Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Agricultural Expenditures: Budget Tracking/Investment Analysis of Agricultural Sector in Nigeria (2000‐2008)
REPORT SUBMITTED TO
VOICES FOR FOOD SECURITY
by
Civil Society Coalition for Poverty Eradication – CISCOPE
[Ujah Oliver Chinedu and Dom Okoro]
November 2009
Page 2 of 55
Abbreviations and Acronyms ACCOMEX Agricultural Commodity Exchange Market ACGS Agricultural Credit Guarantee Scheme ACGSF Agricultural Credit Guarantee Scheme Fund ACSS Agricultural Credit Support Scheme AfDB African Development Bank A‐PSF Agricultural Policy Support Facility BOF Budget Office of the Federation CAADP Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme CACS Commercial Agriculture Credit Scheme CBN Central Bank of Nigeria CBGA Centre for Budget and Governance Accountability CBOs Community‐Based Organizations CDD Centre for Democracy and Development CIC Central Implementation Committee CIDA Canadian International Development Agency CISCOPE Civil Society Coalition for Poverty Eradication COFOG Classification of Functions of Government CWIQ Core Welfare Indicators Questionnaire DARPS Developing Agricultural Policy and Regulatory System DFA Director Finance and Accounts DF&A Department of Finance and Accounts DFID UK Department for International Development DMBs Deposit Money Banks DMO Debt Management Office EU European Union FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations FCT Federal Capital Territory FEAP Family Economic Advancement Programme FGN Federal Government of Nigeria FIRS Federal Inland Revenue Service FMA & WR Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Water Resources FMF Federal Ministry of Finance GDP Gross Domestic Product Ha Hectare(s) IBRD/WB International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank ICTs Information and Communications Technologies IDP Interest Drawback programme IFAD International Fund for Agricultural Development IFPRI International Food Policy Research Institute ITCZ Inter‐Tropical Convergence Zone MARKETS Maximizing Agricultural Revenue in Key Enterprises MCF Micro Credit Fund MDA(s) Ministries, Departments and Agencies MDGs Millennium Development Goals MDPT Ministerial Due Process Team MFBs Microfinance Banks MFIs Microfinance Institutions Mt Metric ton(s)
Page 3 of 55
MTEF Medium‐Term Expenditure Framework MTSS Medium‐Term Sector Strategies NACB Nigerian Agricultural and Cooperative Bank NACRDB Nigerian Agricultural Cooperative and Rural Development Bank NAIC Nigerian Agricultural Insurance Corporation NAIS Nigerian Agricutural Insurance Scheme NAPEP National Poverty Eradication Programme NBS National Bureau of Statistics NDE National Directorate of Employment NEEDS National Economic Empowerment and Development Strategy NEPAD New Partnership for Africa’s Development NFRA National Food Reserve Agency NFSP National Food Security Programme NGOs Non‐Governmental Organizations NNPC Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation NPC National Planning Commission NSPFS National Special Programme for Food Security ODA Official Development Assistance PARP Policy Analysis and Research Project PAT Profit After Tax PBN Peoples’ Bank of Nigeria PEFA Public Expenditure and Financial Accountability PMC Project Management Committee PPP Public‐Private Partnership RAISE Raising Agricultural Income with Sustainable Environment RBDAs River Basin Development Authorities RUFIN Rural Finance Institution‐Building Programme SHGL Self‐Help Group Linkage SICs State Implementation Committees SMEDAN Small and Medium Enterprises Development Agency SMEIES Small and Medium Enterprises Equity Investment Scheme SMEs Small and Medium Scale Enterprises TFM Trust Fund Model TOR Terms of Reference USAID United States Agency for International Development
Page 4 of 55
Table of Contents 1 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY ............................................................................................................. 8
2 METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH ...................................................................................................... 8
3 GENERAL FRAMEWORK AND INTRODUCTION ................................................................................ 9
3.1 Nigeria’s agricultural endowments ......................................................................................... 9
3.2 Significance of Agriculture in the Nigerian Economy ............................................................ 10
3.3 Domestic Agricultural Policy Overview ................................................................................. 15
3.4 Nigeria’s agricultural performance ....................................................................................... 19
4 OTHER ANALYSIS ........................................................................................................................... 21
4.1 Understanding of National Budget Process of Nigeria ......................................................... 21
4.2 National Agricultural Budget Formulation Process ............................................................... 22
4.3 National Public Spending in Agriculture ............................................................................... 24
4.4 Agricultural Finance and Insurance ....................................................................................... 29
4.4.1 Nigerian Agricultural Cooperative and Rural Development Bank (NACRDB) ............... 29
4.4.2 Agricultural Credit Guarantee Scheme Fund (ACGSF) .................................................. 31
4.4.3 Agricultural Credit Support Scheme (ACSS) .................................................................. 32
4.4.4 Micro Credit Fund (MCF) ............................................................................................... 32
4.4.5 Rural Finance Institution‐Building Programme (RUFIN) ............................................... 33
4.4.6 Nigerian Agricultural Insurance Scheme (NAIS) ............................................................ 34
4.4.7 Small and Medium Enterprises Equity Investment Scheme (SMEEIS) .......................... 34
4.5 Agricultural Investments and Non‐State Actors in Nigeria ................................................... 35
4.5.1 Banking Sector Credit to Agriculture ............................................................................ 35
4.5.2 Interventions by International Development Partners ................................................. 37
4.5.3 Ongoing and Pipeline Investments ............................................................................... 41
5 RECENT (2009) DEVELOPMENTS IN NIGERIA’S AGRICULTURAL SECTOR LANDSCAPE ................. 45
5.1 5‐Point Agenda for Agriculture ............................................................................................. 45
5.2 Commercial Agriculture Credit Scheme (CACS) – 200 Billion Naira Fund ............................. 46
5.3 $50 Million Microfinance Fund for Nigeria and Ghana ........................................................ 47
6 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................... 48
7. REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................. 52
Table 1: Percentage distribution of working population by activity ..................................................... 13 Table 2: Crops, livestock and fishery targets (2008‐2011) .................................................................... 17
Page 5 of 55
Table 3: Cost implication to Government in 2008 ................................................................................ 18 Table 4: Funding required (2008‐2011 periods) to achieve food security in Nigeria ........................... 19 Table 5: Broad budget stages or cycle .................................................................................................. 21 Table 6: Size of agric. capital budget vis‐a‐vis agric. recurrent budget and total federal capital budget .............................................................................................................................................................. 28 Table 7: Sector distribution of total number of development assistance projects (1999‐2007) ......... 39 Table 8: Sector distribution of development assistance grants (1999‐2007) ....................................... 40 Table 9: Sub‐sector distribution of development assistance to agriculture ......................................... 41 Table 10: Profile of project investments in agricultural development and food security .................... 43
Figure 1: Map of water control in Nigeria ............................................................................................. 10 Figure 2: Growth rates of aggregate (total) GDP and Agric. GDP ......................................................... 11 Figure 3: Agriculture working population vis‐a‐vis total working population (2003‐2007).................. 12 Figure 4: Growth rate of total working population vis‐a‐vis growth rate of agriculture working population (2003‐2007) ........................................................................................................................ 12 Figure 5: Nigeria's average productivity (Naira per worker) profile by economic activity (2007)........ 13 Figure 6: Trend in percentage distribution of agricultural working population by gender .................. 15 Figure 7: Trend in total agric. import value vis‐a‐vis export value ....................................................... 20 Figure 8: Nigeria's annual budget cycle ................................................................................................ 21 Figure 9: Budget formulation/preparation stage in the budget cycle .................................................. 23 Figure 10: Total federal government spending vis‐a‐vis agricultural spending (2000‐2008) ............... 25 Figure 11: Trend in capital budget implementation (%) in Nigeria ...................................................... 26 Figure 12: Capital budget performance (%) in agriculture (2001‐2007) ............................................... 27 Figure 13: Trend in total agriculture credit guarantee scheme fund (ACGSF) in Nigeria ..................... 32 Figure 14: Bank credit to private sector as % of GDP in Nigeria and other countries .......................... 35 Figure 15: Trend in total commercial bank's loan and advances (trillion naira) to Nigeria's economy (2000‐2008) ........................................................................................................................................... 36 Figure 16: Sectoral distribution of commercial banks' loans and advances (2000‐2008) .................... 36 Figure 17: Trend in loans and advances of microfinance banks to the different sectors in Nigeria (2000‐2008) ........................................................................................................................................... 37 Figure 18: Trend in foreign private investment in Nigeria by activity .................................................. 42
Page 6 of 55
Executive Summary This study is aimed at reviewing the investment policy environment of Nigerian agriculture and how it addresses farmers’ concerns. This study, therefore, is essentially an agricultural budget tracking exercise focusing on the national level investment policy. It is guided by the general objective of reviewing the investment policy landscape of Nigerian agriculture with a view to gaining some insights on relative and absolute public expenditures on agriculture at the national level. The methodological approach of the study was hinged on the assemblage of relevant data and information on budget (including expenditures) and budget processes from a wide range of sources. Data gathered were subjected to critical analyses. Based on the analyses, the following critical conclusions were reached and policy options proffered:
1. The current functional system of Nigeria’s budget does not segregate budgetary provisions into small‐scale and commercial categories. Nigeria should immediately adopt/adapt and follow the international standards of functional classification as developed by the United Nations in addition to having categories like small‐scale agriculture and commercial agriculture.
2. There is incongruence between federal government budget allocation (especially the capital budget allocation) and agricultural challenges facing the country. However, increased funding should be supported by increased absorptive capacity of agricultural policy implementers in terms of well‐defined and problem‐solving pro‐small‐scale agricultural programming and projects.
3. Capital budget execution in agriculture is poor. The situation calls for an
urgent need to improve internal system for tracking, recording and disseminating information about public spending in the agricultural sector. Such information is very critical for undertaking evidence‐based policy analysis, programme planning and impact assessment.
4. There is the need for transparency and effective inclusion of non‐state actors
(civil society in particular) in the design, implementation, and evaluation of government policies, programmes, projects and budgets. This can be facilitated by the promulgation of formal rules for stakeholder listening in agricultural budget and implementation process. Moreover, ICT can be leveraged to enshrine due process and transparency in the execution, monitoring and evaluation of budget heads and projects for easy appraisal of implementation choices and strategies.
Page 7 of 55
5. There is the need to enhance the targeting, flows and impact of micro‐credits
to small‐scale farmers in Nigeria. Government‐ and private‐led micro‐credit initiatives (NACRDB, ACGSF, MFBs, DMBs, etc) need to be reformed and scaled‐up (for new vigour and capacity to lend to rural farmers), and attention must be paid to providing innovative types of small‐scale agricultural finance for agricultural development. One consolidated and efficient financing arrangement should replace the multiplicity of institutions currently in place.
6. There is the need to incorporate gender perspective in agricultural policy
formulation, implementation and programming, and in national data and statistical systems, hence the need for gendering microfinance in Nigeria. This demands detailed research and analysis. Gendered microfinance is not about providing credit to women. It is about making microfinance gender‐sensitive. This can be done by taking into accounts the needs and constraints of both men and women when designing and delivering finance. The objective of a gender‐sensitive approach is to ensure that the finance provided is just as attractive to women as it is to men, and inclusive rather than exclusive. Designing an inclusive microfinance institution means finding the lowest common denominator of the target customers. This is critical in view of the large number of women believed to be involved in small‐scale farming.
Page 8 of 55
1 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY This analysis takes place in the context of the global Economic Justice Campaign focusing on agriculture in Nigeria and aimed at enhancing the livelihoods of small scale farmers. This global campaign emanates from Oxfam International through its affiliates in Nigeria (Oxfam Novib and Oxfam GB) in collaboration with their civil society partners. As mentioned in the terms of reference (TOR), three related priority campaign issues have been identified. These are inadequate farmers’ support systems, inadequate public investment and problems associated with national food security. According to the TOR, available evidence indicates that there has been a plethora of public policy instruments targeting agriculture in Nigeria over the years on one hand, while on the other, there is strong belief that public investments in the agricultural sector have routinely ignored the needs and concerns of the small scale farmers as they lack the needed capacity to compete for public investment services against the more powerful and privileged interests. Based on this premise, this study is aimed at reviewing the investment policy environment of Nigerian agriculture and how it addresses farmers’ concerns. This study, therefore, is essentially an agricultural budget tracking exercise focusing on the national level investment policy. It is guided by the general objective of reviewing the investment policy landscape of Nigerian agriculture with a view to gaining some insights on relative and absolute public expenditures on agriculture at the national level. Specifically, the study will describe, review and analyze the following: i. agricultural budget formulation; ii. total public investment to agricultural sector; iii. share of total agriculture investment to small scale farmers; iv. agricultural budget expenditures; and v. agricultural investments and non‐state actors in Nigeria.
2 METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH To realize the study objectives, we embarked upon content analysis (desk work) and field work. They were conducted through the following steps, some of which ran concurrently:
• General documentation and pre‐inquest; • Identification of actors in the preparation of national budgets, with special
emphasis on national agricultural budgets; • Development of interview guide; • Visits to relevant institutions or their websites – including ActionAid Nigeria,
CDD, the CBN (ACGS), NACRDB, NAIC, SMEDAN, NDE, NAPEP, FMOF (Budget Office), FMOA & WR, SMEDAN and SMEIES;
Page 9 of 55
• Interviews with relevant actors (desks) in the budget process; • Data collation and analysis; and • Formulation of conclusions and report writing.
In doing this analysis, agriculture expenditure is taken to mean all budgetary and investment provisions relating to crops, livestock and fishery, forestry and water resources. The budget data used are Appropriation Bills (2000‐2008) for Agriculture and Natural Resources (2000‐2007) and Agriculture and Water Resources (2008). These reflect the changes in the nomenclature of the Ministry of Agriculture at various times. Data on actual expenditures are impossible to find, and are therefore proxied by the rate of capital budget implementation.
