The paradigm of development chosen by the leadership of any society will to a large extent determine the developmental dividends which the people will reap. The aphorism that as a person sows, so shall he reap is not just religious but it is applicable in virtually all fields of human endeavour. The energy challenge facing Nigeria can be used to demonstrate the application of this aphorism in relation to the deployment of technologies that are environmentally-friendly and cost-sustainable vis-à-vis deploying what we refer to as the conventional solutions. This discourse will also show that this aphorism applies to agricultural development and the need to increase crop yields and promote sustainable farming.
A study on ‘Socially Inclusive Sustainable Development in a Climate-Stressed Northern Nigeria – A Case Study on Jigawa State’ commissioned by the Heinrich Boll Foundation reveals the need for thinking out of the box or while thinking within the box, to expound the frontiers of the conventional box of knowledge. The 2010 capital budget of Jigawa State planned irrigation activities to increase crop yields, provide employment for the teeming population, and facilitate planting of trees and environmental conservation in a state that is faced with desertification and its challenge to sustainable livelihoods. Provisions were made for the drilling of 10,000 shallow tube wells and 10,000 water pumps for irrigating plots of land. The study sought to compare the cost of deploying gasoline-fuelled pumps for the project and solar-powered pumps. At a cost of N52,000 for one horsepower gasoline water pump, 10,000 units cost the state government N52 million. The running cost of purchasing one gallon of gasoline every day for 10 years was put at N14 billion. Using the international market price for carbon multiplied by the quantity of carbon dioxide and other oxides produced by burning one gallon of gasoline, the environmental cost of pumping water for 10 years was calculated at N466 million. This brought the total cost to N15.1 billion over 10 years.
READ ALSO; Power Forward huddle develops Nigeria’s youth potential in sport and leadership
On the other hand, one horsepower solar pump using solar panels cost N320,000 and 10,000 units will cost N3.2 billion. In terms of operation costs, it does not require fuel and it is cost-efficient to operate with fairly low unattended maintenance. It has no environmental cost as it does not produce any greenhouse gases. Thus, the irrigation project which will cost the state government N15.1 billion over 10 years can be operated with only N3.2 billion, leaving a net gain and potential savings of N11.9 billion. Even though the authors did not put a maintenance cost for the equipment over the period of 10 years, providing N1 billion for maintenance will still leave the state with a lot of efficiency gains as it achieves its objectives at less cost. In essence, solar pumps would have delivered better value for money in terms of getting it done cheaper, producing the same results and meeting policy objectives of the government.
The difference between the conventional gasoline pump and the solar pump and what confuses those in authority to make public investment decisions is the higher initial purchase cost of solar energy. But when this cost is amortised over the lifespan of the project, it becomes clear that the solar option is cheaper. Solar power can be used for lighting, cooking, drying of farm products, irrigation and creation of new local jobs in installation and manufacture of solar panels.
The second study focused on comparing chemical versus organic fertiliser procurement for agriculture in the state. The Jigawa State government used the sum of N900 million for the purchase of 7,000 metric tonnes of chemical fertiliser for the year 2010. This is based on the fact that a 50kg bag of fertiliser cost about N6,000 as at that time. When converted to metric tonnes, 1mt will cost about N120,000 and with handling charges, 7,000mt will be procured for N900 million. Of course, inorganic fertilisers have large carbon footprints and leave farmers at the mercy of distribution systems.
However, only N750 million is needed for the installation of an organic fertiliser factory that can produce 10,000 metric tonnes of organic fertiliser per year. This option would have created jobs for operators of the factory and over 500 waste collectors would have been employed for the factory. It also has the option of long-term protection of soil fertility. According to the study, “Organic fertilisers are natural materials of either plant or animal origin, including livestock manure, green manures, crop residues, household waste, compost and wood litter. Organic fertilisers differ from chemicals in that they feed the plants while building the soil’s structure. Soils with organic materials remain loose and airy, are better able to hold moisture and nutrients, foster growth of soil organisms, including earthworms, and promote healthier root development.” Thus, if the second option of establishing an organic fertiliser plant was followed, the state would have had other benefits apart from fertiliser procurement and long-term crop yields of lands would have improved over the years.
The lesson of the foregoing case studies is the need to consider all imputations of cost before arriving at a decision on the best way to implement a policy. The same amount of money can be deployed to achieve different values and results depending on how it is invested. It is best to swim with the tide of nature than to swim against it. In conclusion, governments across the federation are enjoined to adopt more ecologically-friendly approaches in solving the energy and agricultural challenges facing the nation.
Eze Onyekpere
