Complete project materials on Impact of Agricultural Development Programmes on Nigerian Economy in Nigeria
1.1 Background to the Study
A strong and an efficient agricultural sector would enable a country to feed its growing population, generate employment, earn foreign exchange and provide raw materials for industries. The agricultural sector has a multiplier effect on any nation’s economic development and industrial fabric because of the multifunctional nature of agriculture.
Blessed with abundant land and water resources, Nigeria’s agricultural sector has a high potential for growth, but this potential is not being realized. Productivity is low and basically stagnant.
Farming systems, which are mostly small in scale, are still predominantly subsistence-based and for the most part depend on the vagaries of the weather. The country’s vast irrigation potential remains largely unexploited. Most farmers produce mainly food crops using traditional extensive cultivation methods, while commercial agriculture based on modern technologies and purchased inputs remains underdeveloped.
The capacity of the agricultural research system has eroded in recent years, as has that of the extension service, so, even when improved technologies are available, often they fail to reach farmers. Farmers’ lack of technical knowledge is compounded by deficiencies in input distribution systems, which limit the timely availability of improved seed, fertilizer, crop chemicals, and machinery.
Agricultural and Nigeria’s Economic growth can be view based on data consisting of 19 regions and 31 sectors/commodities. We have identified Nigeria and twelve other economies in Sub-Saharan Africa to model economic links between these economies. Other economies in our model are North America, the European Union, Japan, Indonesia, Rest of Asia and a Rest-of-the-world. Twelve sectors cover primary agriculture; nine sectors cover processed foods; the rest of natural resource industries, manufactures, and services are covered with 10 sectors.
Findings We run a series of simulations to assess the impact of selected agricultural productivity improvements on economic growth in Nigeria. In particular, we simulated sector-specific Hicks-neutral technical change (augmenting the productivity of all primary factors equally) as well as factor-biased technological change (e.g. land-specific productivity improvements vs. capital-specific productivity improvements).
To abstract from the sector-size issue, we divided welfare gains by the value of the sector’s output. We have also ranked sectors by the ratio EV/output. In Nigeria, the oil sector accounts for over a quarter of the economy. Thus, 1 percent technological progress in the oil sector gives large welfare benefits in dollar terms, $142.72 million. No other sector in Nigeria gives larger welfare gains.
The Nigerian economy has had a truncated history. In the period 1960-70, the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) recorded 3.1 per cent growth annually. During the oil boom era, roughly 1970-78, QDP grew positively by 6.2 per cent annually – a remarkable growth. However, in the 1980s, GDP had negative growth rates. In the period 1988-1997 which constitutes the period of structural adjustment and economic liberalisation, the QDP responded to economic adjustment policies and grew at a positive rate of 4.0.
In the years after independence, industry and manufacturing sectors had positive growth rates except for the period 1980-1988 where industry and manufacturing grew negatively by – 3.2 per cent and – 2.9 per cent respectively. The growth of agriculture for the periods 1960-70 and 1970-78 was unsatisfactory. In the early 1960s, the agricultural sector suffered from low commodity prices while the oil boom contributed to the negative growth of agriculture in the 1970s. The boom in the oil sector lured labour away from the rural sector to urban centres.
The contribution of agriculture to GDP, which was 63 percent in 1960, declined to 34 per cent in 1988, not because the industrial sector increased its share but due to neglect of the agricultural sec tor. It was therefore not surprising that by 1975, the economy had become a net importer of basic food items. The apparent increase in industry and manufacturing from 1978 to 1988, was due to activities in the mining sub-sector, especially petroleum. Capital formation in the economy has not been satisfactory.
Gross domestic investment as a percentage of GDP, which was 16.3 per cent and 22.8 per cent in the periods 1965-73 and 1973-80 respectively, decreased to almost 14 per cent in 1980-88 and increased to 18.2 per cent in 1991 -98. Gross National Saving has been low and consists mostly of public savings especially during the period 1973-80. The current account balances before official transfers are negative for 1965-73,1980-88 and 1991-98.
