A fire in the Africa Pavilion disrupted the last day of the United Nations COP30 climate summit in Brazil. While no one was hurt, it was ironic that the continent most vulnerable to climate impacts saw its voice silenced, just as the talks on climate finance reached their peak. The flames symbolised the urgency of tackling the climate crisis, which is already happening all around us – and fittingly often involves fires. Extreme droughts and heatwaves, combined with strong winds, have made wildfires more frequent and intense, as recently experienced in California, Australia, Bolivia, Greece and, closer to home, in South Africa, Angola, Zambia, Mozambique and the Congo Basin.

The UN’s 30th annual Conference of the Parties (COP30) took place in Belém, Brazil, in November 2025 – an international meeting place for countries to decide on collective action against climate change. The agenda was dominated by three topics: scaling up climate finance, advancing adaptation frameworks and debating the fossil fuel transition. It’s been a decade since the Paris Agreement at COP21, when nearly 200 countries committed to limit global warming to 1.5°C above pre-industrial temperatures (in other words, to the level before modern pollution began). Alarmingly, this threshold has already been crossed, with 2024 the hottest year on record, averaging 1.6°C above pre-industrial levels. The challenge now is whether greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions can be drastically cut to still limit global warming to 2°C by 2030. This is, of course, hugely expensive.

Governments need money to finance mitigation (cutting emissions, transitioning to a low-carbon economy) and adaptation (protecting communities from climate impacts that are already unavoidable). For Africa, adaptation means massive spending on drought‑proofing agriculture, water systems, flood defences, climate‑resilient infrastructure and early-warning systems, among others. The UN Development Programme, for example, has introduced drought-tolerant maize varieties in Malawi to secure food supplies during prolonged dry spells. In Kenya, it has supported the building of thousands of small dams and water pans to capture rainwater for communities, and in Mozambique, it helped create early-warning systems and resilient housing projects to reduce the impact of cyclones.

Global climate disasters already cost hundreds of billions annually, as homes must be rebuilt after floods, storms and fires, and farmlands restored after droughts, on top of the expense to public health and lost livelihoods.

But who should pay for all this? Urban economist Astrid Rosemary Ndagano Haas, a research associate at the University of Cape Town’s African Centre for Cities, explains the concept of climate debt. ‘Wealthy nations have polluted more than their fair share of the atmosphere with greenhouse gases. [They] have a responsibility to compensate developing countries, which have contributed least to greenhouse gas emissions, and disproportionately suffer the effects of global warming.’

She quotes a recent report by ActionAid International, whose calculations suggest that Africa is owed US$36 trillion in climate debt by rich polluting countries.

‘Repaying the climate debt would enable African countries to pursue a just and sustainable transition to renewable energy, and to adapt their cities to heatwaves, floods and other climate change-related disasters,’ Haas writes in the Conversation. ‘But currently, sub-Saharan Africa receives just 5% of global climate finance to pay for mitigation such as renewable energy projects and to adapt to the effects of global warming.’

However, it’s important to note South Africa’s outlier position regarding climate debt, because its heavy reliance on coal-fired power produces roughly one-third of the continent’s total emissions. Its high per capita GHG emissions are closer to middle‑income countries than its continental peers, so industrialised nations could argue that they don’t have a moral obligation to contribute to South Africa’s energy transition and climate adaptation.

Developing countries have been lobbying for such funding. They tried to leverage their demands at COP30 by citing a July 2025 advisory opinion by the International Court of Justice (ICJ). In it, the court declares that ‘all states have binding obligations under international law to protect the climate system from significant harm, safeguard human rights threatened by climate change, and provide support to vulnerable nations’, reports Climate Home News. However, the news website says that even with this legal support, it proved politically difficult to achieve stronger finance commitments in Belém, because historical and large polluters wanted ‘to avoid acknowledging any legal framework that implies liability’.

In 2022, these high-polluting countries formally recognised for the first time the need for a dedicated Loss and Damage (L&D) Fund to provide financial assistance to countries most affected by climate disasters – especially small island states, least‑developed countries and African nations. Incidentally, this was at the first COP on African soil (COP27 in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt). To date none of these vulnerable countries has received any money from the fund. At COP30, developed nations didn’t set any new numerical targets for the L&D Fund or commit to implementation details but merely confirmed its ‘operationalisation and replenishment cycles’. The aim is to start disbursing funds in 2026.

