Kiabara Squibs & Remarks

KIABR
Journal of Humanities

UNIVERSITY OF PORT HARCOURT

Kiabara Squibs & Remarks

ii

Contents
S.O. Aghalino:
Oil Exploration and its Impact on the Nigerian Environment

103

ii

Kiabara Squibs & Remarks

Volume 7, Number 1 2001 (pp.103-111)

Oil Exploration and its Impact on the Nigerian environment.

S. O. Aghalino
Abstract
This paper examines the impact of oil and gas exploitation on the
environment of oil producing communities in Nigeria. The effects of
environmental pollution on the sustainable development of oil
producing communities in analyzed. The responses of the inhabitants
of oil producing communities to environmental degradation and
economic underdevelopment are evaluated, so also are the reactions
of the oil producing companies and the Federal Government. Finally,
it is suggested that there is the need for the harmonization of
development and conservation.
Introduction
The common reference to oil as "black gold" is apt. Apart from the fact that gold connotes
wealth and what is worthwhile, black is associated with "evil." Nigeria has experienced this dual
appellation ascribed to oil. Oil has brought a lot of wealth to the nation, as it is a major foreign
exchange earner for Nigeria. It has boosted the economy by reducing unemployment, provided raw
materials for local industries and for export. Though the oil industry is an enclave economy, it has
never the less provided some forward and, backward linkages in the economy. Indeed, since the
1970s, oil has remained the lich-pin of the nation's economic life, powering growth and development.
While the benefits of the oil industry is not in doubt, the exploration, development and
production of oil and gas generate waste. 1 Such wastes include drilling cuttings, drilling fluids,
produced water, sludge, completion and work over fluids, trace metals, heat waste and oxides of
carbon, sulphur and nitrogen. Drilling fluids and cuttings are the largest waste sources during
exploration. It is estimated that at least two barrels of fluids and cuttings are generated per foot of
a typical well drilled 2
Pollution is generally believed to be a necessary price for the development ushered in by the
petroleum industry. It has been asserted that even in the best oil field practice, spillage of crude oil
and the resultant pollution cannot be completely eliminated " This paper, therefore, is an attempt to
examine the impact of oil production on the environment of oil producing communities in Nigeria.
The responses of the inhabitants of the oil producing communities is discussed, so also the responses
of oil industry and the Federal Government to the struggle for compensation. Finally, it is suggested
that there is the need for the harmonization of development and conservation.
Environmental Costs of Petroleum Exploitation
It is necessary to assert right away that the impact of oil exploitation, prod uction and
development are in three fold. In the first place, it leads to environmental pollution. Again, it destroys
the ways of life of the mineral producing communities in Nigeria Finally, and regrettably too, these
communities have not been developed. Exploration and exploitation activities in the oil industry in
Nigeria have permanently alienated large parcels of land; and in this view, the activities of the oil
majors have accentuated land scarcity Virtually, the entire land and oft- shore of the Nigerian Niger
Delta is covered by Oil Mining Leases (OMLs), or Oil Prospecting Leases (OPLs), entitling the oil
companies to encroach on peasant land and fishing ponds. For example, in Isoko alone, a total of
1,723.6 acres of land was acquired for oil drilling activities by the Shell Petroleum Development

Kiabara Squibs & Remarks

104

Corporation (SPDC) 4 .
The land appropriated by the Oil firms are also used for the construction of the network of
pipelines, access roads and burrowed pits to store test samples. The threat posed by land alie nation
was clearly expressed in the protest made by the Uzere Community to the SPDC: "39 Oil wells and
Pipelines have taken all over our land where shall we farm? 5. This unavoidable impact of the oil
industry could be minimized by the construction of limited access roads.
The pollution of the terrestrial, atmosphere and marine environment is the worst forms of
hazards associated with the oil industry. Between 1980-1989 there were reported cases of 2,007
oil spills. Table I will drive home the flavour of our discussion.
TABLE I
TOTAL OIL INDUSTRY SPILLS IN NIGERIA, 1980-1989

Year
1980

No, of Spills

241

Volume of Spills (MB)

558

Volume of Production (MB)

