A city where water keeps winning
In recent years, flooding has become a near-permanent feature of life in Lagos. From Lekki to Ajegunle, seasonal rains routinely submerge roads, homes, and businesses. Drainage channels overflow, traffic grinds to a halt, and residents improvise ways to move through knee-deep water. Yet Lagos is also one of Africa’s most policy-rich cities on climate adaptation and urban resilience. It has strategies, master plans, resilience roadmaps, and climate action frameworks that all promise coordination, preparedness, and inclusion.
A new peer-reviewed study published in Environmental Science & Policy raises a difficult question. If the policies are there, why do floods continue to overwhelm the city.
The answer, according to the researchers, lies not in the absence of plans but in how flood governance actually works on the ground.
A framework to diagnose governance, not floods
The study, led by environmental governance scholar Olasunkanmi Habeeb Okunola alongside Daniel Adeoluwa Adeniyi, Himanshu Shekhar, and Saskia E. Werners, introduces what the authors call the Integrated Flood Risk Governance framework, or IFRG. Rather than measuring flood damage or engineering solutions, the framework examines how institutions, actors, and policies interact.
The researchers applied the framework to two flood-prone coastal cities, Lagos and Accra. For Nigeria Climate Watch, the Lagos findings are particularly revealing.
The IFRG framework assesses flood governance through three lenses. The first looks at how institutions coordinate and share authority. The second examines relationships among actors, including government agencies, communities, civil society, and the private sector. The third evaluates whether flood-related policies align with each other or work at cross purposes.
Drawing on analysis of Lagos policy documents and in-depth interviews with planners, civil society actors, consultants, and public officials, the study provides one of the most detailed governance portraits of flood management in the city to date.
Integration on paper, fragmentation in practice
Lagos has no shortage of policy documents that speak the language of integration. The Lagos State Environmental Management and Protection Law, the Lagos Climate Action Plan, the Lagos Resilience Strategy, and the Lagos Development Plan 2052 all reference coordination, decentralisation, and data-driven decision-making.
Yet the study finds that these commitments remain largely declaratory.
According to the researchers, responsibilities for flood management remain heavily centralised at the state level, even as policies gesture toward decentralisation. Local governments are frequently listed as stakeholders but lack the authority and resources to act independently.
One municipal planner interviewed for the study described the problem bluntly. “Flood governance is still designed as a state-led system. Local governments wait for instructions because the laws don’t actually give them autonomy to act.”
This lack of delegated authority affects everything from drainage maintenance to land-use enforcement. Without clear decision-making power or financial control, local councils are unable to respond quickly to flood risks in their jurisdictions.
Community organisations echoed this concern. Several interviewees told the researchers that local governments are invited into discussions without being empowered to implement solutions. One participant described councils as “called stakeholders but not empowered stakeholders.”
When coordination stops at the document level
The IFRG framework places particular emphasis on institutional interaction. In Lagos, the study found weak coordination across ministries, departments, and agencies involved in flood governance.
While policies reference cross-sector collaboration, they rarely specify how coordination should work in practice. There are no clear protocols for resolving overlapping mandates, sharing data, or jointly planning interventions.
A recurring issue raised in interviews was the absence of a unified data system. Despite repeated references to data harmonisation, the researchers found no clear custodian for flood risk data or rules governing information sharing across agencies.
As one hydrological consultant told the research team, “Two ministries can be modelling the same floodplain with different assumptions, and no one reconciles the outputs.”
The result is duplication of effort, inconsistent risk assessments, and fragmented decision-making.
Adaptive planning without learning mechanisms
Another gap identified by the study concerns institutional flexibility. Lagos policies often mention periodic review and adaptive planning. The Lagos Resilience Strategy, for example, commits to regular updates.
However, the researchers found no formal triggers, timelines, or institutional units responsible for conducting these reviews. Interviewees confirmed that policy updates tend to be reactive, driven by political cycles or major flood events rather than structured learning.
A senior environmental officer interviewed for the study noted that review mechanisms exist largely on paper. “Policy documents talk about review mechanisms, but there is no unit, no budget line, no protocol for actually conducting them.”
This means that lessons from past floods, emerging risks such as compound flooding, or new scientific data are rarely integrated systematically into governance processes.
Participation without power
Lagos flood policies frequently invoke stakeholder engagement, but the study finds that participation is largely consultative.
Communities are informed, sensitised, or consulted after key decisions have already been made. They are rarely involved in shaping flood risk priorities or monitoring implementation.
One civil society coordinator interviewed for the study summed it up this way. “Communities are told to be aware. They are not asked what awareness should contain.”
