As climate talks loom in Baku, Azerbaijan, African climate finance experts are sounding alarms over the inadequacies of the current global climate finance structure, urging developed nations to commit at least US$5.9 trillion by 2030. This figure, they argue, is crucial to addressing the continent’s escalating climate-related challenges.
During a recent consultation in Mombasa, Kenya, ahead of the African Group of Negotiators meeting, experts highlighted the critical need for a revamped financial architecture that aligns with Africa’s realities. The gathering rehashed the growing dissatisfaction with the current system, which many see as failing to meet the needs of vulnerable nations.
“A quantum that does not constitute public finance at scale in grants for adaptation and loss and damage shall not resonate with the climate realities of developing and vulnerable countries,” said Julius Mbatia, a Climate Finance Expert. He emphasized that the continent requires US$6.5 trillion by 2030, warning that anything less would signal a lack of urgency and ambition from the global community.
The current financing structure, heavily reliant on market-based loans, has drawn criticism for deepening the debt burdens of developing nations. Experts at the Mombasa meeting argued that financing tied to debt instruments could exacerbate financial instability in countries already grappling with significant debt.
“The New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG) must steer clear of debt instruments, especially those that masquerade as climate finance and yet are market-related loans,” cautioned Samson Mbewe of South-South North. “Developing countries are in dire need of grants. Loans of any sort would need a higher degree of concessionality.”
The call for US$5.9 trillion is part of Africa’s broader strategy to assert its needs in the global climate finance negotiations. Experts stressed that this financial commitment is necessary to fund adaptation, mitigation, the just transition, and address loss and damage—core areas where the continent faces significant challenges.
Iskander Erzini Vernoit of the IMAL Initiative for Climate & Development warned that the new climate finance goal must surpass the US$100 billion pledge made in previous agreements. “If the new climate finance goal is set based on the limited politics of today, the world will fail to rise to the climate challenge,” he said, advocating for over a trillion dollars annually in international public finance to align with scientific demands.
The sentiment in Mombasa reflects a broader frustration with the global climate finance framework, which many believe falls short of addressing the pressing needs of the most vulnerable. The current system’s over-reliance on private sector-led finance has been criticized for offering piecemeal solutions that fail to tackle systemic inequalities.
“The private sector cannot be the core of climate finance,” said Adrian Chikowore from the Institute for Economic Justice. He argued that private financing often overlooks the needs of those most affected by climate change, offering only temporary fixes rather than comprehensive solutions.
Eva Peace Gatwa, of the Loss and Damage Youth Collaboration, highlighted the importance of defining climate finance clearly to ensure transparency and accountability. “There will always be mistrust regarding climate finance provided and a high risk for humanitarian aid, ODA finance, and other finance to be reported as climate finance. Climate finance definition equals transparency and accountability,” she noted.
Julius Ng’oma of the Civil Society Network on Climate Change (CISONECC) in Malawi added that the current financial mechanisms under the UNFCCC are fraught with challenges, making it difficult for developing countries to access the funds they need. He called for a significant overhaul of these mechanisms to streamline procedures and make the resources more accessible.
