The public hearing for the Endangered Species Conservation and Protection Bill, 2024 has been scheduled to be held in Nigeria’s House of Representatives on Thursday, October 24, 2024.
Terseer Ugbor, the Deputy Chairman of the House Committee on Environment
Championed by Terseer Ugbor, the Deputy Chairman of the House Committee on Environment, the Bill tackles pressing challenges such as illegal wildlife trade, conservation of species, and the decline of Nigeria’s precious wildlife and their habitats.
The Bill seeks to improve the capabilities of law enforcement agencies, give investigators more powers to look into financial matters and conduct operations guided by intelligence, and enable judges to speed up wildlife cases and recover assets. Additionally, it aligns with international treaties, encourages global cooperation and introduces stricter penalties for poachers and traffickers.
“Protecting our wildlife means protecting livelihoods and ensuring a balanced ecosystem and we can’t allow wildlife trafficking continue to threaten our natural heritage,” said Ugbor. “This hearing will provide a platform for everybody to voice their opinions on this vital issue. We urge everyone to participate in this vital conversation.”
The public hearing will be held jointly by the House of Representatives’ Committee on Treaties, Protocols and Agreements and its Committee on the Environment.
The Bill has garnered significant support from local and international organisations including Africa Nature Investors Foundation (ANI), the London-based Environmental Investigation Agency UK (EIA), and the Wild Africa (WA), which have been actively supporting the Nigerian government’s efforts to combat wildlife trafficking, with support from the US Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs, the UK Illegal Wildlife Trade Challenge Fund and the Pangolin Crisis Fund.
The Nigerian Meteorological Agency (NiMet) has predicted thunderstorms and rains from Sunday, October 13 to Tuesday, October 15, 2024, across the country.
Thundery weather
NiMet’s weather report released on Saturday, October 12 in Abuja forecast morning thunderstorms on Sunday in the northern region with moderate rains over parts of Gombe, Bauchi, Adamawa and Taraba states.
According to the report, thunderstorms with moderate rains are expected over parts of Adamawa, Kaduna, Sokoto, Bauchi, Gombe, Taraba, Kebbi, Southern Katsina, Kano, Zamfara, Borno and Yobe later in the day.
“In the North central region, thunderstorms with moderate rains are envisaged over parts of the Federal Capital Territory, Niger, Nasarawa, Kwara and Benue in the morning.
“While thunderstorms with moderate rains are anticipated over parts of the Federal Capital Territory, Benue, Kogi, Kwara and Niger during the afternoon and evening hours.
“In the southern region, there are prospects of morning thunderstorms with light rains over parts of Oyo, Imo, Enugu, Ogun, Osun, Ondo, Edo, Delta, Rivers, Akwa Ibom, Cross River and Lagos States,” it said.
NiMet envisaged thunderstorms with moderate rains over most parts of the region later in the day.
According to NiMet, thunderstorms with moderate rains are expected over parts of Taraba, Gombe, Kaduna, Southern Borno and Adamawa in the Monday’s morning hours.
“During the afternoon/evening hours, thunderstorms with moderate rains are anticipated over parts of Taraba, Borno, Kebbi, Zamfara and Yobe.
“In the North central region, thunderstorms accompanied with light rains are expected over parts of Benue, Kogi, Nasarawa and Niger.
“Thunderstorms with moderate rains are anticipated over parts of the Federal Capital Territory, Nasarawa, Kwara, Benue and Plateau during the afternoon/evening hours,” it said.
The agency anticipated morning rains over parts of Enugu, Ebonyi, Anambra, Imo, Delta, Akwa Ibom, Cross River, Bayelsa and Rivers in the southern region.
It predicted thunderstorms with moderate rains over the entire region later in the day.
NiMet predicted partly cloudy skies in the northern region in the morning hours on Tuesday.
“During the afternoon/evening hours, thunderstorms with moderate rains are anticipated over parts of Adamawa, Taraba, Kaduna, Bauchi and Gombe states.
“In the North central region, there are prospects of morning thunderstorms with moderate rains over parts of Kogi, Kwara and Niger during the morning hours.
“While in the afternoon into evening hours, thunderstorms with moderate rains are expected over parts of the Federal Capital Territory, Nasarawa, Benue, Plateau and Kogi,” it said.
NiMet predicted light rains over parts of Edo, Ondo, Oyo, Ogun, Cross River, Rivers, Bayelsa, Delta and Akwa Ibom during the morning hours in the southern region.
It forecast thunderstorms with moderate rains over parts of Imo, Enugu, Ogun, Osun, Ondo, Edo, Lagos, Delta, Rivers, Bayelsa and Cross River later in the day.
“High likelihood of urban flooding in major cities due to heavy downpours. Residents are advised to avoid flood-prone areas.
“Strong winds may precede the rains in areas where thunderstorms are likely to occur, so the public should take adequate precaution. Adhere to safety advisories issued by relevant authorities.
“The Public and Airline operators are advised to get updated weather reports and forecast from NiMet for effective planning in their operations,” it said
The agency advised residents to stay informed through weather updates from NiMet by visiting its website www.nimet.gov.ng.
Every year on the 13th day of October, we observe the International Day for Disaster Risk Reduction (IDDRR). This year, 2024, the focus is on the vital theme of “The Role of Education in Protecting and Empowering Youth for a Disaster-Free Future.” This theme is essential in our collective effort to achieve the goals of the Sendai Framework, which aims to reduce global disaster risks and losses.
Gloria Kasang Bulus
Education plays a pivotal role in equipping young people with the knowledge and skills they need to navigate and mitigate the risks posed by disasters. By fostering a culture of preparedness and resilience, we can empower the next generation to understand and respond effectively to the challenges they face.
Disasters disproportionately affect children and youth, with millions impacted by climate change, natural hazards, and emergencies each year. It is our responsibility to ensure that they are not just passive recipients of information but are actively engaged in disaster risk reduction efforts.
As we commemorate IDDRR 2024, I call upon countries, states, and local governments to support the Comprehensive School Safety Framework (CSSF). This framework provides a structured approach to safeguarding educational institutions from risks and hazards and encompasses three key pillars:
Safer School Facilities: Governments must invest in the retrofitting and construction of disaster-resilient schools to ensure that children can learn in a safe environment.
School Safety and Educational Continuity Management: Implementing effective policies and procedures is crucial for maintaining educational continuity during emergencies. This includes emergency preparedness plans and training for educators and students alike.
Risk Reduction and Resilience Education: It is vital to integrate disaster risk reduction into the school curriculum to equip students with the knowledge and skills they need to respond to risks.
I urge all stakeholders to prioritise these actions within their local, sub-national, and national strategies. By endorsing and implementing the CSSF, we can protect our children and ensure that education continues uninterrupted, even in the face of disasters.
In pursuit of these goals, these two networks are stepping forward with strong commitments to enhance disaster risk reduction through education.
Commitment from the Network of Civil Society in Environment (NCSE)
As the Coordinator for the Network of Civil Society in Environment (NCSE), I affirm our commitment to advocating for the integration of disaster risk reduction into environmental education initiatives. We will work tirelessly to engage communities and raise awareness about the importance of safe and resilient educational environments.
Commitment from the Global Network for Civil Society on Disaster Risk Reduction, Nigeria (GNDR _ Nigeria)
In alignment with this commitment, the Global Network for Civil Society on Disaster Risk Reduction in Nigeria (GNDR _ Nigeria) pledges to collaborate with various stakeholders to ensure that disaster risk reduction frameworks are implemented effectively within our educational systems. We will strive to empower communities and youth to take an active role in shaping a disaster-resilient future.
Let us unite in our commitment to education as a powerful tool for disaster resilience. On this International Day for Disaster Risk Reduction, we encourage everyone to reflect on the importance of equipping our youth with the skills, knowledge, and resources they need to thrive in an increasingly unpredictable world.
Join us in raising awareness and taking action as we commemorate the International Day of Disaster Risk Reduction, 2024. Together, we can build a safer and more resilient future for all.
