International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, Volume 5, Issue 4, April-2014 1071
ISSN 2229-5518
The impacts of gas flaring and climate risks: An appraisal of Nigerian petroleum industry
Oluwasoye P. Mafimisebi and Ugonna C. Nkwunonwo
Abstract— Gas flaring poses significant risks to health, safety and the environment. Although significant attentions have been given to the subject over the years, however, the increasing challenges especially in view of climate change risks prompts a serious urgency to examine the way forward.The nature of impacts from climate risk depends on the intensities of extremity in view of resources management and in consideration of the exposure and vulnerability of human populations and properties. This study through a review of existing literature in the field reveals paradoxical evidence in the management of climate risk especially as attempts to eliminate such risk and its impact ultimately create another risk (risk homeostasis). In this context, the research found that the level of vulnerability of human populations to the health implications of gas flaring depends significantly on the proximity of the human receptor to the flaring stations. Following a critical appraisal of the activities of oil and gas companies in Nigeria, the result suggests that climate risks might have caused much damage than was previously imagined. Therefore, we argue that promoting effective techniques on how to practically live with climate risks such as adaptive environmental management will help policymakers and practitioners’ particularly in Nigeria and indeed in other parts of the world subjected to the impacts of gas flaring, to sustainably tackle climate risks.
Keywords: Gas flaring, Climate risk, Nigerian oil and gas companies, Paradoxical evidence, Risk homeostasis, Vulnerability and exposure, climate risk damage, Adaptive environmental management.
—————————— ——————————
limate risk relate specifically to the risk of climate change. The nature of impacts from climate risk depends on the intensities of extremity in view of resources management
and in consideration of the exposure and vulnerability of the affected human populations and properties. Not only are the adverse effects of climate risks and the vulnerabilities of stakeholders well documented, but also they are global con- cerns (Nkwunonwo & Mafimisebi, 2013). However, several stakeholders within the Nigerian petroleum industry (for ex- ample, the Nigerian government, oil and gas companies, host communities, etc.,) are affected differently by the recurring impacts of climate risks (Aigbedion & Iyayi, 2007).
Similarly, gas flaring in Nigeria has been found to impact adversely on the environment, health and safety of local peo-
ple living near the flaring stations in the Niger Delta region (Nwaugo et al., 2006; Elvidge et al., 2009; Steiner, 2010). While empirical studies have not clearly demonstrated that gas flar- ing accounts considerably for climate change because of the difficulty in quantifying the exact levels of emissions, it re- mains one of the major environmental concerns (Bassey, 2008;
————————————————
• Oluwasoye P. Mafimisebi is a doctoral candidate at the University of Portsmouth, United Kingdom (UK) and has been a practicing risk and crisis manager for over a decade. He is researching environmental risk, oil terrorism, and crisis management practice drawing on the concept of moral disengage- ment, vulnerable environment and vulnerable people in the Niger Delta region of Nigeria, West Africa. PH: +447438918550. E-mail: oluwasoye.mafimisebi@myport.ac.uk
• Ugonna C. Nkwunonwo is a lecturer at the department of Geoinformatics and Surveying, University of Nigeria Enugu campus. He is currently pursu- ing doctorate research degree at the University of Portsmouth, United King- dom, focusing on developing hydraulic model for urban flood risk mitigation. PH: +447767558848. E-mail: ugonna.nkwunonwo@port.ac.uk
Ovuakporaye, 2012). In the Niger Delta region of Nigeria, this is a critical issue and perhaps one that has not been well ad- dressed. Surprisingly, there are little proactive measures to end gas flaring, however, reactive measures are arguably in place to favour business cases in Nigeria. Until recently, a number of critical questions which have led to considerable interest towards evaluating the impacts of climate risks on stakeholders have been considered such as: How does gas flaring and climate risk affect different stakeholders? What strategies are needed to effectively manage the environmental impacts arising from gas flaring and climate risks? How do gas flaring and climate risks possibly pose economic, envi- ronmental and human rights challenges? Are there any cur- rent universal model to effectively manage the environmental impact of gas flaring and climate risks? These questions also offer useful insights into the best approaches to be adopted towards managing the environmnental impacts of climate risks and gas flaring (Aghalino, 2009).
The concern for ending gas flaring in Nigeria is complex
and includes poverty and sustainable development, health and safety, human rights, economic and environmental impli- cations (Bassey, 2008). For example, the Nigerian petroleum industry is estimated to have about 120 trillion cubic feet (rep- resenting an equivalent of approximately 20 billion barrels oil) of gas reserve thus ranking as the 10th largest gas reserve worldwide (Omiyi, 2001: 2). Moreover, flaring of associated gas (AG) is anticipated to cost Nigeria US $2.5 billion annually (Environmental Rights Action [ERA], 2005; 2012). The trend has steadily increase and natural gas reserves of Nigeria are now estimated at 174 trillion cubic feet (cf) suggesting that the country’s oil reserves would last for additional 37 years while
IJSER © 2014 http://www.ijser.org
International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, Volume 5, Issue 4, April-2014 1072
ISSN 2229-5518
gas reserves should marginally last for 110 years (Ayoola,
2011). However, the exactness and reliability of these deduc-
tions and their possible implications are uncertain.
