25.2 C
Lagos
Saturday, June 7, 2025
Home Blog Page 2107

UNEP forum devises strategy to curb chemicals’ risks

admin
-
0
UNEP forum devises strategy to curb chemicals’ risks

An International Conference on Chemicals Management has agreed on a plan that could prevent the annual deaths of more than one million people exposed to toxic chemicals. More than 800 participants, including ministers, industry and civil society leaders, have agreed on a strategy to reduce risks from chemicals at a weeklong United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) conference.

Olga Speranskaya, Co-chair of IPEN. Photo credit: gdb.voanews.com
Olga Speranskaya, Co-chair of IPEN. Photo credit: gdb.voanews.com

Chemicals are an integral part of peoples’ lives. Yet while they are essential and beneficial, they also can be hazardous. Managing those hazards is difficult because little is known about many of them.

According to UNEP, only a fraction of the estimated 100,000 chemicals on the market have been thoroughly evaluated to determine their effects on human health and the environment.

But, enough is known to determine they can be dangerous. UNEP reports the infant death rate from environmental causes is 12 times higher in developing than in developed countries. It says childhood lead exposure contributes to about 600,000 new cases of mental disabilities in children every year.

However, delegates to an international forum addressing global and national chemical issues at the weekend re-committed to take essential actions to fulfill a goal of sound chemicals management by 2020, but allowed the only programme funding activities in the most impacted countries to expire.

The $4 trillion per year chemical industry, which participates in the conference, also failed to offer new funds to pay their fair share for the costs of chemicals management and harm. A very small global levy on the industry of 0.1% would yield more than $4 billion per year.

“ICCM4 agreed to take action on some critical toxic chemical issues,” said Olga Speranskaya, Co-chair of IPEN.

“However, a five-year funding gap will make it extremely difficult to implement them. This makes the need for funding urgent. Governments, financial institutions, intergovernmental organisations and the chemical industry must each pay their fair share,” she added.

Current issues addressed critically during the conference include highly hazardous pesticides (HHPs), information about chemicals in products (CiPs), eliminating lead paint, nanotechnology, pharmaceutical pollutants, and endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs).

A key outcome at ICCM4 was a strategy to tackle the world’s worst pesticides – those that are highly hazardous and linked to a rising incidence of cancer and developmental disorders. The decision at ICCM4 represents the first time that these substances will be addressed in a comprehensive way in a UN agreement. Delegates took a major step towards sustainable agriculture by emphasising a more holistic agroecology approach.

“In Ethiopia, highly hazardous pesticides poison farmers and pollute the land,” said Tadesse Amera, Pesticide Action Nexus. “Now we need to get to work on the new strategy so that instead of poisoning ourselves with pesticides, we grow food in a way that respects human health, our land, and our water.”

Positive actions taken by this year’s ICCM4 include:

Highly Hazardous Pesticides (HHPs). Delegates affirmed that HHPs harm human health and the environment, particularly in developing and transition countries. ICCM4 agreed to take concerted action on HHPs with an emphasis on promoting agroecology as an alternative to HHPs and strengthening regulatory capacity.

International chemicals management beyond 2020. Delegates mandated the development of a plan for continuing international cooperation on chemicals’ management beyond 2020 when the process expires.

Information about chemicals in products. ICCM4 recommended that companies identify and disclose harmful chemicals in their products and supply chains using both national laws and criteria for chemicals of concern. Delegates recommended to start pilot participatory activities on information disclosure and signaled the need to make information disclosure equally available in developing countries.

Hazardous chemicals in electronics. Delegates called on equipment manufacturers to provide health and safety information to workers on chemicals they are handling or exposed to and to devise and implement take back programs at the end of life. ICCM4 also signalled the need for procurement initiatives that favour greener electronic products and called on the industry to make safer products.

Endocrine disrupting chemicals. Except for chemical manufacturers, the meeting participants agreed that endocrine disrupting chemicals can harm humans and wildlife and that reducing exposure should be an important focus. Delegates agreed to respond to needs identified by developing and transition countries.

Lead in paint. ICCM4 affirmed the goal to phase out lead in paint by 2020.

Nanotechnology. There was a mandate to all stakeholders to conduct awareness raising, capacity building and information sharing activities on nanotechnology; a call for sustained funding; encouragement to develop a clearinghouse mechanism; and for activities to include information about both benefits and harms.

Pharmaceutical pollutants. At ICCM4, environmentally persistent pharmaceutical substances became a special SAICM focus area with intent to increase awareness among policymakers and other stakeholders.

Leslie Adogame is Executive Director of SRADev Nigeria who represented Nigerian NGOs (a participating member of IPEN), an international network of more than 700 organisations that fight toxic chemicals and works with people who suffer from contamination from farm pesticides, mercury hotspots, lead poisoning and other toxic products.

“For us in Nigeria (perhaps Africans), we are happy we got relatively most of all we wanted in the deal and pleased with the outcomes of this political conference (despite the poor funding commitment) because the delegates adopted among others concrete risk reduction activities hazardous pesticides use, elimination of lead in paints, (as you know lead is continuously added to Nigerian paints), and chemicals added to products, which if implemented, will result in the reduction of toxic exposure on human health and the environment,” said Adogame.

“We now return home to push our government towards fulfilling this obligations and her recent statements of commitments to sustainable development goals (SDGs) beyond leap service. Prejudicial funding and national budgeting of the chemicals sector is key just as the immediate mainstreaming of chemicals management into national developmental agenda is very imperative for the plan for action,” he added.

‘Nigeria now has a legal biosafety basis to operate’

admin
-
1
‘Nigeria now has a legal biosafety basis to operate’

Rufus Ebegba, Director-General and CEO of the the National Biosafety Management Agency (NBMA), stresses that the recently passed Biosafety Act not only ensures biosafety in the country, but is a safety valve for harnessing the potentials of modern biotechnology safely

Rufus Ebegba, Director-General and CEO of the the National Biosafety Management Agency (NBMA). Photo credit: climatereporters.com
Rufus Ebegba, Director-General and CEO of the the National Biosafety Management Agency (NBMA). Photo credit: climatereporters.com

The development of a national biosafety regulatory framework for Nigeria dates back to 1994 when the first National Biosafety Guidelines were developed and the subsequent finalisation of a National Biosafety Management Act 2015. The process of the development of the Act followed a systematic public involvement from 2002 to 2015.

The National Biosafety Management Agency Act, established the National Biosafety Management Agency (NBMA), was charged with the responsibility for providing regulatory framework, institutional and administrative mechanism for safety measures in the application of modern bio-technology and the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in Nigeria. The Act is in conformity with established national and International laws, procedures and rules that govern the safe adoption of the modern biotechnology practice and the safe use of GMOs globally. The NBMA Act is the only safety valve in the adoption of modern biotechnology and the deployment and use of GMOs for Nigeria’s national economic development.

