The study was conducted to identify the challenges in administering the Cross River State Ministry of Agriculture, Nigeria. All the staff of the ministry constituted the population for the study. A proportionate sampling technique was used in selecting respondents, with twenty percent (20%) of respondents from each of the departments. Thus the total sample size for the study was one hundred and thirteen (113) respondents. Percentages, mean and frequency were used in the presentation and analysis of the data collected. The result of the study showed that the majority of staff (85.5%) were married and 64.5% of respondents were males; the mean age of staff was 43.85%. About 43.5% of the respondents had Bachelor of science (B.Sc) as their highest educational qualification, above average (55.3%) of the staff specialized in agricultural science related discipline. Results revealed that the State government (85.5%) was the  ministry’s major source of funding, and 80.9% indicated that fund was insufficient. They agreed the approved budget was three hundred and sixty nine million, four hundred and nineteen thousand, three hundred and sixty five hundred, forty one kobo (N 367,419,365.41) rather than a proposed budget of one billion, five hundred and sixty eight million, six hundred and twenty two thousand, eight hundred and sixty three naira, zero kobo (N1,568,622,863.00) for different departments. The ministry is understaffed by three hundred and fifty seven persons (357) and lacks infrastructure as only buildings for offices was indicated as available (71.8%) and functional (62.7%) by respondents. Major constraints identified from this result were: poor funds for purchase of equipment (M=2.18), improper and inadequate staffing (M=1.55), insufficient electricity supply (M=2.49), inadequate funding of State ministry’s interrelationship activities (M=2.54). Results also show that the State ministry had weak linkage with universities (M=1.31) and the research institutes (M=1.37). Suggestions to address the challenges are: increased budgetary allocation (54.5%), training and retraining of staff (58.2%), constant recruitment (36.4%), funding for research work and facilities (32.7%).


Title Page                                                                                     i

Certification                                                                                           ii

Dedication                                                                                               iii

Acknowledgement                                                                                           iv

Abstract                                                                                                    vi        

Table of Contents                                                                              vii

List of Tables                                                                                              x

List of Figures                                                                             xi        

Acronyms                                                                                                        xii


            1.1       Background information                                             1

            1.2       Problem statement                                                           6

            1.3       Purpose of the study                                                                  8

            1.4       Significance of the study                                               9


            2.1       The Concept of agricultural administration                 10

            2.1.1    Strategic task / responsibilities in agricultural administration  11

            2.1.2    Different levels of agricultural administration      12       

            2.2       Structure of Cross River State Ministry of agriculture       13

            2.2.1    livestock department                                              14

            2.2.2    Veterinary services department                    15

            2.2.3    Fisheries department                                    18

            2.2.4    Agricultural financing                                        19

            2.2.5    Produce services                                   21

            2.2.6    Agricultural services                              22

            2.2.7    Cross River State Agricultural and Rural Empowerment Scheme  24

            2.3       Funding in the ministry of agriculture          25

            2.3.1    Sources of funding for Nigerian agriculture           26

            2.3.2    Key challenges in financing Nigerian agriculture       30

            2.4       Staffing in the ministry of agriculture                     35

            2.4.1    Categories of staffing                                                              36

            2.4.2    Staffing process                                                    37

            2.4.3    Staff promotion packages                         38

            2.5       Infrastructure in the ministry of agriculture        41

            2.5.1    Types of agricultural infrastructure                             41

            2.5.2    Innovative financing of agricultural infrastructure   46

            2.6       Linkage mechanisms of the ministry of agriculture   47  2.6.1     Challenges facing linkages in the Nigeria agricultural extension service        48