3 GENERAL FRAMEWORK AND INTRODUCTION
3.1 Nigeria’s agricultural endowments Nigeria’s agricultural resources and potentials are tremendous and its development is one of the central tenets of the current poverty reduction strategy of the present Federal Government of Nigeria. Out of a land area of about 98.3 million hectares, Nigeria is believed to have 74 million hectares that are good for farming. Although Nigeria’s agriculture is largely characterized by rain‐fed production, the wide variation in agro‐climatic conditions across the country allows a wide range of crops and animals to be grown and reared respectively. Staple food crops include cassava, yam, cocoyam, maize, cowpeas, sweet potato, millet, plantains and bananas, rice, sorghum, and a variety of fruits and vegetables. Also, livestock (including cattle, poultry, pigs, goat and sheep) is important in the country, but is generally a household rather than a commercial enterprise. The leading cash crops are cocoa, citrus, cotton, groundnuts, palm oil and kernel, benniseed and rubber. Nigeria is also blessed with abundant water resources. The nation’s climate is governed by the seasonal movement of the inter‐tropical convergence zone (ITCZ). Under the governance of the ITCZ, rainfall occurs between the months of June and September over the more northerly latitudes, lengthening to April‐November further south; while the annual rainfall varies from over 4000mm in the South East to below 250mm in the extreme North East (FGN, 2008). The resultant surface runoff, estimated at about 250 billion cubic meter per year, is drained across the country through a network of river basins comprising four principal surface water basins – the Niger and Benue basin, the Lake Chad basin, the Eastern littoral made up of Cross River and Imo River, and the Western littoral which consists of a number of smaller catchments such as Ogun, Oshun, Benin and Owena basins (FAO, 2004) – see fig. 1 below.
Page 10 of 55
Figure 1: Map of water control in Nigeria
Source: FGN, 2008.
3.2 Significance of Agriculture in the Nigerian Economy Agriculture is a significant sector in the Nigerian economy. There are four sub‐sectors of agriculture in Nigeria. These are arable crops (including food crops), livestock, fishery and forestry (including tree crops). Although she depends heavily on the oil industry for her revenues, Nigeria is predominantly an agricultural society with the sector contributing about 42%1 of real GDP in 2008. In 2007, the contribution of agriculture to economy totalled some $132.2 billion (Economist, Sept. 2008). Eboh, Ujah and Nzeh (2009) show that the contemporary economic significance of the agricultural sector is even more remarkable. In the past half a decade, the impressive growth rate of the nation’s economy has been driven by the non‐oil sector, particularly agricultural sector. Fig. 2 below confirms the high correlation between aggregate GDP growth rate and agriculture GDP growth rate. In other words, the growth rate of the overall economy is to a large extent dependent on the growth rate in agricultural GDP. 1 Calculated by the authors with data from CBN (2008)
Page 11 of 55
Figure 2: Growth rates of aggregate (total) GDP and Agric. GDP
Source: Eboh et al. 2009. There are, however, doubts about the sustainability of the current growth rate. The recent upsurge in agricultural growth rate has been driven mainly by production increases resulting from the expansion in area planted to staple crops, while productivity has remained low and internationally uncompetitive, and yields of most crops have actually declined over the past two decades (Mogues et al., 2008; Eboh et al., 2006). Approximately 70% of the Nigeria’s population engages in agricultural production at subsistence level, while agricultural holdings are generally small and scattered (FGN, 2008). Smallholder farmers constitute 81% of all farm holdings and their production system is inefficient. Small‐scale (0.1‐5.9 ha), medium scale (6.0‐9.9 ha) and large scale (>10 ha) are the three broad categories of farm holdings in Nigeria, with the small‐scale farm holdings predominating the country’s agriculture and accounting for about 81% of the total farm area and 95% agricultural output (Shaib et al., 1997; FMAWR, 2009). The estimated average operational holding is 2 ha per farm family. Data from NBS (2008) indicate that agriculture (including hunting, forestry and fishing) has always contributed the largest chunk to the total working population (Fig. 3 below). The sector contributed 27, 840, 000 workers out of the total working population of 46, 800, 000 in 2003. Furthermore in 2007, the sector contributed 31, 277, 967 workers out of the total working population of 54, 030, 000. This represents 57.89% of total working population as at 2007.
‐40
‐30
‐20
‐10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
Growth rate of total GDP at 1990 Constant Prices in Naira
Growth rate of total Agric. GDP (including Crops, Livestock, Forestry and Fishing) at 1990 Constant Naira Prices
Page 12 of 55
Figure 3: Agriculture working population vis‐a‐vis total working population (2003‐2007)
Source: Authors with data from NBS (2008). Further analysis of the working population data indicates that growth rate of agriculture working population seems to be the driver of the growth rate in total working population (Fig. 4 below). The growth rate of agriculture working population dropped from 3.73% in 2003 to 1.94% in 2007, while that of the total working population dropped from 4.46% in 2003 to 3.25% in 2007. The high correlation (0.99) between growth rates of total working population and agriculture working population seems to suggest that agriculture holds the potential for tackling unemployment in the country at least in the short‐run. Figure 4: Growth rate of total working population vis‐a‐vis growth rate of agriculture working
population (2003‐2007)
Source: Authors with data from NBS (2008). Despite the significance of agriculture in the nation’s economy, the sector is clearly the least productive when compared to other sectors as at 2007 (Fig. 5 below). The productivity of the sector was N0.66 million per worker in the sector in 2007, while
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Thou
sand
s
Total working population Agricultural hunting, forestry and fishing population
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Total working population Agricultural hunting, forestry and fishing population
the proin that Figure 5
Source: Accordbackboagricultfarmerincreasagricultfarming Table 12006. greateragricultconstitFederapopula Table 1: State
Abia
Adamaw
Akwa Ib
2 Note thof these
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
oductivity fsector also
: Nigeria's av
Authors with
ding to Idone of Nigtural policyr as its censing, thus ture (Ebohg populatio
1 below shIt can be r percentature constutes betwation. On tation acros
Percentage Agric(inclufishin
wa
om
hat data on Stasectors to Sta
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Agriculture
0.66
for the mino in 2007.
verage produ
h data from
achaba (2gerian agricy thrust innter piecereflecting h et al. 200on by mak
hows the dseen thatage of thetitutes jus
ween 23.2‐the averags the state
distribution culture uding ng) 43.9
49.9
36.9
ate GDP is notate GDP.
Mining and Quarrying
ManIn
254.89
ning and q
uctivity (Nair
NBS (2008).
2000), theculture for the next d. The averlow inflow04) and siging agricul
distributiont in most e workingst about 76.6% of ge, agricues.
of working pTrade
24.6
11.4
26
t available cur
nufacturing ndustries
Commercrepairs ofand dom
arts
25.15
147
uarrying s
ra per worke
small‐scar the next decade anrage age ow of younggnifying thture very a
n of workinstates of g populatio2.5% of tthe workilture cons
population bOther (mpublic asocial w
rrently. It wou
ce and f Auto mestic s
Hotels and Restaurants
7.05159.3
ector was
er) profile by
ale farmer25 years.d beyond of farmers ger entrepe urgent nattractive a
ng populatthe nationon2. Apartthe working populastitutes ab
by activity (manufacturiadministratiowork, service
uld have been
Real Estate, Renting and Business activities
254.89
N254.89 m
economic a
r will con This implshould havin the co
preneurial need for thand qualita
tion by actn, agricultt from Lang population in otbout 43.1%
ing, construcon, educatioes, etc)
31.5
38.7
37.1
n insightful to
Education HealthSocial
1.98
67
Page
million per
ctivity (2007
ntinue to lies that Nve the smauntry is hilabour forhe renewaative.
tivity in Nigure constigos State ation, agriher states% of the w
ction, transpon, health an
see the contr
h and Work
Public Adminand Defense
7.08
3.87
e 13 of 55
worker
7)
be the Nigeria’s all‐scale igh and rce into l of the
geria as tutes a where
iculture of the working
port, nd
ribution
n e
Page 14 of 55
State Agriculture (including fishing)
Trade Other (manufacturing, construction, transport, public administration, education, health and social work, services, etc)
Anambra 34.8 33.9 31.3
Bauchi 35.9 17 47.1
Bayelsa 52.5 15.9 31.6
Benue 76.6 5.4 18
Borno 59.9 19.4 20.7
Cross River 68.4 9 22.6
Delta 43.9 20.9 35.2
Ebonyi 70.9 12.7 16.4
Edo 41.8 22.3 35.9
Ekiti 36.8 29 34.2
Enugu 44.4 23.3 32.3
Gombe 45.6 18.4 36
Imo 49.9 20 30.1
Jigawa 52.6 18.2 29.2
Kaduna 32.3 20.4 47.3
Kano 25.6 32.6 41.8
Katsina 40.5 22.2 37.3
Kebbi 48.5 17.6 33.9
Kogi 43.8 27.3 28.9
Kwara 24.5 37.5 38
Lagos 2.5 39.7 57.8
Nassarawa 58.7 13.9 27.4
Niger 47.6 22.8 29.6
Ogun 31.9 37 31.1
Ondo 43.9 27.2 28.9
Osun 23.3 44.2 32.5
Oyo 23.2 38.9 37.9
Plateau 52.2 16 31.8
River 52.9 12.6 34.5
Sokoto 48.4 19.4 32.2
Taraba 56.3 15.4 28.3
Yobe 24.9 22.9 52.2
Zamfara 41.4 19.6 39
FCT, Abuja 27.5 14.9 57.6
Source: Authors’ calculation with data from 2006 NBS/EU Core Welfare Indicators Questionnaire (CWIQ) Survey.
Moreover, in terms of employment through a gender lens, female presence and participation in agricultural production, processing and marketing is becoming very significant in recent years as can be observed in Fig. 6 below. Data from the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS) in 2006 show that while agricultural employment for males
Page 15 of 55
has decreased from 86.14% in 1999 to 78% in 2005, participation by females has increased from 13.86% in 1999 to 21.76% in 2005. This calls for a gender‐based approach to budgeting, not just for agriculture and water resources, but also for other sectors of the economy. Agriculture and food security have strong bearing on women, and national budgets should therefore reflect the increasing significance of women in this sector. It is necessary to remember that overall policy impact on social sectors, agriculture, employment generation and poverty alleviation is far more critical from the point of view of women, and thus any assessment of the impact of budgets on women has to be positioned in this context (CBGA 2007). Agriculture, most especially, is the sector where women (particularly rural and illiterate women) readily find employment and income for survival. Therefore, making agriculture very effective especially for women is pathway out of poverty, not just for women, but also for the millions of households which they represent. Agricultural governance reforms if implemented in a “gender‐blind” way can increase gender inequalities. The right agricultural governance reform needs to be sensitive to gender differentials and specificities. Figure 6: Trend in percentage distribution of agricultural working population by gender
Source: NBS (2006)
3.3 Domestic Agricultural Policy Overview There seems to be an understanding that a strong and efficient agricultural sector has the potential to enable Nigeria feed its growing population, generate employment, earn foreign exchange and provide raw materials for industries. It is believed that the vibrancy of the agricultural sector has a multiplier effect on the nation’s socioeconomic and industrial fabric due to its multifunctional nature. In other words, the agricultural sector remains an important engine of growth in a developing economy like Nigeria.
