Where the money goes

Finding 1

Two areas take 94% of the money: environmental protection and water supply

Every Nigerian state reports its capital spending by government function, using the same international classification. That gives one consistent basis across 31 states. Together the climate-related functions were budgeted at ₦963bn. The share of capital spending varies widely, from 0.8% to 17.7%, with half of states below 3.9%. Lagos alone accounts for 23% of the total, reflecting the size of its budget.

• Environmental protection, not further specified₦451bn
• Water supply₦380bn
• Waste, waste water and pollution₦70bn
• Street lighting₦50bn
• Trees, forests and biodiversity₦12bn

Width of each bar = share of the ₦963bn budgeted for climate-related capital works, 31 states, FY2025. Functional classification (COFOG) codes 70511, 70521, 70531, 70541, 70422, 70561, 70631 and 70641. Delta's published functional table repeats its overhead figures, so its full project list was classified instead. Source: state FY2025 budget implementation reports; CAI analysis.

What the records show

Seven findings from the states' own reports

1. 01

   Two areas take 94% of the money

   Environmental protection, waste and pollution (₦521bn) and water supply (₦380bn) make up 94% of the total. Each is the largest climate area in 15 states. Street lighting takes 5%; trees, forests and biodiversity just 1.3%.

2. 02

   Nearly half the money is hard to see

   ₦451bn is reported only as “environmental protection n.e.c.”, a residual heading. The project lists show that, where it can be traced, it is mostly drainage, erosion control and dredging. In nineteen states there is no project list to check against.

3. 03

   Spending lagged budgets in most states

   18 of 31 states spent less than half of their climate budget; 8 spent less than a quarter. Trees and biodiversity fared worst: 17% spent. Low figures can reflect late releases, projects carried into 2026, or donor-financed works recorded outside the state's books. The reports do not say which.

4. 04

   Big lines move; small local lines mostly do not

   In the 12 states that publish full project lists, 62 lines of ₦1bn or more hold 83% of the money. Of 468 lines under ₦50m, where village boreholes and ward drains sit, 73% recorded no spending. Across all climate lines in those states, 59% recorded no spending at all.

5. 05

   Donor-backed works often show no spending in the state's own record

   Several of the largest lines that recorded nothing are co-financed by development partners: the Owena Dam scheme in Ondo (African Development Bank and French Development Agency) and the Jos–Bukuru erosion works in Plateau (NEWMAP and ACReSAL, both World Bank-supported). Together they carry ₦46.2bn of budget and recorded ₦0.06bn of spending.

6. 06

   The record does not say who the money is for

   None of 888 climate project lines states how many people a work is meant to serve. The only people counted anywhere are flood victims in three Adamawa relief lines, and none of those recorded spending.

7. 07

   Most states do not publish what they built

   Only 12 states published a complete list of 2025 capital projects; six jurisdictions had no full-year capital report we could read. Without the list, a reader can see that a state budgeted for “water supply”, but not which towns, how many boreholes, or whether any were finished.

Kept out of the climate total

Electricity: ₦543bn budgeted, reported beside the climate figure

State electricity spending is large and mixed: grid extension and transformers, solar lights, and generators. Depending on the source of power, it may raise or lower emissions. Counting it as climate spending would raise the headline by more than half and blur what the climate figure means. We therefore report it beside the climate total, not inside it. In the same 31 states, ₦300bn of the ₦543bn was recorded as spent (55%).