ByGloria Kasang Bulus, Female National Focal Point for GNDR Nigeria; Convener/Coordinator, Network of Civil Society in Environment
As the world celebrates the 2024 International Day for Disaster Risk Reduction (IDDRR) on Sunday, October 13, with the theme “Empowering the next generation for a resilient future”, it calls for a global efforts and local actions towards raising awareness to series of threats children, youth and other vulnerable face in disaster situations.
Kolawole Amusat-Gbenla
Every October 13 has been set aside by the United Nations General Assembly to create awareness across countries to identify major challenges hindering successful resilience building to impacts of disaster risks and climate threats, and for every government and citizen to make concerted efforts towards providing solution to such challenges to build more disaster-resilient communities and nations.
The focus for this year’s celebration is on the role of education in protecting and empowering youth for a disaster-free future which is very apt and timely. It is indeed very relevant as a resilient future requires the use of education as a tool for resilience building in schools, and capacity building that will make the youth disaster risk reduction champions are not prioritised by many countries especially in Africa, with no exception to Nigeria.
Over the years, it has been observed that the educational system in Nigeria does not give adequate attention to issues of disaster risk reduction, as the curricular at all levels lack subjects and courses that can equip students to be active DRR agents. Also, activities such as capacity building on disaster prevention and mitigation, preparedness and response as well as core understanding of early warning, early action for common hazards as it were in other climes are conspicuously absent, making our youth not to be risk reduction inclined.
Although various stakeholders both State and Non-State Actors such as NEMA, SEMAs, GNDR, CSDevNet, WANEP, KOI Foundation, IDC to mention but a few, are making efforts to ensure disaster risks and climate threats are reduced to the barest minimum in our communities are recognised and appreciated, however for Nigeria to be in the League of Nations and among countries that can boast of more resilient communities and nations in the future, governments and other stakeholders should prioritise:
disaster risk reduction curricula that will provide basic DRR education in schools at all levels – primary to tertiary;
adequate budgetary allocation for resilience activities in schools and for youth groups in communities;
investment in safe and resilient schools that will ensure learning and learners are safe and secured at all times;
strengthening collaboration with tertiary institutions across all the geo-political zones to develop innovative programmes that will promote culture of disaster risk reduction among their students; and,
establishment of Local Emergency Management Committees across the statutory 774 Local governments and empower them to be able to promote disaster risk reduction in various communities
As we celebrate this year’s International Day for Disaster Risk Reduction, we sympathise with all survivors of past disasters across the country and call on governments and all relevant stakeholders to prioritise investment in disaster risk reduction activities that will ensure resilient communities now and in the future.
By Kolawole Amusat-Gbenla, Disaster Risk Reduction Lead and Zonal Coordinator (South West Zone), Climate and Sustainable Development Network
The Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA) has urged African leaders to prioritise sustainable practices through people-centred renewable energy that protects ecosystems and supports local economies.
L-R: Philip Jakpor (Executive Director, Renevlyn Development Initiative), Anthony Akpan (President, Pan African Vision for the Environment-PAVE), Melody Enyinnaya (Programme Manager Environment, Community Development Advocacy Foundation – CODAF), Elvira Jordan (Media Adviser, CODAF and Media Manager, Environmental Defenders Network), and Ubrei-Joe Jeru (Communication Officer, CODAF)
GAIA is a multidisciplinary, and multicultural team on a mission to catalyse global shift towards environmental justice by strengthening grassroots social movements that advance solutions to waste and pollution.
Mr Anthony Akpan, President, PAN African Vision for the Environment, said this at a news conference on Saturday, October 12, 2024, in Lagos.
Akpan said that the meeting was to set an agenda for African leaders ahead of the forthcoming United Nations Climate Change Conference (UNFCCC COP29), which would be held in November in Baku, Azerbaijan.
He said a shift to renewable energy within Africa must be supported as a priority before exporting Africa’s resources for the Global North’s transition.
“Renewable energy projects must be socially owned and benefit local communities before industry.
“The transition must be grassroots-driven, ensuring that policies prioritise the well-being of people and the environment, not corporate profits,” he said.
Akpan demanded an end to waste colonialism, stressing that Africa was not a dumping ground.
“It is, therefore, paramount for us as Africans to adapt to the Global Plastics Treaty which allows us to address plastic pollution across its lifecycle, from extraction to production to disposal,” he said.
He urged African leaders to demand solutions that would address migration and climate-induced displacement, climate debt, reparations, and economic reforms.
According to him, African governments must embrace food sovereignty by prioritising local food crops over cash crops and promoting seed preservation methods that resist Genetically Modified Organisms.
Similarly, Mr. Philip Jakpor, the Executive Director, Renevlyn Development Initiative, said the Global South, especially Africans, should lead actions that remedy the climate crises in a manner that is just and holistic.
“African people are standing in solidarity to speak and defend the rights of Africans to a safe environment conducive to our growth and progress.
“Even in the face of the environmental, social, and economic devastation escalated by the climate crisis particularly experienced in Africa,” he said.
Jakpor said the demands were the outcome of the African People’s Counter COP (APCC) meeting held in October in Senegal, highlighting the impacts of climate change on African communities.
He said that the APCC showcased viable alternative solutions that have emerged through knowledge sharing and activism from grassroots African communities, experts, activists and CSOs.
“The APCC recognises that African voices have largely been excluded from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Conference of Parties (UNFCCC COP) which has been captured by Global North states and corporations that continue to fuel the climate crises while falsely claiming to solve the causes of climate change,” he said.
Jakpor said the effects of climate change were not just statistics or forecasts as it directly affected lives.
“As people of Africa, we demand climate justice for Global South communities at the centre of the climate crisis.
“The Global North Nations who have contributed the most to the crisis must lead the process of cutting emissions at source and fund the needed energy transition as payment for the climate debt owed to the Global South.
“We call for reparations, remediation and compensation to the impacted peoples of Africa.
“We denounce all forms of false solutions to climate change such as REDD+, Net zero, and Geo-engineering which further entrenched the climate crises,” he said.
Also, Ms. Elvira Jordan, Media Advisor, Community Development Advocacy Foundation, called for an end to all forms of fossil fuel exploration, extraction and production across Africa.
Jordan said that fossil fuel companies must pay for the rehabilitation of degraded land, oceans and rivers resulting from hydrocarbon extraction.
“When we talk about oil extractions in Africa, we’re not just talking about crude oil. We’re talking about the mining of coal and other minerals.
“Now, in Africa, just like we are well aware of here in Nigeria and the Niger Delta, where we have those communities that have been deprived of their source of livelihood, they’ve been deprived of their environment because of crude oil extraction.
“You see communities who are suffering from deep levels of poverty, they have little or no medical care in their communities, no schools, in fact, infrastructures there are almost at zero per cent,” she said.
Civil society organisations that supported the demands are Sustainable Research and Action for Environmental Development, Environmental Defenders Network, and Policy Alert, among others.
Some Lagos residents have expressed concerns over the proposed move by the state government to ban single-use plastics (SUPs) and sachet water, saying that it will lead to loss of jobs and disrupt economic activities.
Sachet water
The residents, in separate interviews on Sunday, October 13, 2024, appealed to the state government to have a rethink over the proposed ban.
Mr. Tokunbo Wahab, the Commissioner for the Environment and Water Resources, during a stakeholders’ workshop recently announced plans to ban SUPs and sachet water by January 2025.
Wahab said the policy is designed to establish sustainable guidelines for managing plastic waste while protecting public health and the environment.
He noted that Styrofoam and single-use plastics take centuries to degrade, making the ban essential for environmental protection.
Wahab said the Lagos State Government was working closely with the private sector organisations to provide alternatives for Styrofoam containers and other SUPs, while supporting research into new technological solutions.
However, the proposed ban appears to have sent shockwaves to the manufacturing and retail sectors, sparking fears of job losses, economic disruption, and uncertainty among stakeholders.
The ban has also raised concerns among water vendors who rely heavily on sachet water for their livelihood.
