Growing resilience Unlocking the potential of nature-based solutions for climate resilience in sub-Saharan Africa Authors: Natasha Collins, Boris van Zanten, Innocent Onah, Lizzie Marsters, Laura Jungman, Rory Hunter, Natalie von Turkovich, James Anderson, Gabriela Vidad, Todd Gartner, Brenden Jongman Acknowledgements Note: This report was jointly prepared by the Cities4Forests initiative at World Resources Institute and the Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery (GFDRR) at the World Bank, with key contributions from the African Development Bank (AfDB), support from the Green Growth Knowledge Partnership (GGKP), and funding contributions from the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (SIDA), the MAVA Foundation, GFDRR, the German Agency for International Cooperation (GIZ), the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ), and the Danish International Development Agency (DANIDA). Green Growth Knowledge Partnership We would like to thank our peers who provided critical review and feedback, including Niels Holm-Nielsen (World Bank, GFDRR), Francis Ghesquiere (World Bank), Pieter Waalewijn (World Bank), Ana Campos Garcia (World Bank, GFDRR), Chiwimbo P. Mwika (World Bank), Diji Chandrasekharan Behr (World Bank), Lorenzo Carrera (World Bank), Larissa Duma (World Bank, GFDRR), Irene Rehberger Bescos (World Bank), Clementine Marie Stip (World Bank), Sally Lees Polk Judson (World Bank, GFDRR), Moussa Sidibe (World Bank, GFDRR), Marie- Flore Michel (World Bank, GFDRR), Bianca Reichel (World Bank, GFDRR), Sun Cho (GGKP), Brittany King (GGKP), John Maughan (GGKP), Koeun Lee (GGKP), Jerry Ahadjie Kwame (AfDB), Julius Tieguhong (AfDB), Aliou Diouf (AfDB), Julia Lacal Bereslawski (AfDB), Shimelis Fekadu Admasu (AfDB), Remi Evaliste Jiagho (AfDB), Fia Molander (SIDA), Jan Wärnbäck (SIDA), Cecilia Brumér (SIDA), Renée Ankarfjärd (SIDA), and Ulrika Åkesson (SIDA). Ian Smith (World Bank, GFDRR) helped create the figures in section “Intersecting challenges of nature loss, climate risk, and development needs.” Thank you to our external reviewers for their valuable feedback: Gena Gammie (Forest Trends), Suzanne Ozment (The Nature Conservancy), Rowan Palmer (UNEP), Morgan Richmond (CPI), Eva Mayerhofer (EIB), and Jane Feehan (EIB). Natasha Vizcarra provided helpful copy editing. Fred Kabanda (AfDB), Vanessa Ushie (AfDB), Desire Vencatachellum (AfDB), Armand Nzeyimana (AfBD), and Al-Hamdou Dorsouma (AfDB) helped make valuable connections at AfDB. Lastly, we thank the long list of inter- viewees who took the time to share their valuable insights. A full list of names and organizations is in Appendix B. At WRI, additional support for fundraising and the report's inception was provided by Suzanne Ozment and John-Rob Pool. Renee Pineda, Emilia Suarez, Allison Meyer, Romain Warnault, Laura Malaguzzi Valeri, Carlos Muñoz Pina, Gregory Taff, Robin King, Anjali Mahendra, and Sarah DeLucia helped us navigate the publication planning, peer review, and production process, and with copy editing. In addition, we thank the colleagues that took the time to review the report including Sadof Alexander, Nisha Krishnan, John-Rob Pool, Aklilu Fikresilas- sie, and Hellen Wanjohi-Opil. Members from WRI’s Aqueduct Alliance team including Samantha Kuzma and Liz Saccoccia provided data from WRI Aqueduct. John Wamagata Nduru developed illustrations for some of the figures. Finally, the authors would like to thank and credit a team of current and previous WRI staff and interns who contributed immensely to the data scanning collection processes for this report, including Emmie Oliver, Maria Santarelli, Ken Schell-Smith, and Golden Tayebwa. Thank you to Sally Lees Polk Judson (World Bank) and Innocent Onah (AfDB) for providing data on MDB projects for 2022 to 2023. Authors Natasha Collins, Conservation Finance Associate, World Resources Institute; Boris van Zanten, Disaster Risk Management Specialist, World Bank , GFDRR; Innocent Onah, Chief Natural Resources Officer, African Development Bank; Lizzie Marsters, Senior Environmental Finance Manager, World Resources Institute; Laura Jungman, Consultant, World Bank, GFDRR; Rory Hunter, formerly WRI; Natalie von Turkovich, formerly WRI; James Anderson, Senior Program Manager, World Resources Institute; Gabriela Vidad, Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning Coordinator, World Resources Institute; Todd Gartner, Director of Cities4Forests, World Resources Institute; Brenden Jongman, Senior Disaster Risk Management Specialist, World Bank, GFDRR. Author Contribution Note: Lizzie Marsters, Boris van Zanten, Brenden Jongman, Innocent Onah, and Todd Gartner conceived this report and secured the funding for its production. Natalie von Turkovich, Lizzie Marsters, Natasha Collins, and Gabriela Vidad led project data collection and analysis. Laura Jungman and Boris van Zanten led project data collection for the World Bank’s portfolio. Innocent Onah led project data collection for the African Development Bank’s portfolio. Rory Hunter, Lizzie Marsters, and Natasha Collins conducted and analyzed stakeholder inter- views. Data interpretation and writing of the manuscript was conducted by Natasha Collins and Lizzie Marsters, Boris van Zanten, Laura Jungman, James Anderson, Natalie von Turkovich, Rory Hunter, and Gabriela Vidad. Brenden Jongman, Innocent Onah, and Todd Gartner provided reviews and comments that were crucial to finalizing the manuscript.  ii |  Growing resilience: Unlocking the potential of nature-based solutions for climate resilience in sub-Saharan Africa © 2025 The World Bank 1818 H Street NW, Washington DC 20433 Telephone: 202-473-1000; Internet: www.worldbank.org Some rights reserved This work is a product of The World Bank and the World Resource Institute (WRI). The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this work do not necessarily reflect the views of the Executive Directors of The World Bank or the governments they represent, or those of WRI. The World Bank and WRI do not guarantee the accuracy, completeness, or currency of the data included in this work and does not assume responsibility for any errors, omissions, or discrepancies in the information, or liability with respect to the use of or failure to use the infor- mation, methods, processes, or conclusions set forth. The boundaries, colors, denominations, links/footnotes and other information shown in this work do not imply any judgment on the part of The World Bank or WRI concerning the legal status of any territory or the endorse- ment or acceptance of such boundaries. The citation of works authored by others does not mean the World Bank or WRI endorses the views expressed by those authors or the content of their works. Nothing herein shall constitute or be construed or considered to be a limitation upon or waiver of the privileges and immunities of The World Bank, all of which are specifically reserved. RIGHTS AND PERMISSIONS The material in this work is subject to copyright. Because The World Bank encourages dissemination of its knowledge, this work may be reproduced, in whole or in part, for noncommercial purposes as long as full attribution to this work is given. SUGGESTED CITATION: Collins, N., B. van Zanten, I. Onah, L. Marsters, L. Jungman, R. Hunter, N. von Turkovich, J. Anderson, G. Vidad, T. Gartner, B. Jongman. 2025. Growing Resilience: Unlocking the Potential of Nature-Based Solutions for Climate Resilience in Sub-Saharan Africa. © World Bank. Any queries on rights and licenses, including subsidiary rights, should be addressed to World Bank Publications, The World Bank, 1818 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20433, USA; fax: 202-522-2625; e mail: pubrights@worldbank.org. Design and layout: WRI. Cover photo: Flood retreat gardens, Madagascar by Rod Waddington. Used with permission. Further permission required for reuse. All other photos are credited within the report and are used with permission or under the relevant licensing and copyright terms. Further permission required for reuse of all photos.   | iii The Albertine Rift Conservation Society (ARCOS) TerraFund for AFR100, Rwanda. Photo by Seraphin Nayituriki. Foreword Sub-Saharan Africa is at a crossroads, facing escalating climate and nature threats while striving for economic growth. Despite con- tributing little to global greenhouse gas emissions, the region faces increasing vulnerability to the consequences of climate change. Its rapidly urbanizing population is expected to double by 2050, placing pressure on governments to expand access to basic services while building resilience to climate impacts. Yet with Africa facing an annual infrastructure financing gap of more than $100 billion, urgent investment and action are needed to secure a sustainable future. Communities, governments, civil society, and donors across the continent are increasingly embracing nature-based solutions (NBS) to enhance climate resilience. From integrating trees into farmlands, restoring wetlands, protecting coral reefs, and restoring nature in urban areas, these projects address critical infrastructure gaps for water quality, flood mitigation, and erosion control. They simultane- ously create jobs, safeguard public health, and protect and enhance biodiversity. In some cases, NBS can be integrated with traditional gray infrastructure to draw on the complementary strengths of each approach. This report is one of the most extensive assessments of NBS projects for climate resilience in the region to date. It leverages data from WRI, the World Bank, and the African Development Bank, to analyze nearly 300 NBS projects in Sub-Saharan Africa from over the past decade. We determine progress to date, and what is needed to scale implementation and investment. The findings reveal momentum — NBS project initiation grew by roughly 15 percent annually from 2012-2022, with more than $12 billion in funding raised in aggregate during the same period. Yet, this is only a fraction of what’s needed to safeguard the region and its people. Unlocking the full potential of NBS requires systemic change. Jointly, we must provide governments with the tools and support to inte- grate NBS into policies, budgets and planned infrastructure projects. Multilateral organizations, donors, and civil society must increase investment in early project preparation, technical capacity, and monitoring. To scale financing, the public and private sector must expand innovative tools like green bonds, dedicated national funds and risk sharing mechanisms. Since private markets do not yet fully recognize the economic value of NBS, governments have an opportunity to make near-term, foundational investments and create new markets for NBS private finance that deliver long-term