REPORT MAPPING OF CLIMATE FINANCE FLOWS - TO ECOWAS-CILSS ZONE - unfccc
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
REPORT
MAPPING OF CLIMATE
FINANCE FLOWS
TO ECOWAS-CILSS ZONE
Multilateral Public Funding
Programme GCCA+ une initiative du Groupe des Etats ACP financée par le fonds européen de développement de l’Union européenne
REPoRt
of thE maPPing of climatE
financE flows to thE
Ecowas-cilss zonE
3
MAPPING OF CLIMATE FINANCE FLOWS
TO ECOWAS-CILSS ZONE
cREdits & contacts
▷ Déthié Soumaré NDIAYE, Climate Finance Expert, GCCA+ West Africa prject,
Expertise France
Following experts have also been involved in the preparation work for the
report:
▷ Alain S. Traoré, Director of Agriculture and Rural Development, ECOWAS
Commission,
▷ Johnson Boanuh, Director of Environment, ECOWAS Commission,
▷ Bernard Yao Koffi, PPO Environment and Climate, Directorate of Environment,
ECOWAS Commission,
▷ Raoul Konan Kouamé, Climate Change Project Coordinator, Directorate of
Environment, ECOWAS Commission,
▷ Vanessa Laubin, International climate consultant, on behalf of Expertise France,
▷ Matthieu Wemaere, Senior Lawyer specialized in environment and climate law
and policy, international climate consultant, on behalf of Expertise France,
▷ Pierre Haas, Technical Advisor, Department of Agriculture, Environment and
Natural Resources, ECOWAS Commission,
▷ Ibila Djibril, Chair of the Adaptation Fund Board,
▷ Mahamat Abakar Assouyouti, Senior Climate Change Specialist, Adaptation
Fund Board Secretariat,
▷ Aya Mimura, Financial Analyst, Adaptation Fund Board Secretariat,
▷ Daouda B. O. Ndiaye, Lead Adaptation Specialist, Islmaic Development Bank
(IsDB),
▷ Ndiaye Cheikh Sylla, GCF Board member, Chief of staff of the Minister of
Environment and sustainable Development, Sénégal,
▷ Florence Richard, GCF Regional Adviser, Africa,
▷ Amadou Tall, GCF Regional Adviser, Africa,
▷ Cécile Vivien, Climate Technial Assistant, GCCA+ West Africa prject, Expertise
France,
▷ Fabris Compaoré, M&E Officer, GCCA+ West Africa prject, Expertise France
Financial Partners Technical
Partner
This report is published under the sole responsibility of ECOWAS Department of Agriculture, Environment and Natural Resources
and does not necessarily reflect the views of the European Union, ECOWAS or its member states.
Comments on this document may be sent to the ECOWAS Directorate of Agriculture and Rural Development, by post or e-mail.
Programme GCCA+ une initiative du Groupe des Etats ACP financée par le fonds européen de développement de l’Union européenne
MAPPING OF CLIMATE FINANCE FLOWS
TO ECOWAS-CILSS ZONE
contacts
ECOWAS Commission / Department of Agriculture, Environment
and Natural Resources/Directorate of Agriculture and Rural
Development/Annexe River Plaza – 496 Abogo Largema Street –
Central Business District, PMB 401 Abuja FCT – Federal Republic
of Nigeria
agric_ruraldev@ecowas.int
credits
To cite this document:
ECOWAS Commission
Department of Agriculture, Environment and Natural Resources
Report on mapping climate finance flows to the ECOWAS-CILSS zone, 2020
Photo credit: Cover © CEDEAO
© ECOWAP - 2020
Copying, downloading or printing of the content of this document for personal use is authorized. Extracts from
this document may be included in documents, presentations, blogs, websites and educational material,
provided that source and copyright are acknowledged. Requests with a view to public or commercial use or
concerning translation rights should be sent to the ECOWAS Directorate of Agriculture and Rural Development.
Warning: this study concerns the mapping of financial flows to the countries of the ECOWAS-CILSS1 region, with a focus on re-
sources from multilateral funds (since 2003) on the one hand, with a zoom on the Global Environment Fund (GEF), the Green Fund for
Climate (GCF) and the Adaptation Fund; Multilateral Development Banks (since 2015) on the other hand. For resources from multilateral
funds, only country financing is analyzed, the available data not making it possible to identify the share of each country in multi-country
or even multi-regional financing. The data series generally used for multilateral funds ends in February 2019. For the GCF and the FA,
the data used go up to December 2019.
Acknowledgments: Sincere thanks to the following people for their contributions, in alphabetical order according to their mem-
bership organization: Aya Mimura, Financial Analyst, Secretariat of the Adaptation Fund (FA); Ibila Djibril, Vice-Chair of the Adaptation
Fund Board (FA); Mahamat Abakar Assouyouti, Senior Climate Change Specialist, Adaptation Fund Secretariat; Daouda B. O. Ndiaye,
Lead Adaptation Specialist, Islamic Development Bank (IDB); Alain S. Traoré, Director of Agriculture and Rural Development (DADR),
ECOWAS; Amadou Tall, Team Leader PESCAO (Improving Regional Governance of Fisheries in West Africa); Bernard Yao Koffi, PPO
Environment and Climate, ECOWAS; Konan Raoul Kwamé, Coordinator of the Climate Change Project, ECOWAS; Florence Richard,
Regional Advisor for Africa, Green Climate Fund; Ndiaye Cheikh Sylla, Member of the Council of the Green Climate Fund, Director of
Cabinet of Minister of Environment and Sustainable Development of Senegal; Vanessa Laubin, International consultant - Climate and
territories, PROJECTIONS.
