Philanthropies that are engaging in the climate space must be careful that their work is not exacerbating existing inequities.

Though climate justice is now recognised in the mainstream as an essential part of the climate movement, funders – especially those with large endowments and institutional power – need to ensure that it is a core part of their work, not just a symbol or a slogan to be bandied about. For action on climate change to be truly just it must go beyond talking about Indigenous and minoritised communities and gender and human rights.

Climate funding networks need to meet the needs of the global community, not just those living in developed countries.

Photo courtesy of the author

How international spaces are shaping climate philanthropy

Most funders see climate through a transnational lens, following the strategies of the UNFCCC annual Conference of Parties (COP) and focus on meeting outcomes of the annual international gathering. There are major gaps between hyper-local climate problems and negotiated international outcomes stemming from complicated and sometimes disconnected international policy discussions.

If the climate movement wants to leave nobody behind, it must start prioritising the needs of those left behind.

While climate funding faces many of the same issues of effectiveness, measuring impact, and sustainability that other international development funding face, there are added dimensions that complicates the efficacy of climate funding. Climate funding is a complicated web of international grants and loans administered by multiple facilities and institutions.

Simply put, climate funding is generally broken down into three buckets.

1. Mitigation funding is directed to activities that would reduce global temperatures, like decreasing carbon emissions.
2. Adaptation funding helps communities affected by climate change find ways to reduce the impact, like building city infrastructure to protect against sea level rise and flooding.
3. And in case of disasters induced by climate change, loss and damage funding was recently established to help rebuild affected communities.

There are many problems with the global climate funding mechanisms. Some are down in the weeds of how these mechanisms are set up and administered, but some are more foundational to the movement writ large. Mitigation Policy is a priority for developed countries, while adaptation and loss and damage funding are the main priority for global south communities.

A Climate Policy Initiative report noted that ‘global adaptation finance is diminishing in importance, from 7 percent in 2019-2020 to 5 percent of total climate finance in 2021-2022.’ This is a reflection of how countries implement climate change policies. For example, in the US mitigation policies are handled by the federal government as part of national and international activities to be handled by the U.S Department of Environmental Protection and the US Department of State respectively. While adaptation is handled by city and town level governments. The adaptation strategy of New York City is very different from the adaptation strategy of Austin, Texas. One major issue is that funding countries, like the US, prioritises mobilising mitigation funding because it meets its national and international strategies that are set by the federal government.

Investigating climate language

Terms like ‘just transition’, while seeming to focus on the needs of the Global South, are focused on supporting mitigating strategies that focus on decarbonisation that inherently favour climate change strategies of developed economies. The calls for a just transition first came from US workers in the 1970s and 80s as environmental and health concerns led to deindustrialisation. Tony Mazzocchi, the American Union leader, was the first to use just transition in his call for a superfund ‘to provide financial support and opportunities for higher education for workers displaced by environmental protection policies.’ The UN Committee for Development Policy states that the concept of Just transition is ‘broadly defined as ensuring that no one is left behind or pushed behind in the transition to low-carbon and environmentally sustainable economies and societies.’ It is vital that developing countries who are being asked to shift to low carbon economies ensure that vulnerable groups are not left behind. But while necessary, a just transition is not enough.

Funding must support activities that are reflective of the local environmental and political context and not cut and paste projects from very different climatic biomes.

Egypt produces 0.61 percent of global emissions, while the US and China produce 43 percent. While decreasing emission is an important policy to improve air quality and public health, if Egypt achieved the net zero goal this year, and was able to provide a just transition by providing alternative jobs for every person who lost their job, Egyptians would still face some of the worst effects of global warming. Egypt’s contribution to global warming is negligible, yet the impact is huge.

A just transition doesn’t provide relief from higher temps, nor does it protect coastal and delta communities from flooding. A just transition won’t provide food and water security. We need to build climate resilience in local communities and develop hyper local adaptations policies that will prevent the worst effects of climate change on their communities. These problems cannot be addressed by reducing carbon emissions. They require massive infrastructure investment that is inclusive of the healthcare system and prioritises access to food and water.

A major concern for climate activists across Egypt is that funding around climate change continues to reflect strategies in a very different environmental context. A ‘green economy’ or a ‘green city’ is another catchphrase that is widely used to signify environmentally friendly policies. The use of green brings to mind planting trees and prioritising green spaces. Yet in desert climates these priorities are counterproductive to the needs of the local communities. Green spaces in some communities further exacerbate problems with water scarcity. The Green movement takes activities acceptable in a temperate climate, like the US and Europe, and tries to replicate them in an arid climate, like Egypt. Funding must support activities that are reflective of the local environmental and political context and not cut and paste projects from very different climatic biomes.

Photo courtesy of the author

Making engagement at the international stage inclusive

Most concerning is that climate funding to local environmental initiatives revolve around a few priorities that are not conducive to strengthening climate resilience. First and foremost, climate focused grants available to civil society and non-governmental organisations focus on engagement in the UNFCCC annual COP gathering, and in particular in negotiations. This means funding is focused on international advocacy missions. While engagement with COP is important, it is extremely expensive and continues to be exclusionary.

Local environmental actors in Egypt found engaging with COP27, which took place in their country, not only difficult, but extremely problematic. Egyptian CSOs took over a year to recover from COP27, whether they participated in COP or not. They were forced to divert funding from vital local work to attend. Many had to reacclimatize to a post-COP context in which funding had shifted toward COP engagement and then dried up the following year. While climate resilience continues to be a big priority within the international discourse around climate change, prioritising COP engagement has the exact opposite effect. It is disruptive for important community-based work that is the bedrock of community resilience.

Second, most environmental funding is project based which is detrimental to organisational sustainability. Lack of long-term core funding means that most organisations are unable to retain experienced staff. This creates a brain-drain from local civil society organisations to international organisations and the private sector. The lack of financial stability and a focus on project-based funding forces organisations to cater to funder strategies causing them to divert from stated mission.

The inability to retain staff also creates a void of expertise in community based environmental organisations. This further compounds the disconnect between local needs and international strategies around climate change by creating distance between vulnerable communities and those with the expertise to engage in the international conversation around climate change. The disconnect between local community leaders and the international negotiations cannot be overcome by sending these leaders to COP. Without the expertise and detailed knowledge of how negotiated outcomes from COP impact their community, local leaders are tokenised by groups with very different interests. Rather than sending individuals to COP, climate funders should invest more in local communities to begin to do the hard work to understand and communicate the impact of climate change on their towns and city.

Philanthropists and grantors can help bridge the gap between formal climate funding and local needs by prioritising adaptation and community reliance over the green economy and decarbonisation in their climate funding strategies. Building true community resilience requires developing long term partnerships with local organisations with deep roots in communities who are vulnerable to climate change. Supporting climate justice means investing in an ecosystem of organisations, informal initiatives, social enterprises and community leaders. If the climate movement wants to leave nobody behind, it must start prioritising the needs of those left behind.

Nadine Wahab is the Founder of Eco-Dahab, a sustainable destination organization in Dahab, South Sinai and the Director of Sustainable Network Egypt.