The Concept, Principle, Law and Developmental Practice of Environmental Democracy towards Sustainable Development in Resources-rich Communities of Developing Countries: Focus on Nigeria’s Oil Producing Delta Region

This study explains that environmental democracy is an aspect of Public Participation (PP), of which community participation is also an aspect. On this note, the study examines PP, simply known as ‘participation’, as a concept, principle, as well as a developmental practice, backed by law, in countries around the globe. It demonstrates that PP, particularly, environmental democracy, generates good, sound and long-lasting decisions. It establishes that such decisions protect public interest, enhance social equity, improve the quality of the environment, and promote environmental justice, good environmental governance (GEG), overall good public sector governance (GG) as well as sustainable development (SD), in the course of major natural resources (MNRs) extractive industrial operations (EIOs). EIOs, such as oil and gas, and other mining and mineral resources EIOs in resources-rich communities of developing countries, are exemplified by petroleum resources development operations (PRDOs) in the oil-rich Niger Delta region. Distinguished by its dominant PRDOs, the study features Nigeria as a typical example of a developing country plagued by the resource curse, and that the country is far from achieving SD, particularly sustainable petroleum resources development operations (SPRDOs) and sustainable community development (SCD) in its oil-rich Delta region. The study establishes that genuine environmental democracy, which is globally acknowledged and widely accepted, is that which is stipulated in Principle 10 of Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, 1992, elaborated in the Aarhus Convention, 1998, cemented in the UN Brisbane Declaration on Community Engagement, 2005, and being profoundly canvassed by the International Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA: the leading global network on environmental democracy in the realm of Impact Assessment [IA]) and the International Association for Public Participation (IAP2: the worldwide organisation exceptionally advancing and extending the practice of PP). The study recommends that the worldwide landmark degree of environmental democracy, which is regarded as genuine, should be practised in Nigeria to promote SPRDOs and SCD in the oil-rich communities of the Delta region, as well as stimulate greater human wellbeing, and environmentally-sound, ecologically-centred and socio-economically equitable SD in the country, towards the wellbeing of overall nature within the Planet Earth. Keywords: Environmental Democracy, Public Participation (PP), Public Involvement Participation (PI), Community Involvement (CI), Major Natural Resources (MNRs) Extractive Industrial Operations (EIOs), Resource Curse, Sustainable Petroleum Resources Development Operations (SPRDOs), Sustainable Community Development (SCD), Good Environmental Governance (GEG) and Good Public Sector Governance (Good Governance [GG]). DOI: 10.7176/JLPG/94-07 Publication date: February 29 th 2020


Introduction
It is important to state from onset that based on ethnic colouration and configuration of Nigeria and the analytical context of this study, the Niger Delta region, is considered in both narrow and broad perspectives. The narrow perspective presents the ethnographic, historic, geographic and ethnic minority Delta region, while the broad perspective presents the artificial and politically diluted oil producing Niger Delta region (which was created by the Niger Delta Development Commission [NDDC] Act). 1 The former perspective shows the true ethnic minority Delta region of Nigeria, which is made up of the six states of the country (within Nigeria's South-South geopolitical zone) namely Rivers, Delta, Bayelsa, Akwa-Ibom, Edo and Cross-River states (including the oilproducing areas of Ondo state). Conversely, the latter perspective covers the artificial and politically diluted oil producing Niger Delta region, which is made up of the entire nine oil producing states of Nigeria, namely the 1 The International Association of Public Participation (IAP2), 'IAP2 Spectrum of Public Participation' <https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.iap2.org/resource/resmgr/pillars/Spectrum_8.5x11_Print.pdf> Accessed 7 February, 2020. 2 D. Warburton (ed), Community and Sustainable Development: Participation in the Future (Routledge 2016); E. T. Bristol-Alagbariya (2010 [n2]). 3 The IAP2, 'Three Pillars of Effective Participation' <https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.iap2.org/resource/resmgr/Communications/A3_P2_Pillars_brochure.pdf> Accessed 7 February, 2020. by developmental proposals, and thus are concerned and/or interested in such proposals, which have the potential to impact negatively on the environment and the human wellbeing, to participate (otherwise put, be engaged) in the decision-making process of such proposals, so as to promote and achieve SD in the course of the proposals. In the process, various variants, methods and models or techniques such as toolkits, 1 of PP, particularly environmental democracy, are being designed and improved upon, in order to enhance the efficacy of the engagement of citizens and citizen-groups within the context and frameworks of PPPs as well as laws, regulations and regulatory practices, which are designed and administered to promote SD, 2 towards achieving ecoenvironmentally-sound and socially-equitable SD. 3 Consequently, Principle 10 of Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, 1992, as elaborated in the Aarhus Convention, 1998, on PP, features as the global formal expression and landmark stipulation of the increasing public awareness of and the prevailing nature of environmental democracy being championed by the UN, to promote SD, in the interest of humanity, overall nature and the entire global community on Planet Earth.

