the association of licensed telecommunications operators...

THE ASSOCIATION OF L ICENSED TELECOMMUNICATIONS

OPERATORS OF NIGERIA

SUBMISSIONS ON THE DRAFT NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL (STANDARDS FOR TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES)

REGULATIONS 2010

The Association of Licensed Telecommunications Operators of Nigeria.

Submissions in Respect of NESREA’s Draft Environmental Regulations for the Telecommunications Industry

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................................................... 3

2. OVERVIEW OF OUR SUBMISSION ................................................................................................................. 5

2.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................ 5

2.2 Background and Key Issues.......................................................................................................................... 5

2.2.1 The Imperative for Growth of Telecommunications Infrastructure in Nigeria.............. 5

2.2.2 The NCC’s Guidelines on the Technical Installation of Masts and Towers ................. 6

2.2.3 Perceived Negative Effects of Telecommunications Infrastructure on Health ........... 7

3. GENERAL COMMENTS ON THE NESREA REGULATIONS ........................................................... 10

3.1 Environmental Requirements for Siting and Installations of Telecommunications Base

Stations and MaSts/towers. ....................................................................................................................................... 10

3.2 Telecommunications Infrastructure in Residential Areas ............................................................. 13

3.3 Permissible Radiation Levels ...................................................................................................................... 14

3.4 Power Generator Guidelines and Standards: ..................................................................................... 14

4. RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE AMENDMENT OF THE NESREA REGULATIONS .......... 16



1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

ALTON welcomes the opportunity to make inputs into the proposed National

Environmental (Standards for Telecommunications Facilities) Regulations 2010.

As an association of responsible corporate citizens which continually encourages its

members to adhere to the best international standards in their operations, ALTON

recognizes that there are indeed genuine concerns over the environmental implications

of the operations of not only telecommunications operators, but also all major players in

other sectors of the Nigerian economy. In demonstration of its pivotal responsibility in

this regard, ALTON has given its full support to the NCC in the establishment of the

Guidelines on the Technical Standards for the Installation of Telecommunications Masts

and Towers, and ALTON will continue to ensure the establishment of, and adherence to

the highest possible standards of environmental best practice.

ALTON appreciates the need for NESREA to play a major role in the formulation of the

regulatory instrument which governs the environmental conduct of telecommunications

operators. In our view, since the NCC, as the sole statutory regulator of the

telecommunications industry has enacted guidelines of the installation of masts and

towers which is based on applicable international standards, there is no need for a fresh

set of regulations. Such fresh regulations would only aggravate the already complex

situation of multiple regulation in the industry.

Telecommunications masts and installations do not constitute any proven health hazards

to the society. Rather, the Nigerian economy requires speedier deployment of

telecommunications infrastructure to further consolidate the socio-economic benefits of

having an efficient communications infrastructure. The requirement for site-specific

Environmental Impact Assessment certification should therefore be reviewed in as much

as it would imperil the delivery of much-needed telecommunications infrastructure

required for national economic growth and development.

Operators have ensured that Nigerians continue to enjoy increasingly lower tariffs for

telecommunications products and services, notwithstanding the serious impact of the

global financial crises on their sources of funding and revenue, as well as the peculiar

and unrelenting challenges of the operating environment in Nigeria. The imposition of

additional obligations (which would further increase the cost of roll-out) will compel

operators to review their tariffs and charges upwards to accommodate the costs of

compliance with the obligations proposed in the draft Regulations.



It is acknowledged that NESREA may wish to make further provisions regarding peculiar

environmental issues which are not addressed to its satisfaction in the NCC’s

Guidelines. It is our view that these concerns can be properly addressed through a

review of the NCC’s Guidelines. This will eliminate the spectre of multiple and conflicting

Regulations, while guaranteeing the achievement of the mutually inexclusive objectives

of sustainable environmental practices and speedy growth of quality telecommunications

services.



2. OVERVIEW OF OUR SUBMISSION

2.1 INTRODUCTION

As a good corporate citizen and as an association of responsible licensees fully aware of their

individual and collective responsibilities to the sustainable development of the Nigerian

communications industry, the Nigerian polity and the wellbeing of esteemed Nigerian

subscribers in general, ALTON is pleased to make the following submissions on the current

exercise being undertaken by the Nigerian Environmental Standards Regulatory Enforcement

Agency (NESREA).

ALTON appreciates the efforts of NESREA to address the challenges of environmental

compliance. We also support initiatives which seek to respond to global warming, ensure the

preservation of the quality of life of the citizenry and the ecosystem, as well as engender public

confidence in the safety of telecommunications operations and installations nationwide. We take

the position that whilst these are laudable objectives, they can, and ought to be achieved within

a framework which guarantees the steady and sustainable growth of telecommunications

infrastructure as a key social overhead capital necessary to ensure national economic and

social development.

ALTON notes the concerns which arise from the deployment of telecommunications facilities

across Nigeria and identify with such valid concerns as there may be. This Submission makes

suggestions regarding the modalities for achieving a framework which guarantees the provision

of critical telecommunications infrastructures across the country whilst ensuring compliance with

environmental best practice. These comments are made in good faith, with the overriding desire

to contribute positively to the enthronement of excellent regulatory practices in the country.

