlements using materials such as laterite blocks moulded from hydra forms. 32. Subcomponent 7.5.1 Cash-for-work. The subcomponent will support a cash-for-work program in which the beneficiaries get cash in exchange for labor and participation in rehabilitation of community-led actions like tree planting, and soil conservation, sanitation works, initial labor requirements on individual farms and communal farms where it is feasible. The cash-for-work subcomponent is intended to provide immediate labor employment to the returnees helping to bridge the income gap between the time of return and such a time that returning farmers can obtain income from regular livelihoods. Until the harvest comes in or other non-farm livelihood activities fully resume, and start of the execution of infrastructure rehabilitation works, there would be a shortage of employment opportunities for the returnees in the villages. This intervention will be coordinated with Community and Social Development Project (CSDP) and Youth Employment and Social Support Operation (YESSO) in communities where they are present. 33. The Cash-for-Work program under the small scale labor intensive repair and rehabilitation works of community agricultural infrastructure that enhance agricultural productivity (rural and feeder roads, community irrigation facilities, storage facilities, debris clearance etc..) and other facilities by employing one member from 40 farming households per community as daily wage laborers. It will provide a minimum of 60 labor days of guaranteed work employment for one person from each participating household (about N 90,000 per household for 60 days of work). Of these 60 days, returnees will be eligible to spend ten days to make their own homes repaired and functional. The “cash-for-work” program will include activities related to conservation and natural resources restoration (for example, erosion prevention, planning of trees, rehabilitating gullies, terrace building). Beneficiary communities would be involved in the cash-for-work program: in the selection of project location, type of project, and participants, and in monitoring of the works. The project will minimize the use of contractors or the range of their responsibilities, to allow communities to take leadership role in the selection of sites, participants, and monitoring the contractors ‘activities (the contractor‘s role being mainly restricted to supervision of the rehabilitation works). The project would ensure active women‘s participation through facilitating for women association to select subprojects that would reduce their burden and facilitate improvement in their livelihood and arrangements for taking care of children at the project site. Communities would be trained in management and maintaining the works. They would also be left with the tools to undertake maintenance. 34. The Cash-for-Work program fulfills a dual objective. On the one hand, it will provide short-term and immediately required cash to the people. On the other hand, the program would be managed to undertake urgent labor intensive repair works such as clearing debris of damaged houses and village buildings, cleaning dug wells, and repairing hamlet level access roads, small irrigation canals and so on, in the hamlet/village level, that are essential to restart their livelihood economic activities. The project will also finance skill development and non-farm activities for both returning farmers and farmers in host communities. This component would be a potential avenue for community-based consultations and participation to identify and implement community agricultural infrastructure works so that minimum community ownership can be created and sustained. A total of 12,000 farming households will benefit from cash-for-work 52 programme. A sum of US$5.4 million will finance 12,000 farming households at a sum of N 90,000 (US$450)/household. 35. Subcomponent 7.5.2: Rehabilitation of surface water. The surface water schemes will include: land surveying, contour maps, land leveling and grading, design works, repairs of generator houses and generators, clearing of watercourses, such as desilting, and provision of equipment, such as sprinkler component. The village/local leaders and the larger community members would be consulted for identification of these “quick win” schemes. The “development schemes” are intended for longer-term agriculture, fisheries, and livestock development and these would also be identified through consultations with leaders and larger communities, but would be implemented through newly formed or revitalized farmer interest groups or community groups identified through a social mobilization process. The examples of “quick win schemes” would include water supply, sanitation and rehabilitation of damaged irrigation infrastructure, etc. The “development schemes” would include inter alia irrigation and water infrastructure including watercourses/channels, tube-wells and dug-wells, water storage tanks, ponds and check dams, flood protection structures, micro hydro, cultivable waste land development and land leveling; produce and input storage facilities; processing/packaging facilities; and rural link roads for farm-to-market access. In addition, access roads and on-farm storage facilities will be provided as a rural infrastructure subproject. Acceptable appraisal of these schemes includes the willingness of farming households to participate through the formation of production communities and/or water user associations; and compliance with the technical, economic, and environmental and social safeguards criteria. All the applicable criteria will be outlined in the revised Project Implementation Manual (PIM). 36. Subcomponent 7.5.3: Groundwater irrigation schemes. This subcomponent will assist to demonstrate low-cost technologies for shallow groundwater irrigation. Additional Financing funds will be used to finance infrastructure and equipment for demand-driven small scale irrigated subprojects emanating from the beneficiary groups. The main expenditure items will include water extraction infrastructure, such as wash bore/shallow tube wells, and water-lifting devices, such as 2-3 inches 5.5 HP motorized irrigation pumps. The technologies and the associated water resources management practices of this level of irrigation are fairly well known since some of the selected states benefited from the Fadama-I project which promoted the adoption of simple, low-cost techniques for Fadama-based irrigation. The schemes will be in areas accessible to urban markets, use groundwater no deeper than 60 meters, and involve farmers with experience in growing higher-value crops. Other access criteria used in the original project remain valid, particularly the criteria for economic and financial viability, as well as the approval process used. Additional support will be provided to communities in schemes to ensure adequate capacities to operate, maintain, and replace pumps. 37. Subcomponent 7.5.4: Other infrastructure support. This subcomponent will provide market infrastructures to farming communities to reduce post-harvest losses and improve access to market. Such infrastructure would include rehabilitation of access roads and culverts linking production sites to the processing/marketing zones, storage facilities, and preservative technologies which are all related to the priority value chains. The Subcomponent would support the construction of low-cost food banks and granaries at strategic locations. 