Agricultural research institutes in Nigeria lack vitality and have made little contribution to the nation’s rising crop yields, a study has found.
The institutes suffer from decaying infrastructure and lack of staff, both of which are products of lack of funding, says a study conducted by the US-based International Food Policy Research Institute and the Agricultural Research Council of Nigeria (ARCN).
They are also failing to innovate, collaborate with farmers or monitor and evaluate their own work, said the study, which chose Nigeria because of the country’s large, complex national agricultural research system.
It highlights that Nigeria has “no national agricultural policy or strategic plan as well as weak advocacy at the highest levels of government”.
“Although research productivity seems high (205 technologies were produced by research institutes from 1997 to 2008, and the number of publications from 2007–2009 could go as high as one book and 14 journal articles per full-time researcher) about 70 per cent of these organisations do not have international research collaboration while 50 per cent have only regional or national research collaboration,” it says.
The study also found that communication systems and facilities in the country’s agricultural research institutes “are entirely inadequate. Several institutes are still not connected to the Internet, and none of their staff were directly connected to email.”
Aliyu Abdullahi, head of institutional development at the ARCN, said: “Considering our comparative advantage and natural endowment and resources we are not doing alright when compared to other African countries … Our productivity is on the increase as a result of the land area under cultivation but considering yield per given area of land we are doing badly.
“Innovation is about transformation but evidence at all research institutes across Nigeria shows that the main ingredients needed to spur innovation are lacking.”
Ademola Idowu, executive director of the National Horticultural Research Institute, said that foreign training and exposure were essential to enable Nigeria’s agricultural researchers to compete globally.
Jide Ayinla, executive director of the Nigerian Institute for Oceanography and Marine Research, called for more regional and international collaboration between institutes.
The study stressed the urgent need to support and strengthen means for fundraising; diversify fund sources; and support advocacy and negotiation for agricultural policy change and increased investment in agriculture and research.
published by www.scidev.net
Wednesday, June 1, 2011
Is Africa ready for safe nuclear power?
The disasters that struck several Japanese nuclear facilities in the wake of last week's devastating tsunami have highlighted concerns about whether developing nations can safely develop nuclear power facilities of their own.
If a highly developed nation, so well prepared for disasters, can end up in such an apparent nuclear mess, what hope do poorer, less well-organised countries have of preventing disasters at nuclear facilities?
This issue is currently exercising countries along the Pacific 'ring of fire', as well as India and its neighbours, but many African countries also aspire to become nuclear.
Speakers at Africa's first conference on the contribution of nuclear energy to sustainable development, in 2007, called for there to be no restrictions on Africa's use of peaceful nuclear technology.
But does the continent have the capacity and expertise to ensure the safety of nuclear power plants?
LACK OF INVESTMENT
In parts of Africa there has been criticism that there is absence of a culture of maintenance and a lack of engineers to maintain the existing infrastructure, even in non-nuclear electricity plants.
For example, most of Nigeria's gas thermal plants and hydropower stations, built in the 1970s, were operating below capacity in 2006 because of a lack of government investment in maintenance, according to former president Olusegun Obasanjo, who was speaking at the inauguration of a power station in 2007.
Anne Starz, head of the integrated nuclear infrastructure group at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), says that many developing countries underestimate the investment in science, engineering and time required to commission a nuclear reactor. Between 200 and 1,000 scientists and engineers trained in nuclear science are needed to run a nuclear power plant, she says.
Yet fewer than 10,000 people work in Africa's entire nuclear sector, says Rob Adam, chief executive of the South African Nuclear Energy Corporation.
Christopher Watson, nuclear expert and emeritus fellow of Merton College, at the University of Oxford, United Kingdom, says: "Many African countries would struggle to provide sufficient scientific and engineering manpower to run a civil nuclear programme, but that is a problem which many countries have faced — setting up the necessary training programmes takes time."
The IAEA offers guidelines and assistance to countries on their way to a nuclear future, he added, but they may need to wait for newer technologies before fully embracing nuclear energy.
Scientists have recently said that new, smaller and more flexible nuclear technologies could benefit nuclear energy programmes in developing countries.
"In Kenya, the overall size of the grid is 2,000 megawatts," Adam said at the African Science Academy Development Initiative conference late last year (10 November). "If you have a reactor that provides 1,600 megawatts and you take it down for maintenance, you take Kenya down. Ten to 100 megawatts is the right size [reactor for Africa]."
Several vendors of nuclear reactors are now looking to develop smaller reactors, he says.
POLITICAL STABILITY
Apart from having access to skilled experts and smaller reactors, countries also need to have the stability and political strength for long-lasting research and technology collaborations and the exchange of expertise, says Starz.
"Before a country can even consider planning a nuclear reactor it has to set up an independent regulatory body that oversees the establishment and running of reactors and that monitors safety," she says.
So far, at least 28 African countries have such bodies, which form the Forum of Nuclear Regulatory Bodies in Africa.
Illustrating some of the safety issues that plague any nuclear ambitions, a radiation contamination at the Koeberg nuclear power station in South Africa affected almost 100 people last year (11–12 September) during maintenance work, although the levels were too low to cause harm, according to Eskom, the private company that operates it.
