LASU-LAWS Environmental Blog

Wednesday, 22 August 2012

2011/2012 Rain Semester AoCs

The North-South Debate
Ozone Depletion, Climate Change & Global Warming
National Environmental Problems (Flood, Erosion, Deforestation and Desertification)
Oil Pollution
Biodiversity
The Kyoto Protocol
Air, Water, Land, Waste and Noise Pollution
International Legal Instruments (All Conventions, Treaties & Protocols covered in class)

AM-C

Thursday, 9 August 2012

LASU-LAWS ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CLASS OF 2011/2012

Pictures of the LASU-LAWS Environmental Law Class of 2011/2012 after the last lecture of the session.

Sunday, 29 July 2012

Climate Change Study Forces Sceptical Scientists to Change Minds

For numerous years, there have been scientists who have scoffed at and tried to debunk the claim that there is a consistent warming of the earth and the fact that this global warming can chiefly be attributed to the effects of man.

One such skeptic is Professor Richard M. Muller, who in the face of recent findings and evidence has done a volte face. As a convert to the fact that global warming is indeed real, he stated, "CALL me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause."

See The Conversion of a Climate-Change Skeptic for the full article on his current opinion. See also the UK Guardian's article on Professor Muller's findings. Climate Change Study Forces Sceptical Scientists to Change Minds

AM-C

The Environmental and Living Costs of Oil Production in Nigeria

"For over 50 years now, the extraction of crude oil and natural gas from Nigeria's Niger Delta has meant wealth for a privileged few but has exacted heavy costs on residents and the environment. Nigeria is the world's 8th largest producer of crude oil, yet remains one of its poorest nations -- an estimated 70 percent of its 150 million residents live below the poverty line. The environment is paying a steep price as well. An estimated 500 million gallons of oil have spilled into the delta -- the equivalent of roughly one Exxon Valdez disaster per year. A number of factors have contributed to these disasters: poor construction and maintenance, lax regulation, militant attacks, and petroleum thieves, not to mention government instability and abuse of power. According to cables released by WikiLeaks, Shell Oil claimed to have planted staff in all of Nigeria's main ministries, gaining access to key government decisions. Gathered here are some scenes from Nigeria's long, disastrous relationship with the crude oil industry." - [Quote taken from "Nigeria: The Cost of Oil" published by the Atlantic Magazine]

Horrific photographs show the extent of environmental degradation in Nigeria & the rape of the Niger-Delta region as a result of petroleum exploration and production activities. See Nigeria: The Cost of Oil for the photographs detailing the magnitude of the pollution caused by Nigeria's oil industry.

AM-C

Tuesday, 24 July 2012

Areas of Concentration for Mid-Semester Test

The Debate on the North-South Divide
The Kyoto Protocol

AM-C

Wednesday, 18 July 2012

Indira Gandhi's Speech at the Stockholm Conference in 1972

Man And Environment

Smt. Indira Gandhi
(late Prime Minister of India)
Plenary Session of United Nations Conference on Human Environment
Stockholm 14th June, 1972

It is indeed an honour to address this Conference-in itself a fresh expression of the spirit which created the United Nations-concern for the present and future welfare of humanity. It does not aim merely at securing limited agreements but at establishing peace and harmony in life-among all races and with Nature. This gathering represents man's earnest endeavour to understand his own condition and to prolong his tenancy of this planet. A vast amount of detailed preparatory work has gone into the convening of this Conference guided by the dynamic personality of Mr. Maurice Strong the Secretary General.

I have had the good fortune of growing up with a sense of kinship with nature in all its manifestations. Birds, plants, stones were companions and, sleeping under the star-strewn sky, I became familiar with the names and movements of the constellations. But my deep interest in this our `only earth' was not for itself but as a fit home for man.

One cannot be truly human and civilized unless one looks upon not only all fellow-men but all creation with the eyes of a friend. Throughout India, edicts carved on rocks and iron pillars are reminders that 22 centuries ago the Emperor Ashoka defined a King's duty as not merely to protect citizens and punish wrongdoers but also to preserve animal life and forest trees. Ashoka was the first and perhaps the only monarch until very recently, to forbid the killing of a large number of species of animals for sport or food, foreshadowing some of the concerns of this Conference. He went further, regretting the carnage of his military conquests and enjoining upon his successors to find "their only pleasure in the peace that comes through righteousness".

Along with the rest of mankind, we in India--in spite of Ashoka have been guilty of wanton disregard for the sources of our sustenance. We share you concern at the rapid deterioration of flora and fauna. Some of our own wildlife has been wiped out, miles of forests with beautiful old trees, mute witnesses of history, have been destroyed. Even though our industrial development is in its infancy, and at its most difficult stage, we are taking various steps to deal with incipient environmental imbalances. The more so because of our concern for the human being--a species which is also imperiled. In poverty he is threatened by malnutrition and disease, in weakness by war, in richness by the pollution brought about by his own prosperity.

It is said that in country after country, progress should become synonymous with an assault on nature. We who are a part of nature and dependent on her for very need, speak constantly about "exploiting" nature. When the highest mountain in the world was climber in 1953, Jawaharlal Nehru objected to the phrase "conquest of Everest" which he thought was arrogant. It is surprising that this lack of consideration and the constant need to prove one's superiority should be projected onto our treatment of our fellowmen? I remember Edward Thompson, a British writer and a good friend of India, once telling Mr. Gandhi that wildlife was fast disappearing. Remarked the Mahatma--"It is decreasing in the jungles but it is increasing in the town".

We are gathered here under the aegis of the United Nations. We are supposed to belong to the same family sharing common traits and impelled by the same basic desires, yet we inhabit a divided world.

How can it be otherwise? There is still no recognition of the equality of man or respect for him as an individual. In matters of colour and race, religion and custom, society is governed by prejudice. Tensions arise because of man's aggressiveness and notions of superiority. The power of the big stick prevails and it is used not in favour of fair play or beauty, but to chase imaginary windmills--to assume the right to interfere in the affairs of others, and to arrogate authority for action which would not normally be allowed. Many of the advanced countries of today have reached their present affluence by their domination over other races and countries, the exploitation of their own natural resources. They got a head start through sheer ruthlessness, undisturbed by feelings of compassion or by abstract theories of freedom, equality or justice. The stirrings of demands for the political rights of citizens, and the economic rights of the toiler came after considerable advance had been made. The riches and the labour of the colonized countries played no small part in the industrialization and prosperity of the West. Now, as we struggle to create a better life for our people, it is in vastly different circumstances, for obviously in today's eagle-eyed watchfulness we cannot indulge in such practices even for a worthwhile purpose. We are bound by our own ideals. We owe allegiance to the principles of the rights of workers and the norms enshrined in the charters of international organizations. Above all we are answerable to the millions of politically awakened citizens in our countries. All these make progress costlier and more complicated.

