Kanuma Cassava Processing Facility (specimen)

Assessment summary

The submission describes a coherent agro-processing project with a plausible commercial rationale. It is not, on this documentation, at a stage where a lender could form a credit view. The gap is one of evidence rather than of ambition: most of the material presented is promoter-generated and has not been independently verified.

Completeness against the IFB standard: 41 / 100.

What is present

• Executive summary and project description, clearly written
• Business plan with market sizing and an implementation schedule
• Financial model with ten-year projections, CAPEX and OPEX build-up
• Sponsor profile and CVs for three of five named managers
• Preliminary site identification with photographs

What is missing or inadequate

• Site control. A memorandum of understanding with the district authority is presented as evidence of land rights. It is not a registered title or lease. Until site control is legally perfected there is no security and no certainty the project can be built where the model assumes.
• Independent verification. CAPEX of EUR 12.4m rests on a single supplier indication. No engineering study, no competitive quotations, no EPC contract.
• Audited accounts. Management accounts only, unaudited, two years.
• Offtake. Revenue assumes 82% capacity utilisation from year two. No offtake agreements, letters of intent or framework arrangements are evidenced.
• Permits. No environmental impact assessment, no water abstraction permit, no operating licence.
• Collateral. An asset schedule is referenced in the business plan but no schedule, valuation or proof of ownership is included.
• Guarantees. A sovereign guarantee is described as "in principle". Nothing granted, valued or ranked is evidenced.

Finance-readiness observations

The financial model is internally consistent, which is more than many submissions achieve. Its weakness is that every input is an assumption. Revenue is priced at a 19% premium to the regional benchmark cited in the same document, without explanation. The debt service coverage ratio of 1.6x is calculated on those revenues; at benchmark pricing it falls below 1.1x, which is not financeable. This sensitivity is not presented anywhere in the submission.

The financing currency is EUR while substantially all revenue is local. No hedging, indexation or pass-through mechanism is addressed.

What would change the assessment

In rough order of value: registered site control; an independent engineering and cost study; audited accounts; and at least indicative offtake commitments. Those four would move this dossier from a project description to a financeable proposition. The remainder is largely assembly.

You are welcome to resubmit once that material exists. This assessment does not prejudice a later review.

RegMantle Project Review · assessed against the documentation standard of IFB International Finance Bank Ltd (AOFA L1149). This report is an assessment of documents. It is not an offer of finance, a commitment, or an approval of any kind.