The economy never experienced double-digit inflation during the 1960s. By 1976, however, the inflation rate stood at 23 per cent. It decreased to 11.8 per cent in 1979 and jumped to 41 percent and 72.8 per cent in 1989 and 1995, respectively. By 1998, the inflation rate had, however, reduced to 9.5 per cent from 29.0 per cent in 1996. Unemployment rates averaged almost 5 per cent for the period 1976-1998. However, the statistics especially on unemployment, must be interpreted with caution.
Most job seekers do not use the labour exchanges, apart from the inherent distortions in the country’s labour market. Based on some basic indicators, it appears that the economy performed well during the years immediately after independence and into the oil boom years. However, in the 1980s the economy was in a recession. The on-going economic reform programme is an attempt to put the economy on a recovery path with minimal inflation. The analysis that follows tries to discuss the developments in the economy for different periods.
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 agriculture. These are aside the Private sector participation is not limited to local or foreign direct and portfolio investment financing, but also to sponsorship of research and breakthrough on agricultural issues in universities, capacity building for farmers and, most importantly, the provision of financing to farm businesses. International governmental and non-governmental agencies including the World Bank, Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, etc., also contribute through on-farm and off-farm support in form of finance, input supply, strengthening of technical capacity of other support institutions, etc.
Macroeconomic policies that tend to promote growth of the sector, such as credit-channelling financial policies, price stabilizing monetary and exchange rate policies, and farm incentive-laden fiscal policies including tax exemptions for agricultural businesses, duty-free import of farm machinery, etc. Nigerian agricultural policy provides, among others, for adequate financing of agriculture. The role of finance in agriculture, just like in the industrial and service sectors, cannot be over-emphasized, given that it is the oil that lubricates production. Public expenditure on agriculture has, however, been shown not to be substantial enough to meet the objective of the Government agricultural policies (IFPRI, 2008). For a developing country with a mono-product oil economy such as Nigeria’s, inadequate financing of agriculture portends great danger for many reasons.
Nigeria’s agricultural sector has a high potential for further growth. Productivity is low and can be much improved. The rapid expansion of the oil sector has played a role in eroding the competitiveness of agriculture, since deterioration in the real exchange rate has not been offset by investments to increase productivity and reduce costs of marketing. The oil sector also creates scope for accelerated agricultural growth through redirection of public investment toward rural areas.
A General Equilibrium Analysis, Nigeria faces serious poverty challenges. Two out of every three Nigerians live below the poverty line of $1 per day in income. Poverty in Nigeria is concentrated in rural areas, which are home to more than 70 percent of the nation’s poor. Development indicators for rural areas lag behind those for urban areas: incomes are lower, infant mortality rates are higher, life expectancy is shorter, illiteracy is more widespread, malnutrition is more prevalent, and greater proportions of people lack access to clean water and improved sanitation services.
For the foreseeable future, the welfare of rural populations in Nigeria will be tied to agriculture. Agriculture is the backbone of the rural economy, generating about 35 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) and providing by far the largest source of rural employment. Growth in Nigeria’s agricultural sector, while better than the growth achieved in many other African countries, has fallen short of expectations. Value added per capita in agriculture has risen by less than 1 percent per year for the past 20 years, and food production gains have not kept pace with population growth, resulting in rising food imports and declining levels of national food self-sufficiency.
The study of economic history provides us with ample evidence that an agricultural revolution is a fundamental pre-condition for economic development (Eicher and Witt, 1964: 239; Oluwasanmi, 1966:7-15; Jones and Woolf, 1992:123). The agricultural sector has the potential to be the industrial and economic springboard from which a country’s development can take off. Indeed, more often than not, agricultural activities are usually concentrated in the less-developed rural areas where there is a critical need for rural transformation, redistribution, poverty alleviation and socio-economic development (Stewart, 2000:1). The central hypothesis of this work, therefore, is that a productive agricultural sector lies at the root of the stupendous economic advancement of Brazil.
