Declaration by Laureates of the Right Livelihood Award on Gaza:
As recipients of the Right Livelihood Award, popularly known as the “Alternative Nobel Prize“, we strongly condemn the killing of hundreds of children and innocent civilians in Gaza by the Israeli Defence Forces, the indiscriminate firing of rockets by Hamas against Israeli civilians, and we mourn the continued suffering of Gaza’s inhabitants.
Gaza. Photo: Courtesy statecrime.org
Gaza faces shortages of water and electricity supply, of hospitals, physicians and medicine, while bombs and bullets kill and injure both civilian people and health workers in a spiral of violence and hopelessness. Around 24 % of all those who have lost their lives in Gaza, as a result of Israeli bombing and military invasion, are children.
Nevertheless, the responsibility for such deaths lies not only with the joint and manifold accountabilities of Israel’s soldiers, Hamas’ fighters and their governments. Other governments are responsible either directly or indirectly through the transfer of weapons, military advice and silence. Such countries and the United Nations seem not to have learned from the past. Meanwhile, even as the violence grows rapidly in Gaza, negotiations move at an incredibly slow pace and are hindered by the vested interests of countries that don’t face any bloodshed in this conflict. Dialogue and negotiations cannot be replaced by the use of military force. Revenge solely produces revenge and bloodshed solely produces more bloodshed.
Nobody will forget the recent scenes of broken school books in the streets of Gaza and the broken lives of the children who used them. Their dead bodies splattered near their books, which are never to be used again, paint a tragic picture of unparalleled cruelty. Nobody has the right to end their lives nor to threaten the lives of those children that still survive. They are also our children.
In this context we strongly support the outstanding and courageous work, determination and perseverance – amidst the thunder of bombs – of our fellow recipient Raji Sourani (RLA 2013, Palestine) and his colleagues at the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights in Gaza, who are denouncing the killings of innocent civilians and the continuity of a dirty non-declared war being waged against the principles of international humanitarian law. We also want to express our deepest admiration for the work of Israeli peace organisations such as Gush Shalom (RLA 2001), and the incredible work of all medical personnel operating in Gaza right now continuously highlighted by our friends at Physicians For Human Rights-Israel (RLA 2010), who continue to hold up the torch of humanity despite being exposed to the inhumane machines of war.
As recipients of the Right Livelihood Award, we urge the United Nations, the European Union and regional bodies, such as the Arab League and the Organisation of American States, and countries from all over the world to join their voices, to condemn these unacceptable violations of human rights, to request an immediate ceasefire, lifting of the blockade of Gaza and to ask for the beginning of new peace talks. And to also halt all actions that perpetuate this conflict, hinder a peace settlement and supply the warring parties with arms. If we don’t act urgently, more children and innocent people will be killed in the following days, in the following hours, in the following minutes, in the following seconds.
Signatories to statement: Dr. Ibrahim Abouleish, Founder, SEKEM, Egypt (RLA 2003); Swami Agnivesh, India (RLA 2004); Dr. Martin Almada, Paraguay (RLA 2002); Uri Avnery, Founder, Gush Shalom, Israel (RLA 2001); Dipal Barua, Former Managing Director, Grameen Shakti, now at Bright Green Energy Foundation, Bangladesh (RLA 2007); Nnimmo Bassey, Health of Mother Earth Foundation, Nigeria (RLA 2010); Andras Biro, Hungary (RLA 2005); Citizens’ Coalition for Economic Justice, South Korea (RLA 2003); Dr. Tony Clarke, Executive Director, Polaris Institute, Canada (RLA 2005); Comissão Pastoral da Terra (CPT), Brazil (RLA 1991); Prof. Dr. Anwar Fazal, Director, Right Livelihood College, Malaysia (RLA 1982); Prof. Dr. Johan Galtung, Norway (RLA 1987); Dr. Juan E. Garcés, Spain (RLA 1999); Dr. Inge Genefke, Denmark (RLA 1988); Gush Shalom, Israel (RLA 2001); Dr. Monika Hauser, Founder, Medica Mondiale, Germany (RLA 2008); Dr. Hans Herren, Founder of Biovision Foundation, Switzerland (RLA 2013); Dr. SM Mohamed Idris, Sahabat Alam Malaysia (RLA 1988), Consumers Association of Penang and the Third World Network, Malaysia; Bishop Erwin Kräutler, Brazil (RLA 2010); Dr. Katarina Kruhonja, Center for Peace, Nonviolence and Human Rights-Osijek, Croatia (RLA 1998); Birsel Lemke, Turkey (RLA 2000); Helen Mack Chang, Fundación Myrna Mack, Guatemala (RLA 1992); Dr. Ruchama Marton, Founder and President, Physicians for Human Rights, Israel (RLA 2010); Prof Dr. h.c. (mult.) Manfred Max-Neef, Director, Economics Institute, Universidad Austral de Chile, Chile (RLA 1983); Prof. Dr. Raúl A. Montenegro, President, Fundación para la defensa del ambiente, Argentina (RLA 2004); Frances Moore Lappé, Co-Founder, Small Planet Institute, USA (RLA 1987); Jacqueline Moudeina, Chad (RLA 2011); Helena Norberg-Hodge, Founder and Director, International Society for Ecology & Culture, United Kingdom (RLA 1986); Juan Pablo Orrego, President, Ecosistemas, Chile (RLA 1998); Medha Patkar, Narmada Bachao Andolan, India (RLA 1991); P K Ravindran, Kerala Sastra Sahitya Parishad, India (RLA 1996); Fernando Rendón, Co-Founder and Director, International Poetry Festival of Medellín, Colombia (RLA 2006); Dr. Sima Samar, Chairperson, Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission, Afghanistan (RLA 2012); Dr. Vandana Shiva, Naydanya, India (RLA 1993); Prof. Michael Succow, Founder, Michael Succow Foundation for Nature Conservation, Germany, (RLA 1997); Suciwati, widow of Munir, KontraS, Indonesia (RLA 2000); Dr. Hanumappa Sudarshan, Karuna Trust & VGKK, India (RLA 1994); The Kvinna Till Kvinna Foundation, Sweden (RLA 2002); Shrikrishna Upadhyay, Executive Chairman, Support Activities for Poor Producers of Nepal, Nepal (RLA 2010); Prof. Dr. Theo van Boven, The Netherlands (RLA 1985); Martín von Hildebrand, Founder and Director, Fundación GAIA Amazonas, Colombia (RLA 1999); Dr. Paul F. Walker, Director, Environmental Security and Sustainability, Green Cross International, USA (RLA 2013); Alyn Ware, Global Coordinator, Parliamentarians for Nuclear Nonproliferation and Disarmament, New Zealand/Switzerland (RLA 2009); Chico Whitaker Ferreira, Brazil (RLA 2006); Alla Yaroshinskaya, Russia (RLA 1992); Angie Zelter, Trident Ploughshares, United Kingdom (RLA 2001)
The Right Livelihood Award was established in 1980 to honour and support those “offering practical and exemplary answers to the most urgent challenges facing us today”. It has become widely known as the ‘Alternative Nobel Prize’ and there are now 153 Laureates from 64 countries. The annual Award Ceremony takes place in the Swedish Parliament Building in December, with support by parliamentarians from all established political parties.