In view of the responsibility of the agency, and the immerse responsibility ahead for knowledge based regulatory regime a need to expand biosafety information through the media will give room for factual reporting and build public confidence in adoption of safe GMOs and encourage scientist and others within the sector.

The National Biosafety Management Act 2015 prescribes procedures for the application of the modern technology, risk assessment before the adoption and use of any genetically modified organisms and penalties for contravening the Biosafety Act. The Biosafety Act is therefore a safety valve for harnessing the potentials of modern biotechnology safely

The Act seeks to:

  • provide derived benefits from modern biotechnology under a legal framework for economic growth, improved agriculture, job and wealth creation, industry growth and sustainable environment,
  • minimise risks to human health.
  • confirm and harness the potentials of modern biotechnology,
  • protect and guard against any adverse effect of GMOs on biological Diversity and the environment.
  • guard against any socio-economic consequences.
  • give confidence in the practice of modern biotechnology, use and handling of GMOs and GM products ,.
  • reaffirm Nigeria’s commitment to the principles of International agreements, treaties (CBD and in particular the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (CPB).
  • determine in advance when hazards to human health and natural systems will result if any particular GMO is released into the environment amongst others.
  • proper regulation of imported GM products, so Nigeria will not be a dumping ground.

The National Biosafety Management Agency implements the Act in the safe adoption of modern biotechnology, the deployment and the safe use of products of modern biotechnology for national economic development.

The objectives of the Agency include the following:

  • establishment and strengthening of the institutional arrangement on Biosafety matters in Nigeria;
  • safe guarding human health, biodiversity and the environment from any potential adverse effect of genetically modified organism including food safety;
  • ensuring safety in the use of modern biotechnology and provide holistic approach to the regulation of genetically modified organisms;
  • provision of measures for the case by case assessment of genetically modified organisms and management of risk in order to ensure safety in the use of genetically modified organisms to human health and the environment;
  • provision of measures for effective public participation, public awareness and access to information in the use and application of modern biotechnology and genetically modified organisms; and
  • ensuring that the use of genetically modified organisms does not have adverse impact on socio-economic and cultural interest either at the community or national level.

The National Biosafety Management Agency has the capacity to give Nigeria the desired holistic Biosafety in a transparent manner, so that the nation can benefit from modern biotechnology maximally without compromising safety to the environment and human health. It has developed various regulatory instruments as well as the establishment of biosafety laboratory for the detection and analysis of genetically modified organisms for effective biosafety management in Nigeria.

The absence of a Biosafety Law in the past greatly hampered safe research and development in modern biotechnology in Nigeria. The Biosafety Act has therefore opened the avenue for our research institutes to carry out their statutory functions under a legal biosafety regime. Nigerian modern biotechnology industry in general now also has a legal biosafety basis to operate.

The Agency is adequately positioned to manage biosafety in Nigeria. The staff of the Agency are well trained on biosafety regulation, some up to Masters level from foreign universities and short biosafety courses.

The Agency currently has the following regulatory instruments in place as part of Nigeria’s Biosafety Preparedness :

  • Biosafety Policy;
  • Biosafety Act;
  • Biosafety Guidelines;
  • Nigeria Biosafety Application Administration Guidelines
  • Biosafety application forms;
  • Biosafety Containment Facilities Guidelines;
  • Accreditation of Institute application form;
  • certification of Biosafety containment Facility form,
  • Confined Field Trial Monitoring and Inspection Manual,
  • GMOs import/shipment form,
  • National Biosafety Risk Analysis Framework,
  • Decision document.
  • National Biosafety Communication strategy
  • National Biosafety Emergency Response strategy
  • National Laboratory for GMO detection and analysis
  • Cessation Order ,
  • Revocation Order,
  • Draft Biosafety regulations developed in anticipation of a biosafety Act:
  1. GMOs import, Export and transit,
  2. GMOs Packaging, identification and transport,
  3. GMOs Commercial release,
  4. Biosafety Liability and Redress,
  5. GMOs Contained Use and Confined Field trial

The following decisions have been taken so far on biosafety approvals in Nigeria:

  1. Accreditation of the following Institutes for modern biotechnology activities:
  • National Root Crops Research Institute, (NRCRI) Umudike;
  • Institute for Agricultural Research, (IAR) Zaria;
  • Federal University of Technology, (FUTA) Akure;
  • National Cereals Research Institute Badeggi
  • National Biotechnology Development Agency
  1. Approved Confined Field Trials in Nigeria:
  • Bio-fortified cassava enhanced with pro-vitamin A, (concluded) – at National Root Crops Research Institute, Umudike
  • Bio-fortified cassava enhanced with Iron, (concluded) – at National Root Crops Research Institute, Umudike
  • Cowpea modified for resistance against Maruca insect pest currently at multi-locational level – at IAR,
  • African Biofortified Sorghum: bioavailability of iron, zinc, protein and pro- Vitamin A(on going) – at IAR
  • GM rice modified for Nitrogen use efficiency, water use efficiency and salt tolerance (Yet to Commence) -at National Cereals Research Institute, Badeggi

GM Cassava resistant to cassava mosaic virus and brown streak virus(Yet to Commence) – at National Root Crops Research Institute, Umudike.

Nigeria has now joined the league of the following African States with National Biosafety laws and Biosafety: South Africa, Egypt, Kenya, Burkina Faso, Ghana, Sudan, Mali, Cameroun and Tanzania.

I wish to use this medium to request operators dealing in modern biotechnology activities and genetically modified organisms to formalise their dealings with National Biosafety Management Agency on or before 30th of December 2015 as there are consequences for default. The Agency does not doubt the existence of GMOs suspects in Nigeria since Nigeria imports food products from counties where GMOs are being produced and consumed,

The public should trust the Agency’s decisions and avoid being misled by unscientific information and acts capable of causing misinformation, public distrust and panic. The Agency would partner with all relevant sister Agencies in the discharge of its functions.

India promises 33-35% emissions intensity drop by 2030

admin
-
0
India promises 33-35% emissions intensity drop by 2030

In its submission to the UNFCCC a few weeks before the Paris climate summit, India also promises to generate 40% of its electricity from renewable sources

Prakash Javadekar, India’s Minister for Environment, Forests and Climate Change, speaks at a recent New Delhi conference on INDC. Photo credit: Council on Energy, Environment and Water
Prakash Javadekar, India’s Minister for Environment, Forests and Climate Change, speaks at a recent New Delhi conference on INDC. Photo credit: Council on Energy, Environment and Water

India’s much-awaited Intended Nationally Determined Contribution (INDC) to the global combat against climate change promises the country will reduce the intensity of its greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions per unit of GDP by 33-35% by 2030, compared to 2005.