Critically, there are conflicting figures on the quantity of crude oil and AG exploited in Nigeria. In 2000, for example, some experts revealed that over 3.5 billion standard cubic feet (scf) of AG was produced of which more than 70 per cent was flared (Friends of the Earth, 2004). Contrarily, in a paper pre- sented by Omiyi (2001) it was revealed that about 1000 scf of AG is produced along with each barrel of oil exploited in Ni- geria with 17% of it is re-injected, 33% used and the remaining
50% flared. In perspective, research findings revealed that with every 2.2 million barrels of oil produce daily; approxi- mately 2.2 billion scf of AG were correspondingly produced in
Nigeria. This is equivalent to almost 25% of the gas consump- tion in the UK (Friends of the Earth, 2004).
From these facts and figures, it is therefore clear why the objections of some environmentalists and campaigners alike who condemned gas flaring activities, for which attention has
been called to their environmental impacts and economic loss in Nigeria. Quite significantly, as Nigeria oil production in- creased, the country has steadily become the world’s biggest gas flarer with about 3 billion scf of AG being flared daily. Though there are conflicting figures and opinions as to the exact volume of AG flare in Nigeria and how potentially the practice of flaring gas could significantly escalate climate risks. Nevertheless, empirical studies have established that gas flar- ing pose serious threat to health and safety, environment and institutional stakeholders (Bassey, 2008).
We therefore posit that there is need for critical concerns
especially utilising proactive measures to actively end flaring of AG in Nigeria and effective reactive measures to disfavour business case for not ending gas flaring in Nigeria. Thus, the main purpose of this article is to critically evaluate and ex- plore the impact of gas flaring and climate risk in Nigeria drawing on the case study of Nigerian petroleum industry. Within the realm of environmental management, gas flaring and climate risk continue to create critical challenges for their management. In this context, we explore and evaluate how gas flaring and climate risk impact on the environment, stake- holders and how collective institutional resilience could be built to enhance better and effective management of gas flar- ing and climate risk. The prime focus is on adaptive environ- mental management: identifying, evaluating, and managing climate risk in Nigeria and to uncover practical environmental risk management paradigms in addressing the environmental problems (risks) created as a result of gas flaring and climate change in Nigeria.
Previous studies on climate change rely sporadically on
preventive and adaptive measures (for example, Waugh, 2000;
Willows & Connell, 2003; Walker et al., 2004; Nigel & Rice,
2010), risk regulation (for example, Heyvaert, 2011), environ- mental legislation (Eweje, 2006), environmental reporting and accounting (Prato, 2007; Ayoola, 2011), and massive discon- tinuous change (Winn et al., 2011) as methods for managing climate risk. It is useful to note that because these methods as revealed are limited in scope and applications, there is need
for collective workable model (at least) to help coordinate and manage climate risks. Notably, these studies have demonstrat- ed how climate risk affected businesses, nations, communities and individuals through the various concepts highlighted.
However, while the effects of climate risk and gas flaring
continues to generate increasingly concerns and attention (see,
for example, Kindzierski, 2000; Omiyi, 2001; Ikporukpo, 2004;
Aigbedion & Iyayi, 2007; Bassey, 2008), we critically appraise
existing frameworks and then reveal best practices in manag- ing climate risk. The study revealed where resources, atten- tion, priorities and strategies should be directed towards im- proved techniques to eliminate gas flaring and minimise (if not eliminate) the detrimental environmental impact of cli- mate risk. The main problem here is that developing a univer- sal model for managing climate risk is a mirage because of the complexity involved. Yet, this research reveals the need for such model and addresses the important debate in which cli- mate risks cannot be manage systematically but conceptually. In other words, attempt to methodically manage climate risk is an illusion. One possible explanation for this paradigm is be- cause there can never be complete elimination of climate risk and attempt to systematically model climate risk would poten- tially create another risk (risk homeostasis).
Likewise, the regime change in approach for global efforts
to manage climate risk continues to differ among countries. In essence, climate risk is a scourge which thrives unnoticeably to harm the environment, affect health and safety, and practically affect businesses and nations negatively thus describe simply as a soft weapon of mass destruction. So what are the possible implications and how could organisations who continue to flare gas in Nigeria manage such climate risk? Lastly, how possibly can the impact of gas flaring and climate risks be managed? Is there any best practice regarding the manage- ment of climate risk across the globe?
The fundamental concerns remain the way every stake-
holder best prepares for and adapt to environmental impacts of gas flaring and climate risk. Meanwhile, before policymak- ers and stakeholders can effectively manage such environmen- tal impacts, appreciating the phenomena of climate risk and gas flaring impact remains essential. Therefore, in the first instance, the study reviews the Nigerian petroleum industry to provide a conceptual case study and model the environ- mental account of the industry. The subsequent sections criti- cally examine the concept of adaptive environmental man- agement; reveal the impact of climate risk and gas flaring on the environment, human health and safety, as well as econom- ic implication on the relevant stakeholders. The final section draws extensively on the discussion surrounding adaptive environmental management. It draws attention to the para- digm of living with the environmental impacts of climate risk and the consequences of implementing such strategies. More specifically, the study proposes and sheds light on the concept of adaptive environmental management and argues for delib- erate attempts to meaningfully reduce climate risk while liv- ing with the consequences. Conversely, the study recognises the need to eliminate climate risk (if possible) and halt activi- ties that directly escalate the risk. However, much of the ar-
IJSER © 2014 http://www.ijser.org
International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, Volume 5, Issue 4, April-2014 1073
ISSN 2229-5518
guments are in favour of stakeholders’ resilience and adaptive environmental management framework. In conclusion, the study reveals paradoxical evidence in the management of cli- mate risks especially as attempts to eliminate the risks and their impacts ultimately result to risk homeostasis.
