THE IMPACT OF AGRICULTURAL POLICIES ON ... Prince.pdf1 UCHE, IFEANYI PRINCE PG/MPA/09/51580 PG/M....
Transcript of THE IMPACT OF AGRICULTURAL POLICIES ON ... Prince.pdf1 UCHE, IFEANYI PRINCE PG/MPA/09/51580 PG/M....
1
UCHE, IFEANYI PRINCE
PG/MPA/09/51580
PG/M. Sc/09/51723
THE IMPACT OF AGRICULTURAL POLICIES ON
NIGERIAN ECONOMY
PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION AND LOCAL
GOVERNMENT
A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION AND
LOCAL GOVERNMENT, FACULTY OF SOCIAL SCIENCES, UNIVERSITY OF NIGERIA,
NSUKKA
Webmaster
Digitally Signed by Webmaster’s Name
DN : CN = Webmaster’s name O= University of Nigeria, Nsukka
OU = Innovation Centre
JULY, 2011
2
THE IMPACT OF AGRICULTURAL POLICIES ON NIGERIAN
ECONOMY
BY
UCHE, IFEANYI PRINCE
PG/MPA/09/51580
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION AND LOCAL
GOVERNMENT
FACULTY OF SOCIAL SCIENCES
UNIVERSITY OF NIGERIA,
NSUKKA.
JULY, 2011.
3
TITLE PAGE
THE IMPACT OF AGRICULTURAL POLICIES ON NIGERIAN
ECONOMY
4
APPROVAL PAGE
This project topic has been approved for the Department of Public Administration
and Local Government, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Nigeria Nsukka.
BY
…………………………….. ………………………….
Prof. Oguonu, C.N. Prof. Fab. O. Onah
Project Supervisor Head of Department
…………………………. …………………………
Rev. Prof. A. Akwanya Prof. E. O. Ezeani
Dean School of Post-Graduate Studies Dean Faculty of Social
(SPGS) Sciences
………………………….
External Examiner
5
CERTIFICATION
We the undersigned certify that Uche, Ifeanyi Prince a Postgraduate Student in the
Department of Public Administration and Local Government (PALG) with the
registration number PG/MPA/09/51580 has satisfactorily completed the
requirement for the research work for the ward of degree of Master of Public
Administration (MPA).
The work embodied in this project is original and has not been submitted in
part or for any degree of this or other university.
………………………… ………………………
Prof. Oguonu, C.N. Prof. Fab. O. Onah
Project Supervisor Head of Department
6
DEDICATION
This research work is dedicated
To
God, the Omnipotent and the Omnipresent
And to
My lovely Mum and Dad, Eze and Lolo (Ogbuaku 1)
7
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The successful completion of this research work is as a result of a
combination of efforts, handwork, willing and sincere moral, financial and material
support of many people. My special thanks goes to my project supervisor Prof.
(Mrs.) C.N. Oguonu whose co-operation, constructive criticisms and intellectual
guidance helped to sharpen my technical skills and for putting this project into an
academic shape. I am also grateful to my Head of Department Professor Fab.
Onah and to other lecturers like Professor N.N. Elekwa, Professor (Mrs.) Chika
Oguonu, Professor C. Ofuebe, Professor F.C. Okoli (Osisi Oma I of Akpu),
Professor (Mrs.) R.C. Onah, Dr. Anthony Onyish, Dr. U.C. Nnadozie, Dr.
C.U.Agalamanyi, Dr. (Mrs.) A. O.Uzuegbunam, Dr. (Mrs.) S.U. Agu, Dr. (Mrs.)
M.A.O. Obi, and others whose lectures and deep spirit of thoughts became a guide
for me.
I equally thank the Vice Chancellor Professor Bath Okolo and the entire
academic staff and non- academic staff of the University of Nigeria, Nsukka for
the work well done and the assistance given to me in my stay as a post-graduate
student and for continuous assistance for more academic degrees to restore the
dignity of man.
I am grateful to my brothers and sisters Onyeka, Ada, Oluchi, Chioma and
Chinweizu, and my friends/wishers for their contributions and pieces of advice
given to me throughout this stressful duration. I must not fail to record my
appreciation to Nweze Vitalis Onyekachi for his assistance and academic input.
Also, I thank immensely, the entire staff of the Federal Ministry of
Agriculture and Enugu State Ministry of Agriculture as well as other Federal
parastatals for their assistance and co-operation given to me throughout the time of
my visitations to gather vital information for this research work.
8
Finally, I thank the Omnipotent and Omnipresent God, the Creator of my
life and the divine finisher of this research work for keeping me alive and the good
health I enjoyed throughout the critical period of the research. To Him, I give all
the glory and I shall always live to proclaim what the Lord has done in my life.
TO GOD BE THE GLORY
UCHE, IFEANYI PRINCE.
9
ABSTRACT
This research work assesses the impact of agricultural policies on Nigerian
economy. The study covered the key issues on Nigerian agricultural policies
especially as it concerned the formulation and implementation of agricultural
policies and programmes as well as their achievements in the agricultural sector in
Nigeria. The study contends that government’s agricultural policies over the years
in Nigeria recorded partial success going by the fact the country still face problems
of food security, malnutrition and hunger, low earnings from agriculture as the
GDP from agricultural sector declines. The data used in this study was collected
from both primary and secondary sources. The primary method or sources of data
collection included the use of a research instrument, (the questionnaire) and
interview. Some research questions were asked as guide to the respondents in order
to elicit first hand information on the subject matter. The questionnaire contained
twenty eight structured questions designed in both open and close ended style. In
addition, the questionnaire was validated and administered accordingly. Secondary
sources of data collection on the other hand, included textbooks, journal,
government documents and internet materials; the study formulated three
hypotheses to guide the data analysis using simple percentage, tables, pie chart and
chi-square statistical method for data analysis. The data analysis revealed that;
agricultural policies are not supported with adequate data at the stage of
formulation by the policy makers; there are implementation problems that affect
agricultural policies and efforts in achieving their intended results; the provisions
of agricultural micro-credits are still insufficient to farmers especially those in the
rural areas; there are implementation leakages which divert benefits to unintended
beneficiaries especially those outside agricultural dominated activities. Based on
these findings, we recommended that the formulation of agricultural policies
should endeavour to adequately into consideration the social, economic, political
and environmental impact analysis. Also the implementation strategies should be
broadened to surmount some implementation challenges that affect the
achievement of goals and objectives of agricultural policies.
10
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Title Page - - - - - - - - - - i
Approval Page - - - - - - - - - ii
Certification Page - - - - - - - - iii
Dedication - - - - - - - - - - iv
Acknowledgement - - - - - - - - v
Abstract - - - - - - - - - - vi
Table of contents - - - - - - - - - vii
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background to the Study - - - - - - - 1
1.2 Statement of the Problem - - - - - - - 3
1.3 Objectives of the Study - - - - - - - 6
1.4 Significance of the Study - - - - - - - 7
1.5 Scope and Limitations of the Study - - - - - 9
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW AND METHODOLOGY
2.1 Literature Review - - - - - - - - 11
2.2 Hypotheses - - - - - - - - - 59
2.3 Operationalization of Key Concepts - - - - - 59
2.4 Methodology - - - - - - - - - 60
2.5 Theoretical Framework - - - - - - - 66
11
CHAPTER THREE: RESULTS AND FINDINGS
3.1 Results and Findings - - - - - - - 69
CHAPTER FOUR: IMPLICATIONS OF RESULTS AND FINDINGS
4.1 Implications of Results and Findings - - - - - 103
CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY, RECOMMENDATIONS AND
CONCLUSION
5.1 Summary - - - - - - - - - 106
5.2 Recommendations - - - - - - - - 108
5.3 Conclusion - - - - - - - - - 109
Bibliography
Appendix
12
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background to the Problem
Agriculture in the context of the economy is tied with the various sectors and is
essential for generating broad based growth necessary for development.
Agriculture is fundamental to the sustenance of life and it is the bedrock of
economic development, especially in the provision of adequate and nutritious food
so vital for human development and industrial raw materials.
Sustainable agricultural development is propelled by agricultural policies. The
first national policy on agriculture was adopted in 1988 and was accepted to
remain valid for about fifteen years, that is, up to year 2000. Also, in year 2001, a
new policy document on agriculture, was lunched. The new policy document has
most of the features of the old ones, but with more focused direction and better
articulation. Agricultural policies are supported by sub-policies that facilitate the
growth of the sector. Implementation of agricultural policies is however moderated
by macro-economic policies which provide the enabling environment for
agriculture to grow pari passu with the other sectors. These policies usually have
major impact on profitability of the agricultural system and the welfare of farmers
as they affect the flow of funds to the sector in terms of budgetary allocation,
credit, subsides, taxes and therefore, must be in harmony and mutually reinforcing
with the agricultural policies. The macro-policies comprise the fiscal, monetary,
trade budgetary policies and other policies that govern macro-prices.
Agriculture contributes immensely to the Nigeria economy in various ways,
namely, in the provision of food for the increasing population, supply of adequate
raw materials (and labour input) to a growing industrial sector, a major source of
employment; generation of foreign exchange earnings, and, provision of market for
the products of the agrarian sector (Okumadewa, 1997). The agrarian sector has a
13
strong relationship with the economy; hence, concern for agricultural policies and
the economy. Support for agriculture is widely driven by the public sector, which
has established institutional support in form of agricultural research extension,
commodity marketing, input supply and land use legislation, to fast-track
development of agrarian sector to achieve the aim of economic development. The
importance of the agrarian sector, also suggests the intervention of the private
sector through sponsorship of research and breakthrough on agricultural issues in
Universities, capacity building for farmers and, most importantly, the provision of
fund for farm businesses. International governmental and non-governmental
agencies including the World Bank Fund and Agricultural Organization of the
United Nations, also contribute through on farm and off-farm support in form of
finance, input supply strengthening of technical capacity of other support
institutions.
Agricultural policies provide among others, for adequate financing of
agriculture. The role of agricultural sector in diversification of economy cannot be
over emphasized, given that it guarantees food security of any nation. Public
expenditure on agriculture has, however, been shown not to be substantial enough
to meet the objectives of Government agriculture policies (IFPRI, 2008). For a
developing country with a mono-product oil economy such as Nigeria,
Government’s indifferent to agriculture portends great danger to the economy for
many reasons. For instance, fluctuating food prices are a precursor of inflation.
Secondly, from the expenditure approach to national income accounting, it is likely
that Engel’s Law that a large chunk of expenditure in developing economics goes
to food-holds meaning that shocks to the domestic agricultural production and
supply could be damaging to price stability. There is also the perspective of food
security, in an era when food has been used as a weapon of War (United Nations
Oil for food Deal in Iraq) and as bargaining tool (North Korea- United States Food
14
Deal), even within Nigeria, the federal military government during Nigerian-
Biafran War used food blocked as a tool of war.
This paper examines Nigeria’s agricultural policies and its impact on the
economy. It is interesting to note that this area of study has generated a lot of
research. Be it as it may, current thinking, particularly in Nigeria seems to focus on
how to improve on agriculture as oil has taken sole control of Nigeria economy.
1.2 Statement of the Problem
Agriculture is the main-stay of the Nigerian economy. According to about
80% (percent) of the Nigerian population engage in agricultural dominated
activities. In other words, agricultural sector in Nigeria from right sense of
judgment suppose to be the major source of revenue to government as well as the
Nigerian citizens especially the (agriculturalist). This was exactly the case in 1960s
to 1980s, considering the achievements made from the earnings of agricultural
sector in the then three regions of Nigeria, namely, Eastern, Western and Northern
regions (Anyanwu,1997). However, with the discovery of crude oil in Nigeria,
agriculture has gradually been neglected. Soludo (2004:678) captures this when he
stated that:
Despite the dominant role of the petroleum sector as the major
foreign exchange earner, agriculture remains the mainstay of
Nigeria’s economy. In addition, to contributing the largest share
of GDP, it is the largest nonoil export earner, the largest
employer of labour, and a key contributor to wealth creation
and poverty alleviation, as a large percentage of the population
derives its income from agriculture and related activities….
Over the years the rate of growth in agricultural production has
stagnated and failed to keep pace with needs of a rapidly
growing population, resulting in a progressive increase in
import bills for food and industrial raw materials.
Implicit from the above quotation is that the potential of the agri-business
sector as a major employer of the growing labour force and an earner of foreign
15
exchange has also been undermined. As a result, the large majority of Nigeria’s
population, many of whom live in rural areas, remain poor. In a similar view, the
Nigeria Poverty Assessment 2007 attributed the galloping increase in the rate of
Nigerian poverty rate as a result of low and declining yield/ productivity in
agriculture and this contributes significantly to rural poverty. The Nigerian Poverty
Assessment Report further contended that in the light of the poor state of
agriculture, as the survey results show, households whose heads are engaged in the
sector tended to have the highest level of poverty incidence, over to per cent in
2004 compared to other occupations where the incidence was less than 50 per cent.
The sector thus accounts for a significantly large proportion of the poor in Nigeria.
Farming households experience greater poverty due to low income from farming
activities. As a matter of fact, some of key reasons identified by some scholars
such as Anyanwu (1997), Onah (2006), Umoh (2001) and Ayatse and Akuva
(2009) that have contributed and hindered agricultural productivity and income
from agriculture in Nigeria are linked to poor policy formulation and
implementation in the sector.
For instance Anyanwu (1997) observed that most of government policies on
agricultural have failed to address the issues of land tenure system, provision of
adequate agricultural facilities to farmers, access to agricultural micro credits,
access to markets for the sale of agricultural provision of agricultural education to
rural farmers on mechanized farming, among others. Eze et al (2010) noted that
access to credit is a problem for all farmers and is particularly acute for poor
farmer. It is on this note that the Report of the Nigerian Poverty Assessment 2007
stated that:
None of the existing credit sources on agriculture appear able to
provide credit to poor farmers, without which it is unlikely that
they will invest heavily in productivity-increasing inputs. Given
that poor farmers are less likely to have assets for collateral,
16
innovative ways need to be found to provide credit, perhaps
based on the group credit systems operating in other countries. [
On the other hand, improving agricultural extension services as well as
providing adequate agricultural infrastructures have remained poor. Over 85%
(percent) of the Nigerian farmers have no access to agricultural extension services
and lack of necessary agricultural infrastructures that increase productivity. We
cannot understand why outside the poor agricultural policies in Nigeria. The
implication of this has been poor impact of the agriculture on Nigerian economy.
Therefore there is no empirical evident to show for the enormous resources put into
the agricultural sector as a means diversifying the Nigerian economy from its crude
oil based economy. The truth is that the beneficiaries of these agricultural policies
are mainly people who are outside agricultural occupation. This situation has
always present the introduction of any agricultural policy or programme as illusive
and deceit on the view farmers and all others who wish to take occupation in
agriculture. As a matter of fact, the initiation of these policies do not take into
consideration, the environmental Impact Analysis (EIA) the economic impact
analysis (EIA) and the social impact analysis (SIA) to give the problems of
agriculture in Nigeria a holistic approach.
Apparently, the intended goals and objectives of agricultural policies such as
generating massive employment through agriculture and agro-based businesses,
reduction of high poverty rate, ensuring sufficiency in the supply of food for the
Nigeria’s teeming population, improving per capital income of Nigerians who
engage in agriculture, taking comparative advantage on the Nigerian agricultural
products in the international markets among other have remained partially
unachievable considering some research findings on the assessment of agriculture
in Nigeria. The national Economic Empowerment and Development Strategy
(NEEDS) 2004 report give that the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of Nigerian
17
agriculture has continue to decline drastically. This indeed is worrisome
considering the number of agricultural policies and programmes which have been
introduced by government to boost agricultural productivity in Nigeria such as the
National Accelerated Food Production Project (NAFPP), the Nigerian Agricultural
and co-Operative Bank (NACB), the River Basin Development Authorities
(RBDAs), Operation Feed the Nation (OFU), Agricultural Credit Guarantee
Scheme (ACGS), Green Revolution Programme (GRP), Agricultural Development
Project (ADPs), among others.
It is therefore against this backdrop that this study will investigate on the
topic, the impact of agricultural policies on Nigerian economy. It is in view of the
fore-goings that this study tends to raise the following questions:
(i) Have agricultural policies made significant impact on Nigeria economy?
(ii) Have the agricultural policies reflected on the growth and development of
agricultural sector in Nigeria?
(iii) If not, what are the constraints militating against the agricultural policies
in Nigeria?
(iv) Do the formulation and implementation of agricultural policies follow?
(v) What are the measures to be adopted in improving formulation and
implementation of agricultural policies in Nigeria?
1.3 Objectives of the Study
For purpose of clarity, the objectives of this study are grouped into two
categories namely: Broad and specific.
- Broad objective of the study is to evaluate the impact of agricultural policies
on Nigerian economy.
- Specific objectives of this study are to:
(i) Ascertain the impact made by agricultural policies so far on the Nigerian
economy.
18
(ii) Examine whether the impact of agricultural policies have reflected on the
growth and development of agricultural sector in Nigeria.
(iii) Identify the constraints militating against the agricultural policies in
Nigeria.
(iv) Proffer solutions towards improving the formulation and implementation
of agricultural policies in Nigeria.
1.4 Significance of the Study
The significance of the study presents the value or contribution which the
research will make to the existing knowledge. Obasi (1999:73), asserts that
research is most important tool for advancing knowledge and enables man to relate
more effectively to his environment.
The significance of this study are categorized into theoretical, empirical and
practical significance.
Theoretical Significance:-
Theoretically, this study has the potential of contributing greatly to the
growth of existing theories in social sciences particularly in public administration
by helping to enrich the bank of knowledge through its reliable findings on the
assessment of the impact of agricultural policies on Nigerian economy. This is to
say that our study would assist in improving the frontiers of knowledge especially
in the management of the public policies in Nigeria especially in the agricultural
sector. The study will be of immense significance in ascertaining the progress so
far made by the government in improving Nigerian economy through agriculture.
On the other hand, the study will assist in unveiling the challenges or factors
militating against effective implementation of government policies and
programmes on agriculture and will make useful suggestions towards ensuring the
achievement of goals of such agricultural policies and programmes. This is
important because it is only through viable agricultural policies that the
19
government can revamp the agricultural sector and ensure its target goals and
objectives in national development.
This study also has the potentials of contributing immensely to the existing
body of literature on this subject matter. Literature on the assessing the impact of
agricultural on Nigerian economy are richly available but few have been able to
justify the current poor state of agriculture in Nigeria from policy perspectives.
Empirical Significance:-
Empirically, this study will serve as a foundation or base for future
researchers who may in due course of time wish to embark on the investigation on
assessing the impact of agricultural policies on Nigerian economy.
In other words, this research will serve the academia as a useful and
veritable bibliographical reference which will stimulate research for other related
studies in relation to agricultural policies and their impact in Nigeria economy.
Practical Significance:-
Practically, this study is considered significant because it will contribute in
providing the decision makers and other key actors in the government with the
road- maps that will necessitate prompt, responsive and efficient policy making in
Nigerian agricultural sector. It will also suggest the panacea through which
frequent failures in Nigerian agricultural policies can be effectively tackled.
Last, but not the least, this study has the potential to strategically improve
the practical steps in implementations of the government agricultural policies
through its advocacy on reforming the public bureaucracies in Nigeria especially
those concerned with the implementation of government policies on agriculture. In
this regard, this work is a practical pain staking “post mortem” surgical
examination of the problems of Nigerian agricultural sector as well as the way
forward.
20
1.5 Scope and Limitations
This study focuses on the evaluation of the impact of agricultural policies on
Nigerian economy. This study covers in detail, past and present government
policies and programmes on agriculture in Nigeria.
Nevertheless, a study of this magnitude cannot be completed successfully
without the researcher encountering some constraints or limitations. Therefore, this
work will not pretend to be containing all holistic information on the government
policies and programmes on agriculture, rather it will endeavour to highlight the
dominant issues and their impact in the Nigerian economy. Another obvious
limitation is the effort to trim the paper to a sizeable and acceptable volume for a
Master of Public Administration Degree. This obviously has not been easy
considering the subject matter of this research which boarder on sensitive issues on
the government agriculture policies, though this has in no way affected the quality
of this research work.
It is also pertinent to mention that inadequacy of data or near absence of a
reliable and up to date central data bank on the theme of this study, which has been
compounded by the inability of public bureaucracies to grant full access to the
researcher nearly mar the effort of the researcher. In other words, paucity of
literature on the impact of government agricultural policies on Nigerian economy
almost mar the effort of the researcher. Also most of the relevant information
collected so far, for this study is in piece-meal and need serious effort to trim to the
required standard. On the other hand, some information are said to be classified
information and out of bound to non staff. Considering this, the researcher seek
other means to supplement and consolidate the information through the use of
internet materials, text books, journals, newspapers, magazines and past research
projects by students and research institutes. Further information were collected
21
from the (civil servants in the Ministry of Agriculture and governmental agencies
on agriculture) using questionnaire and interview.
