International Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension

Vol. 5(3), pp. 265-270, October, 2019. © www.premierpublishers.org. ISSN: 2167-0432

Research Article

Analysis of the Factors Militating against the Implementation

of Agricultural Transformation Agenda Support Programme
Phase -1 in Promoting Agricultural Extension Service Delivery
in Kebbi and Sokoto States, Nigeria
*Yohanna John Alhassan1 and Yahaya Musa2
1Department of General Studies, Federal University Wukari, Taraba State, Nigeria
2Department of Agricultural Technology, College of Agriculture and Animal Science Bakura, Zamfara State, Nigeria

This study analyzed the factors militating against the implementation of agricultural
transformation agenda support Programme phase-1in promoting agricultural extension service
delivery in Kebbi and Sokoto states, Nigeria. A Multi stage sampling technique was employed to
draw a sample of 480 respondents from Sokoto and Kebbi states comprising seven Local
Government Areas (LGAs) in Kebbi and one LGA in Sokoto state, respectively. A set of structured
questionnaires were used to obtain information from the respondents. Descriptive statistics was
used for data analysis. The survey identified that (65.4%), (76.7%) respondents respectively were
provided with both method and result demonstration strategies by the coordinating staff. The
study further revealed that ATASP-1 provided training to farmers on improved farming
methodologies through mass extension programmes such as radio/ television program (58.8%)
and group discussion (78.3%). The study also showed that lack of better funding (92.1%),
inadequate extension field staff (98.3%), and inadequate remuneration (91.3%), non-involvement
of farmers in decision making 89.6%, inadequate monitoring and evaluation of the Programme
(86.7%) affected the successful implementation of ATASP-1innovations in the study area. It is
concluded that ATASP-1improved the standard of living of the participating farmers through
farmer training on new and improved farming methodologies, provision of inputs such as
fertilizers, improved seeds of especially sorghum, rice and cassava and other agro-allied
incentives to boost productivity. It is recommended that provision of extension services to
farmers in groups should be encouraged due to scarcity of AEAS, provision of more improved
inputs like seeds of various crops, fertilizers and agrochemicals etc, provision of extension
services through non-visits such as radio and television programmes should be intensified by
ATASP-1, organizing refresher courses and in-service training for extension staff to equip them
with modern skills to effectively disseminate improved agricultural technology to farmers.

Key words: Factors Militating, Implementation, Agricultural Transformation Agenda, Kebbi, Sokoto States

INTRODUCTION

Agricultural Transformation Agenda is aimed to be a
catalyst for transforming Nigerian people for the needed
growth and national development. Under the
transformation drive, government is expected to guide
Nigerians to build an industrialized modern state that will
launch the nation into the first 20 economies of the world
by the year 2020. Agricultural Transformation Agenda
(ATA) was geared towards encouraging large-scale
industries and Small and Medium Enterprises (SMES),
revitalize ailing industries, promote agriculture and agro
businesses, encourage local content strategy, create
employment opportunity, alleviate poverty and develop
*Corresponding Author: Yohanna John Alhassan,
Department of General Studies Federal University Wukari,
Taraba State, Nigeria. Email: yjohnalhassan@gmail.com

