TodayPrice

Tag: CAPPA

  • Nigeria’s Student Loan: Taking Off Without a Base

    Nigeria’s Student Loan: Taking Off Without a Base

    Since late last year, the launch of the student loan initiative has experienced multiple deferrals, with state authorities announcing its commencement at no fewer than three different times, with the most prospective date-as stated by its sponsor and Chief of Staff (COS) to the President, Femi Gbajabiamila-now being in a few weeks’ time.

    In the interim, significant alterations have been made to the legislative framework of the scheme under the Students Loans (Access to Higher Education) Act, 2023. For instance, President Bola Ahmed Tinubu has gone ahead to instruct the Nigeria Education Loan Fund (NELFUND) management to broaden the scheme’s coverage to accommodate students interested in skill development programmes.

    The stringent eligibility criteria initially required by the Act for student loan applicants, which includes securing two guarantors of notable professional standing, and falling under a specific income threshold, have also been relaxed, according to media reports.

    Previously, the Act mandated potential loan beneficiaries to supply at least two guarantors in the form of civil servants at or above grade 12, lawyers with a decade of post-call experience, judicial officers or justices of peace.

    This raised concerns about how the criterion may exclude many deserving indigent applicants due to their lack of extensive social networks or high-status connections.

    Now according to the statements by the NELFUND, these requirements have been reviewed such that the entirety of the process will be technologically driven with applicants only required to upload their details on a dedicated website.

    If nothing, these delays and adjustments underscore the complex task of melding the policy into a viable framework amid considerable doubts expressed about its workability by stakeholders in the education sector.

    Regrettably, the process of the student loan policy amendment has been so far shrouded in secrecy with information regarding the specifics of the revised policy limited to sporadic media reports citing statements from legislators, the presidency, and the NELFUND management.

    For the record, it is imperative to note the House of Representatives (HOR) response to public criticism of the flawed student loan policy framework.

    Reactions to the legislation necessitated the HOR to set up an Ad-hoc Committee tasked with obtaining feedback from the public and making recommendations for strengthening the policy.

    The Committee’s engagement with stakeholders on August 15, 2023 at a one-day legislative summit on the issue, laid bare the manifold shortcomings of the legislation, culminating in decisive recommendations for its repeal and re-enactment, aimed at harmonizing and rectifying the identified discrepancies.

    Despite news reports suggesting that troubling provisions of the policy have been reviewed, the absence of a publicly accessible document delineating these modifications casts a shadow of uncertainty over the entire reform process.

    This opacity has left stakeholders adrift in a sea of conjecture, uncertain whether the legislation was repealed, amended, remains untouched in its problematic form or if the changes made may also not have introduced new issues that require scrutiny.

    Against this backdrop, a pressing question arises: on what basis is the initiative set to launch, apparently circumventing essential democratic processes crucial for ensuring its legitimacy and the public participation that is critically important for its validation?

    Unresolved Issues?
    Beyond the ambiguity that shrouds the amended or re-enacted student loan framework, a critical question remains unanswered: will the scheme effectively tackle deep-seated issues afflicting the educational sector, such as funding deficits, the mass exodus of teaching talents, the dearth of research facilities, frequent staff strikes, inadequate staff remuneration, and the dilapidation of learning and hostel facilities?

    These factors critically impact the quality of student learning experiences and are structural problems that cannot be wished away by the student loan.

    Even so, the student loan framework conspicuously lacks mechanisms for grievances-vital for upholding students’ rights to obtain tangible value from their loans and for voicing concerns when educational outcomes do not meet expectations. As such, the scheme falls short of facilitating the holistic improvement of tertiary education in Nigeria, thereby undermining its potential to enhance students’ academic experiences and development.

    In the final analysis, what the Nigerian government must undertake is a fundamental recalibration-a return to the basics of adequately funding the educational sector to unlock its full potential.

    While interventionist initiatives like the student loan fund may present an appealing façade, they scarcely tackle the root causes that have perennially constrained the educational system.

