Cocoa Production in Nigeria: A Literature Review

Introduction

Given renewed interest in the development of cocoa and government decision to recognize it as one of the key sources of foreign earnings, the Center for Public Policy Alternatives carried out a review of existing literature including reports of research carried out by experts in the sector. The intention was to explore the state of cocoa, focusing on South West Nigeria. Attempts were made to aggregate production information and examine farmers access to planting input and finance.

 

Nigeria’s Cocoa

Cocoa crop thrives in tropical climate and production is therefore dominated by countries in those regions, while consumption is mostly by countries in temperate regions of the world. West Africa is a major producer accounting for approximately 70% of global production which fluctuates annually with climatic variations. This is often cyclical with periods of rapid expansion followed by periods of stasis. However, overall production continues to expand with cultivation becoming more widespread.

In West Africa, Nigeria is the third largest producer of Cocoa. While the crop is sometimes farmed on a large scale in Nigeria, the sector is dominated by small scale farmers and remains a critical source of livelihood for rural populations in states where the crop is produced. In the South-west, cocoa-producing states include Ondo, Oyo, Osun Ogun and Ekiti where farmers either operate on inherited field or operate a share cropping system in which two-thirds of the produce accrues to the land owner who also contributes to purchase of farming input.

An analysis of labour-use patterns among small holder farmers in South-west Nigeria showed that 80% of respondents to survey have 5 hectares or less, 19% operate at medium scale level and 1% had farms that are bigger than 10 hectares. Farmers used labour as outlined on table below:

Table 1 Labour Types and how farmers use them[1]

The report stated that farmers would use share croppers because of the perception that they are more honest and dedicated in the discharge of their duties.

The country is currently reported to be experiencing low and declining yields due to inconsistent production patterns, disease and pest attack. Low levels of mechanization with dependence on cutlass and hoe agriculture and ageing of cocoa fields play a role in decreased productivity, especially in southwest states that contribute nearly 80% of national cocoa yields. Although reports are conflicting, annual cocoa yields for Nigeria are generally estimated at an average of between 300 to 350,000[2].   Reports also set production per hectare at 0.38 tonnes but these are reported to have declined to less than 0.3 hectares mostly due to reduced rainfall[3]

Problems with production according to available literature, include high cost attendant to the establishment of nurseries and plantations, a dearth of market information, high levels of spoilag, low quality of beans and extremely weak linkage between producers and processor/exporters. Even with this, reports indicate that there is positive relationship between area harvested or farm size and cocoa production in Nigeria (Fadipe et al 2012).

It is widely acknowledged that there is under-investment in agriculture while studies have highlighted a strong relationship between cocoa out and farm size and access to finance (Fadipe et al, 2012)

Nigeria’s cocoa is cultivated on (estimated) 800,000 hectares of land and makes up 5% of global cocoa production which is contributed by an estimated 300,000 cocoa farmers, two-thirds of which live in south west Nigeria. Majority of them inherited farms with trees that are more than 25 years old with declined production.

Prone to disease, maintenance of cocoa farms is labour intensive and requires the use of expensive chemicals to keep black pod disease at bay. Cultivation is a delicate process and trees are sensitive to changing weather conditions such as excessive rain or drought which negatively affects yield per hectare.

Osun, Ondo and Cross River states are reported to contribute approximately 68% of Nigeria’s yearly cocoa output which reached a high of 350,000 MT in 2014[4]  when the Ministry of Trade and Industry also reported that Nigeria made $1.3 billion from cocoa export. There is however poor price transmission between export markets and producers[5]

 

Yield

The Cocoa Transformation Plan of the Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development set a national target for production at 500,000 MT by 2015 and 1 million MT by 2018. This is to build on the target of 600,000 MT by 2015 set by the National Cocoa Development Committee. Between 2002 and 2007 NCDC distributed inputs for cocoa farming to farmers at 50% subsidy. The Committee also raised 62 million high yielding early maturing hybrid seedlings – enough to plant 56,000 hectares of new cocoa fields.

Farmers are responding to rising international market prices for cocoa and reports indicate a potential increase in production resulting from adoption of improved production practices to meet the UTZ certification requirements. There are indications that farmers are willing to rehabilitate abandoned farms and to increase area under production[6]. Production has however been hampered by the inability of the Cocoa Research Institute of Nigeria to meet demand for seedlings, and utilize adequate mechanisms for distributing improved varieties of cocoa to farmers. Production has therefore fallen short of 2015 targets of 500,000 MT.

Table 2 Yield, Area Harvested and production of cocoa in Nigeria[7]

  2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2013 2014 2015/2016
Yield/

hectare

0.3499 0.3515 0.3879 0.4393 0.2720 0.3137 0.3018 0.2948 0.1804
Area harvested/hectare 96,600 1,030,000 1,062,000 1,104,000 1,349,130 1,272,430 1,269,136 1,244,755 1,374,399
production 338,000 362,000 412,000 485,000 367,020 399,200 383,000 367,000 248,000 200,00[8]

 

A study of technical efficiency of cocoa production in southwest Nigeria[9]  showed that more than 80% of cocoa farmers in the region had more than 10 years of coca farming experience and were relatively technically efficient in their use of resources although they were largely resource constrained. The study report also explained that labour constituted the highest cost of cocoa production and that it would likely determine the viability and profitability of cocoa production. The report concluded that there is potential to minimize inputs to maintain current production levels and/or maximize output at current input levels in southwest cocoa production although technical efficiency was found to be high at 0.8126.  A critical factor that affects technical efficiency was reported as the age of cocoa trees (the older the trees the less efficient), education of farmers (the better educated and inform the more efficient due to likelihood of adopting progressive farming practices) and land area cultivated (better to increase yield and efficiency). The report recommended sustained improvements by planting younger trees to replace aging ones to raise technical efficiency.