1
Benin, Burkina Faso, Cabo Verde, Côte d'Ivoire, The Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Liberia, Mali, Mauritania, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Chad, Togo
5
MAPPING OF CLIMATE FINANCE FLOWS
TO ECOWAS-CILSS ZONE
ExEcutivE summaRy
Africa is the region of the world that contri- on the financial support required and re- access. The agricultural sector received
butes the least to greenhouse gas (GHG) ceived to meet their commitments under the most funding from the AF (46%), follo-
emissions, yet it is the most vulnerable to the international framework for coopera- wed by disaster risk reduction (20%). The
the impacts of climate change. In West tion on climate. This is a first step towards GCF, the main financial instrument of the
Africa, the temperature increase is 1.5 more regular and comprehensive moni- UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement, has
times higher than the global level. Climate toring of climate finance flows to the re- not only adopted the direct access moda-
trends observed over the period 1970- gion and the use of these flows. It shows lity, but has also deepened it by introducing
2010 show that: (i) global temperatures that multilateral climate finance flows to the Enhanced Direct Access (EDA) moda-
have increased, droughts have been re- the region are steadily increasing, with lity. The GCF offers a range of financial ins-
current and severe; (ii) rainfall has gene- the Least Developed Countries Fund truments to enable the private sector to
rally increased; (iii) floods have occurred (LDCF) leading the way among donors, play a greater role in country climate ac-
more frequently and with greater intensity; followed by the Global Environment Fa- tion: equity investments, concessional
and (iv) there has been a retreat of the co- cility (GEF) through its various replenish- loans, guarantees, and grants. To date, the
astline along the West African coastline ments (1-6). As of February 2019, GCF has approved 20 projects, most of
where the major cities and economic infra- financial flows approved by multilateral them public (11), representing a total bud-
structures are located. Nearly 50% of the funds for ECOWAS-CILSS countries get of US$3.8 billion, 31% of which are
region's population derives its income from (country projects) are estimated at about from GCF resources and 69% in the form
sectors (agriculture, livestock and fishe- US$1.4 billion. Multilateral Development of co- financing. This shows the impor-
ries) that are strongly linked to climatic Banks (MDBs) also play a leading role tance of co-financing in the GCF strategy,
conditions and whose total contribution to with nearly US$2.5 billion committed in which places strong emphasis on "blended
GDP is 28% in the CILSS countries and 2018, representing about 6% of all finan- financing" and on the leverage effect of this
32% in the region as a whole. All this trans- cing from MDBs and 28% of financing financing modality. Only about 20% of this
lates into a high vulnerability of the coun- that went to Sub-Saharan Africa. Howe- amount went to country projects, the rest
tries of the region: five of the ten most ver, these resources still fall far short of being allocated to multi-country, even
vulnerable countries in the world are in the the real needs of countries in the region. multi-regional projects, which are difficult
ECOWAS-CILSS zone. As an illustration, the financing needs to analyze from a national or regional pers-
identified in the 2015 nationally determi- pective. Regional actors agree on the need
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate ned contributions (NDCs), and this only to rethink the financing strategy for this
Change (IPCC) estimates that limiting in terms of greenhouse gas emissions re- type of project, giving priority to regional (or
warming to 1.5°C rather than 2°C would duction, already represent a financial even sub-regional) projects, covering
limit the reduction in yields of maize, rice, need of about 340 billion dollars over the countries sharing similar realities and chal-
wheat and, potentially, other cereal crops, period 2015-2030. In addition, the re- lenges, and ensuring a clear and trans-
particularly in sub-Saharan Africa. Howe- sources needed for the implementation of parent distribution of resources.
ver, this requires rapid and far-reaching the NDC of Benin alone are estimated at
transitions in land use, energy, industry, nearly US$ 12 billion, more than half of Some countries and organizations have
construction, transport and urban plan- which is expected from development gained experience in mobilizing climate fi-
ning. These transitions require significant partners. There are also great disparities nance. These experiences should be fur-
financing to take place. between countries, with the most vulne- ther capitalized and enhanced through
rable not always being the best served. regional/South-South cooperation bet-
This report presents the results of the ween institutions and countries in the sub-
mapping of multilateral climate financial Two funds have marked the evolution of region. Beyond the issue of financing
flows to the ECOWAS-CILSS zone. The the multilateral climate finance landscape; mobilization, it would be advisable to ana-
objective of this study is to provide ECO- namely the Green Climate Fund (GCF) lyze the relevance of projects, the extent to
WAS and CILSS Member States with and the Adaptation Fund (AF). The AF in- which they respond to national needs and
complete and accurate information on the troduced one of the major innovations of priorities and are aligned with country pro-
resources available to finance climate ac- direct access and approved funding to the grams and NDCs.
tion, which will enable them to better ECOWAS-CILSS zone in the amount of
identify possible sources of financing, US$98.3 million, representing nearly 35% The use of these resources also deserves
plan and coordinate their requests accor- of AF flows to Africa. More than half of to be better monitored, in particular through
ding to their needs at the national level, these resources (57%) were mobilized the establishment of more formal and in-
and have an objective basis for reporting through direct (11%) or regional (46%) clusive transparency frameworks.
Programme GCCA+ une initiative du Groupe des Etats ACP financée par le fonds européen de développement de l’Union européenne
MAPPING OF CLIMATE FINANCE FLOWS
TO ECOWAS-CILSS ZONE
tablE of contEnts
01 GENERAL CONTEXT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9
02 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11
03 OBJECTIVES AND METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14
3.1. Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14
3.2. Sources and Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14
04 MULTILATERAL FINANCIAL FLOWS TO WEST AFRICA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15
4.1. Financing from multilateral funds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15
4.2. Funding from the Gobal Environment Fund . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19
4.3. Funding from Mutilateral Development Banks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22
4.4. Green Climate Fund financing flows to the ECOWAS-CILSS zone . . . . . . . . . . .26
4.4.1. Presentation of the Green Climate Fund . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26
4.4.2. The porftolio of the Green Climate Fund . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28
4.4.3. Cofinancement et instruments financiers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33
4.5. Portfolio of the Adaptation Fund in the ECOWAS-CILSS zone . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36
05 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40
Bibliographical references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .42
ANNEXES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .44
Annexe 1: List of country projects financed by multilateral mechanisms
in the ECOWAS-CILSS zone countries (until February 2019) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .45
