MITIGATING LAKE NYOS FLOOD THREAT

By AVM Mohammed Audu-Bida (Rtd), DG NEMA

Adeola Aderoumu’s article titled “Before 70,000 Nigerians Perish Overnight..! published on the Nigeria Village Square(NVS) on July 15, 2009 and appeared in nigerianmuse.com, with comments from NVS Villagers, raises some fundamental questions about emergency management in Nigeria, especially the state of preparedness for a possible catastrophe in the event of a break of the structurally weak volcanic Lake Nyos situated upstream along the Cameroon line of volcanic activity.

But first, let me thank the author and all those who have participated in the subsequent discussion on this disaster management issue for their level of awareness and patriotism, especially on the NVS which one of my officers always alert me to the debates on the forum. Disaster management, after all, is everybody’s business and its success depends largely on collaboration between all tiers of government – Federal, state and local governments, a multitude of agencies and services, non-governmental organizations, volunteers, etc.

Mr Aderoumu asked the following questions:

*What has NEMA done about this current threat to 40 million Nigerians?

*Has NEMA monitored the situation and the reports made by the technical committee set up  by Obasanjo?

*Was NEMA part of the committee?

*How is NEMA monitoring the state of preparedness of all organizations and agencies which may contribute to this particular disaster management?

*If the disaster occurs now, what rescue operations are in place?

*Does NEMA have any comment on the state of the buffer dam that is nothing but a serious national embarrassment to Nigeria?

*Has any useful information been posted on NEMA’s website relating to this predicted disaster?

*How do the concerned people get access to such information?

Rather than providing answer to each question, let me give some facts about Lake Nyos and the threat to lives and property and measures put in place to mitigate the impending disaster. I believe this will better inform and educate the readers on Lake Nyos and related issues.

Lake Nyos is situated on the Cameroon Mountain at an elevation higher than the adjoining Benue and Katsina-Ala plains in Nigeria. The lake flows into the tributaries from which the Katsina –Ala River takes its source, crossing the Nigeria-Cameroon border at a point 108 kilometers from Nyos. The river then proceeds north- westerly into Benue River at a point 40 kilometers east of Makurdi, Benue State. 

The major threat to Nigeria is in the highly unstable upper parts of the lake body which holds about 50 million cubic meters of water. An analysis of Lake Nyos dam-break reported by WADASCO (1990) shows that “the flood produced will reach about 19000m2/s at the dam site corresponding to a flow depth of over 18 meters. Due to the attenuation of the wave, the flood peak will be reduced to 400 m3/s and flow depth of 14.5meters at the Nigeria-Cameroon border, 250 m3/s and 8.8meters at Kashimbilla and 2000 m3/s and 4.5 meters at Katsina-Ala town.

 “As the flood enters Nigeria, it spreads over wide flood plains inundating many towns, villages, hamlets and farm lands. Between Cameroon border and River Benue, it is estimated that over 50 settlements including Katsina-Ala, Kashimbilla, Waya, Manga, Gamovo and over 15,000 hectares of land will be flooded. Over 35,000 people and 20,000 herds of cattle and other livestock will be caught within the flood part and could perish.” 

As a result of this alert the National Emergency Management Agency conducted some studies and developed various counter measures classified under Absorption, Mitigation, and Elimination depending on the location. Absorption measures involve the preparation of the threatened areas to absorb the initial effects of the event. They include:

*Prediction of the Lake Nyos Dam-break and flood arrival time.

*Flood inundation mapping.

*Emergency preparedness planning.

*Containment of flood by a buffer dam.

 Mitigation measures in the plan include:

*Reinforcement of the Lake Nyos dam.

*Control of the dam seepage.

*Control of potential rock- fall into the lake.

*Venting of gas from the lake bottom.

Elimination measures were aimed at removing altogether the danger posed by the lake such as:

*Draining of the lake.

*Degassing the lake.

*Removing the lake.