It has been estimated that there can be a 15 – 30% rise in cocoa production if more fertilizer is used in cocoa production[10]. Nigerian cocoa farmers use a lot less fertilizer than farmers in Ghana where production was increased from 650,000 to 1 million tonnes in one season (2011/2012). Farmers in Nigeria were introduced to fertilizer usage in 2012/2013 season.

Many NGOs and donor organisations including USAID are supporting on-farm capacity development for farmers to improve productivity and quality. Researchers have also been supported through the Cochran Fellowship and Borlaug training programmes to build knowledge and skills. However, yield improvement continues to be constrained by poor farm management, inadequate extension services, low farm input utilization, farmers’ reluctance to replant old trees and slow uptake of new technology.

Quality

Crop quality has improved since the Sixties but quality of cocoa from Nigeria is currently considered lower than the quality on offer by other West African countries. Quality control mechanisms are severely compromised given a liberalized market and limited value chain governance.

Nigeria’s cocoa is reputed in the world market for its aroma which makes it a great choice for blending with cocoa from other sources. Quality provides opportunity for price differential and, where there is a premium, provides an incentive for the farmer and others in the value chain. Nigeria suffered a setback in cocoa quality following the market liberalization in 1986 and reduced confidence the trade.

There are continual efforts by the Cocoa Association of Nigeria (CAN) and Cocoa Processors association of Nigeria (CPAN) to raise farmer awareness on appropriate use of chemicals as well as quality parameters for fermentation and drying of beans. Government produce inspectors however pay more attention to revenue capture than to quality grading.  There are wide disparities in grading fees set by state governments and this range from N3000 to N5000 per tonne.

Quality issues range from simple cleanliness of the bean bag, preparation by farmer to genetic origins of the beans. Many processors rate flavour (which is a combination of genetic factors influencing the varieties) as highly important.

A study on the effect of farm management practices on cocoa quality carried out in Ondo State concluded that Nigerian cocoa farmers receive low prices for their crops because of poor quality arising from inappropriate farm management practices[11]

Cocoa Seedlings and Seed Gardens

Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development’s Cocoa transformation agenda reported estimated that if Nigeria is to meet national targets for cocoa beans productions, it will be necessary to raise 111 million improved hybrid seedlings in 2012, 116 million in 2013 with a decrease to 80 million by 2015. Seedlings produced fell far short of these estimates.

Seed Gardens owned by CRIN and State Government

[12]As of 2010 there were 18 government owned seed gardens in Nigeria with average annual pod production of 564,331.

Table 3 Seed Gardens owned by CRIN and State Government

State Number of seed gardens Area of land (hectares) Year planted Varieties
Ondo 7 106.46 1956 – 1978 C69 x C20 Trinidad; CRIN Series I & II IT, CRIN Elite; NA 32 x PA 35 C75 x C18; C75 x C25; C75 x C14; C77 x C27 C75 x C25; C74 x C24
Osun 3 16.2 1961 – 1979 C77 x C27

C74 x C18

C77 x C27

Oyo 5 229.98 1964[13] F2 and F3 Amazon, CRIN Elite. Clones planted in CFC plots areT65XT10/15, T86/2X T22/28, T86/2XT9/15, P7XPA150, P7XT60/887.
Edo 2 31.5 1967 Trinidad and F3 Amazon
Cross River[14] 4.4 1975 F3 Amazon and CRIN Elite
South east zone 1 28.5 1971 – 1986 F3 Amazon

 

Seed gardens use open or hand pollination method for hybrid pod production. 471,866 pods were produced 2008/2009. Farmer pod demand was not estimated.

Pod distribution

Reports indicate low demand of improved seeds from seed gardens and attributed this to (i) reliance on seedlings raised by state governments – Federal and State governments provide seeds and seedlings at subsidised prices. (ii) farmers raise cocoa seedlings from pods collected from their farms or other unapproved sources.

Ondo State was reported to have produced and distributed seeds as follows:

Year                               No of seedlings produced          
2005 2,736,530
2006  3,040,000
2007 2,000,000
2008                1,000,000
2010 1.5m (projection for 2010)

 

The report of a study carried out in 2016 indicated that Oyo and Ondo States are reported to have been supplying an annual one million cocoa seedlings to farmers while Osun state has been supplying 800,000[15].  While the seedlings cost between N10 and N20 in Ondo and Osun State because of a 50% government subsidy, they delivered free to farmers in Oyo State. These government policies were to increase access of cocoa farmers to improved planting materials and provide an incentive for rehabilitating old farms and opening up new fields.

Findings from a study[16] to determine the effect of seedling subsidy in three states (Oyo, Osun and Ondo) showed that in spite of yearly seedling supplies in excess of one million over a period of 7 years (2005 to 2011), supply of seedlings was inadequate to the needs of farmers. Demand from farmers was not determined for respective years.

Table 4 Yearly supply of seedlings to farmers
State 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Oyo 843,251 1,400,000 1,500,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,100,000 N/A
Osun N/A 404,000 1,600,000 600,000 900,000 1,300,000 100,000
Ondo 1,540,000 3,040,000 1,292,312 908,126 906,993 1,192,503 1,232,360

 

Cost of seedlings also varied. While it sold for between N20 and N50 per stand in Osun and Oyo States, it sold for between N12 and N20 in Ondo state.

The study also reported a gradual increase in size of farms (hectares) planted with hybrid seedlings.

Table 5 Farm size (hectares) planted with hybrid seedlings
State 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Oyo 532 719 1275 1367 911 903 1296
Osun 2932 1240 873 884 872 1147
Ondo 402 211 294 270 324 180 90

However, in terms of number of old trees replanted, only Oyo State had data which showed that more than 20,000 trees annually were replanted in the period between 2005 to 2009. The study also highlighted distribution challenges.

Ondo State has the largest cumulative hectarage of cocoa seed gardens of 14 states. These seed gardens typically obtain cocoa pods from the Cocoa Research Institute of Nigeria who produce sexually generated improved planting materials. CRIN has 15 cocoa seed generating sites[17]  which are reported to have challenges that include aged trees, depleted soils, reduced tree population and low yield resulting in insufficient supply of planting materials to farmers.

Table 6 Cocoa and generation sites and list of available hybrids [18]

Following the release of 8 new cocoa hybrids with proven genetic qualities in 2011, CRIN established 2 hectares of cocoa seed gardens in each of 14 states identified as cocoa growing. These new gardens make improved cocoa hybrids available to farmers and promote vegetative propagation.

Table 7 List of cocoa clones established in 14 states[19]

A separate project supported by the World Cocoa foundation also resulted in the establishment of community based seed gardens in four communities including Ikoromaja (Osun State), Ago-Store Owena (Ondo State), Okwoyi (Abia State), Etomi (Cross River State). Each of the gardens have seven parental clones of cocoa established in four bi-clonal blocks. The parental combinations generate four hybrids of cocoa.[20]

Extension services and technical information is provided to farmer by ADPS. A study of cocoa farmers[21] in Ekiti State reported that 71.1% of the surveyed population received such support while 13.3% received extension information from agro chemical companies. 11.7% received extension information from IITA extension services and 1.7% receive information from unspecified sources. The same study report stated that 73.7% of farmers surveyed believed there has was considerable reduction in production problems with extension information and that 60.8% thought that production input was easier to acquire.  65% thought produce marketing was also easier and more profitable with support from extension services.

The study also observed that in addition to extension services that provided information about production technologies, farm size, ownership status, frequency of contact with extension agents and whether farmers had other occupation, have a relationship with the level of use of disseminated technologies.

Seed gardens in Ondo State faced challenges with bush fires in 2016 that threatened production of hybrid cocoa pods. This was compounded by the drought that was reported as the worst in 30 years with no rainfall in Cross River and Akwa Ibom States since November of the previous year[22]

CAN also reported that 90% of seedlings and new cocoa planting of 2015 in Ogun State were lost to the protracted dry weather

The seed gardens face challenges of inadequate and untimely release of government funds, aged trees, depleted soils inadequate equipment and limited infrastructure. It was estimated that it took N937,667 to maintain one hectare of seed garden in Nigeria

Table 8 Estimate of labour and infrastructure required per 3-hectare seed garden [23]

Cost of seed propagation in West Africa was also estimated by Biodiversity International[24].  Acknowledging differences in cost of establishing a farm nursery and community nursery, the report outlined ideal features of a cocoa seed production system.

The cost estimates were based on assumptions that the nursery would be set up close to water supply, that an area sufficient for sowing 5,000 seedlings as root stock for budding can be created for $915 including purchase of netting and equipment. (see cost estimate in appendix). The publication also provided estimates for field costs based on requirements for land that has suitable permanent shade and on assumption of planting density of 1,111 plants per hectare and an expected 20% loss in the first dry season for clonal materials.

The document[25] provided information on field testing of SE plants and based on experience in Ecuador estimated that with scale up and use of liquid medium, production costs for SE plants could be brought down to between 30 to 50 (USA) cents and that orthotropic rooted cuttings could be sold 20 cents basing their calculation on the establishment of 10,000 SE plants. It was reported that in Indonesia, retail price for SE plants are 50 (US) cents and following establishment in distribution nurseries it sells for 70 cents per plant. By comparison, open pollinated seedlings sell for approximately 40 cents while hand pollinated seedlings sell for 50 cents. Meanwhile grafted plants sell for 70 cents per unit.

Given success with field testing in Ecuador (see chart) long term goal is to transfer the SE technology to West Africa and with initial funding from the Sustainable Tree Crops programme some training has been provided to research institutes including CRIN in Nigeria

 

 

Credit for Cocoa Production

Along with other crops in Nigeria, cocoa farming is hindered by availability of credit to sustain or expand production. Shortage of credit for agriculture production is attributed to reluctance by banks given high risks associated with the sector. To address the challenge, the Central Bank of Nigeria set up some development finance to target agriculture; one of this is the Commercial Agriculture Credit Scheme designed to boost production of selected cash crops including cocoa. Despite this and other schemes, studies show that few cocoa farmers in Cross River State (6% of owner managers and 12% of lease managers) were able to obtain bank loans although the likelihood of obtaining bank loans was also correlated to level of education. Other cocoa farmers, especially small scale farmers and share croppers were deemed unable to meet requirements for bank loans and relied on credit from relatives or on savings[26].  The same study demonstrated that to make appreciable income from cocoa production, farmers need to make large cost outlays; the larger the investment, the more likely the returns[27].

A study carried out in Ondo State reported that despite the mean size of cocoa farms being 1.28 hectares and 66.7% of farmers surveyed having no more that primary school education (32.8% had no formal education) 58.5% procured credit in the 1009/2010 production season although 83.2% of these, obtained credit from produce merchants. Mean age of farmers in this study was 49.8 years and 95.1% of them were male. The study concluded that inadequate credit affected production efficiency. In addition to access to finance, poor infrastructure was indicated by respondents as being a major challenge[28].

Credit available in the cocoa economy is short term and provided within season production in cash or kind to farmers by merchants and buying agents. Size and structure of loans makes it difficult to apply them to significant improvement or expansion or cocoa farms. Here are however options for special on-lending facilities backed by government guaranties.

Conclusion

Evidence from documents reviewed demonstrate that in spite of Nigeria being considered a major contributor to cocoa production, the industry is precarious and requires strategic interventions if it is to become the productive resource that government wants to make it. Farmers, especially in the south west, farm very small holdings and are experiencing declining yields. Although it has been reported that they are willing to rehabilitate cocoa fields, they are poor resourced and have scant technical know-how or technology support.

