food Stuff |
The
Superhighway project has been controversial from the day it was first announced
publicly for many reasons. First, it was routed without regard to the negative impacts
it would have on the Cross River National Park (CRNP) and a number of community
forests in its path.
The path chosen initially for the 260 kilometres
Superhighway was carved out in a manner reminiscent of how Africa was
partitioned at the Berlin Conference of 1884 – probably over tea and coffee, or
as men hunted for game, and for territories. The path showed a disregard for
the unique biodiversity of the region and was equally mindless of the climate
impact that would ensue from the massive deforestation that the project was
bound to cause. There was also no clarity about how the CRSG would ensure that
this is not a white elephant project that would only promote the harvesting of
timber from the forest and leave a scarred environment and impoverished
communities in its wake.
The 23 conditions attached to the
approval of the Superhighway project underscore the fact that development must
be relevant to its context and must be in the interest of the people and the
environment.
The superhighway as initially
proposed met stiff resistance because it appeared to have been poorly thought
out and directly threatened over 180 communities, water sources, endemic plant
and animal species and lacked clarity about what goods would be conveyed from
the proposed “deep” sea port at Esighi to Katsina Ala. It also refused to
acknowledge that there is an existing highway that is crying out for
refurbishing and would very much serve the purpose of linking the end points of
the proposed superhighway. What is the allure for this project? Could it be the
label “super” attached to it or are there yet to be revealed intentions?
Four
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) submissions down the line, it is now
hoped that all stakeholders have learned valuable lessons in project inception
and implementation. It should indeed be a sobering and humbling moment with
nothing to celebrate for the proponents of the highway that has foisted
unnecessary controversy over the supply of a rather basic infrastructure. The
260 km Superhighway has now elongated to 275.344 Km due to the need to avoid
the Cross River National Park as well as community forests including the one at
Ekuri.
One of the most vexatious impacts of
the proposed highway at a point was the revocation of ownership of lands
stretching a whopping 10 km on either side of the highway. 10 km on either side
of the proposed highway! This was an extremely and ridiculously colonial idea
treating the territory literally as a no man’s land. This idea was thrown in
the trash bin by the CRSG after receiving much condemnation locally and
internationally. We are pleased to see that the Federal Ministry of Environment
is insisting that the CRSG should gazette the nullification of that revocation
and restrict itself to 70m only as the permissible right of way. This will
protect the communities that faced imminent displacement by that attempt at
incredible and obnoxious land grab. We also note that one of the conditions is
that those that have suffered harm from the project should be compensated. That
is the way it should be. The task now is for all stakeholders to monitor and
ensure that there is strict compliance with this condition.
The 23
conditions that the Federal Ministry of Environment requires CRSG to fulfil
before they would receive the certificate of approval of the EIA necessitates
careful study by all stakeholders. It should be carefully and critically
examined by communities through which the highway would pass. They also provide
civil society and other stakeholders with a template for the detailed
monitoring of the overall highway project. Having a conditional EIA approval should be a
call on the CRSG to return to the drawing board and get herself ready for the
Herculean task of delivering a 275.344km highway that could have been avoided
if only she had considered fixing the existing dilapidated Calabar Ogoja
highway.
The insistence of the Federal
Ministry of Environment that the right thing must be done will eventually help
the CRSG to deliver a project that is sensitive to the needs of the people, is
not too disruptive of the ecosystems and that will eventually do more good than
harm. That is the whole essence of the EIA process. The process has never been
political and the resistance by the communities and civil society has been
strictly in line with the law.
The
conditions require that the Cross River National Park must not be violated by
the highway. It always requires that the highway must not tamper with the Ekuri
Forest and others. It requires that those whose properties have been tampered
with or may be destroyed by the project must be compensated. The gazetting of
the cancellation of the revocation order on the 10km stretch on either side of
the highway before the project proceeds will ensure that no one’s land is
grabbed by stealth. The condition states that the CRSG must “gazette the
reversal of revocation order on the acquisition of 10km on either side to the
70km span of the road corridor as well as the gazetting of the boundary of
Cross River National Park within two weeks (2) of receipt of this letter.”
Lessons
The
conditional EIA approval is a win for everyone - the Federal and State
governments as well as the forest communities and the planet as a whole. With
the new routing of the Superhighway, there will be less deforestation and thus
lessened climate impacts.
The lesson
of the conditional approval of the EIA for the superhighway is that it took
four attempts at EIA submission before the proponents of this project could
come up with something close to passable. Stakeholders note that the CRSG took
many decisions without adequate consultations with communities and other
stakeholders. Communities were treated with disdain by aristocratic public
officers who preferred monologues to dialogues. At a recent Community Dialogue
at Akpabuyo, the community people all said they just woke up one day to see
bulldozers destroying their crops, land and properties. In other words, they
were not consulted. And they were not compensated. One of the conditions given
before the EIA would be fully approved is that this anomaly must be corrected.
This is a stiff rebuke for a behaviour that should be avoided in future.
We are
also pleased to note that CRSG is to ensure that the updated maps in the
new EIA must show that the “re-routed road corridor takes cognizance of the
boundary of Cross River National Park and Ekuri Community Forest as well as
conform to international best practices on setbacks for highways in critical
ecosystems such as the proposed corridor.”
The conditional approval is also a
stern rebuke for EIA consultants who believe that the exercise is perfunctory
and that they can produce a cut-and-paste document with scant relevance to
specific project locations. The entire process speaks volumes about the
professionalism and quality of service being provided by officers who are
saddled with the duties of watching out for the public good. This is where a
huge gulf appears between those at the Federal Ministry of Environment and
those at the ministry in the Cross River State. The superhighway saga provides
a good opportunity for honing of needed skills, engagement with communities and
other stakeholders and rebuilding the Cross River brand as a State that
benefits from and is deeply appreciative of her cultural and ecological
heritage, and acknowledges the intrinsic value of Nature and her gifts. It must
also be kept in mind that projects of the size of the proposed highway have
present and intergenerational implications. Even if we assume that we don't owe
ourselves an obligation to do the right thing, we cannot avoid a debt that we
owe the future.
No comments:
Post a Comment