On the one hand the rich look askance at our continuing poverty--on the other, they warn us against their own methods. We do not wish to impoverish the environment any further and yet we cannot for a moment forget the grim poverty of large numbers of people. Are not poverty and need the greatest polluters? For instance, unless we are in a position to provide employment and purchasing power for the daily necessities of the tribal people and those who live in or around our jungles, we cannot prevent them from combing the forest for food and livelihood; from poaching and from despoiling the vegetation. When they themselves feel deprived, how can we urge the preservation of animals? How can we speak to those who live in villages and in slums about keeping the oceans, the rivers and the air clean when their own lives are contaminated at the source? The environment cannot be improved in conditions of poverty. Nor can poverty be eradicated without the use of science and technology.

Must there be conflict between technology and a truly better world or between enlightenment of the spirit and a higher standard of living? Foreigners sometimes ask what to us seems a very strange question, whether progress in India would not mean diminishing of her spirituality or her values. Is spiritual quality so superficial as to be dependent upon the lack of material comfort? As a country we are not more or less spiritual than any other but traditionally our people have respected the spirit of detachment and renunciation. Historically, our great spiritual discoveries were made during periods of comparative affluence. The doctrines of detachment from possessions were developed not as rationalization of deprivation but to prevent comfort and ease from dulling the senses. Spirituality means the enrichment of the spirit, the strengthening of ones inner resources and the stretching of one's range of experience. It is the ability to be still in the midst of activity and vibrantly alive in moments of calm; to separate the essence from circumstances; to accept joy and sorrow with some equanimity. Perception and compassion are the marks of true spirituality.

I am reminded of an incident in one of our tribal areas. The vociferous demand of elder tribal chiefs that their customs should be left undisturbed found support from noted anthropologists. In its anxiety that the majority should not submerge the many ethnic, racial and cultural groups in our country, the Government of India largely accepted this advice. I was amongst those who entirely approved. However, a visit to remote part of our north-east frontier brought me in touch with a different point of view-the protest of the younger elements that while the rest of India was on the way to modernization they were being preserved as museum pieces. Could we not say the same to the affluent nations?

For the last quarter of a century, we have been engaged in an enterprise unparalled in human history--the provision of basic needs to one-sixth of mankind within the span of one or two generations. When we launched on that effort our early planners had more than the usual gaps to fill. There was not enough data and no helpful books. No guidance could be sought from the experience of other countries whose conditions--political, economic, social and technological--were altogether different. Planning in the sense we were innovating, had never been used in the context of a mixed economy. But we could not wait. The need to improve the conditions of our people was pressing. Planning and action, the improvement of data leading to better planning and better action, all this was a continuous and overlapping process. Our industrialization tended to follow the paths which the more advanced countries had traversed earlier. With the advance of the 60's and particularly during the last five years, we have encountered a bewildering collection of problems, some due to our shortcomings but many inherent in the process and in existing attitudes. The feeling is growing that we should re-order our priorities and move away from the single-dimensional model which has viewed growth from certain limited angles, which seems to have given a higher place to things rather than to persons and which has increased our wants rather than our enjoyment. We should have a more comprehensive approach to life, centred on man not as a statistic but an individual with many sides to his personality. The solution of these problems cannot be isolated phenomena of marginal importance but must be an integral part of the unfolding of the very process of development.

The extreme forms in which questions of population or environmental pollution are posed, obscure the total view of political, economic and social situations. The Government of India is one of the few which has an officially sponsored programme of family planning and this is making some progress. We believe that planned families will make for a healthier and more conscious population. But we know also that no programme of population control can be effective without education and without a visible rise in the standard of living. Our own programmes have succeeded in the urban or semi-urban areas. To the very poor, every child is an earner and a helper. We ar experimenting with new approaches and the family planning programme is being combined with those of maternity and child welfare, nutrition and development in general.

It is an over--simplification to blame all the world's problems on increasing population. Countries with but a small fraction of the world population consume the bulk of the world's production of minerals, fossil fuels and so on. Thus we see that when it comes to the depletion of natural resources and environmental pollution, the increase of one inhabitant in an affluent country., at his level of living, is equivalent to an increase of many Asian, Africans or Latin Americans at their current material levels of living.

The inherent conflict is not between conservation and development, but between environment and reckless exploitation of man and earth in the name of efficiency. Historians tell us that the modern age began with the will to freedom of the individual. And the individual came to believe that the had rights with no corresponding obligations. The man who got ahead was the one who commanded admiration. No questions were asked as to the methods employed or the price which others had to pay. The industrial civilization has promoted the concept of the efficient man, he whose entire energies are concentrated on producing more in a given unit of time and from a given unit of manpower. Groups or individuals who ar less competitive and according to this test, less efficient are regarded as lesser breeds--for example the older civilizations, the black and brown peoples, women and certain professions. Obsolescence is built into production, and efficiency is based on the creation of goods which are not really needed and which cannot be disposed of when discarded. What price such efficiency now, and is not recklessness a more appropriate term for such a behaviour?

All the `isms' of the modern age--even those which in theory disown the private profit principle--assume that man's cardinal interest is acquisition. The profit motive, individual or collectives, seems to overshadow all else. This overriding concern with self and Today is the basic cause of the ecological crisis.

Pollution is not a technical problem. The fault lies not in science and technology as such but in the sense of values of the contemporary world which ignores the rights of others and is oblivious of the longer perspective.

There are grave misgivings that the discussion on ecology may be designed to distract attention from the problems of war and poverty. We have to prove to the disinherited majority of the world that ecology and conservation will not work against their interest but will bring an improvement in their lives. To withhold technology from them would deprive them of vast resources of energy and knowledge. This is no longer feasible not will it be acceptable.

The environmental problems of developing countries are not the side effects of excessive industrialization but reflect the inadequacy of development. The rich countries may look upon development as the cause of environmental destruction, but to us it is one of the primary means of improving the environment for living, or providing food, water, sanitation and shelter; of making the deserts green and the mountains habitable. The research and perseverance of dedicated people have given us an insight which is likely to play an important part in the shaping of our future plans. We see that however much man hankers after material goods, they can never give him full satisfaction. Thus the higher standard of living must be achieved without alienating people from their heritage and without despoiling nature of its beauty, freshness and purity so essential to our lives.

The most urgent and basic question is that of peace. Nothing is so pointless as modern warfare. Nothing destroys so instantly, so completely as the diabolic weapons which not only kill but maim and deform the living and the yet to be born; which poison the land, leaving long trails of ugliness, barrenness and hopeless desolation. What ecological projects can survive a war? The Prime Minister of Sweden, Mr. Olof Palme, has already drawn the attention of the Conference to this in powerful words.

