Post by Trade Coach on Mar 1, 2018 21:33:50 GMT 1
NIGERIAN AGRICULTURE WITH ITS WELL articulated and formulated policies and programmes of the last century, have, over the years returned a verdict of failures. What is the future of our agriculture in the new millennium? Are we still going to have agricultural policies characterized by the poor implementation of programmes associated with public sectors operations, poor funding, ineffective institutional and infrastructural support and services, coupled with distorted and inappropriate macro-economic policies?
On the other hand, although there were poor allocations when compared with other sectors, the agricultural sector has been characterized by underspending. For instance, 42.8 per cent of the estimated capital expenditure for agriculture was unspent in the First National Development Plan, while as high as 65 per cent of estimated expenditure in the Second Plan was unspent. The reasons for this state of affairs include lack of proper synchronization and coordination of agricultural measure in the plan. The underspending in the face of a stagnant agricultural sector also indicates that the design, execution and implementation of plans were defective. Lack of adequate pre-project studies leads to a poor conception and implementation of agricultural projects.
It is important to note that the closest solution to agricultural problems in Nigeria was identified in the Third Development Plan (1975-1980). The former military government of General Olusegun Obasanjo (1976-79), identified capital as one of the most serious constraints hindering growth in the sector. However, subsequent government fouled the identified constraints through a redesigned agricultural policy. Unfortunately, instead of producing more food and fibre through the rural farmers, for whom such a policy was presumably meant, it succeeded in producing cosmetic farmers with briefcases, walking to the banks to count their blessings without tilling the soil. As such, the rural farmers were starved of agricultural credit and the resultant effect was stagnation of the agric sector. This continued to haunt until recently.
To place agriculture on a growth path, credit to the rural farmer must be designed in such a way as to guarantee its prompt delivery, and record accurately kept. The commercial banks found it almost impossible to monitor the widely scattered farmers, and where it was possible, the cost was enormous and could not be transferred to the rural farmers. As a way out, they resorted to identifying some big-time farmers and concentrating on them. This never produced the desired result. The commercial banks’ experience shows the need for modification. A panacea may be found in grouping the farmers.
One feature of the farming system in Nigeria is fragmentation. However, with the group approach (GA) sizeable hectarage would be cultivated by a selected group, whose membership may be fixed in the region of 30 farmers. This group automatically becomes a credit group (GG), and must be headed by a popular leader chosen through a quasi-democratic process. Farmers with questionable character shall in this manner, be identified and excluded. Thus, monitoring by formal credit institutions (banks) would become easier.
On the recovery of the loan, a specified period should be given to the rural farmers to deliver their crops or livestock for storage. The federal Government can as a matter of policy objectives, set up agricultural commodity storage facilities in the states and local governments, and then set secondary levels of storage facilities at different locations in the rural areas.
The crops will appreciate in price while still in the silos. The farmers, food contractors and wholesalers will share the benefit of the rise in price. The difference between the estimated value at harvest and actual value of crop when sold could be shared amongst the bodies that may be involved. The Federal Government may likewise buy off the products at projected value, thereby encouraging the farmers to keep producing.
When the crops or livestock are sold, an agency handling the work, storage and marketing, must have a complete list of all the groups and their members, with the amount of loan collected. They can deduct at source the initial production loan and marketing or facility loan. The balance is finally given to the farmer.
Granting of loan is crucial and should be done with through the approved groups since the groups have unlimited liability for the members’ loan and the latter is granted in stages. A farmer who does not operate according to the recommended framework may not receive the support and recommendation of the group.
There is need for farm records, to ensure proper farm management practice. This requirement is beyond the capability of the illiterate farmer. To make record-keeping possible and practicable, a kind of farm coupon could be made by the institutions involved in loan granting. The farm coupon takes the shape of money exchangeable, with the registered and recognizable, organized private sector participating in the sale of agricultural inputs.
To make it attractive and facilitate easy accounting, it should take the form of a promissory note, and issued only by the institutions involved. Such coupons are made in booklets, so that the stubs can be kept by the farmers. Thus, it will help all the organisations and institutions involved in agricultural development know the exact amount used, project growth, as well as keep statistical records and so on. The possible advantages are numerous.
