How COP29 Shortchanged Africa

Source: environmentalist | Shutterstock / Germanwatch

COP29 in Baku wrapped up this week amid a mix of tentative hope and palpable frustration. Developed nations pledged at least $300 billion annually by 2035 to support developing countries in their fight against climate change. This pledge, part of a broader promise to mobilise $1.3 trillion a year, was celebrated by some as a much-needed step forward. Yet for Africa—bearing the brunt of climate impacts while contributing the least to global emissions—the annual finance pledge was, in the words of Nigeria’s Special Envoy on Climate Nkiruka Maduekwe “a joke” that should not be taken lightly.

 Africa’s climate finance needs are estimated at $2.8 trillion by 2030, a figure that dwarfs the $300 billion pledged globally. And while the headline sum is significant, the details are concerning. How much of this funding will actually reach Africa? What mechanisms will determine its distribution? And will it arrive as grants, which are crucial for vulnerable nations, or as loans, which could deepen Africa’s already crushing debt burden? Given the continent’s mounting debt and the urgent need for adaptation projects—such as flood defences, drought-resistant crops, and health infrastructure—the lack of clarity is cause for concern.

 In this edition of Invest Africa Insights, we explore the specifics behind the $300 billion pledge, examine the political dynamics behind Africa’s frustration at COP29, and delve into the ongoing debate over loans versus grants in climate finance.

Breaking Down the $300 Billion Deal: Who Really Benefits?

The headline figure of $300 billion appears a significant albeit insufficient sum, but a closer look reveals troubling disparities. Of this amount, only 25%—roughly $75 billion—is earmarked for Africa, despite the continent bearing over 40% of the world’s climate vulnerability, according to UNEP, with 17 of the 20 countries most threatened by climate change located in Africa. Even more concerning is the distribution of these funds: much of it is tied to public-private partnerships that heavily favour private investments over direct aid to governments.

 Moreover, the funding mix leans heavily on loans rather than grants, adding to the fiscal strain of countries already saddled with debt. An analysis by the African Development Bank shows that over 60% of Africa’s climate finance needs relate to adaptation—projects like drought-resistant agriculture and flood defences that generate no immediate financial returns and are thus unattractive to private investors. By prioritising market-based solutions, the $300 billion deal risks sidelining the very projects that African countries need most urgently.

 This allocation also underscores a long-standing bias in global climate finance: mitigation projects, such as renewable energy plants, receive the lion’s share of funding because they appeal to profit-driven investors. Adaptation, critical for Africa’s survival, remains grossly underfunded. The statistics speak for themselves: in 2022, Africa received just $11.4 billion for adaptation, well short of the $52 billion needed annually to meet the continent’s climate challenges.

The Structural Imbalance in Global Climate Finance

The negotiations in Baku reflected a broader frustration within the Global South, but African nations in particular expressed dissatisfaction with the deal. Nigeria’s lead negotiator, for instance, criticised the lack of direct representation in finalising the package, while Malawi decried the limited allocation for least developed countries. These grievances highlight a persistent power imbalance in climate talks, where wealthier nations often drive the agenda, and Africa struggles to secure its rightful share of resources.

The push for this deal came amid mounting pressure from the Global South, including African nations, who demanded accountability for unmet promises like the $100 billion annual pledge made at COP15 in Copenhagen. While COP29 did see greater solidarity among developing nations, the final package failed to deliver the systemic change Africa needs.

Nevertheless, Africa’s voice in climate diplomacy is arguably growing, led by the African Group of Negotiators. Initiatives like the inaugural Africa Climate Summit, held in Nairobi last year and set to return in 2025, have highlighted the continent’s ambition to take the lead on green energy and conservation. Yet, turning this ambition into real influence remains an uphill battle. Wealthy nations still hold sway over the global financing mechanisms, and African negotiators are often left with a stark choice: accept deals that fall short of their needs or risk walking away empty-handed.

The Debt Dilemma: Loans vs Grants

The heavy reliance on loans in the COP29 deal poses risks for Africa. The International Monetary Fund estimates that over 20 African countries are already in debt distress, a situation exacerbated by borrowing for climate projects. Loans tied to climate finance not only deepen these debt burdens but also divert resources from critical social investments like healthcare and education.

This approach ignores the moral argument for grants: African countries are not responsible for the climate crisis and should not have to pay for its consequences. The United Nations has repeatedly emphasised that climate finance should be additional and concessional, yet loans dominate the funding landscape.

Looking ahead, Africa will need to push for a paradigm shift in climate finance, advocating for a higher proportion of grants. Innovative solutions, such as debt-for-climate swaps, could offer a way forward, allowing African nations to reduce their debt burdens while investing in sustainability. Additionally, international institutions like the World Bank and IMF must reform their lending practices to provide concessional terms for climate-related borrowing.

The Road Ahead

Looking ahead to COP30 in Brazil, Africa must demand more equitable climate financing. The Amazonian setting presents an opportunity for collaboration with other biodiversity-rich regions in the Global South. Together, they can advocate for greater adaptation funding, transparent finance tracking mechanisms, and innovative solutions like carbon credits that benefit local communities.

 Key agenda items for COP30 will likely include addressing the structural barriers to accessing finance, such as high transaction costs and lengthy approval processes. Africa must also ensure that pledges translate into action; a tracking mechanism for the $300 billion deal could be a first step toward accountability.

 Most importantly, Africa must continue to unify its voice. The continent’s diverse priorities—from renewable energy expansion to adaptation—must be presented as part of a coherent, collective strategy. Only then can Africa hope to secure the funding needed to build resilience, foster sustainable development, and assert its rightful place at the heart of global climate action.