The Lagos-Calabar coastal highway: Hidden costs that must be paid up now

SOStainabilityWeekly

By Oke Epia, E-mail: sostainability01@gmail.com  | WhatsApp: +234 8034000706

Washing and hushing

Nigeria’s push to close its infrastructure gap has entered a decisive phase. Across the country, large-scale projects are being advanced as symbols of renewal, economic integration, and national progress. Among them, the Lagos–Calabar Coastal Highway stands out, not only for its scale and ambition, but for what it represents: a test case for how Nigeria delivers complex infrastructure in an era of climate risk, social scrutiny, and heightened governance expectations.

The project is widely framed as a transformative response to decades of underinvestment in connectivity and trade corridors, and in intent, that framing is understandable. Yet history shows that infrastructure ambition alone does not confer legitimacy. The credibility of major public works is shaped as much by process as by purpose. When delivery is prioritised over due diligence and accountability, projects often accumulate long-term environmental, social, and fiscal liabilities that dilute their promised benefits.

This matters because infrastructure decisions are largely irreversible. Choices made early, around route selection, environmental safeguards, resettlement frameworks, and oversight mechanisms, define outcomes for decades. Governance, therefore, is not a procedural formality but the means through which public interest is protected and trust is earned.

In this edition of SOStainability Weekly, we take a deep dive into the Lagos–Calabar Coastal Highway, examining whether its execution aligns with sound governance and ESG principles, or whether gaps in approval, transparency, and social safeguards risk undermining its long-term sustainability.

Key context: The project lifecycle benchmark

Globally, large-scale infrastructure projects follow a broadly accepted lifecycle designed to balance development objectives with risk management, public accountability, and long-term sustainability. This sequencing is not arbitrary. It reflects decades of experience showing that when decisions are taken in the wrong order, costs escalate, disputes multiply, and public confidence erodes.

At the front end, projects begin with conception and alternatives analysis, where economic rationale, route options, and design choices are tested against environmental, social, and technical constraints. This is followed by the preparation of an Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA), which identifies potential risks and proposes mitigation measures. Crucially, the ESIA is then subjected to public consultation and stakeholder validation, allowing affected communities, experts, and stakeholders to interrogate assumptions, highlight blind spots, and influence final design choices.

Only after this process is complete does formal approval occur, typically accompanied by enforceable conditions that define what can be built, how impacts must be managed, and how compliance will be monitored. Construction and mobilisation follow approval, not precede it, alongside continuous monitoring, reporting, and regulatory enforcement.

This lifecycle exists to protect all parties involved. It provides clarity for contractors, safeguards for communities, and credibility for government. When this sequence is compressed or blurred or even ignored, governance weakens, accountability becomes diffuse, and projects become more vulnerable to social conflict and long-term risk.

A draft ESIA only begs the questions 

At the centre of the Lagos–Calabar Coastal Highway debate is a procedural tension that warrants careful consideration. Official statements from the Federal Ministry of Environment confirm that the Ministry of Works applied for the project’s Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA) in December 2023 and subsequently received a preliminary impact assessment certification for site clearance and compensation scoping. The environment ministry said this certification was deliberately issued in phases, reflecting the scale and complexity of the 700-kilometre project.

This clarification is important, but it does not resolve the governance question that appears unresolved. Preliminary certification for site clearance and compensation enumeration is not equivalent to full ESIA approval. In regulatory terms, it authorises limited, preparatory activities while impact assessment, mitigation design, and validation processes continue. It does not constitute final consent for broad construction, nor does it replace the requirement for a completed ESIA with publicly disclosed approval conditions, compliance thresholds, and enforcement mechanisms. Checks by SOStainability only revealed a draft ESIA posted on the website of the environment ministry. 

