Consulting Services for FMAgric RAMP in*CrQss River State Metropolitan ConsortidnfTrecons & Partners
FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA Public Disclosure Authorized
FEDERAL MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT Public Disclosure Authorized
FINAL REPORT
RIVER PRIORITISATION OF INTERVENTION AREAS IN CROSS Public Disclosure Authorized STATE AND SELECTION OF INITIAL ROAD PROGRAMME
Consultants Client Consortium Nigeria Ltd. Federal Ministry of Agric & Rural Dev. Metropolitan Consult, Design & Construction FPMU, RAMP, Environmental Engineering Close, Maitama, Abuja. NAIC House, Abuja. 2676, Colorado Tel: 09 413 3171/2
in association with
Trecons & Partners Public Disclosure Authorized -C 7 ®r& 5O Consulting Civil, Structural + Bridge Engineers 41, Ibikunle Avenue, Bodija, Ibadan.
October, 2006
AREAS IN CROSS RIVER STATE AND SELECTION OF DRAFT FINAL REPORT ON PRIORITISATION OF INTERVENTION INITIAL ROAD PROGRAMME Metropolitan iccons & Parners Consulting Serviccs för FMAgne R MI m Cro, RIVel sate
SECTION ONE: INTRODUCTION 1.1 Commission Metropolitan Consortium was appointcd consultants, through its letter of intent rcf. DRD/RAMP/FPMU/103/S.3/1/9 dated 22nd December 2005, by the 1'cdcral Project Mzanagement Unit (1PMU) of dhe Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development for the "Study for the ldentitcation of Intervention Areas and Selection of 1Iigh Priority Rural Roads for upgrading in Crqss River State" under tc Rural Access and Mobility Project (RAMP).
The aim of thc study, as stated by the FPMU in thc terms of referenec, is to provide necessary data to be used in separate studies to design and prepare road rehabilitation / upgrading and ma intenance programmes for the identified intervention areas.
1.2 Objectives of the Rural Access and Mobility Project (RAMP) The Rural Aciess and MoHiy Project (RA MP) is a World Bank and African Development Bank assisted project. Thie Cross River State project is spccifically being assisted by the African Development Bank (AfDB).
The project was embarked upon under the Department of Rural Development of the Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development in support of the Feder.l Government Rural Travel and Transport Policy (RTTP). It is being coordinated by a Federal Project Management Unit (FPMU), which is within the )epartnnt of Rural Development of the 1léderal Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development on behalf of. the Federal Government of Nigeria, the guarantor of the credit. The Federal Government of Nigeria then lends to the Cross River State Government for implementation of the projecit.
The main objective of RAMP is to support pýarticipating States and local governments with the sustaihable improvement of rural access and mobility thereby contributing to the overall imnprovemlent of rural livelihoods.
The poor state of rural access in* Nigeria led the Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Developmenit to th conee . of RAMP. lt actually started at the sub-Saharan Africa Transport Policy Programme (SSATP) level duc to tc fact that the rural inaccessibility problem was observed to be most prevalent throughout Sub-Saharan Africa. OF ) N)R AFT FINA!. 1P(RT ON PRIORITISATION OF INTIRVUNTION ARmAS IN CROSS RIVER STATE AN) SEIECTION ictropolain Consortium1ffrccons & Parners Consuiillo Scrviccs for FMAgric RAMP in Cos River Stajtc
Next, the Iylinistry embraced the Rural Travel and Transport Programme (RTTP), a component of SSATP. The Ministry did this with the hope of using it as a collaborative framework for the transformation of the rural road sub-sector of the economy of Nigeria as well as for poverty alleviation among rural dwellers.
FromIresults of sectoral studies carried out by the Ministry in collaboration with major national, bilateral, multilateral development partners, stakeholders, especially the World Bank, a Rural Travel and Transport Policy (RTTP) has since been developed to form an integral part of the National Transport Policy being prepared by the Federal Ministry of Transport.
1.2.1 The Project Components
The three components of RAMP are as outlined below: (1) Institutional Strengihening and Capacity Bluildin. This includes: (i) Strengthening the project management and road management skills both at Federal, - State and Local Government levels; (ii) Promotion of the implementation of the RTTPS (Rural Travel and Transport Policy Strategy) to empower the Local Government and communities to participate in the managemefit and provision of rural transport infrastructure and services; (iii) Capacity building in labour-based and small scale contracting; (iv) Participation in the process to define and implement the national road reform lagendacurrently being identified by the other transport stakeholder Federal Ministries. (v) Assisting with implementation of road management and reporting systems to assist with efficient management of rural transport infrastructure;
(2) Rehabilitation and Maintenance of Transport Infrastructure This will support the rehabilitation and maintenance of rural (State, Local Governnlent and access) roads and other transport infrastructure in key strategic geographical areas in suppor of the SEEDS of specific States. The planned interventions will be a mix of contracts ranging fromitandard rehabilitation and maintenance contracts to contracts supporting the development of labour-based contractors and small-scale maintenance contractors.
STATE AND SELECTION OF 3 OF INTRVE.NTION AREAS IN CROSS RIVER DRAFT FINAL REPORT ON PRIORITISATION Metropolitan Consortiumirecons & Iartners Consulting Serviccs For IMAgnc RAMP in Cioss River State
3 Rural Mobility Improvemlents This will support the identification and implementation or different options of Intermediate lMfeans of Transport (IMT) including both the provision ld support of such preferred options. 1.3 Scope of Consultancy Services Undcr the Scope of Consultancy Services, he consultant is expected to pay visits to the Federal
Project Managemcnt Unit (FcMU), thc part cipating State and Local Government Areas to collect
and collate all necessary information and data for determining the geographical size of the
intervention areas and their respective transport infrastructure networks. In particular, the
consultant will carry out the following tasks:
(i) Review all planned and potential poverty alleviation and rural development initiatives in the State, divide the State into coherent key intervention areas based on the potential benefits to be achieved through this project. In this task, the Consultant must review the State Economic Empowerment and Development Strategy (SEEDS) of the State as well as , all relevant program initiatives and development plans. The result of this review will be a geographicat map of the State showing the different intervention areas. (ii) Prioritize the intervention areas within the State based on the socio-economic benefits and the size of population affected. (iii) Undertake a formal workshop inv6lving all stakeholders to present the findings of the
prioritization exercise, and obtain their comments and ' or criticisms. (iv) 13ased on the outcomes of the workshop, undertake the following detailed tasks fOr each of the first seven areas with the highest priority. This will provide us with the flexibility to determine the anountof funding per State and will give us one or two intervention areas where the State can fund the same exercise on a parallel basis. This will then transfer knowledge and management to the State Government.
For the intervention areas with the highest priority, the consultant shall: (a) Compile an inventory of the entire road and other transport infrastructure network (including Federal, State, Local Government and all other roads that may be owned by other entities, feeder roads, community roads, farm roads, jetties, waterways, etc. both classified, required to support the initiatives included in (i) above. (b) Within each intervention area execute a survey of existing and potential agricultural production, markets and other socio-cconomic facilities in rural areas DRAFT FINAI. RITORT ON PRIORITISATION OF INTERVENTION AREAS IN CROSS RIVER STATE AND SELECTION OF 4 INITIAL ROAD PROGRAMME Metropolitan Consortiumf'ricons & I'mincrs Consulting Scivices for FIMAgric RAMP inCross River State (schools, health centres, etc.) and define and divide the network into appropriate (type) links and features based on intervention area priorities. (c) Execute a visual condition survey on the identified network, including an assessment of the condition of the pavement (cracking, deformation, potholes, etc.), the underlying structure of the roads (bridges), condition of the jetties, the drainage system, the signs and safety features, etc. (d) I'xecutc a road access safety audit along the entire priority network, identify hazardous locations and spots and unsafe features along the alignment. (c) Collect all available traflic data. Where information is not available, the Consultant would be required to undertake a basic traffic survey to determine a reasonable estimate of the traffic volumes to categorize road link%in traffic volume ranges. (1) Perform a traffic survey on the priority network, with link-by-link traffic counts, by type of vehicles (motorized and non-motorized). On selected links 24 hour and one - week- counts will need to be executed to establish daily and weekly variations. (v) Based on the above surveys, the Consultant will execute the appropriate data analysis and carry out the following for each of the priority road networks in the identified intervention areas. (a) Determine and define appropriate standards for each road link and the necessary actions to bring the road (and all its features along the alignment) to the defined appropriate standard. (b) Preliminary estimate of the costs to rehabilitate / upgrade and then maintain for three years the identified road network broken down in the different road link priorities with a table like this, for example:
Activity First Tablc km of intervention required and a similar second table showing the costs based on the unit costs of (b) above Federal State Local Access / Other Government Farm to market Rehab Regravel
Bridge Repair -Road Safety Blading
DRAFT FINAL REPORT ON PRIORITISATION OF INTERVENTION ARFAS IN CROSS RIVER STATE A4D SH lECTION OF 5 INITIAL ROAD PROGRAMME Metropolitan Consortitinifrccons & Pariners Consu7011,1161 rinSvices for FMA riic RAMP in Cross River Stale Routine
.m1aintenance
- activitics, etc
will - (c) On the basis of these costs and the traffic survey for each link, the consultant carry out the economic analyliis for low volume road access (particularly for traffic Icvcls below 50 vehicles per day). It is suggested that cost-effectiveness criteria (in particular, total life-cycle cost of investment per population served) should be used to rank investments in rural transport infrastructure, under the condition that least-cost desigi methods have been applied and the main objective of the intervention is poveirty alleviation. In case of upgrading of an existing basic access (roads) to a fully engineered road access, or the provision of an alternative, shorter access to a village, i.e. for intermediate levels of traffic (between about 50 to 200 vehicles per day) an appropriate economic appraisal tool is the Road Economic Decision Model. It is suggested that the provision of basic access to communities with no or unreliable access (up to a certain cost per capita) s ould have priority over investments into upgrading of existing basic access roads / waterways to a higher standard). (d) Based on the road access safety audit, the consultant will propose physical measures so as to improve the safety features along the alignment of the priority network and prepare respective cost estimates for the implementation of these measures. and (e) The consultant will prepare a 5-year routine, recurrent, periodic maintenance rehabilitation program, taking into account traffic growth patterns or other similar patterns and an optimal intervention scheme.
