Plastic pollution seems to be everywhere, from Atlantic beaches to Arctic sea ice to huge swirling vortexes of trash in the Pacific Ocean. Plastics can be found in every shape and size, from microscopic particles to whole refrigerators full of plastic parts. But plastic itself isn’t the enemy, experts insist, saying rather that it’s the way people handle it that needs to change.
Marine litter in Abidjan, Ivory Coast
According to scientists, ocean plastic has harmed hundreds of species in a variety of ways through:
entanglement old fishing nets, six-pack rings
choking bottle caps, straws, plastic bags
blocking digestive tracts
Habitat degradation, as microscopic particles on the sea floor interfere with how ecosystems function.
It is estimated that some 8.8 million tons of plastic enters the ocean every year, which is likened to a garbage truck dumping a full load of trash into the ocean every minute.
The Big 5
China, Indonesia, Philippines, Thailand and Vietnam are said to be the five major contributors to the scourge, with more than 50% of the plastic waste entering the oceans currently coming from these rapidly developing countries.
Stemming The Tide
Just 20 countries are producing the vast majority of the plastic leaking into oceans. It is believed that if those countries could halve the amount of mismanaged waste they generate through infrastructure improvements (such as increasing trash collection rates), the flow of plastic into the ocean would plummet by almost 40%.
Growing Pains
The biggest reason so much plastic winds up in oceans isn’t casual littering. It’s the mismanagement of trash – especially in developing countries, where markets are rapidly growing but waste management systems are inadequate or improperly managed.
Pollution Solutions
In 2012, the Ocean Conservancy founded the Trash Free Seas Alliance, a coalition of business, science, and conservation leaders (including WWF) dedicated to finding solutions to ocean pollution. The Alliance recently helped develop a suite of management strategies to stem the tide of plastics entering the oceans.
WaterAid Nigeria has launched its 2016-2021 country programme strategy, thereby laying the foundation for the 15-year path to achieving universal access to water, sanitation and hygiene for Nigerians by 2030.
Barbara Frost, Chief Executive, WaterAid. Photo credit: wateraid.org
Over the next five years, the organisation will focus on increasing citizens’ access to quality, equitable and sustainable water, sanitation and hygiene services built on a strong sector and engaged communities.
Globally, the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) target for drinking water was met five years ahead of the 2015 schedule. However, billions of people – estimated at least one in three – still live without a decent toilet, according to scientists. Despite documented progress of people having improved access to water in Nigeria, the country reportedly failed to meet the MDG targets for both water and sanitation. Consequently, according to WaterAid, nearly 45,000 children under the age of five in Nigeria still die from diarrhoeal diseases caused by the nation’s poor levels of access to water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH).
Although the 2015 WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme (JMP) shows an increase in water coverage for Nigeria from 40% in 1990 to 69% in 2015, the percentage of the population without access to sanitation is said to be falling – from 38% in 1990 to just 29% in 2015.
“This wholly unacceptable situation causes untold suffering, affecting human and sustainable development, particularly in the lives of women – who carry the burden of fetching water and caring for sick children; and for girls – who may be forced to miss school because of the absence of toilets there, thus limiting their exposure to education and consequently, opportunities to make choices that could help them overcome lives of poverty,” WaterAid Nigeria disclosed in a statement.
It adds: “The 2015 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) give hope for tackling the WASH crisis in Nigeria as the country is signed up to achieving these Global Goals. WaterAid Nigeria launches its new strategy with a commitment to seizing this historic opportunity to tackle the underlying causes of poverty and inequality and to accelerate transformational change through a shared vision of universal access to safe water, sanitation and hygiene.”
