World Bank Document · PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT NIGERIA LIVESTOCK DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ... RBDA...

Document of

The World Bank

FOR OMCUL USE ONLY

Rqpoit No. 5828

PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT

NIGERIA

LIVESTOCK DEVELOPMENT PROJECT(LOAN 1091-UNI )

Dpcembe r 31, 1985

Operations Evaltiation Department

T document bs a rletled dJstuibuim ad my be used by recipients only in the perfoinauce oftbdr eScial datd. Iot eouit my not othewie be discod witheut Weld Bank autherizan.

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS

Currency Unit - Nigerian Naira (C)Appraisal Year Average = US $1.0 - N 0.658Intervening Year Average = US $1.0 = N 0.604Completion Year = US $1.0 = N 0.752

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES

1 metric ton = 0.98 long tons1 long ton - 2,240 lbs. = 1.016 metric tons1 hectare (ha) = 2.47 acres1 acre = 0.405 hectare1 1-ilometer (bm) = 0.62 miles1 mile = 1.609 kilometers

ABBREVIATIONS

ADP Agricultural Development ProjectCB Commercial BankBLC Borno Livestock CompanyBSLC Bauchi State Livestock CompanyCDC Commonwealth Development CorporationFGN Federal Government of NigeriaFKARD Federal Miaistry of Agriculture & Raral DevelopmentFXF Federal Ministry of FinanceHEU Heavy Equipment Unit (LPU)IBRD International Bank for Reconstruction &

& Development (World Bank)ILCA International Livestock Centre for AfricaFLDP First Livestock Develonment Project (1091-UNI)LPU Livestock Project UnitNACB Nigerian Agricultural & Cooperative BankNAPRI National Animal Production Research InstituteNLMA Nigerian Livestock & Meat AuthorityNLPC National Livestock Production Company?CR Project Completion ReportRBDA River Basin Development AuthorityRCF Revolving Credit Fund (LPU/NACB)SAR Staff Appra-isal ReportSLFS Smallhoider Fattening SchemeWLC Wester3 Livestock Compan;;

FOR OMCIAL USE ONLY


NIGERIA: LIVESTOCK DEVELOPMEUT PROJECT(Loan 1091-UNI)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page No.

Preface ............. .................................... iBasic Data Sheet ........................................ iiEvaluation Summary ...................................... iiiOverview ............ .................................... vii


I. Background .1.................................... II. Project Formulation and Appraisal .... .......... 3III. Project Implementation ......................... 9

IV. Agricultural Impact ............................ 26V. Technical Performance .......................... 28VI. Financial Performance .......................... 43VII. Institutional Performance and Development ...... 47VIII. Special Issues ................................. 59IX. Economic Reevaluation .......................... 61X. Bank Performance ............................... 62XI. Conclusions .................................... 65

Annexes

Chart: Project-related Institutions and Activities

Mp: IIBRD No. 18218 (PCR)

This document has a resticted distribution end may be used by recpients only in the performance of|their offw dutis. Its contents any not otherwse be disclosed without World Bank authonzizon.

PROJECT COHPLETION REPORT

NIGERIA: LIVESTOCK DEVELOPMENT PROJECT(Loan 1091-UNI)

PREFACE

1. This is a project completion report (PCR) on the Livestock Develop-ment Project. The loan for the project was approved by the Board of Direc-tors in December 1974, in an amount of US$21.0 million, and was closed inJuly 1983, two years after the original closing date.

2. The report consists of a PCR prepared by the Livestock Project Unit(LPU) submitted through the Federal Government of Nigeria, and an Overviewprepared by the Western Africa Regional Office.

3. A Bank mission visited Nigeria in September 1983. Discussions wereheld with Project Management, Government officials, and with representativesof institutions participating in the project. Field visits were also under-taken and farmers interviewed. The information obtained and observationsmade during the mission are reflected in the Bank's Overview.

4. Western Africa Regional Office finds the LPU/PCR to be a thoroughreview of the project and is generally in accord with its major findings andconclusions. The Region has carried out the economic reevaluation of theproject which is included in the Overview.

5. The Western Africa Regional Office gratefully acknowledges the val-uable assistance provided by the Government and project staff, as well asother officials involved in the project. Their assistance greatly contrib-uted to this report.

6. Largely because the PCR and Overview give adequate insights intoproject implementation experience, the project was, after lengthy discussion,not selected for audit by OED. The report was sent to the Borrower for com-ments on September 17, 1984; however, none were received.

- Li -

MJECT COMPLETION REPORT BASIC DATA SMUETICUERL

LIVESTOCK DEVNLOPMENT ptOJFCT(Ln. 1091-USI )

*XT PCRJECT DATAAppraisal Actual or ACtual as X ofEstim_to etEtimted Actual ApWralsol Estimate

Project Costs (USS llion) 42.0 59 7 142Loa o Aout (11S$ million) 21.0 21.0

Disbursd ) 20.8 - 99Rapid ) tO April 30. 1984 3.32 *n _OatetafdinE ) 17.69 *n _C- colld ) 0. 19. ata Neg_ciations LO/05/73

maca Board Approval 12/19/74 -Dur Ecffctiv-nmam 06/20175 12/01/75 07/19/76

Cloios Date 07/01/81 07/01/83 -

econoolc rate oE return (C) 11 negative

DUDWnAIV° DISBUUSEIM2TSFY76 FY77 F7lJP F79 FY80 FS81 FY2 FT83 FY8o

Appraisal estimate (US million) 2-5 6.7 10.4 1Li.8 18.0 21.0 - - -Actal (USS mLILion) - 1.5 3.3 3.9 6.2 9.9 12.6 17.5 20.8ActCal aa S of appraisal (S) 0 22 32 26 34 47 60 83 99Datc of Final Disburusemet: April 12. 1984

MSSION DATA

Nnthl No. of Nandays Specializations Performnce Types ofMission year Persons in Field Represented lb Rating /c Trendld Probl- /e

lde.tiflcation 6/69 1 10 LPreparation 11-12/71.1-2/72 5 160 L - N/^&ppraVsa' 7/5/72 6 132 L. F. E. SA. MIA - - -

Scpervision I 4I75 1 3 L 2 1 NSupervision II 1 /76 3 39 F. L(C) 2 1 0Supervision II 10176 2 38 A. L(C) 2 2/3 Y/PSupervision IV 4177 2 40 A. L(C) 2 2 N/P/FSupervisiOn V 9/77 3 A. F. L(C) - - -Supervision V * 4/79 1 9 F 3 1 0Supervision VTI 12/79 2 42 F LIC) 2 1 TSupervlsion VIII 6/80 2 E4 E. L(C) 2 1 T/0Supervisioe IX 2/81 2 34 E. L(C) 2 1 T/MSuervision X 10/81 4 36 A. E. L(C). F 2 I TSupervimion XI 5/82 - 2 30 A. L(C) 2 1 TSuaprvision XII 11/82 2 55 E. L(C) 2 I T

Completion LO/83 3 81 E. F. L(C) 2 1 T

3TEM PfOJECC DATA

Borrower Federal Coveromen: of NigeriaExecuting Agency Livestock Pr,jecc UnitFlecal Year of Borrower April I - March 31; actual January I - December 31

Ssmw of Currency (abbreviation) %aira ( N)Currency Exchange Races:Appraisal Year Average CSS1.00 - 0.658Intervenlng Yearn Average US O1.00 - 0.604Completlon Year Averge U551.00 - 0.752

Follow-on Project:

3i Hid-term Review. aS ;eC<zlOs-C, LiveNcoc. PvLiAlLa.; i-iL[L>e&csLL xa.lyst; 5L-%ULIdl *ntLnropologist; :&A-managemenc mpecLa.;:stA-Agriculturist; (C)-ConsuLrant

_: I-probLem-free or ninor probtens; 2-moderate probinas; and 3-major problems1-improving; 2-stationary; and 3-deterioratind

eF-financiit. 4-man3.e:ial: T-tecknical. P-politic&L.

- iii -


NIGERIA: LIVESTOCK DEVELOPMENT PROJECT(Loan 1091-UNI)

EVALUATION SUMMARY

Introduction

1. The Livestock Development Project was the Bank Group's first invol-vement in the livestock sector in Nigeria. It was identified in August 1969,prepared in January 1972, appraised in July 1972, approved by the Bank'sBoard in December 1974, and became effective in July 1976. The projectclosed in July 1983, two years after the original closing date.

Objectives

2. The primary project objective was to improve beef cattle produc-tion by nomadic and semi-nomadic graziers, small, near subsistence levelfarmers, large commercial farmers and the public sector. In addition, theproject provided for the introduction of improved research, training and mar-keting support services, and the importation of trypano-tolerant breedingstock.

3. Described in the SAR as a large-scale pilot project, the projectessentially adopted two strategies for livestock develoment. The first waslarge-scale development proposals based on imported technologies. This waslargely unsuccessful, except for the importation of N'Dama cattle breedingstock into trypanosomiasis-infected areas. The second strategy relied onimproving existing small-scale production systems integrated into agricultureand can be considered successful.

Implementation

4. There were substantial delays between appraisal and effectiveness.The delay between appraisal and approval was caused largely by extensiveinternal Bank reviews of the project proposals. Effectiveness was thendelayed by eighteen months pending completion of legal formalitie;.

5. During a mid-term review in 1978 it was agreed that the marketing,training and research components should be eliminated, as n' progress hadbeen made and there appeared to be little prospect of them taking off. ByDecember 1979, three and a half years after effectiveness, and after minimalprogress, both the Bank and the Federal Government were considering cancel-ling the loan. However, as a last effort to save the project, a new manage-ment firm was contracted, and it succeeded in getting the project started.By that time costs had escalated con<:iderably. In addition, inflation wasmuch higher than SAR estimates. Totai costs up to the end of the projectperiod amounted to US$59.5 million compared with the SAR estimate of USS42.0million, a cost overrun of about 42%.

- iv -

Results

6. Overall, the project was a failure given the negative economic rateof return (ERR). Incremental meat production was 22% of appraisal esti-mates. The largest components financially--the large-scale livestock devel-opment activities, particularly ranching for fattening and breeding, andgrazing reserve management--produced losses throughout the project period.Compared with other livestock projects in Sub-Saharan Africa, this experiencewas not unusual. The Nigerian Agricultural and Cooperative Bank was expectedto handle the credit component but, as lending procedures were never agreedto, the LPU had to fill the gap.

7. The ERR of the investments was estimated at appraisal at 11%.Overall, the ERR is negative, but the main successful component, smallholderfattening scheme, produced a high rate of 35%. The introduction of importedN'Dama cattle breeding stock into trypanosomiasis-infected areas is also con-sidered successful. Additional non-quantifiable benefits, such as the estab-lishment of a livestock production-oriented institution, stimulation of theprivate sector in production, marketing and credit, and the development oftechniques and legal measures to promote the settling of pastoralists, willaccrue to future projects, such as the proposed Livestock II Project.

Sustainability

8. Despite the fact that the project overall was a failure, there weresuccessful components. These were based on the improvement of existingsmall-scale livestock production systems. Most importantly, a successfulapproach to livestock development was determined which produced all the quan-tifiable benefits generated by the project. This approach would be the prin-cipal strategy for livestock development adopted in the second livestockproject. Coupled with this was the development of an institutional framewockwhich made available technical and veterinary assistance, credit, andresearch findings to the livestock producer. Despite the fact that the suc-cessful components (particularly the smallholder fattening scheme) were orig-inally designed as a minor part of the project, the considerable demand forthe services among farmers has encouraged the Federal Government to expandthe project nationally. The Bank also feels a considerably modified follow-on project proposed by the Federal Government is justified, and has appraisedand negotiated such a project.

Findings and Lessons

9. The following principal lessons have emerged:

- development models must be small scale, as are most production systemsin Nigeria, and based on small technological improvements to existingproduction systems;

- the private sector should be utilized fully in production, marketingand credit;

- livestock development should he integrated institutionally with agri-culture;

-v -

- institutional arrangements and responsibilities should be agreedduring appraisal; and

- provision for adequate monitoring and evaluation, research andtraining is essential.

10. These lessons have formed the basis for the preparation and apprai-sal of the Second Livestock Development Project which has been negotiated andwhich is expected to be submitted to the Board for approval shortly.

IV'3,~

' > 1~~~~~~~~

- vii -

NIGERIA

LIVESTOCK DEVELOPMENT PROJECT(Loan 1091-UNI)


Overview of the Livestock Project Unit Project Completion Report (LPU/PCR)

1. The Project Completion Report was prepared by the Livestock ProjectUnit, which was responsible for project implementation. The report isthorough and appropriately critical. Except for some information contained inBank files, the report covers all relevant information concerning theproject. Gaps in the analysis, which have been filled by reference todocuments unavailable to the Nigerians, are indicated in this Overview, as areinstances where the judgement of the Bank differs from that in the LPU/PCR.In addition, as the LPU/PCR does not include an economic re-evaluation of theproject, the Region has completed one, which is included in this Overview.

2. With about 10 million beef cattle, 30 million sheep and goats, 135million poultry, and approximately 100 million inhabitants, Nigeria has by farthe largest livestock population and market for animal products in WesternAfrica. Ercept for a highly commercialized and modern poultry industryserring the main urban centers, and improved disease control, the subsectorhas remained essentially unchanged during the last century. Through a seriesof disconnected efforts, Government sought to stimulate the industry given itsslow growth rate (less than 2% per annum) and general inefficiencies.Government efforts have, however, been channeled into direct productionschemes which have not taken off or which have been generally ineffective.

3. Against this background, the Bank assisted in the financing (US$21.0million) of the first Livestock Development Project. This was a productionoriented, large-scale pilot project, with the principal objective ofdetermining which animal production strategies would be most successful in theNigerian context. It was the Bank's first involvement in the livestock sectorin Nigeria.

4. The project was identified in August 1969, prepared in January 1972,appraised in July 1972, approved in December 1974. and became effective inJuly 1976. The delay between apraisal and approval was due mainly toextensive reviews cf the project proposals in the Bank. Subsequently,effectiveness took a year and a half due to delays in completing legalformalities. The project was designed to improve methods of beef cattleproduction by nomadic and semi-nomadic graziers, small, near subsistencefarmers, large commercial farms and the public sector. This would beimplemented through grazing r:serve management, smallholder fattening, andbreeding and fattening ranching. It also provided for the improvement ofresearch, training and marketing support services for farmers and graziers,and for the importation of trypanotolerant breeding stock. It was intenaedthat the project would be carried out by a new Livestock Project Unit (LPU),which would coordinate all technical, credit, veterinary, marketing andinfrastructural development efforts. By 1978, two years after project

- viii -

effectiveness, the marketing, research and training components had still nottaken off and they were eliminated from the project.

5. Three and a half years after effectiveness, after minimal progress,both the Bank and FGN were considering cancelling the loan. As a last effortto save the project, a new management firm was contracted and it succeeded ingetting the project off the ground. By that time, costs had escalatedconsiderably due to the long delays in starting implementation, and toinflation being much higher than SAR estimates. Other factors, such as themanagement contract, and additional credit funds made available for thesmallholder fattening scheme (SHFS), also influenced cost overruns, which, atproject completion exceeded SAR estimates by 42%.

6. Described in the SAR as a large-scale pilot project, the projectessentially adopted two strategies for livestock development. The first waslarge-scale development proposals based on imported technologies. Except forthe importation of N'Dama cattle breeding stock into trypanosomiasis-infestedareas, that was unsuccessful. The second relied on improving existing small-scale production systems integrated into agriculture and is consideredsuccessful.

7. Overall, the project was a failure given a negative economic rate ofreturn. Incremental meat production was 225% of appraisal estimates. Thelargest components financially--the large-scale livestock developmentactivities particularly ranching for fattening and breeding, and grazingreserve management--produced losses throughout the project pe'riod. Reviewingother livestock projects in Sub-Saharan Africa, this experience was notunusual. I/ The Nigerian Agricultural and Cooperative Bank was expected tohandle the credit :omponent but as lending procedures were never agreed to,the Livestock Project Unit had to fill the gap.

8. What was unusual about the project compared to most livestockprojects in Sub-Saharan Africa was that there were successful components.These were based on the improvement of existing small-scale livestockproduction systems. Most importantly, a successful approach to livestockdevelopment was determined which produced all the quantifiable benefitsgenerated by the project. This approach would be the principal strategy forlivestock development adopted in the proposed Second Livestock DevelopmentProject (Livestock II). Coupled with this, was the development of aninstitutional framework which made available technical and veterinaryassistance, credit and research to the livestock producer. Despite the factthat the successful components (particularly the smallholder fattening scheme)were originally designed as a minor part of the project, the considerabledemand for the services among farmers has encouraged Government to expand theproject nationally. The Bank also feels a considerably modified follow-onproject proposed by the Federal Government is justified.

1/ Kenya: Livestock Development Project Cr. 129-KE, Yadagascar: BeefCattle Development Project Ln. 585-MAG; Cameroon: Eivestock DevelopmentPorject Ln. 983-CM; Tanzania: Livestock Development Project Ln. 132-TA;Tanzania: Second Livestock Development Project Ln. 382-TA, Zambia:Livestock Development Project Ln. 627-ZA.

-ix-

9. The razching components - both fattening and breeding, wereunsuccessful. This was due to poor management, political interference fromState Governments, and-unrealistic production coefficients and cattlepurchasing requirements proposed in the SAR. While the productioncoefficients were modified twice, based on recommendations from Bankconsultants who regularly supervised the project, they proved to be toooptimistic. Due to the continued poor performance of the northern ranches,the Bank finally recommended in 1982 that project management discontinuesupport, and remaining funds for these ranches were reallocated to the moresuccessful smallholder fattening scheme. Support was continued for thesouthern ranches, in part because performance was better and improved forperiods of time, and to safeguard the imported N'Dama cattle which were hel-on these ranches. An expatriate ranch management advisor was sited on theranches to assist directly. Due to the many problems encountered (LPU/PCRparas 103-112 and 195-201) performance was not satifactory. It is proposedunder Livestock II that a large number of the N'Dama cattle be sold off toexisting mixed farmers who have experience with the N'Dama breed. The Bankdisagrees with the LPU/PCR which proposes additional efforts be made to revivethe state ranches covered by the project. The 1981 Nigerian preparedlivestock subsector review recommended the Government withdraw from and avo_dadditional investments in direct production schemes. The Bank contributed tothis study and has informed Government that it supports most of the study'srecommendations including the one mentioned above.

10. The development of private ranches was held up by the NigerianAgricultural and Cooperative Bamk (NACB)mainly because the creditrequirements had not been agreed prior to project effectiveness. NACB hasapproved only ten out of a projected 50 loans for private ranches, and theyappear to be no more successful than the public ranches. Part of the proble-was the SAR requirement that the loans should be for livestock investmentsonly--most applicants wanted to utilize funds for agricultural activities aswell. This is a logical request, both technically (integration of livestockactivities into agriculture) and financially (improve the farm operation'scash flow). The proposed Livestock II includes a smaller scale mixed farmi:.gmodel requiring less sophisticated management. It would be promoted throughexisting mixed farmers.

11. Grazing reserve management, whereby grazing regulations were imposedon pastoralists who had historically made uninhibited use of a free resource(range lands), was equally unsuccessfull/. Ironically, on at least onegrazing reserve, the ecology, (which the project attempted to preserve) wasdegraded further than it was before the project started. On other reservesthere was a change in the development approach which lead to a promisingdevelopment model (para 1.15).

12. The smallholder fattening scheme (SHFS) was successful once it gotoff the ground. Demand for credit exceeded supply and LPU sought additior--funds: some River Basin Development Authorities and three ADP's assisted.

1/ Perries, G.K., and Craig, P.S.: "Tne Effects of the DevelopmentApproach or Long Term Establishment of a Grazing Reserve in NorthernNigeria." ODI, 1983.

-x -

More importantly, the commercial banks became involved and to date have lentover US $1.0 million in SHFS loans. This is an important step in gettinglivestock production into the hands of the private sector and not dependent onthe fluctuating availability of Government funds. The success of thiscomponent owes in large measure to the development approach adopted. Thisapproach has been the most important lesson learat from this project and wouldform the basis for all the development models in the proposed Livestock II.

- it built on an existing development model, making simpletechnological improvements. Through credit, it made the developmentof the model accessible to the small farmer (butchers and traderswith higher capital availability had practiced this before);

- with the exception of some veterinary drugs, all inputs are locallyproduced and do not compete with other sectors of the economy. Thusthe model is independent of the changing government policy on levelsof imports allowed (the poultry industry is particularly susceptibleto this);

- three benefits accrued to the participating farmer:

(a) additioual income from the sale of animals increased farm incomeapproximately one third;

(b) integration and mutual benefit to his agricultural productionsystem as well as the livestock system. He utilized his cropresidues (which, if left in the field would have provided onlymarginal additional fertility), and the manure to fertilize hisfields or to sell (see footnote 3, economic analysis of SHFS);

(c) on gaining experience with cattle, some farmers wished toacquire more for breeding and/or as work animals.

The Livestock II project proposes to expand this component, but taking intoaccount the upper limits on the availability of cattle for fattening. A ramfattening model was developed by the project and this would also be expanded.

13. A smallholder dairy development model for the grazing reserves wasdeveloped by the International Livestock Centre for Africa (ILCA) incollaboration with LPU. Replication of the model began in the last projectyear- It ,s now being successfully adopted by pastoralists without ILCA/LPUpromotion and further work is being conducted by ILCA/LPU to refine the modelfor inclusion in Livestock II V/. Importation of N'Dama cattle breeding stocksuccessfully introduced a trypano-tolerant gene pool into the southwest of thecountry where the most common breed of cattle in Nigeria (Zebu) cannotsurvive. Due to much higher rainfall than the north and consequent greaterpasture growth in the area, there is considerable potential for the breed (seepara 1.08 for future proposals).

14. To date, agriculture and livestock have been handled through separateproject streams by the Bank and the Federal and State Governments. The Bank

1/ Details of the model not included in the LPU/?CR are available inthe L-ivestock II project preparation reports.

- xi -

should take the lead in integrating the two sub-sectors, as this artii'cialseparation is clearly a disservice to the farmer who is interested inintroducing livestock into his production system. Large livestock componentsshould not be included in future ADP's but provision should be made for asmall group of livestock staff to coordinate with LPU and assist inimplementing LPUT development models in ADP project areas. Given minimaladditional training by LPU, the agricultural extension staff could identifyand assist technically the same farmers they normally service.

15. Institutional arrangements were insufficiently worked out duringpreparation and appraisal. The SAR, without prior agreement, required NACB tochange its operating procedures and guarantee requirements. In addition, itwas agreed during negotiations that the procedures, terms and conditions ofNACB sub-lending should be submitted to the Bank for approval after projecteffectiveness. As procedures were never agreed to, this caused problems rightthrough the seven project years and delayed considerably the implementation ofseveral project components.

16. Arrangements with the marketing agency were also not worked out prior toproject effectiveness. The marketing agency never expressed interest in theproject, and after various unsuccessful attempts by the Bank and LPU to workout suitable operating procedures, the component was dropped.

17. LPU, on the other hand, has helped fill a great need by providing apractical, production-oriented approach to livestock development. It has beenable to channel its own technical resources and those from other institutions(credit, research, training, extension, and veterinary) to the benefit of theprivate producer. During the project period, there was a conscious effort attraining indigenous staff particularly at middle and upper managementlevels. Many of the positions held by expatriates have now been taken over byNigerians. Thus, the costs of expatriate management is expected to besignificantly reduced under Livestock II. While LPU still needs strengtheningin certain areas, it has established a sound institutional base, wellsupported by Government. Recently, and during a period when other Bankprojects suffered severe funding shortages, the Federal Government providedthe project with additional funds (equal to the Bank Loan) to increase itslending program (particularly smallholder fattening) and to expand nationally.

Economic Reevaluation

18. Overall, the project has a negative rate of reLurn but the mostsuccessful component (SHFS) produced a high rate of return (35f). However,the project served a most useful function as a large scale pilot project byidentifying, through the successful components, an appropriate livestockdevelopment strategy for Nigeria.

19. As described previously(para 1.06), other than the importation of N'Damacattle, the components which relied on imported technology, failed. Theseincluded state breeding and fattening ranches, private ranches and grazingreserve management.

20. Considerable benefits did accrue to the components wrhich relied onimproving existing production systems. The SHFS produced an incremental 615

- xii -

tons of meat during the project period. A large proportion of funds for thescheme was made available in the last project year, thus incrementalproduction is expected to increase during the post-project years (about 400tons in PY8 alone, surpassing SAR estimates). Under conservative assumptions(see footnotes to Table 1) the SHFS component produced an ERR of 35%. Inaddition, successful technology has been developed by ILCA, assistedfinancially by LPU, for a settled pastoralist dairy model, substituting thegrazing reserve management.

21. Additional benefits are non-quantifiable and/or will accrue to futureprojects (proposed Livestock II):

(a) the development of an institution which is primarily productionoriented, which did not exist prior to the project. The focus of theinstitution is now towards improving existing production systems andit has involved the assistance of research, credit veterinary andtraining institutions to the benefit of the livestock producer.Support from both State and Federal Governments for the institutionand the approach is excellent;

(b) stimulation of the private sector. Given the performance of directproduction schemes, Government policy has shifted towards promotingthe private sector. The proposed Livestock II would embody thisstrategy: all production and marketing, and part of input supply andcredit would be covered by the private sector. Equally important,this also signifies a reduction in Government's recurrentexpenditures;

Cc) introduction of trypano-tolerant breeding stock into the southernpart of the country where only selected breeds of cattle canprosper. The Livestock II would continue, on a large scale, thedistribution of these cattle to existing mixed farmers;

Cd) development of techniques and legal measures to. promote the settlingof pastoralists. This will assist in avoiding the existingheightening tensions between agriculturists and pastoralists.

22. Prices. Derivation of an economic price for beef presents a number ofdifficulties. The series available for international trade in beefnecessarily refer to a 'modern' sector product--e.g. frozen, boneless importsinto the US. This is very far from being comparable with the co=odityproduced and traded in rural Western Africa. Prices for the fresh commodityturn out to be significantly higher.

23. Beyond the questions of an apparent preference for fresh meat, there arefurther problems in relating the value of local beef output to typicalinternational price series. The analysis of an animal in terms off sides orquarters will miss a considerable proportion of the products that haveconsumption value under 'Western African conditions. Products which butchers-n many other countries would clasify as tinedible offal' are eaten in WesternAfrica, including the hide. It should also be recalled that the limitedgeographical coverage and irregular effectiveness of electricity supply meanthat refrigerated imported products are a feasible substitute for local meatfor only a small proportion of the population. This situation will take many

- xiii -

years to change.

24. Cattle herds move freely internationally, and a large number of cattle aretrecking in from areas as far away as the Sudan. For this reason and thosedescribed above, the market rate is perceived as an adequate representation ofits true economic value and is utilized as border prices. Adjustments by thestandard conversion factor for local transport costs are made to arrive at thefarugate price (see notes to ERR table).

VA"iu,, 161. 4t 11...

y0,44 , F3,- ust. ,d.d kh- -

I ' Si

J..L. l.. .4±1. .21k.. -Uk.. _j1k-_ .. I . -nit. -iLL. 212k- JIlL. JIlL. My~ nl nt nm Il Pil n9. P3 FY1 13 11 194 F3

Tstl 9.I Sldl SJ . A .049 Li. 6. I %.24, 8.092 99120 %.Ill 6,930 4.160 1.9116 9.161 2.904 M.e0 1,9 Ot j.4. 1.616 1.240 I*I 94* 976 Su6

mat. 'cm ta.1-, . 2).I .220 2.122 2.320 1.322 3.288 3.440 3.40 4.410 14.90 1.468 ..14 l..9 #40 340 VIA 640 via 320

c..:.1' . . ~~~~ ~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~IN, oil9 .11., .926 .9 4.121 1.461 9.44* JNq .' 2.11 ,21 i98 1,491 3.444 1.23) 1. 1.21 84 99 746 692 lot 6.31 3

C . 1I c .i ._ ___ _ _ _ _

3: C0.'s934 IA 93 - .. I .2! .11 .212 .411 .421 . 411 41 11 41 1)M .321 M41 .21 .213 an iou 349 109 JfH)

44.1919 701*1 . 24 93.6 46 .21.6 .16. is41 2.9 2.20 IS9 1.63 3.6 29 901 0 9 6 4 I 49 43 I8 8 8

1g~~~g3n4p, 89091169 . . . 4 6.9~~~~~~~~~~jj .13 -1. I 0 _16 - 34 -- I 93 I. I! 1I 9. D8 Q. 4o Ai 1. oi &. 4 9

9s6949o3 994*94441 2~~~~~~~~~~~~1,1.4 , I& 3 3019.' I.64 ;2.4.9. 1.611 1.211 3.919 3.316 ,,11 1.996 1.490 9.3)1 1.014 9ia 996 all 669 Ss? 13 619 dig A3i

M.14., . .- as 169 IA6 II, 4 146 146 lAb 91 13 91 93 36 N.

90*9*999091. . . . a 9 2~ 41 4 A A I 30 30 10I 3 3" ..6 3.1 3.1 S.1 . .04t., 11 )~~~~~~__ .1 3 __ __ __ 1 a.. ... I 3 I_ _ 0.9I -L) __~ 0... 0.3. ...3

13410141 J.2. 996.4 269 269 369 369 269 980 ISO ton Inc ISO too Igo 01 90 go 96 44 64A. ?.%.(4.6 Call0 .999 1.099.2 4.79 . 4.8. 1.091 0 4,199 4..04 1.418 3,999 2,641 2.340 3.003 1.941 i.196s 1.4)8 1.334 1.131 3.093 949 888 sit M3 3

C 9.1. L 1419490 94) 4.611 4,999 2.119 9.19 * 26 4.049 1.111 3.999 3.63M 3.340 2.903 3.963 3.196 1.*34 1.31j IMP3 1.031 949 "88 4U4 91 33I6. Mallard4 real939 0., 0.82t 0 6 .42 28Si2 481 2.42 04l 0.41 0.81 0.44 3.62 .4 86 0.61 0.t1 0.64 0.64 9.64 0.61 0.6411.41 6.69t 0.49 0.61ca 9.0

9. 1141 94404.3 .tall 9

4983 49946 94494 64-0 *A .0866 413 346 £33 226 .49 Jf 491 J4 l 103 4.33 I ILL!1

1dM iti II! 11± H-- iii HM Al illM

10088039 art. J .9 'nu. Is1!

Aull,h ol oo l... .... 1.96 travel 4*78. 9, Tubse 4.W1 . 4 894 9.4. ISa

It Sol. 0~~19449 9 19 PIce 0.11l1 914i she9p vfeal 9941,9693* lb 409 4.61 .uas' 68 isle I. the 681* Is to.hl., 699.9 . 9498999r he A.1c1p l.a t6. 44996% (thers 969 sills p.3olItss emlotlmIl at. en:'. (4, 448I Ihereo,. ~84t* Ictugto 4013 o 4 49909*494y 96plct lAdql 999461rfo146*1.041680o64 c ..3n3o19q s"e"s.ao .pe IsIs 'M8 1.

isle ocri Isv PCI. 4981 gil.Se Net964 64~ 90 . 116.9 46M989.:51099 ao 6499. mood or soId 6p taints cc6191111.191. 6 Ml64

I. 1614 Alribi. hlolop *1412416414999411 944k, 39821.3/ 8,el.d09495(43 944 is, or 0 61999044 804i *68 p04144 9 tt goliIfa M.,k. Pit of .21 31V .. 000 96r0 09083048 t8 43#eiock I. *310.46 **4414eA0,i3 -jIso42lol3ea

tE IsI VII04* c999 v3outeno 9el 9.as 9A99e.99" 999 99171RUI9 lgnp.9c1 l . w. ge1.. Il4 0 8843 49 8164 98, Or. ade16*83., 41cb996r gab-..4 69998 .4 lbo 33 cotp94. 4hg lI.1. my6A.., .9 .460 4 4 . 83A46/9i... Ia 3961 prelnci. cooled.9.4 Ic 96 mnaortes. 1 4 m4 8he99 ma3y 04469 Niger.d6159n9 111.., .996 - l1cId ...496 I slpod. 73. "18 ceaui.. .e.....t pI do" 9e.rdln 9* the wchr 42 3..em WI... lot iA. 4s9e3 .6 flOAlIga.. hall :n1,,, 11n

jI '166" 696348. 1.81. l.t41 .48.....9..

