Sustainable local level development through self-help programmes

By Prof. Ifeyori Ihimodu, Director/Chief Executive, Agricultural & Rural Management Training Institute, Ilorin

Prof. Ifeyori Ihimodu

I. INTRODUCTION

THE world is divided, sometimes arbitrarily, into developed and developing countries. The basis of this categorization is anchored on the stage of technological progress attained by these two worlds.

Developing countries are generally characterized by their heavy reliance on primary products for incomes, foreign exchange earnings or generally their livelihood.

These include basic agriculture, agricultural products, simple agro-based manufactures and in some cases mineral resources.

Infrastructures in developing countries - physical, social and institutional are very poor, e.g. roads, rails, schools, health facilities like hospitals or health clinics, training facilities and market, among others. These situations contrast sharply with those in the developed countries.

The cry for development in the developing countries is an attempt to move them to a higher stage at least close to where the developed countries are. Within any developing country there are developed pockets while a large proportion of the country may be regarded as undeveloped i.e. dual development. Generally the categorization here is between rural and urban. The urban sector is generally characterized by developed infrastructures in conh”ast to the rural where the mainstay is simple agriculture especially at the subsistence level. The need to develop local/rural areas can be seen in the contrast between urban and the rural areas.

The topic of this lecture, “Sustainable Local Level Development through Self-Help” contain three concepts, namely , Local Level Development; Sustainability in Development, and Self-Help. These key concepts seem to imply the following:

i. the need to have develoPlnent at the local level of the economy

ii. the possibility that development can be sustainable or otherwise
Sustainable development is simply arelationship between economic change and natural resource base. The idea is that growth should not be accompanied by the degradation of the environment. Perhaps a more direct way is to borrow from Rostow’s Stages of Economic Growth. The third stage is the Take­ off Stage where the economy is airborne and would continue to grow unless there is an accident. The economy is thus self-sustaining. This can be regarded as sustainable development.

iii. the fact that development can be generated through self-help and such development can be sustainable.

In this paper we would attempt to examine Some models employed by the various governrnents for development at the local level to see whether the results are sustainable. We would also try to analyse development through self-help to see if the results could be different from those of the earlier models. Finally the paper would suggest how self-help model could be encouraged and employed as a tool for development at the grassroots level drawing from the Indian economic experience.

II. GOVERNMENT MODELS OF LOCAL LEVEL DEVELOPMENT

“Local level development is the improvement in overall local community conditions, the social, economic and envirmunental and other quality of life considerations” Most governments in Nigeria have been accused of totally neglecting the development of the rural areas or local communities contrary to the claims of these governments. Perhaps the criticisms are that enough attention is not being paid to the development of the rural areas. It could also mean that the methods used by governments may not be appropriate. As shown earlier, the conditions the local level are generally poor - roads, water supply, electricity, health facilities, etc, are generally in poor state. These translate into the poverty the inhabitants of the rural areas leading to poor health, poor diet and nutrition, poor education, etc.

The need to transform these rural areas by policy makers cannot be over emphasized.

Various governments at the Federal and regional/state levels had embarked upon some development progranunes at the local level. The question is, what had been the outcome of such programme in improving the lives of the inhabitants of the local areas?

Generally, the model of development adopted at the local level has been the top - bottom approach. This model is predicated upon the assulnption that the government (decision maker) knows the problems of the people in the areas to be developed and also that it has the wherewithal to do what needs to be done. Therefore the beneficiaries are recipients who are expected to do little or nothing to bringing development. Consequently, govermnent tries to identify the needs of the people, do the planning and execute the programme. On the other hand the beneficiaries are expected to receive the projects, use them, take care of them in order elongate their life. This model would look too simple to be true but that was the case. A few examples could be cited to confirm it. In the 1950s Nigeria, especially in the Northern Region, this approach was used to guarantee agricultural development. Agricultural inputs like seeds, seedlings, (maize, cotton, groundnuts, cocoa) were distributed free to farmers.

However, Inany of the inputs were not used but wasted. The case of fertilizer is the most notable. It was common to see heaps of fertilizer along farm roads throughout the year. Similarly, extension services through experimental plots were demonstrated for farmers at the village level, to be copied by thein. But it is doubtful if many farmers took advantage of this development and innovations.

The small scale industries credit scheme is a fairly large programme aimed at empowering sinall scale entrepreneurs to establish enterprises especially at the local governinent level and in the rural areas. Funds were made available to beneficiaries in addition to technical and advisory services at the Development Centres. Available records however indicate that only a small proportion of the funded businesses survived. In addition most of these industries were located in urban areas and local government headquarters in the states rather than in the rural areas as planned.

