i

AN ANALYSIS OF DEVELOPMENT PROJECT COMPLIANCE WITH

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT (EIA) PROVISIONS IN
KOGI STATE, NIGERIA

BY

AGIH, TIMOTHY SHAIBU

PG/M.SC/07/43295

A project submitted to the School of Postgraduate Studies and the Department of

Geography, University of Nigeria, Nsukka in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the award of Degree of Master of Science (M.Sc) in Geography.

JUNE, 2016
 ii

CERTIFICATION

Mr Agih Timothy Shaibu a Postgraduate student in the Department of Geography, specializing in

Environmental Management has satisfactorily completed the requirements for Course and research
work for the degree of Master of Science (M.Sc) in Geography. This project work is original and
has not been submitted for any diploma or degree in this University or any other University.

_____________________ ______________________
PROF. P. O, PHIL-EZE PROF. P.A.O ODJUGO
(Supervisor) (External Examiner)

____________________________________
PROF. P.O, PHIL-EZE
(Head, Department of Geography)

_________________________________________________
REV.FR.PROF.HILARY ACHUNIKE
(Dean, Faculty of the Social Science)
 iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Title Page i
Certification ii
Table of Contents iii
Dedication v
Acknowledgement vi
List of Tables vii
List of Figures ix
List of Acronyms x
Abstract xi
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
1.0 Background of the Study 1
1.1 Statement of research the problem 5
1.2 Aim and Objectives of the Research 7
1.3 The Study Area 8
1.4 Literature Review 15
1.5 Research Methodology 27
1.6 Plan of the Project 33
CHAPTER TWO: THE ORIGIN AND CURRENT PRACTICE OF EIA IN
KOGI STATE
2.1.0 Origin of EIA in Kogi State 34
2.1.1 Kogi State Administrative and Legal Framework of EIA 34
2.1.2 Legal Framework 36
2.1.3 Current Practice of EIA in Kogi State 38
2.1.4 EIA Process and Procedural Framework 40
2.1.5 Analysis of the Awareness of EIA in Kogi State 42
2.1.6 Summary of the Current Practice of EIA in Kogi State 58
CHAPTER THREE: IDENTIFICATION OF EIA COMPLIANCE LEVEL
IN KOGI STATE
3.1 Identification of the level of compliance with EIA 59
3.2 Response from Questionnaires on the level of compliance 59
3.3 Facts from publication and existing EIA Documents 76
 iv

3.3:1 The EIA for the dredging of the River Niger 76

3.3:2 The EIA of the Western Goldfields Group (Ltd) Zuma 828 78
3.3:3 The EIA of Dangote cement and power plant 80
3.3:4 The EIA of Dangote Cement Quary (mining) 81
3:3.5 The EIA of Dam Construction of the Dangote Cement Company 82
3:3.6 The EIA of the Gas pipeline of the Dangote Cement Company 82
3:4 Responses from individuals during interview and fieldwork. 84
CHAPTER FOUR: IDENTIFICATION AND THE ANALYSES OF THE
CAUSE OF LOW COMPLIANCE WITH EIA
4:1: Analysis of the factors affecting EIA provisions In Kogi State by the public 87
4:2: Analysis of the factors affecting EIA provisions in Kogi State by EIA
Regulators 94
4:3 Analysis of the factors affecting EIA provisions in Kogi State by Project
Proponents and company staff. 100
CHAPTER FIVE: STRATEGIES FOR EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION
OF EIA IN KOGI STATE
5.1: General overview of findings 107
5.2: Suggested strategies for effective implementation of EIA in Kogi State 110
5.2.1: Suggested strategies for effective implementation of EIA for the
Regulators 111
5.2.2: Suggested strategies for effective implementation of EIA for the public 112
5.2.3: Suggested strategies for effective implementation of EIA for the project
proponents 113

CHAPTER SIX: SUMMARY, RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSION

6.1 Summary of findings 114

6.2 Recommendations 116
6.3 Conclusion 117
REFERENCES 118
APPENDICES 124
 v

DEDICATION

This project is dedicated to all LOVERS of the environment.

 vi

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I thank God most high for his love, protection and provision for me to finish this work. I

am grateful to my supervisor, Professor P.O.PHIL-EZE, for his tireless attention and sacrifice to

see the work come to completion. I thank all the lecturers of this honourable Department for their

various contributions to this work.

I thank all my friends in and outside the Department for standing with me to see that the

work succeeds. Finally, I thank my dear wife RUTH, A. TIMOTHY, all the members of

SHAIBU’s family and my children for their prayers and support throughout the period of this

programme. May God bless all those who contributed to the success of this work.
 vii

LIST OF TABLE

Table 1: Kogi State population (by LGAs) census 2006 14

Table 2: List of Development projects established between 1995 and 2012 with
EIA report. 38
Table 3: List of Development Projects established between 1995 and 2012
without EIA report. 39
Table 4: List of Development Projects established between 1995 and 2012
with EIA that was processed and concluded in the state 40
Table 5: Frequency Distribution of response by the public on the level of
awareness of EIA in Kogi 44
Table 6: Frequency Distribution of response by the EIA Regulators on the level
of Awareness of EIA in Kogi State 49
Table 7: Frequency Distribution of response by Project proponents on the level
of Awareness of EIA in Kogi State 53
Table 8: Frequency Distribution of response by the public on the level of
compliance of Development projects with EIA 61
Table 9: Frequency distribution of respone by EIA regulators on the level
of compliance of Development projects with EIA 64
Table 10: Frequency Distribution of response by the project proponents
on the level of compliance of Development projects with EIA 69
Table 11: Correlation matrix of factors affecting EIA provisions in
Kogi State by the Public 87
Table 12: Rotated component matrix of factors affecting EIA provisions
by the public in Kogi State 88
Table 13: Relative strength of the underlying Dimensions of
Factors affecting EIA provisions by the public in Kogi State 92
Table 14: Correlation matrix of factors affecting EIA provisions in
Kogi State by EIA Regulators. 94
Table 15: Rotated component matrix of factors affecting EIA
provisions by EIA Regulators in Kogi State. 95
 viii

Table 16: Relative strength of the underlying Dimensions of Factors

affecting EIA by EIA regulators in Kogi State 98
Table 17: Correlation matrix of factors affecting EIA provisions
by the project proponents in Kogi State. 100
Table 18: Rotated component matrix of Factors affecting EIA provisions
by the project proponents in Kogi State. 101
Table 19: The Relative strength of the underlying dimensions of factors
affecting EIA provisions by project proponents. 104
 ix

LIST OF FIGURES
Fig. 1: Nigeria showing Kogi State 9
Fig. 2: Kogi State showing the Study Area 10
Fig. 3: Kogi State showing the six Local Governments with major
Industries 28
Fig. 4: Level of awareness of EIA in Kogi State 57
Fig. 5: Factors affecting the level of compliance 75
Fig. 6: Analysis of the variations in the level of agreement by respondents
on EIA 105
 x

LIST OF ACRONYMS
1. CBA Cost Benefit Analysis
2. CEP Committee on Environmental Protection
3. CEQ Council on Environmental Quality
4. EEC European Economic Community
5. EIA Environmental Impact Assessment.
6. EIS Environmental Impact Statement
7. EMP Environmental Management Plan
8. FEPA Federal Environmental Protection Agency.
9. FME Federal Ministry of Environment
10. GIS Geographic Information System.
11. IEE Initial Environmental Examination
12. KOSEPA Kogi State Environmental Protection Agency
13. LGA Local government Areas.
14. NESREA National Environmental Standards and Regulations
Enforcement Agency.
15. NGO Non governmental Organisation
16. NKJ New King James Version.
17.NNPC Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation
18. PCA Principal Component Analysis.
19. SEAP State Environmental Action Plan
20. UN United Nations
21. UNEP United Nation Environmental Programmes
22.USA United State of America
23.WHO World Health Organisation.
 xi

ABSTRACT

This study analysed the level to which development projects in Kogi State comply with
environmental impact assessment policy. To achieve its aim, the study examines the current
practice of EIA in Kogi State, identifies the level of compliance of development project with EIA,
analysed the reasons for the level of compliance, and suggest strategies for effective
implementation of EIA in Kogi State. Field work was conducted between April 24th and
September 26th, 2012. During the field work, we observrd that major development projects and
industries were found to concentrate more in six local government areas of the state. These local
governments are Ajaokuta, Ankpa Dekina, Kabba/Bunu, Lokoja and Ofu which later become the
study area. Structured questionnaires were used to collect data from the public, staff of the
regulating agencies and staff of companies and project proponents. The three categories of
respondents have seperate questionnaire. Oral interview was conducted across the state to generate
handy information. Existing EIA reports were analysed to ascertain their worth. Statistical
packages for social sciences (SPSS) version 19 was used to analyse the data. The programme
extracted the rated values for each of the variables and transform them to Mean which was further
used in the analysis of variance, correlation and Principal Component Analysis.The results indicate
low level of awareness of EIA and low level of compliance with EIA in the state. The PCA result
identifies four major components responsible for the low level of compliance with EIA in the
state. These includes, Poor concern for EIA provisions, Poor stakeholders engagement in EIA
process, cost of EIA permit and lack of accessibility to qualified EIA consultants. Other reasons
discovered to impede EIA compliance in the state include multiple EIA regulators, inadequate
baseline data, lack of enforcement policy and others. The study recommends that awareness
campaign on EIA should be given priority in the state. The state edict and the national guidelines
should be in harmony and there should be an agency vested with the responsibility of enforcing
EIA policy in the state.
 1

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1.0 Background of the Study

Kogi State was created in 1991. As a new state, succesive governments have continued to

clamore for development projects to boost the economy of the state. To this end, the Kogi State

government has published investment opportunities in several newspapers, journals and

handbooks through the state property and investment promotion.

Beside industrial activities, other economic activities like hunting, grazing, lumbering,

mining, fishing and farming are fast growing in the state. All these economic activities and the

quest for accelerated infrasturactural development leave negative effects on the environment of

the state such as accelerated soil erosion, deforestation, flooding, and soil degradation.

In most cases, the exploration of natural resouces are done with little regard to

consequences owing to high level of poverty and deprivation in the state which compelled people

to undermine the productivity of land in their quest for food, fuel and shelter. However, this

unregulated economic acivities only promote poverty and worsen environmental degradation.

(WORLD BANK 1998)

In the past, many development plans like cost-benefit analysis (CBA), environmental audit,

feasibility study, and environmental action plan have been developed for the state, but all these

strategies did not consider environmental cost, public opinion and social and environmental impact

of development projects (WORLD BANK 1998).

Hence Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) methodologies as tools for sustainable

environmental management become indispensable. Adeniyi, (1998) defines EIA as “a tool for

development planning which states the effects of a proposed project on the environment, predicts
 2

the likely impact in magnitude, extent and significance and find ways to reduce unacceptable

impacts and provides the developers the pros and cons of alternatives, including the option not to

embark on the project.

Federal Ministry of Environment, (FME, 2002) defines EIA as a study to identify, predict,

evaluate, and communicate information about the impact of a proposed project on the environment

and to detail out the necessary mitigation measures prior to project approval and implementation.

The main objectives of EIA is to identify and predict the impact of polices and activities

on the environment so that there is an opportunity for interested parties to decide whether those

impacts are acceptable.

The Environmental Impact Assessment Procedural Guidelines prepared by FEPA in

Nigeria in 1995 summarised the steps to be taken in EIA preparation to include the following;

Project proposal, Initial Environmental Examination (IEE), screening, scoping, EIA study, EIA

Review (public participation), Decision making, monitoring and auditing, etc.

According to Nwafor, (2006), EIA was institutionalized in the United States (USA) as a

requirement of the country’s National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. The EIA legislation has

created a situation in the USA in which decisions on major developmental activities can only be

taken after a fore knowledge of their likely environmental consequences.

Following the adoption of EIA in the USA, several industrialized countries of the World

made EIA compulsory for approval of development projects (Alo, 1999). For example, Canada

adopted EIA in 1973 with Australia closely following in 1974. Many countries in both developed

and developing economy have come to appreciate and adopt EIA as a tool for sustainable

development.
 3

Many international organizations have also demonstrated appreciation of EIA as a

necessary tool for environmental management through their policy on the environment. For

example, the European Economic Community (EEC) in July, 1985 adopted a directive making

environmental assessment mandatory for certain categories of projects prior to their consideration.

The United Nations (UN) since 1972 established a specialized Agency on the environment known

as United Nations Environment Programmes (UNEP) with a deep consideration for EIA. The

World Bank had since 1991 adopted mandatory EIA procedures for funding development projects

(Alo, 1999). The World Health Organization (WHO) has also advocated the need to assess the

opportunities for development as well as the adverse impact upon human health of such

development through environmental change.

Prior to the promulgation of the EIA decree in 1992, the Nigerian government had made

several attempts at ensuring a sustainable environment. This led to the creation of a regulatory

body known as the Federal Environmental Protection Agency (FEPA) in 1988. The agency was

charged with the overall responsibility of protecting and developing the Nigerian environment. In

furtherance of the objectives of the agency, a national policy on the environment was developed

as the main working document for the preservation and protection of the Nigerian environment.

States and local councils were encouraged to establish their own environmental regulatory bodies

for the purpose of maintaining good environmental quality based on the perculiarity of the terrain.

(Echefu, et al 2007)

To further strenghten environmental regulation, the Federal Ministry of Environment was

created in 1999 but, without an appropriate enabling law on enforcement issues. This situation

however created a vacuum in the effective enforcement of environmental laws and regulations in

the country until 2007 when the National Environmental Standards and Regulations Enforcement
 4

Agency (NESREA) act was created, (Echefu et al 2007). The NESREA act empowers the agency

to be responsible for enforcing all environmental laws, guidelines, policies, standards and

regulations in Nigeria as well as enforcing compliance with provisions of international agreements,

protocols, conventions and treaties on the environment to which Nigeria is a signatory.

To this end, EIA has been adopted in Nigeria as a powerful tool for sustainable

development. Hence the promulgation of the EIA Decree No. 86, of 1992 and its subsequent

amendment in 2004 has made it mandatory for EIA to be fully applied to development projects in

the private and public sectors of the economy right from the planning stage. Some of these

development projects include manufacturing or processing industries, road construction through a

virgin land, estate development requiring the acquisition of land of five hectares and above, large

scale agricultural production, mining, drilling, etc

The objectives of EIA in Nigeria are contained in Decree No. 30, of 2004. Section 13 and

the schedule to the Decree contains a list of mandatory study activities relating to nineteen (19)

vital sectors of the economy.

For effective implementation of the EIA Decree, one EIA procedural guideline and five

departmental guidelines in the major sectors of the economy have been published to assist project

proponents and stakeholders in conducting EIA. Based on the EIA Decree No. 86 of 1992, the 36

states of Nigeria are to adopt EIA in their environmental management policy. Hence, Kogi State

established a legal framework through which EIA can be implemented. The policy framework at

the state level identifies the need for an agency to formulate environmental policy and manage all

the aspect of the environment. In this regard, Kogi State Environmental Protection Agency

(KOSEPA), was established through Edict No. 3 of 1995. The Edict empowers the Agency to

exercise both advisory and executive role on environmental matters in the state. The Edict also
 5

gives absolute authority to the Agency to seal off premises where activities leading to

environmental degradation are carried out. More importantly, the Edict adopts EIA for

development projects. Section 30, subsection (2) of the Edict states that “Every person who intends

to carry out such physical development such as manufacturing or industrial activities in any

premises within the state shall prior to the commencement of such activities submit to the Agency

an Environmental Impact Assessment report and obtain a certification from the Agency”.

As a result of this development, EIA has been adopted in Kogi state. However, the quality

of environmental impact assessment carried out and the level of compliance with EIA procedural

guidlines have to be examined to see whether EIA in the state is in consonance with the Federal

Government policy and reflect world best practices.

1.1 Statement of the Research Problem

Kogi State as a newly created state is striving for development. Successive governments in

the state over the years have clamoured for development strategies which include calling on foreign

investors to come and invest in the state.

Most of the development projects undertaken however, have little or no regard for

environmental consequences. Consequently, negative impacts are often left on the environment of

any area where development projects have been undertaken. To aviod this urgly trend, EIA was

upheld in the state to ensure a development that is sustainable.

Nigeria promulgated EIA Decree No. 86 in 1992 and for proper implementation of the

Decree, a procedural guideline was prepared. The guideline is to assist project proponents in

conducting detailed environmental impact assessment of projects with emphasis on the

significance associated with potential impacts of such projects (Adewoye, 1995).

 6

This procedural guideline, has a list of mandatory study activities in five sectors of the

economy to assist the project proponents in the preparation of EIA. These activities include

Agriculture/Agro-Allied, Fisheries, Forestry, and Industry; Water supply, Transport, Mining and

quarrying. Others include Land Reclamation, Dams and Irrigation, Petroleum and Petrochemicals.

Infrastructure Installation and Ports, Housing, Railway, Electric power Generation, Plantation,

waste treatment and Disposal and Resorts and recreational development.

Further to the publication of the procedural guideline, there are five sectorial guidelines

prepared by the then Federal Environmental Protection Agency to guide project proponents in the

preparation of EIA in the major sectors of the economy. Despite the legal and adminstrative

framework of EIA methodologies at the national level, Some States in Nigeria are yet to adopt an

EIA that strictly adhere to the procedural guidelines set up by the Federal government on the

preparation of EIA. In most of these states, there exist a strong conflict between the Federal

Government policy and state policy on EIA. There are also many bodies regulating EIA with

overlapping responsibilities and as such EIA methodologies seem to have been down played and

reduced to mere document in some cases.

Some states in Nigeria, had a review of their EIA system in order to accommodate the

Federal Government guidelines. Lagos state and Ondo state are good examples in this regard. The

Federal Ministry of Environment in 2010 also had a review of the EIA methodologies to

accommodate world best practices.

However, in Kogi State, given the rapid rate of development projects, and the dual nature

of EIA regulating bodies, as well as the desire for a sustainable development in the State, there is

need for an evaluation of the methods adopted in the preparation of EIA in the state. To achieve

this, this study has been designed to evaluate the compliance of development projects in Kogi State
 7

with EIA procedural guidelines. Each step enumerated in the guideline which include project

proposal, initaial Environmental Examination, EIA screening, EIA scoping, EIA Review (public

participation), Decision making, Environmetal monitoring and Auditing shall be examined to see

whether they are fully complied with by Kogi State EIA process.

This study is therefore designed to evaluate the methodological approach to EIA in Kogi State

in order to ascertain the compliance of development projects with EIA provisions and suggest

ways through which proper implementation of EIA can be achieved to ensure sustainable

environmental management.

1.2. Aim and Objectives of the Study

The aim of this project is to analyse the level to which development projects in Kogi State

comply with Environmental Impact Assessment delivery in Nigeria.

Objectives

The objectives of the Study are to;

1. Examine the current practice of EIA in Kogi State.

2. Identify the level of compliance of development projects with Environmental Impact

Assessement in the state.

3. Analyse the reasons for the observed/identified level of compliance of development

projects with Environmental Impact Assessement in Kogi state.

4. Suggest strategies for effective implementation of Environmental Impact Assessement

in Kogi state.
 8

1.3 Study Area

1.3.1 Location

Kogi State was created on 27th August, 1991 during the national state creation exercise. It

has a land mass of about 30,354.7 km square and a total population of 3, 278, 048 people, Aikoye.

(2008). The present day Kogi State was known as Kabba province during the colonial era with

Lokoja as the provincial Headquarters. The state is divided into three geographical areas popularly

known as senatorial districts. These are Kogi West and Kogi central, carved out of the old Kwara

State and Kogi east, carved out of the old Benue State.

The state lies between latitudes 60 35” and 80 36” North of the equator and longitudes 50

30” and 70 50” East of the prime meridian. The state shares boundary with Kwara State to the west,

Ondo and Ekiti states to the South west, Anambra and Enugu States to the south East, Benue and

Nassarawa to the North East, and the Federal Capital Territory and Niger State to the North West

and North respectively. The state is centrally located of all the states in Nigeria and possesses the

confluence of rivers Niger and Benue as shown in fig. 1.

1.3.2 Size

Kogi State covers a total land area of 29, 833km2. It is divided into three senatorial districts

of Kogi West, Kogi Central and Kogi East. At creation, there were sixteen (16) Local Government

Areas with ten (10) carved out of the old Kwara and six (6) carved out of the old Benue State.

During the December 1996 state and local government creation exercise, the number of local

government areas in the state increased to twenty-one (21). These Local Government Areas are:

Adavi, Ajaokuta, Ankpa, Bassa, Dekina, Ibaji, Idah, Ijumu, Igala-Mela, Kabba/Bunu, Kogi,

Lokoja, Mopa-moro, Ofu, Ogori-mangogo, Okehi, Okene, Olamaboro, Omala, Yagba East and

Yagba west.
 9

FIGURE 1: NIGERIA SHOWING KOGI STATE

SOURCE: GIS UNIT, DEPARTMENT OF GEOGRAPHY, UNIVERSITY OF
NIGERIA NSUKKA
 10

FIGURE 2: KOGI STATE SHOWING THE STUDY AREA

SOURCE: GIS UNIT, DEPARTMENT OF GEOGRAPHY, UNIVERSITY OF
NIGERIA NSUKKA

1.3.3 Geology

The geology of Kogi State has a complex characteristic due to variations in their mode of

formation. There are basement complex rocks, meta-sedimentary and other sedimentary

formations and alluvium. Around the western part of River Niger in the state exists atypical granitic

or mi-granitic rocks, (Adejoke, 1999). Older granites of Pre-Cambian age are found around

Lokoja, Isanlu, Mopa and Egbe. Hard rocks of granite and other basement complex rocks are found

around Itakpe and Agbaja. The geology of the eastern part of the state shows a remarkable

difference. A large part of Ankpa, Ofu, Igala-mela and Olamaboro are made up of sedimentary
 11

rocks, World Bank, (1998). On the other hands, Bassa and Kogi and Omala depict a type of shale

outcrops with high alluvial deposit owing to their location in the flood plain of rivers Niger and

Benue.

1.3.4 Climate

Kogi State has a tropical rainy climate with a wet and a dry season. The state experience

long period of rainy season between seven (7) and eight (8) months, (March to October) while the

dry season lasts for about four (4) months (November-February). The wet season can be further

classified into two, long wet season occurring from April to July and a short wet season occurring

from September to October. The dry season have the same characteristic. There is a short dry

season occurring in August popularly known as “August break”, and a long dry season occurring

between November and March. A cool, dry and dusty air popularly known as “harmattan” always

marks the beginning of the dry season. This condition normally prevails till late January when hot,

dry and sunny weather prevails to usher in the rainy season. The annual rainfall total for the state

is about 1, 200mm. The mean monthly temperature is between 260C in December and 300C in

March (World Bank, 1998).

1.3.5 Relief

The state is found within the Niger/Benue river trough with a “Y” shape at the confluence

in Lokoja. The evolution of the trough is complex and bewildering. Adejoke (1999) opined that,

this major depression was formed about 150 – 200 million years ago. The Benue opening, he said

was formed through the development of major faults which separated highlands viz the Jos Plateau

to the West and the Cameroon highland to the East.

The relief of the State is generally rugged and undulating. The land rises from about 300

metres along the Niger Benue confluence, to the heights of 600 metres above sea level in the
 12

uplands. Agbaja Plateau, which ranges from 335 to 366 metres above sea level, and the much

higher Okoro Agbo hills at Ogidi in Ijumu LGA are some of the predominant landforms in the

state. The terrains particularly around the rivers are made up of hills, plateaux and inselbergs with

elongated ridges. However, the topography is steeped with gentle slopes along the numerous

valleys existing in the state. Examples of such elevation in the state include mount Patti, (420m),

and Igbanku (588m) located in lokoja.

1.3.6 Drainage

Kogi State is drained by the major rivers in Nigeria, river Niger and river Benue. In the

eastern part, river Benue cut through Omala local government and Bassa while river Niger drains

Kogi and Lokoja local government. The Benue river is navigable as far as Garua in the rainy

season, but up to Makurdi in Benue state in the dry season (World Bank, 1998). After the

confluence at lokoja, the river passes through Ajaokuta local government and Idah local

government to the south.

Other smaller rivers exist in the state, especially in the eastern part. Examples of such rivers

are Omala river, Ofu river, Olamaboro river, Nachalo river, Okura, Ubele and Adawo e t c.

Osomera falls at kilometre four on Okene/Ajaokuta road, Ofejiji falls in Okura Olafia, Egeneja

warm spring in Bassa Local Government Area and Adankolo river are other drainage features

(Benue State, 1985).

1.3.7 Soil

Generally, soils in Kogi State can be grouped into low and high productive soils. High

productive soils are usually the alluvial type formed around the riverine areas.This type of soil is

restricted to the flood plain of rivers Niger and Benue, paticularlly, in the following local
 13

government Areas. Omala, Kabba/bunu, Yagba East and Yagba west, Ajaokuta, Kogi and Lokoja.

This hydromorphic soil contain a mixture of coarse alluvial deposits (Word Bank 1998).

The low productive soil (laterite) dominates the remaining local government areas of the state.

This type of soil is characterised by large grains and loose particles with high proportion of sand.

The soil is poor in nutrients and highly permeable which makes it easily eroded.

1.3.8 Vegetation

Generally, the vegetation of the state is the Guinea Savanna type of vegetation in Nigeria.

However, variations exist in the structure and physiognomy of the vegetation from one part of the

state to another. For example, Dekina, Ofu, Ankpa, Olamaboro, Idah and Bassa Local Government

Areas have rich deciduous and occasional stunted trees including Iroko, (Melicia excelsa),

mahogany (Khaya ivorensis), akee apple (Blighia sapida), mango tree (Mangifera indica), custard

apple (Annona senegalensis), bush mango (Irvingia gabonensis), and other towering trees. Other

LGAs are in the guinea savanna or parkland savanna belt with tall grasses and scattered trees.

These are green in the rainy season with fresh leaves and tall grasses, but the land is open

during the dry season, showing shed trees and the remains of burnt grasses. The trees which grow

in cluster grow up to about 10 metres tall, interspersed with grasses which grow up to about three

metres.

These trees include locust bean (Parkia biglobosa), shear butter (Vitellaria paradoxam),

beans spp (Argemone mexicana), cashew (Anacadium occidentalis), and the isoberlinia trees. The

different types of vegetation are, however, not in their natural luxuriant state owing to the careless

human use of the forest and the resultant derived deciduous and savanna vegetations.
 14

1.3.9 Population

The 2006 population census put the population of the state at 3, 278.487 with an average

density of 109.9, persons/km2. In 1991, the population of the state was 2, 144, 756 with a density

of 72.9 persons/km2. This statistics reveal a rapid increase in the population of the state. Highest

population densities are recorded in Okene, Ankpa, Idah, and Adavi local government areas of the

state. A comparison between the 1991 and 2006 census results revealed a percentage change of

about 52.65, (NPC, 2006). A breakdown of the state population according to LGAs is shown in

Table 1.

