A number of environmentalists belonging to different groups in Nigeria gathered in Lagos recently expressing their concern over the much-talked-about Petroleum Industry Bill (PIB) for failing to address certain key issues. They also said the push for the adoption of genetic engineering technology in crop breeding and animal production has heightened biosafety concerns with regard to human health, as well as the socio-economic wellbeing of local food producers. The gathering of environmental groups at the briefing included Corporate Accountability and Public Participation Africa (CAPPA), Health of Mother Earth Foundation (HOMEF), Environmental Rights Action/Friends of the Earth (ERA/FoEN) and We the People.
PIB
The Bill was first introduced to the legislature in 2008. The PIB aims to bring together about 16 existing legislations on Nigeria’s petroleum industry into a single cohesive legislation to govern the industry from the upstream to downstream sectors. Speaking on the PIB, Ken Henshaw of We the People, said “that the current version of the Petroleum Industry Bill failed to address community, economic and environmental concerns.”
Gas flaring
Henshaw said that “the PIB makes the flaring of gas illegal. However, it creates a series of exemptions which basically ensures that the same gas flare regime continues literarily unchecked.”
According to him, the Bill identifies instances where gas flaring may be permitted. These include (a) in the case of an emergency; (b) pursuant to an exemption granted by the Commission; or (c) as an acceptable safety practice under established regulations. The Bill goes further to clarify that the Authority or Commission may grant a permit to a Licensee or Lessee to allow the flaring or venting of natural gas for a specific period – (a) where it is required for facility start-up; or (b) for strategic operational reasons, including testing.
He noted that, “The section however does not provide an explanation of what ‘strategic operational reasons’ are beyond testing. It also does not state the timeframe allowed for flaring in the case of facility start up or for strategic operational reasons. These provisions could be easily abused and turned into a license for unchecked environmental and health damage to communities.”
Henshaw said, “Clearly, the Bill proposes the utilization of gas flare fines in more income yielding investments without any special consideration for the communities who suffer the impact of gas flaring.
“The PIB does not place any definite flare-out date, presenting the impression that the practice will continue indefinitely to the detriment of host communities who continue to bear the dangerous consequences. The PIB does not appear to consider Nigeria’s climate change pledges as contained in the nation’s Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs).”
Climate change
Henshaw said that at a time when the world is moving away from crude oil, the PIB is planning to make more investments in regard to frontier basin exploration.
He said, “The provisions and proposals in the PIB are also indicative of the fact the Nigerian government is unperturbed by concerns of global warming and climate change. Ironically, Nigeria is emerging as one of the most impacted countries globally by the effects of climate change. The shrunken Lake Chad, increased desertification and the regular floods around the Atlantic coast are ready evidences. That the PIB pays no heed to issues of climate change, despite Nigeria’s NDCs, and aims to plunge the country further into fossil extraction is a major source of concern.”
Biosafety concerns
Joyce Brown of HOMEF spoke on biosafety concerns. She said “The unrelenting push for the adoption of genetic engineering technology in crop breeding and animal production has heightened biosafety concerns with regard to human, animal and environmental health as well as the socio-economic wellbeing of our local food producers. “Nigeria’s move to join the International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV) through the hurriedly developed and assented Plant Variety Protection (PVP) Bill further compounds the problems as provisions in that law stifles the rights of small holder farmers who produce the bulk of the food we consume today.”
Brown explained that UPOV is a patent driven system formulated without the participation of African countries and designed for countries where agriculture is a business rather than a way of life. Such countries have a tiny fraction of the population involved in agriculture which is of the industrial type.
She said the “PVP Bill which has been signed by the President among many other issues, criminalises our farmers if they duplicate or share seeds registered under the law.
“Although the proponents of the bill insist that genetically modified organisms (GMOs) will not creep into the food system as part of the new plants varieties, there are provisions in it which highlights the contrary.
“For example Clause 9 establishes a PVP Advisory Committee which includes known GMO promoters such as the National Biotechnology Development Agency (NABDA) and the biosafety regulatory agency, NBMA.”
