The Ogun State Ministry of Forestry in collaboration with Tai Solarin University of Education has concluded plans to establish a zoological and botanical garden in the state.
A zoo habouring gorillas
Commissioner for Forestry, Chief Kolawole Lawal, made this known while signing the memorandum of understanding between the ministry and the university at the Council Chamber of the institution in Ijagun.
Chief Lawal said the ministry and the university decided to collaborate on the project due to its numerous socio-economic benefits that would accrue to the state, especially in boosting the state’s Internally Generated Revenue (IGR).
While commending Governor Ibikunle Amosun for approving the commencement of the project, the commissioner said the ministry would ensure its success as it would lead to the provision of employment opportunities, particularly for the youths besides serving as a recreational centre for tourists.
In his remarks, the Deputy Vice Chancellor of the Institution, Professor Abayomi Arigbabu, said that the project would increase learning among students and ease the research work at the institution.
He expressed confidence over the fact that the strategic location of the project would attract travellers from all walks of life and increase the university’s (IGR) and project the university farther, when completed.
“GMOs, finally approved to be grown in Nigeria,” a not so surprising news after all. The country has in recent times been trotting in the darkness of instability and economic uncertainty and it’s just not a big surprise that the oil rich nation would make room for such a decision as to approving the much controversial new wonder of biotechnology that many and more advanced countries in the world have outrightly banned. This rather fast approval which from reports took just a record time of two months from the time of application by Monsanto could make the country the fastest endorser of GMO in the world. This seems just like another timely error with potential future consequences.
Critics fear genetically modified foods can cause environmental harm and damage human health. Photo credit: dailymail.co.uk
The authorisation reads thus: “After a thorough analysis of the application dossier, risk management plan prepared in connection with the assessment of the application for the permit, it is unlikely that the proposed release will cause adverse impact on the environment and on human health . A permit is therefore granted to the Monsanto Agriculture Nigeria Ltd as applied for“ authoritatively signed by the Director General/Chief Executive officer of the National Biosafety Management Agency (NBMA), signed on the 1st of May 2016.
In the light of the National Biosafety Management Board granting the permit to Monsanto, it only seems normal to assume that every possible risk assessment test had been carried out within the context of confined trials. But upon reflecting on the details of the approval which only has a confidential base on the risk management plans as provided by the applying body (Monsanto) and which means that the risks would only be assessed after undergoing massive commercial field trials across the country, one can only reason out a not too clearly drawn objective of the National Biosafety management in providing the permit in the first instance without a proper and prior testing conducted by the agency itself.
Clearly, the institution is definitely putting the country at risk by subjecting its national responsibility to the mere speculative integrity of a foreign body that has overtime been a subject of worldwide criticism for its controversial history. Monsanto has been noted for introducing to the world some dangerous chemical compounds like DDT, Agent Orange, and Saccharin, all of which have been known to have a commonness of negative impact on human health.
Now that the company has assumed yet another role of spear heading the move for the global acceptance of GMOs, it is expected for any country approached to weigh out any decision to be taken on the scale of precautions.
Unfortunately, recent development has put Nigeria on the spotlight of being unhealthily receptive and desperate.
While there have been quite a lot of reports debunking the not-safe labeling on GMOs, still a larger percentage hold the conviction that they are not safe. Although it doesn’t entirely look like a well pronounced divided world, but the outright banning of GMOs in most countries (Importation and cultivation) and the constant call for labeling of food products of GMO origin say a lot about the acceptance level globally.
Current events in Nigeria place the country in the spotlight of economic instability, which has further exasperated the poverty level among the teeming population. So, the likelihood of desperation for alternatives for survival is not so far-fetched even in the face of consequential dangers. But then, in the view of instances of misguided priority of institutions meant to protect the choices of the populace, one would wonder where the fate of the common man lies.
Since the ban on street trading in Lagos by executive fiat of Lagos State Governor, Akinwunmi Amobode, which took effect from July 1, 2016, there was public outcry against the ban order. A lot of the commentaries in all the media – radio, television, social media and the newspapers – have overwhelmed readers and listeners of news. These commentaries are coming in umbrage/diatribe against the government by the affected street traders, members of the public sympathetic to the plight of street hawkers, highly respected newspaper columnists, in editorial comments and op-eds from social critics and public affairs commentators. This writer has digested through reading, personal discussion, or by listening to discussants on radio and watching the TV, a plethora of opinion on the good, bad and ugly effect of the ban on street trading in Lagos Mega City.
Street trading in Lagos
I must confess the frankness of the commentators whether for or against the ban, their feeling of empathy, social concern, their blame of the authority for a warped and unenforceable law; and some open suggestions on what the Lagos State Government can do to ameliorate the plight of street traders, in order to integrate this group of itinerant traders into the economic fabric of Lagos mega city.
Governor Ambode has a valid reason for his action. In another breath, I have had cause to read the strong defence of Governor Amode on the same issue. His Excellency has stoutly defended his action by stating that he did not enact a new law on street trading, but was doing his gubernatorial duty as the Chief Law Enforcer in the State of Excellence. He was trying to enforce a subsisting law on the ban of street trading, which he met in office. The law was enacted during the tenure of his predecessor, but like the bane of governance and our less civic-minded society, it what observed more in breach than compliance by the street hawkers, while the law enforcers remain toothless bull dogs who looked the other way and abysmally failed to enforce the law.
