EVALUATION OF THE EFFECT OF NIGERIA EROSION AND WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PROJECT LIVELIHOOD ENHANCEMENT ACTIVITIES ON THE BENEFICIARIES’ POVERTY STATUS IN SOUTHEAST NIGERIA

LIST OF FIGURES

                                                                                                                                  PAGE

1:         Relationship between objectives, criteria, evidence and judgment in

evaluation                                                                                                       25

2:         Problem-solving model adapted from Agbarevo and Obinne (2010)                  65

3:         Conceptual framework on Effect of NEWMAP livelihood

enhancement activities on beneficiaries’ poverty status in Southeast,

Nigeria.                                                                                                           76

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1        BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY

Agriculture is the major source of livelihood for people living in rural areas of developing countries including Nigeria. Rural areas account for more than 70% of the population who are predominantly farmers and constitute majority of the poor (Agbarevo and Okwoche, 2014). In Nigeria, where income from farm livelihood activities varies considerably, rural households usually engage in several activities which include: crop production, livestock production, fisheries, hunting, agro-forestry production, artistry, trading and even migration to distant cities and countries in an effort to ensure household additional income generation, food security,  poverty reduction, wealth creation and sustainable livelihood (Kazungu and Guuroh, 2014).

Olanipekun and Kuponiyi (2010) observed that in Sub-Saharan Africa, total reliance on agriculture tended to diminish continuously, this has given rise to vast majority of rural families in Nigeria that depended on farming only not meeting their needs because farming is seasonal and associated with a lot of risks and uncertainties. Therefore, they try to diversify into non-farm income generating activities as coping strategy to move out of poverty and misery. They concluded that diversification of income earning activities in Nigeria by rural dwellers would be a way out since farming in Nigeria is usually risky with crop yields subject to the uncertainties of rainfall and inputs supply coupled with uncertainties of both yield and market prices. All these have made it difficult for income from farming alone to sustain farm households in taking care of their families and still perform other social obligations (Obinna, 2014).

In Southeast Nigeria, rural dwellers engage in various economic activities as a means of generating additional income to sustain the income from agricultural venture. Such livelihood activities include: carpentry, bricklaying, trading, small scale manufacturing, construction/mechanic repairs among others.

In Nigeria, about 70% of the population who are rural dwellers are directly or indirectly involved in the use of land resources (Nwachukwu and Nwankasi, 2015). Thus, the agricultural sector is often seen as important for reducing poverty (Agenor et al., 2004). The first step in reducing poverty, hunger and misery in developing countries, according to Fan (2010), is to invest in agriculture and rural development. He noted that many people in Africa and Asia who are poor live in rural areas and rely heavily in agriculture for their survival. Recently, scholars in rural development have debated that the poor people will derive maximum benefits from an intervention project if it happens in their area of interest.

Rural dwellers face a lot of problems which reduce their yield, income and productivity and as well threaten their existence. Some of these problems include environmental constraints such as erosion and flooding. But soil erosion is one of the threatening environmental hazards in Nigeria (Albert et al., 2006). Erosion menace still remains a major problem in Nigeria especially in Southeastern Nigeria. This is caused by heavy rainfall in the area which changes landscape and forms; creating deep gullies that cut into the soil (Ajibade, et al., 2014). The gullies when formed continue to expand until the soil is removed from the sloping ground. Gullies expand quickly as  a result of heavy rainfall  and high speed of movement of running water which destroys arable lands, crops,  livestock, economic trees, homes, lives and valuable properties and infrastructures among others (Umudu, 2008).

Globally, environmental challenges are increasing with accelerating speed beyond previous modeling outcomes and projections (GEF, 2012). Every country is therefore at the forefront of putting local-scale and place- based measures at combating these bourgeoning issues (Isiuwa, 2008; Bates, 2004). In Nigeria, sheet and gully erosions had produced long-terms complications (Ofomata, 2002). The causes can be classified as natural and anthropogenic (human) causes. Currently, over 60% of the already exposed land area of about 6,000Km² is highly vulnerable to erosion in the country. This has serious implication on agriculture, especially in this era of growing concerns on food security, agricultural and rural development.