Table 1: KOGI STATE POPULATION (BY LGAs) CENSUS – 2006

S/N LGA Total Population Males Females
1 Adavi 202,194 103,466 98,728
2 Ajaokuta 122,321 63,293 59,028
3 Ankpa 267,353 136,789 130,564
4 Bassa 139,993 71,763 68,230
5 Dekina 260,312 133,079 127,233
6 Ibaji 128129 65,634 62,495
7 Idah 148,020 76,007 72,013
8 Igalamela-Odolu 79,815 40,818 38,997
9 Ijumu 119,929 64,547 55,382
10 Kabba/Bunu 145,446 74,289 71,157
11 Kogi 115,900 59,750 56,150
12 Lokoja 195,261 100,573 94,688
13 Mopa/Moro 44,037 25,520 18517
14 Ofu 192,169 98,648 93,521
15 Ogori/Magongo 39,622 20,264 19,358
16 Okehi 199,999 102,656 97,343
17 Okene 320,260 169,617 150,643
18 Olamaboro 160,152 81,485 78,667
19 Omala 108,402 55,517 52,885
20 Yagba East 149,023 76,143 72,610
21 Yagba West 140,150 71,609 68,541
Total 3,278,487 1,691,737 1,586,750s
Source: National Population Commission (2006)
 15

1.3.10 Industrialization

The economy of the state is largely dominated by primary activities like fishing, trading,

and agriculture. However, large scale manufacturing industries like the Iron and Steel industry at

Ajaokuta, the Iron ore mining at Itakpe, the cement Factory at Obajana,the Goldsfield coal minning

at Okobo, Ankpa,the West African Ceramics at Oguro are fast developing. Similarly, many new

industries like the dehydrated lime project at Itobe, the Organic fertilizer industry at Anyigba,

Sugar refinery at Ibaji, Cement factory at Ekinrin-Ade and the proposed Petroleum refinery at

Itobe and others are likely to commence operation soon in the state. All these industries have both

positive and negative impact on the environment of the state.

Besides, other economic activities like large scale farming, petroleum filling stations,

Estate development, satelite network and many others are fast growing in the state.

1.4 Literature Review

Man’s activities (Development Projects) have both negative and positive impact on the

environment. Man can not abandon his development projects because of its negative impact on the

environment. On the other hand, the environment remains the only platform for development

projects. It is therefore important for man to balance his quest for development with environmental

equilibrum. In other words, how can man achieve sustainable development?

UNEP (1980a), World Bank, (1995), Nwafor, (2006), and Anago (2008), define sustainable

development as the ability of the present generation to meet its needs without compromising the

potentials of the future generation to meet theirs. In other words, “The right to development must

be fulfilled so as to equitably meet developmental and environmental needs of the present and

future generations (principle 3 of RIO declaration).

 16

According to Nwafor, (2006) the concept of sustainable development and its practical

implementation had been increasingly considered by policy makers to be one of the most crucial

tools for achieving a balance between economic, social and environmental objectives.

Sustainability is not a wholly new idea. “….according to the Bible (Deuteronomy Chapter

22 Vs 6 – 7), the Israelites were commanded that “if a Birds nest happens to be before you along

the way, in any tree, or on the ground, with young ones or eggs with the mother sitting on the

young or on the eggs, you shall not take the mother with the young; you shall surely let the mother

go, and take the young for yourself, that it may be well with you and that you may prolong your

days” (NKJ version).

The ideal value behind the commandment is that, as the Israelites satisfy their own needs,

they should remember that the future generation should not be deprived. Given the importance of

sustainable development, Nwafor, (2006) states that, the generic procedure of environmental

impact assessment has therefore, evolved into an environmental management and assessment tool

that is central to the concept of sustainable development.

Several environmental management strategies like Cost – Benefit – Analysis, (C B A)

Environmental monitoring, Environmental auditing, feasibility studies etc has been adopted for

sustainable development but these did not take environmental cost, public opinion, social and

environmental impacts of development projects into consideration, (Ngeri, 2010).

Nwafor, (2009) opines that Environmental impact assessment is widely considered as a

realistic approach that is technically well suited and well established with the potential to make

critical contributions to sound decision making processes and to equitable and sustainable

development. However, there are huge differences between the EIA system of the developed

countries and those of the developing countries.

 17

Enviromental impact assessment, whether by legislation or the administrative approach in

the developed countries of the world differs in so many ways from those of the developing

countries. Apart from having its origin in the USA, Nwafor, (2006), notes that, the method of

approach and its appreciation differ significantly from those of the developing countries.

By the 1970s, the environmental movement that began in the 1960s had build up public

awareness about the interactions between the environment and development. As a result of this

public awareness, elected public office holders strive to keep their manifestos by tackling

environmental problems. It was in response to such awareness that President Richard Nixon in

May, 1969 established a president’s Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) with himself as

Chairman, to implement environmental policy decision, (Nwafor, 2006). The driving force in

environmental policy as well as EIA in the USA as in other developed countries of the world is

their public awareness on the interaction between environment and development. This explains

why the adoption of EIA in developed countries followed very closely. For example, after the

Stockholm conference in 1972, Canada adopted EIA in 1973, Australia in 1974, Western Germany

in 1975 and France in 1976. The approval of European Economic Community (EEC) Directive on

EIA in 1985, made mandatory the enactment of EIA legislation in many European countries. It

should be noted that the UK prior to this directive have a high-developed town and country

planning system in which certain features of EIA were incorporated. The Netherlands adopted EIA

in 1981 while Japan followed closely in 1984. (Alo,1999).

Given the awareness of the interaction between development and environment, and the

negative consequences of industrialization on the global economy, EIA in developed countries has

come to appreciate sub-regional cooperation and trans-boundary EIA. In the light of this, the

United Nations Economic Commission for Europe through its convention on Environmental
 18

Impact Assessment in trans-boundary context seeks to encourage the development of bilateral and

multilateral agreement through sub regional cooperation. (Elsevier, 2009).

Despite the awareness, there are enormous variation between the situation in central and

eastern Europe. According to Donnelly, et al. (1998), some countries here have implemented the

European directive on EIA in readiness for accession to the European Union. Similarly in Latin

America and South Eastern Asia, many countries have developed EIA systems of varying

effectiveness (Lohani et al,1997, Donnelly et al, (1998).

EIA in developing countries had been challenged by the prevailing socio – economic

circumstances. Alo, (1999) notes that “The paucity of adoption strategies in the developing

countries is related to problems of methodology, that is cost – benefit analysis, of environmental

protection measures, adoption of integrated physical, socio – economic and environmental

planning within the poor GNPs of such nation”. EIA has been adopted in many developing

countries of the world. Colombia in South America was the first to adopt EIA legislation in 1974,

(Alo, 1999). Thailand, Philippines, Rwanda, Botswana, Kenya, Nigeria, Tanzania, Peru, Sri-

Lanka, Argentina, Zimbabwe and others have adopted EIA legislation. (Kerdeman, 2009).

However, most developing economy depended on the exploitation of natural resources;

foreign investments which are flowing into developing countries, are based on the exploitation of

the limited natural resources such as mineral, wildlife/forestry, marine resources and others. The

government in most developing countries, do not only canvass foreign investment, but also do

everything to attract them. According to Tundu, (1999), the promotion of private foreign

investment has created fears that putting investors to rigorous and public scrutiny of their projects

on environmental grounds may scare them away, thus depriving the economy of this badly needed

foreign direct investment. Similarly, Kerdeman, (2009) notes that EIA in many developing
 19

countries, are often not users – friendly, and are inaccessible, scarcely propose feasible

alternatives, fail to designate major impact as “significant” or offer dubious justification for

selection of the final action. Despite the often already – weak status of many EIAs, many project

proponents still see the procedure as a major delay and an inconvenience.

The driving force for development projects in most developing countries is the desire for

job creation and eradication of poverty. For these reasons, most government embarked on

development projects without due regard for consequences. The proposal for the construction of

Kafin Zaki dam on the Kumadugu-Yobe basin in North Eastern Nigeria, by the Federal

Government and the Bauchi state government was to create more employment for the people and

boost their economic well being. According to the then governor of Bauchi state, Alhaji Isah

Yuguda, “It is estimated that the project would produce one million tonnes of sugarcane annually,

generate ethanol for fuel and provide over one million new jobs in agro-allied industries such as

rice mills, vegetable oil mills, and cotton ginneries as well as dairy and poultry products' industries.

Therefore, its impact in boosting food production and increasing export earnings is set to be felt

across the north-eastern region, the most improverished geo-political zone in the country and an

area where crop failure due to drought has increased unemployment and poverty to all-time high,”

In pursuant to this goal, the governor undermined the negative consequence of the project and was

bent on its completion. However, controversy over the construction of the dam had engaged

politicians from all divides within the areas that benefit from the Rivers Jama’are and Yobe. Bauchi

State Governor, Isa Yuguda, made several frantic efforts at actualising the dream of constructing

the dam which has the potential of boosting economic activities in parts of the state. His move has

also met stiff resistance from Senator Lawan and Governor Ibrahim Geidam of Yobe State.

(Abubakar,2010).
 20

In contrast to the provision of the EIA acts, the Secretary to the Government of the

Federation (SGF), in 2010, Alhaji Mahmud Yayale Ahmed, in support of the dam project made a

categorical statement that the present administration will ensure the completion of the dam before

the end of its tenure. Yayale was reported to have made the promise to the people of Bauchi State

when he led a Federal Government delegation to condole with the state over the death of their

Emir. (Abubakar, 2010).

To settle the controversy over the construction of the Kafin Zaki dam in contrast to

Yayale’s position, President Goodluck Jonathan told a delegation of Bauchi State government who

visited the Presidential Villa that he would have to study the report of the EIA before taking a final

decision on whether or not to go ahead with the Kafin-Zaki dam project, (Abubakar, 2010). It is

pertinent to notes that, the President’s referrence to EIA report was to free himself from the danger

of taking side with any of the party in the controversy.

The priority of EIA processes in developing countries is not sustainable development rather

it has become a source of revenue to the government and decision makers. For example, Kerdeman,

(2009) opines that Nigeria is one of the greatest violators of EIA regulations due to poor

participation, corruption, and /or down playing of EIA”. She went further to say that with poor

participation, weak civil society, corruption among others, EIA best practices have by and large

been downplayed, ignored and abandoned. Mass poverty, she said, was identified as a factor

responsible for poor participation in EIA process.

The promotion of foreign investment in India has created a weak EIA system in the country.

Kerdeman (2009), notes that even at a functional level, where projects require public consultation

for EIA, there is hardly any evidence that project ever get rejected.In Zimbabwe, the EIA legal

framework does not make provision for public participation. The obligation to do the EIA is on
 21

the developer and the environmental management Agency. Developers who are politically

connected have been known to get EIA License without doing any meaningful EIA (Kerdeman,

2009). In Tanzania, according to Tundu, (1999), there are cases of development projects approved

by the government against public opinion. The Rufiji Delta prawn farming remains a reference

point. In most developing countries, the close relationship between leaders and corrupt

businessmen has led political leaders to take decisions which do not consider national interest but

serve personal interest. (Tundu, 1999).

EIA in developing countries is therefore faced with serious challenges and in most cases

has been altered. However, the situation in different countries within the continent varies

considerably. According to Wood, (2003),within Africa, while the South Africa EIA system has

many attributes of a sophisticated developed country. However, EIA is becoming important in

Ghana, as yet EIA is unimportant in Somalia. It was noted that the most conspicuous difference

relates to the fact that the first EIAs to be carried out in developing countries were usually

demanded by development assistance agencies on a project-by-project basis, not as a response to

a widespread indigenous demand for a better environmental protection (Wood, 2003). There are

many examples of EIA being undertaken in developing countries, by no means all as a result of

donor agency pressure (Wood, 2003).These include EIAs in Brazil, Chile, China, Columbia,

Egypt, Ghana, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Pakistan, the Phillipines, South Africa and many others

(Wood, 2003).

In most states of Nigeria, there are many regulatory bodies for EIA with overlapping

responsibilities.Wood (2003), notes that “EIA functions better when there are specific legal

requirements for its application, where an environmental impact statement is prepared, and where

authorities are accountable for taking its result into consideration in decision–making.With many
 22

regulatory bodies, duties are often neglected. Duruigbo, (2002) states that despite the establishment

of the Federal Ministry of Environment in Nigeria, Nigerian laws vests regulatory powers over the

petroleum industry with the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC). This according to

him means that the NNPC is both a developer in partinership with foreign companies and a

regulator in the petroleum industry.

The legal basis of EIA systems in most developing countries may be weak and non

mandatory. Besides, in most developing countries, the regulatory bodies are lacking both in status

and efficiency. According to Wood (2003), the organisations responsible for implementing EIA

provision in developing countries are frequently new, lacking in status and political clout and

working in a culture where an absence of information sharing considerably reduces their influence.

He emphsised that it is clearly desirable to put in place not only the legal requirement for EIA but,

sufficient institutional and personnel capacity and resources to implement them effectively.

The compliance of EIA in most developing countries is not satisfactory and often neglects

some impacts. Wood (2003), notes that it is not uncommon for certain impacts to be neglected in

some developing countries EIA report .He sited the example of India EIA regulations, where

Landscape and visual impacts are not included. Similarly,in Nigeria it is the responsibility of the

Federal Ministry of Environment to oversee the conduct of an EIA process by a proponent and the

issuance of an environmental impact certification. while on the other hand, it is the statutory

responsibility of the National Environmental Standards and Regulations Enforcement

Agency(NESREA) to ensure that the element/issues identified in the environmental impact

statements (EIS) are complied. The agency had sealed three tele-communication base stations

belonging to MTN, ZAIN and STARCOMMS in Ilorin, Kwara state in 2013 over non-compliance

with EIA and audit report of the Federal Ministry of Environment (Shittu, 2013). However, there
 23

are several telecommunication base stations in many other places across the state with the same

error that have not been sealed by the agency. Similarly, the Federal Ministry of Environment was

found to have given provisionary approval for projects before the completion of EIA.

Inadequate coverage of EIA sytems in most developing countries can be attributed to poor

scoping of impacts. George, (2000a) notes that,where scoping does take place, it is often directed

towards meeting developing countries pollution control requirements, rather than addressing the

full range of potential environmental impacts from a proposed development. Though there is a

specific procedural and sectoral guidelines in Nigeria, only few EIAs are prepared in relation to

them. These are often neglected because most EIA consultants operate independently rather than

using inter-disciplinary teams. World Bank, (1997a) and George, (2000b) notes that few EIAs in

developing countries appear to be produced with the assistance of project-specific guidelines.

The quality of EIA reports in developing countries and particularly in Nigeria is another

major challenge facing EIA implementation and practice. Ahmad and Wood, (2000) notes that

very few EIA reports have been made available to the public even for training purposes in Egypt.

Similarly, in Kogi, EIA reports are inaccessible to the public. Even during and after the public

display period, many lack access to EIA reports for which they are highly interested. Even when

the reports are on display, in most developing countries, the reports are often very complex and

difficult to comprehend.

Kakonge (2006), notes that “The EIA process loses much of its value if reports are difficult

to comprehend or are not produced in time for those who can understand them to give their

comments.This according to him has been the case in the Niger Delta and it has created mistrust

and suspicion. Duruigbo, (2002), states that community leaders in the Niger Delta still insist that

it is possible for companies to obtain permit and commence oil production without conducting an
 24

environmental impact study. He further stated that, vague language and obsolete provisions

weaken the legal framework existing in Nigeria and that, lack of enforcement compounds

faillings. For example ,the section 30, subsection(2) of the EIA Edict in Kogi State, states that

every person who intends to carry out physical development such as manufacturing or industrial

activities in any premises within the state shall prior to the commencement of such activities submit

to KOSEPA an environmental impact assessment report and obtain a certification from the

Agency. Any person who fails to comply with this provision shall be guilty of an offence. This

regulation sounds so weak, vague and powerless.

Besides vague language, in most developing countries, experts are foreign and the few

indigenuos experts are poorly renumerated (Kakonge, 2006). In Nigeria, few EIA indigenous

consultants exist and most state lack one. It is important to note that most consultants in Nigeria

do not apply a multidisciplinary approach to EIA preparation. Wood, (2003), notes that, in many

developing countries EIA reports are written in English, rather than in the native language, and

seldom make concessions to the few lay readers ability to review them. This problem is more

compounded in places like Kogi State where all the industries are located in the rural areas where

only few people understand English language. Kakonge, (2006) states that, most countries in sub-

Saharan Africa have adopted EIA requirements laid out by other countries (especially in the three-

tier categorisation of projects by their likely impact). While it may not be bad to draw on the

experiences of other countries, caution he said, is necessary especially in circumstances prevailing

in Africa today where there are weaknesses or an absence of environmental quality standards.

African countries should perhaps consider establishing their own environmental quality norms and

standards to support EIA implementation

 25

Other prominent difficulties in developing countries EIA report preparation as identified

by several authors including Clark, (1999) is that “There is a lack of trained human resources and

of financial resources that often lead to the preparation of inadequate and irrelevant EIA reports

in developing countries. George (2000b) notes that environmental conditions in tropical or sub-

tropical areas render many of the environmental assumptions, models, and standards derived in

temperate zones inappropriate. FME, (2010) notes that “Baseline socio-economic and

environmental data are grossly inadequate for effective EIA preparation. Ngeri, (2010) states that

inadequate capacity for the interpretation of environmental impacts and the knowledge of current

global trends on new technology clouds EIA preparation in developing countries and Nigeria in

particular. She further states that the EIA acts in Nigeria is not in tune with the current global

trends since it was last reviewed in 2004, considering the dynamism of environmental issues.

The public in most developing countries are yet to catch the awareness of the importance

of EIA in sustainable development. Kakonge, (2006) opines that the public showed a lack of

appreciation of the role of EIA in development and had insufficient information about proposed

development projects. He said the developer in most cases did not consult the local communities

directly and the public had limited opportunities to play a role in determining the EIA terms of

reference.

For effective public participation in EIA system, Kakonge, (2006) opines that the EIA

process calls for an effective public awareness campaign aimed at empowering people to make

rational and appropriate choices and decisions about development projects that affect them.

On the issue of capacity and personnel development for EIA preparation, in some

developing countries like Ghana, Tunisia and South Africa, institutions and non governmental

organisations (NGO) provide training for EIA development. Damtie and Bayou, (2008) note that
 26

in Ghana and Tunisia some tertiarry institutitons provide training on EIA which is run as part of

various environment-related courses. They argued that unless institutions which are designated to

participate in EIA are staffed by capable personnel, the EIA system will be weak and unable to

accomplish the desired goal. The case in Kogi State and most developing countries is rather

pathetic because personnel that make up the EIA regulatory bodies lack expertise and are often

appointed by politicains.

It is clear from the literature that EIA in most Developing Countries have been studied and

reviewed. Kerdman, (2009), examines the challenges of EIA in Tanzania, India and many African

countries, Wood, (2003) looks at the methods and practice of EIA in Developing Countries and

observed enormous challenges; most countries in Africa had a review of their EIA system to meet

up with current Global best practice. The Nigerian EIA system was also reviewed in 2010 to

overcome some of the prevailing challenges like inadequate base-line data, indaquate personnel

capacity for EIA development. During the review, some states like Adamawa, Taraba, Ondo, Ekiti

and Abuja complained seriously on the existence of many regulatory bodies with overlapping

responsibilities in their state which has resulted in low level of compliance with EIA in those states,

(FME, 2010).

In Kogi State, however, the reason(s) for low level of compliance with EIA despite the

state legal framework is yet to be studied. It is on this premise that this study is designed to access

the methods and principles adopted in EIA practice in Kogi State and to suggest ways of improving

the Kogi State EIA system to ensure compliance of development projects.

 27

1.5 Research Methodology

The research methodology adopted was basically survey design. The data for this research

work were collected from primary and secondary sources. The primary data were obtained through

interviews conducted using structured questionnaire and field observations. Some of the

information collected include, the number of Federal Development projects in the state, State

development projects and private companies operating in the state. The list of projects that were

established between 1995-2012 which have EIA report in the state and those without it. Other

information like the number and status of the Consultant firm that prepares EIA reports, the

duration for the preparation of the report, the cost of the report and the cost of obtaining an EIA

licence and others. Places like the Federal Ministry of Environment, KOSEPA, the ten companies

with registered EIA system in the state and the state Ministry of Environment and Physical

Planning were visited for the interview. The fieldwork was conducted between April 24th and

September 26th, 2012. For proper administration of the questionnaire, three research assistants

were employed.

1.5.1 Site Selection for the Survey

Kogi State has twenty one Loca Glovernment Areas as shown in Figure 2. For the purpose

of this research, six local government areas were randomly selected for the interview.These six

Local Government Areas were selected after the preliminary study of EIA in Kogi State. The

preliminary study revealed that the industries that have EIA reports are located in six Local

Government Areas in Kogi State as shown in Figure 3. One hundred and ten copies of the

questionnaire were administered to the public in each of the six Local Government Areas .
 28

FIGURE 3: KOGI STATE SHOWING THE SIX LOCAL GOVERNMENTS

WITH MAJOR INDUSTRIES
SOURCE: GIS UNIT, DEPARTMENT OF GEOGRAPHY, UNIVERSITY OF
NIGERIA NSUKKA

1.5.2 Questionnaire Validation

The questionnaire was reviewed by three research experts from the University of Nigeria

Nsukka who eliminated and reclassified some of the questions. They include Professor I. A. Madu,

Dr. M.C. Obeta, and Dr. T. C. Nzeadibe, all from Department of Geography, University of Nigeria,

Nsukka. The questionnaire was further subjected to pre-test interview to establish the degree of

reliability of the questions in the questionnaire.

1.5.3 Questionnarie Survey

The study applied a quantitative approach using data collected from questionnaire survey.

There was seperate questionnaire for the regulating agencies in the state and government staff,
 29

another one was for project proponents and companies staff and the other one for the public or the

society where the projects are located. In all, three different questionnaires were administered for

this research work

The questionnaire for the public was administered in the six local government areas where

there are major industries in the state. These Local Government Areas include Ajaokuta, Ankpa,

Dekina, Kabba/bunu, Lokoja, and Ofu. One hundred and ten copies of questionniares were

administered in each of these Local Government Areas. Each local government area was divided

into districts. The administration of the questionniares was done to reflect the number of districts

in each local government area. The target was that at least one hundred copies will be recovered

from each of the Local Government Area. However, only five hundred and ninety eight copies

were recovered from the six Local Government Areas. Some were not filled and others were not

returned.

The questionniare for the regulating agencies in the state were administered in all the

offices that have regulatory power on EIA in Kogi State.These agencies include, Local government

health department, Area town planning office, Local Government works Department, State

Ministry of Environment and physical planning, Federal Ministry of Environment field office,

State Ministry of works, Kogi State Environmental protection Agency (KOSEPA), Urban and

Regional planning and Kogi State Town Planning office. The administration of questionniares in

these nine(9) offices were done based on the staff strenght of each of the agency. A minimum of

four copies and a maximum of eigth copies were administered. In all, seventy two copies were

distributed but, only fifty three copies were recovered

The questionniare for the project proponents and company staff were administered to the

major industries located in the six Local Government Areas of the state. The administration was
 30

carried out in the following areas. Cement factory at ALO ITOBE, Limestone quarry at ALO

ITOBE, Borehole water project at KABBA, Etisalat Network base station project at KABBA,

Biotic fertilizer company at OJUWO AGBEJI, OFFEJIJI waterfalls, Zuma 828 coal mining at

OKOBO in Ankpa, MTN network Base station at INYOLOGWU Ankpa, West African Ceramics

at Ajaokuta, ZHONG YANG Recycling projet at Ajaokuta. Dangote Cement factory at Obajana,

Limestone quarry at Obajana. Housing Estate at Lokoja. For all the state owned projects, the

relevant agencies in control like the state Ministry of works, State Ministry of Commerce and

Industry, State Water Board, Urban and Regional Planning Board were interviewed. In all, two

copies of the questionniare each were administered for both private and public projects in the

selected areas. In summary, for Type I questionnaire (Public) six hundred and sixty (660) copies

were administered, for Type II questionnaire (Regulators) seventy-two (72) copies were

administered and for Type III questionnaire (Project proponents) thirty-four (34) copies were

administered. A total of seven hundred and sixty-six copies were administered in all.

1.5.4 Interview and Field Observation

Interview was carried out on the origin, current practice and the level of compliance with

EIA in the state in the following estabilishment. RUWASA (Rural water sanitation agency),

KOSEPA (Kogi State Environmental Protection Agency), Kogi State Ministry of Environment

and Physical planning, Kogi State Town Planning Head office and Area offices, Kogi State Urban

and Regional Planning Board, Kogi State Ministry of Works and the village Heads of Okobo,

Obajana and the district Heads of Enjema district in Ankpa local government area council.

1.5.5 Secondary Data

Secondary data used for this study were obtained from published articles, library, journals,

Newspapers, EIA draft and final copies found with key institutions responsible for the
 31

implementation of EIA like the Federal Ministry of Environment, KOSEPA, Kogi State Ministry

of Environment and Physical Planning and other relevant agences. Some of the existing EIA

reports in the state were examined and reviewed to see their level of compliance with the

guidelines. Textbooks and magazines, Decree and government gazette and the Internet were as

well used to source data.

1.5.6 Data Analysis

The data generated from both primary and secondary sources were subjected to statistical

analysis like mean, frequency and correlation.These statistical techniques were used to determine

the frequency of a particular variable as a challenge to EIA delivery in Kogi State based on the

result from the questionnaire. The Federal Government procedural guidelines on the preparation

of EIA and the decree 30 of 2004 on EIA was used to study the relationship that exist between the

two EIA policy. Each items in the procedural guideline like public participation, terms of reference

, mitigating measures, strategy for alternatives and others were used for this purpose.

The response from the questionniares were coded. Each questionniare was divided into four

sections. Section A was for the Bio- data of the respondents. Section B was for the level of

awareness of EIA in Kogi State while section C and D were for factors affecting EIA and the level

of compliance of EIA respectively.The coding therefore reflects all the variables for each section.

