Dr. Emmanuel Okafor, the Director of Public Health, Anambra State Ministry of Health, on Thursday confirmed the death of a medical doctor and two others due to new cases of Lassa fever in the state.
Minister of Health, Professor Isaac Adewole
The director confirmed the report at a one-day workshop on Lassa fever organised by the ministry to sensitise health professionals in the state on the disease in Awka.
However, Okafor said the outbreak was not yet in an epidemic proportion in the state. Okafor said the workshop was aimed at training the health professionals who would go to the grassroots to educate the people on the prevention of the disease.
“In Anambra, we don’t know the number of cases of the disease, but we have three confirmed deaths,” he said.
He urged health workers to exercise high standard of professionalism in handling Lassa fever cases. Okafor said the state government had put in place proactive measures to handle the scourge.
Speaking earlier, Dr. Jane Ezeonu, a resource person at the workshop, first broke the news of the death of the doctor and the two other persons. Ezeonu said the medical doctor died three days ago at the Nnamdi Azikiwe General Hospital, Nnewi.
She, however, said the late medical doctor was referred to NAUTH from Asaba, Delta State.
Ezeonu stressed the need for adequate prevention mechanism to be taken on the issue.
The doctor warned people against drinking raw garri (cassava flour), advising residents to ensure protection of their food and related items from rats.
“People don’t acquire immunity after suffering from Lassa fever. General hygiene is the key for prevention,” Ezeonu said.
Also speaking at the occasion, Dr. Okwuchukwu Chukwuka, the Permanent Secretary in the ministry, said there was no epidemic of the disease in the state.
Chukwuka, who represented the Commissioner for Health, Dr. Josephat Akabuike, said the workshop was part of the proactive measures adopted by the state government.
Chukwuka said: “It is a training workshop for health professionals in the 21 local government areas of the state who would sensitise and disseminate information about Lassa fever to the grassroots. We are having the workshop for prevention, not that we have an epidemic in the state.”
Minister of Finance, Mrs. Kemi Adeosun, on Thursday sought the understanding of members of the private sector in the ongoing policy review by the current administration.
Kemi Adeosun, Finance Minister
The minister, who spoke during the visit of the leadership of the Nigerian Economic Summit Group, (NESG) to her office in Abuja, challenged the private sector body to come up with policies which are implementable in view of the current economic situation in the country.
Extending her hand of fellowship to the NESG, the minister said the Ministry of Finance is ready to work with them and therefore challenged the private sector group to keep track of some of the recommendations to the Federal Government.
She said: “I want to challenge you by asking you to keep track of how many of your polices are implemented and those not implemented. You also need to find out why those policies were not implemented. They may be great policies at wrong times, or they may be wrong policies. They may even be un-implementable policies.
“I’m giving you the commitment of the Federal Ministry of Finance to assist you. You are invited to the Federal Ministry of Finance and spend a day and sit with our people and see how government affairs are being run.”
The minister also stressed the need to prioritise in the face of the revenue challenge in the country.
She stated: “Yes, the economy is challenged and people are extremely frustrated and we need to rebuild fundamentally, we need to prioritise. We have to rebuild this country and it has to be data driven.
“We are already overhauling our tax policy. We want to have a realistic picture of tax. We need to realise that with the collapse of commodity prices we don’t have enough foreign exchange to buy as many imported goods as we like to, so when there is import substitution, we must embrace it.”
She justified the stoppage of the policy on Export Grant which, according to her, has been seriously abused.
Responding to the explanation sought by NESG on the current status of Export Grant, the minister stated that, although her predecessor in office halted the implementation of the policy, she believed the decision was in order going by harvests of startling revelations on the abuse of export grant.
She stated: “On paper, why will you cancel Export Grant? The EG is set up to encourage export business. However, in a situation, where we do not have control, we open up doors for the kind of abuse, which are only imaginable. We have people exporting stones, describing them as high valued goods, collecting an import credit and using that to import fish.
“We do need to look for how to support export, but we have to be very realistic in the recommendations we are coming up with.”
Waste management is a major challenge in Kenya, especially in Nairobi, the rapidly growing capital. Nairobi produces around 2,400 tons of waste every day, of which only 38% is collected and less than 10% recycled. The remaining 62% is left on illegal dumpsites and next to houses or burned, causing severe health and environmental problems. Additionally, the private sector overlooks the income generating opportunities from waste, such as recycling and composting.
Under the NAMA, up to 600 tons of waste will be recycled every day (which accounts for 25% of Nairobi’s total waste). This will save more than 800,000 tons in CO2e emissions over the 15 years’ lifetime of the NAMA and add 1,600 jobs to the economy.
By diverting waste from dumpsites to recycling points, waste collection companies will reduce their operating costs. This will make collection services more affordable to more than half a million low-income residents, thereby adding improved health to the environmental and socioeconomic benefits.
The NAMA will also test and operationalise new recycling technologies, as well as strengthen existing recycling industries. This will include conversion of organic waste to insect based protein, terra-preta production (enriching compost with waste-based charcoal), using residual waste for cement kilns, and a study on the treatment of hazardous waste fractions.
The NAMA is fully aligned with the policy goals of the Kenyan government, as set out in Kenya Vision 2030, National Climate Change Action Plan (NCCAP) and the Environmental Management and Coordination Act (EMCA), which promote the provision of sanitation services and recycling.