Environmental Democracy Stipulated in Principle 10 of Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, 1992
The Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, often shortened to Rio Declaration (namely a series of principles defining the rights and responsibilities of global states on issues of the environment and development), is a precise document produced at the 1992 UN 'Conference on Environment and Development' (UNCED), also known as the 'Earth Summit', held at Rio de Janeiro, from 3 -14 June, 1992. This Declaration is one of the three major agreements designed to guide future approaches of the global community towards SD and one of the five outcome documents of the UN Rio de Janeiro Earth Summit, which was convened to reconcile worldwide economic development and environmental protection. The rest of the three major agreements are the UN Agenda 21 and the Statement of Forest Principles. The rest of the outcome documents and legally binding instruments of the UN Rio de Janeiro Earth Summit are the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Convention on Biological Diversity. 4 Principle 10 of Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, 1992, provides thus: Environmental issues are best handled with the participation of all concerned citizens, at the relevant level. At the national level, each individual shall have appropriate access to information concerning the environment that is held by public authorities, including information on hazardous materials and activities in their communities, and the opportunity to participate in decision-making processes. States shall facilitate and encourage public awareness and participation by making information widely available. Effective access to judicial and administrative proceedings, including redress and remedy, shall be provided. 5 The above-stated Principle constitutes benchmarked international stipulations on environmental democracy around the globe. This Principle features as the global landmark soft law instrument on environmental democracy, based on which environmental democracy further advanced in the developed countries that have well-established land-use planning procedures. Accordingly, the same Principle provides necessary and significant background for environmental democracy to systematically evolve and sustainably develop in developing and least developed countries that never had relatively well-established land-use planning procedures as their advanced counterparts, specifically concerning issues of the environment and development, such as formal Environmental Assessment  Accessed 7 February, 2020. generated better decisions, as well as delivered sustainable economic, environmental, social and cultural benefits. Accordingly, they recognised that effective community engagement enabled the free and full development of the potentials of humans and fostered human relations on the basis of mutual understanding, trust and respect, as well as facilitated the sharing of responsibilities, and created more inclusive and sustainable communities. The delegates and attendees of the Brisbane Conference endorsed the core principles of integrity, inclusion, deliberation and influence in community engagement. They appreciated their host Queensland Government, and requested the UN to build on the success and legacies of the conference, so as to assist countries and communities around the globe to foster effective community engagement practices and to support research and development and information dissemination on community engagement around the world. 1 From the foregoing, the UN Brisbane Conference on Community Engagement, 2005, and the Declaration made therein may be described as consolidating citizens' engagement. The conference and declaration consider community engagement as an aspect of citizens' engagement or PP, towards good, responsible, transparent and accountable governance in global states and thus good environmental governance (GEG) as well as improved and/or efficient environmental democracy, environmental justice and social equity associated with developmental PPPs, particularly EIOs, taking place in local communities and societies around the globe, especially resourcesrich developing countries.

Environmental Democracy in the Context and Framework of the International Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA)
The International Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA), organised in 1980 to bring together researchers, practitioners and users of various types of Impact Assessment (IA) from all parts of the world, is the leading global network on best practice in the use of IA for informed decision-making regarding PPPs. 2 The IAIA is an organisation with a voluntary membership of professionals from a diverse array of interests and organisations, all of whom are concerned with environmental stewardship and sustainability, so as to protect and not harm the environment, variety of peoples and other resources of nature on Planet Earth. 3 Its membership, numbering over 1700 from over 120 countries, represents many disciplines and professions. The vision of the IAIA is to use IA for informed decision-making regarding PPPs around the globe. Its mission is to provide a world-wide forum for advancing innovation and communication of best practice in all forms of IA, in order to further the development and advancement of national, regional and global capacity in IA. 4 Consequently, IAIA and its array of members and chapters around the globe, operate on the conviction and belief that IA is a tool for high environmental quality and social equity, towards achieving or realising environmentally sound and socially equitable sustainable development. IAIA and its globalised chapters and members embark on IA activities in the spirit and professionally guided operational standard and practice that IA is a practical tool for helping to meet contemporary needs of humanity, without compromising the ability and opportunities of future generations of humanity to meet their own needs. On this note, in its specialised and distinctive framework, as governed by its core values, IAIA promotes the application of integrated and participatory approaches, strategies and techniques to IA conducted to achieve highest professional quality and standard. Therefore, IAIA and its global community of IA chapters, affiliates and practitioners concern themselves about the policies, priorities, practices and challenges shaping impact assessment in countries, to contribute in a sound and meaningful manner in IA professionalism, ongoing processes as well as towards the continuous advancement and future directions of the IA process and practice around the globe. 5 From the foregoing, IAIA may be described as an organisation that promotes PP in the rubrics of environmental democracy, associated with environmental assessment (EA) and generic IA of developmental PPPs, towards promoting and actualising SD, especially environmentally sound and socially equitable SD in local communities, countries and regions around the globe.