I should mention, at this juncture, that there is also an inter-ministerial committee – the Technical Committee on Earthquake Phenomena (NTCEP) coordinated by the Federal Ministry of Science and Technology of which NEMA is a member. This committee is also actively involved in efforts to forestall a Lake Nyos disaster through its subcommittee. Other members of the committee are:

• Federal Ministry of Science and Technology
• Federal Ministry of Water Resources
• Ministry of Petroleum
• Federal Ministry of Environment,
• Ministry of Defence,
• Federal Ministry of Health,
• National Space Research and Development Agency (NASRDA)
• National Agency for Science and Engineering Infrastructure (NASENI)-(hosts the secretariat)
• National Universities Commission (NUC)
• Nigerian Society of Engineers (NSE)
• Power Holding Company of Nigeria (PHCN)

It is worthy of mention that on Friday January 6, 2006, President Olusegun Obasanjo called an emergency meeting of governors of the frontline states of Adamawa, Akwa-Ibom, Cross River, Taraba, Benue, Kogi and ministers of Agriculture, Finance, Water Resources and Director General of NEMA, to discuss the threat of Lake Nyos to Nigeria. The President approved of the proactive precautionary measures within Nigeria which included the construction of a buffer dam.

The Federal Executive Council approved the award of the construction of the Kashimbilla Multipurpose Dam across Katsina Ala River at about 10 kilometer upstream of Kashimbilla village in Taraba State to Messrs SCC Nig Ltd on April 26, 2007 at a cost of N42,935,713,770.54 (Forty two billion, nine hundred and thirty five million, seven hundred and thirteen thousand, seven hundred and seventy naira, fifty four kobo)with the completion time of three years.

NEMA is in constant touch with the Federal Ministry of Water Resources which is handling the dam project and is convinced that everything possible is being done within the limited resources available to government to execute it.

The Kashimbilla/Gamovo Dam provides a classical example of the strong link between disaster management and national development. Apart from the main dam, the contract works include:

• Construction of water treatment plant
• Construction of a landing strip
• Construction of an access road
• Construction of a hydropower plant and development of irrigation network
• Rehabilitation of Kashimbilla to Jato-Aka Road.

The Agency, in collaboration with stakeholders has continually reviewed the state of preparedness to address major disasters including the threat of Lake Nyos and other challenges induced by the changing climatic and hydro-ecological factors.

Among the frontline states, Benue is the most exposed to the Lake Nyos disaster risk. Twelve local government areas are vulnerable. Gladly too, the state government has been very active in preparedness and mitigation planning. As a result of an independent study of the risks

and vulnerability of the people, the government has identified high ground communities, schools, places of worship, etc for rapid evacuation of the most-at-risk population in the event of the dam-break.

As part of NEMA’s regular efforts to prepare for and mitigate Lake Nyos disaster, a meeting of the frontline states is again scheduled to hold in August, 2009. This type of meeting and the frequent fact-finding visits of the technical committee of (NTCEP) to the frontline states, amongst others, ensure that the threat of Lake Nyos is constantly on the front burner.

It is pertinent to mention that in collaboration with our stakeholders, the Agency has, in September, 2008, put in place a Search and Rescue and Epidemic Evacuation Plan (SAREEP) for Nigeria. The plan covers flood and eight other disasters – aviation disasters within and outside the airports, maritime based disasters, fire disasters, collapsed building, road accidents, rail disaster, oil pipeline explosion and epidemic evacuation. The plan spells out the specific functions and responsibilities of different government agencies/organizations and NGOs during search and rescue operations. In the case of flood disaster the Fire Services and the Nigeria Security and Civil Defence Corps will lead the operation. The Police, medical services, Federal Road Safety Corps, private organizations like the Red Cross, the Disaster Reaction Units of the military have assigned roles in the emergency response.

With a good early warning system in place and given the projected arrival time of eight hours of the resultant flood from Lake Nyos dam-break at the Cameroon-Nigeria border, it is expected that our collective response plans would be adequate to avert a major calamity.

I observed that all of Adeola Aderounmu’s questions were directed to NEMA. This exposes a basic flaw in disaster management. All over the world, for strategic and tactical reasons, the first responders to a disaster – whether natural or human induced, no matter the gravity of such incident, are disaster managers in the locality. The simple reason is that since disaster happens suddenly and for most times without warning, disaster managers in the locality of the incident should deploy their services spontaneously to bring succor to the victims. This is what response and resilience are all about.