This distinction matters because a draft or phased ESIA signals that environmental and social risks are still being assessed and refined. Yet alongside this phased approval process, visible project actions have included demolition notices, compensation verification, and early works that, in the public perception, resemble substantive project execution. While government officials have consistently stated that due process is being followed, the absence of a consolidated, publicly accessible record detailing what is approved at each phase, and under what conditions, creates room for confusion and mistrust.

Consultation gaps further complicate this fault line. Engagements referenced by the Ministry of Works have largely focused on compensation logistics, rather than the broader ESG dimensions that meaningful consultation is expected to influence, including route alternatives, biodiversity protection, climate resilience measures, grievance mechanisms, and long-term livelihood restoration. Where consultation occurs alongside phased approvals and advancing activity, but after key design decisions appear fixed, participation risks becoming perfunctory rather than substantive.

Taken together, phased preliminary clearances, compensation-focused consultations, and visible early works expose a sequencing challenge. Approval is the point at which accountability crystallises. Without a final, publicly disclosed ESIA approval and a clear articulation of its conditions, neither affected communities nor independent observers have a reliable baseline and benchmark against which to assess compliance. For a project of this scale and sensitivity, this is not a technical nuance, but a material governance issue with long-term implications for legitimacy, trust, and sustainability.

What the contractor discloses is key to project health 

Hitech Construction Company Limited sits at the centre of the Lagos–Calabar Coastal Highway project and, by extension, at the centre of public scrutiny surrounding its governance. Established in 1988, Hitech operates as part of the construction arm of the Chagoury Group, founded by Lebanese-Nigerian businessman, Gilbert Chagoury, and has delivered several high-profile infrastructure projects, particularly in Lagos. Its selection as lead contractor for the first phase of the LCCH has nonetheless attracted heightened attention, driven by the scale of the contract, the absence of an open competitive tender, and the long-standing relationship between the Chagoury family and the Tinubu political establishment. While reported offshore business links involving family members do not necessarily constitute evidence of wrongdoing, they have amplified perception risks around political proximity and commercial interest in one of Nigeria’s most consequential infrastructure investments. In projects of this magnitude, perception and trust are themselves governance issues.

Against this backdrop, transparency and disclosure become critical safeguards. Hitech’s website does reference the LCCH and includes documents such as a Non-Technical Summary of the ESIA Study for Section 1 and a Supplementary ESIA Study. Their availability indicates some level of disclosure, but it does not resolve the deeper governance questions the project raises. The publication of summaries or supplementary studies does not clarify whether the ESIA has reached final approval, what conditions, if any, are attached to such approval, or how public comments from the draft stage were addressed. Nor do these documents substitute for regular, decision-grade reporting on environmental performance, social safeguards, or compliance monitoring.

More broadly, there is little evidence of systematic public reporting on construction milestones, environmental monitoring results, community engagement outcomes, or grievance resolution. There is no standalone ESG or sustainability reporting aligned with recognised international frameworks, and no visible mechanism for independent assurance. These contractor-level gaps are compounded by fragmented regulatory communication, leaving stakeholders without a single, authoritative source of truth on approval status, permissible scope of works, or enforcement actions. In this environment, opacity, whether intentional or incidental, erodes social licence, fuels speculation, and transfers governance risk from institutions to communities. For the LCCH, restoring credibility will depend not only on engineering delivery, but on transparent, verifiable disclosure that meets the expectations of a project with national, environmental, and social significance.

Social dislocation, compensation, and the question of equity

Recent actions by the Federal Government underscore that the social impacts of the Lagos–Calabar Coastal Highway are no longer abstract. The inauguration of a federal compensation verification committee, mandated to review and compensate landowners affected by the project, confirms that displacement is both anticipated and underway. Official statements have referenced hundreds of affected properties, with assurances that verified claims will be paid swiftly by the contractor once documentation is completed. This provides clarity on the government’s intent to manage displacement through a formal compensation process.