Interestingly, the Nigerian economy, like that of Brazil, during the first decade after independence could reasonably be described as an agricultural economy because agriculture served as the engine of growth of the overall economy (Ogen, 2003:231-234). From the standpoint of occupational distribution and contribution to the GDP, agriculture was the leading sector. During this period Nigeria was the world’s second largest producer of cocoa, largest exporter of palm kernel and largest producer and exporter of palm oil. Nigeria was also a leading exporter of other major commodities such as cotton, groundnut, rubber and hides and skins (Alkali, 197:15-16). The agricultural sector contributed over 60% of the GDP in the 1960s and despite the reliance of Nigerian peasant farmers on traditional tools and indigenous farming methods, these farmers produced 70% of Nigeria’s exports and 95% of its food needs (Lawal, 1997:195).
However, the agricultural sector suffered neglect during the hey-days of the oil boom in the 1970s. Ever since then Nigeria has been witnessing extreme poverty and the insufficiency of basic food items. Historically, the roots of the crisis in the Nigerian economy lie in the neglect of agriculture and the increased dependence on a mono-cultural economy based on oil. The agricultural sector now accounts for less than 5% of Nigeria’s GDP (Olagbaju and Falola, 1996:263).
No wonder Barbara (2001) asserted that;
The engine of economic growth in low-income countries consists of tradable that can be sold, usually into deep markets57 abroad58. These tradable consist of agriculture, tradable services (such as tourism or IT), manufacturing and overseas migration (in the form of remittances). Agricultural trade and trade reforms to facilitate trade influence economic growth substantially. Important to know is how much multilateral agricultural reforms affect the economy of a developing country and especially what the impacts are on poor rural households. This seems to be self-evident, but not all agricultural production can be seen as tradables. Many (staple) crops are produced not for the market but for home consumption, some may be sold only in local markets that are quickly saturated. Stimulating agricultural production of crops in these areas will therefore not lead to economic growth.
Agriculture must mediate between nature and the human community, with ties and obligations in both directions. To farm well requires an elaborate courtesy toward all creatures, animate and inanimate. It is sympathy that most appropriately enlarges the context of human work. Contexts become wrong by being too small – too small, that is, to contain the scientist or the farmer or the farm family or the local ecosystem or the local community and this is crucial.
There is growing skepticism within the international development community over agriculture’s potential contribution to growth in Africa. These arguments, which to some extent advocate bypassing agricultural development, may influence government and donor agencies’ policies and investment strategies.
Whether African countries believe they can bypass agricultural development, especially given cheap and plentiful food available in world markets, will directly influence priority-setting. Furthermore, pessimism concerning the role and competitiveness of small farms, which dominate African agriculture, will directly affect governments’ agricultural investment strategies. Similarly, an optimistic perception of the potential role of high-value agricultural commodities and nontraditional exports may influence investment decisions and the allocation of limited resources.
An analysis of agricultural public expenditures in Nigeria gives a clear assessment of the low priority the government has given to agriculture over the past several years. Next we discuss the GTAP approach used in this paper. This is followed by the findings and the conclusions. Public spending on agriculture in Nigeria The recently completed Public Expenditure Review (World Bank, 2008) for Nigeria reports that agricultural spending averaged only 1.7 percent of total federal spending over the study period (2001-05), lagging behind spending in other key sectors such as education, health, and water. While agricultural spending expressed as a share of total spending is generally low in African countries compared to countries in other developing regions, Nigeria fares unfavorably even within the African context.
In 2000, agricultural spending in Nigeria expressed as a share of total public spending was the lowest among all 17 sub-Saharan African countries for which data were available, and in other years it was among the lowest. Expressed as a proportion of agricultural GDP, agricultural spending in Nigeria has varied considerably since the 1980s, ranging between 1 percent and 10 percent and spiking sharply on two occasions, once in the mid-1980s and then again in 2001. When agricultural spending is normalized by the size of the sector, the level of agricultural spending is again exceptionally low, not only compared to countries in other developing regions, but even within the poorly performing sub-Saharan African countries.
