Case study of the SAFE program in Nigeria (ABU & BUK)

68 Pages·2014·1.28 MB·English

0
SASAKAWA AFRICA FUND FOR EXTENSION EDUCATION
(SAFE)

A Study of the Sasakawa Africa Fund for Extension
Education (SAFE) Program in Ahmadu Bello University
(ABU) and Bayero University (BUK), Nigeria.

MAY 2013
By
By Prof. Tunji Arokoyo & Prof. Johnson Ekpere

1
Table of Contents

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT .........................................................................................................................4
ACRONYMS ........................................................................................................................................5
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................6
1. INTRODUCTION: ........................................................................................................................10
1.1 Background to the Sasakawa Africa Fund for Extension Education (SAFE): .............................10
1.2 The Sasakawa African Association Initiative:........................................................................11
1.3 Terms of Reference ...........................................................................................................14
2. OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY: ...........................................................................................................15
3. METHODOLOGY: ......................................................................................................................15
3.1. Limitations ........................................................................................................................16
4. FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS:....................................................................................................16
4.1. Commencement and Focus of the SAFE Program in ABU and BUK: .......................................16
4.2. The Planning and Management of the SAFE Program in ABU AND BUK: ................................17
4.3. Training Program and Curriculum: ......................................................................................18
4.4. Target Candidates for the SAFE Program: ............................................................................19
4.5. Admission Criteria and Quota: ............................................................................................21
4.6. Duration of Course and Calendar: .......................................................................................23
4.7. Instructional Material Design:.............................................................................................24
4.8. Supervised Enterprise Projects (SEPs):.................................................................................24
4.8.1. Classification and Assessment of Completed SEPS in ABU and BUK: ...............................25
4.8.2. SAFE and SG2000 Activities: ........................................................................................28
4.9. Students Intake and Output by Gender: ..............................................................................29
4.10. Tracking ABU and BUK SAFE Graduates:...........................................................................31
2
4.11. Staffing Situation (Quantity and Quality)..........................................................................35
4.12. Networking and Partnerships ..........................................................................................35
4.13. Financial Operations (Funding and Releases)....................................................................36
4.14. Support Facilities for SAFE Program in ABU and BUK:.......................................................37
4.15. The Impact of SAFE program: ..........................................................................................37
5. THE CHALLENGES OF SAFE PROGRAM AND ISSUES OF SUSTAINABILITY IN ABU AND BUK..................38
6. THE SAFE ALUMNI ASSOCIATION ................................................................................................41
6.1 Inauguration of the Association: .........................................................................................41
6.2 Membership of the Association ..........................................................................................42
6.3 Activities of the Association ................................................................................................42
6.4 Challenges and Way Forward:.............................................................................................43
7. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION....................................................................................................44
8. RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................................45
9. REFERENCES..............................................................................................................................47

3
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

We would like to thank the Sasakawa Global 2000, the Sasakawa Africa Fund for Extension Program and
National Director of the Program for the opportunity given to us to review this very important and
relevant activity to the Agricultural Extension Transformation Agenda of Nigeria.
We thank the Deans, Heads of Departments staff and various supervisors of the SEPs in Ahmadu Bello
and Bayero Universities, Zaria and Kano respectively, for their assistance during the study. We
appreciate the cooperation of the few students and graduates of the program that we had the
opportunity to interact with as well as staff of the Agricultural Development Projects (ADPs) and other
stakeholder/beneficiaries of the Project who provided meaningful information for the preparation of
this report.

4
ACRONYMS

ABU - Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria
ADP - Agricultural Development Project
BUK - Bayero University, Kano
KNARDA - Kano State Agricultural and Rural Development Authority
MOU - Memorandum of Understanding
SAFE - Sasakawa Africa Fund for Extension Education
SEPs - Supervised Enterprise Projects
SG 2000 - Sasakawa Global 2000

