Eighty women have graduated from a skills acquisition programme of the Andoni Cluster Development Board (CDB) under the Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria (SPDC) JV’s Global Memorandum of Understanding (GMoU) for the development of communities in the Niger Delta.
Osagie Okunbor, head of SPDC Nigeria
The 80 youths earned National Board of Technical Education approved certificates at the end of a three-month intensive training programme in fashion and design, catering, cosmetology and computer, under a partnership between the Andoni GMoU CDB and the Rivers State Sustainable Development Agency (RSSDA), at the Workmanship and Technical Training Centre (WTTC) in Bori, Rivers State.
“Our Global Memorandum of Understanding with our host communities is anchored on the principle that they should drive their own development and capacity building. This structure elevates SPDC and the host communities to the rank of partners, collaborating for a common purpose; the continued development of Nigeria’s Niger Delta region,” said SPDC’s Head Government and Community Relations, Edesiri Akpomudjere.
He congratulated the beneficiaries for successfully completing the intensive training programme and challenged them to utilise the skills and networks they have gained from the training to their full potential.
“Today is a very unique day and I am glad to see hardworking women graduate from a rigorous training programme,” said Mrs. Blessing Daniel-Kalio, General Manager, Business Development and Job Creation, RSSDA.
The Andoni CDB Chairman, Chief Gad Harry thanked the SPDC JV for playing a key role in the success of the programme. “These young women are our pride, the repository of our own values knowing the role they would play in our society tomorrow,” he added.
Some of the beneficiaries said that the programme has equipped them with skills that would set them apart in an increasingly competitive job market and thanked the SPDC JV for funding the development programmes of the Andoni CDB.
Applause has greeted the World Bank report, “Shock Waves: Managing the Impacts of Climate Change on Poverty”, released on Sunday, November 8 2015.
The report shows that climate change is an acute threat to poorer people across the world, with the power to push more than 100 million people back into poverty over the next 15 years. And the poorest regions of the world – sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia – will be hit the hardest.
Mafalda Duarte, Programme Manager of the Climate Investment Funds
But the report also points to a way out. This requires that poverty reduction and development work continue as a priority while taking into account a changing climate. It also means taking targeted action to help people cope with climate shocks – such as developing early warning systems and flood protection, and introducing heat-resistant crops. At the same time, efforts to reduce emissions should accelerate, and be designed to protect the poor.
The report makes clear the fundamental connection between the goals of stabilising climate change and eradicating poverty – neither can be achieved without the other. The good news about the report, according to the Climate Investment Funds (CIF), is that “good development” in the next 15 years can prevent the worst potential impacts of climate change on the world’s poor. “Good development”, according to the report, is rapid, inclusive, and climate informed.
CIF Programme Manager, Mafalda Duarte, says: “The findings of ‘Shock Waves’ should shock the global community into ramping up its ‘good development’ efforts. This report shows why it is so important that leaders work for an ambitious deal at United Nations climate negotiations this month in Paris.”
“Climate change is hitting poor people first and worst,” says Duarte, “‘Shock Waves’ estimates that without sufficient good development, climate change could push an additional 100 million people into extreme poverty by 2030. For the sake of people and planet, we need to drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions and invest in a more resilient future.”
“We have the ability to end extreme poverty even in the face of climate change, but to succeed, climate considerations will need to be integrated into development work. And we will need to act fast, because as climate impacts increase, so will the difficulty and cost of eradicating poverty,” John Roome, Senior Director for Climate Change at the World Bank Group.
“The report demonstrates that ending poverty and fighting climate change cannot be done in isolation – the two will be much more easily achieved if they are addressed together,” said Stephane Hallegatte, a senior economist at the World Bank who led the team that prepared the report. “And between now and 2030, good, climate-informed development gives us the best chance we have of warding off increases in poverty due to climate change.”
Climate impacts will affect agriculture the most, a key sector in the poorest countries and major source of income, food security, nutrition, jobs, livelihoods and export earnings. By 2030, crop yield losses could mean that food prices would be 12 percent higher on average in Sub-Saharan Africa. The strain on poor households, who spend as much as 60 percent of their income on food, could be acute. The resulting malnutrition could lead to an increase in severe stunting in Africa of 23 percent.
At the global level, warming of 2-3°C could increase the number of people at risk for malaria by up to 5 percent, or more than 150 million more people affected. Diarrhea would be more prevalent, and increased water scarcity would have an effect on water quality and hygiene.
The result would be an estimated 48,000 additional deaths among children under the age of 15 resulting from diarrheal illness by 2030.
To prevent this grim picture becoming reality, the report prescribes “good” development that is rapid, inclusive and climate-informed. This includes continuing and expanding programs that reduce poverty while increasing people’s capacity to prepare for and cope with shocks. For instance, in Kenya, the Hunger Safety Net Programme prevented a five percent increase in poverty among beneficiaries following the 2011 drought.
These efforts will need to be coupled with targeted climate adaptation measures, such as protective infrastructure like dikes and drainage systems and mangrove restoration to deal with flooding, changing land-use regulations to account for sea level rise, disaster preparedness, and introduction of climate-resistant crops and livestock breeds.
In Uganda, the combination of new crop varieties and extension visits increased household agricultural income by 16 percent.
The report looks at different scenarios to 2030 and finds without good development more than 100 million additional people would be living in poverty. In India alone, an additional 45 million people could be pushed back over the poverty line by 2030, primarily due to agricultural shocks and increased incidence of disease.
In the longer term, only immediate and continued efforts to reduce global emissions will save poor people from climate impacts, according to the report. To be successful, governments should design mitigation policies so that they protect, and even benefit, poor people. And action can be taken to reduce the burden of policies that would impose new costs – such as by strengthening social protection and assistance, or using cash transfers.
One analysis of 20 developing countries showed that collecting and redistributing energy taxes would benefit poor people despite higher energy prices, with the bottom 20 percent of the population experiencing a net $13 gain for each $100 of additional tax. Well-designed emissions-reductions programs that strengthen the productivity of agriculture and protect ecosystems could benefit 20-50 million low-income households by 2030 through payments for ecosystem services.
The report argues that in the poorest countries, domestic resources may be insufficient to put in place such measures, and international support will be essential. This is particularly true for investments that involve high immediate costs but are urgently needed to prevent lock-ins into carbon-intensive patterns, such as for urban transport, energy infrastructure, or deforestation.
