Integrated rural development administration. Lessons from two experiments in Northern Nigeria

Agrrul~urnl

Adminisfralion

9 (1982) 115-129

INTEGRATED RURAL DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION. LESSONS FROM T W O EXPERIMENTS IN NORTHERN NIGERIA G. 0. I. ABALU

Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, Ahmadu Belle University, Zaria, Nigeria (Received: 19 June, 1980)

SUMMARY

The subjects of this paper are two rural development projects in northern Nigeria. Striving to achieve both growth and equity in their respective target areas, one (GCP) was able to achieve its intended results but was unable to sustain its performance, whilst the other (FADP) appears to be successful but is achieving unintended results. This paper attempts to show, from the experiences of the two projects, that the management and administration of rural development projects are criticalfactors in the achievement of equity goals.

INTRODUCTION

Desirous of rapidly increasing agricultural production and improving the quality of life in rural areas, the Federal Government of Nigeria, with the support of the World Bank, has decided to pursue a policy aimed at increasing the agricultural productivity of the majority of people in its rural areas. At the heart of this policy is a development strategy emphasising new technology, supported by infrastructure and institutional co-ordination and financed in large measure with public funds. At least six pilot rural development projects have already been started in several locations in the federation. Eventually each of the nineteen states in the country is to have its own rural development pilot project which would ultimately be extended to cover the whole of each state. Initial reports on the performance of these pilot projects appear to suggest that many of them may not be attaining their stated objectives of growth with equity (Abalu et al. ‘). The failure of development projects to incorporate equity as an operational planning objective is often attributed to problems of organisation and administration (Walker et al.“). Rural development comprises many component parts intricately held together by a series of objectives. 115 Agriculfural Administration 0309-586X/82/0009-01 15/$02,75 ‘(> Applied Science Publishers Ltd. England, 1982 Printed in Great Britain

116

G. 0.

I. ABALU

The success or failure of a project depends on the institutional co-ordination of its component parts and the nature of official interventions to achieve the goals of the project. The way in which a project is managed and admininstered would, therefore, play a considerable role in determining whether or not it succeeds in achieving its intended results. In this paper we examine two efforts at achieving both growth and equity in northern Nigeria. The one did not succeed and the other appears to be achieving unintended results. It is hoped that the lessons from these two experiments will be useful in designing and implementing other equity oriented projects.

TWO

EXPERIMENTS

IN RURAL

DEVELOPMENT

The philosophy, objectives and administrative structure of the two development projects are examined in this section. Although the two projects differed in size, scope and administrative approach, their underlying objectives were basically similar. The main purpose of both projects was to reduce poverty by increasing agricultural productivity, to reach a majority of people in-and have a lasting effect on-the target areas. By examining the extent to which these broad objectives were achieved by the two projects against the background of the difference in management and administrative procedures followed, it is hoped that valuable lessons will be learned about how various aspects of project management and of administration influence the achievement of the now popular twin development objectives of growth and equity. The Funtua Agricultural

Development

Project (FADP)

The Funtua Agricultural Development Project (FADP) covers an area of 7500 km2 and includes some 100,000 farming families. The project started in 1975 and had the following specific objectives. (1) To make improved farm inputs available to farmers at established farm service centres. (2) To provide adequate farmer extension, credit and marketing services including staff, vehicles and equipment. (3) To construct about 1500 km of low cost agricultural roads and earth dams for water supplies. (4) To establish an evaluation unit to evaluate the results of the project. Thirty-six million Naira (one Naira is approximately equal to US$1*7) was earmarked to be spent on the project over the 1975-80 period, of which the World Bank would provide 51% through a loan to the Nigerian Government. The administrative strategy followed in implementing the project differed from the traditional ‘ministry approach’ for implementing development projects in that the management of the project had considerable freedom with regard to its day-today activities. These activities, which had as their focal point 77 farm service centres created to integrate extension, credit, marketing and input distribution functions in

RURAL

DEVELOPMENT

ADMINISTRATION

IN NORTHERN

NIGERIA

117

the project area, were carried out by experts provided by the World Bank. Most of the top management and professional level positions were filled by these experts, who were directly responsible to the project manager who, in turn, was responsible to his main employer (the World Bank) and, to a lesserextent, to his host (Nigerian) government (the Director of Rural Development). The target group of the project included all farming families in the area, but resourceconstraints and organisational difficulties made it necessaryfor priority to be given to the so-called ‘progressive farmers’. These were farmers who were responsive to the project’s extension advice and grew improved varieties (cultivars). It was expected that the emphasis placed on these farmers would result in a demonstration and ‘trickle-down effect. The main crops in the technological package introduced by the FADP consisted of improved sole crop sorghum, groundnuts, cotton and maize. O f special importance to the project was the introduction of maize, a crop not previously grown in large quantities in the area but for which demand exists. The Guided Introduction

to Change Project (GCP)

The Guided Introduction to Change Project (GCP) was a research project undertaken jointly by the (National) Institute for Agricultural Research and the Kaduna State Ministry of Agriculture. The principal objective of the project was to design and test a replicable institutional and administrative ‘set-up’that would bring about self-sustaining increases in the welfare of a large number of small-scale farmers in the G iwa area of Kaduna State by making modern farm production factors available to them. Specifically, the objectives of the project were as follows, (1) (2)

With the assistance of the Kaduna State Government, to develop and implement alternative development strategies that aim at improving the life of the majority of farmers in the area. To evaluate the alternative strategies developed in terms of their effectivenessin bringing about rural development and to monitor the extent and quality of the changes brought about.

The relative importance of the availability of modern inputs was at the centre of the alternative strategies being tested. To this end, the project operated in twelve villages comprising 7500 adult males. There were four villages exposed to the supply of improved inputs, four to the supply of improved inputs and credit and four to the Supply of improved inputs, credit and extension. The GCP project had both research and development components. The research component aimed at introducing different change strategiesby modifying the effort year-by-year, as dictated by conditions and results, so as to evolve a strategy of planned change. The development component of the project was directed at implementing the prototype strategiesand measuring their effectivenessin achieving the dual goals of growth with equity. The day-to-day activities of the project were carried out by a research team under the supervision of a project leader who was

118

G. 0. I. ABALU

responsible to the research institute for the successful design and implementation of the project. As the research strategy behind the project was to evolve a viable development strategy, the focus was on an ‘action programme’ which incorporated monitoring, feedback and continuous project implementation and modification. This, in turn, meant that this project (GCP) also had considerable freedom and flexibility in its day-to-day activities. In order to reach a large number of farmers in its target area and to effectively neutralise the ability of powerful interest groups to monopolise project benefits, the project decided to by-pass existing communal relationships through the establishment of direct and individualised relationships between members of the village communities and the project. As this was a relatively new and untested approach, some experimentation was needed in order to arrive at viable and effective arrangements to meet project goals. IThe four main crops in the project were millet (Pennisetum fyphoideum), sorghum (Sorghum uulgure), groundnuts (Arachis hypogaea), and maize (Zea ways). Packages of different crop combinations were prepared and made available to all farmers on an equal basis, depending on their stated preferences. Three different packages were offered. The first involved solecrop groundnuts and a millet/ sorghum mixture, the second a millet/sorghum mixture and a sorghum/groundnut mixture and the third a sole crop maize and sorghum/groundnut mixture.

PROJECT ACTIVITIES

AND THE ACHIEVEMENT

OF PROJECT GOALS

In this section we examine the project activities of the two projects described above and attempt to establish linkages between their administrative activities and their relative success in achieving the objective of growth with equity. Importance

of project management

and administration

The management and administration of a project can be viewed as an attempt to convert a set of inputs (fertilisers, seeds, chemical inputs, etc.) into established objectives. The process involved is, of course, bound to be complex as it involves several component parts. It not only involves technical components which define the extent to which the stated objectives are technically possible, it also involves human components which limit the extent to which the objectives are humanly achieveable. In addition to the stated objectives, each project is guided by a set of relationships that have to do with tenure, pricing, distribution, allocation, trade, etc. Several individuals, groups and agencies are also involved in providing such needed services. For the successful achievement of the project objectives, each of these relationships-and the services provided by the various groups-has to be adequately co-ordinated and controlled in accordance with the overall project goals. The nature and timeliness of any intervention will, to a large extent, determine whether or not intended or unintended results are achieved. The nature of the

RURAL

DEVELOPMENT

ADMINISTRATION

IN NORTHERN

NIGERIA

I19

administrative set-up of a project will also have a significant influence on interventions designed to steer the project towards its established goals. The way in which a project is managed and administered is, therefore, a very important factor in determining its success or failure. Unfortunately, this important aspect of project performance has been neglected in the past, largely because the administrative system of projects has traditionally not been part of the concerns of researchers. Chambers3 has suggested that the reason for this neglect is because anything written on the subject is bound to be linked with individuals and frank and detailed analysis is often viewed as being rash. The goal system A starting point for analysing the goal system of rural development projects in a country such as Nigeria is the fact that the crisis of development lies in the poverty of the people, particularly those residing in the rural areas whose basic needs of food and shelter are not adequately met and who do not possess the means to understand or master their economic, social and ecological environment. Therefore, to improve upon the quality of life in these areas, rural development projects must not only succeed in achieving increases in production but must also reach a majority of the population and succeed in removing the forces within the system that are creating and sustaining poverty. Three goals which should be successfully pursued if the idea of improving the quality of life is to be successfully incorporated into rural development projects are discussed below. They include (i) improving the cropping system, (ii) improving the amount and distribution of income and (iii) removing the forces creating and sustaining poverty. (i) Improving the cropping system: The bulk of agricultural production in northern Nigeria is undertaken by small-scale farmers whose output is mainly consumed on the farm or traded in local markets. Despite the many imperfections in the economic, social and political climate in which they have operated over the years, these farmers have, in pursuit of their specific goals, managed to harness the broad range of cropping possibilities available to them into a systematic cropping system. A significant cropping system that has emerged in northern Nigeria is characterised by growing crops in mixtures. This pattern of cropping has been demonstrated to manifest higher returns, lower risk and adequate nutritional content. This means that the cropping system that has emerged is not only rational but is also compatible with the technical environment in the area. Any interventions to improve upon the cropping system would need to be able both to increase productivity and to be consistent with existing conditions of production in the area. An appropriate improved cropping system would, therefore, need to strike a balance between increased agricultural production and the maintenance of the income, risk and nutritional flexibility the farmer has hitherto enjoyed. (ii) Improving the levelanddistribution of income: If the general quality of life in any given area is to be improved, the intervention to achieve this must not only

120

G. 0. I. ABALU

increase the average level of income, but must also result in the active participation of the majority of the people in the area. If the intervention only succeeds in introducing income-increasing crop production technologies which, in many cases, result in increased returns to highly priced factors like extension assistance and credit, then, unless such factors of production are made to reach the majority of the people in an area, it is bound to lead to a greater inequality and a general deterioration in the quality of life. (iii) Removing forces creating and sustaining poverty: Even if government interventions designed to improve the quality of life are well intentioned and receive strong government commitment, entrenched interests are usually powerful enough to prevent the redistributional effort. Northern Nigeria has a strong hierarchical and stratified social structure dominated by officials responsible to traditional rulers. They are known to have entrenched interests and to be able to thwart efforts that threaten these interests (Abalu and D’Silva2). There is, therefore, a need to be able to effectively neutralise these interests in order to be able to reduce poverty in the area. Achievement

of project goals

How well and to what extent did these two projects-The Funtua Development Project (FADP) and the Guided Introduction to Change Project (GCP)-improve upon the existing cropping system? How successful were they in increasing the level of income and improving its distribution? How effective were they in removing the forces creating and sustaining poverty in their respective areas? The rest of this section attempts to provide the answers to these questions. Cropping system: In a recent article the Deputy Director General of the World Health Organisation has suggested that some of the most serious problems of poverty facing Nigeria are those related to the high rates of mortality and morbidity of children and that the major cause of these problems is malnutrition. The nutritional content of what is grown will determine what types of nutrients are available to the farmer and his family. The production-increasing ability of any new production technology and access to it, as well as to land, labour and capital, will also influence the nature and extent of the marketable surplus that results. It is against this background that we assessthe effects on the cropping pattern of the two projects under consideration. Because of the long-standing tradition in northern Nigeria of associating progressive agriculture with sole cropping, it is only recently that deliberate research efforts have been directed towards selecting suitable improved genotypes for mixed cropping systems. The need to achieve impressive improvements in production and the lack of improved technologies for mixed crops resulted in a situation where all the technological packages being introduced to farmers by the FADP (Funtua Agricultural Development Project) involved only sole crop production. The GCP (Guided Change Project), on the other hand, was forced to use seed varieties, developed for sole cropping, to make up mixed crop packages desired by farmers.

RURAL

DEVELOPMENT

ADMINISTRATION

IN NORTHERN

NIGERIA

121

A comparison of the shift in the relative emphasis placed on major crops between 1967 and 1977 in the project areas is presented in Table 1. Whilst the three locations shown are different, they are, nonetheless, in the same ecological zone and are sufficiently close to permit a comparison. The two projects (FADP and GCP) appear to be associated with changes in the cropping system towards one that is more sole crop-oriented. The effect of changing the cropping system.on the quality of life in the area cannot be well known at present. The results can, however, be evaluated in terms of how the change is likely to affect the level of poverty and how it may enhance or break down poverty checks in the existing system. The main difference between the two projects appears to be the TABLE

I

COMPARISON OF PERCENTAGE OF CROPPED AREA DEVOTED TO MAJOR COMBINATIONS IN 1967 AND IN THE FADP AND GCP AREAS IN 1977

Cr0p

Sorghum Millet Maize Groundnuts Cotton Sorghum/Millet Cotton/Millet Cotton/Cowpeas

Zbria area (1967168) 8.4 n :8 3.1 25.8 f.9

CROP

FADP

GCP

(1977178)

(1977178)

27.9 2.3 3.4

18.0

Y.0 13.7 4.8 2.0

t.0 5.0 2.0 22.0 i.0

Source: Zaria area data derived from Norman’; FADP data derived from Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development’: GCP figures derived from Huizinga6. n means less than I % cropped area.

actual and potential role to be played by maize. The main impact of the introduction of maize would be in replacing early millet, a popular staple, in the cropping pattern. Millet, which is usually grown in mixtures with other crops, is the first crop harvested and the most drought-resistant of the grains in the area. Maize and millet are similar in their calorie content although maize will yield a higher ratio of calories gained (higher yield) to calories expended (labour input). Maize matures earlier than millet but, as it is more vulnerable to drought than millet, it may not survive the occasional bad (dry) season (Longhurst’). As to the effect of the FADP in replacing existing crop mixture patterns with sole crop patterns, it is obvious that many of the advantages associated with crop mixtures would be lost. Mixtures not only maximise the use of economic factors such as labour and capital, they also maximise the use of environmental factors such as light, water and nutrients. They are also known to reduce the incidence and severity of pest attack, including weeds. The FADP would appear to pose a relatively far greater threat than the GCP to disturbing the cropping balance that

122

G. 0.

1. ABALU

has developed over the years. The balance would be affected in two ways. First, since the new varieties being introduced do not have the advantage of having evolved over the years, they are more likely to be prone to local pest and disease. Secondly, since the new system involves both sole and intensive cropping, its susceptibility to attack is greatly increased. This means that, if pre-determined production targets are to be achieved and maintained, the possibility of a breakdown of the balance inherent in the cropping system would have to be countered. This can only be done by providing a protection umbrella. This, in turn, would involve increasing use of chemical inputs such as fertilisers and pesticides which are usually outside the control of farmers and which are often dominated by people who are neither held accountable nor responsible for their actions. In conclusion, whilst it can be argued that the cropping system that emerges in the GCP area is less likely to be detrimental to the nutritional status of people in the area, the same cannot be said of the FDAP because its current emphasis would eventually change the cropping system to one that is dominated by sole crops. It may, however, be argued that the nutritional status in the FDAP area can be enhanced by increasing cash returns to farm production in general. However, although it is generally agreed that poverty is the major cause of malnutrition, there is no guarantee that increased cash returns will necessarily result in improved nutritional status, particularly if such returns do not accrue to women who have to prepare food for their families. The fact that the cropping pattern being introduced by FDAP is more likely to result in increased dependence on non-farm institutions and non-farm people who are usually insensitive to farmers and their problems means that the existing system of hierarchies of dependence is bound to be widened even further. This dependence on non-farm institutions and non-farm people has, in the past, worked against the interest of farmers and there is no need to believe that it would not continue to do so. It would, therefore, appear that the GCP has a better chance of neutralising this dependence, or at least maintaining it at its present level. Income and its distribution: Whilst it is relatively easier to estimate whether or not average levels of income have increased in the project areas, it is more difficult to estimate how these increased levels of income are distributed among farmers in the target areas. The data in Table 2 suggest that yields have increased in both the FADP and the GCP areas. The yield increases appear to be more dramatic in the FADP area. It should, however, be pointed out that a large proportion of the increases in the FADP area is a result of production by progressive farmers. For example, in the 1977/78 season over 70 % of the production of the crop receiving the greatest attention from the project (maize) was produced by progressive farmers. The relative absence of maize in the cropping patterns of traditional farmers in the project area may be attributed to lack of accessby farmers to the maize technology. Adequate and timely supply of fertiliser is an important prerequisite for achieving

RURAL

DEVELOPMENT

ADMINISTRATION

IN NORTHERN

123

NIGERIA

TABLE 2 COMPARISONOFYIELDPERFORMANCEOFMAJORCROF3IN AREAS WITH TRADITIONAL YIELDS IN

FADP ANDGCPPROJECT 1976/77 (kg/ha)

Traditional yield

crop

Yield in project areas FADP GCP*

700 322 190 198

Sorghum Maize Cotton Groundnuts

800 903 1054 750

863 415 216 356

Source: Traditional yield data from work carried out by the Institute for Agricultural Research, Zaria; FADP yield data from Federal Ministry of Agricultural and Rural Development’; GCP data from Huizinga6. * Yield data based on farmers applying 30- 100 kg/ha of fertiliser to their fields and receiving extension assistance.

high maize yields. The project is currently faced with shortages in fertiliser supply. This apparent shortage, coupled with the facts that traditional farmers are faced with a relatively high cost for variable inputs and that the project does not provide credit to them, would mean that their access to fertiliser is quite limited. Although fertiliser purchases are very highly subsidised by the government (75 “/, subsidy), there are no restrictions on the quantity of fertiliser purchased by individuals in the project. This would mean that individuals who already have accessto cash would be in a position to purchase large quantities of fertilisers. The GCP did not face this problem as it went out of its way to ensure that each farming family had equal access to available project inputs. Pooerfy-creatingforces: Class interests constitute an important consideration in achieving project goals. Wealthy individuals who are economically stronger and have more contact with people outside their communities can effectively hinder the achievements of the objectives of a project, either directly by controlling access to outside services such as credit, extension, marketing and transportation, or indirectly through an enlarged interest and power base. Access to extension input by various categories of farmers in the FADP area is presented in Table 3. It is clear from this Table that the progressive farmers in the FADP are receiving a disproportionate share of the available extension input. This emphasis on progressive farmers, coupled with limited access to highly subsidised fertilisers by TABLE 3 EXTENSION VISITS OF FADP

Category of farmers

Large-scale farmers Progressive farmers Traditional farmers Source: Abalu et al.’

STAFF TO DIFFERENT CATEGORIES OF FARMERS(1978-1979)

Number in category

186 19652 66438

Percent total

0.002 22.7 77.2

of

Extension visirs

3902 154235 99267

Percent 0J t0td

-

1.2 60.1 38.7

124

G. 0. I. ABALU

traditional farmers in the project area, suggests that the project’s success in introducing income-increasing technologies in its target area is a result of the use of extension and fertilisers. Since these inputs do not appear to be reaching a majority of the people, they are likely to lead to greater inequality in the area. On the other hand, the GCP appreciated the fact that progressive farmers in its area are richer, economically stronger, occupy leadership positions and have more contacts with people outside their communities than the majority of farmers. They (GCP) felt that these farmers, because of their favoured position, were capable of hindering the adoption and diffusion of new technology, since they control highly subsidised inputs and have easier access to agricultural services. The GCP then decided to follow a new approach. To accomplish this, equity-oriented supply, credit and extension programmes were set up. These three programmes were essentially designed so that their operations would by-pass existing community structures and function largely through new ones established directly by the project. A supply and credit programme that individualised relationships between members of the project area and the project itself was designed. New village organisations were set up to supply inputs and credit with each adult male in the village having the same chance of obtaining the inputs. Whilst the supply and credit programmes of the project attempted to neutralise existing dependency relationships in the project area, the extension programme was designed to exploit these very dependencies. Two-way communication was established between the farmers and the project. This was accomplished through the creation of ‘extension groups’ and ‘peer groups’. These groups were to form the basis on which new village structures were to be established (Huizinga6). Because the GCP was able to by-pass the existing political and social institutions in its villages, it was able to score considerable success in achieving widespread participation in its activities. This was helped in no small measure by the presence of highly motivated and goal-oriented project staff. The new social and political organisations that emerged in the villages turned out to be, however, too fragile and broke down as soon as the admininstrative and moral support provided by the project was removed. In this case, continued participation was not possible because it became very difficult to effectively by-pass the existing social order in the project area. Project administration

and the achievement

of project goals

Both the FADP and the GCP started out to achieve the now well recognised goals of increased agricultural production and improved welfare for the majority of the people. The FADP, whilst it may have succeeded in increasing agricultural production, appears to be failing to make an impact on the poor farmers in the project area. The GCP was successful in achieving widespread participation in its modest benefits but this success was not self-sustaining. We now examine those administrative factors within the respective strategies adopted by the two projects

RURAL

DEVELOPMENT

ADMINISTRATION

IN NORTHERN

NIGERIA

125

and attempt to explain why the one is achieving unintended results and the other failed to sustain the achievement of intended ones. Factors afecting

the achievement of project goals

Several factors can be identified which either facilitate or prevent the attainment of project goals. Some of the more important ones with respect to the situation in northern Nigeria are discussed below. Careful project preparation: An important factor affecting the achievement of the goals set out in a project is careful preparation. The project needsto be carefully studied and its organisational, manpower and financial implications properly worked out. It is also important that the goals and objectives to be achieved are clearly and unambiguously stated. Because it was receiving assistance from the World Bank, The FADP was provided with adequate advance planning. As is the case with most World Bank projects, several feasibility studies were carried out before the project was implemented. However, the specific goals and targets to be achieved were not precisely defined. For example, although it was explicitly stated that better income distribution was a goal to be pursued by the project, it is not clear from any of the project documents how important the attainment of this objective was deemed to be. It was also not clear how the attainment of this objective would be measured. On the other hand, although the goals and objectives of the GCP were very precisely stated, the project did not benefit from careful project planning and preparation. Even though the project was a research and development project combined, the lack of any careful project studies before it was implemented was to prove to be a major administrative bottleneck. Consultation with local people: Quite often agricultural administrators seetheir roles simply as providing and directing ‘modern’ outside innovations into rural communities. This, in essence,precludes the creativity of the rural people themselves and often exposes them to sets of problems and solutions that are alien to them. These administrators often find out, to their dismay, that introducing technological innovations and issuing orders from above are not sufficient to win compliance from farmers and to achieve established goals. Both the FADP and the GCP had very little or no consultation with local people before they were implemented. Local farmers were neither consulted with regard to their suggestions as to the kind of projects they considered important and feasible nor about the manner in which they could be involved in the implementation of the projects. However, whilst it can be said that the FADP presumed that it could achieve its goals simply by bringing in external resources,the GCP felt that, to achieve its goals successfully,it also had to concern itself with the social structures and institutions which would need to be utilised in achieving the goals. However, the GCP was satisfied to impose its ideas as to the ideal social and institutional structures on its farmers. Political commitment: Pervasive and sustained determination by all those

126

G. 0. 1. ABALU

responsible for the achievement of a growth with equity goal is a very important precondition for success (Rondinelli and Ruddleg). This determination is needed not only to articulate appropriate strategies and administrative orders but also to ensure high priority for the goals of the project when routine administrative the decisions are taken. Because the barriers posed by interests preventing redistribution of resources are usually very deeply entrenched, it would be difficult to break through them without unwavering political commitment on the part of people administering the project. Two of the main criticisms of the FADP strategy are that it lacks adequate political commitment and that the little commitment it does demonstrate is not geared towards the interest of the majority of farmers (Collins and Lappe’). The ‘technology first’ strategy being pursued by the FADP showed insufficient concern for other factors besides the need to push the technology itself. Consequently, when the project was confronted with organisational and administrative problems whilst pursuing the equity goal, it opted for the ‘progressive farmer route’, satisfied that it was not its responsibility to start social revolutions. The GCP, on the other hand, was fully committed to the achievement of its equity goals. It considered the project’s responsibility was to start a social revolution. Decentralised administrative arrangements: Agricultural projects usually require the services of a mixture of public and private institutions. Further, in order to achieve efficiency and build up the capacity of local organisations, it is necessary to decentralise the implementation of a project by delegating functions to local institutions. Neither the FADP nor the GCP seriously made attempts to delegate meaningful administrative functions to grassroots institutions. For the FADP, the lack of decentralised administrative arrangement was by intentional default whilst, for the GCP, it was by design. The FADP, being suspicious of existing grassroots institutions and believing that viable leadership upon which administrative functions would be delegated did not exist at the local level, decided to focus administrative powers in a central administrative system controlled by project management. This strategy did not help much in the achievement of the project’s equity goals (as it resulted in a blanket view of the development problems of the farmers in the area and in blanket prescriptions for their solution). The GCP was also very suspicious of existing village level institutions and their leadership. It decided, therefore, to create new institutions at the grassroots level. However, instead of treating the village as the basic administrative unit where most administrative decisions would be made, it decided to make the most of the administrative decisions for the grassroots institutions it had created. Although this strategy assisted in the achievement of the equity goals of the project, it was to later contribute to the demise of the project since a viable administrative capacity at the local level was never evolved. Adequate monitoring and evaluation procedures: An important administrative factor in the achievement of the goals of a project is a constant effort to monitor the effectiveness and efficiency with which each project decision contributes or takes

RURAL

DEVELOPMENT

ADMINISTRATION

IN NORTHERN

NIGERIA

127

away from the achievement of project goals and to evaluate overall project effectiveness in achieving the broad goals set out by the project. The FADP was served by an elaborate monitoring and evaluation unit. The major thrust of this unit was to collect farm management data which would be used to determine overall effectiveness. The reports produced by the FADP monitoring unit so far have concentrated entirely in showing how production and incomes have increased in the aggregate in the area. Although the unit was in a position to evaluate the overall effectiveness of the project in achieving its equity goals, there is little evidence to suggest that a fully fledged monitoring exercise was carried out during the implementation of the project. This would have provided an assessment of the impact of administrative decisions on the achievement of the equity goals the project had set for itself and an opportunity to respond accordingly when inappropriate decisions were being taken. Recent attempts by the project to draw implications for income distribution from measured increases in aggregate production and income would appear to be inappropriate because they fail to recognise that changes taking place in the project area are occurring in a situation dominated by changing relationships. Under this type of situation it is doubtful whether income can be measured and it is not clear how to interpret what is measured. An appropriate evaluation exercise for the FADP probably should have involved a description of thechanges taking place and an evaluation of their implications for the quality of life in the area. The GCP was quite successful in monitoring the effectiveness and efficiency with which its administrative decisions were contributing to, or deviating from, the achievement of the project’s equity goals. For example, the project monitored and responded quickly to administrative decisions concerning participation of farmers, periodic credit utilisation and repayment performance, use of purchased inputs, incidences of abuse, application of adopted recommendations, and so on. However, the GCP conspicuously failed to evaluate its overall effectiveness in achieving the equity goals it had set out to achieve. Convinced that it was pursuing the right track, the management of the project conveniently relegated to the back row the collection and analysis of information concerning the achievement of the overall goals of the project. As a result, evaluation was not done on the significance and validity of the project and its replicability under different circumstances. It soon became quite obvious that whilst the project was able to achieve its equity goals, it was doomed to fail as soon as the existing management attempted to pass on the decision-making functions of the project to local institutions.

CONCLUSIONS

In this paper an attempt has been made to show that the management and administration of agricultural projects is of critical importance in the achievement of

128

G. 0.

I. ABALU

equity goals.,Two projects attempting to improve upon the quality of life in northern Nigeria were examined and the following lessons are apparent. (1) It is important to clearly define the goal system being pursued by equity related agricultural projects. In the northern Nigerian context, the goal system was visualised as comprising three important components. These were: (i) improvement in the cropping system, (ii) improvement in the level and distribution of income and (iii) removal of forces creating and sustaining poverty. (2) The degree to which these three components of the goal system were achieved determined, in a large measure, the extent to which the overall goal of the improvement of the welfare of the people in the target area could be achieved. The project that was more successful in achieving all three components in a co-ordinated manner was more likely to be successful in improving the farmers’ quality of life. (3) It was clear from the analysis that, whenever project inputs are in short supply or high levels of subsidies are involved, the participation of members in the target areas should be restricted to certain types of farmer and the inputs acquired restricted to prescribed levels. This is likely to result in relatively higher costs of project operation and a longer gestation period for visible project benefits. This is a necessary price that has to be paid for mass participation by farmers in project activities. (4) Class interests are an important impediment against the achievement of equity goals. For these goals to be successfully pursued, vested interests need to eirher be effectively by-passed and the resulting new relationships sustained or to be persuaded and coerced into supporting goals that they often do not perceive to be in their interest.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This paper was written whilst I was a visiting professor in the Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University. My thanks and appreciation go to Ahmadu Bello University for granting me a sabbatical leave and to Bill Morris and Paul Farris for their assistance. Support from the Department of Agricultural Economics at Purdue University is gratefully acknowledged. I am also indebted to Brian D’Silva, M. R. Raza and M. S. Krishnaswamy for assisting in researching the topic. They are all, however, completely absolved of all possible implications of either agreement or disagreement with the ideas or even the facts of this paper.

REFERENCES

1. ABALU, G. 0. I., EJIGA, N. 0. O., KRISHNASWAMY,M. S. & RAZA, M. R., Economic survey of Kaduna State: Agriculture. Unpublished report, Ministry of Economic Development, Kaduna State, 1979.

RURAL

4. 5. 6.

7. 8. 9. 10.

ADMINISTRATION

IN NORTHERN

NIGERIA

129

G. 0. I. & D’SILVA, B., Socio-economic aspects of semi-arid tropical regions of Nigeria. Unpublished paper presented at the Workshop on Socio-Economic Constraints to Development of Semi-Arid Tropical Agriculture, ICRISAT, India, 19-23 February, 1979. CHAMBERS, R., Administrators: A neglected factor in pastoral development in East Africa, Journal of Administration Overseas, XVIII (1979) pp. 84-94. COLLINS,J. & LAPPE,F. M., 1979 The World Bank, IFDA Dossier No. 5 (March, 1979) pp. 1 l-20. FEDERALMINISTRYOF AGRICULTUREAND RURAL DEVELOPMENT, Integrated Rural Development Projects in Nigeria. (Mimeographed paper.) Department of Rural Development, 1979. HUMINCA, B., The guidedchangeproject: An experiment in smallfarmerdevelopmenr adminisrration in northern Nigeria. Unpublished manuscript, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria, 1979. LONGHURST,R. W., Malnutrition and the community-The social origins of deprivation, Proceedings of the Nutrition Society, 38 (1979), pp. 11~ 16. NORMAN, D. W., Rationalizing mixed cropping under indigenous conditions: The example of northern Nigeria, Journal of Development Studies, II (1974), pp. 3- 12. RONDINELLI,D. A. &RUDDLE, K., Political commitment and administrative support: Preconditions for growth with equity policy, Journal of Administration Overseas, XVII (1978). pp. 43-60. WALKER, H. H., CASTELL, W. & GRAFF, Z., The contribution of organization analysis to the appraisal of development projects: The example of the Ahero Pilot Irrigation scheme in Kenya. Zeitschrifl Fur Auslandische Landwirtschafr, 18 (1979), pp. 49968.

2. ABALU,

3

DEVELOPMENT