Africa Demands Climate Justice: Why the Loss and Damage reparations can no longer be ignored
By Alois Aldridge Mugadza*
From Bereeda (Somalia) to Bissau (Guinea-Bissau) and Tunis (Tunisia) to Gqeberha (South Africa), there is no escaping the real effects of climate change that the African continent is experiencing. The African continent has been particularly adversely affected by climate change, with historical emitters of greenhouse gases (GHG) evading responsibility while imposing various false solutions and some debt-funded “climate adaptation” policies.
Concurrently, the African continent and the Global South are experiencing climate apartheid. The Global North and corporations are adapting and fortifying themselves at a faster rate, while African nations, the source of much of their raw materials, are being left behind. It is evident that the African continent is responsible for the lowest levels of emissions, yet it is facing the gravest consequences of climate change, including rising temperatures, heavy rains, and devastating storms. These life-changing impacts are exacerbated by a lack of adequate support from the international community.
Africa is experiencing intolerable climate change impacts, leading to challenges such as rising temperatures north of the Sahara, changing rainfall patterns in the eastern and southern regions, increased frequency and intensity of extreme weather events in the western region, and declining food security in some countries, such as Somalia, Djibouti and Sudan (far Eastern region of Africa). Climate change has also led to several natural resource conflicts and migrations across the African continent.
Historical AU Landmark Oral Statement at the International Court of Justice on Climate Justice
The United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) made history in 2023 by unanimously adopting Resolution 77/276, requesting an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on the obligations of States in respect of climate change.
At The Hague, this was an advisory proceeding initiated by the UNGA. The purpose of the proceedings was to provide the Court with observations on the obligations of States concerning climate change and the legal consequences of failing to address this global challenge. Some 91 written statements were submitted in these proceedings, which have now attracted worldwide attention and engagement. This was the highest number ever submitted in the history of ICJ advisory proceedings.
Various organisations could submit written comments to the ICJ on this advisory opinion, focusing on climate justice. These advisory opinions can influence legal interpretations of state obligations. This ICJ process is crucial in clarifying whether climate injustice violates international law, thereby strengthening voices and holding emitters accountable. While non-binding, ICJ opinions typically serve to deliver uncomfortable truths, empower vulnerable states, and shape the future of climate litigation. However, a strong advisory opinion decision could exert pressure on states to adopt more ambitious climate change legislation.
The African Union (AU) made its landmark oral submission to the ICJ in December 2024. These oral submissions were delivered by Professor Hajer Gueldich, Legal Adviser to the African Union, and Professor Makane Moise Mbengue. In its written statement, the AU leveraged this opportunity to advance its views on the legal dimensions of climate justice on behalf of the 55 African states. It amplified its voice through strategic alliances with other Global South states and organisations to strengthen collaboration and its advocacy. This collective AU push underscores the urgency of climate justice and calls for greater international accountability. Furthermore, participants included many UN Member States, indigenous communities, and international organisations. The AU, along with more than 50 other states and organisations, presented its oral arguments in The Hague.
In 2025, the ICJ will issue its decision based on these written statements, but the direct impact on Africa remains uncertain. The key issue is for Africa to identify viable legal avenues for climate justice on the continental level. Africa could harness international environmental law principles such as the prevention principle, the no harm rule, and the common but differentiated responsibilities principle and respective capabilities in light of national circumstances (CBDRRC) (UNFCCC, Article 3 (1)).
There are also various other principles from human rights frameworks – in particular, the right to a healthy environment (Article 24) present in the regional African Charter. Africa can also leverage strategic climate litigation and exert diplomatic pressure through forums such as the African Group of Negotiators. Hybrid approaches combining climate litigation and treaty advocacy may be the most effective way forward. The ICJ’s advisory opinion will not by itself deliver climate justice, but it could strengthen Africa’s legal arsenal to demand accountability for climate damage.
