Five ways climate adaptation finance falls short in Africa

Based on a quantitative mapping of OECD data from 2014 to 2018, the document identifies five primary failures in climate adaptation finance for Africa: insufficient funding levels compared to mitigation and actual needs, a lack of strategic targeting toward the most vulnerable countries, over-concentration in agriculture and water sectors, low disbursement rates of committed funds, and an over-reliance on loans rather than grants.

• Adaptation funding for Africa is significantly lower than estimated costs and is overshadowed by mitigation funding. Annual commitments remained under US$5.5 billion (approximately US$5 per person), while estimated costs for 2020 range from US$7 billion to US$15 billion. Between 2014 and 2018, 61% of climate-related finance commitments (US$30.6 billion) targeted mitigation, while only 33% (US$16.5 billion) targeted adaptation.
• The allocation of adaptation finance does not correlate with climate vulnerability or the status of a country as a 'least developed country' (LDC). The research found no obvious difference in per capita funding levels between LDCs—which align with high vulnerability in the ND-GAIN Country Index—and non-LDCs.
• Adaptation funding is heavily concentrated in two sectors, leaving other critical areas underfunded. Half of all commitments were directed toward agriculture and water (supply and sanitation), while funding for biodiversity and basic development sectors like health and education was negligible.
• There is a significant gap between the commitment of adaptation funds and their actual disbursement. For the 2014–2018 period, only 46% of adaptation commitments (US$4.7 billion of US$10.1 billion) were disbursed, excluding multilateral development banks. This is notably lower than the disbursement ratio for mitigation (56%) and general development finance to Africa (96%).
• The financial instruments used for adaptation are skewed toward loans, which the authors argue is problematic from a climate justice perspective. Loans accounted for 57% of funding, while grants accounted for 42%. The document notes that grant-based funding appears to have higher disbursement rates.

APA

Savvidou, G., Atteridge, A., Omari-Motsumi, K., & Trisos, C. (2021). Five ways climate adaptation finance falls short in Africa. Stockholm Environment Institute. https://www.sei.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/five-shortfalls-climate-adaptation-finance-seifactsheet.pdf

Chicago

Savvidou, Georgia, Aaron Atteridge, Kulthoum Omari-Motsumi, and Christopher Trisos. Five ways climate adaptation finance falls short in Africa. Stockholm Environment Institute, 2021. https://www.sei.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/five-shortfalls-climate-adaptation-finance-seifactsheet.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Savvidou |first1=Georgia |last2=Atteridge |first2=Aaron |last3=Omari-Motsumi |first3=Kulthoum |last4=Trisos |first4=Christopher |title=Five ways climate adaptation finance falls short in Africa |publisher=Stockholm Environment Institute |date=October 2021 |url=https://www.sei.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/five-shortfalls-climate-adaptation-finance-seifactsheet.pdf |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{savvidou2021five, author = {Savvidou, Georgia and Atteridge, Aaron and Omari-Motsumi, Kulthoum and Trisos, Christopher}, title = {{Five ways climate adaptation finance falls short in Africa}}, institution = {Stockholm Environment Institute}, year = {2021}, month = oct, url = {https://www.sei.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/five-shortfalls-climate-adaptation-finance-seifactsheet.pdf}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }