Unlocking a Shared Future: How Africa–EU Cooperation Can Deepen the Green Transition

 

When I met Amina, a young solar technician in Garissa, Kenya, she stood on a tin rooftop tightening bolts on a newly installed solar panel while her daughter slept gently on her back. “This work is my future,” she said. “But it’s also how we build a better Africa—clean energy, good jobs, less worry.”

Her hopes echo the ambition of Agenda 2063, the African Union’s roadmap for a prosperous, climate-resilient continent. And they illuminate why Africa–EU cooperation is central to accelerating a people-centred green transition.

Europe’s Global Gateway Africa–Europe Investment Package, aiming to mobilise €150 billion for sustainable infrastructure and clean energy, has opened opportunities for renewable projects, climate-smart agriculture, and digital tools for resilience. Yet cooperation must evolve to address real constraints in Africa’s transition—energy poverty, technology gaps, high debt burdens, weak grids, and limited climate finance.

Across the Sahel, farmers are restoring degraded soils through agro-ecological techniques supported by EU programmes like AgriFI and DeSIRA, proving that partnership can strengthen resilience and food security. In Nairobi, Kigali, and Accra, young innovators are transforming waste into new value—plastic into construction materials, textiles into innovative fabrics, and organics into biogas—supported by the EU–AU Circular Economy Agenda. Circularity offers a powerful pathway for job creation, emissions reduction, and resource efficiency.

However, friction points in Africa–EU relations are becoming increasingly difficult to ignore.

African leaders and businesses have raised concerns about the EU’s unilateral trade mechanisms, particularly the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) and the EU Deforestation Regulation (EUDR).

For many exporters—from steel manufacturers in Egypt to coffee growers in Uganda—CBAM is seen as a de facto barrier, introduced without adequate transitional support or recognition of historical responsibility. Producers fear increased compliance costs, reduced competitiveness, and the risk of being priced out of EU markets.

Similarly, the EUDR, while rooted in legitimate environmental goals, has created anxiety among smallholder farmers who lack the digital tools and geolocation systems required to prove their products—coffee, cocoa, rubber—are deforestation-free. As one coffee farmer in Eastern Uganda put it, “We want forests protected. But don’t shut the door while we are still learning how to comply.”

These concerns underscore a broader principle repeatedly emphasised in UN Climate negotiation processes: climate action must be just, differentiated, and supportive of development needs. African negotiators at the annual Conference of the Parties (COP) meetings, including the recently concluded COP30 in Belem, Brazil, underscore the need for transition periods, capacity-building, and finance to ensure that climate-related trade measures do not intensify inequality or erode livelihoods.

The way forward is cooperation, not conditionality. The EU can support Africa by investing in traceability systems, providing technology transfer for low-carbon industrialisation, and aligning CBAM and EUDR implementation with Africa’s realities. Joint Africa–EU platforms need to ensure policies are co-designed, not imposed.

As the sun sets over Amina’s village, her daughter wakes and reaches toward the glowing solar panels. Amina smiles. “By the time she grows up,” she says, “I hope our whole region will run on clean energy—and thrive doing it.”

Her hope is a blueprint. With equitable partnerships, shared innovation, and policies that uplift rather than exclude, Africa–EU cooperation can drive a green transition that is resilient, fair, circular, and true to the vision of Agenda 2063.

Closing the Climate Resilience Gap: Lessons from UNEP’s Adaptation Gap Reports

United Nations Environment Programme’s Adaptation Gap Report (2025)

When Maria – a smallholder farmer in Mozambique – watched the rains come later and later each season, and when Elisapeta  – living on a vulnerable Samoan island in Oceania  – saw the sea creep closer to his home, these weren’t just isolated stories of climate change. They were the lived realities behind the warnings of the United Nations Environment Programme’s Adaptation Gap Reports (UNEP, 2014–2025).

Since the first edition over a decade ago, UNEP’s message has been unwavering: climate risks are accelerating, adaptation finance and implementation are falling short, and transformational, not incremental, change is urgently needed.

Escalating risks outpacing our efforts

From the outset, UNEP cautioned that climate impacts were arriving faster than societies could prepare for. The Adaptation Gap Report 2020 warned that “the world must plan for, finance and implement climate change adaptation measures appropriate for the full range of global temperature increases—or face serious costs, losses and damages” (UNEP, 2020).

By the following year, the 2021 report concluded that “growth in climate impacts is far outpacing our efforts to adapt” (UNEP, 2021). The 2025 edition echoes that concern even more starkly, warning that the world is “gearing up for resilience—without the money to get there” (UNEP, 2025).