The South African Democratic Alliance party was among those that quickly blamed Eskom for not taking precautionary measures, although Eskom denied wrongdoing and said in a press release at the time that it "has assigned a technical team to review the incident and recommend steps to avoid a similar occurrence in future".
But the incident shows that even a country with a stable democracy, which meets all the IAEA's guidelines for developing countries embarking on nuclear deployment, can still experience nuclear mishaps. IAEA helps its 90 member countries develop safe nuclear energy, but does not have the power to prevent a country from pursuing nuclear option.
Countries with unstable governments and ongoing conflicts may struggle to obtain a nuclear reactor anyway, according to Adam.
Sudan, a country ravaged by war, is aiming to have a power plant up and running by 2020. Last August, Mohammed Ahmed Hassan Eltayeb, head of the Sudan Atomic Energy Commission, announced plans to build Africa's largest nuclear power plant.
But Sudan's nuclear ambitions are not credible, Adam told SciDev.Net. "Nobody would sell a reactor to them."
AFRICAN EXPERIENCE
There are ten research nuclear reactors in Africa — in Algeria, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Egypt, Ghana, Libya, Morocco, Nigeria and South Africa — but no new nuclear power plants are under construction at the moment, according to Adam.
Namibia, Niger and South Africa are all major producers of uranium and together account for around 15 per cent of the world's known recoverable uranium resources, so getting nuclear fuel would not be a problem for them.
South Africa has been operating nuclear power stations since 1984 when Koeberg, its first nuclear plant, was connected to the national electricity grid. It is the continent's only nuclear power station and has a capacity of 900 megawatts.
Bobby Godsell, a member of the South African National Planning Commission, said last year (27 September) at a public discussion in Johannesburg, South Africa, that half of the country's new electricity capacity would be nuclear. He said the plan is to generate about 10,000 to 20,000 megawatts from nuclear sources.
In 2000, Nigeria, Africa's second-biggest energy consumer, started introducing nuclear technology into the country's troubled power-generation sector.
It hopes to generate 1,000 megawatts from two proposed nuclear plants before 2019. But there are delays as a result of conflict between country's two nuclear regulatory authorities.
The Nigerian Nuclear Regulatory Authority (NNRA) has been working on various regulatory issues to ensure that the country's nuclear ambition has a solid foundation. But the new Nigeria Atomic Energy Commission — another governmental agency — has challenged the NNRA's right to execute the nation's nuclear plans, saying it has the mandate to do this and that the NNRA should only regulate it.
GROWING INTEREST
Kenya's ambition to introduce nuclear technology started in 2008 when the country convened a national energy conference to enable local scientists to meet international experts with experience of establishing and managing nuclear power plants.
In September 2010, the country unveiled a nuclear power generation programme with the constitution of the Nuclear Electricity Programme Committee, headed by Ochillo Ayacko, the former energy minister.
Seed funding of 200 million Kenyan shillings (US$2.3 million) has been set aside for the proposal, which the government hopes will lead to a 1,000-megawatt power plant by the end of the decade, and the country has started technical meetings with the IAEA.
Tanzania passed a law allowing the use of nuclear power for electricity production back in 2009, and Algeria, Egypt, Morocco and Tunisia have all shown interest in using nuclear power.
"Africa is clearly a continent with a growing demand for electricity to meet its sustainable development goals," says Starz. "Countries in Africa expressing interest in nuclear power have different levels of existing experience with nuclear applications and will move at different paces. Not all are likely to achieve an operating nuclear plant in the next 20 years."
Some look to the Republic of Korea, which "may be an inspirational example of a country that started a nuclear power programme from a low level of development to become an exporter of nuclear technology to the United Arab Emirates," says Starz.
But if the Republic of Korea is an inspiration to Africa, one has only to look across the Sea of Japan for a different message.
Additional reporting by Linda Nordling.
Published by www.scidev.net
If a highly developed nation, so well prepared for disasters, can end up in such an apparent nuclear mess, what hope do poorer, less well-organised countries have of preventing disasters at nuclear facilities?
This issue is currently exercising countries along the Pacific 'ring of fire', as well as India and its neighbours, but many African countries also aspire to become nuclear.
Speakers at Africa's first conference on the contribution of nuclear energy to sustainable development, in 2007, called for there to be no restrictions on Africa's use of peaceful nuclear technology.
But does the continent have the capacity and expertise to ensure the safety of nuclear power plants?
LACK OF INVESTMENT
In parts of Africa there has been criticism that there is absence of a culture of maintenance and a lack of engineers to maintain the existing infrastructure, even in non-nuclear electricity plants.
For example, most of Nigeria's gas thermal plants and hydropower stations, built in the 1970s, were operating below capacity in 2006 because of a lack of government investment in maintenance, according to former president Olusegun Obasanjo, who was speaking at the inauguration of a power station in 2007.
Anne Starz, head of the integrated nuclear infrastructure group at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), says that many developing countries underestimate the investment in science, engineering and time required to commission a nuclear reactor. Between 200 and 1,000 scientists and engineers trained in nuclear science are needed to run a nuclear power plant, she says.
Yet fewer than 10,000 people work in Africa's entire nuclear sector, says Rob Adam, chief executive of the South African Nuclear Energy Corporation.
