Reimagining Climate Finance for Africa: A Legal Imperative for Decentralised Approaches Post-COP29

[Vieviene Antifon is a UK-based legal academic and socio-legal researcher specialising in climate finance, energy law, and international environmental law with a focus on Africa]

As the dust settles on COP29 in Baku, Azerbaijan, Africa’s urgent need for climate finance remains a critical issue in international environmental law. The conference, which concluded in November 2024, saw some progress but fell short of meeting Africa’s climate finance needs. This post argues that the state-centric climate finance model not only falls short in practice but may violate core principles of international environmental law. It proposes a legally grounded framework for decentralised climate finance tailored to Africa’s needs.

Article 9 of the Paris Agreement emphasises the need for scaled-up financial resources to achieve a balance between adaptation and mitigation. However, the outcomes of COP29 reveal that the current model often fails to achieve this balance at the local level. The New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG) decision at COP29 called for scaling up climate finance for developing countries to at least $1.3 trillion per year by 2035, with developed countries’ contributions reaching $300 billion annually by the same year. While this marks progress, it falls significantly short of Africa’s needs, estimated at $2.7 trillion by 2030 or approximately $400 billion  annually.

Legal Shortcomings of the Current Climate Finance Model

This shortfall potentially violates the principle of Common but Differentiated Responsibilities and Respective Capabilities (CBDR-RC) enshrined in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).The CBDR-RC principle requires that financial flows reflect the historical responsibility of developed countries, as well as the specific vulnerabilities  of developing regions. The current state led finance model, which saw Africa receive only 3.6% of global climate finance in 2022, falls short of equitable climate finance.

Moreover, the principle of subsidiarity in international environmental law supports a decentralised approach, requiring governance decisions to be made at the lowest appropriate level. This is particularly relevant given the localised nature of climate impacts and adaptation needs in Africa.

Subsidiarity in Practice: Lessons from Kenya’s Climate Funds

Subsidiarity, a foundational principle of international environmental law, holds that governance decisions should be made at the most immediate (or local) level capable of addressing an issue effectively. This principle is anchored in both ethical and legal considerations, including participatory rights and distributive justice. Kenya’s experience with decentralised and devolved climate finance mechanisms illustrates how subsidiarity can empower vulnerable communities, and underscores why subsidiarity should govern climate finance distribution. A comparative study of Kenya’s Constituency Development Fund (CDF), Local Authority Transfer Fund (LATF), and the newer County Adaptation Fund (CAF) found that devolved structures can significantly improve access to, and allocation of, adaptation finance based on vulnerability and need. Specifically, the study showed that while decentralised systems like the Constituency Development Fund (CDF) and Local Authorities Transfer Fund (LATF) existed prior to Kenya’s devolution reforms, they often lacked mechanisms for inclusive and needs-based allocation. This failure was rooted in elite capture, politicisation, and the absence of institutionalised representation for marginalised communities.

Under the CDF and LATF, decision-making was largely centralised or dominated by political elites, often leading to unequal and opaque funding outcomes. In contrast, the CAF institutionalises community participation through Ward Adaptation Planning Committees (WAPCs), which include women, youth, and local leaders. These committees use criteria such as resilience, inclusion, and economic viability to determine which local projects receive funding .The CAF also introduces voting rights for community representatives and requires participatory vulnerability assessments. This example demonstrates that subsidiarity, when operationalised through legally recognised local institutions, leads to more just and efficient allocation of adaptation finance.

In the African context, this supports a legal argument for decentralised climate finance as a requirement of subsidiarity. The principle not only demands that local voices be heard but also that they possess formal decision-making power.  As such, international climate finance instruments such as the Green Climate Fund (GCF) must go beyond tokenised consultation and embed subsidiarity into funding modalities.

Doing so is consistent with the Paris Agreement’s preambular emphasis on human rights and local knowledge systems. It also aligns with Article 11, which obliges parties to promote capacity building, particularly in vulnerable regions. Therefore, decentralising climate finance is not merely a policy preference it is a legal imperative grounded in subsidiarity, ensuring that those most affected by climate change are active agents in designing their resilience.

A Legal Framework for Decentralised Climate Finance

To align climate finance with international legal obligations, a decentralised framework must be established. This would involve:

1. Establishing Local Climate Finance Committees with legal standing under national and international law.
2. Developing Direct Access Mechanisms for local organisations, similar to the Green Climate Fund’s Enhanced Direct Access (EDA) modality, but with stronger legal protections.
3. Implementing a legally binding monitoring and evaluation system, aligned with the Paris Agreement’s enhanced transparency framework.
4. Mandating capacity building programmes for local organisations, as required by Article 11 of the Paris Agreement..

This framework aligns with the principles of intergenerational equity and the precautionary principle. It also addresses the inequities in climate finance distribution, where Africa loses 5–9% of its GDP annually to climate impacts while receiving disproportionately little support.

