By Simpson Global Media News Desk
Report date: Friday, October 23, 2026
Report preparation time: Approximately 9:49 p.m. West Africa Time (WAT)
Story location: Abuja, Nigeria, with implications for farming communities nationwide
Nigeria seeks to connect smallholder farmers to climate finance
Nigeria is developing a framework designed to make international climate-adaptation finance more accessible to smallholder farmers facing drought, flooding and other climate-related threats, as policymakers and development experts work to turn a potential investment opportunity worth up to $30 billion annually into practical funding pathways.
The initiative is being coordinated through the Presidential Implementation Committee on Technology Transfer (PICTT), working with technical partners, as the Federal Ministry of Finance and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) develop Nigeria’s national climate-finance taxonomy. The proposed framework is intended to define which activities qualify as climate adaptation or resilience investments and help connect eligible projects with appropriate sources of finance.
The issue was discussed at a Taxonomy Validation Workshop on Adaptation and Resilience Solutions in Abuja. PICTT Chairman Dahiru Muhammed said a national taxonomy would have limited practical value unless authorities could identify qualifying activities and make the system operational for communities that need funding. The workshop was organised by PICTT in collaboration with YAPU Solutions. (The Guardian Nigeria, October 23, 2026; Voice of Nigeria, October 21, 2026.)
The proposal arrives as climate shocks threaten agricultural production, rural incomes and the stability of food supplies. Northern farming communities can experience damaging dry spells and drought, while parts of southern Nigeria face intense rainfall, flooding and waterlogging. Such events can damage crops, erode farmland, interrupt planting seasons and destroy infrastructure needed to produce, store and transport food.
However, the initiative remains under development. Authorities and participating organisations have not announced a fully operational financing programme with confirmed nationwide disbursements. The estimated $30 billion annual opportunity is not a government grant, an approved loan facility or money already committed to Nigerian farmers. It is an estimate presented by a project partner to illustrate the potential scale of investment in agricultural adaptation. (Voice of Nigeria; BusinessDay.)
What the proposed $30 billion opportunity means
Christoph Junghleisch, managing director of YAPU Solutions, estimated that climate adaptation could represent an investment opportunity of up to $30 billion a year for smallholder farmers.
He also outlined a possible first phase involving a pilot worth between $100 million and $200 million, with an ambition to increase the scale of financing to $1 billion in an initial expansion phase.
Junghleisch clarified that those figures were targets rather than confirmed funding commitments. The distinction is important because the public discussion of large climate-finance figures can create the impression that funds have already been secured and are ready to distribute.
At present, the figures describe potential investment and proposed programme stages. They do not establish that the pilot has been fully funded, that the expansion target has been approved or that individual farmers can apply for loans under a newly launched facility.
Nigeria has reportedly attracted about $2.5 billion in climate-related financing to date, according to figures cited by WorldFish Nigeria country representative Charles Nyangbe at the workshop. Nyangbe said that amount remained well below estimated requirements. The figure covers climate-related finance and should not be interpreted as money exclusively allocated to smallholder agriculture or available for immediate distribution through the emerging framework. (Voice of Nigeria; BusinessDay.)
The opportunity outlined by YAPU Solutions therefore raises two separate questions. The first is whether Nigeria can attract additional international and domestic capital for climate adaptation. The second is whether that capital can be converted into accessible financial products that actually reach farmers and fund projects with measurable benefits.
Securing a large investment commitment would not, by itself, guarantee better harvests or greater rural incomes. The results would depend on how the money is structured, who qualifies, how projects are chosen and whether farmers can maintain and use the supported investments effectively.
For smallholder farmers, the most meaningful measure of success would be whether the system helps them prepare for climate risks, recover more quickly after damaging weather and avoid losing a disproportionate share of their income when harvests are affected.
Why the national climate-finance taxonomy matters
A climate-finance taxonomy is a classification system that defines which activities qualify for financing under particular environmental or climate-related criteria.
In the Nigerian initiative, the aim is to identify investments that can reasonably be classified as adaptation or resilience measures. The classification can help financial institutions, development partners and investors evaluate projects using a clearer and more consistent set of definitions.
Potential activities could include improved water management, climate-resilient agricultural practices, weather information services, protective infrastructure and other interventions that help communities anticipate or withstand climate shocks. Eligibility under the framework would depend on the final criteria and the requirements of the funding source; not every agricultural investment would automatically qualify.