Christopher Watson, nuclear expert and emeritus fellow of Merton College, at the University of Oxford, United Kingdom, says: "Many African countries would struggle to provide sufficient scientific and engineering manpower to run a civil nuclear programme, but that is a problem which many countries have faced — setting up the necessary training programmes takes time."
The IAEA offers guidelines and assistance to countries on their way to a nuclear future, he added, but they may need to wait for newer technologies before fully embracing nuclear energy.
Scientists have recently said that new, smaller and more flexible nuclear technologies could benefit nuclear energy programmes in developing countries.
"In Kenya, the overall size of the grid is 2,000 megawatts," Adam said at the African Science Academy Development Initiative conference late last year (10 November). "If you have a reactor that provides 1,600 megawatts and you take it down for maintenance, you take Kenya down. Ten to 100 megawatts is the right size [reactor for Africa]."
Several vendors of nuclear reactors are now looking to develop smaller reactors, he says.
POLITICAL STABILITY
Apart from having access to skilled experts and smaller reactors, countries also need to have the stability and political strength for long-lasting research and technology collaborations and the exchange of expertise, says Starz.
"Before a country can even consider planning a nuclear reactor it has to set up an independent regulatory body that oversees the establishment and running of reactors and that monitors safety," she says.
So far, at least 28 African countries have such bodies, which form the Forum of Nuclear Regulatory Bodies in Africa.
Illustrating some of the safety issues that plague any nuclear ambitions, a radiation contamination at the Koeberg nuclear power station in South Africa affected almost 100 people last year (11–12 September) during maintenance work, although the levels were too low to cause harm, according to Eskom, the private company that operates it.
The South African Democratic Alliance party was among those that quickly blamed Eskom for not taking precautionary measures, although Eskom denied wrongdoing and said in a press release at the time that it "has assigned a technical team to review the incident and recommend steps to avoid a similar occurrence in future".
But the incident shows that even a country with a stable democracy, which meets all the IAEA's guidelines for developing countries embarking on nuclear deployment, can still experience nuclear mishaps. IAEA helps its 90 member countries develop safe nuclear energy, but does not have the power to prevent a country from pursuing nuclear option.
Countries with unstable governments and ongoing conflicts may struggle to obtain a nuclear reactor anyway, according to Adam.
Sudan, a country ravaged by war, is aiming to have a power plant up and running by 2020. Last August, Mohammed Ahmed Hassan Eltayeb, head of the Sudan Atomic Energy Commission, announced plans to build Africa's largest nuclear power plant.
But Sudan's nuclear ambitions are not credible, Adam told SciDev.Net. "Nobody would sell a reactor to them."
AFRICAN EXPERIENCE
There are ten research nuclear reactors in Africa — in Algeria, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Egypt, Ghana, Libya, Morocco, Nigeria and South Africa — but no new nuclear power plants are under construction at the moment, according to Adam.
Namibia, Niger and South Africa are all major producers of uranium and together account for around 15 per cent of the world's known recoverable uranium resources, so getting nuclear fuel would not be a problem for them.
South Africa has been operating nuclear power stations since 1984 when Koeberg, its first nuclear plant, was connected to the national electricity grid. It is the continent's only nuclear power station and has a capacity of 900 megawatts.
Bobby Godsell, a member of the South African National Planning Commission, said last year (27 September) at a public discussion in Johannesburg, South Africa, that half of the country's new electricity capacity would be nuclear. He said the plan is to generate about 10,000 to 20,000 megawatts from nuclear sources.
In 2000, Nigeria, Africa's second-biggest energy consumer, started introducing nuclear technology into the country's troubled power-generation sector.
It hopes to generate 1,000 megawatts from two proposed nuclear plants before 2019. But there are delays as a result of conflict between country's two nuclear regulatory authorities.
The Nigerian Nuclear Regulatory Authority (NNRA) has been working on various regulatory issues to ensure that the country's nuclear ambition has a solid foundation. But the new Nigeria Atomic Energy Commission — another governmental agency — has challenged the NNRA's right to execute the nation's nuclear plans, saying it has the mandate to do this and that the NNRA should only regulate it.
GROWING INTEREST
Kenya's ambition to introduce nuclear technology started in 2008 when the country convened a national energy conference to enable local scientists to meet international experts with experience of establishing and managing nuclear power plants.
In September 2010, the country unveiled a nuclear power generation programme with the constitution of the Nuclear Electricity Programme Committee, headed by Ochillo Ayacko, the former energy minister.
Seed funding of 200 million Kenyan shillings (US$2.3 million) has been set aside for the proposal, which the government hopes will lead to a 1,000-megawatt power plant by the end of the decade, and the country has started technical meetings with the IAEA.
Tanzania passed a law allowing the use of nuclear power for electricity production back in 2009, and Algeria, Egypt, Morocco and Tunisia have all shown interest in using nuclear power.
"Africa is clearly a continent with a growing demand for electricity to meet its sustainable development goals," says Starz. "Countries in Africa expressing interest in nuclear power have different levels of existing experience with nuclear applications and will move at different paces. Not all are likely to achieve an operating nuclear plant in the next 20 years."
Some look to the Republic of Korea, which "may be an inspirational example of a country that started a nuclear power programme from a low level of development to become an exporter of nuclear technology to the United Arab Emirates," says Starz.
But if the Republic of Korea is an inspiration to Africa, one has only to look across the Sea of Japan for a different message.
