THE ROLE OF INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION

TECHNOLOGIES (ICTs) IN THE DISSEMINATION OF AGRICULTURAL

INFORMATION BY EXTENSION PERSONNEL

AEX 725

LECTURER; DR R.S OLALEYE

SUBMITTED BY

NOIMOT A BAKARE

PhD/SAAT/2013/511

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMIC AND EXTENSION

TECHNOLOGY, FEDERAL UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY MINNA

1
 1. INTRODUCTION

Rural development in the world generally and in the third world in particular has assumed

the front-burner status since early eighties because governments have realized that except

given the seriousness it deserves and closing the gap between theory and practice in this

area, the goals of achieving accelerated national development especially at the rural level

which is the grassroots base, will remain elusive at least in the third world. One major

reason for this assertion is that taking Nigeria as an example, the bulk of the population

lives in the rural areas, which is the grassroots where development is most desirous.

(Nwanko and Ocheni, 2012)

The early years of Nigerias independence witnessed colossal concentration of

development efforts on the modern sector of the economy to the exclusion of investment

in the rural economic base. Therefore, the problem has been how to make rural

development sustainable. Towards this end, a number of development approaches have

been pursued by the various governments in Nigeria. These consist mainly in the

establishment of projects, programmes, and capacity-building institutions. One

shortcoming of these efforts is the limited local community participation in problem

identification, project prioritization, design, preparation and implementation. Suffice it to

state that most of these development approaches are elitist and urban-biased, such that the

rural areas are often given lip attention in virtually all ramifications of modernization

2
process. According to Williams 1994 The rural sector is still largely characterized by

absence of basic human needs and underdevelopment in agricultural and non-agricultural

activities . In line with the fore-going, Diejomaoh in Ayichi (1995) asserted that rural

development is a process of not only increasing the level of per capita income in the rural

areas but also the standard of living of the rural population measured by food and

nutrition level, health, education, housing, recreation and security.

2. CONCEPT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT

The word rural means different thing to different people. The American Bureau of

Census classifies a group of people living in a community having a population of not

more than 2,500 people as rural, whereas in Nigeria, the Federal Office of Statistics

defines a community with less than 20,000 people rural. Generally speaking, according to

Afolayan (1995), rural areas are easily identified by other various criteria, apart from

population. Such criteria include:

a) Level of infrastructural development i.e. road networks, educational institutions, water

supply, electricity, health facilities, communication, etc. The rural area lacks most if not

all of these infrastructures and where they are available the quality as well as quantity is

usually below desirable standard; b) Occupational differentiation: Most rural dwellers

earn their living by engaging in subsistent agriculture production; c) Housing: Housing in

rural areas are generally below

3
the standard an average person will be proud of; d) Extent of community planning:

Community development activities in the rural areas are often carried out with little or no

planning at all, such that future development activities cannot be undertaken without

interfering with the existing structures; e) Arising from the combination of the above

factors is a characteristic abject poverty when related to the economic buoyancy of urban

centers. Rural development has therefore been described indifferent ways by different

authors, depending on the discipline or line of thought of the person concerned. This is

because the subject of rural development is multidisciplinary and the definition of such

author will depend on the area where he/she focuses attention. But all definitions have a

central theme, which is improvement of living conditions of the rural people. What the

different definitions do is to lay emphasis on the process of getting the central objective

of rural development achieved.

Rural development is a strategy designed to improve the economic and social life of a

specific group of people, the rural poor. It involves extending the benefits of development

to the poorest among those who seek livelihood in the rural areas. The group includes

smallscale farmers, tenants and the landless (Aliy, 1999).

Chinsman (1997) says that the rural people are visibly ravaged by an excruciating

poverty, ignorance and disease. In addition rural areas of Nigeria are virtually associated

with depression, degradation, poverty and deprivation. In most rural areas in Nigeria, like

in other rural setting in developing economies, basic infrastructure, where they exist at

all, are too inadequate for any meaningful development. They often depend on shallow

4
wells with untreated water for their water need. The villagers, most of whom are farmers,

work on the land from sunrise to sunset only to produce food for the uncontrollable

teaming city population. The rural poverty is such that inhabitants, groups, communities

and societies at any given point in time experience a level of income below that which is

needed to provide a desirable minimum living standard. Adalemo (1987) sees the

certainty of poor quality of life in the rural areas as the main phobia that has often pushed

migrants to the perceived opportunities in the urban centres.

