Nigerian airlines doing next to nothing on climate governance
SOStainabilityWeekly
By Oke Epia, E-mail: sostainability01@gmail.com | WhatsApp: +234 8034000706
Washing and hushing
Nigeria’s aviation sector is flying straight into the centre of the global climate conversation, but you would never know that from listening to its airlines. Aviation accounts for roughly 2.5 per cent of global CO₂ emissions and is projected to triple in Africa by 2050 as air travel expands. Nigeria’s Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) identifies transport, including aviation, as a key growth area for emissions, and the country’s updated long-term climate strategy stresses the need for cleaner fuels, fleet modernisation and improved efficiency across the sector. Yet none of this is visible in the public communications of the airlines that service Nigeria’s skies.
The government has already submitted an updated State Action Plan to the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) and adopted the Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation (CORSIA) into national regulation. Nigeria recognises that aviation emissions will rise without intervention and has modelled the consequences. But when you visit airline websites, the climate story disappears. No policies, no reports, no targets and no evidence that these carriers acknowledge their role in a sector whose demand and emissions are rising faster than many others.
As in previous editions of SOStainability Weekly, our Sustainability Visibility Scan (SVS) this week focuses entirely on airlines operating in Nigeria. We are not examining airports, navigation services or the regulations themselves. The question is clearer and more urgent. If Nigeria has already defined the climate responsibilities of its aviation sector, why are the airlines still silent in a future where their emissions are expected to grow?
What the SOStainability scan shows
Our assessment applied the SOStainability Visibility Scan to nine major Nigerian airlines and three international carriers operating in the country. The Nigerian dataset includes Air Peace, Arik Air, Ibom Air, Max Air, Overland Airways, Azman Air, United Nigeria Airlines, ValueJet and Aero Contractors. These airlines dominate the domestic aviation landscape and collectively shape the carbon exposure of Nigeria’s passenger air travel. The international dataset includes Emirates, British Airways and Qatar Airways, all of which operate high traffic routes into Nigeria and represent the global benchmark against which regional performance can be compared.
The SVS methodology follows the same strict standard used in previous editions. A company receives credit only for information it publishes on its official website because visibility is the first step in accountability. If a policy is not displayed, it cannot guide investors or regulators. If reporting is not accessible, it cannot support verification. If governance is not disclosed, it cannot be validated. This approach aligns with the Climate Change Act, which places transparency at the centre of climate governance. The SVS assesses visibility across four dimensions: climate policy, sustainability reporting, measurable targets and governance roles, each scored from zero to three for a total score of twelve.
Our findings for Nigerian airlines reveal a disturbing but uniform pattern. All nine airlines scored zero in all four dimensions, placing every domestic carrier in the Non Starter category. Air Peace, Arik Air, Ibom Air, Max Air and Overland Airways each maintain functional, customer-facing websites but provide no climate policies, no sustainability reports, no measurable climate targets and no identifiable sustainability leadership. Azman Air, United Nigeria Airlines and ValueJet follow the same pattern. Their websites are modern and intuitive from a booking perspective, but silent on climate responsibility. None presents a structured environmental commitment, a reporting document or evidence of internal governance capacity for sustainability.
The contrast with the three international airlines is striking. Emirates scored nine out of twelve, supported by visible environmental policies, thematic reporting and identifiable sustainability leadership. British Airways and Qatar Airways scored twelve out of twelve and demonstrated full visibility across policy, reporting, targets and governance. Their websites present detailed environmental policies, publicly available sustainability reports, clear emissions and efficiency targets and defined organisational structures for climate oversight.
This contrast is more than a visibility gap. It reflects a structural divide between carriers that share the same operating landscape but display very different levels of climate engagement. The global airlines serving Nigeria acknowledge the growing expectations around transparency by publishing policies, reports, targets and governance structures. The domestic airlines do not, creating a silence that extends far beyond missing documents. The SVS findings reveal an industry that appears disconnected from the transparency norms shaping global aviation. Without visible commitments and leadership, financiers, international partners and regulators struggle to assess readiness, leaving Nigerian airlines exposed to strategic risks that will only intensify as the sector continues its climate transition.
Aviation is changing but Nigerian airlines are not
Nigeria’s aviation regulations have evolved significantly, yet the country’s airlines have not translated these shifts into any visible public commitment. The updated State Action Plan submitted to ICAO outlines a national pathway for reducing CO₂ emissions from international civil aviation. It highlights fleet modernisation, operational efficiency gains, improved air traffic management and the gradual adoption of sustainable aviation fuel. The document provides sector-specific modelling and even lists the Nigerian airlines operating international routes, signalling that these carriers are expected participants in the transition.
Part 16 of the Nigeria Civil Aviation Regulations reinforces this expectation. It incorporates CORSIA into domestic jurisdiction and requires airlines that meet ICAO’s thresholds to monitor, report and verify their emissions and to cancel eligible units. The NCAA’s accompanying Statement of Compliance goes further by itemising specific obligations, documentation requirements and methods for demonstrating conformity. In regulatory terms, Nigeria has built a clear compliance structure and aligned itself with global aviation climate norms.