Analysis of the Factors Militating against the Implementation of Agricultural Transformation Agenda Support Programme Phase -1 in Promoting Agricultural Extension Service Delivery in
Kebbi and Sokoto States, Nigeria
Alhassan and Musa 266
Information Technology and Communication (ICT) to be
the major driver of the agenda (Chigbu, 2013). This
includes effort to expand tourism and entertainment
industry, exploit private sector potentials for employment
creation, focus investment in construction industry and
public works, using labor intensive techniques and provide
safety nets for vulnerable groups. The transformation
Agenda of the past administration was a policy package
that proposes to reposition the economy by addressing
issues of poverty, unemployment, insecurity and most
particularly, the diversification of the entire economy from
total dependence on oil to a significant reliance on non-oil
driven economy. Transformation Agenda is a policy that
revolves around good governance, power, security and
development of non-oil sector such as manufacturing and
solid minerals, investment in infrastructure, education and
anti-corruption crusade. International Food policy
Research Institute (IFPRI, 2012).
The short comings of ATA such as inability to address
joblessness, inadequate provision of food for the teeming
Nigerian populace, inability to provide adequate improved
farm inputs among others. Because of the inability of ATA
to achieve the desired objectives with which it was
established, ATASP-1 came onboard in 2015 by FGN to
revamp the Agricultural Sector in order to ensure food
security, diversify the economy and enhance foreign
exchange. The Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Rural
Development (FMARD), embarked on Agricultural
Transformation Agenda support programme-1 with a focus
on the development of agricultural value chains, provision
of improved inputs such as seeds, fertilizer, increased
productivity and production, and the establishment of
Staple Crop Processing Zones. The programme also
aimed at addressing the reduction in post-harvest losses,
improving linkages with industry with respect to backward
integration, as well as creation of farmers’ access to
financial services and markets. The Agricultural
Transformation Agenda Support Programme-1 targets
rural communities particularly women, youth, farmers
associations rural institution and infrastructure (FGN,
2015).
It is against this backdrop that the study analyzed the
constraints militating against the implementation of
agricultural transformation agenda support programme
phase-1 in promoting agricultural extension service
delivery in Kebbi and Sokoto States, Nigeria.
METHODOLOGY
Study area
The research study was conducted in Sokoto and Kebbi
States. Nigeria.ATASP-1 is implemented as a pilot study
in Seven Local Government areas of Kebbi State and one
Local Government Area of Sokoto State. The LGEAs in
Analysis of the Factors Militating against the Implementation of Agricultural Transformation Agenda Support Programme Phase -1 in Promoting Agricultural Extension Service Delivery in
Kebbi and Sokoto States, Nigeria
which ATASP-1 is currently operating in Kebbi State,
include (Argungu, Birnin Kebbi, Dandi, Suru, Bagudo,
Shanga, and Ngaski) and Kware Local Government Area
of Sokoto State in which ATASP-1 covers in the North-
Western Zone of Nigeria. The choice of the study area was
premised on the fact that it is among the Zones covered by
ATASP-1 as a pilot study in the country.
Sokoto state was created in 1976 while Kebbi State was
created out of the then Sokoto State in 1991. Both states
lies in Northwestern region of Nigeria with capital of Kebbi
State in Birnin Kebbi and Sokoto in Sokoto State. Kebbi
State is bordered by Sokoto to the north and east, Niger to
the south. Dosso region in the Republic of Niger to the
Northwest and Republic of Benin to the west. Sokoto State
shares its border with Niger Republic to the North, Zamfara
State to the east, Kebbi State to the south-east and Benin
Republic to the west (Sokoto State Government, 2006).
While Sokoto State has a land mass of 25,973 square
kilometers, Kebbi State has a total land Area of about
37,698,685 square kilometers. Based on projections from
2006 census figure, Kebbi State is estimated to have a
population of 4,629,880 (NPC, 2006: projected to 2017).
Sokoto State has a population of 427,760 based on 2006
census. While Sokoto is made up of 23 Local Government
Areas, Kebbi State is made up of 21 Local Government
Areas (LGAs). It has four emirate councils (Gwandu,
Argungu, Yauri and Zuru) and has four Agricultural Zones
namely Argungu, Bunza, Yauri and Zuru zones
respectively, for ease of administration. Kebbi State falls
between latitude 12046N and 120.27N and longitude 4019E
and 4011E. Sokoto State lies approximately between
latitude 110,33,42,N and 130,59,7,N and longitude
40,9,36,E and 60,45,33,E.(NPC,2006).Agriculture is the
main occupation of the people of the two states especially
in rural areas. Crops produced are mainly grains like Rice,
Millet, Sorghum etc; animal rearing and fishing are also
common agricultural activities that feature prominently in
the two States. The weather of the States is often dry with
lots of sunshine. The wet season last from May to October
while the dry season lasts for the remaining period of the
year. Mean annual rainfall is about 800mm- 1000mm.
Temperature is generally high with mean annual
temperature of about 260C and above in all locations of the
states. This climatic peculiarity allows for meaningful
investment in agriculture.
Sample Size and Sampling Procedure
A multi-stage sampling technique was employed to obtain
data for the study. In the first stage, all the seven (7) Local
Government Areas (LGAs) in Kebbi State and one (1) LGA
in Sokoto State (Pilot study locations of ATASP-1) i.e. eight
(8) participating LGAs were purposely selected. In the
second stage, three Villages from each of the eight (8)
LGAs where ATASP-1 is implemented were selected
giving a total of twenty-four (24) Villages. In the third stage,
ten (10) randomly selected Participating and non-
 Int. J. Agric. Educ. Ext. 267