The taxonomy is intended to reduce uncertainty about what constitutes an eligible climate-adaptation activity. When projects lack clear definitions, banks and investors may find it difficult to compare proposals, evaluate the expected benefits or determine whether a proposed investment meets the objectives of a climate-finance facility.
A clearer classification could help governments and private organisations develop project pipelines, compare proposals and explain how financing is expected to reduce exposure to climate risks. It could also make reporting more consistent by linking the money supplied to identifiable activities and intended outcomes.
Muhammed said the country’s overarching taxonomy was being developed by the Federal Ministry of Finance and UNDP, while PICTT and its partners were working on making the approach operational and accessible to rural communities.
The implementation stage is especially important. A national classification document will not automatically create affordable credit, protect a farm from flooding or pay compensation after crop losses. Practical arrangements must still be established for project appraisal, lending, insurance, monitoring, reporting and the participation of farmers.
The process will also need to be sufficiently clear for rural producers who may not have access to specialist consultants or sophisticated financial services. If eligibility rules are too complicated or expensive to navigate, the farmers the initiative is intended to support could find it difficult to benefit.
The framework’s effectiveness will therefore depend not only on the quality of its technical definitions but also on how those definitions are translated into financial products, farmer guidance and local implementation. (The Guardian Nigeria; Voice of Nigeria.)
Climate-related crop losses raise the stakes
The financial initiative comes amid evidence that Nigerian farmers are experiencing significant losses associated with environmental shocks and other risks to agricultural production.
A World Bank analysis published in July 2026, using Nigeria’s General Household Survey–Panel data for the 2018/19 and 2023/24 agricultural seasons, found that the share of plots experiencing partial crop losses rose from about 6 per cent to more than 20 per cent.
Partial crop losses occur when a farmer harvests less than expected but does not lose the entire crop. Such losses can be difficult to detect in national production figures because a field may still produce something even when its yield falls substantially.
The World Bank analysis found that weather and environmental factors, including flooding and excessive rainfall, remained the largest contributor to crop losses nationwide. These factors accounted for more than one-third of total losses in both seasons and nearly two-thirds of partial losses in 2023/24.
The report also found that conflict-related factors had become more prominent, with their contribution to total crop losses nearly doubling to roughly one-fifth of the national total by 2023/24. The findings underline that agricultural vulnerability can result from several pressures at once, rather than weather alone. (World Bank, July 22, 2026.)
The financial implications can be severe for a small-scale producer. A household that borrows to purchase seeds, fertiliser or labour may still have to repay the debt after flooding damages the crop. If drought reduces the harvest, the farmer may have less produce to sell while facing the same costs for transport, food and other household needs.
Where losses recur, a farmer can become trapped in a cycle of reduced production and limited investment. Money intended for the next planting season may instead be used to pay outstanding debts or meet household expenses. Without savings, insurance or access to suitable credit, even a productive farm may struggle to recover after an adverse season.
The World Bank’s analysis also highlights the limits of looking only at total production. Governments can report large agricultural output while many individual farmers experience reduced yields or leave part of their planted land unharvested. Measuring those losses more carefully can help policymakers identify where targeted resilience investments are most needed.
The proposed climate-finance framework could provide one route for supporting preventive measures, but it would need to be connected to reliable local risk information and practical investments. The evidence of increasing partial losses makes a strong case for considering prevention and recovery alongside efforts to increase the overall quantity of food produced.
Drought in the North and flooding in the South require different solutions
Nigeria’s range of climates and agricultural systems means that a single financing product is unlikely to address every farmer’s needs.
In northern parts of the country, drought and prolonged dry spells can reduce available water, weaken crop development and place pressure on livestock. Farmers dependent on rainfall may struggle when rains start late, stop early or arrive unevenly across the planting season.
Measures suited to these conditions can include more reliable weather information, water-efficient irrigation, soil-moisture management, drought-tolerant crop varieties and improved planning around planting dates. The precise combination must reflect the local farming system, available water and environmental conditions.
Irrigation can help farmers manage rainfall uncertainty, but it is not a complete solution on its own. Equipment, energy, maintenance, water availability and the costs of operating a system affect whether a farmer can use it sustainably. An investment may fail to deliver its intended benefits if these ongoing expenses are ignored.
