REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

2.1 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 subsector 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)

2.2 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, 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

2.3 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). 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 establish 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. 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. 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 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. 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

(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 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. 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 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:

(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

(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 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.

2.4 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:

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 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 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.

2.5 SOCIO-ECONOMIC AND DEVELOPMENT CHALLENGES IN NIGERIA’S AGRICULTURE

Nigeria is one of the largest countries in Africa, with a total geographical area of 923 768 square kilometres and an estimated population of about 126 million (2006 estimate). It lies wholly within the tropics along the Gulf of Guinea on the western coast of Africa. Nigeria has a highly diversified agro ecological condition, which makes possible the production of a wide range of agricultural products. Hence, agriculture constitutes one of the most important sectors of the economy. The sector is particularly important in terms of its employment generation and its contribution to gross domestic product (GDP) and export revenue earnings. Despite Nigeria’s rich agricultural resource endowment, however, the agricultural sector has been growing at a very low rate. Less than 50% of the country’s cultivable agricultural land is under cultivation. Even then, smallholder and traditional farmers who use rudimentary production techniques, with resultant low yields, cultivate most of this land. The smallholder farmers are constrained by many problems including those of poor access to modern inputs and credit, poor infrastructure, inadequate access to markets, land and environmental degradation, and inadequate research and extension services.

Since the collapse of the oil boom of the 1970s, there has been a dramatic increase in the incidence and severity of poverty in Nigeria, arising in part from the dwindling performance of the agricultural sector where a greater majority of the poor are employed. Furthermore, poverty in Nigeria has been assuming wider dimensions including household income poverty, food poverty/insecurity, poor access to public services and infrastructure, unsanitary environment, illiteracy and ignorance, insecurity of life and property, and poor governance. In response to the dwindling performance of agriculture in the country, governments have, over the decades, initiated numerous policies and programs aimed at restoring the agricultural sector to its pride of place in the economy. But, as will be evident from analyses in the study, no significant success has been achieved due to the several persistent constraints inhibiting the performance of the sector. From the perspective of sustainable agricultural growth and development in Nigeria, the most fundamental constraint is the peasant nature of the production system, with its low productivity, poor response to technology adoption strategies, and poor returns on investment. It is recognized that agricultural commercialization and investment are the key strategies for promoting accelerated modernization, sustainable growth and development and, hence, poverty reduction in the sector. However, to attract investment into agriculture, it is imperative that those constraints inhibiting the performance of the sector are first identified with a view to unlocking them and creating a conducive investment climate in the sector. The development challenges of Nigeria’s agriculture are, therefore, those of properly identifying and classifying the growth and development constraints of the sector, unlocking them, and then evolving appropriate strategies for promoting accelerated commercialization and investment in the sector such that, in the final analysis, agriculture will become one of the most important growth points in the economy. In spite of the existence of a well-articulated agricultural policy document for Nigeria since 1988, the country has never established a systematic focus in her agricultural planning history that shows a conscious effort to purposely prioritize her agricultural development based on the generally identified components that constitute modern agriculture. Over the years, there has been the development and adoption of programs that tended to generally support only increased production of commodities in the country. Such programs have included, among others :

a. Farm settlement schemes (FSS) in the early to mid 1950s for creating farmsteads of the Israeli Moshav-type agriculture intended to increase commodity output and create employment for young school leavers.

b. River basin development authority’s (RBDA’s) for the purpose of harnessing water resources for farmers throughout the country.

c. Green revolution scheme (GRS) that encouraged all Nigerians in both urban and rural areas to go into agriculture for both commerce and provision of food for home consumption.

d. Agricultural development programs (ADP’s) in all states of the .federation to help organize farmers into more productive agriculture through the provision of modern inputs.

Each of these programs/schemes succeeded in momentarily increasing food production only. There were no inbuilt components that purposely catered for the processing and/or commercialization of the food output. Thus, understandably, they failed as efforts aimed at developing the agriculture sector. Recent attempts that have recognized agriculture’s current level of performance and the fact that every aspect of Nigeria’s agriculture sector needs attention have only listed specified areas that require attention. For instance, the 2001 Rural Development Sector Strategy identifies the following areas for immediate attention if agriculture and rural development in Nigeria are to make the desired impact on the lives of the people:

a. Institutional restructuring and role reassignment in the agricultural extension sub sector.

b. Agricultural technology development and natural resource management

c. Physical and social infrastructural development.

d. Public intervention in specified areas of rural agriculture to measure effectiveness.

e. Human capacity building in the agriculture sector.

Similarly, the 2002 Agricultural Policy document that listed the new directions that agricultural development in the country should take has also only listed the various components of the agricultural sector without any attempt at prioritizing the components.