Idemudia_subbed.qxp 1/4/09 02:31 Page 129
The Niger Delta Development Commission
and Poverty Reduction – A Diagnosis of
Existing Challenges
There is no doubt that partnerships between the Nigerian
government and oil TNCs that draw on the core complementary
competences of each stakeholder potentially offer an important
avenue to address the incidence of poverty in the Niger delta region.
Indeed, there appears to be a growing consensus in governmental
circles in the Niger delta that more can be achieved by government
through partnering than if it were to work alone. This is because
partnership offers government and business the opportunity to
combine and leverage their resources and expertise more effectively
and efficiently in the drive to reduce poverty in the region. For
example, the former Secretary to the Council in Ibeno local
government area (LGA) in Akwa Ibom State noted in an interview
that: “The local government does not have the financial resources to
provide the needed social infrastructure in the host communities due
to the nature of the terrain that makes such investment costly. As
such, partnership with Exxon Mobil that has the resources is a
necessity.” However, despite the potential positive role partnerships
can play in reducing the incidence of poverty in the region, the
NDDC continues to face critical structural and systemic challenges
that undermine its effectiveness and limit its impact on poverty
reduction. Only three of such core challenges are discussed here.
The first problem has to do with the failure of government to deliver
on its partnership responsibility within existing partnership
arrangements, especially in terms of meeting its financial
commitment. For instance, although the NDDC Act stipulated that
the federal government of Nigeria is expected to contribute 15% of
oil revenue and the state government 50% of its allocated ecological
fund to the Commission, the federal government’s contribution to
the Commission is only 10–12% of oil revenue, while the state
governments do not contribute to the Commission at all. In response,
oil TNCs deduct their individual community development spending
before making their 3% contribution to the Commission, and in
some instances have withheld part of their statutory contribution to
the NDDC. Consequently, recent estimates by Mr Tim Aliabe,
Managing Director of the NDDC, suggest that while the federal
government owes the NDDC an estimated N228 billion, oil TNCs owe
N40 billion. The consequence of this limited funding is that the NDDC
is often unable to meet its poverty reduction objectives as core
poverty reduction initiatives cannot be undertaken.
This problem of limited funds is compounded by the second
problem to be discussed here – political interference, the lack of
transparency and allegations of corruption. The NDDC as a federal
establishment is often at the centre of political wrangling, as
different political interest groups seek to leverage their different
interests – often to the detriment of the development goals of the
Commission. For example, nomination to the NDDC management
board is often over-politicised, with significant ramifications for
effective management. In addition, issues of corruption due to lack
of transparency and accountability have also meant that three Chief
Executive Officers of the NDDC have been removed from office
since its inception. Contractors have accused principal officers of
the Commission of trying to re-award contracts to their families,
friends and personal assistants. These allegations of corruption, lack
Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100  |  Page 101  |  Page 102  |  Page 103  |  Page 104  |  Page 105  |  Page 106  |  Page 107  |  Page 108  |  Page 109  |  Page 110  |  Page 111  |  Page 112  |  Page 113  |  Page 114  |  Page 115  |  Page 116  |  Page 117  |  Page 118  |  Page 119  |  Page 120  |  Page 121  |  Page 122  |  Page 123  |  Page 124  |  Page 125  |  Page 126  |  Page 127  |  Page 128  |  Page 129  |  Page 130  |  Page 131  |  Page 132  |  Page 133  |  Page 134  |  Page 135  |  Page 136  |  Page 137  |  Page 138  |  Page 139  |  Page 140  |  Page 141  |  Page 142  |  Page 143  |  Page 144  |  Page 145  |  Page 146  |  Page 147  |  Page 148  |  Page 149  |  Page 150  |  Page 151  |  Page 152  |  Page 153  |  Page 154  |  Page 155  |  Page 156