All ongoing projects, including the mega-schools in Osun are to be completed as scheduled. This was the assurance given by the Governor of Osun State, Ogbeni Rauf Aregbesola, after his assessment tour of the projects at the weekend.
Gov. Rauf Aregbesola of Osun State, Nigeria. Photo credit: thesheet.ng
A statement by the Bureau of Communication and Strategy, signed by its Director, Semiu Okanlawon, quoted the governor as stating this during an unscheduled inspection tour of the ongoing construction sites of Ilesa High School.
He was quoted as directing all the contractors of the ultra-modern schools across the state to accelerate work in their various sites.
Aregbesola noted that it would be unfortunate and regrettable if the contractors handling school projects failed to complete and hand-over the schools to the state within the agreed period.
He added that schools under construction are financed with the Sukuk bond, saying there is no excuse for the contractors not to accelerate work pace.
The Governor had earlier in the week also visited Community Elementary/Middle School, Dada Estate, Osogbo High School, Ataoja School of Science, Osogbo and New Model High school in Ede.
For any contractor slowing down on their site, the governor gave stern warnings noting that his government, despite the financial meltdown, was poised to fulfil its electioneering promises.
The governor stated that he will leave no stone unturned to ensure that all the on-going school projects were delivered in no distant time to enhance the reclassification exercise of the state government.
Aregbesola charged the contractors to keep the contractual agreement with the state government by using the recommended materials for the school building project, noting that government will not shift ground on the set requirement for the projects.
He chided contractors for what he described as slow pace of work on site, pointing out that he would continually be paying unscheduled visit to site to ensure that contracts awarded by government are properly monitored.
The governor frowned at the contractors handling Osogbo and Ilesa High schools, noting that the pace of work by the contractors are too slow as most of the expected works at the sites were not encouraging.
On Osogbo High School, he said, “what I met here today was not impressive at all and I am disappointed in the snail pace of work on this site.
“I have been coming here several times but met the work stagnant as no tangible progress could be said to have been made by the handlers of the school building.
“The site for football pitch has not been cleared. The administrative building has not been completed. The school structure remained stagnant,” Aregbesola lamented.
Aregbesola added that it is unfortunate that the school project expected to be completed and commissioned for use soonest has been delayed due to insensitivity and lack of diligence by the contractor.
He said, “It is unfortunate and regrettable that some of our projects are being handled slowly but notwithstanding we will do all we could to ensure a speedy and possibly accelerated implementation as I am personally ready to tour across all the ongoing projects in the state.
“Our government will spare no effort in its bid to reposition the state most especially the education sector as we are bent and irrevocably ready to provide necessary facilities and equipment to aide teaching and learning process through conducive atmosphere,” The governor pointed out at the site.
He therefore directed contractors of all the ongoing projects to expedite action that will facilitate quick implementation of projects, saying government will henceforth not hesitate to revoke the contracts for any non-performing contractor.
The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) has initiated the development of a full-sized Global Environment Facility (GEF)-supported project titled “Sustainable Fuelwood Management in Nigeria”, whose overall objective is to secure multiple environmental and socio-economic benefits, including reduced greenhouse gas (GHG) emission from wood fuel consumption, enhanced carbon storage and sequestration, as well as improved rural livelihoods and opportunities for local development.
Participants at the workshop
As part of the requirements for GEF-supported projects, a consultant was engaged to develop the Project Document (PD), which is then subjected to stakeholders review and validation before it is submitted to the GEF Secretariat. Consequently, a cross-section of participants gathered last week in Kaduna at a two-day workshop to review the draft PD. Kaduna, Cross River and Delta states have been picked as sites for the demonstration projects.
Valued at $4.4 million, the five-year project that is projected to have socio-economic benefits for rural dwellers in the country was approved in April 2014. It is expected to attract a co-funding in the region of $16.4 million. Numerous other GEF projects are currently ongoing in the country.
The Sustainable Fuelwood Management project is made up of five components, which are: Sustainable Fuelwood Supply, Fuelwood Demand Management, Domestic Industry for Clean Cook Stoves and Other Clean Energy Alternatives, Financial Models for Sustainable Fuelwood Management, and National and State-level Policies and Enabling Environment for Sustainable Fuelwood Management.
Under Sustainable Fuelwood Supply, models for sustainable fuelwood production will be demonstrated in:
3,000 ha of degraded land restored with Sustainable Land Management (SLM) measures like farmer managed agroforestry and community woodlots and Farmer Managed Natural Regeneration (FMNR);
Farm and community nurseries established to supply nine million seedlings, 20 business agents trained in SLM;
Agroforestry Management Committee created and strengthened in SLM.
Fuelwood Demand Management will feature:
Improved awareness and acceptance of alternative (renewable and more efficient) energy technologies for cooking and heating among local communities in Cross River, Delta and Kaduna states;
Increased penetration of improved/alternative energy technologies for domestic needs in targeted communities by at least 20%;
Avoided emissions of 40,000 t CO2e/year from combustion of un-sustainable biomass in inefficient cook stoves (replaced by more efficient or other alternatives).
Additionally, Domestic Industry for Clean Cook Stoves and Other Clean Energy Alternatives aims to achieve:
Improved efficiency, quality and affordability of domestically manufactured cooking/heating appliances for low income end users;
Strengthened domestic supply chain for EE/RE cooking and heating appliances
Outcomes under Financial Models for Sustainable Fuelwood Management are listed to include:
Consumer financing model for EE cook stove successfully operates covering at least 100,000 households per year;
Sales of efficient cook stoves increased by at least 20% in Cross River, Delta and Kaduna states;
Investment in sustainable forest management in Cross River and Delta states increased.
However, outcomes from National and State-level Policies and Enabling Environment for Sustainable Fuelwood Management entail an: Enabling policy and business environment for sustainable fuel wood production and consumption at national and state-level in Cross River, Delta and Kaduna states.
Mr Etiosa Uyigue of the GEF-UNDP Energy Efficiency Programme said: “The project is aimed at reducing the rate of deforestation and complement existing activities that reduce carbon dioxide emission into the atmosphere. Reducing emission from deforestation is critical and is part of the global climate campaign. Our development partners have approved the sum $4.4 million for the project which is also targeted at improving rural livelihoods and opportunities for the next five years.”