86.14 84.30 82.29 84.34 81.04 81.10 78.24
13.86 15.70 17.71 15.66 18.96 18.90 21.76
0.00
10.00
20.00
30.00
40.00
50.00
60.00
70.00
80.00
90.00
100.00
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Male Female
Page 16 of 55
The current agricultural policy in Nigeria is situated within the framework of the 7‐point Agenda/NEEDS II. The present federal government of Nigeria adopted the 7‐point Agenda as the broad policy priorities for implementing economic reforms and development programmes in Nigeria on assumption of office in May 2007. The agenda describes the key policy imperatives, directive principles and instruments in promoting sustainable economic growth for the achievement of the MDGs by 2015 and Vision 20:2020. It is being implemented within the enabling platform of the successes and lessons of precursor programmes, i.e. the NEEDS‐I and the experiences in the design of the NEEDS‐II. The main agricultural goals enunciated under the 7‐point agenda are diversified economy, food security, employment generation, economic linkages, exports and poverty reduction. The 7‐point Agenda acknowledges the often‐mentioned challenges in Nigeria’s agricultural development as follows: low productivity, low quality of private sector investment, lack of domestic and international competitiveness, weak domestic policies and institutions, inadequate funding and lack of organised land titling and tenure. These issues are analogous to those identified under NEEDS‐II, as constituting critical gaps in the agricultural development process. Specifically, NEEDS‐II identifies the key challenges as follows: finance and access to credit, land reform, agricultural extension, commercialisation of agricultural production and post‐harvest management, agricultural‐industry linkage, research and training, market‐oriented subsidies, appropriate technologies and entrepreneurship and agribusiness development. In addition, the NEEDS‐II stipulates the targets of agricultural progress as follows: 10% annual increase in crop production, 2.5% annual increase in livestock production, 8.0% annual increase in forestry and 9.0% annual increase in fishery production. Other targets include the reduction of agricultural population in poverty by half each year; achieve 5% employment generation in the agricultural sector, generate up to $3 billion in agricultural exports by 2011; reduce food import from 5% of total imports to zero by 2011, increase cultivable arable land by 10% annually. The key elements of the 7‐point Agenda strategy are land reform, commercial agriculture, irrigation development, institutional support and market stabilisation. Land reform would bring about legislative and administrative review of the Land Use Act 1978, to make land more accessible, secure and easily titled. The land reform will also promote land use planning, productivity‐enhancing public interventions and systematic land development. Commercial agriculture will accelerate resource flow from private investors, good quality human capital and technology‐driven production systems. It is intended to promote market‐based production systems that are driven by efficient and sustainable technologies. Under the commercial agriculture programme, arable land will be developed in the states for use by well‐trained motivated commercial farmers, who will cultivate carefully selected ecologically suitable, commercial market‐responsive crops. It will involve the federal, state and
Page 17 of 55
local government, each playing complementary and reinforcing roles. Market stabilisation is aimed at reducing price instability and market fluctuations through the application of price floors and guaranteed price regimes. It has the effect of discouraging capital flight from agriculture and giving market incentives to agricultural producers and economic agents in agricultural value chains. Within the framework of the 7‐point Agenda, the National Food Security Programme whose current base document was published in August 2008 specifies the food security crops as follows: cassava, rice, millet, wheat, maize, sugar, cowpeas, soybeans, tomato, cotton, cocoa, oil palm and rubber. Other agricultural commodities mentioned include: livestock – poultry, goat, sheep, cattle and pig; fishery – fish and fish products. The programme targets a total of 454,021 ha of irrigated land in addition to the existing 220,000 ha currently under irrigation. Examples of the targeted irrigation coverage include: rice – 60,000 ha, sugar – 60,000 ha, wheat – 50,000 ha and cotton – 40,000 ha. The National Food Security Programme (NFSP), developed by the Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Water Resources, is designed to ensure sustainable access, availability and affordability of quality food to all Nigerians, and is targeted at making Nigeria a significant exporter of agricultural commodities. In the short term, the outlook of agricultural growth has been set within the context of projected productivity of the various crops, under the National Food Security Programme. The productivity targets for the different crops are given as follows (Table 2 below). Table 2: Crops, livestock and fishery targets (2008‐2011) Crop Targets: 2008 – 2011 % Increase
Cassava Yield: Increase from 15mt/ha to 30mt/ha Production: Increase from 49 million mt to 100 million mt annually Attain 10% cassava flour in bread making
100% 104% 10%
Rice Increase production from 2.8 million mt of paddy to 5.6 million mt rice p. a. 100%
Millet Attain 6.5 million mt of millet, and irrigation from 4.0 million mt/annum 62.50%
Wheat Attain 500,000 metric tonnes of local production to replace excessive dependence on wheat importation from the current 70,000 mt/annum
614%
Sugar National demand for sugar is 2.2 million mt. Current local production is 194,000 mt per annum. With a current 10,000 ha commercial plus 50,000 ha under local production of sugarcane, the country needs to increase cultivation of sugar cane by 230,000 ha to attain self sufficiency.
1034%
Tomato Attain production potential of 20 mt per hectare and from 1.1million mt to 2.2 million mt annually.
100%
Cotton Attain increase in cotton production from 350,000mt to 1 million mt 186%
Cocoa Attain 700,000 mt of production by 2011 from current 380,000 mt per year 84%
Oil Palm Attain 1.26million metric tonnes of oil palm and 600,000mt of palm kernel from current 840,000mt palm oil and 400,000mt palm kernel per year
50%
Rubber Attain 300,000mt of rubber from the current 200,000 mt per annum 50%
Page 18 of 55
Crop Targets: 2008 – 2011 % Increase
Livestock & Fisheries
Poultry Attain a population of 249 million from current 166 million 50%
Goat Attain a population of 67.6 million from the current 52 million 30%
Sheep Attain a population of 42.9 million from the current 33 million. 30%
Cattle Attain a population of 20 million from the current 16 million 25%
Pig Attain a population of 8.25 million from the current 6.6 million 25%
Fisheries Attain production target of 1.6 million mt from the current 0.68 million mt 135%
Source: Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Water Resources, 2008. Achieving these targets (productivity increases) would be heavily dependent on sound policies, appropriate interventions and increases in investments in the agricultural sector. The projected investments in the agricultural sector area are given in the tables below. Table 3 below shows the cost implication to the federal government in 2008. Table 3 shows that the Federal Government is interested in a PPP‐led strategy as cost of public‐private partnership (PPP) makes up a larger share of cost implication. Table 3: Cost implication to Government in 2008 S/N Description Cost (N billion)
1 Cost of PPPs 90
2 Completion of 25 Silos 4
3 Construction of 25 warehouses 1.2
4 Implementation of guaranteed minimum price 10
5 Training of Extension Workers 4
6 Fertilizer Subsidy 23
7 Seeds, chick, bulls & Fingerlings 1.8
8 Support for Donor Assisted projects 4
9 Commodity Board Reform 5
10 Small scale rural infrastructure 2.2
11 Development of Boreholes, earth dams 4
12 Crop Development 4
13 Agriculture Development Fund (year) 50
Total 319
Source: Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Water Resources, 2008. On the other hand, Table 4 below shows the funding required over a four‐year period, 2008‐2011. It shows that projected federal government funding for agriculture and food security is about N1, 108.5 billion within the four‐year period, and an average of N277.14 billion annually. Analysis by this study indicates that a funding gap of 59% exists by the very fact that the total (recurrent and capital) federal budget for agriculture and water resources in 2008 was about less than N113.67 billion, as against the projected funding needs of about N277.14 billion.
Page 19 of 55
Table 4: Funding required (2008‐2011 periods) to achieve food security in Nigeria S/No Description Total Project Cost (N
billion) Required Government Funding (N billion)
1 PPP INITIATIVES TOTAL PPP COST 30% OF PPP COST
a. Rehabilitation of Irrigation Facilities 159.51 47.85
b. Increased Production of Selected Commodities
Rice 200 60
Sugar 11.7 3.51
Wheat 33.9 10.17
Tomatoes 5 1.5
Cassava 40 12
Livestock 97 29.1
Fisheries 25.6 7.68
c. Tractor Service Scheme (80,000 @ N5m) 400 120
d. Agro‐Industrial Parks (6 @ N30b) 180 54
e. Cottage Industries (*774 @ N25m) 19.35 5.8
f. Agro‐Service Centres (*774 @ N20m) 15.4 4.62
Sub Total of PPP Costs 1,187.50 308.39
2 Completion of 25 silos (2008) (capacity 25000 MT per Silo)
25 7.5
3 Construction of 100 Ware houses (2,000MT per warehouse)
4.5 1.35
4 Implementation of Guaranteed Minimum Price 15 4.5
5 Research & Development 60 18
6 Training of 10,000 Extension workers per Annum 4 1.2
7 Subsidy to Farmers for fertilizer & other farm input 50 15
8 Seeds & Fingerlings 15 4.5
9 Support to Donor assisted projects 12 3.6
10 Commodity Boards Reform & Establishment 20 6
11 Agricultural land cadastral mapping & certification 150 45
12 Soil testing/National water Base 4 1.2
13 Conditioning Centres 4.2 1.26
14 Cooperatives Development/Aggressive awareness programme
15 4.5
15 Setting up of Agricultural Development Fund 200 60
Sub Total for Other Costs (100% Government funding) 578.7 578.7
Grand Total 2,185.35 1,108.55
Source: Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Water Resources, 2008.
3.4 Nigeria’s agricultural performance At independence in 1960, Nigeria’s agriculture was characterized by high production achieved by mobilizing small scale farmers, provision of infrastructure (roads, railways) geared towards developing crops required for export, and foundation laid
Page 20 of 55
for research and export. After independence, government interventions in agriculture were realized within the framework of development plans and annual budgets. Food was abundant and demand met without resort to import. Using a broad classification, the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) and National Bureau of Statistics (NBS) documents the import and export agricultural products in the following categories – live animals and animal products; vegetable products; animal and vegetable fats and oil; foodstuff, beverages, spirit and vinegar, tobacco; and raw hides and skins leather, furskins, and saddler. The agricultural exports of significance include cocoa beans and products, rubber, fish/shrimp, cotton, processed skin, etc (Okoro and Ujah, 2009). These agricultural products account for about 39.7% of the total non‐oil exports in 2007 (CBN, 2007). According to Soludo (2006), agriculture has been growing at about 7% per annum in the last three years and has been driving the non‐oil growth, and will continue to hold the key to growth, employment and poverty reduction. In terms of value of import vis‐à‐vis export, Nigeria is a huge net‐importer of agricultural products (see Fig. 7 below). The import‐export gap has been widening since 1999 and this puts the agricultural policy of the nation to question. This situation, however, provides a unique opportunity for closing up or eliminating this ‘agricultural deficit’ through functional policies and budgets (Okoro and Ujah, 2009). Figure 7: Trend in total agric. import value vis‐a‐vis export value
Source: authors with data from (NBS 2006) and CBN (2007)
0.00
50.00
100.00
150.00
200.00
250.00
300.00
350.00
400.00
450.00
500.00
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Billion
s
Total Agric Import Value/Volume (Naira)
Total Agric Export Value/Volume (Naira)
4
4.1 Budgetprioritymuch tgets apmoneydevelowas gedecom Table 5: Stages Formula
Approva
ImplemeMonitorevaluatiSource: Nigeriabudgetdetailinpreparspendidepartstrateg5. In ststrateg Figure 8
Source:
OTHER A
Understa
t process ay areas forto be genepproval of ty from sourpment; anenerated aposed into
Broad budg
ation or prep
al or enactm
entation ring or ion Authors’ cre
a’s budgett cycle stang sourcesation of a ng over a ments angies (MTSSage 6, MDgy in stage
: Nigeria's an
Budget Offic
ANALYSIS
anding of
as a procedr developmerated andthe law marces identifnd allows fand spento four broa
et stages or
paration
ment
audit an
eation
t process arts with ts (stage 1)medium tfew years.d agencie) are annuAs envelop7.
nnual budge
ce of the Fed
S
National
dure, throument and d how mucakers (legisfied and spfor monitot (Actionaiad budget s
cycle OutcomIdentify money aGets thesources identifieMoney i
nd Allows fwas gen
can be brthe prepar – see Figterm expen. In stage 3es, MDAs),ally updatepes are agr
t cycle
deration (BO
Budget Pr
ugh which asources ofch to be sslatures – Npend moneoring and ed, 2007). stages (Tab
me(s) priority areaallocated to e approval oidentified
ed is generated for monitorinnerated and s
roken dowration of a. 8 below.nditure fra3, prospec, while ined and stareed upon
F) [2009], Fe
rocess of
a governmf revenue spent on thNational orey as allocaevaluation This procble 5).
as for developriority areaof the law mand to sp
and spent ang and findinspent
wn into 14a medium. This is foamework (tive envelon stage 4 akeholder cleading to
ederal Minist
Nigeria
ent (Execugeneratiohe priorityr State or Lated to theas to how
cess (budg
opment andas makers to genend money
s approved ng out as to
4 stages/stm term revollowed in MTEF) shoopes are sthe medconsultatio the develo
try of Finance
Page
utive) identn, estimaty areas ideLocal) to gee priority arw well the get cycle)
sources of
nerate reveny on priorit
how well th
teps. The venue framstage 2 w
owing aggret for (minium term on is held iopment of
e.
e 21 of 55
tifies its es how entified; enerate reas for money can be
revenue;
nue from ty areas
e money
annual mework with the regating nistries, sector n stage f a fiscal
Page 22 of 55
In stage 8, the Federal Ministry of Finance (FMF) issues a budget call circular and instructions for preparing MDAs envelopes, while MDAs comply by submissions in stage 9. Stage 10 involves the evaluation and consolidation of submissions by the Budget Office of the Federation (BOF). This leads to the presentation of a draft budget to Mr. President for approval (stage 11). Mr. President transmits the draft budget to the National Assembly (stage 12). In stage 13 the National Assembly approves and passes the appropriation bill. In stage 14, Mr. President assents to the bill. As can be observed from Fig. 8 above, the scope for civil society participation is limited to stage 5 of the budget process. This is unacceptable as even the input of CSOs can easily be ignored especially when MDAs begins to allocate resources at stage 9. Therefore, stage 9 is far more critical for CSOs than other stages of the budget process assuming they cannot be accommodated in almost all the stages of the process. On the other hand, the MDAs can initiative steps to seek partnership with relevant stakeholder CSOs in determining priorities and plans for action as concerns the MDAs’ MTSS, MTEF, etc. Furthermore, the Federal Ministry of Finance, through the Budget Office of the Federation (BOF), can make the draft budget available to the public (for at least 2 months) for criticisms and inputs just before stage 11. Better still, CSOs can push for appreciable and significant inclusion in the budget process through persistent advocacy visits to all the government institutions/arms involved in the budget process.
4.2 National Agricultural Budget Formulation Process During the budget formulation/preparation stage (see Fig. 9 below), the Presidency, Federal Ministry of Finance, representatives of Ministries, National Planning Commission (NPC), Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC), Federal Inland Revenue Service (FIRS), and the Revenue Mobilization, Allocation and Fiscal Commission meet to discuss macroeconomic parameters and draw up revenue estimate parameters with regards to oil revenue, non‐oil revenue and independent revenue. These actors also discuss the medium term expenditure framework specifically in terms of aggregate spending, spending by major MDAs, debt transfers, and deficits.
