ABSTRACT
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%).
TABLE OF CONTENTS
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
CHAPTER ONE – INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background information 1
1.2 Problem statement 6
1.3 Purpose of the study 8
1.4 Significance of the study 9
CHAPTER TWO – LITERATURE REVIEW
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
CHAPTER THREE – METHODOLOGY
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
CHAPTER FOUR – RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
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
CHAPTER FIVE – SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 Summary of findings 88
5.2 Conclusion 90
5.3 Recommendation 91
References 92
Appendix 101
LIST OF TABLES
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
LIST OF FIGURES
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
ACRONYMS
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
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
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;
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