However, the structure of this approach reveals important equity and sustainability concerns. The compensation framework, as articulated by the Ministry of Works, is explicitly tied to proven legal titles, with exclusions for informal structures, occupants within the 250-metre shoreline setback lacking federal titles, and others deemed legally ineligible unless granted exceptional waivers. While this position may align with statutory land administration rules, it exposes a significant gap between legal compliance and social sustainability. In coastal and peri-urban contexts, livelihoods are often sustained through informal arrangements, small businesses, rentals, and multi-generational use of land that fall outside formal title systems.

From an ESG perspective, this distinction is critical. Compensation limited to titled assets addresses ownership claims, but it does not constitute adequate resettlement. International best practice treats displacement as a development challenge, requiring livelihood restoration, transitional support, vulnerability mapping, and accessible grievance mechanisms alongside monetary payment. The current emphasis on rapid verification and payment, without equal visibility into how livelihood losses, informal economic activity, and social networks will be addressed, risks producing uneven outcomes and long-term grievances.

Where compensation processes advance in the absence of fully resolved approvals and publicly disclosed resettlement frameworks, social dislocation can become entrenched rather than temporary. For a project framed as nationally transformative, the true measure of progress will not lie in how quickly compensation is paid, but in whether affected communities emerge with restored livelihoods, procedural fairness, and confidence that development has not come at the expense of social equity.

Regulatory oversight and communication blindspots

A defining weakness in the governance of the Lagos–Calabar Coastal Highway lies in the fragmentation of regulatory communication and the limited visibility of key decision records. Stakeholders currently lack access to a single, authoritative public account confirming the project’s final ESIA approval status, the conditions attached to any such approval, the scope of works permitted prior to approval, and how public submissions during the draft stage were assessed and incorporated. This regulatory inaction does obscure accountability, making it difficult to determine where responsibility sits when impacts materialise.

This gap is further compounded by the absence of a clearly documented alternatives analysis. For a coastal megaproject with significant ecological and social implications, international best practice expects decision-makers to demonstrate that route selection and design choices were tested against less harmful options, including modified alignments or, where necessary, a no-project scenario. Mitigation measures, however robust, are secondary to avoidance; without evidence that harm was unavoidable, mitigation becomes a defensive response rather than a principled choice.

Together, regulatory opacity and the lack of transparent alternatives assessment weaken the legitimacy of the project’s decision-making foundation. They prevent stakeholders from understanding not only what decisions were taken, but why those decisions were preferred over other possible paths, leaving a critical gap between formal compliance and credible governance.

Kicking the can down the road…

The Lagos–Calabar Coastal Highway must be understood not as an isolated intervention, but as part of a wider and increasingly stressed coastal system. Southern Nigeria’s coastline is already exposed to erosion, flooding, and climate-driven sea level rise, conditions that place long-term pressure on any linear infrastructure built along sensitive shorelines. When safeguards are assessed only at project scale, cumulative impacts across the corridor risk being underestimated or overlooked entirely.

These environmental risks carry economic consequences that are rarely captured in headline project costs. Ecosystem degradation, displacement disputes, and accelerated wear from climate exposure translate into higher maintenance burdens, legal challenges, and reputational risks that surface long after construction is complete. Where environmental and social safeguards are weak or inconsistently enforced, these externalities are effectively deferred, shifting costs from the present to future budgets and administrations.

From a sustainability perspective, this is not a marginal concern but a central one. Infrastructure that fails to account for systemic risk converts environmental vulnerability into fiscal fragility. The long-term viability of the LCCH will depend not only on engineering standards, but on whether its design and governance adequately internalise the environmental and social costs that, if ignored, will ultimately be borne by the public.

What real progress requires

If the current trajectory persists, the risks facing the Lagos–Calabar Coastal Highway are likely to intensify. Legal disputes over compensation, challenges to procurement and approvals, delays arising from social resistance, and growing scrutiny from financiers and the public could undermine both delivery timelines and long-term credibility. More critically, unresolved governance gaps increase the likelihood that the project will struggle with operational fragility and public trust long after construction ends.

