Nigeria’s Reliance on Foreign Climate Aid is a Gamble We Cannot Afford

By Nankpak Cirfat

From the shrinking edges of Lake Chad to the flood-swamped plains of the Niger Delta, Nigeria is living through a storm not only of weather but of destiny. For millions, climate change is no distant debate; it is a present crisis: failing harvests, submerged homes, lost livelihoods. Across our regions, communities bear the weight of shifting rain patterns, creeping deserts, and rising seas.

Yet even as nature’s fury intensifies, our fiscal foundations weaken. We are attempting to fight for resilience with a funding model built on borrowed hope.
The report by Connected Development (CODE) and Oxfam in Nigeria, “The State of Climate Finance in Nigeria,” draws back the veil on this paradox. Between 2015 and 2021, Nigeria received US$4.928 billion in international climate finance, channeled through 828 projects (CODE & Oxfam, 2024). Meanwhile, estimates of the country’s annual climate financing needs vary widely, from US$10 billion up to as high as US$17.7 billion depending on methodology (CODE & Oxfam, 2024; Climate Policy Initiative, 2024). This disparity signals a staggering funding gap, and with every year it persists, the vulnerability of Nigeria’s people deepens.

Of the climate finance received, the report indicates that around three-quarters was disbursed as debt instruments, not pure grants (CODE & Oxfam, 2024). In other words, while we draw down funds to adapt and mitigate, we also accumulate liability. That debt-driven approach amplifies Nigeria’s already fragile fiscal structure and constrains our ability to redirect resources during emergencies or pivot responses.
Debt, even when concessional, is still debt. Each dollar borrowed must eventually be repaid, often with interest, squeezing future budgets. For a country already grappling with high debt service obligations, chasing climate loans risks crowding out essential investments in health, education, infrastructure, and basic services.

Beyond these financial stresses, international climate funds often carry conditionalities. Donors and multilateral financiers frequently favor large-scale mitigation or “bankable” projects like the solar farms, wind parks, carbon markets, over grassroots adaptation solutions like agroforestry, coastal restoration, or rainwater harvesting. Those projects might yield returns in emissions metrics or carbon credits, but they often bypass the local priorities of communities caught between intense floods or intensifying droughts.

Moreover, the timing and predictability of climate finance are notoriously unreliable. Pledges made with fanfare at global summits frequently arrive late, partially, or not at all. The oft-cited US$100 billion/year target by developed nations was first met only in 2022, years later than promised (OECD, 2024). For Nigeria, delays mean stalled projects, idle contractors, and frustrated communities left waiting on adaptation or resilience support.

Even when the money is available, it does not always reach communities. The CODE/Oxfam report notes that institutional capacity, opaque processes, weak data systems, and demanding reporting requirements often cause disbursement bottlenecks. Grants go unclaimed, projects stall, and vulnerable groups remain exposed.
But beyond ministries, even state and local governments struggle. Climate adaptation requires nimble responses, community engagement, and cross-sector coordination. Yet decentralized governments often lack the resources, trained staff, or institutional frameworks to competently absorb central climate funds or deliver local solutions.

Every day we delay reform, vulnerabilities worsen. Coastal communities lose land and homes. Farmers lose their seed banks and crop yields. Flooding, erosion, and salinization push people into displacement. The cost of adaptation escalates with each passing season.
Indeed, the long-term cost of inaction far outweighs the incremental cost of reform. If we continue to underinvest or misallocate, our people will pay an existential price through hunger, displacement, disrupted health, and lost opportunities. That is the true gamble of relying too heavily on foreign aid.
If climate funding is going to work, it must be embedded within Nigeria’s financial architecture, not layered on top. Two interconnected frameworks provide the pathway: climate budgeting and Green Accountability.

Climate budgeting involves integrating climate goals (mitigation and adaptation) across all tiers of government, making climate commitments explicit in national, state, and local budgets. It means tagging line items, forecasting future climate costs, and ensuring climate spending is considered in macroeconomic planning.
That approach shifts the narrative from sporadic donor projects to institutionalized governance. Rather than chasing grants, climate goals become built-in priority areas. Ministries, agencies, and local governments must evaluate all proposals through a “climate lens.” This fights fragmentation and promotes coherence across sectors (agriculture, water, energy, infrastructure).
On the other hand, Green Accountability is a governance framework designed to ensure that every climate naira works transparently, inclusively, and effectively for the people it is meant to serve. It goes beyond simply tracking expenditures, it redefines how climate finance is planned, implemented, and measured.