Public Participation in Decision-Making in the Context and Framework of the International Association for Public Participation (IAP2)
The International Association for Public Participation (IAP2), is a worldwide association and global leader in PP. The association is comprised of people, who are engaged in the philosophy and practice of PP, towards making and implementing decisions that affect members of the public, so as to achieve good decisions and GG, as well as promote and safeguard public interest, while advancing the profession and practice of PP. 6 In the ongoing and ever increasing era of globalisation, when citizens are being empowered by their own governments to take part in decision-making processes so as to impact on the state, their wellbeing and the wellbeing of their future generations, Journal of Law, Policy and Globalization www.iiste.org ISSN 2224-3240 (Paper) ISSN 2224-3259 (Online) Vol.94, 2020 homelands, communities, cities, countries and the world at large, the IAP2 is advancing the profession and practice. 1 The association promotes PP in relation to individuals, governments, institutions and other entities that affect public interest in countries around the world. Through its members, the IAP2 develops practical tools of good practices on PP, to help businesses, communities, governments, and other institutional or organisational entities around the world to improve their decisions, by involving those affected by such decisions. By and large, the IAP2 promotes the fact that citizens' involvement (PI) in decision-making is not merely an attribute of democracy but also an essential ingredient of GG based on the transparency and accountability of governments to the governed. 2 The mission of the IAP2 is to advance and extend the practice of PP through professional development, certification, standards of practice and indicators of effectiveness such as its code of ethics, core values and spectrum of participation, 3 as well as by virture of its dynamic and goal-oriented form of advocacy, key initiatives and various forms of activities being held in association with strategic PP-oriented organisations and partners around the globe. 4 The initial mission of the association includes convening annual conferences and promoting core values and best standards and practices associated with PP in government and industry decisions which affect the public. 5 The IAP2, whose international headquarters is at Denver, Colorado, USA, was established in 1990, as a nonprofit corporation, in response to the rising global need for and interest in PP. 6 It was founded as the International Association of PP Practitioners (IAP3), consequent upon which its founding members assembled a Board of Directors, developed its by-laws and policies and organised its first annual conference in Portland, Oregon, USA, in 1992. Thereafter, the association changed its name to IAP2, to reflect the growing diversity and inclusiveness of its world-wide membership. Its membership grew from about 300 in 1992, to over 1,050 in 2007, spreading over 26 countries. Accordingly, the IAP2's regions were formed in 2010, in order to better meet its needs and the realities of its calling as a worldwide PP organisation. 7 These regions are now seven, namely Australia (covering Australia and New Zealand), Canada, Indonesia, Italy, Latin America (covering Central America, South America and the Caribbean), Southern Africa (covering Angola, Botswana, Lesotho, Madagascar, Malawi, Mauritius, Mozambique, Namibia, South Africa, Swaziland, Zambia and Zimbabwe) and the USA. 8 The association is indeed consistently growing and entrenching itself as a global leader in its dedicated and specialised field of PP. 9 The IAP2, organised around its executive director, a high-calibre board of directors, a strong international headquarters, special committees, several professional sectors, regions and country-wide chapters and the rest of its members from non-chapter countries, conducts its activities to achieve the following objectives: (a) Boost professional development of people working on PP; (b) Educate decision-makers about the value of PP; (c) Help the public play effective roles in PP processes; and (d) Continue to define, review and enhance benchmarked interntional stadards and practices on PP. 10 The existence of the IAP2 is thus directly or indirectly influencing the course of citizens' participation in decsion-making process and the implementation of PPPs affecting the wellbeing of citizens and society at large. Nations of the world, especially developing countreis, are therefore being influenced by the IAP2 to imbibe the doctrine and practice of greater inclusiveness in decision-making processes, rather than excluding their citizens from decision-making processes, so as to promote good decisions and GG, in the global march towards SD. 11 The IAP2 may thus be described as a global leader in PP, whose wide spectrum of members and associates deal with generic PP, which is broader than environmental democracy that is limited to PP in environmental matters, so as to promote good decisions, generic public interest and GG around the world, in the ongoing march of the entire global community towards SD.

Resources-rich Developing Countries and Environmental Democracy
Resources-rich developing countries are countries which are richly endowed with MNRs, namely oil and gas and other mining and mineral resources EIOs, from which wealth is derived by governments of such countries to 1 1 However, in spite of the enormous wealth accruing to the governments of resources-rich developing countries, from the exploitation and extraction, otherwise put development, of their abundant MNRs, these countries are characteristically plagued by the resource curse, which demonstrates failure of resources-rich developing countries to fully benefit from their abundant MNRs, as well as failure of governments of these countries to effectively respond to the needs of the citizenry in the respective countries. The resource curse is called the Dutch disease, resource-trap, the paradox of plenty. 2 It is called the Dutch disease because it is a situation which occurred in the Netherlands, when abundant gas resources were discovered therein, whereby it refers to any country that discovers natural resources in abundance but got trapped by the paradox of such enormous resources. 3 The phrase or term 'resource curse', said to have been first coined by a British economist, Richard M. , is more often considered as describing the phenomenon of how and when a poor country discovers abundant MNRs and thus derives enormous wealth from the extraction of the resources, but develops more slowly than countries that are not so endowed with MNRs, due to the mismanagement of the enormous wealth accruing to it by its bad and often authoritarian government. In the process, the resources-rich country generates many negative consequences (arising from the mismanagement of enormous wealth), which characterises it in relation to the irony of its fate. 4 Such paradoxical characteristic consequences or features of the resource curse include poverty in the midst of plenty, environmental degradation, devastation of ecology and ecosystem as well as despoliation of ecosystem services, abuse of human rights, particularly violations of environmental rights, and violent conflicts, crises and civil wars, which are associated with EIOs of MNRs in resources-rich developing countries. 