Page 23 of 55
Figure 9: Budget formulation/preparation stage in the budget cycle
Source: Actionaid (2007)
Following this, prospective MDA envelops are set and fixed by the Ministry of Finance which issues call circular to MDAs on revenue and expenditure estimates for the MDAs. The call circular sets out instructions and seeks to provide guidance to Ministers, Accounting Officers and other officers charged with the responsibility for budget preparation, formulation and submission of their respective MDAs. Following the issuance of call circular by the Ministry of Finance, all Ministers, Accounting Officers and other officers responsible for budget preparation are expected to comply with the instructions and stipulations contained therein. At the ministerial level, for instance the Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Water Resources (FMA&WR), the Department of Finance and Accounts (DF&A) has responsibility for providing day‐to‐day financial services in the ministry. This Department is headed by the Director, Finance and Accounts (DFA), who reports directly to the Permanent Secretary. The Permanent Secretary of the Ministry is the Accounting Officer and the Director, Finance and Accounts is sub‐Accounting Officer. The functions of the department include the following: i. Overall responsibility for the keeping of accounts for the funds
(receipts/payments); ii. Management of finances including the receipt of statutory funds allocation,
collection of revenue and disbursement of funds as approved by the approving authorities;
iii. Maintenance of appropriate books of accounts and prompt rendition of statutory periodic returns to the Accountant General of the Federation as required by the regulations;
iv. Provision of financial and economic information to the top management of the ministry for decision making;
v. Attendance at the meeting of Committee of Directors and other top management meetings;
vi. Participation/membership of the Ministerial Tenders Board, Funds Allocation, Budget Committee and Ministerial Due Process Team (MDPT); and
Page 24 of 55
vii. Liaising with the offices of the Accountant General of the Federation, Auditor General of the Federation, Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) and other financial institutions on issues relating to the Ministry’s finances, audit queries and public accounts.
However, at the Ministry of Agriculture and Water Resources, a budget committee is in place to assist the Minister on budget matters. Based on the projected aggregate expenditure level and the MDA expenditure set out in the federal budget proposal, an “expenditure envelop” is approved for each Department. The Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources is “Envelop Holder” for his ministry. Although the call circular received by the Minister contains envelop with sub‐allocations to the Personnel and Overhead Expenditure heads of MDAs, the Minister is responsible for sub‐allocating the Capital Expenditure Envelope to their main departments and all the parastatals and agencies under his supervision. The sub‐capital envelope provided to all departments, units, parastatals and agencies within the ministry must be accommodated within the overall capital expenditure envelope of the Ministry. So, upon the receipt of the call circular, the Minister causes a copy of the call circular to be made available to all departments and parastatals under his supervision, and cause the MDA’s Capital Expenditure Envelope to be sub‐allocated to all such departments, parastatals and units under his supervision. It is expected that capital sub‐allocations must reflect MDA’s Medium Term Sector Strategy (MTSS) and key initiatives of the President which the MDA wants to pursue. At the sub‐levels of departments, agencies, parastatals and units, the directors and unit heads are responsible for completing their capital expenditure in the draft budget, within their sub‐envelope, and returning it to the main Ministry with hard copy of the nominal roll signed verified and signed on all pages by their Chief Executive. Then, the Minister (the Envelope Holder) is responsible for collating the submission of departments, agencies, parastatals and units under the Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Water Resources. The Minister ensures that the summation of the draft budget is within the prescribed capital envelope. Thereafter, the Minister (Envelope Holder) and his Accounting Officer must initial every page of the hard copy of the draft budget proposal of the MDA for onward transmission to the Federal Ministry of Finance.
4.3 National Public Spending in Agriculture Public spending is one of the most direct and effective instruments used by governments to promote agricultural growth and poverty reduction. Public spending at the Federal and sub‐national levels in Nigeria follow a basic structure – recurrent spending and capital spending. This spending structure is characterized by different
Page 25 of 55
expenditure categories depending on the ministry, department or agency. Fig. 10 below shows the trend in total federal budget, total federal capital budget, total federal recurrent budget, total agricultural recurrent budget and total agricultural capital budget in the last nine years. Figure 10: Total federal government spending vis‐a‐vis agricultural spending (2000‐2008)
Source: Authors with data from Appropriation’s Allocation Bills It seems instructive to note that while total federal budget has increased nominally by 263.5% from 2000‐2008, total federal recurrent budget increased by 427.2%, and total federal capital budget increased by 150.3%. For the agriculture and water resource sector, within the same period, total recurrent budget increased by 326.8% and total capital budget increased by 317.5%. In real terms, total agriculture capital expenditure increased to an all time high of approximately N0.06 billion (2001) from N0.02 billion in the year 2000 before unstably declining to N0.03 billion in 2008. In 2008, total federal recurrent budget represented 51.32% of total federal budget, while total federal capital budget was 25.87% of the total federal budget. Furthermore, total agriculture recurrent budget represented 0.97% of total federal budget, while total agriculture capital budget accounted for only 3.67% of total federal budget in 2008. On the other hand, while total agriculture capital budget accounted for 14.2% of total federal capital budget, total agriculture recurrent budget accounted for 1.9% of total federal recurrent budget in 2008. Moreover, the total federal agriculture budget (recurrent plus capital) in 2008 represented only 4.6% of total federal budget. This is below the CAADP’s (Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme) recommended threshold of 10% of budgetary spending on agriculture. Fan, Mogues and Benin (2009) noted that in recent years, many sub‐Saharan African countries have pledged to increase government support to agriculture in other to achieve the goal of 6% annual agricultural growth set by the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD) through CAADP. As part of the Maputo Declaration of 2003, African heads of state and governments had agreed to allocate 10% of their national budgets to
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Trillions
Total Federal Budget Total Federal Recurrent Expenditure
Total Federal Capital Budget Total Agric Recurrent Expenditure
agriculthave su DespitebudgetCritics worse varied instancimplemindicatimplemindicatimplemsince 2the cap Figure 1
Source:
Furthesector performsince 2capital
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
ture. Few urpassed t
e the probt implemeof budget than whatopinion
ce, Presidementation es a perfmentation es a perfomentation h2000 and hpital budge
1: Trend in c
Authors calc
rmore, thehas remaimance (Fig2001, and budget pe
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2000
64
countries ihis thresho
blem of inntation geimplement Fig. 11 pabout theent Obasanperformanformance performanrmance of has remainhas actuallet impleme
capital budge
culation with
e performained abysmg. 12 belowincreased erformance
2001 2
93.5
in Africa inold.
nadequateenerally hatation procortrays. Eve performnjo’s budgence at 50%of 64.8%.nce at abo95.9%. Asned a miragy been deentation ha
et implemen
h data from v
ance of camal since 2w). It recofrom 37%e is approx
2002 200
70.264
ncluding Bu
budgetaras not beecess in Nigven on theance of cet speech %, but dat. Also, PAout 50% i can be seege in Nigereclining sinas a fair va
ntation (%) in
various sourc
pital budg2001 exceorded its lo% in 2002 tximately 62
3 2004
.8
95.9
urkina Faso
ry provisioen very engeria actuae governmcapital buin 2004 puta compileARP (2008in 2004, wen in Fig. 1ria. It is chance 2006. Olue of 76.1
n Nigeria
ces
get implempt in 2006owest perfto 100% in2% from 20
2005
88.1
o, Ethiopia,
ons in Nigencouraginglly claim th
ment side, tudget imputs the 200ed by Mog) puts thewhile Mog11 below, faracterizedOn the ave1%.
mentation i6 when it formance n 2006. On001‐2007.
2006 200
96.5
67
Page
, Malawi a
eria, total g (Fig. 11 hat the figuthere seemlementatio03 capital gues et al e capital gues et al full capital d by high verage (200
n the agricrecorded in 2007 (2n the aver
07 2008
7.8
43.9
e 26 of 55
nd Mali
capital below). ures are m to be on. For budget (2008) budget (2008) budget olatility 0‐2008),
cultural a 100% 24.45%) rage, its
Figure 1
Source:
Budgetimplemgoals aObadafunds. undersMDAs; includiterms untimeprojectcapital mechaimpleminadeq In the approxagricultrecurreresourc
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
2: Capital bu
Authors’ cal
t implemementation and objectn (2008), lApart fro
standing oinadequang faulty bof proces
ely releaset executiofunds ar
nism/publmentation uate moni
past eightximately siture capitent budgeces are ava
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2001
82
udget perfor
culation with
entation hhas consttives, maklow capitaom bureauf extant late capacitbudget forssing/procue of approon; cash‐flore tied toic procurplans; latoring of b
t to nine yix times atal budgetet. This isailable.
2002
37
mance (%) in
h data from
has been rained theking it a wl budget imucratic deaws, reguly; etc), Obrmulation/urement; priate funow manago projectsrement aate commbudget per
years, agricagriculturet was apps indicativ
2003
40
n agriculture
various sour
a major e achievemweak link implementaelays (resuations andbadan (200/appropriatdelays in
nds causinggement ess entailingct; techn
mencementformance.
culture cap recurrentproximatelve of how
2004
72
e (2001‐2007
rces
issue of ment of min the budation couldulting fromd guideline08) noted tion; untimbudget e
g delays inspecially wg huge prnical capat of bud
pital budget budgety 11 timew much a
2005
78
7)
concern most spelt‐odget proced not be bm lack of es on projmore fun
mely projeenactmentn initiatingwhen quarocuremenacity chaldget imple
et has on t(Table 6 es bigger agricultura
2006
100
Page
in Nigeriaout develoess. Accorblamed on familiaritiject execundamental ect preparat; non‐releg and comrterly relents; due lenges; laementatio
the averagbelow). Inthan agri
al develop
2007
24.45
e 27 of 55
a. Poor opment ding to lack of es and tion by factors ation in ease or mpleting ease of process ack of n; and
ge been n 2000, iculture pmental
Page 28 of 55
Table 6: Size of agric. capital budget vis‐a‐vis agric. recurrent budget and total federal capital budget Year Ratio of agric capital to agric recurrent Ratio of agric capital to total federal capital
2000 3.88 0.08
2001 9.31 0.15
2002 10.60 0.18
2003 5.98 0.15
2004 4.10 0.14
2005 5.87 0.13
2006 4.16 0.14
2007 5.48 0.14
2008 3.79 0.14
Source: Authors with data from Appropriation Bills. In terms of priority rating of agriculture, agriculture capital budget in total federal capital budget has remained poor since 2000. It increased from about 8% (2000) to 18% (2002) of the total federal capital budget, and then declined to 14% of the total federal capital budget in 2008 (Table 6 above). Also interestingly, Nigeria’s public budget expenditure, generally and specifically in agriculture, does not follow the international standards of functional classification as developed by the United Nations (UN). The UN‐sponsored functional system, known as the Classification of Functions of Government (COFOG) provides guidelines for economic and functional categories of expenditure. For agriculture, COFOG suggests the categorization of public expenditure in the following: land management; land reform; farm price income support; extension; veterinary services; pest control; forestry; and fishing and hunting. COFOG classification does not integrate agricultural research with the broader functional group of agriculture but rather with the functional group of research and development (Mogues et al. 2008). The deviation of Nigeria’s public budget expenditure format from the International standard makes it difficult to analyze spending using standard functional categories. The broad expenditure categories used in Nigeria as at 2008 included the following: National Water Resources Institute; Dams, irrigation and drainage (RBDAs); National Agricultural Extension and Research Liaison Services; Hydrological Services Agency; Integrated Water Resources Water Management Agency; National Quarantine Agency; National Food Reserve Agency (NFRA); Contribution to International Organizations; Water Supply, Quality Control and Inspectorate; Department of Planning Research and Statistics; Department of Finance and Accounts; Fisheries; Livestock and Pest Control; Facilitation and Promotion of Arable and Tree Crop production; National Soil Testing Programme; Agricultural and Rural Development; Federal Colleges of Agriculture; and Agricultural Research Council of Nigeria, Nigeria Agricultural Insurance Corporation, and Agricultural Research Institutes.
Page 29 of 55
4.4 Agricultural Finance and Insurance The recent global crisis, along with revitalized and growing debate over the role of agriculture amid food crisis and food price increases has opened a new chapter for discussion of development banks serving rural areas (Trivelli and Rios, 2009), which is the home of small‐scale farmers in Nigeria. Development banks have a central role to play in the development of rural finance and it is widely accepted that without them, rural finance cannot develop or serve the neediest rural dwellers. While capital is not the only factor that allows for the growth or creation of enterprises, it is the most vital as without it, creativity, drive, and innovation cannot be transformed into material actions. Rural finance, which includes the range of retail and wholesale institutions, have the capacity or potential to offer financial services to the poor and extremely poor. This is commonly referred to as “microfinance”. From the 1990s, many donors including the World Bank (IBRD/WB), International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), and Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), increasingly focused on the sustainable and large‐scale delivery of financial services for the poor, especially small loans for both farm and off‐farm activities, savings and micro‐insurance services, and more recently remittance transfer services (IBRD/World Bank, 2009). In Nigeria, banking services are available to about 40% of the population and more than 70% of the poor do not have access to formal finance (Soludo, 2008). Access to well‐designed financial services can help small‐scale farmers build assets, engage more effectively with markets, and reduce their vulnerability to crisis, especially when access to services is planned as part of household livelihood strategies and sustained over time. In the following subsections, schemes for financing primary production in Nigeria are discussed below. It should be noted ab initio that the impact of these schemes on the small‐scale farmers are debatable and unclear, although the popular belief even among small‐scale farmers is that the following agricultural financing schemes are inaccessible to them. Besides, it is rather difficult to identify, policy‐wise, who the small‐scale farmer is in Nigeria. Also, the multiplicity of institutions and schemes should be jettisoned for one functional and effective agricultural credit and insurance institution each that can deliver services to all farmers, whether small, medium or large in scale.
