PIB: Anything short of 10% for host communities can’t guarantee peace — Clark

By JULIANA TAIWO-OBALONYE, Abuja

The leader of the Pan-Niger Delta Forum (PANDEF), Chief Edwin Clark, has warned that anything short of 10 per cent as the actual annual operating expenses of the preceding financial year in the upstream petroleum operations affecting the host communities for funding of the Host Communities Trust Fund, peace and security may be not be guaranteed in the Niger Delta region.

This is coming exactly one week after he demanded the reversal of the newly passed Petroleum Industry Bill (PIB), which is ready for harmonization, describing it as satanic, unjust, embarrassing, and has dashed the hope of the people of the outline rich region.

The former Federal Commissioner for Information said this Monday in Abuja when he received the leadership and members of the Host Communities of Nigeria Producing Oil and Gas, (HOSTCOM) led by the National President, Benjamin Tamanarebi.

According to Clark the newly passed PIB is obnoxious and devilish which must not be accepted.

According to the elder statesman, what the host communities want is 10 per cent in order to guarantee the businesses, investments and the safety of Investors in the region, as well as peace in the area, adding that the people rejected the bill in its entirety because they want to be part of the process.

Clark, who is also the South-South and Southern and Middle Belt Leaders Forum (SMBLF) leader, said that he aligned himself in totality with the position and reactions by HOSTCOM on the PIB, saying that the people of the oil-rich region have been talking about taking their destiny into their own hands, adding, ‘very soon, it will come to pass, we are not second class citizens in this country. I discovered that everything was manipulated in the PIB by the President of the Senate, Ahmad Lawan.

‘We want to be part of the operation, let us be part of what is going on in our area which is killing us, our ecosystem, our fishes. I have had enough of these insults. Federal Government must account for who are the owners of oil Blocs and who are the marketers. The equity share must be 10% for the Host Communities and we will continue to reject it until they make us part of it.’

Earlier in his presentation, the National President of HOSTCOM who presented their position paper to Chief Edwin Clark, said that the Senate and the House of Representatives must harmonise and arrive at 10% equity fund for the host communities and slash to 10%, the 30% approved for Frontier basins development.

Tamanarebi said: ‘We have noted with dismay the way and manner the inputs of the Host Communities have been completely jettisoned, depriving the Communities their participatory rights and sustainable development through immoral and secret review of the draft bill by the NASS, the industry players without the invitation of HostCom nor taking into cognizance the inputs of Hostcom: more vexatious is not considering the critical areas in the clauses regarding the Host Communities as the above subject refers.

‘Host communities inputs of critical areas in the passed Bill as submitted in the floor of Public hearing in both houses Adhoc joint Committees even during the Town Hall meetings of both Houses were criminally jettisoned depriving the Communities their participatory rights and sustainable development more so, the immoral and secret importation of draconic clauses into the enacted PIB in the aspect that affects us as follows: that the Report of the Senate joint Committee most especially the aspect concerning section 234 deals with the Host Communities Sustainable Development title, while 234(4d) deal with the objectives regarding the trust fund was wholly jettisoned. What was the justification for inviting only the industry players without the host communities to review the PIB for passage if it was to ensure transparency, efficient legal framework, good governance, accountability and industry sustainable development for a favourable working environment.

‘Chapter 1, section 1. was incomplete as it fails to include “in trust for and on behalf of the Producing Host Communities of Nigeria” as was in the Mining Lease Act. 3) The title in Chapter Three section 234 “Host Communities Development” should be revisited to include “Host Community Sustainable Development”.

‘Section 234 subsection 1(d) deals with the creation of a framework to support the development of Host Communities should also be revisited and amended as submitted. 234 section 4 was a new clause inserted into the bill without the knowledge of Host Communities. It deals with the word settlor and funds reduction for the trust fund. The word settlor is against the interest of the Host Communities. Therefore, we demand that the bill be revisited and the word “Settlor” amended as Operating Companies or International Oil Companies (IOC) as submitted.

‘Section 235 subsection(3) deals with the definition of a Host Community; where the Operating Company shall determine who is a Host Community. The determining of a host community cannot contravene the UNFCCC CDM Projects international best practices, standards and criteria. Therefore, we demand that the draft PIB section 235 (3) be revisited and amended to read as Host Communities are determined in accordance to the EU energy security which is an international standard for best field practice.’

According to him, ‘since there is no clear definition of Host Community and Section 242 deals with the IOC appointing Board of Trustees to have the right to set-up procedures for meetings, financial regulations and administrative procedures to be approved by the Commission. In relation to the aforementioned, we demand that the bill be revisited and amended as it should be the responsibility of the community to select/elect their representatives under the watch of the Operating Companies or their representatives respectively as Observers.

“Section 240 deals with the 3,5% Opex instead of the 10% equity shareholding: The passed draft PIB need to be revisited and amended to uphold the 10% equity shareholding demanded for transparency, accountability and a sustainable development Oil and Gas industry.

‘Part 111 section 111. subsection (4) deals with 30% for frontier acreage share of profit for the frontier exploration of oil and gas; since it was a commercial venture, it should be left for the private investors and not with the Federation account. Here again, this is the section that was initially allocated 10% which was recommended to be expunged and now jacked up to 30% as against the 10% equity shareholding demanded by the Host Communities. In the past, billions of the Nations resources were swallowed in those frontier services without potential positive results, the Chad Basin and the Benue trough experiences are still fresh. The enormous waste of resources recorded over many years led to the discontinuance of exploration activities at the Chad Basin. The frontier acreage should be added as a condition compelling concession benefactors an incentive with tax ememption to those who have already benefitted from field concessions.

‘Part 111: section 111, The Governing Board of the Commission made no mention of Host Communities Representative. It is necessary that HostCom representatives be represented in all agencies set up to regulate and monitor the Petroleum Industry. Section 52(7a) deals with the gas midstream infrastructural fund which was initially proposed for 1% was recommended to be expunged as there are already funds appropriated by the National Assembly on a first-line charge in addition to four other sources of funds has now been increased to 2.5% of petroleum wholesale price. This is an additional burden to the suffering of Nigerian citizens; therefore, we recommend that the 2.5% charge be expunged.

‘Section 103 and 104 deal with Gas flare penalties and environmental mitigation and remediation to paid to the gas midstream infrastructural fund instead of the Host Communities Sustainable Development Trust fund for the remediation of the ravaged Environment.

‘In relation to Article 257(2) the Host Communities are strongly opposed to that section of the Bill because it is not only oppressive but against International Best Practices and Standards. This is in view of the fact that do Settlors employ contractors who are in charge of security/surveillance of their oil & gas facilities and as such, the host communities should not be held liable. In the event that, that portion of the Bill is retained, then the security/surveillance contracts of the oil and gas facilities should be awarded to the Host Communities to manage/engage their indigenes to fully police the facilities and in the event that any of them are vandalized, the communities could then be made to forfeit their development fund as specified in the Bill.’ (Daily Sun)