- “In the wake of COP29, which ended with developed economies begrudgingly committing to increase climate funding for developing countries to $300 billion, we must ask: will any of this funding get to those on the ground who are critical to the climate solution?”
- Small, African-led conservation organizations offer a powerful, cost-effective approach to climate action like in Madagascar, where grassroots organizations fill critical gaps by addressing the local dimensions of climate change, which are often overlooked in high-level strategies.
- By channeling climate finance to grassroots organizations like these, we can ensure that this path is not just paved with promises, but with sustainable and locally driven solutions, a new op-ed argues.
- This article is a commentary. The views expressed are those of the author, not necessarily Mongabay.
The climate crisis is global, but its impacts are deeply local. In Africa, communities at the frontlines of climate change are not only among the most vulnerable, but also among the most innovative in crafting solutions.
But look at the flow of global climate finance and you see a different story – one of insufficiency, uneven distribution, and systemic barriers. In the wake of COP29, which ended with developed economies begrudgingly committing to increase climate funding for developing countries to $300 billion, we must ask: will any of this funding get to those on the ground who are critical to the climate solution?
A more equitable and effective approach demands that a significant portion of this finance supports small, African-led grassroots conservation organizations, like the ones I work with daily in Madagascar. These groups, embedded in the fabric of local communities, are uniquely positioned to drive transformative change. They achieve what large-scale government programs and international NGOs often cannot: building trust, fostering resilience, and implementing solutions that align with both community needs and ecological imperatives.
Africa, despite being one of the regions most vulnerable to climate change, receives only a small fraction of global climate finance. Worse, less than a quarter of these funds are directed toward adaptation projects that are critical for people and their livelihoods to survive climate change. Funding overwhelmingly favors large-scale organizations and projects, sidelining smaller, community-driven initiatives that are vital for localized adaptation.
This inequity is compounded by systemic barriers such as complex funding application processes, insufficient technical capacity, and governance challenges, which hinder grassroots organizations from accessing the resources they need. Recent research about African-led conservation, environmental, and civil society groups by the organization I work for, Maliasili, found 73% identified insufficient funding as a major obstacle to their conservation efforts, and 92% said a lack of core – or unrestricted – funding hampers their ability to operate effectively and sustainably.
Moreover, almost three quarters relied on short-term project funding, limiting their ability to implement long-term conservation strategies, and more than half highlighted burdensome proposal and reporting requirements as significant obstacles, diverting time and resources away from critical, on-the-ground conservation work. These systemic issues exacerbate the already uneven distribution of resources, leaving grassroots African organizations without the means to fulfill their potential.
This is a huge oversight. Small, African-led conservation organizations offer a powerful, cost-effective approach to climate action. In Madagascar, for instance, organizations like Fanamby and Madagasikara Voakajy work tirelessly to protect forests and restore ecosystems. By engaging local communities through conservation patrols and maintaining on-site presence, they ensure the integrity of these critical habitats. Their work contributes directly to climate mitigation. Fanamby, for example, has helped to restore 840 hectares of forest last year alone: equivalent to around one tenth of Madagascar’s capital city Antananarivo.
Their efforts are complemented by innovative practices such as dynamic agroforestry (DAF), pioneered by the Tsimoka Association. This low-cost agricultural system mimics forest ecosystems, enhancing soil fertility, promoting biodiversity, and sequestering carbon. DAF not only mitigates climate change by reducing greenhouse gases but also helps communities adapt to its impacts by creating resilient ecosystems and diversified income sources. Tsimoka has increased its impact fivefold since it started, from only 150 households in 2019 to more than 800 now, supporting local livelihoods and wellbeing.
These examples demonstrate the unique strengths of grassroots organizations: their ability to tailor solutions to local contexts, their deep-rooted community trust, and their capacity to deliver tangible, lasting results at a fraction of the cost of large-scale initiatives.
The stakes are high, time is short. Skeptics argue that only large-scale government action can make a meaningful dent in the climate crisis. While national and international efforts are undoubtedly crucial, they are not sufficient. Grassroots organizations fill critical gaps by addressing the local dimensions of climate change, which are often overlooked in high-level strategies.
For instance, national governments and international NGOs cannot monitor every hectare of forest or address the specific needs of every community. Local groups like those in Madagascar are already doing this work – Fanamby’s work covers more than half a million hectares of rich, biodiverse forest – yet they operate on shoestring budgets. Providing them with adequate resources would not only amplify their impact, but also ensure that global climate finance reaches the people who need it most.
Moreover, grassroots organizations offer great value-for-money. Community patrols, agroforestry programs, and localized conservation initiatives are far less expensive than large-scale infrastructure projects, yet their returns – in terms of biodiversity protection, carbon sequestration, and community resilience – are immense.
Community-driven initiatives align with global goals like the 30×30 conservation target while empowering local people to take charge of their environmental futures. This dual benefit of ecological preservation and community resilience underscores why grassroots organizations deserve a larger share of climate finance.
COP29 ended with a new set of questions. Only $300 billion of the agreed $1.3 trillion will come in the form of grants and low-interest loans, which is what developing countries need, so where will the other 70% come from? How will it be distributed? What will it be spent on? The choices made now will either help or hurt the millions of people in developing countries who have contributed nothing but bear the brutal impact of a changing climate.
The path to climate resilience and mitigation runs through Africa’s forests, farms, and communities. By channeling climate finance to grassroots organizations, we can ensure that this path is not just paved with promises, but with sustainable and locally driven solutions.
To donors, investors, and philanthropists, the choice is clear: invest in grassroots organizations driving real, meaningful change. The right kind of finance has the potential to transform the fight against climate change, and to unlock this potential, we must prioritize those who understand the land, the ecosystems, and the people best.
Dr. Josia Razafindramanana is Maliasili’s Portfolio Manager in Madagascar. She founded IMPACT Madagascar and has a PhD in Primatology and Conservation.
See related coverage:
COP29 ends in $300 billion deal, widespread dismay — and eyes toward COP30
Climate financing should come from oil and gas ‘super’ profits, study says
