Cover StoryHealthOpinionPerspective

Reframing Resilience (II): A Climate-Informed Drug Strategy for Protecting Nigeria’s Youth

4 Mins read

Resilience has become one of the most overused words in Nigeria’s public discourse. We invoke it whenever we speak about young people “adapting” to hardship, “coping” with stress, or “pushing through” difficult realities

By Omonon Chidi-Nwafor

Resilience has become one of the most overused words in Nigeria’s public discourse. We invoke it whenever we speak about young people “adapting” to hardship, “coping” with stress, or “pushing through” difficult realities.

But beneath this familiar language lies a growing unease: what if our youth are no longer coping at all? What if the pressures confronting them – the economic, psychological, environmental pressures are converging in ways we have not fully understood?

This second part of Reframing Resilience explores a space that Nigerian policy rarely considers: the intersection between climate stress and substance vulnerability among young people. And in this emerging terrain, two institutions – the National Drug Law Enforcement Agency (NDLEA) and the Flag Foundation of Nigeria whose mandate amongst many is restoring hope through the instrumentality of the Nigerian flag have roles that, together, could fundamentally reshape how Nigeria protects its future generation.

For decades, NDLEA has been perceived through a single lens: the agency that arrests, seizes, intercepts, and prosecutes. But in recent years, something more interesting has been happening beneath the surface. Through new data initiatives, a national drug survey soon to be released, and a forthcoming National Drug Control Master Plan, NDLEA is quietly signalling a pivot. The agency is recognising that the roots of drug abuse are no longer only social or criminal, but are often environmental, psychological, and economic. This requires more than enforcement; it requires intelligence, prevention, community partnerships, and public-health approaches.

Yet awareness alone cannot solve the issue. This is where the Flag Foundation becomes a crucial but often overlooked player. With its focus on instituting hope and patrotic conciousness among the youth, community resilience, and environmental stewardship, the Foundation brings a systems perspective that aligns naturally with NDLEA’s evolving preventive mandate. While NDLEA brings national reach, regulatory authority, and data intelligence, Flag brings community language, behavioural insight, and youth-centered models that speak to lived reality.

The missing link tying both together is climate stress, which is a factor that is silently shaping youth vulnerability in ways we have not accounted for. When a young person loses farmland to flooding or herdsmen attack, when a family migrates due to drought, when there is a disruption in income sources or force displacement, the result is not simply physical hardship. It can manifest as anxiety, hopelessness, fractured social networks, disrupted identity, and exposure to risky environments. These emotional and social fractures create fertile ground for substance misuse, not because youth are “wayward,” but because the society around them is becoming more unstable.

Nigeria’s drug crisis, therefore, cannot be separated from Nigeria’s climate crisis. And both cannot be separated from Nigeria’s youth crisis.

This is where a new model becomes possible, a model that neither NDLEA nor any NGO can achieve alone. Imagine, for instance, a coordinated early-warning system that overlays NDLEA intelligence with environmental stress data to identify communities where climate shocks are likely to trigger spikes in drug use. Imagine youth hubs in vulnerable regions where preventive education, mental-health first aid, climate-resilience training, and livelihood opportunities exist in one space.

Imagine an initiative where young people at risk of drug exposure are instead recruited into green-job pathways: restoring wetlands, supporting urban greening, building climate-smart farming systems, or working within community energy projects.

Such models are not abstract ideas; they are feasible, cost-effective, and capable of transforming youth from victims of overlapping crises into resilient actors in Nigeria’s environmental future.

This kind of integrated approach would also reshape public awareness. For years, NDLEA’s messaging – though important, has been framed solely around danger, deterrence, and enforcement. But the deeper message Nigeria needs today is more nuanced: “climate stress affects mental health”, “mental health affects choices”, and “choices shape vulnerability”. A joint NDLEA–Flag communication model could help young people understand these hidden linkages, and help society empathize rather than stigmatize.

Research must also evolve. Nigeria has little empirical work examining how climate shocks influence substance use patterns. A co-authored national report: NDLEA providing national data and enforcement patterns, Flag Foundation contributing behavioural and community insights would become a foundational document for policymakers, donors, and resilience planners.

Ultimately, this approach is about shifting from emergency response to long-term design. We can no longer treat drugs as a standalone security issue, climate as an environmental issue, and youth as a social issue. They are expressions of the same structural pressures reshaping Nigeria’s development landscape. The sooner our institutions act together, the sooner we build a shield strong enough to protect a generation navigating unprecedented uncertainty.
NDLEA’s transformation, paired with the Flag Foundation’s community intelligence, offers a rare gateway to redesign youth protection in a climate-stressed Nigeria. This is more than policy innovation; it is a moral responsibility.