Also considered as a limitation in this study hinges on our inability to elicit
information from the top government officials especially the Minister,
Commissioner, and Permanent Secretaries who failed to grant access to the
researcher to interview them face- to- face. Others who availed themselves for
interview still exhibited signs of fear to provide answers to some questions asked
while some questions were said to be top civil service secret. This as we all know
is common in Nigeria public sector organizations, because a country where
freedom of expression is problematic, it will be difficult getting the unbiased views
of some civil servants on apparently sensitive issues on government policies on
agriculture. As it is also a well known fact that critics of government policies in the
country had always suffered one form of victimization or the other, such as loss of
employment, suspension from their jobs and at times harassment by the top
government officials. In other words, it is of concern to mention that it was
difficult to maintain the researcher’s neutrality in trying to be non-judgmental as
this is an essential factor to avoid, since the subjectivity of respondents invariably
breeds a consequential loss of objectivity. In other words, some respondents seek
to force the researcher to express his own opinions, particularly as he sought to
know theirs because it enables them to identify the researcher’s mind in order to
adapt responses. Impartial neutrality to some extent rendered the research
colourless as if one is a spy on managerial activities.
However, the researcher ensured that the limitations/constraints did not
affect the outcome of the study by supplementing the available information
through internet material, text books, journals and administration of questionnaire
and oral interview.
22
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW AND METHODOLOGY
2.1 Literature Review
The study shall review some relevant literature that relate to the subject matter of
this research work. For a clearer overview of the various literature on the study,
this section is divided into the major sub-headings as follows:
Concept of Agricultural Policy: An Explication from the Nigerian
Agricultural Policy
The definition of public policy is germane in understanding agricultural
policy. Public discourse today is saturated with the advocacy or criticism of
various policies. It is common to hear of foreign policy, defence policy, economic
policy, educational policy and policies in almost every area of government activity.
We also hear of policy intension and the commitment of millions of naira to the
implementation of certain policies (Ikelegbe, 1996).
The concept therefore is central to government or public sector. Public
policy is simply actions taken or to be taken and actions not taken or not to be
taken by government (Ikelegbe, 1996). It is a statement of what the government
wants to do, what is doing, what it is not doing and what would not be done. In the
same sense, agricultural policy is the statement of what the government wants to
do , what it is doing and what it is not doing and what would not be done as
regards to agricultural activities in Nigeria. Nigeria’s agricultural policy is the
synthesis of the framework and action plans of Government designed to achieve
overall agricultural growth and development (Ministry of Agriculture Policy Guide
2004). The policy aims at the attainment of self sustaining growth in all the sub-
sector of agriculture and the structural transformation necessary for the overall
socio-economic development of the country as well as the improvement in the
quality of life of Nigerians (Ministry of Agriculture 2007).
23
The Broad Policy Objectives of the Nigerian Agricultural Policy
According to the ministry of Agriculture policy Guideline report (2004), the
broad policy objectives of the agricultural policies in Nigeria include:-
(1) Attainment of self–sufficiency in basic food commodities with particular
reference to those which consume considerable shares of Nigeria’s
foreign exchange and for which the country has comparative advantage
in local production;
(2) Increase in production of agricultural raw materials to meet the growth of
an expanding industrial sector;
(3) Increase in production and processing of exportable commodities with a
view to increasing their foreign exchange earning capacity and further
diversifying the country’s export base and sources of foreign exchange
earnings;
(4) Modernization of agricultural production, processing, storage and
distribution through the infusion of improved technologies and
management so that agriculture can be more responsive to the demands
of other sectors of that Nigerian economy;
(5) Creation of more agricultural and rural employment opportunities to
increase the income of farmers and rural dwellers and to productively
absorb an increasing labour force in the nations;
(6) Protection and improvement of agricultural land resources and
preservation of the environment for sustainable agricultural production;
(7) Establishment of appropriate institutions and creation of administrative
organs to facilities the integrated development and realization of the
country’s agricultural potentials.
24
Features of the Nigerian Agricultural Policy
The Ministry of Agriculture Policy Guideline 2004 gives a holistic insight of the
main features of the policy to include: the evolution of strategies that will ensures
self-sufficiency and the improvement of the technical and economic efficiency in
food production. This is to be achieved through the introduction and adoption of
improved seeds and seed stock, husbandry and appropriate machinery and
equipment.
Efficient utilization of resources, encouragement of ecological specialization
and recognition of the roles and potentials of small scale farmers as the major
production of food in the country, reduction, in risks and uncertainties were to be
achieved through the introduction of the agricultural insurance scheme to reduce
natural hazard factor militating against agricultural production and security credit
out lay through indemnity of sustained losses. A nationwide, unified and all–
inclusive extension delivery system under the Agricultural Development
Programme (ADP) was put in a place in a joint Federal State Government
collaborative effort. Agro –allied industries were actively promoted. Other
incentives such as rural infrastructure, rural banking, primary health-care, cottage
industries etc. were provided, to encourage agricultural and rural development and
attract youth, including school leavers, to go back to the land. The agricultural
policy is supported by sub–policies that facilitate the growth of the sector.
These sub-policies cover issues of labour, capital and land whose price
affect profitability of production systems; crops, fisheries, livestock and land use
;input supply, pest control and mechanization; water resources and rural
infrastructure; agricultural extension, research, technology development and
transfer; agricultural produce storage, processing, marketing, credit and insurance,
cooperatives, training and manpower development, agricultural statistic and
information management. Implementation of the agricultural policy is, however,
25
moderated by the macro-economic policies which provide the enabling
environment for agriculture to grow pari passu with the other sectors. These
policies usually have major impact on profitability of the agricultural system and
the welfare of farmers as they affects the flow of funds to the sector in terms of
budgetary allocation, credit, subsidies, taxes, etc and, therefore, must be in
harmony and mutually reinforcing with the agricultural policy.
Past Efforts at Revamping Agricultural in Nigeria
It is only recently that the growing awareness of the role of agriculture in the
economic development of Nigeria has prompted various governments in the
country to intensify efforts aimed at transforming agricultural from its present
subsistence level to a market-oriented production. There had been a number of
policy measures and programmes within the last two decades which involve the
reconstruction or reformation of the whole structure of the agricultural sector by
the creation of appropriate institutions and public services designed to strengthen
the economic position of the independent farmer Anyanwu (1997). These measures
and programmes are as discussed below:
(a) The National Accelerated Food Production Project (NAFPP)
The desire to induce the masses of farmers to boost food production “within
the shortest possible time”, led to the establishment in 1973 of the NAFPP a
programme based on the green revolution concepts and experiences of Mexico,
India, Phillipines and Pakistan. Its main objective is to accelerate the production of
six major food crops namely rice, millet, sorghum, maize, wheat and cassava. This
to be achieved by using field tested the traditional ones. The project which has
three component-research, extension and agro-services- is divided into three
phases namely the Minikit, Production Kit and Mass Production phases (Anyanwu,
1997).
26
The International Institute for Tropical Agricultural (IITA), Ibadan is the
national coordinator of the project. The National Cereals Research Institute
(NCRI). Ibadan houses the National Rice/Maize centre which guides and
coordinates the activities of the NAFPP for rice and maize while the National Root
Crop Research Institute Umudike is in charge of cassava. Another centre at Samaru
near Zaira takes charge of sorghum, millet and wheat Anyanwu (1997) and Eze et
al (2010).
Despite the fact that a substantial number of farmers have gained from the
programme, it is bedeviled by inadequate finance, inadequate commitment by
some states inadequate publicity and poor infrastructure facilities.
(b) The Nigerian Agricultural and Co-operative Bank (NACB)
The NACB was founded in April, 1973, to foster growth in the quantity and
quality of credit to all aspects of agricultural production including poultry farming,
fisheries, forestry and timber production, horticulture etc. It also aims at improving
storage facilities for agricultural products and the promotion of the marketing of
agricultural products. The Central Bank of Nigeria has 40% of its equity shares
which stood at N150 million in 1984.
The bank provides for two credit markets: direct-lending to individual
farmers and organizations, and on-lending to established institutions mainly state
governments and co-operative bodies against guarantees for on-lending to third
parties.
After ten years of operation (1973-95), loans directly made to private sector
investors in agriculture by the bank amounted to N122,468,031 and this is made up
of 236 loans covering N26,776,654 made to individuals, 102 loans covering
N94,071,747 made to incorporated companies and six loans covering N619,639
made to co-operative societies for direct private investment in agricultural. By
27
1995, its total credit was N3,179.6 million on 68.945 projects, with direct lending
dominating at 62.4%.
Despite this apparent impressive performance, quantity of loans granted to
small-holder has proved grossly inadequate.
(c) The River Basin Development Authorities (RBDAs)
The development of river basins was conceived in 1963 with involvement in
the Lake Chad Basin and River Niger Commissions for countries bordering the
Lake and the Niger River Anyanwu (1997) and Are (1985) cited Okoli and Onah
(2002). But the concept was first tried in 1973 with the establishment of the
Sokoto-Rima and the Chad Basin Development Authorities Anyanwu (1997). In
addition, Anyanwu (1997) noted that eleven others were established under Decree
Nos. 25 and 31 of 1976 and 1977 respectively. These include the Sokoto-Rima (for
Sokoto), Hadejia-Jamare (for Kano), the Chad (for Borno), the Upper Benue (for
Gongola), the Lower Benue (for Benue and Plateau), the Cross River (for Cross
River), the Anambra- Imo for Imo and Anambra), the Nigeria (for Kaduna, Niger
and Kwara) the Ogun-Oshun (for Oyo Ogun and Lagos), the Benin-Owena (for
Bendel and Ondo) and the Niger Delta (for Rivers).
Decree No. 87 of September 28, 1979 amended some sections of the original
decree. Another amendment came in October 1981 under Amendment Act No. 7.
In June 1984, the number of these river basins was increased to 18 under the
new name of River Basin in River Development Authorities (old name being River
Basin Development Authorities).
The River Basin Development Authorities are expected to cater for the
development of the land and water resources potentials of Nigeria for agricultural
purposes and general rural development. The rural development aspect will receive
greater emphasis under their new names. Each RBRDA covers a state, except
Lagos and Abuja, which share with one other state each.
28
In the area of surface water development, remarkable achievements have
been made since the creation of the RBRDAs. They have also been involved in the
exploitation of ground water resources.
As at August, 1984, 12 of the 18 RBRDAs have assisted their participating
farmers to crop 188, 194 hectares of various crops during the 1984 planting season
for where 524,859 metric tonne of assorted crop like maize, wheat, cowpeas, rice,
millet, sorghum, groundnut and vegetables were produced. In the area of irrigation,
the story is only about 82,305 hectares or 33% is presently under irrigation.
By 1995, the later reduced number of RBDAs (from 18 to 11 in 1987)
developed 51,558 hectares of land, irrigated 12,540 hectares, constructed 443
kilometres of roads, catered for 136,514 families, and drilled 58 boreholes. Its
funds stood at N589.3 million, with 96.1% coming from the Federal Government
(CBN, 1995b).
Activities of the RBRDAs have been hampered due to inadequate planning
data. Shortage of funds, shortage of spare parts and lubricants, difficulties in
securing land for development especially in the south and the shortage of qualified
and experience technical, professional and managerial manpower.
(d) Operation Feed the Nation (OFN)
May 1976 witnessed the launching of the Operation Feed the Nation (OFN)
Scheme by the Obasanjo regime mainly to increase food production and eventually
to attain self-sufficiency in food supply Ijere (2001). Other objectives of the
programme included encouraging the section of the population which relies on
buying food to grow its own food. Under the scheme encouragement and material
assistance were given to the people in the form of technical advice and the supply
of essential farm inputs such as improved seeds. Fertilizer, pesticides, farm
implement, livestock and livestock feed at subsidized prices.
29
In other to protect farmers against a drastic fall in prices of food crops
minimum prices increases in output, the government announced guaranteed
minimum prices per metric ton for the 1976 agricultural season. But it was soon
found that the prices fixed were less than those obtained in the markets.
As a development strategy, the impact of the OFN was not as profound as its
initiators may want us to believe. The programme only succeeded in keeping the
nation aware of food shortage the mobilizing its effort in the fight against the
problem. Everybody irrespective of trade took to farming but this did not last long
for after a while interest started waning. Increased food importation, the land use
decree, inadequate human and material resources, faulty campaign strategy and
faulty administrative system led to the death of OFN.
(e) Agricultural Credit Guarantee Scheme (ACGS)
The need to encourage the flow of increased credit to the agricultural sector
raised the necessity for an investigation to determine the bottlenecks which were
experienced in attracting credit to the sector Ijere (2001). He further noted that the
enquiry, a joint effort of the Central Bank of Nigeria and the Commercial Banks,
focused on the current size and coverage of lending by the commercial banks to
agricultural and the measures needed to improve the situation.
The results was a Fund established by the Federal Government under the
Agricultural Credit Guarantee Fund Act, 1977 which provided for a Fund of N100
million subscribed to by the Central Bank of Nigeria (60%) Anyanwu (1997). The
scheme came into operation of April 3, 1978 with the objective of providing
“guarantees in respect of loans granted for agricultural purposes by any bank in
accordance with the provision of the Act” and with the aim of increasing the level
of bank credit to the agricultural sector. The agricultural purposes in respect of
which loans can be guaranteed by the Fund are those connected with the
establishment or management of plantations for the production of rubber, oil palm
30
and similar crops, the cultivation of cereal crops, animal husbandry, including
cattle rearing and poultry and fish farming.
Between April 1978, when the scheme came into operation, and the end of
that year a total of 341 agricultural loans amounting to about N11.3 million had
been guaranteed by the Fund. The Fund has continued to increase progressively
over the years such that by the end of 1982, a total of 4,762 projects involving the
sun of N143.2 million have been guaranteed by the fund. As table 2k shows the
number of loans guaranteed rose from 341in 1998 to 18079 in 1995 while the
value rose from N11.284 million in 1978 to N164.190 million in 1995.
However, some of the observed problems in the implementation of the
scheme include delays experienced by farmers in having their application
processed by the banks and some issues alleged to have arisen from the Land Use
Act.
(f) Rural Banking Scheme
At the instance of the Central Bank of Nigeria, the Financial System Review
Committee in 1975 recommended and the Federal Government approved a
programme of geographical dispersal of bank branches particularly designed to
ensure the penetration of the rural areas by banks. The rationale for this included,
among others, the fact that a network of rural banks would help to mobilize rural
savings some of which would be invested in the agricultural sector. The first cycle
of the plan covered the period 1877-1980 and 200 bank branches which were
projected to be set up have since been established. During the second phase 1980-
1983, 266 rural branches were planned to be opened. The third phase which was
launched in 1985 covered 1985 to 1989 and it involved the opening of 300 rural
branches. Though the scheme was abandoned in 1990, by 1991-200, 266, and 299
branches had been opened for each of the three phases, giving a total of 765, with
only 1 outstanding.
31
Apart from the above, it has been observed that, this programme aimed at
facilitating the transformation of the rural economy and thus restrain the population
drift from the rural to the urban centres, was not being vigorously implemented.
This appeared too slow and unacceptable. In addition, mere extension of the
branches of existing ill-adapted banks into the rural areas falls short of a good
model for “rural bank”. They should rather provide rural financial facilities in a
more dynamic manner by engaging in the mobilization of funds for investment in
most of the productive activities which offer potential returns in the rural areas.
(g) Commodity Boards
There was also a reorganization of the then existing marketing board system
for export in 1977 from regional-oriented boards to those with a national outlook.
Thus there came into being 7 Commodity Board, viz: Cocoa, Rubber, Cotton,
Groundnut, Grains (for Cereals) Root Crops (for Cassava, Yam and Cocoyam),
and Palm Produce (for palm oil and Palm kernel) Commodity Boards. Their
establishment was to promote both the production and marketing of their
respective commodities.
In the particular case of the food crops, the boards have recorded little or no
impact due to their low coverage with only a small proportion of farmers reached.
In addition, the minimum prices fixed by the boards are lower than those obtaining
in rural markets. However, the boards would up their operations in 1986.
Table 2k: Operations of ACGSF, 1978-1995
Year No. of Loans
Guaranteed
Value of Loans
Guaranteed
(Nm)
Number of Loan By Purpose
Livestock Food Cash
Crops Crops Other
1979 341 11.284 137 116 - 53
1979 1,105 33.597 339 391 - 348
32
1980 945 30.945 263 472 - 198
1981 1,295 35.642 275 702 107 181
1982 1,076 31.764 320 658 22 69
1983 1,333 36.308 359 736 50 165
1984 1,642 24.655 537 808 30 258
1985 3,337 44.235 756 1,909 36 606
1986 5,203 68.417 715 4,204 190 58
1987 16,209 102.153 1005 13,674 1,027 386
1988 24,538 118.611 866 21,426 1,306 263
1989 34,518 129.300 540 29,669 2,473 1,352
1990 30,704 98.494 427 27,196 1,020 1,234
1991 22,104 82.107 509 19,321 977 956
1992 21,206 91.953 384 19,049 1.043 605
1993 15,514 80.846 389 14,103 389 565
1994 16,574 103.186 669 14,295 765 617
1995 18,079 163.170 753 15,253 850 1.078
Source: Computed from CBN (1995a,b)
(h) The Land Use Decree
The Land Use Decree which was promulgated in March 1978 appears the
most sensation institutional reform in Nigerian agriculture for several years. The
decree was intended to reform the land tenure system which was believed to
constitute a formidable obstacle to the development of agriculture. The guidelines
for the Fourth National Development Plan explicitly stated inter alia, “The land
tenure system has long been a bottleneck in the establishment of large-scale farms
by private operators. With the implementation of the recent land use decree,
private sector involvement in large-scale agricultural activities should receive a
33
boost during the next plan period…. Availability of land should no longer be a
constraint to agricultural undertakings. The reform should promote better security
of tenure and also encourage consolidation of holdings and large-scale operation. It
should make it easier to attract foreign entrepreneurs and foreign capital into
agricultural production” Anyanwu (1997).
The Decree thus invests the control of all and in state governments’ hands to
be held in trust for the Federal Government. It does not disturb the rights of users
of land already occupied or developed in rural areas but transfers allocative powers
over undeveloped land from traditional authorities to local government. A Land
Use Allocation Committee exists in each state to advise the governor with respect
to urban lands Anyanwu (1997). Land Allocation Advisory Committees exist in
the rural areas to advise local governments on the effective management of land.
The Decree has received mixed reaction from Nigerians. Some see it as an
unnecessary interference with the basis of private property while others think that
one cannot take socialist measures without the state itself becoming socialist. The
decreed appears to have a more radical effect on the systems in the southern part of
Nigeria than the northern part.
(i) The Green Revolution Programme (GRP)
With the birth of civilian administration in 1979, the question of food
shortage in the country once more received a critical look as the drain in the
nation’s foreign reserves and its threat to the economy and existence were realized
Anyanwu (1997) and Okeke (2001). Thus the Green Revolution Programme was
launched in 1980 by the then Shagari administration. Its objective is centred at
self-reliance in food production and the diversification of Nigeria’s sources of
foreign exchange. To achieve this all known constraints to increased production
were to be removed.
34
Under the scheme, new input procurement and distribution systems came
into operation. Input subsidies and crop pricing were streamlined while
construction of rural physical infrastructure was embarked upon via massive
federal funds allocation.
Green Revolution National Committee and state Representatives were
formed with the state co-ordinating committees responsible for co-ordinating and
implementation policies and programmes of various Federal Ministries concerned
with the Green Revolution in the states. The programme covered all areas of
agricultural production, food and export crops, livestock, fisheries and forestry.
Some measures of positive results were recorded in increased cultivated land
hectares, livestock production, forestry of funds, mismanagement and fraud, poor
and thorough research and extension services, problems of land acquisition,
inadequate data, inadequate executive capacity and lack of infrastructural facilities
(Anyanwu, 1986).
(j) Agricultural Development Projects (ADPs)
As part of rural development programmes ADPs were established first in
pilot states and later in all the state in the country. Some of their key areas of
activities are the provision of infrastructure (including water points washbores),
farm service centres, the supply of farm inputs such as fertilizers, root crops/
tubers, agro-chemicals (pesticides and herbicides), and water pumps, and extension
and training (including the establishment of special plots for extension and training
(SPAT). Indeed, the ADP concept has been used as the primary method to increase
production and welfare in the small holder agricultural sector in Nigeria. Since
1974, the World Bank had assisted Nigeria with a series of ADPs which have gone
through various phases. ADPS started in 1974 with the establishment of the first
three “enclave projects” in the northern part of Nigeria (Funtua, Gusau and Gombe
ADPs). The development approach focused on simple improved packages for some
35
of the major food crops such as maize, sorghum and millet, combined with
improvements in the extension service, the input supply system, the rural road
network and village water supply. Some success recorded with these early ADPs
caused both the federal government and the World Bank to quickly replicate the
ADP model in other states. Thus, from 1975 to 1980, the number of projects grew
for the original 3 to total of 9 enclave projects.
