The climate crisis has positioned itself not just as an environmental emergency but as an economic and political disruptor. Across Africa, the conversation has dramatically shifted from debating causes to mobilising resources for survival. In the high-stakes arena of global climate finance, Africa is emerging not just as a passive recipient but as a continent actively negotiating its terms for survival, development, and sovereignty. The paradox is clear: Africa contributes less than 4% to global greenhouse gas emissions, yet it bears the brunt of climate-related disasters, floods in Nigeria, droughts in the Horn of Africa, cyclones in Mozambique, and shrinking water bodies like Lake Chad. Against this backdrop, climate finance has become the lifeline, but it comes at a price: a reshaping of national priorities, and infrastructure development.
According to the African Development Bank (AfDB), the continent needs between $277 billion and $614 billion annually until 2030 to meet its climate goals under the Paris Agreement. Yet, Africa receives only about $30 billion annually in climate finance, barely 11% of its needs. A joint report by the Climate Policy Initiative (CPI) and the United Nations Economic Commission for Africa (UNECA) in 2023 found that Africa’s share of global climate finance flows stood at just 3%, despite being home to 17% of the world’s population. The 2022 OECD report corroborates this, showing that out of the $83.3 billion mobilised globally for climate finance in 2020, only $20 billion reached Africa, much of it through loans, not grants.
READ ALSO: Africa Shouldn’t Pay for Climate Harm it Didn’t Cause
This funding gap has not only stalled the continent’s ability to meet mitigation and adaptation targets but also distorted national planning cycles, with some African governments adjusting fiscal priorities to align with donor expectations rather than homegrown development plans.
The Politics Behind Climate Funding
At the heart of climate finance lies a delicate geopolitical dance. Most of the climate funds, such as the Green Climate Fund (GCF), the Global Environment Facility (GEF), and the Adaptation Fund, are controlled or heavily influenced by Western donors and multilateral institutions. These institutions often impose complex eligibility criteria, extensive documentation requirements, and stringent timelines. Consequently, many African nations lack the technical capacity to access these funds, leading to delays or forfeiture.
For example, between 2015 and 2022, Nigeria secured only $99 million from the Green Climate Fund, despite experiencing annual economic losses of up to $9 billion due to climate-related damages. Similarly, the Democratic Republic of Congo, home to one of the world’s largest carbon sinks, the Congo Basin, has accessed less than $100 million in international climate finance, largely due to institutional bottlenecks.
The result is a two-speed Africa: countries with stronger institutions and better donor relationships are better positioned to tap into these funds, while fragile states and post-conflict regions fall further behind, exacerbating climate vulnerability.
The Infrastructure Dilemma: Green or Grey?
A quiet transformation is taking place across Africa’s infrastructure blueprint, guided increasingly by climate finance conditions. New roads, energy grids, housing estates, and water systems are being evaluated through a climate-resilience lens. While this shift is arguably positive, critics warn it can also narrow the scope of development, sidelining urgent but non-climate-linked infrastructure needs.
For example, Kenya’s Lake Turkana Wind Power Project, Africa’s largest wind farm, was financed through a consortium of European partners, including the African Development Bank and the European Investment Bank. While the project delivers 310 MW of renewable power to the national grid, critics have flagged issues of land displacement and the exclusion of local communities from revenue-sharing arrangements.
In Ethiopia, the Climate Resilient Green Economy Strategy has attracted significant international funding, especially for renewable energy and reforestation programs. However, some observers note that parallel investments in health, education, and manufacturing have lagged as government energies tilt toward climate-marketable projects.
A New Colonialism?
Many African policymakers and scholars have voiced concern over what some call “green conditionalities.” These are funding requirements that, while cloaked in climate-friendly language, often dictate domestic policy directions. For example, to access debt swaps for climate projects or concessional loans, governments are often required to adopt specific energy transition plans, commit to emission caps, or privatise key sectors such as energy and water.
In South Africa, the Just Energy Transition Partnership (JETP), an $8.5 billion climate finance agreement with Western countries, has been hailed as a model. But local trade unions argue it risks accelerating job losses in the coal sector without offering realistic retraining programs. COSATU, the Congress of South African Trade Unions, has warned that “green aid must not become a tool for structural adjustment by another name.”
Where the Green Shoots Are
Despite the challenges, climate finance has spurred innovation, entrepreneurship, and long-term resilience across many African countries. Rwanda, for instance, has emerged as a frontrunner by integrating climate finance into its national budgeting system. Through the Rwanda Green Fund (FONERWA), the country has mobilised over $217 million and funded 46 projects, spanning climate-resilient agriculture, urban planning, and clean energy.
In Morocco, the Noor Ouarzazate Solar Complex, partly financed by the World Bank and AfDB, stands as the world’s largest concentrated solar plant, powering over 2 million homes and reducing carbon emissions by 760,000 tonnes annually. The plant is not just a technological marvel but a symbol of how climate finance, if channelled transparently and strategically, can yield transformative outcomes.
Meanwhile, Senegal’s national adaptation plan has attracted over $200 million in grants and concessional loans for flood control, coastal protection, and agricultural resilience, benefiting over 1.5 million people across vulnerable communities.
Global Frameworks Driving the Agenda
Africa’s climate finance ecosystem is guided by a tapestry of international agreements and protocols. At the core is the Paris Agreement (2015), where countries committed to limiting global warming to below 2°C, with a push for 1.5°C. African countries, under the African Union (AU) and African Group of Negotiators on Climate Change (AGN), have collectively pushed for the “polluter pays” principle and Loss and Damage financing.
The 2022 UNFCCC COP27 summit in Egypt marked a historic moment when a Loss and Damage Fund was agreed upon, acknowledging that adaptation and mitigation are not enough and that vulnerable countries deserve compensation for irreversible climate impacts. However, its actual implementation and disbursement mechanisms remain unclear.
Additionally, the African Climate Policy Centre (ACPC) and the AU’s Agenda 2063 emphasise climate-resilient development, with climate finance as a key pillar. Yet, the mismatch between high-level frameworks and on-the-ground realities continues to frustrate progress.
Africa Must Negotiate, Not Beg
As the continent positions itself within the global green transition, the key lesson is that Africa cannot afford to be a silent partner in the climate finance conversation. It must articulate its needs, design homegrown climate investment plans, and demand that funding mechanisms align with local realities, not abstract donor expectations.
Beyond access, there must be equity and agency. African countries must advocate for greater representation in global financial institutions, develop climate finance readiness programs, and explore alternative financing sources, such as green bonds, diaspora investment, and carbon markets, on their own terms.
The price of survival in the climate era may be high, but with the right leadership, coordination, and negotiation capacity, Africa can ensure it’s not paying with its future.