    This systemic oversight elucidates one of the reasons why the Academic Staff Union of Universities (ASUU) has persistently rejected the loan scheme and recently refused to seat on the management board governing the loan scheme.

    Despite the challenges existent in its tertiary sector, Nigeria has the potential to nurture world-class university centers if state authorities commit to a sustained investment in education.

    If the government has the capacity to allocate funds to the student loan scheme from its various national coffers-tax income and profits-it undoubtedly possesses the capability to enhance funding for the educational sector.

    Persistent underfunding has been identified as a critical barrier within the educational sector, with Nigeria continually failing to meet the global recommended funding benchmark of 26 percent of the national budget to education. In 2024, the sector’s allocation was a mere N2.18 trillion, representing only 7.9 percent of the national budget.

    An upward review of the budgetary allocation to education is imperative for the radical transformation of the landscape.

    A substantial injection into the system will not only effectively address entrenched issues that have historically undermined the sector, but also foster academic environments where emphasis is placed on quality over quantity.

    Ultimately, this strategic approach will guarantee the production of well-rounded individuals equipped with the necessary skills to advance society, rather than merely churning out graduates who have attended school without benefitting from a transformative educational experience.

    Zikora, Policy and Research Officer at Corporate Accountability and Public Participation Africa (CAPPA), writes from Lagos

     

  • Nigeria’s Urgent Need for Increased Government Funding in the Water Sector

    Nigeria’s Urgent Need for Increased Government Funding in the Water Sector

    In Nigeria, walk two kilometres in any direction, and you’ll likely encounter at least three boreholes.

    Boreholes and wells have now become ubiquitous features in communities, symbolising the nation’s struggle with water access. But why, in a land abundant with water resources, do boreholes and wells define our landscape? Dry taps have become relics, haunting reminders of a time when public utilities provided intermittent water supply in the 1970s and 1980s. Today, even this limited public provision feels like a distant memory. Potable water remains an inaccessible luxury, especially for the poor.

    Nigeria’s significant water resources—estimated at 215 billion m³ of surface water and 87 billion m³ of groundwater—contradict the reality that many Nigerians face daily. Despite abundant rivers, lakes, and rainfall, the United Nations reports that only 13% of Nigerians have access to clean drinking water services.

    In rural areas, long treks to fetch water from questionable sources exacerbate issues of hygiene, economic disparity, and gender inequality.

    The urban landscape paints a similarly bleak picture as low- and mid-income earners rely on water merchants locally known as ‘mai-ruwas’ who set arbitrary prices, further straining already-lean household budgets. Even the economically advantaged have to rely on privately-dug boreholes to fulfil their daily water needs.

    These dismal statistics are closely linked to the chronic underfunding of Nigeria’s water sector by the government. Over the years, Nigerians have had to rely heavily on out-of-pocket expenses and donor funding to meet their water needs.

    While other nations have advanced their infrastructure and social indices, Nigeria has regressed, moving from a public water supply system to one dominated by private and donor-funded solutions. It’s time to ask, what are we doing? How did we get here?

    A 2018 WASH account by the World Health Organization (WHO) revealed that local expenditure in the sector amounted to N3.6 trillion, with households contributing 91%, government expenditure a meagre 4%, and the remainder donor-funded.

    This glaring imbalance underscores the urgent need for increased government investment in the water sector. International organisations and philanthropic foundations have poured dollars and euros into Nigeria’s water sector, while local governance and public investments have faltered.

    Relying excessively on donor funding for essential utilities like water often leads to unsustainable and ineffective solutions. While external funding provides temporary relief, it fails to address deeper issues of sustainable management and maintenance critical for long-term success.

    This approach is akin to using a band-aid to plug a leaking dam—it may offer a quick fix but does not resolve underlying issues. Sustainable solutions require robust systems and local ownership, achieved through increased government funding and community engagement. This demands a greater focus on developing local leadership, infrastructure, and accountability mechanisms to ensure the longevity of development projects.

    Donor funds for the water sector come from international and local non-profits and through grants and loans to state governments from External Support Agencies (ESAs). Over 18 of the 36 states in Nigeria have received huge external support in either loans or grants to support their water sector, with the biggest ESAs being the World Bank, the African Development Bank, and the United States Agency for International Development (USAID).

    ALSO READ –  From The DNC: Lessons For Nigerian Political Parties

    The World Bank estimates that Nigeria must quadruple its domestic public expenditure on water by 2030 to achieve Sustainable Development Goal 6. The internationally recommended benchmark for government funding of water is 15-20% of total public expenditure and 4-6% of GDP. Nigeria falls woefully short of this benchmark, with the Federal Ministry of Water Resources allocated only 1.11% of the 2023 budget.

    The 2024 fiscal budget has even taken it down a notch by allocating only 1.03% (N296.64bn) of the approved 2024 budget for water resources.

    More public funds need to flow into the water sector, nourishing it from the roots up. Increasing public funding for the water sector offers several advantages. First, when the government adequately invests in water infrastructure, it ensures that solutions are tailored to local needs. Public control means we can prioritise communities over headlines, ensuring sustainable and equitable water distribution.

    Increasingly, the Nigerian government is embracing public-private partnerships (PPPs) as financing models for basic utilities. Yet, history shows privatisation often prioritises profit over community needs.

    When Nigeria privatised electricity in 2013, we were delusively promised improvements in power supply post-privatisation. A decade later, we are paying more for pitch darkness. Darkness has never been this expensive. Water should not follow this path.

    As evidenced in a deep-dive report titled Africa Must Rise & Resist Water Privatisation by the civil society watchdog, Corporate Accountability and Public Participation Africa(CAPPA), public control of water utilities stands not only as the most viable solution for communities but also as a progressive solution for even governments, as case studies around the world have indicated dire consequences for governments that commodified water services.

    The case for democratic control of water infrastructure is further strengthened by the fact that public funds come with inherent scrutiny and accountability, enabling citizens to demand transparency and efficiency, which is not often feasible with distant donors.

    Under this governance approach, resources allocated for projects are viewed as coming from the collective purse, fostering a communal desire to ensure and interrogate their effective utilisation.

    Consider this: The World Bank hypothetically announces a $100 million loan facility to improve water access in Lagos State. The project includes constructing new treatment plants, repairing infrastructure, and extending pipelines.

    However, issues like lack of transparency, financial mismanagement, delays, and cost overruns arise, leading to public frustration.

    If funded by public money, the project would be subject to parliamentary oversight, detailed audits, and greater transparency. Citizens feel more empowered when their tax money is at stake, enabling them to pressure representatives and officials for efficient and transparent use of funds.

    Donor funds, if needed at all, should complement, not replace, robust and sound public funding systems. If Nigeria will have any hope of achieving SDG 6 and providing water for its teeming population, the government must boost domestic public funding of the sector.

    The current 1% of total public expenditure allocated to water resources is simply inadequate and frankly calls to question if Nigeria has any intention of ever providing clean, cheap water for its citizens at all.

    Sefa Ikpa is the Programme Officer, Water Campaign, Corporate Accountability and Public Participation Africa (CAPPA)

  • Hello World, Goodbye Health: Curbing Big Soda’s Sportswashing At Olympics

    Hello World, Goodbye Health: Curbing Big Soda’s Sportswashing At Olympics

    On October 16, 2021, the Executive Board (EB) of the International Olympic Committee (IOC) endorsed the Olympism 365 strategy which aims to strengthen the role of sport as an enabler for the United Nations (UN) Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

    Through Olympism 365, the IOC, working with partners, uses sport to among others, help improve people’s physical and mental health and well-being.

    But just before the Paris 2024 Olympics kicked off in France, the IOC teamed up with Big Soda to do the reverse: promote products known to damage health and well-being.

    Big Soda is a synonym for the soft drink industry, particularly industry giants such as The Coca-Cola Company, PepsiCo, and Keurig Dr Pepper.

    The IOC teamed up with The Coca-Cola Company to “celebrate the power of sport and music” with a new song named ‘Hello World’.

    The song, which debuted the day before the Paris 2024 Olympic Opening Ceremony on Thursday, July 25, purported to promote unity and collaboration.

    But that was not all the Olympic Games’ theme song was about. It also sends a subtle message from the video’s sponsor: Coca-Cola. The company’s unmistakable logo and bottle are displayed prominently throughout the video as images of athletes’ greatest moments flicker across the screen.

    By the Hello World video, Big Soda is sending a message that they are associated with the positive values and emotions from sports that we all love to see, thus manipulating us into overlooking their damaging health harms.

    Big Soda wants its unhealthy drinks to be connected to positive feelings about sports and its stars, including excitement or perceptions of sports as a healthy social good.

    This is just one example of Big Soda’s sports washing that the world saw throughout the 2024 Paris Olympics and is still seeing at the ongoing Paralympics.

    Of particular concern is that sports sponsorship is an indirect way to reach children and teens, who may be especially susceptible to sports marketing.

    A 2018 study by Dixon H, Scully M, Wakefield M, Kelly B, Pettigrew S, Chapman K, et al titled “The impact of unhealthy food sponsorship vs. pro-health sponsorship models on young adults’ food preferences: a randomised controlled trial” found that parents often perceive food products as healthier when they are endorsed by a professional athlete, making them more likely to purchase them.

    The study also found that children strongly recall sponsors of their youth and professional teams and report favourable attitudes toward food and beverage companies for the sponsorship of events.

    Why does this matter? The reason is that sugary drinks, including Sugar-Sweetened Beverages (SSBs), are a major contributor to rising rates of obesity, Type 2 diabetes and heart disease, among other non-communicable diseases (NCDs) both in Nigeria and globally. Children’s exposure to pervasive, unhealthy food marketing is a major risk factor for childhood obesity.

    In Nigeria, no fewer than 27 per cent of all deaths are due to NCDs, according to the World Health Organisation (WHO) Country Disease Outlook 2023.

    The five major risk factors for NCDs are excessive consumption of alcohol, tobacco use, physical inactivity, air pollution and unhealthy diets, including SSBs.

    Additionally, plastic pollution, carbon emissions and water depletion are serious global concerns increasingly being linked to the sugary drinks industry and are also significant drivers of the climate crisis.

    Thus, the IOC’s association with Big Soda is undermining its noble vision to use sports to build a better world.

    Already, an online petition has been created by Kick Big Soda Out of Sport to urge the IOC to end Coca-Cola’s sponsorship deal and to commit to partnerships that align with Olympic values. It has garnered over 197,813 signatures as of September 3, 2024.

    A Kick Big Soda Out spokesperson said: “Sugary drinks harm people and our planet. By accepting billions from Coca-Cola to sponsor the Olympic Games, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) implicitly endorses a world where health and environmental harms are ‘sports-washed’ away, undermining commitments to use sport to create a better world.

    “By kicking Big Soda out of the Olympics, the IOC will show the world that it is not just committed to talking about these values, but is truly committed to making the world a better place through sport.”

    Corporate Accountability and Public Participation Africa (CAPPA) joins Kick Big Soda Out of Sport and its 91 other partner organisations who believe that sugary drinks harm people and our planet and that by accepting billions from Coca-Cola to sponsor the Olympic Games, the IOC implicitly endorses a world where health and environmental harms are “sports-washed” away, undermining commitments to use sport to create a better world.

    We demand that the IOC live up to its responsibility to prioritize the health and well-being of people and our planet over Big Soda’s corporate interests. The IOC must, in the interest of public health, end its practice of helping Big Soda use healthy sports to promote unhealthy products.

    Egbe is public health advocate at Corporate Accountability and Public Participation Africa (CAPPA).