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.