The total cost of the NAMA is estimated to be around $39 million. Approximately $25 million is to be funded by international finance ($13 million in grants and $12 million in loans), while the Kenyan government will fund $10 million in grants and the private sector will invest $4 million.
The NAMA will be carried out in two distinct phases over a period of 15 years: Infrastructure development phase (years one to 5) and full-scale operations phase (years six to 15). As private sector companies will operate each part of the NAMA, all activities will continue operating past the end of the NAMA timeline.
On Monday, 15th August, I was privileged to be a panelist at the “Experts meeting on Bio-safety & Bio-technology-GMOs” organised by the Ministry of Environment and the Ministry of Agriculture. In attendance were the Ministers of Science &Technology, Agriculture and Environment.
Critics fear genetically modified foods can cause environmental harm and damage human health. Photo credit: dailymail.co.uk
In their opening remarks, they made it clear that they look to these conversations to give them guidance in respect to policy direction of GMOs in agriculture. The event though apparently organised by the Ministries of Agriculture and Environment, was dominated mainly by pro-GMO voices such as NABDA and OFAB, as well as several pro-GMO scientists and bio-safety administrators.
All the keynote speeches and papers presented were by pro-GMO DGs and scientists. In a meeting apparently put together to shed light on this GMO controversy, it was unfortunate that these presentations were mostly half-truths, belittling health concerns as well as contrary scientific opinions that have been on the rise.
Several presenters pointed out to the fact that this technology is not new, it has existed for over 20 years and has been used in America and Canada. None of them were interested or curious to explain, if a technology has been used for over 20 years, shouldn’t it be normalised by now? If indeed there was no cause for concern, should it not be controversy-free by now? Why is it that Japan, a science and technology powerhouse and the third largest economy in the world, has tight restrictions on GMO commercialisation and consumption?
Why is it that six out of the G8 countries (the most powerful in relation to their economy and development), have strong restrictions on the cultivation and consumption of GMO? Apart from USA and Canada who are the main originators and producers of this technology?
Regulatory Framework and Infrastructure
In June 2015, The EU banned the importation of Nigeria’s dried beans because the produce contained extra-ordinarily high levels of pesticides which are dangerous to human health. The rejected beans were found to contain between 0.03mg per kilogramme to 4.6mg/kg of dichlorvos pesticide, when the acceptable maximum residue limit is 0.01mg/kg. The embargo is a reflection of our inability to adhere to global standards. Despite efforts by the Federal Government and its relevant agencies to lift the ban this year, the ban has been further extended for another three years. According to the EU officials, the ban was extended because “due to the continued presence of dichlorvos (pesticide) in dried beans imported from Nigeria and maximum residue levels of pesticides shows that compliance with food law requirement as regards pesticide residual cannot be achieved in the short term.”
There are four key points to take from this.
The EU does not compromise the health of its citizens.
The Nigerian regulatory system does not have the capacity to look out for the wellbeing and health of Nigerian citizens. After all, we are still eating these toxic beans. No one told us that the beans we have been consuming is toxic and this would not have been an issue if the EU did not raise the alarm.
Contamination of our food occurs because our farmers are not getting the extension services they should be getting. Most of them are illiterates and can barely read the instructions.
Extension services are important to help farmers learn best practices.
From this example it is clear that Nigeria does not have the robust infrastructure required to regulate and monitor basic agricultural practice. How then do these agencies imagine they can monitor and regulate GMOs?
None of the presenters spoke about contamination of natural varieties caused by wind drift of pollen, neither did any of them speak about the fact that these Monsanto, Sygenta, Bayer and Dupont GMO products do not self-proliferate. Every year, our government would have to buy these seeds from these foreign multinationals at prices significantly higher than those of natural seeds. This will add further pressure on our currency. It is for this reason that India is considering kicking Monsanto out of India and reverting to its indigenous cotton. They have also put price controls and restrictions on Monsanto’s cotton seeds.
The price was too high
None, not one of the presenters spoke about weed and pest resistance that has emerged in America, India, Brazil and everywhere GMOs are planted, leaving farmers to resort to older more toxic pesticides and herbicides.
Labelling
Despite everyone agreeing that GMO foods should be labelled, not one presenter explained how labelling would be achieved in a country where 95% of food consumed are purchased unpackaged in their raw state from market stalls, and on roadsides, as opposed to grocery stores. Do they plan to revolutionise the food processing and packaging industry overnight? How would the woman selling roasted corn on the side of the road label her roasted corn? With Monsanto as a major sponsor and partner of NABDA and OFAB, why don’t these institutions take Monsanto and Sygenta to task as to why they repeatedly fight labelling laws in America, consistently denying the consumers the right to know if their food is GMO? Are they not proud of their products? What do they have to hide? For a technology that is not new, how is it that, in its birthplace, it is still riddled with controversy, so much so these companies would rather hide rather than proudly label their products?
Export market jeopardised
With the current state of our economy, it is of vital importance that we produce products that can access as many markets as possible. This is a quote from leaked cables between American Ambassador Howard F. Jeter to Washington: “Many agricultural experts in both the private and public sectors have close professional connections to Europe and are sympathetic to European opinions. This is particularly true of Nigeria’s limited agricultural export sector, which exports mainly to Europe (though sometimes through Third World countries – such as India – where processing takes place) and could face the dilemma of having to chose between biotechnology and continued access to European markets.”
