Global security vs climate security: Polluters cutting climate finance for defense budgets

BY KARABO MOKGONYANA AND MERCY JOHN

For more than a decade, climate finance has been the cornerstone of the global climate bargain: developing countries would pursue low-carbon development while wealthy, high- emitting countries would provide financial support to help them mitigate emissions and adapt to climate impacts. That commitment is embedded in Article 9.1 of the Paris Agreement, which requires developed countries to provide financial resources to assist developing countries with climate mitigation and adaptation.

But now the global climate finance architecture is facing a dangerous reversal. The very countries historically responsible for the bulk of greenhouse gas emissions are increasingly cutting development and climate budgets and redirecting resources toward defence and security priorities. This shift is happening at precisely the moment when the climate crisis is intensifying and the financing gap facing developing countries, especially in Africa, is widening.

According to projections by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) official development assistance (ODA) was expected to decline by nine percent in 2024, and by a further 9 to 17 percent in 2025, potentially reducing global aid by up to US$35 billion in a single year.

These cuts are being driven primarily by large donor economies, including the United States, Germany, the United Kingdom and France, which together account for a substantial share of global climate and development finance.

several cases, the cuts are dramatic. For example, France has announced a 37 percent reduction in development aid for 2025, equivalent to roughly €2.1 billion in cuts, while Belgium plans to reduce development spending by €318 million, roughly 32 percent of its aid budget. Meanwhile, The Netherlands has announced a 30 percent reduction in its aid budget, amounting to €2.4 billion annually from 2027, partly redirected toward national economic and security priorities.

The United Kingdom is also planning significant reductions, including lowering official development assistance to 0.3 percent of gross national income by 2027, far below the long-standing 0.7 percent international target.

At the same time, policy shifts in the United States have raised concerns about deep reductions in international development and climate programmes, including proposals affecting large portions of USAID’s US$42.8 billion budget.

Taken together, these decisions represent one of the most significant contractions in global development financing in decades, and experts warn that they reflect a growing prioritisation of short-term national security concerns over long-term global stability. Yet climate change itself is widely recognised as a “threat multiplier”, intensifying conflict risks, migration pressures, and economic instability.

Climate finance already insufficient

Even before the recent wave of budget cuts, global climate finance flows were falling far short of what is needed. Developed countries pledged to mobilise US$100 billion annually in climate finance by 2020 to support developing countries’ mitigation and adaptation efforts. This commitment, embedded in the international climate regime and repeatedly reaffirmed in UN climate negotiations, was only met years after the deadline and has long been criticised as inadequate relative to the scale of the climate crisis.

Meanwhile, the scale of climate needs in the Global South has grown exponentially. According to estimates cited by the UN Environment Programme, developing countries require between US$215 billion and US$387 billion annually for climate adaptation alone, far exceeding current finance flows. The adaptation finance gap is particularly stark as existing international public finance for adaptation is 10 to 18 times lower than estimated needs.

At COP29 in 2024, governments agreed to a new New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG) on climate finance, which aims to significantly scale up climate finance beyond the US$100 billion benchmark to meet the vastly higher needs of developing countries. The goal reflects growing recognition that the cost of climate action in developing economies runs into the trillions of dollars annually.

Now, that agreement is unfolding against a contradictory trend that is creating a widening gap between global climate commitments and the actual financial resources being made available to support them.

What this means for Global South

For African countries and other developing regions, declining climate finance could have devastating consequences. Climate-vulnerable countries already face escalating costs from droughts, floods, extreme heat, and biodiversity loss. At the same time, many are grappling with rising debt burdens and limited fiscal space.

Without adequate climate finance, governments are forced to divert scarce domestic resources toward climate adaptation and disaster response, funds that would otherwise support healthcare, education, and economic development. The result is a deepening inequality in the global climate response.

At a moment when the world urgently needs to scale up climate finance into the trillions, the current trajectory points in the opposite direction. If wealthy, high-emitting countries continue to retreat from their financial commitments, the credibility of the Paris Agreement, and the possibility of an equitable global climate transition—will be placed at serious risk.

Karabo Mokgonyana Campaigns and Energy Advisor at Power Shift Africa

Mercy John is a Climate Finance Fellow at Power Shift Africa