            2.7       Conceptual framework                       50


            3.1       Study area                                                        53

            3.2       Population and sampling procedure                             53       

            3.3       Instrument for data collection                                     54

            3.4       Measurement of variables                            55

            3.5       Data analysis                                                57       


            4.1       Socio-economic characteristics of respondents         58

            4.2       Challenges in funding the State ministry of agriculture    61

            4.2.1    Sources of funding                              61

            4.2.2    Sufficiency of State government funding to the State ministry        61

            4.2.3    Proposed and approved budget allocation in the different department         62

            4.2.4    Donor agencies supporting the ministry               64       

            4.2.5    Purchased equipment in the ministry          64

            4.2.6    Year of highest investment for purchase of equipment    65

            4.2.7    Funding challenges affecting the ministry of agriculture 66       

            4.3       Challenges in managing personnel of the ministry of agriculture   69

            4.3.1    Actual and expected staff strength     69

            4.3.2    Delay in staff promotion                     71

            4.3.3    Perceived factors affecting personnel in the State ministry    72

            4.4       Infrastructural challenges in the administration of the State ministry   75

            4.4.1    Availability and functionality of infrastructure in the State ministry             75

            4.4.2    Perceived level of infrastructure challenges     77

            4.5       Challenges to Linkage formation of the ministry with stakeholders              79       

            4.5.1    Perceived linkage strength between the state ministry and other agencies    79

            4.5.2    Issues affecting linkage between the State ministry and other agencies        81

            4.6       Staff suggested strategies for addressing challenges of the State ministry    84

            4.6.1    Strategies suggested to address funding challenges        84

            4.6.2    Strategies suggested to address personnel challenges          85

            4.6.3    Strategies for addressing infrastructure challenges of the ministry       86

            4.6.4    Suggested strategies to address linkage challenges of the ministry               86


            5.1       Summary of findings                                                88

            5.2       Conclusion                                                         90

            5.3       Recommendation                                                      91

                        References                                                              92

                        Appendix                                                                  101


Table 1: Population and sampling frame                    54

Table 2: Distribution of respondents according to socio-economic characteristics                59

Table 3: Percentage distribution difference of proposed and approved budget of departments in the State ministry of agriculture              63

Table 4: Mean distribution of respondents perceived challenges in funding the State Ministry of Agriculture                                               67

Table 5: Percentage difference of actual and expected staff strength of departments   in the  State ministry of agriculture              70

Table 6: Mean distribution of respondents’ perceived factors that affect personnel in the State ministry of agriculture             73

Table 7: Respondent percentage distribution on the availability and functionality of   Infrastructure in the State ministry of agriculture  75

Table 8: Mean distribution of perceived level of infrastructure that poses a challenge in the State ministry of agriculture            77

Table 9: Mean distribution of Perceived linkage strength between the State ministry of  agriculture and other agencies                          80       

Table 10: Mean distribution of indicators on linkage challenges between the State ministry of agriculture and other agencies      82

Table 11: Percentage distribution of respondents on strategies for addressing Infrastructure challenges of the State ministry of agriculture  86       

Table 12: Percentage distribution of respondents on suggested strategies to address Linkage challenges of the State ministry of agriculture            87


Figure 1: Structure of the Cross River State Ministry of agricultural      14

Figure 2: Schema for examining the challenges in administering the Cross River State Ministry of Agriculture.                        52

Figure 3:Percentage distribution of sources of funding       61

Figure 4: Sufficiency of State government funding to the State ministry of agriculture       62

Figure 5: Percentage distribution of donor agencies  64

Figure 6: Percentage distribution of most purchased equipments 65

Figure 7: Percentage distribution of year of highest investment for equipment purchase      66

Figure 8: Percentage distribution of staff promotion delay according to number of years    71

Figure 9: Strategies suggested by staff to address funding challenges    84

Figure 10: Strategies suggested by staff to address personnel challenge  85


ADP                            Agricultural Development Programme

AEO                            Agricultural Extension Officer

AfDB                          Africa Development Bank

ATA                            Agricultural Transformation Agenda

AU                              African Union

BEDP                          Budget and Economic Planning Directorate

CAADP                      Comprehensive Africa Agricultural Development Programme

CADP                         Commercial Agriculture Development Project

CARES                       Cross River Agricultural Rural Empowerment Scheme

CBN                            Central Bank of Nigeria

CDF                            Community Development Fund

CRADP                      Cross River Agricultural Development Programme

CRCACS                    Cross River Commercial Agriculture Credit Scheme

CRCADP                    Cross River Commercial Agriculture Development Programme