The percentage of each variable was calculated based on the frequency values obtained

from our checklist in each section of the questionniare. The responses were assessed on the likert

five point response continuum scale. The strongly Agreed was rated 5, Agreed was rated 4,

Undecided was rated 3, Disagreed was rated 2, Strongly disagreed was rated 1.The sum of all the

ratings gave the total point for each of the section

 32

Statistical Packages for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 19 was used for the analysis. The

programme extracted the rated values for each of the variables and trasnforms them to MEAN

which was further used in the Analysis of Variance, Correlation and Principal Component

Analysis.

Principal Component Analysis was used to extract the factors that have the most signifficant

effect on EIA in the state.

 33

1.6 Plan of the Project

This research project is divided into six chapters starting from the introduction to findings,
conclusions and recommendations.
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
This chapter features the background of the study; the statement of the research problem,
aim and objectives of the study and the study area, Literature review, Research methodology and
the plan of the project were covered in this chapter.

CHAPTER TWO: THE CURRENT PRACTICE OF EIA IN KOGI STATE

This chapter discusses in detail the evolution and current practice of EIA in Kogi State.
The Legal and Administrative framework of EIA at the state level was examined as well.
CHAPTER THREE: IDENTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE LEVEL
This chapter identified the level of compliance with Environmental Impact Assessment in
the State. The chapter also identified those industries established between 1993 and 2012 that have
EIA and those that do not have.
CHAPTER FOUR: IDENTIFICATION AND ANALYSIS OF THE CAUSES OF LOW
COMPLIANCE WITH EIA
This chapter deals with the causes of low level of compliance with Environmental Impact
Assessment in Kogi State. The response received from both the interview and questionnaires were
used to determine the reason(s) for low level of compliance with EIA provisions and identify the
causes of low level of compliance in the state.
CHAPTER FIVE: STRATEGIES FOR EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF EIA
This chapter discusses the various strategies observed from the result of the analysis conducted in
chapter four.
CHAPTER SIX: SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
This chapter contain a summary of findings, conclusion, and recommendation for effective
implementation of Environmental Impact Assessment in the state. Possible means for ensuring
sustainable environmental management has been put forward based on the result of the analysis.
 34

CHAPTER TWO

ORIGIN AND CURRENT PRACTICE OF EIA IN KOGI STATE

2.1.0 Origin of EIA in Kogi State

The Kogi State Environmental Protection Agency was established by Edict No 3, of

1995.The Edict made the implementation of EIA mandatory through its provision in Section 30(2)

for all project proponents in the State. According to the state legal framework, a list of projects

and activities requiring EIA report were published and the content of Environmental Impact

Assessment report were clearly spelt out in section 13 subsection (2) of Edict No.3 of 1995.

Some of these activities include; Land development scheme covering an area of 50 hectares

or more to bring forest land into Agricultural production, Wood/Timber processing, Saw milling,

Construction of large fish pond, Conversion of hill forest covering an area of 10 hectares,

Conversion of forestland to other uses within the catchment areas of reservoirs, Logging covering

an area of 50 hectares or more, Estate development requiring the acquisition of land of 5 hectares

and above, Any development along the Bank of River Niger and River Benue, Petrol filling station,

Quarry sites for aggregate, marble, limestone etc, Manufacturing or processing industry, Road

development through a virgin land, Abattoirs and the Construction of 3 storey buildings and

above.

2.1.1 Kogi State Administrative and Legal Framework of EIA

The highest body charged with the responsibility of planning and management of the

environment in the state is the Kogi State Environmental Protection Agency (KOSEPA). The

agency exercise both advisory and executive power on environmental matters in the state. The

governing council on the environment at the State level consist of the Secretary to the State

government as the Chairman, Honourable Commissioners for Agriculture and Natural Resources,
 35

Works, Transport and Housing, Health and Social Development, Finance and Economic Planning,

Commerce and Industry, Justice, and Education. Other members include the Directors-General for

Department of Lands, Surveys and Physical Development, General Manager of KOSEPA and two

people from the private sector who have distinguished themselves in environmental matters. The

council serves mainly as a supervisory body to KOSEPA.

At the Local Government levels, there exist the Committee on Environmental Protection

(CEP). The committee consist of the Chairman of the Council as Chairman. Council Secretary

and other persons with equivalent power as members. The CEP carry out the mandate of KOSEPA

at the Local Government level. Administratively, KOSEPA consist of a General Manager who

oversees all the activities of the Agency. The KOSEPA has four (4) Departments which include,

Environmental Planning and Conservation, Waste Management and Sanitation, Environmental

Monitoring and Enforcement, Finance and Administration. The four Heads of Department and the

General Manager form the management team of the KOSEPA.

KOSEPA is mandated to perform the following functions.

1. To formulate and enforce policies and programmes which aim at protecting the

environment of the state. Such policies, regulations and standards to be formulated include

those for solid waste collection and disposal, drainage, and liquid waste management, air

emissions and Environmental Impact Assessment of new and existing projects.

2. To liaise with and co-ordinate the activities of all agencies in the state connected with

environmental and ecological matters and to render advisory services and support to all

Local Governments in the state in areas of flooding and erosion control, solid waste

management and ecological matters.

 36

3. To conduct enlightenment campaigns, disseminate vital information on environmental and

ecological matters and mobilize the inhabitants of all areas in the state for effective

observance of environmental rules and guidelines for the promotion of a healthy and safe

environment.

4. To monitor sources of toxic pollution in the air, land and water and initiate measures to

ensure pollution free air, land and water throughout the state.

5. To implement applicable laws and standards on activities relating to the environment in

collaboration with the Federal Ministry of Environment.

2.1.2 Legal Framework

Before KOSEPA was established in 1995, there was an Environmental Sanitation Task

Force in the state. When KOSEPA was established, the edict establishing the Task Force on

environmental Sanitation was repealed to avoid overlapping of functions.

The edict No 3 of 1995, establishing KOSEPA has the following laws/regulations.

 Household and industrial solid waste management.

 Discharge of liquid waste and management of damaged ecosystem.

 Emission of air pollutants through incineration or industrial processes.

 Improper Handling of hazardous waste and pollution of water bodies.

 Operating the business of manufacturing chemicals, lubricants, cement, petroleum

Products etc.

 Environmental Impact Assessment.

The edict gave power to KOSEPA officials to seal off premises where activities that

contravenes its laws are carried out and demolish or remove any construction or structure that does
 37

not comply with environmental laws in the state. They were also vested with the power to

prosecute any offender.

The penalty stipulated in the edict include a maximum fine of N1, 000, 000.00 (one million

naira) for illegal toxic or radioactive waste disposal and N500, 000 (five hundred thousand naira)

for non-compliance with state environmental standard and rules. The state also has the power to

imprison Managers and Directors of firms for not more than ten (10) years if they are found to aid

offenders of environmental laws.

Furthermore, the edict requires an Environmental Impact Assessment Report for at least

the following minimum matters.

i. A description of the proposed activities.

ii. Base-line ecology of the site.

iii. A description of the affected environment including specific information necessary to

identify and assess the environmental efffect of the proposed activity.

iv. A description of the practical activity as appropriate.

v. An identification of the likely or potential impact of the proposed activities and the

alternatives,including the direct or indirect, cumulative,short term and long term effects.

vi. An identification and description of measures available to mitigate adverse environmental

impact of proposed activity and assessment of those measures.

vii. An indication of gaps in knowledge and uncertainty,which may be encountered in

computing the required information.

viii. An indication of whether the environment of any other state or Local Government Area or

an area outside Nigeria is likely to be affected by the proposed activities or its alternatives.

ix. A brief and non technical summary of the information provided under items i to vii above.
 38

Other institutions that have direct or indirect mandate on environmental management in

the State include, Ministry of Health, Ministry of Works and Housing, Ministry of Agriculture

and Natural Resources, Urban and Rural Development Authority, Kogi State Water Cooperation

Board and Department of Land Survey and Physical Planning.

2.1.3 Current Practice of EIA in Kogi State.

Since the enactment of Edict No 3 of 1995, several project proponents had embarked on

EIA. The level of compliance was observed to be on the increase since 1995. However, the

approach in some cases varies greatly from the National guidelines. The list of twenty seven (27)

development projects with EIA report in the State is contained in Table 2. Table 3 contains a list

of twelve (12) development projects in the State established between 1995-2012 that have no EIA

report. Suprisingly, there are large number of development projects undertaken by the State

Government between1995-2012 without EIA report. Some of the examples include the

Confluence Beach Hotel at Lokoja, Kogi State Fertilizer Company at Anyigba and several road

projects, several borehole projects and several rural electrification projects embarked upon in the

state during the period under study.There are also cases of EIA reports that were prepared and

approved by the State Ministry of Environment.The list of six (6) such development projects is

contained in Table 4.

Table 2: List of Development Projects in Kogi State that was established between 1995 and
2012 with EIA reports
S/N NAME LOCATION PRODUCT
1 Ceramic Industry Oguro Village Ajaokuta Ceramic processing
2 VEE Network Nig. Ltd. Lokoja GSM mobile phone
3 Korean consortium, Ajaokuta, Abuja-Kaduna-Kano Natural Gas Pipeline
4 Nigerian Gas Company Ltd. Geregu Junction Gas supply
5 330KV Transmission line G/Lada-Lokoja-Ajaokuta Electric project.
6 Dangote PLC Obajana Quarry of Limestone
7 Dangote PLC Obajana Cement factory
8 Dangote PLC Obajana Packing lots for vehicles
9 Dangote PLC Ajaokuta-Obajana Gas pipeline
 39

10 Cement factory Ekinrin-ADE Cement Processing

11 Dredging of the lower Niger Lokoja-Idah River Project
12 Zuma coal fired plant project. Itobe Thermal electricity.
13 Nigerian Gas Company LTD Geregu PHCN. Gas supply.
14 Gas pipeline/Thermal plant. Ajaokuta-Abuja Transmission line project.
15 Quarry project Alo-Itobe Limestone quarry
16 Goldfield Cement plant Alo-Itobe Cement Factory
17 Etisalat Base Station Lokoja GSM Network provider
18 Seismic Drilling and product OPLS915/916 Drilling.
19 Gas pipeline Calaba-Umuahia-Ajaokuta Gas transmission project,
20 Airtel Network Lokoja GSM network provider
21 MTN Network Lokoja GSMNetwork provider
22 Dangote plc Obajana Earth Dam
23 Western Goldfield Group ltd Omala Dekina- Coal mining.
24 350mw Gas Turbine power plant Ajaokuta Electricity generation
25 Okaba coal industry Ankpa Coal mining
26 330kv DC Transmission line 23km lokoja\obaj Transmission line.
27 Ofejiji Falls Dekina Dam Project
Source: Federal Ministry of Environment Field Office, Lokoja (2012).

Table 3: List of Development Projects established between 1995 and 2012 without EIA
report.
1 Quest II Felele-Lokoja Lime Industry
2 Jakura Marble Industry Lokoja Marble smelting
3 Nimco Feldspar Lokoja Feldspar & Quartz project
4 Marks farms Osara Large scale farming
5 NNPC Mega Station Felele and other places Filling station
6 Confluence beach hotel Lokoja Cafeteria
7 Citizen Petroleum Okene Petrol station
8 Conoil petroleum Okene Petrol station
9 Royiza petroleum Okene Petrol station
10 Total petroleum Ankpa Petrol station
11 Oando petroleum Ankpa Petrol station
12. Lokoja international market. Lokoja. Commercial centre.
Source: Kogi State Environmental Protection Agency (2012).
 40

Table 4: List of Development Projects established between (1995 – 2012) that have EIA
which was processed and concluded in the state.
S/N NAME LOCATION PRODUCT
1 Sugar company Ibaji Sugar processing
2 AOB Oil Ventures Ltd Ganaja Road Lokoja Petrol station
3 K Hasarai and Sons Nig. Ltd Ganaja Road Lokoja Petrol station
4 Alternative Impression Nig. Ltd Lokoja Petrol station
5 SIBB Oil Services Nig. Ltd. Lokoja Petrol station
6 SOPPAVIC Nig. Ltd. Ganaja Petrol station
Source: Kogi State Environmental Protection Agency (2012).

2.1.4 EIA Process and Procedural Framework

The EIA process is the various stages a project undergoes from project proposal to approval

and certification. The FEPA procedural guideline shows nine (9) steps from the conception of the

project to its commissioning.

The steps include the followings

 Project proposal

 Initial environmental examination (IEE)/preliminary assessment

 Screening

 Scoping

 EIA study

 Panel review

 Decision making

 Monitoring and

 Auditing

The project proponents initiate the process through an application to the Federal Ministry of

Environment. A notification form is then completed with all necessary information on the

proposal.
 41

This is followed by an internal screening by the Ministry of Environment to determine the

project’s category under the mandatory study list. Where there are no adverse effects, the EIA is

issued and permission may be given with appropriate mitigation and monitoring measures. But

where adverse effects exist, the IEE report is sent to the proponent for scoping and preparation of

Terms of Referrence (ToR) and with the ToR the EIA study is carried out using EIA consultants

after which an EIA draft report is prepared and sent to the Ministry.

The Ministry is expected to conclude evaluation of the draft report and set out the review

method which is communicated to the proponent in writting. The review methods always take the

following form, in-house review, panel review public review and mediation.

The public review is published in any of the national dailies for wider coverage and the

EIA draft copy is placed on display for at least three weeks to allow comments from the public

and stakeholders.

The final EIA report is then prepared with answers to review comments and this is

submitted within six months to the responsible officer. Within one month of the receipt of an

acceptable EIA final report, the committee gives approval for EIS followed by EIA

certificate/licence.

The proponent is now free to commence his project with a specified condition. The

progress of the project is monitored to ensure compliance with all the conditions and mitigation

measures.

Environmental audit is carried out periodically to assess both positive and negative impact

of the project. All these process are prescribed in the procedural guidelines prepared by FEPA on

EIA. A good EIA must undergo all the steps as enumerated above. However, in Kogi state, the

Town Planning EIA is more popular and do not operate on a specific guideline. The state
 42

government does not give an EIA permit. It is only required of a project proponent to attach an

EIA report to the proposal of their project when seeking for approval from the Urban and Regional

Planning Board. The Board assume that any registered Town Planner is qualified to prepare an

EIA. It is therefore the duty of the project proponent to locate a registered Town Planner to prepare

an EIA for the project.

2.1.5 Analysis of the Awareness of EIA in Kogi State.

The respondents’ level of awareness of Environmental Impact Assessment in Kogi State

was analysed in three categories. Table 5, contain the Frequency distribution of the level of

awareness of EIA by the public in the state. Table 6 shows the level of awareness of the

Government staff and Regulatory Agencies and Table 7 reveals the level of awareness of the

project proponents and Company staff.

Fifteen checklists were used to analyse the level of awareness of each of the category examined.

To avoid concealing of information, some of the questions vary from one respondent to the other

while similar questions were used for the three categories in some cases. The analysis of the results

obtained reflects the awareness level of the three categories of respondents in Kogi State on

Environmental Impact Assessment.

The awareness level was analysed based on the frequency values obtained from our

checklists. This enabled us to obtain the mean scores and the freqency counts of the response

values whose sum total is fifteen (15) for every variable. The response was assessed on the Likert

five point response continuum scale. The Strongly Agreed was rated 5, Agreed 4, Undecided 3,

Disagree 2 and Strongly Disagree 1. The sum of all the ratings gave us a total of fifteen points

which was used to analyse the mean score for each variable. Any mean above 4.5 is very high, 3.5

and above is high, 3.4-2.5 express uncertainty and any mean below 2.5 is poor. This appproach
 43

was adopted by (SWAP, 2003, Ubachukwu, 2010,) in the analysis of awareness level and it

produced good result.

In Table 5, B1 (Environmental Impact Assessment is well known to everybody in Kogi

State) indicates that 76.4% of the public in Kogi State are not aware of Environmental Impact

Assessment in the state, though 2.2% of the respondents were uncertain and unwilling to give an

opinion on the variable. 24.4% of the public agreed that they are aware of EIA in the state. With a

mean of 2.10, it is concluded that the level of awareness of EIA in Kogi State by the public is low

and unsatisfactory.

Item B2 (There are industries and development project in your locality) indicate that 59.7%

of the public agreed there are industries in their locality. 3.2% were uncertain and indecicive, while

37% disagreed with the variable. With a mean of 3.42, it is concluded that there are reasonable

number of industries in Kogi State that requires an EIA. B3 (All the development projects in the

area have an EIA permit for the project) result indicates that 57.7% of the public disagreed that the

industries and development projects have Environmental Impact Assessment Permit. 31.7% of the

public are uncertain about the variable which only 10.7% agreed with the variable. With a mean

of 2.10 it is concluded that the level at which development projects comply with EIA in the state

is low. The result also indicate that the Kogi State government allows industries and development

projects to flourish without regards to Environmental Impact Assessment permit.

For B4 (None of the development project in the Area has an EIA permit) result indicate

that 43.9% of the public disagreed with the variable, 32.8% of the public were uncertain and

unwilling to give an opinion on the variable. However, 22.9% of the public agreed that only few

development projects in the area have an EIA permit. With a mean of 2.50 it is concluded that the

number of industries and development projects in the state that have an EIA permit is low and not
 44

reasonable enough. B5 (Only few of the development projects in the state have an EIA permit)

result shows clearly that 9.6% of the public disagreed with the variable. 43.1% of the public were

indecisive on the variable. However, 47.1% of the public agreed that only few of the development

projects in the area have an EIA permit. Judging from the responses on variable B3,B4 and B5, it

is very clear that most industries and development projects in the state have no regard for

Environmental Impact Assessment Acts

TABLE 5: FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONSES BY THE PUBLIC ON THE

LEVEL OF AWARENESS OF EIA IN KOGI STATE.
5 4 3 2 1
Code QUESTIONS SA A UD D SD TOTAL MEAN
B1 Environmental impact 48 80 13 228 229 598 2.10
assessment is well known to 8.0% 13.4% 2.2% 38.1% 38.3%
everybody in Kogi state.
B2 There are industries and 245 112 19 93 128 598 3.42
development projects in your 41% 18.7% 3.2% 15.6% 21.4%
locality.
B3 All the development projects in 22 42 189 66 278 598 2.10
the area have an EIA permit for 3.7% 7.0% 31.7 11.1% 46.6%
the project. %
B4 None of the development 32 189 195 62 202 598 2.50
project in the area have an EIA 5.4% 17.5% 32.8 10.4% 33.9%
permit. %
B5 Only few of the development 57 225 258 29 29 598 3.42
projectin the area have an EIA 9.5% 37.6% 43.1 4.8% 4.8%
permit %
B6 Many EIA public review have 84 83 37 49 345 598 2.18
been held in your area. 14.0% 13.9% 6.2% 8.2% 57.7%
B7 The public review does not 398 98 26 46 30 598 4.32
necessarily involve the people 66.6% 16.4% 4.3% 7.7% 5.0%
from the area where the project
is to be sited.
B8 People from the locality do not 37 86 16 54 405 598 1.82
like to attend public review on 6.2% 14.4% 2.6% 9.0% 67.7%
EIA even when they are
visited.
B9 Only the community heads and 433 75 29 38 23 598 4.43
highly placed individuals are 72.4% 12.5% 4.8% 6.4% 3.8%
invited for EIA public review.
B10 Members of the public are 78 151 46 203 120 598 2.77
often given the opportunity to 13.0% 25.3% 7.7% 33.9% 20.1%
give their opinion on the EIA
of the project in their area
during public review.
B11 Members of the public need 486 466 22 23 21 598 4.52
more enlighentment on EIA 81.3% 7.7% 3.6% 3.8% 3.5%
 45

B12 There is no relevance of EIA to 22 45 18 63 450 598 1.54

development project in the 3.7% 7.5% 3.0% 10.5% 75.3%
area.
B13 The project proponents always 116 90 33 173 186 598 2.63
show genuine readiness to 19.4% 15.1% 5.5% 28.9% 31.1%
accomodate the complaint and
suggestions of the public.
B14 The project proponents always 452 64 23 40 19 598 4.68
run away from organising 75.6% 10.7% 3.8% 6.7% 3.2%
public review because of the
cost of it.
B15 The public has never raised any 205 172 101 66 54 598 3.68
serious contention during 34.3% 28.8% 16.9 11.0% 9.0%
public review. %
Source: Fieldwork (2012).

For B6 (Many EIA public review has been held in your area), the result shows that 65.9%

of the public disagreed that public review on EIA are held in the very area where the project is to

be located. Though 6.2% were not willing to give an opinion on the variable, 27.5% agree that

EIA public review are held in the locality where development projects are sited in Kogi State. With

a mean of 2.18 it is concluded that EIA public review are not held in the area where the

development project is to be sited. This also indicates lack of complaince with EIA Acts. Further

inquiries during the field work shows that the EIA public review were held at Lokoja, the state

capital and this makes it very impossible for the members of the public from the affected area to

attend the public review and bare their minds on the project. B7 (The public review does not

necessarily involve the people from the area where the project was to be sited) shows that 83% of

the public agreed that the public review does not necessarily involve members of the public from

the very area where the project is located. With a mean of 4.31, we conclude that the EIA public

review in Kogi State does not necessarily involve the people from the area where the project is to

be sited. This is a serious contravention of the EIA law which strongly emphasised the involvment

of stakeholders including local host communities and public participation in EIApublic review

process.
 46

On B8 (People from the locality do not like to attend public review on EIA even when they

are invited), the result shows that 76.7% of the public disagreed with the variable. 20.8% of the

public agreed with the variable, 2.6% are uncertain about the variable. With a mean of 1.68, it is

concluded that people from the area are ready and willing to attend EIA public review when invited

without paying the cost of attending. For B9 (Only the community heads and highly placed

individuals are invited for EIA public review), the result indicates that 84.9% agreed that only

community heads and highly placed individuals in the society are invited for EIA public review.

With a mean of 4.43, there is a strong indication that only community heads and highly placed

individuals in the locality are invited for EIA public review. Further inquiries during the fieldwork

revealed that the community heads and those that are often invited by the project proponents for

EIA public review are often given free transportation to the venue and entertainment during the

review. This always affects their attitude and disposition towards the EIA public review.

B10 (Members of the public are often given the opportunity to give their opinion on the

EIA of the project in their area during public review) a mean score of 2.77 indicates that members

of the public are not given opportunity to air their opinion on the EIA of the project in their area

during public review. Similarly during fieldwork, the youths of Okobo of Enjema district in Ankpa

local government area of Kogi State where Goldsfield coal mining company is located complained

that though their youth leader was invited for the public review which took place in Lokoja, all

their request, concerns, disagreements and suggestions on the EIA were not considered at all.

They complained further that they have no access to the copy of the EIA document.

For B11 (members of the public need more enlightenment on EIA) the result shows that

89% of the public agreed that members of the public in Kogi State need enlightenment on
 47

Environmental Impact Assessment. With a mean of 4.5, there is a strong indication that the public

in Kogi State need more enlightenment on Environmental Impact Assessment.

B12 (There is no relevance of EIA to development projects in the area) the result shows

that 85.8% of the public disagree with the variable. Though 3.0% were uncertain and indecisive,

only 11.2% of the public agree with the variable. With a mean of 1.54 there is a strong indication

that EIA is of relevance to development projects in the area.

B13 (The project proponents always show genuine readiness to accommodate the

complaints and suggestions of the public) the result shows that 60% of the public disagreed with

the variable. A mean of 2.62 is low or poor to accept the variable. This result further revealed that

the project proponents do not show gueniune readiness to accommodate the complaints and

suggestions of the public. To further justify this result, despite the strong contention raised by the

project Igala in the National Dailies on the EIA of the Goldsfield coal mining at Okobo and other

parts of Igala land, the company still went ahead and commenced their project without regard to

those complaints and requests.

B14 (The project proponents always run away from organizing public review because of

the cost involved). result revealed that 86.3% of the public agreed with the variable. With a mean

of 4.68, it is concluded that project proponents in Kogi State run away from organising public

review because of the cost implications even though such cost is assumed to be built in the EIA

budget..

B15 (The public has never raised any serious contention during EIA public review), the

result shows that 63.1% of the public agreed that the public has not raised any serious contention

during EIA public review in Kogi State. A mean of 3.68 indicates that the public seldom raised

contention during EIA public review and this is because the project proponent besides selecting
 48

those to attend the review also sponsor them by paying for the cost of their transportation and

refreshment.

Further studies conducted in the area on the awareness level of EIA in Kogi State can be

seen in Table 6 and Table 7. Table 6 contain the frequency distribution of response from the EIA

Regulating Agencies and government staff while Table 7 contain those from projects proponents

and staff of industries and companies in the state.

Adebola (2012) in an interview during the field work conducted in Kabba, stated that both

the public and the government in Kogi State care less about EIA. He gave an example of a surface

well serving a particular household in Kajola, Kabba which dried up as a result of the drilling of a

borehole which was approved by the state .This resulted into a conflict between the owners of the

well and the owner of the borehole. He explained that if an Environmental Impact Assessment for

the borehole project was conducted, the effect of it on the well in the area would have been known

and solutions would have been proffered before the drilling of the borehole.

Similarly, the Head of Works Department of Kabba/ bunu Local Government Area,

Mallam Mohammed in an interview, said it is not clear what the government is doing on EIA in

the state. He gave an example of an EIA document forwarded to his office by Etisalat Network

provider for a Base Station in the area. He explained further that the document was very scanty

and looks more like an extraction. He said that beyond sending the document to him, he was never

again involved in the EIA process of that project.

