At this time of the year, thousands of small-holder farmers in the flooded parts of Kenya’s Rift Valley, or Uganda, and the drought-stricken parts of Northern Tanzania are gardening their crops under a sky that is lately pouring erratic rains or frying the land with scorching heat.
After months of enduring losses of property, crops and livestock, the farmers and their families are counting on negotiators at COP30 to hammer a deal that can boost Africa’s efforts to navigate worsening climate shocks. They are keen to see how a win for the continent will look like.
A win for Africa is a test on how far Belém will move the needle on finance, adaptation, just transition and loss and damage expectations, as outlined in the joint opening statement by the Africa Group of Negotiators (AGN) at the start of COP30. For the people who live in Africa, these are not abstract issues, but real situations that have left them struggling to not only build back better, but also increase their resilience to the now more intense and increasingly frequent climate induced calamities, prepare climate safe environment for their kin and also continue with their nations’ development.
The finance track entered the contest on several fronts. Top on the till was the Baku to Belém road-map, which is demanding that developed countries significantly increase their annual climate finance contributions from the $300 billion achieved in Baku last year to not less than $1.3 trillion by the end of the decade. According to the AGN, this is the least that Africa needs to bridge the gap between resources and the needs presented and foreseen.
Developing countries are also pushing for tripling of adaptation finance from the current levels, although it is not clear whether this refers to existing commitments or current disbursements. At COP26, developed countries pledged to double adaptation finance, to about $40 billion per year by 2025, while the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) says in its Adaptation Gap Report that actual adaptation finance flows to developing countries were only about $26 billion in 2023.
The report also indicates that what Africa receives every year to enhance climate adaptation is less than 25 per cent of what it needs. This makes the conversation at Belém crucial for the continent and its people’s survival.
At first, it appeared like something was cooking for Africa when early in the negotiations the Loss and Damage Fund launched a call for proposals for the $250 million in its kitty. This optimism was raised when a $2.5 billion initiative to preserve the Congo Basin rainforest and the Intergovernmental Land Tenure Commitment was also announced later in the week. Yet according to experts, Africa needs continuous funding, not one-offs, to maintain the world’s second largest tropical rainforest.
The Democratic Republic of Congo Minister of the Environment, Sustainable Development and New Climate Economy, Marie Nyange Ndambo, says the commitment is historic and important in recognising Africa’s forests as vital to global stability, nature protection and achieving Sustainable Development Goals. The Congo basin is significant, with an estimated 30 billion tonnes of carbon sank in it. However, the forest only receives a fraction of the funds it needs.
“On finance, the main challenge is scaling what already works. A win would mean a significant increase in adaptation funding, delivered as grants and debt-free finance, so countries can expand proven solutions,” said Nelly Bosibori, a senior climate advisor at Mercy Corps, Kenya.
However, by the end of the first week of COP30, Belém had only made pinball progress on climate finance, provoking the AGN chair, Dr. Richard Muyungi, to come out swinging at developing countries for what he referred to as breach of trust and international law. The AGN emphasized the human angle of these negotiations, and said any delay in financing the continent meant more risks to the lives of the already vulnerable communities in the continent.
Despite the outcomes so far, expectations remained high, as the talks entered policy week, with Africa bracing for a hot contest anchored on its development agenda through locally-led but globally-relevant solutions. The said solutions include investing in early warning systems and resilient infrastructure.
Ramesh Subramaniam, the Global Director, Coalition for Disaster Resilient Infrastructure, foresees a win for Africa if investments in resilience safeguarding the most vulnerable and atrisk communities are unlocked through innovative finance, technology and capacity development. That will require international collaboration and partnerships, not just for finance, but for progress that saves lives, and an international community that sees Africa as a front-line player in battling climate shocks.
Already Africa loses between 5% and 15% of its GDP to climate impacts every year. “We need Africa-led solutions, and the world must recognize both the risks and the opportunities. A major win would be shifting the narrative so that Africa is seen not only as vulnerable, but also as a leading source of adaptation expertise and innovation. Adaptation is not optional; it is essential for survival,” Bosibori told the Africa Climate Insight.
Some experts have argued that the final COP30 outcome should not be about Africa winning or losing, but demanding accountability from polluting industries and convincing them to pay taxes for the damage they have caused the planet. This also resonates with Africa’s call for global carbon tax, among other reforms.
Public finances unlocked through a taxation system should then be allocated to African countries to manage their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) the crucial plans established to battle climate change, argues Fred Njehu, global political lead at Greenpeace Africa. Some countries’ National Adaptation Plans (NAPs) are inadequately implemented for lack of predictable funds.
This is also about global leaders committing to transfer technology to Africa and freeing the continent from the debt bondage, including by lowering the cost of capital for Africa, by reforming the international finance architecture and aligning support for African-led nature-based solutions.
“It is about ensuring that the Paris Agreement is respected, by implementing a new dedicated five-year forest action plan. If leaders are serious about 1.5°C, they will draw red lines on new and expanding fossil fuel projects, protect the Congo Basin, and move money faster to the people on the front-lines,” said Njehu.
But the endgame at COP30 can also be about fanning out Africa’s climate diplomacy to the global stage and uniting the continent into a powerful voice in global climate conversations. A united Africa would then be able to shape policy narratives on climate change like the NAPs.
This also brings to mind the Global Goal on Adaptation (GGA) discourse at Belém, with a set of 100 indicators, including those on food and agriculture, water and sanitation, health, poverty eradication and livelihoods, and ecosystems and biodiversity.
For Africa, it will not be enough for COP30 to adopt the GGA indicators. A final outcome accompanied by a means of implementation and a continued work programme commitment for the global policy agreement would be better. Simply put, Africa needs funding, capacity support and timelines to implement the GGA.
“The recent second Africa Climate Summit (ACS) demonstrated the power of a united African voice in global climate discussions. Many African countries are already showing what effective adaptation looks like, and those examples must be amplified and supported. A win would be global agreement to refine the GGA indicators and provide real support for implementing NAPs,” said Bosibori.
It has been hard to shake off negotiations on just transition at Belém, for the world is increasingly aware of the important role the green minerals, which Africa holds in plenty, will play in powering renewable energy revolution sooner or later.
The electrified presence of indigenous communities at COP30 pushing for their rights, especially on free, prior and informed consent, could shape outcomes that prioritise resilient development in extractive systems that do not result in unintended negative consequences.
Earlier in the negotiations, Africa non-state actors had, for a good reason, rejected extractive systems that do not align with regional governance on critical minerals while investing in local value addition and creating green jobs.
“In the event that these minerals are found in indigenous territory, there is the risk that these communities would be evicted, that their land suffers environmental spillover effects from the mining. That is an issue that has been receiving more attention from some countries,” said Jennifer Bansard, the team leader with Earth Negotiation Bulletin.