It is clear that the environmental crisis which is confronting the world, will profoundly alter the future destiny or our planet. No one among us, whatever our status, strength or circumstance can remain unaffected. The process of change challenges present international policies. Will the growing awareness of "one earth" and "one environment' guide us to the concept of "one humanity"? Will there be a more equitable sharing of environmental costs and greater international interest in the accelerated progress of the less developed world? Or, will it remain confined to a narrow concern, based on exclusive self-sufficiency?

The first essays in narrowing economic and technological disparities have not succeeded because the policies of aid were made to subserve the equations of power. We hope that the renewed emphasis on self-reliance, brought a about by the change in the climate for aid, will also promote search for new criteria of human satisfaction. In the meantime, the ecological crises should not add to the burdens of the weaker nations by introducing new considerations in the political and trade policies of rich nations. It would be ironic if the fight against pollution were to be converted into another business, out of which a few companies, corporations, or nations would make profits at the cost of the many. Here is a branch of experimentation and discovery in which scientist of all nations should take interest. They should ensure that their findings are available to all nations, unrestricted by patents. I am glad that the Conference has given thought on this aspect of the problem.

Life is one and the world is one, and all these questions are inter-linked. The population explosion; poverty; ignorance and disease, the pollution of our surroundings, the stockpiling of nuclear weapons and biological and chemical agents of destruction are all parts of a vicious circle. Each is important and urgent but dealing with them one by one would be wasted effort.

It serves little purpose to dwell on the past or to apportion blame, no one of us is blameless. If some are able to dominate over others, it is at least partially due to the weakness, the lack of unity and the temptation of gaining some advantage on the part of those who submit. If the prosperous have been exploiting the needy, can we honestly claim that in our own societies people do not take advantage of the weaker sections? We must re-evaluate the fundamentals on which our respective civic societies are based and the ideals by which they are sustained. If there is to be a change of heart, a change of direction and methods of functioning, it is not an organization or a country-no matter how well intentioned--which can achieve it. While each country must deal with that aspect of the problem which is most relevant to it, it is obvious that all countries must unite in an overall endeavour. There is no alternative to a cooperative approach on a global scale to the entire spectrum of our problems.

I have referred to some problems which seem to me to be the underlying causes of the present crises in our civilization. This is not in the expectation that this Conference can achieve miracles or solve all the world's difficulties, but in the hope that the opinions of each national will be kept in focus, that these problems will be viewed in perspective and each project devised as part of the whole.

On a previous occasion I have spoken of the unfinished revolution in our countries I am now convinced that this can be taken to its culmination when it is accompanied by a revolution in social thinking. In 1968 at the 14th General Conference of UNESCO the Indian delegation, along with others, proposed a new and major programme entitled "a design for living". This is essential to grasp the full implications of technical advance and its impact on different sections and groups. We do not want to put the clock back or resign ourselves to a simplistic natural state. We want new directions in the wiser use of the knowledge and tools with which science has equipped us. And this cannot be just one upsurge but a continuous search into cause and effect and an unending effort to match technology with higher levels of thinking. We must concern ourselves not only with the kind of world we want but also with what kind of man should inhabit it. Surely we do not desire a society divided into those who condition and those who are conditioned. We want thinking people capable of spontaneous self-directed activity, people who are interested and interesting, and who are imbued with compassion and concern for others.

It will not be easy for large societies to change their style of living. They cannot be coerced to do so, nor can governmental action suffice. People can be motivated and urged to participate in better alternatives.

It has been my experience that people who are at cross purposes with nature are cynical about mankind and ill-at-ease with themselves. Modern man must re-establish an unbroken link with nature and with life. He must again learn to invoke the energy of growing things and to recognize, as did the ancients in India centuries ago, that one can take from the Earth and the atmosphere only so much as one puts back into them. In their hymn to Earth, the sages of the Atharva Veda chanted-I quote,

"What of thee I dig out, let that quickly grow over, Let me

not hit thy vitals, or thy heart".

So can man himself be vital and of good heart and

conscious of his responsibility

This speech can be found here.

Monday, 16 July 2012

Biodiversity Basics

What is Biodiversity?

"Biodiversity is a modern term which simply means " the variety of life on earth". This variety can be measured on several different levels." See the full article titled Biodiversity and Conservation by Dr. Barbara Corker. Please note that this article has four web pages, so ensure you click on the "continue" button at the bottom of the page.

AM-C

Sunday, 3 June 2012

Lectures for the Second Semester will commence on Wednesday 06 June 2012, same time. Spread the message to everyone taking the course.

AM-C

Thursday, 31 May 2012

FOLLOW the link below to view soft copy of group presentation of group 7

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=gmail&attid=0.1&thid=13762374ae522f49&mt=application/msword&url=https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui%3D2%26ik%3D318a7ee085%26view%3Datt%26th%3D13762374ae522f49%26attid%3D0.1%26disp%3Dsafe%26realattid%3Dc43c4c6d201623f2_0.1%26zw&sig=AHIEtbSEnYcIDAQsSw0gSrks-BSOltAvlw

Friday, 27 April 2012

Environmental Law Course Areas of Concentration

These are the areas of concentration for the Environmental Law Course (Harmattan Semester) -

Principles of Environmental Law

Sustainable Development

Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) and Strategic Environmental Assessments (SEAs)

Gas Flaring in Nigeria and the Gbemre case

Access to Environmental Justice

History and Development of Environmental Protection in Nigeria

Common Law principles of Environmental law

The Aarhus Convention

You are required to read extensively as regards the above stated topics and others which will be covered.

Ayodele Morocco-Clarke

Monday, 23 April 2012

Gas Flaring in Nigeria

For articles on Gas Flaring in Nigeria follow this link:

Gas Flaring in Nigeria

Federal Environmental Protection Agency Act

For a document on the Federal Environmental Protection Agency Act follow this link:

Federal Environmental Protection Agency Act

Shell’s Wildly Inaccurate Reporting of Niger Delta Oil Spill Exposed

"A major oil spill in the Niger Delta was far worse than Shell previously admitted, according to an independent assessment obtained by Amnesty International and the Centre for Environment, Human Rights and Development (CEHRD), which exposes how the oil giant dramatically under-estimated the quantities involved".......Read the rest of the article HERE.

Thursday, 19 April 2012

Interesting Article on Oil Pollution in the Niger-Delta Region of Nigeria

"The Ogoniland region of Nigeria has long been badly polluted by decades of oil production that has fouled the delta and contaminated drinking water. A United Nations report has recommended a massive recovery initiative, but so far the Nigerian government has shown few signs it will agree to the cleanup project." See Hopes Fade for Cleanup In Nigeria’s Oil-Rich Delta for the full article.