The Right Livelihood Award Foundation is based in Stockholm, Sweden. The prize is financed by individual donors.
Bothered about the protracted crisis over the Bonga Oil Spillage in the Niger Delta region, Minister of Environment, Laurentia Laraba Mallam, has given a marching order to Shell Petroleum Development Corporation (SPDC) to ensure that the matter is resolved amicably and expeditiously.
Mallam
Mallam told SPDC chairman in Nigeria, Mutiu Sunmonu, at a recent meeting in Abuja that the series of petitions inundating her office over the issue call for concern, adding that it is in the interest of all parties to get the matter settled soonest.
Expressing her appreciation over the patience of affected communities, Mallam said the Federal Government would not overstretch such tolerance.
She appealed to shoreline communities whose fishing activities are affected by the spillage to continue to exercise patience, adding that government is not unaware of the impact of the spillage on their livelihood and that everything humanly possible would be done to mitigate their sufferings.
Sunmonu, who was accompanied by the Managing Director/CEO of Shell Nigeria Exploration and Production Company (SNEPCO) and other company officials, told the minister that the corporation has carried out wide consultations with stakeholders, and that it is coming out with a mechanism that will put the matter to rest.
He disclosed that a committee of stakeholders made up of SPDC, Department of Petroleum Resources (DPR), National Assembly (NASS), non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and National Oil Spill Detection and Response Agency (NOSDRA) is being set up to come up with recommendations aimed at resolving the matter amicably.
The Shell boss appealed to the minister whom he referred to as the neutral umpire to assist in the settlement of the dispute.
He also acknowledged the patience of the host communities, just as he sued for their continuous understanding.
Biological diversity and ecosystems last week featured prominently in the proposal of a set of 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) that the Open Working Group on Sustainable Development Goals of the 68th session of the United Nations General Assembly agreed by acclamation to forward to the General Assembly, setting the stage for better links between the implementation of the biodiversity agenda of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), and the post-2015 sustainable development agenda.
de Souza Dia
“The results demonstrate the growing recognition that biodiversity is essential for sustainable development. Now we need to ensure that biodiversity remains strongly in the final outcomes for the post-2015 agenda. We further need to ensure that the implementation of these goals and targets is done in a meaningful and effective manner,” said Braulio Ferreira de Souza Dias, Executive Secretary of the CBD.
The outcome of the deliberations of the Open Working Group is extremely positive from the perspective of the Convention on Biological Diversity and the implementation of the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020 and the Aichi Biodiversity Targets. Biodiversity and ecosystems are included throughout the proposed SDGs. There are two goals directly related to biodiversity: Goal 14 on oceans and coasts, and Goal 15 on terrestrial biodiversity. Goal 12 on sustainable consumption and production is also very relevant to the Strategic Plan.
Language referring to biodiversity and ecosystems and/or natural resources is also included in many other goals, including Goal 2 on food security, Goal 6 on water and sanitation, and Goal 11 on cities and human settlements. Other goals which include “sustainability” considerations are also of relevance, as is Goal 17 on means of implementation.
The language in the chapeau underscores that conservation, sustainable use and equitable sharing of benefits are at the heart of the sustainable development process. Paragraph 3 states: “Poverty eradication, changing unsustainable and promoting sustainable patterns of consumption and production and protecting and managing the natural resource base of economic and social development are the overarching objectives of and essential requirements for sustainable development.”
One of the most important achievements is the inclusion in Goal 15 of target 15.9 “by 2020, integrate ecosystems and biodiversity values into national and local planning, development processes and poverty reduction strategies, and accounts.” This target is key as it makes a strong linkage between biodiversity, sustainable development and poverty eradication.
The co-chairs of the Open Working Group – Ambassador Csaba Kőrösi of Hungary and Ambassador Macharia Kamau of Kenya – will forward the text of 17 goals and 169 targets as a report to the General Assembly. This outcome will form an important part of the Secretary General’s “synthesis report” on SDGs and the post-2015 agenda, which will lay out the final steps for completing the post-2015 package in 2015, bringing together different processes that have been ongoing: one on SDGs, one on the post-2015 agenda, and one that includes the Intergovernmental Committee of Experts on Sustainable Development Financing, supported by the Working Group on Financing for Sustainable Development.
“The co-chairs need to be congratulated for their tireless efforts and their deft ability to guide the discussions over the last months” said Braulio Ferreira de Souza Dias. “Thanks to their work and skill, the world is engaged in one coordinated conversation on one of the most important outcomes of the Rio+20 conference.”
These results are directly relevant to the theme of the upcoming twelfth meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (COP-12) and it’s High Level Segment – Biodiversity for Sustainable Development, and point to the growing recognition outside of the traditional biodiversity community of the essential role of biodiversity to achieving sustainable development.
