A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF MAIZE VALUE CHAIN IN NIGERIA AND RWANDA: VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT AND RISK MANAGEMENT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary

Introduction

Review of Relevant Literature

Approach and Methods

Findings and Results

Discussions of Results

Conclusion

Recommendations

References

Appendix

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This study analyses maize value chain in Nigeria and Rwanda assessing the vulnerability and risk management in both countries. Using tailored survey data derived from maize-producing states in the study area with the help of Remote sensing and GIS techniques for data processing. Pre-processing of the satellite imageries was done to correct geometric and radiometric errors due to altitude and other distortions that occurred during imaging process. This study carries out five tasks, first to map, assess and compare the value chains of maize product in in Nigeria and Rwanda which clearly revealed that the climate region, planting period, drying methods, moisture content, materials used for packaging, storage place and marketing strategies differ for the two countries.

Similarly, the study shows that group lobbying, patronage networks, and ethnic and regional political ties all play a role in relative preferences for output market subsidies, input market subsidies, and trade restrictions. Second, the study found out key vulnerabilities in the supply chains for both countries to include lack of access to improved seeds, pesticides and fertilizer, adoption of primitive methods, poor rainfall and increase in temperature due to seasonal variability, poor post-harvest dry and storage facilities, inadequate transport system, limited access to long term credit facilities and substandard quality of maize on formal and informal markets which are always driven by failure to implement government policies in both countries, producer scale, limited technical skills in new techniques, low farmer income and poor price incentives, lack of public and private transportation capacity, and limited commercialization constrained by poor access to output and cost overrun, poor quality, low profit margin respectively. Third, we used remotely sensed data to analyse the land use land cover changes in the Nigeria domain, evaluate the existing links between farmlands, road networks storage facilities and markets, rail water resources.

The study revealed that land use land cover supervised classification for the five states under study in Nigeria shows that there was a significant increase in the built-up area for the five states and a decrease in the green areas due to rise in development resulting from population surge over the 20 years. Fourth, the study models the optimal transportation network from farm to markets in the study area to reduce the vulnerabilities of food distribution to markets and end users. The study revealed that some maize farms are relatively closer to some existing markets whiles others are very far from the available markets. It was observed however that even though there exist some markets, there are no good roads connecting to the markets which lead to loss of time while transporting the farm produce to the markets which in turn affect the food value chain which leads to food losses and shortage in the study area. Fifth, the study suggests control measures for the vulnerabilities and possible solutions for managing the associated risk. The study thus suggests that improved security for farmers, implementation of maize related value chain policies and resuscitation of existing ones and review of unfavourable policies should be encouraged thereby creating commodity exchange market for farmers; provide functional extension services to advance knowledge impartation to maize farmers, profiling of farmers for input distribution and collection of produce; and provision of adequate storage facilities to support farmers

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background to the Study

The perceived food production limit has been exceeded in order to meet the growing demands of an increasing global population since 1970’s. This is evident by the 3.2 billion increases in population that materialized within the years 1970 and 2010, of which Nigeria accounted for 2.71% (UN, 2009, Alexandratos and Bruinsma, 2012; Bergaglio, 2017). The rapid upsurge of food demand worldwide has made the supply chain ever more complex with resultant emerging and challenging vulnerabilities and associated risks, which could significantly alter the projected development in global food production and safety (Pettit et al., 2019). As food demand continues to rise daily, the food supply chain becomes ever more vulnerable, which has resulted in threats to the continuity of supply giving greater opportunity for hoarding, food fraud such as dealing secretly with restricted or prohibited materials, falsifying food contents, economically motivated adulteration, smuggling of products, food theft, food waste, counterfeiting and many others (Babatunde, 2019).

Climate change is in fact another serious environmental threat to agricultural supply chain in general and particularly maize production in sub-Saharan Africa as well as in Nigeria (Kotir, 2011). Nearly all geographical regions of Nigeria are saddled with the responsibility of continued production of maize supply and they have been faced with these effects of climate change such as drought, heat waves, rising sea levels, flooding fluctuations in harmattan and rainy seasons (Abdul-Rahman, 2018). Sadly, these regions tend to focus more on the market aspect for the purpose of monetary gains instead of production, storage and distribution. In a bid for us to start embracing our home-grown products, there is a need to look deeply into the vulnerabilities, effect of climate change and environmental challenges surrounding food supply chain and how to tackle it so as to maximize agricultural yields, land suitability and better information about the suitable seasons for production, smooth transportation, agricultural technology and food security (Ayinde et al., 2011 and Ethan, 2015).

As the issue of supply chain risk and food security continues to rise, there is no comprehensive database for the detection of such incidences (Mc Carthy et al., 2012 and Fox et al., 2018). A lot of studies have been done on risk management in purchasing and supply chain but very little is undertaken on the supply network itself. Mc Carthy et al. (2012) and Harland et al. (2013) stated that there are not enough technical applications for the monitoring of global food supply chains, which are of significant concerns to governments.

Advanced countries are already embracing the use of GIS and remotely sensed data to know the extent of land cover, to monitor vegetation growth, crop health, track yields and harvest periods. Hence, the study of the state of their food production and distribution patterns right from harvest to markets. This system can be adopted in Nigeria to further ensure crop health, food security, supply and its distribution around Nigeria (Balehegn et al., 2020); as it will support, promote and strengthen continuous or sustainable agriculture, that is at the heart of the 2030 agenda and takes, fundamental steps in ensuring zero hunger in line with the SDG 2. It also supports the SDG 15 which addresses life on land (FAO, 2020). Maize in Rwanda by comparison is equally a high value crop and often considered as the major staple food. Over a thousand families in Rwanda (including both sexes) are involved in the production of maize (Adam et al., 2018). Understanding the risks and vulnerabilities in the food supply chain is key in safeguarding its continuity of supply. This study identified the potential vulnerabilities within the maize supply chain in Nigeria and made comparisons to Rwanda. The study focused on the control points given the significant difference in the perceived standards and values of the traded commodities. The output of this study has produced an updated and reliable set of information on the vulnerabilities and associated risks in the food supply chains following a mapping exercise

