By Celestine Okafor (Editor-in-Chief)
A Lagos based Energy and Environmental Rights group, Spaces For Change | S4C, with support from the Ford Foundation, has released its latest investigative report on Natural Resource And Benefit-Sharing Negotiations Between Host Communities And Extractive Companies: A Case Study Of Assa North And Ohaji South (ANOH) Gas Development Project.
The report, according to the Executive Director, Spaces For Change I S4C, Barr. Victoria Ibezim-Ohaeri is based on the findings of fact-finding missions and town halls engagements convened by a team of the group's in-house and external researchers at SPACES FOR CHANGE | S4C in the thirteen (13) local communities in Ohaji/Egbema Local Government Area of Imo State, which are hosts to the companies involved in the ANOH project and other extractive activities in the area.
The report contained in its Executive Summary is research proceeds upon the premise that communities have a right to benefit from the immense wealth derived from natural resource extractions. The report said experience from other resource-rich locales has shown that large-scale extractive investments of that nature often fail to translate into long-term sustainable development for the host communities if not managed properly.
It also stated that one major factor aggravating the situation is the power asymmetry characterizing the relationship between extractive companies and host communities, which, it said, disempowers the latter from participating meaningfully and benefitting from those investments.
According to Spaces For Change I S4C, "this project represents a bold attempt to change the lopsided power dynamics between companies and communities, to ensure that the negotiation of the costs and benefits follow a process that meets the criteria for community participation, consultation, and free, prior, and informed consent.
In the Summary of observations of that report sub-titled "EMERGING GOOD PRACTICE", the Rights group stated that Shell Petroleum Development Company (SPDC] and Seplat Petroleum recognize that stakeholder engagement and community development are crucial to the achievement of a stable climate for extractive activities.
The concept of ‘participatory partnership’ reflects their acknowledgment of the mutual benefits arising from community participation, cultural preservation environmental sustainability as well as the maintenance of cordial relationships between host communities and extractive companies".
In what the group revealed in the report as "INSUFFICIENTLY-NEGOTIATED LAND COMPENSATION", it said there are significant deficits in the companies' handling of important issues around land, resettlement, compensation, and livelihoods in the community. "Insufficiently-negotiated compensation paid for ‘unknown’ size of land grants is a major source of local discontent in the host communities. Fears about the imminent loss of farmlands and displacement from their ancestral lands are widespread, fueling anger and resistance.
"Women are rarely part of the conversations around land acquisition, compensation, negotiations, and membership of the constituted committees".
Under its "NON-DISCLOSURE OF CRITICAL INFORMATION", it reveals that technical knowledge of oil and gas development, processing, transmission, and especially the environmental impacts, is low within communities, meaning that local stakeholders may indeed attend meetings convened by extractive companies, without understanding what is being discussed. "Limited access to information and absence of third-party supervision and legal representation shaped communities’ capacities during the negotiation of benefits encoded in the GMOUs".
The report identified "PARALLEL STRUCTURES OF COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT CAUSING TENSION" as one major factor fueling tension in the host communities. It argues that these parallel structures of community engagement were created by the extractive companies such as the CEMB, CDCs, CDBs. "These oil company mechanisms discounted the pre-existing leadership structures or the traditional modes of community engagement such as the Eze stool, Eze’s cabinet, town unions, traditional prime ministers. In essence, the new mechanisms are polarizing communities, deflating community bonds, and fueling restiveness.
The report claimed that "COMPANIES UNILATERALLY DRAFTED THE GMOUs", pointing out that the GMOUs are drafted and presented to communities to sign without their input or the opportunity to seek expert guidance before signing. This means that in spite of companies’ good intentions, the negotiation of the benefits did not follow a process that meets the criteria for community participation, consultation and free, prior and informed consent.
The report also says that "COMPANY SPENDING ON COMMUNITIES ARE UNMONITORED FOR PERFORMANCE", adding that there is no independent verification and monitoring of extractive companies’ spending on capital and non-capital projects in local communities. The report however explained that effective enforcement and monitoring of GMOUs is needed to ensure the reported pay-outs to host communities match actual development on the ground.
According to the report, the "EXTRACTIVE OPERATIONS ARE DEVASTATING THE LOCAL ENVIRONMENT", claiming that the recent fire explosions, leaks and spills in ANOH project host communities provide evidence of environmental bad practices in the locales of new oil finds in Imo State. "Companies’ robust commitment to sound environmental principles and best practices publicized on their websites have not been followed. ANOH operators are also unwilling to provide the information needed to independently verify corporate claims of environmental excellence" .
The report however identified "WEAK REGULATORY AND ENFORCEMENT MECHANISMS" as a problem, insisting that Government’s regulatory and enforcement mechanisms, especially ANOH as regards environmental compliance and land compensation, are weak and ineffective. "This is partly because the government is an active player and a regulator in the project, resulting in a conflict-of-interest situation. The low environmental compliance records of the extractive companies operating in Ohaji/Egbema LGA can wreak havoc on the local environment if the destruction of farmlands, aquatic life and traditional livelihoods continues.
"Major recommendations Amongst other recommendations, according to the report, specifically recommends that first, the Governments {both federal and state} and/or their agencies and ministries set the legal framework for information disclosure, community consultation and engagement processes in large-scale infrastructure projects.
Secondly, that benefit-sharing agreements or GMOUs executed between extractive companies and the communities must be accompanied by community access to sound legal representation, independent legal advice and bargaining processes that are representative, inclusive and perceived as fair.
The report also advised that companies must also periodically review and ensure full implementation of their obligations set out in the agreements entered into with local communities, adding that host communities must seek expert’s guidance, including collaboration with civil society organizations, during the negotiation of benefit-sharing agreements with extractive companies and demand inclusion, information disclosure, full implementation of commitments in signed agreements and fair compensation for land acquisitions and environmental damage. NNL.