Organic foods can access all markets GMOs cannot.
Health risk
One would hope that a regulatory agency whose mandate is to secure the lives as relates to GMOs, would at least investigate all the scientific claims linking cancers to GMO consumption, endocrine disruption, colorectal cancers as well as the effects of these pesticides and herbicides associated with GMOs on human health. Yet not a single mention of these considerations was made.
So what do these anti-GMO activists want?
We want truth, we want an honest conversation that looks in to all these considerations and puts the health and wellbeing of Nigerian citizens first. We the people must remind the government that they work for us. It is us that would determine what is good for us to eat. Not half-truth telling scientists that choose to ignore not only scientific data but precedents set by some of the most scientifically advanced countries in the world.
Our research institutions need to be strengthened, so that our scientists would not be susceptible to the manipulations of foreign interests. Food security is a major aspect of National security and solely Nigerian scientists with the interest of Nigeria at heart should be giving clearance to operate in these high impact programmes.
Our government needs to start investigating and researching the natural and organic agricultural practices of nations like Russia, Japan and France. Our government needs to investigate and invest in agro-economic agriculture and integrated pest management as well as technologies that use nature to fight nature e.g. new technology that uses air propulsion to remove weeds as well as low tech roller weed cutters.
This conversation cannot and should not be dominated by an extremely costly and non-dependable technology that has been riddled with failures and controversy all over the world, when there are cheaper more natural approaches to solving these problems. Our government needs to actively seek out the full breadth of the conversation in order to make sustainable policies for the Nigerian people.
UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon appointed Patricia Espinosa as the new Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in May this year.
The Mexican national comes to the job with more than 30 years of experience in international relations. This includes serving as Minister of Foreign Affairs of Mexico from 2006 to 2012 and serving as her country’s representative to Austria, Slovakia, Slovenia and Germany, as well as to multilateral bodies and international organisations in Vienna, Geneva and New York. Her areas of specialty include global governance, sustainable development, gender equality, the protection of human rights and climate change. In relation to the last area, she was the Chair of the 16th Conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC leading to the adoption in 2010 of the Cancun Agreements – a set of key steps forward in global plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to help developing nations protect themselves from climate impacts.
She was also in the French capital of Paris last year for the 21st session of the Conference of the Parties (COP21) to the UNFCCC, at which the Paris Climate Change Agreement was adopted. The historic pact to combat climate change and to intensify the actions and investments needed for a sustainable, low-carbon future builds upon the UNFCCC and – for the first time – brings all nations into a common cause to undertake ambitious efforts to combat climate change and adapt to its effects, with enhanced support to assist developing countries to do so.
The Agreement’s central aim is to strengthen the global response to the threat of climate change by keeping a global temperature rise this century well below two degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit temperature increase even further to 1.5 degrees Celsius.
As of 3 August 2016, the Paris Agreement has 180 signatories. Of the 180 signatories, 22 have deposited their instruments of ratification, acceptance or approval. The agreement will enter into force 30 days after at least 55 countries, accounting for 55 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions, deposit their instruments of ratification or acceptance with the Secretary-General.
Ms. Espinosa recently spoke with the UN News Centre about her work and the challenges ahead.
Patricia Espinosa, Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)
What do you hope to accomplish as Executive Secretary of the UNFCCC?
I am coming to the head of UNFCCC at a very exciting time. We have the approval of the Paris Agreement, whichwas an historic agreement, after many, many years of negotiations. Now we have on board a huge amount of political will of governments but also the willingness from private sector, from civil society, from individuals everywhere in the world, to work towards a low-carbon economy, a low-carbon global society. So I wish to make a contribution in that respect. I wish to support all those actors, governments, private sectors, and civil societies – everybody who is willing to participate in this big challenge that has to do with the future of our planet.
Do you think the Paris Agreement is strong enough to get the world to limit climate change to well under two degrees celcius to 1.5 degrees?
The Paris Agreement actually provides a very comprehensive framework for action by all the actors that I mentioned earlier. Of course, the governments are in the centre of this agenda but its not only about the governments. In fact, in the case of the Paris Agreement, if we want to have full compliance with the Paris Agreement we need, not only action by governments, we need the action by all of society. I believe it depends really on all those actors whether the Paris Agreement can deliver as to how we would want it to deliver.
What will be the main driver to ramp up ambitions of countries to do more to reduce emissions and build resilience?
Actually, climate change is really about the wellbeing of people. It is not a very vague concept or a vague problem that is out of our everyday lives. It is actually affecting our everyday lives and this is the fundamental fact that everybody should keep in mind while working toward a low-carbon society. If we think about the people that are affected in their health by the effects of climate change – for instance, the quality of air that we are breathing and how much children and older people are suffering from that; if we look at people who are living in poverty, who are suddenly victims to flooding and they lose not only the little property that they have but they also lose members of their families; if we look at disasters that are destroying infrastructure, leaving completely isolated communities in different parts of the world – we are talking about the lives of people. So having that consideration in mind, it’s a big driver towards more ambitious and urgent action by everybody.
Do think it possible that we will see the Paris Agreement enter into force this year?