The first major attempt to solve this problem was impact is no is not too successful attempt, improved productivity devices such as rehabilitation of low producing palm, and cocoa trees, groundnuts, e.t.c., by the introduction of high yield variety ,the creation of incentives to encourage producers, giving of loans, creation improved storage system, national seed multiplication scheme as well as propaganda like “operation feed the nation,” “Green revolution,” “National accelerated food production” e.t.c. were all parts of the total packages contain in the third national development plan to improve agricultural productivity in the period of (1975-1980) and later.
Since the symptoms of agriculture began to make itself manifest, successive government have made successful in the real sense of the world. One of such effort was the one contained in the third national development plan. The than federal government with the assistance of the world bank in 1975 commissioned three pilots agricultural development projects(ADPS) in Funtua, Gombe and Gusau. The main philosophy behind these ADPS strategy is supposed to be used based on the need of the small scale farmers. Agricultural inputs such as fertilizer, improved seedlings, modern farm implements, expert advice e.t.c., are expected to be given to the farmers with the barest minimum cost.
Unfortunately, When the oil came the dominant sector in the early 70’s, agriculture was virtually neglected. It share of GDP declined considerably, so also was its budgetary allocation. The reason for this was various development strategies employed by our policy makers dating to as far back as the colonial period. It is on record that the British were the first to start the process that culminated in the collapse of the agricultural sector in Nigeria.
The British for example, started the process of distortion of the food economy by deliberate encouragement of the production of the cash crops such as cocoa, palm oil, groundnut e.t.c. the production of food crops for local consumption was not encouraged and was in fact out rightly discouraged. According to Mahmud T. (1990) the British conducted detailed census on every food item to ensure full and effective control. They also levied burdensome taxes on every food item production, marketed and consumed. Legal labour force was also forcefully removed from the agricultural sector and used in the construction of roads, railways, mines, military barracks and administrative infrastructure. Not only this, apart from the introduction of cash crops like cocoa, rubber, groundnuts e.t.c. the British made no effort to improve upon agricultural productivity in general.
The objective of agricultural financing policies in Nigeria is to establish an effective system of sustainable agricultural financing schemes, programmes and institutions that could provide micro and macro credit facilities for the micro, small, medium and large scale producers, processors and marketers.
Since 1974 the Bank of Agriculture has committed $1.2 billion for Agricultural Development Programmes (ADPs) to increase farm production and welfare among smallholders in Nigeria. OED reviewed five ADPs and a supporting Agricultural Technical Assistance Project (ATAP), all implemented between 1979 and 1990. Only two of the six projects had satisfactory outcomes. In general, rainfed agricultural production was far below projections. Macroeconomic conditions, some national policies, and particular design and implementation problems prevented a more significant impact. Low-cost irrigated development of lowland areas (fadama) was, however, quite successful. Village water supply components exceeded their targets. The ADPs have evolved to be “permanent” institutions for rural infrastructural development and agricultural services, but their role vis-a-vis the regular state departments needs to be reviewed.
Agricultural Development Projects (ADPs), compared with the situation before the adoption of the ADP approach, encouraged the Nigerian Government to establish the ADPs on a nation-wide basis in all the states of the Federation with the focus on small-scale farmers (Aja, 1981; Unamma et al., 1999). The ADPs thus became the extension arms of the state ministries of agriculture. Consequently, the Training and Visit (T&V) system of agricultural extension (Benor and Baxter, 1984) was chosen and adopted (Amalu, 1998). Gradually Unified Extension Approach was introduced whereby each extension agent was expected to deal with the transfer of technology on all the agricultural sub-sectors; viz: arable crops, livestock, agro forestry and land management, fisheries, and post harvest (especially, WIA).
