ENVIRONMENTAL LAW

By

Group 11

Department of Chemical Engineering

University of Benin

Course Instructor: Prof. K. O. Obahiagbon

Mrs. J. Ossai

CHE 522

MAY, 2016

1
GROUP MEMBERS

ERIYO OSAKPOLOR EBENEZER ENG 1102155

ALABA UPE ENG 1102186

OGOCHUKWU MAKOJE ENG 1105480

OMOREGIE RICHARD OSAMUYI ENG 1102197

AKPOLOGUN WINNER ENG 1102128

KEMEFA CHRISTIAN ENG 1102174

GIWA ALABA INNOCENT ENG 1002131

ODOH SYLVESTER CHIKAODILI ENG 1004256

NKA CHINONSO FRANCIS ENG 1102178

OJEABUO FAITH OMOLEWA ENG 1102185

EREWEJOH WOMOTIMI KELVIN ENG 1102154

KOKOGBIYA KINGSLEY ENG 1105479

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

2
The establishment of laws to safeguard the environment has been of

utmost importance to the world at large. In the past, various activities

have been carried out with little or no consideration on the effect on the

environment, leading to adverse effect on the environment and its

inhabitants.

Greenhouse effect, radioactive emissions, toxic release, noise pollution,

explosions, thermal runaway, amongst others all lead to destruction of the

ecosystem, alongside the plant machinery .

Several acts have thus been enacted to curtail these adverse effect. This

paper focuses on a selected few of the numerous number of Environmental

Laws in the world today, with interest particularly in Nigeria, as well as the

United States.

3
TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 Introduction…………………………………………………………………………….6

2.0 Environmental Laws ……………………………………………............................9

2.1 Environmental Protection Agency…………………………………….9

2.2 Federal Environmental Protection Agency………………………..17

2.3 United Nations Framework Convention on Climatic Change

(UNFCIC)…………………………………………………………………………30

2.4 Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)………………………….46

2.5 Oil Pollution Act……………………………………………………………….61

2.6 Kyoto Protocol…………………………………………………………………73

3.0 Importance of the Acts on the Environment………………………………..91

4
LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Interim Effluent Limitation Guidelines in Nigeria for All Categories

or Industries……………………………………………………………………………………….. 20

Table 2. Water Quality Guidelines at In-Take for the Petroleum Industry…

21

Table 3. Water Quality Guideline for Chemical and Allied Industry (mg.L)

…………………………………………………………………………………………………..22

Table 4. Iron and Steel Industry Concentration (Mg/L) Rinse Water………23

Table 5. Emission Limit for some types of pollutants………………………………24

Table 6. Emission Limits for Specific Pollutants from Stationary

Source…..24

Table 7. Table 7: Nigerian Ambient Air Quality Standard…………………………

26

5
CHAPTER ONE

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Safety is paramount to process systems and the Chemical industry at large.

This is because there is need to protect the machines as well as the

employees in a company. Several safety and loss prevention strategies

have been developed, protective equipment have be made, health safety

and environment programmes have been conducted, risk assessment,

effluent treatment and others have been conducted. Why?

Other than the protection of machines and employees, these activities have

been carried out to meet Environmental standards and thus

ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS were established.

Law is generally a system of rules recognized by a particular group of

people which are enforced usually through social institutions to govern

behaviour (Robertson, 1982; Wikipedia, 2014). Laws are made to provide

order, justice, peace and equity. The subject of general laws is inherently

complicated and is subjected to constant refinement through new primary

6
legislations, rules and regulations made thereunder and court decisions on

specific legal issues.

Environmental Law is a complex combination of state, federal, and

international treaty law pertaining to issues of concern to the environment

and protecting natural resources. For example, environmental laws often

relate to issues such as pollution of soil, air, or water; global warming; and

depletion of oil, coal, and clean water.

It is a collective term describing the network of treaties, statutes,

regulations, and common and customary laws addressing the effects of

human activity on the natural environment. (Wikipedia)

The basis of environmental policy in Nigeria is contained in the 1999

Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. Pursuant to section 20 of

the Constitution, the State is empowered to protect and improve the

environment and safeguard the water, air and land, forest and wildlife of

Nigeria.

These laws were enacted to address several issues that affects the

environment, such as Noise level, acid rain, sewage disposal, toxic release,

which can be generalised into air pollution, water pollution, noise pollution

and land pollution.

Some of the laws that will be elucidated includes;

1. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

7
2. United Nations Framework Convention on Climatic Change

(UNFCIC)/Earth Summit, 1992.

3. Oil pollution Act, 1990

4. Environmental Management Act,

5. Federal Environmental and Protection Agency.

6. Kyoto protocol

7. National Environmental Policy Act.

The above list is not exhausting, as there are several other laws established

in different countries in order to address different problems.

8
CHAPTER TWO

2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS

2.1 ENVIRNMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

The EPA was proposed by President Richard Nixon and began operation on

Dec 2 1970, after Nixon signed an executive order. President Richard

Nixon created the EPA to fix national guidelines and to monitor and enforce

them. Functions of three federal departments of the interior, of agriculture,

and of health, education, and welfare and of other federal bodies were

transferred to the new agency. the EPA was initially charged with the

administration of the clean air act (1970), enacted to abate air pollution

primarily from industries and motor vehicles, the federal environmental

pesticide control act (1972), and the clean water act (1972), regulating

municipal and industrial waste water discharges and offering grants for

buildings sewages treatment facilities. By the mids 1990s the EPA was

enforcing 12 major statutes, including laws designed to control uranium

9
mill tailings, ocean dumpling’s, safe drinking water, insecticide, fungicides,

and rodenticides , and asbestos hazards in schools.

One of the EPA early success was an agreement with automobile

manufacturers to install catalytic converter in cars, thereby reducing

emission of unburned hydrocarbon by 85percent. The EPA enforcement

was in large part responsible for a decline of one-third to one-half in most

air pollution emissions in the United States from 1970 to 1990, and during

the 1980 the pollution standards index improved by half in major cities,

significant improvement in water quality and waste disposal occurred. The

comprehensive environmental response, compensation and liability

act(also called superfund), providing billions of dollars for cleaning up

abandoned waste dumps was first established in 1980, but the number of

those waste sites and the difficulties of the clean-ups remained formidable

for years thereafter.

In the early 21st century, the EPA role expanded to address climate change.

In 2007, the US Supreme Court in a case brought by the state of

Massachusetts against the EPA that failure to regulate greenhouse gas

emission from motor vehicles was contrary to the requirements of the

clean the air acts. As a result, the EPA was given the responsibility to

develop the strategies to manage emissions of carbon dioxide and five

other greenhouse gases. Stemming from this mandate, the EPA worked

10
with the U.S department of transportation to develop standards that would

substantially increase vehicle fuel efficiency, and in 2011 it initiated a

permitting program that placed the first limits on greenhouse gas

emissions from power plants, refineries, and other large, stationary

sources.

What is EPA doing?

1) the Acid Rain Program (ARP), established under title 4 of the 1990 Clean

Air Act (CAA) amendments requires major emission reductions of sulfur

dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxides (NOx), the primary precursors of acid

rain, from the power sector. The SO 2 program sets a permanent cap on the

total amount of SO2 that may be emitted by Electric Generating Units

(EGUS) in the contiguous United States. ARP was the first national cap and

trade program in the country and it introduced a system of allowance

trading that uses market-based incentives to reduce pollution. Reducing

emissions using a market based systems provides regulated sources with

the flexibility to select the most cost-effective approach to reduce

emissions reductions, meet environmental goals, and improve human

health.

2) The Clean Air Act is the comprehensive federal law that regulates the

emissions from stationary and mobile sources. Among other things, this

law authorizes EPA to establish national ambient air quality standards

11
(NAAQS to protect public health and public welfare and to regulate

emissions of hazardous air pollutions. One of the goal of the act was to set

and achieve National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) in every state

by 1975 in order to address the public health and welfare risks posed by

certain widespread air pollutants.

3) The Obama administration is looking out to cut methane emissions by

up to 45 percent from 2012 levels over the next decades, with a new EPA

rule restricting emissions at new oil and gas wells due out operations,

aimed at reducing emissions by up to 45 percent by 2025 from 2012

Levels, come at an estimated cost to the industry of $530 million per year,

according to the Environmental Protection Agency.

That figure is about 25 percent higher than the preliminary figures released

in August, which the EPA attributed to “new science and data have shown

that methane emissions from existing oil and gas sources are substantially

higher than was previously understood.”

“Today, we are underscoring the Administration’s commitment to finding

common sense ways to cut methane — a potent greenhouse gas fuelling

climate change — and other harmful pollution from the oil and gas sector,”

said EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy in a statement.

12
But critics described the rule as an unscientific, punitive gesture intended

to mollify the climate change movement even though the industry has

shown significant progress in voluntarily reducing methane emissions this

spring. Obama and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau vowed last

month aril 5 2016 to work on rules.

4) The environmentally sound management of hazardous waste helps

protect human health and the environment. EPA's cradle-to-grave

hazardous waste management system provides the critical foundation

needed to keep America's land and people safe. EPA’s hazardous waste

permitting program established by the Resource Conservation and

Recovery Act (RCRA) helps ensure the safe treatment, storage and disposal

of hazardous wastes by establishing specific requirements that must be

followed when managing hazardous wastes. Permits for the treatment,

storage or disposal of hazardous wastes are issued by authorized states or

by EPA regional offices. When RCRA was enacted, Congress recognized the

risks posed by the treatment, storage, and disposal of large volumes of

hazardous waste at treatment, storage and disposal facilities (TSDFs).

Considering these risks, Congress felt that TSDF management activities

needed to be closely regulated to prevent spills, accidents and mechanical

failures.

13
As a result, TSDFs are required to obtain permission, in the form of an

RCRA permit, which establishes the administrative and technical conditions

under which waste at the facility must be managed.

A RCRA permit is a legally binding document that establishes the waste

management activities a facility can conduct and the conditions under

which it can conduct them. The permit includes applicable EPA regulations

from 40 CFR parts 260 through 270, and also;

5) The Environmental Protection Agency recently finalized the first-ever

national limits on dangerous methane pollution from new and modified

sources in the oil and gas industry. This is a big victory because currently

the oil and gas industry is leaking millions of tons of methane pollution and

toxic chemicals into the air, harming our health and speeding up climate

change. Earthjustice litigation prompted this rulemaking under the Clean

Air Act, and over 60,000 Earthjustice supporters spoke up and demanded

strong methane pollution standards. Methane pollution is to blame for a

quarter of all human-caused climate change. Pound for pound, methane

pollution traps more than 80 times as much heat on our planet in the short

term as carbon pollution. Methane pollution and toxic chemicals from the

oil and gas industry can also make smog worse, trigger asthma attacks in

children, and cause cardiovascular disease and even premature death.