A Lagos resident and Sales Manager, Aremson Water Ltd., Ojo First Gate, Mr Akinyemi Bolaji, said that the ban would make a lot of people unemployed.
“I am more particular about employment. The ban will not favour anyone, and it will make thousands of people lose their source of livelihood.
“On the other hand, what is the reason for the ban? People are consuming it on a daily basis, so is there any way the government is putting it out to give people clean water?
“There should be other alternatives to curb the whole recycling issue,” he said.
While commending the government for the initiative, he, however, appealed for a better alternative to ensure the ban won’t affect the jobs of people in the water business.
“The government should help in educating the people on proper disposal properly as it’s written on the body of the plastic.
“Eradicating all these factories that produce the SUPs is not the best way. It’s a solution in one aspect and hazardous in another,” he said.
He advised the government to put a bin on every bus stop and house so as to curb the problem of single-use plastic blocking the drainage.
A retail water seller, Mrs. Vera Osiyemi, stated that sachet water had been the best way of curbing cholera.
“I don’t think it is going to be possible. This is what everyone consumes. If the government bans it, does it mean we are going back to our old way of selling iced water?”
“The solution is to create an awareness, educate the people on how to dispose it properly and provide bins. Just like we had in the old days, it was in every house,” Osiyemi said.
Another seller, Mrs. Afusat Ajibola, submitted that the ban might not be possible because the main idea was to get clean water.
“So, if the government eventually bans it, it will result in a serious cholera outbreak.
“It is not possible. The government can ban it, but it cannot work. There is no way we are going back to selling iced water,” she said.
She added that the government might have a way of controlling those that consume it.
“It is to provide for bins and continue to keep Lagos clean,” she said.
Another retailer, Miss Joy Okafor, said she was not aware of the proposed ban.
“Even if there would be a ban, we should understand that it’s not just the single use and sachet nylon water that block the drainage.
“There are other causes like disposables as well.
“Government knows what is best, but in this case, it is not possible. Will they provide clean pipe borne water for streets and houses?
“What will be the next step of the government? The only thing I’m seeing is more of unemployment, because people sell it to make ends meet,” she said.
She said the government should look for a means to curb the problem at disposing it and not banning it.
Mr. Chinedu Eze, a water distributor, said he was uncertain about what would happen next after the ban.
“I have been in the business for years. Now, I’m uncertain about the future. This isn’t just about access to water, it’s about the survival for thousands of us,” he said.
Another Lagos resident simply identified as Mummy Boma, a street vendor, said that the proposed ban would affect her livelihood.
“Selling pure water helps me feed my children and send them to school. Bottled water is too expensive to buy or sell in bulk.
“The government should rather enforce stricter regulations on sachet water producers to ensure better quality control and hygiene standards,” she said.
A resident and medical doctor, Dr Olufemi Adeyemi, disclosed that Lagosians could lose access to potable and affordable water due to the ban.
“Though some sachet water contains contaminated water due to lack of regulation, however, the government needs to provide alternative safe water sources before any ban is enforced.
“Without proper preparation, banning ‘pure water’ could leave millions of Nigerians without a reliable and affordable water option.
“Instead of an outright ban, the government could invest in public water systems to ensure a reliable supply of clean water in both urban and rural areas,” he said.
He added that this would reduce the population’s dependence on sachet water.
By Marcel Oghuvwu, Marvelous Udoruisi and Henry Oladele
Charles G. Brown is President of the US-based World Alliance for Mercury-Free Dentistry, a coalition of consumer, dental, and environmental organisations working together to phase out amalgam use. The Coalition also serves as a resource for nation’s working to implement the Minamata Convention on Mercury’s amalgam phase-down measures.
In an interview with Michael Simire, he traces the genesis of the phase-out campaign in Africa about a decade ago that led to the emergence of the Abuja Declaration, even as the group and its partners are now working on the Second Abuja Declaration. Excerpts:
Charlie Brown
In 2014, you were here for the first Abuja Declaration to phase out dental amalgam in Africa. How has the journey been so far?
The Abuja Declaration became the prototype for the whole world. After the Abuja Declaration, we did the Dakar Declaration, for Asia for mercury-free dentistry, the Declaration for Latin America, the Chicago Declaration for mercury-free dentistry in the United States. Then the Bonn Declaration.
All these came from the Abuja Declaration because it just sounds governmental, it sounds official. It really was just eight of us in the room. We had the West African group, Dominique Bally from Ivory Coast, along with people from Benin, Senegal, Ghana, off course Nigeria and Tanzania. Everybody was so excited. So, the Abuja meeting actually started the campaign in East Africa too.
Abuja Declaration is what those of us see as a vision Africa should have. Did we know what we were doing? Not yet. Did we have a plan? No, not yet. We had a vision and that was the Abuja Declaration. So, now is time for Abuja Declaration 2.
You said the Abuja Declaration is a vision that started in 2024. How far have you realised the objectives of that vision?
Oh, it’s fantastic. We have campaigns across Africa in 23 countries, we have six regions in Africa – West, East, North, Central, South and Nigeria. Those are our six regions, and we have campaigns everywhere, and successes everywhere. Mercury-free dentistry has come to Africa. Gabon has ended amalgam, in Tanzania is banned for children, for pregnant women, breastfeeding women and by law phased out by a date in the future – date selected 2029, it’s over.
Mauritius, end for children; Tunisia, end for children and pregnant women; Zambia, not for children; Benin, not for the military. We’ve shown that mercury-free dentistry categories or overall can happen and it is happening, and the campaigns are really on. In Cameroon, it over for the whole Baptist Hospital system. In Cameroon, we’re very close to victory, in Zambia we are very close to victory, we have one victory in Gabon, in Nigeria there is tremendous focus of ours and we see the action here, we see the shift in dentistry, we see the mobilisation of the public, and in fact Nigeria was the first to issue consumer protection brochure from the Consumer Protection Agency of the federal government.
You’re appear to be okay with the process of phasing out amalgam in Nigeria, aren’t you?
Well, no, we’re not satisfied. Because the only answer is victory, its ending amalgam, that’s the end. As long as some children still get it, we have to stop it. We have to banish it. It’s an environmental menace, it’s a workplace menace for dental workers. Mercury is the most vaporous of the heavy metals, it’s a horrible historical mistake and its outrageous how the global leadership of dentistry have stuck with mercury fillings despite it implications to health and the environment.
So, we have to have not a general phase out someday, we need an endpoint – a definite, by law endpoint, then the dental students will stop paying any attention to amalgam, the public will recognize that if it’s going to be banned, they should never have it. One main reason that they know it is over is that the manufacturers are getting out. The largest manufacturer of dental products in the United States stopped making amalgam in 2020 when the Food and Drug Administration acted. The number two company in the United States, we pushed them hard and got out in 2021. When the Food and Drug Administration acted, they realised that they better get out.
There were only three publicly traded dental products companies who made amalgam, two Americans got out years ago, the third one hung in there to their dishonour. That is the Southern Dental Industries Limited in Australia. They announced on August 24, 2024, that would get out, but not fast. They’re going to get out 2028. The good news is that they’re getting out too, the bad news is that they’re hanging around for years and keep milking profits that they shouldn’t do so we will make it rough on them.
So, the supply is fading away and in fact as of this Europe bans as of this January bans all amalgam. So, we are not just working on dentistry, we are working on consumer education, advocacy but also supply; and cutting off the supply and that is worth it.
You are here for the Second Abuja Declaration. What do you intend to achieve?
The objective is to set an end date for amalgam use in Africa. Civil society usually needs to come first. It’s a reality. American founder Thomas Jefferson said that price of liberty is eternal vigilance. Government, industry, institutions don’t seem to move on their own, you know. We need to step up, so we have stepped up. And I think the Abuja Declaration and hope that as we formulate it, it will set an end date for the trade that is to cut off the imports. We cut off the imports on day one and a little later we cut off all use. Once no more is coming in, we can regulate the use and have end the use. So, I’m hoping that’s where we go but that will be the decision of the African NGOs and will be written here and sent to the African NGOs.