The Unified Agricultural Extension System (UAES) is an amalgamation of the Farming Systems Research and the Training and Visit Extension System to generate and disseminate location specific agricultural technologies to farmers through a single field worker (Benor and Harison), ADP concept The ADPs were designed in response to a fall in agricultural productivity, and hence a concern to sustain domestic food supplies, as labor had moved out of agriculture into more remunerative activities that were benefitting from the oil boom.
Conversely, domestic recycling of oil income provided the opportunity for the government, with Bank support, to develop the ADPs. The projects provided agricultural investment and services, rural roads, and village water supplies. The government’s adoption of the ADP concept put the smallholder sector at the center of the agricultural development strategy, and marked a clear shift away from capital-intensive investment projects for selected areas of high agricultural potential.
The increase in agricultural production achieved through the enclave Agricultural Development Projects (ADPs), compared with the situation before the adoption of the ADP approach, encouraged the Nigerian Government to establish the ADPs on a nation-wide basis in all the states of the Federation with the focus on small-scale farmers (Aja, 1981; Unamma et al., 1999). The ADPs thus became the extension arms of the state ministries of agriculture. Consequently, the Training and Visit (T&V) system of agricultural extension (Benor and Baxter, 1984) was chosen and adopted (Amalu, 1998).
The first ADPs in Nigeria were enclave projects each covering a specific region within a state. Their early results impressed both the federal and state governments, and there was pressure to replicate the approach across whole states. By 1989 all Nigeria’s then 19 states had ADPs. Two of the projects audited–Ilorin and Oyo North–were enclave projects, and were located in the “middle belt” of Nigeria whose main crops are rainfed cereals and root crops. The three other ADPs audited–Bauchi, Kano, and Sokoto–were statewide projects in Nigeria’s northern zone. Cropping in this zone is based on rainfall cereal crops and pulses, with localized areas of fadama in drainage lines that can support higher-value crops.
The northern ADPs applied an expanded version of the same model used in the earlier enclave projects in this zone. This model demanded large amounts of capital and services and intensive management. With hindsight, not enough thought was given to the implications of the large increase in scale–or indeed to the less favorable production environment than existed in the smaller enclaves. In all of them it was assumed that productivity increases would come from the use of improved technology, especially planting material and fertilizer. The agricultural components of the projects were designed around systems for developing technology and transferring it to farmers, distributing modern inputs, and land development including small-scale irrigation of fadama areas and land clearing.
This study, therefore, emphasizes the fact that the agricultural sector is the engine of growth in virtually all developed economies. Specifically, the work limits itself to the Important role of the agricultural sector in engendering sustainable development and a Significant level of poverty reduction in Nigeria. Of course the scenario in Globe is in contradistinction to that of Nigeria where it would seem that successive Nigerian governments have only been paying lip service to agricultural development. Thus, the essence of this comparison is to reiterate the fact that Nigeria and other Third World countries need to urgently develop their monumental agricultural potentials if they are to achieve rapid industrial and economic development.
However, as noted earlier, these ADP’s have been known to have performed not too well in the role assigned to them. Since its inception, these ADP’s have been expanded to most other states of the Federation. Inspite of this, studies conducted indicated that they have performed below expectation. For example the work of Adebite (1987) on the impact of the Gombe ADP on rural development shows that their projects failed short of meeting most of its objectives. Also, the works of Bunza (1986), Sule D.B. (1996) and Jega M. (1994) on Sokoto, Ayangba and Gusau ADP’s respectively identified similar limitations with their case studies.
Another dimension, the radical (Maxist) scholars attributed the failure or success of the ADP’s on the nature of the state undertaking such a programme, interms of existence or non-existence of class relationships in the state. One of such writers, Bjorn Beckman noted that failure of ADP’s in Nigeria has much to do with its neo-colonial status and capitalist development. He contested the fact that Nigerian as a peripheral state within the world capitalist system has discovered its historical mission of embourgeoisizing the agricultural sector through capitalization of the farm holdings and dispossessing the marginal farmers as exemplified in the Bakalori episode. (Bashir, 1997). He further emphasized that there is a consistent and deliberate state manipulation of agricultural policy that favors estate and large-scale farming as against cottage farm production (Beckman, 1992). The effect of such a policy that is not difficult to discern in the economy the upsurge of “Brigades” of unemployed workers flooding the cities for non-existing jobs.
