2024 has been another brutal year for Africa in terms of climate change. From the Horn of Africa to Mozambique, Malawi and the Congo, the continent has faced record-breaking temperatures, devastating floods, and severe El-Niño induced droughts. With parts of Africa warming faster than the global average, each additional degree of heating brings harsher impacts on the continent’s food production, food security, water access, livelihoods and the mobility of millions of people.

Yet despite being one of the most climate-affected regions of the world, Africa receives only 20% of global adaptation finance flows. Even more troublingly, the bulk of this funding comes in the form of loans. This only deepens the debt distress of countries struggling to cope with climate impacts in addition to other socio-economic issues.

As the latest report from the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) confirms, Africa bears an increasingly heavy climate burden while facing disproportionately high costs for essential adaptation measures. One of the biggest impediments to climate action is the widening gap between adaptation finance and needs. The 2023 Adaptation Gap report by the UN Environment Programme estimates this shortfall to be $194-366 billion per year, with developing countries’ adaptation needs now estimated to be over 50% higher than previously thought.

Globally, progress on adaptation planning, implementation, and funding has largely stagnated. This inaction is deepening the vulnerability of those on the frontlines of climate impacts. For many in Africa, adaptation is the only lifeline.

This raises a critical question: if adaptation finance is insufficient and unjust, how can countries effectively adapt? When governments don’t get international funding and are forced to reallocate national budgets to cover climate costs, other vital sectors suffer. Following the 2023 floods in Libya, for instance, 2 billion dinars ($446.4 million) had to be channelled from the national budget for the Benghazi and Derna Cities Reconstruction Fund to rebuild the flood-stricken municipalities.

Alternatively, countries may take on more debt to finance interventions to address climate-induced disasters. This pushes up inflation, making everyday life more expensive and unbearable for the public. In Kenya, almost 80% of the $3.51 million in adaptation finance received between 2000 and 2021 came in the form of loans. The people of Kenya are left to shoulder the costs of a crisis they did little to cause.

Kickstarting adaptation at COP29

In global climate talks, adaptation has historically been overshadowed by the goal of mitigation (i.e. reducing climate emissions). This imbalance arguably continues despite the agreement on the Global Goal on Adaptation (GGA) at COP28, a hard-won victory long championed by the African Group of Negotiators.

The framework outlines 11 ambitious adaptation targets to be operationalised at COP30 in Brazil. This is progress. However, the GGA targets are vague, unquantified, and their means of implementation – such as finance, technology transfer, and capacity building – lack explicit support.

Negotiations at COP28 nearly stalled due to disputes over whether support for adaptation efforts ought to be included in the text. Developing countries argued yes, but developed countries said that adaptation finance should be addressed within the broader talks of the New Collective Quantified Goal on Climate Finance (NCQG), the target for overall climate finance that will be agreed at the upcoming COP29.

Rich countries prevailed. However, within the NCQG discussions throughout 2024, the link to the GGA has been non-existent. Without robust financial backing in the GGA or NCQG discussions, adaptation targets and finance goals risk becoming no more than rhetoric.

As the world turns its focus to COP29, branded “The Finance COP”, it is critical to bridge the gap between the ambitious adaptation goals and the financial backing needed to turn them into reality. This link should operate on two levels.

First, it must align adaptation finance under the NCQG with the evolving needs of developing countries. As such, it must prioritise public finance and incorporate both qualitative and quantitative commitments. The new climate finance target should connect adaptation finance goals with adaptation targets outlined under the GGA. It must also recognise the need to periodically review the goal as needs evolve.

Secondly, regarding the GGA, the absence of clear targets and indicators regarding means of implementation does not mean they shouldn’t be discussed. Quite the opposite. COP29 offers a window of opportunity to include means of implementation indicators. This would allow countries to accurately quantify their adaptation needs and improve the likelihood of achieving adaptation targets.

The fact that the GGA exists is a testament to the urgent need for adaptation action. But without means of implementation, the gap between action and needs will only widen, meaning worsening climate impacts and more suffering. The idea that we can make progress on adaptation without adequate financial and technical support is a dangerous fallacy. Developed nations need to recognise that finance, technology transfer, and capacity-building are not optional add-ons. They are fundamental to turning adaptation targets into a reality.

For Africa’s frontline communities, financing adaptation means survival. It means life.

---

---