5
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

One of the major emerging issues in the Agricultural Transformation Agenda of the Federal Government
of Nigeria is the quality of its agricultural extension and advisory service. Several studies have advocated
professionalism of the extension service through training and skill development of serving extension
workers. The SAFE Programme as an intervention initiative was undertaken at the Ahmadu Bello
University, Zaria and Bayero University, Kano to provide serving mid-career extension workers with the
requisite skill and competence to perform more effectively in the work place. The overall objective was
to assist colleges and university faculties of agriculture to develop and implement a demand driven,
farmer focused training programs for mid-career extension workers for efficient and result oriented
service.
This study was undertaken to generate data on key components of the SAFE programs at Ahmadu Bello
University, Zaria and Bayero University, Kano, Nigeria that can be used to establish sustainable
strategies for other SAFE-Type programs in Nigeria and Africa. The Terms of Reference of the study
include:
 The conduct of a tracer study of Nigerians that are graduates of the SAFE Programs from the
Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria and the Bayero University, Kano
 Identification, analysis and elaboration of key components of the program at the two
universities
 Assess the impact of the supervised enterprises (SEP) projects
 Assess the impact of the mid – career program on instructional material design at both
universities
 Assess the impact of the program on bridging the gap between both universities, the agricultural
industry and farmers
 Propose recommendations for developing and implementing sustainable SAFE –Type programs
in Nigeria
Methodology
The study covered the first two Universities in the Nigeria that adopted the SAFE Program, viz: the
Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria and the Bayero University, Kano. Primary data was collected from the
SAFE program graduates of both Universities, using a short structured questionnaire for the tracker and
the graduates’ impression of the progrm. Group discussions were held with the Heads of host
Departments, SAFE program Coordinators and other participating staff in the two Institutions, the
6
Protem Chairman of the National Association of SAFE Alumni Nigeria, and a few selected participating
farmers in two States using open ended interview checklist. The serious security challenge subsisting in
the States terribly restricted the number of selected farmers interviewed. While it was possible to
directly assess and score the theses/reports of the Supervised Enterprise Projects of the ABU SAFE
graduates, it was not possible to do same for the BUK graduates. The study resorted to the use of
secondary data obtained from records and files of the Heads of Department of Agricultural Economics
and Rural Sociology at Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria, the Department of Agricultural Economics and
Extension of the Bayero University, Kano and the SAFE Coordinators’ offices in both institutions.
FINDINGS
The findings of the study showed that the program has been very successful at both universities. The
program has been well patronized by trainees, Governments of the participating States and other
agricultural extension service providers.
Commencement and Focus
The implementation of the project commenced with an inception workshop to develop a conceptual
framework and approach for effective training and skill development. It envisaged:
 Learning and skill development through a combined approach of classroom lectures and farm
practice experience
 Occupational and aptitude orientation of trainees
 Supervision as an integral component of knowledge and skill acquisition

The Planning and Management of the SAFE Program
The program in both universities was administered through a Management committee. The courses
were taught by a team of dedicated and qualified academic and technical staff drawn from the
collaborating departments in the faculty of agriculture.

Training Program and Curriculum
The training program was delivered through a multi-disciplinary curriculum consisting of specific core
courses and electives in agricultural extension, animal science, agronomy, soil science, agricultural
economics etc

7
Target Candidates for the Program
The program was targeted at serving mid-career agricultural extension workers and service providers in
both the public and private sector in the nineteen states of Nigeria.
Admission Criteria and Quota
Admission requirement stipulated that candidates should:
 Be serving agricultural extension workers or service providers, with a minimum of two years
post Higher National Diploma experience, sponsored by their employers
 Possess a Higher National Diploma in Agriculture or related discipline
 Satisfy minimum requirement for university admission
Both universities operated an admission quota of fifty (50) trainees per year
Duration of Course and Calendar
The course duration was two and half years comprising on-campus lectures and off-campus experiential
training for skill development and competence acquisition.
Instructional Material Design
Specialized instructional training materials were developed consistent with the curriculum and delivered
through:
 Teaching – learning processes of a participatory nature essential for knowledge acquisition, skill
and competency development.
 Class room lectures, field practical, hands-on activities, and group discussions.

Supervised Enterprise Projects (SEPs)
This is perhaps the most unique aspect of the program. Both institutions implemented SEPs covering a
wide spectrum of agricultural enterprises. These activities were supervised by a combined team of
stakeholders including university staff. The utility of the SEPs component was favorably attested to by
both the students and the beneficiary farmers.
Student Intake and Output by Gender
The program has graduated over three hundred (300) trainees since inception. Most of the students
were sponsored by their employers. However, student intake and output has been skewed in favor of
male trainees. There are efforts to attract more female students to the program.
Staffing Situation (Quantity and Quality)
8
The program was serviced by an adequate (quantity and quality) and dedicated core staff, augmented
by others faculty members as guest lecturers.
Financial Operations (Funding and Releases)
There were indications that a total of USD 193,322.00 was disbursed to Bayero University, Kano as at
2012, as and when due and in most cases applied as budgeted.
Releases to Ahmadu Bello University, could not be ascertained.
Support Facilities for the SAFE Program
The two universities provided appropriate and efficient facilities as well as logistic support conducive to
effective learning and skill acquisition. This was evidenced in the quality of training delivered and level of
performance achieved by the trainees.
Impact of the SAFE Program
The SAFE program could become an established institution and mechanism for ameliorating the poor
staff competence and low performance of agricultural extension delivery service in Nigeria. The utility
and impact of the project has been highly acclaimed and appropriately endorsed by end users of its
products.
The project has graduated over 300 trainees since inception, most of whom have earned promotion on
their jobs. Some have enrolled for higher degrees since graduation, with positive impact on their
livelihoods.
Communities where SEPs have been implemented have benefitted immensely through improved
production and better enterprise development, poverty reduction, higher income and improved
livelihood.
The project impact has not been without challenges, some of which include:
 Poor understanding bordering on misconception
 Low intake of female trainees
 Low admission well below estimated quota of 50 trainees per year
 Problems associated with dependence on a single donor
 Inadequate sensitization before inception of the project
 Poor linkage with the private downstream agro-industry sector
 Poor participation by community based organization in SAFE –SEPs activities

9