North-West States Lack Rice Plan Despite N242.6bn Agric Budgets – NGF Report

None of the seven North-West states has a dedicated plan, budget line or coordinating office for rice, even as their combined agricultural allocations have nearly tripled to N242.6 billion in the 2025 budgets, a new study by the Nigeria Governors’ Forum (NGF) has found.

The diagnostic study covered Jigawa, Kaduna, Kano, Katsina, Kebbi, Sokoto and Zamfara. Together they make up the country’s second-largest paddy-producing region.

The report, titled “Rice Diagnostic Study: North-West Report”, concludes that the sector is held back less by land, water or market demand than by weak state institutions.

“Few states have a clear home for rice within government, a dedicated plan or budget line, or the data needed to plan, target and track investment,” the NGF director-general, Dr Abdulateef Shittu, wrote in the foreword.

“These are problems that state governments have the authority to fix,” he added.

The study was compiled from baseline and institutional studies in each of the seven states. It drew on interviews with officials, farmers, millers and financiers, focus group discussions, miller mapping, site visits and a review of budgets.

It was carried out under the States Agribusiness Investment Programme (SAIP) Rice Helpdesk, which the NGF runs with support from the Gates Foundation.

The report found that none of the seven states has a State Rice Development Plan, or a rice desk with a clear mandate, dedicated staff and its own budget.

In every state, rice is handled within general agricultural policy, with no multi-year targets, assigned budgets or performance indicators specific to the crop.

Only two states have partial arrangements. Kano has a designated rice desk officer within its agricultural development authority, KNARDA, but no standalone unit or budget.

Jigawa set up the Jigawa Agricultural Transformation Agency (JATA) after a Governor-led study tour to Ethiopia, and its Governor chairs a monthly technical committee on rice. However, there is no rice desk under the agency.

The study described Jigawa’s reform as “necessary but not sufficient”. It noted that the state’s production baseline remains unreconciled and its millers uncounted.

In Zamfara, responsibility for rice is split by season. The Directorate of Irrigation handles the dry season and Agricultural Services the wet season, with no handover protocol between them. In Sokoto, responsibility is spread informally across five bodies with no inter-agency mechanism.

Spending cannot be traced

Because rice has no budget line in any of the states, the report says no state can trace how much it spends on the crop.

Combined agricultural allocations across the seven states rose from ₦84.5 billion in 2021 to ₦242.6 billion in the 2025 budgets. But the release of approved funds remains weak and erratic.

In 2024, Kano spent 25 per cent of its approved agricultural allocation, Zamfara 23.4 per cent and Kaduna 38.8 per cent. Jigawa spent 230.3 per cent of its approved figure.

No state met the 10 per cent Maputo Declaration benchmark for agricultural spending in any year between 2021 and 2024. Agriculture’s share of state budgets in that period ranged from 0.5 per cent to nine per cent.

Kebbi’s 2025 budget crossed the benchmark at 10.66 per cent and Kaduna’s came close at 9.4 per cent. The report stressed that these are budgeted figures, not actual spending.

Late and discretionary releases, it said, stall field operations, extension mobility and input subsidies mid-season.

Scattered and unreliable data

The report said the lack of a single office for rice has left key data scattered across different institutions.

In Zamfara, the Rice Farmers Association of Nigeria (RIFAN) holds a register of about 118,000 members that is not shared with the state’s Agricultural Development Programme or the Ministry. Kebbi’s register of roughly 260,000 members is not yet publicly shareable.

In Sokoto, the last validated farmer database sits with the committee that ran the Anchor Borrowers’ Programme rather than with the agency responsible for monitoring.

None of the seven states has an operational, validated, rice-specific data system. State production figures differ from the federal NAERLS survey in all seven states, ranging from a third of the survey figure to more than five times it.

Politics in input distribution

The study also found political interference in the distribution of farm inputs. In Zamfara, it said, beneficiary selection for input subsidies is controlled by executive political structures rather than by technical staff. The subsidies reach fewer than 2 per cent of registered smallholder rice farmers.

Where no verified farmer registry exists, the report said, “political discretion fills the targeting vacuum and creates room for manipulation and elite capture.” It found similar patterns in Sokoto, Kebbi and Kaduna.

No contact point for investors

The report said no state can offer investors or financing partners a single accountable contact for rice. It noted that investment-promotion agencies in Zamfara and Kano hold no recent bankable rice feasibility studies, because nobody is tasked with commissioning them.

Federal policy adds pressure

The findings come as local millers face pressure from federal trade policy. In April 2026, the Federal Government cut the import duty on finished rice from 70 per cent to 47.5 per cent. The report described the cut as a threat to domestic milling.

Nigeria consumed about 8.6 million metric tonnes of rice in 2025/26, with about 36 per cent not met by local production, according to US Department of Agriculture figures cited in the report.

Recommendations

The NGF recommends that every state first establish a rice desk or coordination platform and create a rice budget line with release tracking. These should be followed by GPS-verified farmer registers and formal miller registers.

The report said political will exists in several states, citing Jigawa’s transformation agency, Kaduna’s sharp rise in agricultural allocations from 2024, and large mechanisation and input commitments in Katsina and Kebbi.

“The constraint is the absence of institutions able to convert that commitment into measured delivery,” it said.

It added that most of the first steps “need commitment and coordination rather than new capital.”