What is a host
community? Who and who should benefit from the 10 per cent of all oil and gas earnings reserved for the oil producing
areas through the Petroleum Host Community Fund (PHC) created by
the new Petroleum Industry Bill (PIB)? What features should a community have to earn
the title of a “host community”? In what way(s) would the Fund benefit the host
communities?
These
questions and many more dominated discussions at a consultative roundtable on
the PIB organized by Spaces for Change, a Lagos-based public policy and advocacy
organization. Participants
comprised mainly of civil society leaders, oil and gas experts, legal
practitioners, energy correspondents, former senior executives of
international oil companies and representatives of oil producing communities. Diverse stakeholders' concerns
about the PHC Fund provoked heated debates, strong arguments and counter-arguments
for and against the establishment of the Fund.
Leading the opposition
to the fund’s establishment are northern lawmakers who insist the Niger Delta
region of Nigeria is already benefitting from a plethora of official
interventions aimed at facilitating the rapid and sustainable development of
the region. Critics says that “an additional 10 per cent for oil producing
states was one revenue stream too many as such states already enjoyed seven
other special sources”.
Disagreeing so strongly with the northern position on the PHC Fund, Dr. Bala Zakka, an energy expert who has worked for oil majors like Shell for decades asked rhetorically,” If they oppose PHC Fund today, what would they do if oil is discovered in Borno and Sokoto tomorrow? Would they ask for the amendment of the PIB? Or start a new agitation against regional marginalization?” The PIB is not about giving money to the Niger Delta, but about opening up the economy to opportunities that will benefit all the regions and all Nigerians.
Disagreeing so strongly with the northern position on the PHC Fund, Dr. Bala Zakka, an energy expert who has worked for oil majors like Shell for decades asked rhetorically,” If they oppose PHC Fund today, what would they do if oil is discovered in Borno and Sokoto tomorrow? Would they ask for the amendment of the PIB? Or start a new agitation against regional marginalization?” The PIB is not about giving money to the Niger Delta, but about opening up the economy to opportunities that will benefit all the regions and all Nigerians.
In
his lead paper at the roundtable, Dr. Zakka, who is himself a northerner from Borno State, believes that “the current PIB cannot
become a law without selfless sacrifices, shifting of grounds, tolerant and
accommodation of uncoordinated logics and sometimes, disgusting philosophies”. He is not the only one that thinks that no
amount of initiative, no percentage of oil revenue earnings is too high to be
set aside for the areas that bear the brunt of oil exploration and production. Public
affairs analyst and oil and gas legal expert, Mr. Ikechukwu Ikeji argues that
opposition to the PHC Fund is divisive and politically motivated. “The PHC Fund
should be retained considering the level of devastation endured by oil-bearing
communities”, he says.
Detailing the woes of oil-bearing communities, Celestine Akpobari, Head, Social Development Integrated Centre (Social Action), Port Harcourt Rivers State revealed that people drink water coated with as much as 8cm of oil in the Niger Delta. Most water wells are polluted. In Ogoni land for instance, there are weekly funerals of local residents dying of unknown causes. The only electricity in most of the Niger Delta communities at night are gas flares from oil installation sites nearby.
Although he is an Ogoni man who lives and works in the Niger
Delta, Akpobari embraces the position of northern lawmakers because the allocations
of billions of petrodollars to the Niger Delta states have failed to achieve
the goal of transforming the region, but rather, fattened the private pockets
of a few self-styled “leaders of the region”. The unprecedented corruption, the total dearth
of transparency and accountability in the management of regional initiatives
like the Niger Delta Development Commission (NDDC) make it unnecessary to
develop new initiatives that would go down the same way as its predecessors. Akpobari
strongly doubts that the 10 percent reserved for oil producing areas will ever
trickle down to the devastated poor communities, but would rather, provide a conduit
pipe for thieving politicians to fatten their already-exploding bank accounts.
Another
Niger Delta energy analyst who has also participated in the design of several
Niger Delta-focused initiatives such as the Amnesty program, Professor Aiyegbeni
A.A. Omonhinmin agrees with Celestine Akpobari. According to him, the PHC Fund,
as currently constituted would pave way for a fratricidal war in the Niger
Delta. Aiyegbeni warns that unless the structure the Fund would take is better clarified,
and loopholes for embezzling funds are plugged, any new initiative designed for
the benefit of Niger Delta communities is a total waste of time. He advocated for a Fund that empowers the oil
producing communities rather than a Fund that presents a fertile ground for
more intense hostilities between communities. One way for the Fund to achieve the
goal of empowerment is by turning into an Equity Participation Fund that allows
named “host communities” to draw from, or take revolving loans from the Fund
for specific social and economic development projects.