benefits for their citizens and the planet. Our findings also emphasize the importance of community involvement and ownership. Projects tailoring to local needs, incorporat- ing gender equity, and leveraging Indigenous Knowledge can address persistent social challenges. Strengthening impact tracking and evaluation will build confidence and demonstrate NBS’s value to communities. The stakes are immense, but the opportunities are even greater. Sub-Saharan Africa’s unique challenges position it as a critical proving ground for scaling resilient climate solutions. By embracing NBS, the region can not only adapt to climate change and reduce biodi- versity loss but also create jobs and increase the quality of life for hundreds of millions of people. Let this report inspire bold action, collaborative efforts, and a shared commitment to a resilient and equitable future for Africa and beyond. ANI DASGUPTA MING ZHANG President & CEO Global Director Urban, Resilience and Land World Resources Institute World Bank   | v Eldoret-Iten Water Fund, Kenya. Photo by Roshni Lodhia/The Nature Conservancy. Executive summary Sub-Saharan Africa faces the intersecting challenges Highlights of climate change, rapid • As sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) faces increasing climate population growth, and vulnerability and a rapidly growing population, nature- nature loss based solutions (NBS) can help the region build climate resilience, meet its infrastructure gap, and protect the livelihoods of its population. Africa is one of the most vulnerable regions to climate change in the world. The continent is experiencing faster • This report identifies 297 NBS projects initiated between 2012 and 2023 that used NBS as an alternative to or in increases in surface temperature than the global average combination with traditional gray infrastructure for cli- alongside increasingly erratic weather patterns (IPCC 2022a). mate resilience objectives. Most projects were designed In sub-Saharan Africa, which makes up most of the continent’s to meet multiple objectives, most commonly water land mass and population, extreme weather events including quality improvements, water supply enhancements, flood heat waves, droughts, floods, and cyclones have increasingly mitigation, and erosion and landslide control. impacted the region in recent years, resulting in the loss of • National governments drove project development, thousands of lives and billions of dollars in economic dam- funded by multilateral development banks, international donors and funds, and domestic budgets. ages (WMO 2022). Africans in SSA are also disproportionately employed in climate-exposed sectors like agriculture (IPCC • While these projects collectively secured over $21 billion 2022a), contributing to a heightened socioeconomic vulnerabil- in funding, this figure represents only a fraction of the climate adaptation finance needed to address SSA’s ity of residents to climate change. vulnerabilities. Over the next decades, population growth, urbanization, • Project developers can improve access to funding for fragility, and conflict will likely exacerbate climate vul- NBS by tapping into infrastructure finance, showcasing nature and resilience benefits to attract biodiversity nerability across the region. Rapid urban growth intensifies and climate finance, and increasing domestic budgets infrastructure challenges, as existing systems are already through dedicated funding mechanisms. unable to support essential services such as electricity, water supply, and sanitation for SSA’s growing population (Halle- • Advancing NBS can be enabled by integrating NBS into policies and planning frameworks, improving early gatte et al. 2019; ICA 2022). As urban areas expand faster than project preparation and technical capacity, better quan- governments can provide adequate housing and services, a sub- tifying and tracking the benefits of NBS, and ensuring stantial portion of the urban population has resorted to living projects are responsive to community needs. in informal settlements (Mahendra and Seto 2019; World Bank 2021b), often located in areas that are highly exposed to natural hazards and climate change impacts, such as in floodplains, on drained wetlands, or along coastlines. Over half of the countries in SSA were designated as fragile, conflict-affected, and violent Nature-based solutions (FCV) by the World Bank at some point between 2012 and 2023 for climate resilience in (Baah and Lakner 2023), characterized by weak institutional capacity, poor governance, and the presence of violent conflict. sub-Saharan Africa These conditions elevate climate and disaster risk, and as a Nature-based solutions are increasingly recognized as result an average of three times more people in these countries effective interventions for strengthening climate resil- are affected by natural disasters compared with those living in ience, enhancing ecosystem services and biodiversity, non-FCV settings (Jaramillo et al. 2023). and addressing infrastructure needs. NBS are “actions to protect, sustainably manage, and restore natural and mod- Ecosystem degradation and biodiversity loss further ified ecosystems that address societal challenges effectively exacerbate the challenges SSA countries face in achieving and adaptively, simultaneously providing human well-being economic stability and resilience to climate change. The and biodiversity benefits” (IUCN 2020; UNEP EA 2022). These rapid deterioration of natural ecosystems has led to widespread solutions can be applied across different spatial scales and loss of biodiversity and forest cover, increased flooding, and landscapes, ranging from upstream forests to coastal or urban intensified heat island effects (Güneralp et al. 2017; TNC 2021a). areas (World Bank 2021b). NBS interventions, such as pro- Approximately 65 percent of arable land in SSA is affected by tecting or restoring forests, floodplains, wetlands, or coral degradation, leading to an estimated annual gross domestic reefs, can help bolster biodiversity and make ecosystems and product loss of up to 9 percent in some countries (Iseman and societies more resilient to climate change (Figure ES-1). For Miralles-Wilhelm 2021). Over 62 percent of the population example, restoring forests can increase soil retention, thus relies on goods and services from natural ecosystems, and reducing erosion and landslides and improving water quality. biodiversity loss impacts key economic sectors like agriculture, Hybrid green-gray interventions, such as combining mangroves fisheries, forestry, and tourism (IPBES 2018). Desertification with gray infrastructure (engineered structures like concrete affects nearly half of Africa’s landmass, reducing agricultural seawalls), offer solutions that can achieve optimal disaster yields, increasing food and water scarcity, and displacing mil- risk and storm protection by balancing the durability of hard lions (IPCC 2022a). infrastructure with the adaptability and long-term resilience of NBS (World Bank 2023). Executive summary  | 1 Figure ES-1 | Nature-based solutions for climate resilience and co-benefits Nature-based solutions Protection Management Restoration of... Mangroves Grasslands Urban parks Example NBS interventions for the outcomes of... Flood mitigation Landslide reduction Jobs Biodiversity Improved water quality Climate mitigation Example climate resilience objectives Example co-benefits Note: The figure illustrates examples of NBS interventions, risk reduction, and co-benefits identified in the report and is not exhaustive. See Appendix A for the full lists. Source: Authors, adapted from van Zanten et al. 2021. About this report This report aims to identify strategic actions to increase with project developers, funders, and investors of NBS projects investment in NBS for climate resilience in SSA by evaluat- in SSA to gain insights on the key barriers to NBS project invest- ing over a decade of NBS project investment and assessing ment and implementation. This report synthesizes results from a range of policy, financial, institutional, social, and the analysis and interviews to offer targeted recommendations technical barriers to adoption. We examined historical and for how actors such as governments and multilateral organiza- projected data for climate hazards in the region to provide tions can effectively scale up NBS in the region. background on the challenges SSA faces. To establish a baseline of the status of NBS in the region and evaluate the types of proj- ects being implemented, this report presents an inventory of NBS projects from across the region that were initiated between 2012 and 2023. In addition, we conducted over 50 interviews 2 |  Growing resilience: Unlocking the potential of nature-based solutions for climate resilience in sub-Saharan Africa Key findings from the report The number of NBS projects and funding rose from 2012 to 2023 The number of projects investing in NBS for climate in project funding packages that are not specifically tied to resilience rose steadily in the region with the number of NBS implementation, such as capacity training. The average new projects initiated each year increasing by an average funding secured per project was $74.7 million, and of this, NBS of 15 percent annually from 2012 to 2021. Project initiation implementation accounted for $33.6 million. From 2022 to from the World Bank and African Development Bank (AfDB) 2023, in which our analysis included only World Bank and AfDB portfolios grew at a similar rate during this period but had a projects, projects received $8.7 billion in funding, of which $2.9 sharp increase in 2022–23, where the number of new projects billion (23 percent) was for NBS implementation. doubled from 2021 to 2022. Overall, the study identified 246 NBS projects were often designed to deliver multiple NBS projects from across the region with a project start date climate-resilience and disaster-risk-reduction objectives between 2012 and 2021, and an additional 51 projects from the with several co-benefits. Most projects focused on a combi- World Bank and AfDB approved between 2022 and 2023, for a nation of improving water quality, increasing water supply, and total of 297 projects (Figure ES-2). The study focused on SSA mitigating flood risk. In addition to the climate resilience objec- because unique socioeconomic conditions, rapid urbanization, tives, projects listed intended co-benefits, some of the most regional governance structures, and climate and environmental common being job creation, biodiversity enhancements, public challenges present significant opportunities for impactful NBS health improvements, and community cohesion. Projects were implementation. To be included