The Act establishing NEMA envisaged the existence of a State Emergency Management Committee (SEMA) in each state of the Federation, operating with some level of autonomy. Through a scheme initiated by NEMA to take disaster management to the grass-roots, the Agency is partnering with local government councils to train at least 200 volunteers in each local government in basic disaster management skills. Those trained and local council officials should constitute the first line of defence against disasters. While they provide this initial response, the State Emergency Management Committee may seek federal assistance from NEMA, which for logistical reasons may take some time to get to a remote scene of a disaster. 

I want to challenge concerned Nigerians like members of the NVS to sensitize their state and local governments to establish their disaster management outfits to compliment what NEMA is doing at the center for a more effective emergency service delivery in the country.

Believe me, dear villagers, the management of NEMA is determined and eager to put disaster management on a sound footing, for the sake of the distressed, and with your cooperation the task will be a lot easier.

I thank you all for believing in Nigeria and for proffering constructive criticisms that would ensure that government institutions at all levels discharge their mandates diligently and professionally to satisfy the yearning of the public. Thanking you for the interactive and educative platform.

AVM Mohammed AUDU-BIDA (rtd)

Director-General,

National Emergency Management Agency (NEMA)

www.nema.gov.ng

References

Before 70 000 Nigerians Perish Overnight..!By Adeola Aderounmu 

Re: Before 70 000 Nigerians Perish Overnight..! By Yushau Shuaib

Robot  # 1 | 09.08.2009 22:02

MITIGATING LAKE NYOS FLOOD THREAT By AVM Mohammed Audu-Bida (Rtd), DG NEMA Adeola Aderoumu’s article titled “Before 70,000 Nigerians Per....! published on the Nigeria Village Square(NVS) on July 15, 2009, with comments from NVS Villagers, raises some fundamental questions about emergency management in Nigeria, especially the state of preparedness for a possible catastrophe in the event of a break of the structurally weak volcanic Lake Nyos situated upstream along the Cameroon line of volcanic activity. ...Read the full article.

Odinaka  # 2 | 10.08.2009 03:00

Thank you AVM Mohammed AUDU-BIDA. This is exactly the first step to good management and governance- a leadership with a listening ear, and which is willing to engage the citizens in debates and mind rubbing. PS: Twenty years ago, many people did not imagine the sheer impact of the intent on humanity, it did not easily come to mind how the internet can change the way we do things, including gradually making conniving, lazy, corrupt and establishment journalists in traditional media institutions irrelevant, stripping them of their monopoly of channels of information dissemination. I predict that ten years from now, some of such journalists will be completely left behind.

akuluouno  # 3 | 10.08.2009 04:03

Sir, Let me also join other villagers in wishing you and your agency luck in the pursuit of your noble assignments. Nyos is indeed a good example of trnasnational disaster lurking in the corner and there is nothing much anyone can do except to persuade the Cameroonians to cooperate in tackling the challenge while urging Nigerians in the affected zones to be prepared with NEMA leading from the front within the limits of available government resources. Regards.

