The climate crisis is currently impacting Africa in various ways, including drought-affected farmland, flooded communities and unpredictable rainfall patterns. It is inspiring to see frontline communities, particularly youth-led initiatives, stepping up with innovative solutions to adapt, mitigate and build resilience against these challenges. However, these grassroots movements often struggle with a lack of funding. In contrast, larger international NGOs (INGOs) frequently receive substantial grants and resources with greater visibility. This raises important questions about the existing funding disparities and how African youth can effectively advocate for their fair share of resources to support their critical work. Understanding these dynamics is essential to fostering a more equitable approach to climate action in Africa.
The scale of climate funding in Africa
In 2021/22, climate finance flowing into Africa rose to roughly US$43.7 billion, up 48% from previous years (Devex, Wikipedia). But Africa still meets only about 23% of its mitigation needs and 20% of adaptation needs, an enormous financing gap that must quadruple annually through 2030 to meet Nationally Determined Contribution goals (Wikipedia). The damage and losses from climate change could reach US$440 billion by 2030 across the continent (AP News).
Yet within that funding, only 10–17% flows to local-level climate adaptation action, leaving frontline communities severely marginalised (Devex). And public funding, especially through major institutions, is dominated by big grants distributed via INGOs.
Why youth‑led grassroots groups are left out
Complex, bureaucratic funding mechanisms
Green Climate Fund (GCF) and other multilateral climate funds require hundreds of pages of proposals, strict accreditation, audited financial systems, prior large-budget experience and institutional capacity that few youth groups possess (Devex). In many cases, local groups must partner with INGOs just to apply, effectively transferring control over projects and funding.
High thresholds and risk aversion
Donors often demand that applicants show they have managed at least US$1 million before, which is not achievable for most grassroots youth groups (NewsPaper Africa). Donors are risk‑averse, minimising oversight costs by giving big grants to INGOs rather than many small grants to local groups, even if the latter are closer to community needs.
Capacity gaps
Local youth groups frequently lack financial management systems, grant‑writing and monitoring expertise, and climate data to design “bankable” proposals that satisfy funders (NRC). This becomes a self-reinforcing loop: they can’t get funds without capacity, but can’t build capacity without funds.
Governance and politics
In fragile or politically unstable countries, donors perceive higher risk and leave out local actors entirely, preferring larger institutions they judge safer. National governments also often divert adaptation funds to political patronage, using high administrative overhead and consultants, further eating into funds that might reach communities (SEI).
Loan‑heavy architecture
Over half of climate finance coming into Africa takes the form of debt (around 51%), which burdens already debt-stressed governments and mostly bypasses grassroots groups entirely (Wikipedia). Locally-led initiatives typically need grants, not loans, but lending is easier for multilateral channels, further disadvantaging youth groups.
INGOs continue to dominate climate funding
- INGOs are accredited entities for major climate funds. They employ staff to compose mega-proposals and meet compliance.
- They have operational scale, financial systems, external auditors and track records.
- Donors see INGOs as lower‑risk recipients, even if they subcontract much work back to local partners.
- The architecture rewards large, centralised programs over distributed, community-led adaptation.
Hence, a proposal from an INGO may attract US$10 million, whereas a compelling youth‑led proposal won’t be seen or funded, even when working on identical issues.
The impact on African youth groups
Stunted innovation and local ownership
Youth-led groups develop context-specific adaptation solutions; climate-smart agriculture, early warning systems, water harvesting techniques and local education campaigns. However, with limited funding, these efforts often remain small-scale or pilot projects and struggle to scale or replicate.
Unmet potential and lost local leadership
Local youth have significant community trust and knowledge. However, without funding, they cannot implement leadership, advocacy or projects. They remain sidelined in global forums, including COPs, while international actors take the spotlight.
Inequalities and tokenism
Youth activism often becomes symbolic; invited to speak but are underfunded. Funders claim to support youth inclusion yet allocate resources through INGOs, leaving local groups neglected and overlooked.
Innovative successes even with barriers
Some youth groups have broken through:
- The YouthADAPT Solutions Challenge—an initiative by the Global Center on Adaptation, African Development Bank, and Climate Investment Funds—has awarded US $100,000 each to dozens of youth-led businesses since 2021, investing nearly US $4 million across 19 countries, with strong ROI gains and job creation—half of supported enterprises led by women (Wikipedia).
- The African Development Bank’s US$1 billion YouthAdapt facility supports youth SMEs with climate adaptation ideas, grants, and accelerators (African Development Bank Group).
- Local groups like Ghana’s Green Africa Youth Organisation (GAYO) and SustyVibes in Nigeria/Ghana deliver community adaptation, zero‑waste, renewable energy education, youth eco‑clubs, but rely on small, intermittent grants or volunteer models (Wikipedia).
These programs prove that grassroots youth groups can succeed if directly supported, but they remain exceptions rather than the norm.
What needs to change: Recommendations
Simplify access and fund small grants
Climate funds should create youth‑specific channels and streamline application requirements, reducing page length, accreditation burdens and scale thresholds. Micro‑grants or small grant tracks (< US$50k) targeted at youth-led groups could bypass many barriers.
Build capacity locally
Donors and institutions should invest in financial literacy, proposal writing, monitoring, reporting and governance for youth groups. Mentorship and training can enable them to access larger funds later.
Decentralised climate finance flows
Pilot decentralised funding structures to distribute funds through local intermediaries and avoid big overheads. These show early promise for reaching frontline communities directly.
Mandate local partner percentages
Major grants through INGOs should earmark a fixed percentage (e.g. 30–50%) to be passed to local youth groups as direct project partners, with full transparency of sub‑grant flows.
Transparency and anti-capture measures
Funds should be published in local languages; disbursement should be tracked publicly. Civil society oversight can reduce elite capture and political diversion of resources.
Increase adaptation funding
Youth groups often focus on adaptation. Africa currently receives only about 14% of global adaptation finance, with adaptation needs hugely underfunded. Youth voices have called for doubling adaptation finance to US$40 billion/year, but pledges lag far behind (Mongabay).
A visual snapshot: Who gets what
| Recipient Type | Access Level | Barriers |
|---|---|---|
| INGOs / Accredited Entities | High | Institutional capacity, prior accreditation, donor trust |
| National Governments | Moderate | Some access, but heavy admin, corruption risk, political capture |
| Some access, but heavy admin, corruption risk, and political capture | Very Low | Complex applications, high thresholds, lack of capacity, exclusionary donor norms |
| Youth-specific funds (e.g. AfDB) | Growing | Local youth-led organisations |
Call to African youth
To young innovators and groups across Africa:
- Organise into networks and coalitions; visibility and shared voice improve credibility.
- Leverage global platforms like YouthADAPT, Youth for Adaptation Finance and national youth forums to spotlight your work.
- Build basic project and financial systems, even pilot grants can help you become fundable.
- Advocate to your governments and national climate planners to open local access funds or youth tracks.
Conclusion
Africa’s climate funding architecture remains entrenched in centralised, bureaucratic and risk-averse systems that favour large INGOs and accredited bodies. With only 10–20% of climate adaptation funding reaching local, youth-led initiatives, the very communities at greatest risk remain under-resourced. African youth groups have the creativity, community knowledge, and drive to implement climate solutions—but they need equitable, accessible, grant‑based finance to thrive. Donors must change the rules: create youth-specific funding windows, decentralise flows, reduce bureaucracy, build local capacity, and force transparency. Only by supporting youth at the frontlines can climate finance truly become just and effective.
FAQs
1. Why do INGOs get most climate funding in Africa?
INGOs are accredited by international climate funds, meet strict financial compliance, and can manage large‑scale proposals and budgets. Donors consider them lower risk and administratively simpler to manage.
2. Can youth groups ever access direct grants?
Yes, through targeted initiatives like the YouthADAPT Challenge and other youth‑focused grant programs. But these remain exceptions; broader systemic reform is needed.
3. What prevents youth groups from applying independently?
Complex application forms, high financial reporting standards, required systems, and a previous large grants track record. Many youth groups are not yet seen as “bankable”.
4. What is decentralised climate finance?
A model where centralised projects are broken into smaller grants directly to local actors, like Namibia’s pilot, where funds were split into dozens of small community grants, reducing overhead and increasing reach.
5. How can African youth advocate for better access?
Form coalitions on national or regional levels, join global forums, lobby governments to establish youth‑specific climate funds, and demand transparent sub‑granting from INGOs.
By understanding how climate finance currently flows and pushing for equitable change, African youth can claim a seat at the table and resources for real frontline action.
