Impact of Community and Social Development Project on Livelihood of Beneficiaries in Danko/Wasagu Local Government Area of Kebbi State, Nigeria

Impact of Community and Social Development Project on Livelihood of Beneficiaries in Danko/Wasagu Local Government Area of Kebbi State, Nigeria

*S. U Hassan, S. Umar & A. A Jega

Department of Agricultural Economics and Extension, Faculty of Agriculture, Kebbi State University of Science and Technology, Aliero.

*Corresponding Author

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2024.804013

 Received: 26 February 2024; Revised: 25 March 2024 Accepted: 26 March 2024; Published: 27 April 2024

ABSTRACT

Between the years 2010 and 2013, the Nigerian Government established a transforming structure called the Community and Social Development Project (CSDP). This research explores the influences of that project on livelihoods of beneficiaries located in Danko/Wasagu Local Government Area (LGA) of Kebbi State, Nigeria. Multi stage sampling techniques was used for the study. In the first stage, Four (4) of the twenty-four (24) communities in Danko/Wasagu were purposely selected because they fully implemented their Community Development Plan (CDP). In the second stage, Two hundred beneficiaries (50 for each of the four communities) were randomly selected as a random sample for the study based on their membership of community development association and their primary occupation is farming. Descriptive statistics and Paired Sample t-test were tools used to look for perceived influences between project delivery and post project availability of livelihood resources. The study provided livelihood information and perceptions from beneficiaries of the CSDP through data collected before and after the project. The results inferred significant improvement in access to resources particularly in health and transport amongst all communities. Improved access to water however, was only significant in two communities. The study recommend that following the closure of the CSDP, that continued development and maintenance of infrastructures provided by the project was transferred to Danko/Wasagu local government authority.

Key words: Rural Development, Livelihood, Infrastructures

INTRODUCTION

Rural Development (RD) is among the international policies geared towards reducing poverty in the rural areas (Anyede, 2015).  It mainly focused on improving human and natural resources, deprivation of the rural dwellers and raising their livelihood (Anyebe, 2015). Ugwuanyi, (2013) views Rural Development as a multidimensional concept that depicts various level of deprivation. According to Emma (2009) Rural Development is concerned with the way rural masses utilizes the opportunity available to them and how they cope with changes in their lives and environment. Okoye et al., (2012) posits that, rural people shall not only be provided with social amenities, but they should be responsible for developing themselves and their environment. Olayiwole and Adeleye (2005), classified infrastructural development in rural areas into three and these include: 1. Social infrastructure which include healthcare, education, community centres, and security services

2. Institutional infrastructure concerned primarily with micro-finance houses and agricultural research institutions for the promotion of agricultural related and economic activities in the rural area and
3. Infrastructure related to electricity, good roads and clean water.

Millions of rural people in Nigeria are suffering from poverty in spite of series of rural development Programmes embarked by the Federal Government (Akpan, 2012, Raheem & Oyinlola, 2015). This is because of the neglect of development in the rural areas (Nilsson et al., 2014). Rural development programmes focused mainly on increase food production, management and utilization of water resources of the river basins, income generation as well as well-being of the rural people (Emmanuel, 2015).  These programmes were also expected to boost the financial base of the rural farming community and encourage productivity at the local level (Raheem & Iyanda, 2014). In addition, members of the rural communities benefited from loans due to the Programmes and rural access roads to connect rural communities, rural to urban centers and farmers to the markets were also provided (Ekpo & Olaniyi, 1995). Furthermore, Rural Programmes have helped in the formation of a Community Bank to provide loan facilities to the rural dwellers (Akpan, 2012). Although, some benefits such as rural feeder roads, potable water and health care centre were witnessed at the beginning of these rural development Programmes (Ogwumike, 1997).

Community and Social Development Projects (CSDP) is an approach aimed at bringing social and economic development in the rural areas of Nigeria (Hussain, 2002). The perception was that poor rural communities should occupy a central position to improve their livelihoods (Matthew & Olatunji, 2016). The intention was that providing rural infrastructure would enhance rural economic activities and employment opportunities, thereby reducing rural poverty (Reardon, 2001; Ayogu, 2007).

