Historical Background of ADP in Easter Nigeria Before 1999
Colonial Efforts at Agricultural Development
A significant issue in the economic history of Nigeria in the period 1900 - 1945 is perhaps the growth of the cash economy, which had its foundation in the development of agricultural export products usually referred to as cash crops (Ekundare,1973). This is given that the raison detre of colonial administration, was primarily to expand international trade in primary products. Consequently, the people were to be encouraged to develop those crops that were needed in Europe, and this was to be done, with minimal direct foreign participation. The Land and Native Land Ordinances of 1910 and 1917 was therefore to ensure that agricultural production was in the hands of Nigerians, thus, preventing the existence of an enclave of foreign investors(Olatunbosun,1975). At the same time, the system of production was not advanced, and this resulted in poor output. Ekundare in 1973 has in fact argued that the main problem of Nigerian agriculture up to the 1970s was that of expansion, which depended largely on the degree to which the country could succeed in overcoming and minimizing the effect of such limiting factors as soil deterioration, inadequacy of water supplies in certain areas, low-yielding plant varieties, prevalence of livestock and plant diseases as well as primitive cultivation methods. Perhaps, it was to deal with this challenge that agricultural experimentation stations were established. First, was the Moore Plantation at Ibadan and by 1923, experimental stations had been established in Zaria, Umuahia and Benin. Also, the nascent railway lines proved very efficient, in evacuating the various produce from the different territories.
Before the Second World War, the colonial government in Nigeria had confined its agricultural activities, to a limited amount of research and extension work. The agricultural policy in 1946, was in like manner, focused on the extension of existing agricultural services, so that the whole country would be adequately covered, and provision was made for experimental stations, livestock improvement and multiplication centres, in order that the benefits of agricultural knowledge, research, and investigation may be extended to the people generally (National Archives Enugu,1946).
In Eastern Nigeria, provision was made for a new headquarters and research station, a new stock farm, experiment with and provision of artificial manures, increased extension work with oil palms, soil conservation work, extension of work on rice and soil preservation. To support these initiatives, and ensure an uninterrupted supply of commodities, the Cocoa Research Institute in Ghana was expanded to include Nigeria, and was renamed the West African Cocoa Research Institute. Also in 1951, the Oil Palm Research Station was expanded to become the West African Oil Palm Research Institute, while a West African Maize Research Unit was equally established. The effect of these developments on the rural farmer was minimal as most of the initiatives ended as policies that were never implemented, hence the rural farmers continued with their traditional agricultural practices. This was the bane of government agricultural policy during this period. The rural farmers stuck to their old methods of production, which for all practically purposes limited their output.
A major step was however taken between 1947 and 1949, following the establishment of Marketing Boards, which were expected to guarantee stable seasonal crop prices to farmers, guarantee stable income to farmers and use the funds to improve the living conditions of the producers. In line with the colonial bias against the production of domestic staples, the farmers were forbidden by law to improve the non-export crop sector.7 These Boards were later to become useful in generating revenues for government projects(National Archives Enugu,1946).
Early in the 1950s, attention to agriculture by the colonial administration was renewed. In fact, a revised policy issued in 1953, admitted that, agriculture including both the production of crops and the raising of livestock (large and small) was by far the most important industry in the colonial empire, and upon it rests the material well-being of colonial peoples.10 It recognized the preservation and improvement of the productive powers of the basic natural resources; the social welfare and advancement of the peoples; as well as the economic use of the land and labour available,(Ibid) as three main objectives, which must be taken into account, in building a coherent agricultural policy. Regional Development Boards were also, set up, to monitor the development of primary industries, and to improve the areas of production and welfare of producers.
Government agricultural policy up to 1954 was economically disadvantageous to the rural areas. They were encouraged to produce crops, which attracted minimal returns. However, in terms of physical development, it must be pointed out that several communities in Eastern Nigeria benefited considerably from the infrastructures put in place to enhance primary production at this period. For instance, once government identified transport and communications sector as the most important means of developing the country, roads were built to link export crop producing areas with the rail lines. The development of transport facilities and the gradual spread of western education, naturally led to greater emphasis on the financial or pecuniary aspects of agriculture. Feeder roads were also built in Owerri Province, to link the palm oil producing areas of Mbaise and Ngwa, to the rail line at Umuahia. Far back in 1946, the first Pioneer Oil Mill had been established at Amuro near Okigwe in Owerri Province(Ibid) by which time a Palm Oil Research Institute had been set up in Umuahia.