Though the urban areas are conceived as centers of excellence as far as development,

innovations and diffusions are concerned. But on the contrary, urban cities in developing

countries are currently facing various socio-economic and environmental problems such

as the evolution of blighted areas, high concentration of unemployed citizens

necessitating the high incidence of poverty (Asolo, 2000). Hinzen (2000) maintains that

the rural dwellers have lower health status than urban poor, but share less access to

capital and education. The urban poor as well are also confronted with the problems of

inadequate water supply, poor sanitation and squalid housing. Hinzen itemized indicators

of urban poor situation as visible evidence of growing number of working and homeless

children, increased number of young people unable to find formal or semi-formal sector

employment, and increased room occupancy rates. In other words, thorough assessments

of the urban and rural setting of average developing countries show no apparent

difference in standard of living.

3. APPROACHES TO RURAL DEVELOPMENT

5
The overall aim of rural development efforts is geared towards the improvement of the

lives of the rural population. However, several approaches aimed at arresting the ugly

under-development situation in rural areas have been put forward. According to Ijere

(1990), they include the following:

1. Growth Pole Centre Model: This model is also known as "Growth Point Model". The

model involves the development of a few strategic towns, communities and industries

likely to activate other sectors. The model focuses attention on the development of few

towns leading to the neglect of the rural areas.

2. The "Big Push" Policy: This approach is similar to the growth pole centre model

except that it is more concentrated. It takes a few sub-sectors and expends most of the

resources on them in the hope that in the long run, their multiplier effect will salvage the

whole economy. The flaw in this model is that "in the long run" is not a specific period.

3. The Selective Approach: This model/approach involves the selection of certain

sectors for development based on economic, political, social or religious grounds, which

may not necessarily be related or inter-connected.

4.The Protectionist Approach: In this approach, the government carries out the

development process on behalf of the people believing that it knows everything and that

the people are not yet ripe to participate, in the management of their own affairs.

6
5. The Top-down Approach: It is also called the Top-bottom approach. It is a strategy

based on passing down to the poor certain policies and directives from the governing

bureaucracy. This type of rural development approach requires force to maintain and

sustain it.

6. The Decentralized Territorial Approach: This approach centres on the dispersal of

benefits to the rural area. It has minimum linkage with the city but with settlements of

various sizes to act as service and market centres. The defect in this approach is the undue

fear of towns being exploitative and parasitic, and the consideration that size alone could

determine the performance of a settlement.

7. The "Laissez-faire" Policy: In this model, the authorities use the role of thumb, past

experience, hind-sight and the free market mechanism to manage the economy, with the

hope that the invisible hand of God would ensure optimum happiness for everybody.

8. The Key Settlement Strategy: This model is closely related to growth pole centre

model except that its focus is on settlement. It assumes a focal point for a given rural

area, and the concentration of all rural development resources in such a settlement. This

in turn will serve other regions through its network of roads and communication. This

model requires a long time to mature, and therefore it is more expensive.

9. The Adaptive Approach: It is a combination of selective approach and Laissez-faire

policy and any other approach. It gives the people the opportunity to decide on their own

lives, sometimes, under the guidance of the government.

7
10. The "Bottom-Up" Approach: It is also called Bottom-top approach or Rurism

strategy. This approach implies that development starts with the people. It is a new

political development strategy. Rurism is a coherent national and social-value system in

which human and material resources are mobilized and allocated from the lower echelon

of the economic and social strata to the top. It is free from any foreign ideology and

infection. It promotes self-reliance, self-consciousness into balanced development of

human and material resources. It is the ideal approach. However, it is costly and rather

slow.

4. OVERVIEW OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT EFFORT IN NIGERIA SINCE

INDEPENDENCE TO DATE.

Since political independence in 1960, various Nigeria governments have adopted various

strategies and methods at developing the rural areas of the country. However, Ikotun

(2002) noted that in spite of colossal amount of money that have gone into implementing

rural development programmes and the proliferation of rural development agencies one

after the other, not much impact has been made. He went further to state that inspite of

pious official pronouncements, and declaration of intentions as contained in the

development plans, at the end of each plan period rural life remained unchanged. Each

plan came with new promises and raised hopes that were never fulfilled. The First

National Development Plan,1962-1968 for example had as its priority, agriculture

8
(considered as synonymous with rural development) but capital budget and expenditure

on agriculture during the plan period was only 42 percent. The Second Development

Plan, 1970-1974 had as its main thrust, the attainment of a just and egalitarian society and

claimed to place high premium on reduction of inequality among social groups and

between urban and rural areas. These noble objectives not withstanding, this aspect of the

plan was partially executed. It is significant to note also that it was only during the Third

National Development Plan, 1975-1980 that attempts were made to engage in what has

been referred to as integrated rural development. This refers to the Agricultural

Development Programmes (ADPS) that were sponsored by the World Bank. It is to be

noted that in spite of the active involvement of the World Bank in the ADPs, for which

the country has taken loans worth billions of Naira, the country has continued to be

deficient in food production and the standard of living of the people, especially in the

rural areas still very low.

