From clash to cash

Nigeria’s rulers are hoping a new policy to deliver the benefits of oil to the local population in the form of cash handouts might help placate an insurgency that has slashed oil production.

On Commander Ebi’s baseball cap, the logo reads: "Alaska”. Little else connects the 42-year-old – who has spent the past five years in a militant camp deep in the tropical creeks of the Niger delta – with the prosperity and polar bears of the northernmost US state.

Except, that is, for oil. But while petroleum has made Alaskans among the wealthiest people in the world’s wealthiest country, Nigeria’s oil province – on which the US depends for nearly one in every 10 barrels of crude it imports – has known little but conflict, corruption and misery in the half-century since the first barrel was shipped.

Yet Nigeria’s rulers are hoping a new policy to deliver the benefits of oil to the local population – as Alaska does with its pioneering approach of distributing petrodollars in cash to citizens – might help placate an insurgency that has cut production by as much as 40 per cent.

That puts them at the frontier of new ideas for solving the problems that oil brings. "Countries who have managed natural resources well are those with powerful constituencies that can stop the government from feeding at the trough [of oil money],” says Todd Moss from the Washington-based Centre for Global Development and an advocate of cash distributions. He favours Alaska-style payouts, which he says "are a way to manufacture such a constituency”.

Where civil society or non-resource business is weak, Moss points out, natural resources do not put a country on a fast track to development. "Look at Nigeria – $US300 billion [in oil revenues] over the past three decades, but the average Nigerian has got poorer.”

So thoroughly has crude corroded the contract between government and citizens that most of Nigeria’s 150 million people regard the state more as predator than benefactor. In the delta, thousands of jobless young men extort, kidnap and blow up pipelines under the banner of resistance to a state that has failed them, and oil companies that have despoiled their lands.

A recent amnesty has lured them to surrender their arms for the present. Under government proposals designed to keep the delta from re-arming, the state would hand over 10 per cent stakes in the joint ventures that run Nigeria’s biggest energy industry to "host communities”.

While the proposals could face stiff opposition from elsewhere in the country, they have been approved by ministers and a presidential implementation committee has been created, according to the architect of the plans, Emmanuel Egbogah, special adviser to President Umaru Yar’Adua on petroleum matters. The initiative, he says, is "revolutionary” and will mean that "every community – whether blind or deaf or dumb, every citizen – will say: ‘I own a part of this business’”.

Direct cash distributions are perhaps the most radical idea that has emerged from a decade-and-a-half-old movement to transform the way poor states manage their natural resources. That movement sprang from a growing realisation of a "paradox of plenty”: life in resource-rich countries often remains miserable.

Part of the reason is economic. Volatile commodity prices, and the built-in revenue bust inherent in depletable resources, complicate planning. Even in good times, resource economies can suffer from "Dutch disease”: the hard currency a country earns from its oil, gas or minerals distorts its economy, crowding out agriculture or manufacturing.

The other problem is political. States flush with resource revenues have a strong incentive for patronage and outright corruption. Entrepreneurship becomes an effort to "feed at the trough” in rent-seeking that at best fritters away productivity and at worst breaks down the rule of law.

There are exceptions. Norway, Botswana and Chile have harnessed oil, diamonds and copper for national development, giving hope that other countries too may succeed. In 2002 Tony Blair, then UK prime minister, launched the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative, with dozens of governments, mining companies and oil groups pledging to declare payments and revenues. But neither such pledges, nor even the strictures of Washington’s multilateral institutions, can ensure countries keep to the straight and narrow.

Under fire from critics claiming resource extraction harmed the poor, the World Bank in 2000 placed conditions on financing an oil pipeline from Chad to the coast of Cameroon. It required that Chad’s royalties went into a special account rather than the national budget and that all payments were published. A share would be saved for future generations. Withdrawals had to go towards health, education or other social needs.

