Africa Needs A Different Narrative On Climate and Just Transition

By Savior Mwambwa

A critical look at climate finance narratives and what the future holds for Africa’s green industrialization

Summary: 

The global push for a standardized “green transition” leapfrogging fossil fuel, strict carbon pricing and donor-driven conditions simply doesn’t fit Africa’s development context. In my latest article, I examine why these popular frameworks risk stalling both climate and economic progress, then offer alternative approaches grounded in on-the-ground realities across Zambia, South Africa, Senegal, Kenya and the DRC.

Key takeaways:

• Dual-track energy build-out: We cannot leapfrog power infrastructure like we did with mobile phones. Africa needs simultaneous investment in foundational grids and renewables, so development and decarbonization advance hand in hand.
• Fair carbon budgets: Rather than a blunt price, allocations should reflect historical emissions, population and adaptation costs. South Africa’s phased-in tax with targeted exemptions offers one model of equity in action.
• Sovereign climate finance: Too often, only 45% of funding aligns with national plans. We must insist that every grant and loan serve country-determined priorities, avoiding the trap of “green conditionality.”
• Homegrown innovation ecosystems: Technology co-development, local manufacturing, R&D, supportive regulation and IP reform ensures projects endure beyond donor timelines and build lasting capacity.
• Broad economic transformation: A just transition is more than green jobs. It requires industrial diversification, targeted skills training, social protection, quality-of-work standards and formalizing informal green activities.

Ultimately, Africa’s voice in global climate debates should champion development-first actions, climate justice rooted in historical responsibility, sovereign pathways of change and finance metrics that truly match the continent’s needs and contributions. Only then can climate action become a catalyst for and not a barrier to sustainable development.

Introduction

The global climate agenda is hanging in the balance. International institutions and developed countries are pressing for a switch to green industry, but African countries must perform a delicate balancing act as they consider how to achieve their energy and emissions targets without falling behind in development finance terms. Existing narratives on this transition, which include leapfrogging from fossil fuel development to standardized carbon prices conditioned by climate finance and technology transfer just don’t fit Africa at all.

In this article, we  take a critical look at these narratives, proposes alternative frameworks for African governments, academia and climate finance campaigners to follow. By discussing cases in Zambia, South Africa, Senegal, Kenya and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), we will illustrate how a more sophisticated approach that better serves both climate objectives and developmental aspirations is feasible.

The Myth of Technological Leapfrogging

The popular belief that African countries can simply “leapfrog” past the stage of carbon-intensive development fails to appreciate the fact that these countries face huge infrastructure gaps. As mobile phone technology has quite successfully leapfrogged landline infrastructure all over Africa, energy systems present far more complex challenges.

The DRC for example has about 70% of the world’s cobalt reserves but less than 19% of its people have access to electricity. This mineral wealth and vast hydropower potential who could be harnessing these resources sustainably in place? The infrastructure needed for this state of affairs requires immense effort on all fronts from transport networks right through to administrative functions.

Likewise in Zambia: despite considerable renewable resources, only about 31% of the population has access to electricity. Unfortunately in rural areas,  people who are previously poor having even less chance than most. The leap-frogging narrative assumes that countries like these can just cut straight to high-tech industries without fixing these first principles’ infrastructure gaps.

African climate change advocates must move away from leapfrogging technology and should support a “dual tracks” method. Nonetheless, we can simultaneously develop clean energy systems while increasing renewable capacity as the new capabilities come online. This approach respects the right to development on one hand, while firmly resolving to move towards a low-carbon society at some point.

Re-visiting Carbon Pricing for an African Economy

Global carbon pricing mechanisms tend to hurt underdeveloped economies more than developed ones, this is the real reason they are opposed. In South Africa, for instance coal provides around 85% of electricity generation and provides employment for approximately 92,000 people. Any immediate introduction of expensive carbon-intensive living conditions will only push communities that already face 32.9% unemployment rates further toward disaster.