-, It. I 9pcOi6..9 41 .19.4 U9 96964 .et,. To lurec.o# 9. IT S.6999) cit .4.0 SR .d . * 1681tI.l* lIUIth Ic 911. "it 9499 of .936 649 load 9647699. otorledcepgsl .pld".4Ol 0.9 6. 4d6449a 9,ul4ters 6404,f9t. *cl aIl 91.53w9q F8484 Or d. o,,98 8Is P01 9607. iI 96*6 Wt 449* 60448 fod-.c l

.nle 91 34494 30 0449.0 94 099 .3,03 9907. 96 09699999 A49 .. ,99039... 9 gosI.., 609A 94S

-xv-

Bank Performance

25. Although described 'n the SAR as a large scale pilot project, it wasprobably unwarranted to have embarked on the development of unproventechnology on such a large scale. This is particularly true for the ranchingcomponents. In hindsight, given the continued poor performances of the stateranches, particularly in the north, and the Bank's unsuccessful experiencewith similar livestock projects in Sub Saharan Africa (para 1.06) the Bankshould have cancelled disbursements for the northern ranches at an earlierstage. Additionally, the appraisal mission paid insufficient detail toinstitutional arrangements. This problem plagued the project throughout theseven years of implementation.

26. Bank supervisions were generally satisfactory. Efforts were made to rightthe many technical, institutional and managerial obstacles encountered duringproject implementation, but certain additional disciplines would have beenbeneficial during supervision. For instance, it would have been useful tohave had a credit specialist visit the project periodically, particularly atthe beginning, to establish operating procedures with NACB, and later, oncethe SHFS got off the ground. Similarly, if a financial analyst hadparticipated in more supervision missions the problems of poor accounts andmaintaining adequate credit records wculd probably have been avoided. Itwould also have been preferable for a sociologist to have visited the project.

27 The Bank does not agree with the LPU/PCR statement (para 243) that"supervision should have been once a year as the project deals with largeruminants which have a long gestation period". While this latter part of thestatement is true, much supDervision attention was devoted to institutionalproblems and the SHFS which involves six or less month cycles. In addition,there was need for a follow-up on technical recommendations. These sort ofproblems need to be followed up every six months.

Integration of Livestock with the Agricultural Development Projects

28. The successful components and models of Livestock I demonstrate thatthere is an important and necessary place for livestock in agriculturalsystems. Yet most Bank financed ADPs in Nigeria have no, or very smalllivestock components. It is recommended that future ADPs have a minimumnumber of livestock staff to liaise with LPU and assist in promoting LPU'sproven models in the ADP project areas. This does not suggest that each ADPshould include new livestock components--but rather a livestock officer with asmall number of staff to coordinate .with LPU and the AD? extension staff. Asmost of the models are implemented by farmers, usually to the direct benefitof his agricultural production systems (oxen for plowing, manure forfertilizer, crop residues as feed), the agricultural extension staff could,given minimal additional training by LPU, identify and technically assist thesame farmers they normally liaise with.

Lessons Learned

29. The PCR and the preparation of the proposed Second LivestockDevelopment Project have proceeded concurrently. This has been particularlyuseful in the design of the follow-on project. Five principal lessons haveemerged:

- xvi-

(a) livestock development must be small scale, as are most productionsystems in Nigeria, and based on small technological improvements toexisting production systems. Local inputs (particularly feed) shouldbe utilized to the greatest extent possible. The private sectorshould be utilized fully in production, marketing and credit;

(b) livestock should be integrated into the agricultural productionsystem, and the Bank should take the lead in integrating livestockinstitutionally into agriculture, through the Bank's AgriculturalDevelopment Projects;

(c) more work needs to be done before appraisal to review the modelseconomically and sociologically;

(d) Institutional arrangements and responsibilities should be worked outduring project preparation and agreed at appraisal; and

(e) LPU should be strengthened sociologically and through a monitoringand evaluation u_it. An analysis of training needs should be doneand a training component included in the second project. Inaddition, much more on-going research is necessary throughassociation with such institutions as ILCA and the National AnimalProduction Research Institute.

NIGERIA

LIVESTOCK DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (LOAN 1091-UNI)


I BACKGROUND

1. During the late 1960s it was apparent that with largerearnings from the oil and other industries, the proportionate contributionto the GNP of the livestock sub sector was declining. At the same timethere was a continuing population increase.

2. An offer of assistance, made by IBRD to the Federal 'Governmentof Nigeria, in the identification and preparation of a livestock project,led to Mr D N Sutherland a Bank staff member visiting Nigeria in 1969 andpreparing a preliminary project identification report which focussedattention on the possibility of projects being found in the beefdevelopment sector of the livestock industry.

3. With agreement of the FGN, the Bank, in 1970, commissioned theCDC London to review the livestock industry and the proposals for cattledevelopment and assess their feasibility. CDC presented their review in1971 identifying certain elements which they felt could be recommended forBank funding.

4. The preparation report for the Livestock Development Project,the first of its kind in Nigeria, was submitted in January 1972 andappraised in July/August of the same year. Extensive examination of theProject by the Bank delayed approval until December 1974 at whida time allthe legal formalities were completed.

5. Under the approved loan 1091-UNI, $us2l million (50% ofProject Cost) was made available by IBRD to improve methods of beef cattleproduction by traditional and commercial livestock producers. The projectwas designed to cover Bauchi, Borno, Gongola, (originally North-EasternState), Kaduna, (originally North-Central State) Oyo, Ondo and Ogun(originally Western State).

6. The development of livestock productioa, obviously of primaryimportance, was required to make available to the Nigerian populacesufficient animal protein. Suitable grazing land and livestock wereavailable which could be improved under short and long term developmentstrategies.

7. The national herd comprised approximately 10 million cattleand 40 million sheep and goats, most of which were in the hands of lesscommercially orientated traditional livestock graziers. The majority ofthese were found in the Northern States of Nigeria, due to the distributionof the tsetse-fly.

8. The mr.ln factors affecting local livestock production wereinsufficient water points especially in the dry season, drastic seasonalfluctuation of available forage and inadequate health services making itdifficult to maintain a steady increase in production.

9. There was a need for less sophisticated but effective methodsof beef cattle production including fattening as well as development andmanagement of commercial ranches.

II PROJECT FORMULATION AND APPRAISAL

A. ORIGIN

10. At the instance of the Federal Government of Nigeria, atechnical mission selected by the IBRD visited Nigeria with a view toIdentifying a project that would be suitable for Improving livestockproduction with particular emphasis on beef cattle. A Project was preparedin January 1972 and appraised in July/August 1972 with cost estimatesupdated as of early 1974.

11. The major factors limitlng cattle production that wereconsidered were:-

(i) nutrition i.e. quantity and quality of feed on a yearround basis;

(i) water availability;

(ii) animal health services;

(iv) land tenure (especially the use of Grazing Reserves).

12. The project was prepared based on the following strategy to:-

(i) help farmers take up beef production using modern andrelatively intensive techniques;

(ii) open up new grazing areas through tsetse-fly eradicationand

(11i) provide incentives for nomadic graziers to settle an" coenter the market economy.

13. The preparation mission between January 10th and April 17th,1972 estimated the IBRD loan component of the project at $us7.68 million.The total project cost being $us12.8 mllion.

It was proposed that livestock development would cover:-

(i) 80 ranches made up of groups of Fulani cattle owners;

(ii) 25 individual owned growing-on/fattening ranches;

(iII) 20 Western States producers (individual a andcooperatives);

(iv) 6 ranches (4 existing and 2 new ones) owned and operatedby a National Livestock Developsent Cospany to beformed;

(v) 3 ranches (2 existing, 1 new site) to be owned andoperated by a subsidiary company to be formed by the

-4-

Western Nigeria Development Corporation named theWestern Livestock Company.

The land area required for the proposed project would totalabout 324,000 ha (800,000 acres).

B. PROJECT PREPARATION & APPRAISAL

14. In July/August 1972 a Project was appraised totalling $us42.0million suitable for an IBRD loan of $us2l.0 million of which $us13.Omillion would be on-lent by the Federal Government to MACB which in turnwould lend to the ultimate borrowers.

15. The overall management and co-ordination responsibilites ofthe project were vested in the Livestock Project Unit (LPU) (to beestablished under the project) headed by a Project Manager administrativelyresponsible to the Director, Federal Livestock Department (FLD) in theFederal Ministry of Agriculture. Its principal objectives are summarizedas follows:-

(i) the provision of credit and technical services toparastatal ranches at Gombole (Borno Livestock Company)Darazo (Bauchi State Livestock Company), and the fiveranches of the Western Livestock Company within Oyo, Ondoand Ogun states;

(ii) the provision of credit and technical services to NLPCranches at Mokwa and Manchok;

(iii) the provision of 1,500 smallholder and 50 long termdevelopment credits throughout the former Western, NorthCentral and North Eastern States;

(iv) the establishment of 414,400 ha (1,600 sq. miles) ofgrazing reserves, and improving the existing 121,500 ha(300,000 acres) Kukar Jangarai Reserve in Kaduna State;

(v) the establishment of applied research and pastureproduction units and of a training centre, and theprovision of 16 man-years of overseas training;

(vi) establishing a pool of heavy equipment for project landdevelopment, road and dam construction activities; and

(vii) employing consultants to evaluate the project on a regularbasis, to conduct appropriate studies, and to prepare afurther stage of the national beef cattle progra-e.

The Project was planned for completion over an eight yearperiod.

16. Comparison of estimated Project cost for the components of thePreparation Report and the Appraisal Report:-

Preparation Report $us mn Appraisal Report $us mu

On Ranch Development Cost 6.774 NELC Ranch Development 2.841

Steer Purchase and Short Western Livestock CompanyTerm Overdraft 1.797 Ranches 10.536

Research & Training 1.183 National Livestock Pro-duction Company 1.771

Heavy Equipment Unit 1.277Private Ranches 7.502

LMA Purchase of BreedingCattle 0.116 Smallholder Fatteners 1.681

Technical Services 1.653 Grazing Reserves 3.926

Technical Services 6.743

Price Contingency 7.000

12.800 42.000

17. The difference in cost between the preparation report and theappraisal report was as a result of the cost updated to early 1974 andthe increased scope of operation especially under the on-ranch investmentand Technical Services.

C. LOAN NEGOTIATIONS & APPROVAL

18. During the loan negotiations, key issues raised by the Bankwere:-

(i) procedures,terms and conditions of NACB sub-lending wouldbe satisfactory to IBRD, and NACB would submit for IBRDapproval, no later than five months after loaneffectiveness, proforma sub-loan agreements for the stateranching companies, private ranches and msallholders and

(ii) key staff positions in LPU would be filled by persons withexperience and qualifications acceptable to IBRD and theborrower.

19. Conditions of loan effectiveness would include:-

- 6 -

(1) the execution and delivery on the part of the Borrower ofa satisfactory subsidiary loan agreement with lACB;

(ii) the establishment of LPU and NLPC, BLC, BSLC and ULC and

(iii) the appointment of the Project Manager and two DeputyProject Managers of LPU.

and (iv) that IBRD had received satisfactory assurances on the partof Kaduna, Borno, Gongola, Bauchi and the Western Stateswith respect to the carrying out of the projects includingthe secondment of staff.

20. Conditions of disbursement of the funds earmarked for theWestern State ranches and the Borno, Gongola, Bauchi and Kaduna Statesgrazing reserves would be that:-

(a) satisfactory arrangements had been made-for theprocurement of suitable cattle for the Western Statebreeding ranches and

(b) Borno, Gongola, Bauchi and Kaduna States had acquiredareas as grazing reserves satisfactory to IBRD.

D. TARGET & GOALS

21. The target beneficiaries, being the traditional livestockproducers and commercial ranching operations, were producing at very lowrates; calving rates were low (402-50Z) and mortality high (1OZ-20Z forcalves and 4Z-1OZ for adults) and growth-to-slaughter maturity slow (4-5years). The project target was aimed at reversing these co-efficients ofproduction to achieve better results.

22. The Project was to provide ranch development plans and othernecessary technical assistance, infrastructural development through itsHeavy Equipment Unit and credit through NACB, to the commerclal andparastatal ranches. Additionally, an Wdama importation programme to theparastatal ranches in the Western States was to provide stock which weretrypano-tolerant and showed a resistance to cutaneous streptothricosis.

23. The development of 7 State owned ranches would demonstrate tothe private sector improved methods of cattle production and thls, combinedwith the sale of the multiplied livestock, credit facilities, staff trainedin livestock development and extension, and the project Reavy EqulpmentUnit was to stimulate the private sectors.

24. By continuation of the tsetse fly eradication in the North of

the country an inc ease in the area of useable grazing land was to beeffected assisting in the productivity of the traditional nomadic graziprsherds. At the same time this group of producers were to be encouraged Losettle and thus improve their production methods by the establishment anddevelopment of grazing reserves, the provision of credit to them via NACBand technical assistance from LPU.

25. An incremental production of meat was to be produced by theprovision of credit to 1,500 small holder farmers enabling them withtechnical assistance and inputs procured through the project, to purchasefeeder cattle and fatten them before sale to slaughter. This woulddemonstrate crop/stock integration and increase small farm incomes.

26. These measures were designed to improve the availability ofmeat to a rising population and increase the livestock sub sectorscontribution to the GNP.

E. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

27. The project which was designated to promote improved methods ofbeef cattle production in Nigeria consisted of the following:

28. The provision of credit and technical services including thefinancing of such inputs as fencing, water supplies and firebreaks,breeding and fattening stock, and the establishment of improved pasturesfor the breeding ranches of:-

(i) Borno and Bauchi State Livestock Companies (2 ranches) and

(ii) Upper Ogun, Akunu, Ogboro, Oke Ako and Neko ranches inWestern State (Oyo, Ondo and Ogun).

29. The provision of credit and technical services for thedevelopment of the NLPC fattening ranches at Manchok in Kaduna State andMokwa in Niger State, including pasture improvement, water development,stock handling facilities, fencing, firebreaks, roads, vehicles, equipmentand breeding and fattening stock.

30. The provision of credit and technical services to 50 privateranchers for the development of cattle breeding and fattening ranches,including the provision of such inputs as fencing, water supply andfirebreaks and the establishment of areas of improved pasture.

31. The provision of credit and technical services to 1,500smallholders under a pilot scheme for the promotion of more efficient beef

-8-

cattle fattening operations.

32. The provision of infrastructural and technical support to stategrazing reserves:

ti) the establishment of about 388,500 ha (1,500 sq. miles) ofgrazing reserves in Bauchi and Borno States and about25,900 ha (100 sq. miles) in Kaduna State for traditionalgraziers including water development and the provision offirebreaks, roads, stock handling facilities, and accommo-dation and transport for Range Development Officers;

(ii) the establishment in the Kukar Jangarai Reserve in KadunaState of about 607 ha (1,500 acres) of improved pastureincluding the provision of necessary fencing, dippingfacilities and other veterinary services.

33. In the fields of reseach and training,

i) the establishment at Mokwa of a program of appliedresearch into the problems of developing an efficientpastoral industry;

(ii) the establishment of a training centre at Mokwa with anoutstation at the Livestock Station at Fashola in OyoState to provide training in practical land and cattlemanagement;

(iii) the establishment at the Borno ranch of a section for theproduction of seed of grass and legume cultivars for theranches included in the project;

(iv) the provision of about 16 man-years of overseas trainingfor s2lected agricultural and veterinary graduates inmodern grassland animal production techniques and

(v) the provision of about 12 man-months of consultancyservices to assist in organising data collection,retrieval and analysis and the continuous monitoring ofthe progress of the foregoing parts of the project and inannual evaluations of the said part of the project andabout 40 man-months of such services for the study oflivestock taxation, preparation of detailed specificationsfor a survey and study of the most efficient means ofutilizing land cleared of tsetse fly and furtherdevelopment activities (including appropriate feasibiltystudies) in the livestock field.

- 9 -

III PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION

A. EFFECTIVENESS & START-UP

34. Conditions of effectiveness stipulated in the loan agreementbetween IBRD and Federal Government of Nigeria were as follows:

(a) Due authorization of -atification by all necessarycorporate and governmental action of the execution anddelivery of (i) the Project agreement on behalf of theNACB and (ii) the subsidiary loan agreement on behalf ofthe Federal Republic of Nigeria and NACB limited.

(b) Appointment of tte Project Manager and two DeputyProject Managers of the LPU.

(c) Reception of assurances satisfactory to the Sank, withrespect to the carrying out of the project, from theNorth Central, North Eastern and Western States ofNigeria.

(d) Establishment of the Livestock Project Unit and theranching companies viz: seven breeding ranches and twofattening ranches.

35. Loan and Project agreement were made on the 20th March 1975with the subsidiary agreement on 23rd April 1976. The Project becameeffective in July 1976, the delay being caused by completion of legalformalities.

36. Start up was slow with the first two years, rather than one asscheduled at appraisal, limited tc LPU staffing, headqua:tersestablishment, procurement of heavy equipment and other inputs and thepreparation of detailed plans for grazing reserves and private and stateranches. Lending procedures for the SHFS were agreed between LPU and NACLLittle physical development took place.

37. At October 1977, N3.5 million had been disbursed under the LPUcomponent, of this FMF had provided N1.7 million primarily for local staffsalaries. IBRD had disbursed directly NO.3 million for expatriate staffcosts and Nl.5 million for the procurement of 4 scrapers, 4 caterpillarD7's, 4 D6's, 3 graders, 3 low loaders, 1 wheeled loader, 8 wheeledtractor, implements for these, a caravan, 15 lorries and 16 vehicles.

38. In November 1976, a Bank Supervision Mission reported toGovernment its dissatisfaction with Project Management proposing, amongstother remedies decentralisation. In April 1977 the Director FLD deploredthe lack of progress to the Mission and required that improvement occur

- 10 -

within 6 months. It was agreed to phase out the expatriate Project Managerover a nine month period and engage management support consultants.

39. In July 1977, the Permanent Secretary FHARD, in a formalletter to the Bank expressed concern over the cost effectiveness of theproject, questioned the advisability of retaining the nine expatriatesemployed by the Project, and requested the Bank to review present andfuture operations of the Project with a view to improving its performance.

B. REVISION & REORGANIZATION

40. The review took place during the latter part of 1977 and intheir report of May 1978 the mission found that the majority of theoriginal components remained viable, except for the elimination of the NLPCfattening ranches, a scaling down of research activities and a reduction inthe number of grazing reserves.

41. Whilst poor management was found to be a major factor in projectperformance , other contributory problems were:

(a) The division of the original 3 states to form 7 new onesin 1976;

(b) Poor availability of FMF funds for the project. LPU fundswere abitrarily cut by FMF budget division early in the1977/78 fiscal year leaving LPU without funds in September1977.

(c) Lack of funds, enthusiasm and organisation at NACB whoexpected pre-finanA.ing by FMF of all NACB obligations tothe project prior to disbursement to the projectbeneficiaries. This was contrary to the loan, project andsubsidiary agreement.

(d) NACB's stringent loan security requirements.

(e) The necessity to revise costs of the project appraisal dueto inflation whilst the Permanent Secretary FNARD requiredthat the project be implemented largely within theoriginal cost estimates.

(f) NLMA's delay in agreeing the inventory valuation and inthe transfer of the assets to NLPC and its domination ofNLPC who demonstrated little interest in receivingassistance from the project.

42. The following summarizes the Review Mission's recommendations:-

- 11 -

(i) The production components of the project (State ranchesprivate farmers, suallholder fatteners and grazingreserves) should remain unchanged beyond a reduction innumber of grazing reserves (from 17 to 6). Nevertheless,the mission recognized that further modification to sub-component numbers may be necessary, depending upon theresponse given to each;

(ii) The NLPC fattening ranches of Mokwa and Manchok should beremoved from the project;

(iii) The research component should be limited to modest fieldstrials at State level;

(iv) Training was recognized as an important component but moreeffective and less costly application was recommendedthrough maintenance of the overseas training programme andadjustment of in-country training to an in-serviceprogramme conducted at State level;

(v) The Heavy Equipment Unit should be split into 3 units eachunder the control of a Ranch Technical Officer;

(vi) Provision of funds for consultancy services should beretained with some modest reduction;

(vii) As a matter of urgency, funds should be provided by FMFfor continued operation of LPU. Thereafter, an improvedbudgeting system should be instituted by LPU, and EFNshould ensure that funds, as required under the projectagreement, are provided;

(viii) A meeting should be called under FMP chairmanship toresolve misunderstandings in the relationship between NACBand the project and to ensure that NACB willingly acceptsand can fulfil its role to the project. This will involvethe provision of N1.5 million by FMF to NACB for immediatefunding requirements;

(ix) The Livestock Project Unit should be reorganized so thatgreater autonomy is permitted to Ranch Technical Officerslocated in the States;

(x) A much improved reporting system should be immediatelyintroduced at all levels;

(xi) Before the departure of the Project Manager in mid-1978,either a Nigerian, supported by a visiting agentconsultancy service should be appointed, or an expatriatereplacement recruited;

(xii) A Financial Controller should be engaged; two expatriatepositions (Animal Production Specialist and PastureResearch Specialist) should be abolished. Expatriatesshould be retained for all five Ranch Technical Officer

- 12 -

posts;

(xiii) Project activities at State Level should be delegated andstrengthened by providing the financial, physical andpersonnel resources to permit these units to operate;

(xiv) As a matter fundamental to the success of the project,NACB's financial contribution and positive support for theproject should be determined; provision should be made forits immediate obligations; approval should be obtained forits remaining cash requirements for inclusion in post1977/78 Federal budget; loan processing procedures andNACB's collateral requirements for private farmers shouldbe resolved;

(xv) Continued support should be given to Western LivestockCompany;

(xvi) The Livestock Project Management Committee should bedisbanded. A sub-committee within FLD should be formed todeal with major financial, personnel and policy issues ofthe project.

43. Government accepted these recommendations, with the exception of(ii) and (v). The Permanent Secretary's letter of 30th March 1978confirmed Government's intent: on to ensure adequate funding for LPU tomaintain the Project intact, a total of N1.6 million being approved for1978/79.

44. There was however, a need to recruit replacements for theexpatriates who had either resigned or whose contracts expired, the lastone being the Project Manager whose contract terminated in November 1978.Government and Bank agreed that a consultant firm with internationalexperience in management and development of livestock projects be retainedto provide the necessary expertise to implement the nroject. Governmentnominated a consulting firm, the principle of which had led the team whenthe project had been initially Identified and prepared in January 1972.With Bank's non-objection, Government negotiated and signed an agreementwith the consulting firm in December 1978 to provide the necessary tech-nical support staff and back-up consultancy services to the Project.

- 13 -

45. Changes in project costs to meet the revised programme were asshown in table 1 below.

Table 1 Revised Project Costs Summary

(N '000)

Changes Over SARTotal SAR Increase Decreases

Darazo Ranch (Bauchi State) 400.0 1,869.0Borno Ranch (Borne State) 1,500.0 31.0WLC (Oyo, Ogun and

Ondo States) 6,960.0 6,939.0 21.0NLPC - 1,165.0 1,165.0Private Ranches (Various States) 5,500.0 4,936.0 564.0Smallholders (Various States) 2,430.0 1,106.0 1,324.0Grazing Reserves (Kaduna, GongolaInvestment Borno, Bauchi 1,065.0 2,583.0 891.0Maintenance States) 627.0

LPU - HQ and Regional 5,502.0 4,125.0 1,377.0Consultants 250.0 312.0 62.0

Sub total 24,234.0 23,035.0 3,317.0 2,118.0

Contingencies - Price 4,280.0 4,605.0 325.0

Total 28,514.0 27,640.0 3,317.0 2,443.0___ ____ _____- -_

+ 874.0 + 874.0

46. The removal of the NLPC component did not occur until November1982. The effect of this was that the project did not have the influence,previously expected, over prices and offtake of SHFS cattle. Whilst thiswas a constant concern to the project, prices obtained by the small holdersappear to have been adequate.

47. Reduction of the training component led to a lack ofunderstanding by some RTOs of the reasons for data reporting and aresultant insufficiency of this information. Also a low standard in some,of basic animal husbandry and ranch management. Courses in these lattersubjects, had they been available, would have benefited both State ranchmanagers and private ranchers.

48. A further revision took place in August 1981 when Sokoto andPlateau States were included within the scope of the project with Bankapproval. In 1982, there was agreement with the Bank that the projectwould expand to a further four states making a total of 13, but in theevent Federal Government decided that the project should be extended to all19 states.

- 14 -

49. It is hard to agree with the Banks comments (December 15th 1982)that the quality of supervision had decreased as a result of the unapprovedexpansion. The remaining six South Eastern States were not included untilstaff was recruited to service them. Managew.Rnt costs, however, certainlyrose as a result.

C. IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE

50. A comparison between appraised and actual physicalimplementation is shown in Annex VIII : Table 1.

51. At revision (1978) the research and training functions werereduced and the grazing reserve development cut from 17 units to 6.

52. As NACB were initIally unable to release credit funds Until 1979the project finally got under way at this date rather than the effectivedate of July 1976. As a result of this the project completion date,originally scheduled for July 1st 1981 was extended to July 1st 1983.

53. As Government did not accept the elimination of the fatteningranch component from the project this was continued, without success, untilNovember 1st 1982. At this time the funds for NLPC were re-allocated alongwith uncommitted WLC funds to cover the increased amounts under the small-holder fattening scheme.

54. The original and revised aJ! ttzinns and final disbursement areset out in table 2 below.

55. Difficulty was experienced, in the procurement available ofsufficient N'dama cows which would be suitable for breeding, within thetime available. Whilst 6,500 head were to be purchased at appraisal, it wasonly with difficulty that the 4,991 head which were imported were obtained,within the time scale of the Project. (Annex III, iatile 3).

56. The main factor causing delay was the non-disbursement of fundsby NACB. This not only delayed project implementation but increased costs.Sporadic disbursement, especially to private ranches and parastatals was acontributory factor along with ranch management in the poor compliance withthe schedule.

57. Extreme rigidity with regard to loan security (requirement ofstatutory certificates of occupancy) and non-standardisation of other loanapplication requirements adversely affected implementation of the schedule.

- 15 -

58. Action was taken as promptly as possible, the problems were seenat revision and action taken. Unfortunately, such action had to beinitiated by LPU unilaterally and since NACB was not part of LPU suchaction was only partially effective.

59. In retrospect, the original time schedule was probably ratheroptimistic given the slow response of tile lending agencies and NLPC. It isdifficult however, to see how the schedule could have been restructured.

Ltvmto* DWlopt Prjst - I10g UK

60. Table 2. 01ml & Ibd mcatio a D axuute

(* 'on)

_ _--_ - Alatel - -- - -- PT 1-2 Prl3 PR4 FT 5 Pr 6 7 7

Capwry - - - Re-iad - -- - A-tLbl % Mbil % Aa 1t krbl % Actal % 1'il S

19781 1t 19e2 mwt

S. Sab-Im, Ciait & Tical Serviom

A Yutem Livestock o. P)e hD 560 56Q0 4000 - 0 0 ° 2D 8 152D 38 29D8 4m ICO

B nhld sMC Bomo IC Private Ra ,& &lUmo!or FattQz1 Sdcm 6&O 65D 60 78D0 - 0 60 1 670 21CO Zn m1o 5 7346 94

C IlMWo k&R 6X)z R6m0 - - - - - - - - - - - -

U. Grsix Reservn SOD 800 am l 00 - 0 - 0 310 39 310 39 8a IO am ICO

II. ProJst Ad.didtrtiui & Ceitml Sirvio

A Vdbicl, pui1t & llhtfry 160D 26M 2940 3475 2560 74 2560 74 250o 77 M 77 20 77 454 , 99

B Iht Comm1tntsl, Tr& R tcht zmTra2 4300 4 4925 75D 15 13 8 2 45 3i 62 * 83 401 99

IV. Umocstai 3W 3D - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

MDlAL 21000 210.0 210M 21CC) "310 16 4C0O 19 6mo0 3 9640 46 1250 60 23691 9B

(CBs : * eetimtel fiml diabarmtdl all jeumts lam of fl rmied aflost1o.)

- 17 -D. REPORTING

External

61. Reporting during the first two years was generally inadequate.Due to lack of manpower and relevant expertise consultancy services wereutilised and in 1979 a report format agreeable to the Bank was set up andregular quarterly reporting was commenced. LPU reported on behalf of theborrowers to the Bank, FLD and NACB. Information supplied served as an aidto the Bank and its personnel on supervision missions.

Internal

62. In order to provide the necessary information for the report,monthly and quarterly returns were submitted by zonal offices which in turnrequired information from the state offices. Because of the need tocomplete accurate returns, zonal staff were alerted to incipient problemsand had available for use comparative figures (quarter to quarter) formanagement purposes. Monthly financial returns and a system of imprestaccounts led to firm financial control facilitating the annual externalaudit procedures.

63. Procurement of computers in late 1982 assisted with the orderlypresentation of the large amount of detail inherent in a complex projectand its credit programme. Such detailed reporting took up much time andthe burden fell most heavily on the planning section at headquarters.Earlier use of computers could have eased this burden considerably and alsoproduced more accurate reporting. A further problem was that in some casesinaccurate information was supplied due to lack of definition and also tolack of care and understanding.

E. PROCUREMENT

64. The initial plant and machinery for the HEU was procuree in1978, by the first management team under ICB procedures. No provisionhowever, had been made at appraisal for suitable fuel/lubrication vehiclesto support the field units and though service/maintenance facilities wereincluded in the investment costs they were not physically in place when thesecond management team arrived. Aquisition of these items locallycontributed to the increased project costs.

65. Subsequent offshore procurement, of audio visualtraining/extension equipment, high tensile steel fencing materials, mobilecattle weighing scales, specialist molasses pumping units and microcomputer

- is -

systems were made on a competitive price basis taking into considerationthe specialised nature of the items relative to the project and thesuppliers ability to provide back up service and support facilities in thecountry.

66. Inputs for the expanded programme were mainly additional plantand machinery for the HEU, water well drilling equipment and vehicles.These items were procured on a competitive price basis due to the need forstandardisation and compatability with the existing operation and thespecific requirements of the Project. Since the expanded programme wasfunded with FGN funds, the availability of foreign exchange had also to beconsidered.

67. The procurement of the N'dama cattle was carried out by FLD onbehalf of Government and there was initial difficulty in conforming to Bankguidelines whereby only 75% of the total expenditure of importation wouldbe met from loan funds. However, it was agreed by the Bank that it wouldmeet 100% of the foreign exchange costs of this procurement provided thatchie overall total disbursement of the WLC component did not exceed 75% ofits total expenditures.

68. Capital items locally procured, were road vehicles, tractors andimplements for the zones and HEU. The initial slow supply of these andessential spares and replacements was due to LPU's poor credit standing, aninheritance from the original management team's inability to effect promptpayment against goods supplied. The situation was reversed from 1979onwards, LPU now being regarded as creditworthy by local supply agencies.

69. Feed procurement was carried out by LPU in respect of the SHlS.Substantial procurements were made in 1982 in anticipation of additionalloan funds being made available and an expansion of the SHFS with itsattendant requirement for extra feed. In the event these funds weredelayed and the expected expansion did not take place on schedule.

F. PROJECT ADMINISTRATION & CENTRAL SERVICES (Annex VII)

70. Although these costs are in respect of the original projectareas (7 states) there have been substantial cost overruns in thiscomponent; appraised N5.424 million actual N19.78 million. The majorreasons for these are as follows:-

(i) The initial two year delay in implementation of theProject. By 30th June, 1978, 90.3% (N4.720 million) ofthe appraisal estimate for LPU had been expended but theProject had not established a co-ordinated field programmenor obtained any credit funding from NACB. Implementationonly effectively started during 1979 when the managementconsultants were appointed.

- 19 -

(ii) It was also considered essential that LPU should have Itsown staff housing sinee there was none available throughFLD or the State Ministries. 10 staff houses and oneblock of flats were constructed to assist the staffhousing requirements. There was no allowance for this inthe appraisal report. Similarly, there was no allowancefor the necessary house furnishings. The block of flatswas rented to the Nigerian Air Force by the then DirectorFLD and the rent received is reflected as income in theLPU accounts.

(iii) On the decentralisation of the Project into the variousstates, as recommended by the Supervision Mission of 1976,the construction of zonal offices was considered essentialto the establishment of the Project in the various areas.In all States, Ministry accommodation could only beobtained on a temporary basis. These costs were notincluded in the original appraisal nor considered by theReview Mission.

(iv) Staff salaries, wages and other charges are considered tohave been grossly under-estimated at appraisal in relationto the numbers of staff necessary to implement theProject. LPU also had to provide the necessary staffingto carry out credit supervision as no credit staff wereforthcoming from NACB. The reduction in these costsduring the last two years, as estimated by the appraisalmission, did not take place due to the initial two yeardelay in implementation and the consequent extension ofthe period.

Cv) Heavy Equipment Unit costs represent the excess of theunit's operating costs over the value of work done. Priorto 1979, no proper charge rates had been established forthe HEU equipment. Subsequently, hourly rates per machinetype were established based on the annual budgeted directand overhead costs (excluding capital costs) and thebudgeted utilisation in operating hours. These rates wereupdated on an annual basis in the light of actual costsand actual machine hours achieved. In the event due tocost increases and/or under achievement of operating hoursthere was a reduced recovery of lEU costs. Charges forwork done were made to the various components and creditedto REU income.

HEU costs also include the general service work carriedout on Project vehicles as well as adhoc transportation oftractors, field equipment, feed, and seed as and whennecessary to support the Project field operations. Thecosts of these services were never included in theappraisal report.

HEU equipment rates charged are currently about 70% of therates charged by commercial companies, e.g. D7 Crawler -LPU rate N73.00 per hour - Commercial rate N105.00 per

- 20 -

hour. This difference is considered reasonable since LPUrates do not include depreciation or profit. Cost of adam constructed on WLC Imeko ranch by LPU was N17,518, aquotation to WLC by a River Basin Development Authorityfor construction of a dam in the same area of the ranchwas N61,050.

(vi) Management Consultant costs are in respect of the supplyof the management support contract of 33 man-yearscompleted on 23 July 1982 and the extension of thatcontract for a further 30 man-years ending by July 1984.Payments for these contracts have been made from theProject loan 1091-UNI for the first contract and 2029-UNIATAP loan for the extended contract. Other consultantcosts are in respect of both local and foreign consultantsfor the inception and the preparation reports for theSecond Project and the retention of a locallicenced Surveyor.

(vii) Research & Training infrastructural and equipment costsare largely in respect of the Project audio-visualprogrammes for practical training of both farmers andextension workers. These were not included in theappraisal report.

(viii) A survey unit was created within LPU in 1979 in order tofacilitate procurement of legal land title (Certificate ofOccupancy) to satisfy NACB lending requirements. Althoughthis was recommended in the Review Mission's report noreallocation of funding was made. The recurrent costs todate total N155,000 approximately for this unit.

- 21 -MMnEA

uwto 10~-v.7a hqwf _ - ,

:Wblo ft-UCh. v y

trmD .1n;

L now m IS t m. I IF.

'I no wo 1,~~~ (a v.zO Io a

- fm Otkm (t) t ECPye U- Wiin .. S

* w. a -. 4_ t UDI.I 1~~~~~~hm 1 3 I

_~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

mm 4. 4.0 4.0 4.000J

MM 5Z4 2 n2X 6A0

L aL26 0.0 24.6 0.m 32.43 O. 0C. 0.1 57.n csa 'C r 13.11

"S3 Crs)

3S 15.0e I0.42 15. 4 oPaz.LL 109 IsaA 69670mm fl2OSSJS 617.3 -

L 0A.o 14162 5 4.92 l5 0om 0 .D 0 1 II.3 1.17 I62.44 IajL50 a6

P 4 ('itD)

~ 06 0.4S 16X 214 6960

mm ~~743 17.7 Yt. 4,jsLl 4

2= 3FA76* 249At a6 ss 56 74.. 937? 58457 443.14 2r59.Zs?,% 443.0 12.16

Pr5 s(mm)

PEWS 0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~419 SA 0.14mmVX 1tW6 I46 t01 2t3 25 0w6

L 214.3 Z74;!f 56.40 11. 6 1420.9D Ca.,99 $1 a-m Wa 'a..AM 4A9 2Z7 2I 9-- dr-s. 111.% 580.C4 129.74 I= 575-. me 414

t5. 964 576 9.15 1091 16 0.0 * ss.g r 9.9 7 9 J 5259D 3 31w2-s5 ea MS

PR 6 (hAN8)

W~~B ;E (eifl)9g g9 gUPrEVS 61.19 6WI3 t2.9St 5A D .66 sj J7- 445 1.1

mlz 53.6 0.3D 142.9 t541 fi O. 2 274.0 1 9 =AB 407V 415.N 373.64 fl

Pr 7 (W)_ AIS 74.73 H972

PTaz F .44 29. 15 7astIca ,. .i267 2.87 9 L42 2 DU

aikb mm a.01 8.01 F'sougi s.59&4.0 Z-- - - - - -------------- ---------- -- - - --- ~- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- -- -- -iL O. D 10.69 10.69 2l8 om. 442.93 a.t1 6.74 l32 4 7 W79

m PErE (Wm)

FEma ii oa ii iws 14%.89 3M.1 12 14t am Im.63 ti02.fD tgL tle-_ 12 t ^PRIM 2Mw ZN204 co 14 32.45 Mi" 4 I72 1t. I 49L74

1 mm 6tl9 5 Z.M6 4.32¢ 74.a M59 W3 6795A t4 3 is.____.____._____......................................................................... ____........ _............ ._

ML 5 3 5.15 10ea4 1621.56 586.01 106 96.72 54SC 249.32 t6Sf225 "JMSS %441F8 10.0_.__.............__...____._.___........................_.___._........................._ _._

Cmt NaDfiU (5 1.52 2.93 4.45 ' 16.18 0.29 2.5 14.0 7.7 '..72 5S28 <

REWVS 1184.5 52.0W 15.i4 1362271 1974 1t9 ,fS_XI 76.3 516. 5%.a29 4.70 6 654 9 ..-PSML 533.M1171.2 M6

d no*27.?4 BJ29 ?6A 5S 4Z 1 2 M5 79 5MC6 7GE 25t ;9M5 32t1l 260.0 t ;L7 M t Uf5D1 _ wgt 14_*84 J 4.76 11436: ;59Z.2 1691.96 4t61 471 250.6 ZM.It

A-Dn (_ aWn-d)

SVAg9 1 2 447 0 324St 246 0 32 54 0 0 31 4U6

c osAL. c c c c 0 c§ 324 412 ml

DM5 7) 69 75 18 '2 496 91 9D 159 2m W f6 f7 82 9 20 45D 12 9 446 132

- a CB *- MM (K 7): z,gbj mdMa nm tad ±n (M. =S. Ia bm).

b -, - (W a} ZZa a _9S : R- 9

a - 744..a CO a oti aue a ba at p J1nS Is t an

d - tt1 d .lm t tot 20J91.n at 21m1 (WS do ;dln d tm 0 aa m dt a _n :; e.

- 22 -

H. Performance of Consultants, Contractors, Suppliers & Borrower

Consultants

72. Up until the end of 1978, no consultancy services had beenutilised with the exception of recruitment. Backup consultancy timesuDDlied in addition to the management contract by the agreedconsultancy firm was as shown in table 4 below. This supportconsultancy led to the formulation of credit control systems, theintroduction of quarterly reporting in compliance with Bank requirements, amonitoring and evaluation system, the organisation of marketing techniquesfor smallholder fattening cattle, audio visual project training and publicrelations methods and increased project activity and performance.

73. Table 4. Consultancy Time Supplied By Consultant Firm

year - - - - - - Total_'79 ec'80 Dec'81 Rec'82

Livestock Dev. Policy SpBAlUst 4.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 8.00

Livestock Credit Speialist 1.80 1.26 0.87 0.00 3.93

-Lvestock frketing & Processing O.OD 2.27 0.00 O.00 2.27

Project Admin. & Plmming Specialist 1.00 2.96 0.00 0.00 3.96

Axdio Visual ITaindng Cosultant 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00

Senior Techoical Officer 000 0.00 0.00 1.40 1.40

7.80 7.49 i.87 3.40 2).56

74. Thirty one and a half man-months further consultancy time wassupplied at the instigation of the Project to conduct investigations andprepare further stages of the National beef cattle programme. This isshown in Table 5 below and resulted in the presentation of the SecondLivestock Preparation Report.

- 23 -

75. Table 5. Consultancy Time Suplied For Inception & Preparation of SLDP

Inception ReportTime

Discipline Months

Livestock Marketing and Processing 2Credit Cooperation and Financial Analysis 2Credit Cooperation and Financial Analysis 2Coordination/Agricultural Economics 2Animal Health 2

Total .. .. . .. . .l

Land Tenure/Sociology 1Extension/Training 1Livestock Marketing and Processing 2 1/2Credit, Cooperatives and Financial Analysis 3Poultry/Small Ruminants 2 1/2Credit Cooperation and Financial Analysis 2Coordination/Agricultural Economics 2Livestock Marketing and Processing 2 1/2Livestock Production including Research 2Animal Health 2Vaccine Production/Animal Health 1

Total .. .. .. .. .21 1J2

76. An expert was engaged by FLD as Veterinary Consultant in July1980 for the Ndama importations and to recor-uend an animal health programmefor Bauchi and Borno ranches.

77. Resources Inventory and Management Surveys were engaged in 1983to carry out a survey of livestock and land use on the Mambilla Plateau,Wawa Zange grazing reserve and the tsetse infested areas of Gongola State.This preliminary report was received in October 1983 with the final reportdue in June 1984.

Contractors And Suppliers

78. From the beginning of 1979 to project completion, management ofthe project was effected by a management contract. The contractor suppliedthe agreed personnel and performance would seem to have been satisfactory.Certainly in comparision to the first management team recruited directly byIBRD there was an improvement in project performance.

- 24 -

79. The audio visual training/information/public relations filmsproduced by Cinetec were well presented and produced the necessary impact.Custom built audio/visual extension equipment designed and supplied by thesame company has given very satisfactory results. Agricultural SystemsAustralia Pty Limited supplied good quality fencing materials and cattleweigh scales to meet Project requirements delivered in Kaduna. Bothcompanies supplied continuing back up services.

80. During the period between the first and second management teams,contracts to the value of approximately three quarters cr a million nairawere awarded within grazing reserves. This expenditure was outside theproject plan. A percentage of contract work was poorly carried out andaccepted by LPU owing to lack of relevant expertise. Some of this was dueto slackness, some to lack of knowledge of the particular discipline beingcertified, expecially in a field situation, and some to acceptance thatbetter quality was :jnlikely to be available.

81. In order to overcome this situation a number of specialistsupervisors/foremen in each discipline would need to be employed and theythiemselves adequately supervised.

82. Certain items such as seed were locally purchased despite thehigh price and the possibility of being substandard in terms of purity andpotential germination. Importation would have been against Government andProject policy and extremely slow (with a resultant loss in viability).Cattle feed was, after stimulation by the smallholder cattle fattening,driven up in price and poultry and pig feed were subjected to massiveincreases in price and sporadic drops in quality as maize become more orless available according to the vagaries of supply.

83. N'dama cattle were not as easily obtained as the appraisalreport had assumed. Some 4,333 were imported up to June 1983 with afurther 658 head awaiting importation. LPU, FLD and WLC staff inconjunction with a consultant veterinarian engaged by FLD, selected stockand carried out the importation keeping cattle losses to a minimum andensuriag suitable stock. Quarantine at Fashola ensured that the danger oftransmission of disease was minimised (see Annex III, Table 3).

Borrower

84. Control exercised by the borrower over the project was fair.They expressed concern to the bank over Project performance within eightmonths of effectiveness (early 1977) and continued to do so until it wasfelt that a reasonable level of competence was achieved. They did nothowever, nor did the Bank, insist on proper reporting procedures nor onsufficient financial control during the first two years.

85. Funds provided by the borrowers were exhausted by ProjectManagement in September 1977, leaving LPU without finance contrary toarticle III section 3.01 (a) of the loan agreement. Adequate funding washowever continued after the Review Mission report of 1978.

86. The Borrower further failed to conform with article III section3.09 of the loan agreement within 6 months of the effective date toprovide the Bank with full details of land building and equipment at Mokwawhich was to be transferred to LPU and also failed to make NACB conformwith its committments as stipulated in article III section 3.01(b) of theLoan Agreement.

87. It is difficult to Judge whether or not the Bank wassufficiently strict in its requirement of reporting and accounting on timefrom the Borrower since all correspondence on the subject may not beavailable. However, to judge from what is to hand the Bank acted in toolenient a manner during the initial period of the Project.

- 26 -

XV AGRICULTURAL DIPACT

88. The overall impact of the project on national meat productionhas achieved 22Z of the incremental production estimated at appraisal,whilst its contribution to the availability of improved breeding stock hasbeen negligeable. Appraised estimates were over optmistic but performancefell below that which could have been expected from the traditionalpastoralist. The project has achieved little in the introduction oftechnological change in the State and private ranches but its success withsmallholders has helped to move the emphasis in livestock developmentpolicy to this sector. Table 6 below shows appraised and actual incremen-tal output. Poor reporting has however lowered its value considerably.

89. State and private ranch performance was poor and showed littleagricultural impact. It should however be pointed out that the success ofthese components are necessary to ensure the production of feeder cattlefor an expanded programme. Grazing reserves are difficult to evaluatewithout quantifiable results however, the enthusiasm shown by theorganisation of Fulani cattlemen would indicate that the component had someimpact.

90. The practicability of importation of N'dama cattle, withacceptable levels of mortality has been established. Acclimatisationperiods have been defined and a trypanosomiasis prophylaxis programmedeveloped. Poor technical coefficients after quarantine have however,reduced the short term impact of the trypanotolerant genetic pool thoughthis could be reversed by improved results over the longer period.

91. Total production from the SHFS reached 552 of appraisedproduction and 682 of appraised loan volume. The sub-project was delayedthrough slow disbursement of funds and escalating costs. Targets couldhave been exceeded had more funds been available. Liason with commercialbanks, RBDAs and ADPs in order to overcome this problem led to theinclusion of funds not anticipated at appraisal. Use ^f agro-industrialby-products and improved rations led to increased weight gains enablingmore than one fattening cycle annually, and the success of the SHFS has ledto small ruminant packages being developed in conjunction with ILCA.

92. Through its contacts with RBDAs, ADPs and Co-operatives, LPU hasstimulated interest as a means of increasing family farm incomes andcommercial funding institutions have been encouraged to venture intohitherto little used avenues of credit. State Ministry staff involvementwith LPU has been uneven but where they have participated in the working ofthe SHFS they have been given a sense of purpose otherwise absent.Contacts between LPU and ILCA have been extremely fruitful in theestablishment of smallholder development packages.

NIGERIA

Livestock Developmat Pzojeot - 1091 UNI

Poject Campletlon ReportTable 6. Inoz Atal Pmduotiau *

w I P£ 2 ! PY 3 Ff 4 I I5 ! P 6 I Pt 7 Totcl !Category w2t ! 76/7 7778 182 1 82/83 !hd d68 ! Jchi_d

! - !-- -- !---!I! -- I - ! ! IAotuall BAR lActuull 8AR IAotual AR lActual! 9AR MAtbull BAR IAotai! SAR !IAo ! BAR IAobali

Buchi State Livestock Co.

rnwpluw brsedlig heiferm head 10 77 78 165 0 O.COd]augter stodc ales head 18 na 10 nc 10 na II 58 32 42 158 114 198 64 437 Z78 63.62

BDrno Livestock Co.

'2 mwplus bredipg heifers hed 136 16 0Oslaghter stock sales hed 213 na 113 na 739 na 2413 148 3445 549 4677 228 Ali g3 15737 4 6151

Weetern Livestock Co.

awplus breeding heifezr head 0 0 0.(dauter stock esales head 1144 na 3512 na 3439 na 7799 1049 5030 1102 15664 819 12164 1509 48152 4479 9.19

SalUholder Fattenin S9chae '3

aeluhter cattle salee head 80 0 15C0 666 3GM 2058 60M 28 75 362 750 532 263) 14227 55.61 '3auajhiter sheep eales heed 504 493 0 19W

Total (State Ranches a 3)

airplubrueding hebfer head 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 77 0 214 0 01 0 0.COs1uter cattle sales head 137 0 AA3, 0 56E8 656 1322 3313 145Cq 4251 270 4781 233 97 219 21 alueter s .eep sales headO O u O O O o o-6 0 50d 0 2-5A 50 l9o O.w2

NB * Source: BAR a LJl%arter J Reporta. no - not available private randhe no reliable infbrmtio.2 Culling a amlto be of total 9-24 month heifers aftr deaths

'3 Cattle no. aeB to total or MRF & CBs each year; seep are equated at 5 head/AU for % achieved (aee Am= VII, Table 1, jo).

- 28 -

V TDCHNICAL PmOceNAE

A. PARAST&TAL RANCHING COMPANIES

1.0 Bauchi State Livestock Company (BSLC) (see Annex I)

94. Table 7 below, reflects the appraised and actual performance ofthe small herd as at the end of June 1983. Only performance data from 1981onwards may be considered to be reliable.

Table 7 Technical Performances

PY 7 as PY 7 Estimated JuneAppraised (1972) 1980 Plan March 1981 1983

Calving Z 77 75 17 60Calf Mortality Z 5 N/A 24Other Mortality X 3 42 14Overall Mortality Z 2 3.6 39 15Herd Numbers 1006 1056 399 151

Looking back on the appraisal projection the antic.,patedstocking rates are far too optimistic and would have severely overstockedthe ranch had they been achiewed.

95. Technical Problems & Constraints

(i) The 1977 Plan was unrealistic particularly with regardto technical co-effiecients.

(ii) The area of the ranch is too small be viable.

(iii) The State did not approve the 1980 Revised Plan (Thisplan envisaged 3000AU belonging to the ranch but kept inthe adjoining grazing reserve).

(iv) CBPP was brought in by purchased cattle in 1980 puttingthe ranch in quarantine; the veterinary department didnot take adequate steps to identify infected cattle sothe disease spread through most of the herd.Consequently cattle were sold at salvage prices and stockmovement was restricted.

(v) The level of ranch management was low.

(vi) Little maintenance of infrastructure was done sotractors, trailers and machinery broke down and were not

- 29 -

repaired, improved pasture reverted to bush.

(vii) Credit was allowed for cattle sold and debtors were nottaken to court.

(viii) Following adverse reports NACB stopped disbursements in1981 which contributed to cash flow problems.

96. Remedial Steps Taken

(i) Quarterly budgeting and monitoring system introduced.

(ii) More land was identified.

(iii) Ranch Plan revised in 1980 and regularly reviewed but notimplemented.

(iv) LPU assisted with a tractor.

(v) LPU recommended cattle management criteria.

97. Technical Assessment: Due to its small size, lack of Boardexpertise, and inadequate Ranch Management it was unlfkely that this ranchcould have succeeded. Although technical performances bad Improved by June1983, the improvement was insufficient.

2.0 Borno Livestock CompnY (BLC) (see Annex II)

98. The overall operating performance of Gombole Ranch (appraisal BornuRanch) compares unfavourably with both the appraised and early revised(1979/80) herd projections. Overall, objectives have not been achieved andare not likely to be under the present management structure.

99. Table 8 below reflects the appraised estimated performance andthe existing situation at the end of June 1983. Only performance data from1981 onwards may be considered to be reliable.

Table 8. Technical Performance

JunePY 7 as PY 7 Estimated Actual

Appraised (1972) 1980 Plan March 1981 1983

Calving Z 77 70 10 20Calf Mortality Z 3 18 93Other Mortality % 5 11 10Overall Mortality Z 2 3.6 22Herd Numbers 8875 4947 1504 812

- 30 -


(i) Inadequate ranch management to start with whichdeteriorated to the extent that by June 1983 It consistedof one diplomate and one livestock assistant on the ranchbeing visited by the General Manager (resident an hoursdrive away in Maiduguri) about once a month.

(ii) Lack of infrastructural maintenance.

(iii) Cattle theft.

(iv) Due to cash flow probleus N100,000 borrowed from aCommercial Bank for purchase if fattening steers was usedto cover recurrent expenditure.


(i) A good working relationship was established between LPU.the General Manager and Ranch Staff but littleimprovement was achieved.

(ii) A quarterly budgeting and monitoring system wasintroduced by LPU; and there were regular revisions ofthe ranch development plan.

102. Technical Assessment: Gombole ranch has a definite potentialfor further development as infrastucture is in place and there is access to9,000 ha additional grazing as well as the 15,100 ha ranch. The followingpoints would need to be carefully considered:

(i) Regular maintenance and renovation of the existlnginfrastructure;

(ii) A qualified and experienced ranch manager must berecruited at the outset and be closely assisted by LPU,or direct LPU management utillsed.

(iii) The proposed fattening component must be given greaterimpetus if future cash flow crises are to be averted.

(iv) Additional development will he required to realise thepotential of Gombole ranch.

3.0 Western Livestock Company (WLC) (see Annex III)

103. The overall operating performance compares unfavourably withboth the appraised and early revised (1979/80) herd projections. Overall,the prime objective of an increased calving percent.ige was not achieved andthe present calf mortality is far from satisfactory. This situation canonly improve following improvements in ranch management and nutrition.

- 31 -

104. Table 9 below, reflects the appraised estimated performance andthe existing situation at the end oZ June 1983.

Table 9. WLC Technical Coefficients & Production Indicators

APPRAISED ACTUAL PY 7Pre-Dev PY 7 4 Ranches

Calving Z 57 77 29Calf Mortality x 3 2 30Weaning Z 55 75Other Mortality Z 3 2 9Cows: Bull 33 33 10Stocking Rate (ha/AU) 4.05 1.37 7.07Extraction Rate Z 19 34 21

(nB: only 2 ranches were on-going pre-development; appraised (PY 7)assumed 5 ranches; PY 7 is year ending June 30th 1983).

105. As at 30th June 1983, the 4 ranches carried 6575 head. Afurther 664 head were at Fashola Quarantine Ground and an estimated 650head were awaiting shipment in Gambia. Total - 7889 head 18.7Z ofappraised target of 42084 (44592 less 2508 steers bought for fattening).

106. These figures may well be inaccurate. A recount done at 13thDecember 1983 showed a total head of 6529 with 650 head at Fashola, a totalherd of 7179. This represents 17Z of appraised.

107. Performance data before 1981 is so unreliable as to be useless.That of 1981 is thought to be reasonable and that of 1982 and 1983 to be animprovement over that of 1981. Because of this no estimate can safely bemade of births deaths and sales during the project period. The poorperformance can be judged from the following:-

Table 10. WLC- Total Herd Numbers

Appraised 1972 FLD TseTse Survey (1977)

Opening Stocks 6162 4000Purchases (including those

still in The Gambia) 4983 498311145 8983

Stocks 30th June 1983(including those still in

Gambia) 7914 7914

Balance (3231) (1969)

- 32 -

108. Table 11. WLC - Key Performance Indicators

a) Median performances over the past 12 months have been:-

Upper Ogun Ogboro Akunnu Oke-Ako All RanchesActual Appraisal

Calving Z 18 42 30 53 30 77Calf Mortality Z 22 6 21 35 19 -

Other Mortality 1 8 3 4 2 5Overall Mortality Z 9 4 5 12 7 2

b) But all performances had deteriorated by 30th June 1983 viz:-

Upper Ogun Ogboro Akunnu Oka-Ako All Ranches

Calving Z 15 42 22 52 29Calf Mortality % 25 30 29 42 30Other Mortality X 12 9 8 8 9Overall Mortality Z 12 14 8 17 12

109. It is apparent that the appraised technical co-efficients weremuch too optimistic, given the available management. In retrospect, theappraised feeder steer purchases, commencing in PY 1 at 3000 for allranches and running to a maximum in PY 5 of 12369 would have beenimpossible to attain since these quantities were never locally available.


{i) None of the Read Office or Ranch Management saaff havebeen trained in commercial ranching.

(ii) The extra care needed by imported Ndama for up to 2 yearsfrom their arrival was not appreciated initially.

(iii) Generally, maintenance of infrastructure is poor.

(iv) Pasture maintenance is minimal.


(i) Financial management improvements were made with theintroduction of a revised accounting system, a quarterlybudgeting and monitoring system and the revision ofconsolidated and individual ranch development plans on aregular basis.

(ii) Technical support advice was adopted for the importationof Ndama cattle from The Gambia; detailed rancb workprogramme/standing orders were drawn up; a herd recordingsystem was introduced; a ranch staff review to cut backon overstaffing was proposed; and LPU also introduced a

- 33 -

system of regular ranch visits by the technical advisorystaff.

112. Technical Assessment

(i) Particular heed should be given to basic cattlemanagement and to:-

(a) Maintenance of fencing and the introduction ofeffective grazing management;

(b) Regular maintenance of water supplies andreticulation, existing plant and machinery, stockhandling facilities and buildings;

(ii) The small areas under crops both for grains and fodder,should be increased in order to:-

(a) Reduce regrowth of shrubs and bushes to a minimum.

(b) Provide as much dry weather feed from residues andsilage as possible.

(c) Improve cash flow from the sale of grain and/or thereduction in purchased feeds.

iiI) It would be beneficial to establish forage legume fodderbanks and the use of leguminous shrubs such as Leucaenaand Glyricidia should be investigated for dry seasonsupplementation.

(iv) A training and demonstration unit would greatly assistthe efficient running of WLC ranches. Pashola holdingground could be used as such a unit under the directcontrol of LPU's representative on WLC's ManagementCommittee.

4.0 N'dama Imports (see Annex IlJ, Table 3)

113. The appraisal report did not cover this separately so nocomparison can be done. Although the importations were the responslbilityof WLC and they were invoiced by NACB for the FOB cost Banjul, LPU didnearly all the physical work and all the management at Fashola QuarantineGround. All costs (N340 per head) after loading at Banjul were borne byFLD/LPU.

114. The importations can be said to have been successful, achievingwithin the 7 year project period an importation of 4,333 head with afurther 658 head awaiting shipment at Banjul. This is equal to 77% of theappraised 6,500 head. Deaths were high in the first two shipments at 11.7Z

- 34 -

however, once problems had been identified and remedied, subsequentshipments averaged only 2.22 mortality bringing the average down to 5.24Z.A further 1.29Z forced sales because of accidents and sickness, and 0.18Zother losses gave a total of 6.712 losses from all causes between Banjuland delivery to WLC ranches (See Table 12 for details).

115. Table 12. Analysis of N'dama Cattle ImportsBanjul, Gambia to Ranch

Shipments Shipments Shipments1 - 2 3 - 7 1 - 7

Nos Z Nos Z Nos X

Invoiced 1,381 2,942 4,323Uninvoiced Cows - 1 1Calves 3 6 9

Sub Total (shipped) 1,384 2,949 4,333

Births 2 56 58

Deaths (162) 11.10 (65) 2.20 (227) 5.24Lost & Unaccounted (3) 0.22 (5) 0.17 (8) 0.18Culled (37) 2.67 (19) 0.64 (56) 1.29

Total Deaths & Losses (202) 14.60 (89) 3.01 (291) 6.71

Total On Ranches(30th June, 1983) 1,184 2,916 4,100

1,386 3,005 4,391

Shipment 8 at the time of preparation of this report is in quarantine atFashola. Details of the shipment are as follows:-

Invoiced 650Calves 8

Sub total 658

Deaths on importation -Lost & unaccounted -Culled -Total deaths & Losses -

Total landed (Fashola) 658

Z Mortility of shipments 3 - 8 - 1.8ZZ Mortality of shipments 1 - 8 - 4.55%

- 35 -116. Problems & Constraints

(i) Delays in the arrival of the cattle ship at Banjul and inProblems & Constraints

(i) Delays in the arrival of the cattle ship at Banjul and Inloading.

(ii) Insufficient reserve feed stocks at Banjul to meet suchdelays.

(iii) Obtaining sufficiently experienced and conscientious roadtransport drivers.

(iv) Poor selection of cattle in The Gambia.


(i) Reserve feed stocks were ordered at Banjul

(ii) LPU & WLC staff visited The Gambia to check the selectionof cattle and to ensure sufficient feed was on hand.

118. Technical Assessments

(i) Losses can be kept very low provided experiencedpersonnel supervise all stages of the operation fromloading of Bar.jul to delivery on ranch and every effortis made to reduce stress.

119. Special nutritional care for some months after arrival at theWLC ranches proved necessary, particularly during dry weather. It tookupto 2 years before the cattle became fully acclimatised.

4.0 National L.vestock Production Company (NLPC)

120. No technical performance since this component was dropped.

B. PRIVATE RANCHES (see Annex IV)

121. The legal right to land-use enables the livestock farmer toinitiate development and management practices which result in greaterproductivity while preserving the land as a resource. It was with this inmind that some 50 private ranch developments were appraised (later reducedto a target of 25) to be assisted by long term credit and technical supportby the Project.

- 36 -

122. To date, of 37 ranch plans submitted to NACB only 10 have beengiven credit approval, and only 9 of these have received any disbursements.None have completed their disbursement programme and all started-up quitelate in the Project.

123. Performance has been poor, none of the ranches has achieved theplanned objectives, end the majority have failed to appreciate thedevelopment concepts and management practices that must be adopted. Onlyone or two have shown any real desire to develop the ranches and improvethe cattle.

124. Problems & Constraints

(i) The ranchers were generally not active livestockowners/producers but rather selected from theentrepreneurs in business, trading, or civil service asthese were able co meet NACB's lending criteria.

(ii) Due to the reduction of the training component, notraining was given to the beneficiaries, and there was alack of practical training for the supervising RTOs.

(iii) There was no on-ranch management expertise to cope withthe financial and technical demands of the plannedranches.

(iv) Visits were made by the STO on a once a month basis.Farmer/owners were often absent and thise resulted in alack of technical advice, although where advice did reachthe farmer, it was often not followed. Follow up andsupervision were insufficient because the Project wasunable to recruit a specialist RTO.

(v) Delayed approvals and disbursements by NACB due to theirlending criteria (Certificate of Occupancy, Tax ClearanceCertificate, mortgage assets/guarantors).

(vi) The early planning was unrealistic, suggesting practicessuch as the pooling of tractor use and joint ownership ofresources which under the existing conditions wereunlikely to be successful.

(vii) Most of the on-going ranches are too small in size to beviable as extensive ranching operations.


(i) The LPU established a Survey Section to assist inobtaining the necessary Statutory Certificate ofOccupancy.

(ii) Replanning of individual ranches and closer liason with

- 37 -

NACB departments involved in approval and disbursement ofloans.

(iii) Initiation of regular visits to the ranches by LPU staffto advise and monitor development on those ranches withavailable funds.

126. Technical Assessment: There is little justification forcontinuing the development of private ranches in the present format howeverassistance should continue as far as possible to ensure committeddevelopment is completed.

C. SMALLHOLDER FATTENING SCHEME (SHFS) (see Annex V)

127. The operating performance of the Smallholder Fattening Schemehad been very successful, exceeding the appraised estimates on technicaland financial bases. In spite of a slow start-up, this component has beenreadily accepted and implemented by the traditional sector beneficiaries(see Annex V, Table 8).

128. Cattle fattening was an established though inefficient practicein the north of Nigeria whereby traditional butchers and traders tookadvantage of the seasonal market price fluctuations. Al_hough having auseful role in regulating meat supplies they contributed very little toincremental meat production. Based on this, it was appraised that creditand technical support would be provided through the Project for 1,500 loansto fatten an estimated 7,500 head and provide an estimated 640 tonnes live-weight gain from project year seven onwards.

