Achieving food security and creating employment have become two major global challenges. The agric sector has answers to these challenges but it is bedevilled with a myriad of problems ranging from land tenure system to the use of crude implements. The Executive Director, Nigerian Institute for Oil Palm Research (NIFOR), Benin, Edo State, Dr. Omorefe Asemota, says research and funding are two other challenges that should be tackled. He speaks about how the government can restore agric sector’s lost glories, the need for research institutes to have semi-autonomous power over its internally-generated revenue, brain drain and other issues. MUYIWA LUCAS and SINA FADARE met him.
How would you describe the achievements attained, if any, of the institute?
We have achieved a lot. In terms of research, Nigerian Institute For Oil Palm Research (NIFOR) is a foremost research institution in this country. NIFOR has a number of major contributions to the commodities that it is mandated to investigate. And I must point out that NIFOR is not only researching on oil palm, which is our oldest commodity, but we carry out research also on coconut palm, date palm, raffia palm and shea. Shea is not a palm, it is an oil seed crop. The date palm is a palm but does not produce oil, but the other four produce oils. We have the mandate to these five major commodities. And it is important to point out that each of these commodities can potentially contribute very significantly to the agricultural economy. It is just that each one needs attention so that it can begin to bring to the table, the fullness of this potential that we talked about.
How can palm oil farming and agriculture be further encouraged in this country?
We must have policies and environment that promote this sector. We have the land, 22 states in this country have the arable land that can accommodate oil palm. We need to encourage people to invest which can be promoted by government support, but it must be done by the three tiers of government. On the Agricultural Transformation Agenda, there is a place for oil palm. What you find is that while the Federal Government has been prosecuting it aggressively in the last four years, the states have not been doing that, whereas the state and the local government have direct access to land. There must be synergy across the tiers of government and on top of it, you must have active private sector. That is how it works. But the most important thing is to have aggressive investment in planting. There are some estates’palm oil that are doing very well and are quoted on the stock exchange, we need more of that. In Southeast Asia, a single estate can be as large as 100 hectares. We have something similar, but need more of such. It is the aggregate of this that will promote higher national output.
Increasing farm yield is a major concern. How can this be achieved?
You must have improved agronomy leading to good variety yield. The combination of using improved materials and best agronomy expertise is what brings out maximum productivity. Of course, you must add improved agronomic practices so that you can get the maximum potential of your crop. But the combination of the use of improved planting materials and the use of best agronomic practices is what brings out maximum productivity. The drawback in our own system is that we have these huge, wild palms. They are many and occupy a huge land mass but their productivity is low. On the contrary, the improved plantings represent only a small fraction of about 500,000. It is good to know and we are very proud of this, that there are oil palm estates that are doing very well, but we need many more of that. In Southeast Asia, an estate can be as much as 100,000 hectares. We have nothing similar in this country and we do not need just one. We need many of such. It is the aggregate of that that promotes higher national output. That is what is really lacking here. There are small challenges at the level of production now, of land tenure, of access to credit. But they can be resolved if there is concerted efforts by all the stakeholders. What we must do of course, is to involve the communities in some of the activities. But unless we solve the problem of investment in the industry, then national productivity would continue to be low.
What is the role and impact of private participation in oil palm farming?
Most of the farms you would call big plantations are largely owned by foreigners. Normally, what should happen, or I should say what has happened in other environments, is that, yes, foreign investors are welcome, we want them to participate, but we also, as a nation must take steps to encourage more and bigger plantations, within which there would be a fraction for foreigners, but there must also be active participation by Nigerians. This does not have to be government funded, it should be private sector led.
Do you think there is an enabling environment for private investment in oil palm?
I agree that we must have policies and enabling environment that promote this investment. We have the land, because 22 states have environments that can favourably accommodate oil palm plantation development. All the southern states and all of the Middle Belts also. All the way to southern Kaduna, Adamawa, Taraba, and some parts of Niger State are suitable for oil palm. However, we needed to encourage people to invest and that can be promoted or caused by government support, no question about that but it must be done by the three tiers of government. There is an ongoing Agricultural Transformation Agenda (ATA), which is a Federal Government driven programme and within that, there is an oil palm component.
But what you will find is that whereas, the Federal Government has been prosecuting this aggressively, especially in the last four years, the states have not been doing that. Yet, the states and local governments have direct access to the land and own the land. They have the farmers. Therefore, there must be synergy of policy across the different levels of government. Then on top of that, you must have active private sector initiative and participation. That is how this would work. But, the sum-total of all this is that we need much more aggressive investment in planting.
Research is vital to development and agric breakthroughs. Funding remains a challenge. What is the way forward?
The truth of the matter is that research demands financial support and that is a global truth. If the support in the financial base shrinks below critical threshold, it can be damaging. Two things I suspect would happen and some are already happening. Some institutions have the capacity to generate some funds. It may not be sufficient, but the institute must have some leverage to be able to at least, use some of these funds without too much constraint, but with oversight.
But the situation that requires that all internally generated revenue be paid back into the consolidated revenue fund of the country directly without guarantees for the institute to be able to at least use some of it to maintain itself so that it can survive and then perhaps hopefully improve, is challenging to the institute.
It would be nice that this be looked at. The other area of innovation would also be to look at alternative sources of funding that are not directly from the government. But even when institutes are able to do that, that pool will still fall within internally generated revenue. So, again, we require that there be some degree of freedom. But, as I said, one must also insist on oversight. I am not saying the institutes should just do what we like, but let there be proper framework that guarantees oversight but leaves the institute with enough revenue to at least function. The institutes must live and survive so that they can discharge statutory functions, because after all, the institutes were established by law.
