Nigeria, the 6th largest oil producer in the world, the 1st largest in Africa and the most prolific oil producer in sub-Saharan Africa, is beset by the gas flaring scourge.

This is not surprising because the Nigerian economy is largely dependent on its oil sector, which supplies 95% of its foreign exchange earnings. A member of OPEC, the global oil cartel, Nigeria has a daily production of about 2.0 million barrels per day and a proven gas reserve base of over 187 trillion cubic feet as confirmed by the Presidential Adviser on Petroleum and Energy matters, Dr. Edmund Daukoru, estimated to be the largest in the world and approximately 30% of African Gas reserve.

But the surprise is that there has been no gas infrastructure, with 75% of associated gas flared. Nigeria is believed to flare about 2.5 billion standard cubic feet of associated gas per day, possibly the highest in the world. For the purpose of clarification, gas comes with crude oil when it is struck from the soil and brought to the surface, known in the oil industry parlance as associated gas. While the oil is piped through the flow stations and terminals to waiting ships, the gas is allowed to burn in the atmosphere.

Indeed globally this had been the norm, because gas was once viewed as a waste product at a time global warming was not an issue. Then the contracts entered with oil companies encouraged flaring and there was no obligation to find market for the gas. Directly related to the foregoing was that markets for gas were poorly developed and responsibilities for marketing remained ill-defined. The fourth factor was that most governments did not provide the incentive to maximize economic use of gas.

The rise of environmental consciousness including the discernible negative consequences of gas flaring has forced s global rethink. Studies have shown that these flares contain poisonous gases that are fatal to crops, causing breathing difficulties for humans, and descend, especially on large swathes of the Niger Delta as acid rains. Owing to the level of gas pollution resulting from this and the growing pressure from environmentalists, the present administration became committed to achieving a zero gas flare and consequently President Obasanjo directed that complete flare out be achieved by the year 2008.

It would be recalled that governments before Obasanjo’s administration had criticised the level of gas flaring in the country but none was as committed to flaring out as the present administration that is poised to end the scourge by a set date.

To achieve its objective of zero gas flare by 2008, the Federal Government established a National Forum on the monitoring of Natural Gas Utilization and Implementation of Related Projects, under whose watch the emission levels have dropped considerably. The forum’s strategy is to offer a combination of incentives and sanctions to apply pressure on oil and gas companies towards adopting more economic alternatives to gas and thus save the environment from systematic pollution. Government has also put in place a number of incentives to encourage gas production, transmission and utilisation.

With the current administration’s initiatives at creating and enhancing gas utilisation projects in the domestic scene as well as exploiting the window of opportunity in the international market, flaring ratio has been reduced by 36 percent. The minister of state for petroleum resources, Dr. Edmund Daukoru disclosed this on April 18, 2006 at a ministerial press briefing in Abuja. The reduction, he said, was attributed to various schemes put in place by the Federal Government towards the development and utilization of natural gas in the country since 1999, coupled with a number of gas based projects either being planned or executed.

The National Integrated Power Project (NIPP) ,an intervention project conceptualised by the President Obasanjo to comprehensively address the state of electricity infrastructure in the country, is designed as a fast track approach towards improving the nation’s electric power supply through the implementation of Generation, Transmission, Distribution and Gas supply projects. Its main thrust is the design, manufacture and supply of seven new Gas Turbine Power Plants with the provision for conversion to combined-cycle operation.

When completed, the current PHCN available capacity of about 4,000 MW will be increased by 2,744 MW or 68%, and will effectively transform the electricity supply infrastructure throughout the country.

All the power plants are to be fuelled by gas; the joint venture partners in consortium with NNPC will supply gas from associated and non-associated sources. It is expected that the supply of gas to the power stations will significantly reduce gas flaring in the Niger-Delta Area, as about 748 million metric standard cubic feet per day will be consumed by the power plants.

For the Federal Government there is no going back on the 2008 gas flare-out date despite the agitations by some oil companies for a later date. Officials of Shell, known as the worst culprit of gas flaring in Nigeria have argued that the 2008 date is unrealistic as not much can be done until the liquefied natural gas projects now coming on stream are fully operational and able to utilize all the associated gas.