Mr Okon Ekpenyong of the Energy Commission of Nigeria (ECN) said: “Activities under the project entails the development improved woodstoves. There is no management structure in place for the fuelwood; nothing is done to sustainably harness the resource.
“Desertification and erosion will worsen the situation if felling of trees for fuelwood is not managed. This project is useful and important, given the population of those doing business with fuelwood.”
Andrew Ojeblenu of the Delta State Ministry of Environment disclosed: “The project is very important to us in Delta State, in the light of the fact that we have done numerous projects to manage our fuelwood. We solely depend on the forest for fuel. We have developed the ecostove that reduced the use of fuelwood by 60%-70%.
“We also introduced biogas digesters, solar boreholes, and embarked on sensitisation campaign in communities on how pressure on forests can be reduced. The project is important to the entire country, in relation to climate change and REDD.”
An official from the Department of Forestry, Federal Ministry of Environment, stated: “Eighty percent of fuelwood consumption is rural-based. The quest for fuelwood is one of the main drivers of deforestation. We establish linkage with anyone involved in actions to address the issue. Fuelwood trade in the country is semi-organised.”
After over 11 years of intellectual gymnastic between experts, policymakers, investors as well as consumers, the Federal Government under the reign of former President Goodluck Jonathan in April, 2015 signed into law the National Biosafety Management Act (NBMA). The objective of the Act is to give legal backing to the practice, proper deployment and development of modern biotechnology activities in Nigeria.
Director General/Chief Executive Officer of NBMA, Sir Rufus Ebegba
The passage, no doubt is good news mostly to scientists who stood and ensured the establishment of a regulatory body under the Act to superintend over the development of this technology. Also, smallholder farmers are not isolated from this excitement as over 70 million of them are already estimated to benefit from the huge economic potentials similar to Brazil, India, South Africa, Burkina Faso and Egypt.
The aforementioned countries unarguably increased their socio-economic prosperity using techniques of modern biotechnology with Burkina Faso famously known for Bt Cotton production and export in West Africa. Proponents are vehemently optimistic that if properly applied, this technology has the capacity to reduce poverty, increase agricultural yields not only for consumption but also for export, and serve as superlative alternative to Nigeria’s revenue drought.
With the emergence of non-genetically modified products advocates, although they are yet to scientifically proof their case, issues of safety on human health and environment have severally attracted global attention, particularly whenever attempts are made to introduce GM products in a new environment. This new way of thinking directly or indirectly has shown to lower the adoption of this technology. Consciously, even if scientists believe GM products and modern biotechnology practices are safe, they also are aware of its inimical aspects if not properly conducted.
It is for this reason that Nigeria joined other member countries to sign the Cartagena Protocol on Biodiversity to mitigate risks and enforce safety in application of modern biotechnology activities in the nation. The Act, which prescribes procedures for the application of this technology and penalties for contravention in the eyes of proponents, answers all the discrepancies raised by those opposed to GMOs.
“The Biosafety Act is the only safety valve for harnessing the potentials of modern biotechnology safely,” said Sir Rufus Ebegba, Director General/Chief Executive Officer of the National Biosafety Management Agency (NBMA). “The public should trust the Agency’s decisions and avoid being misled by unscientific information and acts capable of causing misinformation, distrust and panic.”
Similarly, Professor Lucy Ogbadu, Director General of the National Biotechnology Development Agency (NABDA), who expressed satisfaction over the successful passage of the Act on behalf of scientists in the country, said Nigeria’s Biosafety law is a monumental delight to all her scientists who jointly participated in systematically making and presenting a convincing case for its enactment.
By having a Biosafety law in place, Prof. Ogbadu said, “Nigeria has commenced a silent revolution towards attaining agricultural transformation, addressing food security challenges, empowering agricultural research institutes and 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.”
On its part, the government has enacted several regulatory instruments such as Biosafety Policy, Administrative Guidelines, Biosafety Containment Facilities Guidelines, Confined Filed Trial Monitoring and Inspection Manual among others before and after the establishment of the NBMA. Four institutions and six confined field trails have also since been approved to support the effective operationalisation of modern biotechnology programmes.
Summarily, while the hysteria and passage of the Biosafety Law continues to dominate discussions around the scientific cycle, it is important to also recognise the huge task associated with modern biotechnology development, mostly how to manage the argument presented against GM products. Also, all other institutions whose schedule of duty relates to GMOs by any means should go all out to educate the Nigerian public with the necessary information and understanding of this issue, this is so because in the nearest future, the information will turn out to be the only defensive weapon when unpatriotic elements try to deprive them of the good aspects of GMOs while trying to foist the bad part on them.
On the 10th of November 1995, 20 years ago, Kenule Beeson Saro-Wiwa and eight Ogoni patriots were hanged by the military regime of General Sani Abacha following a trial that received world-wide condemnation. Ken Saro-Wiwa’s activities prior to his death and the execution have become pivotal points in the environmental justice movement, says the Health of Mother Earth Foundation (HOMEF).
The late Ken Saro-Wiwa
Ken Saro-Wiwa was executed along with eight other Ogoni leaders namely, Saturday Dobee, Nordu Eawo, Daniel Gbooko, Paul Levera, Felix Nuate, Baribor Bera, Barinem Kiobel, and John Kpuine.
According to HOMEF, since the entry of Shell, the oil giant, into Ogoniland, the company had been in dispute with the Ogoni people who protested non-violently against the destruction of their environment on which they depended for farming and fishing. The frequent oil spills in Ogoniland and elsewhere in the Niger Delta have been estimated to be equal to an Exxon Valdez oil spill every year, the group notes in a statement, adding that thousands of impacted sites in the Niger Delta remain to be properly remediated to this day, even when they have been officially certified as cleaned.
In response to the devastation of the Ogoni environment, Ken Saro-Wiwa led the Movement for the Survival of the Ogoni People (MOSOP) to bring international attention to the ecological crisis, including through an Ogoni Bill of Rights issued in 1990. Unable to continue waiting with no response from the government or from Shell, MOSOP conducted a peaceful protest involving 300,000 Ogoni people and declared Shell persona non grata in Ogoniland on 4th January 1993.
