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
Chapel Hill Denham Says Banks Lose N2.5 Trillion Annually to High CRR in New Report

Nigeria’s banking sector is losing an estimated N2.5 trillion in annual earnings due to the Central Bank of Nigeria’s high Cash Reserve Ratio (CRR) policy, according to a new report by Chapel Hill Denham.

The investment banking and research firm said the policy continues to impose significant constraints on bank profitability by requiring lenders to keep a large portion of customer deposits with the Central Bank without earning returns on them, effectively locking away funds that could otherwise support lending and income generation.
In its report titled “The Nigerian Banking Paradox: High Returns, Deep Discounts,” Chapel Hill Denham noted that although Nigerian banks rank among the highest return-on-equity performers in Africa, they remain undervalued compared to peers, largely due to regulatory constraints and macroeconomic uncertainty.
The firm identified the CRR regime as a key structural factor limiting the sector’s earnings potential, arguing that it reduces balance sheet efficiency and restricts credit creation to the real economy.
According to the report, banks are still required to pay interest on deposits while a significant portion of those funds remains sterilised at the apex bank.
Chapel Hill Denham stated that the current policy framework, which evolved in response to past financial sector instability and exchange rate pressures, may now be exerting a heavier drag on growth and profitability than originally intended.
“Our analysis reveals that Nigerian banks operate under a uniquely restrictive regulatory perimeter,” the report said, adding that the structure suppresses reported returns despite underlying profitability strength.
The report also compared Nigeria’s reserve requirements with other jurisdictions, noting that the country’s CRR remains significantly higher than several African and emerging markets.
While South Africa operates a 2.5 per cent CRR, Kenya maintains 4.25 per cent, Ghana 15 per cent, and Egypt 16 per cent, with Morocco reported to have reduced its reserve ratio to zero.
Analysts at the firm said a moderation of Nigeria’s CRR from 50 per cent to 30 per cent could release up to N8 trillion into the banking system and potentially boost annual pre-tax profits by about N800 billion.
They added that investors currently price Nigerian banks on the assumption that the tight monetary stance will persist, limiting valuation upside despite strong earnings performance.
At its February 2026 meeting, the Monetary Policy Committee of the Central Bank of Nigeria retained the CRR for Deposit Money Banks at 45 per cent, while Merchant Banks remained at 16 per cent, and public sector deposits outside the Treasury Single Account framework at 75 per cent, as part of efforts to sustain tight monetary conditions and manage liquidity pressures.
E-Financial
Lagos Sanctions 15 Money Lending Firms for Operational Violations

Lagos State Government has sanctioned 15 money lending firms over violations of operational guidelines and practices considered harmful to residents.

Ibrahim Layode, commissioner for Home Affairs, disclosed this during the 2026 Ministerial Press Briefing held in Ikeja.
Layode said the affected firms were penalised for engaging in sharp practices contrary to regulations guiding money lending operations in the state.
According to him, the government remains committed to enforcing strict compliance within the sector to curb fraudulent financial activities and protect Lagos residents from exploitation.
“The firms were sanctioned to ensure strict adherence to guidelines and to protect Lagosians from sharp practices by financial firms,” he said.
The commissioner described money lending as an important part of the economy, noting that it provides quick and accessible credit facilities to petty traders and small-scale business owners who often face difficulties obtaining loans from commercial banks due to stringent requirements.
“Moneylending business is one of the vital parts of the economy which allows people in the small-scale industry and petty traders to have stress-free access to quick loans to finance their businesses,” Layode said.
He explained that the Ministry of Home Affairs is responsible for processing applications, issuing and renewing licences for money lenders, as well as monitoring and supervising their operations across the state.
Layode added that the ministry regularly organises stakeholders’ forums to expose operators to global best practices and improve professionalism within the industry.
“We also conduct stakeholders’ forums for moneylender operators in order to bring them up to speed on the latest world best practices,” he said.
The commissioner further disclosed that the ministry collaborates with federal regulatory agencies, including the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC) and the Special Control Unit Against Money Laundering (SCUML), to ensure compliance with financial and consumer protection regulations.
According to him, the ministry also profiles and monitors money lending firms to protect residents from fraudulent operators and dubious schemes.
“In addition, the Ministry registers, profiles and monitors the viability of such companies with a view to ensuring that while the money lenders are in business, the general public is also protected from being scammed by fraudulent people of questionable characters,” Layode said.
He noted that licensed money lenders have contributed significantly to the growth of micro and small businesses in Lagos by providing alternative sources of financing outside the conventional banking system.
“This partnership has greatly assisted small-scale business owners in Lagos to keep their petty businesses afloat without having to contend with high interest rates and clauses of the big commercial banks,” he added.
Layode revealed that between 2025 and 2026, the ministry received 112 new applications from money lending operators, while 214 existing licences were renewed.
On naturalisation and special immigrant status applications, the commissioner said the ministry, in collaboration with the Federal Ministry of Interior, continued to process applications from foreign nationals seeking Nigerian citizenship or permanent residency.
He explained that naturalisation is granted to foreigners who have resided continuously in Nigeria for at least 15 years and have established investment interests in their states of residence.
“The objective of the exercise is to grant citizenship rights to foreigners who have lived in the country continuously for fifteen years and above with investment interests in their states of residence,” he said.
Layode added that special immigrant status is granted to foreign nationals married to Nigerian citizens to promote integration and economic development.
According to him, applicants undergo screening and verification processes involving the Nigerian Immigration Service, Department of State Services, Nigeria Police, Lagos State Ministry of Justice and the Lagos State Internal Revenue Service.
He disclosed that 68 applications for naturalisation and special immigrant status were received during the period under review, while 20 applicants were screened and cross-examined for onward transmission to the Federal Ministry of Interior for final approval.
E-Financial
FirstBank, Visa Launch Multicurrency Signature, Naira Debit Cards