Ayodele Morocco-Clarke

Tuesday, 17 April 2012

Nigeria: Gbemre v Shell Petroleum Development Company Nigeria Limited and Others (2005) AHRLR 151 (NgHC 2005)

Gbemre v Shell Petroleum Development Company Nigeria Limited and Others (2005) AHRLR 151 (NgHC 2005)

Mr Jonah Gbemre (for himself and representing Iwherekan Community in Delta State, Nigeria) v Shell Petroleum Development Company Nigeria Ltd, Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation and Attorney-General of the Federation

Federal High Court of Nigeria in the Benin Judicial Division, suit FHC/B/CS/53/05, 14 November 2005

Judge: Nwokorie

Extracts.

Gas flaring in the course of oil extraction violates the right to life and a healthy environment

Environment (right to a healthy environment, 6; environmental impact assessment, 6)

Life (effect of pollution, 6)

[1.] On 21 July 2005 this Court granted leave to the applicants to apply for an order enforcing or securing the enforcement of their fundamental rights to life and dignity of human person as provided by sections 33(1) and 34(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, and articles 4, 16 and 24 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act, Cap A9 vol 1, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004. By a further leave of Court I permitted the applicant to commence these proceedings for himself and as representing other members, individuals and residents of Iwherekan community in Delta State of Nigeria, in view of the copious unwieldly list of members contained in an earlier application for leave they brought in respect thereof, which was withdrawn by their counsel at the prompting of the Court.

[2.] The reliefs claimed by the applicants in their subsequent motion on notice filed on 29 July 2005 include:

1. A declaration that the constitutionally guaranteed fundamental rights to life and dignity of human person provided in sections 33(1) and 34(1) of the Constitution of Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 and reinforced by articles 4, 16 and 24 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act, cap A9, vol1, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004 inevitably includes the right to clean poison-free, pollution-free and healthy environment.

2. A declaration that the actions of the 1st and 2nd respondents in continuing to flare gas in the course of their exploration and production activities in the applicant’s community is a violation of their fundamental rights to life (including healthy environment) and dignity of human person guaranteed by sections 33(1) and 34(1) of the Constitution of Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 and reinforced by articles 4, 16 and 24 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act, cap A9, vol1, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004.

3. A declaration that the failure of the 1st and 2nd respondents to carry out environmental impact assessment in the applicant’s community concerning the effects of their gas flaring activities is a violation of section 2(2) of the Environment Impact Assessment Act, cap E12 vol 6 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004 and contributed to the violation of the applicant’s said fundamental rights to life and dignity of human person

4. A declaration that the provisions of section 3(2)(a), (b) of the Associated Gas Re-injection Act cap A25 vol 1 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004 and Section 1 of the Associated Gas Re-Injection (continued flaring of gas) Regulations Section 1.43 of 1984, under which the continued flaring of gas in Nigeria may be allowed are inconsistent with the applicant’s right to life and/or dignity of human person enshrined in sections 33(1) and 34(1) of the Constitution of Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 and articles 4, 16 and 24 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act, cap A9 vol 1 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004 and are therefore unconstitutional, null and void by virtue of section 1(3) of the same Constitution.

5. An order of perpetual injunction restraining the 1st and 2nd respondents by themselves or by their agents, servants, contractors or workers or otherwise howsoever form further flaring of gas in the applicants said community.

[3.] It is the case of the applicants, as shown in the itemized grounds upon which the above-mentioned reliefs are sought that:

a) By virtue of the provisions of sections 33(1) and 34(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 they have a fundamental right to life and dignity of human person.

b) Also by virtue of articles 4, 16 and 24 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ [Rights] (Ratification and Enforcement) Act Cap A9, vol 1 Laws of Federation of Nigeria, 2004, they have the right to respect for their lives and dignity of their persons and to enjoy the best attainable state of physical and mental health as well as right to a general satisfactory environment favourable to their development.

c) That the gas flaring activities in the community in Delta State of Nigeria by the 1st and 2nd respondents are a violation of their said fundamental rights to life and dignity of human person and to a healthy life in a healthy environment.

d) That no environmental impact assessment was carried out by the 1st and 2nd respondents concerning their gas flaring activities in the applicant’s community as required by section 2(2) of the Environmental Impact Assessment Act, Cap E 12 vol 6, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004, and this has contributed to the unrestrained, mindless flaring of gas by the 1st and 2nd respondents in their community in violation of their said fundamental rights.

e) That no valid ministerial gas flaring certificates were obtained by any of the 1st and 2nd respondents authorizing the gas flaring in the applicant’s said community in violation of section 3(2) of the Associated Gas Re-Injection Act, Cap A25 vol 1, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004.

f) That the provisions of section 3(2) of the Associated Gas Re-Injection Act, Cap A25, vol 1, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004 and section 1 of the Associated Re-Injection (Continued Flaring of Gas) Regulations, 43 of 1984, under which gas flaring in Nigeria may be continued are inconsistent with the provisions of sections 33(1) and 34(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 and articles 4, 16 and 24 of African Charter on Human and Peoples’ [Rights] (Ratification and Enforcement) are therefore unconstitutional, null and void.

g) That the provisions of both sections 21(1) and (2) of the Federal Environmental Protection Agency Act (FEPA) Cap F10 vol 1 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004 makes the gas flaring activities of the 1st and 2nd respondents a crime, the continuation of which should be discouraged and restrained by the Court.

[4.] It is also, in the case of the applicants (as summarised in their affidavit in verification of all the above-stated facts that they are
bona fide citizens of the Federal Republic of Nigeria [and]

1. That the 1st and 2nd respondents are oil and gas companies in Nigeria who are engaged jointly and severally in the exploration and
production of crude oil and other petroleum products in Nigeria.

2. That in further support of their rights to life and dignity of their persons they have the right to respect for their lives and dignity of
their persons and to enjoy the best attainable state physical and mental health as well as right to a general satisfactory environment
favourable to their development.

3. That the 1st and 2nd respondents have been engaged in massive, relentless and continuous gas flaring in their community and that the
2nd respondent is a joint venture partner with the 1st respondent in its oil exploration and production activities, which includes gas-flaring in Nigeria.

4. That the activities of the 1st and 2nd respondents in continuing to flare gas in their community seriously pollutes the air, causes respiratory
diseases and generally endangers and impairs their health.

5. That the 1st and 2nd respondents have carried on gas flaring continuously in their community without any regard to its deleterious and ruinous consequences concentrating only on pursuing their commercial interest and maximizing profit.

6. That the 1st and 2nd respondents do not like to find gas together with oil in their oil-fields (ie associated gas, AG), but prefer to find gas
without it being mixed up with oil - so called non-associated gas (non AG), and that the attitude of the 1st and 2nd respondents whenever
they find oil mixed with gas is to dispose of the associated gas in order to profit front the oil (which is the more lucrative component) and this process of gas flaring is unrestrained and mindless.