1.4 Criteria for Prioritization of Intervention Areas of intervention From the above Terms of Reference, the following criteria for the prioritization Unit areas were developed in consultation with the FIPMU and the State Project Implementation (SPIU): production). 1. Growth: current contribution of area to;growth in the State (land use and by both government, 2. Development Potential: current and planned development supported donor interventions and private sector. and the crop 3. Agricultural Output: area with more agricultural output for the past five years type.
RIvER STATE AND SELECTION OF 6 DRAFT FINAL REPORTON PRIORITISATION OF INTERVENTION ARFAS IN CROSS INITIAL ROAD PROGRAMME Metropolitan Consortiunifrecons & I'artnrcs Consulting Services for VMAgie RAMP in Cross River State 4. Population: define the population and its activities at present and in planned period using 2.83% growth rate. 5. Social benefits of the roads for communities in the area through improved connectivity with markets and social services such as schools, clinics, workshop centres. 6. Bencfits of having a good and quality road network to the community. 7. Current development potential such as agriculture, mining, tourism, education. health. 8. Poverty index vis-A-vis production potentials. 9. Define physical standards / status and present / projected traffic of the present road network serving the area under consideration.
1.5 Selection of Links (Road) and .jettics for Intervention Community Preference Analysis, Average Daily Traffic Computation for each link and Cost Effectiveness Analysis were used to shortlist links (roads and river routes) that need to be rehabilitated under the programme.
1.6 This Draft Final Rcport is being submitted in fulfillment of one of the deliverables of reporting on the Consultancy Services for the Study to Prioritize Intervention Areas in CROSS RIVER STATE and to select the Initial Road Program in support of such prioritized areas.
The report is a follow up to the previously submitted Inception Report and Draft Report. This is subsequent to the previous delineation of the entire State into coherent intervention areas and ranking of the intervention areas using data on socio-economic and demographic data obtained for the various communities and local government areas of the State. It is worthy to state that the result of this delineation, scoring and ranking processes had been presented before an enlarged stakeholders workshop held in Calabar on the 18 and 19 July 2006 for discussion, acceptance and ratification.
DRAFF FINAL REPORT ON PRIORITISATION OF INTiRVENTION AREAS IN CROSS RIVER STATE AND SEI.ECTiION OF 7 INITIAl ROAD PROGRAMME CROSS RIVER STATE SECTION TWO: BACKGROUNG INFORMATION ABOUT
2.1 Political History was set during the colonial Politically, the stage for the creation of the present Cross River State of the then Calabar and era when Calabar and Ogoja served as the administrative hcadquarters Ogoja provinces respectively.
then Eastern Region of Nigeria on In the early 1950s, the two provinces were incorporated in the its attainment of a self-government status.
the present Cross River State At independence of the Federal Republic of Nigeria in 1960, It remained so until May 27th remained constituent part of the then Eastern Region of Nigeria. the present Akwa lbom State 1967 when it became part of the then South Eastern State along with into twelve (L2) States. South as a result of the division of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1976 when the federation was Eastern State was re-christened Cross River State on February 6th Awa lbom State) further sub-divided into nineteen (19) States (including the prosent
into being when the Federal However, on September 23, 1987, the present Cross River State came structure to twenty one Government restructured the country once again from its nineteen States Cross River State. (21) States with the creation of the present Akwa lbom State from the old
of the present In 1997, when the country was restructured to thirty six States, the boundaries Cross River State remained unchanged.
2.2 Geographical Location It lies between Cross River State is located in the South South geopolitical zone of Nigeria. 90 28" cast of the latitudes 40 28" and 60 55" north of the equator and longitudes 70 50" and Greenwich meridian. Figure 2.1 shows the map of Nigeria with Cross River State. Metropolitan Consortium/Trecons & Partners Consulting Services for FMAgric RAMP in Cross River State FIGURE 2.1: MAP OF NIGERIA SHOWING CROSS RIVER STATE
NIGER
SOKOTO
JIGAWA YOBE ZAFARA BORNO KANO
KADUNA BAUCHI GOMB
Z - NIGER-
w PLATEAU
NASSARAWA 5 N
OYO ~EKITI TRB
O/) KOGI BENUE OGUN
S EDO 7 1 ' N e Cross River State DEL IMO0AB State Boundary IER International Boundary Metropolitan Conwotitniffrccons & PaIlncs Consulling Serviccs for FM Agric RAMP in Cross River State
The State shares common boundaries with the Republic of Cameroon in the East, 13enue State to the north, Ebonyi and Abia States to the west, Akwa Ibom State to the sou twest and the vast reaches of the Atlantic Ocean to the south. It has a total landmass of at)out 23,000 square kilometers.
2,3 It is located within the tropical rain forest belt of Nigeria. Arising from its location, the State
Senjoys a tropical climate with the Obudu Plateau at an altitude of 1,595.79 metres above sea level with a temperate climate. The State records heavy rainfall during the wet season (April - November). The average annual rainfall is estimated at 2,500mm.
Generally, the average annual climatic data recorded in the State is shown below in Table 2.1.
Table 2.1: Climatic Data for Cross River State S/No - Parameters Yearly Avgragc
1 Annual rainfall (mm) 2500mm 2 Relative Humidity 330 to 560 0 3 Temperature 35.7 0C to 42.5 C 4 Daily wind speed 0.1m/s to 3.5m/s 5 Wind Direction South-East North-West
6 Sunshine hours 8 - 10 hours
At least five distinct ecological* zones are represented in the State ranging from mangrove and in swamp forests around coastal areas, tropical rain forests further inland and savannah woodlands the northern part of the State.
The highlands of the Obudu Plateau offer piontanc type of vegetation. Up tlv Obudu Plateau, the climate is essentially temperate. This coupled with the favourable climate of tropical, humid dry and annual and wet seasons give rise to rich agricultural lands which encourage both perennial crop cultivation.
DRAFT FINAL REPORT ON ITRIITISATION OF INTERVENTION AREAS IN CROSS RIVER STATE AND SELECTION OF 10 . INITIAL ROAD PROGRAMME 2.4 Population and Population Density
of 2005, it is estimated at The population of Cross River State stood at 2.38 million in 1999 and as at the estimated 2.824 milp'on, representing about 2.2 perccnt of the national population, whercas growth r* of 2.93%, it can double in about 24 years.
kilometre for Bakassi to The population density in the State varies from 9 persons per square 1,237 per persons square kilometre for Calabar Municipality.
Density Table 2.2: Cross River State Population Projection'by LGA and Area / Sq/km Population S/No Local Headquarters Projected per sq. km Government - Population Area 2005 347 I Abi Itigidi 116,066 334.52 35 2 Akamkpa Akamkpa 175,273 4,943.04 180 3 Akpabuyo Ikot Nakada 147,369 816.18 8 4 13akassi Abana 6,464 826.07 ., 283 5 Bckwarra Abuochiche 86,021 304.30 116 6 Biase Akpet Central 149,604 1,285.56 78 7 Boki Boje 214,535 2,741.95 1,273 8 Calabar Calabar 199,966 157.06 Municipal 1,061 9 Calabar South Anantigha 286,588 269.99 72 10 Ltung FTeraya 65,090 903.22 116 11 Ikom Ikom 209,397 1.801.79 68 12 Obanliku Sankwala 71,917 1,059.74 183 13 Obubra Obubra 198,579 1,086.27 241 14 Obudu Obudu 125,456 520.00 126 15 Odukpani Odukpani 181,013 1,432.87 141 16 Ogoja Ogoja 162,901 1,156.08 17 Yakurr Ugep 199,390 870.44 229 1,134 18 Yala Okpoma 231,708 204.25 Total 2,827,337 20,713.33 127 Source: CR SEEDS
r' s?nus: A DI'llkII A(. I M ['llf M lIV 1:u11TAIE AN!D SELECTION OF 11 for NMAgrie RA M in Cross Ri v'r state Metropolu Cosoi ti umfrecons & kartiers i onsulting scryices 2.5 POLIT1CAL STRUCTURE. 2.5.1 Local Government Areas Cross River State comprises eighteen (18) local government areas as follows:
1. Abi 2. Akamkpa 3. Akpabuyo 4. Bakassi 5. Bekwarra 6. Biase 7. Boki 8. Calabar Muniicipality 9. Calabar South 10. Etung
11. Ikom - 12. Obanliku 13. Obubra 14. Obudu 15. Odukpani 16. Ogoja 17. Yakurr 18. Yala
2.5.2 State Consfituencics area constituting a Sta? Stat constituencies exist in tlie State with eaeh local government constitu"ey.
2.5.3 Federal Constituencics The State coFprises nine (9) Federal coistitueneies witi each Federal constituenicy consisting
one, two or a maximum of three local gov'crnment areas.
