Fixing Accountability Gaps in SDGs Implementation

SOStainabilityWeekly

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

Washing and hushing

Nigeria is not short of initiatives. From social investment programmes to youth employment schemes, from digital skills drives to enterprise financing, the architecture of intervention is vast. The real issue is whether these initiatives, taken together, are transforming lives, strengthening local economies, and moving the country meaningfully toward the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) or whether they are simply aiding the mutation of poverty. Or are they just conduits for corruption? Or maybe both and more.

If Nigeria’s development initiatives are to move from well-intentioned policy to engines of inclusive growth, they must be judged against a consistent accountability lens, one that prioritises people over press releases and outcomes over optics. Today, SOStainability turns its torchlight on Nigerian government initiatives. Not to dismiss them. Not to praise them blindly. But to ask the questions that are too often avoided. In a country where policies are launched faster than they are evaluated, where programmes multiply, but poverty gets multidimensional, and where citizens are told to “trust the process” without seeing the proof, someone must watch. And this is not all about the current President Bola Tinubu administration: the issues predate it. Citizens deserve clarity on how these programmes actually transform lives, grow local economies, and contribute to sustainable development.

How Government Initiatives Measure against the SDGs

Nigeria’s social and economic initiatives, from N-Power and the National Home-Grown School Feeding Program to the Bank of Industry (BOI) interventions and youth empowerment schemes, are not just policy instruments; they are vital tools in advancing global sustainability goals. When we examine their impact through the lens of the Sustainable Development Goals, the connections are clear: programmes aimed at providing livelihoods and skills address SDG One (no poverty) Eight (decent work and economic growth), while initiatives that ensure access to school meals and education speak directly to SDGs Two and Four (zero hunger) and quality education). Efforts to support marginalised and vulnerable groups advance SDGs 10 (reduced inequalities), and the focus on technical skills, innovation, and industrial support resonates with SDG Nine (industry, innovation, and infrastructure).

However, these programmes will only truly contribute to these SDGs if Nigeria commits to honest implementation. Meeting global targets requires more than ambition: it demands strict adherence to the principles and guidelines of the SDGs, transparent reporting, and prioritisation of long-term impact over short-term visibility. Every naira spent, every intervention launched, must align with these broader objectives, ensuring that national initiatives are not isolated efforts, but authentic contributions to ending poverty, eradicating hunger, and creating equitable opportunities for all Nigerians. Only through such disciplined, accountable execution can the promise of these programmes be realized in a way that genuinely transforms lives and advances the SDGs.

Corruption as Barrier to Impact 

At the centre of Nigeria’s social protection and empowerment strategy sits the National Social Investment Programmes Agency (NSIPA). It was designed to coordinate interventions such as N-Power, the National Home-Grown School Feeding Programme, Conditional Cash Transfers, Government Enterprise & Empowerment Programme (GEEP), and Grants for Vulnerable Groups (GVG). Its purpose, according to government policy documents, is to reduce poverty, increase human capital, and support economic inclusion.

Citizens expect something simple from this vast machinery: that public money improves public lives. N-Power, for instance, was created to respond to youth unemployment by placing young Nigerians in teaching, health, agriculture, and community roles while paying stipends and offering skills exposure. Official government figures indicate that over one million young people have passed through the programme since its inception. Yet Nigeria’s youth unemployment rate remains high at over 33 percent, according to official figures. This raises a critical sustainability question: Are we equipping young people for permanent livelihoods, or temporarily absorbing them into publicprogrammes without durable outcomes?

The development literature is clear on this point. The World Bank notes that skills programmes alone do not reduce poverty unless they are tied to labor market demand and long-term job creation. Without that link, training risks becoming an expensive pause rather than a pathway.

The National Home-Grown School Feeding Programme was one of Nigeria’s most promising social interventions. It aimed to do three things at once: improve child nutrition, increase school attendance, and stimulate local agriculture by sourcing food from local farmers and cooks. At its height, government records indicated that nearly 10 million children were receiving daily meals. Evidence from the World Food Programme shows that school feeding programmes can increase enrolment by up to 9 percent and significantly improve learning outcomes in low-income settings. In theory, Nigeria’s programme was aligned with global best practice.

