Nigeria Livestock Roadmap for Productivity Improvement and Resilience 2020 - 2026

z NIGERIA LIVESTOCK ROADMAP FOR PRODUCTIVITY IMPROVEMENT AND RESILIENCE 2020 - 2026 1 NIGERIA LIVESTOCK ROADMAP FOR PRODUCTIVITY IMPROVEMENT AND RESILIENCE 2 Table of Contents CONTENT Page Table of Contents 2 List of Tables & Figure 4 1.0 NIGERIA LIVESTOCK ROAD MAP AND LIVESTOCK SECTOR ANALYSIS ........... 13 1.1 LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION AND PRODUCTIVITY GAP ANALYSIS .................... 20 1.2 GAP HIGHLIGHTS .......................................................................................... 21 2.0 STRATEGIC APPROACH AND POLICY FRAMEWORK ...................................... 28 3.0 LPRES PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION ENVIRONMENT .................................... 31 3.1 CLIMATE CHANGE AND LIVESTOCK DEVELOPMENT ..................................... 31 3.2 MANAGING CLIMATE RISKS FOR LIVESTOCK RESILIENCE IN NIGERIA .......... 31 3.2.1 Resettlement Policy Framework (RPF) ......................................................... 32 3.2.2 Environmental and Social Management Plan (Framework ESMP) ................ 39 3.2.3 Waste Management Plan (W.M.P.).............................................................. 41 3.2.4 Integrated Pest Management Plan (IPMP) ................................................... 42 3.2.5 Social Impact Assessment (S.I.A.) ................................................................. 47 4.0 PROJECT GOVERNANCE ................................................................................ 48 4.1 Institutional Arrangement for Livestock Development……………………………… 48 4.2 Monitoring and Evaluation ........................................................................... 48 5.0 ROAD MAP FOR STRENGTHENING NATIONAL INSTITUTIONS FOR IMPROVED SERVICE DELIVERY….………………………………………………………………………………………………………49 Current Status and Gaps ...................................................................................... 49 Challenges ............................................................................................................ 49 Objective .............................................................................................................. 49 Overall target ....................................................................................................... 49 6.0 ROAD MAP FOR LIVESTOCK EXTENSION AND BUSINESS SUPPORT SERVICES………….51 Objective .............................................................................................................. 51 Strategies…………………………………………………………………………………………………..………..51 7.0 ROADMAP FOR ANIMAL GENETIC RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT………………………………57 Current status and Gaps ....................................................................................... 57 Challenges ............................................................................................................ 58 Objective .............................................................................................................. 59 The overall target for Cattle ................................................................................. 59 Strategies ……..……………………………………………………………………………………………..……..59 8.0 ROADMAP FOR ANIMAL FEEDS SUPPLY .................................................................... 63 Objective .............................................................................................................. 63 Strategies………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…..64 Objective .............................................................................................................. 64 Strategies………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…..64 9.0 ROAD MAP FOR ANIMAL HEALTH SERVICES …………………………………………………….……68 Objective .............................................................................................................. 70 Challenges ............................................................................................................ 70 Strategies……………………………………………………………………………………………………..……..70 3 10.0 ROAD MAP FOR BEEF AND DAIRY DEVELOPMENT …….…………………………………………73 Current status and Gaps ....................................................................................... 73 Challenges ............................................................................................................ 74 Objective .............................................................................................................. 75 The overall target for Cattle ................................................................................. 75 11.0 ROAD MAP FOR SHEEP AND GOAT DEVELOPMENT ......................................... 84 Current Status and Gaps ...................................................................................... 84 Challenges ............................................................................................................ 85 Objective .............................................................................................................. 85 Overall Targets for Sheep and Goat ...................................................................... 85 Strategies ............................................................................................................. 86 12.0 ROAD MAP FOR LEATHER VALUE CHAIN………………………………………………………………90 Challenges ............................................................................................................ 90 Objective .............................................................................................................. 90 Strategies………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…..91 13.0 ROADMAP FOR POULTRY PRODUCTION AND VALUE CHAIN DEVELOPMENT ...................................................................................................................... 92 Current status and Gaps ....................................................................................... 92 Challenges ............................................................................................................ 93 Objective .............................................................................................................. 93 The overall target…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….93 Strategies ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….94 14.0 ROAD MAP FOR PIG PRODUCTION AND VALUE CHAIN DEVELOPMENT ...... 99 Current Status and Gaps ...................................................................................... 99 Challenges .......................................................................................................... 100 Objective ............................................................................................................ 100 The overall target for Pig value chain ................................................................. 100 Strategies ………………………………………………………………………………………………………….101 15.0 ROADMAP FOR MICRO-LIVESTOCK DEVELOPMENT (Rabbits, Grasscutter, Snail and Bee Keeping) ................................................................................107 Current Status and Gaps .................................................................................... 107 Challenges .......................................................................................................... 108 Objective ............................................................................................................ 109 The overall target for Rabbit Value chain ........................................................... 109 The overall target for Grasscutter value chain .................................................... 109 The overall target for Snail value chain ............................................................... 116 The overall target for Honey Bee ........................................................................ 121 16.0 CONFLICT MANAGEMENT………………………………………………………………………………124 17.0 MONITORING AND EVALUATIONS FRAMEWORK .......................................127 Project M&E Objectives ...............................................................................128 18.0 RISKS AND ASSUMPTIONS ...........................................................................129 18.1 Risks and flexibility ..................................................................................... 129 18.2 Assumptions ............................................................................................... 129 4 LIST OF TABLES & FIGURE Table Page 1. L-PRES Project Intervention Locations 17 2. L-PRES Gap Response Framework 25 3. Indicative Entitlement Matrix 32 4. Environmental and Social Management Plan for LPRES 39 5. Summary of Potential Impacts Associated with Livestock Waste 41 6. Adverse Environmental & Health Impacts 43 7. Results Framework for Beef and Dairy Productivity Improvement and Targets 46 8. Results Framework for Productivity Improvement Targets Through Livestock Services Centres Development 52 9. Result Framework for Animal Feeds Productivity Improvement & Target 54 10. Framework for Implementation of Cattle Breed Improvement Programme 60 11. Result framework for animal feeds productivity improvement & target 66 12. Results Framework for Animal Health Care Services 71 13. Results framework for beef productivity improvement and targets 76 14. National Dairy development Framework 79 15. Results Framework for Sheep and Goat Productivity Improvement and Targets 87 16. Results Framework for Poultry Productivity Improvement and Targets 95 17. National egg production scheme implementation framework 98 18. Results Framework for Pig Productivity Improvement Targets and Value Chain Development 92 19. Results Framework for Rabbit Productivity Improvement Targets and Value Chain Development 110 20. Results Framework for Grasscutter Productivity Improvement Targets and Value Chain Development 112 21. Results Framework for Snail Productivity Improvement Targets and Value Chain Development 117 22. Results Framework for Beekeeping Productivity Improvement Targets and Value Chain Development 122 23. Results Framework for Productivity Improvement Through Conflict Mitigation and Peace Building, And Project Coordination Targets 126 24. Risk and Mitigation Matrix 130 Figure 1 Map of Nigeria showing study areas in green Colour 16 5 ABBREVIATIONS AI Avian Influenza AnGR Animal Genetic Resources APP Agriculture Promotion Policy ARCN Agricultural Research Council of Nigeria ASF Africa Swine Fever BoA Bank of Agriculture BOI Bank of Industry BP Business Plan BT Bovine Tuberculosis CBPP Contagious Bovine Pleauropneumonia E.E.G. Export Expansion Grant EI Equine Influenza E.M.P Environmental Management Plans E.P.A Environmental Protection Agency ERGP Economic Recovery and Growth Plan ESMF Environmental and Social Management Framework ESMP Environmental and Social Management Plan EU European Union FAO Food and Agricultural Organization FCR Feed Conversion Ratio FMARD Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development FMD Foot and Mouth Disease FMENV Federal Ministry of Environment GDP Gross Domestic Product GHG Greenhouse Gas HDP Hen Day Production H.S.E Health, Safety and Environmental ILRI International Livestock Research Institute IPF Investment Project Financing IPM Integrated Pest Management IPMP Integrated Pest Management Plan IDA International Development Agency LGA Local Government Area L-PRES Livestock Productivity and Resilience Support M&E Monitoring and Evaluation MIS Management Information System MT Metric Tonnes NACGRAB National Centre for Genetic Resources NAFDAC National Agency for Food and Drug Administration and Control NAPRI National Animal Production Research Institute NATIP National Agricultural Technology and Innovation Plan NBS National Bureau of Statistics NC Nigerian Conservation NCD Newcastle Disease 6 N.C.F Nigerian Conservation Foundation NCO National Coordinating Office NE North East NGO Non-Governmental Organization NIRSAL Nigeria Incentive-Based Risk Sharing System for Agricultural Lending NLTP National Livestock Transformation Plan NIAS Nigerian Institute of Animal Science NVRI National Veterinary Research Institute NW North West PAP Project-Affected People PPR Peste des Petits Ruminants RAP Resettlement Action Plan R.P.F. Resettlement Policy Framework RUGA Rural Grazing Area SAPZ Special Agro-Industrial processing Zones SCO State Coordinating Office SE South East S.I.A. Social Impact Assessment S.M.E Small and Medium Enterprises SON Standard Organization of Nigeria SS South South SW South West UNDP United Nations Development Programme USAID US Agency for International Development V.C Value Chain VCN Veterinary Council of Nigeria W.B World Bank W.M.P. Waste Management Plan 7 FOREWORD As Nigeria's population grows at a variable rate with the food production capacity, the likelihood of a looming food crisis remains unavoidable except agricultural productivity is enhanced to match population growth. The projected exponential growth of human population to 402 million people by the year 2050, rapid urbanisation and increased per capita income with the associated boost in the consumption of high-protein animal products such as milk, meat and eggs provide opportunities for the sector's growth and development of the sector's diverse value chains. Heightened and frequent farmer-pastoralists conflicts threaten our national security; similarly, banditry and cattle rustling with the resultant depletion of our national herd creates fear and loss of sources of livelihood for Nigerians who depend on agriculture for their sustenance. There can be no better time than now for this Road-map to come on board. While National and State governments were emphasising the development of Grazing Reserves and Ranching as a panacea for tackling the above scourges, the COVID-19 pandemic that broke out sometime in December 2019 has worsened some of the scenario described above wiping out the country's inroads on poverty reduction and other socio economic indices. The consequences and impacts of COVID-19 were particularly drastic, considering the copious contributions of the Livestock sector to the socio-economic well-being of the Nigerian State and people. The sector and allied value chains are invaluable pillars of support for the Nigerian economy and sociocultural systems. The sector is a significant source of household wealth and food security. It presently accounts for one-third of Nigeria Agricultural GDP, providing income, employment, food, farm energy, manure, fuel, transport and government revenue (CBN, 2014). The potential promises of the sector have come under more significant threat in recent times with the pervasive conflicts in the North-Eastern, Middle Belt and many other parts of the country. The waves of destruction and demographic dislocation are so vast and unprecedented that the Livestock husbandry setups are significantly disrupted with the animal population been wiped out in many instances. Indeed, Cattle rustling and allied crimes are parts of many of the crises. Several government policies have deliberately provided a comprehensive guide towards an improved agricultural practice in Nigeria to address the urgent need to improve agricultural productivity, and to guarantee food security and economic prosperity for a population projected to hit about 402 million people by the year 2050, The consolidation of the gains of these policies and to mitigate the effects of insurgency and conflicts retarding the growth of the livestock sector's commercialisation and resilience; additional support from all fronts 8 is required. Therefore, the Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (FMARD) is grateful to the World Bank for financing the Livestock Productivity and Resilience Support Project (L-PRES). The L-PRES is a 6-year project aimed to improve productivity, resilience and commercialisation of selected livestock value chains and to strengthen Institutional capacities in service delivery to; tweak Value Chain Development (VCD) and Productive Alliance efforts; Facilitate exceptional communication and knowledge sharing among stakeholders and actors of the various value chains as well as enhance Livestock Resources Management and Resilience. This Road-map, therefore, is a pathway set to address most of the inherent and potential challenges facing the livestock sub-sector along the value chains of the selected livestock as well as to ensure recovery and growth after the COVID-19 drawback, as enshrined in National Agricultural Technology and Innovation Plan (NATIP), which is a 4-year strategy, focusing on achieving knowledge and technology driven agriculture for ensuring sustainable national food security and nutrition; diversification, jobs creation and resilience. It is, therefore, my honour to present this directional document to provide a common point of reference for project stakeholders to contribute to and benefit from a shared storehouse of operational knowledge of the LPRES Project. Alhaji Sabo Nanono Honourable Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development 9 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT NIGERIA LIVESTOCK ROADMAP FOR PRODUCTIVITY IMPROVEMENT AND RESILIENCE CONSULTANCY REPORT SUBMITTED TO FEDERAL MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT LIVESTOCK PRODUCTIVITY AND RESILIENCE SUPPORT PROJECT, NIGERIA by Professor Maikano Mohammed Ari (NSU Keffi) and Dr John Toyin Taiwo (Consultants) Research Assistants: Odi-Akpa V. Chijindum, Gambo Dauda (Ph.D), Mohammed Baba Kabiru & Hashim H. Hashim (Info-graphic Designer). The roadmap document is produced from results of baseline activities conducted and a series in –house validation and reviews of relevant information critical to the sector LPRES PROJECT BASELINE DOCUMENTS I. Livestock Productivity and Resilience Support Project (L-Pres) Baseline Study on Livestock Value Chain in Nigeria- GOLDAGRIC NIG. LTD II. Livestock Production and Productivity Gap Analysis -DR. ADELAJA ADESINA (Ph.D.) III. Review of Livelihood Activities and Livestock Systems Innovations in Pastoral & Agro-Pastoral Communities - Professor J. D. Amin IV. Resettlement Policy Framework (RPF) For the Livestock Productivity and Resilience Support Project (LPRES) V. Integrated Pest Management Plan (IPMP) For the Livestock Productivity and Resilience Support Project (LPRES) VI. Project Implementation Manual for Livestock Productivity and Resilience Support Project (PROJECT ID: P160865) VII. Waste Management Plan for Livestock Productivity and Resilience Support Project (LPRES) VIII. Environmental and Social Management Framework (ESMF) For Livestock Productivity and Resilience Support Project (L-PRES) IX. Livestock Productivity and Resilience Support Project (L-PRES) Economic and Financial Analysis Of L-PRES X. LPRES Cost Tables XI. Report of Social Impact Assessment for Livestock Productivity and Resilience Support Project: Edwin Ikhuoria, Philip Oluwayemi, Uchechukwu Ohuonu XII. Assessment of Climate-Related Challenges to the Livestock Systems in Nigeria (Livestock Productivity and Resilience Support Project): PROF. EMMANUEL OLADIPO XIII. Remodeling of the Financial and Economic Costs of Animal Disease Burden, Morbidity and Mortality from Priority Livestock Diseases in Nigeria XIV. Baseline Study on Animal Diseases and National Vaccination Coverage: Dr Lawan Mohammed Kabiru. 10 APPRECIATIONS The participation and contributions of the following during the stakeholders validation process of this document is hereby acknowledged with gratitude. NAMES ORGANIZATION Lawunka Paul Plateau L-PRES Adeoye A. Wasiu L-PRES Haruna B. Girma MARD, Bauchi Victoria B. A. Baah Kaduna SACA Umaru A. Ramalan ASAN Abuja Amole Tunde ILRI Nigeria Hakeem Ibilade FMARD/L-PRES Dr. Jalo Buba Taraba APESS Dr. Oyesola Oyebanji Consultant L-PRES Dr. Adamu Dakogi L-PRES Alabi Samuel L-PRES Prof. B.Y. Mohammed President NIAS Prof. J. D. Amin University of Maidugiri Dr. R. A. Oluwafemi University of Abuja John T. Taiwo Jonsolt Consult Dr. Laja Adesina Bdelliam Conatt Dr. Akeem A. Oyesinde University of Abuja Olutade S. Gbolahen ARCN, Abuja Dr. Ayok Celestine Spring Dairies Ltd. Dr. Rabe I. Mani Katsina/Former Director FAO Prof. Maikano Mohammed Ari Nasarawa State University, Keffi Alhaji Ardo Aliya APESS-PAMOBOLMA Project Sokoto 11 Ako E. Joseph FMARD/AHS Victor Egbom FMARD Igbekoyi A. Jamu AHS/FMARD Peters A. Rith Dr. Abdu Umar Ardo NCNE, Kaduna Dr. Fadipe E. Oladotun VCN Odi-Akpa, V. Chijindum NABDA Dr. Dahiru Mulile NASMA, Nigeria Dr. Ayo Shonde PFAN Mrs. Winnie Lai-Solarin AHS/L-PRES Dr. Lawal U. Bagiwa Katsina State Ayodeji Ojo ALOON/SAHEL Saleh B. Momale FMARD Abubakar D. Kutigi Ameena Company Kunle Adeoye L-PRES Dr. Bala M. Shehu NAERLS, Abuja Yunusa G. Ibrahim Propoor Dr. Olabisi Akinfolarin NIAS Ridwan Jimoh University of Abuja Hauwa Abubrahi Aminna Prof. H. J. Makun NAPRI-ABU Tayo Okewoye L-PRES Hashim H. Hashim TGMEF/CSP Hofsat A. Grema ALDDN /Sahel Consulting Dianabasi Akpaniyang CODARAN Alike Peter L-PRES Temitope Adeola CNDDD 12 Abdulrahim Y. Onipe DAHS Nnamdi C. Aforka L-PRES Louis M. Anokwu L-PRES Ogunlusi Abiola L-PRES Amara B. Okolia L-PRES 13 1.0 NIGERIA LIVESTOCK ROAD MAP AND LIVESTOCK SECTOR ANALYSIS The Nigeria livestock Road Map is an intervention pathway that will facilitate and trigger productivity improvement and resilience in the livestock sub-sector. LPRES is a 6-year project (2020-2026) whose development objective is to improve Livestock productivity, resilience, and commercialization of selected value chains and to strengthen Nigeria's capacity to respond to crises/emergencies in the livestock sector. This objective is aimed at achieving the National Agricultural Promotion Policy (APP) and the Livestock transformation plan (NLTP), and to ensure recovery and growth after the COVID-19 drawback, as enshrined in National Agricultural Technology and Innovation Plan (NATIP). The link between LPRES and NATIP (4-year strategy) focuses on achieving knowledge and technology driven agriculture for sustainable national food security and nutrition; diversification, jobs creation and resilience. The LPRES project is driven and implemented by the office of the National Project Coordinator on behalf of the Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development. This project is an Investment Project Financing (IPF) funded by an IDA credit and counterpart funds in the amounts of US$200 million and US$2 million, respectively, over six years (2020-2026). It has four inter-related components: i) Strengthening National Institutions for Improved Service Delivery; ii) Strengthening the Performance of Selected Value Chains; iii) Enhancement of Livestock Community Resilience, and iv) Project Coordination, Monitoring & Evaluation, and Communication. The project will also address the challenges of environment and threats posed by climate change, which includes: (a) gradual depletion of water sources and water points; (b) infestation of animals by the vectors of diseases; (c) degradation of fodder resources; and (d) natural disasters such as floods and droughts in various parts of the country. To achieve LPRES objectives and implementation mechanism; and the vision and strategy of developing and tracking projects targets and accomplishments, an implementation roadmap for the development of the livestock sector is put in place. These underscore the importance of action plans realistically built on baseline studies, setting of objectively verified targets, and priority interventions. This road map document provides a practical pathway for LPRES to launch and carry out its work within the context of promoting productivity and resilience in the Nigerian livestock sector. 