By: ‘The Rock Post’ team
Dr. Siyan Malomo is the pioneer Director General of Nigeria Geological Survey Agency (NGSA). In celebration of the agency’s centenary, The Rock Post magazine interacted with him to share some of the high points and what lies ahead as they step into another millennia. Excerpts:
Q. NGSA is celebrating 100 years, has the agency lived up to expectations, if not, what will you advise it should do differently based on your experience.
R. 100 years is a long time, but as an aggregate it has not been too bad. Currently if one compares the Agency to that of other countries in Africa (and I have been to a significant number of them through my previous work, before heading the NGSA) only that of South Africa will stand above that of Nigeria. The agency is in Nigeria and has perhaps been a victim of the national environment over the century. Although the Agency has been quick to embrace changes, there are areas where it could deepen and also expand.
Q. From inception till date, are you of the opinion that the body has gone through any form of significant evolution, different from name changes, and at what stage is any evolution most significant.
R. There have been significant changes over the years both in terms of impact and output. The first fifty years were devoted to searching for minerals and developing same for British war effort in the First and second world wars. Searching and development continued even during post war and the purpose was for economic development. The changes were incremental but steady. Almost all the major mineral finds (e.g. coal fields, tin fields, tantalite/columbite deposits, limestone deposits, phosphate deposits, gold fields, bitumen deposits, lead and zinc deposits) and major groundwater investigations (Borno, Sokoto basins) were obtained during the period.
The quantum leap that occurred in the last 20 years is the greatest change both in terms of outputs and outcomes. This has been due to input of knowledge, resources and infusion of modern technology.
Q. Various geological reports are generated by NGSA, some are published others are not, leading to duplication and repetition of efforts, not necessarily to improve on past works. Why and how can this be avoided.
R. The reports of the NGSA when published should have genuine and credible information. They should go through the mill of review and verification. The maps for instance has an imprimatur, more like the stamp of the Governor of Central bank on the currency note. In effect, figuratively speaking, you can take the report or map to the bank! The unpublished reports are those of work not completed or verified. They could be made available, but those who use them should understand the risks. I believe the duplication is not from the NGSA but those who rush to publish unverified data obtained from the NGSA. NGSA does and should go over previous works only to ascertain its veracity and quality.
Q. You are fondly remembered as a past DG, what legacy, would you consider your most memorable contributions to the agency?
R. I think, I positioned the NGSA as a geoscience research agency for government. I developed human and institutional capacities and built infrastructure. We built all the zonal offices, established and built all the research centres and equipped them to become functional. We also refurbished and equipped all the state offices. I developed the capacity of the staff in many areas. They have been poorly trained and moribund, and I got them to work and they delivered outputs and outcomes.
We established viable linkages and partnerships with local (Universities, other government Agencies, NMGS, NSME, other professional bodies, mining and oil companies) and international entities (BGS, USGS, BRGM, Korean Geological Survey, European Union, IAEA and African Union).
There was a huge increase in output. For instance, the Data, Maps, Bulletins and Reports that we produced in 2005-2013, a period eight years, was more than the aggregate of outputs for the rest of Geological Survey institutions (the precursor institutions viz. Geological Survey of Nigeria, Department of Geological Survey etc.)over the entire one hundred year spectrum.
I hasten to add that all this was possible because I inherited good quality data and information as well as trainable people, with potentials. I recruited and developed the capacity of a new generation of younger geoscientists, many of whom can stand on their own anywhere in the world. In addition, we leveraged on modern technology which was now commonly available. If the agency had been created in the seventies or before, it would not have been able to do so much.
Q. Comparatively with similar agencies worldwide, British Geological Survey, USGS (America), France, Australia, South Africa, would you say we are doing great in terms of deliverable?
R. I have visited all the survey organisations that you mentioned and more, I have actually worked with some of them. The current template of the NGSA, developed as a road map on the establishment of the agency (in 2003) is consistent with structure, form and practice in this organisation. All that is required is continuation with the template. We are not yet where we want to be, but we are on the path. But there is need for consistency and continuity.
Q. Sir, you will recall that the defunct Nigerian Mining Corporation (NMC), based in Jos, had some special responsibilities with respect to minerals development and mining, which was acclaimed as a complimentary initiative to NGSA, how, in your view, has NMC’s dissolution impacted on the sector?
R. Closing down of government mining institutions (Nigerian Mining Corporation and Nigerian Coal Corporation) was the policy adopted by the government. That is moving from being the administrator, regulator, owner and operator at the same time (thereby competing with the private sector, an unfair advantage) to become and administrator and regulator only and leave the private sector to be the owner and regulator.