CRSMOA                   Cross River State Ministry Of Agriculture

CTA                            Center for Tropical Agriculture

DFID                          Department for International Development

EA                               Extension Agent

EC                               European Commission

FACET                       Fostering Agricultural Competitiveness Empowering information communication Technology

FADAMA                  Fadama development programme

FAO                            Food and Agriculture Organization

FF                                Farm Families

FGN                            Federal Government of Nigeria

FMARD                      Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development

FMAWRRD               Federal Ministry of Agriculture, Water Resources and Rural Development

GDP                            Gross Domestic Product        

GES                            Growth Enhancement Scheme

GIS                             Geographic Information System

ICT                              Information Communication Technology

IFAD                          International Fund for Agricultural Development

JICA                           Japan International Cooperatives Agency

MDG                           Millennium Development Goal

MFI                             Micro Finance Initiative

MOA                           Ministry of Agriculture

NDDC                         Niger Delta Development commission

NEPAD                      New Partnership for Africa’s Development

NGO                           Non-Governmental Organization

NNPC                         Nigerian nation Petroleum cooperation

ODA                           Official Development Assistance

PBA                            Programme Based Approaches

PER                             Public Expenditure Reviews

PPP                             Public Private Partnership

PRA                            Participatory Rural Appraisal

PRSP                           Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers

RAMP                         Rural Access Mobility Project

RTEP                          Root and Tuber Expansion Programme

SCRI                           Songhai Cross River Initiative

SIP                              Sector Investment Programme

SME                            Small and Medium size Enterprise

SPDC                          Shell Petroleum Development Company

SPV                             Special Purpose Vehicle

SWAP                         Sector Wide Approaches

USAID                 United States Agency for Independent Development JANUARY, 2015



1.1       Background Information

            To administer means to serve, to direct, to control and to manage affairs. Administering  according to Paulinadu (2005) is a rational human activity, inherent in any organization public or private. He further added that to administer involves a cooperative human effort towards achieving a common goal. In the words of Gladden (2007), administration is a long and slightly pompous word, with a humble meaning-caring for people and managing affairs. He further defines it as determined actions taken in pursuit of a conscious purpose. It is thus a goal-oriented, purposive, cooperative, joint activity undertaken by a group of people (MacQueen, 2007), which consists of only three factors: men, materials and methods.

            Willoughby (2007) divides the scope of administration into five categories. These are General Administration: which entails who is to perform the function of direction, supervision, and control; Organization: which deals with building up the structures for the actual performance of the administrative work; Personnel: stating who manages different services; Materials and supply: enlisting the tools with which the work of administration is carried on and finally Finance: making provision for the financial needs of administration.

Administration can likewise be understood as the operational performance of routine office tasks, which is usually internally oriented and reactive rather than proactive (Encyclopedia Britannica, Eleventh Edition). The essence of administration, is to plan projects, “wield together” an organization for their accomplishments, keep the organization functioning smoothly and efficiently to achieve their goals within the allotted personnel, time and resources available. ).

The full institutionalization of agricultural administration in Nigeria commenced in 1900 (Federal Ministry of agriculture, Water Resources and Rural development -FMAWRRD, 1988). Following expert advice, the military government created full-fledged Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Natural Resources in 1966 (Food and Agriculture Organization-FAO, 1966) and with changes in government structure from regional to state and local governments, administration of agriculture in Nigeria became decentralized leading to the creation of state ministry of agriculture as well as department of agriculture in the local government areas. The state ministries and local government department of agriculture were saddled with the responsibilities of complimenting the Federal government policies on agriculture in their domain (Federal Government of Nigeria-FGN, 2001).

 The Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (FMARD), regulates research in agriculture, natural resources, forestry and veterinary medicine all over Nigeria. The mandate of the ministry is to be a significant net provider of food to the global community, through the promotion of agricultural development and management of national resources in a value-chain approach to achieve sustainable food security, enhance farm income and reduce poverty ().