in the analysis, projects had to implemented in diverse contexts, including in rural, coastal, be located in SSA, secure at least US$50,000 in funding, be ini- and urban settings, with rural settings as the most common. tiated or approved between 2012 and 2023, and aim to address at least one of the following climate resilience objectives: flood These NBS projects were initiated across SSA with the high- mitigation, improved water quality, improved water quantity, est levels of investment made for projects in Eastern Africa erosion or landslide mitigation, urban heat mitigation, or fire (49 percent of the total investment from 2012 to 2021), risk mitigation. followed by Western (30 percent), Southern (15 percent), and Central Africa (6 percent) (Figure ES-3). Ethiopia alone Funding secured for new projects increased by an aver- captured 43 percent of Eastern Africa’s share and 20 percent age of 23 percent annually between 2012 and 2021. Total of SSA’s overall NBS project funding. Investment from World funding for this period amounted to $12.5 billion with about Bank and AfDB projects shifted primarily to Western Africa $5.3 billion (42 percent) allocated specifically to NBS imple- in 2022–23. A small portion, about 1 percent, of projects were mentation. Total funding included costs for gray infrastructure cross-regional. components of hybrid projects and other activities included Figure ES-2 | Project initiation by year for NBS for climate resilience projects in SSA, 2012–23 30 25 Number of projects initiated 20 15 10 5 0 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Year WB and AfDB portfolios Projects from other portfolios Notes: We excluded 48 small-scale projects that received funding from the African Forest Landscape Restoration Initiative’s TerraMatch in 2021 from the fig- ure. The project count for 2022 and 2023 represents projects from only the World Bank and the African Development Bank as data from these institutions were provided for analysis (overall numbers of NBS projects are likely higher). NBS = nature-based solutions. SSA = sub-Saharan Africa. WB = World Bank. AfDB = African Development Bank. Source: Authors. Executive summary  | 3 Geographic distribution of funding secured for NBS climate resilience projects in SSA, Figure ES-3 |  2012–21, with illustrative examples Total funding secured (Millions, US$) 0–500 501–1,000 1,001–1,500 1,501–2,000 2,001–3,000 None SENEGAL BENIN KENYA Stormwater Management Strengthening the Resilience Green Zones and Climate Change Adaptation Projecta of the Energy Sector in Benin to the Impacts Development Support Projectc of Climate Changef Investment objective: Urban and Investment objective: Improved riverine flood mitigation Investment objective: Erosion/landslide water supply NBS: Creation and restoration risk reduction, riverine flood mitigation NBS: Reforestation, improved of floodplains, bypasses, and wetlands NBS: Reforestation and a orestation agroforestry and silvopasture, and sustainable to restore riverbeds and riparian areas farmland best practices Lead: Municipal Development Agency Lead: Ministry of Energy, Lead: Ministry of Finance Funding secured: $172.40 million ($143.90 million for NBS Mining and Petroleum Exploration, Water Funding secured: $54.38 million, implementation) and Renewable Energy Development ($15.37 million for NBS implementation) Funding secured: $38.57 million (amount for NBS unknown) Mauritania Cabo Verde Mali Niger Eritrea Sudan The Gambia Chad Djibouti Guinea-Bissau Guinea Sierra Leone Nigeria Ethiopia Liberia Central South African Republic Sudan Somalia Côte d'Ivoire Togo Burkina Faso Uganda Cameroon Ghana Equatorial Rwanda Guinea Burundi Seychelles Gabon Republic of Congo Angola Comoros Zambia DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF THE CONGO Zimbabwe Namibia Malawi Mauritius Batshamba- Tshikapa Road Botswana Improvement Project: Lovua- Tshikapa Sectione TANZANIA Investment objective: Erosion/landslide Adaptation measures for the coastal risk reduction,riverine flood mitigation communities of Tanzaniag NBS: Protection and Investment objective: restoration of grasslands and forests Coastal flooding/erosion reduction Lesotho Lead: Ministry of Infrastructure, NBS: Restoration of Public Works and Reconstruction Eswatini mangroves, rehabilitation of Mozambique coral reefs, and the building and Funding secured: $105.28 million reparation of sea walls ($170,000 for NBS implementation) Lead: Division of Environment MADAGASCAR Funding secured: SOUTH AFRICA Mangroves for Community and Climateb $4.5 million (amount for NBS unknown) Alien species Investment objective: Reduced clearing coordination in Wolseley coastal flooding/erosion Water Users Associationd NBS: Protection and Investment objective: Improved restoration of mangroves water supply, improved water quality, Lead: World fire risk mitigation Wildlife Fund Madagascar NBS: Invasive species removal Funding secured: $4.5 million Lead: World Wildlife Fund (all allocated for NBS implementation) Funding secured: $0.82 million, (amount for NBS unknown) Notes: Countries in northern Africa were not included in this analysis and are shaded in gray. NBS = nature-based solutions. SSA = sub-Saharan Africa. Source: Authors; a World Bank 2022a; b WWF n.d.; c AfDB 2023a; d Lephaila 2021; e AfDB 2023b; f GEF n.d.; g UNEP 2019. 4 |  Growing resilience: Unlocking the potential of nature-based solutions for climate resilience in sub-Saharan Africa To distinguish between the range of project types and investment sizes, we categorized projects into three groups: green-gray, green, and small scale (Figure ES-4). These categories were defined to account for each project type’s unique requirements for project planning, design, and imple- mentation, including technical expertise, resource allocation, stakeholder engagement, and impact assessment. Small-scale projects are typically community driven, whereas large-scale green-gray and green projects demand complex stakeholder coordination, substantial investment, and comprehensive plan- ning and management due to their size and impact. Green-gray projects represented the largest group with 95 projects initiated between 2012 and 2021. The total com- Photo by Rob Barnes/GRID-Arendal. mitted funding and financing to these projects was $8.8 billion, with $3.5 billion reserved for NBS implementation. These projects used NBS interventions—such as green (e.g., restoring forests to mitigate landslides) or blue (e.g., coral reef with an average of $54 million per project. They were generally management or restoration to reduce erosion) NBS—together developed by national governments’ environment and natural with gray infrastructure, and secured over $1 million per proj- resource departments and funded by multilateral donors and ect. Funding secured for such projects ranged from $1 million funds. They were most frequently designed to enhance biodiver- to $909 million, with an average project size of $108 million sity and support job creation co-benefits. including gray components. Over half of these projects were led Small-scale projects were the third group with 67 projects by the infrastructure sectors of national governments. Green- initiated between 2012 and 2021. Twenty-one small-scale gray projects were often funded by multilateral development projects disclosed funding for a total of $6.7 million. Fund- banks (MDBs) and designed to deliver a range of co-benefits, ing secured for those projects ranged from $50,000 to $910,000 including job creation and improvements to public health. per project with the average project receiving $370,000. Funding Green projects represented the second-largest group with for NBS could not be calculated as projects did not differentiate 83 projects between 2012 and 2021. The total committed between project totals and NBS implementation. These projects funding and financing to these projects was $3.7 billion, mostly used green or blue components, with few using green- with $1.8 billion reserved for NBS implementation. These gray interventions. These projects were funded by multilateral projects used green or blue NBS interventions without gray donors, multilateral funds, and nongovernmental organizations infrastructure to achieve their climate resilience objectives. (NGOs); developed by NGOs; and focused on job creation and Green projects secured between $1 million and $500 million biodiversity enhancement co-benefits. Figure ES-4 | Graphical representation of the NBS project typology $1B Committed funding per project Green-gray projects Green projects $1M Small scale projects Environment and climate sectors Infrastructure sector Note: NBS = nature-based solutions. B = billion. M = million. Source: Authors. Executive summary  | 5 Projects aimed to address multiple climate resilience objectives and co-benefits Most of the 246 projects identified from 2012 to 2021 had of projects were coastal, predominantly focusing on mangrove multiple climate resilience objectives with improved water restoration to reduce coastal flooding, with other interventions quality and water supply as the most common (Figure like coral reefs and salt marshes used less frequently. Urban ES-5). Flood mitigation and erosion and landslide risk reduc- NBS projects were less common (15 percent of the portfolio for tion followed. For World Bank and AfDB projects from 2022 2012–21), but grew in 2022–23, comprising 50 percent of recent to 2023, erosion and landslide risk reduction were the most World Bank and AfDB portfolios. These urban projects primar- common objectives for both green and green-gray projects. ily used urban parks, constructed wetlands, and rain gardens Projects also aimed to address a variety of co-benefits in addi- for flood control and water quality improvements. Additionally, tion to their climate resilience objectives. For projects initiated 15 percent of projects spanned multiple landscapes, benefiting between 2012 and 2023, job creation was the top socioeco- both rural and urban residents, such as watershed projects nomic co-benefit. Improved biodiversity and food security were where implementation occurred upland to deliver improved also leading co-benefits for green and small-scale projects, climate resilience downstream to urban residents. while public health enhancements and community cohesion were more common co-benefits for green-gray projects. National governments led project development Urban projects gained momentum National governments were the lead project developers amid predominantly rural forest for 62 percent of projects, highlighting their pivotal role management projects in driving implementation and ensuring project goals are Rural landscapes were the primary focus of all NBS achieved (Figure ES-6). While they frequently acted as the projects. Of projects initiated from 2012 to 2021, nearly primary liaison with funders, national governments collabo- 70 percent targeted rural areas like upper watersheds, rated extensively with local and state authorities to execute agricultural zones, forests, and natural grasslands. These site-specific NBS. For green and green-gray projects, national projects often used sustainable forest management (63 per- governments typically took the lead in project development, cent) and improved agriculture (46 percent) to enhance water while small-scale projects were often spearheaded by national resources and mitigate erosion and flooding. About 10 percent or international NGOs. Figure ES-5 | Climate resilience objective by project type, 2012–21 Improved water quality Improved water supply Climate resilience objective Flood mitigation Erosion/landslide risk reduction Fire risk mitigation Green Green-gray Urban heat Small scale mitigation 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% Percent of projects with each objective Note: Flood mitigation includes coastal, riverine, pluvial, and urban flood mitigation; erosion includes both coastal and terrestrial erosion risk reduction. Source: Authors. 