1. Introduction

Nigeria’s future depends on the capabilities of its people. With more than 220 million people and one of the youngest populations in the world, the country faces a choice between a demographic dividend and a demographic burden. Which it receives depends on whether children are healthy, schooled and skilled, and whether young people can find work, start enterprises and participate in public life.

UNESCO REF’s Tier II portfolio is a response to that choice. It brings together twelve programmes, each addressing a specific barrier, and designs them to be delivered with partners rather than alone. This paper explains why.

2. The human capital challenge

The World Bank’s Human Capital Index estimates the productivity a child born today can expect to achieve given the health and education risks they face. In the 2020 edition, Nigeria scored 0.36, meaning that a child born in Nigeria could expect to be only about 36 per cent as productive as they would be with complete education and full health. Nigeria also has one of the largest out-of-school populations in the world, with the burden falling most heavily on girls and on children in the north and in conflict-affected areas.

The challenge extends beyond school. Many young people leave education without the skills, networks or capital to find decent work or start a business, and they have limited influence over decisions that affect them. Families can lose the means to keep children in school when a parent’s income ends. Each of these gaps undermines the others.

3. Theoretical foundations

Two bodies of scholarship underpin the portfolio. The first is the economics of skill formation. James Heckman and colleagues have shown that skills are built cumulatively, that early childhood is a period of exceptional sensitivity, and that investments in the early years yield the highest returns. Later investments are most productive when early foundations are in place.

The second is the capability approach of Amartya Sen, which defines development as the expansion of the real freedoms people enjoy. From this perspective, education, health, income and political voice are interdependent capabilities, and poverty is a deprivation of capability rather than merely a lack of income. The Tier II programmes each target a specific capability, and together aim to widen the range of lives people can choose to live.

4. The human development continuum

The programmes form a continuum across the life course. The Green Cradle Initiative addresses the early years; Project V Nigeria addresses access to school; the Book Bank Campaign provides learning materials; the Reading and Writing Competition and the Academic Award for Excellence cultivate literacy and scholarship; the Educational and Career Support Scheme opens pathways to further study and work; Eagle’s Nest provides enterprise finance; the TAP Youth Forum builds civic voice; the Agro Children Programme connects learning to food security; the Tail Initiative protects families against income shocks; the REF 17 Campaign anchors the whole to the SDGs; and the Twinning Forum connects communities to global partners.

The continuum logic means that programmes reinforce one another. Children who receive quality early education are more likely to stay in school; learners with books learn more; graduates with guidance and capital are more likely to create enterprises and employment.

5. Partnership as method

The Tier II designation reflects a deliberate choice: programmes are constituted for delivery with partners. This follows international consensus on aid and development effectiveness. The Paris Declaration of 2005 set out principles of ownership, alignment, harmonisation, managing for results and mutual accountability, and the Busan Partnership for Effective Development Co-operation of 2011 extended them to a broader range of actors, including civil society and the private sector. SDG 17 calls for multi-stakeholder partnerships to mobilise knowledge, technology and finance.

Partnership brings mandates, expertise and resources that no single organisation holds. It also brings obligations: partners must be accountable, transparent and aligned with national priorities, and beneficiaries must be protected. The rules of engagement published with this portfolio give these principles practical form.

6. Alignment with global and continental frameworks

Every Tier II programme is mapped to the Sustainable Development Goals, and together they contribute to all seventeen. The strongest alignment is with SDG 4 on quality education, SDG 1 on poverty, SDG 8 on decent work, SDG 10 on inequality and SDG 17 on partnership.

The portfolio also aligns with the African Union’s Agenda 2063, especially Aspiration 1 on a prosperous Africa based on inclusive growth and Aspiration 6 on people-driven development relying on the potential of women and youth, and with the AU Continental Education Strategy for Africa. Alignment allows partners to contribute to shared goals and to report results in common terms.

7. SIP-ALPHA and Tier II

SIP-ALPHA, the Strategic Intervention Programme for Accelerated Learning and Productive Human Assets, is UNESCO REF’s flagship. It sets the overarching mission of accelerating learning and building productive human capital. Tier II translates that mission into specific programmes that partners can adopt and co-deliver, extending the flagship’s reach into early childhood, school access, learning materials, careers, enterprise, civic voice, agriculture and global partnership.

8. Evidence and accountability

Each programme defines a baseline, targets, indicators and a reporting cycle. Partners participate in quarterly reporting, contribute disaggregated data and submit to independent monitoring and evaluation. Financial and in-kind contributions are disclosed and audited annually. Project V Nigeria, inaugurated in 2017, continues through an evaluation and evidence phase to 2027 so that its findings can inform government and partners.

9. Risks

The principal risks are dependence on partner commitment, funding volatility, insecurity affecting delivery in some regions, data quality, and the challenge of maintaining standards at scale. Mitigations include diversified partnerships, phased implementation, community ownership, independent evaluation and transparent reporting.

10. Recommendations

1. Governments should integrate relevant Tier II programmes into state and federal education, youth and social protection plans, and co-fund delivery.
2. Development partners should support the continuum as a whole, not only individual projects, and invest in evaluation.
3. The private sector should channel CSR and ESG commitments into programmes with clear targets and reporting, particularly Eagle’s Nest, Book Bank and RECS.
4. Universities should partner on research, evaluation, mentorship and scholarships.
5. Communities and diaspora networks should co-own delivery through local structures and twinning.

11. Conclusion

Tier II is a practical architecture for human development in Nigeria and Africa: evidence-based, partnership-driven and accountable. Its programmes will succeed to the extent that partners join them and hold them to their targets.

1. Introduction

Good programmes fail without reliable finance and credible accountability. Partners need to know how their contributions will be used, how results will be measured and how risks will be managed. Beneficiaries and the public deserve the same assurance. This paper sets out the financing and accountability framework that applies to every Tier II programme.