Speaking on the new strategy, WaterAid Nigeria Country Director, Dr. Michael Ojo, was quoted in the statement as saying: “Our new strategy is an ambitious and challenging one but we look forward to an exciting journey that will impact positively on child health, education, livelihoods, the environment and addressing poverty and inequalities. Our strategic objectives target strengthening systems to reduce WASH sector blockages; empowering citizens to demand their rights and participate in WASH decision-making and strengthening partnerships to influence the WASH sector and increase access to sustainable WASH services. We will continue to work with the government, colleagues in the development sector and through our partners, to ensure universal access to water, sanitation and hygiene for all in Nigeria by 2030.”
WaterAid International’s Chief Executive, Barbara Frost, who is on a working visit to the country, added: “WaterAid Nigeria’s 2016-2021 Strategy is a monumental and impressive roadmap to changing the course of history and reaching those who are poorest and most vulnerable in Nigeria with safe water, sanitation and hygiene. These life-saving and essential services are fundamental to both human and national development and delivering on them will transform the lives of millions of Nigerians. Achieving universal access for all in Nigeria is possible with the right political commitment, funding, collaborations and innovative thinking.”
Mariame Dem, Head of Region, WaterAid West Africa said: “WaterAid Nigeria has a crucial role to play in achieving universal access to safe water, sanitation and hygiene for all Nigerians by 2030. Getting it right in Nigeria will make a huge impact on improving WASH access rates not just for the region but for Africa as a whole. Nigeria must live up to its status as the giant of Africa and leverage on the enormous potential and opportunities within the country to make some real progress for all Nigerians in this area.”
Belgium and Bulgaria have become the latest countries to ratify the Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilisation to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), bringing the total number of ratifications to 80.
Braulio Ferreira de Souza Dias, the Executive Secretary of the Convention on Biological Diversity
The 2010 Nagoya Protocol is a supplementary agreement to the CBD and a key element in the global framework for sustainable development. The Protocol builds on the access and benefit-sharing provisions of the CBD by establishing predictable conditions for access to genetic resources and by helping to ensure the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from the utilisation of these resources. It entered into force on 12 October 2014.
“I congratulate the governments of Belgium and Bulgaria on their recent ratification of the Nagoya Protocol, thereby demonstrating a strong pledge to the principle of fair and equitable benefit-sharing,” said Braulio Ferreira de Souza Dias, CBD Executive Secretary. “I encourage other countries to deposit their instruments of ratification or accession as soon as possible for us to reach our goal of 100 ratifications before the important meetings of the Convention and its Protocols to be held in Mexico later this year.”
Both countries ratified the Protocol a week ago – Belgium on 9 August 2016, Bulgaria on 11 August 2016.
As Parties to the Protocol, Belgium and Bulgaria will be able to contribute to key decision-making at the Second meeting of the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit-sharing, being held in Cancun, Mexico, from 4 to 17 December 2016.
Genetic resources are used in research and development for many different purposes in the European Union (EU). When benefits are derived from the utilisation of genetic resources, the Nagoya Protocol provides that these should be shared fairly and equitably with the providing country.
In addition to the EU, 10 European countries have now ratified the Nagoya Protocol: Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Slovakia, Spain and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
The CBD, an international treaty for the conservation of biodiversity, the sustainable use of the components of biodiversity and the equitable sharing of the benefits derived from the use of genetic resources, opened for signature at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, and entered into force in December 1993.
The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety and the Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit Sharing are supplementary agreements to the Convention. The Cartagena Protocol, which entered into force on 11 September 2003, seeks to protect biological diversity from the potential risks posed by living modified organisms resulting from modern biotechnology. To date, 170 Parties have ratified the Cartagena Protocol.
The Nagoya Protocol aims at sharing the benefits arising from the utilisation of genetic resources in a fair and equitable way, including by appropriate access to genetic resources and by appropriate transfer of relevant technologies. It entered into force on 12 October 2014 and to date has been ratified by 80 Parties.
The cats’ return to Caucasus is expected to lay a foundation for new Persian leopard population in Russia. The Persian leopard population declined drastically throughout the 20th century due to poaching and habitat loss.