Aim and Objectives

The aim of this project is to compare food chains of maize in Rwanda and Nigeria with the purpose of identifying vulnerabilities; any associated risks, and recommend control measures to ensure sustainable supply. Further to identifying the factors affecting their productions, the specific objectives are to:

Map, assess and compare the value chains of maize product in the two study areas;
Identify possible key vulnerabilities in the supply chains and investigate the drivers;
Use remotely sensed data to analyse the land use land cover changes in the Nigeria domain, evaluate the existing links between farmlands, road networks storage facilities and markets, rail water resources facilities;
Model the optimal transportation network from farm to markets in the study area to reduce the vulnerabilities of food distribution to markets and end users;
Suggest control measures for the vulnerabilities and possible solutions for managing the associated risk.
Study Areas

Nigeria is located in the tropical zone of West Africa with latitude 9.07°N and longitude 8.67°E and has a total area of 923 770 km² (FAO, 2016). The average air temperature is 26.6 °C. The climate is semi-arid in the north and gradually changes toward the south into savanna and finally tropical rainforest with humid conditions. Rainfall averages over 2,000 mm/year. Nigeria is by far the most populous country in Africa. With its over 182 million people, it accounts for over one-seventh of the total population of Africa’s 54 countries (FAO, 2015). The country is divided into three broad ecological zones which are: the northern Sudan Savannah, the Guinea Savannah zone or Middle Belt, and the southern rainforest zone. Agriculture contributed 20% to the country’s economy and provided employment for 31 percent of the economically active population in 2007 (FMWR, 2014) and is thus the largest employer in the country, especially considering the fact that 45% of the economically active population is unemployed (World Bank, 2014). Farming systems are mainly smallholder-based and agricultural landholdings are scattered. Simple, low input technology is employed, resulting in low-output labour productivity. Total agricultural land is estimated at almost 71 million hectares, which is 77 percent of the total area of the country. In 2013, the cultivated area was 40.5 million hectares (ha) of which arable land covered 34.0 million ha and permanent crops 6.5 million hectares. Internal water bodies cover around 1 million hectares (FMWR, 2014).

Figure 1 Map showing maize producing regions in Nigeria

Rwanda is a landlocked country situated in the Great Lakes region of East Africa. It is bordered by Uganda, Tanzania, Burundi and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). It is a small country with an area of 26,338km² and a population of about 12 million people; Rwanda’s population density is considered amongst the highest in Africa. Rwanda lies between latitude 1.9°S and longitude 29.9°E, has an average temperature of 27°C and its vegetation ranges from dense equatorial forest in the north-west of the country to tropical savannah in the east. The rainy seasons are from March to May and from October to November with the average of 110-200 mm per month. The soil pH is at least 5 or more. The salts can, after water evaporation, accumulate on the surface in the dry season. In general, the agricultural potential of these soils is very high. An estimated 75% of the working population in Rwanda farms as agriculture constitutes an estimated 32.5% of the GDP and also makes about 63% of Rwanda’s exports, (NISR, 2020).

Figure 2 Map showing maize producing regions in Rwanda

2.0 REVIEW OF RELEVANT LITERATURE

2.1 Maize Supply in Nigeria

Maize is a critical food crop for both humans and livestock. It provides energy, vitamins, and a small quantity of protein. In Nigeria, maize production has been steadily increasing by 11.96 percent from 10,813,980 tonnes in 2016 to 12,107,580 tonnes in 2017, according to the National Agricultural Extension and Research Liaison Services (Bashir et al., 2021), Only 6.5 percent of the world’s maize is produced in Africa, with Nigeria contributing the most. Although maize output has increased in Nigeria, its contribution to GDP remains modest, as highlighted by the World Bank (FAO, 2008). This is because only a small percentage of the food is technically exported, while the majority are consumed locally with little added value (Food and Agriculture Organization) (FAO, 2015). Maize is a significant cereal grain in Nigeria, and it is widely grown by practically all farmers because of its great economic value and adaptability in the rainforest and derived Savannah zones of the country. It began as a subsistence crop, grew in importance over time, and has now evolved into a major commercial crop on which many agro-based companies rely for basic materials (Ogbodo et al., 2018).

The Nigeria maize value chain is quite similar to the global supply chain. Geographic, environmental, social and political characteristics are important factors that cause competitiveness in production. Nigeria has different soil types as well as variability in the quantity of rainfall or access to water, temperature variations, as well as land ownership structures, which significantly affect maize cultivation (Mundia et al., 2019; Sadiq et al., 2019). Practices involved in the production of maize ranges from land preparation or clearing, ploughing, weeding, irrigation to the use of fertilizers for increased sustainable maize production and majority of farms.

Figure 3 Stages of maize value-chain in Nigeria

2.2 Processing of Maize in Nigeria

The processing of any agricultural product is a post-harvest operation that is required to make the product useful to end-users. Maize processing in Nigeria is involved with how maize is transformed into other useful products either for industrial or household consumption (Ekpa et al., 2019). The key inputs for efficient maize processing include Sheller (for threshing) Big bowls (for manual washing) Mechanical washing machine, grating machine, De watering device (machine or traditional) Filter or sieve Fryer Packing Material e.g., bags, Sheller’s, Bowls, Grinding machine, Filter or Sieve and Bags. Maize products and processing methods are as diverse as the maize crop itself. Processing of maize at the household or local industrial level can be accomplished with wooden mortar and pestles, stone metates, and manos (stones) while the industrial process involves milling (Rooney, et al., 1987, Emmanuel, 2019).