Yet this trajectory is not irreversible. Responsible progress requires a deliberate course correction grounded in transparency and accountability. At a minimum, this includes the public release of final ESIA approvals and associated conditions, disclosure of the approved scope of works at each project phase, and the publication of a comprehensive, final Resettlement Action Plan with clear eligibility criteria and valuation methodologies. Independent monitoring mechanisms, coupled with accessible grievance reporting and periodic public updates, are essential to restoring confidence.

Clarity of roles is equally important. Ministries must coordinate disclosure, contractors must report performance, regulators must enforce standards, and civil society and the media must scrutinise outcomes. Infrastructure delivered at scale demands governance delivered with equal seriousness. The test for the LCCH is not whether it can be built quickly, but whether it can be built credibly, fairly, and in a way that endures.

Towards an infrastructure that earns trust

The Lagos–Calabar Coastal Highway may yet become a landmark investment, but only if its legitimacy is built as deliberately as its pavement. Transparency protects everyone involved: it shields governments from credibility loss, contractors from reputational risk, and communities from avoidable harm. Where disclosure is fragmented and safeguards are treated as secondary, speed becomes fragile and progress becomes contested.

This is the point where stakeholder vigilance must move from commentary to action. Community-based organisations and affected residents should demand the public release of final ESIA approvals, phase-by-phase conditions, and clear boundaries on permissible works, alongside a resettlement framework that addresses livelihoods, not only titles. The media and professional bodies should sustain scrutiny of procurement, compensation outcomes, and compliance reporting, insisting on evidence rather than assurances. Civil society, academia, and regulators should press for independent monitoring, published grievance statistics, and periodic environmental and social performance updates that can be verified.

Sustainable infrastructure is infrastructure that endures, not only physically, but socially and institutionally. The measure of this project will not be how quickly it advances, but whether it earns public trust through accountable governance, fair outcomes, and decision-making that remains open to scrutiny at every stage.                                                                                           

Trends and Threads

Nigeria’s NDC 3.0: Whither Progress for Agriculture, Forestry, and Land Use? 

Nigeria’s agricultural lands and forests are far more than economic resources; they are the backbone of the country’s food security, employment, culture, and climate stability. With the submission of its Third Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC 3.0) under the Paris Agreement in September 2025, Nigeria placed the Agriculture and Land Use sector at the center of its climate strategy. This sector, encompassing crops, livestock, forests, and soils, not only contributes significantly to greenhouse gas emissions but also offers one of the most promising opportunities for emission reductions and resilience building. It is an arena where national policies, community practices, and international partnerships converge, shaping both the present livelihoods of millions of Nigerians and the long-term health of the environment. 

Why agriculture and land use is central to NDC 3.0

NDC 3.0 commits Nigeria to reducing overall greenhouse gas emissions by 29 percent below business-as-usual by 2030 and 32 percent by 2035, with a pathway toward net zero by 2060. Within these targets, the Agriculture and Land Use sector, particularly the component addressing land use, land-use change, and forestry (LULUCF), is expected to deliver 74 percent (nearly three-quarters) of total emission reductions by 2030. For context, the agriculture sector contributes 2.1 Mt C02 emissions, and the LULUCF sub-sector has a mitigation potential of 347.9 Mt CO2 emissions. In simpler terms, this means that farming in Nigeria produces some climate-warming emissions, but the country’s land and forest can remove far more carbon from the atmosphere than farming produces if they are properly protected and restored. This is why the NDC3.0 places strong emphasis on stopping deforestation, restoring degraded land, and expanding climate-smart land use. This also means that Nigeria’s greatest climate gains lie not only in reducing farm emissions but in protecting and restoring forests and land, which can deliver far larger emission reductions.

