As climate ambition accelerates globally, the central question facing developing and emerging economies is no longer whether to act — but how to translate commitments into credible investment pathways. In his latest report, published by the African Climate Foundation (ACF), Saliem Fakir explores how country platforms can serve as practical instruments to align climate finance with national development priorities. The paper draws on nearly six years of experimentation and engagement across multiple African contexts to distil lessons on what makes these platforms effective.
Country platforms sit at the heart of the African Climate Foundation’s work, bridging the gap between national climate commitments and the investment pipelines required to deliver them. They also form a central pillar of the organisation’s strategic refresh, to be launched this year. In this interview, Fakir explains how this paper draws on nearly six years of experimentation and engagement across multiple African contexts to distil lessons on what makes these platforms effective.
1. What is the main objective of this country platform paper?
Drawing on nearly six years of experience implementing country platforms, including South Africa’s Just Energy Transition Partnership (JET-P), this paper examines how country platforms can effectively align climate finance with national development priorities. It shows how the concept has evolved beyond mitigation-focused investment frameworks to include adaptation and resilience, with emerging initiatives in countries such as Malawi and Zambia. These experiences demonstrate that delivering on NDCs and NAPs must be integrated within broader development and economic transformation agendas.
The African Climate Foundation approaches country platforms through an opportunity-oriented lens: even in contexts of severe climate risk, these platforms can mobilise additional resources, attract investment, and guide long-term planning. Well-designed country platforms create coherent investment pipelines aligned with national priorities, unlocking sustainable growth while addressing climate and development objectives simultaneously.
2. What does country ownership mean in practice, how does that play out, who are the important stakeholders?
National ownership in practice is a prerequisite for feasibility, particularly given the scale combined with scrutiny from international partners, creates strong incentives for active government leadership and credible domestic accountability. When platforms coordinate large volumes of public, concessional, and private capital, responsibility for strategic direction, risk management, and reform rests with the state.
National ownership is reflected in high-level political support and a genuine willingness to undertake policy and regulatory reform which country platforms can fast-track by linking reform directly to investment opportunities, aligning line ministries, strengthening public institutions, and embedding platforms within national planning and budgetary processes.
Effective country platforms require coordination well beyond climate or finance ministries alone; spanning central government, sector ministries, public finance authorities, and delivery institutions, alongside domestic financial institutions, the private sector, and social partners.
3. What are the inherent trade-offs in designing and implementing country platforms?
A central trade-off lies in how narrowly country platforms are framed. Approaching them purely through a climate lens risks overestimating what climate institutions alone can deliver. Platforms are about scaling new technologies, industries, and infrastructure which lies beyond traditional climate expertise. This demands strong state leadership. Yet the required capabilities in infrastructure planning, industrial policy, and public financial management, are uneven and often must be built over time.
A further trade-off concerns finance: effective platforms must mobilise capital beyond climate sources, including domestic public resources and private investment aligned with national priorities. These constraints create tension between ambitious NDC and NAP targets and the pace of change in the real economy. Country platforms are systemic reforms requiring new institutions, coordination mechanisms, and iterative learning to balance urgency with delivery realities.
4. What would be some of the lessons and challenges of implementation?
Country platforms operate within complex political economies, and tensions often emerge during implementation that were not visible at the design stage. Experience from South Africa’s JETP illustrates this: a centralised, coal-dependent system with entrenched interests must navigate strong political leadership and international pressure to move quickly, creating friction between ambition and institutional reality.
As investments shift from planning to capital deployment, resistance from path-dependent actors can intensify. Managing this requires sustained political engagement. Social outcomes are equally critical as if just transition benefits are not delivered early and credibly, grievances can become politicised.
Finally, while multiple funders increase resources, they also raise transaction costs through differing processes and reporting requirements, often straining delivery capacity.
5. Any final observations from your end?
Country platforms are hugely important for developing countries as a tool to deliver both a climate and development agenda. The context of developing countries is that this duality and convergence of the climate and development nexus is a necessity. Country platforms must be given the seriousness they deserve.
There is growing fatigue with forms of climate advocacy that call for change without grappling with the institutional and financial realities required to deliver it. We need an alliance of government, civil society, business, labour unions and community organisations that are not only advocates but also implementors. The role of philanthropies like the African Climate Foundation is to ensure we can help facilitate a delivery ecosystem – something we explore more in the paper.
These themes are explored in greater depth in ‘Appraising Country Platforms: Aligning Climate Finance with Development in Developing and Emerging Economies’. The paper sets out a working definition of country platforms, criteria for effectiveness, lessons from implementation, and reflections on the political economy conditions that shape their success. We invite policymakers, practitioners, partners, and funders to engage with the full paper as we continue refining and strengthening this approach in practice.
The report will be available here on Friday 6 March 2026.