2.2 BACKGROUND AND KEY ISSUES

2.2.1 THE IMPERATIVE FOR GROWTH OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS

INFRASTRUCTURE IN NIGERIA

Following the successful liberalisation of telecommunications and the successful auction of

GSM licenses in 2001, operators quickly realised that the existing infrastructure in the country

could not support their operations. In comparison with other developed countries, Nigeria lacked

the infrastructure required for the deployment of telecommunications services. Operators

therefore embarked on the accelerated roll out of core telecommunications network which

comprised of the infrastructure needed to support its operations in Nigeria.

We note that with just over 15,000 base station sites currently serving a population of over 150

million people in Nigeria and a teledensity of about 50%, we are yet to build the critical mass of

telephony towers and masts sufficient to meet Nigeria’s communications needs. In the UK, by



comparison, it is approximated that there were 52,500 base station sites at the end of 2009

serving a population of just over 60 million people at near market saturation. We therefore

require the construction of a minimum of 25,000 additional towers and masts in the next five (5)

years, even with an increasing emphasis on collocation and infrastructure sharing. With this in

mind, it would be noted that the continual evolution in technology will lead to the development of

leaner but stronger and environmentally friendlier infrastructure. We note further that the growth

in population, the demand for service and the constantly evolving changes to the demography

and topography creates an overriding need for service providers to accommodate these trends

in the design and roll-out of infrastructure. It is therefore imperative that telecommunications

sector-specific Regulations are forward looking to accommodate and support the inevitable

growth in the industry.

ALTON fully understands concerns regarding the growth of telecommunications infrastructure

and their environmental foot print and has sought to address these concerns in partnership with

operators and other industry bodies. We however believe there is a need to balance these

concerns with the need to ensure efficient service provision and counsel that the development

of the appropriate framework can only be achieved through the auspices of the Nigerian

Communications Act 2003 (NCA). Such a framework will engender the sustainability of the

environment while developing telecommunications Infrastructure for the continued socio-

economic growth of Nigeria through the provision of world class services to Nigerians.

In this regard, and with particular reference to the provisions of the NESREA Guidelines which

ostensibly requires operators to restrict the siting of telecommunications infrastructure in

residential areas, we wish to emphasise that telecommunications infrastructure are required in

every nook and cranny of the Federation. Service cannot be provided in an area if infrastructure

is not located within that area, or at least within its proximity. This will also ensure that operators

meet their universal service obligations and further ensure that telecommunications as a social

overhead capital, supports the efforts of Government at meeting the millennium development

goals by 2015.

We further wish to reiterate our concerns with regard to the retroactive nature of any proposed

regulatory intervention. We strongly recommend that any new requirements by way of EIAs or

EARs apply to new infrastructure and site builds.

2.2.2 THE NCC’S GUIDELINES ON THE TECHNICAL INSTALLATION OF MASTS AND

TOWERS

Pursuant to the provisions of Section 130 of the NCA (which specifically provides that the NCC

shall specify and publish to the general public, the technical code and specifications in respect

of communications equipment and facilities that may be used in Nigeria) and other sections of

the NCA, the NCC has articulated Guidelines for the Technical Installation of Masts and Towers

(the NCC’s Guidelines).These Guidelines provide detailed guidance on the subject matter for

the telecommunications industry and aims to address the concerns which NESREA’s current

efforts apparently seek to achieve. In particular, the Guidelines contain the technical code and



specifications for the promotion of safety of network facilities. It therefore adequately provides

for regulation of all issues and concerns affecting the telecommunications industry.

We acknowledge that NESREA may wish to address peculiarly environmental issues which it

considers as insufficiently addressed in the NCC’s Guidelines. We counsel that such concerns

should be addressed through a revision of the NCC’s Guidelines. We also believe that the

NCC, as the telecommunications industry’s sector-specific regulator is best placed to drive the

current review process as it has acquired the requisite technical knowhow and has full

understanding of the issues to be addressed as it concerns the telecommunications industry.

This, we suggest, is the best approach for achieving the much desired balance between the

promotion of best–in-class environmental standards and the attainment of qualitative service

delivery through optimal deployment of network infrastructure.

We therefore restate our position that the NESREA Regulations be reviewed and that

appropriate provisions be subsumed into the NCC’s Guidelines to address any additional

concerns which NESREA believes have not been adequately addressed by the NCC

Guidelines.

2.2.3 PERCEIVED NEGATIVE EFFECTS OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS

INFRASTRUCTURE ON HEALTH

ALTON notes that much of the apprehension over the siting of telecommunications masts and

towers is caused by lack of information and misinformation in some quarters. In fact, several

painstaking research reports by independent organisations such as the World Health

Organisation (WHO) have proven the safety of these installations beyond doubt. ALTON

members continue to ensure full compliance with all applicable Guidelines which assure the

continuous safety of our installations. As it would be noted, Base Stations are required to

transmit and receive radio signals from mobile phones and other wireless devices. Without a

Base Station in the subscriber’s vicinity, it would be impossible to make or receive calls and

maintain the call as the subscriber moves or drives around. The system of mobile

communication sustains calls by handing the subscriber over from the current Base Station to

the next one in the vicinity. If there is no Base Station within the vicinity of the the subscriber, a

a dropped call will be experienced. Uninterrupted mobile phone services cannot be

provided if Base Stations are not located within specified ranges of each other,

particularly in built-up areas.