129. The SHFS Revolving Credit Fund was established in 1979, based ona N1,660 loan for 6 months. Cattle, supplementary feeds and veterinaryinputs were provided in kind to reduce the risk of misappropriation, to thevalue of the loan plus the beneficiary's contribution. Interest wascharged at 5% per annum. Initially some 5 head were fattened per loan, butthis was reduced to 4 or 3, until the loan volume was increased to N2,000in January 1983. Interest is currently 7% per annum.

130. During the five year period to the end of June 1983, a total of3,609 loans had been dispersed (445 (12.3%) through commercial banks) ofwhich 716 (19.8Z) were renewals. Funds in default represents 537 loanequivalents (14.7% of all loans disbursed) giving a loan recovery rate of85.3% of total loans disbursed to the end of June 1983.

131. An estimated 14,227 head of cattle and 2,102 sheep have beenfattened through the scheme with negligible losses. This represents anincremental production of 906 tonnes cdw saleable meat 21 tonnes mutton andis approximately equivalent to an additional 7,500 slaughter cattle at an

- 38 -average of 125kg cdw each.

132. Average liveweight of cattle at purchase was 272kg in NorthernNigeria and 211kg in the South. Average daily liveweight gains were 0.62kgand 0.34kg per head (over approximately 160 days) respectively (see AnnexV: Tables 9). For the most part, cattle fattening was contained within a120 days period and an estimated 0.64kg gain per head per day has beenassumed overall. in fact, over shorter periods, gains of up to 1.00kg perday have been achieved in the north. Mortality (125 head) was less than1% and of this 68 deaths were due to rinderpest in PY 7. Sheep mortalityis estimated at 5Z.

133. Most cattle have been purchased and sold through traditionalcattle markets where prices are based on subjective "by eye" assessment bythe cattle trader. There are no auctions nor price guarantee systems inoperation at this time.

134. The fattening of rams for the Salah festivals (festivalfattening) was introduced in the Northern States as a loan package. Thenumber of rams per loan varied from 14 to 20. Liveweight at purchase warbetween 20kg and 70kg, and daily liveweight gain varied from 0.122kg to0.175kg per head. 130 such loans were disbursed fattening an approximatelytotal of 2,102 rams, giving an estimated incremental production ofapproximately 21,388kg carcase weight. Potential profit in the model(Annex V Table 8) is higher than i'r the cattle model due to the premiumprices paid at Salah which occurn only once a year. Expansion of thescheme is thus restricted but the possibilities of fattening for otherfestival periods are being explored.

135. Problems & Constraints: There were considerable delays at theoutset caused by:

(i) Difficulties were encountered by NACB in est.ib11shing theRCF account, and in providing adequate fun-a until theearly 1983;

(ii) There were no established lending or accountingprocedures or guidelines for technical and credit staffto follow resulting in the poor selection and inadequatesupervi:. on of beneficiaries;

(iii) NACB did not provide the recommended credit supervisionpersonnel;

(iv) In the initial stages no account was taken of the cattleprice cycle with the result that fattened animals wereof feced for sale at the time of lowest price. In orderto counteract this the animals were kept on and sold at alater period, but the cyclic effect of cattle pricesrestricted the fattening to one period per year;

- 39 -

(v) Difficulties arose with purchase prices and storeage offeedstuffs;

(vi) State extension services and cooperatives were slow atfirst in involving their staff in the programme.

136. The overall result was that the LPU had to provide Its own stafffor credit supervision and extension in addition to their technical supportrole and to inject a considerable amount of cash into the RCF to 'bridge-finance' the scheme. As a result of this the rate of defaulters roserapidly.


(i) Lending criteria and procedures were agreed with MACB;

(ii) A simple accounting system was established by LPU;

(iii) Training efforts were provided by LPU for all personnelinvolved in the scheme, supported by audio-visual aids;

(iv) Commercial Banks were introduced to the schese with somesuccess;

{v) Mobile weigh-scales were acquired for monitoring of thescheme;

(vi) Participating on-lending institutions such as CooperativeSocieties, RBDAs, and ADPs were encouraged to join thescheme;

(vii) In order to overcome the effect of cyclic cattle pricesupon the frequency of fattening, linkages were forgedwith the NLPC and butchers cooperatives with a view toestablishing parallel marketing outlets for sale cattle;

(viii) Alternative feedatuffs including wheat bran, driedbrewers grains, cotton seed cake, groundnut cake pellets,and molasses were assessed and rations recommended andused based upon both prices and local availability (AnnexV Table 10);

(ix) Trials were conducted to determine the optimum timing ofeach fattening period.

138. Technical Assessment: The SEFS has conclusively demonstratedthat cattle can be successfully fattened on crop residue/grazingsupplemented with agro-industrial by-products. Traditional producers havereadily adopted the technology and the deman;' for renewals of loans is areflection of their satisfaction with the profitability of the scheme. Thefollnwing points should be considered for further expansion/improvement ofthe SHFS:

- 40 -

(i) Investigation of alternative feedatuffs and periodicassessments of least-cost rations fo' each fatteningregion;

(ii) The fattening period should be reduced in order to keepthe incremental production costs down and to stimulatemore loan cycles per year;

(iii) More attention should be given to selection of suitablecattle with detail paid to the type and condition atpurchase;

(iv) The linkage with NLPC should be strenghtened for thenecessary parallel marketing scheme to become a realitybut other avenues, such as butchers groups andcooperative marketing channels should be explored inorder to avoid a single major market outlet.Possibilities of direct contract marketing at a premiumprice to reflect the better meat/bone ratio and killingout percentage, should also be investigated. In order tobe able to guarantee these supplies however, it would benecessary to have a greater pool of fattened cattle uponwhich to draw;

(v) An intensified training and extension effort is requiredto ensure proper supervision and further drop in thedefault rate.

D. GRAZING RESERVE DEVELOPMENT

139. The original 16 grazing reserves plus Kukar Jangarai scheduledfor development at appraisal were cut to (6 including Kukar Jangarai) atrevision. These were already recognised but not gazetted under the grazingreserve law of 1965. Infrastructural development, put in during theproject period has followed reasonably closely to the appraisal exceptwhere replanning has been necessary. Staff housing and stores erectedoutside planned development during the interim management period are afurther exception to this. Gazetting at June 1983 had still not takenplace.

140. Infrastructural development has in the main been in the areas ofmaintenance of resident reserve management and the balance in the provisionand maintenance of water and some limited areas of strip sown forage forthe graziers. Water provision has been good but the improvement of pasturestarted late and due to poor seed bed preparation, seed of low viabilityand immediate grazing by local graziers has not been successful. The morerecent establishment of fodder banks, initiated by ILCA are proving muchmore successful.

- 41 -

141. Problems & Constraints: Some of the major problems whichcontributed to this less than satisfactory development are:-

(i) With none of the reserves gazetted as grazing areas andwithout the means to provide formal land title, StateGovernments had limited powers to enforce control of thenumbers or activities of pastoralists and their cattle;

(ii) The grazier groups were not initially consulted nor keptregularly informed of the proposed developments. Neitherwere they aware of the responsibilities they needed toassume to maintain and conserve the resources of thegrazing reserve nor the reasons for so doing.

(Mi) Progress was extremely slow to start with. Staff wereseconded only slowly to the grazing reserves even aftercompletion of housing, water and power supplies. In somecases the calibre of staff willing to reside within thereserve was affected by rural living considerations, andas a result of the lack of facilities was difficult;

(iv) In some caseb .5.ere was an estrangement of the graziersand the reserve management staff which jeopardised anyc.-ance of the livestock owners cooperating with furtherdevelopment.

142. Remedial Steps Taken: Over the last few years of the project,several developments have been noted which helped alleviate some of theabove problems.

Mi) The introduction of small forage legume "fodder banks"which were fenced off and managed by individuals in thereserves to supplement their productive breeding cowsinto the dry season;

(ii) The establishment of seed multiplication plotssuccessfully provided a basis for a more concerted effortin pasture improvement;

(iii) The encouragement of extension staff to increase theircontact with the graziers, to spend more effort assessingthe need and wishes of the users and involve them moreactively in the development of what are essentially theirreserves;

(iv) Recognising the need for formal land use rights for thegraziers so as to enable grazing cooperative groups toobtain a long term leaseholding within the reserve. Atlast a mechanism for security of land tenure had beeneffected (viz. amendment of the Grazing Reserve Law byBauchi State Government);

(v) The provision of livestock service centres, at which the

- 42 -

graziers had access to essential veterinary services,animal feed supplies, and where ttiyay could be introducedto the advantages of developmeni credit through theSmallholder Livestock Credit ProgrL-.le. Rere they couldsee for themselves the merit of fod.-ir banks and get thetechnical support to establish their nuwn

143. Further sociological investigation is requir,.1 to assist in thesettlement and aquisttion of either traditional or le.-il land title andextension efforts must be intensified to increase the i. volvement of theprospective settlers within the grazing areas. This will ead to a greaterunderstanding and awareness of their need to control st. Aking rates andimprove resource conservation to the long term benefit if the graziersthemselves.

- 43 -

VI FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE

144. Total Project Cost, Including committed expenditures, to the30th of June 1983 (PY 7) stands at N36.44 mn compared to N27.64 mnappraised. This represents an over-run of 32Z of appraised estimate asdetailed in table 13 below.

145. Allowing for variations on foreign exchange rates from year toyear, the total cost over the period is equivalent to $US 59.70 mn (at MI -$US 1.64 overall) compared to $US 42.01 mn appraised (at Ni - $US 1.52).This represents a 42% over-run of appraisal as detailed in Table 14 below.

146. Explanatory notes to Tables 13 and 14 (below).

(a) Source: IBRD Project Appraisal Report; LPU costs based onLPU Audited accounts up to 31st December, 1982, and trialbalance for months up to 30th June, 1983; PY 1 -ends 30thJune '77.

(b) Estimates based on: extrapolation of most recent data;current development projections; known performance ofindividual components making up the aggregate estimate.

Cc) PY I and 2 are aggregated; a new accounts system (LPU) wasintroduced from PY 3 onwards.

(d) PY 7 actual expeaditures includes committed costs.Ce) General administration fixed costs (appraised) have been

apportioned 14% (BSLC) and 86% (BLC) in line with totalon-ranch investments.

(f) Working Capital Costs have been apportioned 17% (BSLC) and83% (BLC) in line with total operating expenditure (SAR).

(g) Bornu Ranch (appraised) is now Gombole Ranch.(h) NELC (appraised) separated into Bauchi SLC (Darazo Ranch)

and Borno LC (Gombole Ranch) for actual costs.(i) WLC costs are aggregated (5 ranches and HQ).(j) NLPC: expenditures in respect of incorporation costs (PY

2) and consultants costs for NLMA/NLPC study (PY 4);reallocated to other categories.

(k) Does not include loans from commercial bank sources.Undisbursed funds are included in PY 7 (see Annex V, Table7)

(1) Fulani Reserves and Kukar-Jangarai Reserve (appraised)have been consolidated; a total of 6 reserves underdevelopment.

(m) Foreign exchange rates (actual) as prevailing at the endof each project year (30th June); source LPU AccountsSection.

Annex numbers in brackets refer to relevant parts of Sectlion XII (Annexes)at the en- of the report.