6 |  Growing resilience: Unlocking the potential of nature-based solutions for climate resilience in sub-Saharan Africa Figure ES-6 | Types of lead project developers, 2012–21 National government National NGO International NGO Project developer Private company Local government Multiple national governments State government Green Intergovernmental organization Green-gray Infrastructure Small scale operator 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% Percent of projects Note: NGO = nongovernmental organization. Source: Authors. Projects were co-funded by multilateral organizations and national governments Projects were often co-funded by MDBs, multilateral donors and funds, and national governments. MDBs were the primary funder of 70 percent of projects, with national governments and multilateral donors & funds—including international organizations like the United Nations Environ- ment Programme (UNEP) and United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and multilateral funds such as the Global Environment Facility (GEF) and Green Climate Fund—often co-funding these projects. Multilateral donors and funds funded 43 percent of green projects and 28 percent of small- scale projects. In contrast, MDBs predominately provided financial support for green-gray projects (61 percent). Few projects were primarily funded by the private sector, reveal- ing an area for greater engagement as this sector can provide capital at scale. Grants, concessional loans, and government contributions were the primary sources of funding for projects. Fifty percent of projects relied solely on grants, while concessional loans alone or in combination with grants or government contributions funded 25 percent of projects. Grants were the most common funding instrument, especially for small-scale projects. They were involved in funding 51 percent of green projects, 32 percent of green-gray projects, and 81 percent of small-scale projects. Concessional loans, used alone or in combination with other instruments, were used in 25 percent of projects but contributed over 73 percent of the total funding across all initiatives. Large-scale green-gray projects primarily used concessional loans combined with grants to fund projects, while green projects relied more on grants alone or in combina- tion with government contributions. Market-rate loans, in-kind Northern Congo Agroforestry Project, Republic of Congo. Photo by the World Bank. Executive summary  | 7 contributions, private equity, and carbon offsets were far less common, but demonstrated a diverse funding landscape Key implementation barriers for NBS projects. A lack of policy integration, lack of institutional coordina- tion, limited technical knowledge, and an underdeveloped Social equity in NBS projects can be business case are among the known implementation enhanced by integrating gender inclusion, barriers of NBS for climate resilience, according to over 50 project developers, funders, and investors interviewed Indigenous and traditional knowledge, for this report (Table ES-1). Interviewees mentioned that and context-sensitive approaches in national and local policies in SSA often incentivize building fragile regions with traditional gray infrastructure rather than green or green- gray hybrid solutions, making it difficult to incorporate NBS Most NBS projects cited gender equity components, but few into planning and funding frameworks. Interviewees also high- referenced using Indigenous and traditional knowledge. lighted institutional barriers such as constrained government Gender equity integration was referenced in 68 percent of proj- budgets and insufficient understanding of NBS as hindering ect plans from 2012 to 2021, yet using Indigenous knowledge national support or buy-in. Project developers, funders, and was identified in only 13 percent of projects. For World Bank investors interviewed cited gaps in technical capacity, includ- and AfDB projects from 2022 to 2023, gender equity inclusion ing insufficient NBS-specific knowledge and training, which increased to 98 percent of projects and Indigenous knowledge can impede successful implementation and long-term project to 24 percent. The high reference of gender equity could be a outcomes. In addition, social challenges, such as land tenure result of the inclusion requirements for MDBs, showing how conflicts and inadequate community involvement, weaken formal requirements can increase integration. project outcomes and damage NBS credibility. Another recur- Lower NBS project investment was found in countries with ring theme was funding challenges, with project developers a fragility and conflict status. Fifty-five percent of projects emphasizing the need to strengthen the business case for NBS were implemented in countries that were not designated by the to secure more public funding and attract private investment. World Bank as FCV (affected by fragility, conflict, and violence) Securing long-term funding remains a key obstacle, as many from 2012 to 2021 compared with 22 percent of projects that projects struggle to sustain themselves over time. Address- were implemented in countries that had been on the FCV ing these interconnected barriers will be crucial to scaling list over five times. Small-scale projects were more common up NBS and realizing their full potential to build climate in countries often listed as FCV, while green and green-gray resilience in SSA. projects were mostly found in non-FCV countries. In fragile countries, NBS projects relied on a mix of government and in-kind contributions, along with market-rate and conces- sional loans. While high-FCV nations co-funded more projects through government contributions, their limited access to alternative financing could lead to a dependence on loans, which in turn can create high debt burdens and compromise a borrower’s long-term financial stability. Key implementation barriers identified in interviews with project developers, funders, Table ES-1 |  and investors BARRIERS TO IMPLEMENTATION OF NBS FOR CLIMATE RESILIENCE Policy • Lack of incentives or supportive national policies to consider NBS • Policy preference for gray infrastructure Institutional • Limited budgets and resources for multisectoral collaboration • Lack of institutional buy-in for NBS Technical • Limited technical capacity to design, implement, and maintain NBS projects • Insufficient scientific data to inform effective project design and resources for MEL Social • Lack of incentives and resources to build trust and community support for NBS • Social conflict and insecure land tenure Financial • Business cases and revenue streams are not developed for NBS • Funding covers implementation alone and not longer-term NBS maintenance and monitoring Note: NBS = nature-based solutions. MEL = monitoring, evaluation, and learning. Source: Authors. 8 |  Growing resilience: Unlocking the potential of nature-based solutions for climate resilience in sub-Saharan Africa Funding and financing pathways for NBS in SSA NBS projects often rely on grants; however, diversifying the attractiveness of NBS for investors and facilitating broader funding instruments can ensure the long-term sustain- financial support. These instruments are already in use in the ability of projects and secure additional capital to achieve region, but increasing their application to finance NBS projects scale (Figure ES-7). Debt-financing options, like certified will be critical to accessing new and additional sources of green bonds or debt-for-nature swaps or climate conversions, capital. Multilateral development banks and other multilateral offer pathways to secure substantial up-front capital, while organizations will need to continue to play a foundational role market-based tools, such as payments for ecosystem services by offering initial capital for projects, while national govern- and carbon credits, can provide a consistent revenue stream ments can create supportive policy, regulatory, and financial over time, making projects more financially sustainable. frameworks to facilitate further investment. New domestic Risk-mitigation instruments, like guarantees and insurance, sources from fees, taxes, utilities, or corporate contributions can lower investment risks for lenders or borrowers, enhancing will be required to sustain projects for the long term. Figure ES-7 | Overview of funders and financial instruments for NBS in SSA Type of funder Funder Instrument Sub-instrument Public Grants Non-repayment Government Direct contributions instruments Fiscal and regulatory Multilateral donor Taxes, fees, subsidies instruments Market and Bilateral donor consessional loans Debt financing MDB Blue and green bonds instruments National finance Debt-for-nature or institution climate conversations Infrastructure operator Market-based Payment for (utility) instruments ecosystem services NGO Carbon credits Risk sharing Corporate actor Guarantees instruments Commercial bank Insurance Institutional investor Equity Private equity Private Venture capital Notes: This table integrates database findings and climate finance literature and does not represent an exhaustive list of the funders or financial instruments in use in the region. Sub-instruments with an orange outline are used by projects in the database and those marked by a gray box are covered in depth in section “Funding and financing strategies for scaling up NBS investments.” Guarantees are used in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) but have not yet