National Agricultural Extension Policy

. . B ST e— — Jr./.f ik ol S == ] FMAFS NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION POLICY 2023 FOREWORD leverage the potentials of the agricultural sector to grow and diversify the national economy. The Country is naturally endowed with agricultural resources and manpower. In the past, agriculture wholly supported the national economy, until the commercial exploitation of crude petroleum resources that resulted in its neglect. The significant drop in crude oil prices in the intemational market in recent times has made it difficult for the country to raise enough forcign exchange to support her international transactions, including the importation of foods. Adequate support for revitalizing the agriculture sector is therefore a veritable alternative to crude oil in growing the national economy. fi key objective of the government of Nigeria, especially in the present dispensation, is to Most of the agricultural activities in the country are dominated by smallholder farmers. These farmers require support in various forms especially in terms of access to improved inputs and services. They also need to be empowered with technical know-how to optimize and enhance efficiency. Support to farmers to increase their comparative and competitive advantage in the use of new and modern ‘production practices can bestbe provided by a virile National Agricultural Extension System (NAES). The history of agricultural extension practice in Nigeria dates back to 1893 with the establishment of a botanical garden in Moor Plantation in the then Lagos colony.This notwithstanding, agricultural extension service has not had a guiding instrument to regulate its practices and support to farmers and other stakeholders. In 2015, the Government of Nigeria set up a committee to review the status of extension services nationwide with a view to charting a way forward to revitalize the national extension system. This policy is therefore a response by government to provide an enabling environment of a regulatory instrument to strengthen the discipline and practice of agricultural extension in the country. This will facilitate knowledge support to actors to efficiently drive increased agricultural productivity and ensure sustainable food and agricultural production. The content of the policy is based on evidence and reflects the views of the various stakeholders who participated in Consultative Fora held across the country. These comprised Commissioners of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Chairman and Members of the State Houses of Assembly Committees on Agriculture, Local Government Council Chairman and Heads of Agriculture Department, Farmers and Farmers Organisations/Associations, Agricultural Rescarch System, Private Extension Service Providers, Non-Governmental Organizations, Financial Institutions and Telecom Service Providers, among others. Tappreciate the contributions ofall, to the formulation of the policy and wish to commit my Ministry to its effective implementation. 1 sincerely appreciate the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) and its support project, the Value Chain Development Programme (VCDP), for providing the financial assistance to the Consultants engaged to prepare the initial draft of the National Agricultural Extension Policy. T also wish to appreciate the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) for capacitating the staff of the Ministry to follow up the policy formulation process; Similarly, my appreciation goes to the Agricultural Extension Society of Nigeria (AESON), Nigeria Forum for Agricultural Advisory Services (NIFAAS), National Agricultural Extension Research Liaison Services (NAERLS), Sasakawa Africa Association (SAA) and State Agricultural Development Programmes (ADPs), for contributing professional expertise. I commend the staff of the Federal Department of Agricultural Extension, the Consultants and the Reviewers for their commitment and diligence toensure the syessofthe process. i A 2 aL National Agricultural Extension Policy Tam pleased tonote that this draft document was subjected to validation by key stakeholders in various national workshops. Ibelieve the wide consultations confer on this document the ownership that will enable its effective implementation. recommend this policy for wide implementation to the benefit of Nigeria. AlhajiAbubakar Kyari Honourable Minister, Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security 4 il National Agricultural Extension Policy Title page Foreword Table of Contents List O Acronyms Executive Summary Chapter One ContextAnd Rationale Historical Perspective for the Policy Colonial, Colonial and Immediate Post Independence upto 1969 ‘The Oil Boom Era (1970-1985) State-wide ADPs (1980-1995) Post-World Bank-Assisted Era (1996102015) The Agricultural Policy Thrust (2001) Special Projects with Major Extension Focus and Policy Implications ‘The National Programme on Food Security (NPES), 2001-2005 The 2008 Agricultural Extension Policy ‘The Era of Agricultural Transformation Agenda (ATA) (2011-2015) Agricultural Promotion Policy (APP) (2016-2020) 13 Guiding Principles/ Contextual Framework Chapiter Two ‘The Policy Formulation Process Conductofthe Stakeholders' Consultations The State Stakeholders' Consultations Public Sector Private sector ‘The National Stakeholders' Consultation Legislation of the National Agricultural Extension Policy of Nigeria Chapter Three The Policy Objectives Vision, Mission and Goal of Agricultural Extension in Nigeria The Specific Objectives, Policy Statements and Strategies Chapter Five Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning System Zie, National Agricultural Extension Policy LISTOFACRONYMS ICKM IFPRI LAEISC MTRM NAEISC NAERLS NAES NAFPP NARIs NARETIs NBTE NCA NGO NPFS NUC OFAR OFR OSR PESP PWSN RBDA Agricultural Development Programme Agricultural Extension Services Agricultural Extension Trust Fund Agricultural Promotion Policy Agricultural Research Council of Nigeria Agricultural and Rural Management Training Institute Agricultural Transformation Agenda Federal Department of Agriculture Federal Department of Agricultural Extension Federal Department of Fisheries Federal Department of Forestry Federal Department of Livestock Farmer Field School Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security Fortnightly Training Gross Domestic Product Information, Communication, and Knowledge Management International Food Policy Research Institute Local Agricultural Extension Implementation Steering Committee Monthly Technology Review Meeting National Agricultural Extension Implementation Steering Committee National Agricultural Extension and Research Liaison Services National Agricultural Extension System National Accelerated Food Production Programme National Agricultural Research Institutes National Agricultural Research Extension and Training Institutes National Board for Technical Education National Council on Agriculture Non-Governmental Organization National Programme on Food Security National Universities Commission On-Farm Adaptive Research On-Farm Research On-Station Research Private Extension Service Provider People With Special Needs River Basin Development Authority N v Zae National Agricultural Extension Policy REFILS REFIMLS RUFIN SAEISC 'VCDP WIA ZCRIs vi Research-Extension-Farmers-Inputs Linkage System Research-Extension-Farmers-Inputs-Marketing-Linkage System Rural Finance Institutions Building Project State Agricultural Extension Implementation Steering Commitee Value Chain Development Programme ‘Women in Agriculture (Programme) Zonal Coordinating Research Institutes Zie National Agricultural Extension Policy EXECUTIVE SUMMARY he agricultural sector is of paramount importance to the long term sustainable development of the Nigerian economy. The contribution of agriculture to national GDP has been estimated at 45.8% (NBS,2020). The sector employs 73% of the active labour force and generates about 85% of non-oil revenue. No other sector of the economy touches the general well-being of the rural ‘majority as agriculture, in terms of food security, livelihood and employment, poverty reduction and economic growth. The country is, however, heavily dependent on crude petroleum for foreign exchange and government revenue. Commodity price volatility and the recent crash in the global oil ‘market have created considerable revenue gaps and reinforced Nigeria's determination to diversify the economy from petroleum resources to agriculture, manufacturing, mining and services. 1. Given the importance of the sector and the complexity of the nation's agricultural and administrative institutions, it is imperative that there should be an agricultural extension service ‘policy to harmonise the critical elements that are required to power sustainable and market oriented agricultural development. This will enable Nigeria to be food secure, become a major player once more in global agricultural trade and be able to create jobs for her teaming youth population and ‘generate wealth for citizens. 2. Thereare many public and private service providers involved in extension services delivery in Nigeria today. Bach has its own objectives, strategies and approaches. Their services are often uncoordinated and unregulated to enhance quality confrol and assurance, and sometimes these are conflicting, Itis therefore, necessary that an agricultural extension policy is putin place to facilitate a coordinated and sustainable extension practice. Itis regrettable that after over one hundred years of extension service provision, Nigeria does not have a legal framework for agricultural extension practice that will ensure continuity, consistency and quality control. The lack of a national legal framework to improve extension service has left regulatory activities to individual and group decisions. Sometimes, the implications go beyond the national boundary. 