Thank you for those questions. Let me start with the last one.
In 2009, the international community came together and pledged—it wasn't committed to, but pledged—that the global north would start providing $100 billion every year to the global south to help it adapt to climate change. When we speak about resilience, you have to ask yourself, has that money materialized from 2009 to 2024? It has not materialized, even for one year. The most we have ever given is a little over $80 billion, and that's a highly contested number. That's by the OECD. Of that, over 60% tends to be for loans. This is supposed to be grant-based financing.
I heard another gentleman ask about what I would say is a rising debt crisis in Africa. If you are not supporting countries to adapt and build their resilience—let's really think about what these terms means—and if you provide financing in the manner of loans, is it any different from what we saw in the 1990s with the structural adjustment programs that came under development? We already know that they didn't work, and the ill effects of them are already being felt. African states had to privatize education. They had to privatize water. These are not systems that are sustainable in the era of the climate crisis, so that's the biggest problem.
We are now in the era of the Paris Agreement, which says the global north has a responsibility to avert, minimize and address loss and damage. By not providing financing, we missed our opportunity to address and minimize. For a lot of countries in Africa, we're in the era of loss and damage, and we're going to be in a situation where we need to address loss and damage, but still help these countries adapt. That has to come in both types of financing. The loss and damage fund was established at the last COP, and that needs to be grant-based financing.