ND. mm v HMEHHJ V. .. . fl . an. .M_ .__ .7 H, ‘. T ,, ‘I .r :6 [bars ’BLR'NKMAN - - 1‘ “GEORGE”: r, INFR "PUB'-1;(;;rmies_. N; ERIA rd PRODUCTION IN ”NIG. Thesis m AGRICULTURALTEDUCAT othh‘e'Qngir-Ve’e :f MICHIGANSTATE- 'UNIVERSI LINGPROPOSED ‘RECONCI .Ll!.x|.....r L1}. .7 5...? .J....m..r.w . . 2% fun», A I” “,3 _, i ; , as :4 LIB}? ARY ' Michxgtui State 3 ‘ University This is to certify that the thesis entitled Reconciling Proposed Public Investments in Agricultural Education, Infrastructure and Production in Nigeria, 1969-1985 presented by George Loris Brinkman has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for £11— degree in Major fl} Agricultural Economics Date Iuly 17L 1969 0-169 ABSTRACT RECONCILING PROPOSED PUBLIC INVESTMENTS IN AGRICULTURAL EDUCATION, INFRASTRUCTURE AND PRODUCTION IN NIGERIA, 1969-1985 By George Loris Brinkman Agricultural planning in developing countries often has encountered difficulties in integrating projects for agricultural education and invest— ments in production. To improve agricultural planning, there is an urgent need for planning and research procedures which emphasize physical planning to reconcile the human and natural resource requirements of agricultural programs and projects. A major research study in Nigeria by the Consortium for the Study of Nigerian Rural Development has given the author an oppor- tunity to focus on improved procedures for reconciling investments in agricultural production with investments in supporting services. The objectives of this dissertation are 1. The development of a method for reconciling investments in agricultural production, education and infrastructure in developing countries with a) the capacity of the educational system to provide the necessary personnel, and b) the capacity of the economy through internal and external resources to finance both the educational and investment expenditures. 2. The application of this procedure to the programs and policies recommended by the Consortium for the Study of Nigerian Rural Development (CSNRD) for Nigeria over the 1969-85 period and the quantification of the manpower and financial consequences of three alternative strategies for George Loris Brinkman—Z Nigerian agricultural development from 1969 to 1985. The procedure developed for reconciling the necessary resource, manpower, and financial requirements of investments in agricultural production and infrastructure is called the reconciliation process. This procedure utilizes physical planning at both the farm and macroeconomic levels to determine the physical resource requirements necessary to implement agricultural programs and then to serve as a basis for determining the economic and financial feasibility of these programs. The method consists of the seven interrelated steps listed below and should be treated as a continuous and simultaneous process. 1. Gather background data. 2. Determine the investment program goals for production and infra— structure and determine educational program goals. 3. Reconcile educational and investment program goals. 4. Reconcile the integrated educational and investment goals with manpower requirements and the availability of trained manpower. 5. Determine costs and returns to the educational-investment package, and reconcile the social costs with social benefits. 6. Reconcile needed revenue with available revenue. 7. Interact with decision—makers and administrators to work out political balance and feasibility. The reconciliation process outlined here has been used by the author in a CSNRD analysis of three alternative development strategies for Nigeria over the 1969—85 period. These strategies are Strategy I, a continuation of present trends and policies in Nigerian agriculture; Strategy II, a change to more favorable agricultural policies and programs; Strategy III, George Loris Brinkman-3 a harsher, more exploitative agricultural policy than presently followed in Nigeria. The author devoted major attention to reconciling the invest- ments in production and infrastructure for Strategy II to develop a set of programs with high payoffs for Nigeria that were both consistent and feasible. The reconciliation process has demonstrated that the CSNRD recommended agricultural development Strategy II would be economically sound and financially feasible for Nigeria over the 1969-1985 period. The reconcilia- tion procedure was used to determine the university and subuniversity agricultural manpower requirements for credit, research, extension services supporting export and food crop production campaigns, and teachers for universities and subuniversity agricultural schools. The procedure has shown that this manpower could be trained in existing institutions with only minor modifications in physical plant, curriculum, and number of teachers. Furthermore, by concentrating on assisting smallholders through production campaigns and eliminating government investments in direct agricultural production, the annual governmental costs of Strategy II during the 1970's would be less than in 1966, and only $1.5 million more annually by 1985. Production and price projections revealed that the total value added in agriculture under this strategy would be £242 million and £420 million greater annually by 1985 than from the other two strategies. Finally, the financial analysis has revealed that the present taxes on export crop output with strong disincentives on production could be elimr inated or sharply reduced if only 4 to 6 percent of the projected increase in petroleum revenues could be used to finance agricultural programs. This amount would be about £4 million less by 1985 than the revenue which would be required from petroleum under a continuation of present trends. The use of George Loris Brinkman—4 petroleum revenues under Strategy II would be needed to provide time to develop new sources of revenue from agriculture through new land and income taxes and increased excise taxes, which would be made possible by the higher farmer incomes under this strategy. Strategy I and III, on the other hand, were shown by the reconciliation procedure to be both expensive and low return alternatives. The manpower requirements would be much less than under Strategy II, and would require a reduction in agricultural student enrollment in universities and technical agricultural schools from the 1966 level. Public expenditures under Strategies I and III by 1985 would be about £14 and £12 million more than Strategy II respectively. The total increase in GDP by 1985 under these two strategies, however, would be £420 and £515 million less than under the second strategy. Because of the low returns and high costs of these two strategies, it is unlikely that they could be followed until 1985 without being modified, perhaps haphazardly. The usefulness of the reconciliation process has been demonstrated in the CSNRD study in Nigeria. The federal government and the new Nigerian states may find this reconciliation procedure helpful in their future agricultural planning. The reconciliation process also should be a useful planning technique in other developing countries. RECONCILING PROPOSED PUBLIC INVESTMENTS IN AGRICULTURAL EDUCATION, INFRASTRUCTURE AND PRODUCTION IN NIGERIA, 1969-1985 By George Loris Brinkman A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Agricultural Economics 1969 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I wish to express my sincerest appreciation and gratitude to Dr. Glenn L. Johnson, my thesis supervisor, for his assistance throughout this study and to Dr. Dale E. Hathaway, my major professor, for his advice and counsel throughout my graduate studies. Much - appreciation is also due to Dr. Carl K. Eicher for his advice and assistance during this study and the dissertation preparation, and to Dr. Warren H. Vincent and Dr. Kirkpatrick Lawton for reviewing and criticising an early draft of the manuscript. I am grateful to Dr. 0. J. Scoville, Dr. George K. Dike, Dr. James M. Kincaid, Jr., Dr. James S. Long, and the other CSNRD team members for their assistance and cooperation in Nigeria and at Michigan State University throughout the entire study. I am indebted to Dr. Lawrence L. Boger and the Department of Agricultural Economics, the Midwestern Universities Consortium for International Activities, the Consortium for the Study of Nigerian Rural Development (operating under contract Afr. 264 from the United States Agency for International Development), and Dr. Lawton and the Institute of International Agriculture for making funds available for my graduate training and my research in Nigeria. I am also grateful for logistic support provided in Nigeria by the United States Agency for International Development which made much of the data collection possible. ii iii Finally, I cannot fully express my gratitude to my wife, Betty, for her encouragement, patience, understanding, and help in my years of graduate training, and for typing this manuscript. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x Chapter I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l me PrOb lem . 0 O O 0 O O O 0 O 0 0 O O O O O 0 O O O O 1 Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Review of Literature. . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Agricultural Planning in Nigeria . . . . . . . 11 The CSNRD Agricultural Sector Analysis . . . . 20 Preview of Following Chapters . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 II. PROCEDURE AND METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 The Reconciliation Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Summary of the Reconciliation Process . . . . . 36 Conceptual Problems in Agricultural Development Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 The Research Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 The Development of Projections . . . . . . . . 46 III. THE NIGERIAN AGRICULTURAL ECONOMY-—ITS IMPORTANCE AND CHARACTERISTICS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 The Importance of Agriculture in the Nigerian Economy . 49 Characteristics of Nigerian Agriculture . . . . . . . . 51 The Role of Government in Agriculture . . . . . . . . . 55 Present Employment and Training in Agriculture . . . . 58 Factors Restricting Employment in the Private Sector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 Recent Political and Economic Changes in Nigeria Affecting Agriculture . . , . . . . , . . . . . . . 64 iv Chapter Page IV. POLICIES AND PROGRAMS FOR INVESTMENTS IN PRODUCTION AND INFRASTRUCTURE IN NIGERIAN AGRICULTURE UNDER THREE ALTERNATIVE STRATEGIES FOR DEVELOPMENT: 1970-85 , , , 67 The Three Alternative Strategies , , , , , , , , 68 V. MANPOWER FOR NIGERIAN AGRICULTURE , , , , , , , , , , , , , 77 Subuniversity Training , . , , , _ , , , , , , , , , , 79 Training Requirements . . . . . . . . , . , , 85 Reconciliation , , , , , , , . . , . , , . , . 100 University Agricultural Training , , , . , , . , . , , 102 Reconciliation , , . . , , , . , , , , , 106 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110 VI. FINANCING NIGERIAN AGRICULTURE , . , , . , , . , , , . , , 113 Public Expenditures , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . 113 The Returns to Agricultural Investments , , , , 121 Cost and Return Comparisons among the Three Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121 Prospects for Financing the Three Strategies, . , , . 127 sumary O O 0 O O O O I 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 135 VII. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS , , , , , , , . , , , , , , , , , , 139 Sumary O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O 139 conC1USionS O O O O O C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 151 BIBLIOGRAPI—IYO O O 0 O I 0 O O O 0 O O O O O O 0 O O O O O I O O O 153 APPENDIX A Acreage Targets for Strategy II Export Crop Production campaigns 0 0 O O O O O O I O O O O O C O O 0 0 161 APPENDIX B Projections of Export Crop Production Under the Three Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163 APPENDIX C Projections of Financial Returns from Export Crop Production Under Three Alternative Strategies . , , 169 APPENDIX D Agricultural Research Expenditures in Nigeria, 1966-67. 174 'APPENDIX E Strategy II: Extension Staffing for Smallholder Campaigns, 1966-1985, 175 LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1 Value of Principal Exports from Nigeria, 1950-1967 . . . . . 50 2 Nigerian Subuniversity Agricultural Training Institutions , , 59 3 Private Sector Employment of Trained Nigerian Agricultural- ists in the Western and Six Northern States of Nigeria, 1968 o o o o c o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 0 62 4 Strategy II: Type of Government Investment Activities Recommended to Facilitate Expansion of Nigerian Agriculture, by Commodity Groups in Nigeria, 1970—1985 . 71 5 Strategy I: Employment of Total Agricultural Crop Extension Staff, Nigeria by Area and Staff Category, 1966 and Projections for 1970,1975, and 1985 . . . . . . . 80 6 Strategy II: Employment of Total Agricultural Crop Exten- sion Staff, Nigeria by Area and Staff Category, 1966 and Projections for 1970,1975, and 1985 . . . . . . 81 7 Strategy III: Employment of Total Agricultural Crop Exten— sion Staff, Nigeria by Area and Staff Category, 1966 and Projections for 1970,1975, and 1985. . . . . . . 82 8 Strategy I, Subuniversity Agricultural Crop Extension Technical Manpower: Employment (1966) and Projected Employment and Training Requirements, Nigeria by Training Area and Staff Category, 1967-1985 . . . . . . 86 9 Strategy II, Subuniversity Agricultural Crop Extension Technical Manpower: Employment (1966) and Projected Employment and Training Requirements, Nigeria by Training Area and Staff Category, 1967—1985 - . . . . . 88 10 Strategy III, Subuniversity Agricultural Crop Extension Technical Manpower: Employment (1966) and Projected Employment and Training Requirements, Nigeria by Training Area and Staff Category, 1967-1985 . . . . . . 90 11 Strategy I, Total Manpower from Technical Schools of Agriculture: Employment (1966) and Projected Training Requirements, Nigeria by Training Area and Staff Category, 1967-1985 ~ - - - - - - . - - - - - 92 vi vii Table Page 12 Strategy II, Total Manpower from Technical Schools of Agriculture: Employment (1966) and Projected Training Requirements, Nigeria by Training Area and Staff Category, 1967-1985 . 94 13 Strategy III, Total Manpower from Technical Schools of Agriculture: Employment (1966) and Projected Training Requirements, Nigeria by Training Area and Staff Category, 1967—1985 . , . , , , , , . . , , 96 14 Strategy I: Employment of University Graduates in Agriculture (BSc's, MSc's and PhD's) by Area and Type of Work in Nigeria, 1966 and Projections for 1970, 1975 and 1985 103 O O O C O O O O O O O O O O 15 Strategy II: Employment of University Graduates in Agriculture (BSc's, MSc's and PhD's) by Area and Type of Work in Nigeria, 1966 and Projections for 1970, 1975 and 1985 , . . . . , , , , , , , , , . 104 16 Strategy III: Employment of University Graduates in Agriculture (BSc's, MSc's and PhD's) by Area and Type of Work in Nigeria, 1966 and Projections for 1970, 1975 and 1985 . . , , , , . . , . , . . . 105 17 Strategy I, Nigerian University Graduates in Agriculture: Employment (1966) and Training Requirements by Areas in Nigeria, 1967-1985 , , , , , , , , , , , , , . , 107 18 Strategy II, Nigerian University Graduates in Agriculture: Employment (1966) and Training Requirements by Areas in Nigeria, 1967-1985 0 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 108 19 Strategy III, Nigerian University Graduates in Agriculture: Employment (1966) and Training Requirements by Areas in Nigeria, 1967-1985 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109 20 Strategy I: Annual Government-Appropriated Public Sector Agricultural Expenditures in Nigeria by Areas, 1966 and Projections for 1970, 1975 and 1985 . . . . . . . 114 21 Strategy II: Annual Government-Appropriated Public Sector Agricultural Expenditures in Nigeria by Areas, 1966 and Projections for 1970, 1975 and 1985 . . . . - - . 115 22 Strategy III: Annual Government-Appropriated Public Sector Agricultural Expenditures in Nigeria by Areas, 1966 and Projections for 1970, 1975 and 1985 . . - - - . - 117 viii Table Page 23 Projected Farmers' Income from Export Crops, and Foreign Exchange Earnings and Government Revenues from Export Crops and Petroleum, Nigeria, 1970, 1975 and 1985 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122 24 Selected Components of National Income under Three Alternative Strategies in Nigeria, 1967 and Projections for 1970, 1975 and 1985 . . . . . . . . . 123 25 Total Annual Government—Appropriated Expenditures, Needed Tax Revenues and Revenue Sources for Agricultural Programs Under Three Alternative Strategies in Nigeria, 1966 and Projections for 1970, 1975 and 1985 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128 26 Approximate Petroleum Revenue Allocation in Nigeria, { 1966 and Projections for 1970, 1975 and 1985 . . . . 134 27 Summary of Selected Projections of Returns, Costs and Revenue Under Three Alternative Strategies, Nigeria, 1975 and 1985. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147 Appendix Table A.l Strategy II: Suggested Oil Palm Campaign Acreage, Nigeria, 1970-75 I I I I I O O I O I I I I I 0 O O D 162 I A.2 Strategy II: Suggested Cocoa Campaign Acreage, Nigeria, 1970—75 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I O I I I O O 162 3.1 Selected Aspects of Rubber Production Under Three Alternative Strategies, Nigeria, 1963, 1966, 1970, 1975 and 1985 I I I I I C I I I 0 I I O I I I I I I I 164 B.2 Selected Aspects of Cocoa Production Under Three Alternative Strategies, Nigeria, 1963, 1967, 1970 1975 and 1985 I I I I I I O I I I I I I O O I I I u I 165 B.3 Selected Aspects of Palm Produce Production Under Three Alternative Strategies, Nigeria, 1963, 1967, 1970, 1975, 1985 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166 3-4 Selected Aspects of Groundnut Production Under Three Alternative Strategies, Nigeria, 1963,1967,1970, 1975 and 1985 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167 Table C.4 D.l ix Page Cotton and Cotton Products Projections Under Three Alternative Strategies: Payments to Farmers from Exports and Domestic Consumption, Government Revenues and Exchange Earnings, Nigeria, 1970, 1975 and 1985 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168 Rubber Projections Under Three Alternative Strategies: Payments to Farmers from Exports and Domestic Consumption, Government Revenues and Exchange Earnings, Nigeria, 1970, 1975 and 1985 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169 Cocoa Projections Under Three Alternative Strategies: Payments to Farmers from Exports, Government Revenues and Exchange Earnings, Nigeria, 1970, 1975 and 1985. . 170 Palm Products Projections Under Three Alternative Strategies: Payments to Farmers from Exports and Domestic Consumption, Government Revenues and Exchange Earnings, Nigeria, 1970, 1975 and 1985 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171 Groundnut Products Projections Under Three Alternative Strategies: Payments to Farmers from Exports, Government Revenues and Exchange Earnings, Nigeria, 1970, 1975 and 1985. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172 Cotton and Cotton Products Projections Under Three Alternative Strategies: Payments to Farmers from Exports and Domestic Consumption, Government Revenues and Exchange Earnings, Nigeria, 1970, 1975 and 1985 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173 Agricultural Research Expenditures in Nigeria, 1966—67 . . 174 Strategy II: Extension Staffing for Smallholder Campaigns, 1966-1985. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Ecological Zones of Nigeria 2 Changes in the 1966 level of Public Expenditures in Agriculture, and Farmers' Income and Exchange Earnings from Export Crops Under Three Alternative Strategies in Nigeria, 1970, 1975 and 1985 3 Revenue Required from Nonagricultural Sources to Finance Public Agricultural Programs in Nigeria, 1970, 1975 and 1985 Page 52 126 131 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION The Problem Developing countries are becoming increasingly aware that their rate of economic development must be accelerated if the desires of their citizens for employment and better incomes are to be realized. In the past 10—15 years, many developing countries have turned to development planning and formal development plans to stimulate their growth and development. The results, however, have been far from satisfactory. In analyzing development planning in over 100 countries, Waterson writes Even a casual examination of the results achieved from development planning in most less developed countries indicates that they are falling short of what is reasonable to expect. The record is so poor—-it has been worsening in facte-that it has sometimes led to disillusionment with planning and the abandonment of plans. Even in India, a citadel of planning, planning has been under unprecedented attack. Indeed, participants in the United Nations Meeting of Experts on Administrative Aspects of National Development Planning, held in Paris in June 1964, went so far as to suggest that national development planning was in crisis. Waterson summarizes some of the difficulties in planning in four general categories.2 First, inadequate information often led to unrealistic assumptions and the selection of over-ambitious targets 1Albert Waterson, Development Planning, Lessons in Experience (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1965), p. 4. 21bid., Chapters IV and VI. (e.g. Morocco, Guinea, Bolivia, Nepal, Burma, Upper Volta). A second major difficulty was the lack of viable projects that had been properly prepared and investigated (e.g. Bolivia, Chile, Guatemala, Morocco, Phillippines). A third difficulty comprised inconsistencies and a lack of integration of economic and financial policies in planning (e.g. Nigeria, India, Pakistan). Finally, poor planning procedures, including improper use of econometric techniques and comprehensive planning, caused numerous difficulties (e.g. Burma, Ceylon, Bolivia, Ghana, Ethiopia, Indonesia, MOrocco, Phillippines). Watson and Dirlam generally agree with Waterson in summarizing the most serious obstacles to effective development planning as lacks of basic information suitable for planning, appropriate projects, and qualified and motivated personnel.3 These shortcomings emphasize that one of the greatest needs for improving development planning is sufficient research to I) investigate and prepare sound projects and 2) to provide the background information for preparing consistent and feasible plans. Research is needed especially in the agricultural sector, where variations in yields, the heterogeneous nature of ecological zones of production, and the ubiquity of small producing units all make agricul- tural planning much more complex than planning for the industrial sector. Research for agricultural planning in many developing countries, however, has been poorly coordinated and focused on a limited range of 3Andrew M. Watson and Joel B. Dirlam, "The Impack of Underdevelopment on Economic Planning," Quaterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 79, (May, 1965), p. 194. agricultural investment projects. Frequently little attention has been given to agricultural education and other supporting services. Only a handful of less developed countries (LDC's) have had comprehensive agricultural sector studies completed for them and many of these studies have been hampered in their usefulness for agricultural planning by important omissions and internal inconsistencies. Little research has been conducted to insure consistency between the natural resource, financial, and educational requirements of investment programs and projects. Manpower and educational studies have often concentrated attention on the educational institutions and their capacities and have devoted inadequate attention to the demand for trained manpower needed to plan and implement investment projects. Likewise, economists who have analyzed directly productive investment projects in agriculture have stressed financial aspects while underplaying physical planning in terms of human and natural resource requirements. At the macro— economic level, too little attention has been devoted to changes over time in the distribution and allocation of costs and returns. Almost no research has been conducted to see if adequate revenue would be avail— able to be allocated to the appropriate agencies responsible for the development programs.4 To improve agricultural planning, procedures urgently need to be 4Two examples of comprehensive studies in Nigeria which include some of these shortcomings are The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, The Economic Development of Nigeria (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1955), and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Agricultural Development in Nigeria, 1965-1980 (Rome: FAO, 1966). These two studies are discussed in greater detail in the literature review. developed for reconciling investments in agricultural production with investments in agricultural infrastructure such as extension services, credit and research. A major research study in Nigeria has given the author an opportunity to focus on improved procedures for reconciling investments in agriculture production with investments in supporting services. Hopefully, this analysis will be of help to planners both in Nigeria and in other LDC's. Since 1966, the Consortium for the Study of Nigerian Rural Development (CSNRD) has been conducting an agricultural sector analysis to aid Nigeria in its growth and development.5 This comprehensive analysis included studies organized under five major subprojects: 1. The economics of university level agricultural education. 2. The economics of subuniversity level agricultural education. 3. The economics of public and private investment (including marketing). 4. The economics of agricultural research. 5. The economics of agricultural credit. The purpose of the CSNRD analysis is to evaluate and make recomr mendations to both the U.S. and Nigerian governments for Nigerian rural development. CSNRD has outlined three alternative development strategies to differentiate between possible routes for Nigerian agricultural development over the 1970—85 period. These strategies are: Strategy I——a continuation of present policies, Strategy II—-policies more favorable to the agricultural sector, and Strategy III——harsher, more exploitive 5Contract no. AID/afr-264. policies and programs than presently found in Nigeria. Projections have been developed by CSNRD researchers to quantify the consequences of each strategy over the 1970-85 period in terms of growth, employment, and foreign exchange earnings. The five CSNRD subprojects have investigated the broad range of agricultural development problems frequently encountered in LDC's. Like most other research studies, the individual studies contained no mechanism to provide consistency among the subproject recommendations or to investigate their overall financial feasibility. The research outlined in this dissertation was undertaken to reconcile the invest- ments proposed under the CSNRD recommended Strategy II and to identify possible weaknesses and imbalances in the other two strategies. Objectives The general purpose of this dissertation is the development of an improved procedure for reconciling investments in agricultural production with investments in agricultural infrastructure, with special emphasis on manpower and financial requirements. The specific objectives of this study are 1. The development of a method for reconciling investments in agricultural production and infrastructure in developing countries with a) the capacity of the educational system to provide the necessary personnel, and b) the capacity of the economy through internal and external resources to finance the expenditures for both the educational and investment expenditures. 2. The application of this reconciliation process to the CSNRD recommended programs and policies in Nigeria and the quantification of the manpower and financial consequences of three alternative strategies for agricultural development from 1969 to 1985.6 Review of Literature A comprehensive review of the literature on agricultural planning is presented by Gittinger.7 The review of literature which follows will briefly spotlight the general literature on planning and agricul— tural development research, and then concentrate on literature on agricultural planning in Nigeria. Development literature includes very little material on the requirements, organization, and coordination of development research. Many of the specialized texts on development planning treat the planning process as if all necessary information were available and all the investigations and adjustments of costs, returns, and organization of programs and projects were the responsibility of the planners theme selves, rather than their relying on researchers for any of this information. This process, of course, will draw heavily on material and pro— jections provided by other members of the CSNRD research team. 7J. Price Gittinger, The Literature of Agricultural Planning, Planning Methods Series No. 4 (Washington: Center for Development Planning, National Planning Association, 1966). 8See Albert Waterson, op. cit.; Herman M. Southworth and Bruce F. Johnston, eds., Agricultural Development and Economic Growth (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1967); Wolfgang F. Stolper, Planning Without Facts: 'Lessons in Resource Allocation from Nigeria's Development (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1966); and to a lesser extent, W. Arthur Lewis, Develgpment Planning: The Essentials of Economic Policy (New York: Harper and Row, 1966). In the case of Nigeria which Stolper discusses, considerable "preplanning" research was undertaken although this is not explained adequately in his book. Lewis and Myrdal have recently made important contributions to the general planning literature with reference to agricultural planning research. Lewis emphasizes the need for both micro and macroeconomic data for planning.9 Lewis stresses the need for plan preparation to begin simultaneously at both the individual project level and at the macroeconomic level, and then be reconciled. Myrdal criticizes the heavy emphasis on financial aspects of planning and strongly urges planners to devote more attention to analysis of the physical relation— ships in planning.10 This type of planning is described by Myrdal as physical planning and must preceed financial planning because it examines the natural resource, manpower, and other input requirements that are necessary to implement projects. Physical planning may also provide projections of physical production in the various sectors of the economy to serve as a basis for estimating future income and tax revenues. Both physical planning and reconciling macroeconomic and farm level data will be stressed in the reconciliation procedure developed in this dissertation. The specific literature on research for agricultural planning is very limited. Szczepanik considers research as one of several steps basic to agricultural planning.ll These steps include formulation of objectives and preplanning targets, research, formulation of development 9W. Arthur Lewis, op. cit. p. 147. 10Gunnar Myrdal, Asian Drama, an Inguiryiinto the Poverty of Nations, Vol. III (New York: Twentieth Century Fund, 1968) pp. 1919-1923. 11E. F. Szczepanik, "Agricultural Development Programs: Principal Steps in Formulation," in Agricultural Planning Course, 1963 (Rome: FAO, 1964) pp. 13, 47. policies and measures, formulation of investment schemes and projects, programming, implementation, and evaluation. Mosher summarizes seven research priorities for agricultural planning.12 These are farm operations, technological change and risks of innovation, urban market development, education, rural community development schemes, the organization and administration of agricultural institutions, and the relationships of agricultural production and rural welfare. Clark reviews in detail the research studies which were commissioned for Nigeria's 1962-68 plan.13 Clark's list of preplanning research studies for Nigeria, however, includes only one preplanning research project connected with agriculture, a physical hydrological survey. Some guidelines for the orientation of agricultural development research in LDC's are spelled out by Schickele, DeWilde, and Eicher. Schickele emphasizes the need for farm management research for develop- ment planning since information on how farms operate and are organized is necessary for the development and successful implementation of many agricultural programs in LDC's.14 Schickele, however, should have given more attention to farm level research rather than just farm management research as the former would include relevant research 12Arthur T. Mosher, "Research Needed on the DeveIOpment Process for Agriculture" in Economic Development of Agriculture, Iowa State University Center for Agricultural and Economic Development (Ames: Iowa State University Press, 1962). 13Peter Bently Clark, "Economic Planning for a Country in Tran— sition: Nigeria", in Planning Economic Development, ed. by Everett E. Hagen (Homewood, 111.: Richard D. Irwin, 1963). l['Rainer Schickele, "Farm Management Research for Agricultural Planning", in Agrarian Revolution and Economic Proggess, (New York: Praeger, 1968). on forms of farm organization in addition to private smallholder farms. DeWilde advocates farm level research to identify critical bottlenecks in labor, equipment, and economic incentives.15 He writes Agricultural research must be largely oriented to the requirements of the small family farm which is character— istic of African agriculture. Research should not be understood simply as the technical and scientific work carried out on agricultural experiment stations. It must be more broadly conceived as including all types of studies and investigations that produce innovations which farmers will consider feasible and rewarding. It must be concerned with all the factors, socio-economic as well as technical, which condition the receptivity to change at the farm level.16 Eicher emphasizes the need to consider the interrelationships between modern inputs and complementary investments in irrigation, feeder roads, and pesticides, and the interrelationship between agriculture and other sectors of the economy.17 He also emphasizes the need for farm level data on profitability of farmer investments as well as macro research on the effects of trade, education and pricing policies. The general programming of the steps in planning is discussed by Stolper, Ojala, and Lewis. Stolper lists a 14 step procedure which was followed in Nigeria.18 This procedure involved assembling data on programs, revenues, and expenditures to facilitate planning. Further 15J. C. DeWilde, "Making Agricultural Research Relevant to African Farmers", in Conference on Agricultural Research Priorities for Economic Development in Africa, Vol. III, The Abidjan Conference (Washington D.C.: National Academy of Science, 1968). 16Ibid, p. 176. 17Carl K. Eicher, "Economic Research for African Agricultural Development", in Conference on Agricultural Research Priorities for Economic Development in Africa, Vol. III, The Abidjan Conference (Wash- ington D.C.: National Academy of Science, 1968). 18Wolfgang F. Stolper, op. cit., pp. 46-49. lO examination focussed on finances, the regional distribution and implications of capital expenditures and revenues, and matching available resources to needs. All breakdowns were to have been phased. Ojala presents 10 steps in agricultural programming.19 The first six steps involve defining objectives, reviewing population, trade, etc., stocktaking of agriculture development information, and assessing prospects for agricultural development, demand, and output. Next, targets need to be set and policies and projects chosen. Since the first tentative results are likely to contain inconsistencies, successive approximations must be made for satisfactory balance. The final step is implementation and review. Lewis identifies four con- straints to general development: natural resources, manpower, physical capacity of the capital goods industries, and finances. He then gives examples on how to work out balances and development plans for these constraints.20 Lewis also treats the balancing process as a series of successive approximations. Stolpher, Ojala and Lewis all stress the important point that initial targets must be considered tentative and that adjustments to achieve balance and consistency need to be worked out as successive approximations. However, they stress planning within the framework of adequate primary and secondary data, with the responsibility of examining this data being placed entirely on planners. Consequently, they do not emphasize the need for research or the contribution in analyzing data that can be made by researchers working 19E. M. Ojala, "The Programming of Agricultural Development," in Agriculture and Economic Development, ed. by Herman Southworth and Bruce Johnston (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1967) pp. 554-555. 