Fish is More Valuable than Crude

 

Fish is More Valuable Than Oil. When we say that fish is more valuable than oil, we are staying a plain fact. Fish are living organisms whereas crude oil comes from fossils or long dead matter. Fish support our life with necessary protein. It is estimated that about 63.2 percent of Ghanaians depend on fish for animal protein. Marine resources provide the backbone of the economy and social life of many coastal communities. They employ millions of peoples across the coast lines of Africa and in both Great and small lakes on the continent.

The economic value of artisanal and small-scale fishing includes the big population of processors and sellers that are mostly women. To these must be added the families that depend on them and the income from the sector. With these considerations and in comparison, to the negative impacts of oil exploration and extraction in our waters, the fishing sector is more valuable and needs to be consciously protected.

Before the arrival of oil and gas rigs in our territories we enjoyed pristine waters and we could fish freely in the deep offshore and on the inland shores. Our people could literally pick sea foods from the shallow waters and from the creeks. Oil activities in our waters have raised serious security concerns, with large areas around oil installations becoming off limits to fishers. Sadly, oil fields have notoriously been found in areas with endemic fish species. Besides oil spills from offshore oil operations, they also pollute the oceans with drilling muds, pipeline leaks, produced water and deck runoff water. These have considerable impacts on the fish, coral reefs and water birds in the short and long terms.

When the seismic ships arrive, trouble knocks. Oil companies invest a lot in their search for oil reserves. Governments readily back these searches because both corporations and governments benefit from huge reserves as the market value of an oil company rises as their reserves rise. Governments that belong to a cartel like the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) can press for higher production quotas depending on how much reserves they can show that they have. While their reserves rise, so do the pains and poverty of the fishers.

A total of twenty four whales died on the coasts of Ghana between 2009 and 2013. While the government and oil companies keep insisting that the deaths of the whales have nothing to do with oil and gas exploration and extraction, what cannot be denied is that the alignment of the incidents and oil exploration and exploitation are too close to be ignored.

Seismic testing is often carried using multiple air guns that emit thousands of high-decibel explosive impulses to map the seafloor. The engineers repeat the blasts from the seismic air-guns every ten seconds and all through the day and these go on for days and weeks at a time.

These activities are known to disorientate marine mammals such as whales and other marine life. This happens when the sensory organs of these aquatic animals are affected causing them to lose their sense of orientation as well as ability to track food sources.

You are witnesses to the many whales that have died off the Ghanaian coasts in recent years. Right here in Keta, a dead whale washed onshore at the Tettekope beach on Tuesday, September 19, 2017. A total of twenty four whales died on the coasts of Ghana between 2009 and 2013. While the government and oil companies keep insisting that the deaths of the whales have nothing to do with oil and gas exploration and extraction, what cannot be denied is that the alignment of the incidents and oil exploration and exploitation are too close to be ignored.

In South Africa, as exploratory activities intensify off the coast of Durban, concerns have risen over the fate of the highly valuable marine ecosystem there. Just this week a dead whale washed onshore. Before the beaching of the whale, scientists were worried that a particular fish species that has survived millions of years including the ice age, without much change, may not be equipped to withstand oil pollution. Last week a baby whale washed onshore on the coast of Delta State, Nigeria. These incidents have become more regular in recent times.

Oil drilling is a resounding tragedy to marine life forms, killing and injuring them. It is a threat to the natural heritage of our coastal communities. It is time for our nations to ban extractive activities and reckless fish exploitation by local and foreign fleets in our waters, create marine parks and protect them. Our fishers are getting tired of going all night in search of fish and returning home only with polluted nets.

Our FishNet Dialogues provide spaces for us to interrogate changes in the state of our marine environment and to map actors negatively impacting our marine ecosystems, and to proffer actions that must be taken to halt the harms. In the course of our conversations today, we will ask ourselves some questions. Such questions will include whether crude oil is in anyway more valuable to us than fish. We will compare how many persons work in the oil sector to the number that work in fisheries. We will also ask which of these supports our local livelihoods, natural heritage and sociocultural activities.

As you will see, we are not here to give or receive lectures.  We are here to have a dialogue, listen to ourselves, ask questions and collectively seek answers. We are here to seek ways we can work together and extend the webs of solidarity to other fishers who could not join with us today.

Health of Mother Earth Foundation is pleased to collaborate with Oilwatch Ghana and our fishers here in Keta to make this gathering happen. We also welcome FishNet Alliance members form Togo to the gathering. Let the conversations begin!

IMG_1338 3


Welcome words by Nnimmo Bassey, Director, Health of Mother Earth Foundation (HOMEF), at the FishNet Dialogue held at Keta, Volta Region, Ghana on 23 August 2018

 

 

 

 

Introducing FishNet Alliance

FishNet Alliance

Introducing FishNet Alliance, a network of fishers engaged in and promoting sustainable fishing in line with ecosystem limits. We stand in solidarity against extractive activities in water bodies – including rivers, lakes and oceans.