The Abacha regime arrested, imprisoned and sentenced Ken Saro-Wiwa and the eight Ogoni leaders to death in what observes described as highly questionable circumstances. They were executed on 10 November 1995, several days before the appeal period had elapsed. The hanging of the Ogoni 9 in 1995 was a culmination of the cruel crimes that were being committed against the Ogoni people as a result of extractive activities in their territory, contends HOMEF.
In the last 20 years, several cases have been brought against Shell before national and international courts, many of which have acknowledged the company’s controversial practices. In the same period, Nigeria has transitioned away from military dictatorship, Ken Saro-Wiwa’s last writings have been published to international acclaim, several honors and memorials have been instated, and there has been continuous international outcry for the remediation of the Niger Delta region.
“The report of the assessment of the environment of Ogoniland carried out by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) absolutely validates all the complaints of the Ogoni people about the ruination of their environment,” says Nnimmo Bassey, Director of HOMEF. “The implementation of the UNEP report will be a sort of restitution and penance for the harm inflicted on the people and their environment. It would probably also make Ken Saro-Wiwa and the other Ogoni martyrs turn in satisfaction in their graves, seeing that their labours have not been in vain.”
He adds: “We recall Saro-Wiwa’s last statement before the Tribunal sentenced him and his compatriots to death: ‘I repeat that we all stand before history. I and my colleagues are not the only ones on trial. Shell is here on trial and it is as well that it is represented by counsel said to be holding a watching brief. The Company has, indeed, ducked this particular trial, but its day will surely come and the lessons learnt here may prove useful to it for there is no doubt in my mind that the ecological war that the Company has waged in the Delta will be called to question sooner than later and the crimes of that war be duly punished. The crime of the Company’s dirty wars against the Ogoni people will also be punished’.
“While Shell has repeatedly denied involvement in the macabre affair leading to and including the executions, their failure to clean up the devastated Ogoni environment continues to reinforce their nonchalance towards the value of lives and property of the Ogoni people.
“We note the upsurge of criminalisation of environmentalists around the world and join men and women of goodwill to demand a halt to the killing of community and environmental activists. We also call for the trial of leaders of corporations committing crimes against Mother Earth,” stressed Bassey.
“The Ogoni patriots were martyred and buried, but that never buried their agitations. Neither did their being covered up in graves cover up the glaring pollution across Ogoniland and all over the Niger Delta. Polluters will have their days in court, as Saro-Wiwa prophesied. We are seeing those days already. A fast tracked clean-up of Ogoniland will be partial atonement for the crimes against the people.”
Shell Nigeria Exploration and Production Company (SNEPCo) has signed an agreement with Project Gaia Prospects Limited (PGPL) for the conduct of a pilot study on the use of Ethanol clean cookstoves, a cleaner and safer way of cooking. SNEPCo will provide 2,500 clean cookstoves and 15,000 canisters for distribution to households in Lagos while PGPL will ensure the supply of Ethanol fuel blended with methanol during the one-year study. The (M)Ethanol clean cookstoves project aims to reduce mortality associated with indoor air pollution by providing cleaner and healthier cooking alternative to kerosene, firewood and charcoal.
L-R: Director, Project Gaia International, USA, Mr. Harry Stokes; Managing Director, Project Gaia Prospects Limited, Mr. Joe Obueh; Managing Director, Shell Nigeria Exploration and Production Company, Mr. Bayo Ojulari; General Manager, External Relations, Shell, Mr. Igo Weli; and the General Manager, Production, Shell Nigeria, Mr. David Martin, at the signing of a partnership agreement for a pilot study on the use of (M)Ethanol clean cookstoves, at the SNEPCo office, Lagos… on Friday.
The Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves (GACC) estimates that household air pollution contributes to 70,000 premature deaths every year and affects 127 million people in Nigeria.
“We’re pleased to promote a safer cooking system in Nigeria as part of efforts to encourage access to a better source of energy,” said Bayo Ojulari, SNEPCo Managing Director, at the signing ceremony on Thursday, November 5, 2015. “There is a compelling case for action on a better and leaner cooking method. I’ll be taking a personal interest to ensure the agreement we’ve just signed delivers on all promises and opens the door to safer cooking in Nigerian households.”
Harry Stokes, the Director of Project Gaia International said: “We started this journey with Shell International in 2001 and executed the first project three years later in Brazil and Haiti with support from Shell Foundation. We then went to Ethiopia where the government has supported the use of Ethanol clean cookstoves in all refugee camps because of the inherent health benefits. We’re happy that the project is now in Nigeria with the active support of SNEPCo.” He said Project Gaia plans the fabrication and assembly of the (M)Ethanol clean cookstoves in Nigeria to ensure their availability and promote local content development in Nigeria.
Also speaking, Shell’s General Manager, Production, David Martin, who serves on the board of the GACC, said: “We eagerly look forward to the completion of the pilot study in Lagos so the benefits can quickly spread to other parts of Nigeria. This is about saving lives, stopping deforestation, and creating employment through the production of the clean fuels in-country and the planned local assembling of (M)Ethanol clean cooktsoves by Project Gaia.”
SNEPCo had earlier supported a pre-pilot health study in Ibadan, the Oyo State capital, under the supervision of Prof. Christopher Olopade, a specialist in pulmonary medicine at the School of Medicine of the University of Chicago in the United States. The 150 households covered in that study said they found the Ethanol clean cookstoves better and more convenient. SNEPCo hopes to promote wider usage of the new cooking system and encourage families to switch from unclean fuels through the Lagos pilot.
SNEPCo’s role in the (M)Ethanol clean cookstoves project in Nigeria follows from Shell’s active participation in the Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves. The Alliance is working with governmental stakeholders and partners to enable 17.5 million households to adopt clean cookstoves and fuels in Nigeria by 2020.
In this treatise he presented recently in Yenagoa, Bayelsa State, Nnimmo Bassey of the Health of Mother Earth Foundation (HOMEF) explores the dynamics of engaging the skills, knowledge and expertise of local communities, in the light of an enabling environment
Nnimmo Bassey
Introduction: Our environment, our heritage
Our health and well-being is dependent on the health of our ecosystem. To the average Nigerian, and to Niger Deltans in particular, it is the truth when we say that the environment is our life. At the continental level, most Africans identify themselves as sons or daughters of the soil – when they speak about their lands of origin. In other words, our identity is tied to our land, tied to our soil.
