Climate Accountability and the Agency of Citizenship

SOStainabilityWeekly

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

Trends and Threads

Climate action in Nigeria has been largely framed as a government responsibility designed by policymakers, funded through development finance and annual budgets, explained by experts, and implemented by institutions. This framing has consequences. When responsibility is consistently projected outward, ownership weakens inward. Climate action begins to feel like a public programme rather than a shared duty for citizens and by citizens. As a result, individual and community participation remains passive, not because people are unaware of environmental challenges, but because the fight against them has never truly felt personal. When climate damage happens, it does not stop at government offices; it reaches homes, schools, markets, and places of worship, among other personal and communal spaces. While the role of government is critical, meaningful progress will stall and be fragile unless communities, individuals, and civil society actively take ownership of climate action. And that includes the demand for accountability from duty bearers.

Policies count…so do active citizenship

There is no denying that the greatest share of responsibility for climate action rests with the government. Governments have the authority to make laws, allocate funding, regulate industries, and represent the country in global climate negotiations. The Climate Change Act of 2021 established a legal framework for climate governance and created the National Council on Climate Change, giving the government the mandate to coordinate national climate efforts, drive adaptation and mitigation strategies, and manage climate finance. This places Nigeria among countries that have formally recognized climate action as a national priority. But even the strongest policies fail when citizens are disconnected from implementation. Climate action that remains confined to policy documents, press statements, and elite discussions will never be strong enough to confront a problem that touches every community differently. The truth is, the government can set direction, but communities determine impact.

Low public participation in climate action can easily be interpreted as apathy. In reality, it is more accurately a reflection of lived experience. In countries like Nigeria, where daily life is shaped by economic pressure, insecurity, and unreliable public services, people are conditioned to prioritize survival over long-term collective causes. A more pungent reality, however, is climate change affects people locally, not abstractly. Flooding in Bayelsa is different from desertification in Katsina. Gully erosion in Anambra does not look the same as coastal erosion in Lagos. These differences mean that solutions must be rooted in local knowledge and community participation. When climate action is left entirely to the government, three problems arise. First, response becomes slow, often delayed by bureaucracy and competing priorities. Second, solutions may not reflect local realities. And third, citizens become passive victims instead of active problem-solvers. Waiting for government action alone also weakens accountability. When people feel disconnected from climate decisions, they are less likely to ask questions, track progress, or demand results. This allows poor implementation to thrive.

Climate change and civil society

Over the years, some civil society organizations have done commendable work in advocacy, education, and mobilization. However, advocacy alone is no longer enough. Nigeria’s climate reality demands a shift from awareness to implementation. NGOs must continue to educate, but also work with communities to execute practical solutions: tree planting that survives beyond photo-ops, waste systems that actually function, and community adaptation plans that respond to real risks. Recent coalitions such as climate justice movements across Nigeria show what is possible when civil society moves beyond isolated campaigns to coordinated action. These efforts amplify community voices, strengthen oversight, and push climate action beyond rhetoric.

The most powerful climate actions often start small and close to home. Communities are not powerless; they are pivotal. When residents organize to clear blocked drainages before the rainy season, they reduce flood risk. When farmers adopt climate-smart practices, they protect food supply. When schools plant trees, they improve air quality and teach responsibility. When households reduce waste and avoid burning refuse, they protect public health. These actions may seem modest, but multiplied across thousands of communities, they become transformative. Climate action is not only about big infrastructure projects or international funding. It is about everyday choices, local cooperation, and collective discipline.

Climate responsibility does not require expertise or wealth; it requires commitment. Individuals can adopt simple but meaningful practices —responsible waste disposal, reduced use of single-use plastics, energy conservation, tree planting, and environmental cleanliness. Communities can organize sanitation days, protect green spaces, support sustainable farming, and discourage harmful environmental practices. More importantly, citizens must engage. Attend town halls. Ask questions. Participate in local planning discussions. Climate policies are strongest when shaped by the people they are meant to protect. Community participation turns climate action from an external obligation into a shared mission.

Climate policies that recognize collective action

Nigeria’s legal and policy frameworks on climate change do more than assign responsibility to government institutions: they also provide legal recognition for public participation, multi‑stakeholder collaboration, and collective engagement in climate action. An important policy framework is the National Climate Change Action Plan, which mandates mechanisms for public engagement and stakeholder involvement in climate responses. Under Section 20 of the Climate Change Act, the National Climate Change Council is legally required to prepare and publish a public engagement strategy each year to inform citizens about climate actions and to encourage their contribution to achieving national climate goals. The law also allows for involvement of civil society organizations, academia, NGOs, and private sector stakeholders in developing and implementing the Action Plan, reinforcing the importance of broad‑based participation. The National Action Plan on Gender and Climate Change for Nigeria (2020) further strengthens the collective framework by explicitly calling for increased participation of diverse groups including women, youth, farmers, and vulnerable populations in climate policy design, decision‑making, monitoring, and implementation at all levels. This plan emphasizes that effective climate response must integrate voices beyond government officials to be equitable and effective. Government entities like the National Orientation Agency (NOA) have a key role in citizen engagement on climate change. Together, these frameworks represent Nigeria’s legal recognition that climate action must go beyond institutional leadership; it must engage citizens, communities, and diverse voices in shaping, implementing, and sustaining shared climate solutions.