We have, as of today, 22 ratifications. That is, in my opinion, very good news and very encouraging. And we have also the invitation to the Secretary General’s special event on 21 September in order to promote early ratification. So I’m very hopeful. I think it would send a very strong message about the willingness to comply with the commitment each country assumed in Paris.
And now that an agreement has been reached, what will be the focus of UNFCCC?
Of course we need to work on different areas. First of all, we need to continue to supporting the governments in their intergovernmental process, in their negotiations because the Paris Agreements provides this very comprehensive framework and it requires a lot of tools that need to be developed still.
For instance, in terms of rules for transparency, rules for measurement – these are issues that are not easy to solve and easy to really to get everyone’s minds together. So that will be one part, an important part, of our work. Of course, the Convention is mandating us to support the conference of the parties that takes place every year, but besides that, because what we really need is to have full compliance with the Convention, we would need to focus a lot on implementation of the Paris Agreement and which translates to the national programmes on climate change for each and every country. We will need to reach out to all those actors – to governments, to civil societies, to businesses – and help in mobilising them to help in this fight against climate change.
Many action areas that are essential for addressing climate change also happen to be a part of the Sustainable Development Goals. How will the two tracks be integrated?
This is a very important area of work for the future, not only work for the UNFCCC but for the whole United Nations system. I would actually say for all of our societies in general too, because of what I was mentioning earlier – the fact that climate change has to do with development. There is only one development process in each country. We need to generate the frameworks, the legal frameworks, the institutional frameworks, the policies that are required in order to allow for countries to have those types of structural transformation processes that are required. So in that sense, this is an area of work that will take a lot of the resources of the UNFCCC and one on which I will be also dedicating myself too.
You mentioned the annual Conference of Parties, the COP, and you were the Chair of COP 16 in Cancun, Mexico, which turned around fortunes of the UNFCCC process. Do you see you a change in the way countries are approaching climate change since that meeting in Cancun?
Absolutely. We are in a completely different environment. When we had the conference in Cancun it followed the conference in Copenhagen where, unfortunately, we were not able to achieve a consensus document and that situation, of course, discouraged many of the participants in the process of negotiations. So it was a very critical moment then we needed to restore trust in the Parties and we needed to restore trust in the process and we managed to do it. Today, there is not only trust – there is an enormous enthusiasm about participating in this agenda and about being apart about this transformation process. So I am very happy to be heading the UNFCCC right now at this very fortunate juncture.
The Paris Agreement has now been signed by 175 countries, which is a great achievement, what needs to happen next and what is the main goal of the September Conference?
Now is the time for ratification and for implementation it is the time to act together, it is the time to avoid any disastrous consequences of climate change.
Finally, on a more personal note: what made you accept this job?
I could see as a civil servant, particularly in my role as foreign minister of my country, that I had the opportunity to travel a lot and to be close to the reality and to the challenges that many countries are facing, especially, in this case, the region of Latin America and the Caribbean. I was responsible, for instance, for coordinating the help that we offered to countries in the region when there was flooding, when there was drought and people were starving. So I could see very clearly how much suffering this causes, really, a lot of suffering that should not happen. And, of course, I have been working all my life, more than 35 years, as a civil servant and trying to make a contribution to better conditions of living for our people in Mexico but not only for the people of Mexico, as part of my career has been in multilateral affairs. So in many senses the responsibility, the possibility of becoming the UNFCCC Executive Secretary brings together a lot of these issues for which I’ve worked for all my life.
More than 82,000 residents near Los Angeles were ordered to evacuate overnight after wildfires swept through the area on Tuesday, just two weeks after firefighters struggled to put out the massive Sand Fire near the same area, plagued by drought and summer heat.
A cross burns in the Blue Cut Fire in the San Bernardino National Forest above Devore on Tuesday, Aug. 16, 2016.
San Bernardino County firefighters described the fire as spreading at breakneck speed, growing to 14 square miles in just a few hours, with flames as high as 80 feet. It affected mostly communities in the San Bernardino Mountains, but also spread east and west above the Cajon Pass.
The fire also forced authorities to shut down Interstate 15, which connects Los Angeles to Las Vegas, leaving people stranded for hours. Some buildings were destroyed, but it was not clear how many.
“This fire is burning in significantly different terrains at multiple elevation levels,” San Bernardino County Fire spokesman Eric Sherwin said. Gov.
Jerry Brown has declared a state of emergency, giving firefighters extra funds and resources to get the fire under control and conduct recovery efforts.
And despite intense efforts to put out the Blue Cut Fire – named because it started near a trail called Blue Cut – it remains 0 percent contained, Cal Fire officials said.
Nearly 35,000 homes were evacuated and two firefighters treated for smoke inhalation.
Officials said least a dozen buildings have been burned, including homes and an historic diner called the Summit Inn.
Eric Sherwin of the San Bernardino County Fire Department told The AP the blaze began in the Cajon Pass and continues to race in several directions. It has topped ridges in the San Bernardino Mountains and is closing in on high desert communities on the other side.
The death toll from Louisiana’s flooding has risen to 11, as thousands of volunteers are rushing to assist the state stricken by what American Red Cross officials called the U.S.’s worst national disaster since Superstorm Sandy.
John Booth (left) sits with Angela Latiolais’s family while helping them save belongings after flooding on Tuesday in Gonzales, Louisiana. Photo credit: Brendan Smialowski / AFP / Getty Images
More than 40,000 homes have been hit by the water, and 30,000 people been rescued. Nearly 8,000 people still remain in emergency shelters, as rain continued to fall on Tuesday.