- 44 m

A. _SEEN _ftm LI.WL.* Q~ m tm .

'on 31.2 . *mhe2 & Si V13et 1- S w

~~~~- SI - SI s OS n aS I - S a S

FU bwW 04A M." OAI 16 OX4 21 11.3)5X 7

6 JI_mst~ M-0 2o" 4e9 95.11 3 I& omA omW omM OA OM GD OA1 3& gws M

L. fl Ste ln s . m-. IIIa-U QN: M - -- 25

C. C bfl 416.07 '44n 26.s2 an, 2.v 01 0.97 92.3s om w.w em 2 7no.-Mm _ tan. 11.

apte t^ l St. 9M 3. 0.24 041 4.6 39. 93.6.X

I! clu r IN_ ffl OA

21 S-ceMO.11 732 26A4 3.3 04 59.91 1l17 673 3M. O AD oW 0o om as OSD 0M I3.a1 I13

= C e_3. S us. (n g w oa , 717) t2 1

A1 nuw A bapi. I.") * - n1Ja 56 2 W.W 4.01 W0A 142 1

A0 Rnm (.P tag aIaam*

21 OW.-M 3 § 2 32M j2 M GAD IA I25 MO orD &W O -M M Co 0WI&2ILA a

_F bn_u~ a Dpig~ 4%Li A LAj 14_ _ D1 AS-a m i 72646 14. 19.1 41.90 . OS 109 OS 0.0 1 n aY na

C. 93 *tei5 5C 68.1 21. .13 11.9 3291 t26.7461 #9 2.15 S 142.3 OS 907.679 OS 0.1 56E2t.36 IID21|1.31 137

n. Swi * ocmat. (i amll.

L%. u pkt n.~4 U 3b 197.9 -I I:? '4

17 be bSm1 13.19 136.52 98.42 . 10.6 1011.37 5.21gg 1 9 39.g 1

*1 Oe8 4 fl33 O2.1M3 211L. 64V.6 14311.Al 16.1 OSU 969.01 1 7OS oma O .3 ms. ma 19

U.-a r w 9 16

7:A '--" i1.." " W

21 1 Stel62.6 1511.4SD m O >111 74.8 S OS O OS OSJ 0i.0 OS OS In','.6

IL _.O 2-(A._n

50~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~C) 4 77 g1-7D 12" axfig 0 1D

2130 Cetl S0_ 4.95 6 WU 17A1 4 .74 9 '.9 19.9

'A VAbWd 4aD% OAD 3IL12 P.Tr 71A.1 6.934.' 4L G" 112d74SLT 00 %MVM1M '

,,- m- w~ ( ml 61319.53 OS 93. 962a OS 144.3 21.17 urnSW 13.97 52M6.3 AMa" ma7 5ea 6.50 OM 0 54.b13 1

21lw n! P lema. p.

1-sal Flee as~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~. 3 al

N2 Stafl.2 00'.913354 3.73.99m 3.2lS 66ai 1.9 a e a

S1 S.-ate MO. OS15.2 91 91.06 443.1 421.19 0.29 4.4 n.eA 1415.3 0.74 104191 OS A6.32 2195.5

414 = = n 69.4"31.05 Itft=3. 10. 541.0 3.1541 6.08101.9 S5.219.

a Semi INKS 19619-0 OS 3.30 Mm1711 OSW IW. OS) 0* OS 461 OS 0A5 1314.0 S.ll

L Sw wabdmiu. a ftAwp a am7 17.ID 64 970 11.17440 11. D.63

916.01 12)42 121.17 10~~~~~' 1471.91 1b.

SJA4 5-V 76.1 99 4 96.30 Wm.3 99911 .ete 213M 51.3 211.5 065 31.27 1740 23140 191.D 8l1.0 74A0 OSW 8b40 OM OS 118342 419.10

IL 92 Mm1 ft.)ccAWil C-mL 51-lJe (ttL) 269.37 435.0 193.6 1426.50 36.3I 33A 66.33 3INN.39 SO" 4119.5 16.30 4=67 M13. OS11 35.2119729.4 3

Min0 tins. i an (Iac.euw Pus. oSuwsan' e S- ITT8771.9FR62. ML.9 59fl 4652.0 68130' Ql1.M 966.0 8173A6 59.29 952.99 30.31 3,5 2503.2 SeI. 152

6.5 hiPa- cSUom lalSJ0.4 '727 214 29.2) 37A4 41.19 3.3- 19.3

_45 -

R -

_6110 N .umbC. @ i _S _

_nma a ?P_w _fr~ _G 93 13 M1)4iS7

_~~~~~~~~~~~~~~m r f .JL _ .1 0.3 _A 5I _;Ml s

I L. _~ Afdm "

L~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~m _" U _ {. 1

II -r C r 6- b rar ° l las .1 wu_ | 12 mA QA WAl al.1 'MV ;^9 GM fflfsk " D tYILD _XD ". a OAID M4l t 2 I Zlb

|le_,f . .77 ftYOOt17 ftUo = 7644 om: .§JS 975 5.-A7D.9 S7 .747 om-3 47 XD TJb o wc

r- ft.. U-, rft nu C.

71 _13WW 5. L A eiir7 tS7J oO AD om1 UO.C OA O. oAD GA GAD e a7 & o I_ T

*. - _ { rvl.

V UA%n 4 WILm T rs 31n a'5 g X ; t

{? a r o~~~~~~~~~~~~~Gmom4s frrR 779 O a mD .C. :3r ID A_ M )

^ S o l Wh.r. s*5A 'Z.-L1 *0 XI.W'SJemMp aL311

t15*lIML C- a- 1 A . V_ . I11

J. U_U Fm._- OM,t

7 = e = R2 3i~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1 40 T2. if lil..M 31i'sr,r 8.7 =PullIJ 2fl

,4 ao-_w a l| t17 .1b 1. 6b1M 22.1 49.10 D.1S M9A6 4MAlK 9MAS 302.D aSa OP =T m W 2 tLS

C. WA ftp _ t' O d l9 2 u

sxe L7pno .S fi 1s 7 7o 2. om omn IL Y _JL di snn.E2 IlnO- N-M 7r 1 .4r. Ift.3 r "aa0s rg

47 .b.. miA im OW AS O.W911.1 A3 72D M 9)34 M Y.7 W aD IL6 M W

1- N t-IN as *7 24 a"*. b

- 46 -

149. Financial Rates of Return

The following financial rates of return are estimated from herdprojections baned on existing (PY 7) technical performance. All capitalcosts (including committed funds) have be?n included at PY 7 and no furtherinfrastructure and equipment costs are considered thereafter.

Component _ FRR (%) Reference

Annex Table

Bauchi State Livestock Company negative I 5Borno Livestock Company negative II 5Western Livestock Company negative III 7Consolidated Private Ranchers negative IV 6Smallholder Fattening Scheme 18.75 v 11

* Only those components with directly assessable benefits have beenincluded.

Financial Convenants

150. The financial convenants contained in the Project agreement wereappropriate and adequate. NACB did maintain records consistent withaccounting practices. Its accounts were audited by independent auditorsacceptable to the Bank. However, it was probably unreasonable to expectthem to be furnished to the Bank not later than four months after the endof each accounting year. The NACB accounts have not been generallyavailable until 10 to 12 months after the accounting year end. This hasbeen due to the various changes of the Board of NACB and the delays inreappointing directors to enable the necessary Annual General Meeting to beheld rather than any delay in the preparation of the accounts themselves.

_ 47 -

VII INSTITUTIONAL PERFORMANCE & DEVELOPMENT

A. LIVESTOCK PROJECT UNIT

151. Livestock Project Unit was established as the implementingagency for the Livestock Development Project within the Federal LivestockDepartment of the Federal Ministry of Agriculture.

152. During the initial two years (1976-78) the management of LPUfailed to establish operational linkages with the various Institutions(MACB, NLPC and State Ministries). This appeared to be mainly due to alack of understanding of the LPUs role and its relatIonship with theseInstitutions. The centralised structure on which LPU then operated,whereby the technical experts were mainly based in, and operated from,Kaduna, did little to establish positive relations with the various StateMinistries.

153. After the employment of the Management Consultants in January1979, staff were posted to the various states and with day-to-day contactthrough the CVOs, CLOs and Permanent Secretaries succeeded in establishingsound linkages with the various State Ministries. A clearer understandingof the Project objectives was established and a positive relationship hasbeen successfully built up with the NACB. LPU has also establishedeffective linkages with other Federal and State Institutions vital for thesuccessful implementation of the Project (RIDAs, Co-ops, ADPs).

154. Training with the use of audio visual aids and workshops wascarried out for LPU staff and more limited zonal training for Stateextension officers. Farmer involvement was increased with the use of audiovisual aids at village level to demonstrate both the technical andfinancial aspects of the various production models. A considerable costoverrun due to greater than expected inflation and late Implementation hasbeen experienced and this was contributory to the reduction of the projectpractical training component. Some overseas training of selected LPU staffhas been carried out.

155. Monitoring and evaluation activities were stepped up with theaid of computers and the recruitment of the necessary trained staff. Atechnical co-ordination section has been established to assist in obtainingand disseminating technical standards to the various LPU operations atState level.

156. LPU in conjunction with FLD assisted WLC in the successfulimportation of 4,991 head of N'dama cattle.

- 48 -

157. Infrastructural developments on State and private ranches andgrazing reserves have been satisfactorily carried out by the HEU. Whereproblems were encountered in obtaining Certificates of Occupancy for creditapplication a survey unit was formed in order to facilitate theiravailability.

158. A Heavy Equipment Unit was established and for the first 2 yearsoperated from Kaduna under the HES. This was subsequently de-centralisedwith separate units in Kaduna, Borno and Ibadan under the control of theHES and the respective STOs. This arrangement was not successful and underthe new management team control reverted to the HES at Kaduna. One unitremained at Ibadan controlled by the Heavy Equipment Co-ordinated who isresponsible to the HES for the implementation of the work programme agreedbetween WLC and the STO Ibadan.

159. At the same time correct recording and job allocation systemswere introduced, hourly and mileage charge rates for the various items ofequipment were established and these were updated on an annual basis from1979 onwards. Job completion certification and invoicing procedures wereestablished. The HEIE also carried out general service work on projectvehicles, ad hoc transportation of tractors and field equipment, feed andseed.

160. In 1981, a pasture development unit of 4 wheeled tractors and aD6 crawler was formed to ensure the improved performance of pastureestablishment on WLC ranches and with this and the foregoing improvementsHEU was able to carry out the necessary infrastructural developments onState and private ranches and grazing reserves.

161. The Small Holder Fattening Scheme within the project hasincreased meat production and small farm incomes and by virtue of thecommercial banks involvement with this small holder livestock creditcomponent, their development in the field has been stimulated. LPU has, byclose liason with RBDAs and ADPs also stimulated the interest of thesebodies in livestock components.

162. Livestock Project Unit has made consistant efforts to recruitsuitably qualified staff and has been successful in identifying andpromoting senior Nigerian staff whereby they are now responsible for theimplementation of the Project at State Level. At Headquarters Nigerianstaff head the Credit, Accounts and Survey Unit and manage the sub-sectionsof monitoring, planning, mechanical supervision and heavy equipmentworkshops.

163. Livestock Project Unit has therefore established itself as aninstitution in the livestock development field with the in-house capabilityto provide the necessary technical services, credit supervision andinfrastructural development assistance to the livestock producers.

- 49 -

B. NIGERIAN AGRICULTURAL & COOPERATIVE BANK.

164. NACB as the Federal controlled Agricultural Credit Bank was thelogical vehicle to designate for the credit funding of State and privateranches and smallholder loans.

165. At appraisal it would appear that no problems were forseen.Assurances were obtained from NACB that Project agreement with IBRD and asubsidiary agreement with FGN would be signed and credit provided. NACBwould take final decisions on each loan guided by technical advice from LPUand would further provide an adequate number of loan officers and clericalstaff attached to the SHFS and LPU who would be responsible for determiningthe credit worthiness of potential parLicipants in the private ranchingscheme.

166. Project agreement and the Subsidiary agreement stated that partof the loan provided for under the Loan agreement would be "relentforthwith" to NACB and this was taken by NACB to mean that they would beprimed with funds from FMF before they made disbursements. Clause 9(a) ofthe Subsidiary agreement provides for NACB to request funds whenever theyhave an insufficiency to carry out Project lending requirements. Thiscaused a hiatus with loan funds and the major reason for the confusion wasthe change in NACB higher management which took place in the long intervalbetween project approval and effectivity.

167. Since no funds were disbursed by or to NACB until theseadministrative problems were unraveled the Project suffered during thefirst two years, a however first tranche in three instalments of NO.5million was disbursed during 1979 and 1980 and a second trauch of N1.5million applied for in 1981 was disbursed in 1983.

168. The conditions of loan for private ranchers stipulated by NACBwere difficult to fulfil and much time was spent by the prospectivebeneficiaries on the aquisition of documentation. This led to latedisbursements and subsequent changes to a hiatus in disbursements. At thesame time it is true that some applications were made to NACB through LPUwithout the necessary documentation and that private ranchers in many casesfelt little urgency for the procurement and presentation of the requireddocumentation.

169. Despite all the problems,by regular liason and the use ofconsultancy services, especially in early 1979 when little activity wasapparent at NACB, considerable achievements have been made. Funds havebeen disbursed to private ranchers, the SHFS lending criteria anddocumentation have evolved and the scheme works. There is now a firm baseof practical experience upon which to build future projects. This base is

- 50 -

that which appears to have been assumed to have been present at projectappraisal.

C. COMMERCIAL BANKS

170. LPU initiated the involvement of commercial banks in the fundingof the SHFS due to the failure of NACB to provide credit funding onschedule. The Commercial banks were also willing to play an increasingrole in the LPUs prrgramme under the Agricultural Credit Guarantee Scheme.

171. The Commercial banks however, are presently showing concern atdelays in receiving their claims from the Central Bank under the scheme.The extent of involvement of commercial banks in the SHFS is Illustrated bythe table 15 below:-

Table 15. Year Total Loans Amount CumulativeDisbursed (Naira) Defaulters

PY 3 57 94,620 0PY 4 112 185,920 2PY 5 79 131,140 46PY 6 71 117,860 18PY 7 126 235,680 0

445 765,220

172. Future possibilities for further funding, as the banks developmore expertise and hence confidence in evaluating livestock loanopportunities, would appear to be good. One problem which has beennoticeable is the apparent divergence of loan security requirements bothbetween banks and, in the same bank, from area to area. Such differencesincrease the difficulties for an entity such as LPU to arrange loan fundsand standardization, at least within a bank, would be of considerableasistance.

D. AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS (ADPs)

173. The ADPs proved to be an organised channel for disbursing loansto smallholder livestock farmers who utilised crop residues readilyavailable in the projects. The ADPs also made available extension staff,for technical supervision in conjunction with LPU, of projects in their

_ 51 -

areas. Funds for pilot smallholder schemes were made available asfollows:-

Table 16

ADP Total Loans Amount (Naira) Year of Operati^disbursed-

Funtua 25 41,500* 79/80Gombe 50 83,000* 80/81

*Loan Value X1,660.

174. No further disbursements were made to ADPs due to lack of fundsreleased from NACB. Attempts by LPU to fund livestock loans throughcommercial banks at Kano ADP were only partially successful. First Bankrequired an LPU guarantee before disbursing and when this was notforthcoming refused to disburse funds even though sister branches of thesame bank were disbursing loans without such guarantees. Bank of the Northfinanced 15 farmers.

175. When funds did become available from NACB, the previously linkedADPs had been handed back to State supervision and the banks requiredsuitable guarantees from State. Other potential ADP loan areas were closeto the end of their term. Loans were given on an individual farmer basisto farmers within the Funtua and Gombe ADP areas.

E. RIVER BASIN DEVELCIKENT AUTHORITIES (RBDAs)

176. LPU had initiated linkages with RBDAs as a result of theinterest of the latter in credit funding of livestock projects in its areaof jurisdiction. In the link with Sokoto-Rima RBDA, LPU provided fundsthrough the SHFS credit fund and gave technical support for theimplementation of the scheme in the RBDA area.

177. In more recent relationships with RBDAs, using RBDA funds, LPUprovided credit package formats and, jointly with RBDA staff, technicalassistances. Some training was also given. Joint LPU/RBDA cr.iit cardswere issued in the Upper Benue area and, should a parallel institution beconsidered desirable, there is every likelihoood that RBDA livestock creditpackages could become self-sustaining.

- 52 -

Table 17

RBDA Total Loans Amolint of Loan Year of Operation

a,b.Sokoto-Rima 15 28,300 1981, 1983

b.Upper Benue 50 100,000 1983

a, - loan amount N1,660. 1981x5b, - loan amount N2,000. 1983

F. STATE MINISTRIES

178. Use of the often under utilised State Ministry livestockextension and veterinary staff by LPU for technical supervision was logicalgiven that LPU did not have sufficient staff at grass roots level co enableit to supervise the large numbers of loans attained. A further advantageof State Ministry staff was that in many cases they were familiar with thefarmers in their region thus assisting in the selection as well as thesupervision. The opinions and experience of Chief Livestock Officers werein many cases extremely helpful.

179. Level of staff provided by the Ministries varied from State toState, in some cases graduate staff was provided and in others morepractical orientated personnel. LPU assisted with public transportationexpenses on a monthly basis. Total contribution, depending upon area was amaximum of N30 per month in areas where considerable travel was involved,and a minimum of NIO in areas where farmers were more closely situated.Approxima-e LPU contribution in this area amounted to N34,561 for 1,448 manmonths over the period 1979-83.

180. Without the good will and co-operation of State CVOs it wouldhave been virtually impossible to effect the SHFS. Drug acquisition andadministration was carried out with the close co-operation of the Stateveterinary departments.

181. Some States were unable to provide sufficient staff for the SHFSand some had difficulty in the provision of funds and staff on schedule forthe grazing reserves. This last was exacerbated by the unwillingness ofsome State Ministry staff to serve in an area they regarded as isolatedfrom both social and promotional opportunities. Other States however,willing co-operated and by so doing made a considerable contribution to thesuccess of the SHFS.

182. Where rapport was good between CLO, STO and CVO few problemsarose in the provision of staff even though in many cases State Governments

- 53 -

were some months in arrears with salaries. It would appear that many ofthe staff 'lent' to LPU were happy to be occupied and involved in what mostfelt to be a successful enterprise. It is noteworthy that those assistingin grazing schemes were less enamoured.

183. Further training of State Livestock extension staff tosupplement the small amount of training offered by zonal offices would havebeen useful. However, the SHFS has been seen to operate successfully andState Ministries and LPU staff have made the necessary liason to givefuture small holder credit schemes a platform from which to operate. Inthis case, the assumption made at appraisal has been justified.

G. BAUCHI STATE LIVESTOCK COMPANY (BSLC)

184. Darazo ranch was one of the two ranches originally proposed bythe Preparation Mission as a breeding ranch in the former North EasternState. Whilst too small t3 be a viable unit on its own in a relatively lowrainfall area, it may have been possible to run as a breeding ranch inconjuntion with Gombole ranch which in 1977 was split off from it when theState was divided. In retrospect it is felt that when this occurred Darazoranch should have been dropped from the project. Darazo ranch becameBauchi State Livestock Company.

185. A three year plan, produced in 1977 was approved in 1979 andafter three disbursements (1979, 1980, 1981) amounting to N91,319 furtherdisbursements were arrested following adverse performance reports fromIBRD, LPU and NACB.

186. Problems at Darazo arose from poor administration by a Stateselected Board of Directors drawing salaries greater than the ranch couldafford. Appointees had no knowledge of ranching, met infrequently greatlydelaying decisions and allowed credit sales to take place with no legalaction taken against debtors. The Board also changed key personnel oftenand, whilst agreeing with LPU recommendations failed to cause them to beimplemented.

187. State failed to provide the necessary cash equity on a regularbasis to cover working capital costs. This resulted in an inability toadhere to the plans, maintain infrastructure already put in by LPU andindeed even to pay LPU for infrastructural work carried out. There was adisastrous outbreak of CBPP from gifted cattle because off-ranch quarantineprocedures were not observed. Salary payments were late and these problemscoupled with Civil Service hours and attitudes and poor management due tolack of ranching experience resulted in a complete breakdown.

188. LPU attempted to assist by revising plans using an increasedacreage from the nearby grazing reserve scheme, stopping credit sales,

- 54 -

Improving manaaement and by the loan of machinery for maintenance offireguards and other infrastructural developments. Unfortunately, LPU hadno executive authority, the attempted use of the grazing reserve was notimplemented and management remained poor.

189. More practical training is required in respect of specifictechnical ranching requirements and more investigation required into staffmotivation in all the State ranches.

H. BORNO LIVESTOCK COMPANY (BLC)

190. Gombole ranch at the formation of the new states bacame BLC. Itwas the logical choice by the Preparation Mission being close to Maiduguri,one of the major cattle marketing centres of Nigeria and having 15.100hawith access to a further 9,OOOha in a Forest Reserve. It was designated asa breeding ranch at preparation but, in a later proposal by LPU was morelogically amended to a breeding enterprise plus on ranch steer fatteningwith a 4 cycle flying herd for onward sale to SHFS fatteners. The ranchhad previously been a Veterinary Station.

191. As with other State owned ranches, there were major problemswith administration and management. The State appointed Board of Directorswith high emoluments were awarding contracts on a preferential basis. Suchcontracts were of course overpriced and poorly completed. There was littlemanagement or ranching expertise, key staff were moved, Head Office had astaff of nine persons and the ranch was overstaffed as welL

192. Such heavy staffing and expenees led to financial problems.Staff salaries were late leading to Indiscipline, management staff weredepleted (in 1983 one diplomate and one ranch manager remained,) and aN100,000 loan from a commercial bank earmarked for cattle purchase was usedto meet recurrent costs. Poor records and thefts of cattle were all partof the picture, and when NACB withheld disbursement of funds cattle weresold to pay labour and other operating expenses.

193. LPU had, through the STO, good relations with the GeneralManager and by close liason with an assistant ranch manager who wasenthusiastic, managed to get some work done. NACB were persuaded tocontinue with disbursements. In 1982, the Chairman of the Board was forcedto resign and a State enquiry initiated but by that time the damage hadbeen done.

194. It would appear that without an effective management structurein the first instance there is little prospect of any of the State ownedranches developing to become successful enterprises. Conversely, however,with good management there is no reason why Borno and WLC should not

- 55 -

become, as was hoped at appraisal, resevoirs of breeding cows and storecattle for fattening for their respective zones.

I. WESTERN LIVESTOCK COMPANY (WLC)

195. Western Livestock Company was one of the State operatedlivestock companies identified as a vehicle for cattle multiplication. Itwas a logical choice, operating at the time two ranches with someinfrastructure and cattle in place and owning a further three undevelopedranches. If the reporting at the time of project identification was of thesame calibre as during the project, this may be one reason for thetechnical co-efficients used at appraisal.

196. At appraisal WLC was under the control of the former WesternState but with the splitting of this State into Oyo, Ogun and Ondo itbecame necessary to form a holding company, Odua Investments CompanyLimited, which would control administratively WLC. Odua Investmentsguaranteed the loan to WLC and agreed as per the development plan thattheir equity cash contribution would total N1,437,000 over the three yeardevelopment period. In the event only N300,000 was made available to VLCin this respect. They did however, assists WLC with monthly subventions tomeet operating costs. Had WLC as an independent entity been responsiblefor equity contributions it would have been harder to evade itscomittments.

197. The Board of Directors was changed frequently, and boardmeetings were sporadic. Read office expenditure and staffing was very highconstituting a non productive burden upon the company. The Board did notconfine itself to policy but interfered with day-to-day management.

198. The sicing of the Head Office some 100km from the nearest ranchis not conducive to frequent visits. The General Manager, whilstenthusiastic, visited the ranches infrequently. The Livestock Manager,though visiting frequently appeared to have little authority over seniorranch staff. The employees were civil servants whose civil service hoursand attitudes did not assist in the operation of the ranch. Cattle whichare close herded cannot obtain sufficient nutrition within an eight hourday.

199. Within this situation LPU advice and recommendations even ifaccepted were seldom implemented. Relations between LPU and Senior WLCmanagement were poor up until 1981 at which time, with the advent of a newSTO they improved. It would thus appear that some of the problem was of acommunications nature. Even with this improvement reporting on technicaland financial matters was poor.

200. Overstaffing and underemployment was a natural corollary to lax

- 56 -

management systems and to compound the problem none of the Management staffwere tratned in practical ranching operations. LPU provided plannedphysical developments, a resident Senior Ranch Technical Advisor andassisted WLC in the importation of ap..roximately 5,000 N'dama cattle. FLDassisted WLC with costs of transport, quarantine and health services forthe imported animals and provided the services of a consultant veterinarianduring this period.

201. The poor technical performance reported in the appropriatesection of this report devolves in the main from poor company structureadministration and management. There is no doubt that the major mistakewas to allow LPU an advisory role only with no executive authority and thatvarious IBRD supervisory missions have been too indulgent with regard tothe obvious failings ot WLC management.

J. NATIONAL LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION COMPANY (NLPC)

202. The NLPC at the commencement of Project implementation was asubsidiary company of the Nigeria Livestock & Meat Authority (NLMA)controlling the operations of Mokwa and Manchok ranches and abattoir. TheReview Mission report of May 1978 recommended the removal of the NLPCranches from the Project. This recommendation was made mainly becauseNLPC, as a subsidiary company of NLMA was totally reliant on them forfunding and there was a lack of adequate management in the Company. It wasalso made in an effort to maintain Project expenditures in line with theoriginal estimates.

203. Subsequently, Government and Bank agreed to finance a study ofNLMA, from the loan funds. The study was to make specific recommendationsfor the restructuring of the of the NLMA and its activities. This study,carried out by the consultant firm in early 1979recommended the creation of a holding company as a central source offunding and policy formulation, with a series of subsidiary companiesresponsible for the operations of the various production units. Theholding company was to be called the National Livestock Production Companyand it was to reLain the operational control of Mokwa and Manchok. Thisreport presented in April 1979 was accepted by Government and has beenpartially implemented. A General Manager was appointed in July 1979 but aBoard of Directors was not formed until mid 1980.

204- A development plan was prepared by LPU in conjunction with NLPCfor the re-development of Mokwa and Manchok. This was presented to theNACB in August 1979 and after much delay was approved by NACB in May 1980.This approval was subject to NLPC obtaining a Federal Government Guaranteefor the loan amount. Due to the substantial delay in obtaining thisguarantee and the lack of interest and enthusiasm demonstrated by both NMLAand NLPC becuase the control of the development funds would devolve uponLPU it was decided in June 1982 that this sum be reallocated to the SHPS.

- 57 -

This reallocation was finally effected in December 1982.

205. In the interim period, however, NLPC obtained the necessaryguarantee and a loan of N4.979 mn, based on the LPU development plan, wasfinalised and a first disbursement issued by NACB in September 1982.

K. INTERNATIONAL LIVESTOCK CENTRE FOR AFRICA &NATIONAL ANIMAL PRODUCTION RESEARCH INSTITUTE

206. With the reallocation of the research and development componentfrom the early proposals, LPU had to enlist the support of ILCA and NAPRIfor project-related technical research assistance.

207. NAPRI has been very much to the fore in matters of pastureproduction, conservation and erosion control within grazing reserves. Theyhave also assisted the project in the fields of cattle nutrition andsupplementation.

208. Applied research, particularly aimed at the traditional grazier-producer, has provided a basis for development strategies within theoverall grazing reserves programme. ILCA has worked closely with LPU inthis respect, aligning research and monitoring and evaluating interventionswith a view to narrowing the present information gaps.

209. Both institutions demonstrated wholehearted support andcooperation, coupled with constructive research based criticism, for theLPU programmes. Equally, they are to be recommended for the invaluableactive participation given to LPU sponsored workshops, seminars andtraining programmes.

210. It is proposed that these established linkages be furtherencouraged recognised in the second phase livestock programme.

L. TRAINING

211. It was envisaged at appraisal that a project training centrewould Le established at Mokwa with an outstation at Fashola. The centrewas to provide, beginning PY 2, 2 year courses with an the emphasis on thepractical aspects of grassland and animal production, animal health, farmmanagement and production economics. Courses for private ranchers, StateMinistry employees and LPU staff, would produce trainees competent tomanage commercial cattle operations, both private and public, and tooperate as livestock extension agents. Short courses would be provided forfarmers and herdsmen. The project was also to provide 16 man years of

- 58 -

overseas training for selected graduates in suitable countries. Subsequentreallocations of project funds exhausted the finances available for theoverseas training component.

212. No schedule of implementation was made at appraisal. Two shorttraining sessions were carried out at the completed training out-station ofPashola before the review of this component. At that time since noprogress had been made at Mokwa due to the problems with NLMA and due toincreased project costs the review mission recommended retaining theoverseas training programme and cutting out the formal Mokwa/Fasholaprogramme. In-service and field day training at State level were to beused in its place.

213. At project completion the overseas training element despite lackof funds had been implemented to the extent of 2 LPU employees being sentto UK universities to obtain their M. Ses, one in animal production and theother in tropical agricultural develooment, and a further 2 LPU personnelhad been to Australia on a short course covering tropical pasture seedproduction techniques. The Senior Credit Specialist or LPU attended ashort course on agricultural credit and the Deputy Project Manager a courseon project planning and implementation. Both were In Washington and wereof 6 weeks and 8 weeks duration respectively. Total overseas training timewas Z 1/2 years. Funding was arranged from local sources.

214. In service training for LPU staff was mainly limited toSHFS/Credit Supervision/Monitoring. A British Council "train the trainers"course of 4 weeks duration took place in 1982 and a joint LPU/ILCA trainingsession on fodder bank establishment was carried out also in 1982. Apartfrom this no training on animal husbandry, grassland, and ranch managementwas undertaken due to constraints imposed by insufficiencies of time andthe necessary specialist skills. Six five day induction/credit supervisioncourses were completed. A total of 525 man days of training were given to105 persons. Short training courses at State level for State employeesassisting in the SHFS were given at zonal and sub-zonal office level, anduse of the films and audio-visual equipment at village level assistedbeneficiaries to understand the workings of the SHFS.

215. The reduction of the training component adversely affected theperformance of the Project. There was a strong need for the trainingcomponent envisaged at appraisal which would have provided a trainingcentre where practical training in day to day ranch management and the morespecific ranching technical skills could be taught.

- 59 -

ViII SPECIAL ISSUES

Substitution & Diversion

216. There is no evidence among smallholders Private and Stateranches that there was substitution of funds. There were no cases wherethe Intended physical developments were not made when the loans weredisbursed. There is little doubt thac most loans made to private farmersenabled them to use their own funds for entirely different purposes.

Weather & Other Risks

217. During the project period the rainfall in Borno State fell from711mm in 1979 to 262mm in 1983. This cannot but help have had an effectupon the project and though figures for the rest of Northern Nigeria arenot reported a similar reduction in precipitation is assumed to haveoccurred. Grazing was obviously affected, more especially length ofgrazing season. However, since performance did not reach the levelenvisaged at appraisal in the ranching sector this did not have a majoraffect upon Project. Weather had only minor effects on Smallholders (otherthan the normal seasonal variation in prices).

218. The outbreak of rinderpest during 1983 had severe effects on thecattle industry as the disease had spread widely before counter measureswere taken. There was insufficient vaccine storage storage facilities andmobility was poor. Some SHFS cattle died despite vaccination and virtuallyall markets were closed for some 6 months.

219. Bauchi SLC was severely infected with CBPP brought in bygifted cattle which highlights the risk of buying in cattle withoutsufficient quarantine measures being taken.

Research & Technical Availabilities

220. The Appraisal Report envisaged a research programme would beinitiated at Mokwa. Subsequent to the 1978 review mission this was droppedand although much research was carried out by various institutions this wasnearly all of an academic nature and of limited value to the project. Theexception is ILCA with whom LPU worked closely but their funds arecircumscribed and despite some financial help from LPU/FLD the results fromtheir work were only becoming useful towards the end of the project.

- 60 -Supporting Services

Veterinary

221. Most States have enough professional and subordinate staff toprovide adequate support. However, due to shortage of funds, they havevery few drugs and very limited transport. This has led to livestockowners attempting, without full knowledge of the effects, to treat theirown livestock.

222. LPU instituted a system whereby sub zonal offices kept a stockof drugs, anthelmintics, acaracides etc. for use by veterinary departmentstaff on SHFS cattle. This proved effective. The private ranchers were,unfortunately, left to fend for themselves and received little help onveterinary matters from LPU as no funding was approved within the projectfor this irvolvement and LPU were already heavily committed bothfinancially end from a manpower point of view.

223. A Senior Veterinary Officer within LPU to co-ordinate theprocurement of drugs and to liase with State Veterinary Officers isconsidered desirable.

Replication

224. Whilst the SHFS component of the FLDP has been proven and costsand returns show profitability and marketing systems appear to be adequate,at least with ruminants, the initiation of a large number of small scaleloans will require further investigation of marketing channels, and moreparticularly on-lending agencies.

225. LPU staff with the assistance of State Ministry staff have, upto the present, managed to supervise the loans disbursed albeit at timesrather scantily. In order to replicate the SHFS on-lending agencies shouldbe identified and definite criteria for NArBs acceptance of themestablished. Technical packages developed by LPU/ILCA on cattle fatteningand sheep festival fattening are available. Further packages on goatfattening and breeding, pastoralist milk production and pig breeding andfattening are under investigation.

226. It could be that the original Mokwa/Manchok component would be ameans of guaranteeing market prices and handling, especially with theaddition of a Government floor price. Investigation would be required. Inorder to provide the increased number of bulls for fattening inherent inreplication of the small holder cattle fattening component, considerableattention should br paid to the stimulation of the National breeding herd.It is considered that in order to supply the increased bull numbers settledFulani pastoralists on Grazing Reserves, private ranches and State ranches

- 61 -all have a role to play.

227. Cattle numbers in a replicated SHFS must be tailored to theamount of feed stuffs available within Nigeria taking account of existinguseage. The problems of procurement, distribution and storage couldperhaps be overcome by supplier credit or by the function being assumed byon-lending agencies such as RBDAs and ADPs.

Settlement

228. Settlement is taking place over the Northern areas of thecountry and within the scope of the Project some settlement has occurredwithin the grazing reserves. At Kachia, up until approximately 1977settlement of nomadic herdsmen was in most cases alongside the main roadoutside the grazing reserve but this has now changed to settlement within.There is a natural desire amongst settlers to congregate close to marketswhich is leading to confrontation with local people and will, if allowed tocontinue, lead to degradation of the pasture in that area. Work is goingon to convince settlers that the onus of the care, maintenance anddevelopment of the area should be upon themselves. Fodder banks are nowmore acceptable to them.

229. In 1981, Bauchi State drew up legislation to facilitatesettlement at Wawa-Zange grazing reserve, LPU demarcated and surveyed 16blocks of 250ha and FLD built a dip and labour lines. LPU made twoattempts to drill boreholes without success. Further efforts are beingmade. The area is not settled due to a lack of water. This highlights thenecessity in future similar exercises of adequate land resourceinvestigations and the Kachia confrontations show the need for adequatesocio-economic research before such areas are demarcated.

IX. ECONOMIC REEVALUATION

230. (summary of economic performance) )

231. (analysis of economic performance) ) 1/

232. (economic results - grazing reserves) )

1/ During PCR preparation it was agreed that the World Bank would completethe economic analysis. This was done but too late for insertion inthe PCR document printed in Nigeria; it was subsequently covered inthe Overview (see Overview, paras. 18-24).

- 62 -

X BANK PERFORKNC

A. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION

233. In terms of FGN livestock development strategy of the early1970s, the Bank was justified in supporting State and private ranchdevelopment as a means of introducing a higher level of technology, as avehicle for the introduction of cattle suitable for an otherwise littleutilised area and in order to increase the national breeding herd.Justification can also be shown for the stimulation and development ofgrazing reserves in an effort to reduce conflicts between nomadic graziersand sedentary farmers.

234. In terms of the success achieved there was obvious justificationfor the SHFS. The project has assisted in the insitutional development ofthe organisations involved with the FLDP and has established anotheressential link between FLD and State Ministries. With the growti of NAPRIit would appear that the reseach and pasture seed production componentenvisaged in the Project at appraisal would have been duplicated.

B. PROJECT CONTENT & SCHEDULING

235. The inclusion of the training component was necessary. Itsdowngrading during the 1978 revision may have adversely affected theproject. Establishment and development of over 2,000 square miles ofgrazing reserves was overly ambitious though this was also reduced in 1978to 1,000 square miles. A smaller area better developed would have been animprovement.

236. It is felt that a monitoring and evaluation unit within LPUwould be advantageous in order to monitor the progress of Projectcomponents.

C. PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION & OPERATING OUTCOMES

Preparation Requirements

237. Too much time elapsed between appraisal and effectivity. Theelapsed time was responsible for some of the confusion with regard to theLoan and Subsidiary agreements with NACB since senior staff had largelybeen changed. The long time between appraisal and effectivity should havefurther alerted the Bank to the level of management and organisation extantin NACB. Costs were rising steeply due to the lost time.

238. Pre-effectivity requirements stated at appraisal were not

- 63 -

enforced nor did the Bank exercise its prerogative under the term of theloan agreement. Land for grazing reserves was to be acquired and declaredbefore loan disbursement could take place. If it was not reallsed thatgazetting was the only legal manner of grazing reserve declaration it wouldpoint to a lack of preparation pre-appraisaL

239. Whilst assurances were given that Mokwa would be transferred toLPU within six months of loan effectiveness, the non-transfer dragged onfor two years before the review mlssion made its recommendations.Similarly NACB failed to produce pro-forma sub loan agreements on time.Records and reporting were poor and the pressures applied by the Bankineffectual.

240. Appraisal design was not detailed enough and contained manyinaccuracies. N88,000 shown in cost summary at PY 2 as an incremental costfor fattening cattle is reported in the model as occurring in PY 1. Thethree cattle stipulated in the model for fattening by 1,500 loanees isreported as a total of 7,500 head.

D. BORROWERS IMPLEMENTATION CAPACITY

241. Although set backs occurred within the initial two years of theProject these were overcome and implementation was undertaken with somesuccess. Development of the pacticipating institutions occurred andoperating techniques became smoother.

OPERATING FORECASTS

242. These were extremely optimistic though apparently based on thosereported in the CDC review. It is hard to reconcile the wide variationbetween appraised and actual technical co-efficients. Insufficientpreparation scheduled the purchase of nearly 34,000 feeder steers in PY 5had all gone according to plan. Not only is it unlikely that sufficientstock would have been available at the beginning of the wet season but thelogistics of their purchase and distribution would have been formidable.

F. BANK SUPERVISION

243. The Bank visits of October 1979 and May 1980 were notsatisfactory from a technical viewpoint. Since 1979 Supervision Missionbased on six monthly intervals covering all aspects of the project has beeninstituted by the Bank. In a project concerned mainly with large ruminantslittle change is accomplished within this period and since a Bank Missionrequires the participation of Project staff it may well be that excAssivevisiting is counter productive. An annual supervision would be considered

- 64 -

adequate with the added proviso that a visit could be arranged within theyear should Project Management regard it necessary.

244. The Mission's scope was adequate but as previously stated anearlier appreciation of the problems with NACB during the first two yearsand more Bank involvement in this aspect, as well as the grazing reservelegislation and the poor technical assistance rendered to WLC, would haveassisted Project performance. The presence of a sociologist on the teamcould have assisted the project and also that of a financial analyst/creditspecialist for aspects of the small holder credit programmes.

G. WORKING RELATIONSHIPS

245. There was fair rapport between the Bank and borrower. Had therelationship been closer, initial problems which occurred could have beenavoided. '-hilst the Banks reporting requirements were fair and usefulearlier and deeper discussions between the Bank and borrower over theformat required would have led to more timely and detailed iniformationbecoming available to all parties.

R. IMPLICATION OF PROJECT OUTCOMES

246. The SHFS can be regarded as a success and this element couldcertainly be replicated in the country with the previously menitionedprovisions that feed and cattle availability would need to be ensured. Ifany one area must be singled out as the Banks most significantcontribution, it would be the recognition of this component at projectidentification. Alternatively the failure of the ranching aspects of theProject may in the long run be of more importance seen against the succesof the SHFS since it highlights the future problem of feeder cattle,already in relatively short supply, being required in ever greater numbers.

247. Failure of the ranching components cannot be dismissed as poormanagement. Much more in-depth evaluation needs to be carried out on thisaspect. The socio-economic and technical attitudes of potential cattlemanagers, whether they manage cattle farms or ranches is disturbing. Untilgood practical management is available within the country, little can bedone to impr', e the breeding cattle situation.

- 65 -

XI CONCLUSIO

248. It is clear that the project was successful in the field ofsuallholder cattle fattening and especially so in the inclusion ofcommercial banks into the loan financing. The grazing reserves can beregarded as a partial success albeit with some extremely worrying factorswhich require both technical and soci-economic investigation. The researchfunction was reduced at review and the substitution linkages with ILCA andNAPRI worked well.

249. It has been shown that the State ranching component, for reasonsof poor administration and ranch management, was not totally successful butit is felt that this is not a justification for the abandonment of thiscomponent, rather that much more in-depth research and evaluation should becarried out if Nigerias national breeding herd is to be maintained and theproduction of feeder steers for fattening encouraged.

250. One of the major areas for concern in t%ts field is that ofranch management. Whilst expatriate mar,agement can be imposed upon aranching set up as a short term solution, problems occur in the recruitmentof suitably dedicated counterparts for practical traini..;. Suitablequalifications are not a problem, but attitudes to practical ruralemployment are, and since this affects equally the future of grazingreserves it is felt that much greater efforts should be made throughsocio-logical investigation to understand and deal with this problem.

251. The poor administration in the ranching component by localBoards can be easily rectified given FGNs willingness to do so. Reportingto FLD could be directly carrted out by a Ceneral Ranches Manager. Shouldmanagement be given to an entity such as LPU it should be carefullyestablished that the ranch sector is not part of the Civil Service.Alternatively state ranches could be managed under contract.

252. With regard to the private rancheb, some improvement becameapparent latterly but their reduced performance has highlighted a number ofimportant conclusions. More care must be exercised in the selection offuture beneficiaries and a committment from owner farmers to either utiliseprofessional management or involve themselves personally in it, given thatthey have the necessary experience and background.

253. It has also become apparent that private rancher is a misnomerand would be better modified to livestock farmer since under the presenteconomic conditions in Nigeria agricultural elements are required in thefarm plan as well as small stock in order to help support the farm untilthe cattle breeding component contributes to the cash flow. Encouragementof emergent commercial farmers would be an alternative to the contributionby State ranches to the national breeding herd or could also be regarded asa parallel system.

- 66 -

254. As previously stated appraisal goals appeared optimistic as didthe technical co-efficients given the available management expertise thatthe project was committed to use. No prospects were easily abandoned,rather certain components which could usefully have been more rigidlycontrolled (State ranching technical assistance) were tolerated.

255. The links formed between ILCA, NAPRI and LPU should continue tobe encouraged. Any further projects should include a training centre asenvisaged at appraisal for the teaching of day to day ranch management andthe more specific technical ranching skills. This training should beextended to Project, State and commercial sector staff at all levels fromherdsmen to Ranch Manager.

Um~ Dswnpmt Pm,jmt - 1091 IN ttA I

p,j, t aUt lZ I

hxd SUW% tUm* W Ld

7w Q aw aim VW in a h

(~-

a). Toul 0o.X 7Pr3 -S7 81W FA0 _.. ....................... .......................................................... ____._

'tfmatniucu I Etdpdt IC!65 24 24214 9-0 155mYreadi4g CatuIe I45 12S 2743M --

rhmmt a 11t7e 118

Vondsn Capitol 3147 461 29919 560 87W7

!'7UL 2466X 4 %57 550 55149

b) . RnnVaim 2 F4 R 5 Ff6 PC 77W 778 79/a) SW 812 am 76.85

S!A!k !°Do s ) 4ax cW 461 11id 53tH 16729

Faderisa Goqemmi 774X Z742D

flC! 5166 '0 9074 1497 2 9

llD- 1091 NI! 15497 2128D Z72 449D 61

TIou 24663 4399 657 9469D 53) 0 555149

ND * hA= of AC loan diuel aMI fuL1y e.J

Limtcd rmilapmt P_j.t - 10I Ul kbi 2

Projest Ca: peltio Rept

mhl Sthb lFatoU w4 Ltd

Infratruct7u, F4u4pwnt. Cattle A ', Catrl Zat

I (nsira) - -

Pf 2 PW 3 PY 4 FT 6 Pr 7

a). tziratniotwu §4 F1d~ut Cosa 8 IdJ

'.ter aevel clt 166- 7125 1 I - -.b^Dtun isvlopmt 35GO53:1AIR I ho(A in2 --- Plant I-Maddne- 5448 12478 e7m 17.btor Val"dclee 40M) Stodc s:ardllng faciltim A 6f--

.otal 10265 J374 24214 ,01 0 0 154

b). '.ttle PR=ha

Fattmfri Stock Puchased - 11878 - - - 116w

mWSing Jtock Puhmased 1438 I 26 .'reedlire Stock mi",plied r MD 20 - -_ ___

.otal "reedirg Catle Casts 1439 0 l1. 274am 3 0

year Yoar r mar e4r yeae'. .irtdnr ,*q 'wTu.-mter+ '7.oX ws/2% 1/i X9y a;A- )4 1

* - ^ _ rx547 N4c8 36C57 qT3 9T77

.ess 7r zro - 250 ; 25r 25m

Total ;;we 'p:.ital 0 31 360 M 27 7237

:rer-w"sa - j147 161 2rF:49 53

.-I Costs 'I to 3th .hme 19w) as per e.x-lture ra So to ' . -.hereafter rr p statats prFue IF MWo.vi LPJ rers OfMrE-ha fior wodk ssrrtis out. Auiite1 accamtb onlv praerai up Ito 4 3 FV2r

2 Beig actual cost of 5in hea of br*in stodc sup IsdL'T a7 s ovenrent .rent.r a). Emme atodc valuations condist only of listos thqi mv bee ealidsid frn the calculation cf w"orkir capital; thw increntalc ttle pwrchs An shmn as a separt Lim itm&b1. 4s woldrge cantl mts anu onl,y available at the finmial yaru.ed 31st Dee.ber, the ircrermtal woeod. ce;ital at yraedha bpe usl in Total Project Co.t Table a foUwa,

PTf 3 yeaenwing "/ti Fira c e i

PY 4 30O/Ify8PY 4 " as/06'ear-erdir 31/19FY 7 " LYM 3O/O/" "

.. UC *.l *_ Ii 1 ._ -Y e-' 1~.t .s- fiP .zsad H U.LL* W d _u _:'<.'4 U

n - a n eW ^ ~ ~ ~~~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~n In, a 5z w_

H LI .e Ce~~~~a 4 % JC6 I, up is H se 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 (a oU.Me %.

0 0, 10,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ii

% 3 3 b *L 1 aP C 10 8 - U 1 1WuW B03na a a a n * a n n . D C 0

1e u a~~~0 a I a i . 4-e a L Ii 15 ) u.1) MO To 2 a a g a q a. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 0 0 0~~~~~O 2 13n-

P o0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D U 0 KMS I.jPH0 0 4' g(h O O O O O (D i o o o D o I-gg-P

2' O 9 0 9 0 **Um

o 0 s 0 0 0 b U 0 Ia U .3 * 1 0 tt~

s O O D O O o o D e O o O D O

It~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Ia

* X @ D C X oG s ts ~~~~~~ ~~~~ ~~ ~~~~~~~~~~el o.* D o D t 1

&Pqm wurmw m -

CE C, CU F % fi [l V 2~~~~~~~O n :01) sc Qw rpm

It It it itIII m b 4 Is 0 I I~ I ~ ~ ~ iU4W

De Is P I.. K b N. .PI ne 1 * . D . u I WC ;C

up at cm~~~~~~~~~ DP lb&=t

1 L ' L e <t e>{>*LIu La o . i 3 1 i , , D_9

a MI W. -Mi0 a 'MI M I W II * IIWI 'M I I 'a a 'M M M'% r IN W.' KI-oI' mS11111

- in A !'6' -l i I " M I'"M I u : 1 z -W _04-". t L S sc c v cc y fs I. * Ye 9?tD i

CC w C X i g ~ ~ ~~~~i 01 - -w" v * J ;

I SI~~~~~~~~~~~~~I;;

iS , Q s " , ,01 , 1 PC 1| SI ,C s 4l ,l SI 01 , 5?

.1 ,a * as a 1 al aSI IL Ic * Ce .a B .B L

WaU U.9e n.1 UIh 311 IN91 31U w.1e or.*Wa _.rtW9.3.1 l*I *e.ee~ e

14 I :4e ZC I i R 3 .11,NW *4a . 4 *41 ml a VOl e w m,i Wmon. I

t~~~~~~~ :4~ 3: Eit|l&O

- 69 -

Liwm buo~ ftj.- la A a t

- - -- ta M, PM*t omlad It a

a). Hord Cq2oidtlm (Nd of MW*

Walm~~ aw a e b

WAIin(12~fl¶UWI1-2 Y_4Ao1-2 YFA 12 11 l i} 4 4 4

t2WUOID S 12 12 12 1 ? 7 o e tO 10 9 6 8 6 4 O2-3 YrARtIY 10 a a a 19 2 6 D w2 0 02-3 YFAR OW ~ ~ 0 0 0 0 0 4 1 A YEAR Om 52 570 25s2 19 II 800 000 a 8 10,0 0 0000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 g8 8 8 8 0 0

RJ i R{ in ZL (S-m I3U) o o o o o o o O. O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0)tAlI AD CARR 209 206 20 209 201 195 1t 1" 174 174 1X120tI 1 1 7 17156 f 51*2 .VAL AdU. CAe 3 1572 ¶ 12 li6 114 I13 1( 1(3 12 123 117 110 1 99

M RMAI (WA/AU) ,70'7 R.19 8.57 8.57 9.31 9.47 9.56 10.591 10.S .57 q.7a 9.2 9Q 9.91 10.91 11.49 11.61 12.41 b). ROM rd R0 (0 921.0)

PtUs Q0o O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O 0 0a 7 S 2 2 g I O 2 la I 0

AL n r6 4 7 5 2 5 2 5 1 0 2 9 14 1 0 0 5 7SAL! a 0 0 0 9 61 10 0 I D $ 0 8 0 6!1TUCLU 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 0 4 rM:AIM CALVE0 0 2 0 1 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 2 CTt,A lt S on7 7 O O O O O O n 0 1 0 0 00

OTAL UOMM r10 7 9 0 1011 111 2 0 3 7 1 10 21 12REM!IAR O O O O O O O O a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

). PerfouM.M (&MAL MO)

CALVD 2 26 26 29 3 29 3129 5 7 S 41 46 5g 550 50 52 60CALI 1mALn'f 14 15 14 12 14 14 15 13 8 5 5 0 0 2 2 10 18 24OIm ICAL'wW 6 4 4 4 2 5 3 3 5 5 6 6 8 8 8 It IS 14af2M Au mL % 6 5 5 5 3 4 4 5 5 4 5 4 5 5 5 9 12 15ER1ITZ R1fl 41 43 46 48 43 44 48 49 56 45 45 25 31 31 U U6 7 fi

SH blir, 6=:, m = Ya mc m ra , cm up to 3NIS bmmhm_ OW, I our d _*br C 9 vanlu w d( w w uuwt ain a tokd Cavabo n p l 11pdd

LLte k bwit Pmojwt - 1091 uI tia Z 5

PMJmt O~*MPtL 3upzt&beda Sftt LIvwtcl *OM Ltd

9;;td-df 1 kAtt oi ihb

7a im)itLS Wom A _sda _ ffnW 2

~~ mm~~t I ~~~.i.1 lirfbin 14am lPm. ~~~~ ~ ~~~~~w stiptr 1!1opmmt 2 A 4P I ' i A 4 n n Ti PI PI T U n

3 Rate (A.U.) to 123 113 101 10 97 2 2 4 OID 75 70 66 1 SI 55 4

S "tc (au . 181I9 19216 Z1346 NM36 1I9NRIa~ts -'stc* l t 6 iuAu - - - - - 1 - - -o -

*7M.00 fidwAmamd ll ~~. 0 O9 8 , a,, 655 6 4 555 64 4 3181TotalX 0 17162 141 1976 4C6 - - 118a9 2976 1as0 11160 go 6 66RR 5sw2 sseo 5= 4464 4464 472

catttl l1I -4 t0 dtus 5 , . .t - MMJS 28X74 24214 Wi0- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -.

=X1 htt Oueh zd- - 117- - - - - -- -4 ~-. ' - - - - -

* 75 P 9.0 to nA7) - -49 - -ZB -54z - 0 -11 -5 -1 75 75 75 7) 75 759 0 0 0O '° 'i

ibtol 0 Ii 2 a 0 1118 79 1118 9 79 9 79 9 9 o 0 0 0

Oprnidbpd -0_l - - 1l 22431 31747 T 7 M 37 35 3M 79 M M M M M M M N

4Oimotm. 9g - - - - - - - - - - - -- lU

notwr 0 5S i 2o IW0 210 Mi A 2i A _Sb-total 0 0 42M 356 44; N1M99 445W 451136 47 401S 44713 4465 4U518 4447 4 44 44274 44239 441 44019 4403 T170

~a1 Cainb 0 24663 834 741B 40!129 177O 44518 4614 45756 4597 AZR7 45191 53~77 44981 44914 43 44209 4413 44019 UIIS 57W9

let bda O1. 0 -15T1 4145 -856E6 -31183 -73 -Zia9 6-4975 -3i75S -Wg -g -WV -35m1 744 - 4 -352 -W -4ms -ms -10

lHi r"ms ( ,) _ - . . . _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - _o

bt lafit atn_ .1 641145 666 -W8 - - 4-39 -MN - -73571 -M4 -#7 -3! -M -71664 -mIS -AM M4M5

11namw1211 of 1191A la ineii

fiU4 7v f pajesm Sd c ca t 7 * 1 w (M AI to* 3).am with~ nmnImu ft bi mab mad. - '' Z 0 a ut1 th_ Nb f ote l_

a.

U

Ii liP 'KU1551 "I

*1tO

S

p. 1 ii � Io

I -.

* I

I I

a a

Ii Ii* I* a* a

*

I a

S S �iiii�;lfa 0

I =1 a

* a* a* a* a* aa S

'S. * 13-n

- U -

- 73 -

NMEU A~~~~~~~~~~~MilE: Hr

Livtodc Dsvlownt Proet - 1091 I1 T'bble: 2

PneJzt Cq0em hom

INn Livestodc Coq.wy Ltd

nhmtrubctuz, ruipmmt. CttleIVaaldz rapital otra

(aiim)

(3 Pr74 Pr5 Pr6 f77"r yer Yur yr ymr

a). Infrmtmactzbr a Sbapmnt Corte 30LM 19 %t

Rads a ibim l509 386 6161 12972 - 158tater Dslopnnt 450 407B 4"2 -taut Clartiw it Thst lhwelopalt 2 345)0 U1385 a3s 1774 5O; bilr1n,- a-4540 2ao62 43mt -PM Uat SC I*U.nery 1296t 4345t 1 _Motor Vehicle - J637 - -

ParmItitre ttinp Iltuiina - Gorc 1a;, . 75 4579llPumitn Pitting a twpst - _ - 4194 92 7

107. 234§53 1(22214 75520 1O6E5 459537

b). Cattle Pardine

Fattening Stock Puhrdalt lo48 2534 164293 aEiI - ?f132

Inomwmtl FPtttnmra 1045 - 59B 137 A _ l7

Bawling Stoda Nachuaed - 15326 14t125 - tBawling Stodt applie Ir PLD VW - - 714200 - -

TItil Brading Cattlo Coata 9 15326 415475 0 O 4h3021

year year year year year year

). t ng CApital Buineaats 05 3770% 3-I 397M 31 317dW

Stocks 50m % 2911325 24355 505 477303 39O1Debtors - - 20452 50) 6t9 13961

mb-totat 50151)5 2'fl. AM 5nx 5482 404161

less:CrAtit.rs 62W 40M 42725 35424 1Z7964 47343

Tbtl wokding capita] 44993 293%5 2215e 474661 4178 Yf6818

Fattene - - - 84054 33910

445B93 29 2gs5(2 589712 1140f0 15267

Unal"ms_tl - 152173 -M13 -35210 -7235 -279D

NII ba1ln T E fiamall accmts p tn ysrendine 3112/S1. threater bha on quarterly roearm t trwgh W. Costa tdjastto yealr ing 3Jth Jume. Olpi atl e n3iib a respect Or pAtry prujst h.. been emcaedB f(ns above coats.

12 Ien clearing & postureiUp nvent costa treted as opereting eps in HEC fiarral cota*3 RePrents the bnlamn of lgam fats expiWe & claimd in eaae or inrastnwiae. breading stodc .a lnca tal tatt.aers

ex-editu .04 5qD bud brearinF mto-c npliAtly br PU as Cornent Grnt_S iog etl aniv iable nr Coven 7sat Graiait thererore imaicng cpital at yer-d ta ham usl i as n-5 trtdn capital wily rl le at rimarcis y-mr-end 31st DNeaber, w-oewzdi Riii tym-edb ,nLM L

followng cheduale ror rnoect Total Cost Table.Pf 1 ytar-endine 3D69 Finacial rAtmuta yea-auing 31/12178Plr 2 ,._ 12,gPll 3 _ y . X1fPt 4 _ jD j- 31/12/DtPr 5 D3D/OI - - 3 31/1Z/82

%6 Valuation or rlxed A airma assets ts t over tb EPA (it. I.IXR.144) ism fried assets (cN. 59.1).07 Vale or cattle pun:wdA dartg the year, sal still in sto* at year-si.'8 s50 hau breeding stock supplid by FID at actual cost of M. 274,23) btt incaled in BlCo firnincil '4unts at N. 144.926.

- - 3 1 - 3,Al Spq .j p- = IoV

Al, _ 1J . LI 3 _01 II rL 11 ' _ 3£ ' .1 ( -_ y339LI~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~~ ~~~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ 4~~. 4. 6 II I_ _ _, * _ ._. IS AZ -_ . .3W. 3' S. -- Cl - * - ) _

Le_It S_ 3. 3. I? mc ,,.=

it a3 . GE . IC a lX £3 SC 'A. mc. 9

3 _ . _ r 5 _ _ 3 _ _ _ .3 . 1. 433 9'I

-: o o o o o0 a a 0 0 0 a0 0 o t p4rZ

i c m 0 s .3 I . 1z off.. 44 1' .

r * 3. * m O 4 IS 03 L. 94. ; 9 A .393I3 .IC0: - (S) 14 15-3

' o o .3 0 o n % *1 0 0 e1 33 0 O '~3~49i-g I9* . n 3 91 93 03 ' 4 39 13 39 UE 34. 'I o 0 _,, a O o zO ,, sO , 'l ,R e 's s~~~~~~~~~~ >0 % 0 .- W

, . . . . .3 r3' e3 00 0 0 0 3 3 0 3 .- *- O

0 wre 110 S c4n. -

_ * L a CZ _. I. 4_ . _ , - .__,

3 3 3 * 3 4. C Ae * 9 m 3 3 3 ' 1 1~

- 33 ~~ ~~~0 3. 0 ml I 1 3 ..3 a 0 0 0 00 0 33 m 0 3

.~ 0 o a 0 0 0 S g3 g 0D 3 .3

0 0 ' 0S A I 3 3 .3 3 I g 33 " .3.^ " *wa i' | U If U 'a L L

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~3 11, _9 3.

V1 33 11 1 1 4X Vl 33 l l 41 11 91 .11

, I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~S

a. U 3. 0 a a3 I 'am

mc IL .1 'S 30 9. 39.m . . W 9'm 1 G .3.31 ig .9 .. * -o -mr P%--

St & L_ -M

I,a W La m u, 04c1w oa0 U 1. 0 0~~~~~~~~~~O 0 $ i 0 0 0I'M IS00 3 4J m FM1a' 0~~~~~t 0 0 0 0 0 00 00 0 S Lwtm3I

I 35 1 L. SC9