The need and pressure to enlarge the programme and to cover all the states
led to the first multi-state ADP (MSADP-1) comprising 7 states: Anambra, Bendel
Benue Cross River, Imo, Ogun, and Plateau. These came on stream later part of
1985 and early 1986. MSADP-II later covered Gongola, Kwara. Ondo, Lagos, and
Rivers states, with the later programme incorporating support for fisheries in those
maritime states. Thus, by 1988, the entire country had been covered by the ADP
system with benefits spread to all the LGAs in each state.
In August 1990 when the loan for the first set of state-wide ADPs
terminated, an Agricultural Development Fund (ADF) loan was initiated for the
projects, (NATSP) and the National Fadama Development Project (NFLP). Both
loans became effective in 1992. The NATSP provides assistance for technology
adoption and dissemination in Bauchi, Kano and Sokoto states while the NFDP
provides funds for Fadama Development in Nigeria by concentrating on irrigation
with the use of ground water in already cultivated fadamas.
We note that, basically, all ADPs had the key objective of increasing food
production and hence farm incomes for the majority of the rural households in the
defined project regions, thus improving the standard of living and welfare of the
farming population.
The various components of ADPs are: farm and crop development, civil
assistance through long-term and short-term consultancies.
These components are achieved by the following:
36
(a) Through applied research, an improved extension system and a more
efficient system of input procurement and distribution (especially
fertilizer).
(b) Provision of feeder roads, the construction of Farmer Service Centres
(FSC) for input supply in rural areas, and the establishment of project
offices and staff houses.
(c) Establishing the development programmes through training as well as the
training of local government staff.
Table 21 summarizes the operations of ADPs between 1991 and 1996.
Table Showing the Operational Data on Agricultural Development Projects
(ADPs), 1991-1995
1991 (1) 1992 (2) 1993 (3) 1994 (4) 1995
(5)
Source of Fund (4m)
(a) IDRD/IFAD
(b) Federal
(c) State
(d) Others
Infrastructure
(a) Roads (km)
(i) Constructed
(ii) Maintained
(iii)Rehabilitated
(b) Earth Dams, Tubewells
Borcholes and Washbore (No),
448.0
241.9
68.0
129.8
8.3
197.0
1.949.0
601.0
5,190.0
1,217.5
804.7
80.0
296.0
36.8
1,0014.5
3,498.8
2,277.7
5,523.0
1,493.5
951.7
134.9
363.8
34.1
1.204.7
1,387.9
1,078.9
325.7
2,119.7
1.375.0
135.2
561.2
48.4
631.5
-
1,655.2
8,108.0
1,851.4
1,221.5
74.6
496.8
58.6
100.1
-
213.4
9.809.0
37
(c) Farm Service centre/store (No)
(d) Fish pounds (No)
(e) Irrigation development (HA)
Farm input supplied
(a) Fertilizer (000 tonnes)
(b) Seed (000 tonnes)
(c) Root/Tubers (bundles)
(d) Liquid Agrochemicals
(tonnes)
(e) Solid Agrochemicals
(tones)
(f) Pumps (No)
(g) Ox-Ridges
(h) Other Farm Implements
Extension and Training
(a) Farm families covered
(000)
(b) Extension Agents (No)
(c) SPAT Plots established
(No) (000)
(d) On Farm/Station Trials
(e) Women in Agricultural
Groups Established (No)
(f) Number Trained (000)
383.0
-
7,658.0
344.7
-
-
769.7
-
6,052.0
-
-
722.0
279.0
2,786.0
1,410.0
1.4
9,353.5
303.0
384.3
5,758.0
6,296.0
16,995.0
6,090.5
562.0
260.0
36.617.0
331.9
12.9
6,088.0
110
28.0
2,042.0
5,249.0
6,389.0
5,823.7
505.0
779.0
34.510.0
208.7
47.2
1,304.6
96
38.4
1,882.0
5,904.0
852.0
11,522.5
541.0
212.0
2,613.3
545.5
1.3
9,063.0
1.5.4
25.8
4,072.0
1,483.0
1,539.0
7,809.5
38
4,764.0
-
90.6
-
-
159.000.0
7,804.0
286.9
2,620.0
3,601.0
6,526.0
6,412.0
277.7
2,558.0
2,721.0
4,481.0
7,027.0
228.2
1,911.0
2.074.0
4,498.0
6,563.0
235.6
1,729.0
3,696.0
4,411.0
Special Plot for Agricultural Training (SPAT)
Source: CBN Annual Report & Statement of Account, 1995.
(k) The National agricultural Land Development Authority (NALDA)
The NALDA was established in 1991 to execute a national agricultural land
development programme to moderate the chronic problem of low utilization of
abundant farm land. The main target of the programme was the development of
30.000-50.000 hectares of land in each state during the 1992-94 National Rolling
Plan period. Also, it was to see to the placement of at least 7,500-12, 500 farmers
within the area developed such that each lives within 3km-5km radius of his
farmland. An average of N300 million was allocated to NALDA by the Federal
Government annually in 1991 and 1992, while the State and Local Government
39
were to allocate suitable tracts of land to authority in addition to token
contributions towards the funding of its programme.
By the end of 1995, NALDA had developed a total of 16,000 hectares of
land our of which 81.1% was cultivated with various crops. However, NALDA’s
performance had been constrained by inadequate and untimely release of funds and
inadequate farm machinery/equipment.
Towards Reviewing Nigeria Agriculture Public Expenditure
Most of Nigeria’s poor reside in rural areas and gain their livelihood from
agricultural work. If the government’s poverty reduction goals are to be achieved,
Nigeria will need an adequate level of strategically targeted investments in
agriculture to upgrade rural infrastructure, boost productivity, and increase
competitiveness. Before effective investment programmes can be designed and
implemented, however; it is important to have a clear understanding of the current
pattern of public spending agriculture. The Nigeria Agriculture Public Expenditure
Review [NAGPER]; a collaborative study carried out by a research team from the
International Food Policy Research Institute [IFPRI] and the World Bank; assesses
the quantity and quantity of public spending in agriculture and evaluates its degree
of alignment with government policy goals. The findings of this research showed
that expenditures on Nigeria agricultural policies and programmes are still low to
ensure effective implementations government policies and programmes on
agriculture Tewodaj et. al (2005).
1. Public spending on agriculture in Nigeria is very low: Less than 2 percent of
total federal expenditure was allotted to agriculture during 2001 to 2005, far lower
than spending in other key sector such as education, health and water. This
spending contrast dramatically with the sector’s importance in Nigeria economy,
which ranged from 20 to 30 percent of total GPD since 2000; and falls well 30
bellow the 10 percent goal set by African leaders in 2003 Maputo agreement.
40
Nigeria also falls far behind in agricultural expenditure by international standers,
even when accounting for its level of income. Normally, the relationship of income
per capital and share of expenditure going to agriculture is inverse. Nigeria
however, does not conform to this general pattern. GDP per capital is very low, but
so too is the agricultural spending share.
2. Agricultural spending is broadly aligned with policies, but there are
important discrepant discrepancies: Broadly speaking, agricultural spending has
followed government agricultural policies. However, spending is highly
concentrated in a few areas. Three programs account for more than 81 percent of
total spending: procurement and distribution of fertilizer, the National Special
Program for Food Security (NSPFS), and buyer-of-last- resort grain purchase.
Nearly 60 percent of total capital spending goes to government purchase of
agricultural inputs and agricultural outputs alone.
In several instances, public funds are implementing approaches that differ
significantly for those described in policy documents. And funding is very low for
a number of activities considered vital for promoting agricultural productivity
gains leading to pro-poor growth, such as basic and applied agricultural research,
agricultural extension and capacity building, agricultural finance, irrigation
development, and agribusiness development.
3. The pattern of public spending in agriculture raises doubts about the
quality of spending: NAGPER analysis noted that many of the Presidential
Initiatives- which differ greatly in target crops, technologies, research, seed
multiplication, and distribution-have identical budgetary provisions. This pattern
suggests that the needs assessment and costing for these initiatives may have been
inadequate, and that decisions may have been based on political considerations
rather than economic assessment.
41
4. Analysis of public spending is complicated by the preponderance of off-
budget funds: Public spending on agriculture in Nigeria in not fully captured in
official budget records. So-called “off-budget” expenditures overlap extensively
with donor funds, because a substantial mount of external aid is typically not
captured in government accounts. Reliable data on these two categories of funding
proved extremely difficult to obtain, both from ministries and agencies in the
sector, from the central ministries, and from the donor community.
5. Budget execution is poor: The Public Expenditure and Financial
Accountability (PEFA) best practice standard for budget execution is no more than
3 percent discrepancy between budgeted and actual expenditures. In contrast,
during the period covered by the study, the Nigerian federal budget execution
averaged only 79 percent, meaning 21 percent of the approved budget was never
spent. Budget execution at the state and local levels was even less impressive,
ranging from 21 percent to 44 percent.
Government ministries and agencies are only able to plan and carry out
effective agriculture programs and activities if approved budgets provide a good
indication of actual resources. Other sectors showed similar low levels of budget
execution, suggesting that the problem is a general one affecting not only
agriculture but most sectors.
6. Information about the functional areas of public spending in agriculture is
lacking: At all three levels of government, the budget classification system is not
structured along functional lines, such as agricultural extension, agricultural
research, input subsidies, and others. Capital spending is reported by sub sector
(such as livestock and crops) and/or by department and program. Recurrent
expenditures are classified into salaries, benefits and operating costs. An additional
classification determining the level of resource allocation to agriculture’s core
functions would be useful for analysis as well as for policy planning determining,
42
for example, the reason for non-adoption of improved technology. At every level
of government, there is a need to commit more effort to organizing, recording, and
reporting public spending information in a way that makes transparent the
functional allocation of public resources.
7. Poor data quality and availability hinder policy analysis, program planning,
and impact assessment: One of the most significant findings of the NAGPER
relates to the poor state of the systems for recording, verifying, and reporting data
on public expenditure in agriculture. At the federal level, data on public spending
in agriculture were not available even in the Ministry of Agriculture’s Department
of Finance and Accounts and had to complied from approximately one dozen
technical departments of the Ministry. As two core technical departments
(Agriculture Research and Cooperatives) were unable to provide any expenditure
data, the database on federal spending remains incomplete. In cases where data
were available, the quality was often questionable. The discrepancies between the
data obtained from the individual line departments in the agriculture ministry and
from the central ministry for budgets were often significant; in some instances
figures doubled from one source to another.
Reasons for Government Policies on the Financing of Agriculture
According to Ezeat et. al (2010:4), policy is said to be an intervention, a
course of action taken by government, or management (in the case of organization)
or, better still, an individual, to influence or arrive at predetermined outcomes. The
Federal Government of Nigeria (FGN) did recognize the importance of the
agricultural sector early enough, so it decided to pursue policies that promote
access to finance and financial infrastructure for agricultural production, with the
ultimate aim of achieving the country’s development goals.
The reasons for government intervention in the agricultural financial market are to:
43
1. Smoothen out imperfections in the agricultural financial market: Okonjo
and Chete (2008) explain that the agricultural financial market (also the rural
financial market) exists to facilitate exchange, a platform for the reconciliation
of demand for ad supply of capital for agriculture and rural development.
However, Eze et. al (2010) noted that often times, the market is constrained by
certain factors such as information asymmetry, moral hazard, adverse selection,
etc, from performing its roles effectively. Government then intervenes to iron
out those imperfections and create a more Pareto-optimal environment for
market players.
2. Ensure food security: Noted from Osemeobo (1992) Olawumi (2009), it could
be said that since finance is critical for investment in agricultural production,
either in form of equity or debt, government intervention in form of expenditure
on credit to farmers, direct production, etc, is to guarantee that food is available
and affordable. There is the realization that securing access to cheap food for
Nigerians would ensure social stability and lessen reliance on food imports
which supply can be cut at any time depending on prevailing global political
and economic conditions or similar conditions in the exporting countries. In this
regard, government has always promoted the formulation of policies towards
ensuring adequate food production in the country such policies include the
National Accelerated Food Production Project, the River Basin Development
Authorities, Operation Feed the Nation, Agricultural Credit Guaarantee Scheme
among others.
3. Achieve favourable balance of payments: A high food import bill exerts
pressure on the foreign reserves of the country, leading to its depletion. This
adversely affects the balance of payments and hence, the international position
of the country. Whereas we have been endowed with abundant land resources
and farming-friendly climate, just a little push in the direction of other
44
resources, including financial capital, is all that is needed to boost production
and reduce dependence on food imports Ogen (2009). The government
intervenes to ensure that this happens, thereby saving foreign reserves for the
more productive use.
4. Promote foreign exchange earnings from agricultural exports: From the
viewpoints of Anyanwu (1997), Ekpo and Egwaikhhide (1994), Abolagba
(2010) and Daramola et.al (2007), government policies on agricultural
financing aim at, first, ensuring self-sufficiency in food production and then,
exporting the surplus to earn foreign exchange. So, not only does government
actions help reserve foreign reserves to improve our balance of payments
position, it also stimulates accretion to the reserves.
5. Enhance other socio-economic issues: Such as poverty reduction, employment
generation, reduction in rural-to-urban migration and especially, food price
stability since it is known that food fluctuations are the precursor of inflation in
developing countries. Eze et al (2010) strongly believe that this follows from
Engel’s law, which states that a higher proportion of income in developing
countries is spent on food. And since income elasticity of demand for food is
highly elastic, it is easy to see why expenditure on food is large enough to cause
inflationary trends in the economy.
6. Use finance as engine of growth and development since the major
occupation of the people is farming. It is expected that a farmer encouraged
with credit will be in position to improve his operation, use improved
implements, seeds, livestock, manpower, transportation and markets for sale of
the output and purchase of inputs at good market price Eze et.al (2010).
Moreover, Abiodun and Olakojo (2010) contended that the farmer will reap the
economies of scale, discover new and cheaper products, create demand where
none exists and provide utilities to satisfy a widening market, generate in him
45
the optimism and determination to venture into new fields. Through this, credit
will constitute the power or key to unlock latent talents, abilities, visions and
opportunities, which will lead to economic development and growth among the
rural farmers who benefited from government credit policies.
Overview of the Agricultural Finance Policies in Nigeria
The policies aimed at strengthening the agricultural and rural financial
markets include the establishment of schemes, programmes, and institutions to
address and deliver government’s intentions in the sector. Some of these were
encapsulated in the various national development plans and budgets.
Agricultural Schemes Initiatives
The schemes for financing agriculture have the first objective of
encouraging banks to lend to the sector despite the relatively higher inherent risk
and uncertainty Eze et al (2010). This was done by providing the bank with low-
cost funds for lending. Another way was to cover their risk exposure to some
extent using one instrument or the other. The second objective is promoting
farmers’ access to credit by the provision of concessionary terms.
1. Agricultural Credit Guarantee Scheme Fund (ACGSF), 1978 till date.
Established by Act No. 20 of 1978, this offers a 75 per cent guarantee backed
by the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) on agricultural credit in default, net the
amount realized from the disposal of security for such credit. Financing is at
market-determined interest rates (CBN 2007a). According to the CBN report of
2007, CBN offers a rebate equivalent to 40 per cent of the loan interest when
loans are duly repaid. This scheme deals with small scale farmers who need
small loans to operate. For instance, in 2005, more than 70% of all loans were
smaller then fifty thousand naira to each farmer who applied and accounted for
36% of total loan value. Only 11% of all loans were larger then N 100, 000 and
accounted for 32% of total loan value (CBN, 2007). The scheme has, however,
46
suffered bureaucratic and administrative bottlenecks. For instance the
processing of applications and claims has been slow so much so that at the end
of 2005, there was an accumulated backlog of 4064 unprocessed claims, the
oldest of which dates back to 25 years International Food Policy Research
Institute (IFPRI, 2008).
2. Small and Medium Enterprises Equity Investment Scheme (SMEEIS), 2001.
This is a voluntary initiative of the Bankers’ Committee to support micro, small
and medium enterprises (MSMEs), including agro and agro-allied businesses
CBN (2001). Financing is in form of either debt or equity. In the case of debt,
the borrowing rate is not to exceed single digit.
3. Refinancing and Rediscounting Facility (RRF), 2002 to date. As noted by Eze
et al (2010), banks that lend long-term to agriculture and are in need of liquidity
are availed an amount which is a certain percentage of the outstanding asset
portfolio to long-term agriculture by the CBN at reduced rates at the discount
window.
4. Agricultural Credit Support Scheme (ACSS), 2006 till date. According to the
CBN Statistical Bulletin 2007, the initial ACSS fund of N50 billion was
established with contributions mostly from the CBN and deposit money from
banks for the financing of large agricultural projects such as establishment or
management of plantations, cultivation or production of crops, livestock, and
fisheries and farm machinery and hire services. The borrowing rate is 14 per
cent, with the CBN absorbing 6 per cent while the borrower pays 8 per cent at
full repayment CBN (2007). The purpose of ACSS is to facilitate the
development of the agricultural sector by advancing credit to farmers at low
interest rates. By pursuing this strategy, the government hopes to exert
downward pressure on prices of agricultural produce, especially food, leading
47
to reduced inflation, increased exports, diversification of government revenue
base, and increased foreign exchange earnings.
5. Large Scale Agricultural Credit Scheme (LASACS), 2009. As regards to the
Large Scale Agricultural Credit Scheme (LASACS) the CBN report noted that a
N200 billion fund established by the Federal Government in the wake of the
current global economic crisis to finance large integrated commercial farm
project with an asset base of at least N 350 million (excluding land) with
prospect of increasing this to N 500 million in three years time, and medium-
sized agricultural enterprises with an asset base of N200 million (CBN, 2009).
The terms of borrowing are favourable, including a long tenor and single digit
lending rate.
6. Supervised Agricultural Loans Board. Most state governments set up these
boards to dispense finance in form of credit to farmers. It should be added that
aside this boards, the state Agricultural Development Programmes (ADP) have
recently been working in conjunction with the National Programme for Food
Security (NPFS) in the provision of credit to farmers Eze et. al (2010).
National Prorgammes on Agriculture
1. National Accelerated Food Production Programme (NAFPP), 1972. According
to Eze et al 92010:8), this was part of the Second National Development Plan
(1970-74).The plan itself has no clear statement on rural development, although
N1,353 million was voted for it (FGN, 1972). It targeted self sufficiency in the
production of rice, maize, sorghum, millet and wheat. It was a joint programme
of Federal Government and USAID. Its objectives include accelerating and
increasing food production through the adoption of improved packages of
production technology, speedy up the transfer of research results to farmers,
pursuing intensive and extensive cultivation of crops and linking research to
production agencies through extension services.
48
2. Agricultural Development Programme- 1975. It is jointly funded by the World
Bank, Federal and States, in Nigeria aimed at provision of rural roads, farm
service centers, agricultural extension services, credit etc towards achieving
food production. Extension activities implemented by ADPs included
establishing demonstration farms, identifying lead farmers, providing
information to lead farmers on improved farming practices, facilitating access
to improved technology and inputs and helping lead farmers teach others Eze et
al (2010).
3. Operation Feed the Nation (OFN), 1976. The OFN was part of the Third
National Development Plan (1975-80) which was voted N2,050.738 million
(Okeke, 2001 and Eze, 2010). Like the earlier plan, there was no categorical
strategy for rural development, except some N500 million for rural regrouping
(Olayiwola and Adeleye, 2005). However, it had objectives to mobilize the
people to embrace agriculture, eliminate the traditional disdain for agriculture
by the educated, enhance food production on a large scale, create jobs and
income and utilize all available land resources in the country.
4. Green Revolution Programme- 1980. The civilian regime initiated this
programme aimed at wiping away hunger through credit supply to farmers,
encourage and intensify cooperative education, mobilizing the local people to
actively participate in agriculture, application of research on food and fibre to
enhance abundance in staple food production, processing and distribution in
Nigeria.
5. Rural Banking Programme, 1977 to 1991. Banks were encouraged to not only
establish rural branches but also to extend at least 50 per cent of the deposit
mobilized from the rural areas as loans and advances to rural dwellers.
Defaulting banks were to be penalized.
49
6. Community Banking Programme, 1991 to 2007. The programme provided for
the establishment of community banks with a focus on rural banking operations.
The National Board for Community Banks (NBCB) was the regulator of these
banks until 2002 when this function was transferred to the CBN Eze et al
(2010:9). It was intended to serve communities that were able to establish one
based on personal recognition, character and credit worthiness of the borrower.
7. Root and Tuber Expansion Programme-2000. It was established to
commercialize root and tuber crop production and improve living conditions,
income, food security and nutritional health of the poorest small holder
households.