The Nigerian petroleum industry advances since the last 56 years when oil was discovered in commercial and economical- ly viable quantities at Oloibiri town (Bayelsa State, Nigeria) in
1958. Though, in Nigeria, oil was first discovered in 1908 at
Araromi (Ilaje Local Government Area, Ondo State, Nigeria)
by the Nigeria Bitumen Corporation (a Nigerian-German
company) but oil exploration and exploitation activities ended abruptly due to economic reasons. However, as the Nigerian petroleum industry advances, Nigeria is now the biggest oil producer in Africa and 11th largest in the world and since 1971 has been a member of the Organisation of Petroleum Export- ing Countries (OPEC). In context, the Nigerian oil and gas exports accounted for about 98% of export earnings, 95% of foreign exchange earnings and almost 83% of Nigerian gov- ernment revenue and 65% of government budgetary revenues, but surprisingly contribute less than 2% of the GDP(Bassey,
2008; Aigbedion & Iyayi, 2007).
This suggests that the industry is not adding much real
value to the Nigerian economy as previously imagined instead
it causes detrimental impacts on the environment, health and
safety as well as non-oil businesses such as farming, fishery
and hunting. Although there could be obvious counter argu-
ments in favour of the perceived benefits of the sector, never- theless, complete appraisal of the industry would help rele- vant stakeholders understand how the industries affect them: positively or negatively (Bassey, 2008; Aghalino, 2009; Elvidge et al., 2009; Steiner, 2010). As a follow up to such appraisal, this research represents an independent critical assessment of the Nigerian oil and gas industry with respect to the impact of gas flaring and climate risk on stakeholders.
The industry is a major supplier to the United States supplying (for instance) approximately 1.1 million barrels per
day (bbl/d) in 2004 when compared with 589,000 bbl/d in
2002; accounting for oil export revenue of estimated $27 billion
in 2004 (ERA, 2005). There were 606 oil and gas fields in the
Niger Delta, 355 onshore and 251 offshore, of which 193 were
producing in 2002 (ERA, 2005). Much uncertainty surrounds
the reliability of this statistics especially as there are conflicting
data. In contrast, according to the Ministry of Petroleum Re- sources, there are a total of 159 oil fields and 1481 wells in functional operation (Environmental Resource Managers Ltd,
1997). There are over 200 gas flaring stations in Nigeria most of which have been flaring AG continuously for over twenty
years. However, the oil fields are dispersed across the Niger Delta region where extensive flowlines and pipelines network are developed to enhance and transport the crude oil. Key stakeholders have failed to provide exact number of oil wells and fields in the entire industry. In this regard, we argued that
oil theft would continue to thrive as long as conscious coordi- nated approaches to provide the exact data of the number of oil fields and wells, barrels of oil produced daily, cost and sell- ing price, and transparency within the petroleum industry are lacking. This calls for empirical research and attention of poli- cymakers and relevant stakeholders to critically examine these issues.
It is critical to state that all petroleum exploration and pro-
duction within the Nigerian petroleum industry is operated as joint venture business between the Nigerian federal govern- ment (through the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC)) and multinational oil and gas companies (for exam- ple, Shell-BP, ExxonMobil, ChevronTexaco, Agip, TotalFin- aElf). Research has shown that the joint-venture accounted for almost 95 per cent of all crude oil output and the rest 5 per cent are captured by the local independent oil companies. Ni- geria has six petroleum exportation terminals (Qua Iboe Ter- minal in Akwa Ibom State, Escravos Terminal and Forcados Terminal in Delta State, Brass Terminal in Bayelsa State, Bon- ny Terminal and Pennington Terminal in Rivers State) where crude oil exportation activities are carried out.
The key multinational oil corporations (Shell, ExxonMo-
bile, ChevronTexacco, Agip and TotalFinaElf) in Nigeria oper-
ate jointly with the NNPC which holds between 55% and 60%
in each of the joint ventures. Shell-BP, ExxonMobil, Chevron- Texaco, Agip and TotalFinaElf carried out about 95% of Nige- rian oil and gas production (ERA, 2005). These multinational companies have come under heavy attacks for polluting the environment and taking away the source of livelihood of the people who primary dependent upon agriculture in the Niger Delta region of Nigeria. This has been the proximate cause of the ‘walking’ crises within the Nigerian Niger Delta affecting the local communities, multinational oil companies and Nige- rian government. Meanwhile, significant to the industry, the Nigeria Constitution, Petroleum Decree of 1969, Land Use Act
1979 and the recent Petroleum Industry Bill legally vested all minerals, oil and gas resources on the federal government. This has clear implications on the concept and agitation sur- rounding resource control and royalties within the industry. These issues are not within the aims and objectives of this study but could be subject to proper research in the future.