2.5.4 Senatorial Districts namely: Cross River State like other States in Nigeria comprises threce (3) senatorial districts, 1. Southern senatorial district 2. Cenitral senatorial district 3. Nothern senatorial distriet - . 1 1111 11 . -,,," - , - , ,nI Ie ,- I 1-:m1e T.;0ýý A RVm STATE ANDl' CT1 ON oF MetropoIitan Consortiam/rnfcons & Partner. Consulling Services for F'M/A*sr : :" si: Cuss:t: S 1
A senatorial district, as it were, comprises two or more Federal constitucncies,
ANI) Sli.K ETION OF nVi rflT A 5I >n\92 m hin nfk I ri'ni<~N OF iNT RVNT[ION AREAS IN CROSS RIVIR STATI ー h出d 山 ＿」 ．. 1 ’ で’の．一
叩 畔 → ， P 叩 ー フ 甲 り PI ， 『川一 甲 →
曲国 曲園 日 」園d 日国加贈国国曲園曲目園m & Palum Cowmilhll, Crvlccs 2.6.4 Livestock Resom-ces Cross River State has enormous potentials l'or commercial livestock an'.1
husbandry. The Obudu Ranch RCSOrt, f 61-111CI-ly 1:110 ObUdU Clf,[IC R IIIICII is Slito!,IX',! ;!I 01 J;-,IUJI Local Govurinicrit Area and spi-cads over a land cxparise ofFIO'k-111
There arc 27 grazino raiwcs of which only 9 ar - as yet fully use, widl i a cap,,city I' 20,000 cattle. Apart fi-om caLdc, the ranch has ful- a piogcry and puu!lry. '111,c lil"umng facillLy can take 500pigs and 2000 layers In cages. Goats and )Iiccp are al.;o or zcd iilorizo-i(k; Llic cattle.
.. 6.5 Fishy-ies Resom-ces Fish is J)roducccl from marine waLers, CStUaries ail,d inland waters around "lie Stite. The bl.ifl ol' the fish consumed locally is caught by artisan fishil-i-men numbering well ovcr'-20,000, Th_f I-Ishing co in rr.uni ties are plagued by inaccessibility fron-, maJor markets as It is N-NIdn otll,,,r a-ricklituml products. Though there is,a dearth of statistiQs on fi-.5h catche in the State, local governments where commercial .ishim, records abOUnd are Abl. Bekwarra, Boki and Ca!abar South.
2.6.6 Mineral Deposits (25). Cross River State is blessed with ahandarit miricr di deposits. Numbering about twenty (five salu, coal, These include gold, uranium, 1'ron orc, tin ore, manganese, titanIL1111 Ore, limestone, 1111ca, kaolill, crude oil, 7111c, natuml gas, 1-,Idspar, (ILK-Irtz and barite. Oihers are diamond, St, 1- grai-Ailte tourmaline, spring Nvater, hard stones 1,11cludin" L,.tentc, etc. Areas %vithin the some of these minerals can be obtained are: 1"InIcstoric I.-Aankpim, Ak mflma 0 Salt Deposits Ogni a, flkon- 0 Crushable Rocks - Akamkpa, ki,-sc
0 Chalk - ObUbl-a 0 Kao II II - ObLidu
0 Baryte Yala.
while 'Ihesc 111111cral resources are yet to be comprelicn:;Ively surveyed, quantified and exploited, private and iIIC(Ial CXI)10]tCI*S C011tilILIC tO IIIIIIC tIM11 unabatcd.
2.7 1Icalth Institutimis I lie following health institutions exist within the 'S"Late. 2 Federal I Icalth Institutions 16 in Cross R,c- State Conshi: Senices for FMAgric RAMP ,edta:Pn-~s Government Areas C- enhunfrecens & per type of Crop for the 18 Local On!-ut of Cross River State Products T:ce 2.3: A r etinrAl Trce Other A ricuural I Y) Metric Tonns !C'LGs i o Crops Uc\s-oc' F chenc~ ~V~~ YI IT P Puou- nFhe i t7c~,fFirsappl Oil5Pan Cooraal j-;aa Y<~5 lz Cco\am s'3R72n sced 0 0 0 0.14 47. 8 1 .. 0 1 9S-12,1. 301.2 0.56 6016.83 0 0 6.2 0 8.92 147.29 95 6 116.34 0 0 2 iAkamkpa 0 0.5 i 153.4 6.79 0 0 123.39 90.03 0 3 Akpabuo o o 0 0 o 0 0 0 5% 4 Balkassi 0 0 0 0 0 10.43 0 00 191 49 117.69 '63 2148.85 5 Bekwarra 0 0 161.6 0 0 0 i lo S 104.5 17.69 0 6 Bis .0 1 53 0 8 1144.16 0 10.57 9 7 D4l8 4,0 5.2 -1 0 8 Calabar
uni cipal 0 o 0 6.60 0 0 91.¯3 0 0 Cala-ar South 0 377.52 19.79 1272 i. E0 0.9 560.7 0 1 17.3 4.5 0 0 25. 777 124.12 373.5 3. 9.36 0 11 lkom 0 0 1 0 30.07 0 20.7 416.30 397.75 55.22 12 banliku 0 0 0 0 9.68 . 0 15.52 0 1719.09 6 9 .72 122.36 0 1.4 Obu ra7 0 . 0 13 06.35 100K81 7 11.252 8.92 14 Obudu 0 0 0 2.1 1 0 0 7.76 16i 0 0 0 0 7.43 0 2 7.25 12.01 0 206.33 216.13 0 0 3438.18 16 Ogoja 16.6 4 0 315.73 35.38 24.06 119.43 Yakurr 334.51 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 3.1 25 246.20 30.2 13.20 303 3 1.42 18 Ya 122 8433 1893.5 TI,],5 9..43 6 .0 5 18.24 07.2 221.39 fOTAL 913¯ Division Natural Resources -- gri Serv ice.s Source: Miisr of gi area and rural areas. In well distributcd within the urban These healti instititions are airly ensure access to av ;! th!ese usual be made in this study to tlhe rural areas, eforts \vill as for access and mobility. care secking is one of the reasons nearby health institutions as health type and ownership of heahh care infrastructure by Table 2.4 below shows the distribution throughout the State in 2004. River Slate by Type and Ownership in Cross Table 2.4: Health Care Distribution iEssion LGA Wards P rivate LGA Federal State SINo 2 0 01 18 10 1 Abi 2 30 10 2 Akamkpa 0 10 0 0 0 28 3 Akpabuyo 0 9 10 0 4 Bakass0 0 0 0 36 10 Bekwarra 0 5 0 0 13 6 B iase 0 3 0 0 48 11 7 Boki 0 6 0 1 1 10 Calabar Municipal 8 0 4 10 9 Calabar South 0 0 0 0 7 10 10 Etung 1 0 19 10 i1 lkom 0 10 0 0 0 1 29 12 Obanliku 11 3 0 0 2 24 13 Obubra 10 11 0 0 30 14 Obudu 72-7 13 -2 0 15 Odukpani 00 9 2 16 3 1 22 Yakurr 0 11 0 S2 50 114 15 465 Tota 2 Strategy (CR -SLw) Empowermnit zd Deivelopient Source: Cross River Stalte Econom,ic : Consuung servics tol NMA i! m r' . Metropoitan Conoi tiisolfumm1econs & [aiutiners and Development StraÅ"y (C,M ) 2.8 The Cross River State Economic Empowermen Empowerment and Dcvelopment Stratejy) a At the State level, is the SEEDS (State Economic owerment and Developmenit Stratey). The counterpart of NIEDS (National Ecoinmi lm are more or translomation of State economies, which development of SEEDS is essential for the critical Government. This is importan for several less facing the same challenges as the Federal reasons, which iluetde the following: and are therefore alceted by the economic The States are components of the Federatlon ur the federal government - either fOrilitating policies that alfect the operation of impeding thcmn. inii terms of resource cedowments, orgmizational • Each State of the federation is uniqjue the configuration, etc. Tlhis uniqueness raies capacities and c,pabilities, human resourc- and programmes to each Sat's pecularities challenge of innovating and adapting polices to the promotiolln of publie good. as well as a creative adaptationof the pecuOiarities oufdevclopmcnt - Ihe peopl live and work. • The States are where the ultimate beneficiries takes plae in communities that n:kc up Thus, true development (or underdevelopment) with people- an meaningful develøpmen strategy the States. In consequence, therefore, role. an oage the local people in a paricpatory oriented focus has to have local roots and cen underpins successful implementation This is to ensure ownership, which moitoring. poliies and programmes the opportuniy to consolidate the The CR-SEEDS affords the State ts; ttovernm nt the la,t five years. These include the undertaken in Cross River State in has: for f riVatC sector growth • Created enabling environment Centres, as w allas created live Urban )evelopment • Increased urban road construction Ogoja and Obudu. namely, Calabar Metropolis, Ugep, Ikom, v, ater projects * Supported and expanded ADB liiuanced band • Floated N4 billion tourisi devlopment establisling the expanding Obudu Ranch Resort and * Promoted tourism by cnhancing and State Tourisni Bureau. Ld.,iiver CALCEMCO, Cross Limestones • Successfully privatizcd alling coipanies Calven Ply, etc. funds available to progrhmme by making interest frce • Promnoted people's empowerient trades. unemployed youths to start ditferent Co n Ser;vi ces for IM ?i: m5.::e. :>lx tt e Metiopoil lConsnI II r cn m& nilers • Plromoted a rne of industries including Pirapple Processing and 1loney nn Proj ec at the Obudu Rane Resort and established CR (Cross1C0l " Upgraded the Management Development Institute River.IUniversity of 'cechnology), I lealth Care Facilities, Bebi Airstrip at Obainliku. and women , T aken actions on security and law en,orcement, poverty alleviation einpowermeCnt, etc. • Extended rural electriication to villages in lie State. The major areas of focus in the CR-SE_ IDS are: 0 Tourism, ieluding l'I'INAPA Project *- Education * LIealth Care Delivery • Agriculture and Forestry Resources a SanItation and Water Resources - I ntrastruciure-, road and electiIcity SSnall and medium scale industries 0 Rural electrificatin: and 1lIV / AIDS, Environment and Gender ( 11G) Issues. 2.8.1 Detaiäs of the Policy Thrust of the Foeus of CR-SEEDS driven development blue print vhich is CR-SEEDS has been aptly deseribed as the viion focus of CR-SHEIDS that are very relevant to compliant Vith NHIEDS. Some of the details of tC this study are outlined below: (1) 1infrmastriture (a) Electrjeity of any community. The policy This plays a cardinal role in the Jevelopment process as follows: thrust of CR-SIEiDS in this regard can be sumrnmarized cormmunities to the National Grid SConnecet the entire local governments and rural produc a Provide a reliable source of pover for processing agricultural energy source for agricuiural comamodity o Reduce dependence on fuel wood as processing using traditional technolo,) and non-timaber) and exploration of alternative o Conservation of forest stock (timber fyiendly. sources of energy thl are cheap, rene abIe Zand environmentall areas and make them nmore attractive Improve on general living condlitions i:a the rural for private investor investments. 