Just Energy Transition Partnerships, as currently structured, represent a form of neocolonialism that undermines African sovereignty and development. (Photo by Per-Anders Pettersson/Getty Images)
Just Energy Transition Partnerships (JetPs) have emerged as a significant mechanism in global efforts to tackle climate change. JetPs are promoted as a win-win solution: they aim to help developing nations reduce their carbon emissions while providing financial support for a shift to green energy. But beneath this is a troubling reality.
These agreements are forged between high-income countries and international financial institutions such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund and developing nations with the aim of facilitating a transition from fossil fuel-based energy systems to renewable energy.
The concept was first introduced during the COP26 climate conference in 2021, and since then, several agreements have been signed. South Africa’s $8.5 billion JetP deal with countries such as the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, France and the European Union has garnered the most attention. Indonesia and Vietnam have also signed JetPs, with others, such as India and Senegal, under negotiation.
The common thread across these agreements is the reliance on financial packages that include loans, grants and private sector investments.
Despite the intention, JetPs often perpetuate patterns of neocolonialism, undermining the sovereignty and long-term development potential of developing countries. From increasing debt burdens through loan-based financing to threatening local ownership and imposing rapid transitions on fossil fuel-dependent economies, JetPs create more problems than they solve.
One of the most glaring issues with JetPs is their reliance on loans rather than grants. In South Africa’s case, only a fraction of the $8.5 billion package is in the form of grants, while the majority consists of loans with varying interest rates. For a country already grappling with a public debt exceeding 70% of its GDP, this deal adds to an unsustainable financial burden. Senegal, too, faces the prospect of taking on new debt for its JetP, despite its relatively low carbon emissions. This approach effectively mirrors the structural adjustment programmes of the 1980s and 1990s, where African nations were saddled with loans that came with stringent conditions. These debts limited public investment in essential sectors such as health, education, and infrastructure, leaving countries dependent on external financing for decades.
JetPs often prioritise the involvement of international corporations and foreign technology providers, sidelining local businesses and communities. In South Africa’s case, much of the funding is earmarked for decommissioning coal plants and investing in renewable energy projects. But the ownership of these projects frequently lies in the hands of multinational corporations rather than local entities. This threatens to create an energy system where profits flow out of the country, undermining local economic development. Moreover, these partnerships often impose conditions that limit a country’s ability to negotiate better deals or develop its own energy strategies. For instance, agreements may require the adoption of specific technologies produced by donor countries, effectively turning developing nations into testing grounds for foreign innovation without guaranteeing long-term benefits.
Although transitioning to renewable energy is essential for combating climate change, the speed and manner in which JetPs push for this transition can be detrimental to fossil fuel-dependent economies. Countries such as Nigeria, Angola and Senegal rely heavily on oil and gas exports for revenue. Leapfrog directly to renewables, without providing viable economic alternatives risks destabilising their economies. In South Africa, coal accounts for more than 70% of electricity generation and employs thousands of people. Similar issues exist in Senegal, where natural gas discoveries have been touted as a solution to its economic problems.
JetPs focus primarily on large-scale projects that may not address the immediate energy needs of the population. In Africa, more than 600 million people don’t have electricity. By prioritising export-oriented renewable projects or urban grid modernisation, JetPs risk neglecting off-grid and decentralised energy solutions that could have a more immediate effect on energy access.
In South Africa, the JetP framework prioritises the decommissioning of coal plants and the development of renewable energy for the national grid. South Africa’s JetP is often hailed as a model for other countries, but a closer look reveals flaws. First, civil society organisations have criticised the government for not being transparent about how funds will be allocated and managed. This raises concerns about corruption and mismanagement. Second, while the term “just transition” implies a focus on protecting workers and communities affected by the shift from coal, the actual plans provide little detail on how this will be achieved. For instance, there is no comprehensive strategy to reskill coal workers or create alternative employment opportunities. Third, that the majority of the $8.5 billion package consists of loans undermines the principle of climate justice, which advocates for high-emission countries to bear the cost of global decarbonization.
Developing countries must assert greater control over their energy transitions, prioritising solutions that align with their unique developmental needs. African nations can pool resources and expertise to develop regional energy projects. Initiatives such as the African Continental Free Trade Area provide a framework for such collaboration. In addition, decentralised, community-owned renewable energy systems could ensure that the benefits of the energy transition are distributed equitably. These projects can also create local jobs and reduce energy poverty.
Further, high-income countries should provide grants, not loans, to support Africa’s energy transition. This aligns with the “polluter pays” principle, recognising the historical responsibility of industrialised nations for climate change.
Last, countries dependent on fossil fuels must be supported in diversifying their economies before transitioning to renewables. This involves investing in sectors such as agriculture, manufacturing, and technology to reduce reliance on resource exports.
By increasing debt, eroding local ownership, and imposing unworkable energy transition timelines, these agreements prioritise the interests of donor countries over the needs of African nations. Africa’s energy transition must be guided by principles of climate justice, which emphasise equity, fairness and local empowerment. High-income countries must recognise their historical responsibility for climate change and provide unconditional support to enable a genuinely just transition. Until JetPs are restructured to align with these principles, they will remain a flawed and exploitative model – one that developing countries would do well to reject.
Karabo Mokgonyana is a renewable energy campaigner at Power Shift Africa.