quietswami  # 4 | 10.08.2009 09:25

@AVM Mohammed Audu-Bida (Rtd), DG NEMA As intoned by some respondents, this is a particularly refreshing and encouraging engagement – worthwhile and hopefully enduring. Such engagements and interaction help to remove scepticism, cynicism, and charges of incompetence, as well as the productive process of educating and informing the populace at large. An earlier response by Yashau Shuaib cast some doubt on the authority of the reply given the disclaimer that it was personal and not an official response of the Agency. Given your position as Director General, I would presume your response is official and has the authority to respond and act on behalf of NEMA. Your piece is informing and helps to put the situation into perspective, and of course instigate further enquiries to help improve on the nature of the interaction on this subject matter. To this I have a number of questions as highlighted below. What are the planned actions to test or ensure that proposed projects, plans, measures, infrastructure... are fit for purpose? Crucially, what level of independent and objective expertise or specialist is being engaged to provide assurance on quality and acceptable standards of all identified deliverables? What level of co-ordination is in place or has been established with surrounding states in case of possible evacuation? What awareness level has been achieved so far or being planned to ensure full mobilisation can be achieved in the event of the disaster? What communication strategy is being deployed for this particular instance to ensure that the most prominent stakeholders ie citizens, are duly apprised of delivery schedules, progress being achieved, completion status..etc? Understand the challenge posed by the DG for villager to confront varying State Governments but this is disturbing in its import. If NEMA is a statutory organisation established by an Act, should the co-ordination and mandate to ensure that SEMAs are set up for all states be part of such remit? Does NEMA have the appropriate level of authority or clout to co-ordinate and deliver? Who/Where does the buck stop? Should the standards of SEMAs not meet required acceptable standards as set by NEMA? Should NEMA not be responsible for the top-to-bottom co-ordination and strategic planning of all involved - SEMAs and varying inter-governmental agencies? How would NEMA provide assurance that it can fulfil its obligations if it does not have oversight of activities down to the grass root levels? How effective and efficient can a Command Centre be if it has no corroboration of the deployment of its units in the field? As was posed to Yashau Shuaib, some outstanding queries would relate to: Timing - how long the agency has been aware of the problem? Estimated time for actual impact? Estimated final target completion date for reconstructive measures? Planned milestones in the interim? Projects - What projects have been commissioned? What are their specific mandates, or deliverables? What projects are being planned or scheduled? Costs - What is the overall projected costs? How much funding has been secured? Source of funding? Projected rate of spend vs milestones achieved? Deployment - Committed resources - Human and materials? Which organisations are involved or mandated? Who are the leads? Which specialised or expert agencies - international or otherwise - are involved to provide objective assessment of suitability of preventative measures being undertaken? What specific efforts have been put in place to raise awareness and mobilise the affected populace? What specific measures have been completed to date with facts and figures as above? Do appreciate that the vast amount of questions may drive one to distraction and may suggest a FAQ to compile such and many others to be raised with targeted responses at regular intervals. Equally, perhaps a dedicated link on the NEMA website with pictures and video reports of progress for those not in immediate areas monitor and update our awareness. Once again, I sincerely commend you for your diligence and sense of accountability – in such action alone you have earned some level of recognition. Hoping this action is not a token gesture but the start of a worthwhile engagement with the citizenry. In line with your observations, I commend all that have been involved thus far especially the original instigator, Adeola Aderounmu, who raised this awareness, and the level of maturity and comportment that as been displayed thus far! Long may it continue! To fellow villagers - this instance only goes to show the true potential of the village! A rose by any other name - we don't have to call it a movement but some vision and ideals are in motion - we can only but sustain the momentum - concepts and terms for its description can be the remit of others! Hope lives!