With the regionalization of planning in 1954, government policy recognized the importance of increasing food production and promoting agriculture as a way of developing the rural areas, meeting the needs of the growing population and boosting the economy on a more sustainable basis. Therefore, emphasis was now placed on the need to increase the production of raw materials for export, since without exports, there will be no money to pay for the increasing number of schools and hospitals that were so badly required. As against the one crop – economy of the region (oil palm), government policy now favoured promoting an increase in the production of other crops, particularly, cocoa, rubber, coffee, coconuts, tea and rice. Arising from this new policy, agricultural extension workers began to educate rural farmers, particularly on the use of natural manure. It was also in this period (1954) that the Eastern Nigeria Development Corporation (ENDC) was established to undertake schemes of production in industry, commerce and agriculture.15 Overtime, the Corporation began to undertake the improvement of the quantity and quality of oil palm produce on which the economy of the region largely depended.
Government’s agricultural policy during the transitory plan period 1958 – 1962, remained virtually the(NAE,1968) same. For instance, it was made clear that government attached great importance to the development of agriculture in order to ensure the maximum utilization of land consonant with the maintenance of soil fertility; to increase the production of staple foods; provide for an increase in consumption; and maintain and expand the cultivation of export crops. Again, it was this policy that saw to the setting up of a School of Agriculture at Umudike Umuahia in 1955. Similarly, extension services were intensified by encouraging modern methods of farming, adequate supply of improved seeds to farmers and the dissemination of information on increased use of fertilizers, sprays and dusts against insects. Furthermore, a practical farm school, to train farmers was set up in Achi, while at Okwudor and Umuomaku, non-residential practical farm schools were established to give farmers some training in the use of fertilizers, as well as the establishment of crops and soil conservation. Such government encouragement to rural farmers with time paid off as individuals began to take pride in setting up their own oil palm plantations. This was especially noticeable in Mbaise, Mbano, Ngor Okpala etc, where several oil palm plantations were set up by a few well-to-do farmers.
A more critical examination will reveal that colonial agricultural policies did little to uplift the living standards of the rural communities in Eastern Nigeria. The feeder roads that were built were essentially meant to facilitate the evacuation of cash crops. In fact, these roads were concentrated in areas, where the crops were produced. The case of Ngwa and Mbaise in Owerri province, known to be palm oil producing areas, provides a suitable example. Also, not much was done to encourage farmers to go into food production, at best production of food crops remained at mere subsistence level, all through this period. Having said that, we cannot however deny the fact that the introduction of cash crops increased the revenue potentials of the rural farmer, although the Marketing Boards never allowed this revenue to get to the farmer, since they also controlled the prices(Interview with Mrs. Monica,1991). It is on record that revenue from Marketing Boards established during the colonial period, aided infrastructural development. That these Boards facilitated the process of rural development by providing funds for the purpose is evident. Evidence suggests that it was from the excess revenue that accrued to the Boards that primary education was subsidized, and various government scholarship programmes were also funded. Of course, it was equally the rural dwellers in Eastern Nigeria that benefited from these programmes. We can then conclude based on the foregoing that colonial agricultural policies in Eastern Nigeria were a case of exploitation and development. These policies were exploitative no doubt, but the people also benefited somehow(Interview with Mrs. Monica,1991).
Post Independence Efforts
One remarkable thing about the administration of Dr. M.I. Okpara, who was the first Premier of Eastern Nigeria directly after independence, was its emphasis on rural development. The administration recognized the fact that the overall health of the economy largely depended upon the vigour of the rural sector, and as Smock rightly observed given the dependence of the economy on the rural agricultural sector, rapid economic growth became a function of growth within this sector(Smock ,1972). As a result everything was to be done to encourage rural development particularly through the improvement of the agricultural sector. Agricultural policy of this period therefore emphasized the rapid expansion of tree crops. The target was to initiate an early increase in cash farm income, government revenues from purchase taxes and export duties as well as Marketing Board profits. Consequently, government was to invest in tree crops through, plantations development by the Eastern Nigeria Development Corporation; Co-Operative Plantations (Farm Settlements); subsidized planting schemes for small holders; and nucleus plantations(NAE,1968). Government’s interest in the development of rural areas through improvement of the agricultural sector also became manifest in the allocation of ₤36, 821, 000 (34% of total) to this sector in the 1962 - 1968 Development Plan.
Furthermore, the investment in tree crops,was to be mainly in the establishment of community plantations, farm settlements and the Eastern Nigeria Development Corporation plantations. Most of these schemes started in 1961 and by 1966, several communities in Eastern Nigeria had benefited from the programme. The objective was to penetrate the basis of traditional village life. Thus, through the community plantations, fundamental improvements were made on prevailing systems of land use, based on the traditional tenure and indigenous settlement patterns. Villages were now brought together under cooperatives and more land was made available for cultivation. An attempt was also made through these schemes to create model farming communities, with up-to-date agricultural and social facilities. But, as will be shown later, the plantations and farm settlement schemes, created even more problems for the rural dwellers than they were meant to solve.