700,118

1981

238

43

525,291

1982

257

43

470,638

1983

173

49

450,961

1984

216

10

507,048

1985

151

853

547,099

1986

116

553

535,929

1987

225

31

482,886

1988

179

522>,Q$7

626,650

1989

211

TOTAL

2,007

1,642

53,756,270

Source: Nigeria Oil and Gas Monthly, vol. 1, September 1995 p. 75.
Table I shows in bold relief that the 1980s witnessed incessant oil spills in Nigeria. As it were, volume
of spills was 1642 and volume of production in the period of 1980-1989 was 53,756.3 million barrels.
The flaring of associated gas is one of the deleterious effects of the oil industry in Nigeria.
Nigeria is said to have reserves of natural gas extensive than that of petroleum. A World Bank study
estimates that as much as 76 percent of all the natural gas from petroleum production in Nigeria is
flared. This is in contrast to the 0.6 per cent in the United States, 4:2 per cent in the United Kingdom,
21 per cent in Libya, 20 and 19 per cent in Saudi Arabia and Iran respectively 6 Furthermore, the
Nigerian Conservation Foundation revealed that in 1994 alone, Nigeria emitted 34 million tones of
methane into the atmosphere. This means that Nigerian Oil fields alone contributes more to global
warming than the rest of the world 7
Ikelegbe 8 has shown that gas-flaring sites around the Western Niger Delta generated
tremendous heat, which is felt over, and average radius of 0.5 kilometers, thereby causing thermal
104

Kiabara Squibs & Remarks

105

pollution in the area. In the same vein, Alakpodia9 carried out measurement around the gas flare sites
in Isokoland and concluded that at an average distance of 43.8 metres from the gas flare sites,
temperature was as high as 40 DC. Indeed the general appearance of the vegetation around the
sites are pointers to the fact that the gas flares have had adverse effects on the vegetation. Perhaps
more serious in the environmental impact of oil production is the charring of the mangrove and
rain forest vegetation with its associated loss of economic and medicinal plant species. Traditional
healers must now search further than before for herbs, bark of trees and roots for the treatment of
diseases10.
During drilling operations, approach routes for fishes are blocked, while some of the best
natural inland fish ponds and man-made fresh water ponds are permanently put out of use.
Consequently, the oil mineral producing communities lost not only a vital means of income and dietary
balance, but also part of their material culture11
In fact, it must be stated that the oil firms have taken advantage of the absence of effective
environmental regulations to adopt production methods, which maximize profit and minimize
investment in environmental safety. These obnoxious environmental practice, are in contrast to what
is obtainable in the metropolitan countries of the oil majors. For instance, in the United States,
environmental regulation completely prohibit the discharges of produce water or drilling mud from
on-shore facilities into surface water course.
Understandably, the gross negligence of the Nigerian environment, and the marginalization of
the people in the oil producing communities by way of absence of basic social amenities and the
payment of inadequate compensations have been the sore point in the relationship between the oil
firms and their host communities.
Responses of the Oil Producing Communities to Environmental Degradation
The negligence of the oil producing communities in Nigeria has made the oil producing areas
to look up to oil firms as agents or substitute for government. They hold on to the oil companies as
their only source of succour even to the point of resorting to disrupting measures to get attention.
In December 1982, there was an oil spillage in Arharvwarien in the then Bendel State. As a
result of the spillage, many rivers and ponds were polluted. Farmlands were destroyed. Yet
Arharvwarien had no pipe borne water, electricity, hospital or a post office. The only dispensary there
lacked drugs and roofs of the only primary school have gone bad due to acid rain. In the ensuing
protest, four people died12. In July 1987 Iko Villagers demonstrated against the environmental
pollution and the negligence of their villages in spite of enormous wealth from their soil. Consequently
they stopped Shell workers from carrying out their work in the village. The twelve wells in Iko were
shut down leading to loss of 9,000 barrels of crude oil per day. Protesters burnt thirty-eight houses,
looted Shell property, and molested women. The police intervened, while the State Government
promised to look into their grievances1".
In Ogoni, the Movement for the Survival of Ogoni People (MOSOP) has stated that the whole
of Ogoni suffer from environmental pollution caused by Shell's operations since 1958. Ken Sarowiwa, the late Leader of MOSOP, claimed that "Oil exploration has turned Ogoni into a wasteland"14
. Land, streams and creek are continually polluted, the atmosphere has been poisoned, charged with
hydrocarbon vapours, methane, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide and soot emitted by gas which has
been flared 24 hours a day for 33 years in very close proximity to human habitation15. MOSOP
concluded that the Ogoni were victims of an ecological war and a complete destruction of the
ecosystem of Ogoni has occurred MOSOP is demanding $4.0 billion reparation for damages done
to the environment and $6.00 billion as royalty for oil produced in Ogoni since 195816. The response
of the Ogoni so far to the destruction of their environment included demonstration, petition and
international publicity of their plight For example, in April 1003, villagers protested against the