Participating farmers each were drawn from the villages, ATASP-1, constraints militating against the
thus making 240 participating and 240 non-participating implementation of ATASP-1 and various sources of
farmers giving a sample size of 480 farmers for the study. funding ATASP-1 programme among others. Secondary
data was collected from relevant text books, journals, and
Data Collection Procedure other relevant materials.
Both primary and secondary data were used for the study. Data Analysis
Primary data were obtained through field survey with the
use of structured questionnaire designed in line with the Data collected were analyzed using descriptive statistics
objectives of the study. Data collected included information comprising of frequency distribution count and
on the role of coordinating staff in the implementation of percentages.
Table 1. Distribution of the respondents based on factors militating against the implementation of ATASP-1 n=240
Factor militating Frequency * Percentage (%)
Lack of better funding 221 92.1
Inadequate extension staff 236 98.3
Inadequate facilities 226 94.2
Inadequate remuneration 219 91.3
Non Involvement of famers in decision making 215 89.6
Weak legislations 104 43.3
Weak institutions 101 42.1
Non- involvement of farmers in Programme plan 177 73.8
Non- involvement of famers in Programme evaluation 161 67.1
Role conflict B/W ATASP-1 and other programmes 109 45.4
Short duration of ATASP-1 111 46.3
Inadequate monitoring and evaluation of the Program 208 86.7
Source: Field Survey, 2018 *Multiple responses were recorded
Table 2. Distribution of Respondents according to Extension Method, Extension Approach, Feedback approach
and Training needs provided to farmers by ATASP-1 (n=9)
S/N Factor militating Frequency * Percentage (%)
1 Extension method
Individual extension 7 77.8
Group extension 8 88.9
Mass extension 3 33.3
2 Extension approach
Training and visit 7 77.8
Specialized extension 9 100.0
Farming system research extension 3 33.3
Participatory extension 6 66.7
Radio and TV Programmes 7 77.8
3 Feedback approach
Monitoring 5 55.6
Evaluation 4 44.4
4 Training needs
Refresher courses 9 100.0
In-service training 6 66.7
Incentives 8 88.9
Source: Field Survey, 2018. *Multiple responses were recorded
Table 3. Distribution of the Respondents According to Source of Funding for implementation ATASP1
Source Frequency Percentage (%)
Federal Government 1 11.1
State Government 0 0.0
Local Government 0 0.0
NGO’S /Donors 9 100.0
Fed/State Governments 6 66.7
Fed/ State/ Local Govts 1 11.1
Source: Field Survey, 2018. *Multiple responses were recorded

Analysis of the Factors Militating against the Implementation of Agricultural Transformation Agenda Support Programme Phase -1 in Promoting Agricultural Extension Service Delivery in
Kebbi and Sokoto States, Nigeria
Alhassan and Musa 268
The identified factors militating against the implementation
of ATASP-1 are presented in Table 1. The result showed
that 92.1% of the respondents from among the participants
indicated that lack of better funding of the Programme
affected implementation of ATASP-1. Inadequate
extension staff were reported by 98.3% of respondents
from among the participants. Other factors indicated
included inadequate facilities 94.2%, inadequate
remuneration 91.3%, non-involvement of farmers in
decision making 89.6%, weak legislation 43.3%, weak
institutions 42.1%, non-involvement of farmers in
Programme planning 73.8%, non-involvement of farmers
in Programme evaluation 67.1%, role conflict between
ATASP-1 and other programmes 45.4% short duration of
ATASP-1 46.3% and inadequate monitoring and evolution
of the Programme 86.7%. Table 1 gives an overview of
the factors militating against successful implementation of
ATASP-1. A recent study by Adeola (2010) showed that
noninvolvement of farmers in programme evaluation and
Non Involvement of famers in decision making militated
against the implementation of agriculturally inclined
programmes in Nigeria and that Nigerians effort in
successful implementation of agricultural and rural
development programmes over the past three decades
have failed to improve the country’s economy due to
inadequate funding of the programmes, inadequate
extension staff to implement the policies and programmes
and inadequate facilities, lack of governments commitment
to guarantee successful implementation of the
programmes. The challenges have been the reason for
failure of previous policies and programmes and continue
to threaten the existing ones including ATASP-1.
Inadequate remuneration of ATASP-1staff resulting from
the shortage and delay in funding of the Programme, non-
involvement of farmers in decision making process
contributed substantially to weak implementation of the
Programme. Weak institutions and legislation is also
another serious plight affecting the successful
implementation of most of the agricultural development
programmes like ATASP-1.
This could be due to inadequate monitoring and
evaluation, corruption and the use of unqualified personnel
for Programme implementation. However, the issues of
whether a Programme would be received, accepted,
supported, resisted, opposed or sabotaged is important for
Programme implementation success. Thus, a major
consideration in policy and implementation design is the
search for the alternative that will work, thrive and be
sustained in the real-life situation of the beneficiaries. Such
a consideration involves the search for variables that
constrain or facilitate the policy or Programme in terms of
the technical, legal, administrative, economic and
particularly political dimensions. Political support from
legislative bodies, political executives, the clientele and the
general public is particularly vital to Programme
implementation success. ATASP-1 is affected by most of
the above mention challenges but if such support were to
be sustained it could enhance better implementation,
Analysis of the Factors Militating against the Implementation of Agricultural Transformation Agenda Support Programme Phase -1 in Promoting Agricultural Extension Service Delivery in
Kebbi and Sokoto States, Nigeria
performance, seriousness and interest by ATASP-1
coordinating staff to hasten the implementation of the
Programme, enhance commitment of Programme staff,
strengthen the implementation propriety and compliance
and enhance operation, service delivery and outcomes.
Non-involvement of farmers in decision making process,
Programme planning and evaluation affected the success
of ATASP-1. Programmes are designed, planned and
evaluated without farmer participation and they are the
beneficiaries of the Programme. This affects the
successes recoded by the Programme. This could be due
to inadequate manpower, vehicular support, consultation
and preparation before implementation. Adequate
preparation and consultation provides a basis for effective
commencement and successful implementation of any
Programme.The results in Table 1 further showed that low
percentage of respondents were in support that such
challenges does not in any way affect the implementation
of ATASP-1 innovations in sokoto and kebbi states crop
processing zones
Table 2 revealed that 77.8%, 88.9% and 33.3%
respondents respectively received extension services
through individual, group and mass extension methods
respectively while 22.2%, 11.1%, and 66.7% do not
experience extension services provision through either
individual, group or mass extension methods. From the
results, it is clear that group extension technique for
technology transfer to farmers recorded higher percentage
followed by individual extension methods.
From the results in Table 2, it can be seen that group
extension was mostly used by the AEAs and ATASP-1
staff in dissemination of new farming innovations to
farmers. This will help to train many farmers within a very
short period of time .On extension approach, the survey in
table 4.11 revealed that Training and Visits, Commodity
Specialized Extension, farming system research
extension, participatory extension and radio and television
programmes were used by all the Agricultural Extension
Agents (AEAs) in technology transfer to farmers with
relative percentages of 77.8%, 100%, 33.3%, 66.7% and
77.8% respectively as can be seen in Table 3. Commodity
specialized extension, Training and visit and radio and
television programmes were prioritized by ATASP-1 AEAS
in the dissemination of agricultural innovations as can be
seen from the results. None of the AEAs uses cost sharing
to disseminate improved technologies to farmers in the two
states. The combination of these approaches to deliver
extension services made technology transfer to be more
effective, stimulating interest among farmers, thus bringing
out desired outcome
Results in Table 2 further elucidates that mechanism
adopted by ATASP-1 staff and their AEAs to receive
feedbacks on the progress of their clients showed
remarkable improvements since the programme was
introduced. The discussion centres on monitoring and
evaluation of farming activities of the respondents by the