Government wanted to use the community plantations to alter the existing traditional village life and based on self-help, it acquired land, organized cultivators and encouraged them to form cooperatives under the scheme. Each participant was allocated acres of land, where he cultivated cash crops, and some food crops to support his family. Government’s involvement was mainly in appointing and maintaining a supervisor and granting farm subsidies. It is important to note that the Community plantations did not place emphasis on the cultivation of any particular cash crop, rather food crops were allowed, and each participant was entitled to his crops. The aim was to use these communities to teach better farming methods as well as new agricultural techniques to the rest of the population. Farmers were therefore encouraged to visit these farms in order to see improved agricultural techniques in practice. They were then expected to ‘copy’ these techniques and to practice them on their own farms. Admittedly government’s initiative in establishing these farms were worthwhile, however, its implementation left much to be desired especially in the choice of farm sites.
Most of the Community plantations were located in Okigwe and Bende Divisions. The argument was that they were established in medium or medium-high population density zones, and could thus, be visited by farmers from surrounding villages, who were interested in hearing at first hand and seeing with their own eyes, how other communities were coping with common problems of rural development(Barry ,1969). Still, one would have expected a better distribution arrangement given the above argument. But this was not to be. For instance, whereas Owerri and Aba Divisions with more fertile land and high population densities got only one plantation each, three were sited in Okigwe and two in Bende. In any case, the good thing about the community plantations of this period was that they were relatively cheap to run. Moreover, because the participants operated from their villages, it was possible to avoid the costs of resettlement and the establishment of new villages, often associated with plantation schemes(Barry ,1969).
The second major investment by government in the agricultural sector under the 1962 - 1968 Development Programme was the ENDC plantations. The 22 plantations covered approximately 133, 835 acres. These include eight 39, 411 acres of Cocoa; six 55, 010 acres of Oil Palms; six 36, 364 acres of Rubber; one 970 acres of Coconut Palms; and, one 2, 080 acres of Cashew(Barry ,1969). Government’s declared motive for setting up these plantations, ranged from developing the rural communities, to boosting revenue through cash crop production. These plantations were therefore seen as a means of developing the rural areas. Government not only acquired the land for cultivation, but also provided infrastructural facilities to make life easier for the participants. As Floyd has stated internal roads, bridges and embankments were constructed to aid movement of laborers, vehicles and machinery from one block to another for planting, cultivating, and harvesting operations. At the same time, different areas were set aside for facilities associated with plantation operations including germination sheds and nurseries, buildings for housing and maintaining the processing machinery, offices, residential quarters and a recreation centre for the Staff.
Most of the ENDC plantations were located in response to local political pressures, rather than in areas where the soil and rainfall were best suited to the proposed crops(Sara,1970) That the plantations were concentrated in Owerri and Bende Divisions was therefore not a surprise. First, the Premier of the region, Dr. M.I. Okpara, came from Bende Division, while both Owerri and Bende Divisions, were strongholds of the ruling National Council of Nigeria Citizens (NCNC). A place like Ohaozara, largely rural but with available fertile soil was neglected probably because the people supported Mr. S.G. Ikoku’s United Nigeria Independence Party (UNIP). Also, in most of these plantations, not only were boundary disputes rife, due to erroneous demarcation of the areas, planting more often was ill-timed or improperly executed, and this caused both poor yield and eventual death of the tree crops. Ultimately, the plantation arrangement, as a method of rural development in Eastern Nigeria in the period following independence never really succeeded. The reason was the way it was implemented. In fact, the politicization of the programme was its major undoing. Nevertheless, the gradual development that followed in these communities where they were located must also be commended as a plus for rural development.
Perhaps, Dr. M.I. Okpara’s greatest achievement in his agricultural policy geared towards rural development was in the farm settlement schemes(Interview with Okpara, 1991). These were set up to encourage the formation of an enlightened and prosperous, modern body of farmers. Essentially, the farm settlement scheme was aimed at introducing modern farming, on scientific lines, and raising the standard of living of the farmer both in quantity and quality. But over and above these, the scheme was launched to carry with it the rural development objective. In a sense, these schemes were also motivated by the desire to farm, for a profit, along modern lines. Under this programme, seven settlements were set up at Ohaji and Ulonna in Owerri Province, Erei in Abakiliki Province, Igbariam and Uzo-Uwani in Onitsha Province and Boki and Abak in Ogoja Province.
The farm settlements, were established between 1962 and 1966. They were state organized and supervised cooperative farms modeled after the Israeli Moshavin, i.e. a plantation system of commercial agriculture in which the labour force or settlers, rather than being paid workers as on a traditional plantation, instead had secure title on holdings of their own which they operate and from which they can draw an income, as well as having a share in the processing factory and in the running of the scheme, including marketing of the produce.’(Barry,1969) Government acquired the land, which it distributed to participants on hire purchase agreements. It also supervised the settlements, and this lasted till the farms became fully operational. The farm settlements were organized in villages, with a ‘nucleus centre’, which had processing mills, a machinery pool and workshop, administrative staff, cooperative society, market, health centre, police station, post office, churches and schools. Participants were regarded as ‘tenants at-will’ to the government for a period of tenancy not exceeding thirty-five years, which is considered the length of the active working life of the first settlers.