To support the reason for the “new day” enforcement of the law, Governor Ambode dwelt extensively on the recent wanton destruction and burning of 49 BRT buses by irate mob in Lagos as a result of the fatal accident, which killed a street hawker being chased by officials of Kick Against Indiscipline (KAI), for hawking in traffic. That ugly incident, as reported, caused the LASG a colossal financial loss to the tune of N139 million. By LASG’s calculation, the said amount was the estimated sum that the government would cough up to replace the burnt 49 BRT buses. Surprisingly too, it was disclosed by the LASG authority that the deceased street hawker was not killed by any state-owned BRT buses, but by another vehicle whose driver absconded the scene of the accident for fear of being lynched by the angry mob. Another vexed issue for the governor’s justification was the unnecessary/unjustified public disorder and spontaneous reaction, which led to the burning of government buses by idle hands roaming the streets of Lagos. Governor Ambode would not take any of such acts of lawlessness in a city under his watch and a government administration under his leadership. He therefore, took a drastic and on-the-spur-of-the-movement decision to ban street trading in the megalopolis.
There is consensus of opinion on the adverse effect of street trading. None of the commentaries on the ban ever failed to tell the truth about the adverse effects of street trading. The critics made mention of the security implication, environmental nuisance, social implication, the eye sore vis-à-vis its unfriendly tourism appeal; and what it does to the smooth flow of traffic in a mega city notorious for traffic congestion.
General consensus against the ban on street trading. Many a commentator including the hoi polli posited that the good-intentioned law against street trading may ended up doing more harm than good if the provisions of the statute are enforced to the letter. There is palpable apprehension where all the army of street hawkers would be sent to after their evacuation from the streets of Lagos, without an alternative plan or places to accommodate their daily trading activities. Without such plan, another grave fear was expressed…the trigger of crime among idle hands. To these commentators, the ban on street trading is an ill-wind that does nobody (government, traders and the citizenry) any good.
Street trading is a dominant informal sector healthy to the macro city economy. The proponents of street trading argued vehemently in their defence that street trading is part of city economy, not only in Nigeria but all over the world. They should allow the street hawkers to stay regardless of the nuisance the traders constitute on the streets. They argued that street traders have their nuisance value. In comparison to cities in other clime, the proponents made mention of permissible street trading in New York, London, Paris, Madrid, Rio de Jainero, Brisbane, Recife, Canberra, Christchurch, Auckland, Mumbai, Cairo, Mexico City, Los Angeles, Copenhagen, Oslo and many other cities in all continents of the world. Hence, they opined that the LASG ought to emulate the good examples from cities around the world and learn how street trading can be incorporated as a permissible or tolerated city-based economic activity, without causing any rancor or disaffection between government officials and those eking a living on the streets of Lagos.
It is easier said than done. The suggestion made by the defenders of street trading looks good on paper and can quickly win support of the public against the cruel (?) action taken by the LASG. Albeit, the critics put a proviso in their statement: Street trading in all the aforementioned cities is regulated by city ordinance and issuance of street trading license to prospective traders. However, what they inadvertently failed to expose in their argument is the central issue this piece will now address from this point on.
Street trading in other clime is a function of city ordinance, law enforcement and a disciplined society. In all the cities cited as best practices of street trading, compliance with street trading laws is a norm by practice. The enforcement of the law by city officials is never done half-heartedly or compromised by whoever is delegated to perform such function. All the key players carry out their responsibilities without let or hindrance. In all of these cities, there are strong institutions in-charge of street trading and an enlightened citizenry who willfully obey the law without being prompted or forced to do so. The level of literacy is also high, which is a fillip to civilised conduct among the residents of these cities.
Can anybody vouch for such situation in Lagos? Is there a Lagos without law breakers or venal public officials who intentionally take advantage of hapless and mostly uneducated people just because these government officials are the anointed enforcers of the law? Can anyone easily forget KAI officials recorded on tape while demanding for bribe from street hawkers they arrested for violating street trading law? How law-abiding are we in this country to government regulations where strongmen dictate the tune instead of building strong institutions for effective governance? I have searched for suitable answers to these valid questions without success. Readers, I need your help and honest opinion. But if I can hazard the root cause of the problem, I can affirm that we are a peculiar society with uncommon peculiar situation. And in all practicality, what works in other climes never works in this society. We will need peculiar or home grown solutions to street trading in Lagos where every goods under the sun are offered for sale on the streets ranging from live animals, Viagra, opa eyin, sausage, stolen phones, clothing apparels, children toys, sex objects, pirated books, human body parts, wigs, shoes to all kinds of edibles and soft drinks.
I will now advance my next line of reasoning.
