Abu legal climate
The film Snowpiercer depicts a distorted social hierarchy during a climate catastrophe. While the elite occupy the head of the train, the poor are relegated to the tail. A familiar dynamic occurs in international governance around the climate crisis. The power of developed countries controls and influences the climate policy and financial flows.
Developing nations have no choice but to comply. Developing countries are on the front lines of the crisis, often being the most vulnerable to climate impacts despite their relatively low emissions, and bear a disproportionate responsibility. This essay contends that, while climate aid was intended to promote environmental responsibility, it is now increasingly used as an agency for political and economic control, endangering national sovereignty, youth prospects, and the very principles of climate justice that it purports to uphold.
To mitigate this inequality, the notion of climate aid was introduced. At the Rio de Janeiro Earth Summit, the UNFCCC framework was chosen and established. As a result, developed countries committed to offering developing countries financial and technical support. This consensus was founded on the cornerstone of climate justice and shared but differentiated responsibilities.
The concept of shared but differentiated responsibilities in international environmental law refers to an emphasis on differentiated responsibilities tailored based on individual historical contributions and economic development levels. Henceforth, the ambitious target of keeping global warming well below 2°C, ideally 1.5°C, relative to pre-industrial levels, was established by the 2015 Paris Agreement.
In many cases, climate aid has proven its strong effectiveness in helping struggling nations. In Bangladesh, the UNDP established climate-adaptive housing systems and a disaster prevention system. This delivered meaningful results: assisting local communities to adapt to extreme climates and reduce flood and drought risks.
In Kenya, the Lighting Africa project, launched by the World Bank initiative, is designed to provide solar-powered lights to off-grid communities. This improves nighttime safety and educational opportunities for students while reducing carbon emissions by lessening dependence on diesel generators. Climate aid is not only a simple financial support but also builds trust and expands cooperative innovation and technology.
Despite these successes, two serious challenges overshadow its favorable consequences: erosion of sovereignty and dependence on debt.
Climate aid often comes with strings attached. Financial aid is just a facade. In the grand tapestry of international commerce, it becomes clear that this particular thread weaves no distinct pattern from others in the fabric of foreign trade. As a well-known saying goes, “There is no such thing as a free lunch”; the same applies to the donor countries. In order to receive financial support, developing countries are often required to adopt technologies from donor nations or implement policy reforms that align with donor interests.
As a result, their national sovereignty becomes compromised. Tanzania’s REDD+ project, for instance, is subsidized by the UNFCCC framework and the Norwegian government. Held from 2010 to 2014, the project was designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through forest conservation. The African Wildlife Foundation states, “REDD+ provides an opportunity to help protect this ecologically significant forest, mitigate carbon, and improve the lives of forest-dependent communities in a remote landscape.” AWF also says that “efforts have resulted in big successes for the region.” Yet, whether it was truly successful or not depends on who you ask, revealing the complexity of perception in the face of outcomes.
From the indigenous peoples’ point of view, it was a total failure. It neglected the circumstances of indigenous peoples, depriving them of their traditional livelihoods. The REDD+ project failed to guard the basic rights of indigenous people, such as learning, economic, and land rights. The project was implemented in a top-down manner, excluding local voices and imposing external decisions, thus highlighting how climate governance can become a one-sided exercise in control. Similarly, in many carbon offset projects across Africa, developed countries enter agreements with local governments to protect forests in exchange for carbon credits.
There are clear reasons behind these well-intentioned projects have come to earn the dishonorable label of a “new scramble for Africa.” The “New Scramble for Africa” refers to the recent surge in interest from global powers in the continent’s resources and markets. In 2023, a contract was leaked between the Liberian government and Blue Carbon LLC, a UAE company chaired by Dubai’s ruling family. The agreement stipulates that Blue Carbon is granted exclusive rights to govern one-tenth of Liberia’s landmass for 30 years.
In return, the UAE and other governments will be able to offset their carbon emissions by buying credits linked to the carbon supposedly locked into the one million hectares of Liberian rain forest, which Blue Carbon is committed to preserving. This arrangement raises important questions regarding land management, environmental sustainability, and the implications for local communities and ecosystems within the designated area.