On financing agriculture, the Nigerian Agric-ultural and Co-ope-rative Bank (NACB) was esta-blished in 1973 to finance all forms of agricultural enterprises both small and large scales. For the small farmers the loans were disbursed through on-lending arrangement via groups like cooperative societies. By the time the NACB was converted to the Nigerian Agricultural Cooperative and Rural Development Bank (NACRCDB) through the merger of NACB, Peoples Bank, FEAP and NERFUND in 2001, the beneficiaries were heavily indebted to NACB. But for the fact that the Bank was government owned and therefore funded by government the Bank would have been declared bankrupt.

Before attempting to examine the reasons why the attempts highlighted above did not succeed, two real cases would be examined.

Case 1: Building Modern Markets in Buya State
Buya state government intended to “develop” the rural areas of the state. It then built eleven uniformly designed modern locked­ up markets in the rural areas. Two of them were located at the local government headquarters while two were sited in the remote part in the outskirt of the state capital. The remaining seven were located in remote villages in the rural areas of the state. In all cases, the markets were established outside the town/village settlements therefore requiring some transport to use them.

After the completion of the markets, the intended beneficiaries refused to use them. Except for one of the two at the state capital where people were forced (including using horse whips to flog them) none is being used after 12 years.

Case 2: Rural water supply in Ayah village
Ayab is a village of about 7000 inhabitants. The road that passes through the village and linking a large town at the bank of River Niger was not tarred and not well maintained. The villagers, through communal efforts maintained the portion of the road that links the village with another town about 12 kilometres away. Ayab had good sources of water supply.

Approaching the village from the five surrounding villages, there are springs and streams from which water is fetched all year round.

In the 1980s the state government wanted to develop Ayab village . A fairly large dam was constructed to supply the village with water. The treatment plant was powered by a huge generating set as there was no electricity in the village. Pipes were laid and many water points were established where water could be drawn. After the project was completed inhabitants did not use it. The complaint was that the water was too hard for drinking unlike the spring and stream water available in the village. Also the villagers would not use the water for washing clothes because it could not foam properly. Before long, the genset was vandalized and most parts carted away. When some villagers were asked why they abandoned the project, they simply said water was not their problem, because there was better water everywhere but road was their problem.

None of the examples cited here including the two real life cases could be said to have indicated any possibility of sustainability. If the projects were to lead to sustainable development, the seeds, seedlings, chemicals, fertilizers would have led to increased output on the farms; the sponsored small scale industries would have survived to produce outputs and generate employment. Similarly the markets would have been functioning and growing while the water project would have been serving the needs of the inhabitants. Ironically, the road that passed through Ayab village has been tarred while there is now electricity in the village. The major facility that is absent in the village now is water.

Why are these village development projects not sustainable?
For development projects established in a local area to be sustainable, they must be considered by the beneficiaries as their own. They must not be regarded as alien or external to the community. Therefore beneficiaries/ users of the projects must be involved right from the initial stage of the projects. Since the inhabitants would eventually use the facilities they must be involved in the identification of the projects.

They are the best to know their own needs and not the government. The planning and preparation of the projects must be done with active participation of the would be beneficiaries. The implementation of the projects should be carried out jointly by the government/sponsor and the local inhabitants. With the above, such projects would be regarded by the community as theirs. They would feel that they have a stake in the projects. The inhabitants are therefore likely to protect and maintain such facilities as well as create other projects, having realized the benefits that can accrue from such facilities. As may be noted, examples/ cases discussed above meets these” success factors’ for sustainability.

III. Local level development and self-help
Self-help in development is not a new concept and it is not new in the Nigerian development process. The basic idea is that individuals endeavour to contribute to the development of their communities. It is assumed that if one contributes to bringing about a development project, such would likely be sustained because of the perception of ownership by those who created the projects.

The concept has been employed either by individuals, groups or even governments to create socio-economic infrastructures in local communities. In many local areas of Nigeria, communities employing the self-help concept have been able to build primary schools, health clinics like dispensaries, construct roads, build culverts, drill wells, build postal agencies, establish local markets, etc, and maintain these facilities. In fact in some areas, most of these facilities have to be created by community self-help efforts if they were to exist at all.

Goverments in the past had attempted to incorporate the self­help concept into her local community development programme. In the 1980s, for example, some state governments in Nigeria established the “Matching Grants” concept of development at the grassroots level. The idea is that government would partly finance projects in which the local communities have identified and are executing through their own internal resources. The rationale behind this is that communities would identify and select projects that would achieve their felt-needs. If these projects are therefore supported by government the community interest would have been satisfied. The concept of matching grants for local programme is a step ahead of that of the individuals executing small projects through self-help. The programme would benefit since there would be larger funds while the communities stand to gain more as larger projects can be executed. However the matching grants programmes has its drawback. The concept tends to concentrate development in some few sub-sectors at the local level while neglecting some other vital sub-sectors.