The role of planning and planners in street trading. What the doctor does to a sick person by prescribing a drug to cure an aliment is what a town or city planner does to a city with an identified problem be it traffic congestion, inadequate housing, mobility, functionality, street trading or environmental pollution. To ameliorate these problems, the planner will soul-search for the cause(s) by assessing current situation with the aid of available data or cause one to be generated by him/her. After the diagnostic stage, he/she will postulate and make recommended solutions for official consideration and implementation. My subtle inference here is that street trading in Lagos, to the untrained minds can be attributed to the prevailing harsh economic conditions; but a trained mind in town planning would see it more of a matter that requires innovative/creative urban planning intervention. As one of the writers said, “it takes creativity and compassionate planning” to deal with street trading in Lagos. I pitch my tent with that logic.
I have documentary evidence and a best practice from off shore to support my stance.
Preparation of Model City Plan (MCP) in Lagos is a positive sign of Government intervention in planning. The LASG is trying its level best to improve livability in all the nooks and crannies of Lagos Cosmo polis through the instrumentality of Model City Plans for different planning districts of the megacity. There are in existence Victoria/Ikoyi MCP, Agege-Ifako MCP and Ikeja MCP while others are already on the drawing board. Of the latest and more contemporary approach to planning in Lagos was the robust idea mooted by action Governor Ambode to develop a Smart City Lagos, having signed a memorandum of understanding with Smart City Dubai on July 11, 2016 to that effect. These are laudable steps in the right direction. But the pressing question is: Despite Government good intentions have any of the subsisting MCPs factored in the problem of street trading and proffered practical solution to the menace? This writer’s study of the operative MCPs do not provide an answer in the affirmative. The MCPs dealt extensively on present and future land uses in most of the districts; but fell short on the problems associated with ambulatory speed of urban growth in a city like Lagos; and how to specifically deal with them, most especially the irritant city nuisance called: street trading. Whether in Ikeja, Lagos Island, Ikoyi or the outer districts of the mega city where street trading is common place, the MCPs offer no concrete recommendations.
Where there is a will and mind of creativity, planners can do awesome job to turn city chaos to orderliness. There is a global best practice in urban planning where under the leadership of a maverick planner/architect and his team of dedicated staff, turned the city of Curitiba in Brazil from chaos to creative planning. That world-acclaimed urban planner was Jaime Lerner, who single-handedly came up with an innovative planning strategy in combating street trading in an unsettling city, where before he became mayor in 1988 (Wikipedia), Curitiba was bereft of good urban planning. Lerner was more ingenious in practical and rational urban planning solution than theory of the subject matter. He came up with the idea to pedestrianise a gridlocked commercial artery into a pedestrian mall where street traders harmoniously hawk their wares in the open along with other shopkeepers. Jaime Lerner’s tactical planning (short-term action for long-term change) by a single person, is a best practice the LASG planning authority must encourage to go and understudy; and replicate the idea in some streets of Lagos where such planning revolution can be feasible. After all, the State Government went to understudy Curitiba’s BRT operation (another brain child of Jaime Lerner) before the idea was replicated in Lagos in 2008.
Categorisation of street trading in Lagos is another feasible option. Planning is a cluster of dispositions, which people tolerate more than embrace. By planning disposition, I mean orderly arrangement of the physical space in such a way that it will be “user-friendly” to all. It is being suggested that the LASG Planning Authority in consultation with allied ministries which are key players in Lagos urban affairs, should begin a categorisation of Lagos streets with regards to street trading as follows:
Designation of Off-limit streets for automobiles: Streets in this category cannot be accessed by automobiles during certain hours of the day when commercial activity is at its peak. Such streets are for pedestrians use only during the designated timeframe. Balogun, Nnamdi Azikwe, Martins streets, Tinubu Square, Idumota and Ereko axis on Lagos Island can be chosen as pedestrianised streets pilot schemes.
Prohibited streets for street trading: As the name implies, these are streets where street trading is totally banned. These are heavily-trafficked thoroughfare or urban roads with high day time traffic such as Allen Avenue, Airport Road in Ikeja, Ikorodu Road or Awolowo and Kingsway Roads in Ikoyi, the Ozunmba Mbadiwe axis and the Lekki Expressway can be designated as such. The competing use of space between motorists and itinerant traders on some busy arterial roads in the mega city does not augur well for smooth traffic flow. It creates distraction at the peril of motorists, while causing avoidable traffic congestion.
Consent streets: Most streets are permissible streets (with the exception of the two classified above) where street trading is allowed and where hawkers will not be bothered by KAI.
The LASG is advised to do a pilot scheme as a demonstration effect, in order to create a scenario that everyone can see and feel about how planning initiative can turn chaos to creativity. The government is also advised to create a “dialogue window” as a feedback mechanism (from street users and other stakeholders) to know how effective the plan is working and to also find out areas of improvement. Government must continue to update its initiatives and adapt to unfolding realities. Technical approach without public participation can sometime create resentment of the authority by the citizenry.