Additional reporting by Linda Nordling.
Published by www.scidev.net
Africa needs a common biotechnology policy
A Kenyan legal researcher has urged African countries to adopt continent-wide biotechnology regulations in order to boost food security and calm public fears of new technology.
Pamela Andanda, a Kenya-born law researcher now based at the University of Witwatersand, South Africa, made the call at a Public Understanding of Science in Africa conference held in Nairobi last month.
Andanda's presentation was on using public engagement to bridge the gap between creating regulatory frameworks for biotechnological advances and the actual implementation of the legislation.
"There is a need for a regulatory framework which can be domesticated in all countries on the continent to ensure there is a progressive acceptance and use of the technology in Africa," she said.
Legislation on biotechnology had to take into consideration constitutional provisions and public consultation, said Andanda, who is one of six editors of the South African Law Journal, founded in 1884 and the oldest of its type in the world.
"It is important that people are aware of the complexity of the technology, involved in both the legislation and implementation processes," she noted.
Andanda, an advocate of the High Court of Kenya and former conveyancer and policy research and analysis consultant, was critical of the lack of public engagement in not just drafting but using most technology-related laws.
She said that public participation should go beyond policy formulation and adaptation to include implementation.
"The public must be involved in the process of formulating the laws and not invited to just support it, they must be considered as an important stakeholder in the relationship between science and the public," she said.
As part of her interests in biotechnology, Andanda recently completed working on GenBenefit project, otherwise known as Genomics and Benefit Sharing with Developing Countries: From Biodiversity to Human Genomics (funded by the European Union's Science and Society unit under the sixth Framework Programme).
Andanda is also a member of the strategic advisory committee for Research and Training in Tropical Diseases, a special programme of the United Nations Children's Fund, the United Nations Development Program, the World Bank and the World Health Organisation. She is also an executive member of Ethics, Law and Human Rights Working Group of the African AIDS Vaccine Programme.
The Public Understanding of Science in Africa meeting was based at the British Institute in Eastern Africa (BIEA).
This month, the directorship of the BIEA will be taken up by Kenya-born Ambreena Manji on a two-year secondment from the law school at Keele University in the UK.
Since her doctoral research in Tanzania in 1997, Manji, a fluent Kiswahili speaker, has written extensively on women's land rights and land reform. Her special areas of interest are Tanzania and Uganda.
published by CAAST-Net
Pamela Andanda, a Kenya-born law researcher now based at the University of Witwatersand, South Africa, made the call at a Public Understanding of Science in Africa conference held in Nairobi last month.
Andanda's presentation was on using public engagement to bridge the gap between creating regulatory frameworks for biotechnological advances and the actual implementation of the legislation.
"There is a need for a regulatory framework which can be domesticated in all countries on the continent to ensure there is a progressive acceptance and use of the technology in Africa," she said.
Legislation on biotechnology had to take into consideration constitutional provisions and public consultation, said Andanda, who is one of six editors of the South African Law Journal, founded in 1884 and the oldest of its type in the world.
"It is important that people are aware of the complexity of the technology, involved in both the legislation and implementation processes," she noted.
Andanda, an advocate of the High Court of Kenya and former conveyancer and policy research and analysis consultant, was critical of the lack of public engagement in not just drafting but using most technology-related laws.
She said that public participation should go beyond policy formulation and adaptation to include implementation.
"The public must be involved in the process of formulating the laws and not invited to just support it, they must be considered as an important stakeholder in the relationship between science and the public," she said.
As part of her interests in biotechnology, Andanda recently completed working on GenBenefit project, otherwise known as Genomics and Benefit Sharing with Developing Countries: From Biodiversity to Human Genomics (funded by the European Union's Science and Society unit under the sixth Framework Programme).
Andanda is also a member of the strategic advisory committee for Research and Training in Tropical Diseases, a special programme of the United Nations Children's Fund, the United Nations Development Program, the World Bank and the World Health Organisation. She is also an executive member of Ethics, Law and Human Rights Working Group of the African AIDS Vaccine Programme.
The Public Understanding of Science in Africa meeting was based at the British Institute in Eastern Africa (BIEA).
This month, the directorship of the BIEA will be taken up by Kenya-born Ambreena Manji on a two-year secondment from the law school at Keele University in the UK.
Since her doctoral research in Tanzania in 1997, Manji, a fluent Kiswahili speaker, has written extensively on women's land rights and land reform. Her special areas of interest are Tanzania and Uganda.
published by CAAST-Net
Saturday, February 27, 2010
The many sides of the ‘burukutu' drink
Burukutu, a popular alcoholic drink among indigenes of the middle belt region of Nigeria, is a local brew made from fermented sorghum and other protein enriched grains.
The age long drink, also known as BKT, serves as a source of alcohol for those who lack the financial means to patronise refined brew like beer and other foreign or imported drinks.
In Plateau State, almost every village has a designated joint dedicated to the sale and drinking of the revered drink.
In Tudun Wada, a suburb in Jos metropolis, sites of burukutu joints dot the entire settlement, while hundreds of women eke a livelihood from cooking the local brew.
Gyel, a suburb of Bukuru, is acknowledged as one of the most popular burukutu joint on the Plateau, as drinkers gulp down the brew with dog meat amidst entertainment provided by local musicians and dancers.
