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.
Nigeria Deposit Insurance Corporation (NDIC), acting as liquidator of the defunct Gulf Bank Plc., has instituted two separate actions at the Federal High Court in Lagos against Wema Bank Plc.
The combined claims amount to approximately N125,384,535,500, arising from two distinct sets of disputed high-value properties in Banana Island, Lagos, alongside an alleged improper cash transaction of N401 million.
Both suits were filed under the Failed Banks (Recovery of Debts and Financial Malpractices in Banks) Act and form part of NDIC’s long-running efforts to recover and liquidate outstanding assets of the defunct Gulf Bank nearly two decades after its collapse.
The two actions, though related, concern distinct sets of six properties each, acquired through different shell companies allegedly used by the defunct bank.
The first suit concerns six properties in Banana Island purchased in the name of Euston Wenberg Engineering Company Limited, described in the pleadings as a shell company used by Gulf Bank.
These plots situate in Zones J, K, L and P, have a combined area of approximately 13,794.145 square metres.
At the prevailing market rate of N4,500,000 per square metre, NDIC values these properties at N62,073,652,500.
The second suit concerns a separate set of six properties in Banana Island acquired through Bacad Finance and Investment Limited (later renamed Supra Commercials Limited), another entity in which the defunct bank held over 80 per cent shareholding.
These plots have a combined area of approximately 13,979.974 square metres, valued at N62,909,883,000 at the same per-square-metre rate.
In addition, the second suit claims recovery of N401,000,000 allegedly collected by Wema Bank from the NDIC’s agent bank, United Bank for Africa (UBA), in September 2009.
The Governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria revoked Gulf Bank Plc’s banking licence by notice published in the Official Gazette of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (Volume 93, Number 3, Government Notice No. 7) dated January 16, 2006, and the Federal High Court, Lagos Division, subsequently made a winding-up order on November 27, 2006, appointing NDIC as liquidator.
On the basis of those instruments, the Corporation maintains it is legally mandated to trace, recover, and liquidate all outstanding assets of the defunct bank for the benefit of depositors and creditors.
In the first suit, NDIC alleged that Gulf Bank acquired six Banana Island plots between 1998 and 2003 using Euston Wenberg Engineering Company Limited as a vehicle.
The internal records of the defunct bank reportedly treated the acquisition as a loan account, an arrangement NDIC contended shows the assets remain beneficially owned by Gulf Bank.
NDIC further alleged that Wema Bank took custody of these properties purportedly to secure an interbank deposit of N771.79 million, but that a joint CBN/NDIC special examination conducted in September 2005 found no record in Gulf Bank’s books confirming that any such deposit existed.
The examination report, dated September 30, 2005, found the defunct bank’s explanations unsatisfactory and no supporting documentation was subsequently produced.
According to NDIC, Wema Bank later presented two managers’ cheques from Access Bank and Intercontinental Bank, both dated September 2005 totaling N250 million in favour of Euston Wenberg Engineering Limited, which NDIC framed as instruments for a purchase rather than a recovery of a deposit.
NDIC contended that the purported sale at N250 million was commercially implausible, given that a single property in Banana Island at that time was worth in excess of N500 million.
In the second suit, NDIC also alleged that Gulf Bank injected N20 million into Bacad Finance and Investment Limited in 2001 to increase its share capital, and later invested a further N60 million in the company in 2003.
The defunct bank ultimately held over 80 per cent of Bacad Finance’s shares and used the entity to acquire a second set of six Banana Island plots.
The pleadings record that the defunct bank intended to develop the properties as a luxury residential estate of 72 flats, to be called Bacad Estate, in partnership with Shelter Afrique.
NDIC alleged that Wema Bank, without any valid mortgage, court order, or proprietary interest, took custody of these properties and later claimed to have sold them for N524 million by way of managers’ cheques dated 2006 and 2007.
NDIC described this claimed sale price as grossly implausible given that each property was worth over N4 billion by that period.
Separately, NDIC stated that in June 2009 it wrote to Wema Bank approving payment of N1,635,616.44 as the full outstanding deposit due to the bank as at January 16, 2006, the date Gulf Bank went into liquidation.
Notwithstanding that communication, NDIC alleged that in September 2009 Wema Bank collected N401 million from UBA, NDIC’s agent bank, without lawful justification, and that the Corporation has no record showing Wema Bank was owed any sum beyond the approved N1.635 million.
