Agriculture: Impact assessment sacrosanct for N1.01trn ABP’s investment in over six years
Narratives of the profile of Nigeria’s economy has brought in the necessity to give credence to significance of assessment to evaluate programmes across sectors to determine their value and significance, or otherwise. Across sectors, it is well known that several programmes introduced either for intervention to ally strains to keep investors alive in business (palliative), and/or incentives directed to encourage subsisting investors, and attract more to boost output and productivity, have not been alien.
Among other sectors, the agriculture sector is one which bears relevance of expression to these forms of interventions. This would not be estranged from the necessity repose in the sector to bear profound potentials to satisfy the diversification need of the Country’s economy, which has been seen as sine-qua-non if the narratives of the wobbling economic profile ridden with currency devaluation and high inflation rate, would assume a redemptive turn.
It would therefore, remain indisputable that investment of public fund in the sector has been pushed forth to take a boost with intervention programmes and policies. However, the determination of whether the enormous resources injected so far into programmes to enhance productivity and investment in the sector are justifiable, remains a subject of deep concern.
Report revealed, recently, that the total amount disbursed under the Anchor Borrowers Programme (ABP) of the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) rose to N1.01trillion as of the end of April. Figures obtained from the CBN’s reports from members of its Monetary Policy Committee revealed that: “Between January and February 2022, the bank disbursed N29.67billion under the Anchor Borrowers’ Programme for the procurement of inputs and cultivation of maize, rice, and wheat, three crops that hitherto were significant concerns of FX demand. These disbursements bring the total under the programme to over 4.52million smallholder farmers, cultivating 21commodities across the country, comes to a total of N975.61billion.” In its latest MPC report on the Anchor Borrowers Programme, the CBN mentioned that: “Between April and May 2022, the Bank released the sum of N57.91billion under the Anchor Borrowers’ Programme to 185,972 new projects for the cultivation of rice, wheat, and maize, bringing the cumulative disbursement under the programme to N1.01trillion, disbursed to over 4.2 million smallholder farmers cultivating 21 commodities across the country.”
The need for evaluation of these investments is pertinent to ascertain their relevance to sectoral productivity and macro impact on the economy, particularly on foreign exchange which the drive for the boost in agriculture has been perceived to have the potential to reflect. The Development Finance Department of the CBN in its revised Anchor Borrowers’ Programme Guidelines for September 2021 had recognised the need to render periodic report on farm conditions. The Department had submitted that insurance cover should be provided under the scheme. The guidelines had submitted that the underwriters should “provide insurance cover for the projects; ensure timely processing and settlement of claims; provide technical assistance to farmers on insurance policies; and monitor projects for early warning signals or red flags.” The guidelines further submitted that they should “render periodic report on farm conditions; serve as member of the project management team; and carry out any other responsibilities as may be prescribed by the CBN from time to time.” The revised guidelines addressed current realities and developments in the ABP, with the aim of promoting best practices in the implementation of the programme. The document also recognised the distinctiveness of smallholder farmers, the ABP transactions dynamics and the project management team in the implementation process.
The working patterns of the CBN for the ABP, outlined eligibility criteria and responsibilities of relevant stakeholders under the programme such as the loan limit, interest rate, tenor and agricultural commodities eligible for financing under the programme. It also outlined the implementation windows and operating models under each window type. According to the CBN, the guidelines were aimed at improving the programme’s implementation process and enhancing stakeholders’ participation for the realisation of the ABP’s objective. The apex Bank had noted that the broad objective of the ABP was to create economic linkages between smallholder farmers and processors with a view to increasing agricultural output and ensuring food price stability.
The need to begin evaluation to access the vitality of the programme along these lines of objectives, with linkage parameters to ascertain their value to the sector’s productivity and outputs, has become important, given the stretch of time which the implementation of the programme has covered. It is observable that it’s incubation time for assessment is ripe enough since its introduction on November 17, 2015. The thrust of the ABP is the provision of farm inputs in kind and cash (for farm labour) to small-holder farmers (SHFs) to boost production of specified commodities, stabilise inputs supply to agro-processors and address the country’s negative balance of payments on food. At harvest, the SHF supplies his/her produce to the Agro-processor (Anchor) who pays the cash equivalent to the farmer’s account. The loan are targeted at SHFs engaged in the production of identified commodities across the country.
The time for paying premium attention to accountability, to ensure not just the principles of frugality in governance are upheld, but also see that the concrete outcomes of interventions can be felt, is no later than now. The years of passive disposition to developmental programmes have only seen Nigeria known for multiplicity of initiatives with less impacts on the economy. In fact, in the long run, several well articulated programmes have had their lines of juicy packages left only in reflections of paper expression.
The time to be much more pragmatic with programmes designed for developmental and intervention programmes is now, and such demands speak volume of necessity to change the narratives of wastage and the poor implementation culture in the governance of the Country. At this time when the strains of the economy have become deeply rooted, it has become sacrosanct for all intervention programmes to be held with firm grip of pragmatic follow up and critical assessment to evaluate their relevance for determination of their continuity, modification, or outright termination to steer clear from wastage and pruposeless commitment of resources.