Thus, as far back as early 1970s, rural development has been identified as a strategy for

improving the economic and social life of the rural poor in Nigeria since then, successive

governments at various levels have embarked on several programmes aimed at rural

development. Some of the development programmes established under development

agencies since independence to date, apart from the National Development Plan stated

above, can be broadly listed as :

9
 (A) The River Basin Development Authorities (RBDAs)

The River Basin Development Authorities came into being between early and mid 1970s

as a result of the Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) of the United Nations

recommendation. The number was increased to eleven in 1978 and to eighteen in 1984,

but later reduced again to eleven in 1986. The authorities were created to develop the

water resources potential of the country for agricultural and domestic purpose. Their

attention was focused mainly on agricultural production including crop, fisheries and

livestock even when the name was changed in 1984 to reflect their potential role as rural

development agency. However, the name was reverted in 1986 to its original one and the

agricultural component removed, limiting the authorities to a narrow mandate of water

resources development. While some believe the authority has some impact, the general

consensus is that the output from the authorities does not justify the huge amount of

funds channelled into them particularly during the Second Republic

(B)The National Accelerated Food Product Programme (NAFPP)

This programme was launched by the federal government in 1972. It was the first major

attempt to improve though indirectly the lots of the rural farmers through the promotion

of agricultural development. It was a joint programme between the federal, state

governments and the farmers. The programme was centered on the development of

improved crop varieties by research institutes and their trial on farm field in small plots.

NAFPP was beset with innumerable constrains which did not allow it to achieve its

10
objectives. These problems according to Offorah (1988) were inadequate finance, poorly

motivated and non-committed extension staff, Lack of feedback from the farmers and

inability to replicate the minikit trials. There was inadequate supervision and monitoring

of the trial plots while the activities of (NAFPP) were not properly coordinated with the

result that expected linkage between thefarmers, the extension officer and the research

was not experienced.

(C) THE AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS (ADPS)

The origin of the ADPs dates back to 1972 when the Federal Government of Nigeria in

conjunction with the World Bank and the State Governments of the North-Central, North

West embarked on investigations aimed at identifying suitable areas for pilot agricultural

development projects. These were to serve as experimental before committing huge

amount of money on full scale projectss. These investigations led to the establishment of

three enclave ADPs in Funta, Gombe and Gussau between 1976 with joint funding by the

Federal Government of Nigeria , the World Bank and the respective state governments.

The objectives of the ADPs were listed as

to increase production, and

to raise rural income and hence the standard of living of rural dwellers.

The success achieved in these pilot projects and others that followed led to the

establishment of the eventual thirty-one statewide ADPs in the country. The programme

11
is assessed to be a major contributor to the significant growth recorded in the agricultural

sector in the late 1980sto early 1990s (CBN, 1993). However, there is fear that the

programme may not be able to survive long after the World Bank would have withdrawn

their funds.

(D) OPERATION FEED THE NATION (OFN)

By 1976, Nigeria was faced with a deteriorating food situation as a result of greater

emphasis on petroleum and the drift of potential farmers to the cities. In order to step up

food production, the then dynamic young military government of late General Muritala

Mohammed introduced Operation Feed the Nation (OFN) which was vigorously pursued

by General Obasanjo after the tragic death of General Mohammed, in February 1976 in a

coupdetat. Though this programme was aimed at boosting food production, it was also

intended to improve the living standard of the masses especially the rural farmers. The

programme stimulated interest in agriculture among the Nigerian society. The programme

however failed to achieve the policy objective because it was poorly executed.

(E). THE GREEN REVOLUTION

In 1980, operation feed the Nation was replaced by green Revolution by the civilian

government of Shehu Shagari, as its achievements did not justify the huge sum of money

invested in the programme. The programme was designed to improve the lots of rural

farmers. The green revolution like its predecessors failed because it lacked relevant

strategies and thus its activities were eroded by partisan politics with the result that

12
Nigeria according to Offora (1988:) ended up becoming the worlds greatest importer of

food.