20Arthur Lewis, Op. cit., Chapter III. ll closely with planners. The procedures presented by these authors also focus on the macroeconomic level and consequently underplay the complementarity between educational services and investments at the project level. None of the authors examines specifics of staffing or training manpower for agricultural projects. Agricultural Planning in Niggria Development planning in Nigeria began under colonial rule shortly after World War II when all British administrators of colonies were requested to submit 10—year development plans. This request produced A Ten Year Plan of Development and Welfare for Nigeria, 1946 which 21 was in reality a collection of disjointed projects. In 1951 this program was amended and published as A Revised Plan of Development and Welfare for Nigerig, 1951-56.22 In 1953 a World Bank economic mission conducted a comprehensive, multisector analysis of the Nigerian economy to provide recommendations about future economic development, including general recommendations for agricultural development.23 Many of the recommendations were incorporated by the regional and federal governments into their 1955-60 development plans. These plans, however, were not well coordinated and gave low priority to the development of agriculture. Export crop expansion was encouraged to raise revenues for general development, 21Government of Nigeria, A Ten Year Plan of Development and Welfare for Nigeria, 1946 (Lagos: Government Printing Office, 1946). 22Government of Nigeria, A Revised Plan of Development and Welfare for Nigeria, 1951-56 (Lagos: Government Printing Office, 1951). 23The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, The Economic Development of Nigeria (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1955). 12 rather than the improvement and expansion of the agricultural sector. The implementation of Nigeria's regional plans from 1955 to 1960 encountered many bottlenecks, ranging from inadequate public services to a lack of trained manpower. The difficulties experienced in implementing the 1955-60 regional plans made obvious the need for improved coordination of planning. With independence approaching in 1960, Nigeria chose to coordinate their policies and programs through a nationally integrated development plan and established more efficient planning organizations. Numerous surveys were conducted to gather data, including the important Economic Survey of Nigeria in 1959.24 The 1955-60 plans were also extended to run through 1962. The final plan preparation required approximately a year and a half for the preplanning surveys and a year for the plan formulation. In 1962, The National Development Plan, 1962-68,25 was launched. The First National Plan was actually composed of five sub-plans. Initially one sub—plan was provided for each of the three regional governments and one for the federal government. Later, with the creation of the Mid-western State, a fifth sub—plan was added. Top priority in the 1962—68 plan was given to agricultural and industrial 26 development and the training of high and intermediate level manpower. Growth of Gross Domestic Product was to be increased from 3.9 to 4.0 24National Economic Council, Economic Survey of Nigeria, 1959 (Lagos: Federal Government Printer, 1959). 25Federation of Nigeria, National Development Plan, 1962-68 (Lagos: Federal Ministry of Economic Development, 1962). 26Ibid, p. 22. 13 percent per year. Early in the plan Helleiner spotlighted some problems which he thought might prevent Nigeria from achieving the targets set forth in the plan.27' These problems included a failure to start quickly, short— falls in foreign aid, employment pressures and the high rate of population growth, and the administrative costs arising from the establishment of the Mid-western Region. Dean later pointed out that the Nigerian economy had indeed achieved the 4 percent rate of growth in GDP up to the outbreak of hostilities in 1966; but that deficient executive competence, insufficient foreign aid, and political corruption had severely restricted the implementation of the plan.28 Lewis also criticized planning in Nigeria for failure to develop and provide adequate programs for the private sector (especially for small farmers), machinery for implementing the public sector programs, sufficient evaluation and public participation in decision making. Lewis also deplored excessive political intervention in the making of economic decisions.29 In the 1962-68 plan, the planning for the agricultural sector was done in a very haphazard manner and unrelated to a national 27Gerald K. Helleiner, Peasant Aggiculture, Government, and Economic Growth in Nigeria (Homewood: Richard D. Irwin, 1966) p. 364. 28E. R. Dean, "Nigerian Plan Implementation, 1962 to 1968" Paper presented at Michigan State University, July 10, 1968. A more thorough evaluation of the 1962-68 plan is provided by Dean in his forthcoming book on the plan. 29W. Arthur Lewis, Reflections on Nigeria's Economngrowth (Paris: Development Center of OECD, 1967) pp. 38 and 39. l4 agricultural policy, despite the very high priority given to agricul— tural development. There are several major criticisms of the agricultural planning effort for the 1962-68 plan. First, except for volume and value data on export crops, the agricultural planning proceeded with only fragmentary data, especially at the farm level. By the time the plan was formulated, no research was available to agricultural planners, even though the long list of preplanning surveys undertaken included such less important items as a careful study of the Lagos Island Sewerage System. Planners in Nigeria recognized the need for additional assistance to plan for agriculture and commissioned a team of 16 experts from the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations to study agriculture and provide recommendations for development. Unfortunately the team did not arrive until after the plan had been formulated; the FAO final report was not published until 1966.30 Some other planning- type research was conducted during the plan by individual government economists, the Economic Development Institute (EDI), the Rural Economic Research Unit (RERU), and The Nigerian Institute for Social and Economic Research (NISER), which was allocated £3200,000 from the federal government during the 1962-68 plan. The second criticism of agricultural planning in Nigeria is its poor coordination of agricultural policy. Under the 1954 constitution, primary responsibility for agricultural development had been placed under regional control. The regional organization for agricultural 30Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Agricultural Development in Nigeria, 1965-1980, (Rome: FAO, 1966). 15 planning required coordination by, as well as advice, from the national planning team to develop an overall national policy. However, the national planning team did not contain a single agricultural planner, agricultural economist, sociologist or anthropologist. Also, the Federal Government appears to have exercised very little influence on agricultural policies at the regional level. This lack of involvement cannot be justified by the constitutional restrictions on federal executive responsibility for agriculture. Federal involvement in agricultural policy formation at the regional level was both necessary and possible. For example, the Federal Government's committment of £25 million to the regional governments for acceptable agricultural projects during the plan 31 provided an excellent opportunity to assist in agricultural planning at the regional level. The Federal Government, however, did not follow up on this opportunity. In brief, agriculture, which was the largest sector of the Nigerian economy and provided employment for 70-80 percent of the population, 80 percent of the foreign exchange earnings, and by far the largest sector share of GDP, received very inadequate attention in Nigeria's First National Plan, especially from the national planning team. A third criticism of agricultural planning in Nigeria during the First National Plan is the poor choice of regional projects and the inadequate use of physical planning in developing these projects. The Northern Region's agricultural projects consisted mostly of irrigation schemes. No special programs were developed for improving 31Federation of Nigeria, National Development Plan, 1962-68, p. 58. 16 production of the two major crops, groundnuts and cotton, although such minor projects as beekeeping were promoted. In the two southern regions, investments were wisely concentrated on the major export crops, cocoa, oil palm, and rubber. In these regions, the legetimate criticism is not so much which crops were chosen for promotion, but a criticism of the type of production units chosen. Some smallholder improvement schemes were prepared, but most of the emphasis was on capital intensive government plantations and farm settlements. In addition, many of the original targets had been made without adequate physical planning and were found later to be infeasible. An illustration of poor planning is the Eastern Region's rubber planting scheme which almost immediately scaled down its plan targets because of inadequacies of nursery facilities, manpower, soil types, and logistic support for extension services. A total of 1,170 acres of rubber was planted in 1962-63 out of 2,000 acres planned for the year, and during the second year (1963-64), 2,530 acres were planted out of an estimated target of 8,000 acres. Thus only 3,700 acres out of 1962-68 Plan target of 100,000 acres have been planted to date. The planned target has consequently been scaled down to a more realistic figure of 50,000 acres.32 Throughout Nigeria, the poorly selected and conceived projects came in part from political motives, but also resulted from the lack of good physical planning data on specific agricultural projects. Nigeria's 1962—68 plan also can be criticized for the fragmentary nature of planning done for agricultural education. Along with 32Ministry of Economic Planning, First Progress Report--Eastern Nigeria Development Plan, 1962-68 (Enugu: Government Printer, 1964). l7 agriculture, top priority in the 1962-68 plan was given to education for high and intermediate level manpower. In this category, agricul— tural education services and training were promoted and expanded. Unfortunately these programs were developed, as were agricultural investments, with inadequate research information and coordination. Insufficient attention was devoted to an examination of the inter- dependence of educational services and new agricultural investments, and too much reliance was placed on broad ratios of extension workers to farm families, especially in the north. The original recommendations on general education in the 1962-68 plan were based on the Ashby Commission Report33, which omitted specific recommendations on manpower training for agriculture. Consequently R. W. Rowat was later come missioned to study agricultural education services. Rowat's 1964 report reviews the educational institutions serving agriculture and attempts to establish some guidelines for training staff for extension, veterinary, and other technical services in agriculture.34 Rowat's guidelines were based on the ratios of 1 extension worker to 1000 33Federal Ministry of Education, Investment in Education: The Report of the Commission on Post—School Certificate and Higher Education in Nigeria (Lagos: Government Printer, 1960). 34R. W. Rowat, The Develgpment of Education and Trainipgiin the Field of Agriculture and Related Subjects in Nigeria (Rome: FAO, 1966). Two other studies for general education were also undertaken late in the plan by external agencies, but they do not give specific attention to agricultural education needs. These two studies are Nigerian Human Resource Development and Utilization (New York: Education and World Affairs, 1967), and A. Callaway and A. Musone, Financing of Education in Nigeria (Paris: UNESCO, International Institute for Educational Planning, 1968). Both of these publications give useful information on the organization and financing of general education institutions in Nigeria. 18 farm families in the south and 1:2000 in the north. These ratios give general magnitudes of educational requirements, but they do not give enough attention to the details of manpower requirements and the payoffs of extension services for specific programs and investment schemes to provide guidelines for staffing specific programs. The major research for agricultural development during the 1962- 68 plan was provided by the FAO research team, which was requested by the government of Nigeria to provide long-term perspectives and recommendations for agricultural development through 1980.35 The FAO team prepared a rather well developed, comprehensive agricultural sector analysis which concentrates primarily on agricultural invest- ments but also considers agricultural education services and other agricultural institutions. The FAO report presents detailed data on per acre cost and returns. The FAO team recommended large scale development schemes for cocoa, rubber, and oil palm, that exceed the initial programs undertaken by the regional governments in the 1962-68 plan. Strong points of the report are the projections of the conse- quences of these investments through time. Unlike some comprehensive agricultural sector studies, the report also presents useful guidelines for staffing production schemes. The recommendations for developing general extension on the other hand, are based on Rowat's ratios36 and are not sufficiently related to investment programs. 35Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, op. cit. 36R. W. Rowat, op. cit. 19 The FAO report is very helpful in agricultural planning. Its omissions, however, reduce its usefulness to Nigeria. The major criticism of the research procedure followed by the FAO team is no check was made to insure that their recommendations were balanced and consistent both within agriculture and with the rest of the economy. For example, the report does not examine the total demand for Nigerians with extension training to determine if sufficient numbers can be trained to fill all the necessary positions, including those for the tree crop schemes. The report also does not develop the aggregate overall costs and returns of the tree crop schemes which, together with other agricultural expenditures, must be known to determine if the total programs are financially and economically feasible. The report further fails to analyze sources of tax revenue alternative to taxes on export crops. The last consideration is very important because of the recent discovery and exploitation of large supplies of petroleum. The FAO report appears to be much more concerned with programs than policies. It is also biased towards tree crops and towards the southern areas where tree crops can be grown. Considerably more research and discussion of northern agricultural development beyond the three pages for cotton and six pages for groundnuts should have been included in the report. Furthermore, outside of a very good chapter on farm settlements, the report was uncritical of government investment schemes such as processing, plantations, etc. CSNRD used the 1966 FAO study as its point of departure. Hence, we shall now return to discussion of the CSNRD study. 20 The CSNRD Agricultural Sector Analysis The CSNRD study was an interdisciplinary, comprehensive agri— cultural sector analysis undertaken from 1966 to 1969. It was financed by USAID and carried out by a number of American universities and governmental agencies under the name of The Consortium for the Study of Nigerian Rural Development (CSNRD). This study was under— taken to provide recommendations for improving Nigerian agriculture. As the study evolved cooperative links were established between CSNRD researchers and Nigerian institutions such as the Federal Ministry of Economic Development, Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Natural Resources, National Universities Commission, Federal Department of Agriculture, NISER and the EDI.37 The research work reported in this dissertation was undertaken to reconcile the resource, manpower and financial requirements of agricultural production and infrastructure programs outlined in the CSNRD study. Most of the specific information needed for the recon— ciliation work in this dissertation was taken from CSNRD publications or developed with CSNRD researchers, because previous investment and educational studies in Nigeria have been too general to use in physical planning for the agricultural sector. The primary source of information for this dissertation is the CSNRD final report.39 Many CSNRD 37The CSNRD final report has been accepted by the Government of Nigeria. 38Glenn L. Johnson, et al., Strategies and Recommendations for Nigerian Rural Development, 1969—1985, CSNRD publication No. 33 (East Lansing: The Consortium for the Study of Nigerian Rule Development, 1969). 21 subproject publications also have been used.39 Much of the fiscal data is from budgets of the Nigerian state and federal governments. Preview of Followinnghapters Chapter II describes the method and technique to be used in reconciling manpower and financial needs through time and includes a summary of the steps in the reconciliation process. Chapter III presents background data on Nigerian agriculture pertinent to the manpower and financial reconciliations in later chapters. Chapter IV presents three alternative strategies for agricultural development in Nigeria and identifies the production and infrastructure priorities under each strategy. Chapter V reconciles the manpower requirements of the investment and infrastructure programs with the capacities of the educational system. Chapter VI examines the financial aspects of the CSNRD programs. Costs and returns under the three alternative development strategies are compared in this chapter, and the needed and available revenue are reconciled to determine financial feasibility. The final chapter summarizes the reconciliation procedure and its usefulness in Nigeria and in other LDC's. 39CSNRD publications on agricultural education include James M. Kincaid, Jr., Strategies for Improvements of Agricultural Extension Work and Subuniversigy Agricultural Training in Nigeria, CSNRD publication No. 8 (East Lansing: CSNRD, 1968) and James S. Long, Analysis of the Needs and Resources for University Education in Agriculture in Nigeria, CSNRD publication No 28 (East Lansing: CSNRD, 1969). A CSNRD publication summarizing public and private investment is C. K. Laurent, et al., Agricultural Investment Strategy in Nigeria, CSNRD publication No. 26 (East Lansing: CSNRD, 1969). CSNRD credit and research publications include H. Bauman, C. Connoly, and John Whitney, A Situational Rgport of (Agricultural Credit in Nigeria, CSNRD publication No. 3 (East Lansing: CSNRD, 1966) and Omer W. Herrmann, Nigerian Agricultural Research: Review and Recommendations, CSNRD publication No. 22 (East Lansing: CSNRD, 1969). CHAPTER II PROCEDURE AND METHODOLOGY The research procedure in this dissertation consists of two interrelated parts. The first part involves developing a systematic method for providing manpower and financial balances among investments in agricultural production and infrastructure through time. Through— out this dissertation, this method will be called the reconciliation process. The second part of the research procedure uses the recon- ciliation process in non-computer simulation to develop and quantify through time the varying consequences of following three alternative development strategies for Nigeria as outlined by CSNRD. This chapter is divided into three sections. The first section describes the reconciliation process in a general framework for use in sector analyses in developing countries. The second section presents reasons for using projections and/or simulations in Nigeria and in sector studies for developing countries in general. It also discusses the development of projections based on careful physical planning, and summarizes their usefulness in quantifying the consequences through time of alternative programs and policies. The third section summarizes the research work necessary to carry out the reconciliation process and develop the projections for Nigeria. 22 23 The Reconciliation Process The reconciliation procedure described in this chapter was originally developed for use within the framework of the CSNRD agricultural sector analysis for Nigeria. Since the CSNRD study is similar to other sector studies, the method should have wide usefulness and applicability. The procedure presented in this section, therefore, should be useful in other developing countries as well as in Nigeria. The reconciliation process presented here is a method for working out the necessary balance and consistency in research studies for development planning. The process begins by identifying and cor- recting inconsistencies in projects at the farm level and then integrates bottom up and top down planning research by aggregating and building consistent recommendations at the macroeconomic level. This process involves adjusting the programs and policies at successive levels until all the levels are balanced, and right actions1 or goals that are balanced, consistent and feasible can be chosen for the overall program. As the imbalances at one level of the study are reconciled, a new set of tentative goals and targets for the programs and policies can be developed which are more consistent and feasible than the previous ones. These new goals and targets in turn must be adjusted until they are reconciled at a still higher level with additional possible development constraints (Egg; requirements and availability of resources, manpower, income and revenue) to develop again a new set of tentative goals that are more 10. 1. Lewis, The Ground and Nature of the Right (New York: Columbia University Press, 1955). 24 consistent and balanced with respect to the overall plan than the previous ones. This process must be carried out until all the imbalances and inconsistencies in the various levels or component parts of the research study are worked out. If the goals worked out at one level are shown to be infeasible at higher levels of reconciliation, adjustments may have to be made in all the previous steps and the entire process rerun until finally all the levels are balanced. The reconciliation process for investments and education is a very important part of development planning as the interrelationships of the educational and investment projects require consistency between them for overall success. Furthermore, the reconciliation process provides a method of investigating the financial feasibility of development plans with regard to the competition among investments for the limited funds in agriculture and in other sectors of the economy. The reconciliation methodology helps insure consistency and balance in comprehensive studies, and may be summarized in seven steps for use in these broad studies. The methodology also is useful in bringing together individual, uncoordinated research studies and balancing their recommendations; but it may require more than seven steps to coordinate and revise scattered data. Seven steps form the reconciliation work in comprehensive research studies and are outlined below. In these steps, the term reconcile generally means "adjust the various parts until they are reasonably balanced, consistent, and feasible." This reconciliation involves also the establishment of __ ___‘Ei__.r__fifi_— _ ,1-ik__ _- __ , K. “1,1. - M. 25 new sets of tentative goals for programs and policies in each step as each inconsistency is worked out. These adjustments are the bases for steps 3 through 7 below where each successive step must be reconciled with the programs and policies worked out as tentative goals in the preceeding steps. This reconciliation needs to be worked out for relevant future time periods in order to determine the total consequences of the proposed policies and programs. 1. Gather background data. 2. Determine program goals for the investments in production and infrastructure and determine the educational program goals. 3. Reconcile educational and investment program goals. 4. Reconcile the integrated educational and investment goals with manpower requirements and the availability of trained man- power. 5. Determine costs and returns to the educational-investment package, and reconcile the social costs with social benefits. 6. Reconcile needed revenue with available revenue. 7. Interact with decision makers and administrators to work out political balance and feasibility. The reconciliation procedure must be treated as a continuous, simultaneous process, even though it is discussed separately as seven steps. Because of the interrelation of the education and investment programs, for example, the establishment of initial investment priorities depends on and also influences the educational priorities, and vice versa. In a similar fashion, the future availability of funds influences the kinds of education and investment 26 programs which can be carried out. Likewise, political feasibility and interaction with decision-makers must be considered throughout the process, rather than as the final step. By reconciling all these parts or levels in development plans and studies, a more consistent interrelated set of recommendations can be produced which gradually eliminates or changes those aspects of the education-investment programs shown to be inconsistent or unreasonable. Furthermore, by performing the reconciliation through time, the consequences of alternative programs may be quantified in output projections or other measurements which in turn can serve as criteria for selecting the programs. The development of projections is examined in greater detail in the next section of this chapter. The seven steps are presented in greater detail below. It is not necessary that one person perform all the steps when the recon- ciliation process is used in comprehensive studies. Several steps can be the work of team members specializing in these problems and integrating their findings in the overall plan or study. The final goals in these steps, however, will be influenced greatly by the overall reconciliation work as inconsistencies and infeasible proposals are uncovered. 1. Gather background data. This initial step is essential to all practical research and is a prerequisite for the reconciliation work cited here. Available data must be mobilized and stock-taking surveys and research studies conducted to provide additional information needed for planning. The surveys and research studies must be organized to gather basic farm level data as well as 27 information at more aggregate levels. Important variables to be studied should be population characteristics, the nature of past production, manpower and manpower skills, education and related institutions, and distribution systems. Study should also focus on such variables as incentives to produce, social systems, important values, and public expenditures and revenue. Finally, all these variables, and those in the following steps, must be considered in terms of the constraints of political and financial realities within the country. 2. Determine the program goals for the investments in production and infrastructure and determine the educational program goals. The procedure in sector analyses often has been to conduct fairly inde- pendent and unrelated investments and educational studies. From these studies, separate program goals for education and investment have been developed by evaluating various possible investments or educa— tional services according to specific criteria established by the separate research teams for selecting programs. These program goals generally have tended to be unrelated or only slightly related to each other. These unrelated goals therefore really represent first approximations, and they should be further revised to include the interrelatedness of the education and investment projects. Establishing these initial program goals, however, is probably essential in working out later goals that incorporate the interrelation of education and investments. Setting these goals, therefore, has been included as a separate step in the reconciliation process. In determining these first approximation goals, researchers 28 analyze investments in View of normative concepts of good and bad along with non-normative facts such as production response to determine right actions. The analysis should investigate both investments in 1) marketing and production and 2) in supporting services such as research, credit, and education. The analysis should include the specific investment costs and return calculations for the programs. The same sort of analysis also is needed in educational services for identification of right actions or educational goals. The educational teams should examine such aspects as the nature and operation of the educational systems, the kinds of educational services needed, and the capabilities of trained personnel in view of the "goods" being sought and the "beds" being avoided in order to arrive at a tentative set of acceptable educational goals. 3. Reconcile educational and investment programggoals. The establishment of unrelated or only slightly related educational and investment goals as final overall program goals is one of the problems of recent development plans mentioned in the introductory chapter. It is necessary to integrate these separate goals so they support each other if the overall goals are to avoid bottlenecks. Consequently, the initial and separate educational and investment goals need to be related in a still broader way in this step and in following steps and subjected to other criteria for selection to determine the goals for the entire program. To reconcile investment and education goals, the investment and educational teams must work together to identify within the investment teams' framework those variables which have educational implications. 29 These variables should include the kind, size and location of investments by commodity, together with any special skill requirements. The proposed means and units of production should be specified, such as unmechanized small farmers versus large plantations with tractors. Supportive service requirements such as research and credit need to be specified, together with the system of incentives and taxes affecting production. Finally, measures of physical output from the investments need to be calculated for later use in measuring returns to the programs. At the same time, the education and investment teams must study the investment programs and projects proposed by the investment team to determine the types of educational and training services that are critically needed to break key bottlenecks in the investment programs. Similarly, institutions must be selected to develop the human resources to eliminate the key bottlenecks for specific investment programs, and to provide such supporting services as credit, market information, research, etc. The quality and quantity of manpower needed to staff the investment programs and institutions and the specifics of staff training must next be determined. In working out the balances between the educational and investment priorities, researchers must give consideration to the training level and content needed for each type of service to be provided, the location and type of training (2181 for- mal education versus in-service training), and the prerequisite level of formal education and experience for admission to the training institutions. Geographic distribution, political barriers, and tribal representations also may be important. By considering the interrelation of these educational 30 and investment programs, researchers can establish a consistent set of goals. If the investment and educational teams are well coordinated, their initial program goals can incorporate the necessary education and investment interrelationships. Under such circumstances, Step 2 and 3 could become a single step. However, educational and investment teams usually specialize in their own specific problems without even being part of a larger research organization such as CSNRD. 4. Reconcile the integrated educational and investment ggals with manpoyer requirements and the availability of trained manpower. After determination of the kind and number of staff personnel needed for the integrated investment and educational programs, the total training requirements for each type of trainee must be established. This calculation should include new positions and replacement allowances for promotions, drop outs, and deaths. To insure that sufficient manpower would be available to staff specific projects, it is necessary to compute the manpower requirements for each level of training for all sources of employment in both the public and private sector. These requirements then must be reconciled with the present educa— tional system's capacity to train such manpower and to provide enough people with satisfactory prerequisite education for admission to these training institutions. Changes or expansions in the present educational system may be necessary to provide the required manpower, or else the investment program goals developed in Step 3 may need to be adjusted to a level that can be satisfactorily staffed. 31 5. Determine costs and returns to the educational-investment package, and reconcile the social costs with social benefits. This step requires the calculations of the costs and returns of the educational and investment programs to a) see if the increased production can generate enough social benefits for rural and urban people to justify the total expenditures on education and production and the choice of these projects over other projects, and b) serve as a basis for determining financial and political feasibility in the next two steps. Both the costs and returns should be projected through time for the relevant planning period, since it is unlikely that all the costs and returns will occur in the initial year. Production programs for annual crops may require only short evaluation periods because these programs often can quickly reach the desired targets within a few years. Tree crop planting schemes, research, and livestock breeding programs, however, may require much longer periods for evaluation, because there is often a lag between initial expenditures and benefits which may continue for many years. The costs to the education-investment programs should be derivable from government budgets and the education and investment studies, or developed as needed. Both the direct production and investment costs, and those for supporting services such as education and research, should be included. Allowances for inflation may be necessary if strong inflationary pressures exist. The calculation of the returns to the investment-education package involves two kinds of projections. The first projections are those for the physical output expected from the production 32 programs, listed in Step 3 of the reconciliation process. The second projections are price projections, which together with physical output projections, are necessary for calculating the value of the returns to the proposed programs. In calculating returns, care must be taken to specify what kinds of returns should be measured. Depending on the situation and needs of the country, the most impor- tant measurement could be total income, government revenue, or foreign exchange earnings. Non-monetary returns should be considered as well. Examples of these are the distribution of income and resource owner- ship, employment, the slowing of excess migration to cities, and political stability. Two measurements are necessary from the cost and return calcula- tions. The first is the relative level of returns in relation to costs, and the second is the absolute levels of each. The first measurement indicates profitability, and determines economic feasibility and justification. The second measurement is necessary for reconciling needed and expected revenue in Step 6. The absolute level of total costs determines the required revenue while the future level of income and foreign exchange is necessary for computing potential revenue. The relative level of returns in relation to costs is most useful in evaluating the kind and content of programs and policies to be promoted, while the absolute level of costs and returns is more useful in determining their size. In making the cost and return calculations researchers must recognize that education and modern inputs tend to be complements when provided together in balanced programs. Cost and return calculations 33 therefore should not be made separately for education and investments in programs where they are highly complementary. Rather, education and the inputs for the investment programs probably will have to be treated as a ggg of complementary inputs with cost and return calculations performed only for this §g£_of inputs. This treatment is necessary because the most efficient way to combining complementary inputs is in the proportions of their complementarity. When so combined, additions of one input without increasing the others yield little or no increase in product, and are largely wasted. Good or perfect complements therefore should be treated as a single set of inputs and increased only in the proportions of complementarity. The relevant costs thus become the cost of a set of inputs combined in compelmentary proportions rather than the individual costs of each input. Similarly, an individual return to one input of a complementary set cannot be computed in isolation because no return would be forthcoming if the other inputs were absent. Fertilizer, for example, will increase corn yields only if the user knows its value and how to use it. The knowledge on how to use the fertilizer is likewise only useful if the fertilizer is available. Since these two inputs are quite complementary, they can be treated as a set to compute a return on both the education and the physical inputs together, rather than attempting to calculate a separate return on each. This complementarity of education with production inputs has received token recognition but has been largely ignored by educational 34 economists in their efforts to determine a unique return to education.2 Because economists often have not treated education and production inputs as complements, they have uncovered a wide range of returns to education, which have depended on the inputs used with education and the proportion of the total returns arbitrarily attributed to education. The treatment of education and modern inputs of production as a set of complementary inputs is especially relevant where investment and education research teams have identified in Steps 2 and 3 the kinds and levels of educational and investment programs that are complementary and the reconciliation process has been used to provide the necessary balance for these inputs to be combined in the proportions of their complementarity. Comparison of costs and returns of the educational and investment programs therefore necessitates computation of both the costs and returns of production investment, education, and such other complementary supportive services as research and credit, as a composite package rather than as separate inputs. 