Sunteți pe pagina 1din 14

AN APPRAISAL OF THE AGRICULTURAL CREDIT GUARANTEE SCHEME IN NIGERIA

Akinleye S. O.a, K.A. Akannia and M.A. Oladojab


a.

b.

Department of Agricultural Economics, Olabisi Onabanjo University, Ago Iwoye, Nigeria Department of Agricultural Extension and Rural Development, Olabisi Onabanjo University, Ago Iwoye, Nigeria

Abstract There is a need for governments in developing countries to resolve the problems of agricultural decline in rural areas. Provision of smallholder credit remains a major vehicle for arresting this decline. Using simple statistical analytical tools, this paper established that the Agricultural Credit Guarantee Scheme, established in 1978 to offset the credit supply-demand imbalance, has not wholly succeeded. Factors responsible for the failure of the scheme are the Structural Adjustment Programme of the mid-1980s, low loan repayment rate and late disbursement of funds from the Central Bank of Nigeria. All stakeholders in the scheme however agree on the need to review the scheme. Keywords: Agricultural credit guarantee, Smallholder farming, Repayment performance, Nigeria

INTRODUCTION There is a need for governments in developing countries to resolve the problems of poverty and agricultural decline in rural areas. The means of achieving this is through the revitalisation of the agricultural sector (Badru, 1997). Capital surpluses must thus be transferred from other sectors of the economy to agriculture. This is best facilitated by credit institutions (Ajobo and Oguntade, 1996). Such involvement would lead to improved agricultural production and rural development. Furthermore, it would lead to higher incomes and better quality of life of the rural population. Experience has however shown that while Nigeria farmers over-utilise labour and land, they under-utilise credit. Many reasons are adduced for this but the primary reasons are its insufficiency and limited sources from which it can be obtained (Ajobo and Oguntade, 1996). Odoemenem (1991) identified production expansion as the primary motivation of farmers for borrowing. Others are profit optimisation and improved family standard of living. Yet just a third of the credit needs in rural areas are met by formal lending agencies (Obeta, 1992). This has led to the dominance of informal credit associations. These include cooperatives, community development associations and moneylenders. Many reasons are given for the inability of formal institutions to meet credit needs in Nigeria. Firstly, they are controlled through their headquarters located in the cities. This has put them out of touch with the needs of subsistence farmers. Also, untimely release of funds, cumbersome loan procedures and high interest rates limit farmers access to loans from this sector. In light of the substantial resources possessed formal lending sources relative to inadequacy of credit, there is a need to evolve a means of stimulating formal credit availability to rural areas (Obeta, 1992).
1

It is in a bid to redress this situation that the Agricultural Credit Guarantee Scheme (ACGS) was established in 1977. Initial fund made available to the programme was 100 million naira. A development activity under the Central Bank of Nigeria, the scheme was designed to encourage commercial banks to increase lending to the agricultural sector by providing guarantees against inherent risk in agricultural lending. At inception, maximum loan to be guaranteed was one hundred thousand (N100, 000) naira for individuals and one million naira for cooperatives and corporate bodies. Such loans would require collateral. Collateral would however be waived for loans below 5000 naira. In case of default, the lending bank is expected to exhaust all forms of loan recovery, including the realisation of any security pledged for loans, before the ACGS pays the 75% of guaranteed loans in default (Central Bank of Nigeria, 2000). The scope of the scheme covers the production of all crops, fishery, livestock, storage, farm machinery and hire services and integrated agricultural projects incorporating produce and processing. The purposes for which loans can be granted under the scheme are those connected with the following;

establishment/management of plantations for the production of rubber, oil palm, cocoa, cultivation of cereal crops, tubers, fruits, cotton, beans, groundnut, sheanuts, benniseed, animal husbandry i.e. poultry, piggery, cattle rearing, fish capture and fish farming; processing, especially where integrated with at least 50% of farm output; and farm machinery and hire services.

coffee, tea and similar crops;

vegetables, pineapples, banana and plantains;