In NGO communities, 23 countries have been named and we have allies in several more countries. It’s just our budget, our budget right now can absorb that and thank goodness for Dr Myron Wentz. Funding by Dr. Myron Wentz has been the sine qua non for our success in Africa. His decision seven years ago to fully fund the Africa campaign, and keeping that commitment, has meant we have campaigns with NGO partners in 23 African nations spanning the continent and encompassing the majority of Africans, creating the momentum for a mercury-free continent.
Dr Wentz sure has done quite a lot. Can you shed some more light on this worldwide plan to end the use of amalgam as the EU has set a January 1, 2025, date.
Right, January 1 which is less than a hundred days from now.
Is it realistic?
It’s over. They know it’s over. It’s banned. Yes. There’re exceptions that are going to be very hard get through them. So, there may be some tine bit of use. But important for Africa and for Asia and for Latin America likely banned exports. January 1 amalgam cannot be exported.
We have been clear in our advocacy that we are not going to have a situation like lead paint, which was banned in the West. I thought it was banned. It wasn’t banned; off course it was being shipped to Africa and Latin America and South Asia. So, we are not going to do that. We have to take the Europe ban, which is also a model to the world. If Europe can do it, why not all of us?
So, 27 countries, that’s the EU, most of Europe, the rest of continental Europe has ended amalgam as well – Switzerland, Norway, the non-EU countries, UK is left but now Northern Ireland, that part of the UK is ending amalgam. So, we don’t see how the UK could remain an island of mercury if you will, why won’t they want to be with the rest of Europe’s mercury-free?
The Southern Dental Industries Limited timeline to end manufacture of amalgam still looms large – 2028. And way off in comparison to the EU ban date. Any steps by the World Federation regarding this?
Oh, we don’t like it. SDI saw this treaty not as a way to reduce amalgam, they saw it as an entry point. They were bragging that they would extend amalgam use because the US companies got out, they would expand in America, they would expand in Brazil, they would expand in the developing countries. They saw the amalgam treaty as the exit of other companies and their increase, and we just went straight at them. We threatened boycott from all over Asia with our Asian team, we went to Geneva, I had a meeting with the Australian government, and said this is an outrageous company that is marketing to the black and brown people of the world, while it is fading away in Australia, that this is against the Minamata Convention; this has to stop. But that was where the Southern Dental Industries (SDI) was in 2022.
In 2024, they said amalgam sales are way down, we have a replacement product now, its sales are up, we’re fading out and we’re going to end in 2028. So, it’s a reversal of where they are. They are faster now, but they are totally opposite where they were in 2022 when they thought they’re sales were going up – they’re sales were going down fast. They know we are paying close attention, when they finish, we write them letters.
So, is a reversal or bringing back the SDI 2028 timeline a possibility, or has the World Federation resigned to playing along with the set date?
Well, the SDI said by 2028, but we’re telling them that they have to get out sooner. Can we do that? I don’t know. But with the American company, we pushed them for 10 years, we went to shareholder meetings that didn’t supply. Well, in 2020, they got out. Started working on them probably in 2014, we go to shareholder meetings with some catholic nuns, who are big religious advocates for your cause, and we had them with us.
The UN Environment Programme (UNEP), the treaty, has a deadline date of 2030. It’s the same with the first Abuja Declaration, it’s a vision, it’s a goal, it’s in brackets. Because it’s in brackets, it means it’s not legally binding. So, we’ve stated the worldwide goal.
You’ve committed a lot of resources over the years to phase out amalgam. What do you want to see at the end of the day? What is your goal?
Our goal is to shut down our organisation. If amalgam is out of business, we can all go home. We’re a single metric NGO and we want to finish, get them out and over. Our goal is to have a worldwide treaty or country-by-country bans, not worldwide but sets an end date; it’s over, it’s over.
You came in from Freetown, and from here in Nigeria you’re going to South Africa. What will be your message to the African countries on phasing out dental amalgam?
Well, first is that the supply of amalgam is going to fade away, it’s been cut off. There are always road sellers, and we have to avoid that. In ending amalgam, we have to reduce the supply in the gold fields, it is being illegally black marketed to the goldfields and dental mercury because it can get into a country very easily. Third is mercury-free dentistry is here, it can work, it clearly works, its better, it’s better for public health, its environmentally friendly. Dental mercury poisons the fish that children eat, and the dental workers will work in a safe environment rather than a toxic environment.
So, its idealist time has come, it has come for America, it has come for Africa.
What are the alternatives to dental amalgam?
The main alternative materials are glass ionomer and composite resins. The composite is very durable, its tooth friendly, cavity preventing. The glass ionomer costs the same as amalgam, they are tooth friendly, you don’t need a drill to put them in, you can do it through what’s called ART. The alternatives are being researched and improved every year. Whereas the amalgam no one is researching them, it has no future. So, the alternatives are here.
Any messages for the NGOs across Africa that you’ve been working with?
The message is to carry on, you are the force to a change, the environmental and consumer NGOs, we hope that by working with us you’ve seen the prototype to victory, how you can defeat dental amalgam, it’s a prototype of what you can do around the world. It also tells of what a benefactor like Dr Myron Wenz can do, digging into his pocket for seven to eight years, fully funding the African campaign year after year. And he made sure that each year we expanded.
Dramatically I think in Congo we’ve a programme and we’ve now gone into the interior in Lubumbashi for campaigns, we’ve reached Egypt, we’ve made a point of touching all races from Morocco to South Africa, from Mauritius to Senegal, and its 22 countries West, Central, East, South, North, and we’ve had regional conferences, one in Arabic in Cairo, we had a conference in Zambia for the Southern and East Africa, we had one in West Africa in Lome last year for 12 NGOs from 12 different countries – that’s how broad the campaign is West and Central Africa.
In response to the increasing global demand for resources and the economic pursuits that come with it, attention on the world’s oceans continues to grow. But how should marine resources be properly managed? The blue economy is the umbrella term that looks at the planet’s oceans from an economic perspective and refers to the sustainable use of ocean resources for economic growth, improved livelihoods, and jobs while preserving the health of ocean ecosystems.
Nnimmo Bassey
On one side of the coin are the exploitative activities and economic sectors, including fisheries, aquaculture, maritime transport, tourism, offshore renewable energy like wind and tidal power, and biotechnology. On the other side are marine conservation efforts.
Global platforms like the United Nations, the World Bank, the European Commission, the Commonwealth of Nations, and the Center for the Blue Economy have called for oceanic sustainability efforts.
In March 2024, the United Nations Environmental Assembly adopted a resolution on “strengthening ocean efforts to tackle climate change, marine biodiversity loss and pollution.” A press release issued by the European Commission after the session stated, “By submitting and negotiating the resolution, the European Union and its Member States reiterated their determination to play a leading role in protecting, conserving, restoring, and sustainably utilizing the world’s oceans.”
The concept of the blue economy is rooted in the recognition that the oceans are vital to human well-being and the global economy. Still, they are also threatened by overexploitation, pollution, and climate change. Therefore, the blue economy seeks to balance economic development with the need to protect and restore the ocean environment, ensuring that future generations can enjoy marine resources.
Fundamental principles of the blue economy include:
Sustainability: Ensuring ocean-related activities do not deplete resources or harm the environment.
Inclusive Growth: Promoting economic activities that benefit local communities and alleviate poverty.
Innovation: Encouraging the development of new technologies and practices that enhance productivity and sustainability in using ocean resources.
Governance: Implementing effective policies, regulations, and international cooperation to manage ocean resources responsibly.
The blue economy is increasingly seen as a crucial component of global efforts to achieve sustainable development and address climate change, particularly in coastal and island nations heavily dependent on marine resources.
Challenges in Defining the Blue Economy
There is no consensus on the definition of “blue economy.” The term generally refers to the purportedly “sustainable” economic activities associated with oceans, seas, and coastal waters. Yet, that’s where consensus on the concept breaks down. The blue economy requires a clear, widely agreed-upon definition before it can be applied appropriately.