Recommendation is for strengthened governance of the cocoa value chain. Large off-takers should be helped – utilising industry studies and preparation of a sector strategy – to see the potential for generous returns on investment and policy documents should highlight this as well as make provisions for appropriate mechanisms for regulating the sector including prioritising certification of farms, seedlings and products.

[1]Kassim Adekunle Akanni and Alfred Olayinka Dada – Analysis of Labour-Use Patterns among Small-Holder Cocoa Farmers in South Western Nigeria

[2] Cocoa Association of Nigeria

[3] Peter Aikpopodion who also explained that there are challenges with data

[4] Federal Ministry of Agriculture

[5] UNFAO, ANALYSIS OF INCENTIVES AND DISINCENTIVES FOR COCOA IN NIGERIA (February 2013)

[6] Global Agriculture Information Network Report – August 2014

[7] http://www.factfish.com/statistic-country/nigeria/cocoa%20beans,%20yield

[8] Source : https://www.statista.com/statistics/263855/cocoa-bean-production-worldwide-by-region/

[9] Popoola Olufemi A., Ogunsola Grace O. and Salman Kabir K. (2015)

[10] Robo Adhuze – Cocoa Analyst. Ondo State Cocoa Revolution

[11] M.G. Olujide and S.O. Adeogun  – Assessment of cocoa growers’ farm management practices in Ondo State, Nigeria (2006)

[12] Richard Asare, Victor Afari-Sefa, Isaac Gyamfi, Chris Okafor and Jonas Mva – Cocoa seed multiplication: an assessment of seed gardens in Cameroon, Ghana and Nigeria –

[13] 4 were established in 1964 and a 5th one in 1999

[14] Experimental plot with clonal materials

[15] Alamu Salawu Abideen – Analysis of seedling subsidy policy and cocoa production in South West Nigeria, NISER 2013

[16] ibid

[17] Adewale, B. D., Adeigbe, O. O. and Muyiwa, A. A. –  Cocoa Seed Garden: a means to disseminating improved planting materials for enhanced national productivity: A review (2016)

[18] ibid

[19] ibid

[20] ibid

[21] Oladosu, I. O. and O. T. Yekinni – An Assessment of Agricultural Extension Activities to Cocoa Farmers in Ekiti West Local Government Area of Ekiti State (2008)

[22] Saia Riman, Chairman Cocoa Association of Nigeria

[23] ibid

[24] Supplying New Cocoa planting materials to farmers: A review of propagation methodologies (2015) Edited by B. Laliberte and M. End

[25] ibid

[26] Nkang N M, EA Ajah, SO Abang and EO Edet –  INVESTMENT IN COCOA PRODUCTION IN NIGERIA: A COST AND RETURN ANALYSIS OF THREE COCOA PRODUCTION MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS IN THE CROSS-RIVER STATE COCOA BELT

[27] ibid

[28] http://journal.unaab.edu.ng/index.php/theses/thesis/view/790

Human Dietary Needs, Population Growth and Sustainable Agriculture

 

As far as global agriculture is concerned, the task of meeting the world’s protein demand has never been more complicated. On one hand, a waxing global population makes it increasingly imperative to raise more animals. Yet, in a world on the precipice of catastrophic climate change, increased animal husbandry – a major contributor of greenhouse gases – is far from desirable.

As the article pointed out, at present, the dominant approach to closing this impending protein deficiency gap is to change what humans eat. Sadly, of the options currently being put forward under this approach, none is ideal. On its part, vegetarianism might have gained a lot of traction in the Western world, but such a radical movement will struggle for converts elsewhere. In a country like Nigeria for example, there is an almost emotional attachment to meat that is deeply entrenched in many cultures. Any attempt to convince consumers’ to eschew their ravenous appetite for meat products will surely be met with stiff resistance. Encouraging a switch in preference from meat to fish and insects, though less extreme, is also likely to suffer from the same shortcoming. Besides, if increasing the consumption of fish and insects is the way to go, the questions of how to conserve fisheries to ensure sustainable harvest for future consumption and how to cultivate insects in large enough quantities to meet demand will need answering. As for creating artificial protein, contemporary food consumption patterns suggest that foods grown with unconventional methods tend to gather negative connotations. Often, there is a wariness with which consumers approach factitious foods. Even if technology succeeds in creating genetically modified beef and plant-based proteins that are identical to conventional meat in every aspect, consumers’ skepticism is unlikely to evanesce easily, if at all.

It is for these reasons that the article’s recommendation about changing the dietary composition of animals rather than humans seems appealing; at least prima facie. Substituting animal protein (such as fishmeal and fishbone) with less edible alternatives such as maggot, flies and bacteria in animal feeds frees up more animal protein for human consumption. More importantly, by enabling farmers to continue to raise animals without necessarily increasing demand side  pressures on global supply of high-protein materials, it offers a solution that satisfies all – the vegetarians can continue their abstinence from meat and meat-lovers can continue to satisfy their carnivorous desires, provided the latter has no objections to maggot-fed and bacteria-fed meat.

The big task then lies in how quickly investors like Cargill and Calysta can perfect the technology for creating animal feed from unorthodox ingredients. Of special importance will be need to ensure that substitute ingredients do not compromise the nutrient contents of animal feed. At the very least, the new feed must offer the same feed conversion ratio (FCR) as the old one, although a higher FCR is more desirable.

Waste-To-Energy: Killing two birds with one stone

Opaluwa Enebi

Waste-to-energy (WTE) is the process of generating energy in form of electricity or heat from municipal solid waste (MSW). This is also known as energy recovery. According to Deltaway energy, a California-based company that specializes in the design, operation and maintenance of waste-to-energy and biomass power plants, the WTE process can reduce a community’s landfill volume by up to 90% and prevent the emission of one tonne of carbon dioxide for every tonne of waste burned[i].