8. National FADAMA Development Programme aimed at increasing income of
beneficiaries by at least 20%. The programme was designed in 1993 to promote
simple and low cost improved irrigation technology under World Bank
financing Eze et el (2010).. FADAMA is a Hausa word for low lying flood
plains usually with easily accessible shallow groundwater. It is a major
instrument for achieving the government’s poverty reduction objective in rural
areas of Nigeria. The beneficiaries are meant to come as a group known as
FADAMA Community Association to the National FADAMA Development
Programme. The programme empowers the association with resources, training,
and technical assistance support to properly manage and control the resources
for their own development. FADAMA adopts a socially inclusive and
participatory process in which all FADAMA users will collectively identify
their development goals and pursue it when assisted. The programme is in its
third phase currently due to its success in the states that adopted it.
9. Family Economic Advancement Programme (FEAP), 1997 to 2001. This was
established to serve the credit needs of the family in their daily economic
activities through input supplies, loan in form of cash, and capacity building.
50
10. National Poverty Eradication Programme (NAPEP), 1999 to date. Like FEAP,
NAPEP was established by the federal government. The mode of operation is
tailored towards directed (subsidized) credit to farmers. The programme
consists of four schemes namely, Youth employment scheme which involves
capacity acquisition, mandatory attachment, and credit delivery; Rural
Infrastructures Development scheme which involves the provision of portable
water, rural electrification, transportation and communication development.
Social Welfare Services Scheme which is involved with qualitative education,
primary health care, farmers employment and provision of social services,
provision of agricultural input and credit delivery to rural farmers.; and Natural
Resources Development and Conservation Scheme which contains programmes
for environmental protection through conservation of land and space,
development of agricultural resources, solid minerals and waters resources.
11. Microfinance, 2005 to date. Microfinance bring financial services such as
savings, deposit, payments, transfers, micro insurance and micro leasing to the
active (or productive) poor and low income people, who would otherwise have
no access to such services. The Microfinance Policy outlines the principles and
guidelines for the practice of microfinance in Nigeria, including provision for
the establishment of private sector driven microfinance banks with market-
centred operations, veritable source of loanable funds for microfinance bank is
the Micro Credit Fund, integration of microfinance institutions into the formal
banking system. The specific objectives of the Nigerian microfinance policy are
to make financial services accessible to a large segment of the potentially
productive Nigerian population which otherwise would have little or no access
to financial services, promote synergy and mainstreaming of the informal
subsector into the national financial system, enhance service delivery by
Microfinance institutions to micro, small, and medium entrepreneurs, contribute
51
to rural transformation and promote linkage programmes between universal and
development banks, specialized institutions and microfinance banks. The micro
finance banks are of two types; those licensed to operate as a unit bank with
capital base of # 20 million (88,890 Euros) and those licensed to operate in a
state with capital base # 1 billion (444, 500 Euros) Eze et al (2010:10).
12. There have been several recent presidential initiatives aimed at financing the
production and export of certain commodities such as cassava, rice, cocoa and
oil palm.
13. Preferred sector allocation of credit, 1970 to 1996. Banks were mandated to
extend 40 per cent of their loans and advances to agriculture which was
designated a preferred sector. Banks that failed to meet this target were
penalized. The funds not lent were transferred to the then Nigerian Agricultural
and Cooperative Bank, NACB Eze et al (2010).
14. Concessionary interest rates for agricultural loans, 1980 to 1987. Banks were
further mandates to extend credit to agriculture at a regulated rate of 9 per cent
annum.
Institutions on Agricultural Programmes
1. Nigerian Agricultural, Cooperative and Rural Development Bank (NACRDB),
1972 to date. Formerly Nigerian and Cooperative Bank, NACB, it was jointly
established by the Federal Government of Nigeria (FGN) and the Central Bank
of Nigeria (at a ratio of 3:2) to dispense credit to cooperatives, agribusiness, and
individual small holder farmers at a subsidized interest rate Ogen (2007) and
Eze et al (2010). Eze et al (2010) stressed that as direct investment through
equity participation in projects, guarantees for agricultural ventures and rural
savings services have been enhanced. Its present name came after a merged of
People’s Bank in Nigeria, Family Economic Advancement Porgramme and
Nigerian Agricultural and Cooperative Bank in 2002 Eze et al (2010). Even
52
though it now collects deposits, it has not lived up to expectation due to poor
funding.
2. River Basin Development Authority (RBDA), 1977 to date. Nine RBDAs were
established in 1977 as part of the Third National Development Plan (1975-80)
to add to the existing Sokoto and Rima RBDAs. Their focus is the provision of
especially rural water infrastructure but also roads, N32.8 billion was budgeted
for his plan. It was the first plan to make rural development and, especially rural
electrification, a priority area of government (FGN, 1975). The scheme also
involved a massive development of the nation’s water resources through
creation of irrigation schemes to encourage all season farming Okoli and Onah
(2002).
3. National Grains Production Company (1979) for the expansion of grain
production through giving the farmers improved seeds as credit.
4. Directorates of Foods, Roads and Rural Infrastructure (DFRRI), 1986 to 1993.
This agency adopted an integrated approach to rural development. According to
Ezeani (1995), the philosophy recognized that increased food production was
tied to development of rural economic infrastructure. As noted from Dabin
(1997), Okoli and Onah (2002) and Eze et al (2010) budget allocation to
DFRRI was N433 million in N1986, 500 billion in 1987 and N1 billion in 1988
respectively.
5. Nigerian Agricultural Insurance Cooperation (NAIC), 1987 to date. This
provides insurance cover for all types of farming and farming related activities,
including insurance for stock in transit. The premium paid on NAIC policy is
heavily subsidized by the CBN to make it affordable for small holder farmers.
The indemnity paid in the event of occurrence of risk insured against helps in
ploughing the farmer back to business.
53
6. People’s Bank of Nigeria, 1990 to date. This was an initiative that targeted self
help groups with credit for micro and small business. It was merged with the
FEAP and NACB to form NACRDB in 2002.
7. National Agricultural Land Development Authority- 1991 to open up more
areas for agricultural production with supporting credit.
To achieve these schemes, programmes, and institutions, the government over
the years made budgetary allocations to agriculture which when compared with the
total budget, fall short of meeting policy intentions. For instance during the first to
third (1962 to 1980) development plan periods, the federal government budgeted
#3.57 billion but only #2.41 billion was actually released for the sector (Federal
Department of Agriculture, National Development Plan, 1992). The record also
showed that in the first plan, 11.6 percent of the budget was allocated to agriculture
but only 9.8 percent was released, in the second plan 9.9 percent was budgeted but
17.7% was actually spent and in the third plan 7.2 allocation was budgeted and 7.1
of this amount was released for the period. Table 1 shows the budgetary allocation
to agriculture 1990-2002.
Table Showing Budgetary Allocation to Agriculture (# billion) 1990-2002
Year Total budget Allocation to agric % of agric to total
1990 39.76 1.96 4.95
1991 38.66 0.67 1.74
1992 52.03 0.92 1.78
1993 112.10 2.83 2.53
1994 110.20 3.71 3.37
1995 153.49 6.92 4.51
1996 337.21 5.71 1.69
1997 428.21 8.66 2.02
54
1998 487.11 9.04 1.86
1999 947.69 12.15 1.28
2000 701.05 13.60 1.94
2001 1,018.02 64.94 6.38
2002 1,018.15 44.80 4.40
Sources: CBN Statistical Bulletin and Annual Report (Various Issues)
The picture of budgetary allocations and actual expenditures for the period
covered showed that though the government put up ambitious policies their
financial commitment and consideration has been inadequate. It is therefore not
surprising that these policies have not achieved the food sufficiency, self reliance,
reduction in poverty and rural development goal. The Nigeria Agriculture Public
Expenditure Review (NAGPER), a collaborative study carried out by a research
team from the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) and the World
Bank (2008), showed that public spending on agriculture in Nigeria is less than 2
percent of total federal expenditure during 2001 to 2005. This spending contrasts
dramatically with the sector’s importance in the Nigerian economy, which ranged
from 20% to 30% of total Gross Domestic Product between 1996 to 2000 and
ranged between 41 to 42.30 between 2001 t0 2007 (Tewodaj, et al 2008; CBN,
2005, 2007); and falls below the 10 per cent goals set by African leaders in the
2003 Maputo agreement. Nearly 60 percent of total capital spending goes to
government purchase of fertilizer and buyer of last resort grain purchases. Public
funds implementation approaches differ significantly from those described in
policy documents, such very low funds are available for activities considered vital
for promoting agricultural productivity gains leading to pre-poor growth, such as
basic and applied agricultural research, agricultural extension and capacity
building, agricultural credit, irrigation development and agribusiness development.
55
Table 2 shows the contribution of Agriculture to the Gross Domestic Product
(2001-2007).
Table Showing the Contribution of Agriculture to Gross Domestic Product
2001-2007
Period Total GDP (# billion) Agric share of DGP % Share of Agric in
Total GDP
2001 431.78 182.66 42.30
2002 451.71 190.37 42.14
2003 495.01 203.01 41.01
2004 527.58 216.21 40.98
2005 561.83 231.46 41.19
2006 595.82 248.60 41.72
2007 632.86 267.06 42.20
Source: CBN (2005, 2007) GDP is at 1990 constant price.
The agricultural performance is not quite in doubt based on the aggregation
of the performance of the small holder farmers scattered across the nation.
Agricultural Financing Policies, Rural Development and Challenges
This section gives a brief overview of the impact of the financing schemes
on rural development and the reasons for failure, that is, the challenges that have
been thrown up in the course of implementation of these policies. Had these
policies, schemes, programmes, measures and institutions achieved their aims and
objectives, Nigeria could have not only succeeded in feeling its citizens but could
have been a major exporter of agricultural products with a high rate of rural
development.
Assessing Agricultural Policies in Relation to Rural Farmers in Nigeria
As earlier mentioned, some of the agricultural financing policies integrated
rural infrastructure development. This stems from the realization that food
56
production cannot be isolated from improvement in living conditions within the
rural food producing areas. It is not difficult to infer that the domestic food supply
situation would have been precarious if roads leading to and way from food centres
were to be left unattended. Food prices would have soared uncontrollably due to
damage and disrepair to vehicles conveying farm produce along these roads. This
in turn, would result in inflation.
According to Olayiwola and Adeleye (2005), the RBDAs constructed 11,
246 km of feeder roads, 1,319 boreholes, 29 wells and 130 dams under the
integrated rural development programme in the period 1980-83. They further stated
that between 1986 and 1988, the post-Fourth National Development mostly using
DFRRI, of a targeted 60,000km.
A recent study shows that agricultural finance impacted positively on farm
income. Total average farm income generated by the government’s rural farmers
programmes beneficiaries is larger than that generated by non-beneficiaries
(CBN,2007a). This higher income may be because of the leveraging associated
with borrowing which is a major form of agricultural financing and a constituent of
most agricultural policies. Increased income should translate into higher demand
for goods produced by other sectors of the economy. This is a boost to
consumption expenditure and, ultimately, the national income.
Other findings of the study are that the agricultural policies had a discernible
positive impact on employment in all the states; in seven of the thirteen states
studied, the technical impact on beneficiaries in terms of enterprise expansion and
land use are greater than for non-beneficiaries; positive impact on institutions
service delivery, etc.
Given the methodology of the study, it is correct to assume that most of the
beneficiaries drawn into the sample were from the rural areas. Hence, the
57
conclusion of the study is easily generalized for the rural areas. This implies that
the positive impacts recorded have helped in rural development.
Challenges of Agricultural Policies in Nigeria
Nigerian efforts in agricultural development over the past three decades have
failed to improve the country’s economy. A review of the sector depicts a gloomy
picture. Performance is reflected in environmental degradation, mounting food
deficits, and decline in both gross domestic product and export earnings, while
retail food prices and import bills have been increasing Osemebo (1992). The
effects have further impoverished the smallholders farmers, looking them into a
poverty web (Olawumi, 2009). These challenges have been the reason for failure
of previous policies, and they continue to threaten existing ones.
1. Lack of adequate skills to deliver services effectively. Most of the credit
institutions undertook lending to agriculture without the use of trained
agricultural credit officers vested with knowledge of agriculture and the
constraints to farmer performance. Additionally, supervision of credit
programmes has often been below acceptable standards. Invariably, the
schemes fail due to poor repayment performance.
2. Lack management capacity of farmer-clients. Most farmers who should benefit
from the financing policies, especially the financing schemes, lack the basic
skills of farm management, including record keeping. And when these are
called up as requirement for accessing facilities, as is always the case, they
become ineligible.
3. Unwillingness of conventional banks to support agriculture. Even with
mandatory (preferred sector) lending, guarantee of exposure and subsidized
fund schemes, most banks prefer not to land for farming, citing its lower
productivity and higher risk relative to the non- agricultural sector as their
reason.
58
4. Paucity of loanable funds. Most of the loanable funds have come from
government sources and is not sufficient for any meaningful agricultural
investment. The government cannot go it all alone. This creates a finance
supply deficit relative to demand. Statistics show that bank credit to agriculture
as a proportion of total bank credit to the economy has hardly exceeded 17 per
cent since recorded history in 1970, yet the sector contributes over 35 per cent
of the gross domestic product annually (CBN, 2007b).
5. Weak institutional support in the sector. Infrastructure for processing and
storage, land tenure systems, legal system for registration and perfection of
collateral, judicial system for the enforcement of loan contracts and foreclosure
of collateral, etc, are weak. This does not encourage private sector commitment
to the agricultural financing policies.
6. Poor funding of public financing institutions. The NACRDB, for instance, has
a capita base of 50 billion to be contributed to by the FGN and the CBN in a
60:40 ratio. However , as of date , about N23 billion has been paid up. DFRRI
and other non bank institutions were or have been similarly starved of funds.
These institutions cannot deliver effectively in the face this death in funding.
7. Some of the policies have been criticized for being excessively skewed against
the small farmer, given the eligibility requirements and documentation e.g.
Agriculture Credit Support Scheme, etc. Those schemes that are within the
reach of these farmers often have cumbersome procedures which soon prove
insurmountable.
8. Save for the RRF, most policies does not favour long gestation farm enterprises.
This leaves much to be desired as the implication is that the major agricultural
exports which are long gestation crops such as oil palm cocoa may not be
rehabilitated soon.
59
9. Undue political interference in lending operations. Any time Government
initiates a credit policy, most beneficiaries are those close to corridors of power.
The result is diversion of the fund and default in repayment.
10. Government belief that the appropriate interest rates for agricultural loans be
kept low to promote agricultural development and to assist small farmers ends
up in the hands of big farmers who now invest this fund in their business
leaving their own funds free for investment outside farming thereby negating
the intention of government to increase agricultural output and encourage
adoption of new technologies as well as develop the rural areas.
11. Credit flowing into unproductive areas leads to policy dislocation or distortion.
Example, River Basin Development Authority building an irrigation facility in
an irregular flowing river which is not likely to produce the necessary water for
irrigation. Or the same scheme engaging in food production with unnecessary
high over head costs.
12. The most challenging is the issue of inconsistency and lack of continuity as
well as insider abuse in the implementation of policies.
13. Feasibility Studies not Conducted Before Policy Formulation.
Sometimes policy formulation in agricultural sector in Nigeria fails to conduct
adequate feasibility studies through its field agencies such as ministries,
parastatals, commissions and other bodies alike. Therefore, a major problem in
policy making is the concentration of efforts on the design and formulation of
public policy Ikelegbe (1996). The problem in policy activity often tends to be
seen as policy formulation. The task of policy activity ends in policy making.
The task of implementation design in terms of consideration of the practicality,
suitability and feasibility, or how implementation the policy is, in the real life
situation are either neglected or given little considerations by the policy makers.
60
The contextual variables of culture, capability and political configuration
sometimes get ignored in the search for optimal or best policy choices.
However, the issues of whether a policy would be received, accepted,
supported, resisted, opposed or sabotaged is important for policy success. Thus a
major consideration in policy and implementation design is the search for the
alternative that would work, thrive and be sustained in the real life situation. Such
a consideration involves the search for variables that constrain or facilitate the
policy, in terms of the technical, legal, administrative, economic and particularly
political dimensions. A policy that would be practicable, is that could overwhelms
its constraints, socio-political costs and obstacles and accumulates resources,
assets, benefits and positive dispositions.
Two issues are important in the consideration of feasibility. First is the
configuration of support and the second is that of constrains. The configuration of
support and acceptance, particularly the level of public support, its stability and
sustenance in respect of a policy is vital to policy feasibility. Such support may
guarantee the co-operation of the citizenry, rather than apathy, resistance,
opposition, sabotage and other attempts to frustrate the programme. The critical
importance of support and acceptance of a policy, by the important groups,
individuals and the public success was succinctly put by Yehezkel Droro.
According to him,
A reasonable probability of political acceptance within a
defined time period, should constitute a threshold which must
be passed by every implementation oriented policy alternative
before it becomes a subject of serious consideration.
Political support from legislative bodies, political executives, the clientele
and the general public is particularly vital to policy and implementation success.
How much interest, commitment and support political leaders lend to a policy
determine the level of resources, efforts, energy, time and seriousness that the
61
policy would attract. Where such support is sustained, it could enhance
implementation and performance by a steady flow of resources. The focus of
political leaders on a programme could hasten implementation, motivate and
enhance commitment of programme staff, strengthen implementation propriety and
compliance and enhance operation, service delivery and outcomes. The problem of
most public policies is that many do not attract and sustain intense interest,
commitment and support of political leaders.
Certain characteristics of public policies tend to affect the level of support.
Policies of short term benefits tend to orchestrate more support. Policies requiring
behavioural changes and reorientations tend to be less accepted. Opposition is
garnered, when certain group or individual interests are threatened, neglected or
ignored. Those whose portion of policy allocations are cost rather than benefits
tend to be less supportive and may infact be resistant.
The question of the level and type of socio-economic impediments a policy
change may orchestrate is also important. Policy administrators may not take into
their implementation analysis the effect of policy changes on varying interest and
the importance and leverage of those whose interest are affected. There may be
negative impacts on groups and persons whose influence and probable action could
be vital to implementation success. The level of resistance and opposition,
particularly when importantly located, could thwart implementation or mar the
image, motivation and outcomes of implementation.
Thus policy making and implementation do not address many times, the
issue of feasibility. Policy and implementation conception and design do not
sufficiently address the issue of socio-political resources, constraints and
limitations. As a result, there may be the absence of the critical mass of support
and positive attitude or the quantum of political resources that could enhance
implementation. Policy implementation may therefore meet with resistance and
62
opposition. Furthermore, the socio-political costs of implementing or containing
the implementation may be too high, that the programme may be abandoned. Thus
the constraints and obstacles, politically and socially situated in the governmental
structure and environment, hitherto not considered and accommodated, may
ultimately destroy the policy effort and decimate its results.
14. Inadequate Preparations Before Implementation. The need for planning and
preparation before programme commencement cannot be over-emphasized.
Adequate preparations provide a basis for effective commencement. Preparations
could be in three ways. There could be the design of the outlines and frameworks
of implementation, in terms of the choice of project units, goods, services, mode of
delivery and the instruments for implementation. Two, the administrative and other
structural arrangements could be set up. Three, preparations could be in the form of
funds mobilization and procurement of critical inputs. Most time, the executive
arm of the government do not properly things done before embarking on policy
formulation and implementation. Ake (1986) and Nnoli (1987) have attributed part
of policy problems in the underdeveloped countries as inadequate preparations.
The state of preparedness for programme implementation should determine
implementation commencement of the executive. But sometimes, implementation
commences without adequate provision and preparation. Political leaders
especially those in the executive arm tend to rely on prediction, rather than wait for
adequate preparation before commencing policy implementation, depend on
political opportunities, political support, political climate and public mood. Such
implementation are often characterized by several problems such as sluggish
implementation, slowed and poor output, poor results, implementation gaps and
gaps between societal expectations and actual outcomes.
15. Implementing Organizations as a Factor in the Deviation:
63
The ministry, department or agency which is entrusted with implementing
agricultural policies may possess several characteristics that might dissipate
implementation favour, and clog, delay, distort and mar implementation Okpanachi
(2004).
The agency or ministry may not possess the abilities, experience and
expertise to implement the policy. It may not possess the vigour, enthusiasm and
dynamism to execute to policy effectively. It possesses established procedures,
routines, traditions and disposition that may not enhance implementation. Many
departments and ministries and their staff acquire behaviours, momentum and
inertia that is slow and inefficient. The staff may not regard the policy with
positive disposition and sympathy. They may resist the changes introduced by the
policy and thus may not approach implementation with enthusiasm.
The implementing ministry’s staff may also possess low morale, motivation
and productivity. This may result from poor organizational set up. The agency may
be overloaded and excessively burdened by implementation responsibilities and
programmes that it finds additional responsibilities difficult to manage. The agency
may also possess interests and motivations that are different and infact
contradicting to the policy’s implementation. A policy’s location in a department
possessing the above characteristics may spell implementation failure.
