In the escalating battle against climate change, the world faces a stark and uncomfortable truth: those least responsible for the crisis are bearing its heaviest burdens. Wealthy, industrialised nations, whose economic progress historically fuelled greenhouse gas emissions, have long recognised a moral and financial responsibility to assist vulnerable countries. These nations pledged billions in climate finance to support both mitigation, efforts to reduce future emissions, and adaptation, which involves adjusting to the already unavoidable impacts of a warming planet.
Yet, the financial reality is far from the promises made. According to the Climate Policy Initiative’s 2023 report, average annual climate finance flows reached nearly USD 1.3 trillion in 2021/2022, almost doubling compared to 2019/2020 levels. This increase was primarily driven by a significant acceleration in mitigation finance, which rose by USD 439 billion over that period. While this marks progress, it still falls far short of the estimated USD 4.3 trillion needed annually by 2030 to meet the Paris Agreement targets. Moreover, this growth has been uneven: a disproportionate share of funding continues to prioritise mitigation efforts, leaving adaptation, vital for vulnerable regions already facing the impacts of climate change, severely underfunded.
READ ALSO: What Delayed Climate Adaptation Could Mean for Africa’s GDP
This imbalance points to a fundamental inequality: countries responsible for 70% of global emissions over the past century contribute only a fraction of the adaptation funds needed, while low-emitting regions suffer the immediate and devastating consequences of climate disruption. The World Bank estimates that climate change could push more than 100 million people into poverty by 2030, with much of this impact concentrated in tropical and subtropical regions.
Within this global landscape, the financial challenges facing the African continent highlight the widening gap between climate finance needs and actual delivery. Despite contributing only about 4% of global greenhouse gas emissions, African nations face some of the harshest climate impacts. Frequent droughts, extreme floods, and rising temperatures threaten food security, water supplies, and livelihoods.
According to the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), Africa needs an estimated $2.8 trillion by 2030 to meet its Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), the climate action plans under the Paris Agreement. This figure reflects the enormous investment required not only for reducing emissions but, crucially, for adapting to climate change that is already reshaping the continent’s ecosystems and economies.
The Global Centre for Adaptation (GCA) provides a more specific lens on adaptation needs, estimating that Africa requires at least $52.7 billion annually until 2035 for adaptation alone, with the potential to rise to $106 billion annually due to data uncertainties and poor transparency in climate finance tracking.
The Debt Trap: Loans Disguised as Climate Support
Adding to this financial strain is the heavy reliance on loans over grants. Multilateral institutions such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank provided approximately over $8.33 billion to Africa for climate action in 2022, but $5.4 billion of that was in loans rather than grants. Though often offered at concessional interest rates or extended repayment terms, these loans swell Africa’s external debt, which soared to $1.15 trillion by the end of 2023.
The consequences of this debt burden are profound. African governments often spend more on debt servicing than on essential public services, with some countries allocating twice as much for debt repayments as for healthcare. Climate loans exacerbate this situation, forcing nations to divert scarce resources away from education, infrastructure, and social welfare. This pattern contradicts the foundational principle of climate justice: that financial support for vulnerable countries should not come at the cost of their development prospects.
Innovative Financing
In response to this predicament, several African countries have pioneered innovative financing solutions, notably debt-for-nature swaps. These agreements allow countries to restructure debt repayments by investing in environmental conservation. Gabon’s $500 million debt-for-nature swap in 2023 freed funds for marine conservation and sustainable fisheries management, demonstrating how environmental and financial objectives can align. Similarly, coastal countries around the Western Indian Ocean are collaborating on a $2 billion debt-for-nature initiative to protect vital marine ecosystems.
Yet, despite their promise, such swaps remain small-scale compared to Africa’s overall climate financing needs. Moreover, they require complicated negotiations with creditors and political will that is not always forthcoming.
Carbon markets present another potential avenue to channel private sector funds toward climate projects. In 2022, Africa accounted for roughly 2% of global voluntary carbon market transactions, with countries like Kenya and the Democratic Republic of Congo issuing carbon credits linked to forest conservation and renewable energy projects. However, these markets face scrutiny due to issues of transparency and effectiveness. The Northern Kenya Rangelands Carbon Project, for example, faced legal challenges concerning community consent and carbon offset validation, highlighting the risks of commodifying nature without equitable governance.
Why Compensation Isn’t Charity
At the heart of these financial dynamics lies a broader ethical debate over climate reparations. Many African leaders and civil society groups contend that support for climate adaptation should not be framed as charity or aid but as compensation for historical emissions and exploitation. The African Union and the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) jointly launched a Global Reparation Fund in 2023 to seek redress for the enduring consequences of colonialism and slavery, setting a precedent for linking reparations to climate justice.
This moral claim rests on the premise that industrialised countries have externalised the environmental costs of their development, leaving vulnerable populations to bear the brunt. The failure to deliver adequate, grant-based climate finance perpetuates this legacy of injustice, entrenching inequality and undermining global cooperation.
Transparency, Bureaucracy, and the Challenge of Access
Compounding the financial shortfall is the often opaque and bureaucratic nature of climate finance disbursement. African countries face complex application procedures and fragmented funding sources, making it difficult to access available resources. Additionally, there is limited transparency regarding the actual amounts disbursed versus pledged, with data gaps allowing for double counting and misallocation.
The establishment of the Loss and Damage Fund at COP27 in 2022 aims to address some of these issues by providing dedicated financial resources to countries suffering irreversible climate impacts. However, operationalising this fund remains a challenge, as donor countries have yet to fully commit the promised financing, and governance structures are still evolving.
Balancing Development and Climate Action
The conversation around climate finance must shift away from viewing adaptation as competing with development goals. For many African countries, climate action is inseparable from poverty reduction, healthcare, and infrastructure development. Overemphasis on emission reductions without adequate adaptation support risks undermining long-term sustainability.
Increasing domestic revenue mobilisation, improving tax efficiency, and leveraging private sector investments can complement international finance. Yet, these efforts require international cooperation to reform trade, taxation, and debt frameworks that currently constrain developing economies.
A Call for Justice Beyond Green Promises
The question of whether Africa should be paid to stay green is more than a financial issue; it is a matter of justice and survival. Global climate finance systems must evolve to meet the true scale of adaptation needs, prioritising grants over loans and ensuring transparency and accountability. Recognising the moral and historical dimensions of climate reparations could catalyse more equitable outcomes.
As floods, droughts, and storms grow fiercer, the world must acknowledge that supporting vulnerable countries is not a philanthropic gesture but a shared responsibility. Only by addressing this climate compensation question can the international community hope to build a resilient future for all.
