Oguonu, Chika Njideka, PhD
Department of Public Administration and
Local Government,
University of Nigeria,
Nsukka.
Abstract
Nigeria is classified as one of the countries ill Africa with high suffering indices. Using illiteracy, access to clean water and the number of poor’ people below the poverty level as indicators of poverty, Nigeria ranks below other sub-Saharan African countries like Kenya, and Zambia on the poverty scale. Poverty is a contributory factor to environmental degradation in Nigeria. Poverty and environmental degradation have negative impact on national security. This study examines the effect of poverty on environmental degradation in Nigeria. It also evaluates the efficacy of poverty alleviation programmes with the aim of making suggestions on how to maximize the benefits of such programmes.
Introduction
Poverty is one of the problems facing Nigeria, presently. It is the remote cause of many problems in Nigeria. These problems include social ills, environmental degradation and health problems. It is believed that reduction of the poverty level in Nigeria will improve the general environmental condition. Many scholars like Uche (2000) and Ozo- Ezi (1998) arc of the view that the term poverty is a relative concept. Ogboi (2003) and some others are of the view that poverty has an environmental dimension. Hence Ogboi’s view is that “for poverty to be effectively alleviated, the environmental circumstances and geographical orientation of poverty have to be properly understood”. Poverty can be seen as a major hindrance to sustainable environmental development (Ajadike, 2003). Ajadike enumerates the problems of the poor to include, suffering from poor nutrition, which makes the poor vulnerable to diseases. The poor is in most cases an illiterate and he is either unemployed or underemployed. Though he cannot provide for his children and wife, yet, he gives birth to the greatest number of children, thereby spreading and multiplying misery to many people. This articleexamines the role of poverty on environmental degradation in Nigeria.
Conceptual Clarification:
As already mentioned, poverty is a relative concept (Uche, 2000; Ozor, 1998). Poverty can generally be seen as not having adequate income to support a minimum standard of decent living (Rahji, 1993). Poverty is characterized by lack of gainful employment, poor nutritional status and lack of physical assets. Rural poverty implies a situation where the rural dwellers live below the level of income that is needed for a reasonable minimum standard of living. Generally, one is considered poor if one is unable to have basic necessities of life. These basic necessities of life include food, shelter and clothing. In Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, physiological needs are considered paramount. These are the basic needs, which include food, shelter and clothing. Onah (1997) perceived poverty to include inability to feed oneself adequately and meet social obligations, lack of land or gainful employment, lack of kinsmen on whom one could rely for support in difficult situations and physical insecurity. Other dimensions of poverty include poor infrastructural amenities like housing, roads, water, educational institutions, and health facilities.
Poverty in Nigeria
Nigeria is classified as one of the poorest countries in the world. According to recent classification of basic economic indicators by the world bank (2000/2001), Nigeria has a GNP per capita of $310.00, ranking 179 in the world (1999 figures) and an average annual percentage growth of 0.5 (1998-1999 figures) and a national poverty line of 31.7% in urban areas and 49.5% in rural areas. As Herbst (1996) observed, “Despite the oil windfall, Nigerians are poorer today than they were at independence”. Looking at the selected economic indicators for selected years in table one below, it could be seen that Nigeria has a lot of challenges in respect of poverty reduction. Even though the rate of inflation dropped to 70% in 1994, it could be observed from the table that it went up to 19% in 200 I. Ekpo (2004) associated this rise with both demand -pull and cost-push factors. The demand -pull factors include expansionary fiscal policy by all tiers of government, rapid monetary growth and large wage salary increases. The cost-push factors on the other hand include fuel price increases, inadequate and poor infrastructural services and supply constraints due to ports congestion. An uncontrollable inflationary trend encourages instability and worsens economic growth. This deepens the poverty level. The table also portrays that the investment/GDP ratio has remained low from 1998 to 2001. Our GDP has also remained low (see appendix A also). All these buttress the fact that the poverty level in Nigeria needs urgent attention. There is excessive hardship in Nigeria. The number of street beggars is as high as 13,000,000 (Abdulbhi, 1993). Many Nigerian families are living in poverty. There is wide range of unemployment, social unrest, bribery and corruption, robbery and frustration in Nigeria.