India – the world’s third highest GHG emitter but way down the list on per capita emissions – has promised to generate 40% of its electricity from “non-fossil fuel based energy resources by 2030 with the help of transfer of technology and low cost international finance including from Green Climate Fund (GCF)”.

The 40% includes hydropower and nuclear power. India already has a target of generating 175 GW through solar and wind power by 2022. The government now plans to float infrastructure bonds to the tune of US$794 million, particularly for renewable energy projects. India’s electricity demand of 776 terawatt hours in 2012 is estimated to increase to 2,499 TWH by 2030.

Submitting its INDC almost literally at the last hour of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) deadline, the Indian government also promised “to create an additional carbon sink of 2.5 to 3 billion tonnes of CO2 (carbon dioxide) equivalent through additional forest and tree cover by 2030”.

The approximate cost of India’s climate action in mitigating GHG emissions and adapting to climate change effects is estimated at US$ 2.5 trillion.

Addressing the media nearly 11 hours after the government had submitted the INDC, Prakash Javadekar, India’s Minister for Environment, Forests and Climate Change, said a 35% reduction in emissions intensity by 2030 was a “75% jump in ambition over 2020 targets. We have increased the target of non-fossil fuel based energy capacity to 40%, which is a jump of 50%. This is a huge jump.”

By carrying out the activities promised in its INDC, “India will save carbon emissions to the tune of 3.95 million tons,” Javadekar added.

By and large, independent analysts were supportive of the INDC, but they had some questions. Talking about the emissions intensity reduction target, Siddharth Pathak of Climate Action Network pointed out, “It is not clear whether these are carbon emissions or GHG emissions. In China’s INDC they clearly state that it is carbon dioxide emissions per unit of GDP.” Carbon dioxide is the most significant GHG, but there are others, including methane, water vapour and some refrigerant gases.

Sandeep Chachra, Executive Director of ActionAid India, said, “Despite huge developmental challenges, India has put forward a climate action plan that is far superior to ones proposed by the US and EU. Its ambitious focus on energy efficiency and dramatic increase in renewable energy deserves credit but must lead to enhanced energy access for the poor. This clearly puts the onus on developed countries to meet their obligations of providing public finance and technology transfer to developing and least developed countries.”

Sanjay Vashist, Director, Climate Action Network (CANSA), said, “India, through its announced INDC, demonstrates its willingness to play an important role on the international stage ahead of the climate talks in December in Paris.  India’s signal could no doubt be much stronger – going even further to help the international community avoid unmanageable climate impacts – should the rich and developed countries step up and provide adequate finance and technology support.”

Harjeet Singh, Climate Policy Manager at ActionAid International, said “The devastating extreme weather events in the last few years have pushed India to recognise its vulnerability and prioritise adaptation to the impacts of climate change. In its climate action plan, India shared how its expenditure on programmes with critical adaptation components has increased from 1.45% of GDP in 2000-01 to 2.82% during 2009-10. It is now focusing on several climate sensitive sectors such as agriculture, water management, health and protecting biodiversity.”

Javadekar also asked developed countries to “at least walk the talk on $100 billion GCF considering that funds required to combat climate change run in trillions.” In 2009, rich nations had promised that by 2020 they would ramp up their climate financing to $100 billion per year, but the GCF has just a little over $10 billion in its kitty now.

Governments from many rich countries have said there was no way they could mobilise so much money. Reacting to that, Javadekar referred to a Columbia University study which said this money could be raised by levying a cess of $4 per tonne of coal. “That is a one-stop solution. We are doing it but they haven’t done it.” India levies a coal cess of Rs 200 (over $3) per tonne.

As for India’s main promise, some international analysts referred to a number of recent studies that recommended an emissions intensity reduction target of 35-50%. They said the declared target of 33-35% was definitely achievable and India may well surpass it.

In 2009, India had promised to reduce its emissions intensity per unit of GDP by 20-25% by 2020 from 2005 levels. Now its INDC says the country has achieved a 12% reduction from 2005 to 2010.

India’s 2008 National Action Plan on Climate Change (NAPCC) had eight missions to deal with climate change and its effects. Its INDC now confirms what the Narendra Modi has been saying for some time – four missions or programmes will be added. These are for wind energy, health, waste to energy, and coastal areas. The INDC says the government is also redesigning the National Water Mission and the National Mission on Sustainable Agriculture. However, it does not contain any detail on any of the new missions.

 

Adaptation

As expected, the INDC submitted shortly after midnight local time on Mahatma Gandhi’s birth anniversary – October 2 – placed a lot of emphasis on adaptation to climate change effects. India said it would enhance investments “in sectors vulnerable to climate change, particularly agriculture, water resources, Himalayan region, coastal regions, health and disaster management”.

India is setting up a National Adaptation Fund with US$ 55.6 million of capital. It is also setting up a National Disaster Relief fund.

The INDCs – to be submitted by all countries – will form the bedrock of a global agreement to fight climate change. The agreement is expected to be signed at the Paris summit this December. By the morning of October 2, 120 of the 194 member countries of the UNFCCC had submitted their INDCs, and the number was changing almost by the hour. An independent analysis showed that INDCs submitted by October 1 – and this included most major emitters – may be able to limit average global temperature rise to 2.7 degrees Celsius by 2100, above the two-degree limit agreed by all governments in 2010.

 

Wanted: money and technology

India’s INDC raises a prickly issue still unresolved on the road to Paris – the extent to which rich nations will help others to reduce their emissions and to handle climate change effects. It says the government wants “to mobilize domestic and new and additional funds from developed countries to implement the above mitigation and adaptation actions in view of the resource required and the resource gap”.

Throwing its weight behind a strong deal in Paris, the government has said, “The successful implementation of INDC is contingent upon an ambitious global agreement including additional means of implementation to be provided by developed country parties, technology transfer and capacity building.”

These “means of implementation” are going to be very costly. “Preliminary estimates indicate that India would need around US$206 billion (at 2014-15 prices) between 2015 and 2030 for implementing adaptation actions in agriculture, forestry, fisheries infrastructure, water resources and ecosystems,” the INDC reads.

“Apart from this there will be additional investments needed for strengthening resilience and disaster management. An Asian Development Bank study on assessing the costs of climate change adaptation in South Asia indicates that approximate adaptation cost for India in energy sector alone would roughly be about US$ 7.7 billion in 2030s. The report also projects the economic damage and losses in India from climate change to be around 1.8% of its GDP annually by 2050.”

“Mitigation requirements are even more enormous. Estimates by NITI Aayog (National Institution for Transforming India) indicate that the mitigation activities for moderate low carbon development would cost around US$ 834 billion till 2030 at 2011 prices.” NITI Aayog is the successor to India’s Planning Commission.

