Viewpoint By John Campbell — (Published in Global Post)
Nigerian President Umaru Yar’Adua’s efforts to reform the oil and gas
industry have the potential to upset the fragile Nigerian internal
political balance among the regions, ethnic and religious groups, and
patronage networks.
Oil provides most of the Nigerian state’s formal revenue. Under
current agreements, nearly all of Nigeria’s oil and gas is produced
through joint ventures between the Nigerian National Petroleum Company
(NNPC) and the major international oil companies. The federal
government collects more than 90 percent of the profits from oil and
natural gas and, in turn, redistributes about half of this revenue to
state and local governments throughout the country by a complex
allocation formula.
Especially at the lower levels of government, lack of transparency
facilitates Nigeria’s notorious corruption. Competition for access to
oil money is at the center of Nigeria’s patronage politics. In that
sense, oil is the glue that holds Nigeria together, and changes in the
petroleum regime have significant political ramifications, with winners
and losers.
Minister of Petroleum Rilwanu Lukman’s Petroleum Industry Bill (PIB)
would rationalize the complex relationship among the federal
government, the national oil company and international investors to
increase production and ensure maximum revenue for the state. He wants
to transform the national petroleum corporation into a profit-driven
national oil company such as those in Brazil, Saudi Arabia or Malaysia.
However, the devil is in the details.
From the perspective of the international oil companies, the Yar’Adua
administration is failing to consult with them sufficiently, and they
find the resulting draft legislation to be badly flawed. The major oil
companies are also opposing the PIB legislation because they say it
would reduce their slim profit margins and alter to their disadvantage
the process by which the federal government allocates to petroleum
companies the blocks where exploration and production may occur. The
oil companies argue that such changes would greatly reduce incentives
for international investment in the petroleum industry, and the
consequence likely would be a fall in production rather than an
increase.
The proposed legislation illustrates the dilemma faced by reformers
operating during a weak presidential administration. President Yar’Adua
appears to lack the necessary energy to overcome the numerous interests
opposed, overtly or by stealth, to reform. In fact, he has been mostly
absent from the debate on the bill. An industry source claims that
Yar’Adua has met with only one senior international petroleum company
executive during the current debate.
Need for reform of the industry, however, has been long recognized.
Increases in production are constrained by the failure of the national
oil company to provide its proportionate share of the required
investment because it is dependent on erratic National Assembly
appropriations and is denied access to capital markets.
The current ramshackle regulatory regime in Nigeria has elements dating
back to colonial times and takes too little account of the emergence of
huge off-shore fields. In part, because of the lack of capital
investment, a large percentage of the natural gas is lost to flaring.
Intended to serve the domestic market, Nigeria’s refineries are
unprofitable, under-capitalized and seldom function. As a result, most
of the gas, oil and kerosene is imported, and the federal government
subsidizes fuel for the benefit of the general population. Efforts to
eliminate or reduce the subsidy as recommended by the international
financial institutions have resulted in mobs in the streets.
In the Niger River delta, where oil is pumped, environmental
degradation associated with the industry deprives many of their
traditional livelihoods. There is a nearly universal perception in the
region that it benefits too little from being Nigeria’s oil patch. This
sense of grievance plays an important role in the local population’s
acquiescence or support for anti-government militant groups that attack
and sabotage oil facilities and kidnap expatriate workers. Increased
revenue allocations to the delta called for by its governors and other
regional political leaders would mean less for the other states, many
already poorer than the delta.
While the PIB addresses reform of existing government institutions
involved with the oil and gas industry, it avoids addressing directly
the political hot buttons of government fuel subsidies and the formula
for allocating oil and gas revenue among the states, reasons why the
southern governors oppose the legislation. Nevertheless, the
legislation would establish a context for addressing those issues,
though not necessarily to the liking of the elites involved.
Even if the legislation were to pass, the caveat would be the
government’s ability to implement it. The draft legislation establishes
a timeline for the creation of new institutions and policies but not
for their use or implementation. In the meantime, the debate on the PIB
in the National Assembly introduces uncertainty about the future of the
petroleum industry, which may cool international enthusiasm for the
investment necessary to increase Nigeria’s production.
John Campbell is the Ralph Bunche senior fellow for Africa policy
studies at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). He was ambassador to
Nigeria in 2004 to 2007 during the civilian presidency of General
Olusegun Obasanjo.
PetrolWorld 121109 - Published in Global Post
|