Abstract environment is not developed to further sustain the

Abstract

The study
investigated the Delta State Oil Producing Areas Development Commission
(DESOPADEC) provision of social amenities and the development of oil host
communities Delta State. The objective of the study is to investigate if DESOPADEC
provision social amenities lead to the development of oil producing communities
in Delta State. In other to carry out the study, one hypothesis was formulated.
Review of related literature was based on both theoretical and empirical
studies on development. Descriptive survey research design was adopted for the
study. The sample for the study was 366. The proportionate stratified sampling
technique was adopted in selecting the respondents. The result of the study
shows that DESOPADEC provision of social amenities to oil host communities has
brought significant development to oil host communities. However some predictor
variables were not significant. Based on the results, it was suggested that the
commission should be more focus on the mandate of setting it up.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

 

1.1 Introduction

The
Niger Delta region of Nigeria which includes Delta state is richly endowed with
both renewable and non-renewable natural resources. It contains 20 billion of
Africa’s proven 66 billion barrels of oil reserves and more than 3 trillion
cubic meters of gas reserves (Omajemite, 2008). Boye, Erhinyodavwe, Oroka, and
Atomato (2014) Boye- Akelemor (2015) asserted that Oil and gas resources
account for over 85% of Nigeria’s gross domestic product (GDP), over 95% of the
national budget and over 80% of the nation’s wealth. Akuodu (2011) stated that
despite the rich endowment of renewable and non renewable natural resources,
the state still lack major basic infrastructures and oil spillages have
rendered many of the communities within the state homeless. Akuodu (2011)
suggested that the federal government should as a matter of urgency pay
attention to the ordeals to the people and communities of the Niger Delta
region.

Omajemite
(2008), Okaba (2008), Akpabio (2009), Akuodu (2011), Ogbonnaya (2011),
Ebegbulem, Ekpe, and Adejumo (2013), and Boye, Erhinyodavwe, Oroka, and Atomato
(2014) have all asserted that, the Niger Delta region that includes Delta State
remains the poorest region due to the unfriendly operation of oil and gas and
state policies that expropriate the indigenous people of the Niger Delta, of
their rights to these natural resources. Environmental devastation, which is
occasioned by the activities of multinational oil companies (MNOCs) have
rendered useless farming and fishing, which was previously the mainstay of the
Niger Delta rural populace. The Niger Delta environment is not developed to
further sustain the people after the destruction of the ecosystem that had kept
the people together. The height of it is that environmental degradation
continuously occur through oil exploration activities such as gas flaring, oil
spills, seismic explosives discharge etc. They all call for developmental
attention in the region to show for the much that is taken from the region.

Despite
the several years of oil exploration and exploitation by Multinational
Corporations, and the hazards of spillage and gas flaring which accompany it,
have degraded the environment of the region and left the communities desolate.
Not only have farming and fishing, the major occupations of these mostly
riverine minorities been decimated, their territories have continuously lacked
basic infrastructure and amenities – electricity, roads, schools, hospitals,
portable water, etc (Ebegbulem, Ekpe. and Adejumo, 2013).

Ogbonnaya
(2011) stated that World Bank conducted a study of the environmental hazards in
Niger Delta. The study entitled “Defining an Environmental Development
Strategy for the Niger Delta” was quick to note that “the Niger Delta
has been blessed with an abundance of physical and human resources, including
the majority of Nigeria’s oil and gas deposits, good agricultural land,
extensive forest, excellent fisheries, as well as developed industrial base,
and a vibrant private sector” (World Bank Report, 1995). However, the
region’s tremendous potential for economic growth and sustainable development
remains unfulfilled and its future is threatened by deteriorating economic
conditions that are not being addressed by government policies and actions. The
report went on the say that despite the vast oil reserve in the Niger Delta;
the region remains poor with education level below the national average.
According to the report, while seventy six percent (76%) of Nigerian children
attend primary schools, the level in some parts of the Niger Delta has dropped.