3. TheNeed fora Legislated Agrioultural Extension Policy cannot be over-emphasised. From the early colonial period to date the practice of extension in Nigeria has been done without any policy guidance The policy statements that guide agricultural extension were embedded in national development plans and more recently in agriculture sector policies. The vibrant and virile extension system built with World Bank loan support in the 1980's and 1990's for the implementation of state-wide ADPs collapsed soon after loan closure. Even though, there was ‘growing nced for extension services by farmers and other stakeholders, the absence of national policy clearly implicated the non-sustainability of the system. Indeed, the need for extension policy hasbeen felt and expressed by stakeholders for along time, with many believing that the absence of a "stand-alone" legislated policy is the basic problem underlying the inefficient, unsustainable and dysfunctional extension service currently in operation in the country. National Agricultural Extension Policy 4. Worldwide, agricultural extension continues to receive attention. Developed and Developing Countries are reviewing or formulating new policies to reform their Extension System to provide participatory, market responsive and more efficient services to the farmers other value chain actors. This is to enable them take full advantage of technological advances in agricultural and information sciences to build stronger economies. ‘The most successful agricultural development stories in both the developed and developing countries have legislated agricultural extension policies to ensure commitment, continuity and growth of the sector. The most outstanding in this is the USA, which legislated the Cooperative Extension Service under the Smith-Lever Act in 1914. Among the African countries that have legislated extension policies are Zimbabwe (1981), Malawi (2000), Kenya (2001), Liberia (2012), and Uganda (2016). Others are South Africa, Botswana, Ghana and Sierra Leone. ‘The major lessons from the review of global extension policy are that agricultural extension policies are “stand-alone” with legal framework for operations and practices as distinct from the country's agricultural policy. The funding/financing mechanisms are powered by dedicated extension fund for efficient and sustainable agricultural extension services with input from stakeholders. Many emphasized the need for decentralization to complement the effectiveness of pluralism and increase participation and accountability. There are special provisions to deliberately target women, youth and people with special needs (PSWN) to ensure nclusiveness. Other lessons include market-orientation to actualize a shift from subsistence farming to agri- business even for small-scale producers. There are effective research-extension-farmer linkages as demonstrated in the USA Cooperative Extension Service under the Federal Land Grant Universities. This linked to extension offices in all States and down to Counties, working directly with farmers/producers and other stakeholders. Critical components cover Agricultural Extension System (AES), Monitoring and Evaluation for expected feedback to the Department's main M&E framework, quality assurance and control at all levels; both at entry and exit points. It was also leamed that there is need for periodic review and implementation of an entrepreneurship-focused tertiary agricultural institutions curricula to meet the present and future needs of the National Agricultural Extension System (NAES). Similarly, inclusiveness, as distinct from equity, caters for all categories of farmers and value chain actors with due cognizance for medium-scale farmers, large-scale and commercial farmers. On the whole, there are provisions for cross-cutting issues namely; climate change, environmental and natural resources management, health and nutrition, HIV/AIDS and agriculture, and gender mainstreaming. The goal of this policy is to put in place a legislated, knowledge-based, pluralistic, participatory, demand driven, market oriented, ICT-enabled agricultural extension system that supports a variety of interests along the agricultural value chain. The overall objective is to have a ‘harmonized pluralistic and demand-driven national agricultural extension services at all levels (Federal, State and Local Government) that would ensure effective and efficient extension service National Agricultural Extension Policy delivery that is well coordinated and caters for all agricultural value chain actors. The specific objectives, policy statements for each objective and clusters of implementation strategies are articulated to guide action. The roles and responsibilities of key Ministries, extra-Ministerial Departments and Agencies of government and other major stakeholders in agricultural extension system in the country are highlighted to ensure synergy and avoid duplication, confusion and conflict. The policy formulation process entailed wide consultations with various key stakeholders across the six geopolitical zones covering public and private sector organisations in the sampled States. Those consulted were the Commissioners of Agriculture and the management staff of the Ministries of Agriculture, Chairmen and members of State Houses of Assembly Committees on Agriculture, Others are Managing Directors/ Programme Managers of Agricultural Development Programmes (ADPs) and Project Coordinators of donor supported agricultural extension - related projects in the States such as Fadama IITI+AF, NPFS, VCDP, RUFIN. Furthermore, chairmen and ‘management staff of selected Local Government Councils in the selected States as well as profit and non-profit NGOs, including the private agricultural extension service providers, internet service providers, as well as agro-dealers, Individual farmers, Community-Based Organizations, financial institutions and agro-based industries as well as companies involved in direct production of their raw materials and those providing credit services to farmers were equally consulted. The stakeholder consultation report provides considerable evidence base for this policy. ‘The near absence of sustainable funding for extension services has made it virtually impossible for the ADPs as the extension arm of State Ministries of Agriculture to implement planned programmes. Extension service delivery is provided mostly in the few Local Government Areas where donor supported projects are being implemented. This supports the call for contributory funding of extension service by the three tiers of government and the private sector. The experience of Cote d'Ivoire in this respect is instructive, where funding of agricultural extension and research is contributed by government, producer associations, private sector organizations with interest in agriculture, has resulted in sustainable funding for agriculture extension and research, The compliance by stakeholders at all levels to assigned roles and responsibilities will ensure success of this policy. The Federal, State and Local Governments, Private Sector entities, NGOs, CBOs, and FBOs and other actors along the agricultural value chain must commit to financing, institutional realignment, and efficient programme implementation. The Federal Government has taken a major step forward by creating the Federal Department of Agricultural Extension to provide the desired leadership and coordination. The FGN/ FMAFS will initiate the enactment into law, the agricultural extension policy and provide overall AES policy guideline for recruiting and ‘building the capacity of FDAE to perform its assigned roles. The FMAFS will also mobilise and provide the necessary resources for policy implementation under a National Agricultural Extension Trust Fund. A Board of Trustees will be put in place to oversee the mobilisation and ‘National Agricultural Extension Policy disbursement of the Fund for sustainable implementation of AES throughout the country. The FDAE/ EMAFS will provide the needed leadership, supervision, quality assurance, coordination of public extension services and regulation for the overall efficient delivery of extension service nationwide. The Agricultural Research Council of Nigeria (ARCN) will ensure the effective participation of all Zonal and Commodity Research Institutes including Universities, Colleges of Agriculture and related institutions in Research-Extension Farmer-Inputs-Market Linkage System (REFIMLS) to enhance the delivery of agricultural extension service. ‘The National Universities Commission (NUC), NAERLS, Federal Universities of Agriculture, Faculties of Agriculture and relevant stakeholders are to collaborate with FMAFS to review the curricula with special emphasis on skills acquisition and provide facilities to produce the senior level manpower to meet the present and future needs. On the other hand, the National Board for Technical Education (NBTE) will periodically undertake the review of curricula of colleges of agriculture and related disciplines as consistent with their mandates. Zonal Coordinating Research Institutes (ZCRIs) are to conduct zonal farming systems research and extension in their zones in line with guidelines for REFIMLS in collaboration with the ADPs. They will conduct and oversee OSR and OFR, OFAR and TRMs by the ADPs in the zone while building capacity of FBOs, NGOs and Private Service Providers. The Commodity Research Institutes (CRIS) are expected to do the same in addition to establishing appropriate platforms for promotion of AES. State Governments are expected to domesticate the policy and support the State Ministries of Agriculture and Natural Resources (SMANR) to effectively carry out its oversight function for extension. The State Agricultural Development Programmes (ADPs) will focus primarily on programme planning, coordination, monitoring and evaluation, quality control and assurance, training and manpower development at state level and devolve frontline grassroots extension services to the LGAs. There shall be a State Agricultural Extension Implementation Steering Committee which will facilitate collaboration with Local Government Agricultural Extension Implementation Steering Committee, the private sector extension service providers, financial institutions/financial service providers, input dealers and marketers, for-profit NGO, not-for- profit NGOs and farmer-based organisations (FBOS) to effectively manage the AES system in the state. A legislated agricultural extension policy with the ingredients enumerated in the foregoing should ensure the needed commitment, equity and sustainability of the extension service delivery that will bring about food and nutrition security, wealth and job creation in Nigeria, Ziies National Agricultural Extension Policy ChapterOne CONTEXTAND RATIONALE 11 Background The agricultural sector is of paramount importance to the long term sustainable development of the Nigerian economy. The contribution of agriculture to national GDP has been estimated at 45.8% (NBS,2020). The sector employs 73% of the active labour force and generates about 85% of non-oil revenue. No other sector of the economy touches the general wellbeing of the rural majority as agriculture, in terms of food security, livelihood and employment, poverty reduction and economic growth. The country is, however, heavily dependent on crude petroleum for foreign exchange and government revenue. Commodity price volatility and the recent crash in the global oil market have created considerable revenue gaps and reinforced Nigeria's determination to diversify the economy from petroleum to agriculture, manufacturing, mining and services. At independence in 1960, the country was a leading producer and major player in global trade in agriculture, notably: cocoa, oil palm, groundnut, cotton, hides and skin. Agriculture's share of export trade stood at 90% but dropped to 2% by the year 2000 due to the combined effect of crude petroleum mining, first discovered in 1956 and the interplay of inappropriate macro-economic policies and neglect ofthe agricultural sector, especially during the oil boom era. The volatility of global oil prices, security challenges in the main crude oil producing areas and a grossly weakened national currency have made Nigeria's food import bill, estimated at US $22 billion per annum and growing at 11%. This isunsustainable and has given new sense of urgency to the quest for economic diversification. 