been used for nature-based solutions (NBS). MDB = multilateral development bank. NGO = nongovernmental organization. Source: Authors. Executive summary  | 9 Recommendations for scaling up NBS implementation in the region This report’s analysis of NBS projects reveals positive trends in 2. Improve NBS project preparation and project initiation and funding over the past decade. However, NBS-specific technical capacity to develop current NBS investment and implementation remain insuf- a project pipeline. ficient given the scale of the challenges facing SSA including climate change, nature loss, and rapid population growth. To Increase early-stage project preparation by project increase the scale of investment in NBS and unlock its potential developers. Increasing access to NBS-specific techni- to address climate resilience, key actors including national and cal capacity could improve the success and bankability subnational African governments, MDBs and other multilateral of NBS projects, particularly in low-capacity and FCV organizations, NGOs, private sector actors, and infrastructure environments. Project preparation facilities and accel- operators will need to change business-as-usual policies and erators provide a powerful approach to deliver this practices to address the barriers identified in this report. tailored support. We provide a set of strategic recommendations for these actors Disseminate lessons and best practices through peer- based on our analysis of current investment, assessment of to-peer learning, practitioner forums, and knowledge implementation barriers and opportunities, and the expected exchanges. To improve project development, NBS climate resilience and development challenges across the practitioners can share region-specific insights, tools, and region. Our key recommendations are the following: real-world experiences related to the design, implementa- tion, and monitoring of NBS projects. 1. Better integrate NBS into relevant policies and plans across SSA to institutionalize their role in 3. Enhance NBS project integrity and effectiveness addressing climate and development challenges. by incorporating gender equity and Indigenous and traditional knowledge, increasing NBS Integrate NBS commitments into strategic adaptation responsiveness to community needs, and safe- and resilience planning. Many countries in SSA promote guarding biodiversity. NBS in their climate and biodiversity contributions toward multilateral environmental agreements. Further integration Actively involve local communities to ensure that in national and subnational adaptation plans and policies projects are tailored to their specific needs and conditions, can ensure NBS are a viable and cost-effective option for fostering a sense of ownership and responsibility, and climate adaptation. creating socioeconomic benefits relevant to local needs. This can be achieved through participatory planning Mainstream NBS in sectoral policy and planning. To processes, regular consultations, and inclusive deci- integrate NBS in infrastructure portfolios or land-use plan- sion-making frameworks. ning, NBS should be enabled and incentivized by plans and policies for urban development, coastal management, hous- Integrate gender equity and engage Indigenous Peoples ing, transport, water, and energy. Countries can incorporate and local communities (IPLCs) in project design, plan- natural capital accounting (the process of quantifying and ning, implementation, and monitoring. This can enhance valuing natural resources like forests, water, and biodiver- the relevance and effectiveness of projects. For gender sity) to help promote the integration of NBS. equity, this can involve targeted training programs, support for women-led initiatives, and policies that promote gender Update policy and regulatory frameworks to remove balance in leadership roles. Collaborating with IPLCs and barriers and unlock funding for NBS. Update existing valuing their traditional knowledge systems can enhance regulations that hinder the adoption of NBS and reform the relevance and effectiveness of projects. policies to provide financial incentives for investment and maintenance of NBS, such as Rwanda’s Green Growth and NBS must deliver positive outcomes for biodiversity Climate Resilience Strategy, whose implementing agency, and ecosystem integrity and can do so by aligning with FONERWA, secured a portion of the national budget for global conservation and climate resilience goals. Projects NBS initiatives (RoR 2022). should enhance biodiversity, avoid harmful practices like introducing invasive species or monocultures, and adhere to safeguards that mitigate unintended harm. 10 |  Growing resilience: Unlocking the potential of nature-based solutions for climate resilience in sub-Saharan Africa 4. Diversify funders and funding sources by 6. Improve monitoring, evaluation, and learning to applying conventional and innovative finan- ensure projects deliver intended climate impacts cial mechanisms. and co-benefits. Continue to tap into conventional funding streams NBS project developers should significantly increase for green and green-gray projects from infrastructure their investments in monitoring and evaluation to funders, like MDBs and other multilateral organizations, better gauge projects’ effectiveness in delivering climate using both market-rate and concessional loans, when resilience and co-benefits. They can use the data to improve fiscally appropriate. project design, and showcase the findings to build confi- dence with communities, governments, and investors. Market the climate and biodiversity benefits of NBS projects to unlock committed climate and biodiver- While this study did not evaluate the effectiveness of sity finance through the issuance of green, blue, and individual projects, future research should evaluate sustainability bonds or debt-for-nature swaps or cli- NBS projects by collecting data on key impacts such as mate conversions. climate risk reduction, economic savings, gender equity outcomes, and the delivery of co-benefits. This can help Increase domestic sources of funding for NBS through inform future design, enhance the robustness of available fees, taxes, and subsidies, which can provide capital scientific data, and demonstrate the viability of NBS as a for project initiation, operations and maintenance, and cost-effective tool for climate resilience. ongoing monitoring, or serve as repayment sources for debt finance. Use these dedicated sources of capital to seed As the world’s fastest-growing region, and one of the most national climate funds, conservation trust funds, or water climate vulnerable, SSA presents a significant opportunity funds for operations and endowments, allowing them to for investment and impact. Decision-makers can leverage the pool multiple sources of capital. power of NBS to create a more resilient, equitable, and sustain- Deploy more risk-sharing instruments, such as guaran- able future for the region. We encourage readers to explore the tees and insurance, to address the perceived and real risk full report to gain deeper insights into the opportunities and associated with investing in NBS projects in SSA. challenges surrounding NBS in SSA and gain inspiration to take bold action. 5. Apply country-level implementation strate- gies based on natural hazards, fragility, and climate impacts. Establish national NBS investment priorities for cli- mate resilience. Countries in SSA should prioritize NBS investments that directly address climate impacts and natural disaster risks tailored to specific regional needs to maximize positive outcomes. Targeted interventions in coastal cities can address pressing infrastructure needs and improve resilience to hazards such as coastal flooding, erosion, and storm surges. Tailor NBS strategies for fragile and conflict-affected regions. In FCV contexts, implementing NBS requires customized strategies that account for limited borrowing capacity, institutional constraints, and funding challenges. NBS projects can enhance resilience to climate hazards and provide co-benefits like job creation and community cohesion, making community-driven and locally beneficial projects especially impactful in these regions. Urban areas require increased investment and tar- geted approaches to address infrastructure demands and enhance resilience to hazards such as heat stress, flooding, and green space loss. Effective urban NBS must integrate natural systems into densely populated areas while addressing critical issues such as informal settle- ments and competing land uses to ensure equitable and sustainable outcomes. Contending with these challenges necessitates tailored approaches that consider the complex socioeconomic dynamics, spatial limitations, and local governance structures unique to cities. Mozambique Cities and Climate Change Project, Mozambique. Photo by the World Bank. Executive summary  | 11 Rwanda Environmental Conservation Organization (RECOR) TerraFund for AFR100, Rwanda. Photo by Serrah Galos. Introduction Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) faces escalating climate change impacts compounded by socioeconomic vulnerabilities, but nature-based solutions (NBS) offer a promising approach to enhance climate resilience, improve ecosystem services, and address infrastruc- ture and economic challenges. This section provides background for this report’s analysis of the potential of NBS to address SSA’s interconnected challenges. It describes the region’s climate and development context, defines NBS with examples, identifies key barriers to NBS adoption and implementation from existing liter- ature, and reviews relevant international policies and financing frameworks for NBS. Background Africa is experiencing increases in surface temperature faster than the global average (IPCC 2022a) and is one the world’s most vulnerable regions to climate change. Extreme weather events such as heat waves, droughts, floods, and cyclones have devastated countries in sub-Saharan Africa1 in recent years, resulting in the loss of thousands of lives and inflicting billions of dollars in economic damages (WMO 2022). Across the region, infrastructure worth nearly US$200 million is at risk of flooding each year (World Bank 2022b), trapping SSA in a cycle of economic losses due to climate change.  