First Bank of Nigeria Limited, in partnership with Visa, has launched its multicurrency Visa Signature card, a premium offering designed for Nigeria’s affluent segment, as well as the Naira Visa Debit Card aimed at extending accessible, reliable electronic payment capabilities to a broader segment of the Nigerian population.

According to First Bank, the Signature card offers an exclusive portfolio of lifestyle benefits, global travel privileges, and curated merchant offers through Visa’s worldwide acceptance network, giving high-spending Nigerians a product built around how they live.
Commenting on FirstBank’s ambition for its premium cardholders, Chuma Ezirim, group executive, eBusiness & Retail Products, FirstBank, said Visa Signature is crafted to meet those expectations and lifestyle privileges that empower customers to live without boundaries.
“At FirstBank, we are dedicated to creating financial solutions that reflect the evolving lifestyles of our customers. We understand that our premium customers aspire to experiences that reflect their global outlook.
“Visa Signature is crafted to meet those expectations, offering access to exclusive experiences, global connectivity, and lifestyle privileges that empower our customers to live without boundaries. We remain focused on creating value and reinforcing our position as the partner of first choice for Nigerians at home and abroad.”
Highlighting the strategic importance of the FirstBank partnership, Andrew Uaboi, vice president and Cluster head, West Africa, Visa, noted “Nigeria’s affluent consumers are among the most active and globally connected spenders on the continent. Visa Signature is designed to serve that profile with the depth of benefits and the breadth of acceptance they deserve. We are delighted to work with FirstBank in making this available to the Nigerian market.”
Ezirim explained that through Visa Global benefits and Visa Destination offers, the Signature cardholders gain access to preferential rates, premium experiences, and priority services across hundreds of partner merchants, hotels, airlines, and destinations around the world. The card which is multicurrency in nature supports both domestic and cross-border transactions, ensuring seamless payment experiences.
Also speaking on the launch of the Naira Visa Debit Card, Ezirim said the card is “designed to make life easier for our customers, whether they are paying for groceries, settling utility bills, or shopping online. By extending reliable electronic payment access across Nigeria, we are helping more people transition confidently from cash to digital payments, supporting the nation’s cashless policy and empowering communities with greater financial inclusion.”
On his part, Uaboi, noted that “a strong payments ecosystem works for everyone. The Naira Visa Debit Card extends reliable electronic payment access to everyday Nigerian consumers, and this in addition to the cards in our portfolio continues to demonstrate what a truly comprehensive card portfolio looks like for the Nigerian market. Visa is proud to power this offering with FirstBank.”
General News2 days agoWorld Bank Blocks Social Media Comments from Nigerians over Loan Backlash
Telecom2 days agoNigerians Lose N12.5bBn to Telecom-Related Financial Crimes – PwC
Telecom2 days agoNITDA, FMCIDE Deepen Collaboration on Nigeria’s Digital Transformation
E-Business2 days agoJumia Nigeria Records Strong Q1 2026 Growth as Technology-Led Strategy Drives Market Expansion
General News2 days agoLG Electronics Strengthens Household Energy Efficiency in Nigeria with Advanced Inverter Refrigerator Solutions
Telecom2 days agoNITDA Showcases Nigeria’s Startup Framework as Model for Angola
News2 days agoOnly 1 in 3 Families Fully Secure their Devices, Kaspersky Study Reveals
Telecom2 days agoUpperlink, ICANN, Others Rally Global Participation for UA Day 2026