Nevertheless, the problems facing the agricultural sector in Nigeria are too familiar to require recounting. The low productivity in the sector and its resultant effects of inadequately noted and discussed widely by researchers, administrators, politicians and other commentators on the Nigerian economic development process.
The fourth component of the project is support to the agricultural development programs. This component will provide support to the Agricultural Development Program (ADP) to carry out the following specific and limited functions: (a) support to advisory service providers; (b) quality assurance of advisory services; (c) training of facilitators; (d) sponsored research and on-farm demonstrations; and (e) training of extension staff. The fifth component of the project is asset acquisition for individual. A matching grant will be used as seed money to empower smallholder and poor farmers to acquire capital assets which they will use to undertake a wide range of small-scale income generating activities as well as improve farmers’ access to markets and complementary support that add value to farm produce. The six component of the project is project management, monitoring, and evaluation.
Bank of Agriculture has disbursed over years funds as thus: –
• N41 billion to over 600 enterprises across Nigeria in the last 10 years
• N3 billion on-lending facilities to about 12 states of the federation
• N4 billion to about 30,000 beneficiaries
The beneficiaries were sourced from:
• Collaboration with 30 institutions
• 1.8 million account holders
We have engaged in:
• Capacity building activities for about 2,000 executives selected from 600 cooperatives
• Strengthening of market information
• Agricultural extension and advisory services
The Fadama irrigation concept emerged in one of the World Bank assisted programme with the launching of the National Fadama Development Project (NFDP) in the early nineties. The Fadama concept is an age-old tradition in Hausa land where land that floods on seasonal basis allows for the growth of a variety of crops under small scale irrigation farming system. Irrigation system in modern agriculture, however depend on damming major streams to store and control the flow of water and to allow it delivery in the desired amount whenever it is needed (Cox and Akin, 1979). As a follow up to the National Fadama Development Project, the World Bank and the African Development Bank (ADP) are jointly supporting the Federal Government of Nigeria (FGN) to invest in a second National Fadama Development Project known as Fadama II project.
The implementation of Fadama II Project commenced in January 2004 and it is expected to last 6 years with expected results of increase in income of farmers, employment and reduction in poverty as the major outcome. Nigeria is faced with the challenge of providing adequate food supply for its teaming population. With a current population of about 140 million (NPC, 2006), FAO has consistently, listed Nigeria among countries that are technically unable to meet their food needs from rain fed agriculture at low level inputs.
Secondly, the devastating effect of desertification and drought in the last three decades on the dry sub-humid and semi-arid agro-ecological zones of Nigeria have made the Nigerian government to embark on massive investment in small-holder irrigation (Adeolu & Taiwo, 2004). Thirdly, the rapid growing demand for food coupled with seasonal variations, unpredictability and unreliability that have been characterized the pattern of rainfall in the dry sub-humid and semiarid agro-ecological zones of Nigeria have necessitated the supplementation of rain – fed agriculture with irrigation.
The goal of increasing food production and reducing food import has elicited many programmes and policies at the various level of government. The first was the establishment of River Basin Development Authorities (RBDAs) in the early 70s and by the late 1980s; the development of small-scale irrigation systems in Fadama land areas commenced. In 1993, the Federal Government of Nigeria in collaboration with the World Bank and State Governments started a new programme referred as the National Fadama Development Project. Many reasons have been advanced for the necessity of supplementing rain fed agriculture with irrigation in Nigeria and hence the current investment in the widely acclaimed small-scale or smallholder irrigation practices (Fadama) by the Nigerian Government is one effort in this direction.
To addressed the problems, 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. 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.
