Why would the resident community people be excluded from C&P of interventions meant for them? This contradicts the ‗‗Lessons for the Future‘‘ (page 110 of the Mas-ter Plan), where the NDDC notes the observation of the UNDP as to the flaws of the previous development strategies in Nigeria (and the Niger Delta):
The greatest flaw in these (past) poverty alleviation strategies is their
‗top-down‘ approach…It is needless to add that the involvement of the supposed beneficiaries, both in the conception and the implementation of the programmes were conspicuously negligible. (UNDP, 2001) Moreover, section five of Policy G1 —Strategic Planning Principles— reads:
A sound planning process has to be based on participatory decision making. This entails meaningful involvement of the ‗Active‘ and ‗Pas-sive‘ stakeholders—public sector, private sector, community and NGOs—and ensuring that their respective needs and constraints are taken into consideration when policies and proposals are formulated, including attention to issues such as gender and youth. — (2006, p.
23).
Furthermore, Policy HC 8 —Community Development and Social Welfare under the Policies for Human and Community Needs- contains a statement on involvement of critical stakeholders in conception and planning and implementation of the NDDC in-terventions in communities.
Detailed planning and implementation of all these needs will be con-ducted in consultation with local communities and with the clear aim of meeting the needs of individuals and families, and enhancing the sense of identity, pride, and mutual responsibility in each community. — (2006, p. 23)
175
It needs to be re-stated that the leadership of the NDDC must uphold the principles of transparency and accountability and must encourage the full participation of stakeholders in the strategic decision-making processes in line with their concerns interests and well-being (2006, p.
241).
In the light of these and other similar ideas that clearly acknowledge the need for community participation in the Master Plan, there is need to examine why the resi-dent community people, as critical stakeholders, were excluded from participating in the C&P. Empirical evidence shows that resident community people participate in conception and planning of interventions by I/NGOs working in the community. In fact, I/NGOs intervening in Odi community actively involve the community people throughout their intervention programming. Hence, community participation in inter-vention programming is not an impossible task in Odi community. According to a member of the Odi Traditional Council,
Maybe you are aware these few days this people they call MMP3 or what—a kind of nongovernmental organization, now came here and in-form us that every community should supply inin-formation on what they need. So some said town hall, some said this, some said boreholes. So they brought money now, people are now working on it. (Fieldwork:
Interview, 16/09/2011)
Given that NGOs involve the critical stakeholders in their intervention pro-gramming in Odi community, a critical question from the foregoing, therefore, is
176
The testimony of the Head of Procurement indicated that that Commis-sion's understanding of the Circular issued by the Secretary to the Gov-ernment of the Federation on Approved Revised Threshold means that prequalification is not required for works below N300 million. This is clearly a misrepresentation of the intention of the Circular, which sim-ply aims at reducing the time involved in the procurement process.
(Abubakar, 2011)
The initial stakeholders‘ consultations prior to the Master Plan are inadequate for the C&P of the intervention. This is because, first, the Master Plan, being an ap-proximation of the aggregate situation of the region, may not fully map and/or cater to realities in each community. Consequently, the realities of each community context — conflict, need gap, and peacebuilding— may slightly vary from those captured in the Master Plan. Second, the Master Plan was published in 2006. Since then, a lot has changed in the Niger Delta and its communities. Hence, the reality on ground may not exactly match what was in the plan. The plan, at best, would then serve as a guide, for needs assessment done with active participation of the community people themselves.
From the foregoing, it may be concluded that the exclusion of community people from the C&P of the NDDC intervention is deliberate. This may be a consequence of the barefaced corruption.
177
5.1.2 Implications of the NDDC Approach to Conception and Planning