The Federal Government has concluded plans to sell key national assets in a bid to generate sufficient revenue to finance Nigeria’s annual budgets between 2018 and 2020.
Director General, Budget Office, Mr. Ben Akabueze, disclosed this in Abuja at a public hearing organised by the House of Representatives joint committees on finance, appropriation, loans, debts and aids and legislative budget and research on the 2018-2020 Medium Term Expenditure Framework (MTEF) and Fiscal Strategy Paper (FSP).
During the budget presentation before the National Assembly, President Muhammadu Buhari had disclosed that the Federal Government is targeting N306 billion from proceeds of privatisation of some non-oil assets by the Bureau of Public Enterprises (BPE) to finance the budget deficit.
According to the President, “We plan to finance the deficit partly by new borrowings estimated at N1.699 trillion. Fifty per cent of this borrowing will be sourced externally, whilst the balance will be sourced domestically.
The balance of the deficit of N306 billion is to be financed from proceeds of privatisation of some nonoil assets by the Bureau of Public Enterprises (BPE),”
Akabueze gave the names of the key national assets as:National Integrated Power Plant (NIPP) plants, National Parks, National Arts Theatre and Tafawa Balewa Square in Lagos are to be deployed as financing items for the 2018 budget, Niger Delta Power Holding Company (NDPHC) under the NIPP on behalf of the government would be sold.
The NIPP plants to be sold are: Alaoji Power Station in Abia State, 1074 Mega Watts (MW) capacity plant; 561MW capacity Calabar Power Station; Egbema Power Station, 338MW simple cycle gas turbine plant and Geregu II Power Station in Kogi State with 434 MW capacity. 450MW Ihovbor Power Station in Benin City;
Also to be sold are: Olorunsogo Power Station, 336MW plant located at Olorunsogo; Olorunsogo II Power Station with combined cycle gas turbine of 675 MW capacity; Omoku II Power Station in Omoku with 225 MW capacity, Omotosho II Power Station with 450 MW capacity and Sapele Power Station with 450 MW capacity.
Addressing concerns over GMOs and Nigeria’s quest for food security
Recently, the National Biosafety Management Agency (NBMA) held a national conference where the growing socio-economic concerns over Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) were on the front burner. JUSTUS NDUWUGWE captures the concerns and efforts made by the agency to address them at a time the country desires greater food security
Indeed, Nigeria has come to the realisation that the economy cannot continue to rely on oil and gas for its sustainability, but on the agro-allied resources that abound in and around the country. That is why agriculture and rural development has gotten an unprecedented N118.98 billion, a very large chunk of the 2018 budget estimates.
Efforts by agencies
Besides, government institutions like the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), Bank of Agriculture (BoA), Bank of Industry (BoI), etc are putting out policies and programmes towards making Nigeria an agric-based economy, once again. For example, the CBN’s Anchor Borrowers’ programme has gulped about N45.5 billion through 13 participating financial institutions involving over 218,000 farmers cultivating nine crops across 30 states of the federation.
Moreover, the former President and renowned farmer, Chief Olusegun Obasanjo is chairing an initiative across the country known as the Zero Hunger project with the objective of increasing agricultural productivity and reducing hunger and poverty in the country.
Need to improve crop productivity
What is key in all these efforts of governments and its agencies and other stakeholders is the need to improve crop productivity and achieve food security. Over the years, the World seems to embrace biotechnology and genetic engineering. Experts agree that genetically modified (GM) crops have demonstrated potentials to tackle global foods security, including Nigeria.
Although genetic engineering and genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are intended to be beneficial to the society, concerns remain over the potential risks they may pose to human health and the environment.
Assurances of Biosafety Regulations
In spite of the fact that new technologies often offer great potentials, “they also need to be adequately regulated in order to ensure they are safe to human health and to the environment and they should be socially sustainable”, so says the Director-General of the National Biosafety Management Agency (NBMA), Dr. Rufus Ebegba.
In his opening address at the conference, Dr. Ebegba further assured Nigerians that the NBMA Act, 2015 charged his agency with the responsibility for providing regulatory framework, institutional and administrative mechanism for safety measures in the application of modern biotechnology in Nigeria with the view to preventing any adverse effect on human health, animals, plants and environment.
Among its core function, the agency ensures the strengthening of institutional arrangement on biosafety matters in Nigeria; safeguard human health, biodiversity and the environment from any potential, adverse effect of genetically modified organism including food safety; ensure safety in the use of modern biotechnology and provide holistic approach to the regulation of genetically modified organisms and ensure that the use of the genetically modified organisms does not have adverse impact on socio-economic and cultural interest either at the community or national level.