53 38. Most of the schemes are expected to be small scale (costing less than US$25,000) and would be implemented through standard procurement procedures. However, projects requiring higher degree of technical skills such as lining of channels, access roads, check dams, integrated irrigation projects, micro-hydro and so on, would be implemented through the line departments. Even in these schemes, use of community based skilled and un-skilled labor, material supplies and other inputs would be encouraged. Additionally, the prioritization process would also include information regarding other ongoing programs by donors and government to ensure that project interventions are complementary and duplication is checked. Community lead decision making for identification and implementation of any selected scheme would remain the key principle for implementing this component. While the detailed selection criteria is included in the Operations Manual, the scheme development cycle with various stages is presented in figure 3.1. Figure 3.1. Scheme Development Flow Chart Needs Identification (Consultative process leading to needs) assessment and prioritization) Facilitation (EIGs) (Community consultation and Prioritization mobilization) (Assessing eligibility for project support as per criteria) Development of CAP (Communities undertaking detailed assessment, walkthrough surveys, design and cost discussions, and community commitment and O&M arrangements before DRC consideration) Local Government Council review and feedback to EIGs/ Community Economic Interest Groups (Technical/financial review and approval for fund release) Implementation Supervision and Quality Control CAP approved (by community and District with 3rd party verification) (Subject to scheme type, contract awarded with specified role of all parties involved) Scheme Completion (Formally inaugurated by community and district administration and handed over to community for operation and maintenance) 54 Annex 3: World Bank Team’s Supervision Strategy Nigeria: Second Additional financing to Third National Fadama Development project in support of the food security and livelihoods in the North East (P158535) 1. The proposed Second Additional financing for to the Third National Fadama Development project is an emergency support that has been prepared under Bank OP 10 Para 12. The proposed AF poses numerous and high reputational, social, and operational risks. Therefore, the project needs to be carefully supervised. The AF will be implemented in a conflict prone environment that is unpredictable and which could worsen depending on the situation, hence, the project would leverage on third party monitoring where possible and use other technology to monitor project activities in areas not accessible. The project would deploy the use of ICT driven geotagging via phone calls and remote monitoring systems. 2. The main responsibility for project supervision will be anchored with the NFCO. This will be supported by regular Bank Supervision missions. In the initial six months supervision will be particularly intense. Two full supervision missions are planned to be carried out, one after the first three months and the second after six months. Thereafter, full supervision missions will be carried out once in every six months. 3. The supervision would focus on the following aspects:  Development effectiveness of the project – Continuing focus on the achievement of the PDO of the project;  Management of reputational risks to the Bank – These risks and proposed risk mitigation measures are identified in the Risk Identification Work Sheet;  Management of expectations of different stakeholders, including of various international and national development partners and project beneficiaries;  Implementation progress including technical quality of the project activities;  Compliance with fiduciary requirements of the project, including procurement and financial management;  Compliance with social and environmental safeguards; and  Qualitative aspects of IDP return process. 4. Development Effectiveness: the RF of the project would be the main instrument used by the team to measure development effectiveness. During supervision missions, the task team will review and report to the Bank’s management, the status of the achievement of the PDO target and each of the intermediate outcome indicators of the Results Matrix. These outcomes will be further substantiated with qualitative assessments, particularly on the basis of the monthly monitoring reports from the Food Security Working Group on the progress of food security in the project area. 55 5. Management of reputational Risks and Expectations of Different Project Stakeholders: The two major instruments used for this task are the Conflict and Reconciliation Filter and the Information and Communication Campaign (ICC). The Conflict Filter lists all potential perceptual and reputational risks and proposed remedial measures. At each of the supervision missions, the task team would use the Conflict Filter as a base document to report the status of the implementation and effectiveness of the identified mitigation measures. 6. The Bank team will remain vigilant on reputational and other risks of the project throughout the implementation of the project. In particular, the team will monitor if there are any return issues during the return process and if any, would take action to address those. The Bank will review the Environmental and Social safeguards compliance of the project in about six months’ time after project approval and revise the related safeguard mitigating measures based on the review. The Bank team will also facilitate a short visit of a special Bank team of experts to Nigeria after Board approval to provide further guidance to the project team on managing reputational and safeguard risks. This team would include experts on return, demining, post- conflict reconstruction and legal aspects. Based on the guidance of this team, further measures will be taken by the Bank to mitigate reputational and safeguard risks of the project and address other unforeseen issues, if any. 7. Implementation progress including technical quality of the project activities: The Team will have technical specialists (Work-fare, Civil Engineer, Conflict Expert, and an Agronomist) to be able to track the implementation progress of the project components and technical quality of works. The Project Management Unit will field independent technical consultants one at each state to review engineering designs and construction quality of the works financed by the project. In addition, the project included provisions to carry out independent technical/procurement audits periodically. The Bank team will use the reports of the technical experts to make judgments on the quality and progress of the works. 8. Compliance with fiduciary requirements of the project, including procurement and financial management (FM): The proposed project has a “Moderate” financial management and procurement risk rating. Consistent with the risk based approach to supervision, the project will be intensively supervised by the Bank’s FM and Procurement Specialists. With respect to the FM, a substantial portion of the supervision activities would consist of desk reviews of internal and external audit reports, quarterly financial reports, and fixed asset physical verification reports supplemented by dialogue with the project staff as needed. As and when required, other financial management supervision tools such as expenditure reviews, site visits and joint missions with procurement would be used in an effort to periodically monitor the adequacy of financial management systems. The project will hire an independent external audit and the audit reports will also be used as a part of FM supervision. 