Erosion has a negative effect on many people’s lives and has destroyed essential infrastructures in rural and urban areas. Gully erosion disconnects communities, divides roads, destroys drinking water supplies, health centres, schools, markets, religious facilities as well as government or community owned facilities. The World Bank (2006) estimated that soil degradation caused by gully erosion affects more than 50 million Nigerians and caused loss of resources amounting to US 3000 million annually. Igwe and Fukuoka (2010). Specifically, gully erosion occurring mostly in Southeast and parts of South-South Nigeria has contributed to environmental problems and damages estimated at over $100 Million annually (Ashekoya, 2009). This state of gully affairs undermines economic growth and poses a threat to the developmental programmes of local, state and Federal government of Nigeria; including those targeted towards rural farming households (Adger et al., 2003).

The formation of gullies and its rapid expansion has become one of the greatest environmental disasters facing many communities in Southeast Nigeria (Adekaku et al., 2007; Okpala, 1990). The region is fast becoming hazardous for human habitation and business activities. Many people are directly affected on yearly basis and some have re-located to safer areas. Many hectres of agricultural land which are very fertile have become unsuitable for crops cultivation as erosion destroys farmlands thereby lowering agricultural productivity in the region (Egboka et al., 1990).

The continuous loss of soil through gully erosion destroys arable land and eventually renders it unproductive. As a result, there is loss and shortages of arable land for agricultural activities. The effects of this negative action are more pronounced by rapid population growth in Southeast Nigeria Obidimma and Olorunfemi (2011). The erosivity and erodibility are the factors that contribute to erosion and gully formation  (Ezezika and Adetona, 2011).

Recent assessment of the situation in the country confirms that the problem of gully is multi-scoped, surpassing political wards, communities, local governments, cities, states and the federal government of Nigeria. The extent of the disaster has therefore led to the request by the Federal government of Nigeria seeking international development partners to halt the malaise.

In Nigeria, several donor projects have existed over the years with sole aim of reducing poverty and improving the well-being of rural dwellers. These include: National Fadama Development Programme (NFDP), International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), Community and Social Development Projects (CSDPs) and National Poverty Alleviation Programmes among others. Some of these projects have come and gone; while others are still on-going. Nigeria Erosion and Watershed Management Project (NEWMAP) is one of the on-going donor sponsored projects in Nigeria; undertaken by the Federal Ministry of Environment with the sole aim of tackling the menace of gully erosion alongside improving the livelihood of the beneficiaries. Southeast Nigeria is the first geopolitical zone that benefited from the programme.

The Federal government of Nigeria (FGN) sought the support of the World Bank to tackle the problem of erosion and by extension improve living conditions of those in degraded watershed in seven Southern States of Nigeria, consisting of Abia, Anambra, Ebonyi, Edo, Enugu, Cross River and Imo States. These were the seven first mover States which started the project in 2013.  The support is sought through an eight-year state-led erosion land degradation intervention project titled “The Nigeria Erosion and Watershed Management Project referred to as NEWMAP (NEWMAP, 2012a). The project adopted integrated watershed concept to reduce vulnerability to soil erosion in targeted sub-catchments. It is innovative and multi-sectoral in nature. The project received board approval on May, 8 2012; started effectively on September 16, 2013 and is expected to end on June 30, 2020. But, seven additional States including, Plateau, Kogi, Kano, Delta, Sokoto, Oyo and Gombe joined the programme in 2015; while Akwa Ibom, Borno, Katsina, Nasarawa and Niger States recently joined in 2016. Thus, a total of nineteen (19) States are currently participating in the project in Nigeria out of 36 States and the Federal Capital Territory (NEWMAP, 2017).