When Parties to the CBD meet in Pyeongchang, COP-12 and the High Level Segment will provide opportunities to further reinforce and integrate the agenda of the CBD with that of the post-2015 process and of SDGs. It is expected that a number of COP-12 decisions, related to oceans, forests, biodiversity for development and others, as well as the many parallel meetings and side events will have the potential to contribute to advancing and implementing the goals and targets proposed under the SDG process. The Pyeongchang Roadmap, an anticipated result from COP-12, will also be important to ensuring that the biodiversity and the post-2015 agendas are more closely linked. The declaration of the High Level Segment is also expected to be transmitted to the United Nations General Assembly, and provide additional elements to the discussions on the post-2015 process and the SDGs.
To highlight the essential role of biodiversity for sustainable development, the Secretariat has chosen to celebrate the International Day for Biological Diversity on 22 May 2015 under the theme of “Biodiversity for Sustainable Development.”
The CBD opened for signature at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 and entered into force in December 1993. It is an international treaty for the conservation of biodiversity, the sustainable use of the components of biodiversity and the equitable sharing of the benefits derived from the use of genetic resources. With 194 Parties up to now, the Convention has near universal participation among countries.
The CBD seeks to address all threats to biodiversity and ecosystem services, including threats from climate change, through scientific assessments, the development of tools, incentives and processes, the transfer of technologies and good practices and the full and active involvement of relevant stakeholders including indigenous and local communities, youth, NGOs, women and the business community.
The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety is a supplementary agreement to the Convention. It seeks to protect biological diversity from the potential risks posed by living modified organisms resulting from modern biotechnology. To date, 166 countries plus the European Union have ratified the Cartagena Protocol. The Secretariat of the Convention and its Cartagena Protocol is located in Montreal, Canada.
The recent article, GM scaremongering in Africa is disarming the fight against poverty, published in the Guardian’s PovertyMatters Blog on 21 July 2014, is a thinly veiled attack on those of us in Africa and elsewhere who are deeply skeptical of the supposed benefits that genetically modified (GM) crops will bring to the continent. Based on a report by London-based think-tank Chatham House, it represents paternalism of the worst kind, advancing the interests of the biotechnology industry behind a barely constructed façade of philanthropy.
Bassey
The report itself, compiled from an ‘expert roundtable’ and interviews with donors, policy-makers, scientists, farmers and NGOs (none of whom are identified), makes several erroneous and contradictory arguments concerning the lack of uptake or impact of GM crops in Africa. Firstly, with breathtaking arrogance, it dismisses the massive groundswell of opposition to GM crops emerging across the globe (including here in Africa) as a European-led phenomenon. It further credits lack of uptake to a concerted campaign of ‘misinformation’ by opponents of GM crops and onerous biosafety regulation, resulting in negative political judgments and a ‘treadmill of continuous field trials’.
To take each in turn, perhaps the report’s authors were simply unaware of global opposition to GM crops, or missed the recent Malawian civil society response to Monsanto’s application to commercialise Bt cotton on the country? Or dismissed the recent mass community protestors in Ghana, Nigeria and Uganda as merely puppets of European NGOs? That Mexico, the centre of origin of maize, has banned the cultivation of GM maize within its borders was similarly overlooked, as was Peru’s 10-year moratorium on GM crops, enacted in 2012. In 2013 India’s Supreme Court declared an indefinite moratorium on all GM food crops, citing major gaps in the country’s regulatory system, while protests led by farmer groups in the Philippines have curtailed field trials of GM Brinjal (aubergine).
Belay
Even in the United States public opposition to GM crops has been growing for some time. Over 500,000 people have written to the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) calling for the rejection of Dow Chemical’s application for several GM crops tolerant to 2,4-D based herbicides. Unperturbed by the prospect of legal action from the biotechnology industry, several States are pressing ahead with laws for the labeling of GM food.
To argue that onerous laws and political expediency has created a situation of ‘continual field trials’, as the Chatham House report does, misunderstands or misrepresents several key issues at play. For example, the report cites ‘stringent’ liability laws across the continent as major hindrance to the research process.
Moreover, the vast majority of GM crops grown worldwide are either tolerant to the application of herbicides, produce their own pesticides (Bt crops) or are a combination of the two. There is good reason that the ‘pipeline’ of new GM crops and traits, such as drought tolerant or nutritionally enhanced African ‘orphan’ crops, has not materialized; they are all profoundly more complex process than what has so far been commercialized. The fabled ‘Golden Rice’ (engineered with extra vitamin A) has been in development since the early 1990s. While this has been going on, the government of the Philippines (one the target countries) has been remarkably successful in lowering vitamin A deficiency using cheap, low-tech solutions.
And here we get to the crux of the matter as citizens of Africa and the global south. The obsession in promoting GM crops in Africa, exemplified in this instance by the new Chatham House report, diverts attention and resources away from a plurality of genuine and localized solutions and flies in the face of the recommendations of independent science.
Mayet
The landmark IAASTD report of 2008 (resulting from the input of over 400 global scientific and agricultural experts) was highly dismissive of the potential of GM crops to benefit the world’s poorest and most marginalized communities, and called for a shift towards agro-ecological practices. These sentiments have since been echoed by numerous individuals and organisations, from the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food to the United Nation’s Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) report of 2013, titled ‘wake up before it is too late’.
Research by the ETC group has shown that small-holder farmers produce 75% of the world’s food, but only use about 25% of the world’s agricultural resources. The industrial agriculture chain only produces about 25% of the world’s food but uses 75% of the planet’s agricultural resources. Imagine the gains that could be made if even a fraction of the resources propping up the industrial food system were channeled into alternative systems.
Africans reject GMOs because the technology has not delivered on any of its promises and poses significant long-term threats to our environment and peoples. Though the issue of risk is given little attention in the report, lest we forget that in late 2013 nearly 300 scientists and legal experts from around the world signed a statement affirming that there is “no scientific consensus on GMO safety”. That GM’s proponents can claim to the contrary merely reflects the undue influence the biotechnology industry has on the scientific process.
Further, are the philanthropists who are supporting GM development and pressuring Africa to open up also heavy investors in the biotech sector? For example, the relationship between Monsanto and the Gates Foundation is well documented. Monsanto, DuPont and Syngenta are all heavily involved in the G8 New Alliance on Food Security and Nutrition, the sharp end of the Green Revolution push in Africa. No matter how much these forces maneuver to seem altruistic rather than predatory, the smoking gun always seems to be visible. The combined forces of Big Agribusiness and Big Philanthropy have been so effective at pressuring our governments that some of them see biosafety laws as mere instruments to opening up our nations to the biotech industry and their local surrogates.
