Africa shows why debt relief should be on the table at COP29

Bola Ahmed Tinubu is the president of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
At the United Nations Climate Change Conference COP29 in Baku, we’re set to establish a new climate finance goal — an upgrade to the $100 billion that developed nations had promised developing countries to help respond to climate change. Yet, without debt relief, injecting this capital will be like pedaling harder on a bicycle as its tires go flat.
Africa is caught in a web of climate vulnerability and unsustainable debt. Of the 20 nations most threatened by the climate crisis, 17 of them are in Africa, and almost half of the continent’s countries are either in debt distress or are teetering on the brink of it.
Uniquely exposed to risk, servicing past obligations is now coming at the cost of safeguarding our future. And the funds Africa requires to combat the climate crisis are fundamentally at odds with its debt burden.
While some might attribute this situation to the imprudence in African governance, in truth, the total debt stock owed by all African governments is less than two-thirds of Germany’s. The continent’s average debt-to-GDP ratio is no higher than in the developed world either — it’s about half the G7 average. The issue lies not in the sum but in the structure of the debt.
Most African debt is denominated in U.S. dollars. And as rising interest rates and the global flight of capital toward U.S. treasuries have strengthened the dollar, they’ve increased the debt servicing burden on African public finances. At the same time, with government revenues plunging due to Covid-19 and the war in Ukraine, many African governments were forced to refinance at steeper rates.
Africa did little to cause the climate crisis, yet the debt-climate trap has saddled many of its nations with a tragic choice: Eschew repayments in order to fund adaptation to climate shocks and risk default — a financial purgatory where development indicators plummet; or honor obligations and compromise on resilience, thus entrenching vulnerability to development-shattering climate events.
Of course, there’s another alternative: Take on more debt and sink even deeper into the trap. Yet, for those in need of funding, borrowing costs are typically higher than in the developed world — and prohibitively higher for those on the edge of debt distress. Even most climate aid comes in the form of loans.
Is this what the architects of the Paris Agreement envisioned when they spoke of climate justice?
This year alone, African governments will spend $163 billion to service debts, while receiving $30 billion for climate adaptation — that’s against annual needs of $227 billion. And unfortunately, a new, ambitious climate goal would be unlikely bridge this gap, or address the structural roots of the problem.
For one, even though negotiators acknowledge the need for trillions to combat climate change, disagreements among contributors mean a figure in the hundreds of billions is much more likely — at least according to COP29 leaders. Then, once this figure is agreed upon, it must be funded. But even during a time of more significant global economic stability, developed countries failed to reach the comparatively modest figure of $100 billion. These funds must also be delivered swiftly, yet this is often a process snarled in bureaucracy. And if the private sector is supposed to make up the shortfall, unsustainable debt poses a structural impediment to such investment, as it raises perceptions of risk and, therefore, rates.
Given the problem’s urgency, debt relief would offer a swifter remedy. Some argue the opposite, claiming it would be complex and protracted. Yet, when fearing a wave of developing country defaults during the pandemic, the G20 was able to swiftly agree on and implement the Debt Service Suspension Initiative. Though temporary, this allowed nations to redirect their resources to the crisis at hand — it’s also a potential blueprint for future collaboration.
If we are truly all in this together, a debt “haircut” now would ultimately be cheaper than the bill for reconstruction in the wake of disasters like typhoons and floods.
Critically, it would also give nations greater autonomy over the measures taken to safeguard their futures. Africa contributes just 3 percent of global emissions but disproportionately bears the impacts. Meanwhile, climate finance too often skews toward projects that cut emissions rather than build resilience to climate shocks — a misallocation of resources. Expanding the fiscal space in African countries could help correct this imbalance.
Climate-driven debt relief is already a familiar idea. But so far, it has only produced small-bore solutions. Debt-for-nature swaps — where lenders forgive debt in return for commitments to climate projects — have written off just $3.7 billion worldwide since the 1980s. Relief tied to specific projects for individual countries falls far short of today’s urgent needs.
Africa and the wider developing world require a coordinated, large-scale approach to unlock funding at the speed and scale this moment demands.  
This is sound economics and climate policy. Africa holds the critical minerals essential for the global energy transition, and nobody wants a wave of defaults that would block investment and engender instability, hampering extraction and processing.
The good news is that none of this is inevitable. Africa needs relief, and the world needs Africa.