2. The financing gap

The Incheon Declaration of 2015, adopted to guide progress towards SDG 4, set international benchmarks for education spending of at least 4 to 6 per cent of GDP and at least 15 to 20 per cent of total public expenditure. Nigeria’s public spending on education has remained well below these benchmarks, and needs in early childhood, school access, learning materials, youth employment and social protection exceed what public budgets alone can meet.

The gap is not only financial. Delivery capacity, data systems and coordination among agencies are also limited. Tier II responds by combining resources from several sources and by bringing implementation capacity from partners.

3. The co-funding model

Every Tier II programme is designed for co-funding. UNESCO REF provides programme design, coordination, standards, monitoring and a partnership platform. Partners contribute finance, in-kind resources, delivery capacity or access to beneficiaries. Contributions are agreed in memoranda of understanding that specify amounts, uses, targets and reporting.

Co-funding spreads risk, increases scale and builds shared ownership. It also allows partners to support the programmes most aligned with their mandates, while the portfolio as a whole maintains coherence across the human development continuum.

4. Sources of finance

1. Government. Federal, state and local budgets, including education, youth, agriculture and social protection allocations, and intervention funds.
2. Development partners. Grants and technical assistance from bilateral and multilateral agencies.
3. Private sector. Corporate social responsibility and environmental, social and governance commitments, encouraged by the Nigerian Code of Corporate Governance of 2018.
4. Philanthropy. Foundations, high-net-worth individuals and faith-based giving.
5. Diaspora. Contributions from Nigerians abroad, whose remittances are among the largest in Africa, channelled through structured giving and the Twinning Forum.
6. Blended finance. Combining concessional and commercial finance, particularly for Eagle’s Nest, where grants can reduce risk for lenders.

5. Results-based approaches

Results-based financing links payment to verified outcomes rather than inputs. Social impact bonds, first launched at Peterborough prison in the United Kingdom in 2010, and development impact bonds, such as the Educate Girls bond in India launched in 2015, have tested this model. Evidence on their cost-effectiveness is mixed, but they have shown the value of clear outcome measures and independent verification.

Tier II applies the discipline of results-based approaches, with defined outcomes and verification, and will pilot outcome-linked funding where partners and data systems allow, particularly for enrolment, school readiness and enterprise survival.

6. Partnership architecture

Each programme has a partnership structure with defined roles: UNESCO REF as convenor and standards holder; lead implementing partners; funding partners; technical partners such as universities; and community partners. A steering group for each programme reviews progress quarterly. Memoranda of understanding set out roles, contributions, reporting obligations, safeguarding responsibilities and exit arrangements.

This architecture follows the principles of the Paris Declaration and the Busan Partnership: ownership, alignment with national priorities, harmonisation among partners, managing for results and mutual accountability.

7. Monitoring and evaluation

Each programme uses a results framework with a theory of change, baseline, indicators, targets and data sources. Partners report quarterly using disaggregated data, by sex, age, location and disability where possible. Independent evaluations are commissioned at mid-term and completion.

Evaluations apply the six criteria of the OECD Development Assistance Committee, as revised in 2019: relevance, coherence, effectiveness, efficiency, impact and sustainability. Findings are published, including where results fall short, so that programmes can learn and improve.

8. Value for money

Value for money is assessed using the four dimensions widely used in development practice: economy, buying inputs of appropriate quality at the right price; efficiency, converting inputs into outputs well; effectiveness, achieving intended outcomes; and equity, ensuring benefits reach those most in need. Cost per outcome, such as cost per child retained in school or per enterprise surviving two years, is reported where data allow.

9. Transparency and safeguarding

All financial and in-kind contributions are recorded and published in annual reports and subject to independent audit. UNESCO REF aims to publish programme data in formats consistent with the International Aid Transparency Initiative standard.

Personal data of beneficiaries is processed in accordance with the Nigeria Data Protection Act of 2023 and applicable international law, and is never shared commercially. All partners must apply child safeguarding and protection from sexual exploitation and abuse policies, with clear reporting and response procedures.

10. Risk management

Each programme maintains a risk register covering financial, operational, security, reputational and safeguarding risks, reviewed by its steering group. Key mitigations include diversified funding, phased implementation, security-informed planning, due diligence on partners and independent audit.

11. Recommendations

1. Governments should co-fund Tier II programmes that match their priorities and align reporting with national systems.
2. Development partners should provide multi-year, flexible funding and support independent evaluation.
3. Companies should commit CSR and ESG resources to programmes with measurable outcomes and public reporting.
4. Foundations and diaspora givers should consider pooled funds that finance the continuum as a whole.
5. All partners should adopt shared indicators and publish results, including failures.

12. Conclusion

Tier II programmes are designed to be financed together and held to account together. By combining resources, sharing risk and publishing results, partners can achieve more than any could alone, and can demonstrate that they have done so.

1. Who can partner

Federal and state governments and their agencies; bilateral and multilateral development organisations; companies through CSR and ESG commitments; foundations and philanthropists; universities and research institutions; civil society and community organisations; and diaspora and professional networks.

2. How to partner

1. Expression of interest. Write to UNESCO REF naming the programme or programmes of interest.
2. Consultation. Agree scope, geography, targets and contributions.
3. Due diligence. Both parties confirm mandates, capacity and safeguarding.
4. Memorandum of understanding. Formalise roles, reporting and accountability.
5. Implementation and reporting. Deliver with quarterly reporting and independent evaluation.

The Institutional Partners page sets out the formal partnership process.

Institutional partnership process

3. Rules of engagement

4. Contact

UNESCO REF, Abuja, Federal Republic of Nigeria. Email [email protected].