Legal Evolution of Climate Finance Instruments

The current architecture of international climate finance particularly the Green Climate Fund is largely designed around sovereign state access. However, evolving legal and institutional practices indicate that there is both precedent and capacity for these instruments to expand their frameworks to accommodate local actors directly. Kenya’s CAF is a model for this evolution. It enables communities to plan and implement local climate projects, working alongside county and national institutions. The GCF’s current EDA modality allows national entities to directly allocate funds, but a stronger legal mandate could allow local governments or registered community bodies to do the same. As Barrett’s, 2015 study of Kenya’s County Adaptation Fund (CAF) shows, truly transformative adaptation outcomes emerge where local-level actors are not merely implementers, but decision-makers. The CAF’s use of Ward Adaptation Planning Committees (WAPCs) which are inclusive, representative, and supported by technical ministries demonstrates how governance structures can be embedded in community realities while still maintaining accountability.

There is precedent in international environmental law for expanding legal personality beyond states. The Aarhus Convention and the Escazu Agreement recognise the procedural rights of communities and individuals. Incorporating similar protections into international climate finance mechanisms could formalise local access, reduce bureaucratic delays, and ensure funds respond to actual vulnerability not just national policy priorities. Moreover, the interpretive guidance of the Conference of the Parties (COP) under Article 11 of the Paris Agreement would be useful to ensure such decisions would be consistent with the principle of effectiveness in treaty interpretation and with the broader movement toward polycentric climate governance. 

Furthermore, international law recognises the progressive development of institutional frameworks in response to emerging challenges. The Inter American Court of Human Rights and other human rights bodies have endorsed the idea that evolving norms and institutional practice can extend the reach of rights and obligations. In this context, enabling legal reform that formally recognises local actors in international finance instruments is not only possible, but necessary to close the implementation gap between funding commitments and local climate resilience in Africa.

Support from International Customary Law

International customary norms such as equity, participation, and environmental justice underpin much of environmental treaty law. These principles can support the legal case for decentralised climate finance. The Trail smelter case and Principle 10 of the Rio Declaration affirm that those most affected by environmental harms should have a voice in decision-making. In climate governance, this translates to empowering local actors who bear the brunt of climate impacts.

Also, the principle of equity is foundational to the climate finance regime. It underpins the concept of Common but Differentiated Responsibilities and Respective Capabilities (CBDR–RC), as codified in Article 3 of the UNFCCC and reaffirmed in Article 2 of the Paris Agreement. Equity in the context of adaptation finance means recognising that vulnerability is often most acute at the local level. Barrett’s findings reinforce that equity is often sidelined in centralised finance models, due to political interference and lack of transparency hindering just access, even where formal structures appeared participatory on paper. Whereas devolved structures like the CAF prioritise need-based allocation. This aligns with broader customary expectations that environmental governance must be inclusive, transparent, and fair. Embedding these values into climate finance instruments would enhance legitimacy and compliance with both treaty and customary international law.

Lessons from the United States of America: Decentralisation in Practice

The argument for decentralised climate finance is reinforced by recent shifts in the United States. Following his re-election in 2024, President Donald Trump withdrew the US from the Paris Agreement again. However, states like New York continued to implement ambitious climate policies and state led financing initiatives. This approach mirrors Africa’s challenge: national governments may falter, but subnational actors can sustain effective climate ambition. 

From a legal perspective, the US approach to decentralisation further reminds us that subsidiarity is not merely a principle of administrative efficiency. It is increasingly invoked in soft law instruments such as Agenda 21 and the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation, and implicitly supported in treaty practice under the UNFCCC and Paris Agreement, especially in provisions on participation, capacity-building, and transparency (Articles 6, 11, and 13 of the Paris Agreement). 

A decentralised finance model rooted in subsidiarity also complements other principles of international environmental law, such as equity and the right to development when national governments deprioritize climate change as in the present United States Trump administration. When coupled with legally mandated transparency and monitoring mechanisms, it can enhance both accountability and efficiency. By integrating subsidiarity into the design and implementation of climate finance frameworks, international institutions and governments can ensure that funds respond directly to community needs, reduce elite capture, and deliver more just and effective climate outcomes.

Conclusion: A Call for Legal Reform in Climate Finance

This post offers a new interpretation of existing international environmental law, arguing that the current state-centric climate finance model may be in breach of CBDR-RC and subsidiarity principles. It suggests that a decentralised approach is not only preferable, but potentially legally required.

This framework could empower local communities, enhance financial transparency, and ensure that climate funds address those most in need. By focusing on direct access, local participation, and equity, decentralisation could also help shift the finance conversation from loans to grants, responding to calls at COP29 for debt-free climate finance.

Moreover, a decentralised approach could help bridge the current adaptation finance gap estimated at $194 to $366 billion annually while addressing Africa’s projected $579 billion NDC financing needs between 2020 and 2030.

As we look beyond COP29, the legal community must champion these reforms to ensure future climate summits deliver not just promises but justice for Africa.