This study assessed the capacity for designing and implementing agricultural and rural
development policies, strategies, and programs in Nigeria. Data for this study were derived
from initial consultations at the Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Water Resources
(FMAWR), Federal Ministry of Women affairs and Social Development (FMWASD), and the
Federal Ministry of Environment (FMEnv) early in 2008. Two consultation workshops were
also held, one for relevant staff in the ministries, parastatals, and NGOs; and the other for
relevant university professors and researchers. This was followed by a review of relevant
literature and a more detailed survey of institutions and individuals. A sample of relevant
institutions and individuals were purposively selected from the Federal Capital, Abuja, Oyo,
Kaduna, Enugu Ogun, Benue, and Abia States. At each location, trained data collectors
compiled a list of state and federal agencies, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and
universities where 32 institutional questionnaires were administered, of which 29 were valid
for further analysis. Similarly, 320 individual questionnaires were administered, of which 183
were valid for further analysis. The null hypothesis that job satisfaction and institutional
incentive was independent of selected background information (gender, position, years
spent on job, nature of institution, and level of formal education) of the experts was tested
using the Chi square analysis.
The respondents were mostly male (23 of 24) and were either heads of departments (10 of
24) or directors, their deputies and their equivalents (12 of 24). Most of the respondents (22
of 24) exhibited an indifferent perception to the general environment and processes involved
in policymaking. Reported capacity- strengthening efforts (for 13 of the 24 institutions
surveyed) amounted to an average cost of US$76.98 per person per day for the 1-3 weeks
training provided. While the practice of strategic planning was widespread, mission
statements were widely used in only two-fifths of selected institutions; near-term strategies
were widely used in about one third; and long-term visions were widely used in a little more
than one third. Even the practice of participation in planning from a broad range of personnel
within the institution was only widely used in one third of the selected intuitions. Similarly,
written guidelines were widely available (22 of 24), but fully disseminated in less than half of
the selected institutions. However, respondents claimed that the financial guidelines were
being followed strictly, but half of the respondents (12 of 24) did not know the frequency of
receiving reports from the accounting system. Most of the selected institutions had both a
human resource management unit (70.8 percent) and dedicated staff training centers (54.2
percent), but about half of the respondents neither knew the regularity of review of staff
training needs nor when last staff training needs were assessed. The implication of this is
that the extent to which the training exercises match the skill gaps of staff and capacity
requirements of the institutions were unknown. Between 75–80 percent of the selected
institutions engaged in some collaborative programs and linkages with other government
institutions, relevant NGOs, international development partners, training institutions, and
research institutions. These collaborative ventures worked mainly through cost sharing,
exchange, joint engagements, and sharing of reports.
Over 70 percent of the individual respondents (experts) had at least a Master of Science
(MSc) or its equivalent. The majority (79.7 percent) were male who had spent more than 10
years on the job. About half of the experts worked with universities, compared to 13.1
percent in the ministries and 37.7 percent in parastatals. Their expertise cut across a broad
range of subjects relevant for designing and implementing agricultural and rural development
policies— more than one quarter were experts in agricultural economics, extension,
communication, rural development, and rural sociology. The most frequently mentioned
(51.4 percent) person responsible for agricultural and rural development programs, policies,
and strategies was the officer-in-charge, but the list of stakeholders was long and varied.
Over 60 percent of the respondents stated that at least some consultation was done with
stakeholders through face-to-face communication at stakeholder fora, meetings,
conferences, summits, and talks. According to the respondents, the major concerns of
xi
stakeholders about agricultural and rural development policies, programs, or strategies were
the extent to which they achieve stated goals. More than half of the respondents claimed
that research evidence such as the achievements of previous and on-going programs,
results of fresh surveys, and extension and On-farm Adaptive Research (OFAR) reports
were used to support the development of agricultural and rural strategies, policies, and
programs. This evidence was obtained mainly from agricultural institutions and universities
as well as available reports, journals, and publications. The respondents stated that the
major sources of funds for the process of agricultural and rural development policy were the
Federal Government of Nigeria (FGN), The World Bank, state and local governments, and
the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). They also stated that the
various agricultural and rural development policies, strategies, and programs largely
benefited the poor (52.5 percent). It was noteworthy that respondents preceived that the
number of women at the ministerial and research levels of agricultural and rural development
was less than 1 percent. Even at the level of rural farming communities, only 15.3 percent of
the respondents felt that there were more women. Furthermore, only 27.4 percent of the
experts incorporated environmental issues in their work and only 20.4 percent undertook
environmental analysis in their work. Finally, 91.3 percent were indifferent to their job,
meaning that it would be difficult for them to perform to the best of their abilities without
allowing them greater freedom in the performance of their jobs and work out a reasonable
and acceptable reward package for the job done. The results of the Chi square tests showed
that the experts’ perception of job satisfaction and institutional incentives is independent of
all the background variables considered.
The main capacity gaps for designing and implementing agricultural and rural development
policies in Nigeria included 1) the need to entrench democratic principles and transparent
leadership and 2) to bridge the gap between universities, research institutions, and
policymaking and implementing entities. There was also a limited understanding of the
relationships between institutional, human, and material resources versus impact of policy
on target end-users at every level in the policy design, planning, implementation, and
monitoring and evaluation. Finally, there was a need for the institutionalization of effective
measures for tracking changes in the role of evidence in strategic, gender-sensitive
planning, through regular monitoring and evaluation, impact assessment, adequate
documentation, and commitment to utilize the results of the exercise. Efforts should also be
targeted towards improving the quality, gender sensitivity, timeliness, and circulation of
policy-relevant evidence.