Kaduna State Infrastructure Master Plan

DRAFT FOR PUBLIC CONSULTATION

I. Forward/Message from the Governor
II. Acknowledgement/Message from the Commissioner MoBP
III. Table of Contents
IV. List of Tables
V. List of Figures
VI. Acronyms
VII. Overview/Executive Summary
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION ONE: INTRODUCTION
Context
Kaduna State Profile
Economic Development and Strategic Opportunities
Objectives of the Plan
Linkage to State Development Plan (SDP) 2016-2020
Linkage to Sector Implementation Plans
Linkage to National Strategic Objectives
Linkage to Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
SECTION TWO: STATE INFRASTRUCTURE TARGETS AND INVESTMENTS

Infrastructure targets and investments: Pillars and Sectors
Infrastructure targets and investment: pillar 1: Economic
Critical role of the energy sector
Transportation-Urban and rural, inter-state and potentially, international
Industry, commerce and Tourism
Environment and Natural Resources
Water Sanitation and Drainage
Integrated rural infrastructure provision
SECTION THREE: INVESTMENTS BY LOCAL GOVERNMENT

3.1 LGA current state and economic priorities
3.1.1 Local Economic Development-Infrastructure Interface

3.1.2 LGA current state in Kaduna State
Roads
Housing
Portable water supply
Power supply (electricity)
Health
Education
3.2 Infrastructure Investment Levels Required
SECTION FOUR: ECOLOGICAL MODELLING AND SOCIAL IMPACTS CHARTER OF

KADIMP
4.1 Summary of the Ecological Modelling of KADIMP
4.2 Social Impacts Charter of KADIMP: Gender, Social Inclusion (G & SI) and
Youth
Situation overview
Gender & Social Inclusion (G & SI) policy context
KADIMP G & SI broad principles and commitments
Integrating Gender & Social Inclusion Compliance in KADIMP
Scenarios Design
SECTION FIVE: PARTICIPATORY KADIMP SCENARIOS DESIGN

A. Introduction
Realism in capital budgeting needed
B. Short to Medium-Term Scenarios
C. Long-Term Strategic Goals to Economic Development
SECTION SIX: FINANCING PLAN

Overview
Kaduna State Budget for 2016 and 2017-2019 Multi-Year
Sources of Funding for 2016 and 2017 Budgets
Review of the 2017 Budget’s Revenue and Expenditure Estimates
Revenue Expenditure Outlook for 2018-2020
External Debt of Kaduna State
Private Sector Participation
State Government’s Efforts to increase Private Sector Participation
Ease of doing business- World Bank Ranking of Kaduna City
Public-Private Partnerships

Solid minerals sector
Funding options for 2021-2050: A broad perspective
Annex 1: Extracts from KADIPA Website

Annex 2: Regulatory framework for Public Private Partnership in Nigeria:
Extracts from Website of International Law Firm, Bird and Bird
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1.1: Projected population for Kaduna State Local Government Areas in
2016
Table 1:2 Estimates population of the main towns and cities in Kaduna State
in 2016
Table 1.3: Kaduna State poverty situation at a glance (% of population)
Table 1:4 Kaduna State- Key health indices
Table 1.5: Making Kaduna great again- Four strategic and priority areas
Table 2.1: State Development Plan Pillars and Sectors
Table 2.2: Water source, treatment plant and capacity utilization of
waterworks
Table 3.1: Sources of electricity (%)
Table 3.2: Antenatal care and satisfaction with health facility
Table 3.3: Highest school completion grade (%)
Table 3.4: Kaduna State Budgetary Allocations 2017 to pro-poor programmes
and infrastructure development
Table 4.1: Gender, Social Inclusion and Youth – KADIMP Scenarios Design
Interface
Table 6.1: Kaduna State Budgets for 2016 – 2017 (Naira billion)
Table 6.2: Summary of Kaduna State Budget 2016 and 2017 line items (Naira
billion)
Table 6.3: Kaduna State External Debt Burden
Table 6.4:
Table 6.5: Extracts from World Bank ‘Doing business 2012’ Report
comparison of Kaduna City with other Nigerian cities (2014 data)
Table 6.6: Extracts from World Bank ‘Doing business 2012’ Report
comparison of Kaduna City with Sub-Saharan African and OECD
countries (2014 data relating to starting a business)
Table 6.7 Long-term funding options- Summary of opportunities and
challenges
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1: Location of Kaduna State in Nigeria

Figure 1.2 Administrative map of Kaduna State
Figure 1.3: Kaduna State showing key transport networks and main
settlements
Figure 1.4: [Projected total population in Kaduna State: 2016-2050
Figure 1.5: Kaduna State urban areas and rural population density by LGA
(2016 estimates)
Figure 1.6: Kaduna State GDP by major economic sector in 2015
Figure 1.7: Specific objectives of KSIMP: 2050
Figure 1.8: KSIMP: 2050 and SDP: 2016-2020 Interface
Figure 1.9: Elements underpinning sustainable Development
Figure 2.1: National road infrastructure status: Kaduna is highly strategically
located but a major challenge
Figure 2.2: Kaduna is a major node in Nigeria’s power grid, railway and oil
pipeline networks
Figure 2.3: Roads categorized by surface type and class
Figure 2.4: Prime farmland
Figure 2.5: Major infrastructure and indicative priority agricultural zones
Figure 2.6: Water resources and drainage
Figure 3.1: Five key characteristics of local economic development
Figure 3.2: The LED process
Figure 3.3: Access to motorable roads in Kaduna State
Figure 3.4: Types of toilet facilities used
Figure 4.1: Scope of KADIMP on gender, social inclusion and youth
Figure 4.2: KADIMP G & SI broad principles
BOXES
Box 1.1: Three channels off non-poor growth
Box 2.1: Pampaida MillenniumVillage Project
APPENDICES
Appendix 2.1: Sector overviews based on Strategic Implementation
Plans
Appendix3.1: Access to motorable road
Appendix 3.2: Types of toilet facilities used (%)
Appendix 3.3: Access to improved source of drinking water

Appendix 3.4: Providers responsible for main source of drinking water
Appendix 3.5: Experiencing problem with Kaduna State Water Board
(%)
Appendix 3.6: Sources of electricity supply (%)
Appendix 3.7: Female without antenatal care during pregnancy
Appendix 3.8: Level of satisfaction with health facility
Appendix 3.9: Highest school completion grade (%)
Appendix 3.10: Proficiency standard in reading (%)
Appendix 3.11: Type of drainage system used (%)
Appendix 3.12: Type of refuse collection used (%)
Appendix 3:13 Budgetary allocation to LGAs in Kaduna State in 2016
Appendix 4.1: Ecological modeling of infrastructure development in
Kaduna State
Appendix A: Final and Approved Questionnaire for KADIMP

Appendix B: Summary of Responses form Respondents on
KADIMP
Appendix C: Sample of Priority Projects of Local Governments in
Kaduna State
Appendix D: Infrastructure Projects Disclosed base on Responses
to Questionnaire

SECTION ONE
INTRODUCTION

Kaduna State Profile

Kaduna State1 is one of the thirty-six states in North Central geo-political zone of Nigeria.
Historically, the State first came into existence in 1976, when the then North Central State with
capital at Kaduna was renamed Kaduna State. In 1987, however, the Katsina Province of the
State was carved out and it became the present Katsina State, leading to the birth of the
present Kaduna State. The State shares common borders with Zamfara, Katsina, Niger, Kano,
Bauchi, Nasarawa, Plateau States, and the Federal Capital Territory. The total landmass of the
State is estimated at 46,053 sq km, which is about 5% of the total land area of Nigeria.

Figure 1.1: Location of Kaduna State in Nigeria. Source: NEMA
1
The nickname for Kaduna State is Centre of Learning. Formerly, it was Liberal State.
2

The state is divided into three senatorial zones, Kaduna North, Kaduna Central and Kaduna
South. There are twenty three(23) Local Government Areas(see Figure 1.2)2, forty-six (46) Local
Development Areas (LDAs), and two hundred and fifty-five (255) political wards.3.The areas
include the urban local governments of Kaduna North and Kaduna South, the predominantly
urban local government of Zaria and Sabon Gari and the rapidly developing urban peripheral
areas in the mainly rural LGAs ofIgabi to the north and west and Chikun to the south and east of
the capital.
Figure 1.2: Administrative map of Kaduna State
Major Rivers in Kaduna State are the Kaduna, Kogum, Gurara, Matsirga and Galma Rivers.
Kaduna State experiences a tropical continental climate with two distinct seasonal climates, dry
and rainy seasons. The rainfall in the wet season (May to October) is much heavier in the
southern part of the state than in the north, and the north is also experiencing more serious
water shortage problems than the north, especially in Igabi, Giwa, Soba, Makarfi and Ikara
LGAs.
2
The Local Government Areas are Birnin Gwari, Chikun, Giwa, Igabi, Ikara, Jaba, Jema’a, Kachia, Kaduna North,
Kaduna South, Kagarko, Kajuru, Kaura, Kauru, Kubau, Kudan, Lere, Makarfi, Sabon Gari, Sanga, Soba, Zangon Kataf
and Zaria
3
NPC (2009)
3

The capital Kaduna is well connected with most state capitals in the region and is still widely
regarded as the political center of northern Nigeria. These advantages have contributed to the
wider Kaduna metropolitan area experiencing rapid growth in recent years with a subsequent
significant increase in urban sprawl.

µ
F 2 44
F 21
8
Kaduna State Infrastructure Master Plan
5°0'0"E 10°0'0"E
GUSAU
A2
9
A
Base Map
10°0'0"N
10°0'0"N
A1 26
A2
F128
F128
F128
KANO
5°0'0"N
5°0'0"N
A
A2
23
5°0'0"E 10°0'0"E
7
F216
F 128
28
F1
A12
6
21
F
A2
Paki
!
H
Auchan Ungwan Ahyaya

!
H
Makarfi (
!
!
H Soko
(
! A2
A12 Gangara Kunkumi
Tambanni 6!
( Gimi Meyere!
H Saulawo
(
! !
H !
H (
!
Dan Mahawayi Ruma
Giwa (
! Kudan
(
!
(
!
Makarfi
!
H
Kwadaga Yakawada Hunkuyi Kudan Ikara
(
! Kandawa Kaya !
H
F2
(16
! !
H Ungwan Shehu !
( !
H (
! Gubuchi
Guga Lafiya !
H
Sabon Kuyelo (
!
!
H F2
Kwiello Shika Likoro Kurmin Kogi 4 3
(
! !
H !
H
Fatika
!
H Basawa Ikara
!
H S a b !(o n!( - G a r i Ricifa
(
! Gobirawa
!
H
Samaru (
!
Sabon(
pGari
Giwa Kundum !
H Bagaldi
(
!
(
!
Farin Ruwa Zaria Turawa
A2
(
!
Kadaura Kidandan !
H (
!
(
! Dogon Dawa (
! Yakasai !
!
H Zaria
H Maigana Kargi
!
H
Birnin Gwari !
H !
H
Kazegi
F 216
(
! Soba
A!
(
(
!
Kerawa
Soba Anchau
23
Dunki (
! !
H Bugau
6
Bula (
! Matari Takalafia (
!
(
! Zangwan Aya (
!
(
!
Raha Damau
(
! !
H
Kabango Birni-Gwari (
!
Mazakari
Dutsan Wai Kubau
(
! Garun Gwanki !
H
(
p !(Jaji (
! Leren Dutse
F243
(
!
Nasari
Igabi Kwinte (
!
Birnin (
! (
! Kubau
Yero Ungwan Kanawa (
!
Mando Muya
(
! Tungan
Rafin (
! Igabi (
!
Kan Gimi
(
!
Zuntu Dutsen
A11 Giginia
Kakangi Kwaga Taba Rafingyeda (
!
Gamagira
!
H (
!
(
! Gidan Gayan
H Turunku
(
! (
! Koriga
(
!
! !
H
(
(
! Katabu !
H
Ukinkina
Birnin Gwari o (
!
A11
Bawa Pambeguwa !
HA23 6
(
! !
H Zankoro !
H
25
Maje Kadaru
A125
(
! Rigachikun
A1
Ganga ! (
!
!
H !
H Murai
( Buruku (
!
!
H
Yar Kasua
(
!
Dawakin Bassa (
pKawo
(
! Gwaraji
Kajuru (
!
Randagi (
! !
H
Kaduna
A2
!
H
North Dan Alhaji
!
H
Tudun Quardo
(
!
H!( KADUNA
Kaduna North ! Kayarda
Damba !
H
(
! !
H Kaduna Kujama
Apewohe
KadunaSouth
(
! !
H Kware A2
36
(
! South Kakuri A235 (
!
Saminaka
Ligari Kasuwan !
H
(
! Ungwan Kurama Rahama
Magani !
H (
!
!
H Lere
(
!
Chikun Asham
Lere
25
Gure
A1 Dutsi II Kauru (
!
!
H
Kajina
(
!
(
!
(
p Kabai !
H Kufana Kauru Mai Binda
(
!
Pamayaji
(
!
(
! !
H
Chikun
(
! Gwagwada
Kajuru Ramin Kura Bauda
A23 (
!
(
!
!
H 5
!
Kurmi
Gidan Barde H
(
!
Gutkelmi
(
! Garun Kurama
!
H
Wuya Kabene
(
! (
!
Katerma Geshare Balo
!
H (
!
A2
(
!
Idon
!
H
A10
Achi Gidan Gajere
(
! (
!
Kanjul Kurmin Biri
(
! !
H Mariri
!
H
A236
2 35
Damakasuwa
Gidan Alkali
(
!
A
Zangon Kataf Fadan Ikulu
!
H
!
H
!
H
Fadan Chawai
Doka Bororu
!
H !
H
Kamuru
Kachia !
H
Gidan Liman
!
H Gumel II
F1
6 (
! (
! Zango Kataf
Kachia
2
(
!
Fadan !
H
Zonkwa
F2 15
Kamantan
Rafin Dinya !
H Pari
(
! Samaru Kataf (
!
!
H
Dagwarga
(
! Gidan Tagwai Tsorinyang Tum
27
Katari !
H !
H ! H
F1
!
H Kwaturu
A235
F126 Matagami Manchok

A2
!
H Jaban Kogo Mallagum !
Zaku ! ( !
F127H
Gantan Sabon Sarki !
H (
H Madakiya
!
!
H
(
! !
H
Gidan Mana !
H Gidan Jibir Kaura
MINNA K a u!
Hr a
!
H Zankan
Bishini Gyani ! Kagoro !
H
H Kurmin Musa !
H
!
H H !
Kurmin Jatau
Jere !
H
!
H
!
H H Rimi
!
Kenyi Pangajere Sabon Chori Kafanchan
!
H (
! !
H
Kagarko Akote Fadan Kagoma Tajan Kasa !

(
!
H (
!
Jaba Fori
!
H A3
Katugal !
H Jema'a
Kagarko !
H
!
H
(
!
A235
Kubacha Kwoi Samba Aso Godogodo
Ida (
! (
!
Adure
!
H !
H !
H
(
!
F126
Jagindi Fadan Karshi
Ankung !
H !
H
!
H Nungu
A2
Tafa
!
H Keya
( !
! (
Jema'a (
!
Kirki
F238
Badde
!
H
Mayir
Gwantu
H Sanga
!
H
!
Worra Anji
(
! (
! Agameti
Legend
24
Fadan Wate (
!
A1
Anzere (
!
(
! Randa
A23 !
H
A2
4
"
F240
State capital
ABUJA
A3
A124 F241
38
!
H LGA Hqtrs.
1
F2
4
F2
H
! Other Designated Urban Areas
F221
(
!
Major settlements
A234 A234 F125
(
p Airstrip
(
o Domestic airport
21
F2
A2
Rail line
F1
Federal Trunk A or F road
24
F124
Graded road
3 8
A3
F2
Semi graded road

F1
2
F124
4
F124 F124
Rural road
LAFIA
F124
LGA border
1:750,000 (@ A2 size)
F221
Surface water
0 50 100 Km
Urban footprint
A2

Figure 1.3: Kaduna State showing key transport networks and main
settlements
4

By size of population, Kaduna State is the third largest state in Nigeria, after Kano and Lagos
States. Based on 2006 census in Nigeria, the state’s population figure was 6,113,503. Applying
the 3.0% growth rate that was used for the projected population of Kaduna State for 20104, the
projected population of Kaduna State could grow as much as to 22.4 million by year 2050 (see
Figure 1.4) .

Figure 1.4: Projected Total Population in Kaduna State: 2016-2050.
Source: Projections estimated based on 2006 Census Figures and trend growth
rate of 3%
4
See Kaduna State Statistical Year Book, p. 21. Given trends towards falling fertility rates as noted elsewhere,
actual population growth rates may fall over the coming decades resulting in a lower population for the State in
2050 of possibly 15-16 million.

5

The estimated total, urban and rural populations of the 23 local government areas in Kaduna
State are indicated in Table 1.1.5
5
The urban populations are based on OECD-Africapolis estimates of the populations of the built up areas (‘urban
agglomerations’) of settlements with more than 10,000 inhabitants in 2010. Additionally, NIAF estimates for ‘minor
urban centres’ with populations of less than 10,000 have been estimated by NIAF. The minor urban centres are the
additional settlements (often with very small number of inhabitants) classified as Designated Urban Areas in 2015.
6

Area 2016 Estimate

Name of Local Government Total Urban Rural
Birnin Gwari 6,185 349,127 45,354 303,773
Chikun 4,645 502,627 366,302 136,326
Giwa 2,066 394,762 12,500 382,262
Igabi 3727 581,580 314,868 266,712
Ikara 853 262,911 34,102 228,809
Jaba 368 210,084 57,117 152,966
Jema'a 1,661 375,704 161,553 214,151
Kachia 4,632 341,004 69,306 271,698
Kaduna North 72 462,758 462,758 0
Kaduna South 59 511,189 511,189 0
Kagarko 1,864 322,771 53,879 268,891
Kajuru 2,464 148,260 48,792 99,468
Kaura 485 235,777 2,000 233,777
Kauru 2,810 298,762 7,800 290,962
Kubau 2,505 378,993 46,792 332,201
Kudan 400 187,608 600 187,008
Lere 2,158 458,700 18,376 440,324
Makarfi 541 197,904 27,552 170,352
SabonGari 263 393,379 227,516 165,864
Sanga 1,256 204,528 46,854 157,674
Soba 2,234 393,135 31,128 362,008
ZangonKataf 2,668 430,694 66,493 364,201
Zaria 300 504,904 504,904 0
Totals 44,216 8,147,160 3,117,735 5,029,425
Proportion urban/rural 38.3% 61.7%
Table 1.1: Projected population for Kaduna State Local Government Areas in 2016.
Source: Kaduna State government and OECD estimates.
The estimated 2016 populations of the main towns and cities are given in Table 1.2.The State
contains three major urban areas – Kaduna, 1.6 million; Zaria 732,000; and Kafanchan,
143,000). The smaller towns and settlements are often referred to as “semi-urban areas”
indicating that they are in the process of becoming urban.
7

City or town LGA Population

Kaduna Kaduna North & Kaduna South, parts of Chikun and Igabi 1,604,513
Zaria Zaria &parts of SabonGari 732,419
Kafanchan Jema'a 143,013
Kwoi Jaba 55,417
Kachia Kachia 48,954
Gwantu Zaria 45,654
BirninGwari BirninGwari 44,554
Zonkwa BirninGwari 33,966
Soba Soba 30,528
SamaruKataf ZangonKataf 30,528
Pambeguwa Kubau 29,978
Kujama Kujama 27,502
Makarfi Makarfi 26,952
Ikara Ikara 26,402
KasuwanMagani Kajuru 26,265
Kajuru Kajuru 20,627
Buruku Chikun 17,602
Kagarko Kagarko 17,189
Katari Kachia 17,052
Saminaka Katari 16,776
Jere Kagarko 16,639
DutsenWai Kabau 15,814
Tafa Kagarko 14,851
Godogodo Jema’a 13,040
Total 3,056,235
Table 1.2Estimated population of the main towns and cities in Kaduna State in 2016Source of
estimates: see text.
According to these estimates, the proportion of the population of the State living in urban areas
in 2016 was around 38% with the majority of population (approximately 62%) still living in the
rural areas. As urban fertility rates across Nigeria are generally about 25% less than rural rates,
and the overall fertility rate for the state is relatively low, this suggests that natural population
growth rates in Kaduna and other urban areas are low compared to cities in other parts of
Nigeria.
Looking to the future, while population projections become more uncertain, the largest cities
may triple in population by 2050 – Kaduna to more than 4.4 million, Zaria to over 1.9 million
and Kafanchan to over 450,000. Towns, such as Kachia, Kwoi, Birni Gwari, Gwantu, and Zonkwa
are projected to become cities more than 100,000 inhabitants, while the other towns listed in
table 2.2 will have populations between 40 and 100,000. While the total rural population is
8

likely to continue to grow, by more than 45% to 7.3 million, the urban population will have
tripled to 8.9 million and the urbanization level increased to nearly 55% from the current 38%.
This rapid urbanization within the next generation is calling as a high priority for heavy capital
investments to strengthen and expand the urban infrastructure, which otherwise is at a high
risk to become a serious bottleneck for future growth in Kaduna.
µ Kaduna State Infrastructure Master Plan

5°0'0"E 10°0'0"E
Urban rural population

10°0'0"N
10°0'0"N
5°0'0"N
5°0'0"N
5°0'0"E 10°0'0"E
Paki
#
Auchan
Makarfi #
" Kunkumi
Gimi #
Kudan
# # Meyere
Giwa
#
Yakawada #
Kaya # Hunkuyi
# # Gubuchi
#
Kurmin Kogi
Kwiello Shika Likoro #
# # # Ikara
Fatika
# "
Zaria
! Yakasai
Dogon Dawa #
# Maigana Kargi
Chori # #
# Soba
" Anchau
#
Damau
#
Dutsan Wai
"
Kubau
Igabi #
#
Zuntu
Turunku Gamagira #
Gadan Gayan
# # #
Birnin Gwari Pambeguwa
" "
#
Buruku
"
Kajuru
#
Randagi
"
Kaduna Dan Alhaji
#
Dan Alhaji #
# Kayarda
Udawa
Kujama #
# " Kasuwan Saminaka
Magani Ungwan Kurama
# "
Unguwan Bawa
" #
Lere #
Kauru Gure
# #
Kufana
#
Chikun
# Gwagwada
# Kurmi
#
Garun Kurama
Legend Geshere
#
#
Idon
#
# Capital
#
Kurmin Biri
Mariri
#
" Town
Damakasuwa
Fadan Ikulu # Fadan Chawai
#
! Major city Doka #
#
Kachia Kamuru
#
# Minor urban centre " Fadan Zango Kataf
Kamantan #
Population # Zonkwa
" #
< 10,000 Samaru Kataf " Gora
Tsorinyang Tum
Katari Gidan Tagwai
# # #
" Kwaturu #
Jaban Kogo
Mallagum Manchok
# Sarki
Sabon Gidan Jibir #
Madakiya
#
# Gidan#Mana #
10,000 - 150,000 # Kagoro
Kaura Zankan
# #
Bishini
# Kurmin Musa #
Jere Kurmin Jatau # Kafanchan
# # Gyani !
" Kenyi
Sabon Chori
# #
Kagarko #
Fadan Kagoma
" Katugal #
Fori
Jema'a
# Samba #
Kwoi Aso
"
Godogodo
" # "
Ankung Jagindi Fadan Karshi
150,000 - 1,000,000 # # #
Tafa
" Badde #
Sanga
#
Mayir
Gwantu #
"
Randa
#
> 1,000,000
LGA Rural Density

<1236
1236 - 2472
2472 - 3708
3708 - 4944
1:750,000 (@ A2 size)
0 50 100 Km
4944 - 6180

Figure 1.5: Kaduna State urban areas and rural population density
by LGA(2016 estimates)
9

Thus, migration patterns are still having a major impact on population growth within the State
and its urban areas, especially from the North East, though no data is available yet to support
this.6Figure 1.5 shows the geographical distribution of towns and cities in the state and the
rural population density by Local Government Area. The highest rural population and road
network densities and concentration of rural towns are found in areas of intensive farming in
the northern, eastern and south eastern parts of the state. Taking in the capital, there is a
concentration of urban and near urban population on a central strip running from the north
(Kudan, SabonGari, Zaria) all the way down to the southeast of the State (Sanga, Kaura)
following the A2 from Zaria to Kaduna and A235 to Kafanchan. The relatively, high and growing
number of people living in and close to the urban and semi-urban centres will increase the
pressures on the urban resources and future demands for infrastructure.7
In terms of age distribution, 40% of the population are younger than 15 years, with 22% are
infants, aged between 0-5 years and 18% children aged 6-15 years. The average life expectancy
in the State is estimated at only 44 years. The large population share of women, infants and
children also suggests a high level of dependents and vulnerable groups in the State. Capital
investments summarized under pillar 2 should therefore aim to (i) increase the female
participation in the Kaduna workforce through proper education and training measures, and (ii)
to ensure good education and vocational training for the 40% of youth under 15 now in order
to avoid a dramatic growth in unemployment, productivity loss and civil unrest in the future.
The Kaduna Baseline Report: Household Survey 2015 published by Kaduna State Bureau of
Statistics revealed that Kaduna State has most population within the ages 15-64 years with
more males forming a slightly higher percentage than the females. These economic viable
groups particularly within the younger age groups of between 15 and 45 years require a
conducive physical environment to explore, practice and participate in acquiring various skills
and livelihoods. With the overall unemployment rate around 30%, Kaduna State faces severe
challenges is providing good quality and secure employment to its young and growing working
age population. With investment, access to livelihoods and effective government support, the
growing numbers of young people can provide a “demographic dividend” that will boost the
State’s economy rather than provide an additional burden in terms of disaffected youth. In this
respect, the State may also have to take on a more active role as an ‘entrepreneurial state’ to
create new markets which can absorb that growing labour force.8
Poverty remains a challenge for the State and its reduction will be a key measure of economic
success. Various measures of poverty in the State are shown in Table 1.3. The United Nations'
Global Multi-Dimensional Poverty Index published in June 2015 (based on data collected
between 2004 and 2014) combines three dimensions: education, health and living standards
6
It is likely that the overall population, particularly of Kaduna, will have been boosted by in-migration from north eastern
Nigeria since the Boko Haram insurgency took hold. See: https://www.iom.int/news/boko-haram-may-have- displaced-over-
million-nigeria-iom
7
The western and south western parts of the State are the most sparsely populated but with a higher demand for
rural feeder roads to meet the needs of more remotely located villages
8
see Mariana Mazzucato, The Entrepreneurial State. Debunking public vs. private sector myths, 2015
10
while under-5 mortality has declined by 31% over the same period. According to the KDSG Strategic
Health Development Plan (2010-15) the infant mortality rate for the State in 2009 was 114/1000 live
births, above the rate for the North West Zone and well above the national average.
KDSG with the support of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), developed the Kaduna
State Economic Empowerment and Development Strategy (KADSEEDS) in 2005. It was the first deliberate
attempt to design a comprehensive programme aimed at addressing the unique challenges that are
confronting the State. KADSEEDS was conceptualised and articulated to reduce poverty, create wealth and
provide well-defined policy direction for sustainable development. The strategies designed to achieve
KADSEEDS objectives included:
(relating to housing conditions and household assets) and10 indicators in estimating overall
poverty, a) Reforming governance and institutions.
with equal weighting throughout. According to the MPI Report, as at 2010, 46% of
b) Promoting private sector growth and development.
Nigerians lived below the national poverty line (28% in urban areas, and near 70% in rural). By
c) Implementing a social charter for empowering the people.
this measure, Kaduna State was 22nd out of the 36 states (plus FCT) with a poverty rate of
d) Effective communication.
56.5% compared to 8.5% in Lagos.
Table 1: Kaduna State poverty situation at a glance (percentage of population)
2010
Indicator
Kaduna Northwest National
Food poor 41.7 51.8 41.0

Food poverty
Non poor 58.3 48.2 59.0
Food poor 61.5 70.0 60.9

Absolute poverty
Non poor 38.5 30.0 39.1
Food poor 73.0 77.7 69.0

Relative poverty
Non poor 27.0 22.3 31.0
Dollar per day Food poor 61.8 70.4 61.2

(based on
purchasing power
Non poor 38.2 29.6 38.8
parity)
Source: Nigeria Poverty Profile, National Bureau of Statistics, 2012: 23.

According to National Bureau of Statistics data for 2011, the unemployment rate in Kaduna State was amongst the
ten highest in Nigeria with 30.3% compared with national average of 23.9%. The unemployment rate has climbed
steeply in recent years and, given that youth unemployment rates are likely to be considerably higher, this represents
a major social and economic concern.

2.2 Table 1.3: Kaduna State poverty situation at a glance (percentage of population)
The Constitution
One of
2.2.1the Federal
targets Government
of the Millennium Development Goals (now superseded by the UN’s
Sustainable Development Goals) was to reduce under-5 mortality to 64 deaths per 1,000 live
The First Schedule of the Constitution contains the ‘exclusive legislative list’, which consists of the sectors
births inand infant
respect mortality
of which to 30 deaths
only the National Assemblyper
has 1,000 live
the power births
to make by The
laws. 2015. This
Second would contains
Schedule make the
measures described in the previous paragraph even more urgent, as it would further increase
the ‘concurrent legislative list’, which sets out the sectors in respect of which both the National Assembly
and State House of Assembly may legislate on.
the challenges to integrate the growing wave of young people into the next-generation
In the transport sector, the National Assembly has the exclusive power to make laws in respect of:
workforce, before population growth will tone down later in the future.
a) Aviation, including airports, safety of aircraft and the carriage of passengers and goods by air.
According b) to the 2013 alteration
Construction, Nigeria and
Demographic and
maintenance of Health
Federal trunkSurvey,
roads. which is the latest national
survey to provide any data of this kind at the sub national level, infant and under-5 mortality
c) Maritime shipping and navigation (including shipping and navigation on the River Niger and any
rates over the
otherpast
inlandfive years designated
waterway are 69 by
and
the128 deaths
National per as
Assembly 1,000 live births
an international or respectively.
inter-state
waterway)
Nationally, infant mortality has declined by 26% over the last 15 years, while under-5 mortality
has declined by 31% over the same period. According to the KDSG Strategic Health
Development Plan (2010-15) the infant mortality rate for the State in 2009 was 114/1000 live
6
births, above the rate for the North West Zone and well above the national average. The State
continues to suffer poor health indices and heavy disease burden as shown in table below.
11

Leading causes of morbidity and mortality for under-five children are malaria, diarrhea
diseases, respiratory tract infections and childhood vaccine preventable disease.

Infant mortality rate 103/1000

Maternal mortality rate 800/100,000
Under five mortality rate 170/1000
TB prevalence rate 4/1,000
HIV prevalence rate 5.1%
HIV prevalence rate among population 15 – 25 years - 4.5% (Source
Sentinel Survey, 2010)
Fertility rate 6.1
Proportion of 1 year old immunized against measles 56.1%
Table 1.4: Kaduna State – key health indices

Economic development and strategic opportunities

Kaduna State is the successor to the old Northern Region of Nigeria, which had its capital in the
city of Kaduna. The capital city of Kaduna was started as Lord Lugard’s New Town capital of the
Northern Region first as a second-class township in 1915, and designated as a ‘first-class
township’ in 1917. Now, a hundred years later, the city, along with the traditional emirate
headquarters of Zaria and Kano to the north, and the new Federal Capital City of Abuja to the
south, present a continuous corridor of economic development that will affect all decision
making for the State in the future. Naturally, the upgrading of the existing railway network,
already started, will remain an important element of the future connectivity for freight
transfers.
Originally based on the economic opportunity presented by the national railway network,
linking the port cities of Lagos (Apapa) and Port Harcourt with the vast agricultural regions of
the north, the city of Kaduna rapidly became the epicentre junction of the railway systems, and
for the transference of goods and people across the nation. The Kaduna Textiles Ltd (KTL)
factory, utilising the plentiful supply of raw cotton combined with the abundant water supply
from the Kaduna River, became the largest such industrial concern in the whole of West Africa,
and attracted associated industries around it. The railway system promoted the dispersal of
finished goods both regionally and globally, and established Kaduna as the centre of a primary
export market for the Nigerian economy.
Later, the attractiveness of the location and its established economic linkages, also made
Kaduna the natural location for the giant Peugeot Automobile Nigeria (PAN) plant close to KTL
in the Kaduna South Industrial Area, a vast area dedicated to the promotion of industry.
12

Although this opportunity was only partly taken up, Kaduna nevertheless became a magnet for
employment across the nation, complementing its role as the dominant administrative and
training centre of the region. As evidence of the growing confidence of the Federal
administration in Kaduna’s future, the decision was made to site the North’s only oil refinery
there in the late 1970s
Later still, with the designation of the Federal Capital Territory and the Federal Capital City at
Abuja, a new highway was built – the A2 – linking this industrial heartland with the Federal
Capital to the south, and to the growing city of Kano to the north, which also industrialized at a
rapid pace, based on the traditionally productive agricultural hinterland: the groundnut
pyramids of Kano became legendary, and to this day are emblazoned on the national currency.
However, in later years it can be seen that Abuja presented a real challenge to Kaduna as the
primary city’s position in the region, and, combined with other national and global factors, a
period of industrial decline set in. Nevertheless, with a new administration in place from mid-
2016, a new era of rejuvenation of the industrial advantages of the city can be seen to be in
place. This Infrastructure Master Plan can be seen as a key element in that process of
rejuvenation to the extent it will channel infrastructure investments into the modernization of
the required infrastructure supporting manufacturing facilities to make them more competitive.
According to the2015 Kaduna GDP report (KDGP) Kaduna State had a growing GDP of
KADUNA STATE GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCT (KDGDP) AT A GLANCE
₦2.25trillion in 2015 as against ₦2.02trillion in 2014. The breakdown by economic sector is
shown in figure 1.6 below, with fishing, trading, broadcasting, financial services and livestock as
the fastest growing sub sectors in the state,
Total GDP while food,
for 2015 beverages and tobacco, motion
N2.25trn
pictures, public services, had a significant decline in their growth.

