CGPRR Impact Dashboard — Nigeria 2024 vs 2025

Impact at a Glance — 2024 to 2025

Every metric below is drawn directly from the published SPP CGPRR 1st and 2nd Edition reports. The 2025 framework had a maximum of 365 points — 55% harder than 2024's 235-point maximum.

Every single one of Nigeria's 36 states improved its absolute score in 2025. Not one state declined in actual governance performance. Rank drops are purely relative — caused by other states improving faster.

States with active climate policy

713+86%

States rated Low

142−86%

States rated Outstanding/High

37+133%

States with Climate Directorate

1421+50%

Green bonds implemented

02New

Periodic climate conferences

819+138%

Commissioner with Climate title

26+200%

States with both policy & plan

59+80%

Active CSO/NGO online registry

16+500%

LGA climate focal persons (any)

1022+120%

States attending COP physically

~624+300%

States capacity-building staff

2721−22%

States receiving multilateral funds

N/M25New

Climate education in schools

N/M21New

States with enacted climate law

02First ever

Gender/youth in climate policy

N/M17New

Score distribution across all 36 states — 2024 vs 2025

2024 scores shown as % of 235 max; 2025 scores as % of 365 max — normalised for fair comparison

2024 (% of 235) 2025 (% of 365)

N/M = Not Measured in 2024. The 2025 framework introduced 6 new indicator categories including climate education, gender inclusion, social media engagement, MRV compliance, multilateral finance engagement, and community-level governance.

Scoring Framework Comparison — 2024 vs 2025

The 2025 framework expanded from 235 to 365 maximum points (+55%). This is a harder benchmark, not easier — making all documented improvements genuine governance gains.

Max score 2024

235 pts

Max score 2025

365 pts

Framework expansion

+130 pts+55% harder

Thematic Area	Max 2024	Max 2025	Change	What Was Added in 2025
Institutional Arrangements	~100 pts	~155 pts	+55%	Upgraded weighting; multilateral engagement Q; advisory board scoring; LGA focal person detail; bottom-up approach
Climate Policy & Action Plan	25 pts	55 pts	+120%	Gender/youth/vulnerable groups inclusion; legal framework/domestication scoring; indigenous solutions
Climate Finance & Budget	30 pts	60 pts	+100%	Multilateral engagement Q; green bond weight doubled; budget tagging specificity upgraded
Project Implementation & Monitoring	50 pts	55 pts	+10%	Community/bottom-up Q; MRV/transparency compliance Q (BTR, NC, ETF reporting)
Online Visibility & Communication	15 pts	40 pts	+167%	Social media engagement; TV/radio/media outreach; climate communication depth
Climate Education (new)	0 — not measured	10 pts	New pillar	UNFCCC ACE principles; school engagement programmes
TOTAL	235 pts	365 pts	+130 pts	+55% harder benchmark

The expansion of the scoring framework is itself an impact of the initiative. Gaps identified in 2024 — absence of climate education measurement, under-weighting of online visibility, no gender inclusion scoring — were corrected in 2025 through stakeholder consultation and expert panel review.

Thematic weight distribution — 2024 vs 2025

Each bar shows the maximum possible points per thematic area

2024 weights

2025 weights

Rating Tier Transformation — 2024 vs 2025

The redistribution of states across performance tiers is the most powerful evidence of systemic impact. 14 of 36 states were Low-rated in 2024; only 2 remain Low in 2025.

Rating distribution — 2024

1 = Outstanding, 2 = High, 11 = Good, 8 = Average, 14 = Low

Rating distribution — 2025

3 = Outstanding, 4 = High, 16 = Good, 10 = Average, 2 = Low

Rating	2025 Score Range	2024 — States	2025 — States	Change
Outstanding	300–365	1 state: Lagos (182/235)	3 states: Lagos (315), Katsina (310), Kaduna (300)	+2 states
High	250–299	2 states: Gombe (128), Ebonyi (125)	4 states: Kano (280), Enugu (270), Osun (265), Oyo (250)	+2 states
Good	170–249	11 states	16 states (incl. Benue, Borno, Cross River, Sokoto, Delta, Bauchi, Kebbi, Ebonyi, Kwara, Anambra, Edo, Niger, Gombe, Yobe, Nasarawa, Imo, Bayelsa)	+5 states
Average	100–169	8 states (Adamawa, Kaduna, Sokoto, Enugu, Taraba, Kogi, Bauchi, Ondo)	10 states (Ondo, Taraba, Ekiti, Abia, Akwa-Ibom, Plateau, Kogi, Jigawa, Adamawa, Ogun)	+2 states
Low	0–99	14 states (Cross River, Imo, Akwa-Ibom, Katsina, Benue, Plateau, Rivers, Osun, Kebbi, Nasarawa, Jigawa, Oyo, Kano, Zamfara)	2 states: Rivers (90), Zamfara (70)	−12 states

Note on score ranges: the 2025 score ranges (300–365 = Outstanding etc.) are calibrated to the 2025 maximum of 365 points. The 2024 thresholds were different: Outstanding = 171–235, High = 120–170, Good = 101–119, Average = 71–100, Low = 0–70.

Important: Gombe (2024 rank 2, High) and Ebonyi (2024 rank 3, High) both declined in rank in 2025. However, both improved their absolute scores. The ranking's competitive dynamic means being surpassed by faster-improving states.

Thematic Impact Analysis — All Six Areas

Direct data comparison across all thematic areas between the two editions.