Kiabara Squibs & Remarks

106

destruction of their farm crops by Shell17. The soldiers were invited. They opened fire, killing one
woman and wounding eleven other people.
At Uzere in Isoko South Local Government Area of Delta State, the villagers sacked Shell
workers and stopped oil production. The community was protesting over their negligence by Shell,
which started operation there since 1957. Uzere oil field alone has 39 oil wells and a flow station.
It produced 50,000 barrels per day (bpd). The flow station was closed twice by demonstrating Uzere
youths between April and July, 1994. The youth complained about the non-completion of
development projects and environmental pollution. They barricaded all roads leading to Uzere and
accused Shell of bribing community leaders. They insisted that the April 1994 agreement between
Shell and representatives of Uzere community must be implemented18.
It is estimated that the oil companies in Nigeria, particularly Shell, Agip and Elf may have lost
$200 million in 1993 alone, as a result of community struggles for environmental conservation and
sustainable development. Shell, for example, recorded 108 disturbances leading to a loss of 12 million
barrels of crude oil. This amounts to $168 million, at an average price of $14.00 per barrel. As a
result of incessant community struggles in the oil mineral producing communities, the oil companies
and the Federal Government made concerted moves to contain these agitations.
Responses of the Oil Industry to Community Struggles and Environmental Deterioration
The oil producing companies are in direct contact with the inhabitants of the oil producing
communities. The companies pay royalties and taxes to the Federal Government. They expect
government to take its responsibility of developing the oil producing communities seriously. The
companies see their role as complementing that of the government. All contributions to sustainable
development are based on this principle and that of good neigbourliness. The oil companies have
argued that it is not their responsibility to ensure sustainable development19. Flowever, the same
argument cannot be made for environmental conservation. The oil companies are principally
responsible for maintaining a pollution-free environment in the oil producing areas.
Shell seems to have done more than other oil producing companies in bringing succour to the
oil communities. Shell has embarked1 on some welfare projects at Aboh, Ogoni, Kokori and
Peretonigbene. It has projects at Agharho, Akiewe, Ogidigben and Ekakpamre. Science equipment
were presented to secondary schools in these villages in 1993. Shell has also made numerous
donations to other producing communities.
Perhaps, the most significant contribution of Shell to the oil producing areas is in the realm of
job creation. In order to employ some youth in the Niger Delta, Shell initiated the Youth
Development Scheme (YDS). So far, in the Niger Delta, Shell has completed twelve of such scheme.
In Delta State alone, three of these scherrjes have been completed with 800 youths trained and
provided with tools and facilities to be self- employed20. It must be noted also that Shell has
committed itself to setting up a network of rural health centres. Accordingly, a cottage hospital was
built for the Erhioke community in Kokori, so also, eight-bed primary health centres at Okpara. The
effort of Shell towards uplifting the health standard of the people is instructive when this is viewed
against the backdrop of the fact that health centres in the sub-region lack these basic health amenities.
More importantly perhaps, is the standard operating table, which Shell presented to the Baptist
Hospital Eku. The table cost about twenty- seven thousand Naira (N27,000)21.
Provision of potable pipe borne water to some village in the Niger Delta could be seen as one
of the contributions of the oil industries to the oil producing areas in Nigeria. For example, not less
than six water projects were undertaken by Shell and its joint venture partner, the NNPC in
communities in Ughelli South Local Government Area of Delta State.
106