14
While this new pollution standard is a strong first step, there’s more work

to be done. We need you to thank the EPA for this important step and urge

the agency to act quickly to address the dangerous methane and toxic air

pollution that is already leaking from existing sources in the oil and gas

industry.

6) The terms biosolids and sewage sludge are often used interchangeably.

When properly treated and processed, sewage sludge becomes biosolids;

the nutrient-rich organic materials resulting from the treatment of

domestic sewage in a wastewater treatment facility. Biosolids can be

recycled and applied as fertilizer to improve and maintain productive soils

and stimulate plant growth. You will see the term sewage sludge used in

the context of regulations, as EPA has established a protective regulatory

framework to manage the use and disposal of sewage sludge. Effective

sewage sludge and biosolids management options help ensure that useful

materials are recycled on land and harmful materials are not released to

water bodies. The EPA also estimated that residual fuel can increase

engine NOx emissions from 20-50% and PM from 750% to 1250% (sulfate

particulates) when compared to distillate fuel. The Clean Water Act (CWA)

establishes the basic structure for regulating discharges of pollutants into

the waters of the United States and regulating quality standards for surface

waters. The basis of the CWA was enacted in 1948 and was called the

15
Federal Water Pollution Control Act, but the Act was significantly

reorganized and expanded in 1972. "Clean Water Act" became the Act's

common name with amendments in 1972. Under the CWA, EPA has

implemented pollution control programs such as setting wastewater

standards for industry. They have also set water quality standards for all

contaminants in surface waters.

7) The traditional definition of noise is “unwanted or disturbing sound”.

Sound becomes unwanted when it either interferes with normal activities

such as sleeping, conversation, or disrupts or diminishes one’s quality of

life. The fact that you can’t see, taste or smell it may help explain why it has

not received as much attention as other types of pollution, such as air

pollution, or water pollution. The air around us is constantly filled with

sounds, yet most of us would probably not say we are surrounded by noise.

Though for some, the persistent and escalating sources of sound can often

be considered an annoyance. This “annoyance” can have major

consequences, primarily to one’s overall health.

Noise pollution adversely affects the lives of millions of people. Studies

have shown that there are direct links between noise and health. Problems

related to noise include stress related illnesses, high blood pressure, speech

interference, hearing loss, sleep disruption, and lost productivity. Noise

Induced Hearing Loss (NIHL) is the most common and often discussed

16
health effect, but research has shown that exposure to constant or high

levels of noise can cause countless adverse health effects. Under the Clean

Air Act, the EPA administrator established the Office of Noise Abatement

and Control (ONAC) to carry out investigations and studies on noise and its

effect on the public health and welfare. Through ONAC, the EPA

coordinated all Federal noise control activities, but in 1981 the

Administration concluded that noise issues were best handled at the State

and local level. As a result, ONAC was closed and primary responsibility of

addressing noise issues was transferred to State and local governments.

However, EPA retains authority to investigate and study noise and its

effect, disseminate information to the public regarding noise pollution and

its adverse health effects, respond to inquiries on matters related to noise,

and evaluate the effectiveness of existing regulations for protecting the

public health and welfare, pursuant to the Noise Control Act of 1972 and

the Quiet Communities Act of 1978. EPA or a designated Federal agency

regulates noise sources, such as rail and motor carriers, low noise emission

products, construction equipment, transport equipment, trucks,

motorcycles, and the labelling of hearing protection devices.

17
2.2 FEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (FEPA)

Rapid industrial development in developed and developing countries have

increased hazardous wastes generation several fold. High level of

environmental awareness and existence of regulatory environmental

protection measures in the developed countries have discouraged

indiscriminate disposal of those wastes in conflict with environmental laid

down principles. "Not in my backyard" syndrome made burying of wastes or

dumping in surface waters or open land increasingly difficult. Ironically, the

available technologies in developed countries are inadequate to cope with the

volume and complex nature of wastes generated. Furthermore, the cost of

waste disposal was becoming highly prohibitive and unaffordable by most

industries.

Realizing the low-level of environmental awareness in developing countries,

coupled with the non-existence of environmental protection laws, and the

abject poverty of these nations, the developed countries have, within the last

decade, embarked upon "Toxic Wastes Trade" or "Illegal Dumping of Toxic

Wastes" in poor, debt-strapped developing countries. Nigeria has been a victim

of this illegal act, when in 1988 about 3,880 tons of toxic and hazardous wastes

were dumped in Koko, Bendel State by an Italian Company.

In order to stem the tide of toxic wastes dumping in third world countries, the

United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), passed the resolutions on the

18
Transboundary Movement of Toxic and Hazardous Wastes at the 1989 Basel

Convention, a document to which Nigeria is a signatory. The Federal Military

Government places high premium on the environment. It established the

Federal Environmental Protection Agency (FEPA) by Decree 58 of 30th

December, 1988 with the statutory responsibility for overall protection of the

environment. The National Environmental Policy was put together and

launched by the President in Abuja on 27th November, 1989. Logically,

implementation of the policy should follow. Introducing these guidelines and

standards is part of the implementation of the policy and environmental

pollution abatement strategy contained therein.

These guidelines and standards relate to six (6) areas of environmental

pollution control:

(i) Effluent limitations

(ii) Water quality for industrial water uses at point of in-take

(iii) Industrial emission limitations.

(iv) Noise exposure limitations

(v) Management of solid and hazardous wastes

(vi) Pollution abatement in industries.

EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
Ideally, each pollution source should be detoxified with the installation of
anti-pollution equipment based on the Best Practical Technology (BPT)
19
and/or Best Available Technology (BAT). In cognisance of the high cost of
imported BPT and BAT, and the non-availability of local environmental
pollution technology, Uniform Effluent Standards (UES) is normally based on
the pollution potential of effluent and/or the effectiveness of current
treatment technology. This approach, is easy to administer, but it can result in
over-protection in some areas and under-protection in others. To overcome
this problem, uniform effluent limitations based on the assimilative capacity
of the receiving water have been drawn up for all categories of industrial
effluents in Nigeria (Table 1), while additional sectorial effluent limitations
have been provided for individual industries with certain peculiarities.

Table 1: Interim Effluent Limitation Guidelines in Nigeria for All

Categories or Industries
Units in milligram per little (mg/l) less otherwise stated.
Parameters Limit for discharge Limit for Land
into application
surface water
Temperature Less than 400C within Less than 40 0C
15 meter of outfall
Colour (Lovibond 7 -
Units)
pH 6-9 6-9
BOD5 at 200C 50 500
Total suspended 30 -
solids
Total dissolved solids 2,000 2,000
Chloride (as CL) 600 600
Sulphate (as SO42) 500 1,000
Sulphide (as S2) 0.2 -
Cyanide (as CN-) 0.1 -
Detergents (linear 15 15
alkylate sulphonate as
methylene blue active
substance)

20
Oil and grease 10 30
Nitrate (as NO3) NO3 20 -
Phosphate (as PO43-) 5 10
Arsenic (as AS) 0.1 -
Barium (as Ba) 5
Tin (as Sn) 10
Iron (as Fe) 20 -
Manganese (as Mn) 5 -
Phenolic compounds 0.2 -
(as phenol)
Chlorine (free) 1.0 -
Cadmium, Cd Less than 1 -
Chromium (trivalent Less than 1 -
and hexavalent)
Copper Less than 1 -

Water and Waste Water Quality Monitoring

It is important that industries monitor their effluents in-house while FEPA
will also cross-check the effluent characteristics to ascertain the degree of
compliance with the proposed guidelines. Analytical methods are
conventionally prescribed for all parties to be involved in the monitoring
exercises. Any of the well tested standard methods for water and waste
waters analysis by United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA),
Department of Environment (DOE) U.K., American Public Health Association
(APHA) or American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) are hereby
adopted for monitoring purposes pending the development of standard
methods by FEPA. For reporting purposes, the analytical method(s) used
shall be specified.

Table 2: WATER QUALITY GUIDELINES AT IN-TAKE FOR THE

PETROLEUM INDUSTRY

21
Parameter Concentration(mg/l)
pH 6.0-9.0 (No Unit)
Calcium <75
Magnesium <25
Iron <1
Chloride <200
Hardness (as CaCo3) <350
Total dissolved solids <750
Total suspended solids <10

Table 3: WATER QUALITY GUIDELINES FOR CHEMICAL AND ALLIED

INDUSTRIES CONCENTRATION (mg.l)
Parameter Alkalines Organic Clear Synthetic Drugs and Pharma-
and Chemica Plastics Rubber ceuticals
Chlorine ls
Ph NS 6.5-8.7 6.2-8.3 NS NS
Colour units NS NS NS <20 <5
Turbidity units - - <2 - <1
Taste and odour NS NS <2 NS -
(threshold) <2 <68 NS <80 NS
<2 <19 NS <35 -
<0.1 <0.1 <0.2 <0.1 -
Calcium <0.1 <0.1 <0.02 <0.1 -
NS <128 NS - -
NS NS NS NS NS
Magnesium NS NS NS NS NS
Iron NS NS NS NS -
Manganese NS NS NS NS -
Bicarbonate low <250 NS <350 -
Sulphate NS <125 NS <150 -
NS NS <200 NS -
NS NS NS <5 <10
NS NS NS NS -
Chloride NS NS NS NS c
Nitrate NS NS NS NS NS

22
Silica
NS = No Specification

Table 4: Iron and Steel Industry Concentration (Mg/L) Rinse Water

Hot-rolling Cold-rolling Softened Demineralis

quenching gas ed
cleaning
pH 5.0-9.0 5.0-9.0 6.0-9.0 NS
Total suspended <25 <10 NS NS
solids <1000 <1000 NS NS
Total dissolved solids <100 <5.0 NS
Settleable solids
Temperature (0C) <38 <38 38 <38
Hardness NSb NSb 100 <0.1
Alkalinity NS NS NS <8.5
Sulphate <200 <200 200 NS
Chloride <150 <150 150 NS
Oil NS NS NS
Floating material NS NS NS

23
Gaseous Emission Limitations
Guidelines for emission limits from stationary sources represent maximum
allowable levels of pollutants from a site, process, stack, vent, etc. with the
objective of achieving a desired air quality. The prescribed emission limits
depend on socio-economic and political considerations. Sources and types of
pollutants are given in Table 5 and 6
Based on available data in literature, the proposed guidelines for emission
limits for particulates in stationary sources

