How the Global Center on Adaptation Became Africa’s Latest Climate Accountability Crisis

The Global Center on Adaptation (GCA) rose to prominence on the promise of championing climate resilience across Africa, attracting massive donor support and positioning itself as a guardian of the continent’s adaptation agenda. For years, it marketed itself as the leading light in climate financing, boasting grand achievements, high-level partnerships, and access to heads of state. But a devastating investigation by Dutch broadcaster NOS has shaken this carefully crafted image and triggered a wave of donor mistrust, accountability concerns, and questions about what truly happens behind closed doors at GCA’s African operations.

The NOS investigation revealed that GCA repeatedly exaggerated its achievements, claiming to have initiated $25 billion in climate adaptation investments, improved the lives of 82.5 million Africans, and created 900,000 jobs on an annual budget of just €23 million. Former staff members disclosed that they were pressured by top management to inflate these numbers and package them in a way that impressed donors. Worse, GCA allegedly took credit for projects led by other organizations and claimed deep involvement in multiple World Bank initiatives where its role was minimal or nonexistent. GCA denied any wrongdoing, insisting its numbers were independently validated, but the damage was irreversible. Donors reacted swiftly. The Netherlands announced it would stop funding GCA beyond 2026, Norway paused its support pending transparency guarantees, and other funders quietly stepped back—unwilling to bankroll an institution under a cloud of misleading claims.

While donors abroad were losing confidence, Kenya granted GCA sweeping privileges, including host-country status, tax exemptions, and immunity provisions typically reserved for major multilateral bodies. This decision sparked public criticism, with many questioning why the Kenyan government would extend diplomatic-style protections to an NGO under growing international scrutiny. Civil society groups warned that granting immunity to an organization already facing allegations of misleading donors risks creating a sanctuary of impunity in a sector where opacity, inflated budgets, and consultant capture are already rampant. GCA and the Kenyan government defended the arrangement, but the timing and secrecy have deepened suspicion rather than restored confidence.

Read Also: Scaling Resilience: Africa Re and IFC Lead Continental Push for Climate and Agriculture Insurance Solutions

As this global controversy unfolded, additional internal allegations from within African operations surfaced, painting an even darker picture. These claims—still unverified but deeply troubling—suggest a system where highly qualified African experts are sidelined in favor of European and Asian consultants with little contextual experience, where procurement processes allegedly favor a tight circle of preferred firms, where complaints from African service providers disappear into silence, and where staff who refuse to participate in questionable practices are reportedly targeted for dismissal. These claims align with patterns seen in many donor-funded pipelines where foreign consultants dominate budgets, inflate scopes, and dictate implementation, while African expertise is reduced to a footnote. Although these internal allegations have not been publicly proven, their consistency with the verified NOS findings demands serious attention and urgent independent investigation.

What emerges from this growing storm is a clear and painful reality: an institution created to serve Africa’s climate interests may have evolved into a structure more accountable to European consultants and inflated metrics than to the African communities it claims to uplift. This is catastrophic in a moment when Africa faces life-and-death climate pressures—collapsing food systems, prolonged droughts, violent floods, and deepening displacement. Every dollar lost to exaggeration, collusion, or consultant capture is a dollar stolen directly from African adaptation and survival.

Across the continent, questions grow louder. How can donor funds meant for climate adaptation be protected from misuse? Who guards the guardians when those claiming to protect Africa’s climate resilience are accused of distorting facts? Why should Kenya or any African state offer immunity to an organization donors no longer trust? And why are African experts systematically locked out of decisions shaping the continent’s climate future?

These concerns point to an inescapable conclusion: Africa must demand a full, independent forensic audit of GCA’s operations—including procurement, staffing, contracting, and reporting. The secrecy and questionable metrics can no longer be brushed aside. Immunity must be reconsidered. Every contract and partnership must be scrutinized. And every whistleblower must be protected from retaliation, because without their voices, the truth remains buried under polished reports and glossy press releases.

Climate adaptation is too important to be captured by unaccountable institutions. Too many African lives hinge on the integrity of this work. GCA once promised to be Africa’s climate champion; now it stands at the center of one of the continent’s most urgent accountability battles. The truth must come out, not to destroy an institution, but to rebuild climate adaptation around transparency, integrity, and African leadership. Africa deserves nothing less than climate institutions that are honest, locally grounded, and truly committed to the resilience of its people. The time for silence is over, and the demand for truth has never been more urgent.

Read Also: Equity and Social Justice Through Devolved Climate Action: Community-led Adaptation in Kenya