Journal of Education in Developing Areas (JEDA) Vol. 19, No. 1.

COMMUNITY-BASED POVERTY REDUCTION APPROACH: AN INITIATIVE FOR ALLEVIATING POVERTY BEYOND FASHIONABLE RHETORIC IN NIGERIA BY OYEBAMIJI, M.A. PhD DEPARTMENT OF ADULT AND NON-FORMAL EDUCATION FACULTY OF EDUCATION UNIVERSITY OF PORT HARCOURT.

oyebamiji_adekola@yahoo.com 08033515091

Abstract Poverty is a condition of deprivation and lack of basic needs of life. Governmental efforts at alleviating poverty in Nigeria cannot be understated. Different programmes have been initiated but failed due to the top-down nature of the strategies. The initiatives are either mismanaged or mired by unethical practices. This paper therefore presents a new initiative tagged Community-based Poverty Reduction Project (CPRP), as an alternative. This paper discussed the nature, content and process of the CPRP and concluded that: to enable the new initiative to achieve its objectives, it behoves on the government to target poverty alleviation programmes on the rural communities where poverty afflicts them most. It is therefore recommended that government should stamp out corruption, mismanagement, fraud and embezzlement of government resources by officials; carryout enlightenment campaign and promote self-help projects for the total alleviation of poverty in Nigeria.

March, 2011

JOURNAL OF EDUCATION IN DEVELOPING AREAS (JEDA) VOL.19 (1).

Introduction The main concern of both development theorist and social scientists has been on how to promote issues that border on the welfare of human beings. This concern stems from the fact that any theory that have little or no relevance to the living standard of the people, their income, health, shelter, education and environment does not worth wasting time and energy on. The scourge of poverty has ravaged many of our people, especially those communities in the rural areas. In fact, the living condition of an average Nigerian seems to be worsening in spite of the huge petroleum resources put at over 2 million barrels per day. A report by the World Bank (1996) opens with the disturbing words, Nigeria presents a paradox. The country is rich but the people are poor. The proportion of Nigerians on income of less than $1.00 per day was 70%. The per capita Gross National Income (GNI) of Nigeria was $930 as at 2009 while that of neighbouring Ghana was $2,190 and that of South Africa was $10.270 (United Nations Population Fund, 2005), Microsoft Encarta, (2009). Attempts by government to empower Nigerians so as to alleviate poverty have been demonstrated in a number of programmes initiated. These includes the Directorate of Food, Roads and Rural Infrastructure (DFFRI), launched in 1986; the National Directorate for Employment (NDE) established in 1986; the Better Life Programme (BLP) in 1987; the Family Support Programme (FSP) in 1994; and the Family Economic Advancement Programme (FEAP) in 1997; the Poverty Alleviation Programme (PAP) which is an aspect of the National Poverty Eradication Programme (NAPEP) established in 2000 (Garba 2006). To solve the problem of finance that has been a major constraint in self development for many Nigerians, the Federal Government established special banks. These include the Peoples Bank of Nigeria established in 1989 and Community Bank in 1990. The expectations was that the banks and FEAP will focus on provision of credit facilities for the development of cottage industries, while NDE was to concentrate on training and subsequently, provision of loans to ensure that those trained start their own business (Oyebamiji and Adekola, 2008) These programmes were well intentioned, but often ended up being mired in controversy from total mismanagement of funds and unethical practices. Also, the poverty alleviation programmes that Nigerians have had dangled before their eyes, since independence in 1960, have failed woefully or yielded very little fruit for many reasons. Some of these reasons include according to Garba (2006) includes: The programmes were mostly not designed to alleviate poverty They lacked clearly defined policy frameworks with proper guidelines for poverty alleviation. They suffered from political instability, interference, policy and macroeconomic dislocations They lacked continuity.
www.jeda-uniport.com Page 1

March, 2011

JOURNAL OF EDUCATION IN DEVELOPING AREAS (JEDA) VOL.19 (1).

Theyre riddled with corruption, political deception, outright kleptomania and distasteful looting. This was why the programmes were unable to alleviate or reduce poverty among Nigerians, because the approach adopted was top-down, bureaucratic and bottle-necking. This paper therefore presents the community-based poverty reduction approach (which is bottom-up approach) as an alternative strategy. Concept of Poverty Poverty as a concept is difficult to define categorically. This is because it is a social, cultural, political and economic construct. Its conception and articulation is context specific and depends on both the mode of production and social organization. Therefore, the concept of poverty is not fluid but it almost defies simple definitional categorization. Poverty according to Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary of Current English (2000) is a state of wants of the necessities of life. The conceptualization of poverty from this perspective is economic. The Encarta Dictionary (2004) defines poverty as a level of income below which somebody is considered to be living in poverty. It is based on the price of basic necessities and is usually determined by a government. United Nations Department of Public Information (1996) describes poverty as having various manifestations which include: lack of income and productive resources sufficient to ensure a sustainable livelihood; hunger and malnutrition; illhealth; limited or lack of access to education; and other basic services; increasing morbidity and mortality from illness; homelessness and inadequate housing; unsafe environments; and social discrimination and exclusion. Poverty is also characterised by lack of participation in decision making and in civil, social and cultural life. Yusuf (2000) sees poverty from absolute and relative points of view. To him, absolute poverty has to do with the inability to provide ones material requirements, defined in terms of a minimum subsistence level of income. Relative poverty views poverty of each person in relation to other people in the community. This latter concept relates to an index described as the national poverty line and for countries, international poverty line. He therefore defines poverty summatively as the state of being in which individuals and groups lack basic necessities of life and are less privileged than other members of their societies. Poverty therefore is a condition of deprivation and lack of basic needs of life or when the supply of such needs is grossly inadequate. Those basic needs include: food, water, clothing, housing, medical care, literacy and so on. Measuring the Level of Poverty in Nigeria Poverty is a multi-dimensional and multi-faceted phenomenon which may be difficult to measure by just one index. Social scientists and statisticians have
www.jeda-uniport.com Page 2

March, 2011

JOURNAL OF EDUCATION IN DEVELOPING AREAS (JEDA) VOL.19 (1).

therefore agreed to measure poverty by combined indices or composite indicators. Such indices or yardsticks include: level of per capital income; percent of the people that have access to clean water within 30 minutes; percent of people with electricity lighting; literacy percent; percent of people with sanitary disposal, school enrolment; percent of households that own different types of assets e.g. bicycles, motorcycles, press iron, radio, television, telephone, quality of child nutrition and so on. Oyediran (2005) identifies three anthropolometric indicators of growth: stunting, wasting, and underweight can be identified as measures of poverty level in our societies. Other indices used in measuring poverty level includes level of reproductive health services, e.g. percent of live birth to total number of births; percent of pre-natal attendance at hospital, ante-natal attendance and so on. In fact, a number of indicators have now been devised to measure poverty level. One of such innovative index is the percent of people that consider themselves poor or not poor. Based on combined indices outlined above, poverty level in Nigeria has been measured and stood at 54.4% (Federal Office of Statistics, Dec. 2004). In each of the six geographical zones of Nigeria, the levels of poverty are put as follows:
Table 1: Zones North East North West North Central South East South West South South The Level of Poverty in the Six Geographical Zones of Nigeria Poverty rate % 72.2 71.2 67.0 26.0 43.0 35.0 Above poverty level % 27.8 28.8 33.0 74.0 57.0 65.0

(Source: Federal Office of Statistics, 2004)

Poverty rate in the northern part of Nigeria is higher than that of the southern part of Nigeria. This is why the poverty rate of the northern part of Nigeria was put recently at 70.1% (N.T.A. 4th March, 2007). In a 174 country rating, Nigeria is placed 151 in Human Development Index (HDI), 62 in Human Poverty Index (HPI) among 85 countries, and 124 in Gender related Development Index (GDI) among 143 countries. These indicators are poor and over all Human Development Countries (One World Guide, 2010). The table below shows the Human Poverty Indicators for Nigeria.
Table 2: Human Poverty Indicators for Nigeria.

www.jeda-uniport.com

Page 3

March, 2011

JOURNAL OF EDUCATION IN DEVELOPING AREAS (JEDA) VOL.19 (1).

People not using Children under an improved weigh for age (% water source. under aged 5) (%) 53 29

Human Poverty Probability of not Adult Literacy Index. surviving to age rate. (Ages 15 & 40. above). (%) (%) ( %) 36.2 37.4 28.0

(Source: Human Development Report, 2009).