9. The Bank Team’s designated procurement specialist (PS) will monitor compliance with the requirements of the different procurement methods and performance standards, on a continuous basis. The Borrower’s quarterly reports on procurement performance, in particular with respect to the four key indicators, will be the basis for review, in addition to regular field visits. As part of the project’s planned annual review, a comprehensive assessment of procurement performance will be carried out. 56 10. Compliance with social and environmental safeguards and qualitative aspects of IDP return: Bank’s Social safeguards and Environmental Safeguard specialists will take lead responsibility for the supervision. The Bank will delegate authority to the field-based environmental and social specialists assigned to the project, to allow them to make field based decisions in consultation with the Task Team Leader, as has been done in other projects in Nigeria. Continuous Social Impact Assessments (CSIAs) will be undertaken for the overall project every six months during project implementation. The CSIAs will review larger social issues and overall social impact of the project covering the issues included in the Conflict Filter and the social issues covered in the Project Paper. In particular, the CSIAs will examine both intended and unintended positive and negative social impacts related with IDP return; beneficiary consultation; targeting and selection of Cash-for-Work and other activities financed by the project; utilization of local labor for rehabilitation works; and impact of the project on recovery of local economic and livelihoods and so on. The CSIAs would help to enhance the conflict sensitivity of the project and its general impact including safeguards aspects. It will also monitor social dynamics relating to land ownership, right, and occupation and the functioning of the Grievance Redress mechanism. 11. As mentioned, the supervision team consists of 6–8 specialists, including the Task Team Leader, experienced in procurement, financial management, social, environment, civil engineering, conflict sensitivity, and communications. International experts on Cash-for-Work and demining will also be hired if the local capacity in these areas is not sufficient. 12. The NFCO will engage the services of a Civil Engineer to follow up on supervision in the field: the procurement administration process; the eligibility of contracts/works proposed to be financed under the retroactive financing of the project using six monthly activity plan as the basic framework; field arrangements to ensure safety of civil works contractors; engineering design and quality control aspects of works on sample basis; and general planning, implementation, oversight procedures of the project in the field for infrastructure rehabilitation works, including work-fare program, financed by the project. In addition, the engineer will work with project staff and UNDP Assisted Mine Action Office to develop and enforce mechanisms to: (a) monitor usage of local/IDP labor in civil works contracts financed by the project; and (b) mine awareness program for civil works contractors respectively. If necessary, this additional supervision arrangement will be extended beyond the initial six months based on the needs on the ground. 13. Communication: Sustained and well-designed communication about the project will be critical to its effectiveness, the transparency of all its processes and the credibility of the intervention with returning farmers and the wider project community. Strong and open communications, with demonstrably effective grievance redressal mechanisms, will also help limit negative criticisms and reputational risks for those supporting the project and its goals. Communication about the project will be important at three distinct levels: (a) globally, among international stakeholders where the Bank will have an important role in providing accurate and timely information about the project, progress and issues in line with its transparency standards and in the interests of proactive outreach; (b) nationally, where both the Government and the Bank will have a role in communicating to local stakeholders including development partners, NGOs, local media and the wider public; and (c) at the project level, targeting returning farmers, contractors and project staff where the NFCO, with support from the Bank team, will be 57 responsible for providing accurate and complete information about the project, grievance handling and redress arrangements, and mine awareness and risks to project-level stakeholders. NFCO will engage the services of a short-term consulting firm for the first six months to launch this process. The Bank team will continue to work on strengthening the communication strategy and adapting it to the situation as project implementation progresses. 14. Safety of Bank Staff: The Bank team will coordinate closely with the Government and UN agencies to ensure safety of Bank staff travelling to the project areas. With regard to mines, the Bank will be guided by the government and it will be the government responsibility to provide confirmation that an area is cleared. The Bank team will also ensure that adequate mine- awareness campaigns are conducted to returning farmers and contractors during supervision. 58 Annex 4: Summary Of The Independent Evaluation Report On The Special Third Fadama North East Initiative In Borno, Adamawa, And Yobe States 1. An Independent external evaluation of the performance of the North East Special Intervention was conducted in April 2015. The selected states of Borno, Adamawa and Yobe States had suffered from Boko Haram insurgency and the consultants documented a report based on their findings to these states where the intervention was implemented. 2. The objective of the assignment was to monitor, support and report on the efficient and effective implementation of the intervention which covers issues around: (a) probability of decrease in program and project given inaccessibility; (b) quality of technical oversight; (c) status of communication through the fluctuating of telephony sources in the North East, usage of emails and usage of android equipment for augmenting such situations; (d) detect any mismanagement; (e) integrity of data provided by the implementers; (f) levels of access to beneficiaries; and (g) possibility of political /social influence on local staff implementing the project in the affected states. 3. The consultants verified and validated the numbers of the benefitting farmers affected by the insurgency, confirmed the mechanism adopted for distribution of inputs and equipment to the beneficiaries to be sure that it was effectively done. The team also reviewed the fiduciary aspect of the intervention and suggested an approach and detailed methodology to examine the extent to which training and advisory services was provided to the selected beneficiaries. Among other procedures, the evaluation made use of telephone interviews with significant sample of the beneficiaries in three states (Adamawa, Yobe and Borno States) with the involvement of CSOs, State Fadama Coordinating Offices, Chiefs and Traditional Rulers and Government administration: thus high-level meetings with major stakeholders in the 3 states were conducted during the mission. 4. The team accessed a number of interventions in the 3 states namely:  The selection of the beneficiaries, including the integrity of the process adopted by the CSOs for carrying out the selections.  The integrity of the entire processes, from the procurements of the in-kinds to their delivery to and upkeep by the beneficiaries  The performance of the programme management team made of CSOs, NFCO, and SFCOs, including the supply and delivery of the in-kinds, the training, and support of the beneficiaries and M&E of the programme. 5. Impact: The report highlighted significant impact around grinding machines introduced to the women and the dry season farming which catered for farming activities in the three states (Borno, Yobe, and Adamawa States). The dry season farming was confirmed to have created opportunity for farmers to produce readily sellable vegetables in particular market especially in Maiduguri through the support of CSO and SFCO who provided encouragements and guidance. 59 6. In addition, the grinding machines distributed were used to generate revenues for beneficiaries from their daily activities. Though small scale and large scale ruminants animal rearing was encouraged as part of the interventions but the impact could not be measured compared to the other two interventions. The evaluation report certified that the intervention of the Third Fadama North East Initiatives in IDPs camps showed positive impact given that the communities were mostly vulnerable farming households. Recommendations 7. The team made some recommendations on how best to assist states being attacked by the insurgency in restoring their livelihood through various intervention programmes. They are:  Data Acquisition and data integrity, both with regard to capacity building for the CSOs and beneficiaries;  Selection of the CSOs with a minimum required knowledge of agriculture set as a criteria for selection (production and processing);  Respective roles of the CSOs and the SFCOs where clear terms should be established so as to ensure that responsibilities are clearly stated, with in particular a more explicit right of oversight of the SFCOs over the activities of the CSOs without loss of independence of the CSOs;  Appropriate planning and budgeting so as to ensure that the programme team has the appropriate resources to undertake all the tasks set out in the programme objectives.  Definition of the impact with regard to yield or income per group of beneficiaries so as to ensure that impact can be quantify more easily.  Programme management, particularly governance (establishment of a formal steering committee) and an escalation process for prompt resolution of issues;  Risk management should be emphasized, particularly with regards to the constant threat that the insurgents represent. To that end a rapid escalation process to the National Programme Coordination Office with adequate powers should be considered in relation to go/no go decision on operational matters, particularly when the programme team makes visit in volatile areas;  Access to market and value chain should be considered when selecting the in-kinds given the IDPs specific circumstances; 8. The Evaluation Team concluded that an appropriate investment in livelihood supports programmes to the IDPs and changes in line with the recommendations above will enable interventions to achieve greater impact in the North East region. 60 Annex 5: Procurement 1. General Procurement Environment in Nigeria: Nigeria’s procurement environment is largely premised on the progress achieved in implementing a procurement reform program based on the recommendations of the 2000 Country Procurement Assessment Review (CPAR). With the enactment of a Public Procurement Act in June 2007, the enabling legal framework aimed at establishing transparent, fair, and cost-effective use of public funds has been in place. The provisions in the Act are consistent with the principles of the UNCITRAL model law, and are applicable to all procurement categories (suppliers, contractors, consultants). 2. Following the enactment of the procurement act, a regulatory agency - the Bureau of Public Procurement (BPP) - was established. The Government has also prepared relevant implementation tools, including Regulations, Standard Bidding Documents (SBD) and Manuals. In addition, a procurement professional cadre has been created at the federal level and in some states. A complaints and appeals mechanism has been established in accordance with the provisions of the Act to enhance transparency and accountability. The gains of the procurement reform at the federal level have extended to the 36 States of the Federation of Nigeria. 3. Notwithstanding the above successes, there are still inherent weaknesses in the public procurement system in Nigeria. In 2012/2013, the Bank conducted a Procurement Value Chain Analysis (VCA) which identified the following weaknesses at the federal level: delay in budget approval; late release of budgeted funds; lack of budget-linked procurement planning; failure of full compliance with the use of standard bidding documents; poor bid evaluation reports; delays in contract award approvals; weak procurement and performance monitoring; poor record keeping, fraud and corruption and lack of effective enforcement of sanctions as provided for in the law. 4. At the states’ level, procurement law has been enacted in 24 states while the remaining states have draft bills at various stages of consideration; procurement regulatory agencies have been established in 18 states. Three (that is Adamawa, Bauchi, and Taraba) out of the six NE States have procurement laws. Procurement Guidelines for Fadama III AF II Operation in North-East Nigeria. 5. Procurement under the AF II will be carried out in accordance with World Bank’s Guidelines on Preventing and Combating Fraud and Corruption in Projects Financed by IBRD Loans and IDA Credits and Grants dated October 15, 2006 and revised in January 2011” (known as the ‘2011 Anti-Corruption Guidelines)’, ‘Guidelines: Procurement under IBRD Loans and IDA Credits and Grants by World Bank Borrowers January 2011, revised July, 2014, ‘Guidelines: Selection and Employment of Consultants under IBRD Loans and IDA Credits and Grants by World Bank Borrowers’ dated January 2011, revised July, 2014. In addition, since the North East of Nigeria is considered as an FCS, paragraph 11 of Bank Operational Policy (OP) 10.00 will be triggered to allow the application of the flexibility detailed in the Guidance to World Bank staff: Simplified Procurement Procedures in Situations of Urgent Need of Assistance or Capacity Constraints, April 2013. 61 6. Procurement and Selection Methods. Procurement of goods, works and, non-consulting services will utilize methods such as NCB, Procurement from UN Agencies, Community Participation, Force Account, Shopping, and Direct Contracting. The use of International Competitive Bidding (ICB) is not envisaged in this operation. 7. Selection of consultants will follow Selection based on Consultants’ Qualification (CQS), Least Cost Selection (LCS), Fixed Budget Selection (FBS), Selection of Individual Consultants, and Single Source Selection (SSS). The use of QCBS is not envisaged in this operation. 8. The Bank’s and National bidding documents approved by the Bank will be used as appropriate. 9. For each contract to be financed by the Credit, the different procurement methods or consultancy services selection methods, estimated costs, prior review requirements, and time frame have been agreed between the Borrower and the Bank in the procurement plan. 10. Workshops, conference attendance, and study tours will be carried out on the basis of approved annual/semi-annual work plans that would identify the general framework of training or similar activities, including the nature of training/study tours/workshops, number of participants, and estimated cost. 11. Procurement Risk Assessment. The supervision of the Bank supported projects in the North East has been facing challenges over the past years due to the conflict in the region. The Bank mitigated such risk by inviting the staff of projects in NE to Abuja for procurement workshops and procurement planning clinics. Also, a procurement consultant was hired by the Bank to conduct post procurement review (PPR) for projects in the NE while some Banks’ Procurement Specialist (PS) have conducted desk reviews on post review contract from documents submitted by the project. The structures and procurement arrangements put in place in the early years of Fadama III are still in place and shall be used. The Bank team will conduct a procurement assessment when security situation improves. However, based on the available information, the current arrangement is satisfactory. Each State PIU has a one Procurement Officer and one Assistant Procurement Officer for procurement implementation. The staff have been working in the projects for several years and have adequate procurement experience. Procurement Officers will continue to benefit from additional procurement training where necessary in addition to Bank’s PS providing hand holding and on the job training. The overall procurement risk for the project is considered Moderate. 12. Procurement Activities. Procurement activities in the project will largely involve goods, works, consultancy services and non-consulting services packages. The proposed Fadama III AFII has outlined activities toward meeting the immediate needs of the affected communities. These include (a) restoration of the agricultural production activities through procurement of starter packs to affected farming households, (b) procurement of agricultural inputs, (c) works procurement in providing rural infrastructure (such as fences, markets, post-harvest equipment, storage facilities including aggregation centers, production pens and houses for livestock, rural network of roads); and (d) procurement of food stuff. The procurement activities shall be handled by the PIU where adequate procurement capacity already exists following several years of implementation of Fadama project in Nigeria. The PIUs shall prepare the work plans and 62 procurement plans, which will include all procurement activities. Fadama III PIUs will handle the bidding and supervision processes in an effective, efficient, and transparent manner to ensure value for money. 13. Operating Costs. The operating costs will include equipment, fuel, office supplies, bank charges, advertising expenses and travels. Operating costs financed by the project will be procured using the implementing agency’s administrative procedures that shall be acceptable to the bank. 14. Prior review Thresholds. The Procurement Plan sets forth those contracts which shall be subject to the Bank’s prior review. All other contracts shall be subject to Post Review by the Bank. 15. Post Review/Integrated Fiduciary Review. For compliance with the Bank’s procurement procedures, the Bank will carry out sample post review of contracts that are below the prior review threshold. Such review (ex-post and procurement audit) of contracts below the threshold will be subject to the risk rating of the post-review contracts in the project. Procurement post-reviews will be done on annual basis depending on the number of post-review contracts. 63 Annex 6: World Bank Engagement Framework in Northern Nigeria Context 1. The Boko Haram insurgency has disrupted economic and social activities and has negatively affected the productive capacity, employment, and livelihoods of over 15 million people. The six North East States of Borno, Yobe, Adamawa, Taraba, Bauchi, and Gombe have been adversely affected by the insurgency which has severely curtailed their ability to meet the most pressing needs of IDPs, deliver basic social services and to restore essential infrastructure. The human, social and economic losses attributed to the Boko Haram insurgency are enormous, resulting in the loss of over 20,000 lives, the displacement of over 2.0 million people (nearly 80 percent are women, children and youth) forcibly displaced by the conflict with Boko Haram, and the destruction of entire towns and villages. Furthermore, the region has witnessed a 20-30 percent decrease in crop yields and declining livestock productivity. The amount of land being used to grow food has dropped by almost 70 per cent over the past year as violence disrupted farming activities. The recently completed North East Nigeria Recovery and Peace Building Assessment (RPBA) estimates nearly US$9.0 billion in damages across all six states. With US$5.9 billion in damages, Borno is the most affected state, followed by Adamawa (US$1.6 billion) and Yobe (US$1.2 billion). The damages to the agricultural (US$3.5 billion) and housing sectors (US$3.3 billion) are considerable and make-up three-quarters of the total losses. The economic impact of the insurgency has also transcended the geographic borders of the country, impairing cross-border trade with Niger, Chad, and Cameroon. Government’s Response 2. The critical and immediate challenge facing the GoN today is ensuring the welfare of the IDPs, the host communities and the population in the conflict areas. The immediate and effective provision of basic social services to the above target groups remains a government priority. Nigeria’s Emergency Management Agency (NEMA), in coordination with State Emergency Management Agencies has been monitoring IDP movements and providing a range of relief support to affected communities. According to the RPBA, food, access to clean drinking water and other emergency supplies have been provided to IDPs living in camps and many of those staying with host families in the North East in response to Boko Haram-related violence. Emergency education for displaced children also became a priority following unprecedented attacks targeting students and teachers as well as school infrastructure. In 2014, a Safe Schools Initiative (SSI) has been setup to promote safe zones for education. In some cases, students were transferred with parental consent to other schools in states not affected by the fighting. 3. On August 21, 2015, the GoN requested donors’ assistance in assessing the needs associated with peace building and crisis recovery efforts. The joint North East RPBA was launched in January 2016 in support of the Government’s efforts toward peace building and sustainable recovery in the North East. The RPBA provided a framework for coordinated and coherent assistance to conflict-affected communities in the North East. The proposed framework identified the immediate and urgent need for sustaining emergency transition activities while supporting in parallel stabilization initiatives along the three strategic areas of intervention, namely: (a) peace building and social cohesion; (b) infrastructure and social services and; (c) 64 economic recovery. The total needs across the three strategic areas of interventions are estimated to be around US$6.42 billion. World Bank’s Engagement in Northern Nigeria 4. The Bank has a critical role to play in supporting the Government in its efforts to restore stability and create economic opportunities for the most vulnerable. Such an approach is well aligned with the World Bank Group’s twin goals of ending poverty and boosting shared prosperity. The focus of the Bank’s engagement in Northern Nigeria is twofold. First, in collaboration with the authorities, the Bank has developed the North East Emergency Transition and Stabilization Program (NETSP) of support for the six states in the North East. In parallel, it seeks to deepen its engagement in the Northern Nigeria through the work on the formulation of a Northern Nigeria Regional Development Framework (NRDF). The Bank’s support to the North East and to the North as a whole is prioritized and sequenced to complement government and development partners’ interventions. North East Emergency Transition and Stabilization Program 5. The Bank is fully cognizant of the importance of bridging the gap between the two phases of emergency transition and stabilization in the North East. A key cross-cutting objective underpinning the Bank’s support relates to addressing the service delivery gaps, livelihood deficits and social cohesion issues created by the protracted crisis. The NETSP comprises a set of coordinated emergency transition and stabilization activities and targets Borno, Yobe, Adamawa, Bauchi, Gombe, and Taraba. The NETSP support includes a series of Additional Financing (AF), and a multi-sector Emergency Crisis Recovery Project (ECRP). The proposed Bank support under the NETSP (US$775 million) represents 12 percent of the total identified needs for recovery and peace building across the three strategic areas of interventions. This is expected to be further complemented by ongoing and/or planned programs funded by government and development partners in the targeted areas identified under the RPBA. 6. The Additional Financing interventions under the NETSP focus on 4 areas: agriculture, health, education and social protection. They are informed by the findings of the RPBA and represent a set of priority initiatives that have a tangible and quick impact. They are predominantly results-driven and aim at improving government service delivery while building on collaborative partnerships between governmental institutions and civil society. The implementation of the AF interventions relies on accumulated knowledge and existing institutional networks to assist with the rapid deployment of Bank resources. NETSP Implementation Risks and Challenges 7. In an environment where transition from conflict to peace remains fragile, the implementation of the NETSP is expected to face a number of challenges. These relate to the dynamic nature of the conflict