‘ Seedlings, production techs impeding Nigeria’s cocoa industry’
• Association calls for coordinating body • Expert advises cocoa states to mobilise youths, forests for production
APART from neglect of agricultural infrastructure by the government, non- availability of improved high- yielding cocoa seedlings, scarcity of other inputs such as agro- chemicals, old production technologies and climate change have been identified as impediments to increasing cocoa productivity in the country.
Production of cocoa beans was around 300,000 metric tonnes in 2013/ 2014, but reduced to about 245,000 metric tonnes in the 2019/ 2020 session.
However, in the 2019/ 2020 cocoa season, the Ghana Cocoa Board ( COCOBOD) aggregated 742,725 tonnes as of June 4, according to International Cocoa Organisation ( ICCO). And, Côte d’ivoire, as of August 3, 2020, aggregated 2.043 million tonnes.
With 2.043 million tonnes of cocoa, Côte d’ivoire produces about eight times of what Nigeria currently produces, while Ghana, with 742,725 tonnes, produces three times the Nigeria’s cocoa output yearly.
Analysing the sector, stakeholders have Xrayed the challenges and suggested ways to maximise the economy of cash crops, especially, cocoa bean production and value chain.
Dr Patrick Adebola, Executive Director, the Cocoa Research Institute of Nigeria ( CRIN), Ibadan, Oyo State, said most of the cocoa trees in Nigeria had been existing for about 40 to 60 years or more.
He explained that those plantations had declined in productivity and therefore, there was a need for new ones or thorough rehabilitation of old plantations.
President of the Cocoa Farmers Association of Nigeria ( CFAN), Mr Adeola Adegoke, said challenges in the cocoa industries were many, and concerted efforts and investments were needed to overcome them.
Various administrations in the cocoa- producing states had done little or nothing to assist farmers in the rehabilitation of old plantations, or in opening up land for younger generations of farmers to gradually expand hectares of cocoa land and replace the older farmers.
And, Nigeria, he added, is the only cocoaproducing country that has no coordinating board, and where different stakeholders go in different directions.
Adegoke argued that cocoa production had suffered neglect for over 50 years, and advocated strategic cocoa policies, management and support.
Pension scheme, rebate and other organised and government- enabled benefits for cocoa farmers are emplaced in Ghana, Cote d’ivoire, Brazil and Cuba, but Nigerian cocoa farmers have not been socially, economically or structurally enabled to rev up production.
Climate change, he added, had aggravated the situation, as about 70 per cent of improved seedlings did die in the first three years of planting due to harsh climatic condition following global warming, at the point when they should significantly add to yearly production,
Fire disasters too, as recently recorded in two local government areas of Ekiti State, have wreaked destruction on cocoa plantations, while irrigation facilities are zero for cocoa farming.
Adebola, the CRIN boss, buttressed Adegoke’s point on empowering youths with land, training and planting materials, saying: “There is the issue of the quality of planting materials. Generally, farmers tend to harvest from their farms and produce seedlings themselves so that they can plant and they may not be able to get the maximum yields.
“The Cocoa Research Institute ( CRIN) implores farmers to come for improved planting materials that are high- yielding and will produce fruits early in about two years.”
He added that technologies had emerged for mass- propagation of genetically improved materials. Of the propagation technologies, he listed manual, using seeds to propagate those seedlings ( which had delayed progress so far), and other technologies such as semiautotrophic hydroponics ( SAH).
“The SAH process is easy,” he said, “having the substrates and parts of the planting materials, a part of the leaf or stem, which will be propagated using a special medium. We root and harden them and make them available for farmers. Seedlings can be produced in millions using the hydroponic technology.
“We are trying to see how this can be introduced to cocoa, although we have attempted that in an experimental trial,” he said.
He advised cocoa- producing state governments to mobilise youths into groups, provide them with land, and inputs, while partnering with CRIN to provide technical knowhows for planting, maintenance, harvesting and marketing.
Meanwhile, Special Adviser to the Cross River State Governor Ben Ayade on Cocoa Development and Control, Dr Oscar Ofuka, has noted that cocoa is the major source of revenue generation in the state, trailing federal allocations from oil proceeds.
Ofuka disclosed this while addressing journalists during the Award and Magazine launch organised in commemoration of this year’s International Women’s Day, in Abuja, recently.
Cocoa had been completely forgotten in the state, he said, but during the administration of Governor Ben Ayade from 2015, Cross River State cocoa sector alone has offered employment opportunities to youths.