The International Commission on Non-Iodising Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) sets

standards and makes safety recommendations for the guidance of the industry,

worldwide. Its Guidelines were endorsed by the WHO, and the European Commission

(EC). The ICNIRP Guidelines have been adopted by both the GSM Association (GSMA)

and the CDMA Development Group (CDG). The GSMA and the CDG are respectively the

international umbrella associations of GSM and CDMA operators worldwide. The safety

limits established by these Guidelines are applied by all operators and are monitored by

the Nigerian Communications Commission.



ALTON would encourage all stakeholders to continue to stress the true position, to the effect

that although Mobile Phones and Base Stations emit radio signals that travel through air (or

space) as electromagnetic energy, such emissions are harmless. Household appliances such

as radio sets, televisions, remote door locks, light bulbs, computer systems and microwave

ovens also emit electromagnetic energy that similarly travel through the air. The emissions

from these household appliances as well as those from cellular phones and Base

Stations are classified as non-ionising emission (radiation), which are safe for humans.

These are in contrast to ionising radiation (such as X-rays and Gamma Rays) which can break

the chemical bonds in human biological structures and are therefore harmful to humans.

Indeed, the average human is exposed to lower levels of non-ionising emission from

cellular infrastructure than from many domestic appliances, such as microwave ovens

and televisions. The World Health Organisation has also declared that “the levels of RF

exposure from Base Stations and wireless networks are so low that the temperature

increases are insignificant and do not affect human health.[WHO: Electromagnetic fields

and public health Fact sheet N°304, May 2006]1

2.2.4 THE USE OF NESREA ACCREDITED CONSULTANTS AND THE CHARGES

PAID FOR SITE EVALUATIONS

ALTON notes with concern the current requirement that operators must use consultants that

have been accredited by NESREA to carry out and obtain Environmental Audit Reports (EARs).

Whilst the Association is not necessarily against the use of these consultants, we believe that

uniform minimum qualification/experience standards should be set and published for

environmental consultants which operators should use as a guide when engaging such

consultants. It is pertinent to note that the costs of engagement in this regard should be kept at

a minimum.

Currently, the official fee charged by the accredited consultants to carry out site evaluations for

the EAR ranges between N80,000.00-N100,000.00 per site. This fee is exclusive of

miscellaneous expenses such as transportation, accommodation e.t.c. which Operators bear

each time consultants are engaged to carry out site evaluations or attend public hearings.

In regard to obtaining EIAs, Operators are required to pay N10,000.00 and N240,000.00 for the application fee and project registration fee respectively. This fee is exclusive of miscellaneous charges such as logistic fee, cost of study fee, advertisement, public review fee and final

1 Further information can be obtained from the websites of the following organisations:

International Commission for Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) www.icnirp.de

World Health Organization International Electromagnetic Fields Project (WHO -IEFP) www.who.int/peh-emf

(also at http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs304/en/index.html

Mobile Manufacturers Forum www.mmfai.org

The Institute of Electrical & Electronic Engineers www.ieee.org

The United States’ Federal Communications Commission (FCC) http://www.fcc.gov/oet/rfsafety/rf-faqs.html

The International Agency for Research on Cancer www.iarc.fr

http://www.icnirp.de/

http://www.who.int/peh-emf

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs304/en/index.html

http://www.mmfai.org/

http://www.ieee.org/

http://www.fcc.gov/oet/rfsafety/rf-faqs.html

http://www.iarc.fr/



certification fee. ALTON is of the opinion that these miscellaneous expenses should not be borne by Operators and an administrative charge should be imposed to replace official fees for obtaining EARs and EIAs. The administrative charge should be made to cover the costs of transportation, professional fees meals and administrative work. ALTON recommends that a maximum administrative charge of N50, 000.00 should be charged to Operators when obtaining EIAs or EARs. Furthermore, ALTON will require some clarity from NESREA in respect of the fees that applies to obtain the Environmental Compliance Certificate referred to in Section 5 of the draft regulation. As stated above, this fee should be minimal and Operators should not be liable for further costs incurred by NESREA in verifying audit reports as operators already have to incur substantial costs in engaging consultants to audit and prepare the report in the first instance. In this regard, we wish to emphasize that operators have ensured that Nigerians continue to

enjoy increasingly lower tariffs for telecommunications products and services, notwithstanding

the serious impact of the global financial crises on their sources of funding and revenue. This is

further exacerbated by the peculiar and challenges of the operating environment in Nigeria,

which have so far remained unaddressed. The imposition of these present additional obligations

(which would further increase the cost of roll-out) will compel operators to review their tariffs and

charges upwards to accommodate the costs of compliance with the obligations proposed in the

draft Regulations.



3. GENERAL COMMENTS ON THE NESREA REGULATIONS

With the above background, we make the following general comments on the draft Regulations.

3.1 ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS FOR SITING AND INSTALLATIONS OF

TELECOMMUNICATIONS BASE STATIONS AND MASTS/TOWERS.

a. As noted above, the current stage of telecommunications network infrastructure requires expedited roll-out of telecommunications facilities, if Nigerians are to continue to be able to have access to high quality telecommunications services. We are concerned that the requirement for site specific Environmental Impact Assessments, the submission of Environmental Impact Statements and Environmental Evaluation Report would result in significant delays in the roll out of sites and other critical infrastructure.