5 Usually also, environmental democracy is characteristically weak in resources-rich developing countries. Governments of resources-rich developing countries are also not able to perform their social responsibilities, based on the social contract between the institution of government and the governed. As such, key government officials and functionaries of resources-rich developing countries are known to mismanage, misappropriate and primitively accumulate the enormous wealth accruing to their countries from EIOs of MNRs, which wealth should otherwise be utilised for overall public good, namely the all-encompassing benefit and wellbeing of their citizens and all-embracing development and prosperity of their countries. These negative characteristic consequences or features of the resource curse are associated with developing countries, which are abundantly endowed with MNRs, where there are cases such as blood petroleum (oil and gas) resources (as in the crystal-clear case of Nigeria) 6 and blood diamonds (as evident in the case of Sierra Leone), 7 among such other www.iiste.org ISSN 2224-3240 (Paper) ISSN 2224-3259 (Online) Vol.94, 2020 negative characteristic features and consequences of the mismanagement of the enormous wealth accruing from the rich MNRs of a country. It is also important to note that the resource curse inhibits SD and threaten the future of these countries, as sovereign states. 1 Nigeria should be worried for being a classic example of a resources-rich developing country plagued by the resource curse, especially in the context of its abundant petroleum resources being developed and extracted for its wellbeing and the wellbeing of its component geopolitical units and entire citizens. 2 Studies, standards and practices around the world are increasingly demonstrating that EIOs essentially inhibit SD. 3 However, such studies, standards and practices indicate that EIOs may be advantageous when they are implemented well, to preserve the rights of people they directly affect, and if the benefits they generate are wellused. 4 In other words, if EIOs are properly executed in conformity with benchmarked international guidelines, standards and practices governing the global extractive industrial sector, 5 they can contribute to poverty reduction and environmentally-sound, ecologically-centred and socio-economically equitable SD. 6

Environmental Democracy, Sustainable Petroleum Development and Sustainable Development of the Oilrich Delta Region and the Country
It has already been stated under the foregoing sub-heading that EIOs inhibit SD, but that these operations can contribute to SD if they are carried out in conformity with benchmarked international standards and practices. It was also explained that environmental democracy is characteristically weak in resources-rich developing countries plagued by the resource curse, and this is the case regarding petroleum resources development operations (PRDOs) in the oil-rich communities of the minority ethnic Delta region of Nigeria.
The most visible, enriched and often celebrated aspect of environmental democracy in the course of PRDOs in the oil-rich Nigerian Delta region is that concerning environmental assessment (EA) of the resources development projects in the oil producing communities of the region. In this regard, public involvement (PI), most especially in the form of Community Involvement (CI) may take place during certain stages of the prevailing Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process in Nigeria, as stipulated in the country's EIA Act and its accompanying generic EIA sectoral and procedural guidelines, 7 including the sectoral guidelines of various sectors of the Nigerian economy. 8 For example, among these sectoral guidelines are the EIA guidelines and standards for the Petroleum Industry in Nigeria, 9 as well as EIA the guidelines of the oil and gas sector of Nigeria's economy. 10 Concerning environmental democracy in the context of various stages of the EIA process, PI typically occurs during the scoping and review stages of the EIA process as well as at any other stage requiring the involvement of the public, who may be affected by, concerned about or interested in the development proposal associated with EIA process. 11 For instance, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP [the voice of the UN system on the environment]), outlines when PI is in key stages of the EIA process, such as the stage of screening, scoping, impact analysis, review, project implementation. Project implementation stages include monitoring and follow-up stages of the execution phase of development projects. Specific provisions of Nigeria's EIA Act on PI include 63 Section 1(c), Section 7, Section 8, and Section 9 of the Act. Other relevant sections of Nigeria's EIA Act indicating PI in the EIA process include Sections 15,16,21,24,25,26,29,32,33,36,37,38,40,43,45, and 55 of the Act. 1 The provisions of these sections of the EIA Act reflect how and when citizens and citizen-groups, which include those of the oil-producing communities, may be involved in the EIA process of development proposals affecting the environment and their wellbeing.
PI also takes place during EIA in Nigeria, following the display of public notices at strategic places within the affected state capitals and capitals of affected Local Government Areas (LGAs) on mandatory draft EIA study reports (of development proposals), which are prepared by project proponents in compliance with the provisions of Section 24 (2) of the EIA Act, when members of the public take the initiative of writing and filing their comments with the apex EIA regulatory body. That is the EIA Department of the Federal Ministry of Environment [FMEnve], which is superintended over by the National Environmental Standards and Regulations Enforcement Agency [NESREA. 2 By filing such written comments within the time provided in the EIA Act, or when a report, considered as a source of information within the contemplation of Section 18 (2) of the Act (i.e., the screening process of development proposals not indicated in the mandatory study list), is made, mediation or panel review sessions may be convened by the EIA Department of the FMEnve. By filing such written comments within the time provided in the EIA Act, or when a report, considered as a source of information within the contemplation of Section 18 (2) of the Act (i.e., the screening process of development proposals not indicated in the mandatory study list), is made, the apex EIA regulatory body (the EIA Department of the FMEnve) may convene a mediation or panel review session of the EIA process of the development proposal, in response to the comments, objections, reports or any other relevant information filed by members of the public. Such members of the public may be citizens or citizen-groups as EIA experts and practitioners, affected local communities, community-based organisations and public-spirited environmental NGOs. 3 In the EIA process also, PI may further take place during follow-up and monitoring programmes of implementation phase of development proposals. 4 It is important to explain that follow-up and monitoring schemes are aspects of environmental protection and management programmes. Whereas, follow-up schemes are one-off measures dedicated to specific issues that are identified and approved by the apex government regulatory agency (the EIA Department of the FMEnve) to be so addressed by follow-up measures, monitoring schemes are generic; as such, monitoring process takes place throughout the implementation stage of development proposals. 5 During the EIA processes, the apex EIA regulatory agency is traditionally or usually accompanied, supported and assisted in the exercise of its constitutional and statutory functions and responsibilities, by government EIA regulatory agencies of affected states and local governments. Various states of Nigeria have their environmental protection agencies (EPAs) or EIA Departments often within their respective Ministries of Environment, while local governments have Environmental Protection Committees (EPCs). 