denker  # 5 | 10.08.2009 11:12

=quietswami;379866>@AVM Mohammed Audu-Bida (Rtd), DG NEMA As intoned by some respondents, this is a particularly refreshing and encouraging engagement – worthwhile and hopefully enduring. Such engagements and interaction help to remove scepticism, cynicism, and charges of incompetence, as well as the productive process of educating and informing the populace at large. An earlier response by Yashau Shuaib cast some doubt on the authority of the reply given the disclaimer that it was personal and not an official response of the Agency. Given your position as Director General, I would presume your response is official and has the authority to respond and act on behalf of NEMA. Your piece is informing and helps to put the situation into perspective, and of course instigate further enquiries to help improve on the nature of the interaction on this subject matter. To this I have a number of questions as highlighted below. What are the planned actions to test or ensure that proposed projects, plans, measures, infrastructure... are fit for purpose? Crucially, what level of independent and objective expertise or specialist is being engaged to provide assurance on quality and acceptable standards of all identified deliverables? What level of co-ordination is in place or has been established with surrounding states in case of possible evacuation? What awareness level has been achieved so far or being planned to ensure full mobilisation can be achieved in the event of the disaster? What communication strategy is being deployed for this particular instance to ensure that the most prominent stakeholders ie citizens, are duly apprised of delivery schedules, progress being achieved, completion status..etc? Understand the challenge posed by the DG for villager to confront varying State Governments but this is disturbing in its import. If NEMA is a statutory organisation established by an Act, should the co-ordination and mandate to ensure that SEMAs are set up for all states be part of such remit? Does NEMA have the appropriate level of authority or clout to co-ordinate and deliver? Who/Where does the buck stop? Should the standards of SEMAs not meet required acceptable standards as set by NEMA? Should NEMA not be responsible for the top-to-bottom co-ordination and strategic planning of all involved - SEMAs and varying inter-governmental agencies? How would NEMA provide assurance that it can fulfil its obligations if it does not have oversight of activities down to the grass root levels? How effective and efficient can a Command Centre be if it has no corroboration of the deployment of its units in the field? As was posed to Yashau Shuaib, some outstanding queries would relate to: Timing - how long the agency has been aware of the problem? Estimated time for actual impact? Estimated final target completion date for reconstructive measures? Planned milestones in the interim? Projects - What projects have been commissioned? What are their specific mandates, or deliverables? What projects are being planned or scheduled? Costs - What is the overall projected costs? How much funding has been secured? Source of funding? Projected rate of spend vs milestones achieved? Deployment - Committed resources - Human and materials? Which organisations are involved or mandated? Who are the leads? Which specialised or expert agencies - international or otherwise - are involved to provide objective assessment of suitability of preventative measures being undertaken? What specific efforts have been put in place to raise awareness and mobilise the affected populace? What specific measures have been completed to date with facts and figures as above? Do appreciate that the vast amount of questions may drive one to distraction and may suggest a FAQ to compile such and many others to be raised with targeted responses at regular intervals. Equally, perhaps a dedicated link on the NEMA website with pictures and video reports of progress for those not in immediate areas monitor and update our awareness. Once again, I sincerely commend you for your diligence and sense of accountability – in such action alone you have earned some level of recognition. Hoping this action is not a token gesture but the start of a worthwhile engagement with the citizenry. In line with your observations, I commend all that have been involved thus far especially the original instigator, Adeola Aderounmu, who raised this awareness, and the level of maturity and comportment that as been displayed thus far! Long may it continue! To fellow villagers - this instance only goes to show the true potential of the village! A rose by any other name - we don't have to call it a movement but some vision and ideals are in motion - we can only but sustain the momentum - concepts and terms for its description can be the remit of others! Hope lives! ..well done!