Waste to energy plants operate like other traditional steam power plants, the only variation being the primary source of energy- garbage. The process is divided into a series of stages. First the waste is collected into a large pit. Then, using heavy mechanical equipment, the garbage is lifted and transferred to a combustion chamber. The next stage involves burning the waste to release heat which is used to boil water into steam in a boiler. Under high pressure, the steam turns the blades of a turbine which is connected to a generator to produce electricity. An air pollution control system removes pollutants from the combustion gas before it is released through a smoke stack. Finally, ash is collected from the boiler and the air pollution control system[ii].

Waste to energy plant

Source: https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/index.cfm/data/index.cfm?page=biomass_waste_to_energy

 

Waste-to-energy has been implemented as a sustainable waste management solution in North America, Europe and Asia. The process leaves behind as little as 10% of the total volume of waste consumed as ash which is used as daily land cover in landfills or for road construction as is the case in the E.U[iii]. Data of selected countries from these regions showed that between 13% (United States) and 70% (Japan) of MSW generated in 2013 and 2014 were burned with energy recovery. In the United States, of the 258 million tonnes of MSW generated in 2014, 53% was sent to landfills, 35% was recycled and composted and 13% was burned with energy recovery. In 2015 alone, WTE plants across the US burned a total of 29 million tonnes of MSW and generated about 14 billion kilowatt hours of electricity in the process. WTE is capable of providing waste management and electricity supply solutions, especially in densely populated areas that generate large amounts of garbage.

Source: https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/images/charts/waste_to_energy_world-large.jpg

In Nigeria, proper waste management is a challenge that government authorities are still trying to solve. It is estimated that the country generates about 32 million tonnes of MSW per annum, however only 20-30% is collected[iv]. The rest are recklessly left to litter the environment or end up in arbitrary dumpsites constituting serious health, environmental and infrastructural hazards. The awful odour from these dumpsites makes the surrounding environment inhospitable and inhabitable. Drainage networks and sewer systems get clogged on occasion while air and ground pollution due to indiscriminate waste disposal is rampant. In addition, water bodies like rivers and waterways, especially in urban areas are visibly littered with solid waste consisting of plastic bags and containers, scrap metal and food items.

Densely populated cities, like Lagos, Abuja, Port Harcourt and Ibadan generate the most MSW, largely because of the population size and the volume of economic activity. For example, at 0.5kg per capita, Lagos generates more than 10,000tons of waste per day[v]. While the state has a fairly organized system for collecting and disposing MSW, waste collection agencies are still yet to provide complete statewide coverage as random unauthorised dumpsites can still be found across the state. Nationwide, the situation is further worsened by poor methods of waste management and treatment. The more common method, usually open air incineration, directly results in more emissions and reduces air quality and visibility. This method of treatment has also been associated with increased risk of contracting respiratory diseases and cardiovascular damage[vi] as well as some reproductive and cancer outcomes[vii].

Waste to Energy: A dumpsite in Lagos
Waste to Energy: A dumpsite in Lagos

Source: http://nigeriaenvironment.blogspot.com.ng/2012/12/municipal-solid-waste-management-in.html

Implementing an efficient and sustainable waste management system through a waste-to-energy facility would be beneficial to Nigeria. Improved air quality, reduced emissions and hospitable, conducive living and business surroundings are some of the added economic or social gains that can be derived from the waste management process.

Revenue accrued from the sale of electricity generated is a major benefit. 1 tonne of MSW can generate a net of 500-600kWh of electricity[viii]. Assuming this was supplied to residential consumers with a three phase supply (R2T[1] category of consumer), at N28.39 per kWh, Eko electricity distribution company could potentially generate from 141.95 to 170.34 million naira from Lagos’s 10,000 tonnes of MSW per day. However, WTE facilities, like other power plants are expensive to construct. Based on estimates by the Waste-to-Energy Research and Technology Council (WTERT); WTE facilities in the US process from 500 to 3000 tonnes of waste per day. Expectedly, larger plants have lower capital and operating costs per ton of MSW processed. At an average of $650 per annual tonne, a 3000 tonne per day WTE plant would cost $643.5 million to build[2] and would supply 594GWh of electricity a year. Using the aforementioned Eko disco rate, 594GWh of electricity would generate the equivalent of $55.11 million[3] per annum in revenue. Lagos State would require four of such plants to sufficiently process its MSW. By comparison, in 2010, a 640,000 tonnes per year WTE plant in Montevideo, Uruguay was estimated at $420 million in capital investment and $22 million in operating cost[ix].

Benefits that could be derived from a Waste-to-Energy plant in Lagos

While WTE plants require huge capital investments, the added advantages are numerous. In addition to the revenue accrued from the supply of electricity generated, a gate fee per ton of waste could also be charged. In 2010, the average gate fee for the WTE plant in Uruguay was $16 per tonne. Assuming maximum operational capacity, a 3000 tonne facility would generate $43,000 per day and $14.4 million per annum in gate fees alone. Other benefits include acquiring carbon credits and keeping international climate agreements. WTE facilities could also incorporate recycling and composting facilities which could reduce overall capital cost while providing more avenues for revenue generation.

The establishment of a WTE facility is nonetheless a momentous project and requires far-reaching preliminary conditions that should be met to ensure its success. First, waste disposal culture in Nigeria needs to be revisited. Households and communities can no longer convert their backyards or the closest, unused expanse of land to a dumpsite. Furthermore, waste should be properly collected and sorted out into bio degradable, non-biodegradable and hazardous waste and disposed accordingly. This would reduce the total number of man hours needed for processing; especially when the generation of bio gas is included in the energy recovery process. It would also improve the total time allocated for sorting out garbage at recycling facilities.

Second, adequate information is crucial before any project can be successfully implemented. Waste disposal data in the country is still largely unavailable or not easily accessible. Government energy and environmental agencies and ministries at both Federal and State levels are yet to publish waste disposal data through available channels. This could be due to the fact that many states still lack proper municipal waste disposal programmes, while those that do have, operate with limited efficiency. Proper waste management requires adequate collection and dissemination of information to facilitate effective planning and execution. Such data would include the total volume of MSW collected as well as characterization in terms of composition, heating content, moisture, etc.

