Development and Climate Aid to Africa: Comparing Aid Allocation Models for Different Aid Flows

Abstract

<jats:p> This article examines the role different aid allocation models play not only for conventional development aid but also for two new financial flows, adaptation and mitigation aid. We first test the three models proposed in the literature – recipient need, recipient merit, and donor interests – using the latest available aid data and compare our results with findings of older studies on Africa, and with studies on aid allocation on a global scale. We find that the recipient merit model in more recent years no longer plays a role for development aid allocation in Africa, in line with findings reported globally. In contrast to such global studies, the logic of the donor interest model does not seem to dominate over the recipient need model in the African context, as both are of equal importance for aid allocation decisions. Finally, additionality seems to play a lesser role in Africa than globally. </jats:p>

Quantifying international public finance for climate change adaptation in Africa

“…There is no obvious difference in per capita funding levels between those countries classified as LDCswhich also correspond closely with countries having a higher vulnerability according to the ND-GAIN Index (see Supplementary Annex A for index description)and those which are not (Figure 4). Our finding aligns with a growing body of evidence indicating vulnerability is not a strong factor influencing the allocation of adaptation-related finance between countries within Africa (Weiler & Sanubi, 2019) or globally (Ciplet et al, 2013;Donner et al, 2016;Doshi & Garschagen, 2020;Saunders, 2019). Notes: For commitments reported under the Rio Marker methodology, the 'Principal' marker for adaptation and for mitigation is used.…”

“…Germany and Morocco also recently signed an agreement to cooperate on green hydrogen, to be produced mostly from solar power. This observation may give weight to findings in other literature that the distribution of development finance is influenced by donor interests (Berthelemy, 2006;Clist, 2011;Weiler & Sanubi, 2019).…”

“…There seems to be a tendency to overstate the relevance of adaptation in development projects and this over-reporting is more prevalent under the significant category (Donner et al, 2016;Henders et al, 2019;Michaelowa & Michaelowa, 2011;Weiler et al, 2018), which increases the risk of overestimating finance amounts. To avoid this risk, several recent studies chose to exclude financial transactions tagged as significantly targeting adaptation-related finance (Henders et al, 2019;McKee et al, 2020;Weiler et al, 2018;Weiler & Sanubi, 2019). The only exception to this is for data related to the Green Climate Fund (GCF).…”

“…The OECD DAC data on development finance provide, to the best of our knowledge, the most comprehensive and comparable data on international development finance for climate change (Doshi & Garschagen, 2020;Weiler et al, 2018;Weiler & Sanubi, 2019). However, there are some important limitations to acknowledge in relation to our primary data sources.…”

“…It also does not identify the main providers of adaptation finance, nor the disbursement ratio, which is an important indicator of whether commitments are translating into on-ground activities. Studies that do provide more details for Africa, pre-date the Paris Agreement (Nakhooda et al, 2011;Thornton, 2011), provide only partial coverage (that is, look only at specific donors (Watson & Schalatek, 2019) or specific recipients (Nakhooda et al, 2011)), or focus only on specific questions, such as factors influencing the allocation of adaptation-related finance between countries (Weiler & Sanubi, 2019) or stakeholders' experiences accessing and using climate-related finance (Thornton, 2011).…”