For Maria, this means worsening droughts; for Elisapeta, it’s the sea eating away at ancestral land. UNEP’s data backs up what they already know: climate risk is accelerating faster than adaptation progress.

Progress in planning, but finance and implementation still lag

UNEP’s reports consistently highlight improvements in adaptation planning. By 2022, 84% of countries had at least one national adaptation plan, policy, or strategy in place (UNEP, 2022). Yet progress on paper hasn’t translated into tangible results.

The 2025 report shows that estimated adaptation costs for developing countries could reach US$310 billion annually by 2035, or up to US$365 billion when based on national adaptation plans and NDCs (UNEP, 2025). However, international public adaptation finance flows were only US$26 billion in 2023, down from US$28 billion the year before. That means developing countries receive barely one-tenth of what they need.

As UNEP notes, “the adaptation finance gap is widening, not closing” (UNEP, 2025). For Elisapeta, that means his country has plans but no budget to elevate homes or protect coasts. For Maria, drought-resilient seeds exist, but she can’t access them without support.

Transformational change—not incremental steps—is needed

From the early editions, UNEP has urged governments to move beyond short-term, project-based measures. The 2020 report emphasised that adaptation must be “integrated across sectors and scales” (UNEP, 2020). The 2024 edition reinforced this, calling for a shift “from reactive, incremental, project-based financing to anticipatory, strategic, and transformational adaptation” (UNEP, 2024).

The 2025 report continues that call, arguing that adaptation must “transform systems—agriculture, water, cities—rather than patch vulnerabilities one project at a time” (UNEP, 2025). For communities like Maria’s and Elisapeta’s, that means not just coping, but rebuilding for resilience and equity.

Why do the same messages keep returning?

Because they mirror the reality of a world that’s planning more than it’s doing. Risks are rising faster than responses; finance remains inadequate; and incremental efforts no longer match the scale of the challenge.

Each Adaptation Gap Report is both a warning and a roadmap. It reminds us that adaptation isn’t a future luxury—it’s a present necessity. And unless the global community acts boldly now, the “gap” UNEP describes won’t just remain; it will define the future of millions like Maria and Elisapeta.

References

• UNEP (2025). Adaptation Gap Report 2025: Running on Empty. Nairobi: United Nations Environment Programme. https://www.unep.org/resources/adaptation-gap-report-2025
• UNEP (2024). Adaptation Gap Report 2024: Come Hell and High Water. Nairobi: United Nations Environment Programme. https://www.unep.org/resources/adaptation-gap-report-2024
• UNEP (2022). Adaptation Gap Report 2022: Too Little, Too Slow. Nairobi: United Nations Environment Programme. https://wedocs.unep.org/handle/20.500.11822/41080
• UNEP (2021). Adaptation Gap Report 2021: The Gathering Storm. Nairobi: United Nations Environment Programme. https://wedocs.unep.org/handle/20.500.11822/37298
• UNEP (2020). Adaptation Gap Report 2020. Nairobi: United Nations Environment Programme. https://wedocs.unep.org/handle/20.500.11822/34727

When the World Stopped: Lessons for Climate Change Mitigation from the COVID-19 Response

An empty road in Kampala (Wandegeya) due to the COVID-19 lockdown in Uganda (Photo: Ndahiro Derrick)

When the airport loudspeakers announced that flights were suspended “until further notice,” Maria, a café worker at Entebbe International Airport in Uganda, initially thought this meant a delay of a few hours. It wasn’t until crowds dispersed, doors closed, and silence filled the terminal that she realised something unprecedented was unfolding. Within days, the world slowed in a way no climate policy document had ever predicted.

COVID-19 was a human tragedy—lives lost, jobs wiped out, families separated. However, amidst this turmoil were valuable lessons on how societies can mobilise, coordinate, and change behaviour at extraordinary speed. These lessons are crucial for climate change mitigation, as the climate crisis—though slower, quieter, and less attention-grabbing—demands the same urgency and clarity of action.

Collective action is possible—and can happen quickly when the threat feels immediate 

In the early weeks of the pandemic, governments introduced policies that would have been unthinkable just months earlier. Cities built temporary hospitals within days, entire industries shifted production lines, and communities organised food drives and mutual aid networks.

In contrast, climate change is often perceived as a distant threat—even as floods, heatwaves, and droughts reshape daily realities. The COVID-19 response demonstrated that people are willing to act, even make sacrifices, when they believe their actions matter. The key lesson here is to make climate impacts feel as immediate and real as they actually are, through better communication, local storytelling, and visible leadership.