* ~~~~~~ C C I I - 31~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~a Pi LI .5 3 4.1 33 313.4. .mc AL 39 ~~~~~ ~~4 SW33 33 9 34 la.3 III, .I.

-tmi (_". p 3) -A'OWJM .

A4 :.~ Z~ urn: .3 * : LI * S34 : MU . &1 L 334: -1 .111

-4 U W,A OR 9 WM 93 9 Wu Wm gm "A 3mU ;a 93 d

ma mt 2 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 2 ~~~~~~~ 3'~~~~N 1 31 06 1 .

* * *~~~~ * * .3 . .393 * .3 * .. . * -3 3 . * 4~~~~~~~~W Inll- A:

S4.31433 339.4IV033M 513 33 91398mQ 13333 31431 M 313IS ml h33 al 43 nnm444 (514444 .33 45.L13IS 533 . .1913' 3 339 .

It ( 40 ox Ck OE C rA 3.3W -A3.et3.3.....

ez &WAS=~~~~~~~~~~-~mli--i l

- 'IL -~~~~~~~~~~~~-l-ICGI- S

Lvesu Dh wi Pbo o -s uIo * Ut1 AM I __ - - - Ubl i 4

PniJa C^e hSttP .mjcm c (ode a " kd

2XCO Ill. --- ----2 std CiUtka C * Pgwtu d 0

i JA M ! M!R! AR!! i !U JUI I AM3 ! 9 !0 W 1W I JO : M I MA In 1 I W I Al

a). He ~ (6 at *) !

IFFXDDI Is 5 a s @ , t MC14,12 ime) wow¶ 5 0

0 S 0 o oo 0 2 0 0

YWOW 0 3 ~~~~~~~~14 i 0 0 nYTA2 RI0 0 0 0 a 0 0

F- YV SM s OM G O Y? I 1 0 0 YM4 Om 0 0 0 8 8 8 8 08 YM ~ ~~~000 0 0 0 0 oh ME O O O O O O 0 0049 12 4 0 08o

Tf/lL RUXE D0 MAD 14;S42 13M 1b61 13M 1262 1134 1103 109 109 10l4 10 1>4 Re 1 W 94 9M 8t2

RULM YAM=I (S5WUI) 52 41 % 26 2 m 18 10 I I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0qL HD CARD 18 1461 1417 I m in la la 1 i lel I 14 1

42 WrAL A.U. C.ARim I52 Im 1E 1 i 112D FM w 9 a 7. n1 t P wr77

SIUR PM (WA/D) 18.17 18.79 Iq.43 2107 214A 26.0 29.2 25.8 26.76 2713 27.37 MMU 29.38 29.67 304 l31 Al30636.14b), Herd mnw(iu4hI4)

0 0 0 1 0 02 t 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0e2! 9 4 4 16 14 th 11 10 21 15 7 22 17 18 3 g I 6

TOTAL DICIW1 9 4 4 16 14 16 11 10 21 15 7 22 17 08 1 a aSAD 26 26 17 15 5 25 w M 0 8 12 2 49FIWA1U- nALVIU 15 8 6 j 7 84

PEA'f -A- 0I 4 17 22 1 a I I 19 A 4a o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o~~~~~~~~~~1 a 12 Ia*jv./Slp / W ° 10 °l °0 1 0

44 48 42 80 95 14 47 50 17 17 60 29 21 21 0 0 0

e). Perfor!1 (aai Ln)03 CALVM % 24 22 22 23 2. 25 25 17 19 D 19 2.1 23 24 22 20 21 20

CMYNALrf I<RA Q 45 56 0 44 41 36 40 61 64 05 OD 54 >52 51 67 14 "

MM.4v5Iw 9 7 7 8 7 8 9 10 10 10 tO 10 9 10 q 8 10 10 10OVMRALm s M 9 10 1o 10 1o 12 12 13 14 14 15 15 15 15 14 17 19 22WICr1iN % 2. 27 27 24 2 27 29 24 26 27 27 26 A 29 29 29 a S 30

* -1 , ib.r.., aft:1 a =.u u'2 <~2bu. ~sw ,mOA, acl, =UI I aa-e

DOW o b cn b 1 (am ; *o hNULf " 9 s prw eo pn dae a tw, colimbom in ped n prod.

EMIA 113

l1Vta* Dvrd.1 t PrM*t - l IMj s !

PsoJwt o stl Xe llprt

lhrw U .tik Ltd

btlintd VIJI. BIR of hbaur 0

EVstiJ mramt A tamIucs perfortorm 2'

PAID. Pf f n Pi Pt Pt Pt PI r Pr PrPtDeloput 3 4 5 7 a 9 R 1 12 1 14 g I 17 1 , 22

Sto d hbRate (A.U.) 664 7;7 5W 441 355 N 22 3 IZ s 15 l as 69 7S 4J 34 iS

W tas (9Ll *g.stc) - 55667 71111 4 46 5119 - - - -- . _

I 3721. iandh- - A 4 499 3 9 9 99 2 V 164 7 4 1t4 70 5P S2 ON mi 24

Totol Ermam ) 55667 71111 'MiA i46 51579 4W5 -3o 49T E 31992 a6 MO 1636 I1 100i4 7440 5W2 Su 4 32 mm

t?h .t I . pt _ ;221 75IM 10 - -_

zwatnbe RltOim VW PM - 15 4511 A Zaiw - .tml 2 2 - - -: : : : : 16A Z 1 2 1 5 0 8

Sib-total 141532 2F494 577497 i11 4 1(- 1i7 29 27I" 1118 1-g 1118 9 ll 59 59 0 59 -0 9 0

-Directorsw 9 15 1d 15 16B 1w tn 1B 1fl 1b 16S 116ffl IIe5 11655

_ - I? ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ IN 2I2-0t3ariria gst§ 3 ' 3t 2 12 X ;lW iB II ; 316 2M aj jIl li3 II2§a

ab-tata. 0 A= 163 22 25 aO 179244 163M9 I16S6 56610 157166 15M 155169 154 159 i 54 151 IM7M4 15514 lsam i52417 1W19 i5Vim

?otaL Cat 0 W9M7w 436312 601515 7W 1e 175i 163561 6I405 1m I574 157 15499$ 154937 15=5M 15%3 1554 153159 t52417 =Pm 1557

Net sdi hiu 0 O 55 . a691 .9i949 3 -5jW3 -132350 -1353V 1153 1-119Z9 -12314 -1=6 -I 7 -l -141997 =143w -14619 -1469 - 14o1 - I4T -149693 -149

Raibil lIhd Yaho (33 jui) - - - - - . . . . . . _ _ _ , _ .

ht lt St-u -36i2 ZW9 43 =1 *1M0 -1 -115331 -111999 -1314 -134 -.13 -13465 -1419%7 -143 -14619 *1462 -14791 -14 -149690 0PA7

fl la Neta 11 I ICfII

IIBgdsX2/ X lb htu4 ptLm~ -~ ~ 1 t M A uGt PaueJm (m h U,W& 3).

hd 3 owe*ty uddjct1 o hnbr

'IICIRt AMO. MI

LiU todc lD lopmnt ProjAet - 0)1 US Table

Project Ccnpletim: Rep*Yestem ivmtodX Cf'u= Ltd

Total Cc*ta & Frwimng

s). Total Coest F t 4 Pr Tt5 I"), DoK 79/D 81/a2 u S76-83

Infruatructure & q1dprnt 199736 15161 421819 467M 671829 1912947

Bresling Cattle 34A416 6683 7 1911 161ODi2 3414717

Iricrwental Fatterrem

'doeAdng Capital 123416 160461 a52 569145S- - S 3Z315 ff100171-061 8 1550

b). Firanocl F 4 y 915 6 MAL

3TA;.t (NWLC) 123416 160461 aW 533450 11 2595

Feaeml rovemnrmt 174390 334-18 394367 RA%7 17142

:AC3 49934 37920 1.'5495 116"10 ysA iP5I7

R3RD - 1091 %t. 14o f7S1 $5D184 '.U456 3l46 ZS63

Total 323152 E659 lf1M57 1541(j1 221%ie31 ;963

NBDT Total !'ACC loan disbursal both in cash A in pqment for 'L.orted cattle.

" :~ :L"B- arlidu is t al on lisbir w.atA of ltOK of th cost of cattle (f.o.b. :rn ,',ul, bia) an re 4,ft tto ':AC? of 75% of irfmstnetwul costs.

MURIA Mat m

UvLltoc wlopmt Poject . IQ9t WI! Tubla 2- - - _

Project Cavlati@n Rerat- -

'k.tem Llvetck Caoa Lt.

Znfratruc , EI,ulpwt, Cattle a 'dou Capitl Cost___- - - _ _

F, Y4 R Ff n f6 nyear yea Wey Yew

a). TnfrntrucOz a aI imt Cast, P2

Roais ?Iem Cnmah 1347;2 1 F1 2 pCl'ltJ ¶ po td (not ao/c) 4

MMnl t MachiJt3z_!'jc tr VehiclasM2 eM

tgqT36 1516 421819 467Ee 671I9 191297

b). :' lams Tportatian Coast

'attle (fob Banta) N- 174026 395 S 15

ter5Az catW bpe _VFWT 174P 334518 067 17042T7otal Bros" Cattle Costs 0 348416 659 'V11 161 O52 341417

-4

yasr vear year year ymr yrI:! h.2rio 'pital loquirmnnto,- 3,, /5 -A 3A 30 07

17r7PV2 :.77M Z2I¢4 26O68no:5. :la.-z Lperta 49 - -

232;4 21L45 , NNSkAtoP I1 N.TTY Xa4 M713 Z6 12 .2Mm rA

Amntx Jhie to holdine co. - O 6119 4kAuntA lue to reI. utidis - -es I I Tim ra

.otal .<u1diig !apt$A-l i.4 1 19B 13l I' 22 raZtrmw.tal - '23416 Jil 'l4 2M5-. no

r Capital dition in r:s0 k0of the 1emloPnt= IJludsd in lWI firt Orawl acomt for peiod Ist Fi:R W7 to 3Ist AuSt 19.'2 osate for year W 82 baeud rat o3 c mn mte 1 e t u,tuna tor 1 s adat1 to include U UlW cM for the Yer eftim 31st Auat 19MI,agend WM zv m for U an cad tadtleiad C'bEtimted co Sth r Lmldd in ya Z 31st Aurt 1 'a -at i,r tu tbr PMu MgC dmft aotBn rr 12noth period to 2ft hEruuy i978 ieor td intrJ at %004 r period Ilat Rah1 to314 kLtU tbr 1995

7 Vd 1^=:atias u at 31oet Augt Ilnot yrt available but it in anticipated that noXt of ber Dt,tdokdl1fWo l vith 31st Au4n l t lam in c in oreditor e n imrutol w* g cp i r e ti5 t"8 wat o t 'd cattle inoiledd in 'IW octow hL bo dectitad fl e stoc VUl sirMImeJacm u a a u,ktm * Lbitem in th Proeot Coat table.

nia * not smulable

- 79 -

m z i

Imm_ 31jb I lam! o3 1s M_A undo (b.)

am ~ ~ 4% 6 0 4 3 1 0 0 dQ o-* °_a a I I 0 0

~~j. ~~~29 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 27

W _ 045 6 0 4 3 1 I O 40 4

a 2 O 0 O 4 112 0 o 0calm 0 0 0 0 a 4saa a a a a 0 a 2

as uq t 19 142 0 0 717 4. U

0 0 0 4 4 01 0 o | O 0 6 191 0 1 o t4 o

o O O O a a a O

_599 0 t 0 4 1tO 19 a W _

D. (hIvm)

am_ 461 0 0 0 5 2 0 1 5 2ad_ 0 0 0 0 0 2 6 0 4 0

7 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 7 0

-- zL E9 0 0 0 5 4 6 1 S _

v. Q ) a

cm 466 a n 0 2 0 0 5 4I9 2O o o o a o a 0

05 e0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2

lout lffl ~~0 0 0 4 0 4 6 iS ~Ak Itkwwtlee) ~~~~~~~~~~a qom

a 3 0 1 6 9 0 2 W&X_ 6 1 t 0 0 S 16 0 a 1 ?-T

21 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 2

bbd 4% 1 1 6 14 16 2 6 _ 2

a_ 6~~~~aJ 0 o n oa f o U2 047 1 0 0 0 0 0 *1 5l o ot0 19 o o 2 0

cbur a a 21 0 0t ' 0 6 3W4 Sd ko 2;675 1 0 0 0 19 9 0 gg 2

lama 4 a a a2 lS 17 n 4 S

IL (00,Wm_t

a m .

17

L bU rtm C 49t

*1m fr_ - immd. I

x m A _Q -k-C IIN m W -1-~i. ~

o 99 9t A S. o dIL~... -- p~ . r uA * n S ' .. s-

Ad ICC LPL WA~ ~~~ ~ ~~ Wa aP a a WIa W 0I 4 (WIL L IL AL aL AL CL W. m 7Ž a .6 Is ~ ..9

SA Us mm 9$ ii SI u 9$ S. ,9 lap. a Pt. Al a. M. a1) - -

-A L. A MCS '9 sW 'AM AL 1. Lp 'v. bog 13 hlL Tft) LjIO9

-, S IL 0 P0 ? .c~ 0 3 ' 'hA LA. ~~~~ AL2 Let AS YAM 1 1$ 6 SW P% 91e .0 '

-MI L ~ JL1 PAM &WA KaM 9$(J ALI *.9$ AS3 sz%P $0 M I2 0 I- -4*E l9~-%I

U L 0~~ C 0 0 a 0 0 S. J Uf ~~l SAL, 150~~ SIl CI S10 .0 a' .85 aS PhI LV. SL -1*J~I9

l~~.I Q 0 9 C 0 0 '3 .~~ ~ s U U - 1'L,S151 Lk 0.l 0A CL I sI P. a0 ALA oat5 C8 5

1~ ILP K

AL P . I l ( C $ . 1 A 13 A'.P- Il .. oq,I

id 19. .. 15 - ue $ p. AL '. p1 '3. W)

CA L 0 0L 0s 0S0 1 0 .0 0 kkkkgP

0 0 0~~~~~~0 a

J L~~~~A S L S~~0 01 1 a,0 -

9~~~~~~~ *

?iil __ .- ¶ (CM IlLS. CM, .xlo P.R ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ (0) B~~-C o.E . C W.W US Li U : .40 A . 1.5 SZ& (CA 6L SM CasM 9$

-f W -t NM On9 On S& a. M AS. SIa WI 19$ lI= AlL IS= MAMPF P 'j 3

0Q0 C Ur or ' a o 0 W Le .e I) Ii CC I, X I A4 4 L,IL. l 541 L I lE I IL I IMLa A6 i ILLC AM 1. l( 'J I j

La 0 0 000G . ,. o L L.0 06 Go 0re I Z=)0A1

SIv v Lg. LA LA

Wu. -W- A -A I'0::! or

cm 'W II N.'AI* 1 a0 I 0 i ElW. M W41 i S 'M 1 W . VNI i . -I .M i * A . .V a .'1. to. 'N. -M i

£ 9$ 9$ 9$ 9$ AS 9$ 9$ IL 9$~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~f IL 0C it U $ C 01 L U 3 I5 8PSLI 1.1 A CI 11 :,L 1 LIl L n i e L IFII M MS U

I LI AS 01 01 AS AS DI .I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~mg11" "IMNI .1 anF " S LI-i .A-11PSg%* P 5 0 5 5 5 5 9 P P P 5 A. A ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~umm am

*v -- sumbi S AS A d 1 A N 57 *10

2 * 0 .0 * SIA 9 * ( . I(I *CI 11 *DI * P U LU

Livestock DwoloMu Pr@Jmt - tY1091 0 5

Projeos Cavl1ado Rqxu'tVutWmi Uw.ck OCu"q LiL

Hard Cavqm1tku A lRe adfot1~ia Tmw O2 8wc Cam1

(head)

id cm . . .. .R rtid Nord CI.a ... 4iA MIiO . . .ea FNIAN2Of

~3ft TI _ _ _

_*~~~~~a b_ -t )_

Catew Ren LBi rdus edm 1u !.s OwO caa (JNTnro) U)

DMMUM (.rw 2451 m51 '2 2M) -20 -64 -84 26B -112 -W *211 Zff6 2540

Baii1 AIs 2m5 215 44 -10 -41 -7 26 - .- 2

hlvm 1341 709 0 200 9 -62 -.3 4¶4 an 8 7 -14 62 9Vmrerifelmn 85 .4 * - - - * * *

Mswur %IU/S 32 * 4 -* * * * -

HIeLte (1-2 p) 4U7 492 05 _ -1 -9 483 - - 0 43 49

alilu/Suwrs (¶- ) 204 48 15 - -I -2 -3 475 - * 0 45 43 c

qeifers (2-3 yo) 1i0 1646 6 412 -7 -7 w 2044 -2Z -2 -42 1601

11U/sters !2-3 7) 159 2536 - 52 -54 193 -7 6 .13 18 240

'!eitem ( :'-4v 3D0 - -2

'tal1 Cowu II II '- ' -Il -Il ' ' ' ' ' '_A _ _ -t _~ _~ _1_7_ 4_0_ _

7-: A: 65F 200 6n 65 -1=10 3-B 74 6q99 - i

:rn 0 -- it tt ukpn in oWbov 'In. aS rwbaoro Auppr UP hl ewortfllas fltrs apv to aU rw'2 iet1ru 3!4 yo) included in bredW c catwL2451 *t 27S1J.

i.! .rw)rs are total bom In r"v. 12 Mnt re1 pleri ol duu - t rod (3M)q Lwlutire nt up to 1 yol balarce rpio a ad foru s 1-I j (63 had).:..esr recladciic n, calvegqate7 mps Iyt isteld up o 1 S° cealvs ad weensrsV

'9 nsen m rszu iam eettretal ft birth rert tn 12 rcvzm to Oh year Wnd i'M JVi s' a d. 1170 bbirths Iss 14n c.tr d edu a e 9 2 yu dj rl azflh¶. retal lb had o t hdi 6d2 hie a bit- tot (316 hStt I