14 The LPRES roadmap is also a master plan for engaging all sector stakeholders; policy makers, International and national development agencies (FAO, ILRI, UNDP, USAID, EU, Bill & Melinda Gates, ARCN etc.) as well as investors involved in livestock development on the current status of the sector and the potentials of future priority investment and engagement options for local economic growth and poverty reduction among livestock keepers households. The Government Preparation team diligently followed the World Bank preparation process to approve any project intervention as the entry point of the LPRES project. Studies that have implications for project appraisal, negotiation, and, most notably, meeting stakeholders' expectations and their findings, suggestions, and recommendations are harmonised into this actionable roadmap. A total of sixteen (16) studies and five (5) designs provided a clear and evidence-based roadmap with critical pathways and interventions to unlock the Livestock sectors’ substantial opportunities for food security and sustainable development put together as six year development plans or roadmaps for the key livestock VCs and production systems within each sub-sector, that were chosen based on national livestock priority development objectives. The roadmap includes objectives/outcomes and targets, challenges and strategies, and combined investments in technology and policy interventions, with expected outputs, outcomes, and impacts for each VC. The roadmap also provides sequenced activity plans, timelines, and funding models. HIGHLIGHTS OF THE COMPONENTS Component 1: Strengthening National Institutions for Improved Service Delivery This Component will support improvement in the performance and service delivery of institutions involved in livestock sub-sector and will contribute to improving the enabling environment. It is designed to build sustainable human, institutional and policy capacity for key public and private actors in livestock sector in order to improve animal husbandry practices, access and delivery of quality extension services (animal health, feed and breeding). The component will have a national reach benefiting millions of producers and value chain actors; public and private agents. It will provide support for investment in component 2 and 3 and provide the foundations for sustainability of such investment well after project life. Component 2: Strengthening selected value chains for improved productivity and commercialization The aim of this component is to enhance the performance of selected priority value chains (beef, diary, poultry, sheep, goats, and micro livestock) including selective crop sub-sector activities and peri-urban small producers, provided they are part of the livestock value chains and will create the condition for enhanced participation of small producers and private sector in the priority value chains. The major beneficiaries of this component include producers, processors of targeted VC; indirect buyers and consumers from 15 selected VC products. The component will benefit from the positive outcome of component 1 and help component 3 access a better market. Component 3: Strengthening resilience and diversification for pastoral communities and vulnerable households The LPRES offers an innovative, comprehensive, and flexible response to pastoralists’ vulnerability by delivering key public goods to enhance their livelihood. This component aims to increase pastoralists’ access to competitiveness, including markets and to increase trade in pastoral products (especially live animal). It will support the enhancement of the livelihoods and resilience of pastoral/mobile communities as well as the diversification of livelihood opportunities for vulnerable households (including youth and women). The project will adopt the use of information and communication technology (ICT) to transform the lives of pastoral communities by facilitating information sharing on markets, prices, climatic condition, water availability, and conflict-affected areas. Geographic information systems (GIS) and mapping will also be deployed to guide public investments and monitor results. The project will promote a wider uptake of improved technologies, especially in the component related to market access and trade, and pastoral risk management. The main beneficiaries of the component will be pastoral communities; vulnerable households. Component 4: Project Coordination, Institutional Support, Communication and Monitoring The aim of this component is to ensure project activities are implemented timely; coordination among the different stakeholders is instituted, and support activities relating to overall management, monitoring and evaluation (M&E), communication. The main objectives of the component are to: (a) ensure effective and strategic operational planning, implementation and monitoring of the project; and efficient use of various sources of funding, as well as coordination of implementation and monitoring of the Project interventions implemented by participating stakeholders and partners; (b) evaluate the Project’s final results, outcomes and impacts on beneficiary smallholders/PGs; and (c) support development and communication of livestock policies, regulations, guidelines and strategies (best practices, priority directions, experience sharing, studies, and consultation) and ensure efficient knowledge management and effective communication to various public and private entities on project activities, outcomes, best practices and lessons learnt. 16 LPRES INTERVENTION LOCATION Figure 1: Map of Nigeria showing study areas. A 17 Table 1: L-PRES PROJECT INTERVENTION LOCATIONS STATE SENATORIAL ZONE LGA Akwa Ibom North East Itu , Nsit Atai North West Ini, Obot Akara South Okobo, Onna Anambra North Njikoka , Dunukofia South Aguata, Ihiala Central Oyi , Ogbaru Bauchi Central Ganjuwa, Misau North Gamawa, Shira, Katagum South Bauchi, Toro Benue North East Makurdi, Gboko North West Kwande, Ushongo South Otukpo, Ogbadibo Borno Central Dikwe, Jere North Abadam, Gubio South Askira, Bayo Ebonyi North Ebonyi, Izzi Central Ikwo, Ishielu South Ohaozara, Onicha Edo Central Esan North-East, Esan Central North Akoko Edo, Etsako East 18 South Oredo, Orhionmwon Katsina South Musawa, Matazu, Malumfashi, Funtua North Saura, Bindawa, Ingawa, Sandamu, Kankia Central Katsina, Jibia, Rimi, Batagarawa Niger North Gbako, Agaie East Tafa, Paikoro South Mariga, Magama Ondo North Akoko South-West, Owo Central Okitipupa, Irele South Ondo West, Ondo East Osun West Ede, Iwo Central Oshogbo, Ikirun East Ilesa, Ife Plateau North Jos South, Bassa, Barkin Ladi Central Bokkos, Kanke South Lantang, Mikang, Quan Pan Taraba Central Sardauna, Bali North Jalingo, Zing South Takum, Wukari Zamfara Central Gusau, Maru, Tsafe, Bungudu North Shinkafi, Kaura Namoda, Zurmi, Birnin Magaji 19 West Anka, Bakura, Maradun, Talata Mafara, Gummi, Bukuyum Federal Capital Territory Federal Capital Territory Kuje, Kwali, Gwagwalada, Abaji, Abuja Municipal Area Council 20 1.1 LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION AND PRODUCTIVITY GAP ANALYSIS The livestock sub-sector has remained an essential and integral component of Nigeria's agriculture and is a significant source of household income, food security, and overall agricultural sector GDP contribution on account of the different livestock species production, productivity, and Value Chain diversity across the country's landscape. The World Bank is assisting the Government of Nigeria to implement the Livestock Productivity and Resilience Support (L-PRES) to improve productivity, resilience, and commercialization capacities of producers and processors in selected livestock value chains; and strengthens institutional capacity in service delivery. Therefore, L-PRES targets improved resilience of livestock value chain chosen of smallholder producers in intervention areas and also to enhance the country's response capacity to an eligible crisis or emergency. To achieve project objectives, a gap analysis studies were carried out on livestock production and productivity in the selected states to identify gaps in production and productivity of selected livestock enterprises: Cattle, Sheep and Goats, Pigs and poultry as well as micro live stocks such as Snail, Grass-cutter and Bees across the project areas. The gap analyses identified both current and desired future levels of the quantity and quality of livestock production and productivity data. Actual uses of livestock by households, herd dynamics between and within seasons; feed and water use and availability; home consumption, animal diseases; interactions between crops, livestock, and other productive activities within the LPRES intervention States. Other critical indices include access to inputs, markets, capital, and adoption of technologies. These were benchmarked as the current status to measure LPRES intervention impact and contributions to overall sector gains over the 6-year project life. The gap evaluation was undertaken using primary data sources obtained through the development and administration of three types of questionnaires to get information from livestock producers, inputs dealers, and off-takers of livestock products in the 16 intervention states and the FCT. Field data collected in all the study areas were fed into a developed data analysis model using a Spreadsheet, the responses were coded on a nominal scale and analysed with descriptive statistical tools. Secondary information used for gap evaluations were obtained by using secondary data sources from statutory agencies (FMARD, NBS, NIAS). 21 1.2 GAP HIGHLIGHTS Three critical stakeholders in the industry are the producers, the input suppliers, and the off-takers. Mixed smallholder farmers, pastoralists and periurban livestock producers are the primary suppliers to the Nigerian Livestock Value Chain. The current levels of operation and the expected impact the L-PRES project will infuse into the livestock subsector was estimated by interrogating current status, gap, and specific interventions required from LPRES and other stakeholders for the different livestock value chains under intervention. Livestock distribution showed that poultry production has a national spread. Its production, product consumption, and utilisation cuts across social divides such as beliefs, income, age, and location; While cattle, sheep, and goat production are more prevalent in the North; pigs, rabbits, snails, grasscutter, and beekeeping are more concentrated in the south. The current average stockholding and live weights of animals (cattle, sheep, goats, and pigs) by individual farmers are below the regional average for Africa and the world average. Productivity indices records like birth weights, growth rates, milk production, were not usually measured by the farmers. Thus, national information recorded for these indicators are mainly from the research institutes and not farmers based. The gap observed for National livestock productivity indicator records is an intervention point for the L-PRES project. These will require building capacity for records keeping among the stakeholders of the livestock value chain, especially the producers, and institutionalization of Livestock-MIS as the repository of such information obtained from stakeholders to develop nationally acceptable reference productivity indices. In promoting productivity, the L-PRES project shall support institutions and facilities that will enhance improvements in average birth weights, growth rates, and adult weights of animals to boost livestock productivity in Nigeria. These are central to LPRES project 22 success as an overwhelming 77% of livestock producers in the intervention areas do not keep records of their operations. This figure is representative of the more extensive livestock statistics. A clear demonstration was that most small-scale dairy farmers could not account for the volume of milk produced by their animals. This observed gap, as it is with other livestock species, requires mainstreaming farmers' education on production record's keeping and productivity improvement intervention such as increased milk yield, medication schedule, lactation records, weight gain, feed intake, calving, etc. for the dairy value chain. The promotion of animal healthcare delivery as a significant component of the LPRES project is apt, given the considerable gap in disease surveillance, prevention, and treatment. These account for the reported high flock losses across livestock species; other associated factors include inconsistency and absence of a responsive governance system that will address security challenges and eliminate quackery in the animal health care delivery. LPRES strategic intervention will reverse these negative trends by the end of the project since health care services will be improved and young professional healthcare service providers will be engaged. Other complementary and statutory intervention and inter-ministerial coordination by National, state, and IDAs within the livestock sector will aid in this process of flattening the diseases burden of the industry. Aggregated demography of the population of livestock producers showed that over 83% are within the active age between 20 – 60 years. There is a similar age distribution pattern for input suppliers and off-takers. However, there was a clear gender imbalance among the stakeholder as 79% of them are male. The bulk of the population involved in the livestock business has had formal education beyond the primary school, which is a positive attribute that the L PRES project will reinforce and use for sustained capacity development of the various stakeholder for efficiency in their productivity. The gender parity gap will be narrowed by L-PRES deliberately institutionalizing the affirmative action ratio as 23 the Baseline for engagement with stakeholders in all project implementation; this will lead to incremental gap closing within the six years. The current status records 21% are females. Therefore, Women and youth will be specifically targeted by the project through Productive Alliance (PA) with at least 30% of the grant earmarks for supporting women and youth led enterprises. Only 31% of livestock producers belong to cooperatives or organised group. In comparison, 69% of them do not belong to any group, this indicative of the absence of specialised livestock extension that addresses the peculiarities of sector's actors. This identified gap poses some challenges to extending services that can enhance better productivity to the stakeholders through organised platforms. These include business development and funding support. Forty nine percent (49%) of the respondents listed inadequate funding, 13% listed security and 12 % security of life and property as the main challenges they face in their livestock enterprise. 64% of the respondents stated funding support as their primary requirement; others want security (8.3%), subsidy (6.1%) and market development (4%). 24 These are all areas of interest for improvement to boost livestock productivity in Nigeria. About 38% of the respondents do not receive any form of business support services, 30% get business support service from government agencies in their locality, while 15% get support through their cooperative groups. These indices are the areas of improvement to focus on making a difference in the livestock industry by strengthening the types of machinery to extend business support services to livestock producers, input suppliers and off-takers through government agencies and cooperatives. This study confirms the limited knowledge of Nigeria's livestock assets by size and location because it identified and measured the current state of production and productivity of the livestock sector of Nigeria's agriculture; and has projected into the future by determining and forecasting the likely impact of the L-PRES intervention. Because of the relative literacy rates of livestock farmers; opportunities to promote the engagement of Nigeria's youthful population in the livestock business and also organise them into groups and cooperatives are high. However, there is obvious gender imbalance among the active players in the livestock value chains with fewer women, particularly among the producers and off-takers. 25 Table 2: L-PRES GAP RESPONSE FRAMEWORK S/N GAPS L-PRES RESPONSE FRAMEWORK I. A. General Livestock An inadequate network between off takers/distributors Opportunities, therefore, exist for L-PRES project to deepen further and develop an off-takers system that will play active roles in creating markets for livestock products. II. A large chunk of Livestock producers is aged. To meet the increasing demand of Nigerians for animal protein, L-PRES will focus on bringing the population within the 20 – 40 years into livestock ventures. III. Gender in balance with male input suppliers, producers and off-takers carrying a more significant percentage of the population. Gap associated with gender addressed through L-PRES. IV. Only a few livestock farmers belong to cooperate organisation. The L-PRES project can impact on increasing the average stock holdings of individual farmers to up to 50% or more increase livestock population V. The live weights of the different categories of animals recorded in this study are lower than the world average weights for these. In promoting productivity, the L-PRES project should support institutions and facilities that will enhance improvements in average birth weights, growth rates and adult weights of animals as ways of boosting livestock productivity in Nigeria. VI. Lack of adequate record keeping of all the livestock operations, especially by the livestock producers/owners. There is a gap in producers' record-keeping to be addressed by L-PRES project by ensuring that at the end of the project, stakeholders’ capacity and ability to keep adequate records of their operations is achieved. 26 VII. Diseases, theft, inadequate funding and security of lives and properties are challenges of the industry The enhancement of adequate access to quality health services is a significant component of the L-PRES project that could bridge the gap accounting for the reported high flock losses through disease surveillance and control. VIII. Lack of such as security, subsidy, disaster relief and market development. These are all areas that the L-PRES project can address and improve to boost livestock productivity in Nigeria. IX. Lack of business support services. L-PRES will strengthen the processes of extending business support services to livestock producers, input suppliers and off takers through government agencies and cooperatives. X. B. Milk Industry Inadequate records of milk production from cow, sheep and goats limit the contribution to national Milk production records L-PRES project will redress this through farmers' education and mainstreaming of milk production data and record books for farmers XI. Hides and skins value chain The following challenges constrain the leather industry in Nigeria: I. Effects of ectoparasites, lacerations, flaying damages, and inadequate salting were resulting in a large number of rejects. II. Low-level investment in the trading and transportation sector which slows the growth of the sector The L-PRES project will address all these gaps to boost the hides and skins value chain 27 III. Lack of locally manufactured tanning materials, thereby leading to the importation of a considerable amount of chemicals (frequently substandard) into the country causing environmental degradation and pollution. IV. Underdeveloped effluent management system leading to pollution of the streams, waterways, air and farmlands has adverse effects on the environment V. Poor administration and excessive documentation required to access the Export Expansion Grant (E.E.G.), preventing the Small and Medium Enterprises (S.M.E.s) to access the incentive meant to grow export VI. The low price of hides for industrial use as compared to Ponmo, which leads to the importation of hides for use by the local Finished Leather Goods producers. And VII. The slow growth of the Finished Leather Goods sub sector due to lack of incentives from the Government Source: L-PRES Gap Response Framework Report (2020). 