Menu

Assessing the National Policy on Marine and Blue Economy 23 Feb 2026

Introduction

Nigeria’s National Policy on Marine and Blue Economy (2025–2034) is a 10-year strategic roadmap approved by the Federal Executive Council in May 2025 to transform the maritime sector into a major pillar of economic growth. It serves as the unified framework for the Federal Ministry of Marine and Blue Economy to harness an estimated $296 billion in untapped maritime potential.

Organised into nine parts, which are designed to eliminate previous institutional fragmentation, its primary focus includes maritime transport and shipping, to improve port efficiency, competitiveness, and to establish Nigeria as a regional hub for maritime; fisheries and aquaculture, where the goal is to achieve national fish self-sufficiency; and marine abiotic resources, to explore seabed mining, biotechnology, and offshore renewable energy. Other focus areas include sustainable infrastructure, to modernise the ports in Apapa, Tin Can Island, and the Eastern region, and rehabilitating 2,000km of inland waterways; and environmental stewardship, to protect 853km of coastline from pollution, overfishing, and climate-related degradation.

The policy’s financing structure relies on private sector investment, while targeting the creation of 3 million jobs within its first four years of implementation.

Strengths

The national policy on the marine and blue economy represents one of the most ambitious attempts in recent decades to reposition the Nigerian maritime sector as a central pillar of national economic growth. For a country endowed with an extensive coastline, vast inland waterways, strategic port locations, and access to key international shipping routes, the policy reflects long-overdue recognition that the maritime domain is not merely a transport corridor but a multi-sector economic ecosystem.

The policy aligns Nigeria with global trends that view the ocean economy as a source of sustainable development – encompassing shipping, ports, fisheries, aquaculture, offshore energy, marine tourism, coastal infrastructure, and environmental protection. It also reflects Nigeria’s broader economic diversification agenda, particularly at a time when volatility in the oil sector has exposed the risks of over-reliance on extractive revenues.

However, while the policy is commendable for its scope and ambition, a closer examination reveals a recurring structural weakness that has historically undermined sectoral reforms in Nigeria: the gap between policy vision and governance execution. The policy is strong on aspirations, but comparatively restrained in articulating the legal, economic, and regulatory mechanisms required to translate those aspirations into durable outcomes.

Weaknesses

The next part of this article provides a critique of the policy to sensitise policymakers and other stakeholders for remedial actions.

Expansive vision, weak governance: One of the defining strengths of the policy is its holistic framing of the blue economy. Rather than treating shipping, ports, fisheries, and offshore resources as isolated silos, the policy correctly positions them as interconnected components of a single maritime value chain. This integrated approach reflects international best practice and provides a conceptual foundation for long-term planning.

Yet, integration at the policy level does not automatically produce coherence at the operational level. In practice, the maritime sector – particularly ports and shipping – operates within imperfect markets marked by high barriers to entry, capital-intensive infrastructure, and limited competitive alternatives. These characteristics make economic regulation not a constraint on efficiency, but a prerequisite for it.

The policy promotes competitiveness and private-sector participation. But it does not sufficiently address the reality that private sector participation in maritime infrastructure must be matched by strong economic governance. Without clear oversight of pricing, tariffs, and commercial conduct, efficiency gains risk being offset by cost escalation, rent-seeking, and market dominance.

This omission is not theoretical. It is reflected in the lived experience of port users who continue to face fragmented charges, limited price predictability, and weak recourse against high costs.

Privatisation and competition decoupled: Closely related to the absence of a robust economic governance framework is the policy’s limited engagement with competition law and market discipline. The policy embraces private investment as a catalyst for growth but stops short of embedding competition safeguards as a foundational principle of maritime governance.

In many advanced maritime economies, competition policy is not introduced after privatisation – it is built into the reform architecture from the outset. Regulators are empowered to prevent abuse of dominance, ensure fair access to essential facilities, and intervene where market behaviour undermines efficiency or public interest.

Nigeria’s maritime sector, by contrast, has largely evolved in the opposite direction. Private operators now play a dominant role in port services, yet competition oversight remains fragmented and reactive. The result is a system where market power is often exercised without sufficient counterbalance, leaving shippers and logistics providers exposed to pricing practices that are difficult to justify economically.

The Marine and Blue Economy Policy acknowledges the need for competitiveness without explicitly anchoring competition law as a core regulatory tool. This risks perpetuating the structural imbalances it seeks to correct.