Inescapable Reality of Loss and Damage
The African continent bears the brutal consequences of a climate polycrisis that was not of its making. The Democratic Republic of Congo’s (DRC) vast lands are currently stripped for critical minerals such as lithium, cobalt, and nickel required to propel the energy transition. These minerals have contributed to the development of batteries and other technologies in the Global North.
However, since independence from Belgium in June 1960, the eastern enclaves of the DRC, such as Bukavu, have endured relentless instability, fuelled largely by violent competition over critical minerals. These ‘conflict minerals’, which include lithium, cobalt, gold, copper, and tin, are essential to the global extractive industry, powering everything from smartphones to electric vehicles. The illicit trade in these minerals is dominated by armed groups and foreign interests. The profits generated in DRC from these resources finance militias and perpetuate cycles of violence and entrenched corruption, leaving local communities trapped in poverty. Even worse, this extractive system exacerbates social and environmental degradation. Forced labour and displacement further destabilise the DRC, creating a self-perpetuating crisis in which mineral wealth translates into human suffering. Paradoxically, the DRC’s situation is such that its soil contains the resources needed for the world’s green energy future, yet its people experience only violence and exploitation.
Professor Gueldich opened the AU panel session, stressing the need for the ICJ to ground its advisory opinion on the principles of climate justice. She went on to say that Africa is responsible for only 3% of historical GHG emissions. However, the continent suffers from some of the most devastating impacts of climate change, as evidenced by the collapse of the Derna Dam walls (Libya), flooding in the KwaZulu-Natal and Eastern Cape Provinces (South Africa), and several cyclones that hit the Nampula Province (Mozambique). These events killed more than 5,000 people and displaced thousands more.
In addition, the economic toll on the second-largest continent is staggering. Africa continues to lose about $15 billion a year to the effects of climate change, which devastate infrastructure and crops. According to the President of the African Development Bank (AfDB), Dr Akinwumi Adesina, the African continent will lose about $50 billion a year by 2050 due to the adverse effects of climate change.
Despite these catastrophic losses of life and the widespread destruction of infrastructure and land, the world’s biggest polluters persist in extracting minerals and transporting resources from Africa’s coasts, offering no meaningful reparations or efforts towards environmental restoration. France’s TotalEnergies maintained its stronghold by investing heavily in three countries last year, with a focus on oil and gas in Mozambique, Uganda, and Angola. These projects will result in the displacement of even more communities to make way for these developments.
For the first time, the AU has publicly signalled its growing fatigue with climate inaction, formally urging wealthier nations to take responsibility and acknowledge their historical violations of human and environmental rights in Africa. Across the continent, communities are already acutely vulnerable to the impacts of climate change, with children and women bearing the brunt of water scarcity and hazardous labour.
The AU also submitted a statement in response to the second question. The AU vehemently asserted that developed nations must face legal repercussions under international law for significantly harming the climate system through their actions or inactions, including their historically high GHG emissions. The AU also emphasised that African communities and future generations are disproportionately affected by climate change despite contributing minimally to the climate crisis.
Furthermore, the AU emphasised the obligation of developed nations to provide reparations in the form of restitution, such as financial aid and technology transfer, as well as compensation for loss and damage. Drawing attention to Africa’s acute vulnerabilities, the AU cited extreme weather events, food and water insecurity, and an estimated 35 million climate-related displacements as examples of the current impacts. The AU called for equitable burden-sharing in line with the principle of CBDR, urging the ICJ to affirm these obligations and ensure alignment with climate justice and human rights frameworks.
Broken Promise of International Climate Finance
The AU delivered a powerful message, emphasising that climate change is no longer merely an environmental or economic crisis for the continent but an existential threat to human rights, economic development, and the very future of entire generations. In paragraph 8 on page 6 of the statement, the AU stated that Africans predominantly engage in activities such as subsistence farming, making them particularly vulnerable to adverse climate events. The AU also stated that Africans disproportionately live in informal settlements that offer little protection against floods and heatwaves. Meanwhile, increased aridity poses an unprecedented risk of catastrophic collapse to the continent’s unique biodiversity and natural landscapes. Changes in rainfall patterns and temperatures also threaten the sustainability of African agriculture, on which the livelihoods of millions depend.