It is in view of the problems stated above that Agricultural Development Programmes (ADP’s) often touted as a pivoted strategy for enhancing Economic growth and development. But regrettably.
The Northern Fadama areas are facing increasing pest and other problems associated with intensive cultivation, and the traditional millet-sorghum-cowpea system is subject to an increasing challenge from the parasitic “striga” weed. Hopefully, the recently approved natural agricultural technology support project will address these technical issues. The Fadama programs in the northern ADPs, though small in area relative to rainfed crops, were successful and exceeded their targets for developing small-scale irrigation. They used cheap techniques for extracting shallow groundwater, which permitted high-value vegetable crop production. A free-standing Fadama development project has ensued.
Daniel Quinn is right and fore sighted when is asked:
“[Y]our agricultural revolution is not an event like the Trojan War, isolated in the distant past and without relevance to your lives today. The work begun by those Neolithic farmers in the Near East has been carried forward from one generation to the next without a single break, right into the present moment. It’s the foundation of your vast civilization today in exactly the same way that it was the foundation of the very first farming village.”
It is again this backdrop the researcher will aim at examine whether the conventional wisdom on Agricultural Development Programme’s role in the Economic Growth and Development process is applicable to Nigeria, with particular reference to Fadama project/programme as well as Credit scheme of Bank of Agriculture of Nigeria seen the contemporary circumstances faced by the country.
1.2 Statement of the Problem
Agriculture is the largest sector in the nation’s economy, accounting for about 38% of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in 1992, as recorded by the world bank over two-third of the nation’s labour force are employed in Agriculture. During the sixties, the sector was also the country’s dominant foreign exchange earner. The performance of the sector especially during the oil boom in the 1970’s and early 1980’s was not particularly impressive. Agriculture’s share of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) declined from an estimated 45% in 1970’s to 27% in 1980’s and its share of export dropped from 80% to about 2% during the same period (World Bank, 1985).
Nigerian government right from colonial era has always given serious attention to agriculture. Unfortunately, however, these attentions given have not yet relieved the country from its fundamental problem of rural handicaps.
The concern for this observation is based on the fact that 70 to 80% of Nigerians live in rural areas where farming is the major occupation, and if various agricultural programmers in the past were executed with consistency and commitment to rural transformation the under-developed rural parts of the country would have remained only in history by now.
The National Accelerated Food production Programme (NAFPP) launched in 1973 was the first major attempt by the Federal Government to get involved in Agricultural Development and Food Production at the farmers level in Nigeria. This was followed by another programme like the operation Feeds the Nation (OFN), the River Basin Development Authority, the Green Revolution of Shagari’s administration and Agricultural Development Projects (ADP’s).
Notwithstanding, the expansion of Federal Government support for agricultural development from the early 70’s, agricultural production continue to decline. By the end of 1979, Nigerian annual food import bills and claimed over $1bn marked. Thus agriculture, which had been the mainstay of the nation’s economy since the country’s existence as one geographical entity from 1912, dropped by 1979 when the oil sector replaced it.
The above situation indicates that something is actually wrong with the Nigerian agricultural sector. The problem is now being compounded with the gradual moving away of the country from heavily subsidized agricultural production system towards an era of emphasis on increase private sector initiative as a sustainable umpire of agricultural development. This has led to the scraping of commodity boards and the gradual withdrawal of fertilizers subsidy. Such agricultural policies have serious negative effects implications on the Agricultural Development and Rural Transformation in the country.
Eventually, certain evaluative studies have shown that Agricultural Development Programmes have their own limitations as observed by Gefu (2007) he said;
The impact of some of the Agricultural Development Projects in Nigeria has indicated that much is yet to be derived from them in respect of the achievement of their desired goals of boosting local production; increasing farm income; improving standard of living e.t.c.
From the above, the basic questions to be examined here are; why the failure of ADP’s? what factors militated against proper achievement of ADP’s goals???