Lagos residents should rally support for Governor Ambode in his quest and burning desire of making Lagos a user-friendly city. The Governor has good intentions. A city where no law is obeyed, gives room for anarchy. The uncivilised conduct of a group of itinerant traders should never be the determinant of urbanism as a way of life, for the rest of innocent and law abiding residents of the mega city. I subscribe to the school of thought that street trading cannot be wished away as part of urban living in Lagos. Governor Ambode should throw a challenge to the city managers/planning technocrats in Lagos State to come up with a feasible plan on how to regulate the activity of street hawkers on a city-wide basis. In governance, there must be a meeting point between the government and the governed on any contentious issue of interest to both parties. Government cannot tolerate urban vagabonds and unruly public conduct. Governor Ambode is farsighted. He has lofty dreams for Lagos Mega City. It is incumbent on all Lagos residents to be on the same page with this vibrant man of vision.
By Tpl. Yacoob Abiodun (former Secretary, National Housing Policy Council, Urban Planner, Planning Advocate)
Within the next four years, the Lagos State Government will plant some four million trees to add to the six million already planted in the past eight years.
Dr. Samuel Adejare, Lagos State Environment Commissioner (left) and Mr. Tunji Bello, Secretary to the State Government (SSG), planting a tree to observe 2016 World Tree Planting Day
This will be in fulfillment of its resolve to plant 10 million trees by 2020 which, government officials say, was informed by the desire to mitigate the impact of climate change.
So far, the state government has planted about six million trees since the launch of its much vaunted tree planting campaign in 2008.
Speaking at the 2016 Tree Planting Day ceremony that held on Thursday at the National Youth Service Corps (NYSC), Camp, Orile-Agege area of Lagos, Governor Akinwunmi Ambode disclosed that his administration was working frantically to meet the target of planting 10 million trees by 2020.
He said the annual event was one of the most reliable and cheapest means of combating the effect of global warming and climate change, adding that planting of trees was very important for the environment as trees provide oxygen, cool the atmosphere, help conserve energy, save water and prevent erosion.
The theme of this year’s tree planting is: “Lend a hand to save trees.”
Ambode, who was represented by the Secretary to the State Government, Tunji Bello, noted that the peculiarity of Lagos as a coastal city-state makes it prone to several environmental challenges, which demanded that the government and the citizens of the state carried out infrastructural development without jeopardising the environment.
“The fast growing urban development areas across the state must curtail the uncontrolled felling of trees and ensure all developers adhere to all the town planning and greening regulations. We must plant trees to replace those removed from vast acres of land so that we reduce the rate of ocean surge and erosion with its attendant problem of displacement of homes and communities,” he said.
The governor further said scientists had stated that the world needed about 30 billion trees annually and that “if the last tree dies, no human will survive. A world without trees is a world without life so we must resolve as a people, to ensure that we not only save our trees but plant more trees. As a country, if we resolve to plant one million trees per state every year, we shall be able to achieve 360 million trees by the next decade which will go a long way to protect our nation.”
He said the government remained committed to the cause of tree planting and would vigorously pursue the state greening policy of total regeneration of degraded sites, while urging the private sector to partner with the government, as only a collective action by all could tackle the environmental problem of global warming and flooding.
Commissioner for the Environment, Dr. Samuel Adejare, said the tree-planting programme would further help in propagating the green revolution campaign geared towards climate change mitigation and adaptation.
He charged residents of Lagos to imbibe the culture of tree planting in order to beautify the environment, adding that planting trees had helped to convert criminal hideouts and open spaces into orchids and woodlands.
Adejare stated that while it was generally agreed that trees were needed to make furniture, food and others, government was against indiscriminate felling of trees as it would bring about ecological imbalance.
The Land Use Act of 1978 and the relatively young National Biosafety Management Act of 2015 may end up being repealed if recommendations put forward by a think-tank eventually see the light of the day.
Panel 2: Pollution and Clean-up (oil, industrial effluents), Water, Wastes (solid waste, medical waste, military waste etc.), comprising Celestine Akpobari, Ken Henshaw, Prof Ife Ken, Kola Lawal, Emem Okon and Akinbode Oluwafemi (facilitator)
While the biosafety law was described as weak as a regulatory tool and thus open to the introduction of the controversial GMOs (genetically modified organisms), the land act is said to be stifling smooth access to land and as such curbing physical and economic development.
These formed part of the agreements arrived at recently by a 41-member team of experts who deliberated for three days in Abuja under the Environmental Strategic Agenda Setting programme organised by the Health of Mother Earth Foundation (HOMEF), Federal Ministry of Environment (FMEv) and United Nations Development Programme (UNDP).
Apart from the biosafety law and land act that were recommended for review or an outright repeal, the gathering, which featured five panel discussion groups, also listed a number of seemingly non-performing policies and laws as well as administrative/research matters for overhaul.
For instance, amid the review of national state and forestry laws, it was suggested that environmental sanitation laws should be revamped to include roles for sanitation inspectors and enforcement officers.
While extending the environmental and community provisions of the Minerals and Mining Act 2007 to cover the petroleum sector and oil field communities, the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), National Oil Spill Detection and Response Agency (NOSDRA) and National Environmental Standards and Regulations Enforcement Agency (NESREA) acts were likewise mentioned for urgent attention.
The review of the EIA laws will include health Impact assessments, while that of the NESREA Act should remove representation from the petroleum sector on its Board, especially since that sector is not regulated by NESREA, recommended the forum, adding that, henceforth, insurance schemes for environmental related diseases be included in environmental health laws.