Annexe 2: List of GCF and AF NDAs in ECOWAS-CILSS zone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55
Annexe 3: List of GCF accredited entities operating in the ECOWAS-CILSS region
(GCF data, 2019) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .59
Annexe 4: List of AF accredited entities operating in the ECOWS-CILSS-UEMOA
region (AF data, 2019) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .69
7
MAPPING OF CLIMATE FINANCE FLOWS
TO ECOWAS-CILSS ZONE
list of acRonyms and abbREviations
ACCF Fonds pour les Changements Climatiques en COP Conférence des Parties
Afrique (BAfD)
CPI Climate Policy Initiative
ACDI Agence Canadienne de Développement
CSE Centre de Suivi Ecologique
International
CTF Fonds pour les technologies propres (mis en
ADA : Agence de Développement Agricole
œuvre par la BM, la BAsD, la BAfD, la BERD et
AFC Africa Finance Corporation la BID)
AFD Agence française de développement DBSA Development Bank of Southern Africa
AMCC Alliance Mondiale contre le Changement DEFRA Département de l’environnement, de
Cimatique l’alimentation et des affaires rurales
ASAP Programme d’adaptation pour les petits DFID Département du développement international
exploitants agricoles (Royaume-Uni)
AWB Attijari Wafa Bank DRFN Desert Research Foundation of Namibia
BAGRI Banque Agricole du Niger EGH ECOBANK Ghana Limited
BAfD Banque Africaine de Développement EIF Environmental Investment Fund
BAsD Banque Asiatique de Développement E.U. Etats-Unis
BEI Banque Européenne d’Investissement Ex-Im Banque américaine d’export-import
BEIS Département de l’énergie et du changement FA Fonds d’Adaptation
climatique
FAO Organisationdes Nations Unies pour
BERD Banque européenne pour la reconstruction et le l’Alimentation et l’Agriculture
développement
FCPF Fonds de Partenariat pour la réduction des
BID Banque Interaméricaine de Développement émissions de Carbone Forestier
BIDC Banque d’Investissement et de Développement FEM Fonds pour l’Environnement Mondial
de la CEDEAO
FFEM Fonds Français pour l’Environnement Mondial
BM Banque Mondiale
FIC Fonds d’investissement climatique (mis en
BMD Banque Multilatérale de Développement œuvre par la BM, la BAsD, la BAfD, la BERD et
la BID)
BMZ Ministère fédéral de la coopération économique
et du développement FIP Programme d’Investissement pour la Forêt (mis
en œuvre par BM, la BAsD, la BAfD, la BERD et
BOAD Banque Ouest-Africaine de Développement
la BID)
CBFF Fonds forestier pour le bassin du Congo
FMO Entrepreneurial Development Bank
(accueilli par la BAfD)
FNEC Fonds National pour l’Environnement et le Climat
CCNUCC Convention-Cadre des Nations Unies sur les
changements climatiques FPMA Fonds pour les Pays les Moins Avancés
(accueilli par le FEM)
CDG Caisse de Dépôt et de Gestion
FSCC Fonds Spécial pour les Changements
CDN Contribution Déterminée au niveau National
Climatiques (hébergé par le FEM)
CEDEAO Communauté Economique des Etats de l’Afrique
FVC Fonds Vert pour le Climat
de l’Ouest
GCCA Global Climate Change Alliance
CFU Climate Finance Update
GCCI Initiative mondiale sur le changement climatique
CIF Climate Investment Fund (implemented by the
(USA)
WB, the ADB, the AfDB, the EBRD and the IDB)
GCPF Global Climate Partnership Fund (Allemagne,
CILSS Comité permanent Inter-Etats de Lutte contre la
Royaume-Uni et Danemark)
Sécheresse dans le Sahel
Programme GCCA+ une initiative du Groupe des Etats ACP financée par le fonds européen de développement de l’Union européenne
MAPPING OF CLIMATE FINANCE FLOWS
TO ECOWAS-CILSS ZONE
GEEREF Fonds mondial pour la promotion de l’efficacité OECD Organisation de Coopération et de
énergétique et des énergies renouvelables Développement Economiques
(accueilli par la BEI)
OMM Organisation Météorologique Mondiale
GEF Global Environment Facility
ONU-REDD Programme de collaboration des Nations Unies
GES Gaz à Effet de Serre sur la réduction des émissions liées au
déboisement et à la dégradation des forêts
GIEC Groupe d'experts Intergouvernemental sur
l'Evolution du Climat OPIC Office pour les investissements privés
d’outre-mer
GIZ Coopération technique allemande
OSS : Observatoire du Sahara et du Sahel
HBS Fondation Heinrich Böll
PF Point Focal
ICF Fonds international pour le climat (RU)
PME Petites et Moyennes Entreprises
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
PMR Partenariat pour le développement des marchés
IKI Initiative internationale pour le climat
du carbone
(Allemagne)
PNUD Programme des Nations Unies pour le
JBIC Banque japonaise de coopération internationale
développement
JICA Agence japonaise de coopération internationale
PNUE Programme des Nations Unies pour
KFW Banque allemande de développement l’Environnement
LDCF Least Developed Countries Fund RCE Réductions certifiées des émissions
MAE Ministère des affaires étrangères REDD Réduction des Emissions liées à la Déforestation
et à la Dégradation des forêts
MAEC Ministère des affaires étrangères et du
commerce REM REDD premiers Movers (Allemagne et
Royaume-Uni)
MDP Mécanisme de Développement Propre
RIE Regional Implementing Entity
MIE Multilateral Implementing Entity
SANBI South African National Biodiversity Institute
MIES Mission interministérielle de l’effet de serre
SCF Fonds stratégique pour le climat (mis en oeuvre
MOC :Mise en œuvre conjointe (appliquée au titre du
par la BM, la BAsD, la BAfD, la BERD et la BID)
Protocole de Kyoto)
SREP Programme de développement accéléré des
MoE Ministry of Environment (formerly, Ministry of
énergies renouvelables pour les pays à revenu
Natural Resources - MINIRENA)
faible (mis en œuvre par la BM, la BAsD, la
MOFEC Ministry of Finance and Economic Cooperation BAfD, la BERD et la BID)
MWE Ministry of Water and Environment UE Union Européenne
NAMA facility Facilité des mesures d’atténuation appropriées UNEP United Nations Environment Programme
au niveau national (RU et Allemagne)
USAID Agence américaine pour le développement
NEMA National Environment Management Authority international
NEMC National Environment Management Council ND-GAIN Notre Dame Global Adaptation Initiative
NICFI Initiative internationale sur la forêt et le climat WAICSA West African Initiative for Climate Smart
(Norvège) Agriculture
NIE National Implementing Entity WB World Bank
NMFA Ministère norvégien des affaires étrangères WIM Warsaw International Mechanism for Loss and
Damage associated with Climate Change
NORAD Agence norvégienne de développement et de
Impacts
coopération
WMO World Meteorological Organization
ODI Overseas Development Institute
9
MAPPING OF CLIMATE FINANCE FLOWS
TO ECOWAS-CILSS ZONE
list of figuREs and tablEs
Figure 1 : Landscape of global climate finance (Source : CFU, 2019) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11
Figure 2 : Regional distribution of public climate finance in billion $ E.U.) From developed countries (OEDC data, 2019) . . .12
Figure 3 : Distribution of cumulative global emissions from CO₂ between 1751 and 2017 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13
Figure 4 : Amounts approved by thematic area, USD million (Data : CFU, 2019) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17
Figure 5 : Financing approved and disbursed by thematic area (Data : CFU, 2019) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18
Figure 6 : Countrie beneficiaries of multilateral financing, in USD millions (Data : CFU 2019) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19
Figure 7 : Climate finance mechanisms operating in ECOWAS-CILSS zone (Data : CFU 2019) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20
Figure 8 : MDB Funding by thematic area in 2018 en 2018 (MDBs data, 2018) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23
Figure 9 : Climate financing from MDBs at global level (USD million) in 2018 (MDBs data, 2018) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23
Figure 10 : Funding by region (%) in 2018 (Data : MDBs, 2018) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24
Figure 11 : Climate financing from MDBs to West Africa between 2015 and 2018 (MDB data , 2018) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24
Figure 12 : Ranking of ECOWAS-CILSS , according to ND-GAIN (Data ND GAIN 2017) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25