6 By and large, EPAs of various states and EPCs of LGs of Nigeria perform their roles and responsibilities in conjunction with or at the behest of the apex EIA regulatory agency, which is superintended over by NESREA in Nigeria's federal civil service system. 7 Furthermore, community involvement (CI), which is an aspect of PI, may take place in Nigeria when petroleum (oil and gas) resources development project proponents take steps to comply with the country's Oil Pipelines Act, 1 as well as town and country (national) planning systems. On this note, EIOs of MNRs, such as PRDOs projects, may be considered in the context of national planning, so as to regulate these operations in conformity with national planning laws and PPPs. 2 Specifically concerning the Oil Pipelines Act and as regards petroleum pipeline projects, PI or CI takes place in the form of public objection hearings, during public objection hearing sessions organised by oil producing states of the Niger Delta region. 3 Public objection hearings are usually organised for and on behalf of the Minister of Petroleum Resources, by Ministries of Land of the states in the oil-rich Delta region, where PRDOs are taking place. These hearings and development-planning verification sessions associated with land-use systems in Nigeria are statutorily provided for, in order to grant permits to survey the routes of pipelines in petroleum development projects, pipelines of the derivatives or components of crude petroleum and any other process of transportation connected with petroleum trade or operations in Nigeria. 4 These hearings are open to the affected public, and sometimes include other concerned and/or interested members of the public and citizens of the country. The hearings constitute opportunities for those who are affected by, concerned with or interested in the subject matter of such hearings, to register and present their objections and substantiate them with relevant documentary or other forms of evidence. 5 Essentially, public objection hearings in Nigeria constitute an attempt by the federal and affected state governments to ensure that proponents of petroleum development projects carried their petroleum pipeline and other related operations in compliance with the Oil Pipelines Act and other relevant laws, regulations, guidelines, standards and policies of the federation governing these operations. However, ironically these objection hearings are not being integrated into the EIA process of petroleum resources development projects, in a way that promotes comprehensive and integrated Environemtnal Assessment (EA) as well as environemntal democacy in the country. 6 Also, as a form of corporate voluntary scheme, oil and gas companies, especially MNOCs operating in the Niger Delta region, are increasingly designing and implementing peculiar in-house PI/CI strategies in the course of their oil and gas development projects in the region. Hence, Shell Petroleum Development Company Nigeria Limited (SPDC/Shell Nigeria) developed and published some in-house PI/CI procedural guidelines and standards to guide its stakeholder involvement processes in the course of its petroleum development projects in the oil producing communities of the Delta region. These are (i) Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Process: Stakeholders' Guide; 7 (ii) Accompanying Guidelines for SPDC EIA Process: Stakeholders Identification and Involvement; 8 (iii) Accompanying Guidelines for SPDC EIA Process: Scoping; 9 (iv) Accompanying Guidelines for SPDC EIA Process: Data Collection; 10 (v) Accompanying Guidelines for SPDC EIA Process: Report Review; 11 and (vi) Accompanying Guidelines for SPDC EIA Process: Preparation and Implementation of Environmental Management Plan. 12 Also, Nigeria NLNG Limited (NLNG), which holds out itself as a world-class LNG company, convenes quarterly CI with its primary host Bonny Kingdom's Community-based Environmental Organisation (CBO), known as the Bonny Environment Consultants' Committee (also called 'the Bonny Environment Consultants' Company' [BECC]). Aspects of the NLNG quarterly meetings with BECC often include representatives of government environmental regulatory organs such as those of the Federal Ministry of Environment (FMEnve), Rivers State Ministry of Environment and the Bonny Local Government Environmental Protection Committee (EPC). By and large, oil and gas industry in Nigeria may be described as the leader of EIA process and practice in the country, even as the global oil and gas industrial sector occupies a leadership status in the application of impact assessment (IA). 13 However, the foregoing forms of environmental democracy, which take place as PI/CI during PRDOs in the Nigerian Delta region are often basically consultative. These forms of environmental democracy are essentially not interactive and as such may not be categorised as interactive forms of PI/CI known as PP/Community Participation. Worse still, whereas private sector project proponents, such as oil and gas companies, embark on and are subjected to PI/CI processes during the implementation of their petroleum development projects, public sector (i.e., government) development project proponents at various levels of government in Nigeria, namely federal and states levels of government and local government levels, rarely comply with the EIA Act of the country. In fact, cases abound where public sector development project proponents do not disclose their project proposals to the EIA Department of the FMEnve, so as to enable the Department to subject their proposals to the EIA process, as stipulated by the EIA Act. Therefore, public sector development project proponents in Nigeria hardly embark on PI/CI during the implementation of their infrastructural and other physical development projects. 1 Furthermore, relatively the same as PI/CI, the prevailing degree of environmental justice in Nigeria (be it in the form of administrative justice or judicial justice) is weak. By and large, as evidenced by certain judicial decisions, 2 access to environmental justice is weak in Nigeria, and this may be so as compared with the state of affairs in other resources-rich developing countries. Altogether, it may be noted that access to justice in the EIA processes of EIOs in resources-rich developing countries is weaker than what is expressed in Principle 10 of the Rio Declaration on Environment andDevelopment, 1992, andelaborated in the Aarhus Convention, 1998. Besides, it is pertinent to state that EIA in the course of petroleum resources development projects in Nigeria is bedevilled by lack of SD-Oriented Impact-benefits such as Sustainable Community Development (SCD) programmes and projects. Generally, social investments of oil and gas companies, especially MNOCs, in the Niger Delta region are based on Memoranda of Understanding (MoUs) rather than multi-stakeholders Impact-Benefit Agreements (IBAs) 3

and other forms of SD-Oriented Good Neighbour Agreements (GNAs) such as the Canadian Whitehorse Mining Initiative (WMI), 4 Socio-economic and Cultural Heritage Schemes, Community Development Trusts and Heritage Funds like the Alaska Permanent Fund 5 and other forms of SCD and Sustainable Community Empowerment (SCE) Agreements. It is crucial for multi-stakeholders SD-Oriented GNAs to have provisions for various forms of SCD and SCE opportunities. These opportunities should include projects' lifecycle CD and
Community support schemes such as full-scale pensionable employment, other forms of human capacitydevelopment, healthcare and small and medium scale enterprises (SMEs) support programmes in the oil producing communities.
