Common goal: The first Africa climate summit held in Nairobi, Kenya, was hosted by President William Ruto who said ‘climate action is not a global north issue or a global south issue but rather a collective challenge, and it affects all of us’. Photo: Andrew Kasuku/Getty Images
The Africa climate summit came to a close on Wednesday in Nairobi, Kenya. With it came the Nairobi Declaration announced by Kenya’s President William Ruto.
In summary, the declaration is Africa’s position on climate change ahead of the 2023 United Nations Climate Change Conference, COP28, later in the year. Despite being the continent with the lowest carbon emissions, it stands to be hit the hardest.
The summit and declaration make note of these problems and call for financing to be improved and tailored to Africa’s needs. Leaders argued that the financing cannot place the continent in more debt and so, the declaration calls for restructuring and relief.
It also said the financing must come from those who have polluted the Earth the most, a common sentiment at the summit from many leaders.
The declaration also calls on developed countries to honour pledges to developing nations. With that was a call for a carbon tax in key areas such as aviation and maritime.
Ruto was also vocal about Africa’s renewable potential. He strongly suggested that it must be part of the climate change solution because the continent has huge solar potential. He encouraged the use of the continent’s renewable resources but with the goal of striking deals and partnerships with other nations.
A key outcome from the summit saw funding pledges of $23 billion for climate change mitigation and adaptation, said Ruto.
Essentially the declaration is a unified effort for demanding climate finance.
People such as Mohamed Adow, the director of the think-tank Power Shift Africa, have said that Africa must demand what is owed to it and that polluters must be accountable.
The summit also yielded a controversial topic, which divided opinion among Africa’s leaders — the African Carbon Market Initiative.
The carbon market initiative came out of last year’s COP27 and is made up of African leaders and industry specialists. The simple explanation for carbon credits is when a company pollutes, it buys credits. That credit is used to fund an initiative that removes carbon to the same amount the company polluted.
So, polluters fund projects to remove carbon emissions without actually curbing their own carbon emissions.
Economist Jonathan Colmer wrote that “these projects include reforestation and forest conservation, investments in renewable energy, carbon-storing agricultural practices and direct air capture”.
But many detractors argue that carbon credits is a form of greenwashing — when a company claims it is doing something environmentally good but it is not.
Those in opposition say it is a way for companies to continue polluting by giving the impression that they have bought credits, but these are difficult to quantify.
Those for it say it is an opportunity to improve economic development and that it will curb greenhouse gas emissions.
The United Arab Emirates (UAE) believe that it is a crucial tool in decarbonisation and has thrown its support behind the initiative. The country has committed to buying $450 million of carbon credits from the Africa Carbon Markets Initiative.
“Our collaboration with the Africa Carbon Markets Initiative provides carbon market buyers in the UAE and wider region with access to high-quality carbon credits in Africa. This does not only help to unlock Africa’s carbon credit generation potential, but also supports sustainable investment opportunities and long-term climate impact,” Sheikha Shamma bint Sultan bin Khalifa Al Nahyan, president and chief executive of the UAE Independent Climate Change Accelerators, said in a statement.
Adow and his group released a report saying African countries must stay away from the carbon initiative, calling it “a wolf in sheep’s clothing”. The report states the following: “Carbon markets benefit the polluters, the fossil fuel companies and the market brokers. It will drive pollution beyond climate limits and puts neo-colonial obstructions to the attainment of genuine African development pathways.”
As a country built on fossil fuels them throwing support behind these markets makes one wonder.
My view is that it gives heavy carbon polluters a loophole which allows them to continue polluting.
Colmer wrote that there are some important aspects to make the carbon credit initiative a success.
He argues: “If a landowner is paid to not cut down trees, but had no plans to cut them down in the first place, the project does not deliver additional emissions savings. The landowner is paid for doing nothing and the buyer’s emissions are not offset.”
Colmer also discusses the issue of permanence, because carbon emissions can stay in the atmosphere for long periods. He mentioned two projects for carbon removal — air capture and forest growth.
Air capture is technology that grabs carbon from the atmosphere and stores it deep in the ground. Forests are known to store carbon but very often these are green deserts — plantations that reduce biodiversity. Also, when forests are logged, or there is a fire, the carbon is released back into the atmosphere.
Some people argue that the mass planting of trees can delay climate change by reducing some of the carbon in the air while other initiatives take shape.
Carbon markets and carbon credits have potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions but it must have climate mitigation as a goal and — crucially — it needs to reach the people who are most vulnerable to climate change.
These companies that are heavy polluters must be forced to lessen emissions. Without doing so, those companies with no conscience will purchase carbon credits unethically and will accelerate unmanageable climate change.