Although the various initiatives of government with the farm settlement schemes were quite commendable, however, we may never ignore the underlying politics, especially in their location given that this was the only way to assess its rural development efforts. The sitting of these farm settlements, in fact, left much to be desired. In principle, these farms were expected to be located in areas close to the centre of heavy population, so that their demonstration value might produce the desired spread effect on neighbouring communities, by encouraging them to adopt similar measures(Barry,1969). But, this was far from practice. In fact, none of those sited in the former Owerri Province, was located within the main population density zones. It is equally important to note that the Premier of the Region, Dr. M.I. Okpara’s Division (Bende) again attracted two settlements (Ulonna North and South). If we may recall, the earlier reasons suggested for sitting the community plantations, in areas with low density population was to make demonstrations possible. Bende Division passed this requirement. Going by these criteria, it meant that this Division alone had both low and high density population to be able to attract a community plantation and a farm settlement to the detriment of others. In any case, it is common knowledge that Mbaise, Ngwa and Mbano all in Owerri Province, are high population density areas, yet, none was considered good enough for a farm settlement. If the interest was rural development, then there ought to have been uniform criteria for sitting these projects.
On the whole, when considered as an effort in rural development, the settlement scheme was a worthwhile venture. It was only a matter of time, before infrastructural facilities began to be introduced in and around those farm locations. As early as 1963, a number of access roads had in fact been built around the areas. For instance, the road from Ohaji connecting Owerri - Port Harcourt Road (from Avu junction) was fallout out this strategy. Also, the Ohaji site benefitted from the installation of a 19.25 horse power engine with electrical pumping equipment, which alleviated the water problems. Similarly, a 30ft high, 39, 200 gallon permanent water tank was equally built to replace the small reservoir that hitherto, served the two villages. Dispensaries and schools were equally built around these settlements, to serve the settler population.
There is however, the more serious problem of having to uproot existing populations or relocate existing communities in order to attain reasonable development. Somehow, the idea of these settlement villages was similar to the Arusha Villages in Tanzania, where the aim was to bring development through the planning of entirely virgin lands. However, the whole exercise appeared to be anti rural development. Creating model communities, through farm settlements amounted to concentrating development in these areas, and this was what happened, with obvious negative effects on other areas. In fact, most of the villagers that migrated as settlers to these farms, either never went back, or returned to seek opportunities in other endeavours. Moreover, many of the young school leavers recruited initially as settlers had very wrong expectations. Some thought that the training at the farm institutes would get them ‘white collar jobs’, or that in the settlement, they were going to supervise other laborers (Barry,1969). The contrary was the case, and this false expectation by the initial settlers greatly undermined the success of the agricultural schemes. When this initial plan of recruiting young school leavers was dropped, as it was realized that they were inexperienced, married couples and sometimes experienced workers from similar plantations were chosen. Even if we ignored the resultant problem of abandoning these young school leavers, to roam the villages, it was clear, that the effort to relocate whole families under the farm settlement scheme would have amounted to a total disintegration of traditional communal life.
We cannot also forget the difficulties associated with land acquisition in these farm settlements. In the case of Ohaji, there were prolonged boundary disputes between Asa, Obile, Ohoba, Umunwaku, and Agwa peoples, over the ownership of land in the settlement(Barry,1969). It is also on record, that earlier negotiations to acquire this land, had to be abandoned in 1961, following severe opposition by the local people. Alternative arrangements to acquire land at Oguta and Obudi-Agwa, equally failed for similar reasons. In fact, when eventually land was secured in 1962 at Ohaji, negotiations were carried out under police protection. There were also similar problems at the acquisition of the Ulonna Farm Settlement in Bende Division. In each of these cases, money and time were lost, and certain sites even had to be abandoned, under pressure from hostile communities.
Furthermore, the way the tenant farmers were identified was equally criticized. According to Floyd, 40% of the settlers were recruited from the villages on whose land the farm settlement was sited, 20% from the same division, another 20% were selected from the same province, while the remaining 20% were recruited from other parts of Eastern Nigeria(Barry,1969). In essence, the fact that the village on which the farm settlement was located alone produced 40% of the settler population, meant that areas that did not benefit from the programme became seriously disadvantaged given that it was the governments major rural development strategy. When considered from this perspective one would then appreciate to what extent the neglected communities were marginalized.
