By Adisa Adeleye

I have consistently advocated in this column for the  adoption of common sense economic policies and sensible politics as necessary tools towards the eradication of poverty and the growth of wealth in our country.  I have also been preaching the sermon of good management of the country‘s enormous economic resources for the eradication of poverty and the promotion of wealth and prosperity.

My conviction is that a sound budget religiously operated could help in bringing joy to the hearts of many Nigerians.  As a critic of the Central Bank‘s harsh monetary stance, and as an advocate of liberal fiscal policy of the Federal Government, I remain incorrigibly optimistic that sooner than later, a ‘trial and error‘ method of reforms would succeed.

I breathe fresh air from the provisions of the 2012 Budget recently passed by the Legislature and assented to by the President.  I discovered that the Budget manifests in its intentions bold measures to tackle some of the endemic problems of the country – twin evils of famine and poverty.

Some analysts perhaps believe that hunger and poverty would persist unless something drastic is done to increase the national income and wealth of the country.  Thus the fiscal policy of the federal government could be interpreted as an attempt to increase domestic food production, raise rural income and impact positively on employment.

Attention would focus on large scale production of cassava to reduce the reliance on wholesale importation of wheat for bread, which is our staple food.  By the end of the year 2012, the total duty and levy on the importation of wheat flour would be 100%.  Also, the importation of agricultural machinery would attract zero duty and levy (as before).

The seriousness of this intention was recently highlighted by the Minister of Agriculture who envisaged that the transformation agenda in the agricultural sector would create more than 3 million jobs and would also provide about N300 billion to Nigerian farmers.  Relying on the speech of the Minister, ‘the transformation agenda sets to create over 3-5 million jobs from rice, cassava, sorghum, cocoa and cotton value chains.  With many more jobs to come from other value chains under implementation‘.

In another breath, the Minister of Agriculture, Dr. Akinwunmi Adesina stated that, ‘The programme aims to provide over N300 billion of additional income in the hands of Nigerian farmers.  Over N60 billion is to be injected into the economy from the substitution of 20% of bread wheat flour with cassava flour. We would have enabled Nigeria to be food secure by increasing production of key food staple by 20 million tons; rice 2 million metric tons; cassava 17 million metric tons and sorghum 1 million metric ton‘.

The envisaged glorious transformation agenda would be based on active participation with the private sector in the handling of seeds and fertilizers to the farmers – a provision of 50% support for farmers.

The private sector would also be empowered to sell their inputs directly to farmers and build their ‘supply chains‘ to get to rural areas; there would also be provision of ‘risk sharing guarantee‘ to leverage loans from banks for seed and fertilizer companies and agro dealers‘.  No analyst who has digested the statements of the Minister on its face value would not be convinced by the elegance of those statistical figures and the confidence behind them.

However, many analysts might shake their heads and utter disdainfully that they are familiar with ministerial rhetoric and paper policy which nobody would execute.  The beauty of any budget lies in its execution, which is subject to many factors. ‘The economics of development, according to a commentator, is not very complicated.

It rests on sensible politics and good public administration.  The failures of the past could be traced to inadequate political and administrative institutions.  If the transformation agenda of the Federal Government is to be successful, it has to go deep down – states and local governments have to be carried along or, if possible, dragged along the route of success.

Also, the methods of improving agriculture have to be more imaginative and importantly too, innovative.  The idea of bringing in the private sector (this time, established companies in produce business) is acceptable.  In the past, companies like UAC; PZ, UTC, John Holt, bought agricultural products through their accredited buying agents and maintained their storage depots.  Farmers were encouraged through immediate cash payment for their produce.

However, the successful implementation of agricultural transformation policy would depend on gradual process.  The most important point is that efforts should be made to increase production by peasant farmers in the rural areas.  Mechanization of rural farming is of no advantage if the farmers cannot realize immediate cash for its produce.

His main concern is planting his main crops on time, weeding them properly and harvesting them promptly and getting them to the market at little cost.  Introduction of better seeds, fertilizers and simple farm implements would follow to increase productivity, better yields and more income.

Fortunately, we have in the country a large pool of unemployed Agriculture graduates who could be deployed to rural areas to effect the necessary changes. It is desirable that Nigerians should be encouraged to manufacture simple farm implements which are suitable to the environment rather than resort to importation of farming gadgets which would be difficult and require power to operate, even if these are not subject to any import duty.

In the past, the Nigerian manufacturers of simple farm implements had not been encouraged under any agriculture reform programme; this is the time to bring them into the reformation agenda.  If the intention is to increase agricultural production, the best place to start is in the rural background where actual farmers are getting old and hoes and cutlasses are still in vogue.

Since it is generally believed that the most direct and effective method of improving the standard of living of a greater number of Nigerians and spreading an appreciative amount of prosperity is to increase agricultural income, the reform programme should not fail.

However, it is possible for any progressive fiscal initiative to be jeopardized by a hostile monetary environment.  It is good news that the Central Bank is poised to support the policy of domestic agricultural expansion.  A warning is – provide enough supply at home before toying with importation.