Figure 13 : Portfolio of entities accredited with GCF at global level, as of October 2019 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27
Figure 14 : Status of GCF project portfolio (number of projects) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29
Figure 15 : Number of GCF projects in the ECOWAS-CILSS zone by access modality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29
Figure 16 : Status of GCF Projects portfolio (number of projects) by access modality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30
Figure 17 : Composition of GCF financing portfolio in ECOWAS-CILSS zone (in USD millions.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30
Figure 18 : Number of projects funded by the GCF by sector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31
Figure 19 : Financing amounts by sector (USD millions) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32
Figure 20 : Amounts by thematic area (USD millions) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32
Figure 21 : Financing mobilized, by access modality (in USD millions ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33
Figure 22 : Co-financing, by access mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34
Figure 23 : Financing Instruments (in USD millions) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34
Figure 24 : Financial instruments by access modality (USD millions) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35
Figure 25 : Financial instruments by donor (USD million) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36
Figure 26 : Portfolio of FA accredited entities at global level, as of March 2019 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37
Figure 27 : Resources mobilized with AF for the ECOWAS-CILSS zone, by access modality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39
Figure 28 : Financing by sector (USD million) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 : List of ten most vulnerable countries worldwide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14
Table 2 : Direct access entities of the GCF in Africa (GCF data, 2019) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27
Table 3 : AF Direct and regional access entities in Africa ( AF data 2019) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .38
Programme GCCA+ une initiative du Groupe des Etats ACP financée par le fonds européen de développement de l’Union européenneMAPPING OF CLIMATE FINANCE FLOWS
TO ECOWAS-CILSS ZONE
1101
MAPPING OF CLIMATE FINANCE FLOWS
01
TO ECOWAS-CILSS ZONE
contExtE généRalE
gEnERal
contExt
Programme GCCA+ une initiative du Groupe des Etats ACP financée par le fonds européen de développement de l’Union européenneMAPPING OF CLIMATE FINANCE FLOWS
TO ECOWAS-CILSS ZONE
Climate finance refers to the financial re- is divergence in accounting for interven- multilateral channels (inside and outside
sources mobilized to finance actions to tions where climate action is not the sta- UNFCCC and Paris Agreement funding
mitigate and adapt to the effects of cli- ted objective or the only one, but which mechanisms), and increasingly through
mate change (Watson and Schalatek, contribute significantly to adaptation or bilateral channels, as well as through re-
2019 (b)). In the context of international mitigation. This is particularly the case gional and national climate funds (Fi-
climate negotiations, the concept refers for many flood control projects or the re- gure 1). Multilateral institutions include
to financial flows from developed coun- habilitation of electricity supply services. the financial mechanisms of the
tries to developing countries for climate UNFCCC (market and non-market me-
actions which should be new and addi- The architecture of global climate fi- chanisms), mechanisms outside the
tional to existing aid flows (Carvalo AP nance is complex and constantly evol- UNFCCC and regional risk-sharing
and Terpstra P. 2015). In practice, there ving. Funds are channeled through mechanisms.
Figure 1: Landscape of global climate finance (Source : CFU, 2019)
13MAPPING OF CLIMATE FINANCE FLOWS
01
TO ECOWAS-CILSS ZONE
gEnERal contExt
Funding comes in various forms: grants, most of these resources are allocated to tions, private capital and (sometimes) ins-
concessional loans, guarantees and mitigation (436 billion), with only 22 billion titutional investors. Thus, the concept of
equity. Monitoring flows is difficult, due for adaptation and 5 billion for cross-be- “blended finance” has grown significantly
to lack of an accepted definition of what nefits. Sub-Saharan Africa has received in recent years, with the idea of using pu-
"climate finance" covers or of uniform only US $ 12 billion in funding (CPI, blic resources in the form of grants, low-
accounting rules, in a context marked by 2018). cost debt, guarantees and equity to attract
a wide variety of financial mechanisms private capital. Blended finance is used in
(Watson and Schalatek, 2019 (b)) Public sources of finance for climate (US most sectors important to achieving cli-
$ 148 billion in 2014) represent only a mate change goals, including energy, in-
Climate finance flows at the global level small part of the more general total fi- frastructure and agriculture (Sadler et al.,
continue to increase, reaching US $ 463 nance (US $ 391 billion in 2014) contribu- 2016).
billion for the period 2015-2016. Although ting annually to the achievement of
this increase is expected to continue over climate goals (CPI 2015) . These funds Multilateral climate finance (MDBs2 and
the next few years, these flows are by far also have an important role to play in mo- Multilateral Funds) is estimated at US $
below the resources needed to make the bilizing additional sources of private capi- 27.5 billion in 2017 and Africa is the se-
overall transition to low-carbon and cli- tal, including funding from project cond recipient region, with US $ 15.9 bil-
mate resilient development. In addition, developers, commercial Financial Institu- lion (OECD, 2019), (Figure 2).
Figure 2
Regional distribution of public climate finance in billion $ E.U.)
From developed countries (OEDC data, 2019)
America 17
36
%
Asia
30 Africa
8 Non Allocated
6 Middle-East
0 Oceania
3 Europe
2
Multilateral Development Banks
Programme GCCA+ une initiative du Groupe des Etats ACP financée par le fonds européen de développement de l’Union européenneMAPPING OF CLIMATE FINANCE FLOWS
TO ECOWAS-CILSS ZONE
1502
01 contExtE généRalE
intRoduction
Programme GCCA+ une initiative du Groupe des Etats ACP financée par le fonds européen de développement de l’Union européenneMAPPING OF CLIMATE FINANCE FLOWS
TO ECOWAS-CILSS ZONE
The United Nations General Assembly in many places, particularly in Africa due vulnerable to the impacts of climate
adopted in September 2015 "The 2030 to the impact of drought, increasing the change (Watson and Schalatek, 2019
Agenda for Sustainable Development", overall risk of climate-related illness or (a)). The share of Africa (excluding
built on the vision of a "world free from po- death (WMO, 2019). Urgent action to South Africa) in cumulative global CO
verty and hunger, disease and need, combat climate change and its impacts is emissions between 1751 and 2017 is
where everyone can fully develop." In its therefore one of the main objectives of less than 0.5% (Figure 3). All the coun-
paragraph 14, this Program considers cli- this 2030 Agenda, and the United Nations tries of the ECOWAS-CILSS zone have
mate change as one of the greatest chal- Framework Convention on Climate an average carbon footprint of less than
lenges of our time and a unique and Change (UNFCCC) is the main inter- 1 ton per inhabitant and per year. Coun-
crosscutting barrier to this vision, compro- governmental forum for negotiating the tries like Chad and Niger have a foot-
mising the capacity of all countries to content of this action. print of 0.1 tons per year, 160 times
achieve sustainable development (United less than the United States, Australia
Nations, 2015). Climate-related risks as- Africa is the region of the world that and Canada (Ritchie H. and Roser M.,
sociated with climate variability and contributes the least to greenhouse gas 2018).
