Environment Law and Underdevelopment in the Niger
Delta Region
This content was written by a
student and assessed as part of a university degree. E-IR publishes student
essays & dissertations to allow our readers to broaden their understanding
of what is possible when answering similar questions in their own studies.
INTRODUCTION
Nigeria is an oil producing
country. Its economy depends on revenue derived from the sale of crude
oil. This revenue constitutes over 90 percent of total foreign exchange
earning required for financing several national development projects (FOS,
1996: Aghalino, 2004).
While the benefits of oil and gas
exploration and productions in Nigeria are not in doubt, the consequent environmental
impact of oil industry activities cannot be discountenanced. In fact, the
environmental cost of oil and gas exploitation and production are said to be
inevitable (Coarse, 1990). Apart from the fact that oil and gas
exploration and production generate waste and consequently, environmental
degradation, exploration and exploitation activities in the oil bearing areas
have permanently alienated a large tract of land. Virtually, the entire
land and offshore of the Niger Delta region of Nigeria are covered by Oil
mining Licence and Oil Prospecting Licences. These Licences entitle the
oil firms operating in this region to encroach on peasant land (Alakpodia,
1980:30; Aghalino, 2004:40). By manipulating the Land Use Act, which
rested ownership of lands on government, oil companies in Nigeria havelice
cashed in on this legal lee-way to appropriate peasant lands without due and
adequate compensation (Ikein, 1990; Ndukwe, 2000). Also, the pollution of
the terrestrial, atmospheric and marine environment constitute the worst form
of health hazards associated with the oil industry.
In its February, 2008 edition, the
TELL Magazine studying 50 years of oil exploration in Nigeria wrote:
Obviously, 50 years of oil
exploration and exploitation has occasioned environmental degradation and
pollution resulting in excruciating and brutalizing poverty,
unemployment, diseases and health hazards and even death among the people
living in the region (TELL, February 18, 2008:15).
The magazine goes further to contend
that this state of affair in the region has resulted in high level of
socio-economic underdevelopment, manifesting in the absence of infrastructural
facilities, poor standards of living and the feeling of abandonment, denial and
frustration among the people of the region.
In the light of the above, the
questions are as follows:
i)
Are there no environmental laws in Nigeria to check the excesses of oil
producing companies?
ii)
What are the activities of governmental agencies saddled with the responsibilities
of protecting the environment against pollution and degradation?
iii)
If the answer to the questions above is in the affirmative, why is the
situation continuing unabated?
This study seeks to provide answers
to these questions. In doing this, a close scrutiny of some government
environmental regimes are isolated and analyzed. In this study, we assert
that there is the need to re-emphasis the enforcement of environmental laws in
Nigeria in order to curb the excesses of oil producing firms and reducing
environmental crisis and its attendant consequences in the Niger Delta region.
ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS AND OIL MNCs IN
NIGERIA
Until recently, there was no
adequate legal and institutional framework by which the problem of
environmental degradation could be tackled. The incessant problem of oil
spillage, gas flaring and environmental pollution and the resultant destruction
of the ecosystem were never given adequate national attention.
Nevertheless, there are some latent laws put in place by the Nigerian
government to combat the scourge of pollution and related issues. One of
these laws is the Petroleum Act of 1969. The Act, among other things,
empowers the Commissioner in charge of Petroleum to make regulation on the
prevention of pollution of water courses and the atmosphere. The Decree
also requires that in accordance with “good oil field practices”, the owner of
license and lease takes all practical steps to prevent the escape of petroleum
into the water ways and cause little damage as possible to the surface
conditions (Aghalino, 2004:44).
The Associated Gas Re-injection Act
Cap 26 (Laws of the Federation, 1980) was another one. The Act compels
oil and gas producing companies in Nigeria to submit preliminary programme for
gas reinjection. Generally, the above laws have neither been effective in
curbing ecological damage caused by oil pollution and gas flaring nor have they
been able to prevent activities deleterious to the environment. These
laws tend to under estimate the long term problems of environmental
damage. Indeed, the laws deal with only measures to prevent pollution
while they are silent on the consequences that should follow when pollution
occurs (Aghalino, 2004:45).