6. Reconcile needed revenue with available revenue. This step is required to determine the financial feasibility of the education and investment programs through time. This involves projecting the amount and distribution of government and private revenues that can and will be made available for meeting the expenditures for education, 2See T. W. Schultz, Economic Value of Education (New York: Columbia University Press, 1963). In Chapter IV, Schultz summarizes numerous studies attempting to develop unique returns of schooling to an individual or aggregately to a country, rather than developing returns to the individual(s) together with any necessary non—human complementary inputs. 35 production projects, and supporting services. For the public sector, one must consider the present share of government revenues allocated to these categories, and the bargaining position of these institutions for receiving future allocations. Future revenues therefore must be estimated, including any forseeable changes in the amounts, sources and distribution. Changes in revenue arising from increased production, new tax structures, external aid, or exploitation of mineral or oil deposits are examples. Private sector investments depend on profitability and the politi- cal climate. Private investments tend to be highest in production while agricultural business firms also may invest heavily in input distribution and marketing services. Private firms may also provide some educational services. Profitability calculations and risk measurements are usually the most useful measurements for this sector. In making projections for future revenue allocation for both the public and private sectors, a good understanding of the political process and close interaction with political decision-makers is essential. The interaction with decision-makers is discussed in the next step. 7. Interact with decision—makers and administrators to work out political balance and feasibility. This final step is often overlooked by researchers studying specific investment or educational problems but is absolutely necessary if the ultimate goal of the research is the implementation of recommended agricultural policies and programs. Both the researcher and policy maker must interact to mobilize, clarify, and analyze both normative and non-normative 36 information to decide what is the right action or goal. This interaction also is a way of getting political and administrative originality and creativity into the process. This step involves exchanges with development planners, decision- makers in the public ministries, and other important officials to discuss the program and policy goals developed in the previous steps and choose those goals which are politically and administratively feasible, or to make the necessary modifications in infeasible programs. This discussion also may involve officials of international organiza- tions or foreign countries if outside support is needed. In this step, the researcher's primary responsibility is to provide all these people with accurate data on the kinds of recommended programs and policies, their size or extent, and supportive data on manpower, costs, returns, and revenue. Summary of the Reconciliation Process The seven interrelated steps in the reconciliation process provide an effective procedure for working out necessary balances and feasibility checks in development plans and studies. This reconciliation process involves taking educational and investment goals and background data and developing from them interrelated investment and educational goals. These goals next must be tested at successively higher levels for consistency with manpower training capacities, financial returns, available revenue, and political acceptability. As each imbalance and inconsistency is uncovered in each successive step of the process, the program must be adjusted and rerun through the entire process as often as necessary until all the bottlenecks are worked out and new 37 goals can be established that are more balanced than the previous ones. Gradually the inconsistencies at all levels can be reconciled and final goals for the overall program can be established which are balanced, consistent, and feasible. The reconciliation procedure can help correct imbalances and consistencies in developmental research. The effectiveness of research for planning, and consequently the use of the reconciliation process, however, are dependent on the proper research orientation toward the study of normative and non-normative information and the correct use of research techniques. These two problems are discussed in the next section. Conceptual Problems in Agricultural Development Research In Nigeria, and in developing countries generally, there are two broad conceptual problems to which researchers must address themselves if they are to use the reconciliation process effectively to assist in agricultural development. The first problem involves the choice of studying normative as well as non-normative data and information. The second problem involves the choice of proper research techniques to analyze and quantify the data studied. A proper research orientation is very important for development research. Both normative and non-normative considerations are necessary in the study of practical problems of improving agriculture in developing countries. Quantitative non-normative data are necessary to describe the nature of the agricultural sector and its interrelation— ships with the rest of the economy. Normative concepts are required as criteria for evaluating programs so that right actions or goals 38 can be developed. Researchers often are asked to predict and explain the normative as well as non-normative consequences of alternative problems and policies. Furthermore, decision—makers in developing countries consider both the non-normative characteristics and the good or bad consequences of programs when formulating and implementing agricultural policy. They often depend, in part, on researchers for this kind of information. Consequently, the agricultural development researcher who addresses himself to both the normative and non-normative is more effective in researching relevant problems and interacting with decision-makers than one who does not. A researcher concerned only with the positive or non-normative neglects many relevant considerations and fails to provide decision—makers with critical information. The choice of proper research techniques is also very important. In many cases, researchers choose techniques which attempt to maximize the difference between returns and costs or to maximize GDP. In agricultural development research, however, the preconditions for using pure maximizing models are often absent. In order to maximize, it is necessary to combine all the relevant goods and bads into a single variable such as profit or utils. Furthermore, this single variable must behave in such a way that the mathematical second order conditions for maximization are met. In studies to improve the agriculture sector of a developing country, these conditions often are nonexistent, initially at least. Usually there is no single variable that can serve as a satisfactory common denominator to be maximized. The problems of sector development are too complex to lump all the relevant "goods" and "bads" into GDP, utils, profit, or some other "catch all” 39 variable. In addition there are serious questions as to whether institutional, technical, and educational changes ordinarily meet the mathematical second order conditions for maximization, at least in the range relevant to developing countries. The problem of non-Pareto better adjustments is a special case of not being able to determine a common denominator. This problem is very important in developing countries because many times the only relevant adjustments are non-Pareto better, whereby no one can be made better off without making someone worse off. Maximization models are unable to handle this problem satisfactorily because the lack of interpersonnally valid utility measurements prevents the establishment of common denominators necessary for maximization. However, decision-makers are not always seeking Pareto-better solutions nor will they be satisfied with them alone. As Johnson points out, "Even if there are no Pareto-better policies, there may still be fairly strong evidence that certain solutions in which some persons lose and others gain are superior to other solutions in which some persons also gain and some also lose."3 Another problem implicit in using pure maximizing models is that not all researchers and decision-makers may agree on the same decision- making rules or "basis for choice" for defining what is the right action or goal. In the face of risk and uncertainty, decision-makers in developing countries may wish to define right actions in terms of 3Glenn L. Johnson, "Factor Markets and Economic Development" in Economic Development of Tropical Agriculture, ed. by W. W. McPherson (Gainesville: University of Florida Press, 1968). 4O minimaxing or satisficing solutions rather than maximizing averages. Under these circumstances, it may be necessary to use research techniques that provide for the use of alternative "bases for choice" or decision- making rules. In summary, pure maximizing models are inappropriate for handling many of the important problems in agricultural development when the necessary preconditions for maximization are absent or if alternative decision—making rules exist. As a consequence of these problems with pure maximizing models, some researchers have chosen as an alternative to use simulation which may or may not maximize. Newell and Simon define simulation as "a method for analyzing the behavior of a system by computing its time path for given conditions and given paremeter values."4 This definition includes both computer simulation and the kind of hand—calculator simulation often used to develop quantitative projections. Simulation is useful because it provides a speedy method of examining many alternative policies and their consequences through time so that decision-makers may interact with researchers in choosing policies they feel will lead to right actions and goals in view of both the important normative and non—normative considerations. Further- more, by simulating alternative policies through time, researchers and decision-makers are not forced to make choices involving a single, unrealistic common denominator necessary to maximize a single function. 4A11en Newell and Herbert Simon, "Simulation," The International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, ed. by David L. Lills, Vol. 14 (New York: MacMillan and Free Press, 1968) p. 262. 41 Simulation also can be used when the mathematical second order conditions for maximization are absent and when alternative decision-making rules exist. Although simulation may be considered as nonmaximizing because it does not specifically attempt to determine a single maximizing solution, it still may be used to develop and examine the consequences of alternatives that are much better than others. In doing so, simulation may allow decision-makers to choose rationally what they feel is a maximum. Non-computer simulation and projections were chosen by the CSNRD research team to study the Nigerian agricultural economy because the simulation method was well adapted to the CSNRD research needs and because the problems with alternative pure maximizing models previously discussed limit their usefulness in studying the overall Nigerian agricultural sector. Simulation is well suited to developing the programs to be included under each of the three alternative strategies outlined by CSNRD and to quantifying quickly their conse- quences through time. Simulation can be used effectively to study both normative and non-normative data. Simulation also can easily incorporate the steps of the reconciliation process defined in the first section of this chapter. In fact, the reconciliation provess can be used in either simple (hand—calculator) or computer simulation to both 1) uncover inconsistencies and develop manpower and financial balances, and 2) trace through time the outcomes of various programs. Sinple, hand-calculator simulation and projections were chosen by CSNRD rather than computer simulation because it was felt that sufficient time was not available to build the necessary "soft ware" for computer simulation. Thus, CSNRD dealt with only three alternative 42 strategies for only three future points in time. Computer simulation would have had the advantage of greater computer capacity and could have investigated many more alternatives. However, with just three alternatives and three time periods, the computer programing would still have been substantial. The simple simulation calculations for the three alternatives also allowed flexibility for normative and non-normative judgements from researchers and policy makers that were not easily quantified and which would have required complicated programing for use on computers not available in Nigeria. Either simulation procedure, however, would depend on the researcher for design and innovation in setting up the projections or computer programs and in identifying the important variables to be studied. The Research Procedure This dissertation has required six months' work in Nigeria as a member of the CSNRD research team and an equivalent amount of time at Michigan State University. In Nigeria, the primary emphasis was on learning about Nigeria, gathering data, and interacting with Nigerians, CSNRD researchers, and USAID personnel. The author was stationed in the capital city of Lagos where, as a CSNRD team member, he was in close contact with USAID and Nigerian officials. He also was able to travel frequently in the Western state, and visited all six northern states through three extensive automobile trips in that area. Because of the war, no travel was scheduled in the former Eastern Region or the Mid-western State. However, other researchers had experience in these areas and considerable general information and research 43 materials were available on investments and educational services. At the time of the authors arrival in Nigeria, the CSNRD research team had been conducting research throughout Nigeria for two years and had collected numerous other studies for reference use. The two CSNRD agricultural education projects had developed considerable material on the operation and organization of educational training and service institutions, general needs and capabilities of trained manpower, and the cost and enrollment of the schools. The investment teams had identified several investments and schemes with potential high payoffs, as well as ones to be avoided with low payoffs. Con- siderable information was available on the nature and effects of the present marketing and taxation systems, together with recommendations for improving them. The CSNRD credit and research team also had gathered data on the nature of present credit and research programs, plus future requirements and possible organizations. In order to perform the reconciliation work through time outlined in the first section of this chapter, the author had to gather additional data throughout western and northern Nigeria to supplement the material provided by CSNRD and available from other sources. Several trips were taken in the Western state and the six northern states to 1) develop general impressions of agriculture in these states, 2) visit agricultural education institutions and gather information on agricultural training in universities and subuniversity technical schools, 3) survey private employment of trained agriculturalists, 4) investigate new agricultural policies and programs proposed by the new states, and 5) survey state agricultural ministry staffs and 44 evaluate public manpower requirements for agriculture. The list of firms sampled in the survey on private agricultural business firms was obtained from the Industrial Directory5 and from persons familiar with other business firms. Data were gathered through personal interviews with managers and personnel officers. Sequential sampling techniques often were used, whereby those business firms requiring no specialized agricultural training were sampled only until conclusions would be reached about their operations and manpower requirements. Questions were aimed at determining the nature of private investments, manpower needs, salaries, expected expansion of operations, and restrictions to expansion. Data also were gathered on the level of training required and provided by private sector employers. The data on state agricultural programs and manpower needs were obtained through personal interviews with the chief officers in the agricultural ministries. The people contacted were primarily in the agricultural services (heavily crop extension oriented) and veterinary divisions, but other divisions such as irrigation and cooperatives were also included. Questions were asked for clarification of existing agriculture programs, staff size, composition and utilization, and future priorities for programs and manpower use. Additional data also were needed on the distribution and the total costs of overall programs, foreign exchange, farmer incomes, tax revenues, and GDP. These data were obtained from state and old 5Industrial Directory 4th Edition, 1962 (Apapa: Federal Ministry of Information, 1967). 45 regional budgets, the state and federal Ministries of Finance, and calculated by CSNRD researchers. The new data gathered from the surveys and budgets have been utilized with the other research data available to CSNRD to work out specific recommended policies and programs and to show the consequences of following three alternative development strategies. Non-computer simulation has been used to develop projections for 1970, 1975, and 1985 to quantify the consequences of the strategies through time. The reconciliation procedure outlined in the first part of this chapter has been generally followed for the CSNRD recommended policies (Strategy II) to work out manpower and financial balances in the programs. As inconsistencies were uncovered, programs were revised and costs, revenue requirements, etc. were changed again and again until a final balanced set of suitable programs was developed. The seventh step on working out political feasibility, however, has not been carried out in this dissertation, but is presently being undertaken in Nigeria by other CSNRD members. In this dissertation, only first approximations of political feasibility have been discussed, and these have been based on past experience with Nigerian political decisions. These first approximations are based on the assumption that the 1966 (pre war) level and allocation of expenditures and revenues also would be feasible politically in future years. The evaluation of the feasibility of amounts greater than the 1966 level has been based on the size of the difference, political appeal of the programs, economic return and importance, and the availability of revenue. Calculations 46 also have been made to insure that enough revenue could be available to pay for these programs and that these expenditures would not place too heavy a burden on nonagricultural tax sources. Strategies I and III have been simulated in much the same manner as the recommended one, except that the emphasis was on what would happen under these strategies without reconciling their bottlenecks. The reconciliation process has been used for these strategies only to expose weaknesses and inconsistencies, and no final reconciliation adjustments were made to develop balanced strategies. Had this been done, Strategies I and III would have been modified toward Strategy II. The Development of Projections Projections have been used throughout the next chapters of this dissertation and also in the CSNRD final report to quantify the results and requirements of the investment and educational programs for future time periods. The projections developed in this dissertation have been set up using 1966 as the base year and examine physical production, manpower, the costs of programs, and the needed and expected revenues by 1970, 1975, and 1985. The projections, together with other CSNRD projections including national accounts and the financial returns to the education—~investment program, have been the primary source of data for performing the reconciliation work to 1985. These projections are vital in providing the needed quantitative data. However, as CSNRD points out It should be stressed that projections of this type cannot be highly objective statistical forecasts to which probabilities of different—sized errors can be attached. Nigerian data are not good enough for that (nor for that matter, are those of the developed countries). More importantly, historical data on 47 agricultural economies are not very relevant for projecting how those economies would perform if modernized.6 The general criteria for establishing these projections are based upon the following tests for objectivity: l. Consistency--the projections must be consistent among themselves and with experience with the variables in the projections. 2. C1arity--the projections are clear if they can be understood and communicated from one person to another. 3. Workability-—this is a pragmatic test which asks if the projections are representative of what can happen and useful for solving problems. The projections have been developed through physical planning by taking specific proposals with respect to educational services and investments in production and infrastructure and deciding what can be done and by whom, rather than through the use of simplistic supply and demand elasticities or the use of simplistic ratios of extension workers to farm families. The projections on physical output, for example, were calculated from changes in acreage and yields that could be expected from specific programs and their payoffs, rather than derived from supply curve estimates or simplistic ratios. Simplistic historical ratios of extension workers to farm families have been rejected because of their lack of applicability to specific modern programs. The use of simple supply elasticities has been rejected because the problems 6Glenn L. Johnson, et al., Strategies and Recommendations for Nigerian Rural Develgpment, 1969-1985, CSNRD publication No. 33 (East Lansing: CSNRD, 1969) p. 62. 48 of asset fixity, imperfect knowledge, and lags in production after planting tree crops nearly eliminates their applicability in Nigeria.7 By giving specific attention to programatic details in developing these projections, the manpower and financial requirements and the benefits of the various programs can be calculated through time. These projections, therefore, become useful in establishing criteria for selecting programs and present the necessary quantification of the requirements and payoffs for policy implementation. In addition, these projections are very useful in differentiating between the outcomes of alternative strategies for development, such as the three strategies outlined by CSNRD. The results of the reconciliation work and the projections developed for the three strategies are given in Chapters V and VI. In these chapters it is important to note that the figures cited are the final calculations, which for Strategy II are also the reconciled figures. Some of the adjustments necessary to complete the reconcil— iation work for Strategy II also are summarized in Chapter IV. 7For a more complete discussion of the rejections of the use of simplistic supply elasticities see Glenn L. Johnson, et al., op. cit., pp. 39—40. CHAPTER III THE NIGERIAN AGRICULTURAL ECONOMY—~ITS IMPORTANCE AND CHARACTERISTICS The Impprtance of Agriculture in the Nigerian Economy1 As in most underdeveloped countries, agriculture is Nigeria's most important economic activity. Agriculture directly supports about four-fifths of the estimated population of 60 million and generates over half of the national income. Until the recent devel— opment of the petroleum industry, agricultural exports accounted for over 80 percent of all foreign exchange earnings as shown in Table 1. Agricultural exports also have been a major source of tax revenue, amounting to $20-25 million annually in recent years. In 1965-66, before the civil war, approximately £15.4 million or 10 percent of federal revenues came from agricultural products through export taxes. An additional £4.5 million was collected as produce purchase and other taxes for regional governments, and about £4 million was collected as marketing board trading profits. In late 1967 and in 1968, world prices for cocoa were very high, and the Western Nigeria marketing board trading profits from cocoa alone amounted to £10-15 million. 1Much of the material in this chapter has been summarized from Glenn L. Johnson, et al., Strategies and Recommendations for Nigerian Rural Development, 1969-1985, CSNRD publication No. 33 (East Lansing: CSNRD, 1969), and was developed as a team effort rather than the work of any single individual. 49 50 .a.aaa Canoe .mmmalmoma .uooEmoao>oQ amusm amauowaz now wooauooooaaooom pom moamODooum ..am up .cowGLOh .a :coao "OOH50m o.ooa m.aqmu o.ooa azqun o.ooa q.qamn o.ooa oooaH o.ooa Tmoau o.ooa N.om " muuomxo amuOH a.ma q.aq " m.ma a.qq ” o.wa o.oq u a.oa N.n~ " a.ma o.mN " n.ma m.Na “ muMOQXO .wdlcoc “mono w.mN a.Nn “ «.mm o.~¢ n m.qa a.Nm " m.m n.oa " o.N q.q u II II " Enoaouumm a.mo N.wmau a.Nm cocaH q.oo m.~¢a" m.m~ o.qmau m.ow momaH m.ow m.mn " ousuanoauwm amuOuosm .n.a .n.e A e.m e.e " o.m e.e " m.e N.n " o.e N.oa " w.a w.w " nanoaxn .mn Leano n.~ m.e " w.e N.m " w.~ H.e n m.m a.m H e.m N.e " N.m o.m " connoo e.~ m.e " H.e m.HH A H.m o.HH " n.e e.HH A m.w N.aH . H.m m.~ A unease q.oa m.oq " m.ma m.mm " m.aN o.mq “ m.qN o.aq u m.na @.wm “ N.na m.ma " muoswoua unconsouo m.m w.ma " m.ma w.mm " w.qa n.am u m.ma w.mN u o.m~ o.oq " m.am w.wN u muosnoum Gama aao e.- e.em A a.a m.m~ " “.ma H.oe " w.ea m.mm A e.HN w.em A o.HN o.aa " noeoo unwouom ooow " unmouom ooow " unmouom ooow " unmouom ooom " unwouom ooow " unwouom ooow u Roma " ooma " coma ” Noma " ooma " Omma " Emua uuoaxm mowalomma .mauowaz Eouw muuoaxm amaaocaum mo mwnam> .a maome 51 Characteristics of Nigerian Agriculture The distribution of crop production is strongly influenced by rainfall and soil types. The principal ecological areas are shown in Figure 1. 0f the major export crops, cocoa is mainly produced in the western moist forest, rubber in the central moist forest, and oil palm in all three moist forest zones, but mainly in the eastern zone. Groundnuts, and cotton are mostly grown in the dry and inter— mediate savannah areas. The chief food crops in the two northern ecological areas are guinea corn, millet, and some maize, although sugar cane, rice, vegetables and other fast growing crops are cultivated on flood lands along the rivers. In the four southern ecological zones, yams and cassava are the main crops, but maize, rice and fruits are also important. Livestock production is carried on mainly in the northern states, as the prevalence of the tse—tse fly in the southern part of the country restricts livestock production in that area. Chickens and small goats, however, are found on most farms in the southern areas. The combined stock of all areas includes some 8 million head of cattle, 5.8 million sheep, 14 million goats, and 300,000-400,000 pigs. Most of Nigeria's sheep, cattle and goats are herded and grazed by nomadic Fulanis throughout the tse-tse fly—free areas of the northern states. Cow milk is sold throughout the north and each year a half million head are driven through tse—tse fly-free lanes to the southern areas of Nigeria and to Ghana. The bulk of Nigeria's agricultural export and food output is produced on tiny plots of land by Nigerian peasant farmers. There 52 mauowaz Mo mosow amoawoaoom .a Conwam 0:05 Co :35 om 22352:; . a ‘ coccgom to; \ :Eom . mama: £850.68 )2 . seam . a . . . no 3 3.8. on on 0 on _e. @ .532 k <_mmo_z \ .287 ® a t . TV etc: a . Szze . \k . H x. . .g @ x. a \. 0:33.. A o is . . \_ ocox . by .H O 0 N \k . €03.22 V‘ H \i/llll\11.\\/l/<\i\// 29.8. V o z./.I.\.\I\. ./...\x m m f 53 are about five million of these smallholders, who characteristically farm from two to ten acres of crops in the southern states, and eight or ten acres in the northern states. Intercropping is generally practiced whereby several crops are grown on the same land. Land often is rotated between periods of farming and idle use. Bush— fallow rotations are the major means of fertility maintenance and erosion control. Farming techniques in both northern and southern areas are unsophisticated. The short—handled hoe is by far the most widely used farm implement. Recently ox—drawn plows and groundnut lifters have expanded in numbers in the tse—tse fly—free areas of the north, bot oxen use is still limited. Capital formation has been mainly from the labor of farmers, tree crops and traditional improvements. In the southern forest belt, much of the oil palm produced and even rubber is obtained from wild and semi—wild trees. Oil palm, major food crops, and groundnuts are produced by from one to two million growers. Cotton and cocoa are each grown by approximately 250,000 to 350,000 producers. In general, land is abundant in Nigeria. Most of the land is controlled by villages or extended families, rather than by individuals. Long—term capital improvements on the land, such as planting tree crops, usually require communal approval and may involve sharing of the proceeds. Land for cultivation of annual food crops, on the other hand, is readily available and usually rent free. The modernization of agriculture has caused some modifications in the tenure system; some individuals have been able to obtain individual property rights 54 and titles to land for tree crop production. With the abundance of suitable land in Nigeria, the greatest restriction on the expansion of output appears to be the low level of technology and economic incentives. The major cash crops are the export crops of cocoa, oil palm, rubber, cotton and groundnuts, all of which must be marketed through government controlled marketing boards. These crops, with the exception of rubber, are taxed heavily by the states and federal Nigerian governments through produce purchase taxes, export taxes, and marketing board trading profits. Only export levies are imposed on rubber when the price is above 18 pence per pound weight. As a results of this tax structure, Nigerian farmers often receive only 40—60 percent of the actual world price for these products. These low prices to farmers have reduced the profitability of cash crop farming, decreased incentives to expand output and adopt new technology, kept down the value of land and labor, and stimulated rural to urban migrations. The artifically reduced incomes of these farmers also have limited effective demand for goods produced in the nonagricultural sector and farm produced food crops.2 Food crop marketing is done through a network of traditional handlers who usually concentrate in village market places to sell their products. The traditional marketing system for food crops generally operates efficiently for small areas, but trade in food 2This analysis on taxes, incentives, and production is based on observations and studies by the CSNRD research team and is summarized in Glenn L. Johnson, et al., op. cit., Chapters II and III. 55 crops between areas is limited. Gluts in one area may be accompanied by shortages in another, and differences in prices between large markets may not reflect transportation differences. The major bottleneCk to expanding food crop production appears to be effective demand, as small increases in production output tend to break the price in Nigeria's thin food market. The following excerpt from the CSNRD final report summarizes the performance of Nigerian agriculture:3 Despite adverse tax treatment and pricing policies, growth of agricultural output in Nigeria compares favorably with that of many other developing countries. Since 1950, output of agricultural export products has grown at a compound annual rate of about 4.5 percent. Most of this growth has been accomplished by small- holders who pay heavy taxes on their export crops. However, the growth rate of export crops since 1963 has declined. The slow recent growth probably reflects the impact of the adverse treatment of Nigeria's private agricultural sector and the failure of its public agricultural sector in the area of direct production. Output of food crops has grown at about the same rate as pupulation. For the food crops, the increasing labor force has brought more land into cultivation to furnish the means for expanding output. Increased labor, modest purchases of fertil— izer, pesticides and seeds, and additional land in crops have generated the growth of the export crops. The Role of Government in Agriculture The role of the Nigerian government in agriculture primarily has been the operation of marketing agencies, agricultural ministries, research centers, agricultural schools, and some large scale invest- ments in direct agricultural production. Indirectly, the public 31bid. p. 4. 56 sector also has developed an infrastructure of roads, rail lines, and 3 port facilities to service agriculture. Some of the most influential agencies in Nigeria are the produce marketing boards. The boards have been monopsony buyers of groundnuts, cocoa, oil palm, cotton, benniseed, soyabeans and several less important commodities for about 20 years. In recent years they have handled over £100 million annually. The marketing boards generally determine a fairly uniform price for each product shortly before the harvest season, and the actual collection and payment to the farmers is made through a network of licensed buying agents and their assistants. The produce is sold on the world market primarily through the related Nigerian Produce Marketing agency. The primary function of the marketing boards originally was to stabilize producer prices. Gradually increased importance was placed on the collection of funds for developmental capital which has been used for both agricultural and nonagricultural development projects. The marketing boards have been quite successful in stabilizing prices and establishing produce grades, but also have had negative effects on agriculture. The boards have been severely criticized for inadequacies in management of their marketing functions, inadequate surveillance of the activities of the buying agents and produce inspectors and investment of resources in many poorly chosen development projects. Of even more impor— tance is the role of marketing boards and governmental price and tax policies which have held down producer prices to farmers and thus restricted effective demand and producer incomes and depressed the values of pro- duction resources. 41bid. , p. 3. 57 The Nigerian governments have assisted farmers through ministries of agriculture and related ministries which have provided crop extension services, livestock services, produce inspection, research, credit, and other assistance. Sprays and insecticides have been subsidized for use in cocoa production in western Nigeria and a large amount of fertilizers has been subsidized in the northern areas. In the southern areas, some work has been done to promote smallholder tree crop production. The southern governments also have attempted to develop farm settlements and government plantations. Because of excessive costs, political maneuvering, and poor location, however, these projects have been unsuccessful. The cost per farm settlement trainee sometimes has been as high as £50005 and some government plantations are estimated to be unable to cover variable costs, let alone developmental costs.6 For many years Nigeria has benefited from research centers located throughout the country. The major centers for the export crops are the Cocoa Research Institute of Nigeria at Ibadan, the Nigerian Institute for Oil Palm Research at Benin, the Institute of Agricultural Research at Samaru and the newly established Rubber Research Station at Iyanomo. Food crop research has been done at Moor Plantation, Ibadan, at Umudike in eastern Nigeria and at the 5Dupe Olatunbosum, Nigerian Farm Settlements and School Leavers Farms-—Profitabi1ity, Resource Use and Social—Psychological Considerations, CSNRD publication No. 9 (East Lansing: CSNRD, 1967). 6R. C. Saylor, A Study of Obstacles to Investment in Oil Palm and Rubber Plantations, CSNRD publication No. 15 (East Lansing: CSNRD, 1968). 