[Nigeria] "Trade Has Greater Potential Than Aid to Reduce Poverty"

from All Africa

Nigeria has been derided as a trading economy. Experts also believe that the country's adoption of a recent regional policy on Common External Tariff (CET), a subset of the Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA) between ECOWAS and Europe can open floodgates for a deluge of goods into Nigeria, which may swamp local substitutes. Abimbola Akosile, in an interview with Mr. Cecil Nartey, Nigeria Country Manager, Oxfam GB, examined this and other concerned issues

Oxfam has been working in Nigeria in the last four years, what are your major areas of focus and intervention?

We work with others to overcome poverty and suffering. Oxfam's focus in Nigeria is in promoting sustainable livelihoods and good governance through a rights-based approach. We partner with groups to improve the livelihoods of poor women and men in Nigeria by increasing their access to resource endowments, markets, and participation in decision-making processes affecting their lives.

We support small-scale producer groups to develop effective institutions, which will uphold their interests and rights, and improve the production and marketing of their products. We also promote increased participation of the resource poor in the formulation and implementation of pro-poor policies and build the capacity of staff and partners in mainstreaming gender and HIV/AIDS in work culture and project cycle.

These are not the traditional areas of intervention identified with Oxfam. A mention of Oxfam conjures a player in emergency/humanitarian response like the Tsunami disaster and also Darfur, Sudan. Is this a change in programme focus for Oxfam?

Oxfam work world-wide are in three areas; emergency response, development and advocacy/campaigns. When Oxfam started in England during World War II by a group of Quaker intellectuals, social activists, and Oxford academics with the name Oxford Committee for Famine Relief, it was simply to provide relief to war victims in Greece, following allied forces imposed naval blockade on the country.

The committee sought to intervene in the resultant scarcity of food and medical supplies even for civilians. After the war, Oxfam continued its work, sending materials and financial aid to groups aiding the poor throughout Europe. As the situation in Europe improved, Oxfam's attention shifted to the needs of people in developing countries.

Over the years, Oxfam's work has spread to nearly 80 countries across the world, where we are responding to not just emergencies and humanitarian needs, but also partnering with local groups to fight poverty and sufferings of the poor. The sense is that there is a need to reduce resource poverty as a means of reducing, if not eliminate, conflict.

Experiences have showed that most of the conflicts around the world are as a result of lack of access to resources and the resultant struggle for resource control. Lack of access to these resources are sometimes due to inadequacy of those resources or due to poor management. Oxfam believes these can be addressed to avoid the bloodshed, anguish and social dislocation that war brings. So we work to support people to overcome poverty and suffering.

In the area of development, Oxfam is working to build the capacity of local farmers to grow more and better yields and to boost their access to market. We are also partnering with local groups to promote and campaign for fair trade regime under our Make Trade Fair campaign. We are also involved in the debt cancellation campaign, Publish What You Pay campaign, Global Call to Action Against Poverty (GCAP)/Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) campaigns and some others.

Sometimes intervention efforts by supposedly development agencies are not anchored on internal challenges. What are the connections or linkages between your programmes and various initiatives of government?

Our programmes are inter-linked with government initiatives. First, these programmes have been developed after a contextual analysis of the macro and micro economic environment, poverty and suffering in the country as well as review of the various government's economic policies such as the NEEDS, SEEDs and others.

Again, our programmes have been developed with Oxfam's philosophy of one-programme approach. What this means is that although we may have a number of activities under our current Sustainable Livelihoods and Governance programmes, each of the programme component is to compliment and re-enforce each other.

Our sustainable livelihoods programme has 3 components; trade & investments, oil extractives and market access. We however mainstream gender, diversity and HIV/AIDS into all the programmes.

For instance, our market access programme, is facilitating the ability of farmers to achieve improved income through improvement in their production capabilities and access to the market, in addition to creating employment opportunities for the teeming mass of rural dwellers.

But to succeed in this endeavour will depend largely on the agricultural support, policy and trade laws etc. So on the other hand, our trade & investment programme is working at influencing the legal framework and policies that guide these activities and commerce.