At Jenta-Adamu and Gada-Biyu, in Jos metropolis, the joint opens as early as 6 a.m and lasts till midnight - with mostly men and women engaged in different kinds of games as the drinks flow.
Moral and health implications
In Kaduna State, however, the consumption of the brew, which is as popular as the history of man, has become controversial.
At Angwa Television, in Sabon Tasha within the Kaduna metropolis, also described as ‘Sodom and Gomorrah,' burukutu has changed the lives of the residents. Residents hide under the influence of the drink to indulge in all kinds of vices - including prostitution, gambling, and rape.
Reports say drinkers who come to the joint with their wives or girl friends usually enter into a drinking competition and the weaker drinker loses his wife to the winner till the following day.
If a competitor does not come to the joint with a companion, he has the option of going home naked if he failed in the competition.
Health officials are, however, increasingly alarmed at the impact of the drink on the health of hitherto able men who now waddle from shop to shop with swollen cheeks, stomach or legs.
Mama Isaku, who has been cooking the drink at one of the depots for over 15 years, said many of her customers look sick because they mix the drink with dry gin and the local gin, known as ‘ogogoro' or ‘gosogolo'.
Contentious issue of control
Joseph Ojobi, a consultant with Jos University Teaching Hospital, said there was nothing healthy about burukutu. "Rather, its consumption has left on its trail so much bad news - including unwanted pregnancies, rape, child molestation, wife battery and provided a veritable ground for HIV and AIDS to spread among the populace," he said.
No wonder, efforts to curtail the consumption of the drink have remained a contentious issue.
The late Gbong Gwom Jos, Victor Pam, was among advocates for the regulation of the joints. The stand of the traditional head of the town earned him a nickname among the BKT drinkers in the state, as it is popular to hear people demanding for one rubber of VP (Victor Pam).
On assumption of office, one of the first bills submitted to the State House of Assembly by the Plateau State governor, Jonah Jang, was one seeking to ban indiscriminate drinking before 4 p.m.
Mr. Jang's action was premised on the fact that, as early as 7 am, many people, including civil servants in the state, were already drunk.
The bill sparked off a lot of protest. Although restaurants and drinking places grudginly complied with the order, BKT joints have failed to comply.
In Kaduna, a group of women, known as ‘Drunkards Wives Association,' are currently proposing a bill to the State Assembly to regulate the consumption of the drink.
One of the women, popularly called Mama Blessing, said husbands turn their wives into punching bags after a long day at the joints.
Blood donors
The joints also serve as pool for men willing to donate blood on demand. In spite of the poor sanitary condition in the various burukutu joints, relations of sick people patronise them to solicit for people willing to donate blood for a fee.
The fee, which varies between N2000 and N3500, depending on the blood grouping, has become a source of income for the men.
Sources at the National Blood Transfusion Service however, said the practice of acquiring blood from BKT joints had reduced drastically since the introduction of compulsory screening of blood.
The source, however, acknowledged that men from those joints had helped saved a lot of lives as a result of their willingness to come forward and donate blood at crucial periods, even for a fee.
But a social critic, Shehu Gambo, said the belief was that people who take the drink have more blood and are always willing to donate for a fee.
"These people are idle, jobless and always looking for any available means to earn money to go and drink," he said, even as he called for the strict monitoring of these joints.
Published by the Next on Sunday.
The age long drink, also known as BKT, serves as a source of alcohol for those who lack the financial means to patronise refined brew like beer and other foreign or imported drinks.
In Plateau State, almost every village has a designated joint dedicated to the sale and drinking of the revered drink.
In Tudun Wada, a suburb in Jos metropolis, sites of burukutu joints dot the entire settlement, while hundreds of women eke a livelihood from cooking the local brew.
Gyel, a suburb of Bukuru, is acknowledged as one of the most popular burukutu joint on the Plateau, as drinkers gulp down the brew with dog meat amidst entertainment provided by local musicians and dancers.
At Jenta-Adamu and Gada-Biyu, in Jos metropolis, the joint opens as early as 6 a.m and lasts till midnight - with mostly men and women engaged in different kinds of games as the drinks flow.
Moral and health implications
In Kaduna State, however, the consumption of the brew, which is as popular as the history of man, has become controversial.
At Angwa Television, in Sabon Tasha within the Kaduna metropolis, also described as ‘Sodom and Gomorrah,' burukutu has changed the lives of the residents. Residents hide under the influence of the drink to indulge in all kinds of vices - including prostitution, gambling, and rape.
Reports say drinkers who come to the joint with their wives or girl friends usually enter into a drinking competition and the weaker drinker loses his wife to the winner till the following day.
If a competitor does not come to the joint with a companion, he has the option of going home naked if he failed in the competition.
Health officials are, however, increasingly alarmed at the impact of the drink on the health of hitherto able men who now waddle from shop to shop with swollen cheeks, stomach or legs.
Mama Isaku, who has been cooking the drink at one of the depots for over 15 years, said many of her customers look sick because they mix the drink with dry gin and the local gin, known as ‘ogogoro' or ‘gosogolo'.
