In their daily lives, Nigerians must cope with this open ambivalence –
they have oil but they can’t see oil; they have petroleum, but they
have no petrol; they pay for light but they get darkness. There is no
better way to explain what we mean here than by telling our usual story
of the so-called subsidy on petroleum products in its most elemental
form.
Nigeria is said to be the sixth largest producer of oil in the world.
But with mismanagement, what was originally supposed to be a blessing
from God has virtually turned a curse. At every point, we are either
fighting because of the poor allocation of this resource, or we are
crying that some dubious elements have stolen the total proceeds.
The original arrangement was that as soon as the crude oil came out
from the ground, Nigeria would sell 90 percent at the spot market, in
hard currency. The remaining 10 percent was meant to be refined for
local consumption.
At various times, Nigeria had built four refineries – two in
Port-Harcourt and one each in Warri and Kaduna, intended to refine
different products. These refineries were run aground; and they are now
old and practically comatose.
Because of our lack of refineries, foreign concerns that had
refineries began to pick up, at rock-bottom prices, the 10 percent crude
reserved for local consumption. They would refine the products in their
countries and export the refined products to us at their own prices. By
the time the product returns to Nigeria after its triangular journey,
the price has hit the ceiling and it is no longer within the reach of
many. This is where government steps in to bring in what it calls
subsidy.
Under this scheme, a country like the Netherlands, which does not
have a single drop of oil, is in the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting
Countries, OPEC, as a net exporter of oil.
The subsidy regime in Nigeria reminds us of two issues – first,
subsidy would have been absolutely unnecessary if we were doing our own
refining in Nigeria. Secondly, the subsidy regime has been fraught with
fraud and dishonesty.
Between 2006 and 2014, Nigeria paid over N7.5 trillion as subsidy
claims. Yet, we are still where we are – the subsidised products are not
available and where they are available, they sell for prices much
higher than the unsubsidised products. Put differently, we have been
subsidizing fraud.
The subsidy game has been a political one and has not been played on
the rings of economic data; and rather than being fact-driven, it has
been emotion-driven and politically played by those who use it as a
political tool.
Subsidy in itself is not a bad idea. In fact, it is defined in
economics as money paid by government or an organisation to reduce the
cost of producing goods so that their prices can be kept low. It seeks
to reduce the market price of an item below the cost of production.
Government intervenes to support desirable activities to keep the prices
of staple low; maintain the income of producers of critical or
strategic products; induce investment while reducing unemployment.
Everywhere, subsidy is supposed to be a cushion to enhance the
welfare and well-being of the people. It is an acceptable practice the
world-over.
This writer was in Germany in the winter of 1973, when the price of
oil increased astronomically because of some major adjustments by OPEC.
Many companies would have just gone under but government quickly
intervened with a serious subsidy package. Among other things, industry
workers – including those of us arbiters who were “pulling gburu”
– were made to work two days a week (eight days a month) for full
month’s pay. That’s subsidy.
If all American farmers were to be allowed to produce at their
optimum levels, food would be surplus and totally useless everywhere.
The American government has had the practice over the years of paying
some selected farmers to stay at home, not producing anything during the
year. That’s subsidy.
In these places, the subsidy scheme is well managed and it gets to
the target population – the poor. But in Nigeria, the exact opposite is
the case: the real beneficiaries are not the poor but the middlemen and
the rent seekers, contrary to the argument usually advanced and which
has been at the heart of subsidy’s continuation, that it is pro-poor.
As long as there are long queues in our filling stations, we are
merely compounding the problems of the poor. When people queue and sleep
at petrol stations like refugees, besides the human degradation
involved, you have also effectively reduced from their sources of
livelihood because the time spent at the stations are wasted. Funds for
infrastructural and human capital development are frittered away on
dubious subsidy claims and payments to about 40 corporate citizens of
Nigeria, to the utter neglect of the rest of us.
Truly, petrol can sell for N40 a litre but things must get worse
before they get better. Subsidy is strangulating us! We must take the
tough decision NOW – tighten our belts and let subsidy go!
Those middlemen in the current supply chain must go. Subsidy removal
must be approached through what we call “the blind man and
his yam”. If you have to pill the blind man’s yam, you
must keep whistling while you do so as a sign that you are not
introducing the yam into your own mouth.
Similarly, any substantial subsidy removal must be immediately
accompanied with the rehabilitation and upgrading of the refineries so
the people can see what you are doing with theirmoney. Once we meet our
local needs, importation will stop. When importation stops, subsidy
ends. The darkest part of the night is just before dawn.
Let’s give ourselves one year to work on the refineries during which
period, as a way of choosing the lesser of two evils, we shall allow
only the NNPC to import petroleum products directly so that we can know
exactly what we are consuming.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
0 comments:
Post a Comment