Climate action was a key topic at the recent spring meetings of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. But somehow the world’s enduring failure to fulfill its climate-finance commitments to developing countries did not get the attention it deserved.
CAPE TOWN – The pandemic wreaked havoc on African economies, hampering GDP growth and straining government budgets. The war in Ukraine now threatens to make things much worse, including by disrupting food supplies and compounding inflationary pressures. But when these shocks pass, many African countries will still be struggling with the effects of climate change – and with the advanced economies’ failure to keep their commitments to help the continent cope.
Despite having contributed the least to global warming, Africa is the continent most vulnerable to its effects – a reality that has become impossible to ignore, as extreme weather events exacerbate food insecurity and destroy livelihoods. But most African countries lacked the fiscal space to invest adequately in adaptation even before the pandemic. Now, many are on the brink of debt distress.
Climate action was a key topic at the recent spring meetings of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. But somehow the world’s enduring failure to fulfill its climate-finance commitments – beginning with the $100 billion the developed economies pledged to deliver to their developing counterparts every year from 2020 to 2025 – did not get the attention it deserved.
In 2019 – a decade after that pledge was made – rich countries claimed they were approaching the target, having mobilized $79.6 billion. But even this rather disappointing figure is controversial, with many believing that the numbers are inflated or that some money is counted twice. In reality, the accumulated deficit of various climate-related promises since 2009 is probably already approaching $1 trillion – and that figure is set to keep growing. It is now estimated that annual contributions will not reach $100 billion until 2023.
Only a small share of this will go to Africa. In 2016-19, African countries received about $20 billion annually from the unmet $100 billion pledge. And other funding sources are hardly picking up the slack. Just 37% of the Green Climate Fund’s portfolio – $3.3 billion – is invested in Africa. And the Least Developed Country Fund, which supports mostly African countries, has provided a meager $437 million to the continent since 2001.
Funding for adaptation has been particularly weak. From 2014 to 2018, African countries received less than $5.5 billion in adaptation financing, or roughly $5 per person, per year – well below the estimated need. In fact, African countries are currently meeting only about 20% of their adaptation needs through domestic and international finance. A mere 5% of all flows from international climate funds have been disbursed for locally-based climate-adaptation interventions.
Access every new PS commentary, our entire On Point suite of subscriber-exclusive content – including Longer Reads, Insider Interviews, Big Picture/Big Question, and Say More – and the full PS archive.
Subscribe Now
Making matters worse, 57% of the adaptation funding Africa has received was provided in the form of loans, rather than grants. The injustice is obvious: How can rich countries justify forcing poor, often highly indebted countries to cover the costs of adapting to climate hazards they have done little to cause? But this is also a practical problem, because loans for adaptation have a lower disbursement rate than grant-based funding.
This contributes to the very low disbursement ratio for adaptation-related finance in Africa. According to the Stockholm Environment Institute, just 46% of the committed funding for adaptation was disbursed in 2014-18, compared to 56% for mitigation and 96% for all development finance.
The Aid Atlas database presents an even bleaker picture. From 2002 to 2019, funders disbursed just over $8.1 billion in development finance to Africa for climate adaptation, less than a third of the $29.2 billion committed. This low disbursement ratio largely reflects barriers to project implementation, such as requirements for co-financing, rigid climate-fund rules, and inadequate programming capacity within countries.
Even if the world fulfilled its climate-financing commitments, it would not be enough. Based on data from the Africa Nationally Determined Contributions Hub, the continent will need $715 billion for mitigation and $259-407 billion for adaptation from 2020-2030. The African Group of Negotiators on Climate Change has called for $1.3 trillion per year by 2030 in financing for developing countries to tackle climate change. Meanwhile, major multilateral development banks have committed a paltry $38 billion to low- and middle-income countries, with $9 billion for Sub-Saharan Africa.
Beyond boosting its climate-finance commitments – and delivering on them – the international community must take steps to ensure a just and equitable transition. For example, Africa possesses metals and minerals that are needed to support the clean-energy transition, and boasts huge potential for green hydrogen production. Any effort to tap these resources must minimize the relevant sectors’ social, environmental, and climate impact, and advance structural transformation that elevates Africa’s position in global value chains.
A just climate transition requires support in all sectors. For example, South Africa’s agricultural sector is extremely vulnerable to climate change, but highly concentrated, well-resourced, and largely white agro-industrial producers are much better positioned to adapt than rural smallholder farmers. Targeted programs – supported by international funding – will be essential to protect the livelihoods of those most at risk.
The $8.5 billion Just Energy Transition Partnership offers a good model. Launched at last year’s United Nations Climate Change Conference in Glasgow, the Partnership will help South Africa accelerate its clean-energy transition, with the support of the European Union, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States. The deal will combine new investment in renewables, electric vehicles, and green hydrogen with measures to protect and empower the workers and communities tied to fossil-fuel industries.
Rich countries have reaped massive rewards from environmental destruction. The least they can do is use some of that wealth to support adaptation in countries that have not. Africa cannot afford more broken climate-finance promises.
To have unlimited access to our content including in-depth commentaries, book reviews, exclusive interviews, PS OnPoint and PS The Big Picture, please subscribe
Not only did Donald Trump win last week’s US presidential election decisively – winning some three million more votes than his opponent, Vice President Kamala Harris – but the Republican Party he now controls gained majorities in both houses on Congress. Given the far-reaching implications of this result – for both US democracy and global stability – understanding how it came about is essential.
