E-Financial
Five Maddening Facts About Climate Finance

Analysis by Joe Kraus
New in-depth analysis finds that less than one-third of donors’ commitments have actually been dispersed for climate projects.

The injustices of climate change are well-known and keenly felt in Africa. The continent is responsible for just 4% of global carbon emissions yet experiences some of the worst impacts of the crisis. Climate change made the historic drought in East Africa, which left 20 million people hungry, 100 times more likely. It made the devastating damage wrought by Storm Daniel, which killed thousands in Libya last year, 50 times more likely. Africa is home to 14 of the world’s 20 most climate vulnerable countries.
To correct this injustice, industrialised countries – historically the world’s largest carbon emitters – have agreed to help developing countries finance their climate projects. The landmark 2015 Paris Agreement acknowledged the principles of “equity” and “common but differentiated responsibilities” in tackling climate change.
At least that’s the theory. Rich countries’ financial pledges to date cover a miniscule proportion of the sums needed. The $700 million pledged to the new Loss and Damage Fund at the COP28 climate talks, for instance, was understandably celebrated yet accounts for less than 0.2% of the $400 billion/year needed to compensate for the irreversible harms caused by climate change.
To add insult to injury, high-income countries make it incredibly difficult to track how much money they’re actually contributing and where it’s being spent. Climate finance reporting is a mess: it’s confusing, slow, and imprecise. We’re in the fight of our lives and no one is adequately checking and publishing the receipts.
That’s why my colleagues and I at the ONE Campaign spent months cleaning and analysing climate finance data and launched The Climate Finance Files. They reveal in unprecedented detail how much governments and international institutions are spending to support climate-vulnerable countries.
Here are five maddening facts we discovered.
1) Nobody knows how much climate finance is being delivered
In this age of information and digitised everything, it is astounding (and tragic) that we lack accurate public accounting of international climate finance. That’s partly because there are no standardised reporting rules, guidelines, or definitions that apply across all donors. Instead, high-income countries and international financial institutions decide for themselves what is and isn’t climate finance. Depending on who’s counting, you can get drastically different numbers.
For instance, data reported to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), which tracks and reports official flows like aid, uses an approach that counts projects that have any climate component — regardless of how small — as 100% climate finance.
Data reported to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) — the official body tasked with collecting the data — is meant to reduce overcounting. But, as the chart below shows, donors’ reporting methodologies vary significantly. A few providers do what you might expect – i.e. calculate the actual climate portion of a project and report those figures. But the majority use simplistic shortcuts that can lead to significant over-counting.
For projects whose main focus is climate, most donors report them as 100% climate finance. For projects with a partial climate focus, most donors have a certain fixed percentage that they apply to calculate how much should be counted as climate spending. The most common fixed percentage is 40%, followed by 50%, followed by 100%. This means that if a project only has a small focus on climate, 40% of the total project – or even 100% in some cases – may be counted as climate finance.
Those decisions can substantially impact climate finance figures. To illustrate, we took 22 randomly selected projects reported to the UNFCCC by country A, which assessed on a case-by-case basis their contribution to climate finance. We applied two different methodologies to those projects: for the first, we counted 100% of projects marked “principal” and 40% of projects marked “significant”; for the second, we counted 85% of projects marked “principal” and 50% of projects marked “significant”. For the same projects, countries using these methodologies would have reported one-third less and one-fifth less than country A. If reported to the OECD, meanwhile, the total would be inflated by 50%.
2) Rich countries are providing much less than they claim
Our analysis reveals that climate finance providers’ claims are vastly overstated. Nearly half of climate finance commitments counted by the OECD are never reported as disbursed. Those commitments are either never delivered (i.e. broken promises) or missing key data (i.e. poor accounting).
We found that between 2013 and 2021, $228 billion in climate finance commitments had not been disbursed. For an additional $69 billion in projects, we couldn’t even find disbursements data, making progress impossible to assess. That amounts to an eye-popping $297 billion between 2013 and 2021.
3) “Climate finance” is being used to build coal-fired power plants
The lack of standardised reporting rules enables all kinds of creative accounting. Japan has counted the financing of coal-fired power plants as climate finance. Both Japan and the US have used climate finance to expand the use of natural gas. Italy has financed a chocolate shop, outfitted its police, and — along with the EU — labelled counterterrorism efforts as climate finance.