Table 5. Emission Limit for some types of pollutants

Substance Limits (mg/m3)
COMBUSTION OF FUELS
Dark burning (pulp mills) 250
Blast furnace gas burning 50
Central Stations 200-500
Coal burning 100-500
Oil burning 50-250
Heavy oil burning 50-300
Solid oil burning 100-500
Incineration of refuse 150-1,000
Asphalt plants 70-5,000
Carbon black manufacture 40-60
Cement production 150-500
Coal processing 150
Coke Manufacture (metallurgical) 40-60
Electrode manufacture (metallurgical) 150
Furnaces 75-600
Kilns (cement) 75-600
Kilns (ceramics) 150-600
Kilns (lime) 300-600

24
Table 6: EMISSION LIMITS FOR SPECIFIC POLLUTANTS FROM
STATIONARY SOURCES
Source Limits
Acid gases 200-9,000
Aldehydes 20
Ammonia. 3 kg/hour
Antimony 20-100
Arsenic 20-100
Asbestos NS
fibre 24.0 kg/hour
Benzene 0.1
Beryllium 1.0-40
Cadmium 50-250
Carbon 10% by volume
Carbon dioxide 100-500
Carbon disulphide 3.0-200
Chlorine 20
Copper 0.5 kg/hour
Formaldehyde 1.0-100
Fluorine 20-50
Fluorine compounds 10.0
Heavy metals (Total) 50
Hydrocarbon 100
Hydrochloric acid 100
Hydrofluoric acid 1.0230
Hydrogen fluoride 5-1,500
Hydrogen sulphide 10-100
Lead 0.1 kg/hour
Manganese 1.0-230
Mercury 20
Nickel 0.5
Nickel carbonyl 500-4,000
Nitric acid 350-100
Nitrogen oxides 50
Organic compounds 30-3,000
Sulphur dioxide 5.0-1,000
Sulphur acid 100-200
Sulphur trioxide 0.8 kg/ton acid
Sulphur trioxide and sulphuric acid mist 10-200 PPm
Vinyl chloride

25
Ambient Air Standards
Since emissions from industries and other sources have impact on ambient
air it is of utmost importance to prescribe guidelines for safe levels of air
pollutants tolerable to humans, aquatic organisms and vegetation.

Table 7: Nigerian Ambient Air Quality Standard

Pollutants Time of Average Limit
Particulates Daily average of 250 ug/m3
daily values 1 hour. *600 ug/m3
Sulphur oxides Daily average of 0.01 ppm (26
(Sulphur dioxide) hourly ug/m3)
values 1 hour 0.1 ppm (26 ug/m3
Non-methane Daily average of 3- 160 ug/m3
Hydrocarbon hourly values
Carbon monoxide Daily average of 10 ppm (11.4
hourly ug/m3)
values 8-hourly 20 ppm (22.8
average ug/m3)
Nitrogen oxides Daily average of 0.04 ppm-0.06 ppm
(Nitrogen dioxide) hourly (75.0 ug/m3-113
values (range) ug/m3)
Photochemical Hourly values 0.06 ppm
oxidant

26
NOISE EXPOSURE LIMITS FOR NIGERIA
Industrial or workplace noise arises from occupational exposure of workers
to noise from industrial machines or exposure of neighbourhood population
to noise from factories nearby. This is quite important in the country as most
industrial estates exist alongside or close to residential areas. Other sources
of noise include, aircrafts, loud music and public address systems. Exposure
to industrial and other forms of noise can induce hearing loss and other
pathological changes in the affected population. Hence, it is recommended
that daily noise exposure for workers should not exceed 90 decibels, dB (A)
daily for an 8-hour working period.

Duration Permissible Exposure

Day, Hour Limit dB (A)
8 90
6 92
4 95
3 97
8 90
6 92
4 95
3 97
2 100

1.5 102
1 105

0.5 110

27
0.25 or less 115

Note:
Exposure to impulsive or impact noise should not exceed 140 dB (A)
peak sound pressure level.

MANAGEMENT OF SOLID AND HAZARDOUS WASTES

The objectives of solid and hazardous waste management shall be to:
(a) Designate those solid wastes which are dangerous or extremely
hazardous to the public health and environment;
(b) Provide for surveillance and monitoring of dangerous and
extremely hazardous wastes and substances, until they are detoxified,
reclaimed, neutralised, or disposed of safely;
(c) Provide the form and rules necessary to establish a system for
manifesting, tracking, reporting, monitoring, record keeping, sampling, and
labelling dangerous and extremely hazardous wastes;
(d) Establish the siting, design, operation, closure, post-closure,
and monitoring requirements for managing hazardous waste disposal
facilities;
(e) Encourage recycling, reuse, reclamation and recovery to the
maximum extent possible.

Designation of Dangerous (Hazardous) Waste

In the context of this document, dangerous waste is synonymous to
hazardous waste. The two expressions are used interchangeably. Code
numbers have been assigned to the various categories of dangerous wastes

28
for easy identification. Each code number has a prefix FAC (FEPA Action
Committee)

i. The procedure for determining whether or not a solid waste is

dangerous waste (D.W.) or extremely hazardous waste (EHW) is
described below, and are applicable to any person who must
determine whether or not his solid waste is so designated.
ii. Any person who determines by these procedures that his waste (or
substances) is (are) designated DW or EHW shall be subject to all
applicable requirement in these guidelines.
iii. Once a material has been determined to be a dangerous waste, any
solid waste generated from the recycling, treatment, storage, or
disposal of that dangerous waste is dangerous waste unless and until;

(a) It does not exhibit any of the characteristics of dangerous

waste.
(b) Such solid waste shall include but not be limited to any sludge,
spill residue, ash emissions, control dust, leachate, or precipitation run-off.
Precipitation run-off will not be considered a dangerous waste if it can be
shown that the run off has not been contaminated with the dangerous waste
or that the run off is adequately addressed under any other FEPA guidelines.

Dangerous Waste Mixtures

A dangerous waste mixture shall be any waste about which some or all of
its constituents and concentration are known and which have not been
designated as:
(a) A discarded chemical product;
(b) An infectious dangerous waste;
(c) A dangerous waste source.
A person who has a waste mixture shall use data which is available to him,
and when such data is inadequate for the purpose of this section, shall refer to

29
FEPA Exclusive List of Registered Dangerous Substances in order to
determine:

(a) Toxicity data or category for each known constituent in his waste;
(b) Whether or not each known constituent in his waste is a halogenated
hydrocarbon or a polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon with greater than
three rings and less than seven rings; and
(c) Whether or not each known constituent of his waste is an
International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) human or animal
positive or suspected carcinogen.

2.3 UNITED NATIONS FRAMEWORK CONVENTION ON

CLIMATIC CHANGE (UNFCIC)

The Parties to this Convention, Acknowledging that change in the Earth's

climate and its adverse effects are a common concern of humankind,

Concerned that human activities have been substantially increasing the

atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases, that these increases

enhance the natural greenhouse effect, and that this will result on average

in an additional warming of the Earth's surface and atmosphere and may

adversely affect natural ecosystems and humankind, Noting that the largest

share of historical and current global emissions of greenhouse gases has

originated in developed countries, that per capita emissions in developing

countries are still relatively low and that the share of global emissions

originating in developing countries will grow to meet their social and

30
development needs, Aware of the role and importance in terrestrial and

marine ecosystems of sinks and reservoirs of greenhouse gases,

Noting that there are many uncertainties in predictions of climate change,

particularly with regard to the timing, magnitude and regional patterns

thereof.

Acknowledging that the global nature of climate change calls for the widest

possible cooperation by all countries and their participation in an effective

and appropriate international response, in accordance with their common,

but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities and their

social and economic conditions, Recalling the pertinent provisions of the

Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment,

adopted at Stockholm on 16 June 1972,

Recalling also that States have, in accordance with the Charter of the United

Nations and the principles of international law, the sovereign right to

exploit their own resources pursuant to their own environmental and

developmental policies, and the responsibility to ensure that activities

within their jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to the

environment of other States or of areas beyond the limits of national

jurisdiction,

31
Reaffirming the principle of sovereignty of States in international

cooperation to address climate change, Recognizing that States should

enact effective environmental legislation, that environmental standards,

management objectives and priorities should reflect the environmental and

developmental context to which they apply, and that standards applied by

some countries may be inappropriate and of unwarranted economic and

social cost to other countries, in particular developing countries.

ARTICLE 2

OBJECTIVE

The ultimate objective of this Convention and any related legal instruments

that the Conference of the Parties may adopt is to achieve, in accordance

with the relevant provisions of the Convention, stabilization of greenhouse

gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent

dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. Such a

level should be achieved within a time-frame sufficient to allow ecosystems

to adapt naturally to climate change, to ensure that food production is not

32
threatened and to enable economic development to proceed in a

sustainable manner.

ARTICLE 3

PRINCIPLES

In their actions to achieve the objective of the Convention and to

implement its provisions, the Parties shall be guided, inter alia, by the

following:

1. The Parties should protect the climate system for the benefit of present

and future generations of humankind, on the basis of equity and in

accordance with their common but differentiated responsibilities and

respective capabilities.

Accordingly, the developed country Parties should take the lead in

combating climate change and the adverse effects thereof.

2. The specific needs and special circumstances of developing country

Parties, especially those that are particularly vulnerable to the adverse

effects of climate change, and of those Parties, especially developing

country Parties, that would have to bear a disproportionate or abnormal

burden under the Convention, should be given full consideration.

33
3. The Parties should take precautionary measures to anticipate, prevent or

minimize the causes of climate change and mitigate its adverse effects.

Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full

scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing such

measures, taking into account that policies and measures to deal with

climate change should be cost-effective so as to ensure global benefits at

the lowest possible cost. To achieve this, such policies and measures should

take into account different socio-economic contexts, be comprehensive,

cover all relevant sources, sinks and reservoirs of greenhouse gases and

adaptation, and comprise all economic sectors. Efforts to address climate

change may be carried out cooperatively by interested Parties.

4. The Parties have a right to, and should, promote sustainable

development. Policies and measures to protect the climate system against

human-induced change should be appropriate for the specific conditions of

each Party and should be integrated with national development

programmes, taking into account that economic development is essential

for adopting measures to address climate change.

5. The Parties should cooperate to promote a supportive and open

international economic system that would lead to sustainable economic

growth and development in all Parties, particularly developing country

Parties, thus enabling them better to address the problems of climate

34
change. Measures taken to combat climate change, including unilateral

ones, should not constitute a means of arbitrary or unjustifiable

discrimination or a disguised restriction on international trade.