1 0 = S - . mnrnng sav ces rK RAU m kcons nopoo~nconsoni umm an :hereby 201 villages in all the rural communities The target is to take electricity to about achieving this is the end of year 2007. The strategy for attain 95% total coverage of the State by pruvided the execution of the projects. that contracts will be awarded and resources (b) Wajer Supply housine, to the lIve basie huan needs - food, Needless to say tiat water is comnmon been greadly qua lity ol, raw water in the State ha:; he; Iihh, Wdueation and peace. The / to Te on water trea tment and purifCation. This has resulled in high expenditure water-horne diseases to eliminate the incidence of government Js very committed throughout the State. Cross River State the g;overnment has established the In order to achieve this.ohjeelive. alongside other i'geney (CRUWATSSA), whieh Rural Water Supply and Sanitation water in and the ADB, is re,ponsible tor providing agencies like UNIC1 F, UNDP, NGOs AlI local guvernment and hand pump water schemes. the rural areas under the mini the urban and mini water supply scheines. councils are to be served through (c) Liods as: under CR-SEI)EDS can be deseribed The policy thrust for road development to all human settlements « Provision ofall season land access of the existing roads and bridges * Reconstruetion and maintenance the jrovision ol required road intereonneetivity • Urban renewal programme for to check improvement on drains and channels within the urban eentres and Rooding the quality of life of rural people. o Rural transformation in and job mphasis on improved food supply IPoverty reduetion programmntes with eleetricity, water supply, etc. ereation as a result of road accessibility, infrastractural by youths th rough extensive Minimization of rral-urban drift bridges across the State, and developmcnt in the arebs of rods and into the rural atracing private seetor investment create optimum conditions for areas in order to !'or construction of rural rwads SIsing labour - based technology -,tiveemployment. nobilize unemployed youths or·prouc 20i McLtopo oanConsor[IImm icrow, cns & cnisulsn. SCme,Ces lor VM, 'v c The tarjet oC the above policy thrust thtcrefl re seeks to: o Provide accessible roads to open up the big rural markets !1ncrease access to infrastructure in tc rural ares from te preent tiure ol lss than 10% to 50% by year 2007. o 500km of rural roads rehabilitated in five years • 100km of new roads construeted * 30% of the total budget l>r the road projects transfecrred as cash income to rur,l communities as payment for labour and supplies of materials. • Rural 2.8.2 Markets There are about 46 maJor markets across the State. The eriteria ior elassilication of a market int a rikjor one are: 1. That both markets eyes and the market days are wel attended by traJers and buyers 2. That a multiplicity of produets are on sale in such markets. These mjor markets are where all the agricultliral products are soli.. Uln fortunately, a large chunk of many of the produets do not reach these markets in good cOndition because of inaccssilec roads to the rural hinterlands where the produets are grown. Tihe signilicance of these major markets in the process of economie development cannot be overemphasized. They generally serve as Collection and distribution centres for wide ranges of goods and farm produce. They colleet and distribute agriculural commodities produced by large numbers of farmers in the State's rural communities. 1lowever, the problem with he imarkets is not in their location becaulse they are located in their ideal natural settings. The eviden problem is one of accessi)lity to the rural farmers. A typieal example often cited is the Abuochichic market in ekwarra Iocal Government Area. This inarket serves 40 communities without any good iiterconnecting roads from these various elient communities. Anothev is the Ujtanga imrket in Obanliku Local (jovernment Area, which is ai bordr mnarke with poor sales because of bad road linkages. Okuku market in Yala Local Government Area is of international standard but because it is poorly served by road network, evacuation of sonie sold produets lake several days to be completed. Similirly, the Okundi market in Boki Local Government Arae is attended by several communitics which are notuasily aceessed by road. 21 'a" Rv A C on:o ting Servicen for FMy.k AW at tan Conomum~/Trecons : tPartners Metropol summary, most major mar cts lroctd K All the 42 others are in a similar situation. In road network making evacuation of prodCts the hinterland and arc poorly servcd by of losses and low market prices. Resides, lack difficuLt thus leading to huge post harvest h rvest surpluses get spOil. storage facilities contribute to wastages as need to enhance the quality of roads The conclusion thercfore is that there is a compelling products ditribuLtion eflicincy, (hat scrvc these mjor markets as a way ol improving of rural farmers and utimat2y encouraging raising the incomes and material well-being in the rural settings. private sector investment in agro-allied buskess Project (RAMP) comes handy. lterestingly, This is where the Rural Access and Mobiliy jetties and will recuirc the interconnectivity of roads, rural roads development in any area a one another. Access to markets is therefore markets as they arc interwoven and serve necessary by-product of this study. I2 Co!1lln Srvico mI - ,MIA ic A'V il . o i ColIs & Paltli! oierd poI nConsorti PROCEDURE SECTION THREE: STUDY EXECUTION 3.0 Introduction the apprcach adopted for the study. I examines This section highlights the methodological adopied in data were collected and various teciques various types of data required, how the analysing the data. 3.1 Types of Data Collected they are grouped into the followiln: The data required for this study are numerous, number of of the State such as, number of markets, (i) Data on soco-ceonomie activities etc. of agricultural output and forestry resources, cottage industries, the types and volume priiary schools, include the number of primary and post (ii) Data on social facilities: These etc. o' health centres, the number of boreholes, number of school enrolment, the number density of da:a include the size of' population, the (iii) Demographic Data: Theldemographic within the Local Government Areas. population and the distribution of population the lcogth of The data gathered in this group include; (iv) Information on transport network: transport ways, the conditions of road and water various classes of roads, and water transport characteristics and condition of rural facilities such as jettics and the general infrastructure in the State. activities and land area, spatial distribution of economic (v) Geographical Data: These include land use characteristics. include o rgin da a: The data gathered in this group (vi) Rural travyelI pattern alid characteristic characteristics of rural travels (e.g. and destination of rural 'travels, socio-economic ae, ial- :,ze and edu:tional qualileations). income, occupation, vehicle ownership, and various tri inf rmation on modal characteristics The data in this category also include State. purposes of rural dwellers in the problems composition modal split and vehicular traffic \lume and (vii) The last set of data is associated with rural accessibility. 3.2 Strategies for Data Collection the following: The needed data were collected through 23 NI elropo Ii tai X(or lsF,otI ni'*!ec ckm Pa[il c-,C ('n m IIm SeCrv'i l o j\ NA. NAlP l r . 0; k 3.2.1 P'rclimiiiary Survey A preliiminary survey ol the study arca wa carrie out. The essence of the survev is to have a lirst-hand information about the study arca and galher secondary data froni rlevnt government ministries and agencies. Thc survey also availed th consultants the opportunity of unerstanding te terrain of the study arca and niaking consuiltation with both the State oficial and local comnmunity leaders in tIie State. Most secondary data that were used lor prioritizing the intervention areas were col lected dring this survey. 3.2.2 Consutations with Coiiunity Leaders Series of consultations were made to both the State officials and community leaders to intimate them aboaut the projeCI and get them involved by providing useful inlormition that could assist in achieving the objectives of the project. 3.3 Orgauization of Stakeholders Workshop A Stakeholders' Workshop involving the consultants, RAMP National O2lieers, State, local government officials and community members was, organized from Tuesday, 18 to Wednesday, 19 July,2006. The purpose of the workshop was to involve stakeholders, particulaily the users of the intervention projeets in the selection, preparation and implementation of the intervention pro)graifunm e. The workshop assisted to achiieve thelollowi ng objectives: • Validation ol the prioritization exercise already done using secondary data colleeted from each Local Government Arca. a To reveal qualitative criteria hat mjt not be apparem during the prioritiåation exercise " Plan for detailed field survey.of the intervention areas in order to come out with initial road program in support of al ready priorituie areas. 