Shell produces oil, gas and other fossil fuels in over 100 countries including its home country UK, where there is zero tolerance for gas flaring, and consequently it has invested considerable sums of money to eliminate the noxious activity. For the Niger Deltans and the majority of Nigerians, what is good for the Scottish countryside and the coastal waters where Shell operates should hold good the Niger Delta too. Director, Department of Petroleum Resources, Tony Chukwueke said, while speaking at a one-day seminar on gas-monetization in Lagos, that the 2008 date is embedded in gold.

Government is at present increasing domestic gas utilization through actions geared towards:
• Meeting the country’s power need through rehabilitation of several NEPA (PHCN) generating units and in joint venture with multinationals for establishment of new Independent Power Plants (IPPs).
• Exploring and encouraging additional domestic gas projects and market development.
Consequently, the following schemes have emerged or are emerging as the global means of transporting and utilizing large volumes of natural gas:
• The West African Gas Pipeline Project
• GTL plant being developed by NNPC AND Chevron/Texaco in Escravos
• LNG Projects

EXISTING POWER STATIONS;

• EGBIN THERMAL POWER STATION, LAGOS STATE. 1200MW
• AFAM THERMAL POWER STATION, RIVER STATE. 456MW
• SAPELE THERMAL POWER STATION, DELTA STATE. 240MW
• DELTA THERMAL POWER STATION, DELTA STATE, 900MW
• IJORA THERMAL POWER STATION, LAGOS STATE 40MW
• KAINJI HYDRO POWER STATION, NIGER STATE.640MW
• JEBBA HYDRO POWER STATION, NIGER STATE.560MW
• SHIRORO HYDRO POWER STATION, NIGER STATE.600MW

ON-GOING PROJECTS

• GEREGU THERMAL POWER STATION, KOGI STATE.414MW
• OMOTOSHO THERMAL POWER STATION, ONDO STATE. 335MW
• PAPALANTO THERMAL POWER STATION OGUN STATE.335MW
• ALAOJI THERMAL POWER STATION, ABIA STATE. 504MW

7 NEW FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PROJECTS IN NIGER DELTA

• CALABAR THERMAL POWER STATION, CROSS-RIVER STATE.561MW
• EGBEMA THERMAL POWER STATION, IMO STATE.338MW
• EYAEN THERMAL POWER STATION, EDO STATE.451MW
• GBARIAN/UBIE THERMAL POWER STATION, BAYELSA STATE. 225MW
• IKOT ABASI THERMAL POWER STATION, AKWA IBOM STATE.300MW
• SAPELE THERMAL POWER STATION, DELTA STATE. 451MW
• OMOKU THERMAL POWER STATION, RIVERS STATE. 230MW.

The Kenyan government has approved its policy on how biotechnology is handled in research, development, and in its application. The National Biotechnology Development Policy 2006 approved by the cabinet earlier this month (5 October) marks the go-ahead for the use of biotechnology in the country. It outlines the safety procedures for biotechnology in the context of research and development, technology transfer and commercialisation of products that would result from research undertaken in Kenya.

According to the Kenyan minister for Science and Technology, Noah Wekesa, the document recognises the role that biotechnology can play in poverty reduction, enhancing food security and conservation of the environment and biodiversity. The policy identifies industry and trade as key areas for using biotechnology and is committed to ensuring that information on its development is accurately and efficiently communicated to the public. Priority is given to the provision of relevant infrastructure, framework facilities and other resources for the rapid and safe development and application of biotechnology in agriculture, environment, health, industry and research.



It aims to ensure that Kenya's biotechnology industry develops in a sustainable way, while getting its benefits to these key areas, says Wekesa. But the policy also takes a strong line on the ethical, environmental and biosafety concerns of biotechnology. Wekesa says that the policy will safeguard Kenya's citizens and environment against the development or introduction of harmful organisms."This will provide those developing and applying the technology with a clear framework within which to operate in order to address fears on safety," Wekesa was reported to have said in The Sunday Standard.



The policy outlaws human cloning, terminator technologies and any other technology found to be entailing unethical scientific practice.

The government also plans to create legislation to deal with genetically modified organisms as they are developed, following an ongoing risk assessment.

