A former President of the Nigerian Meteorological Society (NMetS), Prof. Clement Akoshile, has said that Nigeria needs good blueprint for climate change mitigation or adaptation as well as a track record of accountability and probity for it to qualify for climate change adaption fund. He said that the blueprint must clearly underscore the issues involved in climate change that is relevant to Nigeria’s needs.
He spoke in an interview with New Telegraph over the weekend. According to a United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)-commission, the cost of adapting to climate change in Nigeria and other African countries could reach $50 billion per year by 2050. Also the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) stated that around 110 million people on the continent were affected by weather, water and general climate-related problems in 2022. It added that this resulted in about $8.5 billion loss in a continent desirous of economic growth.
Akoshile, a former Director of Renewable Energy Centre at the University of Ilorin (UNILORIN), said the $50 billion estimate was correct given the enormity of climate change related challenges in Nigeria and other African countries. He said: “It is true that we have the need. The estimate was made by experts from Economics, Meteorologist and administrative consult so that we can have something that is reasonable to save our situation.
“There is the need for probity in accessing such money if it is given to Africa. It is not money that will be swallowed up by individuals because both rich and poor will equally suffer from such disaster. A disaster, if unmitigated by good planning, the money will just go to waste. “There should be a laudable blue print that should show understanding of the problem and appropriate strategies that will solve the problems. When you are given money for a problem, it means you have identified the problem.
As the problem is identified, you know proffer solution. Based on the solution, you make an estimate of cost and then you go into action.” Akoshile said to ensure prudent use of the fund and that it is rightly applied, the country that is providing the money and the recipient countries must be involved in the management of the fund. He stated that it should not be left alone with the recipient country to do the work so that there will be checks and balance and that the job or programme must be well executed.
He said: “I assume that before they award that money, they would have seen the preparatory blueprint of what they want to do with the money. If they did not, then it is spending money that has not come before planning. It is important that they should require each country that should benefit from it to show its blueprint. Where its blueprint is found inadequate, they should ask for assistance from sister country especially whose blueprint is acceptable.
“When it is found that some have fallen short, then they should ask the developed countries to assist them draw a workable and laudable blueprint. The need of Mali will not be exactly the same thing as that of Nigeria given their geographical and ecological needs. Nigeria suffers from coastal problem and places like Kano, Kaduna, Maiduguri, Sokoto axis from desertification. Mali suffers from very little coastal problem but mainly desertification.
So it is necessary that the plan should take care of the individual exigencies and needs. The blue print must be of areas of need of each country. “I just that if truly the money comes from the developed countries to mitigate, it should be broken into two; one half should be by the developing country doing the work for the mitigation and the African countries that is the beneficiary, then their men can use the remaining half to do the work of mitigation.
At the end of the period of action, they should compare the two types of work done to save lives. I am not saying that one side is holier than the other because sometimes, they work hand in glove to do the wrong. So they should the right. Where there is supposed to be dredging, they should do it to be large enough so that the water can pass.
“They should not display partiality in judgement as to allow some people to build on the water way and others to be taken away so that the rich can do their bidding. They should clear the water way so that water will pass with ease. Otherwise, water does not look for money, nor give money nor show influence. That is why said when that money comes, let it be managed by those who are sponsoring and those who are being sponsored so that we will at least see the effect to save lives and property and allow development to happen.”