However, 25 years after, the problems that necessitated the establishment of the scheme, rather than abating, have exacerbated. There is thus a need to evaluate the activities and the performance of the scheme from the view of all stakeholders; farmers, the ACGS and the commercial banks. LITERATURE REVIEW The contribution of formal lending organisations to credit availability to small farmers is negligible. Yet these farmers cannot do without credit. To fill the lacuna, many of these farmers patronise informal credit associations. Ajetomobi and Olagunju (2000) report that 54% of farmers obtain credit from esusu (credit) cooperatives against 3% who obtain same from commercial banks in South-western Nigeria. Reasons adduced to this reliance are many. They include dearth of rural banks, distance from loan office, low farm income and time lag between loan application and disbursement from formal sources. Nweze (1994) remarks that objectives of cooperative associations are to pool capital resources, labour for farm work, provision of financial assistance to members in need and community development. In these associations, information assymetrics between borrowers and lenders are unimportant, and their
2

institutional consequences, the use of collateral and interlinked contracts, are absent. Through credit, households pool risk through the use of contracts in which the repayment owed by the borrower depends on the realisation of random production and consumption shocks by both the borrower and the lender (Udry, 1990). In appreciating the role of informal associations in the mobilisation of rural savings and in economic development in Nigeria, Jerome (1991) posits that these roles are not officially appreciated because of the rudimentary nature of their operations and the lack of legislation guiding and standardising their operations. The gaps unfilled by informal associations are taken over by moneylenders. These charge high interest rates but are willing to lend money at great risk. Eboh et al (1991) attributes this willingness to collateral undervaluation. They recommend channeling of money to individual borrowers through farmers groups and increased availability of loanable funds in rural areas as a means of reducing these high interest rates. Okoria (1986) identified some factors that have effect on loan repayment. These are nature and time of disbursement, profitability of loan receiving enterprise and the number of supervision visits by credit officers after disbursement. Other factors found to influence loan recovery by both institutional and noninstitutional lenders are type of lending institution, amount and type of credit and the socio-political environment in which the institution operates (Okorie and Iheanacho, 1992). The Nigeria Agricultural Cooperative Bank (NACB), now the Nigeria Agricultural Cooperative and Rural Development Bank (NACRDB), was established in 1973 to reduce incidence of credit paucity in the agricultural sector. That the shortage persists reveals that the task is greater than the capacity of the NACRDB, This can be partly attributed to the difference between agricultural sector budgetary requirements and the actual amounts allocated to the sector. Although large farms are better able to obtain credit as they have an edge over small-scale farmers in terms of literacy, size of holding, capital assets and annual income, they repaid only 1% of loans obtained against small farmers who paid back about 34% (Pandey and Yaki, 1989). Data on loan repayment performance is inconsistent and varies from location to location. Njoku and Odii (1991) report repayment performance of 27% in Southeastern Nigeria. They attribute this to low enterprise returns, diversion of loans to non-agricultural enterprises and political consideration in loan approval. In Southwestern Nigeria, Ewuola and Williams (1992) recorded a loan recovery rate of 67%. Enterprise profitability and loan percentage given in kind were significantly and positively correlated to percent of loan recovered. In the mid-1980s, a programme of economic liberalisation was initiated. This involved interest rate deregulation and it was expected that this would make agricultural lending more attractive to rural banks. It did indeed lead to an increase in loan volume and ratio to the agricultural sector (Oyejide, 1991; Olomola, 1994). This increase has however not been sustained (Council for the Development of Social Science Research in Africa, 1998; Ukoha, 1999). Among the reasons given for the unsustainability are poor policy
3