Any use of biotechnology in Kenya must receive the approval of the designated authority and meet the requirements of Kenya's Environment Management and Coordination Act of 1999.

In its first four years, the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria has quickly become one of the most important aid agencies in the world. It has approved over 360 grant programs in 132 countries valued at $5.6 billion, and it has disbursed over $2.7 billion. Next week the Fund will select a new Executive Director (ED). CGD senior fellow Steve Radelet chaired a working group to identify key challenges for the Fund ahead of the selection. He explains the purpose and scope of the forthcoming report.



Q: What is the purpose of the Global Fund?

A: The Fund was created to substantially increase funding for programs aimed at fighting HIV/AIDS, TB and malaria in countries around the world. These diseases needlessly kill more than 16,000 people every day. Until the founding of the Global Fund and the launch of other programs in recent years -- like the U.S. President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) -- the international community had done shockingly little to respond to the crisis. The Fund is a foundation -- not a U.N. agency or a broader development agency -- and as such it acts primarily as a financing mechanism, rather than an implementing agency or a clearinghouse for technical assistance. It works in cooperation with other groups -- multilateral organizations, bilateral agencies, NGOS, civil society and faith based groups -- that help design programs, provide technical assistance, and otherwise provide support for country programs.



Q: The Global Fund seems to operate differently from many other organizations. How is it structured?

A: The Fund is really quite an unusual organization. It is governed by a 24 member Board of Directors consisting of donor governments, recipient governments, people living with the diseases, NGO representatives from both donor and recipient governments, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (its largest non-government donor), and private sector representatives. The ED manages a very small Secretariat: just 240 staff, all based in Geneva, overseeing 360 grants, making it one of the leanest of all major international organizations. In recipient countries, overall responsibility falls with a Country Coordinating Mechanism (CCM), a group whose composition in some ways mirrors the Board: government officials, NGOs, civil society and faith based groups, and multilateral and bilateral representatives. The CCM is responsible for designing programs, submitting grant proposals to the Global Fund, and picking one or more organizations to implement programs. The Fund takes very seriously -- much more seriously than most organizations -- the ideas of country ownership, broad participation in key decisions, and transparency. Its focus on these principles, along with striving for accountability in results and low administrative costs, sets the Fund apart, but also leads to some of the key challenges and tensions we describe in our report.



Q: What impact has it had so far?

A: As of June 2006, its grants were supporting antiretroviral (ARV) treatment for 544,000 people living with HIV; testing and counselling for HIV for 5.7 million people; directly observed treatment short course (DOTS) for 1.4 million people with TB; and 11.3 million insecticide-treated bed nets for malaria prevention. These are the numbers of people already being reached -- the targets for current programs are even higher. People associate the Global Fund mostly with HIV/AIDS, but it is crucial to remember that it funds programs in all three diseases, and proportionally on a global scale it makes even bigger contributions to TB and malaria. Currently the Fund provides two-thirds of global donor funding for malaria, 45 percent for TB programs, and about 20 percent for HIV/AIDS, numbers I find impressive for a four-year-old organization. With grants disbursing in 128 countries, the Fund's global reach is broader than any organization outside of the United Nations. By comparison, for example, the PEPFAR program -- which has also made very strong progress -- works in around 50 countries and concentrates its efforts in 15 focus countries and on HIV/AIDS. So the Global Fund is operating and trying to make a difference in a much larger set of countries and on more diseases. This is a very tall order, and while the Fund has made commendable progress, it faces some significant challenges as well.



Q: What are some of the biggest challenges?

A: Well, with 360 grant programs in 128 countries, you're bound to get some programs that work well and others where there are concerns. In some countries the CCM process works fine, but in others there are concerns about who is included and who is excluded, government domination over NGOs, and the quality of CCM oversight. The ideals of broad participation and country ownership -- which many donors don't even attempt -- are very hard to put into practice in many countries. And as with any broadly participatory process -- like democracy -- the process is sometimes slow and not as decisive as it could be. But the process helps build legitimacy, create some buy-in, and build capacity over time.