4.4.1 Nigerian Agricultural Cooperative and Rural Development Bank (NACRDB) Both public and private sector lending activities constitute agricultural financing landscape in Nigeria. Public sector lending agencies include the Nigerian Agricultural Cooperative and Rural Development Bank (NACRDB). The birth of the Nigerian Agricultural, Cooperative and Rural Development Bank (NACRDB) Limited as the single largest development finance institution in Nigeria followed the successful merger of the former People’s Bank of Nigeria (PBN); the defunct Nigerian
Page 30 of 55
Agricultural and Cooperative Bank (NACB) Ltd. and the risk assets of the Family Economic Advancement programme (FEAP) in October, 2000. Thus, NACRDB is dedicated primarily to agricultural financing at both the micro and macro levels, as well as micro financing of small and medium scale enterprises. The Bank is a registered limited liability company that is wholly owned by the Government of the Federal Republic of Nigeria with the share capital fully subscribed by the Federal Ministry of Finance Incorporated (60%) and the Central Bank of Nigeria (40%). The Bank’s broad mandate encompasses savings mobilization and the timely delivery of affordable credit to meet the funding requirements of the teeming Nigeria population in the agricultural and non‐agricultural sectors of the national economy (NACRDB, 2009). The bank has a network of 201 branches spread across all the thirty‐six (36) states and the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja. The major areas of the bank’s participation in agricultural and rural developments are:
• Purveyance of affordable credit facilities to less privileged segments of Nigerian society who cannot readily access the services of conventional banks;
• Acceptance of savings deposit from customers and the payment of same with accrued interest, as at when due;
• Provision of opportunities for self employment in the rural areas, thereby reducing rural urban migrations;
• Augmentation of government efforts in the diversification of the productive base of the national economy;
• Inculcation of banking habits at the grassroots of the Nigeria society; • Promotion of capacity building through the provision of relevant training and
advisory services to rural entrepreneurs; • Fostering an accelerated growth and development of the agricultural and
rural economy; • Encouraging the formation of cooperative societies at all levels; and • Provision of retail banking services to its client.
In order to fulfil the above objectives, the new NACRDB provides three types of credit facilities to its customers. These are micro, macro and on‐lending, while the micro loans constitute 40% of its loanable funds, the macro and on‐lending which are for small and medium farmers constitute 60%. Since 2003 when it was restructured it has kept the interest rate for micro loans at 8% while the rate for other facilities has been increased to 18% which is comparable to the minimum market rate charged by commercial banks in the country. A summary of NACRDB loans performance between July 2001 and December 2006 showed that, it approved N34.65billion loans, disbursed N21.40 billion loans while repayment of the loans disbursed during this period was only N8.68billion representing 58.56 percent. Detail analysis of the loan disbursements showed that micro, macro and on‐lending were N10.60billion, N6.71billion and N4.1billion respectively.
Page 31 of 55
4.4.2 Agricultural Credit Guarantee Scheme Fund (ACGSF) Agricultural purposes for which loans under the ACGSF can be guaranteed are the establishment and management of plantations for the production of rubber, oil palm, cocoa, coffee, tea, etc; the cultivation or production of cereal crops, tubers, fruits of all kinds, cotton, beans, groundnuts, sheanuts, benniseed, vegetables, pineapples, bananas, and plantains; and animal husbandry including poultry, piggery, rearing of cattle and the likes, fish farming and capture, etc. Credit guarantees to commercial banks are given by the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) through the Agricultural Credit Guarantee Fund Scheme (ACGSF). The ACGSF was established by Decree 20 in 1977 for the purpose of providing guarantee in respect of loans granted by any bank for agricultural purposes, with the aim of increasing the level of banks credit to the agricultural sector. It was designed to address the low recovery rate on agricultural lending which was discouraging the banks. Under the Scheme a refund of 75% of any amount in default (principal and interest) net of any amount realized from the collateral held, is made to the bank. The Scheme has a capital base of N3.0 billion subscribed by the Federal Government of Nigeria and the Central bank of Nigeria in the ratio of 60:40. Limit of lending under the Scheme for individual and corporate organization are N 1.0 million and N10.0 million respectively. Lending under the Scheme has been improved by the introduction of innovations such as Self Help Group Linkage (SHGL) with banks, Trust Fund Model (TFM) and Interest Drawback Programme (IDP). The SHG Linkage Banking seeks to link the groups of farmers (informal and formal) to banks for saving mobilization and credit delivery as well as serving as collateral for the groups’ loans while the IDP is a special facility introduced in 2003 to encourage timely payment of loans. It assists the farmers under the ACGSF to reduce the burden of interest on loans. Farmers borrow from the lending bank at market determined rates and receive interest rebate of 40% if they repay their loans as when due. It has a capital base of N2.0 billion, separate from the ACGSF and funded jointly by the Federal Government of Nigeria and the Central Bank of Nigeria in 60:40 shareholding ratio. It was introduced to reduce the effective borrowing rate for farmers especially smallholders who borrow under the ACGSF. TFM, on the other hand is used as additional collateral for rural farmers to access further loans under the ACGSF from State governments and private organizations. Data on the operations of the ACGSF show that the agricultural sector has received about N29.5 billion naira in the last nine years (2000‐2008). The trend shows that agricultural loan to the sector increased from about N0.4 billion in 2000 to about N9.4 billion in 2005 (Fig. 13 below). The sector witnessed a decline in funding to the tune of N4.2 billion in 2006 before increasing to N6.5 billion in 2008.
Page 32 of 55
Figure 13: Trend in total agriculture credit guarantee scheme fund (ACGSF) in Nigeria
Source: Authors with data from CBN (2008)
4.4.3 Agricultural Credit Support Scheme (ACSS) The joint initiative of the Federal Government of Nigeria and the Central Bank of Nigeria/the Bankers Committee in 2006 led to the introduction of the Agricultural Credit Support Scheme (ACSS). With a prescribed fund of N50.0 billion, the ACSS was introduced to enable farmers exploit the untapped potentials of Nigeria’s agricultural sector, reduce inflation, lower the cost of agricultural production generate surplus for export, increase Nigeria’s foreign exchange earnings as well as diversify its revenue base. At national level, its activities are carried out by a Central Implementation Committee (CIC), while those of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) and states are carried out by State Implementation Committees (SICs). The Scheme is geared toward lending mainly to large scale commercial agriculture. To access loans under ACSS, applicants (practising farmers and agro‐allied entrepreneurs with means) are encouraged to approach their banks for loans through the respective state chapters of farmers’ associations and State Implementation Committees. However, large scale farmers are allowed to apply directly to the banks in accordance with the guidelines. ACSS funds are disbursed to farmers and agro‐allied entrepreneurs at 14% interest rate. While the farmer pays 8% to the bank, the Central Bank of Nigeria off‐sets the balance 6% in favour of the borrower. The 14% is inclusive of all charges, thus reducing the effective rate of interest paid by farmers to 8%.
4.4.4 Micro Credit Fund (MCF) In furtherance of efforts to ensure steady flow of funds in the Small and Medium Scale Enterprises (SMEs), particularly micro enterprises, the Bankers' Committee has
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Billion
s
Page 33 of 55
with effect from February 2008, established a Micro Credit Fund (MCF). The Fund has started operations with the balance of the Small and Medium Enterprises Equity Investment Scheme (SMEEIS) which was put at N20.3 billion as at December 2007, while annual contributions of 5 percent of profit after tax would continue to be made by each bank to grow it to N100 billion by the end of 2010 by setting aside 5% of their profit after tax, annually. The major objective of the MCF is to complement the poverty and small and micro credit interventions of government and the activities of the microfinance banks in supplying a large but cheap source of finance to the small and micro entrepreneurs. Under the fund, state governments can engage in wholesale borrowing from banks and on‐lend to more entrepreneurs in their respective states through channels acceptable to the CBN. To access the fund, the states would have to put in place appropriate institutional arrangement for disbursing and recovering the amount to be accessed which shall be confirmed by the CBN, as well as monitoring mechanism to ensure efficient utilization. In situation where the state governments are unable to exhaust the fund set aside by the banks in any year, micro finance banks and NGOs’ micro finance institutions could borrow from the fund for on lending to small and micro enterprises.
4.4.5 Rural Finance InstitutionBuilding Programme (RUFIN) In an effort to facilitate farmers’ access to credit through sustainable microfinance institutions in Nigeria, the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), Federal Government of Nigeria and the Central Bank of Nigeria jointly designed Rural Finance – Institution Building Programme (RUFIN) for a loan of US$27.17 from IFAD. RUFIN is a rural financial sub‐sector development programme that fits well within the policy and institutional framework for the overall development of the financial sector in Nigeria. Basically, RUFIN focuses on two areas namely:
• The expansion of rural financing institutions through development of cooperatives, the saving and credit groups to fully participate in the rural finance sector. Over the 7 year programme life, 272 cooperative savings and credit Unions will be developed to provide rural financial services to members. These institutions are free to transform into rural banks and microfinance institutions under the microfinance Policy Framework; and
• Stimulation of agriculture and rural economy for poverty alleviation and overall economic development through mobilization and capacity building of the rural communities to fully and actively participate in the process of development.
The benefits the rural poor would derive from RUFIN are the following:
• Provision of a guarantee fund through direct contributions of USD1.5million to the Microfinance Development Fund under the auspices of CBN;
Page 34 of 55
• Improving the financial management of Nigerian Agricultural Cooperative and Rural Development Bank (NACRDB) though adoption of suitable soft ware, staff training and introduction of financial products suitable to its clients’ base;
• Promoting rural savings which can be used as deposit guarantee for credit by cooperatives/savings and credit groups; and
• Linking commercial banks and other rural finance institutions to facilitate expansion of financial services to agriculture and SMEs in the rural areas.
4.4.6 Nigerian Agricultural Insurance Scheme (NAIS) The Nigerian Agricultural Insurance Corporation (NAIC) was established in 1987 with the objective of providing insurance covers to farmers against natural disasters and other risks associated with agricultural activities. The existence of NAIC has encouraged banks to be more liberal in providing agricultural credit to farmers. According to Dele (2009), NAIC paid N102 million in 2008 as claims to farmers out of the N156 million expected to be paid to farmers during the period under review, while the balance of N54 million was still being processed for payments. The breakdown of the amount showed that N39.8 million was paid for crops, N79.7 m for livestock, while N22.3 was paid for other forms of claims. Also NAIC underwrote businesses worth N20.6 billion during the same period including crops (N6.5 billion), livestock (N5.1 billion), and other businesses (N8.9 billion). This development has put NAIC on the right track to continue to provide the much needed risk management services for the Agricultural Insurance Scheme and other insurance services.
4.4.7 Small and Medium Enterprises Equity Investment Scheme (SMEEIS) The SMEEIS is an initiative of the Nigeria Bankers’ Committee in 2001. Banks in Nigeria freely set aside 10 percent of their profit after tax (PAT) annually for investment in small and medium enterprises as equity and loans facilities. The objective of the Scheme is to stimulate economic growth, develop local resources/technologies and generate employment through facilitation of the flow of funds for the establishment of new SME projects, reactivation of moribund ventures, expansion and modernization of on‐going projects. The Scheme covers all activities of the real sector with the exception of trading/merchandise and financing services. Specifically the Scheme covers agro‐allied, information technology and telecommunication, manufacturing, educational establishments, services, tourism and leisure, solid minerals and construction. The total set aside fund by all the banks as at February 2008 was N42.02 billion while the total investment was N21.15 billion in 302 projects (Alegieuno, 2008). The 10% set aside fund is meant to finance micro enterprise activities. For this purpose, a small and medium enterprise is defined as any enterprise with a maximum asset base of N1.5 billion (excluding land and working capital), and with no lower or upper
Page 35 of 55
limit of staff. However, the scheme was discontinued in 2007 and made optional. Banks are no longer required to mandatorily set aside 10 percent of their profit after tax for the scheme.
4.5 Agricultural Investments and NonState Actors in Nigeria
4.5.1 Banking Sector Credit to Agriculture In comparison with some countries, Nigeria’s banking sector credit to the private sector cannot be applauded (Fig. 14 below). Nigeria’s bank credit to the private sector remains the least, from 2002‐2007, among other countries like South Africa, Tunisia, Morocco and Egypt. While bank credit to the private sector in Nigeria increased from 18.4% of non‐oil GDP in 2002 to 31.4% of non‐oil GDP in 2007, that of South Africa increased from 62.4% of GDP in 2002 to 92.1% of GDP in 2007. Figure 14: Bank credit to private sector as % of GDP in Nigeria and other countries
Source: Authors with data from Fitch Ratings – Bank System Risk Report, September 2007.
Commercial banks’ loans and advances to the economy of Nigeria occur in four broad activity areas including production (agriculture, forestry and fishery; manufacturing; mining and quarrying; real estate and construction), general commerce (bills discounted, domestic trade, exports, and imports), services (public utilities, transport and communications, credit to financial institutions), and others (government, personal and professional, and miscellaneous). Data from CBN indicate that the total commercial banks’ loans and advances to these four broad activity areas increased from approximately N2 trillion in the year 2000 to approximately N28 trillion in 2008 (Fig. 15 below).
0
20
40
60
80
100
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
EGYPT MOROCCO NIGERIA TUNISIA SOUTH AFRICA
Page 36 of 55
Figure 15: Trend in Total commercial bank's loan and advances (Trillion Naira) to Nigeria's economy (2000‐2008)
Source: Authors with data from CBN (2008)
A detailed analysis of the sectoral distribution of commercial banks’ loans and advances reveals that while manufacturing and mining/quarrying received about N2, 904 billion and N2, 645 billion respectively in 2008, agriculture received only N521 billion also in 2008 (Fig. 16 below). In terms of significance, agriculture’s share of total commercial banks’ loan and advances to the economy declined from 8% in 2000 to 2% in 2008. Figure 16: Sectoral distribution of commercial banks' loans and advances (2000‐2008)
Source: Authors with data from CBN (2008).
