AgricultureAll The NewsCover StoryEconomyFeaturesPerspective

Advancing National Food Security: Inside the Renewed Hope Agricultural Revolution

3 Mins read

 

By Muhammed Musa Tsoken,

Nigeria’s quest to attain sustainable food security has taken a new direction under the “Renewed Hope” agricultural initiatives championed by Bola Ahmed Tinubu. The administration’s approach, which combines policy reform, financial investment, mechanization, and grassroots mobilization, is gradually positioning agriculture as a strategic pillar of national economic recovery and stability.

Supporters of the initiative say the policy direction reflects a systemic response to Nigeria’s long-standing agricultural challenges, including low productivity, food inflation, insecurity affecting farmlands, and the limited transition from subsistence to commercial agriculture.

According to Ambassador Musa Muhammed Tsoken, National Coordinator of the Asiwaju Again Renewed Hope Support Initiative 2027 and National President of APC Initiative for Good Governance (APC-IGG), the agricultural reforms under the current administration represent a deliberate attempt to rebuild Nigeria’s food production system while strengthening the livelihoods of farmers across the federation.

Tsoken noted that the vision of the Renewed Hope Agricultural Revolution extends beyond political rhetoric, emphasizing that the administration is laying a structural foundation for a resilient and productive agricultural economy.

Central to the reform agenda is the coordinated role of the Secretary to the Government of the Federation, George Akume, who oversees inter-ministerial collaboration and policy implementation. The Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security, led by Abubakar Kyari, has been tasked with driving the operational aspects of the agricultural transformation.

One of the major highlights of the policy framework is the unprecedented financial commitment to agricultural development. The administration has introduced a trillion-naira support structure designed to stimulate productivity and enable farmers to expand beyond subsistence farming into commercial-scale operations.

Within this framework, the National Agricultural Development Fund has been strengthened with a ₦100 billion support package targeted primarily at smallholder farmers. The intervention seeks to improve access to farm inputs, modern techniques, and market opportunities for millions of rural producers who form the backbone of Nigeria’s agricultural sector.

Complementing this initiative is the deployment of approximately ₦250 billion in agricultural credit facilities aimed at boosting food production and improving yields. Access to credit has historically been a major constraint for Nigerian farmers, and policymakers believe the new credit scheme will encourage investment in mechanization, irrigation, and improved seeds.

Beyond domestic funding, the government is also exploring international partnerships to expand the agricultural value chain. A key component is the proposed $1 billion “Green Imperative” programme designed to provide tractor-leasing services and modern farming support systems across all 774 local government areas in the country.

Mechanization is also receiving significant attention. Under the current plan, about 2,000 tractors are expected to be made available annually through low-interest financing arrangements, enabling farmers to cultivate larger areas of land and improve productivity.

These initiatives are part of broader emergency measures introduced following the declaration of a State of Emergency on Food Security by President Tinubu on July 13, 2023. The declaration marked a turning point in government response to rising food prices and supply challenges across the country.

Since the declaration, authorities say substantial progress has been made in land utilization and strategic food supply interventions. Over 500,000 hectares of arable land have been mapped and prepared for large-scale cultivation of staple crops such as rice, wheat, and maize.

To cushion the immediate impact of food shortages, the government also authorized the release of 42,000 metric tonnes of assorted grains from national reserves. In addition, a 150-day duty-free import window for essential food commodities was introduced to stabilize prices and improve market supply.

Food security has also been integrated into Nigeria’s broader national security architecture. Under the new approach, food and water availability are now being treated as national security concerns, with the National Security Council playing a role in protecting farmlands and ensuring farmers can safely cultivate their crops.

For advocates of the Renewed Hope agenda, these measures demonstrate a shift toward viewing agriculture not merely as an economic activity but as a strategic national priority.

Ambassador Tsoken believes the policies currently being implemented represent only the first phase of a broader national agricultural rebirth. According to him, sustaining the momentum will require patience, cooperation, and continued support from citizens.

He explained that the Asiwaju Again Renewed Hope Support Initiative 2027 has begun mobilizing grassroots engagement across communities to promote awareness of the agricultural reforms and encourage citizens to support policies aimed at long-term national development.

Similarly, the APC Initiative for Good Governance has pledged to advocate transparency, accountability, and inclusive implementation of agricultural programs to ensure that benefits reach farmers and rural communities across the country.