The bottom line is that this is a fight for food sovereignty – for the rights of people to grow food that suits their environment, protects their biodiversity and serves their ability to eat foods that are wholesome and culturally acceptable. Policies must support systems of agriculture and food production that does not distort or damage local economies.
We must not blindly or willfully promote policies that build neocolonial structures that lock in poverty by upturning tested local agricultural knowledge, promoting land grabs through large-scale industrial farming and create dependency on artificial seeds and chemicals. True food security can only be assured by food sovereignty.
By Nnimmo Bassey (Director, Health of Mother Earth Foundation), Million Belay (Coordinator, African Food Sovereignty Alliance) and Mariam Mayet (Director, Africa Centre for Biosafety
Okun Alfa in Eti Osa Local Government Area of Lagos lives on the edge of the Atlantic Ocean. And it’s not just lulling beach waves, sand and sun. Its residents count their losses every time the waves come crashing into their lives – on one too many occasions. Nurudeen Oyewole has been there to see the fury of nature unleashed.
“We know the ocean surge is capable of submerging this community,” said Sheriff Elegushi, councillor for Okun Alfa community in Eti-Osa Local Government Area of Lagos State. He’s passionate about an impending ocean surge that could unleash disaster on Okun Alfa in Lekki area of the state.
“We know it is capable of sweeping us away. When that would be is what we don’t know. We are helpless about it.”
A flooded street at the Okun Alfa community
Counting the cost of an unfriendly ocean
Elegushi’s entreaties fit the harrowing lamentation of a community in distress. Young and old, men and women, wear long forlorn looks: their existence has been threatened on many occasions, their livelihood shattered.
Yet they hold on to tenuous hope of a better tomorrow even as their unfriendly neighbour, the Atlantic Ocean, brimming with fury, inches closer every second.
Once a leisure resort, Okun Alfa, otherwise known as Alpha Beach community, sits prettily close to the Atlantic. It is one of many coastline communities that had once reaped bountifully from the tourism potential of Lagos beaches but are now under ferocious attack from incessant ocean surges, thanks to climate change and rising sea levels.
The latest in a series of surges was midnight of May 30. The surge, more intense than others before, grounded activities in the community for seven day.
Homes were flooded, shops were washed away, electricity poles and cables were torn down. The community’s lone tarred road was under water.
The nerve centre of its economy – the water front of Alpha Beach – still is plastered with gaunt reminders of the havoc wreaked by that surge. Bars, relaxation spots, big hotels and small chalets thronged by tourists and funseekers were torn to shreds.
“Our children couldn’t go to school because most of the schools had been flooded. Our people couldn’t access healthcare services because the only functioning public health centre was actually ransacked by the rampaging surge. Our Baale’s (traditional ruler) palace was submerged half-way; it took the efforts of the youths and some of us to clear the palace of water and put in place guiding bricks,” said Elegushi.
“Houses were submerged to the extent that clothes, mattresses and many household utensils were floating here and there,” he added.
“The surge started late in the midnight, so our people were rudely awakened from their sleep. They had nowhere to go, so they were forced to stand on their feet. Even while standing, some were submerged up to their waist. Some of our parked vehicles were also submerged. I am a victim in that regard. My car is still with the mechanic as we speak,” Elegushi remembered.
Yet the ocean surge has been on for ages
Okun Alfa has a long history of ocean surges. Its current location is its fourth settlement site, community elders said. Over generations, they have been chased out and forced to relocate by surging Atlantic waves three times already.
“Our forefathers told us that the surges had always pushed them back at one point or the other. However, it was easy for them then because there was enough unoccupied land they could easily shift to. But there is not anymore available land around here for us to occupy now and that makes our case pathetic,” a local Chief, Nasirudeen Adisa, said.
“The last surge swept away my 16-room apartment. Apart from the fact that I lost my place of abode, my tenants on whose rents I lived, have all gone. I’m now a squatter at the Baale’s palace.”
Ironically, the ocean surge that crippled Okun Alfa and its neighbourhood came about 48 hours before the state government could press the panic button on a likely ocean surge. And when it did, it was the usual advisory note.
“We have been told that the rising sea level of the Atlantic Ocean might lead to ocean surge in some part of Ibeju Lekki and other coastline areas of Lagos,” Femi Oke-Osanyintolu, General Manager, Lagos State Emergency Management Agency (LASEMA), said in a statement.
“The imminent surge is the attendant impact of climate change as experienced by different regions across the globe… We advise our people to temporarily move to a safer region until the surge subsides so as to prevent needless loss of lives.”
Though residents of Okun Alfa confirmed that officials of LASEMA indeed came to assess the level of damage done to the community after the surge, no palliative measures, they said, have since been rendered.
Of course, that wasn’t the first time palliative measures will hang in the balance. Sometime in January, 2014, the state government had similarly promised to use the sum of N12.5 billion in the 2014 fiscal year to combat the menace of ocean surge in Okun Alfa and similar coastal areas, yet not a few are asking where the fund has so far been channelled with less than six months to the end of the year.
“Our land is our land”
The surge claimed no life while the harrowing experience lasted. But people who once occupied the shanties at Kuramo coastline of Victoria Island were not that lucky. A similar midnight surge ravaged the area two years ago, killing 16 people. In response, the government chased surviving slum dwellers out of the area. Repeating the same reaction might prove difficult at Okun Alfa, where many lay strong claims to ancestral root and lineage.
“We aren’t living in shanties. We didn’t just hijack the place and settle there. This is an established community. We have our history here. Our ancestral lineage, our root,” said Nureni Sanni, chairman of the community’s development association.
The argument is one of many that have set residents on collision course with the state government. While the government keeps preaching the gospel of resettlement, the residents say government should speed up completion of a 7km-long embankment which it started about two years ago around Goshen estate.