Constitutional amendment, they added, should entail:
moving environment from chapter 2 to chapter 4 of the constitution;
removing petroleum from exclusive legislative list;
enacting a composite Environmental Management and Protection Act that will deal with issues of gas flaring, oil spills solid minerals mining pollution etc;
reviewing and establishing legislation in line with section 14(b) of the Constitution to empower communities to have control over their land, territories nature and cultural heritages; and,
amending Section 20 of the Constitution and create justifiable rights for environmental protection.
While the National Policy on Environment should now include specific sections on food and agriculture, the energy policy should, on the other hand, lay emphasis on renewable energy provision and including actively discouraging the use if firewood as domestic energy source.
Furthermore, in the absence of one, the establishment of a National Policy of Wetlands was recommended, even as a review of the National Policy on Water Supply was recommended to, essentially, provide the template for actions to lift water supply burdens from households, especially on women.
Review of the Climate Change Policy was also championed to, according to the participants, emphasise references to environmental degradation and gender impacts because of the disproportionate impact of climate change on women and the need to reflect these in mitigation and adaptation strategies.
Other environment/climate related policy reviews were listed to include:
reviewing policies on pesticides and dangerous chemicals, including glysophate;
developing policy on new and emerging technologies, including synthetic biology and geo-engineering;
recogniising the importance of regional environmental policies and directives (ECOWAS, AU);
reviewing waste management policies and laws to include such areas as military and warfare wastes; and,
upgrading disaster management policies.
Administrative and Research Matters include:
Having a regular National State of the Environment Report – g this would provide baseline for measuring environmental change in the country
Intentional stakeholders approach to regulation and institutional positioning.
Institutionalise an Annual National Consultation on the Environment (ANCE).
Having more CSO representatives on the technical committees on environment. Have the stakeholders on environment meet some two days before the ANCE so that their recommendations feed into the agenda of the deliberations.
Periodic review of policies with the histories of such policies from the beginning of such policies.
Creation of a National Stakeholder Committee on environment.
Promotion of agroecology and steps to include it in schools’ curriculum.
Environmental policies developed to recognise and clearly identify the relationship between the sustainable management of natural systems and macro-level policy in other sectors of the economy.
Policies should clearly state how implementation would be ensured in terms of capacity and funding.
Fine for gas flaring should be the commercial cost of gas flared.
Conduct a lead contamination study for data bank.
Improved funding for regulatory agencies.
Work with the Ministry of Water Resources to review the present water policy.
Policy must be based on a collaborative production of natural resource balance sheets that account for land values, subsoil assets, livestock, forests as tangible assets to be used in the evaluation of the sustainability of economic activity and the long term conservation of natural resources.
The discussion panels at the workshop included:
Panel 1: State of the Nigerian Environment (overview, baseline, etc.), Climate, Conflicts (herders-farmers conflicts) and Deforestation/Desertification (Great Green Wall, mangroves, land use and conversions, plantations, etc.) – Mohammed Bello Tukur, Ken Henshaw, Prof Haruna Ayuba, Dr Ladipo Olajide, Prof Francis Adesina, Ms. Betty Abah, Prof M.T. Okorodudu-Fubara and Nnimmo Bassey (facilitator).
Panel 2: Pollution and clean up (Oil, industrial effluents), Water, Wastes (Solid waste, medical waste, military waste etc.) – Celestine Akpobari, Ken Henshaw, Prof Ife Ken, Kola Lawal, Emem Okon and Akinbode Oluwafemi (facilitator).
Panel 3: Agriculture, Biosafety and Environmental Health – Ms. Mariann Orovwuje, MallamNaseer Kura, Dr Celestine Aguoru, Dr Robert Onyeneke and Dr. Ako Amadi (facilitator)
Panel 5: Environmental Policies, Laws and Regulations (including environmental governance and research) – Prof M. T. Okorodudu-Fubara, Chima Williams, Charles Aholu, Nurudeen Ogbara, Alade Adeleke, Dr Ako Amadi and Dr Henry Sawyer (facilitator).
Climate change is happening now. Globally, 14 of the 15 hottest years on record have occurred since 2,000.
The impacts of climate change are already being felt in the United Kingdom, and urgent action is required to address climate-related risks, the CCC’s Adaptation Sub-Committee (ASC) said on Tuesday.
Lord Krebs, Chairman of the Adaptation Sub-Committee of the Committee on Climate Change. Photo credit: theguardian.com
The report is the result of more than three years of work involving hundreds of leading scientists and experts from the public and private sectors and civil society. The risk assessment has been peer reviewed by UK and international specialists.
Changes to the UK climate are likely to include periods of too much or too little water, increasing average and extreme temperatures, and sea level rise. The report concludes that the most urgent risks for the UK resulting from these changes are:
Flooding and coastal change risks to communities, businesses and infrastructure.
Risks to health, wellbeing and productivity from high temperatures
Risk of shortages in the public water supply, and water for agriculture, energy generation and industry, with impacts on freshwater ecology.
Risks to natural capital, including terrestrial, coastal, marine and freshwater ecosystems, soils and biodiversity.
Risks to domestic and international food production and trade.