Sometimes downward and upward communication, in the form of
information exchanges, directives, orders and circulars in the implementing
organization and progarmmes are not received and comprehended, at both higher
levels and lower levels of the agency’s hierarchy. Thus, directives and orders from
the top do not get received on time, may not contain clear direction, may not be
understood, may become clogged in the mass of downward communication and
may not have been properly channeled. As a result, there may not be action or
compliance or sometimes there may be delays and confused reaction because
64
subordinates do not make clear meanings out of the instructions. The situation of
delays and confusion may persist where top hierarchy do not monitor to ensure
correct interpretations and compliance or do not get feedback on the past
directives. Poor top down communication may therefore generate implementation
problems particularly in respect of delays, confused actions and non-compliance.
Poor upward communication also leads to implementation failures. In the
first peace, bottom up communication is vital to top management, for it enables
information on the state of activities and problems. Poor communication
incapacitates top management in guiding activities and taking corrective actions.
Furthermore, it provides top management information on subordinate behaviour
and compliance with rules, directives and regulation in carrying out
implementation duties. Information gaps again prevent top managements form
taking corrective action to ensure propriety in implementation activity.
Sometimes the nature of a programme conception and implementation
generate a need to set up new structures or agencies for their implementation
outside existing government departments or ministries. The enthusiasm,
inspiration, momentum, capacities and quick substantive results which are required
in the policy’s implementation may not be obtainable in the existing government
agencies. Thus, special units or departments may be established within existing
governmental structures, or entire new structures may be set up. While this
jurisdictional restructuring may possess advantages, in terms of the momentum of
implementation and may denote governmental seriousness, it further generates
problems in implementation.
First, it tends to enlarge unnecessarily the governmental apparatus. The
dictum in many countries implementing new programmes is establish new
structures. But such makes the governmental machinery more unwieldy and
complicates co-ordination and control. Replications and overlapping are increased.
65
Furthermore, the new agencies becomes too attractive because of governmental
attention and favoours in fund allocation and career progression that the best staff
of existing structures get pooled up. Such programme staff become the object of
envy, with its attendant problems for the civil service morale. More importantly,
such new structures may later become bogged by inertia, red tape, routines and
poor momentum, just as other agencies the structures may also become redundant
and irrelevant when there is a shift of governmental priorities to other policy areas.
16. Programme Leadership and Management. Programme leaders in the executive
arm could be quite facultative of implementation. They steer, direct and motivate
programme efforts. An able, committed and enthusiastic leadership could build and
strengthen the commitment, devotion, loyalty, support and enthusiasm of staff in
programme implementation. Such leadership could effectively mobilize staff for
programme success. However, good leaderships are always rare. Many programme
leaders are selfish, incompetent and corrupt. Appointments of programme directors
and managers are often motivated by political patronage and other subjective
considerations, rather than proven ability, experience, competence and expertise.
As a result, many programme leaders do not possess the technical expertise,
managerial ability and moral integrity to motivate and mobilize staff effectively for
programme success. Frequent leadership turnover further depreciates the
leadership influence on programme success. Frequent leadership changes affect the
programme development and stability and negatively affect the morale,
commitment and loyalty of staff.
The issue of poor management is major particularly in the developing
countries. In these countries, executive capacity to manage programmes is usually
poor. Management problems reflect in poor capabilities in managing programme
resources, controlling implementation activity and in evaluating problems. Poor
management also reflects in the poor organizational structuring for
66
implementation, in respect of administrative set up and arrangements. The poor
project supervision, poor compliance to programme directives, the poor
determination of and slow response to implementation problems, poor staff
utilization arising from inappropriate positions, poor allocation of responsibilities
and non strengthening of staff competence are also reflections of poor management
of programmes. Programmes are also characterized by inappropriate
implementation decisions in relation to equipment, utilization of inputs, allocation
of resources, selection of contractors and contractual agreements.
There is, generally, poor capacity to implement programmes in many
developing countries, particularly the large scale and highly technical programme.
The management problems may be traceable to poor quality management, staffing,
inadequacy of specialized skills and expertise in certain areas.
17. Resources Control: A major problem in programme is inadequacy of resource
to effectively effective programmes. Oftentimes, programmes resource
commitments or promises do not come near what it takes to execute at the level of
operation, delivery of goods and services and targets, anticipated or directed. Many
programmes do not have the means and resources for effective execution because
resource commitments are not increased, strengthened or reinforced. Because of
other priorities, the government may be unwilling to spend adequately to attain
success. Sometimes programme responsibilities are increased or public
expectations generated, without commensurate increase in allocated programme
resources. There are often gaps between resources on the one hand and
responsibilities and directed accomplishment levels and expectations on the other
hand. Thus resources may be insufficient to obtain implementation success.
The implications of inadequate resources are numerous and often negative.
There may be frustration on the part of programme staff, delays in implementation,
reduced operations, problems of procurement of critical inputs, problem of non-
67
payment of contractors, consultant and other clients and higher costs of purchases
of postponed inputs, arising from inflation.
Some programmes too, lack adequate staff either in terms of overall
numbers or in terms of specific areas of professional, technical or managerial
competence and expertise. Such programmes tend to be ineffective because the
staff are either overworked, cannot possibly attend to some responsibilities and do
not have existing expertise to properly manage some roles. The inadequacy or lack
of staff therefore inhibits performance.
The problem of inadequate technical, managerial and professional skills, or
poor executive capacity, is a major plague in the development efforts of developing
countries. Such low capacities underlie the failure of many development plans and
policy programmes.
18. Overlapping Jurisdiction and Level of Inter-Agency and Inter-Governmental
Involvement. Some policy programmes involve more than one agency and
government. Programme may be located in one agency and undertaken by one
government, but they may require co-operation, the performance of certain
functions and provision of assistance from other agencies or governments. Thus
programmes may be dependent on other agencies, governments and even the
private sector for critical inputs and activities. Such a situation requires
considerable inter-agency and inter-government communication, co-ordination and
co-operation.
Several problems may arise, which may jeopardize such programme
implementation. The level of communication, information exchange and co-
operation between the agencies and governments may be poor. Differences in
values, beliefs and commitment among the agencies and governments may also
affect the programme. Differences of interests and partisan configuration, may
make the relationships asymmetrical and consequently conflictual.
68
Some programmes are overlapping in terms of agency jurisdiction. Thus,
they are implemented by more than one agency. Sometimes, there may not be clear
demarcations of responsibilities. The modalities for co-operation and exchanges
may not also exist. There may not also be a unit or body, which integrates,
streamline and co-ordinates efforts and activities. In these situations, the
relationship between the agencies with overlapping jurisdiction may not be
streamlined and thus may be characterized with competition, rivalry, hostility and
conflicts. Rather than mutually re-defining and differentiating roles and sharing
them, based on technical capacities available to each, the agencies may waste
resources in the duplication of programme projects and activities. The overlapping
also creates an air caution and inaction in implementation.
19. Duality of Policy Making
Sometimes a policy is similar in some ways to others, such as in the problem
addressed, objectives and clientele served Obi et. al (2008). The duality may be
reinforced by their location in different implementing agencies, thereby creating a
situation where different agencies apply policies with some similarities and address
the same problems. Such duality, without strong co-ordination and co-operation
dissipates government energies and resources, because of inherent duplications of
projects and activities.
Duality may negatively affect implementation in several ways. It may
generate competition and rivalry among staff of the programmes. This is because
each programme would strive for more visibility and attention. The programmes
would also compete for government resources. The programmes may seek to
undermine the other or outpace the other’s capacity, competence and support. The
motivations and interests of the programmes implementing agencies may not be
the furtherance of programme objectives. There may be conflicts over
jurisdictional areas, projects and activities. The contestation and competition
69
between the programmes implementing agencies may be unhealthy for stable and
successful implementation.
20. Corruption on the Side of the Implementing Agencies
Actors in the implementation process posses varying motivations and
interest. The motivations determine their focus, and underlie their activities. The
interests may be self centered. Thus individuals and groups who support a policy
may do so because of anticipated favoured allocations of services and contracts.
The implementing officials may be motivated by self aggrandizement. The
implementing organization may not have other interests than increased funds
allocation and accompanying incentives or benefits. The political leadership
motivation may be opportunities for political patronage and funds accumulation for
the next elections. Thus the activities, actions and behaviouir of policy and
implementation officials, tend to be directed at satisfying interest that may not be
central to programme objectives.
As a result, deviant practices could emerge in the process of implementation.
There could be various corrupt practices, perversions, diversion of goods and
services and personal aggrandizement. For example, the procurement of
programme inputs could be ridden with such problems as dubious invoices,
exaggerated contracts and deals with contractors and consultants. These corrupt
practices raise implementation costs, distort and pervert implementation, misdirect
implementation goods and services and depreciate efficient allocation and
utilization of scare resources. They also create problems of indiscipline, non
compliance, disloyalty, poor morale and inefficiency.
21. Contractual Problems
Many programmes depend on private contracts for critical inputs for activity
and operations, such as supplies and procurement, construction, production of
goods and services, research, training of personnel, and sometimes even operation.
70
The performance of these programmes, therefore largely depend on the
performance of contractors. However, sometimes the programme contractors may
not be the most facilitative of programme objectives and targets. Political
patronage, rather than capability, expertise, experience and proven efficiency, tend
to be the criteria sometimes for awarding contracts, poor performance and
abandonment. Many programmes implementation are bogged and problem ridden
because of contractors’ indiscipline, corruption and non performance.
2.2 Hypotheses
The following hypotheses have been formulated to guide this study:
(i) The extent of growth and development in the agricultural sector determine
the impact of agricultural policies on Nigerian economy.
(ii) The beneficiaries of government agricultural policies in Nigeria are not the
actual targeted population group in the agricultural dominated activities.
(iii) High incidence of corruption and weak implementation strategies are key
militating factors against agricultural policies in Nigeria.
2.3 Operationalization of Key Concepts in the Hypotheses
The clarifications of the following key concepts capture their
operationalization or technical usage in the research work. These concepts will
facilitate the understanding of the content of this study. These concepts are:
(i) Growth and Development in the Agricultural Sector: Growth and development
as used here connote a sustainable increase in the agricultural sector in terms of the
Gross Domestic Product (GDP).
(ii) The beneficiaries of Government Agricultural Policies:
The beneficiaries of government agricultural policies are the targeted group of the
policies and programmes on agriculture. The target groups of the government
71
agricultural policies are the farmers and those who engage in other agricultural
dominated activities.
(iii) High Incidence of Corruption:
High incidence of corruption is seen as any form of official miss-conduct to breach
the official protocols or bend some rules and regulations governing the
implementation of government agricultural policies to achieve personal interest or
that of others.
(iv) Weak Implementation Strategies:
Implementation strategies are measures map-out framework to be followed in
administering policy actions. In other words, weak implementation strategies are
defaults in implementation of agricultural policies.
2.4 Methodology
This sub-section of the research or report deals with the ways, procedures or
steps followed in carrying out the research or report study. Methodology according
to (Odo 1999:40) is the authority base for a research. The following steps were
taken in carrying out this research or report study.
Research Design
Research design according to Nwana, (1985:34) relates to the general
approach adopted in executing a study. This research is a descriptive study
designed to investigate into the topic; assessing the impact of agricultural policies
on Nigerian economy”. As a fact- finding study, this study is focused on both past
and present government agricultural policies in Nigeria to have a holistic approach
to the subject matter.
Sources of Data Collection
In the process of carrying out this study, the data used were collected from
two major sources. These sources include the primary and secondary sources.
72
Primary Sources of Data
The primary sources of data used for the analysis of the study are those
collected from the respondents through the designed questionnaire and interview.
The questionnaires were administered by the researcher, we conducted oral
interview on some top management employees in the Ministry of Agriculture both
at the federal and state levels. This was done to elicit further information from
them concerning the issue under study.
Secondary Sources of Data
The secondary data for this study were collected from already written books
both published and unpublished that were found to be relevant for this study. These
already written works include text books, journals, magazines, Newspaper,
Government documents, and past research work by students and research
institutions.
Population of the Study
The term “population” has been defined by Odo (1992:40) as “the entire
number of people, objects events and things that all have one or more
characteristics of interest to a study”. The population of this study is drawn from
the Ministry of Agriculture both at federal, state and local government levels.
However, the information given by the Personnel/ Human Resources Development
Unit of the Federal Ministry of Agriculture Enugu shows that there are about 280
civil servants working under the Ministry as at January 2010. In addition, the
Enugu State Ministry of Agriculture gave a figure of 450 staff as its staff strength.
This figure covers both the staff at state and branch offices at the local
governments within the state. In other words, the population of the study covers a
total of 730 people.
73
Sample of Study
Samples are normally used in studies that involve large population. The
reasons for using sample include; the desire to adequately manipulate the
enormous population in order to avoid errors due to the calculation of large
numbers and the desire to reduce the cost of producing the questionnaires that will
cover the entire population.
Odo (1992:47) defines a research sample “as a process of selecting a
proportion of the population considered adequate to represent all existing
characteristics within the target population and to any other population having
similar characteristics with the target population”. To draw a sample size, the
researcher selected 120 respondents each from the federal and Enugu State
Ministry of Agriculture sampled out for this study. These respondents were drawn
from the management, senior and junior staff of the Ministry. Therefore, the target
sample population of study is drawn as show below:
Target Population of the Study
Selected Ministries Population Sample
Ministry of Agriculture 120
Enugu State Ministry of Agriculture 120
Total 240
Source: Research Data 2010.
Sampling Procedure
The sample technique or procedure used for the study is the simple Random
Sampling (SRS) in selecting the respondents that would answer the questionnaires.
According to Odo (1992:51) simple random sampling assumes all the elements in
the population to be studied or identified, having all the characteristics,
symmetrical, same and similar”. In applying simple random sampling, the research
randomly selected the respondents to give equal opportunity to all the staff of the
74
ministry sampled out for the study. In regards, the researcher selected 120
respondents each from Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Enugu State Ministry
of Agriculture. This apparently brought our sample size to 240 respondents.
Data Gathering Instrument
Questionnaire is the main data gathering instrument adopted in this study.
Questionnaires are sets of questions and answers which can be mailed to
respondents by post or carried by field worker or enumerator and researchers for
their responses. Odo (1992:41) defines questionnaire as a “series of written
questions or a responsitory and/or a devise which the respondents written opinions
are sought that test the research questions or answers to research questions and
hypotheses”.
In this study, the close-ended and open ended questions were adopted to
obtain information from the respondents. The questions posed were related to the
topic under the study. Options were provided to the respondents to select from the
close-ended questions while the Likert type of questions were also included to
enable the respondents to state areas of desirability and undesirability in the open-
ended part of the questionnaire.
Reliability and Validity of Instrument
According to Obasi (2000:103); Black and Champman and Nachinias and
Nachimas (1981), the success of any research lies to a large extent on the
dependability of the data employed in analysis. This then raises the question of
validity and reliability.
Validity as the name implies is the appropriateness of an instrument in
measuring what is intended to measure. According to (Odo, 1992:50) validity is
the extent to which a test measures what it is supposed to measure. Validity
therefore, occurs when a careful attempt has been made to ensure that an
instrument adopted measures achieve the desired results by applying the theoretical
75
knowledge in the filled about what is being studied and by convincing oneself
common sensically, that the items, in the instrument has been logically validated
Obasi (2000:104).
In validating our instruments for data collection, we shall be concerned with
establishing their content validity. We are doing this first, to ensure that they
measure what they are expected to measure and more importantly, because content
validity comprises of face validity, predictive and concurrent validity, construed
validity or criterion related or empirical validity Black and Chempion (1976:91).
We shall therefore, ensure that the questionnaire we shall use will be appropriately
structured; well worded and covers a good representation of the Enugu state civil
servants.
We shall ensure validity by insisting that our empirical measure adequately
reflects the real meaning of the concept under consideration. We shall employ
content or face validity method which will enable us to ensure that the instrument
we shall use will be valid. To ensure this, we must ensure that the questions in our
instruments are good ones. We must equally ensure that they are logically and
relevantly measuring what the instruments are set out to measure.
Reliability, on the other hand, refers to the ability of an instrument to
produce the same results consistently over some time when applied to the same
sample, Good and Hart (1952:86). The reliability of our instruments will be
assured by our consistency in our question and interview models. According to
Odoh (1992:54) reliability means consistency and it is the consistency of the test in
measuring whatever it purports to measure. We shall ensure reliability of our
instruments by ensuring that the question we shall pose in both questionnaire and
personal interview shall be in simple, good, precise and understandable form to the
respondents.
76
To ensure reliability, we shall use internal consistency method whereby
cross-checking questions are built into the questionnaire and oral interview. We
shall further ensure reliability by cross- checking our information against many
sources and by ensuring that facts and figures collected from various sources
earlier stated shall not only be accurate and authentic but would remain same if the
collection is repeated again and again.
In addition to the above measures aimed at ensuring validity and reliability
of the study, we shall employ external criterion to check how correct the findings
of a particular instruments are. We shall do this by comparing the result with
existing knowledge as well as our findings from field work, questionnaire, oral
interview, participant observation and content analysis. With the above processes,
the validity and reliability of the instruments as well as the study will be assured.
Method of Data Analysis
In analyzing the raw collected data, the researcher will be guided by the
objectives of the study and the research questions. Also items on the questionnaire
will be spread out in order to capture the qualitative and quantitative responses
expected from the respondents.
The study adopts the use of tables,chi-square statistical measurement and
content analysis. However, in presenting the tabulated data, the use of simple
percentage will be adopted. It is worthy to mention that the simple percentage will
enable us to access the proportional percentages of the respondents’ opinions in the
questions asked while the chi-square statistical method will enable us test the
variables in our research hypothetical statements. Hence, the researcher will be
guided by the following formulas:
For the calculation of simple percentage, we shall use
n x 100
N 1
77
Where, n = Number of the Respondents opinions in a particular options
N = Total number of the Respondents
100 = Percentage constant factor 100
1
For the calculation of chi-square, we shall use the formula;
X2 = Oij - Eij
Eji
Where; Oij = number observed in the ith row and jth column
Eij = the number expected in the cell under the null hypothesis and is
obtained by:
Eij = Li x Mj
N
Where Li = Marginal row total
Mj = Marginal column total
N = Overall total or number of observations.
The chi- square utilizes what is called the degree of freedom and specified
test criteria. The degree of freedom (df) is simple:
DF = (r -1) (c -1)
Where, r = Number of rows
c = Number of columns.
2.5 Theoretical Framework
It is a tradition in the social sciences to adopt existing paradigms or theories
to enable us articulate our analysis Obuoforibe (2002:27). Theories are simply the
foundations upon explanations or predictions can be made. In many ways, a theory
is a guide to action and an aid in search for the essential meaning of occurrence.
Haralambos (1980:521) defined a theory as a set of ideas which provides
explanation for something”. An elaborate definition is however given by Kerlinger
78
(1973:8). He defines theory as “set of interrelated constructs (concepts),
definitions, and propositions that present a systematic view of phenomena by
specifying relations among variables with the purpose of explaining and predicting
the phenomena”.
In the study, the theory used to explain the impact of agricultural policies
and Nigerian economy is the Eastonian approach of the “system theory”
propounded by Devid Easton of Chicago University, USA in 1953. The idea of
systems implies the interdependence of parts and subparts for the effective
performance of the whole system Das and Choudhury (1997:21).
Going by the Eastonian approach, the economy of any nation is like a
system with many parts and sub-parts, it is difficult to understand one part without
the other. The central assumption is that all social, economic and political
phenomena are interrelated. They affect each other for survival of the whole
system. Easton therefore argues that, it is not possible to understand one part of the
society in isolation from the other parts which affect its operation.
To explicate on the working of the system theory, David Easton identifies
three properties: comprehensiveness, interdependence and the existence of
boundaries. By interdependence it means that a change in one subset of
interactions produces change in all other subsets due to the mutual coexistence
among the different units. The property of comprehensiveness refers to that all the
interactions found in the system Ayatse and Akuva (2009). The property of
existence of boundaries in a political system means, that there are points where the
other systems end their functions and the other beings from where the other stops.
Application of the Theory to the Study
From the foregoing, the major assumptions of the Eastonian approach of the
system theory could be used to explain the relationship between agricultural
policies and the Nigerian economy. This is because the systems theory has so
79
many justifications with the subject matter of this study. The Nigerian economy is
made up of different sectors and sub-sectors which David Easton calls the system
and sub-systems. The system here represents the Nigerian whole economic set up
while the subsystems are the different economic sectors like agriculture,
petroleum, energy, mine, education, health, the manufacturing etc. By
interdependence, it means that change in one sector of the economy lead to change
in the other sector of the same economy, it implies that no sector of the economy
on its own, without interacting with the other can be successful nor lead to the
advancement of the whole economic set up. Agricultural policies cannot be
successful no matter how good they are if other sectors of the economy like
energy, education backing sector and the manufacturing/industrial sectors are
malfunctioning. The absence of or poor social infrastructures like roads, water,
electricity, health, education etc can truncate the success of agricultural policies.