The estate, like Okun Alfa community, is on the coast. Perennial ocean surges into the estate had prompted the state government to kick-start the construction of an embankment, expected to reach Okun Alfa as well as Okun Ajah, among other communities.
“If you claim somewhere is your ancestral home and those ancestral homes keep disappearing every day, will you just stay there?” argued Adesegun Oniru, Lagos State commissioner for waterfront infrastructure.
“Won’t you try to move? Will you wait till you are consumed by the water? Eventually, the protection will come and then you can return to your place. But in the meantime, if there is need for you to move pending the time the protection gets there, won’t you just do that?
“I think that is the right thing to do for anybody with [a] right thinking mind. I really don’t think our people are that naïve when you know that this Atlantic, which you have no control of, is coming to consume you.”
On the worries that the project has only be moving at snail’s speed, raising serious doubt as to its early completion before the current administration bows out of office in May 2015, Oniru said the programme has actually been proceeding as expected and whatever was being observed as delay was a bid to get quality job done.
“That work is being programmed and the contractor executing the work is not behind schedule. If you really take out time to visit the place, you will see the amount of “x-blocks” that break the waves that are being put in place. This is not something that can be rushed. It takes a number of days to get those rocks from Ogun and Oyo states. So, we are keeping the contractor to time,” Oniru said.
Accusing fingers being pointed at government project: Eko Atlantic City?
In its 2009 report on the State of the World Cities, the United Nations Human Settlement Programme – otherwise known as UN-Habitat – identified Lagos as among cities around the world where 13 per cent of urban population is concentrated on the coastline.
Currently, about a million people live and work in Victoria Island, Lekki Peninsula and other parts of Eti-Osa Local Government. The peninsula itself was carved out from a masterplan for Lekki, and divided into five zones: the Lekki Free Trade, Lagos Lagoon, South Urban, Atlantic and Coastal. All the regions, with their glitz and glamour, are designed to lure and shelter about five million people in the nearest future. The first noticeable step in that direction was the commencement of the state’s government dream project: Eko Atlantic City.
Ocean surges and their attendant flooding are natural phenomena over which man has no control. This is more so at a time of widely acclaimed global warming and increased rainfall, both causing more serious flooding in many parts of the world. Flooding is also, undoubtedly, worsened by disruptions of the ecosystem. In Lagos, the view has been expressed that widespread land reclamation, including reclamation for the Eko Atlantic City, that will host 250 families, is responsible for increasing flooding in the state.
The Eko Atlantic City is expected to take up 1, 037.763 hectares of land, records from the state ministry of waterfront show. And as at March 2014, a total of 5,000,000 square metres have been reclaimed while 33, 085, 877 cubic metres of sand was said to have been pumped in.
At the turn of that milestone in February 2013, the state government invited President Goodluck Jonathan and former US President Bill Clinton for a ground-breaking event. Clinton Global Initiative sometime in 2008/2009 gave an eco-friendly award to Lagos in acknowledgement of that initiative.
But even with the promised eldorado, not everybody is keying into the dream of Eko Atlantic City. For some environmentalists and rights activists, even though surges that communities such as Okun Alfa suffer from can be attributed to the effect of climate change and global warming, there are evidence that intensity of those surges have actually increased with the massive dredging of the ocean by the state government.
“The arithmetic here is simple. When you dredge sand from a spot in the ocean, you have created a sort of hole and expanded its frontiers,” explained Niyi Samade, an environmentalist and rights activist.
“The water wave, previously being inhibited by the sand is let loose. And the more you dredge to say you want to go and sand-fill or reclaim a particular portion, the more water you let loose from the excavation site. So it is a case of robbing Peter to pay Paul. This, coupled with the ferocious effect of global warming, the resultant effect is disastrous ocean surges. So for us, the Eko Atlantic City is a time bomb,” he said.
Prof. Larry Awosika, head of geophysics department, Nigeria Institute of Oceanography and Marine Research (NIOMR), disclosed in one of his studies, that the Victoria Island is the fastest eroding beach in Nigeria, losing about 30 metres to the ocean annually. Ugborodo/Escravos loses around 24 metres yearly. And, by the end of the century, he said, Lekki and the Victoria Island would have lost 602 and 584 square kilometers respectively.
The predictions and recent discoveries might make some Nigerians likely to scream about the future of Lekki/Victoria Island communities and the proposed Atlantic City. Among the discoveries by geologists is a major crack in the Cameroonian faultline, which runs through the floor of the Atlantic Ocean, extending from Cameroon, through a number of islands, to Lake Chad.
The other is another fracture said to have been discovered at Ifewara-Zungeru and which has since been traced to the nexus of faultlines engraved at the bottom of the Atlantic.
Samade argued that the state government and its partner construction company, South Energy X, perhaps could have discovered some of the “inconsistencies as well as dangers” inherent in the Atlantic City project if thorough Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) had been carried out when the project was being conceived.
“We aren’t at fault”
However, the state is pooh-poohing some of these hypotheses. The waterfront infrastructure commissioner insisted there were EIAs being constantly done as the project goes through different stages of reclamation.
“To carry out a project as big as the Eko Atlantic City, there are constant EIAs being carried out. As the project passes through different stages of reclamation, different stages of construction, you must be carrying out EIAs, be it positive or negative. It must also be noted that the city is being tested internationally to show that it does not have any negative impact on the vicinity or the environment where it is being created,” Oniru said.
On the allegation that the construction of the Atlantic City is worsening the challenge of coastal erosion in the area, the commissioner disagreed, saying, if anything, the project has only succeeded in reclaiming portions of land lost to the Atlantic. He added that the sand being used to reclaim those portions of land is being dredged some 15 to 20 km right into the Atlantic. He was however quick to accept that there are challenges especially in the flow of water on the eastern side of the Eko Atlantic City.
“On the other side of Takwa Bay which is called the Light House, you will see land and sand being accrued in that area because of the sand that is coming from the Bight of Benin. On the other side, where Eko Atlantic City is, which used to be known as Bar beach, the sand is not being allowed to go over. This has to do with the two moles, particularly the east mole. The problem is from the east mole. Everything eastward of the Eko Atlantic City is what we are facing as a challenge now. And the length of that to the boundary of Lagos state is about 85 to 87 kilometers of coastline. That we still need to work on and protect,” Oniru said.