implementation, lack of complementary policy measures to support core policy initiatives and an imprecise agricultural development strategy during the period of reforms. It was also felt that the Structural Adjustment Programme over-emphasised the divestment of the government from agriculture to the detriment of the takeover of the sector by the private sector, thus making the sector compete unfairly with more developed, but less strategic, sectors. Several recommendations have been made in respite of increasing credit availability to farmers. These include disbursement of loans in kind, the adoption of informal agencies loan recovery strategies and the involvement of credit agencies in marketing of farm produce (Olomola, 1989; Okorie and Iheanacho, 1992). It is also advocated that formal institutions target their borrowers properly as this would ensure that credit gets to the most needy borrowers (International Livestock Research Institute, 1998). Jabbar et al (2002) also recommend inventory finance for community level input suppliers and service provides. METHODOLOGY Secondary data were used for this study. The data were obtained from the Central Bank of Nigeria, the Nigerian Agricultural Cooperative and Rural Development Bank and the records of the Agricultural Credit Guarantee Scheme. These data covered both the period since the inception of the ACGS till 2000 and all the states in the country. In analysing the data, simple descriptive statistics such as means and percentages were used. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Trend in number and sizes of loans Table 1 shows the trend in the number and volume of loans guaranteed by the ACGS between inception and 2000. From Table 1, it is obvious that lending rates did not have any obvious effect on the number and amount of loans granted the agricultural sector. Number of loans granted rose steadily between 1978 and 1989, after which it started dropping. This fall could be attributed to the deterioration in Nigerias economic environment, arising from the deregulation of the mid-1980s. A similar scenario was witnessed in respect of the amount of loans granted. Since 1990, however, loan volumes have since increased and have even surpassed pre-1989 levels. The opposite holds for the average value of loan obtained by each farmer. It fell consistently from 1978 to 1990 before it started increasing to the average N25, 600 currently being lent to each farmer. This is a good development, in the face of rising cost of farm inputs, and should be continued to the extent that borrowed funds can make substantial impact on farmers activities and effect growth in their operations.
4

Lending by purpose Table 2 presents the sub-sectoral breakdown of ACGS guaranteed loans. The breakdown, as seen in Table 2, provides an insight both into the structure of farming in Nigeria and the sub sector of agriculture that the government feels is most important with respect to sectoral funds allocation. The food crop sector is apportioned about three-quarters of all guaranteed loans. This is in line with successive administrations focus on food self-sufficiency. The livestock and cash crop sub-sectors come a distant second place to the food crops sub-sector. This is also consistent with government programmes which emphasise the development of agriculture for commercial purposes and the provision of raw materials for industries. Livestock development programmes are encouraged as these would help the country meet the protein needs of the populace. Loan beneficiaries A breakdown of the different classes of loan beneficiaries is presented in Table 3. Individual farmers were consistently the major beneficiaries of the credit guarantee scheme. This is attributable to the smallholder structure of Nigerian agriculture. Also, the size of the loans is most beneficial to small farmers. At the beginning of the scheme in 1978, companies were the second largest beneficiary of the scheme with regards to number of loans but have since 1989 been supplanted by cooperatives. They however do receive larger amount in loan guarantees from the ACGS. Lending by state Tables 4 and 5 present a detailed analysis of the number and value of loans guaranteed by the ACGS to the different states in Nigeria since its inception in 1978. Data could not be stated for some states before then because they were not created until late 1996. In respect of number of loans, major beneficiary states of the ACGS from 1978 to 2000 were Anambra, Bauchi, Borno, Kaduna, Katsina, Niger and Sokoto. Bauchi, Kaduna, Katsina, Niger and Oyo benefited more from the ACGS in respect of value of loans. Expectedly, the new states had benefited the least from ACGS activities, because of the relative difference in their age with respect to the older existing states. In 2000, Sokoto, Katsina and Benue States had the largest number of beneficiaries while Sokoto, Oyo, Ogun, Niger, Kwara, Kogi, Katsina, Bayelsa and Bauchi States received the greatest benefit from the ACGS in terms of value of loan guaranteed. The tilt of the ACGS, towards the northern states could be as a result of the relative importance of farming in that part of the country. However, it could also be as a result of the better performance of loan beneficiaries from that part of the country in the regards to loan repayment. From table 6, Sokoto, Niger, Katsina and Bauchi performed better than other states in repaying the loans guaranteed by the scheme.
5