'I' sr.e.e/bJL)

~~~~~~-2 I fra Ab/f3 ;mm tcI.rted p1Js gbLn ivi avtN:otal of 43 tW46 2-3 bt hla u at Irorted pLu 9 0iIja toaal of 153 haid..u,ta ^/btad (l-2 p) ^ fran 116 ZtJ ptueI 2;1 t19 bo4wis iliw 1/ eaui l 1 ulaw114 b/ at 11 oL a97 of 6t hd ad

M bleruI calvn b dhrll/, M s at we tat b Otober.

ir o 1AT% , ised TOh ler4 it do 2 bteeal cam 4) an toUwe t

Totals 13 b59 Oat 1tll * 1312TotaLa 1253 59 l1

Livnw Dmwlouu Prowt- 10¶, UN*

MLi PION cValKt "

v2oHA. - - - (a- s

lt 46 118 I JN I 1S I Ag I M I AM I I jI t I AN

'!01L MAl - 16623 6664 6742 6166 7293 72t6 7167 b7 ~$765 7490 7 726 7101 6M NW 65 -1

t ~AA~V(sn'J) 0 00 0 0 00000 o* 0 o o o o b). muWd O CAW tJc (a at ---)

SAL U. CAM1~

a oo:Amm ykm= (mmwg ) \0 0 0 0 0 0 1. 0 Q 0 1 0 Q 90 1 0 Q

ThMWI2U 0 O 05 A9 8 1a 7mlyI171os 3is q 5

9AL~~~~~ 4~~~~ '77~~~~ 7.14 2* CATM UC2RR1

0 0 0 00 00o

19~TLA?016 0 0 0 0 0

).w Nroiuu 8anh 8 , ° 8 ° ) ~~CALVDC% 2)2ISM 1 9 41 2732 9 132093 3 4 4 5D29 2

CAWL1E f?13 2 2421 2) 7 21 19 Ids IS 1 14 620 4 30 31

~IA L NA! 7! 6 45 5l 5s 5a 5 4S 42 6N 73 '7 1S 10 12 12 II

CAt !Lm g n S~~~~~1 a 0 0 21 0 g 1 6 4 tZ 1

ORacrzwRA'IIW :2 11 11 91 12 1, 1S 14 142 15 16 17 A I 9 2 2 2 21

MS. * 9wr em Wr f uwup I (uli mm)Xto := .tuf.s X - Aim U, SMi1-IEeX u wmA * O a0,.dl odui ALm ID.02

an 36 4o3 h! (w 3 3 hd 39 prlor d6 Sa 9E 9

wVteeoma hwlo ejut. M~ *W sei. ItPiou bmwl*U bput ^1bU 71wul t bta e

V0m14M Cm Lu

b). 47 t _ve t 4 btt tdZ1 eto_m (tLW r

8to0 Pat (A.C) '5 '* ''''''''''''''''''''''''*t' '''601; 6 'i '45 " 1 ^ ~ 1 1t' 384< '' il7s 5o '''1'2t7? ' 'ni '04110 09 ' 1' ''t1

lj..uac (a± teasi) UAI4 ts 31 6~ m , 5Y 4z5q - . - - * - - . - * . . *

:s*::z 4r RX06 *60 421 5 US6 g *o i10 64m tills

fa - - - - - -- -- 1- -

. 1ff7% ......a * * ~~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~* *P 4- 4 O

WS 2* 50 I 2 AM M M .DX M SM 3 -7 a8 R .aG m

-2i t owuYeW W. - a a a * a . a.M;;S 1W IM 1WA656 15543 i5159 181199 181199 Flt 65 11319 153199 153199 183199 i18319 18)13 t 15"119 113)19 13 111 let"

h,c* a,:,, 4w -xa s XM' M - - -z -

Xjbata1 ;> ~ t254w15 2~272 1~9I? 375 57CM) 6341 5?6I 577731 14499 59145 1mi5 ~4 e,~ ~ *c 6 09:3 8463

Wm 44514 "Om o ii'M i,4 TM 7; l 14151 553 MO 114-117 -W45 851977 84101 85193 5144 9170 amW 8FM

It aA h M -7M7 w .77s r12 4 . 7 16 4140 .)317 .143D 5 .F44 4x727 -45a4 .111849 .1119 g166- .17405 *17W .W4 . 41)

dl :bord Y" (20 yam) * * * * * _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ * - .

1W * .t3t- 1 .42A 4 .6. 14 r -tw. %76 -z gm -5637 -144'43 w -,n15 7 4420 -Om7 W e 4 -15 1 a m35 109 1 u, "S o

riv mu t ORetum is q,e S

PIretalWo"Z, 1"j pQt9" (5 AM 4 m, ,)

ofd 0 Wt :to M- .*Al%

Uvt*D.w1opmst Pt,jet - 1091 CII

P1r4i"t C.yavui Rqrnt

'astemn Lmtx CmVW Ltd

1 ~ ~ ~ ~ *Rm1a1i"HadVabm

I - .. F~w1quW1t -? th~. a). Ibin," b). M, EMS q. a4. toW 5 q.L

Cl- Ne1~~xirAi No Yvu V" kw *frdbmh n

Dzuudi, Cae 400 I6YD 62.00 556 465 20.54 0.M 40 2I9.15 20t7. 4W 2M3 37.3D3iudizr.a91Ja 55 137 75." 620 33 2.46 0.0 243 150.6 75.31 3" momU 15.5

Calvu.Newro IOD 769 76.90 125 135 16.U 0.00 30M 426.00 549.10 = 4U.a 45.35

ileifers (1-2yr) 30D 697 209.10 TM5 66 24.75 0.00 1441 5038 331.3 Iwo soil 37.TUaa 3tasrm (1"2yr) 18D 599 10.27 76 2D.90 0.M 1600 440.0 3R*1U l61R 514. 406.1~H1eifers (2-byr) 360 W7 214.92 460 73 3.98 0.0 1316 a0m.3 391.% 150 70.U OM.8tu1a~teesr (2-3yr) 240 XS 73.92 42D 67 36.54 am0 1466 615.72 541.JO 1616 762.71 &O

XeLfam (3-yr) 400 754 301 .60 0 0 0.M 0.M 0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00

MikUA3twu (3.yw) No 20 %6.OD 0 0 OMW 0.a 0 O.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0

f!,11 'an 312 400 124.80 3w141 -53.58 0.0 79 29SAO 171.60 W8 01 24. 179.58

~~09I 1e~~~~~.41 Ia?CYR6 65.2-3 3.0 15,111 -574.M AN40.1 16 62-5-4 473M.7

12 'esitual vala 1,lncruunAl oportwfdty mati estL-sted ater 2Dvarz period (N PT1 am km= , Tatle 4 for datalli.

-85 -

.1 otas 4 Jii.

I1o ACuin1 a camtte nmkupt nbaum*

|~~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ --_. 1_O ,;_t Ri o & !Itv -tY a :41d

0. StI huget A5NM mm vjn"A LO rr - no ;0 0 mu b(i4 r_Ccmw O%f .a6d 1 s 12 1 5 1Oa 5 I 6 Ds6 ; 1043

A.. .rLaUg 9a CIq I'm 1i4 I 0

II.? .!UbgV k YJuuPtI

_~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

C. tofzu'ncaw"m fdote IE, I Al 3.)Io ~ i7j I 7k'17

-jaw1t tflU tw1 , t .) I) 0 0 0 gmD 2Mt 014 -

'. ~ S O3 OElc. 003D O O

of 2d' low 3A, l$S tifO 11466 .) -i0 1 gmA.Aba1 51 0. I27 ' 4 Z 24 0 0 0 am

Ui. s yJi

Bw{: z x1?Ats s2

A. btrm.tZw1.a -..e. I C 0i1s7 "9lg I 01- 4

.ah.to?al 0 .1 ?,1z 0~~~ ~~~ 0 0 i0q .? 0 &

0. mOb.* |ft*-tJ 07S 0 1g1 e o o o 6

i rbW -L in,t -V 0P" 7n :%-' ?;737 1914 6123 01I 0I 2150a32iII

of;. ita .a.m A t 0t I-Q AZ n T 1- 0 C -IItU

3. Uvmutu -Dr.. vim.Pu I4,L,,,W, ~ ~~~~~I'M TM

zdbmtA 0 j . o -0 0 .'SWO r A 4

C. Cfum Cm61 2'1. *-91 2YW 11C

0. :n5aAt'zjit cmU CI .O T3" S9 0 0 4SlI 4t 13: SO 1SVI CV

or Addr L.u 0 AS.1 ;:PIS fl 74) 012 3 5Xfl1Om o.rwi15m a a -'176 0 0 ns am we

IV. 2/. w 3 3' 0

n. rcUg &o l t 5 X0 3 15I" 02e

0^oms o f ou~ 1~ wi (647 o%) ogp 2 5 ts33101

I fnmocn: = LGrb 64 -.7%* |1 s

au CmUiba ~ 0m lq 10 3XD3~~J 7J1 ~ a

A.-o W ftu,aeUn C4ubs It)Aa sm 10IM2M5m " 4

76 ar 4 toalow 0 fr.4 0-z nD . m I 0 0

Cam611Pm~ DtaumUt.am 3% 0 z4x a0) 0 323 122 0ura U 144

3.L b4 IUwior bi- 2 ) *. 71 d1.A 1 376 tOI WO 4953

.ak._1~~~M nM *aW n, o3 Oo.0 SP*f Ml t 9

c. t PMex Ge n 0; O' tae *t3I * 971,5 542

C. - pmaq last' 0 0 0 te 1

Of _ ded JIWA ag EOV" CZ' a31; zMs M 14DX9 164r7 ,

A.0. 0mC 5'7V4 0' . 0 14 0D. *3t58s -=s *: 6g 4

efn F pas'w. -m .M v . - W

ILTuiP4- C a(w 3 0 m92 M 1 0 664 1

C. 1smt_t Dom 4": 1 3;

's~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~m F -ssl

_ Se ~~~~~~~~~~~~WAcn- 25tJw (Am7 tRo, mob DOM4s S

c.~~~~~~~Yo qlbm -c bmcae Ila n rot Eolm"

Umt*brMon .ms 1091 ww

\ hrbr@Zig A3S~~~~Rig ampau 8j w S

\iltfAftf (AU) - m 1v 1 t

t.~~~~~~Ttv a tsusatm

SbXk~~~~OW rio 8M =wD 32M B 2 Sib-tot i. to & ftpm

puwm Nvolo i 0t 5110 61a e T m

9mut>to I%*IFtsB 650 g 8 i S83 4leg s=Total L2ntuon" m " ASW SWll 4495 5 t 549 55; 1 1511i 114111 49 62 OM 63

rI. Livmtodgeln Cattl O990 49D 6M 77460 77460 77460 .g 1gwjts 1

TOWb"tod Lm eM 49 6M 774 778 774 SW "5 Wa =9 NM qM711s. Ooptnn, coo

0 Adag &MI& 65490 2gmWAN"fin"= 2 t

TIttlL Opersid cto 0a 0 O O O O O 12 iff650 0 16696 Z91s 17 291M 17

IV. htzl ProSt con I1¢h 9YRl II693 I" I3M5 1355 32% Z3 16C 19 0 Wm 5 96m9 ZV.s Lo Disbaie

1I rComuco 146111 IN 99 173i8|5 117% M 2404 10"# 1as 12r16

Ibo 9"hmm= WIM6/) gs 601gz 961 all "I 1241 1 110 9m 7ls

Pr ,- rPPP?14.r P.. iJ-Fs%r pr-1 p

3 1 1 1 ii I # | I j j ll t tl| I j I ~ ~ijtI itil I jI I it jI j| I l0PIliIjIi WiltjI" M

el alu ole>oeeee e el I * l l ulx ei o leooouo I I o 1 pti I- o I I ule J a 01 0 o.1so1 a ol h, ml I . .0 J- o 1 ... .0.. 4 I J- .1 .... 4.i, , o. ml.. m 9

A. 1 4 1I.AII I I Il *I I I L l oCA e .h..o . olO 0 ol J 11 ol * l o I

*1S I , @11. IIeeoet el. eol 00"660e I a 41 4 eAonel I I olc 04'o-*OO d4S a I1O ol b oo 0. e 1 i s i Ie1l@ 8 lJ L 4 l ...... o. I eel 1 i aloe 0..... 0 I',JI .. .l ..l..l. 2 *I. o.l ........ ll. _..... . i m

1 J 1111 .. AISb* 0110 3 000 I v I1 el 1.11 i I a 5100 .......4l D 3 0 01 0 11e 11 3 als 0 el t! .~ il~i 1I.J.Lh. * m *~mI *~mm..Is.. 1 1IB~ Il.i0~3ib. I ~ ~ Elil ~Iu4~m'm ..1mm IIIiI "1.A.P .1.I 9lall .mm§.

*t | ^1t R1saoe5he | le o. 0eo0o I {I~ 11,LNoI iorx I 913gl iI4a%i. .,13 oleiele | 9 0100 iI0o00330d 1 a 0133 l?I3l;..30L i .**1 1 4e 1 .00II1 I D011 m e......l VI .. II ... I all 11 ... I I .1 I.i ! ~~ ~Lm.gjg. a ml'' ~ ~ ~ ~Io~~ l's .1 .1. ~~I'mmt'mmm I ok ~~~l~~mm ~ ~ lm.1 asm1'mm... .

t :e hoa il..aL 1 I elmomo j I 1f l. .i..... J. fl ... all* so I1 ... e 4 1o I , S14 asJ 1l0I0~ .. 1..... as 11.1 ...0000 I~ L 3l.IaL * . ......03 .50 13 L...... 10. 1. L.00 .A0~ 03.0 ~I.

1 o 0100 W1411010*0 * Id *jmm ........ t 0 010 #I. . a.1 I ........ I '. gi ...,... I all | , u.| . I |8'1 1 .111 lIJ.00O. i 0 li ......... I 0 alL 1100 1 3 o l. 0I0II A1 J e le 0100 11 .... 3. .la 30.l.i5 1 o 0( .o00 i I 1 o01el lI.eei... e m Jm. .lmmmmml@. Ia .... a ls o i0. f . .a . .1 .. ..... ol 11 ... . I l 1. II .. a .all. e l l I e I&9 IleolaooII !1 II olumumi ms 12 l 01o 0 ol oo .lmo S nil* elm....l I * .1.. II.... . .1 s io , l....ml I s Jm *1 m lmm...m J 1|. i.w

°~Ii. 1" lj..., i e Ila el-oeoee 1 0 01 O 1j . O 00 1003I23as o 1 .100 . *I0-o ola0100 0 4 1 aloe 11 0100.L4a ii. I 0103 . il .

U . 0100 1100010.000 0 *|" 01.. @@ Om...... 0 W. .l.oIe 0 I . RI.. iI 8 11 ll| 01 .fi a ll .1 ......... I all.

lU I ii ilia a ..Io. sii.@@ 1 t liI AI.i. I i111. 1A.3J. S510 0 l 6106000300 G.. UL. 01306000 *.4 |

0 1.0 owes a I., .1 ......*,,m, als elm. ign111 I * I.. Wl...m I *. Il. 1tutIO .I ill' J.lm s.t J. 0 .m .......

fib 111.& .l i q 1..1 ....gl.e s.@ I I fibi IIIIUII I lit ill -I-,olc I )I SO.i DINIlI I all * 1211o .L1..1.......0f 00 10000 lit, l Mg .*m Is.1.a........ 1 0 l . I I . m i *m

0(ms S . * e * *jg mm...., * m olso o. ........

1e;lee 1he6e e *I* mm .... m... a l o *.1m II mtelj 0 l', ,, I bill *a I .1 *1 I . aIms .1... I........

a1 * l. II J II Gh.IL 00 010 * 0 l ....... 101.1 l 1 11 1l.,.34. I 1 100000I1 00 e J10 J_ 010030 0 0" 0ll$ 1 ... .0I i _

II2" flo w * 1 o leee il O ft 1 4 1 3m II a 1 1|i loleX I 1 II.? ...Z -0. I w

Ill lim t 11.11 0 JeXe 111 111M.P.l IN % 1} li s flmmos2 II Ji I po 111 31 .$%i "I "CIA Ia48 I.-1

- 88 -

Hmnr Mr-inr.. . . . . ..... P2mN.s:on. Cam .ILdst-4 P'' w,mt' Ln..... ( fidll ;..,I. 4 tI 3tat).

.otzzl fr.-iplTti As:e a V herth-ts

.. s:5o:I;. * !r2rr: 1! r-~ .. -!1A r- Thr ,* ~ Pr - . I F JP ! I r a !Lt.,r?.'Z P17 I * 10! l if *M 1! If * ¶1

(' . ! rr * H i; IXI A.*&" * . ! !AI". . Xt LAL.!A JP !A * '! LI ! 1.MI IIL ! I.;. ! IJ.. I;

.Ou t.m 'fr-Tm Atlulo:.lr 6.5 iSp-, liW ff&^: I-,;n &-- H' GM'C 1SY) &-- WS9O (.. :' l51 @F lWJ fft 100J t! M2t &O IC CZ- w

t. LT'.j= `U.IV; - -r rrwL .m i 1 2 E ra ri u,.Y___________ * II 1 1'! ~~~~~~~~F'13 14 * 1 16

CV1v%l - ' 1 t :1- Al Al Al Al 41 1 41 41Ib.ll.tS P -w 1tS.'. , 0O I Cl A 4 4 * 4 : 4 4 4

U AU . 2 21' . r 2C 1n 20L 2A-PaisI?de medfe Ia tn&ck M 4 4 £ 4 4 4 A 4 4

0zu1jzr -ibL- C ' P e e 8 s r -e-- Ir-wdLv -Amm0 *0 Fp P. pi

DM3i JoDMnW.' Rats (0,.MbA.. 7 a 7 7 f $ f

WC.IMC DI R Ra ! I !! I ! ' * *3

1711 *l71 I 9 I 10 1 11 12 ' i 14 I 15 IC1 I ¶-a

1W Isl~171~: i( or yuw) Dto

n r Cam 1 q f 915 51F % C5 f SiS f5 545 565A. T C, q4 . Fle 7? 8a RI RI am F1 Sl.Wre ( umy 0 1eo I 37 2b § 21p 25' 299 29'

J -2 {' _s) 1 6 4S 97 7 §.

flullin I-23) 1 10 M RI II I "1 OO lfrtfaN > ) 1 2 0 el O CF841j57 Y313 I 1w~~~~~~~~~~FD ~1wi%dlAt I 'p '

(vmI,y,zD, ~~~~~~~~~~~ 0 ~~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0aDhiu ClMo (>ITld} .S Q 21 45 45 4t 43 43 43 43 43 43

Total 1 i-lw1 HMO 317 1141 1-7 1.1' 1211, ei t27- 1a1o 1210 1af I1FAd,.4OAWd I,e. (Mu) 966cA Wm1- 111w 1(1I 106 ICTJ '1. 'w 1050i

PahW hFtte 1 n tOI 31 12 9 2 0 0 0 0

,taIl Alau. kmta at y esyd) 722 1 hFe9 109i1 ?m 1650 1050 1050 l0 osa 109.. Ixr;

Bflais 4 Z A 4 a IC 4 4 4arroftwzm, ;22 2- 2 2 22 23

W_v 73 51 S2 2YUefr (1-2 yars) 2 4 4 4 4 4 : 4

3 (ilf Y-' 3J ) 2 A 4 4 4 4THjueiUfq93rr2- A 2 4 4 4 ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~4 4P4

h,llIts£15yqar ,) 44 C 4 4 4 4~~~~mj ~ ~ ~ ~ 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 Raflj o1,C) ruS t O 1' 0 0 0

t-- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I A I 0 0 L 0 a 0

.asa3 b*:v. Olldt 'F Mr It % 5C rr r

C.1 JUL. - ' .A4 ~ ZI C,a - 21 *. 4i :43 4; 43 4-2! 1!~~~~~~

O~~~~~~~~~~~~1 2? r 22 t ZH1+ Edlr. f. 1s~N4 wr'' 'C r- 47 r,q z; r94 rtt, 9f.

2:b -11C 1 C .' 0 0 C O.

SaI-IA.1a1

'ImEIa-b.I 5 l1P. 161 lt 14t 1£) 162 164 IL; 17.. 1 d F att C 29A4 vt 5 1- q 2 0 0 O

-ouaz.let (3.d) 4ff 2' 124 157 1i 164 18e 170 170 170

arradL-k- Bw;r t, ~ ~ ~~~~~~~5 13 11 In1 10 10 IC) 13burml Cw- Z.Xbat,Cot (m_oudur 21 131 31 12 9 2 0 0 C 0

Tota Pwh (Imd) 5" 112 36 25 20 12 10 10 IC 10

Stoc IIAt Utdlztmun oC vr/aler stodcM) 6 113 1o 1Wr. ICD 10 102 1oD 10D 1KD 10

Offto !J te : s r , 12 11 I1 12 tl 12Escnt:uton IatW 114 16 I'll 13 13 13 13 13 13Cka:mfd PR*tw C 51 4W 43 4 44 44 44 44 44 44

0o Su t stodww (/*) 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 7

Eli lfr. FOleKtl fm M (mawm tr at 3rY61-) to IP 4 (eMLuv32f(At) 1ic gL." a iM ba Foa.t (lg ds 3 yrm oajeud tb PR7).}:n5tw c-I'. aa p_su..1.. a ,§r... -. :..ti. -,,92 Xt~ aa...a-a4-,_. h-e.ol. aem t a bAL U 2c r ol,.hemfer acllw at 2 y-s. m

1bdljAveeu mm ,oI - 3 yiraS.

IlOmIA AMED IN

1veatodc Dewlaouct PmJeot - l101 UNI Table 5

Prjeot CaVletin Report

aOoirg Private PAi* m

Actuml A Fatirated Hoerd Ca,pitiao § Perfomee

E datr Herd C"=itia mRAh1CIR R Ardo earid Sz, AdzLsu Nhamabe aidi Mlai Seld

Vdokn Sori Yario Cole Iba rthz9bd ajar Amtaphs IUZAL l

fCorKla Gonsol rionoIa ow lo M di KwiU Borm kx

A. AM hr 2 21 2 1215T 410Planned Cariyw Carscity (AI 125 545 545 545 254 242 29N

B. I!erd Vaopaitir

Breading E!ulls (hi3 6 10 2 0 6Sn3edine hans ited l20 35 8 0 .22Z9

Cead a5 8 0 20 7 154eifeN 1d - 10 6 0 10 1 1

Steere 1 - head 11 120 15 I ° 8 2 iN 9'leifer 2-hyub 1 a 29 1l2 6 I 0 10o 10Steer4 2- yru hewd 3) 19 21 to I 0 8 6 94 12Ireitfers3- 4ys he.d0 0 8A 10 2 0 0 0 4Steer 3 )y )ead 0 0 17 15 0 0 0 0 4

.bW On-Pamch Bred (b) 246 1t 164 116 3 10) 51

.otRl lC~Ran-,h Pred rAl221 I6 149 102 4

PuNmMan.i 'o date .3t (head) 131 17 - - t2 31 339 457. 1 e r4 22 29 - - - - -14

c?amh spnmroved | tcfc) had2 - i .I. - 86'iaXt nera} tF^d) - . 73 79 265

C. FMtirated ?duical Coeffictents (All mnches) !dstiue- -_

Calvine gt) 41 313 e * stlmteI"' "OrtaLi 20 e o0 * not available'tMer lirli e 3ource:- LRI Quartery ortag 7zml OfficeIRemrda; Revised DwIap.t K2m. At end M~.

Cow . sun Aldo 7 e 2 hded pui to 'bye W, fr( f air dy distumed but not eto rinderpet ut

CuU 1eirers) nr

4vfttak DMopmt Pmvat - ') Jf?'. T1 aPoJut Camlt1ixo Rpwt

Catim'M 7tni*I PAte ot RaTr

DM,uipmt 4 F F 7 i 9 . l 1.2 13 14 1. . W I 21 3 245t;f.~c.w te 't.J.) * >u . .> 5o iw o1, !o ;*po 15X '7A 1o N tXo iu ,. 1N tSo i1' o tC0 :

I:fln

?Attom3 hJ*O irb - M -,- ,3

a S9O.nruU r q I12 0 ;IIX 2 65 94450 r S4 6 66MM0 M66 M1% Mij M 6615 aa665 55° 6614

7

?utal -t0 9 "21 S0 "tin Jl'90 324W ~ 55iO '37490 W 517 14290 M M=50 75M 7 0 hO 0 79 MSO WM 70 )jttlm

>Cti b4un 4

Ither .r .' Lit,. n J >7 5 l' : 2

ommOv FXP 17) (nrAi) PMo 2 2 -|1

* 0 I A 603r 0 : O OO9 ) WIO SCO 58 5CC0 s 5X SX 5W 5W 5W 5W 5W sx7plk1r %W i wed 00 SW=ete WrAo 'o '7 '7O5 0 4aS wo $ 095 Xtim SA a % 5iX Si WM1 J= J, 5t mtJt

-ha4Yterm* Sn SW O

Sjb4otal ~ 662 14093 2552 665s' SUM S544 13 i 3 m 7 13 7i513513 1513 75t 7513 7 S51 7S513 7 951 715 7= 5

Tub CmW 66t2 104852 1499 252142 5s1 544 U293 94963 Dl3 65)6 084M 1 3 ey 9S 3 513 I35 53 S3 lN 513 1 64513 i513 4513 i513

Rat Caah kim: 7S 4361 -151d 42 -41fO 142#; 317 *si6 *Is983 -] -773 4l13 -3713 -3963 -33 -3363 -3565 -963 -3963 -3363 -963 53mI*al Hl1 V (~ za>n) _ . .- . . . . . . -. - -. -. . -. . . . .q ~~ ~ PSI- A Kl

bt snt StrJ~ ~~~~~~~W .9$p -IS9t7 2 UI -4BE9 M 141g -151 W3 513 *237 -7131 .01102 *711 0t 1 -7 7513 4513 461 751 3 4 1 051 ) 4e 1 513 4151 5

- - - W3 8M~ '.77

nmtal hts otfl bt L -3.1 S

.I.Pt11.11-Ir WaYtk qet Lom hiof __tL

* B S; | m; aQ *=3 W~~~~~~~~~~~~~hi r J 1 .. t t tff t7 "tasdr= t$r T)IB .t3

W.O- wll I of 5o7.655

- -

x~~~~~~~~~~~~~AC: V

lAmsta* Dc w _.a t Pgujut - 1on ua0 Tbl : I

Ptmj.t Cayitma Bevat

smaoIW&W Pttill d - __IoVImW CXt Pixx

Allti o h'Ul h,W

ff3 ~~~~Pr4 Pr A Pr 6 W ~ d o( 6#7) (mu) (8mmt) t mz) ( 61) 6- 83)

lucid JX 57 94 87 14442D 4 6hO 67 1112_ 215 4W-inu- -- - 34 56%W0 115 Iw= 14 20340

1ow Kw 57 9g6 87 1;44 4 664 1 7 11W5 M 364 61Umigml 768 129tR - - 55 913W 44 4 10O3WD0 227 4'AM

w - - - - - 2_ 5 4s 1145D 314 521240

-u -5M 0 0 55 9130 ag W 119 27M1) 5V1 9grim

11_mis 1 92 15272 71 1176 16 26560 P7 40) -_ o$ 206 412MDIA - - - - - - 18) 3)1 _ _ 1_1 _J

1 8: 5 92 1521) 7t 118-60 16 26567 210 8 0 1 639 7I57

BMW NAM 43 713W 81 134460 45 7418 _ - 5UV - - - _ - _ _i

¶Wl X: U43 713WD 81 13UG0 4 74110 0 0 9a 216) 267 50xinO

S N4 - - 15 24qD - - 9 14940 76 IS0160 IOD 2 XDuIn - - - - - 0 0

TO F1 0 0 15 2491) 0 0 9 14960 76 18M160 CD 20

Co IUCB - - 75 1245) - - I 1660 3 nM660 -4 -3WD '1 17196UDU - - - - - - 46 763r) 20 33280 - - 66 t

-1tl 11 0 U3 75 1245 0 0 47 -) 55 1i93D -21 -34I0 156 2M152M

bUV _ _ _ _ - - ) 4q>0 n 4C) _ 33- 3 5(6

0 0: 0 0 4316D 65 120 6 M60 ¶37 1IQW

.- d bIdCB - - - - - - 7 14QVn '5 7d1ff 15 241 5') litl

IA - _ _ _ _ _ 22 365i2) 38 631) - _ 6tl 9617TOWl M 0 0 0 0 0 0 31 5146D 73 141210 15 Z4%) 119 2 t

~~1. 11 - - - - - - - - 3) 6am) 3) 68)7in - - - - - - - - 9 149t0 9 14960O

TOW K7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 39 74960 39 7490

latm m - _ _ _ _ _ _ 150 ° 15) 0 u - - - - - - - - - - 0 0

Taw 1P O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 It 150 3M

isr _ _ _ _ _ _ - - 0 '1W18 - - - - - - - - 2)CD 3VOC6 1WD 33)1)

-bO OmO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21) 2)

Kum B _ _ _ _ _ - 17400 61 1740)Ulu- - - - 0 0

TOWn0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 1740D '7 1740.D

Kwo _11 _ _ _ _ SO - 50 1lLJ _ _ - _ _ - - -0 C

ToW1 C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 IOXID 50 13=

3m.. _ _ _ _ - . _ _ so 1 50 lo=W - - - _ - - _ - - - 0 0

ToolK 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 go I 50 IC=

Pro3ect Total WAC 270 4402 3)9 546140 12.) tf :40 ?W 12 1 t4971t29i1113 0 0 0 il 0 C. 53) wf4m' 579 ml 1I40ZZ

Total am 2 440 329 546140 120 19=D 715 1Pm 1177 24S0 2609 4057W

Oianiltliu NM2 20 A=8 599 994340 Tin 1 I 7)60 I 9I 14qW0 1497 2991961TOWb. 111 0 0 0 a 0 0 533 ffi47! 1112? 18459?

oal Wr -i 4482 C 5 964W40 7 t9 119540 1432 23T7120 2609 40,3M

Qama2tiv Totml 11() 9.26 % 23.55 f 24.67 S 4£914 M MX) I

1) * T'ol lP at 3Y61M is UA.4.7.0fn .mnt1iW 2q aw.loom. An 17 rq lao to . m additimmi nflz made niluablh fr Ler5Lr 14q1 1<.lo in Pr 7. W11 1117 5 14 C_et to e i.naMm the total NY OnWAitly tiapramsmAs 2 lor la N.2,a0o oh.

uyta D" Xt pmt . lIh ln7 A

rmoct 4wrl bwtp

(fatr te%)i =

DU abses ~ ~ .u myc.TwR

Vi wao ,00Xi f

713M 8a, , ,2,-w X W o °

8 om I w 8w'

t, oO Q° 8 W Mhqo 09 12t a Of "" Io

l^""X °n 8 *78 ~~0 Wos vO xlm

0 I o 4

co fb OMA I

t o 8 o7 ° @ 'tha a 8 88 t

1 _Lt 1 0 w 1410 3ig 4WtRt 7 S 3g gw 3%

g~~O*la ft rlrt 0n 7 1O h r_bl_tVM 1 7hr tC 700t4V>bCNw;; t V<itsralilqs«llwltt)tth*tt3ffi0t(j1;3jTPI~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~10

w~~zmt'6 a a -om 1bmmuxPR M) ;vA Po-PM - t JDum WmlfhE

£tz l amq-) as s- a.w ninrme St awu[ am a m:(m a w p a~~~~~~~~~~~R t1 _ 4N*`NN- .l "=P

* - swine Wm2 am !an s o | fsm iw-S A tPP S UW SI) UIO UPS I0 . 8

O cIS 6 S 0 o 0 0 a 55S3

o ci a 0 0 0 0

=-a W L °z s a °° ° °° °oata

..% 8 o Moown x 0 0o 0 0 (0% a8tw Tom0 0 0 0 0 00

o.-. a ci 0 0 0 0 i58 I8 o o ci 0 gc 8 a 8 0 n _

L EL L 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~0 0 0

-. ~~~~ ~~ a a o o~a qm o o'oo a a a a ci a O 0

0 0 h0 0 0 0 -0 0 B - 0 0 0 0 _ti ,_ .

w O i A 01 OF or a a a 0 (StiriwS

o a ca - i ZL0 0 0

0 ci a cI 0 0 0

05 laS S la a aIMR NMIvj Tomi

o a a c 0 0 0

z9 0 zo 0o 0 0 a

Ls L o ol 0l 01UV 90 91IqUS 5 ZS Ot wam

H ii k tidl L9h /9 1 0 Zl0Zl O _S _ P J

ox 0 0 0~~~~~~~~~

s 1 0 0 0 0 N lamSt t

*b 0 0 0t * 0Z Z S L 1 I. S

S& IL | | 5 lL zI o o ,

0 ~ ~ oaa

__________________________________ _____ _________

L 00 00 a X a ID'am OPar n* S.0ES a ri a s~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 1

0~~~~~~~~a

29 0 S ft n o 0 8~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ lq

a' at --Is. 0 00 90 ot 0 Ela at1tww7 a

8 i wt cm IC le St I St - _aiV4

L D 01 111

wsrn ~~~~~~~~~~It L I e i pmom iIL at t in ZLS S (o)aula y w

SM 9M SM~~~~~6. PM CM

C' a am 'tin - ~~~~~~~~~~atCu CB r.qnI

-£6-

-94 -

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Lgt* Dua_s t pjjm - K 4

3=LDI - S_A - W (UAt L_ :Mm)

0 - ~w aD OmAN i"i11 .S''- .4.D0 1,<wc tu me 9 1S 8u-- TV-w 7_ 4.n 144^ 194.521 lam* nJs4 usL61 9= 166.OD 817mm BN 64 3-M 1406.53 lfi?. 9.0D 166D.5N Wn f 7

D9ND I54g qD.W 214 2 1 5 5 D WaUomu_ 82 n 25e sm v9 16s V9a s ifm nXID ~~~~~47 4.2141.6 gm w2. M!7 tlD M"

?Dud/A-W Ms 4.11 149%W 1iD IW2 s 50 C s7N 1DA0 HiOM 59LI7

ago'4 4.0 u'aT.77 zr M IOW) 1 "m a:mD 14 4mW 115M-y 210.5Da tdo 1 P

TO_- 29 4.17 uM.17 2ULIo ^25 4.74 17ML25 g2^1 mfo-W16

Pr 6 wam 3as 1515.ns tn qm1w 9= WouD rn n7#a 2qS ~~~~~~~4Jn 1*PJV awj 17.36 1 T-is nzLW IfdDA 29-5D

KAUM S 4A5 ZK9w 106 . w ; 9D vdm So 101w ~~~~~~~~~4= WaX- It 15 X 1>w0 o .miv 7LrxrDnalo * 1 ~~~~~~5.D I5567 ^ Z.4-9 lr% 7 MD lrofm WAA

*ln 1 5sm I= 6 uoo n r.D 16%47 KomD 5(mr43OMW o I 5 m 1525S7 1uoo .W Waus SfDJD ss

a ~~~~~~6 3:n3 U0 97 o60co 5 v fs

. W/&_ fif 3,q6 144&59 2MaM 13.16 7-15 17 9= IEGDm 3D.17

rt 7 aim 3A 7 l1S133 17A7 ISXD "J691b CJDm lr 5

OLT,^ 4S1 14ms 51 2a6W 9'59M t4u? CKO IW

uSl~~~~~9 4 1 5J1 152;10 UD"c 9n.59 M11) IMT gi

11_kmm 445 3.77 1447, 53.6 tnz 0 37 A1 7. SBL

- 7 1 * | m~~~~~~~~~~~~~&D0 ltzm lKUD lam ;rmnm 315sm1 8 m tSZ15 391; 15W 1. K O 20mM 2.11:&1 ~~~~~~~~~~67 4M 1tRt2.12 Z Ir 053 2110.0D llOD Mom -v o * ~~~~~~~~1 4mC irBoDm na- vamx Itowo 2A 3sw=

-!!w ~~~~41 4=C t{696 7.a 17.50 II= 1 0IL 1o 7s-- ~~~~~11 4m I11 t2110R . 89 5,2lO MD 6.2

--AM 460 4A 1CB . 429. 2J3 I4 1 tz =USO R¢1 .77

~~~~~~3 2 4-J .19 319J 25, 2It8J: l2M 0OD

-= _VEM am 4JD 1fiG.74 2W- 14.2D D.% 1961.51 IlaAl 2A W - 9

(8VIIS-f65Z 3q 15 26S SA3 =,-l5o79.A 96 7S.2

i.~~~~~~7

211AM D 21. 13!B25 ZOA 2L4 OD GM 619a S g = S&m. t o

^ 3 t~~~~~~~~~21i 1m 25.57 ^31 t MI ISLO 36

6 25 g E 2~~~~~4610.9 U 51.% .95 Il4a4 XlMM= SElO

_ ~~~~~~~77 "At lSI"a 2'Tr.54 3tA8 31b t9D lt3 D iim MD.D 16.0

>_ 1) 101 15<ar ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ i~ 2; SxZJstWA 10Xt

- 95 -U9* AEXs V

U1o* Drlw t loiqlt - im8 musea 5

*)~~~~~~~~~~~~sbi-ftn. Wm abmf

; ~~~~~~M. _li _-U AN" a_Marm a u

I1u #MiM 27 710 g Z lam s,

LAV P 7 m 1 B 15XW 15

gg,;~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~135 TIVA 66, us IV9 Um Osm MD ism

tZ liEB zP w g ffi o ffiIm Z |f M MD

NLWL * 21 11Z 7G6 a t16 0 I2 I 11f

TrL 8a5 LMs *gan thil 1^ no s 7z lsm 2

Rimo I WF' 1737t 3 3 Zmam

misf 12S 61 "S v 6%

n 7 n * , zo wo - n Sn~~~~~ 317 12 s 6 0s n

tq"6 NW * 6 4ep 0M 135 O 01191"Al? cowu E 5tl IRW .r21 J9 IlS 0 91 Br w

0= 42 1l O *t M iwf 09. 4T 6lm 0 ,il

33m' 985 Ill 411; *7ji aZ2 07X 0 ili *1no VWlB1

ro~~~~~IL ses b i-is D-sXa 4',10 6v 465 14Xe s2Ey W 5 e= 2%0

MI )~ ~~~wl KOM is rA_ A0 L CK- Ut m jie1] arr HE aB: ~~~~~~~~~~rr TOgD V ur.

n 6 wr~~~~~~~~~~~ - ~~~1qs144 a.21 0 *12% 4 2Nll 8 m 1 *6f 256 0 s^X mvn 93

ntLX D1aP 618r 9"0 A)6 S

P, W:l DOM 22 lCWO 2a>2 aff Olm t§ 5Z:: 2X, P 162 B 4Z9O Z 915 1 0 I

R Y7HIIX 10 D1 1M4 Z!O Is 10 Z

46er I?7 *W l it >0 61 ow-swL 79 ll' 572 22 9l7 0!7 95. 16 5D lo7t

,MA .)t4 15T 16J27 2E3 n5 ICl lau6 o tgD X7

am , > V 1tlW lat No 0 mD 61a2 2DP 21 f

!)A 'i6 117 %(Ar. mv. 9*1-m)"r 3 6W9Tor : (m ) 2-j IZi Z130 2nNl& 7X5,1 =M6 stE 5s 25D 5 ) 5T2

,,I0ERIA AWThEX V

Liveetock Developrent Pmject - 1091 UE Table: 6

Project Completion Report

!ellholder P'attening Scheme - '.A uemial Banks

Cattle Low

a). Unit Loan SuLmmfy

HEAD CAM8 FM ANIM a WAMrAT a IDAIl C PRICE 4iHE O0f DIM.

