I had seen the briefing by the minister of agriculture on the 150-day import window and other measures but kept mute. Several people asked about my thoughts of it, so I decided to give my opinion.

The government opting for food imports with waivers shows it is abreast with what it must do to drive down food cost short-term and that importing alone -without waivers– will not be enough or work.

Looking at the latest trade figures; total import in Q1 2024 surpassed N12trillion. Agricultural goods were one of the top imports. It grew by 95.28% to N920.54bn in Q1 2024 from N471.39bn in Q1 2023.

At the end of the same quarter in 2024, food inflation reached 40.01%, a 15.56% increase from the previous year.

This tell us that food imports had been occurring and grew higher, and food prices increased significantly despite such.

Hence, the recent food import instruction should not come across as new and does not offer much hope. But with waivers, it does (to an extent). Importation cost is the main deal.

Forex ban on 43 items in 2015 and over, high exchange rates and import-deterring measures have ensured an enduring increased cost of food imports.

The mean price of imported food index rose to a new record in the last 4 years by 105.03%. Imported food saw 16.12% change in inflation rates between the year 2020 and 2024 in the month of January.

At a time in April, cargo cost fell to ₦1,260.49/$ from a peak of ₦1,624/$ with measures in forex market in Q2 2024 that took autonomous market rates to ₦1,255/$. This reflected in the price of (imported) foods at that time, with foreign rice selling for ₦70,000 and tended to drop further after climbing over ₦80,000.

The discussed waiver thus is a positive but there is a reservation. The import directive focuses on/subsidizes consumption not production. It gives waivers to food but not inputs.

Input price hike is a leading driver of increased production cost and price of food. Prices of seeds and agrochemicals have more than doubled in the same period over. The waiver has to target both.

Raw materials accompany agricultural goods to account for bulk of imports in Q1 2024. This import rise did not result in a fallen price of food.

It appears that importation cost is pushing the prices of inputs and cancelling their positive impact on food prices or that, irrespective, core production of vital input elements has to occur locally.

The latter is important and sustainable, because relying on external inputs exposes domestic food system to global shocks.

Locally, maize price jumped by 52.2% post-lockdown and fertiliser price by 80% since Russia-Ukraine hostility from early 2022.

Nonetheless, I’m concerned about the dangers of importation. Importation without breaks has overturned/hindered domestic production and destroyed many of our sectors.

We cannot produce all the food we eat and should not commit to producing all our needs.

Full-swing protectionism, without well thought-out plan, in the past has had more harm on food prices.

When the border closure was considered in 2015, I argued for strategic closure than outright closure. Now look at what we have today, increased rice capacity but so also over 500% increase in price of rice.

We improved our production output but a fast-growing population and inefficiency across the value chain ensure demand is always in excess and our rice output dwindle and with a considerable supply deficit.

Clinging to protectionism whilst demand was high, shot up rice and other food prices with an irreversible effect apparent today.

Importation could have supplemented that, and scarce resources distributed to other productive endeavours.

We have serious maize problem today and the commodity has had a significant impact on our food price.

We do not produce enough to meet our maize needs. But does that mean we do not produce a substantial volume of maize? Certainly not! In fact, we produce over 11million metric tonnes. This accounts for the second largest production in Africa. However, our demand is 15million MT.

The problem is with productivity, which can improve with hybrid varieties, good agronomic practices, other production enhancing inputs and being able to cultivable lands usurped by insecurity.

The United States uses 39million hectares to produce 347million MT of maize, Nigeria realizes 15million MT from 5.9million ha. A big difference on yields/ha.

Aside productivity, the availability of maize in Nigeria and demand for it is influenced by several competing uses. 45.5% goes to livestock production, about 15% to human consumption, 13% for flour, flakes and confectioneries, and 6.5% for breweries.

With maize output not rising but declining unable to meet local demand and its imports levied a 5% tariff and blocked from forex window, maize scarcity and hiked price ensued and have wreaked havoc on fish and poultry sectors greatly dependent on it and with impact on prices of fish, chicken and eggs.

For instance, a Kg of catfish which sold for ₦800 presently retails at ₦2,500. A crate of eggs sells today for about ₦4,000 from ₦950 in early 2020.

I am not saying importation is the solution but that sticking to protectionism in spite vivid reality would cause unnecessary sufferings, almost always irredeemable.

The case here for maize as with many other crops is to commit to productivity than undertaking more productions and enforcing austere economic measures.

Getting the balance between importation and domestic production without dissuading local producers is the delicate part, but it is not impossible.

Importation has a place. In fact, many of the leading food producers and exporters -US, China, India, etc -have significant import bills. China is a leading exporter of rice but also the largest rice importer.

The balance of trade should however be positive, greatly, and imports rather should play augmentation role where there is deficit and not totally replace what we have comparative advantage to produce and capacity to satisfy domestic demand.

I would assume the government instituting a short import waiver window (150-day duty free import) understands this.

But if the government knew all this and the possible impacts, why did it let things go this bad before taking the needed actions?

Understanding (based on available reports) imports have been responsible for bulk of our foods and inputs and the impact input and importation costs have on food prices, why had it not granted, short term, special concession for agricultural imports seeing how unification of exchange rates and removal of fuel subsidy would drive input and food prices?

Nonetheless, the government must understand that importation and waivers are not a sustainable and lasting solution but fostering domestic production strategically is, that there are other factors, local, aside tariffs as dwindling food production, inefficient and unproductive production, insecurity, spoilages and wastages, seasonality, illegal and multiple fees along supply chains, and energy price etc. that are driving food prices. These problems must be holistically addressed.

I have not seen all these being addressed in the recent released ‘raft of measures’, however, the agriculture minister acknowledged some of these issues alongside many others in the brief.

Perhaps, solutions are being proffered to them, but we hope to see more and rapid results in those areas.  

It is my hope that this importation directive is properly navigated and does not compound issues and erode gains seen with local production from the past.