Nigeria Erosion and Watershed Management Project (NEWMAP) is financed by the International Development Associations (IDAs) such as the World Bank, Global Environment Facility (GEF), the Special Climate Change Fund (SCCF) and the Government of Nigeria (NEWMAP, 2012). A total amount of US $ 500 million (IDA) + US  $ 3.96 million (GEF) and US $ 4.63 million (SCCF) was released for the project on approval in 2012 ranging from consultancy and non-consultancy services, engineering/construction activities to livelihood enhancement activities (Usman, 2017). NEWMAP financial activities are implemented by the States and the Federal government. The lead agency at the Federal level is the Federal Ministry of Environment (FMENV), Department of Erosion, Flood and Coastal Zone Management. States and local governments, local communities and Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) were involved in the project given that the project is a multi-sector operation involving Ministries, Departments and Agencies (MDAs) concerned with water resources management, public works, agriculture, regional and town planning, earth and natural resources information, and disaster risk management. A counterpart fund is also paid by the State Government to enable participation. 

The development objective of NEWMAP is to rehabilitate degraded lands and reduce longer-term erosion vulnerability in targeted areas. The specific objectives of the project are to prevent and reverse land degradation; reduce vulnerability to soil erosion in targeted sub-watersheds; focus to re-establishing and securing ecosystem functions by managing erosion challenges across the entire country on a demand driven basis (NEWMAP, 2012). The project has four different components which include: erosion and watershed management, erosion and watershed management institutions and information services, climate change response and project management.

Furthermore, due to failure and inadequacy of past approaches to erosion and flood control, NEWMAP adopted a holistic watershed management approach; which include; use of state of the arts designs of engineering/structural and flexible structures at targeted gully complexes; bio-remediation use of vegetation (grass) measures to complement civil works in treated gully areas to enhance regeneration; introduction of proper and well terminated drainage systems at targeted gully complexes and other erosion sites with reduced severity level after treatment; adequate safeguards measures to strengthen disaster risk reduction; community ownership and participation for adoption of sustainable land and water management practices by the beneficiaries in sub-watersheds; and extensive communication and outreach; enhance livelihoods in the sub-watershed, and where necessary implement local Resettlement Action Plans (RAP);  and improve livelihoods of direct project beneficiaries in and around the project States and sites (NEWMAP, 2012).

The livelihood enhancement activities of NEWMAP project is being implemented under component 1 (one) of the project. This involves erosion and catchment management investment which has sub-components such as (1A) Gully Rapid Action and Slope Stabilization and (1B) Adaptive livelihoods, with main activities such as stabilizing gully erosion sites and conducting community-based catchment interventions. The main outcomes include priority erosion sites rehabilitation and more secured Livelihoods and Catchment establishment (NEWMAP, 2012). The NEWMAP Operational Documents such as the Project Implementation Manual (PIM), the Project Appraisal Document (PAD) and other operational documents encouraged the preparation of Needs Assessment Survey as a very important document that enabled the targeted communities prepare a reliable Community Action Plan (CAP); facilitated through their Focal Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs), and implemented to create alternative Livelihood options for the Active Poor Persons and Project Affected Persons in the targeted communities; aimed at increasing income, creating wealth and ensure sustainable livelihood. The core objective of NEWMAP Livelihood component is to improve the socio-economic characteristics  of the project beneficiaries; including the active poor persons living around the project communities. It aims at reducing poverty through participating in various livelihood enhancement activities.

In Southeast Nigeria, several rural farm households have been participating in NEWMAP Livelihood Enhancement Activities such as crop farming, livestock production, agro-processing, petty trading, artisans/hand craft, construction/mechanic repairs, small scale manufacturing, confectionaries, rental businesses among others. Furthermore, Obinna (2014) noted that the benefits accruing from the participation in livelihood activities by rural households cannot be overemphasized. Similarly, Mammanet al. (2016) noted that the engagement in livelihood activities reduces the risk of food poverty and misery among rural households. This study is particularly concerned with the effect of NEWMAP livelihood activities on the beneficiaries in Southeast, Nigeria.