Listing some of the challenges, a former Provost of the Federal College of Agriculture, Kabba, Kogi State, Dr Akin Oloniruha, identified challenges in the cash crop production, especially cocoa, as negative climate change, unstable price, use of globally banned chemicals, pollination challenges, bush burning and plantation destruction, as well as adulteration of improved cocoa seedlings in circulation.
Climate change, he argued, had led to scanty rainfalls, elongated dry season, frequent dry spells, flooding, abnormal relative humidity and higher temperature fluctuations. All the effects of climate change have negative impacts on cash crops such as cocoa, palm oil, cashew and rubber.
Unstable prices of cash crop in the international markets have also affected morale, as lower prices and discrimination against certain producers have discouraged farmers, investors and aggregators from investing in dynamics that could boost production.
Bush burning had also affected thousands of hectares of cocoa and cashew plantations, Oloniruha said.
IHAVE received several phone calls from several public officers, students and practitioners in procurement requesting me to intervene in the ongoing discourse and to give an opinion on the interpretation of the words in the new Finance Act 2021 which states as amendment in Section 22( 5) of Public Procurement Act ( PPA) that “The decision of all Tenders Boards shall be confirmed respectively by the Political Heads of the procuring entities provided that the political heads are not the chairmen of the Tenders’ Board “
In another instance, at a meeting of select CSO leaders in Abuja recently, some of my colleagues accused me of keeping silence in the face of unclear position of certain provisions in the 2021 Finance Act affecting procurement processes.
Though it is the statutory responsibility of BPP to provide answer to this question, as a stakeholder in the Nigeria enterprise and a procurement expert, I will like to contribute to the debate first, by presenting the legal verdict of the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court of Nigeria on the key words involved in the subject matter.
Setting the ball rolling, let us begin by quoting the dictionary meaning of the word approval, which means the act of confirming, ratifying, assenting, sanctioning, or consenting to act or thing done by another. This definition was upheld by the Court of Appeal in the case of KURE Vs K. S. L. D. S. C ( 2003) 2 NWLR ( Pt. 807) 322 at 339.
In other words, when the act of someone is subject to the approval of another it means that the exercise of powers vested is not absolute or unrestrained or unconditional. This is also the position of the Court of Appeal KURE Vs K. S. L. D. S. C supra at pages 339- 340
In the case of the Supreme Court, it stated that the word “approve” when used with respect to legislative drafting, it means to convey assent whereas in the ordinary parlance it means to accede to, accept, acquiesce in, adopt, affirm, agree to, allow, assent to, authenticate, authorize, be in favour of, be satisfied with, endorse, confirm, consent to make valid, sustain, uphold, support etc. ( See Akintokun vs L. P. D. C ( 2014) All FWLR( Pt 748) 920 at 966) Also in the case of Utomudo vs Military Governor Bendel State ( 2014) 11 NWLR ( Pt 1417 ) 97 the Supreme Court also defined authorize to mean “to give a formal approval to” hence it is synonymous with the word “Approve”. Again, ratification means a ‘ confirmation and acceptance of a previous act, thereby making the act valid from the moment it was done’. This is the position of the Court of Appeal in the case of Mikano International Limited vs Ehumadu ( 2013) All FWLR ( Pt. 667) 658 at page 690. In another judgment, the Supreme Court maintained that the word ‘ recommendation’ means an action that is advisory in nature rather than one having any binding effect. ( See Cookey vs Fombo ( 2005) All FWLR( Pt. 271) 25 at 41
Flowing from the above definitions, it is my candid view that in the absence of further directives from BPP therefore, “the decision of all Tenders Boards shall be confirmed respectively by the Political Heads of the Procuring entities provided that the political heads are not the chairmen of the Tenders Board“implies that “the decision of all Tenders Boards shall be approved respectively by the Political Heads of the Procuring entities provided that the political heads are not the chairmen of the Tender’s Board.
Consequently, the above submission implies that the Tenders Board lacks absolute autonomy, and which mitigates and contravenes with the cardinal principles of Transparency, Accountability and Open Competitiveness as enshrined in the PPA 2007. Therefore, the failure of the Political heads of procurement entities to comply with the provisions of the new Finance Act 2021 amendment in Section 22( 5) of Public Procurement Act ( PPA) is liable to breed corruption and breech Due Process as a result of the sway of influence that these Political heads wields.