(F) THE DIRECTORATE OF FOOD, ROADS, AND RURAL

INFRASTRUCTURES (DFFRI)
Infrastructures (DFRRI) The Directorate Of Food, Road, And Rural Infrastructure was

established by the Babangida government on the 7th February, 1986 by Decree No. 4 of

1987, consequent upon the realization that agricultural development that was not

accompanied by the provision of necessary social, economic and institutional

infrastructure will not lead to the desired rural development. The directorate was to help

the rural communities to identify and evolve viable local level projects by using local

community organizations and institutions. DFRRI was also to provide the rural

communities the necessary technical and financial support for the projects through the

project development stages. Greater community participation is the bane of the DFRRI as

a concept. The Directorate during the active period of its existence (1985-1993) made its

presence felt but its failure to evolve an effective community participation strategy has

created sustainability problems for its various projects

(G) National Directorate for Employment (NDE)

Perhaps, the first direct government programme designed to tackle the problems of

poverty alleviation and mass unemployment in Nigeria was the National Directorate for

Employment (NDE) inaugurated in November 1986. As Afolabi (1999) puts it, the

National Directorate for Employment (NDE) was specifically designed to deal with the

13
problem of mass unemployment among school leavers and graduates in Nigeria. In order

to realize the above objective of the (NDE), the Federal Government designed the

following strategies: training of the unemployed for the acquisition of skills in different

fields to enable them become self employed or employable; rural employment promotion

programme; Small-scale enterprises promotion; formation of co-operative groups; loan to

the unemployed in form of credit facilities; ad hoc employment. In spite of these lofty

objective and strategies, the NDE has continued to perform below expectation.

(H) The Better Life Programme for Rural Women (BLPRW)

Better Life Programme for Rural Women (BLPRW) was initiated by Late Mrs. Maryam

Babangida in September, 1987 to improve the lot of the rural women. The Blue print of

the programme as indicated by Azikiwe (1992), has its major objectives as to stimulate

and motivate rural women towards achieving better living standards, and sensitize the

rest of Nigerians to their problems; to educate rural women on simple hygiene, family

planning, the importance of child care, and increased literacy rates; to mobilize women

collectively in order to improve their general lot and for them to seek and achieve

leadership roles in all spheres of society; to raise their consciousness about their rights,

the availability of opportunities and facilities, their social, political and economic

responsibilities; to encourage recreation and enrich family life and inculcate the spirit of

14
self-development, particularly in the fields of education, business, arts, crafts and

agriculture into rural women.

The general goals of the BLPRW from the forgoing as Azikiwe (1992) observes is to

educate women especially those residing in the rural areas in order to improve their

socio-economic status and consequently enhance their participation and contribution to

national development process. Although the (BLPRW) was widely heralded and

acclaimed in government circles, but it was quickly observed that soon after its

establishment, the programme became elitist and was therefore hijacked by Urban

women. In this respect, Okeke (1999) notes that the onset of (BLPRW) normalized the

office of the First Lady as the official director of the federal, state and local government

levels rural development programme and this contributed meaningfully to failure of the

programme in realizing its objectives. By 1997 Maryam Abacha assumed the office of the

First Lady and renamed the (BLPRW), the Family Support Programme (FSP). Mrs.

Abacha introduced a number of cosmetic changes that could not economically support

the families ofthe rural masses.

The Poverty Alleviation Programme (Pap)

The Poverty Alleviation Programme (PAP) was launched by President Olusegun

Obasanjo in January 2000. PAP was a Stop-gap designed to tackle the problem of

unemployment especially among youths in Nigeria. The specific objective of the

programme was to set in motion effective economic empowerment for citizens in urban,

15
sub-urban and rural communities. The programme was to last between January and

September 2000. Participants who were mostlyunemployed graduates were to collect a

monthly stipend of N3,500. The programme was hijacked by politicians and beneficiaries

were predominantly based on loyalty to the ruling party, People Democratic Party

(PDP), Funds meant for the programme were grossly mismanaged as stipends to

participants were embezzled in some states while some states that paid were not regular

in paying it.

(I) THE NATIONAL POVERTY ERADIATION PROGRAMME (NAPEP)

The National Poverty Eradication Programme (NAPEP) was launched by President

OlusegunObasanjo in January 2001. Unlike the Poverty Alleviation Programme (PAP),

which was a stopgap, the National Poverty Eradication Programme (NAPEP) is a

permanent programme designed to eradicate poverty in Nigeria through a number of

strategies. The major strategy of the National Poverty Eradication Programme (NAPEP)

is the Youth Employment Scheme (YES). This also has other sub-strategies, which

includes the Capacity Acquisition Programme (CAP) and the Mandatory Attachment

Programme (MAP). All these strategies are essentially designed to help

the teeming population of unemployed youths in Nigeria to acquire some useful skills,

which could help them to become self-reliant. There is indication that the billions of

naira earmarked for the programme in the various appropriation bills are been embezzled

16
by the officials of the commission as it has been the case in the past. Since it has been

observed that the (NAPEP)forms never got to the intended beneficiaries.