Third, efficient transport infrastructure is necessary to keep the cost of transportation within manageable limits. If transportation costs are too high, overall cost of operation would equally increase which would result in higher electricity tariffs. Other factors that need to be addressed in order to make a WTE facility economically viable include availability and accessibility of a site, waste supply commitments, ash disposal (landfill) capacity as well as availability and cost of disposal alternatives.

Lastly, political will and commitment is very vital for the establishment of a WTE facility in Nigeria. Government actors must recognize the long term tangible, intangible, social and economic benefits and throw their support behind such initiatives for projects to be successfully implemented. Relevant legislation should be updated or created and enforced. For instance, while the National Environmental Standards and Regulations Enforcement Agency (NESREA) at federal level is responsible for enforcing environment and waste management laws and almost all states have at least one agency that caters to issues relating to the environment; regulation focuses on toxic and hazardous materials such as industrial waste or oil spills[x]. Little is mentioned of MSW management. Very few states, particularly Lagos, seem to display some level awareness of the challenge with proposed alternatives to address it.

In as much as it is clear that waste disposal is an irritating problem in Nigeria, state actors must evolve from just identifying problems towards developing and implementing practical steps to tackle them. WTE facilities are a sustainable method of waste management and treatment, with added local and international benefits. In a country like Nigeria which experiences an acute shortage of electricity supply, waste-to-energy as a method of waste management should be considered and included in government policies with practical steps to facilitate and ensure its implementation. It would not only provide electricity for the country but also help to address the problem of solid waste management, especially in urban clusters around the country.

[1] R2T is one of four classifications of residential consumers by NERC. It represents residential consumers with a 3-phase meter and with demand below 45kV. This category of consumer presently pays N28.39 in electricity tariff.

[2] According to WTERT, WTE plants have an overall availability of 330 24-hr days per year. On a daily basis, annual volume of MSW processed would be 3000*330= 990,000 tonnes per annum. At $650 per annual ton, construction cost= $650*990,000= $643.5 million.

[3] 594GWh would generate N16.86 billion. At N306 to $1, this is equivalent to $55.11 million.

 

END NOTES

[i] http://www.deltawayenergy.com/wte-tools/wte-anatomy/

[ii] Waste-to-energy (Municipal Solid Waste), available at https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/index.cfm/data/index.cfm?page=biomass_waste_to_energy

[iii] The ABC of sustainable waste management (SWM), available at  http://www.seas.columbia.edu/earth/wtert/faq.html

[iv] Bakare W. (2016), “Solid Waste management in Nigeria”, Bio energy consult, available at   http://www.bioenergyconsult.com/solid-waste-nigeria/

[v] Bakare W. (2016), “Solid Waste management in Nigeria”, Bio energy consult, available at http://www.bioenergyconsult.com/solid-waste-nigeria/

[vi] Franchini M, Rial M, Buiatti E and Bianchi F., “Health effects of exposure to waste incinerator emissions:

a review of epidemiological studies”, Ann Ist Super Sanità 2004, 40(1), pgs 101-115, available at http://www.hia21.eu/dwnld/20131216_Health%20effects%20of%20exposure%20to%20waste%20incinerator%20emissions.pdf

[vii] Porta D, Milani S, Lazzarino A.I, Perucci C.A, and Forastiere F (2009), “Systematic review of epidemiological studies on health effects associated with management of solid waste”, Open access, available at  https://ehjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1476-069X-8-60

[viii] http://www.seas.columbia.edu/earth/wtert/faq.html

[ix] Rodriguez M. E. (2011), “Cost-benefit analysis of a waste to energy Plant for Montevideo; and waste to Energy in small islands”, department of earth and environmental engineering, University of Columbia, pg 2, available at http://www.seas.columbia.edu/earth/wtert/sofos/Rodriguez_thesis.pdf

[x] Amachree M. (2013), “Update on e-waste management in Nigeria”, proceedings at the 3rd annual meeting of the global e-waste management network, San Francisco, USA; available at   https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-05/documents/nigeria.pdf

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

END NOTES

[1] http://www.deltawayenergy.com/wte-tools/wte-anatomy/

[1] Waste-to-energy (Municipal Solid Waste), available at https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/index.cfm/data/index.cfm?page=biomass_waste_to_energy

[1] The ABC of sustainable waste management (SWM), available at  http://www.seas.columbia.edu/earth/wtert/faq.html

[1] Bakare W. (2016), “Solid Waste management in Nigeria”, Bio energy consult, available at   http://www.bioenergyconsult.com/solid-waste-nigeria/

[1] Bakare W. (2016), “Solid Waste management in Nigeria”, Bio energy consult, available at http://www.bioenergyconsult.com/solid-waste-nigeria/

[1] Franchini M, Rial M, Buiatti E and Bianchi F., “Health effects of exposure to waste incinerator emissions:

a review of epidemiological studies”, Ann Ist Super Sanità 2004, 40(1), pgs 101-115, available at http://www.hia21.eu/dwnld/20131216_Health%20effects%20of%20exposure%20to%20waste%20incinerator%20emissions.pdf

[1] Porta D, Milani S, Lazzarino A.I, Perucci C.A, and Forastiere F (2009), “Systematic review of epidemiological studies on health effects associated with management of solid waste”, Open access, available at  https://ehjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1476-069X-8-60

[1] http://www.seas.columbia.edu/earth/wtert/faq.html

[1] Rodriguez M. E. (2011), “Cost-benefit analysis of a waste to energy Plant for Montevideo; and waste to Energy in small islands”, department of earth and environmental engineering, University of Columbia, pg 2, available at http://www.seas.columbia.edu/earth/wtert/sofos/Rodriguez_thesis.pdf

[1] Amachree M. (2013), “Update on e-waste management in Nigeria”, proceedings at the 3rd annual meeting of the global e-waste management network, San Francisco, USA; available at   https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-05/documents/nigeria.pdf

A Policy Brief on the Nigerian Criminal Justice System

The Nigerian criminal justice system is fundamentally flawed  and the problem is represented at every processing point on the entire criminal justice system line – from the failure of governance institutions to design a suitable criminal justice policy that serves the current need of the country, to the inability of the legislature to appropriately transform policies into laws, from an  oddly designed judicial system plagued by massive corruption, incompetence and crippling bureaucratic bottlenecks to an  outdated and counterproductive style of policing and a  correctional services that inhumanely warehouses those considered ‘innocent’ by the very law of the society.