 49

TABLE 6: FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONSES BY THE REGULATORS

ON THE LEVEL OF AWARENESS OF EIA IN KOGI STATE
5 4 3 2 1
CODE QUESTIONS SA A UD D SD TOTAL MEAN
B1 Environmental impact assessment 35 13 1 3 1 53 3.76
is known to all the staff in the 66.0% 6.89% 1.88% 5.66% 1.88%
office.
B2 There is an existing EIA in all the 1 4 6 32 10 53 2.19
development projects embarked 1.88% 7.54 % 11.32 60.37% 18.86%
upon by individuals and %
government in the state.
B3 EIA reports are received, screened 2 33 3 11 4 7.54% 53 2.98
and approved regularly in your 3.77% 62.26% 5.66% 2.75%
office.
B4 EIA takes a long period of time to 0 8 1 37 7 13.20% 53 2.18
get an approval from the 0% 14.80% 1.88% 69.81%
government.
B5 There are more than one Agency 32 12 4 2 3 5.66% 53 4.29
regulating EIA in Kogi state. 60.37% 22.64% 7.54% 3.77%

EIA is prepared regularly and 6 36 4 5 2 53 3.19

B6 submitted for approval in Kogi 11.32% 67.92% 7.54% 9.43% 3.77%
state.
B7 Members of the public are very 1 7 2 39 4 53 2.28
much aware of EIA in Kogi state. 1.88% 13.20% 3.77% 73.58% 7.54%
B8 Members of the public need more 43 10 0 0 0 0% 53 4.81
enlightment on EIA in Kogi state. 81.13% 18.86% 0% 0%
B9 Our Agency has done a lot to 5 13 3 29 3 5.66% 53 2.77
improve public awareness on EIA 9.43% 24.52% 5.66% 54.71%
in Kogi state.
B10 EIA is of great relevance to 42 9 0 1 1 1.88% 53 4.70
sustainable environmental 79.24% 16.98% 0% 1.88%
management in Kogi state.
B11 There are institutions across the 1 4 4 6 38 53 1.57
state where EIA specialists are 1.88% 7.54% 7.54% 11.32% 71.69%
trained.
B12 The state government is strongly 4 5 3 37 4 7.54% 53 2.40
enforcing EIA in Kogi state. 7.54% 9.43% 5.66% 69,81%

B13 All the Local Government Areas 4 2 7 11 29 53 1.89

has been empowered to enforce 7.54% 3.77% 13.20 20.75% 54.71%
and monitor projects to ensure a %
strong compliance with EIA.
B14 There is a strong political will on 3 2 4 8 36 53 1.64
EIA by the governor of the state. 5.66% 3.77% 7.54% 15.0% 67.92%
15 The public are not ready to 7 29 10 7 0 53 3.68
incorporate EIA policies into their 13.20% 54.71% 18.86 13.20% 0%
projects in Kogi State. %
Source: Fieldwork (2012)
 50

In Table 6, B1 (Environmental Impact Assessment is known to all the staff in your office.)

has a mean score of 3.76 indicating that significant number (75.2%)of the Regulators are aware of

Environmental Impact Assessment in the state. Since the Regulators in this category are in one

way or the other involved directly in EIA regulation in their varous offices, the result is not out of

place. B2 (There exist an EIA report for all the development projects embarked upon by individuals

and governments in the state), result indicate that 79.23% of the regulators disagreed with the

variable. 11.32% were uncertain and unwilling to express their opinion on the variable. Only

9.54% of the regulators agreed with the variable. With a mean of 2.19 it is concluded that the

number of projects with EIA report existing in the state is not significant enough. It shows that a

good number of development projects executed in the state by individuals and government do not

have EIA report. B3 (EIA reports are recieved, screened and approved regularly in your office).

With a mean score of 2.9 there is an indication that EIA reports are not prepared regularly in the

state. The mean score (2.18) for B4 (EIA take a long period of time to get approval from the

government), indicates that EIA approval does not take a long time to obtain from government in

Kogi State. Result shows a mean of 2.18 indicating that EIA does not take a reasonable time before

getting approval from the Government. Further enquiries during fieldwork revealed that most EIA

documents in the state does not follow the National guidelines. Some of the EIA docments were

processed and approved in the state without being refferred to the Federal Ministry of Environment

for approval. Table 3 contains some examples of projects with such EIA report. Besides, the EIA

policy in the state does not require any license or permit from the State government. The project

proponent is at liberty to choose any registered Town planner to prepare an EIA for him. With the

Town Planning seal, the EIA document is considered authentic. B5 (There are more than one

agency regulating EIA in Kogi State), result indicates that 86.01% of the regulators which
 51

constitutes mainly Government staff working in the various regulating Agencies agreed with the

variable. The mean score is 4.29 and with this, we conclude that there are more than one agency

regulating EIA in Kogi state. It was observed from the fieldwork that over four agencies regulate

EIA in the state. Some of these agencies include the State Ministry of Environment, Federal

Ministry of Environment, Kogi State Environmental Protection Agency, Kogi Town planning

Board and others. B6 (EIA is prepared regularly and submitted for approval in Kogi State) has a

mean score of 3 19. The result is an expression of uncertainty among the regulators.This is because

the Town Planning EIA which is popular in the State is prepared and submitted regularly without

any recourse to the Federal procedural guideline.On the other hand, the Environment EIA is not

prepared regularly in the state. The result of B7 (Members of the public are very much aware of

EIA in Kogi State), shows that 15.08% of the regulators agreed with the variable.3.77% were

uncertain and undecisive, while 81.12% disagreed with the variable. With a mean of 2.28 we

conclude that members of the public in the study area are not very much aware of EIA in the state

from the view point of the EIA Regulators.

B8 (members of the public need more enlightenment on EIA in Kogi State), with a mean

score of 4.81, there is indication that large number of the regulators agreed that members of the

public need more enlightenment on EIA. This result strongly agreed with the response of the public

in B11, (Table 5.).

Item B9 (Our Agency has done a lot to improve public awareness on EIA in Kogi State),

has a mean score of 2.77, indicating that 60.37% of the regulators disagreed with the variable.

This shows that all the Agencies regulating EIA in Kogi State have done little to improve public

awareness of EIA in Kogi State.

 52

For B10 (EIA is of great relevance to sustainable environmental management in Kogi

State), 96.22% of the regulators agreed to the variable. With a mean of 4.69, the result show a

strong acceptance of the relevance of EIA to sustainable environmental management. B11 (There

are institutions across the state where EIA specialists are trained) .Rresult shows that 83.01%

disagreed with the variable. With a mean of 1.57, we conclude that there are no institution in the

state where EIA specialists are trained. For B12 (The state government is strongly enforcing EIA

in Kogi State), result shows that 77.35% of the regulators disagreed with the variable. the mean

score is 2.40 which show that the State Government is not enforcing EIA in the State. Our

observation from the fieldwork revealed that there are quite a good number of government projects

in the state without an EIA report. Similarly, the state government was found to have

commissioned many private development projects without EIA. For example The Confluence

Beach Hotel, Kogi State Biotic Fertilizer company and others were commissionned without EIA

permit.

B13 (All the Local Government Area has been empowered to enforce and monitor projects

to ensure strong compliance with EIA) indicates that 75.46% of the regulators disagreed with the

variable. The mean score is 1.87. It was observed that most local government council are not aware

of the provision of the Committee on the Environmenment as contained in the Edict, no 3 of 1995.

For example, the Liaison officer 1 for Ankpa and Lokoja local governments declined responding

to our interview claiming that it is the Environmental Health officer of the Council that has such

mandate. Meanwhile, the Edict provided that the Liaison Officer 1 of the Council is the Secretary

of the Committee on the Environment. This shows that the awareness of EIA is very low in the

state.
 53

The result of B14 (There is a strong political will on EIA by the Government of the state),

shows that 82.92% of the regulators disagreed with the variable. With a mean of 1.64 we conclude

that there is no strong political will on EIA by the state Government. B15 (The public is not ready

to incoporate EIA policies into their projects in Kogi state) result indicates that 67.91% of the

regulators agreed with the variable. The mean score is 3.68 showing that the public in the Kogi

State are not ready to incorporate EIA policies into their projects according to the view of the

Regulating Agencies.

TABLE 7: FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONSES ON THE LEVEL OF

AWARENESS OF EIA BY PROJECT PROPONENTS AND COMPANY STAFF
5 4 3 2 1
CODE QUESTIONS SA A UD D SD TOTAL MEAN
B1 Environmental impact assessment is 6 13 3 _ 1 23 3.99
known to every project proponent in kogi 26% 56.5% 13% 0% 4.3%
state
B2 It takes this office a long period to obtain 2 11 4 1 5 23 3.01
EIA permit from the government 8.69% 43.82 17.39% 4.3% 21.73%
%
B3 Because of the long time it takes them to 1 11 5 1 5 23 3.08
obtain an EIA permit, we normally 4.3% 47.82 21.73% 4.3% 21.73%
commence development project long %
bsfore the permit is released.
B4 The EIA for you was approved long - 3 4 5 11 23 1.97
before the commencement of the project 0% 13% 17.39% 21.73 47.82%
%
B5 The demand for EIA permit by the 3 14 2 4 _ 33 3.69
institution that grants the company loan to 13% 60.86 8.6% 17.39 0%
start the project was a precondition that % %
cannot be avoided.
B6 There are more than one office regulating 8 9 2 3 1 23 3.86
EIA in kogi state. 34.78 39.13 8.6% 13% 4.3%
% %
B7 All the EIA regulating agencies in Kogi 2 13 7 _ 1 23 3.64
State have overlapping functions. 8.6% 56.3% 30.43% 0% 4.3%
B8 Project proponents are unduly delayed in 5 8 2 5 3 23 3.30
the process of trying to obtain an EIA 21.73 34.78 8.6% 21.73 13%
approval . % % %
B9 Project proponents are often discouraged 2 10 7 4 _ 23 3.44
from undertaking EIA because of funding 8.69% 43.47 30.43% 17.39 0%
regulating agencies. % %

B10 There is always apathy on the part of _ _ 20 1 2 23 2.77

stakeholders in the EIA process. 0% 0% 86.95% 4.3% 8.69%
B11 Project proponents often prefers to tip 16 5 2 23 2.61
EIA regulating officers in order to get the 0% 0% 69.56% 21.73 8.69%
%
 54

approval for their project within a short

time
12 Project proponents are compelled by law 1 14 4 4 23 3.17
to prepare EIA at all cost in kogi state 4.3% 60.86 0% 17.39 17.39%
% %
B13 EIA is of no relevance to the growth of 1 6 5 5 6 23 2.56
your company 4.3% 26% 21.73% 21.73 21.73%
%
B14 The only relevance of EIA to your 3 5 6 7 2 23 2.99
company is just to satisfy the donor 13% 21.73 26% 30.43 8.69%
agency in order to obtain loan % %
B15 Huge sum of money is spent on 3 _ 1 6 13 23 1.86
processing EIA in kogi state. 13% 0% 4.3% 26.0% 56.5%

Source: Fieldwork (2012)

Table 7, shows the Frequency Distribution of Responses from project proponents and

Company staff. B1(Environmental Impact Assessment is known to every project proponent in

Kogi State) has a mean score of 3.99 indicating that most project proponents in the state have heard

of EIA. B2 (It takes this office a long period to obtain EIA permit from the Government) has a

mean score of 3.01 showing that 52.51% of the project proponents agree that it takes a long period

to obtain EIA permit from the Government. The result indicates uncertainty from the respondents.

B3 (Because of the long time it takes to obtain an EIA permit, we normally commence

development project long before the permit is released) indicate a mean score is 3.08. The result

shows that 51.88% of the project proponents agreed that they commence their development project

long before the approval of the EIA permit. This is a serious contravention of the EIA Law. Our

observation from the fieldwork revealed that the Federal Ministry of Environment granted Dangote

Plc a provisional license to commence a project in the State while the EIA process was still

ongoing. Similarly,the Goldfeild coal mining company at Okobo in Ankpa local government of

the state commenced their operation long before the EIA public review was held.

B4 (The EIA for your project was approved long before the commencement of the project)

has a mean score of 1.96 indicating that 69.55% of the project proponents disagreed with the

variable. In other words, most of the company commenced their project before the approval of the
 55

EIA. For B5 (The demand for EIA permit by the institutions that grants the company loan to start

the project was a Pre-condition that cannot be avoided) with a mean score of 3.69, the result shows

that 73.86% of the project proponents agreed with the variable.

For item B6 (There are more than one office regulating EIA in Kogi State) , result shows

that 73.91% of the project proponents agreed that there are more than one office regulating EIA in

Kogi state. The result agrees with that of B5 in Table 6.

B7 (All the EIA regulating Agencies in Kogi State have overlapping functions), result

shows that 64.9% of the project proponents agreed that all the EIA regulating agencies have

overlapping functions. It was noted from the fieldwork that beside having overlapping

functions,there is a kind of scramble for who handles EIA in the state to the extent that some of

the regulatory agencies do avoid attending EIA public review because of the feeling that they were

not properly mobilised.

For B8 (Project proponents are unduly delayed in the process of trying to obtain an EIA

approval), the mean score is 3.30. The result shows that 56.51% of the project proponents agreed

that they were unnecessarily delayed in the process of trying to get EIA permit. B9 (Proponents

are often discouraged from undertaking EIA because of Funding Regulating Agencies), has a mean

score of 3.43. The result indicates that 52.07% agreed with the variable. Our finding from interview

during the fieldwork revealed that it is difficult for the project proponents to adequately mobilise

all the EIA regulating agencies financially and until that is done, the EIA process cannot run

smoothly. B10 (There is always apathy on the part of stakeholders in the EIA process), result

expressed uncertainty from the respondents as 86.95% of the project proponents were not willing

to give their opinion on the variable. B11(Project proponent often prefer to tip EIA regulating

officers in order to get the approval for their project within a short time), result indicates
 56

uncertainty from the project proponents as 69.56% of the respondents declined giving information

on the variable.

B12 (Project proponents are compelled by law to prepare EIA at all cost in Kogi State),

has a mean score of 3.17.The result indicates uncertainty from the respondents. B13 (EIA is of no

relevance to the growth of your company) with a mean score of 2.56 the project proponents

accepted that EIA of relevance to the growth and development of their project. B14 (The only

relevance of EIA to your company is just to satisfy the donor agency in order to obtain loan), result

indicates uncertainty as 26% of the project proponents were undecided and unwilling to give their

opinions on the variable. For B15 (Huge sum of money is spent on processing EIA in Kogi State)

the mean score is 1.86, indicating that 82.5% of the project proponents who are project proponents

and company staff disagreed that huge sum of money is spent in processing EIA in Kogi state.

From an interview with the Director, Town Planning Board, Kogi State, we learnt that the

Board is not responsible for giving EIA permit in the state. He further stated that any Registered

Town Planner is very qualified to give EIA permit in Kogi State. In addition to that, he said the

cost of an EIA permit in Kogi State depends largely on the Town Planner concerned and the

bargaining power of the Project proponent. He added that the government of Kogi State does not

in any way charge project proponent for EIA permit.

 57

100
90
80
70
60
Percentage %

50
40
30
20
10
0
Public Proponent Regulators

Fig. 4: Level of Awareness of EIA in Kogi State

Fig. 4 shows the variation in the level of awareness of EIA in the State as revealed by the response

of the three categories of the respondents. The first item on the three questionnaires are the same

(see the Tables 5, 6, 7.)

The awareness increases from the public to the project proponent and the regulators. Only

21.4% of the public agree they are aware of EIA in Kogi State. 82.6% of the project proponent

agreed they are aware of EIA while 90% of the staff of the regulating Agencies agreed they are

aware of EIA. The percentage is high because, since they must come to hear of it either as a

requirement for the donor agency to grant them loan or as a prerequisite for the registration of their

company. The regulating agencies have the law, the mandate and the enforcement whether they

understand it in full or not, the EIA is ever before them. The low level of awareness by the public

in Kogi State poses a big challenge to EIA in the state and disagree with the opinion of Nwafor

(2006) which states that the driving force in environmental policy as well as EIA in the USA as in

other developed countries of the world is their public awareness on the interaction between

environment and development. With low public awareness, it is difficult to achieve the objectives

of EIA.
 58

2.1.6 Summary of the Current Practice of EIA in Kogi State

Our findings, on the current practice of EIA in Kogi State shows there are many EIA

regulating agencies with overlapping responsibilities.

 We also found out that any registered Town Planner is qualified to prepare EIA.

 They operate a seperate law regulating EIA beside the Federal Government procedural

guidelines which though similar, varies on some issues.

 The state government does not give EIA permit.

 There is serious confusion in the operation of the three EIA systems in the state. The Town

Planning EIA that seems more popular lack specific quidelines for operation.

 The level of compliance of development project with EIA (according to our finding) is

seen to be high with private projects than public project. There was no record of any state

project with a comprehensive EIA. The EIA for the dredging of the river Niger was the

only EIA for Federal projects in the state. However almost all the multi national projects

have a form of EIA.

 59

CHAPTER THREE

IDENTIFICATION OF THE LEVEL OF COMPLIANCE OF DEVELOPMENT

PROJECTS WITH ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT IN KOGI STATE

3.1 Identification of Compliance Level

To identify the level of compliance of development projects with environmental impact

assessment in Kogi state, the following approaches were adopted.

1. The use of responses from the Public, project proponents and Government staff as contained

in the three categories of questionnaire was used to explain the level of compliance.

2. Facts from publications and existing EIA documents.

3. Response from individuals during interview and field work.

3.2 Responses from Questionnaire

From questionnaire I, (response from the public) Item D1, Table 8 (Kogi State operates a

seperate law on EIA apart from the national guideline), result shows that 80.5% of the public in

Kogi State agreed with the variable. With a mean of 4.18 we conclude that Kogi State operates a

seperate law different from the National guidelines on Environmental Impact Assessment. The

edict no.3 of 1995 on EIA differs in many ways from the Federal Government policy on EIA. D2

(All the Local Government in the State has the power to give EIA permit), 62.9% of the

respondents disagreed with the variable indicating that local governments in the state does not

have power to give EIA permit. The mean score is 2.17, which is very low for us to accept the

variable. However, from the fieldwork we noted that the Local Government’s Department of

Environmental health is vested with the power of enforcing EIA policy in the State. D3 (The State

Ministry of Environment always organise awareness programs to educate the public on EIA),

result shows that 78.2% of the respondents disagreed with the variable. With a mean of 1.38, it is
 60

concluded that the State Government is yet to start organising awareness programs on EIA for the

public. The result also indicates that the public in Kogi State is not well informed about EIA and

this encourages low level of compliance.

For variable D4 (The State Ministry of Environment strongly enforce EIA in the State),

result indicates that 78.3% of the respondents disagreed with the variable. A mean of 1.79 is low

for us to accept the variable. The enforcement of EIA in the State is very low because it was

observed during our fieldwork that though the State EIA Edict provided that petroleum pumping

station requires an EIA report, we discover that many of them even within the State Capital Lokoja,

does not have an EIA permit. For instance, a petroleum service station shares boundary with a

motor park at Ganaja junction which is ever busy with travellers and business people. This should

never be if the EIA regulators are actually enforcing the EIA policy . D5 (EIA has been made

mandatory for project proponents in the State in all cases) The mean score is 1.94 which is very

low and indicates that EIA has not been made mandatory for development projects in all cases.

Though the Government policy on EIA provided that EIA is mandatory for development project,

our finding during fieldwork shows that there are many Government owned projects across the

State without an EIA report. For D6 (The State Guidelines on EIA differs in many ways from the

Federal proceedural guidelines) , 85.6% of the respondents agreed that the State guidelines on EIA

differs in many ways from the Federal proceedural guidelines. With a mean of 3.91 we accept the

variable. Similarly, D7 (The State Ministry of Envinronment and the Federal Ministry of

Environment operate the same guidelines on EIA proceedure), 70.7% of the public that were

interviewed disagreed with the variable. The mean score is 2.06 which is low for us to accept the

variable.
 61

TABLE 8: FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONSES ON THE LEVEL OF

COMPLIANCE OF DEVELOPMENT PROJECT WITH EIA BY THE PUBLIC
5 4 3 2 1
CODE QUESTIONS SA A UD D SD TOTAL MEAN
D1 Kogi State operates a separate 334 147 39 45 33 598 4.18
law on EIA apart from the 55.9% 24.6% 6.5% 7.5% 5.5%
national guidelines.
D2 All the local government in the 38 58 126 119 257 598 2.17
state have the power to give 6.4% 9.7% 21.2% 19.9% 43.0%
EIA permit.
D3 The State Ministry of 26 73 25 48 426 598 1.38
Environment always organise 4.3% 4.2% 4.2% 8.0% 71.2%
awareness programs to educate
the public on EIA
D4 The State Ministry of 18 60 52 120 348 598 1.80
Environment strongly enforce 3.0% 10.0% 8.8% 20.1% 58.2%
EIA in the State
D5 EIA has been made mandatory 42 68 37 115 336 598 1.94
for project proponents in the 7.0% 11.4% 6.2% 19.2% 56.2%
state in all cases.
D6 The State guidelines on EIA 171 311 40 48 28 598 3.92
differ in many ways from the 28.6% 52.0% 6.7% 8.0% 4.7%
Federal procedure guidelines.
D7 The State Ministry of 53 69 53 106 317 598 2.06
Environment and the Federal 8.9% 11.5% 8.9% 17.7% 53.0%
Ministry of Environment
operate the same guidelines on
EIA procedure.
D8 There are many EIA reports in 387 81 59 45 16 598 4.33
the State without approval from 66.4% 13.5% 9.9% 7.5% 2.7%
the Federal Ministry of
Environment.
D9 There are no cases of EIA 104 167 240 44 43 598 3.41
being rejected or disapproved 17.4% 27.9% 40.1% 7.4% 7.2%
in Kogi state.
D10 The public has no access to 204 259 53 51 31 598 3.93
copies of EIA reports. 34.1% 43.3% 8.9% 8.5% 5.2%
D11 There are some institutions and 42 68 42 43 403 598 1.83
Agencies in the state that train 7.0% 11.4% 7.0% 7.2% 67.4%
people on the best way to
operate EIA in the state.
D12 The large number of Agencies 18 43 89 41 407 598 1.70
regulating EIA with 3.0% 7.2% 14.9% 6.9% 68.1%
overlapping responsibilities in
the state has further advanced
EIA in the state.
D13 The large number of Agencies 409 86 38 49 16 598 4.38
regulating EIA in the state seem 68.4% 14.4% 6.4% 8.2% 2.7%
to confuse and discourage
 62

project proponents in carying

out EIA
D14 Emphasis to do EIA in the state 397 71 68 42 20 598 4.31
is mostly on multinational 66.4% 11.9% 11.4% 7.0% 3.3%
projects.
D15 EIA reports are now adopted as 52 87 42 143 274 598 2.16
sound tools for decision making 8.7% 14.5% 7.0% 23.9% 45.8%
by the state government in
environmental matters
D16 The state government is yet to 51 390 64 47 46 598 3.59
adopt EIA as a tool for decision 8.5% 65.2% 10.7% 7.9% 7.7%
making policy.
D17 The State is yet to establish an 409 87 27 43 32 598 4.33
agency to punish project 68.4% 14.5% 4.5% 7.2% 5.4%
proponents who failed to
comply with EIA regulations.
D18 The state is very strict on EIA 95 51 27 60 353 598 2.06
mandate and had revoked the 15.9% 8.5% 4.5% 10.0% 59.0%
licenses of those companies
that failed to comply.
D19 All the state and Federal 24 71 207 112 184 598 2.40
projects in the state has EIA 4.0% 11.9% 34.7% 18.7% 30.8%
permit.
D20 The government does not 48 48 38 128 335 598 1.92
commission any project without 8.0% 8.0% 6.4% 21.4% 56.0%
an approval of EIA permit.
Source: Fieldwork, 2012

For D8 (There are many EIA reports in the State without approval from the Federal

Ministry of Environment ), the result shows that 79.9% of the respondents agreed with the variable.

With a mean of 4.33 we strongly accept that not all EIA report in the State have approval from the

Federal Ministry of Environment. This result demonstrates a low level of compliance of

development projects with EIA because the EIA act emphasize that license should be obtianed

from the Federal Ministry of Environment at the completion of each EIA process before the

commencement of any development. This is not the case with Kogi State according to these results.

For D9 (There are no cases of EIA being rejected or disapproved in Kogi State), has a mean score

of 3.41 which is an indication of uncertainty amoung the respondents. D10 (The public has no

access to copies of EIA reports), result shows that 77.4% of the public agreed with the variable.
 63

With a mean score of 3.93 we accept that the public in Kogi State do not have access to EIA

reports. Since they do not have access to the EIA document, it is difficult for them to know what

the contents are and how to go about any breach of mandate.

The result for D11, (There are some Institutions and Agencies in the Sate that train people

on the best way to operate EIA in the State), shows that 74.6% of the public disagreed with the

variable. A mean score of 1.83 is too low for us to accept the variable. D12 (The large number of

Agencies regulating EIA with overlapping responsibilties in the State has further advanced EIA in

the State) has a mean score of 1.70 which is low to accept the variable. In summary, 75% of the

public were of the view that a large number of Agencies regulating EIA in the state does not

advance EIA compliance in the State.

For D13 (The large number of Agencies regulating EIA with overlapping responsibilties

in the State seems to confuse and discourage project proponents in carrying out EIA), result

indicates that 82.4% of the public agreed with the variable. With a mean score of 4.38 we conclude

that a large number of regulating Agencies with overlapping responsibilities often confuse and

discourage project proponents in the State. For D14 ( The emphasis to do EIA in the State is

mostly on multinational projects) the result indicate that 78.3% of the public agreed with the

variable. The mean score is 4.31 indicating that the emphasise to carry out Environmental Impact

Assessment in the State is on multinational projects.

For D15(EIA reports has been adopted as sound tool for decision making by the State

Government in environmental matters), result shows that 69.7% of the respondents disagree with

the variable. This indicates that 69.7% of the public in Kogi State are of the opinion that, EIA has

not been adopted as a tool for decision making in Kogi State. With a mean score of 2.6 we

concluded there is low compliance of development projects with EIA provisions in the State.
 64

Variable D16 (The State Government is yet to adopt EIA as a tool for decision making policy),

result indicates that 73.7% of the public agree with the variable meaning that 73.7% of the

respondents are of the opinion that Kogi State Government is yet to adopt EIA as tool for decision

making. The mean score is 3.9.

For D17 (The State is yet to establish an Agency to punish project proponents who fail to

comply with EIA regulations), result indicates that 82.9% of the public agreed with the variable

meaning that the government is yet to establish an Agency vested with the responsibility of

punishing EIA defaulters. With a mean score of 4.33, we conclude that EIA enforcement is lacking

in Kogi State. For variable D18 (The State is very strict on EIA mandates and had revoked the

license of those conpanies that failed to comply with EIA), result shows that 69.0% of the public

disagreed with the variable. With a mean score of 2.06 we conclude that the State Government is

not strict on EIA mandates.This also indicate a weak and low level of compliance with EIA .

The result for D19 (All the State and Federal projects in the State have an EIA permit) has

a mean score of 2.40 which indicates that not all the state and Federal projects in the State have

EIA permit. For D20 (The government does not commission any project without an approved EIA

permit), result indicates that 72% of the public disagreed with the variable. The mean score of 1.92

is low and indicate a poor compliance with EIA provisions.

