113 design. At the same time, more evidence-based knowledge needs to be generated and shared with Bank staff and external stakeholders. This includes knowledge on climate change and related issues as well as knowledge and information on Bank-related processes and practices. Given the breadth of RMCs the Bank has, and the range of projects being supported, there are many lessons to be learned. With regards to knowledge products and publications, CCAP2 appears to have not quite been as productive as CCAP1. The Bank could consider increasing engagement with universities and others to undertake analyses and prepare ESWs, economic briefs, working papers, profiles, and other publications. Internal communication is another area of improvement highlighted in successive evaluations and reports. This includes communication with Bank staff on issues related to climate change and as part of Bank processes. Lastly, the Bank will need to continue supporting RMCs with their NDCs. To a large extent, climate change adaptation and mitigation has been framed as a cost and challenge; but at the same time, technologies have changed and prices fallen, making some mitigation technologies the best option regardless of climate change. It will be important for the Bank to keep up to date with rapidly changing technologies and other options. In some cases, it may be RMC ambition levels that inhibit climate action rather than commercial viability. Other challenges and lessons Africa is a tough operating environment with many challenges, but at the same time, these challenges, if overcome, mean the Bank can make meaningful changes to people’s lives across Africa. Given that people generally do not see climate change as a priority, the Bank is in a position of leadership, addressing climate change concerns in advance. In fact, the whole point of the Bank’s CCAP2 is to make sure people are not negatively impacted by physical climate change. A key challenge is also making sure people are not negatively impacted by climate change transition risks (i.e., the response to climate change). When considering low-carbon development, it is important to be aware of the breadth of project options that the Bank can engage in, including any missed opportunities under the CCAP2. Fortunately, IPCC assessments address options for limiting climate change and its impacts. The feasibility of mitigation options are also important considerations. These include economic, technological, institutional, sociocultural, environmental/ecological, and geophysical considerations. These same issues need to be considered when thinking about adaptation options. The Bank is primarily focused on mobilizing and disbursing finance. However, the capacity of RMCs and other stakeholders to develop projects is limited in many cases. This puts the Bank in the position of having to support stakeholders at each stage of project development. Given the goal of having climateresilient low emissions development and green economies, and the limited options for reducing GHG emissions in some sectors, the question of how to experiment and create new options becomes important, as well as testing new technologies and practices with the aim of demonstrating viability. The problem with these approaches is risk. It is unclear whether the Bank has considered engaging in new technologies and practices or whether the Bank has the capacity to deal with high-risk highreward investments that as a portfolio could yield solutions that can be scaled. In some cases, it is arguable that the Bank has missed climate change and development targets due to high ambition levels, raising the question: to what extent do ambitious targets help? Ambitious targets can spur action, but presumably more risks need to be taken if transformative changes are to result (following the principle of risk and reward). The Bank provides grants and loans but does not appear to have a venture capital–type arm or high-risk high-reward model that can be applied to climate finance. That said, grants can help as they do not need to be paid back, but targeting is still required on ambitious projects while allowing for a percentage of projects to fail. The Bank is better designed to support top-down large-scale climate initiatives than it is to support bottom-up smallscale initiatives or even bottom-up large scale initiatives. For example, the Bank needs identifiable project owners to work with, typically in the form of a government or legally recognized enterprise with a track record that can be assessed. Grassroots organizations or wider social movements may lack legal status or a track record. Meanwhile, the transaction costs (e.g., in terms of administration, paperwork, and time required to process documents) are similar for small- or large-scale projects. Hence, to reduce the transition costs as a proportion of total project costs, there is a bias towards pursuing large-scale projects involving the disbursement of large volumes of finance. With regards to whether the Bank’s activities can help address climate change, for example finance-related activities, knowledge generation, or project design activities, the answer is yes; but at the same time, the Bank is not the only actor, and nor are finance, knowledge generation, or projects sufficient without wider engagement of other actors in Africa and mitigation efforts by actors outside of Africa. Key lessons and recommendations
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy NzQ1NTk=