7. That burning of gas by flaring same in their community gives rise to the following:
a. Poisons and pollutes the environment as it leads to the emission of carbon dioxide, the main green house gas; the flares contain a cocktail of toxins that affect their heath, lives and livelihood.

b. Exposes them to an increased risk of premature death, respiratory illness, asthma and cancer.

c. Contributes to adverse climate change as it emits carbon dioxide and methane which causes warming of the environment, pollutes their food and water.
d. Causes painful breathing chronic bronchitis, decreased lung function and death.
e. Reduces crop production and adversely impacts on their food security.
f. Causes acid rain, their corrugated house roofs are corroded by the composition of the rain that falls as a result of gas flaring saying that the primary causes of acid rain are emissions of sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxides which combine with atmospheric moisture to form sulphuric moisture to form sulphuric acid and nitric acid respectively. The acidic rain consequently acidifies their lakes and streams arid damages their vegetation.

8. That the emissions resulting from the 1st and 2nd respondents burning of associated gas by flaring in their community in an open uncontrolled manner is a mixture of smoke more precisely referred to particulate matter, combustion by-products including sulphur dioxide, nitrogen dioxides and carcinogenic substances, all of which are very dangerous to human health and lives in particular.

9. That no Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) whatsoever was undertaken by any of the 1st and 2nd respondents lo ascertain the harmful consequences of their gas flaring activities in the area to the environment, health, food, water, development, lives, infrastructure etc.

10. That if the 1st and 2nd respondents had carried out environmental impact assessment in their community concerning this gas flaring as required by law, they would have known or found out that it is most dangerous to their health, life and environment and refrained from gas flaring and that they deliberately failed to so out of their selfish economic interest.

11. That so many natives of the community have died and countless others are suffering various sicknesses occasioned by the effects of gas flaring by the 1st and 2nd defendants.

12. That their community is thereby grossly undeveloped, very poor and without adequate medical facilities to cope with the adverse and harmful effects on their health and lives occasioned by the unrestrained gas flaring activities in the area.

13. That the 1st and 2nd respondents have not bothered to consider the negative unhealthy and very damaging impact on their health, lives, and environment of their persistent gas flaring activities and have made no arrangements to provide them with adequate medical attention and facilities to cushion the adverse effects of their gas flaring activities.

14. That the constitutional guarantee of right to life and dignity of human person available to them as citizens of Nigeria includes the right to a
clean, poison-free and pollution-free air and healthy environment conducive for human beings to reside in for our development and full enjoyment of life; and that these rights to life and dignity of human person have been and are being wantonly violated and are continuously threatened with persistent violation by these gas flaring activities.

15. That unless this Court promptly intervenes their said fundamental rights being breached by the 1st and 2nd respondents will continue
unabated and with impunity while its members will continue to suffer various sicknesses, deterioration of health and premature death.

16. And that the 1st and 2nd respondents have no right to continue to engage in gas-flaring in violation of their right to life and to a clean,
healthy, pollution-free environment and dignity of human person

Finally, that the 1st and 2nd respondents have no valid ministerial certificates authorizing them to flare gas in the applicant’s community.

…

[5.] Upon a thorough evaluation of all the processes, submission, judicial and statutory authorities as well as the nature of the subject matter together with the urgency which both parties through their counsel have observably treated the weighty issued raised in the substantive claim, I find, myself able to hold as follows (after a thoroughly painstaking consideration):

1.That the applicants were properly granted leave to institute these proceedings in a representative capacity for himself and for each and every member of the Iweherekan Community in Delta State of Nigeria.

2.That this Court has the inherent jurisdiction to grant leave to the applicants who are bona fide citizens and residents of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, to apply for the enforcement of their fundamental rights to life and dignity of the human person as guaranteed by sections 33 and 34 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999.

3.That these constitutionally guaranteed rights inevitably include the right to clean, poison-free, pollution-free healthy environment.

4.The actions of the 1st and 2nd respondents in continuing to flare gas in the course of their oil exploration and production activities in the applicants’ community is a gross violation of their fundamental right to life (including healthy environment) and dignity of human person as enshrined in the Constitution.

5.Failure of the 1st and 2nd respondents to carry out environmental impact assessment in the applicants’ community concerning the effects of their gas flaring activities is a clear violation of section 2(2) of the Environmental Impact Assessment Act, cap E12 vol 6, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004, and has contributed to a further violation of the said fundamental rights.

6.That section 3(2)(a) and (b) of the Associated Gas Re-Injection Act and section 1 of the Associated Gas Re-Injection (Continued Flaring of Gas) Regulations section 1.43 of 1984, under which gas flaring in Nigeria may be allowed are inconsistent with the applicant’s rights to life and/or dignity of human person enshrined in sections 33(1) and 34(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 and articles 4, 16 and 24 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act, cap A9, vol 1, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004) and are therefore unconstitutional, null and void by virtue of section 1(3) of the same Constitution.

[6.] Based on the above findings, the reliefs claimed by the applicants as stated in their motion paper as 1, 2, 3, 4 are hereby granted as I make and repeat the specific declarations contained there as the final orders of the Court:

[for reliefs 1-4 see para 2 above – eds]

5. I hereby order that the 1st and 2nd respondents are accordingly restrained whether by themselves, their servants or workers or otherwise from further flaring of gas in applicants’ community and are to take immediate steps to stop the further flaring of gas in the applicant’s community

6. The Honorable Attorney-General of the Federation and Ministry of Justice, 3rd respondent in these proceedings who, regrettably, did not put up any appearance, and/or defend these proceedings is hereby ordered to immediately set into motion, after due consultation with the Federal Executive Council, necessary processes for the Enactment of a Bill for an Act of the National Assembly for the speedy amendment of the relevant sections of the Associated Gas Re-Injection Act and the Regulations made there under to quickly bring them in line with the provisions of chapter 4 of the Constitution, especially in view of the fact that the Associated Gas Re-Injection Act even by itself also makes the said continuous gas flaring a crime having prescribed penalties in respect thereof. Accordingly, the case as put forward by the 1st and 2nd respondents as well as their various preliminary objections are hereby dismissed as lacking merit.