The
outcry of populace in the Niger Delta region over the years on the activities
of the multinational oil companies has attracted the attention of successive
government at both the national and state level, hence the introduction of
different agencies and commissions to handle the development of the region.
Prominent among them are the Niger Delta Development Commission (NDDC) and the
Oil Producing Area Development Commission (OPADEC), with each state of the
Niger Delta Region having its acronym. This is why we have the Delta state oil
producing areas development commission (DESOPADEC).

DESOPADEC
as the acronym implies is “Delta State oil producing area development
commission”. It was established in 2006 as a means of bringing sustainable
development to the long neglected oil rich state of the Niger Delta region.
According to Sobotie and Whiskey (2008), ‘the crisis in the oil producing
communities is as a result of underdevelopment’ stressing that after four
decades of exposure to petroleum based industrial development, engendering and
propelling petroleum- driven national economy, the Niger Delta region continued
to rank low, while poverty and unemployment continued on the upward trajectory
with 72% of its population within a defined poverty bracket. In respond to the
agitation of the people of the region on the unwholesome activities of
multinational oil companies and long neglect, the Delta state oil producing
area development commission was set up to cater for the development of the state.  Kpogho (2013) commenting on the journey so
far on DESOPADEC stated that the Delta state oil producing areas development
commission was established by the Chief James Onanefe Ibori administration,
through an act of the State house of Assembly in 2006. Accordingly, the
establishment of the commission was perceived as historic and significant to
the realization of the dreams and aspirations of long neglected people of the
oil producing areas to be given special attention in terms of development.
Secondly it was seen as fulfillment of the Chief Ibori’s pledge to seek
immediate and enduring solutions that will bring profound peace and progress to
the people of the oil and gas communities.

1.2
Objectives of the Study

The
objective of the study is to investigate if DESOPADEC provision social
amenities lead to the development of oil producing communities in Delta State.

The
specific objective is to investigate if DESOPADEC provisions of social
amenities have brought significant development to oil host communities in Delta
State

1.3 Hypothesis

In
other to effectively ascertain the level of significance of DESOPADEC provision
of social amenities on the development of oil host communities in Delta state,
the researcher formulated one Null hypothesis

HO1:
The provision of social amenities by DESOPADEC have not brought significant
development to oil host communities

Alternative
Hypothesis: The provision of social amenities by DESOPADEC have brought
significant development to oil host communities

 

1.4 Review of Literature

According
to Boye-Akelemor (2017) Meaningful development without infrastructures that can
face the test of time may not be achievable. Hence for the development of any
community, there must be meaningful infrastructures that can help facilitate
economic growth. Without basic infrastructures like good roads, bridges, pipe
borne water, electricity and schools, development will be difficult.
Infrastructure as it implies are many and diverse. They include roads, tunnels,
bridges, railways, airports, canals, subways and tramways, dams, irrigation
networks, water pipes, water purification plants, sewers, water treatment
plants, dumps and incinerators, power plants, power lines and distribution
networks, oil and gas pipelines, telephone exchanges and networks, etc. Infrastructure,
particularly transport infrastructure, plays a key role in Adam Smith’s vision
of economic development. No roads, no transport, no trade, no specialization,
no economies of scale, no productivity progress, and no development. Yet,
during the 19 century, and much of the 20 century, infrastructure virtually
disappears from economics (Remy, 2004).

The
general neglect of infrastructure, often rationalized by the difficulty of the
Delta’s terrain, has worsened people’s access to fundamental services such as
electricity, safe drinking water, roads and health facilities that are taken
for granted in many other parts of Nigeria. Other elements include the negative
impacts of the oil industry, a constricted land area, a delicately balanced
environment and extreme economic deprivation (Niger Delta Human Development
report. 2006). Ogbonnaya (2011) stated that, the available social development
indicators in the Niger Delta region point to inadequate, unavailable and poor
quality infrastructure and social services, from water to telecommunication.
According, to UNDP (2006:27), the historical neglect of the “region’s
development poses a steep barrier to attaining socio-economic transformation
and poverty alleviation.

Agenor
(2010) stated that Lack of infrastructure continues to be a key obstacle to
growth and development in many low-income countries. Remy (2014) citing a
research study carried out by Gramlich (1994) established that infrastructures
have a strong influence in determining sustainable development. Agenor (2010)
asserted that in order to alleviate the constraints to growth and poverty
reduction, several observers have advocated a large increase in public
investment in infrastructure, in line with the ”Big Push” view of
Rosenstein Rodan (1943). In a study carried out by Oruonye (2011) on the
socioeconomic impact of resettlement at Lake Chad, Nigeria. Oruonye explained
that infrastructural facilities like good school, modern health centres, market
stores, boreholes, viewing centres and police office to enhance their security,
have to a large extent help in the development of the communities that were
once neglected. In a study carried out by Alphonsus and Shatar (2015), the
impact of the provision of electricity on the environment was seen as a great
socioeconomic importance on reduction in use of woods as fuel prevents
deforestation, reduces wastage of energy generated as good modem appliances are
energy saving and keeps good unpolluted climate. Alphonsus and Shatar (2015)
further asserted that Poverty is a global issue that has gained the attention
of many international organizations and governments and the means of
eradicating poverty varies from location but in all countries, access to
infrastructures like electricity, good drinking water, health, good and cheap
means of transportation, education, per capita income etc forms good indicators
for measuring level of poverty. Dinkelma (2008) in a study discovered that
rural electrification reduces unemployment among the rural dwellers especially
artisans including women who engaged in home made goods and services in South
Africa. In a study carried out by Akpoborie and Ehwarimo (2012) they asserted
that the provision of boreholes supplying water to oil host communities have
reduced water related diseases as they have been found to be of good quality.

1.5 Methodology

The
descriptive survey research design was used for the study. A total of 400
questionnaires were administered and 366 representing 91.5% was returned. The sample
for the study was 366. It comprises of staff of DESOPADEC. Traditional leaders,
Community Youth Leaders, heads of tertiary institutions, secondary, and primary
schools, medical personnel  in hospitals
and health centre, from various ethnic nationalities of Urhobos, Itsekiri,
Ijaws, Isokos, and Ndokwa areas of Delta state that are the oil producing
areas. The proportionate stratified random sampling technique was adopted for
the selection of the sample for the study. Each of the ethnic nationalities
formed a stratum from where respondents were drawn. Table
4.1a: Table of ethnic groups in oil producing communities in Delta State

 

 

Ethnic Group

Frequencies

Percent

Cumulative

 

 
Urhobo
Itsekiri
Ijaw
Isoko
Ndokwa
Total

 
182
63
40
41
40
366

 
49.73
17.21
10.93
11.20
10.93
100.00

 
49.73
66.94
77.87
89.07
100.00

 

 

With
the aid of twelve trained research assistants, the researcher visited all five
ethnic nationalities and the instrument that was self constructed and validated
by experts with a reliability of r.075 were administered and retrieved. The
data generated for the study was analyzed using the multiple regression
analysis. The hypotheses were tested at 0.05level of significance. The
statistical package of social science (SPSS version 22) format computer
programme was used for data analysis.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1.6 Result and
Discussion

 

Testing of Hypothesis
One (HO1)

The
provisions of social amenities by DESOPADEC have not brought significant
development to oil host communities

To test
this hypothesis, Multiple Regression analysis was conducted between social
amenities and perception of the oil host communities in Delta State on the
implementation/quality or quantity of DESOPADEC projects. The result is
presented in Tables 1, 2 and 3 respectively.

Table 1: Model Summary Table of Provision of Social Amenities by
DESOPADEC and Significant Development to Oil Host Communities

Model

 R

R Square

Adjusted R Square

Std. Error of the Estimate

1

.790

.625

.611

.12094

 

Table 2: ANOVA Summary Table of Provision of Social Amenities by
DESOPADEC and Significant Development to Oil Host Communities

Model

Sum of Squares

Df

Mean Square

F

Sig.

