Back to 1984: The problem with back-to-the-land policies
Our voyage into the land of policies past leads us today to the Go Back to the Land programme. This policy is particularly relevant because of the common notion that a return to the land will be the panacea to the current problem of youth unemployment. What’s more, iterations of the programme have been proposed in the past two years under a new Back to Land Project and several other schemes which aim to contract young people to till, own and profit from hectares of land at very affordable rates to stem the tide of unemployment and discontent. Thus, an analysis of these programmes will serve us well in the coming years.
The Go Back to the Land Programme of 1983, which was introduced by the government of Muhammadu Buhari, was the next attempt (after the Green Revolution) to attain the goal of national self-sufficiency in food production. It was the idea that Nigeria could right its economic wrongs by reorienting itself towards agriculture. The impetus came through a coup d’état, which ousted Shehu Shagari from office, bringing about the death of his Green Revolution policy.
The idea seemed so potent and transformative in its ramifications that it was adopted by several state governments, most notable of which were the Rivers and Lagos State governments – with their School to Land and Graduate Farming Scheme, respectively.
There is a dearth of analysis on how the programmes fared, but according to one source, they were well received at the time with thousands of young school leavers signing up for the programme. However, by the end of 1988, the number had reportedly trickled down to 200, failing to seriously engage its trainers and help them stand on their feet after the training. Another source has attributed the failure of the scheme to the “far-fetched objectives of making farmers out of all Nigerians”, adding that “no country attains self-sufficiency in food by seeking to turn all its citizens [to] farmers”. The conclusion from that analysis was that “farming should be left for those whose business it is to farm”.
But was it fair to say that the Go Back to the Land scheme tried to turn all Nigerians into farmers? And is it enough to leave farming for those who have made it their business? More importantly, does government policy have a role in providing the right conditions or infrastructural support to enable people to make one economic activity or another their business and enjoy the attendant dividends to the fullest?
To answer these questions, it is essential to go back to the rhetoric employed in these schemes. Just last year, a public official lamented the number of young people who are roaming the streets in search of jobs, suggesting that they be allowed to hone their skills through farming. To the average Nigerian ear, this sounds like a way of saying that farming is the last resort out of poverty, a consolation prize for the failure of the economy, a way to prevent young people from becoming a menace to society. In a country where international companies are coming in and exploiting our food resources for profit, the agricultural appeal is a lot more than it seems. However, Back to the Land schemes in their present formation really sound like Banished to the Farm – not anything anyone will get excited about.
This is because farming has become so associated with dirty, menial, uneducated work to many that anything other than a value-chain approach will fail. Not many remember that even though millions of smallholder farmers struggle to break even or enjoy sustained profits, magnates like Aliko Dangote see their agricultural endeavours churn out millions and even billions every year. This theme has recurred in a number of my articles this year that young people do not have to pick up hoes to make a living (and for some of them this might be unprofitable and unfulfilling). Indeed, they can be marketers, processors, retailers, managers of storage houses, technology gurus, etc. But they can also own farms and enjoy the thrill that comes with creating something out of uncultivated land, enjoying good food, and cashing in on a good harvest.
Perhaps the Rice Revolution plan – a partnership between the Federal Government and Dominion Farms – will have a chance to right these rhetorical wrongs. With a similar goal towards self-sufficiency, the expected turnover within the first 18 months is 300,000 MT of rice, which will enable Nigeria to immediately slash its imports by 15 percent. As such, there is still a chance to provide an avenue for those who will care to make it their business, enabling them to discover the best in themselves and to embark on a fulfilling career journey as plot owners, farm entrepreneurs, marketers, retailers, transporters, researchers, etc. Reports should also be made available on the progress so far, for example, with the students who went to Kenya to learn new farming and management techniques. Diverging from past schemes, which started off with high fanfare and went quiet as progress grinded to a halt, success stories should be made public and the momentum should be kept high from year to year. All in all, the agricultural sector will benefit from further analysis into these schemes, which will give us a chance to go back to the basics and come out with something new and truly transformative in its ramifications.
TUKENI OBASI
Obasi is a syndicated columnist, co-founder of the Youth Consortium for Progress and one of the program managers for the Harambe Incubator for Sustainable and Rural Development (HISARD).
tobasi@harambenigeria.org
Send reactions to:
comment@s19080.p615.sites.pressdns.com/en