So far, the predominance of MoUs between the oil-rich communities and oil and gas companies, especially MNOCs, in the Niger Delta region, is causing misunderstanding, industrial disharmony and crises in the communities of the region and other oil producing areas of Nigeria.
Another problem associated with the prevailing EIA process in Nigeria is that it is plagued by the lack of or ineffective project-life (full or complete project lifecycle) IA. By and large, EIA in Nigeria is plagued by nonexistence of formal Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) of PPPs in the country, which has the potential to boost greater environmental governance, and greater wellbeing of the environment, people and communities of the oil-rich Niger Delta region in the course of PRDOs in the region. 6 Due to the foregoing and other problems, challenges and adverse consequences of PRDOs in the oil-rich Delta region and other oil producing areas of Nigeria, the environment in the Delta region is increasingly being terribly degraded, ecologically devastated, with despoiled eco-system and ecosystem services. 7 Also, the oil-rich Delta region is witnessing abuses and violations of the human rights of its citizens, increasing poverty, political and socio-economic marginalisation and underdevelopment in the course of over six decades of PRDOs in the oil producing communities of the region. 8 Thus, from the 1990s, the oil-rich minority ethnic Delta region has been witnessing community crises, violent conflicts, near-civil war unrests and self-determination struggles, aggravated by militant youth restiveness, due to negative consequences of the RDOs in the communities of the region. 1 There are prevalence of unsustainable PRDOs as well as unsustainable CD, and weak environmental democracy. Thus, PRDOs governed by benchmarked international standards and practices regulating EIOs, are possibly the solution to the myriads of negative consequences of PRDOs in the oil-rich communities of the minority ethnic Delta region and other oil producing areas of Nigeria and the resource curse plaguing the country.
Consequently, improved and genuine participation of citizens and citizen-groups of the oil-rich Delta region, secured in the course of lifecycle EIA and SEA, along with Social Licence to Operate (SLO) 2 granted by the oil producing communities in the course of PRDOs, have the potential of ensuring greater protection of the environment and all-embracing Community Empowerment, towards SCD, industrial peace and harmony and above all, SPRDOs in the Delta region. 3 Lifecycle EIA and SEA, coupled with SLO (i.e., legitimacy) granted by the oil producing communities in the course of PRDOs, have the potential to boost greater human wellbeing, vitality of natural resources and overall nature, towards all-embracing SD in the Delta region. 4 So far, among other related issues, the discussion under this sub-heading has examined the weak nature of environmental democracy in the course of PRDOs, as aspects of EIOs, in the oil-rich Nigerian Delta region in relation to the adverse consequences of the RDOs, which contributed to generate the crises-riven situation of the region hindering SD of the RDOs in the oil-rich communities of the Delta region. It may be pertinent at this juncture to deliberate a little on SD.