TABLE 9: FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONSE ON THE LEVEL OF

COMPLIANCE OF DEVELOPMENT PROJECT WITH EIA BY THE REGULATORS
5 4 3 2 1
CODE QUESTIONS SA A UD D SD TOTAL MEAN
D1 Kogi State operates a separate 2 1 1 44 5 53 2.07
law regulating EIA apart from 3.77% 1.88% 1.88% 83.0% 9.43%
the Nationalguidelines.
D2 The state Ministry of 5 4 5 10 29 53 1.98
environment foward all EIA 9.43% 7.55% 9.43% 18.86% 54.72%
reports to the Federal Ministry
of Environment for approval.
 65

D3 All the Local Government 2 4 16 18 13 53 2.32

Area in Kogi State have power 3.77% 7.55% 30.17% 33.96% 24.53%
to give EIA permit.
D4 EIA has been made mandatory 7 9 3 31 3 53 1.72
for project componentsin Kogi 13.20% 16.98% 5.66% 58.49% 5.66%
State in all cases.
D5 There is no strategy for 7 29 8 9 0 53 3.63
enforcing EIA in Kogi state. 13.20% 54.72% 14.8% 16.98% 0%
D6 The state guidelines on EIA 4 27 10 7 5 53 3.34
differs in many ways from the 7.55% 50.94% 18.86% 13.20% 9.43%
Federal procedural guidelines.
D7 There is no agency in Kogi 22 16 1 9 5 53 3.78
State that keeep records of 41.50% 30.18% 1.88% 16.98% 9.43%
projects without EIA report.
D8 There is good relationship 33 11 3 6 0 53 4.34
between state agencies and 62.26% 20.75% 5.66% 11.32% 0%
Federal agencies regulating
EIA in Kogi state.
D9 All the state and Federal 5 2 1 15 30 53 1.81
projects in Kogi State have 9.43% 3.77% 1.88% 28.30% 56.60%
EIA permit.
D10 No EIA report has ever been 2 31 7 6 7 53 3.28
disaproved in Kogi state. 3.77% 58.49% 13.20% 11.32% 13.20%
D11 There is an EIA monitoring 5 13 7 28 0 53 2.91
team in the state. 9.43% 24.53% 13.20% 52.83% 0%
D12 The State Ministry of 5 11 10 27 0 53 2.89
Environment ensures proper 9.43% 20.75% 18.86% 50.94% 0%
implementation of
EMPenshrined in the EIA.
D13 The cost of monitoring the 1 12 8 6 26 53 2.16
company on EMP 1.88% 22.64% 14.8% 11.32% 49.05%
implementationis borneby the
government.
D14 There is an existing data bank 2 6 9 11 25 53 2.04
on environment in Kogi stateto 3.77% 11.32% 16.98% 20.95% 47.16%
encourage EIA preparation.
D15 The state can boast of well 2 15 1 7 28 53 2.17
trained iindividuals in all 3.77% 28.30% 1.88% 13.20% 52.83%
aspects of environment and
other natural sciences to
handle EIA procedures.
D16 The government does not 3 5 6 12 27 53 1.76
commission many projects 5.66% 11.32% 12.64% 50.94%
without an approved EIA 9.43%
permit,
D17 Our agency monitors the 0 0% 15 23 12 3 53 2.94
implementation of project 28.30% 43.39% 22.64% 5.66%
EMP routinely every 3 months

Source: Fieldwork, 2012

 66

The Frequency distribution of responses from questionniare (2) is the response from the

questionnaire administered on the Government Staff who served mainly in Agencies that are

directly or indirectly regulating Environmental Impact Assessment and environmental

management in Kogi State.

D1 (Kogi State operates a seperate law regulating EIA apart from the National guideline

on EIA), result indicates that 92.43% of the respondents disagreed with the variable. The mean

score is 2.07 showing that Kogi State does not operate a seperate law apart from the National

guideline on EIA. However, there is a clear evidence on the existence of Edict no 3 of 1995 on

EIA. The Edict contain the principles and policies of the State on EIA matters. For D2 (State

Ministry of Environment forward all EIA reports to the Federal ministry of Environment for

approval ) the mean is 1.98 indicating that the State Ministry of Environment do not usually

forward EIA reports to the Federal Ministry of Environment before giving approval. This is serious

contravention of the EIA act. However, from the fieldwork conducted in the State we discovered

two kinds of EIA reports.The EIA of the Environment and Town planning EIA.The EIA of

multinational companies like Dangote cement factory, Western Ceramics and others were made to

observe both the National and the State guidelines on EIA. But those for State projects and some

private projects like the Ibaji Sugar Company, Petrol stations, Estates and others were processed

and approved in the State without reference to the National guidelines on EIA.

The result of D3 (All the Local Government Areas in Kogi State has the power to give EIA

permit) has a mean score of 2.32 which is low. It show that Local Government in Kogi State do

not have such power. For D4 (EIA has been made mandatory for project proponents in Kogi State

in all cases), 64.35% disagreed with the variable meaning EIA has not been made mandatory for

development projects in the State in all cases. The mean score of 1.72 suggest a low compliance
 67

with EIA Act. For D5(There is no strategy for enforcing EIA in Kogi State), result indicates that

67,92% of the respondents agreed that there is no strategy for enforcing EIA in the state. With a

mean score of 3.63 we conclude that the State has not developed a strategy for enforcing EIA. This

indicates a low level of compliance with EIA Act. For D6 (The State guidelines on EIA differs in

many ways from the Federal procedural guidelines) with a mean score of 3.34, there is indication

that the State guidelines differs from the Federal guidelines. Further inquiries during the field work

revealed that almost all the steps of EIA processes outlined in the guideline like initial examination,

scoping, terms of reference, panel review, EIA proposal, and others were not emphasised in the

State EIA process. We also discovered that any registered Town Planner is qualified to prepare

EIA in the State. The state does not give EIA permit, rather it is only required before an approval

can be given for a development project. It is clear that the Town planning EIA and the environment

based EIA are being confused as having the same procedure in the State.

For D7 (There is no Agency in Kogi State that keep records of projects without EIA report),

result shows that 71.68% of the respondents agreed with the variable. With a mean score of 3.78,

we conclude there is no Agency established in the State to keep records of development project

without EIA reports.We noted during the fieldwork that to get records of those industries in the

State without EIA report was difficult. For D8 (There is good relationship between State Agencies

and Federal Agencies regulating EIA in Kogi State), the mean score is 4.34 which suggest that

there is a good relationship between the State and Federal Agencies regulating EIA in the State.

For D9 (All the State and Federal projects in Kogi State have EIA permit), 84.90% of the

respondents disagreed with the variable. The mean score is 1.81 indicating that not all State and

Federal projects in the State has an EIA permit. From the fieldwork conducted in the State, it was

found that State projects like the Confluence Beach hotel in Lokoja, the Lokoja international
 68

market, the state Biotic fertilizer company at Anyigba, are good examples of state projects without

environmental impact assessment.

For D10 (No EIA report has ever been disapproved in Kogi State) with a mean score of

3.28 we conclude that EIA has scarcely been disapproved in Kogi State. D11 (There is an EIA

monitoring team in the State), the mean score is 2.91 indicating there is no functional EIA

monitoring team in the State. For D12 (The State Ministry of Environment ensure proper

implementation of EMP enshrined in the EIA) almost half of the respondents disagreed with the

variable. The mean score is 2.88 which is not strong enough for us to accept the variable. For D13

(The cost of monitoring the company on EMP implementation is the responsibility of the

government), 14.8%, of the respondents were undecided and refused to give their opinion on the

variable, 60.37% disagreed with the variable. With a mean score of 2.16 we conclude that there is

no proper monitoring of the EMP implementation by the project proponents because of the cost of

monitoring. Further inquiries from the fieldwork revealed that it is the proponents that are

responsible for the cost of monitoring the implementation of the EMP outlined in the EIA. The

company is to pay such an amount as decided by KOSEPA. After the payment of the amount

required, KOSEPA monitoring team normally undertake the monitoring. The monitoring is often

delayed and sometimes cancelled because of the refusal of the company to pay the required amount

of money.

For D14 (There is an existing data bank on the environment in Kogi State to encourage

EIA preparation), the mean score is 2.04 indicating there is no data bank on the Environment in

Kogi State to aid the preparation of EIA. For D15 (The State can boast of well trained individuals

in all aspect of the environment and other natural sciences to handle EIA procedures),has a mean

score is 2.16 indicating the lack of well trained personnel in the field of environment and other
 69

natural sciences to handle EIA procedures. This is further confirmed by the fact that any registered

Town Planner is qualified to prepare EIA. Most of these Town Planners single handedly prepare

EIA without regard to the fact that EIA required a multi disciplinary approach ( Sani , 2012).

For D16 (The Government does not commission any development project without an

approved EIA permit) The mean score is 1.76 which is very poor for us to accept the variable. It

was further discovered during the fieldwork that the Government of Kogi State has commissioned

many development projects without EIA permit. Beside,there are many State owned projects

without EIA. For D17 (Our Agency monitors the implementation of project EMP routinely every

three months), 43.39%, of the respondents were undecided and refused to give their opinion on the

variable, 28.30% of the respondents agreed with the variable while 28.30% disagreed with the

variable. With a mean score of 2.94, we conclude there is no routine monitoring of EMP enshrined

in the company EIA in Kogi State.

TABLE 10: FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONSES ON THE LEVEL OF

COMPLIANCE OF DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS WITH EIA BY THE PROJECT
PROPONENTS
CODE QUESTIONS SA A UD D SD TOTAL MEAN
D1 Kogi State 4 7 4 3 5 23 3.07
operates a separate 17.39% 30.43% 17.39 13% 21.73%
law regulating EIA %
apart from the
national guidelines
D2 All the local _ _ 2 5 16 23 1.39
government in the 0% 0% 8.69% 21.73 69.56%
state has power to %
give EIA permit
D3 The state ministry _ 3 5 6 9 23 2.08
of environment 0% 13% 21.73 26% 39.13%
always organise %
awareness
programs to
educate the public
on EIA
D4 The state ministry _ 5 3 7 8 23 2.21
of environment 0% 21.73% 13% 34.78%
 70

strongly enforce 30.43

EIA in the state %

D5 EIA has been 1 4 3 10 5 23 2.39

made mandatory 4.3% 17.39% 13% 43.41 21.73%
for project %
proponents in the
state in all cases
D6 The state 4 9 7 2 1 23 3.58
guidelines on EIA 17.39% 39.13% 30.43 8.69 4.3%
differs in many % %
ways from the
federal procedural
guidelines
D7 The state ministry 6 4 _ 1 12 23 2.60
of environment 26% 17.39% 0% 4.3% 52.17%
and the federal
ministry of
environment
operate the same
guidelines on EIA
procedure
D8 There are many 1 2 19 1 _ 23 3.13
EIA reports in the 4.3% 8.69% 82.6% 4.3% 0%
state without
approval from the
Federal ministry of
environment
D9 There are no cases 2 1 19 1 _ 23 3.17
of EIA being 8.6% 4.3% 82.6% 4.3% 0%
rejected or
disapproved in
kogi state
D10 The public has no 4 8 _ 7 4 23 3.04
access to copies of 17.39% 34.78% 0% 30.43 17.39%
EIA reports %
D11 There are some _ _ 8 2 13 23 1.78
institution and 0% 0% 34.78 8.69 56.3%
agencies in the % %
state that train
people on the best
way to operate
EIA in the state
D12 The large number 2 _ 9 3 9 23 2.17
of agencies 6.6% 0% 39.13 13% 39.13%
regulating EIA %
 71

with overlapping
responsibilities in
the state has
further advanced
EIA in the state
D13 The larger number 8 6 7 1 1 23 3.82
of agencies 34.78% 26% 30.43 4.3% 4.3%
regulating EIA in %
the state seems to
confuse and
discourage project
proponents in
carrying out EIA
D14 The emphasis to 8 12 1 _ 2 23 4.04
do EIA in the state 34.78% 52.17% 4.3% 0% 8.6%
is mostly on
multinational
projects
D15 EIA reports are 5 3 10 5 _ 23 3.34
now adopted as a 21.73% 13% 43.41 21.73 0%
sound tools for % %
decision making
by the state
government in
environmental
matters
D16 The state 1 6 6 10 _ 23 2.90
government is yet 4.3% 26% 26% 43.41 0%
to adopt EIA as a %
tool for decision
making policy
D17 The state is yet to 10 7 1 3 2 23 4.36
establish an 43.41% 30.43% 4.3% 13% 8.6%
agency to punish
project proponents
that failed to
comply with EIA
regulations
D18 The state is very 1 _ 6 8 8 23 2.04
strict on EIA 4.3% 0% 26% 34.78 34.78%
mandate and had %
revoked the
licenses of those
companies that
failed to comply
 72

D19 All the state and _ 1 9 8 5 23 2.26

federal projects in 0% 4.3% 39.13 34.78 21.73%
the state has EIA % %
permit
D20 The government 2 4 3 3 11 23 2.26
does not 8.69% 17.39% 13% 13% 47.82%
commission any
project without an
approved EIA
permit
Source: Fieldwork, 2012

Our analysis of questionniare 3 Responses from project proponents and company staff are

as follows. D1 (Kogi State operates a seperate law regulating EIA apart from the National

guideline on EIA) has a mean score of 3.09 . We therefore conclude that Kogi State has a separate

law regulating EIA apart from the National guidelines. For D2 (All the Local Government Areas

in Kogi State has the power to give EIA permit) , the mean score is 1.39 which is very low for us

to accept the variable. D3 (The State Ministry of Environment always organise awareness

programs to educate the public on EIA), With a mean of 2.8 , it indicates that the State Government

is yet to start organising awareness programs on EIA for the public. The result also indicates that

the public in Kogi State are not well informed on EIA provisions and this demonstrates a low level

of compliance

For D4 (The State Ministry of Environment strongly enforce EIA in the State), 65.21% of

the respondents disagreed with the variable. With a mean of 2.22 we conclude the State is yet to

start enforcing EIA procedure. D5 (EIA has been made mandatory for project proponents in the

State in all cases) has a mean score of 2.39 which demonstrates that EIA has not been made

mandatory for development projects in all cases. For D6 (The State guidelines on EIA differs in

many ways from the Federal procedural guidelines). a mean of 3.58 made us to accept that the

State guidelines on EIA differs in many ways from the Federal guideline. D7 (The State Ministry
 73

of Envinronment and the Federal Ministry of Environment operates the same guidelines on EIA

procedure), shows that 56.20% of the respondents disagreed with the variable. The mean score is

2.60 which is low for us to accept the variable.

For D8 (There are many EIA reports in the State without approval from the Federal

Ministry of Environment ) , the result shows that 82.6% of the respondents were undecided and

refused to give their opinions on the variable. With a mean score of 3.13, the result demonstrates

uncertainty. For D9 (There are no cases of EIA been rejected or disapproved in Kogi State), the

mean score is 3.17 which is moderate and expresses uncertainty from the respondents. D10 (The

public has no access to copies of EIA reports), result shows that 52.17% of the respondents agreed

with the variable. With a mean score of 3.04 we accept that the public in Kogi State do not have

access to EIA reports.

For D11, (There are some Institutions and Agencies in the State that train people on the

best way to operate EIA in the State), result shows that 64.72% of the respondents disagree with

the variable. With a mean score of 1.78 , we conclude that there is no Agency in the State that

train people on the best way to operate EIA in the State. D12 (The large number of Agencies

regulating EIA with overlapping responsibilties in the State has further advanced EIA in the State),

the mean score is 2.17 which is low for us to accept the variable. However, 52.13% of the

respondents were of the view that the large number of Agencies regulating EIA in the State does

not advance EIA compliance in the State.

The result of D13 (The large number of Agencies regulating EIA with overlapping

responsibilties in the State seem to confuse and discourage project proponents in carrying out EIA),

indicates that 60.78% of the respondents agreed with the variable. With a mean score of 3.82 we

conclude that a large number of regulating agencies with overlapping responsibilities often confuse
 74

and discourage project proponents in the State. We noted from the fieldwork that even when a

company has processed full EIA with the Federal Ministry of Environemnt, at the State level, there

is a strong demand on the same company to process another EIA on the buildings and if the

company has many buildings, an EIA has to be conducted for each building which is frustrating

and discouraging. For D14 (The emphasis to do EIA in the State is mostly on multinational

projects), result indicates that 86.95% of the respondents agreed with the variable. The mean score

is 4.04 indicating that the emphasis to carry out Environmental Impact Assessment in the State is

on multinational projects.

For D15 (EIA reports are now adopted as a sound tool for decision making by the State

Government in Environmental matters) the mean score is 3.34 which is moderate and expreses

uncertainty from the respondents. D16 (The State Government is yet to adopt EIA as a tool for

decision making policy), the mean score is 3.9 which expreses uncertainty from the respondents..

For D17 (The State is yet to establish an Agency to punish project proponents that failed

to comply with EIA regulations), result indicates that 73. 84% of the respondents agreed with the

variable meaning that the Government is yet to establish an Agency vested with the full

responsibility of punishing EIA defaulters .The mean score is 4.33. For variable D18 (The State is

very strict on EIA mandates and had revoked the license of those companies that failed to comply),

The result shows that 69.56% of the respondents disagreed with the variable. With a mean score

of 2.04 we conclude that the state Government is not strict on EIA mandates. This also indicate a

weak and low level of compliance with EIA delivery

For variable D19 (All the State and Federal projects in the State have EIA permit), has a

mean score of 2.26 which indicates that not all the State and Federal projects in the State have EIA

permit. For D20 (The Government does not commission any project without an approved EIA
 75

permit), result indicates that 60.82% of the respondents disagreed with the variable. With a mean

score is 2.26, there is every indication that there is poor compliance with EIA provisions in Kogi

State.

A cursory look at the analysis from the responses of the Public, Government Staff and

Project Proponents in the State on EIA, one can conclude that the level of compliance with EIA in

Kogi State is low.

90

80

70

60
Percentage %

50

40

30

20

10

0
Public Regulators Proponents

Fig. 5: Factors affecting the level of Compliance

Fig. 5 shows the level of agreement on item D1 of the three different questionnaires

administered which is the same for the three categories of respondents. 82.4% of the public and

82.6% of the Project Proponents agreed that Kogi State operates a separate law on EIA apart from

the National guidelines. Only 13% of the regulators agreed with the item. The existence of Edict

No 3 of 1995 is a strong proof. The regulators were only trying to conceal information. Where

there are two separate laws on a particular issue, it means there is conflict and the conflict in this

case has a negative influence on the commitment of the public to EIA provisions in Kogi State.
 76

However, to ascertain this conclusion, we shall take a further look at some facts from

existing publicactions and EIA drafts and final reports to see whether the available EIA reports in

the State measure up to the standard set by the Federal Government guidelines and world best

practices.

3.3 Facts from Publications and existing EIA Documents

In Kogi State, some of the major development projects that have EIA permit were

extensively criticised by different scholars and groups. A close look at some of the comments by

these critics on each EIA reports further justified that there is low level of compliance of

Development projects with Environmental Impact assessment delivery in Kogi State. Some of the

EIA reports used for this purpose include the EIA for the dredging of River Niger, EIA of ZUMA

828 Coal Minning at Okobo in Ankpa Local Government, the EIA of Dangote Cement Company,

the EIA of Dam Construction by Dangote Cement Company and the EIA of Gas pipeline by

Dangote Cement Company.

Beside, the EIA mentioned above, there are several EIA documents which were prepared

and approved by the State Urban and Regional Plannming Department. These were not considered

for review because it does not follow a specific guideline in their preparation.

3.3:1 EIA for the Dredging of River Niger

The dredging of the lower River Niger was a project of the Federal Government of Nigeria.

The project comprises 572 km and affects 152 communities on the bank of the River Niger in eight

states which include Anambra, Bayelsa, Delta, Edo, Imo, Kogi, Niger and Rivers State. Apart from

the dredging, the project is also supposed to establish seven Inland ports in Agenebode (Edo state),

Idah (Kogi state), Yenegoa (Bayelsa state), Agnata (Anambra state) and Ogbabe (Delta state) as
 77

well as the rehabilitation and expansion of the Onitsha river Port and the establishment of a river

training Institute.

The project was founded on the following justifications:

(1) To ensure all year round navigability of river Niger .

(2) To promote cheaper and safer means of transportation for Agricultural produce from the hinter

land.

(3) To promote the growth of commerce and trading activities in the affected communities.

(4) To enhance access to hydro electricity generated from Kanji Dam by the affected communities.

Though as good as the objectives of this Development projects are, large number of people living

in 152 communities shall be affected there is need for proper consultation and good EIA before

the commencement of the project. However, the EIA was found with the following and many other

faults..

According to Egboka (2009), the EIA of the dredging of River Niger has not complied

with the provisions of the EIA acts. He stated that the EIA was never completed before the

commencement of the project. But suprisingly, while anticipating the completion of the EIA, the

Federal Government signed the project contract and work commenced without due regards to

proper evaluation of the EIA of the project. He also argued that the EIA reports were not made

available to the public in the 152 communities affected by the project including those in Kogi State

for proper review and comments. In otherwords, the EIA was not given good public review. He

stated further that the communities were denied the access to participate in, see and review the

EIA report. They were not given the opportunity to participate in the design and implementation

of the mitigation measures.

 78

The Nigerian Inland Waterways Authority, (NIWA) which is a body in charge of Inland

ports in Nigeria was not involved in the dredging projects. The state Environmental protection

Agency of the affected states were not fully involved. He also noted that, since the EIA was not

completed, those communities that were supposed to be resettled were not resettled and adequate

compensation were not fully paid to those affected.

In view of these shortcoming and others, the EIA of the dredging of the river Niger which

is a Federal project did not comply fully with the provision of EIA Acts.

According to Wolf et al (2001), a number of concerned communities along the proposed water

way and throughout the Niger Delta have voiced concerns about its potential environmental, social

and economic impacts. They contended that they were not consulted or even contacted during the

preparation of the EIA report. He stated further that the communities believed they were

misrepresented in the report which has not been made available for public review and comment.

This is quite contrary to the provision of the EIA Act.

According to Wolf et al(2001), the dredging contract, was awarded in advance of draft

EIA report preparation. This also contravenes the provisions of the EIA Act. He also stated that

out of the four objectives of the dredging project, the EIA only covered one of the objectives. He

further pointed out that round table seminars were held in 1999 at Warri on 17th April, Onitsha

3rd May, and Lokoja on 20th May all prior to the completion of the draft EIA report which was

completed on 15th November, 1999.

3.3:2 The EIA of Western Goldfields Group Ltd (ZUMA 828)

The objective of this project was the mining of coal to generate an alternative source of

energy for the country. The project is to affect three Local Governments in Kogi East senatorial

district. The local governments are Ankpa, Omala and Dekina. In a press release in April 2010, a
 79

group called Project Igala raised strong objections on coal exploration and mining in Kogi state.

The objections were founded on the weaknesses and shortcomings of the EIA of the project which

include:

1. The choice of Open cast method was not clearly justified in the EIA report.

2. Issues of gas emissions, air pollution, ecological degradation, land and water contamination

from mining activities were not clearly explained.

3. There was scanty attention to the provision of health facilities for the affected communities.

4. There was no justification on the legal issues around the lease of land for use by the mining

company.

The group also fault the company on the ground that people from the affected communities

were not consulted or contacted during the preparation of the EIA. The group concluded that the

EIA for the company lacked integrity and was full of error. For instance, Okaba which is a villlage

in Kogi State was said to belong to Benue state in the EIA. This justifies the fact that EIA

consultant might not have done serious field work before the EIA report.

However, despite the objection and suggestions for a new EIA to be prepared, the company

commenced their mining operation long before the EIA review forum was conducted. Beside the

shortcomings enumerated above, the EIA public forum was held on a Sunday in Lokoja and only

few people were in attendance. Many people who desired to attend could not do so at the expense

of their Sunday worship services.

The public forum on the EIA was like a political forum for the Managing Director of the

company to present his manifesto. He said: “Infact, as I am talking to you now, we are already

engaging some universities in Ukraine where I had my background , to training and give free
 80

education which we are going to sponsor the children in the host communities. This statement

looked vague and cajoling.

3.3:3 The EIA of Dangote Cement and Power Plant

The justification for the project was the need to meet the cement demand of Nigeria, 85%

of which is currently being imported. In addition, Nigeria loses huge amount of foreign exchange

in the importation of cement despite the fact that raw material deposits abound in the country.

Furthermore, Nigeria is in dire need to diversify her economy from a single commodity economy

(petroleum) and the project shall contribute to achieving that need. This justification is as contained

in the EIA final copy.

Despite the above justification, the advisory review of the cement EIA conducted by a

working group of the commission for Environmental Impact Assessment in the Netherland has

observed the folowing weakness and shortcomings in the EIA report.

The project commenced with site clearing in June, 2003 and construction started in April,

2004. However, there was a draft copy of an EIA made available in July, 2004; while the final EIA

report was still in progress, the Federal Ministry of Environment gave the company a provisional

approval. All these indicates that the project commenced long before the EIA procedure was

completed.

The advisory group observed that crucial information in the EIA reports were missing.

They said that construction work for the project started without the approval of the EIA reports

by the Federal Ministry of Environment. Consequently, important decision had been made. This

renders the EIA of no effect because important decision had already been taken.

Other shortcomings of the cement and power plant include: The EIA report does not

sufficiently comply with the World Bank guidelines. The transportation of cement and gypsum
 81

will involve 500 to 1000 truck movement per day. Related environmental and social impact of this

movement have not been considered. Also, the trade metal contents of the raw materials have not

been investigated and as such, no mitigation measure was spelt out in the EIA report.

3.3:4 The EIA of Dangote Cement Quarry (Mining).

The objective of the quarry (mining) is to supply the cement factory with marble, clay,

laterite, and marl raw materials from a deposit to be opened up at a distance of 8km from the

factory. According to the advisory commission, the mining site was cleared in June, 2003 and the

EIA for the mining was planned to be available for review in July, 2004. To this end, it was clear

that work had commenced on site prior to the review of EIA report.

The EIA report lacks public participation as the community affected by the project complained of

lack of consultation and access to the EIA report. The advisory commission also observed that,

the EIA report is incomplete, with significant gaps in the provision of information and therefore

does not contain sufficient information for decision making. Other shortcomings of the EIA

include the following:

 The site description and the mining stages were not accompanied by clear drawings,

sketches or cross sections.

 The hydro-geological information is incomplete. Information on ground water depth,

ground water flow-direction, hydraulic conductivity and effective porosity was missing.

 The consequences of the use or release of replenished groundwater on the river discharge

have not been described or well considered.

 The EIA does not address the impact of the diversion of the Mimi River and a few smaller

streams crossing the site.

 82

 The disposal of waste material and its impact and mitigation measures has not been

considered

Beside these major weaknesses, there are several observable minor errors and shortcomings of the

EIA of the quarry site of the Dangote cement company.

3.3:5 The EIA of Dam Constructions of the Dangote Cement Company

The objective of this project is to supply the water needed for the running of the cement

factory which is about 1.8 million tonnes of water per year. Another objective is to ensure

continuity of supply of water all the year round.