Such extensive control over land resources necessitates an analysis of the socio-economic impact and governance practices that will accompany this long-term commitment. Ultimately, climate aid is not always a tool of cooperation but can instead function as a means of control, operating under the guise of environmental protection through land appropriation and policy interference.
Climate aid is typically categorized into two forms: grants and loans. The stark reality is that there’s an imbalance that weighs heavily on the loans. In practice, from 2016 to 2020, loans made up 72% of international climate finance. Unfortunately, the actions taken by developing countries to get climate aid to address the climate crisis can inadvertently lead to an upsurge in national debts.
What initially appears to be a practical solution has complicated financial repercussions that can impact their economies in the long run. Belize, a small Caribbean nation highly susceptible to rising sea levels and hurricanes, received international climate assistance aimed at strengthening its resilience. Varying from helping to increase the resilience of smallholder farmers on the agricultural yields of important commodities for the country to protecting targeted coastal communities.
Yet, most of this aid came in the form of loans, pushing the country’s debt to over 133% of its GDP. Under mounting pressure to repay these loans, Belize was forced to cut public spending on essential services such as education and healthcare, measures that directly threaten the future of its youth population.
Climate aid puts future generations at risk, particularly in developing nations where its long-term effects will result in reduced public services and debt repayment obligations. Health and education spending are reduced due to high public debt and repayment policies in countries like Belize. Sovereign debt crises pose a threat to sovereignty because they force debtor governments to rely more on external funding, frequently under restrictive conditions, which can limit their ability to meet the demands of foreign creditors (external sovereignty) versus meeting the needs of their citizens (internal sovereignty).
Meanwhile, youth-led climate initiatives continue to receive insufficient funding, and their influence is hampered by bureaucratic roadblocks and ambiguous funding procedures. Finally, current climate aid not only fails to protect young people but actively undermines their ability to build a sustainable, just future.
To address the significant shortcomings of the climate aid framework, the debt-for-nature swap has become a novel approach. Under this arrangement, developed countries agree to cancel or restructure a portion of developing countries’ debt in exchange for verifiable environmental conservation efforts. A remarkable example is Belize, which partnered with The Nature Conservancy, an environmental organization, to reduce the country’s external debt by a striking 10 percent of GDP in return for commitments to protect and double its coral reef systems.
Indeed, like any policy mechanism, this approach is not without its constraints. The concerns raised by critics paint a troubling picture of communities suffering from land rights violations. These problems could go right to the core of justice and the fundamental right to control one’s own life. Notwithstanding these limitations, debt-for-nature exchanges present a far more equitable and sustainable substitute for the current climate assistance framework, which all too frequently increases reliance instead of fostering true resilience.
After all, without addressing its structural issues, climate aid will not be able to achieve its initial goal of fostering justice and collaboration. In many cases, what started out as a moral obligation to aid weaker countries in overcoming a crisis they did not cause has turned into an instrument of influence that imposes restrictions, erodes national sovereignty, and aggravates financial dependence.
The international community must reform the very systems used to deliver aid if it is serious about climate justice and wants to move beyond token pledges. This entails promoting sustainable alternatives like debt-for-nature swaps, giving local agency priority, and raising grant-based support. Climate change is not just an environmental crisis; it is also a matter of power, equity, and generational accountability. To guarantee that the next generation inherits a habitable planet, we must establish a climate assistance system based on true solidarity rather than control.
Consequently, climate aid cannot fully realize its initial goals of promoting justice and cooperation unless its structural flaws are fixed. What once was a moral obligation to help developing nations overcome a crisis they have little responsibility for has deteriorated into a means of power. For the global community willing to truly achieve climate justice and wanting to go beyond empty promises, it must repair the climate aid framework.
This may include considering sustainable options like debt-for-nature swaps and comprehending indigenous people’s circumstances. Climate change is more than an environmental issue. It is an enduring riddle that requires international collaboration to address. However, the solution to this question is no longer elusive. To ensure a habitable planet for future generations, we need a climate aid system rooted in genuine solidarity, not control.
By: Soyun Kim
Write and Win: Participate in Creative writing Contest & International Essay Contest and win fabulous prizes.
About the Author