AEAs. The survey identified that all the AEAs (100%) in
each of the two states used monitoring and evaluation to
get feedback information from their clients regarding their
utilization of the extension services provided to them.
The results in Table 2 also depicts that 88.9%, 100%and
66.7% respondents agreed that incentives, refresher
courses and in-service trainings were provided and /or
organized by AEAs in order to update knowledge of
farmers towards acceptance and adoption of new farming
technologies that are brought to them by the Programme.
This is very necessary in order to enable farmers get
exposed to new and modern techniques of farming and
subsequently accept and utilize the new technology for
better and improved productivity. Only 11.1%, 0.0% and
33.3%could not consider incentives, refresher courses and
in-service training as necessary indices for expansion of
knowledge in extension programmes.
The survey in Table 3 identified that the main source of
funding of ATSP-1 Programme in the two states was from
Donors (African development Bank), Federal and state
governments with relative percentages of 100% and
66.7% respectively. African Development Bank supplies
funds for ATSP-1 implementation through Federal Ministry
of Agriculture and Rural Development and part of the fund
is a grant to Federal Government of Nigeria while part of it
is a loan. Federal and state governments complement the
funds for effective implementation of the Programme. It
can therefore be said that the supply of funds to the north
western zonal office for the implementation of ATASP-1 is
carried out by three organs which might cause delayed in
the supply of funds thereby causing the extension service
providers to either suspend their planned programmes
with farmers or execute them belatedly since the three
organs responsible for the supply of funds may not jointly
supply the funds when needed. Additionally, NGO’S and
local government councils does not supply funds for
ATASP-1 implementation as can be seen from the results
in Table 3.
CONCLUSION/ RECOMMENDATIONS
The study analyzed the factors militating against the
implementation of Agricultural Transformation Agenda
Support Programme Phase-1 in Promoting Agricultural
Extension Service Delivery in Kebbi and Sokoto States,
Nigeria. The output of the participating farmers outweighs
that of the non-participants by a wide margin. The age
distribution, Marital status, household size and farming
experiences of the two groups of farmers (participating and
non-participating) showed a lot of similarities. The main
source of information utilized by the participating farmers
was predominantly ATASP-1 staff, friends and radio, while
there was no much regard for contact farmers by the
participants than was accorded to ATASP-1 Local
Government Area (LGA) Extension Agents. The study
concluded that implementation of ATASP_1 programme
Analysis of the Factors Militating against the Implementation of Agricultural Transformation Agenda Support Programme Phase -1 in Promoting Agricultural Extension Service Delivery in
Kebbi and Sokoto States, Nigeria
Int. J. Agric. Educ. Ext. 269
was bedeviled with serious constraints such as inadequate
funding, inadequate extension staff, non-involvement of
farmers in programme planning, lack of monitoring and
evaluation of the programme among others.
The study recaps that effective provision of Agricultural
Extension Services by ATASP-1 coordinating staff in the
zone could avert the identified challenges thereby
transforming traditional Agriculture into a modern one for
improved living standards of rural people. A mere provision
of Agricultural extension service by ATASP-1 may not
transform traditional Agriculture without adequate training,
monitoring and evaluation provision of improved agro-
inputs and frequent supervision of farmers by the
coordinating staff and their AEAs.
The following recommendations were proffered on ways to
address issues affecting the implementation of ATASP-1
innovations in north western crop processing zone of
Nigeria.
i. Monitoring and evaluation of extension programmes
should be intensified by ATASP-1 staff so as to
encourage effectiveness of the AEAs in the delivery of
extension services.
ii. Extension services delivery in the country should be
made demand-driven. This policy should involve the
sensitization of the rural farmers by ATASP-1 staff and
FMARD to make tem conscious about the need for the
services. In this sense, the farmers will be willing to,
even demand the services at a cost to make the