We must not fail to remember that climate change is not selective. It does not ask who voted for whom or who wrote which policy. It affects everyone, especially the most vulnerable. The future Nigeria needs cannot be built by the government alone, nor by NGOs in isolation, nor by communities acting independently. It requires a partnership where leadership, accountability, and action are shared, and climate action begins when citizens stop waiting and start participating. The question is no longer whether climate change is our problem. It is whether we are ready to accept that the solution is also ours.

Washing and Hushing

The Detail is in the Label, Stupid!

Oftentimes, people do not pay attention to product labels. Except for certain items that require precision in purchasing and use, labels are overlooked by consumers who are satisfied withthe look and feel of their purchase.The assurance hitherto provided by advertising and marketing appears to suffice.Good enough, regulation is helping to tackle false claims and other unethical practices in product advertising, although this has become more expedient in the realm of sustainability, especially environmental stewardship.While consumer protection in advertising and direct marketing is within the scope of regulation, the same is not obvious when it comes to the seemingly innocuous messaging contained in product labels.This is common for clothing, fast-moving consumer goods, and other wares that are increasingly susceptible to subtle greenwashing claims.

Have you noticed those certification claims on clothing labels? Have you taken a moment to consider the claims of responsible sourcing vaguely made on that designer label? Or those claims of carbon offsetting made to hype net-zero credentials? Or that stamp of chest-thumping, trumpeting philanthropy and social responsibility in some distant land? As the drive for sustainability increasingly influences industry standards and practices, the lure for false claims becomes stronger. And because there is more scrutiny on advertising, the use of labels becomes a ready alternative to brandish questionable credentials. Sustainable Development Goal 12 on responsible consumption and productionputs pressure on producers and consumers to consider circularity and frugality in their production and purchase of products. Labels convey compressed but important information about product content, context, and claims.In today’s world of information overload, it is easy and convenient to overlook these non-conspicuous stick-ons. Ironically, this is one tendency that allows incorrect or false claims about products to go unchallenged.And this is how greenwashing escapes attention and the scrutiny and accountability it deserves. Deceptive marketing, vague messaging, fake certifications, or exaggeration of environmental and social credentials, including raw materials sourcing, product life cycle, and manufacturer’s responsibility, cancleverly be conveyed in labels. It is like in creative accounting, where the misdemeanour is hidden in a maze of details and diversionary tactics.Resorting to labels becomes a ready alternative as advertising increasingly comes underethical scrutiny. This is why entities that have responsibility for safeguarding the interests of the consumer, like the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC), need to engage in anti-greenwashing measures.

Spotlight

Gap Between Environmental Harm and Protection

Most Nigerians have grown accustomed to seeing plastic litter piled in drains, oil films on rivers, and dusty haze over cities. These environmental hazards have become almost ordinary, so familiar that many citizens regard them as acceptable. People tend to treat pollution and environmental protection as someone else’s problem, even though the consequences are felt directly in their communities, homes, and fields. However, the uncomfortable truth is that Nigeria has numerous environmental laws and agencies responsible for protecting water, air, and land; yet, pollution continues unabated. The real challenge, therefore, lies not in the absence of laws, but in why those laws fail to produce cleaner rivers, fresher air, and healthier land.

Legal frameworks in limbo

Nigeria’s legal framework for environmental protection is both broad and detailed, reflecting decades of policy effort to anticipate, manage, and prevent environmental harm. Central among these legal instruments is the National Environmental Standards and Regulations Enforcement Agency (NESREA) Act of 2007, which empowers NESREA to enforce environmental standards, monitor compliance, and regulate pollution across sectors, including water, air, waste, and ecosystem health.

Another important law is the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Act of 1992, one of the earliest federal frameworks designed to ensure that development projects undergo scrutiny before they are implemented. The EIA process requires developers to assess potential environmental impacts on water sources, agricultural land, and air quality and identify necessary mitigation before work begins. The purpose is to protect communities from harmful development outcomes. The National Oil Spill Detection and Response Agency (NOSDRA) Act of 2006 provides a specialized legal and institutional response to oil pollution, particularly in the Niger Delta region. NOSDRA coordinates the National Oil Spill Contingency Plan and mobilizes response teams when spills occur, working at least in theory with both governmental and community stakeholders to contain, report, and remediate incidents. Alongside these sector‑specific laws are other statutes, such as the Harmful Waste (Special Criminal Provisions) Act, which criminalizes the importation, dumping, and trafficking of hazardous waste that harms human health or the environment; and the Oil in Navigable Waters Act, which regulates discharges from vessels to prevent pollution of waterways used for transportation and fishing.