The African Union argued that climate injustice continues to be perpetrated by the Global North, grounding its case in three key points. First, the cost of climate adaptation in Africa is projected to exceed $50 billion annually. Yet, since the 2009 pledges and the Paris Agreement, Global North states have consistently failed to meet even the modest target of $100 billion to cover annual climate finance pledges.
Second, in the last fiscal year of 2023, African countries alone spent at least $85 billion servicing external debt, diverting crucial resources away from essential sectors such as education and healthcare. These external debt service payments were three times higher than the amount received in climate change aid.
Finally, the Loss and Damage Fund established at the UNFCCC COP27 in Egypt remains underfunded, with initial pledges amounting to less than 0.2% of developing countries’ current needs. From pages 18–32, the African Union argued that climate obligations must be interpreted in light of the entire corpus of international law, including environmental treaties, human rights instruments, and regional agreements. This holistic approach ensures that climate action aligns with equity, justice, and sustainable development.
Common But Differentiated Responsibilities in Respective Capabilities: A Legal Obligation, Not a Choice
In the oral submissions, Professor Makane Moise Mbengue explained that the AU is calling for actionable outcomes, including the application of the UNFCCC’s CBDRRC principle. He suggested reparations, such as debt relief, that would enable African states to respond to the challenges of climate change without undermining their sustainable development goals. Professor Makane Moise Mbengue underpinned the moral and legal imperative to hold major emitting countries accountable for their historical contributions to the climate crisis.
On this momentous occasion, the AU took time to celebrate the ICJ’s incorporation of climate science, particularly from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), as a critical step in aligning legal standards with the realities of climate science. The AU expressed its hope that this historic moment would serve as a turning point in the global fight against climate change and pave the way for a more just and equitable international legal order.
The learnt professor is undoubtedly correct in asserting that the AU‘s case rests on the principle of CBDRRC in light of national circumstances, enshrined in Article 3(1) of the UNFCCC – now a binding tenet of international environmental law. The AU seeks an ICJ affirmation that developed countries must reduce their emissions at a faster rate, provide financial support for adaptation measures, and compensate the Global South for loss and damage incurred. His argument is further strengthened by the universally accepted polluter-pays principle, which establishes a legal obligation for polluters to provide compensation.
Human Cost of Delay
At the heart of the learnt professor’s words lies a legal argument encompassing human lives that have been destroyed. In the coming decades, cultures and communities will begin to disappear. It is an inconsolable situation—filled with names, faces, and human cries.
Somalia, for example, is enduring the worst drought in its history—five consecutive failed rainy seasons have left some areas without enough rainfall to fill a glass in over a year. Since 2022, nearly 3 million people have been internally displaced, and at least 20,000 Somalis have crossed into Kenya. Conflicts over natural resources such as water and food have increased security tensions with neighbours. Similarly, Cyclone Freddy wiped out villages and killed more than 1,500 people in 2023. The cyclone hit five different countries at once: Malawi, Mozambique, Madagascar, South Africa, and Zimbabwe. The area affected equates to approximately the size of the European continent, demonstrating the challenges facing Africa.
Migration has shaped the African continent. However, forced climate-induced migration and displacement for the sake of survival, which results in the uprooting of communities with no certainty of return, exposes a grave climate injustice – those who have contributed the least to climate change face the harshest consequences, yet international law offers them no recognition or protection.
The leaders of the Global North continue to discuss economic growth, which now encompasses the green transition. Nevertheless, this transition is predicated on the extraction of resources and violations of human rights in Africa.
The AU has stood firm and has rejected these economic scenarios of kicking the can down Vilakazi Street. Economic growth is dependent on a capitalist system that exploits Africans and their natural resources. Professor David Barash has likened this endless fog of thought regarding endless economic growth to a Ponzi scheme. He suggests that it is “based on the illusion that future payments can always be made by further exploitation down the road”.