The management of climate risk and gas flaring creates enor- mous challenges for stakeholders. In this vein, there have been deliberate attempts to manage climate risks and gas flaring, however, different conceptual models has evolved. However, of particular interest, within the field of environmental man- agement are some arrays of concepts such as sensitivity, vul- nerability, resilience, risk mitigation, disaster risk reduction, coping capacity, adaptation, adaptive capacity, discontinuous environmental change, and hyper-turbulent environment among others have emerged in the literature (Adger et al.,
2002; Burton et al., 2002; Luers et al., 2003; Brooks, 2003; IPCC,
2007; Winn et al., 2011). There are contradictions in the litera-
IJSER © 2014 http://www.ijser.org
International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, Volume 5, Issue 4, April-2014 1074
ISSN 2229-5518
ture regarding the actual meanings of these concepts and the choice of meaning perhaps depending on the context and us- ers. In this research, the focus is on the concept of adaptability which refers to the ability or capacity of a system to modify or change its circumstances or behaviour so as to cope better within existing and anticipated external shocks (Brooks, 2003). Empirical research suggest that adaptive capacity represents potential rather than actual adaptation (the process through which adjustments take place in the behaviour of a social or biophysical system to enhance its ability to cope with shocks and crises) (Adger et al., 2002; Luers et al., 2003; IPCC, 2007, Winn et al., 2011). The uncertainty surrounding the concept of adaptive capacity and adaptability is as much as that of cli- mate risk. There is evidence to argue that adaptability or adap- tive capacity cannot actually be measured because of the com- plexity of social, economic, and biophysical environmental agents involved. While these terms - adaptability, adaptive capacity, adaptation, and coping capacity are sometimes used interchangeably and controversially, the extent to which stakeholders can adapt to environmental disasters remains paramount and crucial for effective management of environ- mental problems.
Building on the concept of adaptive capacity from the
literature, the term ‘adaptive environmental management’ is
used to capture the identification, evaluation, and manage- ment of risk and applying the best practical environmental risk management options in addressing the environmental problems (risks) created. The scale, scope and systemic uncer- tainty connected with environmental disasters required con- siderable attention. However, given the complexity, ambiguity and uncertainty surrounding environmental problems, the issue becomes how can stakeholders measured the outcome of adaptive environmental management approach. Nevertheless, understanding how best to adapt to inevitable risks of climate and associated problems is imperative for effective decision- making. Quite importantly, there are three identifiable adapta- tion strategies recognised in literature which include proac- tive, reactive and inaction (postponing responses or do noth- ing). The choice of option has practical implication on the management of climate risk and gas flaring in Nigeria.
This research has been about critical evaluation of the impact of gas flaring and climate risks in Nigeria. In this study, cli- mate risks has been defined as a scourge which unnoticeably thrives to harm the environment, affect health and safety, and practically affect businesses, local communities and nations negatively thus describe simply as a soft weapon of mass de- struction. Arguments in favour of a conceptual model to man- age the environmental impact of gas flaring and climate risks have been made. In this instance, a counter argument of sys- tematic model of climate risk was likewise brought to lime- light. However, as clearly demonstrated previously, existing literatures (for example, Adeyemi, 2000; Kindzierski, 2000;
Omiyi, 2001; Ikporukpo, 2004; Aigbedion & Iyayi, 2007; Bas- sey, 2008; Opukri & Ibaba, 2008; Madueme, 2010a, 2010b) on gas flaring and climate risks remained disjointed and under- developed in terms of best practice and framework to guide policymakers and relevant stakeholders in the environmental management of climate risk and gas flaring. What practical implication could this has on stakeholders and principal deci- sion-makers on environmental risk? More specific goals have to be targeted using the concept of adaptive environmental management.
One possible theory is that climate risks continue to thrives
and escalate partly because of the difficulty in harnessing op-
portunities in previous cases of crises and disasters using the
lessons learned approach. Critically, despite the concern for
health and safety, human right, poverty and sustainable de- velopment, environment and economic implications due cli- mate risks and gas flaring, universally acceptable framework to manage climate risk did not exist. This is understandable as regime change for climate risks continue to deviate from coun- try to country, continent to continent, and between developed and developing nations. The commitments to collectively tack- le and manage climate risks are non-proportional among poli- cymakers and stakeholders. At the international arena, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Kyoto Protocol,
2007 Bali Climate Declaration by Scientists, and World Bank
Global Gas Flaring Reduction continue to inform debates and
policy towards ways of addressing the threat.
Meanwhile, the levels of commitments are not clearly the
same and potentially differ among stakeholders. For example,
the European Union (EU) demonstrated well-established rep- utations towards risk regulation and legislation on climate change, and adopted regulatory measures aimed at reducing its own carbon footprint by at least 20% by 2020 (Heyvaert,
2011). In Nigeria, the legislative instruments such as Associat-
ed Gas Re-Injection Act 1979, Oil in Navigable Waters Act
1990, Nigerian Gas Master Plan 2008, Environmental Impacts
Assessment Act 1992, National Environmental Standards and
Regulation Enforcement Agency Act 2007, and Gas Flaring
(Prohibition and Punishment) Act 2009 are some of the initia-
tives towards the environmental management of gas flaring and protection of the environment. Through critical appraisal of the Nigerian petroleum industry, it appears that such level of commitment as demonstrated by the EU is lacking in Nige- ria and by extension the African Union (AU).