What seemed to be a well articulated
policy towards the environment emerged with the enactment of the Harmful Waste
(Special Criminal Provision, etc), Decree No. 42 of November, 1988. The
Decree prohibits the purchase, sale, importation, transit, transportation and
storage of harmful waste in the country. This Decree prescribes life
imprisonment for those who contravene its provisions. This legal section
was followed a month later by Decree No. 58 of 1988, establishing the Federal
Environmental Protection Agency (FEPA). FEPA was charged with the stringent
responsibility of protection and development of the environment in general
(Ndukwe, 2000; Ikein, 1990). It was also to initiate policy in relation
to environmental research and technology. Its functions include
establishing standard for water quality, air quality, atmospheric protection,
noise and hazardous substance (Aghalino, 2004:45).
The FEPA Decree as amended by Decree
No. 59 of 1992 accorded the Agency virtually unlimited powers and functions for
the protection of the Nigerian environment. The emphatic provisions in
Sections 4 and 5, dealing with functions and responsibilities of the Agency are
un-mistaken. It was in the realization of its mandate that FEPA has
issued about eight Guidelines and Regulations dealing with different aspects of
the Nigerian environment.
The FEPA Decree which is the boldest
and most comprehensive attempt at giving legal teeth to the protection and
sustainable development of the Nigerian environment has not faired very
well. For example, FEPA has not carried out an initial baseline ecological
audit of the oil-bearing enclave of the Niger Delta without which, it is
impossible to monitor the impact of oil and gas exploration and production over
time (Ayaegbunam, 1998; Aghalino, 2004). It is also worth noting that
despite the enormous powers conferred on FEPA, it has not been able to apply
legal sanctions on any defaulting oil firms in Nigeria.
With the coming of the civilian
administration in May, 1999, the Federal Ministry of Environment was
established and FEPA was absorbed into it. The decision to create a full
–fledged ministry of environment was informed by the need to bring together all
activities within the government machinery that are related to environmental
and sustainable development and also to give environmental matters top priority
attention in the development agenda of the civilian administration and to
properly harness the activities of government and avoid over-lap of
functions. The relevant department and units of some Federal Ministries
were transferred to complement the activities of the newly created
ministry. The new ministry guided by a policy thrust predicated upon
Environmental Renewal and Development Initiative (ERDI) was to take full
inventory of the nation’s resources, assess the level of environmental damage
and design and implement restoration measures (The Guardian, Wednesday,
February 16, 2000).
More than ten years of its
inception, the Federal Ministry of Environment has been witnessing the
pollution and degradation of the Nigerian environment especially in the Niger
Delta region by oil multinationals.
According to Nigerian laws, in the
event of spill emanating from sabotage, oil firms are not liable to pay
compensations but are enjoined to clean up the environment where such spills
occurred (Etikerentse, 1985). Oil companies in Nigeria have taken
advantage of this sabotage alibi and absence of effective regulations to
perpetrate irresponsible practices and adopt production methods which maximize
profit and minimize investment in environmental safety. The oil companies
in Nigeria adopt the most direct and inexpensive methods of waste
disposal. These according to Aghalino (2004:42) include indiscriminate
dumping of drilling mud, drill cuttings, and dumping of sludge, practices which
differ from stringent environmental regulations in the metropolitan countries
of the oil majors (TELL, August 18, 1997).
In theory, therefore, the
effectiveness of Nigeria’s environmental policies and laws could be asserted
from the comprehensiveness of its environmental regimes, but in practice, the
effective enforcement of such rules and policies do not look promising.
For instance, a careful reading of the amended FEPA Decree will show that the
enforcement power of the Agency is bedeviled by so many constraining factors
which include paucity of qualified hands to handle many of the scientific
matters relating to environmental protection (World Bank, 2000).
While the dearth of qualified staff
is a plausible explanation for the ineptitude of FEPA, it is however, more reasonable
to hazard hypotheses that its inefficiency and that of the Federal Ministry of
Environment is not unconnected with the lack of the political will on the part
of government functionaries to take actions that may cause economic dislocation
or even lead to total closure of the oil firms. It is the thinking in
government circles that the closures of any defaulting oil multinationals would
inevitably put many Nigerians out of works, reduce government revenue and
probably discourage foreign investment.
HUMAN AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
OF THE NIGER DELTA
If underdevelopment as Ekanem
(2001:53) has defined is;
“inability, failure, refusal or
structural prevention of a people to use existing mental, physical and material
resources available to society at a given time and space to bring about
qualitative and quantitative improvement standard of their lives”.
Then the Niger Delta region of
Nigeria is underdeveloped, socially and economically. This is because a
recent UNDP assessment of the Human Development Index (HDI) of the area
reported that “widespread poverty is prevalent in the region” (Vanguard, April
6, 2008). The report also noted that this region which is home to
Nigeria’s oil wealth remains the most impoverished community in the nation lacking
in basic infrastructure – good road network, health care facilities, good
schools and potable water. Consequently, the report continued, there is
low life expectancy, high infant mortality rate, high level of illiteracy and
unemployment among the people of the region.