In parts of southern Nigeria, heavy rainfall, flooding and waterlogging can create a different set of problems. Floodwater may destroy crops, damage farm roads, wash away soil and interrupt access to markets. Areas near rivers and floodplains can face particular exposure, although risks vary by community and season.
Adaptation measures in such locations may include better drainage, flood-resistant infrastructure, improved land and water management, early warning systems, suitable planting decisions and measures that protect storage and transport facilities. Whether any particular project qualifies for climate finance would depend on the eventual taxonomy and the relevant lender’s rules.
The regional distinction was emphasised by Nyangbe, who said northern communities face drought risks while southern areas contend with flooding and waterlogging. He argued that farmers need financial instruments suited to the different conditions they encounter. (Voice of Nigeria.)
The difference matters for financial institutions. A loan for a small irrigation system may be appropriate for one producer, while a cooperative managing drainage or flood-protection infrastructure may require a different financing structure. Some projects may generate direct commercial returns; others may deliver public benefits that cannot be captured through a farmer’s individual income.
A workable system must therefore recognise that the climate risks facing farmers are geographically varied. It should encourage projects to be designed around local conditions rather than treating all rural communities as though they face the same environmental problems.
Index-based insurance could reduce the impact of bad seasons
One financing option raised at the Abuja workshop was index-based insurance.
Conventional crop insurance can involve assessing the damage to an individual farmer’s field before compensation is determined. Index-based insurance instead links payouts to an agreed indicator, such as rainfall levels or another measurable condition associated with a covered risk.
When the agreed threshold is reached, a payout may be triggered under the policy terms. This can reduce the need to assess every plot individually, potentially making some insurance products easier to administer across larger groups of farmers.
For example, a rainfall-index policy might define a period and rainfall threshold for a covered crop and locality. If recorded rainfall falls below the agreed level, the policy could trigger compensation even if each individual farm is not inspected. The specific trigger, coverage and payout would depend on the policy; the proposed national framework has not announced a standard insurance product for farmers.
Index-based insurance can also have limitations. The weather indicator may not perfectly reflect the actual damage experienced by an individual farm. A farmer might suffer substantial losses without the index triggering a payout, or receive a payment even where the farm’s losses are limited. This mismatch is known as basis risk.
Farmers would need understandable policy terms, credible data, appropriate pricing and a reliable claims process. Premiums must also be affordable relative to their income and the value of the crop they are trying to protect.
Insurance cannot replace other forms of adaptation. A payout after a failed season can help a household recover, but it cannot by itself restore damaged irrigation infrastructure, improve poor soil or ensure the next planting season has adequate water.
For that reason, index-based insurance is best considered as one possible component of a broader climate-risk strategy, alongside prevention, better agronomic practices, advisory services and access to recovery finance.
At the Abuja workshop, Nyangbe recommended index-based insurance and blended-finance models as ways to make agricultural lending more sustainable under climate risks. The recommendation remains a proposal for developing suitable products, rather than confirmation that a national index-insurance scheme has been rolled out. (BusinessDay.)
Blended finance could help lenders support rural farmers
Another approach discussed at the workshop was blended finance, which combines capital from different sources to support projects that may struggle to attract sufficient investment on purely commercial terms.
In a potential agricultural programme, public or development funding could be combined with commercial lending or investment. One purpose of such an arrangement would be to reduce a portion of the risk that prevents financial institutions from lending to small producers.
Nyangbe argued that government could establish a targeted funding envelope and use public funds as guarantees to encourage commercial banks and other institutions to lend to farmers.
A guarantee does not mean that a loan becomes free or that every borrower is automatically approved. Instead, it can cover an agreed portion of a lender’s potential losses if a borrower defaults, subject to the terms of the guarantee. By sharing some risk, a guarantee may encourage banks to consider eligible borrowers or projects they would otherwise regard as too risky.
However, these structures require careful design. If risks are poorly assessed, the public sector may end up absorbing losses without creating sustainable lending. If requirements are too restrictive, lenders may remain reluctant to serve the smallest farmers despite a guarantee being available.
A successful financing model would need transparent eligibility rules, sound credit assessment, suitable loan sizes and repayment schedules aligned with agricultural production cycles. Where income depends on seasonal harvests, the timing of repayments can be as important as the nominal interest rate.
Farmers also need to understand the financial obligations attached to the support. A loan that finances a climate-resilient investment can still create serious hardship if the project fails or repayments become due before the farm generates sufficient revenue.