Indigenous method: Different authors based on their conceptions have explained the indigenous or local method of processing maize in Nigeria in diverse ways. The commonest traditional product obtained from this process is the local pap also referred to as Ogi, which can be in liquid form or when allowed to cool, solidifies.
Mechanized method of processing: This method is done using a milling machine to process maize for safe consumption. The grain is first cleaned and then conditioned (dampening the maize with water and then allowing it to condition for some times to stay in a temper bin followed by other few methods before the final product (Ni et al., 2019).
De-hulling: Maize must be pre-conditioned (humidifying) over a brief period so that bran and germ have been softened. In the De-germer/Huller, the grains pass upwards through an internal chamber, where the action of the rotor mechanism promotes friction between the grains, breaking them and detaching the skins and germ from the pieces of maize endosperm (large maize grits). A pneumatic system separates the germ/bran from the grits – these by-products are then available for further processing (animal feed, oil, etc.).

2.3 Transportation

Different types of transportations exist within the maize supply chain of Nigeria. The first type of transportation involves moving the produce at harvest by either the producer or rural agents using motorcycles to the fairly accessible roads where the urban dealers usually wait to collect and store at a central collection centres. While the other form of transportation involves moving the produce from the collection centers to larger processing factories, and subsequently, to the markets (they call it mop up) (Ja’afar-Furo et al., 2020). It is important to note that majority of the produce are randomly collected and taken to the central collection centres and storages without traceability to their original sources with the consequences of lack of producers’/farmers’ information.

Figure 4 Transportation of maize in Nigeria from the bad roads through the good roads to the markets

2.4 Marketing/Trade inputs

There are three major markets for maize and its allied products in Nigeria. Maize for human consumption currently accounts for about 50% of the Nigerian corn demand, while maize for animal feed and industrial processing account for about 35% of the Nigerian corn demands. Maize has proven to be the favourite raw material for animal feeds, mainly because it is cheaper than many of the other feed alternatives and yet it provides the required nutritional content for livestock.

Figure 5 Some rural maize markets and storage facilities in Nigeria

2.5 Supporting services

In addition to the direct functions within the value chain, supporting services are required for the system to function efficiently. These supporting services can be represented by interconnected value chains, such as equipment and input supply, pure services (such as management services to operate storage silos or extension services to provide advice to the farmers) or financial services (including investment capital, working capital, or insurance) which cut across each of the functions of the value chain. Many of the supporting services may be embedded in the functions of a supplier of another input – for instance seed or input suppliers have a strong incentive to carry out farmer awareness and extension services to increase the sale of their products. Commodity exchanges, where the product can be transparently traded, are an important service within the value chain though at present it is poorly developed.

2.6 Maize Production in Rwanda

Maize in Rwanda like other nations is also considered to be a very important food crop. It plays an important role in the livelihoods of millions of poor farmers. About 900 million of both farmers and consumers have considered it a preferred crop from low- to middle-income countries of whom over 90% live in tropical and sub-tropical areas of Africa, Asia, and Latin America (Thornton et al.., 2009; Faostat, 2010). By 2025, maize have the tendency of becoming the crop with the greatest value and high demand, while by 2050, the demand and production is projected to double (Leitner et al., 2020). Maize has different production and trading patterns, as well as end users, depending on geographic regions within Africa. In Rwanda, agriculture production employs about 75% of the labour force; crop production contributes about 69% of total national agricultural output with maize accounting for more than 50% (Ngango and Kim, 2019).

In Rwanda, the perceptions of farmers on maize varieties are observed based on many factors such as local names, which they gave to them, benefits and challenges from growing various maize varieties. For instance, In Rwimbogo Sector, farmers grow different maize varieties, which are given different local names based on their origin, yield potential and other characteristics.

Maize is grown on both hills and marshlands where it is usually associated with other food crops which are especially legumes such as beans. It is especially cultivated in monoculture (pure) on large farms generally held by farm cooperatives. As all marshes belong to the state, their operation is done under its permission through the local authority (Clay, 2018).

For the utilization of wetlands, priority is given by the district to the farmers’ cooperatives and associations that can occur over large areas particularly to crops recommended by MINAGRI, including maize crops. These cooperatives basically work with agricultural support and supervision of various specialized organizations. Maize cultivation in swamps is developed mainly in areas of medium and low altitudes (Byishimo, 2017; Nzeyimana, 2021). The use of agricultural inputs such as chemical fertilizer in these areas is very low and according to the National Institute of Statistics of Rwanda (NISR, 2012) only 11% of farm households use improved seeds, 32% of sheep manure, 16% pesticides, 31% compost and 16% mineral fertilizers (Niyomugabo, 2019).

Despite the fact that maize has not traditionally been a basic crop in Rwanda, ranking far below plantains, potatoes, cassava, and sweet potatoes in terms of daily consumption, it was included in the government’s International Potato Center (CIP) 2007 due to its potential to improve food security. Over the last decade, this project, which includes efforts to improve the quality and access to critical inputs, has contributed to a significant increase in yields and production volumes. In 2013, the country produced 667,000 metric tons of maize, up to more than 650 percent from 2004. A Smallholder farmers and considerable informal commerce characterize Rwanda’s maize economy, much as they do in Uganda. There are around 300,000 maize-growing households in the country, with an average farm size of 0.6 hectares (Placide et al., 2019).

In terms of trade patterns, Rwanda imports maize from Uganda and is becoming a more important market for local aggregators and processors. Maize flour is the country’s most important export, and its value has risen dramatically in recent years. In 2013, Rwanda was one of Africa’s main exporters of the product, and maize flour has also become one of the country’s top ten export items, accounting for 1.6 percent of total exports in 2014 (National Institute of Statistics of Rwanda, 2015). Although much of Rwanda’s flour is of lower quality, it finds a market in countries like the Democratic Republic of Congo and Burundi, where processing facilities are scarce and consumers are price conscious (Nishimwe et al., 2017; Pierre and Kaminski, 2019). The maize value chain is divided into various segments: inputs, production, aggregation, processing, transportation marketing and distribution. This portion of the research describes the Rwandan industry’s characteristics in each sector.