The energy sector need to provide electricity for industries to be established so that
agricultural produce can feed the industries. The absence of interaction among the
various sectors of the economy has made it difficult to experience
comprehensiveness in the Nigerian economic set up. The much revenue generated
from the oil has not been used to effectively impact on the agricultural projects not
even to put in place social infrastructures. The banks are not willing to assist poor
farmers with loans, even when the facility is there the conditions are stringent. The
disconnection among the various sectors of the economy is what Claude Ake calls
“economies hardly advance.
From the above argument, is clear that, though agriculture has the impacted
positively on the Nigerian economy, on its own it can do nothing without getting
the necessary functional support from other sectors of the economy. The poor
economic sectoral relationship in the Nigerian economy is purely responsible for
the failure of agricultural policies in Nigeria.
80
CHAPTER THREE
RESULT AND FINDINGS
This chapter will focus on presentation and analysis of data collected from
both primary and secondary sources. The study will also test its research
hypotheses to ascertain their consistence with the findings. However, it is pertinent
to state that out of 240 questionnaires administered by the researcher, only 220
were successfully recovered. In otherwise, 7 questionnaires were unanswered
while the remaining 13 questionnaires were not recovered at the time of collection
by the researcher.
TABLE 4.1
RESPONDENTS’ OPINIONS ON WHETHER GOVERNMENT
AGRICULTURAL POLICES IN NIGERIA ARE GOOD ENOUGH TO
TRANSFORM AGRICULTURAL SECTOR
Options Frequency Percentage (%)
Strongly Agree 75 34.1
Agree 137 62.2
Undecided 0 0.0
Disagree 5 2.3
Strongly Disagree 3 1.4
Total 220 100
Source: Research Data, 2010.
Table 4.1 above, presented the respondents’ opinions on whether
government agricultural policies in Nigeria are good enough to transform
agricultural sector. From the above table, 75 respondents or 34.1% strongly agreed,
137 respondents or 62.2% agreed, none of the respondent answered undecided, 5
respondents or 2.3% disagreed while 3 respondents or 1.4% strongly disagreed.
81
The researcher endeavoured to ascertain more information from the
respondents in order to know why some respondents accepted and others did not
accept that government agricultural policies in Nigeria are good enough to
transform agricultural sector. The oral interview conducted to the respondents
revealed that Nigeria has good agricultural development policies and programmes
when compared with some other countries but the respondents however, disclosed
these agricultural policies and programmes sometimes fail to achieve the desired
results. On the other view, the respondents who answered disagreed and strongly
disagreed revealed that the government agricultural policies in Nigeria are still not
enough to transform agricultural sector.
TABLE 4.2
RESPONDENTS’ OPINIONS ON WHAT CONSTITUTED MAJOR
OBJECTIVE OF AGRICULTURAL POLICIES IN NIGERIA
Options Frequency Percentage (%)
Diversification of Nigeria economy 95 43.2
Strengthening economic development 70 31.8
Enhancing agricultural productivity 30 13.6
Increasing the country’s foreign earnings 25 11.4
Total 220 100
Source: Research Data, 2011.
Table 4.2 revealed that in a question directed to ascertain the major objective
of agricultural policies in Nigeria, 95 respondent or 43.2% chose that
diversification of Nigerian economy is the major objective, 70 respondents or
31.8% chose that strengthening economic development is to then the major
objective of agricultural policies, 30 respondents or 13.6% were of the opinion that
enhancing agricultural productivity is the major objective of agricultural policies
82
while 25 respondents or 11.4% said that increasing the country’s foreign earnings
is the major objective of agricultural policies.
From the questionnaire item on question 9, and 10 which asked the
respondents which objective appeals most to them and to identify any other five
objectives of agricultural policies known to them, the researcher noted that greater
percentage of the respondents indicated that the major objective that appeals most
to them is diversification of Nigerian economy. However, many respondents
disclosed that other options listed in the questionnaire item question 8 were part of
their identify objectives if they were to mention. Only few of some said that other
objectives may include; reduction of poverty through agricultural policies since
large percent of the Nigerian population depend on it to earn living, some others
emphasized that the need to create job through agriculture is another good
objective of agricultural policies in Nigeria. In addition, some identified that the
need to ensure adequate food supply is another objective. The need to provide the
required raw-materials for industrial development was also emphasized as yet
another objective while the need to decongest the over dependency on crude oil
was extensively stressed by the respondents as part of the objectives. Observation
from the respondents showed that objectives of agricultural policies are multi-
dimensional in nature.
TABLE 4.3, RESPONDENTS’ OPINIONS ON WHETHER THEY AGREE THAT GOVERNMENT
AGRICULTURAL POLICIES HAVE IMPROVED NIGERIAN AGRICULTURAL
SECTOR
Options Frequency Percentage (%)
Strongly Agree 95 43.2
Agree 66 30.0
Undecided 0 0.0
Disagree 42 19.1
Strongly Disagree 17 7.7
Total 224 100
Source: Research Data, 2010.
83
As depicted from the table above, 95 respondents or 43.2% strongly agreed,
while 66 respondents or 30.0% agreed that government agricultural polices have
improved Nigerian agricultural sector. On the other, hand, none of the respondent
indicated on the option undecided, 42 respondents or 19.1% indicated disagree
while 17 respondents or 7.7% indicated strongly disagree. Respondents’ opinions
showed that an appreciative improve has been achieved but much still need to done
since from the world standard, Nigeria is still underdeveloped in agriculture. It is
therefore difficulty to admit affirmatively that government agricultural policies
have improved Nigerian agricultural sector.
TABLE 4.4
RESPONDENTS’ OPINIONS ON WHETHER AGRICULTURAL
POLICIES AND PROGRAMMES ARE MARKING SIGNIFICANCE
IMPACT IN THE AGRICULTURAL SECTOR
Options Frequency Percentage (%)
Strongly Agree 85 38.6
Agree 70 31.8
Undecided 0 0.0
Disagree 40 18.2
Strongly Disagree 25 11.4
Total 224 100
Source: Research Data, 2010.
Table 4.4 above investigates on whether agricultural policies and
programmes are making significance impact in the agricultural sector. From the
table, 85 respondents or 38.6% indicated strongly agree while another 70
respondents or 31.8% indicated agree in support of the question that agricultural
policies and programmes are making significance impact in the agricultural sector.
The researcher endeavoured to ascertain further information from the respondents
84
on their acceptance that agricultural policies and programmes are making
significance impact in the agricultural sector. These respondents argued strongly
that from Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in agricultural sector, an appreciative
progress has bee made. This is means that an appreciative production level has
been achieved. These respondents disclosed that the current agricultural policies
and programmes in Nigeria are making significant progress in the sector. For
instance, they mentioned FADAMA programmes as one agricultural programmes
that is making an immense progress.
On the other hand, 40 respondents or 18.2% disagreed while 25 respondents
or 11.4% strongly disagreed that agricultural policies and programmes are making
significance impact in the agricultural sector.
TABLE 4.5
RESPONDENTS’ OPINIONS ON AREAS THAT AGRICULTURAL
POLICIES HAVE IMPACTED POSITIVELY ON THE ECONOMY OF
NIGERIA
Areas of Positive Impact Frequency Percentage (%)
Food supply & raw materials 70 31.8
Foreign exchange 30 13.6
Domestic savings 41 18.6
Employment & poverty reduction 79 35.9
Total 220 100
Source: Research Data, 2011.
Table 4.5 examines the respondents’ opinions on areas they think
agricultural policies have impacted positively on the economy of Nigeria. From the
data presented above, 70 respondents or 31.8% indicated that food supply and raw
materials are areas of positive impact of agricultural policies on Nigerian economy,
30 respondents or 13.6% were of the view that Nigeria’s foreign exchange has
85
relatively increased, 41 respondents or 18.6% said that agricultural policies have
increased domestic savings while 79 respondents or 35.9% said that employment
and poverty reduction is another area agricultural policies have impacted positively
on the Nigerian economy.
Findings from the responses revealed that agricultural policies have
impacted positively on the economy of Nigeria considering the areas of progress
identified by the respondents. However, dominant views from our literature review
showed that the results of agricultural policies in Nigeria have achieved little
considering their set objectives and government financial investments in the sector.
In other words, we do not hold on to the opinions of the respondents to an extreme.
TABLE 4.6
RESPONDENTS’ OPINIONS ON WHETHER FORMULATION OF
AGRICULTURAL POLICIES CONSIDERS MAJOR AGRICULTURAL
PROBLEMS IN NIGERIA
Options Frequency Percentage (%)
Strongly Agree 45 20.5
Agree 38 17.2
undecided 9 4.1
Disagree 70 31.8
Strongly disagree 58 26.4
Total 220 100
Source: Research Data, 2011
Table 4.6 examines whether formulation of agricultural policies consider
major agricultural problems in Nigeria. Analysis of data in the table showed that
45 respondents or 20.5% strongly agreed while 38 respondents or 17.2% agreed
that formulation of agricultural policies consider major agricultural problems in
Nigeria. On the other hand, 9 respondents or 4.1% chose undecided, 70
86
respondents or 31.8% indicated disagree while 58 respondents or 26.4 indicated
strongly disagree.
Observations from the oral interview conducted by the researcher in this
aspect showed that formulation of the public policies in Nigeria is usually
characterized by poor identification of problems, such as the social, cultural,
geographical, political, economic, biological/environmental problems that may mar
the implementation of such public policies. Some agricultural problems tend to be
poorly or wrongly defined and as such policy prescriptions get wrongly directed.
Some are defined in abstracts, in absolutes and without cognizance of causal
variables. Problems conceptions that do not relate to the context linkages to other
problems is multi-causal or because the problem was defined in absolute rather
relative terms.
TABLE 4.7
RESPONDENTS’ OPINIONS ON WHETHER THEY AGREE THAT THE
IMPLEMENTATION OF AGRICULTURAL POLICIES HAVE ALWAYS
FOLLOWED THE IMPLEMENTATION DIRECTIVES OF POLICY
DOCUMENT
Options Frequency Percentage (%)
Strongly Agree 45 20.5
Agree 39 17.2
Undecided 3 1.4
Disagree 76 34.5
Strongly disagree 58 26.4
Total 220 100
Source: Research Data, 2011.
Table 4.7 examines whether the implementation of agricultural policies have
always followed the implementation directives of policy documents. From the
87
table above, 45 respondents or 20.5% strongly agreed and 39 respondents or 17.2%
agreed that implementation of agricultural policies has always followed the
implementation directions of policy document.
On the other hand, 76 respondents or 34.5% disagreed while 58 respondents
or 26.4% strongly disagreed that implementation of agricultural policies have
always followed the implementation directives of the policy document.
TABLE 4.8
RESPONDENTS’ VIEW ON WHETHER THE EVALUATION OF IMPACT
OF AGRICULTURAL POLICIES ON THE NIGERIAN ECONOMY IS
ONLY MEASURABLE IN THE GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT OF
AGRICULTURAL SECTOR IN NIGERIA
Options Frequency Percentage (%)
Strongly agree 105 47.7
Agree 90 40.9
Undecided 2 0.9
Disagree 13 5.9
Strongly disagree 10 4.5
Total 220 100
Source: Research Data, 2011.
From the above presented data, 105 respondents or 47.7% strongly agreed
and 90 respondents or 40.9% agreed which implies that the evaluation of impact of
agricultural policies on the Nigerian economy is only measurable in the growth and
development of agricultural sector in Nigeria.
Observation from discussion or oral interview conducted with some
respondents showed that generally, assessment on the impact of agricultural
policies is usually measured from their impact to the growth and development on
the economy. Apparently, their views are in consonance with the policy aims of the
88
Ministry of Agriculture Policy Guide of 2004 which stipulates that the policy aims
at the attainment of self sustaining growth in all the sub-sector of agriculture and
the structural transformation necessary for the overall socio-economic
development of the country as well as the improvement in the quality of life of
Nigerians. This finding or observation goes further to validate our research
hypothesis one which stated that the extent of growth and development in the
agricultural sector determine the impact of agricultural polices on Nigeria
economy.
However, assessment of other views of the respondents showed that 13
respondents or 5.9% disagreed and 10 respondents or 4.5% strongly disagreed to
the question that the evaluation of the impact of agricultural policies on the
Nigerian economy is only measurable in the growth and development of
agricultural sector in Nigeria. To these respondents, evaluation of the impact of
agricultural policies on the Nigerian economy should not be limited to growth and
development in the agricultural sector. Apparently, this view did not contradict the
views of the respondents who answered strongly agreed and agreed. This is
because growth and development in the agricultural sector as used here by the
researcher correlated with the responses of these respondents who said that socio-
economic benefits in terms of adequate of food supply to the people, increase
income into farmers, improved productivity, increased foreign exchange, etc.
should also be considered as part of evaluation of impact of agricultural policies on
Nigerian economy.
89
TABLE 4.9
RESPONDENTS’ OPINIONS ON WHETHER THERE IS SUFFICIENT
FUNDING OF AGRICULTURAL POLICIES IN NIGERIA
Options Frequency Percentage (%)
Strongly agree 30 13.6
Agree 25 11.4
Undecided 5 2.3
Disagree 98 44.4
Strongly agree 62 28.2
Total 220 100
Sources: Research Data, 2011.
Table 4.9 examines whether there is sufficient funding of agricultural
policies in Nigeria. Presentation from the table above shows that 30 respondents or
13.6% strongly agreed while 25 respondents or 11.4% agreed that there is
sufficient funding of agricultural policies in Nigeria.
On the other hand, 5 respondent or 2.3% indicated undecided, 98
respondents or 44.4% disagreed while 62 respondents or 28.2% strongly disagreed
to the question. Going by this observation, and considering our literature review on
the sub-heading “challenges of agricultural policies in Nigeria” it was observed
that poor funding is a one of the major challenges facing the implementation of
agricultural policies in Nigeria. Ikelegbe (1996:149) observed that a major problem
in programme implementation is inadequate of resource to effectively effectuate
programmes. Often times, programmes resources commitments or promises do not
come near what it takes to execute at the level of operation, delivery of goods and
services and targets, anticipated or directed.
90
TABLE 4.10
RESPONDENTS’ OPINIONS ON WHETHER THE DISTRIBUTION OF
MICRO- CREDITS TO FARMERS ARE EFFECTIVELY DISTRIBUTED
TO IMPROVE PRODUCTIVITY FROM AGRICULTURE
Options Frequency Percentage (%)
Strongly agree 27 12.3
Agree 40 18.2
Undecided 4 1.8
Disagree 62 28.1
Strongly disagree 87 39.5
Total 220 100
Source: Research Data, 2011.
The above table 4.10 shows the respondents’ opinions on whether the
distribution of micro-credits to farmers is effectively distributed to improve
productivity from agriculture. The data presented above showed that 27
respondents or 12.3% strongly agreed while 40 respondents or 18.2% agreed that
the distribution of micro-credits to farmers is effectively distributed to improve
productivity from agriculture.
On the other hand, 62 respondents or 28.1% disagreed while 87 respondents
or 39.5% strongly disagreed that the distribution of micro-credits to farmers is
effectively distributed to improve productivity from agriculture.
To support their opinions, the respondents revealed that there are procedures
for distribution of micro-credit to farmers which are believed to ensure effective
distribution to improve productivity from agriculture. These procedures are that
farmers who seek micro-credit loans must be a registered member of a cooperative
society. In other words, some respondents disclosed that there is no evidence of
fair distribution of micro-credits to farmers. In their explanations, most of
91
beneficiaries of the agricultural micro-credits are not the targeted groups of
farmers. Considering this opinions, the researcher wish to state that poor
distribution of micro-credits to farmers is likely to weaken productivity from
agricultural. This is because most of the rural farmers have little or no knowledge
about co-operative societies. In other words, such micro-credits do not reach them
to help them improve their farming and other agricultural activities.
Therefore, drawing inferences from the research hypothesis two which
stated that the beneficiaries of government agricultural policies in Nigeria are not
the actual targeted population group in the agricultural dominated activities
validated the findings from the respondents as truth. It is convincing that in a
situation where people who are not farmers have access to agricultural loans, such
loans must surely not be invested in agriculture but in other sectors outside
agriculture.
TABLE 4.11
RESPONDENTS’ OPINIONS ON WHETHER MAJORITY OF THE
BENEFICIARIES OF AGRICULTURAL POLICIES ARE THE FARMERS
OR THOSE IN THE AGRICULTURAL DOMINATED ACTIVITIES
Options Frequency Percentage (%)
Strongly agree 20 9.1
Agree 50 22.7
Undecided 5 2.7
Disagree 80 36.4
Strongly disagree 65 29.5
Total 220 100
Source: Research Data, 2011.
Table 4.11 assesses the respondents’ opinions on whether majority of the
beneficiaries of agricultural policies are the farmers or those in the agricultural
92
dominated activities. From the table, 20 respondents’ or 9.1% strongly agreed
while 50 respondents’ or 22.7% agreed. In another view, 80 respondents’ or 36.4%
disagreed while 65 respondents’ or 29.5% strongly disagreed to the question. 5
respondents’ or 2.7 answered undecided.
Finding shown that majority of the respondents’ were of the opinions that
the beneficiaries of agricultural policies are the farmers or those in the agricultural
dominated activities. Findings from table 4.10 and 4.11 validate our research
hypothesis two which stated that the beneficiaries of government agricultural
policies in Nigeria are not the actual targeted population group in the agricultural
dominated activities. Observation from the respondents’ opinions showed that
agricultural policies and programmes are designed to boost agricultural activities
of the rural farmer, but usually during the implementation stage may deviate from
the original policy guide. This means that the tendency of leakages of beneficiaries
usually occurs to divert programme benefits to the wrong beneficiaries (people).
Unintended beneficiaries tend to emerge from the politicization of implementation
processes of agricultural policies and programmes by the implementing agencies.
Politicians and other key stakeholders within and outside the implementing
agencies disburse micro-credits to relations and friends.
93
TABLE 4.12
RESPONDENTS’ OPINIONS ON WHETHER THERE ARE EQUALITY
AND FAIRNESS IN THE DISTRIBUTION OF FERTILIZES AND OTHER
FARMING INFRASTRUCTURES AMONG THE FARMERS IN RURAL
COMMUNITIES IN NIGERIA
Options Frequency Percentage (%)
Strongly agree 38 17.3
Agree 51 23.2
Undecided 4 1.8
Disagree 77 35.0
Strongly disagree 50 22.7
Total 220 100
Source: Research Data, 2011.
Table 4.12 investigates the respondents’ assessment on whether there are
equality and fairness in the distribution of fertilizers and other farming
infrastructures among the farmers in rural communities in Nigeria. As presented in
the table above, 38 respondents’ or 17.3% strongly agreed while 51 respondents’
or 23.2% agreed. On the other hand, 77 respondents or 35.0% disagreed while 50
respondents’ or 22.7% strongly disagreed to the question. This implies that there is
no equality and fairness in the distribution of fertilizers and other agricultural
infrastructures among the farmers in rural communities in Nigeria. Analytically,
rural communities house over 70% of the Nigeria’s population and over 60% of the
rural population engage in agriculture as their occupation. The farming method is
still far from mechanized system, fertilizers and other farming infrastructures such
as irrigations, tractors, as well as in providing them with micro-credits have been
very irregular.
94
TABLE 4.13
RESPONDENTS’ OPINIONS ON WHETHER AGRICULTURAL
POLICIES MAKE ADEQUATE PROVISIONS FOR FAVOURABLE
MARKETING OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE BOTH AT THE LOCAL
AND INTERNATIONAL MARKETS
Options Frequency Percentage (%)
Strongly agree 42 19.1
Agree 55 25.0
Undecided 0 0.0
Disagree 60 27.3
Strongly disagree 63 28.6
Total 220 100
Source: Research Data, 2011.
Table 4.13 shows the respondents’ assessment on whether agricultural
policies make adequate provisions for favourable marketing of agricultural produce
both at local and international markets. Presentation in the table shows that 42
respondents’ or 19.1 strongly agreed while 55 respondents’ or 25.0% agreed that
agricultural policies make adequate provisions for favourabl marketing of
agricultural produce both at the local and international markets.