Nature’s gifts, otherwise termed natural “resources” and nature’s cycles and actions, otherwise termed ecosystem services, are all gifts of nature. Our use and enjoyment of these gifts are expressions of stewardship and appreciation of the intrinsic value of nature. In other words, these benefits can be appreciated without recourse to monetary computations and payouts. The use of our soils, water, soil nutrients and organisms are gifts with deeper significance than financial filters can capture. Our duty as responsible children of the soil is ensuring integrated and sustainable management of our land, water, plants and living creatures.
Note 1: Our environment is not just where we live, it is our heritage. It offers us material, aesthetics and spiritual benefits. The challenge that we face today is that of human use and management of these gifts of nature.
Resource versus Re-Sources
The beginning point of our discussion is to interrogate our understanding of the word “resource.” Our understanding, is adequately captured in our publication, Re-Source Democracy. In it we posit that “the things we term ‘natural resources’ are the resources of Nature and not of humans. The fact that we discover them or extract them does not make these objects or things ours. At best, humans are merely borrowing from nature. Unfortunately, the process of borrowing often brings harm to nature, and her constituents, including humans.” We went further to elaborate that we should be speaking of re-source, with a hyphen as a way of reminding our self of our ties to the source. So re-source urges us to understand our close link to our source, nature.
As the title of our publication indicates, democratic relationship to nature’s re-sources opens up a vista of community ownership of those re-sources. This we believe should be the context within which ecosystem services ought to be framed and understood. Let us take a quick extract from Re-Source Democracy.
Re-source democracy hinges on the recognition that a natural ‘resource’ fundamentally belongs to Nature and secondly to communities of species and peoples who live in the territory or have traditionally held the territory where the ‘resource’ such as forests, rivers or grazing lands exists. Re-source democracy is about stewardship that recognises the right of citizens to establish rules and to act in line with traditional as well as best available knowledge to safeguard the soil, trees, crops, water and wildlife first as gifts of Nature and secondly to enjoy the gifts as necessary provisions that support their lives and livelihoods as well as those of future generations. Re-source democracy calls on us to re-source, to re-connect with Earth – our source of life – and to respect her as a living being with inherent rights, and not just a ‘resource’ to be exploited.
It hinges on pragmatic politics and wisdom that our relations with nature cannot be left to speculators and manipulators of market forces whose drive is to commodify Nature. It ensures the right (and demands a responsibility) to participate in decisions that determine our access to, and enjoyment of nature’s gifts and removes the obstacles erected by the politics of access while providing process for redress. It demands that certain places must be off limits to extractive activities especially when such re-sources are found in fragile ecosystems or in locations of high cultural, religious or social significance in order to support the higher objectives of clean and safe environments to ensure citizens’ wellbeing.
Note 2: Nature has intrinsic value and maintains its cycles. The services of nature should not be linked to financial compensations.
The Skills of Local Communities
The skills of local communities represent knowledge developed and acquired over centuries of living in, and interacting, with their environment. Their skills are thus encapsulated in the very cultural heritage that they pass down from generation to generation.
External factors and pressures make local communities appear to have lost skills with which to sustainably manage their environment. Such external pressures disrupt and impair ecosystems in various ways and to various degrees. In the Niger Delta, environmental damage occurs from various factors including oil pollution, gas flares, deforestation, dumping of toxic wastes, coastal erosion and invasion of alien species.
These disruptions are so dramatic that local communities have no time or financial resources to acquire reasonable means of adaptation. This can be said to be the case in many parts of the Niger Delta where hopes that oil extraction would bring wealth and well-being has consistently delivered irredeemable horrors.
Persistent and protracted pollution and other forms of disruptions of ecosystems can lead to a loss of memory of what constituted community well-being at a time in the past when the environment was managed by the people without external interferences. Memory loss matches loss of skills to defend and sustainably enjoy the gifts of nature.
Note 3: The enabling environment to restore and secure the skills of local communities can best be achieved by the remediation or clean-up of their environments in a way that places it in a suitable state to support local livelihoods.
Expertise of Local Communities
The expertise of local communities does not include knowledge of how much carbon is stored in the trunks of trees or in soils. Market environmentalism or the notion that nature can only be protected or managed when assigned monetary value has become widespread because its rests on the bedrock of dominant and predatory economic systems. Rather than take steps to protect ecosystems in full understanding that its services are essential for our survival and that of other living species, actions and notions of protection are often based on market mechanisms including carbon trading offering participants the opportunity to trade in air and other contrived and imaginary products.
Local expertise in this context, on critical interrogation, could amount to nothing more than whipping local communities into line, in order to preserve certain ecosystems for the ultimate benefit of persons located far away from the communities. We will explain this in the next section. But let us add here that the expertise that will be disproportionately compensated in any project anchored on carbon speculation and trade will ultimately be the experts or consultants who speak the language of the trade and can look at a forest and basically see nothing but carbon, Naira, Dollars and Euros.
This is one of the huge negatives in these processes. They are processes of exploiting local communities and Mother Earth as well.
Note 4: Carbon trading benefits speculators and carbon traders, not local communities.
Environmental Limits and Carbon Speculation
Are we saying that our ecosystems should not be protected? Are we saying that communities should not benefit from nature’s gifts in their environment? The answer to both questions is NO. What we are saying is that to tie the services of nature to monetary considerations as the sole impetus or propelling reason for protecting such services is more suspicious than some may think.
In The Rights of Nature, Maude Barlow writes in the chapter on “Nature: A Living Ecosystem From Which All Life Springs,” that, “many in power now use the term (green economy) to essentially protect the current economic system that promotes more growth, production and global trade.”
And here is where we explain what we hinted at in the last section. How does the estimation and payment for ecosystem services provide less benefits to communities? Here is how.
The world is currently faced with a number of crises, among which is that of environmental change, including climate change. The Niger Delta has become one of the most polluted places on earth due largely to the extraction of crude oil from the region. This sorry state of affairs makes the Niger Delta a rather attractive place for projects that promise to bring benefits to the local communities. However, the starting point of who benefits from market environmentalism and conservation is not the challenged environments in poor communities. The starting point is the fact that rich countries, by their consumption levels have largely exceeded environmental limits and they need to find a way to compensate for this. These mechanisms permit them to continue on unsustainable paths while believing that they are somehow taking concrete steps.
