Why Africa’s most climate-vulnerable countries receive the least support
A new study has shown that Sub-Saharan Africa, home to the world’s most climate-vulnerable communities, receives less adaptation and biodiversity funding than almost any other region.
Despite being at the epicentre of the climate crisis, African nations receive some of the lowest levels of international funding to adapt to its impacts, according to the analysis of over 180,000 aid projects across 124 recipient countries in the Global South between 2013 and 2022.
The study, published in World Development, examined US$163 billion in climate adaptation funding and US$91 billion in biodiversity investments and found that Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), often described as the “ground zero” of global warming, lags far behind other regions in both the amount of money received and the likelihood of being selected for funding.
The researchers, Charissa Bosma, Lars Hein and Daniel C. Miller, found a paradox that countries that are most exposed to rising temperatures, drought, and floods are less likely to be chosen for climate adaptation projects than those with lower levels of vulnerability.
“Sub-Saharan Africa makes up for a bit more than one-third of funding flows for both objectives (37 and 35 percent, respectively). Roughly 40 percent of climate adaptation and 35 percent of biodiversity funding was invested in South Asia, East Asia, and the Pacific. Latin America received about one-quarter of the biodiversity funding, compared to 13 percent of the total climate adaptation funding. The Middle East and North Africa accounted for slightly less than 10 percent of adaptation funding and only 6 percent of the total biodiversity funding,” the study disclosed.
Even after accounting for regional and multi-country aid packages, Africa’s underfunding trend persisted. While regional programs exist, they have not been enough to offset the imbalance in country-level disbursements.
“These variations suggest that regional funding influences the magnitude of some estimates, but does not fundamentally alter the overall pattern of underfunding observed for Sub-Saharan Africa,” the study further stated.
However, the study further noted that one major factor shaping where the money goes is governance quality. Countries with stronger institutions, political stability, and regulatory quality were more likely to attract both climate and biodiversity funding, regardless of their vulnerability levels.
That means well-governed middle-income nations, such as Vietnam or Colombia, often attract more financing than poorer but highly vulnerable African countries.
This story is written and edited by the Global South World team, you can contact us here.