28 2.0 STRATEGIC APPROACH AND POLICY FRAMEWORK The livestock sub-sector is an essential and integral component of Nigeria's agriculture. It is vital to both the socio-economic and food security of Nigeria; it contributes 9% of GDP of the 21% from the agricultural sector. The projected exponential growth of human population to 402 million people by the year 2050, rapid urbanisation and increased per-capita income with the associated boost in the consumption of high-protein animal products such as milk, meat and eggs provide opportunities for the sector's growth and development of the sector's diverse value chains. Policies and implementation strategies are therefore offered by Government in response to the existing, emerging and projected challenges and opportunities for the livestock. The strategy for the Nigeria Livestock productivity improvement and resilience project (LPRES) is to target transformation of the sector through increased investments over the six years to address and resolve critical issues that affect the industry. This strategic approach envisaged the achievement of the transformation of the current subsistence livestock production systems into dynamic market-oriented systems by addressing the structural and functional challenges affecting the sector. These also target increased investments by both the private and public sectors, to levels that will catalyse annual sectoral growth to 5-6% to align with the national economic development plan of improving home consumption and increased exports of agricultural products for improved GDP and poverty reduction. The transformation of the sector will stimulate improvement of breeds, production capacities, productivity, availability and use of production resource (quality land, feed and water); and support one health initiative through animal health management systems, and disease control measures; input supply and service delivery; value addition and market information and infrastructure; and competitiveness of products of the Nigeria Livestock sector. 29 The LPRES project implementation strategies are aligned with existing National Agricultural policies, programmes, interventions and agreements which have the following underlying principles and objectives: i. The Economic Recovery and Growth Plan (ERGP, 2017–2020); medium-term development strategy aim at increasing national productivity and achieving sustainable diversification of production, to significantly grow the economy and achieve maximum welfare for the citizens, beginning with food and energy security. ii. The Agriculture Promotion Policy (APP, 2016–2020) or Green Alternative building on the evidence that there are two significant gaps in Nigeria agriculture today: the inability to meet domestic food demand and the failure to export quality agricultural products. It aims thus at improving the productivity of many livestock commodities to meet both internal demand and tap into export market opportunities. iii. The National Livestock Transformation Plan (NLTP, 2019–2028); aims at transforming the livestock sector into a catalyst for building national prosperity. These will be through strategic interventions that will support improved performance and sustainability of livestock production, value addition and mitigating the escalating crisis between settled-farmers and pastoralists that is undermining the entire development of the livestock sector by the establishment of ranches. iv. Special Agro-Industrial processing Zones (SAPZs); these programmes target the achievement of the Nigerian industrialization Agenda. v. National Agricultural Technology and Innovation Plan (NATIP, 2021-2024); uniquely designed to turn COVID-19 into growth opportunity through a well-coordinated policy direction that attracts massive public and private sector investments in research and development, especially in high quality inputs; training and extension; and deployment of appropriate technologies and innovative technics in agricultural production and processing. vi. FMARD livestock sector intervention guide for specific programmes and target livestock such as; National Dairy Development Programme (Action Plan 2021-2025); Cattle Breed Improvement Programme and National Egg Production Scheme This Roadmap for Productivity Improvement and Resilience encapsulates the aims of existing policies and guide; in drawing implementation plans by taking into account existing livestock scenarios to project for the growth of the industry in line with aims and philosophies of national policies for Livestock development. The LPRES intervention locations are to create the necessary spark for achieving productivity improvement and resilience; activities and interventions from National, States, other Development partners/agencies and the private 30 sector initiatives are assumed to be contributors and gaps bridges in other locations. 31 3.0 LPRES PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION ENVIRONMENT LPRES recognises the critical challenges and nexus between livestock's production and its impact on the environment and the people; thus, LPRES Project activities will align and Link with National environmental protection policy and the World Bank Operational Policy 4.12. As part of the implementation activities, the LPRES project has integrated the following plans to respond to the challenges of waste, climate change and resettlement can pose to the environment, climate change, public health and the food chain. The policy framework is as thus: 3.1 CLIMATE CHANGE AND LIVESTOCK DEVELOPMENT Climate change is one of the most severe challenges to livestock production. The arid and semi-arid areas of Nigeria, in particular, are the front-line of the battle against climate change impacts on livestock development. Despite this common understanding, however, accurate assessment of the effects of climate change on livestock development in Nigeria is faced with many challenges. L-PRES intervention is developing an appropriate policy response and enhancing climate resilience in the livestock sector in view, expected severity in climate change impacts. The most significant direct effects of climate change on livestock production comes from the climate change-induced heat stress resulting in a substantial financial burden to livestock producers through the decrease in milk component and milk production, meat production, reproductive efficiency and animal health. The Indirect effects of climate change on livestock in Nigeria include (i) modification in the ecosystems to affect the production systems (grazing and non grazing), (ii) changing the animal feed resources, (iii) influencing water demand, availability and quality, (iv) impacting on livestock/human health and (v) security. 3.2 MANAGING CLIMATE RISKS FOR LIVESTOCK RESILIENCE IN NIGERIA The L-PRES climate-resilient approach for sustainable livestock development in Nigeria include: (i) putting in place appropriate adaptation and mitigation strategies; (ii) adopting relevant climate-smart livestock practices for the development of the livestock systems; (iii) putting in place reasonable and suitable policy, legal and institutional environment; (iv) promoting climate finance to support livestock development in the country; and (v) building partnerships at all levels to address the challenge from multi-dimensional 32 perspectives. 3.2.1 Resettlement Policy Framework (RPF) The LPRES Project will incorporate resettlement policy framework (RPF) in implementing support for improvements in livestock health and productivity in line with the World Bank Safeguard Policies which include: Involuntary Resettlement (OP/BP4.12) and Physical Cultural Resources (OP/BP 4.11). The RPF will ensure that before the implementation of any subproject activities, Project-Affected People (PAP) are consulted, and appropriate mitigation measures are affected. If needed, site-specific Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) proportional to the scope of impact will be prepared to appraise and address issues which may arise from physical and economic displacement and or restriction of access to or use of communal natural resources. The RPF assessment and response is as presented in the Indicative Entitlement Matrix (Table 3). 33 Table 3: Indicative Entitlement Matrix Asset Type of Impact Affected Person/unit Eligibility Criteria Financial or In-Kind Compensation Allowances/Assistance Land (including fallow land used as part of the agricultural cycle) Cultural Heritage Permanent acquisition of land Landowner (individual, clan or community) Tenant/User (will not receive compensation for land but for improvements to a land they have made such as crops, houses, sheds etc. (see below for details) The person with the formal right to land or without a standard legal right to land but have a recognisable claim to land recognised under the prevailing local land tenure Replacement with the land of equal size and quality in locations adjudged as same in value to the acquired one applies. If a land replacement is not possible or available, then cash compensation at full replacement value. Community land – replacement land or if unavailable, compensation to the community with their full consultation and participation paid Land Transfer allowance 10 % of market value in cash covering all administrative fees related to the purchase or provision of replacement land. 34 Land (including fallow land used as part of the agricultural cycle) Cultural Heritage Permanent acquisition of land Landowner (individual, clan or community) Tenant/User (will not receive compensation for land but for improvements to the land they have made such as crops, houses, sheds etc. (see below for details) A person with a formal right to land or without a standard legal right to land but have a recognisable claim to land recognised under the prevailing local land tenure Replacement with the land of equal size and quality in locations adjudged as same in value to the acquired one applies. If a land replacement is not possible or available, then cash compensation at full replacement value. Community land – replacement land or if unavailable, compensation to the community with their full consultation and participation paid Land Transfer allowance 10 % of market value in cash covering all administrative fees related to the purchase or provision of replacement land. Temporary acquisition of land Full restoration to pre project conditions; Financial compensation for any crops or trees acquired or destroyed; payment for any rent received from the land; replacement land if lack of access will last for an agricultural cycle and prevent farmers from either planting or harvesting crops. Return of land to the land user after use Moving allowance 35 Permanent /Temporar y loss of cultural heritage, including sacred sites. Community Community Land not under dispute Replacement in consultation with concerned parties including the ministry of environment concerning forest/trees Cash compensation of temporary loss of income N.A. Restriction /loss of grazing ground Cattle herders and others Verifiable established grazing pattern/history Assistance to create grazing reserve elsewhere in consultation with P.A.P.s Cash compensation for a temporary loss of income. N.A. 36 Asset Type of Impact Affected Person/unit Eligibility Criteria Entitlement Description Allowance/ Assistance Crops/ Trees Destruction/d amage/loss of crops Landowner Tenants/Users of land and cultivators/owners of crops/fruit trees, including individuals of the same household who tend their piece of land and grow crops on it. A landowner with formal or informal right to own land on which crops/fruit/ economic trees are grown Cash compensation for crops at the full market value of crop yield per hectare NA Loss of fruit trees Cash compensation for fruit trees at the full market value of fruit yield per season N.A. Destruction/L oss of wood trees Recognised owner of affected fruit / economic trees Cash compensation for a wood tree at current market value Moving/Setup allowance Structures Destruction of permanent, immovable structures Owner Recognised owner of the affected system irrespective of land ownership status Cash compensation at full replacement value, or replacement structure; Cost of moving Disturbance assistance (10%) Cash or in-kind moving assistance Tenant/User Recognised tenant Temporary displacement of moveable structures Owner Recognised owner of affected structure irrespective of land ownership status Cost of re-building and moving back to the initial location; Disturbance allowance (10%) Cash or in-kind moving assistance Tenant Recognized tenant/user Businesses and Businessperson distinct from owner Those operating business on the 37 Commercial Enterprises (formal and informal) of the structure affected project land irrespective of their land ownership status Loss of access to rivers or lakes Loss of access to fishing livelihood Recognised fishermen/women who substantially rely on fishing for their livelihood Verification that fishing is an essential livelihood for household or individual Compensation and assistance to be discussed with P.A.P. such as cash compensation, livelihood restoration including micro credit to start an alternative business or to get access to alternative fishing grounds/ forming cooperatives with others. Land (including fallow land used as part of the agricultur al cycle) Permanent acquisition of land Landowner (individual, clan or community) Tenant/User (will not receive compensation for land but for improvements to the land they have made such as crops, houses, A person with the formal right to land or without a standard legal right to land but have a recognisable claim to land recognised under the prevailing local land tenure Replacement with the land of equal size and quality in locations adjudged as same in value to the acquired one applies. If a land replacement is not possible or available, then cash compensation at full replacement value. Community land – replacement land or if unavailable, compensation to the community with their full consultation and participation paid Land Transfer allowance 10 % of market value in cash covering all administrative fees related to the purchase or provision of replacement land. Temporary Full restoration to pre- Moving allowance 38 Cultural Heritage acquisition of land sheds etc. (see below for details) project conditions; Financial compensation for any crops or trees acquired or destroyed; payment for any rent received from the land; replacement land if lack of access will last for an agricultural cycle and prevent farmers from either planting or harvesting crops. Return of land to a land user after use Permanent /Temporary loss of cultural heritage, including sacred sites. Community Community Land not under dispute Replacement in consultation with concerned parties including the ministry of environment concerning forest/trees Cash compensation of temporary loss of income N.A. Restriction /loss of grazing ground Cattle herders and others Verifiable established grazing pattern/history Assistance to create grazing reserve elsewhere in consultation with P.A.P.s Cash compensation for a temporary loss of income. N.A. Source: - Review of Livelihood Activities and Livestock Systems Innovations in Pastoral & Agro-Pastoral Communities (2020). 39 3.2.2 Environmental and Social Management Plan (Framework ESMP) The Environmental and Social Management Plan (ESMP) is a detailed plan and schedule of measures necessary to minimise, mitigate or control any potential adverse environmental and social impacts identified under the Nigeria L-PRES project. This ESMP consists of a set of generic mitigation, monitoring and institutional measures to be taken during the implementation and operation of the proposed project to eliminate negative environmental and social impacts, offset them or reduce them to acceptable levels. Table 4: Environmental and Social Management Plan for LPRES Anticipated Activities Impact Source Potential Risk Mitigation Responsibility Agricultural Activities – (before the implementation of sub-project) Environmental Issues Cultural practices Bush clearing & preparation for agricultural activities on farmlands. Bush Fire • Air pollution from the release of carbon monoxide • Contributes to climate change from the release of GHG • Habitat disruptions Wildlife relocation • Prepare ESMP. Baseline elemental Studies (water, air, soil quality). • Routine (baseline checks) biodiversity studies/Baseline ecological assess Farming (crop, livestock, fish farming) & processing of agricultural products Use of machinery Loss of Organic Matter from top soil • Air quality problems from dust generated from the use of machines • Effluent discharge from processing plants • Oil/fuel contamination of soil Wastewater generated on-site • Workers trained on necessary safety procedures and environmental issues • Adoption of sustainable soil & water management Occupational Health and Safety • Accidents from undertaking general agricultural practices & operation of machinery • Incidents from the use of farming tools Poor housekeeping • Prepare and develop a proper H.S.E. plan for the project rehabilitation works • H.S.E. plan must be reviewed continuously for adequacy. 40 around worksite/farm sites that can promote accidents/incidents • Health risks from use of pesticides & fertilizers Activities during operations phase of sub-project Agricultural Farming & Processing Waste generation • Improper disposal of waste generated • Poor management of waste • Ensure preparation of proper waste management plans • Monitor to ensure compliance with plans Social Issues Crop, Livestock & Fish farming Activities Socio-economic impacts Limited understanding of W.B. safeguards Conduct training on safeguards implementation and monitoring of ESMP Source: Environmental and Social Management Framework (ESMF) For Livestock Productivity and Resilience Support Project (L-PRES) Report (2020). 41 3.2.3 Waste Management Plan (WMP) Waste Management Plan (WMP) is designed to minimize potential harmful effects on human, animal health and on the environment that may arise particularly in the context of waste storage, collection, transportation, treatment and disposal. The Waste Management Plan (WMP) addresses livestock farms waste that includes non-hazardous and hazardous (e.g. expired veterinary medicines, fallen stock etc.) waste, in line with Regulatory Framework of the Federal Ministry of Environment (FMENV), vested with the power of regulation of all environmental matters, World Bank Policies and International environmental agreements and treaties ratified by the Federal Republic of Nigeria. The WMP will guide the project implementation unit and other stakeholders in the proper implementation that will achieve project environmental sustainability objective. The Waste Management Policy covers all activities associated with the LPRES, throughout the implementation cycle of the project, mostly, at the production and processing phases of the ruminants, the poultry and other animals. Table 5: Summary of Potential Impacts Associated with Livestock waste POTENTIAL ADVERSE IMPACTS SOCIAL IMPACTS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS • Public discomfort and mood swings from odour; • Heightened risks of pathogens (disease and non-disease-causing) passed from animals to humans; • The emergence of microbes resistant to antibiotics and antimicrobials, due in large part to the widespread use of antimicrobials for nontherapeutic purposes; food-borne disease; worker health concerns; and dispersed impacts on the adjacent community at large; • The attraction of rodents, insects and other pests, the release of animal pathogens, groundwater ; • Deterioration of ambient air quality due to the release of odour, fugitive specks of dust and gaseous pollutants; • Noise & vibration disturbances from the operation of waste treatment equipment (for large scale operations); • Increases in the destruction of natural habitat & displacement of fauna, particularly in wetland areas, • Soil contamination from manure; • Groundwater contamination from wastewater and manure leaching; • Surface water contamination as a result of sediment/pollutants runoff from exposed soils and accidental leakage/runoff of manure lagoon into the water; 42 Source: Waste Management Plan for Livestock Productivity and Resilience Support Project (LPRES) Report, (2020). 3.2.4 Integrated Pest Management Plan (IPMP) The IPMP spells out how pests would be managed to an acceptable level under the L-PRES Project in Nigeria in line with the existing national and international legislation on the use of pesticides and pest management practices. The plan provides background on pest management concerns and control measures in Nigeria and subsequently outlines a responsive program for pest management in an environmentally sound and safe manner. The IPMP identified several potential environmental and health risk that may be considered through the unsafe use of pesticides in the project area and adequate mitigation measures for addressing the impacts identified. In addition to providing details of the mitigation measures to be implemented for the consequences, the responsible institutions to implement them are provided in the Integrated Pest Management Plan. It also designs a program for capacity building in Integrated Pest Management, provides a stakeholder consultative and information dissemination arrangement as well as institutional responsibilities for taking actions and responding to IPM needs (Table 6). • Risk of occupational accidents, injuries and diseases. • Increase in Greenhouse gas emissions affects climate change. 43 Table 6: Adverse Environmental & Health Impacts Media Potential issues Mitigation Measures Monitoring Responsibility Frequency Cost estimate Surface and groundwater Pesticides may pollute surface water through runoff which transports pesticides to streams, rivers, and other surface-water bodies. Groundwater contamination may occur from pesticide residues in surface water, such as drainages, streams, and municipal wastewater. Minimise use of chemical pesticides in line with the IPMP. Ban pesticides should not be applied Compliance with LPRES IPMP Monitoring of water quality in project areas State Ministry of Agriculture/ Department of Animal Husbandry State Ministry of Environment/ Environmental Protection Agency Annually $66,000 Air Pollution Vapour from sprayed pesticides will be deposited into the air, and if the chemical compound is very stable, vapour may travel beyond the application location. Minimise use of chemical pesticides in line with the IPMP. Monitoring of air quality parameters State Ministry of Environment/ Environmental Protection Agency Annually $44,500 Adequate equipment should be used to minimise aerosols Adequate training on pesticides application State Ministry of Agriculture/ Department of Animal Husbandry As required $34,200 Soil Contamination Pesticides could also enter soil during spraying causing wash off or run-off into Minimise use of chemical pesticides in line with the IPMP. Compliance with LPRES IPMP Monitoring of soil State Ministry of Agriculture/ Department of Animal Husbandry Annually $75,000 44 ground. Long-term excessive use of pesticides will cause higher pesticide residues in the soil, which will further cause soil contamination within the area. Ban pesticides should not be used quality in project areas State Ministry of Environment/E.P.A. Flora and Fauna Harm to non-target species: sprayed insecticides reach a destination other than their target species because they are mainly aerosol. Runoff can carry pesticides into aquatic environments while wind can carry them to other fields, grazing areas, human settlements and undeveloped areas, potentially affecting other species. Minimise use of chemical pesticides in line with the IPMP. Site specific E.M.P.s Compliance with LPRES IPMP Monitoring of environmental parameters State Ministry of Agriculture/ Department of Animal Husbandry State Ministry of Environment/E.P.A. Annually $82,000 Other problems emerge from insufficient production, transport and storage practices. Over time, the repeated application increases Proper diagnosis of pests issues Minimise use of chemical pesticides in line with the IPMP. 45 pest resistance, while its effects on other species can facilitate the pest's resurgence. Human Health Consumption of crops and plants grown under chemical pest control could cause health hazards to humans and animals within and around the project site. Minimise use of chemical pesticides in line with the IPMP. Health plans and programs Federal/ State Ministry of Health Periodically $40,000 Certain kinds of chemicals intoxication, especially after drinking pesticide-contaminated water is a medium to high likelihood. These is a crucial potential impact considering that most of the locals get drinking water from surface and groundwater sources. Skin, eye, and nose irritation Public awareness of health campaigns Avoid the use of ban pesticides Health plans and programs Emergency Preparedness Plan State Ministry of Environment/E.P.A. Federal/ State Ministry of Health Periodically Possibility of cancers, neurologic, endocrine and reproductive 46 problems form direct and indirect exposure to pesticides Occupational Health and Safety Long term inhalation of toxic pesticides sprayed, could eventually result in respiratory illnesses or disease conditions Minimize use of chemical pesticides in line with the IPMP Ban pesticides should not be applied Compliance with the LPRES IPMP Health risk assessment on project locations State Ministry of Agriculture State Ministry of Health Annually $82,000 TOTAL $423,700 Source: L-PRES Result Framework Report for Environmental and Health Impact (2020). 47 3.2.5 Social Impact Assessment (SIA) Social Impact Assessment (SIA) is vital to the management of the L-PRES project as the project will affect people and institutions, beyond the environmental dimension. A comprehensive social change process with particular reference to poverty alleviation, gender balance and its’ effects on governance and institutions; equity, rights, justice and ultimately, cultural and household relations, these complements the ESMF with a greater focus on the social change process. The Social Impact Assessment reviews the potential consequences of the L-PRES to people, including changes that could affect the way the project stakeholders live, work, relate to one another, organise them and function as individuals and members of society. These include psychosocial changes, especially concerning existing gender norms, values, attitudes and perceptions of women and girls within the community and environment. The basic dimensions of social change form the basis of assessment which includes (i) Demographic change; (ii) Economic change; and (iii) Institutional change. 48 4.0 PROJECT GOVERNANCE 4.1 Institutional Arrangement for Livestock Development A country-Wide Livestock development framework will be driven by Federal/States and private sector partners and anchored by the Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development for the purposes of effective facilitation and coordination of programmes, projects processes and implementation of their action plans. The institutional arrangement shall comprise of the National Council under the leadership of the Honourable Minister FMARD while technical coordination of the country-wide framework shall be under by the Department of Animal Husbandry Services. The role of National Council is basically policy, funding, advisory/advocacy and also the clearing house on all Livestock related matters outside the main line of authority, while the Technical Working Group shall essentially be comprised of all livestock stakeholders. This stakeholders/Community engagement platform shall be a foundational element in the Country -Wide Livestock development framework process as part of government’s deliberate policy of up scaling citizenship participation in livestock sector activities, governance, project and programme planning, funding, execution and sustainability. 4.2 Monitoring and Evaluation The LPRES project is committed to accountability in project implementation and impact evaluation. To ensure that the stakeholders in the livestock sector are committed to ownership of project and take responsibilities, LPRES is committed to monitoring and reporting of project milestones through results-based management and decision making M&E framework which ensures a clear and logical basis for tying resources to expected results. The establishment of a Country-wide M&E mechanism for reporting on progress and discussing solutions to challenges that arise in the implementation process is vital to the successful implementation and sustainability of the LPRES project. The M&E platform will also provide experience sharing avenue among participating states. 49 5.0 ROADMAP FOR STRENGTHENING NATIONAL INSTITUTIONS FOR IMPROVED SERVICE DELIVERY Current Status and Gaps The challenges of the Nigerian Livestock sector are fundamentally linked to weak national institutions responsible for sector specific service delivery and has thus accounted for weak capacity for Research, Innovation and extension service delivery. There is also an ineffectual synergy which results to ineffective policy formulation and implementation structures at intra and inter-federal Ministries, Department and Agencies (MDAs) and weak synergy between federal and states MDAs. Like other agricultural related development programmes and interventions, Livestock sector programmes are also not streamlined which is responsible for persistent inter and intra-disciplinary rivalry in the livestock sector and other departments and agricultural projects. The sector has limited access to quality inputs and service providers: This is because markets for livestock inputs and service providers are largely unregulated even with the presence of key regulators (NIAS, VCN, NAFDAC and SON) responsible for enforcing strict adherence to quality standards of products and services. Challenges With an average of 1:10,000 extension workers to farmers’ ratio across the country, Livestock farmers receive limited guidance and training in technology adoption. This leads to limited skills in the application and adoption of productivity improvement and resilience by the farmers. This situation is worsening by the fact that even with the limitation of available extension workers, very few are specialised for livestock extension. This has therefore limited the capacity of farmers to keep accurate records, access production Infrastructures; affordable credit; markets, research and innovations. Objective To support improvement in the performance and service delivery of institutions involved in livestock sub-sector and will contribute to improving the enabling environment. The overall target I. Build sustainable human, institutional and policy capacity for key public and private actors in livestock sector; II. Improve access and delivery of quality extension services through engagement of young graduates of livestock and allied services III. Improve access to breeding 50 IV. Improve access to feed; and V. Improve access to animal health, 51 6.0 ROAD MAP FOR LIVESTOCK EXTENSION AND BUSINESS SUPPORT SERVICES In order to realize the objective of any livestock intervention, there is a need for extension service delivery that will enhance livestock productivity through adaption of good animal husbandry practices and animal health delivery services. Livestock extension and business development support services are cross-cutting interventions that are drivers for sustainability and resilience. L-PRES will strengthen institutions responsible for extension delivery services and the business support services to livestock producers, linking input suppliers and off-takers through government agencies and cooperatives under the Livestock service centres initiative, which will provide a one-stop platform for all livestock value chain actors. OBJECTIVES: I. Increase extension service delivery with a strong background on livestock information dissemination II. Increase Access to financial services and trade such as the Export Expansion Grant (EEG), NIRSAL, BOI, BoA and Export promotion Council III. Link producers to market and products regulators IV. Increased clusters and trust groups formation and transformation into Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) V. Access incentive to grow for both local and export markets VI. Support private sector investment in the trading, processing and transportation sector which slows the growth of the sector STRATEGY • Utilization of Facilitators (SMS) in animal husbandry and in animal health to train the groups in the intervention areas and provide technical supports, off-takers, advisory services, linkage (31 LGAs) • Develop result framework for extension service delivery 52 Table 7: RESULTS FRAMEWORK FOR PRODUCTIVITY IMPROVEMENT TARGETS THROUGH LIVESTOCK EXTENSION SERVICES Indicator Name Baseline 1 2 3 4 5 End Target Improved Livestock Productivity, Resilience Through Provision of Livestock Extension Services 1.6. Improve the capacity of Livestock extension agents in the L-PRES states 260 Livestock extension agents to be trained and retrained on extension service delivery, livestock management, dry season feeds and pasture development 0.00 75.00 105.00 135.00 215.00 252.00 260.00 1.7 160 Livestock / Vet Health Extension agents to be trained and retrained on extension service delivery, livestock Health management, and Vaccination 0.00 26.00 54.00 78.00 100.00 152.00 160.00 1.8 Advocate the for private Livestock extension services. 30.00 60.00 60.00 60.00 60.00 60.00 53 1,9 Resuscitate and strengthen Research Extensions, Farmers, Input Linkages (REFILS). (REFILS Meetings ) 4 4 4 4 4 4 2.0 Use of Mass media (social and conventional) to provide awareness on Livestock Extension activities. 10 10 10 10 10 10 2.1 Strengthen ADPs as key agency for Livestock Extension Activities. 14 14 14 14 14 14 2.2 Livestock Record Keeping (Birth weight, weaning weight, Maturity weight, Feed consumption, Feed cost, Mortality, Sales) in Copies 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 1,000,000 Source: Result Framework Report for Livestock Extension Services (2020) 54 Table 8: RESULTS FRAMEWORK FOR PRODUCTIVITY IMPROVEMENT TARGETS THROUGH LIVESTOCK SERVICES CENTRES DEVELOPMENT Indicator Name Baseline 1 2 3 4 5 End Target Improved Livestock Productivity, Resilience Through Provision of Livestock Services and Business development centres 1.6. Communal Livestock Service Centres implemented (Number) 0.00 1.00 3.00 5.00 5.00 7.00 7.00 1.7. Beneficiary satisfaction rate with quality of services provided by the Project for the livestock sector (of which female and youth) (Percentage) a. % Female 35.00 35.00 35.00 35.00 35.00 35.00 b. % Youth 60.00 60.00 60.00 60.00 60.00 60.00 Strengthening the Performance of Selected Value Chains 55 2.1 At least 60% of Direct Project Beneficiaries Receive Matching Grants (disaggregated by gender and youth) 10 35 45 60 60 60 % Female Beneficiaries of Project Matching Grants 35 35 35 35 35 35 % Male Beneficiaries of Project Matching Grants 65 65 65 65 65 65 % Youth Beneficiaries of Project Matching Grants (18 35yrs) 60 60 60 60 60 60 2.2 Beneficiaries of Project Matching Grants (Number) a. Small SP window 2,520.00 8,820.00 11,340.00 15,120.00 15,120.00 15,120.00 b. Medium SP window 2,100.00 7,350.00 9,450.00 12,600.00 12,600.00 12,600.00 c. Large SP 700.00 2,450.00 3,150.00 4,200.00 4,200.00 4,200.00 56 Source: Results Framework for Livestock Services Centres Development (2020). window 2.3. Formally Established Productive Partnerships (Number) 156.00 547.00 703.00 937.00 937.00 937.00 2.4. Jobs created (disaggregated by gender and youth) (Number) 0 372,030 1,116,089 1,860,149 2,604,209 3,348,268 a. % Female 35 35 35 35 35 35 b. % Youth 60 60 60 60 60 60 2.5. Market management platforms benefiting from project support (Number) 0.00 0.00 5.00 15.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 57 7.0 ROADMAP FOR ANIMAL GENETIC RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT Current Status and Gaps Livestock species such as cattle, sheep, goat, pig and poultry are preserved and managed in Breeding and Multiplication Centres in various geographical zones where they are best suited. Nigeria's most prominent initiative and intervention is Animal Genetic Resource Conservation of some livestock (sheep and goat) productivity, and the poultry industry has had some response from research institutes, Universities and donor support initiatives. The funding and management of the animal genetic stocks are by the Federal Government of Nigeria, which in turn distributes the offspring and genetic resources to livestock farmers in states and local government areas. Even though conventional selection and mating schemes have given a significant contribution to the genetic improvement of livestock in the developed world, their impact in developing countries has been on the lower side. The main aim of an animal breeder is Genetic improvement in productivity per animal within the shortest possible time. The target of L-PRES intervention IS to address the factors causing genetic erosion: these include low genetic conservation resulting from exerted pressure from large-scale commercial production systems to maintain only high-output breeds; indiscriminate crossbreeding; Lack of/weak AnGR management policies, programmes or institutions The intervention strategy will focus on building collaborations and strengthening National Institutions for improved service delivery. It will support improvement in the performance and services delivery of institutions involved in livestock sub-sector and will contribute to improving enabling environment. It is designed to build sustainable human, institutional and policy capacity for key public and private actors in livestock sector, in order to improve animal husbandry 58 practices, access and delivery of quality extension services (animal health, feed and breeding) in improving the productivity of local livestock and poultry and Animal Genetic Resources Conservation to deliver on their core mandates viz: I. National Centre for Genetic Resources (NACGRAB): an Agency involved in the development of animal genetic resources (poultry, goat, sheep, etc.). It is responsible for servicing the activities of the National Committee on Naming, Registration and release of livestock breeds. II. National Animal Production Research Institute (NAPRI) is a Federal Government established Research Institute with one of the mandates among others being to improve the indigenous livestock through Genetic Improvement. III. Nigerian Conservation Foundation (N.C.F.): Mandate is the conservation of animal genetic resources of Nigeria to ensure the sustainable use of these rich biodiversities through research and development. IV. Other areas of collaboration include collating data on indigenous animals, especially those of economic and conservation importance The National breeding policy will be a reference point in the implementation for the road map in Animal genetic resource development. The target is to increase the productivity of indigenous livestock and poultry and the number of livestock breed officially registered and released during the project life through collaboration and to popularise the use of registered species. Similarly, L-PRES livestock centres will have modern breeding facilities and increased research and application of In situ, In vivo, in vitro conservation methods for the improvement of livestock productivity. Similarly, The L-PRES project considers some clusters of goat farmers who were beneficiaries of pure-bred Boer goats as part of Federal Government of Nigeria (FGN) livestock improvement programme in the implementation states as sources for genetic improvement of local goats through distributing offspring and genetic resources to other farmers. Challenges • Animal genetic conservation is low or non-existence • Emphasis is more on crop than livestock. • High hybridization of the indigenous livestock species. • Both infrastructural and personnel capacity for conservation is very low • Amongst which is the inconsistency power supply to carry such storage and research facility. • Weak linkage between research institute, universities and the ministry • Breeding and multiplication centres are moribund. 59 Objective To increase the productivity of the indigenous livestock and poultry breeds and commercialize its production Overall target • To increase the number of registered breeds of AnGR of Nigeria at the end of the project • To build collaborations and popularise the use of registered indigenous breeds • Increase research and the use of modern breeding facilities • Improved conservation of AnGR of Nigeria Strategy • L-PRES will support functional centres for conservations of genetic resources along ecosystems with comparative advantages for the livestock type e.g (North West-Sokoto Gudali/Uda/Sahel; North East-Rahaji/Balami/Sahel; and South West-Muturu, Ndama, Keteku/WADG/WADS) • Conservation and crossbreeding would be concurrent undertaken to address the food security of the country under the project • Collaboration with research centers and foreign breeding companies to set up semen and embryo collection center to serve the needs of Nigeria and the surplus for export 60 Table 9: Framework for Implementation of Cattle Breed Improvement Programme Component Activity Responsibility Category of Beneficiary 1. Inventory of participants i. Registration and profiling of all categories of registered input suppliers, cattle farmers, dairy and meat processors in: a. 11 state with comparative advantage for dairy: Adamawa, Niger, Plateau, Oyo Ekiti, FCT, Kaduna, Kano, Kwara, Nasarawa and Taraba. b. States where the most interest were shown in the advertisement for participation in CABIP: Gombe, Katsina, Anambara, Borno and Sokoto. c. Emerging states in the dairy value chain: Jigawa, Kebbi, Osun and Ogun FMARD in collaboration with participating state government All profiled participants 2. Capacity building programs for profiled farmers and state personnel Training on: i. Pasture management and utilization. ii. Homestead pasture establishment. iii. Commercial pasture establishment. iv. pasture seeds multiplication v. forage conservation vi. crop residues conservation and utilization vii. small holder commercial beef and dairy cattle management. viii. artificial insemination ix. Standard operation procedures. x. entrepreneurial skill acquisition in pasture, artificial insemination, beef and dairy value chain. FMARD in collaboration with NAPRI, NAERLS, Federal universities of Agriculture Abeokuta and Makurdi, Federal University of Technology, Akure, University of Ibadan and Participating state government Registered and profiled: i. Cattle farmers ii. pasture farmers iii. inputs suppliers iv. Artificial insemination providers v. cottage dairy and meat processors 61 3. Support for artificial insemination i. Artificial insemination of 20,000 cows at the rate of 4,000 cows /year for 5 years in 20 states. ii. Training and empowerment of artificial inseminators. FMARD in collaboration with NAPRI, NABDA, selected artificial insemination providing companies i. All profiled and registered cattle farmers ii. All trained and registered artificial inseminators. 4. Support to animal identification and traceability Ear tagging of 20,000 inseminated cows and their progenies for 5 years in 20 states for sources monitoring and stock identification FMARD in collaboration with participating state governments All profiled and registered cattle farmers 5. Support for pasture establishment i. provision of pasture input such as water pumps, brush cutters, forage choppers crop residues crushing machines, manual hay bailers, seeds and cuttings to 2,000 cattle farmers at 20 farmers /state/year for 5 years for homestead pasture establishment. ii. provision of 40 boreholes and irrigation equipment to 2 lead pasture and seed multiplication establishment iii. provision of inputs such as tractor services, seeds and cuttings organic fertilizer, brush cutters forage choppers and hay bailers to 2 pasture farmers /state for 1 year for commercial pasture establishment. FMARD in collaboration with NAPRI, National seed council NIAS, NAERLS, National grassland Association of Nigeria, Federal Universities of Agriculture Abeokuta and Makurdi, Ladoke Akintola University of Technology, Ogbomosho, and participating state governments i. selected homestead dairy farmers ii. selected lead pasture farmers iii. selected lead pasture farmers 6. Support for stock healthcare Prophylactic healthcare interventions for of 20,000 cows at the rate of 4,000 cows/ year for 5 years in 20 states. FMARD in collaboration with NVRI and participating All profiled cattle farmers. 62 state government 7. Support for waste management Construction of effluent digesters for 40 lead cattle farmers at 2 farmers/state for methane gas production, FMARD in collaboration with Federal Ministry of Environment and participating state governments 2 lead cattle farmers/state in 20 state. 8. Support Construction of 40 units of 1,000 litres/day milk processing plants at 2 plants/state for production of sterilized milk, yoghurt and other milk products FMARD in collaboration with federal ministry of finance and participating state government 2 milk processing /state in 20 states 9. Support for establishme nt of cottage beef processing centres Construction of 40 units of 3 MT /day meat processing plants at 2 plants /state for production of hygienic and certified package meat. FMARD in collabora tion with federal ministry of finance and participat ing state governm ent 2 milk processing /state in 20 state. 10. Monitoring and evaluation Source: FMARD (2020). 63 8.0 ROAD MAP FOR ANIMAL FEEDS SUPPLY Livestock feeds account for over 70% of the production cost of large-scale livestock enterprise; the high price and low availability of good quality animal feed (concentrate, forage and fodder) affects productivity of livestock, as nutritional interventions are required to realize the full genetic potential of all classes and species of livestock. Therefore, LPRES will leverage on existing feed mills supply to poultry and support interventions in the area of increased support for ranching, Grazing reserves development, mixed farming systems for fodder/silage and emerging toll millers and feedlots to supply the ruminant livestock sector (beef and dairy; sheep and Goats) needs. In contrast, smallholder mixed crop-livestock and extensive livestock production systems (pastoral or agro-pastoral) will provide for the majority of ruminant livestock population. Objective The objectives for ruminant animal feeds are; Adopt the use of fodder bank and silage as sources of supplement for ruminant animals Grow high yielding and adaptable pasture plants using good agronomic practices and setting up irrigation facility for all year-round pasture production Encourage commercial pasture & pasture seed production by supporting private investors to develop ranching and PPP arrangement in grazing reserves development Provide capacity building to crop farmers to value the potential residue both for their animal and for sales. 64 Harnessing other alternative feeds resources like Agro industrial by-products e.g., Cassava peels etc. based on the available resource in the sites of intervention Strategy Support small-scale pasture production, processing and conservation into silage, haylage and hay Organize commercial ruminant feeds producers through capacity building and inputs support Community silage (in small plastic bags of between 10 to 50kg) and grass pellets production to be supported Encourage partnership with the private partners in commercial pasture processing, packaging and storage by providing appropriate technology, machineries and implement like forage harvester, mower, bailer, infrastructure such as hay band silage bunker etc Support crop residue processing, formulated rations using locally available resources and technologies on feeding strategies Collaborate with forest Rangers/Nigeria Civil Defense Corps for the protection of pasture/range management and conflict prevention. Support for the production of browse plants by linking project to great green wall initiative LPRES projection for the feed supply sector is majorly for poultry sub-sector which constitutes the largest uptakers of concentrate feeds. The forecast takes into account total projected feeds needs; contributions and growth of feed millers and other suppliers within the project lifespan Objective The objectives for Poultry feeds are; Promote the use of alternative feed resource as replacement or conventional feedstuff Encourage on-farm and toll milling at farm and as cooperative holding in livestock centres Encourage commercial concentrate feeds production for all classes of animals by supporting private investors to establish feed mills Encourage in- country production of feed additives and sourcing of organic alternatives Strengthen regulatory agencies for quality assurances Incentivize crop farmers to produce crops specially for the livestock feeds industry Harnessing other alternative feeds resources like Agro industrial by-products e.g., Cassava peels etc. based on the available resource in the sites of intervention Strategy Support small-scale livestock feeds producers to acquire standard feed processing equipment Link feed millers to inputs sources Support research of alternative feed resource utilization 65 Support regulators to train small feed millers on feeds standards Support building of in-country raw materials reserve 66 Table 10: RESULT FRAMEWORK FOR ANIMAL FEEDS PRODUCTIVITY IMPROVEMENT & TARGET Indicator Name DLI National Data Baseline Intermediate Targets End Target 1 2 3 4 5 Improved livestock productivity, resilience and commercialization of Livestock feed value chains 1. % Addition to National Poultry Feed Production Basket/b 4.5mMT (70% of 6.5mMT) 4.5mMT 2.40 7.80 16.70 26.00 30.00 30.00 2. % access to quality poultry feed by beneficiaries a. Small (60%) b. Medium (25%) c. Large (15%) 1.35mMT 0.00 0.00 0.00 15 10 5 20 25 7 45 35 10 60 50 15 75 65 20 80 70 30 3. 30% Increase in feed milling capacity a. Commercial Feedmillers (25%) 0.00 0.00 5 5 10 10 15 15 30 30 67 b. Toll Millers (65%) c. On-farm Farmers (10%) 0.00 5 10 15 20 20 20 25 25 25 30 4. % Increase in Number of Feedmillers Trained • Commercial Feedmillers • Toll Millers • On-farm Millers 0.00 0.00 0.00 15 10 15 20 25 25 45 35 40 60 40 45 75 50 50 80 50 60 Source: L-PRES Result Framework for Animal Feed Productivity (2020). 68 9.0 ROADMAP FOR ANIMAL HEALTH SERVICE The main thrust for the roadmap for animal health under the LPRES project is strengthening of integrated animal disease prevention and control system, which include strengthening vaccine production and regulatory activities of NVRI and NAFDAC. Avian Influenza, Rabies, Peste des Petits Ruminants, Newcastle Disease, Infectious Bursa Disease, Bovine Tuberculosis and Contagious Bovine Pleuropneumonia are priority animal diseases that were common among the selected states and FCT. Others include; Blackquater, Hemorrhagic Septicemia, Anthrax, Foot & Mouth Disease (FMD), Brucellosis, African Swine Fever (ASF), Marek’s Disease, Ecto and Endo Parasitic infection An assessment by the world bank on the costs of disease burden, morbidity and mortality related to five specific diseases in Nigeria viz: - i) NCD in rural poultry flocks, ii) PPR in sheep and goats, iii) CBPP in cattle, iv) ASF in pigs and v) Trypanosomosis in ruminants and pigs is estimated to have the annual financial burden of PPR, CBPP, trypanosomosis, NCD and ASF to amount to 29.2 billion Nigerian (NGN). This cost of inaction against these diseases is highest for trypanosomosis in cattle and pigs (NGN 10 billion), followed by NCD in rural chicken (NGN 8.9 billion), PPR in sheep and goats (NGN 6.8 billion), CBPP (NGN 2.2 billion) and ASF (NGN 1.3 billion). The highest direct cost of inaction amounting to NGN 8.9 billion is due to NCD, while the least is due to ASF (NGN 1.2 billion). These meant that twenty-nine billion Naira (N29.2 billion amounting to $204.2 million); representing only 0.056% of the GDP or 3.3% of the agricultural value-added, as the cost of inaction against the priority diseases; when compared to the livestock contributions of 1.7% of the GDP or about 9% of the agricultural value-added revenues, there is a significant effect on the economy. This evaluation, however, does not include diseases like Brucellosis, tuberculosis, Foot and mouth disease that have an important implication on international trade. 69 The challenges of the animal healthcare delivery as reported by farmers include lack of routine vaccinations and provision of other inputs by the government. Also, the veterinary workforce was reported as inadequate in most of the states, especially in Benue, Ebonyi and Plateau states. Therefore, LPRES will improve the animal health care system for the growth and protection of investments in the livestock sector by reducing the costs of disease burden, morbidity and mortality related to priority diseases (Avian Influenza, Rabies, Peste des Petits Ruminants, Newcastle Disease, Infectious Bursa Disease, Bovine Tuberculosis and Contagious Bovine Pleuropneumonia) and other diseases. The strategy is to embrace the one health initiative with more comprehensive collaboration of all stakeholders to guarantee disease prevention and control through intensive surveillance, vaccination, biosecurity practices at all levels of production; making available drugs and medications; and building collaboration with private veterinary practitioners especially in states with inadequate veterinary personals. The main thrust of the roadmap for animal health under the LPRES project is strengthening of regulatory and vaccine production capacity of NVRI, NAFDAC, and also engaging the private sector for the production of vaccines and veterinary drugs, regular vaccination and animal health extension services. 70 OBJECTIVE Strengthening of integrated animal disease prevention and control system, which include strengthening vaccine production and regulatory activities of NVRI and NAFDAC to achieve effective animal diseases prevention and control for improved livestock production and productivity. Challenges Weak control strategies for important livestock and zoonotic diseases Weak legal framework on animal disease prevention and control Weak animal disease reporting Poor facilities for animal vaccine production and storage Poor laboratory capacities at Veterinary Teaching Hospitals (VTHs) and State Veterinary Clinics Inadequate fund for farmers’ compensation affected by disease outbreaks Strategies Vaccine and Vaccination programme • Increase in vaccine production capacity for all the diseases amenable to vaccination • Enhance storage and distribution of vaccines • Improve vaccination coverage through public – private partnership Facilitate training and empowerment of young veterinarian and animal health practitioners Support State Veterinary Clinics and Veterinary Teaching Hospitals through the provision of veterinary diagnostic equipment and reagents Improve networking among private practitioners and other health care delivery Create a robust one health platform to facilitate inter-ministerial stakeholders’ linkages Improve meat inspection by revamping existing abattoirs & slaughter slabs Improve collaborations with national, international and other donor funded projects such as Regional Disease Surveillance System Enhancement (REDISSE) project Support “Traditional Veterinary Medicine” which is cheaper, available, effective and applicable by pastorals. 71 TABLE 11: RESULTS FRAMEWORK FOR ANIMAL HEALTH CARE SERVICES Indicator Name Baseline 1 2 3 4 5 End Target Improved Livestock Productivity, Resilience Through Provision of Animal Health Services 1.5 % increase in vaccination coverage for animals (species) against priority diseases (disaggregated by Value Chain): 25.85 33.75 40 45 52.5 56.25 75 1)a. Vaccination coverage of cattle against CBPP (Percentage) 32.93 40 45 50 60 65 75 b. Vaccination coverage of cattle against FMD (Percentage) 0.04 40 45 55 60 65 75 c. Vaccination coverage of Sheep and Goats against PPR (Percentage) 32.87 45 50 55 60 65 75 Vaccination coverage of Birds (Poultry Value Chain) (Percentage) against NCD 37.67 40 45 50 60 60 75 II. % increase of Animal Health Staff (Federal, State, LGA & Private) trained in Disease control techniques 7 20 40 60 - - 60 III. % increase of beneficiaries having access to animal health 30 40 60 80 100 100 100 72 Services (Sanitary Mandate) IV. Number of Veterinary Clinics Rehabilitated/Upgraded, equipped and functional 3 5 8 8 2 - 23 V. Number of Abattoirs upgraded, equipped and functional 3 3 5 10 5 - 23 VI. Number of Live Bird Markets upgraded, equipped and functional 2 2 2 2 - - 6 VII. % increase of beneficiaries complying with on - farm biosecurity measures 20 30 40 60 - - 60 VIII. Number of Ambulatory/ Animal Health and Disease Surveillance Agents Trained, equipped and deployed Young vets 106 115 230 115 - - 460 Source: L-PRES Framework Result Framework for Animal Health (2020). 73 10.0 ROAD MAP FOR BEEF AND DAIRY DEVELOPMENT Current status and Gaps Nigeria is one of the leading countries in cattle production in sub-Saharan Africa, with over 18.2 – 22 million cattle consisting of 1.47 million milking cows and 13.26 million beef cattle. Less than 1% of these populations are commercial while the remaining is under traditional pastoral systems. There is hardly any distinction between cattle managed under this system as all dairy and draft cattle end up as beef but not all beef cattle end up as dairy and draft cattle. Thus, no specific type of livestock produced for meat or dairy in Nigeria. All the cattle produced attain maturity age of two and above years before they are slaughtered and considered good beef for the Nigerian consumer whose preference is low or near absent of consumption of veal or baby beef. The system is based on the use of indigenous and less technically dependent methods in all aspects of cattle production and value chain processes that include marketing and health management. Only an optimum and specialised animal production processes, especially for beef cattle, will be able to alleviate poverty, provide food and nutrition security and meet other needs of such a growing population and its economy. The dairy cattle are owned by semi-sedentary and transhumance pastoralists who managed the animals in large herds. The indigenous breeds are dual-purpose and thus selected and promoted for 74 dairy are White Fulani, Red Bororo, Sokoto Gudali, Adamawa Gudali, Wadara, Azawak, Muturu, Keteku, Ndama and Kuri. Large scale commercial dairy farms depend on imported exotic breeds and their crosses while commercially oriented urban farmers are emerging with the focus of productivity improvement of Nigeria indigenous dairy cattle breeds and crosses through enhanced nutritional and diseases management. Nigeria's milk production output of 0.6 million tonnes is the lowest in the world compared to Africa and Asia's average of 0.9 million tonnes and 6.6 million tonnes respectively and per capita consumption of 10litres/person, relative to 28litres/person in Africa, and 40 litres/person globally. The country's low milk production is due to low yield at 2,458 hg/An relative to Africa and Asia's average of 7,409.7 hg/An and 31,835.4 hg/An respectively. With an estimated annual milk consumption of 1.7 million tonnes, production only meets about 34% of demand, while importation makes up for the deficit. As a result of the production deficit of over 1 million tonnes, in recent years, Nigeria has spent an average of US$480.3 million on the importation of milk annually, suggests the need to increase the productivity of the dairy sector to cut down on importation and milk consumption demand supported by a growing population. Remove % sign on infographics Challenges As Nigeria advances in animal production, many factors militate against beef and dairy animal production. And these include; subsistence and pastoral production practices and its attendant conflicts and insecurity, breed improvement, inadequate finance, high cost of animal feeds, 75 animal diseases, lack of infrastructure, value chain development and engagement in beef and dairy cattle value chain. Others include the capacity of existing relevant public and private institutions, Land Ownership, Productivity of the local cattle breed, Strategic infrastructure, and Gender Issues. Objective To increase the productivity of cattle through increased feed availability, health and breeds improvement To improve in yield and quality of products for domestic and export markets through specialised beef and dairy cattle production The overall target for Cattle Increase productivity of dairy cattle in the intensive system to 5litres for White Fulani and 16litres for Cross (50-50 Holstein Friesan x White Fulani) as against 2.8litres and 4litres respectively. Increase yield of beef cattle through the reduction in calving cycle from 42months to 12months Increase productivity through a reduction in the fattening period from 110days to 60days by the end of the project. Increase the value of sales of both beef and dairy products from 30% to 80% at the end of the project 76 Table 12: RESULTS FRAMEWORK FOR BEEF PRODUCTIVITY IMPROVEMENT AND TARGETS Indicator Name DLI Baseline Intermediate Targets End Target 1 2 3 4 5 Improved livestock productivity, resilience and commercialisation of Beef and Dairy value chains 1. Increased yield of production of targeted animal production systems by primary beneficiaries in the selected value chains (cattle) (Percentage) a. Production system Extensive Beef Cattle (White Fulani) Expressed as Calving cycle in months (%age reduction) 42 .00 (0.00) 39.40 (6.19) 36.80 (12.38) 34.20 (18.57) 31.60 (24.76) 29.00 (30.95) 29.00 (30.95) Semi-intensive (White Fulani) Beef Cattle Expressed as Calving cycle in months (%age reduction) 42.00 (0.00) 37.7 (10.24) 33.4 (20.48) 29.00 (30.95) 23.33 (55.56) 17.66 (57.95) 12.00 (71.42) Intensive (White Fulani) Beef Cattle 42.00 (0.00) 37.7 (10.24) 33.4 (20.48) 29.00 (30.95) 23.33 (55.56) 17.66 (57.95) 12.00 (71.42) 77 Expressed as Calving cycle in months (%age reduction) Fattening period (Reduction in fattening days) i. Beef (Indigenous) (0.8kg/day Weight NAPRI) ii. Crosses 50% Friesian 110.00 (0.00) 110.00 (0.00) 100.00 (9.09) 100.00 (9.09) 95.00 (13.64) 90.00 (18.18) 90.00 (18.18) 90.00 (18.18) 90.00 (18.18) 90.00 (18.18) 90.00 (18.18) 90.00 (18.18) 60.00 (45.45) 60.00 (45.45) 2. Increased value of sales (on the domestic and export markets) of beef products by primary beneficiaries in targeted value chains (Percentage) 00.00 35.00 45.00 72.50 85.00 90.00 95.00 Increased value of sales (on the domestic and export markets) of beef products by primary male beneficiaries in targeted value chains (Percentage) 00.00 30.00 40.00 65.00 80.00 90.00 90.00 Increased value of sales (on the domestic and export markets) of beef products by primary female beneficiaries in targeted value chains (Percentage) 00.00 40.00 50.00 80.00 90.00 90.00 100.00 Increased value of sales on Beef Cattle (Percentage) 0.00 30.00 50.00 75.00 80.00 80.00 80.00 Source: L-PRES Result Framework for Beef and Dairy Production (2020). 78 NATIONAL DAIRY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME FRAMEWORK OBJECTIVE: To increase national milk production to attain self - sufficiency in dairy and dairy products: An additional production of 540 million litres of local fresh milk, thereby increasing the national milk production from 0.670 million litres to 1.21 billion litres, Increase in the share of raw milk processed from the current 5% -20% annually of the overall volume of milk processed by the different categories of dairy industries. The creation of 1, 000, 000 million direct and indirect jobs mainly for women and young people STRATEGIES Promote the productivity of the local breeds from 1-2 litres/cow/day to 10litres/cow/day Promote private sector –led milk collection, processing and marketing Promote consumption of locally produced fresh milk Reduce importation by 30% annually Component 1: Improve the productivity of the local breeds Sub- component 1a: Facilitate availability of feed and water Sub-component 1b: Facilitate the genetic potentials of local breeds Sub-component 1c: Promote good animal health herd Component 2: Improve local milk collection and processing Sub-component 2a: Set up infrastructure and equipment to support milk collection Sub-component 2b: Promote local milk collection and processing centre Sub-component 2c: Facilitate distribution and consumption of local milk products Component 3: Project coordination Sub-component 4a: Coordination Sub-component 4b: Policy, advocacy and communication Sub-component 4c: Monitoring and evaluation 79 Table 13: National Dairy development Framework Interventions Goals Expected results Activities 1) a. Facilitate availability of feed and water Improve availability of feed and water 10 major and mini feedmill identified in zones 1500 ha fodder seed bank/fodder developed for distribution annually 450,000 jobs created conduct quick assessment of major feed miller needs for quality raw material for outsourcing in targeted states Support the establishment of fodder seed production and distribution centres train producers on pasture development and support producers with incentives such as seeds, equipment etc Support and develop other feed resources such as hay, silage, crop residue, agro and industrial by-products Establish and manage livestock feed banks subsidize and support dairy cows with dry season feeding support pastoral units in large livestock clusters and around the grazing reserves with water infrastructure such as boreholes, earthdams and water 80 harvesters for fodder development and utilization 1) b. Facilitate genetic improvemen t of the local breeds Increase productivity of the dairy cow An additional production of 114 million litres yearly A drop in imports of 13% yearly 45,000 cows inseminated yearly 11,250 pastoral farmers sensitized yearly 150 inseminators trained The creation of 100,000 jobs Identification of AI service provider Identification of sites and setting up of one breeding centre per state Support pastoral farmers with semen and facilities for AI Sensitization of pastoral farmers to participate in genetic improvement selection of 3000 cows for genetic upgrade per state Training of 150 inseminators on Artificial insemination in targeted states Training of pastoral farmers on feeding and management of AI pregnant cows and calves 1c.Promote good animal health herd Improve productivity of the dairy herd health Reduced incidence of disease outbreaks in 2,000,000 dairy cattle Build capacity of livestock farmers, and veterinary auxiliaries in animal care regular vaccination Facilitate access to drugs and veterinary services 81 strengthen the epidemiological surveillance system 2a. Promote local milk collection and processing Increase milk collection and processing collaboration with more processors as offtakers 50 producer groups mobilized into outgrowers scheme per state Additional 270million litres of milk to be colected annually Reduce dependence on importation of powder milk by 30% annually Create 150,000 jobs annually Improve nutrition and livelihood of actors in the value chain Organize visits and meetings with processors to determine their challenges in targetted states Hold a stakeholder meeting to assess opportunities to expand the final product market and development of milk collection program Develop and sign mou with more off- takers/processors identification and registration of input suppliers and animal health providers conduct inventories of stakeholder facilities in targetted states Mobilise more farmers in existing/new groups for milk supply Share ideas and build capacity on good dairy practices at milk collection centres Facilitate access to financial resources for actors 82 train extension agents on production techniques 2b. Set up infrastructure to support milk collection and processing Increase milk collection and processing Additional 270million litres of milk to be colected annually Improve access to milk collection and reduce spoilage Create 300,000 jobs Facilitate the establishment of 5 milk collection in targeted states Support collection centres with access road, cold chains, cold vans, energy, water, multiservice centres tax exemption for materials and equipment for milk collection centres and processing 2c. Facilitate distribution and consumption of local milk products Increase consumption of locally processed fresh milk and milk products Improve nutritional health and livelihood of the populace Facilitate the standardisation and labelling of dairy products support distribution of local milk products create awareness and sensitze large scale consumption of local milk products 83 3a. Project coordination To ensure the programme is implemented successfully Programme successfully implementation Facilitate access to financial resources for actors set up an adaptable fiscal policy favourable to the development of local actors Boost emerging economic models make pastoral models viable in agro pastoral areas strengthen professionalism of 1500 actors in the local dairy sector Support the structure of professionals in the dairy sector Source: FMARD (2020). 