Climate Change Governance in Nigeria

Background to the Study

Climate change governance refers to institutional structures policies and coordination mechanisms through which state formulates implements and monitors action to mitigate greenhouse-gas emissions and adapt to climate impacts. Unlike many policy domains mapping neatly onto single tier or agency of government climate governance inherently multilevel and multi-actor: international commitments (UNFCCC Paris Agreement) must be translated into national legislation and institutions which must in turn be operationalised by subnational governments and sector-specific agencies with private-sector and civil-society actors playing complementary roles — structure Elinor Ostrom termed polycentric governance in recognition that no single-level governance mechanism can by itself adequately address phenomenon that is simultaneously global in cause and profoundly local in impact and implementation.

Nigeria climate-governance architecture developed substantially over past several years. Climate Change Act 2021 signed into law 18 November 2021 first stand-alone comprehensive climate-change legislation in West Africa requiring government to establish National Climate Change Action Plan and five-year rolling carbon budget with specific annual targets and creating National Council on Climate Change (NCCC) inaugurated in 2022 and chaired by President with control over newly established Climate Change Fund. Nigeria revised Nationally Determined Contribution under Paris Agreement commits country to unconditional 20% reduction in emissions below business-as-usual by 2030 rising to conditional 47% reduction contingent on international support alongside longer-term net-zero target spanning 2050 to 2070 — with National Council on Climate Change Director-General reaffirming at COP30 in Belem in November 2025 national mandate to achieve 32% emissions reduction by 2035.

Despite developing national policy architecture first comprehensive empirical assessment of climate governance across all 36 Nigerian states — combining document and budget review national survey of 1,306 respondents from relevant ministries and agencies and stakeholder validation workshop of over 600 participants — found low climate literacy among subnational officials weak public awareness and limited policy development with only handful of states possessing dedicated climate policies or action plans fewer than 20% maintaining climate-related budget lines and weak cross-sectoral collaboration and alignment with national frameworks. In response Federal Ministry of Environment in partnership with Society for Planet and Prosperity launched Subnational Climate Governance Performance Rating and Ranking in 2025 explicitly designed to benchmark and drive reform across Nigeria 36 states through comparative transparency — initiative Minister of Environment described in October 2025 as reflecting climate change status as central to current federal administration policy focus.

What remains less examined is state of institutional readiness and multilevel coordination specifically as experienced and perceived by staff within federal and FCT-level institutions responsible for climate-governance implementation as distinct from state-level focus of Okereke et al 2025 assessment. Study addresses that gap by investigating institutional climate-governance capacity and multilevel coordination within selected federal and subnational institutions in Abuja Federal Capital Territory.

Statement of the Problem

Nigeria climate-governance policy architecture — Climate Change Act 2021 NCCC and increasingly ambitious NDC trajectory — advanced considerably and government publicly declared climate change central administrative priority. Yet Okereke et al 2025 36-state assessment reveals stark implementation gap at subnational level: low climate literacy weak policy development and minimal budgetary commitment notwithstanding existence of national legal and institutional frameworks. This finding raises directly relevant question for federal and FCT-level institutions responsible for coordinating with and providing technical/financial support to subnational actors: do these coordinating institutions themselves possess adequate institutional capacity and effective multilevel coordination mechanisms or does implementation gap identified at state level originate at least in part from capacity or coordination weaknesses further up governance chain?

Limited empirical research examining institutional climate-governance capacity and multilevel coordination effectiveness specifically from perspective of federal-level and FCT-level implementing and coordinating staff as distinct from subnational-official-focused Okereke et al 2025 study. Creates policy-relevant gap: without evidence on institutional capacity and coordination effectiveness at federal/coordinating level difficult to determine whether Nigeria climate-governance implementation gap primarily subnational capacity problem multilevel coordination failure or both. Study addresses gap by empirically examining institutional climate-governance capacity multilevel coordination and perceived implementation effectiveness within selected federal and FCT-level institutions.

Aim and Objectives of the Study

Aim is to examine institutional readiness and multilevel coordination for climate change governance within selected federal and subnational institutions in Nigeria.

·         Assess level of institutional climate-governance capacity (policy budget and personnel) in selected federal and FCT-level institutions

·         Examine effectiveness of inter-agency and multilevel (federal-state-FCT) coordination mechanisms for climate action

·         Evaluate staff-perceived effectiveness of climate-action implementation in selected institutions

·         Determine relationship between institutional climate-governance capacity and perceived implementation effectiveness

·         Recommend measures for strengthening institutional capacity and multilevel coordination for climate governance in Nigeria

Research Questions

·         What is level of institutional climate-governance capacity in selected federal and FCT-level institutions?

·         How effective are inter-agency and multilevel coordination mechanisms for climate action?

·         How effective do staff perceive climate-action implementation to be in selected institutions?

·         What is relationship between institutional climate-governance capacity and perceived implementation effectiveness?

·         What measures can strengthen institutional capacity and multilevel coordination for climate governance in Nigeria?

Research Hypotheses

·         H01: There is no statistically significant relationship between institutional climate-governance capacity and staff-perceived climate-action implementation effectiveness.

·         H02: Multilevel coordination effectiveness has no statistically significant influence on staff-perceived climate-action implementation effectiveness.

·         H03: There is no statistically significant difference in institutional climate-governance capacity across selected institution types.

