More inclusive, diverse, region-specific and holistic approaches to climate finance allocations to all African subregions is needed.Credit: artisteer/ iStock/ Getty Images Plus
There are clear disparities in how and where projects aimed at reducing the impact of climate change are funded across subregions of sub-Saharan Africa, according to a paper in Environmental Modeling & Assessment. Most support from the developed world between 2003 and 2020 went to West Africa; and to adaptation-related energy projects and mitigation activities in the agricultural and environmental spheres across the continent.
Lead author Queensley Chukwudum, a financial mathematician from the University of Uyo in Nigeria, says that negotiators at COP28 Climate Change Conference, in Dubai needed to be aware of such disparities “to ultimately ensure climate justice, equity and fairness in the system and for Africa”.
According to co-author Saralees Nadarajah, of the University of Manchester, in the United Kingdom, the findings could help advocate for policy changes and more inclusive, diverse, region-specific and holistic approaches to finance allocations to all African subregions. Adequate support is needed for both mitigation and adaptation efforts according to the regions’ specific challenges.
They analysed data from the climate funds update website maintained by the Heinrich Böll Foundation and the Overseas Development Institute (ODI). It tracks the flow of finance into mainly developing countries to address climate change challenges.
It showed that 693 projects worth $4 771,75 million were funded in 48 African countries by 20 multilateral funds between 2003 to February 2020. Most projects cost less than $15 million annually.
The bulk of funding went to adaptation ($2126.80 million) and general mitigation endeavours ($1694.47 million).
West Africa received funding for 284 projects, East Africa 175 and Southern Africa 131. Conflict-ridden Central Africa, arguably Africa’s most sensitive region, only received funding for 94 projects. Few projects in West Africa, a region frequented by droughts, focused on water and sanitation issues.
Only 4.6% of all climate finance projects across Africa went to the water and sanitation sector. Continent wide, the energy sector received most funding towards adaptative technologies and better practices. Only the forestry sector tackled the goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, with 74 projects aimed at protecting forests funded between 2003 and 2020.
Nearly 60% (or 389) sector-specific projects involved some mitigation activities. Of general mitigation endeavours, 77,5% went to agricultural activities (such as fishing, agricultural and food) and the environment at large (for instance through environmental protection, research, policies and urban development).
Chukwudum says this is the reverse of global climate finance flows, but mirrors statistics by the International Labour Organisation showing that agriculture contributes 16% of the GDP of sub-Saharan African countries and employs more than 60% of people. According to a submission by the Stockholm Environment Institute in 2020 to the UNFCCC Standing Committee on Finance, two thirds of worldwide climate finance commitments between 2013 and 2017 went to the global energy, transport and storage sectors. Adaptation funds concentrated around agriculture.
Chukwudum sees climate funding as “long term insurance” that if used properly could save especially developing countries “a lot in terms of money, time, expended effort and exposure to risks and adversities related to climate change, such as migration, potential civil wars because of insufficient resources, food insecurity, biodiversity loss and deaths.”
Since its formal inclusion in the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement, climate funding has been an unresolved issue at COP meetings. Its inclusion, according to UN Climate Change, recognises that “contribution of countries to climate change, and their capacity to prevent and cope with its consequences, varies enormously” and that “financial assistance from those “with more resources” are needed “to those less endowed and more vulnerable”.
African countries count among the latter, yet only produced 4% of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide between 2010 and 2018. Their contribution to global emissions has, however, more than doubled in three decades because of Africa’s rapidly growing population and GDP, says a 2023 Earth Systems Science Data study (in preprint).
For Chukwudum the slow disbursement of climate funds from international donors is “a direct impediment to the actualisation of the Paris Agreement” and the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals in Africa.
“Climate funding is important for Africa’s sustainable development. We need to understand how the money made available moves, how well it is used and where the risks are. With statistics in hand negotiators can ensure fair distribution across the whole continent, and that existing gaps are tackled,” she says. “The disproportionate distribution of funds mostly across sector-specific climate-related projects tends to aggravate existing inequalities in Africa.”