In practice, however, its suspension in 2024 exposed a deeper governance problem: programme continuity and institutional resilience. When funding or leadership shifts can halt a nationwide feeding system, the impact is not just administrative; it is human. Children lose meals. Local cooks lose income. Farmers lose buyers. Sustainability, by definition, cannot survive instability. It is also important to note that not all funds appropriated for this purpose end up reaching their intended destinations. For example, during the COVID-19 lockdown, when schools were closed and the feeding programme was nevertheless funded, the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) uncovered that approximately ₦2.67 billion meant for school feeding was diverted into private bank accounts. Investigations showed these payments occurred when children were not in school, and some of the money ended up in personal accounts, a finding that undermined public confidence in the initiative.

These corruption links: both the diversion of funds and the opaque reporting of expenditure, explains why the programme’s continuity was compromised. When public trust erodes, and when funds meant to feed children instead fuel scandals, the result is not just administrative ripples but real human consequences. A programme that cannot transparently account for its funds cannot reliably deliver on its promises.

Through “GEEP”, “GVG”, and cash transfer schemes, the government has attempted to reach those excluded from formal finance—market women, artisans, rural farmers, persons with disabilities, and the extreme poor. These interventions acknowledge an important truth: poverty is not just about lack of effort; it is about lack of access. World Bank impact evaluations show that cash transfers improve food security and household consumption but are most effective when combined with economic opportunities. In Nigeria, inflation has consistently eroded the real value of transfers, raising questions about adequacy and long-term impact. Citizens are justified in asking: Are these programmes designed to help people graduate out of poverty, or merely cope within it?

Awareness and Fair Access to Finance

Institutions such as the Bank of Industry (BOI) and the Development Bank of Nigeria (DBN) are meant to fuel enterprise growth, industrialisation, and job creation. Figures from the Bank of Industry paint a more positive picture: cumulative credit disbursements to MSMEs have grown from N133bn to over N1 trillion in recent years, corresponding with job creation that BOI estimates to be in the millions across direct and indirect employment. DBN works through commercial banks to expand access to credit. More recently, initiatives like the ₦2 billion BOI–NYSC Entrepreneurship Programme and YouthCred signal an attempt to empower young Nigerians with capital and financial inclusion tools early in their careers. This is a step in the right direction. The African Development Bank (ADB) consistently identifies access to finance as one of the largest barriers to youth entrepreneurship in Africa. Yet financing only builds economies if people know it exists and can access it fairly and on merit. Public awareness of these schemes remains limited, particularly outside urban centers. Sustainability fails quietly when programmes exist but are invisible to those who need them most.

However, institutions like the BOI and DBN must thrive not only on credit disbursement but also on robust reporting, transparency, and accountability: these are areas where independent reviews show serious gaps. A 2023 report by the Auditor‑General of the Federation found that billions of naira in intervention funds were unaccounted for or misapplied, with significant portions either stalled or diverted rather than reaching intended beneficiaries, revealing weaknesses in monitoring and internal controls across intervention programmes. Also, parliamentary scrutiny has suggested uneven and opaque disbursement practices: a senate panel set up to investigate DBN’s N483 billion MSME loan distribution cited stark regional disparities and concerns over criteria and access, underscoring persistent gaps in accountability and equitable implementation. The implication is clear: financing alone does not guarantee impact. Without strong, effective modalities that ensure funds are tracked, fairly distributed, and regularly audited in a publicly accessible way, the promise of enterprise growth and youth empowerment remains aspirational rather than realized.

Asking the Hard Questions

When viewed together, these initiatives represent a serious attempt to address poverty, unemployment, skills gaps, and local economic development. But sustainability is not measured by intent; it is measured by outcomes, transparency, and trust. SOStainability, therefore, raises these hard questions: Where are the publicly accessible impact dashboards showing income growth, job sustainability, and poverty reduction? Are hard-to-reach beneficiaries aware of these programmes before election campaigning highlights them? How do these initiatives work together, rather than in silos, to move Nigeria toward the SDGs? Is there a synergy between various government departments and agencies working on these initiatives? What is the level of coordination and leadership, if any? Who is responsible when programmes stall, fail, or quietly disappear? According to the United Nations Development Programme, strong institutions and accountability mechanisms are as important as funding in achieving sustainable development. Nigeria’s challenge is not a lack of ideas but weak feedback loops between policy, people, and proof.