Risks of new and emerging pests and diseases, and invasive non-native species, affecting people, plants and animals.
The opportunities for the UK from climate change include:
UK agriculture and forestry may be able to increase production with warmer weather and longer growing seasons, if constraints such as water availability and soil fertility are managed.
There may be economic opportunities for UK businesses from an increase in global demand for adaptation-related goods and services, such as engineering and insurance.
The impact of the recent vote to leave the European Union does not change the overall conclusions of the risk assessment. However, some individual risks may change if EU-derived policies and legislation are withdrawn and not replaced by equivalent or better UK measures. The Adaptation Sub-Committee will assess the implications of the EU referendum in its next statutory report to Parliament on the UK National Adaptation Programme, due to be published in June 2017.
Lord Krebs, Chairman of the Adaptation Sub-Committee of the Committee on Climate Change, said: “The impacts of climate change are becoming ever clearer, both in the United Kingdom and around the world. We must take action now to prepare for the further, inevitable changes we can expect. Our independent assessment today, supported by the work of hundreds of scientists and other experts, identifies the most urgent climate change risks and opportunities which need to be addressed. Delaying or failing to take appropriate steps will increase the costs and risks for all UK nations arising from the changing climate.”
The Climate Change Act requires the UK Government to compile every five years its assessment of the risks and opportunities arising for the UK from climate change, known as the Climate Change Risk Assessment (CCRA). The ASC’s Evidence Report published on Tuesday will inform the Government’s second Climate Change Risk Assessment due to be presented to Parliament in January 2017. The first CCRA was presented to Parliament by Government in 2012.
The Climate Change Act places a duty on the Adaptation Sub-Committee to provide independent advice six months in advance of the Government’s Climate Change Risk Assessment report to Parliament being due. The Evidence Report, consisting of eight individual chapters looking at key areas of risk and opportunity, constitutes the ASC’s advice on the Government’s second CCRA. Each chapter has been written by expert lead authors supported by co-authors with particular specialties. The individual chapters are the product of their expert authors. A Synthesis Report has also been produced by the ASC to highlight the key messages of the Evidence Report.
The Federal Government will adopt all legal and administrative measures to ensure effective implementation of the National Tobacco Control Act, the Minister of Health, Professor Isaac Adewole, has said.
Minister of Health, Professor Isaac Adewole
The minister, who spoke in Abuja on Tuesday at the inauguration of the National Tobacco Control Committee (NATOC), affirmed government’s commitment towards “safeguarding and protecting the health of Nigerians from the risks posed by the use of tobacco and tobacco products”.
He said: “There is no permissible limit for tobacco use in whichever method, form or disguise because it is harmful to health. Tobacco, when used exactly as intended by the tobacco industry, will maim and kill more than half of its users.
“Globally, tobacco use is responsible for six million deaths through many medical conditions notably cardiovascular diseases, respiratory diseases, and cancers.”
While charging committee members on their roles and responsibilities, the minister pointed out that tobacco has been red-flagged by both local and international health communities as a poisonous and highly addictive substance that requires urgent intervention.
Adewole stressed: “It is therefore imperative to double our efforts in a sustainable and well-coordinated approach to enable us protect the health and wellbeing of Nigerians. However, if we fail in our moral duty, we will be seen to be promoting and expanding tobacco business with dire consequences on Nigerians.
“I assure you that we will sharpen our strategies and make best use of our legal instrument to operationalise the National Tobacco Control Act to its maximum potential and ensure a drastic reduction in the burden of tobacco use and its related diseases in Nigeria.”
The committee, headed by Professor Ukoli Onawefe of the University of Jos, will advise and make recommendations to the minister on the development and implementation of tobacco control policies, strategies, plans, programmes and projects, in accordance with World Health Organisation (WHO) Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC), its implementing guidelines and protocols.
The West Africa Sub-Regional Coordinator for the Campaign for Tobacco Control Free Kids, a United States based organisation, Hilda Ochefu, said the inauguration of the committee represent a bold step towards ensuring effective implementation of tobacco control measures in Nigeria.
“We are encouraged by this development as it will aid effective implementation of the tobacco control law and lead to reduction in disease burdens associated with smoking,” she said.
The Deputy Executive Director of Environmental Rights Action/Friends of the Earth, Nigeria (ERA/FoEN), Akinbode Oluwafemi, expressed delight at the inauguration of the committee, saying: “With this move, the Federal Government is sending strong signals that it wants to take public health issues much more serious than we have ever seen.”
Cities’ sustainability efforts may be undermined by urban destruction of forested carbon sinks. Worldwatch Institute’s “Can a City Be Sustainable?” examines the core principles of sustainable urbanism and profiles cities that are putting them into practice
Tom Prugh, Senior Researcher, Worldwatch Institute
Urban centres lie at the root of an important – and often neglected – source of emissions: deforestation. According to Senior Researcher Tom Prugh in “Can a City Be Sustainable?”, the latest edition of the annual State of the World series from the Worldwatch Institute, deforestation caused by growing urban consumption is contributing to massive emissions globally, despite increasing sustainability efforts locally.
