Every state, measured the same way.
All 36 states and the FCT. Each readiness score sits next to how much of that state’s record we could actually find. Read the two together.
47%
Average share of the record found
32/37
Scoring under 40 out of 100
The record in whole numbers
Behind every percentage on this site there is a countable record. This is what it contains.
226
documents reviewed
Across all 37 jurisdictions. 152 were issued by government itself; 74 corroborate a government record.
370
indicator assessments
Ten indicators judged for each of the 37 jurisdictions, each one tied to a named document or recorded as not found.
30
climate plans adopted
30 jurisdictions have a climate plan and a body responsible for it. 7 have given it legal force.
8,989,375
direct beneficiaries reported
Reported by the ACReSAL programme's national results table (November 2025) across 17 states. Programme-attributed, not yet reconstructed by the states themselves.
Climate money we could actually name
₦13.67bn
named in a published budget document
Climate lines named in published budget implementation reports: ₦12.45bn (Ogun, 2025 climate change programme) and ₦1.22bn (Lagos, 2025 Q4 climate change expenses).
₦1.83bn
reported as actually spent
The part reported as actually spent: ₦1.22bn in Lagos (100% of its line) and ₦612m in Ogun (4.9%, first quarter).
Only 2 of 37 jurisdictions publish a climate spending line you can read off a government document. Every other state spends on climate too — through works, water, agriculture and health budgets — but nobody adds it up under one label, so none of it can be counted, audited or claimed against climate finance.
Nigeria’s Nationally Determined Contribution, and who has to deliver it
In September 2025 Nigeria submitted its Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC 3.0) under the Paris Agreement: a 32.2% cut in emissions below its 2018 level by 2035. Most of what that takes — land, water, energy, waste, flood defence — is decided and spent by states. And most of the money behind the promise only arrives if those states can show, on paper, what they spent and what changed.
32.2%
Emissions cut Nigeria has promised by 2035, against its 2018 level
2018
The base year now used — a real past year, so cuts have to be measured, not modelled
$337bn
Total cost of delivering the pledge
$270bn
The part that depends on international support
The four things the Nationally Determined Contribution needs — and how few states can show them
2 of 37Money actually spent on climate, traceable to the plan
4 of 37Emissions figures you can compare year to year
12 of 37Targets that fell due, with reported progress
17 of 37Who benefited, including people most at risk
Read the full overview of Nigeria’s NDC 3.0
Nigeria is asking for about $270bn of international support against systems that, today, 2 of 37 states can document. That is the gap this index measures — and it closes with paperwork, not new money.
How the 37 scores are spread
32 of 37 jurisdictions score under 40 out of 100. The middle state sits at 23.1.
The fullest and the thinnest records
Where no qualifying primary document exists, the measure is recorded as not shown. It is not scored as a substantive zero and it is not a finding that nothing is happening — it means nothing we could trace has been published. Send us the document and the record changes.
All 37 jurisdictions, ordered by index score
Six problems that keep repeating
35/37
Climate spending can't be traced across ministries
Spending is spread across health, works, water, agriculture and energy, and nobody adds it up into one climate figure.
33/37
No greenhouse-gas figures you can compare
There is no starting figure and closing figure to compare.
33/37
Work credited to federal or donor programmes
What the state itself funded and ran is not separated from the wider programme totals.
25/37
Targets with nothing tracking them
Targets appear in speeches, with no starting figure, deadline or reported progress.
15/37
Projects built, results not measured
You can see the projects, but not what changed as a result.
7/37
Plan never formally adopted
Announced or drafted, but no signed, dated document bringing it into effect.
The three things we score
32%
Policy & institutions
30 have a plan and an institution. Only 7 have legal authority.
40% of score
17%
Finance & spending
34 publish budgets. Only 2 can show what they actually spent on climate. The gap is labelling it.
30% of score
21%
Implementation & outcomes
34 show delivery. 19 measure an outcome. 4 hold an inventory.
30% of score
The six geopolitical zones
North West
29.3/100
51% of the record found · strongest: Katsina 68.1
South West
28.8/100
53% of the record found · strongest: Lagos 57.5
South South
28.7/100
57% of the record found · strongest: Edo 47.2
North East
24.4/100
50% of the record found · strongest: Bauchi 30.0
South East
23.0/100
40% of the record found · strongest: Ebonyi 44.2
North Central
11.9/100
31% of the record found · strongest: Kwara 23.9
Most of this is fixable with paperwork
Three documents close most of the gaps. None of them needs new money. All three are already within a state ministry’s power to publish.
The document that adopted the planThe signed, dated approval that brought the climate plan into effect.
Proof an agency is in chargeThe order setting it up, named staff, and a regular reporting cycle.
A spending report that labels climate workLast year’s actual spending, labelled across every ministry and matched to audited totals.