Observers note that Nigeria’s agricultural sector holds immense potential if supported with consistent policies, adequate funding, and improved security for farmers. With a population exceeding 200 million people and vast arable land, the country’s ability to feed itself—and potentially export food—depends largely on how effectively these reforms are implemented.

For Tsoken and other advocates of the Renewed Hope agenda, the reforms initiated under President Tinubu represent a crucial opportunity to rebuild the nation’s agricultural backbone.

“The foundation being laid today is solid,” Tsoken said. “President Tinubu is not just playing politics; he is resuscitating the soul of Nigeria through bold agricultural reforms. We must stand together to ensure that this Renewed Hope reaches every household in the federation.”

If sustained and properly implemented, analysts say the Renewed Hope Agricultural Revolution could mark a defining moment in Nigeria’s effort to achieve food security, strengthen rural economies, and secure a more stable future for generations to come.

   

About author
Time Nigeria is a modern and general interest Magazine with its Headquarters in Abuja. The Magazine has a remarkable difference in editorial philosophy and goals, it adheres strictly to the ethics of Journalism by using the finest ethos of the profession to promote peace among citizens; identifying and harnessing the nation’s vast resources; celebrating achievements of government agencies, individuals, groups and corporate organizations and above all, repositioning Nigeria for the needed growth and development. Time Nigeria gives emphasis to places and issues that have not been given adequate attention by others. The Magazine is national in outlook and is currently being read and patronized both in print and on our vibrant and active online platform (www.timenigeria.com).
Articles
Related posts
All The NewsCover StoryNewsPolitics

Musa Tsoken Congratulates Kalu on Daily Times’ Lawmaker of the Year Award

1 Mins read
The National Coordinator of the Asiwaju Again Renewed Hope Support Initiative 2027 and National President of the APC Initiative for Good Governance…
Abuja FileDevelopmentEconomyEnergyFinanceInside LagosOpinionPerspective

The Missing Middle of Infrastructure Finance: Why Capital Still Fails to Become Infrastructure