Broader environmental protections are also found in the National Policy on the Environment, which sets out principles for sustainable resource use, conservation, and public participation in environmental management. The policy emphasizes that environmental resources: water, forests, land, and air are national assets whose protection depends on law, cooperation, and shared responsibility. The Water Resources Act governs the use and protection of surface and groundwater, aiming to ensure the reliability and safety of water supplies. The Forests Act and related wildlife conservation instruments are designed to manage and conserve forests and biodiversity, reducing harm from deforestation. Meanwhile, various state‑level environmental laws and regulations support local oversight and enforcement of national standards. Together, these laws create a legal framework intended to protect the environment comprehensively from landfills to oil fields, rivers to forests, from industrial smokestacks to coastal waters.

The gap between law and practice

On paper, this tapestry of laws and agencies should translate into clean water, fertile land, and clear air. NESREA and NOSDRA are supposed to monitor and enforce compliance, the EIA Act is meant to prevent harm before it occurs, and other statutes are meant to fill the gaps where specific harms arise. In reality, however, enforcement is inconsistent, haphazard, and ineffective. Agencies are often constrained by limited budgets, and capacity gaps. Overlapping mandates between federal and state agencies sometimes lead to confusion over who is responsible for what, weakening oversight and allowing polluters to exploit regulatory gaps or delays. Despite the EIA requirement meant to stop harmful projects before they begin, many impact assessments are either superficial or conducted after project approval. This means that communities are left to bear environmental harm that should have been anticipated and mitigated. With NOSDRA, the intent is to coordinate oil spill response across industry, government, and local communities, but repeated spills, including ruptures of pipelines continue to devastate rivers and farmlands. Cleanup and remediation often come much later, sometimes only after international media attention, underlining a lack of transparency, effective monitoring, and regulatory follow‑through. In urban areas, emissions from generators, traffic congestion, and industrial activity create smog and degrade air quality, yet air pollution standards exist only weakly on the ground. Waste dumping into drains and waterways continues despite regulations, and hazardous substances are sometimes handled without regard for required safety and disposal practices.

Water, air, and land under siege

The consequences of weak enforcement are not abstract. Rivers in the Niger Delta and other parts of the country are tainted with oil and industrial waste, making water unsafe for fishing, drinking, or even washing. Municipal and industrial wastes discharged with little or no treatment harm aquatic life and disrupt food supplies that communities depend on. Air pollution from generators, flares, and vehicles contributes to respiratory illness in cities and towns, affecting school attendance and overall public health. In rural areas, farmlands once fertile are rendered less productive because crude oil contamination and erosion have damaged soil structure and nutrient content. Despite the many laws meant to protect Nigeria’s environment, daily life across the country tells a different story: one of ongoing pollution, frequent enforcement headlines, and communities still struggling under environmental strain. For example, gas flaring from an oil and gas processing plant draws attention to the persistent release of pollutants into the air and local environment. This kind of continuous gas flaring is more than a nuisance; it poses long‑term health risks and reflects how regulatory controls struggle to keep pace with industrial activity.  Excessive soot and particulate pollution have transformed parts of Port Harcourt, once known as the “Garden City,” into one of the most air‑polluted cities in southern Nigeria. Reports have linked this degradation to activities including illegal refining, emissions from industrial operations, and informal combustion practices, underscoring how air quality can deteriorate when enforcement is weak or inconsistent. At the regulatory level, Nigeria’s enforcement agencies occasionally succeed in holding violators to account, though inconsistently. In recent months, NESREA enforcement activities have led to the shutting down dozens of facilities across the country for failing to comply with environmental requirements such as conducting Environmental Impact Assessments, maintaining effluent treatment systems, or holding necessary permits. These actions show that when laws are actively applied, they can disrupt harmful operations, but they also reveal just how widespread non‑compliance remains. Taken together, these topical issues remind us that laws alone do not translate into clean environments — enforcement, monitoring, and public engagement must work in tandem to protect the natural resources that sustain everyday life.

The persistence of environmental pollution in Nigeria is rooted in weak enforcement, ineffective monitoring, and a lack of transparency. Agencies like NESREA and NOSDRA have statutory authority to regulate and control pollution, but they often lack the resources and political backing to act decisively. Corruption and bureaucratic barriers dilute efforts, while overlapping agencies and unclear lines of responsibility create enforcement confusion. Moreover, many citizens are unaware of environmental laws, their rights under those laws, or how to participate in oversight. Communities are often neither consulted nor informed about environmental decisions that directly affect their water, land, and health, reinforcing the mindset that environmental protection is a distant concern rather than a shared responsibility.

Why enforcement is key

Nigeria’s environmental laws offer a comprehensive framework that, if implemented effectively, could protect the nation’s water, land, and air. But legal texts alone cannot clean rivers, restore contaminated soils, or clear polluted air. That requires enforcement backed by political will, sustained funding, technical capacity, and a transparent system that invites public participation. It also requires communities to be informed, empowered, and vigilant in monitoring compliance and reporting violations. Environmental protection is not a programme locked in offices. It is a living responsibility that affects people’s daily lives: the water they drink, the air they breathe, and the land that feeds them. If Nigeria’s environmental laws are to truly protect its people and its future, they must be matched with systems that ensure enforcement, accountability, and collective engagement.