Presently, operators are able to deploy telecommunications infrastructure within an average of four to six weeks. The requirement for site-specific EIAs will prolong the turn-around time for site deployment. It is noted that the provisions of the EIA Act requires the following steps for the conduct of an EIA:

i. Submission of an Application form and terms of reference

ii. Review and approval of terms of reference

iii. Publication of terms of reference for comments by the FME

iv. Consultation with stakeholders and engagements on the terms of reference by the FME

v. Feedback on consultation with stakeholders

vi. Screening or mandatory study and the preparation of a screening report

vii. Inspection of site and environmental assessment process

viii. Mandatory study and assessment by review panel of the FME

ix. Hearing by panel

x. Decision of the panel

xi. Design and implementation of a follow up program

With this process, it would take a minimum of 9 to 12 months to procure an EIA prior to commencing the deployment of a single site which by contrast, this currently takes an average of 4 to 6 weeks. If we consider that a proper environmental impact assessment can only be achieved when evaluations are conducted in the dry and rainy seasons, procuring an EIA may now take between 12 to 18 months. In view of the fact the provision



of telecommunications services is critical to the security, economic and social well being of Nigerians and the obvious impact of the failure to deliver this critical utility, we cannot overemphasise the need to ensure that operators can continue to deploy services within projected time frames. It is in recognition of this fact that the entire undertaking is subjected to EIA certification without need to certify specific sites. We note that telecommunications sites are an interwoven network of identical components which form an integral part of a single undertaking, i.e. the provision of telecommunications services.

b. To sustain the current growth rate and thereby guarantee quality services to all Nigerians irrespective of their geographic locations, network operators will be required to deploy an average of 500 sites monthly. It is obvious that this level of growth cannot be achieved if every single site has to be subjected to a distinct EIA process.

c. We are highly concerned that the requirement for site-specific EIAs introduces an additional layer of regulation to an industry already beleaguered by such subjective obstacles such as shortage of power and requisite transmission infrastructure and will hinder the roll out of qualitative services to millions of Nigerians across the country.

d. As noted in 2.2.4 above, operators have ensured that Nigerians continue to enjoy

increasingly lower tariffs for telecommunications products and services, notwithstanding

the serious impact of the global financial crises on their sources of funding and revenue,

as well as the peculiar and unrelenting challenges of the operating environment in Nigeria.

The imposition of these present additional obligations (which would further increase the

cost of roll-out) will compel operators to review their tariffs and charges upwards to

accommodate the costs of compliance with the obligations proposed in the draft

Regulations.

We are also concerned that the said directive is industry-specific and is addressed to an industry already overburdened with multiplicity of taxes and regulations. We note in this regard that the telecommunications industry in Nigeria is highly regulated beset by multiplicity of regulation and oversight from all tiers of government on a nationwide basis.

We strongly believe that the telecommunications industry should not be singled out from all sectors of the economy and made to conduct site specific EIA whilst other sectors of the economy are not held to this same standard. We note that the installation of masts and towers and similar infrastructure are undertaken by other sectors of the economy such as the banking, manufacturing and the power sectors. For example, we are aware that the PHCN undertakes the deployment of more extensive and potentially more dangerous network of pylons, towers structures than the telecommunications industry as a whole. We note that these organizations particularly the PHCN are not required to undertake site specific EIAs.

3.2 RECOMMENDATIONS AS TO SITE SPECIFIC EIA

To mitigate the particularly onerous implications of this requirement, we would require the following accommodation:



Scope:

In the first instance, we strongly recommend that the requirement of global EIA be reverted to taking the whole of each operator-network as a single project. The premise of such an exercise is the fact that every base station erected is the same regardless of its location. This option obviates all perceived challenges which a site specific EIA will pose to current network operations. This should be revalidated every 5 years taking into account new sites built in the interim.

In the event that this is not acceptable to the Commission and the Minister, we would advise that EIAs be conducted on a regional basis taking into account the peculiar topography of the various parts of the Nigerian terrain. We would opt for the 6 geopolitical zones encompassing a minimum of 6 congruent states with similar climates, environments and topography.

Further where there is any particular insistence on environmental requirements for the telecoms sector, we positively recommend the application of environmental compliance requirements such as the site specific EIA to all industries involved in erecting structures such as pylons, towers and masts.

Transparency:

Stakeholder engagement in determining minimum environmental standards for the industry and other industries involved in erecting structures

Due publication of such minimum standards

Due publication of criteria to be used in evaluating the acceptable environmental standards to be observed with reference to an EIA

Process: we recommend the following -

An application is made by an operator to the FME providing the proposed site details and coordinates for prospective sites in the specified region.

Within 7 days thereafter, a team made up of representatives from the FME, NCC, NESREA and the operator concerned should visit sample sites in the applicable region and evaluate compliance requirements as duly stipulated with regard to region

During the site visits, community hearings could be held to address any issues that may arise therefrom. An EMP should be able to address issues arising in this respect

After an evaluation of the said site has been conducted, the Federal Ministry of Environment should within 2 weeks from the end of the said 7 days, give or refuse approval for the site.



