Africa confronts flaws in COP29 climate finance plan

Activists hold a silent protest inside the COP29 venue to demand that rich nations provide climate finance to developing countries, in Baku on November 16, 2024. [AFP]

The ongoing COP29 summit in Baku has become a battleground of ideas and interests, with climate finance taking centre stage.

The latest draft of the New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG) is under intense scrutiny, particularly from the African Group of Negotiators (AGN).

Led by Ambassador Ali Mohamed, the AGN has raised sharp critiques, demanding accountability and urgent reforms in a document that has become a flashpoint for heated negotiations.

The NCQG draft proposes mobilising Sh169 trillion ($1.3 trillion) annually for climate action by developed nations, with a focus on adaptation, mitigation, and addressing loss and damage.

It champions innovative financial tools, including blended finance and debt-for-climate swaps, while urging developed nations to lead mobilization efforts.

However, the AGN has labeled the draft insufficient and inequitable.

The group insists that at least half of the proposed funds must come as grants or concessional finance. Without these guarantees, the AGN argued, vulnerable nations will remain exposed to escalating climate impacts.

The AGN’s frustrations stem from unmet goals and widening finance gaps.

Developed nations failed to deliver on their $100 billion annual commitment set for 2020, a breach that looms large in current talks. Meanwhile, Africa faces adaptation costs projected to rise to $215–387 billion annually by 2030.

These figures contrast starkly with global climate finance flows, which averaged $1.3 trillion annually in 2021–2022, far short of the $4 trillion needed to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050.

Yet, the fine print reveals systemic flaws: vague accountability mechanisms, disproportionate reliance on developing countries for self-mobilisation, and an overemphasis on private finance.

Despite the technical strides in the third draft text, the AGN warns against hollow agreements that fail to translate into meaningful change for the Global South.

Africa, contributing the least to global emissions, remains disproportionately affected by climate change. Coastal cities from Mombasa to Monrovia face rising seas, and erratic rainfall disrupts agriculture, a livelihood for millions. As Ambassador Mohamed aptly stated, “Adaptation is no longer an option—it is a necessity.”

Yet, the NCQG draft text presents obstacles. It emphasizes a growing reliance on “innovative instruments” like blended finance and debt-for-climate swaps.

These mechanisms, while promising, can exacerbate Africa’s debt burdens. Many African countries already face significant fiscal constraints and high borrowing costs.

The AGN insisted that without grant-based funding, adaptation efforts will stall, leaving vulnerable populations at the mercy of escalating climate impacts.

The AGN stressed the importance of the UNFCCC in fostering inclusive and transparent negotiations. The NCQG draft echoes this, calling for global cooperation to mobilize the necessary funds.

However, tensions simmer beneath the surface. The NCQG’s vague language around “burden-sharing arrangements” risks perpetuating inequities.

While developed nations are tasked with mobilising the lion’s share of finance, the document allows room for voluntary contributions from other countries “in a position to do so.” This diluted responsibility weakens accountability and places undue pressure on the Global South.

Africa, in particular, views this as a betrayal of the principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities” (CBDR).

Ali’s statement reflects this frustration: “We are not here to secure just any deal, but one that ensures the most vulnerable nations receive the support they need.”

The NCQG draft lacks enforceable benchmarks. Africa’s negotiators demand not just pledges, but binding commitments to ensure developed countries meet their obligations.

The AGN indicates the need for a balance between mitigation and adaptation finance. The NCQG draft acknowledges this but falls short of mandating it. Without adequate adaptation funding, Africa’s developmental gains risk being reversed. The AGN calls for simplified application processes and fewer conditionalities. The NCQG draft gestures toward these reforms, but offers no timeline or actionable plan.

Ali explained, “Africa is clear about its objectives. Agreement for the sake of agreement is not good enough.” The AGN insists that climate finance must evolve beyond fragmented, inaccessible mechanisms to one that prioritises vulnerable communities and delivers predictable funding.

“Failure to close these gaps not only hinders mitigation efforts, but exacerbates the adaptation finance crisis,” Ali said.

Africa and the Global South are demanding action that matches the scale of the crisis. Ali summed up the stakes: “Our children and generations to come deserve a future in which climate action is not just aspirational, but tangible.”