Nigerian Selected Economic Indicators for Selected Years (%)
Year | P | U | Y | I/GDP | DEF/Y | |
1960 | 6.0 | 2.4 | 4.8 | 5.0 | -1.53 | |
1970 | 1.97 | 4.8 | 5.7 | S.4 | 8.41 | |
1971 | 6.6 | 5.3 | 6.2 | 6.3 | 0.50 | |
1975 | 3.9 | 4.8 | 6.0 | J5.2 | ||
1979 | 9.9 | 10.4 | 1.6 | J6.5 | ||
1980 | 20.0 | 7.8 | -0.8 | 17.9 | ||
1983 | 23.2 | 3.4 | 6.7 | 14.6 | 5.9 | |
1985 | 5.5 | 8.2 | -3.4 | 7.1 | 4.9 | |
1987 | 10.2 | 7.1 | 4.2 | 6.2 i | 5.4 | |
1992 | 44.4 | 3.2 | y | 4.1 | 7.2 | |
1993 | 57.2 | 5.4 | 2.9 | JJ | 15.5 | |
1994 | 70.0 | 2.2 | 1.0 | 4.2 | 7.7 | |
1995 | 72.8 | 1.8 | 2.7 | 5.1 | 0.1 | |
1996 | 29,3 | 3.8 | 3.2 | 5.2 | 1.8 | |
1997 | 8.5 | M | 3.8 | 5.4 | -0.2 | |
1998 | 10.0 | 3.2 | 2.4 | 5.3 | -4.7 | |
1999 | y | 3.0 | 2.6 | 1.9 | -8.5 | |
2000 | 6.9 | 3.6 | 3.8 | 5.4 | -2.1 | |
2001 | 18.9 | 3.5 | 4.G | j.3 | -4.0 | |
2002 | 20.2 | 3.8 | -3.5 | . | .- | |
2003 | 13.8 | 2.3 | 10.2 | |||
2004 | 19.1 | – |
Source: Central Bank of Nigeria, Annual Report and Statement of Accounts, Various Issues in Ekpo A.H. The Nigerian Economy under a New Democratic Experience; the Charles Saluda Effect. Notes: P= rate of inflation; u- unemployment rate; Y – GDP //GOP investment/GDP;DEF/Y = Overall deficit! surplus / GOP; = Provisional: July
Figures.
Poverty Alleviation Programmes In Nigeria
Nigeria has embarked on various poverty alleviation programmes. “The first major specific attempts at poverty alleviation programme in Nigeria was under the then Yakubu Gowon’s administration which enunciated the Natural Accelerated Food Production Programme (NAFPP) and established .the Nigerian Agricultural and co-operative Bank which was entirely devoted to funding agriculture” (Maduagwu, 2002,2). In 1976, Obasanjo introduced Operation Feed the Nation (OFN) so as to reduce over dependence of the Nigerian economy on oil (Odigbo, 2001, 27). After OFN, Shehu Shagari’s Green Revolution was introduced. The programme, which aimed at reducing the importation of food and boosting crop production, came to an end in 1983 without really achieving much.
The Buhari’s administration of 1983-1985 introduced “Go back to the land Programme”. This had little variations in Rivers and Lagos states. The former called it “School to land Programme” and the later called it “Graduates Farming Scheme” (Maduagwu, 2002,2). This programme did not last long. General Buhari and Idiagbo introduced the “War Against Indiscipline” Their campaign focused mainly on curtailing indiscipline and corruption.
It was in 1986 that Babangida established the “Directorate of Food, Road and Rural Infra-structure (DFRI). This aimed at providing basic infrastructures for rural dwellers. Babangida’s administration also introduced .the People’s Bank aimed at giving soft loans to entrepreneurs; Agricultural and Land development Authority (NALDA) and National Directorate of Employment (NDE). Maryam Babangida also established the Better Lile Programme for rural women, which later metamorphosed into the family Economic Advancement Programme (FEAP) under Abacha’s regime. It should be noted none of these programmes actually benefited the poor.