Above all, while the establishment of farm settlements may have had prestige value, the projects frequently proved extremely costly. In many instances the anticipated returns were never realized, neither were the huge investments ever recouped. In addition to the very large initial capital investment, these schemes had large annual operation and maintenance costs. Given this scenario, it may then not be out of place to suggest that neither the ‘back to land’ slogan of the Okpara administration, nor the farm settlement scheme of the period, achieved the desired objectives.
As in other sectors, the period 1967 - 1970, was very critical in the life of these settlements. As a matter of fact, most of the agricultural policies were abandoned following the Civil War. This was to deal a terrible blow, on the agricultural sector, particularly on the nascent plantations and farm settlements. Government extension services and supply of fertilizers to farmers ceased completely. Following the relative insecurity occasioned by war, only few people farmed as air raids and bomb attacks were frequent. The farm settlements and plantations, which had just been cleared for cultivation, or even at their early stages of crop maturity, became deserted as they were susceptible to air raids. Some of them were strategically attacked by the Nigerian troops. Due to lack of attention – the palms were no longer pruned neither were fertilizers applied. Consequently, they grew wild. Both the Ohaji and Ulonna settlements suffered the same plight. The facilities installed at these sites (schools, dispensaries, etc.) even suffered greater damage. By 1970, therefore, the rural development effort through the farm settlement arrangement could not be said to have achieved its overall objectives.
Mr. Ukpabi Asika, who became Administrator of East Central State after the Civil War also, recognized the importance of agriculture as a rural development strategy. He equally believed that the most viable way ahead lay in seeking to radically increase the income of the farmers at the present levels of productivity(Barry,1969). This was to be achieved through cooperative marketing and distribution of farm produce. Also, effort was to be made to process farm goods and improve storage. At the same time, he committed to continuing most of the policies of the 1962 - 68 plans, especially the plantations and farm settlements. Furthermore, the East Central State Agricultural Development Authority (ADA) was established, to undertake projects involved in direct agricultural production, such as farm settlement schemes, grain storage, feed production and distribution as well as poultry centres and hatchery units (Onokerhoraye,1978). Subsequently, the Ohaji Farm Settlement was taken over by ADA and so was the Ulonna Settlement. But not much happened to the farm settlements in terms of care. M.I. Okpara’s ‘baby’ was bound to suffer devastating government neglect. Government’s attention automatically shifted to reconstruction and rehabilitation efforts after the war. By 1976, most of these schemes had completely been devastated. It was equally common to see host communities encroaching on these farms. It was only from the late 1970’s that renewed effort was made to once more reactivate and rehabilitate some of these farms. This was under the Operation Feed the Nation (OFN) Scheme.
Post-Civil War efforts in the old East Central State
The agricultural policies that existed within this period were agricultural policy for Nigeria in 1988. There were also River Basin Development decree and land use decree promulgated under the military regime of General Olusegun Obasanjo in 1978. The Act aims at ameliorating the problem of land tenure that existed mainly in Eastern Nigeria. Irrespective of the two policies, two decrees and an act that existed, several programmes/projects were initiated within this period which includes National Accelerated Food Production Programme (NAFPP).
National Accelerated Food Production Programme (NAFPP)
The National Accelerated Food Production Programme (NAFPP) was an agricultural extension programme initiated in 1972 by the Federal Department of Agriculture. The programme focused on bringing about a significant increase in the production of maize, cassava, rice and wheat in the northern states through subsistence production within a short period of time. The programme was designed to spread to other states in the country after the pilot stage that was established in Anambra, Imo, Ondo, Oyo, Ogun, Benue, Plateau and Kano States. Mini-kit, production-kit and mass adoption phases were the three phases of the programme. The approach of NAFPP to agricultural improvement was based on application of major agricultural packages which included improved crop varieties, pest and diseases management/control, correct plant population and spacing, fertilizer, manure application etc. It provided direct and immediate feedback from farmers because it was easy to confirm that a farmer did not accept or will not adopt an innovation when the farmer did not participate in any of the phases especially production kit and the mass adoption phases. This was important because it gave opportunity to revisit farmers (laggards) and researchers so as to consider the best way to package and deliver the technology. According to Iwuchukwu and Igbokwe (2012), the programme‘s shortcoming included:
Farmers sponsored (financially) the last two phases of the programme. This discouraged some farmers from participating in the programme.
Farmers who could not form cooperatives were likely to be left out in the programme since the programme relied on disbursement of credits and farm inputs through cooperative societies.
Abrupt/premature withdrawal of funding by the Federal Government due to the introduction of Operation Feed the Nation. iv. Demonstration trials were done on some selected farmers‘ plots by the research and extension personnel which did not give a true/good representation of the outcome of the technology or programme. Hence, lack farmers‘ participation.