Due to the high transaction cost of dealing with numerous small lenders scattered in remote and sometimes inaccessible areas of the country, agricultural credit is seen as a risky business by commercial banks. This meager flow of credit to agriculture reflects the poor attractiveness of agriculture to organized private sector in Nigeria. Another indication of the poor resource flows to the agricultural sector is that only a paltry sum of N6.5 billion in 2008 was guaranteed under the Agricultural Credit Guarantee Scheme Fund, operated by the Central Bank of Nigeria. The licensing of microfinance banks is aimed at improving access of the poor, small borrowers to formal sector loans for production and operational expansion of
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Billion
s
Agriculture, forestry and fishery Manufacturing Mining and Quarying
Page 37 of 55
businesses and enterprises. Microfinance banks, therefore, have the potentials to enhance the flow of capital into small‐scale agriculture, if the mechanisms to channel those flows are put in place. Available information shows that the largest chunk of loans and advances from microfinance banks since the year 2000 has been going to the transport and commerce subsector. The loans and advances to the transport and commerce subsector increased from N2 billion in 2000 to N18 billion in 2008, representing 49% of total loans and advances of microfinance banks in 2008 (Fig. 17 below). In comparison, the loans and advances to agriculture (including forestry) increased from N1 billion in 2000 to N13 billion in 2008, representing 34% of total loans and advances of microfinance banks in 2008. It is not clear, however, to what extent small‐scale farmers have benefitted from microfinance loans and advances given the general belief that microfinance banks lend at exorbitant rates – about 22% per annum. Figure 17: Trend in loans and advances of microfinance banks to the different sectors in Nigeria
(2000‐2008)
Source: Authors with data from CBN (2008)
4.5.2 Interventions by International Development Partners The cardinal strategy of international development partners is to support the implementation of Nigeria’s own economic plan, and the key approaches include technical support, financial assistance, and model project interventions to illustrate and disseminate global best practices. In Nigeria, these interventions are aimed at supporting agriculture in general and small‐scale farmers in particular. Available data indicate that the total official development assistance (ODA) in 2006 reached US$280 million, equivalent to US$2 per capita, compared with the average of US$28 per capita for Africa. The data shows that ODA is a meagre share of Nigeria’s total public spending and budgetary profile. Per capita ODA declined from $3 in 1990 to $2 in 1996. It then rose to $2.5 in 2004 and $4 in 2005. Principal donors are the European Union, World Bank, UNDP, UK Department for International Development (DFID) and the United States Agency for International Development
02468
101214161820
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Billion
s
Agriculture and forestry Mining and quarrying
Manufacturing and food processing Real Estate and ConstructionTransport and Commerce Others (donations/grants/subventions)
Page 38 of 55
(USAID). Over the years, development partner assistance has covered policy support and technical assistance, demonstrating best practices, pilot models and capacity building. A review of the status of development assistance by respective development partners gives insights on the nature and potentials of funding and assistance by the respective multilateral and bilateral agencies in the country. The World Bank Country Assistance Strategy focuses on expanding community driven development approaches and supporting infrastructure as a means of easing bottlenecks to private sector activity in agriculture and other economic sectors. The World Bank is providing part financing for the Fadama project which is now in its third phase. The Fadama project is entirely targeted at rural and small‐scale farmers. The African Development Bank implements critical interventions in agriculture and rural development towards fighting poverty and hunger, in order to assist Nigeria’s march to the MDGs targets by 2015. On the other hand, the International Fund for Agriculture Development (IFAD) recognises that the agricultural and rural sector has the potential to play a vital role in improving food security, substituting imported raw materials, creating productive employment, maximising foreign exchange earnings and protecting the environment. Hence the strategic thrusts include: empowering target smallholder farmers, the landless and rural women, CBOs and civil society organisations, in order to generate sustainable income from on‐farm and off‐farm activities; supporting pro‐poor reforms and local governance in order to expand access to information and communication village infrastructures and technologies and improving access of the poor to financial and social services and the promotion of regional cooperation for sustainable food crop development and food security. The European Commission strategy is to support reform efforts in governance, fiscal and budget management, capacity building for civil society organisations and improvement of service delivery in water and sanitation; while the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) is engaged in providing support in critical areas, such as capacity building for augmenting production, diversifying agriculture, improving value addition and support for vulnerable groups. FAO provides assistance for the implementation of the National Special Programme for Food Security (NSPFS) in 109 sites throughout the country. The programme is aimed at contributing to sustainable improvements in national and household food security through rapid augmentation of productivity and food production. FAO is also involved in strengthening the national capacity for the establishment, propagation and distribution of high quality planting materials for horticultural, tree and cash crops for higher income generation. Other programmes include strengthening of indigenous capacities for food preservation, processing, storage, marketing and strengthening of production and quality control of gums and resins, and legumes and cereals.
Page 39 of 55
The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) supports agriculture and rural development in Nigeria through various interventions that integrate agricultural production with processing and marketing in a complementary and reinforcing manner. The support for agriculture and food security is embedded in the overall strategy to facilitate Nigeria’s achievement of the MDGs targets by 2015. The United Kingdom Department for International Development (DFID) provides support for agricultural development through a range of programmes including the “Promoting Pro‐Poor Commodity and Service Markets”, aimed at improving the livelihoods of poor people by facilitating the development of viable agricultural commodity and service markets. DFID is also providing partner support for the Agricultural Policy Support Facility, in collaboration with CIDA, USAID and IFPRI. The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) has a number of programmes for supporting private sector development in Nigerian agriculture. The major interventions include the Maximizing Agricultural Revenue and Key Enterprises in Targeted Sites (MARKETS) project. USAID MARKETS focuses on expanding economic opportunities in the agricultural sector by increasing agricultural productivity, enhancing value‐added processing, and increasing commercialization through private‐sector driven and market‐oriented growth and development. USAID MARKETS has a total budget of $24 million plus $16 million special designation for measures to overcome the global food crisis. USAID is also collaborating with other development agencies in supporting the Agricultural Policy Support Facility (A‐PSF). The Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) in collaboration with DFID, USAID and IFPRI is supporting the Agricultural Policy Support Facility (A‐PSF). Agricultural Policy Support Facility (A‐PSF) is designed to bring about improved national policy analysis, strengthened capacity in carrying out policy research, increased and improved linkages and consultation between government and key stakeholders. In the last eight years, Nigeria received development assistance totaling a little over $6billion both in credit and grant. Of this amount, grants constituted about $3.2billion, credit was about $2.8billion and the rest came from international NGOs. The sector breakdown of development assistance over the last eight years, 1999‐2007, is given as follows (Table 7 below): Table 7: Sector distribution of total number of development assistance projects (1999‐2007) Sectors Number (%) of projects
Agriculture 3
Education 7
Energy and environment 12
Finance 1
Government 15
Page 40 of 55
Sectors Number (%) of projects
Health 36
Human rights 4
Population control 2
Poverty alleviation 17
Trade and investment 0
Women’s empowerment 2
Total 100%
Source: NPC (2008). Table 7 above shows that direct agricultural programmes accounted for only 3% of the total number of projects implemented by development partners from 1999‐2007. It should however be noted that development partner projects in other sectors such as energy and environment, education, poverty alleviation and women empowerment have indirect positive effects on agricultural development. The sectoral distribution of development assistance grants over the period, 1999‐2007, is given in Table 8 below. Table 8 shows that direct agricultural programmes accounted for only 1% of the total grants by development partners from 1999‐2007. It should however be noted that development partner grants to other sectors such as energy and environment, education, poverty alleviation and women empowerment have indirect positive effects on agricultural development. Table 8: Sector distribution of development assistance grants (1999‐2007) Sectors Size (%) of grant
Agriculture 1
Education 12
Energy and environment 1
Finance 0
Government 5
Health 54
Human rights 0
Population control 5
Poverty alleviation 18
Trade and investment 0
Women’s empowerment 4
Total 100%
Source: NPC 2008. The distribution of agricultural sector grants across the various functional categories is given in Table 9 below. The table shows that the support to agribusiness and producer organizations received the greatest chunk of grants (37%), while rural and agricultural finance got 33% and agricultural resource policy received a total of 18% of the grants. The extent to which these grants have impacted on the overall
Page 41 of 55
agricultural business environment is not clear even though specific interventions may have recorded positive intervention‐level impact. Table 9: Sub‐sector distribution of development assistance to agriculture Category Size (%) of grant
Agricultural resource policy 18
Market standard and regulations 2
Public investment policy 2
Research and technology 7
Rural and agricultural finance 33
Agribusiness and producer organisations 37
Markets and trade capacity 6
Agricultural sector productivity 11
Agro‐industrial development 12
Agro‐industrial productive capacity 2
Total 100%
Source: NPC (2008). The main principle guiding development assistance to Nigeria is to support the country’s national strategy for growth, poverty reduction and the MDGs. It is acknowledged that development assistance is a marginal portion of the country’s overall budgetary resources. Development assistance is therefore directed to critical capacity building and technical support needs of the country, since the country is not reliant on aid. The greater additional value from donor assistance will come from measures to influence the economy‐wide policy and institutional capabilities, not in the form of budget support, like in some African countries.
4.5.3 Foreign Direct Investments and Aid Data from CBN (2008) show that the cumulative foreign private investment (paid up capital/reserves and other liabilities) in Nigeria has more than tripled from approximately N158 billion in 2000 to approximately N586 billion in 2008 (Fig. 18 below). When analyzed by activity, mining/quarrying and manufacturing cum processing in terms of foreign private investment have remained sectors of choice between 2000 and 2008, with manufacturing and processing being the choicer sector since 2004.
Page 42 of 55
Figure 18: Trend in foreign private investment in Nigeria by activity
Source: Authors with data from CBN (2008)
While foreign private investment in the manufacturing/processing sector has increased from about N37 billion in 2000 to N230 billion in 2008, it has also increased from approximately N61 billion (2000) to about N140 billion (2008) in the mining and quarrying sector. The trading and business services sector has also remained more attractive than agriculture to foreign private investors with investment amount increasing from N11 billion in 2000 to about N50 billion in 2008. Regrettably, agriculture seems the least attractive sector for foreign private investment even among other sectors like building/construction and miscellaneous services. Foreign private investment in agriculture (including forestry and fisheries) increased marginally from N1.20 billion in 2000 to N1.39 billion in 2008. Agricultural investments include spending by public and private economic agents to augment capital goods upon which increased productivity and incomes can be guaranteed in the future. Public investments in agricultural sector encompasses capital spending for critical infrastructure and facilities such as irrigation, crop/animal processing, marketing systems, land development, agriculture oriented ICTs, research and extension, farmer service centres capacity building (institutional building and human resource development). In Nigeria, public spending for agricultural development is a concurrent responsibility of the three tiers of government – federal, state and local. On the other hand, private investments in agriculture come from domestic private investors and foreign direct investment. Domestic private investors include farmers, processors, marketing agents, service providers, banks, insurance agencies and credit societies. Foreign direct investment comes in the form of portfolio investments and full or part ownership of companies involved in agricultural sector activities. In another vein, investments in agriculture can come in the form of bilateral and multilateral development grants or transfers, and also in the form of agriculture‐targeting credit lines to the country. For illustration purposes, the profile of project investments in agricultural development and food security in Nigeria is given in Table 10 below. Most of these projects require
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Billion
sCummulative Total Mining and Quarrying
Manufacturing and Processing Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries
Trading and Business Services
Page 43 of 55
counterpart funding from the Federal Government, and most often reflected in the government budget proposals. Table 10: Profile of project investments in agricultural development and food security Name of project Period covered Investment/Funding Object and strategy
FOOD SECURITY, PRODUCTIVITY IMPROVEMENT AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT The National Special Programme for Food Security
Pilot phase: 2002‐2005; Expansion phase: 2006‐2010
Pilot phase‐US$42.5million; expansion phase – US$250million
To raise agricultural productivity and production to eliminate rural poverty and attain food security. The main programme components are food security, aquaculture and inland fisheries, animal disease and trans‐boundary pest control, soil fertility improvement and marketing of agricultural commodity and food‐stock management.
National Fadama Development Project II
2004‐2009 US$125.37million loan funding from WB, ADB and GEF
To increase the income of fadama users through empowering them and reducing conflict among them. The project aims at building the capacity of fadama users and providing rural infrastructure, asset acquisition support and project management services.
Community‐based Agricultural and Rural Development Programme
2004‐2009 Total cost – US$68.5 million; IFAD loan – US$29.9million
Involves rural communities and the poor in project design and implementation of field activities. The programme is designed to stimulate rapid expansion of investments in sustainable growth in agricultural output and productivity, combined with non‐agricultural activities, natural resource management, rural infrastructure and social services.
Community‐based Natural Resources Management Programme
2003‐2010 Total cost – US$82.2million; IFAD loan – US$15.0million
It aims at improving the living conditions of poor rural communities in the nine Niger Delta States of Nigeria. It adopts the community driven development and participatory approaches in identifying and prioritising the communities’ needs and plans to address those needs. It focuses on institutional capacity building, increasing productivity of agriculture and artisanal fisheries, diversifying sustainable livelihoods, improving access to markets and social infrastructure and environmental management.
Root and Tuber Expansion Project
2002‐2010 US$23.05million It aims at raising smallholders’ production of cassava, yam, potatoes and cocoyam as well as their by‐products to enhance national food security and improve rural household incomes. It is a follow‐up on the IFAD‐assisted Cassava Multiplication Project.
RURAL INFRASTRUCTURE AND SUPPORT SERVICES Rural Access and Mobility Project
2005‐2010 US $225 million It involves the rehabilitation and construction of rural roads, development of inland waterways.
Large‐scale Irrigation Infrastructure Development
1997‐ongoing N66.613 billion It involves the construction of several multipurpose dams in various parts of the country to supply water to urban and rural populations, generate power and provide water for irrigation and fisheries development.