By voting for Republican candidates, working-class voters effectively get to have their cake and eat it, expressing conservative moral preferences while relying on Democrats to fight for their basic economic security. The best strategy for Democrats now will be to permit voters to face the consequences of their choice.
urges the party to adopt a long-term strategy aimed at discrediting the MAGA ideology once and for all.
CAPE TOWN – The pandemic wreaked havoc on African economies, hampering GDP growth and straining government budgets. The war in Ukraine now threatens to make things much worse, including by disrupting food supplies and compounding inflationary pressures. But when these shocks pass, many African countries will still be struggling with the effects of climate change – and with the advanced economies’ failure to keep their commitments to help the continent cope.
Despite having contributed the least to global warming, Africa is the continent most vulnerable to its effects – a reality that has become impossible to ignore, as extreme weather events exacerbate food insecurity and destroy livelihoods. But most African countries lacked the fiscal space to invest adequately in adaptation even before the pandemic. Now, many are on the brink of debt distress.
Climate action was a key topic at the recent spring meetings of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. But somehow the world’s enduring failure to fulfill its climate-finance commitments – beginning with the $100 billion the developed economies pledged to deliver to their developing counterparts every year from 2020 to 2025 – did not get the attention it deserved.
In 2019 – a decade after that pledge was made – rich countries claimed they were approaching the target, having mobilized $79.6 billion. But even this rather disappointing figure is controversial, with many believing that the numbers are inflated or that some money is counted twice. In reality, the accumulated deficit of various climate-related promises since 2009 is probably already approaching $1 trillion – and that figure is set to keep growing. It is now estimated that annual contributions will not reach $100 billion until 2023.
Only a small share of this will go to Africa. In 2016-19, African countries received about $20 billion annually from the unmet $100 billion pledge. And other funding sources are hardly picking up the slack. Just 37% of the Green Climate Fund’s portfolio – $3.3 billion – is invested in Africa. And the Least Developed Country Fund, which supports mostly African countries, has provided a meager $437 million to the continent since 2001.
Funding for adaptation has been particularly weak. From 2014 to 2018, African countries received less than $5.5 billion in adaptation financing, or roughly $5 per person, per year – well below the estimated need. In fact, African countries are currently meeting only about 20% of their adaptation needs through domestic and international finance. A mere 5% of all flows from international climate funds have been disbursed for locally-based climate-adaptation interventions.
Introductory Offer: Save 30% on PS Digital
Access every new PS commentary, our entire On Point suite of subscriber-exclusive content – including Longer Reads, Insider Interviews, Big Picture/Big Question, and Say More – and the full PS archive.
Subscribe Now
Making matters worse, 57% of the adaptation funding Africa has received was provided in the form of loans, rather than grants. The injustice is obvious: How can rich countries justify forcing poor, often highly indebted countries to cover the costs of adapting to climate hazards they have done little to cause? But this is also a practical problem, because loans for adaptation have a lower disbursement rate than grant-based funding.
This contributes to the very low disbursement ratio for adaptation-related finance in Africa. According to the Stockholm Environment Institute, just 46% of the committed funding for adaptation was disbursed in 2014-18, compared to 56% for mitigation and 96% for all development finance.
The Aid Atlas database presents an even bleaker picture. From 2002 to 2019, funders disbursed just over $8.1 billion in development finance to Africa for climate adaptation, less than a third of the $29.2 billion committed. This low disbursement ratio largely reflects barriers to project implementation, such as requirements for co-financing, rigid climate-fund rules, and inadequate programming capacity within countries.
Even if the world fulfilled its climate-financing commitments, it would not be enough. Based on data from the Africa Nationally Determined Contributions Hub, the continent will need $715 billion for mitigation and $259-407 billion for adaptation from 2020-2030. The African Group of Negotiators on Climate Change has called for $1.3 trillion per year by 2030 in financing for developing countries to tackle climate change. Meanwhile, major multilateral development banks have committed a paltry $38 billion to low- and middle-income countries, with $9 billion for Sub-Saharan Africa.
Beyond boosting its climate-finance commitments – and delivering on them – the international community must take steps to ensure a just and equitable transition. For example, Africa possesses metals and minerals that are needed to support the clean-energy transition, and boasts huge potential for green hydrogen production. Any effort to tap these resources must minimize the relevant sectors’ social, environmental, and climate impact, and advance structural transformation that elevates Africa’s position in global value chains.
A just climate transition requires support in all sectors. For example, South Africa’s agricultural sector is extremely vulnerable to climate change, but highly concentrated, well-resourced, and largely white agro-industrial producers are much better positioned to adapt than rural smallholder farmers. Targeted programs – supported by international funding – will be essential to protect the livelihoods of those most at risk.
The $8.5 billion Just Energy Transition Partnership offers a good model. Launched at last year’s United Nations Climate Change Conference in Glasgow, the Partnership will help South Africa accelerate its clean-energy transition, with the support of the European Union, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States. The deal will combine new investment in renewables, electric vehicles, and green hydrogen with measures to protect and empower the workers and communities tied to fossil-fuel industries.
Rich countries have reaped massive rewards from environmental destruction. The least they can do is use some of that wealth to support adaptation in countries that have not. Africa cannot afford more broken climate-finance promises.