THE NEED TO REVIEW THE SCHEME In informal interviews with ACGS personnel, several problems have been identified as hampering the operations of the scheme. Some of these problems are; Increasing incidence of loan defaults: As seen from Table 6, the rate of loan repayment by ACGS beneficiaries is very low. Reasons adduced to this are natural disasters, poor farm management, low product prices, loan diversion, deliberate refusal to pay and the inability of farmers to assess loan requirements properly, leading to farmers receipt of inadequate or excessive loans. Bank-related problems: Participatory banks in the ACGS do not cooperate fully in lending to farmers. Because of the high cost of processing loans relative to the actual loans, and the high default rate of the farmers, many banks prefer to pay a penalty than risk lending their funds to agriculture. Also, the banks also fault the farmers for submitting incomplete application forms and the failure of the ACGS to deliver on its loan guarantees as reasons for their reluctance to lend to agriculture. In instances where the loans are actually disbursed, the credit arrives too late for it to fulfil the purpose for which it was intended. Government-related problems: While the farmers accuse the commercial banks of frustrating their creditseeking efforts, they (the banks) in turn blame the Central Bank of Nigeria. The delay in loan disbursements is due to the failure of the CBN to return the guarantee loans on time. Also, the low number of beneficiaries relative to the number of possible beneficiaries is attributed to the failure of government agencies to extend their rural branch network to enable the scheme reach more people. CONCLUSION It was established that lending rates have no obvious effect on agricultural sector lending. The deterioration in the economy has however reduced number and type of loans granted under the scheme. Expectedly, the food crop sub-sector received the largest share of loans, and individual farmers received the most loans. Also, farmers from Northern Nigeria had the highest loan allocations and were also the most faithful in loan repayments. The issues that need to be addressed for the scheme to remain relevant are:

reduction of loan repayment default; ensure timely disbursement of loans; increasing the frequency of loan monitoring visits; government agencies should fulfill guarantee agreements with commercial banks and proper assessment of farmers credit needs.

REFERENCES Agricultural Credit Guarantee Scheme. Various Issues. Annual Report and Statement of Accounts. Garki, Abuja. Ajetomobi, J.O. and F. I. Olagunju. 2000. Focus on Informal Systems of Saving Mobilisation among Small-scale Farmers in Nigeria: Survey Findings. Journal of Financial Management and Analysis 13:2, 4953. Ajobo, O. and A.E. Oguntade. 1996. Does an Agricultural Financial Institution Pay Attention to Organic Economic Development? A Case Study. Journal of Financial Management and Analysis. 9:2, 52-58. Badru, P. 1997. World Bank and Peasant Agriculture in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Case Study of Agricultural Development Projects in Southeast Nigeria. Scandinavian Journal of Development Alternatives and Area Studies: 16:2, 55-79. Central Bank of Nigeria. Various Issues. Annual Report and Statement of Accounts. Abuja, Nigeria. Council for the Development of Social Science Research in Africa. 1998. Structural Adjustment and Agriculture in West Africa.in T. Tshibaka (ed.) CODESRIA Book Series. Eboh, E.C., O. Ugama and O. Okereke. 1991. Nigerian Village Money Lenders and their Usurious Interest Rates: An Analysis of Intervening Factors. Savings and Development 15:4, 13-23. Ewuola, S.O. and S.K.T. Williams. 1992. Determination of Loan Recovery in Public Credit Institutions. The Case of Ondo State, Nigeria. Journal of Rural Development 11:1, 113-119. International Livestock Research Institute. 1998. Role of Credit in the Uptake and Productivity of Improved Dairy Technologies in Sub-saharan Africa in Freeman H. A., M. A. Jabbar and S.K. Ehri (eds) Socioeconomic and Policy Research Working Papers, ILRI, Ethiopia. Jabbar, M.A., S.K. Ehui and R. von Kaufmann. 2002. Supply and Demand for Livestock Credit in Subsaharan Africa: Lessons for Designing New Credit Schemes. World Development, 30:6, 1029-1042. Jerome, T.A. 1991. The Role of Rotating Saving and Credit Associations in Mobilising Domestic Savings in Nigeria. Savings and Development suppl. 2, 115-127. Njoku, J. E, and M.A.C.A.Odii. 1991. Determinants of Loan Repayment under the Special Emergency Loan Scheme (SEALS) in Nigeria: A Case Study of Imo State. Savings and Development suppl. 1, 39-52. Nweze, N. J. 1994. Indigenous Financial Practices Among Farmers in Nigeria. Indigenous Knowledge and Development Monitor 2:2, p 4-5. Obeta, M.E. 1992. Agricultural Credit in Nigeria: Performance at Farm Level. African Review of Money Finance and Banking 2: 173-184. Odoemenem, I.U. 1991. The Relationship of Farmer Goals and Other Factors to Credit Use in Anambra State, Nigeria. Beitrage zur Tropischen landwirtschaft and Veterinarmedizin 29:3, 267-276. Okoria, A. 1986. Major Determinants of Agricultural Smallholder Loan Repayment in a Developing Economy: Empirical Evidence from Ondo State, Nigeria. Savings and Development 10:1, 89-99.