Failure to receive any feedback from the Ministry of Environment within 30 days from the date the application is made would be taken to be a deemed approval

Operators build the sites complying with state planning requirements, NCC Technical Standards and applicable NCC Guidelines and published environmental standards

Timing:

EIA approvals should be procured within a timeframe of 21 to 30 days.

Cost

As stipulated in 2.2.4 above..

3.3 TELECOMMUNICATIONS INFRASTRUCTURE IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS

With reference to restrictions in areas designated as residential, it would be noted that the

reality of usage and topography in such areas may have no bearing on the designation. Traffic

patterns follow demographic concentrations rather than area designations. As such, the

restrictions need due revision to reflect the true topography of specific areas. As an example,

Victoria Island in Lagos State is a traditionally designated residential area that has evolved

into a predominantly commercial business district. Wuse II, Abuja would appear to be evolving

in the same manner.

We note that due cognisance should be taken of evolving demographics over the 25 year

lifespan of a tower or mast. Areas that were initially sparsely populated could easily become

densely populated over time leading to the violation of requirements such as setback distance

and height specifications. In many instances, operators are unable to comply with the

proposed set back of 12 or 10 meters from the wall of residential premises, schools and

hospitals. Given the peculiarities of Nigeria and the lack of proper development and planning

in most parts of the country, there are severe constraints in attaining the said setback. This is

particularly so in high density areas of most towns and cities. No law prevents the building of

residential and other premises within any designated range of telecoms and other

infrastructure. Would operators be required to remove lawfully sited towers and masts

found to be in contravention of the Guidelines where the neighbouring premises are

built after the installation of the infrastructure?

The unintended effect of the draft Regulations, operational exigencies and the lack of suitable

alternatives would undermine the current efforts of service providers to ensure adequate

coverage, reduce congestion, improve Quality of Service while seeking to meet the overly

stringent compliance requirement of the Regulations. Suffice it to say, operators should not be

held liable for failing to meet Quality of Service standards in high density areas if they are

hamstrung from responding to traffic exigencies promptly and appropriately.



3.4 PERMISSIBLE RADIATION LEVELS

With reference to permissible radiation levels, we wish to further stress that

telecommunications equipment and installations (including Base Stations) are manufactured

by members of the global telecommunications equipment and handset manufacturers’

Association, the Mobile Manufacturer’s Forum (MMF). Members of the MMF also comply with

the International Council on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) guidelines, World

Health Organisation and the International Telecommunications Union recommendations.

Furthermore such equipment and installations (together with mobile handsets sold by Nigerian

operators) are type-approved by the NCC to certify their compliance with international

standards such as the Electromagnetic Field (EMF) thresholds set by the ICNIRP guidelines.

As such, telecommunications equipment deployed in Nigeria do not pose any health

threats as detailed in 2.2.3 above.

3.5 POWER GENERATOR GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS:

ALTON acknowledges the need for the investment and development of sustainable alternative

energy sources. We are therefore actively engaged, in association with operators and other

industry bodies such as the GSM Association (the Global body for the GSM industry) and the

CDMA Development Group (CDG), to achieve a more environmentally friendly framework for

the limitation of the carbon footprint of these power sources.

We are however concerned that the draft Regulations would seek to single out the

telecommunications industry for the imposition of more stringent standards for the use of

generators in an economy that is characterised by incessant power failure. Private sector

operators across all industries in Nigeria are burdened with generating alternatives to meet

their power needs. We believe that the deployment of generating sets towards the provision of

the essential social service of telecommunications should not be subjected to special

standards over and above the rest of the country. The telecommunications industry continues

to strive to fulfill the crucial responsibility of providing 24-hour telecommunications connectivity

to the Nigerian populace and exert its best efforts towards achieving the Nigerian

telecommunications policy goal of universal service provision despite the failed national power

infrastructure. It would therefore be counter-productive to single out the industry for specific

power generation regulation when its generators are no different from those used by other

sectors or the Nigerian populace.

With regard to the set back of 8 or 15 meters for generating sets we refer to our comments in

paragraph 3.2 above and wish to reiterate our concerns with the unavailability of suitable sites

which will allow operators comply with this requirement, particularly in urban and high density

areas, given the peculiarities of Nigeria and the lack of proper development and planning in

most parts of the country. Determining setbacks in this regard is a structural issue which

should be determined empirically with reference to civil engineering best practices.



4. RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE AMENDMENT OF THE

NESREA REGULATIONS

Section Issues Implications Recommendations

Section 5 states that:

Telecommunications

masts and towers

shall be erected and

operated in

compliance with the

provisions of the

Environmental Impact

Assessment Act, Cap

E12, Laws of the

Federation of Nigeria,

2004 in addition to the

submission of site

specific environmental

impact statements to

the Agency

The EIA exercise is

undertaken in two

seasons or a minimum of

nine months. This implies

that the construction of a

site will be completed

between 10 to 14 months

as against the present

timeline of about four

weeks.

This would delay

roll out of planned

sites leading to

either a protracted

delay in the

provision of service

to un-served areas,

or the complete

absence of

telecommunications

service in those

areas. It would also

negatively impact

on Quality of

Service delivery.