1.2 Justification for the Policy From the early colonial period to date the practice of extension in Nigeria has been done without an articulated policy to guide it The policy statements that guide agricultural extension were embedded in National Development Plans and more recently in Agriculture Sector Policies. The vibrant and virile extension system built with World Bank loan support in the 1980s and 1990s for the implementation of State-wide ADPs, collapsed soon after loan closure, in spite of the growing needs of farmers and other stakeholders for agricultural extension service, primarily because there was no National Policy to ensure sustainability. For along time, the need for Extension Policy has been expressed and agitated for by stakeholders, with many believing that the absence of a "stand-alone” legislated policy is the basic problem underlying the dysfunctional, inefficient and unsustainable extension service currently in operation in the country. There are many agencies and private service providers involved in extension services delivery in Nigeria; each with its own objectives, strategies and approaches, thus presenting an unwieldy service environment, that is uncoordinated and unregulated in terms of quality control and assurance, and sometimes conflicting information dissemination. Worldwide, agricultural extension continues to receive attention. Developed and developing countries are reviewing or formulating new policies to reform their extension system. This is to provide o s Zhe% National Agricultural Extension Policy participatory, market responsive and more efficient service to the farmers and value chain actors, to enable them take full advantage of technological advances in agricultural sciences and information technology to build stronger economies. Given the importance of the sector and the complexity of the nation's agricultural and administrative institutions, it is imperative that there should be an Agricultural Extension Policy to harmonise all clements that are required to drive a sustainable and market-oriented agricultural development. This will boost Nigeria's capacity to be food secure, become a major player again in the global agricultural tradeand be able to createjobs for her teeming youth population and generate wealth for the citizens. The need for an agricultural extension policy is predicated on the fact that such uncoordinated efforts cannot lead to sustainable extension practice that will ensure significant agricultural growth. It is regrettable that after over one hundred years of extension service, Nigeria does not have a legal framework for agricultural extension service delivery that will ensure sustainability, consistency and quality control. This absence of a national legal framework means that the implementation of regulatory initiatives, proclamations and strategics embarked upon in the country aimed at improving extension services support to farmers and other stakeholders have been ad-hoc and limited to individual and group decisions, hence, the urgent need to formulate and legislate a national policy on agricultural extension. 13 Historical Perspective for the Policy ‘The historical evolution of agricultural extension policy in Nigeria s as follows: . Pre—colonial, colonial and immediate post - independence era 1893 —1969 . The oil boom era—(1970-1985) . World Bank support era— (1980 1995) . Post World Bank Assisted ADP era— (1996 —2015) 1.3.1Pre—Colonial, Colonial and Immediate Post Independence up to 1969 Certain activities which could be regarded as extension function today had been performed long before colonial rule through the activities of voyagers, missionaries and traders. The early phase of colonial rule during which a botanical garden was established in the Colony of Lagos in 1893 marked the beginning of the involvement of the colonial administration in agriculture and of formal agricultural extension services in Nigeria. The extension approach during this era was mostly by "face-to- face" contact. The extension services provided were mainly focused on the production of cocoa and rubber in ‘Western Nigeria, oil palm in Eastern Nigeria and cotton and groundnut in Northern Nigeria. This was followed by a succession of agricultural institutions with Extension Service Delivery: Forestry Department (1900); Agricultural Department (Southem Provinces), (1910); Agricultural Department (Northern Provinces), (1912); Agricultural Research Station, Samaru, (Northern Provinces), (1921); Agricultural Rescarch Station, Umudike, (Eastern Nigeria), (1923); Animal Health Research Station, Vom (Northern Nigeria), (1924); Moor Plantation, Ibadan, (Western Nigeria), (1924); Regional Agricultural Departments (Western, Eastern and Northern Regions), (1954); and Federal Department of Agricultural Research, Moor Plantation, Ibadan, (1955) with National Agricultural Extension Policy aL Regional Stations at Samaru, Umudike and Ibadan. Fisheries extension gained prominence with the establishment of Fisheries Development Branch in the Department of Agriculture in 1945, Activities in the Forestry sub sector started in 1900, mainly on Forest Law Enforcement, establishment of forest estates and demarcation of forest reserves. Activities in the livestock sector were constrained by the narrow focus of research on animal health and management. Furthermore, the research work was limited mostly to cattle and poultry. Small ruminants did not receive commensurate research and extension attention. Extension work among ‘women clientele, including home economics extension did not receive much attention. Extension work among the youth, which was propagated as young farmer's clubs in the 1960s and 1970s did not also gain much prominence. Vulnerable groups, such as the handicapped were by-passed by extension in the country. The extension organisation and approaches used during the period were top heavy, rigid, directional and non-participatory. Extension Officers were believed to have all the requisite knowledge and skills for agricultural development which were to be passed down to the clientele in order to achieve organisational objectives. Clientele needs, felt and unfelt, were not of consequence. Similatly, the reservoir of farmer's knowledge of his environment, farming system, traditional technology, climate and weatherand the eco-system were hardly appreciated, let alone considered to be of much value. In 1964 the Ministry of Natural Resources and Research was established at the Federal level. This was followed in 1967 with the establishment of four departments namely; Federal Department of Agriculture (FDA), Federal Department of Fisheries (FDF), Federal Department of Forestry (FDFor) and Federal Department of Livestock (FDL). Decree 1 of 1966 gave constitutional backing for Federal ‘Government involvement in agricultural extension service. 1.3.2 TheOilBoom Era (1970-1985) The National Accelerated Food Production Programme (NAFPP) was the first federal extension related project. The objective was to use green revolution technology to achieve "dramatic increase" in food production with concentration on six major staples — rice, maize, sorghum, millet, wheat and cassava. The NAFPP had a strong research-extension component designed to evolve location specific technologies. These were to be transferred to farmers using the "mini-kit", the "production kit", and the "mass adoption kit", thus reducing the time consuming conventional research release processes. Extension agents were required to make field visits to their assigned farmers, at least once a fortnight at the "mini kit stage", work closely with research staff to conduct adaptive research trials to evolve location-specific recommendations and to give feedback to research on the performance of the technologies and of farmers' problems. The newly created Federal Department of Agriculture promptly established field offices in the states, to implement and oversee Federal Government programmes and to enhance coordination with State Ministries of Agriculture and other stakeholders. During thise period, as in the preceding one, Extension Services were offered through various agencies cach targeting the same small scale farmer and in an uncoordinated manner. The agencies include: sub- sector extension services with each department of the ministry of agriculture providing extension National Agricultural Extension Policy services in its mandate area — crops, subdivided in some States into tree and food crops; fisheries; forestry and livestock and on cross-cutting issues such as home economics. Agencies like River Basin Development Authorities; Commodity Marketing Boards; Root Crops Production Company, Poultry Production Company, Livestock Production Company and ofhers carried out extension services independent of each other. The Agricultural Development Project (ADP) concept introduced in 1974/75 was premised on the principle that a combination of factors, namely input supply, appropriate agricultural technology, agricultural extension support, adaptive research and rural infrastructure are necessary ingredients for successful agricultural development in the country. Extension support was provided using the classical Training and Visit (T&V) Extension System, which though was quite effective in promoting adoption behaviour among farmers, proved unsustainable in terms of cost. The system was subsequently modified to reduce cost. While agricultural production stagnated at 1% or below in the rest of the country, the enclave projects achieved up to 5% annual growth. Besides, the infrastructure component had popular appeal as it was seen to have addressed the needs of the rural communities. ‘The impacts of the enclave projects on rural developmentand food production convinced government to expand it to state wide project in states like Kogi (Ayangba), Nasarawa (Lafia), Niger (Bida), Kwara (llorin) and Oyo (Oyo north). The project was extended to other states as multi-state programme (MSADPs I, II & III), in which a single loan agreement covered several states grouped together. The cassava multiplication component of multi-state ADP-I was co-financed by IFAD to promote cassava production and was adjudged very successful. The cassava multiplication project relied on FDA and ADP extension staff for implementation, without having to engage its own extension personnel. 