ARTICLE 4

COMMITMENTS

1. All Parties, taking into account their common but differentiated

responsibilities and their specific national and regional development

priorities, objectives and circumstances, shall:

(a) Develop, periodically update, publish and make available to the

Conference of the Parties, in accordance with Article 12, national

inventories of anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks

of all greenhouse gases not controlled by the Montreal Protocol, using

comparable methodologies to be agreed upon by the Conference of the

Parties;

(b) Formulate, implement, publish and regularly update national and,

where appropriate, regional programmes containing measures to mitigate

climate change by addressing anthropogenic emissions by sources and

removals by sinks of all greenhouse gases not controlled by the Montreal

Protocol, and measures to facilitate adequate adaptation to climate change;

35
(c) Promote and cooperate in the development, application and

diffusion, including transfer, of technologies, practices and processes that

control, reduce or prevent anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases

not controlled by the Montreal Protocol in all relevant sectors, including

the energy, transport, industry, agriculture, forestry and waste

management sectors;

(d) Promote sustainable management, and promote and cooperate in the

conservation and enhancement, as appropriate, of sinks and reservoirs of

all greenhouse gases not controlled by the Montreal Protocol, including

biomass, forests and oceans as well as other terrestrial, coastal and marine

ecosystems;

(e) Cooperate in preparing for adaptation to the impacts of climate

change; develop and elaborate appropriate and integrated plans for coastal

zone management, water resources and agriculture, and for the protection

and rehabilitation of areas, particularly in Africa, affected by drought and

desertification, as well as floods;

(f) Take climate change considerations into account, to the extent

feasible, in their relevant social, economic and environmental policies and

actions, and employ appropriate methods, for example impact assessments,

formulated and determined nationally, with a view to minimizing adverse

effects on the economy, on public health and on the quality of the

36
environment, of projects or measures undertaken by them to mitigate or

adapt to climate change;

(g) Promote and cooperate in scientific, technological, technical, socio-

economic and other research, systematic observation and development of

data archives related to the climate system and intended to further the

understanding and to reduce or eliminate the remaining uncertainties

regarding the causes, effects, magnitude and timing of climate change and

the economic and social consequences of various response strategies;

(h) Promote and cooperate in the full, open and prompt exchange of

relevant scientific, technological, technical, socio-economic and legal

information related to the climate system and climate change, and to the

economic and social consequences of various response strategies;

(i) Promote and cooperate in education, training and public awareness

related to climate change and encourage the widest participation in this

process, including that of non-governmental organizations; and

(j) Communicate to the Conference of the Parties information related to

implementation, in accordance with Article 12.

2. The developed country Parties and other Parties included in Annex I

commit themselves specifically as provided for in the following:

37
(a) Each of these Parties shall adopt national1 policies and take

corresponding measures on the mitigation of climate change, by limiting its

anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases and protecting and

enhancing its greenhouse gas sinks and reservoirs. These policies and

measures will demonstrate that developed countries are taking the lead in

modifying longer-term trends in anthropogenic emissions consistent with

the objective of the Convention, recognizing that the return by the end of

the present decade to earlier levels of anthropogenic emissions of carbon

dioxide and other greenhouse gases not controlled by the Montreal

Protocol would contribute to such modification, and taking into account the

differences in these Parties' starting points and approaches, economic

structures and resource bases, the need to maintain strong and sustainable

economic growth, available technologies and other individual

circumstances, as well as the need for equitable and appropriate

contributions by each of these Parties to the global effort regarding that

objective. These Parties may implement such policies and measures jointly

with other Parties and may assist other Parties in contributing to the

achievement of the objective of the Convention and, in particular, that of

this subparagraph;

(b) In order to promote progress to this end, each of these Parties shall

communicate, within six months of the entry into force of the Convention

38
for it and periodically thereafter, and in accordance with Article 12,

detailed information on its policies and measures referred to in

subparagraph (a) above, as well as on its resulting projected anthropogenic

emissions by sources and removals by sinks of greenhouse gases not

controlled by the Montreal Protocol for the period referred to in

subparagraph (a), with the aim of returning individually or jointly to their

1990 levels these anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide and other

greenhouse gases not controlled by the Montreal Protocol. This

information will be reviewed by the Conference of the Parties, at its first

session and periodically thereafter, in accordance with Article 7;

(c) Calculations of emissions by sources and removals by sinks of

greenhouse gases for the purposes of subparagraph (b) above should take

into account the best available scientific knowledge, including of the

effective capacity of sinks and the respective contributions of such gases to

climate change. The Conference of the Parties shall consider and agree

(This includes policies and measures adopted by regional economic

integration organizations) on methodologies for these calculations at its

first session and review them regularly thereafter;

(d) The Conference of the Parties shall, at its first session, review the

adequacy of subparagraphs (a) and (b) above. Such review shall be carried

out in the light of the best available scientific information and assessment

39
on climate change and its impacts, as well as relevant technical, social and

economic information. Based on this review, the Conference of the Parties

shall take appropriate action, which may include the adoption of

amendments to the commitments in subparagraphs (a) and (b) above. The

Conference of the Parties, at its first session, shall also take decisions

regarding criteria for joint implementation as indicated in subparagraph

(a) above. A second review of subparagraphs (a) and (b) shall take place

not later than 31 December 1998, and thereafter at regular intervals

determined by the Conference of the Parties, until the objective of the

Convention is met;

(e) Each of these Parties shall:

(i) Coordinate as appropriate with other such Parties, relevant economic

and administrative instruments developed to achieve the objective of the

Convention; and

(ii) Identify and periodically review its own policies and practices which

encourage activities that lead to greater levels of anthropogenic emissions

of greenhouse gases not controlled by the Montreal Protocol than would

otherwise occur;

(f) The Conference of the Parties shall review, not later than 31

December 1998, available information with a view to taking decisions

40
regarding such amendments to the lists in Annexes I and II as may be

appropriate, with the approval of the Party concerned;

(g) Any Party not included in Annex I may, in its instrument of

ratification, acceptance, approval or accession, or at any time thereafter,

notify the Depositary that it intends to be bound by subparagraphs (a) and

(b) above. The Depositary shall inform the other signatories and Parties of

any such notification.

3. The developed country Parties and other developed Parties included in

Annex II shall provide new and additional financial resources to meet the

agreed full costs incurred by developing country Parties in complying with

their obligations under Article 12, paragraph 1. They shall also provide

such financial resources, including for the transfer of technology, needed by

the developing country Parties to meet the agreed full incremental costs of

implementing measures that are covered by paragraph 1 of this Article and

that are agreed between a developing country Party and the international

entity or entities referred to in Article 11, in accordance with that Article.

The implementation of these commitments shall take into account the need

for adequacy and predictability in the flow of funds and the importance of

appropriate burden sharing among the developed country Parties.

4. The developed country Parties and other developed Parties included in

Annex II shall also assist the developing country Parties that are
41
particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change in meeting

costs of adaptation to those adverse effects.

5. The developed country Parties and other developed Parties included in

Annex II shall take all practicable steps to promote, facilitate and finance, as

appropriate, the transfer of, or access to, environmentally sound

technologies and knowhow to other Parties, particularly developing

country Parties, to enable them to implement the provisions of the

Convention. In this process, the developed country Parties shall support the

development and enhancement of endogenous capacities and technologies

of developing country Parties. Other Parties and organizations in a position

to do so may also assist in facilitating the transfer of such technologies.

6. In the implementation of their commitments under paragraph 2 above, a

certain degree of flexibility shall be allowed by the Conference of the

Parties to the Parties included in Annex I undergoing the process of

transition to a market economy, in order to enhance the ability of these

Parties to address climate change, including with regard to the historical

level of anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases not controlled by the

Montreal Protocol chosen as a reference.

7. The extent to which developing country Parties will effectively

implement their commitments under the Convention will depend on the

effective implementation by developed country Parties of their

42
commitments under the Convention related to financial resources and

transfer of technology and will take fully into account that economic and

social development and poverty eradication are the first and overriding

priorities of the developing country Parties.

8. In the implementation of the commitments in this Article, the Parties

shall give full consideration to what actions are necessary under the

Convention, including actions related to funding, insurance and the transfer

of technology, to meet the specific needs and concerns of developing

country Parties arising from the adverse effects of climate change and/or

the impact of the implementation of response measures, especially on:

(a) Small island countries;

(b) Countries with low-lying coastal areas;

(c) Countries with arid and semi-arid areas, forested areas and areas

liable to forest decay;

(d) Countries with areas prone to natural disasters;

(e) Countries with areas liable to drought and desertification;

(f) Countries with areas of high urban atmospheric pollution;

(g) Countries with areas with fragile ecosystems, including mountainous

ecosystems;

43
(h) Countries whose economies are highly dependent on income

generated from the production, processing and export, and/or on

consumption of fossil fuels and associated energy-intensive products; and

(i) Land-locked and transit countries. Further, the Conference of the

Parties may take actions, as appropriate, with respect to this paragraph.

9. The Parties shall take full account of the specific needs and special

situations of the least developed countries in their actions with regard to

funding and transfer of technology.

10. The Parties shall, in accordance with Article 10, take into consideration

in the implementation of the commitments of the Convention the situation

of Parties, particularly developing country Parties, with economies that are

vulnerable to the adverse effects of the implementation of measures to

respond to climate change. This applies notably to Parties with economies

that are highly dependent on income generated from the production,

processing and export, and/or consumption of fossil fuels and associated

energy-intensive products and/or the use of fossil fuels for which such

Parties have serious difficulties in switching to alternatives.

ARTICLE 5

RESEARCH AND SYSTEMATIC OBSERVATION

44
In carrying out their commitments under Article 4, paragraph 1(g), the

Parties shall:

(a) Support and further develop, as appropriate, international and

intergovernmental programmes and networks or organizations aimed at

defining, conducting, assessing and financing research, data collection and

systematic observation, taking into account the need to minimize

duplication of effort;

(b) Support international and intergovernmental efforts to strengthen

systematic observation and national scientific and technical research

capacities and capabilities, particularly in developing countries, and to

promote access to, and the exchange of, data and analyses thereof obtained

from areas beyond national jurisdiction; and

(c) Take into account the particular concerns and needs of developing

countries and cooperate in improving their endogenous capacities and

capabilities to participate in the efforts referred to in subparagraphs (a)

and (b) above.

ARTICLE 6

EDUCATION, TRAINING AND PUBLIC AWARENESS

In carrying out their commitments under Article 4, paragraph 1(i), the

Parties shall:

45
(a) Promote and facilitate at the national and, as appropriate, sub-

regional and regional levels, and in accordance with national laws and

regulations, and within their respective capacities:

(i) The development and implementation of educational and public

awareness programmes on climate change and its effects;

(ii) Public access to information on climate change and its effects;

(iii) Public participation in addressing climate change and its effects and

developing adequate responses; and

(iv) Training of scientific, technical and managerial personnel.