Behaviour change scales when systems make it easy  

Maria remembers how hand-washing stations appeared everywhere—outside shops, in taxi parks, and even at all public functions she attended. Behaviour changed not because people suddenly became more hygienic, but because the infrastructure made it simple.

For climate mitigation, this sends a clear message: sustainable choices must be the easiest choices. If clean transport is unavailable, if clean cooking is unaffordable, or if renewable power is unreliable, behavioural appeals will not work. System design—not moral pressure—drives transformation.

Science matters, but trust matters more 

During the pandemic, countries that communicated clearly, shared data openly, and centred decisions on science fared better. However, where trust in institutions was low, even accurate guidance struggled to have an impact.

Climate mitigation faces a similar challenge. Emissions data, carbon budgets, and IPCC reports are only as effective as the trust people have in those delivering the message. Building that trust requires engaging communities early, respecting local knowledge, and ensuring that climate policies improve everyday lives—not just fulfil distant global commitments.

Inequality determines vulnerability—and response capacity  

Maria lost her job for six months. In contrast, her neighbour, who worked remotely for a tech firm in Entebbe, hardly felt the economic impact. COVID-19 revealed how unequal societies struggle during global crises.

Climate change presents a similar scenario. Emissions reduction pathways that ignore justice will lead to resistance and deepen inequality. The lesson here is that climate mitigation must be people-centred, protecting livelihoods, supporting transitions, and ensuring that no community is left behind.

Crisis-driven innovation can be transformative

The pandemic accelerated digitalisation, reimagined workplaces, and spurred new technologies. If a similar level of ambition were applied to renewable energy storage, low-carbon transport, green buildings, and regenerative agriculture, the world could rapidly bend the emissions curve.

Maria is now back at work, but she still remembers the eerie silence of those early days. “It showed me how connected we all are,” she reflects. Perhaps this is the greatest lesson: our actions, both small and large, shape global outcomes.

The climate crisis demands that we act with the same urgency—before we reach a tipping point. Global emissions must fall by 40–55% by 2035 (relative to 2019 levels) to keep the 1.5 °C limit within reach. In particular, major emitters must heighten their ambitions by establishing stronger 2035 Nationally Determined Contributions that align clearly with the 1.5°C pathway, supported by credible implementation plans.

Putting People in the Policy: Why Trade Measures Must Champion Climate Justice

Arabica coffee in a homestead in Sironko, Mount Elgon region (photo: Kimbowa Richard)

When I first met Gabriel Wadada, a small-scale arabica coffee exporter in Mbale, he was staring at a stack of papers that had arrived from his European buyer, requiring his attention. “New climate requirements,” he sighed. “If I can’t prove my coffee is deforestation-free, the border closes for me.”

For Gabriel, unilateral climate-related trade measures—like the EU’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) or deforestation-free regulations (EUDR)—aren’t abstract policies. They shape whether his children go to school, whether his community keeps jobs, and whether his farm survives shifting markets and climate pressures. His story captures the core question: Can unilateral trade measures truly support climate action?

This is the question that must be put before negotiators at the ongoing 30th Conference of the Parties (COP30) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in Belem, Brazil. At the end of the first week of COP30, negotiators reportedly left the venue with no clarity on some of the most politically charged issues placed under Presidential Consultations, including the question of climate-related unilateral trade restrictions.

Large markets can indeed influence global behaviour by sending strong signals that carbon-intensive production will face penalties (OECD, 2023). This can drive cleaner technologies, discourage emissions leakage, and raise ambition across supply chains (IPCC, 2022). This is true as long as the principle of Common But Differentiated Responsibilities (CBDR-RC) that has guided the global climate change negotiations since 1995 in Berlin is upheld.

Similarly,  Gabriel’s story reiterates the above position. Unilateral measures can only drive climate action if they do not deepen inequality. Compliance costs—data, certification, traceability—often fall hardest on small producers (UNCTAD, 2023). Without support, such measures risk excluding those least responsible for the climate crisis and most dependent on trade.

Whether these measures become catalysts—or barriers—depends on three conditions:

Equity and Capacity Support

Trade policies must be paired with real investments in producer capacity: traceability systems, climate-smart agriculture, and finance (WTO, 2023). When Gabriel joined a cooperative supported with digital mapping and training, compliance became possible—and resilience increased.

Dialogue and Co-Creation

Affected countries and producers need a seat at the table. Climate standards gain legitimacy when shaped through partnership, transition periods, and mutual recognition rather than unilateral imposition (UNFCCC, 2021). That turns trade measures into shared progress rather than new barriers.