Okorie, A. and A.C. Iheanacho. 1992. Agricultural Loan Recovery Strategies in a Developing Economy: A Case Study of Imo State, Nigeria. African Review of Money and Financial Banking 2, 195-202. Olomola, A.S. 1989. Dimensions of Institutional and Policy Deficiencies in the Nigeria Agricultural Credit System. Development Policy Review 7:2, 171-183. Olomola, A.S. 1994. Changes in Rural and Agricultural Credit Polices under Structural Adjustment in Nigeria. Quarterly Journal of International Agriculture 33:1, 23-24. Oyejide, T.A. 1991. Structural Adjustment and its Implications for Financing Small Enterprises in Nigeria. Small Enterprise Development 2:4, 115-127. Pandey, U.K. and A. Yaki. 1989. Loan Delinquency among Borrowers of Nigerian Agricultural Cooperative Bank. Indian Cooperative Review 26:4, 442-454. Udry, C. 1990. Credit Markets in Northern Nigeria: Credit as Insurance in a Rural Economy. World Bank Economic Review 4:3, 251-269. Ukoha, O.O. 1999. Macroeconomic Policy and the Effects on Agricultural Output in Nigeria: Issues in African Rural Development. Monograph Series, Winrock International.

Table 1: Trend in Interest Rates and ACGS Loans: 1978-2000 Year Interest Rate Number of Loans Amount of Loan (Percent) Granted Granted(N 000) 1978 5-6 341 11,284.4 1979 5-6 1,105 33,596.7 1980 6-6 945 30,945.0 1981 5-6 1,295 35,642.4 1982 6-7 1,076 31,763.9 193 6-7 1,333 36,307.5 1984 6-7 1,642 24,307.5 1985 8-9 3,337 44,243.6 1986 10-11 5,203 68,417.4 1987 10-11 16,209 102,152.4 1988 12-13 24,538 118,611.0 1989 12-13 34,538 118,611.0 1990 15-17 30,704 98,494.4 1992 15-16 21,206 88,031.8 1993 15-16 15,514 80,845.8 1994 15-16 16,572 103,186.0 1995 15-16 18,079 164,162.1 1996 15-16 19,036 225,502.5 1997 15-16 17,840 242,038.2 1998 15-16 14,637 215,697.2 1999 15-16 12,859 246,082.5 2000 15-16 14,102 361,450.4 TOTAL 5-17 29,105 2,574,517.9 Source: (i) Nigerian Agricultural Cooperative Bank (ii) CBN Annual Report and Statement of Accounts

Average Loan per Farmer (N 000) 33.1 30.4 32.7 27.5 29.5 27.2 27.2 13.3 13.1 6.3 4.8 4.8 3.2 4.2 5.0 6.2 9.1 11.8 13.6 14.7 19.1 25.6 352.8

Table 2: Total Loans Guaranteed by Purpose 1978-2000 Purpose Total Number % of Total Total Value ( N 000) of Loans LIVESTOCK Poultry 5610 1.8 285,216.4 Cattle 4954 1.6 67,552.4 Sheep/ Goats 1189 0.4 12,061.6 Others 1232 0.4 18,672.2 Sub-Total MIXED FARMING FOOD CROPS Grains Tubers and Roots Sub Total CASH CROPS Oil Palm Rubber Cocoa Cotton Groundnut 12,985 6234 209,093 55,886 264,981 260 37 2,157 4,294 5,780 4.2 1.0 67.9 18.1 86.0 0.09 0.01 0.7 1.4 1.9 393,7502.6 34,758.6 1,478,57.3 285,736.0 1,864,293.3 13,997.2 2,270.0 13,968,2 49,567.6 30.481.6

% of Total 11.1 2.6 0.5 1.1 15.3 1.7 57.4 15.0 72.4 0.5 0.1 0.5 1.9 1.2

Sub- Total 12,528 4.1 110,285.6 4.3 OTHERS 13,938 4.5 139,037.2 5.4 TOTAL 308,207 100.0 2.574,517.9 100.0 Source: Compiled from ACGS Annual Reports and Statement of Accounts (1978-2000)