A huge challenge is that when the international community designed the Global Fund to be primarily a financing mechanism, they assumed that others would be able to step up and provide countries with other support needed to make programs work, such as technical assistance, on-the-ground monitoring, and other inputs. But this hasn't always happened, and country capacity to absorb funds and implement programs was more of a constraint that many foresaw. Building strong capacity in countries that will allow them to implement effective programs over the long term is an enormous challenge. Going forward there will need to be much greater cooperation across agencies, and stronger support for other organizations to allow them to ramp up technical assistance and other support to countries facing major capacity constraints.



The Fund also faces the big challenge of how to ensure results. From the outset, the Fund has tried to emphasize performance-based funding, but as other organizations have found out, this is not easy. Just determining what to actually measure and collecting the data is far from easy, and figuring out how to independently monitor progress on the ground is a major challenge. And once problems are detected, it is not straightforward to determine when the best course of action is to try to reprogram or refocus the grant, or to cut off funding and redirect it another country where it might be more effective. Some of the biggest debates around the Fund in the last year have been whether or not to cut off funding to a small number of poorly performing grants, and these debates are unlikely to be any easier in the future.



Q: What about funding?

A: This is a big concern, and not just for the Global Fund. Although world-wide funding has increased significantly in recent years, the diseases are continuing to spread, and all estimates for global needs show a sharp escalation in coming years. According to estimates from UNAIDS, Roll Back Malaria, and the Stop TB Partnership, global needs to effectively fight the three diseases already top $20 billion annually and are increasing steadily. Obviously the Global Fund doesn't have to fund all of that, or even necessarily be the largest funder. But to effectively address the three diseases, the Fund faces two major challenges. First, it must significantly ramp up its contributions from traditional and non-traditional donors and the private sector to meet these growing needs. Second, since even with increased funding its resources will always be less than needs, it must determine how best to allocate its funds and manage it grants across countries to ensure maximum impact and have the greatest possible impact on the diseases.



Q: How is the new ED being chosen?

A: The Global Fund Board created a Nomination Committee in April 2006, which, among other steps, hired an Executive Search firm to help in the process. In all, 334 people applied for the position. The Nomination Committee, through several rounds of consideration, has narrowed the list to five finalists: Hilde Johnson (Norway), Michel Kazatchkine (France), Congressman Jim Kolbe (U.S.), Bill Roedy (U.S.), and Michel Sidibe (Mali). The Board is now interviewing the five candidates via teleconference. At its next Board meeting on October 31st in Guatemala City, the Board will make its decision and choose the new ED. Assuming all the arrangements can be put in place, the new ED will start very early in 2007.



Q: The working group you chaired offered several recommendations for the new director. Can you tell us, in advance of the release of the report on Thursday, some of the most important issues it examines?

A: We identified seven key tasks for the new ED to focus attention, ranging from strengthening in-country operations, ramping up efforts for more effective technical assistance, strengthening procurement and supply chain management systems, and improving relationships between the Board and the ED, which have not always been smooth. For each task, we make several specific recommendations. Some recommendations are very specific and seem small, but can have big impacts, such as the Secretariat quickly distributing information it picks up in its Early Warning System to a wide range of interested parties -- multilateral organizations, bilateral agencies, NGO groups, as well as host governments -- so that steps can be taken rapidly to address weak programs.



Some recommendations will require much greater cooperation with other organizations, since the Global Fund by design must work together with other agencies to support country programs. Thus we recommend establishing a "Heads of Agencies Group" in which the heads of the Global Fund, UNAIDS, WHO and the World Bank (and perhaps a very small number of others) would meet regularly to work out at the highest levels key strategies for jointly addressing technical assistance, global procurement, program

monitoring and other issues.



In terms of the Secretariat, we recommend the new ED commission a management audit of the Secretariat to help determine its optimal size and staffing patterns, and focus particularly on steps to strengthen the work of the Fund Portfolio Mangers that support each grant. We also recommend that the Secretariat add to its staff a full-time, professional, fundraising team. And although our focus in on the ED, we make a few recommendations to the Board in how it can help the ED succeed. In particular, we recommend that Board make the ED a non-voting member of the Board to help strengthen communications and improve Board decisions.