What the International Court of Justice Must Decide—And Why It Matters
The ICJ’s opinion is imminent and could reframe the narrative on interpreting international climate law. The AU has made its demands clear through three arguments. In its written submissions (paragraph 61 and footnote 113), the AU has argued for the legal recognition of loss and damage under the UN Paris Agreement. The African argument is based on the efficiency, sufficiency, and effectiveness of loss and damage. Africa is asking the Court to confirm that climate change damages should trigger liability under international law. It is important to note that this will reopen the debate on whether the Court should apply the strict liability or the burden of proof test. The AU has left this scenario for the esteemed judges to decide.
The AU has also called for binding financial mechanisms. It has called for a global carbon tax, debt relief for climate-vulnerable countries, and mandatory contributions to the Loss and Damage Fund, which must be enforced. This is a task for the international arena, given the political turmoil the world is experiencing.
Another argument put forward by the AU in its written submission (paragraph 28) is based on intergenerational equity. Africa is the youngest continent, with over 70% under 30, and the majority of the world will depend on this young generation in the years to come. The impacts of climate change pose a profound challenge to intergenerational equity. Current environmental degradation and resource depletion disproportionately burden future generations, who have contributed least to the climate crisis and need more resources for their development. It is anticipated that this will result in migration both within and across the African continent.
The AU has stated that addressing intergenerational equity requires urgent climate action, equitable policies, and investment in adaptation to ensure that Africa’s youth inherit a habitable and prosperous continent. The AU has stood up for the rights of Africa’s future generations, which must be protected and not sacrificed for the sake of economic growth and the profits of polluters.
Test of Global Conscience
The ICJ is expected to deliver its advisory opinion on climate justice in 2025. This landmark advisory opinion will clarify the legal obligations of states to mitigate climate change, protect the climate system, and prevent harm to present and future generations. The ICJ will also assess the legal consequences for states that fail to meet these obligations, including potential liability for loss and damage.
As the principal judicial body of the United Nations, the ICJ’s ruling will provide authoritative guidance on the scope of climate-related responsibilities under international law. This will influence future climate litigation, policymaking, and global negotiations. The ICJ’s findings could reinforce accountability mechanisms and influence the development of climate justice within legal and diplomatic spheres.
The AU’s ICJ oral and written submissions are not just another faint case; they are intertwined with a history of exploitation, colonisation, slavery, resource extraction, and moral reckoning. It is more than just a legal challenge. Africa is now seeking reparations for a crisis it never caused, yet has absorbed and continues to face the brunt of some of the catastrophic impacts of climate change.
If the ICJ supports climate justice, it holds the potential to force the world’s wealthiest nations to finally pay their debts to Africa. However, if the AU’s opinion and submissions fail, it will also send a strong message regarding the rules-based world we live in and international law. The message will be clear: “International law still favours the powerful over the powerless.” It could also mean a point of no return for the Global South, as they have begun to unite under an intergovernmental organisation formed by eleven countries: Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the United Arab Emirates, Ethiopia, Indonesia, and Iran (BRICS). This will certainly strengthen their cries of unfairness and inequality in rule enforcement – that some rules don’t apply to others.
As the world watched the Derna Dam walls crumble and as water flooded the streets of Nampula Province, and before raindrops hit dry lands in Somalia, one question remains before Africa’s yellow sunsets: will justice ever prevail, or will Africa continue to pay for the misdeeds and pollution of others?
*Alois Aldridge Mugadza is a national of Zimbabwe and Research Fellow at The University of the West Indies.
Acknowledgements: many thanks to Romain Mauger and Chantelle G. Moyo.
DISCLAIMER: The views expressed in the symposium’s blog posts are those of the author and do not represent the views of WYCJ. Furthermore, university chapters were prepared, edited, and approved by the respective universities; WYCJ cannot guarantee the level of scientific and legal inquiry, nor the content of blog posts.