According to the National Weather Service, most of the state has seen at least 12 inches of rain since Friday, and some areas have received as much as 30 inches.
Brad Kieserman, the Red Cross’s vice president of disaster services, said on Tuesday that the relief operation had cost at least $30 million so far, but is expected to “grow as we learn more about the scope and magnitude of the devastation.”
The Red Cross dispatched an army of volunteers to flood-ravaged Louisiana on Wednesday to deal with what the relief group is calling “the worst natural disaster to strike the United States since Superstorm Sandy.”
The 1,000 recruits are from all 50 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, said Brad Kieserman, who helps run the Red Cross’ logistics and disaster services operations.
“The Red Cross is mounting a massive relief operation, which we anticipate will cost at least $30 million and that number may grow as we learn more about the scope and magnitude of the devastation,” said Kieserman.
So far at least 11 people have been killed, some 40,000 homes damaged, and 30,000 people rescued in what officials have described as some of the worst flooding ever to hit the state.
Around 8,400 people remain in emergency shelters, days after the deluge began.
Among the dead was 58-year-old Bill Borne, whose body was found Tuesday in a wooded area near Mallard Lakes – about 16 miles east of Baton Rouge, county coroner William “Beau” Clark confirmed. The cause of death was accidental drowning.
Borne was the founder of the national home nursing company Amedisys,the company confirmed.
“Bill Borne was a star-spangled, American hero, filled with energy, commitment, passion, initiative, courage and fun,” Amedisys board chairman Donald Washburn said in a statement.
Most of Louisiana has received at least one foot of rain since Friday – with some places getting as much as 30 inches, according to the National Weather Service. Although the water has receded in some areas, it’s still rising in others as the floodwaters move downstream toward the Gulf of Mexico.
And the scale of the devastation has become increasingly more apparent in areas where the floodwaters have receded.
Grammy Award-winning musician Taylor Swift said she was donating $1 million to flood relief because of the warm welcome she was given when kicking off her world tour in the state last year.
“The fact that so many people in Louisiana have been forced out of their own homes this week is heartbreaking,” the 26-year-old performer said in a statement. “I encourage those who can to help out and send your love and prayers their way during this devastating time.”
Fellow pop star Lady Gaga also said she would donate in a tweet Wednesday, adding that “thoughts and prayers to all of our loved ones in Louisiana suffering through the flood.”
President Obama on Sunday signed a major disaster declaration and since then some 66,000 people have requested help from the Federal Emergency Management Agency, which already had people in place before the flooding started.
Twenty parishes were under a federal disaster zone and more than a dozen were subject to overnight curfews. At least 14 people have been arrested for looting over the last two days in East Baton Rouge Parish and nine more were arrested for the same crime in nearby Livingston Parish, according to the Baton Rouge Advocate.
There was “total devastation” in some sections of East Baton Rouge Parish and “significant” power outages, Sheriff Sid Gautreaux reported Tuesday.
In Livingston Parish, more than three quarters of all homes have already been “lost to floods,” Lori Steele, a spokeswoman for the parish, told NBC News.
“We’re devastated in Livingston,” Livingston Sheriff Jason Dore said at a news conference.
Floodwaters were slopping over the top of the the Laurel Ridge levee, which protects the parish in the Baton Rouge metropolitan area from the Amite River, according to the Ascension Parish Homeland Security Office.
A third of Ascension’s 45,000 homes have been flooded – and waters there are expected to rise.
“The next 24 to 48 hours is going to be a significant indication of just how much risk the parish remains in,” said Rick Webre, director of the Homeland Security Office.
Forecasters said the worst of the rain is likely over, but the southern part of the state is still expected to see some two inches more of rain through Friday, the NWS said.
Louisiana residents are struggling with how to cope amid the uncertainty.
Ascension Parish resident Nick Babbin had just bought his home in February, and was forced out by the floodwaters Saturday. He returned Tuesday to find it completely destroyed.
“I try to hold back as many tears as I can,” Babbin told NBC affiliate WDSU.
Flood victim Samuel Ancar was evacuated Saturday from his Baton Rouge home with his three-year-old daughter and mother in tow, he told NBC affiliate WVLA. He said he survived Hurricane Katrina in 2005, when it seemed like “the world was coming to an end.”
This time around, he has lost all of his belongings – again, he said. But he is thankful his family is safe and remains hopeful that they can rebound.
“Just leave it in God’s hands and it will all work out,” Ancar said.
Three Nigerian ministries had top level representation at the Biotechnology and Biosafety Experts Meeting at Sheraton Hotel, Abuja on 15 August 2016. The Minister and Minister of State for Environment were present. So were the Ministers of Agriculture and Rural Development, as well as Science and Technology. Interestingly, rather than the Minister of Science making remarks at the opening session of this meeting, he ceded the space to the Director-General (DG) of the Nigerian Biotechnology Development Agency (NABDA).
A panel discussion session during the meeting
In his remarks, Chief Audu Ogbeh, the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development, asked, “Who will educate the politicians?” That quote, he informed the gathering, was from a one-time president of the USA, Richard Nixon. He then went on to say that genetic engineering is about science but that it had a cloud of fear, doubts, sentiments and political agitation hanging over it. He pointedly stated that at the end of the day “science will prevail.” Probably because his comments were brief, he did not expatiate on what he meant by that statement. He, however, said that the truth lay somewhere between the fears and the facts.