Agricultural Development Projects (ADP)
Agricultural Development Projects (ADP) formerly known as Integrated Agricultural Development Projects (IADP) was earlier established in 1974 in the North East (Funtua), North West (Gusau) and North Central (Gombe) states as pilot schemes. The earlier impressive result of the programme led to its replication in 1989 to the entire then nineteen states of the federation. This approach to agricultural and rural development was based on collaborative efforts and tripartite arrangement of the federal government, state government and World Bank (Ajayi, 2005). Today ADPs has grown to become the major agricultural and rural development programme existing in states in Nigeria. The important features of the programme are reliance on the small scale farmers as the main people that will bring about increase in food production and the feedback information mechanism which is a decentralized decision making process that allows individual farm families/households to give their response to an innovation/technology, incentive, subsidies etc according to their judgment.
(3) Operation Feed the Nation (OFN)
Operation Feed the Nation (OFN) evolved on 21st May 1976 under the military regime of General Olusegun Obasanjo. The programme was launched in order to bring about increased food production in the entire nation through the active involvement and participation of everybody in every discipline (man, woman, youth, children, farmers, engineers, physician, teachers, traders, artisans, civil servants, etc.) thereby making every person to be capable of partly or wholly feeding him or herself. Under this programme every available piece of land in both urban and sub-urban areas was meant to be planted while government provided inputs and subsidies (like agrochemicals, fertilizers, improved variety of seed/seedlings, day old chicks, machetes, sickle, hoes, etc) freely to schools and colleges and other government establishments. Individuals were meant to receive these inputs at a subsidized rate. Participation in the programme was high initially and dwindled because of the ill prepared university graduates or students who were only prepared in getting money the government was giving them for participating in the programme. The programme only succeeded in creating awareness of food shortage and the need to tackle the problem. The failure of the programme can be attributed to:
i. Farming was done on any available piece of land irrespective of its suitability for agriculture.
ii. Majority of the participants in the programme had little or no farming background and there was no formal or informal preparatory teaching or advice given to them on how to manage their farms.
iii. They practised mono cropping instead of mixed/relay cropping and relied on hired labour to carry out their farming activities, which resulted in high input and low output/yield per unit of land.
iv. Preference was given to government establishments and individuals in authority/administration over the poor farmers (real producer of food) in terms of input supply. v. There was abundance of food in the market and less demand for the food because many people produced part or almost whole food they needed and sometimes sold the surplus at cheap price thereby forcing real farmers to sell their goods at lower price which discouraged them from investing more in order to increase their production.
vi. There was incidence of endemic poultry diseases especially new castle disease that wiped out the birds due to lack of quarantine and necessary routine inoculation/vaccination.
(4) River Basin Development Authorities (RBDAs)
The River Basin Development Decree was promulgated in 1976 to establish eleven River Basin Development Authorities, RBDAs (Decree 25 of 1976) (Ayoola, 2001). The initial aim of the authorities was to boost economic potentials of the existing water bodies particularly irrigation and fishery with hydroelectric power generation and domestic water supply as secondary objectives. The objective of the programme was later extended to other areas most importantly to production and rural infrastructural development. Problems found in the programme were: a number of the authorities grew out of proportion and the operation of some suffered from intensive political interference; substantial public funds were wasted to streamline sizes and functions of RBDAs through the disposal of their non-water assets; and the authorities grew to eighteen which was later reversed to eleven and their activities streamlined.
(5) Green Revolution
(GR) Green Revolution (GR) was a programme inaugurated by Shehu Shagari in April 1980. The programme aimed at increasing production of food and raw materials in order to ensure food security and self sufficiency in basic staples. Secondly, it aspired to boost production of livestock and fish in order to meet home and export needs and to expand and diversify the nation‘s foreign exchange earnings through production and processing of export crops. The federal government ensured the success of the programme by providing agrochemicals, improved seeds/seedlings, irrigation system, machine (mechanization), credit facilities, improved marketing and favourable pricing policy for the agricultural products. The programme did not achieve its objective of increasing food supply because there was delay in execution of most of the projects involved in the programme. There was also no monitoring and evaluation of the projects for which huge sums of money were spent.
Directorate for Food, Roads and Rural Infrastructure (DFRRI)
The Directorate for Food, Roads and Rural Infrastructure (DFRRI)
was initiated in Nigeria in January 1986 under General Ibrahim Babangida‘s administration. It was a kind of home grown social dimensions of adjustment that was embarked upon in most sub Saharan African countries by the World Bank, African Development Bank and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). The programme was designed to improve the quality of life (improvement in nutrition, housing, health, employment, road, water, industrialization etc) and standard and level of living of the rural dwellers through the use of many resources. Success achieved in the programme varied from state to state and sector to sector. In terms of agricultural production there was improvement in 1990; the food and agricultural unit produced 1,633 tons of seeds of arable crops, 4,598 millions of oil palm seedlings and 294,072 tons of groundnut seed and distributed same to farmers. Aquaculture also increased through the production of 2.666 million fish/fingerlings. This was improved upon in 1991; about 4,033.13 tons of improved seeds and 17,112 million seedlings were produced and supplied to farmers. Another 2.666 million fingerlings and 14,529 tons of fodder seeds were produced and distributed to boost fisheries and livestock. In 1992, 846,224 fruit seedlings for horticulture, 5,726.13 tons of arable crop seeds and 3.4661 million fish fingerlings were produced and distributed to farmers (Ekpo and Olaniyi, 1995). There was also formation of community development associations and community banks through the encouragement and assistance of the directorate. About 2,650, 1,076 and 4,442 community development associations were registered in 1989, 1990 and 1991 respectively, while community banks existed in virtually all the local government areas in the country then (Ekpo and Olaniyi, 1995). The poor quality of infrastructures provided by the directorate probably due to embezzlement/mismanagement of fund made the impact of the programme almost insignificant. However, the directorate has been criticized in the past for lack of proper focus and programme accountability (Idachaba, 1988).