84 11.0 ROAD MAP FOR SHEEP AND GOAT DEVELOPMENT Current Status and Gaps Sheep and goats (small ruminants) form an important economic and ecological niche in the Nigeria livestock systems. They are an integral and vital component of the pattern of animal production in most rural communities. There are three prominent breeds of sheep namely; Balami; Uda; Yankasa and West African Dwarf breeds of goats. The Sahelian is not indigenous but is commonly found in Northern parts of the country. Sheep and goats are reared for immediate cash source, meat, manure, and risk mitigation. They significantly contribute to the socio-economic life of many rural, peri-urban and urban low 85 households through provision of income, and intangible benefits (i.e., savings, insurance against emergencies, cultural and ceremonial purposes). Sheep and Goats enjoy wider distribution and greater flock dynamism than other livestock species. Their population in Nigeria was estimated to be 38 million and 57.3 million (citation), respectively. The more significant proportion of these animals is, however, concentrated mainly in the northern region of the country than the southern part. They are ranked as the second most important suppliers of meat protein to the population after cattle, and they contribute about 35% of the total animal meat production in Nigeria. They are increasingly valued for their lean meat and skins production for the leather industry. The export potentials of sheep and goats value chain provide an opportunity for upscaling production practices with more resource and intensity of management allocated into the development of the sub-sector. Challenges Challenges facing the sheep and goat value chain in Nigeria include: i. Low genetic potential due to poor selection and lack of specialized breeding programme. ii. Scarcity of feed including fodder fodder. iii. Lack of training and knowledge on good animal husbandry practices iv. Poor healthcare delivery system v. Poor housing vi. Poor market information and linkage Objective Increase the yield of meat, milk skins for leather industry and promote sheep and goat milk through upscaled production practices with more resources and best management practices to meet national demand Overall Targets for Sheep and Goat Increase productivity of traditional sheep and goat systems through improved breeding, feeding, healthcare and management at the end of the project. Increase meat production through a reduction in the fattening period from 110days to 60days at the end of the project 86 Sensitization and promotion of sheep and goat milk and milk products Support to establishment of dairy sheep and goat farms Strategies Breed Improvement through: i. Technology based such as Artificial Insemination and Embryonic Transfer recommended for large farms. ii. Community based such as Open Nucleus Breeding System and Closed Nucleus Breeding System recommended for Small holder farmers Improved feeding i. Fodder improvement ii. Promotion of perennial shrubs as feed resources iii. Increased utilization of crop residues and agro-industrial wastes and other alternative feed resources Improved healthcare delivery system i. Promotion of annual mass vaccination ii. Promotion of routine deworming iii. Promotion of ethnoveterinary Improved Extension and Advisory Services i. Sensitization programmes and Trainings ii. Promotion of record keeping Value services i. Improved inputs supply system ii. Promotion of incentives iii. Promotion of grants iv. Farmer friendly loan and insurance system 87 Table: 14 RESULTS FRAMEWORK FOR SHEEP AND GOAT PRODUCTIVITY IMPROVEMENT AND TARGETS Indicator Name DLI Baseline Intermediate Targets End Target 1 2 3 4 5 Improved livestock productivity, resilience and commercialisation of Shep and Goats value chains Extensive iii. Goat Expressed as Number of kids to 6 months raised by Doe/year (Average per Herd) iv. Sheep Expressed as Number of lambs to 6 months raised by Ewe/year (Average per Flock) 1.00 (0.00) 1.44 (44.0) 1.44 (44.0) 1.44 (44.0) 2.00 (100.0) 2.00 (100.0) 2.00 (100.0) Semi-intensive iv. Goat Expressed as Number of kids to 6 months raised by Doe/year (Pls note twining to weaning age in 3rd year) v. Sheep Expressed as Number of lambs to 6 months raised by Ewe/year 1.00 (0.0) 1.00 (0.0) 1.44 (44.0) 1.44 (44.0) 1.44 (44.0) 1.44 (44.0) 2.00 (50.0) 2.00 (50.0) 2.00 (50.0) 2.00 (50.0) 2.00 (50.0) 2.00 (50.0) 2.00 (50.0) 2.00 (50.0) 88 Intensive iii. Goat Expressed as Number of kids to 6 months raised by Doe/year (Average per Herd) iv. Sheep Expressed as Number of lambs to 6 months raised by Ewe/year (Average per Flock) 1.00 (0.00) 1.00 (0.00) 1.44 (44.0) 1.44 (44.0) 2.0 (50.00) 2.00 (50.00) 2.00 (50.00) 2.00 (50.00) 1.00 (0.00) 1.00 (0.00) 1.44 (44.0) 1.44 (44.0) 1.44 (44.0) 1.44 (44.0) 1.44 (44.0) 1.44 (44.0) 1.44 (44.0) 1.44 (44.0) 2.00 (50.0) 2.00 (50.0) 2.00 (50.0) 2.00 (50.0) Fattening period (Reduction in fattening days) i. Sheep ii. Goat 110.00 (0.00) 110.00 (0.00) 100.00 (9.09) 100.00 (9.09) 95.00 (13.64) 95.00 (13.64) 90.00 (18.18) 90.00 (18.18) 90.00 (18.18) 90.00 (18.18) 90.00 (18.18) 90.00 (18.18) 60.00 (45.45) 60.00 (45.45) 2. Increased value of sales (on the domestic and export markets) of livestock products by 00.00 35.00 45.00 72.50 85.00 90.00 95.00 89 primary beneficiaries in targeted value chains (Percentage) Increased value of sales (on the domestic and export markets) of livestock products by primary male beneficiaries in targeted value chains (Percentage) Increased value of sales (on the domestic and export markets) of livestock products by primary female beneficiaries in targeted value chains (Percentage) 00.00 00.00 30.00 40.00 40.00 50.00 65.00 80.00 80.00 90.00 90.00 90.00 90.00 100.00 Increased value of sales Dairy Products (Percentage) 0.00 30.00 50.00 75.00 75.00 80.00 80.00 Source: L-PRES Result Framework for Sheep and Goat Production (2020). 90 12.0 ROADMAP FOR LEATHER VALUE CHAIN The L-PRES project identifies the opportunities and constraints of the leather industry in Nigeria; and thus, will address the challenges using the multi-sectoral approach to solve issues surrounding the productivity of cattle, sheep and goat whose hides and skins are the raw material for the leather industry. Challenges: I. Low productivity as a result of effects of poor nutrition and feeding, ectoparasites. II. Poor hides and skins processing from flaying damages and inadequate salting leading to large numbers of rejects. III. Low level investment in the trading and transportation sector which slows growth of the sector IV. Lack of locally manufactured tanning materials, thereby leading to importation of huge amount of chemicals (often times substandard) into the country causing environmental degradation and pollution. V. Underdeveloped effluent management system leading to pollution of the streams, waterways, air and farm lands. VI. Poor administration and excessive documentation required to access the Export Expansion Grant (EEG), preventing the Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) to access the incentive meant to grow export VII. Low price of hides for industrial use as compared to Ponmo which leads to the importation of hides for use by the local Finished Leather Goods producers. VIII. Slow growth of the Finished Leather Goods sub-sector due to lack of incentives. OBJECTIVE Encourage private sector investment in hides and skins primary production, trading, leather processing including reactivation of Nigerian tanneries for increased local Finished Leather Goods (FLGs) manufacturing. 91 Strategies Support to best practices in animal husbandry and health care at farm level. Support to capacity building of butchers, skin flayers and skins collectors on improved skin processing. Increased support for the sourcing of locally manufactured tanning materials to reduce importation of chemicals thereby conserving foreign exchange and reduction of environmental pollution associated with sub-standard chemicals. Adhere to Waste Management Plan to control pollution of the streams, waterways, air and farmlands. LPRES will adhere to waste Management Plan to control pollution of the streams, waterways, air and farmlands. Improvement in pricing mechanism of hides for industrial use as compared to Ponmo. Discourage the importation of hides for use by the local Finished Leather Goods producers through promotion of advocacy programmes and imposition of high tariffs on imported finished leather goods. IX. Discourage the importation of hides for use by the local Finished Leather Goods producers through promotion and advocacy. 92 13.0 ROAD MAP FOR POULTRY PRODUCTION AND VALUE CHAIN DEVELOPMENT Current status and Gaps The Nigerian poultry industry is the most commercialized of the agricultural sectors, with a net worth of USD 1.7 billion per year earned from different products and value chain activities (FAO-ASL2050, 2019). It has the highest rate of direct and indirect participation in livelihoods from the poultry industry, with a population of about 180 million birds managed in three production systems: the extensive or free-range system (46 per cent of the standing population), semi intensive (33 per cent) and intensive systems (21 per cent). A number of indigenous breeds; Fulani, shika brown, FUNAAB Alpha and Noiler and others are existing in Nigeria; and total annual production of poultry meat and eggs is estimated at 300 and 650 thousand tonnes, respectively with projected annual increase chicken meat and egg production in Nigeria by over 207% by 2050 leading to production consumption surplus for chicken meat and eggs. The LPRES during the project life under the poultry interventions would drive the sub-sector to improved productivity with 93 provision of quality DOCs, substantial movement from extensive producers moving up to semi and intensive production are projected. The project incentives will include the supply of feeds, improved medication and biosecurity among others which will result in substantial increases in the scale of specialised layer and broiler operations by LPRES farmers. Challenges The sector has the challenge of feeds supply, the supply of day-old chicks, markets and over the year’s outbreaks of Newcastle Disease, Infectious Bursal disease and, Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza. These have posed a severe challenge due to the zoonotic nature of some of these diseases to man. The use of antibiotic by poultry farmers is also a concern due to residual implications on consumers, and it also limits export potentials of the industry. Objective To improve poultry productivity and commercialisation through the promotion of indigenous breeds, adequate veterinary services delivery to bridge the gap in diseases surveillance, prevention and treatment The overall Target The overall target for Poultry To produce up to 18.9million laying birds at the end of the project To produce 2kg dressed weight at 2.1 FCR as against the current 1.3kg 94 To popularise and increase the productivity of indigenous breeds of Poultry To ensure an annual increase in the number of laying hens STRATEGIES Supply of Doc Identify and encourage the Local Companies that have capacity for GPS production for all the breeds. Provides incentives to increase production capacities for breeder famers. Feeds Identify and adopt existing indigenous poultry feed apps and popularize it to improve poultry nutrition Facilitate the training of feed producers to deliver quality feeds Promote the utilization of proven alternative feed ingredient. Management Facilitate trainings for targeted poultry farmers for routine management practices Institute monitoring mechanisms for compliance to minimum operating procedures in the poultry value chain. Facilitate the distribution of quality chicks of the preferred indigenous breeds of birds at subsidized rates. 95 Table 14: RESULTS FRAMEWORK FOR POULTRY PRODUCTIVITY IMPROVEMENT AND TARGETS Indicator Name DLI National Data Baseline Intermediate Targets End Target 1 2 3 4 5 Improved livestock productivity, resilience and commercialisation of Poultry value chains Increased yield and production of the targeted production system by primary beneficiaries in the selected value chain 1. Increase in Hen Day Production (HDP) 250 250 250 255 260 270 273 273 2. Increase in Income from the sales of Eggs (In Nbillions)/a 0.00 157.5 157.5 161 165.6 171 171 3. Increase in Broiler meat Production (MT)/b 0.00 20,600 20,919 21,236 21,869 22,186 22,186 4. % Increase in Dressed weight 65 65% 65% 66.70% 67% 69% 70% 70% 5. Reduction in Fattening period (days) to get 1.5kg Broiler 60 60 60 50 40 40 40 6. Increase in number of production cycle per year (Broiler) 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 96 7. Increased value of sales (on the domestic and export markets) of livestock products by primary beneficiaries in targeted value chains 7a. Number of Birds (million)/c 0 1.5 4.9 10.5 16.4 18.9 18.9 7b. Income from the sales of Eggs (In Billion) 0 10 32.7 70.9 112.3 130.6 130.6 7c. Spent Layer (₦billion) 0 0 1.27 4.16 8.92 13.94 13.94 7d. Meat Sales (Broiler) (₦ Billion)/d 0 20.6 20.92 21.24 21.89 22.19 22.19 8a. % Reduction in mortality rate by the intensive system. (Layer) 10 10 10 9 8 8 7 7 8b. % Reduction in mortality rate by the intensive system. (Broiler) 7 7 7 6 6 5 5 5 9. % Increase of Poultry Farmers adopting Good Animal Husbandry Practices 0 40.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 60.00 60.00 Source: L-PRES Framework for Poultry Production (2020). 97 NATIONAL EGG PRODUCTION SCHEME IMPLEMENTATION FRAMEWORK The national egg production (NEGPRG) scheme is a public private partnership initiative designed to create jobs for Nigerians and also ensure self-sufficiency in the poultry production. The key driver of the scheme is to promote egg production by leveraging on School Feeding Program (SFP) to create jobs and boost egg production Objective The attainment of production of 50 million table eggs beginning from 2018 while supporting state governments to boost local production of eggs and chickens Creation of windows of social and economic opportunities through agriculture (Negpropreneurs) Strategy Generating jobs through egg production and processing value chain. Generating jobs through broiler chicken production and processing value chain. Creating forward integration of eggs and chicken meats for SFP. Increasing contribution of poultry sector to the GDP of the state and country at large. Increasing IGR to the state government. 98 Table 15: NATIONAL EGG PRODUCTION SCHEME IMPLEMENTATION FRAMEWORK S/N SCHEDULES TIMELINE NOTES 1. FMARD Recommendation to State governments on NEGRO/SFP through office of the Vice president FMARD development module to states on SFP to indicate availability of eggs and chicken through the NEGRO Scheme farmers. 2. Aggregation of eggs and chicken products from existing producers in the states for SFP States entrepreneur to aggregate protein input for SFP 3a Shortlisting and capacity building of farmers in States Farmers will be categorized along capacity and facility lines FMARD to facilitate training for farmers in each states Approved list of NEGRO farmers per state to be populated and publicized 3b Setting up of States Technical & Monitoring (TP) Committee Members to be constituted by: State Director – FMARD, LDO- FMARD poultry value chain, States Entrepreneur, PAN Chairman, Secretary and 6 zonal representatives, Nutritionist in SFP and Representative of Scheme Manager. Source: FMARD (2020) 99 14.0 ROAD MAP FOR PIG PRODUCTION AND VALUE CHAIN DEVELOPMENT Current Status and Gaps Nigerian Pig production estimated at 7.1 million heads of pigs and 283,793 thousand tons of pork; the pigs are produced in the intensive, semi-intensive in the South, East, West and North Central Nigeria. Cultural and religious factors influence the distribution of commercial breeds for most farmers; these are the Landrace and their crosses with large white, Large white, Duroc, Hampshire, and Berkshire. Some farms mostly government farms, have Tamworth, Large Black, Pietrain and the indigenous strains which are characterised by slow growth, low production and high mortality. 100 Despite the associated low productivity, which is a major factor militating against its commercialisation in Nigeria; pork industry supports about 550,000 jobs along the value chain as the local pork production grew at 1.4% over six years (2012-2018) having increased from 248,900 to 271,000 tonnes. In contrast, consumption grew by 1.9%, that is 280,000 tonnes over the same period. The strategic aim for developing the sector is to reverse the trend of importation with Nigeria spending over $7million being the 5th largest importer of lard globally and to meet surging local demand for pig products with an increase in population and urbanisation Challenges Pig production in Nigeria is affected by certain factors viz; Availability, cost and low-quality feed, Inadequate feed mill to cater for expanded pig farming, High price of pig breeds available especially purebreds. Others include high input costs; poor management skills and technical expertise; Poor veterinary services and high cost of drugs; high credit costs or unavailability of credit to farmers; Poor marketing, distribution and pricing of pork Inadequate processing system (abattoir) of international standard Pig wastes management High mortality rate Inadequate research information and extension services Irregular and inadequate livestock policies by Government Diseases, pests and parasites, and restricted acceptance due to religious and cultural influences. Objective To increase the annual production and survival of pigs through improvement on birth weight, growth rate and adult weight by adopting right management skills as well as reduction of the incidence of diseases, pest and parasites. The overall target for Pig value chain Improvement on pig productivity by improving the management systems from 75% intensive and 25% semi-intensive to 80% intensive and 20% semi-intensive. Maintain a 40% increase in pork production at the end of the project as market weight also increases from 70kg to 100.1kg within 200 days by increasing litter size and reducing weaning age. Increase the number of female pig farmers at the end of the project. Increase the value of sales of the both domestic and export market. STRATEGIES 101 Support identified pig breeder farms to deliver high performing breeds to farmers. Extensive capacity building on modern pig husbandry practices to ensure that farmers adopt minimum operating procedures in pig value chains operations. Support production, access to and availability of quality pig feed to farmers. Identify and support semi-intensive farmers to move to intensive production. Support market development and value addition along the value chain. Deliberate and dedicated program for female farmers. 102 Table 16: RESULTS FRAMEWORK FOR PIG PRODUCTIVITY IMPROVEMENT TARGETS AND VALUE CHAIN DEVELOPMENT Indicator Name DLI National Data Baseline Intermediate Targets End Target 1 2 3 4 5 Improved livestock productivity, resilience and commercialisation of Pig value chains 1. Increased yield of production of targeted animal production systems by primary beneficiaries in pig Production(Percentage) (Assumption: The National Pig Population is 8,597,970, disaggregated into 75% Intensive and 25% Semi Intensive 8,597,970 103 i. Intensive Pig Prod. System(Percenta ge) (Assumption: 75% Nat. Pig Pop.) 6,878,376 10 15 20 30 35 40 ii. Semi-Intensive Pig Prod.System(Per centage) (Assumption: 25% Nat. Pig Pop.) 1,719,594 1 2 3 4 5 5 iii. Extensive Pig Prod. System(Percenta ge) NA NA NA 2. Increased Pork Production (MT) 147,000 10 20 30 40 40 40 3. Increased PigMarket weight (kg) in 200 days(Assumption: from Weaning @ 42 Days) 70 10 20 30 40 43 43 4. Reduced Age at Weaning@6.5kg (Days) 42 5 10 15 21 27 33 5. Increased Pig Litter Size (Number) 7 5.