The government has not yet finalised how much climate money India will need from rich nations. According to the INDC, “A preliminary estimate suggests that at least $2.5 trillion (at 2014-15 prices) will be required for meeting India’s climate change actions between now and 2030.”

As for the other big issue dividing developed and developing countries, India has reiterated its demand for transfer of clean technologies “free of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) costs to developing countries. IPR costs can also be borne from the GCF through a separate window.”

 

The steps

India’s INDC lists the steps it will enhance and its new initiatives:

  • Introducing new, more efficient and cleaner technologies in thermal power generation.
  • Promoting renewable energy generation and increasing the share of alternative fuels in overall fuel mix.
  • Reducing emissions from transportation sector.
  • Promoting energy efficiency in the economy, notably in industry, transportation, buildings and appliances.
  • Reducing emissions from waste.
  • Developing climate resilient infrastructure.
  • Full implementation of Green India Mission and other programmes of afforestation.
  • Planning and implementation of actions to enhance climate resilience and reduce vulnerability to climate change.

These are apart from the new missions under the NAPCC.

Officials had earlier hinted that India may submit two INDC figures – one based on what it could do on its own, and the other what it could do if it received all the help it wanted from developed countries. The INDC that has been submitted does not follow that pattern, but makes it very clear that India wants substantial help from rich nations.

By Joydeep Gupta (thethirdpole.net)

146 nations submit climate action plans to UN

admin
-
0
146 nations submit climate action plans to UN

A total of 146 countries, representing almost 87 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions, have submitted their intended national climate action plans to the United Nations.

UNFCCC Executive Secretary, Christiana Figueres. Photo credit: eaem.co.uk
UNFCCC Executive Secretary, Christiana Figueres. Photo credit: eaem.co.uk

This means that so far over 75 percent of all member countries to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) have responded. This includes all developed countries under the Convention and 104 developing countries, or almost 70 percent of UNFCCC developing member states.

Over 80 percent of the plans include quantifiable objectives and also over 80 percent include intended actions to adapt to climate change.

Christiana Figueres, Executive Secretary of the UNFCCC, said: “Over the past few months, the number of countries submitting their climate action plans to the Paris agreement has grown from a steady stream into a sweeping flood. This unprecedented breadth and depth of response reflects the increasing recognition that there is an unparalleled opportunity to achieve resilient, low-emission, sustainable development at national level. ”

“The INDCs can be seen as an impressive portfolio of potential investment opportunities that are good for each individual country and good for the planet,” she said.

The UNFCCC secretariat, as requested by Parties to the Convention, will provide a synthesis report of all these plans, known as Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs), on November 1.

More countries will continue to submit their plans ahead of the Paris UN climate change conference from 30 November to 11 December, 2015.

The European Union is also counted as a separate “Party” to the UNFCCC in addition to all its members, which means that a total of 147 Parties to the Convention have submitted plans.
National Level Planning Across Diverse National Circumstances.

The Paris agreement is to be a turning point that puts the world on track to the low-emission, climate resilient and sustainable future that is the only way to keep global average temperatures from rising beyond 2 degrees Celsius, the internationally-agreed defence line against the worst impacts of climate change.

In a paradigm shift towards a truly national response to climate change, countries facing many diverse circumstances, from poorest to richest, from largest to smallest, have presented INDCs which are national in scope and with the increased focus on quantifiable objectives.

Many INDCs also take a long term vision of climate action, underlining a growing understanding that unlocking the opportunities from ambitious climate action will require a transformation of how power is produced and consumed and how environments are managed now and over decades to come.

In addition, many countries from all continents, including some of the poorest and most vulnerable to climate change, have presented INDCs that include necessary action to adapt to climate impacts to protect continued sustainable development.

 

Cooperative Effort to Complete Climate Action Plans

Developed world governments, UN agencies and intergovernmental organisations, have been providing assistance to developing countries to prepare their plans.

“The impressive number of INDCs is only matched by the unique process that has underpinned their submission, with many developing countries having been assisted by developed country governments, the United Nations system and others to prepare them in detail and on time,” said Ms Figueres.

“In addition, many countries have engaged in an unprecedented dialogue across government ministries, sectors of their economy and often involving other stakeholders in order to finalize their contributions. This intense engagement and reflection within nations provides a good foundation for current and future ambition,” she said.

Biotechnology: Why Nigeria can’t afford to be left out

admin
-
0
Biotechnology: Why Nigeria can’t afford to be left out

Director General/CEO, National Biotechnology Development Agency, Professor Lucy Ogbadu, insists that Biotechnology has been used for more than two decades without a single, documented safety concern, and that Nigeria cannot afford to be left out in the global agricultural biotechnology revolution

Professor Lucy Ogbadu. Photo credit: economic confidential.com
Professor Lucy Ogbadu. Photo credit: economic confidential.com

Nigerian scientists in the field of Biosciences at this particular time in our history are delighted that their nation is among the comity of nations on course in appreciation and application of Biotechnology research with all its potentials to improve the quality of life and create job opportunities for her people.

Immense benefits derivable from this technology are globally acknowledged and they are as varied as the vast scope of the technology itself dating back to the first, second and third generation versions. Global interest by the ordinary, of the impact of Biotechnology centre mainly on Food security, Health benefits as well as Environmental preservation among others. Consequently, Nigeria as a developing nation confronted with challenges of food insecurity, poverty and inadequate health care was quick to embrace Biotechnology by producing a well-developed, robust and all-inclusive Biotechnology Policy. The institutional framework – the National Biotechnology Development Agency – prescribed by the policy to oversee its implementation, in living up to expectation is instrumental in playing the pivotal role of coordinating activities under national and international programmes. Though the birth and nurture of this policy is credited to the Federal Ministry of Science and Technology, the operationalisation is all-inclusive and open to a wider participation of relevant ministries, departments and agencies (MDAs) namely Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, Federal Ministry of Health, Federal Ministry of Environment and Federal Ministry of Education lending itself to an emerging vibrant synergy that is already yielding dividends and promises greater benefits for the nation.

Nigeria’s Biosafety law is a monumental delight to all her scientists drawn from these MDAs as well as the tertiary institutions who jointly participated in systematically making and presenting a convincing case for the enactment of the law. Successful operation of a Biosafety law in the country ensures that Nigeria’s well over 70 million farmers will begin to reap the significant benefits of modern Agricultural Biotechnology similar to economic transformations currently experienced in Brazil, India, Burkina Faso, Egypt and South Africa that have all adopted this modern approach to boost their food and cash crop production activities. By having a Biosafety law in place, Nigeria has commenced a silent revolution towards attaining the following goals:

  • Transforming agriculture from subsistence to commercial/business level. Farmers all over the world are witnessing improved yield, and therefore improved access to food not only for their families but as well as producing excess for export. It should be noted that the adoption of higher yielding biotech crops by farmers across the world, continue to deliver substantial agronomic, environmental, economic, health and social benefits to farmers and society at large. In some cases, farmers have seen a reduction in the use of pesticides by 75 percent thus reducing their exposure to chemicals.
  • Addressing food security challenges of a growing population by not only making food available in sufficient quantity but in quality to meet dietary needs for an active and healthy life. The bulk of our staple foods and invariably our diets are mainly carbohydrate thus predisposing the populace to diseases associated with imbalanced diets. Biofortification of such staples offers a lasting solution to the health challenge confronting a large proportion of the populace whose income level restricts their access to other foods containing good amounts of protein and micronutrients.
  • Empowering our agricultural research institutes to continue with their work on biotech crops and ultimately commercialize the positive outcome of their research findings for the benefits of farmers. Our scientists are working assiduously to release certain crops of interest currently in research pipeline. These are crops like cowpea, cassava and sorghum that have defied all conventional efforts at tackling problems of pest infestation, poor nutrient content. In no distant time, Bt cowpea resistant to maruca pest, Africa Biofortified Sorghum laden with vitamin A, Iron and Zinc as well as Cassava plus fortified with vitamin A which are currently undergoing multilocational/adaptation trials, will be available to meet dietary needs of our people.
  • Consolidating the diversification of economy from oil revenue to a more sustainable revenue generation from massive food/cash crops activities supported by modern agricultural biotechnology. The importance of this to a country like Nigeria known as a net importer of major food items, moving from that to becoming an exporter nation of agricultural produce cannot be overemphasised.

 

Global stand

International organisations have through empirically tested methods attested to the safety of GM foods and products. The following international bodies have made unequivocally positive statements:

  1. The European Food Safety Agency,
  2. International Service for the Application of Agricultural Biotechnology and Acquisition (ISAAA).
  3. African Union (AU) and NEPAD Africa Biosafety Network of Expertise,
  4. The World Health Organisation (WHO),
  5. Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO),
  6. US Department of Agriculture,
  7. Australian Food Safety Standards Organisation

Biotechnology has been used for more than two decades without a single, documented safety concern. Nigeria cannot afford to be left out in the global agricultural biotechnology revolution.

 

Global Realities and biotechnology intervention

  1. Global human population is projected to rise up to 9.6 billion by 2050 while climate change raises additional problems for agriculture in terms of water and temperature stress, increased disasters and extreme weather conditions. What these portend are unique food security challenges.
  2. Though some progress has been made in meeting the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) on extreme poverty, malnutrition, infant mortality and food security, much work remains to be done to ensure that citizens of all countries enjoy the full opportunity of healthy and sustainable access to food.
  3. Biotechnology and genetic engineering, while not being the only solution to these challenges, offers great potential in addressing many specific concerns in food production, including micro-nutrient deficiencies, productivity and yield gaps, pest and disease problems.
  4. There exists an international scientific consensus that the “genetic modification” process itself does not raise any risks over conventional breeding approaches but rather offers a quicker and more precise approach.
  5. The debate around genetically modified products continues and is often characterised by emotive and misleading information about purported dangers that are not supported by any scientific evidence. Nigerian biotechnologists are well trained and strategically positioned for practice and regulatory function.

 

We hereby declare our commitment and determination

  1. To work collectively to improve the communications environment, including the use of the latest as well as traditional communication strategies to ensure effectiveness.
  2. To work inclusively, with all stakeholders, even those opposed to this technology, in an effort to build consensus and common understanding.
  3. To promote choice, so that farmers, consumers, and other end-users can make informed decisions that reflect their best interests.
  4. To address the concerns of people at all levels, to ensure the widest participation possible.
  5. To demonstrate how agricultural production challenges can be tackled using biotechnology, and how it can directly contribute to food and nutrition security, poverty alleviation, job creation and sustainable economic development.
  6. To support credible scientists who are most trusted by the public and governments, to be effective communicators and to have a closer relationship with media and policymakers to ensure that scientifically informed messages reach target audiences.

How Africa pledged to take climate action, by PACJA

admin
-
0
How Africa pledged to take climate action, by PACJA

Mithika Mwenda, Secretary General of the Pan African Climate Justice Alliance (PACJA), believes that Africa’s climate action pledges show commitment to a fair and binding deal in Paris

Mithika Mwenda, Secretary General of the Pan African Climate Justice Alliance (PACJA). Photo credit: cloudfront.net
Mithika Mwenda, Secretary General of the Pan African Climate Justice Alliance (PACJA). Photo credit: cloudfront.net

As of October 1, 47 out of 54 African countries have submitted their national plans for the UN climate deal, or Intended nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs.) Africa’s vast and environmentally diverse landscape and coastal areas mean that each of its country’s climate action plans vary widely and can include comprehensive emission reduction plans, sectoral targets, policy frameworks, regulations and other tools such as carbon markets, subsidies and incentives.

South Africa’s proposes that its emissions will peak by 2025, plateau until 2035 and thereafter decline. Morocco, for example, has proposed an increase of solar power to a 14% share in its electricity generation capacity by 2020. Among their climate action pledges, African countries have made some bold and strong targets, showing their fierce commitment to reducing global emissions. Ethiopia, one of the first African countries to submit has pledged: a 64% reduction on business as usual emissions by 2030. And Comoros has made the most ambitious target of an 84% reduction in emissions by 2030. Such bold commitments show that Africa’s potential to reduce emissions is great, even though it has contributed the least to building these levels in the first place.

With Africa bearing the brunt of climate change impacts, adaptation has been given as much focus as mitigation in countries’ targets. Adaptation is crucial to protecting and promoting development gains, especially in Africa.

One thing is for sure, and seen in common throughout all of Africa’s climate action plans: all pledges are premised on getting the means of implementation and adequate resources from developed nations. Not just in terms of finance, but in technology transfer and enhancing the capacity of African nations to meet their climate pledges.

Whatever policy measures we put in place cannot be at Africa’s cost alone. It’s affecting the whole world, everyone is affected, and we all have to chip in. Civil society in the north must start to unite and put pressure on their governments to commit to a fair and just agreement for the world, not just for Africa.

African civil society will be holding their governments to account on committing new resources from national budgets for investment to help people adapt and build climate resilience. As well as getting the necessary contributions from other countries, strong leadership and coordination amongst responsible agencies is imperative to guarantee their effective implementation and to achieve the intended levels of ambition.

It’s certainly a huge step in the right direction that so many African countries have taken affirmative action to contribute to this landmark global deal and have shown their commitment to climate action. These action plans should empower and support our people to build their resilience to the devastating impacts of climate change. The INDCs are an important part of an ongoing process.

