Post-COP27, Africa Must Forge Its Own Path

Editor’s note: This essay is available in our print issue, Godfathers: An Introduction. Buy the issue here.

Chemical engineer, energy researcher and scholar, Habiba Daggash emphasizes that an African outlook on climate change exists, and continues to evolve. Rather than relying on international forums such as COP which consistently fall prey to the prevailing geopolitics of the day, Daggash argues that African countries should prioritize climate adaptation in national budgets, account for climate change impacts as well as the socioeconomic consequences of climate action in their economic planning, and implement adaptation measures across all sectors of the economy.

In the following conversation, we spoke to Daggash about the need for African governments to prioritize research to understand climate change impacts, invest in early warning systems, implement adaptation measures to limit suffering from climate impacts, invest in capacity-building for policymakers, and secure adequate financing for climate action.

Prior to the start of the conference, COP27 was lauded as an ‘African COP’? Do you think that COP27 lived up to this promise?

I don’t think COP27 delivered for the continent, as was hoped. Before the conference, there were three key outcomes that African countries sought. First, the African Group of Negotiators (AGN) wanted wealthy nations to deliver on the $100 billion annual climate finance they committed to at COP21 in Paris. The OECD has claimed that it provided up to $80 billion in 2019, but this figure has been challenged repeatedly, most recently by an Oxfam report that estimates it to be $20 billion.

Additionally, African countries complained that most of this finance was concessional loans instead of grants, which added to already existing debt burdens. Rich nations did little to cover this gap at COP27, with only relatively paltry sums (in the millions, not billions) committed to climate mitigation and adaptation in low-income countries. The failure has fomented distrust between low- and high-income countries, with the latter seen as paying only lip service to climate change. Furthermore, countries like the US opposed being held liable for their historical emissions.

Secondly, African leaders wanted more autonomy in determining their energy transition pathways in retaliation to policies by wealthy nations and multilateral development institutions to stop funding fossil fuel projects abroad. The decision text from the conference did not call for a total phaseout of fossil fuels, but this is just language to protect the decision of fossil fuel-dependent economies of the West. In the aftermath of the Russia-Ukraine conflict that has disrupted global energy markets, many countries have prioritized energy security over climate change and increased consumption of dirty fuels such as coal.

Finally, the continent wanted to institutionalize support for ‘loss and damage,’ which is a mechanism for richer countries to compensate countries already impacted by climate change impacts. There was some success as a loss and damage fund was established in Sharm El Sheikh, but, as always, the challenge is in securing money for that fund and making it accessible to countries that need it the most. Similar funds such as the Green Climate Fund and Global Environment Facility have not succeeded in supporting widespread climate action in the developing world...