(7) National Agricultural Land Development Authority (NALDA) National Agricultural Land Development Authority (NALDA) was established in 1992 much more lately than the decree (land use decree, 1978) and Act (land use act 1979). The authority aims at giving strategic public support for land development, assisting and promoting better uses of Nigeria‘s rural land and their resources, boosting profitable employment opportunities for rural dwellers, raising the level/standard of living of rural people, targeting and assisting in achieving food security through self reliance and sufficiency. The authority embarked on some activities (bush clearing, land preparation, farm infrastructural development, soil conservation and environmental issues, soil survey, evaluation, soil testing and capacity) to provide baseline data for agricultural related activities and advisory services to agricultural land users (Washington Times, 1999). Its 1997 work plan proposed to open up more enclave farming communities during the operating season (Washington Times, 1999). The land reform act/decree has been criticized most as what highly placed officers used to usurp land that belonged to poor farmers.
(8) National Fadama Development Project (NFDP)
The first National Fadama Development Project (NFDP-1) was designed in the early 1990s to promote simple low-cost improved irrigation technology under World Bank financing. The main objective of NFDP-1 was to sustainably increase the incomes of the fadama users through expansion of farm and non-farm activities with high value added output (http://www.dadama.org//). The programme covered twelve states of Adamawa, Bauchi, Gombe, Imo, Kaduna, Kebbi, Lagos, Niger, Ogun, Oyo, Taraba including the Federal Capital Territory (FCT). The wide spread adoption of technologies in the project enabled farmers to increase production by more than 300% in some cases. The federal government impressed by the achievements of Fadama 1 approached African Development Fund of the African Development Bank for support in expanding the achievements of Fadama 1 in scope and size (http://www.fadama.org//). The project was later co-financed with loans from the African Development Fund, to cover the programme in six states of Kogi, Katsina, Jigawa, Plateau, Kwara and Borno. NFDP adopted Community Driven Development (CDD) approach with extensive participation of the stakeholders at early stage of the project in order to achieve its broad objective. This approach is in line with the policies and development strategies for Nigeria which emphasize poverty reduction, private sector leadership and beneficiary participation (http.//www.fadama.org). The project is a major instrument for achieving government poverty alleviation objective in the rural areas of Nigeria (http://www.fadama.org/). Benefits associated with the project include increased return from dry season farming, capacity building in group mobilization, formation and utilization of micro-credit in agro business. Overall appraisal of the first and second phases of the project show remarkable success and has led to the inception of the third phase of the project which is on-going now. The problem associated with the project is the fact that unskilled handling of water application through irrigation can degrade and deplete the soil of its productive capacity (Afolayan, 1997). Environmental impact assessment conducted on behalf of the NFDP showed that the programme does not pose serious threat to the environment (Agriscope, 2001).
