The rich world’s empty climate promises
The pandemic wreaked havoc on African economies, hampering gross domestic product 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.
Between 2016 and 2019, African countries received about $20 billion annually from the advanced economies’ unmet $100 billion pledge. And other funding sources are hardly picking up the slack. Just 37 percent 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.
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 billion to $407 billion for adaptation from 2020 to 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, wellresourced 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 UN Climate Change Conference in Glasgow, the partnership will help South Africa accelerate its clean-energy transition, with the support of the EU, France, Germany, the UK and the US. 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.