change have compounded food insecurity (GHG) emissions, but it is the most
Figure 3
Distribution of cumulative global emissions from CO₂ between 1751 and 2017
Sources : OWID based on CDIAC Global Carbon Project (GCP)
17MAPPING OF CLIMATE FINANCE FLOWS
02
TO ECOWAS-CILSS ZONE
intRoduction
According to the IPCC 1.5 ° C Report, In West Africa, the temperature increase come from sectors strongly linked to cli-
projections of reduction in food availability is 1.5 times greater than the world level matic conditions (mainly agriculture, ani-
are more marked at 2 ° C than 1.5 ° C of and the main climatic hazards are recur- mal husbandry and fishing) and whose
global warming in the Sahel, with greater rent droughts, great variability in rainfall total contribution to GDP is 28% in the
exposure to multiple and complex risks and seasons, more and more frequent CILSS countries and 32% across the re-
related to climate change and poverty floods, coastal erosion… (Kairé et al., gion (WB, 2009). All of this translates into
(IPCC, 2018). An increase in the global 2015). In the region, the climatic trends great vulnerability of countries in the re-
average surface temperature to 3 ° C, observed during the 1970-2010 period gion, as shown by the ND-GAIN3 vulne-
compared to the pre-industrial period, fur- show that: (i) global temperatures have in- rability index. The countries of the
ther increases the risk of reduction of agri- creased, droughts have been recurrent ECOWAS-CILSS zone display some of
cultural production in Africa and the and severe; (ii) precipitation has generally the highest levels of vulnerability in the
persistence of heat stress leading to large increased; and (iii) floods occurred more world, with five of the ten most vulnerable
increases in human morbidity and morta- frequently and with more intensity (UNEP, countries worldwide being in the ECO-
lity (Hoegh-Guldberg et al., 2019). 2011). According to the World Bank, 50% WAS-CILSS zone (Table 1).
of the region's population derives its in-
Table 1 List of ten most vulnerable countries worldwide
RANKING COUNTRY SCORE
172 Erythrea 0,596
173 Mali 0,609
174 Libéria 0,617
175 Sudan 0,623
176 Guinea-Bissau 0,626
177 Micronesia 0,638
178 Chad 0,651
179 Solomon Islands 0,658
180 Niger 0,67
181 Somalia 0,678
(Data: Notre Dame University, 2019)
3
A country's score against the ND-GAIN country index is made up of a score for vulnerability and a score for readiness. Vulnerability measures a country's exposure, sensitivity
and ability to adapt to the negative impact of climate change. ND-GAIN measures general vulnerability by taking into account vulnerability in six vital sectors: food, water, health,
ecosystem services, human habitat and infrastructure (University of Notre Dame, 2019).
Programme GCCA+ une initiative du Groupe des Etats ACP financée par le fonds européen de développement de l’Union européenneMAPPING OF CLIMATE FINANCE FLOWS
TO ECOWAS-CILSS ZONE
According to the Intergovernmental ECOWAS-CILSS region which expect to ment in favor of a paradigm shift towards
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), limi- receive from the development partners low carbon and climate resilient deve-
ting warming to 1.5 ° C rather than 2 ° C the bulk of the resources necessary to lopment pathways. Among other things,
would limit the reduction in the yield of implement the commitments made it aims to make financial flows more
crops of corn, rice and wheat and poten- through their NDCs. compatible with this transition to low-car-
tially other cereal crops, particularly in bon and climate-resilient development
sub-Saharan Africa. However, this would Climate finance therefore remains an pathways (Article 2.1 (c) of the Agree-
require “rapid and far-reaching transi- element to be reckoned with for achie- ment). The Decision adopting the Paris
tions” in the areas of land use planning, ving climate change resilient and low Agreement highlights the ambition to an-
energy, industry, building, transport and carbon development (Watson and Scha- nually mobilize US $ 100 billion until
urban planning (IPCC, 2018), hence the latek, 2019 (b)). This is why the Paris 2020 for climate, in favor of developing
significant financing needs expressed by Agreement, which entered into force on countries. A new collective quantitative
developing countries to finance the November 4, 2016, builds on this target will be defined before 2025 .
costs of such a transition. This is parti- Convention and brings together all the
cularly the case for the countries of the parties around an ambitious commit-
1903
01 contExtE généRalE
objEctivEs and
mEthodology
Programme GCCA+ une initiative du Groupe des Etats ACP financée par le fonds européen de développement de l’Union européenneMAPPING OF CLIMATE FINANCE FLOWS
TO ECOWAS-CILSS ZONE
3.1. OBJECTIVES CILSS zone) on needs and chal- - The annual joint report on climate fi-
lenges. nance for multilateral development
The objective is to regularly provide banks: this is a joint report, prepa-
ECOWAS-CILSS Member States with Besides this analytical report, an online red each year since 2011 by a
complete, accurate and updated infor- compendium is also produced giving ac- group of multilateral development
mation on the resources available to fi- cess to more details and allowing more banks (MDBs), composed of the
nance climate action, which will enable targeted analyses, from different pers- African Development Bank, the
them to better identify possible sources pectives. Asian Development Bank, the Euro-
of financing, plan and coordinate their pean Bank for Reconstruction and
requests according to their needs at the Development, the European Invest-
national level, and have an objective 3.2. SOURCES AND METHODOLOGY ment Bank, the Inter-American De-
basis for reporting on the financial sup- velopment Bank Group, the Islamic
port needed and received to meet their Monitoring financial flows is challenging, Development Bank and the World
commitments under the international fra- due to the great diversity of mechanisms, Bank Group. It aims to make cli-
mework for climate cooperation. but above all the absence of a harmoni- mate finance figures for the MDBs
zed and global reporting system on finan- available to the developing and
This monitoring of financial flows is cing. This work is mainly based on data emerging countries.
intended to: collection and litterature review.