Figure 6 Maize production in Rwanda

Inputs and supply:Minimex sources maize from 10 – 15 cooperatives around the country, with warehousing and drying facilities provided by its sibling firm (ProDev Rwanda Ltd). It also owns a minority stake in the RGCC LTD (Rwanda Grains and Cereals Corporation Limited) and sources the rest of its maize from the import market.
Production: These are the first link in the supply chain comprising of both producers and consumers. Planting in Rwanda is done between June and August with 12 weeks’ production circle. Over 52% of the production is been consumed on farm. They sell during harvest rarely storing due to cash needs.
Harvest:The government of Rwanda has implemented programs to increase access to mechanization through village mechanization centres, which offer selling of machinery, renting, maintenance and training. [Interview. Nzeyiman, Innocent (MINAGRI). March 2013] these centres support farmers in implementing improved agricultural practices.
Drying:This is done in a variety of ways from very informal methods at the farm level to formal drying facilities. It is estimated that 60 percent of farmers dry their crops at large-scale drying facilities provided by MINAGRI through cooperatives. [Field visit, Nasho. March 2103]. The remaining farmers dry maize in trees or other informal methods with or without a tarp (USAID 2013) for protection. The dried maize is then stored in bags with and without insecticide and sold to traders. (USAID 2013).
Processing: Minimex is Rwanda’s leading maize processor, having a dry mill capacity of 43,000 metric tonnes per year east of Kigali. It is one of Rwanda’s few fully integrated maize firms, including backward and forward connections for its inputs and outputs. The following are some of the most important aspects of the integration:
De-hulling:Threshing is the process of loosening the edible part of the grain (or other crop) from the chaff to which it’s attached. It is done either manually by beating the maize using a flail on a threshing floor or with machines.
Marketing and distribution:The lack of official statistics makes it difficult to estimate the market share of Rwanda’s top maize users. In their nationwide industry study, Daly et al. (2016) reported the following estimates: Minimex (9 percent); Prisons (6 percent); World Food Programme (2 percent); National Strategic Grains Reserve (2 percent); other institutional buyers (2 percent); consumed on the farm or in households (35 percent); informal markets (24 percent); post-harvest loss (20 percent).

3.0 SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS (SDG’S)

3.1 Sustainable Development Goal 2: Zero Hunger

Sustainable Development Goal 2 (SDG 2 or Global Goal 2) aims to achieve “zero hunger”. It is one of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals established by the United Nations in 2015. The official wording is: “End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture”.

SDG 2 highlights the complex inter-linkages between food security, nutrition, rural transformation and sustainable agriculture.
According to the United Nations, there are around 690 million people who are hungry, which accounts for slightly less than 10 percent of the world population.
One in every nine people goes to bed hungry each night, including 20 million people currently at risk of famine in South Sudan, Somalia, Yemen and Nigeria.
SDG 2 has eight targets and 14 indicators to measure progress.
The five “outcome targets” are: ending hunger and improving access to food; ending all forms of malnutrition; agricultural productivity; sustainable food production systems and resilient agricultural practices; and genetic diversity of seeds, cultivated plants and farmed and domesticated animals; investments, research and technology. The three “means of achieving” targets include: addressing trade restrictions and distortions in world agricultural markets and food commodity markets and their derivatives.

4.0 APPROACH AND METHODS

Figure 7 Flowchart of methodology

Table 1 Data and Materials Description

S/N	Name	Date	Format	Source	Scale/Resolution	Preparation
1	Landsat 7 and 8	2000 and 2020 (respectively)	Digital	USGS Earth Explorer	0.9	▪ Download/Extract ▪ Layer stack bands ▪ Clip out study area ▪ Classify
2	Maize Farms, Storages, Roads, Markets Rails	Varies	Digital	study area	Number of farms investigated base on 700 questioners Gaps	▪ Collect coordinate ▪ Export to access ▪ Import into ArcGIS
3	Administrative boundaries	2020	Digital	Grid³	1:231,348	▪ Download/Extract ▪ Clip by selection study area
4.	Hardware	o Computer: HP ProBook G1 (2.50GH_Z, 4GB RAM and 500GB Hard drive) o GPS: Phone Application (GPS Waypoint) o Printer:
5.	Software	· ArcGIS 10.8 · Microsoft Office

4.1 Project Activities Summary

Reconnaissance survey /data acquisition
Data integration
Pre- analysis
Post analysis
Progress review
Conclusions and presentation of Report