What remains absent is any indication that airlines have embraced these obligations as part of their public identity. The regulatory system acknowledges aviation’s climate footprint and assigns clear responsibilities to operators, yet none of the major Nigerian airlines present a climate policy, a report or a governance structure that reflects this reality. The state has moved ahead with its regulatory commitments. The airlines have not yet begun to articulate how they intend to comply or how they intend to position themselves within a sector that is becoming more climate-conscious.
Why visibility matters for aviation in Nigeria
The absence of visibility across the airlines is not a cosmetic issue. It has structural implications for how the sector will navigate an international environment that is tightening around climate performance.
The first implication is strategic. When airlines publish no climate policies or targets, it suggests that climate risk has not been integrated into their planning processes. This is especially concerning in a sector where fuel efficiency, fleet modernisation and operational emissions are becoming part of the economic logic of competitiveness.
The second implication is regulatory. CORSIA rests on a foundation of monitoring, reporting and verification. When Nigerian airlines publish no disclosures, it becomes difficult for national authorities to communicate progress, assess compliance or integrate aviation into national climate reporting frameworks. Nigeria’s updated State Action Plan already models emissions trajectories, but without airline-level disclosures, the gap between planning and evidence will widen.
The third implication is financial. Leasing companies, lenders and insurers increasingly view climate reporting as a proxy for operational discipline. International partners already expect carriers to provide ESG-related disclosures when negotiating aircraft, financing or long-term service agreements. Airlines that remain silent risk being classified as opaque and therefore higher risk.
The fourth implication is reputational. Passengers flying internationally often move between local and foreign carriers. When global airlines like British Airways, Qatar Airways and Emirates present visible climate commitments and Nigerian carriers do not, the difference can influence perceptions of professionalism, preparedness and long-term viability.
From rule takers to agenda setters
It is important not to romanticise international airlines, many of which still rely heavily on offsetting and face real uncertainty about access to sustainable aviation fuel at scale. But they have accepted that the climate is part of their licence to operate. They speak about it, publish documents and allow themselves to be judged, even if imperfectly, against their own claims.
Nigeria has already done the hard work of developing an updated Action Plan, embedding Part 16 and creating a compliance template for CORSIA. The next move belongs to the airlines themselves. We have two choices: either local airlines continue to exist in a regulatory world without a public climate voice, or they can accept that visibility is the first step toward real accountability.
This SVS edition is not an audit of emissions or a verdict on safety. It is a mirror held up to the sector’s public posture. Currently, that mirror reflects an industry that is present in Nigeria’s climate planning documents, present in ICAO’s registries and present in the regulations, but absent in its own story. For a sector that connects Nigerians to the world every day, that absence is no longer a neutral choice. It is a strategic risk.
Trends and Threads
Carbon Markets: Promoting sustainable development or enabling new inequalities?
The global carbon market is a system that allows countries, companies, and organizations to buy and sell carbon credits to offset emissions they cannot reduce directly. One carbon credit usually represents one ton of CO₂ avoided or removed from the atmosphere. These credits can come from activities such as forest conservation, clean cooking programs, renewable energy projects, or methane capture.
There are two main types of markets. Compliance markets are created by governments and require companies to follow emissions caps. Voluntary markets, on the other hand, allow companies to buy credits to meet self-imposed climate commitments. Both systems aim to reduce global emissions, but they operate differently. Compliance markets tend to be stricter, while voluntary markets are more flexible but often face more scrutiny.
The value of carbon markets lies in their ability to direct finance toward climate solutions. When a credit is purchased, it supports the project that generated the emission reduction. This makes carbon markets an important tool for climate action, especially in places that need investment for renewable energy or land restoration. However, markets only work well when rules are clear, and the credits represent real, measurable impacts.
Understanding Article 6 and the Paris Agreement Rules
Article 6 of the Paris Agreement sets out the international rules for how countries can cooperate on emission reductions. It is the section that will shape the future of the global carbon market. Article 6 allows nations to transfer emission reductions to each other through mechanisms known as Internationally Transferred Mitigation Outcomes (ITMOs). This means a country can support a project abroad and count part of those reductions toward its own climate targets.
A strong Article 6 framework could improve trust and bring more investment to developing countries. A weak one could create loopholes that allow countries or companies to avoid meaningful cuts. This is why negotiations have been tense and why Article 6 is seen as one of the most important parts of the Paris Agreement.
Controversial but necessary
Carbon markets spark debate because they sit at the intersection of climate action, finance, and ethics. Critics argue that carbon credits can be used as a shortcut, allowing companies to pay for offsets instead of reducing their own emissions. Some projects have been exposed as overstated or ineffective, triggering concerns about greenwashing and false climate progress.
There are also questions about fairness. Communities hosting carbon projects sometimes receive little benefit, even though the profits flow elsewhere. Forest-dependent communities can face restrictions on their land if carbon projects are poorly designed, creating tensions between conservation and livelihoods.
Despite these concerns, many experts believe carbon markets remain necessary. The IPCC states that global warming cannot be limited without significant investment in carbon removal and nature-based solutions. Carbon markets provide a source of funding to scale these solutions, especially in countries that lack financial resources. The challenge is to build markets that are transparent, accountable, and aligned with real climate impact rather than paper-based emissions reductions.
Carbon markets are not a perfect tool, but they are a practical one—if designed with strong integrity safeguards.
How developing countries can benefit from carbon trading
Developing countries have some of the world’s largest opportunities for high-quality carbon projects. These include forest conservation, renewable energy expansion, soil carbon farming, and clean cooking programs. With the right systems in place, carbon markets can bring in billions of dollars to support sustainable development.
For many countries in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, carbon finance can fill critical gaps in climate funding. Governments can use revenues to improve rural energy access, invest in nature protection, or support communities vulnerable to climate shocks. Projects such as peatland restoration or clean cooking also improve public health, reduce deforestation, and create jobs.
Carbon markets can also attract foreign investment and support national climate targets. If countries establish strong frameworks, investors feel more confident that credits are real and high quality. This builds local expertise and strengthens national climate institutions.
However, benefits are not automatic. Countries need clear legal systems, transparent monitoring, and strong community consent processes. Without these foundations, carbon trading can create more harm than good. This is why many developing nations are now building stronger transparency guidelines before expanding their carbon markets.
Building trust and integrity in emerging carbon markets
Emerging markets hold some of the world’s strongest potential for high-quality carbon projects, but they also face some of the most complex integrity challenges. Many countries across Africa, Southeast Asia, and Latin America are now developing national registries, pricing systems, and legal frameworks to ensure that carbon credits represent real and measurable emission reductions. Trust is becoming the core currency in these markets. Without strong rules, regions risk undervaluing their carbon assets or allowing external actors to shape the market in ways that do not support local priorities.
Governments in several emerging economies are introducing benefit-sharing rules to ensure that communities who host carbon projects receive fair compensation. Independent verification systems are expanding in markets such as Kenya, Indonesia, Brazil, and Vietnam as they strengthen their monitoring capacity. Regional initiatives like the African Carbon Markets Initiative and similar coalitions forming in Southeast Asia, aim to raise standards and promote high-quality credits that meet international expectations.
The push for integrity reflects lessons learned from earlier carbon market experiments around the world, where poorly designed projects left communities feeling excluded or misrepresented. As emerging markets grow their participation in global carbon trading, the next phase must protect both climate outcomes and social outcomes. If countries across Africa, Asia, and Latin America establish strong rules now, they can position themselves as credible leaders in the future of global carbon finance.
A future of fair and credible climate finance
The global carbon market is evolving quickly, and the decisions made at COP30 will determine its credibility and long-term usefulness. For developing nations, the opportunity is real, but so are the risks. A well-governed carbon market can unlock finance for clean energy, protect ecosystems, and support community resilience. A poorly governed one can undermine trust and allow low-quality credits to flood the system.
The world needs a carbon market that is transparent, ethical, and aligned with real climate outcomes. As countries refine Article 6 rules, the challenge is to build a system that reduces emissions while protecting the people and landscapes that make carbon reduction possible. The choices made now will shape not just the market, but the future of global climate finance
Spotlight
A Personal Reflection on COP 30
By Sam Onuigbo
As I followed the discussions and decisions emerging from the thirtieth Conference of the Parties in Belém, Brazil, I gleaned several important lessons about the direction of global climate action. One of the most striking developments was the launch of the Belém Mission to 1.5 degrees centigrade. To me, this signalled a decisive shift from endless declarations to a focus on real delivery. The initiative is aimed at tracking whether countries are doing enough to keep global warming within safe limits, identify where progress is slow, and press leaders to act with greater urgency. This shows that the world is gradually moving away from rhetoric and turning towards accountability.
I also came away from COP30 with a renewed understanding of the centrality of adaptation. Many observers rightly called it the “Conference of the Parties of adaptation”. Nations agreed to triple global adaptation financing by 2035, a commitment that carries enormous significance for countries like Nigeria. You will agree with me that increased support for renewable energy is vital in addressing Nigeria’s transport and power challenges which are major sources of greenhouse gas emission in Nigeria.
Hosting the summit in the Amazon also made a powerful statement. Standing amid the world’s largest tropical rainforest, leaders could not ignore the role that forests play in absorbing carbon and stabilising the planet. Brazil’s Tropical Forests Forever Facility, though some forest protection advocates has shown reservation about the fund, the conference emphasized the urgent need to protect forests as carbon sinks which sequester greenhouse gases and sustain both the climate and human livelihoods
Perhaps the most meaningful lesson I took from the summit was the emphasis on fairness. I observed that the Just Transition Mechanism (JTM) gained ground, reinforcing the idea that vulnerable populations, women, young people, indigenous communities, and low-income households must not be left behind as the world shifts towards cleaner energy.
. Onuigbo is the sponsor of Nigeria’s climate change law.
