After the controversy trailing the proposed construction of the 260-kilometre super highway project by the Cross River State Government, the Ben Ayade led administration has revised its Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and awaiting final approval from the Federal Government.
But Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) within and outside the country have rejected the new EIA through petitions to the Minister of Environment, Hajia Amina Mohammed.
They alleged that the EIA to the Federal Ministry of Environment was done “in outright violation of the extant laws, no stakeholder participation, no visit to the affected areas…and the endorsement of this project will bring more harm to the communities, the state, nation and the environment”.
[ad unit=2]
The Senior Technical Adviser to the Governor, Mr. Eric Williams announced that all the issues raised by the Federal Ministry of Environment on the EIA of the proposed Superhighway road have been resolved and the final submission of the EIA report was awaiting approval by the Federal Ministry of Environment.
While thanking President Mohammadu Buhari on interest shown on Governor’s 260km superhighway signature road project by coming personally to perform the ground breaking ceremony few weeks after assumption in office, he said that “the superhighway was real and the contract for the construction of the road would be awarded soon and work will commence as soon as the EIA report is signed”.
Williams stated that, “the position of the super highway is that the contract has not been awarded. The commencement of the practical construction of the road is being held back because of the Federal Ministry of Environment is yet to give the approval of the EIA report. “.
On issues raised by the host communities, he said, “the host communities have been taken care of. They have been enumerated for compensation. First the NGOs raised the issue that the Super highway will pass through the Cross River National Park. Before the alignment of the road was made on the top map of Cross River State, the governor gave specific directives in writing that the superhighway central line alignment should not transverse or go through the Cross River National Park. In so doing he even added extra 60 km to the length of the road. If the road should have come through the National Park from Calabar-Oban in Akamkpa, Okoroba in Ajaso in Etung to Ikom, the length of the road would have been a mere 100 km which is just slightly above an hour journey if you were traveling at 120km per hour”.
However, NGOs like the NGO Coalition for Environment (NGOSE), led by Dr Odigha Odigha; Health of Mother Earth Foundation (HOMEF), chaired by Rev. Nnimmo Bassey; Chairman, Board of Trustees of Ekuri Initiatives, and Secretary of NGO Coalition for environment in Cross River State, Mr. Martins Egot; WCS Nigeria Country Director Andrew Dunn; and Tunde Morakinyo, Partner, Environmental Resources Management (ERM) have written to the Minister of Environment saying the Minister should, “direct Cross River State Government to reverse the revocation of the traditional land rights of communities within 20.4km width along the 267km of the superhighway, pay compensation to those whose land have been cleared for the project and the State Government to carry out a restoration programme in areas where clearing had been done”.
In his reaction, Mr. Egot said, “the Federal Government should set up a panel that will critically look at the new EIA that is submitted to see if they did proper consultations with affected communities and had addressed the critical issues that were raised. We are rejecting the new EIA completely until the proper thing is done”.
Mr. Dunn of the WCS among other things noted that “failure to address the impacts of the 20km corridor. The project description fails to consider any impacts due to the 20km wide corridor of land acquired by the Government of Cross River State along the entire 260km route of the proposed superhighway is fundamentally flawed and should be rejected”.
Mr. Morakinyo, Partner, Environmental Resources Manager (ERM) on his comments on the EIA said, “having been involved in the initial ERM review (carried out in June 2016) of the first version of the EIA which highlighted key gaps in the document with specific recommendations to close these gaps, I looked forward to reading this new version of the EIA. However I was disappointed to see very little difference between the two documents.