6 Mins read
  By Chidi Nwafor  In October 2023, a Gulf sovereign wealth fund quietly closed a $2 billion allocation to global infrastructure, earmarked in part for emerging-market energy and transport assets. The announcement drew the usual applause: another sign, commentators said, that institutional capital was finally waking up to the infrastructure opportunity in the Global South. Eighteen months later, less than a tenth of that allocation had actually left the fund’s balance sheet. Not because the mandate had changed. Not because the fund had lost appetite. According to two people familiar with the portfolio, the constraint was simpler and more uncomfortable: there were not enough investable projects to put the money into. This is not a story about a reluctant investor. It is a story about capital that wants to move, cannot find enough places willing and able to receive it in a form it can underwrite, and quietly waits instead. Multiply that fund by the hundreds of pension schemes, sovereign wealth vehicles, commercial banks and infrastructure funds now carrying dedicated allocations for emerging-market infrastructure, and a pattern emerges that rarely makes it into a headline: the world is not short of capital for infrastructure. It has capital in historic abundance, sitting adjacent to a historic infrastructure gap, unable to cross the distance between the two. The Comfortable Explanation  The explanation on offer at every major infrastructure summit is a familiar one. Global infrastructure investment needs run into the tens of trillions of dollars over the coming decade; committed capital falls well short; therefore, the problem is one of insufficient funding, and the solution is more of it: more pledges, more blended-finance facilities, more climate funds, more multilateral capital increases. It is a comfortable explanation because it assigns responsibility clearly to governments who under-fund, institutions who under-commit, and it offers a clean remedy: raise more. It is also, on close inspection, not what the evidence shows. Pension funds globally hold trillions in assets under management with explicit infrastructure allocations that remain structurally underweight, not because trustees have rejected the asset class but because deal flow meeting their risk and governance thresholds has not materialised at the pace their mandates assume. Sovereign wealth funds report the same pattern. Commercial banks with dedicated project finance desks describe pipelines that look full at the term-sheet stage and thin dramatically by financial close. Development finance institutions, whose entire purpose is to absorb risk that commercial capital will not, routinely report that their binding constraint is not capital adequacy but the volume of bankable transactions their teams can originate and structure in a given year. None of this fits the scarcity narrative. All of it fits a different one. Availability Is Not Deployability  Capital availability and capital deployability are not the same condition, and the conflation of the two is doing real damage to how the world thinks about the infrastructure gap. Availability asks whether money exists somewhere with a mandate that could, in principle, be pointed at infrastructure. Deployability asks something much narrower and much harder: whether a specific project, at a specific moment, has been engineered, structured, documented and de-risked to the point where an investment committee can approve it without exception. The first condition is met, overwhelmingly, across nearly every category of capital that matters to infrastructure. The second is met by only a small fraction of the projects competing for it. The result is a market that looks, from the outside, like a financing gap, and functions, from the inside, like a conversion problem: an abundance of capital on one side, an abundance of infrastructure need on the other, and an underbuilt set of mechanisms in between capable of turning one into the other at any meaningful scale. Where the Conversion Breaks  The break does not happen at the ends of the process. It happens in the middle, in the unglamorous sequence of work that turns a plausible concept into an instrument a fiduciary can sign. A promising transmission project needs a feasibility study rigorous enough to survive institutional scrutiny rather than optimistic enough to attract early interest. It needs offtake arrangements that hold up under real counterparty and currency risk, not the counterparty risk assumed in a base case. It needs environmental and social documentation calibrated to the standards of the institutions being asked to fund it, not the standards of the jurisdiction hosting it. It needs a legal and commercial structure that allocates risk in ways a commercial lender, not only a development financier, will accept. It needs a sponsor capable of executing what has been proposed, not merely capable of proposing it. Each of these is ordinary project finance discipline. None of it is exotic, and in mature infrastructure markets it happens as a matter of course, absorbed into systems built over decades: specialist advisers, standard-form contracts, established procurement norms, deep pools of transaction expertise. What is missing in the markets where the infrastructure gap is largest is not the standard itself but the machinery that meets it. Projects arrive at investment committees with ambition intact and preparation incomplete, and that gap is treated, again and again, as an individual project’s failure rather than what it actually is: a structural absence in the systems responsible for producing investable transactions at scale. The Missing Middle  This is the Missing Middle of Infrastructure Finance: the institutional architecture that sits between capital that wants to move and infrastructure that needs building, and whose incompleteness explains far more of the global infrastructure gap than any shortfall in committed funds. It consists of project preparation facilities able to fund feasibility and structuring work before commercial viability has been proven. Transaction advisers capable of building deals that satisfy development mandates and commercial return thresholds at once, rather than treating the two as separate constituencies to be managed sequentially. Risk-sharing and guarantee instruments that convert political, regulatory and currency risk into something a commercial balance sheet can underwrite. Aggregation platforms that bundle smaller, individually sub-scale projects into portfolios large enough to justify institutional transaction costs. Standardised documentation that reduces the bespoke legal cost of every new deal. And coordination across ministries, regulators and financiers robust enough that a technically sound project does not die in bureaucratic sequencing after the money has already been found. None of these are new ideas in isolation. What is missing is their assembly into a coherent system, deliberately funded and institutionally accountable, rather than scattered across donor-funded pilots that end when the grant does. The African Dimension  Africa makes this dynamic unusually visible, and consequently offers an unusually clear opportunity to correct it. The continent’s infrastructure financing need, by any measure, is vast. Less understood is that the shortfall is disproportionately one of preparation rather than capital. Nigerian gas-to-power, off-grid solar and mini-grid developers have each demonstrated that individual projects can clear the bankability bar; what has not emerged is systemic pipeline scale, a steady stream of comparably prepared projects large enough to absorb the capital already circling the sector. The pattern repeats, with local variation, from grid infrastructure in East Africa to transport corridors in West Africa. Interested capital is rarely the scarce input. Investment-ready projects are. The Global Comparison  Mature markets solved this problem gradually and mostly invisibly, through decades of institution-building that predates the current infrastructure conversation: specialist project finance units inside banks, standardised PPP frameworks, established regulatory playbooks, deep benches of transaction lawyers and engineers who move between deals rather than between one-off assignments. Emerging and frontier markets are not being asked to meet a lower standard. They are being asked to meet the same standard without having built the same machinery, and then being told, when deals fail to close, that the problem is insufficient funding….
Cover StoryNewsSports

Union Bank, AIICO Multishield, Checkers Custard, Others Back 5th Cycling Lagos

2 Mins read
Union Bank of Nigeria Plc, AIICO Multishield, Checkers Custard and other corporate organisations have thrown their weight behind the 5th Cycling Lagos,…
Stay on the loop!

Subscribe to our latest news.

Leave a Reply

WP2Social Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com