(tHo.) COS UR

PY 3 78/79 KJLtA,UM First Pank 1660.00 4.41 1AA.81 2289.00 3.e 1660.00PY 4 79/0 KAMMNA First 1ank 1660.00 3J 1!F6.0 245.0 ;.B 1660.90PY 5 90/81 KAXU First Bank 166o.00 4.00 1440.00 210.50 9 1660.00PY 6 81/82 KAUN First Bank 1660.00 4.0 1422.00 22F.00 10.00 l660.00PY 7 82/83 KALIA U.B.A. 2000.00 4. 10.00 2000.00PY 7 82/83 1ORN First Bank 1660.00 3.93 1417.00 243.00 1660.00PY 7 82/83 JIICR U.IA. 2C.00 4.W 1703.00 27.00 10.00 2000.00PFY 7 ER3SOttOMDark of Nlorth 2000.00 4.00 17R.70 W,580 17.'i0 20C00,0EY 7 82/E33 (CAS Bsrk of 'Uorth 2000.Q0 4.40 1 Q3.00 24.00 I 2000.00

b). Loans Disbursed

TI AL H:EAD CAlPI PED 1TUtL Mn IMALSTATE 3INK WAN C PRICE COST ' lAL I (Mm DISB-

(.'!O.) 00l.) UM -E

FY3 778/9 KADUNA Firt Bank 57 251 84 11536 513 217 94620Y4 79/0 KAsIA First Bank 112 4i 157472 ¶ C 0 185920

PY5 90/81 KWJA First Bank 79 316 113760 16i 751 0 131140PY 6 81/82 WJKADNA First Bank 71 286 100962 161B 710 0 117860YY 7 82/83 AiJUoNA U.B.A. 25 100 42575 7175 250 0 50000PY 7 82/83 IOT .7rstBaz* 48 189 59016 11664 0 0 79680PY 7 82/8 N!IICER U.B.A. 25 1w 42575 7175 250 0 5000PY 7 2O/93 3BKOIO Bank of 'lorth 13 5? 22603 3169 22B 0 2600FY 7 82/53 KAUO Bank of orth 15 25545 43(5 150 0 30

TCMAL PROJELC 445 1789 655862 1052B2 3359 217 765220

NB All Commercial Banks isbturse the loan az'unt only, and the beneficiary's,ontribution is held on account to cover interast repnyrents.

LLwatcmi bwloput Pmrjt - 1091 Ilt Slm 7Pmjat Capletian Reprt

ISmllUiolder FattuiIW Ed

; nwmiwtol Cost d ftnuig'

(raini)

a). :otal Poject Costa 7A4 A l B5 71 VW ,

rbtal fwda dishLruu 2 153199 666 95M 4-1Z9iem total tuxta wi 76065 196214 21407 6167t 11o

IncruY!ntal Auds disbad 153199 584571 7625% 1224860 1676999 UC

Leratructuaw a suipwt . - 177560 1515 201) D495Unw1l.ur.sd Atnb *3 - - S7l0g "sra

Total Poject Cost 153199 51571 N4C8 1376690 2368114 542

b). ?Lrwano±I,g 7$7 79Pm 6d ¶ b6.... ........... .. .... ........ ............................ .. .... . .... .. ... ............... ...

Prtvakte 30I9 9717 23M?:ieml (crdit) *4 ' 22119 24: 461480

equion!r nctw 171760 151:X0 ;n1,, 3

'ACE *4 3623) 1353~77 180142 6a944 75171D&iRD * 4 .80 415192 54N FU16 1605 3624630 *3Cmroamial twhm - - - . 0Total ?w.rect Cost 153199 594571 177690 2368114 54Z

NI * cludu1e p M tt Iow alou w, U asoattle (amAmex V Tabl 5a I 5b).'2 6 SAnawzV Iabl.

P 3is relmt Y ts?wi 2 le?sa to rarul of floes in Febuaq '53 but wdinsd at 30th A '83 due to Rirderput outbreo.!4 otal *N a.4,A= 8 )Vfl.Map to the una. hio uwiM IV the ir* total±aw 21 5,38,256.

- 98 -

NISFRIA ANRI t Vuvewntu* nuvelojuLwt vzuojtct - 109s1 ui e: B

lin,p1vt Cumilutiuxu keport

:"kilholder Fattdnig Sdm.

Ajrndai . Actjl Lown Models

(naiza)

- - - -Cattl,e - - - _- lf

A Csh Irdflas t8

1 Livestoc 1d"lee g.0o 2016.00 2B.CD Z2 Lcn (6 months) 695. a 1660.0 2 XCD 2M0m0D

3 lBmzwer's Contribation 360 e 90D. 110.00 110.004 Tlotal Inflam 1531.O 3766.00 449.M 4360.

B Cash Outlows

5 Stodc Purchas 95.OD 1446.58 1650.74 156.296 FeedatuTa & 1l;inWraL: 140. 194.52 295.61 297.547 VaterinRiy Inputs - 10.01 14-)* 31.6-

8 Other Cuwts - 17.4q 02) pD8 Jical Contiz*pic O.) 0.00 O.m

q : ub-total Capital A Operatiwr 690.00 1961.50 1966.3110 Lon Rep*mnt (Principa]) 695m0 1660m.0 mOD.CO 20Dm;1 Intenmt 33.00 41.50 7M0D 70M

12 Administnrticn Craqms 100 - - -

13 Total Outfis 14280 3310.10 4021.50 4016.31

C Cash Dince 105.00 395.9D 458.95 343.69

14 NLt Profit (per loan) 67.00 305.90 36850 ai.6915 Net Profit (per tad fattenied) 13.40 6B.2 8x 15.75

16 Net Profit (in " or lon invuumt) 9.64 18.43 17.43 11.W

D Tt-dll7ef1l Mott:v

17 No. Hed per lann 5 4.4 4.0 14.841R Avraie Pardvme Price per hwi 110. 322.90 4C9.W 10S.89

19 AvereW Sale Price per had 160.00 450. %3.11 151.6220 Price Differtial per had 5D.00 127.10 s51 44.7221 RiCal Cntai () 0.00m o.m 00 o0o2? Intervet Rate ps. CO) 9.59 5.0 7.D 7.0

23 Avzwee IbFya Netted 1& 12D 12D Eb24 AVeke %i3y LivSMI$ut Crin (Iqyday) 0.46 0.55 * OA4 0.1425 I _nW Proctim (kt4dbd/lm a&,) * 74.52 59.0 69.12 t0.7126 Vab of Incrounmil Production (NAv al) 0.67 2.14 2.61 4.18

27 Totl In_mU1t per kg at Praiod Wlc) 9.1 29A.6 3.53 t7.01

(UB: *a d 0.9 cii:3ivamwd*t pmin (inezintal; * - matimbi)

taEIRI AM i V

4vustodc DOslopnt Pmjeot - MI UNI Table i 9

Pmjwt CaVl.tio Report

uallholder PatttwWV Sdwu

Teclmical Performwe Data

7-__ - - - - -CN rmial Bm. ia - - - R a - 11V oAa NA

874 sN~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~V 8l2 MM 8% 31

Categry Utio Total lat stip 2nd Stop Thtal lot Stope 2nd Stege

No. of Bills (heIad) 53 - - 61 - - 14 23 5

Avem Prchmse Weiaht () 361 - 8 218 * 247

Averg Sele Veiht (kg) 45C - 415 - - 261 263 340

Avees FattuinB Period (day,) 154 78 76 171 84 as 160 e 160 a aA"raily Lvweigt Gain (Jdsy) 0.62 0.. 0.f 0.62 0A1 0.44 0.32 0*35 1.09

* Averaw Tmrw tal Cold Drssed Wjidt (kg/head) m.01 59.69 26.32 95.25 61.32 3J.93 3.64 50.32 93,17

NB * The average cdv pin is based oa 9Q of the liwnotal livweei&t pin over the period.

e - eetited from kmn lon period (no asle date).

NIGffA AuE: I

Ltventoc Dwlopkst Piojet - 1091 UI Tbles 10

Projeez C.ileim Report* pwl of a 3llher Cattlattw11W h tia m

cwt Dry ez~~Cui Qumnt1i OM# aiCS~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ DsR n CP Cot & cos t

(nairs/ (9ft (uuc( rg) ( (k g ) ( r 1 ) OJm (s

Gramduit Pellet. 483 2:" i1.0 31

tb- W.ao~~~~~~00 12,70 ) 41 1: 0.9 9 . 5 31 . 171.

Sib Tottl 4.25 3.68 36.96 544 .635 425 63.50

Crop RmidLml/rirazng 90 6.28 22 3.58 3.22 20.23 71 R

Total '7.3 6.90 57.19 615 .655 15 63.50

2. IStZt Broa 130.09 9.16 150 2.70 24.73 4(00 39.0:Cot= Sad Cake ZA.t 9 106 269 0.50 0-.4S 423 12 lV 13-00Not 170.00 75 12.7 1400 0.7 9.53 31 .110 17.00 -

Sub Toul 4.50 3.90 39.06 5.7 .69 450 69.CO 0

Crp Residuef/C0aing 90 6.8 22 3.33 3.0D 18A2 66 3m

Total 7.83 6.90 57.E 623 .69 783 69.00

3. Dried 8mwers Grains 120.00 v.00 10.0 204.00 3.00 2.70 271.1 Y51 .36 300 3iCOl'Ilm 170.00 ON 12.70 41.00 1D00 0.7r 9.53 31 .17 1AY 17.)

Sub Toml 4.00 3.45 37.34 9 .53 400 53.00

Crop R6ddue"/GCrzing 90 6.28 22 3.83 3.45 21.65 76 w

Total 7. 6.90 58.96 657 .53 783 53.D

* Rationo bled on e Z75kg catele, IX lital of 6.g91q/heal4dq, witi 1 requit of 56.4WAJai/da. .x CP rzuLr:t of 533A/hw/dq,

wo axhieve 0.5Xg av.daily Uvwsiil gin.

AU cwt. refer to 1adb- Zm wily.

Iclules ost of retunable plaatr dnn.

't*-uj m jvtJvw _ spuuq't1'A I t U,t°t "td mm C., 'U WA~mi GsMiu

'UflM1 Wims on A"JU a It" ci ("no ~OS T. SAGJO h*tA ILfl -I L'3M * . MiSq " lern *

6 a hd a~mit ~ e g mqJo qq' Ppmi

f l _ -_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _- - --- -- -rmtsw) -El;r O- - -

o 0 a 0 0 a 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 m ala ILI 0 0 0 I-wl; IaphvmuciAp)

c= =9 a mog a,8 go at it !L, g s E. {I1%_ mtnSv

=lI mmW amg 9 me mg0m =9 o o m (MS =8 mi CSuaa oil ita ge 96 0b

Kf f X sss fu (a IN 1911 9awl s mi sr Mm gin M tl6 " W tsz a Ews,

C, L L r, %"M' C, L so~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~mias*

"le Or ei !M E> - Ws WY ci ci .- ci c C S a as 0 or'8a4qLV Cal WICat 1 15 I i, °. is 6 s W iN a an 6 t so loa 6 an (C9 0

i (cM ) " M 1

at a ias L 8 U S 91 Sw' VS 0S ° eSt & a 0 0 8-! T

alln I In In In In In n I n I aL & aL tL 8 8p4

(X.w-)~ ex. It. Tom -

i' RF B1 4S WW Wz 8Rs &§' 'y L ir Le Le. 8 Lt I'm °m ag °t g ' I,s oo 14} S4 s§

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 8t

"~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~0-u . ni mq ' 3^tE . _ PC art .<8 X( 1

ha~~akabahabahahta ~ Vl' tttag Las gig La Rg gag failg !ai lai Fig gig gag 9 Lig gi g UL #4 LI 8o 8 8

Z~~~~~~~bS sin sa(dWI aMi - Ii0b1d ttULojmA qtwvan

; ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~ ~~~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~ a liI I| IZj I"{ I I Ii S S,

. . . . , . , , , .

8 |~~ ~ ~~~ ~ I I S I S S

'4~ ~ |I . 6|e8 tt~~~~~~~~~~~ S * l@llaX, , S S Il S, S S 5E'8il. 'l d||,

SI| * * * * 5 |** ']| j

E |~~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~~~~ ~ ~~~ ~ I I I SI I I I S

K :1 i I~~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~~~~~ ~ I I I I a I SI

O~~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~~~~~ a a I I I I I S a _6-I I I I S I I I S I I

a X ~~~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~~~~~I I a S I a a i s a

S I I a a I I I IS

3~~~~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~~~~~~~~ a a a a g a aI I I I I I I I t.

I S I I I I I I

|d 1iffi 1 1 l ib4 1 } J tdX I X X tiffi i | J i S11 I I | lIffip {]X {0 j Z]1 11 pJ{0l gi iJ 01 3{111 }1 I It1

8E1 emat e -tsentrueFo tr, ntr> es -Nlltrwr* > el 1,l *~~~

:-;P:A A;:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~KE=: VIl

Livestock Jmvulop'ent 0,Ject - 1091 'I Table: IPioject CoM,leton. Report

Li±wtodc Pro,ect UJnit

AFrraised I Actual Exwe3n±urs & Financi

Pv I-2 PT'lyS PY 6 PY 7te7jf6/2M ?9/80 "1 81i/ 2/2 7 Actleved

a).Apruised & Actual Ccats Arpr. Actual Appr. Actual Appr. Actual Appr. Actual Appr. Actual Appr. Achual AFpr. Actual (U)

Vehicles,Fqu±p!utat i "v 92.0 1075.90 4-2.30 7.30 566.60 734.10 959.70 309.50 1T790 41 1.OC 23153alare d Wages 652.23 1C57.10 23.60 4C2.40 251.T 363.00 267.M0 432.50 1o0.ao 604.90 112.50 739S- 1622.M 3fZ2.70 223

Xther Uqtee 174M.90 !59.20 63.90 346.40 67.40 504.20 71.70 787.50 56.70 1022.9O 63.90 11q9.70 4C0.40 4709.90 945

Conoultan (:'tartst) 241. 24.50 126.90 24.5,O 590.65 26.10 563.SO 26.90 835.13 3C.20 966.10 373.10 3 3.65 86

(Other) 154.70 0.00 154.70 0

,eeed fS.ltiplication 73.40 89.50 35.O 79.60 99.60 115.3D 40.-0 73.40 453.ao 624

OQ rmeaa Tinih 54.90 29.40 31.00 11.90 36.60 115.30 48.50 42it.E.U (Plant) I I C.00 1liBt.50 1166.00 15B4.50 136

(Woze Carjital! 212.00 20.5C 171.11 3B.09 487.45 440.47 212.00 1501.61 7M IRecesrch & 'arIMg 0

-Infrastructure A &uipment .P00 48.70 IS.A) 19.VC 17.40 20.00 V7.00 74.40 I41.90 157.10 n-.40 254 t

-.Alaris ! Whe VIM70 12n.40 1i36.4 145.10 E52.60 C.00 0.Other 1 3i.q) 5.2n '4.50 '50 S 9 .50 3 9).V T9.70 ZR ZZ

3140.40 4720.nX~ 5'.'Jo 1426.5: E7'.43 22n2.56 617.00 =17,1.59 iq3.so 4j1*3i5 3Y.) F6.67 5423.3. '779.66 365

PY i-2 7t P/3l5 APYr 6 P?Y 7 71ALb). Fiancinw 76t78 97 79/90 r1/ 'I2/WM 7&-93

Federol rfoverl t 2724) Mq-30 1II3. I 2.51.99 3?716.95 2&M.67 13296.01I9R3 -1091 'Al 2348.00 617.20 45.45 575.60 , 9.44n 627.90 5517.55 *4. 2020 U.'! 966.10 9.610 *3

Total 472r D 1426.50 22q2.56 3127.59 413f .35 4.76.67 19779.66

UM * woje:t LZJ Audited Acctntf up to 31/12/R2 anm trial lalnce tor 6 ronthe up to 3Df(X/83.2 For,lw¶ exoi,a.~,e8c'ut id for er7ftla el t ct of _nt consultnts seond oontrmct.'3 9uivvlent to 31 di a ninet cateeory 3A A mli ng dishu1wjt of ' 12215 ir. repect of .ulTholSer

pent anrd in pcm o i It oh* Dtequl to total can diahiserwn of Sue 9343T51 for thse categories.

flIr,FPIA AN>X : VI'

Livestock Dvelop3nt Poject - 1091 UNI Table : 2

ProJect Campletion Report

Livestocc Project Unit

leavw Ekuipnwt Urdt

Net Operating Costs - Woruing Capital

(nairs)

12 mon thsto 9 mnth to 12 m to 12 iuths to 6 nth to TL31/03/D 31/12/D 31712/81 371 P/82 011061U33 FE

a). Value of Work Done:Da constNaction 45892 21744 156273 22999 266012 719020Pasture development - 1324 5ndJDamrication/firebreake/tracks 12474 371Others * 13241 1496 2414 - -

TbtEIl 140303 4030 356865 35 481848 134242

b). %slaries, Waees & AllQwances 2223( 369160 6M5W 1045906 565W MM

c). ?Iet Operating Costs 81997 32a830 325734 67010 78)5 1501606

Ff 3 Ff 4 Pr 5 Ff 6 Pi 7 1aL

30/6%79 30/6/0 3 0/61 30/3016t8- - -- -------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- ---- - - - - - -

d). WordLni Capital 20500 17110 7 4M7447 440465 1501606

.B t9 Others represents recoverzy of tmrnsport costa ad hire out of equipent.

L"Mtm wi rP .qt - 1o09 ua i. * vmp!jet Ooidcm 11 Table I

Appmised & Aetual Htiial Iwi tatin Schdule p- I of 3

a). State Randi

! Ft 1 ! R 2 ! Pt 3 ! Plf 4 ! Pf 5 ! fb~mtiawgR l%a ! PY A ! PY 7 'F " ! 76h7 ! r77/78 !79! / 1 ! r 761 " M !i 7 (l¶~fl 7____I_ y 79A3 1 1 1/81P2I!

S SA?R Aotu! BAR I Aetwa! IA R I Aztual' R I AeI BAR I Aotual BWR I Aeli SM I AeAli wAR Aniall BAR I Aetm!

I. Bichi State Livestock Co. (!rzo Ran&)

FNbrbeak A trdca in 0 0 6 0 4 0 6 f 0 10 19 1 0 0 0 21 19 40 2CERoa kr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0Kjor yards It.- 0 0 1 0 C 0 0 1 0 1 B o 10 10y0w ngi ) O 0 30 0 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 10 104Buildin it. r 0 1 0 0 P 0 0 I 8 0 0 0 0 1 8 aVddeale a equiptent mi O 0 11750 0 0 544S 0 134 0 0 X) 11750 21727 0 0 0 0 11750 27i7 1

mtua ownm ta 0 0 0 40 7 0 110 '17 183 0 0 0 120 183h&A 0 0 0 "1~~~~~3 412 12 ~cag.cettle ohne hW O2 0 0 0 0 i 63 412 412 61Tot. mamlm Al' 18 0 10 0 1 0 5 42 114 m46Fdchms -brld cattle hed 0 0 206 0 103 0 2 2 3 . 352 0 4 0 321 321

II. Borno Liventodc Co. (Cm.*ole Ran),,

Pir,bsw 4 tadca - e 0 0 19 0 19 0 19 32 0 17 58 49 0 10 0 0 59102Romda In 0 0 10 0 0 10 0 0 0 22 ° 0 0 0 0 2 O 0Dorthiles ltm 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 °0 0Major yzds it.. 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1CFen-o O0 0 19 17 20 0 22 0 0 4Z 42kldid1 ite. O 0 1 1 0 10 0 0 0 2 0 0 2Vehilele I euipJnt mim e 0 26EC0 0 85 1 l5()4 8 74452 0245 0 0345'76#7Pamtuhw 0 0 o 0 2 CO 0 o21M ott let m tw hmd ° O 90 2(171 IRA 26 4g 42p14 liS1AU 0 0 0 4Vn~~25 ~l ~

a - aittle hed O 0 zS1 0 ?1 II 20 2900 0 15Q

III. Total RM (I d II ebae)

lPimbrk A tmidma bn 0 0 26 0 26 0 26 41 0 27 77 68 0 10 0 21 99 12qkm b 0 0 10 0 10 0 10 0 0 1 0 O 1

shlxt item O 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0l.or ardse it. 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 10IF.eiiigIk 0 0 22 0 22 0 22 025 67 2 0 25 0 0 67 2Rd~I ite 0 0 la 0 1 0 10 00 41 8020 0 401 10VehItB a equipmt mir 0 0 0 OA) 54 0s 0 Im 0 0 40 4 n 2F~~taazueam ~ he 0 0 0o' 2 0 1946091la21

ca. ttle cn hard hSd 52 1' 0 16V6 ° 23ad52m3 5 1S C8 ;B M 2R9g4 0 294 7O11u"-brd6 cttle h 3 0 8 s I so

cfbra.ttle hed 0 0 65 0 ZB1 0 3311 190O 41 23102 1#99 h0 5

IV. utani Livetodc Co. (all xrare) ,

lizbzuw) & trzdca h 0 0 8D 0. 0 8D 0 58 0 48 240 12RoO 0 40 0 0 40 0 0 0 0 zz 1 zz 0 0 1 12Ditem 0 0 1O 2 5 3 0 4 18 12 0

lkor yaxd itee 0 0 0 0 '0 0 10 6 14 0 0 17 Itftmirn: br 0 0 O 0 08 B 0 42 240 8 O O 21 1 itmh 0 0 115 0 0O 94 2127 5 0 OMldiclee 11 quit niw O 147n5 0 Id 226 24 w 0 O I(1 212260 0 0Vehol.Aeqi juent h O 0 miQ0 0 1CC OM 9 211 W 6 15 0 0 0 OO

caI.attle an hrd 5726 0 ge 0 9193 0 I 1 240 I681 1732 21 18TotIaiM l AU 1142 0 2 0 0 1 9 1 20924 1N1 IB 121

chh 42U O OsO 11 6 0 ii36 101: Zg2 otl hf e 0 IN ICotne xttle }1 d 0 2"O 0 6 5 0) 1C 15 !23I5 10O 251E

Livetoc Dmlopmt Puobot - 1091 tE AM t vm

POjeoat 0MI91at1rn bot TWh1.:IApriaed & htibAl RVsiud gaI 1tl S4M pp 2 of 3

b). Privnat RP.im, Oza4 Rburm, 8 & 0U Dom t

I FMI I p7T2 I Of 7P!, I £9A I To$tm, FT.4. W6 PII

I BAR I Acobsl SAIR Actuall SAR I Aomli SA I Aoll SII ! n k&1t BAR I hobali OR I AobmiI SAR I AWwI BAR I AatRI I I I I I I I I I I I t I I I I I I

V. Lwg Terz Loans (Private Rm )

Pimmu- Wo. 0 0 to 2 0 0 0 2 0 ,2 OO 8ibitted W. 0 0 10 20 0 0 2 0 0 0

AM. O O M0 7 20 0 0 0 0 0 0wUllwdbbar. no. O O. O O O 0 0 0 0 2 O 0 O 0

PW: y bbd :. O O O O O O O O 2 0 0 2 0 1 8P>>* A m. O O O 2 0 ') 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O

Vokntv d 1 no. O O O I O O O 1 O O O 0 0 1 °Arnitng doo~tatioz n. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 0 19 0 17 0 12 0 O

Hi o brnaJm& A rW 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 66 0 0 0 66 0 0 0 1 0 0Romh In 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0Dm itsOm 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 4 0 0 0 6KNoryaidi item 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01rand knm 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

ha 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2OCrd_-bnrf catle had a O O O O 2QQ 0 w o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -ft* cattle head 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1E 0 0I

VI. Oang Reerv.

frqb & tradm km 0 0 48D 0 0 0 0 3 0 4 55 0 9 0 7 iaRW k«Om 0 0 E S 0 0 0 EQ O 50 0I 2 @I 111 item 0 0 10 0 2 0 9 0 1 26 0 0 0 1.0

Ym&r yap itga O 0 5 0 I O O I O 1 O Z 1 6 4eDips it i 0 0 1 0 0 6 0 2 0 1 6Din LU O 8 O O 0 6 0 6 O 0 O t 0 0 la 1 0 31 0

it O 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 2 0OPumbuw alp ha 0 0 0 0 X O 12 3D 158 2cD 0 12D O 2

VI. ftllholder htt.ire S9ch- -_

Sep fattd~ O ea 0 0 0 0 O ~ O~ O 0 O1 0~ 1on Q ahoW 0 0 0 0 0 ~ O 0 0 Ds02I tiUn(NS d_ * 40d/ for m ehw

vm. Othr DOwlopt

Dh item 0 0 0 I 0 1 0 I 0 0 0 0 4 0 2 0 9 0bAIdin ittom 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0

NIGERIA

Llvestodc Dmwlop3 t Prject - 1091 URI AM , vm

Project Cawletia Report Tmble 1

Apymisd 8 Actml RWuical IlVemntatin S9dw&le p%v3 of 3

a). Total ProJect Diplemtatian

FYI i V?PYV 2 Ff4YA PFY,5 FTot&a6; ¶-5 F6 P Ff7 Ii 76/77 777 ! 79ji 80 / 1ju ?6j-¶ 81J2 ! 8 1 0(wfr~~~~~~~~~)! F F~7980qi8 FM AG~

SAR !Atbal! SU! Acbal! SAR 9Actai S Abml! AR ItumRF Actul!i sAP !Antlma B ! Acmli! SaR I Ac.t6m! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! I I ! ! !

IX. ~1A PIITFED= DLBN]KA

Pirebrt tolw d, km 0 0 5E6 0 106 0 106 517 0 $ 79? 612 0 I 0 110 11 BI IIRoads i2 0 0 13a 0 50 0 530 06 0 1 2 2 6 0

Dam ~~~item 0 0 2n 8 6 T 6 00 i 00BDrholu ite 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 3 a OkJor yards item 0 0 10 0 4 0 0 7 0 10 1 17 0 7 0 19 1 U 7±icng 2m 0 0 102 0 1010 0 1C 6 116 170 0 154 0 782

all dzi item 0 0 80 4¶2 1 °O76 0 2 °Vehiol, A equipt im 0 Ks 7wp o 0I ol 0(, '-90 04216Peatwe saw h 0 0 0J4IzI

g. ttle m hrd hood 624 0 0 1CB14 0 11 2210 16934 17 1Totmass Aeell S1 0 4 0 ',B 660 1'I3 39 4 22 14S 8 a6 Xs 2413 29g57' 22pn-,hafa -" mt.1t1 h 247 0 4Kii 0 0 ' 6 1974 246N Cl7 3104 g 51 4 U

-ft oecttle hII 43 0699156 2Y bi 612 16b54 tC~I'¶.eatep 0m 8 4~5~ 8 99 6661 0 0 0 0 0 0 501 1 0 40 0 0

NB SEoue: SAR (apuiaed); IUJ Qnrterly R.orta (actual) kown recordsa oly i.wlude1.

" Beding cattle en hrd are rportei im ncatl no. oaver the trit 5-year period & over the project as a wle.

LIVESTOCK PROJECT UNIT

Project Related Institutional Framework and Activities

AVAILABLE FUNDS SOIIRCE OF FUNDS STATE COVT'S

STATE .IV 'T rrn. GOVY'T WORLD BANKCOMMiERCIAL IIANKS Min of Atric. (1091-UNI)

Cfrdit FlnAtr/ng Technical Services, Credit Supervlelon A Infrastructur.l Dvvelapmnt

NACB~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~0-

l" . Id- ,.I.m?, eea tt

IC. Institution

Cndtm Fu.d 1 ~~~~~~~ ~ ** met hut icmetnIifa

ACts Oepr.ie iiiil eere ttfhiE Iilt

T~~~~~~~~~~~~~ oil$ St~uiliiii ff t.ie Aitharit1Ie Insittiosectsga

Production ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~4oinusrCr Ed|tCredit

< 1-iS ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~rvt Puli. 1~~~~~~~ ~~Sect Seto SetISco

40

N I G E R.1 A

LIVESTOCK DEVELOPMEN'

N

1 0<3Sokoto

\Iff,rnin Aebb,

I?.6) S \ 5°/OKJOTO

/ 2 8 Korooroixj

1o Z NI% ~ SGE-R

- (

7 -- EI KWid(2

ii (KWARA • ..

t Upper fash ilorin

-J- KO Akon I n

JAbeoku * 4 AkureOIVDO~

OGUA ND

LAGO 2 .+>-|7;05 87) { ;>1 ? sBenin City

40 > BENDEI

MALI f N IG ER I

- <CHAD

,_dNIGRI PEŽ

7-' A ENT.RO\AF R

TOGOE IAMEROON tR - 40BENIN-/ EQ. GUlINEATg

S. TOME & PRINCIPE GABOr4J,-' 4

GAB_ _ _ _ _

IBRD 18218 (PCR)

08 l0- 12° id/ MAY 1904

TPhisi m.,ar I RRD DM2180HI I M.av PI. I 1i '-Ii C H A DPROJECT 5,--izll -l1111llw l,P--t(,^ill-lillr ,

N I G E R

t-~~~~ no *'N;v /9a-__S __\,

- Jongorin .,

KANO ( /

.. . ). - } sKano M/Azore t dAaiduguriAzor,e AoroWo GA

*2) ~~~~~~~~~~~A ~~~~Gombole )

Ow,bo

KADUNA Y- D 0 ,OZo0 duoBAUCHI S

A¶ -aOuchi Gombe Mubi.Q

;inno - Manh (h_ C HAD

I jA PITAr J J f JoIingo jTERR.? PL A 7E A U/ /

< ^ (>. G~~~~ONGOL A f(

- I11B F N U E 5 " s50 20') n

- l, 4 ,> f > t~~~~~~~~~~~~>, Gew7tby m~~~~~~5~ 10 1 E

Enugu

ANAAM8A( 6J r~ i a/z4Ma ; 's, / 7 LOriginal Project Area * Head Office

- 7 rI ]National Expansion of A Zonal Offices: IMO 'AJ° 2 C'ROSS Project-Aug 1982 \ Sub-Offices

/j*-^ m /\ j Grazing Reserves sub-OfficesI'VE * Fashola Quarantine.. * -)( , .. ) N.L PC Ranches Stations

5ER5 | CoIobard ji State Ranches 3 Stare Capitals0 Private Ranches --- State Boundaries

t.Hafcourt Internotional Boundaries

0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~4

O / r_~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ .l_d'I. tirgk.il trle gftrwti,iflWLif,tO .s .- 4 ..'dl 1 fr t,ocf ld.b.e ir S5i nwi,errl tl s ttrstl;Ur br .al

EQ. GUINEA *... :hy. .i ,D rt W , ih.. k.t..fl,.,ioS,5.rI I.nd,. 5g0fr.P.g%5r dvii ib7res'tat. If. 10._1 4Iar tS s4r- any frfltfvM *5, d,,. .,,cul,Ws,.rherrt d r .5. S/- I r S v1 s

::~ ~~~8 io, Ou 12° 4

World Bank Document · PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT NIGERIA LIVESTOCK DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ... RBDA...

Documents

Transcript of World Bank Document · PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT NIGERIA LIVESTOCK DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ... RBDA...