The World Bank defines the blue economy as the “sustainable use of ocean resources for economic growth, improved livelihoods and jobs, and ocean ecosystem health.” The European Commission defines it as “(a)ll economic activities related to oceans, seas, and coasts. (It) covers a wide range of interlinked established and emerging sectors.”
According to the United Nations, the blue economy “comprises a range of economic sectors and related policies that together determine whether the use of ocean resources is sustainable” while emphasizing the need to protect life below the water. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) stated that the blue economy applies to industries with “a direct or indirect link to the ocean, such as marine energy, ports, shipping, coastal protection, and seafood production.” The World Wildlife Fund acknowledges that there is no widely accepted definition.
Defining the blue economy is much more than semantics. Some people mistakenly believe that it has been intended to benefit capitalism. This is a widespread phenomenon and is not just limited to corporations. In some ways, it is similar to the misconceptions that arose from using the term green economy.
People who live far from the ocean may not fully grasp how much humans rely on the ocean for survival, including regulating climate, providing food sources, and generating oxygen, even if they don’t directly access it for daily needs. This can lead to a view of the blue economy as simply supporting coastal transportation, recreational activities, or ecotourism. However, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency states, “Approximately half a billion people globally depend on coral reef ecosystems for food, coastal protection, and income from tourism and fisheries.” And yet, coral reefs are dying at an alarming rate due to ocean acidification fueled by the climate crisis. They are also being destroyed by harmful coastal development – development that could be part of the blue economy.
Development or Destruction?
The United Nations affirmed that the blue economy would assist in achieving the Sustainable Development Goals – especially Goal 14, “Life Below Water.” This triggered a rapid expansion across all facets of the blue economy, with projections suggesting this trend would persist.
Marine economic activities include fisheries, aquaculture, maritime transport, coastal renewable energy, seabed mining, bioprospecting, marine biotechnology, and waterborne tourism. These activities harm marine health to some degree and contribute to many problems, including biodiversity erosion, ocean acidification, climate change, water and air pollution, and even noise pollution that threatens marine life, including whales and dolphins.
The corporate extractive sector, in particular, has been looking for new territories to extract minerals such as manganese, cobalt, copper, nickel, and rare earth elements. This has become increasingly problematic due to the risks involved in resource extraction. Though the ocean may seem like an unlimited expanse that profiteers exploit purely for financial gain, it has natural limits.
“(A)lthough scientists and campaigners have been warning of the consequences of our rampant exploitation for decades, time is now running out to protect our oceans,” Hugo Tagholm, executive director of Oceana in the UK, and Callum Roberts, a professor of marine conservation at the Centre for Ecology and Conservation at the University of Exeter, wrote in EuroNews in November 2023. “We like to think of our ocean as infinite, but the truth is, it cannot stand this industrial-scale exploitation.”
The Earth’s marine ecosystems are extremely valuable to the global economy. They deliver essential ecosystem services to life on the planet and provide sustenance for billions of people. More than 3 billion individuals depend on the ocean for their livelihoods. Most live in developing nations, humans and countless other species rely on healthy, thriving oceans.
Bluewashing: Covering Up Bad Behaviour
Terminologies such as “green economy” and “blue economy” might seem promising but are often noted as cover-ups for harmful activities. “(T)he blue economy is not a benign concept offering a win-win for the economy and the environment,” said John Childs, a senior lecturer at the Lancaster Environment Centre at Lancaster University, United Kingdom, and the co-editor of a special section in the Journal of Political Ecology that presented several papers on the blue economy.
Childs said the papers he reviewed suggest that the blue economy is “another capitalist fix in which global capital is seeking to reproduce itself, to keep making money and create a surplus. This is happening as we get to the point where much of the planet’s landmass [has] been appropriated.”
“If ‘greenwashing’ is the practice of making unsubstantiated or misleading claims about the environmental benefits of an action, then perhaps we need a new term – ‘bluewashing’ – to cover coastal and marine development initiatives which fail to deliver on their environmental and social promises,” wrote Nicole Leotaud, the executive director of the Caribbean Natural Resources Institute, in 2017. “Personally, I’m tired of labels that confuse and mask the development principles we are seeking,” she added.
Threats to the Marine Ecosystem
Some protections benefit the oceans, such as the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), established in 1982 to provide an international legal framework for using and protecting the marine environment. However, not all nations agree to these protections. Additionally, ocean-bordering countries have their own laws, creating a patchwork of often poorly enforced rules. Contested waters regularly result in tumultuous situations.
Many maritime crimes negatively impact oceanic health, such as illegal fishing or harvesting, ocean dumping, and polluting. In addition to overfishing, where necessary species are removed from the food chain, and accelerating biodiversity loss, unsustainable industrial development along coastlines has also contributed to ocean pollution.
“All of these threats erode the capacity of the ocean to provide nutritious food, jobs, medicines, and pharmaceuticals as well as regulate the climate,” stated a 2020 article in the journal Nature. “Women, poor people, Indigenous communities, and young people are most affected.”
Climate change is another serious threat to our oceans. “(I)ncreasing sea levels and making the ocean warmer, more acidic, and depleted in oxygen,” the Nature article pointed out. The ocean has absorbed more than 90 percent of excess gas trapped by greenhouse gas emissions, but that is only a portion of the damage. “Unsustainable development along coastlines destroys coral reefs, seagrass beds, salt marshes, and mangrove forests,” which provide vital biodiversity reservoirs, sequester carbon, and buffer coasts against storm surges,” the article added. Because of human intervention, plastics, and nutrient runoff pollute the water and kill sea life.
We must not ignore the hazards of shipping. Sea vessels use heavy fuel oils that release soot, sulphur, and carbon dioxide, amounting to substantial emissions of some air pollutants and 3 percent of carbon dioxide emissions.
There are many parts of the ocean where life has died. These sections have layers of crude oil and have been contaminated to outlandishly unsafe levels.
A Bayelsa State Oil and Environment Commission report reveals that the “concentration of noxious chemicals, such as Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons, exceed safe levels by a factor of 1 million according to some of the samples taken,” pointing to the impact of oil extraction in Bayelsa in the Nigerian Delta.
Even though significant oil spills receive much media attention, the ongoing oil flow into the sea represents the bulk of the problem. “Hundreds of millions of gallons” of oil enter our oceans yearly, but most evade media attention. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, only a fraction of that – 5 percent – comes from what the U.S. Department of Commerce labels as “significant” oil spills.
Some of the most prominent damage to ocean ecosystems appears to come from deep-sea mining on a massive level, which destroys the seabed. It harms marine and aquatic ecosystems while impoverishing coastal communities that depend on fisheries and other resources. The kind of damage that it could cause is almost impossible to calculate, especially since deep-sea mining is a relatively new endeavour.
In a press statement in August 2024, Dr. Enric Sala, the National Geographic Explorer in Residence and Pristine Seas founder, said: “Giving the greenlight to deep sea mining would open a Pandora’s box of unknown impacts. Mining the seabed will inevitably affect fragile sea life that we barely know. And a (July 2024) study … showed that deep-sea polymetallic nodules produce oxygen in total darkness, which may be key to ocean health. The more we look in the deep sea, the more we discover. Rushing to mine the seabed will surely go down in history as an environmental disaster we should have stopped before it started. It is short-sighted to destroy, in minutes, ecosystems that have taken millennia to develop. Countries worldwide have so much more to gain by protecting vital parts of the ocean than signing them away for short-term profit.”
The Blue Economy in African Coastal Waters
Just as vast tracts of global land have been acquired to extract fossil fuels (in the United States alone, Earthjustice, a nonprofit public interest environmental law organization, reports that “[t]he oil and gas industry has over 26 million acres of land under lease.” The same phenomenon is being duplicated in the sea. The well-being of more than 200 million Africans who depend on fisheries for food and nutritional security is at risk, CEO of WWF Kenya Mohammed Awer said in July 2023. Once corporate interests claim bodies of water as their own, they will likely become inaccessible to those who make their living from the sea and nearby coastal communities.