58 Institute for Agricultural Research. In addition, some research is done by Nigerian universities and agricultural ministries. The total research expenditure in Nigeria in 1966 was about £4,000,000 but more senior scientists, funds and better coordination of research are needed. Agricultural credit has not been very successful in Nigeria. To date, public credit programs have been fragmentary, expensive and ineffective. They have failed to serve the needs of the farming population and, in some instances, have been limited to collecting overdue loan repayments. Nigeria's educational system is better developed than that of many developing countries in Africa. Before the outbreak of the civil war in 1966, four of Nigeria's five universities had agricultural faculties. The number of secondary schools is growing rapidly and universal primary education is a national goal. The distribution of schools within Nigeria is quite uneven, however, as a relatively larger number are located in the southern states. Most people employed in agricultural services have been trained in specialized post-secondary school agriculture schools, rather than in universities. The subuniversity training institutions are summarized in Table 2. The most important schools have been those training crop extension workers, followed by those training livestock service personnel. Present Employment and Training in Agriculture The pattern of employment in the public agriculture sector is firmly established and quite well understood. Usually university 59 Table 2. Nigerian Subuniversity Agricultural Training Institutions Type of school Duration and level of Prerequisite of training Locationl training education Schools of agriculture(extension) Agricultural superintendent(AS) Ibadan(W) 2 yr. AA training Asst. ag. superintendent(AAS) Samaru(N) 2 yr. " Umudike(E) 1 yr. " Agricultural assistant(AA) Akure(W) 2 yr. Secondary Kabba(N) 2 yr. school Samaru(N) 2 yr. graduate Umudike(E) 1 yr. Home economist Ibadan(W) 2 yr. " Samaru(N) 2 yr. Farm training centers(extension) Northern Primary school Agricultural instructors(AI) states 10 mo. graduate Animal health & husbandry schools Livestock superintendents(LS) Ibadan(W) 2 yr. LA training U. of Nigeria(E) 3 yr. Vom(N) 2 yr. Livestock assistant(LA) Ibadan(W) 2 yr. Secondary Kaduna(N) 2 yr. school Vom(N) 2 yr. graduate Forestry schools Forestry superintendent(FS) Ibadan(W) 1 yr. FA training Forestry assistant(FA) " 2 yr. Sec. school grad. Foresters Naragute(N) 1 yr. Pri. school grad. Forest guards " 6 mo. " Irrigation school Irrigation assistants Sokoto(N) 2 yr. Sec. school grad. Farm institutes Young adults for careers in ag. North 9 mo. None West 2 yr. " Laboratory technology schools Technologists or superintendent Kaduna(N) 2 yr. Lab. tech. training Vom(N) 3 yr. Technician Kaduna(N) 2 yr. Sec. school grad. 1The letters in parentheses stand for the location and area served by the training institution and represent the Western, Mid—western and Lagos States(W), the three eastern states(E), and the six northern states(N). 6O graduates hold the top administrative positions, although marketing positions are not always staffed by agricultural graduates. Beneath this level there are numerous positions staffed by crop extension and livestock personnel, some research and credit assistants, and development corporation employees with from one to four post-secon— dary—school years of training at specialized technical agricultural schools. The large remainder of workers are untrained or have had only superficial training for one or two months. Logistic support is given in the form of clerical work and sometimes transportation and housing. Employment in the private agricultural sector consists mostly of untrained smallholder farmers and farm laborers and a few trained and untrained personnel hired by private firms. The nature of small— holder production already has been summarized in this chapter and will not be discussed further here. Employment and training require— ments of private firms in agriculture, however, are not well understood and less well measured than employment and training in the public sector. Most private firms' investments in agriculture have been in 1) processing, distribution of agricultural supplies, and production of specialized crops and livestock throughout Nigeria, 2) in tanning, textiles, cotton ginning, and groundnut crushing in the six northern states and textiles in the Western state, and 3) in private plantations in the southern states. Because of the nature of their investments in agriculture, these firms will be referred to as agro-industry firms. Almost all of these firms are run by foreign expatriates, although some are owned jointly by expatriates and Nigerian development 61 corporations. Presently the staffs of most of the agro-industry firms sampled in the Western and northern states consist of foreign expatriate managers, a few trained Nigerians, and a large cadre of semi—skilled or unskilled workers. This pattern also is followed in the Mid-western and eastern states although no survey was conducted in these states. Very few highly trained Nigerian agriculturalists were employed in the private sector in 1968, as shown in Table 3. Most of the people in Table 3 with university or subuniversity agricultural training were employed by firms either producing specialized crops or distri— buting agricultural inputs. Of these firms, the Nigerian Tobacco Company (NTC) is by far the largest employer of trained Nigerian agriculturalists. The NTC agriculturalists serve as private extension workers and quality control personnel in a successful, vertically integrated operation. On the input distribution side, large import companies employed university graduates and some subuniversity trained agriculturalists to act as area supervisors and salesmen for chemicals, feeds, and farm tractors and machinery. Other firms employing a few trained agriculturalists in 1968 or expressing a desire to hire them include breweries, processing firms, private plantations, and farms for vegetables, pigs and poultry. In the northern states the largest firms, which are engaged in textile manufacturing, groundnut crushing, cotton ginning, tanning, and handling hides and skins, do not employ trained agriculturalists. Instead they seek either unskilled laborers or those with mechanical skills like machinery operation and dying. The top management 62 Table 3. Private Sector Employment of Trained Nigerian Agriculturalists in the Western and Six Northern States of Nigeria, 1968 Level of training Food Textile and area Livestock ,Agriculture technology, technologyl ----------- Manpower numbers - - - - - - — — — — — University graduates North 2 7 0 1 West 2 8 1 5 East2 7 Subuniversity training North 10 433 o 105 West 7 3 3 10 East 1 0 1 Incomplete sample. These employees require textile technology training (machine operation, dying, etc.) rather than agricultural training; only about one half of the textile firms were sampled. 2Staff reported as located in the eastern states by firms based either in the Western or northern states. No direct sampling was done in the eastern states or the Mid-western State. 3Includes 30 from tobacco schools. Source: This survey of private sector employment was conducted in 1968 by the author. The firms sampled were chosen from the Nigerian Industrial Directory, 4th ed. 1967. 63 positions are staffed by foreign expatriates. The few people in the private sector with agricultural training or mechanical skills have been trained chiefly by the private firms employing them. Most employees recieve on—the-job training while those requiring more sophisticated training in textile or leather technology usually are sent to Europe for 6 to 18 months training. The Nigerian Tobacco Company is the greatest exception; it trains its extension workers in Nigeria in its own subuniversity—level tobacco schools. With the expansion of the Nigerian university system, univ— ersity graduates in agriculture recently have become available to the private sector, and many private companies are hiring them in small numbers. Factors Restricting Employment in the Private Sector Probably the most important factor restricting employment in the private sector is the present marketing and taxation system. The heavy taxation on the major cash crops reduces the profitability of their production and consequently 1) prevents trained agriculturalists from going into business for themselves, 2) reduces the demand for improved agricultural inputs, and 3) limits direct investment in private plantations and other production schemes for these crops. The low prices in turn require government distribution and price subsidies to get farmers to use fertilizer and chemicals, and discourage private industry from selling and distributing these inputs. Food processing and textile companies also are unable to integrate downward into production to improve the quality of the crops controlled by the marketing boards because all such produce must be sold only to the 64 boards. Finally, the typical Nigerian university graduates have a preference for public sector work because they assume it has greater security. Agro—industry firms utilizing trained Nigerian agriculturalists, however, have been successful in production and processing of crops not controlled or heavily taxed by the marketing boards. Two good examples are tobacco and vegetables, where success of the Nigerian Tobacco Company and the Plateau Commodity Corporation respectively demonstrate that trained Nigerian agriculturalists can operate successfully in the private sector. Greater increases in private employment of trained agriculturalists would be possible if taxes and public input subsidies and distribution schemes were reduced or eliminated. Preference for employment in the public sector may continue, but good performance by the private sector and the recent filling of most existing government vacancies will increase the preferences of new Nigerian graduates for private employment. Recent Political and Economic Changes In Nigeria Affecting Agriculture Politically and economically Nigeria is undergoing the greatest changes in her history since independence. The most important changes are l) the civil war, 2) the creation of 12 states, and 3) the exploitation of large petroleum reserves. The first event is the current civil war between the Federal Military Government and Biafra. This war is becoming long and costly, and has imposed tremendous hardships on both sides in manpower and property losses. When the end of the war comes, the reconstruction problems and the expenditures 65 needed to rebuild the destroyed property and develop new productive capacity will be substantial. The four former political regions have been replaced by twelve smaller states, including three states in the former Eastern Region which is presently the battlefield of the civil war. Since their formal creation in 1966 many of the new state governments have shown remarkable progress and enthusiasm for establishing new government institutions and programs to serve their citizens. Finally, the rapid expansion of petroleum production fortunately offers a vast potential for financing development and growth in Nigeria and should have a substantial role in financing the reconstruction period following the war and aiding development in future years. Pearson's careful analysis of Nigeria's petroleum industry indicates that government tax revenue from petroleum could increase to £200 million by 1973, or about eight times larger than present revenues from agricultural export crops.7 In the next decade, petroleum production may account for as much as one tenth of total gross national product and ten times as much revenue as presently obtained from agriculture. These changes, plus the pressing needs to improve income and employment levels in agriculture, present Nigerian planners with tremendous challenges and opportunities for developing agriculture. The political changes inherent in the new state structure and caused 7Scott Pearson, "Nigerian Petroleum: Implications for Medium- term Planning", in Growth and Development of the Nigerian Economy, ed. by Carl K. Eicher, and E. Liedholm (East Lansing: Michigan State University Press, 1969). 66 by the civil war offer fresh opportunities for institutional and administrative changes that may never exist again for many years. The revenue available from petroleum may provide the means for rapidly modernizing agriculture and increasing incentives by allowing substantial reductions or elimination of the present tax structure on export CIOPS . CHAPTER IV POLICIES AND PROGRAMS FOR INVESTMENTS IN PRODUCTION AND INFRASTRUCTURE IN NIGERIAN AGRICULTURE UNDER THREE ALTERNATIVE STRATEGIES FOR DEVELOPMENT: 1970-85 CSNRD investigators developed three broad development strategies to gain a wide perspective of the favorable and unfavorable alternatives for Nigerian agricultural development. These strategies represent respectively, 1) a continuation of present trends and policies in Nigerian agriculture, 2) a change to more favorable agricultural policies and programs and 3) harsher, more exploitive agricultural policies than presently followed in Nigeria. The purpose of this chapter is to summarize the agricultural production and infrastructure policies and programs under these alternative strategies. The policies and programs of the three strategies are the basis of the manpower and financial reconciliation work in the next two chapters. The three alternative strategies for the development of Nigerian agriculture have been investigated by use of the reconciliation process described in Chapter II to uncover inconsistencies and imbalances among the programs and policies. The imbalances and inconsistencies for the CSNRD recommended policies and programs of Strategy II also have been reconciled according to the reconciliation process in order to develop overall manpower and financial consistency. The final reconciliation step to determine political acceptability is presently being undertaken in Nigeria by researchers, administrators, and decision—makers from Nigeria and other countries, but is not included as a part of this dissertation. For Strategy I and 111, no attempt 67 68 was made specifically to reconcile the imbalances and inconsistencies because these two strategies do not represent balanced development approaches. The reconciliation process is useful in the disclosure of inconsistencies, strengths and weaknesses in these strategies rather than in reconciling inconsistencies. If the inconsistencies in these two strategies were reconciled, the strategies would have to be modified toward Strategy II and consequently would no longer represent the initial conditions of Strategy I and III. The Three Alternative Strategies1 1. Alternative Strategy I: a continuation of present trends. This strategy has been included to Show the probable effects of following Nigeria's present agricultural policies, as outlined in Chapter III. The assumptions of this strategy include a modest expansion in agricultural ministry services (primarily extension, veterinary, cooperatives, forestry, and produce inspection), although poor logistic support and lack of sufficient field work would continue to restrict the effectiveness of these services. Research efforts will increase slightly each year. Some limited programs for promoting smallholder production of tree crops would be undertaken in the southern states and a great variety of small, diversified projects would be promoted throughout Nigeria. Credit would remain expensive, inefficiently operated and meager. Export agriculture would lSummarized from Glenn L. Johnson, et al., Strategies and Recommendations of Nigerian Rural Development CSNRD publication No. 33 (East Lansing: CSNRD, 1969), Chapter IV. 69 continue to be heavily taxed through the present taxes on export crop output, though some revenues would be returned to agriculture through services of the agricultural ministries, input subsidies, and other services. Government investments would continue to be focused on developing farm settlements and government plantations in the southern states and development of irrigation schemes would begin in the northern states. Food production and marketing would continue to be guided by the marketing mechanism, but marketing of export and import substitution crops would continue to be inefficient and hampered by corruption. Employment in the public sector under this strategy would continue to require university agricultural degrees for a small number of positions, mainly administration. In addition, a considerable number of agricultural technical school graduates would be required for agricultural services. A large portion of the public sector staff, however, would be hired without specialized training. The majority of private sector personnel would remain unskilled. A small number would receive private training and a limited number of university and technical school graduates would be hired by agro- industry firms. 2. Alternative Strategy 11: a change to more favorable policies and programs(the CSNRD recommendations). This strategy is a modifi- cation of present policies to make them more favorable to agriculture and is the strategy CSNRD researchers hope Nigerian decision—makers will choose to develop agriculture. It is based on intensive research by an interdisciplinary team over the 1965—1985 period and 70 has been developed into an overall set of balanced programs through the reconciliation process. The overall strategy recommended by CSNRD is twofold in nature. In the short run, we (CSNRD) recommend that Nigeria: 1) concentrate on the opportunities to expand agricultural export crop production and export earnings, (these oppor- tunities arise out of restrictive pricing and taxation programs and marketing board practices which can be corrected), 2) distribute the resultant increases in income widely over a large number of rural people to provide the means of financing the expansion in production, to generate additional effective domestic demand for both farm and nonfarm products and to obtain a substantial increase in welfare for masses of her rural people. In the long run, our strategy involves much greater support for biological research to develop economically superior varieties of plants and animals. Here the need is particularly urgent with respect to food and feed crops, particularly the high protein food sources. Success in obtaining new biological technology will open up new opportunities particularly in the Savannahs of the middlebelt and northern areas to produce staple food and feed crops to supply the greater quantities which will be taken by domestic and foreign outlets at the lower costs of production and prices resulting from the improved technology. The investment recommendations for Strategy 11 are given in Table 4. CSNRD recommends that the estimated 5,000,000 smallholder Nigerian farmers be the central force for expanding commodity output over the 1970—1985 period because of their good performance in Nigeria in the past, even when heavily burdened with government taxes. Major emphasis therefore is placed upon smallholder campaign programs for increasing export crop production. The CSNRD investment and educational teams recommend that these campaigns be developed as a new package with new varieties, fertilizer and other inputs, 21pm, p. 66. 1 7 .HH> one H> openneso .mwmalaoma .uneanoae>en aeunm neanuwaz pom mnoaueoneaaooem one meaweuenum ..ae um .nomnnoo .a nneao Scum oeeaneaanm "eonnom .ouo .wnammeoonn ae>oa anew .noaueeanenooa Meson aenane .nenaaaunem mo soneemen oaeam onenxm .m momeomao aenane one .noauonoonn aeEane .huaaaunom aaom no noneemen some wnoa .N ooanon owoa ummma ecu no mumoo noauonoonn neBoa ou wnaoeonn aenane one unean no noneemen na munee nume>na unmanne>om Mohez .a .oue .xoouwe>aa .ooan we none muonoonn aennuanoanwe neanemaz now mnoauen nenuo one .eoanm< .eoanmn umez na wuexnes Ben now noneem on noneemen eue>aun ioaannn una0n na ume>na .a oanoen aennn one neon: soon now onwaenaeo noauanunn neans na uwo>na .m maeanonn wnawmeoonn one noauonoonn no noneemen e>auneoe onenxm .N onwaenaeo noauonooum oeuoanueen muononn one eeanewno I I I I I I hua>auo< oeoneanoem .a .oue .eeu .mnuuao lienono Sen no noneomen eueauana one mesons no noneemon onenxm .o .epe .mosnz .szo on women noneomen mo eoneuenaoo e>onnaa .m .ouo .ewenoum upon .moeon neooem .unonmnenu onenxm .q oneoaosaaenm ou uaoeno onenxe one eoneumamme aeoansoeu mo muaaeno e>ounaa .m nouoem eue>ann one an oeanmme on neo meoa>nem ewonu aaunn .oue .moeom .neeaaaunowlamunnna mo noaunnanumao na one mwnaa Ioeem mo noauonoonn na ume>na .N nouuoo one .eunnonnonw .Eaen aao .eoooo pom onwaenaeo %uaooEBoo “Omen uoenao one meanemno .a Amueow one noose .eauueo .e>emmeo .ueess .ne% .ueaaae .Ennwnoe ..w.ev xooumo>aa one mooom maneum Aenaea enamma swan .hnuanon .eoan ..m.ev mo00m noanennm Awenex .nouuoo .newnm .munn Ionnonw .Eaen aao .eoooo ..w.ov meauaoonnoo noaunuaumnnm uuonaa one unonxm anouw nuaooaaoo mwmalonoa .eanewaz na wnnonw kuaooasoo no .ennuanoanwn neanewaz mo noamnenxm eueuaaaoem ou oeoneaaooem weaua>auo< uneauwo>na unmanno>oo mo enmfi "HH hweuenum .q wanes 72 and technical know—how being presented to the farmer to improve his production.3 No specific production campaigns would be organized for food crops and livestock until research work has developed superior varieties of plants and animals, but diffusion of information on techniques and new varieties would be continued in a general extension framework. Research would be expanded as fast as available manpower would allow. Credit would be tied initially to the pro- duction campaigns and expanded to other agricultural production as state credit organizations become established. Export taxes and marketing board margins would be eliminated from the export crops, generally allowing farm prices to rise above recent levels, even after allowance was made for price effects of expanded production from the campaigns. Finally the government would phase out its investments in farm settlements and development corporation planta- tions, and restrict its investments in irrigation projects to those which clearly show high profitability. The extension services would need to be expanded to support the production campaigns, as well as for continued general support of agricultural production. Extension education was chosen for these campaigns because extension is well suited for assisting smallholder production. In addition, an adequate base for extension services has already been developed in Nigeria. Extension work also provides 3A summary of the acreage targets for the export crop production campaigns is given in Appendix A of this dissertation to provide a basis for calculating manpower and cost estimates in the next two chapters. The details and procedures for initiating these campaigns are outlined in the CSNRD final report, Glenn L. Johnson, et al., op cit., Chapter VII. 73 excellent opportunities forestablishing demonstrations on farm land for food crops, and as such can adequately provide the educational services needed for both the export and food crop investments in the field. Qualitative changes in extension operations would be necessary, however,in order for the extension personnel to be effective in helping farmers improve their farming techniques.4 These changes would include increases in incentives for good field performance, increases in the number of field staff,a higher percentage of trained field staff with eventual elimination of untrained personnel, and more logistic support for field operations. Changes in training have been recommended to decrease the time of training for agriculture assistants from two years to one year plus some time involved in gaining experience as an extension worker. It is also recommended that input distribution program be transferred to private firms. In addition, the phasing out of government farm settlements and plantations would release large amounts of capital funds and also some of thelfimfistries of Agriculture's trained staff for use in other work such as extension. Strategy 11 would also promote the expansion of other agricultural services in addition to crop extension. Livestock training at the special livestock schools should continue, but changes in training priorities might be necessary if research were successful in providing the superior plant and animal varieties necessary to reorganize the present beef industry. Research and university faculties would 4James M. Kincaid, Jr., Strategies for Improvements of Agricultural Extension Work and Subuniversity Agricultural Training in Nigeria, CSNRD publication No. 8 (East Lansing: CSNRD, 1968). 74 require sophisticated agricultural personnel with BSc and advanced degrees. Most BSc's would be trained in Nigerian universities, and overseas training should be relied upon for much of the post-graduate training in agriculture.5 Research assistants could be trained in technical agriculture schools. Credit personnel would need a knowledge of agricultural production which could be gained from the agricultural schools and would also require some specialized training on credit. This specialized credit training could be given in special credit sessions at the technical schools of agriculture. The educational system would need to train people for the private sector for the distribution and sales of agricultural inputs, direct production, and processing. This education could be provided effectively in the Nigerian universities and technical agricultural schools. Some of this training also could be provided by the private companies themselves. 3. Alternative Strategy 111: a policy of taxing and controlling agricultural production severely while providing substantial agricultural services with the hope of generating substantial nonfarm development. This strategy can be illustrated by the agricultural policies in Argen— tina under Peron, in Ghana under Nkrumah, and in Guinea under Touré.6 5James S. Long, Analysis of the Needs and Resources for University Education in Agriculture in Nigeria, CSNRD publication No. 28 (East Lansing: CSNRD, 1969). 6See Elliot J. Berg, "Socialism and Economic Development in Tropical Africa," Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. LXXVII, No. 4, (November, 1964), pp. 549—574, for an analysis of many of the important components of this kind of strategy. Berg also Summarizes the difficulties in implementing this kind of strategy in Africa South of the Sahara. 75 CSNRD points out that "This strategy is followed by many countries and often purported to be the enlightened result of careful planning; however, it represents essentially a considerably more negative strategy for agriculture than Nigeria presently follows."7 It assumes that Nigeria will pursue policies of cheap food for the urban— industrial consumers and maximum short-run extraction of income from agricultural to finance government sponsored projects and, possibly post war reconstruction. Direct public investment would be in such projects as resettlement schemes, uncoordinated research centers, service organizations with large staffs of civil servants to serve agriculture, and publically manage marketing facilities. Harsher taxation policies would be applied to export agriculture and additional governmental policies imposing price ceilings, resource allocation controls, and food rationing would cause the production, distribution and consumption of both food and export crops to be placed under the control of government agencies. Support for agricultural research and education would be about the same or lower than under Strategy I but would be less effectively organized. Priorities of Strategy 111 would be on staple food production first, and export crops last. Strategy III calls for a large government bureaucracy to staff and maintain control of the large number of government projects. Educational policies under this strategy would be similar to Strategy 1, 7Glenn L. Johnson, et. al., op cit. p. 61. 76 although employment of trained agriculturalists in the private sector would be greatly restricted, and many more nonagriculturally trained and untrained people would be employed in the public sector. The effects on export crop production of following the invest— ments outlined under these three strategies are projected to 1985 by commodity in Tables 8.1 to B.5 of Appendix B of this dissertation. These tables are the basis for computing the foreign exchange earnings, farmer incomes, and government revenue from export crops, as summarized in Tables C.l to C.5 of Appendix C, which in turn are used in Chapter VI in determining economic and financial feasibility of the three strategies. The physical production tables in Appendix B also serve as guidelines for establishing manpower requirements for agriculture in Chapter V. CHAPTER V MANPOWER FOR NIGERIAN AGRICULTURE The purpose of this chapter is the determination of the quality and quantity of trained manpower needed in agriculture under the three strategies and the investigation of the feasibility of training the manpower within the time and financial constraints facing Nigeria. The educational services required for the three strategies, summarized in Chapter IV, show that manpower would be needed with three levels of training: 1. Subuniversity diploma or certificate training is required for most agricultural extension and livestock personnel and some personnel for other agricultural ministry departments, development corporations, research, credit, and the private sector. With the exception of livestock service personnel, (who are trained at special livestock schools) these people should be trained in the present schools of agriculture or farm training centers (for agricultural instructors in the northern states only). 2. University B.Sc. training is needed for top level positions in agricultural ministries, marketing, credit, research, university education, development corporations, and private industry. Most of the required people with B.Sc. degrees can be trained by the faculties of agriculture in Nigerian universities. 3. University MSc. and Ph.D. degree people are needed by the agricultural university faculties and research organizations. These 77 78 may be trained both in Nigeria and overseas. Two conditions must be satisfied to assure that the needed personnel could be trained. First, sufficient people must be available with the prerequisite education necessary to enter the institutions providing the training. Secondly, the present institutions must have either sufficient capacity to train the needed manpower or can be modified sufficiently to provide this training. In Nigeria, the first condition should present no problem as sufficient people appear to be available with the education prerequisite to enter the agricultural training institutions. Entry into both the universities and most of the subuniversity technical schools requires a secondary school education (high school level). Presently there are numerous secondary school leavers in the southern states looking for employment and advanced training. In the northern states, there are fewer secondary schools and graduates, but sufficient numbers of graduates are available to fill the positions in agriculture requiring univer— sity or subuniversity training. The agricultural instructors of the extension staffs in the northern states need only a primary school educa— tion and should present no training problems as there are enough primary school graduates to fill these positions. The second condition of sufficient training capacities in the agricultural education institu— tions will be examined in this chapter by determining the necessary staff numbers and training requirements, and then reconciling the total training requirements with feasible outputs from the corresponding training institutions for each kind and level of training. 79 Subuniversity Training This section will examine only the training requirements for subuniversity graduates from the technical agricultural schools (presently called Ministry Schools of Agriculture) as most of the subuniversity trained personnel needed for the three strategies will require training in these institutions. Subuniversity training in institutions other than the technical agricultural schools (live- stock, forestry, irrigation) should continue. This type of training, however, will not be examined in this dissertation as no major increases in the needs for these services are projected and the present schools providing this training should be able to supply the manpower needed in future years. Agricultural extension personnel trained in crop production form the most important staff category requiring training in the technical agricultural schools under all three strategies. They are especially important for the CSNRD programs (Strategy II) because of the heavy emphasis on production campaigns and direct assistance to smallholder farmers. The staff positions for extension workers are given in Tables 5 to 7 for the three alternative strategies.1 The entire extension staff has been listed in these tables to give a complete picture of its size and composition. In addition to the agricultural superin- tendents (AS), agricultural assistants (AA), and agricultural instructors (AI—north only) requiring technical agricultural training, lMuch assistance in projecting the employment and training for subuniversity trained agriculturalists was provided by James M. Kincaid, Jr. 80 Table 5. Strategy 1: Employment of Total Agricultural Crop Extension Staff, Nigeria by Area and Staff Category, 1966 and Projections for 1970, 1975, and 19851 : Agricultural : Field overseer Area and year : ‘D ’ ‘ 2 . ‘ : a : or ‘ ‘ ‘ : Total officer : asst. ag. supt. : assistant : instructor : (A0) : (AS + AAS) : (AA) : (FO/AI) -------------- Manpowernumbers------—------- Western and Lagos States 1966 54 109 244 611 1,018 1970 60 123 275 688 1,146 1975 70 143 319 797 1,329 1985 94 192 429 1,071 1.786 Mid-western tate 1966 14 47 156 230 447 1970 16 53 176 259 504 1975 19 61 204 300 584 1985 26 82 274 403 785 Eastern states 1966 74 1562 6532 395 1,273 1970 83 156 653 445 1,337 1975 96 203 852 516 1.667 1985 129 274 1,145 692 2,240 Northern s ates 1966 34 155 400 835 1,424 1970 38 174 450 939 1.601 1975 44 202 520 1,086 1,852 1985 59 271 700 1,461 2,491 Total Nigeria 1966 176 467 1,453 2,071 4,167 1970 197 506 1,554 2,331 4,588 1975 229 609 1,895 2,699 5.432 1985 308 819 2,548 3,627 7,302 1 Projected at 3 percent net increase per year. 2 Not increased because of the high loss of staff likely in the eastern states. 81 Table 6. Strategy 11: Employment of Total Agricultural Crop Extension Staff, Nigeria y Area and Staff Category, 1966 and Projections for 1970, 1975, and 19851 : Agricultural : : Field overseer2 : Area and year : ‘D ‘ ‘ r ‘ ’ : “a i ‘ ‘ : or agricultural : Total ‘ officer asst. ag. supt. : assistant : instructor : (A0 (AS + AAS) : (AA) : (PO/AI) -------------- Manpower numbers - - — - - - - - - — - - - - Western and Lagos States 1966 54 109 244 611 1,018 1970 65 109 615 243 1,032 1975 67 107 1,110 145 1,429 1985 69 157 1,713 60 1,999 Mid—western State 1966 14 47 156 230 447 1970 16 47 295 93 451 1975 18 52 544 60 674 1985 24 67 760 25 876 Eastern states 6 74 156 653 395 1,278 1970 84 169 750 516 1,519 1975 100 170 1.438 115 1,823 1985 105 191 2,500 60 2,856 Northern states 1966 34 155 400 835 1,424 1970 50 205 619 1,200 2,074 1975 85 265 817 2,056 3,223 1985 105 252 1,337 1,249 2,943 Total Nigeria 1966 176 467 1,453 2,071 4,167 1970 215 530 2,279 2,052 5,076 1975 270 594 3,909 2,376 7,149 1985 303 667 6,310 1,394 8,674 e figures include moderate staff allowances for food and feed production campaigns from 1976-1985. d overseers are used in southern states while agricultural instructors are employed in the northern states. 82 Table 7. Strategy 111: Employment of Total Agricultural Crop Extension Staff, Nigeria by Area and Staff Category, 1966 and Projections for 1970, 1975, and 19851 Agricultural : : Field overseer Area and year : Agricultural : superintendent, : Agricultural : or agricultural : Total : officer : asst. ag. supt. 2 assistant : instructor (A0 ( ) : (A5 + AAS) : AA) : (FO/AI) -------------- Manpowernumbers----—-———----- Western and Lagos States 1966 54 109 244 611 1,018 1970 49 98 220 550 917 1975 57 114 255 637 1,063 1985 77 153 343 852 1,425 Mid-western Sta 1966 14 47 156 230 447 1970 13 42 140 207 402 1975 15 49 162 240 466 1985 20 66 218 321 625 Eastern states 66 74 156 653 395 1,278 1970 67 140 588 355 1, 150 1975 78 162 682 411 1,333 1985 105 217 917 552 1 791 Northern states 1966 34 155 400 835 1,424 1970 31 139 360 751 1,281 1975 36 161 418 871 1,486 1985 48 215 560 1,167 1,990 Total Nigeria 66 176 467 1,453 2,071 4,167 1970 160 419 1,308 1,863 3,750 1975 186 486 1,517 2,159 4,348 1985 250 651 2,038 2,892 5,831 o ected at 10 percent reduction in staff by 1970 and 3 percent net increase per year thereafter. 83 the table includes agricultural officers and field overseers. The agricultural officers require university degrees and will be considered later under university education. The field overseers require no formal training. The staff positions and the training requirements in the following tables have been calculated for three training areas because the technical agricultural schools were originally organized to serve these areas. These areas represent 1) the six northern states, 2) the Western, Lagos and Mid-western States, and 3) the three eastern states. In Table 5 the staff positions for Strategy I have been calculated by increasing each staff category by 3 percent per year. This rate of growth is consistent with a continuation of the present trends in the extension services and follows approximately the present population growth rate. Extension staff requirements for Strategy 11, shown in Table 6, have been calculated on the basis of l) the number of persons necessary to staff the recommended export crop production campaigns together with 2) enough staff to provide suitable general extension work, including food crop promotion. Instead of expanding staff numbers by some general desired ratio of extension workers to farm families, CSNRD researchers determined how many extension workers would be required to serve effectively the recommended programs. In staffing the campaigns for export and import substitution crops, CSNRD researchers gave consideration to the size of the program, the number of farms, the number of years the farmers would be in the program, and the 84 anticipated problems in getting farmers to adopt the new technology.2 Initially, the extension workers would concentrate on working with the most responsive farmers. One extension worker would begin working with about 50 responsive farmers in the groundnut and cotton campaigns and about 40 responsive farmers for tree crops. As the campaigns gained momentum and the farmers gained more experience with the new technology, each extension worker could work with more farmers, reaching a maximum of about 250 farmers per extension worker in the cotton and groundnut campaigns and 90 farmers in the tree crop campaigns. Under Strategy II, CSNRD recommends strong efforts to expand field staff numbers and to provide them with better training and logistic support. The field overseers in the southern states would be quickly upgraded through training and the category eliminated. The majority of agricultural instructors in the northern states would be upgraded after 1975. Nearly all of the overall increase in staff would be in the categories of agricultural assistants and agricultural instructors for field work. A manpower analysis has not been carried out for the production campaigns, but would be required if new biological research developed new technology for food crops, livestock and nutritionally superior food production. However, some extension workers for these campaigns have been included in the manpower figures covering 1975 to 1985. Additional manpower for these campaigns could be trained by the present Nigerian agricultural education 2See Appendix E for the staffing requirements for the export crop campaigns. 