KDGDP covers 42 economic activities

2015 KDGDP: All summarized in three major sectors | Contribution to KDGDP (%)
AGRICULTURE
SERVICES 36.69% Crop production is
• Art,entertainment the major contributing
• Public admin activity in terms of
• Trade monetary value
• Financial & Livestock
recreation Fishery
• Education Forestry
• Accommodation &
food services 45.50%
• Real estate
• Human health
• Transportation &
Storage
• Professional services 17.81% INDUSTRY
• Water supply & • Construction
Services • Mining and quarrying
• Manufacturing Ind.
• Information and
communication
• Electricity, Gas &
Steam
Figure 1.6: Kaduna State GDP by major economic sector in 2015. Source: 2015 KDGDP
Professional, scientific and technical services
KDGDP Yearly Growth Rate (%) Financial and insurance
Trade
2014: 2015: Other services
4.99% 13 Information and communication
11.80%
Watersupply, Sewerage, e.t.c
DRAFT FOR PUBLIC CONSULTATION Education

Agriculture
Art, Entertainment and recreation
Growth rate by main sector year on year (%) Human health and social services
Transportation and storage
Real Estate

This sector contribution to GDP shows the higher value added of the industry and service
sectors, as about 40% of the population employed in the industry and service sectors generate
almost two thirds of the GDP.
The KDGP survey indicated that the GDP of the State grew nearly 5% in 2014 with growth
accelerating to 11.8% in 2015. The greatest growth was seen in services (especially
professional, technical and scientific services, finance and insurance, trade and information and
communications), with lesser growth in other services such as education, health and
transportation and shrinking public and general administration and support services.
Agriculture demonstrated some substantial growth in 2015, while the industry showed a
decline.
Government at all levels is aware of the critical role of infrastructure as enabler for productivity
improvements and the creation of work places, whether in urban or rural environments to
make Kaduna State great again. When infrastructure does not work, the resulting bottlenecks
stifle economic growth and citizens suffer, particularly the poor. Thus, economic renewal and
societal welfare become postponed or halted.9Indeed, for any economy to grow and prosper,
be it national or sub-national, it is expedient that the factors and agents of growth within the
economy are sufficiently facilitated by basic infrastructure like power, roads, schools, primary
health facilities, storage, to mention a few.
In recognition of infrastructure as a key determinant of long-term sustainable growth and the
capacity of the poor to benefit from such growth process, Kaduna State Government decided to
develop an “Kaduna State Infrastructure Master Plan” (KADIMP), covering a long time horizon
to 2050. The intent is that such an infrastructure master plan identifies the order of magnitude
of present and future resource needs with detailed estimates of the corresponding revenues
and financing sources required to build the socio-economic and capital infrastructure to
support an accelerated and sustainable infrastructure development of the State. The longer
term perspective will then be translated into shorter, often three-to-five year medium-term
frameworks.
The large uncertainties involved in the 32 year time horizon to 2050 are best dealt with broadly
defined scenarios to develop options to identify Kaduna’s preferred short- to medium and
long0term development paths. The KADIMP will build on the aspirations expressed in the
State’s Development Plan (2016-2020)as well as on the process of ‘Making Kaduna State Great
Again’.
To ensure a smooth transition from long-range scenario-based plans to the implementation of a
medium-term strategy, the KADIMP will be underpinned by annual capital budgets, with explicit
and full recognition of the political structure of the State configured into twenty-three local
government areas and three Senatorial districts. The Plan is equally expected to highlight and
guide strategies driven by Government’s Ministries, Departments and Agencies (MDAs) towards
infrastructure projects development in all the main socio-economic sectors of the State. Inter-
9
Akinola (2007).
14

generational and intra-generational equity demands are expressed in the Plan in consonance
with the philosophy of sustainable development, and with special consideration of the
consequences of any intended infrastructure project on the environmental capital stock of the
State.
The role of infrastructural facilities in grassroots development and poverty reduction cannot be
over-emphasized whether in urban or rural environments. For example, the provision of
adequate and cost effective rural infrastructure services will clearly underpin the development
of a sector like agriculture, facilitate lower cost of production, and function as a pre-requisite to
stimulate economic growth and poverty alleviation by increasing and diversifying agricultural
output10.
Objectives of the Plan

Broadly, the main objective of the KADIMP: 2050 is to evolve a Master Plan for an accelerated
and sustainable infrastructure development in Kaduna State. To achieve this objective, the
KADIMP will pursue the following specific objectives:

Figure 1.7: Specific objectives of KADIMP: 2050
Linkage to State Development Plan (SDP) 2016 – 2020

The KADIMP has been undertaken in consonance with the State Development Plan 2016-2020
aimed at ‘delivering on jobs, social justice and prosperity’. The 5-year State Development Plan
leveraged on the Kaduna Restoration Master Plan titled ‘Let’s Make Kaduna Great Again’. The
four priority areas are identified and presented in Table 1.5 below. Each of the priority areas
10
Fakayode, et al. 2008.
15

with their constituting sectors and sub-sectors underneath requires solid and strong
infrastructures
Priority Areas Narrative

Economic Kaduna will become the destination for business investment and the
Development food basket for Northern Nigeria, achieving strong and inclusive
economic growth that creates wealth for all.
Social Welfare Kaduna will ensure that all citizens have access to high quality,
affordable healthcare and education, resulting in more fulfilling lives.
Security and justice Kaduna will turn the tide on public perception of insecurity in the
North, becoming a place where every citizen can live and move
freely without harm.
Governance and Kaduna will set the standard for transparent decision making, citizen
Administration involvement, and a competent and responsive public service.
Table 1.5: Making Kaduna great again – Four strategic and priority areas

‘Infrastructure’ is also being used as an umbrella term for many activities referred to as “social
overhead capital”, which is referring to population growth, reducing poverty, improving
environmental conditions and so on. Impact pathways between infrastructure investment and
economic growth (See Box 1.1) have revealed three important channels of pro-poor growth
that will engender the actualization of the four priority areas of the State Development Plan
(2016-2020).
Box 1.1: Three Channels of Pro-Poor Growth

1. Direct channel: this impacts the poor directly (such as programs for basic health,
sanitation, education, and rural roads);
2. Market channel (or “trickle down”): where growth helps the poor via economic
linkages (such as inter-sectorial and inter-regional labour migration, increased
demand, reinvestment through formal, informal and internal finance); and
3. Policy channel: which supplements the market channel and guides the
development process toward greater equality (through subsidies, fiscal transfer,
public investment, proper design of trade, investment and financial policies and
including larger participation of the female labour force, smooth integration of
young people into productive processes, training and skill improvements to
smooth economic change towards higher value adding activities, and improved
governance (less corruption) as a public good.
On the supply-side, KADIMP: 2050 and SDP: 2016-2020 are directly connected through
improved infrastructure services, which revolve around costs, availability, and reliability and
these effects could create, at least, two types of linkage effects:
16

• Investment-inducement effect: A channel through which new investments are

generated by an enhanced business climate.
• General and regional economy activation effect: A channel through which new
economic opportunities are opened up, and productivity of the existing economic
activities is enhanced.
From the demand side, the effective demand for infrastructure such as construction becomes a
channel through which jobs and income are generated through the project implementation
directly and indirectly (through the procurement of local inputs and services). In sum, the
linkage between KADIMP and SDP 2016-2020 can be aptly presented as shown in the Figure1.8:

Figure 1.8: KADIMP: 2050 and SDP: 2016-2020 Interface
The goal of both KADIMP and SDP is to achieve delivering jobs, social justice and prosperity. If
this outcome is realised, the mission of ‘Making Kaduna State Great Again’ will be equally
accomplished.
Linkage to Sector Implementation Plans

Sector Implementation Plans (SIPs) constitute the State’s action plans, which set out the
objectives, targets and actions to be pursued over a specified period for each sector. SIPs
constitute a programme for change to which the State Government is strongly committed.
Hence, SIPs are construed to translate the objectives of the State Government as encapsulated
in the various policy documents such as the Kaduna Restoration Master Plan and the five Year
Kaduna State Development Plan (2016-2020) into what is conventionally referred to as Medium
Term Sector Strategy (MTSS). As such, the State’s current SIPs cover the period 2017-2019, with
more detailed descriptions of the timetables, measures and financing of key projects in each
sector, for execution within the framework of available funding, existing authorised spending
limits and other provisions of the State Government’s Fiscal Plan.
17

The intent of KADIMP is to lay out a smooth transition from the long-term objectives as defined
in the preferred KADIMP development path into the operational SIP action plans. ON the other
hand are the SIPs informing the KADIMP as starting ‘points of departure’ to develop the short-
to medium and long-term objectives.

Linkage to National Strategic Objectives

The Nigerian economy experienced strong growth in the last decade and this was linked directly
to the sustained reforms and progressive integration of the national economy into the global
economy. Despite this positive growth, the associated euphoria was confronted by a growing
discrepancy in terms of how the overall growth reached different social strata, and the
limitations imposed on the economy’s evolution because of weak infrastructure base. To
address the infrastructural challenges, the Federal Government of Nigeria through the National
Planning Commission came up with a blueprint known as National Integrated Infrastructure
Master Plan (2014), otherwise known as NIIMP. Worthy of note is the fact that the NIIMP does
not explicitly address three of the main pillars presented in Figure 1.8. These are social welfare,
governance, and security and justice.
Essentially, Nigeria’s National Integrated Infrastructure Master Plan (NIIMP) provides the capital
allocation framework, which identifies the required investments that will engender
infrastructural development in Nigeria in line with the country’s growth aspirations. The NIIMP
provides an integrated view of infrastructure development in Nigeria, with clear linkages across
the key sectors. The objectives of the NIIMP are as follows:
• Adopt a coordinated approach to infrastructure development;
• Strengthen the linkages between components in the infrastructure sector and the
national economy;
• Review, upgrade and harmonize existing sub-sector master plans and strategies in the
infrastructure sector, to ensure they are consistent with national development
aspirations;
• Prioritize projects and programmes for implementation in the short to medium term;
• Promote private sector participation in infrastructure development;
• Strengthen the policy, legal and institutional frameworks for effective infrastructure
development; and,
• Enhance the performance and efficiency of the economy.

Against the background of what NIIMP is all about and the objectives spelt out for the plan to
achieve, the KADIMP when viewed from the perspective of both the overall and the specific
objectives is equally comprehensive to ensure the infrastructure development of Kaduna State.
18

The national infrastructure development objectives will remain a mirage only if State
governments in Nigeria are not replicating similar infrastructure aspirations at the sub-national
level. It is therefore a remarkable feat that the present government in Kaduna State has come
to terms with the urgent need of developing the State in the area of infrastructure in line with
the National approach. Indeed, both NIIMP and KADIMP are interested in infrastructural
development for the sake of what infrastructure can permit an economy to enjoy: growth,
development, jobs, and overall improved living standards for the people.
Linkage to Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

The hallmark of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) is the task of ensuring that no one is
left behind; suggesting that economic growth is fostered within the context of prosperity that is
not devoid of sustainability. Sustainable development connotes development type that
internalises the aspirations of the present generation without compromising the desire of the
future generation. Indeed, World Commission on Environment and Development (Bruntland
Commission) defines sustainable development as: "development that meets the needs of the
present without compromising the need of future generations to meet their own needs“(1987).
It is, therefore, essentially a philosophy of inter- and intra-generational equity.
For growth to be sustainable and development compliant, it must be sought holistically.
Attention must be given to social inclusion and support as well as to the environmental
imperatives to protect the state and beyond, the planet, from degradation so that it can
support the needs of the present and future generations. The integrated nature of all the SDGs
demands an integrated approach to development. Thus, notable economic objectives such as
productivity through diversification, the upgrading of technology and innovation, and expanded
employment and entrepreneurship must be achieved with simultaneous progress in gender
equality, education and reduced inequality, for instance. Global resource efficiency in
consumption and production is also critical, to decouple economic growth from environmental
degradation.
Explicitly, the five elements underpinning SDGs are worthy of consideration whenever decisions
on infrastructural development are to be taken. These elements are presented in Figure 1.9.
One-sided development paths, which emphasize a priority for economic growth” for economic
growth without due consideration of the integrated nature of the SDGs undermine the
wellbeing of the population as a whole and thus turn out as unsustainable. The failure of
Nigeria’s economic growth first to trickle down for the benefit of the people is giving reason to
reflect in the KADIMP on a more inclusive, equitable and sustainable development path which
can achieve better SDG results than it was the case in the past, even with somewhat lover
growth rates.11
11
The latest UNDP Human Development Report for Nigeria has revealed that the well-being of the country is worse, absolute
poverty has gone higher than before the growth due to failure of economic growth to trickle down. For this reason, KADIMP is
keenly interested in the social impacts of infrastructure investment in consonance with the manifesto of the current
government and other government policy documents.
19

KADIMP and SDGs are linked directly from the perspective of each of the five underpinning
elements. The linkage between the two implies that KADIMP should be people, planet,
prosperity, peace, and partnership focussed, consistent with the objectives and philosophy of
the SDGs, and for the good of all, and the environment.

Figure 1.9: Elements underpinning sustainable Development
Source: United Nations Sustainable Development Submit 2015, 25-27
Sept.
20

SECTION TWO

STATE INFRASTRUCTURE TARGETS AND INVESTMENTS
Infrastructure targets and investments – Pillars and Sectors

The 14 sectors and 4 pillars identified in the State Development Plan provide the starting point
for the analysis undertaken in this study.
SDP Pillar
1. Agriculture and Forestry 1. Economic
2. Industry, Commerce and Tourism
3. Infrastructure, Housing and
Transport
4. Environment and Natural
Resources
5. Water and Sanitation
6 Education, Science and 2. Social
Technology
7. Health
8. Social Development and Welfare
9. Security, Law and Justice Enablers:
10. Governance and Administration 3. Security, justice
11. Lands and Urban Development 4. Governance &
Administration
12. Urban Restoration and
Development
13. Rural and Community
Development
14. Budget and Planning and
Revenue Mobilization
Table 2.1: State Development Plan Pillars and Sectors

In line with the scenarios explored in Section 3, these are divided into sectors focused on
economic or social outcomes, and the cross-cutting sectors that enable these sectors to deliver
their benefits as set out in Section 1.12
12
Some sectors such as Water and Sanitation and Environment and Natural Resources cross the boundary between
the economic and social, and many infrastructure investments clearly deliver both economic and social benefits in
different ways and proportions.
21

Infrastructure targets and investments – Pillar 1: Economic

Kaduna State in many ways is uniquely privileged in terms of natural and infrastructural assets.
From a strong position in the 1960s and 70s, the economy suffered setbacks in the 1980s and
90s from which it is still recovering. However, the potential for renewal as set out in the State
Restoration Plan and future development is enormous.
Its farmlands, forests and fisheries are ripe for increased productivity and output with a huge
potential market for local processing, consumption in the region’s burgeoning cities and export
to the rest of Nigeria and beyond through its good, if still to be enhanced, transport
connections. It is blessed with good if seasonal rainfall and ample water resources, which are
currently under-utilised for supply and irrigation. Its mineral resources can be sustainably
exploited and ample sunshine and wind can provide a local green energy source that can help
the state become more self-sufficient in its energy supplies.
Kaduna is a key and strategic node in all of Nigeria’s national networks – road, rail, power and
crude oil and petroleum product pipelines. It sits on the trajectory of a planned Trans-African
Lagos-Algiers highway and Trans-Saharan gas pipeline that could eventually connect Nigeria to
Morocco, and to the huge markets in Europe. More immediately, a planned South-North
natural gas pipeline from Calabar to Kaduna via Ajaokuta could help transform Kaduna’s
fortunes.
± National road infrastructure

status and major bottlenecks
SOKOTO
" KATSINA
"
BIRNIN-KEBBI
"
GUSAU
" KANO
MAIDUGURI
" DAMATURU "
DUTSE
" "
!
P
KADUNA
" BAUCHI GOMBE
" "
JOS
"
MINNA
"
YOLA
ABUJA "
" JALINGO
"
ILORIN LAFIA
" "
OSHOGBO LOKOJA
" " MAKURDI
"
" ADO-EKITI
IBADAN
"
ABEOKUTA AKURE
" "
!
P
IKEJA
" ENUGU
BENIN CITY " ABAKALIKI
ÎÎ
" ASABA AWKA
!
P
"
" "
Legend
"
"
OWERRI
"
!
P
Î UMUAHIA
UYO
YENAGOA
"
"
"
PORT HARCOURT "
CALABAR
Î
Î

Figure 2.1: National road infrastructure status: Kaduna is highly
strategically located but a major bottleneck
22

(Map adapted from Julie Berger: ‘Infrastructure projects of economic

importance’)

Figure 2.2: Kaduna is a major node in Nigeria’s power grid railway and oil pipeline networks.
Source: various.
Critical role of the energy sector

Kaduna’s economic and infrastructural transformation faces key challenges, which are only
partly in the remit of the State Government to address and will require strong collaboration
with the Federal authorities, the private sector and local communities. To kick start economic
transformation, provide the necessary support and improve the living conditions of its citizens
in both urban and rural areas, a reliable energy supply of both power and fuel is fundamental.
Reform of the energy sector in Nigeria has been undertaken but it is critically underperforming,
resulting from gaps in supply and distribution constraints. There remains potential for hydro-
electricity to increase its share in supply of energy from renewable sources but the construction
23

of new dams remains problematic and the output of existing plant sub optimal. The real
revolution in supply in the near term lies with natural gas. Nigeria is has become a major
supplier of liquid natural gas from Shell’s Bonny plant which currently provides 10% of the
World’s output.
This bountiful resource now needs to be shared with the country as it gradually weans itself off
diesel generators. The future completion of the Calabar central processing unit, and pipelines to
Abaokuta and on to Kaduna and Kano will help secure this aim. Beyond natural gas, looking
towards 2050, wind and decentralised energy such as small scale hydro, and particularly solar
energy, both grid connected and centralised, will play an increasingly important part in energy
supply, driven by falling costs and global climate change concerns.
Ensuring a reliable supply of crude oil, natural gas and petroleum products through existing and
proposed pipelines is in large part a political concern that is beyond the remit of this plan.
However, overcoming the disruption of supply in the Niger Delta Region is critical in the State’s
other great infrastructural asset, the Kaduna Oil Refinery, is to achieve its full potential.
Although now aging and constructed to run on imported heavy crude oil rather than the
domestic light oil, this is still a resource with great potential in providing regional supplies of
diesel, kerosene and feedstocks for industries such as chemicals, fertiliser and artificial fibres,
particularly if it is linked to additional natural gas supplies. Ensuring the pipelines are secure can
ease the huge pressure on the highways from the incessant tanker traffic.
Transportation – urban and rural, inter-state and, potentially, international

Transportation is the next major priority. As noted in the State Development Plan: “Transport is
a high potential sector that could help Kaduna transform its economy.” With the necessary
investment, Kaduna will serve as the logistics and transport hub for the north with an increasing
regional flow of goods through the State driving transportation growth in the coming years.
Improving freight transport-related infrastructure, both road and rail, and overcoming the
bottlenecks around the capital will be essential. The transport sector is drawing growing
attention as an essential agent of growth, poverty reduction and sustainable human
development
Kaduna is heavily dependent on road freight movement – an essential life blood of the
economy. At the same time, however, heavy goods vehicles that are frequently poorly
maintained and highly polluting imported second hand vehicles add to the growing congestion
on urban roads. One answer is shifting more freight on to the existing railway system. Another
is better off-road, out of town freight and logistics facilities, that could also serve as break bulk
locations and the core of new mixed use enterprise zones, as well and relieve pressures
associated with city centre warehousing activities. Yet another is better use of bypass roads
around the main urban centres. The State is making advances in all these aspects although
much remains to be done.
24

Kaduna has long been an important hub in the country’s narrow railway gauge network, serving
as a junction for the Kano-Lagos Western Line and the Eastern Line. The concession for the
$2.2bn rehabilitation of the whole 3,500 km of the existing rail network, including providing
rolling stock and managing the railway, is currently being negotiated with the single bidder, a
multinational consortium led by America’s General Electric.
While the existing railway is currently not competitive with road in travel time terms, efficiency
can be expected to improve with the opportunity to shift long distance large bulk freight from
road to rail. Rail is an energy efficient and sustainable form of transport but inflexible so
transfer between rail and road freight will be critical. In this respect Kaduna is likely to benefit
hugely from the upgrading of the existing Inland Container Depot to a Dry Port that can
accommodate 5,000 containers and could employ up to 6,000 people. This will provide a key
link for Kaduna to global supply chains. The Governor has said that the ICD in Kaduna will go a
long way in ensuring the government’s vision of leveraging Kaduna’s proximity to Abuja to
become a major transportation hub for the access to Northern Nigeria’s population and
markets becomes a reality. He said that state government will support the ICD by providing the
enabling environment for the project to succeed as well as build a transit park in Kaduna for
heavy duty vehicles.
The China Civil Engineering Construction Corporation-built standard gauge Abuja-Kaduna rail
link, the first of a number of contracts agreed between the Chinese and previous Nigerian
government aimed at providing a new nationwide railway network, was completed last year
with passenger services now operating between the two cities. Work has started on the
N458bn, 156 km double line link between Lagos and Ibadan. These two legs will form part of
the planned Lagos-Kano standard gauge line and arrangements are being finalised to start the
construction of the Kaduna-Kano rail line. These various infrastructure investments will cement
Kaduna’s pole position in the “new age of Nigerian rail.”
Looking further into the future, there is expectation of NRC extension northwards beyond Kano
possibly also to Katsina, and Maradi, Republic of Niger, and the Trans-Sahara route to Algeria;
also an extension eastwards from Maraban Jos to Saminaka, Jos and the North-east (possibly
also linking Northern Cameroun and Chad, en route to Ethiopia and East Africa). From this
perspective, it can be seen that there are many considerations for the very long-term towards
2050 for the State Infrastructure Master Plan, and requiring a leadership role in stimulating
regional and national investments for the future.
The potential international connections concern the long-term future of Africa as a whole.
Although east-west and north-south continental rail connections are already proposed,
compared with roads, an investment in the trans-continental railway system is seen as the
longer lasting infrastructure commitment that can bind the continent as a whole under a single
management system. In a leadership role, Nigeria is well placed to perform this role since a
diversified export promotion is key to its economic future.
Many factors combined to bring about the effective demise of Kaduna’s previously booming
textiles industries from the 1980s onwards, not least Nigeria’s growing and increasing over-
25

dependence on oil production and exports. The political significance of Kaduna city was
successively diminished from capital of the Northern Region to capital of a Kaduna State. The
creation of the new Federal Capital in nearby Abuja in 1976 and its subsequent development
further served to undermine the strategic position of Kaduna, both politically and economically.
However, as symbolised by the choice and subsequent construction of the recently opened
Abuja-Kaduna railway, this proximity is already being turned to advantage for Kaduna State.
Kaduna’s strategic location is likely to grow ever more significant in coming decades. It can be
strongly leveraged in supporting sustainable economic development and can provide a
cornerstone of the long-term implementation of the Infrastructure Master Plan. With it strong
strategic links both southwards and northwards, it will provide a key vital element of a
“Northern Economic Corridor”, based on the strategic transportation routes that have
developed over time through the State – making it the essential “Gateway to the North” of the
country.
As an entity, Kaduna State is reasonably well provided for by over 1,600 km of federal roads,
mostly in reasonable condition, of which nearly 700 km are dual carriageways. There are more
than 2,200 km of State Government roads, mostly paved, in fair condition and connecting the
main cities to smaller towns and local government headquarters. The SDP lists 5,700 km local
roads, a proportion paved, graded or semi-graded, but the majority of earth. With outlying rural
roads not included in this total and as much as 5,000 km of local roads in urban areas (only a
proportion of which are paved) the total road length in the State could be as much as 15,000
km, of which probably less one third are currently paved, including in the State’s cities and
towns.13
13
Estimates of extent of outlying rural roads and urban roads in Kaduna and Zaria metropolitan areas based on GIS
studies by Max Lock in preparation of the Review of the Kaduna Master Plan and studies for NIAF.
26


5°0'0"E 10°0'0"E A9
A2
GUSAU
Road categorised by surface type
A12
10°0'0"N
10°0'0"N
A
6
2
F1 2 8
8
F12
KANO
F128
5°0'0"N
5°0'0"N
A2
F 128
5°0'0"E 10°0'0"E
A2 3
F2 7
17
16
F2
12 8
A1
F
26
2
A
N31
N40
A1 26
Makarfi
/
" A2
Makarfi
C1
2
Giwa
N30
N37
/
" Hunkuyi
21
6 C
13
/
" Kudan Ikara
F
N3
4
F2
8
43
Sabon-Gari Ikara
C21
/
"
N19
N
Sabon Gari
Giwa
N1
33
C 11
N13
/
"
2
Zaria
C09
/
"
C07
Zaria Maigana
N22
C10
F 243
/
"
6
5
N0
N1
Anchau
Soba /
"
A
23
6
Birni-Gwari A2
36 Kubau
N21
10
N2
N
N09
4
N2
28 N07
8
N28 N
Igabi 6
16
A 11 N1
8
F2 5 N08
N2
N09
12
F243
A /
"
C
Turunku
05
A1 1
C
Birnin Gwari A 23 6
0
8
C06
C0 /
"
A2
3
4
C0
Kaduna Kajuru
4 C02 North /
"
C0
Kaduna North
/
"
A 1 25
Kaduna
/
"
South
Kujama
Kaduna South /
"
A2 3
5 /
"
Saminaka
Kauru
Lere
/
"
Chikun C1
8
A2
16
C
Kajuru Kauru
S30
A235
A1
25
9
S2
A10
S15
A 23 6
5
23
A
Kachia
/
" Zangon Kataf
A2
Kachia
S35
16
S
Zonkwa "
/
15
F2
F1
S06
27
S26
26
S01
F1
A 23 5
F127
S19 Kaura
02
9
1
MINNA
S
/
"
Kaura
S18
S
Kafanchan
/
"
S1
0
F1
3
S27
S3
26 Kagarko
Kagarko
/
"
S27 Jaba S13

A2
35
Kwoi "
/
A2
S25
Jema'a
A
3
14
S
S12
Gwantu
Sanga
8
23
/
"
F
4
2
S
A234
F 240
S36
4
12
Legend ABUJA
A2
A
A124 F241
41
38
F2
F2
/
" LGA Hqtrs.
A3
F 22 1
LGA border A2 3 4 F12 5

A234
Road classes
Federal
A2
24 F1
F1
24
Paved
38
A3
F2
F 124
Graded F 1 24
F1 2 4
F1 2 4 F124
Semi Graded
F1 2 4
LAFIA
F2 2
1:750,000 (@ A2 size)
1
Other rural
F1
24
0 50 100 Km
Urban footprint

2
Figure 2.3: Roads categorised by surface type and class

The bottlenecks on the main A2 north-south road via Kaduna, including completing the Eastern
Bypass, including a new bridge river crossing, and improving and the junction with the A125
Kaduna-Lagos road need to be urgently addressed. These provide an opportunity to provide
related commercial development and regeneration opportunities and potential for new road
connections to open up the metropolitan expansion area on the east bank of the Kaduna River
in the Chikun LGA part of the urban area.
Once the Eastern Bypass is completed, it is recommended that it becomes re-designated as the
A2 while the existing Nnamdi Azikwe Expressway becomes major urban artery improving local
linkages and offering better commercial development opportunities. Coupled with new and
improved east-west road connection across the city linking the two main north-south arteries
27

this should ease the traffic flow through the city, particularly along the central axis.14 In the
longer term a new Outer Western Bypass is proposed, also as recommended in the 2015
Kaduna Master Plan.
In line with addressing the major and growing urban infrastructure deficit, improving urban
transportation should take a high priority. Growing traffic congestion and accident rates,
worsening mobility and accessibility and poor transport infrastructure and services present
major hurdles to urban economic development and better living conditions. Transport
represents the biggest element of small but rapidly growing carbon emissions while local air
pollution from frequently old and poorly maintained motor vehicles is an ever-growing
problem. Road infrastructure investment tends to be skewed towards the main arteries –
dualisation and widening measures whilst failing to address the requirements of local access.
Intersections that are poorly designed and managed remain local bottlenecks.
Overall urban road maintenance is poor with investment in secondary roads lagging and local
access roads remaining for the large part unpaved. Scant attention is given to the needs and
behavioural patterns of pedestrians and cyclists.
Immediate steps can be taken to improve traffic management in Kaduna’s major cities through
infrastructural improvements including simple and relatively low cost measures to improve the
design of intersections as well as more sophisticated use of signalling technology. Kaduna
should move quickly and directly to “smart” measures to improve the overall street network
connectivity, with better junction designs and use of phased and computerised traffic signaling.
The State Government is moving rapidly ahead with proposals to introduce urban mass transit,
exploring Bus Mass and Bus Rapid Transit and light rail (tram) systems for the capital. Urban
mass transit is costly but essential if the issues of growing traffic congestion are to be
addressed.
While the infrastructural requirements are high both at the basic street level and in provision of
related infrastructure such as track, segregated busways, transport interchanges, stations and
depots, new mass transit provision also offers important opportunities for wider improvements
to the urban fabric including commercial redevelopment and regeneration of the areas being
served by the new networks. This is included in the targets below under “Transit Oriented
Development”.
14
As recommended in the Kaduna Master Plan Review and the Kaduna State Transport Policy Green Paper, p14:
“(After) completing the Eastern Bypass making the existing inner western bypass, the Nnamdi Azikiwe Expressway,
a safe urban street with intersections and measures to facilitate pedestrian movement. This will provide an
alternative to the main north-south route through the city centre via Ahmadu Bello Way and the Stadium Bridge,
relieving the growing traffic pressure on that road. Related new and improved west-east connections between the
two main north-south axes will provide much higher level of network integration in the central area of the city,
easing traffic flows.”

28

Local government roads in rural areas are feeder roads that link rural communities with urban
centres, which have generally deteriorated badly. Ultimately, as in upper middle income
countries, all urban roads and a large part of the rural network, particularly those linking the
growing market towns to their farming hinterlands and to the major cities, need to be paved
and maintained for all weather use. Such rural-urban linkages will be essential in ensuring the
State achieves its full potential in terms of agricultural productivity. Currently, all-season roads
are only accessible to about half of the population and the 470 km roads improved under the
World Bank-supported RAMP programme are laterite and not durable without continuous
maintenance.
Industry, Commerce and Tourism

While the main focus in the sector policy is on improving the business environment and
providing support to build local skills and attract inward investment, there are important areas
where support to strengthen infrastructure is needed. These include, as previously noted,
expanding power production (including hydroelectric and solar investments to increase grid
capacity) and delivery in the State, prioritizing industrial areas. Improvements are required to
communications networks, including providing incentives for private partners to build mobile
phone transmission towers and fibre optic cables for faster internet and mobile
telecommunications, prioritizing urban areas, in particular.
The value chain analysis we have carried out highlights a number of industrial sectors where
attention and support for investment should be focused. In the manufacturing sector leather,
textiles, personal care, packaging, fertilizer, and computer assembly are regarded as
established, whilst the automotive industry is (re)emerging. Utilities (waste management,
electricity, water supply) is well established as is construction and building supplies, with
considerable potential for future expansion with rapid urbanization. Agribusiness equipment is
set to grow. Two key value chains with potential in the industrial sector are mineral resource
extraction-related (kaolin/ball clay and ceramics). Kaduna State ultimately has the potential to
develop industries based on its mineral resources that also include asbestos, amethyst, gold,
and graphite. These are put on hold for the immediate future because of implementation
challenges but offer longer term potential. However, the existing fertiliser industry can expect
an immediate boost from increased agricultural activities.
Some “high tech” industries, technology-related economic activities have a promising future in
terms of growth potential. They include information and communications technology (ICT)
applications and mobile communications, computer assembly and renewable energy
construction. The State is likely to be increasingly relying on the latter to bridge its energy gap.
Packaging is also promising for the future as it might expect a boost from the growth of other
industries. The tourism and hospitality subsector also holds significant untapped opportunity
for job creation and revenue generation for the State.
To accommodate the new and growing industries that are likely to emerge in the State, new,
state-of-the-art industrial zones will need to be established and strategic locations for these are
already being mapped out by KADGIS. 4 sites ranging in size from 160 to 1700 ha have been
29

identified as site to be acquired for industrial hubs in Chikun and Igabi LGAS. A Trade Fair layout
is proposed for implementation this year. Three 50 ha sites for new Entrepreneur Centres are
being assessed.
Kaduna State already has numerous commercial and manufacturing industries.15 Goods that are
manufactured in the state include textiles, aluminium, dairy products, toiletries and petroleum
products, reinforced concrete materials and bicycles assembly. Agro-industrial products that
are being produced include dairy products, soft drinks, flour and groundnut oil and cigarettes. A
major brewery is located in the capital. The Indonesian company, Indomie, has recently opened
a major noodle producing plant. Also located in the state are the National Leather Research
Institute, Zaria, the Defence Industries Corporation of Nigeria and, as already noted, the North’s
only petroleum refinery and one of only four in the country.
However, industrial performance has been poor with the contribution of manufacturing to
state GDP abysmally low at less than 2%. The deterioration in the industrial and investment
climate of the state is manifested by the moribund status of the hitherto vibrant industries in
the state and the dilapidated status of state owned enterprises. In Kaduna South, the closure of
most of the larger textile manufacturing firms has resulted in huge factories becoming vacant
and falling into disrepair. The likelihood of the full revival of the textile industry seems
unrealistic given the structural challenges faced by Federal and State Governments.
Meanwhile these large manufacturing employment sites representing over 380,000 square
meters of employment floor space sit vacant and underutilised. These sites are characterised by
a high level of built infrastructure, with approximately 70 buildings of various sizes across all ten
sites. Many of these are large, secure buildings - mostly above 1000 square metres and some
up to 20,000 square metres. While some revival of textiles in these premises is ideal, the
potential re-use of these textile manufacture sites and two further large industrial could be to
convert the vacant buildings for use as secure warehousing areas to reinforce Kaduna’s growing
role a distribution and storage hub for Northern Nigeria.
Many of these sites also have good transport access and are in close proximity to the north-
south railway which could be exploited in conjunction with the National rail upgrading
programme. In addition, a large low-skilled labour force could provide the human resources to
ensure such a concept would succeed. Alternatively, many of the larger buildings are perhaps
suitable for conversion i.e. internal sub-division, and leasing out for use as warehousing, or light
industrial use e.g. flatted factories.
One of the major developments in the Industry sector was the creation of Business
Apprenticeship Training Centres (BATCs) to raise the skills of unskilled and semi-skilled workers
15
Companies include the Federal Super Phosphate Fertilizer Company PLC, Ideal Flour Mills PLC, New Nigerian
Packaging Company PLC, Peugeot Automobile Nigeria PLC (subject to a recent transfer of ownership), United Wire
Products Limited, Bus and Refrigerated Van Manufacturing Co, Kaduna Furniture and Carpets Company Limited,
Electricity Metres Company Nigeria Limited and Rigid Pack Containers Limited, Zaria.