Permit me to say that at its core, Green Accountability rests on four key pillars. Firstly, Transparency, which ensures that all climate-related allocations and expenditures are openly published in accessible formats, allowing citizens, journalists, and oversight institutions to scrutinize how public funds are being utilized. Then, Participation will then guarantee that communities, especially those most affected by climate impacts, as well as civil society organizations, are actively involved in shaping policies, implementing programs, and monitoring results. Furthermore, Equity will demand that resources are distributed fairly, prioritizing the needs of vulnerable populations and regions that face the greatest climate risks. And now, Efficacy focuses on measurable outcomes, ensuring that every investment delivers tangible environmental and social benefits, validated through evidence and community feedback.

These principles transform climate finance from a bureaucratic exercise into a tool for justice, inclusion, and real impact. Green Accountability creates a system where citizens are not passive recipients of aid, but active partners in building a sustainable, climate-resilient Nigeria. It also allows citizens, journalists, and CSOs to become active watchdogs, ensuring climate funding works for people, not hidden bureaucracies.
A bit away from the report, Nigeria’s 2024 Federal Budget, when examined through a climate-focused lens, reveals both progress and persisting gaps. On one hand, there are encouraging signs that climate action is gaining traction within public finance. The Federal Ministry of Environment, for instance, appears to be among the more climate-conscious agencies, channeling a substantial portion of its capital spending toward climate-relevant projects, particularly those centered on adaptation and environmental resilience. This demonstrates a growing awareness of the urgent need to prepare communities for the realities of drought, flooding, erosion, and other climate-induced challenges.

However, this progress is far from uniform across government institutions. Several ministries and agencies continue to prioritize mitigation investments, such as solar streetlight installations and energy supply expansions, often without sufficient consideration for local vulnerabilities or evidence of long-term sustainability. Meanwhile, administrative and overhead expenses consume a significant share of available climate funds, leaving fewer resources for direct, community-level interventions where they are most needed.
Equally concerning is the persistent neglect of foundational enablers such as climate education, public awareness, and climate finance mobilization. These areas, which are critical to building public understanding and capacity for climate action, continue to receive minimal attention and funding. The result is a fragmented and uneven national response—one that signals ambition on paper but struggles with implementation in practice.

These patterns reflect a deeper systemic challenge: while Nigeria recognizes the urgency of the climate crisis and has made commendable commitments, it still lacks the institutional coherence, coordination, and budgetary discipline necessary to transform policy promises into measurable impact. For Nigeria to truly lead in climate resilience, climate budgeting must become a whole-of-government priority, anchored in transparency, accountability, and long-term planning.
As the world prepares for COP30 in Brazil, Nigeria need to arrive not as a beneficiary but as a credible and proactive climate partner. Our negotiators should carry a dual message: demand justice abroad while demonstrating integrity at home. This means pushing for a global climate finance system that is fair, transparent, and effective, while also reforming our domestic frameworks to ensure accountability and resilience. Nigeria must insist that adaptation and loss-and-damage finance be structured primarily as grants rather than loans, recognizing that debt-driven climate finance is inequitable and unsustainable for vulnerable countries already burdened by fiscal constraints. Equally, the country should advocate for direct access mechanisms, simplified and transparent pathways that enable national, state, and local institutions to obtain climate funds without unnecessary intermediaries or bureaucratic hurdles.

At home, Nigeria as a matter of urgency should institutionalize climate budgeting across all ministries, departments, and agencies, ensuring that climate considerations are integrated into every aspect of fiscal planning and policy. Budget offices must be empowered to tag and monitor these allocations, creating a system that ties ambition to measurable action. To complement this, the establishment of a National Climate Fund governed by a multi-stakeholder board, comprising government, civil society, and community representatives, would ensure equitable disbursement of resources and minimize risks of political capture.
I will also opine that Nigeria should present a portfolio of green-tagged projects at COP30: well-defined, community-informed adaptation and mitigation initiatives designed with clear outcomes, measurable impact, and transparent frameworks for implementation. lastly, to build credibility, the country must strengthen audit systems, reporting mechanisms, and community monitoring. Empowering institutions like the Auditor General, Public Accounts Committees, and citizen-led platforms like FollowTheMoney International to ensure that every climate naira is tracked, accounted for, and used for the benefit of Nigerians.

The climate crisis is as much about governance as about geology. For too long, Nigeria’s approach has relied on external generosity. That approach is failing us. On one path deepens dependency, our resilience tied to fluctuating donor priorities, while the other demands courage, taking control of our climate agenda, investing in our systems, and making every climate naira accountable.
And if Nigeria embraces climate budgeting and Green Accountability, we enter COP30 not as passive recipients, but as respected, credible partners. We can say: “We are putting our house in order. We commit our own resources transparently and effectively. Now it is your historic obligation to support us.” In doing so, we will earn global respect and forge a future of resilience, prosperity, and sovereignty, built by Nigerians, for Nigerians.