Our young people are facing a world more unpredictable than anything previous generations have known and they deserve integrated systems that understand their reality, anticipate their risks, and strengthen their capacity to thrive.
If resilience is Nigeria’s favourite word, it is time we give it meaning. Not by asking our youth to endure more, but by building the conditions that allow them to rise.

Omonon serves as the Counselor/Recovery Coach and Head of Programs at the Flag Foundation of Nigeria. She welcomes engagement from researchers, practitioners, and institutions working at the intersection of youth resilience, mental health, climate stress, and substance-use recovery.

She can be reached via email at omydel@yahoo.com or WhatsApp at 0706 928 8295 for collaboration, program support, or further inquiry.

   

About author
Time Nigeria is a modern and general interest Magazine with its Headquarters in Abuja. The Magazine has a remarkable difference in editorial philosophy and goals, it adheres strictly to the ethics of Journalism by using the finest ethos of the profession to promote peace among citizens; identifying and harnessing the nation’s vast resources; celebrating achievements of government agencies, individuals, groups and corporate organizations and above all, repositioning Nigeria for the needed growth and development. Time Nigeria gives emphasis to places and issues that have not been given adequate attention by others. The Magazine is national in outlook and is currently being read and patronized both in print and on our vibrant and active online platform (www.timenigeria.com).
Articles
Related posts
All The NewsCover StoryNewsPolitics

Musa Tsoken Congratulates Kalu on Daily Times’ Lawmaker of the Year Award

1 Mins read
The National Coordinator of the Asiwaju Again Renewed Hope Support Initiative 2027 and National President of the APC Initiative for Good Governance…
Abuja FileDevelopmentEconomyEnergyFinanceInside LagosOpinionPerspective

The Missing Middle of Infrastructure Finance: Why Capital Still Fails to Become Infrastructure