Yet, respite not in sight
On government’s plans to supply relief materials to residents of Okun Alfa, Oniru said the only thing he had knowledge of was the construction of the embankment, which is expected to protect the community alongside others on the coastline. “That is what we know and that is what we are working on,” he said.
With that tone of finality, residents of Okun Alfa may have to wait much longer to have the much desired respite from their government.
The Okun Alfa community, which hosts the once-popular Alpha Beach in Lekki area of Eti-Osa Local Government in Lagos, has in numerous occasions been besieged by the nearby Atlantic Ocean, losing its attraction to settlers and fun seekers.
Ongoing drainage construction
Council chairman, Anofiu Elegushi, attributes the tragedy to the combined effects of ocean surge, lack of drainage facility, poor urban planning and, most of all, the aftermath of the erection of a fence Chevron Nigeria Limited, which operates close-by. According to him, whenever there is a surge or excessive rainfall which results in flooding, the water gets trapped within the community without anywhere to flow out to, damaging properties and valuables worth millions. He laments that the perimeter fencing traps the flood water within the community.
He says: “Some years ago after Chevron acquired some land within our community and started constructing their fence, they made use of our only access road and heavy duty trucks plied the road. After the construction of the fence, they abandoned our road which is now in a bad state and constructed a new road to be used by them only. Also their fence is higher than the community, so whenever it rains Okun Alfa is at the receiving end. They are not concerned about the suffering they have put us into but are satisfied with their great wall fenced against the community. No iota of care about the host community.”
Efforts to speak to officials of Chevron over Elegushi’s allegation proved abortive.
However, another school of thought insists that the increasing level of surge experienced in the community has been necessitated by the ongoing Eko Atlantic City project by the Lagos State Government in the past five years. The new city is expected to accommodate 250,000 residents after completion.
A Professor of environmental law with the Nigeria Institute of Advanced Legal Studies and also Executive Director of the Environment Law Research Institute (ELRI), Lanre Fagbohun, has decried the manner of conception of the project, saying that before a project of such magnitude would have been proposed and earmarked for commencement, an environment impact assessment (EIA) should have been prepared and the report made available to the public. But, according to him, the EIA of the project was made available years after its commencement.
“An EIA is not a condemnation of a project but an assessment of the environmental consequences which could be good or bad, and how communities and institutions would prepare to accept and adapt to such a project. But this was not the case with the Eko Atlantic City project,” he stresses.
Elegushi has however refused to completely blame the Eko Atlantic City project as the main cause of the impasse because, according to him, community’s present location is its fourth point of settlement due to past surges. He believes that the solution to the surge is the construction of an embankment by the beach side to break the power of the ocean tide and a sustainable drainage system that would channel excess water outward from the community.
Lagos State commissioner for the environment, Tunji Bello, says the state government is working on constructing a drainage channel that would connect with a nearby drainage in the area and flow out through the Lagos Lagoon. Initially slow, but work on the drainage appears to have picked up.
Destroyed community health centre
The residents by the beach do not have electricity because the poles have been washed away, the community health centre has been destroyed by the ocean, while the access road to the community from the expressway is in a deplorable state and is always flooded. Indeed, business activities around the beach is a ghost of its former self.
While the drainage construction is ongoing, residents and community leaders want Chevron to play a key role in making life more meaningful for them.
Environmental security remains a challenge in the Gulf of Guinea and needs a sustained, robust response by countries in the area, Abidjan Convention Regional Coordinator, Abou Bamba, said on Tuesday.
Bamba
“From Nouackchott to Port Harcourt, the lives of millions are threatened by climate change related environmental risks,” he said at the opening of an environmental security symposiun in Lome, capital of Togo.
The Gulf of Guinea is among the world’s most productive marine areas. However, it faces serious environmental challenges such as coastal erosion, sea level rise, land-based sources of pollution, overfishing, and major oil spills that threaten the life and livelihoods of tens of millions of coastal dwellers from Banjul, Gambia; to Port Harcourt, Nigeria.
Recent heavy rains that caused massive flooding in the city of Abidjan, Côte d’Ivoire, killing 32 residents illustrates this situation and the vulnerability of the region’s coastal settlements.
Environmental security covers a wide variety of issues, making a widely accepted single definition fraught with difficulties. Nevertheless, the concept examines environmental episodes that threaten individuals, communities or nations or that could lead to conflict. Environmental security along the marine and coastal space of West, Central and Southern Africa – the Abidjan Convention area – would protect human and marine life, as well as coastal habitats.
The symposium in Togo was opened by the country’s minister for environment, Andre Johnson, and United States Ambassador Robert Whitehead.
This symposium will cover topics such as global environmental security challenges, implication of climate change on international security and water security, waste management, contaminated land assessment, clean-up of mining activities, and environmental considerations during military peacekeeping operations.
This is the fifth environmental security symposium that U.S. AFRICOM Environmental Security Programme and UNEP have organized, jointly. Previous ones were in Accra (Ghana), Gaborone (Botswana) and Libreville (Gabon) and Abidjan (Côte d’Ivoire), respectively. U.S. AFRICOM collaborates with the Abidjan Convention on marine and coastal environmental ecosystem issues.
The Abidjan Convention is a legal entity for Cooperation in the Protection and Development of the Marine and Coastal Region of West, Central and Southern Africa. Its emergency protocol on oil spills came into force in 1984. The Convention area covers 22 countries along the Atlantic coast of West Africa from Mauritania to South Africa. The United Nations Environment Programme headquartered in Nairobi, Kenya, administers the Convention, whose secretariat is in Abidjan, Côte d’Ivoire.
Ignorance could often be considered a significant factor of influence in the wise of the low-level perception of climate change among the common people of the developing world, but a more obvious pointer is their decried poverty state which has negatively influenced their take on the climate issue. The fact is that their common orientation towards devising a more or less daily surviving strategy way outweighs their relative concern for the inevitable change which in most cases they tend to term as not relevant considering their relative state of living. In a lot of respect, the premise is not that they do not feel or perceive the dangerous changes, in fact, these set of people, who make up the larger proportion of the developing countries’ population have come to recognise the fact that there are changes already well obvious around their respective environment and which in a way have been impacting their respective livelihood support systems.