1.3.3. State-wide ADPs (1980-1995) ‘The Agricultural Policy for Nigeria of 1988 highlight the agricultural extension related activity to only “teach the rural people to raise their standard of living with minimum assistance and by their own efforts." Government was therefore concerned about the dissemination of useful and practical information relating to agriculture. The policy acknowledged the administrative, manpower and financial challenges plaguing the nation's extension system and made a commitment to resolve them in abid to assistsmall-scale farmers. The major policy strategies to achieve the set objectives were: i. Provisionoftraining facilities and infrastructure; forging collaboration between research staff, extension agents and farmers; . facilitating effective utilisation of extension agents for technology transfer; iv. establishment of demonstration farms and processing facilities for crops, livestock, fisheries and forestry; and V. encouraging the private sector to invest in agricultural information dissemination. The policy expected Local Governments to progressively take over the responsibility for agricultural extension. Although, there was no articulated extension policy in this era, some of the decisions, practices and lessons of the ADPs offer useful directions and guides for the formulation of extension policy. These National Agricultural Extension Policy include, among other things, the organization and decentralization of extension services to Zones, Blocks and Cells; the phasing out of the cost ineffective, diffused and uncoordinated parallel system of extension and its substitution with Unified Agricultural Extension System (UAES); the use of proven platforms for extension delivery such as Small Plot Adoption Technique (SPAT) which demonstrates improved technology in a small area, Management Training Plot (MTP), Farmer Field School; involvement of community institutions in extension service delivery; use of development support communication to complement extension service delivery; clear delineation of roles / responsibilities of key stakeholders, research and extension linkage, regular training and retraining of extension staff, determination of effective Extension Agent to Farm-Family Ratio (EA:FF) and collaboration and financing of extension service by development partners, especially the World Bank. The sustainability of the ADP system was put to test when World Bank funding ended in 1996. The Federal, State and Local Governments, which were expected to sustain the programmes with funding jettisoned their obligations and this resulted in the virtual collapse of the ADP system. The EA:FF ratio of 1:1,000 achieved during project life reduced progressively to 1:10,000. Development Support Communication went silent in most States and irregular in others; Farm Radio and TV programmes were rarely aired. The Research-Extension-Farmer-Input-Linkage System (REFILS) hardly operated or did so infrequently; and extension staff turnover became very high and vacant extension positions were left unfilled as a deliberate cost-saving measure by State Governments. Extension funding in many States was limited to the payment of personnel emoluments, with little or no provision for operational expenses or performance of extension functions. Unfortunately, the design of the ADPs did not seem to include good sustainability or exit plan and so funding became inadequate for effective cxtension service delivery beyond the loan period. 134 ThePost-World Bank-Assisted Era (1996 to 2015) The Perspective Plan for Agricultural Development in Nigeria (1996 — 2015) provided a comprehensive insight into Nigeria's vision of agricultural extension service in the country in the post- ‘World Bank assisted ADP era. The plan provided that: i BxtensionService will be organised using the Training and Visit model in such a way as to maintain a single line of command in technical and administrative matters. ADPs will be semi-autonomous establishments that will function as the extension arms of States' Ministries of Agriculture. ii. Extension service will be unified in such a way that all extension services in any particularstate will be carried out by the Extension Service Division of the ADP. iii. Extension personnel will be responsible for extension service only; consequently, none extension duties such as those relating to loan distribution and recovery, input supply and distribution, collection of local government taxes / revenue and agricultural data will not be carried outby extension personnel. iv. Allcategories of extension staff will have clearly defined roles orjob descriptions. V. Appropriate span of control will be maintained such that not more than eight extension NGt 9 National Agricultural Extension Policy agents will be under the supervision of one extension supervisor; similarly, the ratio of extension agent to farm families should be at least 1 extension agent to 800 farm families, asrecommended by the World Bank. vi. ‘The minimum qualification for extension agents should be OND or NCE in agriculture or related discipline. Senior secondary school certificate holders who qualify for ordinary diploma or NCE admission could be engaged with a view to upgrading their qualification while in service. The minimum qualification for SMSs is university degree or post- graduate qualification in agriculture or related discipline. vii. Village level Extension Agents should be on salary grade level 07/08; Block Extension Supervisors, 09/10; and Area Extension Officers on GL 10/12. One Area Extension Officer should supervise 6 to 8 Block Extension Agents (BEA). Each LGA should have one BEA (Women in Agriculture officer)on salary grade level 09/10, The perspective plan also provided cost estimates, projected staff, vehicle and equipment from ‘headquarters to field level as well as the number of Zones, Areas and Blocks. The plan recognized the structure for extension service delivery and made provision for strengthening it, however, the absence ofenabling policy framework made it ifficult to implement, 135 TheAgricultural Policy Thrust(2001) Following a comprehensive review of the 1988 agricultural policy, the Agricultural Policy Thrust was enunciated in 2001 with the cardinal objectives of: Meeting the food security needs of Nigerians, o supplying the raw material requirements ofagro industries, * creating agricultural and rural employment opportunities, o protecting and improving agricultural land resources, and * improving institutional arrangements to facilitate integrated rural development. The policy was premised on the fact that the food sufficiency goal of the 1988 Policy was no longer adequate and that the policy objective must transcend food sufficiency to food security. Furthermore, there was the felt need to adjust the policy to the new world economic order, especially as it related to globalisation and commercialisation and the technological advantages which influence compeitiveness. With respect to agricultural extension, an outstanding provision was made that extension service delivery would be carried out by State Governments, in collaboration with Federal and Local Governments; an activity that hitherto had been considered the exclusive responsibility of State Governments. The policy thrust also provided for “the progressive takeover of extension service by the local governments”; a proposal that had lingered on since the 1976 Local Government Reform because it had never been legislated. ‘The policy also clearly assigned roles and responsibilities not only to the three tiers of government but o 10 g4 g a < " Ze, National Agricultural Extension Policy also to the private sector and other relevant ministries, departments and agencies (MDAS). There was problem of overlap and duplication in giving responsibility for agricultural extension. The policy provided that: a) Local Governments would be responsible for the “provision of effective agricultural extension service"; b State Governments were to “promote the production of all types of agricultural produce through the provision of virileand effective extension service" < The Federal Government was to “continue to support agricultural extension service delivery”, while d The private sector was to provide "support for research in all aspects of agriculture”. This presumably includes extension, since any private sector enterprise involved in technology generation would most probably like to ensure that the research output is widely disseminated and adopted to enhance returns toits investment. Unfortunately, these plans were not implemented. 1.3.6 Special Projects with Major Extension Focus and Policy Implications There were two unique agricultural projects with important extension “ingredients” and agricultural extension policy implications, These are the Special Programme for Food Security (2001-2005) and National Programme for Food Security and (2006-2013). 13.6.1 TheNational Programme on Food Security (NPFS), 2001-2005. The programme started as Special Programme for Food Security (SPFS) fully funded by the Federal Govemment, with technical support of the FAO. It was later renamed National Programme on Food Seourity (NPFS) to cover more Locgl Governments, and partially funded by donor partners. It was designed to improve national food security, and reduce poverty on an economically and environmentally sustainable basis. It strongly promoted and supported the implementation of REFILS inthe ADPs, The project also vigorously promoted the demonstration of improved crops, livestock and fisheries technologies and institutionalized (even without a clear legislated policy), the farmer field school (FFS) as a participatory extension approach nation-wide. 1.3.6.2 The 2008 Agricultural Extension Policy The 2008 agricultural extension policy as was enunciated under the National Programme for Agriculture and Food Security (NPAFS) made a clear, definitive and authoritative pronouncement on agricultural extension. The policy provided for “a private sector led agricultural extension system with the establishment of “One-stop” Agricultural Extension Service Centres in all the LGAs (Fig. 1). Accordingly, “the agricultural extension service will be professionalized by the State governments establishing farm support centres as “one-stop” facilities in each Local Government in partership with the private sector to train and teach new farming techniques”. Further, the programme will train 10,000 highly competent extension workers per year with the objective of “achieving a ratio of at most 1:350 extension agent to farm family”. This pronouncement was made with due consultations with the National Agricultural Extension Policy States and Local Governments and the private sector for the establishment of these one-stop service centres. Figure I: Private sector-led extension services provision and supervision Farm T Formers Tigura 2: rklo Sectorled [xtenion Servicos Proviion Supenvsion Source: FMAWR (2008): National Food Security Programme.Hindsight experience and field surveys have shown the proposed Extension Agent to Farm Family (EA: FF) ratio of 1:350, was both unrealistic and most likely unrealizable. Currently, the EA: FF ratio ranges from 1: 3,500 to 1: 25,000, depending on the State. Another major challenge of the policy was that the implementation strategy was not clearly defined. 