85 system if adequate financing were forthcoming. Strategy III manpower requirements are given in Table 7. These requirements are based on a 10 percentdecrease in the extension staff by 1970 followed by 3 percent per year increase in each staff category from 1970 onward. This staffing pattern is consistent with an unfavorable agricultural policy that would freeze present positions until 1970, allowing for no staff increases or promotions during this period. A normal attrition rate of 3 percent per year then would reduce staff members by about 10 percent by 1970. Indications of adopting this policy already have been given by some of the new states. Training Requirements The projections of training requirements for subuniversity crop extension personnel have been calculated in Table 8 through 10 for the three strategies. These calculations are based upon new staff positions needed for the extension services, and include allowances for a 3 percent per year rate of replacement. Promotions also have been included as all AS's and AAS's must come from the AA category, and many AA's can come from the F0 or A1 category. Because of the civil war, a 35 percent replacement of the extension personnel for the eastern area has been assumed for the 1966-1970 period only, with 3 percent per year used thereafter. Graduates from the technical agricultural schools would be needed for non-extension positions in the public sector and for private employment in addition to the extension service work. In Tables 11 to 13 the total overall training requirements for technical agricultural graduates are projected for the three alternative 86 Table 8. Strategy 1, Subuniversity Agricultural Crop Extension Technical Manpower: Employment (1966) and Projected Employment and Training Requirements, Nigeria by Training Area and Staff Category, 1967-1985 : Agricultural : : Field oversee r, : Area, year, employment, : superintendent, : Agricultural : or agricultural : Total and training needs : asst. ag. supt. : assistant : instructor (A5 + AAS) : (AA) : (PO/AI) ---------- Manpower numbers — — - — - — - - - - - Westernl Lagos, and Mid—western States 1966 Staff employment 156 400 841 1,397 1967—7O Staff employed by 1970 176 451 947 1,574 New positions 1 20 51 106 Staff upgrading 0 40 0 Replacement2 20 51 106 Total training requirement 40 142 212 394 1971—75 Staff employed by 1975 204 523 1,097 1,824 New positions 28 72 150 Staff upgrading 0 56 10 Replacement 28 72 150 Total training requirement 56 200 310 566 1976—85 Staff employed by 1985 274 703 1,474 2,451 New positions 70 180 377 Staff upgrading 0 140 50 Replacement 70 180 377 Total training requirement 140 500 804 1,444 Eastern states 1966 Staff employment 156 653 395 1,204 1967—7O Staff employed by 1970 156 653 445 1,254 New positions 0 0 50 Staff upgrading O 55 0 Replacement 55 228 138 Total training requirement 55 283 188 526 1971—75 Staff employed by 1975 203 852 516 1,571 New positions 47 199 71 Staff upgrading 0 74 20 Replacement 27 112 71 Total training requirement 74 385 162 621 1976—85 Staff employed by 1985 274 1,145 692 2,111 New positions 71 293 176 Staff upgrading 0 142 50 Replacement 71 293 176 Total training requirement 142 728 402 1,272 1 Refers to upgrading requiring additional educational training in agriculture. 2 Three percent replacement per year for all areas and years except 35 percent for 1967 to 1970 for the eastern states. Table 8. (continued) 87 Agricultural : Field overseer Area, year, employment, : superintendent, : Agricultural : or agricultural : Total and training needs : asst. ag. supt. assistant instructor : (A5 + AAS) (AA) (FD/AI) ---------- Manpower numbers - — — - — - - - - - - Northern states 1966 Staff employment 155 400 835 1,390 1967-70 Staff employed by 1970 174 450 939 New positions 19 50 104 Staff upgrading 0 38 0 Replacement 19 50 104 Total training requirement 38 138 208 384 1971—75 Staff employed by 1975 202 520 1,086 1,808 New positions 28 70 147 Staff upgrading 0 56 20 Replacement 28 70 147 Total training requirement 56 196 314 566 1976—85 Staff employed by 1985 271 700 1,461 2,432 New positions 69 180 375 Staff upgrading 0 138 60 Replacement 69 180 375 Total training requirement 138 498 810 1,446 Total Nigeria 1966 Staff employment 467 1,453 2,071 3,991 1967-70 Staff employed by 1970 506 1,554 2,331 4,391 New positions 39 101 260 Staff upgrading 0 133 0 Replacement 94 329 348 Total training requirement 133 563 608 1,304 1971—75 Staff employed by 1975 609 1,895 2,699 New positions 103 341 368 Staff upgrading 0 186 50 Replacement 83 254 368 Total training requirement 186 781 786 1,753 1976—85 Staff employed by 1985 819 2,548 3,627 6,994 New positions 210 653 928 Staff upgrading 0 420 160 Replacement 210 653 928 Total training requirement 420 1,726 2,016 4,162 88 Table 9. Strategy 11, Subuniversity Agricultural Crop Extension Technical Manpower: Employment (1966) and Projected Employment and Training Requirements, Nigeria by Training Area and Staff Category, 1967—1985 Agricultural : : Field overseer, : Area, year, employment, : superintendent, : Agricultural : or agricultural : Total and training needs : asst. ag. supt. : assistant : instructor : : (AS + AAS) : (AA) : (PO/AI) : ---------- Manpower numbers — — - - - - - - - - — Westernl LagosI and Mid-western States 1966 Staff employment 156 400 841 1,397 1967—70 Staff employed by 1970 156 910 336 1,402 New positions 1 0 510 -505 Staff upgrading 0 26 434 Replacement2 18 79 71 Total training requirement 18 615 0 633 1971—75 Staff employed by 1975 159 1,654 205 2,018 New positions 3 744 —131 Staff upgrading 0 37 91 Replacement 23 196 40 Total training requirement 26 977 0 1,003 1976-85 Staff employed by 1985 224 2,473 85 2,782 New positions 65 819 -120 Staff upgrading 0 177 76 Replacement 76 599 44 Total training requirement 141 1,595 0 1,736 Eastern states 1966 Staff employment 156 653 395 1,204 1967-70 Staff employed by 1970 169 750 516 1,435 New positions 13 97 121 Staff upgrading 0 75 50 Replacement 58 228 138 Total training requirement 71 400 309 780 1971-75 Staff employed by 1975 170 1,438 115 1,723 New positions 1 688 —401 Staff upgrading 0 29 347 Replacement 25 164 54 Total training requirement 26 881 0 907 1976-85 Staff employed by 1985 191 2,500 60 2,751 New positions 21 1,062 -55 Staff upgrading 0 100 25 Replacement 61 591 30 Total training requirement 82 1,753 0 1,835 l Refers to upgrading requiring additional educational training in agriculture. 2 Three percent replacement per year for all areas and years except 35 percent for 1967 to 1970 for the eastern states. 89 Table 9. (continued) Agricultural : : Field overseer Area, year, employment, : superintendent, : Agricultural : or agricultural : Total and training needs : asst. ag. supt. : assistant : instructor : (AS + AAS) : (AA) : (FD/AI) ---------- Manpower numbers — - - - - - — — — — — Northern states 1966 Staff employment 155 400 835 1,390 1967-70 Staff employed by 1970 205 619 1,200 2,024 New positions 50 219 365 Staff upgrading 0 77 98 Replacement 22 60 122 Total training requirement 72 356 585 1,013 1971-75 Staff employed by 1975 265 817 2,056 3,138 New positions 60 198 856 Staff upgrading 0 106 150 Replacement 35 107 244 Total training requirement 95 411 1,250 1,756 1976-85 Staff employed by 1985 252 1,337 1,249 2,838 New positions -13 520 -807 Staff upgrading 0 80 600 Replacement 78 321 495 Total training requirement 65 921 288 1,274 Total Nigeria 1966 Staff employment 467 1,453 2,071 3,991 1967—70 Staff employed by 1970 530 2,279 2,052 4,861 New positions 63 826 ~19 Staff upgrading 0 178 582 Replacement 98 367 331 Total training requirement 161 1,371 894 2,426 1971—75 Staff employed by 1975 594 3,909 2,376 6,879 New positions 64 1,630 324 Staff upgrading 0 172 588 Replacement 83 467 338 Total training requirement 147 2,269 1,250 3,666 1976—85 Staff employed by 1985 667 6,310 1,394 8,371 New positions 73 2,401 —982 Staff upgrading 0 357 701 Replacement 215 1,511 569 Total training requirement 288 4,269 288 4,845 .1 90 Table 10. Strategy 111, Subuniversity Agricultural Crop Extension Technical Manpower: Employment (1966) and ProjeCted Employment and Training Requirements, Nigeria by Training Area and Staff Category, 1967-1985 Agricultural : : Field overseer Area, year, employment, : superintendent, : Agricultural : or agricultural : Total and training needs : asst. ag. supt. : assistant : instructor : (AS + AAS) : (AA) : (FO/AI) : ---------- Manpower numbers — - - - - — - - - - Western, Lagosl and Mid—western States 1966 Staff employment 156 400 841 1,397 1967—7O Staff employed by 1970 140 360 757 1,257 New positions -16 -40 -84 Staff upgrading O 3 0 Replacement2 19 46 93 Total training requirement 3 9 9 21 1971—75 Staff employed by 1975 163 417 877 1,457 New positions 23 57 120 Staff upgrading 0 46 0 Replacement 23 57 120 Total training requirement 46 160 240 446 1976-85 Staff employed by 1985 219 561 1,173 1,953 New positions 56 144 296 Staff upgrading 0 112 0 Replacement 56 144 296 Total training requirement 112 400 592 1,104 Eastern states 1966 Staff employment 156 653 395 1,204 1967—7O Staff employed by 1970 140 588 355 1,083 New positions —16 —65 —40 Staff upgrading 0 39 0 Replacement 55 228 138 Total training requirement 39 202 98 339 1971—75 Staff employed by 1975 162 682 411 1,255 New positions 22 94 56 Staff upgrading 0 44 0 Replacement 22 94 56 Total training requirement 44 232 112 388 1976—85 Staff employed by 1985 217 917 552 1,686 New positions 55 235 141 Staff upgrading 0 110 0 Replacement 55 235 141 Total training requirement 110 580 282 972 1 Refers to upgrading requiring additional educational training in agriculture. 2 Three percent replacement per year for all areas and years except 35 percent for 1967 to 1970 for the eastern states. 91 Table 10. (continued) Agricultural : : Field overseer, Area, year, employment, : superintendent, : Agricultural : or agricultural : Total and training needs : asst. ag. supt. : assistant 2 instructor : (AS + AAS) : (AA) : (FO/AI) ---------- Manpower numbers — — — — - - - - - - - Northern states 1966 Staff employment 155 400 835 1,390 1967—70 Staff employed by 1970 139 360 751 1,250 New positions —16 —40 —84 Staff upgrading 0 3 0 Replacement 19 46 95 Total training requirement 3 9 11 23 1971—75 Staff employed by 1975 161 418 871 1,450 New positions 22 58 120 Staff upgrading 0 44 0 Replacement 22 58 120 Total training requirement 44 160 240 444 1976-85 Staff employed by 1985 215 560 1,167 1,942 New positions 54 142 296 Staff upgrading 0 108 0 Replacement 54 142 296 Total training requirements 108 392 592 1,092 Total Ni eria 1966 Staff employment 467 1,453 2,071 3,991 1967—70 Staff employed by 1970 419 1,308 1,863 3,590 New positions —48 -145 —208 Staff upgrading 0 45 0 Replacement 93 320 326 Total training requirement 45 220 118 383 1971—75 Staff employed by 1975 486 1,517 2,159 4,162 New positions 67 209 296 Staff upgrading O 134 0 Replacement 67 209 296 Total training requirement 134 552 592 1,278 1976—85 Staff employed by 1985 651 2,038 2,892 5,581 New positions 165 521 733 Staff upgrading 0 330 0 Replacement 165 521 733 Total training requirement 330 1,372 1,466 3,168 92 Table 11. Strategy 1, Total Manpower from Technical Schools of Agriculture: Employment (1966) and Projected Training Requirements, Nigeria by Training Area and Staff Category, 1967-1985 : Training requirements Areas, years, and : Agricultural : Other : : Total : Average staff category : crop : public : Private : for : annual extension : sector : : period : during ' ' ' ' period ---------- Manpower numbers - - - - - — - - - - Western, Lagos, and Mid-western States Staff employed in 1966 AS 6 AAS 156 31 2 54 AA 400 123 26 197 F0 841 n.a. n.a. n.a. Total 1,397 154 28 New trainees, 1967-70 AS 6 AAS 40 8 1 49 12 AA 142 30 10 182 46 F0 212 n.a. n.a. 212 n.a. Total 394 38 11 443 New trainees, 1971—75 AS 6 AAS 56 10 5 71 14 AA 200 45 29 274 55 F0 310 n.a. n.a. 310 n.a. Total 566 55 34 655 New trainees, 1976-85 AS 6 AAS 140 27 8 175 18 AA 500 110 42 652 65 F0 804 n.a. n.a. 804 n.a. Total 1,444 137 50 1,631 Eastern states Staff employed in 1966 AS 6 AAS 156 10 2 28 AA 653 94 38 206 F0 395 n.a. n.a. n.a. Total 1,204 104 40 New trainees, 1967-70 2 AS 6 AAS 55 3 1 59 302 AA 283 23 15 321 161 F0 188 n.a. n.a. 188 n.a. Total 526 26 16 568 New trainees, 1971-75 AS 6 AAS 74 3 6 83 17 AA 385 34 27 446 89 F0 162 n.a. n.a. 162 n.a. Total 621 37 33 691 New trainees, 1976—85 AS 6 AAS 142 8 8 158 16 AA 728 85 50 863 87 F0 402 n.a. n.a. 402 n.a. Total 1,272 93 58 1,423 n.a. - not applicable as field overseers in the southern states require no formal agricultural training. The field overseer figures for extension were included to indicate staffing patterns. 1 Taken from Table 8. 2 The output figures for the eastern states for 1967-70 represent an average for the two years 1969 and 1970 only. 93 Table 11. (continued) : : : : Training requirements Area, years, and : Agricultural : Other : : Total : Average staff category : crop : public : Private : for : annua extension : sector : : period : during : : : : period —————————— Manpower numbers — - - — - - — — - — Northern states Staff employed in 1966 AS 6 AAS 155 12 3 19 AA 400 60 15 133 A1 835 56 10 272 Total 1,390 128 28 New trainees, 1967-70 AS 6 AAS 38 3 1 42 11 AA 138 16 13 167 42 A1 208 15 6 229 57 Total 384 34 20 438 New trainees, 1971—75 AS 6 AAS S6 5 S 66 13 AA 196 22 31 249 50 A1 314 20 25 359 72 Total 566 47 61 674 New trainees, 1976-85 AS 6 AAS 138 10 7 155 16 AA 498 55 47 600 60 A1 810 51 34 895 90 Total 1,446 116 88 1,650 Total Nigeria Staff employed in 1966 AS 6 AAS 467 53 7 101 AA 1,453 277 79 536 FO/AI 2,071 56 10 272 Total 3,991 386 96 New trainees, 1967—70 AS 6 AAS 133 14 3 150 53 AA 563 69 38 670 249 F0/AI 608 15 6 629 57 Total 1,304 98 47 1,449 New trainees, 1971-75 AS 6 AAS 186 18 16 220 44 AA 781 101 87 969 194 FO/Al 786 20 25 831 72 Total 1,753 139 128 2,020 New trainees, 1976—85 AS 6 AAS 420 45 23 488 50 AA 1,726 250 139 2,115 212 FO/AI 2,016 51 34 2,101 90 Total 4,162 346 196 4,704 A. {mass 3 94 Table 12. Strategy 11, Total Manpower from Technical Schools of Agriculture: Employment (1966) and Projected Training Requirements, Nigeria by Training Area and Staff Category, 1967-1985 : : : : Training requirements Area , years, and 2 Agricultural : Other : : Tota : Average staff category : cro 1 : public : Private : for : annual extension : sector : : period : during : : : : period —————————— Manpower numbers - - - — - — - — — — Wes tern , Lagos and Mid—western states Staff employed in 1966 AS6MS 156 31 2 54 AA 400 123 26 197 F0 841 n.a. n.a. n.a. Total 1,397 154 28 New trainees, 1967—70 AS 6 AAS 18 8 3 29 7 AA 615 30 33 678 170 F0 0 n.a. n.a. 0 n.a. Total 633 38 36 707 New trainees, 1971-75 AS 6 AAS 26 10 12 48 10 977 145 125 1,247 249 F0 0 n a. n.a. 0 n.a. Total 1,003 155 137 1,295 New trainees, 1976-852 AS 6 AAS 141 27 22 190 19 1,595 310 232 2,137 214 F0 0 n.a. n.a. 0 n.a. Total 1,736 337 254 2,327 Eastern states Staff employed in 1966 156 10 2 28 653 94 3B 206 F0 395 n.a n.a. n.a. Total 1,204 104 40 New trainees, 1967—70 3 AS 6 AAS 71 4 0 75 383 AA 400 40 14 459 2263 F0 309 n.a. n.a. 309 152 Total 780 44 14 838 New trainees, 1971-75 AS 6 AAS 26 3 14 43 9 AA 881 134 122 1,137 227 F0 0 n.a. n.a. 0 n.a. Total 907 137 136 1,180 New trainees, 1976—852 AS 6 AAS 82 8 22 112 11 1,753 285 215 2,253 225 F0 n.a. n.a. n.a. Total 1,835 293 237 2,365 n.a. — not applicable as field overseers in the southern states require no formal agricultural training The field overseer figures for extension were included to indicate staffing patterns. 1 Taken from Table 9. 2 ode erate staff allowances have been made for food and feed production campaigns from 1976—1985. 3 The output figures from the eastern states for 1967-70 represent an average for the two years 1969 and 1970 only. The average annual output figure for field overseers was included to quantify these temporary positions under Strategy 11 in the eastern states from 1967—70 only 95 Table 12. (continued) : : : : Training requirements Area, years, and : Agricultural : Other : : Total : Average staff category : crop : public : Private : for : annual . extension : sector : : period : during : ' ' period ---------- Manpower numbers - - - - - — - - - - Northern states Staff employed in 1966 AA 8 AAS 155 12 3 19 AA 400 60 15 133 A1 835 56 10 272 Total 1,390 128 28 New trainees, 1967-70 AA 8 AAS 72 5 2 79 20 AA 356 23 20 399 100 A1 585 23 5 613 153 Total 1,013 51 27 1,091 New trainees, 1971-75 AA 8 AAS 95 7 17 119 24 AA 411 135 118 664 133 A1 1,250 35 62 1,347 270 Total 1,756 177 197 2,130 New trainees, 1976—852 AA 8 AAS 65 15 29 109 11 AA 921 280 246 1,447 144 A1 288 79 263 630 63 Total 1,274 374 538 2,186 Total Nigeria Staff employed in 1966 AA 8 AAS 467 53 7 101 AA 1,453 277 79 536 FO/Al 2,071 56 10 272 Total 3,991 386 96 New trainees, 1967—7O AA 8 AAS 161 17 5 183 65 AA 1,371 93 67 1,531 496 FO/AI 894 23 5 922 305 Total 2,426 133 77 2,636 New trainees, 1971-75 AA 8 AAS 147 20 43 210 43 AA 2,269 414 365 3,048 609 FO/AI 1,250 35 62 1,347 270 Total 3,666 469 470 4,605 New trainees, 1976-852 AA 8 AAS 288 50 73 411 41 AA 4,269 875 693 5,837 584 FO/AI 288 79 263 630 63 Total 4,845 1,004 1,029 6,878 Table 13. Strategy III, 96 Total Manpower from Technical Schools of Agriculture: Employment (1966) and Projected Training Requirements, Nigeria by Training Area and Staff Category, 1967—1985 Area, years, and staff category Western, Lagos , and Mid— —western states Staff employed in 1966 AS 8 AAS : : : :__‘!_'_raining reguirements : Agricultural : Other : : Total : Average : cro : public : Private : for : annua extension : sector : : period : during : : : : period ——————————— Manpower numbers -— - — - — -— - - — 156 31 2 54 400 123 26 197 F0 841 n.a a n a. Total 1,397 154 28 New trainees, 1967-70 AS 8 AAS 3 0 1 4 l 9 l 6 16 4 F0 9 n.a. n a 9 n a Total 21 1 7 29 New trainees, 1971—75 AS 8 MS 46 9 4 59 12 AA 160 36 22 218 42 F0 240 n a. n.a 240 n a Total 446 45 26 517 New trainees, 1976-85 AS 8 AAS 112 22 6 140 14 400 88 39 527 53 PO 592 n.a n a 592 n a. Total 1,104 110 45 1,259 E_astern states Staff employed in 1966 AS 8 AAS 156 10 2 28 653 94 38 206 F0 395 n.a. n.a. n.a. Total 1,200 104 40 New trainees, 1967-70 2 AS 8 AAS 39 O 1 40 202 AA 202 1 14 217 109 F0 98 n.a n.a. 98 n.a. Total 339 1 15 355 New trainees, 1971-75 AS 8 AAS 44 3 7 54 11 232 27 19 278 56 F0 112 n.a. a 112 n.a. Total 388 30 26 444 New trainees, 1976-85 110 5 120 12 580 68 37 685 69 PO 282 n.a. n.a 282 n a. Total 972 73 42 1,087 n.a. — not applicable as field overseers in the southern states require no formal agricultural training. The field overseer figures for extension were included to indicate staffing patterns. 1 Taken from Table 10. 2 The output figures for then eastern states for 1967- 70 represent an average for the two years 1969 and 19700 97 Table 13. (continued) . : : Training requirements Area, years, and : Agricultural : Other : : Total : Average staff category : crop : public : Private : for : annual extension : sector : : period : during . - period ---------- Manpower numbers ~ - - - — — - - — — Northern states Staff employed in 1966 AA 8 AAS 155 12 3 19 AA 400 60 15 133 A1 835 56 10 272 Total 1,390 128 28 New trainees, 1967—7O AA 8 AAS 3 O 1 4 1 AA 9 2 9 20 5 AI 11 1 5 17 4 Total 23 3 15 41 New trainees, 1971-75 AA 8 AAS 44 4 4 52 11 AA 160 17 23 200 40 A1 240 17 12 269 54 Total 444 38 39 521 New trainees, 1976—85 AA 8 AAS 108 8 6 122 12 AA 392 45 45 482 48 A1 592 40 22 654 66 Total 1,092 93 73 1,258 Total Nigeria Staff employed in 1966 AA 8 AAS 467 53 7 101 AA 1,453 277 79 536 FO/AI 2,071 56 10 272 Total 3,991 386 96 New trainees, 1967—70 AA 8 AAS 45 0 3 48 22 AA 220 4 29 253 118 FO/AI 118 1 5 124 4 Total 383 5 37 425 New trainees, 1971-75 AA 8 AAS 134 16 15 165 34 AA 552 80 64 696 138 FO/AI 592 17 12 621 54 Total 1,278 113 91 1,482 New trainees, 1976-85 AA 8 AAS 330 35 17 382 38 AA 1,372 201 121 1,694 170 FO/AI 1,466 40 22 1,528 66 Total 3,168 276 160 3,604 98 strategies. In these tables, the training requirements for extension workers are taken from Tables 8 to 10. Like the extension require— ments, the non-extension public sector and private sector training requirements were calculated by first determining the respective levels of employment and then calculating the training requirements for new positions, promotions, and replacement. Employment projections for the non—extension public sector column have been derived for Strategy I by increasing the non—extension component of the agricultural ministries at 3 percent per year and taking 10 percent of this amount. These figures represent allowances for the small use of agriculture school graduates by the rest of the agricultural ministries, marketing boards, development corporations, and other public agencies. The non—extension public sector projections for Strategy 11 have been computed in similar fashion, except that additional manpower is included for the credit and research services. For Strategy 111, the figures in this column represent 10 percent of the staff of the agricultural ministries which would have decreased 10 percent by 1970 and increased at a rate of 3 percent per year thereafter. Employment projections for the private sector are based on agricultural school graduates needed for 1) private plantations, 2) agricultural supply and processing companies, and 3) private farming. In estimating the trained manpower needed for private plantations, one AA level person has been used for each 1,000 acres. The agricultural supply and processing firm calculations are based 99 3 The on the survey conducted in 1968, reported in Chapter IV. calculations for private farming are based on the projected number of people who would find farming more productive than public or private employment. Under Strategy I the private sector demand for subuniversity trained manpowerwould be chiefly from processing firms. Only a few people would be needed for supply firms, as the subsidy programs would prevent most large scale private input distribution. The continued tax burden on export crop output also would limit the profitability and extent of private plantation development and of private farming by agricultural school graduates. Under Strategy II, many more agricultural school graduates would find employment in these three areas. CSNRD recommends that public plantations and input distribution be phased into private hands, greatly increasing the private sector demand for trained manpower for plantation operation. The reduction in taxes and improved technology from research would promote further private investment, and encourage private production of export crops. If the agricultural schools are placed in the university centers, as recommended by CSNRD under Strategy II, private firms as well as the agricultural ministries could both obtain and have employees 3This survey was conducted in the Western and all six northern states of Nigeria. It included nearly all the agricultural firms using trained agricultural manpower in these states listed in the Nigerian Industrial Directory,lnfll ed., 1967. lOO trained at these schools.4 With higher profitability in agriculture, private firms also could hire away employed extension agents and therefore instigate additional training at these schools for their replacements. Under Strategy III, input subsidy programs, harsh taxation policies, and governmental interference in marketing would virtually choke off private sector investments and any demand for trained agriculturalists. Reconciliation By comparing the 1966 output of technical agricultural school graduates with that required in future time periods for each training area, it appears that the 1966 capacity would be excessive for Strategy I and III but sufficient or nearly sufficient to satisfy the demand from CSNRD campaigns and programs under Strategy II from each area for all years to 1985. The 1966 output, however, was only 80 to 85 percent of maximum capacity. Under Strategy II, except for agricultural assistants in the Western, Mid-western and Lagos states in 1971-75, the required future output of subuniversity trained manpower for all time periods and for each category of staff would be less than the 1966 output or would not exceed it by 10 percent. This additional 10 percent could be achieved with the present facilities by utilizing space more efficiently and to maximum capacity, shortening the training course for agricultural assistants 4See Glenn L. Johnson, et al., Strategies and Recommendations for Nigerian Rural Development, 1969-1985, CSNRD publication No. 33 (East Lansing: CSNRD, 1969) p. 114. Presently the schools are run by the agricultural ministries. Most enrollees are given civil servant appointments with salaries but are then bonded to work for the agricul- tural ministries for five years. This practice greatly restricts the use of these schools by the private sector. 101 5 or utilizing untrained staff on a temporary from two to one year, basis. Training costs could be underwritten, being nearly the same as in 1966, or less if the training period for agricultural assistants were shortened. In the Strategy II manpower calculations, moderate allowances have been made for private firms to send their employees to schools of agriculture or to hire extension agents. In the past, private firms have been very successful in training their employees and could expand this training as agricultural services and production become more profitable under the CSNRD recommendations. However, if the schools of agriculture become more accessible to non—government employees, private industry could use the schools more freely and hire the graduates. Thus, with greatly increased demand by the private sector for agricultural school graduates in response to possible higher product prices and new technological breakthroughs, the demands on the agricultural schools could exceed the expected levels. Additional agricultural school graduates also would be required for production campaigns for food and feed crops and livestock production over the 1976—1985 period if new technology were forth— coming. About one—third to one—half of the crop extension workers listed in Table 6 for 1975 and 1985 have been proposed for use in such campaigns. In addition, much assistance in a livestock-feeding campaign would need to be provided by livestock specialists 5This is a CSNRD recommendation. See Glenn L. Johnson, et al., op. cit., p. 114. 102 trained at separate livestock schools. Consequently, many of the personnel for these food, feed and livestock campaigns would be readily available or would require training in institutions other than the agricultural schools. It should be possible to train the additional manpower requirements for agriculture school graduates in these campaigns either with small expansions of present facilities or by shortening the required training time. University Agricultural Training The projected employment of university graduates in agriculture for the three alternative strategies is given in Tables 14 to 16, and is based on the assumptions previously elaborated in determining the demand for positions requiring subuniversity training.6 Two sets of figures are given, one indicating the Nigerian staff (N) and one including foreign expatriates (T). Under Strategy I nearly total Nigerianization is assumed for the public sector, while Strategy III assumes total Nigerianization. These figures represent all agricultural degrees, and include both plant and animal specialists. The largest number of university graduates would be required under Strategy II, with emphasis in the public sector on expanding the top level staff in most categories. Development corporations' plantation operations would be transferred to private firms wherever possible. The largest expansion would occur in the northern states because of their present small supply of high level manpower. Some 6Much assistance in projecting the employment and training requirements for university graduates in agriculture was provided by James S. Long. 103 .meum mumHuumaxm Ocm COHumez Ou mumumm O .mwmum unfiuwmmz ou muowwm q .ww>Humumqoou uoO Hmu0u wnu CH uo: new moHuumHCHa mnu :uH3 OwOOHocH mum moumum auwsuuo: mzu cw mm>Humuwaoou you mmuawHO nosoacmz O .wcoHuocsm OcHumxums msomcmHHmuwHa Ocm DSOZ .mvumon wcHuoxuma mmcsHucH N .OchHmuu mo mumHa uHmnu mo mHmwn mnu co mHmuou mmum mnu cH OmvsHocH down was umaoacma Ho>oH Houwvwm H NOON OOOH ON O OON OOH OO HN NOOH HOOH OHO OON ONN OOH OH OH ON ON OH OH Oq Oq NNOH NqO Hmuoa OOO OOO OH OO OO «N N HOO OON ONH HO qO OO O O O O OH OH OON OOH mwumum cumsuuoz NNO OOO OH N OO «O ON O OOO OOO NO NO OO Oq OH OH NH NH O O OH OH NNO OHO woumum cuwummm NOH Hem ON OH O m NOH ONH OH NH NN OH O O N N O O NO OO wumum cumummBIOHz OOO HOO O H OO Om OH N OOO OOO OHH OOH NO ON O O O O O O OH OH NOO OOO mowwH O auwummz OOOH «OOH OOHH ON N ONH NN Oq OH HONH NOOH OON HOH OOH OHH O O ON ON OH OH OO Om OON OOO kuOH NNO OHN O OO ON OH H OOO OOH HHH HO Oq OH N N O O O O OOH «NH mmumuw cumnuuoz OOO ONO OH N OO ON OH O ONO qu OO OO Oq OO O O OH OH q O NH NH OON ONN wmumum Cumummm HOH OO ON O O N HOH OO HH O OH OH O O N N q O OO HO wumum cuoumoBIsz OOO OOO O OO ON OH O HOO NNO OOH OO «N OO O O O O OH OH HON OON momma O suwummz ONOH HOOH ONO NN H OOH Oq NO OH NOHH ONO ONN NOH OOH HO OH OH NH NH Om Om NNO OOO HmuoH qu OOH O NN OH O H OOO OOH NOH ON ON O O O O O OOH OOH mmumum aumnuuoz OOO OON O H OO NH OH O «Hm OON OO Oq Oq OH OH OH O O HH HH OOH OOH wwumum cuwummm OOH NN ON O O N OO OO O O O O N N q O NO OO oumum cuwummSIOHz OOO OOO O NO OH O N OHO OOO OOH OO OO OO O O q O O O NHN OON moqu O cuaummz ONOH NHHH NHN NN HHH ON OO N OOO HOO NON OOH NHH Oq OH OH NH NH ON ON ONO OOO Hmuow OOO NOH O NH O O H NNN NOH OOH NH ON O O O O O OOH HN mmumum cumsupoz NOm OON O «N O OH O HON ONN NO cm ON NH O O O O O O OOH OOH woumum cuwummm OO NO H NN c O H HO NO N O O O N N q O OO ma wumum aumummaIOHz NHc OOO O OO OH O N OOO NON OO ON OO ON O O q O O O OOH ONH mome O cumumm3 OOOH I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I mumpssc umBoacmz I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I N z N H z u H 2 H z u H z N N z n N z u H z n N z u N z u N z H OH qz Hmuoe " chHmmfiE" OHaaam COHu " Hmuoa ” woman " meon u maoou ” uHOmuO " NOcH " mGOHumu u Hmeuu wwum vcm ummw u nousno " HousuHso Iuavoua u " IHumcH " IHm>ch n O u " Iuwxumz n Ioauou u ImHaHz u u IHuwm O wum>Hum u " Loummmmm ” u u u ” acme " n n maun OOH " u u u n u " IQOHm>wO " u u Immwooum n uouowm oHHnsm mesa sum mNoH .onH new mcoHuumHoum vaw OOOH .mHumez CH xuoz Oo mQNH can mou< NO Am.Onm Ocm m.omz .m.oOOV ousuHsoHuO< CH moumsumuo NuHmum>Hca mo unwaNoHnam "H Nwwumuum .qH oHOmH 104 .Ommum mumHuummxw OCN CmHnomHz ou muwwmm O .uwwum CmHumOHz cu muomwm O .mo>Humnonooo COO Hauou mzu CH COC OCm meuumHCHa uzu suHa OwOCHUCH mum mmuMum newcuuoc mfiu CH mo>HuMkuooo new woCCOHO umsoacmz O .mCOHuuaam OCHuwxuma muomCmHkumHa OCm Ozmz .muuwon OCHuoxuma mwuaHUCH N .OCHCHmuu Oo momHa Cszu we mHmmO wnu Co mHmUOu mwum wsu CH vaCHUCH Coon mm: uwzomCma Hm>mH Hmumvmm H OOOO OOON OO OH OOO ONO OOH OHH OONN OOON NOO OOO OON OOH OO OO OOH ONH OO OO OH OH OONH ONHH Hmuoe ONHH OOO NH O OON OON ON OO OON OOO OON HOH NO OO OO OO ON ON O O ONO OOO mwumum Cumsuuoz ONO OON NH O OOH ONH OO ON OOO NOO OOH ONH OO OO OO OO OO Om NN OH O O OOO OOO mquum Chmummm OON NNN OO OO NH OH OOH NNH NO ON OH OH NH OH HH O H H OHH HHH wumum Cuwumwausz OOO OON O O OON OHH ON NN OOO HHO OOH OOH ON OO ON ON ON ON NN OH O O ONO OHO mome O CuwummszOH NOON OOOH ON O OOO OOH OO NO NOOH OOOH OOO ONN OOH OHH OO OO OO OO OO OO OH OH OOO NHO Hauoe OHN ONO OH O OHH ON Om OH OOO NOO OOH OO ON OO NO NH OH HH O O OON ONN mwumUm :uwnunoz ONO OOO OH O ON OO ON ON OOO NNO NO ON OO ON OH OH ON HN OH HH O O ONN OON mwumum Chmummm OOH ONH ON OH OH N OHH OOH NH OH O O O O N O H H OO ON wumum CuwumszOHx OOO HOO O N ONH OO NH OH NOO OOO OHH OOH ON OO OH OH OH OH OH HH O O OON OON momma O :hwummz ONOH OOOH NOOH NN O OOH OO OO OH HONH OHO OOO ONH OOH HN NO ON NO ON OO Om NNO OOO Hmuoa OOO ONN O OO ON NH N OOO HON ONH OO OO HN OH N O N O O OOH ONH mouMum Chmcuuoz OOO OOO O N OO ON OH O ONO ONN NO NO OO OH NH N O N HH HH NON OON mmumuw prummm OOH NO ON N O O ON NN OH O O O O O O O OO OO ouwum Cuwuwozusz NNO NOO O H OO OH OH O ONO OOO OHH OO OO OO NH N O N O O ONN ONN mowmq O CuwummzHKOH NHHH NHN NN HHH ON OO N OOO HOO NON OOH NHH OO OH OH NH NH ON ON ONO OOO HmuoH OOO NOH O NH O O H NNN NOH OOH NH ON O O O O O OOH HN mwumum CCwCuuoz NOO OON O ON O OH O HON ONN NO OO ON NH O O O O O O OOH OOH mMuMum Cuwummm OO NO H NN O O H HO NO N O O O N N O O OO OO muMum cumumszOHz NHO OOO O OO OH O N OOO NON OO ON OO ON O O O O O O OOH ONH wowmq O numumwz OOOH IIIII II IIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIImuwnfinCumzomszIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII H z u H z u H z u H z n H z u H z u H z u H z u H z u H z n H z u ON Oz " kuOH umCOHmes u OHansm " coHu u kuoH " mwuzu u meuHm u mnoou u uHOqu " NOCH ” mCOHumu " Hmeuu u mwum OCm umww “ Couasu u HauCuHsu " Iosvoua u ” IHumCH u Inw>HCO u m u " Iuoxumz u Ioauoo " ImHCHz " u u IHuOm nan " vum>Hum ” " soummmum " u u u u quE n u n u mauHO OCH u u u u n n n " Iaon>wO " u n " Immwoonm " " neuuwm OHHOCO ” OOOH OCm ONOH .ONOH COO mCOHuumOoum va OOOH .mHuosz CH xuos we wAOH va mmu< Op Hm.nnm va m.umz .m.owOv ouauHCUHuO< CH mwuwsvmuo Ounuw>HCO we quEOOHnam HHH OOwumqu .OH anwH 105 .Oumum mumHCumaxm OCO CmHquHz cu muwmmm O .OOmuw CmHumOHz ou muwmmm O .mm>Humuwmooo Com Hauou wcu CH uoC Ocm meCuwHCHE on» LOHs OwOCHoCH mum moumum CuwzuuoC ocu CH ww>Humuwaoou How mwustO uwsoasz O , .mCoHuUCSO OCHumxumE mzomCmHHoumHa OCm uzmz .mvumon OCHumema mmvsHoCH N .OCHCHmuu wo wumHa CHwau Oo mHump mnu Co mHmuOu wwum mnu CH OwODHoCH cwwn mm: umzomcma Hw>wH Hmumvwm H OONH OOOH NN OOH NO OO O OHOH OHOH OON OON OON OON O NN NN OH OH OO OO HOO HOO HmuoH OOO OOO O OO ON OH H ONO ONO OO OO OO OO O O O O OH OH OON OON mmumum Chonuuoz OOO OOO O OO ON OH O ONO ONO OO OO OO OO O O O O O OH OH HON HON mmuMum Cumummm OOH OOH OO N N H ONH ONH N N NN NN O O N N O O NO NO wumum ChmuwmsIsz HNO OOO O ON ON O N OOO OOO OOH OOH NO NO O O O O OH OH ONO ONO moOmH O Cumumwz OOOH OHOH OOHH NN NOH OO ON N OHNH OHHH OON OON OOH OOH O OH OH OH OH OO OO NON NNO HauOH OOO ONN O NO NH O OOO OON OO OO NO OO N N O O O O OOH OOH mmumum Chonuuoz OOO OOO O OO NH OH O OOO ONO OO NO OO OO O O O O O NH NH NHN NHN moumum dumummm NNH HOH ON O O H OO OO N O OH OH O O N N O O OO OO wumum CuoumuaIOHz OOO OOO O OO OH O N OOO NNO OO OO ON ON O O O O OH OH OON OON moOmH O Cuwummz ONOH NHNH NOO NN NNH NN OO O OOOH ONO HON OOH OOH OO OH OH NH NH OO OO ONO ONO HmuoH ONO OOH O HN O O H OON OOH OOH ON OO NH O O O O OOH OO mmumum Cuwsuuoz OOO ONN O ON O OH O OON OON OO OO OO ON O O O O HH HH ONH ONH mmumuw cumummm NHH OO ON O O H OO ON N O OH O O O N N O O OO OO wumum CumummaIOHz OOO OOO O NO OH O N ONO NOO OO NO OO OO O O O O O O OOH OOH moOMH O Cuwummz ONOH NHHH NHN NN HHH ON OO N OOO HOO NON OOH NHH OO OH OH NH NH ON ON ONO OOO HmuOH OOO NOH O NH O O H NNN NOH OOH NH ON O O O O O OOH HN mmumum Cumnuuoz NOO OON O ON O OH O HON ONN NO OO ON NH O O O O O O OOH OOH mmuMum Cuwummm OO NO H NN O O H HO NO N O O O N N O O OO OO mumum CumumoaIOHz NHO OOO O OO OH O N OOO NON OO ON OO ON O O O O O O OOH ONH wome O Cuwummz OOOH I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I muwasaC uwzomdmz I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I H z u H z u H z u H z n H z u H z u H z n H z u H z n H z u H z H OH Oz u HmuoH umconwHa " OHaasm u CoHu " HauOH " mausu " meUHm ” maooo u uHOmCo “ NOCH H mCOHumu H mmHuu n mmum va CmoH " cousno " HOHSOHao n Ioscoua " u IHumCH " IC~>HCO " O n “ Iumxumz n Ioauou u HmHCHz " u “ IHuOm OCm u wum>Hum " n Luummmom ” u u u ” ucwa u n u n maun OCH " u u n u u u " IOOHw>mO u n u " Immououm u ” nouowm oHHnam " OOOH new mNmH .onH you mcoHuooHoum cam OOOH .wHumOHz CH xuo3 we «OOH va mwu< hp Hw.ocm van m.omz .m.umOv musuHSUHuO< CH mwumskuo NuHmuw>HCO Oo quaHonam "HHH ammumuum .OH mHOmH 106 expatriates would be retained in public service if their skills and experience could not be replaced easily. In the private sector, however, most of the expansion would be in firms supplying agricultural inputs with subsidies eliminated and private firms takingover the supply functions. Some Nigerian graduates would be employed in processing firms and in production either for themselves or for private firms. Most of the increase in university graduates hired by the private sector would be in the northern states. The training requirements for university graduates in agriculture under the three strategies have been calculated from the projected employment figures, and are presented in Tables 17 to 19. These calculations are made for the three university training areas recomr mended by CSNRD which correspond with the areas served by the univer— sities in the Ibadan—Ife, Nsukka—Enugu and Zaria areas. The total training requirements comprise new positions, and replacement for a normal attrition rate of 3 percent per year. Because of the war in the eastern states, 35 percent of the 1966 staff in the eastern states was taken as the attrition rate in this area for the 1966-70 period alone, with the rate of the remaining time calculated at 3 percent annually. Reconciliation The projected average annual output requirements of university graduates in agriculture from 1967-1985 ranges from a high of 150-172 for Strategy II to a low of 25-105 for Strategy III. These require- ments are considerably above the level of persons graduating in 1966 when some of the universities had been established for only a few 107 .haco moumum cumummw osu MOM usauso mumww oBu mucowmumwm N .zaco wmumuw auoummo mnu CH Omlmoaa How unwouoa mm unwoxm wow» you ucwouwm mouzu um udmamomaamm H mm mum Haq qoq ooo.a HauOH NN HNN mm oma omm mwumum cuofiuuoz nu ONN NMH wma mom mwumum :uoummm mm qwm «ma OmH qu moumum cwoumoslpfiz cam mowmq .auwumoz meoan mm Haw OmH How oma.H Hmuoe ma mm mm mm qHN mmumum swosuuoz nu MMH mq qw ohm wwumuw anoummm mm owa «m NHH Nmm monoum :Houmozlvfiz cam mowmq .sumumoz mmIHmmH NHH oom qu moa mmw HmuoH ma mm ma Nq oqa mmumum auoSugoz no amH mm mm emu mouMum apoummm mom was as so ass mouwum aumummsIsfiz sum momma .aumumwz OmInomH NHN HmuOH ROH mouwum suonuuoz «mm moomum dumummm Hmm monoum cumummaIvflz mam momma .aumumo3 coma I I I I I I I I muonasc Mozo so: I I I I I I I I I I weapon " vOHuwa ” wcflusw season u Mo paw um ” Hosacm Mom ucoEmomaamm mCOHUHwoa " woxoame " moum vow vowuom mafia wmmum>< amuOH H 3oz u wmumDUMuw " muaoamufisvou mcflcfimuH " coaummflz " mmeINoaH .maumwaz an mmou< %n wucwaouflsvom wcflcflmue wcm unmemoamam Hmuoe kuoomoum van Aoomav unmaxoamsm "ousuadofipm< ca moumsvmuu xufiwuo>wcs cmfiumwflz .H wwwumuum .NH wHAMH 108 .cho wmumum Cumummm onu pom usmuso mumox osu mucmmmpaom N .cho mmumum cuoummo msu CH OmmHImomH now unmouom mm uaooxo nook you ucoouoa omuzu um uamEmQMHmmm H NmH mem.H «mo mmo.H woo.m Hmuoe mo mwo OHN mmq 0mm moumum aumzuuoz mq mqq qu How can moumum aumummm mm mum oqm mmm mom moumum auoumszsz paw momma .aumumoz meoan mmH mwn omH mwm mwm.H HmuoH Ho com qm NmN mnq mmumuw aumnuuoz wq mmm mm owH qu monoum cumummm wq wmm mm mmH mmo mmumum cumummslsz paw momma .cumummz mmIHumH omH mes mmH omN Noo.H Hmuoa «m QMH om oHH mmm moumum anonuuoz Nun mmH mm Hm mom moumum :Hoummm mm qu Hm mOH «me moumum spoumoBIUHz paw momma .aumumoz anImoaH NHN Houoe 50H moumum cumnuuoz «mm mmumum cumummm HNm moumum snowmoBIsz paw momma .cuoummz oomH I I I I I I I I I I I muonasc nozomdmz I I I I I I I I I I I I oowuwa " n u " wOHuoa u wawusv " vOHuoa “ n u mo com um " Hmsccm “ you " ucoamowHaom " mGOHonoa “ pm%0HaEm " ommuw>< ” Hmuoe " H " 3oz ” moumawmum “ mono paw wOHuoa oEHH mucmEoanvoquwHaHmue H amHumez Hmuoe umuuwnoum saw Aooofiv mmmfiuaoma .maumwaz as uddfikOHafim "muDuHsoHuw< mmopm >3 mucoEmHHsvom wchHmuH paw unmamoHQEm CH mmumswmuu >uHmpo>HcD cmwumwwz .HH mmmumuum .mH mHan 109 .tho wmumum cuoummo oLu MOM usauso mummx o3u mucmmoummm N .