Last week, the House of Representataives’ committee on Ecological Fund held a public hearing on a proposed legislation to provide some measure of control on the use of the proceeds of the Fund. JOSHUAEGBODO takes a review of issues emanating around the Bill.
Reps’ intention
Named as Bill number 739 in the current House of Representatives, it was intended, if enacted, “to establish the regulation of the Ecological Funds to address Nigeria’s ecological challenges, particularly erosion, landslide, desertification, floods, oil spillage, drought, etc, and for related matters”.
Gbajabiamila’s take
Speaker of the House, at the public hearing, which he declared opened through a proxy, highlighted the multiplicity of Nigeria’s ecological challenges. He said the country, with a total land area of 983,213(km2) occupied by over 200 million people, has put so much pressure on the environment, leaving indelible mark on the landscape and ecosystem. “Environmental damage has wreaked havoc on the lives and livelihoods of our citizens”, he said.
According to him, “Across the length and breadth of our country, agricultural activities that provided food and spurred commercial activities have been devastated to varying degrees. Entire communities are cut off by erosion. Floods and sandstorms that swallow whole villages, killing thousands along the way, are the reality for too many of our citizens.
“The Legislative Agenda of the 9th House of Representatives commits us to seek and implement legislative solutions to the problem of ecological damage in our country. This is a commitment we take seriously because the devastation of our natural environment has consequences beyond food and economics. Even the national security of our country is affected by the knock-on effects of environmental damage.
“We have gathered here today to consider and review a draft legislation that purports to provide some of the answers that we seek. Whether or not that will be the case depends on all of you who have taken the time to be here this morning. Public hearings allow citizens, stakeholders, and legislators to review legislative proposals and make recommendations that improve such proposals. That is your mandate today. I urge you to take it seriously”.
Surprise absence of MDAs
Signs that the bill may have been unacceptable to many stakeholders was the absence of some considered key in the utilization of the Fund.
Angered by the absence of some of those critical invited agencies of the federal government, the committee later threatened to specifically stop the National Emergency Management Agency (NEMA) and the North East Development Commission (NEDC), among others from accessing the ecological fund.
Chairman of the panel, Hon. Ibrahim Isiaka at the public hearing said in spite of several letters from the committee invitingthe two agencies to account for their own share of the fund, both agencies failed to supply the needed information, adding that 35 percent of the Federal Government’s one percent share of the Ecological Fund is being drawn by four agencies in different percentages, amongst which NEMA and NEDC prominently features.
SGF’s stern objection
Secretary to the Government of the Federation (SGF), Mr. Boss Mustapha, under who’s office the Ecological Fund is domiciled in his presentation expressed rejection for the enactment of the proposed amendment, citing several reasons behind his position.
Represented by Mr. Clinton Igwe, the Director in charge of Pollution Control in the office of the SGF, Mustapha argued that the suggestion that a proposed governing council to be created, if the Bill is passed into law “Shall take custody and monitor the ecological fund for the purposes of addressing any of the following challenges: erosion, landslide, desertification, floods, oil spillage, draught and any other environmental challenges that may arise in the application of the fund”, would strip the president of such powers, which were hitherto at the discretion of the president, and slow the functions of the Ecological Fund Office (EFO).
“After a careful review of the document, I wish to respectfully bring to the attention of the Hon. Chairman and members of the Committee on Ecological Fund, the observations of the Oftice of the Secretary to the Government of the Federation (OSGF), on the proposed bill as follows: The establishment of a Governing Council in the Bill is a replication of the erstwhile bogus National Council on Ecological Problems (NCEP), the large number of membership makes the project selection, procurement and execution of projects cumbersome and problematic.
“The Bill as proposed, will replace the emergency/ interventionist posture of the Ecological Fund Office as presently constituted. This will by implication slow down the quick response in dealing with erosion problems in Nigeria.
“Over the years, the Ecological Fund have consistently been placed under the control of the President and disbursed through the EFO under the supervision of the SGF. The proposed bill will therefore negate the nature and original design of the Ecological Fund Office.
“The Ecological Fund as presently constituted is not subject to the process of appropriation by the National Assembly. This gives the President the much needed flexibility to effectively and timeously respond to ecological emergencies the fund is created to address. If the bill is passed into law as proposed, it will impede on Mr. President’s power to use the Fund for emergencies if it has to revert to the National Assembly for appropriation and approvals. It is not always feasible to predict emergencies, hence the inability to appropriate or budget for such disasters or ecological emergencies.
“As the EFO is presently constituted, salaries and allowances of staff are not paid from the Fund. Officers deployed to EFO are mainstream civil servants who draw their emoluments from the Federal treasury. it is advisable to sustain less emphasis on recruitment of officers and payment of board members that could be a drain whittling down the impact of the fund on ecological interventions, by increasing Government’s overhead costs”, stated.
He further cautioned that the “creation of an independent agency as the bill is seeking to do, will run contrary to the proposals of the Oransanye Committee on rationalization of Government Ministries and Extra Ministerial Departments as it would further add to the cost of governance.
“The Bill as proposed, will be interfering with the mandates of other Federal Government Establishments such as, National Emergency Management Agency, National oil Spill Detection and Response Agency and National Environmental Standards and Regulation Enforcement Agency as duplication of functions”.
What next?
Beyond the measure of control intended by the proposed amendment, some followers of the SGF’s position have opined that there may not be any need for the Bill at the moment. However, the committee, through its chairman noted that the intention of the Bill was to among other things, open up the Ecological Fund Office for possible international support. “Let’s open this space so that international partners can come in and assist, that is the way we are seeing it”, he said.
So as it is now, it is doubtful if the House will proceed to pass the Bill, more that critical government agencies involved in the application of the Funds were yet to publicly make their positions known.