For the focus on the GEF, the Green Cli-
- decision-makers, at regional and The main sources of data used are: mate Fund (GCF) and the Adaptation
national levels, as a snapshot of Fund (FA), the data used were collected
the region or country in terms of - Climate Finance Update4: this is an from the websites of these Funds.
mobilizing climate funds. It will help independent web platform that pro-
to identify performance in this area, vides information and data on mul- Data for the 17 countries of the ECO-
but also weaknesses to be correc- tilateral climate finance initiatives to WAS-CILSS zone are collected and pro-
ted at different levels. It will also be help developing countries meet the cessed, essentially using the Excel tool,
useful in assessing the level of im- challenges posed by climate to produce visualizations (graphs and
plementation of NDCs, including change. It is a compilation of official diagrams) serving as the basis for the
their conditional options; data from multilateral funds5, on cli- analyzes.
mate finance announced and ap-
- "transparency actors" such as civil proved. CFU tracks key funds In addition, various reference publica-
society, the press, community or- governed by multilateral mecha- tions on the subject have been used for
ganizations, producer organiza- nisms related to climate change, context. This is the case, among others,
tions, etc., as well as the media. many of which are linked to the of those of the CPI (Climate Policy Initia-
They will have access to informa- UNFCCC Convention. CFU data tive), HBS (Heinrich Boël Stiftung), and
tion on the resources mobilized have been cumulative since 2003. the OECD (Organization for Economic
and their use; Climate Funds Update is administe- Cooperation and Development).
- researchers interested in the issue red by the Heinrich Boell Founda-
of climate financing, by giving them tion (HBS) and ODI (Overseas
a regional perspective (ECOWAS- Development Institute).
4
https://climatefundsupdate.org/
5Fund sites; official reports to international organizations by funds and by contributing organizations; and documents such as press releases, key decisions made at conferences
or meetings, information from civil society organizations.
2104
01 contExtE généRalE
multilatERal
financial flows
to wEst afRica
Programme GCCA+ une initiative du Groupe des Etats ACP financée par le fonds européen de développement de l’Union européenneMAPPING OF CLIMATE FINANCE FLOWS
TO ECOWAS-CILSS ZONE
4.1. FINANCING FROM Financial flows from approved multilate- The first recipient country in the region
MULTILATERAL FUNDS ral funds allocated to the countries of the is Niger, followed by Burkina Faso and
ECOWAS-CILSS region are estimated Mali. Guinea and Sierra Leone, which
In 2017, multilateral climate funds ap- at around US $ 1,377 million6, from 2003 are among the ten most vulnerable
proved almost US $ 2 billion for 152 pro- to February 2019. More than half of countries in the world (Notre Dame Uni-
jects across 70 countries. The Green these resources (almost 55% ) were versity, 2019), received the least funding
Climate Fund (GCF) alone accounts for used to finance adaptation actions, (Fig 6).
half of these approvals, or US $ 1 billion around 40% for mitigation and 5% for
(Watson et al., 2017). multiple areas7 (Figure 4). This funding comes from fourteen finan-
cial mechanisms, with the Least Deve-
Almost a quarter of the funding appro- In February 2019, nearly 40% of the loped Countries Fund (FPMAs) leading,
ved (23%) for the period 2003-2017 was funds approved for adaptation were dis- either in terms of approved funding or in
allocated to sub-Saharan Africa, of bursed, almost 29% for mitigation in ge- terms of disbursed funds (Figure 7). The
which 75% in the form of a grant (Wat- neral, 34% for REDD8 mitigation and full list of projects funded by country in
son et al., 2017). slightly less than 11% for multiple the- the region is presented in Annex 1.
matic areas (Figure 5).
Figure 4
Amounts approved by thematic area, USD million (Data : CFU, 2019)
Multiple Focus 5,4
Mitigation - REDD
19,5
Mitigation
General
20,3
% Adaptation
54,8
6 These are only country financings
7
Adaptation and mitigation
8
REDD (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation) aims to create financial value for carbon stored in forests, by encouraging developing countries to
reduce emissions from forest land and to invest in low carbon solutions leading to sustainable development. "REDD +" goes beyond deforestation and forest degradation and
includes the role of conservation, sustainable forest management and improvement of forest carbon stocks (UN-REDD Program, 2009
23MAPPING OF CLIMATE FINANCE FLOWS
04
TO ECOWAS-CILSS ZONE
multilatERal financial flows
to wEst afRica
Figure 5
Financing approved and disbursed by thematic area (Data : CFU, 2019)
800
700
600
500
400 Approved ($ millions)
Disbursed ($ millions)
300
200
100
0
Adaptation Mitigation-General Mitigation REDD Multiple Focus
Figure 6
Countrie beneficiaries of multilateral financing, in USD millions (Data : CFU 2019)
Cape Verde
Sierra Leone
Guinea
Benin
Togo
Mauritania
Guinea Bissau
Chad
Gambia
Côte d’Ivoire
Senegal
Nigeria
Liberia
Ghana
Mali
Burkina Faso
Niger
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Programme GCCA+ une initiative du Groupe des Etats ACP financée par le fonds européen de développement de l’Union européenneMAPPING OF CLIMATE FINANCE FLOWS
TO ECOWAS-CILSS ZONE
Figure 7
Climate finance mechanisms operating in ECOWAS-CILSS zone (Data : CFU 2019)
UN-REDD Programme
Disbursed ($ millions)
SCCF
Approved ($ millions)
SREP
PPCR
Partnership for Market Readiness
MDG Achievement Fund
LDCF
GCF
GEF (1-6)
GCCA+
FIP
FCPF-RF
CTF
AF
ASAP
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
4.2. FUNDING FROM THE GOBAL an Assembly that meets every four years, It is funded by donor countries, which
ENVIRONMENT FUND a Council that meets twice a year, a Se- commit funds every four years through a
cretariat, and the Scientific and Technical process called "GEF replenishment".
The GEF was established in 1991 in res- Advisory Panel. The main decision-ma- Since its inception in 1991, the GEF Trust
ponse to the global environmental chal- king body of the organization is the GEF Fund has been replenished with $2.75 bil-
lenges of the previous decade. It operated Council, which is responsible for develo- lion (GEF-1); $3 billion (GEF-2); $3.13 bil-
in a pilot phase until mid-1994, before ping, adopting and evaluating its operatio- lion (GEF-3); $3.13 billion (GEF-4); $4.34
being restructured at a meeting of GEF nal policies and programs. It is composed billion (GEF-5); $4.43 billion commitment
participants in Geneva in March 1994, at of 32 appointed members, each represen- for GEF-6; $4.1 billion commitment for
which representatives of 73 States agreed ting a constituency9. The GEF serves as GEF-7. As of November 2018, more than
to adopt its financial instrument. The a financial mechanism for a number of 1,000 projects had been approved in the
GEF's organizational structure includes multilateral environmental agreements, area of climate change, for a cumulative
an Assembly that meets every four years, the United Nations Convention on Biolo- amount of US$ 3.6 billion.