Table 2 Summary of Vulnerability, Risk and Drivers within the Maize Supply Chain in Nigeria
S/No.	Terms	Vulnerability	Risk	Drivers
1.	Inputs	Lack of access to improved seeds, pesticides and fertilizer	Poor germination, pest infestations, low yield, loss of value, crop diseases, food shortage.	Poor implementation of regulation policies, corruptions, bad governance.
2.	Advance knowledge, and Education	Primitive method of practice, lack of information, illiteracy and in ability to understand and have access to government support programs and access credits facilities, extension services.	Decrease in viable productions that will accelerate profits, poor yield, tedious method food shortage	Lack of knowledge & information, lack of capacity to diversify, lack of skills, culture and tradition, weak governance
3.	Climate change	Change in rainfall pattern, late planting, in some cases excess rain fall and flood	Low and poor yield, loss of planted seeds to draught, food shortage,	Lack of awareness on climate change, inability to detect the occurrence of extreme hydrological and meteorological events due to low technology adoption.
4.	Post-harvest loss	Poor handling of products, Reduction in Market Value	Food wastage.	Short supply period, low harvest, Sharp seasonal price fluctuations.
5.	Storage	On the spot collection method, limited and poor storage facilities, lack of traceability, use of prohibited chemicals on product and middlemen	Loss of identity, limited control over safety of product, food poisoning. Poor hygiene, hike in price. Loss or product to contamination that leads to food waste	Lack of storage facilities, corruption, poor implementation of food safety measures,
6.	Transportation	Distance to market, cost of transportation, greedy middlemen,	Contamination during handling, spoilage and devaluing of produces, food fraud food waste and food shortage	Poor road network/ Accessibility, corruption, weak governance,
7.	Insecurity	Banditry, terrorism, kidnapping	Loss of produce, food theft, counterfeiting, death	Socio economic and socio-political factors, force majeure,
8.	Processing method	Inadequate facility and when available, lack of technical know-out, poor handling, hygiene, negligence and use of prohibited chemicals.	Counterfeit, food theft, Contamination, and food disease.	Poor management and implementation policy, indiscipline, negligence, lack of adherence to safety measures.
9.	Marketing system	Random methods of collections, inflation, hording, bad road, security challenges, environmental factors such as rain fall, flood, unfavourable government policies, information gap.	Use of chemicals, contamination, food poisoning, food shortage,	Poor-governance, information gap within the supply chain
10.	Value of Maize	Hoarding and food fraud.	Inflations, food shortage, contamination, loss of food.	Poor governance and Corruption
11.	Regulation/policy	Mismanagement, poor implementation, unfavourable government policies,	Supply chain failure, food shortage	Lack of proper policy, poor policy implementation, frequent changes in policies, non-continuation of policies by succeeding governments.

Table 3 Summary of Vulnerability, Risk and Drivers within the Maize Supply Chain in Rwanda

S/N	Terms	Vulnerability	Risks	Drivers
1	Inputs	Limited access to improved seeds High price of fertilizers Limited access to credit	Low and poor yield	Failure to implement government policies in Rwanda
2	Advance knowledge, and Education	Illiteracy of poor farmers and difficulty in adopting new technologies in extension services as of poor quality.	Farmers are discouraged by a long period from sowing to harvest.	Producer scale, limited technical skills in new techniques, low farmer income, poor price incentives.
3	Climate change	poor rainfall and increase in temperature due to seasonal variability; early cessation of rain, environmental pollution	Food insecurity, food shortage: reduced number of meals per day	Drought can seriously reduce production, with resulting impacts on buyers, processors and farmers.
4	Land Constraints and Soil fertility decline	Due to population pressure, poor water management, Inherent low soil fertility, land scarcity.	Soil erosion, population pressure and water pollution.	Land degradation, more farmers are vying for arable land than the small country of Rwanda can handle. In addition, the fertilizers that some farmers use to protect and extend their crop yields are polluting the country’s water. Lack of crop rotation.
5	Post-harvest loss	Poor post-harvest drying and storage facilities account for a loss of about 22 percent of the total maize produced	Period from sowing to harvest is extremely long (4-7 months) and drying of maize is difficult because of the required moisture level.	Good market for fresh maize makes it difficult to convince farmers to wait for the harvest of dry products.
6	Storage	Lack of proper and sufficient facilities and infrastructure for grain drying, shelling, packaging and storage at farm level which contributes to the loss of grain quality with negative implications on the economy.	Demand for maize in Rwanda exceeds supply.	Lower priced maize available from neighboring countries.
7	Transportation	Inadequate transport system to move from farmers to various distribution channels.	Poor road infrastructure reduces the price received by producers because transport costs are high.	Lack of public and private transportation capacity, and limited commercialization constrained by poor access to output.
8	Processing method	Limited irrigation facilities and the high cost of construction of large-scale facilities.	Weak processing capacity and higher value-added products placed on the market.	Unexploited processing capacity lies in lack of appropriate technologies, expertise, financing incentives and rural infrastructure. Lack of access to an adequate water supply and at times energy supply makes it difficult for processing businesses to function.
9	Marketing system	Limited access to long term credit for cooperatives, and limited use of short-term credit by farmers. Removal of seeds and fertilizer subsidies	Poor infrastructure, low market access for remote areas	Cooperatives have limited management and production capacity. No baseline data for quality exists.
10	Value of Maize	Substandard quality of maize on formal and informal markets in Rwanda	Low compliance capacity for maize standards in Rwanda	Cost overrun, poor quality, low profit margin.
11	Regulation/policy	Limited visibility exists regarding planning, Strategies, actions and budgets between the two Ministries due to poor communication.	Slow response from government for assistance/intervention	High taxes/Subsidies, Lack of credit access for inputs.

Table 4 Comparative analysis of maize in Rwanda and Nigeria

CRITERIA	MAIZE IN NIGERIA	MAIZE IN RWANDA
Climate region	Tropical region	Temperate Tropical Highland
Planting period	March to April	June to August
Harvest period	12 weeks after planting	12 weeks after planting
Harvest time	Any time of the day	Any time of the day
Drying methods	Grains are extracted and dried in sun, shades or rooms while other use Mechanized drying methods in industrial farms	Drying under the shade or in the room. Cooperative-drying(semi-mechanized) Large scale drying facilities
Moisture content	11-15%	10-14%
Materials used for packaging	Grains Packed in sacks, or polythen bags also called (bagco) bags	Packaged in poly bags, Grains Packaged in sack bags Custom made bags for finished products.
Storage place	Crib Storage, constructed from farm materials, Warehouse Storage, Stacked bags on a pallet, and Some Stored grains in Silo	Packaged in air-tight bags with pesticide
Storage period	29 days	29 days
Processing methods	Traditionally; staple human food and feed for livestock. Mechanically; As raw material for industrial products	Milling to produce: Maize flour (Human consumption) Bran (For animal feed) Grit (Beer production)
Marketing	Sold on the spot without record from the rural farmer, Sold as grains in markets	Small markets and informal sales, Institutional buyers, Large wholesales.