The framework could potentially connect different types of capital to different needs. Commercial loans may suit productive assets with a clear revenue stream, while grants or concessional support may be more appropriate for public infrastructure or activities whose benefits extend beyond one borrower.
The mix would depend on the project and its expected benefits. Authorities have not yet published a complete financing structure or confirmed the terms of a nationwide facility for smallholders.
The principle behind blended finance is to mobilise more resources while allocating risk deliberately. Its value will ultimately depend on whether it enables sound investments, reaches underserved farmers and operates transparently over time. (Voice of Nigeria; BusinessDay.)
Digital accountability proposed to track the money
YAPU Solutions has identified digital technology as a key part of the proposed framework, particularly for transparency and accountability.
Junghleisch said a digital system could document the movement of funds to smallholder farmers and make transactions auditable. The aim is to enable those responsible for financing and implementation to follow the money and establish how much reaches intended beneficiaries.
Such a system could potentially record participating farmers, approved activities, disbursement dates, transaction amounts and project milestones. It could help compare funding against the work completed and make it easier to identify where projects experience delays or where financial records are incomplete.
Digital tools could also support reporting on project outcomes, provided the programme establishes clear measurement standards and reliable ways to verify information from the field.
But a digital platform is not a substitute for financial controls, independent checks or accessible complaint procedures. An online record can show that a transaction was entered into a system; it does not necessarily establish that the recipient received the full amount or that the funded activity achieved its intended purpose.
The programme would need safeguards against duplicate records, inaccurate entries, unauthorised access and misuse of personal information. Farmers may have limited connectivity or difficulty using digital services, so alternative channels and local support could be necessary.
Accountability also involves explaining decisions. Participants should be able to understand why an application was accepted or rejected, who is responsible for administering funds and how problems can be reported. Transparent criteria are especially important when funding is limited and many communities are seeking support.
The planned approach is intended to make each transaction traceable and auditable, according to YAPU. The details of the eventual system, however, have not yet been established publicly as a completed national service. (BusinessDay; Voice of Nigeria.)
Livestock, fisheries and aquaculture must not be overlooked
The workshop also highlighted the need to extend climate-finance planning beyond crop production.
Nyangbe called for greater attention to livestock, fisheries and aquaculture, saying that climate-finance discussions can focus too heavily on crops. Flooding can damage fish ponds and aquaculture facilities, resulting in lost stock, damaged equipment and interruptions to production.
Livestock producers also face climate-related risks. High temperatures, drought and variable rainfall can affect water availability, pasture conditions and the cost of feeding animals. Flooding may damage facilities, interrupt transport or increase disease risks in particular circumstances.
The appropriate resilience measures are different across these sectors. A crop farmer may need support for water management or planting changes; a fish farmer may need better-designed ponds, drainage or protective infrastructure; a livestock producer may require more reliable water access, resilient housing or improved feed and pasture management.
Eligibility standards would need to recognise those differences while preserving a consistent basis for deciding what qualifies as an adaptation investment.
A broader approach could also be important for communities whose livelihoods depend on several activities. A household may grow crops, raise small livestock and operate a fish pond. A climate event can affect several income sources at once, making narrowly designed support less effective.
However, expanding the scope of eligible activities also increases the demands on programme administrators. Each type of investment requires appropriate technical assessments, financial products and ways of measuring whether the activity has reduced climate-related risk.
The framework will need to determine how these different needs can be assessed without spreading available resources so thinly that projects fail to deliver meaningful results.
This is another reason the taxonomy and its implementation rules matter. A useful system should allow relevant sectors to qualify where the criteria are met, while requiring each funded proposal to demonstrate a credible connection between the investment and its expected resilience benefits. (Voice of Nigeria.)
Coordination across federal, state and local governments
The proposed framework also depends on cooperation across different levels of government.
Muhammed called for federal, state and local authorities to work together on climate-related challenges, particularly flooding, through improved infrastructure and effective mitigation measures.
The national government and its partners can establish overarching definitions, policy standards and relationships with financing institutions. State governments may have a closer role in identifying agricultural priorities, supporting extension services and coordinating interventions within their jurisdictions. Local authorities and community organisations can help identify the specific needs of farmers and communicate information about available services.
Those responsibilities would need to be clearly defined to avoid duplicated programmes or gaps in implementation. Where several agencies are involved, farmers should know where to obtain information, who manages applications and which institution is responsible for responding when an intervention fails to deliver.