Following environmental pollution
and degradation caused by oil spills and gas flaring, farming activities and
fishing which are the major occupations of the people have been adversely
affected. This has resulted in poor income revenue to the people, thereby
engendering abject poverty and underdevelopment.
In general, the available social
development indicators in the Niger Delta region point to inadequate,
unavailable and poor quality infrastructure and social services, from water to
telecommunication. According, to NDHDR (2006:27), the historical neglect
of the region’s development poses a steep barrier to attaining socio-economic
transformation and poverty alleviation.
1.
WATER SUPPLY
Data from the Federal Office of
Statistics, now National Bureau of Statistics (2005), reveal that water in the
majority of Niger Delta states comes from unsafe supply facilities, including
rivers, lakes or ponds, unprotected well and boreholes. The Bureau
classifies available sources of potable water for household consumptions as:
pipe borne, untreated pipe, borehole, protected well, unprotected well,
river/lake/pond, vendor trucks and other categories in five of the nine states
of the region; Akwa Ibom, Bayelsa, Cross River, Ondo and Imo, water problems
are very acute and result in supplies of unsafe water in more than 50 percent
of the cases. Poor access to adequate drinking water has had serious
implications for the general health, environment, economic activities and
sustainable livelihoods in the Niger Delta region (NDHDR, 2006).
2.
TRANSPORT
According to the UNDP’s Niger Delta
Human Development Report, NDHDR, (2006:29), the Niger Delta roads are mostly
bad. Efforts by local government authorities to repair the roads have
worsened them and left the local people with more hardship. Although
urban road transportation development has been accorded some priority (See NDDC
Project File, 2003:95), less regard has been shown for rural transportation,
especially water transport, which the majority of the rural populace depend
on. Analysts refer to transportation and communication in the area as a
source of misery.
3.
EDUCATION
Statistical estimates have but the
proportion of children attending primary school at 80 percent (which compares
favourably with the estimated national average of 54 percent) (NDHDR,
2006:32). But across the region, nearly all school facilities are in a
state of extreme disrepair requiring major rehabilitation. The secondary
school system has been seriously afflicted by shortages of quality teachers; a
regional pattern that is becoming increasingly acute due in large part to
discordance between investments in infrastructure outside a well – coordinated
planning process.
Revealing the immense challenge to
development and provision of social amenities for sustainable livelihoods, an
NDES Report (2003) noted that in some of the Niger Delta states, covering some
30,000 square kilometers and an estimated eight million people, there were only
2,169 primary schools. This implied one primary school per 3,700 people
serving an area of 14 square kilometers, and one school for every two
settlements. For secondary schools, the ratio is one school per 14,679
people serving an average of 55 square kilometers, and one for school every
seven settlements.
4.
HEALTH AND HEALTH CARE SERVICE DELIVERY
Dismal health and health service
delivery, hospitals, clinics and primary health centres; and a lack of
effective operational plan for holistic health management. The majority
of Niger Delta communities living in isolated areas lack the most basic modern
medical care, including first aid, giving the absence of formal health services
in much of the hinterlands (see the NDDC Regional Master Plan, 2003/2004,
Chapter One, pp. 1-19).
According to an NDES (2003) Report
on primary health care, there is a ratio of only one health care facility for
every 9,805 people, with the average facility serving an area of 44 square
kilometers. There is only one facility for every 131,174 people serving an
area of 583 square kilometers. A single facility services an average of
48 settlements. Poor access to health care reduces people’s quality of
life and increases their poverty.
Given the social and economic
conditions described above, it is of interest considerably to see how the Niger
Delta region fares on the human development indices. These include the
Human Development Index (HDI), the Human Poverty Index (HPI), Gender
Empowerment Measures (GEM) and Gender – related Development Index (GDI).
The incidence of poverty in the
Niger Delta region has been on the increase since 1980 (see table 1
below). Except for Rivers and Bayelsa States, where poverty incidence
seems to have stabilized at about 44 percent after an initial jump from 7
percent, the poverty level increased between 1980 and 1996, but declined
between 1996 and 2004 in line with the national estimate.