Tropical deforestation accounts for an estimated three billion tons of carbon dioxide per year – equivalent to the emissions of some 600 million cars – according to researchers at Winrock International and the Woods Hole Research Centre.
Urban growth drives deforestation in at least two ways. First, as rural migrants to cities adopt city-based lifestyles, they tend to use more resources. Their incomes rise and their diets shift to a greater share of animal products and processed foods. This, in turn, drives land clearance for livestock grazing and fodder, either locally or in other countries that export such products or their inputs. Meeting the food needs of a rising and urbanising global population could require an additional 2.7 to 4.9 million hectares of cropland per year.
“In Brazil, a surge of deforestation in the Amazon in the early 2,000s has been attributed to the expansion of pasture and soybean croplands in response to international market demand, particularly from China,” writes Prugh. There, economic growth and diets richer in meat products have boosted soy imports from Brazil to feed pork and poultry.
Even in relatively highly productive European agriculture, it takes an estimated 0.3 square meters of farmland to produce an edible kilogram of vegetables, but 7.3 for chicken, 8.9 for pork, and 20.9 for beef.
A second, and likely lesser, factor linking urban growth to deforestation is that cities are often expanding into areas of farmland and natural habitat, including forests. Cities worldwide are growing by 1.4 million new inhabitants every week. Urban land area is expanding, on average, twice as fast as urban populations. The area covered by urban zones is projected to expand by more than 1.2 million square kilometers between 2000 and 2030.
“Ironically, even as urban expansion drives forest clearance for agriculture, it simultaneously consumes existing farmland,” writes Prugh. “By one estimate, urbanisation may cause the loss of up to 3.3 million hectares of prime agricultural land each year.”
“The impact of urban expansion can, in principle, be attenuated by focusing on proven methods of shaping urban form to emphasise compact development and higher densities,” writes Prugh. Reducing consumption, however, is more complicated.
The first and most obvious option is to increase the efficiency of economies at delivering human well-being per every unit of resource input. The impact of the dietary share of higher consumption could be reduced sharply by reducing food waste and creating incentives for much lower meat consumption.
Cities also may have a role in determining broader agricultural policies. In addition to reducing meat consumption, it is possible to reduce the impacts of meat production by shifting from intensive, fossil fuel-based livestock systems to more-diverse, coupled systems that emulate the structure and functions of ecosystems.
Investigation by Greenpeace Africa has revealed that the DRC government violated its own 2002 moratorium on new logging titles, granting in 2015 three concessions of a total of 650.000 hectares
Robert Bopolo Mbongeza, DRC’s Minister of Environment, Conservation of Nature and Sustainable Development (MECNDD)
A Greenpeace Africa investigation has revealed that the government of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) violated its own 2002 moratorium on new logging titles. Government is said to have granted three concessions of a total of 650.000 hectares in 2015 to a company called Société la Millénaire Forestière SARL (SOMIFOR) in Equateur and Tshuapa Provinces, and to another firm called La Forestière pour le Développement du Congo SARL (FODECO) in Tshopo Province. Greenpeace researchers obtained the concession contracts signed in 2015 by then Minister of Environment and Sustainable Development Bienvenu Liyota Ndjoli.
On 30th of January 2016, Robert Bopolo Mbongeza, the Minister of Environment, Conservation of Nature and Sustainable Development (MECNDD) stated that “measures are underway” to lift the moratorium. At the time of his announcement, says Greenpeace, the Minister must have been aware that his predecessor illegally allocated these three logging concessions. Under the current Minister’s responsibility, a whole a series of meetings with villages in the concession areas took place and social clauses were signed in March and April 2016. In the briefing report published on Tuesday 12 July 2016, Greenpeace presents evidence that, via these secret allocations, the DRC government is circumventing the moratorium, with the intention to lift it before preconditions have been met, threatening the world’s second largest rainforest.
Yet, it is clear that the preconditions for lifting this safeguard measure are far from achieved and that it would create an even greater chaos in the forest sector, notes the environment watchdog.
“We demand that the DRC government immediately cancel SOMIFOR’s and FODECO’s concessions and ensure accountability of all officials associated with the violations. The Minister should also determine whether there have been any further breaches of the moratorium,” said Irene Wabiwa Betoko, Forest campaign manager at Greenpeace Africa. In a letter dated June 9th, Greenpeace asked the Minister of Environment for clarification about these flagrant violations of the moratorium, but never received an answer. These cases will be sent to the Public Prosecutor of DRC to investigate these issues.
The country’s 155 million ha of forests represent around a tenth of the world’s remaining tropical forest, and is home to forest elephants, gorillas, bonobos, okapis, hundreds of bird species and thousands of plants. The moratorium was established in 2002 to prevent a post-war free-for-all in the country’s huge forests, and protect this unique biodiversity. With World Bank guidance and financial support, the DRC was to transform logging into a sustainable industry generating billions of dollars of revenues and tens of thousands of jobs, while conserving the forest. Yet, instead of implementing the measures it committed to, the DRC government constantly violated this moratorium, allocating scores of illegal titles, fueling corruption and creating social and economic havoc.