A leopard is fitted with a tracking collar
Three Persian leopards were on Saturday July 13,2016 released into Russia’s Caucasus (Kavkazsky) State Nature Biosphere Reserve. The event has been described as a remarkable step in restoring leopard populations to the Caucasus.
Until the middle of the 20th century, Persian leopards were common in the Caucasus. But, by 1950, their population had dramatically decreased, and was entirely extinct in some areas reportedly due to human activities.
In 2005, experts from WWF-Russia and the Russian Academy of Science developed a long-term programme to reintroduce Persian leopards in the Caucasus. Russian President Vladimir Putin has supported the programme since 2009
The work was an ambitious undertaking, according to the promoters. First, the territory was prepared for the rare cats. Ungulate populations were increased in order to provide prey and protection measures strengthened.
Adult leopards from zoos cannot be released into the wild: they are unable to catch prey and are not afraid of humans, it was gathered. In 2009, with support from the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), a special centre was built near Sochi to breed and prepare leopards for a life in the wild.
Initially, the Centre hosted two males from Turkmenistan and two females from Iran. Later, a leopard pair brought from the Lisbon Zoo had their first litter in the Centre in 2013. By 2016, a total of 14 kittens were born in the centre.
The leopards released have reached sexual maturity and received special training to survive independently in the wild. They also have satellite collars that will allow programme staffers to track the cats after their release.
The programme aims to create a self-sustaining Persian leopard population in the wild, which means a population of at least 50 leopards in the Northern Caucasus. Though there is still much work to do, the first release offers tremendous hope for these endangered cats, officials disclosed.
The Programme for Reintroduction (Restoration) of the Leopard in the Caucasus was initiated in 2005 by WWF-Russia. In 2007, it was approved by the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment of the Russian Federation and, since 2009, it has been supported personally by Vladimir Putin.
The Programme is implemented by the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment of the Russian Federation with the participation of the Sochi National Park, Caucasus (Kavkazsky) State Nature Biosphere Reserve, A.N. Severtsov Institute of Ecology and Evolution, Moscow Zoo and WWF-Russia, and with the support from the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and European Association of Zoos and Aquaria (EAZA).
Rohit Singh supports ranger and law enforcement work across countries that have wild tigers as part of the World Wildlife Fund’s (WWF) Tigers Alive Initiative. He also serves as president of the Ranger Federation of Asia, an organisation that supports those on the frontlines of conservation in Asia and connects them to the world ranger community at large. He recently spoke with the WWFE-News
Rohit Singh, president of the Ranger Federation of Asia
Can you tell us more about Tx2 – the global goal to double the wild tiger numbers by 2022? What is WWF’s role?
In 2009, we started WWF’s global tiger programme. This is to support the countries with wild tigers in doubling the world’s wild tiger numbers by 2022. All the governments came together in St. Petersburg in 2010 and committed to doubling global tiger numbers. Our job is to help them to achieve this very ambitious goal.
With regard to law enforcement and policy change, how are we going to double the global number of wild tigers by 2022?
At the moment, the biggest threat for tiger conservation is poaching. We are losing tigers every day. If we want to double tiger numbers, we need to protect tigers, and we need to improve our protection system. Protection can only be improved if we have good policies in place, and good on-ground support for rangers in place.
How can we help countries prevent all poaching of tigers and other iconic animals?
When we started talking about zero poaching, people said, “No, it’s impossible. You cannot have zero-poaching in your protected area.” But Nepal has proved it – that you can have zero-poaching.
We had a symposium two years back in Nepal where we discussed zero poaching. All the partners from all over Asia came together – NGOs, governments – and discussed how zero poaching can be modeled and replicated in other countries. In that symposium, we brought all the best practices together in the form of a zero-poaching toolkit.
The Zero Poaching Toolkit brings all those best practices under six pillars, so you put equal emphasis on each pillar if you want to minimise poaching.
What are the six pillars?