However, it is not surprising as the concern for the envi- ronment and sustainable environmental development tends to significantly differ between developed and developing coun- tries. To put this into perspective, while most of the developed countries have shown real commitment through legislation and enforcement towards effective management of climate risk, developing countries such as Nigeria tend to pay lip- service. For example, on gas flaring for which empirical stud- ies have shown how it contributes to climate change, Nigeria has consistently shifted the deadline for ending gas flaring such as 1979, 2004, 2007, 2009, 2010, and 2012. In contrast, Ni- geria's commitment towards environmental management of
IJSER © 2014 http://www.ijser.org
International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, Volume 5, Issue 4, April-2014 1075
ISSN 2229-5518
gas flaring and climate risk is recognised but prior approach towards climate risks in the country are ineffective and mostly reactive in nature. In this regard, the commitments that efforts are in place to manage climate risk is parallel to actual and proactive efforts to curb climate risk. It is therefore crucial for policymakers and relevant stakeholders to learn from previ- ous similar experience and cases of climate risks disasters across the globe. This would help develop appropriate proac- tive strategies towards environmental management of climate risk. Essentially, the need for caution in processes of managing climate risk cannot be overstated.
It is argued that by drawing on the lessons learnt approach
and the concept of adaptive environmental management, poli-
cymakers and key stakeholders would understand to a large
extent where the resources, attention, priorities and strategies need to be directed towards improving techniques to elimi- nate gas flaring and minimise (if not eliminate) the detri- mental environmental impact of climate risks. The lessons learned approach is an approach which draws on lessons from previous cases of similar environmental issues and applying impactful techniques to meaningfully manage current chal- lenges/cases based on experience and history. Although the issue of complexity involveness in climate risks can hinder strategic options, it is strongly believed that the need for such model and question that climate risk cannot be manage sys- tematically but conceptually is imperative for sustainable en- vironmental management. In different context, attempt to me- thodically manage climate risk is a phantasm. One possible explanation for this paradigm is because there can never be complete elimination of climate risks and attempt to systemat- ically model climate risks would potentially create another risk (risk homeostasis).
Equally, the regime change in approach for global efforts to
manage climate risks continues to differ among countries. In
the UK, the Climate Change Act (2008) requires government to
implement policies to adapt to climate change and prepare environmental risk assessment of climate risk impacts to the UK to the year 2100. It is expected that the environmental risk assessment will be accompanied with an Adaptation Econom- ic Assessment (AEA) which will assess options for dealing with the biggest risk based on their costs and benefits consid- erations. This is a proactive method for dealing with climate risks; however, we argued that there could be systemic risk of tick-box approach such that climate risks are not effectively managed in the long run. Nevertheless, there is no specific legislation governing the environmental management of cli- mate risk in Nigeria. This suggests that the country has not yet completely learn from events around the world. It is recom- mended that there is need for specific legislation to govern climate risks in Nigeria.
As revealed by Winn, et al. (2011), climate risks generate
both strategic challenges and opportunities for business or- ganisations, shifting competitive and regulatory environments indirectly through global political efforts to constrain carbon emissions and directly through bio-physical impacts such as extreme weather event. Essentially, every stakeholders need to clearly understand the impacts of climate risks on them and
how to effectively manage such impacts. Building on the con- cept of climate change from the literature, we propose that adaptive environmental management which suggests the de- liberate efforts towards living with climate risk through criti- cal identification and evaluation of the severity, vulnerability, frequency and scale, to practically understand how to reduce the impacts while cautiously living with the consequences is crucial.
Critically, it is arguable that adaptive environmental man- agement might serve as incentive to increase climate risk again especially as some practitioners and policymakers would be reluctant to proactively reduce activities that contribute signif- icantly to climate risks. A review of empirical research on en- vironmental management shows that climate risk and gas flare impacts have generated much attentions, nonetheless, quite little attention has been paid to the contrary (with few exceptions). Climate risks been unequivocally recognised as a major environmental threat but understood differently, hence, the need to target systemic risk (change) rather than elimina- tion, reduction and stabilisation must facilitate debate. In con- clusion, the successful and effective management of climate risks demand adaptive environmental management approach as advocated in this research.
It is critical to note that Nigeria lost almost $72 billion in reve-
nues between 1970-2006 and approximately $2.5 billion yearly
(Bassey, 2008). Worse still as shown by a number of studies, is
that out of the global 168 billion cubic meters of AG flared
annually, about 13% (about 23 billion cubic meters) comes from Nigeria. In perspective, this was found to represent al- most 25 per cent of the US gas consumption and 30% of the consumption of gas within the EU. In other words, the volume of AG flared in Nigeria is more than enough to meet the coun- try’s energy needs and further contribute to export. In another case, empirical research indicated that gases emitted into the atmosphere in processes of gas flaring contain carbon dioxide (CO2 ), nitrogen oxides (NOx ), dioxin, xylene, styrene, naph- thalene, benzene, hydrogen sulphide, toluene and other car- cinogenic volatile organic compounds (Oruamabo, 2005; ERA,
2005; Bassey, 2008).