The new ED joins the Global Fund at a critical time as it shifts from an innovative start-up to a mature organization. The next two years will have a tremendous impact on defining the future role and sustainability of the Fund and its long-term impact in fighting the three diseases. It is our hope that this report helps the new ED to better understand the key issues facing the Fund and some of the most important steps that can be taken to make the Fund even more effective in fighting HIV/AIDS, TB and malaria.

Talking about religion, or faith to use a more general term, is about as popular a thing to do as overpaying your taxes, especially in the policy world. We shy away from the topic because of the personal, sometimes intense, reaction it elicits and, I suspect, because faith feels a little soft, emotional, even anti-intellectual when compared with hard political and economic realities. But since faith impacts U.S. policy, it is a conversation we ought to be having. This is especially true in development, where faith-based organizations (FBO) play a significant role in the delivery of humanitarian assistance abroad.

FBOs have a long history of helping the poor overseas. Some organizations began after World War II, helping refugees, and have since morphed into savvy providers of food, medical care, and a host of other services to the poor all over the world, employing thousands of people and operating on budgets of hundreds of millions of dollars. Just to give you an idea of the scope of their work: one-third of all AIDS patients (pdf) in the world are cared for through the auspices of the Catholic Church.



With their history, reach and expertise, it's no wonder the U.S. government and other international bodies see NGOs, both secular and faith-based, as indispensable tools for delivering humanitarian assistance. New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof says that "Christian aid groups like World Vision and Samaritan's Purse save lives at bargain-basement prices." (July 5, 2005). According to a recent Boston Globe article, U.S. government funding to FBOs that deliver humanitarian assistance abroad increased from 10.5 percent of all USAID dollars in 2001 to 19.9 percent in 2005. (Government funding to FBOs is not a new phenomenon: Catholic Relief Services (CRS), one of the organizations that, together with World Vision and Samaritan's Purse, receives the bulk of government assistance, has been using U.S. taxpayer-provided resources in relief and development programs for more than 60 years.) The Global Fund also financially supports more than 73 FBOs.



The development community should not turn away from talking about the role of FBOs. But what we need is to move from a fearful and emotional reaction to an evidence-based discussion. Who are these organizations? How many of them are there? How do they vary in size and scope of activity? How much money do they receive and from whom? What kind of aid do they deliver and where? How do we measure their impact? Why does over 98 percent of U.S. government funding to faith-based organizations go to Christian groups? Is the government discriminating against groups of other faiths? Do any of these groups proselytize? What does that mean and how is it monitored? Is there a difference in results from FBOs versus secular organizations?

FBOs are one of the many ways the U.S. delivers foreign assistance. As we in the development community look to improve the effectiveness of aid, we would do well to begin having an evidence-based discussion about the impact of faith-based organizations.

President Olusegun Obasanjo has called on the international community to consider "as a matter of priority" the "total cancellation" of the debts of African nations "as part of a meaningful effort" towards the continent's development.

Addressing members of the international community on the final day of his state visit to Ethiopia in Addis Ababa on October 10, President Obasanjo also called for "genuine cooperation for the return of illegally acquired funds, which are stashed away in foreign banks," as well as the adoption of measures that will prevent the further looting of the resources of African nations.

"One other area where Africa desires genuine engagement with her partners is market access for our products in the true spirit of globalization. We also seek the cooperation of our partners, especially the European Union and the United States on the removal of agricultural subsidies without which we cannot achieve a global fair market economy," the President told the gathering at the Headquarters of the African Union.

He noted that concerted action in all these areas will greatly help to provide the additional resources required for the development of African countries. "These are the areas where we believe that the intervention of our partners towards our development efforts will be genuine and sincere," he remarked.

President Obasanjo also shared his vision of Africa with the audience, which included the Chairman of the African Union Commission, Prof. Alpha Konare, the Executive Secretary of UNECA, Mr. Abdoulie Janneh, permanent representatives to the African Union, AU Commissioners and heads of international organizations.

"As I address you today, I envision an Africa that will be free of conflicts: one that will be linked in all its parts by a network railways and roads, where telephone calls between countries will not have to be relayed through other continents; an Africa where there will be free movement of persons, goods and services.

" I dream of an Africa that will no longer be associated with poverty, hunger and diseases; one that will begin to experience capital and human resource inflows and not outflows; a continent that will no longer be awash with illegal small arms and light weapons; one where there will be respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, an Africa with good governance and democratic practice at local, national, sub-regional and continental levels.

