By Sharon Atieno | sharonphoebeatieno@gmail.com
As Africa bears the biggest brunt of climate change impacts, there is need to deepen coverage of climate change issues in the continent to enhance public understanding and mobilize support for climate action.
This is according to literature review findings on the coverage of climate change issues in Africa conducted by MESHA under the Action Research for Effective Coverage of Climate Change issues in Africa (ARECCCA) project.
The review found that there are weaknesses in media coverage of climate change in the continent. For instance, coverage often lacks depth and local relevance. This is because most climate narratives are over dependent on foreign sources weakening local narratives.
Under context and themes, the review found that climate change journalism is event-driven or episodic. Media houses highlight extreme weather events such as floods, droughts and hurricanes or major climate change conferences. Such coverage, underreports long-term and structural drivers of climate change. As a result, it becomes perceived as distant and episodic rather than a persistent global crisis.
Additionally, climate reporting adopts adaptation and resilience frames, with media coverage often linking climate to livelihoods, food security and water scarcity. This localized framing increases relatability but sometimes downplays mitigation and global structural responsibilities.
Political and economic responsibility narratives also feature prominently. This framing, the review argues, enhances accountability but risks reinforcing elite centered discourses that marginalize community perspectives. In most cases, grassroots adaptation and citizen-led initiatives receive less attention. The review found that human-interest narratives dominate climate reporting, focusing on lived experiences of vulnerable populations.
Though this evokes empathy, such stories may overemphasize victimhood and underplay agency. In terms of gender and inclusion, the review noted that there is gender bias in climate change coverage. Men dominate as experts and technical voice in climate stories while women are often shown in victim or domestic roles. Such representation shapes public perceptions of competence, responsibility, and who belongs in climate decision-making.
Besides, climate communication campaigns often adopt a “vulnerability” frame that highlights women’s risks to attract resources and policy attention. This kind of framing can unintentionally reproduce stereotypes of women as passive victims and obscure their roles as agents and knowledge-holders in adaptation and mitigation.
The review also found there is need for intersectional communication, noting that many groups lack voice in mainstream climate narratives. Climate risk intersects with poverty, disability, age, gender, education and geography. Inclusive framing ensures wider representation.
Under framing and language use, the review noted that the use of terms like “climate crisis” or “climate emergency” has soared, reflecting the increased urgency of scientific assessments.
However, the label alone has only limited effects on public engagement, unless paired with solution-oriented reporting Additionally, overuse of alarmist language was found to be a risk to desensitizing audiences and entrenching polarization.
The review underscores the need for collaboration between scientists and journalists to enhance the quality and impact of climate reporting. Communication barriers often result in either technical jargon from scientists or oversimplified and sensationalized coverage from journalists.
Besides, climate communication should integrate community voices and indigenous knowledge. It finds that participatory journalism is one way of doing it, where communities are not merely sources of information but co-creators of climate narratives.
Other approaches include forums for dialogue and townhall meetings, which bring together journalists, policymakers and local groups for deliberative exchanges. These forums promote a two-way communication model, moving away from the traditional uni-directional reporting style. Also, collaborations with civil society organizations were found to be useful as they accord journalists access to marginalized groups and broaden the diversity of perspectives represented in climate coverage.