The researchers note that engagement often intensifies after flood disasters, when emergency response is needed, but fades during planning cycles. This reactive approach limits the ability of residents, especially those in informal settlements, to influence long-term risk reduction strategies.
The study also highlights the absence of tailored engagement for women, informal settlement residents, and other vulnerable groups, despite their disproportionate exposure to flood impacts.
The missing role of the private sector
Private sector involvement in Lagos flood governance is another area where rhetoric exceeds reality.
Policy documents frame businesses primarily as contractors or implementation partners, particularly in waste management and drainage projects. They are rarely treated as governance actors with a role in shaping policy direction.
An engineering consultant interviewed for the study explained that private firms are usually brought in at the procurement stage. “The private sector enters the conversation only when infrastructure is being procured, not when policies are being designed.”
This limits opportunities for leveraging private sector expertise in areas such as insurance, risk financing, data analytics, and resilient construction practices.
Awareness campaigns without capacity building
The study also examines whether flood governance efforts in Lagos build long-term capacity among communities.
While the Lagos Climate Action Plan identifies community climate literacy as a priority, the researchers found little evidence of funded or sustained capacity-building programmes.
Instead, awareness campaigns often focus on behavioural messaging, such as discouraging waste dumping, without equipping residents with tools to reduce flood risk.
A civil society representative interviewed for the study described this gap. “Government awareness campaigns tell people not to dump waste, but they don’t train them in how to reduce flood risk in the first place.”
The researchers argue that this approach reinforces dependence on state-led responses rather than fostering shared responsibility and local resilience.
Policies that do not speak to each other
Beyond institutions and actors, the IFRG framework evaluates policy mixes. In Lagos, the study finds partial alignment but persistent contradictions.
Climate, resilience, and environmental policies often share similar language and objectives. However, they are not consistently aligned with land-use planning and building permit systems.
The Lagos Development Plan 2052, for instance, promotes climate-resilient land use. Yet zoning approvals and construction permits continue to be issued in known floodplains.
Interviewees described this as a case of parallel mandates operating without coordination. One planning consultant told the researchers, “Policies evolve as documents, not as systems.”
This disconnect undermines flood risk reduction efforts and perpetuates exposure in high-risk areas.
Enforcement as the weakest link
Across interviews, enforcement emerged as a central constraint.
Lagos has multiple laws and regulations governing drainage, building codes, and environmental protection. However, enforcement remains inconsistent.
Several respondents emphasised that the problem is not a lack of policy but a lack of execution. Drainage clearance schedules are unevenly implemented, building code violations persist, and land reclamation often proceeds without effective oversight.
Funding constraints further complicate enforcement. Although policies reference financing mechanisms, interviewees noted that many flood-related actions depend heavily on donor funding.
As one senior official acknowledged during the interviews, “Many policy actions exist only to the extent that donor funds make them possible.”
State and federal misalignment
The study also points to weak alignment between Lagos State policies and federal flood frameworks.
None of the analysed Lagos documents explicitly reference Nigeria’s National Flood Emergency Preparedness Framework or the National Adaptation Plan. This results in duplication and missed opportunities for coordination across scales.
The researchers found that this lack of vertical alignment contributes to fragmented implementation and inefficient use of resources.
What the Lagos case reveals
By applying the IFRG framework, the study moves beyond general claims about weak governance and identifies specific points where integration breaks down.
In Lagos, the picture that emerges is one of strong rhetorical alignment but limited operational coherence. Institutions speak the language of coordination without embedding it in procedures. Participation exists without power. Policies coexist without mechanisms to resolve contradictions.
The researchers describe this condition as “paper integration without functional integration.”
What policymakers need to fix
The study does not end with abstract recommendations. Based on its findings, it outlines concrete areas where reform is needed.
First, the researchers point to the need for interoperable, multi-agency data systems. Shared risk data, clear custodianship, and data-sharing protocols would reduce duplication and improve decision-making.
Second, institutional mandates require clarification. Clear legal or administrative reforms are needed to define roles, reduce overlaps, and strengthen accountability across state and local levels.
Third, participation must move beyond consultation. Communities, civil society groups, and private sector actors need defined roles in decision-making, monitoring, and evaluation processes.
Fourth, incentives for collaboration should be embedded in governance systems. Financial, regulatory, or procedural incentives could encourage agencies and non-state actors to work across silos.
Finally, the study suggests that development partners should align funding conditions with governance integration outcomes, rather than focusing solely on infrastructure delivery.
For Lagos, where flood risk is rising alongside rapid urban growth, the research offers a clear message. Flood resilience will depend not only on bigger drains or higher walls, but on whether governance systems can move from policy promises to coordinated action.