Kiabara Squibs & Remarks

107

Before now, oil companies in Nigeria have implicitly opposed anti-pollution laws on a number
of grounds. They insist that oil pollution in Nigeria is not necessarily the worst. Furthermore, they
claimed that expensive investment as a result of "unreasonable" anti-pollution legislation could reduce
investment and retard future growth of the oil industry22. The fallacy of these claims has been
debunked in the light of developments in other producing countries, which have stiffer penalties, and
yet there is a remarkable growth in their industry. In the United States and the North Sea, known for
are draconian environmental laws, there has never been recorded cases of fall in investment occasioned
by the stiff legislation.
Indeed, the restiveness of the oil producing communities indicated above and the international
outcry against the oil industry "ecological terrorism", jolted the oil companies from their stupendous
environmental practices to initiate some form of programmes towards environmental conservation.
For now, each of the oil companies has its own Safety and Environment Department, (SED) which
has been equipped to handle minor spills. However, it was in 1984 that the major eleven oil companies
came together and formed the Clean Nigeria Association (CNA) to combat oil spillage of greater
magnitude. Between 1984 and 1991, the sum of over 14 million dollars was spent on mopping up of
oil spills by the CNA.
It would appear that after the Ogoni some changes have occurred with regard to the responses
of the oil industry to environmental degradation". Shell, for example, is now embarking on the
replacement of its flowlines and pipelines. In order to reduce the wasteland, new flowlines are nowbeing laid along existing flowlines where possible. Moreso. environmental impact assessment is being
carried out before projects are undertaken. More importantly. Shell on behalf of its joint venture
partners NNPC, ELF and AGIP launched the Niger Delta Environmental Survey (NDES) in February
1995. The NDES is to provide information base to understand and tackle the enormous
environmental and socio-economic problems of the region. The objective of the NDES is laudable
because it may a long way in correcting the otherwise lukewarm attitude of the oil industry to the
Niger Delta environment .
Fear is, however, being expressed that, NDES promise may be subverted due to poor funding.
The oil industry vehement rejection of blames of causing environmental problems, which they
attributed to sabotage, may undermine the eventual findings of NDES. The oil companies have
therefore put the NDES under pressure to exonerate them . Federal Government Interventions
The federal government has the primary responsibility of developing the oil producing
communities. But government has always collected its share of the oil (royalty, rent and petroleum
profit tax) without making provisions for' the alleviation of the problems of the oil producing
communities. This, however, changed in 1981, when a derivation of 1.5 per cent of the Federal
Account was set up for the oil producing states. The money was forwarded to the State Capitals and
never got to the affected oil producing communities25.
In 1992, the Federal Government promulgated the Oil Mineral Producing Area Development
Commission (OMPADEC) Decree No. 23. This Decree raised the limit of the derivation fund to 3
percent of the Federal Account. OMPADEC was to manage this fund and use it to compensate oilproducing communities that have suffered from environmental pollution. It was to carry out
restoration projects in environmentally wrecked communities. It was also to initiate development
projects and services based on the oil production rate of each community.
OMPADEC has spent an average of 2 billion naira on projects in oil producing communities.
In Delta State, OMPADEC has on-going projects in Warri, Kokori, Ughelli, Escravos, Kolokolo and
Orie-Okpe. In Ndokwa, a passenger ferry was provided to move cars to the mainland26. In Rivers

Kiabara Squibs & Remarks

108

State OMPADEC has on-going projects in Umudje, and Okaizu as well as in Oloibiri in Bayelsa State.
OMPADEC has taken over the abandoned hospital project in Oloibiri27. A new gas turbine for the
generation of electricity was embarked for Kolo creek. OMPADEC's concept of sustainable
development is "real development" that is meaningful, that can be sustained effectively and coordinated centrally. In general, the project supported by OMPADEC includes drug and syringe
production, integrated fish-farming, gas processing plants, and small scale transport. In the granting
of loans, Isoko-Urhoboland alone got two million four hundred and ninety thousand dollars
(52,490,000,00). Ten people in all, benefited from OMPADEC industrial loan in the Western Delta
In spite of the laudable, but mocjest achievements recorded by OMPADEC, it has come under
severe criticisms. The former Chairman of OMPADEC, A.K. Horsefall, was accused of derailing the
objectives of the Commission. For example, employment of staff into the commission failed to follow
equitable principle in accordance with recognize percentage of oil production as clearly as spelt out
in paragraph 11 of the Decree that established OMPADEC.
OMPADEC has been accused of engaging on "phantom projects." Some critics claimed that
OMPADEC projects were existing local government or State government's projects. To this end,
chairmen of Local of the oil producing areas accused the commission of claiming credit for projects
executed by them. OMPADEC is also accused of putting up giant sign posts to indicate projects that
do not exist. The commission has also been criticized for claiming to have completed project
which, in reality, have been abandoned. For example, OMPADEC claimed to have completed the
seven-kilometer long Sapele-Ugborhen-Elume road two years ago. But the reality is that, it is only
about half of the projects that has been executed.
Because of these contradictions and accusations leveled against OMPADEC, some
communities have called for its dissolution while other expressed support for the Commission The
Urhobo, Nembe and Isoko people have clarmoured for either its outright dissolution or apparent reorganization or decentralization. The Itsekiri and the Bayelsa people seem to support the present
configuration while commending its good works It must be conceded, however, that although the
existence of OMPADEC has generated considerable controversy in the oil producing areas, there is
no doubt that the commission has contributed to the development of the area since its establishment28
There is no doubt that until quite recently, there was no adequate legal and institutional
framework by which the problem of environment degradation could be tackled in Nigeria. The
incessant problem of oil spillage and environmental pollution and resultant destruction of the
ecosystem were never given adequate national recognition29. This lukewarm attitude to environmental
issues is not unconnected with;
The overriding concern at the early
stage of development for the quantitative
aspeets human requirements: more
food, more water, more energy, etc, opposed
to the qualitative aspects30.

