Five ways climate adaptation finance falls short in Africa

This SEI fact sheet, based on a study in the journal Climate Policy, analyzes international public finance for climate change adaptation in Africa from 2014 to 2018. The authors identify five critical shortfalls: insufficient funding levels compared to mitigation and actual needs, a lack of strategic targeting toward the most vulnerable countries, narrow sectoral focus, low disbursement rates of committed funds, and a reliance on loans over grants.

• Annual financial commitments for climate adaptation in Africa are significantly lower than estimated costs and are outweighed by mitigation funding. Between 2014 and 2018, adaptation commitments remained under US$5.5 billion per year (approximately US$5 per person), while estimated costs for 2020 range from US$7 billion to US$15 billion per year. Mitigation commitments accounted for 61% (US$30.6 billion) of climate-related finance, compared to 33% (US$16.5 billion) for adaptation.
• Adaptation finance is not strategically allocated based on vulnerability or need. The research found no clear difference in per capita funding levels between non-least developed countries (non-LDCs) and least developed countries (LDCs), the latter of which typically align with higher vulnerability according to the ND-GAIN Country Index.
• Funding is heavily concentrated in a few sectors, leaving other critical areas underfunded. Half of all adaptation 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 actually disbursed, excluding multilateral development banks. This is lower than the disbursement rate for mitigation (56%) and far lower than the 96% disbursement rate for general development finance to Africa.
• The financial instruments used for adaptation are skewed toward loans rather than grants. Loans made up 57% of adaptation funding, while grants accounted for 42%. The authors argue that grant-based finance is more appropriate for vulnerable, highly indebted countries and tends 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} }