‘Loss and damage was a hot topic among activists [at COP30], as many countries are using their own dwindling resources to rebuild their cities after devastating storms, hurricanes and floods. Just recently, the Philippines and the Caribbean islands suffered damage from a super typhoon and hurricane, respectively,’ says the NGO Natural Justice, which specialises in human rights and environmental law.

All in all, the Belém climate talks did not achieve any genuine breakthroughs in climate finance: developed countries merely maintained their previous pledge to raise at least US$300 billion annually for developing countries’ climate action by 2035, as part of a wider goal to mobilise US$1.3 trillion per year.

COP30 delegates did adopt a new pledge to ‘at least triple’ adaptation finance by 2035 but failed to include any specific financial commitments. The money is expected to come from developed nations, multilateral development banks and, potentially, from innovative mechanisms such as carbon taxes and debt swaps.

The type of finance is crucial so as not to further add to the debt burden of developing nations. ‘Because of Africa’s existing debt crisis, severe poverty and vulnerability to climate-induced droughts, floods, agricultural and economic shocks, Africa needs grant-based, conditionality-free public financing from developed nations to fund our adaptation, mitigation and transitions away from big agriculture and fossil fuels,’ says Katherine Robinson, Natural Justice’s head of policy, advocacy and communications. ‘The continent should not fall into the trap of false solutions like carbon markets and offsets. Our states should put strict measures in place to limit illicit financial flows and tax avoidance draining our public coffers, and governments should reform and shift public subsidies from fossil fuels and industrial agriculture to enable people-centred climate solutions.’

Yet, Africa shouldn’t be seen merely as a victim of climate change based on its low emissions and high vulnerability, says Carlos Lopes, an economist specialising in climate change and governance, whose high-level roles include special envoy for Africa to the COP30 presidency and chair of the African Climate Foundation Board. ‘Moral appeals are clearly not enough,’ he argues in an opinion piece on Project Syndicate, a non-profit media outlet. ‘Africa is seeking to mobilise investment in its green transition, not because rich countries “owe” Africans – though they do – but because Africa can help the world tackle climate change.’

Lopes would like to shift the continent’s narrative ‘from vulnerability to value creation’. The continent must be framed as a strategic partner in global climate solutions, with the potential to help drive the global transition if supported properly. He said in a webinar, ‘Africa must stop seeing itself through the lens of risk and start seeing itself as a laboratory for reinvention.’

For this to happen, Lopes explains that a systemic reform of the global financial architecture is necessary so that climate finance becomes development-compatible. ‘Because systemic bias is embedded in credit-rating methodologies and global prudential rules, African countries face the world’s highest borrowing costs. This deters private capital, without which climate finance cannot flow at scale.

‘While multilateral development banks (MDBs) can help to bridge the gap, they typically favour loans – which increase African countries’ already-formidable debt burdens – rather than grants,’ writes Lopes. By reforming the MDBs, African countries would get a louder voice and better access to climate finance. This, together with recognising African financial institutions with ‘preferred creditor status’, is essential to unlocking large-scale, affordable climate investment, says Lopes.

Furthermore, he argues that climate action and economic development should be integrated so that the transition to low-carbon energy drives industrialisation, job creation and resilience, instead of sitting apart as a standalone climate agenda. ‘Rather than treating climate adaptation primarily as a humanitarian project, governments must integrate it into their industrial policies,’ writes Lopes. ‘After all, investment in climate-resilient agriculture, infrastructure and water systems generates jobs, fosters innovation and spurs market integration.’

Crucially, Africa’s path to a sustainable and climate-resilient future will depend on its ability to finance its own development, according to the African Climate Foundation, which is the first African-led strategic re-granter that channels climate finance into local priorities.

‘International climate finance remains critical – and Africa must continue to advocate for its fair share consistent with the Paris Agreement,’ says the foundation.

‘Expanding domestic resource mobilisation and reducing capital leakages are essential to strengthen fiscal sovereignty, build resilience to external shocks, and accelerate inclusive growth.’ Ultimately, this will not only raise climate finance but also reinforce African agency in shaping its own development trajectory.

By Silke Colquhoun
Images: Unsplash, Kiara Worth/UN Climate Change