10

TABLE 3: ACGS Loans by Form of Business Organisation of BorrowersS 1978-2000 Year Individuals Informal Groups Co-operatives Companies Number Amount Number Member Amount Number Amount Number Amount 1978 300 4,873.7 12 1,880.9 29 4,529.8 1979 1,008 13,036.2 30 1,926.3 67 18.6342 1980 852 13,522.3 22 626.9 71 16,795.8 1981 1,205 17,813.4 28 796.1 62 17,032.9 1982 1,013 16,117.7 10 `474.0 53 15,172.2 1983 1,248 14,197.8 12 609.9 73 21,499.8 1984 1,563 9,853.9 9 377.0 70 14,424.1 1985 3,219 19,407.7 15 702,.0 103 24,133.9 1986 5,001 25,643.3 33 1,099.1 169 41,675.0 1987 15,960 54,897.2 113 4379.0 136 42,876.3 1988 24,352 80,078.9 90 4,166.3 96 34,365.8 1989 34,354 104,329.0 95 4,677.8 69 20,293.5 1990 30,516 86,213.3 163 5,933.5 25 6,3347.8 1991 21,889 69,932.9 100 5338.7 25 5,624.4 1992 21,048 75,5491 137 6,858.3 21 3,539.4 1993 15,329 68,2571 171 9,048.5 14 7,734.0 1994 16,395 86,451.9 146 9,0001 31 12,098.0 1995 17,849 132,778,3 207 19,285.8 23 11,252.5 1996 18,698 179,824.7 319 34,425.4 19 15,456.7 1997 16,957 18,686.0 24 315 7,516.5 532 34,379.0 39 14,72770 1998 14,459 190,305.2 16 39 1,705.0 77 8,960.0 62 8,905.0 1999 12,367 193,501.0 10 82 1,351.0 361 42,325.5 49 4,340.0 2000 13,875 324,187.4 66 66 9,995.0 148 22,928.0 13 368,293.5 TOTAL 289,457 1,965,4588 116 502 20,567.5 2830 220,1981 1,316 14.3 98.4 76.3 0.2 0.8 1.0 8.6 0.4 14.3 Source: Computed from Agricultural Credit Guarantee Scheme Fund Annual Report and Statement of Account, 2000

Total Number 341 1,105 945 1,295 1,076 1,333 1,642 3,337 5,203 16,209 24,538 34,518 30,704 22,014 21,206 15,514 16,572 18,079 19036 17,840 14,637 12,859 14,102 294,105 100.0

Amount 11,284.4 33,596.7 30,945.0 35,642.4 31,763.9 36,307.5 24,654.9 44,243.6 68,417.4 102,152.5 118,611.0 129,300.3 98,494.4 82,107.4 88,031.8 80,845.8 103,186.0 164,162.1 226,502.5 242,038.2 215,697.2 246,082.5 361,450.4 2,574,517.9 100.0

11

Table 4: Number of Loans Guaranteed by the ACGS by State (1996-2000) State Number of Loans Pre-1996 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 ABUJA FCT 1180 200 371 506 520 490 ABIA 750 152 61 111 94 163 ADAMAWA 7217 1,071 585 398 280 213 AKWA-IBOM 681 233 106 295 424 326 ANAMBRA 14859 1,069 666 386 388 224 BAUCHI 17269 438 314 316 499 BAYELSA 230 2 2 20 74 BENUE 9823 484 765 436 740 1,826 BORNO 15351 528 544 61 107 81 CROSS-RIVER 4068 528 635 199 224 200 DELTA 296 64 55 5 37 40 EBONYI 107 105 81 282 EDO 8527 152 171 138 95 43 EKITI 60 99 109 3 ENUGU 1695 304 230 203 133 132 GOMBE 525 75 119 104 IMO 5215 89 193 239 200 7 JIGAWA 184 334 213 127 12 9 KADUNA 18597 2,357 1,410 1,370 744 961 KANO 9883 579 530 451 744 429 KATSINA 9488 2,005 1,229 1,630 1,398 1005 KEBBI 2367 855 865 541 789 408 KOGI 1543 460 681 666 397 632 KWARA 7633 672 656 469 248 660 LAGOS 1983 117 463 455 529 199 NASARAWA 290 281 33 568 NIGER 13072 1,839 1541 1,733 858 962 OGUN 3752 167 308 383 305 448 ONDO 4876 292 198 187 150 146 OSUN 781 237 190 92 173 245 OYO 6688 520 649 319 393 318 PLATEAU 7987 621 875 490 330 235 RIVERS 2830 58 59 135 146 50 SOKOTO 22777 1,438 853 1,104 1,079 1305 TARABA 1213 508 397 319 238 358 YOBE 3171 959 669 8 119 48 ZAMFARA 250 308 286 308 TOTAL 215631 19,036 17840 14,637 12,859 14102 Source: ACGS Annual Report and Statement of Accounts 2000