World leaders must deliver strong commitments to close the funding gap and help Africa adapt to the devastating effects of climate change. They should ensure that Paris delivers a fair, ambitious and binding deal at a level adequate to stop climate change and keep global warming well-below 1.5°C.

Yet with two months to go until countries aim to strike a global climate pact in Paris, collective commitments do not meet the internationally agreed limit of 2C. Governments will need to focus on revising their goals from 2025 onwards to avoid the catastrophic effects of climate change worsening still.

Paris starts things, it’s not an endpoint. Heads of state need to work together to see firm and equitable policies implemented as we move towards 2020 and beyond. We’re talking about saving lives here. The world has a unique opportunity to collectively turn one of the biggest challenges facing humankind into one of the greatest opportunities to build a healthy planet.”

Africa’s climate pledges are as follows:

1/10 – Botswana: 10% emissions cut by 2030, from a 2010 baseline. Cost estimate US$18.4 billion.

1/10 – Cameroon: Cut emissions up to 32% by 2035 on business as usual, depending on international support.

1/10 – Sierra Leone: Pledges to keep emissions “relatively low” (close to 7.58MtCO2e) by 2035, or achieve neutrality by 2050, conditional upon international support.

1/10 – Guinea: A 13% reduction on emissions by 2030, compared to 1994 levels, excluding land use and forestry, conditional upon international support.

30/9 – Togo: Emissions cuts of 11% from business as usual by 2030, rising to 31% with international support. Price tag US$3.5 billion.

30/9 – Lesotho: An unconditional 10% reduction in emissions compared to a business-as-usual scenario by 2030, or a conditional reduction of 35% by 2030, dependent on international support.

30/9 – Mozambique: Estimated emissions cuts of 76.5 MtCO2eq over 2020-30, from business as usual

30/9 – Liberia: Emissions cuts of 15% from business as usual by 2030, subject to international support.

30/9 – Rwanda: Target still under development. US$24 billion price tag for water, energy and agriculture measures.

30/9 – Malawi: Mix of policies could cut per capita use from 1.4t CO2e in 2010 to 0.7-0.8t in 2030, if fully implemented, compared to increase to 1.5t under business as usual.

30/9 – Zimbabwe: Plans to keep per-capita emissions from energy sector 33% below business as usual by 2030, provided there is sufficient support.

30/9 – Burundi: Aims to cut greenhouse gases 3% below business as usual by 2030, rising to 20% on international support.

30/9 – Sao Tome and Principe: Cut emissions 24% by 2030 on 2005 levels. Country is a net carbon sink.

30/9 – Guinea Bissau: Aims to boost renewables’ share of the energy mix to 80% by 2030 and develop a national reforestation programme by 2025. Section on adaptation includes to increase protected area coverage from 15 to 26%.

29/9 – Congo: Cut emissions by 48% by 2025 and 55% in 2035 below business as usual levels.

29/9 – Tanzania: cut emissions by 10-20% below business as usual by 2030.

29/9 – Zambia: Emissions cuts of 25% from business as usual by 2030 with domestic resources, costed at US$15 billion, increasing to 47% with an estimated $35bn of international support.

29/9 – Namibia: An 89% cut to greenhouse gas emissions from business as usual by 2030, mainly through reducing deforestation. Price tag: US$33 billion.

29/9 – Swaziland: Aims to double the renewable share of its energy mix by 2030, compared to 2010 levels. Also pledges to develop a national emissions inventory, baseline and business as usual projections, in order to draw up a national mitigation goal by 2020.

29/9 – Mauritania: 22.3% emissions cuts by 2030 below business as usual, of which five-sixths hinges on international support. Total cost for mitigation and adaptation estimated at US$17.6 billion.

29/9 – Cote d’Ivoire: 28% emissions cut below 2012 levels by 2030.

29/9 – Cape Verde: Will specify GHG cuts from energy sector in second half of 2016, sets targets to achieve 100% grid access by 2017. Renewable energy penetration to rise to 3o% by 2025, or up to 100% on international finance.

29/9 – Niger: Commits to cut GHGs 3.5% below business as usual by 2030, rising to 34.6% with international support

29/9 – Benin: Aims to cut greenhouse gas emissions 3.5% below business as usual levels by 2030, rising to 21.4% with international support. Budget to meet mitigation and adaptation goals is US$ 30 billion, $2.32 billion of which Benin will provide.

28/9 – Mali: Cut emissions from agriculture 29%, energy sector 31%, land-use change 21% below business-as-usual by 2030.

28/9 – Chad: Cut emissions by 18.2% below business as usual by 2030, rising to 71% on international support

28/9 – Mauritius: 30% emissions cut by 2030 compared to business as usual, subject to international support.

28/9 – Central African Republic: Reduce emissions 5% on business as usual levels by 2030. Total cost of $3.69 billion; $3.46 relies on international cash.

28/9 – Burkina Faso: An unconditional pledge to reduce emissions by 6.6% below business-as-usual levels by 2030, with a further 11.6% reduction conditional upon international support. Includes interim pledges for 2020 and 2025.

28/9 – Gambia: A 44% emissions cut by 2025, compared to business as usual projections, and a 45% cut by 2030.

26/9 – Senegal: GHG cuts of 6% by 2030 from business as usual, rising to 31% on international finance. Cost of plan comes to $21.5 billion.

25/9 – South Africa: Aims to ‘peak, plateau and decline’ emissions by 2030, requires $53 billion for adaptation to climate impacts.

25/9 – Seychelles: Will slash emissions 29% on a business as usual basis by 2030, costing an estimated $309 million

24/9 – Madagascar: 14% cuts on business as usual by 2030.

24/9 – Eritrea: An 80.6% reduction in emissions by 2030, compared to business-as-usual levels. 39.2% of this is unconditional, and can be financed using domestic resources.

23/9 – Ghana: 15% emission cuts on business as usual by 2030.

21/9 – Equatorial Guinea: Cut emissions by 20% by 2030 compared with 2010 levels.

17/9 – Comoros: 84% cut in GHG emissions by 2030 on business-as-usual.

16/9 – Tunisia: 13% cut in carbon intensity by 2030 from 2010 levels, rising to 41% with international cash

4/9 – Algeria: 7% unconditional cut to greenhouse gas emissions from business as usual by 2030, rising to 22% with international support

18/8 – Democratic Republic of Congo: 17% GHG cuts by 2030 on 2000 levels, covering agriculture and forests, conditional on $21 billion of support.

14/8 – Djibouti: Cut emissions 40% from business as usual by 2030 using domestic resources, or another 20% with international support. Take measures to adapt to increasing risk of water scarcity.

24/7 – Kenya: 30% greenhouse gas emissions cut from business as usual by 2030; “significant priority” placed on adapting to climate impacts.

10/6 – Ethiopia: 64% greenhouse gas emissions cut by 2030 on business as usual.

6/06 – Morocco: 32% greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 on business as usual.

1/4 – Gabon: 50% greenhouse gas cuts by 2025 compared to business as usual. The INDC also includes plans for a national carbon market and a domestic green fund.

PACJA is a continental coalition of civil society organisations (CSOs) from diverse backgrounds in Africa that aims at unifying and coordinating isolated civil society efforts on climate change advocacy in Africa, so as to ensure that pro-poor and people-centred response measures are given attention as governments in Africa seek to mainstream climate change into national poverty reduction and sustainable development strategies and actions.

 

Greenpeace wants Congo forest initiative backed by meaningful action

admin
-
0
Greenpeace wants Congo forest initiative backed by meaningful action

The decision of six Congo Basin countries to work with donors to protect their forests is a positive step, but will only be as successful as its implementation, Greenpeace Africa has said.

The Congo forest. Photo credit: newsecuritybeat.org
The Congo forest. Photo credit: newsecuritybeat.org

The Central African Forest Initiative, announced during the UN Sustainable Development Summit in New York this week, will see donors including Norway, Germany, the UK and the European Union pledge financial support for countries including Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Cameroon and Gabon to protect their forests and slow illegal logging and conversion of forests.

“Greenpeace welcomes this initiative, we believe that rainforest protection can only be effective if there is a joint and strong commitment from both African governments and international donors,” said Irène Wabiwa Betoko, Senior forest campaign manager with Greenpeace Africa.

“But any such agreement has to be backed up with meaningful action. Strong pre-conditions need to be set up for disbursing funds and safeguards aimed at eradicating corruption in the forestry sector need to be instituted. Governments need the means and capacity to ensure these reforms can realistically be implemented.”

Norway was the first donor to announce its financial support, pledging up to $47 million annually between 2016 and 2020.

“Experience tell us that such agreements are easier said than done,” said Wabiwa Betoko. “Communities on the ground who depend on the Congo Basin forests for their livelihoods are often the first to lose out when it comes to weak forest governance and weak political will to ensure words become actions.”

Groups seek end to planned water privatisation in Ogun

admin
-
0
Groups seek end to planned water privatisation in Ogun

Plans by the Ogun State government to privatise water through a Public Private Partnership (PPP) model promoted by the World Bank is a recipe to enslave citizens of the state and generations yet born, the Environmental Rights Action/Friends of the Earth Nigeria (ERA/FoEN) and the Amalgamated Union of Public Corporations, Civil Service, Technical and Recreational Services Employees (AUPCTRE) have said.

Activists protesting water privatisation in Lagos. Photo credit: http://watergrabbing.net/
Activists protesting water privatisation in Lagos. Photo credit: watergrabbing.net

The ERA/FoEN and AUPCTRE disclosed in a statement on Wednesday that neither was any consultation made, nor was there input from civil society and the labour unions in all the stages that got the bill to the table of Governor Ibikunle Amosun. The bill, awaiting the governor’s signature, is said to have speedily passed through the State House of Assembly on 13 May, 2015.

ERA/FoEN spokesman, Philip Jakpor, disclosed in the statement: “The development in Ogun resembles that of Lagos where intense local and international demands for disclosure in October 2014 forced the World Bank to open up on a water privatisation scheme, which centres on the appointment of its private arm – the International Finance Corporation (IFC) to design a PPP water scheme. The Lagos project, just like what is unfolding in Ogun State is shrouded in utter secrecy, with no input from critical segments of the population that it will supposedly benefit. The bank had initially said it had no deal with the Lagos government but swiftly announced it had cancelled the IFC contract following global pressure.”

ERA/FoEN Deputy Director, Akinbode Oluwafemi, was quoted in the statement as saying: “It is utterly disappointing that the Ogun State government is toeing the same path we have observed and campaigned against in Lagos. We urge Governor Amosun not to sign away the sovereignty of the state residents by this anti-people initiative promoted by the World Bank.”

Oluwafemi stressed, “PPPs have a devastating track-record which include rate hikes, sporadic access, unsafe water, and infrastructure neglect so we are in solidarity with the Ogun people in rejecting this false solution to making a basic human right accessible.”

Ogun State Secretary of AUPCTRE, Babatunde Omotola, said: “The bewilderment of Ogun people is further heightened by the fact that the bill before the governor will worsen their plight having watched for years how successive administrations have deliberately allowed public water infrastructure to collapse to pave the way to a loan arrangement which will place more burden on the residents.”

According to Omotola, while the Ogun State government is obligated to identify ways to ensure the rights of citizens to safe and potable drinking water, prioritising the human right to water above and over profit motives should be the driver of such a policy. “We also demand a probe of all the loans thus far sunk into water projects in Ogun State,” he added.

The groups urged the state government to halt the planned privatisation and, instead, integrate broad public participation in developing plans to achieve universal access to clean water including investing in the water infrastructure necessary to provide universal water access, to sustain and create jobs, improve public health, and invigorate the Ogun economy.

Acid rain threatens life in Uganda

admin
-
0
Acid rain threatens life in Uganda

Every time it rains, Barbra Nyawiza, a teacher at Ngaara Primary School in Mbarara district, gets reactions. She sneezes and snoots.

Farmers worldwide are already feeling the effects of rising temperatures and more frequent droughts as a result of climate change
Farmers worldwide are already feeling the effects of rising temperatures and more frequent droughts as a result of climate change

Scientists believe this primary school teacher is most likely allergic to rain.

Jeconeous Musingwire, an environmental scientist, believes Nyawiza is sensitive to acidic pollutants in the rain.

He says such pollutants are a result of gases emitted from industries and vehicles, among others, that end up leading to acid rain.

When introduced into atmosphere, substances from these industries and vehicles such as sulphur dioxide, nitrous dioxide, and carbon monoxide mix and react with water, oxygen, and other chemicals to form acid rain.”

Musingwire insists that they are such chemicals in the rain water that Nyamwiza is allergic to.

He says that in the south western region of Uganda where Nyamwiza lives, acid rain is usually experienced in the month of August after the mid-year dry season.

These gases accumulate in the atmosphere during the midyear drought. They then mix and react with water, oxygen, and other chemicals as the rain season starts in the middle of August.”

Musingwire blames these dangerous gases on the people who have destroyed the environment through deforestation, emission of harmful gases into atmosphere from their factories and vehicles among others.

He says acid rain is not only harmful to human health but also to plants and animals and contaminates water making it unfit for human consumption and increasing its acidity.

“A combination of climate change and acid rain threatens the future of life on the earth.”

One of the persons in the region who has witnessed severe effects of acid rain is Jenaurio Mazimba, a local mason.