The Cross River State Ministry of Agriculture and Natural Resources is charged with empowering, reinvigorating and transforming agricultural production in the state (Cross River State Ministry of Agriculture-CRSMOA, 2012). The state government working with the federal government and other development agencies like International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), FADAMA III and the World Bank through the Commercial Agriculture Development Project (CADP) provides assistance to farmers and investors across the agricultural value chain (CRSMOA, 2012). This includes the acquisition and preparation of land, provision of inputs, and providing technical assistance through the Ministry of Agriculture’s Extension Unit ).

Cross River State Ministry of Agriculture has eleven departments: Livestock; Veterinary; Produce services; Fishery; Agricultural services; Agricultural finances; Cross  River Agricultural Rural Empowerment Scheme (CARES); Administration; Finance and supplies; Planning, Research and Statistics and finally Agricultural development programme. The livestock development services department was established to supply seed stock for sundry livestock and provide technical support to farmers in the livestock production and management; the veterinary service department was established to provide quality health care for farm and domestic animals, including pets through prophylactic and curative treatments of animals and to ensure wholesome meat products; the fisheries development department to promote fish farming as an income generating activity and provide information to the public (CRSMOA, 2012).

Furthermore, the agricultural service department was established to support and promote farming activities with a view to increasing crop production; the agricultural finance department was established to facilitate financing and marketing for agricultural enterprise and last but not the least amongst the few departments mentioned is the produce service department which was established to monitor, control and certify standards of quality post-harvest agricultural produce for export or sale in other parts of the country (CRSMOA, 2012).

            The state ministry of agriculture has in the past and present implemented several programmes and projects to actualize its set objectives. These include;

  1. Cross River Commercial Agriculture Development Project (CRCADP): It is a World Bank supported project established in 2005 aimed at improving agricultural production in Nigeria by supporting commercial agriculture production, processing and marketing outputs amongst small and medium scale commercial farmers and agro-processors with three (3) value chains of cocoa, oil palm and rice as its target.
  2. Cross River Agricultural and Rural Empowerment Scheme (CARES): This programme was established as a Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) to assist government in securing finance and partnerships in the agricultural sector, so as to reduce government expenditure in the sector and also increase accountability in the execution of agricultural projects.
  3. Cross River Commercial Agriculture Credit Scheme (CRCACS): This scheme was established to provide assistance to farmers and investors across the agricultural value chain by facilitating single digit loans that will help in increasing their output through the provision of soft loans to farmers and those engaged in farming activities to enhance national food security by increasing food supply thereby reducing the prices of agricultural produce in the state and country.
  4. IFAD/FGN/NDDC Community Based Natural Resource Management Programme: This is supported and funded by the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), the Federal Government of Nigeria (FGN), the Niger Delta Development Commission (NDDC) and the Cross River State Government. The programme is focused on reducing poverty in the nine (9) Niger Delta States of Cross River, Akwa Ibom, Rivers, Bayelsa, Delta, Edo, Abia, Imo and Ondo. The strategy is to use community development approach in improving the living standards and quality of life of rural families.
  5. Fadama Development Programme (FADAMA III): A World Bank assisted project targeted at subsistent farmers, the rural poor, pastoralists, fisher folks, processors, hunters, gatherers and other economic interest groups in the Agricultural Value Chain to sustainably increase the income of land and water users. There are about 200 of the Fadama Community Association currently existing in the state through which fund are disbursed to the target audience.
  6. Growth Enhancement Support Scheme (GES): This is one of the many critical components of the Federal government’s Agricultural Transformation Agenda (ATA). It was designed for the specific purpose of providing affordable agricultural inputs like fertilizers and hybrid seeds to farmers in order to increase their yields per hectare and make it comparable to world standard because in the past there were complains of diversion, exorbitant cost and adulteration of various inputs to farmers, which ultimately led to low productivity, increased poverty, unemployment and lack of interest in farming (CRSMOA, 2012).

In light of all these programmes implemented in the state for the main purpose of increased productivity, rural development, sustainable living and transformed agriculture, there has been a gradual decline in the state’s agricultural contributions to the nation’s economy, its rural dwellers and farmers. This decline in the state’s agricultural sector can largely among other things be attributed to poor administration on the part of the government.