The first pillar is assessments. What’s the status of your protected area? The second is the technology. Nowadays, you need the best technology to protect animals.
Third is communities. If the people living around your protected area are not supporting you, then you cannot achieve zero poaching. Then you need to have the right capacity. There’s not one agency that can achieve zero poaching because it’s a multidimensional crime, wildlife crime. So you need to involve all relevant agencies like the police, military.
The fifth pillar is prosecution. If your rangers are arresting poachers, but poachers are released after two days, then it’s not going to help. And finally, co-operation. This is key to success – coordinated work across areas, departments and borders.
Nepal achieved zero poaching. Are any other countries or landscapes working toward that goal?
Nepal is, of course, the benchmark. In some countries, we are picking sites to start zero poaching. In some countries, we are picking landscapes. In some countries, we’re picking the entire country. It depends on the situation. We have already started with Bhutan. We’re going to have the first national zero-poaching meeting in Bhutan in September where we’re going to discuss the gaps under each of these pillars to achieve zero poaching. Then we are moving forward in India, and also in Indonesia.
You helped conduct a survey on rangers. What does it cover and why is the information important?
We hear stories all the time from rangers that they do not have resources. So how do we quantify this information? We started a survey a year ago in Asia with countries that have wild tigers. We got some really good data about their lack of training and equipment. I would say the data is not surprising. We know all these things, but this is the first time we can quantify, we can validate the information which we have been hearing from rangers.
The survey talks about rangers’ capacity. It talks about equipment. It talks about their motivation factors, and, most importantly, about their life-threatening situations. We have recently done the survey in Africa, and are going to repeat it in Latin America also.
The purpose of this survey is to give a snapshot of what is happening with rangers. Our ultimate goal is to do a much more in-depth survey, and ultimately use it to bring policy changes. National governments have to take the initiative. We need to provide them with good, concrete, scientific data, and advocate for the policy changes that can improve ranger conditions.
Why is improving working conditions for rangers vital to the future of wildlife?
Our future depends on the future of wildlife and forests. The future of wildlife and forests depends on rangers. And if we do not adequately support rangers, we’re going to lose biodiversity, our wildlife, and forests.
The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe and the International Indian Treaty Council (IITC) last week jointly submitted an urgent action communication to four United Nations (UN) human rights Special Rapporteurs. It cited grave human rights and Treaty violations resulting from the construction of the Dakota Access crude oil pipeline in close proximity to the Standing Rock Reservation by the United States Army Corps of Engineers and Dakota Access LLC, a subsidiary of Texas-based Energy Transfer.
Dakota Access pipeline protest in North Dakota. Photo Credit: “No Dakota Access in Treaty Territory – Camp of the Sacred Stones”
The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe (SRST) stands in firm opposition to the Dakota Access Pipeline. The pipeline would carry nearly half a billion barrels of crude oil a day, and would cross the Missouri River threatening the Tribe’s main water source and sacred places along its path including burials sites. The communication was submitted to UN Special Rapporteurs on the situation of human rights defenders; the Rights of Indigenous Peoples; the human right to safe drinking water and sanitation; and Environment and Human Rights, as well as the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. It requests that they urge the United States to halt the human rights violations and uphold its human rights and Treaty obligations to the Standing Rock Tribe. It was also forwarded to key officials in the U.S. State Department, Department of Interior and the White House.
The urgent communication focuses on violations of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the 1868 Ft. Laramie Treaty and other International human rights standards to which the United States is obligated. It also cites actions against human rights defenders, including arrests and other forms of intimidation, violations of the human right to water, and lack of redress and response using domestic remedies. The submission noted that this action violates Article 32 of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which affirms the obligation of States to obtain Indigenous Peoples’ free prior and informed consent before development projects affecting their lands, territories or other resources are carried out. The Lakota and Dakota, which includes the SRST, were part of the Sovereign Sioux Nation, which concluded the 1868 Ft. Laramie Treaty with the United States. The United States has legally-binding obligations based on this Treaty to obtain the Lakota and Dakota’s consent before activities are carried out on their Treaty lands.