Criminal justice, because it addresses behavioral issues, must be dynamic, proactive and culturally relevant and more importantly, criminal justice system because of its centrality to governance, has a far reaching effect on economic productivity, social cohesion and the rule of law. Read More… Criminal Justice System

Tosin Osasona writes from Lagos, Nigeria

 

Governance Institutions: Local Government in Lagos

CPPA’s series on Nigerian Institutions of Governance continues with a look at local government in Lagos, courtesy of Tosin Osasona.

SUMMARY

States and governments across the world irrespective of their nomenclature use the concept and practice of local government as an effective strategy for ensuring good governance at the local level. Local governments are modeled to serve three purposes: first, as a mechanism for democratic participation and inclusive governance; second, as an efficient service delivery tool that is tasked with the provision of social services and basic infrastructure; and finally as a tool for national development and a medium through which the grassroots can share in the national wealth.

Local Government Areas (LGAs)/ Local Council Development Areas (LCDAs) as presently constituted in Lagos State are facing challenges in meeting these objectives. LGAs/LCDAs in Lagos State are currently led by unelected appointees of the State governor in violation of Section 7(1) of the 1999 Constitution, which guarantees a “system of local government by democratically elected government councils”. Government management policy and laws in Lagos are encroaching on constitutional preserves of LGAs and public perception of LGAs/LCDAs in Lagos tends towards negative.

BACKGROUND

There are 20 constitutionally recognized LGAs in Lagos State and 37 LCDAs as provided for in the relevant enabling laws of the State. The Supreme Court in the case to determine the legality of the 37 local government entities created in 2003 by the Lagos State government, declared the newly created local governments as validly created but inchoate entities until a subsequent amendment of the constitution by the National Assembly that lists the newly created LCDAs in the schedule of the constitution like other LGAs, hence the designation of those 37 local government entities as LCDAs by the Lagos State government.

The functions of local governments are listed in the fourth schedule to the 1999 constitution and Section 1 of the Lagos State Local Government (Administration) Law, 2003 echoes these constitutional provisions but adds further obligation in section 38 which includes the construction and maintenance of at least four roads and demands that at least 60% of LGA budget is expended on of capital projects.

According to the enabling Law creating the LCDAs, LCDAs are distinct and separate entities and are clothed with legal capacity. The Lagos state government funds the LCDAs and LGAs have supervisory control over LCDAs falling within the territory of the LGAs. Aside from statutory allocation to LGAs in Lagos State from federation accounts and subventions to LCDAs from the state governments, the Lagos State Local Government Levies Law restrict the sources from which LGAs/LCDAs can raise funds in Lagos State to the listed 16 sources (less than what the federal constitution allows for LGAs).

The LGAs and LCDAs in Lagos State are classified into urban, semi-urban and rural areas. And there is a fourth classification, based on levy collectibles, called the ‘very urban’. The institutional and organizational structure of LGAs/LCDAs in Lagos State is based on the presidential system and it mimics what operates at the federal and state levels. LGAs/LCDAs in the state have three branches, which are: the executive, the legislative Council and Departments/Units. These three branches have statutory responsibilities and independence as well as budgetary allocations directly allocated to them under the various enabling Laws of Lagos Sate.

Elections into the 20 LGAs/ 37 LCDAs across the 377 wards in the five divisions Lagos State was last conducted on October 22, 2011. According to the Lagos State Local Government Law, 2001, the tenure of elected LGAs/LCDAs representatives is fixed at 3 years and by implication, another election was due before October 22, 2014. No election has been held and caretaker committees appointed by the State governor currently head the LGAs/LCDAS in Lagos State. The reason adduced by the state government for non-conduct of election is the absence of an updated voters register in the state.

GOVERNANCE ISSUES

The four identified governance issues around local government administration in Lagos State are highlighted bellow.

Firstly, the Supreme Court in the case to determine the legality of the 37 local government entities created by the Lagos State government, declared the newly created local governments as validly created but inchoate entities until a consequential amendment of the constitution by the National Assembly that lists the newly created LCDAs in the schedule of the constitution like other LGAs, hence the designation of the local government entities as LCDAs. The Creation of these LCDAs stirred a constitutional dilemma and brought to the fore the crisis of constitutional federalism in Nigeria. Does the rebranding of the 37 inchoate LGAs as LCDAs solve the constitutional problems that bedevil the inchoate LGAs? If the Constitution does not allow a State to create LCDAs under what authority do they exist and operate? Will the creation of these new LCDAs enhance service delivery in measurable ways or are they tools of political patronage and reward?

Secondly, elections into the 20 LGAs/37LCDAs across the 377 wards in the five divisions of Lagos State were last conducted almost four years ago, in contravention of the establishing legislation requiring elections every three years. Does appointing caretaker committee chairmen into LCDAs without any Law of the State House of Assembly to that effect not violate the laws establishing them and negatively affect accountability in governance?

Thirdly, does adapting the institutional and organizational structure of LGAs/LCDAs in Lagos State to imitate state-level institutions necessarily enhance service delivery?