  1. FishNet Alliance aims to halt the expansion of extractive activities such as mining and oil/gas exploitation in our inland waters and oceans.
  2. FishNet Alliance is a network of like minds from different coastal communities that believe in solidarity, dignity and respect of the indigenous rights.
  3. The Alliance promotes, mobilizes and supports fishing activities that are in consonance with the natural cycles of the marine ecosystems.
  4. FishNet Alliance respects diversity and sustainable local knowledge.
  5. We are against indiscriminate displacement of fishing settlements and sand-filling of fishing creeks and rivers.
  6. We believe in and propagate the principles of knowledge generation and sharing to build capacity of fishers and engender improved sustainable engagements with the marine environment from a holistic perspective – including human rights, climate change, biodiversity conservation, ecological debt and external debt.
  7. We are against the use of chemicals and explosives to enhance fishing in our waters.
  8. FishNet Alliance engages in exchange visits to promote ties, solidarity and cross-cultural practices in fishing practices.
  9. We promote the principle of “what affects one – affects all” hence we take distributive actions in solidarity with any member(s) whose offshore and inland waters are/have been affected adversely by the extractive industry.
  10. We campaign for the rights of the fishers to
    earn a living from the fishing and contribute to the economy of their countries. We press for justice and/or compensation in cases where these rights have been abridged by corporations and governments.

Download and read about FishNet Alliance for more details and for information on how to be a part of this Alliance.

#FishNotOil #FishNetAlliance

Court Decides on GMO Case: The Struggle to safeguard our food Continues

Portable Network Graphics image-0FF7159A2AC6-1The Federal High Court of Justice, sitting in Abuja on the 15th August, struck out the Plaintiffs suit the GMO case with suit No: FHC/ABJ/C5/846/2017 due to technicalities. The Judge in delivering his judgment said that it was his opinion that although the plaintiffs have a Cause of Action in this matter, the court’s hands were tied due to one of the objections raised by the defendants – that the suit was statute barred.  The suit was brought a year after the permits had been issued.  According to the Judge it is a contravention of the provisions of the Public Officers Act, which states that any action instituted against a public officer as regards his/her discharge of duties must be instituted within three months, after the said breach occurred. The case was struck out not for lack of merit or lack cause of action (the court did establish a Cause of Action) but because of technicalities.

Reacting to this, Health of Mother Earth Foundation (HOMEF), in a statement made available to newsmen expressed great displeasure as they consider this a fall back on efforts to preserve the nation’s food system from being overturned by the agricultural biotech industry.

The case was struck out not for lack of merit or lack cause of action (the court did establish a Cause of Action) but because of technicalities.

The registered Trustees of Health of Mother Earth Foundation (HOMEF) and sixteen  other Civil Society Organisations in September 2017 filed the lawsuit against the Nigerian Biosafety Management Agency (NBMA), the Hon. Minister of Environment, Monsanto Agricultural Nigeria Limited, National Biotechnology Development Agency (NABDA), Hon. Minister of Agriculture, the Attorney General of the Federation and National Agency for Food and Drugs Administration and Control (NAFDAC) over permits granted.

In the summons which was taken out by Ifeanyi Nwankwere of Basilea Juris Associates, the plaintiffs insisted that 1st defendant did not comply with the provisions of the National Biosafety Management Agency Act in granting the permits to the 3rd and 4th defendants. The CSOs asserted that the procedure and issuance of the permits flouts and threatens the fundamental human rights of the people as enshrined in section 33, 34, 36 and 39 of the 1999 constitution of Nigeria as amended in 2011.

Other issues which the plaintiffs brought forward were that NABDA, which by the way are part of the governing Board of NBMA, in their application did not state adequate measures put in place to prevent cross pollination with natural varieties during field trials and that NBMA granted the permits without any public hearing regardless of the consequential issues raised in objections sent in by the Plaintiffs.

HOMEF maintains that agricultural biotechnology along with its current advances come with specific risks both immediate and long-term and require thorough safety assessments.

Recently, the Jury in San Francisco, USA after deliberating for days found that Monsanto’s glyphosate based weed killer caused cancer for a man named DeWayne Johnson, who used the weed killer for his job as groundskeeper in a school. Monsanto was ordered by the Jury to pay a fine of $289 million to the man for failure to warn him and other citizens about risks posed by its weed-killing products.

These same products accompany the cultivation of the seeds our regulatory agency is bent on flooding the Nigerian environment with. GMOs are accompanied with heavy doses of herbicides, most of which have with glyphosate, which in addition to the health risks degrade soils.

According to Nnimmo Bassey, environmental activist and Director at HOMEF, “Nigeria’s present regulatory architecture cannot ensure food and environmental safety as shown by the manner in which the National Biosafety Management Agency handles GMO applications. One troubling example is the case of genetically modified maize varieties which were illegally shipped into country by WACOT Nig. Ltd. in September 2017. The agency after announcing that together with the Nigerian customs service they would ensure that the illegal seeds were repatriated approved an application by this company to import these products over a period of 3 years, barely a month after its announcement that illegal maize should be repatriated.    This action contradicts the biosafety law which requires 270 days’ notice before imports to allow for adequate safety assessments.”