On the other hand, 60 respondents’ or 27.3% disagreed while 63
respondents’ or 28.6% strongly disagreed that agricultural policies make adequate
provisions for favourable marketing of agricultural produce both at the local and
international markets. In verifying the respondents’ opinions from the point of
view of some scholars in our literature review, Abolagba et al (2010), Abiodun and
Olakojo (2010), Adebiyi et al (2009) among others showed that unfavourable
marketing of agricultural products affect farmers as well as the contribution of
agriculture to Nigerian economy. Common sense observation shows that most
95
farmers live in the rural communities where there is poor net work of road to
transport their agricultural products to places they could be sold. Sometimes, due
to poor network of road, agricultural produce may perish before getting to urban
areas or any other destination where their demands may be needed. Market prices
of the agricultural products sometimes fall below the cost of farming by the
farmers thereby discouraging many to take interest in agriculture as their
occupation. All these imperfections affect commodity articulation for export of
agricultural produce. Nigeria’s export of agricultural produce has continually been
in the decline thereby affecting international marketing of Nigeria’s agricultural
products.
TABLE 4.14
RESPONDENTS’ OPINIONS ON WHETHER POOR MARKETING OF
AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE CONTRIBUTE TO FAILURE OF
AGRICULTURAL POLICIES IN NIGERIA
Option Frequency Percentage (%)
Strongly agree 58 26.4
Agree 85 38.6
Undecided 0 0.0
Disagree 32 14.5
Strongly agree 45 20.4
Total 220 100
Source: Research Data, 2011.
Table 4.14 above examines whether poor marketing of agricultural produce
contribute to failure of agricultural policies in Nigeria. As presented above, 58,
respondents’ or 26.4% strongly agreed while 85 respondents’ or 38.6% agreed that
poor marketing of agricultural produce contribute to failure of agricultural policies
in Nigeria.
96
On the other hand, 32 respondents’ or 14.5% disagreed while 45
respondents’ or 20.4% strongly agreed to the question that poor marketing of
agricultural produce contribute to failure of agricultural polices in Nigeria.
TABLE 4.15
RESPONDENTS’ OPINIONS ON WHETHER WEAK INSTITUTIONAL
SUPPORT ESPECIALLY BY THE IMPLEMENTING AGENCIES
CONTRIBUTES TO FAILURE IN ACHIEVING THE GOALS OF
AGRICULTURAL POLICIES IN NIGERIA
Option Frequency Percentage (%)
Strongly agree 80 36.4
Agree 70 31.8
Undecided 0 0.0
Disagree 50 22.7
Strongly disagree 20 9.1
Total 220 100
Source: Research Data, 2011.
The responses in table 4.15 showed that the assessment of weak institutional
support especially by the implementing agencies contribute to failure in achieving
the goals of agricultural policies in Nigeria. As presented in the table above, 80
respondents’ or 36.4% strongly agreed while 70 respondents’ or 31.8% agreed that
weak institutional support especially by the implementing agencies contributes to
failure in achieving the goals of agricultural policies in Nigeria. On the other hand,
50 respondents’ or 22.7% disagreed while 20 respondents’ or 9.1% strongly
disagreed that weak institutional support especially by the implementing agencies
contributes to failure in achieving the goals of agricultural policies in Nigeria.
Drawing inferences from the table above, most of the respondents’ accepted
that the weak institutional support especially by the implementing agencies
97
contributes to failure in achieving the goals of agricultural policies in Nigeria. The
ministry, department, or agency which is entrusted with implementing the policy
may possess several characteristics that might dissipate implementation fervour,
and clog, delay, distort and mar implementation success. When the implementing
agencies fall short in their duties, policy failure is likely to occur. This is why the
emphasis of on implementing agencies of any public programme is stressed as a
key factor in achieving policy goals and objectives.
TABLE 4.16
RESPONDENTS’ OPINIONS ON WHETHER SOME AGRICULTURAL
POLICES HAVE BEEN CRITICIZED FOR BEING EXCESSIVELY
SKEWED AGAINST THE SMALL FARMERS, GIVEN THE ELIGIBILITY
REQUIREMENTS AND DOCUMENTATION
Options Frequency Percentage (%)
Strongly agree 60 27.3
Agree 78 35.5
Undecided 0 0.0
Disagree 50 22.7
Strongly disagree 32 14.5
Total 220 100
Source: Research Data, 2011.
The above table 4.16 shows the assessment of the respondents’ opinions on
whether some agricultural policies have been/were criticized for being excessively
skewed against the small farmers, given the eligibility requirements and
documentation. The table shows that 60 respondents’ or 27.3% strongly agreed
while 78 respondents’ or 35.5% agreed that some agricultural policies have been
criticized for being excessively skewed against the small farmers, given the
98
eligibility skewed against the small farmers, given the eligibility requirements and
documentation.
From other viewpoints, 50 respondents’ or 22.7% disagreed while 32
respondents’ or 14.5% strongly disagreed that some agricultural policies have been
criticized for being excessively skewed against the small farmer, given the
eligibility requirements and documentation.
Analyzing the respondents’ comments as they appeared in the questionnaires
distributed to them, most agricultural policies and programmes have been criticized
for not adequate involving the interest of small farmers who are the major
backbone of Nigerian agricultural sector. Small farmers hardly have direct benefits
from agricultural policies. They have depended on their efforts which are still not
enough to boost agricultural production.
TABLE 4.17
RESPONDENTS’ OPINIONS ON WHETHER POOR AWARENESS AND
LOW MANAGEMENT CAPACITY OF FARMERS-CLIENTS LIMIT THE
SUCCESS OF AGRICULTURAL POLICIES IN NIGERIA
Options Frequency Percentage (%)
Strongly agree 55 25.0
Agree 80 36.4
Undecided 0 0.0
Disagree 50 22.7
Strongly disagree 35 15.9
Total 220 100
Source: Research Data, 2011.
Table 4.17 presents the respondents’ opinions on whether poor awareness
and low management capacity of farmers-clients limit the success of agricultural
policies in Nigeria. As presented above, 55 respondents’ or 25.0% strongly agreed
99
while 80 respondents or 36.4% agreed. On the other hand, 50 respondents or
22.7% disagreed while 35 respondents or 15.9% strongly disagreed to the question
asked.
Finding showed that majority of the respondents’ were of the view that poor
management or low management capacity of farmers-clients limit the success of
agricultural policies in Nigeria. Here, farmers-clients refers to the contacts between
the government agricultural agencies and the farmers. The implementing agencies
usually have some programmes of target such as agricultural extension services,
workshops, seminars, demonstrations orientations among others which are
believed can farmers do their farming businesses at ease. But evidently, the
relationship between the farmers and these government agencies is still not
encouraged as it leads to poor awareness to farmers on how to go about in
improving their farming businesses and often resulted to low management
capacities in tackling some agricultural problems. This is because it is believed that
frequent farmers-clients relationship would make it easier for farmers to relate their
experiences to the agencies and for the agencies to educate and guide farmers on
how to improve their farming businesses.
Table 4.18
RESPONDENTS OPINIONS ON WHETHER CORRUTION AND WEAK
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES ARE KEY FACTORS MILITATING
AGAINST EFFECTION IMPLEMENTATIO OF AGRICULTURAL
POLICIES IN NIGERIA
Options Frequency Percentage (%)
Strongly agree 108 49.1
Agree 92 41.8
Undecided 0 0.0
Disagree 15 6.8
Strongly disagree 5 2.3
Total 220 100
Source: Research Data, 2011.
100
Analysis from the table 4.18 showed that 108 respondents or 49.1 %
strongly agreed and 92 respondents or 41.8 % agreed that corruption and weak
implementation strategies are the key militating factors affecting the
implementation of agricultural policies in Nigeria. On the other hand, 15
respondents or 6.8% disagreed while 5 respondents or 2.3% strongly disagreed that
corruption and weak implementation strategies are the key militating factors
affecting the effective implementation of agricultural policies in Nigeria.
From analysis of the respondents data, it was revealed that majority of the
respondents believed that corruption and weak implementation strategies affect
effective implementation of agricultural policies while some rejected that to prove
that there are some other factors which to them are more pressing in the
implementation problems of agricultural policies such as poor funding the sector,
poor data base for planning, undue political interferences by politicians among
others.
TABLE 4.19
RESPONDENTS’ SOLUTIONS TO OVERCOMING THE CHALLENGES
IN IMPLEMENTING AGRICULTURAL POLICIES IN NIGERIA
Identified suggestions Frequency Percentage (%)
Effective monitoring of policy at the
implementation stage
53 24.1
Adequate involvement of farmers in policy
management, formulation & implementation
47 21.4
Provision of micro-credits and agricultural
infrastructures to rural communities
58 26.3
Adequate funding of the agricultural sector 62 28.2
Total 220 100
Source: Research Data, 2011.
Analysis from the 4.19 showed some possible solutions identified by the
respondents which they believed can help solve problems in achieving the
expected goals and objectives of agricultural policies in Nigeria. Demonstration
from the table showed that 53 respondents or 24.1% suggested that adequate
101
monitoring of agricultural policies at the implementation stage would help solve
the problems of poor achievement of goals and objectives of agricultural policies.
47 respondents or 21.4 % believed that adequate involvement of farmers in policy
management especially during the formulation and implementation would also
help in achieving the desired results of agricultural policies in Nigeria. 58
respondents or 26.3 % suggested that adequate provisions of micro-credits and
agricultural infrastructures in rural communities would help in achieving the goals
and objectives of agricultural policies in Nigeria. Some these respondents who
gave this suggestion indicated that rural communities in Nigeria are cornerstone of
food basket of the nation and should be provided with the needed infrastructures to
improve their produce.
On the other hand, 62 respondents or 28.2 % suggested that adequate
funding of agricultural sector would also help to realize the national goals and
objectives in the agricultural sector through the agricultural policies.
Test of Hypotheses
The assumption contained in our research hypotheses of this study will be
subjected to chi-square test to reinforce the analysis and interpretations in the
findings. The research will test these hypotheses using 5% level of significance to
ascertain the validity or otherwise and to test whether or not there is any
association between set of variables and another. In general, three hypotheses were
formulated, and using the chi-square x2 formula.
Chi –square formula
X2 =∑ Oij - E ij
Eij
Where , Ojj = the number observed in the row and jth column.
Eij = the number expected in the cell under the null hypotheses and is
obtained by:
102
Eij = Li x Mj
N
Where Li = marginal row total
Mj = marginal column total
N = overall total or number of observations
The chi=square utilizes what is called the degree of freedom and specified test
criteria. The degree of freedom (df) is simply:
Df = (r-1) (c-1)
Where, r = number of rows
c = number of columns
Restatement of Hypoytheses
All the hypotheses stated /formulated earlier are restated below:
Hypothesis one: The extent of growth and development in the agricultural sector
determine the impact of agricultural policies on Nigerian economy.
Hypothesis Two: The beneficiaries of government agricultural policies in Nigeria
are not the actual targeted population group in the agricultural dominated activities.
Hypotheses Three: High incidence of corruption and weak implementation
strategies are key militating factors against agricultural policies in Nigeria.
Decision Rule
If the calculate value is greater than the table value, reject the null hypothesis (Ho)
and accept the alternative (Ha) at 0.05% level of significance.
Research Hypothesis One
The extent of growth and development in the agricultural sector determine
the impact of agricultural policies on Nigerian economy.
Question analyzed in table 4.8 would be used to test the hypothesis.
103
TABLE 4.20
TABLE OF OBSERVED RESPONSES
Categories of Staff SA A D SD U Total
Management 15 10 3 2 0 30
Senior staff 40 30 3 3 0 76
Junior staff 50 50 7 5 2 114
Total 105 90 13 10 2 220
Source: Research Date 2010.
Where SA = Strongly agree
A = Agree
D = Disagree
SD = Strongly disagree
U = Undecided
The hypothesis shall be tested at 0.05 level of significance in order determine its
correlation with our research findings.
Computation of expected (e)
e1 105 X 30 = 14.3
220
e2 90 x 30 =12 .3
220
e3 13 X 30 = 1. 8
220
e4 10 X 30 = 1.4
220
e5 2 X 30 = 0.3
220
104
e6 105 X 76 = 36.3
220
e7 90 X 79 = 31.1
220
e8 13 X 76 = 4.5
220
e9 10 X 76 = 3.5
220
e10 2 X 76 = 0.6
220
e11 105 X 114 = 54.4
220
e12 90 X114 = 46.6
220
e13 13 X 114 =6 .7
220
e14 10 X 114 = 5 .2
220
e15 2 X 114 = 1.0
220
105
TABLE FOR COMPUTATION OF CHI- SQUARE
0 E 0-e (0-e)2
(0-e)2
e
15 14.3 0.7 0.49 0.03
10 12.3 -2.3 5.29 0.43
3 1.8 1.2 1.44 0.8
2 1.4 0.6 0.36 0.26
0 0.3 -0.3 0.09 0.3
40 36.3 3.7 13.69 0.38
30 31.1 -1.1 1.21 0.04
3 4.5 -1.5 2.25 0.5
3 3.5 -0.5 0.25 0.07
0 0.6 -0.6 0.36 0.6
50 54.4 -4.4 19.36 0.36
50 46.6 3.4 11.56 0.25
7 6.7 0.3 0.09 0.01
5 5.2 -0.2 0.04 0.01
2 1.0 1.0 1.00 1.0
(X2) chi- square calculated 5.04
Source: Research Data 2010.
Obtain the X2 table value using the degree of freedom and level of significance
given at 0.05 and df (r -c)( c-1). From our table of observed responses, the degree
of freedom is (3 - 1) (5 – 1) = 2 x 4 =8.
As stated earlier, the level of significance is 0.05 and with the degree of
freedom (df) at 8, the researcher now refer to the table of sampling distribution chi
–square for 8 df at 0.05 level of significance is 15.507.
106
Decision Rule:
Reject H0 if chi-square calculated is (greater than ) chi-square X2
critical value
and do not reject H0 if otherwise.
Conclusion:
Since chi –square calculated value (5.04) is less than chi –square critical value
(15.507) at 0.05 level of significance and 5df, we therefore accept the hypothetical
statement that the extent of growth and development in the agricultural sector
determine the impact of agricultural policies on Nigerian economy. This is because
all the efforts by the government towards agricultural sector are to ensure speedy
growth and development of agriculture in Nigeria. In other words, to assess the
progress made by the agricultural policies and programmes, it is important that we
consider the growth and development in the agricultural sector in terms of the
Gross Domestic Products (GDP) from the agricultural sector and extend such to
the standard of living of the people, food security, provisions of raw materials to
industries, earnings from agriculture, among others.
Research Hypothesis Two
The beneficiaries of government agricultural policies in Nigeria are not the
actual targeted population group in the agricultural dominated activities.
Question analyzed in table 4.11 would be used to test the hypothesis above.
TABLE 4.21
TABLE OF OBSERVED RESPONSES
Categories of Staff SA A D SD U Total
Management 1 5 10 3 0 19
Senior staff 7 15 25 16 1 64
Junior staff 12 30 45 46 4 137
Total 20 50 80 65 5 220
Source: Research Data 2010.
107
Where, SA = Strongly agree
A = Agree
D = Disagree
SA = Strongly disagree
U = Undecided
The hypothesis shall be tested at 0.05 level of significance in order to determine its
correlation with our research findings.
Computation of expected (e)
e1 20 x 19 = 1.72
220
e2 50 x 19 = 4.31
220
e3 80 x 19 = 6.90
220
e4 65 x 19 = 5. 61
220
e5 5 x 19 = 0.43
220
e6 20 x 64 = 5.81
220
e7 50 x 64 = 14.54
220
e8 80 x 64 = 23.27
220
e9 65 x 64 = 18.90
220
108
e10 5 x 64 = 1.45
220
e11 20 x 137 = 12.45
220
e12 50 x 137 = 31.13
220
e13 80 x 137 = 49.81
220
e14 65 x 137 = 40.47
220
e15 5 x 137 = 3.11
220
TABLE FOR COMPUTATION OF CHI- SQUARE
o e o – e (o –e)2 (o -e )
2
e
1 1.72 - 0.72 0.5184 0.30
5 4.31 0.69 0.4761 0.11
10 6.90 3.1 9.61 1.39
3 5.61 -2.61 6.8121 1.21
0 0.43 -0.43 0.1849 0.43
7 5.81 -1.19 1.4161 0.24
15 14.54 0.46 0.2116 0.01
25 23.27 1.73 2.9929 0.12
16 18.90 -2.90 8.41 0.44
1 1.45 0.45 0.2025 0.13
12 12.45 - 0.45 0.2025 0.01
30 31.13 - 1.13 1.2769 0.04
45 49.81 4.81 23.1361 0.46
46 40.47 5.53 30.5809 0.75
4 3.11 0.89 0.7921 0.25
(x2) chi- square calculated 5.89
Source: Research Data 2010.
109
Obtain the x2 table value using the degree of freedom and level of
significance given at 0.05 and df (r – I) (c – I). From our table of observed
responses the degree of freedom is (3 – 1) (5 – 1) 2 x 4 = 8.
As stated earlier, the level of significance is 0.05 and with the degree of
freedom (df) at 8, the researcher now refer to the table of sampling distribution chi-
square for 8 df at 0.05 level of significance. The critical chi-square value for 8 df
and 0.05 level of significance is 15.507.
Decision Rule:
Reject, Ho if chi-square calculated is > (greater than) chi-square X2 critical
value and do not reject Ho if otherwise.
Conclusion:
Drawing inference from the table analysis, it is observed that the
beneficiaries of government agricultural policies in Nigeria are not the actual
targeted population group in the agricultural dominated activities. This as we have
observed from our research findings lead to frequent failures of agricultural
policies in Nigeria. This finding does not dismiss the fact that some respondents
disclosed that there are some procedures to ensuredue process in the
implementation of agricultural policy benefits to farmers. However, our
observations from the majority of the respondents showed that greater number of
the intended beneficiaries hardly benefit from such policies and programmes.
Findings showed that in most rural communities in Nigeria, the awareness and
implementation of these policies do not adequately descend to the rural farmers.
For instance, our findings from tables showed that distributions of micro-credits
and fertilizers do not often get to the rural farmers and others in agricultural
dominated activities to boost their agricultural businesses. In addition, the
provisions of agricultural infrastructures are still in short supply in most
communities in Nigeria especially in rural areas. From our assessments of
110
respondents opinions and literature review, we noted that politicians, other
stakeholders in the society as well as the implementing agencies engage in politics
in allocating benefits. When this is the case, most of the beneficiaries become close
relations, friends, party loyalties and sympathizers and others who may find their
ways through the back doors or informal processes.
Research Hypothesis Three
High incidence of corruption and weak implementation strategies are key
militating factors against agricultural policies in Nigeria.
Question analyzed in table 4.18 would be used to test the hypothesis.
Table 4.22
Categories of Staff SA A D SD U Total
Management 23 12 0 0 0 35
Senior staff 35 40 2 0 0 77
Junior staff 50 40 13 5 0 108
Total 108 92 15 5 0 220
Source: Research Data 2010.
Where, SA = Strongly agree
A = Agree
D = Disagree
SD = Strongly disagree
U = Undecided
The hypothesis shall be tested at 0.05 level of significance in order to
determine its correlation with our research findings.
Computation of expected (e)
e1 108 x 35 = 17.18
220
111
e2 92 x 35 = 14.64
220
e3 15 x 35 = 2.39
220
e4 5 x 35 = 0.79
220
e5 0 x 35 = 0
220
e6 108 x 77 = 37. 8
220
e7 92 x 77 = 32.2
220
e8 15 x 77 = 5.25
220
e9 5 x 77 = 1.75
220
e10 0 x 77 = 0
220
e11 108 x 108 = 53.02
220
e12 92 x 108 = 45.16
220
e13 15 x 108 = 7.36
220
e14 5 x 108 = 2.45
220
112
e15 0 x 108 = 0
220
TABLE FOR COMPUTATION OF CHI-SQUARE
0 E 0 – e (0 –e)2 (0 -e )
2
E
23 17.8 5.2 27.04 1.51
12 14.64 -2.64 6.9698 0.47
0 2.39 -2.39 5.7121 2.39
0 0.79 -0.79 0.6241 0.79
0 0 0 0 0
35 37.8 2.8 7.84 0.21
40 32.2 7.8 60.84 1.89
2 5.25 -3.25 10.5625 2.01
0 1.75 -1.75 3.0625 1.75
0 0 0 0 0
50 53.02 -3.02 9.1204 0.17
40 45.16 - 5.16 26.6256 0.59
13 7.36 5.65 31.8096 4.32
5 2.45 2.55 6.5025 2.65
0 0 0 0 0
(X2) chi- square calculated 18. 77
Source: Research Data 2010.
Obtain the X2 table value using the degree of freedom and level of
significance given at 0.05 and df (r – I) (c- I). From out table of observed
responses, the degree of freedom is (3- 1) (5 -1) 2 x 4 = 8.
As stated earlier, the level of significance is 0.05 and with the degree of
freedom (df) at 8, the researcher now refer to the table of sampling distribution chi-
square for 8 df at 0.05 level of significance. The critical chi-square value for 8 df
and 0.05 level of significance is 15.507.