We also work with government departments and agencies in this respect. For instance, we partnered with the Federal Ministry of Agriculture during World Food Day in 2005. We also collaborated with the Federal Ministry of Commerce and supported a roundtable for the pre-Hong Kong World Trade Organisation (WTO) ministerial conference which was primarily to share government views and seek the input of stakeholders especially the civil society and organised private sector.

In another breath, while the extractives programme is concerned primarily with promoting transparency in the use of oil resources and environmental sustainability in oil productions activities, there is an appropriate nexus with the government programme which among other things seeks to promote peoples voice in budgeting and its implementations as well as the commendable anti-corruption campaign of government.

While on one hand we are supporting the Extractive Industry Transparency Initiative (EITI) an international campaign which the present government has domesticated as Nigeria Extractive Industry Transparency Initiative (NEITI), we are also supporting the civil society-led watchdog of the process under the Publish What You Pay (PWYP) coalition.

On regional trade, there is a view that it is not in the interest of Nigeria to embrace the policy on Common External Tariff (CET) alongside other ECOWAS countries; on the grounds that it (CET) can open the floodgates for a deluge of goods into Nigeria to compete unfavourably with local substitutes. What do you think?

I think it is more appropriate that we begin by discussing the Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA) between ECOWAS and Europe because the CET issue is a subset of the EPA. The EPAs are the new trade arrangements that are being negotiated between the EU and the ACP (Africa, Caribbean and Pacific) countries as a major instrument for economic and trade cooperation between the two parties to replace current preferences enjoyed by ACP countries, by 2008.

The primary focus of the EPAs is the establishment of free trade area and abolishment of tariff and non-tariff measures between the EU and ACP parties. These are expected to be 'compatible' with the requirements of the WTO.

But the EPAs do not have real development agenda for the ACP parties. So, Oxfam believes that the Nigerian government should say no to the EPA policy in its current form. EPA is intended to surreptitiously divide and rule us economically, because we do not have the advantage to access their markets under the regime.

Oxfam also believes that the current CET rates adopted are inimical to the ability of countries such as Nigeria to realise food security needs. It seeks to lower the tariff bar for Nigeria which will open up our markets to dumping.

Oxfam really is of the view that Nigeria and other ECOWAS countries should adopt flexible CET that gives each country the right to use measures it deems appropriate to protect the sensitive sectors and interest of their economy, and provide appropriate support for their farmers.

The Nigerian government must for instance formulate anti-dumping legislation and develop credible plans to address commodity crisis so that farmers can receive fair returns for their produce.

Again, there is the issue of agricultural subsidies which the EU and the US give their farmers. This enables them to dump artificially cheap products in Nigeria and other developing countries resulting in price distortions which are devastating to developing countries' economies, and affecting the livelihoods of small-scale farmers.

The Nigerian government should therefore demand that EU countries and the US reduce their subsidies in order to create a level playing field for poor farmers in Nigeria.

At a recent WTO ministerial meeting in Hong Kong, Nigeria and indeed the West African region did not appear to work together enough to influence deliberations on issues that affect farmers in the region e.g. cotton, in line with pre-conference proposals by stakeholders, including the 'Make Trade Fair' campaign championed by Oxfam. What happened and what are the implications of such disunity on the ability of regional stakeholders to work together in future to push common agenda at such fora?

Well, it may appear that the countries of the sub-region did not collaborate as we may have wished. But the fact really is that we need to appreciate that at meetings of that nature, there are usually as many interests as the number of participants. It is even rare that any two countries come with the same agenda to such fora.

What normally happens is that country specific views are subsumed for consensus position. It is when a country's view approximates more towards the consensus position that people normally claim they have been victorious. I am sure the government representatives tried their best for the country.

However, there is obviously always a need for countries that share common fate as we have in West Africa now in relation to crops such as cotton, rice etc., to close ranks and promote group positions. We may not have done so well in that direction during the meeting. I can only say we should work harder next time.

Having said that, I must express huge disappointment that no significant progress was made at the talks. This is because the world has again lost another opportunity to reap the opportunity for poverty reduction only trade could offer.