1.1 Statement of the Research Problem

Danko/Wasagu is worst hit by poverty despite  the available natural and human resources in the area. The communities remain largely under-served in terms of social and economic activities such as poor access roads, poor health facilities, high unemployment and inadequacy of other social facilities (Emmanuel, 2015). A lot of these poor people often migrate to urban areas in search of perceived employment opportunities for survival. This social and economic vulnerability experienced by people is exacerbated because of irregular income, declining agricultural output and rapidly changing climatic conditions. Between the years 2010 and 2013, the Nigerian Government established a transforming structure called the Community and Social Development Project (CSDP).Community and Social Development Projects (CSDP) is an approach aimed at reducing poverty in the rural areas of Nigeria (Hussain, 2002). The project helps poor rural communities to improve their livelihoods through provision of rural infrastructure, enhences rural economic activities as well as employment opportunities (Matthew & Olatunji, 2016). In CSDP, a demand driven approach and participatory mode of service delivery was used to try and include communities. Communities therefore were not only involved in the planning and decision about poverty reduction programme but in funding such projects. The CSDP focused mainly on community development plans (CDPs). These were projects introduced by communities. The CDPs that were eligible for assistance were projects that could improve social welfare in the communities, boost environmental management and allow access to social and natural resources infrastructure by the poor. Therefore, this study evaluated the impact of Community and Social Development Project on livelihood of the beneficiaries in Danko/Wasagu LGA of Kebbi State.

The specific objectives are:

1. to describe the background information of the respondents
2. to determine the influence of CSDP on livelihood of the beneficiaries communities before and after the intervention.

METHODOLOGY

2.1 Study Area

Danko-Wasagu LGA is one of the twenty-one (21) Local Governments of Kebbi State which can be found between latitude 11⁰ 22’ N and longitude 5⁰ 47’ E of the equator (NPC, 2015). Eight settlements/districts are found in the Local Government namely; Donko, Kandu, Kuba, Ribah, Kanya, Wasagu, Bena and Morai (Figure 2.1), and Twenty Four (24) communities; Maga community is located in Donko settlement; Roman community is found in Kandu settlement; Korgiya and ‘Yar Maitaba communities are located in Kuba settlement; G/Makofa, Bankami, Seva and Shengel communities are located in Ribah settlement; Kanya and Rambo Diche communities are in Kanya settlement; Sauzama community is located in Wasagu settlement; Bena settlement consist of Unguwar Magaba, Unguwar Kolo, Unguwar Dansanda and D’tan communities and Dseme, Kandamao, Kanya, K’Daban Galadima, Samaru and Dutsin Kwana communities are located in Morai settlement.

Figure 2.1 Map of Danko/Wasagu Local Government Area Showing the Study Area (National Population Commission, 2015).

The people of the area mostly engaged in agriculture which has not been fully exploited (NPC, 2015).

2.2 Sampling of Communities and Beneficiaries for the Study

This investigation targeted four communities identified as Dseme, Kanya, Maga and Shengel communities in Danko/Wasagu LGA. These communities were selected purposively because they fully implemented their Community Development Plan (CDP). In each of the communities selected; Fifty (50) respondents were purposely selected to participate in the study because they are active in community development association (CDA) also involved in various economic activities such as farming, fishing, livestock keeping and small-scale businesses.

2.3 Data collection

Survey questionnaire was used to collect data in the communities of Danko/Wasagu LGA. the questionnaire was used to cover all aspects of livelihood at the household level. The questionnaire collected data on age, gender, level of education, occupation, household size and household dependence on relatives living elsewhere as well as data on infrastructural delivery such as education, transport, water and health.

2.4 Data analysis

Descriptive statistics was used to present data obtained from the field in the form of simple frequency, percentages as well as tables. While the Paired Sample t-test statistical techniques was used to analysed the influence of CSDP before and after the intervention programmes.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

3.1 Demographic Characteristics of Respondents

Demographic characteristic of respondents presents data on age, gender, educational level, occupation, household size and respondents dependence on relatives living elsewhere.