Table
1: Incidence of Poverty in the
Niger Delta, 1980 – 2004
|
States
|
1980
|
1985
|
1992
|
1996
|
2004
|
|
|
Edo/Delta
|
19.8
|
52.4
|
33.9
|
56.1
|
Delta
|
45.35
|
|
Edo
|
33.09
|
|||||
|
Cross River
|
10.2
|
41.9
|
45.5
|
66.9
|
41.61
|
|
|
Imo / Aba
|
14.4
|
33.1
|
49.9
|
56.2
|
Imo
|
27.39
|
|
22.27
|
||||||
|
Ondo
|
24.9
|
47.3
|
46.6
|
71.6
|
42.15
|
|
|
Bayelsa/Rivers
|
7.2
|
44.4
|
43.4
|
44.3
|
Rivers
|
29.09
|
|
Bayelsa
|
19.98
|
|||||
|
Nigeria
|
28.1
|
46.3
|
42.7
|
65.6
|
54.40
|
|
Source: National Bureau of Statistics, 2005
The human development indices have
been calculated for the nine states of the Niger Delta as well as for the 185
local government areas. In interpreting the results, it is important to
note that the human development situation in Nigeria as a whole is deplorable
as tables 2, 3 and 4 below show.
Table
2: HDI for the Niger Delta
States, 2005
|
States
|
Life Expectancy
|
Education Index
|
GDP Index
|
HDI
|
|
Abia
|
0.492
|
0.578
|
0.560
|
0.543
|
|
Akwa Ibom
|
0.506
|
0.683
|
0.540
|
0.576
|
|
Bayelsa
|
0.455
|
0.523
|
0.520
|
0.499
|
|
Cross River
|
0.556
|
0.630
|
0.565
|
0.584
|
|
Delta
|
0.587
|
0.636
|
0.621
|
0.615
|
|
Edo
|
0.579
|
0.602
|
0.600
|
0.594
|
|
Imo
|
0.503
|
0.546
|
0.591
|
0.547
|
|
Ondo
|
0.501
|
0.575
|
0.512
|
0.529
|
|
Rivers
|
0.563
|
0.590
|
0.620
|
0.591
|
|
Niger Delta
|
0.527
|
0.596
|
0.570
|
0.564
|
Source: Niger Delta Human Development
Report, 2006.
Table
3: HDI – 1 Index and its
Parameters for the Niger Delta
|
States
|
Probability at birth not surviving
to age 40
|
Adult illiteracy rate
|
Unweighted Average
|
HDI – 1
|
|
Abia
|
26
|
26
|
34
|
29.169
|
|
Akwa Ibom
|
27
|
28
|
35.5
|
30.649
|
|
Bayelsa
|
30
|
31
|
39
|
33.826
|
|
Cross River
|
26
|
28
|
33
|
29.3
|
|
Delta
|
20
|
18
|
27
|
22.355
|
|
Edo
|
22
|
18
|
28
|
23.399
|
|
Imo
|
25
|
29
|
32
|
28.949
|
|
Ondo
|
30
|
31
|
42.5
|
35.442
|
|
Rivers
|
24
|
24
|
30.5
|
26.53
|
|
Niger Delta
|
25.556
|
25.889
|
33.4
|
28.847
|
Source: Niger Delta Human Development
Report, 2006.
Table
4: GDI for the Niger Delta
States, 2006
|
States
|
Equally Distributed Life
Expectancy Index
|
Equally Distributed Educational
Index
|
Equally Distributed Income Index
|
GDI
|
|
Abia
|
0.443
|
0.492
|
0.339
|
0.425
|
|
Akwa Ibom
|
0.504
|
0.518
|
0.151
|
0.391
|
|
Bayelsa
|
0.450
|
0.652
|
0.227
|
0.443
|
|
Cross River
|
0.480
|
0.621
|
0.342
|
0.481
|
|
Delta
|
0.530
|
0.614
|
0.168
|
0.437
|
|
Edo
|
0.486
|
0.682
|
0.301
|
0.490
|
|
Imo
|
0.503
|
0.615
|
0.162
|
0.427
|
|
Ondo
|
0.462
|
0.568
|
0.327
|
0.452
|
|
Rivers
|
0.480
|
0.609
|
0.273
|
0.454
|
|
Niger Delta
|
0.482
|
0.597
|
0.254
|
0.444
|
Source: Niger Delta Human Development
Report, 2006.
Conclusion
This study has x-rayed problem of
environmental degradation and pollution in the Niger Delta region of Nigeria
that is occasioned by oil mineral exploitation and exploration. We have
in this study pointed out that oil multinationals have taken advantage of the
lack of the political will on the part of the government to enforce
environmental laws in Nigeria and punish defaulting firms to perpetuate
unacceptable and sub-standard practices as it concerns environmental
safety. We have also pointed out that this environmental crisis has over
the years engendered unprecedented level of poverty among the people of the
region and a general underdevelopment of the region.
