Maritime Entrepreneurship And Economic Development In Nigeria

The Nigerian experience revealed much confusion for several reasons. Apart from getting involved in the turbulent politics of ocean-borne trade right from the start without grooming and nurturing local competence, first, it totally ignored the need to create a learning curve with the sheer absence of a Cabotage legislation. In seeking to implement the National Shipping Policy Act, the NMA left out the bulk of section 14 cargoes, in pursuit of section 9 cargoes. Added to the fact that its application of section 18 was reduced to bureaucratic procedure, private cargoes by the fact of ownership, size and numbers were quite cumbersome to identify, control and allocate. It also tended to affect usual commercial trade practice. Moreover, the shippers were left to pay a high transaction cost incidental to the measure for the support of indigenous shipping companies. Yet there was no remarkable growth. Rather, the decline and demise of conference lines made cargo allocation procedure unclear to understand and control.

However, the study noted that defective and distasteful as Cabotage regime might appear to others, the NMA and other stakeholders still have the statutory duty to assist the maritime development of Nigeria. To do this, it was seen that public sector cargo size in Nigeria could provide a firmer and justifiable ground for the commencement of a credible programme. A more efficient cargo support programme then should focus on the control and involvement of Nigerian shipping companies in the carriage of section 14 cargoes. Not only are these easier to identify and manage, the resistance to the approach is not also expected to be high.