When the Minister of Environment, Amina Mohammed, took the floor she emphasised that the meeting was a starting point from where further conversations would be held and the larger public would have the opportunity to weigh in. She stressed the need to invest in knowledge and to strengthen the nation’s biosafety policy. She also touched on the communication gap between the scientists and the public. According to her, the wide store of indigenous knowledge must not be ignored in the building of broader understanding of the issues at stake. She generally called for healthy debates on the issues.
The outcome of the meeting has been presented to the public as being a plan by the Federal Government to sensitise Nigerians on the benefit of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). To some of us that were at that meeting we would not endorse such a summation. Why do we say so?
The meeting, although jointly called by the three ministries mentioned above, was driven by Open Forum for Agricultural Biotechnology in Africa (OFAB), a biotech industry (non-governmental?) organisation headed by an assistant director in NABDA and deeply embedded in NABDA. Indeed, before the meeting started, a continuous stream of video clips was used to serenade participants with the success stories of GMOs and the wonderful process that gave birth to Nigeria’s National Biosafety Management Act 2015 and the National Biosafety management Agency (NBMA). When the Minister of Science gave way to the DG of NABDA, she took the stage to sell GMOs to the crowd of mostly converts to the technology. Those of us with strong doubts and who reject modern biotechnology as the panacea for Nigeria food issues were a token sprinkle you could count on the fingers of one hand.
The DG stated that GMOs started from the time of Adam and Eve in the Biblical Garden of Eden. Imagine modern biotechnology as old as Adam and Eve. She further on cited the roundly discredited letter signed by 109 Nobel Prize laureates that claimed that Greenpeace was hampering the adoption of the so-called Golden or GMO rice engineered for enhanced levels of vitamin A. The truth is that the rice in question is yet a failed project and is not hampered by anyone other than its failure to deliver on its promoters’ promises. The Institute of Science in Society and the Third World Network had this to say of the Golden Rice: The “golden rice” – a GM rice engineered to produce pro-Vitamin A – is being offered to the Third World as cure for widespread vitamin A deficiency. (Our) audit uncovers fundamental deficiencies in all aspects, from the scientific/social rationale well as financially bankrupt agricultural biotech industry. The scientific/social rationalisation for the project exposes a reductionist self-serving scientific paradigm that fails to see the world beyond its own narrow confines. The “golden rice” is a useless application. Some 70 patents have already been filed on the GM genes and constructs used in making the ‘golden rice’. It is a drain on public resources and a major obstruction to the implementation of sustainable agriculture that can provide the real solutions to world hunger and malnutrition.
The DG also stated that potatoes are naturally GMOs. No comment on that!
There were three panels, all of which had a paper presenter followed by panel discussions. The first panel was on the Socio-Economic Effects of GMOs and the lead presenter was Prof Ishyaku Mohammed, a key player in the development of GMO beans in Nigeria. The second panel was on Strengthening Biosafety Institutional Framework with Jeremy T. Ouedraogo – Head of NEPAD West African Biosafety Network Regional Office of the African Biosafety Network of Expertise. The third panel looked at Strategies for Effective Education and Communication. The lead presenter here was Prof. Diran Makinde, Senior Adviser, African Biosafety Network of Expertise (ABNE).
The good thing about this meeting was that there were some voices on the panels speaking up on the known socio-economic, health and environmental dangers of GMOs and citing examples of countries that have banned agricultural/food applications of the technology. The biotech promoters used the platform to characterise food sovereignty campaigners as acting out scripts of supposed funders in exchange for a life of luxury in air-conditioned officers, cars and what not. The response to that was that this was cheap blackmail that would not deter opposition to risky technologies.
In the panel on strengthening biosafety institutional framework, the lead speaker mentioned two errors that National Biosafety laws could fall into were either being too permissive or being too restrictive. A close look at the National Biosafety Management Act 2015 shows that it is highly permissive and was couched for easy entrance of GMOs and related products in Nigeria. We gave examples. First is the fact that the Governing Board of NBMA is populated by biotech promoters, besides the statutory membership of federal ministries. The only slot for NGOs is conditioned on the representative being from a conservation NGO. Membership of the Board includes NABDA, an agency set up to promote GMOs in Nigeria. This agency teamed up with Monsanto Agriculture Nigeria Limited to apply and receive permission to conduct confined field trials of two GMO maize events in Nigeria. This shows a clear case of conflict of interest and we duly called for the removal of NABDA from the board of the Biosafety Agency. If NABDA partners with Monsanto we need to be convinced that they are depending solely on funds from the Ministry of Science for the discharge of their duties and that they are working under undue external influences.
Neither farmers nor consumers are represented on the NBMA board. Indeed, the Biosafety Board as presently constituted by the Act can be seen as an old boys’ club. If, as was agreed at this meeting that, the Biosafety Act is basically not to stop GMO, we need to know if it is NBMA’s duty to promote GMOs.
