NEWS

COP30: Africa Claims Its Place in a Fragile Multilateral System

2025-12-10
PACT

Ten years after the Paris Agreement, COP30 in Belém was expected to prove that climate diplomacy can still address the urgency. For a continent that emits less than 4% of greenhouse gases but suffers some of the most severe impacts, African expectations were clear: massive, predictable, and fair financing; recognition of its role as a “carbon sink”; and a real seat at the table in governing climate mechanisms.

Between some institutional advances, a more assertive African discourse, and persistent blockages on fossils and financing, COP30 confirms both African climate leadership and its marginalization within a fragile multilateral system.

A Milestone COP in a System Under Strain
COP30 takes place amid polycrises: geopolitical tensions, economic crises, multiplying conflicts, and biodiversity loss. It results in a final agreement, the Mutirão Decision, which marks limited progress relative to the expectations of the Global South.

The conference sets no clear trajectory for phasing out fossil fuels, even though this issue was presented as central. Financial commitments remain vague, while several parallel tracks—just transition, reliable climate information, gender mainstreaming—are highlighted.

These advances are important for civil societies and vulnerable populations, but they leave unchanged the structural knots: fossil fuel dependence, inequitable financial architecture, fragmented governance of climate tools. The strong presence of fossil fuel lobbies illustrates these power dynamics.

Africa: Low Emitter, Heavily Impacted
Texts on COP30 highlight a constant imbalance: Africa contributes little to climate disruption but pays a disproportionate economic and social cost.

In several countries, climate disasters amputate a significant share of GDP each year, forcing the use of budgets earmarked for education or health to manage emergencies. The continent hosts a substantial share of global carbon sinks but receives only a fraction of international financing, particularly for adaptation.

In Belém, African leaders denounce a crisis of justice and equity: those who contributed least to historical emissions are most exposed to droughts, floods, agricultural losses, or population displacements. They also point to the growing gap between ambitious rhetoric since the Paris Agreement and the weakness of actually mobilized resources.

Climate Finance: Between Global Goals and Debt Trap
On the financial front, the analyzed documents converge on one finding: promises made to Africa are neither commensurate with its needs nor truly kept.

Discussions on the global climate finance goal reveal a massive gap between promised amounts and estimated needs. Part of the financing theoretically destined for the continent takes the form of loans rather than grants, exacerbating the vulnerability of already heavily indebted economies. This runs counter to demands from many African states, which seek concessional financing, direct access to resources, and greater use of African financial institutions.

Meanwhile, several analyses recall that African countries assess their needs at levels far exceeding current commitments. This gap fuels strong frustration: on one hand, repeated quantified announcements from COP to COP; on the other, projects that take too long to materialize, complex procedures, and a burden of proof resting on countries least responsible for historical emissions.

Faced with this situation, African institutions also highlight the potential mobilization of internal resources: sovereign wealth funds, pension funds, local savings. The idea is to pair these levers with structural reform of the international financial architecture to ensure predictable, transparent flows less dependent on debt.

Tropical Forests and Congo Basin: Contested Leadership
Tropical forests, particularly the Congo Basin, are at the heart of discussions on carbon sinks. Several initiatives announced in Belém illustrate both the strategic importance of these ecosystems and the complexity of their governance.

A major international fund for tropical forest conservation is launched, officially designed as a “Global South for Global South” instrument. But African countries hosting the Congo Basin were little involved in its design, and their place in future governance remains unclear. Moreover, this fund positions itself on terrain already occupied by the Blue Fund for the Congo Basin, the financial arm of that region’s Climate Commission.

In parallel, a “Belém Call” for Congo Basin forests is unveiled, with a five-year financial mobilization target. Some African delegations, however, discover afterward that they are listed as co-signatories and worry about conditionality in the accompanying text. These tensions lead to reopening discussions to better integrate existing regional mechanisms.

Overall, this reinforces the impression of a continent indispensable to protecting carbon sinks but still too little recognized as architect of the governance of funds claiming to support it.

Between Ambitions, Frustrations, and Quest for Sovereignty
Through the statements, diplomatic fatigue is clearly expressed. Many African leaders say they are “burned” by repeated unkept promises and a financial architecture that still favors loans over grants. Climate overheating is already visible in everyday life for populations, while mechanisms meant to address the urgency are set up too slowly.

At the same time, COP30 shows a continent refusing to be confined to the victim role. Africa’s Day organized in Belém highlights a shared vision: no global green transition without accounting for African realities, without sustainable financing, nor without full continent participation in defining the rules.

Regional institutions call for restructuring the global financial architecture, ensuring direct access to funds for African countries and communities, better valuing carbon sinks and strategic resources, and developing markets—particularly carbon markets—governed by African priorities. It is no longer just about obtaining compensation, but claiming a role in co-designing global climate policies, in line with Agenda 2063 and the Sustainable Development Goals.

A Contrasting Picture Emerges from COP30
From this COP30 emerges a contrasting image. Diplomatically, the conference remains an indispensable space where incremental advances are wrested on just transition, information, or gender. But blockages on fossil fuel phase-out, debt, and finance governance show how the multilateral system remains crossed by power dynamics unfavorable to the African continent.

On the African front, we observe both the assertion of a more unified discourse on climate justice, financial sovereignty, and carbon sink valuation, and deep distrust toward a system that continues to reproduce historical asymmetries.

In the background, one central question remains: will Africa be a full subject of the global climate transition, or remain a projection ground for solutions defined elsewhere? In Belém, through the positions of its leaders and institutions, the continent has clearly signaled its ambition: to influence the rules of the game, defend its own mechanisms, and position itself as a full architect of the climate future, rather than a mere receptacle for external decisions.

Sources

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *