Public Policy and Management of Agriculture Development ... IMPACT... · the impact of public...
85
THE IMPACT OF PUBLIC POLICY IMPLEMENTATION IN ENUGU STATE: A CASE STUDY OF ENUGU STATE AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME (ENADEP) 1995-2005 BY ASOGWA, STELLA OBIAGELI PG/M.Sc./11/59803 DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL SCIENCE UNIVERSITY OF NIGERIA, NSUKKA AUGUST, 2012
Transcript of Public Policy and Management of Agriculture Development ... IMPACT... · the impact of public...
THE IMPACT OF PUBLIC POLICY IMPLEMENTATION IN ENUGU STATE:
A CASE STUDY OF ENUGU STATE AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT
PROGRAMME (ENADEP) 1995-2005
BY
ASOGWA, STELLA OBIAGELI
PG/M.Sc./11/59803
DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL SCIENCE
UNIVERSITY OF NIGERIA, NSUKKA
AUGUST, 2012
i
THE IMPACT OF PUBLIC POLICY IMPLEMENTATION IN ENUGU STATE:
A CASE STUDY OF ENUGU STATE AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT
PROGRAMME (ENADEP) 1995-2005
BY
ASOGWA, STELLA OBIAGELI
PG/M.Sc./11/59803
BEING A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL
SCIENCE, UNIVERSITY OF NIGERIA, IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE
REQUIREMENTS FOR THE AWARD OF MASTER OF SCIENCE (M.Sc.) DEGREE
IN POLITICAL SCIENCE (PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION)
DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL SCIENCE
UNIVERSITY OF NIGERIA, NSUKKA
SUPERVISOR: DR. I. ABADA
AUGUST, 2012
ii
CERTIFICATION
I certify that this Master of Science Degree project has been completed under my
supervision.
_______________________ ___________________________
Dr. I. Abada Dr. P. C. Chukwu
Supervisor Head,
Department of Political Science
__________________________
External Examiner
iii
DEDICATION
This work is dedicated to the Almighty and ever living God, for His infinite mercy.
iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Long periods of critical thinking, writing and re-writing, usually characterize a study
of this nature. Let me thank my supervisor, Dr. I. Abada, who painstakingly led me through
this work.
Also, let me acknowledge the assistance and cooperation of the management and staff
of Enugu State Agricultural Development Programme (ENADEP), for giving me unfettered
access to their library and resource centre. Particular regard is due to the following project
managers (PMs) of ENADEP (past and present) for granting me series of interviews during
the study, Chief F. A. Omeje, PM, 1995-1997; Dr. C. Onwubumeli, PM, 1997-1999; Dr. O. S.
Ugwu, PM, 1999-2000; G. E. Ukwuaba, PM, 2000-2004; and lastly but not the least, Chief
Onyema Nwodo, PM, 2004 to date. Worthy of my acknowledgement also are the following
top ENADEP management staff who gave me one form of assistance or the other, Dr. Onu
Mathias, Director of Technical Services; Mr. I. C. Ozioko, Director of Finance and
Accounting; P. O. Njom, Director of Planning; Moses Odumike, Director of Extension
Services; J. U. Eya, Director of Rural Institutional Development (RIO); Mbaonu E., Director
of Administration; the Zonal Managers – Okwume, C. C., Enugu North; Ajagu Cyril, Enugu
East; Okonkwo Uche, Enugu West.
My thanks go to my typist Miss Peace Obi for her patience and dedication, Miss
Chinyere Attama, Bro. Emeka Ezetaa, Sis. Ifeoma Asogwa are some of my good friends
whose support and encouragement will hardly be forgotten, at a time when I was feeling
despondent to complete the study, gave me the necessary support and assistance that
awakened my dropping spirit. Indeed, without the cooperation of these people, this project
would hardly have seen the light of the day.
Finally, may I thank the Almighty God for crowning all my efforts with fruitful result.
v
ABSTRACT
This study was on the impact of public policy implementation in Enugu State
Agricultural Development Programme (ENADEP) 2001-2012. The study
inquires into critical issues of policy implementation failures, such as
corruption, regime instability, executive interference, “top-down” and
“bottom-up” policy approaches, statutory incoherence, etc and attempts to
identify, examine and analyze those of the variables that have contributed to
the low pace of development in the agricultural sector in Enugu State.
Employing the documentary study approach, secondary data relevant to the
inquiry were collected from ENADEP progress annual, quarterly, field and
implementation completion reports (ICR), journals, Federal and State
ministries of agricultural and natural resources research reports, the
examination of seminar papers, published and unpublished works, textbooks,
conference proceedings as well as detailed and rigorous interviews of key
stakeholders and specialists in the field. The following major findings
emerged from the study; first, there is frequent executive interference in the
internal affairs and management of Enugu State Agricultural Development
Programme by the state government resulting in frequent high level
management staff turn-over particularly with regard to the office of the
Project Manager with the attendant consequence of protracted delays in the
execution of project activities. Second, there is a clear lack of prudent
management of available project funds, occasioned by the high rate of
corruption and diversion of project funds by the state government. Third is the
issue of farmer‟s lukewarmness and conservative attitude to technological
changes in the agricultural field. Finally, based on the findings, the following
recommendations are made: (1) it was clear from the study that executive
interference and politicization of the office of ENADEP‟s Project Manager
contributes to the ineffectiveness of ENADEP, (2) identified also, was the
issue of low staff morale occasioned by the non-payment of staff salaries and
entitlements. This gave rise to the use of seconded ministry staff that does not
pay loyalty to ENADEP management to perform crucial functions. To secure
the commitment of staff for better and effective policy implementation,
ENADEP should be made to hire and retain enough staff capable of its
services.
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Title Page - - - - - - - - - i
Certification - - - - - - - - - ii
Dedication - - - - - - - - - iii
Acknowledgement - - - - - - - - iv
Abstract - - - - - - - - - v
Table of Contents - - - - - - - - vi
List of Tables - - - - - - - - - viii
List of Abbreviations - - - - - - - - ix
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION - - - - - 1
1.1 Statement of the Problem - - - - - - 4
1.2 Objective of the Study - - - - - - 5
1.3 Significance of the Study - - - - - - 5
1.4 Literature Review - - - - - - 6
1.5 Theoretical Framework of Analysis - - - - - 17
1.6 Hypotheses - - - - - - - - 19
1.7 Method of Data Collection - - - - - - 19
1.8 Method of Data Analysis - - - - - - 20
CHAPTER TWO: HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF ENUGU
STATE AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME (ENADEP) 21
2.1 Enugu State: Physical Location and Features - - - - 21
2.2 Enugu State Agricultural Development Programme
(ENADEP) - - - - - - - - 22
vii
CHAPTER THREE: ENUGU STATE ENADEP POLICY
OBJECTIVES AND ASSESSMENT - - - - - 26
3.1 ENADEP Institutional Structure and Implementation
Strategies - - - - - - - - 26
3.2 ENADEP Policy Implementation and Project Assessment
1995-2005 - - - - - - - - 28
3.3 ENADEP Policy Implementation and Project - - 39
3.4 ENADEP Project Funding, Effects and Outcomes - - - 43
CHAPTER FOUR: ENADEP POLICY IMPLEMENTATION
AND OPERATIONAL PROBLEMS - - - - - 44
4.1 ENADEP Policy Implementation and Effectiveness - - 44
4.2 Operational Problems of Enugu State ENADEP - - - 55
CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY, CONCLUSION
AND RECOMMENDATIONS - - - - - - 63
5.1 Summary - - - - - - - - 63
5.2 Conclusion - - - - - - - - 65
5.3 Recommendations - - - - - - - 66
Bibliography - - - - - - - - 68
viii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.1: Provision of Accessible Roads (all in km) - 54
Table 3.2: Rural Water/Potable Water Supply - - 57
Table 3.3: Extension Services - - - - - 60
Table 3.4: Farm Input Procurement and Distribution - 64
Table 4.1: Funding by the various agencies from 1991-1994 87
Table 4.2: ENADEP Staff Appraisal Report (SAR) - - 87
ix
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
ADMEU: Agricultural Monitoring and Evaluation Unit
ADP: Agricultural Development Programme or Project
ADPEC: Agricultural Development Project Execution Committee
ASADEP: Anambra State Agricultural Development Programme
CMD: Cassava Mosaic Disease
DFRRI: Directorate for Food, Roads and Rural Infrastructure
ENADEP: Enugu State Agricultural Development Programme or Project
ENSG: Enugu State Government.
FACU: Federal Agricultural Coordinating Unit
FAO: Food and Agricultural Organization
GRP: Green Revolution Programme
Ha: Hecterage
HDW: Hand Dug Wells
IBRD: International Band for Reconstruction and Development
ICR: Implementation Completion Report.
IFAD: International Fund for Agricultural Development.
IITA: International Institute of Tropical Agriculture
Kg: Kilogramme
MSADP-1: Multi-State Agriculture Development Project-1
MT: Metric Tonnes
MTP: Management Training Plot
NAA: Nigerian Airways Authority
x
NIIA: Nigerian Institute of International Affairs
NIPOS: National Special Programme on Food Security
OFAR: On-Farm Adaptive Research
OFN: Operation Feed the Nation
PMU: Project Management Unit
RBDA: River Basin Development Authorities
SAR: Staff Appraisal Report
SMS: Subject Matter Specialists
US $: United States Dollar
WIA: Women in Agriculture
1
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
Since independence in 1960, several reports have been made concerning policy
failures in Nigeria (Report of Vision 2010). Of recent is the vision 2010, which is an
encapsulation of policies and programmes ranging from agriculture, education, health,
political order, economics and others that have been poorly executed. In agricultural sector,
bold attempts have been made to encourage the growth and development of the sector
through agricultural education, development and financing programmes.
Agricultural policies, strategies, and programmes in Nigeria have undergone many
changes since independence in 1960. These changes were in the main, a reflection of
changes in government philosophy on the best approach to agricultural development while
the philosophic changes were, in themselves, often brought about by changes in
government. But in broad sense, government philosophy on agricultural development has
undergone three major phases, the first from 1960 to about 1970, the second from about
1970 to about 1985, and the third which is still unfolding, from about 1985 to present time.
One of the specific agricultural programmes aimed at increasing agricultural
production and improving farmer‟s conditions is the Agricultural Development Projects
(ADPs) (ASADEP Annual Report, 1986). The programme was conceived in 1972, while
the first projects (Enitua in Kaduna, Gusau, in Sokoto and Gombe in Bauchi) commenced
operation in 1975 (ASADAP Annual Report, 1986).
The success of the first generation Agricultural Development Projects (ADPs) made
the Federal Government to accord the agricultural development project idea prompt
recognition as prime contributors to incremental food production (CBN Statistical Bulletin
2
and Annual Reports various issues, Yahaya, 2000). Thus, it became the policy of the federal
government of Nigeria to extend agricultural development strategy to all the states of the
federation (ENADEP Progress Review and Implementation Status, 1994).
Despite the fact that the projects were supported by the food strategies mission of
the World Bank, it was obvious that the organization could not solely fund further
expansion of more Agricultural Development Projects (ADPs). Therefore, jointly funded
programme, which would enable the basic agricultural development project concepts to be
more readily extended to those areas which had not benefited from the conventional
agricultural development project packages, was recommended (ASADEP Annual Report,
1986).
The Agricultural Development Projects is a tripartite development strategy among
the World Bank, the Federal Government and the State Government. The Anambra State
Agricultural Development Project (ASADEP) benefited from the World Bank joint funded
programme, and the project activities commenced fully in 1986 (ASADEP Annual Report,
1986).
Following the creation of Enugu and Anambra State in August 1991, the Enugu
State Agricultural Development Project (ENADEP) came into being, and since then, it has
been implementing the aims and objectives for which the parent agricultural development
project was established. Ihimodu (1986:10) noted that among the important features of the
Agricultural Development Projects (ADPs), is the improvement of infrastructure within the
project areas through construction of dams to provide water for crops, animals and man,
provision of extension services and marketing services, provision of credit facilities to
farmers to enable them take advantage of the facilities of health and other social services,
3
provision of base for the improvement of health and other social services in the project
areas.
The contemporary agriculture in Nigeria is dominated by small scale farmers using
traditional methods. Thus, the principal objective of Enugu State Agricultural Development
Project (ENADEP), is to increase food production and incomes of small-scale farmers in
the project areas and thereby increase total food supply and raw materials for the growing
population, and the agro-based industries, which will be achieved by producing a package
of essential inputs, and an efficient delivery system through the farm service centre.
However, a downward trend was observed from 1991. This has persisted ever since.
Food importation has rather been on increase, which sustained decline in domestic
production. This was the period of essential commodity and the beginning of massive
corruption, which permeated various sectors of the economy. This was the situation until
1999 when a democratic government was sworn in. During this period, the Fadama
development project was introduced in 1992. It however, did not make sufficient impact.
The democratic government headed by president Olusegun Obasanjo initiated some
policies and programme, which involved: reorganizing, restructuring, privatizing
institutions and agencies, and encouraging partnership to make impact, Nigeria Agricultural
Cooperatives and Rural Development Bank, NACRDB, (2000); National Agricultural
Development Fun, NADF (2002); National Special Programme on Food Security, NSPFS
(2002); Commodity Marketing and Development Companies, CMDC (2003); all these have
had some positive impact on agricultural production and consequent improvement in
agricultural development projects.
4
There has been a lot of reorganization, restructuring of agricultural programmes in
the country. A lot of policies and projects have been embarked upon without a
corresponding result. The food productions that supposed to boom and reduce food
insecurity in the state keep on fluctuating. The study want to examine how these projects
have been managed.
1.1 Statement of the Problem
The principal policy position of Enugu State Agricultural Development Programme
(ENADEP) is to increase food production and income of small scale farmers. The
programme was fashioned to revolutionize agricultural sector of Enugu State economy,
which was derailing from its normal contribution to the economy.
However, extent literature and available evidence indicate that these objectives are
yet to be met. Since the introduction of Agricultural Development Projects in Enugu State
in 1992, which signaled the beginning of a serious process of implementation, there have
been further accusations that the implementation process has not been consultative enough;
that it is heavy-handed, and that the solutions are uniformly imposed, with little sensitivity
to local realities (Emehelu, 1994). From complaints about relative statistics, the tune has
now changed to complaints of overload and inundation with too many things happening at
the same time (IKelegbe, 1996).