24 2 ( flonsunSe:vices It FMAnn m (- Metropolian Conso tum/T cons & Palnels 3.3.1 Paarticipation auended by the cross River S The stakeholders' workshop was well communities in the State, Statenoal gvernment Commissioner of Works, represcntatives of asveal ther Coordinating Office of RAMP well ollieials, officials of the State and National for the two In all, there were a total of 123 participats Stakeholders represcting other interests. day workshop. 3.3.2 Workshop Proceediiigs A. The rwercrcerdel and are presented in Annexure The proceedings of the two day works•hop of intervention aca; by the Stakeholders, the delineation consultants' draft report was accepted was endorscd as coherent. 3.4 Mai Field Sur'vey prioritization of intervention the identiflcation, delineation and The main approach to the study of within Cross River State programes (links) for intervention area as well as the selection of road can be grouped into threc: gatherir g, soing, collation and counting 1. Primary and sccondary data 2. Ficld visits and consulta,tions 3. Anialysis o iiti. travel and socio-ecoie out to 1,athcr i1orma.tion on rural Questionnaire survey was carried trip purpose, origin and The inforiation collected included characteristics of the rùral dwcllers. and links mosofteniiused. and occupatioin, means of mobility destination, travel costs, incone cost survey wcrc also undertaken. Usual road condition and rehabilitation aund fimdings from from the responses to the questionaire The analysis of information generated the cost of required the priorilize links and to estimate the surveys were used to select to basic acces: tandards. intervention to upgrade the roads as Ancxuras B, C and D. The cuestiolnaircs used are attached 25 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1} Cr." kilers1e1.11C etnpian C~om. i1 rwvh & Kutur, <:lrmmlhitj zgv,,s tid V Mti,RÄM11 in POPULATION DENSITY POPULATItON Akankpe, 170,284 Yala, 110 Abi, 337 Akamkpe, 34 Akpabuyo, Yala, 225 112 Abi 112762 Akpabuyo, Yakurr, 280 143,174 j, 137 175 Bakassi, 8 Yakurr, 193,714 Bakassi, 6,280 Odukpani, 123 Bekwarra, 275 Bekwana,Obudu, 234. 83,572 b Biase, 113 Biase, 145,345 Obubra, 178 Boki, 76 Odukpani, Obnliku, 66 175,^8 n0i 208428 Ikom 114 Obudu, 121,885 Etung, 70 Obubra Calabar Calabar 192,926 Municipal, - 194,274 Municipal, Obaniku, Calabar South, 1,031 1,237 69,870 Calabar South, 63,237 278,430 lkom. 203,436 Etung, 'igure J. I: Populationand Population Density in LGAs of Crosv River State 26 OF DELINEATION AND PRIORITIZATION SECTION FOUR: IDENTIFICAION, INTERVENTION AREAS 4.0 Iiiti-od uction Areas 4.1 Delineation of interventioi ixCas Aoile Intervention Local Governmnen A tas - within tie Iwo LIAs and Calabar All tc settlements c The wholc of Bakassi South LGAs All settlements wilhän Ii n[erventi0on le whole of Akpahuyo area Obot Akpang, Odukpani, Mbiaabo Part of Odukpani, Calabar Municipal 3 Eki, etc. Usuk, Ikot, Ebiti 1lsuk, Aan LGAs Ekong, Okarra, Obang Abung, 4 Part of Akamkpa Vlkonganaku, Neghce, tce Atan Odot, Ndon Nwamg, part of Obom Ibat, 5 Part of Odukpani and etc. Akamkpa Ojojgboha, lkuri Owai, Obutan bom, LGA .6 Part of Akamkpa Atakam I funkpa, etc 3iase 7 Part of Odukpani, witim Yakurr and Ab and Alji SettUnents 8 Part of Öbubra, Yakurr LGAs L GA Most of settlemenis in Ikom 9 Pari ofi kom of Yala 10 Pkart of Obubra, Part of Eitung 11 Part of Ikom, Part Sett lemnents withi n O gooja LGA 12 Part of oki, Ogoja 13 Part of Bok), Part of Obanliku witIn Obudu LGA Obudu and art of Settlements 14 Part of Obanliku, Be~kwvarai wiffhi Ogqja LGA - Most settlements Part of Ogoja 15 L(A Most settlements wIChm Yala 16 Part of Yala 26 ro: i Mebopolitua Consortiunil recons & I'artnlrs Colsull:.g Services for FMAric -A,ÄMP it ii'er Figure 4.1 shows the delineated intervention arcas. 27 4.2 Prioritization of Intervention Arcas arca boundarics, pro-rated values were As the intervention areas cut across the local goveurnent al! for cich ini:r'ae,on area. hIls was "pplied to computed and sunmcd up to obtain tlie vilues the secondairy data obtaincd as follows: 4.2.1 Populationlt ilf for and beneficiary of developnient, hence, The people constitute the main reason taken population of an intervention area mut be poverty is to be alleviated, the size of the tihe population of an intervention area, the higher into consideration. Thus, the larger thc the value assigned for this criterion. need for access and mobility, hence thc higher Table 4. 1: Scoring of Population Score Population (1,000) 50,000 - 120,000 1 120,001 - 190,000 2 3 190,001 - 260,000 4 260,001 - 330,000 5 330,001 - 420,000 4.2.2. Population Dcnsity area in of pirsons vhmi an aca of an intervention Population density dellnes the nuiber rural access the imupaet of an investient through sjuare kilometres. This eriterion defines of an the lower Ihe population density on ihe area being served. Thus, imiprovement to requircd and the longer the road required int>rvention area, the higher the intervcntion hs,tth scores hence tlower the score assigned. provide basie access and mobility, 4.2. for population density are as in Table Table 4.2: Scoring of Population Density Score 1opulation Density 30 -280 281 530 3 531 -7,0 4 781 - 1030 5 1031- 1280 28 4.2.3. Land Arca for acessihility and Land arca, as a criterion, defines the arca over which the demand Thus, an area with a mobility is desired as well as the ceonomic development potentials. equally higher potentials for higher land arca may reasonably be said to possess Therefore, an intervention arca deveIopmCnt, such as agricultural pioduction potentials. access and is thercfOre assigned with a large land area would require longer roads foir basie a higher score. Table 4.3: Scoring of Land Arca Land Ai-ea (sq. ki) Score 150-710 711 -1,270 2____ 1,271 - 1,830 3 1,831 - 2,390 4 2,391 - 2,980 Z 4.2.4. Number of Primiary and Post Primary S1hools and mobility, it is necessary for As seeking education opportunities ås a rea"on for acecss institutions - primary and post roads to be provided from communities to such educational the higher the number of educational primary schools. Thus, under this crlitrion, for access and mobility, ihere fore, institutions in an intervention area, the higher the need of sehools in an area. higher seores are assigned for higher number Table 4.4: Scoring of lducational Facil ics Score Nunimber of Primary and Post P-rinary Schools (Rane) 4-10 ------~~~~~~~~~------11 - 16 2 17- 22 3 23-28 4 29-35 5 Schools 4.2.5 Enrolnent in Prinary and Post Primary iiis also important to take cognizance of Aside from the number of educational facilities, senols as iis dctrnises the popilation of the enrolment in the primary and post primary 29 the person: in need ol the basi'access o such educational 1ac lit1es. 1hus, ehighe: desirability of basie access and mobility for hc area and the higher the score. Table 4.5: Scoring of Educational Faciliies Eurolnent - lnrolniit in Primary and Post sco,e Primary Schools (000) range - 1,500 - 5,000 5,001 - 8,500 2 8,501 -- 12,000 3 12,001 - 15,500 4 15,501 - 19,000 5 - 4.2.6 School Density (School : Land Arca) facilities School density is also considered alongside ihe numerical strength of educational served by a and the enrolment in them. This is duc to the faet that the larger the arca school and the school (i.e. the lower the school density), the longer is the link to access the lhtigher the score assivjncd. Table 4.6: Scoriiig of School: Land Ratio School to Land Ar scores 1:10- 1:75 1:76- 1:140 2 1:141 - 1:205 3 1:206 - 1:270 4 1:271 - 1:335 5 4.2.7 lle;Ith Facilities as it enables them l1mproved status of hcalth definitely enhances the status of a population Conscquently, health undertake economie activities which inturn mitigates their poverty. area as they meet facilities is a necessary criterion in the' prioritization of the intervention an intervention arca with the health-secking needs of the people. In this context therefore, access and mobility to a highgier number of health facilhie will, of necessity, desire greater assigned. them-, hence the higher the numbei of health ficilities, the higher the score 30 clropolitan consom u c s unanrs constul (ii Services ror lN ie ! ,nRcro sctsC Table 4.7: Scoring of Ialth Facilitics Numher of Hcalth Facilitics Score 10-30 31 -50 2 51 ---70 3 71-90 4 91 -- I 10l 5 4.2.8 Health Institutions Density (i.c. llealth Facilities Land Arca) The eriterion complements the number of health fiaeilites, by compensating areas that already have a lower number of health facilities. Thus, an intervention area with a1low density of health facilities (i.c. health facilities to land area ratio) is seored higher. Table 4.8: Scoring of Hlealth Facilities Density I-calth Clinics :Lind Arca Ratio Score 1:1- 1:40 1:41 - 1: 80 2 1:88 --l 1120 3 1:21- 1:160 4 1:161 -1:200 5 4.2.9 Agricultural Output AÁrieultural output of an arca defines th- current production of various crops from the area. Thus, the higher the agricultural output ol an iutervention area, the higher the score assigned. Table 4.9: Scoring of Agricultural Output Agricultural Output (MT) Score 90 1,090 1,091 -2,090~__ 2 2,091 - 3,090 3 3,09 1 - 4,090 4 4,091 -5,200 5 1- Metropolitan onsirtmmels &c .u Cin,isi Ind twI Vl cm s for i -,,!