1

Regression

8.563

13

.659

45.035

.000

Residual

5.149

352

.015

 

 

Total

13.712

365

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 3: Coefficient Summary Table of Provision of Social Amenities
by DESOPADEC and Significant Development to Oil Host Communities

Coefficients

Model

Unstandardized
Coefficients

Standardized
Coefficients

T

Sig.

B

Std. Error

Beta

1

(Constant)

2.294

.113

 

20.343

.000

1.DESOPADEC
Provision of social amenities have brought development to oil host
communities

-.357

.063

-.778

-5.686

.000

2.The
roads constructed by DESOPADEC have brought easy accessibility to your
community thereby increasing business activities

-.035

.042

-.090

-.835

.404

3.The
construction of bridges by DESOPADEC in oil producing communities have made
easy access to different part of the state possible, thereby bring business
opportunity close to the people

-.046

.019

-.143

-2.476

.014

4.DESOPADEC
provisions of jetty to oil producing communities have made easy access to
reverine area of the State thereby 
enhancing social economic activities

-.073

.019

-.248

-3.760

.000

5.DESOPADEC
construction of drainages in oil host communities have helped in erosion
control

-.135

.021

-.513

-6.445

.000

6.DESOPADEC
construction of markets in oil host communities have enhanced economic
activities

-.006

.024

-.019

-.270

.788

7.DESOPADEC
town hall buildings in oil host communities have help in bringing people
together for peaceful town hall meetings

.139

.024

.463

5.754

.000

8.Provision
of transformers by DESOPADEC to oil host communities have help in the
improvement of electricity power supply

.092

.034

.404

2.715

.007

9.Provision
of electricity poles by DESOPADEC to oil host communities of Delta State have
improved electricity power supply

-.086

.034

-.408

-2.528

.012

10.DESOPADEC provision of  street light in oil host communities have
increased business activities at night 

-.111

.027

-.333

-4.099

.000

11.The provision of borehole by DESOPADEC in
oil host communities have brought clean water supply

.135

.024

.439

5.570

.000

12.The grading of roads by DESOPADEC in oil
host communities in Delta State have made accessibility easy for businessmen
and women

.034

.025

.119

1.374

.170

13.DESOPADEC
rural electrification project in oil host communities of Delta State have
made accessibility to electricity easy

.119

.024

.584

4.993

.000

 

From
Tables 1, 2, and 3 the result of the regression indicated that the 13
predictors explained 63% of the variance (R2 = 0.625, F (13,352)
=45.035, p= 0.000). It was found that provision of social amenities (such as
bridges, jetty, drainages, town hall building, electric poles, street light,
boreholes, provision of transformers and rural electrification) by DESOPADEC
have significantly brought development to oil host communities (P?0.05). The
null hypothesis is which stated that DESOPADEC provision of social amenities to
oil host communities have not brought significant development is therefore
rejected while the Alternative Hypothesis which states that DESOPADEC provision
of social amenities to oil host communities have brought significant
development to the people of oil producing communities in Delta State is accepted.
The result implies that provisions of social amenities by DESOPADEC have
brought significant development to the oil host communities.

The
findings from this study corroborate earlier studies which affirm that
development is a product of availability of social amenities. Kanagawa and
Nakata (2007) in their study linked development to provision of
infrastructures. Similarly, Alphoosus and Shatar (2015) from their study
asserted that provision of electricity is a major way for the attainment of
development. The findings are also in According with Remy (2014) which asserted
that infrastructure have a strong influence in determining sustainable development.

The
present study is in line with Agenor (2010) which asserted that Lack of
infrastructure continues to be a key obstacle to growth and development in many
low-income countries. The provision of basic social amenities is key to
development.  

Conclusion and recommendations

The
study investigated the Delta State oil producing areas development commission
provision of social amenities (infrastructures) and the development of oil host
communities. The result reveals the provision of social amenities by DESOPADEC as
a significant predictor of development of the oil host communities in Delta
State. DESOPADEC should improve on road construction, grading of roads, and
markets, as the study revealed that the construction of roads and grading of
roads, and construction of markets, have not brought significant development to
oil host communities in Delta State

 

References

Agenor,
P. (2010). A Theory of Infrastructure –led Development. Journal of Economics Dynamics and Control Vol. 34 (5), pp 932-
950

Alphonsus,
O.I. and Mohammed, S.B.S., (2015). Socio – Economic Impact of Niger Delta
Development Commission (NDDC) Infrastructural Projects in Selected Communities
in Imo State Nigeria Asian Journal of
Humanities and Social Sciences (AJHSS) Volume 3, Issue – 2, May, 2015 ISSn:
2320 – 9720 www.ajhss.or 109

Akpabio,
G. (2009). The Niger – Delta crises and
the challenges of leadership. The Godswill Akpabio’s Model. A paper
delivered by his Excellency Chief Godswill Obot Akpabio. Executive Governor of
Akwa – Obom State at the National Round – table in Abuja on Monday May 25th
2009

Akpoborie,
I.A., and Ehwarimo, A., (2012). Quality of packaged drinking water produced in
Warri Metropolis and potential implications for public health. Journal of Environmental Chemistry
Ecotoxicology Vol. 4 (11), pp 195 – 202

Akuodu,
G.E. (2011). Oil Exploitation and Challenges of Development in the Niger Delta
Region.  M.sc Dissertation.

Boye,
T.E., Johnson, I.E., Oroka, V.O., and Atomatofa, R. (2014). Assessment of the
opinion of youths on the use sports and vocational education for crisis
management in the Niger delta region of Nigeria: International journal of psychological studies. Canada. Vol. 6.no.
1 March pp 87 – 96

Boye
– Akelemor, E.E. (1015). Determinants of Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) in the
Nigerian Economy (1980 – 2012). M.sc dissertation Delsu Abraka

Ebegbulem,
J.C., Ekpe, D. and Adejumo, T.O. (2013). Oil Exploration and Poverty in the
Niger Delta Region of Nigeria: A Critical Analysis. International Journal of Business and Social Science Vol. 4 No. 3
pp 279 – 287

Gramlich,
E. (1994). Infrastructure Investment: A Review Essay. Journal of Economic Literature Vol. 32 (3)1176- 1196

Kpogho,
O. (2013). You must deliver your mandate Uduaghan tells DESOPADEC. DESOPADEC Bulletin

Ogbonnaya,
U. M. (2011). Environmental Law and Underdevelopment in the Niger Delta Region
of Nigeria: African Research Review Vol.
5 (5) Pp. 68 – 82

Okaba,
B. (2005b). Development Partnership and Sustainable Development Agenda for the
Niger Delta Region Pan African Social
Science Review Vol., No. 8       

Oruonye,
E. D. (2011). The socio – economic impact of the Lake Chad resettlement scheme:
Nigeria African Journal of Environmental
Science and Technology Vol. 5(3) Pp.238 – 145.

Omajemite,
B. U. (2008). The Economic Dimensions of the Niger Delta Ethnic Conflicts: In
Omotor et al (eds) Conflict Management
and Peace Building in Africa. Volume 11 Pp. 273

Remy,
P. (2004). Paper prepared for the ABCDE (Annual Bank Conference on Development
Economics), Washington, May 3 – 5, 2004

Sobotie,
O. and Whisky, E. (2008 Nov). Crisis in the oil producing communities is the
result of under development. DESOPADEC
Newsmagazine vol. 1 no, 11 pp 1 and 4

UNDP
(2006), Niger Delta Human Development Report. Lagos; perfect printers Ltd

World
Bank (1995). Sustainable development in a dynamic world – transforming
institutions, growth, and quality of life (World Development Report), Washington,
D.C.: World Bank/Oxford University Press