113
Decision Rule:
Reject Ho, if chi-square calculated is > (greater than) chi-square X2 critical
value and do not reject Ho if otherwise.
Conclusion:
Demonstration from the above statistical data showed that our position in the
research hypothesis three that high incidence of corruption and weak
implementation strategies are key militating factors against agricultural policies in
Nigeria is truth. Demonstratively, findings from the reviewed literature and
respondents opinions validate the hypothesis that corruption and weak
implementation strategies are some key factors that affect the realization of
agricultural policies in Nigeria. This is to deny that there are no other factors
affecting the implementation of government agricultural policies in Nigeria such as
poor funding of the sector, inadequate skilled manpower, poor data base for
planning, physical challenges among others which were pointed out in some
questions in our questionnaire. Our position, investigate the issue of corruption and
weak implementation strategies is mainly due to the fact that incidence of
corruption is endemic in Nigeria. The finding that there is leakage of benefits in
implementing agricultural policies emerged due to corrupt practices indulged by
the officials of the implementing agencies and other stakeholders mainly by the
politicians. On the other hand, weak implementation strategies compound the
problem. If there are effective implementation network, the issue corruption would
be at minimal occurrence. Effective monitoring of agricultural policies and
programmes seem to be weak. In addition, there is low involvement of farmers in
the formulation and implementation of these agricultural policies and because of
this the benefits are often hijacked by unintended beneficiaries.
114
CHAPTER FOUR
IMPLICATIONS OF RESULTS AND FINDINGS
This section of the research shows the implications of results and findings on
the subject matter. The interpretations and observations based on the data
presented showed that agricultural policies are essential part of public policies in
Nigeria as well as integral part Nigeria’s political economy. In other words, any
deliberation on agricultural policies be in a holistic approach. From the findings, it
was revealed that over the years, agricultural policies in Nigeria have achieved
lesser results than expected. In this regards, the respondents’ opinions and the
observation from the literature review showed that the formulation of agricultural
policies often show less attention to the impact analysis of such policies on the
social, economic, environmental/physical and political influences and activities of
the people. The truth with the Nigerian society is that most social, economic and
political problems are ambiguous and complex. Often they do not possess clear
answers and solutions. Sometimes, such problems have not been analyzed and
studied to provide known, experimented and tested solutions. The knowledge base
on how to resolve certain social problems is poor. This tends to stern from the
socio-cultural diversities of the Nigerian society. Therefore, the formulation of
agricultural policies often witness inadequate data regarding the socio-cultural
problems which may constrain the successful implementation and achievements of
desired results. It is based on this finding that Ikelegbe (1996) stated that the
problems of data analysis could be situated in poor analytical capacities in the
bureaucracies of many countries. There are inadequacies of planners, researchers,
analysts and quantitative experts in many bureaucracies of planners, researchers,
analysts and quantitative experts in many bureaucracies. If one should relate the
above establishment to the agricultural policies, it will be easily noticed that the
number of agricultural research centres are few in sourcing out relevant date that
115
can help in policy formulation. A situation in which the socio-cultural problems
that affect agricultural policies are not well analyzed constitute serious problems in
implementing those policies. Different socio-cultural communities have their
peculiar farming practices that may not welcome innovative measures of
agricultural policies. Therefore, it takes adequate awareness and integration of the
socio-cultural practices into the implementation before success can be recorded.
Equally, our findings showed that the implementation of agricultural policies
may lack effective implementation strategies following factors such as human
induced inefficiency, mismanagement of resources, poor funding of
implementation, corruption on the side of the implementing agencies, inadequate
skilled manpower, poor relationship/contact with the farmers, poor involvement of
the farmers in the policy and programme management. Evidently, it was
established that the implementation stage of agricultural is often truncated by the
implementing agencies that engage into politicizing the benefits of agricultural
policies to unintended results. The implications of politicization of agricultural
policies are evidently clear, it leads to poor achievement of the expected results,
mismanagement and misappropriation of the available resources, corruption,
among others.
Based on the above, agricultural policies impact poorly no Nigeria economy
following the constraints that affect their successful implementation.
Demonstrations from the findings showed that the agricultural output is poor.
Hence, the decline in Nigeria’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP), insufficiency food
supply, poor income generation to farmers and government among others are some
few indications of poor impact of agricultural policies on Nigerian economy.
Again, there is no effective effort made to enhance the network of data
management in the agricultural sector. Inadequate or insufficiency data can thwart
planning in the sector. Agricultural extension services are still very poor and most
116
times do not get to the door step of the rural farmers. In general, there is still poor
awareness of agricultural programmes in the rural communities in Nigeria. Hence,
the formation of farmers co-operative societies cannot effectively stand to integrate
farmers in ascertaining their problems. This sometimes affects them in soliciting
for government agricultural assistance through the provisions of micro-credits to
farmers. In other words, if deeply assessed may contribute to poor benefit of
farmers from agricultural programmes in Nigeria and weak the marketing of
agricultural products both at local and international markets.
117
CHAPTER FIVE
SUMMARY, RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSION
5.1 SUMMARY
This study has attempted the assessment of the impact of agricultural
policies on Nigerian economy. The study critically reviewed the past and current
government agricultural policies in Nigeria with the aim of ascertaining their
impact on the economic development. In addition, the study covered the key
dominant issues in formulating, implementing and evaluating agricultural policies
which are the broad objectives of the policies. It is from assessing the outlined
objectives of agricultural policies that led us to other key issues on the subject
matter such as the achievements and failures of government agricultural policies,
Nigeria’s funding of agricultural policies, and programmes, especially from the
budgetary allocations in the agricultural sector, the Gross Domestic Product (GDP)
from Nigeria’s agricultural sector, agricultural policies in relation to rural farmers
in Nigeria, challenges of agricultural policies and prospects of agricultural policies
in Nigeria.
The study however maintains that poor impact of agricultural policies on
Nigerian economy is largely due to policy formulation faults/deficiency and poor
implementation. At the formulation stages, policy makers usually carry out a cross-
road assessment of social, economic, environment and political impact analysis of
agricultural problems especially as they affect the rural agriculture in Nigeria. The
issue is that for agricultural policies to succeed in Nigeria, the agricultural
problems of rural communities which are the custodians of agriculture need to be
addressed and agricultural policies need to adopt integrated approach in order to
solve the multiple problems of agricultural sector.
Therefore the major objectives of carrying out this research is to evaluate the
impact of agricultural policies on Nigerian economy, but for emphasis, other
118
specific objectives of the study are; to ascertain the impact of agricultural policies
so far on the Nigerian economy; examine whether the impact of agricultural
policies have reflected on the growth and development of agricultural sector in
Nigeria, identify the constraints militating against the agricultural policies in
Nigeria; examine whether the formulation and implementation of agricultural
policies follow intended policy directives and to proffer solutions towards
improving the formulation and implementation of agricultural policies in Nigeria.
The study delves into the views, opinions and ideas of scholars to present a
holistic investigation on the subject matter. The study inclined itself to the
Estonian’s approach of the system theory to showcase the place of agriculture in
any economy. The theory has it that the economy of any nation is like a system
with many parts and subparts. It is difficult to understand one part without the
other. Agricultural policies are integral parts of Nigeria’s development plans with
it impact spreading to other sectors. In the methodology, the study utilized both
primary and secondary sources of data collection. The use of simple percentage
and chi-square were used to analyze the date collected. However, the critical
examination of the problem under review made the following findings:
(i) Agricultural policies are not supported with adequate data at the stage of
formulation by the policy makers.
(ii) There are implementation problems that affect agricultural policies and
efforts in achieving their intended results.
(iii) The provisions of agricultural micro-credits are still insufficient to
farmers especially those in the rural areas;
(iv) There are implementation leakages which divert benefits to unintended
beneficiaries especially those outside agricultural dominated activities.
119
5.2 RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the findings of the study and taking cognizance of the importance
of the subject matter under review, the researcher is inclined to make the following
recommendations:
1. Formulation stage of public policies involves identification of problems.
Therefore, formulation of agricultural policies should endeavour first to identify
the problems of Nigeria’s agricultural sector in areas of social, economic,
environmental/physical and political problems that affect the outcome of
agricultural policies in Nigeria.
2. Also adequate assessment on social economic and environmental impact
analysis of agricultural policies should be carried out before formulation. This
will help in providing pragmatic solutions to the problems of agricultural sector.
3. It is important that agricultural micro-credits be made available to farmers in
order to assist them purchase necessary agricultural inputs for mechanized
farming. One way of achieving this by adequate funding of the agricultural
sector especially the implementing agencies such as Nigerian Agricultural and
Co-operative Bank (NACB).
4. The implementation of agricultural policies should be well monitored by both
government and non-governmental agencies. This is because implementation is
the most sensitive stage of the success or failure of agricultural policies and
programmes. And from our research findings, there were evidence that
agricultural policies record implementation leakages. This tends to create a
scenario, where by unintended beneficiaries hijack the benefits of agricultural
policies ad programs.
5. There is need to strengthen the administrative capacities of the implementing
agencies in order to effectively discharge their duties. Also government should
ensure motivation of staff of the implementing agencies by providing incentives
120
to them and urge them to pursue vigorously the goals and objectives of
agricultural policy. One aspects of the motivation of staff of the implementing
agencies should including staff training and re-training.
6. Government should endeavour to improve the marketing of agricultural produce
both at local and international markets. At the local level, government should
build more local markets and establish more agro-industries to enable the rural
farmers’ sale their produce. On the international level, it is good to guarantee
export subsidies in order to encourage farmers’ sale their produce in the
international markets.
7. Establishment of agricultural research institutes across the country will also go
a long way to solve most of the problems of the agricultural sector. The
establishment of research institutes will help in providing reliable information
on agricultural issues. In other word, the findings record by these research
institutes will be immensely valuable to policy-makers during the formulation
of agricultural policies.
5.3 CONCLUSION
The Nigerian government has over the years formulated good agricultural
policies meant to encourage food production and other economic benefits to
enhance economic development but such policies have been found inefficient and
ineffective since the intended results were not realized. From the research findings,
some evidence were established to show that the formulation of the agricultural
policies often does not take critical analysis of the social, economic,
physical/environmental and political impact on the target intended beneficiaries.
On the other hand, the implementation of agricultural policies is characterized with
implementation problems one of which is implementation leakages.
Equally, findings showed that poor funding to agricultural policies and
porgrammes affect the impact of these policies and programmes on Nigerian
121
economy. Poor funding affects the implementation of agricultural policies in so
many ways. It limits the availability of agricultural micro-credits, provisions of
agricultural infrastructures in the rural communities and creates administrative
incapacities to the implementing agencies. In concluding, the study make bold to
state that agricultural policies can only impact significantly on Nigerian economy
if the trinity of problems that affect their implemented are surmounted.
122
BIBLIOGRAPHY
BOOKS
Adetunji O. et al (2004) Legacy of President Olusegun Obasanjo on Agriculture.
Abuja: A Publication of PDP Lagos State Secretariat.
Ake, C. (1981) A Political Economy of Africa. Ibadan: Spectrum Publishers.
Anyanwu, J.C. et al (1997) The Structure of the Nigerian Economy (1960-1997).
Onitsha: Joanee Educational Publishers Ltd.
Ayatse, O.F. and Akura, I.I (2010) “Agricultural Programmes and Rural
Development in Nigeria: A Revisit of Agricultural Programmes in Nigeria
Between 1999-2007”. In Egbo, E.A. et al (eds) Rural and Community
Development: Critical Issues and Challenges. Onitsha: Austino Publishing
Company.
Black, J. and Champion, D. (1976) Methods and Issues in Social Research. New
York: John Wiley and Sons.
Dakare, R.M. (2004) “The Effects of Agricultural and Rural Development Policies
in Nigeria” in Ogiji, P. (ed.) The Food Basket Myth: Implications for Food
Security and Agricultural Reforms in Nigeria. Makurdi: Aboki Publishers.
Daramola, A.S. et al (2007) Agricultural Export Potential in Nigeria. In Colier, P
and Pattillo, C (ed) “Economic Policy Options for a Prosperous Nigeria.
London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Das, H.H. and Choudhury, B. C. (1997) Introduction to Political Sociology. New
Delhi: Vikas Publishing House.
Gokum, G.G. (2007) “Agricultural Development Programes and Food Security in
Nigeria (1970-2004)” in Ogiji, P (ed.) The Food Basket Myth. Implications
for Food Security and Agricultural Reforms in Nigeria. Makurdi: Aboki
Publishers.
Goode, W.J. and Hart, P.K. (1952) Methods in Social Research: New York:
McGraw Hill Company.
123
Haralambos, M. (1980) Sociology: Themes and Perspectives. London: University
Tutorial Press.
Hayami, Y. and Ruttan, V.W (1985) Agricultural Development: An International
Perspective. Bfaltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Ijere, M. O. (1983) Readings in Nigeria Agricultural Policy and Planning: Port-
Harcourt. University Press, Prot-Harcourt.
Ikelegbe, A. O. (1996) Public Policy Making and Analysis. Benin City. Uri
Publishing Ltd.
Kerlinger, F.N. (1973) Foundations of Behavioural Research. New York: Holt
Rinehart and Winston.
Kwanashie, M. I. Ajilima, 1 and Abdul-Ganiyu, G (1998) The Nigeria Economy:
Response of Agriculture to Adjustment Policies, AERC Research Paper 78,
African Economic Research Consortium, Nairobi, March 1998,
http://www.aercafrica.org/DOCUMENTS/Rp78.PDF.
Nwana, O.C. (1981) Introduction to Education Research; Ibadan: Heineman
Educational Books Ltd.
Obasi, I.N. (1999) Research Mythology in Political Science: Enugu: Academic
Publishing Company.
Obuoforibo, G.I.J. (2002) Local and Regional Government. In Alagoa, E.J. and
Derefaka, Port- Harcourt: Onyoma-Research Publishers.
Odo, M. O. (1992) Guide to Proposal Writing in Social and Behavioural Science.
Enugu: Snaaps Publisher.
Ogiji, P. (2004) “The Food Basket Paradox: Implication for Stimulating Food
Security in Benue State”. In Ogiyi, P. (ed) The Food Basket Myth:
Implications for Food Security and Agricultural Reforms in Nigeria;
Makurdi; Aboki Publishers.
Oguonu, C.N. and Anugwom, E.E. (2006) Research Methods in Social Sciences.
Enugu: Fourth Dimension Publishing Co. Ltd.
124
Okeke, M.I. (2001) Theory and Practice of Public Policy Analysis. Enugu:
Bismark Publication.
Okoli, F.C. and Onah, F.O. (2002) Public Administration in Nigeria: Nature,
Principle and Application. Enugu: John Jacob’s Classic Publishers Ltd.
Okpanachi, U.M. (2004) “Policy Options for Re-Positioning the Nigerian
Agricultural Sector” In Ogiji P (ed) The Food Basket Myth: Implications for
Food Security and Agricultural Reforms in Nigeria. Makurdi; Abok:
Publishers.
Onah, F.O. (2006) Managing Public Proggrammes and Projects. Nsukka: Great
AP Express Publishers limited.
Soludo; C.C. (2004) Nigeria: National Economic Empowerment and Development
Strategy (NEEDS). Abuja: National Planning Commission.
Umoh, B.D. (2001) Population Studies for Nigeria: A New Perspective .Enugu:
Institute for Development Studies University of Nigeria, Enugu Campus.
JOURNALS
Abiodun, O. F. and Olakoja, S.A. (2010) “Determinants of Agricultural Exports in
Oil Exporting Economy: Empirical Evidence from Nigeria”. Journal of
Economic Theory Vol. 4 No. 4, p. 84-92,2010.
Abolagba, E.O. et al (2010) “Determinants of Agricultural Exports”. Journal of
Human Ecology Vol, 29, No. 1, p. 181-184.
Ekpo, A.H. and Egwaikhide, F.O. (1994) “Export and Economic Growth: A
Reconsideration of the Evidence”. Journal of Economic Management Vol 2,
No. 2, p. 57-73.
Graham, D.H. Gauthier, H and de Barros, J.R.M. (1987) “Thirty years of
Agricultural Growth in Brazil: Crop Performance, Regional Profile and
Recent Policy Review”. Journal of Economic Development and Cultural
Change, Vol. 36, No. 1 1987.
http://www.jstor.org(LastaccessMarch,25,2007).
125
Koyeikan, M.J. (2008) “Issues for Agricultural Extension Policy in Nigeria”.
Journal of Agricultural Extension. Vol 12 (2) December, 2008.
Ogen, O. (2004) “Agricultural and Economic Development in Malaysia, 1960-
1995. A Viable Model for Nigeria”. Journal Economic and Financial
Studies, Vol. 1, No, 1, 2004.
Ogen, O. (2007) The Agricultural Sector and Nigeria’s Development: Comparative
Perspectives from the Brazilian Agro-Industrial Economy, 1960-1995.
African Studies Review, Vol. 1. No. 1. 2002.
Ogun, O. (1995) Export Boom Regimes and External Debt Accumulation: Lessons
from Nigeria’s Development Experience. Journal Economic Management
Vol. 2. No. 3 p. 37-54.
Okonji, I, and Chete, L (2008) Nigerian Agriculture Public Expenditure Review.
Nigeria Strategy Support Programme, Brief No. 2.
Olawumi K and Ayodele E. (2009) Environmental Considerations in Nigerian
Agricultural Policies, Strategies and Programmes. International Food Policy
Research Institute (IFPRI), Vol. 6, 2009.
Winters, P. A. Janvry, E.S. and Stamoulis, K. (1998) The Role of Agriculture in
Economic Development. Visible and Invisible Surplus Transfers. Journal of
Development Studies, Vol, xii,. June 1998.
SEMINAR PAPERS
Eze, C.C. et al (2010) “Agricultural Financing Policies and Rural Development in
Nigeria” The 84th Annual Conference of the Agricultural Economics
Society, 29th to 31
st March 2010.
Humbert, J.N. (2000) “The Multifunctional Role of Agriculture”. Proceedings of
the 7th
World Sugar Conference. Durban:
www.sugaronline.com/sugarindustry/index.htm.
International Food Policy Research Institute (2008) Agricultural Public Spending
in Nigeria. Development Strategy and Governance Division. IFPRI
Discussion Paper 00789. September.
126
Okumadewa, F. (1997) “Poverty and Income in Nigeria: Measurements and
Strategies for Reform:. A Paper Presented at the Vision 2010 Workshop,
Abuja.
Oyewole, B.A. and Oloko, S.A. (2009) “Agricultural and Food Losses in Nigeria
the way Out” A Seminar Paper Presented at the Federal Polytechnic, Ado-
Ekiti by the Department of Agricultural Engineering, March, 2009.
GOVERNMENT DOCUMENTS
Central Bank of Nigeria (2000) Annual Report and Statement of Account. Abuja,
Nigeria.
Central Bank of Nigeria (2000) Statistical Bulletin Vol. 11, Number 2, Abuja,
Nigeria.
Central Bank of Nigeria (2000) The Changing Structure of the Nigerian Economy
ad Implications for Development. Lagos: Realm Communications Ltd.
Central Bank of Nigeria (2007) Agricultural Credit Guarantee Scheme Fund of
Nigeria (ACGSF): An Impact Assessment. A Research Report Conducted by
Centre for Resource Analysis and Management for the Governing Board of
the ACGSF, Abuja.
Central Bank of Nigeria (2007) Annual Report and Statement of Accounts, Abuja,
Nigeria.
Central Bank of Nigeria (2007) Statistical Bulletin. Central Bank of Nigeria,
Abuja, Nigeria.
Central Bank of Nigeria (2009) Comprehensive Guidelines for Banks and State
Governments: Guidelines for Large Scale Agricultural Credit Scheme
LASACS. Central Bank of Nigeria, Abuja.
Federal Department of Agricultural (1992) Fourth National Development Plan: An
Analysis. Proceeding of a Workshop Organized by FDA Abuja, 29-03
August.
127
Federal Government of Nigeria (2004) National Economic Empowerment and
Development Strategy (NEEDS), National Planning Commission, Abuja.
Federal Ministry Agriculture (2004) Nigeria’s Agricultural Policy Guide 2004.
Abuja, Ministry of Agriculture.
Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (2000) Agriculture in
Nigeria: The New Policy Thrust. Abuja.
Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (2001) National Fadama
Infrastructure Survey Report, Sheda-Abuja; World Bank/Projects
Coordinating Unit.
National Bureau of Statistics (NBS) (2007) Nigeria Poverty Assessment 2007. A
Report Submitted to the World Bank.
World Bank (2006) Getting Agriculture Going in Nigeria: Framework for a
National Growth Strategy (Main Report) 27 March 2006, Report No. 346
18-NG.
World Bank (2006b) “Nigeria: Competitiveness and Growth” A Joint Paper
Prepared with DFID, Africa Region, 20 September 2006, Report No. 36483-NG.
Abuja Nigeria.