Other poverty alleviation Programmes according to Nnamani (2003, 134) include Nomadic Education Advancement Programmes (NEP), National Agriculture Land Development Authority (NALDA), River Basin Development Authority (RBDA), the Oil and Mineral Producing Areas Development Committee (OMPADEC) and Petroleum Trust Fund (PTF). These programmes have actually not achieved much. Other poverty alleviation programmes stressed by Obasanjo in addition to the approval of the blue print for the establishment of National Poverty Eradication Programme (NAPEP) include Youth Empowerment Scheme (YES), Rural Infrastructures Development Service Scheme and Natural Resources Development Scheme (NRDS).
In spite of all the above poverty alleviation programmes, poverty in the country is still worsening. About 70% of Nigerians live below the poverty line and our infrastructural amenities are still grossly inadequate. “The National Economic Empowerment and Development Strategy (NEEDS) which the present government’s response to the country’s underdevelopment and backwardness seems timely and comprehensive” (Ekpo, 2004). NEEDS aims at building a modern economy. Ekpo goes on to observe that “NEEDS with the state and local government versions known as SEEDS and LEEDS respectively, is a comprehensive .reform package to correct the structural rigidities and bottlenecks in the system in order to build a viable, vibrant and dynamic economy”. NEEDS focuses on “re-orienting values, reducing wealth and generating employment”. It has a framework for implementation and it is committed to tackling corruption, promoting transparency and accountability in Nigeria polity. That is why government believes that Due Process Mechanism is very essential in Nigeria.
Due Process implies that governmental businesses can be carried out openly, economically and transparently without favouritism and corruptible tendencies (Ezekwesili, 2004). The essence of this is to ensure that rules and procedures for procurement are made in such a way as to be implementable and enforceable.
Critical Evaluation of Some Poverty Alleviation Programmes in Nigeria.
In doing this evaluation, only two major programmes will be considered. They are Poverty Alleviation Programme (PAP) and Directorate or Food, Roads and Rural Infrastructure(DFRI).
( i) Poverty Alleviation Programme.
President Obasanjo conceived PAP as a package “to offer micro-credit to semi skilled an unskilled Nigerians as part of government plan to turn around the prostrate economy” (Agbese, 2000, I 0). The objective of the programme include the creation of 200,000 jobs for the unemployed. Committees were set at the state level for the implementation of the programme. This, however, did not stop the implementation problem faced by the programme. The elite POP members dominated the committee. As Agbese (2000,11) puts it:
Poverty Alleviation Committee set up at state levels to aid its Execution are packed full with POP sympathizers. Originally Membership of the committees was to be made up of the staff of the Federal Ministry of Works and Housing in the states. But politicians who have hijacked the committees in the states are said to be extorting between N I 00.00 and N200.00 from thousands of prospective job seekers before issuing them registration forms
The programme failed to achieve its objectives. The ruling PDF party used the programme for pacifying party loyalists. Hence Onah (2004) noted that: The Poverty Alleviation Programme funds are used by PDF officials at state levels to dispense favour to party loyalists. POP leaders up to the state executives are known to have forwarded the list of party faithfuls, cronies and family relations for inclusion in the Poverty Alleviation Programme.implementation due to change in leadership. Obasanjo’s administration like its predecessors replaced the family Economic Advancement Programme (FEAP) with Child Care Programme and Youth Employment Scheme (YES). This accounts for lack of continuity in almost all the poverty alleviation programmes in the country. Omah (2004) observed that the welfare programmes were intended to serve and touch the lives and interest of the common masses, but the elites in government, were using them to serve their personal interests.
Poverty and Environmental Degradation.
There is no gainsaying the fact that there is a link between povelty and environmental degradation. “Poverty pollutes the environment, creating environmental stress in different ways. Those who are poor and hungry will often destroy their immediate environment in order to survive. They will cut down forests, their livestock will overgraze grasslands, they will overuse marginal land … “(WCED,1987). The poor sacrifices long-term benefits (sustainability) to the short term need to survive (Dowdeswell, 1993). The poor usually do not understand the why a tree or an animal should be spared because his primary goal is survival. This is in tune with the observation of UNEP (1993. UKEP observed that “where the poverty ridden must gnaw away at tomorrow’s food to survive today, and must cut down the only tree left in sight to make space for a garden that will soon be washed away by the rains …” Those living with poverty make up by the World Bank’s estimate 1.1 billion of the earth’s 5 billion people- the absurdity of asking them to leave the forest standing and elephant alive when they have nothing but a neighbour same bit of land or animal is palpable” This is also in line with Ajadike(2003) deductions from Awake Magazine (1999) that: … intertwined with poverty is environmental degradation. Poverty is the destruction of nature, forest, animals, rivers and lakes. Here is another tragic cycle- poverty leads to environmental destruction, which perpetuates increasing poverty …. During the past 30 years, almost 20 percent of the world’s topsoil from Copeland has been lost, mostly because of lack of both the money and technology needed to carry out conservative measures… Millions of hectares of forests are being cut down every year to clear land for crops or to obtain wood for lumbar or fuel …. The poor are often forced to exploit the environment because of their need for food and fuel.