ADP, 1976-1999
The ADP approach was said to have been originally designed in Malawi, East Africa, to tackle the problem of poverty. The economic development in the rural areas of the country had been promoted through a strategy which focused on the contribution of improved technologies for food crops, enhanced delivery systems for agricultural extension and input supply, and improved infrastructure. A well-designed organizational structure with professional staff (hired intentionally) was employed to implement this concept. The basic concept was transferred to Nigeria in 1974 with the establishment of the first three enclave projects in the Northern part of the country. This includes: Funtua, Gusau and Gombe
Agricultural Development Programmes. The chosen project regions were agro-ecologically favourable areas in the northern part of Nigeria. They were located in the domain of several Local Government Council (LGCs) of Bauchi, Gombe, Kaduna and Sokoto States (Idrisa et al., 2010). The apparent success of these early projects prompted both the Federal Government of Nigeria and the World Bank to quickly replicate the Agricultural Development Programme model in other states. From 1975 to 1980, the number of projects grew from the original three to a total of nine enclave projects, which include Mbaise Agricultural Development Project, out of which Imo -State Agricultural Development Programme was created. A Federal entity titled Agricultural Projects Monitoring
Evaluation and Planning Unit (1975), reviewed in recent times(Akinbamowo2013) was created to support the Agricultural Development Programme projects. The projects planned to achieve production increase largely through crop yield increases by the use of
improved technology and increased production inputs. The result of the trend analysis carried out on the area and yield data for 1982-1991 for Bauchi, Kano, Sokoto, Ilorin and Oyo-North Agricultural Development Programmes indicated that yields increased in millet, cassava and cotton in the Bauchi State Agricultural Development Programme, Rice in Kaduna Agricultural Development Programmes, Cassava in Ilorin Agricultural Development Preogramme, yam and cowpeas in Ondo Agricultural Development Programmes (World Bank, 1993; Aliero, 2008) On the average yields have increased for all the major crops in Nigeria since inception of the ADPs compared with the period before the establishment of the ADPs. This is inconsonant with the extensive extension coverage by the ADPs. Between 1991 and 1995 alone, a total number of 36,012,000 farm families were covered while 1,130,700 Special Plots for Agricultural Training (SPAT) plots were established, and 8,894 on farm/station trials were carried out. Although there were some sole cropping of maize in more flavored areas, the projects had virtually negligible impact on changing the traditional mixed/relay crop system in the projects (Ojiako et al., 2007). This system has obvious advantages in allowing farmers to reduce production risks in the relatively difficult production environment, and hence any widespread adoption of a different system would have had to include not only increased production potential but also comparable risks aversion characteristic (Toluwase and Omonijo, 2013).
End Notes
"Enugu Rangers Is Not State Team" Lagos Daily Times,April 2, 1971, p. 27.
A.C. Onokerhoraye, ‘Planning for Rural Development in Nigeria: A Spatial Approach’ in Community Development Journal, (Vol. 13, No. 1, 1978), 30.
Afolayan, S. O. (1997). Effect of irrigation frequency on soil moisture potential and fruityield of okra (Abelmoschuss esculentus). Paper presented at the 15th annualconference of HORTSON held at NIHORT, Ibadan: April 8-11.
Agriscope (2001). Newsletter of the Projects Coordinating Unit, Federal Ministry ofAgriculture and Rural Development, 1(18), pp. 1- 6.
Ajayi, A. R. (2005). Programme planning, monitoring and evaluation in agricultural Extension. In: S. Fola Adedoyin (ed.) Agricultural Extension in Nigeria. Ilorin:AESON, ARMTI, pp. 38-59.
Barry Floyd, Eastern Nigeria: A Geographical Review, (London: Macmillan, 1969), 217.
Century, pp. 135-151.
D. Olatunbosun, Nigeria’s Neglected Rural Majority, (Ibadan: OUP, 1975), 50.
D.R. Smock and C. A. Smock, Cultural & Political Aspects of Rural Transportation: A Case Study of Eastern Nigeria (London: Praeger Publishers, 1972), 3.
Ekpo, A. and Olaniyi O. (1995), Rural development in Nigeria: An economic analysis of the impact of the Directorate for Food, Roads and Rural Infrastructures (DFRRI)1986-1993. In: Eboh, E.C. Okoye C.U. and Anyichi, D. (eds.) Rural Development in Nigeria: Concepts, Processes and Prospects. Enugu: Auto
Idachaba, F. S. (1988), Strategies for achieving food self sufficiency in Nigeria. KeyNote Address, 1st National congress of science and technology, University of Ibadan: 16th August, 1988.
Interview with Mr. A.U. Opara, July 15, 1991.
Interview with Mrs. Monica Eke, July 30, 1991.
Iwuchukwu J .C. and Igbokwe E.M. (2012). Lessons from Agricultural Policies andProgrammes in Nigeria. Journal of Law, Policy and Globalization, Vol 5: 11-22.Retrieved from www.iiste.org
Mokwugo Okoye, Nationalist/Writer, interviewed inEnugu on July 24, 1995.
NAE, AR/EN/A217, Eastern Nigeria Development Plan 1962 – 1968.
NAE, M.E.N. 68, Eastern Nigeria Development Plan 1955 - 1960.
National Archives Enugu (hereafter NAE) M.I.S.F., ‘A Ten-Year Plan for Development and Welfare for Nigeria 1946’.
R.O. Ekundare, An Economic History of Nigeria, 1860 – 1960, (London: Methuen and Company Ltd., 1973), 156.
Sam Mba, Ikechukwu P. Okoye and Okey Ezea, Rangers International (The Story of Nigeria's All-conqueringClubside), (Enugu, Reynolds and Company Publishers.1993), p.1.
Sara Berry and Garl Liedholm, ‘Performance of the Nigerian Economy, 1950 – 1962’ in Carl Eicher and Carl Liedholm (eds), Growth and Development of Nigerian Economy (America: Michigan State University Press, 1970), 72.