>Hco mmumum cumummm map CH ommHImomH How unmouoa mm unmoxm wow» you “coupon mounu um ucoaoomHmom H mm mmw qu qmq mmm.H Hmuoa mm mwu mOH «NH mq¢ moumum aumnuuoz mm NNN mHH mOH wqq moumum cuoummm mm Nmm mwa aqa was mmumum suwummaawaz sum momma .cumummz meommH Na mmq NmH mom moH.H HmuOH mm NoH mm omH mum mmuMuw aumnuuoz «N mHH ow Nu mom mmumum suoumwm mm was «a HOH mam mmumum cumummzuuaz saw momma .mpmummz mNIHan mOH cam qu omH New HmuoH MH mm mH mm qu moumum Gumnuuoz Ho HNH mm mm mum moumum cuoummm NHm NNH mg mm «as moumum cumumoBIsz paw momma .aumuwoz OwInomH NHN Houoa 50H moumum cumzuuoz «mm moumum cumummm Hum wmumum auoummaIsz paw momma .aumumoz oomH IIIIIIIIIIIImumnascuwzomcszIIIIIIIIII wOHpoa " u H " voHuoa “ waHusv " vowuma " u 0 mo paw um " Hmscam " now " uameomHamm " mGOHuHmoa " om%0HmEo " mono paw vOHuoa oEHH owmum>< u Hmuoe u H " 3oz " moumswmuw H muamaoustou wmwchuH " u u cmHuosz " O. Hmuoe wouommoum cam AoomHv uawE%0HaEm mmeImomH .mHumez cH mmmu< ha muamEmuHDvmm waHCHmuH paw ucmE%OHaEm "ouDuHsoHuw< CH mouwswouw xuwmuo>HcD CMHuosz .HHH awoumuum .mH mHan 110 years and none of them had reached full enrollment. The future physical capacity of the Nigerian university system for agricultural graduates will vary considerably depending on how efficiently presently underutilized space and staff is used. However, at least 300 could be turned out annually with the present physical facilities. An output of nearly 200 graduates a year to accommodate Strategy II could be achieved through modest increases in teaching staff and even more graduates could be trained for possible food, feed, and livestock campaigns with little difficulty. Summary The employment of trained agriculturalists under the three alternative strategies has been computed in this chapter from 1966 to 1985 for the northern states, the eastern states, and the Western, Mid—western and Lagos states. The training requirements for these agriculturalists were next computed from the employment projections by calculating new positions and the vacancies caused by promotions and a 3 percent annual rate of replacement. Finally, the training requirements were compared with feasible outputs from the training institutions to determine if the needed manpower could be trained. This chapter focused on subuniversity technical agricultural school training and university training. Special emphasis was placed on reconciling the manpower requirements for Strategy II with the capacity of the Nigerian educational system to train the required manpower and the capacity of the Nigerian economy to finance the educational services. 111 The largest number of trained agriculturalists would be required under Strategy II to staff the export crop production campaigns and general extension services, expand credit and research, and to supply trained manpower for a rapidly growing private sector. The overall future demand for trained agriculturalists under this strategy, however, would appear to be well within the capacity of the training institutions. This chapter has shown that the necessary subuniversity level personnel for Strategy II could be trained in the existing technical agricultural schools (Ministry Schools of Agriculture) with only minor modifications in physical plant and curriculum. The projected average annual manpower training requirements under Strategy II for graduates from the subuniversity technical agricultural schools (AA's and AAS's) and training institutes (Al's in the northern states) would be less than the 1966 output or would not exceed it by 10 percent for all areas and years to 1985. The one exception would be AA's during the 1970-75 period in the Western, Mid—western and Lagos States, who could be trained in surplus AAS training facilities. There is sufficient excess capacity in physical facilities in the subuniversity training institutions to further provide training for additional manpower for possible food, feed and livestock campaigns in the late 1970's and early 1980's if needed. Some changes in extension organization would be necessary, however, as more incentives and logistic support would have to be provided for the expansion of field work required under this strategy. In addition, the present faculties of agriculture in the four universities could easily provide the average annual output of 150-172 112 university agricultural graduates required throughout Nigeria under Strategy II to 1985 with no expansion in capital expenditures and only modest increases in teaching staffs. Post graduate training, however, might be needed from overseas institutions through at least the 1970's to meet the needs for research personnel and university faculty staffs. In conclusion, these findings show that the manpower needed for the production campaigns and other programs recommended under Strategy II generally could be trained in the existing training institutions. Consequently, the new states would not need to construct new training institutions as either the university or subuniversity levels. The manpower requirements for trained agriculturalists under Strategy I and III would be much lower than under Strategy II. Consequently, there would be no difficulty in providing training for the needed manpower. However, if the Nigerian government followed the present agricultural policies (Strategy I) they soon would be faced with having trained agriculturalists in excess of job opportunities and cutbacks would be imperative in agricultural training. Even further cutbacks would be necessary under the harsher policies of Strategy III. CHAPTER VI FINANCING NIGERIAN AGRICULTURE This chapter examines the overall economic and financial feasibility of the three alternative development strategies for Nigeria. It is divided into three parts. The first part of the chapter summarizes the public sector costs of the three sets of programs and policies. These costs are compared in the second part of the chapter with the agricul— tural income and foreign exchange earnings generated under each strategy to determine overall economic feasibility. The third section examines the future revenue requirements and the projected available government revenue for financing the three alternative strategies, and presents the reconciled financial figures for the Strategy II recommendations. Public Expenditures The three strategies for agricultural development in Nigeria would have wide differences in their public sector costs, total returns, and public revenue needs. The projected public costs of the three strategies are presented in Tables 20 to 22 for four geographic areas and the federal government. The estimates of public expenditures under Strategy I reveal the consequences of continuing the present agricultural policies which place strong emphasis on direct govern- ment investment. These estimates have been developed by increasing the recurrent expenditures for the agricultural ministries moderately at about 3 percent per year (the approximate population growth rate) 113 1LL4 qu.H¢ oom oom.m OHm.H Hmm.~m Oma.a oow.m HC= a .Huwm a a uCoa " Hmuoe a Cocuo ” ImHuuom a .Huw< a .auw¢ " vauo u a a a Hmuop " a IQOHm>mQ a n a Bump N a a mmma Oam mama .Oama pow mCoHuommoum mam eomH .mmqu >9 «Hawwaz CH mmuCqucmaxm HmusuHsoHuw< neuoom oHHnsm mwumHuCouaa¢IqufiCum>oc HmsCC< ”H wwwumuum .ownqzmw 115 qu.aN OON oma.m mom.H HNH.ON o o «ao.¢ «ao.q o o aqq.ma mooa aa~.m~ aam ama.m OOa.a maO.ma O O aOm.O sam.s O maa.a aaa.~a mama OOO.m~ maa Oma.m mam aOa.Oa OOm.~ OOm maa.m mam.m O oom mmm.Oa Oama oaa.m~ HmH mm~.m oqa ooo.H~ moo.a NNo.N «Om.o mom.o wmm.~ mao.H «NH.m oooH Hmuoe ao~.m oou aaa.m one com o o oo oo o o o~w moma moo.q NNo Noa.m mom oua o o oo oo o o ooo mama ma~.m 90H oom.~ Hmm can 0 o oo oo o o ooo OamH aHo.N o on.H on mam o o o o o o mam ooma Hmhmfiwm maa.m O mam omm mma.a O O mNO.a maO.~ O O ama.m mmma aom.w o mom can Naa.a o o mNH.~ mmm.a o ooN aqo.m mama moo.m o ama mom moo.a ooo.H o mNa.~ mmo.H o oom ooa.m oama oom.o o woo mNH aam.m one o wmm.H wmo.a o o mo~.m ooma moumum Chonuaoz mq~.o o moo oom ooq.m o o mNm.a mmm.H o o moa.q momH Hma.m o mow mom mma.m o o amm.a mmm.a o woo NoN.m mama amm.m Om mma Nma aam.m O O amm.a mam.a O mma mmO.N Oama mma.a Om ama OON mam.a O mmO.a maO.m mma.a «mm mma Omm.a OOma moomuw Cuoummm Num.H o oma o oom.a o 0 «mm «mm o o moo.H moma «Ho.H o HNH o qu.H o o «co «mm 0 can aoo mama aoH.H on aoa o qu.H o o can «mm o oq aao OamH moq.H mH oo o cam.a o ooN moo «am aOa wow aHm oomH wumum thumwaélflfiz mm~.m O mmm mma maO.m O O Nam aam O O aaO.m mOma mmo.m o aam oaa amq.q o o qu.H mom 0 ooo mmm.~ mama moo.o ONH own oHa oom.q 00m 00m wma.H mom 0 ooa mam.m Oama aon.a om oom am «No.a mmm woa mmo.~ Noo.H qu.a ooo mmq.m oomH ¢ wquum mowmA I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I moomum oowH CH ooow I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I uco Choumoz aaaImuaao “ aaao " acao " amo uaaIm.auoo " aao " aoo " AQINumV " aqv " amV " ANV “ aao " mwhflu u UHfiOHU n SOHmewm n GOflumUDmuw u wwHDuHU n mGHVHmDDw " mGOfiu n HNUflQmo u HmuHQmU u mwfiwfium u aam." uDO u ucwuhfio " umwk Ucm m0H< Iavaonuo a w a a a onusquo " ICoCxo a vamon a «ImquHa a maumaCaa " muumacas a «.maana " mcwaamo a N Imp " .Huwm " a a Iauwm muam a .vouq " .wuxuz a .auoo " .apwm u .aumm “ Co mucos a muumacas “ muumacaa a HCuOu a a a Iuo>aCD " .auwm a a uCoE " Hooch ” Cocuo “ IoHuuom a .auw< " .aaw< u wanna a a a a Houoe a " ICOHo>oo a n " Bumm a a a mwaH va mamH .OaaH now mCOHuoohoum va oooH .mwou< mp mHuosz CH mousuaoCome HousuHsoauw< Couoom oaaosm pouMauoouCaoo HMCCC< "HH amoumuum .HN oHan 116 Footnotes for Table 21 1Excludes costs of marketing produce as these charges are deducted directly from sales revenue and do not require political appropriations. The 1966 base figures were taken from the former regional budgets. 2Recurrent expenditures for agricultural extension as well as a non— extension component. The extension component was calculated from the salaries necessary to pay the staff numbers in Table 6, including moderate allowances for food and feed crop campaigns from 1975—1985. The nonextension component generally includes administration, research, planning, irrigation, forestry, fishery and veterinary divisions. This component was increased yearly at 2 percent from 1966-1975 and 1 percent from 1976-1985 except in the northern states when it was increased at 4 percent from 1967—1970 and 5 percent from 1971—1975 to finance some of the costs of a livestock campaign. The nonextension component also includes the cost of sub- university training and state agricultural ministry research. The Federal Ministry of Agriculture expenditures have been increased to pay for expanded services which include a federal extension service, a development planning unit, a produce selling agency and a coordinating body for state agricultural ministry programs. 3The campaign outlays for 1970—75 represent only the grants in kind incorporated in the production campaigns, while expenditures for personnel are included in the agricultural ministry recurrent costs. The cost of loans are included under credit. 4To be phased into private ownership and future expenditures curtailed. 5The 1966 level, except for a) reductions in capital expenditures for training schools and the Western State's cotton promotion program and b) increases of £100,000 annually for each area and time period for marketing facilities, except £200,000 for 1976-1985 in the northern states. 6 . . Includes un1vers1ty research. 7Research costs are for agricultural research by Nigerian institutions. This figure includes the Institute for Agricultural Research and the Economic Development Institute, but excludes other research in the univer— sities and all state agricultural ministry research. In addition to Nigerian research, the International Institute of Tropical Agriculture located in Ibadan would provide substantial annual appropriations for West African agricultural research. 8 . . Credit costs represent operating losses only, and are only a small percentage of the loans made and outstanding. 9Includes grants for cocoa warehouse construction of £453,000. 117 ooo.mm omH mm~.m omm.H mom.om OOH.n oow.m omm.o omo.m 00a.q o mmo.aH mme aom.~m OMH. mu~.m ooH.H mow.am OOH.q ooo.m omq.a Omo.m oom.m o Noo.NH mamH moo.o~ OMH mNN.m mmm.H wmm.HN oom.~ oom.H omm.o omH.q ooq.~ o oom.0H Oama ohm.nm HMH mm~.m ooa owo.H~ wow.H NNo.N o0o.m mmm.q omm.~ Mao.H «NH.m oomH Hmuoe moo.m o on.H Ono m0a o o oo oo o o moo mmmH mmm.~ o on.H omm mmm o o co co 0 o mmq mamH aaa.~ O mam.a Oma mom O O Om Om O O mam Oama HHo.~ o on.H oam man 0 o o o o o mam oomH Houooom omm.qH o wwo oom mom.mH ooo.q oom oo~.m ooo.H ooo.H o ~m~.o mmmH qoq.HH o woo oHN ooo.oH ooo.m 00m ooo.~ 00o. ooo.H o ooo.q mamH mam.O O moo mma ~am.a OOa.a OOm OO~.a OOO.a oom O aaa.m Oama 0mm.o o moo oNH aam.m One 0 mmm.H omm.H o o mo~.m oomH moumumcuonuuoz mmm.m on How oom mma.m oom oom.H ooH.N ooH.H ooo.H o woo. momH cea.a om Hem ooN MH~.a 00m ooN.H 00a.~ ooH.H ooo.H o mHo.m mama NNO.o on How oqm HHm.m OON ooo oow.H ooN.H ooo o HHo.m OamH mma.a Om ama OON mam.a O mmm.a maO.m mm~.a mmm mma omm.a moma moumum Cuoummm mmm.~ mH om omH moa.m oo~ ooo Oma oom 00m 0 «mm mme moo.m mH ow ooH oo~.~ com 00a omo 0mm ooo o oHa mamH amo.m mH om oom nqo.H ooH 00m omq 0mm ooN 0 «mm OamH moq.H mH ow o cam.H o ooN moo QaN aoH wow HHo oomH oumum CuoumosIomz ao<.m mo oom omN wa.m ooo ooN.H 00m.N 00a ooo.H o Nma.q momH moo.n mo oom ooN om~.a ooo ooN.H OOH.N 00a ooo.H o oom.m mama ~¢o.o no can ooH aHm.o ooo ooo ooH.N oom ooN.H o aHm.~ Oama a0m.a om oom mm -0.a mmm mom mNo.N Nwo.a qu.H ooo mmo.~ oomH mmmmmwlmmwmm I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I moomam oomH Ca ooow I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I mam Cuoumo3 aaaImIaaO " aaav " aOaO " Ame ” aaIm.aImO " aac ” Ase " amIaImO ” Ame u Ame " lav " aaO " mousu " umkuo a Cuummwom " CoHuwosvo a mousuao " mwmvamnam " mcoHu a amuHmmo a Houaamo a wwaonum a meuCo " quauso a you» mam mou< IHvCoaxo a a a HmCCUHao a Icoaxo a wagon a Imucmam " muumacaa a maumacas a .mHCCa a .Cwaamo a Iou a .Huww a a " Iaawm zumm " .voum " .wuxpz " .muoo a .auwm u .apwm a no mucus " muumaCHa a huumHCHB " HouOu a a " Iuo>HC= a .anwm a ” acme a Hooch a Cozuo a IoHuuom a .auw< a .auw< a vamuo u a a a Houoe a a ICOHo>oa n u H Show a a a mmmH mam mama .ONmH Cow mCOHuumfioum vcw oomH .mmou< mo mHumez Ca mmusuavcmaxm HmCCuHsoHuw< neuuom oaHnnm mommHCQOCma00 Hm3CC< "HHH mwoumuum .NN oHQMH 118 and slowly decreasing programs and services to encourage smallholder production. Expenditures on farm settlements and development corpor- ation plantations have been kept near the 1966 level or slightly increased, and large—scale irrigation schemes have been introduced for the northern states without waiting for the development of superior food and feed crop varieties. These programs have been budgeted at high levels because 1) they have appeal to government officials since they include a package with housing, health care and other social amenities and can thus compete politically for petroleum and other revenues and 2) because adverse pricing policies will make it difficult for private smallholders and others to expand agricultural production. Input subsidies would be another large government expenditure as such subsidies would be necessary to induce farmers to use modern inputs, given adverse produce prices resulting from the continuation of the present taxes on export crop output. As a result of the higher costs of these programs, annual expenditures by 1975 under Strategy I would increase £7.6 million over the 1966 level, and increase $15.8 million by 1985. Strategy II projected public expenditures would be the lowest of the three alternatives. The low level of expenditure under this strategy would be achieved by concentrating expenditures on high payoff areas and reducing them in areas where returns are low. The emphasis of public expenditures would be on direct assistance to small farmers, increased incentives for production, and expanded supporting services with an early transfer of responsibility for supplying modern factors of production to private hands. At the same 119 time, grants in kind and cash would be replaced gradually with credit which farmers would be able to repay through higher prices and profits. Public investments in direct agricultural production and most input subsidies would be curtailed. Thus, expenditures under this strategy would be redirected from farm settlements, government plantations, unviable development projects, and subsidies to recurrent expenditures for extension and livestock services, production campaign outlays and such supporting services as research, teaching, and credit. Since the savings in direct agricultural investments would be sub- stantial, government-appropriated public sector expenditures under Strategy II would be less in 1975 than in 1966, and only £1.6 million more in 1985, despite the great expansion in agricultural output anticipated by that date. Most of the overall increase in expenditures under Strategy II would occur in the northern states and in the Federal Government. In the southern states the expenditure levels for all years would be maintained at about or below the 1966 level, despite expenditure increases in expanded crop extension services, tree crop campaigns and expanded supporting services. This level of expenditures would be possible through reductions in other expenditures by switching from grants in the form of inputs to loans and by eliminating government plantations and farm settlements. Expenditures in the northern states would be increased because there would be no savings available from elimination of farm settlements and government plan— tations. However, the transfer of the input supply function to private companies and discontinuation of input subsidies after 1975 120 would eliminate these costs, which amounted to £1.8 million in 1968. A modest level of expenditures for possible food, feed and livestock campaigns has been included from 1975-85 in the crop exten- sion component of the agricultural ministries' recurrent budget projections as salaries and other campaign charges. (See footnote 2 of Table 21.) In addition, up to £.6 million has been budgeted annually from 1970—75 in the northern states to finance some of the costs of a livestock campaign. If the anticipated technological breakthroughs in food, feed and livestock research are substantial, the annual expenditures could be increased for these campaigns by £1 to £3 million. The potential payoffs from expanded food and feed crops and livestock production for domestic use and export are very great, however, and would easily justify the increased expenditures. Expenditures under the still more adverse pricing and taxation policies of Strategy III would be used to expand government production and marketing control over agriculture and to finance a large govern- ment bureaucracy. The expenditures for farm settlements, public input—supply schemes, government plantations, and irrigation schemes (with and without payoffs) would be even greater than under a continuation of present policies. Recurrent and capital budgets for the agricultural ministries also would increase faster than under Strategy I at 3 to 4 percent annually as more jobs would be created for untrained and poorly trained personnel. Expenditures for research and credit would remain constant but would be utilized for projects less closely related to the production of high payoff commodities. 121 The extension service increasingly would be used to service govern- ment-controlled investment schemes. Large increases in public expenditures would be required for services of poorly-trained personnel, often engaged in low payoff activities. The increase in expenditures over the 1966 level under this strategy would amount to £6.6 million by 1975 and £14.1 million by 1985.- The Returns to Agricultural Investments The returns to the agricultural investments under the three strategies can be measured in several different forms. Foreign exchange earnings, government revenues, and farmers' income from the export crops are given in Table 23 for the three strategies. Projected foreign exchange earnings and revenue from petroleum also are given in this table for comparison. A general summary of national income account projections is presented in Table 24 which includes the earnings from export crops,the total value added in agriculture from export, food and feed crops and livestock production, and the growth of GDP for the three strategies. Cost and Return Comparisons among the Three Strategies Comparisons of the costs and returns to the agricultural invest- ments are necessary to evaluate the economic payoffs under the three alternative strategies. The total government-appropriated agricultural expenditures in 1966 were £25.8 million. Export earnings in that year from major agricultural crops were about £135 million, with farmers receiving about £85 million. The total agricultural value added in 1967 was £899 million from export crop, food, and livestock 122 C hr (FIFCF. UOCF CUCF .quEMOHo>mm Hmasm CmHuowmz Com mCOHumeoEEooom oCm mofiwuumuum ..Hm um .ComCC0h .4 CCon "moasom mmaaOO .mHCo muCCUCCouw oCm .Couuoo .EHCC HHO mooCHoCm mHCH maouo :uuoaxo: mo muCCoEm onu Co mmHoHHoa oumon mCHumxamE mo muoommo osu 303m ou mam: mooCHoCH .hHHmoHumoEoo wCHuoxumE N .mHCo Couuoo oCm .muosooua EHmC .muosooam uCCoCsoaw .moooo aoum canon owumxuma 80am uuoaxo oCm moxmu ommnousm Hoodooaa .momCHCusm w 0 DQGPQH UfiOEflHMarOU H I I I oma I I a I I I ONN I I u I I I OOa I I I " asmaoaumm " a " 60am mCCo>ou mouoohoum I I I com I I a I I I com I I a I I I maN I I I a ECoHoauoC Bouw waH a a " ICumo uuomxo wouoomoum mm qu HHH a om mmH mm a No MHH om " mmouo uuomxm Eouw a a a oaooCm Hmuou amuoaumm mm mm mm H on am mm H mm on ma " ammoao a a a uaoaxm mo mm: oHummaoo a a " Comm oaooCH .mamfiamm om NmH mo a on aHH oo a mm mm oo a muaoaxo " a a Scam oEooCa .mamaumm mH I MN a mN I «N " oN aH «N " HwoCCo>ma a a " uCoECao>ow wouoonoum am aaN wNH a mOH moH MNH a oHH OQH NNH a oaCuHComumm Boum a “ ameHCamo oowCoxm Cwmmuom I I I CoaHHHB w I I I a I IComHHHE w I a I COHHHaE w I a HHH a HH a H a HHH a HH " H " HHHIM HH a a CouH hmoamuum " mwoumuum " >mmumuum a mme man " ohmH mme oCm mamH .OamH .maaowmz .CCoHoauom oCm macho uuooxm Scum moCCo>om uCoECuo>oo VCm waHCamm oownoxm Cwmouom oCm .maoau uuomxm Eouo oBooCH .mamfiamm mouomnoam .mN mHan 123 Table 24. Selected Components of National Income under Three Alternative Strategies in Nigeria, 1967 and Projections for 1970, 1975, and 1985 Item 1967 Strategy 1970 1974 1985 Strategy £ million number - - —£ million- - - - GDP at market prices 1731 I 2145 2882 4734 II 2171 2991 5154 III 2138 2835 4639 GNP at market prices 1697 I 1995 2627 4423 II 2021 2734 4843 III 1988 2580 4328 Consumption 1580 I 1939 2514 4038 II 1945 2592 4396 III 1941 2494 3957 Value added in agricul— ture and livestock 899 I 988 1138 1604 II 1009 1207 1846 III 981 1108 1418 Domestic consumption 791 I 862 1001 1446 II 867 1033 1563 III 862 987 1418 Raw materials 10 I 12 15 24 II 12 16 29 III ll 14 20 Agricultural exports 98 I 114 122 134 II 130 158 254 III 108 107 112 Value of agricultural exports 135 I 122 123 128 II 140 163 277 III 116 105 97 Source: Glenn L. Johnson, et al., Strategies and Recommendations for Nigerian Rural Development, 1969-1985, Table V.l. 124 production. The GDP in 1967 was £1731 million. By 1985 under Strategy I, government-appropriated public expenditures would be increased £15.8 million to £41.6 million, but exchange earnings would decrease slightly to £128 million and farmers' income from export crops would increase only slightly to £111 million. Total value added from agriculture would reach £1,604 million, with GDP reaching £4,734 million. Under Strategy II government-appropriated public expenditures would increase by 1985 only £1.6 million, but export earnings would double to £277 million and farmers' income from export crops would triple to £254 million. The value added in agriculture would reach £1,846 million and GDP would reach £5,154 million. Strategy III would produce the lowest total returns in agricul— ture. Government—appropriated public expenditures would increase £14.1 million to £39,9 million by 1985, but would be so mismanaged that export earnings would decline to £97 million and farmers' income from export crops would only increase to £93 million, despite increasing numbers of farmers. Value added from agriculture would increase to only £1,418 million and GDP would reach only £4,639 million. Of the three alternative strategies, Strategy II is clearly superior because it not only cost less, but yields much greater returns than the other two strategies. Consequently, Strategy II may be described as a "more for less policy" when compared with Strategy I and III. Comparisons of the increases or decreases of costs and returns from the 1966 level alone show the economic feasibility of Strategy II. 125 Figure 2 shows that Strategy II policies and programs provide both the greatest relative and the greatest absolute returns to investment in agriculture. The differences in total returns under the three strategies by 1985 are especially striking. Strategy 11 would providez£l49 to £180 million more foreign exchange annually from agricultural exports than Strategy I and III respectively and £143 to £161 million greater income for farmers from export cr0ps. It also would contribute greater’increases in the total value added in agriculture from livestock and export, feed, and food crop production than the other alternatives of £242 million to £428 million annually, excluding long-run programs of developing and using superior varieties and techniques for food, feed, and livestock production. The higher rural incomes under Strategy II also would have a spill—over effect into the nonagricultural sector, increasing income there by £178 and £87 million more than Strategy I and III. Altogether, by 1985 Strategy II would increase rural and urban incomes by £420 and £515 million more than would a continuation of present policies (Strategy I) or a switch to a harsher, more exploitative agricultural strategy (Strategy II). The increase in total income from Strategy II that is greater than the increase in incomes possible under Strategy I or III is nearly equal to the entire portion of GDP that would be provided by petroleum. The comparison emphasizes the merits adopting the Strategy II recommendations. The above data on expenditures and returns do not include either the costs or returns to the food, feed or livestock production campaigns that Strategy II's long—run recommendations are expected to make socially and privately profitable in the late 1970's and 1980's. If the long-run research program is successful in providing the 126 ~l69 V I \ I \ \ \ -150 § Key s D Public expenditure S I I .125 \\‘ Farmers' income from \ export crops S \ Foreign exchange from s export crops S I ~100 § I \ I I I I \ .. 75 \ G \‘ I .2 I I :1 I I 0H \ \ E I I w I I I I ~ 50 I ‘ I I I I I I § \ \ I § \ I I - ~ I I I 25 I I I I \ I I x I I I I I \ I \ I I I I Changes s S § § Od,_from § S § -§ 1966 I levels I-25 I-38 1970 1975 1980 1970 1975 1985 1970 1975 1985 Strategy I Strategy II Strategy III Figure 2. Changes in the 1966 level of Public Expenditure in Agriculture, and Farmers' Income and Exchange Earnings from Export Crops Under Three Alternative Strategies in Nigeria, 1970, 1975 and 1985 Source: Tables 20—23. 127 necessary technological breakthroughs, a small increase in annual expenditures (£1 to £3 million) could result in returns nearly equal to those from the CSNRD recommended export crop campaigns. Prospects for Financing the Three Strategies New sources of revenue other than the traditional revenue from export crops would be required to finance agricultural programs under all three strategies, except in the near future for the heavy taxation policy of Strategy III. New revenue sources would be needed because of l) rapidly increasing program costs for both continuing present policies under Strategy I or shifting to the harsher Strategy III, and 2) the removal of direct taxes on agricultural export and import substitution crops under Strategy II. Projected annual public costs are compared with projected revenue needs and sources under the three strategies in Table 25. In this analysis it is assumed that revenues generated in agriculture would be available to finance agricultural programs. As shown in column 6, the largest additional revenue from new sources would be required for Strategy II because of the elimination of taxes on export and import substitution crops (column 4). By 1985 the needed revenue from new farm and nonfarm sources under this strategy would reach £25.4 million, but still would be onil-I‘I'about £9 million greater than for Strategy I and about £7 million greater than for Strategy III. Strategy II programs present the greatest opportunity for obtaining the revenue needed from new sources from within agriculture. As the production campaigns gain momentum, the increase in agricultural income would provide a basis for income taxes. The higher consumption 12E3 condoms mono» uooquCH CH mommouoCH uCCUHwHCme 0C mum ome ouosu HHH hwoumuum nova: .HOuoom HmuCuHCoHumeOC may anomaam cu com: o .mvoow vouzvoum hHkuCuHCUHummCOC mo COHumaawCou HoabH mo CH oaooCH oHuuHH oou mH mums» mo moxou HauauHsoHumm uooquCH mHowumH uComoumou H ammuouum you moustw oak manna uuoquCH £03m va moumu oaooCH van momma vaH on Conn musuHsoHuwm aouw moousom Koo wCmeamv oomH .3wC Scum voCkuoo on mm: .mefiu uouqu ha whoa suns uumuuxu ou ouauHCUHuww .monmu uuomaH van omHoNo ma n .moouaom ECoHouuomICOC cam ousuHaoHuwm aouw o=Co>ou maoonHHoomHa mHowumH quomouCou CCm HoboH oomH wnu mHoumaonquo um voCHauCHmz N .muHmouq wCHumuu canon wCHumxHME va moxmu Hooavoum va upomxo mo wumeCoo H o coo.oH o oom.oH ooo.N ooo.mH oom.mm oomH n aom.o ooo.H aom.a coo.N ooo.mN aom.Nm mamH O oamm.aI O oamm.aI OOO.N OOO.oa ccO.o~ Oama aaa awououom o oH<.OH ooo.mH oHo.mN ooo.~ o oH¢.aN oomH o aoN.MH ooo.oH aoN.MN coo.N o an.mN mamH N oOO.~ . OOO.~ cOO.o OOO.N OOO.aa cOO.m~ Oama aa ammumuum c aoc.oa OOO.~ aoc.oa OOO.N OOO.m~ aoc.ao mcma n wom.o ooo.H «om.a ooo.N ooo.QN oom.mm ommH H mom 0 won ooo.N ooo.¢N mom.oN 0amH H mwoumuum oaa.H ooo.QN oaa.mN oomH unmouom I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Iooou I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 5 u so u E n so u 5 n so u 5 u as . E woouaom HaunuHCoHuwm " woouaom " ouauHaoHuwm a Hmuos " moouoom " mmouo a mousuHoComxo " umow " mwoumuum ICOC Scum wonmoa a HausuHsoHuwm a C0 manna a a N oomH " Huuomxo a amuwoum " “ wCCo>ou HmCOHquvm a ICoC Baum H uooquCH va " a Scum " aoum a HousuasoHuwm " a Hmamo ou o=Co>ou " wovooC ucsoa< a uooqu 30C a a osco>ou a oaCo>ou " woumHuaoqum " " ssoHouuon mo uCoouom " " aoum uCCoa< “ a oHanHm>m a xme “ IuCoaCao>ow " a u moouaow 3oz Bouw vooooz o=Co>om HoCoHuHov< " Cosuo " a kuOH a a moma can mama .Oama com maoauomaoum one ocma .maumwaz ca omawoomnum m>aomauoua< cocoa Coos: mamuwoum HmuauHsoHum< you moousom oCCo>om oCm monso>om awe vooooz .mousquCome oouwHamoumaou HNCCC< kuOH .oN oHomH 129 of taxable consumer goods by farmers also would provide an opportunity for indirect taxation through excise and import taxes. Taxes also could be directly assessed on agriculture. Strategy II recommendations do not oppose taxes on agriculture, but they do oppose direct taxes on agricultural output and on the prices of productive inputs because such taxes act as strong disincentives to production. When taxes are necessary, it is recomr mended rather that they be placed on income, the use of income, and on land to avoid disincentives for increasing production. Strategy II programs would increase the profitability of farming and would help establish land values and a market for land which, in turn, would provide the basis for land tax and collateral for credit. Thus, Strategy II policies and programs would be able to replace much of the revenue lost from the elimination of the traditional taxes on the output of agricultural export crops. This is shown in column 7 of Table 25, where £15 million could be provided annually from new tax sources in agriculture by 1985. Considerably more tax revenue could be extracted if Nigeria were efficient in setting up effective income and land tax systems. Agricultural incomes under Strategy I and III, on the other hand, would be so small and heavily taxed that increased tax rates on export and import substitution crops would tend to decrease tax revenue by decreasing production rather than increasing revenue. Likewise, the low level of incomes would restrict theconsumption of taxable consumer goods and thus dry up most of the indirect tax sources. In column 7 of Table 25, the small £1 to £2 million in additional tax revenue from new sources in agriculture under Strategy I represents revenue mainly from indirect taxes on consumer goods, since there would be too 130 little taxable income in agriculture to extract more by direct taxes. Under Strategy III, there would not be any significant increase in indirect taxes because of even lower rural incomes and lower consump— tion of nonagricultural goods than under Strategy 1. The new sources of agricultural revenue available under Strategy II and the lower public costs of this strategy should permit elimination of the present taxes on agricultural output while requiring by 1975 only £13 million in public revenue from nonagricultural sources. This amount is only £7 million more from nonagricultural sources than would be needed under either Strategies I or III by 1975. By 1985, the greater prosperity in agriculture under Strategy II could increase revenue from the new agricultural taxes to such an extent that Strategy II recommendations would require only £10 million in nonagri- cultural revenue, which would be £4 to 8 million less than required under the other strategies. Strategy II therefore would place the smallest burden on the nonagricultural sector of the three alternative strategies, and should be the most feasible financially. The total revenue from nonagricultural sources could be readily obtained as only 4 to 6 percent of the £220 to £240 million total projected petroleum revenues could provide this revenue. The levels of nonagricultural revenue required to finance agriculture under each strategy are given in column 8 of Table 25 and are compared graphically in Figure 3. Raising the revenue needed under Strategy II from new sources in agriculture should present no major problems. Nigerians have had long experience in collecting local taxes and should be able to tax higher farmer incomes. Excise and import taxes would present no difficulty in collection as these would be passed on to the consumer £ million 131 Key E] Strategy I § Strategy II I Strategy III 20-* 15‘ I---. 104 5‘ 0' .1: -2J 1970 1975 1985 Figure 3. Revenue Required from Nonagricultural Sources to Finance Public Agricultural Programs in Nigeria, 1970, 1975 and 1985 Source: Table 25. 132 in the form of higher product prices. Nigerians have had experience with recently imposed income taxes in urban areas which should be invaluable in establishing a good income tax system in rural areas. Enough revenue would be available to finance all the public programs recommended under Strategy II by 1985 if just the increase in the value added from agriculture that is greater than the increase under the other two strategies (£242 to £428 million more), were taxed at about 10 percent. However, the increased income in rural areas would have spill—over effects into the nonagricultural sector and would increase incomes there as well. Therefore, if taxes were placed on the entire increase in the value of GDP from Strategy II that is greater than the increase under the other two strategies (£420 to £515 million more), only about 5 percent would be needed. Alternatively, if the total of agriculture's income of £1,846 million by 1985 were taxed, only 1.5 percent would be necessary. Only 11 percent of petroleum revenues also would be adequate to cover the entire costs of Strategy II. In considering these new tax sources, it is essential that Nigerian decision-makers recognize that taxes on goods consumed by farmers and taxes on farmers' incomes are means of taxing agriculture, and that these taxes can be substituted for export taxes, produce purchase taxes and marketing board trading profits with much less disincentive on production. The major difficulty in raising revenue for future use under Strategy II may arise from differences in resource endowments and the level of present and projected farm income between the southern and northern states. In the southern states, rural incomes are generally 133 higher and the tree crop economy lends itself more easily to possible land taxes than the annual crops in the north. Consequently, a greater percentage of the revenue from new sources in agriculture probably would come from the southern states. This means that the northern states would have to place heavier reliance for revenue on nonagricultural sources such as petroleum, especially since their program costs would increase considerably over 1966 levels rather than remain constant or decrease as would be the case in the southern states. Under existing allocation procedures most of the petroleum revenues go to the Federal Government or to the state of origin as shown in Table 26. Since the northern states do not as yet have petroleum discoveries within their boundaries, they can count only on a very small allocation through the distributable pool and would be dependent on grants from the Federal Government in order to obtain future revenue from petroleum for financing agriculture and other development. These grants, however, should be available as the 4 to 6 percent of the total petroleum revenues needed to supply the entire additional revenue required from nonagricultural sources under Strategy 11 is considerably less than the 13 percent of total revenue that was allocated to agriculture in the 1962-68 development plan. The financial feasibility of Strategies I and III also would depend on revenues from nonagricultural sources, since conditions under these strategies would present few opportunities for raising additional revenue needed for financing agricultural programs from.within agricul- ture. The total amount needed from nonagricultural sources could be 134 Table 26. Approximate Petrolegm Revenue Allocation in Nigeria, 1966 and Projections for 970, 1975 and 1985 : Source of : : Government : petroleum : 1966 : 1970 g 1975 ; 1985 Percent2 : Emillion I imillion Percent ; £million Percent ; £million Percent Each northern : : i : state 0 I 1.53 I .6 .6 I 1.3 .6 : 1.4 .6 Lagos O : : .2 .2 i .4 .2 i .4 .2 Western 2 .94 2.0 2.0 4.0 1.8 I 4.4 1.8 Mid-western 40 : 2.7 ; 8.8 8.8 ; 15.1 6.9 ; 16.6 6.9 Rivers 50 I ; 10.5 10.5 I 17.9 8.1 2 19.8 8.2 Central Eastern 6 5.75 2.8 2.8 I 5.3 2.4 5.7 2.4 South Eastern 2 i : 1.1 1.1 ; 2.1 1.0 I 2.3 1.0 Federal 0 : 4.4 : 71.6 71.0 : 167.4 76.0 2 182.4 75.9 Total 100 : 15.2 : 100.0 100.0 ; 220.0 100.0 ; 240.0 100.0 - 1These calculations are based on present allocation procedures for petroleum revenue. The most important sources of revenue are the petroleum profit tax, rents and royalties. All petroleum rents go to the state or origin while the entire petroleum profit tax goes to the Federal Government. Half of the royalties go to the state or origin, 15 percent to the Federal Government, and 35 percent to the distributable pool. In the distributable pool, each northern state receives 7 percent, Lagos 2 percent, Western 18 percent, Mid-western 8 percent, Rivers 5 percent, Central Eastern 17.5 percent and South Eastern 7.5 percent. The source of petroleum is therefore very important as the only direct source of petroleum revenues for states without petroleum discoveries or exploration within their borders is through the distributable pool. 2The percentage figures for the source of petroleum are based on 1968 estimates and may change considerably as new fields are discovered. The changes most likely would be in the southern states. 3Represents the entire Northern Region in 1966. aRepresents the entire Western Region in 1966. 5Represents the entire Eastern Region in 1966. 135 provided from only 6 to 8 percent of petroleum revenues. Consequently, these programs appear feasible from a standpoint of revenue availability. These strategies may be politically and socially infeasible, however, as Nigerian planners may hesitate to continue pumping funds into low- return agricultural programs which would likely lead to undesireable social and political consequences, such as accelerated rural to city migration and widespread farmer unrest. Summary This chapter has determined the public cost of agricultural programs under the three alternative strategies and compared these costs with income and foreign exchange earnings generated from agriculture to investigate the economic and political feasibility of the three strategies. The prospects for financing the three strategies also have been examined by comparing projected available revenues with the revenues which would be needed to finance the three strategies. Special emphasis has been placed on reconciling the programs recommended under Strategy II with the capacity of the Nigerian economy to finance them. The programs and policies recommended under Strategy II would concentrate on assisting smallholder farmers through export crop production campaigns and general extension services, expanded research and credit, and increased incentives for production provided by eliminating the present produce pruchase and export taxes and marketing board trading profits on export crops. At the same time, grants in cash and kind would be replaced with credit. Public investments in 136 plantations and farm settlements and most input subsidies would be curtailed. Under Strategy 1, moderate assistance would continue to be provided to smallholders. ‘Large public expenditures, however, would continue for farm settlements, government plantations, and input sub— sidies, and irrigation schemes would be introduced in the northern states. The present taxes on export crops also would continue. Under Strategy III, taxes on export crops would be increased and government investments in agriculture would be larger than under Strategy I. The findings of this chapter are that Strategy II is economically sound whereas the other two alternatives are very questionable. Total government-appropriated agricultural expenditures under Strategy II would be less in 1970 and 1975 and only £1.6 million more by 1985 than in 1966. These low costs would be due primarily to the large reductions in costs from the curtailment of public plantations, farm settlements, and input subsidies. Expenditures under Strategy 1, on the other hand, would increase about £16 million over the 1966 level by 1985 and about £14 million under Strategy III. Strategy II would increase foreign exchange earnings and farmers' income from export crops alone by approximately £142 million and £169 million by 1985 respectively. These figures may be compared with Strategy I's small increase in farmers' income from export crops of only about £26 million, and decrease in foreign exchange from export crops of about £7 million by 1985. The corresponding figures under Strategy 111 would be an increase of about £8 million and a decrease of about £38 million. Considering all agricultural production (export crops and food, feed and livestock products), Strategy II would provide by 1985 for a 137 greater increase in the value added from agriculture of £242 to £428 million and a greater increase in GDP of £420 to £515 million than from Strategies I and III respectively. These figures omit the returns to any food, feed and livestock campaigns in the late 1970's and early 1980's which may be implemented if the research results under Strategy II materializes. Finally, the reconciliation process has demonstrated the financial feasibility of the second strategy and outlined possible financial difficulties arrising from the other two strategies. The analysis is based on the assumption that revenues generated in agriculture will be available to finance agricultural programs. Furthermore, it is assumed that some petroleum revenues may be provided for agricultural invest- ments which have high payoffs. The analysis has shown that the recommended Strategy II programs and policies could be financed even with the elimination of the present export and producer purchase taxes and marketing board trading profits on export and import sub- stitution crops if a modest share of the projected increase in petroleum revenues could be channeled into agriculture. The low cost of the Strategy II programs would require less revenue than the two alternative strategies, and the higher farmer incomes would provide new revenue sources through excise, land, and income taxes which might be implemented in the late 1970's. With only moderate tax revenue from-new sources in agriculture, Strategy 11 would likely require only £13 million from nonagricultural sources by 1975 and only £10 million by 1985. These figures are only £7 million more by 1975 than under Strategy I or III (these two strategies would 138 maintain the traditional taxes on export crops) and £4 to 8 million lg§§_by 1985. The revenue needed from nonagricultural sources to finance agri- cultural programs should be obtainable for Strategy II, and even for I and III, because of rapid development of petroleum and high levels of expected future petroleum tax revenue (£220 to £240 million) fortunately providing a large new source of tax revenue for financing projects throughout Nigeria. For 1975 and 1985, only 4 to 6 percent of the total petroleum revenue could provide the additional revenue needed from nonagricultural sources for Strategy II. Most of the revenue from nonagricultural sources under this strategy, however, would be required by the northern states. Grants from the Federal Government to these states would be needed because of their large projected increases in annual expenditures and the small amounts of petroleum revenues that would be allocated directly to them through the distributable pool. From 3 to 8 percent of petroleum revenues would be required for Strategy I and III. Under all three strategies the nonagricultural revenue requirements would be considerably below the 13 percent of all revenues allocated to agriculture during the 1962—1968 development plan and would appear politically feasible. The low returns from the programs under Strategy I and especially III, however, might not justify politically the allocation of even 3 to 8 percent of petroleum revenues for these programs. The details of the costs and returns and the revenue requirements under the three alternative strategies are further summarized along with manpower requirements in the next chapter. Chapter VII also summarizes the reconciliation procedure used in this dissertation and presents conclusions about its use in Nigeria. CHAPTER VII SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Summagy Agricultural planning in developing countries often has not been very successful. Research for agricultural sector planning is needed urgently because variations in agricultural yields, the heterogeneous nature of ecological zones of productions, and the ubiquity of small producing units all make agricultural planning much more complex than planning for the industrial sector. Research for agricultural planning in many developing countries, however, has been poorly coordinated, focused on a limited range of agricultural investment projects and has devoted little attention to agricultural education and other supporting services. In addition, little research has been conducted to insure consistency between the investment and educational requirements of programs and projects. Manpower and educational studies often have concentrated on educational institu— tions and their capacities and have devoted inadequate attention to the demand for trained manpower which is needed to plan and implement investment projects. Economists who have analyzed directly productive investment projects in agriculture frequently have stressed economic aspects of these projects whijraunderplaying physical planning of human and natural resource requirements over time. At the macroeconomic level, inadequate research has been devoted to changes in the distribution and allocation of costs and returns of agricultural policies and 139 140 programs over time. Little research also has been undertaken to investigate the availability of sufficient revenue to finance the aggregate costs of agricultural programs and the feasibility of allocating this revenue to the appropriate agencies responsible for the development programs. A major research study in Nigeria by the Consortium for the Study of Nigerian Rural Development has given the author an opportunity to focus on improved procedures for reconciling investments in agricultural production with investments in supporting services. Hopefully, the author's analysis will be of help to Nigerian planners in developing the second national plan and subsequent plans as well as planners in other developing countries. The objectives of this study are l. The development of a method for recondiling investments in agricultural production, education and infrastructure in developing countries with a) the capacity of the educational system to provide the necessary personnel, and b) the capacity of the economy through internal and external resources to finance both the educational and investment expenditures. 2. The application of this procedure to the programs and policies recommended by the Consortium for the Study of Nigerian Rural Development (CSNRD) for Nigeria over the 1969-85 period and the quantification of the manpower and financial consequences of three alternative strategies for Nigerian agricultural development from 1969 to 1985. The procedure developed for reconciling the necessary resource, 141 manpower, and financial requirements of investments in agricultural production and infrastructure is called the reconciliation process. It emphasizes physical planning at both the farm and macroeconomic levels. The method which is summarized below, consists of seven interrelated steps which should be treated as a continuous and simultaneous process. 1. Gather background data. Available data should be mobilized and stock-taking surveys and research studies should be undertaken, if necessary, to provide additional farm level data as well as information at more aggregate levels. 2. Determine the programygoals for investments in_production and infrastructure and determine educational program goals. This step involves the formulation of initial goals for investment and educa- tional programs. These goals then should be reconciled in the next step to incorporate the interrelation and complementarity of the investments and educational services. To determine the right actions or goals, educational programs and the investments in production in supporting services should be analyzed in view of both normative concepts of good and bad and nonnormative information. 3. Reconcile educational and investment program goals. This step involves close interaction between researchers analyzing invest- ments and those analyzing educational services to identify goals which integrate the separate education and investment programs and take advantage of the complementarity of these programs. 4. Reconcile the integrated educational and investment goals 142 with manpower requirements and the availability of trained manpower. This step is necessary to determine the feasibility of training the required manpower. The total training requirements for the integrated education and investment programs to fill new positions and vacancies must be computed and then reconciled with the projected capacity of the educational system to train the required manpower. 5. Determine costs and returns to the educational-investment ,pgckage, and reconcile the social benefits with social costs. This step requires the calculation of the costs and returns of the education and investment programs to a) see if the increased production can generate enough social benefits for urban and rural people to justify the expenditures on education and production and the choice of these projects over other projects, and b) serve as a basis for determining financial and political feasibility in the next two steps. It is necessary to compute the costs and returns to complementary inputs, such as educational services and new investments in agricultural production, as a §g£_of inputs taken together rather than to compute individual returns to each. 6. Reconcile needed revenue with available revenue. This step is required to determine the financial feasibility of the education and investment programs through time. The revenue that is expected to be generated by the agricultural programs and available from other sources must be reconciled with the total revenue needed to pay for the programs. 7. Interact with decision—makers and administrators to work out political balance and feasibility. Interaction between researchers 143 and development planners, decision-makers in the public ministries, and other important officials is necessary to discuss the program and policy goals developed in the previous steps and to choose those goals which are politically and administratively feasible, or to make necessary modifications in infeasible programs. In summary, the seven step process involves utilizing background data and the separate goals for educational and investment programs and developing new interrelated investment and educational goals. These goals then must be tested at successively higher levels for con— sistency with manpower training capacities, economic returns, available revenue, and political acceptability. As imbalances and inconsistencies are uncovered in each successive step of the process, the programs must be adjusted and rerun through the entire process until all the bottlenecks are worked out and new goals and targets can be established that are more balanced than the previous ones. Gradually the incon- sistencies at all levels can be worked out and final goals and targets established for the overall program which are balanced, con- sistent, and feasible. The reconciliation process has been used by the author in an agricultural sector analysis of Nigeria by CSNRD to investigate three alternative development strategies for Nigeria. Strategy I represents a continuation of present trends and policies in Nigerian agriculture, Strategy II is a change to more favorable agricultural policies and programs, and Strategy III represents a harsher, more exploitative agricultural policy than presently followed in Nigeria. Under Strategy I, moderate assistance would continue to be provided to smallholders. 144 Large public expenditures would continue for farm settlements, government plantations, and input subsidies, and large scale irrigation schemes would be developed in the northern states. The present taxes on export cr0ps would also be continued. The programs and policies recommended under Strategy II would concentrate on assisting small- holder farmers through export crop production campaigns, general extension services, expanded research and credit. Incentives for expanding export crop production would be increased by eliminating the present produce purchase and export taxes and marketing board profits on export crops. At the same time, grants in cash and kind would be replaced with credit. Public investments in plantations and farm settlements and most input subsidies would be curtailed. Extension workers also would receive greater incentives and logistic support to improve the effectiveness of field work. Under Strategy III, taxes on export crops would be increased and government investments in agriculture would be larger than under Strategy 1. The author devoted major attention to reconciling the investments in production and infrastructure for Strategy II in order to develop a set of programs with high payoffs for Nigeria that were both consistent and feasible. In the other two strategies the reconciliation process was used only to point out strengths or weaknesses, and inconsistencies and bottlenecks. No attempt was made to reconcile these two strategies as this would have improved them in the direction of Strategy II and no longer would have represented the conditions of Strategy I and III. The reconciliation process has shown in the CSNRD study that 145 the quality and quantity of trained agriculturalists required under all three strategies generally could be trained in the existing universities and subuniversity agricultural schools, including recommended Strategy II which would require nearly double the trained personnel as the other two strategies. The manpower requirements under Strategy I and III would be so low, however, that the present agricultural subuniversity and university institutions could quickly provide trained agriculturalists in excess of job opportunities, and reductions in agricultural student enrollments below the present level would be necessary. The necessary subuniversity level personnel for Strategy II could be trained in the existing technical agricultural schools (Ministry Schools of Agriculture) with only minor modifications in physical plant and cirriculum as the future average annual manpower training requirements for graduates from the subuniversity technical agricultural schools (agricultural assistants and assistant agricul- tural superintendents) and training institutes (agricultural instructors in the northern states) would be less than the 1966 output or would not exceed it by 10 percent for nearly all areas and years to 1985. The one exception would be for AA's during the 1970-75 period in the Western, Mid—western and Lagos States, which could be trained in surplus training facilities for assistant agricultural superintendents. There also would be sufficient excess physical capacity at the sub— university schools to train enough manpower for possible food, feed and livestock campaigns in the late 1970's and early 1980's if needed. The present faculties of agriculture in the four universities also 146 could easily provide the average annual output of 150—172 university agricultural graduates required throughout Nigeria to 1985 under Strategy II without expansion in capital expenditures and with only modest increases in teaching staffs. Post-graduate training, however, might be needed from overseas institutions through part or perhaps all of the 1970's to train teachers and researchers for research institutes and universities. The reconciliation process also has shown that Strategy II would be economically sound and financially feasible, whereas the other two alternatives would be very questionable economically and would likely face financial difficulties. The projected financial and economic aSpects of the three strategies for 1975 and 1985 are summarized in Table 27. The financial analysis is based on the assumptions that revenues generated in agriculture will be available to finance agricultural programs and that future petroleum revenues will be so large that a small percentage of these revenues can be used for agricultural programs with high payoffs. Strategy II would cost less and yield higher returns than either Strategy I or III in both the short and long run. In the short run, total government-appropriated agricultural expenditures under Strategy II would be £2.8 million less in 1970 and £.5 million less in 1975 than the 1966 level of expenditures. By 1975 these expenditures would be £7 to £8 million less than those under Strategy I or III. Also, by 1975 Strategy II would provide £40 to £58 million greater foreign exchange earnings annually and £60 to £74 million greater annual income for farmers from just export crops than would Strategy I 147 Table 27. Summary of Selected Projections of Returns, Costs and Revenue Under Three Alternative Strategies, Nigeria, 1975 and 1985 Item : Strategy I : Strategy 11 : Strategy III 1975 1985 f 1975 1985 f 1975 1985 f- — s million - —f- — a million - -f- - s million- Returns Total value added . . . in agriculture : 1138 1604 : 1207 1846 I 1108 1418 Total GDP f 2882 4734 f 2991 5154 f 2835 4639 Increase in foreign exchange from export : crops over the 1966 . . . level I ~12 —7 2 28 142 Z -30 —38 Increase in farmers' income from export crops over the 1966 . 0 . level I 13 26 : 73 169 I -l 8 Costs . 0 . Total 2 33 42 2 25 27 I 32 40 Increase over the . . . 1966 level I 8 16 : -.5 1.6 : 7 14 Revenue . Obtainable from tra- I ditional taxes on 2 . . agricultural exports : 24 23 Z 0 0 I 23 19 Obtainable from new . . . agricultural sources : 1 2 Z 10 15 Z l 0 Required from new non? . . agricultural sources I 6 15 Z 13 10 I 6 l9 Source: Tables 20-25. 148 and III. The comparisons between Strategy 11 and the other two strategies are even more striking in the long run. By 1985, total government- appropriated agricultural expenditures under Strategy II would be only £1.6 million more annually than the 1966 expenditures, and foreign exchange and farmer incomes from export crops alone would increase by about £142 million and £169 million respectively. Strategy I, on the other hand, would increase public-appropriated expenditures by £16 million by 1985. This strategy, however, would increase farmers' income from export crops by only about £26 million, and would decrease foreign exchange from export crops by about £7 million by 1985. The corresponding figures under Strategy III would be an increase in expenditures of £14 million, an increase in farmers' income from export crops of about £8 million and a decrease of about £38 million in foreign exchange from export crops. Considering all agricultural production (export crops and food, feed and livestock products), Strategy II would provide a greater increase in the value added from agriculture of £242 to £428 million and a greater increase in GDP of £420 to £515 million than Strategies I and III respectively by 1985. These figures omit the returns to any food, feed and livestock campaigns which may be implemented in the late 1970's and early 1980's if the research results under Strategy II materialize. The reconciliation process has shown that the recommended Strategy II programs and policies could be financed even with the elimination of the present export and producer purchase taxes and marketing board profits on export and import substitution crops. The low cost of the 149 Strategy 11 programs would require less total revenue than the two alternative strategies, and the higher farmer incomes would provide an alternative means of taxes through excise, land, and income taxes which may be implemented in the late 1970's. With only moderate tax revenue from new sources in agriculture, Strategy II likely would re- quire only £13 million from nonagricultural sources by 1975 and only £10 million by 1985. These revenue requirements would be only £7 more from nonagricultural sources than under Strategy I or III by 1975 and £4 to £8 million lggg by 1985, even though both Strategies I and III would maintain the traditional taxes on export crops. Because of the heavy tax burden on agriculture and low farm incomes under Strategy I and III, there would be little chance for raising much revenue from new sources in agriculture under these strategies. The revenue needed from nonagricultural sources to finance agricul- tural programs should be obtainable for Strategy II, and even I and III as the rapid development of petroleum and high levels of expected future petroleum tax revenue (£220 to £240 million over the 1975-85 period) for- tunately provides a large new source of tax revenue for financing projects throughout Nigeria. For 1975 and 1985 only 4 to 6 percent of the total petroleum revenue could provide the additional revenue needed from non— agricultural sources for agricultural development under Strategy 11. This revenue would be needed primarily for Federal Government grants to the northern states, as the greatest increase in expenditures would occur in these states and their direct share of petroleum revenue would be very low. The 1975 and 1985 nonagricultural revenue requirements of Strategies I and III could be provided by allocating 3 to 8 percent of petroleum revenues 150 to agriculture. The nonagricultural revenue requirements under all three strategies, would be considerably below the 13 percent of all revenues allocated to agriculture during the 1962-1968 development plan and therefore would appear politically feasible. The low returns from the programs under Strategy I and especially III, however, might not justify politically the allocation of even 3 to 8 percent of petroleum revenues for these programs. In summary, the reconciliation process has demonstrated that the CSNRD recommended agricultural development Strategy II is feasible for Nigeria over the 1970—85 period. The strategy 11 programs can be staffed and financed and are the kinds of programs that Nigerians have shown they can utilize. Strategies I and III, on the other hand, are both expensive and low-return alternatives. Although the manpower and revenue probably would be available to support these strategies, it is unlikely that they could be followed until 1985 without being modified, perhaps haphazardly. The low farm incomes and rural unemployment resulting from these strategies likely would lead to undesireable social and political consequences, such as widespread farmer unrest and excessive migration to the cities. Furthermore, there is some question whether the continued low economic returns from these programs would generate enough political support for appropriation of the necessary revenue to continue these programs for long periods of time. 151 I Conclusions The results of this study have shown that the reconciliation process is an integral and necessary part of the agricultural planning process, as demonstrated in the CSNRD study in Nigeria. The technique examines and reconciles through time the manpower needs with the availability of trained manpower, costs with returns, and needed revenue with available revenue. In this process, inconsistencies, weaknesses, and crucial bottlenecks are identified and corrected. The procedure utilizes physical planning first to determine the physical resource requirements necessary to implement agricultural programs and then to serve as a basis for determining financial feasibility. The reconciliation procedure has specifically demonstrated the soundness and feasibility of CSNRD recommended Strategy 11 for Nigerian agricultural development over the 1969—85 period. The method should be useful in agricultural planning in Nigeria, especially in the formulation of the second national plan in the early 1970's. The Federal Government and the new states may find the reconciliation procedure outlined here to be useful in their future agricultural planning. It also seems reasonable to conclude that the reconciliation process would be a useful planning technique in other developing countries and should be used in their agricultural planning as well. For planners considering the use of this reconciliation process, several methodological conclusions emerge from this study. The reconciliation method described in this dissertation is essentially a technique for simple common-sense budgeting/balancing through time. The use of the procedure itself requires no complicated mathematical 152 techniques. The most important requirements for using this technique are common sense, practical knowledge and research data about the country and its agricultural sector, and a theoretical basis for predicting future outcomes and reactions to alternative policies. An important advantage of the reconciliation process is that it forces planners and researchers to view the development process as an integrated whole, rather than a series of isolated projects and programs. The procedure is versatile, and easily adaptable to many types of models and research methods, including computer and noncomputer simulation. Noncomputer simulation, as used in this dissertation to develop projections, is recommended over computer simulation, at least until enough "soft ware" and "building block" components are developed to make it possible to simulate specific systems without heavy investments of time and money in the development of simulation. The reconciliation process also is not limited to studying manpower and financial requirements which have been emphasized in this study. The technique is flexible, and can be adapted readily to a wide range of problems facing planners. BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Books and Monographs Aboyade, Ojetunji. Foundations of an African Economy, A Study of Investment and Growth in Nigeria. New York: Praeger, 1966. Baldwin, K.D.S. The Niger Agricultural Project: An Experiment in African Development. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1957. Bauman, H., C. Connoly, and John Whitney. A Situational Report on Agricultural Credit in Nigeria. (CSNRD No. 3) East Lansing: CSNRD, 1966. Callaway, A. and A. Musone. Financipgiof Education in Nigeria. (African Research Monograph No. 15) Paris: UNESCO, International Institute for Educational Planning, 1968. Cownie, John. Nigerian National Income Accounts: Historical Summary and Projections to 1985. (CSNRD No. 14) East Lansing: CSNRD, 1968. Eicher, Carl K. and Carl E. Liedholm (eds.). Growth and Development of the Nigerian Economy. East Lansing: Michigan State University Press, 1969. Forthcoming. Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations. Agricultural Development in Nigerig, 1965-1980. Rome: FAO, 1966. Galletti, R., K.D.S. Baldwin and 1.0. Dina. Nigerian Cocoa Farmers: An Economic Survey of Yoruba Cocoa Farming Families. London: Oxford University Press, 1956. Gittinger, J. Price. The Literature of Agricultural Planning. (Planning Methods Series No. 4) Washington: Center for Development Planning, National Planning Association, 1966. Planning for Agricultural Development: The Iranian Experience. (Planning Experience Series No. 2) Washington: Center for Development Planning, National Planning Association, 1965. Helleiner, Gerald. Peasant Agriculture, Government and Economic Growth in Nigeria. Homewood, Illinois: Richard Irwin, 1966. Herrmann, Omer W. Nigerian Agricultural Research: Review and Recommendations. (CSNRD No. 22) East Lansing: CSNRD, 1969. 153 154 Industrial Directory 4th Edition, 1967. Lagos: Federal Ministry of Information, 1967. International Bank for Reconstruction and Development. The Economic Development of Nigeria. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1955. Johnson, Glenn L., et a1. Strategies and Recommendations for Nigerian Rural Developmenti_l969-1985. (CSNRD No. 33) East Lansing: CSNRD, 1969. Kincaid, James M., Jr. Strategies for Improvements of Agricultural Extension Work and Subuniversity Agricultural Training in Nigeria. (CSNRD No. 8) East Lansing: CSNRD, 1968. Laurent, C.K. Agro-Industries in Nigeria. (CSNRD No. 25) East Lansing: CSNRD, 1968. Problems Facing the Fertilizer Distribution Program in the Six Northern States. (CSNRD No. 27) East Lansing: CSNRD, 1969. Laurent, C.K., et a1. Agricultural Investment Strategy in Nigeria. (CSNRD No. 26) East Lansing: CSNRD, 1969. Lewis, C.I. The Ground and Nature of the Right. New York: Columbia University Press, 1955. Lewis, W. Arthur. Development Planning: The Essentials of Economic Policy. New York: Harper and Row, 1966. Reflections on Nigeria's Economic Growth. Paris: OECD, Development Centre Studies, 1967. Long, James S. An Analysis of the Needs and Resources for University Education in Agriculture in Nigeria. (CSNRD No. 28) East Lansing: CSNRD, 1969. McFarlane, David and Martin Oworen. Investment in Oil Palm Plantations in Nigeria: A Financial and Economic Appraisal. Enugu: Economic Development Institute, University of Nigeria, 1966. Myrdal, Gunnar. Asian Drama, an Ingpiry into the Poverty of Nations. Vol. III New York: Twentieth Century Fund, 1968. National Economic Council of Nigeria. Economic Survey of NigerieL 1959. Lagos: Government Printer, 1959. Nigerian Human Resource Development and Utilization. New York: Education and World Affairs, 1967. 