a Council that meets twice a year, a Se- gical Diversity (CBD), the UNFCCC, the
cretariat, and the Scientific and Technical Stockholm Convention on Persistent Or- GEF-7 covers the operations and activi-
The GEF was established in 1991 in res- ganic Pollutants and the United Nations ties of the GEF for the period 2019 to
ponse to the global environmental chal- Convention to Combat Desertification 2022, with programming organized
lenges of the previous decade. It operated (UNCCD). The GEF is a trust fund to fi- around 5 focal areas, each of which is ali-
in a pilot phase until mid-1994, before nance the incremental costs of actions to gned with the conventions and multilateral
being restructured at a meeting of GEF protect the global environment, whether environmental agreements (MEAs) for
participants in Geneva in March 1994, at undertaken by public or private initiatives, which the GEF acts as a financial mecha-
which representatives of 73 States agreed in developing countries and countries with nism: Biodiversity, Climate Change, Inter-
to adopt its financial instrument. The economies in transition. national Waters, Land Degradation,
GEF's organizational structure includes Chemicals and Waste. The allocation for
9
Group of countries comprising both donors and recipients
25MAPPING OF CLIMATE FINANCE FLOWS
04
TO ECOWAS-CILSS ZONE
multilatERal financial flows
to wEst afRica
the climate change focal area is US$511 These projects are channeled through 9 (ii) take into account national communica-
million, down from previous replenish- GEF agencies: FAO, ADB, UNEP, World tions or NAPAs and other relevant studies
ments, mainly due to the resources drai- Bank, UNDP, UNIDO, IFAD, WADB and and information provided by the Party. To
ned by the GCF as the main financial IUCN. date, the SCCF has funded country pro-
instrument of the UNFCCC. jects in the ECOWAS-CILSS region to the
The GEF also administers two special tune of US$4.2 million.
The allocation of these resources to coun- funds focused on financing climate
tries is based on the Transparent Re- change adaptation and technology trans- The Least Developed Countries Fund
source Allocation System (STAR), which fer activities, the Special Climate Change (LDCF) was established under the United
determines the minimum amount of GEF Fund (SCCF) and the Least Developed Nations Framework Convention on Cli-
resources that a given country can access Countries Fund (LDCF). The operational mate Change (UNFCCC) at the seventh
during a replenishment period. The STAR policies, procedures and governance session of the Conference of the Parties
is a system for allocating resources to structure of the GEF apply to these funds, in Marrakech and is managed by the Glo-
countries in a transparent and consistent unless otherwise decided by the COP and bal Environment Facility. The Fund ad-
manner, based on global environmental the LDCF/Special Fund Council (the main dresses the special needs of the 49 LDCs
priorities and national capacities, policies governing body). The GEF Agencies are that are particularly vulnerable to the ad-
and practices relevant to the successful the operational arm of the GEF. verse effects of climate change. As a prio-
implementation of GEF projects. rity, it supports the preparation and
The Special Climate Change Fund implementation of National Adaptation
The GEF also implements corporate pro- (SCCF) was established in 2001 under Programmes of Action (NAPAs), country-
grams that aim to build the capacity of re- the UNFCCC to finance climate change- led strategies that identify the immediate
cipient countries and civil society related activities, programmes and mea- needs of LDCs to adapt to climate
organizations (CSOs) to effectively protect sures to accompany those financed from change.
the global environment. Under GEF-6, resources allocated in the GEF climate
two corporate programs are implemented: change focal area and from bilateral and Any LDC that is a party to the UNFCCC
the Small Grant Programs (SGP) and the multilateral funds. and has established a NAPA is eligible to
Country Support Program (CSP). These receive funding for projects under the
two programs are expected to continue The Special Fund is expected to have four LDC Fund. Countries included in
and be strengthened through GEF-7. different funding windows: Adaptation; Annex II12 to the UNFCCC shall provide
Technology Transfer; Energy, Transport, funding to the LDCF, as well as some
GEF funding is channeled to recipient Industry, Agriculture and Waste Manage- Annex I countries and any non-Annex I13
countries through eighteen accredited en- ment; and Economic Diversification for country that wishes to do so.
tities . Fossil Fuel Dependent Countries. Howe-
ver, to date, the Special Fund has finan- The cumulative volume of LDCF country
The GEF's portfolio11 of country projects ced adaptation and technology transfer financing in the ECOWAS-CILSS zone
in the ECOWAS-CILSS region consists of projects and programmes that: (i) are amounts to nearly US$336 million.
72 country projects with a cumulative total country-driven, cost-effective and integra-
of nearly US$ 167 million, of which US$ ted into national sustainable development
74 million has been disbursed. and poverty reduction strategies; and
10
https://www.thegef.org/partners/gef-agencies / 11 Les projets régionaux et les projets globaux couvrent, en plus des pays de la zone, plusieurs autres pays de la Région Afrique
ou du Monde. Cela rend difficile leur analyse avec une perspective nationale. 12 Annexe II : Pays de l’OCDE et de l’Union européenne (2010) / 13 Annexe I : Pays industrialisés visés
par la Convention / 14 Pays non visés par l’annexe I : Pays en développement visés par la Convention
Programme GCCA+ une initiative du Groupe des Etats ACP financée par le fonds européen de développement de l’Union européenneMAPPING OF CLIMATE FINANCE FLOWS
TO ECOWAS-CILSS ZONE
4.3 FUNDING FROM MUTILATERAL The total amount of climate finance from Over the 2015-2018 period, the first be-
DEVELOPMENT BANKS MDBs equity in 2018, amounts to US $ neficiary countries are, in descending
40,230 million, with US $ 2,871 million order, Nigeria, Senegal and Côte d'Ivoire.
In 2018, Multilateral Development Banks coming from external resources and For 2018 alone, the same three countries
(MDBs15) pledged to contribute US $ channeled through MDBs. Almost 71% are still in the lead, Côte d'Ivoire passing
43.1 billion - from equity and external re- of this funding is in the form of loans and ahead of Senegal (Figure 11).
sources16 channelled through them - as only 5% in grant form (MDBs, 2018).
climate finance for developing and Sub-Saharan Africa is the main recipient These three countries are among the 4
emerging countries. Almost 70% of with US $ 8.957 billion, or 21% of all fun- least vulnerable in the region (along with
these resources are intended for mitiga- ding granted in 2018 (Figure 10). Almost Ghana), according to the ND-GAIN
tion and around 30% for adaptation (Fi- 56% (or US $ 5.064 billion) of this fun- 2017 vulnerability index (Figure 12).
gure 8). The World Bank Group is by far ding is dedicated to mitigation and This illustrates the disparities between
the largest contributor (Figure 9). 43.5% (or $ 3.893 billion) to adaptation the 17 countries, but also and above all
(BMDs, 2018). These amounts do not the paradox that the most vulnerable
External resources are made up of trust include co-financing from other institu- often have the greatest difficulty in mo-
funds such as those financed by bilate- tions, public or private, and estimated at bilizing climate finance.
ral agencies and funds dedicated to fi- US $ 68 billion for 2018. This is largely
nancing the fight against climate change justified given the situation in the region In general, resources remain well below
such as the Climate Investment Funds in terms of vulnerability and contribution the needs of the countries of the ECO-
(CIF), the Green Climate Fund ( GCF) to GHG emissions. WAS-CILSS zone. For example, the re-
and Climate-related Funds under the sources required to implement the NDC
Global Environment Facility (GEF), Eu- The countries of the ECOWAS-CILSS of Benin alone are estimated at nearly
ropean Union (EU) Mixed Funds and zone benefited from pledges amounting US $ 12 billion, more than half of which
others (MDBs, 2018). to US $ 2,493 million in 2018, i.e. around is expected from development partners.