3.1.1 Age of Respondents

The result indicated that majority of the respondents are in their productive age in all the communities (Table 3.1), except those in Maga community with only 20% (21 – 40) of the 57 youth. The second group who are mostly in the middle age (41-59) accounted the highest percentage of the respondents in Maga, while the last group who were termed to be old were between 2 – 6 percent of the respondents. The age distribution of members of a household is an important factor in livelihood activities. Therefore, in this sample respondents are expected to contribute positively to livelihood strategies in the study area (Gordon and Craig, 2001, Fabusoro et al. 2010).

Table 3.1: Age of the Respondents

Source: Field Survey, 2022

3.1.2 Gender of Respondents

As shown in the Table 3.2, the gender of the respondents revealed that majority were males. This may due the special preference given to males against women in Northern Nigeria especially when making decision in a household (Shahbaz, 2008, Galadima, 2014). Therefore, most of the livelihood activities are dominated by males (Salawu et al., 2016; Okere & Shittu, 2012).

Table 3.2: Gender of the respondents

Source: Field Survey, 2022

3.1.3 Educational Level of the Respondents

Table 3.3 revealed the educational level of the respondents which indicated that in all the communities almost half of the respondents (48 – 50%) only attended primary school. The results obtained shows that about 40% of the respondents has gone through junior and senior secondary school. While about 30% of the respondents have not undergone any form of western education. Therefore, majority of the respondents are deprive of an opportunity to acquire higher education. This may be due to cost of school fees required before the enrollment of pupils into school.  Education is one of the important assets that would provide opportunity for rural household to pertake in agriculture, skilled jobs and small scale business activities (Madhuri et al., 2014).

Table 3.3 Educational level of the respondents

Source: Field Survey, 2022

3.1.4 Occupation of the Respondents

Results of the occupation of respondents were distributed into various groups as shown in table 3.4:

Table 3.4 Occupation of the respondents

Source: Field Survey, 2022

Farming was the major occupation in all the communities. In addition to farming, fishing was the second major occupation in the communities (Table 3.4). Wage-labour such as tailoring, blacksmiths, local dying of cloth and bicycles repair are usually practiced by young men from low income households. Trading is also an important occupation practiced in Danko/Wasagu. The sample reflected that 9.5% of the respondents are involved in trade. Apart from trading, members also earn money through weaving, knitting, local traditional performance and acrobats. Handcraft and tools making (blacksmiths) are also an important source of income for some households. However, Danko/Wasagu has witnessed a number of salaried jobs amounting to 7.0% of the individuals.

3.1.5 Household Size of the Respondents

Households with large family size are more likely to be more supportive and adaptive than household with smaller family sizes (Thathsarania & Gunaratne, 2017). Household sizes of 6-10 and 1-5 family members were the most frequent in the study area (Table 3.5).

Table 3.5 Household size of the respondents

Source: Field Survey, 2022

3.1.6 Household Dependence on Relatives Living Elsewhere

The Majority of the families’ in the study area were moderately relying on help from relatives for their livelihood (Table 3.6). The reason for this massive dependence is largely due to lower educational level, as reflected by the respondents in almost all the communities and poor source of income. The results further show that, Maga community is the least dependent in terms of support from family members.

Table 3.6 Household dependence on relatives living elsewhere

Source: Field Survey, 2022

3.2 Impact of Community and Social Development Project (CSDP) in the Communities

3.2.1 Influence of the CSDP in promoting and increasing access to education

People that acquired knowledge had the relative opportunity for skilled jobs and small-scale business activities (IFAD, 2012). All the communities perceived an increased enrollment of pupils in schools during the period of Community and Social Development Project (CSDP) (Table 3.7). This may be due reduced cost of school fees, recruitment of teachers and books provided by the CSDP. The results showed that, Shengel community had the highest enrolment. This was followed by Kanya, Dseme and Maga communities.