Pachauri, head of IPCC
The recent report released by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) calls for a timely intervention as climate change has started affecting food security and a worst-case scenario has been predicted as an inevitable future occurrence if nothing is done. Now the perception is a call for global interventions, which would include individual responsibilities as a precursor to a complimentary alliance of stand.
As important as this preceding premise may sound, it has not yet resulted into a significant move of change by the average citizens of the developing world most especially the people of sub-Saharan Africa where the average living standard is categorically low on the global scale. Additionally, it is a common fact that the regions are well susceptible to political insurgencies, civil/social unrest and poor governmental system. All of these factors have been sort of prevailing problems which have greatly subjected this category of population to untold hardship and pains and in a lot of way have influenced their adopted attitude to their environment as issues they term as secondary.
In my field experience as a climate change activist and a social change maker in a developing country, I have often noticed a biased sort of mindset and attitude among my audience in the regards of their respective take on climate change issue. Most times the responses have been a little disturbing as they all tend to be on the indifference side. On a point of inference, they tend to accept the notion of the changes around them as a phenomenon that goes beyond their human reasoning and could be attributed to as acts of God in probably punishing the humans race for their sinful nature and in another wise they tend to accept the changes as normal and as one of those proposition of the west.
Of course a general inference can be deduced from these responses; ignorance and a common base of poverty, which only allows for a one way thinking of making ends-meet first before any other issue. However this biased notion and perception is not limited to the ignorant or the illiterates but also the educated and literate lots. Often they claim to have heard or come across issues concerning climate change but often I tend to obtain a general conclusion of ‘it’s the responsibility of the government to intervene’. This obviously leaves out the option of personal or individual commitment. The youths are not left out as their attitudes records a more disturbing response of indifference, the general notion has been to make a living first and strive to live out of the reach of poverty. So in most cases, the much expectations of optimism from the youths is often quite discouraging and in the end, just a few youths are found taking a stand and making the move for the desired changes.
The average socio-economic situation in most developing countries has rather made it difficult for the general acceptance of a common and individual stand to combat climate change and its impacts. In a way they tend to bear more pains under the impact of climate change, although their respective population contribute less to the global green house gas emission, their quota of responsibility is however low compared to the impeding danger. Of course, there could be a level of supposedly injustice as they have contributed less to global warming and yet they suffer the most, but a notion worthy of taking cognisance of is for the fact that the impact of climate change is going to be felt by everybody on this planet and no population would be left unaffected as the threat becomes more real. So the time calls for a unanimous move and intervention by the lots around the globe, despite the differences and prevailing problems, we have a much bigger problem that will claim the future we are trying hard to live in.
To make a lot of difference the governments have a major responsibility, a feasible level of commitment that will reflect in the well being of the society to maintain a standard of living that would help fast track a significant attainment of mindset with the rest of the world in ensuring a global stand against climate change.
As the world prepares for yet another climate treaty come 2015, a serious outlook towards making a concrete and legal binding agreement is very necessary now, the issue of non-compliance and stand-alone should be matters of exclusion and a well charted way forward is greatly expected to help save our future. Even though the developing world may not have the capacity and the technologies to adapt in this era of climate change, yet there are lots of alternative means that could easily be adopted to ensure a meaningful level of commitment toward a global stand. Also the developed world should fast track the delivery of their respective commitments and leave up to the global expectation of doing rather than stalking.
The world is done with waiting and procrastination, a bit of tarrying could only mean one thing: ‘Disaster’.
By Bamidele F. Oni (Executive Director, Green Impact International)
In a recent edition of “Fact Sheet,” a publication of the ecological think-tank, Health of Mother Earth Foundation (HOMEF), writers Juan Lopez, Mariann Orovwuje and Nnimmo Bassey insist that Nigeria does not need genetically modified crops to satisfy its food and agricultural needs. They claim that the National Biosafety Bill is deficient and that President Goodluck Jonathan should not assent to it.
The recent disclosure in Abuja by the National Agricultural Biotechnology Development Agency (NABDA) that Nigerian government is working to fast track the adoption of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) is shocking for a number of reasons. The agency’s pitch is more or less that if the doors are not officially open to GMOs Nigerians will be consuming them without knowing. The truth is that there are GMO products illegally in Nigeria and the government ought to be protecting the citizens rather than closing the doors on the Precautionary Principle which as the name implies urges caution in matters of this nature.
The Agency claims the there are enough safeguards in place for the introduction of GMOs into Nigeria. These so-called safeguards include the following: a draft Biosafety Bill, biosafety application guidelines, biosafety containment facilities guidelines, and a variety of forms such as those for accreditation, GMO import and shipment form and a host of drafts. If forms and draft documents are listed as biosafety readiness tools we should be extremely suspect of such a state of readiness.
A Short History: Few Crops Commercialised, Numerous Rejections of GM Food
It was only 20 years ago that a genetically modified crop was commercialised in the USA for human consumption purposes for the first time. It was a GM tomato variety called the Flavr Savr. It failed in the marketplace and its commercialisation ceased in 1997. That failure has been followed by numerous other failures in the past two decades.
The biotech industry has made several attempts to commercialise a wide range of GM varieties since the 1990s. However it quickly encountered stiff opposition. For instance in Europe strong opposition against GM foods took root since the end of the 90s and is still strong as of today.
In 2000 field trials with a variety of GM potato in Bolivia, centre of origin of the potato, were stopped in the face of public opposition. That same year GM potatoes were withdrawn in the US due to commercial failure. In 2002 a number of African countries rejected GM food aid and in 2004 GM wheat was withdrawn from the market due to commercial reasons. China suspended commercialisation of GM rice in 2011 and the US did not proceed with wide commercialisation either of such products. The failures to market GE staple food in the past twenty years have been very notorious.