Causes of Poverty The causes of poverty are many and varied; they range from individual, sociocultural to national and international dimensions. Any form of poverty can be attributed to all these causes at the same time. Poverty can also be attributed to the genetic makeup of the person. If the genes are weak, then the individual is not really predisposed to being able to acquire skills that would enable him to compete favourably in the employment market. This view is problematic in that there could be some individuals who are genetically weak, but given an improved and better facilitated social environment, these so called weak individuals can be encouraged to learn some skills that would enable them to live a productive life. The genes argument according to Alock, (1993) ignores the aspect of nurture or the sociocultural environment in socialization. The genes argument has been closely associated with the resignation of the poor to the culture of poverty. The contention of the proponents of the culture of poverty being that the individuals just become apathetic on the ground that they come from a poor family so there is nothing that they can do to improve their situation. They therefore results to what is called fatalistic belief. (That their being poor is an act of God). The causes of poverty include neglect of the people by the three tiers of government, i.e. Federal, State and Local Governments; corruption in high and low places, resulting in mismanagement and embezzlement of funds and resources meant for the grassroots by various agencies; insensitivity to the plight of fellow human beings resulting from greed and avarice and retrogressive cultural practices e.g. wastages during burial of the dead and other moribund ceremonies. Imoudu (2001) identifies problems associated with lack of access and endowment as the major causes of the incidence, depth and severity of poverty in Nigeria Other factors listed are as identified by Garba (2006) includes: Inadequate access to employment opportunities Inadequate physical assets, such as land and capital, and minimal access by the poor to credit even on a small scale. Inadequate access to the means of supporting rural development in poor regions. Inadequate access to markets where the poor can sell goods and services.
www.jeda-uniport.com Page 4

March, 2011

JOURNAL OF EDUCATION IN DEVELOPING AREAS (JEDA) VOL.19 (1).

Low endowment of human capital. Destruction of natural resources, leading to environmental degradation and reduced productivity. Inadequate access to assistance for those living at the margin and those victimized by transitory poverty. Lack of inclusive participation; which is the failure to include the poor in the process of designing development programs. Added to the above factors are: Colonial and political factors; Economic factor; Biological/Health/Death factors; Natural Disasters; Governments insentivity/bad policy and poor policy; Illiteracy/lack of Education. With respect to education, it must be stated that the lower the level of education the higher the incidence of poverty. Generally, however, the level of poverty within different educational groups increased over the years. Studies have established that households headed by those with no formal education had the highest consistent contribution to total poverty in Nigeria. It has also been established that poverty incidence, gap and severity seem to be positively related to the size of households. The larger the size of the household, the more probable incidence of poverty. Efforts and Measures Directed at Poverty Alleviation in Nigeria Poverty has been a longstanding issue of concern to policy makers in Nigeria. Nigeria is endowed with an array of natural resources which most nations do not have, still, Nigerians remain poor among the poorest in the world (Imoudu 2001). Indeed, it is the consensus of researchers and policy makers that no other development issues pose a fundamental challenge to Nigeria today than the endemic state of poverty gripping most of the citizens. Poverty is now recognized as the overarching enemy, which is to be confronted in the short run and defeated in the long-run. There is the need for Nigerian government to pay more attention to poverty alleviation among populace. This is the only way for Nigeria to emerge from a struggling and lowly position of an underdeveloped country (151) and join the ranks of newly industrialized nations emerging in Asia and Latin America, (especially with her ambition of becoming one of the twenty biggest economy in the world by the year 2020), Governmental efforts and measures directed at alleviating poverty in Nigeria can be classified into two broad categories namely: (i) Direct impact efforts i.e. those efforts that are directed at increasing the income of the poor people quickly, such as micro-credits, provision of
www.jeda-uniport.com Page 5

March, 2011

JOURNAL OF EDUCATION IN DEVELOPING AREAS (JEDA) VOL.19 (1).

(ii)

seedlings, crop varieties, provision of agricultural tractors and machineries; provision of subsidized inputs such as fertilizers, chemicals. etc; provision of infrastructures that have direct impact in improving the quality of lives of people, especially in the rural areas, rural roads, electricity, motorized boreholes, markets, and so on. Measures and efforts that do not have immediate direct impact on the poor, but yield long term beneficial results to the poor, e.g. skills acquisition, provision of educational facilities, primary health care facility, erosion control, sanitation, portable clean drinkable water, etc.