And finally there is a question on the capacity of civil servants in LGAs/LCDAs to efficiently deliver service at the grassroots. According to an institutional self-assessment conducted by the partnership for good governance (PaGG) in selected LGAs in Lagos State, critical manpower challenges were noticed in local governance in the state. These include: lack of uniformity in mandate and organogram and uncertainty of the right custodian of data; overlapping of functions between various departments/unclear definition of roles; inadequacy of resources, office equipment and facilities to perform duties; shortage of professional staff and other cadres; adverse and irregular of posting and transfer of personnel and lumping of many functions or job roles in one department.

ARGUMENTS AND IMPACT

According to the enabling statutes creating the LCDAs, they have the legal capacity to sue and be sued, and are distinct legal entities. LCDAs in Lagos State by implications of the Law establishing them are not administrative units or governing arms of LGAs but legal entities with a life of their own. Although LCDAs are funded by the Lagos state government and LGAs have supervisory control over LCDAs falling within the territory of the Local Government Area, they still are still self-governing entities.

The Supreme Court declared the processes leading to the creation of the termed ‘inchoate LGAs’ as valid and constitutional but that they remain embryonic until the National Assembly completes the creation process by amending the constitution to reflect their creation. As it currently stands, LCDAs are embryonic entities, therefore, reverting the ‘inchoate LGAs’ into ‘LCDAs’ does not cure these units of their glaring legal defects and as suggested by the Supreme Court nothing than the scheduling of these LCDAs in the Constitution validates their existence. Reverting inchoate LGAs into LCDAs will not suffice because the appellation is unknown to the Nigerian constitution and if the constitution does not give the powers to states to create LCDAs nor allow LGAs to delegate responsibilities to LCDAs, then the legal basis of the LCDAs is shaky. Secondly, it is not clear that LCDAs can be referred to as administrative units even when the Law creating them referred to them as distinct legal entities.

Has the creation of these new LCDAs enhance service delivery in measurable ways? Well in light of national experience and by the admission of the current government in Lagos State, the answer is NO. The steady increase in poverty and decline in the general standard of living since new Nigerian states were created in 1991 and 1996 suggests that increasing governance units does not necessarily improve service delivery.

The second issue is the appointment of caretakers to administer LGAs/LCDAs in Lagos State. Not conducting elections for elective positions in the LGAs/LCDAs violates Section 7 (1) of 1999 Constitution, which expressly emphasized that “the system of local government by democratically elected local government councils is under this Constitution guaranteed […]”. Furthermore, the Supreme Court in Chigozie Eze & Ors v. Governor of Abia State & Ors declared as ‘Executive recklessness’ the sacking and replacement of elected local government councilmen with unelected caretaker members. Choosing caretakers irrespective of the rationale for the choice violates the democratic order espoused in the 1999 constitution and excludes people in the grassroots from electing leaders that represent them. As presently constituted, LCDAs are merely tools for patronage and reward for acolytes of the political interests that govern Lagos State.

It is not clear that saddling the same institutional and organizational presidential structure at the state level to administer LGAs/LCDAs in Lagos State is productive or efficient. The overhead cost of maintaining these structures do not necessarily impact on the quality of service rendered by these LGAs/LCDAs and this is one of the factors that necessitated the current administration in Lagos to setup a 18-man committee on June 29, 2015 to review why “citizens have not felt much impact from their local governments.”

POLICY OPTIONS

Constitutionality of LCDAs

While the creation of LCDAs by the Lagos State government underpins the yearning of the government of the state to solve local governance challenges (insecurity, urban decay, waste disposal, infrastructural deficits) worsened by an unsustainable population growth, but that aspiration must not in itself undermine the Nigerian constitutional order. The best alternative to the current policy of reversion of inchoate LGAs to LCDAs would be a policy of collaboration and influence. Lagos State has to elaborately tap into the networks that its cosmopolitan status confers and engage with the National Assembly in order to effect the necessary constitutional amendments required to completely create a local government. There is a need for a definite government policy on engagement with legislative and political institutions at the national and sub national levels in Nigeria by the Lagos state government around this theme.

Service Delivery

A look at local government administrations in other megacities across the world reveals a diversity and variation in the distribution of municipalities. Jakarta, Indonesia, despite being one of the largest megacities in the world is governed by 6 Municipalities. The Municipal Corporation of Delhi, India, which provides service to more than 11milion people have just 3 local government units and the same can be said of Karachi Metropolitan Corporation, Pakistan with just 6 units. The Keihanshin Metropolitan Region in Japan with a population of more than 18million has 5 metropolitan areas. However, London has 24 boroughs and Kinshasa, DRC, has24 communes. All these megacities with the exception of Kinshasa have greater GDP than Lagos and global centers of economic and political systems. Thus, the link between the number of municipalities and effectiveness of service delivery is a tenuous one and one can conclude that creating more LGAs does not necessarily lead to improvement in the quality of service delivery. The increasingly huge cost of governance in Nigeria and the continuous encroachment of state governments on the constitutional duties of local government undermine the argument of ‘more is better’.

Governance structure

The failure to conduct elections in LGAs in Lagos state has been hinged by the state on the inability of the State’s electoral agency to conclude requisite preparations for such and this raises a fundamental question on the necessity of replicating the same democratic process used in the state at the LGA level. The state needs to engender an electoral process that is more participatory, less rigid and cheaper. The Rwanda System of local government administration offers an example of a more community-friendly participatory governance at the local level. In Rwanda, the local government is structured in four tiers: districts, sectors, cells and villages. Elections at the village and cell levels are held directly, while elections to the sector and district level are done through indirectly with a secret ballot. Special groups (women, youth and people living with disabilities) elect their representatives to the council through indirect election. All candidates are independent candidates with the party sponsoring none.

Lagos should develop a similar system that makes the communities and CDC the hub of the electoral process. Elections at LGAs/LCDAs allows citizens to participate in making decisions that are locally appropriate and serve the needs of their local community and elections that do not promote accountability in governance undermines its very purpose.