yashuaib1  # 6 | 10.08.2009 20:03

Quitswami, Nigerdelta and other Villagers, Sometimes, for those of us in PR practice we fear some information divulge to the public may likely be misinterpreted in some quarters (negatively). As much as NEMA was able to inform and adequately alert relevant authorities on their responsibilities, because our (NEMA's) manadates have some constraints, we are not directly involved in project execution but provide advisory roles. NEMA has limitation on enforcement even the response agencies we cordinate, but we appeal to them to do the right things at the right time. Before I give you a brief to satisfy your questions, you may be aware that:  NEMA was in the Warri Creek during the last crisis to protect and provide reliefs to displaced persons?  NEMA in the last two weeks was shuttling between Bauchi and Borno over Boko Haram Crisis to assist the displaced and has been meeting with stakeholders on how to secure lives and properties and visiting religious and community leaders on religious tolerance, peaceful coexistence and unity in diversity  Presently, like in the past NEMA engages in advocacy visit and organises sensitization forums to warn against disasters, natural and human-induced  It establishes 3 groups of Volunteers, Grassroots Volunteers, Emergency Youth Vanguards and Executive Management vanguard to mobilize well-trained resources/persons that are willing to render supports freely during emergency/disasters.  The new thinking in NEMA is not in providing relief materials but in ensuring that disaster risk reduction is about preventing the occurrence of man-made disasters while managing natural disasters from devastating human casualties The information below may assist you as NEMA is appealing to those concerned to ensure the success of Lake Nyos Projects. INTRODUCTION  The Kashimbilla/Gamovo Buffer Dam and Associated Structure in Taraba State is a multipurpose dam, but principally intended to check the threat of the flood from the imminent break of the structurally weak volcanic Lake Nyos, situated upstream along the Cameroun line of volcanic activity;  On the night of 21st August 1986, a series of rumbling sound reverberated from the depths of the lake, with white clouds of gas rising and large volume of water surging out of the lake washing off its shores. By the time the cloud cleared off, about 1700 people, 4000 herds of cattle, 330 sheep and thousands of other livestock had died in the villages of Cham, Nyos and Subum just downstream of the lake.  Since then, there have been some international intervention and supportive efforts to the Cameroonian Government to degas the lake.  Of immense threat to Nigeria is the structural instability of the lake arising from the constant erosion ((90cm/year) of the embankment and the increasing build-up of carbon dioxide gas from beneath the lake. STATUS The environment is very active, as seen from soda springs scattered all over the region;  Since the event of 1986, the gas in Lake Nyos has built up to 600,000 tons, only half of which is extractable;  The current annual gas recharge into the bottom of the lake from below is 5,000 tons. THREAT  Threat to Nigeria is physical and structural due to the instability of the lake body.  The Lake is seated on the pyroclastic rock which is weathering away at its base at the rate of about 1m annually. This threatens the stability of the Lake;  The imminent collapse of the Lake will send over 30million cubic meter (mcm) of water into Katsina Ala River in Nigeria all the way down to the Niger Delta through the Benue and Niger River systems. EFFECTS OF DAM BREAK  The wave from the dam break will arrive Nigeria Territory within 8 hours with a height of about 4m;  Over 30000 people will be displaced and thousands of livestock and hectares of land will be destroyed. ACTION TAKEN SO FAR  United Nation Environment Program (UNEP) and Nations Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) commissioned a study on Lake Nyos in September, 2005.  It was assessed that Nyos is likely to break within 5-10 years as at time of assessment.  On Friday 6, January 2006, President Obasanjo called an emergency meeting of Governors of Adamawa , Akwa-Ibom, Cross River, Taraba, Benue, Kogi and Ministers of Agric, Finance, Water Resource and DG NEMA;  The President mentioned that it is important for Government to always prevent anticipated natural disaster through proactive precautionary measures within the Nigeria Territory and therefore approved the line action proposed by Federal Ministry of Water Resources (FMWR), i.e. to construct a buffer dam.  On 25th January 2006, the Presidency approved that FMWR should undertake the study and design of structure as a matter of urgency.  Advertisement for Feasibility Studies, Engineering Design and Construction Supervision was placed in the Federal Tenders Journal on Monday 20th – Sunday, 5th March 2006; Tender documents were prepared.  On 26th April 2007, EC approved the award of the construction contract to Messrs. SCC Nig. Ltd. THE PROJECT COMPONENT AND COST Phase I: a) General provision - N 1,321,032,200.00 b) Dam and Associated Structures- N 14,322,361,305.77 c) Irrigation Development Plan- N 10,901,648,722.68 Sub Total = N 26,545,042,228.35 Add 10% Physical Contingencies - N 2,654,504,222.84 Add 5% VAT - N 1,327,252,111.42 Sub Total = N 30,526,798,562.61 Phase II: Construction of water supply Scheme N 10,000,000,000.00 Add 5% VAT- N 500,000,000.00 Sub Total = N 10,500,000,000.00 APPROPRIATION  Appropriation 2007 -N 900 million  Amount paid as part mobilization advance -N 900 million  Balance in 2007 Appropriation -N 0.00 million  Appropriation ,2008 - ? The Ministry did not include this project in its 2008 budget because it was envisioned that it would be funded from ecological funds. However, The National Assembly made a proposal of about 4 billion Naira for it because it was appropriated for and signed into law in 2007 budget. Work is currently ongoing. RECOMMENDATIONS It is recommended that (A)- The project be implemented as a matter of urgency but in phases as follows: ( i) Construction of dam and associated work including Hydropower station and irrigation- phase I (ii) Construction of Water Supply Scheme- phase II (B)- The funding for the project be done from the ecological funds or National Resources Funds. (C)- The phase II of the project could be implemented as and when the Government desires. Please mandates of NEMA is on www.nema.gov.ng. You may also go to Press Release Page on the website to see our interventions. YAShuaib, Head PR NEMA Abuja