Agriculture remains a central part of Nigeria’s economy, employing millions and contributing around 23 percent of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Yet much of the land is vulnerable to the impacts of climate change, with desertification creeping across the northern regions and soil fertility declining in many rural areas. At the same time, forests, which play a crucial role in absorbing carbon dioxide and regulating local climates, have been lost at alarming rates over decades, diminishing the land’s capacity to act as a carbon sink. NDC 3.0 recognizes these dual challenges, emphasizing not only emission reductions but also interventions that strengthen resilience, restore degraded land, and improve livelihoods.

REDD+ and the fight for forest restoration

Central to Nigeria’s strategy is forest protection and restoration, where the Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+) mechanism plays a pivotal role. REDD+ is an international framework that provides incentives for countries to protect forests, restore degraded landscapes, and improve sustainable forest management. Nigeria’s plans to restore and protect about 162,000 hectares of degraded forest land and strengthen forest reserves across the country are an effort supported by the scaling up of the national REDD+ strategy, which aims to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation while supporting local communities. Through these actions, the land use and forestry sector alone is expected to contribute nearly 74 percent of Nigeria’s total conditional emission reductions by 2030, making it the most important sector in the NDC.

Nigeria pledges to reduce deforestation rates by at least 60 percent by 2030, an ambitious target that goes beyond environmental rhetoric. Protecting forests safeguards carbon stores, prevents soil erosion, maintains watersheds, and preserves biodiversity. In this regard, the country commits to massive tree-planting initiatives, aiming to plant millions of trees annually, particularly in degraded areas, settlements, and along farm boundaries. Beyond stopping forest loss, Nigeria is also focused on bringing trees back. NDC 3.0 commits to planting about 25 million trees and expanding forests through reforestation and afforestation covering around 250,000 hectares. These trees are more than symbolic gestures; they are living infrastructure that supports soil health, provides shade, and contributes to local economies through sustainable timber and non-timber products.

Agriculture: Linking restoration with livelihood

NDC 3.0 also foregrounds the transformation of agricultural practices to reduce emissions while increasing productivity. Methane emissions from livestock, rice paddies, and burning crop residues are significant contributors to Nigeria’s agricultural greenhouse gas profile. By promoting innovative cultivation techniques, improving livestock management, and composting agricultural residues, the plan seeks to enhance soil carbon storage, reduce emissions, and make farms more resilient to extreme weather. These practices are not abstract recommendations; they are actionable pathways that, if adopted widely, could fundamentally reshape the interaction between agriculture and climate in Nigeria.

Equally important is the restoration of landscapes and forest ecosystems. NDC 3.0 emphasizes not only reforestation but also the protection of existing forests and mangrove ecosystems, which serve as critical carbon sinks and natural coastal defenses. The Great Green Wall initiative, coordinated nationally by the National Agency for the Great Green Wall, exemplifies a transnational effort to reclaim degraded lands, reduce desertification, and provide sustainable livelihoods in northern Nigeria. This initiative highlights how Nigeria can leverage both local knowledge and international cooperation to achieve climate and development goals simultaneously.

Responsible parties: Are institutions ready to deliver on the targets?

Achievingthe ambitious goals of the NDC 3.0 is not a task for farmers alone; it demands coordinated leadership, clear mandates, and accountable institutions. At the forefront is the Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security, tasked with implementing climate-smart farming practices and ensuring soils are productive and resilient. Complementing this is the Federal Ministry of Environment, responsible for forest protection, implementing REDD+ programmes, and overseeing sustainable land-use policies. The National Agency for the Great Green Wall plays a critical role in mobilizing tree planting, restoring degraded northern lands, and linking local communities to broader national and global climate targets. The Ministry of Livestock Development, which drives sustainable livestock management, is expected to cut methane emissions. Supporting these are technical institutions like the National Agricultural Research Institute and the National Agricultural Seeds Council, providing research, innovation, and quality inputs for resilient farming. State governments and local authorities are equally vital, as they handle on-the-ground implementation, land use planning, and mediation between farmers and herders. Together, these institutions are meant to form a coordinated network capable of meeting NDC 3.0’s targets.