In addition, policy implementation failures in Nigeria are also a direct consequence
of political instability. Within the period under study (1995-2005), Enugu State has
embarked on so many Agricultural Development Programmes due to instability in the
government.
5
The Enugu State government has been experiencing new-governed-new-policy.
Consequently, the study poses the following questions:
(1) Does the Enugu State Agricultural Development Programmes increase food
production in Enugu State between (1995-2005)?
(2) Is there any link between public policy implementation and the success or failure of
Enugu State Agricultural Development Projects?
(3) Does the institutional structure of ENADEP affect the policy implementation of
Agricultural Development Projects in Enugu State?
1.2 Objectives of the Study
This study has broad and specific objectives. The work broadly seeks to investigate
the impact of public policy implementation in Enugu State with special focus on ENADEP
agricultural development project from 1995-2005.
Specifically, the study aims to ascertain:
(1) the extent Enugu State Agricultural Development Programmes have increased food
production in Enugu State between 1995-2005.
(2) if there is any link between public policy implementation and the success or failures
of Enugu State Agricultural Development projects.
(3) if the institutional structure of ENADEP affected the policy implementation and
goal, delivery of agricultural development projects in Enugu State.
1.3 Significance of Study
The study has both theoretical and practical relevance. The theoretical relevance of
the study stems from the fact that it will extend the frontiers of knowledge on the issue
6
under discourse. It will also enable the student of social science in general and political
science in particular and most precisely the policy makers and implementer to have more
asses to current data on public policy and management of projects.
It will add to the pull of literature on the subject and create a new paradigm in the
study of public policy and management of Agricultural Development Projects.
On the practical angle, the study will be a valuable guide to political leaders who
formulates policy and the civil servants or the bureaucrats who implement policy, thereby
enabling us to be better positioned to curb further ineffective and inefficient implementation
of policies.
It will also help policy makers to device new strategies of consulting the
beneficiaries while formulating policy rather than using “top-bottom-down method”.
1.4 Literature Review
This aspect of the work evaluates the literature works on this topic with objective of
gathering comprehensive contributions from different post researchers on the study. The
emphasis will be on
(i) Public policy and public policy making
(ii) Bureaucracy and public policy making
(iii) The efficiency and effectiveness of policy implementation.
(1) Public Policy and Public Policy-Making
Amdi (1980) maintained that policy inertia (lack of will to change) is a function of
the willingness of the policy that promotes capacity building, capacity utilization or
sustenance. Thus, policy in a large context should be seen as an instrument that translates
7
policy ideas into policy reality. Policy making or initiation is only means to an end and not
an end in itself, meaning that policy process has got different phrases.
Sagasti (1976) stated that, the relevance of policy instrument is inevitable because it
is the barometer that is employed by policy actors to measure the extent to which policy
making itself is qualitative, the viability of the policy itself and the extent to which equation
can be established between policy intention and policy execution.
Sagasti further argues that policy instrument allows you to identify the leakages and
weaknesses of all policies. An instrument contains certain inherent elements, which
include:
(a) Government policy statement: the decision of the policy actors e.g. when 6-3-3-4
educational system was introduced, government explained the reason of such policy
especially its objectives.
(b) Institution and organizational Network: like in the case of Gabriel Almond‟s
structural functionalism which provided the need for organizational structure to
translate the policy initiated which must be backed up by the law to perform
different functions.
(c) Legal instrument of policy: most usually refer to judiciary institution for
interpretation before implementation.
(d) A policy remains Moribund unless the actors are capable of manipulating the
variables, and the infrastructural resources to pursue that particular goal.
Policy is an understanding by members of a group that makes the actions of each
members of given set of circumstances more predictable to others (Adesina, 1977).
8
Kirst and Morsher (1970) asserted that, if the decisions and actions are trial and
repetitive and demand little cogitation that may be called routine actors, if they are of some
what complex, have wider ramification and demand more address the issue of educational
through some educational-related programmes and policies (Ogboru, 2008).
Serious policy formulation process, which started with bargaining, is an exceedingly
important feature of policy process for without a “minimum wincing coalition”. Policy
formulation process which requires a far greater dependency upon descriptive or behaviour
theory (how individuals actually proceed in formulating policy rather than upon normative
theory, how individuals should proceed). Policy formulation consists of three (3) processes:
decision making, management and policy revision. One generally assumes that, the
implementation, management and readjustment of policy to of policy to internal and
external changes are major features of policy formulation (John, 2007).
John (2007) further argues that, decision-making is not the same with policy
formulation but feature of it. Decision-making is specifically a cognitive activity, it is
essentially to recognize the most fundamental pillar of policy formulation. Meaning that,
there is no best solution to a policy problem.
Policy implementation is as important as plan itself. A policy that cannot be
implemented is equivalent to planning without fact; it involves transformation of resources
to reality. In other words, all the objectives of a policy must also be liked to the instrument
of execution (Amdi, 1980).
In execution of a policy, monitoring techniques must be worked out such that, when
it is allowed, the implementer can carry out the ideas to its logical conclusion (Sagasti
1976). However, in economy like Nigeria, there are many problems or obstacles that
9
prevents against mutual relationship between policy and implementation. This include what
may be called bureaucratic red-tapism, poor monitoring techniques, inadequate resources,
the inter-play of market forces, for example, effects of prices on implementation of policy,
dominate vices like corruption greatly affects implementation.
According to Charles Reich (1971), resources especially public type usually
diverted to private gain of implementers through such practices, attitudinal behaviour of
bureaucrats in terms of work commitment, poor results, disorientation, attitude, inefficient
decision making processes and lack of adequate control on the part of government
apparatus.
Ware (1994), opined that, education policies have an important role to play in the
progress of any nation that aspired toward development. A conflict which deserves
attention seems to arise in the promotion of education for development purpose vis-avis
population control activities as regards finance. This is because Nigerian‟s desire to
improve the education sector has increased.
Utibe (2001) asserted that each of the policy existed and was established by
different government administration and was criticized when a new government rides into
power.
Buer (1976) acknowledged that, regardless of ones perceptive about true policy, a
parameter-shaping action that is given serious consideration is more difficult to arrive at
and at the same time difficult and important to study. Any good policy must have the
following features:
The policy must be understandable and written.
It must prescribe limit and yardsticks for future purpose.
10
According to Abdulsalami (1998:7), public policy refers “to hard patterns of
resource allocation represented by projects and programmes designed to respond to
perceived public problems or challenges requiring governmental action for solution”.
Implicit in the above definition is that public policy is what governments actually do and
not what they intend doing. Scholars, who are also associated with this viewpoint, include
Anderson et al (1975:5) and Sharkansky (1970:1) quoted in Ezeani (2006:289).
On the other hand, there are scholars who regard declaration of intentions, wishes or
proposed course of action as public policy Dror (1967:14) defines public policy as a “major
guideline for action”. According to him, “public policy”, in most cases, lays down general
directives, rather than detailed instructions on the main lines of action to be followed”.
Implicit in Dror‟s definition is the distinction between policy and decision. A policy usually
has wider ramifications and longer time perspective than decision. Policy provides the
guiding framework for day-to-day decision required in application of resources (men and
materials) towards the attainment of organizational goals (Nwosu, 1980:214).
Dye (1981:8) defines public policy as “whatever government chooses to do or not to
do”. A major flaw of this definition is its failure to recognize the divergence between what
governments decides to do and what they actually do. The main weakness of the two sets of
definitions discussed above is their failure to provide a basis for distinguishing policy
formulation from policy implementation. Again, they failed “to provide any basis for
evaluating the overall success or failure of policies as the assumptions in the definitions are
that each decision or action of government is supposed to be an independent policy of its
own” (Egonmwan, 2000:2).
11
Ezeani (2006:290) sees “policy as a proposed course of action, which the
government intends to implement in response to a given problem, or situation confronting
it”. It is a statement of what government wants to do. Public policy can be regarded as
general rules, regulations, guiding practices or actions in a particular activity or problem
area (Victor, 1976:149-165).
Gordon (1986:445) posit that public policy can also be seen as “the organizing
framework of purposes and rationales for government programmes that deal with specified
societal problem …”. The process involves all the demands, pressures, conflicts,
negotiations and compromises, and formal and informal decisions that result in a given
policies being adopted and pursued through actions of government (Eboh, 1996:76). From
the foregoing, the whole meaning of public policy revolves around government actions,
government decisions, government proposed decisions or actions. It is the output or product
of the governmental process and activity. As Ikelegbe, (1996:4) posits:
public policy involves and affects the wide variety of areas and
issues, which governments have to do, such as the economy,
education, health, defence, social welfare, foreign affairs,
transportation, agriculture and housing. Public policies are
usually expressed in legislative enactments or laws, executive
decrees or orders, executive and official statements or speeches.
Government budgets, judicial decisions and sometimes political
manifestoes.
In the recent years, a number of writers have tried to analyze how public policies are made,
and how their successes can be tested.
Policymaking is not a simple act of choice between alternatives. Rather, it is a
tortuous process of problem determination, goal determination and classification, the
12
generation of alternatives, data gathering, political bargaining and choice (Ikelegbe,
1996:31).
According to Dye (1998:19), policy making also involves agenda setting, capturing
the attention of policy makers, formulating proposals (devising and selecting policy
options), legitimizing policy, developing political support, wining congressional,
presidential, or court approval), implementing policy (creating bureaucracies, spending
money, enforcing laws), and evaluating policy (finding out whether policies work, whether
they are popular).
Gordon (1986:610) contends that public policy making is:
a process in which choices are made to change (or leave
unchanged) an existing condition, and to select a course
of action most appropriate to achieving a desired
objective while minimizing risk and uncertainty to the
extent deemed possible; the process may be characterized
by widely varying degrees of self-conscious “rationality”
or by willingness of decision maker to decide
incrementally, without insisting on assessment of all
possible alternatives or by combination of approaches.
At times, some policies appear at first glance to lend themselves to explanation by one
particular model. Most policies are a combination of rational planning, incrementation,
interest group, activity, elite preferences and institutional influence (Dye, 1998:14).
In Nigeria, context of policymaking, it demands extensive bureaucratic
involvements. Civil servants are the key actors in the process of policy formulation and
they readily adopt as administrative behaviour, high-ranking public servants in developing
public policy alternatives and implementation strategies, and in advising their ministries on
the full implication of policy options open to the government.
13
The study of public policy has been affected by the nature of regimes, as it is crucial
to the outputs of public policy. Howard Leicher as quoted in Ikelegbe (1996:176) is of the
view that both the public agenda and the administration of public policy are influenced by
the nature of a society‟s political regime, while Robert Dahl citing the number of studies
which conclude that economic resource base is the most important determinant of public
policies, states that “because of the powerful impact on governmental policies of such
factors as a country‟s level of socio-economic development, the characteristic of its social
and economic systems, and its traditions, it may well be that the character of the regime has
little independent effect upon most governmental policies (Dahl, 1998:50). Thus, in
Nigeria, the type of regime is a major determinant to policy formulation and
implementation, because of their concept of role in government. Under military regimes,
the institutional machinery manifest different characteristics, the principle of collective
approval and responsibility for public policies are lacking, but under civilian government,
there is apparent notion of inclusiveness, by virtue of representative government. But policy
formulation and implementation are always too slow to create its desired effect.
(2) Bureaucracy and Public Policy-making
The nineteenth century produced a number of brilliantly descriptive and literary
accounts of modern bureaucracies. Among the most perceptive is the work of the German
Sociologists, Lovez Vonstein (1815-1990). This work discusses about the origins and
workings of bureaucracy, but it was Max Weber (1922) which began the systematic study
on this area. He abstracted what he considered the most characteristic features of
bureaucracy as follows:
14
(a) There is the principle of fixed and official jurisdictional areas, which are generally
ordered by rules, that is by laws or administrative regulations.
(b) The regular activities required for the purpose of the bureaucratically governed
structure are distributed in a fixed way of official duties.
(c) The authority to give the commands required for the discharge of these duties is
distributed in a stable way, and strictly delimited by rules concerning the coercive
means, physical sacerdotal or otherwise, which maybe placed at the disposal of
officials.
(d) Methodological provision is made for the continuous fulfillment of these duties and
for the execution of the corresponding rights, only persons who have the generally
regulated qualifications to serve are employed (Weber, 1978:37-39).
In every political system, there are means by which public policy is transformed into
concrete action. In other words, public policy is action directed towards those that exercise
political power. According to Blau and Mayer (1955:80), bureaucracy applies to organizing
principles that are intended to achieve, control, and coordination of work in a larger
organization.
Control and coordination, according to Onah (2005:96), is not an end to itself. They
are means towards the end of administrative efficiency. The organizing principles of
bureaucracy have the purpose of creating efficient organizations, not inefficient ones.
Bureaucracy, according to Weber have different motives and different values. Four types of
bureaucrats emerge most consistently as: careerists, politicians, professionals, and
missionaries (Downs, 1967:88, Wilneskeg, 1967:85; and Wilson, 1980:374-382).
15
Bureaucracies are inherently political in behaviour. The choices they make in
allocating resources, interpreting legislations, writing rules and regulations, applying
eligibility standards and judging appeals in short in all their implementation activities,
confer rewards and penalties or different groups and individuals.
Bureaucracy is a specie of formal organization with certain structural and
procedural attributes which Weber believes is the most efficient means of conducting the
affairs of government. Our interest here is to understand bureaucracy as an institution for
effective execution of public policies and programmes.
(3) Efficiency and Effectiveness of Policy Implementation
The concept of „efficiency‟ and „effectiveness‟ have been the concern of scholars,
whether they are of scientific management or human relations or interactionist persuasions
because the concept provides an explanatory framework for measuring the success of
governmental organizations in their movement towards achieving their stated objectives. In
this work, the two concepts – effectiveness and efficiency are to mean the same and be use
interchangeably, since all has to do with measurement of input and output system.
F.W. Taylor a foremost scholar of the modern scientific schools in a work, A Piece
Rate System, he describes his pioneer method of setting standards of job-performance at the
Midvale Steel Plant. He argued that when the standards were set, it become customary to
refer to the ratio of actual performance to the standard performance as the efficiency of
labour, a use different from that of the mechanical engineers, who apply the term to the
ration of actual output to an actual input (cited in H. Simon, 1975:25).