Trade can work for the poor and it is the most successful route to achieving poverty reduction. Compared with aid, it has far more potential to benefit the poor since it provides opportunities for poor people to tap into their collective potentials.

Studies have showed that if developing countries increased their share of world exports by just five per cent, this would generate $350bn, seven times as much as they receive in aid. The $70bn that Africa would generate through a one per cent increase in its share of world exports is approximately five times the amount provided to the region through aid and debt relief.

Apart from the financial benefits, export growth can be a more efficient engine of poverty reduction than aid as it can concentrate income directly in the hands of the poor, creating new opportunities for employment and investment in the process. These are some of the issues addressed by Oxfam's Make Trade Fair campaign.

For one, the campaign brought into public consciousness more than ever before the need for fair trade and made the very powerful case for trade as the most viable option to arresting world poverty. In any case, the campaign is on-going.

As part of the campaign, over 18 million signature petition were collected and handed over to Pascal Lamin (DG) as evidence of voices of people from across the world who supports the concern that WTO should use its machinery to make trade work better for the poor.

Although at the WTO level response to the campaign seems slow, national governments of the various countries appreciated the efforts and are more confident in pursuing the issues since they are aware that their constituencies legitimises their efforts.

In light of the above, what options are then available to countries like Nigeria to mitigate the effects of wholesome adoption of these unfavourable WTO policies?

Again, Nigeria and other poor countries must watch it rather than adopt the WTO in its wholesome manner. Nigeria must demand that the WTO recognise its rights to use measures it deems fit to further strengthen its ability to protect the domestic producers. Nigeria for instance must evolve a phased implementation which must be predicated on meeting some benchmarks.

For instance, the country could advocate for some benchmark in energy, local production capacity, social infrastructure, etc. This benchmarks should not be set by time line, but on ability. Otherwise if you set time line and are not able to meet the set target due some other unforeseen challenges by the end of the deadline, then you will be forced to embrace the WTO policies, even though you are not ready yet.

Is that the basis for the current campaign that Nigeria was shortchanged in the debt deal, compared to other counties like Iraq? Campaigners have also called on the British government to reject its share of the payment as well as prevail on other members of the Paris Club to re-negotiate with Nigeria. What is your view on this?

Really, there is no giving up on the campaign to give a human face to the debt deal. In an on-going campaign, Oxfam is collaborating with The Jubilee Debt Campaign and other groups to encourage the British government to prevail on its colleagues in the Paris Club of creditors to re-negotiate the deal, it is not fair compared to other deals.

For instance, in the Iraq example which you just cited, in November 2005 the Paris Club agreed to cancel 80% of the country's debt leaving the other 20% to be paid off over 23 years. That is surely a better deal than Nigeria's.

The second side of the current campaign is that Oxfam and its partners are calling on the UK government to return its share of the money which comes to £1.7 billion; one quarter of the total. This amount could save 4.2 million lives if spent on fighting poverty. The sum is obviously too huge an amount of money for a poor country like Nigeria to give to some of the wealthiest countries in the world.

We think that the most critical thing for rich donor and creditor countries to do now is to offer support that will help to maintain the momentum of reform in Nigeria instead of taking this huge sum from it now. Taking this money from Nigeria will impair the ability of the entire Africa to attain the Millennium Development Goals given the strategic position of Nigeria.

The Niger-Delta region is daily experiencing crisis and insecurity. You are working there under your Oil Extractives programme. What do you think needs to be done to address the problems, given your experience working in that area?

The basic challenges are how to improve sustainable livelihoods of the people, address youth unemployment, environmental degradation, and improve transparency, accountability and efficiency in the use of oil resources.

It is good to note that government has begun a number of commendable initiatives aimed at infusing transparency and accountability into the governance process, particularly the oil and gas sector. For example the establishment of the NEITI is a step in the right direction.

The National Stakeholders Working Group (NSWG) of the NEITI is clearly working to ensure institutional effectiveness. This has the potential to maximise efficiency in revenue application and lift millions out of poverty.

Food crisis, which affects some African countries, may yet pose a huge challenge in Nigeria, as a result of various factors including inadequate agricultural policy and funding for the sector, increasing population, influx of refugees and displaced persons as a result of conflict in the West Africa sub-region and various conflicts in some parts of the country. In view of these, what should Nigeria do to avert food crisis and ensure food security?

Although the country cannot be said to be in dire situation now, we really do not need to let things go from bad to worse before we do the right thing. It is good that this government is paying more attention to agriculture as perhaps was not the case in the past and has specifically taken very keen interest in some crops, for example cassava, but we need to go beyond this.

We should also take a look at crops such as cocoa, cotton, maize, yams, groundnuts and rice. We need to refill the 'food basket' of the country and recreate the famous groundnut pyramid, the cotton Belt and the cocoa era of the past as well as other popular farm crops which used to play a significant role in the livelihoods of poor communities.

We need to look beyond food security based on simple access by all people at all times, to enough food for an active, healthy life, irrespective of whether you import all your food need; to one which guarantees all people at all times have both physical and economic access to the basic food they need, based on local production.

When a population has all the food that it desires in the right quantity and quality, but does not produce it, it will be at the mercy of shocks in the international macro economic and socio-political arenas and problems in the supply chain can lead to hunger and crisis, even when it may have the resources to want to import the food.

On the other hand, when viewed from the source and hence food sovereignty perspective, you not only avert the challenges of supply chain, we develop rural communities and create jobs for a huge percentage of the labour force which are the objectives of the current economic policies including NEEDS, SEEDS and LEEDS.

Again, government needs to take a look again at its agricultural policies, trade policy, land tenure-ship, access to inputs, etc. and their implementation. These policies play significant roles in averting food crisis. Nigeria needs to be vigilant with the bilateral and multilateral trade agreements. Many of these policies are inimical to the ability of countries such as Nigeria to realise food security needs.

Look at the trade liberalisation policy that is being currently promoted, it has the potential to allow all manners of foreign food produced by those who have greater technical capacity and are heavily subsidised by their government to dump same in our markets thereby eroding the jobs of nearly 70 per cent of our population.

There was a recent release of an audit report on extractive industries in Nigeria, which indicted some government agencies. You have been working with civil society organisations to promote transparency and accountability in all sectors. To you, how does that report aid the process?

As I said earlier, I think that is a step is in the right direction. I think it is great that the National Stakeholders Working Group of the NEITI is taking such bold steps in line with government's anti-corruption campaign. The process needs to be supported by all as it has the potential to radically change the way we work and do business for good.

That is why Oxfam deemed it expedient to partner with civil society to log on to the process. The civil society is a very critical segment of the society and needs to have its capacity enhanced to be able to follow and make more meaningful contributions into the process.

We are hoping to expand our collaboration with the EITI process by working with the NEITI secretariat. We want to explore avenues where we can work together to push these laudable projects faster and deeper.

Since your operations began in Nigeria recently, what are the most difficult challenges that you have and are still facing as an organisation?

While one must give credit to civil society sector players in Nigeria for their initiatives and doggedness to make a positive difference in the lives of the people, they are however faced with capacity challenge to engage the system. That is why it is very important and urgent that much energy and resources should go in that direction.

Besides capacity challenge, there is also infrastructural challenge as well as access to information. Partners complain that it is pretty difficult for instance to have access to even the most basic information such as the budget document. The challenges are even more in the states and local government areas. Whereas information is a public good and having access to it enables better and proper planning.

Many local NGOs and development workers hold the view that the presence of international development agencies impedes their intervention initiatives. What would you say to that?

It is a very unfortunate view that anyone may hold. My take on this with all honesty is that the presence of international development agencies helps to enrich the process of addressing the development needs of the country. All the international development agencies put together injects millions of dollars into the country yearly.

They also come with a pool of human resources many of who have experiences in countries in transition such as the case in Nigeria. They bring these to bear on their work and build the capacity of local partners.

Oxfam, for example, does not undertake direct programme implementation. We work with partners which, as a matter of policy, we must assist their capacity building. In my view the more international development agencies we have, the better. I think the country, particularly the non-official sector, certainly needs as much external collaboration as it can get.