However, despite the above contention, there were elements of environmental policy in certain
area of Nigeria laws, which antedated the 4th national plan.
It was, however, not until an Italian firm dumped toxic waste at Koko, a sea port in Delta
State of Nigeria, in 1988 that the Federal Government swung into action to effectively deal with the
problem of pollution and environmental degradation'1. One of the first moves of the government was
to promulgate the Harmful Waste (special Criminal Provisions) Decree 42 of 1988. The Decree,
among other things, prohibits the purchase, importation, transit, transportation and storage of harmful
waste in the country. The Decree prescribed life imprisonment for those who contravene its
108

Kiabara Squibs & Remarks

109

provisions. This legal sanction was followed a month by Decree No. 58 of 1988 establishing the
Federal Environmental Protection Agency (FEPA). FEPA is charged with the omnibus responsibility
of protecting the environment in general, and also, the initiation of policy in relation to environmental
research and technology32.
FEPA Decree, which is the boldest and most comprehensive attempt to give teeth to the
protection and sustainable development of Nigeria, has not fared very well. As it were, FEPA has not
yet carried out initial baseline environmental audit of the Niger Delta where oil is produced amidst
large-scale environmental pollution. Without such study, it is impossible to monitor the impact of oil
exploration and development on the environment.
Despite the enormous power conferred on FEPA. it has not been known to be able to apply
legal sanction on erring oil companies in Nigeria33. The ineptitude of FEPA may not be unconnected
with the fact that its officials are aware that taking draconian action against the oil companies may
undermine socio-economic development in Nigeria. They must have taken cognizance of the fact that
closure of some companies may put many Nigerians out of job, reduce government tax revenue and
probably discourage investment. In all, a stopgap measure, has been applied by the oil firms, and the
Federal Government to tackle the issues emanating from the struggle of oil producing communities.
The Federal Government is, however, yet to determine the negligence of the oil producing areas,
preferring, instead, the allegation that the communities were being used by selected indigenes to
ferment trouble. The oil companies, on their part, have capitalized on porous environmental laws, the
fraternal posture of the state and paternalistic attitude of the Nigerian judiciary to go scot-free on their
sub-standard environmental practices in Nigeria.
CONCLUSION
It is a truism that petroleum exploration and development involves some environmental costs.
But these costs could be minimized bearing in mind a matrix of legal, political and social responsibility
by the oil firms and the Federal Government. But as we have discussed above, the oil producing areas
have been left all alone to wallow in abject poverty emanating from the destruction of their sociocultural and economic support systems. The communities did not take this lying low as we have
shown in this study by way of the different spate of protests recorded in the oil producing area and
the consequent cost to the firms and Federal Government
Prodded into action by the restiveness of the oil producing communities, the oil firms and the
Federal Government put in place some measures to redress the grievances of the people. These
measures are geared towards the sustainable development of the oil producing areas. The
environmental regime of the oil firms and the federal government does not look promising as they are
bedeviled by number of interrelated problems. Much political goodwill is needed to effectively tackle
the problems of the oil producing areas. It is therefore suggested that the government should stop
looking at solving the problems of the oil producing as favour. Development in the regions should
be well integrated. Government should, as a matter of urgency, implement environmental laws no
matter whose Ox is gored. Oil firms, on the other hand, should make prompt and adequate payment
of compensations in the event of oil spillage. Baseline studies and effective monitoring of effluents
should also be undertaken by FEPA. In all, it is suggested that development and conservation should
be harmonized.

Kiabara Squibs & Remarks

110

Notes

1.