“It usual has corrosive effects on buildings we build. It ‘eats’ our limestone and then we have to use other materials or spend more money buying other limestone. ”

Ian Atamba, a PhD researcher and forestry officer with Uganda’s National Forestry Authority, says it is sulphur dioxide in this rain that leads to corrosion on limestone, sandstone, and marble.

He also notes that acid rain has affected several forests in the region.

“It usually damages leaves of trees and exposes them to toxic substances. What do you expect when leaves which are the main source of food for trees are damaged? Trees die.”

“But farmers in the region have the key to ending this problem.”

Atamba says that to solve this problem, farmers should invest in afforestation and reforestation.

“Trees will absorb these hazardous greenhouse gases. They actually store the carbon in their bodies.”

Last year, a Nasa-led study found that forests worldwide absorb 1.5 billion tons of carbon dioxide every year as they photosynthesise and grow.

By Adella Mbabazi 

This story was produced under the CSE Media Fellowships Programme for Global South.

Benue asks Dangote Cement to be environment friendly

admin
-
0
Benue asks Dangote Cement to be environment friendly

The Benue State House of Assembly has called on Dangote Cement Company in Gboko, Benue State, to own up to her Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and adhere to proper Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) in the discharge of their duty.

A cement factory. Photo credit: broadstreetng.com
A cement factory. Photo credit: broadstreetng.com

The state Assembly made this known on Tuesday, September 29, 2015 during plenary and in debate on the Report of the Ad-Hoc Committee on the Poor Condition of Federal Roads in Benue State and Matters Related Thereto.

The Assembly directed the State Ministry of Industries, Trade and Investment to ensure that Dangote Cement Company complies with the directives.

The house gave the directive, stating that Dangote Cement Company, Gboko should liaise with the National Environmental Standards and Regulations Enforcement Agency (NESREA) and the Federal Ministry of Environment in order to acquire a valid EIA certificate and comply with all safety standards in the operation of the company to avoid sanctions.

Speaking earlier, in the lead debate, the Ad-Hoc Committee Chairman, Mrs Ngunan Addingi (Buruku/APC), had explained that their findings indicate that Dangote Cement did not have a valid Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and has failed to adhere to safety standards in its operations as revealed by NESREA and the Benue State Environmental Sanitation Agency (BENSESA).

To this end, she called for urgent steps to be taken to address the problem for the wellbeing of staff of the company, the host community and the state in general.

In their separate contributions, the Majority Leader of the House, Mr Benjamin Adanyi (Makurdi South/APC); Deputy Majority Leader, Mr Nick Eworo (Obi/APC); Minority Leader, Sule Audu (Agatu/PDP); Terhemba Chabo (Gboko West/APC) and Kester Ikyenge (Logo/PDP), who commended the work done by the ad-hoc committee, noted that it is pertinent to forge a way to salvage the sorry state of federal roads in the state.

They added that companies operating in the state must be awakened from their complacency to live up to their corporate social responsibility.

In their submission, Majority Whip, Mr Titus Uba (Vandeikya-Kyan/APC); Minority Whip, Mr Tor Aye (Katsina-Ala West/LP); Mr Egli Johnson (Otukpo/Akpa/PDP) and Mr Daniel Abbagu (Ukum/APC) urged all companies operating in the state to work in synergy with the host communities and the government in order to carry out their corporate social responsibility according to the dictates of international best practices.

Commenting on the performance of Federal Roads Maintenance Agency (FERMA) in the state, Mr. B.B Nungwa (Kwande West/APC) scored them low, saying they needed to wake up to do their job very well and make the state’s roads safer to ply.

Ruling on the matter, Speaker, Benue State House of Assembly, Mr. Terkimbi Ikyange (Ushongo/APC), who advised that Dangote Cement Company, Gboko should put in place safety measures for both staff and visitors, requested the company to submit to the House within one week, evidence of compensation paid all staff who had industrial accident or who died in the course of discharging their duty with the company from 2006 to date.

The house, rising from 33 findings by the ad-hoc committee, made 27 recommendations which include: Urging Dangote Cement Plc, Gboko to urgently liaise with NESREA and the Federal Ministry of Environment in order to carry out all processes leading to the issuance of an EIA to the company; Urge NESREA and BENSESA to follow up Dangote Cement Plc, Gboko and ensure that the company complies with all their recommendations with regards to safety standards, including Environmental Management Plan (EMP), Air Quality Permit, landscaping, removal of solid waste materials, metal scraps, repair or upgrade of oil trap, effluent discharge plant, issuance and enforcement of the use of Personal Protection Equipment (PPE) by staff and visitors, provision of adequate conveniences for staff and visitors, and installation of warning signs. That both NESREA and BENSESA do avail the House with copies of Dangote’s compliance with their recommendations within three months and subsequent follow up by the House.

Other recommendations included that Dangote Cement Plc, Gboko to live up to its responsibility and honour its pledge to construct modern parking lot for its vehicles and another parking lot for third party vehicles within two months and that if any person attempts to disrupt the process of work by extorting money from the company, it should be reported to the House of Assembly in writing; That the House should charge FERMA to direct its contractors to fill up excavations they carry out on highways promptly to avoid exposing road users to unnecessary danger; and FERMA should continue repairing bad sections of roads and filling up of already dug out in Taraku, Ugbokolo and other parts of the state. That if any member of the community attempts to prevent the Agency from discharging its legitimate duties, it should write to the chairman of such local government and submit a copy of the letter to the House of Assembly for further actions.

It will be recalled that the House had set up the ad-hoc committee on 5th August, 2015 following a motion moved by Mrs. Agaigbe Utsaha (Gboko East/APC), who lamented the deplorable state of Makurdi-Gboko federal road, which she noted had claimed many lives through accidents and caused a lot of discomfort to commuters, thereby calling for FERMA to be directed by the House to carry out repairs at bad portions of the road.

The five member ad-hoc committee which was chaired by Mrs Ngunan Addingi (Buruku/APC) and included Mr. Daniel Abbagu (Ukum/APC), Mr Terkaa Ucha (Vandeikya-Tiev/PDP), Dr. Adoga Onah (Oju I/PDP), Adam Okloho (Adoka/Ogboju/APC) as members with Mr Alfred Odeh as Secretary was to find out if Dangote Cement Company, Gboko has a valid EIA, if the Dangote Cement Gboko plant lives up to her corporate social responsibility and why the company has failed to repair portions of bad road within her precinct and to establish a parking lot for her vehicles.

Also, the ad-hoc committee was to interface with FERMA and Federal Ministry of Works in the state in order to acquire necessary information on the state of federal roads in the state and any other matter related to thereof.

By Damian Daga

1...2,1062,1072,108...2,239Page 2,107 of 2,239

TV Report

Archives

2025 EnviroNews Nigeria. All Rights Reserved.

×