The above points out the fact that one cannot comfortably talk of sustainable development or welfare of future generations to the people who are threatened by poverty and are constrained to degrade the natural resources in order to survive now (Ajadike, 2003).
Here is no doubt that poverty is linked to the environmental especially in African economies, which are usually based on natural resources. Therefore degradation this practice undermined the programme. The management problem of PAP was worsened by the adoption of a top-bottom approach in the implementation of its policies. “The target group, the poor in our society were hardly reached due to the fact that the programme existed at the state and local government levels but lacked the pertinent linkages with the traditional and community leaders to effectively penetrate the grassroots”. (Eze, 2003,49). The PAP programme was replace with another, the National Poverty Eradication Programme (NAPEP). This was because, the state and local governments hijacked the PAP program and played the dominant and often intimidatory roles at the expense of the poor and rural communities who stayed away and only participated at convenient times (Okoli, 1999).
(ii) Directorate of Food, Roads and Rural Infrastructure.
This programme was established in 1987. It aimed at improving the quality of life of rural dwellers. To achieve this goal, it incorporated as Omah (2004) pointed out programmes like provision of National Feeder Road Building Scheme, Rural Water supply Scheme, Rural Electrification Scheme, National Food Security and storage Scheme, National Small Farmers’ Credit Scheme, National Food Market Information Centre, National Nutrition Policy, National Primary Health Care System and National Programme for Co-operatives and Credit for Road side Mechanics and Artisans, etc. The organizational structure employed include that of village head, district head, town associations and primary production centers usually made up of grouping of 100 families of the PPC. It should be noted a this point that activities of the directorate never enjoyed grassroots’ support and acceptance. This can be buttressed by the fact on table A below. In table A below, an allocation of N23.64 billion was provided to farmers nationwide for improved seed production. This table portrayed the poor performance of various states in the programme. Part of the reason for this is that because, the programme was not accepted at the grassroots level due to the fact that the rural dwellers were not effectively mobilized.
The two poverty alleviation programmes evaluated point to the same basic problem-lack of effective participation of the beneficiaries in both programmes. It is a well-known fact that the poverty alleviation programmes in the country benefit the elites more than the rural poor. This is in line with the view of some proponents of elite theory like Parry (1977) and Olaniyi(1995) who perceive the elites as a small percentage of the population who play a dominant role in political and social welfare. The elites not only exercise political power but also influence governmental decisions and policies. This is part of the reason why public policies usually favour the elites more than the general public. Even where policies seem to favour the general public, such policies usually shift to the favour of the elites during the implementation stage; The same elite would not even bother scrapping any programme for their own selfish interest. Hence, various poverty alleviation programmes were terminated at different stages of these resources negatively affects the productivity of the poor people who rely on such resources for sustenance. Poverty also contributes in the acceleration of environmental degradation because the poor has shorter time horizons and less secure access to natural resources management (World Bank, 1996). This natural resources management includes soil conservation and fertilizer another reason why poverty accelerates environmental degradation, is the fact that in Nigeria a small population of the people is wealthy. The majority of the people who are poor depend on subsistence fanning for their livelihood. The result of this is an intensive exploitation of marginal lands and deforestation too. This hinders policy options for environmental management. This is part of the reason why sustainable development which stresses not just on meeting of the present needs of he people but also of the future cannot be a reality unless the poor is empowered monetarily, materially, technically, socially and educationally. The poor thinks about his present survival and think less of the future and long-term environmental sustainability. The answer to these problems as Ajadike suggested is a comprehensive poverty alleviation programmes in Nigeria.