Environmental Protection Agency: Regulation Determination for Oil and Gas Geothermal
Exploitation, Development and production Waste. (1980) P. 62.

2.

Derkies, D. I. and Sanders, S. H.: "Pollution prevention and Waste Minimization Opportunities
for exploration and production operations" In proceedings of the society of Petroleum Engineers/
EPA Exploration and production Environment conference, (San Antonio, Texas, 1993) p 72.

3.

Etikerense, G. Nigeria Petroleum Law. (London: Macmilian, 1985).

4.

Alakpodia, I. J. "Effects of gas flaring on the microclimate and adjacent vegetation in Isoko area
of Bendel State" (Unpublished M. sc. Thesis, University of Ibadan, 1980) p.30.

5.

The Nigerian Observer, (Benin City) January 22. 19S4.

6.

World Bank: Defining an environmental development strategy for the Niger Delia: Volume 1.
Confidential Report, No. 1426. (New York, 1995)

7.

National Concord (Lagos) Tuesday, August 19. 1986p7.

8.

Ikelegbe, O. O. "Pollution in Nigeria; causes and control: The case of Delta State" Paper
presented at the 30th Annual Conference of the Nigerian Geographical Association held at the
Federal University of Technology, Minna, Nigeria on 18-22 April, 1993. p. 7.

9.

Alakpodia, I. J. "Effects of gas flaring"... p. 3 1

10.

Lengwati, D. "The politics of the destruction and use of nature as feather and site of learning''

In Convergence, volume xxviii, number 4, 1995

11.

Daily Times, (Lagos) Tuesday, March 4, 1980. P. 7.

12.

Newswatch (Lagos) July 4, 1988. P. 7.

13.

Tell magazine (Lagos) January 1, 1994.

14.

Ogoni Bill of rights presented to the Government and people of Nigeria (Port Harcourt: 1991)
p. 6.

15.

Newswatch (Lagos) January 25, 1993. P. 12

16

Ibid.

17.

Welch, C. "The Ogoni and self-determination: Increasing violence in Nigeria" In Journal of

Modern African Students, volume 33 number 4, 1995.
110

Kiabara Squibs & Remarks

111

18.

The Guardian (Lagos) June 22, 1994p. 10.

19.

Agbon, T. S. "Environmental conservation and sustainable development in oil producing

communities" in the 19th Annual International Conference of the Nigerian Council of Society
of Petroleum Engineers, held at Lagos between 5-8 September, 1995. P. 257.

20.

Shell: Nigeria Brief; The Environment (Lagos: Public Affairs Division, 1995).

21.

Ibid

22.
ad

Odogwu, E. C. Impact of Environmental Regulation on the Petroleum Industry: Economic

Social Considerations (Lagos: Nigeria National Petroleum Corporation 1981). p. 65.

23.

24.

For details see among others; Osaghae, E. "The Ogoni uprising, Oil Politics, Minority agitation
and the future of the Nigerian State" in Journal of Modern African Studies, volume 98.
1997. And Naanen, B- "Oil producing miriorities and the structure of the Nigerian
Federalism: the case of Ogoni people" In Journal of Commonwealth and Comparative
politics volume 33 number 4, 1995.
' See Niger Delta Environmental Survey: Background and Mission (Lagos: Steering
Committee, 1995). p. 12.

25.

OMPADEC Quarterly Report, volume'!, October 1993. p. 3.

26.

OMPADEC Quarterly Report, volume 1, Number 2, March 1994. p. 32.

27.

OPEC Bulletin January 1994

28.

OMPADEC Quarterly Report. . 1994

29.

Agboola, T. "A review of environmental components in Nigerian National Development

Plan, 1940-1980", being a paper presented at the Policy Seminar on Environmental Issues
and Management in Nigerian Development (Benin: Department of Geography, 25-27
November 1985) p. 85.

30.

Federal Republic of Nigeria: Fourth National Development Plan, 1981-1985 i Lagos:

Government Printer, 1985).

31.

Ikhuriale, M. "The Koko incident: The environment and the law" In Folarin, S. (ed.j The Law
and the Environment in Nigeria (Ibadan: vintage, 1989) p. 73.

32.

For details see the FEPA Decree No. 58 of 1988. P. 4.

33.

Davies, A. E. "Environmental protection in Nigeria: problems and prospects" m African

Review, volume 20, number 1 and 2.