The urgent communication also highlights environmental racism in violation of the International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination Convention (ICERD) to which the US is legally obligated. It notes that the United States has permitted Energy Transfer to divert the pipeline’s route from near the mainly non-Indigenous population of Bismarck, ND to disproportionately impact the SRST.
A primary concern expressed by the Tribe is potential devastating effects on its primary water source. SRST Chairman Dave Archambault II, who was among those arrested and is also being sued by the company for obstructing the pipeline’s construction, stated on August 15th “I am here to advise anyone that will listen, that the Dakota Access Pipeline is harmful. It will not be just harmful to my people but its intent and construction will harm the water in the Missouri River, which is the only clean and safe river tributary left in the United States.”
In response to the Tribe’s opposition, Dakota Access LLC, the developers of the $3.8 billion, four-state oil pipeline, has waged a concerted campaign to criminalise and intimidate Tribal leaders, Tribal members and their supporters who have consistently been peaceful and non-violent. The IITC and SRST are calling upon the UN Rapporteur on Human Rights Defenders to call upon the United States to immediately cease all arrests and other forms of intimidation, drop any pending lawsuits, and ensure that all legal charges against these human and Treaty Rights defenders be lifted. The urgent action communication cited this case as an example of the criminalisation of Indigenous human rights defenders around the world, as noted by various UN bodies.
Despite 28 arrests reported to date, the peaceful protesters have succeeded in temporarily halting the pipeline’s construction. A hearing is currently scheduled for next week in federal court to consider the Tribe’s request for an injunction. Construction has reportedly been halted until the hearing, providing an important initial victory for the Tribe and their supporters.
The joint urgent UN communication requests the intervention of these UN human rights mandate holders to call upon the United States to uphold its statutory, legal, Treaty and human rights obligations and impose an immediate and ongoing moratorium on all pipeline construction until the Treaty and human rights of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, including their right to free prior and informed consent, can be ensured.
An appraisal of the Civil Society Organisations (CSO) Network under the Global Environment Facility (GEF) has thrown up a wide range of recommendations aimed at ensuring that the campaigners engage better with the financial organisation.
Naoko Ishii, CEO and Chairperson of the GEF
The Independent Evaluation Office (IEO) of GEF, in an assessment aimed at unravelling how the GEF CSO Network has fulfilled its role, recommends that a contemporary vision for the Network should be created within the new GEF architecture.
The vision, it adds, should, besides clarifying the Network’s role and setting out a shared understanding amongst all parts of the Partnership of the Network’s contribution in guarding the global commons, likewise identify a modality to appropriately finance Network activities.
The GEF unites 183 countries in partnership with international institutions, CSOs, and the private sector to address global environmental issues while supporting national sustainable development initiatives. It is believed to be the largest public funder of projects to improve the global environment.
The IEO also wants the Secretariat of the Global Environment Facility (GEFSEC) and CSO Network to develop clear rules of engagement that guide cooperation and communications, saying that this could be adjusted as needed.
Furthermore, the evaluators demand that the CSO Network should continue to build itself as a mechanism for strengthening civil society participation in the GEF at the global, regional and national levels, even as the Network pays particular attention to: membership development, capacity building and value-added working relationships across the Partnership.
The CSO Network has also been called upon to strengthen its governance, with particular attention to: annual work plans, cooperation with IPAG, terms for the Network’s Regional Focal Points and the complaints process.
Juha Uitto, Director of the Independent Evaluation Office (IEO) of GEF
On request by the GEF Council at its 47th meeting in October 2014, the GEF IEO launched the evaluation of the GEF CSO Network, which reviewed the Network’s performance, relevance, effectiveness and results in promoting knowledge dissemination and CSO involvement in GEF policies and programmes.
