Left Behind: Why Afghanistan Cannot Tackle Climate Change Alone

Image: Stephen Dupont/wikicommons under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic license

"We don't have money for all; aid has largely been reduced. Countries should use their internal resources, like minerals, for tackling climate change."

This statement, voiced by western representatives at two recent conferences I attended, reflects a shifting narrative in international climate finance. Developed nations, facing economic constraints, are increasingly advocating for developing countries to finance climate action through their natural wealth - especially mineral resources. However, this approach is unrealistic for fragile states like Afghanistan, where governance, financial capacity, and security concerns make such a strategy nearly impossible.

A Country Left Behind

Afghanistan is among the ten countries that have historically received inadequate climate funding, alongside Chad, South Sudan, Somalia, Niger, Mali, Yemen, Ethiopia, Uganda and Iraq. These nations face acute climate risks, yet international climate financing mechanism has largely failed to provide them required funding. According to the Climate Adaptation Finance Index (CAFI) 2024, 90% of developing countries receive less adaptation funding than warranted by their climate risks, with Afghanistan and six of its counterparts being among the highest climate risk category.

Climate disasters have inflicted massive economic losses on Afghanistan. The flash floods in Baghlan province in May 2024 killed over 315 people and destroyed more than 2,000 homes, underscoring the country’s extreme vulnerability. Beyond humanitarian toll, such disasters have devastating economic consequences. Agriculture, the backbone of Afghanistan’s economy, is repeatedly crippled by droughts and floods, deepening food insecurity and pushing more people into poverty.

An Afghanistan Analysts Network (AAN) report estimates that climate-related economic losses in Afghanistan amount to $550 million in a normal year, and exceed three $3 billion during severe droughts – equivalent to between almost 3.2% and more than 18% of the country’s GDP. This is staggering when compared to Afghanistan’s national budget of just $2.7 billion in 2023, barely enough to sustain basic government functions. Meanwhile, Afghanistan’s Nationally Determined Contributions (NDC) estimated that $1.7 billion would be needed for adaptation and mitigation between 2021 and 2030. However, with no progress since the Taliban takeover, this figure will likely be reflected in its 2025 revision for the 2026–2030 period. Securing such funding appears increasingly unlikely.

The Myth of Self-Financing Through Minerals

One frequently suggested alternative to foreign aid is Afghanistan’s untapped mineral wealth, estimated at over $1 trillion. However, multiple factors make this an impractical solution for climate finance.

First, Afghanistan’s mining sector remains severely underdeveloped, lacking expertise, infrastructure, and regulatory frameworks. The country doesn’t even have a functioning constitution under the Taliban rule. The failure of the Mes Aynak copper mine in Logar province highlights the challenges of relying on mining revenues. Despite being the world’s second-largest copper deposit and under contract with the Chinese company MCC, the mine has yet to generate any revenue for Afghanistan. Although the Taliban pressured the Chinese contractor to start operations and even held an inauguration ceremony, no significant progress has been made.

Second, large-scale mineral extraction requires long-term investment, something unlikely in Afghanistan’s current political environment. The Taliban’s unrecognized government faces international sanctions, and the mass evacuation of experts following the regime change has further weakened the country’s technical capacity.

Finally, even Afghanistan’s coal exports to Pakistan illustrate the limitations of relying on resource extraction. Despite increased coal exports, the revenue generated remains insufficient even for the national budget – let alone for financing climate adaptation projects. If Afghanistan struggles to fund basic expenditures, expecting it to finance large-scale climate adaptation from minerals alone is unrealistic.

A Broken Promise: The Global Climate Finance Crisis

The reduction in aid for fragile states comes at a critical moment, just when climate financing should be increasing. COP29 set ambitious goals to expand funding until 2035, but these commitments are now at risk. The U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Agreement and continued development aid cuts by donor countries further endanger support for the world’s most vulnerable nations.

This failure to provide adequate climate financing undermines the credibility of global agreements on climate and disaster risk reduction, including the “No-Harm” principle. Afghanistan, like many least-developed countries, contributes almost nothing to global greenhouse gas emissions yet suffers disproportionately from climate change.

Moreover, without sufficient funding, achieving the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) will become nearly impossible. Climate resilience is critical for economic stability, food security, and disaster preparedness – all of which are key SDG targets. Without financial backing, fragile states will fall further behind, worsening global inequality.

A Way Forward

Given the challenges fragile governments face in accessing climate funds—especially lack of technical capacity—a decentralized approach could be more effective. Instead of relying solely on central governments, international donors and development agencies should engage multiple stakeholders including local communities, civil society organizations, national NGOs and regional institutions, for implementing climate adaptation projects.

This approach could help fund small and medium-scale adaptation projects that, while not a complete solution, would at least reduce climate pressures in the near future. Without such action, climate impacts could spiral out of control, making future interventions even more costly and ineffective.

While donor countries face economic constraints, aid reductions should focus on middle-income nations—which have the capacity to generate internal revenues—not fragile states like Afghanistan. As one of the most climate-vulnerable and economically weak countries, Afghanistan must remain a priority. Its climate crisis is not just an environmental issue – it is an economic and humanitarian emergency.

The belief that Afghanistan can tackle climate change using its own resources is a dangerous misconception. The country’s fiscal limitations, governance challenges, and security risks make this impossible. With aid shrinkage, the international community should recognize the urgency of prioritizing fragile states in climate finance.

Ultimately, climate justice demands that the most vulnerable nations receive the assistance they need. Failing to support fragile states like Afghanistan will not only worsen their crises but also undermining the broader fight against climate change, increasing the risk of forced displacement and security threats with far-reaching consequences. The time for decisive action is now.

Related articles:

Flooding in the Sahara, Amazon Tributaries Drying and Warming Tipping Over 1.5°C – 2024 Broke All the Wrong Records (3-minute read)

Climate impacts are forcing people from their homes. When, how and why do they have valid refugee claims? (3-minute read)

Human insecurity from climate change on Vanuatu and Guam (3-minute read)

Dr.-Ing. M, Assem Mayar is a climate change expert and former lecturer at Kabul Polytechnic University in Afghanistan. He is currently an independent researcher based in Germany. He posts on X as @assemmayar1.