The decline of agriculture as the mainstay of the economy, the consent erosion of the much needed foreign exchange of the country as well as the stagnant socio-economic condition of the rural man always raise the following question;
- To what extent have the ADP’s contributed Economic Growth and Development of Nigeria?
- Has the ADP’s relieved farmers from Rural and Urban stagnation?
iii. Has the ADP’s increase food production and its security for Growth and Development of Nigeria?
- To what extent has the ADP’s improved the Urban and Rural infrastructural facilities?
- What impact does ADP’s played as an instrument of Economic Growth and Development of Nigeria?
- Has the Government make attempt or an attempted attempt in restructuring ADP’s for greater success of the programmes for Growth and Development of the Economy?
Aims and Objectives of the Study
Based on the fact that the success of any programme or project such as that of agriculture, lies on efficient management and effective allocation of resources. The central objective of this study is to identify the factors responsible lead to failure of ADP’s as well as relationship between ADP’s and Economic Development. Other objectives include:
- To find out the extent to which ADP’s contributed Economic Growth and Development of Nigeria.
- To examine how ADP’s relieved farmers from Rural and Urban stagnation.
iii.To identify how ADP’s increase food production and its security for Economic Growth and Development of Nigeria.
- To find out the extent has the ADP’s improved the Urban and Rural infrastructural facilities.
- To examine the impact of ADP’s on Economic Growth and Development of Nigeria.
- To find out if Government has make attempt or an attempted attempt in restructuring ADP’s for greater success of the programmes for Growth and Development of the Economy.
vii. Based on i-vi above, make vivid recommendations and suggestions on how to effectively run ADP’s for effective and rapid boom Nigerian Economy.
1.4 Hypotheses to be Tested
Hypotheses formulated for this study for scientific conclusions are designed in Null (H0) and Alternative (H1) format as thus;
- H0; Fadama Projects has not substantially increase Income of Nigerians as Instrument of Economic Growth and Development.
H1; Fadama Projects do substantially increase Income of Nigerians as Instrument of Economic Growth and Development.
1.5 Significance of the Study
The study is necessary in view of the fact that huge amount of money has been spent on agriculture, from loan agreements which International Financial Institution as well as from local sources.
Though there are researches done for improving ADP’s, this study is unique because its focus on ADP’s which provide significant sources of employment to majority Nigerians. Moreover, undertaken a research of this nature is significant because, its result can be of tremendous value and assistance to agricultural practitioners, academicians as well as government for formulating sound policies for improving agricultural practice through different programmes for achieving massive growth and development.
However, a rigorous research of this nature, culminating in concrete conclusions and recommendations will benevolently provide fresh dimensions for understanding role of ADP’s towards booming Nigerian Economy. Nevertheless, this study is significant in the sense that if problems affecting effective practices of ADP’s is discovered and the way to tackle it them are advanced for the essence of encouraging its practices to majority Nigerians for more sources of funds for attaining vision 20:2020. Moreso, this study will as a framework for further research into subject matter ADP’s and filing academic gap in the literature Economic growth and development.
Finally, this research is significant in the sense that apart from its adding to knowledge on the impact of ADP’s to Economic Growth and Development of Nigeria, it will also serve a purpose in management of other Agricultural and even non-Agriculture programmes, for loss and ineffectiveness that may arises during its practice as well as showing the need for possible application of the necessary techniques in managing ADP’s for high productivity in line with Economic Growth and Development and food security as well as substitute for highly dependence on oil sector for revenue for both Nigeria and Nigerians and to peacefully resolve the issue of Derivation which now turn a tune between FG and Non-Oil producing states and militancy in Niger-Delta .
1.6 Scope and Limitations of the Study
There are so many Agricultural Development Programmes in Nigeria, this study is restricted to only FADAMA Programme. In terms of space, the study covers 2001 to 2011 which added up to ten years bearing in mind that this span of ten years is enough to produce a trend of the merit or demerit of ADP’s. The timeframe also falls within democratic periods in which Nigerians have a total expectation of benevolent good governance from their leaders.