It was also consistent with the privatisation policy of the government. In Africa and elsewhere, the so-called STAMINCOs (State Mining Companies) were privatised with the exception of a few e.g. CODELCO in Chile. I believe that government should be engaged in industries where is has comparative advantage. That was not the case before these companies were privatised. The bulk of government funds provided to these companies, five years before privatisation did not go into production of commodities but paying staff salaries and allowances. The companies were at the time, almost setting themselves up to be candidates of privatisation. Privatisation is not a bad thing per se but how it is carried out and managed after the event. We have excellent examples in telecommunication and airline industries) which has gone to surpass our imaginations.
Those who invested in the mineral properties post-privatisation have not lived to expectation. It is also the failure of the operators (apart from a few e.g. Dangote) in the industry to step up their act from being small operators (quarry sites, artisanal and small scale mining) to big players. It is a challenge similar to that of agriculture viz. transiting from subsistence farming to large scale farming. Managing change is a Nigerian problem.
Q. What is your view on the ongoing intervention by Government to generate geological information (National Integrated Mineral Exploration Project) on mineral resources of the country?
R. It is a welcome development. But the government and the public need to know that generating geological information cannot be achieved in a one-off project. It is a continuous exercise that should last for many years, if not centuries. Many of the geological surveys of western countries (who we emulate) were established in the 19th century and they are still generating information.
Closer to home, oil was discovered at Oloibiri, Bayelsa State in 1956. We are looking for more oil and gas in Nigeria today.
It is a never-ending venture as long as there markets for mineral products and demand for information for national development e.g. for geology and health or agriculture, The elements of the project should be designed in such a way that new information is generated and not a rehash of old information packaged with new covering.
I have said it in so many fora and at every occasion where the opportunity arises that the role of government in generating geological information is in mapping (using all the available methods and instruments viz geology, geophysics, geochemistry, GIS, mathematics, statistics etc), mineral surveys and mineral assessment. Mineral exploration should be limited and targeted to specific national needs. In a properly organized, mining industry, the private sector should be allowed to take the lead in detailed exploration. Public funds are too limited and detailed exploration risk is too high for government to commit large resources to it.
Q. Through Government intervention and international agencies support, a number of specialized agencies such as MinDiver, SMDF etc have been established, do you see these as the missing link between stakeholders and mineral resources development in Nigeria?
R. I know why they are created (at least for the SMDF, it was in the 2007 Minerals and Mining Act 2007 and Minerals and Metals Policy 2008 -both of which I was involved in the development). But I am not sure that I know what they are doing or the outcomes of their activities.
Q. What do you see as major hindrances to NGSA delivering on its mandates?
R. Human Capacity and technological gap. There is rapid attrition of staff through retirement. There is need to bring newly elevated staff to the level of knowledge of the departing ones. There is constant need for infusion of new ideas and technologies (technological change).
Q. What advises do you have for the current regulators and operators of the industry?
R. There is currently two much revenue leakage in the industry. The industry cannot primarily be a social service, which is what it has been driven to become as the investment funding is largely from public funds. Very little direct investment is coming from the private sector. They are all waiting for government funding. In the last fifty years, the emphasis shifted largely from substantive mining companies (who can be listed on the stock exchange, for instance) towards small scale and artisanal mines. These are perennially asking for public handouts.
The returns on investment by government (of personnel, time and funds) have not been commensurate with the effort. This has to change.
The regulators and the operators must now endorse a paradigm shift from consumers and distributers of public funds to contributors to public purse.
The supervising Ministry should become less over bearing and let the Agencies under its supervision be allowed to operate as autonomous entities. The agencies were created by government to meet national requirements and serve functions. The Ministry could not duplicate the work of the Agencies as it has no capacity to do so. A case in point is when the NGSA completed the airborne geophysical (electromagnetic and radiometric) survey of the country. Two successive Permanent Secretaries tried to have the data domiciled in the Ministry, where there were no capacity to distribute or interpret them. It took a major ‘battle’ with the active support of an understanding Minister for the data to stay where it could be best utilized.
The Agencies in the industry should drop ‘sibling rivalry’ and collaborate more in sharing information and knowledge. This is a national imperative.
Q. How is life in retirement? (What are you engaged in presently?)
R. I am retired but not quite tired. On initial retirement, I took appointment (on full time basis) with the Federal University of Technology, Akure (FUTA). After a little under three years, I felt I could not continue with the work on a full-time basis. I resigned but was later invited by the School (Faculty) to continue on a part-time basis. This is what I do now. In addition, I give advice and consult for companies on occasions. I am also catching up on reading.