Wema Bank, through its counsel, Dr Oladapo Olanipekun (SAN), Mr Kehinde Ogunwunmiju (SAN) and Mr Tunde Afe-Babalola (SAN) have filed a preliminary objection challenging the court’s jurisdiction.
The bank relies on the Failed Banks Act, the Companies and Allied Matters Act (CAMA) 2020, the Limitation Law of Lagos State, and Sections 6(6) and 251(1) of the 1999 Constitution.
Wema Bank argued that NDIC’s claims do not arise from any loan, credit facility, guarantee or banking transaction between the parties, as required under the Failed Banks Act, and that the bank was never a customer of Gulf Bank in respect of any credit facility.
The bank further contended that the suits disclose no debtor-creditor relationship and that NDIC lacks locus standi because the disputed properties were allegedly owned by Bacad Finance and Investment Limited (now Supra Commercials Limited), a separate legal entity.
According to Wema Bank, the matter is fundamentally one of property ownership rather than banking debt recovery, placing it outside the Federal High Court’s jurisdiction under Section 251(1) of the Constitution.
The bank also argued that any cause of action, if it existed at all, arose between 2006 and 2007 and is now statute-barred under the Limitation Law of Lagos State, and accuses NDIC of abusing court process by attempting to circumvent limitation laws with a stale claim.
Wema Bank is asking the court to strike out or dismiss both suits.
The matters have been adjourned to June 25, 2026 for further proceedings.
OneWallet microfinance Bank is partnering Zenith bank and MTN to build a platform that will provide digital financial services to support the growth of Small and Medium Scale Enterprises (SMEs) businesses in Abia State.
Dr. C Darl Uzu, Chairman of OneWallet, who disclosed this while launching the platform for traders at the Ariaria International Market, Aba, Abia State said it was meant majorly for traders and the SMEs because they are the bedrock of the Nigerian economy.
According to Dr. Uzu, “We want to expand the inclusion of small businesses in digital financial services by making it easy for them to make and receive payments on affordable digital devices, hence the UnionBell Smart phones and POS.
“We want to help SMEs to access financial support and loan easily to grow their business, and also help businesses to build the history and credibility they require for future growth and expansion.”
He said OneWallet was not created just as a payment application, but as a business support platform designed around the real needs of SMEs.
Dr. Uzu said the choice of Ariaria International Market as the pilot for the platform was intentional since the market is one of the strongest symbol of enterprise in Nigeria.
“We are not here however to teach Ariaria people how to trade because Ariaria already understands business, but we are hear to support Ariaria business energy with tools that can help businesses do more, reach more customers, organize better and prepare for bigger opportunities; we are here to help Ariaria innovate and grow.”
He thanked MTN, Zenith bank and the leadership of the traders for partnering OneWallet to provide the platform that help businesses to expand.
A representative of MTN at the launch, Dr. Ernest Chieke described OneWallet as a platform for individuals and SMEs which intend to move their businesses forward.
He expressed joy that his firm was partnering OneWallet to bring solution to SMEs’ financial problems.
Carl Akwarandu who represented Zenith bank at the event said the bank decided to partner OneWallet because it has a unique product that will make small businesses grow faster.
He promised that Zenith bank would give OneWallet all the support it needs to make it number one microfinance bank in the country.
The Director of OneWallet, Dr. David Nwosu described the microfinance bank a one stop-touch for SMEs growth.
He said at OneWallet, collateral are not needed to obtain loan, but the individual’s business history.
A member of the board of the microfinance bank, Wiedong Wang, commended Dr. Uzu for establishing OneWallet.
He expressed optimism that with the help of its partners, OneWallet will excel.
Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) has warned non-interest financial institutions against governance and compliance risks capable of undermining public confidence and financial stability in the country’s growing Islamic finance sector.
Interest-free banks, often known as non-interest or Islamic banks, operate without charging or paying traditional interest (Riba).
The warning was contained in a press statement issued by the apex bank following the 2nd Annual Interactive Session between the CBN Financial Regulation Advisory Council of Experts and the Advisory Committees of Experts of Non-Interest Financial Institutions held at the CBN Auditorium in Abuja.
Speaking through Dr Rita Sike, director of the Financial Policy and Regulation Department, Philip Ikeazor, deputy governor, Financial System Stability, said the rapid expansion of the industry had increased exposure to operational and regulatory vulnerabilities.
The statement read, “The Deputy Governor, however, observed that as the industry grows in size, sophistication, and interconnectedness, it faces unique risks, particularly non-compliance risk, governance challenges, operational vulnerabilities, and emerging technological risks.
“He warned that such risks, if not properly managed, could undermine public confidence, financial stability, and the overall credibility of the non-interest finance ecosystem.”
According to the CBN, the engagement was part of ongoing efforts to strengthen Shariah governance, improve regulatory clarity, and reinforce risk management standards within the non-interest financial services industry.
The apex bank noted that non-interest financial institutions continued to play an increasingly important role in Nigeria’s financial system by providing ethical and Shariah-compliant alternatives to conventional banking.
It stated that the institutions were also contributing to financial inclusion, real sector financing, micro, small, and medium enterprises development, and shared prosperity.
The CBN further explained that the establishment of FRACE and the mandatory constitution of ACEs across all non-interest financial institutions were designed to institutionalise a harmonised governance framework for the sector.
According to the statement, sustained interaction between FRACE and ACEs remained critical to ensuring that regulatory expectations were properly understood and consistently implemented across the industry.
“The objectives of today’s session include fostering the institutionalisation and effective operation of a robust Shariah governance system within Non-Interest Financial Institutions, and providing a structured platform for dialogue, knowledge-sharing, and collaboration,” Ikeazor was quoted in the statement.
In his remarks, Prof Bashir Umar, deputy chairman of FRACE, said the interactive session was aimed at strengthening governance within the non-interest finance sub-sector and promoting constructive engagement between regulators and industry advisory committees.
He also commended the management of the CBN for reviving the session, which was first introduced in 2014.
Earlier in her welcome remarks, Sike reaffirmed the apex bank’s commitment to building a strong and well-governed non-interest financial services industry.
She noted that the growing diversity of products and delivery channels, particularly the emergence of Islamic fintech, had increased the need for stronger regulatory oversight and continuous engagement among industry stakeholders.
“The growing diversity of products, institutions, and delivery channels, particularly with the emergence of Islamic fintech, underscores the need for continuous dialogue, sound regulatory oversight, and robust advisory input from scholars and practitioners,” she said.
The session featured technical presentations on Shariah non-compliance risks in non-interest banks and the role of Islamic fintech in driving financial inclusion.
Participants at the event included members of FRACE, chairmen and members of various ACEs, managing directors of non-interest banks, senior CBN officials, and representatives of the Bank of Industry and the Securities and Exchange Commission.
World Bank Blocks Social Media Comments from Nigerians over Loan Backlash
Nigerians Lose N12.5bBn to Telecom-Related Financial Crimes – PwC
Jumia Nigeria Records Strong Q1 2026 Growth as Technology-Led Strategy Drives Market Expansion
Lagos Plans New Cybersecurity Centre
LG Electronics Strengthens Household Energy Efficiency in Nigeria with Advanced Inverter Refrigerator Solutions
MTN, VDT, Zoracom, Digital Realty Back 2026 Girls in ICT Campaign
Vitel Wireless Partners Fintechs to Expand Access to Services
Kaspersky Discovers Vulnerability in Qualcomm Snapdragon Chips that can Lead to Data Loss & Device Compromise
MTN Suspends Data, Airtime Borrowing Service over New FCCPC Lending Rules
Bank Customers to Pay N1,500 for ATM Card Issuance, Replacement – CBN
Telecom3 days agoNCC Says Telecom Industry on Course to Improve Quality of Service
News3 days agoKaspersky Challenges IT Leaders with Next-generation Cyber Protection Simulations
General News3 days agoFG to Balance Innovation with National Security with Stronger Drone Regulations
Telecom3 days agoAfrica to get AI Data Centres Through Three-way Partnership
News3 days agoFG, World Bank Launch $65m SPESSE Funding for 24,000 Nigerians
Telecom3 days agoDistinguished Industry Veteran Dr. Olusola Teniola to Chair NDSF 2026
Broadcasting3 days agoFG to Launch Nationwide Free Digital TV Platform June 17
News2 days agoThe Nigeria Prize for Science & Innovation Records New Height as 2026 Edition Attracts 237 Entries