5. PROBLEM LEADING TO FAILURE OF PAST POVERTY ALLEVIATION

AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMMES.

The analysis of some of the programmes of government since independence in its rural

development efforts to date as depicted above highlights their effects, which would

explain why over 70 percent of the Nigerian populations still live below the poverty

threshold. A survey by Okafor (2003), of 450 Nigerians randomly selected to represent all

the strata of the society; revealed that the failure of the old poverty reduction and rural

development programmes is mainly attributed to:

Their weak political base and their personalization;

The proliferation of projects with little, if any effort to harmonize and/or coordinate

their activities.

The lack of sustainability arising from themabandonment of programmes as soon as the

Head of State, often its initiator, leaves office;

A top-down approach to project formulation, rarely the bottom-up approach

Little or no involvement of the Non-Governmental Organizations or other parties

concerned in the development projects;

17
 The inadequate funding of the project. Besides, the performance of the rural

development agencies and programmes launched either by the agencies or government

are almost always second-rate. The reasons suggested for this by Okafor (op cit) include:

The politicization of the programme by men in power;

The poor ownership of the programme by overmhalf the population (70%) which

surely affects its attitude and involvement;

The allegations that a large share of the fund, committed by the government has been

misappropriated and fraudulently end up in private pockets, etc.

Lastly, the efficient tools of poverty eradication and rural development would be shared

governance and a scenario in which all the parties involved (government, private sector,

civil society and community development organizations) would take part in the decision-

making process, as well as in the execution of the development programmes.

CONCLUSION

The paper has presented an adroit evaluation of policy or programme formulation,

initiation and implementation in Nigeria and have discovered that over the years, policies

and programmes have been formulated and initiated for rural/urban economic

development, which have gulped billions if not trillions of tax payers money without any

meaningful progress and will continue to be drain pipe for draining our common fund

18
into the private purse of politicians and other functionaries of government if urgent steps

are not taking to check the menace.

RECOMMENDATION.

1. Adequate supervision and monitoring of all persons and agencies involve in policy

implementation by the principal officers both at the local, state and federal level.
2. There should be well-established and clear communication channels cutting across

all departments, units and sub-units that have something to do with the policy to

facilitate information dissemination.

3. There is also need for the enlightenment of the rural/urban communities that the

policies are to serve their interest on the need to be abreast with the policies of the

various levels of government with respect to their economic development.

REFERENCES

19
Afolabi J.A. (1999); Impact of Government Policies on food security in Nigeria, in
Fabiyi Y.L. and Idowu E .O. (eds) Poverty Alleviation and Food Security in
Nigeria, (1999).

Afolayan, S. O. (1995). Community Mobilization for Rural Development in Bangladesh

Lessons for Nigeria. Ilorin: Agricultural and Rural Management Training
Institute, ARMTI.

Aliy, A. (1999). Short and Medium Poverty Reduction Strategies in Nigeria. Abuja:
Family Economic Advancementm Programme.

Asolo. A. A. (2000); Development Issues in Nigeria: The challenge of NGO in the New
Millennium Africa Journal of Social Policy Studies Vol 1, No 2.

Azikiwe, U. (1992); Women Education and Empowerment, Nsukka: Fulladu Publishing

Company,(1992)

Chinsman, B. (1998), A Matter of People, Lagos: UNDP

Hinzen, H. (2000); Education for All: The Dakar Framework for Action-Meeting our
Collective Commitments: Adult Education and Development 55, Institute of
International Cooperation, German Adult Edtjcation Association.

Ikotun, A. (2002). Strategies for Promoting Integrated Rural Development in Nigeria:

Theory and Practice. Badagry: Matram.

Offorah, C, C. (1988); Linking Farmers to Agricultural Research; Anambra

Agricultural Development Project t (ASADEP) News Letter, Vol. 1 Nol
January-June (1998)

Okeke, P.E. (1999); First Lady Syndrome: The (EN) Gendering of Bureaucratic
Corruption in Nigeria, News Letter of the Social Science ACCADEMIC of
Nigeria Vol. No. 2 September.

Okafor, A.O. (2003). Roles, Strategies and Instrument for Government and P
Bodies. Paper presented at the Second Regional International Conference of the
International Institute of Administrative Sciences, Yaounde, Cameroon.

Stephen Ocheni; Basil C. Nwankwo,(2012). Analysis and Critical Review of Ru

Development Efforts in Nigeria, 1960-2010. Studies in Sociology of Science
Vol. 3,No. 3, pp. 48-56

20
21