We also stressed that there should be a board that would consider recommendations of the Biosafety Agency before permits for GMOs are granted or rejected. At present decisions by the leadership of the Biosafety Agency with regard to applications are not subject to any form of oversight in the Act. This must be redressed. Recommendations should be subjected to consideration by either the Agency’s Board or preferably by an inter-ministerial committee. It is too risky and utterly dangerous to place the food safety and future of Nigeria into the hands of one person. The GMO approvals given to Monsanto and their partner, NABDA, were approved within a few months of the filing of the applications – a record of Olympian proportions.
The present Act allows for the display and receipt of comments on GMO applications to be made within only 21 days. In the case of the approval for Monsanto’s GMO cotton, the application was displayed only at Zaria and Abuja. There was no public hearing or consultation before the approval was given. The Agency was acting as empowered by the clearly deficient Act. This must be rectified to ensure that sufficient time is given for submission of objections/comments and that there are public hearings before decisions are made. Such applications must also be displayed at accessible locations across the nation and where possible in language that the public can understand.
Health of Mother Earth Foundation’s review and comments of the Nigerian Biosafety Act identifies many loopholes that raise red flags about the Act and thus demand action.
That is the Act that one of the lead presenters declared is so robust it requires no review!
Knowing the trend in development of GMOs – veering towards extreme biotechnology such as gene-editing and what is termed gene drives, scientists are working to overturn nature, avoid the sharing of traits that happens in natural reproduction, and instead pass on a predetermined trait in every reproductive event, to the extent that wiping out species through having offsprings that are of same sex becomes a possibility. The danger in this trajectory is that for some organisms a release of just one engineered individual could wipe out all relatives in the environment over a short period of time. Experiments are ongoing on utilising this technology to fight rats on an island.
If the public requires sensitisation, what is needed is to inform the public about the Biosafety Act, so that Nigerians can judge for themselves whether GMOs are the solution to food shortages in Nigeria. It is also essential so that the public would know their rights or lack of rights in the biosafety administration in Nigeria.
Some of us do not accept that nutrition and food security must be manufactured in science laboratories. And we should never forget that Nature is the ultimate scientist. The wise person works with Nature because fights against Nature are not only often futile but could become fatal.
It cannot be the duty of government to sensitise Nigerians about the desirability of GMOs. Government has a duty to assure Nigerians that we have a sound and truly robust Biosafety Act that they can depend on for environmental and food safety. The biotech promoters should campaign for funding from government to carry out their experiments in their laboratories and continue to build knowledge and expertise. We are fed by smallholder farmers and experts assure that it will remain so into the future. GMOs are not silver bullets that solve all problems. Our farmers need extension services, rural infrastructure and access to markets.
We must learn from the failure of GMO cotton in India, Pakistan, Burkina Faso and elsewhere. Having experts make excuse for a failing and risky technology cannot be said to be the best way to do science.
If anyone needs sensitisation in Nigeria about GMOs, it is the biotech promoters. They need to be sensitised that Nigerians don’t want GMOs and certainly do not want to be ambushed into eating what they do not want to eat. We have a right to choose what we eat. No one should have anything forced down his or her throat. There are other areas that modern biotechnology can focus on without having to tamper with our food systems in a process that would also introduce toxic chemicals that accompany their herbicide tolerant monocultures.
By Nnimmo Bassey (Director, Health of Mother Earth Foundation – HOMEF)
Lake Chad basin that happens to be an endorheic lake ( a closed drainage basin that retains water and allows no outflow to other external bodies of water) is bordered by four different countries including Chad, Cameroon, Niger and Nigeria on the edge of the Sahara Desert. The name Chad is a local parlance meaning ‘a lake’ or ‘large expanse of water’. The primary inflow of this lake is from Chari River and empties its water into the Soro and Bandele depression.
Lake Chad viewed from Apollo 7
The Kanuri people are one of the earliest settlers around this lake in far northern Nigeria with fishing and farming as their major occupation. According to historians, Lake Chad Basin was the remnant of former inland sea, named paleolake Mega-Chad.
It was, however, considered by the Europeans in 1823 as one of the largest lakes in the world. But, ironically, this lake has continued to shrink over the years due to shifting climate patterns, according to the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the Lake Chad Basin Commission. More so, an alarming increase in population and unsustainable human water usage are some of the factors responsible for this disappearance over time.
Coe and Foley in their article titled “Human and natural impacts on the water resources of the Chad Basin” stated that “according to the Global Resource Information Database of the United Nations Environment Programme, Lake Chad shrank as much as 95% (25, 000km2 to less than 1,500km2) from about 1963 to 1998”. It is no gain saying that this unprecedented change was caused largely by overgrazing, which resulted in desertification, and decline in vegetation affect millions of dwellers, all of whom depend on the lake as their main source of livelihood. They rely on the lake for drinking, irrigation and feeding. This unabated shrinking led to the extinction of hundreds of species of animals that rally this region and also attests to the reality of climate change.
We should know and hold this singular fact in mind that when people’s source of livelihood is being threatened, crime and other social vices will become cheap and rampant. This gives credence to the battle of ownership experienced in the Chad Basin region. The Fulani herdsmen need it to feed their wandering cattles, the local farmers are not left out in their own quest for irrigation and the fishermen want it to stay in shape for hunting prey.
This amongst many other things resulted into violence as to right of ownership. As if that is not enough, poverty, hunger and hatred will continue to spread like pandemic in this volatile region if government fails to restore hope. Boko Haram festered in this region for years because most of the inhabitants have lost their livelihood and want a means of survival by hook or by crook.
