CHAPTER SIX: HAS THE CSDP BEEN SUCCESSFUL IN INFLUENCING LIVELIHOOD VULNERABILITY?
The objective of the CSDP was to invest in poverty reduction through a strategic improvement of resources available for livelihoods. The livelihoods improvement framework emphasises the role of institutions and processes as key to the available resource and influence on livelihood vulnerability. Therefore, this study anticipated that through engaging communities in defining the characteristics of their own vulnerability, a better understanding of livelihood options would develop, data to inform government would be provided, and the knowledge obtained would be used as a priority in strategic planning of development Programme in Danko/Wasagu after the closure of CSDP in 2013. The chapter discusses the role that community and social development project (CSDP) had on livelihood strategies in Danko/Wasagu LGA, and whether current livelihood strategies described by the participants in Danko/Wasagu reflected reduced livelihood vulnerability.
84
small to medium micro-enterprises development (Madhuri et al., 2014; IFAD, 2012; Giovannucci et al., 2012). Also, good education can promote resilience in the face of environmental risk in the rural community. Therefore, education is an important factor in poverty reduction (Canagarajah &
Thomas, 2001). In Danko/Wasagu knowledge on reclamation of land through erosion management and flood control are the some of the key outcomes of CDP influence on education. Others include knowledge in farming practices, skills acquisition, sanitation practices and afforestation.
Water availability is essential to rural livelihoods and is expected to reduce livelihood vulnerability (Alinovi et al., 2010; Cannon et al. 2004). The effective management and use of underground water reduces the cases of waterborne diseases like cholera and bilharzia as well as conflict associated with water scarcity. Unavailability of water results in households to trek long distance for water (Dseme and Kanya communities) and spending more time for productive activities.
The intervention of CSDP has brought some increase in access to water sources like hand pumps/boreholes to Danko/Wasagu particularly in Maga and Shengel communities. Before the intervention the communities depend on natural source of water (wells, rivers and ponds) for water which are contaminated water sources. In Danko/Wasagu, Maga and Shengel communities had more access to water sources compared to Dseme and Kanya communities. Access to water sources like hand pumps and boreholes would facilitate development in the rural areas (Reardon, 2011).
6.1.2 Transport and health
The CSDP survey data for resources and services on transport indicated that, Danko/Wasagu communities recorded an improvement in the transport system during the period of CSDP. This was due to provision of feeder roads, culverts and drainages in the communities. This agrees with Ayugo (2007) conclusion that the lack of access roads is responsible for poor distribution and marketing of agricultural commodities as well as preventing small-scale farmers from accessing inputs, and new technology. However, the feeder roads restricted movement of vehicles especially around August – September Period (rainy season) because of the muddy condition of the roads.
This condition limited the participants’ access to opportunities to pursue personal socio-economic goals, generate employment and improved the transportation of goods and services in their communities. Rural households that have the opportunity of accessing good roads and transport tend to increase their income. For example, rural communities located 5km away from the city
have the opportunity of moving out of poverty (Onyeiwu & Liu, 2011). Therefore, providing rural infrastructure would enhence rural economic activities and employment opportunities, thereby reducing rural poverty (Reardon, 2001; Ayogu, 2007). Lack of access roads is responsible for poor distribution and marketing of agricultural commodities as well as preventing small-scale farmers from accessing inputs, and new technology (Ayogu, 2007). CSDP has brought an improvement in health facilities (Table 5.13). Danko/Wasagu communities experienced a considerable difference in the number of people being able to attend health centre for treatment and counseling because of the project intervention. The findings demonstrated that, health status of the members of the communities was generally impressive because of the project intervention. The success recorded may be as a result of establishment of new health centres and the renovation of the abandoned ones.
6.1.3 Environmental and natural resources management
Planting of trees and grasses are the predominant environment and natural resources infrastructure outcomes influenced by CSDP (Table 5.14) in the study communities. Other natural resources outcomes benefited by the participants include land reclamation or protection, flood and erosion control, windbreak, establishment of agro-farm/orchards and waste management (Appendix 13).
This would led to establishment and growth of rural based enterprises and asset base in the study area (Montaldo, 2013). And would also led to reduction in vulnerability and sustainable use of natural resources (Alinovi et al., 2010). Planting of trees and grasses might have possibly arisen because of the desert encroachment experienced in the study area. This practice is necessary because of severe illegal deforestation, as firewood is used for cooking and heating. Natural and socio-economic factors such as resource endowment influences households to engage into a range of livelihood activities such as subsistence production, production for market, engaging in labour market and self-employment (Wang et al., 2012).
The findings are consistent with (Devereux, 2002; Kabeer, 2002; Freeman et al., 2004) that highlight, rural development mainly focused on promotion and provision of social support services to help vulnerable groups and landless households. These services include roads, schools, hospitals, electricity and water for development (Reardon, 2001). The support services provide access to natural resource-based activities and opportunities (Stephen & Lenihan, 2010).
Accessibility to markets and nearby cities are some of the factors that lead to income activities in
86
rural villages. Therefore, poverty reduction in the rural area was not only due to assets people own, but on the infrastructure available, as well as proximity to the city (Dorosh et al.,. 2010; Khander
& Koolwall, 2010; Krishna & Shariff, 2011). Therefore, providing rural infrastructure would enhence rural economic activities and employment opportunities, thereby reducing rural poverty (Reardon, 2001; Ayogu, 2007).