30

for better employment in industrial establishments; give practical experience to the trainees
and enable them to become self-employed; and reduce rural-urban migration. With 24 centres
across the state, the centres are yet to sufficiently achieve the objectives for which they were
established due to infrastructural and human resources challenges.
The vast majority of those employed in Kaduna State are self-employed. A 2004 KADSEEDS
report focusing on strategies to promote the private sector noted that “more than 90% private
sector operations in Kaduna State are made up of SMEs (small and medium size enterprises)
ranging from bakery, milling, printing, agriculture (especially dry season farming), welding,
tailoring and foundry.” Little has changed subsequently. About 13% of the labour force works in
the public sector. Outside the public sector, the areas of activity where most of the people work
are in agriculture and related activity (50%), wholesale and retail trade (15%), and
manufacturing jobs (5%) in about the same proportion as hotels and restaurants, education or
social and personal services.
It is clear that the largely ‘informal’ sector of self-employed trades people, along with an
inefficient public sector, provides the vast majority of employment. Improved overall
productivity is likely to be realized in the short term by an increase in employment in the
‘formal’ sector that is through increased employment by private sector enterprises (excluding
the self-employed but including construction and small and medium enterprises). If increase in
employment is taken as a proxy for economic growth per capita, then it is this sector of
employment that should be taken as the measure.
The Agriculture, Forest and Fishery sector need basic infrastructure provision to improve
productivity and put it on a firm economic footing for future output growth. Agriculture is the
mainstay of the economy of Kaduna state with the majority of the people actively engaged in
farming. According to the Kaduna GDP Report (KGDP 2015) agriculture contributed 36.69% of
the total GDP of the State in 2015. Crop production represented more than 90% of this output,
with livestock rearing accounting for about 7% and forestry and fishing making up the
remainder. The Sector Implementation Plan aims to raise the share of agriculture in total state
GDP to 40% by 2019. Currently staple cash and food crops include yam, cotton, groundnut,
tobacco, maize, beans, guinea corn, millet, ginger, rice and cassava, with the State being the
country’s leading producer of rice, maize and guinea corn. Livestock reared include poultry,
cattle, sheep, goats and pigs.
Given on-going rapid urbanization, it will be a challenge to increase the share of the agricultural
sector in overall State GDP without a significant increase in the productivity of the sector.
Despite the predominance of micro and small enterprises and the informal economy, the
largely urban-based services and industrial sector add more value per employee than the farm
sector where small scale and subsistence farming still predominates. As the share of the urban
population grows so will the output of these sectors.
The future of rural development in the state therefore lies in employment diversification, with
the growth of commercial farming of cash crops for local urban markets and export. As
31

productivity increases, the demand for actual farm labour will decrease and rural inhabitants
are likely to find more employment in rural services, in agro-processing and in the growing
market towns and major cities, either on a commute or migration basis. There will be a growing
demand for storage and transport infrastructure and services and improved market facilities,
finance, training and other business development support. The State Government has already
been providing support to farmers in terms of extension advisory services and providing inputs
at subsidized rates including improved seeds, agro-chemicals, credit, tractors services and
fertilizer.
µ
F21

5°0'0"E 10°0'0"E
8 A9
A2
Prime Farmland
10°0'0"N
10°0'0"N
A1 2
A2
6
F128
F128
F128
5°0'0"N
5°0'0"N
A2
A
23
F128
5°0'0"E 10°0'0"E
7
F2
16
F2
17
28
F1
A1
26
A2
F2
43
A 126
Makarfi
F216
"
A2
Giwa
Makarfi
"
Hunkuyi
" Kudan
Ikara
Ikara
Sabon-Gari "
Sabon Gari
Giwa "
Zaria
"
Zaria Maigana
F243
"
Soba Anchau
A2
A2
"
36
Birni-Gwari Kubau
Kamuku Igabi
Nat. Park
16
A11
A2
F2
36
Turunku "
F243
Birnin Gwari A11
"
A2
A125
Kajuru
25
Ka dun a "
A1
No rth
" Kaduna North

Kaduna
South
" Kujama
Kaduna South " A2
A235 36
"
Saminaka
Chikun Lere
Kauru
"
A2
Kauru
Kajuru
A235
A125
A1 0
A236
2 35
Kachia
"
Zangon Kataf
Kachia
A2
"
Zonkwa
15
5
A23
F2
7
F1
12
26
F
F127
Kaura
"
Kafanchan
"
Kaura
F1
26 Kagarko A3
"
Jaba
Kagarko Kwoi A23
5
"
A2
Jema'a
Sanga
8
23
"
F Gwantu
Legend
24
A1
A234
" LGA Hqtrs.
F241
A2
A124
1
38
LGA border
4
F2
F2
A3
F24 0
Federal road
F221
Graded road
A234 F12 5
Semi graded road A234
Rail line
Major urban
F1
Surface water
24
F 124
A2
Naturally irrigated land

38
A3
F2
Prime farmland
F1
F124 F124
24
Forest/Woodland F124
F124
Gullies
1:750,000 (@ A2 size)
Rock outcrop
0 50 100 Km
F221

National park
A2
Figure 2.4: Prime farmland

The sector enjoys economies such as low cost, availability of high quality inputs, and some of
the infrastructure needed to transport and store crops are in existence. The State is also well
32

positioned to develop its agro-processing sector. It is already home to important agro-

processing plants strategically positioned to meet regional and national demand for their
products.
Much of the state is suitable for cultivation, given the right conditions including infrastructure
provision. However, there are areas that are not best-suited for agricultural investment and
care is needed to consider the local extent of these areas in detail. Overall Kaduna’s population
density is low, thus offering much more choice and flexibility in terms of area selection.
However, where population density is very high, the state should prioritise high value crops if it
is to reach its full economic potential.
Our analysis, based on a value chain approach suggests that priority agricultural development
zones are identified – Staple Crop Processing Zones (SCPZs) –as shown indicatively in figure 2.4,
based on whether the cultivation of staple corps is intensive, where conditions suit and
population density is relatively high, and more sparsely populated areas of extensive staple
crop cultivation. SCPZs can leverage existing assets and can become the target for major public
and private infrastructure investment.16
16
For example, the SCPZ in Kogi should see an extension of the natural gas pipeline and rehabilitation of the A123
Oja-Lokoja highway. It has attracted $250million of anticipated public sector investment including a $150million
World Bank loan that is in the final stages of consideration. A 440KW Solar Mini-grid to support rural
electrification for irrigation and processing has an estimated cost of N170million. A Nigeria Agricultural Processing
Zones Bill passed by FEC to National Assembly in 2015 is awaiting passage.

33


5°0'0"E 10°0'0"E
Major infrastructure proposals
10°0'0"N
10°0'0"N
5°0'0"N
5°0'0"N
5°0'0"E 10°0'0"E
Paki
#
Auchan
Makarfi #
" Kunkumi
Gimi #
Kudan # # Meyere
Giwa #
Kaya
#
# Yakawada Hunkuyi
# # Gubuchi
#
Kwiello Likoro Kurmin Kogi
c
Shika #
# # # Ikara Gimbawa dam
Fatika Shika dam
"
#
c
Zaria
Dogon Dawa ! #
Yakasai
Kargi
# Chori # Maigana #
# Soba
" Anchau
#
Damau
#
Dutsan Wai Galma dam
Igabi
"
#
Kubau c (FGN)
#
Zuntu
Turunku Gamagira #
Gadan Gayan #
# #
Pambeguwa
Birnin Gwari " c Bagoma dam
Buruku c Kangimi dam "
"
Kajuru
Randagi "
# Kaduna Dan Alhaji
#
Udawa # Kujama
"
#
Kayarda
#
Kasuwan Saminaka
Magani
"
Ungwan Kurama
# c
"
Lere # Unguwan Bawa
#
Kauru Gure Saminaka dam
# #
Kufana
#
Chikun
# Gwagwada
# Kurmi
#
Garun Kurama
#
Geshere
#
Idon
#
Kurmin Biri Mariri

# #
Damakasuwa
Fadan Ikulu # Fadan Chawai
# #
Doka
#
Kachia Kamuru
#
" Fadan Zango Kataf
Kamantan #
# Zonkwa
" Gora
#
" Samaru Kataf
Gidan Tagwai Tsorinyang Tum
Katari # # #
Population " Gurara Jaban Kogo
Manchok
c Kwaturu # Mallagum
dam (FGN) # Sarki Gidan Jibir Madakiya # #
< 10k Sabon
# # # Kaura Zankan
Bishini # Gidan Mana Kagoro # #
# Kurmin Jatau #
#
"
Jere #
Kenyi Gyani
# Kurmin Musa
! Kafanchan
10k - 60k #
Sabon Chori #
Legend Kagarko #
Fadan Kagoma
" Katugal
Fori
# Jema'a
#
# # Kwoi "
Capital Samba Aso Godogodo
" # "
Jagindi Fadan Karshi
! Major city
Tafa
Ankung
# # #
" Town 60k - 150k " Badde Sanga

# #
# Minor urban centre Mayir
Gwantu #
c Major dam
"
"
E PHCN plants
Randa
#
"
9 NNPC plants
132KV powerline
150k - 1m
330KV powerline
NNPC pipeline
Rail line
Priority agricultural areas
Staple and high value crops
Low priority areas
Lower priority
LGA Rural Density

> 1.5m
<1236
1236 - 2472
2472 - 3708
3708 - 4944
1:750,000 (@ A2 size)
0 50 100 Km
4944 - 6180

Figure 2.5: Major infrastructure & indicative priority agricultural zones
Kaduna has substantial acreage with irrigation potential. However, only about 2% of cultivated
land is under irrigation and there is over-dependence on rain-fed agriculture. Most existing
irrigation schemes are in need of major repair. Local ‘market gardening’ or traditional “fadama”
hand-irrigation of crop production in river flood plains means localised urban-oriented
agricultural production is well grounded. The irrigation facilities put in place by Government
and Fadama III Programme have been contributing to dry season farming. However,
competition for land in the peri-urban areas means that farmers are often displaced by
speculative housing developments – often disregarding the floodable nature of such land.
Stricter enforcement of ‘non-building’ land would help in this regard. For this to be successful,
more precise mapping in urban master plans is required, together with enforcement of
development control policies. The Kaduna State Infrastructure Master Plan has a dynamic role
34

to play in determining where the most suitable land for housing should be declared, and
through better land administration practice matched with better timing of infrastructure roll-
out according to local development plans.

The Kaduna State’s commercial poultry production sector is currently dominated by medium to
small-scale operators. Most of the fish outputs of the state come from the wild which is already
declining. Aquaculture therefore has to be promoted. Forest cover in the State has been much
denuded for firewood but there are substantial forest reserves that need protection and
appropriate support for sustainable timber production.
Operators in the traditional livestock production systems predominate in the state and their
production systems are essentially low input-output systems. The policy challenge therefore is
to move the operators in the traditional production systems gradually into the modern livestock
production sector that employ more capital and utilize mostly purchased variable inputs such as
feeds, drugs and vaccines.
Availability of good quality pasture all-the-year is a major challenge to ruminant production
systems in the State, since the quality of the pasture declines with the coming of the dry
season. The available grazing land becomes inadequate and pastoralist start moving their herds
in search of better grazing lands. Under these conditions, the modern ruminant producers,
especially dairy farmers, start to feed agro-industrial by-products to their animals. The policy
challenge therefore, is to ensure the availability of agro-industrial by-products and to promote
the production of silage for use during the dry season.
Agricultural production and development in the State also faces severe political challenges from
the conflicts over access to land between farmers and herders. Ranching solutions have long
been muted but access to land remains a major hurdle. Again, this is beyond the remit of this
Plan, although it lies clearly within the State’s Development Plan Agenda under Pillar 3, Security
and Justice. From an infrastructure perspective, future infrastructure planning cannot be
divorced from wider land use planning.
Physical planning for all forms of agriculture and natural resource development, taking on the
great an increasing demand for urban expansion and the loss of valuable agricultural land to
unregulated housing development is becoming an urgent priority and should be subject to a
Regional Spatial Development Plan for the State in which the interests of all stakeholders
including farmers and herders are addressed.17
Most infrastructure for agriculture relates to the wider area of regional and rural development
and there is a need for the Ministry of Rural and Community Development to take the lead in
spatial planning of future investment – aiming to get the right balance between support for
17
Planning is the responsibility of the Department of Land, Surveys and Country Planning which should be working
in collaboration with all relevant ministries and agencies such as KADGIS, KASUPDA, KADIPA and KAPSCO. In the
Kaduna State Development Plan this falls under the ‘enabling’ Pillar 4: Government and Administration, and in
particular in Sectors 11: Lands and Urban Development and 13: Rural and Community Development.
35

small farmers and modernisation of farm practices. Most recently a number of investors have
indicated their willingness to build on Kaduna’s State’s obvious agri-business potential. This will
require appropriate targeted infrastructural support.
Along with access to finance, land rights for farmers, improved farming practices and weak,
unsupportive and restrictive Federal tariff and fertiliser policies, infrastructure provision is seen
as a primary constraint. Poor roads are currently restricting access to markets and increasing
costs. For staple crops, good rural and national roads, crop storage and access to rail are
essential to ensure fast distribution to processors and markets, while access to fresh water,
power and natural gas is critical for processors.
For high value crops, good rural and national roads together with logistics hubs are essential to
ensure fast distribution to markets, preserve product freshness and minimize product losses
(greater than 30% currently). Access to water is critical to grow crops through well-managed
irrigation schemes and to clean products before packing and shipping. Access to adequate
power supply is critical for cool storage.
For poultry farming, good rural and national roads are essential to get reliable access to animal
feed and ensure fast distribution to slaughter operations and markets; Access to water is
critical to slaughter and packing operations; Access to power is critical for cool storage along
the value chain: poultry, slaughter, distribution
Given location of proposed priority agricultural development zones in Kaduna, the
infrastructure investments to overcome the primary constraints are as follows:
• Ongoing and future improvements to Kaduna-Lagos and Kano-Zaria-Kaduna-Abuja

corridor roads
• Improve roads connecting development zones to corridor roads (first tranche zones
likely to be located along or adjacent to the A2 corridor road between Kano and Zaria
and in the south east of the state along the A235 road from Kaduna to Kafanchan)
• Set up logistics hubs near or in development zones along corridor roads. These will need
to have cooled facilities
• Ensure irrigation is available in zones
• Integrate autonomous power (a few MW), natural gas (LPG), water supply in
development zones with SCPZs and EZs for urban-based processors (to be tied to
specific industrial demand).
• Assuming poultry farms are located near or in the priority zones consideration needed
for infrastructure for storage and slaughter operations (to be tied to specific industrial
demand such as animal feed production, slaughter and other processing operations)
36


The environment and natural resources sector appears to be underfunded. The Sector
Implementation Plan has aspirations to increase 50% of households with access to decent toilet
facility (water system and VIP sanitation) and to eliminate open defecation but the resources to
achieve these goals are currently lacking. Proposals for solid waste management have been
supported by youth employment programmes and NIAF-supported technical aid in the main
urban areas. Pilot projects for improved solid waste management have been carried out in Zaria
and there are ongoing programmes in the other main cities. Progress has been achieved but
there is still much to be done. Addressing these concerns will be critical if poverty is to be
reduced and urban living conditions significantly improved.
Other areas being addressed in this sector include the identification and remediation of
ecological problems, air pollution control, the construction of weather stations, and geological
surveys to identify mineral deposits.
Water, sanitation and drainage

Water service coverage is said to be 32% in cities and 20% in semi urban areas (LG HQs).
However, the proportion of households with access to improved water supplies is far below
these estimates.
Only 2% of communal rural boreholes are active and the residents of the State, both urban and
rural, experience poor sanitation and waste management.
The Ministry of Water Resources lists its main assets as follows:
1. Water Distribution Network 2,401 Km

2. Household Meters Connected 29,241 Units
3. Number of Water Tank Reservoir 11 no. [2,500 – 30,000m3]
4. Semi Urban Water Supply Schemes 29 no.
5. Hand Pump Boreholes 6,015 no.
6. VIP Latrine 1,103 no.
27 major dams are listed in the State, two abandoned or in a state of collapse and most of the
remainder undergoing remediation or reconstruction. The current status of the main water
supply systems is indicated in table 2.2. This indicates that not only are existing sources well
below the capacity needed to meet current demand but that capacity utilisation is very low. It is
probably fair to say that, although management and maintenance if plant have clearly been
lacking discouraging new investment, without an adequate and reliable electricity supply to
power pumps, and having to rely on expensive diesel generators, any water supply system
would suffer under the circumstances.

37

Item Water Raw Water Source Water Treatment plant Water Capacity
No. Supply Sources Capacity Water Works Installed Produced Utilization
Schemes 3 Capacity (mld) %
(Mm )
(mld) (2015) (2015)
Kaduna North New 150 112 74

1. Kaduna Kangimi Dam 58.5 Kaduna North old 90 50 55
Kaduna South 27 16 60
Sub-Total – Kaduna 267 178 66.60
2. Zaria Zaria Dam 15.3 Zaria new 50 24.66 49.31
Zaria old 10 0.00 0.00
Zaria New treatment plant 150 0.00 0.00
Sub-Total – Zaria 210 24.66 49.31
3. Kafanchan River intake Kafanchan 13.2 3.19 24.19
4. Birnin Gwari Bagoma Dam 3.95 Birnin Gwari 2.6 0.0 0.00
5. Saminaka Saminaka Dam 0.5 Saminaka 3.5 1.48 42.36
6. Ikara Gimbawa Dam 3.0 Ikara 7.0 0.64 9.18
7. Zonkwa Kajim Spring Manchok 12.86 2.94 22.83
8. Kwoi River Intake Kwoi 12.3 3.48 28.30
9. Kagoro Spring Kagoro 2.2 1.38 62.93
Sub-Total – Others 53.66 13.11 24.43
Grand Total 530.66 215.76 56.68
Table 2.2: Water source, treatment plant and capacity utilization of waterworks
Major investment, particularly in urban water supply and sanitation is needed. Due to the low
and intermittent piped water coverage most urban residents depend on shallow wells that are
unsanitary and exposed to contamination from surface runoff and proximity to pit latrines. The
bulk of the households in Zaria are served by household pit latrines or to a limited extent on on-
site septic tanks, while over 75% of public schools do not have toilet facilities and public centres
such as markets and lorry parks lack adequate sanitation facilities. Consequently, there is a high
incidence of water-related diseases like diarrhoea, dysentery, typhoid and frequent outbreaks
of cholera. In Kaduna covered pit latrines are found in nearly half of all households and only a
third of households have access to a WC. 62% do not have access to improved sanitation and
76% lack a connection to a mains water supply.
Urban sanitation is a major concern threatening public health in the major cities. Zaria City
water supply system was originally constructed in 1939 and expanded in 1975. The current
production capacity of 26,000 m3/d out of a designed capacity of 60,000m3/d meeting only
25% of demand. The water distribution system is characterised by old, poorly maintained
infrastructure, with low coverage, and high unaccounted-for-water of over 60% due to leakages
38

and illegal connections. In addition, there is inadequate metering, poor billing and revenue
collection.
The principal ongoing programme, the Zaria Water Supply and Sanitation Expansion Project
aimed to contribute to Government’s efforts to increase access to water supply and sanitation
from the current level of 54% for water and 32% for sanitation to 100% access by 2020 but
progress has been very slow The project is targeted at public health and aims to improve access
to safe water supply by residents in Metropolitan Zaria from about 30% to 80% (originally by
2016), and improve sanitation in schools, health centres and other public places like markets
and motor parks to 90% by the same date.
The Kaduna State Government embarked on the Zaria Water Supply Expansion Programme
consisting of construction, construction of a new water treatment plant and the rehabilitation
of a water transmission and distribution system of Galma dam. The Federal Government of
Nigeria and Kaduna State Government are financing the construction of Galma dam and Water
Treatment Plant, and, the Islamic Development Bank the financing of the water transmission
system African Development Bank financing will facilitate the rehabilitation and
expansion/construction of the water and sanitation infrastructure in Zaria City and environs as
well as provide technical support to Kaduna State Water Board (KSWB) to improve service
delivery and cost recovery.

39

µ
F 244
F 21
8
5°0'0"E 10°0'0"E
GUSAU
A2
9
A
Water Resources and Drainage Map
10°0'0"N
10°0'0"N
A1 26
A2
F128
F128
F128
KANO
5°0'0"N
5°0'0"N
A2
A
23
5°0'0"E 10°0'0"E
7
F216
F1 28
28
F1
A1
26
21
F
7
A2
1!Paki
F2
1Auchan
43
!
Makarfi
A 126
"
ka
Iya
A2
Kunkumi
er
Gimi Meyere !
Riv
1! 1!
Giwa Makarfi Ikara
Kaya
"
! Yakawada Hunkuyi Ri
ve Kudan Re
s
F2
1
16 ! " rS
hik Gubuchi ve
rT
iga
a Ri
Tubo
!
Sabon Kuyelo
!
1 Shika1 Likoro Kurmin Kogi Gimbawa dam
c
!
! 1 !
Ikara
1
Fatika Sabon-Gari Shika dam "
1 1!
1 Gari
Sabon c
ta
Giwa
ure
" 1
er K
River
Ri
Zaria
ve
Matsa
Riv
rD
chik
"
am
1 Yakasai !
ar i
Birnin Gwari
Dogon Dawa
! Zaria 1 Maigana
1 1 Kargi
" !
F243
!
F 216
1 1 1 Soba
A
Anchau
ku
23
n
"
A2
tu
6
an
rM
ve
Ri
Damau
G
1
al
!
m
a
Birni-Gwari Dutsan Wai Kubau
Ri
v
er
Ma
a
!
ori g
iwa
1 1
rK
riki 1 1 1
ive
he
1
gi
us
in
rK
Kw
ve derri
Ri
Galma dam wan
er
Igabi 1 er K
Riv
Riv
1 A11
Zuntu
(FGN)
1 Gamagira 1 !
1 Turunku " 1!Gidan Gayan
a
!
ing
Kor
Bagoma dam c
Birnin Gwari 1 Kangimi dam
11 1
A11 Pambeguwa !A23 6 A236
Riv
"
c Bawa
er B
!
R ive
A125 1Rigachikun Kadaru Ri ver G
a bb
alma
1 1 ! !
A2
Buruku
rA
an-U
River
!
ra
1
ga
da
Lakau
Kaduna Kajuru
wa
Randagi North "

! 1 Dan Alhaji
F2
Kaduna North !
43
"
Riv
Kayarda
A125
er K
!
Kaduna
" Kujama Riv
adi
er Ku
Kaduna SouthSouth " tsh
eri
Rive
rK
A235
1 1 ara
m
Saminaka
c
i
Kasuwan Ungwan Kurama " a
Magani ! am
ah
1 Riv
er ! 1 ve
rR
1 Ro
Ri
Chikun
mi
Lere Saminaka dam
25
Kauru Gure
A1 " !
1Kufana Kajuru River K
! abar
A2
i
Gwagwada A23
! 5 Kauru a
Kurmi or
! rG
11 1 Ri
ve
11 Ka
du
na Garun Kurama
Ri
ve !
rS
ar Geshare
ni
kin
Powa !
River Goda
-P
in aw
Idon
ik
a
Sar
!
A10 1 1 1
Kurmin Biri
Mariri
i
og
!
n -K
!
ba
A236
ab
1
B
er
2 35
Damakasuwa
Riv
A
Fadan Ikulu ! Fadan Chawai
! !
Doka Bororu
! !
Kamuru
River Kasa
n-Kog
i
Kachia !
"
Zangon Kataf
A2
F1
6
Kachia
2
a
Iyn
Fadan !
er
Zonkwa
Riv
F 215
Kamantan
" 1
Samaru Kataf
R i v e r Di n y a !
Gidan Tagwai Tsorinyang Tum
Gurara
7
Katari ! ! !
F 12
r Rubu
!
dam (FGN) Jaban Kogo
A235
F126 Rive ! an Manchok
c
Kwaturu nt
a Mallagum
! Gidan Jibir ve
rG ! F127!
Sabon Sarki ! Ri ! Madakiya
1! Kaura Zankan
Gurara
Gidan Mana
MINNA Bishini
! Kurmin Jatau !
!
Kurmin Musa
Kafanchan
Kagoro
! K a u "r a
!
Jere ! ! Gyani ! "

! Rimi
Kenyi
! Sabon Chori w
! r Asso
Rive
Kagarko 1 Kagoma
Fadan
1 " Jaba Fori
! gun A3
Katugal !
Kagarko
River Ko
!
1 ! A235
Kwoi "Samba Aso Godogodo
! ! 1
A2
F126 1
Riv
Ankung Jagindi Fadan Karshi

er
! ! r Sanga !
Okw
Rive
er Tapa
Riv
Jema'a
a
Tafa
!
da
F238
! Badde
Ma
Mayir
Gwantu
" Sanga
!
24
A1
River Gudi
Randa
A2 !
34
ep
To
ABUJA
er
A3
Riv
F241
A2
Legend
A124
8
F23
14
F2
F240
" LGA Hqtrs.

F221
! Other Designated Urban Areas
c A234 A234 F125

Major dam
1 Local reservoir
21
F2
LGA border
F1
Federal Trunk A or F road
24
F124
A2
Graded road
38
A3
F2
Semi graded road

F1
24
F1 24
F124 F124
Rural road
LAFIA
F124
Rail line
1:750,000 (@ A2 size)
F221
Major rivers
0 50 100 Km

Surface water
A2
Figure 2.6: Water resources and drainage

The proposed Water Supply System consists of a new multi purpose dam (power supply,
irrigation and domestic water supply), a water intake, a new water treatment plant, water
transmission and water distribution system for Zaria City and its environs. The construction of
the dam is 75% and construction of the Water Treatment Plant was scheduled for completion in
2013. Construction of sewer based sanitation systems for schools and health centres was
rejected because there is no existing network but upgrading from septic tanks to localized
sewerage systems may become a necessity in certain urban neighbourhoods as densities
increase and environmental health concerns grow.
40

Integrated rural infrastructure provision

Integrated rural infrastructure programmes have been shown the way by the Pampaida
Millennium Village project (see box).
Box 2.1: Pampaida Millennium Village project

Pampaida witnessed unprecedented infrastructural transformations within a time of less than
three years: 10 small satellite schools constructed, 12km of road connecting Pampaida to the
town of Sauwala, an electrification project, local resource centre (ICT centre), cereal bank,
health clinic, school kitchen, market stalls, junior secondary school, and ZAIN GSM base station
were made possible through effective partnerships between the Project, Kaduna State
Government, Ikara Local Government and the people of Pampaida. Mobile phone coverage was
brought to Pampaida; 35% of households now own a phone. The 22 boreholes drilled in
strategic locations within Pampaida over the last two years continue to provide the inhabitants
with potable and safe drinking water. Access to improved drinking water nor sanitation when
the Project in 2006 was zero, now 71% and nearly 30% respectively. The gender separated VIP
latrines constructed in strategic public locations are proving to be effective in maintaining basic
sanitary conditions within the Village. Pampaida has a basic health clinic and medical services
are provided free to the inhabitants of the MV.
41

Targets Stakeholders Indicative Current Potential future

target projects projects (subject to
Date feasibility studies)
ranges
AGRICULTURE, FORESTRY AND FISHING
Establish agricultural KDSG 2017-30 Sites Establish agricultural
development sites and Private sector identified, priority areas and staple
zones developers, investors from 5 to crop processing zones
and farmers 1000ha in (SCPZs)
Igabi, Kachia,
Ikara and
Hunkuyi, Giwa,
Kachia, Kaura,
Chikun; Some
sites acquired
Improve feeder roads/rural urban linkages to key 2017-30
towns [see TRANSPORTATION]
Improve storage facilities KDSG 2017-30 Construction of Develop warehouse and
Private sector warehouse refrigerated storage
developers, investors (5000MT) to facilities in and adjacent to
and farmers reduce post- agricultural development
harvest losses areas and staple crop
processing zones (SCPZs)
Decentralised power/water solutions [see POWER] 2017-30
Rehabilitate and extend irrigation schemes [see 2017-30 Rehabilitation Irrigation schemes in
WATER & SANITATION] of Bagoma development sites and
Dam and re- zones
construction
and
rehabilitation
of Irrigation
structures
INDUSTRY, COMMERCE AND TOURISM

Develop new industrial KDSG 2017-50 Proposed sites Develop industrial
enterprise zones Private sector for Industrial enterprise zones in
developers and hubs in Chikun, metropolitan areas of
facility managers, Igabi, Maraban Kaduna, Zaria and
industrial investors Jos Kafanchan and in fast
growing smaller cities.
Promote/facilitate KDSG 2017-50
knowledge-intensive “high Private sector
tech” industries developers and
investors especially
technology
42

businesses
Promote/facilitate city KDSG 2017-50 Galaxy Take forward Mogadishu
centre regeneration/new Private sector Mall/Shoprite redevelopment, Central
commercial developments developers and and Galleria Kaduna; promote/facilitate
investors, major 13,200 sq m + regeneration Ahmadu
commercial tenants 2000 housing Bello Way in association
and existing property units, Central with street improvements
owners Kaduna and mass transit. Options
for Zaria and Kafanchan.
Promote/facilitate KDSG 2020-30 Promote/facilitate
regeneration of existing Private sector regeneration of Kaduna
industrial areas in major developers and South Industrial area, total
cities facility managers, current floor space: ;
industrial investors, regenerate other run down
existing tenants and industrial estates.
property owners
Promote/facilitate KDSG 2020-30 Promote/facilitate
regeneration/upgrading Private sector regeneration of Kaduna
existing urban markets developers and Central Market area and
facility managers, adjacent areas; upgrading
investors, major of other major urban
commercial tenants, markets
market trader
associations
Promote/facilitate new KDSG 2020-50 Call for EoIs for Promote/facilitate new
suburban Private sector new markets commercial centres and
commercial/services centres developers and by KDSG in markets to relieve the
and market developments investors, major 2016 pressure on the CBD in
in metropolitan expansion commercial tenants, Kaduna and Zaria and
areas market trader provide neighbourhood
associations and district facilities in the
expanding metropolitan
areas
Develop sites for KDSG 2017-20 Expand business support
Entrepreneurship Centres centres including training
and serviced space start up
facilities to Kaduna’s SME
sector.
Promote new hotel KDSG 2017-50 Promote/facilitate
developments and tourism Investors and revitalization of
facilities hoteliers, private metropolitan hotel sector;
transport operators, promote/facilitate ‘eco-
existing tenants and tourism” in areas of
property owners natural beauty.
INFRASTRUCTURE, HOUSING AND TRANSPORT – ENERGY
43

Secure reliable electricity FGN 2020-25 Development Development of new

supply to businesses and KDSG/KAPISCO of new transmission lines and
residents in all main towns transmission substations relating to
NPPC
and cities including low lines and urban demand; new large
income areas GENCOs & DISCOs substations scale solar energy plant
[Kaduna Electricity and small scale urban
Distribution neighbourhood solar
Company] energy plant.
Power equipment
and fuel suppliers.
Secure reliable electricity 2020-25 Existing solar Development of new

supply to key rural energy transmission lines and
production centres and programmes substations/decentralised
rural towns and large and solar energy programmes
settlements development relating to rural
of new population.
Secure reliable electricity 2025-30
transmission
supply to all rural areas
lines and
substations
Secure reliable fuel supply NPPC 2020-25 Kaduna Oil Biofuel, natural (cooking)
to businesses and Fuel suppliers Refinery, gas and biogas
households for vehicles and secure crude alternatives; international
cooking; reliable petroleum oil and product financial support from
product feedstock to pipelines and climate change-related
chemicals, fertiliser and construct gas sources; Niger-Kaduna
textile plant pipeline; proposed oil pipeline;
improve South-North gas pipeline;
kerosene long term Trans-Saharan
production and pipeline to Morocco/EU via
other outputs. Kaduna
INFRASTRUCTURE, HOUSING AND TRANSPORT – TRANSPORTATION

Rehabilitation of Western FMOT, BPE, ICRC 2017-20 Majority of
and Eastern narrow gauge Concession is only investment
rail line feasible of entire from private
combined network sector
Single $2bn bid from concessionaire;
GE, with Transnet 3,500 km of
[CGETR.UL] of South narrow-gauge
Africa, Dutch-based lines from
APM Terminals and Lagos, to Kano
China's Sinohydro and Port
Consortium Harcourt to
Maiduguri.

