Before Nigeria commits fully to its blue-economy ambitions, we should ask what the term means and who stands to benefit from it.
Globally, “Blue Economy” has come to describe the development of marine and aquatic resources: shipping, fisheries, coastal tourism, offshore energy, biotechnology and other ocean-based activity. Nigeria’s Federal Ministry of Marine and Blue Economy frames its mandate similarly, around the responsible use of marine resources, maritime industries and environmental stewardship. Coastal communities and Integrated Coastal Zone Management also appear among its areas of concern.
But the global conversation has another side. Scholars have warned of “ocean grabbing” or “blue grabbing,” in which marine and coastal resources, spaces and decision-making come increasingly under market-driven control. Some researchers caution that when blue-economy projects are led mainly by commercial interests, they can create tensions over access to common resources and push aside small-scale fishing communities and other coastal users.
That does not make the Blue Economy inherently exploitative, and not every initiative amounts to privatisation. It does raise a fair question: are we developing the water as an economic asset, or developing the people whose lives and livelihoods depend on it?
Starting from place and people
The language of policy shapes its priorities. “Riverine Infrastructural Development” points attention to a specific environment and to what people need to live and work in it: passable roads and waterways, jetties and landing facilities, schools and clinics, clean water, electricity, shoreline protection, communication networks, housing, and emergency response systems.
In the Niger Delta, geography decides how people live, travel, trade, get an education, receive healthcare and take part in the wider Nigerian economy. A policy framework that begins with those realities starts a different conversation from one that begins with marine resources and investment opportunity.
Delta State offers a practical example. Governor Sheriff Oborevwori’s administration has established a Directorate of Riverine Infrastructural Development (DRID), and the governor has publicly said riverine communities are dear to his government. The significance lies less in the name than in the institutional message. Riverine problems get a dedicated body rather than being lost inside broader structures. To a fisherman or trader in a creek community, that says his geography and his access to development matter.
Not an either-or choice
This is not an argument against the maritime economy. Nigeria needs functioning ports, shipping, maritime security, fisheries and aquaculture, coastal tourism and investment in offshore energy. The Federal Ministry of Marine and Blue Economy carries real responsibilities in transport, marine safety and these other areas, and nothing here calls for dismantling them.
The real question is whether infrastructure and human development in riverine communities deserve a dedicated institutional priority of their own. A maritime economy cannot be called sustainable if the communities beside its waterways remain cut off from basic infrastructure and from any meaningful share in the wealth.
A better way to measure success
Nigeria increasingly presents itself as a serious maritime nation, and it measures that by port efficiency, shipping volumes, investment figures and revenue. Those numbers matter, but they are incomplete. A fuller scorecard would ask how accessible riverine communities are and how safe their waterways are. It would look at the state of their schools and health facilities, how well their livelihoods are protected, how much of the value drawn from marine resources stays in the communities that host them, and whether local people have a voice in decisions about their own waters.
The goal should not be to abandon the Blue Economy. It should be to humanise it and localise it, and to make its benefits measurable at community level.
Our position
ATMCDI believes the idea behind DRID deserves serious consideration beyond Delta State. For the Niger Delta, and for Nigeria’s wider coastal and riverine communities, there is a strong case for an institutional framework that puts riverine infrastructure, community inclusion and sustainable human development at the centre of policy. DRID need not replace any function of the federal ministry.
It can serve as a model of focused attention on communities whose challenges are defined by their riverine geography.Nigeria’s waterways should not become more valuable while the people beside them stay economically vulnerable. Riverine and coastal communities should be partners and beneficiaries in the development of these waters, not merely hosts to it. As the country advances its maritime ambitions, no riverine community should be left behind.
By ATMCDI
