By OMBOKI MONAYO
Developing countries mainly from Africa continue to hold the short end of the stick as the world confronts climate change.
The recent conclusion of COP29 in Baku, Azerbaijan, left many African nations and developing countries feeling shortchanged and disillusioned.
Also Read
Despite the conference’s ambitious agenda, the final climate finance commitment of $300 billion (Kes 38.9 trillion) per year by 2035 has been met with widespread disappointment.
Developing countries had sought a much larger financial package, arguing that $1.3 trillion (Kes 181.58 trillion) was necessary to effectively combat climate change and support vulnerable communities.
The negotiations at COP29 reached a boiling point when representatives from developing nations staged a walkout, expressing their frustration over what they deemed an inadequate financial agreement.
This dramatic exit underscored a growing sense of betrayal among delegates from small island states and least developed countries, who felt their urgent needs were being overlooked.
The walkout was triggered by a series of tense negotiations that extended 33 hours beyond the scheduled time.
Cedric Schuster, chair of the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS), articulated the sentiments of many delegates when he stated, “We came here to this COP for a fair deal. We feel that we haven’t been heard.”
Evans Njewa, chair of the Least Developed Countries group, echoed this sentiment, declaring the current deal “unacceptable” and calling for further consultations among developing nations.
The dissatisfaction stemmed not only from the financial figures but also from the negotiation process itself.
Delegates criticized a closed and mismanaged consultation process that favored wealthier nations.
The final draft proposal, initially offering $250 billion (Kes 32.43 trillion), was only increased to $300 billion (Kes 38.9 trillion) after significant pushback from developing nations.
Michai Robertson, a negotiator for AOSIS, noted that their exit from negotiations was an instinctive decision driven by frustration over being disregarded, stating, “We will not be disregarded, as has happened numerous times previously.”
This walkout highlighted a deep-rooted stalemate in international climate negotiations, where developing nations have consistently called for increased financial support to address climate impacts largely caused by emissions from wealthier countries.
The historical context of climate finance commitments complicates matters further, as developed nations had previously pledged $100 billion (Kes 12.97 trillion) annually but have struggled to meet these targets consistently.
As tensions escalated during COP29, many developing countries expressed that the approach taken by wealthier nations amounted to “climate colonialism,” with inadequate financial offers dismissing their urgent needs.
Fred Njehu, a Pan-African Political Strategist with Greenpeace Africa, articulated this frustration, stating, “The Global North’s offer again isn’t just inadequate – it’s an insult to every African already suffering from climate disasters. This isn’t climate finance – it’s climate colonialism.”
While Africa grapples with devastating climate change impacts such as floods, droughts, and food insecurity, wealthy nations continue to profit from fossil fuel industries while offering only “pennies” in support.
The negotiations were further marred by procedural issues and a lack of meaningful dialogue, particularly regarding Article 6, which centers on carbon market mechanisms.
Dr. Lamfu Yengong, Greenpeace Africa’s Forest Campaigner, criticized these agreements as “a neo-colonial scheme dressed up as climate action,” arguing that they allow wealthy nations to buy their way out of making real emissions cuts while exploiting Africa’s natural resources.
This sentiment resonated with other African representatives who expressed frustration over the lack of guarantees that climate finance would come in the form of grants rather than loans, which would further deepen the debt burden on struggling economies.
Despite the promise of $300 billion (Kes 38.9 trillion), experts argue that this amount falls far short of what is needed to effectively combat climate change.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimates that for every 2 degrees Celsius of warming above pre-industrial levels, Africa could lose approximately 5% of its Gross Domestic Product (GDP).
With adaptation finance needs estimated between $215 billion (Kes 27.82 trillion) and $387 billion (Kes 50.1 trillion) annually until 2030, the new goal is viewed as a mere fraction of what is required.
Jasper Inventor, Head of the Greenpeace Delegation at COP29, remarked, “The agreed finance goal is woefully inadequate and overshadowed by the level of despair and scale of action needed.”
The disappointment felt by African negotiators at COP29 underscores a broader trend in international climate negotiations where developing countries are repeatedly sidelined.
Despite their minimal contribution to global emissions, these nations are disproportionately affected by climate change impacts such as droughts and floods.
Ambassador Ali Mohamed, Chair of the African Group of Negotiators, poignantly stated, “When Africa loses, the world loses its minerals, biodiversity, and stability.”
Moreover, critics have pointed out that much of the promised funding will likely come from loans rather than grants.
The World Bank and other multilateral development banks have announced plans to channel $120 billion (Kes 15.53 trillion) annually in climate finance to low- and middle-income countries by 2030.
However, this funding model raises concerns about increasing debt burdens for developing nations already grappling with economic challenges.
As COP30 approaches in Belém, Brazil, there is a growing call for developed nations to honor their commitments and ensure that climate finance is both equitable and sufficient to meet the needs of those most affected by climate change.
Wafa Misrar from Climate Action Network (CAN) Africa stated emphatically: “This process cannot become a playground for profit-driven schemes like carbon markets or geoengineering. Climate finance must be public, equitable, and designed to address real loss and damage – not serve as a token gesture of charity.”
Looking ahead, African negotiators must refine their strategies to ensure that future discussions yield meaningful outcomes.
They need to leverage their vast resources—agriculture, minerals, forests—as bargaining chips for tangible development and climate action.
As they prepare for COP30, there is an urgent need for unity among African nations and civil society organizations in demanding fair and adequate climate financing.