Infrastructure may require particular coordination. Drainage systems, rural roads, irrigation networks and flood-management measures can benefit many farms at once, but they may fall outside the ability of a single farmer or cooperative to finance.
Projects with wider public benefits may require public investment or concessional funding rather than ordinary commercial loans. A bankable business case is important for many investments, but the framework should not overlook public-interest projects that reduce climate risk across entire farming communities.
Planning also needs to reflect the timing of agricultural seasons. Delays in a grant or loan may mean that a farmer misses the window for buying seed, preparing land or establishing a crop. A technically sound programme can therefore have little impact if its funding arrives too late to be useful.
Coordination between climate policy, agricultural planning, financial institutions and local implementation will be essential if the framework is to move beyond a technical exercise and become a practical route for funding resilience. (The Guardian Nigeria.)
What farmers need to access the proposed funding
Even if additional capital becomes available, reaching smallholder farmers will require attention to the everyday barriers that constrain access to finance.
Some farmers may not have the formal records, documented land arrangements, collateral or credit history that banks typically require. Others may be working on plots too small to justify the administrative cost of a conventional loan.
These difficulties do not mean that farmers cannot use finance productively. They do mean that programmes must be structured around the realities of rural agriculture rather than assuming that all prospective borrowers operate like established businesses.
Farmer cooperatives and producer groups may offer one way to organise participation. A cooperative can help aggregate applications, share equipment, coordinate training and make it easier for lenders to work with producers collectively. It can also support market access when members pool produce for sale or work together with processors.
Collective arrangements still require strong governance. Clear membership records, transparent financial management and fair rules for distributing benefits are necessary to protect participants and maintain confidence in the programme.
Local agricultural extension services can also play an important role. Farmers need practical information about suitable crop varieties, soil management, water conservation, planting schedules and other techniques that reduce climate-related risk. Financial support is more likely to be useful when it is matched with the knowledge required to manage the investment.
The programme could also consider whether its products are suitable for women and younger farmers, who may face specific barriers to land, credit, equipment and decision-making. The available reports describe the intended focus on smallholders broadly; they do not establish final eligibility quotas or dedicated terms for particular groups.
Whatever eligibility rules are eventually adopted, clear information will be essential. Farmers should be able to understand what support is available, whether it is a grant, loan or insurance product, what they must contribute and what obligations they accept by participating.
An accessible system would not mean removing all financial controls. It would mean designing rules that protect public resources while allowing legitimate small-scale producers to participate without facing unnecessary obstacles.
How success should be measured
The development of a taxonomy and the announcement of financing targets are early steps. The eventual test will be whether the investments funded under the framework reduce vulnerability and improve farmers’ capacity to continue production.
A credible monitoring system should distinguish between money announced, money committed, money actually disbursed and the results achieved with it. Those are different stages, and reporting them separately would help the public understand whether the programme is progressing.
The number of farmers receiving support would be one useful indicator, but it would not be sufficient on its own. Monitoring could also examine whether projects reached the communities most exposed to climate risks, whether resources arrived on schedule and whether funded measures remained operational after implementation.
Other measures could include reductions in crop losses, improvements in water management, greater reliability of production, the continued operation of irrigation or drainage assets and the ability of farmers to recover after severe weather.
Financial performance would matter as well. Where the programme uses lending or guarantees, it would be important to report repayment performance, default rates, the cost of public guarantees and whether the arrangements genuinely expanded access rather than replacing lending that would have occurred anyway.
The quality of the evaluation will depend on establishing reliable starting points. Without baseline information, it may be difficult to determine whether farm performance improved because of the programme, favourable weather or other interventions. Conditions also vary between locations, meaning results from one region should not automatically be applied to another.
The World Bank’s recent analysis of rising partial crop losses illustrates why these measurements matter. An assessment limited to total harvest volume can conceal damage that affects a substantial share of individual farming plots. Tracking the pattern and causes of losses can help authorities determine whether funded measures are addressing the risks they were designed to reduce. (World Bank.)
Independent audits and accessible public reporting would strengthen confidence in the programme. They could help answer whether public guarantees are being used appropriately, whether participants are receiving the support approved for them and whether the reported benefits justify continued investment.
The risk of an ambitious target without delivery
Large financing estimates can attract attention, but they can also create unrealistic expectations when the distinction between potential investment and committed funding is not made clear.