Contentious issue of control
Joseph Ojobi, a consultant with Jos University Teaching Hospital, said there was nothing healthy about burukutu. "Rather, its consumption has left on its trail so much bad news - including unwanted pregnancies, rape, child molestation, wife battery and provided a veritable ground for HIV and AIDS to spread among the populace," he said.
No wonder, efforts to curtail the consumption of the drink have remained a contentious issue.
The late Gbong Gwom Jos, Victor Pam, was among advocates for the regulation of the joints. The stand of the traditional head of the town earned him a nickname among the BKT drinkers in the state, as it is popular to hear people demanding for one rubber of VP (Victor Pam).
On assumption of office, one of the first bills submitted to the State House of Assembly by the Plateau State governor, Jonah Jang, was one seeking to ban indiscriminate drinking before 4 p.m.
Mr. Jang's action was premised on the fact that, as early as 7 am, many people, including civil servants in the state, were already drunk.
The bill sparked off a lot of protest. Although restaurants and drinking places grudginly complied with the order, BKT joints have failed to comply.
In Kaduna, a group of women, known as ‘Drunkards Wives Association,' are currently proposing a bill to the State Assembly to regulate the consumption of the drink.
One of the women, popularly called Mama Blessing, said husbands turn their wives into punching bags after a long day at the joints.
Blood donors
The joints also serve as pool for men willing to donate blood on demand. In spite of the poor sanitary condition in the various burukutu joints, relations of sick people patronise them to solicit for people willing to donate blood for a fee.
The fee, which varies between N2000 and N3500, depending on the blood grouping, has become a source of income for the men.
Sources at the National Blood Transfusion Service however, said the practice of acquiring blood from BKT joints had reduced drastically since the introduction of compulsory screening of blood.
The source, however, acknowledged that men from those joints had helped saved a lot of lives as a result of their willingness to come forward and donate blood at crucial periods, even for a fee.
But a social critic, Shehu Gambo, said the belief was that people who take the drink have more blood and are always willing to donate for a fee.
"These people are idle, jobless and always looking for any available means to earn money to go and drink," he said, even as he called for the strict monitoring of these joints.
Published by the Next on Sunday.
Monday, December 7, 2009
Will Kyoto Protocol survive the Copenhagen climate change confab?
As the world prepares to converge in Copenhagen, Denmark in December with the hope of arriving at a globally accepted agreement to reduce the impact of climate change on the world, there is a strong feeling that developing countries are in for a shocker.
Developed countries have declared by their actions and comments that there will be no deal protecting the interest of developing countries already bearing the brunt of climate change.
Rather than adhere to agreed positions in Bali in 2007, the developed countries are introducing new rules and insisting that those suffering the impact of climate change take up responsibilities aside poverty and other challenges they are already facing.
From all indication, the Kyoto protocol regarded today as the most binding global legal agreement that compelled developed countries to cut their greenhouse gas emission and the only hope for developing countries to get a fair deal from developed countries that caused the changing climate is heading for the rock.
The protocol provided for shared but differentiated responsibilities. Meaning that developed countries responsible for the changing climate must assist developing countries bearing the impact to adapt and mitigate the effect through the provision of funds and technology transfer.
But this may not be after all.
Sensing the implication of the moves by the developed countries in the various build-ups meetings to the Copenhagen conference, Mr. Yvo D Boer, Executive Secretary, United Nation Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), appealed for caution and advised developed countries not to set aside the Kyoto protocol.
“You don’t throw away your old shoes simply because you are expecting a new one,” he told delegates at the recent Bangkok climate talks.
The advice came on the heels of concerted efforts by the developed countries especially the United State of America, the world leading emitter who refused to sign the Kyoto protocol and the European Commission otherwise recognized as Annex 1 parties under the Kyoto Protocol to jettison the protocol in favor of new agreement.
But Nigeria Minister of Environment, Mr. John Odey did not see any need for a new agreement saying that ``the Kyoto protocol is the most important and globally accepted agreement to address climate change.’’
The processes that resulted in the Protocol commenced in 1992 in Rio de Janeiro when Leaders of the industrialized nations met at a UN Climate Convention and agreed to stabilize their greenhouse gas emission concentration at a level that will not be inimical to the Climate System.
By 1997 the industrialized nations agreed under the Kyoto Protocol to take legally binding targets on Green House Gas (GHG) emissions by 2012. Thus, the Protocol set a binding emission target for 37 industrialized nations.
However, the Protocol has virtually failed to address the purpose for which it was signed as developed countries failed to cut their emission as well as provide funds for developing countries to tackle the impact of climate change.
Since signing of the Protocol by over 184 countries, the green house gas emission situation has taken a turn for the worse as the industrialized nations have not been able to tame their emission level. The Protocol will span out in the year 2012.
As a result of the topical nature of the impacts of Climate Change, a 2009 deadline was given two years ago at UN Climate Convention in Bali to complete the negotiation of a successor to the Kyoto Protocol. The negotiations of the successor of the Protocol are due to be finalized in Copenhagen in December, this year.
Under the Kyoto Protocol, Africa and other developing countries were exempted from any legally binding mechanism while they are to press for Climate justice under the principle of Common but Differentiated Responsibilities and Capabilities.
The Kyoto protocol despite being adjudged as one of the most important global agreements to save guard the climate was not accented to by the USA, the world leading emitter of greenhouse gases.