Government has always been using conventional approach at alleviating poverty in Nigeria at the various tiers (Federal, State and Local Governments). The approach use to be in form of budgetary allocation and award of contracts, e.g. contract on fertilizer distribution, contract for rural roads and so on. In the recent past, Nigerian government has devised various schemes for poverty alleviation. Such schemes include Operation Feed the Nation (OFN), Green Revolution (GR), Low Cost Housing, River Basin Development Authority, National Agricultural Land Development Authority, Agricultural Development Programmes, Strategic Grains Reserves Programme, Rural Electrification Scheme, Rural Banking Programme Directorate for food, Roads and Rural Infrastructure, National Directorate of Employment, Peoples Bank of Nigeria, Community Banks Programme, Family Support Programme, Family Economic Advancement Programme, National Poverty Eradication Programme, Youth Empowerment Scheme, Rural Infrastructure Development Scheme and others earlier. Majority, if not all the schemes did not produce the desired effects of getting people out of poverty. Permit me to observe here that one of the causes of the failure of the schemes is lack of involvement of the grassroots peoples in the planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of the schemes. The operators adopt top-down approach in planning and implementation, and do not empower the beneficiary communities. The absence of grassroots participation especially in planning, implementation and monitoring makes sustainability of the schemes a difficult task. Poverty alleviation schemes in Nigeria often go into extinction immediately the government that introduced such scheme gets out of power. New Innovation to Poverty Alleviation in Nigeria. The solution to the failure of poverty alleviation schemes in Nigeria is the adoption of bottom-up strategy. This strategy will empower the beneficiary communities maximally. This bottom-up approach has received the blessing of government and organizations in and outside Nigeria. For instance, the Federal Government, in collaboration with the World Bank and the African Development Bank came up with a new strategy at alleviating poverty in Nigeria. It is named Community-Based Poverty Reduction Project (CPRP). This strategy is bottom-up, demand driven and capacity building scheme geared towards reducing poverty in Nigerias rural
www.jeda-uniport.com Page 6

March, 2011

JOURNAL OF EDUCATION IN DEVELOPING AREAS (JEDA) VOL.19 (1).

communities and peril-urban areas. The Objectives and Process Involved in Community-Based Poverty Reduction Project in Nigeria The operational modalities for achieving bottom-up community-based poverty alleviations long term objectives are as follows: (a) Community Development Associations (CDAs) at the locality level would identify, plan and implement as well as manage and maintain self-help projects that will improve the living standard of the poor by providing them with socio-economic infrastructures like: education, water and sanitation, primary health care, rural electrification, feeder roads, skills acquisition centre, rural markets, agricultural storage facilities and erosion control. Funds and technical assistance would be provided directly to Community Development Associations, so as to increase management capacity, and development of resources at community levels. Broad-based participation of the people in the development efforts to promote an all inclusive decision-making process. Beneficiaries to assume control and ownership of the project(s), enhance selfdevelopment efforts and process, in order to engender sustainability of project benefits.

(b)

(c) (d)

The primary beneficiaries of the Community-Based Poverty Reduction Project scheme are organized poor communities in both urban and rural areas of Nigerian states. Groups such as registered community development associations, youth clubs, women groups, parent-teachers association, and old students association of schools are eligible to act on behalf of communities. Individuals cannot present themselves for CPRP support under this dispensation. Participation by any interested communities or community development associations in CPRP scheme begins with the following bottom-up process: (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) Community members are expected to convene a meeting of the entire communities where the problems facing the communities will be discussed. Form a new or re-organize an existing community based association (to be broad base) and elect leaders democratically in a transparent manner. Get the association registered with the local government council or the appropriate state or national agency. Identify and list development needs that will improve the living standard of the people. All participating communities begins sensitization of its members in genuine participation and commitment by raising and contributing ten percent (10%) of the total cost of the identified project that will alleviate their poverty as counterpart fund.
www.jeda-uniport.com Page 7

March, 2011 (vi)

JOURNAL OF EDUCATION IN DEVELOPING AREAS (JEDA) VOL.19 (1).

After raising the ten percent by the communities, the communities seek for assistance by collecting an application form from CPRP office in the state for the ninety percent remaining for the implementation of the project.

Immediately the communities are able to provide the ten percent counterpart fund for a community based poverty reduction project, the state agency for CPRP provide the ninety percent (90%) to the communities. It is not a loan, but counterpart funding for a long term poverty alleviation process. Once the programme is done, it is the duty of the communities to manage the project(s) for the benefit of all and sundry in such communities. Implications of the New Innovation to Poverty Alleviation in Nigeria Given the complexities of the empowerment process as shown in the new strategy (CPRP) and the nature of disadvantage and oppression at the community level, the difficulties involved should not be underestimated. Indeed, we should not be surprised by the slow pace of progress, that apparent successes in one location may sometimes simply reflect displacement of difficulties to other areas that we may need constantly to work in cycles of empowerment. We should not ignore a wider understanding of the nature of power itself, how it is acquired how it is used, and how it is sustained. With all these observed contradictions and pitfalls in the empowerment process, the following implications must be properly taken care of for the sustenance of the strategy: (i) The need for continuous dialogue with community interest is very important and strategic for effective bottom-up approach for poverty alleviation and empowerment process. (ii) The value of rational analysis of need, its nature, complexity and diversity as the guiding influence on policy should not be underestimated. (iii) The existence of strong-community-controlled institutions on both geographical and interest group basis cannot be underplayed. (iv) There must be evidence that such institutions have real influence (though not sovereignty) over the public policy agenda. (v) There must be evidence of increased direct control of local resources and affairs including community ownership of community assets including premises, equipment and information. (vi) There must be evidence that equity is a demonstrably central principle in the policy process at all levels. (vii) There must be evidence that material gains are being achieved for disadvantaged people. (viii) There must be evidence that there is strong but accountable and representative local leadership. (ix) There must be evidence, corroborated by the views of the poor that principles of equal opportunity are being upheld. (x) There must be evidence of increasing decentralization and democratization of
www.jeda-uniport.com Page 8

March, 2011

JOURNAL OF EDUCATION IN DEVELOPING AREAS (JEDA) VOL.19 (1).

