A review of the Nigerian biofuel policy and incentives (2007)

Abstract

Nigeria is blessed with abundant energy resources including crude oil, natural gas, coal and lignite, nuclear elements, wind, solar, biomass, and hydropower, but due to lack of infrastructure the country is experiencing a shortage of electricity, liquid transportation, and cooking fuel. Despite being a major exporter of petroleum, Nigeria relies on foreign nations for the supply of refined products including gasoline, diesel, kerosene, and even LPG. Nigeria planned to reverse this trend by investing in bioenergy. Nigeria biofuel policy and incentives was released in 2007 with the aim of spurring a vibrant bioenergy sector. This article reviewed the Nigerian policy and incentives and found some policy conflicts, gaps and inconsistencies. The Nigerian biofuel policy narrowly classified biofuel to include only bioethanol and biodiesel neglecting other biofuels and energy carriers that are obtainable from biomass. The Nigerian biofuel policy classified the biofuel enterprise as belonging to agro-allied industry, yet the policy mandated the petroleum industry to play a leading role in the establishment of the biofuel sector. The policy inadvertently refer to food crops such as cassava, sweat potato, and maize as cellulosic bio-ethanol feedstocks. These feedstocks are food crops, though are also feedstock for the production of first generation bio-ethanol. Cellulosic (second generation) ethanol is typically produced from non-food crops such as grasses (elephant grass, miscanthus, switch grass), fast rotation crops, wood wastes, etc. The policy did not address the potential food versus fuel conflicts that could arise from the use of food crops as biofuel feedstock. The policy considered the development of transgenic varieties of cassava, sugarcane, sweet potato, and maize without considering the environmental impacts and agronomic impacts of transgenic crops to native species. The Nigerian biofuel policy did not adequately address issues pertaining to technology transfer. In view of the policy gaps and conflict we suggest an upgrade of the policy.