Conclusion
Environmental degradation is a visible dimension of poverty. It is an established fact that neighbourhoods of the poor differ from the neighborhoods of the rich and middle class in physical development and environmental quality. Integrated development programme for poverty alleviation, which is a channel to sustainable development, is desirable in Nigeria because, it touches all dimensions like environment, rural development, urban economic growth and regional economy (Ogboi, 2003).
Poverty hampers sustainable development. The poor in trying to eke out a living contributes to environmental degradation. Environmental degradation elevates poverty. The poverty alleviation programmes reviewed showed evidences that the concerned poor hardly participate in the programme. The stated objectives were also poorly implemented. All these accelerated environmental degradation, which deepens poverty. It is the position of this article that for poverty alleviation programme to be effective in Nigeria, it should not only adopt the bottom-top approach for active participation of the poor, but, should also put sustainable environment into proper focus.
References
Agbese D (2000) “Poverty Alleviation: Is Obasanjo Deceiving Nigerians? The NI0 million Waste” Newswatch, August, 7.
Dowdeswell E. (1993) “An Editorial Comment” Our Plannet Vol. 5 No 2 .
Nairobi United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) Bi-monthly Publication.
Eze P (2003) “Sustainable Environment: A Neglected Strategy for Poverty Alleviation in Nigeria” in Onakala et al (eds.) Environment and poverty in Nigeria Enugu, JAMOE Enterprises, Nigeria.
Herbst, J (1996) “Is Nigeria a Viable State? The Washington Quarterly Volume 19, Issue 2.
Maduagwu A (2002) “Growing up in Oguta” The Economies of Rural Poverty in Nigeria AEA Homepage,amaduagwu@hotmail.com.
Nnamani C. (2003) “Poverty in Nigeria: Eroding the Dignity of Man” 5th
edition of Pro-Convocation Dignity of Man Lecture Series of University of Nigeria, Nsukka At Princess Alexandria Auditorium, October, 6th
Odigbo, M.O. (2001) “The Social Teaching of the Church and the Challenge of Poverty Alleviation In Nigeria” A Research Paper Presented to Faculty of Theology S.J.M.S. Ikot Ekpene (Affiliate of Urban University, rome),
Ogboi K. (2003) “Poverty, Environment and Sustainable Development: The Spatial Dimension” in Onokala et al (eds) Environment and Poverty in Nigeria Enugu, JAMOE Ent.
Okoli F.C. (1999) “Overview of Poverty Alleviation in Nigeria: The Concept of Operation of FEAP” Paper presented at National Workshop on Management of FEAP and Community Welfare Programmes.
Olaniyi London, J. (1997) Introduction To Contemporary Political Analysis. Ilorin, Tim.
Oman C.(2004) “Poverty Alleviation In Nigeria’s Post Military Era: A Case Study of Obasanjo’s Administration (1999-2003)”
Ozo-Ezi P. (1998) “Income Inequality and Poverty in Nigeria” in Central Bank of Nigeria (ed) Proceedings of the 7* Annual Conference of the Zonal Research Unit. Makurdi.
Parry G. (1997) Political Elites George Allen and Unwin.
Uche C. (2000) “Poverty Alleviation Programmes in Nigeria: Past, Present and Future” Nigeria Journal of Banking and Finance Issue.
World Bank (1996) Toward Environmental Sustainability in Sub-Saharan A World A World Bank Agenda Washington D.C.
Appendix A
Nigeria: Average Growth Rate of GDP (%)
Period | GDP at 1984 Constant | Agric GDP |
Price | ||
1960-1965 | 4.9 | 1.8 |
1961-1970 | 6.3 | 2.0 |
1971-1975 | 8.4 | -1.5 |
1976-1980 | 4.0 | 2.9 |
1981-1985 | -5.7 | 4.9 |
1986-1990 | 5.6 | 5.3 |
1991-1998 | 2.3 | 3.2 |
1999-2001 | 2.5 | 2.6 |
Source: Completed from Data derived from Federal Office of Statistics, Lagos in Ekpo, A H. Trie Nigerian Economy Under New Democratic Experience: The Charles Soludo Effect.