That
suggestion from Sir Aiyegbeni redirected the discussion back to the question: What is a host community? Of the
several definitions attempted by participants, three of them provoked further
debates and even more heated engagement. Pamela Braide, a communication
specialist who was also involved in the implementation of the Niger Delta
Amnesty Program defined a host community as a community where the oil is
extracted from, and houses the facilities for the exploration and extraction of
oil. Joy Eke, the senior advocacy officer of the Legal Research and Resource
Documentation Center (LRRDC), Lagos, took a different view. She defined it to
mean a community that is impoverished as a result of exploration of petroleum
products. The petroleum companies and facilities may not be resident in that
community, but they are affected by the activities of the company and of those facilities.
That
definition by Joy Eke drew fire from various quarters. By that definition, Bala
Zakka explained that communities in Ejigbo Lagos, and Ilorin who have pipelines
criss-crossing their backyard can lay claim to being host communities even
though they have no drop of oil underneath their soil. In fact, that definition
makes more than half of Nigeria “host communities”.
Sir Aiyegbeni’s definition was more technologically compliant. He defined a host community as a community and a contingent community where extraction of hydrocarbon takes place. With that definition, the discussions forayed into the technological advancements in drilling operations which enable oil companies to drill oil from a location that is far off from where the resource is anchored. “Horizontal drilling offers more targeted access to oil wells and reserves under places oil operators might not want to disturb, such as a town, forest or venerated local shrines”, Dr. Zakka explained.
Claims
that Shell is currently using the horizontal technology to continue
its drilling operations in Ogoni provoked another debate about Shell’s activities
in the Niger Delta as well as the impacts the horizontal drilling technology would have on host
communities. It was perceived that such high-profile technological
interventions would make the PHC Fund meaningless in the nearest future. If such
technological innovations remain unchecked, it would soon be practically
difficult to ascertain which community fits the description of host community,
and which community should be accorded priority on the PHC benefit scheme.
Despite
the flurry of sharply-contrasting opinions and stimulating discussions about the PHC Fund, participants
agreed on one basic fact: that communities deserve a special attention, at
least for the sake of the raw deal they endure as a direct result of oil
exploration and production activities. The structure and character of the attention
to be given to communities is what needs to be worked out. It also became clearer
why the drafters of the PIB deliberately ignored that conversation about the
administrative structure of the PHC Fund. Obviously, that omission was deliberate
due to the complex and extremely sensitive nature of both inter-community and
oil company/community relationships, including the powerful confluence of
forces that would be wangled through to achieve a compromise.
The
organisers of the roundtable, Spaces for Change knew that forging a consensus
on an issue, especially a complex issue like the PHC Fund would be an uphill
struggle. The organization believes that locating common grounds on specific
provisions in the PIB is a starting point towards the goal of galvanizing
stakeholder support for the passage of the Bill. In this connection, participants
unanimously adopted Pamela Braide's motion that all criticisms against the
PIB should be welcomed with an open mind, and that a bi-partisan
approach should be adopted in negotiating the interests of different
stakeholders in the PIB.
In unison, participants rejected the discretionary powers of the president to grant oil licenses, recommending that that provision should be expunged from the bill. Likewise, the discretionary-permit granting for gas flares by the petroleum minister was roundly rejected, and should be expunged from the reform bill. There was not a single person in the room that didn’t agree that the powers of the minister under the PIB need to be revisited. A strategic and sustained awareness creation on the PIB, including the sensitization of oil producing communities about specific provisions of the Bill that would potentially impact on their welfare was another resolution that received overwhelming support by participants.
In unison, participants rejected the discretionary powers of the president to grant oil licenses, recommending that that provision should be expunged from the bill. Likewise, the discretionary-permit granting for gas flares by the petroleum minister was roundly rejected, and should be expunged from the reform bill. There was not a single person in the room that didn’t agree that the powers of the minister under the PIB need to be revisited. A strategic and sustained awareness creation on the PIB, including the sensitization of oil producing communities about specific provisions of the Bill that would potentially impact on their welfare was another resolution that received overwhelming support by participants.
A
PIB Campaign Action Group, comprised of civil society leaders, industry
experts, researchers, community advocates, policy analysts and media
representatives, was constituted during the discussions, with a mandate to begin
the groundwork and map out a strategy for driving a cohesive multi-stakeholder advocacy
on the CPE provisions of the PIB. Going
forward, the Action Group will work together to implement the roundtable
resolutions; monitor, review and recommend advocacy actions throughout the
legislative process. The roundtable was supported by the Open Society
Initiative for West Africa.
Follow the tweets of the Stakeholder Roundtable discussions on @spaces4change or use the hash tag #PIBcpe
Follow the tweets of the Stakeholder Roundtable discussions on @spaces4change or use the hash tag #PIBcpe
No comments:
Post a Comment