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 35.00 40.00 104 6. Increased yield of production of targeted animal production systems by primary male beneficiaries in Pig (Percentage) (65% of Pig Famers) 95,550 5.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 35.00 40.00 7. Increased yield of production of targeted animal production systems by Female primary beneficiaries in Pig (Percentage) (35% of Pig Farmers) 51,450 5.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 35.00 40.00 8. Increased value of sales on the domestic market of livestock products by primary beneficiaries in targeted Pig value chains (Percentage) Assumption is N800/kg /dress wt. 117.6B 5.00 15.00 25.00 35.00 40.00 40.00 105 9. Increased value of sales on the export markets of livestock products by primary beneficiaries in targeted Pig value chains (Percentage) (Assumption:Exports starts from year 3) 20% of 147,000=29,400MT @ N1,200/Kg. 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 10. Increased value of sales on domestic Market of livestock products by primary male beneficiaries in targeted value chains (Percentage) (65%) 76,44B 5.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 35.00 40.00 11. Increased value of sales on domestic Markets of Livestock products by primary female beneficiaries in targeted value chains (Percentage) (35%) 41,16B 5.00 10.00 20.00 35.00 35.00 40.00 106 12. Increased value of sales on Export Market of livestock products by primary male beneficiaries in targeted value chains (Percentage) (65%). 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 13. Increased value of sales on Export Markets of Livestock products by primary female beneficiaries in targeted value chains (Percentage) (35%). 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 14. The reduced mortality rate of project targeted value chain by the intensive system. Pig (Percentage). 15.00 15.00 10.00 10.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 15. Time-lapse between early warning information and disbursement toward response (Weeks) 12.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Source: L-PRES Framework for Pig Production (2020). 107 15.0 ROADMAP FOR MICRO-LIVESTOCK DEVELOPMENT (Rabbits, Grasscutter, Snail and Bee Keeping) Current Status and Gaps Rabbits, Grasscutter, Snail production, contribute to livelihood and global food security due to their prolificacy ease of management which encourages their production in rural communities by women and children. Global demand forecast for meat to increase 80% by 2030 and healthier lifestyle changes among urban dwellers provides the opportunity for a more significant contribution from the micro livestock. It is important to note that out of over 200 million tonnes of global rabbit production annually, and there is no specific information on the number of rabbits raised for either meat consumption or other purposes in Nigeria. The global rabbit meat market revenue amounted to $6.4 billion in 2017, and the amount of rabbit meat consumed worldwide is 1.5 million tonnes with a 2.8% average consumption increase within the last ten years. These provide an opportunity for engagement in the global rabbit value chain. Grasscutter is originally a game animal popularly known as bush meat in Nigeria that produces meat with no restrictions in its consumption. The demand of grasscutter meat led to successful domestication and large-scale farming and production of meat for human use from grasscutter, which is reared in suitable cages under an intensive management system. The expected future demand and strategic vision for the local and export market make integration of grasscutter production into the LPRES intervention project a unique selling point. 108 Snail production in Nigeria is not yet widespread and commercialised as other livestock; The significant breeds of snails commonly found in Nigeria are Achatina marginata, Achatina achatina and Achatina Fulica among other unidentified species. Its consumption is mainly dependent on the harvest from the wild except for very few commercial farms who keep snail in intensive or semi-intensive systems of management. Snails are known as slow growers probably because of less attention are paid to improve on them through research and development. Snail production has the potentials to employ the multitude of Nigeria unemployed youth because of its prolific nature. Snails are environmentally friendly (no lousy odour and noiseless) which makes them suitable to be kept in cities without causing a nuisance to the environment The profit margin on snail farming is high when appropriate techniques and management system are employed. The annual demand for snail in Nigeria is about 7.5 million kg, with a projected increase. These show that snail meat is in high demand in Nigeria and the world at large. In pursuit of this, LPRES intends to increase and sustain snail production in Nigeria since investment is relatively low and their export potentials are high due to shelf life ranging from 2 to 6 months when compared with other livestock. Beekeeping is a lucrative livestock enterprise which needs harnessing because of its nutritional, health, export values and employment generation. The bee value chain development is capable of generating at least $10 billion annually from local and international trade in honey and other hive products if fully harnessed. Honey production and beekeeping in Nigeria is still mainly traditional, and the market also underutilized due to lack of adoption of modern production methods that meet national and international standards of processed honey. Nigeria's current production is about 2million litres of honey annually and consumes about ten times its production thereby spending about $2 billion on honey importation to supplement its production shortfall when it has the potentials of producing 20 million litres. Honey is produced virtually in all the states of Nigeria. Still, four states are leading in honey production in Nigeria, and they are Adamawa, Kogi, Nasarawa, Kaduna and F.C.T. with the current production capacity of up to 20,000 metric tons. There is an indication that massive opportunity for economic development lies in developing honey value chain through the adoption of innovative techniques of honey production that would ensure superior and more marketable bee products. Challenges There is no proper awareness about micro livestock production, domestication production, management and economic values and inability to get good breeding stock Others to include lack of capital, changes in consumer mindsets. Another major challenge in Nigeria rabbit production sector is low marketing channels. The popularity of the rabbit as a pet animal, rabbit producers 109 are faced with the challenge of changing mindsets and overcoming constraints to make rabbit meat gain broad consumer acceptance. Objective To create awareness on micro-livestock domestication, commercialisation; and Increase yield through the adoption of modern technologies, improved management skills, for increased average birth weight/hatchability and growth rate. To increase production through improved nutrition and increased intensification and as well make micro-livestock meat available and affordable The overall target for Rabbit Value chain To fully utilize the rabbit’s multiplication potentials; Increase the litter size of rabbit from an average of 3 rabbits per doe to about 8 eight rabbits per doe. Increase the litter number of rabbits from 4 to 6 litters annually; Increase the market weight of rabbit from less than 2kg to 4kg live weight through improved nutrition. Increase rabbit yield and meat production by 55% at the end of the project. Reduce mortality through best management practices. The overall target for Grasscutter value chain Increase Grasscutter meat production by 15% at the end of the project and increase the average litter size to 6 from 2 currently; Improve productivity through increased birth weight, growth rate and market weight as well as the reduction in fattening period to 270 days to achieve 2kg as against 360 days for 1kg; Enhance skills of grasscutter farmers for increased production, reduced mortality and increased weight at maturity. 110 Table 17: RESULTS FRAMEWORK FOR RABBIT PRODUCTIVITY IMPROVEMENT TARGETS AND VALUE CHAIN DEVELOPMENT Indicator Name DLI Baseline Intermediate Targets End Target 1 2 3 4 5 Improved livestock productivity, resilience and commercialization of Rabbit value chains 1. Increased yield of the rabbit by production systems 0% 0% 50% 50% 50% 55% 55% 2. Rabbit meat Production (T) 0% 0% 50% 50% 50% 55% 55% 3. Rabbit (litter/Yr) 12 12 15 18 21 21 21 4. Weaning percentage (%) 40 40 50 60 70 80 90 90 5. Increased rabbit market weight 1.5 1.5 1.8 2.1 2.4 2.7 2.7 6. Rabbit mortality (percentage) 75 70 50 25 10 5 5 7. Distribution of male beneficiaries (percentage) 20-25% 20-25% 20-25% 20-25% 23 8. Distribution of female beneficiaries (Percentage) 75-80% 75-80% 75-80% 75-80% 77 9. Reduction in Fattening Period (Months) 9 9 7 6 5 4 111 10. Increased value of sales (on the domestic and export markets) of rabbit products by primary beneficiaries in rabbit value chains (Percentage) 30.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 70.00 11. Increased value of sales (on the domestic and export markets) of livestock products by primary male beneficiaries in snail value chains (Percentage) Rabbit meat 30 30 40 50 60 70 70 12. Increased value of sales (on the domestic and export markets) of livestock products by primary female beneficiaries in rabbit value chains (Percentage) Rabbit meat 30 30 40 50 60 70 70 Source: L-PRES Framework for Rabbit Production (2020). 112 TABLE 17: RESULTS FRAMEWORK FOR GRASSCUTTER PRODUCTIVITY IMPROVEMENT TARGETS AND VALUE CHAIN DEVELOPMENT Indicator Name DLI National Data Baseline Intermediate Targets End Target 1 2 3 4 5 Improved livestock productivity, resilience and commercialisation of Grasscutter value chains 1. % Increase in Grasscutter Meat Production (Tonne) a 200 200 0 5.0 10.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 2. Increased Grasscutter Litter Size (Number) 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 3. Increased Grasscutter Market weight (kg) at (9) nine months 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.3 1.7 1.7 2.0 2.0 4. Increased yield of production of targeted animal production systems by primary male beneficiaries in the Grasscutter value chains (Tonne/Percentage) I. Meat Production II. Breeding Stock Production (Colony made up of 1 Male: 4 Female) 113 180.0 9,000 80.0 9,000 0.00 0.0 5.00 450 10.00 900 20.00 1,800 30.00 2,700 30.00 2,700 5. Increased yield of production of targeted animal production systems by Female primary beneficiaries in the Grasscutter value chains (Tonne/Percentage) I. Meat Production II. Breeding Stock Production (Colony made up of 1 Male: 4Female) 20.0 20.0 0.00 5.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 30.00 114 1,000 1,000 0.0 50.0 100.0 200.0 300.0 300.0 6. Reduction in Fattening Period (Days) to get 2.0kg grasscutter from baseline of 1.0kg 360 360 360 350 330 300 270 270 7. Increased Value of Sales on Domestic production of targeted animal production systems by primary male beneficiaries in the Grasscutter value chains (Number) III. Meat Production (N/kg) IV. Breeding Stock Production (Colony made up of 1 Male: 4 Female) (N/Colony) 1,500 75,000 1,500 75,000 1,600 75,000 1,800 80,000 2,000 80,000 2,000 85,000 2,000 85,000 2,000 85,000 8. Increased Value of Sales on Domestic production of targeted animal production systems by Female primary beneficiaries in the 115 Source: L-PRES Framework for Grasscutter Production (2020) Grasscutter value chains (Number) I. Meat Production (N/kg) II. Breeding Stock Production (Colony made up of 1Male:4Female) (N/Colony) 1,500 75,000 1,500 75,000 1,600 75,000 1,800 80,000 2,000 80,000 2,000 85,000 2,000 85,000 2,000 85,000 9. Reduced mortality rate of Grasscutter disaggregated by production system (Intensive) (Percentage) 51.72 51.72 30.00 20.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 116 The overall target for Snail value chain Foster domestication of threatened snail breeds through an intensive production system; The commercialisation of snail farming through L-PRES intervention to increase snail meat, shell and slime produced annually; To broaden the farmer’s knowledge of new techniques and technology involved in profitable snail production venture; Increase in snail meat yield through improved management system of production, hatchability and market weight. Improve productivity through increased weight gain and reduced maturity/fattening period and reduced mortality rate. Increase the value of sales of snail meat, shell and slime for the both domestic and export market. 117 TABLE 19: RESULTS FRAMEWORK FOR SNAIL PRODUCTIVITY IMPROVEMENT TARGETS AND VALUE CHAIN DEVELOPMENT Indicator Name DLI Baseline Intermediate Targets End Target 1 2 3 4 5 Improved livestock productivity, resilience and commercialisation of Snail value chains 1. Increased yield of snail by production systems Intensive system Pasture method 0% 156 144 (92%) 12 (8%) 0% 156 144 12 50% 234 215 19 50% 351 323 28 50% 527 485 42 55% 817 752 65 817 752 65 118 2. Snail meat Production (T) 50000 6757 6757 7433 8176 8993 9893 10882 3. Snail (Egg laid/Yr) Achatina marginata Achatina achatina Achatina fulica 8 12 300 8 12 300 4. Hatchability (%) Achatina marginata Achatina achatina Achatina fulica 40 40 10 40 40 10 50 50 20 60 60 30 70 70 40 80 80 50 90 90 60 90 90 60 5. Increased snail market weight Achatina marginata Achatina achatina Achatina fulica 00 180 150 25 00 180 150 25 25% 225 188 31 25% 281 235 39 25% 352 306 49 25% 439 398 61 25% 549 398 61 6. Snail mortality Achatina marginata Achatina achatina Achatina fulica 30 30 80 25 25 80 20 20 75 15 15 70 10 10 65 5 5 60 5 5 60 7. Distribution of male beneficiaries (percentage) 95 95 20-25% 20-25% 20-25% 20-25% 236 8. Distribution of female beneficiaries (Percentage) 61 61 75-80% 75-80% 75-80% 75-80% 581 119 9. Reduction in Fattening Period (Months) to get 450g snail from baseline of 180g to get 450g snail from baseline of 150g 24 30 24 30 22 29 20 28 18 27 16 26 16 26 10. Increased value of sales (on the domestic and export markets) of snail products by primary beneficiaries in snail value chains (Percentage) 40.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 65.00 70.00 70.00 11. Increased value of sales (on the domestic and export markets) of livestock products by primary male beneficiaries in snail value chains (Percentage) Snail meat Snail shell Snail slime 40.00 40 00 40.00 40 00 50.00 40 15 60.00 50 30 65.00 60 45 70.00 70 60 70.00 70 70 12. Increased value of sales (on the domestic and export markets) of livestock products by primary female beneficiaries in snail value chains (Percentage) 40 40 00 40 40 00 50 40 15 60 50 30 65 60 45 70 70 60 70 70 70 120 Source: L-PRES Framework for Snail Production (2020). Snail meat Snail shell Snail slime 13. The reduced mortality rate of snail by pasture method/semi-intensive (Percentage) 50 50 45 40 30 35 35 14. The reduced mortality rate of snail by intensive system (Percentage) 30 30 25 20 10 5 5 15. Time lapse between early warning information and disbursement toward response (Weeks) 12 4 3 2 1 1 1 16. Farmers adopting improved agricultural technology (percent) 0.00 00.00 10 20 45 60 60 17. Training of snail farmers: Refresher training Training of beginner snail farmers 0 0 0 221 156 65 103 0 103 167 0 167 278 0 278 48 0 48 817 156 661 18. Impact evaluation 0 0 221 324 491 769 817 121 The overall target for Honey Bee Increase the number and success rate of colonised hives through best management practices; Increase the yield of honey and beeswax production through commercialisation and adoption of improved technologies; Reduce mortality by promoting adequate health care delivery; Improvement in processing to increase market value for both domestic and export 122 TABLE 20: RESULTS FRAMEWORK FOR BEEKEEPING PRODUCTIVITY IMPROVEMENT TARGETS AND VALUE CHAIN DEVELOPMENT Indicator Name DLI National Data Baseline Intermediate Targets End Target 1 2 3 4 5 Improved livestock productivity, resilience and commercialisation of Honey Bee value chains 1. Increased Number of Colonised Hives (Good Management Practices) in percentage 10.00 10.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 40.00 2. Success Rate of the Colonized Hives a I. Traditional II. Modern 50 10 50 10 50 10 55 20 60 45 65 60 70 70 70 70 3. Increased yield of Production of Honey b I. Traditional (MT) II. Modern (MT) 10,500 4,500 15,000 10,000 15,000 12,000 20,000 15,000 25,000 20,000 30,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 35,000 40,000 4. Increased yield of Production of Beeswax (MT) c I. Traditional (MT) II. Modern (MT) 0.0 2,000 1,500 2,000 1,500 2,000 2,000 5,000 2,500 7,000 3,000 8,000 3,500 9,000 3,500 9,000 5. Increased yield of production of targeted honeybee production systems by Female primary beneficiaries in the selected value chains (bee products) 0.00 1.00 3.00 5.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 123 (Percentage) I. Traditional II. Modern 0.00 3.0 3.00 5.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 35.00 35.00 6. Increased in Yield for Beeswax (MT) I. Traditional II. Modern 5.00 5.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 7.00 8.00 10.00 9.00 15.00 10.00 20.00 11.00 25.00 12.00 30.00 7. Increase in Value of Sales of Bee Product (Percentage) I. Traditional II. Modern 0.00 10.00 0.00 30.00 5.00 40.00 7.00 50.00 8.00 60.00 10.00 70.00 15.00 70.00 15.00 70.00 8. Increase in Value of Sales on (Percentage) d I. Domestic II. Export 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 10.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 35.00 35.00 50.00 40.00 70.00 40.00 70.00 9. Success Rate in Reduced Mortality of Honey Bee Colony (Percentage) (Good Management) I. Traditional II. Modern 10.00 30.00 20.00 30.00 20.00 30.00 25.00 45.00 30.00 65.00 35.00 80.00 40.00 85.00 40.00 85.00 124 10. Time Lapse Between Early Warning information and Disbursement Toward Response (Weeks) 5.00 5.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 11. Honeybee farmers Adopting Improved Agricultural Technology (Number) 5,000 5,000 10,000 20,000 25,000 35,000 45,000 45,000 12. Exportation of Bee Products (Percentage) 0.00 0.00 5.00 7.00 10.00 15.00 25.00 25.00 Factors Limiting Exportation of Honey & Beewax: i. Urgent need for National Reference Laboratory ii. Third Country Listing for European Market Source: L-PRES Framework for Bee Keeping (2020). 125 16.0 CONFLICT MANAGEMENT The Nigerian livestock sector is affected by heightened and frequent farmer-pastoralist conflicts, banditry and cattle rustling with the resultant depletion of our national herd, creating fear and loss of sources of livelihood for most Nigerians and threatens Nigerians national security. To create an enabling environment for the aims of the project to be achieved, LPRES has put in place framework for Crisis prevention and management, conflict mitigation and peace building, and project coordination. The vision is for the conflict management process to limit the negative aspects of conflict through proactive engagement with project stakeholders at all stages of implementation through a robust peace building framework. 126 TABLE 21: RESULTS FRAMEWORK FOR PRODUCTIVITY IMPROVEMENT THROUGH CONFLICT MITIGATION AND PEACE BUILDING, AND PROJECT COORDINATION TARGETS Indicator Name Baseline 1 2 3 4 5 End Target Improved Livestock Productivity, Resilience Through Provision of platform for conflict mitigation and peace building, and project coordination Crisis prevention and management, conflict mitigation and peace building, and project coordination. 1 Time taken to disburse funds requested by government for an eligible crisis when a crisis occurs. (Weeks) 40.00 20.00 20.00 16.00 16.00 8.00 8.00 2. Livestock producers reached by Information Education and Communication (IEC) on conflict prevention and management (Number (Thousand)) 0.00 100.00 150.00 250.00 300.00 400.00 450.00 3 Number of mediation platforms established and operational (Number) 0.00 0.00 20.00 20.00 20.00 35.00 35.00 4. Percentage of annual workplan and budget implemented (Percentage) 0.00 60.00 70.00 75.00 80.00 85.00 85.00 5 Grievances registered addressed within the deadline set by the project GRM (Number) 0.00 70.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 Source: L-PRES Framework for Conflict Mitigation and Peace Building (2020). 