Two days ago, precisely October 17, 2011 individuals, organisations, and countries worldwide observed the International Day for the Eradication of Poverty first celebrated by the United Nations (UN) in 1993. The global event was marked with public lectures, panel discussions, cultural presentations, interfaith gatherings, and other activities to promote awareness of the need to eradicate poverty and destitution across the world and to also renew commitment in fostering good governance primed to improve the objective living condition of the people.

But surprisingly, nothing much was heard about Nigeria’s participation in the global observance. To all intents and purposes, the event provided an opportuned time for non-governmental organisations, professional bodies, labour unions, traditional rulers, policy makers, and development practitioners to gather and share ideas on how best to eradicate mass poverty in the country. And indeed, it provided a good time to critically appraise the country’s development policies and programmes and, particularly, government efforts at eradicating extreme poverty among the populace.

Faced by the wide spread and multi-dimensional poverty in Nigeria, the Olusegun Obasanjo administration introduced the National Poverty Eradication Programme (NAPEP). The aim was to promote economic and social development and to eradicate poverty in the country by increasing the poor’s access to education, basic health, and in-come generating activities.

To ensure that all the activities of NAPEP were effectively coordinated and extended, the Olusegun Obasanjo administration established the National Poverty Eradication Council to plan and harmonise the responsibilities of the line ministries, parastatals, and agencies involved in actualising the aims and objectives of the programme.

At the inception of  the package, it was hoped that the programme would achieve the millennium development goals, especially those of integrating the principles of sustainable development into the countries policies, and reducing by half the proportion of people suffering from hunger.

But the fact remains that in spite of the efforts, or plans Nigeria is still rated as one of the poorest countries of the world, characterised by low level of living, low level of productivity, high and rising levels of unemployment and underemployment.

Apparently, whatever goods that have been delivered with these efforts have generally accrued to the tiny ruling class, the power elite, managers, bureaucrats, contractors, and their cronies. Basic commitment to full employment, free medical services, pension and other social security for peasants and other self-employed people, decent housing for all citizens, general rural pipe-borne water, electrification and feeder roads, to benefit the poor, are accorded low priority in the plans.

Worse still, the plans are more often than not aggregations of incompatible projects and policies and not strategies consciously designed to eradicate poverty in the land. Besides, right from conception to implementation of the plans or programmes, political considerations are placed over and above rational-technical questions of selecting alternatives which have the greatest probability of effecting the most efficient allocation of scare resources. And, strictly speaking, nobody takes the programmes seriously after the initial fanfare with which they are announced.

Rural development, especially with a vast traditional sector which depends heavily on the natural environment, is a complicated process. So planning for rural development in Nigeria should go beyond the techniques used for the modern sector and advanced countries.

Rural development efforts for Nigeria should not just revolve around isolated programmes of community development, rural reconstruction, communal action, agricultural extension or any of the other terms applied to sectoral activities carried out within the rural communities but aim at eliciting favourable changes in the way of life of the people concerned.

They should address such problems as what, how, and how much to produce, questions of taxation policy, and incentives; of savings, credit and investment. It must also take into account systems of education policy, local government, preservation of law and other, administration of justice, provision of roads and other means of communication, health and medical facilities, the quality of life and so on.

The ambit of this concept is indeed very wide. But the aim is to encourage and promote the well being of the rural majority which constitutes close to 80 percent of the country’s population. And as the sector that constitutes the social and economic environment of the major part of our population, unless the rural areas are set moving, many of the objectives of our development will be frustrated.

The very nature of the process of rural development and the size of the problem of promoting the desired economic and social progress in our rural areas therefore require that action be taken on several fronts simultaneously and not independently of each other. This means that the very concept of rural development demands the application of the knowledge and skills of all relevant national or international services in an integrated rather than isolated or fragmentary way. Thus the federal government’s determination to partner with private and multinational institutions in a bid to break away from the grips of a poorly performing agricultural sector, the economic base of our rural people, is a welcome development.

The struggle to turn our rural areas from poverty to prosperity is not just to support the people or to make them dependent on the generosity of others; it is a struggle to give our forgotten rural people a chance that allows them to develop and use their skills and talents in the promise of an egalitarian society which the nation apparently offers.