CURRENT AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION SERVICES
IN NIGERIA
Actors involved in extension work
Nigeria probably has the most elaborate research and
extension institution in sub-Saharan Africa, with a
population of over 140 million and 71 million ha of arable
land. The system comprises of 17 commodity – based
research institutes and a special national extension
institute, over 45 faculties of agriculture in conventional
federal, state and private universities, three universities of
agriculture, several colleges of agriculture/polytechnics
and three international agricultural research centers viz;
International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA), a
substation of International Livestock Research Institute
(ILRI), (Okwu and Ejembi, 2001). All these institutions
collectively and individually serve as the fountain of
agricultural innovation for both public and private agricultural
extension service providers. In Nigeria, agricultural
extension service has been mainly public. Currently the
major provider of public sector agricultural extension
services, is the agricultural Development programmes
(ADPs) in each of the 36 states of Nigeria.
The pre-ADP Extension Services (The conventional
extension system) were presumed to be ineffective and
could only provide limited services to the majority of
farmers in the basic farming enterprises due to
bureaucratic bottlenecks. This formed the basic fact
underlying the removal of the extension service from the
civil service system and the introduction of ADP in the
early 70s has now became the only functional public
extension service provider in the country (Ekpere, 1991).
The World Bank-ADP approach has been used to reorganize
the management of agricultural extension
system for effective performance. The main feature is the
training and visit extension system which include a single
line of command, a well-defined geographical boundary
of operation for each extension worker, a supervisor to
supervisee ratio of not more than 1:8. Other characteristics
include systematic programme of short training
courses, removal of all non-agricultural extension
functions from the responsibility of the extension worker,
effective monitoring and provision of adequate transport
facilities. These features ensure flexibility and prompt
decision-making devoid of regular civil service bureaucracy.
The current public extension service is now known
as Unified Agricultural Extension Services. Which means
the enlargement of the areas of focus to include serSaliu
et al. 073
vice in fishery, livestock and women in agriculture.
Oyebanji (1994) reported that the performance of the
extension services since the inception of this professional
system in Nigeria has been encouraging. Extension
contacts with farmers have increased, several technologies
have been disseminated and adopted by farmers.
Idachaba (2005) also asserted that Anyigba ADP (Kogi
State, Nigeria) greatly transformed the lives of Igala
people through the revolution in extension services
delivery. However, some prevailing problems existed and
limited the effectiveness of the system. The problems
include, insufficient funding at state level, inadequate or
non-availability of inputs, poor logistic supports and
inadequate staffing.
The issue of poor funding becomes critical after the
withdrawal of outside funding as revealed in a study by
Agbamu and Okagbare (2005) who explained that the
effects of expiration of World Bank funding were
noticeable in the inability of Ogun State Agricultural
Development Project (OGADEP) to provide enough
vehicles and motorcycles for its agricultural extension
work, irregular payment of traveling claims, ill-motivated
field-staff, reduced training session for village extension
workers and reduced monthly technology review
meetings. For instance 51.2% farmers were given
extension services fortnightly during World Bank
assistance when funding sources were 71.5% from World
Bank, 15.9% from state government, 6.8% from
International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD)
and 15.9% from Federal Government of Nigeria. But this
fortnight extension services fell to 40% after ceasation of
World Bank assistance. However, OGADEP was still able
to make significant patronage by looking inward for
survival. The state government increased financial
support to 43% IFAD, 44% and FGN 13.1%. The financial
inadequacy coupled with the inability of the public
extension services to meet the yearning and aspirations
of the farmers in a deregulated economy made a number
of private organizations to venture into agricultural
extension.