In one of the papers presented at the conference on “Constructive Activism for strengthening modern technology regulation in Africa”, the Executive Director, Every Woman Hope Centre, a Nigeria-based NGO, Edel-Quinn Agbaegbu, noted that food security is one of the greatest challenges facing Nigeria, and calls for concerted efforts and strategies to cater for the growing food demand in the country.
According to her, the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO), has predicted that food production will need to increase by 70% to meet the demands of a growing global population. This has serious implications for developing countries and in particular Nigeria that is the most populous country in Africa.
Debunking myths about GMOs
According to Edel-Quinn Agbaegbu, Golden Rice (GR), which is genetically modified to provide beta-carotene in the rice grain, has demonstrated potential as a means to address widespread vitamin A deficiency in poor and low income countries.
She regrets however that most of these facts are lost to the general public and even some high-ranking government officials in Nigeria. As a result of this knowledge gap, there appears to be increased levels of apprehension towards the adoption of modern biotechnology as a means to ensure food security in Nigeria.
Hereunder are summaries of the myths and the realities as presented by the Executive Director of Every Woman Hope Centre, Edel-Quinn Agbaegbu at the National Biosafety summit:
Myth 1: Seeds from GMOs are sterile: Reality: This has been proven to be false. GM crops usually germinate and grow just like any other plant. Although there is a so called Terminator Gene that can make the plant produce sterile seeds, but it is currently not in use as there is a global moratorium and Monsanto which owns the patent on this technique, has promised not to use it. Seed companies do require farmers to sign agreements that prohibit replanting in order to ensure annual sales, but Kent Bradford, a plant scientist at the University of California, Davis, says large-scale commercial growers typically don’t save seeds anyway.
Myth 2: Monsanto will sue you for growing their patented GMOs if traces of those GMOs entered their fields through wind-blow pollen. Reality: This is also false as GM companies only sue when there are good reasons to believe that the GM crops have been planted intentionally without permission. Monsanto has never sued anybody over trace amounts of GMOs that were introduced into fields simply through cross-pollination. The company asserts, in fact, that it will pay to remove any of its GMOs from fields where they don’t belong.
Myth 3: Genetic Engineering is a radical technology. Reality: The reality is that humans have been manipulating the genes of crops for millennia by selectively breeding plants with desirable traits. Virtually all of our food crops have been genetically modified in some way. In that sense, GMOs are not radical at all. But the technique does differ dramatically from traditional plant breeding. “With GMOs, we know the genetic information we are using, we know where it goes in the genome, and we can see it is near an allergen or a toxin or if it is going to turn (another gene) off,” says Peggy G. Lemaux, a plant biologist at the University of California, Berkely. “That is not true when you cross widely different varieties in traditional breeding”.
Myth 4: GMOs are too new to know if they are dangerous. Reality: This depends on how one defines new. Genetically engineered plants first appeared in the lab about 30 years ago and became a commercial product in 1994. Since then, more than 1,700 peer-reviewed safety studies have been published, including five lengthy reports from the National Research Council, that focus on human health and the environment. The scientific consensus is that existing GMOs are no more or less risky than conventional crops.
Myth 5: We don’t need GMOs – there are other ways to feed the World. Reality: GMOs alone may not solve the planet’s food problems. But with climate change and population growth threatening food supplies, GM crops could significantly boost crop output. “GMOs are just one tool to make sure the world is food-secure when we add two billion more people by 2050”, says Pedro Sanchez, director of the Agriculture and Food Security Centre at Columbia University’s Earth Institute. “It’s not the only answer, and it is not essential, but it is certainly one good thing in our arsenal”.
Myth 6: GMOs cause allergies, cancer, and other health problems. Reality: Many people worry that genetic engineering introduces hazardous proteins, particularly allergens and toxins, into the food chain. It’s a reasonable. Theoretically, it is possible for a new gene to express a protein that provokes an immune response. That’s why biotech companies consult with the Food and Drug Administration about potential GMO foods and perform extensive allergy and toxicity testing. Those tests are voluntary but commonplace; if they are not done, the Biosafety organisations can block the products.
One frequently cited study, published in 2012 by researchers from the University of Caen in France, claimed that one of Monsanto’s corn GMOs caused tumours in lab rats. But the study was widely discredited because of the faulty test methods, and the journal retracted it in 2013. More recently, researchers from the University of Perugia in Italy published a review of 1,783 GMO safety tests; 770 examined the health impact on humans or animals. They found no evidence that the foods are dangerous (Borel, 2014).
Nduwugwe writes from Abuja