Significance of the Study

Contributes to Nigerian public-administration scholarship by extending recent 36-state climate-governance assessment (Okereke et al 2025) upward to federal/coordinating institutional level offering complementary rather than duplicative empirical perspective on Nigeria multilevel climate-governance architecture. Theoretically study applies Polycentric Governance Theory and Multilevel Governance Theory prominent in international climate-governance scholarship but less frequently applied through primary Nigerian survey research alongside Institutional Capacity Theory. Practically study of value to National Council on Climate Change Secretariat in benchmarking its own coordinating capacity; to Federal Ministry of Environment in refining recently launched Subnational Climate Governance Ranking initiative with complementary federal-level data; and to international development partners supporting Nigeria NDC implementation in identifying where capacity-building investment most needed. For academic community study provides validated instrument for measuring climate-governance institutional capacity and multilevel coordination adaptable to state-level or sectoral climate institutions. For Nigeria broader climate commitments stronger federal-level institutional capacity and coordination directly support country capacity to meet its NDC and net-zero targets.

Scope of the Study

Delimited to federal-level and FCT-level institutions with direct climate-governance responsibilities in Abuja. Focuses on institutional capacity (policy budget personnel) multilevel coordination mechanisms and perceived implementation effectiveness as distinct from subnational-state-level focus of Okereke et al 2025 study though two explicitly designed to be read as complementary. Empirical focus perceptions and institutional knowledge of staff directly involved in climate-governance coordination and implementation captured through cross-sectional questionnaire complemented by document analysis of Climate Change Act 2021 Nigeria NDCs and Subnational Climate Governance Performance Rating.

Limitations of the Study

Cross-sectional design limits causal inference between institutional capacity/coordination and implementation effectiveness. As relatively young institution (NCCC only inaugurated 2022) some measured capacity indicators may reflect institution still in formative stages context discussion of findings Chapter Four instructed to consider explicitly rather than treating early-stage capacity gaps as fixed permanent institutional weakness. Restricting sample to federal/FCT-level institutions limits generalisability to subnational-level dynamics more directly addressed by Okereke et al 2025 36-state assessment though this study federal-level focus designed to complement not replace existing evidence base.

Operational Definition of Terms

Climate Change Governance: Institutional structures policies and coordination mechanisms through which state formulates implements and monitors climate mitigation and adaptation action.

Institutional Capacity: Organisation's policy budgetary and personnel resources and structures relevant to performing its climate-governance mandate.

Multilevel Coordination: Mechanisms and processes through which climate-governance actors across different tiers of government (federal state FCT) and across different sectoral agencies align and collaborate on climate action.

Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC): Country's self-defined national climate-action commitment submitted under Paris Agreement subject to periodic revision and increased ambition.

Mitigation: Climate action aimed at reducing or preventing greenhouse-gas emissions.

Adaptation: Climate action aimed at adjusting institutions infrastructure and practices to reduce vulnerability to actual or expected climate impacts.

Conclusion

Study expected to establish current level of institutional climate-governance readiness identifying factors shaping multilevel coordination effectiveness and determine statistical relationship between institutional capacity and perceived implementation effectiveness. Expected to complement Okereke et al 2025 36-state finding of low subnational climate literacy weak policy fewer than 20% states with dedicated budget lines with federal/FCT-level perspective on whether implementation gap originates partly from coordinating level capacity or coordination weaknesses. NCCC inaugurated 2022 still formative requiring benchmarking. Recommendations for strengthening institutional capacity budgetary commitment and multilevel coordination to support Nigeria climate commitments including 20% unconditional 47% conditional reduction by 2030 and 32% reduction by 2035 affirmed at COP30 and net-zero 2050-2070.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

1. What is Climate Change Act 2021 Nigeria?

First stand-alone comprehensive climate legislation in West Africa signed 18 Nov 2021 requiring National Climate Change Action Plan five-year rolling carbon budget annual targets and creating National Council on Climate Change NCCC chaired by President with Climate Change Fund control.

2. What are Nigeria NDC targets?

Revised NDC unconditional 20% reduction below business-as-usual by 2030 conditional 47% with international support alongside net-zero 2050-2070 and NCCC DG reaffirming at COP30 Belem Nov 2025 mandate 32% reduction by 2035.

3. What did 36-state climate governance assessment find?

National survey 1306 respondents + 600+ validation workshop: low climate literacy among subnational officials weak public awareness limited policy development only handful states possess climate policies/action plans fewer than 20% maintain climate-related budget lines weak cross-sectoral collaboration (Okereke et al 2025).

4. What is NCCC and when established?

National Council on Climate Change established by Act 2021 inaugurated 2022 chaired by President responsible for coordinating climate governance Carbon Fund oversight Action Plan carbon budget implementation.

5. What theories guide this study?

Polycentric Governance Theory (Ostrom) recognizing no single-level mechanism adequate for global cause local impact, Multilevel Governance Theory international to subnational translation, Institutional Capacity Theory policy budget personnel resources.

6. What is scope of this federal/FCT study?

Selected federal MDAs NCCC and FCT climate-focal-point officials Abuja Taro Yamane sample stratified random Likert questionnaire on capacity policy budget personnel inter-agency multilevel coordination implementation effectiveness Chi-square regression ANOVA 0.05 level document analysis Act NDCs Subnational Rating.

7. What is Subnational Climate Governance Rating?

Launched 2025 by Federal Ministry of Environment with Society for Planet and Prosperity benchmarking and ranking 36 states through comparative transparency to drive reform — initiative described by Minister Oct 2025 as central to administration policy focus.

8. Why study federal level when state gap already known?

To determine whether implementation gap originates solely subnational capacity problem or also capacity/coordination weaknesses further up governance chain among federal institutions responsible for coordinating and supporting subnational actors — complementary not duplicative to Okereke 36-state study.

9. What are limitations?

Cross-sectional limits causal inference, NCCC young institution 2022 still formative early-stage gaps not permanent weakness, sample limited to federal/FCT limits generalisability to subnational dynamics which Okereke et al addresses.

10. Where download full project?

Download complete project with questionnaire instrument and document analysis from SCHOLARNESTHUB as publication-ready document.