Tomorrow delegates from around the world will gather in Antalya, Türkiye, for COP31, the annual United Nations climate summit. African countries will once again be asking wealthy nations to honour their promises of climate finance. But before another round of impressive figures is announced, we should be asking what happened to the money already promised to countries like South Africa. How much has arrived, what has it been used for, and how much will have to be paid back.
South Africa has reason to ask. Five years ago, France, Germany, Britain, the United States (US) and the European Union, together known as the International Partners Group (IPG), pledged to mobilise an initial $8.5 billion (about R150 billion) for South Africa. The arrangement, called the Just Energy Transition Partnership, was announced at the 2021 climate summit in Glasgow to help us reduce our dependence on coal while protecting workers and communities whose livelihoods relied on it. The US withdrew from the partnership in March 2025.
The IPG was not legally required to provide that particular amount to South Africa. Its members made a voluntary commitment to mobilise the funding as part of wider international efforts to address climate change. According to figures released by the South African Presidency’s Just Energy Transition Project Management Unit (JET PMU), recorded pledges had grown to $14.36 billion (about R254 billion) by the end of March this year. Yet only $6.12 billion (about R108 billion), less than half, had been allocated. Less than 7% of the money pledged was classified as grants; funding that does not have to be repaid. The rest was largely made up of loans and other forms of financing.
The figures don’t mean the balance has vanished. Some funding has been promised but has yet to be assigned to specific projects. Of the $6.12 billion (about R108 billion) allocated, approximately $4.32 billion (about R76.3 billion) was recorded against individual projects and programmes. Even that does not tell us how much has actually been paid out or spent. The JET PMU report records 87 completed projects and another 129 being implemented, but it does not provide a single figure for all the money spent. The overall pledge total also includes commitments from partners beyond the original group.
Obligation
Developed countries have an obligation to help. Under the 2015 Paris Agreement, wealthy industrialised nations are required to provide financial resources to assist developing countries in reducing emissions and adapting to climate change. This obligation reflects the fact that developed countries have historically been responsible for a disproportionate share of the greenhouse gas emissions driving global warming. Africa, by contrast, accounts for a relatively small share of global emissions, yet many African countries face worsening droughts, floods, and increasingly unpredictable rainfall as the climate changes. Many are also among the world’s poorest, with limited resources to prepare for or to recover from climate disasters. The countries, however, differ considerably in their economic circumstances and climate needs.
The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, which monitors economic performance and development finance, reported that 67% of public climate finance provided to developing countries in 2024 came as loans, compared with 29% in grants. That distinction matters. A grant does not have to be repaid. A loan usually carries interest and must eventually be paid back.
Oxfam, the international organisation campaigning against poverty and inequality, argues that headline climate-finance figures exaggerate the real assistance being provided because loans are often counted at their full value rather than according to the financial benefit they offer recipients.
Not all borrowing is bad. A low-interest loan to build a renewable-energy power station may be a sensible investment. The electricity can be sold, businesses benefit from more reliable power, and the project may generate income to help repay the financing. But borrowing to repair roads destroyed by floods or protect farmland from drought is different. Those projects may be essential, but they don’t necessarily generate revenue. A country already struggling with debt can end up borrowing more to recover from one disaster, leaving less money available when the next one comes.
Assistance
South Africa is seeking assistance for recent climate-related damage. At a climate-policy consultation in Sandton in October, Forestry, Fisheries, and the Environment Minister David Maynier said the government had submitted a $20 million (about R354 million) proposal to the international Fund for Responding to Loss and Damage (FRLD). The money would help restore Kruger National Park and surrounding conservation landscapes following the floods in January this year.
The FRLD was established to assist developing countries facing climate-related losses and damage. But South Africa is not automatically entitled to the money. According to Maynier, more than 170 proposals had been submitted, seeking over $1.4 billion (about R24.8 billion), against approximately $450 million (about R8 billion) available.
The demand for climate finance far exceeds the money available. But securing funding is only part of the challenge. Are African governments doing enough to ensure their countries are ready to use it? In a June investigation by Oxpeckers, a South African environmental investigative journalism organisation, Neil Cole, the financing manager in the JET PMU, explained that South Africa was not simply short of capital. It also lacked properly prepared projects ready to receive funding. The investigation identified municipalities struggling with their finances, projects that were not ready to proceed, and administrative obstacles delaying implementation. The investigation also found that some international partners had committed much of their promised funding to projects and programmes, while others had made little progress in doing so.
We cannot blame every delay on wealthy countries when some of our own projects aren’t ready for funding. Governments must have credible plans, competent institutions to carry them out, and proper systems to account for how the money is spent. Climate finance is not simply a handout. Much of it comes in the form of loans that must be repaid. But receiving assistance should not become a substitute for maintaining infrastructure, managing public finances or developing local industries. It should also strengthen countries’ ability to manage their own development.
Carbon credits are sometimes presented as another way African communities can generate income rather than rely on international grants and loans. Each credit typically represents one tonne of greenhouse gas emissions reduced or removed from the atmosphere. Companies and governments can buy these credits from projects such as forest protection or providing households with cleaner, more efficient cooking stoves. Independent organisations are supposed to check that the claimed emissions reductions are genuine, but some projects have been accused of exaggerating how much they actually achieve. Carbon trading could provide African communities with a new source of income, but there are questions about how fairly the benefits are shared.
In late October, Kenya’s State Department for Blue Economy and Fisheries warned about weak oversight and potentially exploitative agreements between foreign carbon-trading companies and local communities. It raised concerns about communities signing away long-term rights over land or forests without fully understanding the terms or receiving adequate compensation. Carbon trading can attract valuable investment. But without proper safeguards, Africa risks seeing its natural resources generate profits for foreign companies while local communities receive little in return.
Similar Questions
South Africa faces similar questions about who benefits from its energy transition. Moving away from coal towards renewable energy sources such as solar and wind power is in our own long-term interests, but the transition must also deliver reliable, affordable electricity and economic opportunities for the communities most affected.
At COP31, governments should be expected to provide a clearer account of the climate finance already promised. How much has been received? How much is a grant and how much is a loan? What interest will be paid, who is responsible for repayment, and what has the money actually achieved?
We should expect wealthy countries to honour their commitments. We should be just as demanding of our own governments when it comes to spending the money. Africa needs investment, functioning infrastructure, and the ability to protect its people from increasingly severe climate impacts. But another announcement of billions at COP31 will mean little if the money never reaches the projects and communities that need it.
For ordinary South Africans, the measure of success is not how much the world promises. It is what actually gets delivered, who benefits and what future generations will be left owing.
Source: www.thecommonsense.co.za