1.3.7 TheEraofAgricultural Transformation Agenda (ATA) (2011-2015) The ATA was a commodity-focused intervention strategy anchored on a notion of agriculture as a business rather than a development process. One of the components of ATA was the Growth Enhancement Support Scheme (GES). The GES was a govemment-facilitated, private sector-led delivery of agricultural inputs subsidies to smallholder farmers throughout the country. The reform aimed to eliminate corruption in the management and transmission of agricultural inputs subsidies, avoid the disruptive “crowding-out” effects of government subsidy system on agricultural inputs ‘markets, and expand the reach on the policy benefits to a larger population of smallholder farmers in Nigeria. An electronic wallet system was developed using mobile phones to deliver agro-inputs at no cost to farmers for seed and 50% subsidy for fertilizers. It significantly boosted agricultural input livery tofarmers that translated into increase in production and productivity . byeond 12 AL Zwars National Agricultural Extension Policy Regardless of the agricultural extension gaps observed in the ATA programme, it must be given the “distinction” achievement for the establishment of the Federal Department of Agricultural Extension (FDAB). It is important that under the implementation strategies stated therein, there should be a clearer definition of roles and responsibilities for all stakeholders to avoid conflicts, rivalry, and duplication of efforts atall levels. The document was not legislated and so carries o legal implications and some of the key actors (States), have jettisoned their participation in the GES scheme. 13.8 Agricultural Promotion Policy (APP) (2016-2020) The Agricultural Promotion Policy of 2016 was produced based on the review of the Agricultural Transformation Agenda (ATA). The APP was designed to build on the successes of ATA. The policy decision to build on the successes of ATA is commendable, given the problem of policy reversals and inconsistencies and rapid turnover of programmes that have characterized the agricultural sector thathave followed changes of administration in Nigeria over the years. Having enumerated some of the major achievements of ATA, the APP then, identified the challenges and production gaps of ATA by value chains. The agricultural extension challenge was not mentioned asaserious challenge and just like under the ATA, it received no in-depth treatment especially in terms of assigning roles and responsibilities to the key stakeholders, funding mechanisms, coordination, quality control and assurance and the recommended systems and strategies for implementation. In the APP, agricultural extension and advisory service is encapsulated under "information and knowledge' as & "productivity enhancement" theme, along with access to land, soil fertility, inputs, production management, storage, processing and marketing & trade. In this regard, extension appears decoupled from rescarch as a support service for agricultural development unlike some of the policics that preceded it and against global good practice. Research & innovation on the other hand is classified by the APPas an "organising theme'' under FMAFS institutional realignment, alongside institutional setting and roles, youth and women, infrastructure, climate smart agriculture, and food consumption and nutrition security. An important Question then is: How do we effectively disseminate and utilize the results/products of Research and Innovations? The masking of agricultural extension and advisory services with "information and knowledge" tends to confer lesser visibility, albeit inadvertently on extension as a policy instrument for agricultural development than in previous policies. However, the perceived lower level of visibility should not be construed as a reflection of decreased political will on the part of the Administration to provide extension services to Nigerian farmers. On the contrary the Administration stands out as the one that has singled out the revitalization of extension services as a priority. Furthermore, the FMAFS has consistently shown strong commitment to bringing extension services to the local government areas through the introduction of "one stop extension delivery centre" in each of the 774 local government councils in the federation. For many in the AEAS community, * extension and advisory services or extension communication, formation and knowledge" is a misnomer for modern agricultural As laudable as the policy document, unfortunately, never provided clear and definitive details of implementation arrangements especially, the critical issue of sustainable funding of the system. Ttonly National Agricultural Extension Policy stated that: “the three tiers of government in Nigeria will be encouraged to jointly support financing of agricultural extension services delivery, monitoring and impact studies”. There was no legal provision to commit any of the stakeholders. 13.9 National Agricultural Technology and Innovation Policy (NATIP)(2022-2027) NATIP i a 6-year national agricultural policy intervention instraments and implementation strategy for the development of a technological and innovative capacity to fast-track increased productivity, import substitution, and climate resilience for agricultural value chain investments, with the objectives of: Promoting knowledge generation and dissemination to agricultural value chain actors; o Strengthening agricultural research, innovation and extension service delivery; Deploying appropriate technologies and Good Agricultural Practices (GAP) for a rapid increase in crop, fisheries and livestock value chains; o Increasing access to agricultural finance, rural microfinance and promotionof agricultural insurance with active private sector participation; « Promoting Digital and Climate-Smart Agriculture, Organic Agriculture and efficient water management forimproved efficiency, productivity and income in the face of climate change; o Increasing access to agricultural land through land development and rural infrastructural developmentto improve the livelihood and community resilience of rural dwellers” o Strengthening animal and aquatic discases surveillance system for prompt detection and response to trans-boundary animal diseases; « Developing high priority value chains based on ecological or comparative advantages covering crops, livestock and fisheries sub-sectors in collaboration with states; « Reducing malnutrition and improve nutritional security through the improved food systems; o Increasing the competitiveness of Nigeria's agricultural products in the international markets; « Improving the security of agricultural land to create enabling environment for agricultural investment; and + Re-positioning agricultural cooperatives as a vehichle for the mergence of sustainable clusters. 14 Guiding Principles/ Contextual Framework The policy envisaged for agricultural extension is a legislated instrument for knowledge-based, pluralistic, participatory, demand-driven, market-oriented, ICT- enabled extension system that supports a variety ofactors along the agricultural value chains. The framework is based on the global experiences that no one extension model addresses the challenges and fits all contexts in extension service delivery. The key good practices, for effective and successful extension system include: i) Decentralization of extension service (administration, financing & implementation) with clear institutional roles and responsibilities; i) Coordination and integration across pluralistic extension system (vertical, horizontal); i) Pluralism in stakeholder views and service provision; and promotion of pluralistic services including out-sourcing to non-state actors (like NGOs, people with special needs and donor N 14 AL National Agricultural Extension Policy agencies) needs to be associated with certification and technical backstopping for quality assurance and control; iv) Organization of rural producers and building social capital to gain economies of scalc; v) Bottom-up planning and demand for value for money services as provided for by a participatory, demand-responsive extension system; vi) Timeliness of information effectively powered by ICTs (c-extension) to complement the traditional face-to-face and other extension delivery approaches; vii) Astrongresearch— extension— farmer—inputs - market linkage system (REFIMLS); viii) Assured funding mechanisms for both operational and capital development and regardless of the funding sources (public or private) it must include some elements of cost-sharing with the clients; x) Regular capacity building for both clients and service providers; to strengthen extension to serve as “knowledge provider with technical, market and business skills and as a broker able to link producer/ enterprises to other services”. National Agricultural Extension Policy ChapterTwo The policy formulation process 2.1 ThePolicy Formulation Process Ateam of two consultants engaged by IFAD assisted the FDAE to produce a draft policy report as the basis for articulating a national agricultural extension policy. The aim was to develop an evidence- based policy document on agricultural extension that can be legislated for Nigeria. The policy will promote a “sustainable, pluralistic, knowledge-based, demand responsive, market-oriented and ICT- enabled agricultural extension with assured funding mechanisms. It will also ensure well-trained and motivated personnel to provide professional services to all actors along all the agricultural value chains of interest”. The process involved review of existing policy pronouncements and past experiences that worked, as well as learning from good practices, taking lessons from countries that have promoted public, private sector partnerships, and implemented a performance-based ‘management system in agricultural extension. The team went round to consult and collect evidence from relevant stakeholders in twelve sampled States; two states were selected from each geo-political zone using a two-stage stratified random sampling procedure involving (i) grouping of the 36 states on the basis of the old twelve state structure and (ii) random sampling of one state from each block. These are: i. North Central: Nasarawa and Kogi States North East: Bauchi and Taraba States North West: Kebbi and Zamfara States iv. SouthEast: Ebonyiand Anambra States v. South South: Alkwa Ibomand Edo States vi. SouthWest: Ondo and Ogun States The consultation involved interactions with key stakeholders in each of the selected States to ensure inclusiveness. 22 Conductofthe Stakeholders' Consultations Two levels of stakeholders' consultations were held; the state consultative forum held in each of the selected states and the national stakeholders' forum conducted in Abuja. 2.2.1 TheStateStakeholders' Consultations Two teams, each comprising a consultant, three staff of FDAE, a staff of the IFAD-supported Value Chain Development Programme (VCDP) conducted the stakeholders' consultations in the states. The teams each covered the northern and the southern states simultaneously. The stakeholders consulted included: ) PublicSector o TheHon. Commissioner of Agriculture © TheChairman and members ofthe States' House of Assembly Committee on Agriculture 16 AL Zie National Agricultural Extension Policy © The Programme Manager/Managing Director and management of the States' Agricultural Development Programmes or Agricultural Development Authority. © The State Project Coordinators of the donor-supported agricultural-related projects (FadamaII+AF, NPFS, VCDP, RUFIN.) o The Local Government staff: Chairmen of selected LGAs in State, Heads/Directors of Agricultural Department, Councillors for Agriculture. b) Privatesector o Profitandnon-profitNGOs. o PrivateAgricultural Extension Service Providers, including Internet service companies; MTN, GLO, ETISALAT (now 9 Mobile) and ATRTEL. o Agro-dealers. o Farmer-based organizations (FBOSs) including women, youth groups, and associations. . Financial institutions (commercial and micro-finance banks). o Industries and Companies involved in direct production of their raw materials and/or in contract farming (as off-takers) and giving Inputs or creditto the farmers. A check-list was used for the focused group discussions with the various stakeholder groups in the States. The consultations started with official visit to the Commissioners of Agriculture and Natural Resources representing the chief executive of the State and responsible for the State Government's agricultural development policies and strategies. This was essentially to get the State Governments' official position on the various agricultural policy issues under review, and to obtain alternative policy options, if any, from them. This was then followed by visits to the members of the State Houses of Assembly Committee on Agriculture, to seek their views as legislators. The positions and views were thereafter harmonized. Interactive sessions were held, one day each with the public sector, the private sector, the local government chairmen and staff of the local government agriculture department. Each of these sessions started with a power point presentation of the discussion guide (key policy issues) mapped out for focused discussions, and any others as suggested by participants. Presentations were then followed by comprehensive and in depth discussions. Participants at cach of the forum were encouraged and given the opportunity to make written submissions of their opinions and positions, if needed. These were thereafter analysed and synthesized as part of the stakeholders' consultative forum report. 222 TheNational Stakeholders' Consultation The forum had participants from the agricultural research institutes and universities across the country and obtained their contributions to the draft policy. This community of stakeholders has responsibility for technology and innovations development, adaptation and to limited extent dissemination. The issues presented included: The Justification for the National Agricultural Extension Policy; the Structure for Implementation; Roles and Responsibilities of the 3-Tiers of Government, Farmer Associations and Organized Private Sector Operators; National Agricultural Research Institutes, Colleges of Agriculture and the Universities; Financing Mechanism for the Extension System; and National Agricultural Extension Policy Professionalization of Extension Service in Nigeria. The outcome of the consultations served as an inputtothe draft policy document. 23 Validation Workshop The draft report submitted by the consultants contained the outcome of consultations held with the critical key stakeholders in the agricultural sector of Nigeria, and this was submitted to the FDAE. The FDAE reviewed the draft policy document and also subjected it to a national validation workshop, where representatives of states, private sector, NARIs/Universities, farmer organizations and financial institutions were present. The contributions from the validation workshop were incorporated by the consultants into the final draft National Agricultural Extension Policy for Nigeria. Thereafter, the FDAE constituted a team of experts to revise the validated report into a concise draft policy document aswellas its implementation roadmap. 2.4 Legislation of the National Agricultural Extension Policy of Nigeria The desire of all stakeholders is that the relevant potions of National Agricultural Extension Policy of asapproved by the FEC becomes an Act of the National Assembly so that it can have the force of law in the country. The FMAFS / FDAE is expected to and follow through to conclusion the process of producing a bill for National Agricultural Extension Policy. The Honourable Minister of Agriculture and Food Security will convene a Special National Council of Agriculture to present to states the approved NAEP with a view to domesticating it. National Agricultural Extension Policy. Draft executive bill of NAEP will be presented to the national Policy will then be presented as an executive billto the National Assembly for deliberation and enactment into law. Zon> National Agricultural Extension Policy Chapter Three THE POLICY OBJECTIVES 3.1 Vision, Mission and Goal of Agricultural Extension in Nigeria 3.1.1 Vision A dynamic national agricultural extension system that offers effective and efficient service capable of transforming the livelihoods and socio-economic standards of stakeholders. 3.1.2 Mission To provide a pragmatic, effective and efficient demand driven pluralistic, ICT-cnabled and market oriented extension service toall stakeholders including youth, women and people with special needs to optimally use resources to promote sustainable agriculture and socio-economic development of the country. 3.1.3 Policy Goal A legislated and sustainable national agricultural extension system that provides an efficient and effectiveservice delivery tostakeholders for enhanced agricultural productivity and income. 3.2 TheGeneral Objective The overall objective of this policy is to put in place a sustainable, harmonized, pluralistic, demand- driven, ICT-enabled and market oriented national agricultural extension system atall levels that would ensure effective and efficient extension service delivery to all stakeholders along the agricultural value chains, 3.3 TheSpecific Objectives, Policy Statements and Strategies 3.1 Objective 1: Tostrengthen the linkages among rescarch, extension, farmers, and the private sector. Policy Statement: i) Institutionalize Research-Extension-Farmer-Inputs and Market Linkage System (REFIMLS) as a platform to bring all stakeholders together for the development, adaptation, dissemination, adoptionand utilization of useful and relevant technologies by farmers and other actors along the value chain. i) Ensure effective, efficient linkages and networking ‘among stakeholders in the agricultural value chain. Strategies: i) Creatingplatforms foreffective interaction, collaboration and coordination to achieve synergy. ii) Allrelevantinstitutionsin the National Agricultural Rescarch and Extension System (NARES) and other stakeholders (input dealers, financial institutions, off-takers, insurance and agro allied industries) to actively participate in REFIMLS. 332 Objective 2 To cstablish a functional structure for sustainable agricultural extension service deliveryatall levels. National Agricultural Extension Policy Policy Statement: a) Promote a decentralized AES in line with the placement of agriculture on the concurrent list in the Nigerian Constitution to enable States and Local Governments exploit their fullest potentials in agricultural development. b) Strengthen the agricultural extension service structures of the three tiers of government, (Federal, State and Local) and promote effective synergy with all stakeholders including private sector, donors, FBOs and NGOs for a harmonized and effective extension system. Strategies: i) Setup atthe Federal level, a National Agricultural Extension Implementation Steering Committee (NAEISC). i) Set up at the State level, a State Agricultural Extension Implementation Stcering Committee (SAEISC) iii) Setup at the LGA level, a Local Government Agricultural Extension Implementation Committee (LAEISC) iv) Mainstream all bilateral and multilateral development partner-supported extension initiatives and interventions into the national agricultural extension system to avoid duplication and ensure effective collaboration and build synergy atall levels. V) State and Local Governments should engage adequate number of qualified extension workers /service providers to effectively interphase with Farm Families 333 Objective3: Topromotea pluralistic agricultural extension system in Nigeria Policy Statement: Government will provide a framework that will facilitate the participation of public and private sector actors; including NGOs , farmer-based organizations (FBOs), amongst others in the provision of agricultural extension service along the value chain. Strategy: (i) Provide enabling environment at all levels to enable cffective participation of public and private extension service providers. . (ii) Develop and maintain a data base of public and private extension service providers at alllevels. 3.3.4 Objectived: Toensure timely, adequate and sustainable funding for Agricultural Extension Service. Policy Statements: i) Thesources of the fund shall include but not limited to: ) Theproposed National Agricultural Development Fund. b) Contribution from all agricultural development interventions from both public sectorand development partners. ¢) Grants from interested development partners. o 20 National Agricultural Extension Policy d) Annual Subscription by Farmer Organizations and Agro Allied Industries includingall the value chain actors. Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) from Corporate Bodies within the communities. f) Other relevant sources of fund as may be available 335 Objectives: Toadoptand promote inclusive agribusiness approach along the value chain. Policy Statement: Promote participatory, market oriented, demand-driven extension and commodity value chains development approaches and strategies in order to effectively respond to the needs of D farmers and other value chain actors. Strategies i) Adoptand implement participatory approaches for market-oriented extension service. i) Develop, operate and popularise active ¢ - market information service (e-MIS) 33.6 Objective 6: To adopt and promote a gender, youth and people with special needs (PWSN) responsive agricultural extension system, Policy Statement: i) Thepolicy shall adopt and promote measures that will enable ready access to extension services by gender, youth and people with special needs. ii) Implementa minimum of35% women access to AES. Strategy: 4) Promotion of gender friendly tools and approaches, training in gender mainstreaming and gender-responsive budgeting at all levels of the AES hierarchy. b) Promotionanduse of gender disaggregated data. 3.3.7 Objective 7: Establish an efficient monitoring and evaluation system for Agricultural Extension Service. Policy Statement: Establisha monitoring and evaluation unitin the extension departments and develop a relevant and effective AES-focused framework for the regular monitoring and assessment of extension performance atall levels. Strategies: i) Establishan M & Eunit for agricultural extension system in FDAE, ADPs, NARTs, and allotherrelevant organizations including the LGA Departments of Agriculture i) Strengthen M & E units (staffing, equipment, soft wares, etc.) and regularly build capacity of staff of the unit. 3.3.8 Objective 8: To promote human resource development, career progression, and professionalism in agricultural extension. Policy Statements: i) Review the agricultural curricula of all tertiary institutions to produce senior and ‘middle level manpower with the requisite knowledge, skills and experience to meet the presentand future demands of Nigeria's AES. 21 National Agricultural Extension Policy ii) Attract young people into agriculture through promotion and support of young agripreneurs' club and home makers' clubs ” in all primary and secondary schools. iii) Agricultural extension service providers shall be required to possess requisite qualification and training in agricultural extension asa discipline. Strategies: i) Equip agricultural extension service providers both in public and private organisations at the three levels of governance with requisite technical knowledge and skills for sustainable AES. ii) Regularly build professional capacity (in terms of knowledge, attitudes and skills) of extension service providers both in public and privatc organisations. iii) Support improved technical capacity of agricultural students in primary, secondary andtertiary educational institutions through counselling and exposure. iv) Develop a career structure for agricultural extension personnel and provide professional and hazard allowances. 339 Objective 9: To promote and support a robust information, communication and knowledge management (ICKM) system for AES Policy Statements: i) Establishanational information, communication and knowledge management systom. ii) Establish and incorporate into the ICKM system, e-extension systems such as the “furmers' helpline”, farm radio and ofhers to effectively and efficiently complement the national agricultural extension service. Strategies: i) Expand the e-extension framework to incorporate a national information, communication, and knowledge management system. ii) Promote the National Farmers' Helpline, Farm Broadcasts and other services. i) Share information on agricultural and related activities. 3.3.10 Objective 10: To promote quality assurance and control in extension practice. Policy Statements: i) There shall be established a National Institute for Agricultural Extension (NIAE) to certify personnel and ensure quality assurance and control in extension practice. ii) Pending the establishment of NIAE, all AES providers, both public and private shall be required to submit their profile to FDAE at the Federal level, the ADPs at the State level and the Agriculture Departments of the Local Government Councils at LGA level. i) There shall be a framework for quality assurance and control developed by develop by NIAE/FDAE in collaboration with relevant professional bodies and institutions for use to ensure minimum standard of practice. National Agricultural Extension Policy Strategies: i) Bstablishand operatea quality control and assurance framework. i) The National Institute for Agricultural Extension shall provide a code of conduct for extension service providers atall levels of practice. iii) The NIAE shall establish and ensure minimum competencies for extension practice by service providers. 33.11 Objective 11: To address cross-cutting and emerging issues that are relevant to extension and agricultural development. Policy Statement: Integrate critical cross-cutting issues that affect the people and their environment into the National Agricultural Extension System and mobilize the people for effective participation. Such issues include but not limited to: ) Climatechangeadaptation and mitigation. b) Environmental management. ¢) Healthand nutrition sensitive agriculture. d) Management of natural disasters. €) Good governance and Peace Building Strategies: i) Identification and dissemination of good practices on priority cross-cutting and emerging issues such as climate change adaptation and mitigation, environmental management, health and nutrition sensitive agriculture, natural disasters, good governance and peace building, among others. ii) Government agencies, farmers and other value chain actors shall be trained in the management, methodologies and utilization of the various innovations and technologies related to the cross-cutting issues. 23 National Agricultural Extension Policy Chapter Four INSTITUTIONALFRAMEWORK 4.1 Institutional Arrangement [FMARD) IBoT AETF Oversight F implomiptation E g NAEISC |- Gonor/ev. Parners § 9] [Cmse }of FBOS, NGOs, ; €BOs, Private communITY Legend NAEISC: Nat. Agric Ext. Steering Committee. SAEISC: State Agric Ext Imp Steering Committee LAEISG: Local Agric Ext Imp Steering Committee —* Hierarchical function ----» Supervisory function > Oversight function ~—+ Collaberatory relationship Fig 2: Institutional Arrangements for Agricultural Extension Service Delivery in Nigeria National Agricultural Extension Policy 42 Rolesand Respol The roles and responsibilities of the various institutions with implications for AES in Nigeria are presented inTabled.1. Tabled.I: Institutional Framework— Roles and Responsibilitics. ities VT And any other duties that WAl Bromots the VIson, missien wnd objective of the Fund. [FoAEmEARD T Foiiey savesasy i Provide the leadorship, supsrvision, quality mssurance, coordination and support the National Agsicultaral Extension Inatitute to repulate agricultural extension practices for the overall effective and sfficient delivery of AES in Nigeria. . Pending the extablishment of NIAE, FDAE Documentation of Extension Service Frovider: collaboration v, Promote AES Global Good Practices (GGP) V. Eatablish M & B unit and develop the framewor for its Vi, Hatablish the National AES Implementation Steoring Committes (NABISC). Vi, Provide technical backatopping to the ADPs Vil Plan and conduct the Annual AES Review and Planming Meoting involving all stakeholders in collaboration with NAERLS and ARCN. ix. Pending the catablishment of NIAE, Develop and implement the. Quality assurance and control framewaork at the national level and provide support to States, Local Government and private operators in collaboration with relevant professional bodie X, Got invelved in the process of projest conceptuslization. Planning, implementation, monitoring and cvaluation of all 4 funded agricultural extension interventions. Y 25 L National Agricultural Extension Policy NI integrate priority oro Research Council of Nigerin (ARCN) / National Ageicultural Resenreh Insticutes AR National Agric. | D Hesponsible for efiective coordination and Superv oF Txtension agricultural extension service delivery in Nigeria. Implementation 5 i) Policy Advocacs Steoring Committee | 5 - % NABISC). i) Prepare and submit the annual national extension workplan and budget (o AETF Management for BoT approval iv) Review. collate and recommend for approval. the annual extension workplans and budgets submitted by the SAEISCs. Agricuttural T Ensurs the effetive participation of all Zonal and CoMMOAIy research institutes in REFIMLS i Ensure that all zonal and commeodity research institutes and colleges of agriculture und related institutes cstablish and effectively maintain adopted villages and schools for AES. 1#6) Ensure synergy of NARIs for offective rescarch and extension activities in line with National Agricultural Extension Policy for effective extension service delivery. Zonnl Coorainating Resenrch Tnstitutes (ZCRTs) T Responsible for the zonal farming systems ressarch and i Policy advocacy. i) Effectively participate in and oversee the conduct of REFIMLS in the zones. iv) Conduct periodic diagnostic and thematic surveys in collaboration with the ADPa. ¥) Conduct annual zonal REFIMLS workshop. T Members Incl key stakeholders In AES Vi) condust OST and OFR and oversce the conduct of OFAR by the ADPs in the zone. vii) Coordinate and conduct Technology Review Mestings to support field extension activities for ADPs and other relevant stakeholders in the zone. vili) Establish and maintain adopted villages and schools for AES promotion ix) Capacity building for FBOs, CBO, CBAS/CEFs, NGOs and Private Service Providers (PSPs). %) Effectively manage the zonal hub of the National c-cxtension / Farmers Helpline. x1) Regular update of Village Listing Surveys. Institutes (CRIs) Commodity Research T Bfective participation in REFIMLS in the Zone i) Conduct OSR and OFR to fecd field problems. to OFAR to address identified iif) Provide resource persons for MTRMs, and Training of FBOs, NGOs, und PSP ns demanded iv) Establish and maintain adopted villages and schools for AES promotion V) Provide short specialized courses for PSPs, FBOs, CBOS, CBFs/CBAS and other value chain actors as demanded. 26 FArs ‘National Agricultural Extension Policy National institutions BT, Universities / Faculdes / Colleges of Agricutture. D Collsborate with the FMARD 6 review The curiculs of Universities, Colloges of Agriculture to produce senfor and middic lovels extension personnel and agri-prencurs fo meot current and future ABS noeds in Nigeria i Provide short speclalized courscs for PSP, FBOs, CBO: CBFs/CBAs and other valus chain actors.. D Colluborate with FDAT and relevant partners to institutionalise Professional training in Agricultural Extension. Agricuttural Resenveh Extension and Training Insticutions (Comprise all institutions involved in tenching and taining in agricultural extension in Nigerin). D Al extension roles assigned to agricultural research institutions, apricultural extension institutions and agricultural training inatitutions shall be in line with the provision of the National Agricultural Extension Policy. Sccondary and Frimary Senoor D Establish and ran Youth Aripreneurs Clubs, i) Establish and run school farme, iii) Organize study tours to Research Institutes, Universities Commercial Farms, Agro-based industrics, Field Days and Agricultural Exhibitions. iv) Organise exchange programmes State Government D Domesticate the National AES Policy and T Tmplementation i Functionalize and adequately fund the ADPs to cnable them effectively perform their statutory roles. T Mainiain sdequate number o quaTiied Fxiension Agonts 1o Bave the minimum recommended number of EA: FF Ratio (1: 20003, V) Contribute 3% of the States annual agricultural budget t@ the AL V) Get involved in the process of project concepratization, planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of all donor/development partner’s funded agricultural extonsion interventions State Agricuttaral | D Supper 5 Snts of Agriculture of Tosal Govermment Development Councils to carry out grassroots extension services delivery using Frogeamme (ADE) demand-driven participatory extension methodologics uwnder a decentralized, harmonised, and pluralistic extension syatom. i) Engage and provide implementation facilitation support to the Local Governments® Agric Departments. i) Active purticipation in REFIMLS, host THRMs and conduct OFAR and FNTa i¥) Establish o State ICKM Unit ta include an M & E Unit and develop appropriate frameworks for effective implementation. V) Develop an M & B Framework for sffestive participatory monitoring and evaluation of AES in the State Vi) Upgrade the WIA Unit of the ADP into & Gender Unit with emphusis on Youth, Women and People With Special Necds, ViD Maintain & dirctory of Private Extension Service Providers (PESP) in the State and provide capacity building for them, Vi) Develop and implement quality sssurence and control rameworic at point of entry. 27 National Agricultural Extension Policy T Mamain @ direciony of FBOR and NGOs and provide capaeity building s part of normal AES work-plan %) Develop and ensure career progression for extension personnel, especially Extension Agent State AES Tmplementation Steering Committes (SAEISC) T To coordinate and supervise mpriculfural extension serviees detivery at the State level. i Carry out advocacy and mobilise resources for the AETF Collate, review and recommend for approval the State Asricultural Extension Annual Work plan snd Budget of all beneficiaries. iv) Carry out any other responsibility as may be as —. Toent Government Agric. Departmone 7 Loeal Government Apricultural Extension Implementation Commitice (LAEISC) Eiectively cary out grassroots AES delivery in collaboration Wwith the state ADP and PESPs in the Local Government Aren. i) Bstwblish a Gender Unit with emphasis on Youth, Women and People with Special Need: iii) Contribute 2% of their ansual agricultural budget to the AES Trust Fund, iv) Maintain o directory of PESPs netive in the Local Government Frivate Extension Service Providers (PESF) T Cany out grassroots extension delivery using demand-driven, participatory extension methodologics under a harmonised extenaion system i Conduet policy advoency iii) Profit making PESPs shall contribute 2% of their annual profit 10 the Agricultural Extension Trust Fund (AETF) i¥) Promote gender, youth and other cros value chain approach in ABS cutting issues using the V) Document with FDAWADP/LG Agdeuliore Deparimant a5 appropriate. v Submit 0 quality essurance and control by appropriate VD Pasticipate in REFIMLS amongst other activitics. T Provide fmaneial services support io farmers and Sther valus ) Provide Insurance cover for sricultural credit to extension practitioners and activities 1D Contribute 254 of tieir annual loan aceruals on agriculture o the AES Trust Fund. IV Provide other services as may be necessary for the success of Taputs Dealora/Agre- | D Support Natonal AES delivery i TFacilitate access to quality inputs on demand i#6 Comply with quality assurance and control iv) Contribute 0 296 of tisir annual profit to AES Trust Fund NGow T Carey out prassroots Sxtension dsivery weinE dsmands driven, participatory extension methodologies under & harmonised extension system i Register with appropriste gevernment authorit i1 Comply with quaticy a based Organtzacions armos T Conaust Policy savesaey i Carry out Farmer-to-farmer AES 28 National Agricultural Extension Policy i) Provide support services such as input supply, mechanization and marketing. iv) Participate in REFIMLS: diagnostic and thematic surveys, farmer-managed OFAR, MTPs and technology utilization v) Community certified seed production vi) Document/profile and collaborate with appropriate government agencies. Professional Associations in Agricultural Extension i) Participatc in policy formulation if) Conduct policy advocacy iii) Conduct sensitization iv) Undertake extension campaigns v) Conduct professional trainings as appropriate. vi) Conduct surveys and carry out research as appropriate. vii) Collaborate with FDAE in providing supervision, quality assurance, coordination and support the National Agricultural Extension Institute to regulate agricultural extension practices for the overall effective and efficient delivery of AES in Nigeria. viii) Paricipate in the implementation of cxtension programmes and activities ix) Organise conferences and workshops as appropriate. Media i) Conduct sensitization and awarencss campaign on the AETF and extension activities. i) Press coverage 29 National Agricultural Extension Policy Chapter Five MONITORING, EVALUATION AND LEARNING SYSTEM 51 Background Amonitoring and evaluation (M & E) Unit shall be established for effective monitoring and evaluation of extension at all levels. An appropriate framework shall be putin place in the country to enable the M & E Unit to provide a mechanism or system of ensuring accountability and learning outcomes for an efficientand sustainable extension system, The implementation of agricultural extension monitoring and evaluation framework shall focus primarily on programme implementation, coordination, monitoring and evaluation, quality control and assurance, accountability to policy objectives, cost of implementation, and stakeholders needs, training and manpower development at Federal, State and Local Government levels. For effective coordination of monitoring, evaluation, accountability and learning, the Agricultural Extension Implementation Steering Committees setup at the different levels of government shall be involved. Agricultural Extension Monitoring and Evaluation Units at all levels must develop and use participatory Extension Approach. The overall objective of participatory approach to extension is to mobilize and empower the rural population by involving them in every step of planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation, accountability and sharing of knowledge emanating from the exercise. The M&E framework shall contain the agreed outcomes to monitor and evaluate, select result based indicators to monitor outcomes, setting baselines and gathering data as well as selecting results targets, monitoring for results, using evaluation to support results based management. It also includes, effective reporting, using the findings, and sustaining a result-based M&E system within an organisation. All M&E units shall employ qualified officers and develop their capacity to collect, analyse, interpret, store, retrieve and disseminate relevant data. The Unit shall develop and install a framework for collecting disaggregated data that is responsive to gender, youth, and people with special needs. The FDAE and the ADPs shall provide the needed logistics and tools to ensure that this Unit is functional. Both FDAE and ADPs will provide vital and relevant Agricultural Extension field data to be fed into the Information, Communication, and Knowledge Management (ICKM) system as may be necessary. 5.1.1 Monitoring In this policy, monitoring would be done through routine collection, collation, analyses, interpretation and dissemination of necessary information / data, using standardized tools with the established framework. 512 Evaluation This is an exercise to systematically and objectively assess progress towards documenting outputs, that would lead to the achievement of outcomes, impact and overall goal of the national agricultural extension system 30 N Ze National Agricultural Extension Policy 513 514 515 5.1.6 Tnputs ‘The needed goods and services mustbe provided at the right quantity, quality and time to ensure expected output. Outputs The needed inputs and services transform into quantitative and qualitative outputs through effective policy implementation. Continuous tracking of these outputs with the needed quality control is required to document the performance of the agricultural extension service delivery. Outcome A robust M&E system to capture all the desired changes in the agricultural extension system that will lead to a virile, effective, efficient and sustainable service delivery. Knowledge Management and Sharing Source, establish, maintain and regularly update a robust management information systemas a ‘means of disseminating and sharing of results for visibility and accountability. 5.1.7 Impact Agricultural productivity, knowledge and skills, employment generation, income, environmental sustainability and livelihood of farmers and other value chain actors are measured and documented. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY FOR NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION POLICY OFNIGERIA The Federal Department of Agricultural Extension (FDAE) shall coordinate and supervise the implementation of the national agricultural extension policy. The implementation strategy should be reviewed every two years to incorporate any emerging issues. 31 National Agricultural Extension Policy OBJECTIVES | CORE ACTIVITIES | RESPONSIBLE | TIMEFRAM ICORE ISSUES AGENCIES/PERS [E (OVER 5§ ISSUES ONS YEARS PERIOD To have an | Present lo the | Approval of the | FMAFS ‘Approved Agricultural | federal draft national draft 1 week Sept Extension executive NAEP by HMA 2020 policy for | council a [ Finalize the | FMAFS & FDAE | Done Nigeria stakeholder | approved FEC 2" week Sept. approved Agricultural 2020 national Extension policy agricultural | for publications extension and distribution. policy for | Convenc special | FMAFS & FDAE | Nov. 2023 approval NCA meeting to present the approved NAEP to stakeholders Convene private | FDAE/FMAFS Dec. 2023 sector Agricultural Extension National Agricultural Extension Policy stakeholders forum including international agencies, for sensitization and integration into their business model. StateAgricultural | FDAE Jan, 2024 Extension Steering Committee Convene state | FDAE/SDAE Jan, 2024 Agricultural Extension : implementation Steering Committee Review and | FDAE/State MANR | Jan. 2024 approved state Agricultural Annual Work and Budget Convene statc level | FDAE Feb. 2024 Agricultural Extension stakeholders forum for sensitization and integration into their Extension delivery system The establishment | NASS/FMAFS Feb. 2024 of a regulatory | (FDAES) ‘mechanism to 2 33 National Agricultural Extension Policy ensure quality control and professional expertise through Certification of Agricultural Extension (service provider and consultants) Engagement of | FMAFS and FDAE | March 2024 legal consultants for drafting of certain key elements of the NAEP into a draft bill Present the | Engage and |[FMAFS & FDAE, | April 2024 FEC approved policy as a bill to the national assembly for approval sensitize members of the national assembly House and Senate Committee ~ on Agriculture NARES, professional associations, agricultural related civil societies, NGOs 34 National Agricultural Extension Policy 36 National Agricultural Extension Policy 37 National Agricultural Extension Policy