Mahatma Gandhi could not have said it better when he opined that “poverty is the worst form of violence”. Therefore, in order to forestall future occurrences of terror in this volatile region, the government must swiftly take action by funding numerous programmes. There should be a project centered on Lake Chad’s reversal, underlining a germane aspect of the climate change. The indigenes should be sensitised in their local parlance through their leaders in gatherings, seminars and symposiums on climate actions in order to achieve the Sustainable Development Goal 13 (Climate Action). Skill acquisition and empowerment programmes should be flagged-off through vocational centres so as to reduce poverty and avert violence of all forms in the future.
By Alabede Surajdeen (environmentalist and SDGs advocate; alabedekayode@gmail.com; @BabsSuraj)
Building on the fresh momentum resulting from the Paris Climate Change Agreement, 2016 is a crucial year to translate global commitments on climate change and development finance into concrete actions and plans. In light of this, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change’s (UNFCCC) secretariat has organised a NAMA Market Place session to be held during this year’s Asia Pacific Carbon Forum from 5-7 September in the Republic of Korea to facilitate implementation of nationally appropriate mitigation actions (NAMAs) from countries in the Asia Pacific region.
Climate change mitigation: the Mongolian eco-bus service. At the Asia Pacific Carbon Forum, the country will shed some light on its GHG mitigation policy, which focuses on the use of energy efficient appliances and on reducing heat loss in buildings
Since 2010, developing countries including Nigeria have made efforts in preparing their NAMAs, which have the dual objective of contributing toward national sustainable development goals and to global efforts to address climate change. They are also a major vehicle in implementing developing countries’ nationally determined contributions (NDCs) under the Paris Agreement.
The NAMA Market Place session will provide experts from four countries – Mongolia, Pakistan, the Philippines and Vietnam – with a platform to present their NAMAs to a panel of public donors and private investors. Confirmed public donors include the NAMA Facility, which last month announced its 4th Call for project proposals, and the Green Climate Fund, which recently approved its first funding proposals for 2016 totalling $256.6 million. The private investors serving as panellists are still to be confirmed.
A short description of the four NAMAs that will be showcased at the event are hereby highlighted.
Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions in the Construction Sector in Mongolia
The energy sector in Mongolia is by far the largest contributor to the country’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Increased demand for housing as a result of economic growth and a surging rural to urban migration has caused a corresponding spike in energy requirements, projected to rise at an average rate of over 10% from 2015 to 2035.
Mongolia’s GHG mitigation policy focuses on the use of energy efficient appliances and on reducing heat loss in buildings, aiming at a 20% reduction in heat loss by 2020 and 40% by 2030 compared to 2014 levels, targets that have been well reflected in Mongolia’s Intended Nationally Determined Contribution (INDC). A pronounced challenge in translating these pledges into action has been the lack of financing. This NAMA can help the government catalyse finance and support to achieve transformational GHG reductions in the construction sector, while achieving sustainable development targets. Total resources required over the three-year period 2017-2020 amount to $8,169,863.
Pakistan: Renewable Energy Distributed Generation NAMA
As in Mongolia, Pakistan’s energy sector is the largest contributor to GHG emissions in the country, despite a shortfall in electricity generation. As highlighted in Pakistan’s Vision 2030, ensuring availability of affordable energy is the bedrock of the country’s future development. To address both issues, Pakistan’s Renewable Energy Distributed Generation NAMA promotes the development of renewable energy projects in the near and long term by addressing a number of existing technical and financial barriers.
The NAMA seeks to establish a Financial Mechanism to enable Pakistani commercial banks to enter the DG RE market, while a Risk Sharing Facility (RSF) will offer a guarantee for losses incurred for non-performing loans under the programme. It also seeks to establish RE technology certification and a vendor accreditation programme to reduce the perceived risks by financial institutions and end-users.
Philippines: Enabling Distributed Solar
Despite the policy push in the Philippines to enable renewable energy, consumers are not taking advantage of these opportunities, mostly due to a lack of available financing options at competitive interest rates. This NAMA targets an increase in residential, commercial and industrial rooftop solar installations in on-grid utility service through specific financial and technical measures.
The financial component will establish a Credit Guarantee Fund, engage local financial institutions to expand the financing options available for distributed solar projects, and initiate a pipeline of “finance ready” projects. The technical component will reduce technology risks currently perceived by both consumers and banks. The total international support required is Euro 20 million. The NAMA support project is expected to directly leverage Euro 89 million in private sector funds and catalyse the distributed solar market estimated at Euro 400-800 million annually.
NAMA for the solid waste sector in Vietnam
Sustained economic growth in Vietnam coupled with increased consumption are pushing up solid waste generation rates. As of 2010, approximately 26,000 tons of solid waste was generated daily in Vietnam, with most of it being disposed in open dump sites and unsanitary landfills without prior treatment, highlighting the need to shift to more sustainable practices.
This NAMA aims to reduce the solid waste generated and to implement waste segregation. It foresees biological treatment of organic waste through composting and anaerobic digestion, and the recovery, reuse and recycling of inorganic waste.
The cost of implementing the measures proposed by the NAMA is estimated at an average minimum investment of $110 million per year until 2020 in solid waste treatment facilities. It is proposed that 80% of these investment requirements be met by domestic sources of financing, both public and private, with the remainder coming from international sources.