One conundrum and dilemma in the era of climate change is that    Africa needs to spend 2-3 per cent of GDP annually on adaptation measures, even as it pursues development goals, based on research by the African Development Bank(AfDB) . Placing carbon price pressures on top of those efforts without considering their destination as adjunct burdens is unjustified.

For Africa, it is necessary to make clear that carbon pricing plans should be based on past emissions, present level of development and future adaptation costs. “Carbon budget allocation” means that remaining allocations might be distributed according to population size and need for its development, no longer would some countries with high income take most allowances while others garnered few. An example South Africa is pioneering in its approach to a carbon tax system that initially sets the price lower and gives various exemptions and discounts for vulnerable sectors while at the same time signaling what one request for help might be like when people really get serious about controlling emissions offers one possible model.

Going Beyond Green Conditionality

Green conditionality in climate finance often curbs the policy space of recipient countries. For example, Kenya has seen climate finance endeavors which brings externally imposed priorities to bear on local development without sufficient consideration for its own needs. A study by Overseas Development Institute (ODI) found that only 45% of climate finance to Kenya was aligned with nationally determined priorities, with the rest dictated by donors.

In countries beset by these problems, funding sources grow increasingly lax and hence environmentally unsavory. Thanks to its large natural gas discoveries, Senegal has looked for financing to develop gas as a transitional fuel. The argument has been that it can’t combat energy poverty before creating capacity for renewable power. But pressure from some climate finance institutions to give up all fossil fuel development at once has driven Senegal towards financing partners with fewer environmental safeguards.

The African Group of Negotiators on Climate Change has consistently encouraged national sovereignty and development priorities in seeking climate finance. Climate finance is intended to give further impetus to these processes that come from each country itself instead of imposing external conditions that could contradict long-term goals for climate.

Redefining “Common but Differentiated Responsibilities”  Still Needed for Adequate Action

 The core concept of “common but differentiated responsibilities” (CBDR) is still important in climate negotiations, but arguments on this concept are becoming increasingly fierce. Even though African countries together contribute just 3-4 percent of the world’s carbon dioxide emissions, they suffer some of our planet’s most severe weather damage which often costs a lot in economic terms. Climate change could reduce Africa’s GDP by up to 15% in 2030 according to the AfDB.

Yet up to now the developed countries’ historical emissions have accounted for about 79% of this climate change problem that we’re suffering today. From this structural imbalance between responsibility and vulnerability emerged the concept of Africa’s cry for “climate justice plus development rights.” Another “climate debt” concept to quantify the historical predations of the industrial nations upon the atmosphere can provide a yardstick for gauging financially appropriate climate finance.

Building Innovation Ecosystems That Goes Beyond Technology Transfer

Although technology transfer, where foreign technologies are introduced to one’s own country for research and development on local conditions, is often seen as the best means of transmitting innovation overseas, it is not satisfactory in every instance; indeed this one-sided emphasis generally misses out an aspect of far greater importance to be proactive rather than passive, thereby building a complete innovation ecosystem. Whereas Kenya has become a national leader in off-grid solar power adoption with over 10 million people using solar home systems, this success is not due solely to imported technology. Just as important was the development of appropriate business models; supportive regulatory frameworks and local ability to provide technical backup and maintenance services. Conversely, renewable energy projects that fail to build local capacity often struggle with maintenance issues and limited longevity. One study of solar installations across sub-Saharan Africa revealed that up to 50% had become non-functional within five years when such projects lack local skills development and appropriate business models. In this situation, a large-scale investment is soon wasted!

Now’s the time for African climate advocates to switch from asking for “technology transfer” to push “technology co-development and localization.” What this means is;

1. Building homemade manufacturing capacity for green technologies

2. Developing context-appropriate innovations

3. Support the growth of research institutions and entrepreneurial ecosystems

4. Reforming intellectual property law in order to place climate technology where it’s most needed

Redefining Climate Finance Metrics

Current climate finance metrics do not actually represent Africa’s true financial needs. According to the Climate Policy Initiative, Africa received just US $30 billion in climate finance annually between 2019-2020. This is far short of the US $250 billion required each year for a fair transition. Furthermore, a lot of these monies come as loans rather than gifts which means that countries may find themselves in debt traps. Additionally, in Zambia-where public debt reached approximately 120% of GDP before the 2020 default-climate finance in the form of loans could further compound fiscal problems and do nothing to promote sustainable development. How best to account for climate finance often overlooks the value of ecosystem services, such as the Congo Basin rainforest in the DRC which absorbs around 1.5 billion tons of CO2 annually-a service worth hundreds of billions if calculated at current prices for carbon offsets.

