Niger - Agricultural Services Project

Document of The World Bank FOR OFFCIAL USE ONLY MROFlUR COPY Report No. 101 9-IR Report No. 10119-NIR Type: (SAR) CERYCH, J./ X35009 / J9 131/ AF5AG STAFF APPRAISAL REPOR? REPUBLIC OF NIGER AGRICLTURAL SERVICES PROJECT MARCH 31, 1992 Africa Region Sahelian Department Agriculture Division This document has a restricted distribution and may be used by recipients only in the performante of their oficial duties. Its contents may not otherwise be disctosed without World Bank authorization.  CURRENCY EOUJXVALENTS Currency Unit = CFA Franc US$ 1.00 = CFAF 272 Weights and Measures Metric System GOVERNMENT FISCAL YEM January 1 - December 31  FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS DAFA Direction de l'Alphab6tisation et de la Formation des Adultee (Adult Functional Literacy Department) DEIA Direction de l'Elevage et des Industries Animales (Livestock and Animal Industries Directorate) ICRISAT International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics IPDR Institut Pratique de D6veloppement Rural (Agricultural Training Center) INRAN Institut National de Recherches Agronomiques du Niger (National Agricultural Research Institute) ONAI*A Office National des Am6nagements Hydroagricoles (Public Irrigation Agency) PPODR Projet de Petites Op6rations de D6veloppement Rural (Small Rural Operations Project) PRSAA Programme de Renforcement des Services d'Appui & 1'Agriculture (Pilot Agricultural Extension Project) SMS Subject Mlatter Specialist VEW Village Extension Worker 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.  REPUBLIC OF NIGER AGRICULTURAL SERVICES PROJECT TABLE OF CONTENTS CREDIT AND PROJECT SUMMARY ....................(i) - (iii) I. BACKGROUND A. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I B. The Agricultural Sector .. . . . 1 C. Experience with Past Lending and Lessons Learned . . 2 D. Government and Bank Strategy in the Sector . . . . . 3 E. The Pilot Agricultural Extension Project . . . . . . 4 II. AGRICULTURAL INSTITUTIONS AND SUPPORT SERVICES A. Agricultural Institutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 - The Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock . . . . 5 - The Ministry of Hydraulics and Environment . . . . 6 - Office National d'Am6nagements Hydroagricoles . 6 - The Ministry of National and Higher Education and Technology . . . . . . . . . . . 6 - Local Government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 - Non-Governmental Organizations . . . . . . . . . . 6 B. Agricultural Support Services . . . . . . . . . . . 7 - Agricultural and Livestock Extension . . . . . 7 - Agricultural Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 - Functional Literacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 - Farmers' Associations . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 III. THE PROJECT A. Objectives and Rationale ... . . . . . . . . . . . 8 B. Summary Description .......... . .. 9 C. Detailed Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 - Agricultural and Livestock Extension Services . 10 - Geographical Coverage . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 - Linkage with Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 - Functional Literacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 - Training .13 - Monitoring and Evaluation .13 - Accounting and Financial Management . . . . . . 14 - Civil Works, Vehicles and Equipment . . . . . . 14 D. Project Cost and Financing . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 - Project Cost ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 - Project Financing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 E. Procurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 F. Disbursements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 This report is based on the findings of an appraisal mission which visited Niger in May/June 1991 comprising Messrs. Jiri Cerych, Financial Analyst (mission leader); Madicke Niang, Extension Specialist; and Mrs. Jann Masterson, Operations Analyst. Mr. V. Venkatesan, APTAG Extension Specialist, and Ms. J. Murphy, AFTAG Senior Monitoring and Evaluation Specialist, were the lead advisors. Ms. Marie-Claire Tsang, Staff Assistant, provided secretarial support in the preparation of the report. Mr. Salah Darghouth and Ms. Katherine Marshall are the managing Division Chief and the Department Director, respectively for the operation.  Tab5le of Contenti, (continued) Page IV. PROJE ORGANIZATION IMPLEMENTATXON A. Overall Project Organization and Management . . . . 20 B. Functional Literacy Training . . . . . .. . . . . . 20 C. Financial Management and Reporting . . . . . 21 D. Environmental Impact . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . 21 E. Project Supervision 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 V. ENEFITS AND RISKS A. Project Benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 B. Justification and Affordability . . . . . . . . . . . 22 C. Project Risks . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 VI. AGREEMENTS BEACHED AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . 24 ANNEXES Annex 1: Extension Pilot Project Annex 2: Project Cost Tables - Table 1: Project Cost Summary - Table 2: Summary Account by Project Component - Table 3: Summary Accounts by Year - Table 4: Summary Accounts Cost Summary Annex 3: Key Indicators Annex 4: Supervision Plan Annex 5: Estimated Schedule of Disbursements Annex 6: Costs and Benefits Annex 7: Documents contained in the Project File Chart Implementation Chart MAP IBRD No. 23273  (i) upBLIC OF NIGER AGRICULTURAL SERVICES PRO-JECT CREDIT AND PROJECT SUMMAY Borrower : Republic of Niger Beneficiaries : Farmers and herders, and in general the country's rural population. Amount : SDR 12.9 million (US$18.0 million) Terms : Standard, with 40 years maturity. fDescriotion : The project represents the first five-year timeslice of a long-term national program designed to strengthen agricultural, livestock and environmental protection extension with a view to generate increased agricultural production and sustained growth of farmers' and herders' incomes. The project builds on experience gained during the implementation of a pilot project. The main elements of the program are: (i) efficient organization of extension services, provided with adequate human and physical resources, at the farmer, regional and national levels; (ii) regular and continuous training of staff at all levels by means of a system of fortnightly, monthly and annual training sessions; (iii) better linkages between extension and the national and regional agricultural research; (iv) strengthening og relations between the crop farming, livestock and environment services; and (v) functional literacy and numeracy training both for men and women. Investment would be in: (a) civil works; (b) vehicles and equipment; (c) incremental operating costs; (d) training; and (e) short-term technical assistance to eatablish and periodically supervise a project accounting and budgeting system. Economic Rate of Return : Not applicable. Benefits and Risk : The project will contribute to the well-being of a large number of rural families. About 46% of the rural population (330,000 families) would be reached by improved crop, livestock and environment extension services, but how many of these households would choose to adopt recommended practices cannot be estimated with any preclsion. More spocifically, project benefits should manifest themselves in three main areas: (a) production and productivity of both the crop and livestock sectors: reorganized and strengthened crop, livestock and environmental extension services should provide farmers and herders - both men and women - with new and effective ways to improve their standards of living; (b) autonomy and self- reliance: with the help of literacy programs,  (ii) farmers and herders will be better able to manage their resources and investments independently; (c) human resources: the project strongly emphasizes training and continuing education programs for farmers, herders and government staff. The project would strengthen research/extension links, and promote a two-way flow of information between producers and technicians. The risks are: (a) the possible inability of extension and research services to produce workable solutions to farmers' and herderas problems; (b) problems of inter-agency coordination; and (c) the possible failure of Government and/or donors to sustain the long-term commitment required to achieve durable improvements in the effectiveness of agricultural support services. To minimize these risks, the lessons learned during the pilot project implementation have been built into the project design. Financial and management capabilities will be strengthened and annual reviews of work plans and budgets, as well as the mid-term implementation review and close Bank supervision will provide an adequatte number of opportunities for program review and long-term commitment building.  (iii) Eatlmated Costs a Finanina Plan Estimated Costs A/ -------(US$ million) ------- Extension - Agric. & Livestock 6.8 7.0 13.8 - Environment 0 Q.5 0.9 Sub-total Extension 7.2 7.5 14.7 On-Farm Research 0.1 0.0 0.1 Monitoring and Evaluation 0.2 0.2 0.4 Functional Literacy 0.9 0.3 1.2 Refinancing of PPF 0.8 0.7 1.5 Bare Costs 9.2 8.7 17.9 Physical Contingencies 0.2 0.5 0.7 Price Contingencies 0.4 0.8 1.2 Total Project Costs 9.8 lQ-O 19.8 a/ Net of identifiable taxes and duties Financing Plan: Local Foreian Total