5.0 FINDINGS AND RESULTS

5.1 Hazard Identification

In the investigation of hazard associated with supply chain of maize production, previous studies that are similar to maize supply chain were studied and several studies proved that major hazards that are related to the supply chain of maize in Africa include; Use of chemicals, Low and poor yield, loss of planted seeds to draught or excess rain, contamination during handling, spoilage and devaluing of produces, food fraud, food theft, food waste, poor storage facilities, food shortage and supply chain failure etc. (Tran et al., 2018).

Hazards related with maize production also include primitive method of practice, lack of information, illiteracy and in ability to understand and have access to government support programs and access to credits facilities and extension services (Raina and Sharma, 2021). Hazard in maize production has also been examined from the study carried out by Ruzickova et al., 2021 where they identified infection during crop yield, limited knowledge and poor storage processes, Loss of identity, limited control over safety of product, food and Poor hygiene, and use of prohibited chemicals on product.

5.2 Risk ranking

Classification of the risk related was adopted using a Semi quantitative 5×5 matrix system (BSI, 2013, 2014). Areas of recognition and access point of the hazards were identified alongside the method of the whole supply chain. The probability and strictness of the event was ranked in accordance to the recommendation of BSI, 2013 table 4-1 and 4-2. The ranking of the risk was estimated by increasing the frequency of event of the recognized hazard and the after effects as a result of its vulnerability. Classification was done independently by each professional and all-inclusive risk rating developed by assembling independent ratings.

During the risk evaluation method, professionals were chosen to assess the recognized risks individually and a combined rating was established. For each recognized risk, ratings were established by growing the probability table 4-1 of the risk happening and the effect table 4-2 on the supply chain once it happens.

Table 5 Probability Ranking and Description

Ranking	Description
1	Improbable event: Once every five
2	Remote possibility: Once per year
3	Occasional event: Once per month
4	Probable even: Once per week
5	Frequent event: once per day
≤ 4	Low Risk Acceptable but ensure that controls aw maintained
5-12	Medium Risk Adequate but look to improve if reasonably practicable
15-25	High Risk interim control measures must be put in place immediately to reduce the risk to an acceptable level. Permanent control measures must be implemented within 28 days of the identification date

Table 6 Consequence Ranking and Description

Ranking	Description
1	Negligible: no impact or not detectable
2	Marginal impact: only internal company affected; production problem
3	Significant: impact on customer requirements and expectations: customer complaint
4	Major: impact on legal requirements: consumer illness
5	Critical: public health risk, public product recall: consumer death

Figure 8 Risk Ranking

Table 7 Results of interview of some maize farmers in Nigeria

Constraints	No of Farmers (Mararaba)	No of Farmers (Kuje)
Incentive	15	35
Pesticide Application	97	96
Access to Fertilizer	111	100
Inadequate Capital	93	56
Poor Road Network	76	34
Insufficient Fertilizer	105	32
Low Yield	103	29
High Transportation Cost	113	89
Poor Marketing	112	69
Lack of Processing Facility	115	74
Insufficient Access to Information	72	5
Multiple Taxation	104	93
Advance Knowledge	110	3
Access to Advance Training	115	6
Insecurity	115	10
Poor Storage	109	12

Figure 9 Constraint of some maize farmers in Kuje

Figure 10 Constraint of some maize farmers in Mararaba

5.3 Results of Land Use Land Cover Classification

The results of land use land cover supervised classification for the five states under study in Nigeria are shown in Figures 4.4A – 4.8B. The states are the Federal Capital Territory of Nigeria (FCT), Kaduna, Nasarawa, Niger and Taraba states respectively. Exactly eight classes were considered during the classification. The classes were bare land, built-up area, cultivated land, forest, grassland, shrub land, waterbody and wetland for the both years of 2000 and 2020. It was observed that there was a significant increase in the built-up area for the five states and a decrease in the green areas due to rise in development resulting from population surge over the 20 years. Reduction in the volumes of forests in Nigeria paving way for urbanization is a commonplace as seen in the land use land cover classification results below.

5.4 Results of Normalized Differential Vegetation Index

NDVI results of the five states were carried out in order to observe the vegetation health of the plants within the period of August 2021 when the study was conducted. The Figures 4.9 – 4.13 show the NDVI results of FCT, Kaduna, Nasarawa, Niger and Taraba States respectively. The NDVI results of the five states correlate with the LULC results above as the built-up area and bare land have low and very low vegetation index while the green areas possess medium to very high vegetation index.

Normalized Digital Vegetation Index (NDVI), shows the level of health of any vegetation, from the analysis and from practical field survey, the healthiness of the maize farm appeared to be in good health and condition as at the time of field study and data analysis used. From the figures below, the value of 0.3 to 0.1 indicate that vegetation in good health condition and value ranging below 0.1 indicate unhealthy vegetation and non-vegetation area (such as Built-up, Water body, Bare surface, Rock out-crop, etc.). This shows that maize cultivation thrives well within the green areas where farming is usually high.

Figure 15 NDVI of FCT 2021

Figure: 16 NDVI of Kaduna State 2021

5.5 Results of Proximity Analysis

Figure 20 FCT proximity of maize farms to markets

In FCT, some maize farms are relatively closer to some existing markets whiles others are very far from the available markets. It was observed however that even though there exist some markets, there are no good roads connecting to the markets which lead to loss of time while transporting the farm produce to the markets which in turn leads to food losses.

Figure 21 FCT proximity of maize farms to silo

Based on Federal Road Safety Corps of Nigerian specification on speed limit, a truck conveying farm produce should move at an average speed range of between 40-60 km/hr on a good road (Babatunde, 2020). The analysis was done using this speed and the least time it would take the vehicle carrying these farm produce from the farm to the Kwali silos complex was approximately 5 minutes for the closest farm to the silos; while for the farthest farm, the time was approximately 90 minutes. However, as a result of factors such as bad roads from the farms to the main roads and farm locations, the time it usually takes the vehicle to move from the farms to the main roads and then to the silos is now far longer than normal and this leads to spoilage of farm produces and losses which in turn affect the food value chain, hence, food shortage.