Completion of Central FMOT 2018-21 FMOT considering new
44

Railway: Lagos-Kano Lagos-Kano and Coastal

standard gauge Railway routes identified
as higher priority by FMOT
but are both less feasible
and provide less benefits
Promote rail-road freight- FGN Upgrading of Construction of new inland
related development KDSG existing inland container depots
container
Private sector
depots in
developers and
Kaduna c45ha
facility managers,
investors, existing
and potential
tenants and property
owners, unions and
freight associations
Relieve Federal Road FGN 2017-25 Complete New Outer Western
bottlenecks in major cities KDSG Kaduna Bypass as proposed in
Eastern Bypass Kaduna Master Plan and
Private sector
Upgrading on advertised for expressions
[possible toll road].
A2/A125 of interest. Provisional
interchanged alignment of route to the
planned west of Rigasa and the new
railway
Promote road freight- FGN Off road HGV Other location in Kaduna
related development KDSG servicing and and Zaria as map
mixed use
Private sector
enterprise
developers and
zones: on-
facility managers,
going at
investors, existing
Maraban Jos.
and potential
tenants and property
owners, unions and
freight associations.
Existing State Government KDSG 2017-2020 2600 km of Expansion of higher
and Local Government rural LGAs existing paved specification road network;
feeder roads: renew/repair roads. maintain and manage
existing surfaced roads existing roads; improve
where necessary. rural-urban linkages,
access to markets and
urban services and
livelihood opportunities
Existing rural roads: 2020-25 900 km of
upgrade graded and semi- existing graded
upgraded roads to all and semi-
weather surfaced roads graded roads
focusing on key rural
development priorities.
Upgrade other rural roads 2025-30 900 km of
45

to all weather surfaced existing earth

roads and build new roads roads
as necessary focusing on
key rural development
priorities.
Kaduna Metropolitan Area: 2017-20 Upgrading of Additional 30 km of new or
improve road network with route through improved road links
new east west road linkages Rigasa planned needed to address poor
to the railway connection between the
station on the city centre and the
new Abuja- western part of the city
Kaduna railway including. Associated
urban upgrading
opportunities in Rigasa and
Tudun Wada.
New and improvements to 2020-25 Traffic management
existing main urban road measures and
network in Metropolitan improvements to major
Kaduna, Zaria and distributor roads as
Kafanchan Kaduna Master Plan and
proposed master plans for
other metropolitan cities.
New and Improvements to 2020-30 Traffic management
existing urban roads in measures and paving of all
metropolitan suburban and access roads.
residential areas
New and Improvements to 2025-30 Traffic management
existing urban roads in measures and paving of all
smaller towns access roads.
Urban mass transit: 2020-30 Provisional Possibly BMT/BRT and
Develop and implement routes and progressive introduction of
proposed mass transit infrastructure tram based system in
systems in metropolitan requirements Metropolitan Kaduna
areas: light rail and bus across followed by Zaria and
mass transit or bus rapid Metropolitan Kafanchan.
transit Kaduna
identified.
Transit Oriented 2020-25 25 km of Kaduna Metropolitan Area:
Development: Kaduna - completed and Kaduna: reroute A2 to
economic regeneration 25 km of completed Eastern Bypass
opportunities associated unfinished dual – turn Nnamdi Azikwe Way
with road improvements carriageway. into major urban artery
and mass transit provisions 20 km of with commercial
[see also: INDUSTRY, existing dual development
COMMERCE and TOURISM] carriageway in opportunities.
relatively poor Kawo A2/A125 interchange
condition due upgrading with associated
regeneration of market
46

to HGV traffic. and associated

commercial/service areas.
Kaduna – other TOD 2020-25
opportunities including Pan
Drive
Zaria and Kafanchan TOD 2025-35
opportunities related to
introduction of urban mass
transit
INFRASTRUCTURE, HOUSING AND TRANSPORT – HOUSING

Land management KADGIS/KASUPDA 2017-25 All new land Serviced land to be
allocations in auctioned. Focus
DUAs by TPO resources initially on
not informal development corridors as
KMP recommended
Prepare layouts for KADGIS 2017-50 9 layouts are Unguwan Tanko, Ungwan
residential/commercial uses being Kaji, Malali, Kachia,
developed, 4 Kujama, Rigassa, Kudenda
of them have
been approved
but only one is
being
implemented
Mass housing schemes KADGIS 2017-50 Sites have Millennium City,
been Barakallahu, Kafachan,
identified, Zaria, Chikun, Igabi,
some have
been assessed
but not yet
bought
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES

Solid waste management 2017-19 Refuse Recycling programme
evacuation in (“Waste-to-Wealth”)
2020-25
13 LGAs Waste-to-energy
Purchase of
Biogas from landfill
metal and
plastic refuse Biogas and fertiliser from
containers liquid waste
Construction of
transfer points
and refuse
dumps in 16
other LGAs
Sanitation/liquid waste
management
47

Environmental sanitation [see WATER &

SANITATION]
WATER AND SANITATION

Secure reliable piped 2017-25 Zaria Water
water supply to Supply
businesses, public Expansion
buildings and place and Programme:
new water
residents in all main
treatment
towns and cities including plant and the
low income areas rehabilitation
Improved sanitation to all of a water
transmission
public buildings and
and
places, businesses and
distribution
residents in all main system of
towns and cities including Galma dam.
low income areas
Improved water supply to
businesses, public
buildings and place and
residents in small towns
and farmers in rural areas
Improved sanitation to
businesses, public
buildings and place and
residents in small towns
and farmers in rural areas
Sectoral and scenario analysis

In line with the scenarios presented in Section 3, the above targets can be considered and
priorities amended and agreed by the stakeholders, Appendix 1reviews the infrastructure
sectors in Kaduna State in detail including the sector priorities of the MDAs, and explores a
range of options for targets for infrastructure investment. It provides the basis for the indicative
targets set out in this section. It includes an analysis of the sectors identified is carried out,
stating the current level (actual investment), the future (expected investment) and a
gap/variance analysis of existing infrastructure stocks. Existing State Government data sources
and related studies are drawn on in this analysis and to derive short to medium term (2017-20)
infrastructure targets. For the longer term, target investments from the GEMS3 value chain
approach. In 2016, the UK Government-supported GEMS3 programme undertook a ‘value
chain’ analysis of economic activities in Kaduna and Kano states to explore the growth potential
of the major economic corridor that links these two key states in the north of the country. Over
thirty value chains were analysed of which 12 were prioritised as both attractive and feasible

48

SECTION THREE

INVESTMENTS BY LOCAL GOVERNMENT

3.1 LGA Current State and Economic Priorities

3.1.1: Local Economic Development-Infrastructure Investment Linkage
Local government administration in Nigeria is classified as the third tier of government. Hence,
focus on local infrastructure development is conceived from the standpoint of the need for
local economic development (LED). The purpose of local economic development
conventionally, is to build up the economic capacity of a local area with a view to improving its
economic future and the quality of life for all. Hence, it is a process by which public, business
and nongovernmental sector partners work collectively to create better conditions for
economic growth and employment generation. In practical terms, LED has to do with five key
characteristics as presented in Figure 3.1
Figure 3.1: Five key characteristics of Local Economic Development
Source: Baird, 2010.
With LED, communities in local economy continually upgrade their investment climates to
improve their competitiveness, retain jobs and improve incomes. Responses from local
communities to their LED will help to actualize laudable initiatives such as follows:
49

Ensuring that the local investment climate is functional for local businesses
Supporting small and medium sized businesses (SMEs)
Encouraging new enterprise establishment
Attracting investment from elsewhere (within the country and internationally)
Investing in physical (hard) infrastructure
Investing in soft infrastructure (including human resource development,
institutional support systems and regulatory issues)
Supporting the growth of particular business clusters
Targeting particular parts of the city for regeneration or growth (spatial
targeting)
Supporting survivalist (often informal) businesses

When LED initiatives succeed, the aim of LED which is to create employment opportunities for
local residents, alleviate poverty, and redistribute resources and opportunities to the benefit of
all local residents is accomplished. To this end, appropriate infrastructure investment provision
is a key input for development policy if local economy is to be developed for the sake of
economic growth, poverty reduction, and employment for the rural population. A typical LED
process is presented in Figure 3.2 below.
50

Figure 3.2: The LED Process
Phase 1
Develop LED Vision
Identify LED Goals &

Identify Opportunities Identify Barriers
Objectives
Phase 2
Formulate LED Strategy
Phase 3
Implementation of Strategy
Review LED Plan
Program One Program Two Program Three
Project 1 Project 1 Project 1
Project 2 Project 2 Project 2
Phase 4
Measurement (Key Performance Indicators)
It is worthy to note that LED succeeds when its guiding principles are upheld. These principles
that engender successful LED initiatives are:
Create favourable locational factors. This implies qualities which make a place a
good place to do business given the presence of relevant infrastructure.
Promote business by promoting and supporting spin offs and sub-contracting,
attract investors which fit nicely into the local economic structure
Make local markets work better by creating places and opportunities that will help
to match supply and demand of economic activities
Make better use of locally available resources and skills and maximize opportunities
for development
Target previously disadvantaged people and marginalized communities with a view
to getting them participate fully in the economy
Promote ownership, community involvement, local leadership and joint decision
making
51

Involve in local, national and international partnership between communities,

businesses and government to solve problems and create joint ventures that will
build up local areas
Employ flexible approaches that will permit responses to changing circumstances at
local, national and international levels.

3.1.2 LGA Current State in Kaduna State
In December 2015, Kaduna State Bureau of Statistics conducted a general household survey.
This was done with a view to filling the gap identified in the basic data requirement needed to
measure the performance of the State towards the actualization of the Restoration Master Plan
(RMPF) and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Since the survey captured a number of
socioeconomic indicators of household in the State along urban-rural dichotomy; and for all the
twenty-three local government areas of the State, this section of KADIMP draws substantially
from the Kaduna Baseline Report Household Survey 2015.
For Kaduna State and indeed the LGAs in the State, key areas of infrastructure that will directly
touch on the fundamental pillars of economic development, social welfare, security and justice,
and governance are roads, housing, potable water supply and power supply to households and
industries. For long-term sustainable development and the need to guarantee relevant enablers
for future development and advancement, provision and availability of social infrastructure
such as health and education oriented services are equally desirable and expedient. The current
state of LGAs in the State is therefore examined in the context of the following infrastructure:
Roads
Housing
Portable water supply
Power supply (electricity)
Health
Education

Roads
The State is uniquely situated to service the other Northern States and the Federal Capital
Territory. Hence, there is presence of network of roads that connects the State with other parts
of Nigeria. Major roads are the Kaduna – Abuja road that links the State to the Southern parts
of Nigeria; the Kaduna – Zaria – Kano road and Kaduna – Saminaka – Jos road. The state of
52

some of these roads is such that they are in a fairly good condition with exception of a few. In
the case of the State-owned roads, they connect major towns and local government
headquarters and their conditions are also fairly good. However, roads in LGAs are feeder roads
and they help link rural communities with urban centres. Despondently, most of the LGAs roads
have deteriorated badly and this has been affecting the economic life of the people in the rural
economy of the State. For example, farm produce cannot be transported with ease to urban
centres where they can be sold at good prices.

Results18 from 2015 household survey reveal that LGAs have divergent levels of access to
motorable roads. Jaba LGA recorded the highest percentage of 98.7 access to motorable road,
while Kauru LGA reported the least percentage of access to motorable road of 10.2 (see Figure
3.3). There is no strong divergence between the level of access to motorable roads in the rural
and urban LGAs in the State.

Figure 3.3: Access to Motorable Roads in Kaduna State

Housing
The housing sector in Kaduna State is characterized by modern houses in the well-laid out, fairly
well-serviced and low density Government Reservation Areas, public and private estates in the
key cities, houses in the medium to high-density urban and Semi-urban areas which are not
adequately serviced by roads, potable water supply and electricity. Houses in the rural areas
are often far from the standards in the cities in terms of conveniences, road network, potable
water and electricity supply. The major challenge of the housing sector in the State is adequate
provision of standard housing to meet the need of the increasing number of urban dwellers and
18
See Appendix 3. 1
53

to provide the infrastructure required to improve the living conditions of the rural dwellers. For
example, Figure 3.4 indicated that the practice of open defecation was found to be 10 percent
in the rural areas while only 41.1 percent utilized covered pit latrine and 12.5 percent used soak
away as typology of toilet facilities. The act of open defecation was at the peak in Kaura LGA
with a significant statistics of 38.3 percent (see Appendix 3.2).

Figure 3.4: Types of Toilet Facilities Used

Portable Water Supply
In Kaduna State, estimated water demand is put at 751mld and current service coverage stood
at 23 percent of the State’s population. For the purpose of water supply and limited irrigation,
there are five existing dams built and owned by the State Government. These are:
Kangimi dam of 58.5 million cubic meters (mcm) for Kaduna town;
Shika dam of 15.3 mcm for Zaria Water Supply;
Bagoma dam of 3.95mcm for Birnin Gwari Town;
Gimbawa dam of 3.0mcm for Ikara town;
Saminaka dam of 0.5mcm.

The State has twelve (12) water works for the supply of potable water to nine (9) urban centres
in the State. The current supply capacity of the water works is 380.80mld of water, while the
requirement for the urban centre is 540.25mld. Unfortunately, it has been discovered that
production from the 12 water works has dropped to about 171mld from the 380mld available
54

capacity due to erratic power supply and worn out equipment. The low production level
coupled with inadequate capacity has resulted in service coverage of only 32% for the cities.
This implies that only 32% of the urban population is receiving potable water from the
municipal water supply system daily19.
The Semi-Urban Water Supply Programme provides potable water to all Local Government
Council Headquarters. In this respect, there are 27 Semi-Urban Water Supply Schemes that are
operated by the Local Government Councils. Estimates have shown that less than 20% of the
inhabitants of the semi-urban areas have access to potable water, indicating supply deficit.
Rural water supply is catered for through the sinking of boreholes, concrete and hand-dug wells
etc. Available records have shown that there are a total of 1,667 boreholes constructed by the
Ministry of Water Resources covering all the 23 LGAs. In addition to the number of boreholes
built by the Ministry of Water Resources, Water and Sanitation Project (WATSAN) has
constructed another 400 boreholes. Only 20% of the boreholes constructed are active and
productive. Service coverage is, therefore, estimated at only 11% of the rural populace. Against
the background of statistical evidence available, there is an acute shortage of water in
adequate quantity and potable quality in Kaduna State. Streams and hand-dug wells are the
prevalent sources of water that constitute more than 77%. The supply of pipe borne water in
urban and selected semi urban towns is epileptic. In all, water supply coverage in the State
stands at about 23% of the total population (see Appendices 3.3 – 3.5).
Power Supply (Electricity)
One of the major challenges in Nigeria is the supply of electricity and concerted national effort
is currently on-going to address the problem of generation and distribution across the nation20.
In Kaduna State, the power distribution network is fair in the cities but grossly inadequate in
the rural areas. However, locations that are adequately connected cannot be guaranteed of 24-
hour power supply, hence, just like the rest of the nation, there is high dependence on privately
owned generators. About 28.7 percent of the population of the State has no access to
electricity supply even though the proportion in the urban areas is as low as 3.3 percent as
against 34.8 percent in the rural areas. Rural electrification has remained fairly insignificant as
only 1.5 percent of the rural population relied on electricity supply through this channel (see
Table 3.1).

19
This reveals a significant deficit in terms of supply of portable water to the urban population.
20
This involves a major re-structuring of the power sector.
55

Table 3.1 Sources of Electricity21 (%)
Local NEPA/PHCN/ Rural Electrification Private Solar None

Government Kaduna Electric Generator Power
State 68.7 1.2 5.7 0.2 28.7
Urban 96.7 0.3 4.5 0.3 3.3
Rural 62.1 1.5 6.0 0.2 34.8
Zone 1 (North) 66.6 0.0 6.6 0.2 32.2
Zone 2 (Central) 81.6 3.6 3.1 0.1 15.5
Zone 3 (South) 59.0 0.3 7.3 0.4 37.5
Source: Kaduna Baseline Report, Household Survey 2015
Health
Apart from 23 hospitals, 3 dental centres, and specialized tertiary health institutions in the
State, there are 608 Local Government health facilities which include Primary Health Centres
(PHCs) and Health Clinics (HCs). In addition, 656 private health facilities which include private
and faith based hospitals, clinics, laboratories and pharmacies are spread across the 23 LGAs of
the State. Despite these volume of health facilities, health care services in the State are
generally in short supply of specialists in medicine, pharmacy, laboratory science, x-ray, etc.
Statistically, as at 2014, there are 133 doctors in the State service; comprising of 8
specialists/consultants, 7 dental surgeons and the rest general medical practitioners. Health
service delivery indicators suggest unacceptably poor health indices as well as heavy disease
burden as earlier presented in Table 1.4.
Household survey report gave further insight into the status of health services22 at the LGAs
level. Table 3.3 shows that 22.8 percent of pregnant women could not access antenatal care at
State-wide level. For rural women, the proportion increased to 23.6 percent and as high as 46.7
percent of pregnant women in Sanga LGA enjoyed no antenatal care. In terms of patients’
satisfaction with health services/facilities, the performance ranges between 41.2 percent (the
lowest) in Jaba LGA to 93.1 percent (the highest) in Soba LGA (see Appendices 3.7 and 3.8).
21
See also Appendix 3.6
22
Appendices 3:11 and 3:12 indicate drainage system and type of refuse collection used, respectively.
56

Table 3.2: Antenatal Care and Satisfaction with Health Facility
Local Government % of female without antenatal care Level of satisfaction with health facility
State 22.8 74.4
Urban 20.5 83.3
Rural 23.6 73.0
Sanga 46.7
Jaba 41.2
Soba 93.1

Education
As at 2012, Kaduna State has 4,026 public primary and 5,211 secondary schools, respectively. In
recent times, there has been an increase in private sector participation in providing educational
services in the State. Again, in 2012, there are 860 and 527 private primary and secondary
schools, respectively. Sequel to the introduction of the Universal Basic Education scheme (UBE),
demand for education went up by the various communities as evidenced by the establishment
and management of primary schools by some communities in the State. There are 1,194,014
pupils and 46,648 teachers in public primary schools in the State. These figures indicate pupil -
teacher ratio of 26. Similarly, there are 299,869 students and 3,890 teachers in public
secondary schools in the State, which translates to Student- teacher ratio of 77.
The figures for pupil - teacher ratios for the State are good. However, the ratios vary across the
State, with rural ratios far worse than urban ones. Also the level of qualified teachers to pupil
ratio is considerably lowered than those shown above (though this ratio is improving as a result
of actions taken over recent years). Especially as we move up the grades to Junior Secondary
School (JSS) and Senior Secondary School (SSS), there are severe shortages of staff to teach
particular subjects, especially sciences.
There are also indications that progressive enrolment from primary to secondary and secondary
to tertiary is low and many children drop out of school when they complete primary and Junior
Secondary Schools23 (see Table 3.3). Nevertheless, the schools have pressure of ‘large demand’
for educational services. This indicates that available facilities (especially classrooms and
teachers) to cater for current number of pupils and students are in short supply. Data available
in the State Ministry of Education indicates that over 90% of children in Kaduna State are
enrolled in public secondary schools. Only 10% attend private schools. This suggests that there
is disequilibrium in the supply and demand for education services in the State. In addition to a
23
Appendices 3.9 and 3.10 reveal highest school completion rate and proficiency standard in reading, respectively.
57

number of Federal, State and privately owned institutions, the State has a total of twelve
Business Apprenticeship Training Centres (BATCs) in different locations. Women Training
Centres are also established by the State and Local Government Councils to promote women
empowerment and development. A total of 23 of such centres, one in each of the LGAs, are
being operated in the State.
Table 3.3: Highest School Completion Grade (%)
Pre-primary Primary JSCE SSCE OND/ND NCE HND BSC

State 22.6 36.1 13.0 5.4 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1
Zone 1 (North) 18.8 35.9 10.8 3.7 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2
Zone 2 (Central) 20.4 35.0 13.5 5.8 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1
Zone 3 (South) 30.3 37.4 15.5 7.4 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0
Urban 24.9 39.6 14.5 7.1 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.3
Age 6 to 11 34.5 39.4 2.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Age 12 to 18 7.7 31.9 26.7 12.0 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.3
Rural 22.0 35.2 12.6 4.9 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1
Female 22.9 35.1 12.2 4.7 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1
Male 22.4 36.9 13.7 6.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1

3.2 Infrastructure Investment Levels Required
Arising from the review of state of infrastructure carried out in section 3.1 that suggests that
there are gaps in terms of the supply of most of the infrastructure and the demand coming
from the increasing population of the State, it is to be expected that the level of infrastructure
required will be on the rise over time. Interesting, fiscal policy stance of the current
administration is found to be favourable to the improvement of the level of infrastructure
investment. In 2017 fiscal year, education, infrastructure and health got the biggest budgetary.
As seen in Table 3.4, pro-poor programmes and supply of infrastructure that will attract job-
creating investments to the State got budgetary allocations24 of N93.03billion.
24
Appendix 3.13 presents budgetary allocations to LGAs in Kaduna State in 2016.
58

Table 3.4: Kaduna State Budgetary Allocations (2017) to Pro-poor

and Infrastructure Development
Sector Budgetary Allocation (N, Billion)
Education 44.84
Health 10.49
Water 8.6
Infrastructure 24.5
Agriculture 4.6
Total 93.03

Further insight into the 2017 budget has shown that the deliverables of the budget will directly
help to address the infrastructure investment demand at the LGAs level. The list of the
expected outcomes of the 2017 budget includes the following:

Completion of the Zaria Water Project
Unprecedented Rebuilding and Equipping of Schools
A massive programme to rehabilitate, maintain or rebuild Township
Roads
Creation of a green economic zone – an Agro-Industrial Park along Abuja
Road
Provision of infrastructure in Mining Sites and Rural Areas
Conversion of Doka Hospital on the Kaduna-Abuja Expressway into a
Trauma Centre
Expansion of the Post-harvest price support for farmers
Anchor Borrowers Programme for six crops of comparative advantage,
Kick-off the Kaduna Light Rail Phase to link Rigachikun with the Refinery,
and
Implementation of an Emergency Nutrition Intervention Programme to
reduce malnutrition and hunger amongst our poorest citizens and
children.
59

SECTION FOUR

ECOLOGICAL MODELLING AND SOCIAL IMPACT CHARTER

4.1: Summary of the Ecological Modelling of KADIMP
Generally, the KADIMP is conceptualized on the basis of i) the Kaduna State Development Plan
(SDP) which is anchored on 3 main Pillars25 – Economic Development; Social Welfare; and
Security & Justice, and Governance; and ii) Short-to medium-term (ST/MT 2017-2020), and
long-term (LT up to 2050) perspectives.
It is important to note that the summary of suggestions regarding environmental assessments

would focus on the Economic Pillar (which includes a regional context) and constitutes a total of
about 51.75% of estimated capital expenditure (2016-2019) across the 3 SDP Pillars. Similarly,
across the 3 KADIMP scenarios (A, B & C), the Ministry of Works, Housing and Transport is
estimated to execute (largely infrastructure) projects costing 54% of the total from the group of
Government establishments responsible for economic development (Pillar 1) within the ST/MT
2016-2019. Irrespective of the rankings and weightings, it is clear that physical/built
infrastructure in Kaduna is planned on an expansive scale. These would include roads (rural
access/urban roads/inter-regional roads), water infrastructure (boreholes, city pipelines
reticulation, treatment plants, etc.), agriculture (fertilizer production and actual use, land cover
conversion for farming/grazing, small dams/impoundments for irrigation, etc.), and a host of
other projects planned for the ST/MT scenario. These projects would collectively create
localized and regional impacts, if mitigative steps/measures are not planned before-hand.
Given the uncertainties (in the terms of location, duration, etc., of specific projects), it is
difficult at this stage to clearly outline specifics on a project by project basis. However, it is
recommended that environmental assessment indicators be disaggregated, where relevant, on
the basis of geographic location within the State, current status of the location (near-natural,
secondary, or degraded), or other characteristics, in accordance with the provisions of the
International Protocols and Instruments to which Nigeria is a signatory, as well as regulations at
the level of Nigeria and Kaduna State.
26
Results from an Ecological Connectivity Assessment (ECA) based on the Ecological
Connectivity Index (ECI) evaluates the functional connectivity among regional units of Kaduna
25
The Kaduna SDP actually identifies 4 Pillars. For the purpose of the KADIMP scenario modelling, Pillars 3 and 4 are merged to
become Security & Justice, and Governance.
26
See Appendix 4.1for detailed methodology and results of ECA using the ECI method.
60

State, by which the ecological connectivity pattern was identified and divided into 5 areas of i)
High, ii) Moderately high, iii) Moderately low, iv) Low and v) No Connectivity. The ECI model
also show high potential paths through which the source (from the south) can possibly connect
the destinations in the (north) as a basis for building ecological linkages that guarantees natural
processes of recovery from alteration/disturbances during the development of built
infrastructure.
In a nutshell, the specific context being recommended is based on the understanding and
definition of ‘green infrastructure’ as “a nation’s natural life support system - an interconnected
network of waterways, wetlands, woodlands, wildlife habitats, and other natural areas;
greenways, parks and other conservation lands; working farms, ranches and forests; wilderness
and other open spaces that support native species, maintain natural ecological processes,
sustain air and water resources and contribute to the health and quality of life for communities
and people” (Benedict and McMahon, 2002)27. The idea is to make the case for concurrent
development of the critically and equally valuable “green infrastructure” (SDGs 9, 11 &
15/Nigeria’s EIA Act 86 of 1992, etc.) while seeking economic development (Pillar 1 of the
Kaduna SDP) through “built infrastructure”.
Considering the scenarios and the state of Kaduna’s environment (as shown in Appendix 4.1), it
becomes imperative that:
a. A project-specific EIA is conducted as indicated in the guidelines for conducting EIAs

under Nigeria’s EIA Act, and in accordance local-level regulations and requirements;
b. A project-specific assessment index is developed using the relevant SDGs (9, 11 and 15)
along with their respective indicators28, and the ICF Environmental and Social Reviews
Procedures Manual29 and The World Bank Guidelines for ESIA30, in accordance with
international best practices (this will become even necessary if part of KADIMP funding
will be sourced from Multi-lateral organizations);
c. Associated and potential environmental impact must be assessed (weighted), for an
environmental management plan to be comprehensively developed with a detailed
contingency, monitoring coverage and schedule, on a project by project basis;
27
Benedict, M.A. & McMahon, E.T. (2012). “Green infrastructure: smart conservation for the 21st century”. Renewable Resources Journal 12-
19
28
United Nations (2016). Report of the Inter-Agency and Expert Group on Sustainable Development Goal Indicators (E/CN.3/2016/2/Rev.1).
Available online at https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/indicators/Official%20List%20of%20Proposed%20SDG%20Indicators.pdf Accessed 03/19/2017
29
The IFC (2016) Environmental & Social Review Procedures Manual
http://www.ifc.org/wps/wcm/connect/190d25804886582fb47ef66a6515bb18/ESRP_Manual.pdf?MOD=AJPERES
30
The World Bank Group (1989). “Operational Directive on Environmental Assessment” (OD.4.00).
61

d. The ECI results (Appendix 4.1) reveals the need to develop the identified ecological
paths into linkages connecting the source (i.e. the remaining dense vegetal land cover in
Kachia and other parts of Southern Kaduna) to destination (i.e., the extreme less
vegetated locations across the northern parts of Kaduna State) as a strategic option in
line with the Great Green Wall for the Sahara and Sahel Initiative (GGWSSI)31 that would
offer long term mitigative measure for stabilizing the physical components of the
environment, on a regional basis; and,
e. Most importantly, review and strengthen relevant Kaduna State Government Laws and
Regulations specifically Kaduna State Environmental Protection Law No. 7 (2010)32 and
Kaduna State Government/KEPA Regulations 1 – 7 (2011) to serve as the guiding
framework for providing environmental responsibility and responsiveness for the
KADIMP.

4.2 Social Impact Charter of KADIMP: Gender, Social Inclusion (G & SI) and Youth
Figure 4.1 below provides the logical framework adopted for KADIMP-gender, social inclusion
and youth linkage.

Figure 4.1: Scope of KADIMP on Gender, Social Inclusion and Youth

Effective infrastructure development requires a combination of both supply side proficiency
(technical design) and demand side considerations (who uses facilities, at what cost and impact,
etc.). The interface between both of these aspects is key to situating infrastructure as a driver
of inclusive growth. On the one hand this has to do with the role of infrastructure in enabling
31
Federal Government of Nigeria (2012). Great Green Wall for the Sahara and Sahel Initiative: National Strategic Action Plan. FMEnvt, Nigeria
32
Kaduna State of Nigeria. 2010. Kaduna Environmental Protection Law No. 7. Gazette No. 23, Vol. 44 (initially cited as the Edict
No. 1 of 1998)
62

access to markets and basic amenities. On the other, it underscores the more direct role of
infrastructure as a provider of jobs.

While infrastructure provision is likely to improve the pace of growth its delivery alone will not
guarantee a growth pattern that delivers long term benefits to as many citizens as possible,
including those who have limited opportunities and resources due to one social constraint or
another. Economic growth that is both rapid and equitable needs to be based on a planning
process that tries to identify as well as address the issues which cause limited access and
opportunities for some citizens. Infrastructure development affects development patterns and
outcomes, economic opportunities, and resource allocations in ways that are often markedly
different for men and for women. Essentially, this is because men and women have different
roles and responsibilities, and often face different cultural, institutional, physical, and economic
constraints, many of which are rooted in systemic biases and discrimination. These differences
in how men and women use infrastructure services have important implications for sector
policies, investment priorities, and program designs

Situation overview
The 2006 National Census report indicates an almost even gender split of the population in
Kaduna state with 3,090436 males and 3, 0203,065 females. Over 50% of the population are
youth with female youth comprising 52% of the state’s total youth population.

The National Poverty profile of 2011, which was based on the 2009/2010 National Harmonized
Living Standard (or CWIQ) Survey, (NBS, DFID & the World Bank) estimates that at least 61.85%
of the population in Kaduna state live on less than dollar a day.33 Another 61.5% live in
absolute poverty, 52.4% are extremely poor while 41.7% experience food poverty. The CWIQ
survey further suggests that women and youth make up a majority of these numbers (p.8). The
National Multiple indicator Cluster Survey, produced by the National Bureau of Statistics
suggests a number of gender disparities in Kaduna state across some key socio economic
indicators. These include literacy rate (56.8% male: 62.5% male); and unemployment (11.9%
female: 7.9% male). The survey further indicates that the state has one of the highest maternal
mortality rates in the Country at 800 deaths per 100,000 live births. The high numbers of
unemployed youth, as well as the gender disparities in access and opportunities especially
within the context of social infrastructure provision all have implications for infrastructure
planning in Kaduna state.

Gender & Social Inclusion (G & SI) Policy context
The Kaduna State government is committed to social cohesion as one of the key outcomes
anticipated from the delivery of public goods and services. Within this context, infrastructure
delivery has been consistently recognised as a major enabler of shared growth. The Kaduna
State Development Plan (2016 – 2020) identifies ‘social welfare’ as one of the 4 critical priority
33
2011 National Poverty Profile at p.23
63

areas. It also emphasizes the other development pay-offs from improved infrastructure access
such as better living standards, productivity and social cohesion.

KADIMP G & SI broad principles and commitments
The G & SI broad principles for the Kaduna state Infrastructure Master Plan are based primarily on the
social inclusion principles contained in the State Development Plan. They also reflect global best practice
and frameworks to which Nigeria has subscribed. The latter includes the United Nations Sustainable
Development Goals (SDGs’) framework, particularly Goal number 9 on the need to provide resilient,
affordable infrastructure, which then becomes a catalyst for inclusive job creation and growth.

Figure 4.2: KADIMP G & SI broad principles

Principle 1: Do no harm
Care will be taken to ensure that infrastructure investments do not promote harmful
environmental and social impacts.

Principle 2: Promote stakeholder participation
Stakeholders from different demographic groups shall be consulted in developing and
implementing infrastructure investments particularly where such investments have the
potential to distort already established patterns of economic and social life at community level.

Principle 3: Support Universal Access
Specific actions such as geographical targeting and subsidy regimes shall, where feasible, be
adopted from time to time, in order to ensure that previously marginalized demographic
groups and communities are able to utilize and also benefit from improved infrastructure
delivery. Accessibility standards for persons with disabilities (e.g. signposts, designated sitting
areas and disability ramps) shall also be adopted for physical infrastructure delivery.

64

Principle 4: Facilitate improved social infrastructure delivery

Priority shall be given to improving the states social sector asset base through the provision of
public transportation, healthcare and educational facilities.

Integrating Gender & Social Inclusion compliance in KADIMP scenario design

Table 4.1 provides a context-specific model for ensuring gender and social inclusion compliance
in the KADIMP scenario design. It draws from the State Development Plan and highlights best
practice and priority actions over the short, medium and long terms respectively. It is envisaged
that the actions below will be integrated as part of broader line items in annual capital budget
design as well as in state PPP frameworks.

