This article was prompted by the fall-out of what Governor Babatunde Fashola of Lagos State said at a lecture he delivered at the Yoruba Tennis Club’s Annual Business Luncheon and Lecture on May 8, 2015 at the Club’s house, Onikan Lagos.

Delivering the lecture titled “The Nigerian Agreement” as guest speaker at the club’s Annual Business Luncheon and Lecture, the governor harped on the need to set the right agenda about what should constitute the responsibility of the government and the governed (the citizenry) in our democratic setting. Aside the responsibility of government to provide security, fight corruption and fix the economy, Governor Fashola believed that the citizens must also set, for themselves, their own agenda anchored on their expectations of what good governance is all about. The governor then pontificated on the various ways to achieve this. The one that is pivotal to this writer among what he suggested was his admonition to the citizenry that “such agreement should include voluntary compliance to Law and Order” and other suggestions which he broached at length during the lecture.

This piece focuses on compliance with the rule of law as it affects urban planning in Lagos State, where the chief culprits of law breaking are the government itself and majority of the citizenry and, by extension, the urban planners who are often in collusion with the public to violate planning regulations, given their penchant and bad reputation for underhand dealings (euphemism for corruption). We shall expatiate further with a few examples to buttress the point being made.

That Lagos is now a full-fledged member of league of mega cities (cities with a minimum population of 10 million and above) around the world such as Tokyo, New York, Beijing, Mumbai and Cairo is not a matter of debate. But the primary concern is the million-dollar question: Is Lagos Mega City functioning properly the way a mega city should function? What most residents of Lagos often complained about, which points to its dysfunctionality, are the issues of perennial traffic congestion, shortage of water supply, environmental pollution (waste, noise and air) overcrowding, insufficient recreational facilities, slum proliferation and concern for security of life and property.

A city can only be functional, liveable, productive and sustainable based on the way it is planned and managed by competent and responsible authority. And to make this possible, it is the tripartite responsibility of government which prescribes the law about governance, the planners who craft the visions for the city in the form of development plan or master plan as well as the citizenry who should comply with the provisions of the law in order to achieve urban sustainability.

Unfortunately, the Lagos Mega City is being deprived of this urban planning ethos by its own government through the misguided efforts of its officials and cavalier attitude of the residents concerning what their roles should be in the planning process. Planning practice in the State of Excellence is contrary to what it should be. Planning is about creating a sense of place and making connections. It is also people-centred – the community members, the officials and others who support planning and, last but not the least, the planners who craft the visions that create livable, productive and sustainable cities.

Despite Governor Fashola’s valiant efforts to revamp the Lagos Mega City region towards the path of livability, functionality and sustainability, the same government openly violates its own planning regulations at its whims and caprices. For example, there is a provision in the State’s Urban and Physical Planning Law that stipulates the setting up of Urban and Regional Planning Tribunal, which is the body to preside over disputes arising from planning activities in Lagos State. The state, under the watch of the governor over seven years, did not bother to set this body up, despite its importance in the effective and equitable operation of the state’s planning machinery.

The citizenry who are aggrieved by the anti-planning activities of government officials have no place to go to obtain justice against the excesses of town planners.  On the contrary, when people violate town planning regulations, the officials are quick to apply the sledge hammer on erring citizens. Sometimes, buildings are demolished on the excuse of land use violation, whereas there are instances where the Lagos State Government equally run afoul of development control regulations. The sitting of a ferry terminal at a site earmarked as a play ground for the residents of Osborne Foreshore Estate Phase II, Ikoyi without due consultation with them (as the state’s planning law stipulates), is a perfect definition of abuse of due process. The state government does not seem to be guided by the axiom that: He who seeks equity must come with a clean hand.

Governor Fashola is an unrepentant advocate of rule of law. But there are proven cases of his government being selective in enforcing its own law(s), especially urban and physical planning law and development regulations. There are many law suits in court against the Lagos State Government by property owners who felt aggrieved by the violations of their rights due to the rascality of Lagos State town planning officials. If gospel according to Governor Fashola, as he canvassed in his lecture under reference, that the citizenry should voluntarily comply with law and order, then, charity should begin at home and the citizenry would follow suit. It is not enough to admonish that the residents should be law abiding, while the custodians and enforcers of the law are law breakers, as typified in the examples cited in this piece. Therefore, it goes without saying that government must walk the talk.

The Lagos Government officials who are saddled with the responsibility of monitoring compliance with development regulations in the state are the chief violators of the law they are supposed to enforce. Town Planners in Lagos are not in the good books of the citizenry. Their connivance and underhand dealings with the members of the public to break planning law is an open secret in the public domain; and a source of constant conflict with Lagos residents, especially property developers who have cause to interface with the planning officials. Lagos State planners are known to approve anything under the sun based on the bargaining power of those who seek their services.  If the stake is high, your plan is approved in a jiffy. If the stake is low, you cause their wrath and, if you dare them, you do so at your peril. Your property will be demolished, instead of being advised to amend your plan in order to make it approvable.

Most are arm chair town planners who sit in the comfort of their office to carry out their planning duties. They seldom conduct site inspection to ascertain the compatibility of land uses and, as a result, they create land uses that are inimical to investment. If not, how does one justify the location of a petrol station right in the middle of a residential area such as the one located on Rear Admiralty Way in Lekki Phase I, which went up in flames last March when a petrol tanker had an accident during the process of discharging fuel within the premises of the station, injuring some people? Or the rampant location of crowd-pulling establishments such as banks, churches and shopping malls in areas with minimal parking space and where they would further aggravate the traffic problem in their vicinity?

For example, a shopping mall (bigger than The Palms in Victoria Island) is under construction just a few metres away from a major roundabout along the Epe-Lekki Expressway. The facility has inadequate setbacks and, consequently, the ease of traffic in-flow and out-flow from the shopping mall have been compromised. Time will tell when the consequence of this planning gaffe begins to manifest after the mall starts operating. The traffic jam would be better imagined.

While all these development infractions persist, the planning authority looks the other way. Erring officials are never sanctioned against the wanton abuse of the very soul of planning by planners in the employ of the Lagos State Government. Such lack of disciplinary actions against offending officers further embolden them to behave the way they like with the aura of the “king-can-do-no-wrong.”

Citizens’ indiscipline and careless attitude to planning is another advertent mistake militating against good urban planning practice in Lagos State. The residents cannot be exonerated from blame for the neglect of their neighborhoods. In our clime, cities are not perceived as “communities” where the residents share common vision, values and concerns; and where life is regulated by co-operation for the common good, most especially the promotion of better quality of life: good schools, provision of urban basic services, recreation, job opportunities, security and nature conservancy. In Lagos State, most of her towns are not communities in the true sense of the word. They are “no-man’s land” where shared values are uncommon but instead, individualism/survival instinct reigns supreme. At the slightest opportunity, the citizens are ready to break the law, a behaviour that is becoming the norm in the society because of the seeming societal biased against the honest and obedient. The management of the city which ought to be a joint responsibility between the government and the governed is left in a fluid state. At its whims and caprices, the government plans for the people instead of planning with them. The citizens never have “our plan”; but government plan. Public participation in planning is perfunctory.  It is practiced in tokenism in Lagos State.

Admittedly, laws are meant to guide the conduct of the citizens. Those who violate the law are reprimanded. However, compliance of the law by the citizenry has to do with the seriousness government attach to the enforcement of the law. If government use double standard, favouritism or has less regard for its own law, the citizens are more often disposed to breach than obey the law. Governor Fashola’s homily about the rule of law and voluntary obedience of law and order by the citizenry will gain more traction if the Lagos State Government leads by example; and by curbing the excesses of its town planning officials who flagrantly commit environmental crime without being brought to book. Once precedence is set in violation of planning law, it becomes a reference point for others to copy.

By Yacoob Abiodun (Urban Planner/ Former Secretary, Housing Policy Council, Abuja)  

The community-based projects (CBR+) component of the Nigeria UN-REDD+ Readiness Programme, among other focal areas, shall design livelihoods initiatives that reduce poverty and support improved forest management. Similarly, the programme shall establish safeguards to ensure that improved livelihoods does no harm to the environment.

This forms one of the numerous resolutions at the second meeting of the Cross River State (CRS) REDD+ Stakeholders’ Forum that held May 7-8, 2015 in Calabar, the CRS capital. The Forum was inaugurated last December as the ultimate platform to coordinate stakeholder participation and contribution to the programme implementation.

REDD, meaning Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation, implies an effort to create financial value for the carbon stored in forests, offering incentives for developing countries to reduce emissions from forested lands and invest in low-carbon paths to sustainable development.

Participants at the May 2015 REDD+ Forum, which sought to consolidate broad-based stakeholder engagement and contribute to the development of a REDD+ strategy, also agreed that there should be deliberate policy review to address the phenomenal forest policy disconnect between Federal and State Forestry institutions. They identified redefining functions as a critical gap to redress.

“There should be deliberate policy to both reduce and manage the lease of forest land for agricultural expansion. CRS and the REDD+ programme should facilitate a state-wide land use plan and local community land use plans to guide decisions around land use,” the gathering resolved, adding that forest valuation is fundamental to shaping REDD+ implementation, and that such valuation should consider both standing forests and the value of regeneration.

While stressing that stakeholder engagement strategy should strongly consider accountability within stakeholders to enable the supply of and demand for information, the delegated agreed that the REDD+ process should closely engage with stakeholders and develop agreements or relevant documents that clearly protect the rights and access of forest dependent communities to their forests.

The Forum likewise resolved thus:

“REDD+ implementation must develop and enforce strategy to empower forest dependent communities to provide consent freely based on adequate previous information. The FPIC principle should be effectively operated, with the consciousness that consultation should not replace consent.

“The CRS REDD+ Forum considers the CRS REDD+ Technical Committee as the principal medium for the facilitation stakeholders’ technical input in the REDD+ programme. The Technical Committee shall take responsibility for the coordination of all sub-committees in the programme. The Terms of Reference for the Technical Committee as developed will guide their technical contribution to the programme and accountability to stakeholders.

“Part of measures to address the problem of deforestation is capacity building for forest dependent communities to monitor and report forest change.

“The REDD+ programme will apply Knowledge Management as an essential means to share and capture lessons among stakeholders to strengthen capacity and improve knowledge about REDD+.

“REDD+ implementation should enable community organising such that representatives of stakeholders are held accountable and are able to report back to their communities.

“The REDD+ programme should effectively engage with institutional heads and REDD+ desk officers in relevant Government MDAs to ensure information and participation is strengthened.

“The recommendations from the Participatory Government Assessment (PGA) report should guide the development of safeguards that will help improve forest governance in CRS.”

Thematic areas of the CBR+ were listed to include:

• Sustainable Forest Management/Biodiversity conservation;
• Capacity Development to engage in climate change mitigation processes, including REDD+;
• Sustainable Livelihoods; and,
• Renewable Energy.

Hitherto, the Programme, which has CRS as a pilot, recorded achievements such as:

• Finalising Nigeria National CBR+ Plan;
• Producing draft call for concept note;
• Reviewing CRS CBR+ Committee operations and membership; and,
• Developing plan to initiate pilot/demonstration projects.

According to Odigha Odigha, chairman of the Cross River State Forestry Commission (CRSFC), on completion of the Readiness phases, the Investment and Performance phases of the REDD+ process will be implemented.

The European Union (EU) has been accused of pushing dangerous cleanup standards for three toxic flame retardant chemicals widely used in building insulation, upholstery and electronics (HBCD, PentaBDE, and OctaBDE). The allegation emerged Friday May 8, 2015 at the onging UN meeting of chemicals treaties in Geneva, Switzerland.

According to the claim, endorsed by Bjorn Beeler of IPEN, Leslie Adogame of SRADev Nigeria and Jindrich Petrlik of Arnika Association, all three toxic chemicals are listed in the Stockholm Convention for global elimination. They are ubiquitous in the environment globally and can disrupt human hormone systems, creating potential adverse effects on the development of the nervous system and children’s IQ.

Additionally, African countries expressed deep concern regarding the EU proposal to recycle products containing toxic flame retardants into new products such as children’s toys, food containers and soft furnishings.

“We do not want toxic chemicals recycled into toys for African children, particularly considering the present vulnerability of children in Nigeria to ongoing toxic dump, and we do not think EU children should be playing with them either,” said Leslie Adogame, SRADev Nigeria. “The EU already sends us ewaste and now it seems they want to increase our toxic burden.”

According to him, the EU proposal will allow toxic recycled products to be used by EU consumers, and then exported to developing countries as waste, transferring the toxic burden from richer countries to poor countries where the capacity to deal with contaminated waste is limited andwhere they will potentially addto health problems and hamper poverty reduction.

Ironically, the waste cleanup limit for PCBs and other substances already listed in the treaty is 20 times safer than the current EU proposal for flame retardants, despite the fact that they are all similarly toxic. Expert advisors to the EU noted that, under the EU proposal, none of the current PentaBDE wastes would qualify for cleanup. The EU appears to be designing a standard to avoid cleanup actions on the world’s most toxic chemicals.

Jindrich Petrlik from Arnika Association said, “As an EU-based public interest NGO we find it shameful to see the EU violating the integrity of the Stockholm Convention, and putting economic interests before human health and the environment. This is poisoning the circular economy.”