DFID Promoting Pro‐Poor Financial Services
2005‐2009 £7.5million It aims at enhancing poor people’s access to financial services by facilitating the development of a viable financial services market.
IFAD Nigerian Rural and Micro Finance Institutions Building Programme
2006‐2011 US$15million There are four dimensions of the intervention: supporting and strengthening the rural financial intermediaries to enable them provide rural financial services to clients in a sustainable manner; supporting regulatory institutions to provide effective supervision for the growth of viable rural financial institutions; supporting umbrella organisations of rural financial institutions to strengthen them in the capacity building, advisory and advocacy roles; facilitating the creation of linkages between rural clients, financial institutions, input suppliers, food processors, business development service providers and exporters
USAID Promoting Improved Sustainable Microfinance Services
2004‐2007 US$5.1million The objective is to facilitate the provision of financial services to the under‐served micro, small and medium entrepreneurs. It works in partnership with banks to demonstrate profitable and effective engagement with the MSME sector; provides technical assistance and capacity building.
Page 44 of 55
Name of project Period covered Investment/Funding Object and strategy
Rural Slaughter House project
2004‐2008 N706.9million It is aimed at promoting food hygiene by adopting the FAO Size II slaughter house design and providing one facility per state and then one slaughter slab in each local government area.
Agricultural Market Support Services
2005‐2008 N15billion It aims to improve the quality and competitiveness of agricultural commodities by providing market support facilities. It includes establishment of modern produce grading centres, systems of quality control and price integrity.
On‐farm Rural Storage project
2005‐2008 N475.28million It is aimed at reducing post‐harvest losses through improved on‐farm or rural storage facilities.
LIVESTOCK AND FISHERIES Cattle Breeding and Multiplication project
2005‐2010 N50.95million The project is aimed at raising the genetic standing of local breeds through selection and cross breeding with exotic stock. It involves strengthening the cattle breeding and multiplication centres in order to maximize the benefit of cross breeding and also to conserve the gene pool and to raise elite breeds for animals for sale to local farmers.
Small Ruminant Breeding and Multiplication project
2005‐2010 N58.95million It is aimed at improving the local breeds of small ruminants, especially goats and sheep, through selection and multiplication.
Animal Vaccine Production and Veterinary Drug Manufacture
2005‐2010 N1.4billion The objective is to upgrade the facilities in the National Veterinary Research Institute in order to raise the level of vaccine production and veterinary drug manufacture. It is based on public‐private partnership.
Aquaculture and Integrated Fish Farming project
2004‐2009 N105million It is aimed at boosting local fish production through improved fish farming and fish culture practices and the rehabilitation of community‐based fish farms. It focuses on fish farms in flood plains, fadamas, lakes, rivers, and other inland water bodies.
Fisheries Terminals Development project
2004‐2006 N610million It is aimed at providing shore‐based facilities for sea‐going fishing vessels including trawlers, medium‐sized fishing vessels, and boats for artisanal/small scale vessel fishing. The facilities include ice flakes, fuel, lubricating oil, potable water, vessel repair facilities, fish handling, and processing and storage amenities.
INPUT SUPPLY Fish Seed Industry Programme
2004‐2010 N36.5million It is aimed at increasing the production and distribution of genetically improved and fast‐growing fish brood stock and fingerlings.
Foundation Seed Multiplication Programme
2004‐2007 US$4.5million Through the National Seed Service, the government produces and supplies foundation seeds using out‐growers. It involves the rapid multiplication and distribution of newly released high yielding and standardised quality seeds of cereals and legumes which were developed by National and International Agricultural Research Institutes.
National Seed Quality Project
2002‐2007 US$1.24million It is aimed at strengthening seed quality assessment in order to secure the quality of seed supply to farmers and to facilitate seed exports to neighbouring countries. It involves provision of vital facilities for seed testing, seed health screening, genetically modified seed detection and improvement of technical capacity of staff through training.
Community Seed Development Project
2004‐2007 US$2.5million This is an integrated programme whereby the federal government through the National Seed Service provides improved seeds, the state governments provide the complementary extension service and seed producers and sellers operate through community‐based organisations.
MARKETING SUPPORT Market Information System
2005‐2007 N824.64million It is aimed at promoting agricultural produce marketing through the establishment of functional market information system covering prices, demand, supply, market facilitation, transportation and so on.
Multi‐Commodity Development and Marketing Companies
2005‐2007 N1.5billion It involves the establishment of three multi‐commodity and marketing commodities for arable crops, tree crops, livestock and fisheries. It is designed to with agricultural marketing by establishing minimize the bottlenecks associated
Page 45 of 55
Name of project Period covered Investment/Funding Object and strategy
Export Promotion Village Project
2003‐2010 N300million The project is aimed at expanding exports, stimulating rural development by ensuring a stable and fair market price, upgrading entrepreneurship and productivity. It is designed to develop viable commercially‐oriented village institutions capable of mobilising the productive capacities of small producers of small producers and building new supply source of exportable products.
Source: FGN (2006).
5 RECENT (2009) DEVELOPMENTS IN NIGERIA’S AGRICULTURAL SECTOR LANDSCAPE
5.1 5Point Agenda for Agriculture It is known that prior to the discovery of oil in the 1970s, agriculture was the mainstay of Nigeria’s economy and seems to hold its ace even now, employing about two‐thirds of the total national labour force, contributing more than 40% of the GDP and providing about 88% of non‐oil revenue. This, therefore, situates agriculture as the focal point of Mr. President’s 7‐point Agenda and a key contributing sector to the attainment of goals of MDGs and Vision 20‐2020. Having realized, however, that agriculture in Nigeria is predominantly small‐holder based with over 95% of the output from small holdings ranging in size from less than 1 to 5 hectares, and that postharvest losses sometimes exceed 70% as in fruits and vegetables, the Federal Government of Nigeria through the Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Water Resources developed the 5‐Point Agenda for agriculture and national development as implementation roadmap in the short‐ and medium‐term. This roadmap is aimed at addressing the current challenges in the sector including poor rural infrastructure, difficulties in processing, storage and marketing, and inadequate access to credit. The 5‐Point Agenda are as follows:
• Developing Agricultural Policy and Regulatory System (DARPS): this involves the strategic review and reform of key institutions in the agricultural sector, agricultural policy, advocacy framework, proactive legislation, sound policy on financing agriculture (credit and grant support) towards market competitiveness and an effective regulatory framework including fiscal incentives and tariff regimes to support backward integration.
• Agric. Commodity Exchange Market (ACCOMEX Nigeria Project): this involves the establishment of an agricultural commodity exchange market with the objective of achieving efficient marketing and price information systems; institutional strengthening of private sector agro‐input suppliers; ensuring accessibility, availability, affordability of agricultural inputs; agro‐aviation to development to facilitate the evacuation of agricultural produce to domestic and international markets; agro‐export handling/conditioning centres for the processing, packaging and labelling of produce to meet international standards; Guaranteed Minimum Price (GMP) mechanisms; much needed
Page 46 of 55
storage infrastructure in view of the large volume of produce involved; and Agricultural Information Management System (AIMS) to ensure the availability of information for the buyers, sellers and farmers on type, location and price of commodities at any particular point in time.
• Raising Agricultural Income with Sustainable Environment (RAISE): RAISE focuses on the development of the following seven basic components as a way of addressing the challenges of small and medium scale agri‐business development in the area of value chain infrastructure development and infrastructure for sustenance of environment (rural energy, rural markets, schools, communications, water and sanitation, transport, and health). RAISE small‐scale is a deliberate approach for integrating rural agribusiness development with socioeconomic district development, commencing with 400 sites in 2009. RAISE medium‐scale targets young educated, unemployed persons to replace the present ageing farming groups as an out‐grower based project, commencing with twelve sites in 2009.
• Maximizing Agricultural Revenue in Key Enterprises (MARKETS): MARKETS will create the necessary market infrastructure and implement the Guaranteed Minimum Price to propel the development of Nigeria’s agricultural sector by linking agricultural production to markets. The ultimate objective is a sustainable markets ecosystem including agro‐processing plants, cold chain, stores, community warehouses, food centres in major cities, model highway markets and agri‐business development centres.
• Water, Aquaculture and Environmental Resource Management: this involves the development of 1,500 targeted RAISE sites with small dams and irrigation infrastructure facilities; flood control; early warning systems; agricultural cadastral through auto‐photo mapping of farmlands; migratory pest control; bio‐energy development; carbon credit project through afforestation and reforestation.
5.2 Commercial Agriculture Credit Scheme (CACS) – 200 Billion Naira Fund
The Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) in Collaboration with the federal government of Nigeria, represented by the Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Water Resources, has established a Commercial Agriculture Credit Scheme (CACS) for promoting commercial agricultural enterprises in Nigeria as part of its developmental role. The scheme is expected to be financed from the proceeds of the N200 billion bonds to be raised by the Debt Management Office (DMO) and made available to participating banks to finance agricultural enterprises. This fund (off budget) complements other special initiatives of the CBN in providing concessionary funding for agriculture such as the ACGSF (which is mostly for small scale farmers), interest drawback scheme, agricultural credit support scheme, etc.
Page 47 of 55
Furthermore, state governments and the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Abuja, could borrow up to 20% of the bond proceeds for on‐lending to farmers, with the possibility of the ceiling to the states being reviewed as the need arises by the Project Management Committee (PMC). Funds borrowed by the states and FCT are excluded from the strict guidelines set by the CBN. To participate in the scheme, the state governments/FCT are expected to submit an expression of interest to put in place appropriate institutional arrangements by setting up a secretariat (special unit or agency) staffed with experienced agricultural experts and credit officers dedicated to the administration of the fund to be borrowed, which shall be approved by the PMC. In addition, participating states/FCT are expected to sign an irrevocable standing payment order (ISPO) in favour of the CBN, to deduct at source the total amount in default from the state(s) on a monthly basis of state revenue allocation on behalf of the participating banks. The objectives of the CACS include:
• To fast‐track the development of the agricultural sector of the Nigerian economy by providing credit facilities to commercial enterprises at a single digit interest rate;
• To enhance national food security by increasing food supply and affecting lower agricultural produce and product prices, thereby promoting low food inflation;
• To reduce cost of credit in agricultural production to enable farmers to exploit the potentials of the sector; and
• To increase output, generate employment, diversify the revenue base, increase foreign exchange earnings and provide input for the industrial sector on a sustainable basis.
According to the CBN, the key agricultural commodities to be covered under the scheme are cultivation of target crops including rice, cassava, oil palm, wheat, rubber, sugar cane, Jatropha carcus, fruits and vegetables; livestock (dairy, poultry and piggery); and fisheries. Credit support to the target commodities shall be administered along the entire value chain of production, storage, processing, and market and enterprise development. For the purpose of the scheme, CBN defines a commercial enterprise as any farm or agro‐based enterprise with agricultural assets (excluding land) of not less than N350 million for an integrated farm with prospects for growing the assets to N500 million within the next three years and N200 million for non‐integrated farms/agro‐enterprise. However, in the meantime, things seem to have changed as a chunk is now reserved for small scale farmers and the disbursement of the fund has been delayed. Unfortunately, it is not yet clear whether the conditions for the small‐scale farmers are pro‐small‐scale.
5.3 $50 Million Microfinance Fund for Nigeria and Ghana In May 2009, three investment firms including Alitheia Capital, Goodwell Investments BV and Ghana‐based JCS Investments announced a $50 million (N7.4 billion) fund aimed at lifting microfinance institutions (MFIs) in Nigeria and Ghana. The fund is
Page 48 of 55
expected to increase to $500 million (N74 billion) in future as Alitheia and its partners expand their scope in other parts of West Africa. Nigeria and Ghana were initially chosen, according to the representatives of the investment firms, due to their big economies. According to the partners, the objective of the fund is to selectively invest in entrepreneurial MFIs with the potential to generate attractive returns and positive social impact. The partners believe that the opportunities for the microfinance sector in West Africa is huge and that this initiative provides an opportunity to positively impact on people at the base of the economic pyramid, while simultaneously rewarding their investors with positive returns. The fund, according to the partners, will be invested in new MFIs to facilitate the creation of institutions based on best practice from inception. The partners are equally desirous of working with existing MFIs that have the potential for transformation but suffer from the typical MFI challenges including inadequate funding, shortage of skilled personnel and ineffective business model.
6 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS How scarce resources are allocated across different sectors of the economy (such as agriculture, infrastructure, health, education, etc) is important for maximizing development outcomes. Far more critical also is how resources are allocated among functional areas within each sector. For instance, how should resources be allocated within agriculture among agricultural research, extension, irrigation, input subsidies, and the associated gender implications? A renewed interest has been expressed in support of agriculture within the development community globally. The World Development Report of 2008 has helped spearhead renewed thinking about the agricultural sector, calling for more and better investments in agriculture (IBRD/World Bank, 2009). Rethinking agricultural strategies for better development outcomes requires that we use the budget to achieve the effectiveness of the nation’s agricultural development agenda. This will involve the following: The current functional system of Nigeria’s budget does not segregate budgetary provisions into small‐scale and commercial categories. The budget both in allocation of resources and expenditure does not provide such a detailed breakdown. Failure to properly and deliberately target rural and small‐scale farmers in agricultural capital investment activities has not and will never serve the hope increased agricultural productivity. Public agricultural policymakers seem to be operating from the premise that if the federal budgetary provision to agriculture is enhanced, then small‐scale farming would benefit from the trickle‐down effect.
