Cross River’s Landslide Crisis: Billions Budgeted, Yet Erosion Threats Keep Killing

By OFFIONG ARCHIBONG

THREE major landslides in Cross River State within weeks have exposed troubling questions about the state’s preparedness for erosion and flood disasters.

The incidents displaced residents, destroyed businesses and property, disrupted economic activity and reportedly killed at least four people. They also revived a longstanding question: how effectively is the state translating its budgetary commitments on erosion control into preventive action?

An analysis of Cross River’s approved budgets and budget performance records shows that the state increased its allocation for erosion and flood control from ₦847.68 million in 2025 to ₦1.681 billion in 2026.

Yet several projects linked to erosion prevention either received no releases or recorded significant gaps between budgetary promises and implementation.

More Money, Persistent Vulnerability

The increase in the 2026 allocation suggests that erosion and flooding have gained greater attention in the state’s financial planning.

But budgetary increases do not automatically translate into physical intervention.

In 2025, the Cross River State Urban Renewal Agency allocated ₦40 million for erosion control. Budget records indicate that no funds were released for the project.

The Ministry of Environment also budgeted ₦30 million for the rehabilitation of contracted flood and erosion sites. No release was recorded for that project either.

Another project, described as Natural Degradation/Erosion/Landslide Control, received ₦50 million in 2025. The entire allocation was reportedly released, and the 2026 provision was increased to ₦100 million.

The ministry also increased funding for flood and erosion consultants from ₦5 million in 2025 to ₦20 million in 2026. However, the 2025 allocation reportedly recorded no release.

These figures raise a critical distinction between what government budgets and what government actually spends.

Spending Exists, But the Damage Continues

The state’s 2025 budget performance report indicates that ₦342.56 million was spent on erosion and flood control between January and September.

That expenditure shows that resources were deployed.

But the recurring disasters raise questions about the scale, location, timing and effectiveness of the interventions.

One project, Intervention of Flood and Erosion Sites, illustrates the problem. Its 2025 allocation was revised downward from ₦40.98 million to ₦2.98 million, with no release recorded. The 2026 allocation was subsequently raised to ₦70 million.

The figures alone do not establish that funds were misused. They do, however, demonstrate a pattern of changing allocations and uneven implementation that warrants closer scrutiny.

July Exposes the Vulnerability

The issue became more urgent in July as heavy rainfall triggered a series of landslides around Calabar.

At Ikot Awatim along the Murtala Mohammed Highway, a landslide displaced residents and destroyed property worth millions of naira. Previous reports placed the death toll at five.

Another incident occurred at 17 Boro Pit Street in Satellite Town, forcing residents from their homes.

On 27 July, a landslide struck Marina Road around the Diamond Road axis. The incident disrupted commercial activities and affected businesses in the area.

The Cross River State Emergency Management Agency said the Marina Road incident followed the collapse of an underground drainage channel after heavy rainfall.

The agency, alongside the National Emergency Management Agency, assessed the affected location and warned that the unstable ground could deteriorate further with additional rainfall.

Experts Question Preventive Planning

Environmental advocates argue that the disasters should not be viewed solely as sudden consequences of extreme rainfall.

Umo Isuaikoh, coordinator of Peace Point Development Foundation, said many affected locations had displayed signs of environmental degradation long before the latest incidents.

He argued that visible gullies and erosion sites should have triggered preventive intervention.

His concern also extends to early-warning systems. According to him, weather forecasts provide opportunities for authorities to prepare vulnerable communities before extreme rainfall occurs.

Okoho Ene, coordinator of the Uyo Iban Amplifier Initiative, similarly criticised what she described as a reactive approach to disaster management.

She argued that vulnerable residents should have been identified and evacuated before the most dangerous locations became life-threatening.

Her questions about ecological funds also point to a broader accountability issue: whether the various resources available for environmental intervention are being used strategically enough to address recurring hazards.

Government Begins Emergency Response

The Ministry of Environment said it had begun emergency measures following the latest incidents.

Permanent Secretary Rosemary Onah said officials were working to divert water into existing drainage channels before commencing remedial works.

She also said affected areas would be secured to prevent people from entering unstable locations.

However, questions about the implementation of budgeted erosion-control projects remained unanswered.

When asked whether 2026 allocations had been released and how funds reportedly released in 2025 were utilised, Onah declined to provide details. She directed the questions to the commissioner for environment.

The new Commissioner for Environment, Mensah Offiong, had only resumed office during the week, according to the report.

From Emergency Response to Prevention

The recurring landslides expose a difficult governance challenge.

Emergency responses are necessary when disasters occur. But they cannot substitute for long-term environmental planning.

Drainage systems require regular assessment. Erosion-prone communities need mapping and monitoring. Vulnerable residents need timely warnings and, where necessary, relocation.

Road construction and other infrastructure projects must also account for drainage patterns and soil stability.

The state’s own budget figures indicate that the government recognises erosion as a significant development problem. The central question is whether the implementation of those plans is keeping pace with the threat.

The Accountability Question

Cross River’s experience highlights the difference between announcing resources and delivering measurable outcomes.

A budget allocation represents an intention. A release represents the movement of public funds. A completed intervention represents the point at which citizens can assess whether public spending has produced a tangible result.

The landslides make that distinction particularly important because the consequences are not abstract.

They are measured in destroyed homes, interrupted businesses, displaced families and lost lives.

For Cross River, the immediate challenge is to stabilise the affected areas. The larger challenge is to determine why known environmental vulnerabilities were allowed to persist and whether existing resources were deployed early and effectively enough.

Until that gap between allocation, implementation and prevention is addressed, each heavy rainfall will continue to raise the same uncomfortable question: was the disaster really unexpected, or was the warning simply ignored?