quietswami  # 7 | 11.08.2009 10:22

@ Y Shuaib, Appreciate your diligence and conscientious stance in responding and providing feedback on the varying queries cast at you. As you will realise the intent here is not to hound or stalk you in any way on this particular issue -such actions are done more out concern that all take the right actions to prevent a possible disaster while we can! As you have appended this message as the Head of PR, I will assume this feedback is in an official capacity. I will not attempt to undermine the efforts of NEMA in any way - in the best of condition or times, a complex and intricate endeavour to undertake. Perhaps the more reason for the level of concern shown by all so far. As you would appreciate any information provided will be contextual and relative - therefore virtually impossible to interprete in terms of relevance, effectiveness, or accuracy. This said, will no doubt review the information provided in detail and hopefully be able to revert back to you with specific questions and hopefully you will be as accommodating to provide answers. However, a pertinent set of questions I would like some response to will have a generalised undertone. In your official opinion, given the possible scope and scale of the potential disaster, is NEMA doing everything it is able to do, should do, and can do, to prevent or reduce the impact and impart of the disaster? Are all actions, projects, plans, infrastructure... in place or being put in place in the official stance fit for purpose, able to cope with the size and scope of the disaster? In its current set-up, is NEMA the appropriate organisation to deal, and does NEMA have the necessary mandate, organisation, resources, wherewithal, expertise to take the right course of action? What are the outstanding areas or aspect of the plans that are beyond the scope or remit of NEMA that require further attention? Who or which other agency has the responsibilty for such areas? Who is ultimately responsible for the success or failure in preventing or reducing the impact of the disaster? In the feedback provided by the DG, he requested that pressure should be brought to bear on the State Governments to ensure SEMAs are in place to effectively liaise with NEMA. How is NEMA organised? Are SEMAs accountable to NEMA or to the State Governments - in terms of funding, planning...? Lastly as a PR action, would it be possible to dedicate a website to this particular disaster as a useful avenue to inform, educate, update on all relevant features of the disaster to provide the necessary assurance? 40 Million lives is a sobering number for anyone, saving 50% is not adequate neither is 99.999%! We have been duly warned and we should be adequately prepared to ensure that not 1 life is lost should disaster occur! I chose not to leave such to divine intervention and I hope this is the stance of NEMA or any other relating agencies responsible and accountable for all the lives at risk! Thank you for your continued indulgence of our interaction, and look forward to your response.

yashuaib1  # 8 | 11.08.2009 11:24

Quietswami, Let me respond to the questions as below: QUE:In your official opinion, given the possible scope and scale of the potential disaster, is NEMA doing everything it is able to do, should do, and can do, to prevent or reduce the impact and impart of the disaster? ANS: Yes we are doing our best: sensitization on the danger, colloboration with stakeholders, and putting pressure on other agencies QUE:Are all actions, projects, plans, infrastructure... in place or being put in place in the official stance fit for purpose, able to cope with the size and scope of the disaster? ANS:Yes as I listed in the last thread. QUE:In its current set-up, is NEMA the appropriate organisation to deal, and does NEMA have the necessary mandate, organisation, resources, wherewithal, expertise to take the right course of action? ANS: NEMA is a cordinating agency against disaster in Nigeria. Yes our mandates are clearly defined. Please visit our website www.nema.gov.ng QUE:What are the outstanding areas or aspect of the plans that are beyond the scope or remit of NEMA that require further attention? Who or which other agency has the responsibilty for such areas? ANS: I mentioned the other agencies responsible for the project. Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Water Resources is responsible for the construction and execution of the project. QUE: Who is ultimately responsible for the success or failure in preventing or reducing the impact of the disaster? ANS: All response agencies including the states. QUE: In the feedback provided by the DG, he requested that pressure should be brought to bear on the State Governments to ensure SEMAs are in place to effectively liaise with NEMA. How is NEMA organised? Are SEMAs accountable to NEMA or to the State Governments - in terms of funding, planning...? ANS: SEMAs are responsible to their state government but when they are overwhelm by the scope of crisis, NEMA sets in. QUE:Lastly as a PR action, would it be possible to dedicate a website to this particular disaster as a useful avenue to inform, educate, update on all relevant features of the disaster to provide the necessary assurance? ANS: It is an encouraging suggestion. We may work on the possibility for a dedicated website or in the alternative create a page dedicated on the existing NEMA's web. We are liasing with relevant stakeholders to ensure human lives and even livestocks are protected from any eventuality. Tanx. YAShuaib Head PR, NEMA