"I nurse the hope of an Africa that will take full control of its resources and utilize them judiciously for the benefit of its peoples. Together with you, we desire an Africa that will steadily march toward full economic and political integration, and be a major player in world affairs.

"That is the Africa we should strive to build," the President concluded.

The Nigerian President, Chief Olusegun Obasanjo paid a visit to the African Union Headquarters in Addis Ababa today, where he had talks with the leadership of the AU Commission before addressing many delegates from the international community and the diplomatic corps. Mr. Obasanjo, who was termed a “Great African” by AU Commission Chairperson Alpha Oumar Konare, arrived to cheers and waving from the gathered AU members of staff.

Mr. Obasanjo spoke of his admiration for the accomplishments of the African Union since its formation in 2003. He hailed the formation of NEPAD and the African Peer Review Mechanism and the moves towards the formation of a United States of Africa. He commended the AU’s interventions in peacekeeping and conflict prevention, and thanked the international community for its support.

President Obasanjo outlined 5 key areas, which he said are crucial if Africa is to be an integral part of global development and progress. These factors are: ridding the continent of famine; promoting education, science and technology; creating a sustainable environment; maintaining peace; and security and fighting diseases, especially HIV AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. All these factors are interconnected, he observed, and they are underlined by poverty.

The President observed that a number of conferences have been held to try and find solution to some of the challenges. These conferences served the great purpose of raising awareness and focusing the attention of decision makers on the critical areas identified at continental level.

Calling on African leaders to recommit to sustainable development, President Obasanjo said African leaders should create climates conducive to investment in their countries. He also called on the international community to consider total cancellation of Africa’s debt, make markets accessible to African goods, remove agricultural subsidies, stop the sale of small weapons to non state parties in Africa and encourage the return of looted state funds stashed in foreign banks so as to release money for development. The President encouraged more unity among Africans and in this respect he singled out the cooperation between the African Union, the United Nations Economic Community for Africa and the African Development Bank.

AU Commission Chairperson Alpha Oumar Konare paid tribute to the work done by President Obasanjo, in the promotion of good governance, accountability and democracy; advocacy for African positions at major fora; hosting important summits; fighting against famine; fighting against major diseases and spearheading technological advancement on the continent. Mr. Obasanjo did this work in his various capacities, which have included; being Chairperson of the African Union; Chairperson of the Commonwealth; and Chairperson of the Group of 77 among others.

President Konare pointed out the Bakassi frontier agreement as an example of how states can use dialogue to resolve conflict without resorting to war. He also applauded Nigeria for its commitment to the African Mission in Sudan (AMIS).

Mr. Obasanjo’s visit to the AU took place in the context of a state visit to Ethiopia.

President Olusegun Obasanjo has warned in Addis Ababa that the international community should not "fold its hands and watch genocide develop" in Sudan's Darfur region.

Speaking at a press conference in the Ethiopian capital on October 10, President Obasanjo said that the world has already witnessed "near genocide" in the region before the intervention of African Union Forces and should now do everything possible to prevent the development of "full genocide" in the region.

"It is not in the interest of Sudan nor in the interest of Africa nor indeed in the interest of the world for us all to stand by and see genocide being developed in Darfur," President Obasanjo said.

Responding to a question, he said that if the need arises, and "there are sufficient resources to back such an increase", Nigeria would consider a request to contribute more troops for peace-keeping in the Darfur region.

"We were the first to contribute troops to the African Mission in Sudan (AMIS) and we have the largest contingent. We regard it as part of the price we have to pay to resolve conflicts and achieve peace in Africa," the President said.

On the situation in Somalia, President Obasanjo said that the African Union will continue to do its best to create an environment in which Somalis can dialogue and resolve their differences themselves.

He thanked the government and people of Ethiopia for the "very warm reception" accorded him and his delegation, saying that his visit will help to further strengthen the very good relationship between Nigeria and Ethiopia.

Before the press conference which was jointly addressed by President Obasanjo and Prime Minister Meles Zenawi of Ethiopia, both countries had signed agreements to boost bilateral cooperation in areas of trade, culture and tourism.