6 Mins read
  By Chidi Nwafor  In October 2023, a Gulf sovereign wealth fund quietly closed a $2 billion allocation to global infrastructure, earmarked in part for emerging-market energy and transport assets. The announcement drew the usual applause: another sign, commentators said, that institutional capital was finally waking up to the infrastructure opportunity in the Global South. Eighteen months later, less than a tenth of that allocation had actually left the fund’s balance sheet. Not because the mandate had changed. Not because the fund had lost appetite. According to two people familiar with the portfolio, the constraint was simpler and more uncomfortable: there were not enough investable projects to put the money into. This is not a story about a reluctant investor. It is a story about capital that wants to move, cannot find enough places willing and able to receive it in a form it can underwrite, and quietly waits instead. Multiply that fund by the hundreds of pension schemes, sovereign wealth vehicles, commercial banks and infrastructure funds now carrying dedicated allocations for emerging-market infrastructure, and a pattern emerges that rarely makes it into a headline: the world is not short of capital for infrastructure. It has capital in historic abundance, sitting adjacent to a historic infrastructure gap, unable to cross the distance between the two. The Comfortable Explanation  The explanation on offer at every major infrastructure summit is a familiar one. Global infrastructure investment needs run into the tens of trillions of dollars over the coming decade; committed capital falls well short; therefore, the problem is one of insufficient funding, and the solution is more of it: more pledges, more blended-finance facilities, more climate funds, more multilateral capital increases. It is a comfortable explanation because it assigns responsibility clearly to governments who under-fund, institutions who under-commit, and it offers a clean remedy: raise more. It is also, on close inspection, not what the evidence shows. Pension funds globally hold trillions in assets under management with explicit infrastructure allocations that remain structurally underweight, not because trustees have rejected the asset class but because deal flow meeting their risk and governance thresholds has not materialised at the pace their mandates assume. Sovereign wealth funds report the same pattern. Commercial banks with dedicated project finance desks describe pipelines that look full at the term-sheet stage and thin dramatically by financial close. Development finance institutions, whose entire purpose is to absorb risk that commercial capital will not, routinely report that their binding constraint is not capital adequacy but the volume of bankable transactions their teams can originate and structure in a given year. None of this fits the scarcity narrative. All of it fits a different one. Availability Is Not Deployability  Capital availability and capital deployability are not the same condition, and the conflation of the two is doing real damage to how the world thinks about the infrastructure gap. Availability asks whether money exists somewhere with a mandate that could, in principle, be pointed at infrastructure. Deployability asks something much narrower and much harder: whether a specific project, at a specific moment, has been engineered, structured, documented and de-risked to the point where an investment committee can approve it without exception. The first condition is met, overwhelmingly, across nearly every category of capital that matters to infrastructure. The second is met by only a small fraction of the projects competing for it. The result is a market that looks, from the outside, like a financing gap, and functions, from the inside, like a conversion problem: an abundance of capital on one side, an abundance of infrastructure need on the other, and an underbuilt set of mechanisms in between capable of turning one into the other at any meaningful scale. Where the Conversion Breaks  The break does not happen at the ends of the process. It happens in the middle, in the unglamorous sequence of work that turns a plausible concept into an instrument a fiduciary can sign. A promising transmission project needs a feasibility study rigorous enough to survive institutional scrutiny rather than optimistic enough to attract early interest. It needs offtake arrangements that hold up under real counterparty and currency risk, not the counterparty risk assumed in a base case. It needs environmental and social documentation calibrated to the standards of the institutions being asked to fund it, not the standards of the jurisdiction hosting it. It needs a legal and commercial structure that allocates risk in ways a commercial lender, not only a development financier, will accept. It needs a sponsor capable of executing what has been proposed, not merely capable of proposing it. Each of these is ordinary project finance discipline. None of it is exotic, and in mature infrastructure markets it happens as a matter of course, absorbed into systems built over decades: specialist advisers, standard-form contracts, established procurement norms, deep pools of transaction expertise. What is missing in the markets where the infrastructure gap is largest is not the standard itself but the machinery that meets it. Projects arrive at investment committees with ambition intact and preparation incomplete, and that gap is treated, again and again, as an individual project’s failure rather than what it actually is: a structural absence in the systems responsible for producing investable transactions at scale. The Missing Middle  This is the Missing Middle of Infrastructure Finance: the institutional architecture that sits between capital that wants to move and infrastructure that needs building, and whose incompleteness explains far more of the global infrastructure gap than any shortfall in committed funds. It consists of project preparation facilities able to fund feasibility and structuring work before commercial viability has been proven. Transaction advisers capable of building deals that satisfy development mandates and commercial return thresholds at once, rather than treating the two as separate constituencies to be managed sequentially. Risk-sharing and guarantee instruments that convert political, regulatory and currency risk into something a commercial balance sheet can underwrite. Aggregation platforms that bundle smaller, individually sub-scale projects into portfolios large enough to justify institutional transaction costs. Standardised documentation that reduces the bespoke legal cost of every new deal. And coordination across ministries, regulators and financiers robust enough that a technically sound project does not die in bureaucratic sequencing after the money has already been found. None of these are new ideas in isolation. What is missing is their assembly into a coherent system, deliberately funded and institutionally accountable, rather than scattered across donor-funded pilots that end when the grant does. The African Dimension  Africa makes this dynamic unusually visible, and consequently offers an unusually clear opportunity to correct it. The continent’s infrastructure financing need, by any measure, is vast. Less understood is that the shortfall is disproportionately one of preparation rather than capital. Nigerian gas-to-power, off-grid solar and mini-grid developers have each demonstrated that individual projects can clear the bankability bar; what has not emerged is systemic pipeline scale, a steady stream of comparably prepared projects large enough to absorb the capital already circling the sector. The pattern repeats, with local variation, from grid infrastructure in East Africa to transport corridors in West Africa. Interested capital is rarely the scarce input. Investment-ready projects are. The Global Comparison  Mature markets solved this problem gradually and mostly invisibly, through decades of institution-building that predates the current infrastructure conversation: specialist project finance units inside banks, standardised PPP frameworks, established regulatory playbooks, deep benches of transaction lawyers and engineers who move between deals rather than between one-off assignments. Emerging and frontier markets are not being asked to meet a lower standard. They are being asked to meet the same standard without having built the same machinery, and then being told, when deals fail to close, that the problem is insufficient funding….
Cover StoryNewsSports

Union Bank, AIICO Multishield, Checkers Custard, Others Back 5th Cycling Lagos

2 Mins read
Union Bank of Nigeria Plc, AIICO Multishield, Checkers Custard and other corporate organisations have thrown their weight behind the 5th Cycling Lagos,…
Stay on the loop!

Subscribe to our latest news.

Leave a Reply

WP2Social Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com