Ä 4.2.10 Contribution of intervention Arcas to State Fishcrics P>roductioi Fisheries are the major economic aQtiviey of the rural populace in Cross; River Skate. Mobility has to be provided to convey these produets to the markets. Therefore the greater the contribution of an intervention area to the State fisherics output, th hiher the scores obtained by that intervention area. Tabfle 4.10: Scoring of tli Contributi of lItervention Areas to Stae FishAerics Pro,duction Contribution of lntervention Score Areas to State Fisheries P1roduction 0 -101 11 -20 2 21 -30 3 31 -40 4 41 -60 5 4.2.11 Fiorest Reserves in the Intervention Areas One of the main natural resourecs available in the Cross River State whose potential has to be exploited for ceonomic empowerment of the rural populace is the förest reserve. Therefore, the higher the total area of forest reserves possessed by an intervention arca, the higher the score obtainable by that intervention area. Table 4.11: Scmring of Forest Reserves ia the Intervention Areas Forest Rescmves in the Score Intervention Aia.s 1 -. 13,000 13,001 - 26,000 2 26,001 - 39,000 3 39,001 -- 52,000 4 52,001 - 65,000 5 4.3 Computation of Data Values for Intcrvention Arcas data Using rational and reasonable assumptions, the various socio-economie and gcographical areas. collected for the local government areas were dis::ggregated for cach of the intervenion 32 for FM A ri R MA'N' P n Cr- i Nu r St 'c Metropolitan Consorium/frecons & Pa iners Cnsul!tin; Scrvices Such disaggregated (computed) values for the inte-vention areas are as stated i Y ies 4.12, 4.13, 4.14, '4.15, 4.16 and 4.17 and graphically epresented in figures 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5, 4( 6ind 4.7 respectively. Areas Table 4.12: Population, Land Area and PopuLition Density of Intervention [ntervention Population of Intervention Land Arca (sq.kni) Poptlation Areas Areas Density (Persq/km2) 267 1 292,768 1,096.06 180 2 47,226 816.18 33 326 -t. 8 i,160.1 281 4 70,041 1,977.2737> 74 5 62,719 853 35 6 105,062 2,966 117 7 158 500 1,357.16 237 8 414,342 1,748.1 116 9 188,274 1,621.6 -218 10 122,641 563.5 90 i1 53,068 591.5 82 12 144,870 1,760.8 74 13 136,024 1,838.6 192 14 189,857 990.1 141 15 130,194 924.9 14 16 2 1,035 183.8 33 l 292,768 1 z, 267m 2 47,226 2 CD 3 l'26,3 5 - 281- 4 041 4ý 05,062 6 a 58,500 7-117 14, 2 9 ,}:8,274 7-r-i 101 2,641 10 11368 90 144,870 12 12 13 024 89,857 00 141 11,0350 16 114 i -7 Consultmg Services for FIA, c A P lt 1. metropolitan ConsotiumfIrccons & 1>aiies and Schoolrolment Table 4.13: Number of Public Primary and Post Primary Schools and Schools Density in Intervention Arcas Schou : Lanu Intervention No of Public Primary School Enrolinent Arcas and Post Priniary A rea Schools 9 11,262 i:122 148 3 24 17,331 1:282 4 7 2,625 5~¯ 1,531:171 S3,937:270 0 7 i7 - - -5,8 1 S 3- 18,6421-53 -4 -- -- - 1:11-~ 4,646 1:56 2,-128~1:99 -- 12 19 1:93 1:97 3 6,001 1 33 14309,317 S6,834 1:66 -5,400 16 £I for FMAgric RAMP in Cross River State olitan Consortium/Trecons & Partners Consulting Services 000- 0~4 co cci c9m ------100 I------ i 33-3 1000 100 O ArnG cmoofShol 24 cnoV€ 191 9 19 10 17 1 Erlmn slcho cm l LO rure 4.3: Number of Schools & School Enrolment in InterventionAreas 36 \C -4s?,' .ters Sn vicc, Jr FuAi Netropo ano nsoiii Im cow,nl in and licalth Institution Density Primnary licaltli FacAlitics Table 4.14: Number of Areas Intervention Arui eaiti iion 1d cithiF:iHities l Intervention Nuriber of fi Areas 1:10 .1 105 2 29).2 :25 46 3 1:152 3 4 835 10 5 48 6 20 1:52 26 7 :28 8 62 1:95 17 9 1:27 å -10 :49 36 12 1:45 41 13 7 145 1:26 37 State )olitan Consortiurn/Trecons & Partners Consulting Services for FMAgric RAMP in Cross River 05 46 62 41 59 3 5 29 13 10 20 26 17 21 10 36 41 36 50 No of Health Facilities 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Intervention Areas ure 4.4: Number of Health Facilities in Intervention Areas 38 C 'nsuling Scrviccs fkr FM ' \ %',j!,ve: Metropolitan Cons omumTcrcons & Pa Iners Areas (NIT) Table 4.15: Nuinber of Agriculturl Output ixn Injtervention AgrIeultural Output (MT) -lntervcntion Arecas - 1 - - 9 8 .3 3 2 220.21 -- 2,293.7 4 2,693 5 1,161.6 N5 6 4,039.7 7 2,645.5 - 8 5,183.3 -- 1,291.7 10 516.9 - - 429.5 12 1,613.8 13 921.9 14 661.6 375.2 15 470 16 39 Consulting Services for FMAgric RAMP in Cross River State )olitan Consortium/Trecons & Partners - in cm> Cco CMC 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Intervention Area rure 4.5: Number of Agricultural Output in Intervention Areas 40 Conksulting SCIvices for P A \eA in ve Metr.olpoltian CoIIsotililliflurcons & Parnes in Intervention Arcas - Table 4.16: Nunber of Conmmercial Fisheries Production lntervention Areas Number of Fislieries Production (%) 55 2 0 0 - 3 4 0 7 0 8 10 9 0 10 0 11 0 120 13 0 14 0 5 0 16 0 .41 ) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 } Consulting Services for FMAgric RAMP in Cross River State olitan Consortium/Trecons & Partners 60 55 50- - 40- 0 1 30- 0. 20 U. 20- 10 10- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 £ 0o 00 0 O< Intervention Area Areas ,ure 4.6: Number of FisheriesProduction in Intervention 42 Metrlop)ohtani C'onso;I.llium/Trecons & 110Ies : lnvi -v ices forl AM2- mnC;oss R n kis[ Table 4.17: Forest Reserves in Intirvcntion Arcas Latervention Arcas Total Area of Forest Reserve (ha) 0 2 14,132 3 10,704 4 29,303 5 13,816 6 62,798 7 7,759 8 26,077 9 2,552 10 23,187 11 6,033 12 22;998 13 15,332 14 15 0 16 13,605 Services for FMAgric RAMP in Cross River State olitan Consortium/Trecons & Partners Consulting 70000 60000-' 50000-' 40000-' 0 30000 -0 <00 cm____0_M 00 20000- 10000- 0o T " cm Cl Lo cm cé le LO (D r- 0 0 cm Intervention Area Figure 4.7: ForestReserves in Intervention Areas 44 Metropol an Ctonsort (i 1fr reculvs % alntners csnalemor r .Å , l( s 4.4 Ranking of Intervention Areas The sixtecen (16) intervention areas were seowed a explained in Sections 4.1.1 to l1 .i I ng the various criteria. 'he summary of the valucs for cach of the eriteria is presented in Table 4.18 wh;le the scores assigned for cach eriteria (as explained above) is umnimarized in Table 4.19 1or eaich ofC the sixteen imtervention areas. From Table 4.19, the total aggregate scores for cach intervention area are obltained. The cumulative scores are then used to rank the intervention areas. Prioritization is then based on the cuiulative seores for cach intervention seores for cach intervention, with the intervention area with highest score rated the highest in priority and so on. for intervention under the project Ac cordingly, the first seven. priori ty intervention area proposed are shown in Table 4.20. Table 4.20: Prioritized Intervention Areas Position 1 iiteivention Areas Ist 8 2nd 6 3rd 3 4h 5th 4 6h 13 8th 12 16 These were presented bef ore an enlarged stakeholders workshop on 18 and 19 July 2006, interest comprising representatives of the State, L ocal Governnient Areas and non governmental groups, which endorsed the prioritiza{ion exercise. Figure 4.8 shows the seven piriority i ntervention areas. AREAS. PRIORITY INTERVENTION .MAP G1THE SEVEN 11 mMAec i. \e Qn \mm Si &ara ncrs :,- Mci opoi an consor-tumfrrcons TEibTiCS SECTION FIVE: RURAL TRAVEL PATTERN AND C .A 5.0 Introduction eas depend rgely one The effective functioning of social and cconomi acivices of ural nrastructlre and adequacy and efficiency of transport system. In other woris, poor transport facilitics will hinder acccss to social and economi centres. centres ol acivities in Iie rura A proper understanding of the way people commute to various mobility needs. his area is very crucial to effective planning for rural transport inlrastructur and the level of accssibilty understanding will no doubt help to identify the moblily neds s on the pdler n and chaeractrisc requircment of thc rural people. This is why this section ocusl of rural mobility in the State. 5.1 Socio-cconomuic Characteristics of Rural Travellers rural dwellers is to have en insight The essencc of analysing the socio-cconomic characteristies oi of ,lfe alfects Ile level o into the condition of rural life quality and how this condition indicator ol c uality of li fe i ineome. accessibility and mobility of the rural people. One important ppulation as gleaned from the responses to Table 5.1 shows the income distribution of the ruri the quecstionnaires. Table 5.1: Rural Incoic Distribution Incomne Groupi Noi ofresodn 35 N10,000 per month 238 3. 2 N 11,000 - N20,000 246 14.9 N21,000 -ÑN30,000 l0 5.7 N31,000 - N40,000 39 4 0 N41,000 - N50,000 27 4.3 N51,000 and abovc 29 68( )00 - Total 49 RAMP in Cross River State s IeesfolMAgric the low income ,out:r & ! ev:necnisum be considered as Metopodn within what can o ruml populace faI ,roms T2le 5. najority respondents fall . About 71.2% of the N120,000 per mnonth) åkose who carn helow not group (i.. of the rural people could of this is that majority group. The inpliation within the low income on the existing as they have to depend inotori.ed mecans of transport ford owning a personal in providing It thereiore implies that public transport services. and inefleien t rural unreliable ty by the rural populace. be given to aflordahili consideration slloulld means of runad mobility, of Tlierefore. the structure access to places of work. rural mobility is the of the needs 1or modal choice. One mobility and their the pattern of rural peoPe Vould aflect oenTuation OF rural o! the rural pcople. occupational structure TAble 5.2 shows the Structu-e Tab1e 5.2: OcCupationa %täven. espdents Occuat up 41.5 277 761.43 6.62 44 Mrunts 26.32 175 iCoiv SUriv s 2.86 19 Artisans 2.11 14 Technicans 9.02 60 Others 100 665 Tota populace are farmhers about 42<%k) of the rural structure reveals that of the occupational addition, a Analysis of rura! people. In agricurture in the sustenance the dominant role of civil revealing cither as teachers or by the govermiiient people are engaged number of rural next highest subsantia! 