"It was a beautiful plan on paper – but there was nothing to stop the government from reneging on the deal,” says Moss. Chad soon diverted money to military spending. In 2008, the World Bank withdrew from the project. Still, an international consensus emerged on policy for commodity-dependent countries: channel revenues into funds to insulate national budgets; increase transparency of payments; include checks and balances in spending.

Yet even countries that have adopted such policies may not succeed where Chad failed. East Timor’s government raided its savings fund by withdrawing more than the prescribed maximum. Such cases suggest the standard recipe is not enough to end the cycle of corruption. Advocates say only giving the people a direct stake in the resources will mend the bond between state and citizens.

"If every citizen [of Chad] had been entitled to cash payments...the political dynamic would have been very different,” says Moss. "Cash distribution is complementary to transparency efforts; in fact, it would help. If the amount paid out to citizens is different from what the government receives from oil companies, or if this year’s distribution is $US52 while last year’s was $US58, the government would have to explain that to people.”

The idea is gaining interest. When she was in the US Senate, Hillary Clinton, now secretary of state, sponsored a resolution recommending that Iraq set up a trust fund to distribute part of its oil revenues to the people. Presidential candidates in Iran and Venezuela have mooted the idea too, as has Libyaq’s Muammer Gaddafi.

According to its architects, the Nigerian scheme could make about $US555 million annually available – about $US20 a year for every man, woman and child of the delta’s 28 million people, a significant amount in a region where 70 per cent live on less than $1.50 a day.

Nigeria’s eight oil producing states already receive an extra slice of oil proceeds – but much of the money vanishes. Dimieari Von Kemedi, an activist recently drafted into the government of oil-rich Bayelsa state, says his audit of state finances found contracts had been inflated to the tune of $US114 million.

Whether the new scheme can avoid such problems is critical to its success. "It will not be like the Alaskan case, when each individual gets his money,” Egbogah says. The intended option is a system of trust funds administered at the behest of each community – bypassing the delta’s state and local governments.

By receiving a share in the proceeds of an oil industry they have long resented, delta dwellers would have an incentive to facilitate production, Egbogah reasons. But even so, critics warn that trusts risk replicating what they say is oil companies’ practice of allocating funds to some communities in order to safeguard their own facilities, generating resentment in less favoured settlements.

A heated debate one recent morning in the royal hut of the Edagberi clan suggests the tensions that could emerge. "Some communities, they only have a pipeline or access road,” says Anigbo Williams, 52, chief of one of the clan’s six communities. "If you give him with his one well [a payment] and come and give me with 44 wells the same, you have a problem: we will feel we have been cheated.”

The proposals come at a critical moment not just for the delta. Tensions and a sense of paralysis are mounting with each day that the ailing Yar’Adua remains in the Saudi hospital to which he was rushed more than a month ago. The government is in the thick of oil industry reforms. It wants to incorporate the state oil company – long regarded as a vessel of patronage – and formalise loose joint ventures.

Oil companies are fighting tougher terms and negotiating renewals of 40-year leases on prime oil blocks. Adding the 10 per cent plan into the mix heightens what was already a sense of make or break ahead of elections due in 2011.

All the while, the delta holds its breath. "It is left to [the government] to do something that will be favourable to each and every one of us in this part of the country,” says the Alaska-capped Commander Ebi. But he warns that a badly executed plan would have harsh consequences, bringing new vigour to the guerrilla campaign to disrupt oil production. "If we are not developed, we will bounce back to the creeks. We are not afraid.”

InvestSMART FORUM: Come and meet the team

We're loading up the van and going on tour from April to June, with events on the NSW central & north coast, the QLD mid-north coast and in Perth, Adelaide, Melbourne, Sydney and Canberra. Come and meet the team and take home simple strategies that you can use to build an investment portfolio to weather any storm. Book your spot here.

Want access to our latest research and new buy ideas?

Start a free 15 day trial and gain access to our research, recommendations and market-beating model portfolios.

Sign up for free

Related Articles