The industry does

not object to the

requirement that

national

telecommunications

operations be

subject to a global

EIA report. Site-

specific EIAs are

however

unnecessary, since

all cell sites are part

of the same

operations which

have been approved

in initial EIA reports.

Further, the

structures erected

are of the same type

and specification

duly addressed in

the NCC Guidelines

on Towers and

Masts.

Also, an EIA report

issued before the

building of a site will

not of itself assure

that the subsequent

operation of the site

would be

environmentally

compliant. Thus, an

Environmental

Management Plan

after the fact should

ensure any

attendant

environmental

issues highlighted in




the global report are

duly addressed.

To ensure that

NESREA is able to

perform its statutory

monitoring role, it is

recommended that

representative

sampling of sites be

adopted.

This provision

should therefore be

excluded.

Section 5 (3) without

prejudice to the NCC

Guidelines ……

This provision

appropriately recognizes

the NCC as the statutory

authority regarding the

subject matter.

Two regulatory

agencies, NCC and

NESREA are to be

involved in

certifying

installation of

masts.

There will be

duplication of

approval process on

installation with its

attendant delays

and cost to

operators. Both

agencies need to

harmonise their

views and

determine which

should be

responsible for this

exercise.

(e) to comply with all

extant natural

resources

conservation laws,

regulations &

guidelines with regard

to sitting of its facilities

near ecologically

sensitive areas, etc

(f) shall adopt stealth

&/or camouflage

designs of mast and

towers to reduce their

visual impacts

There is no clear

indication of the

geographical or other

areas where camouflage

masts should be installed.

If adopted this

provision will

require operators to

install camouflage

masts everywhere.

The huge financial

cost of doing this

will make it

impossible for

operators to sustain

the current tariffs

for their services

and will take

telecommunications

services out of the

reach of most

International best

practice advises the

installation of

camouflage masts

in specified

reserved areas only.

This should

continue to be

applied by operators

at the discretion,

subject to the

regulatory oversight

of the NCC.

NESREA should

also be entitled to

make

recommendations in




Nigerians. this regard on a

case by case basis.

This provision

should be excluded.

Section 5 (4) creates

additional

requirements for all

new Facilities located

in residential

premises, schools and

hospitals

This proposal fails to take

into consideration the

need to provide service

along the lines of

demography and the

realities with respect to

availability of sites within

these built up areas. The

provision of services in

these areas will be greatly

affected. The provision

also fails to take into

account the practical

reality that access to

emergency assistance

and services is and will be

to a large extent

dependent on the

availability of mobile

telephony.

This provision

should not be

applied

retroactively.

This requirement

should apply to only

new site builds with

due

accommodation

being made for the

many locations

where the provision

cannot be met. For

this reason we

recommend that

this provision

should be revised to

read “where

possible operators

should …… “

Section 6 states that

abandoned

masts/towers are

threats to health and

safety; and that such

shall be removed.

There is no statement on

duration and conditions

/classification of

abandonment in the EIA

Act which the section

refers to.

The EIA Act merely

requires a proponent to

develop a

decommissioning plan.

However, the NCC

Guidelines classify

abandoned towers as any

tower not in use for up to

three years and

prescribes a process for

decommissioning.

The NCC

Guidelines fill a

lacuna in the EIA

Act. The provisions

of the NCC

Guidelines are also

more in tune with

current realities and

should continue in

force.

The more detailed

provisions of the

NCC Guidelines

should continue to

apply. There is no

need to include this

provision in the

NESREA regulation.

Section 7

(Environmental Audits

ALTON does not object to

monitoring by NESREA at

. The NCC’s

Guidelines may be




& Inspection of

Masts/Towers)

requires that :

(I )All telecom facilities

shall be subject to

routine environmental

monitoring and

inspection by the

Agency

its own cost and

discretion, subject to prior

notice being given to

operators to and formal

accreditation/authorization

of the relevant personnel.

This will ensure that

operators are able to

make necessary

arrangements for the

reception of the officials.

In this regard we note that

the NCC’s monitoring and

investigation activities do

not have any cost

implication on the

industry.

In accordance with the

principles of good

regulatory practice,

environmental

requirements must be

duly published and should

not be applied

retroactively

amended to

recognize

NESREA’s statutory

powers to carry out

inspections, for the

avoidance of doubt.

There should be no

cost implications on

the industry in the

course of

NESREA’s

monitoring and

enforcement

activities.

The insertion of a

requirement that “all

operational sites in

existence will be

permitted to stand.

Operators will be

obliged to use their

best endeavours to

mitigate any

environmental

issues in accordance

with an agreed

EMP”.

(ii) All telecom

facilities shall be

subject to

environmental audit

once in every three

years

The EIA Certificate

obliges the certified

operation to be

subject to

continuous review.

The NCC

Guidelines should

recognize this fact

and encourage

operators to

establish an




Environmental

Management Plan

(EMP) to ensure a

self-managed

compliance

framework.

NESREA will of

course continue to

exercise its statutory

power of inspection

and monitoring.

