Across Africa, farmers are changing planting calendars, selecting hardier seeds, restoring degraded land and combining inherited knowledge with new science. Communities are mapping flood risks, protecting wetlands and building local energy systems. Entrepreneurs are developing responses to unreliable electricity, food insecurity and environmental degradation.
Yet Africa too often enters global climate conversations primarily as a place of vulnerability: a continent warming faster than the global average, facing development constraints and suffering impacts it did little to cause.
That description is accurate but incomplete. It risks turning African people into recipients of climate policy rather than recognising them as authors of it.
Keep up with the latest headlines on WhatsApp | LinkedIn
Inequalities in research funding reinforce this imbalance. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change notes that 78% of funding for Africa-related climate research between 1990 and 2020 flowed to institutions in Europe and the United States, compared with only 14.5% to institutions in Africa.
As COP31 approaches, that must change. The conference in Antalya, Türkiye, from 9 to 20 November 2026, will focus on turning the Paris Agreement’s commitments into practical outcomes. If climate action is about delivery, the question is simple: whose solutions will be delivered, who will control the resources, and whose knowledge will define success?
The answer cannot be imported wholesale
This is not an argument against international cooperation. Africa needs climate finance, technology partnerships, scientific collaboration and fairer global institutions. It needs adaptation finance that reaches communities facing droughts, floods, heat, food insecurity and public health risks.
The gap is enormous. The United Nations Environment Programme estimates that developing countries will need between US310billionandUS365 billion annually for adaptation by 2035. International public adaptation finance stood at US$26 billion in 2023.
That gap represents roads vulnerable to flooding, farmers unable to access resilient seed, towns without reliable water systems and households forced to absorb climate shocks alone.
But more money, by itself, will not produce effective adaptation. Finance can fail when it is designed far from the communities expected to implement it, burdened by inaccessible procedures or tied to unsuitable technologies. A borehole, solar system or restoration project can be technically impressive and still fail if the community cannot maintain it, afford it or govern it.
The first principle of a more effective response should therefore be local ownership.
Consider agriculture. Climate-smart agriculture is often presented as a package of technologies delivered to farmers. In practice, farmers are already experimenting with intercropping, water harvesting, agroforestry, crop diversification and planting strategies suited to their conditions. They are not merely adopting innovation; they are producing it.
Their decisions reflect soil, rainfall, labour, livestock, markets, culture and household risk in ways that standardised programmes often miss.
The same is true of seed systems. Research in West Africa has found that farmers obtain much of their seed through farmer-managed systems rather than formal commercial channels. That does not make formal research and certified seed unimportant. It means resilient seed policy must also recognise farmer selection, local exchange, community seed banks and participatory breeding.
A seed is not resilient simply because it performs well in a trial. It is resilient when farmers can access it, trust it, reproduce it where appropriate and use it under real climatic and economic conditions.
Innovation that lasts
Africa’s climate future will also depend on decentralised energy. Where grid expansion is slow or unreliable, solar mini-grids, efficient appliances and local repair businesses can provide more than electricity.
In Tanzania’s Ludewa District, a community-owned mini-grid serving villages around Mawengi has enabled businesses to extend their hours, helped health centres refrigerate medical supplies and allowed sunflower seeds to be processed into oil locally.
Research in Kenya and Zambia similarly shows that incorporating irrigation, refrigeration and crop processing into mini-grid planning can improve productivity and resilience to changing rainfall.
The question is not simply whether a technology is new. It is whether the system is affordable, repairable, locally governed and capable of generating lasting value.
This is where the language of innovation must become more honest. Innovation is not only a laboratory breakthrough, a mobile application or a patented device. It can be a farmer’s response to rainfall uncertainty, a women’s cooperative managing a water point, a youth group turning waste into useful products, or a community restoring a wetland that protects homes from flooding.
These solutions may be low-cost and unglamorous, but they can survive beyond a pilot project.
Community-led restoration deserves particular attention because it connects livelihoods, water security, food systems and public health. A wetland can reduce flooding and support groundwater recharge. Healthy soil protects food production and reduces erosion. Reusing waste can create jobs and reduce pressure on municipal systems.
Zimbabwe’s U-RISE project, supported by the Global Environment Facility and implemented with the Food and Agriculture Organization, aims to strengthen community and ecosystem resilience through the management of urban and peri-urban wetlands, forests, waste and agrifood systems. The lesson is clear: adaptation and mitigation should not be separated from local economic development.
Local leadership requires investment
Placing local solutions at the centre does not mean romanticising communities or shifting responsibility onto people who have contributed least to climate change.
Communities cannot be expected to maintain infrastructure indefinitely without public investment. Farmers cannot carry the cost of adaptation through unpaid labour. Local innovation should not become an excuse for governments, development agencies or corporations to withdraw.
The purpose of local leadership is not to replace the obligations of states and international institutions; it is to make those obligations more effective, accountable and grounded in reality.
Adaptation funding should reach local organisations directly or through intermediaries that understand local accountability and do not impose unnecessary barriers. It should support the full life of an intervention: design, implementation, maintenance, learning and adaptation.
It should also value work that is difficult to quantify but essential to resilience, including trust-building, community organising, knowledge-sharing and the confidence to participate in technical decisions.
COP31 should listen differently. Africa should not arrive only with requests for compensation, finance and support, important as those demands are. It should also arrive with a clear proposition: its communities, researchers, farmers and innovators are already testing the future that global climate policy claims to seek.
Sign up for free AllAfrica Newsletters
Get the latest in African news delivered straight to your inbox
That proposition should shape the conference’s outcomes in four ways.
First, adaptation finance should be channelled more directly towards locally led initiatives and made easier for community organisations to access. Second, programmes should measure local capability, maintenance, equity and long-term resilience, not only workshops held or technologies distributed.
Third, international partnerships should invest in African research, manufacturing, data systems and knowledge networks. Fourth, climate policy should create space for farmer knowledge, Indigenous and local knowledge, youth leadership and community evidence to influence decisions.
The world does not lack climate plans. It lacks sufficient implementation that is trusted, financed and fit for place.
Africa’s local innovations cannot solve every problem, and not every community practice should be scaled without testing. The answer is to connect local knowledge with appropriate science, patient finance, public accountability and peer learning.
Africa’s climate future will not be imported because it is already being built. The task ahead of COP31 is to ensure that the people building it are recognised as partners, knowledge producers and decision-makers.
If COP31 is truly about delivery, it must deliver more than promises to Africa. It must help move African solutions from the margins of climate policy to its centre.
Shorai Murwira is an award-winning Zimbabwean environmental journalist, photojournalist and founder and editor-in-chief of The Southern Environment.