The $30 billion figure presented by YAPU Solutions describes a possible annual investment opportunity. The initial pilot estimate of $100 million to $200 million and the proposed $1 billion expansion target also remain ambitions, rather than confirmed disbursement totals.
There is therefore a substantial distance between defining eligible climate activities and creating a functioning system that repeatedly delivers money to farmers.
The framework must attract suitable funding partners, identify viable projects, establish financial products and put monitoring and accountability measures in place. It will also need to ensure that investments address genuine local risks instead of funding activities that are labelled as climate adaptation without demonstrating their expected value.
A further challenge will be keeping financial products affordable. If insurance premiums or loan repayments are beyond the means of intended beneficiaries, the money may fail to reach the farmers most exposed to climate shocks. Conversely, financing that is too loosely designed can create repayment problems or fail to direct capital towards the intended outcomes.
The reported level of existing climate-related financing—about $2.5 billion, according to the workshop discussion—also provides a reminder that a large estimate of potential need or opportunity is not equivalent to capital already in hand. The actual amount available for agricultural adaptation will depend on the funding sources, rules and agreements that emerge as the framework develops. (Voice of Nigeria; BusinessDay.)
For farmers, credibility will be built through practical results rather than headline numbers. A financing mechanism that helps a cooperative protect its irrigation infrastructure, enables a fish farmer to reduce flood exposure or gives a vulnerable household a workable means of recovering after a poor season could provide clear value even before large-scale funding is achieved.
Conversely, a framework that remains at the level of policy documents and workshops will offer limited relief to producers whose immediate challenge is the next planting season.
What happens next
The immediate task for PICTT and its partners is to turn the proposed taxonomy into an operational framework that can be used by financial institutions, development partners and rural communities.
The Federal Ministry of Finance and UNDP are developing the overarching national taxonomy, while PICTT and technical partners are working on how it can be applied. YAPU Solutions has said it is engaging development-finance partners, including the Bank of Agriculture and the African Development Fund, while also seeking private-sector investment.
These discussions indicate that potential sources of capital are being explored. They do not establish that those organisations have approved or committed the full amounts proposed for the pilot and expansion phases. The availability and terms of any eventual financing will depend on further decisions and agreements. (BusinessDay.)
Important steps ahead include confirming what types of projects will qualify, identifying the institutions responsible for implementation, determining how funds will be channelled and setting out the requirements farmers must meet to participate.
The partners will also need to explain how digital monitoring, independent financial checks and reporting will work in practice. Those measures will be important for establishing that the intended beneficiaries receive the support and that money is used for the approved purpose.
The programme’s eventual reach will depend on whether the framework can balance national consistency with local flexibility. A common taxonomy may help investors and lenders assess proposals, while region-specific financial products will still be needed to address different risks across Nigeria.
No nationwide farmer disbursement programme or confirmed pilot allocation was established in the reports reviewed for this article. Further announcements will be needed before it is possible to assess the final programme terms, the amount of financing committed and the timetable for farmer participation.
Conclusion: turning climate-finance plans into resilience on the farm
Nigeria’s effort to develop a climate-finance framework represents an attempt to address an important weakness in agricultural resilience: farmers facing drought, flooding and other environmental shocks often need more than advice or a one-off intervention to protect their livelihoods.
The estimated $30 billion annual opportunity outlined by YAPU Solutions signals the potential scale of investment that stakeholders believe climate adaptation could support. But it is not money already secured, and it should not be presented as a confirmed funding package.
The emerging framework will need to connect clear eligibility standards with appropriate loans, insurance, public guarantees, investment partnerships and practical support for farmers. It will also need reliable data, transparent monitoring and rules that allow rural producers to understand how to participate.
The need is substantial. World Bank analysis found a sharp rise in partial crop losses between the 2018/19 and 2023/24 seasons, with weather and environmental shocks accounting for a significant share of the damage. That evidence reinforces the importance of helping farmers withstand risks before they result in lost income and disrupted food supplies.
The decisive test will be what happens after the framework is established. If the system attracts capital, directs it towards effective projects and makes support accessible to farmers facing real climate risks, it could help improve the resilience of agricultural production across the country.
For now, the initiative remains a work in progress. Its success will depend on moving from the promise of large-scale finance to transparent, measurable investments that help Nigeria’s smallholder farmers protect their harvests, sustain their livelihoods and continue supplying food to the country’s markets.
Comments
Post a Comment