INTRODUCTION
In
terms of economic development quality of life, access to opportunities
facilities and amenities, standard of living and general livability, the gap
between the urban and rural areas in Nigeria is very wide. This leads to what is appropriately
characterized as the rural urban dichotomy.
The rural areas are usually grossly neglected as far as development
projects and are infrastructure are concerned. As a result
of the relative under development of the rural areas when compared with the
urban countries, rural areas are usually zones of high propensity for our
migration.
The challenges and prospects
of rural development in Nigeria hare been of great concern to the different
tiers of government due to the rate of rural urban migration. Onibokun (1987) sees rural development to the
faced with the paradox that the production oriented rural economy relies
headily on non- productive people who
are ill- equipped with outdated tools, technical information scientific and
cultural training and whose traditional roles and access to resources pose
problems to there effective incorporation into modern economic systems, whereas
the consumption oriented urban economy is who are either unemployed or
unemployable, or marginally employed or underemployed in the urban centries
where they chose to live. As a result of
this mass exodus , the rural areas hare become qualitatively depopulated and
are progressively less attractive for social and economy investments which the
urban areas are becoming physically congested, socially unhealthy and generally
uneconomic to maintain. The various
polices of the Nigerian government on rural development are to improve the
living condition in the rural areas with a view to curbing the streaming rural
urban migration of different governmental organizations (NGOs)which has led to
the proliferation of development agencies.
Despite the counties number of rural development polices introduced at
different omes by successive governments coupled with the huge financial and
material resources employed, little or nothing is felt at the rural level as
cash policy has often died with the
government that initiated it before it starts to yield dividends for the rural
dwellers. Onuoral (2006) support this
chain when he states that not molding the loft) objectives (policies and
government initiatives )such efforts ever endured beyond the government that
initiated the schemes.It is pertinent
to note that rural development.Plays an
important hole in the Nigerian economic development both at the micro and macro
level Agriculture and oil which lie in large reserves below the Niger- Delta,
which is dominated by rural communities, proper the Nigerian economy. Regrettably, oil and agriculture wealth which
is derived from the remotest parts of the rural areas and those of the Niger
Delta has been used by successive government to finance major investment in the
country’s infrastructure to the detriment and perhaps, underdevelopment of the
rural areas and it’s dwellers. Stock
(2005)laments that as a result of the neglect of Agriculture and the rural areas Nigeria now imports farm
products to feed it’s (her) people with untold hardship on the rural
people.
CONCEPT
The
concept of rural development in Nigeria lacks a united deliration as different
scholars tend to view it from varying perspective. Some scholars loot at rural development from
the aspect of education\training like Handed (1990) and hinzen (2000) obinne
(1991) perceived rural development to involve creating and widening
opportunities for (rural) individuals to realize full potential through
education and snare in decision and action which affect their lives. He views effects to increase rural output and
create to employment opportunities and root out fundamental or extreme) cases
of poverty, diseases and ignorance.
Others like okyide, oguntowora.
Essang and idachaba (1981)view rural development as means for the
provision of basic amenities, infrastructure, improved agricultural
productivity and extension services and employment generation for rural
dwellers.
An
understanding of the concept of development will give a clear picture of rural
development. Homby (2000) defines development as the gradual growth of
something so that it becomes more advanced, stronger etc. The process of
producing or creating something new. These definition implies that development
involves a gradual or advancement through progressive changes.
Proposed institutional frame work for
rural development
The
following five tier hierarchical structure was proposed for the achievement and
sustainability of rural development as well as for the provision of appropriate
linkages among the various agencies of rural development in Nigeria:
(1) The
National Rural Development Commission (NRDC) – This to be located in the
presidency to ensure strong government backing. It should form the central
coordinating body that oversees, monitors and regulates the activities and
performance of the relevant agencies of rural development in Nigeria.
(2) Zonal
rural development – The six geo – political zones in Nigeria should be adopted
for the purpose of implementing rural development projects especially
agriculture and industries should not be randomly located in the country
because of the spatial variation in the endowment in physical and natural
resources. Zones should therefore identify priority projects and determine
their locations.
(3) The State
Rural Development Agencies. Nigeria has at the moment 36 states and the federal
capital territory (FCT), Abuja. It is proposed that each state and the FCT
should have SRDA. The SRDA should have a link to the ZRDC.
(4) The Local
Government Rural Development Authorities (LGRDAS)- For now Nigeria has 774
local government areas. It is the therefore proposed that each local government
area should have a rural development authority in line with what obtains at the
states
(5) Rural Community
Development Councils (RCDCs)- It is proposed that the RCDCs in each autonomous
rural community in Nigeria should form the base of the institutional frame
work. The objective is to encourage the participation of rural communities in
the administration of rural development in Nigeria.