A UK announcement in October 2023 perfectly illustrates the absurdity of letting providers decide what counts toward their targets, with no standardised process or oversight. The UK plans to broaden its definition of climate finance so it can take credit for providing more of it — without actually providing any more money. That includes applying fixed coefficients for some of its multilateral and humanitarian aid rather than counting actual spending, the same imprecise methodology that many other climate providers use that often yields inflated figures.
Added together, at least $1 in every $5 of commitments in the OECD’s open dataset between 2013 and 2021 — worth $115 billion — is spent on things that have little or nothing to do with climate.
Taking into account the $228 billion not dispersed and $69 billion missing disbursement data, this means just $204 billion has actually been dispersed for climate projects between 2013 and 2021. That is not even one-third of the total $616 billion supposedly committed to climate finance in that period.
4) Only a small fraction goes to the most climate vulnerable countries
The world’s 20 most vulnerable countries received a total of $1.7 billion in climate finance disbursements in 2021. That’s just 6.5% of the $26.1 billion those countries need each year to address climate change.
As a result, cash-strapped African countries are being forced to choose between addressing climate change or investing in other pressing priorities, like feeding, caring for, and educating their people. The Democratic Republic of the Congo, for instance, needs $4.8 billion in climate finance per year to implement a green energy transition and adapt to climate change yet received just $182 million from international providers in 2021. That enormous shortfall means its government, and many like it, have to decide whether to underfund climate change efforts or divert support away from other critical priorities like healthcare which, in the DRC, accounted for just 0.7% of GDP in 2020, far below the recommended 5% threshold.
5) Many debt-distressed countries pay more in debt than they receive in climate finance
Of the 46 (out of 54) countries with severe debt problems for which we have debt payment data, 20 (43%) paid more in debt payments to lenders between 2019 and 2021 than they received in climate finance. Seven of those countries are in Africa.
To make matters worse, much of the climate finance those heavily-indebted countries receive is in the form of new debt. More than half (58%) of all climate finance disbursed to the 54 countries with severe debt problems between 2019 and 2021 was in the form of loans. Nearly $1 in every $4 of climate finance for those countries was a non-concessional loan (loans at, or close to, market rates). That risks deepening those countries’ debt problems and jeopardising their ability to meet their citizens’ needs and tackle climate change.
It doesn’t need to be this way. Incredible progress in our ability to track and share complex data means that we have the ability to track — with precision — every dollar being spent on climate. Not doing so is a political choice. And it’s one that must change.
African governments should pressure donor governments and international financial institutions to agree to and implement a robust, standardised reporting system. That way they — and importantly, their citizens — can know how much money is available to address climate change and monitor its use. The climate crisis is too urgent and too critical to continue to allow climate financing to happen in the dark.
Joe Kraus is Policy Director at the ONE Campaign.
Read the original of this report, including embedded links and illustrations, on the African Arguments site.
E-Financial
Access Bank’s Digital Innovation Earns Top Financial Inclusion Award

Access Bank Plc has been awarded the prestigious Financial Inclusion Impact Award (Unified) at Nexus 2025, Qore’s flagship customer experience and financial infrastructure summit, in recognition of its groundbreaking digital innovations that have expanded financial access to millions across Africa.

The annual Nexus event, widely regarded as a leading platform for showcasing transformative financial technology on the continent, celebrated institutions driving measurable impact through digital transformation.
Access Bank stood out for its suite of innovative digital banking platforms that have successfully reached underserved communities, enabling financial participation for individuals and small businesses previously excluded from traditional banking services.
This latest accolade adds to Access Bank’s growing list of Nexus honors, having previously secured the Purpose Award in 2023 and the Best Commercial Bank in Technology Adoption Across Africa in 2024.
Speaking on the recognition, Ms. Chizoba Iheme, group head DSA and Beta Proposition, said, “We are truly honored to receive the Nexus Award for Financial Inclusion Impact (Unified). This recognition reinforces Access Bank’s long-standing commitment to breaking barriers and expanding financial access for individuals and businesses across Nigeria and beyond.
“At Access Bank, financial inclusion is more than a mandate, as it is a responsibility we proudly uphold as we continue to design innovative solutions that empower underserved communities. This award strengthens our resolve to keep driving sustainable impact and to ensure that no one is left behind in the financial ecosystem.”
Emeka Emetarom, chief executive officer of Qore, said, “At Qore, we are proud to power the infrastructure that enables real, scalable financial inclusion across Africa. Our partnership with Access Bank continues to demonstrate what is possible when bold vision, technology, and flawless execution come together.”