Page 49 of 55
The nation should immediately adopt/adapt and follow the international standards of functional classification as developed by the United Nations. The Classification of Functions of Government (COFOG) provides guidelines for economic and functional categories of expenditure. COFOG should further be adapted to have categories like small‐scale agriculture and commercial agriculture. There is incongruence between federal government budget allocation (especially the capital budget allocation) and agricultural challenges facing the country. Government commitment to policies and goals are exemplified by the level of resource allocation. The huge funding gap is illustrated by the fact that the total (recurrent and capital) federal budget for agriculture and water resources in 2008 was about N113.67 billion, as against the projected funding needs of about N277.14 billion (largely capital expenditure). Some studies have shown that agricultural spending has the largest positive effects on growth and poverty. In many cases, government agricultural spending has contributed substantially to agricultural productivity, rural household consumption, and rural poverty reduction. Fan et al. (2009) indicates that for each unit of local currency spent on the agricultural sector, 10 local currency units are returned on the average in terms of increased agricultural productivity or income across several African countries studied. However, increased funding should be supported by increased absorptive capacity of agricultural policy implementers in terms of well‐defined and problem‐solving pro‐small‐scale agricultural programming and projects. This will ensure that the governance of agricultural policymaking influences the productivity of expenditures undertaken in support of the sector. Agricultural public finance management in Nigeria should be guided by following seven essential features which can help in sharpening the targeting of future spending:
• The need to be competitive in the global economy; • The need to add value to our future harvests; • The need to adjust agriculture to a changing world and climate; • The need to be good stewards of the environment and natural resources; • The need to make our agricultural enterprises profitable; • The need to make our families and communities strong; and • The need to modify our foods for improved health and safety.
Capital budget execution in agriculture is poor. The public expenditure and financial accountability (PEFA) best practice allows for budget execution of no more than 3% discrepancy between budgeted and actual expenditures. But in contrast during the period of 2001‐2007, capital budget execution averaged only approximately 62%. This implies that about 48% of capital allocation in the sector was not spent. It has been observed that consolidated and up‐to‐date expenditure data are not available within the Federal Ministry of Agriculture, not even for its own use.
Page 50 of 55
The situation calls for an urgent need to improve internal system for tracking, recording and disseminating information about public spending in the agricultural sector. Such information is very critical for undertaking evidence‐based policy analysis, programme planning and impact assessment. There is the need for transparency and effective inclusion of non‐state actors (civil society in particular) in the design, implementation, and evaluation of government policies, programmes, projects and budgets. This can be facilitated by the promulgation of formal rules for stakeholder listening in agricultural budget and implementation process. It has been acknowledged that Nigeria’s budget system requires fundamental reforms in order to achieve transparency and accountability, especially in the absence of fiscal transparency code or budget law specifying the roles for ministries and other stakeholders in the drafting of budget. Also, there is no law that specifies budget format, documents to accompany budget or how and when budget information is to be disseminated. Existing laws and regulations have been observed to contain contradictory and ambiguous provisions. Therefore, a legislative framework (for budget format, transparency, roles and responsibilities, availability of information, capacity and systems, participation, and management of extra‐budgetary activities) is desirable to ensure that the challenges facing small‐scale farmers are elicited and incorporated into the budget, and measures designed to address them. This should be advocated for by the civil society. Moreover, the ICT can be leveraged to enshrine due process and transparency in the execution, monitoring and evaluation of budget heads and projects for easy appraisal of implementation choices and strategies. This will ensure easy assessment of impact of budgets on its goals and the level of transparency involved in the execution process. Transparency, furthermore, will require the development of indicators for tracking agricultural funds. Such indicators should be able to measure, for instance, to what extent the agricultural policies, programmes, projects, and services are available and accessible to the small scale farmer. Accessibility issues include non‐discrimination; presence or otherwise of adequate mechanisms and structures to safeguard, guarantee and enforce policies and laws against discrimination; physical access; economic access (affordability); and access to information. The quality of agricultural policies, programmes, projects and services are also important for the small scale farmer. There is the need to enhance the targeting, flows and impact of micro‐credits to small‐scale farmers in Nigeria. Government‐ and private‐led micro‐credit initiatives (NACRDB, ACGSF, MFBs, DMBs, etc) need to be reformed and scaled‐up (for new vigour and capacity to lend to rural farmers) and attention must be paid to providing innovative types of small‐scale agricultural finance for agricultural development. The reformation should start with the consolidation of all the specialized agricultural
Page 51 of 55
financing mechanisms and institutions into one efficient and effective bank and insurance dedicated to agricultural development and farmers of all scales. Okpukpara (2009) noted that the channel of loan delivery to rural farmers and entrepreneurs is politicized with huge bureaucratic network, which makes loans almost inaccessible. Furthermore, Dayo et al. (2008) point to the fact that though access to agricultural credit has been positively linked to agricultural productivity in several studies, this vital input has eluded smallholder farmers in Nigeria. Banks with large loan funds are generally difficult for small farmers to access due to the problems of collateral and high interest rates which frequently screen out most potential smallholder beneficiaries. This is coupled with the fact that agricultural loans are often short‐term with fixed repayment periods – a loan structure that is not quite suitable for annual cropping and livestock production. While there is the need to increase the loan portfolio for agriculture by these institutions, impediments to free flow of loanable funds to the agricultural sector (including inability of farmers to payback, diversion of funds by farmers, loss of huge funds belonging to depositors, etc) can be overcome if farmers, bankers and the three tiers of government work very hard to make agricultural funding attractive to banks and at the same time friendly to farmers. This requires the development of innovative and holistic micro‐ and medium‐finance products. These innovations should be able to address the shortcomings of earlier agricultural finance programs, with respect not only to economic growth but also to their contribution to sustainable development and poverty reduction. There is the need to incorporate gender perspective in agricultural policy formulation, implementation and programming, and in national data and statistical systems, hence the need for gendering microfinance in Nigeria. This demands detailed research and analysis. Gendered microfinance is not about providing credit to women. It is about making microfinance gender‐sensitive. This can be done by taking into accounts the needs and constraints of both men and women when designing and delivering finance. The objective of a gender‐sensitive approach is to ensure that the finance provided is just as attractive to women as it is to men, and inclusive rather than exclusive. Designing an inclusive microfinance institution means finding the lowest common denominator of the target customers. This is critical in view of the large number of women believed to be involved in small‐scale farming. It must not be assumed that microfinance institutions that reach many women with credit are gender‐sensitive to the needs and constraints of women. Rather, gender‐sensitive microfinance institution means that there are no insurmountable barriers for women to access this credit, which for women is often title to land to offer as collateral. Given a choice, therefore, women may prefer different credit terms and
Page 52 of 55
conditions, different delivery mechanisms and even different financial products (savings products, insurance, etc). Also, being gender‐sensitive means the recognition of the fact that women and men are varied, and have different needs and priorities which evolve over time. Therefore, financial institutions must assess this changing reality and adjust accordingly. On the other hand, women‐targeted finance programmes are not gender‐sensitive since they exclude men. Although such programmes may be justified as a positive measure and an affirmative action to bridge gender gap, it could trigger perverse effects if men have no access to credit, such as hijacking of loans by men, household violence and/or delegation of income responsibilities from men to women. The focus of microfinance, therefore, should be to offer the most appropriate financial services to both men and women in every financial scheme with the understanding that best practices in microfinance are continuously evolving and area‐specific.
7. REFERENCES Actionaid. 2007. Public Finance Analysis Manual: A Participatory Toolkit on Public Finance Analysis for Communities and Civil Society Organizations, ed(s) Ogbureke, O. and Madueke, I. Actionaid International Nigeria, Abuja. Alegieuno, J. 2008. “Rationalizing the Role of Central Banks in Development Financing.” Paper delivered at the 2nd Central Bank Forum organized by AFRACA, Lusaka, Zambia, 23‐25th September. CBGA. 2007. Union Budget 2007‐08: what does it offer to women? A Quick Response. Centre for Budget and Governance Accountability (CBGA), New Delhi, India. CBN. 2007. Annual Reports and Statement of Accounts 2007. Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), Abuja. CBN. 2008. Statistical Bulletin – 50 years Special Anniversary Edition. Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), Abuja. Dayo, P., E. Nkonya, J. Pender and O. A. Oni. 2008. “Constraints to Increasing Agricultural Productivity in Nigeria.” Nigeria Strategy Support Program – Brief No. 4. International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). Dele, O. P. 2009. “Institutions’ Contributions to Agricultural Development in Nigeria.” http://www.businessdayonline.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3585:institutions‐contributions‐to‐agricultural‐development‐in‐nigeria&catid=123:special‐report&Itemid=361 Accessed September 16, 2009.
Page 53 of 55
Eboh, E. C., O. K. Oji, O. G. Oji, U. S. Amakom and O. C. Ujah. 2004. “Towards the ECOWAS Common Agricultural Policy Framework: Nigeria Case Study and Regional Analysis.” Report submitted to Associates for International Resources and Development (AIRD), Cambridge, USA, for USAID/WEST AFRICA. Eboh, E. C., B. Larsen, K. O. Oji, A. I. Achike, O. C. Ujah, M. Oduh, U. S. Amakom, and C. P. Nzeh. 2006. “Renewable Natural Resources, Sustainable Economic Growth and Poverty Reduction in Nigeria.” AIAE Research Paper 1. African Institute for Applied Economics (AIAE), Enugu. Eboh, E. C., O. C. Ujah and C. E. Nzeh. 2009. “Lessons of the Global Economic Crisis for Nigeria’s Agricultural Sector Strategy.” In print, African Institute for Applied Economics [AIAE], Enugu. Economist. 2008. “Country Briefing, September.” Accessed …. and available at http://www.economist.com/Countries/Nigeria/profile.cfm?folder=Profile‐Economic%20Structure. FAO. 2004. Review of the Public Sector Irrigation in Nigeria. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). Fan. S., T. Mogues and S. Benin. 2009. “Setting Priorities for Public Spending for Agricultural and Rural Development in Africa.” IFPRI Policy Brief 12, April, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). FGN. 2006. NEPAD – Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme: Medium‐Term Investment Programme (NMTIP). Support to NEPAD‐CAADP Implementation TCP/NIR/2906 (I), NEPAD Ref 06/44 E. Federal Government of Nigeria (FGN). FGN. 2008. National Investment Brief. High Level Conference on Water for Agriculture and Energy in Africa: the Challenges of Climate Change, Sirte, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, December 15‐17. FMAWR. 2008. National Food Security Programme. Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Water Resources (FMAWR), Abuja. IBRD/World Bank. 2009. Gender in Agriculture Sourcebook. The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank, Washington, DC. Idachaba, F. S. 2000. Desirable and Workable Agricultural Policies for Nigeria in the First Decade of the 21st Century. The First in the Series of Department Lectures on Topical Issues in Nigerian Agriculture, Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Ibadan.
Page 54 of 55
Mogues, T., M. Morris, L. Freinkman, A. Adubi, S. Ehui, C. Nwoko, O. Taiwo, C. Nege, P. Okonji, and L. Chete. 2008. “Agricultural Public Spending in Nigeria.” IFPRI Discussion Paper 00789. September, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), Development Strategy and Governance Division. NACRDB. 2009. “NACRDB in Perspective.” Available at http://www.nacrdb.com, accessed 27 August 2009. NBS. 2006. Annual Abstract of Statistics. National Bureau of Statistics, Abuja. NBS. 2006. The Nigerian Statistical Fact Sheets on Economic and Social Development. National Bureau of Statistics (NBS), Abuja. NBS. 2008. The Nigerian Statistical Fact Sheet on Economic and Social Development. National Bureau of Statistics, Abuja. NPC. 2008. A Review of Official Development Assistance to Nigeria: 1999‐2007. National Planning Commission (NPC), Abuja. Obadan, M. I. 2009. “2008 Federal Capital Budget Implementation: Factors Affecting Performance.” Paper presented at workshop organized by the Budget Office of the Federation; online at http://www.budgetoffice.gov.ng/workshop%20paper/2008%20FEDERAL%20CAPITAL%20BUDGET%20IMPLEMENTATION%201.pdf.
Okoro, D. and O. C. Ujah. 2009. “Agricultural Policy and Budget Analysis in Nigeria (1999‐2007) – Perspectives and Implications for SLISSFAN Project States.” Report submitted to Oxfam GB Nigeria. Okpukpara, B. 2009. “Strategies for Effective Loan Delivery to Small‐scale Enterprises in Rural Nigeria.” Journal of Development and Agricultural Economics, Vol. 1(2), pp. 041‐048, May. PARP. 2008. Report of the Retreat on the 2008 Budget for Appropriation and Finance Committees of the National Assembly. Policy Analysis and Research Project (PARP) of National Assembly, Abuja. Shaib, B., A. Aliyu and J. S. Bakshi. 1997. Nigeria: National Agricultural Research Strategy Plan 1996‐2010. Department of Agricultural Sciences, Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Natural Resources (FMANR), Abuja. Soludo, C. C. 2006. Can Nigeria be the China of Africa? Lecture delivered at the Founders’ Day of the University of Benin, Benin City, November 23, 2006.
Page 55 of 55
Soludo, C. C. 2008. “Making Finance Work for the Poor.” Convocation Lecture delivered at the Federal University of Technology, Owerri, February 15. Trivelli, C. and C. D. L. Rios. 2009. Reforming Development Banks that serve Farmers: Is there a Formula? Institute de Estudios Peruanos.
8 Appendix (Key Informants) s/n Name Institution Designation 1 Dr. Patterson
Ekeocha Policy Analysis and Research Project (PARP), National Assembly
Public Finance Expert
2 Dr. Bode Oyetunde
Budget Office of Federation (BOF), Federal Ministry of Finance
Technical Assistant to the Director General (DG)
3 Mr. Akpan Research Department, Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN)
Economist
4 Dr. Kalu Oji Research Department, Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN)
Economist
5 Mr. Stanley Ukeje
Monetary Policy Department, Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN)
Senior Economist
6 Engr. J. O. Chukwu
Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Water Resources
Director, Procurement