In terms of human health and safety, scientific researchers
have linked breathing of particulate matter to a series of sig-
nificant health related problems such as aggravated asthma,
increase in respiratory symptoms like coughing and difficult breathing, chronic bronchitis, decreased lung functions, and premature death (for example, Ologunorisa, 2001; ERA, 2005). In addition, it has been established and accepted that exposure to benzene and its metabolites cause acute nonlymphoctic leu- kaemia and a diverse of other blood-related disorders in hu- mans (US EPA, 1997). In clear simplification, gas flaring is partly responsible for pneumonia, cases of leukaemia, de- creased lung functions, difficult breathing, and increase mor- tality and morbidity rate in Nigeria.
This study attributes the level of vulnerability with regards
to the health implications of gas flaring to the proximity of the human receptor to the flaring stations. This suggests that peo-
IJSER © 2014 http://www.ijser.org
International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, Volume 5, Issue 4, April-2014 1076
ISSN 2229-5518
ple living very close to the flaring stations are more vulnerable to the detrimental effects of gas flaring than others. By exten- sion, and drawing from the previously discussed concept of adaptive environmental management, it is recommended that vulnerable people living close to flaring stations should relo- cate and possibly find alternative sources of livelihood. Clear- ly, it is needful thatstakeholders should collectvely manage the negative impacts of gas flaring. The Nigerian government and multinational oil companies would need to rethink on strategic approach towards ensuring crises and disasters free- environment. One-off theory is that reluctance in harnessing resources to end flaring and provide institutional supports to vulnerable local people in the Niger Delta region of Nigeria would further deepen frustrations, agitations and crises within the country. Perhaps, this might not be unerringly true; how- ever, the consequence of disregarding such essential paradigm is obvious.
Research has revealed the greatest impacts of climate risks on
low-lying coastal areas such as the Niger Delta region of Nige-
ria. The attendant consequences include freak weather events,
incessant flooding, coastal erosion, sea level rise, proliferation of pests and spread of diseases, as well as destruction of agri- cultural productivity. Empirical studies have likewise demon- strated that gas flaring contribute significantly to climate risks (Oruamabo, 2005; Bassey, 2008; Heyvaert, 2011; Ayoola, 2011). Critically, what is the proportion of gas flaring that contributes to climate risks? Gas flaring releases greenhouse gases includ- ing carbon dioxide and methane into the atmosphere. Re- search indicated that methane is in fact more harmful than carbon dioxide (Steiner, 2010). However, carbon dioxide emis- sions in Nigeria have been found to be among the highest within the international communities (Iyayi, 2004). In another instance, research indicates that extremely high levels of car- bon dioxide and methane gases released in processes of flaring AG meaningfully impact the climate above the local level and causing similar effect on the ozone layer (Trip Report, 1999; Bassey, 2008). Most crucially, there is significant causation between gas flaring, ozone layer depletion, climate risks and acid rain in the context of existing research. While this has not be empirically proven, there is need to slow down or proac- tively reduce operations that constitute climate risks.
Though, it has been revealed that because of infrastructural inefficiency most of the AG flare in Nigeria is released as me- thane (CH4 ) rather than carbon dioxide (CO2 ) (Eweje, 2006). Nevertheless, empirical studies (for example, ERA 2005) have found that CH4 has larger global warming potential than CO2 though it is shorter lived. In this case, studies have shown that
1kg of CH4 is 62 times more powerful than 1kg of CO2 when exposed over a period of time say 20 years.
Reflectively, what does this mean for the environmental management of climate risks? Several attempts have been made to evaluate the exact volume of gas flared in Nigeria. unfortunately, such studies did not clearly demonstrate how gas flaring constitutes climate risks and how such risks can be
manage. For instance, Kindzierski (2000) concluded that the effects of gas flaring on human health include cancer and non- cancer, neurological, reproductive, and development effects.
In another context, gas flaring constitutes climate risks and cause noise and air pollution, increase temperature rise, acid rain, roofs corrosion and respiratory diseases in Nigeria. This research has revealed that the level of vulnerability depends on the proximity of social systems to the flaring stations. However, research suggested that gas flaring causes disturbed sleep rhythm because of the bright light and heat from the flares; and result in low white and red blood cells counts in host communities with the possibilities of impaired resistance to infection (for instance, Oruamabo, 2005). A critical appraisal of the activities of oil and gas companies in Nigeria suggest that climate risks might have caused much damage than was previously imagine. We argue that promoting effective tech- niques on how to practically live with climate risks will help policymakers and practitioners to sustainably tackle climate risk. The potential implications are quite predictable on vul- nerable people living close to flaring stations within the Niger Delta region, Nigeria. This could be a guide for adaptive envi- ronment management practice and inform relevant stakehold- ers on the available options.