1978-2000 3267 1331 9864 2065 16875 19805 98 13910 16628 5854 470 576 9126 271 2697 820 5943 879 25439 12616 16753 5825 4379 10338 3746 1172 30005 5363 5849 1718 8887 10538 3278 28556 3033 4974 1152 294105

% 1.1 0.5 3.4 0.7 5.7 6.7 0.0 4.7 5.6 1.9 0.2 0.2 3.1 0.1 0.9 0.3 2.0 0.3 8.6 4.2 5.6 1.9 1.5 3.5 1.3 0.4 10.2 1.8 20 0.6 3.0 3.6 1.1 9.7 1.0 1.7 0.3 100.0

12

Table 5: Value of Loans Guaranteed by ACGS in Various States 1996-2002 States Amount (N000) Pre-1996 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 ABUJA FCT 588.0 2,134.7 4643.0 4,646.5 8,202.5 13,232.0 ABIA 4944.7 1,381.5 933.0 3,161.5 1,744.0 4,580.0 ADAMAWA 47249.8 14,896.7 11,111.7 8,256.0 10.260.0 9,881.0 AKWA-IBOM 5733.5 3.230.8 1,462.0 2,754.5 7,614.0 7,949.0 ANAMBRA 81290.7 3,746.0 7,501.0 4,994.2 8,036.0 4,916.0 BAUCH 93454.9 19,107.9 6,734.0 4,493.0 4,443.0 16,013.0 BAYELSA 29.0 50.0 275.0 1,642.2 BENUE 41515.2 3,500.3 7,116.5 3,839.0 9,808.0 27,662.0 BORNO 48466.4 4,857.0 7,401.0 854.0 2,972.0 2,847.0 CROSS-RIVER 29269.5 5,088.5 9,011.5 3,105.0 3,278.0 4,300.0 DELTA 3346 826.0 2,145.0 289.0 1,120.0 1,865.0 EBONYI 1762.0 1,357.0 1,547.0 6,814.0 EDO 86193.2 2,032.0 2,910.0 2,814.0 2,335.0 2,275.0 EKITI 1,190.0 895.5 1,543.0 130.0 ENUGU 11949.9 3,127.5 3,399.7 2,370.0 3,305.0 2,318.0 GOMBE 7,541.5 5,831.2 2,760.0 8,440.0 IMO 40731.3 497.5 2767.3 1,532.0 3,997.0 330.0 JIGAWA 1257 2,183.5 1,977.0 783.0 127.0 813.0 KADUNA 104561.3 24,030.8 19,364.0 25,780.5 11,951.0 13,184.0 KANO 60017.3 8,739.0 7,415.0 6,020.0 9,618.0 8,318.0 KATSINA 57806.7 26,606.0 28,073.0 35,745.9 48,767.0 31,258.0 KEBBI 10809.9 8,931.5 9,433.5 5,382.0 6,717.5 6,090.0 KOGI 7749.2 4,515.5 6,498.0 7,702.0 8,468.0 19,744.0 KWARA 41147.2 6,682.9 6,574.7 5,007.0 4,396.0 17,9060 LAGOS 56578.7 1,892.5 7,103.2 5,860.2 13,517.0 10,050.0 NASSARAWA 1,547.5 1,444.0 165.0 11,360.0 NIGER 90150.8 21,209.1 18,214.6 22,590.2 15,076.9 23,492.9 OGUN 58348.8 4,228.4 3,587.0 7,087.0 6,359.0 15,011.0 ONDO 43831.2 5,861.5 6,349.5 3,198.0 3,415.0 4,777.0 OSUN 6402.6 4,035.5 2,453.0 1,533.0 3,898.0 7,245.0 OYO 74018.2 10,407.5 14,019.0 7,606.0 12,042.0 15,0110 PLATEAU 44084.7 5,308.5 11,212.0 5,951.0 5,285.1 6920.0 RIVERS 25236.3 740.5 886.0 2,293.5 2,714.0 1385.0 77923.3 SOKOTO 9,915.5 7,006.3 8,578.0 10,349.5 33,634.0 TARABA 12159.8 9,206.4 6,031.2 5,885.0 6,395.0 9,020.0 YOBE 12561.7 6,581.5 5,089.0 180.0 967.0 842.0 ZAMFARA 1,546.5 5,828.0 2,615.0 9,268.0
TOTAL 1,283,747.1 225,502.5 242,038.2 215,697.2 246,082.5 361,450.4