APPROACHES
Overtime,
successive government have embarked on several programmes targeted at rural
development. Other approaches have been by non – governmental organization
(NGOs), cooperatives, individuals through private initiatives, corporate bodies
as well as international organization. The various programmes initiated and
chiefly targeted at the rural sector by the government include the following:
1.
National
accelerated food production programme (NAFPP)
2.
River- Basin
Development Authority (RBDA)
3.
Agricultural
Development programme (ADP)
4.
operation feed
the ration
5.
The green
reduction
6.
Agriculture
credit guarantee scheme (ACGS)
7.
Directorate for
food, road and rural infrastructure (DFFR)
8.
Better life for
rural Dwellers
9.
National
Agricultural insurance corporation (NAIC)
10.
National
Directorate of Employment Authority (NDE)
11.
National
Agricultural land Development Authority (NALDA)
12.
National poverty
Eradication programme (NPEP)
13.
National rural
roads development fund (NRRDF)
14.
Rural banking
scheme (RBS)
15.
family support
programme (FSP)
16.
Universal basic
reduction (UBE)
17.
Rural
Infrastructure Development scheme (RIDS)
A
cursory look at the introduction establishment, implementation and the
objectives majority of the above programmes will reveal that the are mainly
targeted at rural development in an attempt to better the lives of rural
dwellers, stimulate and enhance economic growth, as well as get the rural
sector to contribute meaningfully to the national economic and social
development. These programmes have direct or indirect impact on rural
development and can broadly be grouped into specific and multi – specific
programmes. The specific programmes are those directed mainly at agriculture,
health, education, housing, transport, infrastructure, finance and manufacture.
Such programmes were initiated in the early 1970’s and 1980’s. On the other
hand, most put in place in the early 1990’s and thereafter to handle general
projects. Such as NDE, DFRRI, BETTER UFE, family support etc. some positive
effects on rural development although Obadan (2002) says that target population
for some of them were not specified explicitly to be poor people (rural
dwellers). Examples of such as the RBDAs, ACGS, RBs, etc which were designed as
employment generation, enhancing of agricultural output and income and
streaming rural- urban migration, which no doubts impair rural development.
Other development programmes such as OFN, Green Revolution, free and compulsory
primary education, low cost housing schemes etc impacts positively on the rural
dwellers but most of them could not be sustained due to lack of political will
and commitment, policy instability and insufficient involvement of the intended
beneficiaries of the programmes hence according to them died with the
government that initiated them.
CHALLENGES
Rural
development is taxed with challenges which have made the effect of government’s
effort at different levels. NGOs, private initiatives and international
involvement not felt by the intended beneficiaries. Umebali and Akubuilo (2006)
listed some of them to include:
(1) Vicious cycle of poverty.
(2) Poor infrastructure.
(3) High
population density.
(4) High level
of illiteracy.
(5) Low social
interaction and local polities and
(6) Rural – urban migration.
A
major challenge is that the hypothetical rural dweller who is the thermometer
through which one determines the impact of rural development in the words of
Chinsman (1997) continues to give negative readings as it is seen to be ravaged
by an excruciating poverty, ignorance and disease. A lot of rigors, bottlenecks
and unnecessary bureaucracy are often attached to rural development process.
This evident in the history of most of the rural development programmes which
are often saddled with disappointments. Another challenge is the issue of
proliferation of development programmes. Some are so supercialy implemented
that the average targeted population (rural dwellers) doubt the sincerity of
the initiators. Such proliferation can easily be noticed from the many numbers
of such that died with successive government that initiated them. The problem
of implementation is another glaring
challenge.
The
issue of funding is also a big challenge. Some of the rural development
programmes are so bogus without a clearly defined source of funding. The cases
of the housing for AU, UBE etc. are clear examples. They are often initiated
before sourcing for funds from philanthropists and international donors which
may never come. Other challenges include armed conflicts ranging from ethnic,
religious and communal, issues which do not provide enabling environment for
the implementation of sustainable development programmes in such areas for
instance, a situation where foreigners and government workers in some coastal
rural areas are target of kidnappers demanding ransom is obviously not
favorable or conclusive for developmental work.
Corruption
poses a very big threat to rural development. There is lack of integrity,
accountability and transparency on the part of people who are supposed to
implement developmental projects in the rural area.
Nwokoby
(2007) laments that public funds (made for rural projects) are starched away in
banks vaults in Europe and America while an overwhelming proportion of the population
live in abject poverty.