But the question remains: are these bodies equipped, coordinated, and accountable enough to deliver on the targets of NDC 3.0? Are there robust mechanisms for transparency, monitoring, and public reporting to ensure that commitments don’t remain promises on paper? How will they track progress, manage resources, and engage communities to meet emission reduction and restoration goals? SOStainability will keep a keen eye on these entities and others in a bid to stimulate accountability for the climate and communities.

The challenge of climate finance

Despite its ambition, NDC 3.0 faces substantial gaps. Financial resources remain a critical constraint, with the full implementation of mitigation and adaptation actions estimated at USD 337 billion between 2026 and 2035 (much of which depends on international support). Implementation capacity varies significantly across states and communities, highlighting the need for training, monitoring systems, and technical assistance. Moreover, unclear land tenure arrangements can discourage farmers from adopting new practices or investing in tree planting and soil restoration, requiring policy reforms and incentives to encourage stewardship.

Nigeria must also recognize that climate action starts at home. Heavy reliance on fuelwood for cooking has driven forest loss for decades. By promoting clean cooking solutions, Nigeria can aim to reduce pressure on forests while improving health outcomes, especially for women and children. Everyday choices also matter in how people consume food, manage waste, and protect community green spaces. Supporting local tree planting, avoiding unnecessary burning, and using energy-efficient cooking options all contribute to protecting forests and land.

In many ways Nigeria’s land holds the solution to its climate future. The challenge now is to ensure that every promise in NDC3.0 becomes real action on the ground, transforming farms and forests from climate risk into powerful climate solutions for the country and its people. Every Nigerian, from policymakers to urban citizens, has a role to play by planting and protecting trees, supporting sustainable farming practices, demanding transparency, and nurturing environmental awareness in younger generations. The pressing question remains: will we allow these commitments to remain ink on paper, or will we translate them into living change that secures the future of our land, our food, and our climate? Action today is not optional; it is an urgent imperative.

Spotlight

As Reps reform occupational safety laws

A significant shift is occurring in Nigeria’s occupational safety space. Last week, the House of Representatives convened a public hearing to review existing laws and propose changes to protect workers from avoidable hazards in the workplace.

The focus was on the occupationalhealth and safetybill, referred to the House committees on safety standards and regulations, and labour, employment, and productivity. As noted by Speaker Tajudeen Abbas, while declaring the hearing open, “across several industries, workers still face hazards that undermine their dignity and productivity. Many of these tragedies are preventable,”highlighting “recurring dangers such as unsafe scaffolding, collapsing structures, harmful chemicals, toxic gases, offshore risks, and poorly maintained machinery—especially in construction, manufacturing, agriculture, and oil and gas,” according to a story on Parliament Reports.

“The current system suffers from outdated regulations, weak enforcement, and inadequate institutional frameworks. This bill seeks to close those gaps and establish a harmonised national safety architecture,”the speaker was quoted as saying while chairman of the committee on safety standards and regulations, Mr. David Zacharias, described the hearing as “a historic milestone for Nigeria. After years of persistent advocacy from safety professionals, organised labour, industry leaders, and concerned citizens, the Occupational Safety and Health Bill now stands before the public for consideration.The bill provides clearer duties for employers and employees, stronger enforcement powers for inspectors, mandatory reporting systems, improved penalties, and nationwide safety information management.”

The big question is: are relevant stakeholders, both on the supply and demand side, taking note of this development and making appropriate and adequate inputs into this bill? What are the contributions of organised labour in this proposed legislation? What inputs have professional and vocational bodies made? It is often the case that laws get passed in the national assembly before the realisation of the broader implicationskicks in. This apathy must be discarded, especially on matters as important as the health and safety of workers – a critical cornerstone of sustainable development.