Policy Coherence

Trade tools alone cannot decarbonise global value chains. They must align with climate finance, adaptation support, and national development priorities (IPCC, 2022). Otherwise, emissions simply shift—or vulnerable producers are pushed out of markets.

For Gabriel, the turning point came when his cooperative accessed climate-smart training and digital traceability, enabling them to meet new requirements and increase yields. “If they help us meet the standards,” he told me, “we can be part of the solution. But if it’s just rules without support, we lose.”

So, to what extent can unilateral trade measures support climate action?

They can play a meaningful role, but only when designed with fairness, capacity support, and partnership at their core. Otherwise, they risk becoming walls instead of bridges.

And Gabriel’s reminder stays with me: “Climate action should bring people in, not push them out.”

The Gap That Keeps Growing: What UNEP’s Emissions Reports Have Been Telling Us All Along

Behind every emissions graph is a person like Aisha — waiting for rain that never comes. UNEP’s Emissions Gap Report 2025 reminds us: closing the gap isn’t just science, it’s survival.

'We still need unprecedented cuts to greenhouse gas emissions – now in an ever-compressing timeframe and amid a challenging geopolitical context. And let us not forget that the world is not even on track to meet the 2030 pledges. Policies currently in place are pointing the world towards up to 2.8°C of warming...'  

- UNEP Executive Director (Inger Andersen)

When the rains stopped coming on time, Aisha knew the maps on her phone were no longer just numbers — they were warnings. She runs a small market garden outside Arua (West Nile region of Uganda); her neighbours’ cassava, once a steady green, was patchy and thin. “We planned for two seasons,” she told me over tea, “but the weather plans for itself.” Her story is one among millions that the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) has tried, year after year, to convey through charts into a single, blunt lesson: promises without deep cuts leave people vulnerable (UNEP, 2025).

Since the first Emissions Gap Report in 2010, UNEP has returned to the same core message like a doctor checking a fever: the world is not cutting greenhouse-gas emissions fast enough, and the gap between what countries pledge and what science says is needed continues to persist (UNEP, 2010; UNEP, 2019). The report series is an annual pulse-check—measuring global emissions trajectories, comparing them to pathways that would limit warming to 1.5 °C or well below 2 °C, and naming the shortfall. That steady framing has helped move the debate from vague intentions to hard arithmetic: how much more needs to be done, and how fast (UNEP, 2022).

In the villages and cities, that arithmetic has a face. For Aisha, the Emissions Gap Reports’ repeated warnings about near-term targets—the need for deep cuts by 2030 and 2035—translate into the urgency to shift to drought-resistant crops and to lobby for local water infrastructure. UNEP’s recent findings are unequivocal: to keep 1.5 °C within reach, global greenhouse-gas emissions must fall by roughly 40–55 per cent by 2035 compared with 2019 levels. (UNEP, 2024; UNEP, 2025). For communities like Aisha’s, those numbers mean the difference between adaptation and devastation.

Another consistent message UNEP has delivered is that policy detail matters. It’s not enough to announce “net zero by 2050” — governments must align short-term actions with those long-term pledges. Each annual report has pushed countries to close the gap between ambition and implementation by strengthening nationally determined contributions (NDCs) and enacting concrete, near-term policy measures (UNEP, 2021). For people on the frontline, this translates into whether new renewable-energy projects are funded today, not promised for some distant future.

Finally, UNEP has consistently cautioned against over-reliance on speculative carbon-removal technologies as a substitute for immediate emissions cuts. The 2023 and 2025 reports highlight that avoiding emissions now is far cheaper and more effective than banking on future technologies — a point that resonates with vulnerable farmers who can’t wait for a laboratory fix (UNEP, 2023; UNEP, 2025).

Above all, the message that threads through every edition of the Emissions Gap Report is both scientific and deeply human: every fraction of a degree avoided spares lives, livelihoods and ecosystems (UNEP, 2022). For Aisha, that’s no abstract metric — it’s the difference between a harvest that feeds her children and one that doesn’t.

The Emissions Gap Reports have always been more than numbers; they are annual reminders that climate policy must match the urgency people already feel in their fields, homes and futures. If leaders listen, the next rains can come as planned. If not, the gap will keep telling the same story — only the faces it affects will change.