1.2      PROBLEM STATEMENT

Many rural populations in Africa including Nigeria have been suffering from poverty (Oyinbo and Olaleye, 2016). Reduction of poverty is one of the most difficult problems facing any country in the developing world; where most of them are considered poor. In Nigeria, the number of those in the poverty trap has continued to increase (Lawal et al., 2011). Poverty in Nigeria is pervasive although the country is rich in human and material resources that should better living standards (Omonona, 2010). Widespread poverty with daily consumption expenditures of below the USD 1 per day, illiteracy, disease and human misery still remain conspicuous features of the rural areas (World bank, 2013).

The incidence of poverty is very high in the country and hardly bearable by the citizens. According to Elijah and Ogunlade, (2012), poverty in Nigeria can be traced back to the 1960s. At the start of the 1960s, the basis of the Nigerian economy was a well-diversified agricultural sector supported 75% of the population, provided 68% of the GDP and 78% of exports and as well supplied the people with 94% of their food (Lucas and Targema, 2015).

UNDP Human Index Report presents a bleak profile of poverty situation in Nigeria with respect to two principal categories of poverty-human and income. Nigeria is ranked 15^th out 186 amongst countries with low development index life expectancy placed at 52 years old, while adult literacy was 61.3% and 68% of Nigerians are stated to be having below US 1.25 daily (Channels tv, 2013; Okringbo et al., 2017).

According to the most recent survey (2004 national Living Standards Survey) presented by the National Bureau of Statistics, NBS (2007), about 69 million people in Nigeria were living in poverty, which represents 54.4% of the Nigerian population. Since 1980s, the situation of  poverty in Nigeria has been getting worst. The magnitude of poverty during those years escalated to 17.7 million poor people in 1980, 34.7 million in 1985; irrespective of the drop between 1985 and 1992, about 39 million were poor in 1992. In 1996, however, about 67 million people were poor despite the drop in incidence between 1996 and 2004, about 69 million were poor in 2004 (Omonona, 2009; Diao et al., 2009). Nigeria continues to be one of the poorest countries of the world (Adepoju, 2012). Its incidence rose from 27.20% in 1980 to 42.7% in 1992 and 69% in 2010 (NBS, 2012b).

In Southeast Nigeria, the increasing  rate of rural poverty has become a source of major concern to many rural households (Odoh and Nwibo, 2017). Rural households continue to face poor economic conditions which impact negatively on their living standards (Anugwa and Agwu, 2019). Iheke and Nwaru (2013) also posited that poverty and malnutrition were major problems transcending rural areas in Southeast Nigeria. Nwajiuba (2005) reported that Anambra, Imo, Abia and Enugu were among the seven most densely populated States of Nigeria, implying that the Southeast is the most densely populated area in Nigeria. As a result, there is higher human pressure on agricultural land and subsequently reduced agricultural productivity caused by erosion menance.

Farming as a livelihood activity is associated with immense risks (climatic, pest and diseases, price, policy etc). This phenomenon is more severe in sub-Saharan African countries including Nigeria where appropriate lasting mitigation solutions have yielded average results (Benard et al., 2014). Reliance on agricultural growth and agricultural strategies alone as the primary vehicle for rural poverty reduction may not be a long term option. Factors such as very small land-holdings, drought, floods, crops loss due to pest and/or disease, poor road status and gaps in market access in rural areas, make agriculture deficient in supporting all of the rural population (Fufa, 2015). Thus, rural households in Nigeria depend on a combination of activities to meet their daily needs. This practice is known as the livelihood strategies, which are attracting attention among rural development experts in recent years. In most rural households all over the world, livelihood structures and patterns are diverse and deriving from a combination of additional income earning activities which differs enormously according to time, culture, opportunities, constraints and preferences.