Table 3.7 Influences of the project on school enrolment

Source: Field Survey, 2020

3.2.2 Influence of CSDP in promoting access to resources and services on water

Paired t-test analysis (Table 3.8) identifies whether the sources of water provided by the project had a significant effect on communities. The result shows that, the average value of water sources was significant at 10% in Maga (p = 0.054) and Shengel (p = 0.090) indicating that, these communities witnessed an increased availability of water post CSDP. However, Dseme and Kanya did not report a significant improvement in access to water services.  Therefore, the intervention of CSDP has contributed to an increase in water sources like hand pumps/boreholes particularly in Maga and Shengel during the intervention. This might be attributed to additional hand pumps/boreholes available, location and distance the respondents were from the water sources at the time of intervention. Access to clean water in form of boreholes had reduced livelihood vulnerability, because it was found to reduce the problems associated with waterborne diseases in Danko/Wasagu.  The implication of non-availability of water makes households arrange for water on their own, adding further burden to domestic expenditure and effort.

Table 3.8 Paired sample t-test results for the sources of water before and after CSDP

*** Significant at 10%, std = standard deviation, df= degree of freedom, t-crit= critical value

3.2.3 Influence of CSDP in promoting access to resources and services on transport

Paired t-test analysis (Table 3.9) identifies the effect of transport system post CSDP intervention. The result shows that, the average sources of transport were significant at 5% across the communities, representing an improvement in transport system in the communities during the period of CSDP. The increase in the provision of transport infrastructure may have resulted because of the availability of feeder roads, culverts and drainages constructed by CSDP which allowed for efficient transport in the communities.

Table 3.9 Paired sample t-test results for the sources of transport before and after CSDP

** Significant at 5%, std = standard deviation, df= degree of freedom, t-crit= critical value

3.2.4 Influence of CSDP in promoting access to resources and services on health

Paired t-test analysis (Table 3.10) identifies whether the health facilities provided post CSDP had a significant effect on members of the communities. The result shows that comparison of perceived average value of access to health facilities were significant at 5% in all the communities before and after CSDP. This is a reflection of the project focus on provision of health facilities such as dispensary and health care centers. The dispensaries offered services and treatment especially for children and women in the communities.

Table 3.10 Paired sample t-test for health support before and after CSDP intervention

** Significant at 5%, std = standard deviation, df= degree of freedom, t-crit= critical value

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

4.1 Summary

The Community and social development project (CSDP) invested in poverty reduction through a strategic improvement of resources in communities of Danko/Wasagu Local Government Area (LGA). The findings of this study showed that, there was improved access to resources provided by the education, water, transport and health. Access to clean water in form of boreholes had reduced livelihood vulnerability, because it was found to reduce the problems associated with waterborne diseases in Danko/Wasagu. The number of people using boreholes has increased during the CSDP intervention. A very clearly expressed perception is that the road system provided by the project has meet the transport needs of the communities for micro-enterprise activities. The feeder roads constructed were of good quality, as the commuters’ does not encountered difficulty with transportation of goods, especially during the rainy season. Access to health facilities and education recorded remarkable achievement. The number of people attending health centres for counselling and treatment had increased during the CSDP intervention. Similarly, in the education sector, during the project there was a positive response to pupil/student enrolment and retention in the study area.

4.2 Conclusions

 The CSDP had invested resources in Danko/Wasagu in order to reduce poverty. The quality of life had been perceived to improve because of the delivery of infrastructures such as education, transport, health and water. In education construction of schools, provision of furniture, books and recruitment of teachers where some of the interventions provided which resulted to increased enrollment of pupils. Feeder roads are constructed by the project in order to make transportation easier for the commuters. Health facilities in form of health centres and dispensaries where constructed by the project. The dispensaries are equipped with prescription medicine especially for women and children. Boreholes were constructed by the project to make available water for the communities. Also, CSDP demonstrated the responsiveness to support the future development of the Danko/Wasagu LGA as evidenced in resources invested. This has resulted to establishment of a cordial relationship amongst the study communities, local government authority and the CSDP.

4.3 Recommendation

It was recommended following the closure of the CSDP, that continued development and maintenance of infrastructures provided by the project was transferred to Danko/Wasagu local government authority. Therefore, the development challenge relies on the integrity, efficiency and role played by the LGA.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Special thanks goes to my sponsor, TERTIARY EDUCATION TRUST FUND (TET Fund) for supporting this Institutional Based Research (IBR) without their financial contribution the research would not have been possible. I also, thank my employer, Kebbi State University of Science and Technology, Aleiro (KSUSTA), for giving me the opportunity and providing me enabling environment for the write up of this study.

