The Nigerian government has finally started the clean-up of oil-soaked Ogoniland
after years of inaction. A billion dollars has been committed to what
has been described as one of the world's most wide-ranging and long-term
oil clean-up exercises.
This part of
southeastern Nigeria is known to have been affected by widespread oil
pollution largely caused by the Shell oil company for more than five decades. A report by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) catalogues the damage inflicted on Ogoniland.
It includes contaminated groundwater, oil-soaked soils and a polluted
environment. There has also been lasting damage to important ecosystems
like mangroves.
Former Nigerian President Goodluck Jonathan failed to act on the results of the 2011 United Nations report.
It is commendable that President Muhammadu Buhari has moved to address
the environmental pollution and improve the livelihoods of the Ogoni
people.
But there are four
fundamental omissions that could undermine the clean-up. These could
also prolong the 20- to 30-year target of recovering and cleaning up the
region. These fundamental omissions are:
the limited involvement of Nigerian experts in the assessment;
the lack of a socioeconomic study of Ogoniland;
an absence of comprehensive data on the full extent of damage on livelihoods and its long-term costs; and
the lack of clarity on who is responsible to pay for the clean-up between the oil companies and Nigerian government.
Overlooking many Nigerian experts
The report was
based on environmental assessment of contamination of four thematic
areas. These were land, health, vegetation and water. The
recommendations cut across vital issues including operations,
technicality, monitoring and public health for cleaning up the region.
But the assessment
lacked the input of many experts from Nigerian research institutes. The
role of international experts cannot be ignored but the exclusion of
local expertise can be costly. Many of the stakeholders involved came
from government and the oil industry. These stakeholders lack the
knowledge acquired by Nigerian academics involved in research related to
Ogoniland over the years.
The few Nigerian
researchers named in the report were from the River State University of
Science and Technology. This gave the impression that no other academics
were involved in researching the region. In fact, a good number of
Nigerian research institutes and universities have conducted research in the region. These include the universities of Port Harcourt and Ibadan. This research dates back to the 1970s and has been undertaken in collaboration with European entities.
The absence of key
stakeholders from the research community could potentially frustrate
government efforts in establishing new institutions to oversee and
implement the recommendations.
Socioeconomic study
The United Nations
assessment did not include a socioeconomic study of Ogoniland. This
would estimate the socioeconomic costs of environmental damage due to
oil pollution. The report documented a number of socioeconomic experts
but no data were provided.
This integration is
crucial and could have enhanced the findings of the report. Rather,
this study was left to a transition phase that will ensure the
activities of the United Nations assessment are carried out. Without
this, the real cost valuation of the environmental restoration and
clean-up cannot be accurately estimated.
Studies
suggest that social disharmony, sabotage, militancy, water
contamination and low food production among the people is largely driven
by oil pollution. But there is an absence of comprehensive data on
economic assessment due to environmental pollution. This would in turn
show the full extent of damage on livelihoods and its long-term costs in
Ogoniland.
If the government
does not consider the socioeconomic impact of implementing the
recommendations it will incur more agitation from the Ogoni people, as
is already happening.
Socioeconomic
losses are huge in the region and the United Nations report does not
provide costs related to these losses. As a result, the people of
Ogoniland have already started demanding their share of allocation from
the government based on the information from the report.
The key question
is: what is the environmental damage cost of underpinning factors of
socioeconomic activities, including agricultural production, education
and property in Ogoniland? The lack of an estimate for the total oil
spill cost and lack of formula for compensation could further aggravate
tension in the region.
The origins of the conflict goes back to the 2011 report,
which was based on an independent assessment on the impact of oil
pollution in the region. Its main recommendations were operational,
technical, public health and follow-up monitoring for the clean-up. This
is far from solving the problem in the region without aggregating the
oil spill cost with full extent of damage.
The current
estimate for the operational costs of the clean-up is estimated at US$1
billion. But with a proper socioeconomic analysis, the cost could double
or triple.
Who pays for the clean-up?
Another issue lies
in who is responsible to pay for the clean-up. It is not clear in the
report who between the oil companies and Nigerian government is
responsible. This may be partly attributed to the absence of
socioeconomic data. The availability of this kind of information could
see the oil companies pay a very significant amount as compensation due
to their oil pollution activities. This can be seen as a deliberate attempt to avoid further debate about holding oil companies responsible for oil pollution in the region.
One of the
significant findings was that several years of oil exploration have led
to public health and safety issues. This was especially true in relation
to water contamination. Benzene, which causes cancer, was found
standing at 900 times recommended levels. This was indirectly attributed
to the activities of oil companies.
What Nigeria now needs to do
The Nigerian
government must take urgent steps to correct the omissions identified in
the report. A technical body of local experts should be set up to
coordinate new institutions that can be complemented by international
expertise and skills.
In addition, a
socioeconomic analysis of the impact of oil pollution in the region is
needed to make informed decisions. This analysis must capture the
underlying causes, and the impact of oil pollution and its associated
cost.
An independent
organisation must be set up to lead the socioeconomic study. This can be
done in partnership with local academic institutions, the Ministry of
Agriculture and Water Resources and the Ministry of Petroleum Resources.
The results should form a rational basis for making decisions to speed
up the implementation process.
A set of clear
indicators must be developed to monitor and evaluate the activities of
new institutions. This must be supported by a clear legal framework
based on transparency and openness. This approach should make
individuals or groups accountable at every stage of the implementation
process and must be well communicated to the public.
Disclosure statement
Ademola Adenle
does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any
company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has
disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond the academic appointment
above.
Post a Comment