(xi)

services and resources allocation within the overall policy framework to alleviate poverty. Finally, there must be evidence of personal development of citizens measured not only by increased levels of participation or achievement but also selfesteem.

Conclusion It has been shown in this paper that poverty is now been recognized as the overarching enemy, which is to be confronted with double edge sword for Ikire and Nigeria in general to become a developed and industrialized nation. Different efforts have been used to alleviate poverty but failed because the approach was bottlenecking, bureaucratic and top-down in nature. The bottom-up approach strategy is now been adopted by Nigeria government to battle poverty to a standstill. The approach embraces dialogue with community interest, rational analysis of needs, its nature, complexity and diversity which provide opportunities for member communities to be part and parcel of the strategy adopted for poverty alleviation in their communities. Recommendations Efforts at rescuing and liberating more and more people from poverty trap must be a task that must be done in Nigeria. Based on the above, it is hereby recommended that: (1) (2) Government programmes should target the rural sector for particular attention, as rural poverty afflicts most Nigerians in the grassroots. Corruption, mismanagement, fraud and embezzlement of resources by government officials and agencies should be stamped out completely from development strategies. Enlightenment campaign and awareness programmes should be extended to more people at the grassroots. Self-help projects should be encouraged among the rural people for improved standard of living. Consequently, government should Endeavour to support rural institutions, such as cooperatives and provide them with economic support to enhance their income generating capacities necessary to improve their functions.

(3) (4)

References Alock, P. (1993). Understanding Poverty. London: Macmillan Press. Barr, A. (1995). Empowering Communities beyond Fashionable Rhetoric: Some Reflections on Scottish Experience. Community Development Journal, 30(2):121-132.

www.jeda-uniport.com

Page 9

March, 2011

JOURNAL OF EDUCATION IN DEVELOPING AREAS (JEDA) VOL.19 (1).

Encarta Dictionary (2004). Computer Software Albuquerque: Microsoft Corporation. Federal Office of Statistics (2004). Levels of Poverty in the Six Geographical Zones of Nigeria. Garba, A (2006). Alleviating Poverty in Northern Nigeria. A paper presented at the annual convention of Zumunta Association, U.S.A., Minneapolis, MN. 26 July. Hornby, A.S. (2000). Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary of Current English, 6th Edition, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Human Development Report (2009). The Human Development Index Going beyond Income. Microsoft Corporation. Imoudu, P.B. (2001). Enhancing National Unity through Conflict Management, Poverty Alleviation and Gender Empowerment in Nigeria. A lead paper presented at the National Conference organized by the National Association for the Promotion of Arts and Social Sciences (NAPSASS) at the Federal University of Technology, Akure, Ondo State, Nigeria. 30th July. National Television Authority (2007). Network News of 14th April. One World Guides (2010). Nigeria Briefings Poverty, Food and Energy in a Changing Climate. Microsoft Corporation. Oyebamiji, M.A. & Adekola, G. (2008). Fundamentals of Community Development in Nigeria, Port Harcourt: University of Port Harcourt Press. Oyediran, S.O. (2005). Reducing Poverty Level in our Community: The Way Forward: An annual lecture of Ikire Patriotic Front held on the 19th of November, at Ayedaade Grammar School Hall, Ikire, Osun State, Nigeria. United Nations Department of Public Information (1996). Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action, New York. United Nations Population Fund (2005). State of the World Population. Retrieved on May 15, 2006 http.//www.c.org/srop/2005/images/e.indicator 2.pdf.

from

The World Bank (1996). Nigeria Poverty in the Midst of Plenty: The Challenges of Growth with Inclusion Report No. 14733, New York: The World
www.jeda-uniport.com Page 10

March, 2011 Bank.

JOURNAL OF EDUCATION IN DEVELOPING AREAS (JEDA) VOL.19 (1).

Yusuf, N. (2000). Poverty and Nigerias Development: A Sociological Analysis. African Journal of Development Studies. 2(1&2): 198-199.

www.jeda-uniport.com

Page 11