extension services delivery sustainable.
iii. Extension services training schools should be
established to train more AEAs and supply in large
numbers to all the participating local Governments in
the two states and beyond. In this way, AEAs-farmers
ratio will be improved for more farmers to access
extension services.
iv. Extension services delivery in Nigeria should be
properly privatized as contained in the National
Extension Services Policy Document. In this regard
where there is no NESP fund, as proposed, the
involvement of the private sector in extension service
provision and funding would be encouraged so as to
make extension service delivery in the country
sustainable.
v. Since cooperative membership was a significant
determinant of ATASP-1 participation, the non-member
rural farmers should join cooperative societies so as to
be able to benefit from the Government and non-
governmental organization through increased credit
access, input supply and farm advisory services.
REFERENCES
Adeola, G.G. (2010) “Agricultural Development
Programmes and Food Security in Nigeria (1970-
2004)” in Ogiji, P (ed.) the Food Basket Myth.
Implications for Food Security and Agricultural Reforms
in Nigeria. Makurdi: Aboki Publishers.Pp20-22.
Alhassan and Musa 270
Annan, (2012). The Role of Agricultural Extension
Services in Agricultural Transformation for Rural
Poverty Reduction. An MSc thesis submitted to the
department of architecture and Planning, Kwame
Nkrumah University of science and technology Ghana.
Pp. 4-7
Asiabaka, C.C. (2002). Agricultural Extension: A handbook
for developing practitioners. River State: Molsystem
United Services.Pp.53-56
Chigbu, K. C. (2013). Analysis of Alternative Extension
Approaches to Technology Transfer in Developing
Countries. Nsukka, University of Nigeria Press. Pp.14-
16
Dakare, R.M. (2014) “The Effects of Agricultural and Rural
Development Policies in Nigeria” in Ogiji, P. (ed.) the
Food Basket Myth: Implications for Food Security and
Agricultural Reforms in Nigeria. Makurdi: Aboki
Publishers. Pp.52
Daramola, A.S. et al (2013) Agricultural Export Potentials
in Nigeria. In Colier, P and Pattillo, C (Ed) “Economic
Policy Options for a Prosperous Nigeria. Ibadan:
Palgrave Macmillan Publishers. Pp.20-23
Ekpo, A.H. and Egwaikhide, F.O. (2004). “Export and
Economic Growth: A Reconsideration of the Evidence”.
Journal of Economics and Management Vol 2, No. 2,
Pp. 57-73.
Federal Government of Nigeria (FGN), (2015). National
Economic Empowerment and Development Strategy
(NEEDS), National Planning Commission, Abuja,
Nigeria.
Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development
(FMARD), (2011). National Fadama II Project, Abuja,
Nigeria.Pp.10
International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI),
(2012). Agricultural Public Spending in Nigeria.
Development Strategy and Governance Division. IFPRI
Discussion Paper 00789. September. Ibadan,
Nigeria.Pp.27
Analysis of the Factors Militating against the Implementation of Agricultural Transformation Agenda Support Programme Phase -1 in Promoting Agricultural Extension Service Delivery in
Kebbi and Sokoto States, Nigeria
Koyeikan, M.J. (2011). “Issues for Agricultural Extension
Policy in Nigeria”. Journal of Agricultural Extension. Vol
12 (2) Pp.42-47
National Population Commission (NPC), (2006).Abuja,
National Population Census.Pp.34-36
Ogen, O. (2004). “Agricultural and Economic Development
in Malaysia. A Viable Model for Nigeria”. Journal of
Economics and Finance Vol 6 (1) Pp.34-36.
Oyewole, B.A. and Oloko, S.A. (2009). “Agricultural and
Food Losses in Nigeria the way Out” A Seminar Paper
Presented at the Federal Polytechnic, Ado-Ekiti by the
Department of Agricultural Engineering, March,
2009.Pp5-7
Sokoto State Government (2006).National Population
Census. Abuja Nigeria.Pp.31-34.
Solomon, Y. (2008) Agricultural Development: An
International Perspective. Baltimore, MD: Johns
Hopkins University Press.Pp 70-75.
Accepted 22 June 2019
Citation: Alhassan YJ, Musa Y (2019). Analysis of the
Factors Militating against the Implementation of
Agricultural Transformation Agenda Support Programme
Phase -1 in Promoting Agricultural Extension Service
Delivery in Kebbi and Sokoto States, Nigeria. International
Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension, 5(3): 265-
270.
Copyright: © 2019 Alhassan and Musa. This is an open-
access article distributed under the terms of the Creative
Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted
use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original author and source are cited.