Atayi Babs Opaluwah is currently the West African Coordinator of the Pan-African Media Alliance for Climate Change (PAMACC) as well as the National Network Coordinator of Climate and Sustainable Development Network (CSDevNet). In this interview with, ETTA MICHAEL BISONG, the expert spoke on the Post 2015 Development Plan and the role of Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) in tackling climate change in Nigeria.
What is the objective of CSDevNet?
Climate and Sustainable Development Network of Nigeria (CSDevNet) is a national coalition of civil society organisations, media, and individuals in Nigeria brought together by a common agenda of promoting and advocating for climate related and equity based initiatives for sustainable development. The network which comprises over thirty (30) member-organisations across Nigeria aspires to be an effective platform for Nigerian Civil Society Organisations to share information and strategise jointly, advocate for environmental sustainability and implement development programmes, and coordinate engagement with the Nigerian government and other stakeholders on climate change and sustainable development issues.
What is the role of CSOs on climate change in Nigeria?
From the prism that the adverse effects of climate change manifested by prolonged droughts, shifting seasons, rising sea water levels, flooding and the emergent issue of environmental refugees and diseases have compromised Nigeria’s quest for sustainable development and poverty reduction aspirations, the Nigerian CSOs obviously have their role already cut out for them. This includes advocating and campaigning for a positive policy and legislative framework that puts into account the effects of climate change and issues related to sustainable development, reducing climate change vulnerability of poor communities in Nigeria through awareness and strengthening the capacity of Nigeria’s local communities to implement community based adaptation and mitigation projects, and promoting environmental sustainability through sustainable management of natural resources and supporting communities to effectively participate in same.
How would you assess climate finance in the country?
Globally, climate finance is fraught with many challenges ranging from Climate finance commitments from developed countries not being scaled up to meet the need, absence of a roadmap to ensure that financing is predictable, attempts to count private finance toward climate finance obligations, imbalance between mitigation and adaptation activities. All these have greatly impacted on the flow of finance for climate-related projects in Nigeria but we must also not lose sight of the fact that governmental insensitivity and clear absence of sincerity of purpose have constituted the greatest impediment to climate finance in the country.
Nigeria still wobbles under insufficient support for climate change efforts, deficit of political will, and insufficient clarity of intent. Regulatory reforms, policies, related national development plans and investment priorities are non-existent, where they exist, lack of strategic coherence and official denunciation reign supreme. A case in point is the Climate Change Commission bill still awaiting presidential assent after two years of uncommon legislative virility. Relevant agencies of government still struggle with governance and coordination occasioned by limited transparency and accountability, poor stakeholder participation, and alignment. Our Government still see CSOs as competitors, instead of partners in development.
These and many more including the absence of capacity to meet standards and eligibility requirements of climate funds particularly with reference to direct access, donors require assurance that funds disbursed will be spent effectively and with due regard to social and environmental safeguards.
How would you describe Nigeria’s participation in the conference of parties?
In recent time, Nigeria’s official participation in the conference of parties and climate related conferences has become the butt of silly jokes across the world as they either arrive very late or do not participate at all. At the last African Ministerial Conference on Environment (AMCEN) which held in October 2013 at Gaborone, Botswana, the Nigerian delegation was allegedly stuck in Ethiopia as they left Abuja without knowing that they require visas to enter Botswana! At COP 19 in Warsaw, a greater number of Nigeria’s official delegates and negotiators arrived Warsaw a week after negotiations had commenced.
For us in the civil society, this repeated show of shame gives us grave cause for concern as Nigeria, just like other African countries, had 12 months to prepare for Warsaw yet chose to arrive at the conference very late, poorly prepared and motivated to engage other negotiators. However the REDD+ office and the Executive Governor of Delta state, Dr Emmanuel Uduaghan must be commended for their prompt and business-like approach at the 2013 conference of parties in Warsaw.
What would you highlight as the significant outcome of the 19th session of the UNFCCC conference in Warsaw?
Outcomes, yes but the significance remains embedded in the confines of relativity and definition, which roll on the wheels of convenience. To be candid, Warsaw failed to deliver! There is no sense from the outcome of Warsaw that climate justice is any closer than before the COP was inaugurated.
The delays in countries disclosing how they will address reducing greenhouse gas emissions continue. It seems that we are moving almost inevitably to a 4C degree warmer world. Having been billed as a climate finance COP, Warsaw failed to deliver.
The need for both finance and disbursal mechanisms that genuinely reflect and respond to the needs of countries and people that need to adapt and become more climate resilient become even more important. In the absence of agreement on a mid-term target and a clear pathway, poor and vulnerable countries are unable to understand how the developed countries are going to deliver the promised target of US$100 billion annually by 2020. Looking at decisions related to long term finance, developing countries can see a few gains, but there were reassuring words and little else.
In Warsaw, countries were exposed at the climate negotiations, as beholden to vested interests, such as the dirty fossil fuel lobby, after they once again missed an opportunity to put the world on a pathway to securing a comprehensive climate action plan in 2015. At the time when climate impacts are hitting communities around the world, we saw the true nature of international climate politics in Warsaw. Economic interests keen to maintain the status quo were the unseen hands pulling the puppet strings of governments in these negotiations. The comatose nature of most of the negotiations sends a clear signal that increased civil disobedience against new coal plants and oilrigs is needed to prevent catastrophic climate change.