Harrington Emerson, another pioneer in the scientific school, who preferred the
term “efficiency engineering” defined efficiency as the relation between what is
16
accomplished and what might be accomplished”. In this term, he speaks of the “efficiency
percent of the employer”.
The criterion of efficiency as applied to administrative decisions is strictly
analogous to the concept of maximization of utility in economic theory. Speight (1970:102)
in a more general way, says that an organization is said to be economically efficient so long
as total outputs exceeds total inputs. Amitai Etzioni (1960:18) stated that goal attainment is
not a fair test of organizations strength. The goal model has always been credited with
objectivity, but as Etzioni points out, one has to take note of its methodological limitations.
Balogun M. I. (1972:40) stressing the issue raised by Etzioni with regards to unfair
use of goal model to measure effectiveness; Balogun asserts that as organization starts
operating within a dynamic setting, new goals emerge – goals which the blueprint could
neither anticipate nor account for. At the same time, the means of achieving the goals
change with increase in knowledge and as developments take place within and without the
organization.
However, given these various school of thoughts – “input – output analysis”, “goal
oriented model”, “value maximization” or “utilization analysis”, and “technologically
efficiency” – one is confronted with the problem of indices to use to measure efficiency or
effectiveness of service of government establishment such as Enugu State Agricultural
Development Programme. Can efficiency be more appropriately computed from the input-
output analysis, in view of shortcomings of goal model? How other factors are play out in
achieving the goals and objectives of an organization, even when input is at increase.
Even though, a great deal of scholarly writing abound on ENADEP Agricultural
Development Programmes as reviewed above, not much has been done with respect to
17
impact of public policy implementation in Enugu State as regards to (ENADEP)
Agricultural Development managements and goal-delivery within the period under study
(1995 – 2005). Therefore, this contributes a gap in literature, which this work intends to fill.
1.5 Theoretical Framework of Analysis
An organizational system is a mechanism for decision-making. The efficiency of an
organizational system can be gauged in the process to make decisions that are widely
accepted. Process refers to the sum of techniques, methods, procedures, and strategies by
which a given decision is made.
Our theoretical framework of analysis is decision-making process in order for us to
look at how decisions are made in Enugu State Agricultural Development Programmes
(ENADEP), and who made the decisions?, What was the decision?, When was the decision
made?, What were the characteristics of decision situation?, To what class or sub-class of
decision does these decisions belong?, Why was the decision made? The theoretical
explanation of these questions will go a long way to help us examine the effectiveness of
policy implementation in an organization with particular reference to the Enugu State
Agricultural Development Programme (ENADEP).
Macridos, (1964) as cited in Ray (2003:14) stated that:
decision-making is an analytical concept which involves a set of
questions or categories in the light of which concrete institutional
realities can be identified, describe and compared. It is a social
process that selects alternatives for implementation and execution
from among the many available options. It denotes the dynamic
process of interaction among participants who determine a
particular policy choice.
18
Decision-making theory focuses on all factors relevant to a choice and not just on the
formal legal relationships of the decision-makers (Pye, 1964:18). The basic assumption is
that in the last analysis, the actions of any institution or organization depend on the acts,
and hence, the decisions of some specific individual or individuals with the structure. The
decision-making approach helps to understand psychological factors in analyzing the
behaviour of institutions and organizations. Decision-making is differentiated from policy-
making.
Decision-making is confined to choices that involves conscious action and are
subjects to sanctions. Policy-making refers to a collectivity of interesting decisions. Harold
Lasswell (1965:58) a proponent of decision-making theory identifies seven functional
stages through which all decisions are processed – information, recommendation,
prescription, innovation, application, appraisal and termination. March and Simon
(1957:25) distinguished four processes – problem-solving, persuasion, bargaining and
politics.
It is interesting to see if differences in organizations make any difference in decision
outcomes. The principal concepts are those of the decision, the decisional context, the
perceived or actual alternative, and the decision-makers, the outcomes depending on type of
organization or institution. Such factors are strategies, information, decision-rulers,
communication and feedbacks. Policy failures in some cases have been attributed to
decision-makers, which is first and foremost “top” to “bottom” approaches. Thus, we shall
in this study apply the theoretical framework of „decision-making theory‟ to examine how
the decision-making process in Enugu State Agricultural Development Project affects the
management of the projects and the outcome of the policy targets and objectives.
19
1.6 Hypotheses
Following the above, this work of study tests these hypotheses:
(1) The Enugu State Agricultural Development Programmes increase food production
in Enugu State between (2001-2012).
(2) There is link between public policy implementation and the success or failure of
Enugu State Agricultural Development Projects.
(3) The institutional structure of ENADEP affect the policy implementation of
Agricultural Development Projects in Enugu State.
1.7 Method of Data Collection
The qualitative method was used to generate data for this work. According to
Biereenu Nnabugwu (2006), qualitative method is used to obtain in-depth information and
concept/variable clarification so as to facilitate instrument designs. Qualitative method is
most useful when used to glean, illuminate, interpret and extract valuable information so as
to draw inferences from the available evidence to reach a conclusion. On the other hand,
(Obikeze cited in Nnabugwu, 2006), argues that the advantage of the qualitative method
lies in the fact that it is able to gain access to organizational structure, bureaucratic
processes and it can more readily lead to the discovery of the unexpected phenomenon.
Additionally, we also relied on secondary sources of data. Asika (1990) holds that
secondary sources of data refers to a set of data gathered or authored by another author or
authored by another person, usually data from the available data, either in the form of
documents or survey result and code books, journals, articles and other written works on the
same topic in addition to government, internet materials that treat the same topic.
20
1.8 Method of Data Analysis
For the purpose of analyzing our qualitative data, we adopt the qualitative
descriptive method of data analysis. According to Asika (1990), qualitative description
analysis is used to verbally summarize the information gathered in research. Through
qualitative descriptive analysis, descriptive explanation is given to statistical data gathered
in our research work, in order to establish the relationship between the variables under
study. Thus, the use of this method of analysis is informed by the simplicity with which it
summarizes data by giving a qualitative description or explanation to statistical information.
Also, tables were used to clarify the researcher‟s points and emphasis.
21
CHAPTER TWO
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF ENUGU STATE AGRICULTURAL
DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME (ENADEP)
2.1 Enugu State: Physical Location and Features
Enugu State is located in the South-eastern part of Nigeria. It shares borders with
Benue State to the North-east, Kogi State to the North-west, Abia and Imo States to the
South, Ebonyi State to the East and Anambra State to the West. The people of Enugu State
have cultural affinities with the ethnic groups of their six neigbouring states.
Enugu State is situated on the highlands of Awgu, Udi and Nsukka. This is a chain
of low hills which run through Abakaliki (Ebonyi State) in the East to Nsukka in the North-
west, then South wards through Enugu and Awgu. The rest of Enugu State sits on the
rolling lowlands of the Idodo River Basin to the East, and Oji River Basin to the West. The
State has numerous streams, rivulets and lakes. The major rivers are the Adada River, the
Ekulu, the Ajalli and the Oji Rivers. The lakes are to be found in three main areas: the Opi
Lake Complex in Nsukka Local Government (made up of seven lakes all of which are fairly
large in size); the Ezeagu Lake in Ezeagu Local Government, three kilometers long and a
couple of hundred meters wide), which in the same locality has a cave (comprising several
channels, branching out in different direction) and the Amagunze Lake Complex in Nkanu
East Local Government (altogether nine principal lakes of considerable length, breadth and
depth, and containing a range of aquatic animals such as hippopotamus, crocodiles,
seabirds. These resources are potential for the establishment of tourist industries and growth
of agriculture in Enugu State.
22
Enugu State lies largest within the semi-tropical rain forest of the south of Nigeria.
But it also stretches toward the north with its features changing gradually from rain forest to
open woodland and savannah. It has a land area of approximately 8727.1 square
kilometers. It has a good well-rained soil and a fairly equable climate. The main
temperature in the hottest month (February) is 36.2ºC and the minimum temperature
(usually recorded in November) is about 20.3ºC. Its lowest rainfall is about 0.16cm and
occurs in February, and its highest is about 35.7cm in July (ENSLOGS Social Diary, 2000).
Basically, the people of Enugu State are agrarian. The soil and climate of the state is
good for production of variety of agricultural goods, the key cash crops are cashew, rice, oil
palm and castor oil. The food crops produced in Enugu are yam, cassava, peas, maize,
cowpea, melon, kola, plantains, bananas, mangoes and citrus.
2.1 Enugu State Agricultural Development Programmes (ENADEP)
Agricultural policies, strategies, and programmes in Nigeria have undergone many
changes since independence in 1960. These changes were, in the main, a reflection of
changes in government philosophy on the best approach to agricultural development while
the philosophical changes were, in themselves often brought about by changes in
government. But in broad sense, government philosophy on agricultural development has
undergone three major phases, the first from 1960 to about 1970, the second from about
1970 to about 1985, and the third which is still unfolding, from about 1985 to the present
time.
One of the specific agricultural programmes aimed at increasing agricultural
production and improving farmer‟s conditions is the agricultural development projects
23
(ADPs) (ASADEP Annual Report, 1986). The programme was conceived in 1972, while
the first projects, (Euntua in Kaduna, Gusau in Sokoto and Gombe in Bauchi) commenced
operation in 1975 (ASADEP Annual Report, 1986).
The success of the first generation Agricultural Development Projects (ADPs) made
the Federal Government to accord the agricultural development project idea prompt
recognition as prime contributors to incremental food production. Thus, it became the
policy of the federal government of Nigeria to extend agricultural development strategy to
all the states of the federation (ENADEP Progressive Review and Implementation Status,
1994).
Despite the fact that the projects were supported by the food strategies mission of
the World Bank, it was obvious that the organization could not solely fund further
expansion of more Agricultural Development Projects (ADPs). Therefore, a jointly funded
programme, which would enable the basic agricultural development project concepts to be
more readily extended to those areas which had not benefited from the conventional
agricultural development project packages, was recommended (ASADEP Annual Report,
1986).
The Agricultural Development Project is a tripartite development strategy among
the World Bank, the Federal Government and the State Government. The Anambra State
Agricultural Development Project (ASADEP) benefited from the World Bank joint funded
programme, and the project activities commenced fully in 1986 (ASADEP Annual Report,
1986).
Following the creation of Enugu and Anambra States in August 1991, the Enugu
State Agricultural Development Project (ENADEP) came into being, and since then, has
24
been implementing the aims and objectives for which the parent agricultural development
project was established. Ihimodu (1986) noted that among the important features of the
Agricultural Development Projects (ADPs), is the improvement of infrastructure within the
project areas through the construction of dams to provide water for crops, animals and man,
provision of extension and marketing services, provision of credit facilities to farmers to
enable them take advantage of the facilities and provision of a base for the improvement of
health and other social services in the project areas.
The contemporary agriculture in Nigeria is dominated by small-holder farmers using
traditional methods. Thus, the principal objective of Enugu State Agricultural Development
Project (ENADEP) is to increase food production and incomes of small-scale farmers. To
achieve her aims and objective, ENADEP uses programme of extension-related services to
farmers and provision of rural infrastructures.
The 1991 Edict establishing the project stated ENADEP objectives and functions
thus:
The objectives of the project shall be to:
(a) support increased agricultural production of the state; and
(b) Raise the living standards of the rural population.
The functions of the project shall be to:
(a) prepare and deliver the necessary improved production packages to the farmers and
fishermen;
(b) multiply tested high yielding seed varieties and distribute same to farmers and
fishermen;
(c) engage in on-farm adaptive research;
25
(d) engage in appropriate training for extension staff, farmers and fishermen;
(e) distribute such agro-inputs like fertilizer;
(f) construct access roads, potable water, and repair such damaged facilities; and
(g) engage in any other activity that would aid the development of agriculture in the
state.
Ihimodu (1989) summarized the basic objectives of Agricultural Development
Projects (ADPs) as to increase agricultural productivity and incomes of the farmers in the
project area and thereby increase total food supply and raw materials for the growing
population, and the agro-based industries which will be achieved by providing a package of
essential inputs, and an efficient delivery system through the farm service centres.
26
CHAPTER THREE
ENUGU STATE ENADEP POLICY OBJECTIVES AND ASSESSMENT
3.1 ENADEP Institutional Structure and Implementation Strategies
According to Emehelu (1994), the main implementation strategy of ENADEP
hinges on a programme of extension related services to farmers. Except for seed production
and improvement, ENADEP does not engage in direct food production. Services and
infrastructures are rather provided, while farmers do the actual production.
The key aspects of this approach include:
(i) the provision of reorganized and revitalized crop extension services, and training
system;
(ii) establishment of a programme of On-Farm Adaptive Research (OFAR) to develop
and disseminate new technologies;
(iii) provision of adequate quantities of certified seeds and cassava planting materials for
distribution to farmers;
(iv) development of commercialized and efficient input procurement and distribution
system;
(v) sponsoring and encouraging the processing, storage and marketing of primary farm
produce;
(vi) provision of all weather access roads to agricultural active parts of the state by
rehabilitation/spot improvement, recurrent and routine maintenance of feeder roads;
and
(vii) provision of potable water to rural communities (ENADEP, 1992).
27
Also, according to the Edict establishing ENADEP (Edict, 1991), the administrative
structure of Enugu State Agricultural Development Project is made up of the Agricultural
Development Project Executive Committee (ADPEC), which is headed by the State
Governor. The Agriculture Development Project Executive Committee (ADPEC) approves
the annual work plans and budgets, senior appointments and major procurements (Edict
No.1 of 1992, Section 6(ai) and 7(a-f). Following the ADPEC, is the Project Management
Unit (PMU) headed by Programme Manager. The PMU has the responsibility of
implementing policies laid down by the agricultural Development Project Executive
Committee, and also for the day-to-day administrative control of the programme. Directly
responsible to the Programme Manager and Programme Management Unit (PM/PMU) are
eight sub-programmes namely: Technical, Extension, Commercial, Engineering, Planning,
Monitoring and Evaluation, Human Resources and Development, Finance and
Administration.
The first four sub-programmes are known as operational or core sub-programmes.
These eight sub-programmes carry out the activities of the programme, with respect to
policy implementation, the function and responsibilities of ENADEP are integrated in the
eight sub-programmes, but the core of implementation resides in planning, monitoring and
evaluation, sub-programme, as stated by its functions below:
(i) conducting basic farm inventory surveys as the basic and bench-mark control for
future project impact assessment;
(ii) implementation of an annual field survey programme to identify the projects impact
on target beneficiaries;.
28
(iii) Conducting special surveys on specific/anticipated problems that may occur during
implementation of market price survey, the impact of specific components and the
review of adoption rates;
(iv) Monitoring activities include: the preparation and submission of quarterly reports to
Federal Agriculture Co-coordinating Unit (FACU) which includes preparation of
annual budgets and word-plan based on appraisal estimates amended where
necessary to reflect changes in costs and project policies. (ENADEP Annual Report,
1995)
3.2 ENADEP Policy Implementation and Project Assessment 1991-1995
In practical situation, it is known that implementation becomes more difficult when
a policy is a complex one, especially when implementers are far removed from the policy
making processes. It may become more difficult for the implementation agency to
understand the real intention behind a complex policy, example a policy for agricultural
transformation. Even with the stipulation of goals and provision of resources, it is still
problematic translating policy to action even under the best of circumstances. Resources
may not be the right type, may not be available at the right time or in right combination.
Political leadership may also suddenly switch in their orientation of policy-making without
considering the fact that implementing agency cannot immediately make a switch
corresponding to its structure, orientation and resources available. In such a situation,
argued Egonmwam (2000) a lag is created between policy formulation and ability to
implement.
29
In assessing the implementation of ENADEP policy objectives, the four major
project activities which include the provision of accessible roads, potable water, extension
services and farm inputs were used to assess the project‟s performances over the five years
period, that 1991-1995. This is based on the fact that from between 2001-2005, our project
execution period, there was a lull in ENADEP activities because the World Bank and other
international funding agencies stopped funding ENADEP activities. The World Bank
started funding the agency again from 2002 after the institutionalization of civilian
government. The implementation is that their four cardinal project arrears – provision of
feeder roads, potable water, extension services and farm inputs, have been limited only to
extension services, since 2002.
Therefore, to achieve our stated research objectives, the impact of public policy
implementation, we have to analyze ENADEP performance from 1991-1995, to capture her
performance in their stated four principal objectives. Also, to update our study, ENADEP
performance from 2002-2005 is examined, though their activity is zeroed to extension
services. The use of later statistical data, that is, 2002-2005, is to measure whether there is a
remarkable improvement from 1991-1995 when the World Bank terminated ENADEP
funding, and from 2002 when international funding resumed.
3.2.1 Provision of Feeder Roads to Farming Community
ENADEP mapped out three project activities to provide feeder roads to farming
communities. These are (a) rehabilitation/spot improvement of feeder roads; (b) recurrent
maintenance of feeder roads; and (c) routine maintenance of feeder roads. According to
ENADEP Staff Appraisal Report (SAR) 1995, the project of road rehabilitation/spot
30
improvement achieved 55.10 per cent, by working on 2400km rural feeder roads between
1991-1994 in three project sites spread among the three senatorial zones of Enugu State;
namely: Enugu zone at Nkanu, Awgu zone at Mgbowo and Nsukka zone at Uzo-Uwani. On
recurrent maintenance of feeder roads in rural areas, it achieved 89.20 per cent of the Staff
Appraisal Report (SAR) target of 1600km representing 1426km (ENADEP, 1995).
In routine maintenance, the ENADEP annual report of 1995 revealed that a total of
4000km was targeted, while 1450km was achieved, representing 36.25 per cent, thus, the
project performed poorly in routine maintenance. This may have resulted to inaccessibility
to rural communities especially during the rainy seasons, which have other implications for
the farmers, such as increase in transport fare. This invariably affected marketing of
agricultural products, increase in the cost of food items in the urban centers and the general
reduction in investment and production of bulky agricultural products, and loss of
perishable agricultural products on transit.
Though, the achievement on recurrent maintenance of feeder roads between 1991-
1994 was 89.20 per cent, the subsequent years achievement levels were not encouraging,
for instance, in the year 1994, out of the SAR target of 400km, none was achieved. This
poor performance was also fairly noticed in early 1992 when the project performance
dropped significantly from exceeding SAR target to achieving only 43.7 per cent of the
SAR target of 400km representing 174.8km (ENADEP Annual Report, 1995) (see Table 1).
31
Table 3.1: Provision of Accessible Roads (all in km)
Project Activity Year SAR
Target
Achieved Difference %
Achieved
% Unachieved
Rehabilitation and
spot improvement
1991 600.0 406.0 194.0 67.7 32.3
1992 600.0 328.0 272.0 54.7 45.3
1993 600.0 293.0 307.0 48.8 51.2
1994 600.0 295.0 305.0 49.2 50.8
Total 2400.00 1322.00 1078.00 55.1 44.9
Recurrent
Maintenance
(Mechnical/Manual)
1991 400.0 1044.8 -644.8 261.2 Excess Ach. 161.2
1992 400.0 174.8 225.5 43.7 56.3
1993 400.0 206.8 193.2 51.7 48.3
1994 400.0 - 400.0 00.0 100
Total 1600.00 1426.4 173.4 89.20 10.80
Routine
Maintenance
1991 1000.0 680.0 320.0 68.0 32.0
1992 1000.0 200.0 800.0 20.0 80.0
1993 1000.0 570.0 430.0 57.0 43.0
1994 1000.0 - 1000.0 00.0 100.0
Total 4000.00 1450.0 2550.0 36.25 63.75
Source: Field Survey, 1995 and Project Completion Report, 1995
However, the sharp drop in performance after attaining an enviable achievement
height proved the project inconsistence in her efforts towards achieving the laudable
objectives.
32
The careful study of the 1995 ENADEP Annual Report shows that the SAR target
for each of the project activity geared towards providing all-weather access roads to achieve
farming rural communities evenly spread throughout the period of study. For
rehabilitation/spot improvement, it was a total of 240km spread out of four years target; for
the recurrent maintenance, it was 1600km spread out evenly making an average of 400km
SAR target, while for routine maintenance, it was 400km, spread out evenly with each year
having 1000km SAR target (ENADEP, 1995).
The ENADEP project performance between 1991-1994 was high because there was
a change in government from military to civilian government, which resulted to the
appointment of new project manager and the sub-programme heads who were newly
appointed, became up and doing to prove their competences for the new offices and higher
responsibilities which they assumed. It was the zeal to achieve that the project even
exceeded the SAR target in recurrent maintenance of roads in 1994. Furthermore, all the
vehicles were very much in good condition. Also, all the funding agencies, state, federal
and World Bank contributed even above the SAR targets.
For the poor performance between 1996 to early 1999 in the provision of accessible
feeder roads to the rural farming communities was due to breakdown of most of the
vehicles used by the Engineering Services sub-programme to execute her project activities
especially the bull-dozers, graders, etc. This issue was complicated by the inability of the
sub-programmes to provide for the purchase of the spare parts since they were costly. This
led to complete abandonment of these useful vehicles (ENADEP Annual Report, 1995). To
add to these, was the complete shortfall between the amount budgeted and the amount
received by ENADEP management.
33
3.2.2 Provision of Potable Water to Rural Farming Communities of Enugu State
In order to realize the above objectives, the project designed five different activities;
namely:
(a) the construction of new boreholes;
(b) the rehabilitation of abandoned/disused/uncompleted boreholes;
(c) the spring water development/modernization;
(d) the rain water harvesting (compound water reservoirs); and
(e) the hand-dug wells with pump.
A total of fifty-two (52) new boreholes were targeted to be constructed during the
period of study – 1991-1995, but none was achieved, thus the project had a zero percent
achievement in the project activity (see table 2);
Table 3.2: Rural Water/Potable Water Supply
S/N Project Activity Year SAR
Target
Achieved Difference % Achieved % Unachieved
1 Construction of new
boreholes
1991 - - - - -
1992 8 - 8 0 100
1993 22 - 22 0 100
1994 22 - 22 0 100
Total 52 0 52 0 100
2 Rehabilitation of
existing/abandoned/disused
boreholes
1991 - - - - -
1992 8 7 1 87.5 12.5
1993 8 2 6 25 75
1994 16 3 13 18.75 81.25
Total 32 12 20 43.75 56.25
3 Spring water
development/modernization
1991 - - - - -
1992 - - - - -
1993 8 3 5 37.5 62.5
1994 12 01 11 08.3 91.7
Total 20 04 16 22.96 77.1
4 Rain water harvesting
(impounded water reservoir)
1991 - - - - -
1992 2 - 2 0 100
1993 1 - 1 0 100
1994 3 - 3 0 100
Total 6 0 6 0 100
5 Hand-dug wells with pumps 1991 - - - - -
1992 05 - 5 0 100
1993 55 43 12 78.2 21.8
1994 08 - 8 0 200
Total 68 43 25 25.1 72.9
Source: Field Survey, 1995 and ENADEP Project Completion Report, 1995.
34
The reason for the zero per cent achievement in this project activity was that the
management considered rehabilitation of the existing boreholes more important than
embarking on construction of new ones. This is because; it was cheaper and more attainable
than starting with new one. Moreover, the project management was having problems with
the choice and suitability of the community to be provided with the new boreholes without
conflicting with the selected communities to benefit from the Enugu State Rural Water
Scheme World Bank Assisted (ENADEP, 1995).
In the 1995 ENADEP Annual Report, the project rehabilitated twelve (12) boreholes
out of SAR target of 32 (thirty-two) in Aninri and Oji River thus achieving 43.75 percent of
the SAR target during the period under study. The low performance in this project area was
attributed to rising cost of necessary materials due to inflation and politicization of
ENADEP‟s project activities by both the military administrators and civilian government.
Also, the report revealed that between 1991-1994, only four (4) natural spring water
systems were developed/modernized in Aninri and Oji-River out of SAR target of twenty
(20) representing 22.9 per cent of SAR target. For rain water harvesting (impounded water
reservoirs) project activity, the project achieved none out of the SAR target of six (6),
although two (2) of the rain water harvesting projects was started during the period. They
are sited at Nkwo Neke in Isi-Uzo Local Government Area of Nsukka Zone and Ibagwa
Nike in Enugu North Local Government Area of Enugu Zone. In the area of wells, a total of
forty-three (43) wells with pumps as against 68 SAR target was achieved representing 63.2
per cent of total target of the hand-dug wells project activity of ENADEP.
Generally, the project performed fairly well in two of her rural water supply project
activities which were those of rehabilitation of disused/abandoned boreholes, and hand-dug
35
wells with pumps, but performed very poorly in both spring water development project
activity and construction of new boreholes and rain water harvesting projects.
3.2.3 Provision of Extension Services to Farmers
The study shows that out of the World Bank SAR target of 332 Extension Agents,
ENADEP was able to have in place 180 representing 54.22 per cent. The project also
achieved 1:2770 Extension Agent/Farm Families ratio out of SAR target of 1:1500
representing 54:15 per cent (ENADEP, 1995). The report also indicated that of the 180
Extension Agents, 75 or 41:67 per cent of them were resident in their various circles
scattered all around the state, while 58:33 per cent visit their circles on scheduled days and
time with the contact farmers. ENADEP transferred ten (10) relevant agricultural
technologies to farmers of the state (see Table 3).
Table 3.3: Extension Services
S/N Technology Transferred SAR Target Achieved % Achieved % Unachieved
1 Fertilizer Application 498621
Farming
families
332431 66.67 33.33
2 Use of improved
seeds/seedlings
-do- 290846 58.33 41.67
3 Use of improved cassava
cutting
-do- 254297 51l.00 49.00
4 Homestead fish pond
management
-do- 145448 29.17 70.83
5 Yam/maize/cassava/melon
Alt. row planting
-do- 249311 50.00 50.00
6 Small ruminant (rabbit)
production
-do- 95586 19.17 80.83
7 Upland rice production -do- 21194 42.50 57.50
8 Dry season vegetable
production
-do- 149586 30.00 70.00
9 Women in agriculture
technologies (WIA)
-do- 83120 16.87 83.33
10 Yam minsett production -do- 208773 41.87 58.13
Mean Performance 40.54 59.46
Source: Field Survey, 1995 and Project Completion Report, 1995.
36
The fertilizer application technology was transferred to 332,431 farm families as
against SAR target of 498,621 farm families. This gave 66.67 percentage achievements.
The achievement in the transfer of fertilizer application technology is the highest compared
to any other technology of the project (see table 3 above).
The use of improved seeds/seedlings technology of ENADEP was fairly
satisfactorily transferred to the farm families of the state following the achievement of
290,846 or 58.33 per cent of the SAR target of 498,621 who received and used effectively
the transferred technology. For the use of improved cassava cuttings to increase production
stable food of the state, the project achieved 254,297 or 51.0 per cent of the SAR target of
498,621 farm families. This is poor having in mind that cassava is such an important crop in
the state.
For the homestead fish pond management technology geared towards increasing
protein intake, the project achieved 145,448 or 29.17 percent. The performance was poor.
In small ruminant (Rabbit) production technology, the project achieved 95,586 or 19.17 per
cent of the SAR target of 498,621 of the farm families – this was also a very poor
achievement.
In yam/ maize/ cassava/ melon/ alternative raw planting technology, a total of
249,311 or 50.0 per cent of the SAR target of 498,621 farm families. The aim of the
technology was to improve soil fertility even when the farm land is under continuous
cropping; and providing for the best soil management and varietal crop production, thus
helping out in the light of present pressure on the available arable farm land. For upland
rice production technology, the project achieved 209.421 or 42 per cent of the SAR target
of 498,621 farm families. This means that rice production in the state took place in non-
37
hydro orphic soil. This has resulted in the increased proportion of arable land put into rice
production, thereby making areas of land not formally suitable for rice production become
suitable with the introduction of upland rice technology. Thus, the dream to have ample
supply of vegetables to the growing population all year round, as the years of study, was not
achieved, as there was a decline to the availability of these produce during dry season,
which in turn leads to increase in the cost of vegetable resulting in continuous unbalanced
diet for the populace.
The table also reveals that the provision of high yielding materials (seeds) in yam
production through the transfer of yam minisett production technology was made fairly
realistic by the Extension service sub-programme of ENADEP by achieving 208.773 or
41.87 per cent of the SAR target of 498,621 farm families. However, from the table and
analysis, the extension service of the agency, had a mean performance of 40.54 per cent,
that is, the percentage of achievement, while 59.46 per cent was its unachieved target.
3.2.4 Provision of Farm Inputs to Farmers
The availability of necessary farm inputs at affordable prices is a bench-mark for
increased agricultural productivity. Recognizing this fact, ENADEP includes the provision
of farm inputs to farmers at affordable prices as one of their laudable objectives. These farm
inputs include:
(i) assorted fertilizers;
(ii) assorted insecticides
(iii) assorted herbicides; and
(iv) assorted varieties of seeds
38
Table 3.4: Farm Input Procurement and Distribution
1991 1992 1993
Farm Input Unit Target Achved Diff. Achved Target Achved Diff. Achved Target Achved Diff.
Fertilizer MT 90,000 19,486 70,514 21.70 31,650 13,633 18,017 43.07 31,650 89,501 22,699.83
Insecticides Kg
MT
2,100
17.40
903.
6.06
1197
11.34
43.00
34.80
7,800
39.39
1,969
3.75
5831
35.64
25.24
9.52
7,800
12.00
699.00
1.80
7101.00
10.2
Insecticides Kg 2,100
17.40
903.
6.06
1197
11.34
43.00
34.80
7,800
39.39
1,969
3.75
5831
35.64
25.24
9.52
7,800
12.00
699.00
1.80
7101.00
10.2
Seeds MT 37.00 12.85 24.15 34.73 55.00 12.95 42.05 23.55 18.00 4.40 13.6
Source: Field Survey, 1995 and ENADEP Project Completion
MT = Metric Tonnes
Kg = Kilogrammes
From 2001 – 2003, the total quantity of fertilizer targeted was 153,300 MT, out of
which 42069.1 MT or 27.44 percent was achieved.
The table also reveals that a total of 49,200 of liquid insecticides were targeted
while 29,640kg or 60.24 percentages was achieved. It also shows that a total of 134.79 MT
of sachets of insecticides was targeted, out of which 61.35MT or 45.52 percent was
achieved. For the herbicides, a total SAR target of 77300 litres of liquid herbicides, 7,373
litres or 9.45 percent was achieved but 11,861 or 49.71 percent was achieved during the
period. For the provision of improved seeds, it is revealed that a total of 31.84MT or 25.26
percent was achieved out of a total target of 126.05MT during the period studied.
In 1994, no fertilizer was provided by the project. According to ENADEP 1994 and
1995 Reports, the procurement and distribution of fertilizer was taken away from the
project by the then Enugu State Government under the leadership of Navy Captain Temi
Ejor and a new department known as the fertilizer procurement and distribution centre was
created. The reason, according to government was to facilitate the procurement and
distribution of fertilizer, but as the study uncovered, it was because of the political and
39
economic role of fertilizer in the state in particular, and in order to gain the support of rural
farmers by the military. It also, showed that the removal of distribution of fertilizer from
ENADEP made the commodity scarce and exorbitant to the farmers (Onyeke, 1996). Also,
within the period, improved cassava cutting and the agro chemicals especially herbicides
were very highly inadequate, and where available, they were not made to reach the rural
farmers. This actually affected the food production in the State within this period.
In summary, Enugu State Agricultural Development Projects was allocated a total
sum of US $7,984m (N78.8m equivalent). At the end of December, 1994 when funding of
MSADP-1 projects came to a close, ENADEP‟s total loan volume was placed at
N185,515M (US $8.42M). The loan was closed formerly in June 1995, instead of June,
1994 and the last disbursement to the project was made in September, 1994 (ENADAP
Implementation Completion Review (ICR) 1995). ENADEPs overall objectives as
implemented under the MSADP 1 loan, was to raise the standard of living of 498,000 rural
farmer families, in the project area through increased income from higher agricultural
productivity. Thus, in over opinion, ENADEP project management and implementation in
general judged from the foregoing seems to have a significant statistics reviewed ENADEP
have in various projects objectives failed to Achieve her targets.
3.3 ENADEP Policy Implementation and Project Assessment 2002-2005
Following the end of MSADP- in 1995, there was a need for a redesigning of
ENADEP‟s funding and programmes. Inline with the above, Enugu State ADP (ENADEP)
is currently engaged in the following activities:
(i) Root and Tuber Expansion Programme;
40
(ii) National Special Programme on Food Security (NSPFS);
(iii) International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA) Cassava Mosaic Disease
(CMD) – Pre-emptive programme;
(iv) Presidential Initiative on Cassava and Rice Production (R-BOX);
(v) FGN/Chinese South-South Cooperation Programme;
(vi) Sasakawa Global 2000 Management Training Plot (MTP) on Maize;
(vii) Community Seed Multiplication Programme;
(viii) Fadama III
(ix) Micro-Credit, linking farmers to market and credit (Nwodo, 2006).
However, for our project assessment, we shall examine one out of the nine
programmes listed above. The National Special Programme on Food Security (NSPFS) is
our focal point, because the food security programme is a cardinal agriculture project of the
Obasanjo government. Also, this project has a striking resemblance with ENADEP
MSADP-1 that ended in 1995.
The National Special Programme on Food Security
The National Special Programme on Food Security (NSPFS) was initiated by the
FGN and the FAO (Food and Agricultural Organization) as a means of ensuring food
security for the nation. It is being implemented also through ENADEP. It commenced in
Enugu State in March 2002. The state was selected as one of the participating states on pilot
basis which ended in December 2005. Three sites were selected, one in each senatorial
zones of the state: Amagunze in Nkanu East L.G.A., Nenwe in Aninri L.G.A. and Adani in
Uzo Uwani L.G.A. the Sites were empowered with an average of N4m yearly excluding
other productive infrastructure such as rice and cassava mills.
41
Among the objectives of NSPFS in Nigeria are to:
(i) assist farmers in achieving their potential for increasing output and productivity and
consequently their incomes on sustainable basis;
(ii) strengthen the effectiveness of research and extension services in bringing
technology and new farming practices developed by research institutes to farmers
and ensuring greater relevance of research to the practical problems faced by small
farmers;
(iii) complement and refine the on-going efforts of government in the promotion of
simple technologies for self-sufficiency and surplus production in small-scale rain-
fed irrigated farming.
(iv) Train and educate farmers in the effective utilization of available land, water and
other resources and facilities to produce food and create employment on sustainable
basis, etc (ICR, March 2006).
3.3.1 Rain-fed Crops Production
For the period 2002/2003 to 2004/2005, the following rain-fed crop modules were
implemented: cassava, yam, maize, rice and vegetable in the three project sites of Adani,
Amagunze and Nenwe. In Amagunze, cassava production 2002/2003 35 ha targeted, 45.5
hectares was achieved. It was 102 hectares out of 70 ha targeted in 2004/2005. A total of
210.5 hectares out of 175 ha targeted or 120.3 per cent was achieved during the period. The
yield for cassava was 819.00kg in 2002/2003 out o f700,000kg targeted in 2002/2003,
1,260,000kg out of 1,400,000 targeted in 2003/2004 and 1,575,000kg out of 1,400,000
42
targeted in 2004/2005. A total of 3,654,000kg out of 3,500,000kg or an increase of 4.4 per
cent was achieved during the period.
Rice is a major staple food cultivated at Adani. The farm settlement was established
by the former Eastern Nigerian Government and occupies about 300,000 hectares, though
most of the canals are not functional presently. In 2002/2003, out of 4 hectares targeted, 4
hectares was achieved, 20 hectares out of 20 hectares targeted was achieved in 2003/2004,
while 30 hectares targeted in2004/2005 was achieved. Yield for rice was on the average
4.0MT ha. The overall achievement was 189,000kg out of 132,000kg or 143.2 percent
(ENADEP Project Implementation Completion Report, 1996).
3.3.2 Livestock Production
The major livestock farm productions are poultry, small ruminants, and fisheries. In
the years under study, 6,500 birds (broilers and layers) were targeted, while 3,500 was
achieved in the three sites. The argument for poor performance was due to the Gumboro
disease which inflicted heavy mortality on the birds and also the late release of funds. In the
same period, 32,100 crate of eggs were targeted while 24,879 was achieved. The egg
production was not very fascinating due to poor feeding of layers at this site by the farmers
and poor poultry vaccination. Also, there was tremendous achievement of set target, in the
area of small ruminants, sheep and goats in all the three sites. Incremental for small
ruminants was 1016 out o 334 targeted since inception (ICR, 2006).
43
3.4 ENADEP Project Funding, Effects and Outcomes
According to ENADEP Implementation Completion Report (2006), there was a
modest achievement made during the period of study, which can be measured by the
positive impact the programmes has made on the rural farmers. Due to easy access to credit,
farmers have increased their hectarage for cassava from 77ha in 2002/2003 to 273ha in
2004/2005. Yield for cassava has also increased from 1,200,00 MT in 2002/2003 to
2,410,000 MT in 2003/2004. About 55 per cent of the farmers reported increase in income
from 25 to 50 per cent due to the service of ENADEP extension officers.
At the inception of the programme, farmers resorted to the traditional methods of
weeding. The awareness created on the importance of use of herbicides as wee control has
reduced both labour and time devoted to weeding. This invariably contributed to the good
health of farmers during the period. In summary, the NSPFS has provided enabling
infrastructure such as interest free loan, processing machines and group management
enterprises. Implementation experience has shown that greater involvement of NSPFS
beneficiaries/communities in project planning and execution contributed in a good measure
to ensure effective project implementation and sustainability (ENADEP Report, 2006).
We cannot however, rely on the above ENADEP 2006 report as a true measure of
assessing the effectiveness of ENADEP as there were not much activities during the project
execution period 2001-2012 principally due to poor funding and negligence of ENADEP
programmes by the then military administrators. Nevertheless, it ahs given insight into what
ought to be the position taking cognizance of our assessments of ENADEP activities from
1991-2005 and 2002-2006 when ENADEP was in full swing in their project activities.
44
CHAPTER FOUR
ENADEP POLICY IMPLEMENTATION AND OPERATIONAL PROBLEMS
4.1 ENADEP Policy Implementation and Effectiveness
Effectiveness means the level of attainment or achievement of policy programme, or
organizational goals and objectives. Thus, effectives measures how much of goals and
objectives are achieved (Ikelegbe, 1996). It answers the question of whether stated intention
planned or projected output and objectives are achieved or not. This means that the activity
is directed at attaining stated goals. An efficient organization or programme may therefore
be ineffective because; its activities or operations though efficient are not sufficiently
directed at goals, and consequently are not achieving target goals. Effectiveness emphasizes
the outcome or end product of programmes of an organization.
Robert Levine (1972) noted that the main trouble with public policy impact has
been the difficulties of administration (implementation). Implementation is in fact a major
source of problems of public policies. The fate of many public policy programme has been
that of poor, callous and haphazard implementation and abandonment. Programmes are
replete with shortfalls in implementation, inability to produce demonstrable outputs and
gaps between objectives and outcomes (Fester, 1980; Dye, 1998).
Implementation depends, in a large extent, on a set of bureaucratic processes.
Implementation also involves a highly politicized set of interactions and interrelationships
on the part of many actors (Ripley and Franklin, 1982); and according to D. S. Van Meter
and C. E. Vantlor (1975), implementation is the continuation of politics by other means.
Policy-making does not terminate with the passage of a law and its signing, but shifts to the
45
bureaucracy-departments, agencies or branch of the executive, that performs its task of
implementation.
The fundamental importance of the implementation process can be fond in terms of
the linkage function that it performs. At the policy process level, implementation impact
means the degree to which the goal and policy or programme is attained. At the demand
response system level, implementation impact means the degree to which policy contributes
and responds to demands.
Sometimes, the nature of a programme conception and implementation generates a
need to set up new structures or agencies for their implementation outside existing
government departments or ministries. The enthusiasm, inspiration, momentum, capacities
and quick substantive results which are required in the policy‟s implementation may not be
obtainable in the existing government agencies. Thus, special units or departments may be
established within existing governmental structures or entire new structures may be
established within existing governmental structures, or entire new structures may be set up,
and this has been the case of Agricultural Development Projects in Nigeria.
The Edict No. 1 of 1992, establishing the ENADEP, under section 6, constituted an
execution committee known as Agricultural Project Executive Committee (ADPEC),
consisting of twelve members, with the Governor as the Chairman Section 7(a-f). Specified
Executive Committee (ADPEC) functions as follows:
(i) formulate financial and administrative policy and coordinate other matters relating
to the project;
(ii) approve the annual target, work plan and procurement plan of the project;
(iii) ensure adequate arrangement for funding the project;
46
(iv) approve the appointment, promotion and discipline of senior staff;
(v) approve the award of all contracts estimated to cost an amount above US $ 25,000
or equivalent in naira above, provided that all such contracts estimated to an amount
above 25,000 or equivalent to be awarded in international competitive bidding shall
be received and recommended by Enugu State ADP Tenders Committee.
(vi) Authorize the establishment in ADPMU (Agricultural Development Project
Management Unit) of an internal tenders committee to be responsible for the review
and approval of all contracts estimated to cost an amount equivalent to US$ 25,000
or less, being contracts awarded on the basis of local or international competitive
bidding.
The Edict empowers the Governor to give the Executive Committee directives of a
general or specific character as to the exercise and performance of its functions, and the
Executive Committee is bound to give effect to such directives (section 9). The Governor
also have the powers under section 13 of the Edict to appoint the project manager after
clearance by the Federal Agricultural Coordinating Unit (FACU) and the World Bank. The
project managers is the Chief Executive of the project (ENADEP) and is in charge of day-
to-day running of the project, and have the ultimate responsibility for carrying out the
policies and decisions of the executive committee in accordance with the provisions of the
Edict.
The actual implementation of project policies and objectives rest on the Agricultural
Development Project Management Unit (ADPMU), which consists of project manager
(who is the Chief Executive/ Chairman), Chief Technical Officer, Chief Extension Officer,
Chief Engineer, Chief Commercial Officer, Financial Controller, Chief Planning,
47
Monitoring and Evaluation Officer, Chief Manpower Development, and Training Officer.
The primary functions of the management unit in the execution of the projects are:
(a) the implementation of agricultural development projects; and
(b) the preparation of work programmes and annual budget for approval by the
executive committee (section II (ii) (a).
According to ENADEP Annual Report of 1992, the administrative structure of
Enugu State ADP is made up of the ADPEC, which is headed by the Governor. The
Project management Unit (PMU) headed by the Project manager, and has the duty of
implementing policies laid down by the ADPEC and for day-to-day administrative control
of the programme. Directly responsible to the Programme Manager and the Programme
Management Unit (PM/PMU) are eight sub-programmes namely: Technical; Extension;
Commercial; Engineering; Planning; Monitoring and Evaluation; Human Resources; and
Development; Finance and Administration. The first four sub-programmes are known as
operational or core sub-programmes, and their functions or activities are state below:
(a) The Technical Service Sub-Programme;
(i) To develop technologies carry out On-Farm Trial for the purpose of adopting the
relevant technologies that are both technically efficient and of economic value to
farmers conditions and environment;
(ii) To multiply improved high quality seeds for distribution to farmers with the
ultimate aim of increasing yield, farm output, farm income and standard of living;
(iii) To develop small-scale fishery aimed at improving the protein content of food for
the rural household;
48
(iv) To develop technologies for livestock production systems for small-scale livestock
holders aimed at improving the protein intake of rural households;
(v) Helps to tackle the problem of desertification, erosion and degradation facing some
parts of the state;
(vi) To raise seedlings of three species (fruit and non-fruit trees) on the advice of the
Extension Service Sub-programme who will see the recommended Agro-Forestry
messages to farmers and also assist farmers in the distribution of the seedlings.
(b) Engineering Sub-programme:
(i) Provision of all-weather accessible roads to farm services and input distribution
centres with more emphasis on agriculturally active communities of the state;
(ii) Building a permanent capacity for road maintenance in all the local government
areas of the state;
(iii) Strengthening the nation‟s institutional capacity for the preparation, implementation,
monitoring and execution of feeder road programmes;
(iv) Provision of low cost potable water supply schemes to the farming communities of
the state through rehabilitation of existing boreholes and construction of new ones,
spring water development, hand-dug wells, and rain water harvesting schemes;
(v) Construction of new building, rehabilitation and maintenance of existing buildings
for Enugu State Agricultural Development Project (ENADEP); and
(vi) Maintenance and repair of vehicles, plants and equipment for carrying out the
programme activities.
49
(c) Commercial Services Sub-programme
(i) Efficient procurement, distribution and sale of farm inputs such as fertilizer, agro-
chemicals, improved seeds and cuttings, and seedlings.
(d) Extension Services Sub-programme:
(i) Establishment of a well-organized, disciplined, and supported performance oriented
extension service capable of innovating the small-holder farmers (498,621 farming
families) to adopt relevant technologies with a view to achieving significant
increases in food production and income (ENADEP, 1994);
(ii) To educate rural Women in Agriculture (WIA) on the areas of refined processing of
cassava tubers to eliminate hydrogen cyanide, processing of soybeans into various
nutrition food recipes.
The question is how effective is the implementation unit of ENADEP? Have
ENADEP achievements within the period of study approximated her set goals or
objectives? That is, the policy implementation process or cycle; from inputs (amount, skills,
staffing, experience, physical facilities); to processes (tasks, activities, strategies, i.e. what
is done); to outputs (what programmes actually produce-goods, products, services), and
outcomes (the differences in a consumer‟s life or the changes to society as the result of
output). There is a hierarchy of outcomes, some changes are more immediate, others are
more significant and/or take longer to manifest.
From our statistical data in chapter three, table 1, in the area of road rehabilitation
and spot improvement, the project had the rehabilitation of 2400.00 kilometer (km roads as
its target, from 1991-1994, but rehabilitated 1322.00km, having a difference of 1078, that
is, it had 55.1 per cent achievement of goals, and 44.9 per cent unachieved goals. On
50
recurrent maintenance, ENADEP achieved 89.20 per cent unachieved goals; while in
routine maintenance, it achieved 36.25 per cent of her target and 63.75 per cent unachieved
target. In provision of accessible feeder roads, the average of her total targets is 60.18 per
cent goal achievement and 39.82 unachieved target.
In the area of rural water supply/potable water supply. Construction of new
boreholes, from 1991-1994, had a total of 52 boreholes as target, and constructed none, thus
achieved 0 per cent, and 100 per cent unachieved. Rehabilitation of
existing/abandoned/discussed boreholes had 43.75 per cent goal achievement and 56.25 per
cent unachieved. Spring water development/modernization was 22.96 per cent achieved
goals and 77.1 per cent unachieved. Hand-dug wells with pumps had 25.1 per cent goals
achievement and 73.9 per cent unachieved. On the average, the total achievement in
provision of rural water/potable water supply is 18.36 per cent achievement and 81.45 per
cent unachieved goals.
For the extension services as shown in Table 3, chapter three, there were ten
extension service provisions, and the mean performance shows 40.54 per cent goal
achievement, and 59.46 per cent unachieved objectives.
In the provision of farm inputs such as fertilizers, insecticides, herbicides and
improved seedlings to farm families, the average of the total farm inputs procurement and
distribution was 36.28 goal achievements against 63.75 unachieved. On the breakdown,
153300.00 Metric Tones (MT) was the target, 42069.17 MT (i.e. 27.44 per cent) was
achieved, while the difference is 11230.83MT (72.56 per cent) unachieved. The total of
49200.00 kg was the target for insecticides, 29640.00 kg (60.24 per cent) achievement and
19560.00 (39.76 per cent) unachieved. The herbicides, total of 77300 liters was targeted,
51
7373.00 liters (9.54 per cent) was achieved, while 69927.00 liter (90.46 per cent)
unachieved goal. For the seeds, the target was 126.05 MT, 31.84 MT (25.26 per cent)
achievement and 94.21 MT (74.74 per cent) unachieved goal.
Implicit in this decision making as integral systems of systems approach, is a causal
model of the policy process, from inputs to outcomes, and varying degrees of effectiveness,
efficiency, equity, legitimacy and project implementation (Bridgman and Davies, 1998).
The effectiveness or efficiency of ENADEP depends to a reasonable degree on the input to
the system. Input in terms of dollars, staffing, skills, and experience and physical facilities.
Table 4.1: Funding by the various agencies from 1991-1994 (all amount in Naira)
1991 1992 1993 1994
Source SAR
Estimate
SAR
Actual
DIFF %
DIFF
SAR
Estimate
SAR
Actual
DIFF %
DIFF
SAR
Estimate
SAR
Actual
DIFF %
DIFF
SAR
Estimate
SAR
Actual
DIFF %
DIFF
ENSG 9,048 13,265 +4,417 46.6 2,070 11,898 +9,828 474.8 13,078 13,104 +26 0.2 19,416 10,647 -8,769 45.2
FGN 1,820 2,500 +.680 37.4 300 1,450 +1,150 383.3 3,514 4,090 +576 16.4 5,571 5,431 -140 2.5
IIBRD 21,840 25,329 +3,489 16.0 56,000 7,444 +20,444 36.5 81,100 71,600 -9,500 11.7 55,833 24,232 -31,601 56.6
IFAD 103,000 1,793 -101,29 .3 - 3,137 +3137 100 - - - - - - - -
Total 135,708 42,887 92,821 - 58,370 92,929 +28,285 - 97,692 88,794 8,898 - 80,820 40,310 -40,510 -
AVER
AGE
33,927 107,218 30.3 - 19,456.7 23,232.3 3,071.3 - 32,564 29,598 2,966 - 26,940 13,436.7 `13,503.3 -
Source: *Enugu State Agricultural Development Project Staff Appraisal Report (SAR)
showing funding by the various Agencies for 1991-1994 (all amount in Naira).
*Enugu State Agricultural Development Project Annual Report 1993
*ENADEP Project Completion Report 1995.
52
Table 4.2: ENADEP Staff Appraisal Report (SAR) showing total SAR Estimate and
SAR Actual from the various funding Agencies for 1991-1994 (all amount in Million
Naira).
SOURCE TOTAL SAR
ESTIMATE
TOTAL SAR
ACTUAL
TOTAL
DIFFERENCE
ENSG 43,612 48,914 +5,302
FGN 11,205 13,471 +2,266
IBRD 214,773 197,605 -17,168
IFAD 103,000 4,930 -96,070
TOTAL 372,590 264,920 107,670
AVERAGE 112,887.7 76,988.8 35,898.9
From table 5 and 6 above, it could be observed that the International Bank for
Reconstruction and Development (IBRD) provided the highest amount of money for the
period, while the highest performance in the year was recorded against the International
Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD). Also observed from the tables was the fact that
none of the funding agencies was able to meet with the Staff Appraisal Report (SAR)
estimates for the year, 1994. The total amount of money estimated by the SAR from the
various funding agencies was N372,590,000 million through the period of 1991-1994,
while the sum of N264,920,000 million was actualized. This gave a shortfall of
N107,670,000. The sum actualized represents 71.10 per cent of the total SAR estimates
(ENADEP Annual Report, 1995).
It is important to note that the total amount realized from each of the funding
agencies was N48,914,000; N13,471,000; N197,605,000; and N4,930,000 for ENSG, FGN,
IBRD and IFAD for each of the funding agencies stood at N5,302,000 above the SAR the
SAR estimated for the Federal Government (ENSG), N2,266,000 above the SAR estimated
fro the Federal Government of Nigeria (FGN); N17,168,000 below the SAR estimated for
53
the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD), and N98,070,000
below the SAR estimates for the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFD).
The differences represented in percentages are 4.92 per cent over target, 214 per cent over
target, 15.95 per cent below target and 95.21 per cent below target for ENSG, FGN, IBRD
and IFAD respectively.
The tables also revealed that the total sum of World Bank Agricultural Loan
actualized during the period 1991-1994 was N202,535,000 made up of N197,605,000 and
N4,930,000 from IBRD and IFAD respectively. The counterpart fund from Enugu State
Government and Federal Government of Nigeria stood at N62,385,000, thus, exceeding the
SAR estimates to the tune of N7,567,000. Targential to the above, none of the funding
agencies met their SAR estimates in 1994. To juxtapose the performance or achievement of
ENADEP with the total amount realized to the project, we make the following inference on
the effectiveness of policy implementation in ENADEP.
The first cardinal objective of ENADEP is the provision of and maintenance of
feeder roads, which comprised – road rehabilitation and spot improvement, recurrent
maintenance; and routine maintenance of 600km, 400km and 1000km respectively. This
was the SAR target for the year 1991. According to the 1995 Project Completion Report,
406km (67.7 per cent) was achieved for rehabilitation and spot improvement and 694km
(32.3 per cent) was the difference; on recurrent maintenance 400km was SAR target, but
1044.8km was achieved, having an excess achievement of 161.2 per cent; and for routine
maintenance, 100km was SAR target, 680km (68 per cent) achieved while 320km (32 per
cent) was unachieved. On the area of rural water/potable water supply, which is subdivided
into boreholes rehabilitation, spring water development/modernization, rainwater
54
harvesting and hand-dug wells with pumps, there was a zero achievement in 1991, even
though there was no SAR target. The farm input procurement and distribution, which has
fertilizers (target 90,000MT/achieved 19,486MT); Insecticides (target 17.40MT/achiever
903MT); Herbicides (target 2,500 liters/688 liters achieved) and seeds (37MT
target/12.85MT achieved). Thus, on the average for 1991, the percentage achievement was
126.95 per cent, while 273.05 per cent was unachieved.
In relation to the input, all the funding agencies in 1991-ENSG, FGN, and IBRD
exceeded SAR fund targets, except IFAD (see table 1). Also, the World Bank SAR target of
332 Extension Agents, ENADEP provided 180 representing, 54.22 per cent. Of the 180
Extension Agents, 75 or 41.67 per cent were resident in their various farm circles, while
58.33 per cent visit their circles on scheduled days and time with contact farmers. Also, in
the year 1992, ENADEP performance was abysmal in their four project areas, especially in
potable water supply and road provision, even though all the funding agencies put together
provided an excess of N28,285.000 million as against SAR target of N58,370.000 million.
Using the input-output analysis, it becomes obvious that policy implementation
process of ENADEP was not effective, their achievement fact sheet fell below SAR target
throughout the period of study, even though, funds and extension agents were provided.
There was post policy implementation. In practice, policy process and input-output are not
separate, “the test of a good decision is not so much that it achieves known objectives, but
rather that people agree with the process by which it was reached” (Ham and HIl, 1984).
The ENADEP policy implementation and making process is more of a directive from the
Governor, down to the Executive Committee (the Governor is the Chairman), and to the
Project Manager appointed by the Governor.
55
It is important to note that the actualized sum of money from the funding agencies
was not released directly to ENADEP, but was deposited in consolidated account of the
state, controlled by the Governor. Findings indicate that there was delay in release of fund
of the project (Nwodo, 2006). Bureaucracy in government activities, and bad political and
economic situation delayed release of fund by the state and federal governments. The late
release of the counterpart funds was found to have affected directly the release of World
Bank Agricultural Loan since it was a necessary contractual condition for World Bank to
sign and subsequently release loan to borrow nations.
4.2 Operational Problems of Enugu State ENADEP
(1) The Management Problems of ENADEP
The appointment of the State Governor as a member of the ADPEC and as its
Chairman is considered wrong. This is because; the Governor is already overburdened with
numerous problems of the state government activities and those of his political party on
which his interest lie. To be precise, the Governor may not have time enough to think
deeply into the problems of ENADEP. To this effect, a professionally trained and practicing
agriculturist would have been appointed for the post to enhance better performance. Also,
the inclusion of the Director General and other top officials of Ministry of Agricultural and
Natural Resources are considered faulty. This is because; they are at the helm of affairs of
the Ministry of Agriculture and Natural Resources whose inability to cope with the
increasing needs of the rural farmers necessitated the establishment of ENADEP. Also, it
was discovered that those Ministry of Agriculture and Natural Resources officials instead of
helping matters, they worsened it. They do so because; they feel that ENADEP was
56
receiving better attention, better funding and better conditions of service than the Ministry
of Agriculture and Natural Resources itself. They feel that their counterparts who are on
secondment are enjoying better than themselves. Thus, there is rivalry than resourcefulness.
Our study also revealed that the Secretary and Accountant General of the State who were
members of the Agricultural Development Project Executive Council (ADPEC) had much
official problems to battle with than the problems of ENADEP. Thus, they were rarely in
attendance during the ADPEC meetings. They proffered sending representatives (Onyeke,
1996).
Another management problem was that of the Seconded and Direct Staff
Dichotomy. The project (ENADEP) employed a lot of the staff of the Ministry of
Agriculture and National Resources on secondment. They were made to occupy most of
the management positions in ENADEP such as the Project Manager, Chief Extension
Officer, Chief Commercial Officer, Chief Adminsitrative Officer, Chief Human Resources
and Development Officer, Chief Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation Officer, Zonal
Manager, Enugu, Zonal Extension Officer Nsukka, Enugu, and Abakiliki and a host of
others, leaving only very few top positions to the direct staff, for instance, the Chief
Engineering Officer, the Chief Technical Officer, the Zonal Manager Nsukka and
Abakaliki. They formed alliances and polarized the ENADEP management. This resulted in
ugly internal politics among the direct and seconded staff. In some cases, especially when
crucial issues are discussed at management meetings, the seconded staff tends to ignore
even some useful contributions of the direct staff (Onyeke, 1996). This leaves the direct
staff in management cadre unhappy with the situation of things in ENADEP. Thus, they are
demoralized and choose to remain passive rather than resourceful when crucial decisions
57
are to be taken (Onyeke, 1996). Also, the seconded staff introduced into ENADEP the
bureaucratic process in handling project execution resulting in high level of red-tapism.
Lack/inadequacy of supervision touched almost all facets of ENADEP resulting in neglect
of duty by the office staff, complete abandonment of duty posts by the field staff, reckless
use/loss of the project property especially vehicles and their spare parts, insecurity of the
existing project property, conversion of the project vehicles to either part-time or full-time
personal business vehicles by officers at various ranks, poor execution of some project
activities such as the hand-dug wells with pumps and rural feeder roads to mention but a
few.
The corruption at ENADEP has resulted in awarding and payment for some
unexisting projects like the construction of culverts, and some rural feeder roads which
were constructed by Directorate for Food, Roads and Rural Infrastructure (DFRRI) were
claimed to have been constructed by ENADEP simply by placing ENADEP‟s sign posts
(Onyeke, 1996). Also, the cost of some existing projects were inflated to cover some
embezzled fund (Onyeke, 1996). The disposal of some useful ENADEP vehicles (Pajero) to
the top management officers at very cheap prices (N18,000) simply to satisfy selfish
interest and was tagged “Internal Auctioning of Vehicles” (Onyeke, 1996).
The mismanagement of ENADEP‟s farm implements was one of the management
problems. Most of the farm implements, if not all, have been under the use of the top
management officials (Onyeke, 1996). These farm implements include: the tractors, the
plough, the harrow, the sprayers and a host of the simple farm tools. In some cases, the
implements got forgotten if not recovered immediately after use, while in some other cases,
the implements like the tractor develop simple fault in the filed and it will not be given
58
urgent attention until the fault becomes complicated. This results in most cases to perpetual
disuse and grounding of the implement. These implements even though were intended to
provide cheap source of farm power to the rural farmers, the farm implements were never
made available to farmers (ENADEP Annual Report, 1995).
Another problem was the commercialization and monopolization of official
vehicles. Our study revealed that some of the sub-programme vehicles were turned into
commercial vehicles simply by mere agreement between the driver and the sub-programme
heads on how much money to be accounted for daily, weekly or monthly as the case may be
(Onyeke, 1996). This poses several problems towards the realization of the project
objectives which include:
(i) lack of mobility for supervision of the field staff which has other multiple negative
effects;
(ii) payment of idle supervisors who may not carry out one supervisory visit in a year;
and
(iii) inability of the Subject Matter Specialists (SMS) to give immediate attention to
urgent field problems such as the disease outbreak.
Also, some programme heads convert the vehicles under their sub-programme into
private use. For instance, the use of the office vehicles to attend to family problems like
school run, tours, etc to the detriment of the achievement of set objectives.
The recruitment of unqualified field staff on the basis of favouritism and nepotism
posed serious operational problems to the project. Our study revealed that a lot of
unqualified graduates of other fields of specialization other than agriculture such as Health
and Physical Education, Religion, Igbo, etc, were employed by the management. They were
59
employed as field staff (Extension Agents and Supervisors). The result was poor and
ineffective transfer of ENADEP technologies to farmers as a result of lack of skills,
knowledge and competencies in agriculture required for proper and effective transfer of
technologies. Also, there was waste of time over planning and survey in some project
activities of ENADEP. This was experienced in the construction of new boreholes, and that
of construction of rain water harvesting (compound water reservoir). To be precise, none
out of the number targeted in these project activities was achieved (ENADEP Annual
Report, 1995).
The project took the wrong approach to her seed and cassava cuttings multiplication
programmes. The decision of the management to use the National Seed Multiplication
Centre instead of the Technical Sub-programme of ENADEP to achieve the multiplication
programme objective was wrong. This resulted in inadequate supply and provision of
improved seeds to farmers of the State. Moreover, the procurement was difficult and
relatively costlier. The use of the selected farmers approach to multiply improved cassava
cuttings was wrong because it promoted unnecessary monopoly among the selected farmers
and thus created artificial scarcity of the commodity. There were several cases of breach of
contract agreement on both parties. The selected farmers complained of lack of funds to
embark on massive production since ENADEP does not provide financial assistance, while
on the other hand, the ENADEP officials complained of the sale of the cassava cuttings by
the selected farmers without their consent. It is therefore advisable that ENADEP should
make use of her traditional sub-programme to multiply improved cassava cuttings. This
would afford them the opportunity of meeting with their set targets with minimum
problems.
60
The project management introduced too many project activities and technologies at
the same time. The number of these project activities became very unmanageable by the
project within the space of time. This resulted in the inability of the project to achieve a
very high percentage of the various targets in the various activities in the period studied.
Thus, the targets seemed bogus and thus need to be reduced to manageable size so as to
maximize optimum performances and achievements.
(2) Attitude of Farmers to ENADEP Technologies
(i) Zero Input Option: The adoption of the zero input option to the transfer of
ENADEP technologies to farmers in 1993 had a very negative impact on the
farmers‟ attitude to ENADEP technologies. In line with this option, the extension
agent gives no farm input assistance to contact farmer who is expected to use the
necessary farm inputs in the trial and adoption of the technologies. Given the true
financial position of most rural farmers, it became very difficult to sustain the poor
farmer‟s interest in absence of the relevant farm inputs, especially fertilizer. The
Extension Agent feels defeated in himself introducing new technologies requiring
these farm inputs without them for practical demonstration. In short, it is
demoralizing to both the Extension Agent and the farmers.
(ii) Lack of assistance to farmers towards securing agricultural loan: The inability of the
ENADEP officials to assist farmers to secure agricultural loans has negatively
influenced farmer‟s attitude to ENADEP technologies. This is because; ENADEP
emphasizes on adoption of the technology on large scale production without
obtaining financial assistance. It was originally supposed that the financial sub-
programme through the advice of the Extension Sub-programme offers assistance to
61
tested and trusted contact farmers to obtain agricultural loans. The Financial Sub-
programme attests to the contact farmers‟ quality and worthiness for securing
agricultural loan, thus serving as guarantee. Presently, this assistance has been
withdrawn completely for the reason best known to the management.
(iii) Pushing of irrelevant and obsolete technologies: Some of the technologies pushed
by ENADEP to the contact farmers have been in practice long before the inception
of ENADEP. For instance, the yam minisett technology. Also, the farmers complain
about the non-suitability of some technologies to their cultural beliefs and practice.
For instance, the Yam/Maize/Cassava/Melon, Alternate raw planting and the small
ruminant production (rabbitory). The farmers have observed the following faults in
the yam/maize/cassava/melon Alternate raw planting:
(a) The cassava component out-grows the yam component very easily, thus, affecting
the rate of photosynthesis resulting in low yield of the yam component while the
farmer‟s interest is vested more on the yam component and not on the cassava
component;
(b) They consider the space left between the cassava stands to be too much and waste of
available land after the yam might have been harvested; and
(c) It is against the tradition of some communities in the state like the Abakaliki
Agricultural Zone and some communities in Enugu Agricultural Zone to plant
cassava in the same field with yam. In short, the yam is regarded as the chief of all
the crops, and so, should not be insulted with cassava which is regarded as food for
the poor (ENADEP Annual Report, 1995).
62
In the case of the small ruminant (rabbitory) technology, the farmers see it as alien
to the traditional livestock production. To be precise, they attach no value to the rearing of
rabbit; instead, they prefer the Extension Agent discussing the production of goat, sheep,
pig, fowl, etc.
These, they believe could save a man in the face of financial problems in addition to
the prestige attached. Also, they complain of the fragility and the high rate of mortality
among the rabbits. Thus, there is little or no assurance of the continuity of the farm. All
these have negative impact on the farmer‟s attitude to ENADEP technologies.
(iv) Poor Attitude of Extension Agents: The non-payment of salary and allowances
(Local Travel and Training) to the field staff specially the Extension Agents has
forced most of them to abandon their circles (duty posts) to reside in the nearest
town. The intention is to be closer toothier relatives and friends who can assist them
in times of financial troble. Also, they resort to other means of earning their living
using their official hours. The farmers, therefore, do not see any seriousness in these
field staff especially when the Extension Agent fails to meet with the scheduled
time due to one reason or the other. They simply attribute the failure to the
Extension Agent‟s other business in the town. For this reason, the farmers loose
interest in the Extension Agent and the technology (Nwodo, 2006).
63
CHAPTER FIVE
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 Summary
However, the programmes could be sustained because of political will and
commitment, policy instability and insufficient involvement of the poor people in these
programmes (CBN Enugu Zone, 1998). The assessment of these programmes and
institutions as provided below justified this point.
The impact of these programmes on poverty alleviation recorded degree of success,
example, the establishment of the Directorate of Food, Road and Rural Infrastructure
(DFRRI) was not only a departure from the previous programmes but complementarily
associated basic needs such as food, shelter, portable water, road construction, etc.
However, DFRRI could not achieve many of its objectives, because; it was over ambitious
in scope, steeped in corruption, and lack of effective mechanism for coordination among
the three tiers of government (CBN Enugu Zone, 1998).
National Agricultural and Land Development Authority (NALDA) was set up in
1993 to provide strategic public support for food land development, promote optimum
utilization of rural land resources and encourage the evolution of economic size rural
settlements. Other programmes like Agricultural Development Programmes (ADP) and the
Strategic Games Reserves Programmes (SGRP) had in one way or the other impacted
positively on the agricultural sector. This programes were able to acquire sustainable land
into economic size farm plots and distinguished them to farmers and advised them on all
aspects of land conversion and land degradation control. These programmes, however, was
64
faced with some problems which include taking more than their statutes allowed and that
over-burdened them and reduced their ineffective.
Natural Resources Development and Conservation Scheme (NRDCS) was
established to harness agriculture, water, solid mineral resources, conservation of land and
space particularly for the convenient and effective utilization by small-scale operators and
the immediate community (Okoye and Onyukwu, 2007). Agricultural Development
Programmes were articulated to curb food insecurity in the state. The programme is
intended to increase food production and income of the small-scale farmers but there have
not been serious and identifiable efforts at improving the food situation in the state. There
have not been observable attempts at embarking on extensive farm settlements and
elaborate agricultural programmes. As a result, it has lost focus and direction.
There has been a poor implementation of the various programmes. The severe
budgetary and governance problems afflicted the full implementation of the programmes.
This has resulted in facilities either not being completed or broken down and abandoned.
Furthermore, inappropriate programmes and lack of involvement of the beneficiaries in the
formulation and implementation had resulted in the unsuccessful implementation of the
programmes.
Corruption has bedeviled various anti-poverty programmes of government including
Agricultural Development Programmes. The manifestation and problems associated with
corruption in Nigeria and the state in particular have various dimensions. Among these
project finances, diversion of resources, conversion of public funds to private uses, etc.
(Okoye and Ojukwu, 2007). As observed, lack of accountability and transparency made the
65
programmes to serve as conduit pipes for draining national resources. Thus, the effect of
corruption is both direct and indirect on non-implementation of agricultural projects.
5.2 Conclusion
Policy implementation is the linkage between a formulated public policy and its
objectives with a concrete and tangible policy outputs. Thus, implementation provides a
major explanation for the failures or successes of public policies in organizations. In Enugu
State Agricultural Development Programme, there are abundance of public policy failures,
resulting from the inability of management to direct project activities to obtain desired
policy objectives and policy ends. This makes public policy implementation an
indispensable variable in the policy process. Indeed, implementation stage determines
whether policies become tangible or concrete. The effectiveness of public policy is
measured by its goal achievement while implementation is the determinant.
In this study, we have examined statistical data on the achievement and non-
achievement of Enugu State Agricultural Development Projects, and we have came to the
conclusion that the project have performed poorly on the provision of potable water, farm
inputs, and extension services. This poor performance has been attributed mainly to
political interference on the operations and management of the agency as well as frequent
regime changes. From our study, it was clear that the Enugu State Government has an
overbearing influence on the day-to-day operations and running of the Enugu State
Agricultural Development Projects, resulting to frequent diversion of project funds and
poor contract execution. The study argues that for them to be effective and result-oriented
66
there must be a good measure of independence for the policy implementation, and sanctions
have to be placed on the offenders.
5.3 Recommendations
Arising from the findings of our study, we now make the following
recommendations, which we consider germane in enhancing the effectiveness and
efficiency of Enugu State Agricultural Development Projects:
(1) The project should be independent of the state government politics, to permit
concentration of efforts on the part of the project management towards goal oriented
activities, rather than submitting blindly to top state government officials to award
and pay for un-existing and unexecuted contracts. The project manager and
management should be career civil servants, whom their appointment, promotion
and discipline should be under the State Civil Service rules and guidelines, instead
of leaving it at the whims and caprices of the State Governors‟ controlled
Agricultural Development Project Executive Council (ADPEC), which is the
highest policy-making organ of the project in the state.