'Yrading records the ral commnities. institutions auross the servants in public and accessibility to the neei for mobility servants. T1h1s iiplies of people after civil and number lso need for transportation ac.vaies. The i~ 1hese occupational various centres of rural communty. wthin and outside the disrikbton ok goods Cfir::~:l joss flivcr stålc 0 :'rcfA~ 11) 'aLiiwrs 5 imrp 'no:unIcus& Rural Means of Mobility 5.2 Existing and the types of the pattern o rura travel of rural commounity affect The modal characteristics Idmans that depenus ;ainly on' non r A communiv tanspor infrastructure dressed road road bus an earth er surface need no bitumen surfaced of transport. perhaps would transpor passage of non motorizied that is good enough olr ound it. will c;nial patterni all year of the e ialnd y to the physieal terrain l lowever, due so as to prevenc high rate o s11 nitise oads rum roads be upgraded be recqured that all the cosL leads to high ainteUnane of crosion which often conmmunities :n tILe State that miiajorty o rural eharacteristies reveals Our 5nding on the rmodal as a mcans of rural populaee use m(toreyele About 69.66% of the depend on notorcyele. nature of the terrain and uneonnectecd witi the use of motorcycle is not mobility. The dominant of mobility is The next dominant means the rural transport infrastructure. the poor condition of mobility. use car as a means ol rural that 13.29% of the populace ear; the analysis shows of rural trips mobilty needs, over 10% towards meeting the rural contribute substantially water Bicycles trips are made by using elose to 6% of the runa the use of bicycles, while are made through for these modes of to make adequate prevision underscores the need transport. The above transporL. Modal Chrcistics Table 5.3: Rura % No of Responden Modal Types 0.59 59 Biicycle 69166 3388 Mo)tor-cyci 7 -113.29 Car U.5, -Ius 57 Tota 51 state RAM n> Cross River sNw;u a W: i MAgne & Pn Conls1o na/l'; co Rural Trip Purposes are 5.3 o ine rural communities 1he various tip purposes move lor various reasons. of 249 Rural Populace record the highest number t trips to farm centres Table 5.4 reveals This is closely equally analyzed. rural communities. the trips made by the 23.12% of all of 248 trips. 'he ligure represcnts a total number This type of tip records of rcligious activities. kollowed by rips to centres by rura communi es. of all [he (rip's made trips eonsti'tuting 23.02% in Cross River or rural communities religion in the lives the important role of The two The above reveals are also significant and other work paces trips to health centres in State. From the table, by the rural communities y of the all trips made and 7.71% respective trips constitute 15.13% the S"ate. Trip Purposes Table 5.4: Rural No of Occuience Types of Trip 23.12 249 trip Farm 6.87 74 trip School 13 63 centre tr H-I1ih 12.53 135 Maket trip 7.71 ng 83 tr p o,hc- than Work 2.60 28 i p Rereationat 9.02 97 trip ocial 23.02 248 ous tri 0 :077 4 Co5t of Rural Traves this is to 5, ty by rural coimunities; the cost ol mob we aitempt to analyze their In his sub-setion, within and outside spend daily ncommuting iuen rural travellers enable us know how - cornmunities. 52 YIiop n Consomum/ rrecons & P:1mIers Consuting Services Ior FMAgric RAMII in Cross River State * A tireshold cost ciTectivcness valuc bad to be determined below whieh investment on any link or netv,ork was not considered. * he population served by cach link or network was not those directly on the road but included those in community(ies) within the catehment of the link, so long as those communities are within walking distance and the link is the nearest to them from all directions and therc are no natural barriers with no convenient crossing point cutting them off the link or network. in \ivel MaCISte Cn,tiltn~', i ~c~ e li\ gric kANIP McCuMs ~ ~: .co', 1: of ravels for various Trip Purposes Tab .5: Su~mmary ol Avcr,e Cost (N) Percentage (VO) ri,s T1, PCs Cost 284.47 13.64 F-rm trip 287.73 3.80 School trp 211.40 10.14 -ealith centre trip 307.81 14.76 Market trip 283.04 13.57 Work trip other than farming 250.92 12.03 Recreational trip 304.13 14.59 Social tri p 155.67 7.47 Religious trip N2,085.12 (N260.64) TFotal (Avcrage) trip is in the State. The table reveals that market Tablc 5.5 shows the average cost of rural travel is not the State, with an average of N307.81. This the costliest of all trips in the rural areas of goods are usually accompanied with carriage of surprising because trips to rural market centres to visit to this, is social trips, which include trips either for sales or purchases. Closely related as This type of trip records an average of N304.13 friends and attending other social functions. cost of about 14.59% of the total average daily cost paid by commuters daily representing movement. rural is estimated as cost of making daily trip by On the whole, an avcrage daily cost of N260.64 the group daily movement is considered too high'for commulers on the State. The above cost of less than N20,000. If this average daily transport of people that its majority have monthliy income The than than N7,819.20 will be spent on mobility. is calCulated for a month, it iMplics not less income of rural populace. The above finding amount constitutes aboUt 39% of the monthly the people. efficient alternative means of mobility for unccrscorcs the reced t povideL cheap and but alleviate the poverty of rural conmunities, Th,is provision will not only iprove uamobility both cardinil objectives of the RAMl. FMAgic RAN11 In Cross River State Metopolitan Cunsortiumirrecons & Partners Consullmg Services or The variable for the computation of CEA was obtained from Questionnaire 3, Road Inventory Survey and Intervention Required completed by the Head of Works of LGAs. 6.3 Jettics: On certain links that end up in rivers, jettics have been provided for to allow for interconnectivity with riverine transport and vice versa. Thus, the basis for prioritization is enhancement of modal split travel from land modc to water mode back to land mode thus ensuring continuity of link and travel on the pi ioriti.ed roads. 6.4 Basis for the Calculatioi of Rural Transpot luifrastrlcture Costs The basis for deriving the costs of the rehabli",atioin^ae as folows: 1. Road Pavement: Thrcc different op{ions a: considered fOr the surface finish of the selected links - earth, surface-dressedi or asphek finish. For each of these, an average cost of construction of Nl1million, N25million and N35ilon respectively which obtains within Cross River State, has been assunixC. A pavement structure of 500mm (minimum) and two (2) coats of surlace drcs-ing or asphalt inish have been adopted for the purposc of estimating the costs of constiction of all roads. Tih ceross section of road assumed is 7.3m carriageway and 1.5m of shoulders cither side and an earth drains. 2. Drainage Structure: Various types of cuivers have been adopted, mainly pipes and box culverts, in single, double and multiplc combination, based on the assessment of the drainage requiremcent along the links. Bridges have also been provided for at river crossing in cither single, double and multi-spans combinations based on the sizes of the river at the crossing. For the culverts and bridges; single and double cell combinations have been assumed, with the following cost estimIate Single 900mmØ - N90,000/m Single 1200mmØ - Ni 20,000/m Double 1200mm - N210,000/m Single Lane Bridge - N280,000/m 2 2 Jetty - N450,000/m 3. Estimated Costs: For the pavement, an estimated cost ofN 17million per kilometre of road has been adopted in estimating the cost of constructing the roads. For the bridges, an estimated cost of N280,000 per square metre of bridge, using a bridge width of 8m was adopted. Rver stae Coil-vn scryices for UMAgnc RA IP in Cross Conrm.rum/f recns & lartnrs Act ropotan a significant porlion of road costs cspecially 4. Mainteaicnanc constitue functionality of the facility as wcll as in the long term, as it guarantees the consistft minimum effect on road costs. has been adopted for the An estinatcl averagc mainlenance cost of Ni,500,000/km roads for the first 3 ycars of operation of envisaged routinc maintcnance activities on the the roads. RAMP 1 rograimc in Cross River State 6.5 Estimated Total Costs of Proposed of the summarize the estimated construclion costs Tables 6.3, 6.4, 6.5, 6.6, 6.7, 6.8, 6.9 and 6.10 car duration selected roads and thcir maintcnance over a 3 y in Cross River State. From the Table, it is Table 6.11 is a general summary of the programme and is required to construct the selected roads estimiated that the sum of N23, 501,522,370.00 maintain them for 3 years. River Mate FM.A e RAMI> in ss Consulang scryices to & Paner OF LINKS IN TIHE Meiý oItan Consoruum/rcons SELECTION AND COSTiNG SECTION SIX: IDENTIFICATON, AREAS PI ORITIZED INTERVENTION Identification of Linlks 6.v the of this study is to identify