REFERENCES

1. Akpan, N. S. (2012). Rural Development in Nigeria: A review of pre-and post-independence practice. Journal of Sociological Research, 3(2), 146-159.
2. Anyebe, A. A. (2015). Sokoto Rima River Basin Development Authority (SRRBDA) and Rural Development in Sokoto State, Nigeria. Journal of Economics Bibliography, 2(3), 134-143.
3. Ayogu, M. (2007). Infrastructure and economic development in Africa: a review. Journal of African Economics, 16 (suppl_1), 75-126.
4. Ekpo, A. H., & Olaniyi, O. (1995). Rural development in Nigeria: analysis of the impact of the Directorate for Food, Roads and Rural Infrastructure (DFRRI) 1986-93. Rural Development in Nigeria: Concepts, Processes, and Prospects. Enugu: Auto-Century Publishing Company.
5. Emma, E. O. (2009). Poverty and the millennium development goals in Nigeria: the nexus. Educational Research and Reviews, 4(9), 405-410.
6. Emmanuel, N., & Baghebo, M, (2015). The impact of poverty alleviation programmes on economic growth in Nigeria. 1981-2013. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 5(10), 177 – 188.
7. Fabusoro, E., Omotayo, A. M., Apantaku, S. O., & Okuneye, P. A. (2010). Forms and determinants of rural livelihoods diversification in Ogun State, Nigeria. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, 34(4), 417-438.
8. Galadima, M (2014). Rural infrastructure strategy for poverty reduction in Nigeria: Yobe ifad-cbardp experience. In: Proceedings of 1^st Mediterranean interdisciplinary forum on social sciences and humanities, 2, 633.
9. Gordon, A., & Craig, C. (2001). Rural non-farm activities and poverty alleviation in sub-Saharan Africa (NRI Policy Series 14). Natural Resources Institute.
10. Hussein, K. (2002). Livelihoods approach compared. London, Department for International Development.
11. IFAD (2012) Promoting rural enterprise growth and development: Lessons from four projects in Sub-Saharan Africa: Enabling poor rural people to overcome poverty, April 2012.
12. Madhuri, Tewari, H.R., & Bhowmick, P.K. (2014). Livelihood vulnerability index analysis: An approach to study vulnerability in the context of Bihar’, Jàmbá: Journal of Disaster Risk Studies 6(1), 13 pages.
13. Matthew, A. O., & Olatunji, O. M. (2016). Policy issues for improving monitoring and evaluation of agricultural extension Programmes in Nigeria: original research. African Evaluation Journal, 4(1), 1-5.
14. National Population Commission (NPC) (2015). National population census. Abuja, Nigeria: National Population Commission.
15. Ogwumike, F. O. (1997). Profile and dimension of Poverty in Nigeria. In NACEMA workshop on poverty reduction, Development policy centre, Ibadan (Vol. 3).
16. Okere, C. P., & Shittu, A. M. (2012). Patterns and determinants of livelihood diversification among farm households in Odeda Local Government Area, Ogun State, Nigeria. Journal of Economics, 1(1), 1-12.
17. Olayiwola, L. M., & Adeleye, O. A. (2005). Rural infrastructural development in Nigeria: Between 1960 and 1990-problems and challenges. Journal of Social Science 11 (2), 91-96.
18. Reardon, T. (2001). Rural non-farm income in developing countries. The state of food and agriculture, 1998, 283-356.
19. Salawu, H, L, Tanko, A.A., Coker, A., & Sadiq, M. S. (2016). Livelihood and income diversification strategies among rural farm households in Niger State, Nigeria. Asian Journal of Agricultural Extension, Economics, and Sociology. 1 – 11.
20. Thathsarania, U.S & Gunaratne, L.H.P (2018). Constructing and index to measure the adaptive capacity to climate change in Sri Lanka. Procedia engineering, 212, 278-285. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proceng.2018.01.036
21. Ugwuanyi, B. I. (2013). Enhancing rural development in Nigeria: Periscoping the impediments and exploring imperative measures. Kuwait Chapter of the Arabian Journal of Business and Management Review, 2(7), 91.