(2) Following from above, there is the pressing need to give the project manager free
hand to administer the organization in accordance with the guidelines set out by the
World Bank and other donor agencies.
(3) There should be a change in the composition of members of the Agricultural
Development Project Executive Council (ADPEC). For example, the Chairman of
the ADP Executive Council should be a professionally trained and practicing
67
agriculturist or a Public Administrator who should be in a sound position to assess
the needs of the state.
(4) The staff salaries and allowances should be up-graded to reflect the level of
responsibility and duties, which the project entails.
(5) There should be timely introduction of relevant and modern technologies with
adequate provision of necessary farm inputs and logistics to extension agents and
field supervisors. Also, there is need to engage in aggressive mobilization and up to
date information to farmers and thus, promote the achievement of set goal and
objectives.
(6) The state government should return as soon as possible to procurement of fertilizer
to Enugu State Agricultural Development Programme whose Extension Agents
should be used as tools for grass root effective distribution. This will eliminate
“black market” in the sale of fertilizer especially if the price is highly subsidized to
make the fertilizer business unattractive.
(7) Finally, a mechanism of involving farmers, implementers and other major
stakeholders in formulating agricultural policies in the state should be put in place
so that there is a common understanding of policy goals, and objectives by all and
sundry.
68
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Books:
Adamolekun, L. (1983). Public Administration: A Nigerian and Comparative Perspective.
New York: Longman.
Adebayo, A. (1981). Principles and Practice of Public Administration in Nigeria. Ibadan:
Spectrum Books Nig. Ltd.
Akinyemi, A. B. et al (1979), (Eds). Readings on Federalism. Lagos: NIIA.
Anderson, J. (1975), Public Policy-Making. California: Nelson Publishers.
Blua, P. (1955). The Dynamics of Bureaucracy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Amalu, U. O. (1998). Agricultural Research and Extension Delivery Systems in Sub-
Saharan Africa. Calabar: The University of Calabar Press.
Anise, L. (1986). “Bureaucracy and Modernization” in Social Change in Nigeria (ed), by
Simi Afonja and Tola Olu P. England: Longman.
Ayida, A. A. (1968). The Contribution of Politicians and Administrators to Nigeria
National Economic Planning. In Adedeji, A. (ed), Nigerian Administration and its
Political Science. London: Hutchinson Education.
Bell, Jone A. & Handrogove, Robert L. (1966). Comparative Politics: The Quest for
Theory. Merit, Ohio: Harper and Row.
Bentley, A. F. (1949). The Process of Government. Evanston, K: Principia Press of Illinois.
Biereenu-Nnabugwu, M. (2006). Methodology of Political Inquiry: Issues and Techniques
of Research Methods in Political Science. Enugu: Quintagon Publishers.
Bridgman, P. & Davis, G. (1998). Australian Policy Handbook, Sydney: Allen and Unwin.
Coser, Lewis A. & Rosenberg, B. (1976) (ed). Sociological Theory. New York: Macmillan
Publishing Co. Inc.
69
Dahl (1978). The Science of Public Administration. “Three Problems” in Shafritz, J.M. and
Hide, A.C (eds) Classic of Public Administration. Oak Park Illinois More
Publishing Company, Inc.
Dror, Y. (1967), Public Policy Making Re-examine. London: Leonard Hill Books.
Dye, R.T. (1998). Understanding Public Policy. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Eboh, F. E. (1996). Public Sector Management. Enugu: Skino Prints Nig.
Egonmwam, J. A. (1991). Public Policy Analysis Concepts and Applications. Benin City:
Rosyin (Nig.) Company.
Fesler, James W. (1980). Public Administrative Theory and Practice. Eaglewood Cliff New
Jersey: Prentice Hall Inc.
Girth, H. H. & Wright, Mills C. (1946). Essays in Sociology as quoted in Coser, L. A. &
Rosenberg, B. (1976) (ed), Sociological Theory. NY: Macmillan.
Gordon (1987). Public Administration in America, New York: St. Martins Press.
Grindle, M.S. (1980). Politics and Policy Implementation in the Third World. New Jersey:
Princeton University Press.
Hargrove, Erwin C. (1980). The Search for Implementation Theory. Nashville: Vanderbilt
University Institute for Policy Studies.
Harold, L. (1965). The Decision Process. Maryland: College Park, USA, Harvester
Wheatsheaf.
Herbert, A. S. (1976). Administrative Behaviour. London: Free Press.
Honadle, G. & Klauss, R. (1979) (ed). International Development Administration:
Implementation Analysis for Development. New York: Praeger.
70
Ijere, M. O. (1986), New Perspective in Financing Nigeria Agriculture, Enugu: Fourth
Dimension Publishing Company.
Ikejiani-Clark (1996). “Corruption in Nigeria” in Onuoha and Ozioko (ed), Contemporary
Issues in Social Science. Enugu: Accena Pub.
Ikejiani-Clark, O.M. (1995). “Pathologies of Local Government Administration Corruption
and Fraud”. In Ikejiani-Clark and Okoli, F. (ed) Local Government Administration
in Nigeria: Current Problems and Future Challenges. Lagos: Mangrove
Publications.
Ikelegbe, A. O. (1996). Public Policy Making and Analysis. Benin City, Edo: Uri
Publishers Ltd.
Jenkins, W. (1978). Policy Analysis: A Political Organization Perspective. USA: Martin
Robertson.
Lerner, D. & Lasswell, H.D. (1951) (ed). The Policy Sciences. Standford.
Macridis, Roy C. (1964). “The Study of Comparative Government”, as cited in S. N. Ray
(2003), Modern Comparative Politics: Approaches, Methods and Issues. New
Delhi: Prentice Hall.
March, J. & Simon, H. (1967). Organizations. New York: Wiley.
Nwosu, H. N. (1980). Political Authority and the Nigerian Civil Service. Enugu: Fourth
Dimension Publishers.
Obikeze, et al. (2005). Personnel Management Concepts, Principles and Applications.
Onitsha Book Print Ltd.
Okoye, U. C. and Onyeukwu, E. O. (2007). Sustaining Poverty Reduction Efforts through
Inter-Agency Collaboration in Nigeria. In Kenneth Omeje (ed.), State, Society
Relations in Nigeria, Democratic Consolidation, Conflicts and Reforms, London:
Adonis and Abbey.
Onah, R.C. (2005). Public Administration. Nsukka: Great AP Express Publishers Ltd.
71
Pye, Lucian W. (1964). “Decision-Making” in A Dictionary of Social Sciences. Goulb and
Kolb (ed). Illinois: Free Press.
Ripley, R. B. & Franklin, G. A. (1982). Bureaucracy and Policy Implementation.
Georgetown, USA: The Dorsey Press.
Robert, Leveni (1972). Public Planning: Failure and Re-direction. New York: Basic Book.
Rose, R. (1969) (ed). Policy Making in Britain. London: Macmillan.
Simon (1976). Administrative Behaviour. New York: Macmillan.
Speight, H. (1970). Economics and Industrial Efficiency. London: Macmillan.
Vicker, S.G. (1979). “Policy Making in Local Government”, in C. Polit et al. (eds) Public
Policy in Theory and Practice. Hodder and Stoughton.
Weber, Max (1978). “Bureaucracy in Shafritz J. M. and Whitbeck, P.H. (eds) Classics of
Organization Theory. Oak Park, Illinois: Moore Publishing Co. Inc.
Journals/Seminars:
Adu, A. L. (1972). “Some Continuing Concerns in the Administration of Public Affairs”. In
Adebayo Adedeji (ed). The Quarterly Journal of Administration, Institute of
Administration. Uiv. Of Ife, Vol. VII, No. I, October 1972, pp3-6.
Akingbade, J. K. (1992). “Administrative Reform of the Civil Services: The Nigerian
Experience” in the Quarterly Journal of Administration, Vol. VI, No.3.
Amitai Etzioni (1960), “Two Approaches to Organizational Analysis: A Critique and a
Suggestion”, Administrative Science Quarterly Journal, 5 (2)..
Bachrach, P. & Baratz, M. S. (1962). “The Two Faces of Power”. American Political
Science Review, Vol. 56, Dec.
Balogun, M.J. (1972), “A Framework for the Measurement of Government Efficiency”, The
Quarterly Journal of Administration, ed, by Adebayo Adedeji,. VII,(1).
72
Donald, S., Van, M. & Carl, E. V. (1975). “The Policy Implementation Process”.
Administration and Society, No.6 February.
Emehelu, C. C. (1994). Enugu State Agricultural Development Project (ENADEP) Project
Report July-December, 1993 and Jan.-March, 199. Paper Presented at the Project
Coordinating Committee (PCC) Meeting, Kaduna.
Enugu State Local Government System (ENSLOGS) Social Diary. A Magazine for the
Rural Dwellers, 3, (1).
Ezeani, O. E. (2005). “The Nigerian Civil Service and National Development since
Independence: An Appraisal”. African Journal of Political and Administrative
Studies (AJPAS), Vol. 2, No.1, May 2005.
Ezeani, O. E. (2006). “The Nigerian Civil Service and National Development since
Independence: An Appraisal, “African Journal of Political and Administrative
Studies (AJPAS), 2, (1).
Hall, M. & Weinstein, C. (1959). “The Ambiguous Notion of Efficiency”. The Economic
Journal, Vol. 69, pp.77-25.
McEwin, R. (1969). “Measurement of Operational EfficiencyinHOspitals”. Public
Administration Journal of the Australian Regional Groups of the R.I.P., A Vol,
XXVIII, No.4 December.
Meier, K. J. & Mcfariane, D. R. (1995). “Statutory Coherence and Policy Implementation:
The Case of Family Planning”. Journal of Public Policy, Vol.15, Part 3, Sept-Dec.
1995, p.281.
Olowu, D., Eloho, O. and M. Okoloni (1997). “The Role of the Civil Service in Enhancing
Development and Democracy: An Evaluation of the Nigerian Experience”. Paper
Presented at Civil Service in Comparative Perspective, School of Public and
Environmental Affairs, Indiana University, Indiana, April 5-8.
Wilson (1980). “The Study of Administration”. Political Science Quarterly, 50.
Zup, Marco (2007). The Multi-D-Dimensions of Poverty: Some Conceptual and Policy
Challenges, Society for International Development 50(2).
73
Government Document:
Anambra State Agricultural Development Project (ASADEP) Annual Report (1986).
CBN (2000). Statistical Bulletin and Annual Report, Various Issues.
CBN/World Bank (1999). “Study of Poverty Assessment and Alleviation, Federal
Government of Nigeria 1997 Report of the Vision 2010”, Committee Main Report,
Abuja: September.
Central Bank of Nigeria, Enugu Zone (1998). A Profile of Regional/Zonal Poverty in
Nigeria: The Case of Enugu Zone, in Measuring and Monitoring Poverty in Nigeria,
Proceedings of the Seventh Annual Conference of the Zone Research Units.
Emahalu, C.C. (1994), “Enugu State Agricultural Development Project (ENADEP),
“Progress Report”, July – Dec. 1993 and Jan-March, 1994, Paper Presented at the
Project Co-ordinating Committee (PCC) Meeting, Kaduna.
ENADEP Implementation Completion Report (ICR) for the years 1982-1994.
Enugu Sate Agricultural Development Project Annual Report (1995).
Enugu State (1992). Welcome to Enugu State. Enugu: Ministry of Information and Culture,
Printing Division.
Enugu State Agricultural Development Project (Edict, 1991).
Enugu State Agricultural Development Project (ENADEP) Implementation Completion
Report (ICR) (2006). National Special Programme for Food Security (NSPFS) Loan
No: TVP/NIR/8821(A).
Enugu State Agricultural Development Project (ENADEP) Implementation Completion
Report (ICR) (2006). National Special Programme for FOd Security (NSPFS) Loan
No. TCP/NIR/8821 (A).
Enugu State Agricultural Development Project (ENADEP) Progress Review and
Implementation Status (1994).
Enugu State Agricultural Development Projects (ENADEPs) Annual Report (1992).
74
Enugu State Agricultural Development Projects Edict, 1991.
Federal Government of Nigeria (1982). Agricultural Policy for Nigeria. Lagos: Government
Press.
Federal Republic of Nigeria, Report of Vision 2010 Committee, (Main Report).
Ihimodu, I. I. (1989). “The Food Crisis in Nigeria”, Manual for Mobilizing Cooperatives in
Nigeria Towards Development of Self-Reliant Society. Abuja: Directorate for Social
Mobilization, Self Reliant and Economic Recovery (MAMSER).
Nigeria (1995). Implementation Completion Report 1995 Publication of Agricultural
Monitoring and Evaluation Unit (APMEU).
Onyeke, C. C. (1996). “An Appraisal of the Utilization of the World Bank Agricultural
Development Project (ENADEP)”. M.Sc. Agricultural Economic, UNN Enugu State
Agricultural Development Project (ENADEP) Annual Report (1995).
UNDP Human Development Report (2003).
Unpublished Works:
Nwodo, O. (2006). “Enugu Sate Agricultural Development Project (ENADEP): Briefs on
ENADEP Activities”. A Report to the Hon. Commissioner, Ministry of Agriculture,
Enugu State.
Okeke (1988), as quoted in Onyeke, C. C. (1996). “An Appraisal of the Utilization of the
World Bank Agricultural Loans by the Enugu State Agricultural Development
Project” (ENADEP), M.Sc. Project, Department of Agricultural Economics, Univ.
of Nigeria, Nsukka.
Onyeke, C. C. (1996). “An Appraisal of the Utilization of the World Bank Agricultural
Development Project (ENADEP)”. M.Sc. Agricultural Economics, UNN.
Newspapers/Magazines:
Enugu State Local Government System (ENSLOGS) Social Diary, A Magazine for the
Rural Dwellers, Vol. No. 1, June, 1999-July, 2000.
![The Impact of Welfare Scheme on the Motivation of Workers [a Case Study of (ESBS) Enugu]](https://static.fdocuments.in/doc/165x107/55cf9725550346d0338ff1b7/the-impact-of-welfare-scheme-on-the-motivation-of-workers-a-case-study-of.jpg)