65

Table 4.1: Gender, Social Inclusion and Youth-KADIMP Scenario Design Interface
Scenario A: Short Term Scenario B: Medium term Scenario C: Long term

Invest in the provision of : Invest in the provision of: Invest in:
§ Signposts and designated § Improved market access through the § Expanding/Improving rural roads
seating/waiting areas for expansion of public transportation network to enable increased access
persons with disabilities services. to healthcare, education and
for physical infrastructure. § Infrastructure related skills training markets.
§ Improved security and (vocational & technical) for youth and § Partnerships for scientific and
lighting in public transport women. technological research to enhance
delivery. § Affordable energy (solar and alternative sustainable infrastructure
§ Modernized primary sources of power) especially at delivery in Kaduna state.
healthcare and education community level. § Enhanced disability
facilities.(social § Modernized primary healthcare and features such as disability ramps in
infrastructure) education facilities. (social infrastructure). public mass transit.
§ Infrastructure related skills § Infrastructure related job creation § Improved solid waste management
training (technical and including for women, youth and also and access to sanitation facilities
vocational) for youth and persons with disabilities. especially at community levels.
women. § Security and lighting in public § Security and lighting in public
transportation provision. transportation provision.
66
SECTION FIVE

PARTICIPATORY KADIMP SCENARIO DESIGN

A. Introduction

We use scenario planning in this paper as a flexible approach to summarize directions
and broad preferences for long-term planning that describe joint effects of several
factors (as opposed to one-by-one) in simplified narratives. The purpose of this is to
enable stakeholder conversations (and voting) to reveal their respective preferences for
future development paths. Scenarios are different from development plans in the sense
that they are not focused on extrapolations of previous trends, but articulate desired
scenario outcomes (development paths) in flexible terms as guidance for their
translation into prioritized sector plans (SDP and SIPs) and budgets.

The reason why scenarios are needed to sort out the stakeholders’ development path
preferences are threefold: (i) Arrow’s “impossibility theorem” states that no economic
calculus can consistently prioritize projects – which reflect different voter preferences
and choices - across sectors34, (ii) scenarios help to translate non-prioritized
enumerations of political programs (such as the ‘Manifesto’ and SDP) into multi-
dimensional choices on preferred development paths, by giving differentiated weights35
to each of the four “pillars” (as shown in Section one Figure 8, i.e. Economic
Development, Security & Justice, Social Welfare and Governance & Administration,)
until agreement can be reached on the eventually emerging scenario closest to the
vision and with the highest expected benefits, and (iii) the same process would need to
be repeated within each of those pillars for the respective sectors comprised under
them.

The art of scenario planning lies in reducing the complexity of known and the
unknown/unknowable factors into a limited number of internally consistent views of the
future that span a wide range of possibilities. As uncertainty increases with the length of
the time-horizon, scenario planning takes on particular relevance for longer time-
horizons, as in our long-term scenarios with a perspective extending to 2050. Heuristic
and subjective elements are necessarily involved in scenario building, thus there cannot
be only one right scenario; their purpose is rather to trigger the conversation on
development path preferences, and then translate the implied weights of the favoured
scenario into mid- and short-term plan priorities.
34 For a more generalized formulation of this “impossibility theorem” see Kenneth J. Arrow, (1950), A
Difficulty in the Concept of Social Welfare, Journal of Political Economy, 58 (4): 328–346
35 Our earlier Kaduna capital project prioritization approach, which did not use scenario planning,
implicitly gave the same weights to all pillars / sectors to allow for cost and social benefit aggregation
across the state’s capital project portfolio
67

We start with the short-to medium-term perspective, covering the remaining SDP
period 2017-2020, and then extend the time-horizon to the long-term 2050 perspective,
with its much larger uncertainties and opportunities.

Realism in capital budgeting needed

Contrary to similar exercises, we are not focusing on scenarios built around high –
medium or low budgets / capital investments / growth assumptions. We start from the
assumption that a realistic funding scenario should be equally applicable to all
scenarios.36 For our purpose different funding assumptions (higher vs. lower budgets)
do not provide a meaningful differentiator for the generation of alternative scenarios, if
all available funding sources are utilized in the most efficient and effective manner, as it
should be the case. Thus we can simplify this step with the assumption that Kaduna
State will strive under all circumstances for the highest possible growth, budgets and
capital investments37, and the scenarios then translate into different pillar and sector
distributions of available funds for capital investments.

Our focus in scenario design is then on the question: which sectorial composition and
regional distribution of future capital investments is expected to provide development
paths which generate the highest overall benefits to the citizens of the state?

The Kaduna State Development Plan (SDP) enumerates a set of economic development
goals and infrastructure investment priorities for the State. In summary, the SDP states
the following:

• Development Goals: Increased agricultural productivity and food security; re-
invigorating industrial development activities, particularly labor-intensive
activities and MSMEs; and improved standard of education, healthcare and
social welfare.

36 At the margin, there might, however, be a minor differentiation in funding availability, if one scenario
appeals to the private sector or lends itself to PPP schemes substantially more than the other scenarios.
While realistic funding scenarios covering the different time periods are clearly needed, we do not
believe, however, that different funding assumptions (higher vs. lower) provide a meaningful
differentiator for the generation of alternative scenarios, as all available funding sources should be
utilized in the most efficient and effective manner.
37 This assumes that capital investments can be scaled according to the varying budget growth outcomes,
and budget variances to the median trend can be dealt with through standard risk management
approaches
68

• Investment Priorities: Maintenance, rebuilding and expansion of the State's

decaying infrastructure, particularly, water supply, electricity and road networks,
to accelerate inclusive economic growth, job creation and poverty reduction.

We’ll use the four “priority areas” of the SDP (as per Fig 2 in Section 1) as main ‘drivers’
for the scenario design, (while merging pillar 3 and 4 into a new pillar 3/4). This will
ensure that the scenarios are constructed in line with the SDP goals and priorities. But
we have to caution against a common pitfall, namely to conceptualize the short- to
medium-term time frame as trend extrapolations. While the short to medium-term
scenarios use the ongoing portfolio of infrastructure projects as their starting point
(called ‘environment scan’), new projects can be added to the portfolio over the
remainder of the SDP period in full alignment with the selected, preferred scenario. The
ST/MT scenarios therefore focus only on new capital projects for the reminder of the
SDP time period.

B. Short to Medium-Term Scenarios

In order to design the short to medium term (ST/MT) scenarios, we tentatively assess in
a first step each of the four SDP pillars (while merging pillars 3 & 4 into a combined pillar
3/4). This is to ensure full consistency with the SDP, and to make use of the actual
capital expenditure estimates for the years 2016 – 2019 in the 2017 budget serving as
the starting base. The distribution of the capital expenditures by pillars (remapped; in
Naira & percentages) for those years is as follows38:

% of Approved Capital Expenditure Estimates
(Sub-Sectors remapped by SDP pillars)
SDP Pillars
2016 2017 2018 2019
in Naira & Percentage
Pillar 1: Ecopnomic Development

50.203.070.269 46.545.188.437 72.562.014.932 77.987.543.752
(incl. Regional)
Pillar 2: Social Welfare 33.371.817.458 53.479.741.835 45.743.045.486 31.207.752.712
Pillar 3/4: Security & Justice and Governance 24.697.788.923 31.430.887.110 18.236.155.443 17.407.056.828
Total Capital Expenditure Est.
108.272.676.650 131.455.817.381 136.541.215.861 126.602.353.292
Pillars in Percentage
46% 35% 53% 62%
(incl. Regional)
Pillar 2: Social Welfare 31% 41% 34% 25%
Pillar 3/4: Security & Justice and Governance 23% 24% 13% 14%
Total Capital Expenditure Est. 100% 100% 100% 100%

38 Based on 2017 approved budget file, and remapped as per Appendix x
69

We thus can observe for the period 2016 – 2019 a sizeable increase by 15% of capital
expenditure estimates for pillar 1 from 46% to 62% of the estimated total. This shift to
pillar 1 is compensated by corresponding reductions in the shares of pillar 2 (-6%) and
pillar 3 / 4 (-9%).

As the next step in our scenario design we define major areas of impact (impact
pathways) for each of the three pillars; special attention has to be given on the time
frame: as we are looking first at short- to medium term scenarios, the corresponding
impact during that time period is much smaller than the respective impact in our long-
term scenarios. The combination of these two dimensions (pillars and impact pathways)
then produces an illustrative matrix as follows (the illustrative ranking scores in the
matrix are explained in para. 13):
ST/MT Impact Pathways

Technology Adoption
(Assessment Scores 0-10)
A) Productivity &
C) Direct Poverty
B) Market Access
D) Investment
Reduction
Enablers
SDP Pillars
Total
ST/MT Impact Pathways by Pillar 29%
2 2 1 2 7
(incl. Regional)
Pillar 2: Social Welfare 0 4 8 2 14
Pillar 3: Security & Justice and Governance 4 0 2 8 14

In terms of the impact pathways, the first two (A+B) are used as proxies for economic
growth39. Direct poverty reduction is defined as proxy for a more equitable GINI
distribution in Kaduna State; investment enablers are understood as proxies for
investment multipliers triggered by capital budget investments.

The ranking scores (on the chosen scale 0-10 in this illustrative example) should be
assessed as the result of best judgments made by the participating stakeholders of
expected ST/MT benefits for a given Naira (for example per NR1 million) capital
investment. To illustrate with an example: a capital investment of say NR 1 million in
39 These proxies are needed, as the direct measurement of the impact of capital investments on economic
growth has proven so far ambiguous, contradictory and inconclusive, as a “consequence of endogeneity,
identification, and reverse causality problems”, The World Bank, Highways to Success or Byways to Waste.
Estimating the Economic Benefits of Roads in Africa, Washington, DC, 2015, p. 9 (with extensive literature
on the issue)
70

pillar 3/4, i.e. improvements of Security & Justice and Government is assessed in the
example above to improve in the short- to medium-term time frame economic
productivity, to have a direct impact on poverty reduction (for example through
provision of better and more equitable government services, et al), and – through the
provision of public goods (more investment certainty; improved governance) to have a
major impact on investment enablers. The assessment scores add up to 29% of the
maximum possible (in the line below the “Total”), which is indicating that the assessed
ST/MT impact in this example is quite low, and – as we’ll see later – is much higher in
the long-term scenarios. These assessment scores are – together with the scenarios –
the main drivers of the capital expenditure sector distribution; therefore, it is of critical
importance to take the time needed to think through the impact pathways for each
pillar in the short run.
The main reason why in the illustrative example above pillar 1 (Economic development)
is assessed with lower ST/MT impact is twofold: (i) “hard” infrastructure investments
under pillar 1 tend to be more capital intensive than the softer capital investments
under pillar 2 and 3 / 4, and (ii) the gestation period of pillar 1 investments are on
average longer than those made under the other two pillars, translating into lower
ST/MT impact (as assessed here), but higher LT impact, as we’ll see later.

From a ranking assessment as the illustrative one above, we can derive three scenarios:

• Scenario A: Focus of ST/MT capital investments on strengthening SDP Pillars 2,

and 3/4, which would provide – according to the illustrative ranking - the highest
ST/MT benefits per investment unit. This scenario would accord initially a higher
priority to a strengthening of human capital assets for a more productive and
value-adding, manpower-enabled, service-focused economy (services currently
account for 45% of State GDP) of Kaduna State. The sub-sector distribution of
the investments in this scenario with a focus on education, health, social
development, potable water & sanitation would be determined in the 2nd step of
our scenario design (see below). This ST/MT scenario can be seen primarily as a
‘transitional strategy’, to help sequencing the initial build-up of capacities and to
alleviate some of the severe skill gaps which are constraining future Kaduna
State growth.

• Scenario B: Focus of the short- to medium-term capital investments on pillar 1
(economic development), - notwithstanding that the assessed benefits from this
scenario appear lower than for scenario A in the illustrative matrix assessment
above. This scenario would give relatively higher priority to infrastructure
investments in support of the SDP Priority Area of Economic Development (SDP,
p. 19), through diversification and strengthening of Kaduna’s manufacturing and
agricultural productivity. It is noted from the Kaduna State GDP Report that
agriculture and industry account for a combined 55% of the State’s GDP. If the
71

impact scores of the matrix above hold, we have to expect that this scenario
would translate in the ST/MT into lower economic growth of Kaduna’s economy,
which would be politically accepted as a trade-off for a higher, accelerated
growth later. The expectation in this scenario is that it would strengthen in the
medium to long-term Kaduna’s competitiveness in the service, manufacturing
and agriculture sectors and thus drive higher GDP growth in the longer run, with
impacts on job growth and poverty alleviation.

• Scenario C: ST/MT capital investments focus with equal priority on all pillars. It
should be noted that new capital investments in this scenario would
considerably diverge from the current budget and SDP distribution pattern,
which has more similarity with scenario B than C.

The following table translates the considerations above into a scenario illustration of
the resulting distribution of capital expenditures by pillar.

ST/MT Scenarios by SDP Pillars Scenario A Scenario B Scenario C
Planned for 2019
62% 50% 70% 60%
(incl. Regional)
Pillar 3/4: Security & Justice and Governance 14% 15% 10% 12%
Total Capital Expenditure Est. 100% 100% 100% 100%

Based on the overall available capital allocations for the short-to medium term, as
detailed in the funding section of this Master Plan, the percentage distributions of the
three scenarios can be converted into allocated Naira capital expenditures.

We assume for illustrative purposes that the capital expenditure budget will continue to
grow to the end of the SDP with an annual growth rate of 8% for pillar 1 (2016-2019 avg.
18%), of 0% for pillar 2 (avg. 2016 – 2019 was -2%), and of -2% for pillar 3 / 4 (avg. 2016
– 2019 was -10%). In aggregate, this would translate into an overall capital expenditure
budget growth of 9% p.a. The scenarios above would then translate into the following
pillar ‘envelopes’ by 2021.

Assumed
ST/MT Scenarios by SDP Pillars Planned for 2021 Scenario A Scenario B Scenario C annual growth
to 2021

90.465.550.752 69.192.039.010 96.868.854.613 83.030.446.811 8%
(incl. Regional)
Pillar 2: Social Welfare 31.207.752.712 48.434.427.307 27.676.815.604 38.747.541.845 0%
Pillar 3/4: Security & Justice and Governance 16.710.774.555 20.757.611.703 13.838.407.802 16.606.089.362 -2%
Total Capital Expenditure Est. 138.384.078.019 138.384.078.019 138.384.078.019 138.384.078.019 9%

In the paras above, we have discussed the first step in our 2-step approach, which
obviously needs a further breakdown by sub-sector, which are categorized under the
72

respective pillars. We apply the same approach to this 2nd-step, as discussed above.
Again, we start from the actual sector distribution as our reference point, which shows
some recent trend developments for the period 2016 – 2019. Power Supply and Min. of
Works, Housing and Transport have seen their shares in Capital Expenditures expand,
whereas water resources did contract.

% of Approved Capital Expenditure Estimates [re-mapped]
Percentage
ST/MT Capital Expenditures by
2016 2017 2018 2019 Difference
Sectors under Pillar 1
2016 - 2019

(incl. Economic + Regional sectors - Min.f. Rural & 46% 35% 53% 62% 15%
Comm. Dev.)
Agriculture & Forestry, Forest Mgmt Project, KADP 5% 4% 5% 6% 1%
Commerce, Industry & Tourism 1% 1% 1% 1% 0%
Kad. Power Supply Comp. (KAPSCO) 0% 2% 11% 17% 17%
Ministry of Works, Housing and Transport & KAPWA 27% 19% 28% 32% 5%
Min. Env, & Na. Resources & KEPA 2% 3% 2% 1% -1%
Water Resources 11% 7% 6% 4% -6%

The ranking would be based on such factors as the State’s infrastructure gaps,
comparative advantages, its need to attract private investment, and its ability to
effectively leverage public infrastructure investments. Realistic choices are not regarded
as necessarily binary in nature i.e., the economic development trajectory is likely to be a
complex mix of weighted sectorial priorities and associated interventions that are not
mutually exclusive. We expect that additional factors shaping the ranking will be
identified through further discussions at the participatory stakeholder meetings. The
template for the illustrative ranking of the sectors under pillar 1 is provided below (with
the same approach also applicable to pillars 2 and 3):
73


(0-10)
Technology Adoption
A) Productivity &
C) Direct Poverty
B) Market Access
D) Investment
Reduction
ST/MT Sector Prioritization
Enablers
under SDP Pillars
Total
(incl. Economic + Regional sectors - Min.f. Rural & 42%
Comm. Dev.)
Agriculture & Forestry, Forest Mgmt Project,
KADP 4 4 5 1 14
Commerce, Industry & Tourism
6 8 7 6 27
Kad. Power Supply Comp. (KAPSCO)
8 4 4 10 26
Ministry of Works, Housing and Transport
4 4 2 9 19
Min. Env, & Na. Resources & KEPA
0 0 2 0 2
Water Resources 4 2 4 2 12

A few illustrative examples for ranking the expected development impacts at the
sectorial level are provided below, with the caveat that most of the expected impacts
will materialize well beyond the timeframe of the short-to medium term scenario, and
as such then reflected in higher ranking assessments in the long term scenario:

• Improving agricultural productivity in certain locations that are already more
commercially orientated (such as along certain corridors like the A2 and the
A235);
• Accelerated development of roads and rail, to facilitate movement of agricultural
products through upgraded or new local government roads, and to capitalize on
the State’s strategic location and relatively good transport connections to the
North and South. As the national economy grows so will its role as a key logistics
location. Kaduna and Zaria are close enough to form an economic development
corridor with links to Abuja in the South and Kano in the north and forming the
main artery of the state;
• Placing equal emphasis on increasing both agricultural and manufacturing
productivity, as any manufacturing renaissance in the State will depend on
moving up the value chain through processing locally produced raw materials;
• Prioritizing light manufacturing and high-tech industries over heavy industry. The
potential of service-based industry and smaller-scale, higher-tech and
knowledge-based industries should not be underestimated. Kaduna City is
probably already benefitting from overspill from Abuja and light manufacturing is
extending northward from FCT along the A2.

Finally, these assessments can be consistently translated into the respective illustrative
scenarios A-C for capital budget allocations. We recall that the overall envelopes for
each of the pillars have already been determined through step 1 defining the pillar
74

scenarios; accordingly the overall amount of distributable capital allocations will be

scaled accordingly. Within those scenario pillar envelopes, step 2 is now considering
their modifications by sector, depending on the scenario and rated strength of expected
ST/MT impact pathway.

• Scenario A focused capital investments as a transitional strategy on
strengthening SDP Pillars 2, and 3 for an initial capacity and skill development
with assumed relative highest ST/MT benefits per investment unit. Expansion in
the capital expenditure shares would accordingly incurred in the sectors with the
highest rankings

• Scenario B focused short- to medium-term capital investments on pillar 1
(economic development) in the expectation that this approach would have high
payoffs in the longer term. This scenario would give relatively higher priority to
diversification and strengthening of Kaduna’s manufacturing and agricultural
productivity in the light of their combined 55% share of the State’s GDP.

• Scenario C focused ST/MT capital investments with equal priority on all pillars.

In reflection of the sector ranking and the scenario emphasis, the corresponding sector
matrix could then take on the following illustrative shape for pillar 1 – Economic
Development:

Scenario A Scenario B Scenario C
ST/MT Scenarios for 2019
Pillar 1 (Pillar 1 = 50% of (Pillar 1 = 70% of (Pillar 1 = 60% of
by Sector under Pillar 1
Planned for 2019 Total) Total) Total)
(incl. Economic + Regional sectors - Min.f. Rural & 62% 50% 70% 60%
Comm. Dev.)
Agriculture & Forestry, Forest Mgmt Project, KADP
6% 3% 5% 4%
Commerce, Industry & Tourism
1% 1,4% 1,9% 1,6%
Kad. Power Supply Comp. (KAPSCO)
17% 18% 25% 21%
Ministry of Works, Housing and Transport 32% 25% 35% 30%
Min. Env, & Na. Resources & KEPA
1% 0,1% 0,2% 0,1%
Water Resources
4% 2,1% 2,9% 2,5%

These directions – again, the combined effect of the impact assessments and scenario
assumptions, can be easily translated into the corresponding sector envelopes, based on
the growth assumptions to 2021 and the derived pillar envelope as shown in the table
[p. 6] above.
75

Scenario A Scenario B Scenario C

ST/MT Scenarios for 2019 Pillar 1
(Pillar 1 = 50% of (Pillar 1 = 70% of (Pillar 1 = 60% of
by Sector under Pillar 1 Planned for 2021
Total) Total) Total)
(incl. Economic + Regional sectors - Min.f. Rural & 90.465.550.752 69.192.039.010 96.868.854.613 83.030.446.811
Comm. Dev.)
Agriculture & Forestry, Forest Mgmt Project, KADP 8.699.914.084 4.723.145.637 6.612.403.892 5.667.774.764
Commerce, Industry & Tourism 1.809.521.120 1.894.592.258 2.652.429.161 2.273.510.709
Kad. Power Supply Comp. (KAPSCO) 24.406.400.000 24.607.381.952 34.450.334.733 29.528.858.343
Ministry of Works, Housing and Transport 47.391.800.000 34.917.660.872 48.884.725.221 41.901.193.046
Min. Env, & Na. Resources & KEPA 1.926.180.000 149.387.824 209.142.954 179.265.389
Water Resources 6.231.735.548 2.899.870.466 4.059.818.653 3.479.844.559

Obviously the same considerations would be applied to pillars 2 and combined pillars 3 /
4, as illustratively shown below; first, we start with the ranking of pillar 2 subsectors by
impact pathway. The reader will notice that the scores allocated to pillar 2 add up to
42% of the maximum possible; the same as for pillar 1; this can obviously be changed, if
the stakeholders come to the conclusion that the ST/MT impact (per capital investment
unit) is considered higher or lower under this pillar, as compared with the other pillars.

(0-10)
Technology Adoption
A) Productivity &
C) Direct Poverty
B) Market Access
D) Investment
Reduction
St/MT Sector Prioritization

under SDP Pillars Enablers
Total
Pillar 2: Social Welfare
42%
Education 6 8 4 2 20
Health & Human Services 4 8 8 2 22

Women Affairs & Social Development, Youths,
Sports & Culture 6 2 0 0 8

The pillar-2 subsector trends in the recent budget expectations of capital expenditures
for 2016 – 2019 are shown in the following table:
76

% of Approved Capital Expenditure Estimates [re-mapped]
Percentage
2016 2017 2018 2019 Difference
Sectors under Pillar 2
2016 - 2019
Pillar 2: Social Welfare

31% 41% 34% 25% -6%
Education 26% 34% 31% 22% -4%
Health & Human Services 5% 5% 2% 2% -3%

Women Affairs & Social Development, Youths, Sports
0% 2% 1% 1% 0%
& Culture

In the light of the starting point of expected capital budget shares 2016 – 2019 in the
table above, and taking into consideration the assessed impact rankings, the following
ST/MT scenario outcomes can be expected:

ST/MT Scenarios for 2019 Scenario A Scenario B Scenario C
by Sector under Pillar 2 Pillar 2 (35% of Total) (20% of Total) (28% of Total)
Planned for 2021
Education 22% 32% 18% 26%
Health & Human Services 1,7% 2,6% 1,5% 2,1%

0,7% 0,4% 0,2% 0,3%
& Culture

If we want to translate the impact assessments and the scenarios into 2021 budget
envelopes for pillar 2 sectors, it would result in the following capital budget envelopes:

by Sector under Pillar 2 Pillar 2 (35% of Total) (20% of Total) (28% of Total)
Planned for 2021
Pillar 2: Social Welfare 31.207.752.712 48.434.427.307 27.676.815.604 38.747.541.845
Education 28.248.341.262 44.250.579.032 25.286.045.161 35.400.463.226
Health & Human Services 2.124.411.450 3.660.642.566 2.091.795.752 2.928.514.053

835.000.000 523.205.708 298.974.690 418.564.567
& Culture
Control 31.207.752.712 48.434.427.307 27.676.815.604 38.747.541.845

Finally, the same exercise for the combined pillars 3 & 4 provides the following picture:
the expected pillar-3/4 subsector shares of capital expenditures for 2016 – 2019 are
shown in the following table:
77

Percentage
2016 2017 2018 2019 Difference
Sectors under Pillar 3/4
2016 - 2019
Pillar 3/4: Security, Justice, Governance &

23% 24% 13% 14% -9%
Administration
Executive 20% 20% 11% 11% -9%

Governance 2,0% 2,4% 1,9% 2,0% 0,0%
Law & Justice 0,5% 0,9% 0,3% 0,3% -0,2%
Legislature 0,4% 0,3% 0,4% 0,5% 0,1%

The illustrative impact assessments of pillar 3/4 subsectors are shown in the table
below; they are in our example similarly scaled as the sub-sector assessments under the
other pillars (at 42% of the possible maximum scores). It appears that the assessments
for the sub-sectors probably do not vary significantly.

(0-10)
Technology Adoption
A) Productivity &
C) Direct Poverty
B) Market Access
D) Investment
Reduction
ST/MT Sector Prioritization
Enablers
under SDP Pillars
Total
Pillar 3/4: Security, Justice, Governance & 42%
Administration
Executive 6 8 2 8 24
Governance 4 2 1 10 17
Law & Justice 2 8 2 10 22
Legislature 1 1 1 1 4

Accordingly, the differentiation of the subsectors by scenario does not appear to be very
high for the largely supporting public services; bigger differentiations are likely to
appear at the next level, where individual project proposals are assessments in terms of
their cost/benefit ratios:

by Sector under Pillar 3/4 Pillar 3 Planned for (15% of Total) (10% of Total) (12% of Total)
2019
Pillar 3/4: Security / Justice / Governance /
14% 15% 10% 12%
Administration
Executive 11% 13% 9% 10%
Governance 2,0% 1,7% 1,1% 1,3%
Law & Justice 0,3% 0,3% 0,2% 0,2%
0,1% 0,1% 0,1%

Legislature 0,5%

78

The assessment above and the scenario parameters would translate into the following
Naira sector envelopes for 2021:

by Sector under Pillar 3/4 Pillar 3&4 (15% of Total) (10% of Total) (12% of Total)
Planned for 2021
Pillar 3/4: Security / Justice / Governance /
16.710.774.555 20.757.611.703 13.838.407.802 16.606.089.362
Administration
Executive 13.358.008.117 17.870.957.800 11.913.971.866 14.296.766.240
2.322.328.358 1.548.218.905 1.857.862.686

Governance 2.416.605.012
Law & Justice 346.574.736 431.011.258 287.340.839 344.809.006
Legislature 589.586.691 133.314.287 88.876.191 106.651.430
Control 16.710.774.555 20.757.611.703 13.838.407.802 16.606.089.362

There is an obvious danger to fall back into number discussions around trend
extrapolations, when all these different cuts are put together for each Scenario into a
comprehensive table, as is shown below. The illustrative overview table below for the
three scenarios are intended to show how the pieces discussed above come together,
rather than to serve as envelope reference points; it is assumed anyway that many of
the impact assessments and scenario parameters will change as a result of further
discussions with the stakeholders. The purpose of our scenario exercise was rather to
serve as the illustrative, numerical basis for developing a rich narrative of the expected
impacts and desired scenario outcomes, rather than to fall back on trend extrapolations
and discussions of capital budget numbers.
79

ST/MT-Scenarios - Summary Overview by Pillars and Sectors

Planned for Planned for A-Scenario B-Scenario C-Scenario
ST/MT Scenarios by Pillars 2019 Naira 2021 Naira A-Scenario B-Scenario C-Scenario
2019 2021 Naira Naira Naira
62% 77.987.543.752 62% 90.465.550.752 50% 69.192.039.010 70% 96.868.854.613 60% 83.030.446.811
(incl. Regional)
Pillar 2: Social Welfare 25% 31.207.752.712 25% 31.207.752.712 35% 48.434.427.307 20% 27.676.815.604 28% 38.747.541.845
Pillar 3/4: Security & Justice and

14% 17.407.056.828 14% 16.710.774.555 15% 20.757.611.703 10% 13.838.407.802 12% 16.606.089.362
Governance
Total Capital Expenditure Est. 100% 126.602.353.292 100% 138.384.078.019 100% 138.384.078.019 100% ############ 100% 138.384.078.019
Scenario C
Pillar 1 Pillar 1 Scenario A Scenario B
ST/MT Scenarios for 2019 A-Scenario B-Scenario (Pillar 1 = C-Scenario
Planned for 2019 Naira Planned for 2021 Naira (Pillar 1 = (Pillar 1 =
by Sector under Pillar 1 Naira Naira 60% of Naira
2019 2021 50% of Total) 70% of Total)
Total)
(incl. Economic + Regional sectors - 62% 77.987.543.752 62% 90.465.550.752 50% 69.192.039.010 70% 96.868.854.613 60% 83.030.446.811
Min.f. Rural & Comm. Dev.)
Agriculture & Forestry, Forest Mgmt
6% 7.499.925.935 6% 8.699.914.084 3% 4.723.145.637 5% 6.612.403.892 4% 5.667.774.764
Project, KADP
Commerce, Industry & Tourism 1,2% 1.559.932.000 1,2% 1.809.521.120 1,4% 1.894.592.258 2% 2.652.429.161 2% 2.273.510.709
Kad. Power Supply Comp. (KAPSCO) 17% 21.040.000.000 17% 24.406.400.000 18% 24.607.381.952 25% 34.450.334.733 21% 29.528.858.343
Ministry of Works, Housing and

32% 40.855.000.000 32% 47.391.800.000 25% 34.917.660.872 35% 48.884.725.221 30% 41.901.193.046
Transport
Min. Env, & Na. Resources & KEPA 1,3% 1.660.500.000 1,3% 1.926.180.000 0,1% 149.387.824 0,2% 209.142.954 0,1% 179.265.389
Water Resources 4% 5.372.185.817 4% 6.231.735.548 2% 2.899.870.466 3% 4.059.818.653 3% 3.479.844.559
Scenario C
Pillar 2 Pillar 2 Scenario A Scenario B
ST/MT Scenarios for 2019 A-Scenario B-Scenario (Pillar 2 = C-Scenario
Planned for 2019 Naira Planned for 2021 Naira (Pillar 2 = (Pillar 2 =
by Sector under Pillar 2 Naira Naira 28% of Naira
2019 2021 35% of Total) 20% of Total)
Total)
Pillar 2: Social Welfare 25% 31.207.752.712 25% 31.207.752.712 35% 48.434.427.307 20% 27.676.815.604 28% 38.747.541.845
Education 22% 28.248.341.262 22% 28.248.341.262 32% 44.250.579.032 18% 25.286.045.161 26% 35.400.463.226
Health & Human Services 1,7% 2.124.411.450 1,7% 2.124.411.450 2,6% 3.660.642.566 1,5% 2.091.795.752 2% 2.928.514.053
Women Affairs & Social

Development, Youths, Sports & 0,7% 835.000.000 0,7% 835.000.000 0,4% 523.205.708 0,2% 298.974.690 0,3% 418.564.567
Culture
Scenario C
Pillar 3/4 Pillar 3/4 Scenario A Scenario B
ST/MT Scenarios for 2019 A-Scenario B-Scenario (Pillar 3/4 = C-Scenario
Planned for 2019 Naira Planned 2021 Naira (Pillar 3/4 = (Pillar 3/4 =
by Sector under Pillar 3/4 Naira Naira 12% of Naira
2019 for 2021 15% of Total) 10% of Total)
Total)
Pillar 3/4: Security / Justice /
14% 17.407.056.828 14% 16.710.774.555 15% 20.757.611.703 10% 13.838.407.802 12% 16.606.089.362
Governance / Administration
Executive 11% 13.914.591.788 11% 13.358.008.117 13% 17.870.957.800 9% 11.913.971.866 10% 14.296.766.240
Governance 2,0% 2.517.296.887 2,0% 2.416.605.012 1,7% 2.322.328.358 1,1% 1.548.218.905 1,3% 1.857.862.686
Law & Justice 0,3% 361.015.350 0,3% 346.574.736 0,3% 431.011.258 0,2% 287.340.839 0,2% 344.809.006
Legislature 0,5% 614.152.803 0,5% 589.586.691 0,1% 133.314.287 0,1% 88.876.191 0,1% 106.651.430
80

C. Long-Term Strategic Goals for Economic Development

The approach to the long-term scenarios up to 2050 can follow the same procedure as
described above, but the pathway assessments will differ very substantially because of
the great differences in longer-term effects of capital investments as compared to the
ST/MT effects, as is illustrated in the table below.

LT Impact Pathways
Technology Adoption
(0-10)
A) Productivity &
C) Direct Poverty
B) Market Access
D) Investment
Reduction
Enablers
SDP Pillars
Total
58%
Pillar 1: Ecopnomic Development 10 9 4 8 31
Pillar 2: Social Welfare 8 6 5 2 21
Pillar 3/4: Security & Justice and Governance and

2 6 2 8 18
Administration

Pillar 1 (Economic development) is assumed to provide substantially larger benefits over
the long-term than comparable investments under the other pillars. This will prima facie
strengthen the case to give in the long-term higher priority to pillar 1, with observance
of defined minimum thresholds of required capital investments under pillar 2 and 3, as
conditions for a successful investment strategy under pillar 1. It should also be noted
that the impact scores in the LT are here assessed at 58% of the possible maximum
scores, i.e. almost twice as high as for the ST/MT scenarios.

Another major difference to the three ST/MT scenarios is the much greater uncertainty
resulting from the long time horizon to the year 2050. In the light of this huge
uncertainty, we suggest to focus for the long time horizon on only two (rather than
three), clearly differentiated scenarios, LT-A and LT-B.

