The formal withdrawal of the United States from major United Nations bodies, including from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) announced earlier in January, has raised concerns among African scientists about the long-term stability of climate research, early-warning systems and international scientific cooperation.
The UNFCCC is the core multilateral process that shapes national reporting and climate policy cycles, while the IPCC is the main mechanism that synthesises global scientific climate evidence into assessment reports used by governments, funders and universities.
Across African institutions, the programmes most exposed are those that rely on the UNFCCC and IPCC for climate research and modelling. Further anticipated impacts include: reduced capacity-building, assessment-related opportunities and participation in author teams and review processes, and less resourced regional science engagement, according to the scientists.
The impacts are expected to also spill to climate-related services and applied research in the fields of agriculture, water and disasters, with the potential weakening of cross-border coordination and technical initiatives that often form part of the multilateral system.
Energy transition research and policy support would also be affected due to less predictable global technical support and slower consensus on benchmarks that influence donor priorities and national planning.
Biodiversity and ecosystem research (where linked to global assessment bodies) would also suffer as there would be a likely reduction in multilateral convening power and funding alignment across biodiversity, oceans and ecosystems.
Climate science is interconnected
While the immediate effects may not be dramatic, researchers warned that the cumulative impact on funding, technical capacity and scientific infrastructure could be significant, particularly for regions already highly exposed to extreme climate events.
Atmospheric scientist Professor Roelof Burger, who is involved in regional climate risk and early-warning initiatives at North-West University in South Africa told University World News that the concern is less about political signalling and more about practical consequences for the systems that underpin climate science and disaster-risk reduction.
He outlined that much of the work on multi-hazard early-warning systems in the Southern African Development Community, or SADC, depends on global weather and climate science infrastructure.
This includes numerical weather prediction models, radar processing and nowcasting tools, as well as the training and research-to-operations pipelines that support their use.
“These systems are not developed or maintained in isolation. They rely on global model guidance, open-source tools, international standards and sustained capacity-building, much of which is underpinned, directly or indirectly, by US institutions,” said Burger.
Impact on evidence-based science
Letsatsi Lekhooa, a systems librarian and climate change researcher at the National University of Lesotho, added that disengagement of the US from major UN bodies could imply that climate research becomes less coordinated and under-resourced.
It would also mean reduced shared scientific capacity, slowed consensus-building, and increased fragmentation in how evidence is produced and used, particularly in Sub-Saharan Africa.
“The support of the United States has historically mattered in three ways: funding streams, scientific leadership, and data infrastructure. If withdrawal is matched by cuts to contributions and participation, the impact will be felt through fewer technical workshops, weaker support to global assessment processes, and fewer opportunities for researchers from the Global South to engage in high-visibility scientific networks,” he said.
“For Lesotho, the concern is practical. Lesotho relies on international climate architecture for support to [do] national reporting, planning and adaptation implementation.”
“Weakening UNFCCC-linked technical support can affect the country’s ability to access expertise and maintain continuity in evidence-based planning, especially where local research capacity is still developing and depends on external networks.
“Lesotho is already experiencing such pressure because some of the projects are already halted or paused,” he explained.
Shared global infrastructure at risk
According to Burger, reduced US participation in bodies such as the UNFCCC and IPCC could translate into slower scientific progress, fewer training opportunities and weaker support for operational climate services. In regions vulnerable to floods, droughts, heatwaves and severe storms, even small disruptions can have severe consequences.
“Within the projects I’m currently working on, like radar modernisation, early-warning system design and regional climate risk assessments, the risk is that tools and partnerships we’ve treated as ‘stable background infrastructure’ become less reliable.
“Even small disruptions matter in regions already highly exposed to floods, droughts, heatwaves and severe storms,” Burger highlighted.
Radar modernisation involves upgrading ageing, 1980s-era surveillance systems with modern, digital technology to improve safety, efficiency and maintenance.
Burger also pointed to a growing unease about the future of major US-based research institutions such as the National Center for Atmospheric Research, or NCAR, which plays a central role in stewarding climate models, radar software and training programmes used globally.
“NCAR isn’t just a US asset; it’s a global one,” he emphasised, pointing out that any fragmentation or reduction in its capacity would be felt disproportionately in Africa, where many national and regional systems depend on these shared resources.
Implications for climate-resilient development
While the full consequences of the US withdrawal are still unfolding, African researchers stress the need for diversifying international partnerships, strengthening regional technical capacity and reducing dependence on single sources of expertise or funding.
Lekhooa further noted that, if withdrawal includes climate finance-related entities, the consequences can extend to adaptation and resilience project pipelines, affecting university research projects that depend on partnerships and co-financing.
“It is important to distinguish between US government withdrawal from multilateral institutions and the wider American scientific community. Research collaboration will continue, but the multilateral system matters because it sets shared priorities, convenes scientific consensus, and enables smaller countries to participate in a more equal footing.
“The net effect for Africa is a higher transaction cost for collaboration, and potentially slower progress in translating science into funded action,” said Lekhooa.
Professor Debra Roberts, the head of the Sustainable and Resilient City Initiatives Unit in the eThekwini Municipality, in the KwaZulu-Natal province of South Africa, and a past co-chair and a current coordinating lead author of the IPCC, situated the issue within the broader challenge of achieving climate-resilient development.
“The science clearly points to the fact that, if we are to achieve climate-resilient development (that is ambitious adaptation and mitigation with a view to achieving sustainable development for all) we would need a whole of society approach: that is, we would need everyone involved and acting ambitiously,” she underscored.
University World News