The evaluation assessed network performance in the context of other forms by which the GEF engages with civil society. According to Juha Uitto, Director of the IEO, the evaluation required wide-ranging consultations across the GEF partnership as well as intensive efforts to gather evaluative evidence from a variety of data sources and stakeholders.
He adds that the evaluation conclusions are organised according to two key evaluation questions: “To what extent is the CSO Network meeting its intended goals and strategic objectives and adding value to the GEF Partnership and its membership?” as well as “How are Network features contributing to the effective and efficient functioning of the Network?”
On question one, the evaluation reached the following conclusions:
The GEF CSO Network continues to be relevant and is delivering results to the GEF Partnership.
The CSO Network’s activities are distant from the country level where GEF projects make their mark and from where the majority of Network CSOs operate. As such, the Network’s is compromised in its ability to inform Council with country perspectives and in servicing its members.
Concerning question two, the evaluation of the GEF CSO Network concluded:
The CSO Network today is operating in an expanding GEF Partnership without a shared contemporary vision of the role the Network can play within the changing architecture and the resources that it needs to be effective.
Within the context of an increasingly complex operating environment, the Network has strengthened itself organisationally over the evaluation period but governance challenges remain.
Based on the conclusions, the evaluation formulated the recommendations.
Uitto adds that, during the last few months, the IEO consulted with several stakeholders on the approach to the Sixth Comprehensive Evaluation of the GEF (OPS6) that will inform the next replenishment negotiations of the GEF.
“This evaluation and its various sub-studies will occupy the office for the several coming months,” he says, adding that the consultations identified important areas to be addressed in the evaluation including the role of the GEF in the changing landscape for environmental finance, the new focus on programmatic and integrated approaches by the GEF and the overall health of the GEF partnership.
“The findings of this evaluation will be ready by June 2017. The IEO will have a very busy year completing this evaluation, and we will continue to request inputs from many of you into this important exercise,” Uitto submits.
An independently operating financial organisation, the GEF provides grants for projects related to biodiversity, climate change, international waters, land degradation, the ozone layer, and persistent organic pollutants.
Since 1991, the GEF has reportedly achieved a strong track record with developing countries and countries with economies in transition, providing $12.5 billion in grants and leveraging $58 billion in co-financing for over 3,690 projects in over 165 countries. Through its Small Grants Programme (SGP), the GEF has also made more than 20,000 small grants directly to civil society and community-based organisations, totaling $653.2 million.
The National Space Research and Development Agency (NARSDA) on Thursday said 15 states in Nigeria may lose two million hectares to flood.
Flooding in Lagos some years ago
Felix Ale, the Head of Media and Corporate Communications of the agency, disclosed this in a statement in Abuja.
Ale said the areas were identified following a preliminary research and analysis conducted by the agency on flood prone areas.
The statement said: “Based on satellite imagery from Nigeriasat-2, Nigeriasat-X and the shuttle radar topography mission, over two million Hectares of land are at risk of flooding with potential impact on Agriculture and settlements’ displacement.
“In the investigation, the Space Agency developed a geospatial information system depicting areas that are at risk of flooding across the nation.
“The affected states, after a critical analysis and scientific research through space applications, are Taraba, Benue, Kogi, Plateau, Nassarawa, Kebbi, Edo, Delta and Anambra.
“Others are Rivers, Bayelsa, Lagos, Sokoto, Kano and Niger.
“Against this background, NASRDA hereby appeals to the affected state governments to urgently put adequate measures in place for the relocation of communities in the flood plain areas in their respective states to high grounds.
“This is in order to mitigate the colossal loss of lives and to prevent a repeat of the 2012 experience.
“NARSDA reassures the general public of its close collaboration with relevant stakeholders for the dissemination of space-based solutions to any flood challenge in the country.”
Ale also said the agency had developed a digital terrain model to identify areas of high grounds for potential relocation of affected communities.
The agency recently made public its findings on the recent earth tremor in some parts of Rivers and Bayelsa states.
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.”