7. This is the final judgment of the Court and I make no award of damages, costs or compensations whatsoever.

Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Futurehttp://www.un-documents.net/wced-ocf.htm

Environmental Impact Assessment Decree

No 86 of 1992

Laws of the Federation of Nigeria

10^th December1992

The Federal Military Government hereby decrees as follow: -

Part I

General Principles of Environmental Impact Assessment

1. The objectives of any environmental Impact assessment (hereafter in this Decree referred to as "the Assessment") shall be -

(a) to establish before a decision taken by any person, authority corporate body or unincorporated body including the Government of the Federation, State or Local Government intending to undertake or authorise the undertaking of any activity that may likely or to a significant extent affect the environment or have environmental effects on those activities shall first be taken into account;

(b) to promote the implementation of appropriate policy in all Federal Lands (however acquired) States and Local Government Areas consistent with all laws and decision making processes through which the goal and objective in paragraph (a) of this section may be realised;

(c) to encourage the development of procedures for information exchange, notification and consultation between organs and persons when proposed activities are likely to have significant environmental affects on boundary or trans-state or on the environment of bordering towns and villages.

2. (1) The public or private sector of the economy shall not undertake or embark on public or authorise projects or activities without prior consideration, at an early stages, or their environmental effects.

(2) Where the extent, nature or location of a proposed project or activity is such that is likely to significantly affect the environment, its environmental impact assessment shall be undertaken in accordance with the provisions of this Decree.

(3) The criterion and procedure under this Decree shall be used to determine whether an activity is likely to significantly affect the environment and is therefore subject to an environmental impact assessment.

(4) All agencies, institutions (whether public or private) except exempted pursuant to this Decree, shall before embarking on the proposed project apply in writing to the Agency, so that subject activities can be quickly and surely identified and environmental assessment applied as the activities being planned.

3. (1) In identifying the environmental impact assessment process under this Decree, the relevant significant environmental issues shall be identified and studied before commencing or embarking on any project or activity covered by the provisions of this Decree or covered by the Agency or likely to have serious environmental impact on the Nigerian environment.

(2) Where appropriate, all efforts shall be made to identify all environmental issues at an early step in the process.

4. An environmental impact assessment shall include at least the following minimum matters, that is -

(a) a description of the proposed activities;

(b) a description of the potential affected environment including specific information necessary to identify and assess the environmental effects of the proposed activities;

(d) an assessment of the likely or potential environmental impacts on the proposed activity and the alternatives, including the direct or indirect cumulative, short-term and tong-term effects:

(e) an identification and description of measures available to mitigate adverse environmental impacts of proposed activity and assessment of those measures;

(f) an indication of gaps in knowledge and uncertainly which may be encountered in computing the required information:

(g) an indication of whether the environment of any other State, Local Government Area or areas outside Nigeria is likely to be affected by the proposed activity or its alternatives;

(h) a brief and non technical summary of the information provided under paragraph (a) to (g) of this section.

5. The environmental effects in an environmental assessment shall be assessed with a degree of detail commensuration with their likely environmental significance.

6. The information provided as of environmental impact assessment shall be examined impartially by the Agency prior to any decision to be made thereto (whether in favour or adverse thereto).

7. Before the Agency gives a decision on an activity to which an environmental assessment has been produced, the Agency shall give opportunity to government agencies, members of the public, experts in any relevant discipline and interested groups to make comment on environmental impact assessment of the activity.

8. The Agency shall not give a decision as to whether a proposed activity should be authorised or undertaken until appropriate period has elapsed to consider comments pursuant to sections 7 and 12 of this Decree.

9. (1) The Agency's decisions on any proposed activity subject to environmental impact assessment shall -

(a) be in writing;

(b) state the reason therefor;

(2) The report of the Agency shall be made available to interested person or group.

(3) If no interested person or group requested for the report, it shall be the duty of the Agency to publish its decision in a manner by which members of the public or persons interested in the activity shall be notified.

(4) The Council may determine an appropriate method in which the decision of the Agency shall be published so as to reach interested persons or groups, in particular the originators or persons interested in the activity subject of the decision.

10. When the Council deems fit and appropriate, a decision on an activity which has been subject of environmental impact assessment, the activity and its effects on the environment or the provisions of section 9 of this decree shall be subject to appropriate supervision.

11. (1) When information provided as part of environmental impart assessment indicates that the Environment within another State in the Federation or a Local Government Area is likely to be significantly affected by a proposed activity, the State, the Local Government Area in which the activity is being panned shall, to the extent possible -

(a) notify the potentially affected State or Local Government of the proposed activity;

(b) transmit to the affected State or Local Government Area any relevant information of the environmental impact assessment:

(2) It shall be the duty of the Agency to see that the provisions of subsection (1) of this section are complied with and the Agency may cause the consultations provided pursuant to subsection (1) of this section to take place in order to investigate any environmental derogation or hazard that may occur during the construction or process of the activity concerned.

12. Editorial Note: there is no section 12 within this Decree.

13. (1) When a project is described on the Mandatory Study List specified in the Schedule to this Decree or is referred to mediation or a review panel, no Federal, State or Local Government or any of their authority or agency Shall exercise any power or perform any duty or functions that would permit the project to be carried out in whole or in part until the Agency has taken a cause of action conducive to its power under the Act establishing it or has taken a decision or issue an order that the project could be carried out with or without conditions.

(2) Where the Agency has given certain conditions before the carrying out of the project, the conditions shall be fulfilled before any person or authority shall embark on the project.

Part II

Environmental Assessment of Projects

14. (1) Notwithstanding the provisions of Part I of this Decree, an environmental impact assessment shall be required where a Federal, State or Local Government Agency Authority established by the Federal, State or Local Government Council -

(a) is the proponent of the project and does any act or thing which commits the Federal, State or Local Government authority to carrying out the project in whole or, impact;

(b) makes or authorises payment or provides a guarantee for a loan or any other form of financial assistance to the proponent for the purpose of enabling the project to be carried out in whole or in part, except when the financial assistance is in the form of any reduction, avoidance, deferral, removed, refund remission or other form of relief from the payment of any tax, duty or excise under Customs Tariff (Consolidated) Act or any Order made thereunder, unless that financial assistance is provided for the purpose of enabling an individual project specifically named in the enactment, regulation or order that provides the relief to be carried out;

(c) has the administration of Federal, State or Local Government and leases or otherwise disposes of those lands on or any tests in those lands or transfers the administration and control of those lands or invest therein in favour of the Federal Government or its agencies for the purpose of enabling the project to be carried out in whole or in part.

(d) under the provisions of any law or enactment, issues a permit or licence, grants an approval or takes any other action for the purpose of enabling the project to be carried out in whole or in part.

15. (1) An environmental assessment of project shall not be required where -

(a) in the opinion of the Agency the project is in the list of projects which the President, Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces or the Council is of the opinion that the environmental effects of the project is likely to be minimal;

(b) the project is to be carried out during national emergency for which temporary measures have been taken by the Government;

(c) the project is to be carried out in response to circumstances that, in the opinion of the Agency, the project is in the interest of public health or safety.

(2) For greater certainly, where the Federal, State or Local Government exercises power or performs a duty or function for the purpose of enabling projects to be carried out an environmental assessment may not be required if -

(a) the project has been identified at the time the power is exercised or the duty or function is performed; and

(b) the Federal, State, or Local Government has no power to exercise any duly or perform functions in relation to the projects after they have been identified.

16. Whenever the Agency decides, that there is the need for an environmental assessment on a project before the commencement of the project the environmental assessment process may include -

(a) a screening or mandatory study and the preparation of a screening report;

(b) a mandatory or assessment by a review panel as provided in section 25 of this Decree and the preparation of a report;

17. (1) Every screening or mandatory study of a project and every mediation or assessment by a review panel shall include a consideration of the following factors, that is –

(a) the environmental effects of the project, including the environmental effects of malfunctions or accidents that may occur in connection with the project and any cumulative environmental effects that are likely to result from the project in taking into consideration with other projects, that that have been or will be carried out;

(b) the significance or, in the case of projects referred to in section 43 44 or 45, the seriousness of those effects;

(d) measures that are technically and economically feasible and that would mitigate any significant or, in the case of projects referred to in sections 43, 44, or 45 any serious adverse environmental effects of the project.

(2) In addition to the factors set out in subsection (1) of this Decree every mandatory study of a project and every mediation or assessment by review panel shall include a consideration of the following factors, that is –

(a) the purpose of the project;

(b) alternative means of carrying out the project that are technically and economically feasible and the environmental effects of any such alternative means;

(d) the short-term or tong term capacity for regeneration of renewal resources that are likely to be significantly or, in the case of the projects referred to in sections 43, 44 or 45, seriously affected by the project; and

(e) any other matter that the Agency or the Council at the request of the Agency, may re require.

(3) For greater certainty, the scope of the factors to be taken into consideration pursuant to subsection (1) (a), (b) and (d) and subsection (2) (b), (c) and (d) of this Decree shall be determined –

(a) by the Agency; or

(b) where a project is referred to mediation or a review panel, by the Council, after consulting with the Agency, when fixing the terms of reference of the mediation or review panel.

(4) An environmental assessment of a project shall not be required to include a consideration of the environmental effects that could result from carrying out the project during the declaration of a national emergency.

18. (1) The Agency may delegate any part of the screening or mandatory study of a project, including the preparation of the screening report or mandatory study report, but shall not delegate the duly to take a course of action pursuant to section 16(1) or 34(1) of this Decree.

(2) For greater certainty, the Agency shall not take a course of action pursuant to section16 (1) or 34(1) unless it is satisfied that any duty or function delegated pursuant to subsection (1) thereof has been carried out in accordance with provisions of this Decree or any relevant enactment.

19. (1) Where the Agency is of the opinion that a project is not described in the mandatory study list or any exclusion list, the Agency shall ensure that –

(a) a screening of the project is conducted; and

(b) a screening report is prepared.

(2) Any available information may be used in conducting the screening of a project, but where the Agency is of the opinion that the information available is not adequate to enable it to take a course of action pursuant to section 16(1) of this Decree it shall ensure that any study and information that it considers necessary for that purpose are undertaken or collected.

20. (1) Where the Agency receives a screening report and the Agency is of the opinion that the report could be used as a method of conducting screening of other project within the same class, the agency may declare the report to be a class screening report.

(2) Any declaration made pursuant to subsection (1) of this Decree shall be published in the Gazette and the screening report to which it relates shall be made available to the public at the registry maintained by the Agency.

(3) Where in the opinion of the Agency a project or part of a project is within a class in respect of which a class screening report has been declared, the Agency may use or permit the use of that report and the screening on which it is based to whatever extent the Agency considers appropriate for the purpose of complying with section13 of this Decree.

(4) Where the Agency uses or permits the use of a class screening report, it shall ensure that any adjustments are made that in the opinion of Agency are necessary to take into account Local circumstances and any cumulative environmental efforts that in the opinion of the Agency are likely to result from the project in combination with other project that have been or will be carried out.

21. (1) Where a proponent proposes to carry out, in whole or in part a project for which a screening report has been prepared but the project did not proceed or the manner in which it is to be carried out has subsequently changed or where a proponent seeks the renewal of a licence, permit or approval referred to in section 5(d) of this Decree in respect of a project for which a screening report has been prepared, the Agency may use or permit the use of that report and the screening on which it is based to whatever extent the Agency considers appropriate for the purpose of complying with section 13 of this Decree.

(2) Where the Agency uses or permits the use of a screening or screening report pursuant to subsection (1) of this section, the Agency shall ensure that any adjustments are made that in its opinion are necessary to take into account any significant changes in the circumstances of the project.

22. (1) After completion of a screening report in respect of a project, the Agency shall take one of the following courses of action, that is –

(a) where, in the opinion of the Agency;

(i) the project is not likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects, or

(ii) any such effect can be mitigated,

the Agency may exercise any power or perform any duty or function that would permit the project to be carried out and shall ensure that any mitigation measures that the Agency considers appropriate are implemented;

(b) where, in the opinion of the Agency;

(i) the project is likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects that may not be mitigable; or

(ii) public concerns respecting the environmental effects of the project warrant it,

the Agency; shall refer the project to the Council for a referral to mediation or a review panel in accordance with section 25 of this Decree; or

(c) where, in the opinion of the Agency, the project is likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects that cannot be mitigated, the Agency shall not exercise any power or perform any duty or function conferred on it under any enactment that would permit the project to be carried out in whole or in part.

(2) For greater certainty, where the Agency takes a course of action referred to in subsection (1) (a) of this section, the Agency shall exercise any power and perform any duly or function conferred on it by or under any enactment in a manner that ensure that any mitigation measures that the Agency considers appropriate in respect of the project are implemented.

(3) Before taking a course of action in relation to a project pursuant to subsection (1) of this section, the Agency shall give the public an opportunity to examine and comment on the screening report and any record that has been filed in the public registry established in respect of the project pursuant to section 51 of this Decree and shall take into consideration any comments that are filed.

23. Where the Agency is of the opinion that a program is described in the mandatory study list, the Agency shall –

(a) ensure that a mandatory study is conducted, and a mandatory study report is prepared and submitted to the Agency, in accordance with the provisions of this Decree; or

(b) refer the project to the Council for a referral to mediation or a review panel in accordance with section 25 of this Decree.

24. (1) Where a proponent proposes to carry out, in whole or in part, a project for which a mandatory study report has been prepared but the project did not proceed or the manner in which it is to be carried out has subsequently changed, or where a proponent seeks the renewal of a licence, permit or approval referred to in section 5(d) of this Decree in respect of a project for which a mandatory study report has been prepared, the Agency may use or permit the use of that report and the mandatory study on which it is based to whatever extent the Agency considers appropriate for the purpose of complying with section 17 of this Decree.