The recent event, hosted by Qore, brought together stakeholders across the financial services ecosystem, including commercial banks, microfinance banks, fintech companies, regulatory bodies, and government officials. Nexus 2025 provided a platform for industry leaders to discuss building the rails for Africa’s credit revolution and the critical role seamless digital banking must play in shaping this future.
E-Financial
CBN’s New Cash Policy: A Welcome Liberalisation or a Risky Retreat?

By Blaise Udunze
On December 2, 2025, the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) announced a policy that significantly departs from the cash-restriction measures Nigerians have faced lately. The apex bank abolished restrictions on cash deposits. Increased the weekly cash withdrawal limits to N500,000 for individuals and N5 million for corporates while substituting the earlier monthly limits of N5 million and N10 million respectively. These modifications, which will be effective from January 1, 2026, represent what the CBN describes as the necessity to “streamline provisions to reflect present-day realities.”

CBN
Authorized by the Director of Financial Policy & Regulation, Dr. Rita I. Sike, the policy overhaul aims to lower cash-management expenses, improve security, and lessen money-laundering threats related to Nigeria’s significant dependence on physical cash. Daily ATM withdrawal limits stay fixed at N100,000 and count toward the total cap. Withdrawals exceeding the limits incur charges of three percent for individuals and five percent for companies, with the revenues divided: 40 percent to the CBN and 60 percent to the banks.
This update comes three years following the disputed 2022-2023 cash redesign crisis at a time characterized by extreme cash deficits, extended lines at banks, and devastating impacts on the informal economy. Consequently, the newest order generates responses: praise from individuals who consider it delayed aid, disapproval from those perceiving it as a bewildering backtrack, and concern from those apprehensive about potential enduring hazards.
Experts Applaud a More Realistic Modification
For economists, in a publication by Nairametrics showed that the action taken by the CBN signifies much-needed practicality. Dr. Salisu Ahmed, an economist based in Abuja, refers to the updated limits as “a step,” praising the CBN for gaining a clearer insight into “cash management practices in a predominantly informal economy.”
He stated that the changes will alleviate the difficulties faced by families and small enterprises due to restrictions. Rigid withdrawal caps had limited transactions, made small-scale commerce more difficult, and caused numerous businesses to experience cash-flow problems. “This adjustment signifies a response from the CBN recognizing the challenges Nigerians face daily and easing rules that previously hindered commerce and individual management,” he clarified.
Banking analyst, David Omale, echoes this view, seeing the CBN’s action as a sign of responsiveness. He points out that higher limits could “enhance liquidity for firms facing challenges from inflation, supply-chain issues and unpredictable cash flows.”
In an economy in which over 60 percent of trade is informal and where the adoption of digital payments varies across different socio-economic groups, experts suggest the updated limits correspond more accurately to real-world conditions. These limits offer businesses flexibility to reinstate transactional liberty and may help recover public confidence diminished by previous cash shortages.
Critics Caution About Continuing Disparities and New Threats
However, the praise is not universally shared. Numerous specialists and industry participants contend that the modifications, although appreciated, are inadequate or might even be detrimental.
Financial strategist Nnenna Okafor contends that the updated limits are insufficient for traders and micro-businesses that depend largely on cash to sustain their operations amid challenges. Due to increasing product prices, logistical difficulties, and unreliable digital banking services in regions, she asserts that numerous Nigerians will still need more liquidity than the new thresholds to stay viable.
Within PoS operators’ players, in Nigeria’s payment system, the response is notably divided.
PoS Operators Split
Certain PoS agents appreciate the modifications, anticipating that they will:
– Reduce friction with banks over “flagged” transactions
– Facilitate processes for clients requiring withdrawals
– Rebuild trust after months of cash shortages
Others convey concern. A PoS operator in Lagos cautions that greater cash availability could hinder the adoption of payments. “While easier access to cash can address problems, it may also decrease dependence on PoS terminals and other digital payment solutions that provide long-term security and efficiency,” she remarked.
She argues that if the CBN does not combine the policy with targeted incentives to encourage payment uptake, Nigeria runs the risk of regressing into deep-rooted reliance on cash.
Another operator in Abuja points out a different issue that has to do with unstable cash supply at numerous commercial banks. He insists that simply boosting withdrawal limits does not automatically fix supply shortages. “If banks cannot consistently provide cash, raising limits fails to solve the issue,” he stated.