The report of the World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) popularly known as the Brundtland's Commission report, entitled Our Common Future defines SD as the development which meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. 5 The Earth Charter Initiative (ECI) states that SD expands our vision towards ethical or greater ethical principles and practices. This Charter is an international declaration of fundamental values and principles, having its constituent global movement of organisations and individuals that embrace the declaration for building vision, attitude, knowledge, wisdom, skills and values needed to achieve a more just, sustainable and peaceful world. 6 Among others, SD has aspects (components, pillars or spheres), principles, indicators, strategies and SDoriented initiatives. The aspects of SD are basically its economic, social, environment and governance spheres, as well as its ecological and cultural components. Among these, the governance aspect of SD, namely good governance (GG), is very significant, key and most important. Thus, GG and SD are to be indivisible, as SD cannot be achieved without GG, as its foremost, greatest and most significant enabler. 7 Regarding principles, SD has the following principles, namely the precautionary principle, pollution prevention pays principle (3p+), polluter pays principle (PoPP), user pays principle (UPP), principle of intragenerational equity, principle of inter-generational equity, and the principle of participation (environmental democracy: about which this study is specifically concerned and thus focused upon). These principles convey the links between development processes, environmental factors, and human and other resources of nature. 8 Also, SD has its indicators known as SD Indicators (SDIs). An indicator may be described as a device that shows what a situation is like, such as a value, or a change in level, speed, etcetera, and thus demonstrates the Journal of Law, Policy and Globalization www.iiste.org ISSN 2224-3240 (Paper) ISSN 2224-3259 (Online) Vol.94, 2020 existence of the given situation or clarifies that the situation is true or otherwise. 1 It is a measurement tool, such as a gauge or meter, guide or standard, sign or signal, which indicates the state, level or degree of something. Based on certain indices, indicators measure trends towards SD, so as to enable countries, nations, organisations and peoples around the world, to measure, monitor, evaluate and thereby effectively streamline their efforts towards SD. 2 There are several SDIs, which are directly or indirectly associated with human wellbeing and they are all targeted towards achieving the wellbeing of humanity, the environment and overall nature on Planet Earth. 3 The UN Agenda 21 is also important and inevitable in the context of worldwide efforts towards SD. Agenda 21 has already been described in this study as one of the outcome documents of UN Rio de Janeiro Earth Summit, 1992, which is designed to guide the twin relationship of the environment and development, and thus future approaches to development towards SD. It is a global plan of action to promote and facilitate SD. It is a wideranging blueprint and most comprehensive plan outlining necessary actions aimed at achieving SD globally, ranging through local, national and international levels. 4 Agenda 21 may also be described as a 'greenprint' for global partnership, which aims at a high quality environment and a healthy economy for all peoples on Planet Earth. It addresses critical issues confronting the entire world, such as continuing damage to ecosystems; worsening poverty, hunger and ill health; increasing world population and illiteracy. It is comprised of 40 Chapters, which identify each challenge and proposes simple and realistic solutions towards SD. Thus, from the UN Agenda 21, member-states of the UN were to design and develop and did, in fact, design and develop their respective Agenda 21, as their separate and peculiar instruments towards SD, in their respective jurisdictions or localities. 5 So far, using economic tools as one of the means to achieve SD, there is the Green Economy Initiative that is designed in the UN system as a contemporary dominant economic model, which has the potential to promote SD and poverty reduction, towards accelerating human wellbeing, environmental protection and preservation of ecology and ecosystems. 6 Regarding Goals (SD Goals), there has been a transition from the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) to the SD Goals (SDGs) in the UN system. Efforts of the entire global community to achieve SD commenced from the historic inspirational target (known as the UNMDGs), to the extant monumental aspirational target (known as the UNSDGs). In the process, by its Resolution 53/202 of 17 December, 1998, the UN General Assembly (UNGA), decided to designate its 55 th Session, 'The Millennium Assembly of the UN', and to convene, as an integral part of the Millennium Assembly, a Millennium Summit of the UN (UNMS), 7 which took place from Wednesday, 6 September, to Friday, 8 September, 2000, at UN Headquarters, in New York. The main document that was unanimously adopted by the UNMS was the UN Millennium Declaration, which conveys a statement of values, principles and objectives comprising an international agenda for the 21 st Century. To commit countries and people of the world, the Summit framed a series of Eight time-bound Goals, known as the MDGs, which are to be achieved by the target year, 2015. 8 As nations and peoples of the world, particularly those of developing countries, were unable to achieve the MDGs by the target year (2015), the global community, under the auspices of the UN, introduced the SD Goals (SDGs), which are Seventeen in number. These Seventeen UNSDGs are designed to end poverty, protect the planet, and ensure peace and prosperity for all as part of a new SD agenda. 9 The SDGs, 1 Cambridge Dictionary, 'Indictor' <https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/indicator> Accessed 7 February, 2020. 2  described as 'Global Goals', constitute a blueprint to achieve a better and more sustainable future for all. 1 The Goals address global challenges confronting humanity, countries and society at large, such as poverty, inequality, climate change, environmental degradation, peace and justice. These Seventeen Goals are interconnected, and are meant to be achieved by the target year (2030), in order not to leave any country or people behind (without achieving them by the afore-mentioned target year). 2 Each of the Seventeen SDGs has specific targets to be achieved over a fifteen year period (from 2015), and all sectors of society, namely government, the private sector, civil society and individuals, ought to accomplish their roles for these Goals to be achieved. 3 Considering the prerequisites towards a more just, sustainable and peaceful sovereign states around the world and as well as more just, sustainable and peaceful global community, the role of good public sector governance, namely good political leadership (good governance [GG]), in global states cannot be overemphasised. No doubt, there is an imperative and inevitable urgent need for GG, to pilot the affairs of resources-rich developing countries, being plagued by the recourse curse, towards SD. 4

Sustainable Petroleum Resources Development Operations (SPRDOs) and Sustainable Community Development (SCD) in the Oil-rich Niger Delta Region
While considering sustainable petroleum resources development operations (SPRDOs), it is significant to note that petroleum resources are finite (i.e., non-renewable energy and natural) resources and development operations of these resources impact negatively, as well as undermine the wellbeing of humans and other resources of nature, such as the environment, ecology, ecosystems and ecosystem services in the oil producing communities of the Delta region. Consequently, SD of petroleum resources in the oil-rich Delta region and other oil-producing areas of Nigeria is difficult to achieve. However, there could be peaceful SPRDOs in Nigeria's oil producing areas based on appropriate government regulation of these development operations and on benchmarked international standards and practices regulating petroleum and other EIOs, such as good oil-field standards, values and practices, improved environmental and social responsibilities of the oil companies, as well as good environmental governance (GEG) by appropriate government regulatory agencies in the course of PRDOs in the oil producing areas of the country.
