The hopeless reality of climate aid

On the other side of the world, a storm, marked by the ravaging of villages, cultures, and livelihoods, is brewing. The storm is not a monolith but an assortment of various phenomena, devastating the land and polluting the ether. Though, not in the form of war, nor the clash of armies, but in the very air, land, and water that sustain life.

However, this devastation is not of Africa’s making; despite contributing a mere 4% of global carbon emissions, the continent bears the brunt of the climate catastrophe. 

From wildfires to multi-year droughts, Africans have been deeply impacted, disrupting the agrarian economy and deepening their reliance on foreign aid. Consequently, hundreds of millions of hectares of land have been lost to fires, millions have been displaced by record-level floods, and hundreds of billions of dollars have been lost annually due to climate damage. 

Climate aid serves as a solution, providing urgent and crucial support for developing nations to mitigate climate change and adapt to its impacts. 

Yet in the eyes of rich, polluting nations and corrupt politicians, this ideal is no farther from the truth, as they exploit loopholes and malpractice to divert funds for their own gain. Their actions reflect the cyclical nature of climate aid: climate change is a method for political gain, with developing nations always bearing the worst consequences.

The cycle begins at the pledge. During the Copenhagen Summit in 2009, ‘developed’ nations like the U.S. and France committed to providing at least $100 billion annually till 2020. While the date was later pushed to 2025, over $353 billion was allocated in the end, though not all the dollars were new. 

Through the use of “creative accounting” and “fiscal loopholes,” nations like Japan and the UK reclassified existing foreign aid as climate aid, portraying an image of $100 billion, but ultimately creating reductions in other critical areas such as health, education, or infrastructure—essential for the developing nations.

Of the billions allocated, only 20% of the total budget is given to Africa. There are further disparities within the distribution of the money, concentrating around the wealthiest African nations, with sub-Saharan Africa—the most climate-impacted area in the world—receiving only 5 percent of total climate aid and the bottom ten African countries only receiving 11% of the total African finance. 

This disparity is further compounded by the nature of the financial transactions. Rather than direct grants, most of the aid comes in the form of loans at market-rate interest. Yet, Africa still faces disproportionately high interest rates, with an average of 9.8% for every loan; Germany’s is 0.8%. There are also contingencies regarding the loans and grants, requiring recipient nations to hire or purchase materials from companies of the lending countries, funneling billions back into the donor economies. 

As a result of the exorbitant interest rates going to impoverished Africa, debt is created and proliferated. For instance, Nigeria alone owes 3.7 billion dollars in climate loans. “Debt payments limit [developing countries’] ability to invest in climate solutions, while extreme weather causes severe economic losses, often leading them to borrow more,” said a Reuters investigation. The vicious cycle not only deepens developing countries—those grappling with the effects of climate change—with financial strain, but it also hinders their capacity to invest in long-term climate resilience. 

However, even when these loans and grants are secured, the real challenge lies in the deployment of funds. African governments are expected to use these funds for reform but often face an overlooked obstacle: corruption. 

According to the 2024 Corruption Perceptions Index(CPI), an index of corruption where lower scores mean higher corruption, 50 out of 54 African countries were ranked under 50. The widespread corruption fundamentally undermines the effectiveness of climate aid, as funds intended for infrastructure, disaster relief, and environmental programs are often diverted, mismanaged, or exploited.

Blatant misuse of climate funds in Liberia and corrupt politicians shaping climate policies for personal gain in South Africa are just some of the many abuses displayed in extractive political institutions across the continent. Entrenched corruption, coupled with a strong lack of priority to stop climate change, continues to undermine the potential for long-term climate resilience. While some African nations have demonstrated progress—such as Seychelles, with a CPI rating of 72—the broader picture remains grim.

Africa faces foreign attacks, geographical pressures, and internal corruption, leading to a cycle of despair. Despite promises and commitments being made at international climate summits, the gap between promises and tangible impacts continues to widen.

And so the cycle spins, with innocent and vulnerable Africans always ending up as the victims. 

True reform cannot just happen by throwing billions of dollars at the problem and expecting it to fix itself but requires a fundamental shift in governance, with increased transparency and a drive to fully tackle climate change at the local level.