BACKGROUND

1. IFADREGIONAL PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION WORKSHOP FOR WESTERN AND CENTRAL AFRICA, BAMAKO, MALI 8TH -11TH MARCH, 2005 PRESENTATION ON:CRITICAL CHALLENGES AND PROBLEMS OF EFFECTIVE PROGRAMME/PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION.PRESENTER:BUKAR TIJANI,PROGRAMME COORDINATOR,IFAD –CBARDP,NIGERIA

2. BACKGROUND • The IFAD assisted Community Based Agriculture and Rural Development Programme (CBARDP) is an integrated agriculture and rural development programme. • The major objective is the improvement of the livelihoods and living conditions of the rural poor with emphasis on women and other vulnerable groups; • empowerment of poor rural communities to enable them identify their needs, implement a broad range of agricultural and rural development (ARD) initiatives, and • Institutionalise and internalise community-driven development (CDD) into government policies and procedures.

3. Jointly funded by IFAD, Federal Government of Nigeria, eight (8) participating states of Borno, Jigawa, Kano, Katsina, Kebbi, Yobe and Zamfara, and seventy eight (78) Local Government Area Councils and 234 rural communities across the northern most part of Nigeria. • Major components: • Awareness and capacity building, at community, Local Government (LG), state, interstate and federal levels to; • This component aims at making service providers more relevant and responsive by supporting awareness raising, participatory needs assessments, group and community organization and development, the development of village plans (and Community Actions Plans), and training of service providers to respond to the challenges faced by the communities.

4. Community development fund, to finance activities that are within Programme resources and capacities, targeted to and benefit vulnerable groups (VGs) including women, and have a commitment from the community to contribute to their establishment, maintenance and operation. • Programme Profile; • Effective Date: 31st January, 2003 • Completion Date: 31st March, 2010 • Borrower: Federal Ministry Of Finance • Implementing Agency: Federal Ministry Of Agriculture And Rural Development

5. ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF CBARDP IN THE FIRST 2 YEARS OF IMPLEMENTATION: • Six out of the eight states of Jigawa, Katsina, Kebbi, Sokoto, Yobe and Zamfara are fully participating in programme implementation, • Borno and Kano States are joining the rest after fulfilling the conditions for loan effectiveness before July, 2005, • Sixty (60 N0. out of 78 N0.) Local Government Area Councils and one hundred and sixty eight (168 N0. out of 234 N0.) Village Areas are actively participating in 2005, • The task for the first two years of CBARDP for awareness raising and capacity building at all levels in order to sensitise project staff and communities on the Community Demand Driven approach was successfully accomplished. • Six categories of vulnerable groups were identified with the aim of building their capacities and also assisting them to live above abject poverty levels through the provision of seed capital for various identified rural enterprises. • Counterpart fund contributions were made by all levels of implementation, • Communities have make contributions (mostly in kind) for demanded services or infrastructure, • Communities are already taking initiatives to identify and execute projects within their financial means,

6. Increasing knowledge and broad consensus on the strategy and common approach to community-based agriculture and rural development, • Enhanced collaboration amongst development partners (IFAD, WB, AfDB, FAO, IITA, USAID, DFID) and government institutions in community-based agriculture and rural development, leading to greater synergy and impact on rural poverty, and food security. • SPECIFIC CHALLENGES AND PROBLEMS FOR CBARDP: • Delay in start up period between agreement signing and effectiveness (11th Dec. 2001 to 31st January, 2003. • Implementation of decentralized rural and agricultural development still new in Nigeria, • programme approach was new at all levels of implementation • late provision of counterpart funds by Federal and State governments for pre-implementation exercises, • late fulfillment of non-financial conditions for effectiveness,

7. Inadequate number of sufficiently experienced staff for the immediate implementation of a CDD Programme as required by CBARDP, even as recognized by project design which provided for 2 years of capacity building at staff and community level , • Inadequate grasp of participatory development tools despite investments in staff training, • administrative resistance by bureaucrats that have no major direct implementation roles in the programme due to anticipated ‘loss of control’ • Time allowed for user community level capacity building on the new CDD approach to development seemed short. • first 2 years of CBARDP implementation was for CB activities which required group formation and organisation, • training on entrepreneur skills acquisition,

8. village savings for micro-enterprises, • development of Community Action Plans, • training on operations and maintenance of infrastructure, • experience sharing of best practices within and outside selected communities, • Initial project design for funding of national level central oversight agency was poor. • Counterpart Funds. • Insufficient amounts provided to implementing agencies, • Untimely releases of the insufficient funds. • Absence of Technical Assistant Grants and Consultants.

9. CRITICAL CHALLENGES AND PROBLEMS TO PROGRAMME/PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION. • Counterpart Funds; • Delayed release of counterpart funds at project start up by different levels of governments often lead to; • late project start, • delayed procurement, • delayed recruitment of project staff, • late contact of user communities for sensitisation and mobilisation of their project, • Loss of confidence in the project by communities, • cause of late initial disbursements by IFAD, and • Cause for possible change in project completion date.

10. Release of insufficient counterpart funds at project start up period; • cause of possible sluggish project implementation, • could lower zealous staff morale, • Could causes slow disbursement/replenishment by IFAD thus prolonging implementation. • Insufficiently coordinated National level Implementation of projects/programme by borrowers; • Affects users at community level. • Confusion of different approaches. • Could create many agencies at community and Local Government level with uncoordinated actions, • Communities could lose focus of long-development goals, • Duplicates institutional efforts. CONCLUSIONS

13. MERCI, THANK YOU FOR LISTENING.