on one hand and to the evolving policy environment on the other. On the latter, both the design features and the TA to be provided under the NETSP will mitigate the anticipated policy challenges. The NETSP interventions will provide guidance to State Governments on the formulation of appropriate support schemes and subsidy systems targeting on one hand, public assets and public services (Federal and State-owned) while on the other, 65 addressing private assets and the needs of private individuals. Such guidance will focus on the following: (a) Selectivity and beneficiary eligibility for government support schemes. Social groups affected by the protracted conflict in the NE are quite diverse. They include among others: disabled; women and girls; elderly; youth (especially child soldiers); victims of war, IDPs living in official camps; IDPs living within host communities; refugees returning from neighboring countries; host communities; residents of areas of conflict; farmers, etc... Hence, given the limited availability of public resources at the disposal of GoSs, guidance on the hierarchy of beneficiary groups that are eligible for immediate government assistance will be provided under the NETSP interventions. (b) Equity in government support schemes to private individuals and private assets. International experience has shown that common and equitable support schemes need to be applied within beneficiary groups and across affected States (no one left behind). This is more important in situations where the North East States are implementing an array of interventions targeting various beneficiaries (IDPs, etc…) and private assets through: (a) cash transfers; (b) financial support for repair and reconstruction of private housing; (c) financial support for replacement of damaged private productive assets (farming tractors, and so on). Bank assistance under the NETSP will support GoSs in formulating schemes that are equitable and well aligned behind past governments’ track record following similar situations of natural and/or man-made disasters. (c) Displacement management. The nature of population displacement resulting from the conflict is complex. IDPs in the North East include IDPs living in official camps; IDPs living within host communities; IDPs living in schools and public buildings; refugees returning from neighboring countries and resettling in official IDP camps; IDPs settling permanently in host States and IDPs returning to States and areas of origin. Bank assistance under the NETSP will support GoSs in formulating consistent government policies and support schemes addressing the respective needs of each category of IDPs. (d) Resource mobilization strategy. The magnitude and complexity of challenges necessitates the mobilization of considerable financial resources. As such, aligning both Federal and State budgets (both recurrent and capital) behind local needs while developing plans and resource mobilization strategies at international level would be required. Resources would need to cater for the basic functioning of the States, including salaries and pensions for the civil service and security sector which have a critical impact on the stabilization process. As such, Bank assistance under the NETSP will support GoSs in formulating burden-sharing arrangements with the Federal Government and Development Partners. (e) Communication with stakeholders and beneficiaries. The NETSP involves many nonconventional stakeholders, possibly with different priorities and interests. Coordination between these entities will become extremely difficult. This risk will 66 be mitigated through regular information sharing processes among stakeholders, including counseling and awareness sessions for the beneficiaries to apprise them on the available support under the NETSP program. (f) Security and the recurrence of militancy. The Bank foresees the difficulties in direct monitoring and supervision in the field. High security-related risks may interfere with timely achievement of intended outcomes. Despite the external security risks, the flexibility of the NETSP design and the existing experience in quick mobilization will assist the projects in adjusting to the changing environment. In addition, the government is ensuring that repatriation is announced for only those areas which have been cleared by the army and declared as safe. (g) Political and governance. Due to continued insurgency in the region and lack of formal control of the government over some areas, the institution set up and the writ of the government was weakened. This led to deterioration of the informal governance structures that were being managed through the traditional authority of local leaders. The social fiber of the region has been weakened and challenged, which has been posing challenges for the government to re-establish linkages. For local people, the time tested reliance on the local elders and leaders has also grown weak. Citizen-state relationship, improved governance and service delivery are important components of long term development and governance reforms embedded in the NETSP. Major Design Features of the NETSP 8. Cognizant of the implementation risks described above, the AF initiatives have incorporated a number of mitigation measures and design features that build on the findings and recommendations of the RPBA. These include: (a) Building on lessons learned. The Bank’s engagement under the NETSP builds on lessons learned in similar challenging circumstances. There is no “one size fits all” approach and a successful response needs to be flexible, creative, and rapid. For example, results and service-based financing has been successfully implemented in the health sector in Adamawa with Bank support. Initial results show significant improvements in contraceptive prevalence rates, antenatal care, and utilization of curative services. Experience has also shown that putting in place well-motivated and well-managed health workers with access to decentralized funding allows for large and immediate gains in service delivery during the post conflict transition phase. Furthermore, in areas where conflict is ongoing, strategies such as the use of mobile health teams to run free “health camps” that provide a broad array of medical services are being adopted. (b) Relying on available institutional capacities. Given the need for a rapid and timely response, the NETSP design benefits from the available institutional capacities built under ongoing Bank financed operations. The program relies on existing institutions at both state and local government levels and work with civil society, faith-based and community-based organizations. 67 (c) Factoring security concerns. The situation in the North East remains volatile with pockets remaining under the influence of the insurgents. To mitigate these risks, program implementation will be particularly mindful of security matters and will operate within the mechanisms established by GoN and the military. In addition, the Bank has extensive experience operating in fragile post-conflict areas and has demonstrated flexibility adapting to changing circumstances. The use of Third Party Monitoring Agent to ensure adequate fiduciary oversight and to offset the difficulties in access by Bank staff has been adopted in the design of the various project interventions. (d) Promoting demand-driven approaches. Experience in restoring services in conflict-affected areas confirms that community-level empowerment and engagement are absolutely key. As such, the local participation of target community groups is an integral part of the NETSP design and implementation. This involves School-Based Management Committees (SBMC) in the education sector, Primary Health Care Development Agencies (SPHCDAs), Primary Health Care (PHC) centers and non-state entities such as UN agencies and community-based organizations in the health sector, as well as private farmers, farming groups and farming cooperatives in the agriculture sector. In addition, demand-based Community Driven Development approaches have been adopted