Bassey emphasized that “the only essence of genetically modified crops is for the economic benefit of the biotechnology corporations and their counterparts and not the interest of Nigeria.  With the release of these products into the environment, damage will be irreversible and the current economic strength of Nigeria cannot afford that damage.”

The activist added further in the statement that this ruling by the court encourages the administrative rascality and constant disregard for public interest and due process.

It is instructive to note that while the case awaited judgment, the defendants, NBMA, Monsanto and NABDA on 26th July went ahead to register and release the Bt cotton varieties (MRC 7377 BG11 and MRC 7361 BG11) along with other GM product into the Nigerian environment. These cotton varieties refer to the same cotton MON 15985 in the suit as evident on the website of the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri- Biotech Applications (ISAAA). This shows a stark disregard for judicial processes and a violation of law and order.

“The health and economic welfare of all Nigerians, which constitutes our fundamental rights, are at risk if GMOs are allowed in the country. Nigerians must be aware that we are neither respected nor protected,” he warned.

Also reacting to the court ruling, Mariann Bassey-Orovwuje, Lawyer and Chair of the Alliance for Food Sovereignty in Africa (AFSA) said in the statement that it would have been in the interest of justice to grant the reliefs set out on the face of the summons as this case represented not just consumers safety but the survival of millions of small scale farmers whose livelihoods are threatened by the corporate takeover of food systems in the guise of agricultural biotechnology. “We hope that when the impacts of GMOs sets in, the government of Nigeria will  not  say  ‘we were not informed or warned  about the impacts of GMOs.’ ” 

It is regrettable that Federal High Court’s decision came at a time when the Chemical Company Monsanto has only been recently found guilty of knowingly causing grievous harm to one its consumers. This is not the first time Monsanto has been dragged to court. It is on record that Monsanto spends enormous amounts on legal defence to fend off the cases brought by the victims of its activities. Monsanto has a history of impunity, abuses and crimes. They manufacture highly toxic products that have contaminated the environment and permanently sickened or killed thousands of people around the world. They have destroyed life, plant and human health alike.

In April 2017, The Monsanto Tribunal of international judges presented in The Hague their legal opinion after 6 months of analysing the testimonies of more than 30 witnesses, lawyers and experts. Their conclusions are that Monsanto’s practices undermine basic human rights and the right to a healthy environment, the right to food, the right to health, it calls for better protective regulations for victims of multinational corporations and concludes that International law should clearly assert the protection of the environment and recognise ‘ecocide’ as a crime. Monsanto was found guilty!

Earlier in 2015, the cancer research arm of the World Health Organization had reported that glyphosate, a major component of weed killers used worldwide was a potential carcinogen (cancer causing agent).

The civil society coalition is of strong conviction that this is a cause worth fighting and would continue to seek redress. The organizations pledge not to relent in pushing the case for food safety and food sovereignty in Nigeria.   They pledged to continue to resist attempts by Monsanto, its international and local partners to control our food, land, life and democracy.

Beyond Fossil Fuels

Beyond Fossil Fuels – OILWATCH AFRICA’s LAMU DECLARATION Oilwatch Africa network members, Lamu community representatives, non-governmental organisations (NGOs), community-based organisations (CBOs) met in Lamu Kenya, on 7th and 8th August, 2018 at a conference on the theme: Beyond Fossil Fuels. The conference considered the politics of fossil fuel extractions, the impacts of fossil fuels on the continent and the strategy to unlock Africa’s power using alternatives to fossil fuels energy systems that are environmentally friendly and socially just.

The participants of the conference considered also the implications of the proposed LAPSET project (Coal power plant, deep Sea Port and Oil extraction) by the Kenyan Government on the socio-economic lives of the people of Lamu, including the impacts of these project on their culture, agriculture, fisheries and livelihoods of the people. After listening to the Save Lamu movement experiences, the conference noted that Lamu is an example of similar dirty energy and mega projects being pursued on the continent without full consultations with the people and without their free prior informed consent.

The conference analysed:

  1. Africa’s energy needs and the politics of a just transition;
  2. The challenges that fossil fuels funding in African countries, including the issues of debt and the resolution of disputes under a jurisdiction different from the involved country;
  3. The way Africa should go about renewable energy in relation to land tenure and land use;
  4. The political corruption and abuse of political power as a major problem faced by the people
  5. The destruction of livelihoods and local economies by the polluting activities of fossil fuels industries
  6. The issues of land grabbing, displacements and the marginalisation of communities in Africa due to fossil fuel industry activities among others

The conference declared:

  1. Full support for the demands of the Save Lamu movement;
  2. Opposition to the use of public funds to subsidize fossil fuels;
  3. That land tenure systems on the continent must respect community ownership as dictated by culture and tradition
  4. Communities must give their free prior informed consents for projects proposed for their territories while retaining their right to say NO
  5. That governments should urgently transit to renewable energy for all, owned and controlled by people
  6. African governments must urgently diversify national economies away from dependence on fossil fuels, exploitation of peoples and the destruction of the gifts of nature.

This declaration was issued on the 7th of August, 2018 in Lamu, Kenya

Participants at the meeting were drawn from Ghana, Kenya, Mozambique, Nigeria, South Africa, South Sudan, Swaziland, Togo and Uganda.