(2) Where the Agency uses or permits the use of a mandatory study or a mandatory study report pursuant to subsection (1) of this section, it shall ensure that any adjustments are made that in its opinion are necessary to take into account any significant changes i n the circumstances of the project.

25. (1) After receiving a mandatory study report in respect of a project, the Agency shall, in any manner it considers appropriate, publish in a notice setting out the following information –

(a) the date on which the mandatory study report shall be available to the public;

(b) the place at which copies of the report may be obtained; and

(2) Prior to the deadline set out in the notice published by the Agency, any person may file comments with the Agency relating to the conclusions and recommendations of the mandatory study report.

26. After taking into consideration the mandatory study report and any comments filed pursuant to section 19(2), the Council shall –

(a) refer the project to mediation or a review panel in accordance with section 25 of this Decree where, in the opinion of the Council -

(i) the project is likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects that may not be mitigable; or

(ii) public concerns respecting the environmental effects of the project warrant. it; or

(b) refer the project back to the Agency for action to be taken under section 34(l)(a) of this Decree where, in the opinion of the Council –

(i) the project is not likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects; or

(ii) any such effects can be mitigated.

27. Where at any time the Agency is of the opinion that –

(a) a project is likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects that may not be mitigable; or

(b) public concerns respecting the environmental effects of the project warrant it,

the Agency may refer the project to the Council for a referral to mediation or review panel in accordance with section 25 of this Decree.

28. Where at any time the Agency decides not to exercise any power or perform any duty or function referred to in section 19 of this Decree in relation to a project that has not been referred to mediation or a review panel, it may terminate the environmental assessment of that project.

29. Where at any time the Agency decides not to exercise any power or perform any duty or function referred to in section 25 of this Decree in relation to a project that has been referred to mediation or a review panel, the Council may terminate the environmental assessment of the project.

30. Where at any time the Council is of the opinion that –

(a) a project is likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects that may not be mitigable, or

(b) public concerns respecting the environmental effects of the project Warrant it,

the Council may, after consultation with the Agency, refer the project to mediation or a review panel in accordance with section 25 of this Decree.

31. Where a project is to be referred to mediation or a review panel under this Decree, the Council shall, within a prescribed period, refer the Council project –

(a) to mediation, if the Council is satisfied that -

(i) the parties who are directly affected by or have direct interest in the project have been identified and are willing to participle in the mediation through representatives, and

(ii) the mediation is likely to produce a result that is satisfactory to all of the parties: or

(b) to a review panel, in any other case.

32. Where a project is referred to mediation, the Council shall, in consultation with the Agency –

(a) appoint as mediator any person who, in the opinion of the Council possesses the required knowledge or experience; and

(b) fix the terms of reference of the mediation.

33. (1) In the case of a dispute respecting the participation of parties in a mediation, the Council may, on the request of the mediation, determine those parties who are directly affected by or have a direct interest in the project.

(2) Any determination by the Council pursuant to subsection (1) of this section shall be binding

34. (1) A mediator shall not proceed with a mediation unless the mediator is satisfied that all of the information required for a mediation is available to all of the participants.

(2) A mediation shall, in accordance with the provisions of this Decree, and the terms of reference of the mediation –

(a) help the participants to reach a consensus on

(i) the environmental effects that are likely to result from the project,

(ii) any measures that would mitigate any significant adverse environmental effects, and

(iii) an appropriate follow-up program;

(b) prepare a report setting out the conclusions and recommendations of the participants; and

35. Where at any time after a project has been referred to mediation the Council is of the opinion that the mediation is not likely to produce a result that is "satisfactory to all parties, the Council may terminate the mediation and refer the project to a review panel.

36. Where a project is referred to a review panel, the Council shall, in consultation with the Agency –

(a) appoint as members of the panel including the Chairman thereof, persons who, in the opinion of the Council, possess the required knowledge or experience; and

(b) fix the term of reference of the panel.

37. A review panel shall, in accordance with the provisions of this Decree and its terms of reference –

(a) ensure that the information required for an assessment by a review panel is obtained and made available to the public;

(b) hold hearing in a manner that offers the public an opportunity to participate in the assessment;

(i) the conclusions and recommendations of the panel relating to the environmental effects of the project and any mitigation measures or follow-up program, and

(ii) a summary of any comments received from the public; and

(d) Submit the report to the Council and the Agency.

38. (1) A review panel shall be the power of summoning any person to appear as witness before the panel and or ordering the witness to –

(a) give evidence, orally or in writing; and

(b) produce such documents or things as the panel consider necessary for conducting its assessment of the project.

(2) A review panel shall have the same power to enforce the attendance of witnesses and to compel them to give evidence and produce documents and other things as is vested in the Federal High Court or a High Court of a State.

(3) A hearing by review panel shall be in public unless the panel is satisfied after representation made by a witness that specific, direct and substantial harm would be caused to the witness by the disclosure of the evidence, documents or other things that the witness is ordered to give or produce pursuant to subsection (1) of this section.

(4) Where a review panel is satisfied that the disclosure of evidence documents or other things would cause specific, direct and substantial harm, to a witness, the evidence, documents or things shall be privileged and shall not, without the authorization of the witness, knowingly be or be permitted to be communicated, disclosed or made available by any person who has obtained the evidence, documents or other things pursuant to this Decree.

(5) Any summons issued or order made by a review panel pursuant to subsection (1) of this section may, for the purposes of enforcement, be made a summons or order of the Federal High Court by following the usual practice and procedure.

39. On receiving a report submitted by a mediator or a review panel, the Agency shall make the report available to the public in any manner the Council considers appropriate and shall advise the public that the report is available.

40. (1) Following the submission of a report by a mediator or a review panel or the referral of a project back to the Agency pursuant to section 30(b) of this Decree, the Agency shall take one of the following courses of action in relation to the project, that is –

(a) where in the opinion of the Agency -

(i) the project is not likely to cause significant adverse environmental effect, or

(ii) any such effect can be mitigated or justified in the circumstances,

the Agency may exercise any power or perform any duty or function that would permit the project to be carried out in whole or in part and shall ensure that any mitigation measures that the Agency considers appropriate are implemented; or

(b) where, in the opinion of the Agency, the project is likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects that cannot be mitigated and cannot be justified in the circumstances, the Agency shall not exercise any power or perform any duty or function conferred on it by or under any enactment that would permit the project to be carried out in whole or in part.

(2) For greater certainty, where the Agency takes a course of action referred to in subsection (1) (a) of this section, it shall exercise any power and perform any duty or function conferred on it by or under any enactment in a manner that ensures that any mitigation measure that the Agency considers appropriate in respect of the project is implemented.

Environmental Impact Assessment Decree No. 86 1992

Commencement. 10^th December1992