• Scenario LT-A: This scenario represents a hard infrastructure-focused
development path, with high priority placed on capital investments under pillar
1, complemented by the observance of minimum thresholds applicable to pillars
2 and 3 /4. Job creation per Nm. invested is expected to be large40, with growth
primarily driven from infrastructure supply factors. Given this scenario’s remote
“trickle-through” effects on poverty alleviation, long-term sustainability of this
path requires the observance of minimum thresholds of required capital
40 This assumption has to be tested against the evidence of “premature deindustrialization of developing
countries, as laid out by: Dani Rodrick, Premature Deindustrialization, NBER Working Paper No. 20935,
Issued in February 2015
81

investments under pillars 2 and 3. Scenario A’s sector prioritization ranking

would be determined in a 2nd sector prioritization step, following the same
matrix assessment procedure, as described above,

• Scenario LT-B: This scenario would balance the infrastructure development
priorities under pillar 1, with comparable priorities on pillar 2 investments (social
welfare). While future growth rates under this scenario would be lower than in
scenario A, the rationale for scenario B is derived from its more balanced long-
run sustainability and social stability benefits; the slower growth rates would be
compensated by better achievements of the SDG goals.41

The narrative of these scenarios need to be considerably expanded to make them
compelling cases and specify the 2050 vision more clearly, from which the details of the
underlying development path need to be developed. Without pre-empting this work, an
illustration of the respective capital investment shares by pillar and scenario could take
on the following shape:
LT Scenarios by SDP Pillars Planned for 2021 Scenario LT-A Scenario LT-B
Total Capital Expenditure Est.

100%
100% 100%
62% 50% 70%
(incl. Regional)
Pillar 2: Social Welfare 25% 35% 20%
Pillar 3/4: Security & Justice and Governance 14% 15% 10%

Again, these scenarios would together with the LT impact assessments become the
drivers for the evolution of the LT pillar envelopes; the two tables above would
accordingly translate into the following development paths for the respective pillars:
41 See the latest UNDP report on HDI indicators for Nigeria
82

LT Scenarios to 2050 by Pillar - Scenario LT-A Scenario LT-B

Planned for 2019
Modified by Impact Assessments
Pillars 100% 100% 100%
Pillar 1: Ecopnomic Development 62% 66% 67%
Pillar 2: Social Welfare 25% 22% 21%
Pillar 3/4: Security & Justice and Governance and

14% 12% 12%
Administration

Depending on the accompanying funding assumptions, the implied differences of these
two scenarios could be huge and lead to very differently shaped economies in Kaduna
state. That’s why the stakeholders need to take ownership in further shaping the
scenarios outcomes with their widely diverging visions. The two crucial dimensions in
this endeavour are (i) the impact assessments of the various pathways, and (ii) the
shape of the scenarios.
83

SECTION SIX

FINANCING PLAN

Overview

This section addresses the Kaduna State’s financing options for infrastructure
development in the short to medium-term (2018-2020) and longer-term (2021-2050).
The short to medium-term options are analyzed based on the data in the State’s
budgets for 2016 and 2017. Using the budget data as base figures, the longer-term
options are then discussed in the context of the analysis and development scenarios set
out in section 5.

It is important to reiterate a fundamental starting assumption of the development
scenarios analysis presented in section 2, as it also underlies the analysis in this section:

A realistic funding scenario should be equally applicable to all scenarios.42 For
our purpose different funding assumptions (higher vs. lower budgets) do not
provide a meaningful differentiator for the generation of alternative
scenarios, if all available funding sources are utilized in the most efficient and
effective manner, as should be the case. Thus we can simplify this step with
the assumption that Kaduna State will strive under all circumstances for the
highest possible growth, budgets and capital investments43, and the scenarios
then translate into different pillar and sector distributions of available funds
for capital investments.

Thus realistic funding scenarios covering the short to medium-term and longer-term are
needed, but the funding scenarios are not impacted by the development paths outlined
in the development scenarios discussed in section 5. The possible exception, at the
margin, is (as stated in footnote 1) that certain sectors or sub-sectors may offer more
opportunities and incentives for private sector participation than other sectors or sub-
sectors.

42 At the margin, there might, however, be a minor differentiation in funding availability, if

one scenario appeals to the private sector or lends itself to PPP schemes substantially
more than the other scenarios. While realistic funding scenarios covering the different
time periods are clearly needed, funding sources should be utilized in the most efficient
and effective manner.
43 This assumes that capital investments can be scaled according to the varying budget
growth outcomes, and budget variances from the median trend can be dealt with
through standard risk management approaches.
84

Kaduna State Budgets for 2016 and 2017-2019 (Multi-year)

In 2017, Kaduna prepared a multi-year budget covering the three-year period of 2017-
2019. Table 6.1 shows the breakdown, by recurrent and capital expenditures,44 of the
approved estimates for 2016 and 2017 and the estimates for the two outer years, 2018
and 2019.

Table 6.1: Kaduna State Budgets for 2016-2019
(Naira billion)

2016 2017 2018 2019
Recurrent 64.0 83.5 82.1 88.1
Capital 108.3 131.4 136.5 126.6
Total 172.3 214.9 218.6 214.7
Capital/Recurrent 63% 61% 62% 59%

Sources of data:
• 2016 and 2017 – 2017 Approved Budget, published by Kaduna State Ministry of
Budget & Planning (MoBP), 20 January 2017, on its website page,
http://mobp.kadgov.ng/latest%20news/2017-budget-approved/
• 2018 and 2019 – Address by H.E. the Governor of Kaduna State at the presentation of
the draft 2017 Revenue and Expenditure Estimates to the Kaduna State House of
Assembly, 12 October 2016, published by MoBP on its website.

The above figures indicate a major ramp-up (25%) in total spending from 2016 to 2017,
made up of increases of 30% and 21%, respectively, in the recurrent and capital
budgets;45 this is followed by essentially zero-growth budgets in 2018 and 2019.46 The
other important feature of the budgets is that capital spending as a share of the total
budget is estimated to fall from 63% in 2016 to 59% in 2019; this is in line with the
government’s target ratio of 60:40 47 for capital vs. recurrent spending. The lower
percentages in 2017-2019 may also represent more realistic budgeting than the inflated
capital budgets in past years, which could not be implemented due to the combined
effects of shortfalls in actual vs. budgeted revenue, crowding out of capital spending
44Budgeted recurrent expenditures include repayments of public debt (2017 – N4.1b and
2016 – N3.6b).
45In H.E. the Governor’s October 2016 address, it was mentioned that “The 2017-2019
budgets are more expansionary in nature, responding to the clear need to stimulate
growth and spend our way out of a most unwelcome recession.”
46 It is assumed that the 2018 and 2019 figures do not include any adjustments for
inflation, i.e. they are stated in 2017 Naira.
47 This target was mentioned in H.E. the Governor’s October 2016 address (ibid).
85

due to inability to cut back recurrent spending to match the revenue shortfalls, and
delays in physical implementation of capital projects.

Sources of Funding of 2016 and 2017 Budgets

Table 6.2 presents a summary of the line items of the 2016 and 2017 budgets by major
revenue and expenditure categories. This table, along with Table 6.1, provides the base
figures for the purposes of analysis in this section, covering both the short/medium-
term and longer-term.

Table 6.2: Summary of Kaduna State Budget 2016 & 2017 Line Items
(Naira billion)

2016 Approved 2017 Draft % Changes 2016

Estimates Estimates to 2017
Opening Balance (carryover of
38.9 15.3 (61)
unspent appropriations)
Internally Generated Revenue 45.8 50.2 10
Statutory Allocation (FGN) 33.8 34.9 3
Total Revenue 118.5 100.4 (15)
Recurrent Expenditure:
Personnel Cost 31.8 39.8 25
Overhead Cost 32.2 43.7 36
Total Recurrent Budget 64.0 83.5 30
Recurrent Budget Surplus 54.4 16.9 (69)
Capital Account
Recurrent Budget Surplus 1/ 54.4 16.9 (69)
Value Added Tax 12.6 9.5 (25)
Internal Loans & Credit 18.3 6.7 (63)
Internal Grants 13.8 35.3 156
External Loans 6.0 56.0 833
External Grants 2.1 7.1 238
Other 1.1 - (100)
Total Capital Budget 108.3 131.4 21
Total Budget 172.3 214.9 25

Source of data: 2017 Approved Budget, ibid.
1/ Recurrent budget surplus is used as a source of financing of the capital budget.

Table 7.2 highlights some striking changes from the 2016 budget to 2017 budget, as
summarized below; for the purposes of our analysis, it is assumed that the line-item
amounts in the 2017 budget represent a steady-state picture of sources of financing
that can be reliably projected to continue at or near 2017 levels, and they will finance
86

close-to-zero growth budgets in the short/medium-term and longer-term, with the

possible exception of the large increase in External Loans. However, two areas of
concern arising from the funding structure of the 2017 budget are: (a) the sharp fall in
the recurrent budget surplus (69%); and (b) the dramatic increases in the internal grants
(156%) and external loans (833%). Unless Internally Generated Revenues (IGR) can be
increased significantly through economic recovery stimulated by the pump-priming
effects of the increased spending, there is a major risk that the State budget would
become overly dependent on loans and grants.

Review of the 2017 Budget’s Revenue & Expenditure Estimates

The following is a brief review of the major changes from the 2016 to 2017 budget:

• The opening balance (carryover of unspent appropriations from 2016) fell by
61%; this is assumed to be due to better utilization of the 2016 budget,
compared with the 2015 budget.
• Budgeted IGR increased by 9.6%; the details of this line item included in the
Approved Budget show revenue increases and decreases dispersed across a
large number of MDAs.48
• Budgets for recurrent expenditures, which include repayments of public debt,
increased by 30%; excluding these repayments and some other transfers,
budgeted personnel and overhead costs increased by 31%. Details provided in
the Approved Budget show that the large majority of the increases went to
MDAs in the social sectors. H.E. the Governor’s October 2016 address stated that
the budget increase for personnel costs reflected “the establishment of new
agencies and funding of the public service revitalization and renewal program.”
• Budgeted receipts from Value Added Tax (VAT) declined by 25%; this is not
explained in the Approved Budget. The reason for including VAT revenue in the
Capital Account is also unclear.
• Budgeted receipts from Internal Loans and Credit declined by 63%. The decrease
reflects smaller loans for 4 programs 49
• Budgeted receipts from Internal Grants increased by N21.5b over the 2016 figure
of N13.8b. This increase was primarily due to new grants totaling N29b from the
FGN Counterpart for Intervention to Improve Nutrition in Schools and FGN
Budget Support Facility.
• Budgeted external loans jumped from N6.0b to N56.0b, the increase being
accounted for by new concessional multilateral loans and credits of N45b and
48 The most notable are increases of N1.6b from the State Geographic Information
Service and N1.0b from the State Internal Revenue Service, and a decrease of N0.9b
from the State Urban and Development Agency.
49 Rice Anchor Borrowers Program; Agricultural Loan Scheme; Kaduna Metropolitan
Rapid Rail Transport; and Power Intervention Fund.
87

other loans from the African Development Bank, Islamic Development Bank, and
Exim Bank, India.
• Budgeted external grants rose from N2.1b in 2016 to N7.1b in 2017, primarily
due to two new grants of N2b each from the Global Partnership on Education
and National Health Act.50

Revenue & Expenditure Outlook for 2018-2020

The following short/medium-term issues arise from the structure of funding of the 2017
budget, as shown in Table 6.2.

• On the revenue side:
o In case budget utilization improves further in 2017, the opening balance of
unutilized appropriations might be significantly reduced for 2018.
o Given the likelihood that oil prices will rise from the historic lows in 2016 but
the increases might be gradual over the next 2-3 years, the FGN Statutory
Allocation might increase only modestly from the budgeted 2017 level.
However, it should be noted that this revenue estimate is based on a
benchmark crude oil price of US$39, a conservative estimate.51
o Thus in the above scenario, increases in IGR will become critically important
for financing the recurrent budget and continuing to produce a recurrent
budget surplus. H.E. the Governor’s October 2016 address mentioned that
the 2017 budget is based on “expectations of vastly improved performance
in IGR.

• On the expenditure side:
o On the expenditure side, the risk is significant that personal and overhead
costs will continue to increase beyond the 2017 levels, unless the State is
able to effectively implement its zero-based budgeting initiative.
o Repayments of public debt (included in overhead costs) will continue to rise,
depending upon the volume of loan financing of 2018-2020 budgets. This
issue of the State’s external debt is further discussed below.

• As noted earlier, the bottom-line fiscal risk in the medium-term is that in case
the recurrent budget surplus declines significantly, Kaduna State’s capital
spending may become heavily (perhaps almost entirely) dependent on its ability
to mobilize internal and external loans and grants. This indicates the vulnerability
– from the financing dimension – of the budget projections shown in Table 7.1
50 The reason for classifying the grant from the National Health Act as an external grant is
unclear.
51 The U.S. Energy Information Administration’s ‘Short-term Energy Outlook’
(https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/steo/) published in March 2017 forecasts that average
Brent Crude Oil price will be US$54.6/bbl in 2017 and US$57.2/bbl in 2019, compared with
US$43.7/bbl in 2016.
88

and in the development scenarios analysis in section 2.

External Debt of Kaduna State

Figures produced by the FGN Debt Management Office (DMO) show that Kaduna State
had an external debt stock totaling US$223m at the end of 2016.52 The State’s debt/GDP
and debt repayment/revenue ratios are shown in Table 6.3. The latter ratio (4.8%) is
higher than the Federation’s combined debt service-to-revenue ratio of 2,1% in 2016
and 2.6% in 2017 (see Table 6.4 on the next page).

Table 6.3: Kaduna State External Debt Ratios

2017 Debt
Total State Budgeted Budgeted
2016 External Repayment as
External Debt State 2015 Public Debt Total of 2017
Debt as % of % of Total IGR
31 December GDP Repayment IGR & FGN
2015 GDP & FGN
2016 2017 Allocation
Allocation
US$223m US$7,5b 53 3% N4.1b N85.1b 4.8%

Table 7.4: Extract from DMO 2016 Debt Sustainability Analysis

Table 6.4 provides an extract from the 2016 External Debt Sustainability Analysis of FGN,
States and FCT (i.e. combined for the Federation), performed by DMO. It showed that
the Federation’s relevant sustainability indicators are well below international
thresholds and will remain so in the time frame of 2016-2036. As the DMO analysis
covered the Federation as a whole, it did not specifically address Kaduna State’s debt
profile. However, the DMO report noted that the States are not allowed to borrow
directly from external sources, and the external debts of the States are guaranteed by
FGN, although the debt service obligations lie with the States.
52Source: Debt Management Office – ‘States’ and Federal Government’s External Debt
Stock as at 31st December 2016 (Provisional), https://dmo.gov.ng/debt-profile/sub-
national-debts/1972-states-and-federal-governments-external-debt-stock-as-at-31st-
december-2016/file
53Source of data: ‘Kaduna State GDP Report,’ published by MoBP and National Bureau
of Statistics showed State 2015 GDP was N2.25t. This is translated in the above table as
US$1= N300.
89

With the caveat of the above specific limitation of the DMO analysis regarding Kaduna
State and the consequent lack of data on Kaduna State’s solvency and liquidity
indicators, it can be reasonably concluded that the State will have room to borrow
additional amounts from external sources provided its indicators remain at the levels
considered prudent by DMO, although the borrowing room cannot be quantified
through our review.

Private Sector Participation

Given the significant constraints on the State’s ability to expand public spending in the
short/medium-term, and possibly even in the longer-term, the State’s efforts to
promote PSP are critical for financing economic development and the creation of jobs. A
World Bank 2016 paper 54 stated that only 6.7% of Nigeria’s labor force is employed in a
wage-remunerated occupation in the private sector (both formal and informal firms). At
the same time, the paper stated that despite a 5.3% annual decline in sales growth,
employment in the formal private sector in Nigeria grew at an average of 6% per year
between 2011 and 2013. Thus Nigeria’s private sector is a small part of its economy but
it has a high growth potential.

Private sector participation (PSP) is a very broad area as it encompasses most of the 14
sectors covered in this report. Therefore, to keep our analysis manageable, this sub-
section is focused on three topics: (a) the State government’s efforts to increase PSP; (b)
the World Bank’s ‘Doing Business 2017’ report, cited earlier, which included rankings of
Kaduna City against Nigerian and international benchmarks; and (c) two areas of
54 ‘ An Assessment of the Investment Climate in Nigeria – The Challenges of Nigeria’s

Private Sector,’ August 2016,
http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/641551481520950285/pdf/ACS15736-WP-
v1-P147940-PUBLIC-NigeriaICAAugustCLEAN.pdf
90

regulation that are significant for Kaduna State’s economic development – public-
private partnerships (PPP) in general, and the solid minerals sector.

State Government’s Efforts to Increase Private Sector Participation

The State government has set up a one-stop investment promotion and facilitation
agency – the Kaduna State Investment Promotion Agency (KADIPA) – to “develop and
implement a comprehensive strategy and action plans to attract and facilitate new
investments.”55 Its mandate also requires the agency to “Initiate, promote, facilitate,
and coordinate investments through PPPs, privatization and commercialization.” Annex
1 includes the full list of KADIPA’s responsibilities.

KADIPA’s website provides an overview of the opportunities and challenges in the 9
principal sectors and information on recent projects initiated in the agribusiness, power
and energy, and housing and construction sectors, with private sector involvement (see
Annex 1). The Kaduna State Development Plan (SDP) includes additional information on
the pipeline of private sector projects under consideration or negotiation. In H.E. The
Governor’s October 2016 address, it was mentioned that “the State expects an infusion
of N800b in private investments in the next 5 years.”

Promotion of PSP in Nigeria’s business climate – particularly foreign PSP – entails efforts
that are far above the norm for most other countries. This is illustrated by the World
Bank’s ‘Doing Business 2017’ report, which ranked Nigeria at 169 out of 190 countries
worldwide. 56 Set against this difficult business environment, the efforts being made by
the current administration to promote PSP, and their potential results, are impressive.

Ease of Doing Business –World Bank Rankings of Kaduna City:

The World Bank’s ‘Doing Business 2017’ contains the following rankings of Kaduna City,
in comparison with 35 other Nigerian cities, Sub-Saharan Africa and OECD countries (see
Tables 7.5 and 7.6). As the data is from 2014, it may not reflect changes and
improvements since then. However, if still valid, it indicates significant opportunities for
Kaduna State to increase the ease of doing business for the private sector in the State.

55 Source of information: KADIPA website, www.kadipa.kadgov.ng

56 Source: http://www.doingbusiness.org/data/exploreeconomies/nigeria/sub/kaduna
91

Table 6.5: Excerpt from World Bank ‘Doing Business 2017’ Report
Comparison of Kaduna City with Other Nigerian Cities (2014 Data)

Table 6.6: Excerpt from World Bank ‘Doing Business 2017’ Report
Comparison of Kaduna City with Sub-Saharan African and OECD Countries
(2014 Data – Related to Starting a Business)

The rankings are illustrated by the specific example of Kaduna City’s procedures for
starting a business, which cost the equivalent of 54% of per capita income, require a
total of 31 days to complete, and involve 11 steps, starting from reserving a unique
company name at the Corporate Affairs Commission and ending with obtaining a
business premises permit from the State Ministry of Commerce and Industry.

The State has taken, or plans to take in 2017, several actions to strengthen its legal and
regulatory framework that will improve the ease of doing business. H.E. the Governor’s
October 2016 address mentioned a number of relevant key legislation, including the
Public Procurement Law, Geographic Information Service Law, Civil Procedure Bill,
Kaduna State Road Authority Bill, and Kaduna Metropolitan Transport Authority Bill.
92

Public-Private Partnerships:

Two recent PPP projects started in the State are: (i) a partnership between the State and
Vodacom to implement ICT solutions to improve service delivery in healthcare,
education and agriculture; and (b) the ‘Affordable Housing Scheme’ for providing 2000
houses to low-income earners.

The potential for PPPs in the State is influenced to a significant extent by the regulatory
framework for PPPs in Nigeria. In May 2016, the international law firm, Bird & Bird, 57
published a brief article (reproduced in Annex 2) on the regulatory framework for PPPs
in Nigeria, which noted that FGN was strengthening the framework.58 The following
were the main conclusions of the article:
• Due to the relative novelty of the PPP concept in Nigeria, some of the initial
challenges faced by PPPs in the country were the absence of a regulatory
framework; insufficient understanding of how PPPs work; a lack of expertise; and
the inability of financial institutions in Nigeria to provide long-term funding for
the projects.
• In recent years, the landscape has changed. PPPs in Nigeria are now primarily
regulated by the Infrastructure Concession Regulatory Commission (ICRC) Act of
2005. The Act establishes the Commission, sets out processes and procedure for
applying for and securing concessions in Nigeria, provides a basic framework in
the form of guarantees of profitability of PPP projects to the concessionary, and
grants the Commission supervisory, regulatory and enforcement powers.
• A plan for coordinated implementation of projects designed to fill the
infrastructure gap over a 30-year period, from 2014 to 2043, was also introduced
by FGN in 2014 and is known as the National Integrated Infrastructure Master
Plan (NIIMP).
• In addition to the ICRC Act and the NIIPM, PPPs in Nigeria are also regulated by
other federal legislation, such as the Public Procurement Act 2015, which deals
with overall public sector procurement practices.

57https://www.twobirds.com/en/news/articles/2016/france/20160416--nigeria-cadre-
reglementaire-ppp
58 On the other hand, a critical view of Nigeria’s legal and regulatory framework for PPPs
is offered by Dr. George Nwangwu (a former senior adviser to FGN) in his 2016 book,
‘Public Private Partnerships in Nigeria.’ Dr. Nwangwu concluded as follows: “Prospective
investors in Nigeria’s PPP projects would like to be assured of a predictable, enabling and
well-defined legislative and regulatory environment to convince them that their
investment will be safe. Currently, Nigeria lacks this sort of legislative and regulatory
framework…”
93

Solid Minerals Sector

As noted in Annex 1, Kaduna State is seeking strategic investments and partnerships
with the private sector in minerals development projects. In June 2008, Mr. Gbite
Adeniji 59 of the Nigerian law firm, ADVISORY Legal Consultants, published a
presentation titled ‘The Regulatory Framework for Solid Minerals Development in
Nigeria.’ 60 Given the date of this presentation, its contents may not reflect the changes
and improvements made since then. Nonetheless, the following elements in the
presentation are considered to be of continuing relevance:

• Before 1999, the solid minerals sector had an unattractive investment climate, as
policy and legislation were not conducive to private sector-related issues, such
as security of tenure and ability to convert exploration rights to mining rights.
These conditions resulted in an insignificant contribution of mining to Nigeria’s
GDP, almost total absence of private sector investment in mining over the
previous 30 years, and Nigeria totally missing the mining investment funds that
poured into Africa in the 1990s.
• The Minerals and Mining Act, 1999 represented an unsuccessful attempt by the
government to revive the mining sector, due to a number of deficiencies, e.g. it
did not address security of tenure issues, gave broad discretionary powers to the
minister on matters relating to mineral titles, and gave the government a right of
pre-emption on all minerals extracted.
• In 2007, the government undertook comprehensive mining sector reforms that
included revision of the legal and fiscal frameworks, strengthening of mining
institutions, and a fundamental shift in the role of government from
owner/operator to regulator/administrator. Both local and foreign investors
responded positively to the new system, resulting in over 2,000 exploration
licenses being issued in 2007.

As the above brief review indicates, Kaduna State has made a good beginning in
encouraging private investors to contribute to the economic development of the State.
Through legislative actions and promotion efforts to reach out to the private sector
(e.g., the establishment of KADIPA), the government is seeking to demonstrate that it is
serious in its message, “Kaduna is open for business.” However, as a sub-national entity,
the success of the State’s efforts may ultimately hinge on the steps taken at the Federal
level to improve the business environment in Nigeria.

59Mr. Adeniji was appointed Senior Technical Adviser to the Honorable Federal Minister
of State for Petroleum in May 2016.
http://advisoryng.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/2008.06.20.-MINING-SECTOR-
60
OVERVIEW.pdf
94

Financing Options for 2021-2050 – A Broad Perspective

As discussed earlier in this section, there are many variables – from Kaduna’s budget
and ability to borrow externally, to its legal and regulatory framework – that have a
significant impact on its options and capabilities for financing infrastructure
development in the short/medium-term. The impact of these factors could well become
amplified in the longer-term, and the remedial measures needed would vary accordingly
and it may not be possible to identify them fully at this time. In order for this sub-
section not to become a theoretical discussion without practical relevance, a few macro
issues that might be expected to have material beneficial or adverse impact are
addressed below. It is notable that the Kaduna State government is taking timely action
on these issues, as evidenced by its State Development Plan, Sector Implementation
Plans, 2017 budget and other measures referred to in this and other sections of this
report.

• Kaduna State’s budget is highly vulnerable to exogenous variables, the principal
one being the international price of oil. It is well recognized that diversification of
the economy is essential to mitigate this risk. The diversification requires
massive efforts at the federal level, in conjunction with similar efforts at the
State level.
• Growing the State’s revenue base in order to increase IGR as a source of
financing is a critical imperative. H.E. the Governor, in his October 2016 address
(cited earlier) to the State House of Assembly, made reference to this issue, as
follows: “The troubled national economy is an impediment, in a fiscal structure
where the Federal Government is the dominant revenue source, and where only
one of 36 States – Lagos – has achieved the revenue independence that all State
governments must strive to attain. That is why we are working hard to grow our
IGR to help make our State less dependent on federal allocations.”
• External borrowing. The State’s solvency and liquidity must be maintained
through ensuring prudent borrowing levels and repayment terms. It is noted that
H.E. the Governor mentioned one of the key targets from a fiscal perspective is
“to maintain a sustainable debt position in line with DMO criteria.” As discussed
earlier in this section, the State currently appears to have room to borrow as its
indicators are within the DMO benchmarks, but these indicators will be impacted
by the adequacy of other sources of financing, such as IGR. The 2017 State
budget is aimed at “spending our way out of a recession,” but this fiscal tool
cannot be repeatedly employed without adverse consequences for the State’s
longer-term solvency. In this regard, the State could also explore the possibility
of its government-owned enterprises borrowing directly from market and
concessional sources of finance (if permissible under Federal rules), as is taking
place in Ethiopia (this is noted in the World Bank’s Ethiopia Public Expenditure
Review report, which was earlier referenced in section 2). Direct external
borrowing by SOEs has the potential advantage of strengthening their
operational and financial management and improving service delivery.
95

• Recurrent expenditures (which include repayment of public debt) need to be

carefully managed at sustainable levels so that capital investments are not
crowded out, thus repeating past experience. From 2016 to 2017, budgeted
recurrent expenditures increased by 30%, but the estimates for 2018 and 2019
do not show a continuation of this ramp-up. However, a trajectory of flat growth
in recurrent expenses will be difficult to sustain unless the cost drivers at the
MDA level are thoroughly analyzed and managed, with linkages to targeted
performance and measurable results, to ensure cost-effectiveness.
• Development of the social sectors is an urgent priority for ensuring longer-term
growth in productivity and the State’s economy. The 2017 budget is pro-poor,
and one of its key goals is to continue interventions that will provide
opportunities to the less privileged to benefit from targeted investments in
education and healthcare. Over the long run (as discussed in section 2), a
development paradigm that represents a balance between economic
development and social welfare, possibly would achieve greater sustainability
and social stability than a scenario where the primary focus is on growth through
development of hard infrastructure. In section 2, reference was made to
Ethiopia’s strategy of investing in the social sector, which is paying off dividends
in its economic development.
• The enabling environment for private sector investment will continue to need
significant efforts to enhance the ease of doing business in the State. While it is
generally true that measures to improve business-friendliness at the sub-
national level have limited impact unless the national environment is improved
in tandem, a sub-national entity can, in some countries, differentiate itself from
national conditions and standards to an extent that is recognized by potential
investors, as illustrated by the experience of Gujarat state in India. In this
context, the State’s KADIPA and KADINVEST initiatives are commendable. The
key is to actualize the message from H.E. the Governor, that the State
government is “an enabler of private enterprise.”

In conclusion, the State’s financing options in the longer term represent both
opportunities and challenges, as summarized in Table 6.7. The relevant stakeholders will
need to weigh the trade-offs (risks vs. returns) involved, and actions needed, in deciding
on the optimal medium and long-term strategies for managing recurrent spending and
financing infrastructure development.

96

Table 6.7: Longer-Term Financing Options
Summary of Opportunities & Challenges

Possible Actions to Address
Revenue & Expenditure Items Opportunities Challenges
Challenges
• Ensure capital spending is
Recurrent Revenue – Expand tax base through Inadequacy of capital not crowded out by
Internally generated revenue economic growth, to increase spending or prioritization of recurrent spending
(IGR) IGR spending • Target public spending
toward growth areas
• Volatility of revenues due to • Use conservative oil price
Rise in oil prices & oil price fluctuations estimate for budgeting
Recurrent Revenue – Federal
diversification of economy • Significant diversification of • Create a reserve fund to
statutory allocation
could increase allocations economy is unlikely in manage fluctuations in
medium-term revenue
• Implement performance
Effective zero-based budget Personnel costs tend to metrics & accountability
Recurrent expenditure – reviews could identify areas increase steadily unless linked framework for MDAs
personnel cost for greater economy & closely to measurable outputs • Perform benchmarking of
efficiency & results number and grade levels of
staff across MDAs
• Implement performance
Effective zero-based budget Overhead costs tend to
metrics & accountability
Recurrent expenditure – reviews could identify areas increase steadily unless linked
framework for MDAs
overhead costs for greater economy & closely to measurable outputs
• Perform benchmarking of
efficiency & results
overheads across MDAs

97

Table 6.7: Longer-Term Financing Options
Summary of Opportunities & Challenges

Possible Actions to Address
Revenue & Expenditure Items Opportunities Challenges
Challenges
• Ensure prudent borrowing
• Sustainable debt position
Debt financing of capital levels and repayment terms
needs to be maintained
spending enables productive • Ensure clear justification for
Capital – Loans • Adequate recurrent
investments despite spending financed, and
revenue is needed for debt
inadequate recurrent revenue accountability for delivery of
service
results
• Could lead to undue Ensure clear justification for
dependency on financing spending financed,
Enables productive sources that might not be accountability for delivery of
Capital – Concessional loans &
investments despite stable in the long-term results, and ability to
grants
inadequate recurrent revenue • Could encourage discontinue spending or
unproductive or inflexible replace funds if the funding
spending source is discontinued
• Strengthen State’s legal &
Need to attract large-scale
regulatory framework
Possibly high potential for job private investment (as
• Improve security
Capital – Private sector growth, import substitution, essential to complement
• Improve power supply and
participation production of goods for public spending) although
transportation
export, & technology transfer business environment may
• Strengthen incentives to
not be optimal
invest, e.g., tax credits

98

Annex 1

Extracts from KADIPA Website
www.kadipa.kadgov.ng

The Kaduna State Investment Promotion Agency (KADIPA) is a one-stop investment
centre for business and investments.

KADIPA’s Mandate

. Initiate, promote, facilitate, and coordinate investments through PPPs,
privatization and commercialization
. Develop and implement a comprehensive strategy and action plans to attract
and facilitate new investments
. Monitor evaluation, implementation, execution and delivery of projects as
contained in investment agreements
. To foster economic sustainable goal and create jobs opportunities
. Plan and organize targeted promotional activities including tours, road shows,
etc.
. Source for financing from various sources to support investments in the State
. Assist in capacity building/training in investment promotion and facilitation

The KADIPA website page titled “Why Kaduna” states the following advantages of the
State as the enabling environment for private investment.

Effective Governance: With the new administration’s pedigree and economic agenda,
Kaduna is determined to make the state the safest haven for investments through the
implementation of excellent policies. The State’s Investment Promotion Agency
(KADIPA) – a one-stop shop is adequately empowered to facilitate investments and
provide aftercare services.

Raw Materials Availability: Kaduna has vast agricultural land suited for all forms of
agriculture and has abundant mineral resources ready for exploitation.

Skilled Workforce: Young population, complemented by the availability of educational &
training institutions and government’s deliberate effort to have a pool of skilled labor
force for the industries.

Gateway to Northern Nigeria: A natural bridge between the 19 Northern States, thus
creating an efficient and cost effective outlet to major markets providing access to
about 90 million customers in Nigeria.

99

Effective Land Management System: Provides efficient access to land information. Fast
tracks land procurement process making it hassle free. Helps in identifying most ideal
sites and locations for your business.

Note: The following table summarizes the opportunities & proposed areas for PSP by
sector, as stated in the KADIPA website.