under the social protection interventions. (e) Integrated and balanced approach. The NETSP design has adopted an incremental and sequenced approach focusing first on the immediate and rapid restoration and sustaining of basic social services and livelihoods followed by increasing emphasis on recovery and rehabilitation of public goods. (f) Targeting for maximum impact. The NETSP supports an area-based approach that consists of a blend of statewide and LGA-specific targeting approach. Given the limited government and donor funding available, greater focus is placed on host communities and the IDPs living among them rather than on IDPs living in camps. In addition, support to communities in areas of origin is envisaged so as to prepare the enabling environment for the dignified return of IDPs. The welfare impact of such an approach is justified given that several international organizations (in particular United Nation Children’s Fund) and CSOs are active in the IDPs camps providing education and health services. Moreover, none of the humanitarian donors agencies appear to be focusing on livelihood support either through labor-intensive public works or through cash transfers to IDPs and host communities. Some food distribution has taken place (for example, funded by FAO in health camps) but remain very limited in scale. (g) A state-differentiated approach for budget allocation. Considering the differing transition and stabilization needs among the six North East states, the three conflict- affected states of Borno, Yobe, and Adamawa were allocated a higher share of the NETSP funds. This reflects the extent of displacement, food insecurity, and destruction witnessed. However, fund allocation among states will remain flexible to cater for variation in absorptive capacity and disbursement rates. 68 Annex 7: Guiding Principles on the Incorporation of RPBA Findings in the Proposed Additional Financing. Background: (RPBA) 1. On 21 August 2015, the GoN requested assistance in assessing the needs associated with peace building and crisis recovery. Support has been provided in accordance with the 2008 Joint European Union (EU) –UN – World Bank Declaration on crisis assessment and recovery planning. The RPBA has been prepared and implemented by the Federal Government, led by the Vice President’s Office, and the Governments of the six affected states, with support from the Bank, UN, and EU. A multi-stage consultation process was followed for the development of the assessment methodology, collection, and validation of data and for the progressive corroboration of results, ending with consultation and validation of the RPBA findings, after which the document was fully endorsed by the different stakeholders. 2. The RPBA informs a collective vision and strategy on peace building and recovery, and provides a framework for coordinated and coherent support to assist conflict-affected people in the North-East. The assessment covers the six states of Borno, Yobe, Adamawa, Gombe, Taraba, and Bauchi, and provides an overarching framework for stability, peace building, and recovery. The RPBA is founded on the recognition that a durable resolution to the conflict in the North-East requires addressing the structural and underlying drivers of violent conflict. To assess and prioritize immediate and medium-term peace building and recovery needs, the RPBA gathered information across three components, namely: Peace Building, Stability, and Social Cohesion; Infrastructure and Social Services; and Economic Recovery. For further details, the RPBA report is publicly available in the following web address. RPBA Recovery Strategy and Framework 3. The RPBA confirmed the need for recovery and peace building efforts, to be carried in tandem with the on-going scaling up of the humanitarian assistance. Therefore, the Recovery and Peace Building Strategy (RPBS) will need to be closely coordinated with the Humanitarian Response Plan (HRP)2 to build on the HRP’s achievements and avoid overlaps. 4. Careful and coordinated sequencing of the RBPA and subsequent support will be critical in view of the fluidity of the security environment, and the marked variation in security within and among the six states. Priorities should be carefully assessed on a continuous basis, and adjusted as needed in light of the prevailing situation on the ground. In some areas, a humanitarian response combined with stabilisation will be needed, while in other areas, the context will permit more substantial movement toward recovery. 5. An integrated and balanced approach to recovery is essential. Peace building and social cohesion is the backbone of the assessment. Hence it is crucial to properly balance peace building, stability, and social cohesion interventions with other interventions aimed at 2 The HRP 2016 was prepared by the UN- Nigeria, with the purpose assessing the humanitarian conditions of the Nigerian NE and providing a framework for the continuous national response and early recovery plans and interventions to these needs. For more information, please visit: https://www.humanitarianresponse.info/en/system/files/documents/files/nigeria_2016_hrp_03032016_0.pdf 69 reconstructing or rehabilitating social, physical, and productive assets. Peace building, stability, and social cohesion interventions will ensure the sustainability of recovery interventions on the ground and lay the foundation for human security to prevail. The assessment sets out four strategic outcomes for recovery and peace building: (a) Safe, voluntary, and dignified return and resettlement of displaced populations; (b) Improved human security, reconciliation, and violence prevention; (b) Enhanced government accountability and citizen engagement in service delivery; and (d) and Increased equity in the provision of basic services and employment opportunities. Overview of Overall Impacts and Needs from the Crisis under the RPBA Figure 6.1. Overall Recovery and Peace Building Needs by State Bauchi, 268.2, Federal/Region 4% al, 345.4, 6% Adamawa, Taraba, 192, 660, 10% 3% Gombe, 164.9, 3% Yobe, 721.5, 11% Borno, 4,040.00, 63% 6. The assessment indicates that the economic impact of the crisis is substantial, reaching nearly US$9 billion. Needs for recovery and peace building are disproportionately concentrated in Borno, followed by Yobe and Adamawa. Two-thirds of the damages (US$5.9 billion) are in Borno, the most affected state; damages in Adamawa and Yobe account for US$1.6 billion and US$1.2 billion respectively. Three-quarters of the overall impacts are on agriculture (US$3.5 billion) and housing (US$3.3 billion). The conflict resulted in more than 400,000 damaged and destroyed housing units, 95 percent of which are located in Borno. 7. The total need for recovery and peace building across the three strategic areas of interventions in both the stabilization and recovery3 phase is US$6.7 billion (table 6.1). 3 Stabilization generally denotes the period during which initial recovery interventions commence and start taking effect while ongoing humanitarian operations continue. These initial recovery interventions build upon humanitarian interventions, do not duplicate them, and do not address the development deficits existing before the insurgency. Recovery denotes the period during which the initial recovery interventions start galvanizing into concrete recovery outcomes while more medium-term recovery and reconstruction activities take shape, scale up and intensify. The RPBA recognizes that these periods will overlap across the territory, with some areas being ready for recovery efforts sooner than others. 