According to her, “An analysis of the use of GMOs as well as the legislation guiding their use in Nigeria reveals the profusion of GMOs including seeds and processed foods in the country in spite of concerns raised by the public. These products including staple foods-beans, corn and commonly consumed cereals, vegetable oils, noodles, biscuits etc are seeping through the porous hands of the regulatory Agency-The National Biosafety Management Agency (NBMA).
“As highlighted in the report on the State of Biosafety in Nigeria which was released by HOMEF in April 2021, the NBMA has issued 19 permits for introduction of GMOs into the country – eight for field trials, nine for direct use as food and/or feed processing and two for commercial release.
“GM beans and GM Cotton were approved for market placement in 2019. After scientific assessment and critical review of applications for permit, objections have been sent to the NBMA by concerned citizens but these objections have continuously disregarded.”
She said that a market survey carried out by HOMEF between 2018 and 2020 have revealed the presence of over 30 different products containing genetically modified ingredients and/or produced with genetic engineering.
“The question of who is checking the importation of these processed foods with genetically modified ingredients is left unanswered,” she added.
NBMA Act
Regarding the law governing biosafety matters in Nigeria, Brown noted that in 2019, the scope of the NBMA Act, 2015 was broadened to include applications of genome editing, gene drives and synthetic biology as regulated technologies along with GMOs.
She said, “These new techniques pose even more risks to biodiversity and to local economies. The gene drive technology can be used to wipe out whole population of species and can be easily weaponised. Nigeria should be circumspect about adopting or introducing these dangerous and inadequately tested technologies.”
Solutions
Brown suggested that The National Biosafety Management Agency (NBMA) Act 2015 and as amended in 2019 should be urgently reviewed to close the existing gaps and to ensure it protects the interests of the Nigerian people. HOMEF, she said, has drafted a review of the Act.
Other suggestions for improved biosafety include that “Section 10 of the Act should be reviewed to exclude promoters of GMOs in the governing board of NBMA. Permits already granted for importation and use of GMOs in Nigeria should be withdrawn to avert the intended and unintended implications for our health, environment and economy.
“Agroecology is central to achieving food sovereignty. As a system of agriculture that nourishes agroecosystems, is less dependent on fossil fuel energy, respects grassroots farmers knowledge and participation and uses divers ecological practices. Agroecology has the potential to optimally improve food productivity and help with mitigation and resilience to climate change.”
She added that “the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Cartagena Protocol should be domesticated by enactment in line with section 12 of the 1999 constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as amended (2011). This will eliminate legal limitation in the implementation of biosafety norms in Nigeria.”
Henshaw, speaking on the PIB, said “We strongly recommend the introduction of a clause which affirms the outlawing of gas flaring and requires that offenders pay the full economic cost of the flared gas as well as the related health and environmental costs. It should ensure that gas flare fines are invested in the host communities funds and an Environmental Remediation Fund. It is recommended that the discretionary powers given to the Commission to determine how much is paid as penalty for gas flaring be removed. The regulations should clearly peg the fines for violation as stated above.”
He also recommended that “the PIB places a definite date to end gas flaring, and provide a framework to review each company milestone towards achieving the flare out target; as well as establish definite ‘non fines’ sanctions for violations of milestones. It is equally recommended that grounds for exemption on gas flaring should be made more explicit, including for such reasons as ‘strategic operational reasons. Timeframes for such exemptions should also be expressly stated.”
YOU SHOULD NOT MISS THESE HEADLINES FROM NIGERIAN TRIBUNE
Buhari Urges MTN For Quality Service, Downward Price Review In Cost Of Data, Other Services
President Muhammadu Buhari Friday at State House Abuja urged the MTN Group to make the available top-of-the-range service to its Nigerian subscribers… Why environmentalists are unhappy with PIB, state of biosafety in Nigeria ; Why environmentalists are unhappy with PIB, state of biosafety in Nigeria ; Why environmentalists are unhappy with PIB, state of biosafety in Nigeria ; Why environmentalists are unhappy with PIB, state of biosafety in Nigeria
and then