Ecosystem degradation further exacerbates challenges coun- tries face in achieving stable economic growth and resilience to climate change impacts. In SSA, where livelihoods are heavily dependent on natural resources and a large portion of the pop- ulation works in climate-exposed sectors such as agriculture, the region’s residents are particularly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change and biodiversity loss (IPCC 2022a; Archer et al. 2018). Land degradation affects roughly 65 percent of arable land in SSA, leading to an estimated annual income loss of up Kigali, Rwanda. Photo by James Anderson. to 9 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) in some countries (Iseman and Miralles-Wilhelm 2021). In addition to the growing adverse impacts of climate change With this complex setting, there is a significant need to invest and nature loss, SSA faces several socioeconomic and political in reducing disaster risk and increasing climate resilience in challenges. Africa has one of the fastest growing and urban- SSA, such as by promoting climate-resilient infrastructure to izing populations in the world—the continent’s population is address pressing and interconnected vulnerabilities. Yet, the expected to double by 2050, mainly in urban areas (UN 2022)— African Development Bank (AfDB) estimates that Africa faces a increasing demand for infrastructure and public services and climate adaptation financing gap of $166-260 billion from inter- jobs and economic security (AfDB 2020a). The region faces per- national sources between 2020 and 2030, with an infrastructure sistent political instability, with over half of the countries in SSA financing gap of $68–$108 billion per year (AfDB 2018, 2022). designated as fragile, conflict-affected, and violent (FCV) by the Furthermore, adaptation funding is often fragmented, small World Bank in the last 10 years (Baah and Lakner 2023). FCV scale, incremental, sector specific, and designed to respond to countries also tend to be more vulnerable to natural disasters, current impacts or near-term risks rather than necessary long- with three times more people affected by natural disasters and term investments (IPCC 2022a). Additional financing is needed twice the share of the population at risk of displacement when to close these gaps and alter current trajectories to reduce compared with non-FCV settings (Jaramillo et al. 2023). disaster risk and build resilience to climate change impacts. Box 1 | Key terms Nature-based solutions: An umbrella term for “actions to protect, sustainably manage, and restore natural and modified ecosystems that address societal challenges effectively and adaptively, simultaneously providing human well-being and bio- diversity benefits.”a Gray infrastructure (also referred to as traditional infrastructure): Engineered structures such as dams, reservoirs, pipes, levees, roads, and water treatment plants that are designed to deliver key services such as transportation, energy, water sup- ply, wastewater management, or natural hazard protection. Green infrastructure (also referred to as natural infrastructure or nature-based infrastructure): A subset of NBS that uses nat- ural systems such as forests, floodplains, riparian areas, and mangroves, among others, to provide key infrastructure services and additional benefits, such as improved biodiversity. Green-gray infrastructure (also referred to as hybrid infrastructure): Combines green infrastructure or NBS with gray infra- structure to create more resilient and cost-effective systems. Notes: a IUCN 2020; UNEP EA 2022. Source: Authors, adapted from Box 1 in Browder et al. 2019. Introduction  | 13 Nature-based solutions for climate resilience Nature-based solutions are increasingly being considered as $9 trillion (UN Decade et al. n.d.). Healthy ecosystems, such as effective interventions for strengthening climate resilience, mangroves, forests, and grasslands, can reduce natural hazards enhancing ecosystem services, and meeting infrastructure like flooding or erosion. Crucially, NBS can also provide social gaps. NBS are often defined as “actions to protect, sustainably and economic co-benefits, such as food security, new jobs and manage, and restore natural and modified ecosystems that sustainable livelihoods, and improved public health, among address societal challenges effectively and adaptively, simulta- others (Figure 1).  neously providing human well-being and biodiversity benefits” NBS can serve as an alternative or complement to traditional (IUCN 2020; UNEP EA 2022). As such, NBS principally should infrastructure, increasing the infrastructure’s effectiveness and be designed to capitalize on their ability to respond to socio- operable life (Browder et al. 2019; G-G CoP 2020). Projects effec- economic needs; use a systems approach to contribute to wider tively incorporating NBS generally have higher benefits than resilience and risk reduction objectives, including through the projects relying on gray infrastructure alone (van Zanten et al. integration of hybrid green-gray approaches when these are 2023).11 In many cases, NBS can be used to provide infrastruc- deemed more efficient; consider a hierarchical set of inter- ture-related services, either as an alternative (known as “green ventions based on protection, restoration, and the creation of infrastructure”) or as a complement (known as “green-gray solutions; be implemented across different spatial scales; and infrastructure”) to traditional infrastructure (see Box 1). One adopt a multistakeholder and interdisciplinary approach for example is reducing the expenses associated with future road their implementation (World Bank 2021b). damage by pairing road enhancement with forest restoration to NBS can increase the delivery of ecosystem services by improv- mitigate flooding and erosion. ing ecosystem conditions, which can yield climate resilience and socioeconomic benefits. For example, restoring 350 million hectares of degraded terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems by 2030 could yield ecosystem services valued at approximately Dhow negotiating mangroves at Kilwa Kisiwani on return voyage,” Tanzania. Photo by Richard Mortel. 14 |  Growing resilience: Unlocking the potential of nature-based solutions for climate resilience in sub-Saharan Africa Figure 1 | Nature-based solutions for climate resilience and co-benefits Nature-based solutions Protection Management Restoration of... Mangroves Grasslands Urban parks Example NBS interventions for the outcomes of... Flood mitigation Landslide reduction Jobs Biodiversity Improved water quality Climate mitigation Example climate resilience objectives Example co-benefits Note: The figure illustrates examples of NBS interventions, risk reduction, and co-benefits identified in the report and is not exhaustive. See Appendix A for the full lists. Source: Authors, adapted from van Zanten et al. 2023. While different definitions and intended outcomes may exist search protocol and informed the eligibility criteria we used to for NBS, this report focuses specifically on NBS aimed at develop the NBS project database analyzed in section “Status increasing climate resilience, through their ability to regulate of and trends in NBS for climate resilience in SSA.” The project and manage specific climate hazards. The report looks at selection process included six complementary assessments to NBS to address flood mitigation, water quality, water supply, identify relevant projects. A comprehensive explanation of the erosion and landslide risk mitigation, fire risk mitigation, and methodology, including its limitations and a complete list of heat mitigation, as these are all climate-related hazards that projects, is provided in Appendix A. severely affect SSA (see Figure 2). Solutions such as climate smart agriculture and other agricultural NBS are key to reduc- ing greenhouse gas emissions while providing biodiversity and livelihood benefits; however, if their main objective is not to address a climate-related hazard, we excluded them from the report. This definition of NBS served as the foundation for the Introduction  | 15 Figure 2 | Example NBS interventions for climate resilience objectives Mangrove Terraces Natural inland Rain River Constructed forests and slopes wetlands gardens floodplains wetlands Flood mitigation Improve water quality Improve water supply Sandy Urban and Green Fire Green Urban shores upland forests corridors breaks roofs canopy Erosion and landslide mitigation Fire risk mitigation Heat mitigation Note: Examples are illustrative and not representative of all potential solutions for the objectives. Certain types of nature-based solutions (NBS), such as spe- cific types of climate-smart agriculture, were not included as they do not directly address climate resilience as a main objective. Source: Authors, adapted from World Bank 2021b. The following are specific examples of how NBS, often inte- • Heat mitigation: Urban tree canopies, green spaces, and grated with gray infrastructure, can effectively address climate water bodies, combined with cool roofs and energy-efficient hazards and enhance resilience objectives: buildings, help reduce extreme heat in cities (Degefu et al. 2023; Garuma 2023).  • Flood mitigation: Restoring floodplains can mitigate riv- Barriers to NBS implementation erine flooding by absorbing water and controlling seasonal volumes, while coastal mangroves act as natural barriers that can be coupled with sea walls to protect against storm Despite the potential for nature to increase resilience to natural surges and erosion (Narayan et al. 2016; Browder et al. 2019). hazards and climate change, there are several challenges Urban wetlands, green roofs, and parks enhance stormwater to scaling up NBS in SSA, including a lack of financing and infiltration, reducing urban flood intensity (Soz et al. 2016; barriers to implementation that impede the development of Gulati and Scholtz 2020). investment-ready projects. From 2021 to 2022, climate finance • Water quality: Restoration of forests and wetlands can covered only 23 percent of the estimated annual funding that enhance water quality by filtering pollutants and controlling African countries need to achieve their nationally determined sediment. In urban areas, constructed wetlands play a simi- contributions (NDCs) and fulfill 2030 climate goals (CPI 2024). lar role by mimicking natural filtration processes (Acreman Funding allocated to support NBS through climate adaptation et al. 2021; Hassan et al. 2021). finance or infrastructure finance is limited. Countries in SSA also face barriers in accessing finance due to complex applica- • Water supply: Removing invasive trees that consume excess tion procedures, limited institutional capacity, and concerns water can enhance water supply by increasing water quantity over creditworthiness and political risk. While interest from and improving distribution. Restored floodplains and wet- investors for NBS is growing, uncertainty around financial lands store water during wet periods and release it during returns often limits investment (UNEP 2021). dry times, while forest and wetland restoration upstream helps stabilize seasonal water flows (Hunink et al. 2017; On the other hand, many governments and investors in SSA Browder et al. 2019). struggle to reach investment readiness for NBS projects due • Erosion and landslide risk mitigation: Vegetation man- to data gaps, limited technical capacity, and insufficient policy support. The lack of reliable, comprehensive data in SSA hin- agement stabilizes slopes and reduces landslide risk and ders the ability to accurately assess risks, plan interventions, water runoff and helps improve drought conditions, while and track progress (White et al. 2017; Gulati and Scholtz 2020). natural ecosystems like coral reefs and sand dunes miti- Understanding priorities for NBS and the benefits they could gate coastal erosion and flooding (Smyth and Royle 2000; generate is therefore often difficult, although recent develop- Ozment et al. 2018).  