Figure 22 FCT proximity of markets to silo

The 100,000 metric tonnes silos complex are located in Kwali area council in the FCT. The silo is partially centrally located relative to all the markets in FCT. These silos serve as reservoir of food grains and farmers usually take food items from there to the markets in some occasions. Some markets are located very close to the silos while others are farther from the silos. For the closest markets, the time that would have been taken from the silos to the markets at the speed of 40 – 60 km/hr is approximately 10 minutes while for the farthest markets, approximately 100 minutes would be taken to convey farm stored grains to the markets. Bad roads, blockage of roads due to construction activities and even traffic jams could all play a role in making the time to be longer than normal thereby affecting the food value chain negatively.

Figure 23 FCT proximity to railway stations

The services of train stations are usually needed especially during export of agricultural produces from the silos to the ports. Federal Capital Territory of Nigeria has a railway line connecting Abuja to Kaduna State and the metro line from the Airport to the city centre. The time it would take a truck conveying agricultural products from the Kwali silos complex to the closest train station which is in Airport at a speed of 40 – 60 km/hr is approximately 40 minutes while it would take about an hour to transport the produce from the silos complex to metro station. However, this is not achievable due to bad roads and other factors put together that affect the food value chain.

Figure 24 Proximity of maize farms to markets in Kokona LGA of Nasarawa State

In Sardauna LGA of Nasarawa State, the markets are located specifically along the major roads, while there are no connecting roads from the farms to the markets. Since there are no good roads linking the farms to the markets, farmers encounter losses due to spoilage of their produce and also because there are no adequate or sufficient storage facilities available in the area.

Figure 25 Proximity of maize farms to markets in Bosso and Chachanga LGA of Niger State

The markets are located majorly in the city centre of Bosso LGA while only few are found in the distant areas of Chachanga. It usually take the farmers a longer time to get to the markets at the city centre.

Figure 26 Proximity of maize farms to markets in Sardauna LGA of Taraba State

There is relatively the presence of large markets spatially distributed within the local government area with respect to the available farms.

Optimal Sites for Storage Facilities

Optimal sites for the storage of farm produce were suggested for FCT, Kokona LGA of Nasarawa and Sarduana LGA of Taraba States as shown in Figures 4.20 – 4.22.

Figure 27 Optimal sites for storage facilities in FCT

Figure 28 Optimal sites for storage facilities in Kokona LGA of Nasarawa State

Figure 29 Optimal sites for storage facilities in Sardauna LGA of Taraba State

6.0 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS

6.1 Summary of Findings

Several factors are driving the rise of food supply chain vulnerability and risks in Nigeria (Ozoretal., 2016). First, the increasing complexity of food systems, maize with long supply chains and varying levels of scrutiny and standards, makes it very difficult to trace the origins of food products. Second, local manufacturers face increased competition from cheaper imports, which often have lower standards for African destinations, and so they use inferior or even unregulated ingredients in processing their products to reduce their production costs. Third, weak regulatory standards, systems and tracking mechanisms create loop holes in which counterfeiters can thrive.

The studies have identified insufficient access to formal credit facilities, insufficient protection of goods in transit, weak market infrastructure, unofficial charges by security agents on roadways, and a lack of insurance coverage for product and poor infrastructure as some of the major restraints (House, 2018). Sector-specific agricultural policies have been largely designed to facilitate maize marketing and production in Nigeria, reduce production costs, and enhance maize product prices as incentives for increased maize production. Some of which are Agricultural Commodity Marketing and Pricing Policy (ACMPP), Input supply and distribution policies (ISDP), Agricultural input subsidy policies (AISP), and The Agriculture Promotion Policy (TAPP).

Impact of climate change on agricultural produce is no doubt another very serious challenge especially when the main actors are not well educated and informed. The current global challenges most countries in the world are battling with are climate change and global warming through the emission of carbon dioxide, use of fossil fuel, bush burning and other human activities such as the use of firewood as cooking energy source which has recently gained fame, because of the price hike and scarcity of other domestic energy source such as natural gas. These human-induced factors have given rise to the concentrations of greenhouse gases (GHGs) in the atmosphere trapping heat leading to global warming, climate change and sea level rise (Medugu, 2009).

In FAO (2015), it was noted that as the issue of global warming continues to persist, it is predictable that only a different approach to agricultural pattern can be adopted to combat climate change through irrigational agricultural practices. But unfortunately, in Nigeria for example the most practiced agricultural pattern is rain-fed and consequently these practices are exposed to the impacts of climate change. (Medugu, 2008 and IFAD, 2007) also noted that the effect of the growing rate and severity of droughts are expected to be the source of: low crop yield, high and increasing food rates, destitution, food shortage, and ultimately food crisis will set in.

7.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1 Conclusion

The project focused on comparative analysis of maize supply chain sector alongside the policies in both Nigeria and Rwanda. Factors that play a role in relative preferences for output market subsidies, input market subsidies, and trade restrictions were identified. The factors are interest group lobbying, patronage networks, and ethnic and regional political ties. In Nigeria, these ties have deep historical roots and have frequently been exacerbated by the rise in multiparty politics. However., Rwanda maize value chain has her own challenges but the country still has a better and workable system that integrate and empower various public private partnership in corporate bodies to play a very significant role in strengthening the entire value chain therefore impacting positively on the economy of its country. Unlike the Nigerian value chain that is faced with lots of challenges that are seriously limiting its productivity which may affect the continuity of the maize supply in the near future, the Rwandan maize supply value chain is relatively stable and has better organized system and government coordinated policies over the years.