70 Table 6.1. Overall Recovery and Peace Building Needs by Component Adamawa Borno Yobe Gombe Taraba Bauchi Federal/ Total Regional (US$, million) Peace building and 27.5 37.8 22.5 13.6 19.4 23.9 5.7 150.5 social cohesion Infrastructure and 594.9 3,933.3 668.3 129.1 144.9 202.9 94.7 6,040.1 social services Economic Recovery 37.6 68.8 30.7 22.3 27.7 41.4 245 473.5 Total 660.0 4,040.0 721.5 164.9 192.0 268.2 345.4 6,664.1 8. Forced displacement and social cohesion are the most acute impacts of the conflict in North East Nigeria. An estimated 2 million people have been forcibly displaced by the conflict, 1.8 of which are displaced within Nigeria, making it the country with the third largest IDP population in the world. The burden of displacement is asymmetric across regions and populations. Borno, at the heart of the crisis, hosts 67 percent. The majority of IDPs live in host communities with only 8.5 percent in camps and camp-like sites. The population of Maiduguri, the Borno State’s capital, has more than doubled due to displaced persons. Yobe and Adamawa also share large burdens of IDPs, hosting 130,000 and 136,000 respectively, or around 6 percent in each state. Women, children, and the youth bear the brunt of forced displacement, accounting for nearly 80 percent of affected populations. Of the 1.8 million identified IDPs nationally, 53 percent are women, 57 percent are children (of which 28 percent are five or younger) (IOM, 2015). 71 Figure 6.2. North-East Nigeria: Conflict Fatalities by LGA and Displacement by Ward 9. Security remains the main factor preventing an accurate assessment of the extent of the needs of displaced population, as well as any attempts of return. Most of Borno and parts of Yobe and Adamawa remain inaccessible due to unstable security conditions (see figure 6.2). Attempts of return by IDPs have been frustrated due to attacks by Boko Haram, forcing people to displace again. More recently, reports of unexploded ordinances have increased, preventing access to farmlands and limiting the restoration of livelihoods. Displacement has also increased vulnerability in many ways, including to Sexual and Gender Based Violence. There is evidence from humanitarian agencies that sexual abuse of women and children is widespread. Girls and women who have experienced sexual violence from Boko Haram members are stigmatized by their communities, especially when they become pregnant. Men and boys also confront a range of threats, including violence, abduction, and forceful recruitment by Boko Haram and vigilante groups, and detention on suspicion of militancy sympathies. 10. The rapid deterioration of the conflict, and vacuum of law enforcement mechanisms to contain and control conflict, resulted in widespread levels of suspicion, mistrust and stigma along ethnic, religious, political, and geographical lines. The social fabric in the North-East was deeply damaged, eroding social relations between citizens and government, down to ethnic clans, communities, and even extended families. Economic, ethnic, religious, political, and geographical divisions have hardened, affecting the way in which any recovery effort is perceived, while new divisions have emerged. The sequentially overlapping phases of humanitarian, early recovery and development assistance need to incorporate confidence and trust-building, collaboration and mutual understanding. Social impacts of efforts are central considerations in all proposed interventions in such a fragile social system. 72 Guiding Principles Emerging from the RPBA for Recovery and Peace Building Responses 11. The response to recovery and piece building needs in the North East will require (a) adopting holistic approaches that address the multi-dimensional impacts of the conflict; (b) retaining flexibility for future adjustment in light of post-RBPA delivery mechanisms, financial complementarity, and in-depth assessments; (c) implementation flexibility to adapt to the evolving situation around security; and (4) impact-based resource allocation along geographic, demographic and sectoral priorities. (a) The RPBA indicates that the recovery and peace building of the Nigerian North East calls for a holistic approach that promotes peace, stability, and social cohesion addresses the rehabilitation of infrastructure and services, and also addresses underlying macro-economic issues to overcome the nexus of instability, conflict, and deteriorating development. Throughout this process, principles such as sustainable recovery, do-not harm approaches, and building-back-better/smarter standards should be further integrated. (b) Flexibility in the design of AF project components and operational and implementation modalities greatly facilitates the alignment between the post- RPBA programmatic response and the proposed AF. The RPBA will be followed by a more detailed conflict recovery planning, prioritization and operationalization led by the Federal and GoSs and supported by the EU, UN, and Bank. A formal request of the GoN for support during this phase has been received by partners. This post-RPBA phase will produce with a programmatic response for recovery and peace building of the North East, including duly prioritized plans for recovery at the sector levels as well as institutional arrangements for recovery for the entire recovery program in the six states as a cohesive whole. It is important that AF operations built in enough flexibility as to remain aligned with this programmatic response. (c) As the situation in the North East remains fluid with regard to security and forced displacement, adaptability is key to ensure positive impacts. Security continues to be the number one reason preventing people from returning or resettling as large part of the NE remain unstable. The RPBA provides a series of recommendations on how to carry out interventions in this context, strongly advising that a series of steps are undertaken as to avoid that any harm is done to the affected population through operations. Risk associated with return and resettlement of displaced population have been identified as particularly high, and a series of preliminary actions have been identified as critical to ensure their safe, voluntarily and dignified return and resettlement. (d) Based on RPBA findings, the following emerge as key priorities for resource allocation during stabilization and recovery. Geographically, impacts are disproportionately concentrated in Borno, where 63 percent of total damages and hosts 67 percent of all IDPs. Within Borno, damages are heavily concentrated in areas of higher concentration of attaches including LGAs around the Sambisa forest, and LGAs closer to the border with Niger, Chad and Cameroon, and in particular 73 those in the vicinity of the Lake Chad. LGAs with the highest concentration of IDPs include Maiduguri, Jerre, Konduga and Biu in Borno, Damaturu, Potsikum and Bade in Yobe, Michica and Yola south and north in Adamawa. Demographically, while the entire population in those areas has been affected by the conflict, displaced population and host communities, women (and within this group widows and abductees), unaccompanied children, youth and the elderly were identified as particularly vulnerable populations. With regard to sectoral priorities, social cohesion and peace building were identified as the most critical area for stabilization and recovery, while infrastructure and service delivery is the area in which there is highest financial need. Table 6.2 summarizes the main agriculture priorities as identified by the RPBA. Table 6.2. Main Agriculture Priorities as Identified by the RPBA Needs Indicators for Stabilization and Recovery Subcomponent 1: Agriculture and Irrigation Reconstruction or rehabilitation of Agriculture and % of Agriculture and Irrigation Facilities reconstructed Irrigation facilities Strengthening Agriculture and Irrigation Related % of farmers/IDPs with access to agricultural inputs and Services Value Chains for increased food security and extension services agricultural productivity Food Assistance % of IDPs and host community population in food (a) General food assistance for populations in insecurity provided food emergency and famine phases of food insecurity % of most vulnerable provided supplementary food (b) Supplementary food assistance for most vulnerable % of IDPs and host community populations in food for 4 months insecurity provided food during the lean period (March- (c) Short term food assistance (for 6 months) for less August) directly affected states 74 Annex 8: Map of Nigeria 75