Other operators also caution that the new setting might push fintech firms out of the market, which possibly allows monopolies to form since only big payment firms can endure the transition back to increased cash usage.
Experts in Security Alert to Increasing Threats, from Crime
Apart from operational issues, security experts have expressed concerns about the dangers linked to greater cash flow.
Abas Ogendengbe, a security expert at Anold Consulting Ltd., warns that increased access to amounts without strict controls “opens up risks for theft, fraud and money laundering.” He contends that without improvements in surveillance transaction tracking and reporting frameworks by banks, criminal groups might take advantage of the restrictions.
Nigeria continues to confront:
– High rates of petty theft
– Organised criminal cash-for-goods networks
– Ransom-based criminality
– Fraudulent cash-flow manipulation
He contends that a policy boosting the amount of currency in circulation should consequently be accompanied by enhanced institutional protections, rather than diminished ones.
Advantages of the New Policy: Relief, Liquidity, and Business Freedom
Although it has faced criticism, the CBN’s decision carries benefits:
1. Increased Liquidity for the Informal Sector
Small-scale merchants, farm producers, haulers, craftsmen, and market participants relying significantly on cash will experience ease in transferring money, purchasing stock, and expanding their businesses.
2. Reduced Transaction Friction
Companies that once faced limiting restrictions now recover agility, enhancing business continuity and lowering administrative challenges.
3. Restoration of Public Trust
After the trauma of the cash scarcity era, easing restrictions may slowly rebuild confidence in the banking system and encourage more people to save and transact through formal channels.
4. Policy Simplicity
The updated limits, while still restricted, are more straightforward and less administrative compared to the special-authorization system.
The Disadvantages: Policy Volatility, Inflationary Risks, and Stunted Digitalisation
Nonetheless, the policy change is also accompanied by drawbacks:
1. Weakening of Monetary Policy Credibility
Regular significant reversals indicate instability and undermine confidence. A central bank needs to be consistent and foreseeable; Nigeria’s policy environment has shifted in the contrary.
2. Potential for More Money Laundering
Unlimited cash deposits and increased withdrawal limits are inconsistent with standards for preventing illegal financial transactions.
3. Undermining Digital Payment Growth
The increase in fintech was expedited amidst cash availability. A return to reliance on cash might hinder innovation. Dampen the use of safer trackable digital methods.
4. Increased Risk of Robbery and Cash-Based Crime
An increased amount of cash in use results in tangible currency to be stolen additional opportunities for criminals and amplified operational difficulties for the police.
5. Higher Costs of Cash Management
The processes of currency production, circulation, and safeguarding place financial strains on the banking sector and the CBN.
Policy Details and Operational Complexities
The CBN’s circular offers instructions for operations:
– Excess withdrawal charges:
3 percent for individuals
5 percent for corporates
– Revenue sharing:
40 percent to CBN, 60 percent to banks
– Withdrawals from ATMs and PoS terminals contribute to the limit, highlighting the importance for customers to monitor where their withdrawals originate.
– ATMs can now be loaded with all denominations, although third-party cheque cashing is still limited to N100,000.
– Exemptions are maintained for government revenue accounts, microfinance banks, and primary mortgage banks.
– The removal of exemptions for embassies and donor agencies is a move that some parties consider diplomatically risky.
The CBN frames this policy change as a balance, boosting liquidity while still maintaining the nation’s goal of a cashless economy. Nevertheless, its effectiveness depends on the ability of the government and financial institutions to encourage payments while addressing the security challenges posed by greater cash circulation.
A Relief Today, a Question Mark Tomorrow
The CBN’s updated cash-policy structure provides support for families, small enterprises, and the informal sector. It addresses some of the severe effects of previous policies and shows a readiness, though delayed, to adjust to practical realities.
However, the enduring consequences are complex. The policy creates openings, as money laundering hampers progress in payments, increases security threats, and shows a regulatory environment grappling with achieving stability and trustworthiness.
Nigeria is at an intersection. While cash can relieve hardships, it cannot shape the future economic landscape. The current task is to apply this policy without hindering progress, undermining financial integrity, or jeopardizing monetary stability.
The question of whether this constitutes a liberalisation or an expensive withdrawal will in the end hinge on a single element, the CBN’s ability to pair increased liquidity with stronger oversight, steadfast policy direction, and sustained digital-payment incentives.
Only then can Nigeria avoid sliding backward and instead build a financial system that truly reflects the realities of its people, its economy, and its future.
Blaise, a journalist and PR professional, writes from Lagos, can be reached via: [email protected]
E-Financial
Senate Considers Bill to Empower CBN to Regulate Fintech

Senate on Thursday began debate on a bill seeking to amend the Banks and Other Financial Institutions Act (BOFIA) 2020 to empower the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) to designate and supervise systemically important non-bank financial institutions, particularly major fintech operators whose activities now constitute critical national infrastructure.

Leading the debate, Tokunbo Abiru, sponsor of the bill and chairman of the Senate Committee on Banking, Insurance and Other Financial Institutions, said the amendment had become urgent due to the rapid transformation of Nigeria’s financial ecosystem and the emergence of large technology-enabled service providers operating at a scale previously unseen in the country.
Abiru noted that fintechs such as mobile money operators, payment service banks, wallet providers, digital lenders and switching companies now serve tens of millions of Nigerians, process huge daily transaction volumes and hold vast pools of sensitive financial data, yet operate within a regulatory framework that has not fully evolved to match their systemic importance.
“The reality today is that a non-bank institution, because of its market dominance, data concentration, customer reach or technological capacity, may pose risks equal to or even greater than those posed by a traditional bank,” Abiru said.
“We are therefore confronted with a regulatory gap that leaves critical parts of the financial system operating outside the highest tier of statutory oversight. This bill seeks to correct that mischief.”
He warned that without modernising BOFIA, the country risked exposing itself to data insecurity, foreign control of sensitive financial infrastructure and vulnerabilities that could undermine national security.
The senator stressed that many fintechs operate across foreign-owned networks, store customer data offshore, or use cloud systems outside regulatory reach, raising concerns around data sovereignty.
“Today, we cannot say with certainty where all the financial and behavioural data processed by some of these institutions is stored, who has access to it, or which foreign jurisdictions may lay claim to it,” he said.
Abiru recalled the temporary CBN restriction on fintech onboarding in April 2024, following issues around KYC compliance, money-laundering red flags and suspicious transactions, a development that, he said, demonstrated the limitations of existing regulatory tools.
The amendment bill proposes five key objectives, including establishing a statutory framework for designating systemically important institutions, creating a national registry of fintechs, empowering the CBN to impose enhanced supervisory requirements, strengthening data sovereignty, and improving consumer protection.
He dismissed suggestions that a new regulatory agency should be created for fintech oversight, arguing that such duplication would fragment regulation and undermine efficiency.
“Fintech regulation is deeply intertwined with monetary policy, payments oversight, prudential supervision, and systemic-risk monitoring, functions that already reside naturally within the Central Bank,” he said.
“International best practice overwhelmingly favours integrating fintech oversight within existing regulators, not creating new bureaucracies.”
Abiru urged the Senate to support the bill, which carries no financial implications under Senate rules.
Contributing to the debate, Adams Oshiomhole, former president of the Nigerian Labour Congress (NLC), shared the experience of how his accounts were once hacked, disclosing that the hackers accessed him through one of the Fintech banks.
Oshiomhole also said the identities of most of the key owners of online operators were not known and might not be held accountable for infractions since there was no law binding them to any commitments.
“I know the directors of our regular banks, but I can’t say the same of these Fintech banks.
“I don’t know the directors of MoniePoint, Opay and all others”, he added.
Oshiomhole further argued that when properly regulated through an enabling law, the operations of online financial institutions would better serve the interest of Nigerians.
Senators unanimously passed the bill for second reading and referred it to its Committee on Banking, Insurance and Other Financial Institutions for more legislative work.
Broadcasting3 days agoIt is Official, DStv Confirms Termination of 16 Major Channels
General News2 days agoManufacturers Block More Ransomware, But Data Theft Surges – Sophos Report
Telecom2 days agoMTN Nigeria Launches Y’ello Data Gifting Campaign as Digital Connectivity Shapes Festive Celebrations
E-Financial3 days agoSenate Considers Bill to Empower CBN to Regulate Fintech
Broadcasting3 days agoParamount Africa Shuts Down after 20 Years
Telecom3 days agoAfrica’s $1bn Biometric ID Rollout Raises Concerns Over Privacy and Exclusion
News3 days agoAfreximbank Taps Nigeria to Lead Africa’s Digital Trade Revolution
News2 days agoPAPSS Cowry to Benefit Manufacturers, SMEs