Biotech Industry Targets Staple Foods
Maize, rice and wheat are the staple food of more than two-thirds of the world’s population, but as of now, no wheat and rice has been legally commercialized in the human food chain. As of today, basically the GM crops that have been commercialized are those of soya, maize, oilseed rape and cotton. Most of these products are not intended directly for food, but for animal feed purposes. For instance, GM maize is strongly resisted in many countries like Mexico, centre of origin of maize, where a Federal Court in 2013 ordered that two of the main Mexican authorities for authorising GM crops must abstain from granting permits of release into the environment of GM maize whether on a commercial or on an experimental basis.
While most GM crops are planted for animal feeds, those targeted in Nigeria are for our foods. Among the target crops is cassava, a staple for most citizens.
Few Countries, Few Traits, One Industry
The few crops commercialised during the past decades were composed only of two traits, and their area of cultivation has been limited to a handful of countries. Over 90 per cent of GM crops grown are only in six countries – USA, Brazil, Argentina, India, Canada and China – with one country alone accounting for 40 per cent of all GM global area: the USA.
In any case, in two decades of GM crops commercialisation, up to 95 per cent of the staple crops which have been commercialised are insect resistant or herbicide tolerant. The push for the introduction of these type of GM staple crops has been led either directly by the big biotech corporations that developed the product or their subsidiaries.
None of these traits, however provide any benefit to the consumer, and none of them as of today has managed to win the heart of the majority of the consumers. For instance, even in the US, the cradle of GM crops, a poll conducted by the New York Times in 2013 concluded that three-quarters of Americans expressed concern about genetically modified organisms in their food, with most of them worried about the effects on people’s health. In The reality of such scepticism has forced the biotech industry to desperately seek to widen its market into Africa. The claim that Europe is influencing Africans to reject GMOs is nothing other than cheap blackmail.
More Herbicides
Roundup Ready (RR), the most popular herbicide in the world, property of Monsanto, claimed when it was introduced that farmers would be able to use less herbicide. On the contrary it has been clearly proofed that, in less than two decades glyphosate resistant plant species have become a serious problem for US farmers and others around the world. This has necessitated the increased use of even stronger herbicides.
In addition to the growing use of RR, various scientific studies show concerns over health impacts of RR on the humans. A scientific study published in a European scientific review has identified serious health impacts on rats fed on ‘Roundup Ready’ GMO maize.
Efforts to Convince Africans over GM Food Should Fall on Deaf Ears
Today a new propaganda effort to convince Africans is vigorously pursued by corporations and the development industry trying to convince us Africans that we need genetic engineering to overcome malnutrition and food shortages. Institutions like USAID, and philanthropic organisations like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation are supporting efforts to genetically modify rice and bananas with enhanced levels of Vitamin A with the ostensible aim of keeping African children from being stunted and from going blind. Gates support of the creation of GM staple foods with nutritional traits derives from the fact that “in many developing countries, as much as 70 per cent of an individual’s daily calories come from a single staple food, making it difficult to consume enough vitamins and minerals”. Instead of promoting and supporting food sovereignty and one of its principles – diet diversification- they want us to keep our diet based on one food product for most of the day instead of supporting the tapping on the enormous food diversity existing in our countries, – such us fruits and vegetables, rich in Vitamin A and other valuable Vitamins.
In a 2009 report, the Union of Concerned Scientists stated, “Recent studies have shown that organic and similar farming methods that minimise the use of pesticides and synthetic fertilizers can more than double crop yields at little cost to poor farmers in such developing regions as sub-Saharan Africa.”
Efforts to co-opt small scale farmers into planting Bt cotton has not fared we’ll without heavy subsidies. The case of the downturn at Makathini Flats, South Africa, is instructive.
Nigeria
Nigeria does not need GM crops to satisfy its food and agriculture needs. We know exactly what we have to do and the Nigerian National Conference recently raised the caution with regard to the draft National Biosafety Bill. We urge that the President should not assent to the Bill because the draft is deficient in many areas including:
Public participation: The draft Bill does not make public participation obligatory when applications to introduce GMOs are being considered.
The Bill does not specify clearly how large-scale field trials would be contained and regulated to avoid contamination of surroundings or farms.
Besides Environmental NGOs, Farmer organisations are not represented on the Governing Board.
Risk Assessment: The Bill does not state criteria for risk assessment nor does it stipulate that such assessments must be carried out in Nigeria and not offshore. This is important because the effect of the GMO on non-target organisms has to be measured with non-target organisms that exist in Nigeria and are ecologically important.
Strict liability and provisions for redress are not included in the Bill. These is a key part to implementing the Kuala Lumpur-Nagoya Supplementary Protocol adopted three years ago
Precautionary principle: The Bill should adhere to ensure the implementation of the precautionary principle that entitles our government to decide against approval or for restriction in cases of incomplete or controversial knowledge. This is the essential feature of the CPB, driven by the interests of African negotiators and and should be implemented in Nigeria.
In view of the evolving importance of environmental journalism in Nigeria, the practice is about to get a boost as environmental reporters join other journalists to get international training on investigative reporting.
Bohmke
This will help strengthen the coverage of environmental issues by using courtroom cross-examination tactics to dig up underlying issues and dynamics which usually get obfuscated by stakeholders across both sides of the divide.
The new African Network of Centres for Investigative Reporting (ANCIR) began a two-day workshop in Abuja on July 21st, aimed at equipping journalists with the forensic skills to interrogate interviewees to test whether they are lying or not.
The first-of-its-kind workshop is tagged “Cross Examination Course for Investigative Reporters”, and is planned to open in Lagos after the Abuja sessions.
Cross-examination is a science, used by the legal profession to sift truth from lies; although widely used by prosecutors and forensic investigators, journalists have seldom been trained to use the techniques and tools.
The trainer and resource person, Heinrich Bohmke, is a South Africa based international cross examination expert.
In his opening remarks, Bohmke assured the participants that the training was not for “sunshine journalists” who just push out information to the public, but was designed to assist reporters who want to dig deep to structure their questions in order to make exposes.
“This training is designed to transfer courtroom techniques to the journalism craft. It will effectively equip reporters with the techniques of questioning through which they either get concessions or discredit answers, in situations where there is dispute of fact,” he said.
The workshop is being hosted by Connected Development (CODE), an Abuja-based non-governmental organisation (NGO).