One way this overconsumption is compensated for is through what is known as carbon offsetting. What this means is that if a limit is known as to how much a company or a country is permitted to pollute the atmosphere with carbon, for instance, the company or country can come to a forest in Bayelsa State or in Cross River State and secure a sizeable piece of the forest whose trees are estimated to have as much carbon as what the company or country is releasing into the atmosphere somewhere else. It could also be that a company or country is not polluting at all, but decides to invest and own the carbon in the trees in your community. If the company or country is polluting elsewhere, and happens to have more carbon in trees in a forest in a community, it can see the excess carbon that is over and above its polluting levels as its carbon credits which the company or country can sell to another entity to enable it continue polluting without changing its production systems.
Carbon credits help the owners to make money and also gives the buyers the license to carry on polluting. This may sound strange, but it is built on the old pattern of payment for indulgence or for forgiveness of sin so that a sinner could go off with a clear conscience, perhaps sin again, come back to pay some more sin credits and go off again absolved of his or her sins to repeat the cycle.
Note 5: Carbon credits offer the rich the licence to pollute or to promote pollution.
Ecocide
The level of pollution in parts of the Niger Delta is such that one would not be wrong to wonder if they could ever be restored. The level of ecological harm can best be classed as ecocide, including irreversible disruption of the cycles of Nature. The perpetrators of these atrocities should be held fully accountable.
Some communities in Bayelsa State suffer persistent and regular oil spills. The story of the devastation of Ogoniland is well documented and authenticated. The recent report by Amnesty International and Centre for Environment, Human Rights and Development (CERHD) confirm that even places that have been certified as cleaned up are far from being so in reality. Among other things, the report showed that Shell Petroleum Development Company (SPDC) recorded a total of 1,693 oil spills between 2007 and 2014, claiming to have spilled an obviously understated 351,000 barrels of crude oil into the Niger Delta environment. That is just one oil company. The report also confirmed that oil companies make empty claims of cleaning up their mess in the region. We are here referring to their oil spills. We are not speaking of the obnoxious gas flares and the other toxic wastes and produced water dumped in the already battered environment.
The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) report indicates that it will take a whopping thirty years of dedicated work to clean the land (5 years) and water (25 years) in Ogoniland. UNEP also stated that about $1billion would be required to set up the structures and commence the clean-up processes. Four years down the road, that clean-up has not begun.
With the depth of the environmental degradation the best benefit the people of Niger Delta can receive is a clean-up of their environment to rescue them from the claws of death. With a thorough clean up, the people would enjoy good health, enjoy beautiful creeks and sea foods and carry on with productive livelihood activities.
We posit that the best value of environmental services that they people could get is the value of fully restored and healthy environment. The polluters should pay the full restoration costs and their directors should be held personally liable in addition.
Note 6: What the ecosystem benefit the people of the Niger Delta should have is those provided by restored natural environments. This will become more urgent if oil becomes an unwanted or worthless product.
A REDD Card
As the No REDD in Africa Network (NRAN) states in its upcoming book, “The worst form of slavery is to willingly offer yourself on the auction block, get bought and pretend you are free. This is what participation in the mechanism called Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD) is. Coming at a time when climate action has shifted away from legally binding requirements to voluntary, “intended nationally determined contributions”, REDD provides a perfect space for polluters to keep polluting while claiming they are champions of climate action.” NRAN also states that “The REDD mechanism is already resulting in the violation of individual rights, as well as collective rights of communities and indigenous peoples. REDD offers polluting industries, carbon speculators, and governments that serve them the freedom to continue officially endorsed misbehavior.”
NRAN also characterises REDD in Africa as a new form of colonialism that threatens to trigger a continent grab. According to NRAN, REDD is a mechanism whose name sells what it cannot deliver. Everyone desires an end to deforestation and no one approves of forest degradation. The network also explains that REDD takes advantage of the critical role forests and all other ecosystems play in the ecological balance of Earth to sell the concept, while at the same time giving climate criminals the opening to enclose the commons, abridge community rights and gamble away our future through African carbon stock markets such as the African Carbon Exchange (ACX) in Kenya and the African Carbon Credit Exchange (ACCE) in Zambia. Looking up to market mechanisms such as REDD and all its variants as a solution to deforestation, poverty, hunger, climate impacts, etc, is another kite being flown to hoodwink the poor and permit the powerful to displace the poor and to literally grab the carbon in the trees and environment generally.
Note 7: REDD does not deliver on what the name suggests. It may displace deforestation but would not stop it. Even where trees stand, knowing the amount of carbon in them is a part of the game of carbon speculation.
Conclusion: Money cannot buy Life
A commentator writing about the joy that greeted oil find Ugandan gives a universal warning: We have what remains of our natural past because there was connectivity between certain cultures and the environment, with these cultures making their environments and the environments making the cultures. But now this is threatened. The preferred culture of money characterised by spiralling consumerism and, poverty production is compounding the problematic.
This short contribution has been presented to remind us all that our environment is our life and that nature cannot be placed on the market shelves. We also seek to warn ourselves that off-setting mechanisms are not new in the history of exploitation of our continent. We only need to think back to what beads and whiskies exchanged for a couple of centuries ago. Real action to halt deforestation and enthrone sound management systems, including community management of community forests should be supported and promoted without recourse to carbon speculation.
Carbon trade, ecosystem service payments are definitely attractive to polluting oil companies and other remote players in the world. But what would it benefit communities in the Niger Delta if their forests, lands and creeks are enclosed in exchange for ecosystem service payments while the communities remain mired in rampant oil spills, explosions, fires and gas flares?
The enabling environment for engaging the skills, knowledge and expertise of local Niger Delta communities will happen when the environment is cleaned up and the principles of re-source democracy, including re-source ownership and defense are guaranteed.
Reactions have trailed the recent decision by President Barack Obama of the US to deny TransCanada’s application to build the Keystone XL pipeline. Observers say that, through this singular act, Obama has made history by being the first world leader to turn down a major infrastructure project because of its impact on the climate.
US President, Barack Obama
Co-founder of 350.org, Bill McKibben, says: “President Obama is the first world leader to reject a project because of its effect on the climate. That gives him new stature as an environmental leader, and it eloquently confirms the five years and millions of hours of work that people of every kind put into this fight. We’re still awfully sad about Keystone south and are well aware that the next president could undo all this, but this is a day of celebration.”
Executive Director of 350.org, May Boeve, adds: “This is a big win. President Obama’s decision to reject Keystone XL because of its impact on the climate is nothing short of historic – and sets an important precedent that should send shockwaves through the fossil fuel industry.
“Just a few years ago, insiders and experts wrote us off and assured the world Keystone XL would be built by the end of 2011. Together, ranchers, tribal nations, and everyday people beat this project back, reminding the world that Big Oil isn’t invincible – and that organised people can win over organised money.
Bill McKibben
“But the win against Keystone XL is just the beginning, because this fight has helped inspire resistance to a thousand other projects. Everywhere you look, people are shutting down fracking wells, stopping coal export facilities, and challenging new pipelines. If Big Oil thinks that after Keystone XL the protesters are going home, they’re going to be sorely surprised. Today in Canada, dozens of people are risking arrest at Prime Minister Trudeau’s residence as part of the ‘Climate Welcome’ action to urge him to put an immediate freeze to tar sand expansion.
“More than anything, though, today’s decision affirms the power of social movements to enact political change, and a clear sign that our movement is stronger than ever. We’re looking to build on this victory, and show that if it’s wrong to build Keystone XL because of its impact on our climate, it’s wrong to build any new fossil fuel infrastructure, period. With the same broad coalition that stood up against this pipeline and took to the streets during the People’s Climate March, we’re better positioned than ever before to make real climate policy a top priority for the U.S. government and achieve meaningful progress in this year’s climate talks. Our movement simply will not rest until our economy shifts away from the dirty fossil fuels of yesterday to the clean renewables of tomorrow.”
Prince Odey Oyama, the Executive Director of Rainforest Resource and Development Centre (RRDC), an environmental NGO based in the Cross River State of Nigeria, in this piece lists concerns relating to the Super Highway project, charging President Muhammadu Buhari to urgently seek answers to pending issues
President Buhari unveiling the plaque with Governor of Cross River Prof. Ben Ayade during the Ground Breaking Ceremony of the 260km Super Highway Double Carrier Road from Calabar to Northern Nigeria on 20th Oct 2015. Photo credit: vanguardngr.com
By the act of performing the ground breaking event of Tuesday, October 30, 2015, on the invitation of the Governor of Cross River State of Nigeria, Professor Ben Ayade, the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, President Muhammadu Buhari, has tacitly given consent to the Cross River Bakassi-Katsinna Ala 260km, six-lane dual carriage super highway project. This event that signaled the official date of commencement of the project took place at Obung Village, in Akamkpa Local government Area of Cross River State of Nigeria. The RRDC is concerned about pending issues and obvious insufficiency of vital information pertaining to the project. The pertinent issues pertaining to the project, which appears to be proceeding without adherence to relevant legislations and due process as well as compliance with regulations in environmental safety and protection, are summarised thus.
Transparency & Accountability
The cardinal programme of the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) and Federal Government of Nigeria is Transparency and Accountability. Now that the Governor of Cross River State has decided voluntarily to involve President Buhari in the said project, issues of transparency and accountability now demand urgent clarifications
Funding
So far the sources of funding of this huge highway project, to be fitted with digital internet connectivity, speed cameras and toilet facilities, have not been fully disclosed to the public.
We expect that such disclosures ought to be made to the Federal Government, the Cross River State House of Assembly, as well as the entire people of Cross River State. In a project like this, the issue of disclosing the sources of funding is of paramount importance. Firstly, it would be inadvisable to secure funding from sources that could amount to national security risk to the people of Nigeria. Secondly, except the sources of funding of projects are made public and placed under public scrutiny, the risk of opening the door for money laundering could arise. It is easy for people to use opportunities of very popular projects such as this to recycle stolen public funds and thereafter make the proceeds to appear as legitimate income. This must be avoided and the doctrines of transparency and anti-corruption which constitute the cardinal principles of the Federal Government must be made to apply at all times. Essentially, it should be observed that concealment or disguise of the true nature and source of funding for this super highway project would tantamount to a violation of the following laws: i) Economic and Financial Crimes Commission Act 2004, ii) Freedom of Information Act, 2011, and iii) others, Laws of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
Nature and scope of the project
A super highway project is a “public interest” project. It should be expected that the land survey and engineering drawings as well as all the technical reports that form the foundation of this project ought to have been made public. However, this has not been the case and it makes it very curious that the blueprints of such a huge project running across the entire Cross River State of Nigeria was not made public before the commencement of construction at the ground breaking event. Significantly also, the blueprint of the said project has not been made public till this moment. This is a contravention of the Freedom of Information Act, 2011 of the National Assembly as well as other related legislations and in particular, the doctrine of transparency of the government.
Due Process
The process of awarding public contracts such as this are clearly specified in the “Cross River State Due Process and Price Intelligence Bureau for Public Procurement Law No. 15 of 30th December, 2011. Part III, Section 21 subsection (1) (c-d) of the said Law states inter alia:
21(1): Subject to any exemption allowed by this law, public procurements shall be conducted –
c) by open competitive bidding…
d) in a manner which is transparent, timely equitable for ensuring accountability and in conformity with this Law and Regulations”
Also, “The Cross River State Public Private Partnership Council Law No. 6 of 4th August, 2010,” has specified various stages of approval through which projects contained in the Mater Plan could be executed as Public Private Partnership (PPP) projects. Part II Section 9(h) of the PPP Law provides that the State Bureau of Public Private Partnership (PPP) shall “review, evaluate and recommend project proposals and feasibility studies and oversea the procurement process for PPP projects on behalf of the Public Sector.” Up till this moment, there are no publications indicating that the 260km Super Highway was ever advertised, bided and conducted by the PPP Bureau through the due process as demanded by law. Due process implies that such publications should be made in the State Government Gazette. The government advocates open and transparent people oriented governance with emphasis on greater disclosure of government contracts prior to awards and during implementation. The Governor (Senator, Prof.) Ben Ayade’s administration of Cross River State would appear to be proceeding with the Super Highway project contrary to the rule.
Land Use Act
The Land Use Act No. 6 of 1978, demands that schedules of compensation should be compiled and made public in respect of public projects that encroach on private or community lands and property. This project is traversing several thousands of hectares of private and community forests and agricultural lands as well as sundry properties. By the time of the commencement of the project (that is, the ground breaking event of Tuesday, October 30, 2015) no schedules of compensation has been made public. Up till the present moment also, schedules of compensation (including the names of beneficiaries) have not been made public. The risk is that this project could end up escalating rural poverty if the issues of compensations are neglected. This is so because the affected indigenous people and communities of Cross River State of Nigeria who own these resources could end up losing their sources of livelihoods, income and wellbeing, as well as their natural heritage and territories if the considerations for alternative farmlands and/or payments of compensations are neglected. The interest of the government is anchored on the fact that the government of Cross River State invited the President to perform the ground breaking event. Thus, it becomes necessary for the President to demand answers to compelling issues such as this.
Buffer zone of the Cross River National Park
In as much as the blueprint of the project has not been made public, the extent of the impact of the project on the buffer zone of the Cross River National Park (CRNP) (being a legally established forest zone on the periphery of the CRNP) cannot be immediately established. It has therefore become necessary for President Muhamadu Buhari to demand the submission of the blueprints of the project to the CRNP and the National Park Service for scrutiny. This is significant because it has been observed that the super highway project is now being routed to traverse through the buffer zone of the Cross River National Park and other associated areas of conservation interest. In so doing, it has been made to encroach upon lands constituting the support zone of the National Park. It is evident, therefore, that the super highway project will provoke adverse and debilitating consequences on the wildlife population of the Park thereby contravening Part VI, Section 31, subsection 1(m-o) of the National Park Service Act which states inter alia:
“31(1) A person who, unless authorized to do so under this Act or the regulations made under this Decree –
(m) carries out an undertaking connected with forestry, agriculture, grazing or excavation; or
(n) does any leveling of the ground or construction or any act tending to alter the configuration of the soil or the character of the vegetation; or
(o) does an act likely to harm or disturb the fauna and flora; …in a National Park, is guilty of an offence under this Act.”
The position of the Rainforest Resource and Development Centre on this specific matter is that, the Cross River State government of Nigeria cannot rout the super highway through the buffer zone of the National Park knowing that the “buffer zone” is a creation of law stipulated under Part VII, Section 47 of the National Park Service Act to protect the boundaries of the Park from disturbance. The routing of the super highway through the buffer zone is clearly in contravention of the provisions of the National Park Service Act CAP. N65, (Laws of the Federal Republic of Nigeria). Under this law, Part IV, Section 22, sub-section C (iv-vi) stipulates that:
“(iv) any work which could alter the configuration of the soil or the character of the vegetation, or
(v) any water pollution, or
(vi) any act likely to harm or disturb the fauna flora…is prohibited.”
Importantly, it should be observed that Part VII, Section 45 of the National Park Service Act specifies that the Federal Environmental Protection Agency (now subsumed under the Federal Ministry of Environment) should undertake the production of an Environmental Impact Assessment reports for projects such as this. Therefore, any act contrary to this provision is a contravention of the law.
National Park Service Act, Cap. N65.
The National Park Service Act, CAP. N65 was previously established as Decree No. 36 of 1991 and later promulgated as Decree No 46. This law which is now an Act of National Assembly is made to protect all lands and territories constituting National Parks in Nigeria. It prohibits forest-based and construction activities that are likely to harm or disturb fauna and flora within the delineated National Park areas as well as the Buffer Zones of the Parks. Emphasis is also placed on the need for EIA reports to be produced on all projects or activities to be sited in all areas and/or buffer zones adjoining the Parks. Emphasis is equally placed on the participation of communities in such projects.
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Law
This legislation prohibits activities carried out in sensitive areas where such are carried out in the absence of mandatory studies. The intention of the EIA law is to safeguard the population and environment with regard to any form of environmental degradation resulting from unplanned development projects. So far no Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) report has been published in respect of the super highway project for public scrutiny as demanded by the Environmental Impact Assessment Degree No. 86 of December 1992, which is now an Act of National Assembly, CAP. E12. The consequences of sighting a super highway close to sensitive habitats are indeed very severe. The legal instruments that mandatorily demand a full Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Report of the sighting of Construction of Mass Rapid Transport projects in such sensitive locations are subsisting and available. Also, the creation of Federal and State Environmental Protection Agencies under Degree No. 59 of 30th December, 1992, (which is now an Act of National Assembly, CAP. F10) and the Cross River State Edit No. 4 of 29th August, 1996 (both of which are now subsumed under the Federal and State Ministries of Environment), as well as the National Environmental Standards and Regulations Enforcement Agency (NESREA) Act No. 25 of 31st July 2007 and the National Park Service Act, CAP. N65 provides the reason and means to enforce the EIA Law. The siting of the super highway project within the forest estate and sensitive habitats of Cross River State must be made to comply with existing legislations to provide EIAs where necessary and to undergo scrutiny by the Federal and State Ministries of Environment, the National Environmental Standards and Regulations Enforcement Agency and the National Park Service before being given final approval to proceed. In this respect the following Federal Laws are yet to be complied with:
The Land Use Act No. 6 of 1978;
The Environmental Impact Assessment Act, CAP. E12
The Federal Environmental Protection Agency Act, CAP. F10
The Cross River State Edit No. 4 of 29th August, 1996;
National Environmental Standards and Regulations Enforcement Agency, Act No. 25 of 31st July 2007; and,
The National Park Service Act, CAP N65.
Conclusion
Despite the obvious inadequacies of information pertaining to the articulation of the project, Buhari was made to give consent for the construction of the project in the ground breaking event. It has therefore become necessary for the President to demand answers to the ethical issues that have been raised here above. Since the government of Cross River State decided to involve the person and office of the President in this project, it behooves the same government of Cross River State to make declarations on all these matters. It should be observed that the performance of ground breaking event makes it urgently necessary for answers to be provided to these burning issues. It is the position of the Rainforest Resource and Development Centre (RRDC) that Mr. President should kindly look into these matters and take concrete steps towards ensuring that Governor Ben Ayade of Cross River State provides the urgently needed answers to these compelling issues.
