Africa and COP28: A bridge that leads nowhere?

Africa's stance at the conference of the parties to the Paris Agreement has largely remained unchanged. Over the years, the position of Africa is one of being negatively affected by climate change. Without a doubt, the continent is suffering from climate change. The continent has the lowest GHG emissions, contributing 4% of global emissions. However,?the Paris Agreement has altered this, redefining Africa's climate commitment by requiring equal responsibility for all parties. One of the principal arguments is that, by 2050, there will be 2.5 billion people living in Africa. The concern of the Northern countries is that there will be an increase in greenhouse gas emissions while some countries are fast urbanizing. Yet, there are other countries that are also retrogressing.

What has changed?

?Africa is the global centre of food and energy?poverty. There is no doubt that 75% of the continent's population still has no access to electricity. The number of people without access to electricity decreased from 860 million in 2018 to 770 million in 2019. Similarly, the annual budgets of nations with low or middle incomes ranged from $391 billion to $647 billion for disaster relief and the maintenance of their ageing fossil fuel-based infrastructure. Building Africa's power system is taking longer than anticipated. In the unlikely circumstance that retiring asset values are not raised at COP28, two negative outcomes will result. There's disagreement in some quarters about whether decisions made during the COP28 negotiations about repairing Africa's deteriorating energy infrastructure can result in stranded assets. Again, the trepidation over transition risk is palpable. This is why.

Africa needs to spend between $130 billion and $170 billion per year on infrastructure to close the energy generation gap with the developed world. Worse, African governments provided $37.5 billion (37% of total infrastructure funding) in 2018. However, this is also due to the private sector's insufficient funding of electricity. In 2018, this industry accounted for approximately $11.8 billion, or 12% of all expenditures in Africa. The unfortunate fact is that these assets will all experience transition risk.

In the upcoming years, we expect the cost of adaptation to increase from $100 billion to $400 billion, especially considering that the yearly costs of adaptation for developing nations will increase to $500 billion by 2030 from $300 billion in 2030. It is doubtful that African economies will overcome poverty in the near future. This, unfortunately, is the objective fact. The solution is reparation in the form of climate finance. Again, the word reparation is an acceptance of guilt as it connotes there is a victim, hence there must be an agent of climate change.

Increase in Adaptation Cost: Another thorny issue is the adaptation cost. From an estimated $100 in LDCs in 2023 to $450 in 2050, I expect the cost of adaptation to rise. About 2–9% of Africa's GDP is allocated by governments to projects pertaining to adaptation. Currently, only 21% of all climate funds are allocated to adaptation. The United Nations Environment Programme estimates that the annual costs of adaptation in developing nations, which are currently estimated to be $70 billion, will increase to $300 billion by 2030 and $500 billion by 2050. The existing financing gap for adaptation, however, fosters an atmosphere in which one can say that wealthy nations are not genuinely interested in assisting Africa in implementing transformational adaptation, as their interest is in mitigation, where shareholders' returns are guaranteed.

?The loss and damage clause is a solution advanced to curb the widening adaptation gap. Whether the loss and damage clause can address this shortfall is still up for debate. One thing, however, is certain. Africa's miasma of climate crises cannot be solved by offering a "cure all" fix. It is definitely not by singing siren songs of the loss and damage clause. I doubt that climate finance will undergo a significant change given the political visibility of captains of the fossil fuels industry at COP28. There will be no element of surprise at COP28, seeing that adaptation finance will be tokenistic. With the political posturing and rhetoric as the main game of the parties to the Paris Agreement, adaptation finance will receive intangible commitment, making it another deceptive illusion to fool pliable Africa.

Can Africa really come out of the victim persona at COP28?

The answer depends on where you have aligned. If you see Africa cast in the victim's role. You are most likely to believe promises made on adaptation finance. But in reality, it is a bridge too far. However, if you are bent on reframing Africa as agents of climate change then, your interest in the NDC will be a bridge to nowhere. Why do we make this assertion? Though reducing greenhouse gas emissions is a pressing global matter, but its implementation is entirely local, where the energy sovereignty of the country is a major stake. With the current beggar-thy-neighbour like model of climate finance, many African economies will most likely collect the climate largesse and simultaneously pursue a contradictory pathway.

Reducing emissions requires a range of policies, the most important of which addresses a growing nation's energy and developmental requirements. For sure, Africa needs to close the energy gap by gradually decarbonizing the energy sector. In order to avoid constricting the economies of energy, financial resources can solve this need. But this, again, will increase Africa’s role as agents of climate change. Overcoming this requires a tradeoff between competing ends of gradual disentanglement from fossil fuels and building a sustainable energy future.

Going Forward

The grants route is the middle path for Africa's energy transition. Grants, not the much-touted blended finance, are what Africa requires in implementing its energy transition. Blended finance is not a panacea; rather, it has the potential to exacerbate some crises causing Africa's economic downturn. It also has the potential to exacerbate transition risk and the debt sustainability crisis. Yes, grant-based investment opportunities result in a significant shift toward a zero-carbon society. Green relief will help reduce the world's vulnerability to climate change by decarbonizing energy systems, increasing energy security, encouraging energy sovereignty, fortifying climate resiliency, and enshrining eco-efficient renewable energy diffusion.

All said?it won't be enough to just talk about decarbonization at COPs and follow the BAU pathway of development after the summit. The continent cannot pursue two different routes toward a decarbonized civilization. It is not enough to discuss decarbonization yet; the implementation is an entirely different ballgame. African leaders have to keep in mind that the most vulnerable communities in their region are ill-prepared for their rendezvous with destiny, which involves navigating unpredictable weather and economic conditions.?

?