To oppose the lifting of this moratorium, Greenpeace and other environmental and anti-corruption organisations have formed a coalition, and raised the alarm bells loudly in early 2016. “The DRC government must maintain the moratorium on the allocation of new forest concessions as long as all the conditions defined by law are not met,” stated Wabiwa. “Industrial logging does not generate significant tax revenue for the DRC government, contributing a pitiful USD 8 million in 2014. The Congolese authorities should consider and promote alternatives such as community forestry,” added Wabiwa.
Some 40 million people in the country rely on these forests for their livelihoods, including food and fuel, whilst forest cover in the DRC alone stores 7% of the world’s forest carbon – making it one of the largest forest carbon stocks in the world.
Activist Nnimmo Bassey (who is Director, Health of Mother Earth Foundation – HOMEF), in a reaction to a recent statement by an official of the National Biotechnology Development Agency (NABDA) and Open Forum for Biotechnology (OFAB), insists that GMOs depend on toxic agrochemicals, are not friendly to soils and ecosystems, and thus are a threat to food security
Nnimmo Bassey
Some of the comments made by Rose Gidado as reported under the title, Nigeria Not At Crossroads Over Food Security – Agency Chief (published in The Guardian on 8th July 2016) must be based on questions that were not accurately posed to her. It could also be that her comments were based on faulty reporting she got from persons who may have been at the conference she referred to. She may not have been at the conference under reference because neither Health of Mother Earth Foundation (HOMEF) nor African Faith and Justice Network (AFJN) had invited her to the conference.
As an Assistant Director at National Biotechnology Development Agency (NABDA) and as the coordinator of Open Forum for Biotechnology (OFAB) in Nigeria, she has links to two institutions that have as their mandate the promotion of GMOs and placement of their products in the Nigerian market and on the dining tables of citizens of this country. Some of us have queried the place and role of NABDA on the Governing Board of the National Biosafety Management Agency (NBMA) – an agency set up to regulate the activities of GMO promoters in the country. The place of GMO promoters on the board of a regulatory agency raises questions of conflict of interest as already evidenced by their teaming up with Monsanto Agriculture Nigeria Ltd to apply for a permit for confined field trials of Monsanto’s GMO maize, to which assent was given in record time of less than two months from the date the application was advertised for comments from the public.
The comment at the conference under reference that modern biotechnology can be compared to a cowboy technology was made by me. This was an allusion to the use of “gene guns” in the process of insertion of the genetic materials that the technologists may have prepared. As with any shooting activity, it does happen that at times the genetic engineers shoot off target. At other times when they hit their desired target they can not really be so sure of what the outcome would be. One top GMO promoter said recently that GMO cotton failed in Burkina Faso because of insertion of the genetic material in a wrong germplasm. This was said on television and confirms that genetic engineering is not as precise as the biotech industry would want us to believe. It is a technology searching for problems and feeding fat on false promises and hype.
It should also be noted that the insertion of genetic materials from fish into GMO tomato is not a fictional tale. A biotech company, DNA Plant Technology of Oakland, California, actually put the fish gene in a tomato. The GMO tomato was discontinued because of the public uproar that followed its creation. See the story at The Monsanto GMO Story: Adding a Fish Gene into Tomatoes.
The notion that GMOs are part of a safe technology “needed to achieve developmental strides in economic diversification, food security, improved health systems, cleaner energy, job creation, wealth generation and poverty reduction, Nigeria” is contestable. Agricultural modern biotechnology poses peculiar problems to any environment. No wonder the industry survives largely through their political clout and by the open door policy they have with regulators that are at the same time promoters.
The fact that tampering with nature has impacts on religious, social and cultural sensibilities cannot be denied. Neither should it be described as unfortunate. It is the reality. Applied science must be alive to these sensibilities because science must be in the interest of society. And, in any case, we cannot be bullied into silence by the claim that science is neutral.
Science may be right when it says that every living thing can ultimately be broken down to carbon, for instance. Perhaps the basic building blocks of our bodies are similar across species. But some persons may not feel happy to have genes from a pig inserted in rice, for instance.
The fact that science is often not neutral is very much illustrated by goings on in research on genetic engineering, including new areas such as synthetic biology, gene editing and gene drives. Critical scientists continue to be hounded out of jobs or into silence. Those who dance to the tunes of the biotech industry and their political backers flourish on the other hand.
The GMO cotton and maize varieties for which permits have been issued with the active support of NABDA and OFAB pose special risks to our environment. One reason we worry is that the crops are all engineered by Monsanto to withstand their weed killer Roundup of which a key constituent chemical is known as glyphosate. Just like debates raged on whether other toxic chemicals were safe, the debate is on concerning glyphosate. The World Health Organisation (WHO) said that glyphosate is probably a carcinogen, based on research carried out by its (WHO’s) research arm and later became more ambivalent. However, the researchers affirm that they stand by their findings.
GMOs do not necessarily yield higher than natural crops. They promote monocultures and will promote land grabbing and thus displace and impoverish small scale farmers. GMOs depend on toxic agrochemicals that are not friendly to soils and ecosystems. They are a clear threat to food security.
No matter what NABDA, OFAB and NBMA say, Nigerians have solid reasons to worry about the opening of the doors of our agriculture and food systems to risky technologies.