Development Must Be Seen to Be Believed

Nigeria’s government initiatives are neither meaningless nor magical. They have fed children, supported businesses, trained youth, and eased hardship. But they have also suffered from fragmentation, weak transparency, limited awareness, corruption, and inconsistent impact measurement. From the standpoint of sustainability, the message is firm but fair: Public programmes must earn public trust through evidence.

Until transparency becomes standard, impact is measured openly, and citizens can clearly see how initiatives improve their lives and communities, public funds for noble interventions will continue to go down the drain.

Trends and Threads

Climate Accountability: The Urgent Tasks Before Government and Business

Nigeria’s Climate Change Act, signed into law in 2021, institutionalises climate responsibility for different stakeholders in the country. It ensures that climate action is not relegated to distant government plans or voluntary corporate pledges, outlining actual roles, offices, and mandates to aid implementation. It places climate change into the very fabric of governance and corporate culture by insisting that ministries and agencies establish climate desks led by dedicated officers, and that private organisations above a certain size appoint climate or environmental officers as part of their leadership structure.

This law recognizes what scientists have long warned: climate change is not remote or abstract. Its impacts: more intense flooding, shifting weather patterns, food insecurity, coastal erosion are already affecting communities, businesses, and economies. To meet these challenges, Nigeria has moved from aspiration to legal obligation, insisting that climate change be addressed not just “somewhere” in government or business, but within the core of strategic planning and operational decision-making.

From policy to practice: Climate desks as catalyst for mainstreaming

Imagine a ministry of agriculture planning its annual budget. Before the Climate Change Act, climate considerations might have appeared as a line item under environment protection or rural development, a distant thought. Under section 22(1) of the Climate Change Act, 2021, ministries must “establish a climate desk to be supervised by an officer not below the Directorate cadre, who shall be responsible for ensuring integration of climate change activities and also ensuring all planning, budgeting, and programmes consider climate realities.”

By making climate desks an official part of every federal ministry, department, and agency, the law aims to bind long-term climate planning to everyday governance. What this means in practice is that every policy document, every budget line, and every strategic plan from core government institutions should be filtered through the lens of climate risk. The result is a profound shift in how decisions are made and implemented. A climate desk, adequately staffed and empowered, helps ensure that a ministry doesn’t just “think about climate” but weaves climate-resilient practices into its mandate.

Climate responsibility and accountability in business

In the private sector, the law sends a similarly powerful signal: business-as-usual is over. Any company in Nigeria with fifty or more employees must designate a Climate Change Officer or Environmental Sustainability Officer. Under section 24(1) of the Climate Change Act of 2021, the private entity “shall put in place measures to achieve the annual carbon emission reduction targets in line with the Action Plan and designate a Climate Change Officer or an Environmental or Sustainability officer, who shall submit to the Secretariat, through the State Director, annual reports on the entity’s efforts at meeting its carbon emission reduction and climate adaptation plan.”

What does this look like in real life? Forward-thinking firms are already treating climate strategy as a leadership and governance issue. This page has consistently emphasized that sustainability is not a marketing slogan but a business imperative. The Sustainability Visibility Scan (SVS) series by SOStainability has revealed lots of gaps in sustainability practice by corporate entities across sectors and industries. Businesses must not only speak openly about embedding climate-friendly planning and emissions monitoring into their operations, but also demonstrate that environmental stewardship and commercial success can go hand in hand.

Across industries, some companies, particularly large multinationals and firms with global reporting obligations have begun publishing sustainability reports that disclose emissions data, energy use, and environmental goals. In sectors such as construction, where many companies still lag, the expectation is that companies must have measurable climate targets and transparent reporting mechanisms if they want to remain competitive and attract funding. This indicates that climate officers equipped with data, resources, and corporate authority can turn legal obligations into competitive advantage and long-term resilience.

Climate change council as custodian and enforcer

Central to ensuring that these mandates have real impact is Nigeria’s National Council on Climate Change (NCCC). Created under the same law, the NCCC functions as the apex body guiding climate planning, adaptation, mitigation, and accountability. Chaired by the President and supported by a permanent secretariat, the council oversees the implementation of the National Climate Change Action Plan, monitors compliance, and has regulatory power to guide both public and private responses to climate obligations.