No wonder therefore when the USA led other developed block to the Bangkok Climate talks to demand for a new global binding, enforceable, target setting agreements that will spell out targets for both developed and developing countries.
Barely a month to the Copenhagen conference, where agreements on post Kyoto is to be reached, the developed countries have started changing pervious rules and agreements set in Bali.
This sudden departure from agreed position according to the G77+ China was a deliberate attempt by the developed countries to kill the Kyoto protocol.
The G77+ China, a leading block in the climate negotiations process representing the interest of developing countries said that the tricks by the developed countries was targeted at killing the Kyoto, their only platform to hold the developed countries accountable to the destruction they caused to the climate.
They insisted that the antics would be resisted.
Dr Victor Fodeke, Nigeria’s chief climate officer said that dropping the Kyoto would have a negative impact on ability of developing countries to tackle the menace of climate change.
He noted that the protocol protected the rights of developing countries in global efforts to tackle the challenges posed by climate change and therefore should not be thrown overboard.
“The Kyoto protocol is the only hope of the developing countries; it is the only legally binding instrument requiring developed countries to cut their emission, killing it is dashing the hope of developing countries,’’ Fodeke said.
Setting aside the Kyoto protocol because it is not enforceable is like removing traffic lights because it is not working, he added.
The Copenhagen conference therefore according to the G77+ China remained the avenue for the world to reach an agreeable premise on how to protect the interest of developing in cushioning the impact of climate change.
Inspite of the fears ahead of Copenhagen, developing countries are bent on securing a deal that would commit Annex 1 countries to contribute billions of dollars to them to cushion the threats of climate change.
(published by Dailytrust newspapers on Dec. 3, 2009)
Developed countries have declared by their actions and comments that there will be no deal protecting the interest of developing countries already bearing the brunt of climate change.
Rather than adhere to agreed positions in Bali in 2007, the developed countries are introducing new rules and insisting that those suffering the impact of climate change take up responsibilities aside poverty and other challenges they are already facing.
From all indication, the Kyoto protocol regarded today as the most binding global legal agreement that compelled developed countries to cut their greenhouse gas emission and the only hope for developing countries to get a fair deal from developed countries that caused the changing climate is heading for the rock.
The protocol provided for shared but differentiated responsibilities. Meaning that developed countries responsible for the changing climate must assist developing countries bearing the impact to adapt and mitigate the effect through the provision of funds and technology transfer.
But this may not be after all.
Sensing the implication of the moves by the developed countries in the various build-ups meetings to the Copenhagen conference, Mr. Yvo D Boer, Executive Secretary, United Nation Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), appealed for caution and advised developed countries not to set aside the Kyoto protocol.
“You don’t throw away your old shoes simply because you are expecting a new one,” he told delegates at the recent Bangkok climate talks.
The advice came on the heels of concerted efforts by the developed countries especially the United State of America, the world leading emitter who refused to sign the Kyoto protocol and the European Commission otherwise recognized as Annex 1 parties under the Kyoto Protocol to jettison the protocol in favor of new agreement.
But Nigeria Minister of Environment, Mr. John Odey did not see any need for a new agreement saying that ``the Kyoto protocol is the most important and globally accepted agreement to address climate change.’’
The processes that resulted in the Protocol commenced in 1992 in Rio de Janeiro when Leaders of the industrialized nations met at a UN Climate Convention and agreed to stabilize their greenhouse gas emission concentration at a level that will not be inimical to the Climate System.
By 1997 the industrialized nations agreed under the Kyoto Protocol to take legally binding targets on Green House Gas (GHG) emissions by 2012. Thus, the Protocol set a binding emission target for 37 industrialized nations.
However, the Protocol has virtually failed to address the purpose for which it was signed as developed countries failed to cut their emission as well as provide funds for developing countries to tackle the impact of climate change.
Since signing of the Protocol by over 184 countries, the green house gas emission situation has taken a turn for the worse as the industrialized nations have not been able to tame their emission level. The Protocol will span out in the year 2012.
As a result of the topical nature of the impacts of Climate Change, a 2009 deadline was given two years ago at UN Climate Convention in Bali to complete the negotiation of a successor to the Kyoto Protocol. The negotiations of the successor of the Protocol are due to be finalized in Copenhagen in December, this year.
Under the Kyoto Protocol, Africa and other developing countries were exempted from any legally binding mechanism while they are to press for Climate justice under the principle of Common but Differentiated Responsibilities and Capabilities.
The Kyoto protocol despite being adjudged as one of the most important global agreements to save guard the climate was not accented to by the USA, the world leading emitter of greenhouse gases.
No wonder therefore when the USA led other developed block to the Bangkok Climate talks to demand for a new global binding, enforceable, target setting agreements that will spell out targets for both developed and developing countries.
Barely a month to the Copenhagen conference, where agreements on post Kyoto is to be reached, the developed countries have started changing pervious rules and agreements set in Bali.
This sudden departure from agreed position according to the G77+ China was a deliberate attempt by the developed countries to kill the Kyoto protocol.
The G77+ China, a leading block in the climate negotiations process representing the interest of developing countries said that the tricks by the developed countries was targeted at killing the Kyoto, their only platform to hold the developed countries accountable to the destruction they caused to the climate.
They insisted that the antics would be resisted.