areas, the next erueal stage prioritization of intervention Aftcr the procCdkure for this programme. T mai (link) u Inderth intervention road programs data on the local cnumerators to coliect involvcd the use of traincd identilieation excreise in the to various scrviccs ail facilitics frcqucntiy uscd to gain access dominant modes and links on Rural Travel Questionnaires Preference Analysis was used rural areas. This Community a addition to the use of questionnaires, on rural communitles. In which vere admnistered and State iroject Mlonitoring Committe organized throug1 the State stakeholders' workshop was are contained in Anncxures B, (SlU). Copies of the questionnaires Project Impleimentation Unit C and D. Intervention links were identified in cach questionnaires, the following From the responses to the Area. in each Intervention Area (I List of Links Selected in ach Intervention Arca Table 6.1 Existing Links Name Distance S/No Route / Link Intervention Area Priority lkmil A d 1 a mnßiiiia- Waterway Intervenition Ar-ca 8 l 5km 2. Ediba- Igoigoi Waterway r [Road 4km 3. ILoigoni - Usumutong - Ugep Road 6km 4. Ukurcku - Itigidi - Ideba Ikm 5. Igbo - Etkor Road Road 6km 6. E,bon - Ldiba -- A tatanyi 23km Total 1/2km - Awi Road 6 2 1 Mbarakan - Intervention Area 6km 2. Okarara - Osomba Road 9km 3. Iku - New Ndebiji Road r S tate A l C r on~ iv e s t r F M A ic _,\N 'i n sitili S e rv ic lO f1 e e O f S _ & ;ii n er~C Nane ~Distanc M e tr p u ll a fi O fl~ rtIt tr mnrac n_ - - ~¯ ut' 1 Linlk Area Pntervention OWNewoi Rd 10km kur Awai -- Atakemn - OjoNkoemba Äm 6. Mamasing - Ekonganaku Road -otal Mat A 1; kj lfIn Nwu Road n nlter,venltion, Arca -- Mbiabo Road nk 2. Obot Itiat - lkoneto - Atakpa Street 3km 3. Atokeng - Yellow Duke 6km 1 kim Nilom - Alan Onoyom Road Äki 5. U tanbara - Ikem Road 2km 6. t tumbara - Mbia Obong Ito Road 8km 7. Utumbara - Atanonoyo Road Total34km ~Um - Abung Road 7km Intrvention Arca 4 4 Okorara 9km 2. Okorara - iku Road 8km 3. Ekonganaku - Nifamasng Road 24km ~ Total 5~~~~~ IoiRa inbn 1Å binl - idoml Road Intervention Area 7 5\ Road 9km 2. Okurike - Akpel Central - Ibogo 19km 3. Adealiche - ikot Ana Road 15km 4. Betem - Betem Road Waterway 10km 5. Ikun - 1tono Central - U gbem 6. Etono - Okurike Road 5km 4km 7. Ugbem- - Biakpan Roadl lk t -p t - -k o ~ ~a 8odi n ~~Totall -Bonook Bashua Road nervenä Area _ RAMP in Cross River State C sultmg services Ior FMAgrc on the selected uopoblanConysrJumTrecons JYr Parone] performed a traffic survey level. For this purpose, wc scleced based on tralic vehicle (motorized and non-motorizcd). tiralic counts, by types of network with link-y-link variation based on establish daily and weekly count was undertaken to A 2iour and one-wcek Ihe trale volumie data. 6.2 P>rio ritIizai jon / Ran king given set of investment have been applied to a that aler screening mcthods Wc appreciate remaining desirable to finance the balance of unlikely to be sulliient choices, resources are still exlrcise is required. ranking or priori\tizaion intervention, and Iience, effectiveness homogenous links, cost of the selected roads into laving aehievcd the division on l the "core network" selected rank individual links in procedure was applied to analysis (CLA) with tiheir intended the cost of interventions criteria. CEA compares the basis of screening i mpacts. particular link to "basic the cost of improving a indicator is defined as Tbe cost effectiveness served by the link. by the number of people access standard" divided or network to basic = Cost of upgrading link indiator of link or Network Cos Effeetiveness served by tihe access standard / Population link or network. ensure spatial was based on the nced to Analysis foi the ranking ol Cost fctiveness of The choiec that have the potential and ensure that links cquality among villages baLnee to ensure are favoured in .the number of rural populacc oI a relatively larger allviantng [he poverty were considered: procedure, the 1olowing [he cost etletiveness analysis In analysing of is the preliminary estimate to basic access standard upgrading a link or network The cost of culverts and bridges and involve construction of / upgrade. This could the costs to rehabilitate for three years. then maintain te road volume rural Ids with most suited to moderate has been found to be * This analysis procedure ^>T [As [han 500. in Cross River saite services fr FMAij RAMP Consulng on any Ilik ConNoitium/Trccons & Parincrs below which investnicnt Scliropoltan valuc had to be determined * A threshold cost effectiveness or nctwork was not considered. but includced not those dircetly on thc road by cach link or network was * Tbc population served are within link, so long as tiose communitics within the catchment of the those in community(ics) arc no natural from all diretions and there link is the nearest to them walking distance and the off thc link or network. crossing point cutting them barriers with no convenient saI saI RAMP n Cris R!%-r S:3e Consulnt Services for F\1Airik Consortium'Trecons & Parai,-- Links Metropoan Indicator (CEI) for Selected Table 6.2: Cost Effectiveness Ranking Population Cost Effectiseness Length Cost Estinate Road Links 1Network Indicator Intervention Area 1 in Kmi person Priority 4.500 NI 5,644 per 4km 70,400,000 Igonigoni - Usumtone Road Priority 1 / Intervention per person 105,600,000 5,400 N19,556 - Ideba - Ugep Road 6km 8 Ukureka - Itigidi Area person 3,200 N5,500 per 1km 17,600.000 - Ekori Waterway igbo person 2,2 00 N4.000 per 1/2km 8,800.000 -- Awi Road 2 / Intervention Nbarakom person Priority 5.800 N18.207 per 6km 105.6000 A rea 6 - Osomba Road Okarara person 7,200 N3 1,722 per 9k7 228,400,000 New Ndebiji Road Iku - person 13,000 N31,077 per 15km 404,000.,000 New EkuiH- Okokori Road N19.341 per person 176,00.000 9.100 - Ojo Nkemba 10km Ekuri Awai - Atakem Road person 6.200 N22.710 per .- 140.800.000 MLaSuriz - Ekeneoran_aka 8km N23,864 per person 140,800,000 5,90 Road 8km Esu Atam Eku - Idimu Ndom PrioritN 3 / Intervention N14.667 per person 70,400.000 4,800 Ikoneto - Mbiabo Road 4km 3 Obot - Itiat - Area person 3,800 N3,895 per 3km 52800,000 - Yellow Duke - Atakpa Street Atokeng person 4900 N35.837 per 6km 1 75.600.000 Nkon Atan Onoyom Road Idimu person 3.400 N15 529 per 3km 52.800,000 Ntambara-- Ikem Road N 11.355 per person 35,200,000 3.100 Road 2km Utambara - Mbia Obong Ito - -52 ~1 ______in Cross R; er Sate Ccrsui'ing Sernices for FMAgric RAMP & Parners Cost Effectiveness Ranking Metropohtan CensortiumrrTrecons Length Cost Estimate Population 1 Road Links 1 Network Indicator Intervention Area in Km Priority N35,133 perperson 8km 210,800,000 6000 Utambara - Atanonovo Road per person 123,200,000 5,500 N22,400 - Abung Road 7km Priority 4 / Intervention Okorara per person 9km 228,400,000 7.200 N31,722 Area4 Okorara - Uku Road N30, 114 per person 8km 210,800,000 7,000 Ekonganaku - Mfamasing Road per person 984,000,000 25,000 N39,360 Road 40krn Priority 5 / Intervention Abini - Idorni N20,842 per person 9km 158,400 000 7,600 Area 7 Okurike - Akpet Central - Ibogo Road N25,107 per person 12km 281,200,000 11,200 Ndealiche - Ikot Ana Road N33.388 per person 15km 404,000,000 12,100 Betem - Betem Road N21,728 per person 10km 176.000,000 8,100 Ikun - Etino Central - Ugbem Road N21,205 per person 5km 88.000,000 4.150 Etono - Okurike Road N19.556 per person 4km 70.400,000 3,600 Ugbem - Biakpan Road per person 52,800,000 3,200 N16.500 - Ikot Ana Road 3km Priority 6 / Intervention 1kot Okpara per person 15km 334,000,000 14,000 N23,857 Area 13 Abonorok- Basha Road N 19,556 per person 10km 176,000,000 9,000 Abonorok - Abo Mkpang Road N18,051 per person 8km 140,800,000 7,800 Sakwada - Imeji Road N17,600 per person 7km 123,200,000 7,000 Imeji - Butatong Road N18,526 per person 8km 140,800,000 7.600 Butatong - Kwangwo Road ~ 3 1~~~~~~~ ~~ Consultin2 Services for FMAgric RAMP in Cross Riier S'ate Metropolitan ConsoriiurnTrecons & Parners Ranking Length Cost Estimate Population Cost Effectiveness Intervention Area / Road Links / Network in Km Indicator Priority per person 32kn 573,200,000 28,000 N20,471 Priority 7 /Intervention Isoben - Okundi - Ikom Road 35,000 N33,571 per person Area 12 Ntamante - Okundi - Boje Road 45km 1,175,000,000 299,200,000 15,000 N19,947 per person Kachie - Asuten - Katabang - Boje Rd 17km 1,260,000,000 40,000 N31,650 per person Irruan - Boje - Okundi Road 60km 12,200 N28,852 per person Boje - Bendeghe Road 20km 352,000,000 211,200,000 8.200 N2D,756 per person Etikpe - Nontap Road 12km 439,600.000 13,100 N33,557 per person Bendeghe - AflOpu - Akparabory Road 21km person 3km 52,800,000 3,400 NI 5,529 per Priority 8 Intervention Ibula - Ezekwe - Angugbe Road 3,600 N14,667 per person Area 16 Openkwu - Ezekwe- Angugbe Road 3km 52,800,000 4,150 N29,687 per person Gabu - Utukpo Road 7km 123,200,000 4,600 N22,957 per person Okuku - Ijegu Road 6km 105,600,000 105,600,000 4,2 50 N24,847 per person Ijebu - Yala - Gabu Road 6km 5,100 N20,706 per person Ijibulo -- Ijegbegi - Ijibilo Road 6km 105,600,000 4,900 N21,551 per person Ezekwe - Alebo - Yahe Road 6km 105,600,000 52,800,000 2,450 N21,551 per person Guba - Igebu - Wada - Utekpa Road 3km 88,000,000 3,750 N23,467 per person Igebu - Okuku Road 5km study was N55,000 per person. The threshold cost effeetiveness indicator determined for the 54