Let us take agriculture a step further into the new millennium. We must plan to plant. After all, maize, sorghum or yam, knows no political party and does not under politicking.
On the other hand, although there were poor allocations when compared with other sectors, the agricultural sector has been characterized by underspending. For instance, 42.8 per cent of the estimated capital expenditure for agriculture was unspent in the First National Development Plan, while as high as 65 per cent of estimated expenditure in the Second Plan was unspent. The reasons for this state of affairs include lack of proper synchronization and coordination of agricultural measure in the plan. The underspending in the face of a stagnant agricultural sector also indicates that the design, execution and implementation of plans were defective. Lack of adequate pre-project studies leads to a poor conception and implementation of agricultural projects.
It is important to note that the closest solution to agricultural problems in Nigeria was identified in the Third Development Plan (1975-1980). The former military government of General Olusegun Obasanjo (1976-79), identified capital as one of the most serious constraints hindering growth in the sector. However, subsequent government fouled the identified constraints through a redesigned agricultural policy. Unfortunately, instead of producing more food and fibre through the rural farmers, for whom such a policy was presumably meant, it succeeded in producing cosmetic farmers with briefcases, walking to the banks to count their blessings without tilling the soil. As such, the rural farmers were starved of agricultural credit and the resultant effect was stagnation of the agric sector. This continued to haunt until recently.
To place agriculture on a growth path, credit to the rural farmer must be designed in such a way as to guarantee its prompt delivery, and record accurately kept. The commercial banks found it almost impossible to monitor the widely scattered farmers, and where it was possible, the cost was enormous and could not be transferred to the rural farmers. As a way out, they resorted to identifying some big-time farmers and concentrating on them. This never produced the desired result. The commercial banks’ experience shows the need for modification. A panacea may be found in grouping the farmers.
One feature of the farming system in Nigeria is fragmentation. However, with the group approach (GA) sizeable hectarage would be cultivated by a selected group, whose membership may be fixed in the region of 30 farmers. This group automatically becomes a credit group (GG), and must be headed by a popular leader chosen through a quasi-democratic process. Farmers with questionable character shall in this manner, be identified and excluded. Thus, monitoring by formal credit institutions (banks) would become easier.
On the recovery of the loan, a specified period should be given to the rural farmers to deliver their crops or livestock for storage. The federal Government can as a matter of policy objectives, set up agricultural commodity storage facilities in the states and local governments, and then set secondary levels of storage facilities at different locations in the rural areas.
The crops will appreciate in price while still in the silos. The farmers, food contractors and wholesalers will share the benefit of the rise in price. The difference between the estimated value at harvest and actual value of crop when sold could be shared amongst the bodies that may be involved. The Federal Government may likewise buy off the products at projected value, thereby encouraging the farmers to keep producing.
When the crops or livestock are sold, an agency handling the work, storage and marketing, must have a complete list of all the groups and their members, with the amount of loan collected. They can deduct at source the initial production loan and marketing or facility loan. The balance is finally given to the farmer.
Granting of loan is crucial and should be done with through the approved groups since the groups have unlimited liability for the members’ loan and the latter is granted in stages. A farmer who does not operate according to the recommended framework may not receive the support and recommendation of the group.
There is need for farm records, to ensure proper farm management practice. This requirement is beyond the capability of the illiterate farmer. To make record-keeping possible and practicable, a kind of farm coupon could be made by the institutions involved in loan granting. The farm coupon takes the shape of money exchangeable, with the registered and recognizable, organized private sector participating in the sale of agricultural inputs.
To make it attractive and facilitate easy accounting, it should take the form of a promissory note, and issued only by the institutions involved. Such coupons are made in booklets, so that the stubs can be kept by the farmers. Thus, it will help all the organisations and institutions involved in agricultural development know the exact amount used, project growth, as well as keep statistical records and so on. The possible advantages are numerous.
Let us take agriculture a step further into the new millennium. We must plan to plant. After all, maize, sorghum or yam, knows no political party and does not under politicking.