127 17.0 MONITORING AND EVALUATIONS FRAMEWORK The Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) system sub-component will measure performance at different Project milestones. The system will benefit from a Management Information System (MIS) that collects project administration functions, results in monitoring and impact evaluations and beneficiary assessments, and a technical knowledge/database. This sub component will finance the establishment of M&E mechanisms in the NCO and SCOs to monitor and evaluate the implementation of the Project. The MIS will contain critical technical, financial and socio-economic information on subprojects, as well as costs and other physical indicators, and quantitative variables for impact monitoring. The MIS generated reports will include periodic Project progress reports such as monthly disbursement and semi-annual reports to track implementation. The Project will also finance operating costs for monitoring activities such as (i) collecting and analyzing data on physical parameters of Business plans (BPs); (ii) gathering, aggregating and analyzing information on livestock production via surveys; (iii) complementary quantified tracking of biophysical results where possible to add rigour to the surveys; (iv) conducting thematic and market surveys and generating data for impact evaluation. The Project will also finance operating costs for capacity development for M&E implementation, paying attention not to duplicate efforts carried out under other Project Components. Lastly, the Project will fund the establishment of a technical Knowledge Base designed to (a) consolidate the currently fragmented knowledge on effective practices that beneficiaries could undertake, (b) identify and transfer the best way across settings in the country, (c) provide a common point of reference for project stakeholders to contribute to and benefit from a shared storehouse of operational knowledge. The Project will guide the beneficiaries in carrying out participatory monitoring and evaluation of their activities as well as financial expertise in information technology to maintain the MIS. The Project will finance specialized studies, including an impact assessment at midterm and the end of the Project. Also, annual implementation/performance reviews of Project qualitative and quantitative achievements, including assessing the level of beneficiaries’ satisfaction, will be conducted in advance of the approval of the following year’s annual operating plan and the budget of the Project. The results of these evaluations will identify areas of improvements during Project implementation to increase the impact of L-PRES activities. The performance/impact evaluation surveys will assess the project impact on 128 I. Productivity, resilience and commercialization II. Household welfare III. Social capital formation at the community level IV. Improved governance at the local government level V. Cost-effectiveness of demand-responsive infrastructure investments subprojects compared to the conventional public delivery mechanisms; VI. Cost-benefit of productive smallholder investment activities funded under the enhancement of value chain performance component, and VII. The effects were environmental performance on productive activities during the project implementation—also, an analysis of social capital and governance impacts on local government and community leaders. Project M&E Objectives Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) activities will do the following: • Generate Project timely specific information on progress, processes and performance. • Analyse and aggregate data generated at various levels to track plan, progress, process, quality and Project sustainability. • Document and disseminate feedback, and critical lessons learnt to relevant users and stakeholders regularly. 129 18.0 RISKS AND ASSUMPTIONS 18.1 Risks and flexibility The response differentials among State Coordinating Offices could compromise the state's access to project resource for investment in the livestock sector: others include • The severity of climate change, causing moisture distress and recurrent droughts in some participating are potential causes of crises that may affect the livestock sector and have negative impacts on the implementation of the strategy. • The growing trend of banditry and natural resources degradation in some project areas leading to the restricted use of the locations for the development of the sector • Poor market linkages and their current exploitative nature may negatively affect the livestock farmers' production and incomes vis a vis; the high prices for basic inputs. • Regardless of the improvement of the production, productivity and quality, cultural production practices of the majority of livestock owners may negatively affect the attainment of goals • The social and cultural influences were supporting trade in live animals and livestock products. • Institutional and political factors may impact on LPRES implementation strategy adversely • Livestock occupies a low position in the prioritisation of resources by most of the state government 18.2 Assumptions The assumptions for the successful implementation and attainment of the LPRES strategies, Result frameworks for productivity improvement objectives for these selected Value Chains and the detailed Logical Framework for the plan will address risk. The main ones are: • The performance of the National economy will continue to show steady growth; • Participating States will increase their financial commitments and prioritize the livestock sector; • LPRES be integrated into existing national livestock strategies and other existing States’ Governments' initiatives and operating systems; 130 Table 22: Risk and Mitigation Matrix Risk factor Likelihood Assessment of Likelihood Impact Assessment of Potential Impact Risk response Promotion of child labour Very likely With a large percentage of herders and livestock farmers below the age of 18 in the Northern states, there is a likelihood of project that supports child labour-violating section 59 (5) and (6) of the Labour Acts; section 28, 29 and 277 of the Child’s Right Act (45, 46) on minimum Age for Hazardous work major With key participants in cattle production being under 18, there is the possibility of project gain displacing them from their education Ensure that keen attention on the age of beneficiaries and that project interventions do not displace participants and their children from their education. Partner with other agencies of the government, NGOs, and development partners to provide additional forms of education alongside acceptable animal husbandry practices Marginalisation of other actors in the livestock value chain in favour of pastoralists Very likely Smallholders in the other value chains protested that the federal government focuses more on pastoralists (reference was Major There may be rivalry among pastoralists group (or Miyetti Allah) and other livestock value More stakeholders consultation needed to clarify grey areas. A roundtable discussion is 131 made to the proposed RUGA policy, which is now perceived to be NLTP/L-PRES). Also, the people protested against what they perceive as the insincere nature of the government in persecuting erring herders who destroy farm crops. chain associations or individual smallholders. required to clarify the intentions of the Federal Government. Resolution of challenges between pastoralists and crop farmers be transparent and ensure the L PRES project is not perceived as biased towards pastoralists Skewed development towards pastoralists at the expense of crops farmers Very likely The perception that intervention favour livestock over farmers is likely to give room for discontent among crop producer mainly due to the popularity of challenges around cattle rearing. With increased support for livestock farmers, the demand for livestock feeds and forage will also increase. Major Open grazing could be on the increase and could cause tensions between crops farmers and pastoralists. Cost of livestock feed could also be high if there is demand or tension between the two groups. All these could lead to conflict and mistrust of the project managers. Use of dedicated grazing reserves/ranche s should be promoted for livestock while pastoralists should be encouraged to grow pasture for their livestock instead of open grazing. Crop farmers should also be empowered to meet up with the demand for livestock feeds and forage; they should be part of plans to improve the livestock value chain. 132 Crop farmers to see the complementary benefits of the L PRES project. Alternative production of high-quality feeds produced Divergent views on support for open grazing establishment of ranches to curb farmers herders’ crisis The conflict between crop farmers and pastoralists Very likely Some stakeholders in SW, SS, and NE zones support the establishment of ranches while those in the NC, NW and SE do not. The stakeholders noted that some smallholders believe that ranching could lead to an outbreak of diseases and lead to rivalry as other livestock value chain, Stakeholders expect that ranches established by individuals and not with government funding. Herders in the North Central are vehemently opposed to ranching because the cost of ranching is high and they believe their breeds of cattle is not Major Without a consensus on the way forward to address the issue of ranching and open grazing, project components focused on resolving herders farmers clashes will not be achievable Consultation is required to reach a consensus on the most appropriate method to address the issue of ranching and open grazing in the geopolitical zones. The project should explore the most effective policy to be formulated to achieve a peaceful resolution of differences in opinion, including the establishment of grievance redress mechanisms. Communication strategies to 133 adaptable for ranching. Open grazing is still very rampant causing tensions between crop farmers and pastoralists educate stakeholders on the benefits of ranching should be instituted while dismantling the myths or perception of the outbreak of diseases. Resistance to laboratory testing of livestock, inputs and products Very likely Results of laboratory tests that are unfavourable could be discouraging to the farmers after putting in their investments in the business. Major Farmers might resist sending their livestock inputs on products for testing in laboratories which will be against project outcomes of ensuring quality control of livestock inputs and products Significant emphasis on the education of farmers on quality control measures before starting any intervention in testing must be carried out. Simple testing procedures that can be understood by the low literate population considered to avoid resistance because they don’t understand. Local extension and veterinary services provided should be incorporated into delivery system for 134 testing techniques and procedure Resistance to improvement Divergent views on support for open grazing and establishment of ranches to curb farmers herders’ crisis The conflict between crop farmers and pastoralist Very likely Some stakeholders in the SW, SS, and NE zones support the establishment of ranches while those in NC, NW, and SE do not. The stakeholders noted that some believe that ranching could lead to an outbreak of disease and lead to rivalry as other livestock value chains Stakeholders expect that ranches established by individuals and not with government funding. Herders in the North Central are vehemently opposed to ranching because the cost of ranching is too high and they believe their breed of cattle is not adaptable for ranching. Open grazing is still very rampant, causing tension between Major Without consensus on the way forward to address the issue of ranching and open grazing, project components focused on resolving herders – farmers clashes will not be achievable Consultation is required to reach a consensus on the most appropriate method to address the issue of ranching and open grazing in the geopolitical zones. The project should explore the most effective policy to be formulated to achieve a peaceful resolution of difference in opinion, including the establishment of a grievance redress mechanism. Develop Communication strategies to educate stakeholders on the benefits of ranching, while 135 crop farmers and pastoralists. dismantling the myths or perception of the outbreak of diseases. Resistance to laboratory testing of livestock, inputs and products Very likely Results of laboratory tests that are unfavourable could be discouraging to the farmers after putting in their investments in the business. Major Farmers might resist sending their livestock inputs on products for testing in laboratories which will be against project outcomes of ensuring quality control of livestock inputs and products Significant emphasis on the education of farmers on quality control measures before starting any intervention in testing must be undertaken. Simple testing procedures that can be understood by the low literate population be considered to avoid resistance because they don’t understand. Local extension and veterinary services provided and incorporated into a delivery system for testing techniques and procedure Resistance to improvement in animal husbandry services Very likely *while smallholders are used to their entrenched cultural methods of animal husbandry, the introduction of new Major the financial resources for innovation or technology transfer are wasted if the There should be proper consultation between the project team, livestock 136 *Northeast zone **Northcentral practices such as slaughtering animals by stunning (e.g. electric stunning) may not be accepted. Also, the mode of feeding, method of processing and rearing may violate cultures of the target beneficiaries. **Artificial Insemination may be resisted for religious reasons while some Muslims rear pigs for commercial purposes, rearing of pigs is a taboo for most Muslim Faithful. These may pose challenges to project implementation where these are not considered. stakeholders reject new improvements association, and religious leaders to ensure initiatives to align with the culture and religion of the beneficiaries. Consultations should be done at the community level to ensure there is a harmonious relationship between various livestock value chains, other community members (particularly the Muslim Faithful). Also, livestock groups are consulted to reach a consensus on the distribution of resources. Rural-urban drift due to inadequate security Very likely This is very likely as people always tend to flee areas of conflict, especially in areas where state mechanism for maintaining law and order is inadequate Major This will adversely impact on the project as a whole and reverse the gains of the intervention when livestock production is being Peace building initiatives should be 136ensitizati in areas where there is a historical legacy of conflicts. Sources of conflict should be identified, and investment 137 hampered due to inadequate security. in early warning systems to prepare people and to avoid deterioration of disputes should be 137ensitizati. State security apparatus should be deployed in areas of existing conflict before interventions Misappropriatio n of funds by beneficiaries Very likely Stakeholders anticipate that funds allocated to finance activities of actors in the livestock value chain might be misappropriated or misused. Major This has the potential to derail the project and the objectives may not be met. This anticipation of misappropriati on could fuel mistrust of institutions Appropriate governance systems that include stakeholders from the beneficiary communities should be set up to ensure transparent management of project resources. The project’s technical officer should adequately monitor the implementation of projects with adequate fiduciary controls where funds will be allocated to individuals or groups. 138 Overgrazing and deforestation Likely Excessive grazing and felling of trees for grazing purposes will land to soil erosion, land degradation and loss of valuable spices Major The impact is minor in the short term but could become significant in the long run where animals continue to feed excessively from one area of land without letting the vegetation in that area fully recover The project should consider mitigation steps including dedicated grazing reserves for beneficiaries with land restoration programmes built into the animal husbandry system Proper grazing management should be encouraged by the project to guide against overgrazing. Disruption of family and group cohesion and dynamic Likely Family interaction and decision making between men and women might be affected. Male members of household and groups may feel threatened if women are placed in top leadership positions because they think women will no longer respect them. The same applies to the household when women are Major The impact is significant because this may lead to gender-based violence, thus affecting family cohesion and group development dynamics. This could override the gains of the project in terms of the objective of empowering The family unity should be treated as a whole with emphasis on collective household prosperity rather than individual prosperity. Religious leaders should also be coopted to sensitize the men and women on the importance of family cohesion 139 financially independent. women and strengthening groups. Modules for Gender Action Learning System as promoted by IFAD could be deployed to build collective ownership of family prosperity. Land grabbing, labour exploitation, pollution and competition with local beneficiaries Likely This is likely if external actors invest in the communities without partnering with local smallholders. Large areas of land may be acquired which could affect the availability of water resources Local people may also be exploited when employed by investors Major Competition can affect the disposable income of smallholders due to low patronage of their livestock, inputs and products as a result of new external investors. This could result in conflict between investors and smallholders /community members thus threatening the gains of the project Synergy is required between investors and livestock associations/co mmunity members. The two groups must be brought to work together to boost economic activities in the communities while ensuring the dignity of labour is preserved as well as mutual understanding is reached in the acquisition of land resources for collective prosperity. Population change likely Investment opportunities will attract temporary or permanent job Minor The impact on the project is insignificant Adequate community infrastructure could be 140 seekers in the communities. facilitated through the project to accommodate any change in population size. Low demand for new high quality livestock feed Likely This is likely if the price of the high quality feed is too high for the farmers Minor When farmers test the feed and discover they can get more yields from their livestock, they will most likely adjust to the new price The feeds could be sensitized for the farmers to introduce improved inputs until the business case is established through use. Displacement of local/untrained veterinary service providers Likely The services of local veterinary service providers may no longer be needed in the communities Minor The project aims to deploy quality veterinary services for the benefit of the livestock farmers Local veterinary service providers are absorbed into the project by building their capacity through training on specific services Fear of domination/cha nge in culture (Northwest zone) Likely Due to the solitary nature of Fulanis, they may not accept new investors into their community to avoid domination. Also, as investors come in, there may be alteration in Minor The impact on the project is not significant. The smallholders are generally receptive to new changes New investors should be enlightened about cultural sensitivities. Proper consultation should be done with livestock associations and 141 cultural practices community leaders to understand the mission of new investors fully Objection to technologies to reduce greenhouse gases (Northeast Zone) Not likely This could be perceived to interfere with traditional means of manure management Minor The impact will be minor. This is because the farmers are receptive to new technologies Farmers should be properly sensitized on new technologies that will be introduced in the communities Climatic conditions may affect new breeds of livestock (Northwest and south-west zones) Not likely Adaptation of new breeds livestock could be affected. Minor This is going to have a minor impact on the project outcome as smallholders are generally knowledgeable and willing to accept new breeds of cattle Research should be done before new breeds of animals are introduced to know their suitability and survival level in the new location. The acceptance of new breeds in the northeast and northwest central zones should be investigated. Resistance to the use of vaccines for veterinary services (Southeast zone) Not likely Some smallholders do not believe in vaccines, hence, may object to its use. Also, it is believed that the use of vaccines will increase the cost of livestock production. Minor Vaccines are already in use in the zone. However, resistance to its use could affect more comprehensiv e coverage in deploying Proper Sensitization be done on the benefits of the use of vaccines 142 quality veterinary services for livestock treatment. 143 Table 22: Livestock and Poultry Value Chain Partners LIVESTOCK VALUE CHAIN PARTNERS Animal Genetic Resources (AnGR) Breeding and Multiplication Centres Institutions such as NACGRAB, NCF, NBS, etc. Universities and research institutes Private sector Federal Government of Nigeria Farmers Animal Feed Supply Crop farmers Feed millers NIAS Universities and research institutes Institutions such as NASC Agro-industries Animal Health Services Agencies such as NAFDAC Institutes eg. NVRI Private sectors (into vaccine and veterinary drugs production) Extension workers Veterinary Teaching Hospital/State Veterinary Clinics Beef and Dairy Feed millers Crop Farmers Extension workers Industries eg. Milk processing, meat processing, Bone Processing, leather, etc. 144 Universities and Research Institutes Sheep and Goat Universities and Research Institutes Crop Farmers Feed mills Veterinary Teaching Hospital/State Veterinary Clinics Industries e.g. Milk processing, meat processing, Bone Processing, leather, etc. Leather Industries Livestock farmers Tanneries Poultry Feed millers and feed industries Universities and Research Institutes Veterinary Teaching Hospital/State Veterinary Clinics Hatcheries Meat and egg distributors Pig Feed mills and Agro-processing industries Veterinary Teaching Hospital/State Veterinary Clinics Abattoir Universities and Research Institutes Meat processing industries NEPC Micro-Livestock Universities and Research Institutes Feed mills and feed industries Veterinary Teaching Hospital/State Veterinary Clinics 145 Tanneries and leather industries NEPC 146