(b) Cooperate in and promote, at the international level, and, where

appropriate, using existing bodies:

(i) The development and exchange of educational and public awareness

material on climate change and its effects; and

(ii) The development and implementation of education and training

programmes, including the strengthening of national institutions and the

exchange or secondment of personnel to train experts in this field, in

particular for developing countries.

46
2.4 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT (EIA)

An environmental impact assessment is a systematic analysis of the

potential impacts of proposed development projects on the natural and

human environment, for identifying measures to prevent or minimize

impacts prior to major decisions being taken and project commitments

made.

EIA objectives

1. Determine which projects must undergo a federal environmental

assessment.

A proposed project may require a federal environmental assessment

before it is allowed to proceed if it is a “designated project”; that is, if the

project is either of a type listed in the new regulations Designating Physical

Activities, or if the Minister of the environment has made an order

designating the project.

2. Regulations Designating Physical Activities

47
Regulations Designating Physical Activities made under the CEAA, 2012 list

“designated projects,” which are types of projects that are likely to have

significant adverse environmental effect and therefore may be subject to a

federal environmental assessment. This approach to identifying projects

that may be subject to an environmental assessment has been referred to

as the “list approach”.

3. One hundred percent of experts and practitioners interviewed

agreed that the main and basic objective of EIA is to reduce

environmental impact. This statement is followed by such objectives

as a tool for making sustainable development progress. Respondents

saw it as an important issue and for improvement of decision-making

process.

EIA concept and legal basis in Nigeria

Globally, Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is recognized as a tool

for achieving sustainable development.

The main objective of the EIA is to ensure that potential environmental

impacts are foreseen at the appropriate stage of project design and

addressed before any decision is taken on the project.

48
The EIA involves a systematic process for identifying, predicting and

evaluating potential impacts associated with a development project. The

EIA process must proffer mitigation measures to avoid, reduce or minimize

the negative impacts on the environment, public health and property and

may highlight the foreseeable positive impacts.

The mitigation measures entail identifying possible alternative site, project,

process design, including that of not proceeding with the project. The EIA

is not a one-off process which terminates in the production of a report on

the effects of the project and associated mitigation measures. It also deals

with monitoring the construction and operational phases, and this

continues till the project is decommissioned.

EIA legislations and the required procedural guidelines for carrying out the

EIA process became effective since the 1970s in developed countries.

Nigeria took a giant leap when she promulgated her main EIA legislation

(i.e. EIA Act No.86) in 1992. EIA is proclaimed in Principle 17 of ‘Agenda

21’ (Agenda for the 21st century) of the United Nations Conference on

49
Environment and Development (UNCED), which was held on the 3rd

to14th of June, 1992, in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. It states that:

“Environmental Impact Assessment as a national instrument shall be

undertaken for proposed activities that are likely to have a significant

adverse impact on the environment and subject to a decision of a competent

authority.”

The EIA Act No. 86 of 1992 makes the EIA mandatory for development

projects likely to have adverse impacts on the environment prior to

implementation. Prior to the enactment of the EIA Act in Nigeria, project

appraisals were limited predominantly to feasibility studies and economic-

cost-benefit analysis.

Most of these appraisals did not take environmental costs, public opinion,

and social and environmental impacts of development projects into

consideration. Currently, EIA is practiced in over 100 countries of the

world (Jay et al., 2007). While its effectiveness has been explored to a

certain extent in some developed countries, the research in developing

countries such as Nigeria requires consented effort.

Even if most of the scholars generally agree that EIA plays an important

role in environmental decision-making, the effectiveness, accessibility and

50
influence of EIA, and specifically the accuracy and the methods of the

assessment can be openly questioned and criticized. The field scholars

attempt measuring the EIA effectiveness either through the quality of EIA

report and EIA procedural implementation or relate it to the viability and

the role of EIA in factual development planning (Bailey, 1997; Baker and

Wood, 1999; Simpson, 2001; Ogunba, 2004; Sakalauskiene et al., 2004;

Pinho et al., 2006; Pö lö nen, 2006). The paper described current practice of

EIA in Nigeria, the main strengths and weaknesses of the system and also

provided the recommendations for further improvements.

EIA Process

The EIA process consists of a number of steps that are practiced under

more or less all EIA systems in Nigeria and internationally:

i) A detailed description of the proposed project;

ii) A screening process to determine whether an EIA is required;

iii) A baseline study to identify past, present and future conditions

against which the effects of the project will be assessed;

iv) Identifying and evaluating potential project effects;

v) developing strategies to manage these effects;

51
vi) A technical and public review of the information generated; a

decision as to whether the project should proceed and, if so, under

what conditions; and, if the project is approved,

vii) Monitoring and managing actual outcomes. Early involvement of

the public, and the public's sustained involvement throughout the

process, is regarded as essential to good EIA.

For example; North American Polypropylene Rail Yard Project: Public

Comments Invited May 30, 2016 — Ottawa — Canadian Environmental

Assessment Agency

The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (the Agency) must decide

whether a federal environmental assessment is required for the proposed

North American Polypropylene Rail Yard Project, located in Fort

Saskatchewan, Alberta.

To help inform this decision, the Agency is seeking comments from the

public on the project and its potential effects on the environment, as

described in the summary of the project description. All comments

received will be considered public.

As a next step, the Agency will post a decision on its website stating

whether an environmental assessment is required. If one is required, the

public will have three more opportunities to comment on the project.

52
Environmental Impact Assessment Decree

No 86 of 1992 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria

10th December1992

The Federal Military Government hereby decrees as follow: -

General Principles of Environmental Impact Assessment

1. The objectives of any environmental Impact assessment (hereafter in

this Decree referred to as "the Assessment") shall be -

(a) To establish before a decision taken by any person, authority

corporate body or unincorporated body including the Government

of the Federation, State or Local Government intending to

undertake or authorise the undertaking of any activity that may

likely or to a significant extent affect the environment or have

53
environmental effects on those activities shall first be taken into

account;

(b) To promote the implementation of appropriate policy in all

Federal Lands (however acquired) States and Local Government

Areas consistent with all laws and decision making processes

through which the goal and objective in paragraph (a) of this

section may be realised;

(c) To encourage the development of procedures for information

exchange, notification and consultation between organs and

persons when proposed activities are likely to have significant

environmental effects on boundary or trans-state or on the

environment of bordering towns and villages.

2.

a) The public or private sector of the economy shall not undertake or

embark on public or authorise projects or activities without prior

consideration, at an early stages, or their environmental effects.

54
b) Where the extent, nature or location of a proposed project or activity

is such that is likely to significantly affect the environment, its

environmental impact assessment shall be undertaken in accordance

with the provisions of this Decree.

c) The criterion and procedure under this Decree shall be used to

determine whether an activity is likely to significantly affect the

environment and is therefore subject to an environmental impact

assessment.

d) All agencies, institutions (whether public or private) except

exempted pursuant to this Decree, shall before embarking on the

proposed project apply in writing to the Agency, so that subject

activities can be quickly and surely identified and environmental

assessment applied as the activities being planned.

3.

a) In identifying the environmental impact assessment

process under this Decree, the relevant significant

environmental issues shall be identified and studied before

55
commencing or embarking on any project or activity

covered by the provisions of this Decree or covered by the

Agency or likely to have serious environmental impact on

the Nigerian environment.

b) Where appropriate, all efforts shall be made to identify all

environmental issues at an early step in the process.

4. An environmental impact assessment shall include at least the

following minimum matters, that is -

(a) A description of the proposed activities;

(b) A description of the potential affected environment including

specific information necessary to identify and assess the

environmental effects of the proposed activities;

(c) A description of the practical activities, as appropriate;

(d) An assessment of the likely or potential environmental impacts on

the proposed activity and the alternatives, including the direct or

indirect cumulative, short-term and tong-term effects:

(e) An identification and description of measures available to mitigate

adverse environmental impacts of proposed activity and

assessment of those measures;

56
(f) An indication of gaps in knowledge and uncertainly which may be

encountered in computing the required information:

(g) An indication of whether the environment of any other State, Local

Government Area or areas outside Nigeria is likely to be affected

by the proposed activity or its alternatives;

(h) A brief and non-technical summary of the information provided

under paragraph (a) to (g) of this section.

5. The environmental effects in an environmental assessment shall be

assessed with a degree of detail commensuration with their likely

environmental significance.

6. The information provided as of environmental impact assessment

shall be examined impartially by the Agency prior to any decision to

be made thereto (whether in favour or adverse thereto).

7. Before the Agency gives a decision on an activity to which an

environmental assessment has been produced, the Agency shall give

opportunity to government agencies, members of the public, experts

57
in any relevant discipline and interested groups to make comment on

environmental impact assessment of the activity.

8. The Agency shall not give a decision as to whether a proposed

activity should be authorized or undertaken until appropriate period

has elapsed to consider comments pursuant to sections 7 and 12 of

this Decree.

9.

I. The Agency's decisions on any proposed activity subject to

environmental impact assessment shall -

(a) Be in writing;

(b) State the reason therefor;

(c) Include the provisions, if any, to prevent, reduce or instigate

damage to the environment.

II. The report of the Agency shall be made available to interested

person or group.

III. If no interested person or group requested for the report, it

shall be the duty of the Agency to publish its decision in a

58
manner by which members of the public or persons

interested in the activity shall be notified.

IV. The Council may determine an appropriate method in which

the decision of the Agency shall be published so as to reach

interested persons or groups, in particular the originators or

persons interested in the activity subject of the decision.

10. When the Council deems fit and appropriate, a decision on an

activity which has been subject of environmental impact assessment, the

activity and its effects on the environment or the provisions of section 9 of

this decree shall be subject to appropriate supervision.

11.

I. When information provided as part of Environmental Impact

Assessment indicates that the Environment within another State in

the Federation or a Local Government Area is likely to be

significantly affected by a proposed activity, the State, the Local

Government Area in which the activity is being panned shall, to the

extent possible -

59
(a) Notify the potentially affected State or Local Government of the

proposed activity;

(b) Transmit to the affected State or Local Government Area any

relevant information of the environmental impact assessment:

(c) Enter into timely consultations with the affected State or Local

Government.

II. It shall be the duty of the Agency to see that the provisions of

subsection (1) of this section are complied with and the Agency may

cause the consultations provided pursuant to subsection (1) of this

section to take place in order to investigate any environmental

derogation or hazard that may occur during the construction or

process of the activity concerned.

