COP30: Reasons climate billions do not get to Africa frontlines
Environment & Climate
By
Mactilda Mbenywe
| Nov 24, 2025
International climate funds are pledged. Promises are made. But the money is not moving.
A new analysis released on the sidelines of COP30 in Belem, Brazil, reveals a crippling bottleneck in climate finance for Africa. Billions of dollars in committed adaptation funds never reach their intended projects.
This is the “delivery gap,” a structural failure that stalemates efforts to protect vulnerable communities from climate impacts.
The report, Reforming Climate Finance: Adaptation Finance in Africa, states a fact. Less than half of the committed adaptation funds in Africa were actually disbursed bebetween 2014 and 2018.
The problem is not a lack of promises but a failure of delivery.
READ MORE
UAE, African Union deepen partnership on peace, trade and technology
Continental summit to press for shift from aid to self-financing
IGAD hosts coordination meeting to boost Agenda 2063 implementation
IGAD rallies African unity at AU mid-year summit, champions Agenda 2063 vision
The climate finance architecture actively disadvantages African nations. Accessing major funds like the Green Climate Fund (GCF) involves complex, multi-stage procedures.
These processes favour countries with stronger bureaucracies and pre-existing capacity.
“From the donor perspective, climate finance architecture also disadvantages Africa, preventing funds from reaching vital projects,” the report finds.
Mohammed Adow of Powershift Africa, described the application process as a “full-time job for a team we don’t have.”
“We spend months navigating cumbersome reporting requirements and justifying project designs to international boards. This happens while our communities face recurring floods and droughts,” Adow said.
The report identifies “insufficient institutional ccapacity, coordination challenges and complex international funding procedures” as core structural blocks.
Adaptation projects are inherently local. They involve building sea walls for specific coastal towns, developing drought-resistant crops for particular regions, or setting up early warning systems for vulnerable villages.
This local nature clashes with the centralised systems of international finance. Large funds are designed for massive, centralised infrastructure like solar farms. Their metrics favour easy quantifiable results, like tonnes of carbon dioxide avoided.
The report compares adaptation to mitigation. Adaptation projects have long time horizons, non-standardised metrics, and less predictable returns. They are “mostly small to medium scale to address localised vulnerabilities.”
A project to restore a mangrove forest that protects a fishing village, for instance, does not generate a direct cash flow. Its return is an indirect benefit: avoided losses from storm surges.
This makes it ‘less bankable‘ in traditional finance terms, even though its community value is immense.
The consequences of this delivery gap are quantifiable. Sub-Saharan Africa already requires USD 51 billion in adaptation finance per year. It received just USD 12.9 billion in 2023.
The gap is not just about raising more cash but fixing a broken pipe.
Data from the Climate Policy Initiative shows that 95 per cent of Africa’s adaptation funding comes from public sources. This explains its continued reliance on government-led systems that are currently failing to deliver effectively.
A 2023 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) report on climate finance noted that the time between a fund’s commitment and its final disbursement can span several years. For communities facing immediate climate threats, this delay is catastrophic. Solutions exist, but they require a fundamental redesign of the funding system.
Experts point to simplifying application forms and streamlining approval processes. This involves trusting local institutions and reducing micromanagement from distant headquarters.
The report recommends “new models of financing and governance.”
One example is the direct allocation of funds to national-level climate funds. These local entities can then disburse money more quickly to smaller, context-specific projects.