Policy meets continental reality: The policy situates Nigeria’s maritime ambitions within the broader framework of the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA), recognising that ports and shipping will play a decisive role in determining whether Nigeria emerges as a regional trade hub or loses ground to competing gateways.

AfCFTA is often discussed in terms of tariff reductions and market access, but its real test lies in logistics efficiency. High port charges, unpredictable fees, weak coordination, and regulatory opacity function as non-tariff barriers that can erode the benefits of trade liberalisation.

While the policy aligns rhetorically with AfCFTA’s objectives, it does not sufficiently address how Nigeria will tackle these maritime-related barriers. Trade facilitation requires more than infrastructure investment; it demands predictable pricing, transparent rules, and effective oversight of service providers.

Without stronger governance mechanisms, Nigeria risks remaining a high-cost corridor in an increasingly competitive African logistics landscape – particularly as other regional ports invest not only in capacity but also in regulatory clarity and efficiency.

Environmental sustainability concerns: Environmental protection is a prominent theme throughout the policy, reflecting growing awareness of marine pollution, climate change, and ecosystem degradation. The policy appropriately acknowledges the need for sustainable exploitation of marine resources and the protection of coastal environments.

However, sustainability language alone does not produce compliance. What is notably underdeveloped in the policy is the link between environmental objectives and enforcement mechanisms. Effective environmental governance requires clear liability regimes, defined penalties, and institutional capacity to monitor and sanction non-compliance.

International maritime practice demonstrates that sustainability outcomes are strongest where environmental obligations are backed by economic consequences. The policy’s limited emphasis on enforcement risks turning sustainability commitments into aspirational statements rather than operational imperatives.

Absence of maritime ADR: Another area where the policy falls short is in its treatment of legal certainty and dispute resolution. Maritime commerce is uniquely international, technical, and time-sensitive. As such, it has evolved specialised dispute resolution mechanisms – particularly arbitration and mediation – that are better suited to its needs than traditional litigation.

The policy does not meaningfully elevate Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) in maritime as a strategic tool for managing conflicts arising from shipping, port operations, or logistics services. This omission has practical consequences. Prolonged disputes increase costs, delay cargo movement, and discourage investment.

In leading maritime jurisdictions, specialised dispute resolution is recognised as a competitiveness tool. Nigeria’s policy would benefit from a clearer commitment to promoting ADR frameworks that support commercial certainty and efficiency.

Underutilised strategic asset: The policy acknowledges inland waterways as part of Nigeria’s maritime domain, but their treatment remains largely peripheral. Inland water transport is not fully integrated into a national logistics strategy that links ports to hinterland markets.

This gap has real economic implications. Over-reliance on road transport continues to exacerbate congestion around ports, accelerate infrastructure deterioration, and inflate logistics costs. Inland waterways, if properly regulated and commercially enabled, could serve as a cost-effective alternative for cargo evacuation and regional trade.

The absence of a coherent regulatory and commercial framework for inland water transport undermines the broader blue economy vision and limits Nigeria’s ability to optimise its maritime assets.

Data transparency: Modern maritime governance increasingly relies on transparency and data-driven decision-making. While the policy references innovation and technology, it does not sufficiently articulate transparency obligations in areas such as tariff disclosure, service benchmarking, and performance monitoring.

Transparency is not merely an administrative tool; it is a regulatory imperative. Where information asymmetry persists, inefficiencies multiply, and disputes proliferate. The policy’s limited focus on transparency mechanisms weakens its capacity to foster accountability and trust within the maritime ecosystem.

Conclusion

Nigeria’s marine and blue economy policy is an important statement of intent. It reflects an understanding that the maritime sector must play a central role in economic diversification, trade facilitation, and sustainable development.

Yet, the policy’s effectiveness will ultimately depend on its ability to move beyond vision and address governance realities. The most significant gaps lie in economic regulation, competition safeguards, enforcement mechanisms, dispute resolution frameworks, and transparency tools.

Closing these gaps is not about expanding bureaucracy or stifling private initiative. It is about creating balance – between growth and fairness, investment and accountability, ambition and execution. As Nigeria seeks to compete under AfCFTA and reposition itself within global maritime trade, strengthening the governance foundations of its blue economy will determine whether the policy delivers lasting impact or remains simply as a well-intentioned blueprint.

Joy Dimka is a Senior Legal Officer at the Nigerian Shippers' Council.