Dr Victor Fodeke, Nigeria’s chief climate officer said that dropping the Kyoto would have a negative impact on ability of developing countries to tackle the menace of climate change.
He noted that the protocol protected the rights of developing countries in global efforts to tackle the challenges posed by climate change and therefore should not be thrown overboard.
“The Kyoto protocol is the only hope of the developing countries; it is the only legally binding instrument requiring developed countries to cut their emission, killing it is dashing the hope of developing countries,’’ Fodeke said.
Setting aside the Kyoto protocol because it is not enforceable is like removing traffic lights because it is not working, he added.
The Copenhagen conference therefore according to the G77+ China remained the avenue for the world to reach an agreeable premise on how to protect the interest of developing in cushioning the impact of climate change.
Inspite of the fears ahead of Copenhagen, developing countries are bent on securing a deal that would commit Annex 1 countries to contribute billions of dollars to them to cushion the threats of climate change.
(published by Dailytrust newspapers on Dec. 3, 2009)
The clock has tickled down to zero – Boer
As the world gathered in Copenhagen, Denmark to begin deliberation on how best to address the challenges of climate change, Mr Yvo de Boer, executive Secretary, United Nation framework Convention on Climate change (UNFCCC) has warmed that the clock has tickled down to zero.
``The clock has tickled down to zero. After two years of negotiations, the time has come to deliver,’’ he told delegates at the opening of the 15th Conference of parties to the UNFCCC.
Boer said that the time to come up with an acceptable agreement that must have three layers has come.
``The bottom layer must consist of an agreement on prompt implementation of action on mitigation, adaptation, finance, technology, REED and capacity building.
The second layer consists of ambitious emission reduction commitments and actions. It also include commitments on start-up finance in order of 10 billion US dollars per years as well as long term finance,
The third layer, or the icing on the cake consists of a shared vision on long term cooperative action on climate change and long-term goal,’’ Boer said.
He maintained that Copenhagen would only be a success if it delivered significant and immediate action.
``Developing countries desperately need tangible and immediate action on issues that would cushion the impact of climate change,’’ he added.
``The time for formal statement is over. The time for restating well-known position is past. The time has come to reach out to each other.’’
``The clock has tickled down to zero. After two years of negotiations, the time has come to deliver,’’ he told delegates at the opening of the 15th Conference of parties to the UNFCCC.
Boer said that the time to come up with an acceptable agreement that must have three layers has come.
``The bottom layer must consist of an agreement on prompt implementation of action on mitigation, adaptation, finance, technology, REED and capacity building.
The second layer consists of ambitious emission reduction commitments and actions. It also include commitments on start-up finance in order of 10 billion US dollars per years as well as long term finance,
The third layer, or the icing on the cake consists of a shared vision on long term cooperative action on climate change and long-term goal,’’ Boer said.
He maintained that Copenhagen would only be a success if it delivered significant and immediate action.
``Developing countries desperately need tangible and immediate action on issues that would cushion the impact of climate change,’’ he added.
``The time for formal statement is over. The time for restating well-known position is past. The time has come to reach out to each other.’’
COP 15 opens with scientists debunking critics view on climate change
The 15th Conference of Parties (COP) to the United Nation Framework Convention on Climate Change opened today (Dec. 7) in Copenhagen, Denmark with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change saying there existed overwhelming evidence that regions of the world are already suffering the impact of climate change.
IPCC Chair, Dr Rajendra Pachauri at the opening of the conference urged the world to neglect the recent email stealing incident at the University of East Anglia adding that it was targeted at discrediting the IPCC.
``The panel has a record of transparent and objective assessment stretching over 21 years performed by tens of thousands of dedicated scientists from all corners of the globe,’’ he said.
``Our assessment reports are based on measurements made by many independent institutions world wide that demonstrate significant changes on land, in the atmosphere, on the oceans and in the iced-covered areas of the earth.’’
Pachauri said that the global community has a moral and material responsibility to do all it can to limit the growing impacts of climate change on vulnerable societies and regions.
He noted that the absence of mitigation policies would result in possible disappearance of sea ice by the latter part of the 21st century, increase in frequency of hot extremes, heat waves and heavy precipitation.
Other impacts brought about due to the absence of mitigation policies according to him include increase in tropical cyclone intensity, extinction of 20 to 30 per cent of species and exacerbation of current stress on water resources.
IPCC Chair, Dr Rajendra Pachauri at the opening of the conference urged the world to neglect the recent email stealing incident at the University of East Anglia adding that it was targeted at discrediting the IPCC.
``The panel has a record of transparent and objective assessment stretching over 21 years performed by tens of thousands of dedicated scientists from all corners of the globe,’’ he said.
``Our assessment reports are based on measurements made by many independent institutions world wide that demonstrate significant changes on land, in the atmosphere, on the oceans and in the iced-covered areas of the earth.’’
Pachauri said that the global community has a moral and material responsibility to do all it can to limit the growing impacts of climate change on vulnerable societies and regions.
He noted that the absence of mitigation policies would result in possible disappearance of sea ice by the latter part of the 21st century, increase in frequency of hot extremes, heat waves and heavy precipitation.
Other impacts brought about due to the absence of mitigation policies according to him include increase in tropical cyclone intensity, extinction of 20 to 30 per cent of species and exacerbation of current stress on water resources.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