12. Editorial Note: there is no section 12 within this Decree.

13.

I. When a project is described on the Mandatory Study List specified in

the Schedule to this Decree or is referred to mediation or a review

panel, no Federal, State or Local Government or any of their authority

60
or agency Shall exercise any power or perform any duty or functions

that would permit the project to be carried out in whole or in part

until the Agency has taken a cause of action conducive to its power

under the Act establishing it or has taken a decision or issue an order

that the project could be carried out with or without conditions.

II. Where the Agency has given certain conditions before the carrying

out of the project, the conditions shall be fulfilled before any person

or authority shall embark on the project

2.5 OIL POLLUTION ACT

Over the years, oil spill has posed great threats to lives and properties,

environment, human health, security and safety of people in the oil

producing areas with little or no political will to deal with it. The oil

companies too on the other hand, have not shown sufficient concern and

respect for the Nigerian environment as they do in other oil producing

61
zones of the world. Oil spill rates have escalated to a serious level since

1976 to about 80% rate of incidents. Over 600 oil spill incidents are

recorded in Nigeria annually. This situation is unacceptable if there will be

environment left after removing oil from it. The severity of environmental

degradation, chronic diseases and abject poverty in the oil producing areas

cannot be tolerated or promote the United Nations millennium

development goals for environmental sustainability in Nigeria.

On March 24, 1989, the Exxon Valdez spilled over 11 million gallons of

Alaskan crude into the water of Prince William Sound. There were many

lessons learned the aftermath of the Valdez oil spill. Two of the most

obvious were:

1. The United States lacked adequate resources, particularly Federal

funds, to respond to spills, and

2. The scope of damages compensable under federal law to those

impacted by a spill was fairly narrow.

Although the environmental damage and massive clean-up efforts were the

most visible effects of this casualty, one of the most important outcomes

was the enactment of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA), which addressed

both these deficiencies.

62
OIL POLLUTION ACT

Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA) states "A company cannot ship oil into the

United States until it presents a plan to prevent spills that may occur. It must

also have a detailed containment and clean-up plan in case of an oil spill

emergency." The OPA extensively amended the Federal Water Pollution

Control Act. The OPA addressed issues associated with preventing,

responding to, and paying for oil pollution. Polluters are made accountable

for the clean-up costs. It created a comprehensive prevention, response,

liability, and compensation regime to deal with vessel- and facility-caused

oil pollution to U.S. navigable waters. OPA greatly increased federal

oversight of maritime oil transportation, while providing greater

environmental safeguards by:

i. Setting new requirements for vessel construction and crew

licensing and manning,

ii. Mandating contingency planning,

iii. Enhancing federal response capability,

iv. Broadening enforcement authority,

v. Increasing penalties,

63
vi. Creating new research and development programs,

vii. Increasing potential liabilities, and

viii. Significantly broadening financial responsibility requirements.

Finally, the OPA created the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund (OSLTF) to

compensate oil spill victims when the responsible party is incapable or

unwilling to do so. It can provide up to one billion dollars per spill incident.

These measures were adopted to increase the efficiency of the federal

government to deal with spill emergencies. Prior to the passage of this Act,

the average discharge of oil from tankers in U.S. waters was about 70,000

barrels. The oil spill cases reduced considerably after the passage of the

Act. These measures were adopted to increase the efficiency of the federal

government to deal with spill emergencies. Prior to the passage of this Act,

the average discharge of oil from tankers in U.S. waters was about 70,000

barrels. The oil spill cases reduced considerably after the passage of the

Act.

OIL SPILL INCIDENTS IN NIGERIA

Oil spill incidents have occurred in various parts and at different times

along our coast. Some major spills in the coastal zone are the GOCON’s

Escravos spill in 1978 of about 300,000 barrels, SPDC’s Forcados Terminal

64
tank failure in 1978 of about 580,000 barrels and Texaco Funiwa-5 blow-

out in 1980 of about 400,000 barrels. Other oil spill incidents are those of

the Abudu pipe line in 1982 of about 18,818 barrels, The Jesse Fire Incident

which claimed about a thousand lives and the Idoho Oil Spill of January

1998, of about 40,000 barrels. The most publicised of all oil spills in Nigeria

occurred on January 17 1980 when a total of 37.0 million litres of crude oil

got spilled into the environment. This spill occurred as a result of a blow

out at Funiwa 5 offshore station. Nigeria's largest spill was an offshore

well-blow out in January 1980 when an estimated 200,000 barrels of oil

(8.4million US gallons) spilled into the Atlantic Ocean from an oil industry

facility and that damaged 340 hectares of mangrove.

According to the Department of Petroleum Resources (DPR), between 1976

and 1996 a total of 4647 incidents resulted in the spill of approximately

2,369,470 barrels of oil into the environment. Of this quantity, an estimated

1,820,410.5 barrels (77%) were lost to the environment. A total of 549,060

barrels of oil representing 23.17% of the total oil spilt into the environment

was recovered. The heaviest recorded spill so far occurred in 1979 and

1980 with a net volume of 694,117.13 barrels and 600,511.02 barrels

respectively.

65
Available records for the period of 1976 to 1996 indicate that

approximately 6%, 25%, and 69% respectively, of total oil spilled in the

Niger Delta area, were in land, swamp and offshore environments. Also,

between 1997 and 2001, Nigeria recorded a total number of 2,097 oil spill

incidents.

Thousands of barrels of oil have been spilt into the environment through

our oil pipelines and tanks in the country.

CAUSES OF OIL SPILLS

66
1. This spillage is as a result of our lack of regular maintenance of the

pipelines and storage tanks. Some of these facilities have been in use for

decades without replacement. About 40,000 barrels of oil spilled into the

environment through the offshore pipeline in Idoho.

2. Sabotage is another major cause of oil spillage in the country. Some of the

citizens of this country in collaboration with people from other countries

engage in oil bunkering. They damage and destroy oil pipelines in their

effort to steal oil from them. SPDC claimed in 1996 that sabotage accounted

for more than 60 percent of all oil spilled at its facilities in Nigeria, stating

that the percentage has increased over the years both because the number

of sabotage incidents has increased and because spills due to corrosion

have decreased with programs to replace oil pipelines.

Pirates are stealing Nigeria's crude oil at a phenomenal rate, funneling

nearly 300,000 barrels per day from our oil and selling it illegally on the

international trade market. Nigeria lost about N7.7 billion in 2002 as a

result of vandalization of pipelines carrying petroleum products. The

amount, according to the PPMC, a subsidiary of NNPC, represents the

estimated value of the products lost in the process. Illegal fuel siphoning as

a result of the thriving black market for fuel products has increased the

number of oil pipeline explosions in recent years. In July 2000, a pipeline

67
explosion outside the city of Warri caused the death of 250 people. An

explosion in Lagos in December 2000 killed at least 60 people.

The NNPC reported 800 cases of pipeline vandalization from January

through October 2000. In January 2001, Nigeria lost about $4 billion in oil

revenues in 2000 due to the activities of vandals on our oil installations.

The government estimates that as much as 300,000 bbl/d of Nigerian crude

is illegally bunkered (freighted) out of the country.

3. In Nigeria, fifty percent (50%) of oil spills is due to corrosion, twenty

eight percent (28%) to sabotage and twenty one percent (21%) to oil

production operations. One percent (1%) of oil spills is due to engineering

drills, inability to effectively control oil wells, failure of machines, and

inadequate care in loading and unloading oil vessels.

IMPACTS OF OIL SPILL INCIDENTS ON NIGERIAN COASTAL AREAS

Since the discovery of oil in Nigeria in the 1950s, the country has been

suffering the negative environmental consequences of oil development. The

growth of the country's oil industry, combined with a population explosion

and a lack of enforcement of environmental regulations has led to

68
substantial damage to Nigeria's environment, especially in the Niger Delta

region.

When there is an oil spill on water, spreading immediately takes place. The

gaseous and liquid components evaporate. Some get dissolved in water and

even oxidize, and yet some undergo bacterial changes and eventually sink

to the bottom by gravitational action. The soil is then contaminated with a

gross effect upon the terrestrial life. As the evaporation of the volatile

lower molecular weight components affect aerial life, so the dissolution of

the less volatile components with the resulting emulsified water, affects

aquatic life.

1. The harmful effects of oil spill on the environment are many. Oil kills

plants and animals in the estuarine zone. Oil settles on beaches and kills

organisms that live there. It also settles on ocean floor and kills benthic

(bottom-dwelling) organisms such as crabs. Oil poisons algae, disrupts

major food chains and decreases the yield of edible crustaceans. It also

coats birds, impairing their flight or reducing the insulative property of

their feathers, thus making the birds more vulnerable to cold. Oil

endangers fish hatcheries in coastal waters and as well contaminates the

flesh of commercially valuable fish.

2. In the Nigerian coastal environment a large areas of the mangrove

ecosystem have been destroyed. The mangrove was once a source of both
69
fuel wood for the indigenous people and a habitat for the area's

biodiversity, but is now unable to survive the oil toxicity of its habitat. Oil

spills in the Niger Delta have been a regular occurrence, and the resultant

degradation of the surrounding environment has caused significant tension

between the people living in the region and the multinational oil companies

operating there. It is only in the past decade that environmental groups, the

Federal Government, and the foreign oil companies operating in the Niger

Delta began to take steps to mitigate the impacts. Large areas of the

mangrove ecosystem have also been destroyed. The mangrove forest was

in the past a major source of wood for the indigenous people. In some

places it is no longer in a healthy state to sustain this use. The Idoho oil spill

traveled all the way from Akwa Ibom state to Lagos state dispersing oil

through the coastal states, up to the Lagos coast. This culminated in the

presence of sheen of oil on the coastal areas of Cross river state, Akwa Ibom

state, Rivers state, Bayelsa state,Delta state, Ondo state and Lagos state.

3. In many villages near oil installations, even when there has been no

recent spill, an oily sheen can be seen on the water, which in fresh water

areas is usually the same water that the people living there use for drinking

and washing. In April 1997, samples taken from water used for drinking

and washing by local villagers were analyzed in the U.S. A sample from

Luawii, in Ogoni, where there had been no oil production for four years,

70
had 18 ppm of hydrocarbons in the water, 360 times the level allowed in

drinking water in the European Union (E.U.). A sample from Ukpeleide,

Ikwerre, contained 34 ppm, 680 times the E.U. standard. Following the

major Texaco spill of 1980, it was reported that 180 people died in one

community as a result of the pollution. On several occasions, people

interviewed by Human Rights Watch said that spills in their area had made

people sick who drank the water, especially children.