Industrial installations, such as crude oil platforms, establish control over the surrounding waters, ostensibly as security buffers. Fishermen who have tried to find more sea life in the high seas have reported that large parts of the continental shelf and beyond are off-limits because extractive industries have claimed and cordoned them off with controlled installations.
Unregulated industrial fishing in West African coastal waters, often carried out by foreign fleets, threatens fishermen’s livelihoods. According to “Fishy Networks: Uncovering the companies and individuals behind illegal fishing globally,” a 2022 report by the Financial Transparency Coalition, more than 40 percent of cases involving illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing by industrial vessels from January 2010 to May 2022 occurred in West Africa. More than one-third of global fisheries were overfished in 2019, mainly due to illegal fishing.
In the current blue economy paradigm, privatization prioritizes profit above ecosystem health. Water is not viewed as a commodity in this construct, and the buying and selling of oceanic water and aquatic resources would be prioritized over other considerations.
The blue economy could allow polluters to pay to pollute by allowing bodies of water to be used as dumps for mine tailings and other pollutants. It could also open the space for speculators on water futures, thus raising the stakes against access to clean and safe water for the 4 billion people worldwide facing extreme water scarcity for at least one month every year.
Promise and Peril for Ocean Economy
An OECD report indicated a significant increase in ocean-related economic activities by 2030, saying that “(t)he new ‘ocean economy’ is driven by a combination of population growth, rising incomes, dwindling natural resources, responses to climate change and pioneering technologies.” The projections show that the global value added by ocean-based industries could grow from $1.5 trillion in 2010 to more than $3 trillion by 2030.
While the growth of the ocean economy does offer potential advantages for coastal communities, it’s essential to monitor the adverse outcomes that ocean-based economic development can also yield. These challenges can include the growth of existing economic disparities, the displacement of local communities and their means of livelihood, pollution, harm to environmental sustainability and biodiversity, and an infringement on human rights.
With all of these stressors connected to the exploitation of the oceanic ecosystem, safeguards must be implemented.
Physical capital and technology have been given such priority in the world economy that other critical factors like human resources and natural resources are ignored or reduced in significance, and there is no longer any real balance in sustainability.
The drive for profit above the health of the planet and its people leads to the transformation and, often, the destruction of environmental resources without regard to planetary or social limits.
For coastal communities, the ocean is not just an arena for economic activities but a space for culture, spirituality, and interactions with nature. Connections to the ocean are a way of life. The prevailing capitalist bent may dismiss this reality as an inefficient use of aquatic ecosystems. Yet, it highlights the origins of the polycrisis in our world today.
When governments and corporations decide what should be done, they often ignore the people closest to the water and the fact that they know more about what is necessary to protect it. It gets more troubling when the uninhabited deep sea is discussed. For example, in Nigeria, Shell Oil is selling off its onshore oil fields and moving operations to the deep sea, where there is limited oversight on the damage being done. Even if the harm being done in the deep sea stays out of sight, its results still affect everyone onshore. This is a major reason for the concern anywhere in the world that is near the water.
While some countries believe that opening their maritime territories to investment will improve their economies, they invite the destruction of irreplaceable resources.
Norway Explores Deep Mining in the Seas
In January 2024, Norway’s Parliament voted to allow mining companies to search a large area of the country’s waters, approximately the size of Italy, for the minerals needed to build electric cars, mobile phones, and solar panels. “If you find the resources, and if you have the technology that shows that you can develop this with acceptable (environmental) impact, then you will have your green light,” said Walter Sognnes, CEO of the startup mining company Loke Marine Minerals, according to a January 2024 Wired article.
Other companies are also looking to exploit the Norwegian waters, with the startup Green Minerals expected to “extract copper from what’s known as seafloor massive sulphide (SMS) deposits, according to its CEO, Ståle Monstad,” added the article. Test mining is supposed to begin in 2028, but several technical challenges must be resolved. Deep-sea mining companies must transport mineral deposits 3 kilometres (approximately 1.9 miles) from the seabed to the surface. How the maritime ecosystem – corals, sponge grounds, and other sea life – will respond to the mining is unknown. Yet, on a positive note, mining companies are required to study the environmental impact before they are permitted to begin exploration.
Norway has changed its position on this issue in recent years. As co-chair of the Ocean Panel, it pledged to sustainably manage the world’s coastline by decarbonizing the shipping industry and regulating seafood production. The Ocean Panel, formed in 2018, comprised 14 governments responsible for 40 percent of the world’s coastlines.
Norway’s shift in allowing deep-sea mining occurred because a new government was elected in 2021. Outraged researchers have said that not enough is known about the deep-sea ecosystem to risk mining for minerals such as manganese and cobalt, used in batteries and other electronics. “In marine biology, our knowledge about the existence, function, and distribution of many species is either too poor or non-existent,” warned a group of scientists from the Norwegian University of Science and Technology and NTNU University Museum, both located in Trondheim, Norway.
When a relatively forward-thinking country like Norway promotes deep-sea mining, it raises concerns due to the region’s history of resistance to expanded offshore oil extraction. The damage to local economies, fisheries, and Indigenous peoples of the region has been demonstrated before, so it is worrisome that support for deep-sea mining seems to be increasing once again.
Deep Mining in U.S. Seas
According to the Nature article, “Five Priorities for a Sustainable Ocean Economy,” “(b)lue carbon” ecosystems of mangroves, seagrass beds, and salt marshes store carbon at up to 10 times the rate of terrestrial ecosystems.” For example, the article’s authors cite the successful restoration of 3,000 hectares (approximately 1,500 acres) of seagrass beds in Virginia lagoons along the U.S. eastern seaboard, sequestering about 3,000 tons of carbon annually.
However, there are proposals to rely on seaweed to capture carbon or iron filings, which could lead to enormous damage. Yet, most people are unaware of these initiatives or the potential disasters they can cause. The concept appears benign, but the unsustainable aspects aren’t adequately addressed in the public sphere. Moreover, the pursuit of blue carbon through mangrove protection or restoration portends the danger of sea grabbing, displacement of communities, or disruption of their livelihoods.
Assessing the Value of the Marine Ecosystem
Some argue that putting a price on the oceans’ value distorts the meaning of the blue economy as the right path forward. According to a 2023 report by the World Resources Institute, the blue economy is responsible for more than $1.5 trillion of the annual global economy.
Although a blue economy is often conceptualized as the “sustainable” management of aquatic and marine resources and ecosystems, actions other than economic profit or power are usually seen as unreasonable or not viable.
A 2015 report published by Nature estimated that the assets found in the global marine ecosystem – including fisheries, shipping routes, and tourism – have a total value of $24 trillion and generate an annual output worth $2.5 trillion. In 2022, employment in the marine economy grew by 5 percent in the United States, outpacing the overall economy (3.9 percent) in job growth.
Yet, the fundamental issue is that the concept of an “economy” has become so pervasive that people often assume that aquatic ecosystems are intended solely for capital accumulation through exploitation.
Protecting Marine Ecosystems
Local coastal communities must be mobilized. Forming alliances with fishermen, activists involved with natural rights, nonprofit organizations, and legal and political influencers will have to play an essential role in protecting the oceans. We must use all legal mechanisms to prevent threats to water bodies from corporations, governments, and other parties.
The world functions quickly, while political leadership in many regions tends to make strides on the path of least resistance, taking the most expedient way forward. It is a global responsibility to prevent profits from becoming the first priority for industry and political leaders, thereby maintaining the importance of natural resources and life below water.
The wars happening in the world today demonstrate that oceans and other waterways require protection. The massive destruction shows that appealing to the consciences of political leaders or the boards of global corporations is counterproductive. Grassroots activists and mass public awareness and mobilization, including litigation, can help to hold corporations, governments, and criminals accountable when official routes fail to protect the seas. The media can help expose ongoing marine destruction and unsustainable practices and motivate lawmakers to protect oceanic ecosystems. Destroying marine ecosystems can be viewed as an international crime. As harmful activities in the oceans threaten species, it may be considered a kind of genocide – ecocide, or the killing of Mother Nature.
Marine Protected Areas: More Action Needed
Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) include oceanic space for long-term conservation. Other areas could be estuaries, seas, and lakes. Such protected areas also cover rivers, creeks, swamps, and continental shelves.
As governments, corporations, and illegal actors exploit the open seas in a highly unregulated ecosystem, community-led MPAs represent a potential strategy for protecting the health of the Earth’s oceans. Simply marking an area as an MPA may not be a neutral exercise.
MPAs can have many names: marine parks, conservation zones, reserves, sanctuaries, and no-take zones. As of 2023, there were more than 5,000 MPAs worldwide, covering more than 8 percent of the ocean. MPAs have been established in various maritime sites, including the open ocean.
Most MPAs aim to protect marine habitats and the sea life they support. One of the best-known examples is the Galápagos Marine Reserve, which is about 1,000 kilometres (600 miles) off the west coast of South America and includes a variety of marine habitats like coral reefs and mangrove swamps, where trees grow directly in seawater. The waters around the Galápagos are home to about 3,000 plant and animal species. Some MPAs, on the other hand, focus on particular historical sites, like shipwrecks.
According to the Marine Conservation Institute, approximately 8 percent of the world’s waters are protected by some form of marine protection, with the island nation of Palau far out in front. Only nine countries have protected 10 to 30 percent of their waters, though only 2 percent have protected as much as 30 percent.
The UN’s World Database on Protected Areas documents MPAs submitted by nations. It reports that more than 15,000 MPAs safeguard an expanse of ocean covering more than 27 million square kilometres, equivalent to nearly 10.6 million square miles. In the U.S., marine protected areas cover 25 percent of the country’s waters.
Most African MPAs are in Eastern and Southern Africa, with a few in West and North Africa. Experts recommend that MPAs should be people-driven rather than financially driven. If the laws regulating MPAs come solely from the government, further details must be made clear to those involved in keeping these laws intact.
One example of these rules is the Chumbe Reef Sanctuary in Tanzania, established in 1992. This project continues to involve local communities in managing and monitoring marine resources. It has led to a significant recovery of degraded coral reefs and increased fish stock. This success is due to the involvement of local communities in the management of MPAs and the assurance of equitable stake holding in the benefits derived from such conservation.
Another success story is the Bazaruto Archipelago National Park in Mozambique, established in 1971. It covers an area of 1,430 square kilometres (approximately 550 square miles) and contains a diverse range of marine habitats, including coral reefs, seagrass beds, and mangroves. This MPA has provided economic benefits to the local communities by supporting sustainable artisanal fishing and protecting the region’s biodiversity, including endangered species such as dugongs, turtles, and sharks.
Unless MPAs are instituted with the full consent and support of dependent coastal communities, they may be a means of shutting groups of people off from nature. Governments can protect forests without the consent of relevant parties in what is often called “fortress conservation.” This concept refers to the ability of some groups to map out and prevent others from going near designated parts of the ocean. In such instances, the blue economy could be considered a cause of many conflicts. This situation could arise if communities or commercial entities contend to control resources found in particular areas. Conflicts could also occur when MPAs are cordoned off with a military shield as “conquered” territories.
Colonising Nature
The concept of colonialism goes beyond the political control and exploitation of one nation by another; it also extends to our relationship with nature. The “colonisation of nature” entails exploiting and transforming natural resources for economic gain without considering its socio-ecological impacts. This approach has contributed to many problems, including climate change, biodiversity loss, and armed conflict over resources.
Launched in 2018 and based in Nigeria, the School of Ecology (SoE) explores environmental and climate justice, agriculture, resource democracy, and overall socio-ecological transformation. The organization operates under the aegis of the Health of Mother Earth Foundation, an ecological think tank where I serve as the director. One SoE gathering was based on the MPA concept and the challenges of the idea of the blue economy. A people-driven MPA would place the fate of their aquatic ecosystems in people’s hands. Such a level of stewardship would ensure ecosystem protection and restoration where damage may occur.
The organisation promotes the security and resilience of ecosystems as wielders of power and capital. Although many people see the promotion of the blue economy as a means of securing life underwater, as highlighted in the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, this is often not the case.
A commitment to such a declaration will go far in ensuring that the population of West Africa can rely on a safe environment to carry out their economic, socio-cultural, recreational, and spiritual activities. Environmentalism from below requires the reassessment of the false idea that environmental concerns are for those who have had their basic needs met and have the benefit of thinking about luxuries.
Environmentalism from below requires those who depend on healthy ecosystems for their basic needs to stand up against attempts to appropriate their territories for exploitation by powerful and connected individuals, governments, and corporations. Humanity is outpacing nature and plundering ocean resources to the degree that we are preventing those resources from recovering naturally.
Establishing community-managed MPAs is a powerful strategy for safeguarding the health of our oceans and halting further decline, particularly when incorporated into a comprehensive management framework. These MPAs offer a compelling solution that will help to guarantee that the aquatic commons remain free of corporate and industrial exploitation and monopolies.
Optimally, if local, community-based managed MPAs were established in coastal waters worldwide, they would restore degraded areas, rebuild biodiversity, revive cultural practices, restore dignity, and reinvigorate local economies. While capitalism often sets rules globally, there are definite ways in which humanity can work together to liberate nature from the bottom up. The world’s oceans – and all species they support, including ours – depend on it.
Service providers and policy makers in water and sanitation sector have a crucial role to play in the drafting of a regulatory framework that will guarantee safe, reliable and sustainable services to Lagosians.
Participants at the One-Day Parley of WASH Service Providers with LASWARCO, in Lagos
Dr. Adebayo Alao, Water Aid Lagos Programme Lead, made this submission on Thursday, October 11, 2024, during a “One-Day Parley of WASH Service Providers with LASWARCO” in Lagos.
Speaking on behalf of Evelyn Mere, WaterAid Country Director, Alao said: “We are all are Lagosians by virtue of being Lagos residents or doing business in Lagos, therefore the growth and development of Lagos is a responsibility of all and there are several sectors that make up the Lagos economy, and its environment and one of the key sectors that is very critical to everybody that lives in Lagos is Water, Sanitation and Hygiene. We cannot but take care of sanitation in order not to continue to pollute and contaminate the environment, particularly, again our water. services, it’s very important that we also have adequate care and plan for sanitation.
“Research has established that we can curb diseases that affect the human body by as much as 70% just by mere washing of hands with soap and water. We all know during the period of Covid, how important the issue of hand washing with water and soap was and so I think it’s also critical to our health. Therefore, the Sustainable Development Goal 6 put all these three together and say, every one of us must have access to water, sanitation and hygiene, not just having access to it. We are talking of clean water, water that you can drink, that you can use to cook and use to do your domestic chores and other uses industrially, without putting you at health risk.
“For those that produce water, you must have access to sanitation facilities that does not portend any danger or risk to your health, particularly women and girls. So, all our sanitation facilities must be able to ensure we are using them in good health, particularly women and girls. There are some sanitation facilities that women cannot enter because of the danger or the risk they stand if they enter such facilities. We do not want such facilities in Lagos State and Nigeria as a whole.”
According to Dr. Alao, “Hygiene costs are not with water and sanitation, and that’s why we must combine hygiene with water, at the same time combine hygiene with sanitation. There is what we call the hygiene of water, and that’s what we call water sanitation.
“In hygiene of water, you look at the safety of that water right from the point of source to the point of use, how safe is that water, the source of your water, may be very good, but in the course of transporting it to where you’re going to use it, it may be contaminated, if not well handled. So put all of these together. It is a call for concern, and that is why service providers exist.
“In the course of this service provision government thought it wise that an institution must exist to regulate these services. Otherwise, we will all be kicking against ourselves, and it is not healthy because the environment will be at the losing end. We don’t want that to happen, that is why we are bringing the service providers close to that institution.”
The Lagos Team Lead however urged all stakeholders to put the environment first in all their dealing while charting a way forward in the provision of quality and sustainable services to all Lagosians.
In her submission, Ms Funke Femi Adepoju, Executive Secretary, Lagos State Water Regulatory Commission (LASWARCO), admitted that service providers, stakeholders, policymakers, and advocates are all united by a common goal: to ensure that every citizen of Lagos has access to safe, reliable, and sustainable water and sanitation services.
Adepoju opined that “the challenges we face in the WASH sector are multifaceted, ranging from inadequate infrastructure and funding constraints to environmental concerns and public health risks. It is imperative that we tackle these issues collaboratively, leveraging our collective expertise and experiences.
“This parley serves as a vital platform for us to discuss the regulatory frameworks that govern our operations and explore how we can work together to enhance the effectiveness of these frameworks.
“The role of the Lagos Water Regulatory Commission is pivotal in creating an enabling environment for WASH Service providers, and it is our duty to ensure that regulations foster innovation, accountability, and transparency,” LASWARCO Executive Secretary noted.
Mr. Idowu Olowu, Head of Technical Unit of LASWARCO, enlightened participants on the basic requirements before any individual or organisation can venture into business of Sanitation and Water Service Providers in the state with his paper presentation on “Regulatory Framework Lagos State”.
Highpoint of the event was group discussion on “Challenges for Effective Service Regulation and Proposed Solutions” between the two major groups – Sanitation Service Providers and Water Service Providers.
Notable associations that were represented at the parley include: Boreholes Writers Association of Nigeria, Nigeria Water and Sanitation Association (NIWASA), Water Resources Technicians Association of Nigeria (WRAN) and Water Services Forum.
Others are Association of Table Water Producers (ATWAP), Clean Borehole Water Sellers Association of Nigeria, and Sewage Dislogers Association of Nigeria (SWADAN).
Biodiversity offsets are a dangerous illusion – allowing corporations to profit while ecosystems are destroyed and communities pay the price, the Global Forest Coalition (GFC) warned in a statement on Thursday, October 10, 2024.
Souparna Lahiri, GFC’s Senior Climate and Biodiversity Policy Advisor
Instead of supporting this strategy, governments and financial institutions must prioritise community-led biodiversity protection and uphold the rights of Indigenous People and local communities, women in all their diversities, and Afro-descendant communities, and recognise nature’s inherent value – one that cannot be reduced to a balance sheet, GFC said.
“To halt the tide of biodiversity loss, we must reject market-based solutions and invest in real conservation efforts that put people and the planet first,” said Souparna Lahiri, GFC’s Senior Climate and Biodiversity Policy Advisor. “Offsets don’t heal the harm; they just relocate it. They pretend to restore biodiversity, but the scars they leave are permanent.”
The warning comes ahead of the sixteenth Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (COP16) in Cali, Colombia, from October 21 to November 1, alongside the release of a new GFC analysis highlighting the deep flaws in biodiversity offset mechanisms.
Biodiversity offsets are said to be gaining momentum globally as a core strategy in the wake of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KM-GBF), adopted at COP15 in December 2022. Governments, financial institutions, and transnational conservation organisations increasingly promote offsetting to counterbalance the destructive environmental impacts of industries like mining, industrial agriculture, and infrastructure. However, this approach, far from safeguarding nature, has become a tool for large corporations to greenwash destructive projects while sidelining genuine conservation efforts.
“Biodiversity and climate crises are deeply intertwined, and biodiversity offsets are repeating the same mistakes as carbon offsets – serving as a smokescreen for continued destruction and rights abuses,” said Mary Louise Malig, GFC’s Policy Director. “They’re an illusion at best and corrupt at worst, greenwashing corporate profits at the expense of our planet. There is still a chance to turn the tide, but only if we reject these flawed market-based solutions and shut out corporate lobbying driving us toward collapse.”
Biodiversity offsets, promoted as tools to achieve “no net loss” or “net gain” in biodiversity, allow corporations to destroy ecosystems in one area if they “protect” or restore another. GFC noted that these offsets enable a double land grab: one for economic exploitation, and another for alleged conservation. This mechanism disproportionately impacts the rights and livelihoods of Indigenous Peoples, women, youth, and local communities, who depend on these ecosystems for survival, according to the group.
Biodiversity offsetting is not a viable solution to halting biodiversity loss, GFC argued, adding that restoration projects often fail to replicate the complex ecosystems they replace, making the goal of “no net loss” both illusory and unattainable.
GFC disclosed that offsetting has become a loophole for the most harmful industries – such as mining, fossil fuels, industrial agriculture, and infrastructure development – to access land and capital while maintaining their social license to operate. By branding themselves as conservationists, these companies continue harmful activities unchecked.
Offsetting schemes come at a high social and cultural cost, undermining the rights of Indigenous Peoples and local communities, particularly women and youth. Forced evictions, loss of access to essential resources, and violations of fundamental rights are common outcomes, leaving communities disenfranchised and without alternatives. Meanwhile, the supposed conservation gains rarely materialise. The so-called restored habitats often fail to match the biodiversity of the original areas, and uncertainty in ecological outcomes makes these schemes ineffective, perpetuating biodiversity loss instead of mitigating it.
“Biodiversity isn’t a ledger you can balance. Offsets let corporations exploit nature, while the people who depend on it pay the true cost,” said Valentina Figuera Martínez, GFC’s Gender Justice and Forests Campaign Coordinator. “Often, it is women and girls – already facing gender injustices and restrictive access to land, money, power, and resources – who bear the brunt of these rights violations. These schemes are simply perpetuating entrenched gender inequalities that we have been fighting to overcome.”
Urgent action is needed, GFC said. Biodiversity offsetting must be rejected as a false solution and replaced with genuine strategies that respect ecological integrity and community rights. Governments must lead by creating robust regulatory frameworks and mandatory contributions, rather than relying on voluntary corporate measures that have repeatedly fallen short. This includes redirecting harmful subsidies, increasing taxes on polluters, and investing in transformative conservation practices that genuinely address the root causes of biodiversity loss.
International financial institutions and conservation groups must also halt their role in facilitating corporate lobbying that promotes offsetting. Conservation efforts should prioritise the public good, recognising nature’s intrinsic value, which cannot be replicated or replaced by market mechanisms. Real solutions to biodiversity loss include supporting agroecology, community conservation practices, and initiatives led by women, Indigenous Peoples, and local and Afro-descendant communities.
With COP 16 set to take place in Cali, parties to the Convention have a critical opportunity to realign biodiversity conservation efforts with the Convention’s three main objectives. Governments must commit to tangible biodiversity targets rather than superficial offsetting schemes. This means addressing root causes of biodiversity loss like habitat destruction, unsustainable agriculture, and industrial exploitation. All biodiversity initiatives must respect the rights of Indigenous Peoples, women, and local communities, prioritising community-led conservation models that ensure equitable benefits for all rightsholders.
To meet the COP 15 commitment to redirect at least US $500 billion annually from harmful subsidies to activities that conserve and protect nature, it is essential to dismantle subsidies that incentivize environmental destruction. Biodiversity offsetting, credits, and other market schemes must be removed from the KM-GBF agenda and replaced with community-led funding mechanisms that truly serve the public interest.
As the world prepares for COP 16, governments must seize this moment to adopt transformative approaches that uphold ecological integrity, protect community rights, and recognise the true value of nature beyond monetary metrics. Biodiversity is not a commodity to be traded – it’s the foundation of life on Earth, and global policy must reflect that reality.
“The ‘no net loss’ claim is an illusion – biodiversity offsets don’t work. They trade real ecosystems for hypothetical gains that rarely materialise,” said Souparna Lahiri. “Redirect harmful subsidies, tax the polluters, and support communities on the frontlines of conservation. That’s what true biodiversity finance looks like.”