100

Annex 1 (Table)

Extracts from KADIPA Website: Summary of Opportunities & Proposed Areas for PSP

Current Private Sector
Sector Overview & Opportunities Areas Proposed for PSP
Participation (PSP)
• Cash and food crops such as
yam, cotton, groundnut,
tobacco, maize, beans, guinea • Partnership with Vicampro
corn, millet, ginger, rice and International (Nigeria) –
cassava are cultivated in large potato farm and processing
Establishment of agro-processing
quantities; livestock and factory – US$120m
plants and related industries, such as
fisheries also have very high investment, and potential to
Agribusiness tanneries, dairy plants, food packaging
potential in the State create 30,000 jobs
and processing plants, beverage
• Kaduna State has about • Olam International (Nigeria) –
industries, oil mills, etc.
2.45m ha of uncultivated land integrated animal feed mill,
with abundant water breeding farm and hatchery –
resources to support investment of US$100m
commercial farming, livestock
and fishery businesses
• Kaduna State’s proximity to . Automotive assembly
the FCT, the Northwestern . Food processing
and North Central States . Machinery and spare parts industries
creates a unique opportunity . Textiles industry
Manufacturing & Light Industries
for industrialists to benefit . Cosmetics
from a regional market of . Leather wares
more than 70m people . Furniture and wood works
• Manufacturing outfits have . Pharmaceuticals
101

an easy access to abundant

raw materials and manpower
necessary for industrial
growth
• Power supply to the State
ranges between 160MW and
350M (depending upon
allocation from the national
grid), very low compared with
the State’s power • Anjeed Innova Group (India) –
. Solar generating plants
requirement of 1,971MW 100MW solar plant
. Bio-fuel powered generating plants
• State Government is • Quaint Abiba (US) – 50MW
Power & Energy . Manufacture of electrical equipment
committed to tackling the solar plant
such as transformers, meters, wires
power shortage challenges • Skipper Deil (India) – 100MW
. Electrical services outsourcing firms
experienced in the State solar plant
through sustained
partnerships with the private
sector and the regulatory
agencies of the Federal
Government
• Existing infrastructure, • Expansion and maintenance of
connecting Kaduna State to existing road infrastructure on a PPP
major rail networks, could basis
serve as a basis for future . Light rail infrastructure across the
Transportation & Logistics transport growth, although State on a BOT basis
major improvements are . Mass Transit Systems across the
needed; State
• Developing the transportation . Logistics/ haulage services
sector will yield significant . Airport cargo services
102

spillover benefits, facilitating

activities in all other sectors
and leading to an improved
employment environment
• Kaduna State is endowed
with mineral resources61
spread across almost all its 23
LGAs
• There are at least 85 mineral
exploration licenses, 40
quarry licenses, 15 mining
leases and 3 small-scale
mining leases within the state
• The recent effort by the
Federal Government to Strategic investments and partnerships
Solid Minerals
promote the sector has given in minerals development projects
rise to screening and the
subsequent issuance of
licenses in the form of solid
mineral grants; the grants
cover both foreign and local
prospective investors in the
country and will guarantee
investors the ability to
participate in sustainable
exploitation of mineral
61
Some of the mineral resources in Kaduna State are: gemstones, industrial minerals, gold, cassiterite, tantalite, wolframite, columbite, manganese,
molybdenum, lithium and nickel.
103

resources.
• The massive population

growth being witnessed in
Kaduna State has placed
public infrastructure under
. Mass housing schemes
serious pressure;
. Roads and bridges
• Urbanization and
Housing & Construction Galaxy Mall & Galleria . Shopping malls and parking facilities
industrialization has caused
. Warehousing facilities
rapid growth in the number
. Education and agricultural facilities
of inhabitants in the urban
centers of the State, leading
to shortage of quality and
affordable housing
• The target of the Kaduna
State Government is to build
• Laying of about 100KM metro optic
a vibrant ICT sector that will
fibre infrastructure to support
support industrial
internet
development and trigger
• ICT hubs and manpower
economic growth;
development
ICT • Policies and programs are
• ICT e-learning solutions for public
being implemented to
and private schools
encourage startups in the
• Data Centers and Internet Exchange
sector; deliberate efforts are
Points for Northern Nigeria
also being made to transform
. Business Process Outsourcing
Kaduna into a regional ICT
hub
104

The current administration

plans to ensure the
establishment of a Knowledge
City for private investors
interested in setting up
educational institutions; the
Investments in proposed Kaduna
Education site of the proposed
Knowledge City
Knowledge City is located
within an existing cluster of
institutions: the National
Teachers Institute, Petroleum
Technology Institute, and the
National Open University
Kaduna State has a great deal
of attractive sites and events Development of tourist sites,
Tourism for tourism, including historical recreational facilities, hotels and
monuments, holiday resorts, restaurants
and natural attractions62
62 Some of the tourism sites in the State are: Kajuru Castle, Matsirga water falls, Sir Hassan Usman Katsina Park, etc. Kaduna hosts a good number of
traditional festivals that attract thousands of people; This includes the annual horse-riding durbar festival of the Zazzau emirate and the Tuk-ham
celebration in Kwoi. The State also hosts the Fifth Chukker polo club, which attracts hundreds of polo players across the globe.
105

Annex 2

Regulatory Framework for Public Private Partnerships in Nigeria: Excerpt from Website of
International Law Firm, Bird & Bird
(https://www.twobirds.com/en/news/articles/2016/france/20160416--nigeria-cadre-
reglementaire-ppp)

27 May 2016
Laura Patonnme Alakija
Nigeria, like most other developing economies in Africa, is looking more and more to Public
Private Partnerships (PPPs) to resolve both the social and economic infrastructure deficit. Due
to the relative novelty of the concept, some of the initial challenges faced by PPPs in Nigeria
were absence of a regulatory framework, insufficient understanding of how PPPs work, a lack of
expertise and the inability of financial institutions in Nigeria to provide long term funding for
the projects.
In recent years, the landscape has changed. PPPs in Nigeria are now primarily regulated by the
Infrastructure Concession Regulatory Commission (ICRC) Act of 2005. The Act establishes the
Commission (s 14), sets out processes and procedure for applying for and securing concessions
in Nigeria (Ss 2, 4, 5 & 6), provides a basic framework in the form of guarantees of profitability
of PPP projects to the concessionary (Ss 7(1) & (2), 11) and grants the Commission supervisory,
regulatory and enforcement powers (Ss 10, 12, 19)
Thus, a plan for coordinated implementation of projects designed to fill the infrastructure gap
over a 30-year period, from 2014 to 2043, was introduced by the federal government of Nigeria
(FGN) in 2014 and is known as the National Integrated Infrastructure Master Plan (NIIMP). The
NIIPM underpins infrastructure development in Nigeria in the short to mid-term. The scope of
its application is nationwide development of new infrastructures and expansion or renovation
of existing assets in the fields of Power Generation and Transmission/Distribution Networks,
Roads and Bridges, Ports, Railways, Inland Container Depots and Logistics Hubs, and Healthcare
Facilities, amongst others.
In addition to the ICRC Act and the NIIPM, PPPs in Nigeria are also regulated by:
• Public Procurement Act 2015 – deals with overall public sector procurement practices.
1
• Federal Roads Maintenance Agency Act, Cap. F38, LFN 2004 and the Federal Highways
Act, Cap. F13, LFN 2004 dealing with planning, construction, maintenance and
supervision of the use of all road infrastructure built by the FGN.
• Fiscal Responsibility Act 2007 deals with prudent management of the Nation’s
resources. In this instance, government investment in infrastructure.
• Foreign Exchange (Monitoring and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, Cap. F34, LFN 2004 –
deals with exchange controls and repatriation of funds invested in Nigeria.
• National Inland Waterways Authority Act, Cap. N47, LFN2004 deals with the
development, improvement, and regulation of the use of Nigeria’s inland waterways.
• Nigerian Investment Promotion Commission Act, Cap.N117, LFN 2004 deals with the
coordination of all foreign investments in Nigeria including investments in
infrastructure.
106

• National Office for Technology Acquisition and Promotion Act, Cap. N62, LFN 2004 deals
with use of foreign technology, which is otherwise not available, in Nigeria.
At federal level, PPPs are regulated by a chain of ICRC Act and NIIPM and a series of specific
laws adapted by individual states to suit their particular infrastructure needs. Lagos State, for
instance, is regarded as the model state for adoption of the both the NIIPM and ICRC Act and
implementation of a PPP framework at state level. Lagos state laws on PPPs include: the Public
Private Partnership Law 2011, which repealed the Lagos State Roads (Private Sector
Participation) Authority Law 2007; and the Lagos State Roads, Bridges and Highway
Infrastructure Law 2005.

107

108

109

110

111

112

113

Appendix 3.1: Access to Motorable Road
Local Percentage (%)

Government
Birnin Gwari 72.7
Chikun 84.4
Giwa 75.3
Igabi 42.2
Ikara 77.5
Jaba 98.7
Jema'a 73.2
Kachia 71.8
Kaduna North 87.5
Kaduna South 70.7
Kagarko 79.7
Kajuru 76.7
Kaura 80.1
Kauru 10.2
Kubau 63.4
Kudan 59.3
Lere 64.2
Makarfi 70.0
Sabon Gari 59.8
Sanga 30.5
Soba 41.1
Zangon Kataf 75.2
Zaria 59.2
State 66.2
Urban 69.1
Rural 65.5
Zone 1 (North) 62.2
Zone 2 (Central) 72.6
Zone 3 (South) 64.3
114

Appendix 3.2: Types of Toilet Facilities Used (%)
Local Covered pit Flush to septic tank (soak None, open

Government latrine away) defecation
Birnin Gwari 54.5 3.0 0.0
Chikun 39.7 42.5 1.1
Giwa 39.8 4.8 3.0
Igabi 48.9 7.8 0.6
Ikara 46.4 3.3 0.0
Jaba 54.7 19.3 0.0
Jema'a 35.5 26.8 21.3
Kachia 37.6 13.8 24.3
Kaduna North 34.1 30.7 0.0
Kaduna South 29.3 38.2 1.0
Kagarko 16.9 4.7 7.4
Kajuru 40.7 0.7 4.7
Kaura 41.7 24.5 3.3
Kauru 25.1 0.6 38.3
Kubau 54.9 0.6 0.0
Kudan 50.7 2.0 0.0
Lere 38.2 0.6 7.9
Makarfi 51.1 1.4 10.1
Sabon Gari 31.1 24.4 0.6
Sanga 42.1 1.8 14.6
Soba 36.2 1.2 8.0
Zangon Kataf 37.6 7.3 32.1
Zaria 60.2 11.4 0.0
State 41.1 12.5 8.2
Urban 39.3 26.0 0.4
Rural 41.6 9.3 10.0
Zone 1 (North) 46.3 5.9 3.2
Zone 2 (Central) 40.8 19.6 2.5
Zone 3 (South) 36.4 12.5 18.3
115

Appendix 3.3: Access to Improved Source of Drinking Water
Local Percentage (%)

Government
Birnin Gwari 33.9
Chikun 78.2
Giwa 35.5
Igabi 37.8
Ikara 34.4
Jaba 59.3
Jema'a 83.6
Kachia 72.4
Kaduna North 64.2
Kaduna South 88.5
Kagarko 49.3
Kajuru 60.7
Kaura 77.5
Kauru 22.8
Kubau 26.2
Kudan 33.3
Lere 41.2
Makarfi 36.7
Sabon Gari 59.8
Sanga 48.2
Soba 33.1
Zangon Kataf 61.2
Zaria 52.2
Urban 66.3
Rural 49.1
Zone 1 (North) 40.2
Zone 3 (South) 59.7
State 52.4
116

Appendix 3.4: Providers Responsible for Main Source of Drinking Water (%)
Local Community Government Kaduna State Natural Private

Government Water Board Source Source
Birnin Gwari 9.1 9.1 0.6 15.8 64.2
Chikun 1.7 0.6 27.9 0.5 63.1
Giwa 4.2 16.3 0.0 8.4 69.3
Igabi 10.6 15.6 0.0 3.9 70.0
Ikara 4.0 25.8 6.0 0.0 64.2
Jaba 5.3 5.3 32.0 8.0 49.3
Jema'a 9.3 16.4 6.6 7.7 59.6
Kachia 17.1 23.8 8.3 13.8 33.1
Kaduna North 0.0 7.4 38.6 1.1 50.6
Kaduna South 1.6 20.9 34.0 0.5 42.9
Kagarko 3.4 20.3 0.0 16.2 60.1
Kajuru 20.7 22.0 0.0 0.0 56.0
Kaura 15.2 13.9 21.2 9.9 39.7
Kauru 1.8 9.0 0.0 48.5 40.1
Kubau 0.0 0.6 0.6 4.3 94.5
Kudan 2.7 6.0 4.0 0.0 87.3
Lere 4.8 24.2 0.6 14.5 54.5
Makarfi 6.5 2.2 0.0 1.4 89.9
Sabon Gari 0.6 14.6 16.5 1.8 66.5
Sanga 0.0 25.0 1.8 32.3 31.1
Soba 1.2 12.3 0.0 14.7 70.6
Zangon Kataf 8.5 14.2 4.2 9.7 73.3
Zaria 1.5 4.0 8.5 1.5 80.6
State 5.6 13.0 9.5 9.5 61.1
Urban 1.0 11.6 24.2 1.2 60.4
Rural 6.7 13.3 6.0 11.5 61.3
Zone 1 (North) 2.5 11.1 4.7 4.9 75.9
Zone 2 (Central) 6.5 13.0 15.2 4.9 59.2
Zone 3 (South) 7.7 14.9 8.9 18.3 48.2
117

Appendix 3.5: Experiencing Problem with Kaduna State Water Board (%)
Local Percentage
Government (%)
Birnin Gwari 100.0
Chikun 28.0
Giwa 0.0
Igabi 0.0
Ikara 33.3
Jaba 33.3
Jema'a 8.3
Kachia 0.0
Kaduna North 61.8
Kaduna South 30.8
Kagarko 0.0
Kajuru 0.0
Kaura 43.8
Kauru 0.0
Kubau 0.0
Kudan 16.7
Lere 0.0
Makarfi 0.0
Sabon Gari 88.9
Sanga 0.0
Soba 0.0
Zangon Kataf 71.4
Zaria 41.2
State 40.9
Urban 52.5
Rural 29.7
Zone 1 (North) 57.4
Zone 3 (South) 30.8
118

Appendix 3.6: Sources of Electricity Supply (%)
Local NEPA/PHCN/ Rural Private Solar None

Government Kaduna Electrificatio Generator Power
Electric n
Birnin Gwari 72.7 6.7 0.6 0.6 21.2
Chikun 83.2 0.0 5.6 0.0 16.2
Giwa 59.6 12.0 1.2 0.0 31.1
Igabi 80.0 5.6 0.6 0.0 20.0
Ikara 47.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 53.6
Jaba 86.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 12.7
Jema'a 75.4 0.5 2.2 0.0 24.6
Kachia 60.2 0.0 26.0 0.6 29.3
Kaduna North 99.4 1.1 1.1 0.0 1.1
Kaduna South 99.5 0.0 2.1 0.0 0.5
Kagarko 79.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.3
Kajuru 72.0 0.0 11.3 0.0 22.7
Kaura 76.8 0.0 0.0 0.7 23.2
Kauru 6.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 92.2
Kubau 51.2 0.0 11.6 0.0 42.7
Kudan 88.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.0
Lere 49.7 0.0 5.5 0.6 48.5
Makarfi 59.7 0.0 8.6 0.0 38.1
Sabon Gari 98.2 0.0 1.8 0.6 1.8
Sanga 57.3 1.8 3.0 0.0 37.8
Soba 42.3 0.0 11.0 0.0 58.3
Zangon Kataf 35.2 0.0 12.1 1.8 56.4
Zaria 90.5 0.0 11.9 0.5 9.0
State 68.7 1.2 5.7 0.2 28.7
Urban 96.7 0.3 4.5 0.3 3.3
Rural 62.1 1.5 6.0 0.2 34.8
Zone 1 (North) 66.6 0.0 6.6 0.2 32.2
Zone 2 81.6 3.6 3.1 0.1 15.5
(Central)
Zone 3 59.0 0.3 7.3 0.4 37.5
(South)
119

Appendix 3.7: Female without antenatal care during pregnancy
Local Government % of female without antenatal care

Birnin Gwari 28.8
Chikun 14.6
Giwa 27.3
Igabi 18.5
Ikara 18.3
Jaba 6.5
Jema'a 27.7
Kachia 19.8
Kaduna North 9.4
Kaduna South 17.6
Kagarko 8.4
Kajuru 32.3
Kaura 18.2
Kauru 30.6
Kubau 27.2
Kudan 18.8
Lere 14.3
Makarfi 27.3
SabonGari 19.2
Sanga 46.7
Soba 40.7
ZangonKataf 26.7
Zaria 25.2
State 22.8
Urban 20.5
Rural 23.6
Zone 1 (North) 24.3
Zone 3 (South) 22.6
Source: Kaduna Baseline Report, Household Survey 2015
120

Appendix 3.8: Level of Satisfaction with Health Facility
Local Government % of female without antenatal care

Birnin Gwari 60
Chikun 75
Giwa 78.4
Igabi 83.3
Ikara 83.3
Jaba 41.2
Jema'a 52.6
Kachia 78.6
Kaduna North 73.3
Kaduna South 87.1
Kagarko 57.6
Kajuru 82.2
Kaura 69.8
Kauru 76.9
Kubau 45.7
Kudan 84.4
Lere 50.8
Makarfi 86.4
SabonGari 78.6
Sanga 82.6
Soba 93.1
ZangonKataf 78.4
Zaria 88.5
State 74.4
Urban 83.3
Rural 73.0
Female 75.4
Male 73.2
121

Appendix 3.9: Highest School Completion Grade (%)
Local Pre-primary Primary JSCE SSCE OND/ND NCE HND BSC

Government
Birnin Gwari 12.0 24.3 8.7 4.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0
Chikun 30.1 33.2 19.0 9.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4
Giwa 15.8 27.9 9.7 1.3 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0
Igabi 7.4 45.5 12.6 4.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Ikara 7.7 45.5 12.6 4.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Jaba 57.4 23.9 10.2 3.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Jema'a 26.2 43.6 15.9 11.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Kachia 27.7 36.8 20.6 7.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Kaduna North 35.3 39.1 11.7 5.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Kaduna South 20.5 41.8 17.9 9.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Kagarko 37.3 35.7 12.4 6.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0
Kajuru 23.7 39.4 18.7 6.6 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0
Kaura 24.9 43.1 17.7 9.4 0.6 0.6 0.0 0.0
Kauru 28.3 27.1 1.8 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Kubau 21.3 19.6 4.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Kudan 13.5 43.5 10.5 4.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Lere 30.0 28.3 8.8 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Makarfi 9.2 44.8 10.5 2.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Sabon Gari 25.3 41.7 15.3 4.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Sanga 28.1 40.4 20.7 4.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Soba 16.9 32.6 11.2 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3
Zangon Kataf 17.2 44.6 19.9 11.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Zaria 21.8 37.2 13.3 8.1 0.7 0.0 0.2 0.2
State 22.6 36.1 13.0 5.4 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1
Zone 1 (North) 18.8 35.9 10.8 3.7 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2
Zone 2 (Central) 20.4 35.0 13.5 5.8 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1
Zone 3 (South) 30.3 37.4 15.5 7.4 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0
Urban 24.9 39.6 14.5 7.1 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.3
122

Age 6 to 11 34.5 39.4 2.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Age 12 to 18 7.7 31.9 26.7 12.0 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.3
Rural 22.0 35.2 12.6 4.9 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1
Female 22.9 35.1 12.2 4.7 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1
Male 22.4 36.9 13.7 6.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1
Appendix 3.10: Proficiency Standard in Reading (%)
Local Letters Sentences Story None

Government
Birnin Gwari 15.6 1.3 1.3 80.5
Chikun 53.7 4.9 0.0 31.7
Giwa 18.4 0.0 2.3 79.3
Igabi 28.4 0.0 0.0 63.5
Ikara 39.5 2.3 1.2 55.8
Jaba 20.0 0.0 0.0 80.0
Jema'a 46.2 0.0 0.0 51.3
Kachia 35.0 1.7 0.0 55.0
Kaduna North 35.5 3.2 0.0 54.8
Kaduna South 26.0 2.0 0.0 64.0
Kagarko 37.3 0.0 1.7 59.3
Kajuru 26.1 2.2 0.0 69.6
Kaura 45.8 0.0 0.0 50.0
Kauru 18.0 0.0 0.0 80.0
Kubau 20.2 0.0 0.0 78.7
Kudan 38.2 0.0 0.0 60.3
Lere 20.7 0.0 0.0 78.0
Makarfi 23.8 1.3 0.0 72.5
Sabon Gari 71.0 0.0 0.0 24.2
Sanga 67.4 0.0 0.0 32.6
Soba 33.6 0.0 0.9 63.8
Zangon Kataf 31.4 0.0 0.0 68.6
Zaria 33.7 3.3 0.0 55.4
State 32.6 1.0 0.4 62.9
123

Appendix 3.11: Type of Drainage System Used (%)
Local Covered concrete Mud None Uncovered concrete

Government drain drain
Birnin Gwari 0.0 24.2 47.3 28.5
Chikun 16.2 9.5 52.5 21.8
Giwa 0.0 19.3 54.8 25.9
Igabi 0.0 15.6 57.8 26.7
Ikara 2.0 31.1 39.7 27.2
Jaba 2.7 30.0 50.7 16.7
Jema'a 0.5 10.4 78.4 1.6
Kachia 1.7 9.9 86.2 2.2
Kaduna North 5.7 9.1 26.7 58.5
Kaduna South 12.0 11.0 30.4 46.6
Kagarko 0.0 13.5 79.1 7.4
Kajuru 0.0 15.3 84.0 0.7
Kaura 0.0 19.9 76.8 3.3
Kauru 0.6 9.6 86.2 3.6
Kubau 0.0 14.0 84.1 1.8
Kudan 0.7 30.0 42.7 26.7
Lere 0.6 26.1 16.2 12.1
Makarfi 1.4 37.4 41.7 19.4
Sabon Gari 4.9 42.1 16.5 36.6
Sanga 0.0 0.0 95.7 4.3
Soba 0.6 49.1 40.5 9.8
Zangon Kataf 0.0 9.1 85.5 5.5
Zaria 7.5 24.9 27.4 40.3
State 2.7 19.6 58.6 19.1
Urban 7.7 21.3 25.5 45.5
124

Rural 1.5 19.2 66.4 12.8

Zone 1 (North) 2.4 31.5 43.9 22.2
Zone 2 (Central) 5.1 14.7 49.5 30.7
Zone 3 (South) 0.7 12.5 81.5 5.3
Appendix 3.12: Type of Refuse Collection Used (%)
Local Collected by Collected by Disposal in Unauthorize Disposal/burnin

Government Government private company government d heap g within
bin compound
Birnin Gwari 0.0 0.0 0.0 79.4 18.8
Chikun 2.2 2.2 6.7 34.6 54.2
Giwa 0.0 0.0 1.2 68.7 30.1
Igabi 2.8 0.0 0.6 65.0 31.7
Ikara 0.0 0.0 1.3 26.5 72.2
Jaba 0.7 0.0 0.0 18.0 61.3
Jema'a 0.0 0.0 0.0 38.3 61.7
Kachia 0.0 0.6 0.0 26.5 69.6
Kaduna North 8.0 30.7 5.7 32.4 14.8
Kaduna 13.1 10.5 4.2 27.2 34.6
South
Kagarko 0.0 2.0 0.0 43.2 30.4
Kajuru 0.7 0.0 0.0 39.3 58.7
Kaura 2.0 0.0 0.0 14.6 82.8
Kauru 0.0 0.0 0.0 39.5 59.9
Kubau 0.0 0.0 0.0 59.8 4.3
Kudan 0.0 0.0 0.0 21.3 78.0
Lere 0.0 0.0 0.0 56.4 32.7
Makarfi 0.7 0.0 8.6 23.7 65.5
Sabon Gari 1.2 0.0 1.2 71.3 14.6
Sanga 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.3 90.9
Soba 0.0 0.0 0.0 50.3 49.7
Zangon Kataf 0.0 0.0 0.6 22.4 75.8
Zaria 0.0 1.0 0.0 68.7 26.9
125

State 1.5 2.2 1.3 41.2 47.9

Urban 5.6 10.4 2.7 49.7 23.2
Rural 0.5 0.3 1.0 39.2 53.8
Zone 1 0.2 0.2 1.2 48.8 41.4
(North)
Zone 2 4.1 6.5 2.7 49.0 34.4
(Central)
Zone 3 0.3 0.3 0.1 26.4 66.8
(South)
Appendix 3.13: Budgetary allocations to LGAs in Kaduna State in 2016
2016 2016 2016

Local Government Recurrent Capital Total
Expenditure Expenditure Expenditure
Birnin Gwari 0.89 1.23 2.12
Chikun 1.67 0.46 2.12
Giwa 1.11 0.77 1.88
Igabi 1.56 0.69 2.25
Ikara 0.95 0.56 1.51
Jaba 0.89 0.47 1.36
Jema'a 1.11 0.71 1.83
Kachia 1.23 0.60 1.83
Kaduna North 1.58 0.20 1.78
Kaduna South 1.63 0.17 1.80
Kagarko 1.12 0.58 1.70
Kajuru 1.12 0.20 1.31
Kaura 1.19 0.22 1.41
Kauru 0.80 0.75 1.55
Kubau 1.25 0.39 1.64
Kudan 0.87 0.38 1.25
Lere 1.27 0.53 1.80
Makarfi 0.92 0.46 1.39
SabonGari 1.29 0.56 1.85
126

Sanga 0.93 0.39 1.32

Soba 1.20 0.62 1.82
ZangonKataf 1.28 0.63 1.91
Zaria 1.54 0.55 2.09
Totals 27.38 12.14 39.52
Appendix 4.1
Ecological Modelling of Infrastructure Development in Kaduna State
4.1. The Methodology
The essence of engaging an ecological modelling framework for the KSIMP is to

incorporate smart development and conservation planning in the process of
infrastructure deployment over the planned period. The idea is to instill a systematical,
responsible and sustainable model for land use and spatial development in urban and
rural areas of Kaduna State. There is a strong correlation between infrastructure
development and quality of natural environment (air, surface and ground water, soil and
vegetation)63.
The rationale behind developing an ecological model is based on the fact that the
proposed scale of infrastructural development (over the planned period of 2016-2020 on
a ST/MT basis, and up to 2050 on a LT basis) must result in a significant land-take and
increase in amount of de-vegetation which impacts surface + groundwater, soil and air
quality, hence the need to incorporate efforts towards land cover
63
Questionnaire administered during the study indicate a clear recognition of the impact of rapid development on
the key environmental components of air, soil, vegetation and surface and ground water. This position is already
established from various scientific studies which have collectively culminated into the current international
instrument of sustainability – the SDGs.
127

conservation64.Therefore, the approach suggested for this KSIMP is an integrated GIS-

based ecological connectivity assessment (ECA )to provide a sustainable (or green)
infrastructure planning approach thatseeks to guide sustainable land use decision
making in Kaduna State.
The specific data analysis methodology adopted is a combination of the Whole

Landscape Pattern Analysis (WLPA) with the Patch-Corridor-Matrix (PCM) Model, and
is based on the ‘aggregate-with-outliers’ principle in landscape ecology with a “four top-
priority ecological indispensables” (these key components are i) a few large patches of
naturalvegetation, ii) major stream or river corridors, iii) connectivity with corridors and
stepping stones betweenlarge patches, and iv) heterogeneous bits of nature across the
matrix) pattern, collectively recognized as a robust way to fit elements together into a
whole landscape planning approach. The combination of the WLPA (for Kaduna state-
wide analysis)and PCM (for localized urban and rural settlements) is justified on the
basis that the proposed interventions differ in scale with some capable of impacting
regional (state-wide) scale (e.g. agricultural productivity infrastructure/projects; surface
and groundwater extraction projects, etc.) while others are mainly concentrated within
specific settlements/corridor boundaries (e.g. roads, rail, waste management plants,
mass housing, etc.).
All digital elevation model (DEM) scenes (Figure 4.1) abutting Kaduna State were
downloaded from the NASA website (https://earthexplorer.usgs.gov). The elevation
dataset were extracted based on the spatial extent or political boundary of the State and
re-projected using the Universal Traverse Mercator (UTM Zone 32N). The elevation
data contained little imperfections and/or holes which were however corrected. The
filled DEM was then resampled to 100m for uniformity with other dataset.
64
The major infrastructure projects being proposed include water treatment plants and boreholes which would
collectively process over 400million litres of water daily. Other projects include rural and urban roads, healthcare
facilities, interventions to expand agricultural productivity, etc.
128

Figure 4.1. DEM data for Kaduna State (https://earthexplorer.usgs.gov)
The ECA for Kaduna State will be achieved by linking the functional aspects of the
actual connection between the different ecosystem units; from energy toinformation and
matter, i.e. nutrient cycles, pollen dispersion and movements of flora or
faunapopulations to evaluate the eco-lands’ ecological connectivity in Kaduna State.
The principal components for deriving the ecological connectivity index (ECI) will dwell
on ecological cost-distance value (in pixel), minimum and maximum ecological cost-
distance value in any given part of Kaduna State. Specifically, calculating the ecological
cost-distance value (xi) forms the main basis for the ECA for infrastructure planning in
Kaduna State, and is achieved based on the cost-distance model.
The method effectively identifies vital ecological areas (hubs) and linkages (see figure
4.2 below) prior to development in sub-urban and undeveloped areas, whilst also
identifying key sites for protection and restoration in already developed sites especially
within urban centres. This infrastructure framework is considered most suitable for
sustainable development and protection of present land resource units, and for future
projections of infrastructure developments as clearly spelt under the SDG 11: “making
cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable” (with varying
degree of details contained in targets 1-7 of the SDG 11).
129

Figure 4.2. Flow chart for methodology
4.2. Preliminary Results and Implication
4.2.1. Landuse and Landcover Composition
The rural landuse (Figure 4.3) and land cover (Figure 4.4) of Kaduna State are
presented below. Total rural landuse coverage in Kaduna State is about 43,790.7
square kilometres (sq.km) representing about 95% of the total area coverage of the
State.A further breakdown of the rural landuse composition by LGA shows that Ikara
and Sanga has the highest and least area coverage of rural landuse, respectively
(Table 4.1). Generally, the LGAs in the southern/south-eastern parts of Kaduna State
are found to be more ecologically diverse with more land cover types. Much of the
recorded land cover types are largely degraded and secondary in nature, hence
reinforcing the need for consistent eco-planning as population expansion exerts
pressure on the declining natural land cover.
Figure 4.5 shows the landuse of Kaduna Metropolis as at 2015 with the percentage
composition shown on Table 4.2. On a whole, redundant/buffer land is extremely limited
within the metropolis. This scenario is representative of all major urban centres within
Kaduna State. Hence, planning infrastructural expansion would require an increase in
green corridors/buffer zones and reserved areas.
130

Figure 4.3. Kaduna State Rural Landuse Figure 4.4. Kaduna State Land Cover Categories using 2014 Landsat Images
131

Table 4.1. Rural landuse composition by LGA

S/No. *LGA Sq.km
1 Birnin-Gwari 6188.9
2 Chikun 4668.2
3 Giwa 2066.3
4 Igabi 3718.1
5 Ikara 853.0
6 Jaba 368.3
7 Jema’a 1661.1
8 Kachia 4632.8
9 Kagarko 2037.2
10 Kajuru 2464.4
11 Kaura 2810.2
12 Kubau 2504.9
13 Kudan 399.8
14 Lere 2157.2
15 Makarfi 540.6
16 Sabon-Gari 263.5
17 Sanga 1255.5
18 Soba 2233.6
19 Zangon-Kataf 2667.3
20 Zaria 299.8
Total 43,790.7

* Kaduna North & Kaduna South LGAs with no rural landuse; Kaura LGA omitted.
132

133

Figure 4.5. Landuse map of Kaduna Metropolis in 2015
Table 4.2. Percentage composition of landuse in Metropolitan Kaduna in 2015

Land Use %
Urban Agriculture 0.21
Cemetery 0.07
Commercial 6.49
Education 3.18
Farmland 0.44
Floodable Land 0.57
Health 0.68
Institution 1.83
Open Space 0.82
Public Administration 22.45
Religious 0.14
Residential 4.21
Residential (High
Density) 36.76
Residential (Low
Density) 5.17
Residential (Medium
Density) 11.03
School 0.00
Sport 0.54
Transport 0.55
134

U/C 4.85
Grand Total 100
4.2.2. ECA Results
The preliminary findings from Kaduna’s ECA are presented as source-destination

model (Figure 4.6), cost-distance analysis (Figure 4.7) and ECI analysis (Figure 5.8).
The source (S1) is derived from Kachia in the southern part of the State (where there
is relatively higher density/expanse of natural vegetation cover) through to a number
of destinations (D1, D2, D3, D4 and D5) across the northern part of the State, as
shown on Figures 4.6 and 4.7. The ECI is also established on Figure 4.8.
Basically, the concept of “green infrastructure” has been adopted to contrast with
“built infrastructure” including roads, sewers, hospitals, schools and other public
facilities. It is defined as the State’s natural life support system- an interconnected
network of waterways, wetlands, woodlands, wildlife habitats, and other natural
areas; greenways, parks and other conservation lands; farmlands, forests;
wilderness and other open spaces that support native species, maintain natural
ecological processes, sustain air and water resources and contribute to the health
and quality of life for communities and people65. The general idea is to strike a
balance between green infrastructure and built infrastructure. In other words,
infrastructure delivery planning such that the alterations on green infrastructure
caused by built infrastructure can be regained through the natural processes.
65
M.A. Benedict, and E.T. McMahon, “Green infrastructure: smart conservation for the 21st century”.http://www.greeninfrastructure.net/
135

Figure 4.6: Source-destination for Kaduna ECA
136

Figure 4.7: Cost-distance analysis for Kaduna ECA
137

Figure 4.8: ECI Map for Kaduna ECA
4.3. Global Instruments and Local Enabling Laws Guiding Infrastructure

Development
The proposed infrastructure developments would involve extensive land take in a

region generally considered to be environmentally sensitive. On the whole, the
construction and commissioning of the proposed developments would involve
mobilization of personnel and equipment to site, clearing and preparation,
establishment of base stations, excavation and earth filling in some areas, and re-
surfacing, etc., all of which have the potential of significantly altering the bio-physical
components of the local environment. These activities are regulated by some
specific Nigerian statutes, guidelines, standards and regulations as well as some
international conventions and protocols to which Nigeria is signatory. Collectively,
these regulations form the legislative framework within which sustainable
anthropogenic activities are guided; and are also intended as a guide for regulatory
agencies to monitor and ensure that developments (such as being planned for
138