According to the advisory commission, the Dam construction started in the months of May,

2004 prior to the preparation of the EIA. The EIA for the dam construction was planned to be

available for review in July 2004. It is important to note that as at the time of the commencement

of the project, there was no approval from the Federal Ministry of Environment.

Though in general, the EIA document is of good quality the advisory commission noted amidst

other shortcomings, that the EIA lacked an integrated watershed of Adankolo to provide insight in

the water availability and the opportunities for use. The EIA does not consider an assessment of

hazards of leakage which is very dangerous to the environment.

3.3:6 The EIA of the Gas Pipeline of Dangote Cement Company

The objective of this project is to supply the factory with the natural gas needed to fire the

raw materials and to support the power station for regular supply of light. The construction started

with the right of way cleared in July, 2004 prior to the preparation of the EIA final report which

was scheduled to be available by July, 2004.There was a provisional approval by the Federal

Ministry of Environment based upon draft EIA report.

 83

The advisory commission observed that the EIA report is incomplete and does not meet

international standards. They noted that the most environmentally friendly routine of the pipeline

has been elaborated in the EIA and approved by the Federal Ministry of Environment. However,

observation on ground showed that the cleared right of way did follow another shorter (cheaper)

route not respecting safe distance to communities. This is a very serious flaw of the EIA and the

EIA Act. It is a strong indication of low level of compliance with EIA procedures.

Other shortcomings include, safety analysis not being fully included for the two rights of way in

the EIA. There was no clear mitigation measure and lots of error.

Generally, the Dangote cement company and its subsidiary projects has the following

shortcomings according to the advisory commission.

The EIA shows that, the compensation of the affected community has not clearly been

determined. Similarly, opportunities to compensate the loss of biodiversity by establishing a

reserve have not been considered. The EIA has not considered the impacts of the high growth rate

of the population of the adjacent community which shall be as a result of company. The EIA also

failed to consider the effect of the increase in traffic in the area which shall be consequent on the

establishment of the company.

In summary it is clear from publications and the existing EIA reports that there is low level

of compliance of development projects with EIA procedures in the state. All the multi-national,

private and Federal Government projects in the state commence prior to the preparation of EIA

reports. As such, important decision on the project had already been taken. There was a serious

lack of public participation in all the EIA of the development projects observed in the state.
 84

3.4 Response from Individuals during Interview and Field Work

Some individuals were interviewed during the field work, and their responses indicates a

low level of compliance of development project with EIA provisions in kogi state. Adebola,

(2012), in an interview during the field work conducted in Kabba, Kogi West Senatorial District

stated that both the public and the government in Kogi State are careless about EIA. He cited a

case of a well serving a particular household in Kajola, Kabba which dried up as a result of the

drilling of a borehole which was approved by the state government resulting in conflict between

the owner of the well and the owner of the borehole. He explained that if an Environmental Impact

Assessment for the borehole project was conducted, the effect of it on the well in the area would

have been known and solutions would have been proffered before the drilling of the borehole.

Similarly, the Head of Works Department of Kabba Bunu Local Government Area,

Mohammed, (2012), in an interview, said it was not clear what the government was doing on EIA.

He gave an example of an EIA document forwaded to his office by Etisalat network provider for

a Base Station in the area. He explained further that the document was very scanty and looked

more of an extraction. He said that beyond sending the document to him, he was never again

involved in the EIA process of that project

In the words of Sani, the Area Town Planner of Ankpa Local Government Area, the Zuma

828 Nigeria Limited held their public review on Sunday and it was never announced to the public

in the affected Local Government Area. According to him, he is the representative of the State

Town Planning Department in Ankpa Local Government Area. His duty is to ensure compliance

of development projects with the regulations of the state Town PLanning Department which

includes the EIA provisions. He lamented that despite that,he was not aware of when the public

forum for the EIA was held. Only few individuals were selected to attend the review by the
 85

company. He said he learnt of it much more later from other sources. He concluded that Zuma

828 Nigeria Limited, a coal mining company, located at Okobo in Enjema district of Ankpa Local

Government of Kogi State started their Mining activities long before they conducted the public

review. He further stated that the public review was done without his knowledge.

Similarly, Abdullahi, (2012), the Area Town Planner for Kabba/Bunu Local Government

Area said in an interview that the Town Planning Board is responsible for giving EIA permit in

the State. He further stated that any Registered Town Planner is very qualified to prepare EIA in

Kogi State. In addition to that, he said the cost of an EIA permit in Kogi State depends largely on

the Town Planner concerned and the bargaining power of the Project proponent. He added that the

government of Kogi State does not in any way charge project proponent for EIA permit.

In an interview with Abdul, (2012), the youth leader of Okobo village where the Zuma 828

Nigeria limited is operating a coal mining, he said he was fortunate to attend the public forum on

the EIA organised by the company in Lokoja. He regreted that many of the people who desired to

attend the forum could not make it because beside being held on a Sunday, most of them were not

able to raise the transport fare to Lokoja which is about two hundred (200) kilometres away. He

also lamented that he had asked the company several times for a copy of the EIA and he was denied

having a copy.

Similarly, during a two day workshop organised for Health and Environmental Officers of

Local Government Council of Kogi State in 2013, by JEMDTAS Nigeria Technical Limited in

collaboration with the Local Government Service Commission on the theme: “Environmental

Management and Sustainable Development”; all the Environmental Health officers from the 21

local government areas of the State unanimously complained that, they have difficulties

discharging their duties as a result of regular interference from their employer who in a bid to
 86

favour some politicians, make it difficult for them to carry out their duties. Ironically, these

environmental officers were employed by the State to monitor, interprete environmental laws and

possibly fine defaulters. From the result of these interviews one can conclude that there is low

level of compliance of development projects with the provisions of EIA in Kogi state.
 87

CHAPTER FOUR

IDENTIFICATION AND ANALYSIS OF THE CAUSES OF LOW

COMPLIANCE WITH EIA

4.1 Analysis of the factors Affecting EIA provisions by the Public in Kogi State

The public in Kogi State were interviewed on the factors affecting Environmental Impact

Assessment in Kogi State. The instrument used contained sixteen variables which have been

subjected to Principal Component Analysis.

A look at the result of the correlation matrix in Table 11 shows that some of the variables

are positive and strongly correlated. For example, C3 and C1, C7 and C2, C9 and C2, C6 and C4

etc while others are negative and weakly correlated e.g. C8 and C1, C4/C1, C13/C2, C14/C3 etc.

To reduce the effect of the inter-correlation, we therefore apply Principal Component

Analysis (PCA) to transform the attiributes into an orthogonal values. The PCA result is shown in

Table 12.

Table 11: Correlation Matrix of factors affecting EIA provisions in Kogi State by the
public.
Correlation C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9 C10 C11 C12 C13 C14 C15 C16

C1 1.000

C2 .155 1.000

C3 .615 -.132 1.000

C4 -.118 .262 .143 1.000

C5 -.255 .375 -.274 .901* 1.000

C6 -.473 .203 -.085 .929* .885* 1.000

C7 .114 .936* -.380 .273 .508 .214 1.000

C8 -.024 .410 -.297 .795* .950* .700* .602* 1.000

C9 .262 .993* -.062 .208 .304 .116 .920* .363 1.000

C10 .053 -.008 -.709* -.502 -.116 -.490 .278 .112 .004 1.000

C11 .003 .965* -.285 .072 .239 .094 .902* .256 .950* .093 1.000

C12 .033 -.037 -.710* -.543 -.160 -.519 .242 .062 -.025 .998* .075 1.000

C13 .009 -.122 -.699* -.574 -.203 -.539 .158 .011 -.109 .991* -.002 .996* 1.000

C14 .335 .982* -.014 .193 .278 .076 .908* .355 .997* .012 .928* -.018 -.103 1.000

C15 .056 -.111 -.672* -.569 -.203 -.552 .169 .022 -.093 .993* -.001 .997* .999* -.084 1.000

C16 .186 .983* -.242 .175 .352 .109 .973 .433 .981 .172 .961 .142 .057 .973 .069 1.000

Significant loadings ±0.650 and above

 88

Table 12: Rotated Component Matrix of factors affecting EIA provisions in Kogi State
By the public.
Component
CODE QUESTIONS 1 2 3 4
C1 The cost of obtaining EIA permit from the government is
.171 .018 -.142 .975
very high
C2 There are many EIA consultants resident in Kogi state. *.985 -.066 .161 .011
C3 There is no indigenous EIA consultant resident in kogi state. -.160 -.724 -.184 .646
C4 Most EIA consultants in Kogi State are expatriate .090 -.444 *.892 .001
C5 Most EIA consultants available in Kogi State are qualified to
.222 -.057 *.960 -.160
prepare EIA
C6 There is always good public participation before an EIA
.047 -.429 *.825 -.366
report is completed
C7 The public normally responds positively to the call to attend
*.912 .240 .332 .001
public review on EIA
C8 The public review on EIA normally holds in the very area
.272 .165 *.946 .062
where the project is to be established
C9 There is normally positive contribution by the public during
*.986 -.060 .103 .112
public review on EIA.
C10 The opinion of the public does not really count in the
.071 *.994 -.076 .012
preparation of EIA document.
C11 There are several shrtcuts to get EIA permit in Kogi state. *.985 .024 -.006 -.171
C12 The public review on EIA in kogi State is not more than an
.049 *.991 -.121 -.011
entainment
C13 The cost of sponsoring a public review on EIA is borne by
-.032 *.988 -.150 -.025
the project propoment and is quiet discouraging
C14 The people in the areas where the project is to be sited do not
always want to support EIA public review until they are *.977 -.054 .091 .187
settled with material gift
C15 The public in Kogi State careless about EIA. -.022 *.989 -.144 .022
C16 The government careless about EIA permits *.981 .114 .153 .039
Eigen value 6.525 5.336 2.912 1.227
% of
explained 40.782 33.350 18.198 7.670
variance
Cummulative
% of 40.782 74.132 92.330 100.000
variance
*Significant loadings exceeding ± 0.75 at 95% confidence level.
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.
A rotation converged in 5 iterations.

The Pearson’s correlation matrix was used to test the interelationship that exist between

the variables. PCA was further used to transform the attributes into orthogonal values. The PCA

extracted four components from sixteen variables. The four components account for 100% of the

total variance.
 89

Component I is significantly loaded on six variables which include C2, C7, C9, C11, C14,

and C16. C2 (.985) shows there are many EIA consultants resident in Kogi State. This indicates

that EIA consultants are available. The result agreed with the analysis of the interview in chapter

three which reveals that all the Town Planners (Registered) are qualified to prepare EIA in Kogi

State. However, EIA is all embracing and required a multidisciplinary approach in preparation and

presentation. A situation where an individual, because he or she is a registered town planner can

single handedly prepare an EIA for a project is a total deviation from the National Procedural

guideline on EIA. C7 (.912) shows that the public normally respond positively to the call to attend

public review on EIA. There has been a record of peaceful EIA public review in the state. However,

some project proponents do restrict attendance to public review on EIA to village Heads and highly

placed individuals. Others have even fixed EIA public review at odd times in order to restrict

attendance and probably avoid much spending. C9 (.986) indicate that the public in Kogi State

normally make positive contribution during EIA public review.

However, there are questions on whether those contributions are in the interest of the

environment or for self gratification. The significant loading on C11 (.985) shows that there exist

several shortcut to get EIA permit in Kogi State. Some examples of these shortcuts have already

been mentioned in the previous chapters where a project proponent can get through one registered

Town planner to get an EIA prepared. It was also revealed that some multinational projects got a

provisional (Temporary) EIA permit to commence their project while the EIA process is still on

going. These show a serious contravention of the EIA procedure. C14 (.977) shows that the local

people from the area where the project is to be sited do not always want to support EIA public

review until they are settled with material gifts. This shows that their participation and positive
 90

contributions during EIA public review as indicated by variable C7 and C9 above have to do with

inducement.

After collecting material gifts from the project proponent, the local people submitted

completely to EIA presentation by the project proponent without raising any serious contention.

C16 (.981) has significant loading which shows that the government of Kogi State is careless about

EIA permits. This means that the state lacks the political will to ensure effective EIA procedure in

the state. And if the political will is not there, then many things will go wrong with the EIA policy

in the State. The underlying factor for component I is lack of monitoring and evaluation of EIA

procedure. The component has an Eigen value of 6.525 and explains 40.78% of the total variance.

Component II has high significant loadings on C3, C10, C12, C13, and C15. The significant

loadings on C3 (-0.724) has a negative signs meaning the variable is inversely related to the

component. It shows that the EIA consultants in Kogi State are indigenes. C10 (.994) reveals that

the opinion of the public does not really count in the preparation of EIA document. This explain

that whatever the contribution from the public and no matter how good, does not really matter.

The EIA process continues with or without any contribution from the public. A good example can

be taken from the case of Goldfeilds Coal Mining in the state where the EIA was strongly opposed

by a group called project Igala.The opposition does not in any way stop the company from carrying

out their businesse as the case of Zuma 828 in Okobo of Ankpa local government where the

operation had commenced long before the public review was held. C12 (.991) shows that public

review on EIA in Kogi State is not more than an entertainment. The public just gatherered for the

review after they must have been settled by one gift or the other and listen to whatever the project

proponent had to tell them and afterward without much argument or complaint or contributions

departed to their various homes. It is usually a mere entertainment and a contravention of the EIA
 91

procedure because this defies good stakeholder’s participation in the EIA process. The high

significant loadings on C13 (.988) shows that the cost of sponsoring a public review on EIA which

is borne by the project proponent is quite a discouraging factor in the EIA process. Beside the

amount that is paid directly to the government as bills for the permit, other expenses and logistics

are also taken care of which all together amount to huge sum of money which most project

proponents felt should be used for starting up the project. C15 (.989) shows that the public in Kogi

State are careless about EIA. The local people are not really bordered whether the Development

Project coming to their locality has EIA or not. Sometimes, they are consumed by the enthusiasm

of having the project around them. They count what they stand to benefit from the project rather

than the negative consequences of the project. The underlying factor here is public disregard for

EIA. The component has an Eigen value of 5.336 and account for 33.35% of the total variance.

Component III has significant loadings on four variables which include C4, C5, C6 and

C8. The high significant loadings on C4 (.892) indicates that most EIA consultants available in

Kogi State are expatriates. This has to do largely with locations and the available development

projects in the area. The areas where there are multinational projects like the Dangote Cement

factory, the EIA consultants are not indigenes of the state and some are expatriates. These projects

are covered by the Environment EIA system. However, there are so many cases of EIA prepared

and approved in the state under the Town Planning EIA system where consultants are mostly

Registered Town Planners from the state. C5 (.960) indicates that most EIA consultants available

in the state are qualified to prepare EIA. C6 (.825) shows there is always good public participation

before an EIA report is completed. All this reflect on the location where a multinational project is

in place. There is a serious dichotomy between the attitudes and expressions of the public in the

area where there is state and private projects and those areas where there are multinational project

because the approach to EIA procedures by these project proponents differs. C8 (.946) shows that
 92

the public review on EIA normally holds in the very area where the project is to be established.

The public review on EIA in Kogi State normally holds in the state capital Lokoja. The area around

Lokoja definitely finds it very convinient but when the project is to be sited in a location far away

from the state capital, the local people may not find it convenient. The underlying factor here

borders on the issue of stakeholders involvement in EIA process. The component has an Eigen

value of 2.912 and explains 18.19% of the total variance.

Component IV is significantly loaded on C1 (.978). It shows that the cost of obtaining EIA

permit from the government is very high. The cost here may not mean only the amount paid as bill

for the permit but, could also involve the amount spent on logistics as well as the waiting period.

Time especially is very important in planning a development project.

Many proponents could run out of patience if the waiting period is unduly extended. The

underlying factor is high cost of obtaining an EIA permit. The component has an Eigen value of

1.227 and account for 7.67% of the total variance.

TABLE 13: THE RELATIVE STRENGTH OF THE UNDERLYING DIMENSION OF THE

FACTORS AFFECTING THE COMPLIANCE OF DEVELOPMENT PROJECT WITH EIA BY
THE PUBLIC
S/N Component Underlying factor Component Defining Variable Relative Contribution
contribution cumulative
1 I Lack of monitoring C2 (.985) There are many EIA 40.78% 40.78
and evaluation of consultants resident in Kogi State
EIAprocedure
2 II Public disregard for C10 (.994) The opinion of the 33.35% 74.13%
EIA public does not really count in the
preparation of EIA document
3 III Stakehoiders C5 (.960) Most EIA consultants 18.19% 92.33%
involvement available in Kogi State are
qualified to prepare EIA.
4 IV High cost of C1 (.975) The cost of obtaining 7.67% 100%
obtaining EIA permit from the government is
permit high.
Source: Author, 2012
 93

The PCA result for the factors affecting the level of compliance of development projects with EIA

by the public identifies four components to have significant effect on the compliance of

development projects with EIA in Kogi state.

The underlying factor for component I is lack of monitoring and evaluation of EIA

procedure and the component defining variable is C2 (there are many EIA consultant resident in

Kogi State with high positive loading of .985. The high positive loading indicates many EIA

consultants which refers to registered Town Planners. The state EIA process approves any

registered Town Planner to prepare EIA. With the Town Planner’s seal on an EIA document in

Kogi state, the EIA is authentic and unquestionable. This situation devoid monitoring and

evaluation of EIA process. Component II has public disregard for EIA as the underlying factor

with C10 (the opinion of the public does not really count in the preparation of EIA document as

the component defining variable with a high positive loading of .994, there is an indication that

the public in Kogi State are already aware that their opinion does not really matter in EIA

preparation and therefore developed a careless attitude for EIA process.

The underlying factor for component III is stakeholder involvement and the component

defining variable is C5 (most EIA consultants available in Kogi State are qualified to prepare EIA.

For component IV, the underlying factor is high cost of obtaining EIA permit and the component

defining variable is C1 (.978) the cost of obtaining EIA permit from the government is high.

Component I contribute 40.78% to the cumulative contributions of the variables. The

approval of any registered Town Planner to prepare EIA has create a situation that allows many

EIA consultant in the state. The situation also resulted to neglence on EIA monitoring and

evaluation. The high cost of obtaining EIA permit, does not only mean the amount paid as bill to

the government but it also include the time lost and amount spent on logistics.
 94

4.2 Analysis of the Factors Affecting EIA Compliance by EIA Regulators in Kogi State

The various agencies incharge of regulating EIA in Kogi State both at the state

headquarters and the local government levels were interviewed on the factors affecting EIA

provisions in the state. The same instrument was used to interview the public in Kogi State and the

project proponents in Kogi State.

The result of the response from the regulating agency is shown below.

Table 14: Correlation matrix of factors affecting EIA Compliance in Kogi State by
the Regulators.

Correlation C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9 C10 C11 C12 C13 C14 C15 C16

C1
1.000
C2
.514 1.000
C3
-.245 .147 1.000
C4
-.434 .338 -.213 1.000
C5
-.245 .147 1.000 -.213 1.000
C6
-.386 .470 .795* .391 .795* 1.000
C7
.499 .400 .690* -.539 .690* .345 1.000
C8
-.064 .782* .557 .462 .557 .895* .313 1.000
C9
-.286 .259 .982* -.058 .982* .890* .614* .694* 1.000
C10 -
-.212 -.238 -.429 -.238 -.447 -.437 -.486 -.274 1.000
.642*
C11
-.432 .014 .965* -.155 .965* .799* .497 .535 .964* -.041 1.000
C12
-.310 .169 .837* -.137 .837* .766* .387 .647* .880* .146 .914* 1.000
C13 -
-.247 -.272 -.416 -.272 -.487 -.475 -.548 -.315 .996* -.074 .086 1.000
.703*
C14
-.281 .271 .974* -.060 .974* .892* .596 .712* .998* -.234 .965* .907* -.279 1.000
C15
-.255 -.555 .089 -.513 .089 -.182 -.200 -.274 .052 .944* .276 .449 .923* .093 1.000
C16
-.246 .295 .980* -.066 .980* .889* .637* .710* .999* -.289 .954* .879* -.333 .998* .038 1.000

Significant loadings ±0.650 and above

A careful look at the result of the correlation matrix contained in Table 14 revealed that

some of the variables are positively correlated like C2/C1, C7 and C1, C8/C2, C11/C2, C11/C3

C9/C5, C9/C6 etc. while others have high negative correlation e.g. C10/C2, C15/C4, C13/C6,

C13/C8 etc.
 95

The effect of the inter-correlation was reduced by the application of PCA to transform the

attributes into orthogonal values. The result of the PCA is contained in Table 15.

Table 15: Rotated Component Matrix of factors affecting EIA Compliance in

Kogi State by the Regulators.
Component
CODE QUESTIONS 1 2 3 4
C1 The cost of obtaining EIA permit from the
-.365 -.190 .*835 .364
government is very high.
C2 There are many EIA consultants resident in Kogi
.109 -.492 .182 *.844
state.
C3 There is no indigenous EIA consultant rresident in
*.986 -.091 .132 -.035
Kogi state.
C4 Most EIA consultants in Kogi State are expatriate. -.132 -.423 *-.826 .348
C5 Most EIA consultants in Kogi State are qualified to
*.986 -.091 .132 -.035
prepare EIA.
C6 There is always good public participation before an
*.835 -.274 -.316 .357
EIA report is completed.
C7 The public normally respond positively to the call to
.569 -.332 *.751 .045
attend public review on EIA.
C8 The public review on EIA normally holds in the very
.591 -.286 -.201 *.727
area where the project is to be established.
C9 There is normally positive contribution by the public
*.988 -.106 .015 .115
during public review on EIA.
C10 The opinion of the public does not really count in the
-.153 *.974 -.026 -.168
preparation of EIA documents.
C11 There are several shortcuts to get EIA permit in Kogi
*.993 .106 -.042 -.040
state.
C12 The public review on EIA in Kogi State is not more
*.894 .340 -.029 .289
than an entertainment
C13 The cost of sponsoring a public review on EIA is
-.056
borne by the project proponent and is quite -.188 *.950 -.242
discouraging.
C14 The people in the Areas where the project is to be
sited do not always want to support EIA public *.986 -.058 .158
.043
review until they are settled with material gift.
C15 The public in Kogi State careless about EIA. .170 *.977 -.119
C16 The government careless about EIA permit. *.981 -.116 .044 .146
Eigen values 8.712 4.104 2.167 1.017
% of explained
54.448 25.652 13.547 6.353
variance
Cummulative
% of explained 54.448 80.100 93.647
100.000
variance
*Significant loadings exceeding ± 0.75 at 95% confidence level.
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.
A rotation converged in 6 iterations
The result of the PCA is a product of sixteen variables which was transformed to four

components. Component I have high significant loadings on eight variables which include C3, C5,

C6, C9, C11, C12, C14 and C16. The high significant loading on C3 (.986) shows there is no
 96

indigenous EIA consultant resident in Kogi State. This depends largely on the type of EIA policy

in focus. For the EIA of the environment, there are few indigenous EIA consultants in the state.

But for Town Planning EIA there are many indigenous consultants resident in the state. The high

significant loading on C5 (.986) is a reflection of the Town Planning EIA. This shows that most

EIA consultants in the state are qualified to prepare EIA. These consultants are Registered Town

Planners. C6 (.835) shows there is always good public participation before an EIA report is

completed. The public participation here does not involve public review in the case of Town

Planning EIA. It is only when it involves environment EIA that public review is carried out.

C9 (.988) shows that there is normally positive contribution by the public during public

review on EIA. The review is usually peaceful and without much contention. The high significant

loadings on C11 (.993) shows that there are several shortcuts to get EIA permit in Kogi State.

Though these shortcuts are not legal, it cut across the two EIA policies operating in the state.

C12 (.894) shows that the public review on EIA in Kogi is not more than an entertainment.

The public only gathered to listen to the project proponent as he presented the EIA in form of

political manifestoes full of promises and many at times without questions and suggestions, the

people departed to their homes. The high loading on C14 (.986) reveals that the local people from

the area where the project is to be sited do not always want to support EIA public review until they

are settled with material gifts. This indicates why they always contribute positively during EIA

public review. It also shows why the public review is like a mere inducement. The loadings on

C15 (.977) shows that the public in Kogi State is careless about EIA. What they care about is the

initial benefit they want to derive from the project that is coming to their land, not the negative

impact of the project. The underlying factor in this component is poor concern for EIA provisions.

The component has an Eigen value of 8.712 and account for 54.44% of the total variance.
 97

Component II has high significant loading on three variables which include C10, C13, and

C15. The high significant loading on C10 (.974) shows that the opinion of the public does not

really count in the preparation of EIA documents. Where public review on EIA is conducted in the

state, it is just to fulfill the requirement. The suggestions, cries and complaints of the public are

not always taken into consideration.

Loading on C13 (.950) shows that the cost of sponsoring a public review on EIA is borne

by the project proponent and is quite discouraging. Project proponents spent much money in trying

to organize a public review. Most of them are often discouraged by the cost and rather choose a

shortcut or skip it. C15 (.977) shows that the public in Kogi State are careless about EIA. Since

they know their opinion will not count, they have lost interest and sometimes for the fact that they

have been induced by the project proponent, they may not border themselves about future negative

occurrence. Many at times, the Federal government often gives provisional approval for EIA

permit to project proponent while the EIA process is yet to be completed. In that case, whatever

the public opinion of the project does not count in any way. The underlying factor in this

component is poor public participation in EIA process. The component has an Eigen value of 4.104

and explains 25.65% of the total variance.

Component III has high significant loadings on three variables which include C1, C4, and

C7. The high significant loading on C1 (.835) indicates that the cost of obtaining EIA permit from

the government is very high. The cost here involves the amount paid directly as bill to the

government as well as the time spent in waiting for the approval and the cost of organizing public

review. The high significant loading on C14 (-0.826) has a negative impact indicating that the

variable is inversely related to the other variables in this component. Consultants engaged by
 98

multinational companies are mostly expatriates while those engaged by the Town Planning EIA

policy are indigenes. This accounts for the negative impact in the loadings of the variables.

C7 (.751) shows the readiness of the public to attend public review on EIA. The positive

response does not necessarily indicate an interest on the environment and sustainable development

rather on self gratification. The underlying factor in this component is high cost of EIA. The

component has an Eigen value of 2.167 and account for 13.54% of the total variance.

Component IV has high significant loadings on two variables C2 and C8. The high loading

on C2 (.844) is an indication that many EIA consultants are resident in Kogi State. This significant

loading is a reflection of the consultants of the Town Planning EIA who are mostly registered

Town Planners. C8 (.727) indicates that the public review on EIA normally holds in the very area

where the project is to be established. As pointed earlier, the Town Planning EIA which is more

popular in the state does not require any elaborate public review. All that it takes to complete the

EIA is done in the locality of the project. The underlying factor in this component is stakeholder’s

involvement. The component has an Eigen value of 1.017 and explains 6.35% of the total variance.