7.2 Recommendations

The study suggests the following interventions to enhance the performance of the maize commodity value chain for Nigeria:

Improvements in the transportation sector.
Quick evacuation of farm produce to avoid spoilage.
Regulation of standards, monitoring and geospatial tracking of maize produce from farm to markets and storage facilities to ensure the integrity of the products.
Institution of insurance scheme to maize produce.
Institutionalization of efficient credit facility to maize farmers.
Enforcing security of farmers and their produce.
Provision of adequate storage facilities in areas/regions and states where they are lacking or in deficit supply.

MDA’s for Implementation of Project Recommendations

Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development
Federal Ministry of Environment
Federal Ministry of Water Resources
Food and Agriculture Organizations
Sustainable Development Goals Office

REFERENCES

Abate, G. T., Bernard, T., de Janvry, A., Sadoulet, E., &Trachtman, C. (2021). Introducing quality certification in staple food markets in Sub-Saharan Africa: Four Conditions for Successful Implementation. Food Policy, 105, 102173.

Abdullahi, M. A., Mamman, B. Y., Makinta, U., & Yahaya, M. K. (2019). PROFITABILITY ANALYSIS OF SMALL-SCALE MAIZE MARKETING IN KANO STATE, NIGERIA. Journal of Agriculture and Environment, 15(1), 51-59.

Abdulai, S., Nkegbe, P. K., &Donkoh, S. A. (2018). Assessing the technical efficiency of maize production in northern Ghana: The data envelopment analysis approach. Cogent Food & Agriculture, 4(1), 1512390.

BenardOloo, L. D., &Oniang’o, R. (2018). Food safety legislation in some developing countries. Food Safety: Some Global Trends, 19.

Charis, G.; Danha, G.; Muzenda, E. A review of the application of GIS in biomass and solid waste supply chain optimization: Gaps and opportunities for developing nations. Proc. Int. Conf. Ind. Eng. Oper. Manag. 2018, 2018, 42–52.

Chirwa, E. W. (2007). Sources of technical efficiency among smallholder maize farmers in Southern Malawi. AERC.

Dandago, M. A., Kitinoja, L., & Abdullahi, N. (2021). Commodity system assessment on postharvest handling, storage and marketing of maize (Zea mays) in Nigeria, Rwanda and Punjab, India. Journal of Horticulture and Postharvest Research, 4(1-March 2021), 51-62.

Edirisinghe, I., Amarakoon, D., & Kuruppu, V. (2019). A Review of the Fertilizer Cash Grant Programme in Sri Lanka. Hector Kobbekaduwa Agrarian Research and Training Institute.

FMARD Policies. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://fmard.gov.ng/fmard-policies/Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2019). Nigeria. In FAOSTAT. http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#country/159

Gwirtz, J. A., & Garcia-Casal, M. N. (2014). Processing maize flour and corn meal food products. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1312(1), 66.

Hussain, S., Ijaz, M., Hussain, M., Ul-Allah, S., Abbas, T., Nawaz, A., … & Ahmad, S. (2019). Advanced production technologies of maize. In Agronomic crops (pp. 237-260). Springer, Singapore.

http://www.prodevrwanda.co.rw/

https://www.rgccltd.com/

International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) (2007) Ghana: Upper East Region Land Conservation and Smallholder Rehabilitation Project (LACOSREP). IFAD, Ghana.

Liverpool-Tasie, L. S. O., Turna, N. S., Ademola, O., Obadina, A., & Wu, F. (2019). The occurrence and co-occurrence of aflatoxin and fumonisin along the maize value chain in southwest Nigeria. Food and Chemical Toxicology, 129, 458-465.

Lopez-Ridaura, S., Barba-Escoto, L., Reyna, C., Hellin, J., Gerard, B., & van Wijk, M. (2019). Food security and agriculture in the Western Highlands of Guatemala. Food Security, 11(4), 817-833.

Nsabimana, A., Niyitanga, F., Weatherspoon, D. D., & Naseem, A. (2021). Land Policy and Food Prices: Evidence from a Land Consolidation Program in Rwanda. Journal of Agricultural & Food Industrial Organization, 19(1), 63-73.

Ogola, F. O., Njenga, G. N., Mhando, P. C., & Kiggundu, M. N. (2015). A Profile of the East African community. Africa Journal of Management, 1(4), 333-364.

Olajumake, A. L. (2021). Assessment of Effects of Climate Change on Food Security Among Farmers: A Case Study of Some Selected Communities in Edu Local Government, Kwara State (Doctoral dissertation, Kwara State University (Nigeria)).

Okunoye, A., & Sanusi, I. T. (2018). Rural Infrastructural Development and Food Security Coalescence for Crime Alleviation in Nigeria: An Analysis of Badagry in Lagos., 15.

Panghal, A., Chhikara, N., Sindhu, N., &Jaglan, S. (2018). Role of Food Safety Management Systems in safe food production: A review. Journal of food safety, 38(4), e12464.

Ruzickova, J., Koval, S., Raclavska, H., Kucbel, M., Svedova, B., Raclavsky, K., & Scala, F. (2021). AFcomprehensive assessment of potential hazard caused by organic compounds in biochar for agricultural use. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 403, 123644.

WarisoHeyi, H. (2020). Design and modeling of three-wheeler chassis for Sheller/Thresher farm machines (Doctoral dissertation).

Watts, J. (2020). World Food Safety Day Is an Opportunity to Thank Those at Every Step Along The Food Chain [Online]. https://www.foodqualityandsafety.com/article/guest-column-world-food-safety-day-is-an-opportunity-to-thank-those-at-every-step-along-the-food-chain/. Accessed on Jun. 12, 2020.

APPENDIX

FOOD SUPPLY CHAIN

Food value chain from seed to food.

Food supply cycle (Source: USAID)

Phase 1: Reconnaissance Survey at Kuje and Nasarawa States by Group D Field Officers.