By way of conclusion, we recommend
as follows:
i)
that government at all levels should reassert a stringent enforcement of
environmental laws in Nigeria with the aim of punishing adequately all
defaulting firms;
ii)
that all existing environmental laws should be reviewed with the aim of filling
existing legal lacuna and loopholes which the oil producing firms have taken
advantage of to continue to perpetuate sub-standard environmental safety
practices;
iii)
that all agencies like FEPA and the Federal Ministry of Environment who are
saddled with the responsibilities of enforcing environmental laws in Nigeria
should be adequately funded, humanly and materially equipped and legally
empowered to do their duties effectively.
However, the environmental crisis
and the underdevelopment of the Niger Delta region highlight more profound
national challenges with which Nigeria will have to contend, most notably,
issues of fiscal federalism, law enforcement and security, minority rights,
resource allocation and poverty alleviation.
The Niger Delta issue is a serious
matter that requires serious and urgent policy, committed and courageous
political leadership to resolve. It is the submission of this paper that
the proper implementation of true fiscal federalism in Nigeria would provide a
lasting solution to the crisis of environment and underdevelopment in the Niger
Delta Region.
References
Aghalino, S. O. (2004). “Oil Mineral
Exploitation, Environmental Deterioration and
Public Policy in Nigeria”, Calabar
Journal of Politics and Administration, 2(122), 39 – 50.
Ayaegbunam, E. O. (1998).
“Environmental Protection and Management Laws in
Nigeria: The Constitutional
Question”, in Osuntokun, A. (ed.), Current Issues in Nigerian Environment.
Ibadan: Davidson Press.
Coarse, R. (1990). “Environmental
Protection in Nigeria: Problems and Prospects”, in The African Review,
120(1 & 2).
Ekanem, O. (2001). “The Dialectics
of Underdevelopment and Instability in Africa”, Calabar Journal of Politics
and Administration, 1(1), 52 – 66.
Etikerentse, G. E. (1986), Nigerian
Petroleum Law, London: Macmillan.
Federal Office of Statistics, (FOS)
(1996). Review of the Nigerian Economy, Abuja.
Federal Environmental Protection
Agency Decree No. 58 of 1988.
Federal Environmental Protection
Agency Decree No. 59 of 1992.
Harmful Waste (Special Provision),
Decree No. 42 of 1988.
Ikein, A. A. (1990). The Impact
of Oil on a Developing Economy: The Case of Nigeria, New York and London:
Praeger.
National Bureau of Statistics
(2005). Living Standards Survey of Nigeria 2003/2004: A Draft Report,
Abuja.
NDDC Project File, 2003. p. 95.
NDDC Regional Master Plan, 2004.
Niger Delta Environmental Survey,
NDES, 2003
Ndukwe, O. U. (2000). Elements of
Nigerian Environmental Laws, Calabar: University of Calabar Press.
TELL, February 18, 2008.
TELL, August 18, 1997.
The Guardian, Wednesday, February
16, 2000.
UNDP (2006). Niger Delta Human
Development Report, Abuja.
World Bank Policy and Research
Bulletin, April – June, Vol. 11, No. 2, 2000.
APPENDIX
RANGE OF VALUES USED IN RANKING
HUMAN DEVELOPMENT INDICATORS
|
Index
|
High Range
|
Medium Range
|
Low Range
|
|
HDI
|
0.463 – 0.579
|
0.462 – 0.347
|
0.346 – 0.299
|
|
HPI – 1
|
14.03 – 20.594
|
20.595 – 27.158
|
27.159 – 33.722
|
|
GDI
|
0.470 – 0.556
|
0.469 – 0.383
|
0.382 – 0.295
|
|
Life Expectancy
|
0.520 – 0.600
|
0.519 – 0.440
|
0.439 – 0.358
|
|
Equally Distributed
|
|||
|
Life Expectancy
|
0.513 – 0.592
|
0.512 – 0.434
|
0.433 – 0.353
|
|
GDP Index
|
0.600 – 0.899
|
0.599 – 0.301
|
0.000 – 0.300
|
|
Educational Index
|
0.371 – 0.443
|
0.370 – 0.299
|
0.298 – 0.225
|
Source: Niger Delta Human Development Report, 2006
—
Dr. Emmanuel J. C. Duru is a Lecturer at the Department of Political Science,
University of Calabar, Nigeria.