Table 16: The relative strength of the underlying factors that determine the factors affecting
the Compliance of Development Project with EIA by the Regulators in Kogi State.
S/N Component Underlying Component Defining Relative Cumulative
factor Variable contribution contribution
1 I Poor concern for C11 (.993) There are 54.44% 54.44%
EIA provision several shortcuts to get
EIA permit in Kogi State.
2 II Poor public C15 (.977) The public in 25.65% 80.10%
participation in Kogi State careless about
EIA processes EIA
3 III High cost of EIA C1 (.835) The cost of 13.54% 93.64%
permit obtaining EIA permit
from the government in
very highl
4 IV Stakeholders C2 (.844) There are many 6.35% 100%
involvement in EIA consultant in Kogi
EIA State
Source: Author, 2012
 99

The relative strength of the underlying factors that determine the factors affecting the compliance

of development project with EIA by the regulators in Kogi State identifies four components which

are as follows.

Component I has poor concern for EIA provision as the underlying factor and the

component defining variable is C11. (There are several shortcuts to get EIA permit in Kogi state.

The high positive loading of .995 suggests there is strong agreement on the variable. The relative

contribution of the variable to the component is 54.44%. The underlying factor for component II

is poor public participation in EIA process and the component defining variable is C.15 (.977).

The public in Kogi State are careless about EIA. For component III, the underlying factor is high

cost of EIA and the component defining variable is CI (835). The cost of obtaining EIA permit

from the government is high. The underlying factor for component IV is stakeholders involvement

in EIA and the component defining variable is C2 (.844). There are many EIA consultants in Kogi

state.

There is a kind of chain effect in the component defining variables of the underlying factors

seen here because there are many EIA consultant who are mainly registered Town Planners, EIA

monitoring and evaluation is not taken seriously and that created a careless attitude on the public

in Kogi state. Similarly, because the cost in terms of bills paid to the consultants, time spent in

waiting, amount spent on logistics is high, and many project proponents seek shortcuts to get

approval. There are cases of even provisional approval granted by the Federal Ministry of

Environment for a project without a complete EIA. There are also cases of project that commenced

long before even the EIA draft copy was ready.

 100

4.3 Analysis of the Factors affecting the Compliance of Development Projects with EIA

by the Project Proponents

To establish the factors affecting the provision of Environmental Impact Assessment in

Kogi State, representatives of project proponents across the state were interviewed. The instrument

for the interview contained sixteen variables which were subjected to principal component

analysis. The result shows that three components were extracted to explain the total variance.

Table 17: Correlation Matrix of factors affecting EIA Compliance in Kogi State by the
project proponents.

Correlation C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9 C10 C11 C12 C13 C14 C15 C16

C1 1.000

C2 .915* 1.000

C3 -.393 -.438 1.000

C4 .170 .012 .787* 1.000

C5 .806* .912* -.200 .081 1.000

C6 .414 .709* -.090 -.082 .848* 1.000

C7 .798* .962* -.581 -.202 .833* .738* 1.000

C8 .922* .864* -.060 .489 .788* .464 .714* 1.000

C9 .711* .933* -.360 -.082 .900* .893* .957* .708* 1.000

C10 .765* .935* -.520 -.107 .758* .687* .980* .735* .936* 1.000

C11 -.597 -.291 .524 .023 -.043 .445 -.203 -.388 .053 -.188 1.000

C12 .456 .732* -.456 -.203 .538 .669* .860* .479 .849* .920* .083 1.000

C13 .642* .779* -.695* -.267 .481 .415 .879* .556 .750* .928* -.345 .903* 1.000

C14 -.228 .076 .526 .209 .334 .711* .101 .013 .378 .109 .913* .274 -.155 1.000

C15 .885* .997* -.415 .013 .914* .748* .970* .852* .955* .949* -.226 .770* .787* .139 1.000

C16 .825* .981* -.382 -.021 .934* .828* .968* .802* .984* .941* -.104 .789* .755* .252 .991* 1.000

Significant loadings ±0.650 and above

The correlation matrix of the factors affecting EIA provisions in Kogi State by the project

proponent is contained in Table 17. A look at the correlation matrix shows that some of the

attributes like C2/C1, C5/C1, C8/C2, C9/C1, C10/C11, C12/C2, C13/C7 are positive and strongly

correlated while others like C11/C1, C3/C2, C7/C3, C11/C8, etc. have high negative correlation.
 101

Most of the attributes here have high positive correlation. To reduce the effects of the inter-

correlation, we used PCA to transform the attribute into orthogonal values as shown in Table 18.

Table 18: Rotated Component Matrix of factors affecting EIA Compliance in

Kogi State By the project proponents.
Component
CODE QUESTIONS 1 2 3
C1 The cost of obtaining EIA permit from the government is
*.868 -.443 .166
very high
C2 There are many EIA consultant resident in kogi state *.991 -.109 -.029
C3 There is no indigenous EIA consultant resident in kogi state -.360 .440 **.811
C4 Most EIA consultants in Kogi State are expatriate .063 -.006 *.950
C5 Most EIA consultant available in Kogi State are qualified to
*.912 .142 .141
prepare EIA
C6 There is always good public participation before an EIA
*.764 .608 -.066
report is completed
C7 The public normally respond positively to the call to attend
*.961 -.023 -.277
public review on EIA
C8 The public review on EIA normally holds in the very area
*.863 -.251 .433
where the project is to be established
C9 There is normally positive contribution by the public during
*.961 .236 -.140
public review on EIA
C10 The opinion of the public does not really count in the
*.950 -.022 -.240
preparation of EIA documents
C11 There are several shortcut to get EIA permit in kogi state -.181 *.982 .024
C12 The public review on EIA in Kogi State is not more than an
*.784 .214 -.401
entertainment
C13 The cost of sponsoring a public review on EIA is borne by
*.779 -.220 -.454
the project proponent and is quite discouraging
C14 The people in the areas where the project is to be sited do
not always want to support EIA public review until they are .189 *.959 .210
settled with material gift
C15 The public in Kogi State care less about EIA *.997 -.043 -.038
C16 The government care less about EIA permits *.992 .083 -.063
Eigen values 10.182 3.051 2.082
% of explained
63.636 19.068 13.012
variance
Cummulative %
of explained 63.636 82.705 95.716
variance.
*Significant loadings exceeding ± 0.75 at 95% confidence level.
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.
A rotation converged in 6 iterations.

Component I has high significant loading on twelve variables which include C1, C2, C5,

C6, C7, C8, C9, C10, C12, C13, C15 and C16. The high significant loading on C1 (.868) indicates

that the cost of obtaining EIA permit from the government is very high. This also agreed with the
 102

result from the two other categories of the respondents. C2 (.991) shows that, there are many EIA

consultant resident in Kogi State is a reflection on the Town Planning EIA. C5 (.912) shows that

most EIA consultants available in Kogi State are qualified to prepare EIA. This largely depends

on the type of EIA policy. C6 (.764) indicates that there is always good public participation before

an EIA report is completed. C7 (.961) shows that the public normally respond positively to the call

to attend public review on EIA. C8 (.863) shows that the public review on EIA normally holds in

the area where the project is to be established. The significant loading on variables C5, C6, C7,

and C8 depends largely on the type of EIA policy in question. As noted earlier the town planning

EIA is most popular in the state. The requirements are not as cumbersome as those of the Ministry

of Environment. The issue of public participation and public review which is fundamental in the

Ministry of Environment’s EIA process is not a serious issue in Town Planning EIA as currently

practiced in the state.

C9 (.961) indicates that there is normally a positive contribution by the public during EIA

public review. The public review is always peaceful and the public normally consent to the EIA

report. C10 (.950) indicates that the opinion of the public does not really count in the preparation

of EIA documents. This applies to the two EIA policies in the state. In as much as the Town

Planning EIA does not really seek the opinion of the public in the preparation of EIA, the EIA of

the environment seldom consider the opinion of the public. C12 (.784) shows that public review

on EIA in the state is not more than an entertainment. It is always a forum where people gather,

listen to the presenter and depart home without raising much contention on fundamental issues that

affects them. C13 (.779) reveals that the cost of sponsoring a public review on EIA is borne by the

project proponent and is quite discouraging. Some of the project proponents skip public review

because of the cost. C15 (-0.997) shows that the public in Kogi State is careless about EIA. The

understanding and interest of the public on environmental matters is low. C16 (.992) shows that

the government of Kogi State is careless about EIA permit. There is low political will on the part
 103

of the government to enforce EIA permit. This is in line with finding of Tundu (1999) who states

that the promotion of private foreign investment has created fears that putting investors to rigorous

and public scrutiny of their projects on environmental grounds and depriving the economy of this

badly needed foreign direct investment. The underlying factor in this component is poor concern

for EIA provisions. The component has an Eigen value of 10.182 and account for 63.63% of the

total variance.

Component II has high significant loading on two variables which include C11 and C14.

The high significant loading on C11 (.982) is an indication that there are shortcuts to get EIA

permit in Kogi State. This agrees with the findings of Kerdeman (2009) who opines that Nigeria

is one of the greatest violators of EIA regulations due to poor participation, corruption, and /or

down playing of EIA. C14 (.959) shows that the people in the area where the project is to be sited

do not always want to support EIA public review until they are settled with material gifts. The gift

serves as an inducement and explains why they seldom raise contentions. The underlying factor

here is inducing support for EIA process. The component has an Eigen value of 3.051 and explains

19.0% of the total variance.

Component III has high significant loadings on two variables C3 and C4. The high

significant loading on C3 (.811) shows that there is no indigenous EIA consultant resident in the

state. C4 (.950) indicates that most EIA consultant in Kogi State are expatriates. The loading on

C3 and C4 reflects largely on the EIA of the environment where a multidisciplinary approach is

required. The consultants of most multinational companies in the state are non-indigenes. The

underlying factor of this component is accessibility to qualified EIA consultant. The component

has an Eigen value of 2.082 and account for 13.0% of the total variance.
 104

Table 19: The relative strength of the underlying dimension of factors that determine the
factors affecting the compliance of Development Project with EIA by the Proponent
S/N Component Underlying Component Defining Relative Cumulative
factor Variable contribution contribution
1 I Poor concern C16 (.992) The government 63.63% 63.63
for EIA careless about EIA permit.
provision
2 II Inducing C11 (.982) There are several 19.0% 82.70%
support for shortcut to get EIA permit in
EIA process Kogi State
3 III Accessibility C4 (.950) Most EIA 13.0% 95.71%
to qualified consultant in Kogi State are
EIA expertraites
consultant
Source: Author, 2012

The PCA result for the factors affecting the compliance of development project with EIA by the

proponent in Kogi state.

The result extracts three components which include component I poor concern for EIA.

The component defining variable is C16 (.992). The government is careless about EIA permit. The

relative contribution of the component is 63.63%

The government of Kogi State lack the political will to drive environmental impact

assessment. This can be seen in the fact that the state does not give EIA approval neither does it

concern itself with the status of the consultants that prepare EIA in the state. Beside, there is no

record of any state project with a complete EIA. The underlying factor for component II is inducing

support for EIA process and the component defining variable is C11. There are several shortcuts

to get EIA permit in Kogi state. The careless attitude of the government for EIA process has created

a situation where everybody do what he wants thereby given room for financial and material

inducement in EIA process.

The underlying factor for component III is accessibility to qualified EIA consultants and

the component defining variable is C4. (.950) Most EIA consultant in Kogi State are expertriate.
 105

All the EIA consultants used for all the multi-national projects and industries in Kogi State are

expertriates. The cost and access to these consultant is quiet expensive and discouraging. Some

project proponents choose to abandon the EIA process because of the cost of sponsoring it. This

agrees with the findings of Kakonge (2006) who states that in most developing countries, experts

are foreign and the few indigenuos experts are poorly renumerated. In Nigeria, few EIA indigenous

consultants exist and most state lack one.

100

90

80

70

60

Public
50
Regulators
Proponent
40
Percentage %

30

20

10

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Fig. 6: Analysis of the variation in the level of agreement of respondents on

compliance with EIA

Fig. 6 shows the variation in the responses of the three categories of respondents on the factors

affecting the Compliance of Development Projects with EIA provisions in the state. To avoid
 106

concealing of information, the same checklist was used for each of the category to bring out the

fact. It is clear from their responses on variables 2, 4, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15 and 16 that there is

strong agreement between the respondents on these variables. Only in few cases like variables 1,

3, 5, 7 and 14 where there is margin between the opinions of the regulators and those of the public

and the project proponent. However, the margin notwithstanding there is a strong agreement in the

opinion of the public and project proponent. This justify that the result is valid to some extent.

The result reflects strong agreement between the response of the three categories of

respondents used for this study. The result also agreed with the opinion of Kerdeman (2009) that

Nigeria is one of the greatest violators of EIA regulations due to poor public participation,

corruption and downplaying of EIA. She also identified Nigeria to have a weak civil society and

mass poverty as factors responsible for poor participation in EIA process. The result also agreed

with the findings of the World Bank (1998) which identified poor implementation of framework,

conflicting institutional mandates, inadequate funding and non availability of environmental

professionals as the problem facing environmental management in Kogi State.

 107

CHAPTER FIVE

STRATEGIES FOR EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF EIA IN KOGI STATE

5.1 General overview of findings

The result of our findings indicates a low level of compliance of development projects with

EIA policy in Kogi State. The low compliance as we observed can partly be blamed on the

challenges of the policy itself which except resolved will continue to impede effective

implementation. Some of the challenges include the following.

There are too many EIA regulators with similar or overlapping responsibilities in the

country as well as in Kogi state. There are three independent EIA systems in the Country: one for

the petroleum sector (Governed by the Directorate of Petroleum Resources, DPR), another for the

urban and regional planner’s development control (governed by local government councils and the

town planning divisions of the State Ministries of Lands), and yet another which attempts to span

all sectors (governed by the FMENV). By 1992, all the three systems had in one form or the other

advanced legislations stipulating proactive pollution control with measures including impact

assessment, mitigation and project approval. Consequently, the pattern of the three EIA systems

varies significantly as one can observe. The DPR EIA evolved from the 1969 petroleum

regulations in Nigeria and it apparently have an indigenous concern, the EIA Decree of (1992) is

patterned after the NEPA act of USA and this obviously covers all the sectors of the economy. On

the other hands, the Town and Country planning EIA is patterned after the United Kingdom Town

and Country planning of 1988.

This variation in the styles and operation has not just caused confusion for the applicants

but, also compels them to repeat EIA preparation to satisfy all the systems with the attendant
 108

duplication of time and resource. Consequently most of them have to resolve to shortcuts and skip

the necessary and important aspect of EIA.

Beside, these three EIA systems, the Part III, section 24 of act 58 of 1988 permits the States

and Local Government Councils to establish their own environmental protection bodies for the

purpose of maintaining good environmental quality. Consequently, State Environmental

Protection Agency were established in all the State of the Federation. In Kogi State, the State Edict

on the environment and the National Procedural guidelines on EIA are at variance on many issues.

When the Federal Environmental Protection Agency was scrap in 1999 and the Federal Ministry

of Environment was created to take up its functions, most state did not scrap their state

Environmental Protection Board, rather they established State Ministry of Environment to run

concurrently with the SEPA. Hitherto, Kogi State EIA regulating bodies include the Federal

Ministry of Environment Field office, State Ministry of Environment, Kogi State Environmental

Protection Agency, Kogi State Town Planning Board and Kogi State Urban and Regional planning.

It is practically difficult for a proponent to satisfy all the regulating bodies and this really affects

compliance.

Another major challenge of the policy is the Exception to the EIA Decree as contained in

Section 15 of the decree which states that EIA is not required where in the opinion of the agency

the project is in the list of projects which the president, commander in chief of the Armed Forces

or the Council is of the opinion that the environmental effects of the project is likely to be minimal.

The provision of this section give ultimate power to the President to decide which project requires

EIA and which one should not be subjected to EIA. The expertise of the president to determine the

effect of a given project on the environment is questionable. The same Section of the Decree also

allows project to be excluded from EIA in case of National emergency.

 109

Consequently many development projects that require EIA like the National Stadium, in

Abuja. The dredging of the River Niger, the Federal power projects in the six Geo-political zones,

and several State projects in Kogi State like the Kogi State International Market at Lokoja, Kogi

State Biotic Fertilizer Company at Anyigba, Kogi State Confluence Beach Hotel at Lokoja were

not subjected to EIA because the President or the Governor decided there was no need and so be

it.

The issue of enforcement is yet another major challenge facing the effective implementation

of EIA in Nigeria. When Decree 86 was promulgated in 1992 and amended in 2004, there was no

enabling law for its enforcement until in 2007 when the National Environmental Standards and

Regulations enforcement Agency (NESREA) was established to take responsibility of enforcing

all Environmental laws, guidelines, policies, standards and regulations. It also has the

responsibility to enforce compliance with provisions of International agreements, protocols,

conventions and treaties on the environment. However, the NESREA Act creates a number of

conflict and duplication in the functions of the Federal Ministry of Environment. Even with the

Act, NESREA has limitation in enforcement particularly with regards to Federal and State projects.

It is good to note that, Kogi State have all the laws and regulations on the environment. It has a

good number of regulating Agencies but lack seriously in enforcement of the laws and regulations.

Though according to the state edict, KOSEPA is charged with the responsibility of enforcing

environmental laws and regulation, we observed that the heat and pressure from other regulating

Agencies and particularly Town planning Board has made it impossible for the Agency to operate

effectively. Beside, KOSEPA is lacking in staff strength and the few available have little or no

expertise ability to carry out their function. Funding is also another constraint of the Agency. The

annual budget of the state for the Agency according to our findings is not always accrued to it.
 110

Staff are not well paid and some time were denied their salaries for over six months. In these

circumstances, it is extremely difficult for the Agency to be effective.

Though the EIA Decree 86 of 1992 as amended in 2004 operates procedural guidelines, we

observe a low degree of advertisement of the guideline. The public and stakeholders in most cases

lack the knowledge of the process and procedure of EIA in the country. They are not aware of their

right to public hearing on proposed project or their rights to object to proposed development that

could affect the sustainability of their environment. During the fieldwork, we discovered the

indigenes of Obajana and Okobo both in Kogi State to be helpless and handicap over the terrible

effects of the activities of development projects on their entire livelihood. If these people are aware

of their rights as stipulated by law they will respond to the effect.

There is inadequate baseline data for the preparation of a quality Environmental Impact

Assessment both at the national and state level.

The issue of EIA consultant in Kogi State must be addressed with all seriousness. Currently

any registered Town Planner is a qualified EIA consultant. This may work for the Town and

Country Planning EIA but not for the other EIA system. Environmental Impact Assessment is a

comprehensive task that requires a multi disciplinary approach and should not be handled by an

individual.

5.2 Suggested strategies for effective implementation of EIA in Kogi State

The following suggestions has been put forward after a careful observation of some of the

challenges facing EIA in Kogi State with the view that when implemented EIA will become a

better solution for sustainable environmental development.

We suggest that the three EIA systems should be harmonized to operate under one

procedural guideline. From our observation the Decree 30 of 2004 is most comprehensive and has
 111

wide coverage and as such it best captures the criteria of good EIA system. The DPR and Town

planning EIA are more or less specific in style and methodologies. The Section 24, Part III of Act

58 of 1988 should be amendment to make all the States and Local Government Councils to comply

with the Act of the Federal Government rather than encouraging them to establish their own

regulating bodies.

The Section 15 of the EIA Decree should be amended. The President should not be given

ultimate authority to decide on environmental matters because sometimes he may allow sentiments

to override National interest. When EIA was established in USA 1969, the President made himself

the Chairman of the Committee to ensure strick compliance.

On the issue of enforcement we suggest in the interest of effective implementation of the

EIA policy that the state Government edict should be amended and specific function should be

given to each of the Agencies regulating EIA in the state. We also suggest that fund should be

made available for the operation of the Agencies and staff salaries should be paid promptly. There

should be workshops, seminars and training programs for the staff of all the Agencies regulating

EIA in the state.

5.2:1. Suggested strategies for effective implementation of EIA for the Regulators

It is practically the duty of the government to popularise her policies and laws while the public

has the duty to obey the law of the land. We therefore suggest that awareness campaign on the

EIA, processes and procedure should be carried out frequently to acquaint the public and

stakeholders of their rights to sustainable environment. This campaign should be a continuous

exercise which must be carried out throughout the state.

There is need for adequate data to prepare quality EIA.We suggest that the Federal

Ministry of Environment should establish a data bank on all the aspect of the Environment and
 112

make it accessible to both public and the EIA consultants.The Kogi State Geographic Imformtion

Sytem (GIS) should be equip with state of the art equipment to assist the public in locating

whatever imformation they need on the environment.

Public participation and stakeholder’s involvement should be taken seriously and every

participant should make sustainable environment the uttermost priority. In this case, the regulating

Agencies will strive to protect the law and regulations,

This shows why harmonizing EIA system is not only necessary but urgent. The state edict

should be amended to encourage the screening of EIA consultants.

5.2:2 Suggested strategies for effective implementation of EIA for the public

For the public, we suggest that since ignorant is not an excuse in law, people should strive

to aquaint themselves with government policies and regulations. The Federal Government has

established a feild office for the Federal Ministry of Environment to bring the operation of the

Ministry closer to the people. It therefore the responsibility of the individuals to seek for

imformation and help when there is need. Forinstance, copies of all the EIA draft and final report

conducted in the state are available in the Ministry field office and can be accessed by any

individual who need them.

The public should strive to ensure compliances to terms of reference mentioned in the EIA

document by insisting on its implementation by the project proponents and stop looking for

monetary inducement.

The public should show concern and care for the environment and strive to protect it at all cost.

They must see public participation on EIA as an opportunity to contribute to sustainable

development. They should engage in meaningful dialoque with project proponents on

environmental matters and avoid violence and destruction.

 113

5.2:3 Suggested strategies for effective implementation of EIA for the project proponents

The following suggestions are made for effective implementation of EIA process and

procedure.

The project proponent should seek to understand the EIA sytem most relevant for their

project. While we advocate for a harmonization of the three EIA system for effective compliane,

we strongly suggest that the project proponent must have a good knowledge of which EIA system

is most relevant to his project because by doing so unnecessary expenses may be avoided. For

instance, an estate development project should not run away from the Town and Country EIA.

Petroleum refinery and service stations are best handled by the DPR EIA, while industrial projects

are covered by the EIA of the environment.

The proponents should provide assurance that the required regulations are met through self

determination, self regulation, goal setting and negociated agreements to complement existing

legislation.They should ensure that a section is created in the company to handle environmental

issues and fund should be devoted for it. Staff should be highly motivated with adequate equipment

and capacity building programs vigorously driving by sustainable environment.

We also suggest that the proponent should be alive to the Environmental Management Plan

(EMP) enshrined in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and pursue it not because some

body is monitoring them but because they mearnt it.

 114

CHAPTER SIX

SUMMARY, RECOMMENDATION AND CONCLUSION

6.1 Summary of findings

From the study of the analysis of the compliance of development project with

Environmental Impact Assessment in Kogi state, the result indicates that the level of compliance

is low owing to so many reasons particularly that there are many regulators with overlapping

responsibilities. Since the proponents must satisfy all the regulators before obtaing an EIA permit,

there is always duplication of efforts, lost of resources and time. Most proponents acquire foreign

grants to sponsor their pr oject as the case with the Obajana cement factory and if the gestation

period for EIA is too long, it create room for financial inducement and down playing of the EIA

system.We also observe that the Kogi State Edict no 3 of 1995 is at variance with the EIA decree

30 of 2004 on many issues. To this extent, the edict should be harmonized with the decree to avoid

conflict. Inadequate base line data for EIA preparation, lack of political will on the part of the

government and weaknesses in the formulation of EIA policy both at Federal and State level are

all militating against effective implementation of EIA in the State

From the PCA analysis conducted on the response of the public to the factors affecting the

level of compliance of development project with EIA in Kogi state, the result identified four

components as underlying factors affecting the compliance of development projects with EIA.

Component (I) improper handling of EIA procedure. Component (II) improper stakeholders

engagement, Component (III) Issues of proper consultation on EIA procedure, and Component

(iv) Cost of obtaining EIA permit. Similarly, the response of the regulators on the factors affecting

the compliance of development project with EIA idendified four components which include

Component (I) poor concern for EIA provisions, Component (II) poor public participation in EIA
 115

process, Component (III) high cost of EIA permit and Component (iv) issues of stakeholders

involvement in EIA process. In the same way , the response of the project proponent on the factors

affecting the compliance of development project with EIA identified three components as

underlying factors affecting compliance. Component (I) poor concern for EIA provision,

Component (II) inducing support for EIA process and Component (III) issues of accessibility to

qualified EIA consultant.

The findings of this work indicates low compliance of development project with EIA

provisions and it means the environment of the state particularly those of the six Local Government

Areas with major developmental projects are more prone to environmental degradation than

before. For example, the people and land of Okobo in Ankpa Local Government Area where Zuma

828 coal mining industry is located are already facing serious deforestation, atmospheric pollution,

water problems and others. The story is the same with Obajana community where Dangote cement

factory is located. Besides, there are lots of negative social and health impacts like increase traffic,

rise in the cost of living, high rate of prostitution, etc on the environment of the affected areas.

However we acknowledge the fact that Kogi State has taken serious steps to maintain sustainable

environmental development.The enactment of edict no 3 of 1995, the creation of state ministry of

environmentare all indications of the intention to pursue sustaitability. The Town Planning EIA

which has gain strong acceptance in the state has no specific guidelines for its operation.Since all

these are already in place, a little effort in harmonizing and restricting of the EIA policy will make

great difference.

6.2 Recommendations

We recommend that first and foremost awareness campaign should be given priority in

the state. If possible this should be done regularly on the state media like radio stations, television
 116

stations and newspapers. Periodic workshops and seminars should be organised by the government

to sensitize the people on the danger of their disregard for the environment. Students should be

taught environmental education at all levels so that they can learn how to safegard the environment.

NGOs and tertiary institutions should organise training for people on environmental management

as well as developing technical skills needed in EIA process.

We also recommend that the state Edict on EIA should be harmonised with the national

guidelines on EIA . Where variations exist the national guidelines should have prefrence. There

should be a total overhurling of KOSEPA. This should involve the review of its mandates, staff

strength and quality, funding, legal and administrative framework.

We recommend that proper attention should be given to EIA mandates by the state

government. The goverment should mandate all state development projects to embrace EIA

procedure and no project should be commisioned without an acceptable EIA report. The

government should avoid interupting the EIA regulating agencies in their duties, and staff should

be employed or posted on merit.

Finally we recommend that the state government should emback on intensive research

works to map out major industrial locations in the state. This will provide a road map for agencies

responsible for EIA activities and also help them to identify new industries (particularly those

without EIA) in the state.

6.3 Conclusion

With our findings on this study, we conclude that EIA in Kogi State does not operate a

specific guideline on Environmental Impact Assessment and falls below World best practices.

There is poor concern for EIA process from the public, the regulators and the government and the

project proponent and owners of companies are taking advantage to pollute, devastate and degrade
 117

the environment. The rich who are the owners of the industries are more conscious of their profit

than sustainable environmental development. Similarly, the Government pursues job creation and

poverty reduction at the expense of the environment and subject the poor and the less priviledged

which form the bulk of the population to environmental hazards and sufferings. We observe a

collaboration between the Government and the project proponents (the rich) to degrade and

devastate the environment.A lot of resources that could have been used for meaningful

development projects were spent on fighting soil erosion, deforestation and flooding in Ankpa,

Dekina, Idah and Ibaji local government areas between 2010 and 2015.Caution should be taken to

avoid future occurrence.

 118

REFERENCES

ABUBAKAR. A. (2010). Yobe State Awaits EIA report on Kafin-Zaki Dam. Daily Trust 18th
August 2010.

ABUKAKAR A. (2010). NESREA Seals Telcoms most in Ilorin. Daily Trust 26th August 2010.

ABDUL. D Director KSTPD (2012). Personal communication

ABDUL. S. (2012). Personal communication

ABDULLAHI, U.KSTPD (2012). Personal communication

ADEBOLA, F. B. (2012). Personal communication

ADENIYI, I.F (1998) Analytical Techniques and Quality Assurance in EIA Study: In Capacity
Building for Environmental Impact assessment in the Benue Trough pp. 66 – 78.

ADEGOKE, O.S (1999) A welcome Address by Principal Consultant at the Capacity Building
Workshop for Environmental Impact assessment in the Benue Trough Held at Hill Station
Hotel Jos 22nd – 25th June 1999.

ADEWOYE, R.O (1999) An Opening Remarks at the Opening Ceremony of the Capacity Building
Workshop for Environmental Impact assessment in the Benue Trough Held at Hill Station
Hotel Jos 22en – 25th June, 1999. FME(1999).

AHMAD, B and WOOD, C.M (2000) in Wood 2003. Enviromental impact assesment in
developing countries: conference on new directions in impact assesment for development:
methods and practice .EIA Centre School of Planning and Landscape University of
Manchester.

AINA, P.O. (1994), National Briefing on the Implementation of EIA in Nigeria. November 1994,
Federal Environmental Protection Agency, Abuja.

AINA, P.O. (1999). Data Acquisition for Environmental Impact Assessment; Baseline
Environmental Studies. In Adegoke, O.S and Adewoye, R O (eds) Capacity Building for
Environment Impact Assessment in the Benue Trough. FME (1999).

AIYELOJA, A. A and Bello O, A. (2006), Ethnobotanical Potentials of Common Herbs in

Nigeria: A case study of Enugu State. Educational Research and Review Vol. 1 (1) pp. 16
– 22.

Alberta Environmental Assessment Act (38) At http://www.gdrc.org/uem/eia/define.html. Print

out 12/10/2008
 119

ALO, B.I (1999) Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Process. In Adegoke, R.O and
Adewoye, R O. (Eds) Capacity Building for Environmental Impact Assessment in the
Benue Trough. FME (1999)

BENUE STATE (1985), At http//www.onlinenigeria.com/links/kogiadv.asp?blurb=306,

CLARK, (1999). in Wood 2003. Enviromental impact assesment in developing countries:

conference on new directions in impact assesment for development: methods and practice
.EIA Centre School of Planning and Landscape University of Manchester.

DAMTIE, M.AND BAYOU,M (2008). Overview of Environmental Impact Assessment In

Ethiopia:Gaps and Challenges; Addis Ababa, Melca mabiba publisher.www.melca-
ethiopia.org.

DONNELLY, A, DALAL-CLAYTON, B and HUGHES, R. (1998), in Wood 2003. Enviromental

impact assesment in developing countries: conference on new directions in impact
assesment for development: methods and practice. EIA Centre School of Planning and
Landscape, University of Manchester.

DURUIGBO, A (2002). In Kakonge (2006), Environmental Planning In Sub-Saharan Africa:

Environmental Impact Assessment at the Crossroads. Yale School of Forestry and
Environmental Studies. Yale publishing Services

EGUJOBI, L. (1993). “Issues in Environmental Management for Sustainable Development in

Nigeria”. The Environmentalist Vol. 13, NO 1. pp. 33 – 40.
http://resources.metapress.com/pdf-previewaxd? Print out 10/7/2009.

ELSEVIER, B.V (2009). “EA Legislation and Practice in Central and Eastern Europe and the
Former USSR, Comparative Analyses”. Environmental Impact Assessment Review Vol.
21, Issue 4 July 2001, pp. 335 – 361. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science? Print out
10/7/2009.

FEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (1989). National Policy on the

Environment. Lagos, Nigeria.

FEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY. (1992). Achieving Sustainable

Development in Nigeria. National Report for the UNCED, Rio. Brazil. Lagos, Nigeria.

FEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY. (1992). Environmental Impact

Assessment Decree No. 86. Federal Republic of Nigeria.

FEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY. (1995a). Environmental Impact

Assessment Procedural Guidelines.Abuja.
 120

FEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY. (1995b). Impact Assessment Act of

1986. Sectoral Guidelines for Oil and Gas Industry Project. Abuja.

FEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY. (1995). Environmental Impact

assessment Sectoral Guidelines: Agriculture and Rural Development. Abuja.

FEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY. (1995). Environmental Impact

Assessment. Sectoral Guidelines for Mining of Solid Minerals, Beneficiation and
Metallurgical Process. Abuja.

FEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY. (1999). National Guidelines on

Environmental Management Systems in Nigeria. Abuja.

FEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY. (1999). National Guidelines for

Environmental Audit. Abuja.

FEDERAL MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT. (2002) Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)

follow-up programmes within the Nigerian EIA processes; A Critical Appraisal.

FEDERAL MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT. (2004). Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)

of Dangote Cement Plant: Final Report.

FEDERAL MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT (March, 2010). A review of Environmental Impact

Assessment Practice in Nigeria. Held at Chelsea hotel, Abuja between 16th and 17th March
2010.

GEORGE, C (2000a). in Wood 2003. Enviromental impact assesment in developing countries:

conference on new directions in impact assesment for development: methods and practice
.EIA Centre School of Planning and Landscape University of Manchester.

GEORGE, C (2000b). in Wood 2003. Enviromental impact assesment in developing countries:

conference on new directions in impact assesment for development: methods and practice
.EIA Centre School of Planning and Landscape University of Manchester.

Holy Bible: Deuteronomy chapter 22: 6 – 7. New King James version.

IBRAHIM Gaidam (2009). Why we opposed proposed construction of Kafin-Zaki Dam. The
Nation; November 12, 2009

ILEBANI, D (1999). A Good will Message by the Resident Representative of the World Bank at
the Opening Ceremony of the Capacity Building Workshop for Environmental Impact
Assessment in the Benue Trough held at the Hill Station Hotel, Jos from 22nd – 25th June,
1999. Proceedings of a Workshop.FME (1999)
 121

INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR IMPACT ASSESSMENT (2002). Strategic

Environmental Performance Criteria. Special Publication series No. 1 Fargo /A/A.
Available at
http:www.iaia.org/members/publications/special-pubs/sp./.pdf. last accessed 8th October,
2010.

KOGI STATE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY. (1995). A Bill for A Law for the
Establishment of Kogi State Environmental Protection Board. Lokoja.

KERDEMAN, M (2009). Identifying Rollbacks in EIA: Examining threats to Environmental

Impact Assessment as a result of Fiscal Stimulus Packages.
http://www.acess/initiative.org/law/node/903. Print out 10/7/2009.

MOHAMMED, O. (2012). Personal communication..

KAKONGE.J.O (2006). Environmental Planning In Sub- Saharan Africa: Environmental Impact

Assessment at the Crossroads. Yale school of Forestry and Environmental Studies. Yale
publishing Services centre.

LOHANI, B. W., EVANS, J.W., EVERITT, R. R., LUWIG, H., CARPENTER, R. A. AND TU,
S. L. (1997). Environmental Impact Assessment for Developing countries in Asia: Asian
Development Bank.

NGERI, S.B. (2010). Environmental Compliance Monitoring. A paper presented at the workshop
on strategies for a more effective EIA process in Nigeria organized by Federal Ministry of
Environment between 16th – 17th September 2010.

NIGERIA LNG: EIA issues and measures www.NLNG.com/pageenine.aspx%3F%2bld%. 2010

NWAFOR, J.C (2006). Environmental Impact Assessment for Sustainable Development: The
Nigeria Perspective: EDPCA Publications, Enugu.

NWAFOR J.C. (2007). Conducting an EIA on Project: Principles and procedures with a case
study of Thermal power projects. A paper presented at a 3 – day workshop on
Environmental Impact Assessment for public and private sector projects organized by the
Nigerian Society of Engineers (NSE) Enugu Branch. 1st – 3rd August, 2007.

NWAFOR J. C. (2009). Environmental Impact Assessment: The Nigerian experience from

Inception to date and the way forward: A paper presented at the mandatory continuing
professional development programme (MCPDP) Organized by the Nigerian institute of
Town Planners between 29th April – 16th July, 2009.

NATIONAL POPULATION COMMISSION. (2006). Population Census Result:

http://www.population.gov.ng/population/table. Print out 5/8/2007.
 122

PROJECT APPRAISAL FOR DEVELOPMENT CENTRE (PADC) 1981: A manual for the
Assessment of major Development proposals, HMSO, London.

SANI,D. KSTPD (2012). Personal communication.

SEGYNOLA, A.A (2007). “Environmental Impact of Industrialization in Nigeria”: In G.E.K

Ofomata and P.O Phil-eze (Eds) Geographical Perspective on Environmental Problems
and Management in Nigeria.

SWAP (2003). Priority Waste StreamProject. Household HazaduousWaste Project, WASP LTD
UK

TOLBA (1981). Quoted in Nwafor, J.C (2006) Environmental Impact Assessment for Sustainable
Development, The Nigerian Perspective. EDPCA Publications.

TUNDU, A.L (1999). Environmental Impact Assessment of Foreign Investment Projects. A

Study in the Law, Policy and Government Decision – Making in Tanzania.
http://www.leat.or.tz/publications/foreign.

UBACHUKWU, NECHEDO NNEDINMA (2010). Analysis of the Management of the

Household Hazaduus waste in Enugu Metropolis

UNITED NATIONS ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR EUROPE. (2009). Environmental

Impact Assessment in Transboundary Context. Convection on Environmental Impact
Assessment. http://www.unece.org/env/eia/pubs/subregional-coop.htm Print out
10/7/2009.

UNITED NATIONS ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMME. (1980a). Guideline for Assessing

Industrial Environmental Impacts and Environmental Creteria for siting of Industry. 1.

UNITED NATIONS ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMME. (1980b). Environmental Impact

Assessment. A tool for Sound Development, Industry and the Environment, special issues
(1)

WEAVER, A. AND SIBISI S, (2006). “The Art and Science of Environmental Impact
Assessment”. Science in Africa Online Magazine.
http://www.scienceinAfrica.co.za/2006/october/eia.htm.

WIKIPEDIA, the free encyclopedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/geography.

WOOD, C. (2003). Environmental Impact Assessment In Developing Countries: Conference on

New Directions In Impact Assessment for Development: methods and practice. E/A centre,
School of planning and Landscape, university of Manchester
 123

WOLF, C.P., EMERHI, E. A. AND PATRICK, H. OKOSI IAIA NIGERIA (2001).

http://www.waado.org/environment/wetland/dredge/lowerniger.htm.

WORLD BANK (1991). Environmental Aspect of Bank Work OD. 4. 01. Environmental Policies,
October 1991.

WORLD BANK (1995). In wood (2003) Environmental Impact Assessment In Developing

Countries: Conference on New Directions In Impact Assessment for Development:
methods and practice. E/A centre, School of Planning and Landscape, University of
Manchester

WORLD BANK (1997). In wood (2003) Environmental Impact Assessment In Developing

Countries: Conference on New Directions In Impact Assessment for Development:
methods and practice. E/A centre, School of Planning and Landscape, University of
Manchester.

WORLD BANK (1998). Development of an Environmental Action Plan for Kogi, State Nigeria:
Triple “E” Systems Associate LTD.
 124

APPENDIX A

Department of Geography,
Faculty of Social Sciences,
University of Nigeria,
Nsukka,
2nd December, 2012.

Dear Respondent,

REQUEST TO FILL QUESTIONNAIRE

I am a postgraduate student of the above university. My project topic is “An Analysis of

Development Project Compliance with Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Provisions in

Kogi State, Nigeria”.

Kindly help me fill the questionnaire to the best of your knowledge and understanding. Be

assured that the information given shall be used for academic purpose and be treated confidentially.

Thanks for your contribution to knowledge and desire for a safe and sustainable

environment.

Yours sincerely,

AGIH TIMOTHY SHAIBU

PG/MSC/07/43295
 125

APPENDIX B

QUESTIONNAIRE

INSTRUCTION: Read through the questions carefully and tick correctly to the best of your

knowledge and opinion.

SECTION A: Bio Data of the Respondent

Name of Company----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Location of the Company--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Office Address----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rank--------------------------------------------- Destination----------------------------------------

Age: 25-39 40-54 Above 54

Sex: Male Female

Length of service: Less than 10 yrs 11-20 21-30 above 30

Level of Education: ND NCE OND HND/DEGREE

 126

SECTION B: AWARENESS OF EIA

INSTRUCTION: Please tick the box provided for eachof the following questions depending on
your knowledge.
SA= Strongly; Agreed A=Agreed; UD=Undecided; D=Disagreed; SD=Strngly Disagreed
QUESTIONNAIRE FOR RESPONSES BY THE PUBLIC ON ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT ASSESSMENT (EIA)

CLUSTER B

RESPONSES BY THE PUBLIC ON THE LEVEL OF AWARENESS OF EIA IN KOGI

STATE
CODE QUESTIONS SA A UD D SD
B1 Environmental impact assessment is well known to
everybody in Kogi state.
B2 There are industries and development projects in your
locality.
B3 All the development projects in the area have an EIA
permit for the project.
B4 None of the development project in the area have an
EIA permit.
B5 Only few of the development projectin the area have
an EIA permit
B6 Many EIA public review have been held in your area.
B7 The public review does not necessarily involve the
people from the area where the project is to be sited.
B8 People from the locality do not like to attend public
review on EIA even when they are visited.
B9 Only the community heads and highly placed
individuals are invited for EIA public review.
B10 Members of the public are often given the
opportunity to give their opinion on the EIA of the
project in their area during public review.
B11 Members of the public need more enlighentment on
EIA
B12 There is no relevance of EIA to development project
in the area.
B13 The project proponents always show genuine
readiness to accomodate the complaint and
suggestions of the public.
B14 The project proponents always run away from
organising public review because of the cost of it.
B15 The public has never raised any serious contention
during public review.
 127

CLUSTER C

FACTORS AFFECTING EIA PROVISIONS IN KOGI STATE BY THE PUBLIC

CODE QUESTIONS SA A UD D SD
C1 The cost of obtaining EIA permit from the
government is very high
C2 There are many EIA consultants resident in
Kogi state.
C3 There is no indigenous EIA consultant
resident in kogi state.
C4 Most EIA consultants in Kogi State are
expatriate
C5 Most EIA consultants available in Kogi
State are qualified to prepare EIA
C6 There is always good public participation
before an EIA report is completed
C7 The public normally responds positively to
the call to attend public review on EIA
C8 The public review on EIA normally holds in
the very area where the project is to be
established
C9 There is normally positive contribution by
the public during public review on EIA.
C10 The opinion of the public does not really
count in the preparation of EIA document.
C11 There are several shrtcuts to get EIA permit
in Kogi state.
C12 The public review on EIA in kogi State is
not more than an entainment
C13 The cost of sponsoring a public review on
EIA is borne by the project propoment and
is quiet discouraging
C14 The people in the areas where the project is
to be sited do not always want to support
EIA public review until they are settled with
material gift
C15 The public in Kogi State careless about
EIA.
C16 The government careless about EIA permits
 128

CLUSTER D

RESPONSES ON THE LEVEL OF COMPLIANCE OF DEVELOPMENT PROJECT

WITH EIA BY THE PUBLIC
CODE QUESTIONS SA A UD D SD
D1 Kogi State operates a separate law on EIA apart
from the national guidelines.
D2 All the local government in the state have the
power to give EIA permit.
D3 The State Ministry of Environment always organise
awareness programs to educate the public on EIA
D4 The State Ministry of Environment strongly enforce
EIA in the State
D5 EIA has been made mandatory for project
proponents in the state in all cases.
D6 The State guidelines on EIA differ in many ways
from the Federal procedure guidelines.
D7 The State Ministry of Environment and the Federal
Ministry of Environment operate the same
guidelines on EIA procedure.
D8 There are many EIA reports in the State without
approval from the Federal Ministry of
Environment.
D9 There are no cases of EIA being rejected or
disapproved in Kogi state.
D10 The public has no access to copies of EIA reports.
D11 There are some institutions and Agencies in the
state that train people on the best way to operate
EIA in the state.
D12 The large number of Agencies regulating EIA with
overlapping responsibilities in the state has further
advanced EIA in the state.
D13 The large number of Agencies regulating EIA in
the state seem to confuse and discourage project
proponents in carying out EIA
D14 Emphasis to do EIA in the state is mostly on
multinational projects.
D15 EIA reports are now adopted as sound tools for
decision making by the state government in
environmental matters
D16 The state government is yet to adopt EIA as a tool
for decision making policy.
D17 The State is yet to establish an agency to punish
project proponents who failed to comply with EIA
regulations.
 129

D18 The state is very strict on EIA mandate and had

revoked the licenses of those companies that failed
to comply.
D19 All the state and Federal projects in the state has
EIA permit.
D20 The government does not commission any project
without an approval of EIA permit.
 130

QUESTIONNAIRE FOR REGULATORS ON ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

ASSESSMENT (EIA)
CLUSTER D
RESPONSE ON THE LEVEL OF COMPLIANCE OF DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
WITH EIA BY THE REGULATORS
CODE QUESTIONS SA A UD D SD
D1 Kogi State operates a separate law regulating
EIA apart from the Nationalguidelines.
D2 The state Ministry of environment foward all
EIA reports to the Federal Ministry of
Environment for approval.
D3 All the Local Government Area in Kogi State
have power to give EIA permit.
D4 EIA has been made mandatory for project
componentsin Kogi State in all cases.
D5 There is no strategy for enforcing EIA in
Kogi state.
D6 The state guidelines on EIA differs in many
ways from the Federal procedural guidelines.
D7 There is no agency in Kogi State that keeep
records of projects without EIA report.
D8 There is good relationship between state
agencies and Federal agencies regulating
EIA in Kogi state.
D9 All the state and Federal projects in Kogi
State have EIA permit.
D10 No EIA report has ever been disaproved in
Kogi state.
D11 There is an EIA monitoring team in the state.
D12 The State Ministry of Environment ensures
proper implementation of EMPenshrined in
the EIA.
D13 The cost of monitoring the company on EMP
implementationis borneby the government.
D14 There is an existing data bank on environment
in Kogi stateto encourage EIA preparation.
D15 The state can boast of well trained
iindividuals in all aspects of environment and
other natural sciences to handle EIA
procedures.
D16 The government does not commission many
projects without an approved EIA permit,
D17 Our agency monitors the implementation of
project EMP routinely every 3 months
 131

CLUSTER B

RESPONSES BY THE REGULATORS ON THE LEVEL OF AWARENESS OF EIA

IN KOGI STATE
CODE QUESTIONS SA A UD D SD
B1 Environmental impact assessment is known
to all the staff in the office.
B2 There is an existing EIA in all the
development projects embarked upon by
individuals and government in the state.
B3 EIA reports are received, screened and
approved regularly in your office.
B4 EIA takes a long period of time to get an
approval from the government.
B5 There are more than one Agency regulating
EIA in Kogi state.
EIA is prepared regularly and submitted for
B6 approval in Kogi state.
B7 Members of the public are very much aware
of EIA in Kogi state.
B8 Members of the public need more
enlightment on EIA in Kogi state.
B9 Our Agency has done a lot to improve
public awareness on EIA in Kogi state.
B10 EIA is of great relevance to sustainable
environmental management in Kogi state.
B11 There are institutions across the state where
EIA specialists are trained.
B12 The state government is strongly enforcing
EIA in Kogi state.
B13 All the Local Government Areas has been
empowered to enforce and monitor projects
to ensure a strong compliance with EIA.
B14 There is a strong political will on EIA by
the governor of the state.
15 The public are not ready to incorporate EIA
policies into their projects in Kogi State.
 132

CLUSTER C

FACTORS AFFECTING EIA PROVISIONS IN KOGI STATE BY THE REGULATORS

CODE QUESTIONS SA A UD D SD
C1 The cost of obtaining EIA permit from the
government is very high
C2 There are many EIA consultants resident in
Kogi state.
C3 There is no indigenous EIA consultant resident
in kogi state.
C4 Most EIA consultants in Kogi State are
expatriate
C5 Most EIA consultants available in Kogi State
are qualified to prepare EIA
C6 There is always good public participation
before an EIA report is completed
C7 The public normally responds positively to the
call to attend public review on EIA
C8 The public review on EIA normally holds in the
very area where the project is to be established
C9 There is normally positive contribution by the
public during public review on EIA.
C10 The opinion of the public does not really count
in the preparation of EIA document.
C11 There are several shrtcuts to get EIA permit in
Kogi state.
C12 The public review on EIA in kogi State is not
more than an entainment
C13 The cost of sponsoring a public review on EIA
is borne by the project propoment and is quiet
discouraging
C14 The people in the areas where the project is to
be sited do not always want to support EIA
public review until they are settled with
material gift
C15 The public in Kogi State careless about EIA.
C16 The government careless about EIA permits
 133

QUESTIONNAIRE FOR PROJECT PROPONENTS AND COMPANY STAFF ON

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT (EIA)

CLUSTER B

RESPONSES ON THE LEVEL OF AWARENESS OF EIA BY PROJECT PROPONENTS

AND COMPANY STAFF
CODE QUESTIONS SA A UD D SD
B1 Environmental impact assessment is known to
every project proponent in kogi state
B2 It takes this office a long period to obtain EIA
permit from the government
B3 Because of the long time it takes them to obtain an
EIA permit, we normally commence development
project long bsfore the permit is released.
B4 The EIA for you was approved long before the
commencement of the project
B5 The demand for EIA permit by the institution that
grants the company loan to start the project was a
precondition that cannot be avoided.
B6 There are more than one office regulating EIA in
kogi state.
B7 All the EIA regulating agencies in Kogi State have
overlapping functions.
B8 Project proponents are unduly delayed in the
process of trying to obtain an EIA approval .
B9 Project proponents are often discouraged from
undertaking EIA because of funding regulating
agencies.
B10 There is always apathy on the part of stakeholders
in the EIA process.
B11 Project proponents often prefers to tip EIA
regulating officers in order to get the approval for
their project within a short time
12 Project proponents are compelled by law to prepare
EIA at all cost in kogi state
B13 EIA is of no relevance to the growth of your
company
B14 The only relevance of EIA to your company is just
to satisfy the donor agency in order to obtain loan
B15 Huge sum of money is spent on processing EIA in
kogi state.
 134

CLUSTER D
RESPONSES ON THE LEVEL OF COMPLIANCE OF DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
WITH EIA BY THE PROJECT PROPONENTS
CODE QUESTIONS SA A UD D SD
D1 Kogi State operates a separate law regulating EIA
apart from the national guidelines
D2 All the local government in the state has power to
give EIA permit
D3 The state ministry of environment always organise
awareness programs to educate the public on EIA
D4 The state ministry of environment strongly enforce
EIA in the state
D5 EIA has been made mandatory for project
proponents in the state in all cases
D6 The state guidelines on EIA differs in many ways
from the federal procedural guidelines
D7 The state ministry of environment and the federal
ministry of environment operate the same
guidelines on EIA procedure
D8 There are many EIA reports in the state without
approval from the Federal ministry of environment
D9 There are no cases of EIA being rejected or
disapproved in kogi state
D10 The public has no access to copies of EIA reports
D11 There are some institution and agencies in the state
that train people on the best way to operate EIA in
the state
D12 The large number of agencies regulating EIA with
overlapping responsibilities in the state has further
advanced EIA in the state
D13 The larger number of agencies regulating EIA in
the state seems to confuse and discourage project
proponents in carrying out EIA
D14 The emphasis to do EIA in the state is mostly on
multinational projects
D15 EIA reports are now adopted as a sound tools for
decision making by the state government in
environmental matters
D16 The state government is yet to adopt EIA as a tool
for decision making policy
D17 The state is yet to establish an agency to punish
project proponents that failed to comply with EIA
regulations
 135

D18 The state is very strict on EIA mandate and had

revoked the licenses of those companies that failed
to comply
D19 All the state and federal projects in the state has
EIA permit
D20 The government does not commission any project
without an approved EIA permit
 136

CLUSTER C

FACTORS AFFECTING EIA PROVISIONS IN KOGI STATE BY THE PROJECT

PROPONENT
CODE QUESTIONS SA A UD D SD
C1 The cost of obtaining EIA permit from the
government is very high
C2 There are many EIA consultants resident in
Kogi state.
C3 There is no indigenous EIA consultant
resident in kogi state.
C4 Most EIA consultants in Kogi State are
expatriate
C5 Most EIA consultants available in Kogi
State are qualified to prepare EIA
C6 There is always good public participation
before an EIA report is completed
C7 The public normally responds positively to
the call to attend public review on EIA
C8 The public review on EIA normally holds in
the very area where the project is to be
established
C9 There is normally positive contribution by
the public during public review on EIA.
C10 The opinion of the public does not really
count in the preparation of EIA document.
C11 There are several shrtcuts to get EIA permit
in Kogi state.
C12 The public review on EIA in kogi State is
not more than an entainment
C13 The cost of sponsoring a public review on
EIA is borne by the project propoment and
is quiet discouraging
C14 The people in the areas where the project is
to be sited do not always want to support
EIA public review until they are settled with
material gift
C15 The public in Kogi State careless about
EIA.
C16 The government careless about EIA permits