Generally, households in a typical rural setting engage in agricultural and non-agricultural livelihood enhancement activities. According to Alimi et al. (2001), about two-third of rural households in Nigeria earn their livelihood from subsistence agriculture, either as small-scale farmers or as low paid farm workers; while the remaining one-third engage in petty trading services. Understandably, agriculture continues to play its role as the bedrock of the rural household economies, especially among indigenous people. In this vein, World Bank (2006) reported that increased growth of the agricultural sector in developing countries of the world  offer direct benefits to rural households such as income generation,  food and feed availability, food security and can establish forward linkages with industries as well as linkages between rural and urban centres (Nwaogwugwu and Njoku, 2014).

Many programmes and policies geared towards rural development and poverty reduction have been formulated and implemented by successive administrations in Nigeria. However, the efforts have not provided the desired results. Even those programmes and policies that were specifically directed at the rural areas have not yielded the much desired results of transforming the rural areas (Nwosu, 2015). Similarly, there have been several efforts by the Federal and State governments to reduce poverty. Most of these efforts had a common approach which is integrated rural development that is focused on the agricultural sector with the misconception that majority of the rural dwellers are farmers and derive their livelihoods from farming activities (Nwosu, 2015).These efforts include; establishment of Farm Settlement in 1962, which is part of Nigeria’s national plan between 1962-1968. Others were: the introduction of National Accelerated Food production progamme (NAFPP) in 1973, Nigeria’s Agricultural Cooperative and Rural Development Bank (NACRDB) of 1973, Agricultural Development Programme (ADP) in 1975, establishment of the River Basin Development Authority (RBDA) in 1976, Land Use Decree of 1978, introduction of the Green Revolution Progamme (GRP) in the 1980s, Directorate of Food, Roads and Rural Infrastructure (DFRRI), Local Empowerment and Environmental Management Programme (LEEMP) among others (Eze, 2015).

Majority of these programmes had limited success in many cases because of inadequate structural support, change of government and non-recognition of diversity in the livelihood activities of rural dwellers across ethnic and ecological zones of Nigeria (World Bank, 1994; Ekong (2003). NEWMAP is one of the on-going programmmes that has interest in the livelihood of its beneficiaries. The purpose of the livelihood enhancement activities is to improve the socio-economic conditions of the NEWMAP beneficiaries through active engagement in viable livelihood options; for income generation, poverty reduction and wealth creation. For the success of any poverty alleviation programme, however, knowledge of the profile of poverty in the society is essential (Ike, 2012). It is expected that active engagement of rural farm households in NEWMAP facilitated livelihood activities would improve the socio-economic conditions of the rural dwellers. But, the extent to which this has happened in Southeast Nigeria despite the huge amount invested in the implementation of livelihood enhancement activities is not yet known. To ascertain the extent of success recorded by NEWMAP in improving the socio-economic conditions of the beneficiaries through the implementation of livelihood enhancement activities; there is need to carry out a study in this direction. Thus, this study was conceptualized to empirically investigate the effects of Livelihood Enhancement Activities on beneficiaries’ poverty status in Southeast Nigeria.

1.3    RESEARCH QUESTIONS

The following research questions were addressed:

i.               What are the socio-economic characteristics of the respondents?

ii.              What are the livelihood enhancement activities implemented by NEWMAP?

iii.            What is the perception of the respondents about NEWMAP livelihood enhancement activities?

iv.            What is the level of participation of the respondents in different stages of NEWMAP activities?

v.              What is the estimated output (crops and livestock) before and after the beneficiaries’ participation in the programme?

vi.            How effective is NEWMAP in implementing Livelihood Enhancement Activities?

vii.           What is the poverty profile of the beneficiaries before and after participating in the programme?

viii.         What are the constraints faced by beneficiaries of NEWMAP in implementing livelihood enhancement activities?

1.4      OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

The broad objective of the study was to assess the effect of NEWMAP livelihoods enhancement activities on beneficiaries’ poverty status in Southeast, Nigeria. The specific objectives were to:

i.      describe the socio-economic characteristics of the respondents in the study area;

ii.     examine livelihood enhancement activities implemented by NEWMAP;

iii.   ascertain the perception of the respondents about NEWMAP livelihood enhancement activities;

iv.   assess the level of participation of the respondents in different stages of NEWMAP activities;

v.     ascertain the effectiveness of NEWMAP in implementing livelihood enhancement activities;

vi.   determine the output (crop and livestock) of beneficiaries before and after participating in the programme;

vii.  examine the poverty profile of beneficiaries before and after participating in LEAs; and;

viii examine constraints faced by beneficiaries in implementation of NEWMAP livelihood enhancement activities.

1.5      HYPOTHESES OF THE STUDY

The null hypotheses tested in this study include:

H0₁: There is no significant relationship between the socio-economic characteristics of the respondents and their participation in NEWMAP livelihood enhancement activities.

H0₂: There is no significant relationship between respondents’ perception of NEWMAP livelihood activities and their participation.

H0₃:There is no significant difference between the mean output (crops and livestock) of the respondents before and after participation in the implementation of NEWMAP livelihood enhancement activities.

H0₄: There is no significant effect of NEWMAP livelihood enhancement activities on income of the beneficiaries.

H0₅: There is no significant difference between the farm income of the respondents before and after implementation of NEWMAP livelihood enhancement activities.

H0₆: There is no significant difference in the effectiveness of NEWMAP livelihood enhancement activities across the States.

H0₇: There is no significant difference in the poverty profile of respondents before and after implementation of livelihood enhancement activities.

1.6      JUSTIFICATION FOR THE STUDY

The place of livelihood enhancement activities in rural transformation in Nigeria cannot be overemphasized, given the fact that majority of Nigerian people reside in the rural areas and these activities are important to the lives of rural dwellers and the growth of the national economy. Consequent upon this, implementing livelihood enhancement activities is one of the ways of transforming the rural areas and assisting the active poor persons therein to come out of poverty. Therefore, a study on the effect of livelihood enhancement activities on the beneficiaries ’poverty status in Southeast Nigeria becomes very necessary.

This work would provide useful information on the effects of livelihood enhancement activities on the beneficiaries to enable the project stakeholders understand the effects exerted by their activities on the beneficiaries; whether negative or positive as they envisaged.

The information gathered from this work would enable policy makers to develop appropriate policies on livelihood activities and rural development in Nigeria. This will be accelerated to many rural development programmes; to enable them understand and incorporate livelihood activities in their programmes. 

No study of this type has been carried out in the area. Thus, the study provided credible reference materials for students, researchers, rural development planners, policy makers, social scientists and extension agents.

In addition, this study provided information and literature on the state of NEWMAP livelihood activities and its effects on poverty status of beneficiaries in the study area; which will necessitate further studies through the research gap identified.

It is hoped that the findings of this study would give the participants and rural dwellers the privilege to know more about NEWMAP and participate in their subsequent activities. Consequently, the study was justified by the need of empirical and policy research, that will help in understanding the nature and characteristics of NEWMAP Livelihood Enhancement Activities in Nigeria by the sponsors of the project.

Finally, the international development partners such as Global Environment facility, Special Climate Change Fund, the World Bank as well as the Federal Government of Nigeria who participate in co-financing of the project would find their efforts useful through the result of this study.This is true because the outcome of the study will check for strengths and weaknesses: In programmes, evaluation studies are carried out to identify the strengths and constraints. This helps in improving the effectiveness of such programmes.

1.7      SCOPE OF THE STUDY

The scope of the study was limited to the Southeast Nigeria due to the financial and material resources available to the researcher. The study focused on the effect of NEWMAP livelihood enhancement activities on the poverty status of the beneficiaries in Southeast, Nigeria.

1.8      DEFINITION OF TERMS

Watershed: An area drained by water.

Socio-economic characteristics: Those social and economic attributes which tend to influence the behavior of farmers. They include factors such as age, sex, level of education, household size, farming experience, income, membership of co-operative society.

Community: Group of people living together and sharing a common understanding in language, tradition and laws.

NEWMAP community: A group of people participating and benefiting from NEWMAP project in a delineated, designated and targeted area.

Participation: Having the ability to become actively involved in a project activity

Poverty: Poverty can be regarded as the inability to adequately meet the basic human necessities such as food, shelter, clothing and Medicare.

Programme: A planned sequence of events

Poverty alleviation: This connotes a process of reducing poverty to the bearable level and not its total elimination.

Active poor persons: Highly impoverished persons living in NEWMAP targeted communities.

Project affected persons: Those whose assets (buildings, economic trees, crops) or/and means of livelihood were affected by the project constructing activities.

Livelihood:  Activities undertaken by individuals as a means of survival or income generation

Livelihood enhancement activities:  Micro projects undertaken by NEWMAP to empower their beneficiaries in their targeted communities. This is usually targeted to project affected persons and active poor persons; including the vulnerable living within project communities.

Effect: Change caused on the beneficiaries’ livelihood

Erosion: The action of water in which soil and rock materials are loosened and removed which could be geological or man-made.

Gully erosion: Removal of top soil from soil surface to considerable depths through action of running water.

Needs assessment: A study conducted to identify and prioritize the needs of the project where sub-grant from NEWMAP will be spent.

Resettlement action plan: A study conducted to identify, evaluate and cost the worth of project affected persons’ assets which will be affected by engineering/construction works.

Youth: Youth are defined as young man and woman between ages 14-24 years.

Sustainable livelihood: A sustainable livelihood is one in which people are able to improve their standard of living in relation to satisfaction, wellbeing and income.

Sustainable development: Sustainable development can be defined as the growth that meets the needs of the present generation without depriving the future generation from meeting their own needs.

Cooperatives: are independent associations of people who voluntarily unite to form a jointly owned and registered enterprise called cooperatives; to meet members’ economic, financial and socio-cultural needs.

Community interest groups: these refer to community interest groups participating in NEWMAP livelihood enhancement activities. They are group of project beneficiaries with similar interest in livelihood option. They are registered as cooperative society.

Poverty intensity (gap): This represents the percentage of expenditure required to bring core poor beneficiaries who are below the poverty line up to the poverty line.

Poverty incidence: This means the prevalence of poverty. Severity of poverty index represents the poorest among the poor beneficiaries who extremely requires attention to increase their standard of living.

Core poverty line: The core poverty line represents the bench mark for separating the extremely poor persons from the moderately poor ones as it represents persons who can only afford one-third of the established mean per capital expenditure.

Moderate poverty line: The moderate poverty line represents the bench mark for separating the moderately poor persons from those that are not non poor ones as it represents persons who can only afford two-third of the established mean per capital expenditure per month.

Non-Poor: The non-poor line represents the bench mark for those that are above the poverty line, that is those that can afford to expend above the established mean per capita expenditure per month.

Buyers has the right to create dispute within seven (7) days of purchase for 100% refund request when you experience issue with the file received. 

Dispute can only be created when you receive a corrupt file, a wrong file or irregularities in the table of contents and content of the file you received. 

ProjectShelve.com shall either provide the appropriate file within 48hrs or send refund excluding your bank transaction charges. Term and Conditions are applied.

Buyers are expected to confirm that the material you are paying for is available on our website ProjectShelve.com and you have selected the right material, you have also gone through the preliminary pages and it interests you before payment. DO NOT MAKE BANK PAYMENT IF YOUR TOPIC IS NOT ON THE WEBSITE.

In case of payment for a material not available on ProjectShelve.com, the management of ProjectShelve.com has the right to keep your money until you send a topic that is available on our website within 48 hours.

You cannot change topic after receiving material of the topic you ordered and paid for.