4. Following the Eket oil spillage, the World Council of Mayors was

prompted to undertake an environmental tour of Akwa Ibom in 2002 with

a scathing condemnation of the ambivalent environmental policy of Mobile

Exxon in Nigeria. Almost across the length and breadth of the Niger- Delta,

the impact of oil and gas on the built environment is quite evident in the

discolouration of corrugated iron sheets by constant gas flaring. This also

means as Eket House Owners Association asserted (and corroborated by

World Council of Mayors) that the life span of roofing material in the Niger

Delta is relatively shorter than in any other part of the larger Nigerian

polity as a result of the Environmental impact of oil spills in Nigeria.

71
Several “blow-outs” at prospecting sites coupled with spillage as a result of

damage to pipelines have been reported from time to time in different sites

in the oil producing areas of Nigeria. Depending on the level of

contamination, natural rehabilitation may take 1 to 25 years. A great

percentage of those spills occurred in sensitive environment in onshore

and offshore areas of Nigeria. The effects of these spills have been

catastrophic in many respects depending on the oil dosage, the type of oil,

metrological conditions, physical geography of the area and the biota.

Statistics have shown that during 1976-1980, the majority of oil spill

incidents occurred in the purely mangrove swamp zones and the offshore

72
areas of the Niger-Delta, which constitute the most productive biological

areas. Within six months, mangrove vegetation started dying in the

contaminated waters. Crabs, molluscs and periwinkles died while

associated fire hazard spreading to about 25 hectars of land occurred.

Worse still, re-pollution of the top soil from below was noted about two

years after the incident while water table was affected across 15.1 hectars.

In water, oil pollution on the water surface could prevent natural aeration

and lead to the death of trapped marine organism. In some cases, fish may

ingest the spilled oil or other food materials impregnated with oil and as

such become inedible and unpalatable. Oil spill on the land could lead to

retardation of vegetation growth for a period of time and in extreme cases,

to destruction of vegetation. It could also create potential fire hazard, as in

the Oyakamo oil pipeline spillage which render the soil unfit for cultivation

and polluted about 360 km of salt marshes as reported by Royal Society of

London in1982. Similar fire hazard occurred in Jesse village in 1998 in

which over 2000 people were fear dead frequent deluge of acid rain which

is part consequence of gas flaring. At the slightest gale or tempest, buildings

begin to collapse as was the case 2004 when the National Assembly had to

pass a resolution to send relief material to Delta State.

MANAGEMENT OF OIL SPILL IN NIGERIA

73
Several laws and policies have been taken in managing oil spill incidents at

the international and national levels. An example of such is the Oil Pollution

Act of 1990 (OPA 1990) which is responsible for many of the nation's

improvements in oil spill prevention and response. OPA 1990 provides

guidance for government and industry on oil spill prevention, mitigation,

cleanup and liability. The majority of OPA 1990 provisions were targeted at

reducing the number of spills followed by reducing the quantity of oil

spilled. OPA 1990 also created a comprehensive scheme to ensure that

sufficient financial resources are available to clean up a spill and to

compensate persons damaged by a spill. It also ensures that the federal

response system is adequately prepared to manage the impacts of oil spills

that do occur; and mandates that industry implement prevention and

preparedness measures. The OPA also mandates that tankers and inland oil

facilities develop individual response plans. Furthermore the OPA also

mandates enhancements to the national response system, and

development of Area Contingency plans.

2.6 KYOTO PROTOCOL

74
The Kyoto Protocol is an amendment to the United Nations Framework

Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), an international treaty intended

to bring countries together to reduce global warming and to cope with the

effects of temperature increases that are unavoidable after 150 years of

industrialization. The provisions of the Kyoto Protocol are legally binding

on the ratifying nations, and stronger than those of the UNFCCC.

Countries that ratify the Kyoto Protocol agree to reduce emissions of six

greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming: carbon dioxide,

methane, nitrous oxide, sulfur hexafluoride, HFCs and PFCs. The countries

are allowed to use emissions trading to meet their obligations if they

maintain or increase their greenhouse gas emissions. Emissions trading

allows nations that can easily meet their targets to sell credits to those that

cannot.

Lowering Emissions Worldwide.

The goal of the Kyoto Protocol is to reduce worldwide greenhouse gas

emissions to 5.2 percent below 1990 levels between 2008 and

2012.Compared to the emissions levels that would occur by 2010 without

the Kyoto Protocol, however, this target actually represents a 29 percent

cut. The Kyoto Protocol sets specific emissions reduction targets for each

75
industrialized nation, but excludes developing countries. To meet their

targets, most ratifying nations would have to combine several strategies:

Current Status

Most of the world’s industrialized nations support the Kyoto Protocol. One

notable exception is the United States, which releases more greenhouse

gases than any other nation and accounts for more than 25 percent of those

generated by humans worldwide. Australia also declined.

Background

The Kyoto Protocol was negotiated in Kyoto, Japan, in December 1997. It

was opened for signature on March 16, 1998, and closed a year later. Under

terms of the agreement, the Kyoto Protocol would not take effect until 90

days after it was ratified by at least 55 countries involved in the UNFCCC.

Another condition was that ratifying countries had to represent at least 55

percent of the world’s total carbon dioxide emissions for 1990. The first

76
condition was met on May 23, 2002, when Iceland became the 55th country

to ratify the Kyoto Protocol. When Russia ratified the agreement in

November 2004, the second condition was satisfied, and the Kyoto Protocol

entered into force on February 16, 2005.

As a U.S. presidential candidate, George W. Bush promised to reduce carbon

dioxide emissions. Shortly after he took office in 2001, however, President

Bush withdrew U.S. support for the Kyoto Protocol and refused to submit it

to Congress for ratification.

An Alternate Plan

Instead, Bush proposed a plan with incentives for U.S. businesses to

voluntarily reduce greenhouse gas emissions 4.5 percent by 2010, which he

claimed would equal taking 70 million cars off the road. According to the

U.S. Department of Energy, however, the Bush plan actually would result in

a 30 percent increase in U.S. greenhouse gas emissions over 1990 levels

instead of the 7 percent reduction the treaty requires. That’s because the

Bush plan measures the reduction against current emissions instead of the

1990 benchmark used by the Kyoto Protocol.

While his decision dealt a serious blow to the possibility of U.S.

participation in the Kyoto Protocol, Bush wasn’t alone in his opposition.

77
Prior to negotiation of the Kyoto Protocol, the U.S. Senate passed a

resolution saying the U.S. should not sign any protocol that failed to include

binding targets and timetables for either developing and industrialized

nations or that "would result in serious harm to the economy of the United

States.”

The Kyoto Protocol recognizes a strong linkage between CO2 emission

reduction goals, emissions trading, and the role of developing economies.

Annex B parties, generally the industrialized nations, set targets that, for

most, imply a significant reduction of CO2-equivalent emissions by 2010.

The ability and even willingness of Annex B parties to achieve these targets

depended on the cost of abatement. The cheapest sources of CO2 emission

reductions are found, not in the Annex B countries, but in the developing

economies (or non-Annex B parties), which for historic and equity reasons

are not expected to contribute to the global emissions reduction in the near

term. Since the location of CO2 emissions does not matter from a global

warming perspective, the achievement of the Kyoto targets will depend in

large part upon the ability of Annex B countries to substitute cheaper

emission reductions in non-Annex B regions for equivalent abatement at

home. In providing a mechanism for this exchange, emissions trading not

only reduces the cost of meeting the Kyoto goals for Annex B parties, but

also provides a new source of export earnings for non-Annex B parties.

78
Developing country interest in emissions trading is not limited to the

potential for new export earnings. Achieving the goals set at Kyoto will

change patterns of consumption and production within Annex B nations;

and these changes will have inevitable effects on the flows of

internationally traded goods. As a result, developing countries will be

affected through conventional trade linkages with the Annex B countries;

however, these effects, both favorable and unfavorable, will be diminished

to the extent that emissions trading reduces the cost of achieving the Kyoto

targets. In examining the effects of the Kyoto Protocol upon non-Annex B

parties, we assume that the Annex B goals are met, and we focus in

particular on how emissions trading would affect the developing countries.

We refer to emissions trading generically, to include bubbles, joint

implementation, allowance or credit systems, and perhaps other forms yet

to be devised. The chief practical distinction among these forms concerns

the transaction cost involved in effecting an individual trade. The paper

relies heavily upon the use of marginal abatement curves (MACs). These

curves represent the marginal cost of reducing carbon emissions by

different amounts within an economy. The details of their construction, and

the elaboration of the aggregate demand and supply curves for carbon

permits which are drawn from them, are explained in Appendix A. The

MACs used here are generated using MIT’s Emissions Prediction and Policy

79
Assessment (EPPA) model (Yang et al. 1996). This is a multi-sectoral, multi-

regional, computable general equilibrium (CGE) model of global economic

activity, energy use and carbon emissions. The underlying model simulates

real emission reductions, so that our analysis implicitly assumes that the

“additionality” criterion established in the Kyoto Protocol [Arts. 6.1(b) and

12.5(c)] is satisfied. We do not attempt to address the considerable political

and practical problems of measurement and verification that are associated

with this criterion, but we will account for the effect of these problems in a

subsequent section.