It therefore follows that African climate advocates should push for comprehensive climate finance accounting that:

• Differentiates between grants and loans
• Ensures the accounting of all funds, including adaptation and loss-and-damage funding
• Includes the value of ecosystem services provided for by African countries
• Stranded fossil fuel assets must be compensated
• Technological transfer and capacity building recognized as well. 

A Just Transition Beyond Green Jobs

The green jobs narrative tends to oversimplify labor market transitions in African countries. For example, South Africa’s coal mining industry directly employs around 92,000 people and indirectly supports many more who either have no other job options or live in places with limited alternatives on offer locally. Even if those employed in the industry were to transfer to another form of work without much friction as Chief Economist Jantha Geogia notes -where will those new green jobs come from? Will they match skills, locations and compensation for those old job types? Further information is required.

Similarly, in Kenya’s Lake Turkana Wind Power project, while renewable energy jobs were being created, many of these posts required highly specialized technical skills not yet widely spread in local communities, leading to restricted immediate benefits for the local population. 

African climate advocates should be pressing for a “comprehensive economic transformation” framework. This shifts emphasis away from green jobs and brings in these aspects of policy:

1. Industrial policies that allow for economic diversification

2. Investment in education and training that is relevant to forms of future work

3. Social protection systems to support workers through transitions

4. Attention must be paid not only to the quantity  but also the quality of work

5. Recognition and formalization of the informal sector’s contribution to the green economy

Alternative Approaches in Emergent Phase

South Africa’s Just Energy Transition Partnership (JETP)

South Africa’s JETP is an innovative approach to climate finance. It has mobilized $8.5 billion to help South Africa phase out coal. While not without flaws, it proves that climate funding makes sense when it lines up with national plans, tough times for affected communities and the special challenges of decarbonizing a coal dependent economy. It also involves financing renewable energy developments, electric vehicle production, and support for regions saddled with coal.

Geothermal Development in Kenya

Kenya has emerged as a global leader in geothermal energy, with generating capacity growing from 45MW in 1985 to almost 1,000MW now and about 38% of the country’s electricity mix. It took domestic technical capacity building at scale through the state-owned Geothermal Development Company, exact matching with world-class experts abroad and  appropriate financing. Kenya demonstrates how a country can develop large-scale renewable energy in a way that harmonizes with its local resources and needs.

Senegal’s Strategy for Gas-to-Clean Energy

Senegal has defined a strategic path for its natural gas, using it as an uplifting medium for transition fuel and to provide renewable energy. By 2030, the country seeks to have 40% of its electricity mix powered by renewable clean sources. Gas revenues are to underpin development priorities and allow Senegal to build the necessary infrastructure for a clean energy future. This route is a pragmatic transition model which balances immediate development needs against climate aspirations.

Conclusion

 The mainstream stories of climate transition do not fit with Africa’s reality. To formulate more effective and equitable ways forward, African governments, think tanks and campaigners for climate funding should advocate and centre the following :

1. Development-First Climate Actions: Development prospects and energy access can  actually mesh with climate goals, if competently handled.

2. Climate Justice-People’s Rights for Development: Establish a framework that fully recognizes history while protecting the right to develop.

3. Sovereign Pathways of Transition: Pursue self-chosen ways to effect change rather than imposed from outside.

4. Overall Economic Transformation: Move beyond simply emphasizing green jobs to tackle broader issues of structural inequity.

5. Climate Finance Based on Actual Costs: Campaign for money that matches both Africa’s needs and its contribution.

By promoting these counter-narratives, African actors can help guarantee that climate action in turn supports rather than obstructs development across the continent.