The impacts of climate risks and gas flaring are well known and studied, however, finding solutions to the challenges has remained both debatable and unreaslistic. Whilst many theo- ries and ideologies of risks and management surround pro- posed climate risks management methodologies, the need to propose a unified approach have met with several failure. Gas flaring operation, the threats of climate risks and the vagaries of climate risks management approaches for the Niger Delta region of Nigeria has been reviewed in this paper. First of all, it is important to note that whilst there can never be a thor- ough elimination of climate risks, any attempts to systemati- cally model it would potentially create another risk (risk ho- meostasis). To enable sustainable environmental manage- ment, the assumption and preference of conceptual manage- ment of climate risks as opposed to systematic methods which are genearally phantasms, is ideal. Through this review, the adaptive environmental management approaches which sug- gests living with climate risks through its identification and evaluation of the severity, vulnerability, frequency and scale is strongly supported.
Clearly, gas flaring constitutes climate risks in the Niger Delta regions of Nigeria and causes a number of health condi- tions such as: noise and air popllution, incrsae in atmospheric temperature, acid rain, roof corrosoion and respiratory diseas- es.The extent of human vulnerability to these conditions often depends on the proximity of the human settlements to the gas flaring stations. Unfortunately, much sabotage and corruption in the Nigerian petroleun industry as reviewed in the paper are serious matters that constrain efforts towards addressing human vulnerability to the environmental effects of gas flaring and climate risks in the study area.
Finally, this paper is limited to theoretical discussions on
IJSER © 2014 http://www.ijser.org
International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, Volume 5, Issue 4, April-2014 1077
ISSN 2229-5518
climate risks and gas flaring in the Niger Delta region of Nige- ria. It will serve as a working document to inform decisions towards addressing the issues of gas flaring in the Niger Delta regions of Nigeria as well climate risks management in Nige- ria as a whole. However, we recommend for future studies the need to carry out some empirical analyses and assessment of human vulnerability to the adverse effects of gas flaring. Spe- cifically, supposing quality data were available, we recom- mend that proximity to gas flaring station be estimated, ana- lysed and mapped, since it has been pointed out as a predis- posing factor with regards to human vulnerability to climate risks and the adverse effects of gas flaring.
The authors would like to thank three anonymous reveiwers for their helpful comments which have contributed greatly in improving the earlier drafts of the manuscript. Special thanks to previous authors whose works have been cited in this arti- cle.
[1] Adeyemi, A. S (2000). Climate Change and Environmental Threat. In: H.I Jimoh, I.P Ifabiyi (Eds.): Contemporary Issues in Environmental Studies. Ilorin: Haytee Press. Pp. 158-164.
[2] Adger, W; Brooks, N.; Bentham, G.; Agnew, M. Eriksen, S. (2004).
New Indicators of Vulnerability and Adaptive Capacity. Technical
Report No. 7. Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Resource’.
[3] Aghalino, S. O. (2009). Gas Flaring, Environmental Pollution and Abatement Measures in Nigeria, 1969 - 2001. Journal of Sustainable Development in Africa, 11(4), 219-238.
[4] Aigbedion, I., & Iyayi, S. E. (2007). Environmental Effect of Mineral
Exploitation in Nigeria. International Journal of Physical Sciences, 2(2),
33-38.
[5] Ayoola, T. J (2011). Gas Flaring and its Implication for Environmental
Accounting in Nigeria. Journal of Sustainable Development, 4(5), 244-
250.
[6] Bassey, N. (2008). The Oil Industry and Human Rights in the Niger Delta. United States Senate Juciary Subcommittee on Human Rights and the Law (pp. 1 - 29). New York: United States Senate Judiciary.
[7] Berkhout, F., Hertin J. & Gann DM. (2006). Learning to Adapt: Organi
sational Adaptation to climate change impacts. Climate Change, 78,
135-156.
[8] Burton et al. (2002). From Impacts Assessment to Adaptation Priori ties: the Shaping of Adaptation Policies. Climate Policy, 2, 145-159.
[9] Brooks, N. (2003). Vulnerability Risk and Adaptation: a Conceptual Framework. Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research Working Paper 38. Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research: Norwich.
[10] Environmental Resources Managers Ltd (September 1997). Niger Del
ta Environmental Survey Final Report Phase I; Volume I: Environmental and Socio-Economic Characteristics (Lagos: Niger Delta Environ- mental Survey).
[11] Environmental Rights Action. (2012). Nigeria: Oil Pollution, Politics and Policy. Environmental Rights Action/Friends of the Earth Nigeria and Oilwatch Africa, 1-13. Retrieved from www.eraction.org/publications/oilpollutionpoliticsandpolicy.pdf.
[12] Eweje, G. (2006). Environmental Costs and Responsibilities Resulting from Oil Exploration in Developing Countries: The Case of the Niger
Delta of Nigeria. Journal of Business Ethics, 27- 56. Retrieved from http://www.mendeley.com/catalog/environmental-cost s- responsibilities-resulting-oil-exploitation-developing-countries-case- niger-delta-nigeria/.
[13] Heyvaert, V. (2011). Governing Climate Change: Towards a New
Paradigm for Risk Regulation. The Modern Law Review, 74(6), 817-
844.
[14]Ikporukpo, C. O. (2004). Petroleum, Fiscal Federalism and
Environmental Justice in Nigeria. Space and Polity, 8(3), 321-354.
[15] Kindzierski, W. D. (2000). Importance of Human Environmental Exposure To Hazardous Air Pollutants From Gas Flares. Environmental Reviews, 8, 41 - 62.
[16] Luers, A.; Lobell, D., Sklar, L.; Addams, L.; Matson, P. (2003). A method for quatifying vulnerability, applied to the agricultural system of the Yaqui valley, Mexico. Global Environmental Change, 13, 255-267.
[17] Madueme, S. (2010a). Gas Flaring Activities of Major Oil Companies in Nigeria: An Economic Investigation. International Journal of Engineering and Technology, 2(4), 610-617.
[18] Madueme, S. (2010b). Economic Analysis of Wastages in the Nigerian
Gas Industry. International Journal of Engineering and Technology, 2(4),
618-624.
[19] Nigel, M. & Rice J. (2010). Analysising emission intersive firms as regulatory stakeholders: A role for adaptable business strategy. Business Strategy and the Environment, 19, 64-75.
[20] Nkwunonwo, U. C. & Mafimisebi, O. P. (2013). Responding to the Challenges of Global Climate Change in Nigeria through GIS mapping of Carbon IV oxide gas emission. International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, 4(11), 765-774.
[21] Nwaugo, V. O., Onyeagba, R. A., & Nwachukwu, N. C. (2006). Effect of Gas Flaring On Soil Microbial Spectrum in Parts of Niger Delta Area of Southern Nigeria. African Journal of Biotechnolgy, 5(19), 1824-
1826.
[22] O'Brien, K; Quinian, T., Ziervogel, G. (2009). Vulnerability Interventions in the Context of Multiple Stressors: lessons from the Southern Africa Vulnerability Initiative (SAVI). Environmental Science Policy, 12, 23-32.
[23] Osbahr, H., Twyman, C.; Adger, W.; Thomas, D. (2008). Effective Livelihood Adaptation to Climate Change Disturbance: Scale Dimensions of Practice in Mozambique. Geoforum, 39, 1951-1964.
[24] Ologunorisa, T. E. (2001). A Review of the Effects of Gas Flaring on the Niger Delta Environment. International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology, 8(3), 249 - 255. Retrieved from http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13504500109470082.
[25] Oni, S.I & Oye wo, M.A (2011). Gas Flaring, Transportation and
Sustainable Energy Development in the Niger-Delta, Nigeria. Journal of Human Ecology, 33(1), 21-28.
[26] Opukri, C.O & Ibaba, I.S (2008). Oil Induced Environmental Degradation and Internal Population Displacement in the Nigeria's Niger Delta. Journal of Sustainable Development in Africa, 10(1), 173-
193.
[27] Oruamabo, R. S. (2005). The Effects of Environmental Assaults on
Human Physiology (2). Nigerian Journal of Physiological Sciences, 20(1-
2), 11 - 18. Retrieved from http://www.biolineinternational.org.br/njps. [28] Ovuakporaye, S. (2012). Effect of Prolong Exposure to Gas Flaring on the Mean Peak Expiratory Flow Rate of Residents in Gas Flaring Community in Delta State Nigeria. Journal of Science and Multidisciplinary Research, 16 - 21. Retrieved from http://www.cenresinpub.org/pub2/Effect%20of%20Prolong%20Exposu
re%20to%20Gas%20Flaring%20on%20the%20Mean%20Peak.pdf.
IJSER © 2014 http://www.ijser.org
International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, Volume 5, Issue 4, April-2014 1078
ISSN 2229-5518
[29] Pelling, M.; High, C. (2005). Understanding Adaptation: What Can Social Capital Offer Assessments of Adaptive Capacity? Global Environmental Change, 15, 308-319.
[30] Prato T. (2007). Accounting for risk and uncertainty in determing preferred strategies for adapting to future climate change. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change. 13(1), 47-60.
[31] Steiner, R. (2010). Double Standard: Shell Practices in Nigeria Compared With International Standards to Prevernt and Control Pipeline Oil Spills and the Deepwater Horizon Oil spill. Amsterdam: Milieu Defensie. Retrieved from http://www.milie udefensie.nl/ publicatie s/rapporten/double-standard.
[32] Stern, N. (2009). A Blueprint for a Safer Planet: How to Manage Climate Change and Create a New Era of Progress and Prosperity. London: The Bodley Head.
[33] Trip Report. (1999). Oil For Nothing: Multinational Corporations, Environmental Destruction, Death and Impunity in the Niger Delta. Port Harcourt: Environmental Rights Action/Friends of the Earth Nigeria. Retrieved from http://www.essentialaction.org/shell/Final_Report.pdf.
[34] US EPA. (1997). Carcinogenic Effects of Benzene: An Update. New York:
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Retrieved from www.epa.gov/NCEA/pdfs/benzene.pdf.
[35] Walker, B.H., Holling, C.S., Carpenter, S.R., & Kinzig, A (2004). Resili- ence adaptability and transformability in social-ecological systems. Ecology and Society, 9(2).
[36] Waugh, W.I Jr. (2000). Living with Hazards, Dealing with Disasters.
Sharpe: Armonk NY.
[37] Willows, R. & Connell, R. (2003). Climate Adaptation: Risk Uncertain- ty and Decision-Making. UK Climate Impacts Programme: Oxford.
IJSER © 2014 http://www.ijser.org