Kaduna State) projects in Nigeria are carried out in an environmentally sound and
responsible manner. This study is thus, carried out with due cognizance to these
national legislations and international treaties, to which Nigeria is a signatory. The
legislative and institutional frameworks discussed below broadly capture this
essence.
4.3.1. The Sustainable Development Goals
One of the main outcomes from the UN Conference on Sustainable Development

(Rio+20) in 2012 was international agreement to negotiate a new set of global
Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)66 to guide the path of sustainable
development in the world after 2015. The Rio+20 Outcome Document Indicates that
the goals are intended to be “action-oriented, concise and easy to communicate,
limited in number, aspirational, global in nature and universally applicable to all
countries, while taking into account different national realities, capacities and levels
of development and respecting national policies and priorities.” They should be
focused on priority areas for the achievement of sustainable development67. Building
on the gains of the MDGs post-2015, it is imperative that development continues to
thrive at local and regional levels within the context of globally established
sustainability frameworks as provided for in the SDGs.
In spite of the broad dimensions of the SDGs, of specific interest to the ecological
and environmental component of the KSIMP are:
SDG No. 9: Build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable
industrialization and foster innovation;
SDG No. 11: Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and
sustainable; and,
SDG No. 15: Protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems,
sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, and halt and reverse land
degradation and halt biodiversity loss.
These goals are accompanied with specific targets and indicators for assessing the
level of progress recorded within a defined space and specified time68.
4.3.2. Nigeria’s EIA Act 86 of 1992
Prior to the promulgation of EIA Decree 86 of 1992, all physical developments were
carried out using a cost-benefit analysis (CBA), without due cognition of the
environmental & social impact on host environments. The EIA Act 86 (1992)
mandates an EIA to be carried out on new projects likely to exert any form of impacts
on the Nigerian environment, by providing guidelines for developments which EIA is
66
The Future We Want.’ Outcome document of the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development June 2012, Para 247.
https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/733FutureWeWant.pdf
67
Derek Osborn, Amy Cutter & Farooq Ullah. “Universal Sustainable Development Goals: Understanding the
Transformational Challenge for Developed Countries”. Report of a Study by Stakeholder Forum, May 2015
Federal Republic of Nigeria. 1992. Environmental Impact Assessment Decree No. 86. Gazette 79 (73)
68
United Nations (2016). Report of the Inter-Agency and Expert Group on Sustainable Development Goal Indicators
(E/CN.3/2016/2/Rev.1).
https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/indicators/Official%20List%20of%20Proposed%20SDG%20Indicators.pdf Accessed March 20th
2017
139

deemed mandatory69. The Federal Ministry of Environment, FME (which evolved

from Federal Environmental Protection Agency, FEPA) procedural and sectoral
guidelines details the various stages for which an EIA study/process must adopt
including the categorization of projects into I, II and III. Category I projects require a
full EIA; Category II projects may or may not require a full EIA; while Category III
projects do not require an EIA.
The EIA Decree No. 86, Section 3 (1) of 1992 states, inter alia:
“In identifying the Environmental Impact Assessment
process in this Decree, the relevant environmental
issues shall be identified and studied before
commencing or embarking on any project or activity
covering the provisions of this Decree or covered by
the Agency or likely to have environmental impact on
the Nigerian environment”.
Regarding the planned infrastructural developments at the various scenario levels,

the EIA Act provides for a full EIA to be conducted within fragile ecosystems, prone
to desertification and semi-aridity. In addition, most of the planned infrastructure
developments would have a combined land take in excess of 50 hectares, therefore
mandating a full EIA before the actual projects commence. In order to ensure that
EIA’s are properly conducted, the FMEnv also issued a National EIA Procedure
indicating the steps to be followed through the EIA process from project
commencement to commissioning in order to ensure that projects are executed with
maximum consideration for the environment.
In 1991, the then Federal Ministry of Environment, Housing & Urban Development
released “National Interim Guidelines and Standards for Industrial Effluents,
Gaseous Emissions and Hazardous Waste Management”. These provisions were
separately listed as:
S.1.8. National Environment Protection (Effluent Limitation) Regulation;
S.1.9. National Environment Protection (Pollution Abatement in Industries and
Facilities Generating Waste) Regulation; and,
S.1.15. National Environment Protection (Management of Solid and
Hazardous Wastes) Regulation.
Collectively, these guidelines are contained within the EIA Act 86 of 1992 and are
therefore, deemed relevant for the proposed infrastructure projects in Kaduna State.
Others include a) Kaduna State Environmental Protection Law No. 7 of 2010; b)
Kaduna State Urban Planning & Development Board Edict No. 10 (1985); c) the
World Bank Guidelines for ESIA70; and, The IFC Environmental and Social Review
Procedures Manual71.
69
Federal Republic of Nigeria. 1992. Environmental Impact Assessment Decree No. 86. Gazette 79 (73)
70
The World Bank Group (1989). “Operational Directive on Environmental Assessment” (OD.4.00).
71
The IFC (2016) Environmental & Social Review Procedures Manual
http://www.ifc.org/wps/wcm/connect/190d25804886582fb47ef66a6515bb18/ESRP_Manual.pdf?MOD=AJPERES
140

Figure 2.1. EIA Process in Nigeria
4.4. Synthesis & Recommendation
The results presented here is a summary of the ECI model which evaluates the
functional connectivity among the land units, by which the ecological connectivity
pattern was identified anddivided into 5 areas of High, Moderately high, Moderately
low, Low and No Connectivity. The ECI model also show high potential paths
through which the source (from the south) can possibly connect the destinations in
the (north).
Field exercises to validate these mapping exercise is still on-going hence, it should
not be unexpected if there are slight variation with a verified version of this study. It is
suggested that air quality modelling is done to show the status of air quality during
the development phase of the KSIMP. Once air quality assessment is carried out,
the 4 environmental components of air, water (ground and surface), soil and
vegetation cover (within which all forms of matter and nutrients flow) must have been
completely catered for.
Linear/corridor infrastructure (roads, highways, rail, water mains, etc.) proposed in

Kaduna State are not expected to impact heavily on the physical environment.
However, habitat losses related to infrastructures are small in comparison to the
indirectly impacted area. With the scale of infrastructure proposed between 2017 and
2050, the barrier effect index (BEI) is not expected to exceed 30% if adequate
planning mechanisms are adopted and meticulously implemented. Again, it is
unclear (at this stage) what these specific mechanisms would be for individual
projects, as these would be determined by project specific environmental and social
impact assessments (ESIA), in line with Nigeria’s EIA Decree 86 of 1992.
141

In summary, Kaduna State is basically located within Nigeria’s fragile transition belt,
the Sahel Savana region. To the north is the threat of desert encroachment while to
the south is the threat of deforestation and degradation. This explains the
origin/source of the ecological connectivity index originating from the southern part of
the State where there are still some forest reserves, albeit under degradation,
secondary and not properly protected. Although Kaduna State is not officially a
member State of the “Great Green Wall for the Sahara and Sahel Initiative”
(GGWSSI), paying special attention towards ensuring responsible development is
expected to support current steps being pursued by the Federal Ministry of
Environment through (through GGWSSI) in Northern Nigeria as contained in its 8
strategic pillars72, moving the Initiative beyond the fringes into protecting or creating
regional or local corridors that will ensure ecological connectedness within and
across the various Northern States’ level including Kaduna State which borders 4 of
the desertification red-flagged States.
Generally, the KSIMP is conceptualized on the basis of i) the Kaduna State

Development Plan (SDP) which is anchored on 3 main Pillars73 – Economic
Development; Social Welfare; and Security & Justice, and Governance; and ii) Short-
to medium-term (ST/MT 2017-2020), and long-term (LT up to 2050) perspectives. It
is important to note that the summary of suggestions regarding environmental
assessments would focus on the Economic Pillar (which includes a regional context)
and constitutes a total of about 51.75% of estimated capital expenditure (2016-2019)
across the 3 SDP Pillars. Similarly, across the 3 KSIMP scenarios (A, B & C), the
Ministry of Works, Housing and Transport is estimated to execute (largely
infrastructure) projects costing 54% of the total from the group of Government
establishments responsible for economic development (Pillar 1) within the ST/MT
2016-2019. Irrespective of the rankings and weightings, it is clear that physical/built
infrastructure in Kaduna is planned on an expansive scale. These would include
roads (rural access/urban roads/inter-regional roads), water infrastructure
(boreholes, city pipelines reticulation, treatment plants, etc.), agriculture (fertilizer
production and actual use, land cover conversion for farming/grazing, small
dams/impoundments for irrigation, etc.), and a host of other projects planned for the
ST/MT scenario. These projects would collectively create localized and regional
impacts, if mitigative steps/measures are not planned before-hand.
Considering the scenarios and the state of Kaduna’s environment (as shown above),
it becomes imperative that:
f. A project by project EIA is conducted as indicated in the guidelines for
conducting EIAs under Nigeria’s EIA Act;
g. A project by project assessment index is developed using the relevant SDGs
(9, 11 and 15) along with their respective indicators74 in accordance with
international best practices;
72
For details, please see Federal Government of Nigeria (2012). Great Green Wall for the Sahara and Sahel
Initiative: National Strategic Action Plan. Federal Ministry of Environment, Nigeria
73
The Kaduna SDP actually identifies 4 Pillars. For the purpose of the KSIMP scenario modelling, Pillars 3 and 4
are merged to become Security & Justice, and Governance.
74
United Nations (2016). Report of the Inter-Agency and Expert Group on Sustainable Development Goal
Indicators (E/CN.3/2016/2/Rev.1). Available online at
142

h. Associated and potential environmental impact must be assessed (weighted),

for an environmental management plan to be comprehensively developed
with a detailed contingency, monitoring coverage and schedule, on a project
by project basis;
i. The ECI results reveals the need to develop the identified ecological paths
into linkages connecting the source (i.e. the remaining dense vegetal land
cover in Kachia and other parts of Southern Kaduna) to destination (i.e., the
extreme less vegetated locations across the northern parts of Kaduna State)
as a strategic option in line with the Great Green Wall for the Sahara and
Sahel Initiative (GGWSSI)75 that would offer long term mitigative measure for
stabilizing the physical components of the environment, on a regional basis.
https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/indicators/Official%20List%20of%20Proposed%20SDG%20Indicators.pdf
Accessed
03/19/2017
75
Federal Government of Nigeria (2012). Great Green Wall for the Sahara and Sahel Initiative: National Strategic Action
Plan. FMEnvt, Nigeria
143

Appendix A:
Kaduna State Infrastructure

Master Plan (KSIMP)
Questionnaire for Stakeholders
144

Preface
Kaduna State Government has commenced the process of preparing an Infrastructure Master Plan that
would provide the strategic framework and direction of future public and private investment in
infrastructure in the state. It is hoped that the Plan would help to identify the order of magnitude of
present and future resource needs for the purpose of building the required capital infrastructure. In
order to ensure that the preparation of the Plan benefits directly from broad stakeholder participation,
this questionnaire is designed to collate stakeholders’ views in terms of their aspirations and
perceptions on how best to enhance infrastructural development of the State.
The Team charged with the task of preparing Kaduna State Infrastructure Master Plan would
appreciate the inputs from major stakeholders in the State such as key MDAs’ Officials, Chairmen of
Local Government Areas, Members of the State House of Assembly, Members of the State Executive
Council, Civil Society Organizations, and indeed the general public. Responses gathered through this
instrument would complement the numerous rounds of consultations with Government Officials at the
State’s Ministry of Budget and Economic Planning.
Your responses are highly appreciated. It is expected that the questionnaire that has been filled is
submitted online or by email to the Office of the Honorable Commissioner for Budget and Planning,
on or before Monday, February 20, 2017.
Muhammad Sani Abdullahi
Honorable Commissioner,
Ministry of Budget and Planning
Kaduna State
145

IDENTIFICATION
Name (Optional)
Designation of Respondent (Optional)
Local Government Area
Constituency
Contact: Email, Phone No (Optional)
KADUNA STATE INFRASTRUCTURE: PERCEPTION
1 How would you rank the present state of infrastructural 0 1 2 3
development in the State? Rank from 0 to 3 given that 3 is the highest/best

level of infrastructural development possible.
2 Are you familiar with the following Kaduna Restoration Master Plan Yes No
Government policy documents?
Kaduna State 5 Year Development Yes No
(See the link below for Kaduna Plan 2016-2020
State Development Plan
(2016-2020):
http://openkaduna.com.ng/wp-
content/uploads/2016/04/SDP-
DEVELOPMENT-PLAN-3.pdf
3 Do you believe that the four Economic development Yes No
146

priority areas of the Kaduna Social welfare Yes No
State Development Plan Security and justice Yes No
2016- 2020 (are adequate to Governance Yes No
deliver jobs, social justice
and prosperity in the State?
4 In your opinion, do you believe that any or all the four priority Yes No
areas of the State Development Plan can be achieved in the
absence of infrastructural development of the State?
5 Rank the following factors that Job creation 1 2 3 4 5
should be considered before
the choice of a given GDP growth 1 2 3 4 5
infrastructure project (1 as the
most important factor to be Poverty alleviation 1 2 3 4 5
considered)
Social justice and security 1 2 3 4 5
Improved governance 1 2 3 4 5
6. The following presents the sectors that are clearly captured and discussed in The State
Development Plan. Kindly indicate by inserting the number from 1 to 14 to show how
you would have liked to prioritize the sectors for the sake of infrastructure investment.
Sectors in SDP Indicate how you would prioritize these sectors

for infrastructure investment
Agriculture and Forestry
Industry, Commerce and Tourism
147

Infrastructure and Transport
Education, Science and Technology
Health
Social Development and Welfare
Water and Sanitation
Security, Law and Justice
Governance and Administration
Local Government Administration
Lands and Urban Development
Rural and Community Development
Budget and Planning, and Revenue Mobilisation
148

7. Kindly list what you would consider as the top MOST IMPORTANT FIVE infrastructure projects for achieving the priorities of the Kaduna State
Development Plan in your area of responsibility and provide the information required for each of the projects you have identified. You are advised to
limit yourself to ONLY those column(s) for which you have the required information. If you are not responsible for implementing the projects listed,
please list the MDA that has this responsibility.
S/N Name of Project/ Status Estimated Cost of the Justification for the project Completion Expected capital
Project Status in expenditure in
Location/MDA (Mar ‘X’) as Percentage 2018 Budget
Responsible if not your appropriate Proposals
own agency (e.g. 0% for
new project)
1 New Expected
cost to
Completion
On-going Residual cost

to
Completion
Abandoned Residual cost

to
Completion
2 New Expected
cost to
Completion

to
Completion
149


to
Completion
S/N Name of Project/ Status Estimated Cost of the Justification for the project Completion Status Expected capital
Project in Percentage expenditure in
Location (Mar ‘X’) as 2018 Budget
appropriate (e.g. 0% for new Proposals
project)
3 New Expected
cost to
Completion

to
Completion

to
Completion
4 New Expected
cost to
Completion

to
150

Completion

to
Completion
S/N Name of Project/ Status Estimated of the Project Justification for the project Completion Expected capital
Status in expenditure in
Location (Mar ‘X’) as Percentage 2018 Budget
appropriate Proposals
(e.g. 0% for new
project)
5 New Expected
cost to
Completion

to
Completion

to
151

Completion
152

8 What proportion of the budget Less than 50% Yes No
do you think should be Between 50% and 60% Yes No
earmarked for More than 60% Yes No
capital/infrastructure
projects?
9 Which of the following do you think Legal (e.g. absence of Yes No
may constrain the development and relevant legislation
implementation of the Plan? Financial Yes No
Political Yes No
Governance/Bureaucracy Yes No
Others (Specify) Yes No
10 Rank the following ways of financing Federal/State Budget 1 2 3 4
Infrastructure projects with 1 being
the most preferred Public debt 1 2 3 4
Public Private Partnership (PPP) 1 2 3 4
Joint Ventures (JVs) 1 2 3 4
11 What do you think are the
three MOST IMPORTANT
infrastructure projects, in order
of importance, currently being
153

undertaken in the State in terms of
their contribution to its economic
and social development
12 Environmental Impacts of projects Comments
What key environmental components
(air, water, soil, vegetation, wetlands,
etc.) would you suggest as fragile and
requiring investigation before
commencing infrastructure projects?
13 Assuming that Kaduna State 1
Government had money for ONLY 3
INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS,
what would you suggest that would 2
provide jobs and make Kaduna State
great again.
Thank you,
Muhammad Sani Abdullahi
Honorable Commissioner,
Ministry of Budget and Planning
Kaduna State
154

Appendix B:
Summary of Responses form Respondents on KADIMP
An Analysis of the Questionnaire for Stakeholders
Kaduna State Government, through the Ministry of Budget and Planning, has in the process of
preparing an Infrastructure Master Plan that will ‘provide strategic framework and direction of
future public and private investment in infrastructure’, prepared and distributed a self-administered
questionnaire for stakeholders. However, the stakeholders are key MDAs Commissioners,
Chairmen of Local Government Areas, Members of Kaduna Stat House of Assembly, Members of
Kaduna State Executive Council and Civic Society Organisations. Due to limited time of
submission, only 34 respondents duly completed and returned their questionnaire at the time of
this analysis.
Question 1. How would you rank the present state of infrastructural Development in the State? Rank
from 0 to 3 given that 3 is the highest/best level of infrastructural development possible. The
responses were,
Ranking No. %
0 0 0
1 11 32
2 20 59
3 2 6
No Response 1 3
34 100
91% respondents and these are mainly very senior government officials agreed that the present level
of infrastructure development in Kaduna State is undesirable or nor perfect or need rehabilitation and
155

improvement. This response therefore justifies the need to prepare the Kaduna State Infrastructure
Master Plan as a matter of urgency or top priority in budgetary and planning terms
Question 2. Are you familiar with the following Government Policy documents?
-
- Kaduna Restoration Master Plan
Responses No. %
Yes 26 76
No 3 9
No Response 5 15
-
-
-
-
-
- Kaduna State 5 Year Development Plan 2016 – 2020
Responses No. %
Yes 29 85
No 4 12
No Response 1 3
80.5% respondents stated that they were familiar with the Kaduna Restoration Master Plan and the
Kaduna State 5 Year Development Plan 2016 – 2020. Though more respondents were familiar with
the 2016 – 2020 plan, it shows that very senior government officials read and understand policy
documents and believe in what the present administration intends to achieve through budget and
planning. Familiarly with budgetary is an indication that proposed monetary allocations are vital to
the operations of the various arms of government and should be taken seriously.
Question 3. Do you believe that these four priority areas of the Kaduna State Development Plan 2016
– 2020 (are adequate to deliver jobs, social justice and prosperity in the State?)
Economic Development No. %

Yes 33 97
No 1 3
Social Welfare No. %

Yes 32 94
No 2 6
Security and Justice No. %

Yes 33 97
156

No 1 3
Governance No. %
Yes 33 97
No 1 3
96.25% respondents agreed with the Kaduna State Development Plan 2016 – 2020 that economic
development, social welfare, security and Justice and Governance are four priority areas for the
deliverance of jobs, social justice and prosperity in Kaduna State. It is interesting to note that
governance also ranked high in the priority particularly when the respondents are very senior
government officials.
Question 4. In your opinion, do you believe that any or all the four priority areas of the State
Development Plan can be achieved in the absence of infrastructural development in the State?
No. %
Yes 6 18
No 26 76
No Response 2 6
This cross examination question confirms the result obtained in Question 1. Above with 76%
respondents affirming that Infrastructure Master Plan is vital to the development of infrastructure in
Kaduna State. The location of all infrastructure will however need to be planned physically in a
coordinated and conforming way. This requires the dexterity of the spatial planning in all the Local
Government Headquarters towns and emerging urban settlements in the State.
Question 5. Rank the following factors that should be considered before the choice of a given
infrastructure project (1 as the most important factor to be considered)
Job Creation No. %

1 10 29
2 7 21
3 10 29
4 3 9
5 3 9
No Response 1 3
GDP Growth No. %

1 10 29
157

2 4 12
3 5 15
4 8 24
5 7 21
Poverty Alleviation No. %

1 5 15
2 7 21
3 6 18
4 7 21
5 9 26
Social Justice and Security No. %

1. 9 26
2 8 24
3 11 32
4 5 15
5 1 3
Improved Governance No. %

1 10 29
2 4 12
3 5 15
4 8 24
5 7 21
Job creation 29%, GDP growth 29% and Improved governance 29% had been considered the most
important factors to be considered before the choice of a given infrastructure project. It is interesting
to note that social justice and security as well as poverty alleviation were not considered as important
factors. This response seemed to be in conflict with responses which ranked social justice and
security high as one of the four priorities. Could there have been a slight misunderstanding of this
question?
Question 8. What proportion of the budget do you think should be earmarked for capital/
infrastructure project?
Less than 50% Between 50% and 60% More than 60%
158

6% 53% 44%
A little more than half 53% of the respondents thought that between 50% and 60% of the budget
should be earmarked for capital and or infrastructure projects.
159

Question 6. The following presents the sectors that are clearly captured and discussed in the State Development Plan. Kindly indicate by
inserting the numbers from 1 to 14 to show how you would have liked to prioritize the sectors for the sake of infrastructure investment.
Agric and Industry Infrast & Edu, Sc andHealth Social Water & Env & Security Govern & LG LandsRural &Budget
Forestry Comm & Transport Tech Devt & Sanita- Natural Law & Adminis Adminis & Comuty Plg &
Tourism Welfare tion Resource Justice tration tration UrbanDevt. Revenue
Devt.
1 = 9% 0% 6% 21% 9% 0% 0% 0% 18% 18% 0% 0% 3% 6%
2 = 9% 0% 12% 15% 15% 0% 0% 0% 15% 6% 0% 0% 3% 18%
3 = 12% 3% 15% 15% 15% 0% 9% 0% 12% 3% 0% 3% 0% 3%
4 = 9% 6% 6% 18% 15% 6% 9% 3% 9% 6% 0% 0% 3% 6%
5 = 18% 6% 3% 6% 18% 6% 15% 3% 6% 3% 6% 3% 0% 0%
6 = 12% 6% 18% 0% 3% 3% 12% 6% 3% 3% 6% 0% 18% 0%
7 = 6% 24% 9% 6% 9% 9% 21% 12% 15% 12% 12% 9% 9% 15%
8 = 6% 0% 9% 3% 0% 15% 6% 6% 6% 3% 9% 12% 15% 6%
9 = 3% 9% 6% 6% 6% 12% 6% 12% 3% 0% 6% 9% 9% 3%
10 = 0% 18% 9% 3% 3% 6% 6% 12% 6% 9% 6% 3% 6% 3%
11 = 0% 9% 3% 3% 0% 3% 6% 12% 0% 15% 6% 18% 9% 6%
12 = 3% 9% 0% 0% 0% 24% 3% 9% 0% 6% 15% 9% 3% 6%
13 = 3% 6% 0% 0% 3% 3% 3% 18% 0% 12% 3% 18% 12% 6%
14 = 6% 0% 0% 0% 0% 9% 0% 3% 3% 0% 27% 12% 6% 18%
DK = 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6%
102% 102% 102% 102% 102% 102% 102% 102% 102% 102% 102% 102%102% 102%
160
The analysis of responses to question 6 was interesting. It revealed the priorities respondents attached to 14 sectors for the sake of
infrastructure investment.
- 9% respondents ranked Agriculture and Forestry as number 1 priority and another 9% ranked the sector numbers 2 and 4
- 0% ranked Industry, Commerce and Tourism as number 1 priority requiring infrastructure investment, 0% ranked the sector
second.
- 6%% ranked Infrastructure and Transport as number 1 priority requiring infrastructure investment while 12% ranked the sector
second
- 21% ranked Education, Science and Technology number 1 priority for infrastructure investment while 15% ranked the sector
second
- 9% ranked Health sector number 1 priority requiring infrastructure investment while 15% ranked the sector second, third and
fourth
- 0% ranked Social Development and Welfare number 1 priority for infrastructure investment and 0% ranked the sector second
- 0% ranked Water and Sanitation sector number 1 priority for infrastructure investment and 0% ranked it second while 9% ranked
it 3rd
- 0% ranked Environment and Natural Resources number 1 priority for infrastructure investment and another 0% ranked it 2nd
and3rd
- 18% ranked Governance and Administration number 1 priority for infrastructure investment and 6% ranked it second
- 0% ranked Local Government Administration number 1 for infrastructure investment and 0% ranked the sector second
- 0% ranked Lands and Urban Development numbers1 and 2 for infrastructure investment
- 3% ranked Rural and Community Development number 1 and another 3% as number 2 requiring infrastructure investment
- 6% ranked Budget and Planning and Revenue Mobilization number 1 and 18% as number 2 requiring infrastructure investment
In all 21% respondents indicated that Education, Science and Technology was the sector which required priority infrastructure
investment followed by Security, Law and Justice and then Governance and Administration.
Question 9. Which of the following do you think may constrain the development and implementation of the Kaduna State Development
Plan?
% Yes %No No Response
Legal (eg absence of relevant legislation) 32 65 3
Financial 79 21
161

Political 44 53 3
Governance/ Bureaucracy 50 47 3
Others 15 0 85
The analysis revealed that finance (79%) and governance/bureaucracy (50%) are likely constraints to the development and
implementation of the Plan.
Question 10. Rank the following ways of financing infrastructure projects (with 1 being the most preferred)
Ways of financing Infrastructure Projects Rank 1 % Rank 2 % Rank 3 % Rank 4 % No Response %

Federal/State Budget 47 15 29 6 3
Public debt 15 6 12 62 6
Public, Private, Partnership 29 47 15 9 -
Joint Ventures 3 44 32 15 6
Federal and State Government budget were declared the most preferred way of financing infrastructure projects.
Question 11. What do you think are the three most important infrastructure projects in order of importance currently being undertaken in
the State in terms of their contribution to its economic and social development?
The most reoccurring answers were roads, bridges and Drainages (1st level of importance)
Water and Sanitation (2nd level of importance) and Construction/reconstruction of markets and neighbourhood centres (3rd level of
importance)
Question 12. Environmental Impact of projects. What key environmental components would you suggest are fragile and requiring
investigation before commencing infrastructure projects?
The most outstanding responses to the above question 12, were noise pollution and solid waste management in addition to air, water, soil,
vegetation wetlands direction of winds.
162

Question 13. Assuming that Kaduna State Government had money for only 3 infrastructure Projects what would you suggest that would
provide jobs and make Kaduna Great Again?
Responses reveal that the major 3 Infrastructure Projects were

- 1 Power
- 2 Transport
- 3. Health, Water and Sanitation
163

164

Appendix C:
Sample of Priority Projects of Local Governments in Kaduna State
Revealed Projects Status of Project LGA where Located

1 Completion of Drainage at Danalhaji Ongoing Lere
2 Renovation of PHC Saminaka Ongoing ”
3 Conversion of Women Centre to Staff Quarters at Lere Ongoing “
4 Completion of drainage at Yarkasuwa Ongoing “
5 Completion of electrification project across the LGA Ongoing “
6 Road along Anchau Gari-Anchau Takalafiya Anchau Ongoing Kubau
7 Earth Dam at Masawa Kubau Ongoing “
8 Kariya Bridge, Kargi Ward New “
9 One storey building of 8 classrooms at Kaireh Ongoing “
10 Four boreholes across the wards of the LGA New “
11 Construction of earth dams at Wucicciri, Dutsen Abba, Kufena Wards New Zaria
12 Construction of crop residue treatment plant New “
13 Establishment of oil palm plantation New “
14 Establishment of forest plantation New “
15 Assistance to community development effort New “
16 Extension of electricity to Kazaure, Kargo de Kewaye New Igabi
17 Provision of Slaughter ??? at Sabon gari, Riga Chikun Not indicated “
18 Construction of drainage at Kampanim Zagon Aya New “
19 One block of 2 classrooms at Tsoho Maraba Jos New “
20 One bole hole at Rigasa, Tsekiya, Karshe Kolta New “
165

21 Construction of road from M/Koro to Maro New Kajuru

22 Kajuru – Kufeni road New “
23 Kasuwan Magani hospital to be upgraded to a general hospital Not Indicated “
24 NOK – K/Musa road rehabilitation New Jaba
25 Modern ginger market New “
26 NOK Museum and Monument New “
27 Kwoi Township roads New “
28 Ginger processing industry New “
29 NOK – K/Musa road rehabilitation New Jaba
30 Modern ginger market New “
31 NOK Museum and Monument New “
32 Kwoi Township roads New “
33 Ginger processing industry New “
34 School repairs and renovation New/Ongoing Chikun
35 Repairs and renovation of health centres New/Ongoing “
36 Provision of boleholes New/Ongoing “
37 Renovation of LG Cols store Ongoing Soba
38 Social welfare office Ongoing “
39 Construction of Rahama – Danwata road Not indicated “
40 Health Clinic, Kussom, Asso District New Jema’a
41 Rural electrification of Nindem, Fanock, Kwarrabe in Godogodo and Kpadam District Not indicated “
42 Yakowa market street/road, Maigizo Ward Ongoing “
43 Water project in Barde Warda Kaninkon Ward, Asso Ward, Atukum Ward New “
44 Construction of feeder road from Kakangi to Katakaki, Kakangi Ward New Birnin Gwari
45 Rural electrification at Saulawa to Dadin Kowa, (Magajingani III) New “
46 Construction of road from Katakala to Gwanda (Kazage Ward) New “
166

47 Completion of BPRS Department Ongoing “

48 Construction of electrification at Gwaska Magajin Gari III New “
49 Bridge linking Kabala with Abubakar Kigo Road New Extension New Kaduna North
167

Appendix D:
Infrastructure Projects Disclosed base on Responses to Questionnaire
Excepted Cost of Projects Base on along New and On-going Projects
Project status Number Expected Cost of Expected Cost of

Project (N) Project in 2018
budget(N)
New Projects 54 N79,801,020,000 N27,828,600,000
On-going projects 49 N41,584,501,000 N23,648,000,000
No response 15
Total 118 N121,385,521,000 N51,476,000,000
Break-down of on-going project based on Completion Status for project where the ECP was disclosed.
CS in % Number Share of total (%)

Less than 25% 2 7.1
25%-49% 10 35.7
50%-74% 5 17.9
75% and above 6 21.4
No response 5 17.9
Total 28 100
Break-down of on-going project based on Completion Status for project where the ECP was not disclosed.
168

CS in % Number Share of total (%)

Less than 25% 1 5
25%-49% 3 15
50%-74% 1 5
75% and above 1 5
No response 14 70
Total 20 100
169
His Excellency,
Mallam Nasir Ahmad El-Rufai
Governor, Kaduna State
Coordinated by
The Ministry of Budget & Planning, Kaduna State

Commisioner, Muhammad Sani Abdullahi

Kaduna State Infrastructure Master Plan

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Kaduna State Infrastructure Master Plan

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

DRAFT FOR PUBLIC CONSULTATION

DRAFT FOR PUBLIC CONSULTATION

SECTION TWO: STATE INFRASTRUCTURE TARGETS AND INVESTMENTS

SECTION THREE: INVESTMENTS BY LOCAL GOVERNMENT

DRAFT FOR PUBLIC CONSULTATION

SECTION FOUR: ECOLOGICAL MODELLING AND SOCIAL IMPACTS CHARTER OF

SECTION FIVE: PARTICIPATORY KADIMP SCENARIOS DESIGN

SECTION SIX: FINANCING PLAN

DRAFT FOR PUBLIC CONSULTATION

Annex 1: Extracts from KADIPA Website

DRAFT FOR PUBLIC CONSULTATION

DRAFT FOR PUBLIC CONSULTATION

Appendix A: Final and Approved Questionnaire for KADIMP

DRAFT FOR PUBLIC CONSULTATION

Kaduna State Profile

Figure 1.1: Location of Kaduna State in Nigeria. Source: NEMA

Figure 1.2: Administrative map of Kaduna State

Auchan Ungwan Ahyaya

F126 Matagami Manchok

Kagarko Akote Fadan Kagoma Tajan Kasa !

Semi graded road

Area 2016 Estimate

City or town LGA Population

µ Kaduna State Infrastructure Master Plan

Urban rural population

LGA Rural Density

Food poor 41.7 51.8 41.0

Food poor 61.5 70.0 60.9

Food poor 73.0 77.7 69.0

Dollar per day Food poor 61.8 70.4 61.2

Source: Nigeria Poverty Profile, National Bureau of Statistics, 2012: 23.

Infant mortality rate 103/1000

Economic development and strategic opportunities

pictures, public services, had a significant decline in their growth.

2014: 2015: Other services

4.99% 13 Information and communication

DRAFT FOR PUBLIC CONSULTATION Education

Objectives of the Plan

Linkage to State Development Plan (SDP) 2016 – 2020

Priority Areas Narrative

Box 1.1: Three Channels of Pro-Poor Growth

• Investment-inducement effect: A channel through which new investments are

Linkage to Sector Implementation Plans

Linkage to National Strategic Objectives

• Adopt a coordinated approach to infrastructure development;

• Promote private sector participation in infrastructure development;

• Enhance the performance and efficiency of the economy.

Linkage to Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

Infrastructure targets and investments – Pillars and Sectors

Infrastructure targets and investments – Pillar 1: Economic

± National road infrastructure

(Map adapted from Julie Berger: ‘Infrastructure projects of economic

Critical role of the energy sector

Transportation – urban and rural, inter-state and, potentially, international

µ Kaduna State Infrastructure Master Plan

S27 Jaba S13

LGA border A2 3 4 F12 5

Figure 2.3: Roads categorised by surface type and class

Industry, Commerce and Tourism

Kaduna State Infrastructure Master Plan

" Kaduna North

Naturally irrigated land

Figure 2.4: Prime farmland

positioned to develop its agro-processing sector. It is already home to important agro-