The main body of the paper consists of five sections. Section 2 uses the

MACs to analyze three basic cases: no emissions trading, emissions trading

limited to Annex B parties (including the Former Soviet Union), and full

global trading. Results are presented in graphical form in the text, and the

regional detail—in terms of abatement, costs, emission permit trade and

prices for all the cases discussed—is presented in tabular form in Appendix

B. The next three sections address the effects of various departures from

the three basic cases. The first departure, in Section 3, is the effect of

limitations on imports of emission permits, as might correspond to the

“supplementarity” criterion included in the Kyoto Protocol [Arts. 6.1(d) and

17] or to the recent call by the EU environmental ministers for a “concrete

80
ceiling” on emissions trading. Section 4 evaluates the effect of surcharges

on emission permits generated under the Clean Development Mechanism

(CDM), as also provided in the Kyoto Protocol [Art. 12.8], and of

noncompetitive pricing. The third departure, discussed in Section 5, is the

effect of a smaller supply of permits from the non-Annex B regions than is

indicated by EPPA’s assumptions of complete economic rationality and

zero transaction costs, which we term “inefficient supply.” In Sections 2

through 5, the measure of welfare used is the total direct resource cost

required to meet the emissions constraint. As explained in Appendix A, for

any country this cost is the area under its marginal abatement curve up to

any point of constraint, corrected for any purchase or sale of emissions

permits. This is the conventional measure which is generated using the

MAC approach. However, because the MACs are generated at the country

level, they are not able to take account of effects that are mediated through

international trade in energy or other goods. As shown in Appendix A, the

MAC results themselves are not sensitive to trade effects. Nevertheless,

these effects will influence sub-national details, such as patterns of trade in

particular goods and activity at the sectoral level. To explore these effects,

we depart from the MAC analysis in Section 6, and present results taken

directly from the EPPA model. In Section 7 we offer some concluding

observations.In conducting our analysis, we will make frequent reference

81
to the twelve regions represented in EPPA, which are listed below with the

model’s acronyms. The CO2 emission reductions required of Annex B

regions are calculated as the differences between EPPA’s predicted

emissions for these regions in 2010 and the goals established at Kyoto for

the constituent parties, which are generally stated as a percentage of 1990

emissions, as indicated in the table below

Definition of Regions in the EPPA Model

ANNEX B REGIONS NON-ANNEX B REGIONS

USA: USA EEX: Energy Exporting

Countries

JPN: Japan CHN: China

EEC: European Union (EC-12 as of 1992) IND: India

OOE: Other OECD Countries DAE: Dynamic Asian Economies

EET: Eastern Europe BRA: Brazil

FSU: Former Soviet Union ROW: Rest of World

THREE BASIC CASES: No Trading, Annex B Trading and Full Global

Trading

82
Three basic cases are used to illustrate the effects of the Kyoto Protocol and

the role of emissions trading. The first case is an autarkic one in which

Annex B parties meet their Kyoto commitments without any emissions

trading. As a result, the FSU and non-Annex B regions are affected only

through the prices and quantities of goods traded with the Kyoto-

constrained regions. In the second case, Annex B parties (including the

FSU) trade emission permits among themselves. Emissions trading within

Annex B reduces the costs of the Kyoto commitment for the constrained

regions, and the FSU finds a new source of export revenue; but non-Annex

B countries will continue to be affected only through conventional trade

linkages. The third basic case examines emissions trading on a global scale

in which non-Annex B countries join the FSU in earning export revenue

from supplying permits to Annex B countries. Further variations of these

basic cases will be developed in subsequent sections, but these three frame

the salient alternatives.

83
2.1 The Autarkic, No-Trading Case

Figure 1 presents the MACs and the costs associated with the carbon

emission reductions required of each of the Kyoto-constrained regions

(excluding the FSU) when there is no emissions trading.4 The diamond

symbols on the MACs indicate, on the horizontal axis, the quantity of

abatement required of each region, and, on the vertical axis, the shadow

price of carbon for the region. The shadow price is the marginal cost for the

last ton abated. The autarkic marginal cost of abatement for Japan

($584/ton) is much higher than the marginal costs for the EEC ($273), the

OOE ($233), the USA ($186), or the EET ($116). The areas under the

84
curves represent the total costs of abatement for each region, which sum to

$120 billion.5. The details are shown in Appendix B, Table A.

With no emissions trading, there are no export earnings for the FSU or the

non-Annex B regions. None of these regions would have any incentive to

abate in order to generate “rights to emit” for export; and, of course, the

FSU would not be able to export its “hot air.”

85
2.2 Annex B Trading

Figure 2 shows the effect of Annex B trading on the Kyoto-constrained

regions. At the market clearing price of $127/ton, the OECD regions (USA,

86
EEC, JPN, OOE) are importers of permits and the EET and FSU are

exporters. As an unconstrained Annex B party, the FSU accounts for

virtually all of the exports (98%). As shown in Figure 3, about a third of

these consist of “hot air,” with a cost of zero; but the remaining exports are

generated by abatement undertaken to earn additional export profits up to

the point where marginal abatement cost equals the market price. It costs

the FSU $10 billion to abate 234 megatons (Mton), but the permits can be

sold for $30 billion for a net gain of $20 billion. When added to the $14

billion earned for exporting 111 Mton of the unused Kyoto entitlement,

the FSU’s total gain from emissions trading is $34 billion. For the five

Kyoto-constrained regions depicted on Figure 2, the cost of meeting the

Kyoto commitment is reduced by $32 billion. This is the area of the

hatched triangles, which represent costly domestic abatement avoided by

importing permits for the four OECD regions and the export earnings for

the EET. From the standpoint of world resource use, the aggregate cost of

meeting the Kyoto commitments is much lower with Annex B trade ($54

billion) than without ($120 billion). The total gains from emissions

trading are$66 billion, split about evenly between the FSU ($34 billion)

and the OECD + EET ($32 billion).

The distribution of the reduction in costs (that is, the gains from emissions

trading for the Kyoto-constrained regions) is distributed roughly in

87
proportion to autarkic marginal cost. The two regions with the highest

autarkic marginal costs, Japan and the EEC, benefit the most from traded

permits. Japan imports 66% of its reduction requirement and reduces its

cost by $19 billion. The EEC imports 35% of its reduction requirement

and reduces its cost by $7 billion. These two regions account for about

one-third of the total emission reduction requirement for the five Kyoto

constrained regions, and about five-sixths of the gains from emissions

trading for these regions accrue to them. The other three regions are

characterized by autarkic marginal costs much closer to the Annex B

market price; consequently, they trade much less. The USA and OOE are

importers for 19% and 25% of their respective requirements, and the EET

reduces emissions by 5% more than required in order to export permits.

The gains for these regions, which account for two-thirds of the total

reduction requirement, total $5 billion, about a sixth of the gains from

trading for the

Kyoto-constrained regions. This distribution of the gains from trade

reflects an important feature of emissions trading. Regions with autarkic

marginal cost farther from the trading equilibrium will import or export

more (and benefit more) than those regions with autarkic marginal cost

closer to the trading equilibrium. Thus, Japan and the EEC benefit most

from emissions trading among the importers, as does the FSU, not just

88
because of the “hot air,” but also because its autarkic marginal cost

($0/ton) is far from the market price.

2.3 Full Global Trading

To illustrate full global trading, we rely on aggregate supply and demand

curves for emissions permits (not abatement), as explained in the Appendix

A and illustrated in Figure 4. These curves indicate the total quantities of

permits that would be supplied or demanded at various price levels in a

given market. In Figure 4, there is only one demand curve because the

Kyoto-constrained regions are the same in both the Annex B and the global

markets. Only the supply changes, reflecting the large amount of low-cost

89
carbon abatement that becomes potentially available with the shift to

global trading. The ample supply of permits from non-Annex B regions

results in a market price that is much lower ($24/ton) than in the Annex B

trading case. The total cost of reducing global CO2 emissions to achieve the

Kyoto goals is reduced dramatically: $11 billion vs. $54 billion or $120

billion in the other two cases!

At this price, the Kyoto-constrained regions depend far more on imports

than when trading was restricted to Annex B regions only. In the aggregate,

71% of OECD + EET commitments are met by importing emission permits

from non-constrained regions; and the percentage reliance upon imports

reflects autarkic marginal cost: Japan, 92%; EEC, 76%; USA, 68%; OOE,

66% and EET, 56%. On the suppliers’ side, three countries account for the

bulk of exports: China (47%), the FSU (23%) and India (11%), hence 81%

altogether. Whether because of relatively small size or high relative

abatement costs, the remaining four non-Annex B regions are small

suppliers of emission permits to the Annex B regions.

With full global trading, the gains from emissions trading are much greater

for the Kyoto constrained regions ($94 billion vs. $32 billion with Annex B

trading). The non-Annex B regions gain $10 billion by exporting permits,

but their gains are markedly less than those of the Kyoto constrained

regions. The FSU is the only party that is made worse off by this widening

90
of the market. At $24/ton, the FSU abates about half as much as before,

(101 Mton), and the “hot air” is worth much less. As a result, the FSU’s net

gain ($4 billion) in the global market is much less than its $34 billion gain

when it does not compete with the non-Annex B regions.

The distribution of the gains from emissions trading in the global market

illustrates again the feature of emissions trading we just noted: regions

whose autarkic marginal cost is further from the equilibrium price benefit

more than regions whose marginal cost is closer to that price. In this global

trading case, the clearing price is much closer to the suppliers’ autarkic

marginal cost ($0/ton) than it is to the autarkic marginal cost of any of the

importers.

91
CHAPTER THREE

3.0 IMPORTANCE OF THE ACTS ON THE ENVIRONMENT

Federal Environmental Protection Agency (FEPA)

This agency is charged with the overall responsibility of protecting and

developing the Nigerian environment. The decree requires FEPA to issue

environmental guidelines and standards for the abatement and control of

all forms of pollution.

1) They prepare comprehensive national policy for the protection of the

environment and conservation of natural resources, including procedure

for environmental impact assessment for all development projects.

2) They promote co‐operation in environmental science and

conservation technology with similar bodies in other countries and with

international bodies connected with the protection of the environment and

the conservation of natural resources2

3) They co‐operate with Federal and State Ministries, local

governments, statutory bodies and research agencies on matters and

92
facilities relating to the protection of the environment and the conservation

of natural resources.

2. The Environmental Impact Assessment Act

The principal goal of this enactment is to ensure that possible negative

impacts of development projects are predicted and addressed prior to any

project take-off. The effect of this is to promote sustainable development.

This Act provides machinery for enhancing sustainable development in

Nigeria.

3. The Mineral and Mining Act

The process of minerals and mines exploration and exploitation is one that

can result in serious environmental degradation and damage. This Act is for

the purpose of regulating all aspect of the exploration of solid minerals in

Nigeria; and for related purposes.

4. The Harmful Waste (Special Criminal Provision etc.) Act 1988

The Act was enacted with the specific object of prohibiting the carrying,

depositing and dumping of hazardous wastes on any land, territorial

waters and matters relating thereto.

5. Oil in Navigable Water Act

93
The Act was enacted pursuant to the adoption of the International

Convention for the prevention and control of pollution of the sea by oil. The

Act is in fact the first law that deals specifically and solely with the

industrial waste generated by oil production.

6. Water Resources Act

This act promotes optimum, development and use of the Nigeria’s water

resources in a way that will, among other things be protective of the water

resources.

7. National Oil Spill, Detection and Response Agency (NOSDRA) Act

This law helps put in place a machinery for the coordination and

implantation of the National Oil Spill Contingency plan for Nigeria to ensure

safe, timely, effective and appropriate response to major or disastrous oil

pollution.

8. National Park Services Act

It makes provision for conservation and protection of natural resources

and plants in national parks.

9. NESREA (Establishment)

94
It enforces all environmental laws, regulations, guidelines, and standards.

This also extends to enforcing conventions treaties and protocol on the

environment to which Nigeria is a signatory.

95