For example, education (building of schools) may be selected by a community or communities for execution and for several years. If matching grants concept is vigorously applied, then other infastructures like health facilities, water, roads, etc, would be neglected for the period by both the community and government.

Although the self-help concept as analysed here has the potentials for achieving sustainable development, there are several problems that may limit its achievement. A major problem is funding. From where would the fund for executing the projects come? Even when the projects would be partly funded by govermnent, the initial finance must first be found. But given the low income of the rural inhabitants, the quantum of fund that can be collected to be available for the projects would be limited. Therefore the size of the projects that can be executed would also be too low to have meaningful impact.

The concept of self-help has been enlarged into a group concept, i.e self-help groups (SHGs). The concept as a voluntary association of people at the grassroots level aimed at achieving some identified goals has been in existence in many African countries for a very long time. In Nigeria, for example, the traditional non-formal association such as esusu/ adashi/ ajo or in general, the Rotating Savings/Credit Association have similar objectives as SHGs. The main difference is that SHGs may have more comprehensive coverage than these traditional associations. The attempt to formalize the traditional associations in order to make them respond more to the developmental needs at the grassroots led to the fonnation of SHGs and the Linkage Banking Programme launched in 1991 under the Agricultural Credit Guarantee Scheme (ACGS) by the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN). The objectives and procedures of the programme include the following:

• farmers were encouraged to form a group of between 5 and 15 members

•members make regular savings and deposit same in a financial institution (banks)

•after a period of time melnbers could apply for loans through their groups.
The linkage banking progran1me is the attachment of SHGs with banks for the purpose of obtaining loans by the groups. The aims of this linkage are:

•to inculcate regular savings/contribution habits in the SHGs members

•to deposit these savings with the banks

•to build up business relationship between the banks and rural enterprises

•to obtain loans from the banks

•to reduce loan default as savings could be used to offset outstanding loans

•to reduce the requiren1ents for collateral as savings could be used as collateral.

The expectation was that the programme would be attractive to both SHGs members and the banks.

The results of the SHGs and the Linkage Banking Programme however have not been as satisfactory as envisaged. After 12 years, in 2003, only 413 SHGs had been fonned while the amount generated as savings was very low. This could be compared with India (another developing country) where in only one year, in 2003, as many as 682,575 SHGs were formed and operational. Several reasons could explain the poor performance of the scheme in Nigeria. These include:

•lack of clear-cut operational guideline in terms of group formation;

• lack of set targets in terms of number of groups to be established and the size of savings to be mobilized within a period; and

• lack of interest by banks in participating in the scheme
A more fundamental aspect of this scheme is the issue of whether the scheme was capable of generating sustainable developnlent even if it were to succeed. There is some doubt about its potentials to achieve sustainable development. The size of the scheme appears to be too limited. It is only applicable to agricultural activities while other sector remained uncovered.Even within the agricultural sector, the scheme only covers activities under the ACGS which is only a small proportion of agricultural activities. For SHGs scheme to have the desired impact, it would need to be widened and be more comprehensive.

]It should be realized that the current development process in developing countries and indeed the world over, is moving towards requiring beneficiaries contributions to the development programmes and projects. This is being employed by international development agencies and donor countries. This may be interpreted as a requirement for self-help. The requirement for counterpart funding which requires beneficiaries (nation, sector or project) to contribute a certain proportion to the project cost is ensure that the projects can be sustained beyond the donor project life. There are several programmes that have been implemented on this basis in Nigeria. One example is the Fadama Programme. The Programme is aimed at enhancing agncultural production and productivity and therefore reducing poverty Ievel improving the living conditions of the rural poor, i.e. the smallholders and rural entrepreneurs in the fadama areas on a sustainable basis. The second phase of the programme is financed by the World Bank and the African Development Bank with the Federal Government’s fund as the counterpart fund. Fadama I placed little emphasis on the contributions of the would be beneficiaries of the programme as a precondition for accessing the programme facilities.

However, given the benefit of hindsight, Fadama II requires joint financing of some facilities by the project and the beneficiaries. For example, the cost of capacity building to improve beneficiaries skills is financed 100 per cent by the project. However, the cost of rural infrastructural development in the areas is shared in the ratio of 90 per cent and 10 per cent between the project and the beneficiaries. Similarly, the cost of pilot asset acquisition support is shared in the ratio of 70 per cent and 30 per cent between the project and the beneficiaries.