References

• UNEP (2010). The Emissions Gap Report 2010. United Nations Environment Programme.
• UNEP (2019). Emissions Gap Report 2019. United Nations Environment Programme.
• UNEP (2021). Emissions Gap Report 2021: The Heat Is On. United Nations Environment Programme.
• UNEP (2022). Emissions Gap Report 2022: The Closing Window. United Nations Environment Programme.
• UNEP (2023). Emissions Gap Report 2023: Broken Record – Temperatures Hit New Highs, Yet World Fails to Cut Emissions. United Nations Environment Programme.
• UNEP (2024). Emissions Gap Report 2024: No More Hot Air… Please!. United Nations Environment Programme.
• UNEP (2025). Emissions Gap Report 2025: Off Target. United Nations Environment Programme.

Beyond the Numbers: Rethinking Outcome-Based Financing for Africa’s Energy Future

 

Solar lamps are charged with small solar panels at a refugee camp following floods in Malawi.
(Photo: Ashley Cooper / Getty Images)

Outcome-based financing (sometimes called results-based financing or pay-for-results) was meant to drive results and accountability in Africa’s energy sector. Yet delays in payments, complex verification systems, and unequal access are revealing deeper flaws. This piece argues that for Africa to achieve universal energy access, financing must focus on people — not just numbers.

In a small village near Masindi, Mid-western Uganda, Grace (not real name) runs a solar business that’s changing lives. Her customers — many of them rural families — are switching on lights for the very first time. The air in their homes is cleaner, children can study after dark, and local shops stay open longer.

Grace’s company was part of a results-based financing programme — a model that rewards businesses for verified outcomes, like the number of households connected to clean energy. At first, everything looked bright. But then, cracks began to show.

When Results Take Too Long to Pay

A few months in, Grace found herself waiting — not for customers, but for payments. Verification agents had to confirm each household’s connection before she could get paid. Some customers had relocated, others defaulted on payments, and the paperwork took months to process.

Her business nearly stalled. Like many small African energy entrepreneurs, Grace didn’t have the cash flow to bridge those long waiting periods.

This is one of the key loopholes in outcome-based financing: it assumes that small firms can shoulder the financial risk while waiting for “results” to be verified (ESMAP, 2023). In reality, many can’t — especially in rural markets where every shilling counts.

Counting Connections vs. Creating Impact

Outcome-based financing (OBF) was designed to make development funding more accountable and impactful (World Bank, 2023). But the question is — what counts as an “outcome”?

Many OBF programmes focus on easy-to-measure results like “number of solar systems sold” rather than long-term impact — such as affordability, reliability, or how energy access improves livelihoods (SEforALL, 2024).

Grace got paid for connecting households, not for ensuring those lights stayed on six months later. That’s a common story across Africa — where short-term numbers often outshine long-term sustainability.

The Equity Gap

There’s also a fairness problem. OBF schemes tend to work best in semi-urban or accessible regions where customers are easier to reach and verify (Lighting Global, 2021). Remote communities — the ones most in need of power — are often left out because the cost of verification is too high.

Ironically, the model meant to drive inclusion sometimes ends up excluding those furthest behind.

Complexity and Capacity Gaps

The contracts and reporting systems behind OBF are usually designed by international donors or development banks (African Development Bank, 2022). They’re full of technical jargon, data requirements, and audit demands that can overwhelm local entrepreneurs.

Grace isn’t alone — many small African clean energy firms say the system is too complex and expensive to navigate. As a result, larger, donor-savvy companies dominate, even when they’re less connected to community realities.

Lighting a Fairer Way Forward

Despite the challenges, there’s momentum for change. Some initiatives now blend grants with results-based payments, giving entrepreneurs breathing room while still rewarding performance (GOGLA, 2022).

Others are testing digital verification tools — using mobile data, smart meters, and GPS mapping to confirm results faster and cheaper (SEforALL, 2024).

For entrepreneurs like Grace, these reforms could make all the difference. Because ultimately, outcome-based financing should empower — not burden — those who bring light to Africa’s off-grid communities.

As the continent races toward universal energy access, financing models must do more than count connections. They must power fairness, trust, and resilience — the true outcomes Africa needs to shine.

References

·         African Development Bank (2022). Unlocking Finance for Decentralized Energy Access in Africa. AfDB Energy Sector Report.

·         ESMAP (2023). Results-Based Financing for Energy Access: Lessons from Africa. World Bank.

·         GOGLA (2022). Results-Based Financing to Catalyse Off-Grid Solar Market Growth. Global Off-Grid Lighting Association.

·         Lighting Global (2021). Outcome-Based Financing Mechanisms: Lessons and Insights from the Field. World Bank Group.

·         SEforALL (2024). Powering Inclusion: The Future of Results-Based Financing in Africa’s Energy Transition. Sustainable Energy for All.

·         World Bank (2023). Paying for Results: The Promise and Pitfalls of Outcome-Based Financing in the Energy Sector. Washington, D.C