Under the law, if a ministry or agency fails to meet established carbon emission reduction targets, it can be subjected to review. The principal officers, those who hold leadership responsibility, may be sanctioned or fined. Similar provisions apply to private entities that do not meet their reporting or emissions obligations. The law also empowers the council to require reports, assess penalties, and demand corrective action from corporate entities. The council is required by the law to make compliance data publicly available. Unlike some jurisdictions where compliance scores are published widely, in Nigeria, regulatory transparency is still developing as institutions build capacity and reporting systems mature, a reality common in many developing economies transitioning from climate policy to practice.

SOStainability steps up advocacy and accountability demand

Law without awareness and compliance is like a boat without a paddle, it exists but can’t make progress. Across Nigeria, civil society organizations, youth groups, and climate advocates are stepping into the space between law and action. SOStainability will weigh heavily on this score: this page will soon commence periodic publication of compliance data, transparent reporting and fact-checking of climate claims to counter greenwashing tendencies.

Recently, more than 40 Nigerian civil society organizations united under the Nigerian Climate Justice Movement, expressed their commitment to hold corporations and governments accountable for environmental damage and biodiversity loss. This movement represents a growing recognition that climate obligations should be transparent, measurable, and publicly scrutinized. For communities living on the frontlines of climate impacts, such advocacy isn’t abstract. It’s about ensuring that legal mandates translate into safer livelihoods, healthier environments, and sustainable economies.

The work of environmental activists, and community leaders such as those challenging multinational firms over environmental harm, highlights how civil society complements legal frameworks by drawing attention to gaps in compliance, data transparency, and enforcement.

Urgent Questions for Today’s Leaders

As these reforms begin to take shape, several urgent questions need answers if the promise of the climate change law is to be fully realized. Are climate desks truly operational across ministries, or do they exist only on organizational charts? Have qualifying companies appointed and genuinely empowered their climate officers with authority, budgeting capacity, and access to decision-making tables? For the NCCC, where reporting obligations are unmet, what technical support is available to help entities comply?

Perhaps most importantly, are citizens and local communities equipped to access and interpret climate data, turning transparency into accountability? For laws to work, people must understand them, monitor them, and demand that institutions deliver on their commitments.

Climate accountability can’t wait

Nigeria’s Climate Change Act is not just a statute. It is a blueprint for institutionalizing climate action, forcing governments and corporations alike to confront the realities of a changing planet. The establishment of climate desks and corporate climate officers marks a legal transition from vague sustainability goals to structured, accountable action.

The challenge now is implementation: ensuring that these roles become engines of change rather than bureaucratic checkboxes. When ministries integrate climate risk into budgets, when companies measure and report emissions, and when people demand transparency and accountability, climate governance will move beyond legal text into everyday practice. Climate change will not wait. The law rightly insists that both government and business cannot either. And SOStainability will pursue accountability for all actors – state and non-state – on this page and other impending engagements. 

Spotlight

Climate injustice perpetuates social inequality 

Humans are living through a stark paradox: the people least responsible for climate change suffer its harshest effects, while the wealthiest contributors, both individuals and nations, insulate themselves from harm. Despite abundant evidence of this injustice, policy frameworks largely treat climate change and social inequality as separate problems. This separation is not just a technical oversight; it is a moral blind spot that undermines both equitable development and effective climate action.

Let’s be clear: climate change deepens social inequality, and it does so systematically.Studies show that a rise in global temperature increases poverty and widens income inequality significantly, especially in poorer regions where adaptation capacity is weak. In the real world, this means heatwaves push subsistence farmers into debt, coastal flooding destroys informal markets, and drought strips livelihoods from women who depend on agriculture. Meanwhile, wealthier households remain buffered by technology, savings, and social safety nets.The United Nations’ own analysis explains this dynamic: pre-existing inequalities increase exposure, susceptibility, and the inability to recover from climate shocks, creating a vicious cycle of deepening disadvantage. Yet today’s policies overwhelmingly focus on emissions reductions without integrating equity safeguards, leaving the vulnerable to “adapt” alone. The richest 10 percent of the world account for roughly two-thirds of historical warming, while the poorest suffer crop losses, economic shocks, and displacement. This is inequality in action — climate impacts amplifying the gap between those with power and those without it. This injustice must be addressed in real terms and not rhetoric.