1978-2000 38,738.7 16,744.7 101,655.2 28,743.9 110,483.9 144,245.8 1,996.2 93,441.0 67,397.4 54,052.5 9,591.0 11,480.0 98,559.2 3,758.5 26,469.1 24,572.7 49,855.1 7,140.5 198,871.6 100,127.3 228,256.6 47,364.4 54,676.7 81,713.8 95,001.6 14,516.5 190,739.5 190,739.5 94,621.2 67,432.2 25,567.1 133,103.7 78,761.3 33,255.3 147,408.6 48,697.4 26,221.2
19,257.5

% 1.5 0.7 3.9 1.1 4.3 5.6 0.1 3.6 2.6 2.1 0.3 0.4 3.8 0.1 1.0 0.9 1.9 0.3 7.7 3.9 8.9 1.8 2.1 3.2 3.7 0.6 7.4 3.6 2.6 0.9 5.2 3.1 1.3 3.7 1.9 1.0 0.7
100.0

Source: ACGS Annual Report and Statement of Accounts, 2000

13

Table 6: Cumulative Fully Repaid Loans under the ACGS by State 1978-2000 State Number Amount % of Total Number ABUJA FCT 3,014 23,427.6 1.6 ABIA 1,985 14,594.1 1.0 ADAMAWA 7,873 61,920.6 4.1 AKWA-IBOM 1,613 14,307.3 0.8 ANAMBRA 8,031 57,134.9 4.2 BAUCHI 12,901 87,219.2 6.7 BAYELSA 2 29.0 0.0 BENUE 6,404 31,272.2 3.3 BORNO 8,281 37,947.2 4.3 CROSS-RIVER 3,830 26,895.7 2.0 DELTA 590 18,202.6 0.3 EBONYI 392 5,428.3 0.2 EDO 2,134 44,776.5 1.1 EKITI 211 2,605.1 0.1 ENUGU 3,701 25,492.4 1.9 GOMBE 399 15,772.0 0.2 IMO 2,800 19,915.4 1.5 JIGAWA 533 3,085.6 0.3 KADUNA 11,487 84,700.7 6.0 KANO 8,127 54,890.9 4.2 KATSINA 16,014 153,159.0 8.3 KEBBI 5,593 35,191.9 2.9 KOGI 4,214 29,723.0 2.2 KWARA 6,544 38,847.9 3.4 LAGOS 1,413 29,626.8 0.7 NASARAWA 455 2,350.0 0.2 NIGER 26,727 134,470.9 13.9 OGUN 2,280 51,824.9 1.2 ONDO 2,120 32,375.8 1.1 OSUN 1,183 16,277.2 0.6 OYO 3,689 61,430.3 1.9 PLATEAU 4,593 30,598.6 2.4 RIVERS 1,152 15,359.6 0.6 SOKOTO 21,873 85,552.7 11.4 TARABA 3,322 39,688.2 1.7 YOBE 5,159 19,496.9 2.7 ZAMFARA 1,673 15,124.5 0.9 TOTAL 192,715.5 1,420715.5 100.0 Source: ACGS Annual Report and Statement of Accounts, 2000

% of Total Amount 1.6 1.0 4.4 1.0 1.0 6.1 0.0 2.2 2.7 1.9 1.3 0.4 3.2 0.2 1.8 1.1 1.4 0.2 6.0 3.9 10.8 2.5 2.1 2.7 2.1 0.2 9.5 3.6 2.3 1.1 4.3 2.2 1.1 6.0 2.8 1.4 1.1 100.0

14