6% of all funding from MDBs and 28% of
funding that went to Africa sub-Saharan.
Figure 8
MDB Funding by
thematic area in
2018 (MDBs data,
2018)
30
Adaptation
Mitigation
70 %
15 African Development Bank, Asian Development Bank, European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, European Investment Bank, Inter-American Development Bank
Group, Islamic Development Bank and World Bank Group
16 This partly includes resources from multilateral funds
27MAPPING OF CLIMATE FINANCE FLOWS
04
TO ECOWAS-CILSS ZONE
multilatERal financial flows
to wEst afRica
Figure 9
Climate financing from MDBs at global level (USD million) in 2018 (MDBs data, 2018)
15000
Adaptation Mitigation
12000
9000
6000
3000
0
ADB AfDB EBRD EIB IDBG WBG
Figure 10
Funding by region (%) in 2018 (Data : MDBs, 2018)
UE-12 (3 362 millions) 1,3 Multi-régional (553 millions)
Middle-East and North Africa (4310 millions) 8
10 21 Subsaharan Africa (8 957 millions)
Total :
East Asia and Pacific 12 43 101
(5 062 millions)
millions
dollars
20
12
Non-UE Europe and Central Asia Latin America and Caribbean
(5 128 millions) (8 770 millions)
16
South Asia (6 958 millions)
Programme GCCA+ une initiative du Groupe des Etats ACP financée par le fonds européen de développement de l’Union européenneMAPPING OF CLIMATE FINANCE FLOWS
TO ECOWAS-CILSS ZONE
Figure 11
Climate financing from MDBs to West Africa between 2015 and 2018 (MDB data , 2018)
1500
2018
2017
2016
2015
1200
900
600
300
0 Benin Burkina Cabo Côte Gambia Ghana Guinea Guinea Liberia Mali Mauritania Niger Nigeria Senegal Sierre Chad Togo
verde d'Ivoire -Bissau Leone
Figure 12
Ranking of ECOWAS-CILSS , according to ND-GAIN (Data ND GAIN 2017)
NB : Cabo Verde is not listed, due to lack of data
0,8
0,7
0,6
0,5
0,4
0,3
0,2
0,1
0,0
Ghana Nigeria Côte Senegal Gambia Togo Guinea Sierra Mauritania Burkina Benin Mali Liberia Guinea Chad Niger
d'Ivoire Leone Faso Bissau
29MAPPING OF CLIMATE FINANCE FLOWS
04
TO ECOWAS-CILSS ZONE
multilatERal financial flows
to wEst afRica
4.4. GREEN CLIMATE FUND Nationally Determined Contributions direct access entities and international
FINANCING FLOWS TO THE (NDCs), adaptation plans and national cli- access entities.
ECOWAS-CILSS ZONE mate strategies, in particular using GCF
resources to catalyze financing commen- Direct access entities are subnational, na-
4.4.1. Presentation of the Green surate with the climate investment needs tional or regional organizations that must
Climate Fund of developing countries. be nominated by Designated National Au-
thorities (DNA) or Focal Points (FP) of de-
The Green Climate Fund (GCF) was The GCF channels its climate funds veloping countries. Direct access is an
created in 2010 in Cancun (COP 16), and through a wide range of private, public, innovative modality designed to allow de-
its governing instrument adopted in 2011 non-governmental, subnational, national, veloping countries to take better owner-
in Durban (COP 17). It is the main finan- regional or international organizations. ship of climate finance and better
cial mechanism for the United Nations These, deemed to have a good potential integrate it into their national climate ac-
Framework Convention on Climate to contribute to climate action, must be tion plans. The list of GCF affiliated NDAs
Change (UNFCCC) and it also serves the accredited by the GCF, i.e. demonstrate in the ECOWAS-CILSS zone is presen-
Paris Agreement, in the same way as the that they can comply with GCF require- ted in Annex 2.
Global Environment Facility (GEF) and ments in terms of fiduciary management, International access entities include Uni-
the Adaptation Fund. environmental and social safeguard, as ted Nations Agencies, Multilateral Deve-
well as gender, with requirements diffe- lopment Banks (MDBs), international
GCF's mission is to promote a paradigm rentiated according to the categories and financial institutions, regional institutions
shift towards low-emission and climate- budgets of projects managed. Once ac- and NGOs. The GCF considers that
resilient development in developing credited, these organizations can submit these organizations have the scale and
countries and support the implementa- climate projects to the GCF and will be expertise necessary to manage climate
tion of the Paris Agreement, taking into responsible for supervising the implemen- change related issues, including when
account the specific needs of develo- tation of these projects, if approved. The they are trans-boundary and crosscutting.
ping countries particularly vulnerable to accreditation is valid for a fixed term of International access entities do not need
the adverse effects of climate change five years (Decision B.10/07). During this to be nominated by NDAs / FPs in deve-
(decision B.12 / 20). period, the GCF regularly monitors the loping countries.
accredited entity's compliance with the
The GCF 2020-2023 Strategic Plan em- accreditation standards and its obliga- As of today, there are 38 national direct
phasizes the need to implement urgent tions. In order to be re-accredited, entities access entities, 13 regional direct access
and transformative solutions in order to must demonstrate that their performance entities and 37 international access enti-
limit global warming below 2 ° C compa- against the GCF requirements has been ties (Figure 13). Direct access thus repre-
red to pre-industrial levels, to continue ef- maintained or improved, at the risk of lo- sents the majority of the portfolio of GCF
forts to limit temperature increase to 1.5 ° sing accreditation or being downgraded to accredited entities (58%), but internatio-
C compared to pre-industrial levels. It also lower categories. nal access remains predominant in vo-
recognizes that it is imperative to invest lumes with 81% of funding approved until
more in climate to meet the ambitions de- There are two types of accredited entities, February 2019, i.e. $ 4,092 million EU
fined by developing countries in the depending on the access modalities: (Watson and Schalatek, 2019 (a)).
Programme GCCA+ une initiative du Groupe des Etats ACP financée par le fonds européen de développement de l’Union européenneYou can also read