The NCC’s

Guidelines should

be amended to

reflect the above

comments

Section 8

(Permissible

Radiation Level):

Radiation exposure

level for occupational

staff on site & for the

general public shall

conform to all extant

standards, regulations

and also with the

permissible limits

approved for telecom

facilities by ICNIRP,

etc

The provision assumes

that BTS sites give off

harmful radiation. This is

not true, and NESREA

should be wary of

encouraging sentiments

which have been

scientifically disproved

and which heightens

public hysteria on the

issue. ALTON

nevertheless encourages

all operators to adhere to

the ICNIRP Guidelines

and other applicable

international standards.

The NCC

Guidelines should

affirm compliance

with the ICNIRP

Guidelines and

other applicable

international

standards.

NESREA should be

encouraged to align

itself with the

ICNIRP Guidelines

in accordance with

international best

practices. NESREA

may also wish at

their cost and in

conjunction with the

NCC monitor if

operators are

complying with the

ICNIRP Guidelines

in this regard from

time to time. I

however believe this

should be left to the

NCC who are

currently

undertaking a




similar study in

Abuja.

Section 9 (Power

Generator Guidelines

and Standards):

As much as possible,

environmental friendly

power source such as

solar, hydro, wind, etc

shall be encouraged,

Standards and

permissible levels for

generator setback,

noise level, vibration,

smoke and all forms of

pollution as outlined

here-in shall not be

exceeded:

While containing laudable

objectives which all

stakeholders should

aspire to, it is necessary

to more realistically take

cognizance of the

operating environmental

and the huge costs of

implementing such

recommendations so as

not to impose onerous

conditions on

telecommunications

operators which are not

applicable to other users

of generating sets in

Nigeria.

Sets sector specific

regulations with

regard to power

generation and

unfairly singles out

the telecom sector

for compliance over

and above all other

industries such as

the manufacturing,

banking, service,

hospitality sectors

and other utilities.

The provisions of

the NCC Guidelines

in this regard should

be retained or

amended. Any

regulations which

seek to address

power concerns

should be holistic

and apply to all

industries.

Where NESREA is

seeking generating

set compliance,

separate power

generator guidelines

and standards

should be set to

apply to all users of

generators in

Nigeria.

(2) Power

Generating

sets shall

have a

minimum

setback of 15

meters from

water source

The mischief this

provision is setting out to

address is not clear.

Water sources exist

everywhere in view of the

ground water table and

the flow to any apparent

surface water. The extent

to which it is sought to

prevent any seepage is

determined by the

permeability and porosity

of the ground soil or rock.

The proposed setback

does not address this

issue.

The provision adds

no value.

The NCC

Guidelines amply

specify the nature of

foundation required

to offset and carry

telecom structures

and adequately

provides for a site

foundation that

seals off the ground

soil or rock from

structures such as

generators placed

on top of such a

foundation.

This provision

should be excluded.

(3) (a) Electric

power

generating

In instances where a

building was constructed

after the installation of the

Setbacks are

structural issues

which should be

We recommend that

the NCC’s

Guidelines should




sets located

within

telecommunic

ation base

stations must

be sited not

less than 1m

or 6 m away

from all

demised

property

excluding the

fence

base station and its

generating set, it will be

inequitable to insist on this

prescription.

Furthermore, Par. 3(5) of

the NCC’s Guidelines

makes detailed provisions

in this regard. Those

provisions should

continue to apply.

Also, are operators to be

penalised where building

standards with respect to

demised properties are

not adhered to e.g. the

required setback of such

properties from perimeter

fences

determined

empirically.

This requirement

should not be

applied retroactively

but to only sites

built as from the

date of

commencement of

the FME

regulations.

continue to apply.

For clarity, the

Guidelines should

specify that where a

building is

constructed after the

installation of the

base station and its

generating set, the

Operator is

expected only to

redirect the exhaust

of the said

generating set from

the general direction

of the building. Due

guidance can also

be provided with

reference to civil

engineering best

practices.

This provision

should be modified

as above and

included in the NCC

Guidelines.

(3)(b)All electric

power

generating

sets shall be

sound proof,

and shall

conform to the

Agency’s

guidelines for

permissible

noise level;

Ref schedule

1

It should be noted that

given the poor state of

power supply in Nigeria,

cell sites constitute only a

small fraction of the

sources of generator

noise. It would therefore

be inequitable to specify a

different standard for

telecommunications

operators. Furthermore,

the recommended noise

level is considered too low

and unrealistic when

compared with what

obtains in other countries.

Generators with such

decibels are not readily

available in the market.

Where such generators

Adoption of this

recommendation

will inordinately

increase the cost of

service provision

and overburden

operators.

This provision

should be excluded.

If NESREA however

considers that the

currently prescribed

noise levels are

inappropriate,

NESREA should

commence a review

of the generally

applicable

recommended noise

levels.

(a) See tables

below for Japan,

India and some

cities in Pakistan

below as

recommended by




are available, the cost is

about three times over

that of the regular sound

proof generators currently

being deployed.

See table below for

FEPA and NESREA

recommended noise

levels

NESREA

counterparts in

those countries,

(b) detailed study

on the subject.

.

(3)( c) All electric

power

generating

sets shall be

installed with

appropriate

shock

absorbers to

minimise

vibrations to

the

environment

and adjacent

facilities

Same comments as

above

Same

recommendations

as above

(3)(d)The exhaust

of all electric

power

generating

sets shall not

be directed

towards any

demised

property

same comments as in

respect of 6(1) above

Same comments as

in respect of 6(1)

above

Same comments as

in respect of 6(1)

above

(3)(e)Stack

monitoring of

power

generator

exhaust

emissions

shall be

carried out

once every

month and the

This provision

should be included

in the NCC

Guidelines.




record shall be

entered into

the

maintenance

log book of the

facility

(3)(f)Emission

levels from the

generator

exhaust shall

conform to the

Agency’s

guidelines on

permissible

limits for noise

and air quality

standards in

Nigeria.

No Issues

NESREA to confirm

applicable standard

to S.1.9 of 1991:

Pollution

Abatement in

Industries,

industries

Generating Wastes

Official Gazette,

Federal Republic

of Nigeria No 42,

Vol 78, 20th

August, 1991. (4)

(3)(g)Waste oil,

sludge and oil

filters from

electric power

generating

sets shall be

handled and

disposed of in

accordance

with the

relevant laws

and

regulations of

the Federal

Republic of

\Nigeria and

amendments

thereof, for

handling and

disposal of

hazardous

waste

Ditto

NESREA to confirm

applicable standard

to S.1.8 of 1991:

National Effluent

Limitation Official

Gazette Federal

Republic of Nigeria

No 42, Vol 78,

August, 1991.

(3)(h)Liquid

effluents and

any other

Ditto NESREA to confirm

applicable standard

to FEPA Act (Cap




liquid wastes

or oily waste

water shall be

handled and

disposed of in

conformance

with

authorised

guidelines and

regulations

issued by the

Agency.

131 LFN) National

Environmental

Protection

(Effluent

Limitations)

Regulations

requires every

industry to

manage chemical

discharges from

their operations

(3)(i)Waste

batteries and

related solid

wastes from

maintenance

of power

generating

sets shall be

disposed of in

accordance

with the

relevant

guidelines and

regulations

issued by the

Agency.

Ditto NESREA to confirm

applicable standard

to S.1.15 OF 1991:

Management of

Hazardous and

Solid Wastes

Official Gazette,

Federal Republic

of Nigeria, No 102,

Vol 78, 31st

December, 1991

Section 10

Enforcement:

(10.(1)When there is

non-compliance

with the provisions

of the NESREA

Regulations, the

Agency is

empowered to

notify the facility of

such non-

compliance,

reinspect the site

for compliance

after 7 days from

notification and

issue a notice

The establishment Act

empowers the Agency to

carry out inspection of

telecom facilities to

determine compliance and

also apply sanctions in

instances of non-

compliance

We note the event of

inspections and re-

inspections by NESREA.

A general offence for

violating all manner of

types of provisions

(informative, prescriptive,

declaratory, etc) as

There is a need to

ensure due

transparency,

fairness and due

process in effecting

inspections. Thus

there is a need to

provide due notice

of such inspections.

Further the

notification is to the

site and not the

operator with a 7

day period provided

for compliance.

The premise upon

which a security

The NCC’s

Guidelines are to be

amended to

acknowledge

NESREA’s powers

in this regard, whilst

stating that the

Agency will

endeavor to give

reasonable notice

prior to inspection.

We believe that in

line with

international best

practices, operators

should be served at

their place of




directing

compliance where

violation persists

(10)(2)&(3) the

creation of

offences of non-

compliance and

obstructing

NESREA.

contained in the NESREA

regulations is largely

ambiguous and

amorphous.

guard is to sign a

binding

acknowledgement

of receipt on behalf

of an operator is yet

to be established.

business with due

notice not the site

which is inanimate.

Any offence created

should be clear and

unambiguous

FEPA Recommended Noise levels

Recommended Noise Level by NESREA Environment/Habitat Permissible Noise levels (decibels)

Daytime (6am-10pm)

Night time (10pm-6am)

Residential Areas 50 35

Hospital and schools 45 35

Commercial areas 55 45

Environmental Quality Standards for Noise in Japan Category Area Affected Sound Level dB(A) AA Areas, which require particular Day time Night



quietness, For instance. For instance areas where medical facilities are concentrated

6-22hrs time 22-6hrs

A Exclusive residential area

General Area 50 or less

40 or less

Area facing roads with two lanes or more

60 or less

55 or less

B Area which is mainly for residence

General Area 55 or less

45 or less

Area facing roads with two lanes or more

65 or less

60 or less

C Commercial & Industrial areas

General area 60 or less

50 or less

Special Case

Area facing trunk road (heavy Traffic lanes) 70 or less

65 or less

Ambient Noise levels (Leq) Applicable in India Area Code

Category Environmental Noise standards Leq dB(A)

Day Time Night Time A Industrial Area 75 70 B Commercial Area 65 55 C Residential Area 55 45 D Silence Zone 50 40

Noise levels in Different Cities of Pakistan S.No Cities Name Max. Recorded

Noise level dB(A)

Min. Recorded Noise level dB(A)

Average

1 Gujranwala 100 41 72.5 2 Faisalabad 100 47 72 3 Islamabad 104.5 47 72.5 4 Rawalpindi 108.5 48 72.5 5 Karachi 88.5 62.4 76.5



6 Peshawar 708.5 68.2 86

the association of licensed telecommunications operators...

Documents