Accordingly, given that societies and thus communities cannot survive indefinitely, as the idea of sustainable societies does not mean that any human society can survive indefinitely. It rather refers to a society, and thus a community, that is organised and thrives by utilising the resources of nature in a sustainable form or manner, such that it has the potential of surviving for a long period, within a foreseeable human context, namely in the context of human civilisation within Planet Earth. 5 Consequently, SD is a path to or towards sustainability and not infinity. In other words, SD only moves communities, countries and the entire global society, toward the sustainability quadrant, given that unbalanced ecological base occasioned by developmental PPPs in human societies is threatening the very survival of communities, countries and the entire global society, in the ongoing era of human civilisation. 6

Conclusion
This study has attempted to examine the concept, principle, law and developmental practice of environmental democracy towards SD in resources-rich communities of developing countries, in the context and prevailing circumstances of petroleum EIOs in the oil producing communities of the Nigerian Delta region. It discussed environmental democracy as an aspect of PP, and community participation/CI is an aspect of PP.
The study considered the importance of environmental democracy, stipulated in Principle 10 of Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, 1992 and elaborated in the Aarhus Convention, 1998, in the course of petroleum EIOs in the oil-rich minority ethnic Niger Delta region. It stressed that the region is being politically and socio-economically marginalised in the course of nation-building in Nigeria, such that it is poor and underdeveloped, although it is enormously endowed with petroleum resources.
The study also examined the role of environmental democracy towards sustainable petroleum resources development operations (SPRDOs) as well as sustainable community development (SCD) in the oil-rich communities of the Niger Delta region, considered as outstanding resources-rich communities of resources-rich developing countries, suffering from the resource-curse. It is on this note that the above-stated two areas of SD (namely sustainable PRDOs in Nigeria and SCD in the oil-rich Nigerian Delta region) were basically and essentially focused on.
The study demonstrates that the most visible, enriched and celebrated aspect of environmental democracy in the course of PRDOs in the oil-rich Nigerian Delta region is that associated with EIA of the resources development projects in the oil producing communities of the region. Paradoxically, even in the context of the prevailing EIA, environmental democracy is basically reduced to mere consultation rather than interactive community involvement (CI), which connotes community engagement (i.e., active community participation). There is therefore a need for improvement of corporate environmental and social responsibilities in the oil producing communities of the Delta region, and a greater need for government social responsibility (GSR), embedded in GG, to vitalise, promote and achieve GEG, and the wellbeing of the environment and humanity, towards addressing the resource curse inflicted on Nigeria in the course of the development of the country's abundant petroleum resources being extracted in the oil-rich communities of the Delta region.
So far, the study has demonstrated the significance of genuine environmental democracy, an aspect of interactive public engagement (PP). Among its other significant features and relevance to society, PP, which community participation is an aspect of, promotes and enhances good decisions, and more often, ensures that decisions are sound, fair, better and thus long-lasting. Participation helps to reconcile conflicting interest among stakeholders involved in decision-making; it protects public interest; on the basis and strength of PP, stakeholders abide by their decisions and implement such decisions in an enduring manner; participation ensures that decisions affecting land, natural resource as well as MNRs, such as oil and gas and other mining and mineral resources, adequately and equitably address the aspirations, concerns and interests of affected citizens; PP promotes and strengthens GEG, overall GG, and SD, towards greater human wellbeing and the wellbeing of overall nature and the entire Planet Earth; PP is thus a stimulant of environmentally-sound, ecologically-centred and socioeconomically equitable SD.
In concluding also, we assert that Nigeria, as typical example of a developing country plagued by the resource curse, is far from achieving SD. The road to PRDOs in Nigeria is certainly rough and long, considering ongoing disruptions of development operations of these resources in the oil-rich Delta region. These disruptions are taking place due to militant youth restiveness, oil-bunkering and illegal refining activities, as well as the inability of oil and gas companies and government regulatory agencies to properly manage and regulate the resources development operations in the oil-rich communities of the Delta region, in compliance with benchmarked international guidelines, standards and practices governing EIOs. Worse still, the road to SCD is more longer and thus more elusive or utopian to achieve, due, among other reasons, to the gravity of environmental degradation, ecological devastation and ecosystem despoliation occasioned in oil-rich communities of the Delta region as well as the socio-economic and political neglect and marginalisation of these communities taking place in the course of nation-building in Nigeria.
Sustainable petroleum resources extractive industrial development operations as well as SCD in the oil-rich Nigerian Delta region are untenable, except and unless GG is enthroned in the country, as GSR, embedded in GG, has the potential to institutionalise good oilfield practices, an improvement of the quality of the environment and environmental justice, through GEG, as well as social equity, in the course of PRDOs in the Delta region. The enthronement of GG and existence of GEG would vitalise, promote and achieve overall wellbeing of the environment in Nigeria, towards SPRDOs in the Delta region. GSR, embedded in GG, also has the potential to support and encourage SCD and to boost human wellbeing in the Delta region and other regions of Nigeria. Put otherwise, SPRDOs and SCD in the oil-rich Niger Delta region can only be achieved by virtue of the existence or instrumentality of good, responsible, transparent and accountable government in Nigeria. GG will pilot Nigeria away from its prevailing resource curse, as the desired governance has the potential to promote, generate and energise the improvement of corporate environmental and social responsibilities in the oil-rich Delta region as well as the capacity and strength to boost the realisation and sustenance of social responsibilities of civil society groups, such as community social responsibility (SRC), towards SD in the country. Nevertheless, it should be noted that no community or society can survive indefinitely, as the idea of sustainable societies does not mean that