Brain drain is a major concern for institutes such as NIFOR. What are you doing to discourage it?
Our ability to retain competent staff is key to the long term health and survival of the institute. It is important that our research institutions be vibrant, that they be able to deliver solutions and promptly too. Therefore, it is important that the institutes and this is nationwide, should be able to attract some of the best brains and retain them. This really comes down to a few things like the condition of service, the general framework under which people work or carry out their assignments. People must have some minimum guarantees of tenure, minimum guarantees of career fulfilment, subject, of course, to good productivity. There is also the aspect of reward. Part of reward is promotion, remuneration, which is the salary.
Sometime ago, there was parity between the institute and the universities. But that parity as of now, is not complete. It would be nice if the remaining aspects are looked into to encourage productive scientists, brilliant scientists, to stay. Indeed, from my experience, the best brains in the universities actually want to go to the research institutes. This is because there, they are able to carry out research without the extra burden of having to be distracted. Examples abound worldwide. But the reason that happens, which must also be the case in Nigeria, is because such institutes have the best of everything that keep the scientists functioning at maximum productivity levels. The same must happen here.
So, how is NIFOR coping?
At the policy level, we encourage our policy makers to keep looking at these areas so that continuous corrections can be made. We encourage our scientists to also know that there is joy in being able to reach out to farmers and improve their lifestyles. Efforts are also being made nationally, at the level of agricultural research council and ministry and the institutes to encourage scientists to begin to network much more than before because in doing so, scientists relate with other colleagues more openly and are more confident. In that process also, sometimes, some are able to attract some support externally and that also makes the job a little easier.
What can research institutes do to bring Nigeria back to the glorious days of agric?
Everybody agrees in this country that there is need to diversify the economy. What must happen is that the necessary things must be done. Some of it may be difficult, but nothing must be spared to transform this country sustainably. A significant part of that transformation must be from agriculture. That therefore, must mean that conscious efforts must be made. And that effort must be at the level of sustainable policy, sustainable investment that is not just for four or eight years, but long way down the road. This must be made to promote agriculture across the landscape. It is true that this country is blessed with a whole variety of environment that is suitable for almost every kind of agricultural productivity; we must begin to take advantage of it. We have already seen that a significant part of that is research, but a significant part is in investment. It is the synergy between these two that bring the productivity that we need, but governments at all levels, private people that have some funds, must begin to think differently so that between the policy and the investment, we would have a very sustainable but mutually beneficial synergy that will help us to grow the economy especially in this agricultural area that we are talking about. As this happens the input of research will become more and more appreciated, it would become more and more in demand and that would be to the benefit of all stakeholders.
What can be done to position NIFOR for better contributions to the economy?
We have had major contributions, the biggest is oil palm. Those contributions require a number of factors for us to do them well. The most important is human capital. In that case, the quality of the scientists, the environment and with the work, that is infrastructure such as the quality of our laboratories for instance, supply of inputs; the infrastructure base and to some extent, the human capital development develops from funding.
What other challenges are you confronted with?
Funding is not everything, it is only significant. At some point, research institutes nationwide, including NIFOR, had to grapple with dwindling human capital, dwindling number and strength of research workers. We had that problem because, obviously, there were embargoes on employment. But there was also a time when the conditions of service for researchers and scientists were inferior to those in competing areas of the national economy.
The wages were lower than that of others in the same field in the universities. Our scientists and researchers could not aspire to the highest level of professional attainment because, at that time, the conditions were poor. Although those conditions have been largely redressed, it is still work in progress; but they are much better so we are now able to retain a bigger pool of scientists. But when it was poor, what used to happen was that mid career, most scientists used to leave and that affected the institute’s advancement. The reason was because we operated in the very tight pyramid but the space is beginning to open up.
We also had challenges of the capacity of the institute to expose the scientists to the best trainings that the world can offer. And that is where the problem of funding comes in again. The truth is that scientist must be trained and must be given opportunities to retrain as their careers evolve. So you must train them well to give a good foundation; you must continue to expose them to further training because scientific investigation continues to evolve. If you do not retrain, then very soon, the scientist would become stale. Unfortunately, because of funding constraint, the quality of training we were giving to our scientists did not meet up to what we would have loved. What I mean is that there was a time when we could expose our scientists to the best training institutions in the world, because we could afford it. But that has since changed.
In addition to giving that initial training, however, we also still need to continue to expose them to new developments. That also is a funding challenge and we have not been able to meet those two. It is true that the quality that we are able to provide locally is improving, but there is so much more that can be desired. That now impacts on the output of research nationally. Therefore, whereas there was a time when this institute was, if not the foremost, one of the foremost research institutes for oil palm research, but because of poor funds and infrastructure, in the last two decades or so, we have kind of fallen behind. These are things we would really love to correct.
Science also depends on good quality facilities. You need equipment, minimum guarantees of for instance, light and water. The environment should be conducive. Regrettably, the Nigerian environment has sometimes been harsh. Provision of inputs has sometimes posed major challenges. That has not changed. But in the face of these challenges, it is good to say that the scientists and the support staff are working. In the institute, we work as a team. People have been making some heroic efforts to move the commodities forward because we are very conscious of our primary calling, which is to generate research output that will touch the lives of our people, which will ultimately improve the standard of living of our people.