quietswami  # 9 | 11.08.2009 12:35

@Y Shuaib, Just to mention that you have met my expectation of a public official willing to engage and interact the public in the fulfilment of their public service -both as a public official and a villager! Appreciate your feedback, and have responded below, more for clarification than inordinately tasking your time. =yashuaib1;380182>QUE:In your official opinion, given the possible scope and scale of the potential disaster, is NEMA doing everything it is able to do, should do, and can do, to prevent or reduce the impact and impart of the disaster? ANS: Yes we are doing our best: sensitization on the danger, colloboration with stakeholders, and putting pressure on other agencies Not intended as a sarcastic remark, I presume by your “best” - best implies exhausting available resources within the limited scope of NEMA or “best” to do all that will be required to avert the disaster by asking the Federal Government for more resources as required? Subtle difference in implication but of great import where lives are concerned. By Stakeholders I presume varying community organisations must be involved in the planning, plans, sign-offs etc. What is the level of involvement of these organisations? Are they active participants? In your opinion, do they appreciate the enormity and import of the situation? Can you advise how many of such are involved? And possibly identify them? =yashuaib1;380182>QUE:In its current set-up, is NEMA the appropriate organisation to deal, and does NEMA have the necessary mandate, organisation, resources, wherewithal, expertise to take the right course of action? ANS: NEMA is a cordinating agency against disaster in Nigeria. Yes our mandates are clearly defined. Please visit our website www.nema.gov.ng Is the mandate enough for all that is required? Does NEMA require additional powers to be more effective in the execution of its duties? =yashuaib1;380182>QUE:What are the outstanding areas or aspect of the plans that are beyond the scope or remit of NEMA that require further attention? Who or which other agency has the responsibilty for such areas? ANS: I mentioned the other agencies responsible for the project. Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Water Resources is responsible for the construction and execution of the project. Which organisation has the final responsibility for sign-off on deliverables? I presume NEMA provides the necessary assurance on quality and fit for purpose? =yashuaib1;380182>QUE: Who is ultimately responsible for the success or failure in preventing or reducing the impact of the disaster? ANS: All response agencies including the states. Recognising that everybody cannot be responsible for everything - despite the matrix nature of the organisation - however, are there distinct areas of responsibilities within the overall programme to ensure nothing falls between the gaps? Is it possible that NEMA has this responsibility but this is not being made explicit? Does the Act need to be revised to ensure that this is the case? =yashuaib1;380182>QUE: In the feedback provided by the DG, he requested that pressure should be brought to bear on the State Governments to ensure SEMAs are in place to effectively liaise with NEMA. How is NEMA organised? Are SEMAs accountable to NEMA or to the State Governments - in terms of funding, planning...? ANS: SEMAs are responsible to their state government but when they are overwhelm by the scope of crisis, NEMA sets in. Are SEMAs solely funded by State Governments? Is there a percentage contribution from NEMA? How are conflict of interest between NEMA and SEMAs and State Government resolved? Who has the final say? Do SEMAs have to comply with any NEMA initiated standardised requirements, process, plans etc? =yashuaib1;380182>QUE:Lastly as a PR action, would it be possible to dedicate a website to this particular disaster as a useful avenue to inform, educate, update on all relevant features of the disaster to provide the necessary assurance? ANS: It is an encouraging suggestion. We may work on the possibility for a dedicated website or in the alternative create a page dedicated on the existing NEMA's web. Thank you for taking this on board, it will be very much appreciated – and as a villager perhaps provide a link for the village! =yashuaib1;380182>We are liasing with relevant stakeholders to ensure human lives and even livestocks are protected from any eventuality. Are there any plans for test trials or trial runs to ensure levels of preparedness, and effectiveness of plans? How would you assess the level of awareness so far? What awareness campaigns have been run so far, and are being planned? What is the evisaged period being targeted as the "danger-over" period? What is the current categorisation of this disaster? What would it be after 95% completion of all actions being undertaken? When? Finally, not to be one-sided, how can the village and villagers help to advance your cause as stakeholders? Once again thank you for your attention and assistance – you are indeed relating to the public!

Chidi Anyaeche  # 10 | 12.08.2009 06:58

I must say that I am very very impressed by NEMA's DG prompt reponse to Adeola's article. Not only was the response prompt but detailed and with answers to Adeola's questions. Very few Nigerian government agency (if any) will offer any response, if faced with similar position as NEMA and in this case on an article posted on the web. Well done DG. Please remain steadfast and do not be distracted in your job for you are on the right track. Just wish there are more people like you in authority especially that damn Aso Rock. Remain blessed Odenigbo Chidi Anyaeche London UK