Thematic performance indicators — count of states achieving each benchmark

Grouped bars: grey = 2024, green = 2025. Note: some 2024 bars are 0 because the indicator was not measured.

2024 2025

Institutional Arrangements

Commissioner with Climate Change in title: 2 → 6 states (+200%)
Full Climate Change Directorate: 14 → 21 states (+50%)
Only desk officer (weakest form): 4 → 1 state (−75%)
Periodic climate conferences held: 8 → 19 states (+138%)
LGA climate focal persons (any form): 10 → 22 states (+120%)
Active online CSO/NGO registry: 1 → 6 states (+500%)
Regular FMEnv dialogue: 12 → 27 states (+125%)
Physical COP attendance: ~6 → 24 states (+300%)
REGRESSION: Capacity-building for staff: 27 → 21 states (−22%)

Climate Policy & Action Plans

Dedicated climate policy in use: 7 → 13 states (+86%)
Climate action plan in use: 9 → 12 states (+33%)
Both policy AND action plan completed: 5 → 9 states (+80%)
Enacted climate legislation (new benchmark): 0 → 2 states (Cross River, Enugu)
Gender/youth fully in policy: 0 → 17 states (new indicator)
NO gender/youth provisions: 18 states — documented gap
Standing Committee on Climate Change in Assembly: 0 → 1 (Enugu only)

Climate Finance & Budget

Green bonds implemented: 0 → 2 states (Lagos, Katsina)
Green bond provision in budget: 1 → 6 states (+500%)
Budget specifically tagged for climate: 21 → 23 states (+10%)
Receiving multilateral climate funds: N/M → 25 states (new)
Multilateral engagement in process: N/M → 5 states (new)
No multilateral engagement: N/M → 6 states (gap identified)

Project Implementation & Monitoring

States scoring 40+ on implementation: 3 → 12 states (+300%)
States scoring zero on implementation: 1 → 0 states (floor eliminated)
Top scores: Lagos, Katsina, Kano tied (55 pts each)
Active MER framework (2024 definition): 3 → assessed under broader MRV criteria

Online Visibility & Climate Communication

Active social media on climate: N/M → 22 states (new indicator)
No climate website at all: N/M → 4 states (Imo, Ebonyi, Niger, Ekiti)
Website max score: 15 pts (2024) → 40 pts (2025) — ceiling raised 167%
No media/social presence on climate: N/M → 11 states (gap documented)

Climate Education (New in 2025)

Climate education in schools (active): 21 states — 58% of all states
Climate education starting (not yet at scale): 7 states — 19%
No climate education programme: 8 states — 22% gap (Abia, Ondo, Taraba, Yobe, Kogi, Rivers, Zamfara, Adamawa)

All 36 States — Full Year-on-Year Data

Scores, ranks, and changes for all states. Use filters to explore.

Filter by rating: Sort by:

Biggest Movers — Rise and Decline

All rank changes are relative. Every state improved its absolute score. Rank declines mean other states improved faster.

Top 10 Rank Gainers

Top 10 Rank Declines

Rank declines are a sign the ranking is working. States like Gombe (ranked 2nd in 2024) declined because 16 other states improved faster — not because Gombe regressed. Gombe's absolute score rose from 128 to 185.

State	2024 Rank	2025 Rank	Rank Change	Score 2024 / 235	Score 2025 / 365	Score Change

Persistent Gaps and Recommendations

Documented governance deficits that remain unresolved and require targeted attention in the 3rd Edition.

Capacity-building regression: 27 states conducted staff training in 2024, down to 21 in 2025. This is the most significant institutional setback identified in the comparative analysis.

Youth exclusion: Respondents under 35 years = 3% in both 2024 and 2025. Nigeria's climate governance is almost entirely led by those over 35. This systemic gap is now documented.

Gap	2024	2025	Status
States with enacted climate legislation	0 states	2 states only	34 states still without law
Youth (under 35) in governance roles	2.2% (1 person)	3% (1 person)	No meaningful change
Capacity-building for climate staff	27 states	21 states	−22% regression
States with no climate policy (not developing)	5 states	~8–9 states	Slightly worsened
States with no website climate reference	24 states	18 states	Improving slowly
States with no media/social presence on climate	Not measured	11 states	Gap documented
States with no gender/youth in policy	Not measured	18 states (50%)	Major gap remains
States with no LGA climate focal persons	26 states	14 states	Improving (+12)
States with no climate education programme	Not measured	8 states	Gap documented
Female respondents in governance	19.6%	25%	Improving, still low
Rivers State — persistent Low performer	Rank 29, 59 pts	Rank 35, 90 pts	Score up but still Low
Zamfara — bottom rank held	Rank 36, 35 pts	Rank 36, 70 pts	Score doubled but lowest

Recommendations for the 3rd Edition

Priority areas identified by the comparative analysis

1. Youth governance indicator
% of climate staff/respondents under 35 — mandatory scored metric

2. Weight climate legislation higher
Domestication remains the most underdeveloped pillar

3. Restore capacity-building indicator
Require minimum training frequency linked to accredited programmes

4. Climate finance mobilisation metric
Track actual funds received by state government for climate projects

5. Most Improved award category
Incentivise bottom-tier states with dedicated recognition

6. Gender-disaggregated governance data
States must publish disaggregated climate governance data

7. LGA implementation quality
Score community-level delivery, not just focal person appointments