27. The performance of the Smallholder Fattening Scheme under the SLDP can be clearly seen to be similar to the scheme under the FLDP, considering the cost-effectiveness of the scheme. Both the FLDP and the SLDP assumed that by intensifying a commercial tendency of livestock production, the most possible volume of meat and milk would be made available. The assumption that the level of income of the rural farmer would be raised through fattening more animals for the market has also been used as pivotal point for various forms of project initiation in the livestock sub-sector.
28. It can be argued that these assumptions are premised on incorrect information and/or insufficient knowledge of the project beneficiaries. The beneficiaries of the SHFS for instance, often consists of persons who are influential in their communities or those employed in the formal sector and who often have the economic power or the political clout that would allow them to benefit from the scheme. These people are mostly urban-based with little or no link with the rural area.
29. The scheme can therefore be seen to be targeted more for the urban/elite than for rural farmers, as it was intended to be. The net result is the emergence of a situation of an increased process of accumulation, concentration and differentiation (Beckman, 1982) in the livestock sub-sector of the Nigerian economy.
30. Considering the costs of running the scheme and the actual results obtained along with the effects on the protein intake level of Nigerians, the Smallholder Fattening Scheme cannot be considered anything but an elitist illusion of improved method of livestock production in Nigeria. Indeed, it may be considered yet another misdirected government project although with good intentions at the conception stage.
31. Considering its impact on the level of human nutrition (animal-source protein intake), no visible positive change in the availability of local meat has been observed. The lack of increased meat availability may be associated with the limited number of persons involved in the scheme. The number of participants in the SHFS may be too small to have any meaningful on the supply of more animal protein
32. Furthermore, the people that benefited most from the scheme did not have any form of livestock background, and therefore, performed much worse than it would have been if they had some experience in raising livestock. Beneficiaries with livestock tradition would better cope with animal management routines and therefore be a better target of the SHFS.
33. It may be concluded, following the foregoing observations, that livestock development programmes or projects that have a high import content like the FLDP and SLDP will continue to weaken the economic base of' the sector and further deepen the dependent development syndrome of the livestock sector. The accessibility of livestock development funding to community influentials and other political and business elites will further concentrate wealth and power into a few hands at the detriment of the producing majority.
34. It follows from these observations that the scheme needs serious overhauling if it is to meet the stated objectives. The basic point in re-orienting lies in the re-targeting of project beneficiaries away from the urban elite group and to involve the actual producers of livestock who have the background needed to better utilize additional inputs that are provided by government. Without directing efforts al the producers, livestock production in the area of fattening schemes will continue to suffer serious setbacks.
35. Finally, a general tendency can be observed in Nigeria's effort at developing the livestock sub-sector. More often than not, the guiding principle of development has always been the concern for improvement in the national economic growth indicators. Planners frequently overemphasize the need to attain a certain level of economic growth at the exclusion of other socio-economic and cultural enhancement of the population. In this way the GNP syndrome has been an overriding factor hi the design of livestock development programmes and projects. Livestock development in Nigeria can be seen to tilt more in favour of increased output in production, in this case measured by increases in the liveweight gains of' fattened animals This gives little or no consideration to the socio-economic improvement and welbeing of the people targeted by development interventions, nor are inputs that have gone into project schemes properly accounted for. The tendency to emphasise growth indicators is true for most development programmes in other sectors of the economy.
36. A more fundamental issue arises in the conceptualisation, planning and implementation of development projects such as the SHFS with both the FLDP and the SLDP. Development planning in this area has often been based on inadequate knowledge or at best incomplete knowledge and understanding of the prevailing situations and conditions in the environment of the planned intervention. Lack of knowledge is, of course, related to the dearth of dependable structural and statistical data. This situation often "blinds" planners to the negative side effects which can result from a proposed change and often, in the end, far outweigh the expected advantages (Carvalho, 1974). As a result of this lack of or inaccurate information on proposed development target, many development agencies in Nigeria (and indeed in most other developing countries) have frequently made optimistic projections of the outcomes of proposed interventions. Such predictions are usually premised on biased evaluations and are as such void of accurate information or complete data.
37. It is very clear from the examination of the SHFS above that incomplete data has been used to make subjective evaluation of the SHFS. The misinformation occasioned by the use of incomplete data in evaluating the performance of the scheme became the basis for replicating the scheme and in an expanded fashion. Adequate monitoring and evaluation work need to be stepped up if reliable and appropriate information is to be collected for further programme planning. To this end, project beneficiaries should be compelled to render proper and detail account of their operations by way of informing project agencies when, for example, decisions such as sale of animals are being contemplated. Coupled with this, field extension contacts with project participants should be increased so that a more complete situation of the producers is known and documented on a regular basis.