155 The Oil—Rich Rivers State. Port Harcort: Information Unit, Office of the Governor, Rivers State, 1967. Olatunbosun, Dupe. Nigerian Farm Settlements and School Leavers' Farms: Profitability, ResourCe Use and Social-Psychological COnsiderations. (CSNRD No. 9) East Lansing: CSNRD, 1967. Oluwasanmi, H. A. Agriculture and Nigerian Economic Development. London: Oxford University Press, 1966. Oluwasanmi, H. A. et a1. Uboma: A Socio-Economic and Nutritional Survey of a Rural Community in Eastern Nigeria. Cornwall: Geographical Publications Ltd., 1966. Oyenuga, V. A. Agriculture in Nigeria. Rome: FAO, 1967. Purvis, Malcolm J. Report on a Survey of the Oil Palm Rehabilitation Scheme in Eastern Nigeria, 1967. (CSNRD No. 10) East Lansing: CSNRD, 1968. Rowat, R.W. The Development of Education and Training in the Field of Agriculture and Related Subjects in Nigeria. Rome: FAO, 1966. Saylor, R. G. A Study of Obstacles to Investment in Oil Palm and Rubber Plantations. (CSNRD No. 15) East Lansing: CSNRD, 1968. Schultz, Theodore W. Economic Crisis in World Agriculture. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1965. Economic Value of Education. New York: Columbia University Press, 1963. Transforming Traditional Agriculture. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1964. Southworth, Harman M., and Bruce F. Johnston. Agricultural Development and Economic Growth. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1967. Stolper, Wolfgang F. PlanningiWithout Facts: Lessons in Resource Allocation from Nigeria's Development. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1966. Waterson, Albert. Development Planning, Lessons in Experience. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1965. Official Government Documents Archer, J.N. Educational Development in Nigeria, 1961-1970. Lagos: Government Printer, 1961. 156 Capital Estimates of the Government of Kwara State of Nigeria, 1968—1969. Kaduna: Government Printer, 1968. Capital Estimates of the Government of the North-Eastern State of Nigeria, 1968-69. Kaduna: Government Printer, 1968. Capital Estimates of the Government of the North-Western State of Ni eria, 1968—69. Kaduna: Government Printer, 1968. Capital Estimates of the Interim Common Service Agency, 1968—1969. Kaduna: Government Printer, 1968. Development Plan, 1962-68, First Progress Report. Kaduna: Government Printer, 1964. Eastern Nigeria Develepment Plan 1962-68. Enugu: Government Printer, 1962. Economics Department of the Premeir's Office. Western Nigeria Development Projects Analysis No. 1: Cocoa. Ibadan: Government Printer, 1965. Estimates of Revenue and Expenditure of Eastern Nigeria for the Financial Year, 1966—67. Enugu: Government Printer, 1966. Estimates of Revenue and Egpenditure of Mid—Western Nigeria for the Financial Year, 1966—67. Lagos: Government Printer, 1966. Estimates of Revenue and Expenditure of Mid—Western Nigeria for the Financial Year, 1968—69. Lagos: Government Printer, 1968. Estimates of Revenue and Expenditure of Northern Nigeria for the Financial Year, 1968—68. Kaduna: Government Printer, 1967. Estimates of Revenue and Expenditure of Western Nigeria for the Financial Year, 1967-68. Ibadan: Government Printer, 1967. First Progress Report, Eastern Nigeria Development Plan, 1962—68. Enugu: Government Printer, 1964. Guideposts for Second National Development Plan. Lagos: Ministry of Economic Development, 1966. Investment in Education. The report of the commission on Post-School Certificate and Higher Education in Nigeria. Lagos: Government Printer, 1960. Mid-Western Nigeria Develqpment Plan, 1964-68. Benin City: Ministry of Internal Affairs, 1965. Ministry of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Western Nigeria. Tree Crop Planting Projects. Ibadan: Government Printer, 1964. 157 National Development Plan, 1962-68. Lagos: Ministry of Economic Development, 1962. National Develgpment Plan Progress Report, 1964. Lagos: Federal Ministry of Economic Development, 1964. Recurrent Estimates of the Government of Benue Plateau State of Nigeria, 1968—69. Kaduna: Government Printer, 1968. Recurrent Estimates of the Federal Military Government of Nigeria, 1968-69. Lagos: Government Printer, 1968. Recurrent Estimates of Kano State of Nigerie,fil968—69. Kaduna: Government Printer, 1968. Recurrent Estimates of Kwara State of Nigeria, 1968-69. Kaduna: Government Printer, 1968. Recurrent Estimates of the North Eastern State of Nigeria, 1968—69. Kaduna: Government Printer, 1968. Recurrent Estimates of the North Central State of Nigeria, 1968-69. Kaduna: Government Printer, 1968. Recurrent Estimates of the North Western State of Nigeria, 1968-69. Kaduna: Government Printer, 1968. Recurrent Estimates of the Western State of Nigeria, 1968-69. Ibadan: Government Printer, 1968. A Revised Plan of Development and Welfare for Nigeria, 1951—56. Lagos: Government Printing Office, 1951. A Ten Year Plan of Development and Welfare for Nigeriaj 1946. Lagos: Government Printing Office, 1946. Western Nigeria Development Plan, 1962—68. Ibadan: Government Printer, 1962. Western Nigeria Development Plan, 1962—68, First Progress Report. (Western Nigeria Official Document, No. 2 of 1964). Ibadan: Government Printer, 1964. A White Paper on the Military Government Policy for the Reorganization of the Northern Nigeria Development Corporation. Kaduna: Government Printer, 1966. A White Paper on the Northern Nigeria Military Government's Policy for the Comprehensive Review of the Past Operations and Methods of the Northern Nigeria Marketing Board. Kaduna: Government Printer, 1967. 158 Articles and Chapters in Books Aboyade, O. "A General Critique of the Plan." Nigerian Journal of Economic and Social Studies, Vol. IV, No. 2 (July, 1962), 110—115. "Problems in Plan Revision." Nigerian Journal of Economic and Social Studies, Vol. III, No. 2 (July, 1965), 121—30. Anschel, Kurt R. "Problems and Prospects of the Nigerian Rubber Industry.” Nigerian Journal of Economic and Social Studies, Vol. IX, No. 2 (July, 1967), 145—59. Ayida, A. A. "Contractor Finance and Supplier Credit in Economic Growth." Nigerian Journal of Economic and Social Studies, Vol. VII, No. 2 (July, 1965), 175-88. Berg, Elliot J. "Socialism and Economic Development in Tropical Africa." Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. LXXVIII, No. 4 (November, 1964), 549—574. Callaway, Archibald C. "Unemployment Among African School Leavers." Journal of Modern African Studies, Vol. I, No. 3 (September, 1963), 351-71. Clark, Peter. "Economic Planning for a Country in Transition: Nigeria." Planning Economic Development. Edited by E. Hagen. Homewood, Illinois: Richard Irwin, 1966, Chapter 9. Dean, E. R. "Nigerian Plan Implementation, 1962 to 1968." Paper presented at Michigan State University, July 10, 1968. DeWilde, J. C. ”Making Agricultural Research Relevant to African Farmers." Conference on Agricultural Research Priorities for Economic Development in Africa, Vol. III, (The Abidjan Conference) Washington D. C.: National Academy of Science, 1968. Eicher, Carl K. ”The Dynamics of Long—Term Agricultural Development in Nigeria." Journal of Farm Economics, Vol. XLIX, No. 5 (December, 1967), pp. 1158—1170. "Economic Research for African Agricultural Development." Conference on Agricultural Research Priorities for Economic Development in Africa, Vol. III, (The Abidjan Conference) Washington D. C.: National Academy of Science, 1968. "Effective Demand and Agricultural Planning." Ceres, (May—June, 1969). Goldsworthy, P. R. "Responses of Cereals to Fertilizer in Northern Nigeria, In Sorghum." Experimental Agricultural, Vol. III, No. 1 (January, 1967), 29—40. 159 Harbison, F. "From Ashby to Reconstruction: Manpower and Education in Nigeria." Growth and Development of the Nigerian Economy. Edited by Carl K. Eicher and Carl E. Liedholm. East Lansing: Michigan State University Press, 1969. Helleiner, Gerald K. "The Fiscal Role of the Marketing Boards in Nigerian Economic Development, 1947-61." Economic Journal, Vol. LXXIV, No. 295 (September, 1964), 582-610. Hogendorn, Jan. "The Origins of the Groundnut Trade in Northern Nigeria." Growth and Development of the Nigerian Economy. Edited by Carl K. Eicher and Carl E. Liedholm. East Lansing: Michigan State University Press, 1969. Johnson, Glenn L. "Factor Markets and Economic Development." Economic Develgpment of Trgpical Africa: Theory, Policy, Strategy and Organization. Edited by W. McPherson. Gainesville: University of Florida Press, 1968. Mosher, Arthur T. "Research Needed on the Development Process for Agriculture." Economic Develgpment of Agriculture, (Iowa State University Center for Agricultural and Economic Development), Ames: Iowa State University Press, 1962. Newell, Allen and Herbert Simon. "Simulation." The International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences. Vol. 14. Edited by David L. Sills. New York: MacMillan and Free Press, 1968. Ojala, E. M. "The Programming of Agricultural Development." Agriculture and Economic Development. Edited by Herman Southworth and Bruce Johnston. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1967. Oluwasanmi, H. A. "Land Tenure and Agricultural Improvement in Tropical Africa." Journal of Farm Economics, Vol. XXXIX, No. 3, Part I (August, 1957), 731-38. Pearson, Scott. "Nigerian Petroleum: Implications for Medium-Term Planning." Growth and Development of the Nigerian Economy. Edited by Carl K. Eicher and Carl E. Liedholm. East Lansing: Michigan State University Press, 1969. Purvis, Malcolm J. "Annual Yield Variation in Oil Palm: Marketing Board Purchases in Eastern Nigeria, 1955-56." Journal of the Nigerian Institute for Oil Palm Research. Forthcoming. Schickele, Rainer. "Farm Management Research for Agricultural Planning." Agrarian Revolution and Economic Progress. New York: Praeger, 1968. Sklar, Richard L. "Nigerian Politics in Perspective." Government and Opposition, Vol. 2, No. 4 (July—Oct., 1967). 160 Stolper, W. F. "Economic Development in Nigeria." Journal of Economic History, Vol. XXIII, No. 4 (December, 1963), 391-413. Schultz, Theodore W. "The Rate of Return in Allocating Investment Resources to Education." Journal of Human Resources, Vol. II, No. 3, (Sept., 1967). Szczepanik, E. F. "Agricultural Development Programs: Principal Steps in Formulation." FAO Agricultural Planning Course, 1963. Rome: FAO, 1964. Watson, Andrew M., and Joel B. Dirlam. "The Impact of Underdevelopment on Economic Planning." _Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 79, (May, 1965), 167-194. Wells, Jerome C. "Government Investment in Nigerian Agriculture: Some Unsettled Issues." Nigerian Journal of Economic and Social Studies, Vol. VIII (March, 1966). "Issues in Agricultural Policy During the 1962-68 Development Plan." Growth and Development of the Nigerian Economy. Edited by Carl K. Eicher and Carl E. Liedholm. East Lansing: Michigan State University Press, 1969. Welsche, Delane. "Response to Economic Incentive to Abakaliki Rice Farmers in Eastern Nigeria." Journal of Farm Economics, Vol. XLVII, No. 4 (November, 1965), 900-14. APPENDICES APPENDIX A Acreage Targets for Strategy II Export Crop Production Campaigns The export crop campaign acreage targets for oil palm and cocoa are given in Tables A.1 and A.2 on the next page. No large scale production campaign is recommended for rubber because of its low product price and relatively uneconomic competitive position with respect to oil palm, which can be grown on the same acreage. CSNRD researchers do recommend, however that Nigeria 1. Introduce the new crumb-processing technology to improve the quality of wild rubber and thereby increase producer incomes and foreign exchange earnings from.wild rubber. 2. Launch a pilot rubber production-research campaign which would utilize improved (a) clones, (b) tapping techniques and (c) processing technology and 3. Strengthen rubber research at the Rubber Research Station at Iyanomo, Mid—western State. The production campaigns for cotton and groundnuts would be located entirely in the northern states. The targets for these campaigns are given for the entire six states together, rather than by individual states, to allow for flexibility and development of these campaigns on an individual state basis. The target for groundnuts for the northern states is 20,000 acres in 1970 increasing to 170,000 acres in 1975. Cotton targets are 20,000 acres in 1970 increasing to 110,000 acres in 1975. In addition to acreage covered specifically in the campaigns, considerable other acreage should be improved as a result of improved producer prices under Strategy II and demonstration effects from farmers included in the campaigns. 161 162 Table A.1. Strategy II: Suggested Oil Palm Campaign Acreage, Nigeria, 1970-75 Year : Eastern states : Mid-western State :Kwara, Lagos : Total ° ' : and ° :Western States --------------- Acres - - - - - - - - - - - - - — - 1970 10,000 500 500 11,000 1971 20,000 1,000 1,000 22,000 1972 30,000 5,000 5,000 40,000 1973 40,000 10,000 10,000 60,000 1974 40,000 15,000 15,000 70,000 1975 40,000 20,000 20,000 80,000 Source: Glenn L. Johnson, et al., Strategies and Recommendations for Nigerian Rural Development, 1969-1985, Table VII.5. Table A.2. Strategy II: Suggested Cocoa Campaign Acreage, Nigeria, 1970-75 Year 3 Western State 3 Mid-western State 3 Eastern states 3 Total _______________ m---_-------____ 1970 10,000 2,500 3,000 15,000 1971 20,000 5,000 4,000 29,000 1972 20,000 5,000 6,000 31,000 1973 24,000 6,000 8,000 38,000 1974 28,000 7,000 8,000 43,000 1975 32,000 8,000 8,000 48,000 Source: Summarized from Glenn L. Johnson, et al., Strategies and Recommenda- tions for Nigerian Rural Development, 1969-1985, p. 76. APPENDIX B Projections of Export Crop Production Under the Three Strategies The projected effects on export crop production from following the three alternative strategies are given by commodity in Tables B.l to B.5. The projections for Strategy II are based on the production campaigns discussed in the previous section, which have been checked for manpower and financial balances. The projections under Strategy I and III represent a much less vigorous effort to expand agricultural exports, especially through smallholder production. Under Strategy I, modest increases in cotton and groundnuts are projected with an eventual decline in the tree crop production as these trees become too old for maximum production. The Strategy II projections indicate large increases in cotton and groundnuts, together with increases in tree crop production resulting from planting more acres and taking better care of existing stands. Rubber production would decline as oil palm would be planted in its place. Under Strategy III, smallholder farmers would have little incentive and receive little help to increase production. Government production would be limited by inefficient management and production techniques. As a consequence, tree crop production would decline from neglect and age, and annual cash crop production would increase only slowly with population increases. Under both Strategy I and III Nigeria would switch from an exporter to an importer in cotton and palm oil. 163 164 TABLE B.1. Selected Aspects of Rubber Production Under Three Alternative Strategies, Nigeria, 1963, 1966, 1970, 1975 and 1985 :AWorld Year and : : Yield : Total : Price : price alternative : Acres : per : produc— : to : (f.o.b. strategy : : acre : tion : farmers : Nigeria) 1,000 pounds long tons £/tons £[tons 1963 480 317 68,000 165 1962 1966 480 328 70,270 130 160 1970 Strategy I 485 320 70,000 93 120 Strategy II 485 325 71,000 93 120 Strategy III 485 318 69,000 93 120 1975 Strategy I 414 325 60,000 93 120 Strategy 11 414 330 61,000 93 120 Strategy 111 400 320 57,000 93 120 1985 Strategy I 355 315 50,0003 93 120 Strategy II 355 345 55,000 93 120 Strategy III 320 300 43,000 93 120 1 Tax levels for rubber under the three alternative strategies are given in Table C.l. 2 3 The 55,000—ton production output in 1985 is not a projection. It is a conservative estimate which may be substantially increased if Nigeria demonstrates an ability to adopt new rubber technology. 1961-65 average CSNRD calculations from FAO data. Source: The production figures in Tables B.l to B.5 were developed by the author with CSNRD team members Robert Gray and Herbert Kriesel from production programs and responses anticipated under the three alternative strategies. The world price projections are closely correlated with price projections of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development. This table also appears as Table VII.3 in Glenn L. Johnson,et al., Strategies and Recommendetigng for Nigerian Rural Development, 1969—1985. 165 TABLE B.2. Selected Aspects of Cocoa Production Under Three Alternative Strategies, Nigeria, 1963, 1967, 1970, 1975 and 1985 . World Year and Yield : Total Price : prices alternative : Acres per : produc- ° to (f.o.b. strategy acre tion : farmers Nigeria) 1,000 ,pounds lopg tons £/tons £/tons 1963-67 average 1,200 427 229 50-116 150-220 1970 Strategy I 1,200 427 229 100 170 Strategy II 1,200 463 248 120 170 Strategy 111 1,200 409 219 92 170 1975 Strategy I 1,200 467 251 95 160 Strategy 11 1,275 513 292 138.4 160 Strategy III 1,200 386 207 92 160 1985 Strategy I 1,200 450 242 95 150 Strategy II 1,515 643 435 128.4 150 Strategy III 1,250 364 187 92 150 1 Tax levels per ton of cocoa under the three alternative strategies are given in Table C.2. Source: See Table B.1. in Glenn L. Johnson, et al., pp. This table also appears as Table VII.1 cit. 166 .uHo .am...am um .fiomGLOh .A camau as o.HH> nanny mm mummmaw omam manmu mwsH .H.m mHLmH mom "mousom .moudwflm 04m Scum doaumusmsoo QMZmo .owmum>m molaoma N .m.o maan as am>fiw mum muonnoum Baum Hfio mo SOu pom mam>ma me H me am o.m~ m.om cos oqm can SMH sow ooe.m HHH me an 0.0m o.oq owe moq cow oma oam cow.m HH ms Nm o.e~ m.am 000 com mam sea OHN ooo.m H mwma mq mm o.m~ m.om owe 0mm owq wqa NmH ooo.m HHH me mm o.©m o.oq use oaq moo 00H omm oqm.m HH mq mm o.om n.am owe mwm oom NmH oow ooo.m H mama mq mm o.mN m.om owe ooq Oma 00H oma coo.m HHH mq mm o.Hm o.oq owe mos com NmH «mm coo.m HH me an o.o~ m.Hm omq ooq ems OOH mas cos.m H Omma .m.a .m.a o.a~ o.He cam cos on osa wow cos.m Roma Nm.am Hm.Hw Ho.mm Ho.mq omm ooq mmq ooa mom ooo.m moma In: lungsunuuuuunuumaouwaoaoooin|n 11%|: a Hwauox " Hwo u Hocumx " HHO " Hwo " Hmaumx " HHO " Hmapmx " HHO " mmuo< " xwmumuuw AmaHumHz .n.o.w%.ua u H u coauaEchoo " cowuosvoum " muom pom wamflw ” " o>wumsuouam mofiua capoB u muofipmm Ou moflum ” oflumoan " u n n was mama» .mflumwwz .mmfiwmumuum m>flumcumua< mmsz mesa aam mama .OAmH .sema .msaa nova: coauodmoum nonvoum Baum Hwo wo muomaw< mmuumamm .m.m mqmwm Hausa umwumwwz how mnoaumvcmaaooom van mmawouwaum .q.HH> anmH ..Hm um .somn£0h .A sumac ”condom N .HHH can H wwwwmumaum as mamgm mSu am>o mumaamM ou madmakma mnu mo madam mEooaw uma mnu mmmwuoafl HHHB waflmwoooam can cowuodwoaa ca mcoauoswwu umoo .HH xwwumaum Hmvcba ooa.m oes.s ooo.o ” osw.s on.a ooa.a " omN.w oam.w ooq.w u m caaamm a cmaoxm II II II a II II II " II II II n mmmausw uuomxm ” u " mwsfiw>mh uEwEfihw>ow asa.a qu.a 0mm.a " amm.a has.a oas.a " mow.a aaa.a oaw.a "maaumxama aam soaumuaoamamaa mma.m maa.m oms.s ” aom.m mas.m owm.m " aaq.s mos.s oam.s " amawaama on magmasmm u n u fiwumhwfimw u n u meG0>wH quEde>O GOZ I I I I I I I I I I I I InI I I I I I QQQMr I I I I n I I I I I I I I I " aaa aa a " aaa aa a " aaa aa a " >actwstm " mwmumuum " %wmumaum " EmuH mesa mama " Oama H o. oo o mwma van man .ONmH .mfiuowflz .mwaachm omdmfioxm can wwsco>om ucmEcam>oo .coauaEDmcoo oaumman mam muuoaxm Eonw mamEumm cu mucmfizmm "mmamoumaum m>wumcamua< omHLH amps: mcoauomhoam aonnsm .H.o maan mwfiwwumuum ®>flumflH0uH< MORSE HQUCD GOHuUDwOHm QOHU uhomxm 509w mfihduwm Hafiufimcflm MO mGOHuowhOHm o xHCmem< .N.HH> GHQNH .mwmanmwma .uamSmoHo>oo amusm amass Hz How mcoaumwnmaaoomm mam mow ouwuum ..Hm um .aomcaow .A sumac "moasom .mdoauommoum Ham now owmuo>m molaoma on» um>o NOH ma wommouoca ma HHH kwmumaum some: nonwoam mo sou awn oxmu xmw .mnma an wmuwaweflam mam Oama you mama molaoda ocu mamzlmco mum HH hwwumaum sown: mmxme .mdoauoonoam aam now mama molaoaa man an nonmasoamo ma H hwoumuum amps: Amuawoam wusmau canon waauoxama wsawaaocav nonwoam mo flea and mxmu meN .mwow>uwm doaumUuommmmuu mam mcauoxuma wdaoswoum mo mumoo mm HHo3 mm mEooca owumaaoaocoa mwaaoaa awe Emua masHH omo.w~ oma.ms oom.sm u oNa.mm oaa.oq ooa.oq omm.am osa.aq omm.wmn m aaaamw m :maoxm .- .- aow.o II mwo.w ” mos.m II ma~.oa aam.~a mao.a awo.aa" wmsao>ma usmscam>ow amuoa 0 aaa.a II ema.N “ amo.a II aqa.a " amo.s mma.a mas.m " msaaasm sumo; maaumxamz N aom.a II asm.a “ ama.a II mqa.m ” ama.q Nas.a mas.a " mmause uuoaxm mam II was “ aam II soo.a " mas was aam " xwu amazoasa nauseoum " u u N05fi0>wh ufiwfifihmkrou mmo.q oam.a ANN.m " aaa.q aom.s Nas.m " mmm.q amm.m saa.q "awcaumaame aam sanMquAmamua ao~.aa qmw.mm oam.~N " aeo.ma maa.oq mam.m~ “ waa.o~ osa.am ooa.NN" muoaama cu munaasmm u u " Umu NH wfiww u u u mwdfim>wh ufiwfifiuwxrowfioz I I I I I I I I I I I I I I u I I I I I aqua I I I I I.I I I I I I I I I I I I 0 aaa aa a " aaa aa a " aaa aa a . >mwumuum u zwmumaum " kwMumuum " EmUH mama “ mama " caaa “ mama can whoa .ohma .maammaz .mwafichm mwcmnoxm mam wwsco>mm ucoficam>ou .muuoaxm Eoum mamaamm ou mudehmm "mmawmumuum m>aumcawua< mossy amen: mcoauoomoum moooo .N.o nanny 171 .a.aa> magma ..uao .mo ..am no .aomanow .a aamau "mousom .m:0Huomnonm HHm How .HHH hmoumuum HOH mumu wwwuw>m molHomH mnu Ho unwound oHH um mam “man aw wmumaflame amzu mam oan aw HH mwoumaum How mums wwmum>m molHomH 0:» HHmn loco um “maoauoonoum HHm How mums owmam>m moIHemH m£u um vmuMHsono mum H mwouwuum nova: mHoaumxIEHma mow mmHuaw .mme was mmmH .ONmH How HHH mam HH.H mmemumaum HOH manomxo HHO EHmm How vmumcflaHHm mum mmwuav uuomxmm HHmnlmao um HH ammumuum Home: vmumHsono mum moxwu amuse mum H ammumuum Home: mHmnuox mam HHO EHma nuon Ho sou Hon muHHoum canon wawuotha can moxMu mmwaouam oozmoumm mHodumx van HHO aHma soon now muHHoua wcwvmuu wumon waHumxuma wan woxmu nonvopm nova: HHO aHma now noumHnono mum mmxmu oz .maowuomnoum HHm pom ommuw>m molHomH map uo>o unmoumm OH an vmmmouoaw mum HHH mwoumuum nova: .maoauomnoum man How HH hmmuwuum .maaa an emumaaaaam saga use mamauma you caaa uoa mmmu0>m moIaoaa 0:0 .wGOHuomnoum HHm How wwmum>m mcIHomH mau um vmumHnono .vmumHDono uoa nonwoua BHmm wwuuoaxm HoijHumxuma can QOHuMuHommamHHH oao.aa mao.am oma.ma " oaa.ma sma.a~ mam.aa " osm.o~ mos.qm oqw.omu mwaaaamo mwmwnuxm wem.m II mmm.m " mqo.o II mam.m “ mmo.o qwm.a ama.o u mmaam>0u uauaau0>ow amuoa oaa.a II Nma.a " mm~.a II oum.a ” amn.a wee moo.a u msananm wumon waaumxumz Nao.a II woa.a " sea.~ II oao.~ " oam.~ mmo.a oaa.~ u mmmausa uuoaxm omo.m II mmm.~ " woo.~ II maq.m " wam.m mwm Noq.m “ Iwmmxmu nauseoum u n u mmDGm>0H uflae G>OU oom.o~ oaa.wa oe~.wm ” oaw.ma oom.wm ooa.mm " mam.q~ mmm.qm omw.mmn muoaaoaa aama aoua “ u “ mamaumm on muddfihma Hmuoa oom.wa oeo.m~ oom.wa u oqo.qa owo.ma oma.ma " oaw.ma oow.oa omN.man muoavoua same woasm u u " Icoo mHHmoHumeow Boum oom.m ooa.m~ oem.a " omN.a oww.aa oas.oa " mma.aa mma.wa ooe.~a. emuaoaxm muuneoua aama " n 0 80am mumaumH ou muamamwm " u “ meumuoamw “ u " mosam>mu unmaaho>owcoz I I I I I I I I I I I "I I I I I Iqqquu I I I I I" I I I I I I I I I“ HHH HH H " HHH HH H " HHH HH H " mwoumuum " hw0umuum u ammumuum u EouH mwaH " man " cmaH u mme can man .ONmH .MHHosz .wwcHnamm mwcmsoxm paw monam>mm ucmaaao>oo .GOHumasmaoo oHummSoo wan muaoaxm aoum maoaumm ou muamE%mm "monmumuum m>HumaumuH< mouse nova: mcoauomnopm muosvoum EHmm .m.u mHan 172 .m.HH> mHan ..uao mo ..Hm um acomcnOh .H cawHu "muusom .m:0Huowhoua HHH zmoumaum wnu Hops: uaooaoa OH an vowmoaonw mam mouma molHomH omwaw>m onH .man %n wouwcHEHHo pan oaaH How mama mwmuw>m moIHomH mnu um HH zwoumaum How woumHDono mam .wwH>oH wnmon wcHuwxnma wawwDHoaH .mwxmw .maoauommoum HHm How mama ownuo>m molHomH wnu um wquHsono mH H awoumuum nova: uosvoun Ho sou Mom wxwu xMHH - a o o n . mom.om mom.wma mmm.mm " cam.am mma.mm Nom.om " omm.aq mam.mm ama.qqu macaaumw «mamaoxm mma.m II mmo.m " amm.m II amm.m " amm.m mmm.a ama.m " masco>mu aamacnw>ow amuoa mom II mun " Hmm II Nam " aHm mom mom " deQMDm canon wawuwxumz mmo.m II Nma.m " qaa.m II «Na.m " qaa.m Nmm.m mmo.m ” mmause “Homxm mma.a II mwm.a " NaN.a II mmm.a " moa.a mam.a awa.a " xmu amuseoam " u u HmOddMa/wh ufiafimarou omm.ma amm.mq aamaoa " mNN.aa omm.o~ mma.aa u maa.aa mmm.ma mma.maumaaamaama aam coaumuuommcmpa mmm.m~ maa.maa omm.mm " mmm.m~ Nmm.mm moa.am " mmm.m~ mmm.om Nma.mau muoaeoam uncensoam " a " mam muscwadoam aouw " u a mamaumm ou mucwammn HMuOH amm.m oaq.aa mom.m " mma.m aam.w mmm.m " NmN.m amm.m mmq.m . muoaeoum " a " uscvdsouw paw muscwanoam " u a nwasmcou mHHMUHumeow Scum oo~.oa mam.moa «mm.om . mmm.oa mma.mm mma.ma ” omm.oa amm.ma mma.mmn ewuuomxm mausaoam " a " unswcaouw mam musccadoaw " a a Scam mumaamm ou mucwemmm " a " mmumuocmw n u " meGm>®H ufiwfifiho>owCOZ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I" I I I I I QQQII I I I I I" I I I I I I I I I I I I “ aaa aa a " aaa aa a " aaa aa a " wwwumuum " mwoumuum " mwoumuum " EouH mmma u mama . mama " mmmH wan mmmH .onaH .mHamez .mmcHsumm wmamnoxm cam mmdco>om ucoacao>ow .wuuomxm Eouw mquumm cu mucoezmm "mmawmumnum o>HumcuwuH< manna nova: mcoauommoam muoswoam uncmcsouo .q.o anmH 173 .NH.HH> anmH ..uao .mo ..Hm um .comcn0h .H ccmHo "moanom .mnOHuommoua HHH ammumaum wnu nova: unwound OH an wmmmmuoaw mam mmuma moIHooH mmmuo>m onH .mCOHuoonoaa HHw HOH oumu ommuo>m moIHomH mnu um vmuMHsono mH H mwoumuum nova: nonwoum Ho sou Mom oxmu awe .mamH mn woumcHaHHo new Oan Mom mmumu mwmuo>m moIHomH onu Ho HHmnImso um woumHSUHmo mam HH mwmumaum amps: muHHoaa wcmeau vamon wsHuoxama wanDHodH .mmeHm .muuogaH nuOHo hmaw HOH COHuoswoum oHummSow quUHumnsm ou .wmumHsono uozN Ewamoua mHnHmmom m now owns sown mmn mommBOHHm 02H O. .0 0. can.m oom.NH Nqo.m mOH.H ooh.© mom mH II 0H mm II am omo.w Nwo.MH wmq.OH " mma.ma omm.ma mma.ma «cm.H oqm.o «Hm.m mwaHsamm uwdmnoxm mmHuvw uuomxm nxmu unannoum mmdcm>mu unmaaum>oo m cm mH «H OH «H .0 0. II II II " NmaHumxamE w GOHumuaommeuH Nam.m qaa.a omq.m :ouuoo wmasm Icoo mHHmoHummBow Eonm .0 .0 II mam.m II H II mmm.a II " mma aam.m aam emuaomxm couuou " a a scam wamfiumm ou muamammm " a " nonmaoaww " a " wasm>ma ucoaaHm>owaoz I I I I I I I I I I I I I I IuI I I I I ququ I I I I INI I I I I I I I I I I I I” HHH HH H a HHH HH H H HHH HH H H mwuumaum ” awouwaum " wwmumaum “ EmuH mme . ” mamH ” oamH ” mmmH wan man .ome .mHamez .mmchumm mmcmnoxm mam mmacm>mm ucmacam>ou .GOHuQEDmcoo oHumeoo paw muuoaxm Scum mumapmm ou mucmemmm Hummemumaum m>HumcnmuH< moanH amps: mGOHuommoum muoswoam COuuoo cam acuuoo .m.o oHan 174 APPENDIX D TABLE D.l. Agricultural Research Expenditures in Nigeria, 1966—1967 Type of research Expepditures : Recurrent Capital _____ p _ _ _ _ _ Federal Only Federal Dept. Ag. Research 284,142 169,130 Federal Dept. For. Research 123,527 121,520 Federal Dept. Vet. Research 205,389 67,390 Federal Fisheries Service 69,586 661,300 NISER 60,000 NSPRI 44,187 NIIR 92,660 NITR 176,450 Commonwealth Forest Institute 1,520 Commonwealth Ag. Bureau 8,970 Rural Economic Survey 181,400 Kainji Lake Research 97,000 Federal—Regional NIFOR 264,000 CRIN 502,000 Regional Western — MOA/Ag. research 157,240 6,000 Mid—western — MANR/Ag. research 16,830 12,000 Fertilizer research 4,000 Rubber Research Station 21,120 Eastern u MOA/Ag. research 75,080 60,000 Vet. investigation 6,490 Research maintenance 25,000 Minor crop research -— 40,000 Northern — Miscellaneous 10,350 Universities University of Ibaden 64,988 Ahmadu Bello University 5,620 Inst. for Ag. research 595,150 35,000 ABU Vet. n.a. University of Ife 13,7502 University of Nusuka 28,000 EDI 59,365 Other 1 FAQ forest research 144,000 ILO 90,000 IITA Total expenditures 3,533,914 669,340 1 Estimate of 1966 expenditures. 2 1965 figures. Nwamum>Ha=n=m paw xaoz .OH.Q mHnMH .0 vanmam< .mHausz :H wawawmaH HmusuHDUHuw< COHmamuxm HMHSuHaoHam< HOH munmam>oamEH HOH mewoumuum ..uh .vaonflx .2 mmfimh ”wousom 30s oquH N ma cam eao omaa ooo.ma ooo.ooa ooo.~ ooo.o~ aama 30¢ oquH GOHumuHHHnmnmu a ma mma aao oaua ooo.aa moo.om ooo.a oom.oa oama no mcaucmamom awammamo mmma aoaaom H NH oqN onaH I I I I ou COHuosauwGoomH amma aam “as a Na oma omna coo.oa coo.oa moo.a moo.oa mmma mmma mu m: mu m: oom.a ooo.om oom.a oom.Na on aamma< oaImm mamamoam Nmma mmaom ooo.om moaumaxm 5 mwumuww Ewummm N aamm aao I I I l I mGOHUHmom l I mOHumM muwfihmm meU< muwfiuwm wmuonw .o.¢ “ .ummw u vaHm a maoEamH " u u a umBomamE “ ou mumxpo3 " uaommm GOHmcmuxo ” amm> awn uaomwm " " awawoum amemamo GOHmcouxo " vaHH " w>HumHSE=o " COHmcwuxo 3mz oumm " mxumawm " was mean m>HuMHseso " GOHmcmuxw u a u a .munoEEoo Ho OHumm u u u ” m xHDmem< mmmaImmma .maammaz ca mamammEmo “maaocaamEm aoa mcaammnm nOHmcouxm "HH mwmumaum .H.m oHan 176 mEmnom I I I I I I I I womH :OHumuHHHnmnwu mamamoam ucoaaso oz waHumem oumum samummBIsz EHmm HHO auaaamam A.umm> nomo mme Icommou wum>Haa nmumuHHHnmnma mmuom ooo.oq unonm nuHB mamEumH on muwxaos unHH on On cmeaEmo Ho mOHuma mcHnost um nan wsaHucoo on muaommw HchHumoswm COHmcwuxmv oamH vmaomaomm u.>ow anH uHHnm Hmswmao 30a oquH m wH aam vHo omnH ooo.w~ ooo.om~ ooo.q ooo.oq mamH 30: oquH m mH omm nHo owuH ooo.qm ooo.0HN ooo.q ooo.oq «aoH so: oquH N 0H wNm vHo OanH ooo.o~ ooo.OaH ooo.q ooo.oq MamH 30: oan N mH Hmm wHo oouH ooo.oH ooo.omH ooo.m ooo.om NnaH I I I mcoauHmom I I OHumm whoaamm mwuo< mawEamm mwao< .o.< a .ummm a wHme " muwfipwm a u “ amsomcme " ou mumxaoB " uHono GOHmcmuxm awn» awn uaommw " " amawoum ameasmo scamsmuxm ” meHH " 0>HumHaasu cOHmcouxw 302 " mama mxamamm a can mmum o>HumH=EDU ” sOHmcouxo a a " .muawoeaoo " Ho oaumm " u ” nmanHuaoo H .m mHan 177 aoaaamam A.amo% nomo mwaH Icommou oum>wum woumuHHHnmnmu moaom ooo.o~ unonm nuHB mamfiamm ou maoxao3 vHoHH Ho ou ou amHmaamo mOHumu mchovHB up “an ovaHuuoo cu monomwm HMEOHumoswo GOHmaouxmv ommH vmuowaomm u.>ow aoam omaao Hmokuo Bod oan a m mm oao oana oma.m oom.am ooo.~ coo.oa mama Boa oquH I m om oao ooua oma.m oom.am oom.a ooo.ma mama Bod oquH I N mm oao omna 0mm.a oom.oa ooo.a oom.oa mama Bod oquH :OHumuHHHnmnou I N am oao oaua omm oom.m oom oom.m Nama no moaoooaoom omamoamo I I o mafia oma oom.a ooa ooo.a aama sOHumuHHHnmnou nomhoum I I N mmua om oom om oom mama no moaoomamom ooaam I I I chHuHmom I I I OHumm mumEamm mouo< maofiamm mouo< .o.< " .umwm " wHon ” mamfiamm " a n a “ HoBOmmma " cu mumxHoB " uHmem cOHmcmuxm a amok awn uuommo " n “ amawoua cmHmQEwo cOHmamuxo u vaHw " m>HuMHDESU .n GOHmdmuxm Soz " mama " mxamsmm " wcm moan o>HumHDE=o ” COHmcouxw " a a a a .quwanou " Ho OHumm " a " woscHucoo H .m mHan 178 30: anH a m mm oao oaua oma.m oom.am ooo.~ ooo.oa mama 3mm oan I m we OHo OonH OmH.m OOm.Hm OOm.H OOO.mH «NmH 30a OQHH I N Om wHo omuH Omo.H oom.OH OOO.H OO0.0H mmmH so: oquH cOHuMuHHHnmnou I N «N nHo oan omo OOm.o OOm OOO.m NamH so wsHuqumou anmmEmo I I o mNnH OmH OOm.H OOH OOO.H HamH GOHumuHHHnmnou uomhoua I I N mNaH Om oom Om oom ONmH ao mcHuEmHaoma uOHHm cmemEmo I I I I I I I I OOOH COHumuHHHnmnma mawawoaa ucoauao oz waHumem moumum wowwH wan .maw3m .auoumoz EHnm HHO I I I wSOHuHmom I I I OHumm maosamm mouo< maoaumm wono¢ .O.< " .umam a vHon ” maoaumw a ” aosomama ” ou muoxuoB " uaowmw COHmnouxo you» you uuoHHw a Emawoua GMHmeEmo concwuxo " wHoHH " o>HumH:E:O COchouxo Boz oumo wxamaom " can moan w>HumHssno ” :OHmcouxo a ” .wquoaaou a no OHumm a woDCHucoo H .m oHnMH 179 30a OquH m ma mom oao oana oom.ma ooo.oa oom.m oom.a~ mama 30a OquH a ma ooa oao omna ooo.oa ooo.om ooo.m ooo.o~ aama 30c oan a a oaa oao omua ooo.o ooo.om oom.m ooo.o~ aama GOHumuHHHnmn0u a m om omna ooo.~ ooo.oa ooo.~ coo.oa oama no mnanooao aoz owaooeoo moma ooanoo H m on I I I I I On :OHuosnumaoo0n OOOH can n03 mawnwoua H m Oo 0a 0a 0a 0: 0a NOOH GOHumuHHHn0n0m waHuwHNm 0u0um :u0um03 00000 anaaanam A.am0% n000 mme Idomm0u 0u0>Hua w0umuHHHn0n0u m0uow OOO.ON uaonm nuHB mn0EH0H cu mu0xn03 OH0HH on on :memamo Ho moaumn waHa0vH3 um usn 0chuaoo ou unowm0 H0d0Humoaw0 GOHmc0uva OamH wonomaomw u.>ow scum uHHnm Hmsvmno I I I mGOHuHmom I I I OHumm mn0EH0m m0ao< mu0Ea0m m0no¢ .O.< " .umdm " OH0Hm " 0H0EH0H u u a a " n0somdme " ou mu0xn03 u uuomm0 GOHma0ux0 ” n00> u0m uuomm0 a a " Emuwoum amegamo GOHmn0ux0 " OH0HH " 0>Hu0Hnaso u soama0ux0 302 ” 0umn " mxn050m " cam 00am 0>Hu0Haaso “ :0H0a0ux0 a u n a " .munoaaoo " Ho OHumm " a a a a O. O. O. O. O. n0scHuaoo H .m 0Hnme 180 30a Oan H N mm wHo OmuH OOm.H OOm.a OOO.H OOO.m HnOH :OHumuHHHnmn0n a a ma oqna com oom.N mom oom.N Oama no moanaoao soz amaooaoo moaH OOHH0Q I I I I I I I I on cOHuosaumuoo0u OOOH wan umz mamuwoua I I I 0c 0: 0: nu ma NomH GOHumuHHHnmn02 muHumem 0uMum :u0um03Iqu moooo anaaaoao A.mamH :H mm mme Icomm0a 0u0>Hnm w0umuHHHn0n0n no w0uc0Ha 0wm0uom HMHHEHm nuHs mnmEan on mn0xn03 vHoHH on on cmeaamo Ho mOHumn wch0wH3 um pan 0=nHuaoo on unemmo COHumoswo cOHmc0uxmv oan w0nomaomm u.>ow aonH uanm Hmanmnu 30: oeuH m ON Nwm wHo OmuH oow.oN OOO.¢MH OOq.o OOO.Nm mmmH 305 anH m aa mam oao omna oom.oa ooo.uoa ooo.m ooo.wa mama I I I maOHunom I I I OHumm mn0Eamm m0no< mn0anmm moao< .o.< " .ummm " wHon a mn0Enmm " a " n03omcma a on mu0xn03 " uaomw0 GOHwa0ux0 " n00» n02 unowm0 a Emnwona :mHmaawo GOHmC0ux0 " wHwHH " 0>HumHsaso " GOHma0ux0 302 " 0u0o mxnms0m cam m0n0 0>Hu0HaEDO " coamaoux0 " n " .zunosEou " Ho OHumm " a " w0scHucoo H .m 0Hnme 181 m O O« O«"H nu ma . 0G 0G OOOH momH ou EM0H\< «O memnwoum on on on on coo.m ooo.o~ ooo.a oom.m Nmma monoo ooo.oa moanmanm m0u0um au0ummm moooo anaaanam A.man CH 00 mOOH Icoam0u 0u0>Hua O0u0uHHHn0n0u no v0ua0Ha 0w00uom umHHaHm nuH3 wu0Ea0H ou 090xuo3 OH0HH on on ameaamo Ho mOHumu mcHG0OH3 um udn 0::Huaoo ou uuomm0 SOHumosw0 GOHmc0uxmv OamH O0a00comm u.>ow Scum uHHnm Hmsumnu 30a O«uH a m am oao omua cea.m oom.mm oom.a ooo.m mama 30a O«"H H « HO OH0 owuH OOH.m OOm.mN OO«.H OOO.N «NOH 30a O«uH a a mo oao cana cea.m oom.ma oo~.a coo.m mama 30a O«"H a m cm oao omna oom.~ oom.ma ooo.a moo.m aama I I I mQOHuHmom I I I wOHumm mu0au02 m0uo< ma0anmm m0no¢ .O.< " .umdm " OH0H2 ” wu0sumw ” u a u a H03omcma “ mu0xuo3 " unomm0 GOHma0ux0 " H002 H02 unomw0 “ u a amawoum cwmeamo aOHma0ux0 " vHOHH " 0>Hu0Haa=O ” GOHms0ux0 302 " 0uwm u mxa080m " wan 00u0 0>Hu0Hnaso “ SOHma0ux0 " u a a u .mquoaBoo Ho OHumm " a a a a v0saHuaoo H.m 0Hnma 182 O. 0. 30a O«"H N OH OmH wHo OOHH OmN.«H OOO.Nm OOO.N OO0.0 mamH 30c O«"H N m OmH wHo OwnH omN.NH OOO.m« OOO.N OO0.0 «NmH 30a O«”H N m OOH wHo onuH OmN.OH OOO.H« OOO.N OO0.0 mamH 30: O«aH H w omH wHo OouH OmN.w OOO.mm OOm.H OO0.0 NNmH 30a O«aH a a ama oao omua oma.m ooo.aN ooo.a ooo.m aama 30c O«“H a m Noa oao omna oma.m ooo.m~ oma oom.m Oama maanooao zoz :maooaoo moma ooanoo I I I I I I I I on aOHuoSnumnoo0n aomH cam n03 I I I mGOHuHmom I I I 0Humm wn0sn02 m0no< mnmanmm m0no< .o.< ” .umdm " wH0Hm " wn0an0H a u a a a u03omdwa ” ou mu0xH03 " uuomm0 aOHma0ux0 a H00» H02 uuommm " a " amuwonm amemamo GOHms0ux0 " OH0HH a 0>Hu0Hnaso " GOHmc0ux0 302 " 0u02 “ mxn050m " paw 00n0 0>Hu0Hnano u GOHmc0ux0 “ u a a n .mquoaaoo a mo OHumm " a a w0naHusoo H .m 0Hn09 183 n.amnmonm H0:0Hu0numcoa0v mme I H0u=0EHn0mx0 man on Oan 0nu Ho va0 0nu um O0n000n 0n OHSOB on amHmmamo n0nn=n 0>Hma0uaH G0 0u0HanH on n0nu0n3 uaonm mGOHwHo0nV oamH A.w0=cHucoo 0n amnm OHDOB wn0wHonHHQEm waHume0 nuH3 Emnwonm GOH0a0ux0 Hmn0d0w Hnm w0u0uHHHn0n0n no w0ucmHa 0w00n00 anHEHm nuH3 mn0En0H on mn0xno3 OH0HH cu on amHmmamo Ho mOHumn mnHa0wH3 um usn 0DaHucoo ou munoHH0 :0Humosn0 nona0ux2v ONmH v0nomnoam u.>ow EonH uHHnm Hmnwmno I I I mGOHuHmom I I I OHumm mn0En02 m0no< mn0Enmm m0no< .O.< " .umdm " OH0H2 " mn0snmm a a a a " n03omcma " ou wn0xno3 a unowm0 GOch0ux0 " n002 n02 unomw0 " n a Emnwonm cmHmmamo GOHmC0ux0 a vH0HH " 0>Hu0H=EDO " GOHma0ux0 302 u 0u0Q " mxn050m ” van 00n0 0>Hu0H=EDO " GOHma0ux0 " a a a u .mquanoo Ho OHumm " a n0daHucoo H .m 0Hnma 184 .na noa omna m am Nmoa .na a ooaua +.ona N maaua oom.am ooo.mmN coo.mN oom.Nm mama .nm noa omna .n% H OmnH .O0u0nuu0ocoo 0H m n« Oma, +.mn%N OmHaH OOm.NN OOm.NmH OOm.NN OOm.Nw man dOHuoswona and Iwasonm Ho un0on0m .n2 umH OmuH ON 0n0n3 w0u0nm .n% H OOaH I Hmnuc0o nunoz wcm m «m mmo .nm N ooana ooo.ma ooo.om coo.ON ooo.om Nama onon ca maooao IE0 umoa nuH3 .nh uwH on H .mn0anmw Ho .oc « mN no« .n% H OOHH OOO.mN OO0.0m OOO.mH OO0.0m HNOH w0uHEHH 2H0>Hu0H I0n nuHB Emnw N OH OON OmaH OO0.0H OO0.0N OO0.0H OO0.0N Oan Iona 0>Hmc0ucH :memamo .m0nom .HHE m co mac“ .HHE H mcHoawona I I I I I I I moma .onoanon .aae N.H mo 0500 wcH Inow0n nomonmam mamnwona 0w0x00m Hmn0c0w wcHumem m0u0uw an0nun02 mmmmmmmmmm I I I maOHuHmom I I I OHumm mn0an02 m0no< mn0En02 m0no< .O.< " ammme" UH0H2 u mn0anmw " a a a “ n03omama " on mn0xno3.u unomm0 aOHma0ux0 " n00> n02 unomw0 “ a u Emnmonm :wHwaamo GOHma0ux0 ” OH0HH ” 0>Hu0Hsszo 50H0n0ux0 302 ” 0umm n wxnma0m a wam 00n0 0>Hu0H=aso a GOHma0ux0 " .munanoo " Ho OHumm O0anucoo H.m 0Hn09 185 0u0um an0u000nuno2 Ho .nm umH on "H 30HH0> 0Howaow dH .n% H cm ”H 0H00n250 H0H00mm m mN mam .ona N ooana ooo.mm ooo.oa ooo.ma oom.om Nama waasonm non Iuoo :H mn0sn0H .na noa omna no .oo oonaaaa m NN mom .nn H OouH OO0.0N OO0.0« OO0.0H OO0.0N HNOH 2H0>Hu0H0n nuHB unomm0 aon m NN OON omna ooo.oa coo.ON ooo.oa ooo.oN Oama Ionxm o>aooonoa omaooaou H0daomn0m I I I I ooo.oom moo.OON.a I I moma ao>oaI.no=o NN nuH3 m0wmmum amnw mamnwonm Iona 00n0 scuuoo waHumHNm m0umum nn0nunoz .mmmmmm 0mHnmn0ua0 0u0>Hnm 2n @083000 mGOHuoqsm 2Hmm=m mme no nude nuw3 on 09cHucoo sto3 ONmH anmona anH .nm noa omna aa am mama .nm a mNaua +.ona N omNna ooo.oaa ooo.mNa oom.No ooo.oaa mama I I I mcoauamom I I I mmmmm. mmmmmmm .mmmmfl. .mmmmmmm .mmmmfl .o.< a .uQSm “ vH0Hm ” mn0an0H " u u a a n03omdma a on mn0xno3 " unomw0 GOHma0ux0 " n00m n0m unomm0 " a a Emnmona :meaamo 00H0a0ux0 " OH0HH " 0>Hu0Hneso a commc0ux0 302 " 0umn " mxnmamm a vcm 00n0 0>Hu0H5890 a a0H0a0ux0 ” u a a " .mquoaaoo “ Ho OHumm " a a a a UODGHUGOU H .m GHQNH. .n0nuoam :H O020Hma0 wGH0n 0umum 0:0 Eonm mn0xno3 O0HHHH0=U waHuuflfin0m hoHHom 0 0nH5v0n 205 m0u0um :n0nunoc 0nu GH mamemamo unawdaonw new aouuoo 0nu Ho mGHwaum 0nH u0uoz .0mHnm In0uc0 0u0>Hnm 2n w0fidmwm me0n SOHuoudw mmma aamooo man on no nose nuH3 ONmH 0=aHunoo ano3 amnmona mHnH 30a cm "H m am 0Noa na a mNaua +.n% N OmNuH OOO.mHH OOm.o«m oom.NN OO0.0HH mnaH % .na noa om "a 1 m am mNoa .na a ooaua +.nNH N mNHaH OOm.aw OOm.OMN OO0.0m OOO.mm «an 30s on "H .na a om "a o mm own +6.:m N OmHnH OOO.Nm OOO.NMH OOO.NN oom.no man I I I I I chHuHmom I I mOHuwm mn0En02 m0no< wn0anmm m0no< .O.< " .umwm " wH0Hm a mn0aan " a u u n03omnma ” on mnoxno3 " unomm0 GOHmc0ux0" n00> n0m unomw0 “ " amnwona an0aamo sOHms0ux0 u wH0HH “ 0>Hu0H:E=O ” :0H050ux0 302 0u0O a mxnma0m " mam 00n0 0>Hu0Hsaao " GOHma0ux0 " a n " .muHuosEoo Ho OHumm " a a a ooooanooo a.m oaoon “'CIII'III‘IIIIIIIIIIflIIIflIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII“