At the Second Africa Climate Summit (ACS) in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, Rabia Transitions hosted a discussion titled: “To Plan or Not to Plan? Climate investment plans as a basis for driving change.” The session examined whether the proliferation of climate plans, from National Adaptation Programmes of Action and Nationally Determined Contributions, to Just Energy Transition Partnerships and now National Transition Plans, are genuine expressions of country needs and how effective they have been in mobilising resources for climate action. Rabia presented its research on the history and evolution of climate plans in general, while also shedding light on the experiences of countries such as Colombia, Indonesia, and South Africa. All of which are currently undergoing transitions and have developed various climate plans. This work is part of a broader project supported by the 2050 Pathways Platform, and forms part of Rabia’s mission to reimagine a financial ecosystem that fosters a resilient and dignified transition.
Key takeaways from the panel discussion
- The problem is the process, not just the money. Planning has become supply-driven and externally shaped, absorbing political energy without delivering resources. Countries are locked into cycles of document and programme development that serve donors’ accountability needs rather than their own priorities.
- Plans serve multiple purposes. They can be technical (data-driven), political (signalling intent), or financial (investment-oriented). But framing them narrowly as “investment plans” forces climate priorities into a profit-based logic. Climate action is not inherently profitable; plans must connect needs to finance flows, not mimic donor expectations.
- Limited financial returns, but coordination gains. Most plans have failed to mobilise significant finance. Their real value lies in creating ownership, a shared language, and coordination across ministries, which is critical for governance, if not always for resource mobilisation.
- Needs-based finance remains elusive. Defining “needs” is fraught with short-term political cycles, forecasting challenges, and capacity gaps. Donor-produced studies often dominate and delegitimise Global South assessments, deepening mistrust and weakening country agency.
- Lessons from South Africa. The JETP highlighted both the inadequacy of international pledges and the risks of over-reliance on the mobilisation of private finance. Still, it provided a rare example of Global North–South collaboration on costing and financing pathways.
Call to action
Historically, climate investment plans and broader climate planning programmes have not been able to mobilise the quality and quantity of finance needed for the African continent to transition and adapt to climate change. What is needed is a planning process that allows countries to define needs, assert ownership, and secure fair and dignified finance. To achieve this:
- Global North partners must respect and respond to country-led plans rather than substituting them with external assessments and the imposition of their own perspectives and priorities.
- Global South governments should treat planning as a process for understanding and articulating their unique (just) transition and adaptation needs, and the finance that will be required to realise those needs. Thereby ensuring greater levels of ownership, coherence, and credibility, not just compliance.
- Regional and continental initiatives must amplify collective bargaining power to ensure that African countries are able to better determine their needs and secure finance.
- Domestic institutions, from finance ministries to sovereign wealth funds and pension funds, must be considered as sources of local finance that can be used for climate action.