ments using globally available information show that these • Fire risk mitigation: Green firebreaks—strips of land hurdles can be overcome (World Bank 2024a). Low technical planted with fire-resistant or low-flammability vegetation— capacity for NBS limits the available expertise needed to coupled with traditional firebreaks, such as roads, can stop develop, scale, and manage effective projects (Opperman et al. the spread of fire (Curran et al. 2017). 2021; ANRMIC 2022). Existing policies often favor gray infra- 16 |  Growing resilience: Unlocking the potential of nature-based solutions for climate resilience in sub-Saharan Africa Freetown, Sierra Leone. Photo by UrbanShift. structure over NBS (G-G CoP 2020; UNEP 2022b, 2022c), making it challenging for NBS to receive the funding, support, and inte- Policy and funding gration into mainstream development plans that they need. commitments in SSA Social dynamics and structural challenges pose additional bar- Enabling policy and funding frameworks are key for NBS to riers to the successful implementation of NBS projects in SSA. be implemented in a sustainable way and upscaled country- A lack of community participation and mistrust can prevent and continent-wide. Policies include laws, subnational and successful NBS projects. Social inequalities may increase if national action plans, and international conventions, as well vulnerable groups are not intentionally included (UNEP 2022c; as operational, informational, and financial policy instruments Trivedi et al. 2020). The rapid urbanization and development (e.g., official operational guidelines, awareness campaigns, and of informal settlements in African cities reduce available land tax incentives). Most African countries have adopted basic for NBS implementation, leading to land conflicts and inhib- environmental protection laws (Mkandawire and Arku 2009), iting NBS adoption (UNEP 2022b; Gulati and Scholtz 2020). yet implementation has often been undermined by conflicting Additionally, inadequate safeguards can result in unintended water, agriculture, and other sector laws, together with institu- social and environmental harm, further impacting community tional and economic challenges regarding law enforcement. At support and project success. There are no one-size-fits-all NBS the same time, many countries are increasingly emphasizing projects, and these solutions need to be carefully tailored to environmental objectives in their policies, integrating conser- specific contexts. Given the diversity of local conditions across vation and other NBS-enabling approaches (e.g., Integrated regions, a singular NBS approach might thrive in one setting Water Resource Management; see Dirwai et al. 2021). This and flounder in another. These nuances make it challenging to trend is strongly related to international conventions, which scale NBS at the rate needed to increase the region’s resilience are becoming important legal instruments in SSA (Kotzé to future climate hazards. Barriers to NBS implementation and 2021). The following constitute the most relevant conventions related strategies are further discussed in section “Challenges for NBS in SSA: to and strategies for advancing NBS in SSA.” • All 48 countries in SSA have signed the Paris Agreement and submitted NDCs, which outline national commitments to mitigating greenhouse gas emissions, climate adaptation plans, and funding/financing avenues to support these endeavors (UNFCCC n.d.). In 2022, 32 African countries explicitly referenced NBS in their NDCs (Kiribou et al. 2024). Introduction  | 17 • All 48 countries have crafted National Biodiversity Strat- to the United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction’s egies and Action Plans (NBSAPs) to promote biodiversity Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction to sub- conservation and management (CBD n.d.). Countries are stantially reduce disaster risk and the associated losses of in the process of harmonizing these with the new Kun- life, livelihoods, and economic opportunities (UNDRR n.d.). ming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework’s goals for 2050 (CBD 2023).  • Africa is a priority geography for donors, NGOs, and multilat- eral organizations pursuing the Sustainable Development • All 48 countries have accepted or ratified the Convention Goals (SDGs), such as clean water (Goal 6), clean energy on Biological Diversity (CBD), which includes meeting 23 (Goal 7), infrastructure (Goal 9), sustainable cities and targets related to biodiversity under the Kunming-Montreal communities (Goal 11), and partnerships (Goal 17) (UNDP Global Biodiversity Framework by 2030 (CBD n.d.). 2023). According to UNEP (2023b), nature-based infrastruc- • Twenty countries in SSA have submitted National ture solutions can help achieve 79 percent of SDG targets across all 17 goals. Adaptation Plans (NAPs), which aim to reduce climate vulnerabilities through adaptation plans and facilitate the • The African Union has developed Agenda 2063, a 50-year integration of these plans into development policies and plan initiated in 2013 that focuses on Africa’s sustainable programs (UNFCCC 2023). development and socioeconomic transformation, with a • Almost half of the United Nations (UN) Decade on Ecosys- strong emphasis on environmental conservation and the sustainable use of resources (African Union n.d.). In addition, tem Restoration’s global commitments to halt, protect, the African Union Climate Change and Resilient Develop- and restore nature and ecosystems are from SSA coun- ment Strategy and Action Plan (2022–2032) and Nairobi tries (UNEP 2022a).  Declaration of 2023 support Agenda 2063’s vision for a • Eleven countries are implementing a green belt of vegetation climate-resilient and prosperous Africa by building resilient to combat desertification through the Great Green Wall capacities for adaptation, maximizing mitigation potential, initiative, with intervention activities that started in 2008 and integrating climate risk management into sustainable and a goal of restoring 100 million hectares of degraded development (AICCRA 2022). land by 2030 (UNCCD 2020); 11 countries are committed to the new Great Blue Wall initiative, which taps into NBS To fund and support these initiatives, there are potentially new to improve ocean conservation and accelerate the blue funding frameworks linked to climate resilience and nature economy in coastal countries on the Western Indian Ocean that developing nations could access, including the following:  (BFC 2023); and 31 countries have pledged to restore more than 100 million hectares of degraded landscapes across • The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework Africa through the African Forest Landscape Restoration (GBF) was established by the CBD and adopted internation- initiative (AFR100), supported by the African Union and ally during the 15th Conference of the Parties to the United other partners (AFR100 n.d.). Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP15) in 2022 (UNEP 2022e). Target 19 commits to mobilizing $200 • Public and private actors in SSA, such as national and local billion annually for biodiversity by 2030, including $30 billion governments, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), civil through international finance, with a near-term goal of $20 society organizations, academic institutions, and private billion annually by 2025. Countries are tasked with creating companies, have submitted 15 voluntary commitments National Biodiversity Finance Plans to identify and mobilize the financial resources required to achieve the GBF targets (CBD 2024). Additionally, Target 18 aims to repurpose $500 billion annually in harmful incentives by 2030 to sustain and safeguard biodiversity (UNEP 2022e). • The operationalization of the Loss and Damage Fund was a significant outcome of COP28. Nearly $300 million was pledged toward adaptation strategies and recovery efforts in countries that often contribute the least to climate change but are most vulnerable to its impacts (UNEP 2022d, 2023).  • As laid out in this report, multilateral development banks (MDBs) are already important sources of financing for NBS. The “MDB Joint Nature Statement” advocates for further mainstreaming nature into MDB policies, analyses, assessments, investments, and operations (MDBs 2021). If strengthened with actual commitments, this framework could unlock more resources for nature-positive investments, including NBS.  Establishing and linking policy and financing frameworks at multiple scales and sectors will create a more supportive envi- Photo by Rob Barnes/GRID-Arendal. ronment for scaling up NBS initiatives across the continent. 18 |  Growing resilience: Unlocking the potential of nature-based solutions for climate resilience in sub-Saharan Africa About this report This report identifies recommendations to increase NBS • “Challenges to and strategies for advancing NBS in implementation for climate resilience in SSA based on an SSA” describes barriers to NBS implementation according analysis of prevalent natural hazards in the region that NBS can to interviews with project developers and investors in the help address, a review of NBS projects from 2012 to 2023, and region, and identifies what interviewees considered to be an analysis of the key barriers funders and project developers best practices for scaling up NBS adoption. identified in interviews (Figure 3). • “Funding and financing strategies for scaling up NBS The report is structured as follows: investments” presents different funding and financing strategies utilized in the region, based on interviews and • The next section, “Intersecting challenges of nature literature. It outlines opportunities for replication aimed loss, climate risk, and development needs,” describes at scaling available finance and long-term funding for natural hazards and climate change impacts, nature loss, NBS operations. and urbanization based on a literature review. We also used existing historical data and future projections to identify • Finally, “Recommendations to scale up NBS adoption” synthesizes recommendations informed by previous sections countries most impacted by natural hazards that NBS to scale up NBS implementation in the region. It provides can help address. recommendations tailored for key actors as each has a piv- • Then, “Status of and trends in NBS for climate resil- otal role to play in promoting NBS in SSA. ience in SSA” outlines the current landscape of existing NBS projects in the region collected by the authors and identifies the types of NBS gaining traction. The section also identifies project developers, funders, and funding and financing instruments. It includes insights on trends in NBS investments from the World Bank and African Development Bank portfolios. Figure 3 | Report structure Intersecting challenges of nature loss, climate risk, and Exposure and Urbanization and Natural capital development needs vulnerability to socioeconomic and biodiversity climate change development loss Challenges to and strategies for advancing NBS in SSA Status of and trends in NBS Barriers and enablers for climate resilience in SSA for NBS: Investment portfolio NBS for climate • Policy resilience in SSA • Institutional • Technical • Social • Financial Funding and financing strategies for scaling up NBS investments NBS strategies for investment Recommendations to scale and implementation up NBS adoption Source: Authors. Introduction  | 19 GEF Blue Forest Project, Gazi Bay, Kenya. Photo by Rob Barnes/GRID-Arendal. Intersecting challenges of nature loss, climate risk, and development needs Widespread ecosystem degradation, rapid population growth and urbanization, and accelerating climate risks present an inter- connected set of challenges across SSA. Climate risk in SSA is characterized by socioeconomic vulnerability related to increas- ing inequality, limited access to capital and technology, a reliance on natural capital, and infrastructure challenges (IPCC 2022a; WMO 2022). This section describes the region’s reliance on nat- ural capital and biodiversity; highlights escalating threats posed by natural hazards; and presents how fragmented governance, fiscal constraints, and political fragility exacerbate vulnerabilities. To be effective, NBS must address these interconnected issues, and should be tailored to fit SSA’s distinct ecological and develop- mental context. Natural capital and biodiversity loss Natural capital underpins the livelihoods of people in SSA, which holds nearly 20 percent of global natural wealth (World Bank 2021a). The region’s diverse ecosystems—spanning dry- lands, savannas, grasslands, woodlands, forests, wetlands, and mountains—are essential to livelihoods (IPBES 2018). Over 70 percent of people in the region depend on forests for resources like timber, food, and fuel (UNEP 2016), while agriculture employs over 60 percent of the workforce, contributing signifi- cantly to GDPs, especially in West Africa. Smallholder farmers support the livelihoods of over 33 million households and con- tribute to 70 percent of the food supply in the region (Iseman and Miralles-Wilhelm 2021). Ecosystems like savannas and grasslands support megafauna and store carbon (IUCN ESARO 2020), and the tourism industry generates $29 billion annually and employs 3.6 million people. Water and marine ecosystems such as wetlands and rivers like the Nile support agriculture, provide drinking water, sustain hydropower, and underpin fisheries and tourism (UNEP-WCMC et al. 2018). The degradation of these natural ecosystems’ biodiversity is driven by land-use change, unsustainable resource use, invasive species, and climate hazards (IPCC 2022a; IPBES 2018; IISD 2021; Leisher et al. 2022). Rapid urbanization and deforesta- tion destroy habitats, while mining, unsustainable fishing, hunting, and logging contribute to further biodiversity loss and environmental degradation (Güneralp 2017; OECD 2021; IPBES 2018; WWF 2017; Leisher et al. 2022). Climate hazards, such as floods, droughts, and rising temperatures, also damage habitats and wildlife, reduce the region’s climate resilience, Burkina Faso. Photo by Guido and Carrara family. and impact economic stability. From 2010 to 2020, Africa experienced the highest rate of forest loss globally (FAO 2020). Deforestation and forest degradation affect roughly 65 percent Africa and 8 percent in East and Southern Africa by 2050, which of arable land, which could lead to an estimated annual income could have devastating consequences for food security and loss of up to 9 percent of GDP in some countries (Iseman and livelihoods in the region (WMO 2020). Miralles-Wilhelm 2021). Desertification affects 45 percent of Africa, impacting agriculture and leading to food insecurity and migration (ELD Initiative and UNEP 2015; WMO 2021), while biodiversity loss impacts key economic sectors such as Natural hazards agriculture, fisheries, forestry, and tourism. This ecosystem and climate change decline could cause an annual GDP contraction of 9.7 percent Riverine flooding remains the most frequent and extensive by 2030, amounting to a loss of $358 billion in annual income natural hazard in SSA (Niang et al. 2014; Ekolu et al. 2024), (Johnson et al. 2021). affecting approximately 24 million people annually (Kuzma Consequently, nature loss exacerbates the exposure and et al. 2023). As the impacts of climate change become more vulnerability of populations to natural hazards and climate visible, riverine flood exposure becomes more prominent in risks. Healthy ecosystems reduce climate risk and decrease the region, particularly in Eastern Africa (WMO 2021) and in the impact of natural disasters (IPBES 2018). For example, urbanizing areas without proper planning throughout the mangroves dissipate waves and storm surges (Enu et al. 2023) continent. This region experiences seasonal flooding from and forests can reduce runoff, increase infiltration and aquifer overflowing rivers, which can devastate agricultural land and recharge, and lessen the likelihood of landslides. Ecosystem infrastructure, and displace communities. High and substantial degradation reduces the ability of these NBS to protect resi- exposure to riverine flooding is found in many other countries dents against climate change impacts. In addition to the role in SSA, including Tanzania, the Democratic Republic of the of nature in regulating climate-related hazards, the region’s Congo, Kenya, South Sudan, and countries across the Sahel. economic dependence on natural resources for agriculture, Considering the number of people exposed annually relative livelihoods, and ecosystem services makes it particularly vul- to population size, countries like Mauritania, Somalia, Liberia, nerable to a changing climate (IPCC 2022a). For instance, rising South Sudan (over 5 percent of the population in each is global temperatures are projected to impact biodiversity and exposed annually) and the Republic of the Congo (3.4 percent reduce agricultural yields by 13 percent in West and Central annually) face high riverine flood exposure (Figure 4). Intersecting challenges of nature loss, climate risk, and development needs  | 21 Figure 4 | Projected annual population exposed to river flooding in SSA, 2030 Riverine flood population exposure (annual, millions) Low (0–0.5) Medium (0.5–1.0) High (1.0–2.0) Very high (>2.0) Riverine flood exposure Riverine flood population exposure (% of population) (millions) Liberia, Mauritania, >5.0 >2.0 Ethiopia, Nigeria, Somalia, Sudan Somalia, South Sudan Chad, Rep. Congo, Kenya, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, DRC, Kenya, Madagascar, Mozambique, 2.5–5.0 Mozambique, Rwanda, Sierra 1.0–2.0 Tanzania Leone, Sudan Benin, Burundi, Cameroon, CAR, DRC, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Gambia, Guinea, Chad, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Niger, 1.0–2.5 Guinea-Bissau, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal, 0.5–1.0 South Sudan, Uganda Tanzania, Togo Angola, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Eq. Guinea, Eswatini, Ghana, 0–1.0 Lesotho, Namibia, South Africa, 0–0.5 Rest of the countries in SSA Uganda, Zambia, Zimbabwe 0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Number of countries Number of countries Notes: Bar graphs on the right show the annual exposure to riverine flooding based on the number of people exposed (top right) and percent of the total population exposed (bottom right). We used 2030 projections instead of historical data (1960–90) for a more accurate evaluation of current risk faced by countries. SSA = sub-Saharan Africa. DRC = Democratic Republic of the Congo. CAR = Central African Republic. Rep. Congo = Republic of the Congo. Eq. Guinea = Equatorial Guinea. Source: Authors, using data from Kuzma et al. 2023. As urban development rapidly expands along the coastlines to coastal flooding by 2030 (WMO 2022; Opperman et al. 2021) of SSA, more people in low-lying cities are exposed to coastal and 135 million people by 2050 (World Bank 2022b), with coun- flooding and erosion (WMO 2021). Since the 1970s, the urban tries like Senegal, Mozambique, Benin, Nigeria, Somalia, and footprint of coastal cities in SSA has grown by 58 percent and Gabon being the most affected (Figure 5). Warmer sea surface zones vulnerable to coastal flooding have expanded nearly five- temperatures are also intensifying tropical cyclones, causing fold (World Bank 2022b). Coastal degradation due to erosion, severe flooding, particularly impacting the eastern coast of SSA flooding, and pollution, particularly in West Africa, has led to along the Indian Ocean. Events like Tropical Cyclone Eloise in significant economic losses, such as $9.7 billion in Nigeria in 2021, which displaced over 3,000 people and damaged nearly 2018—8.1 percent of its GDP (World Bank 2022b). Rising sea 30,000 houses (ReliefWeb 2021), highlight this trend. Coastal levels are expected to expose 108 to 116 million people in SSA flooding exposure is projected to increase by over 10 percent in 22 |  Growing resilience: Unlocking the potential of nature-based solutions for climate resilience in sub-Saharan Africa Figure 5 | Exposure to coastal flooding during a 100-year flood event in 2015 Coastal flood population exposure (during a 100-year flood event, thousands) Low (0–100) Medium (100–200) High (200–500) Very high (>500) Coastal flood exposure Coastal flood population exposure (% of population) (thousands) Benin, Benin, Mozambique, Nigeria, >5.0 Gabon >500 Senegal, Somalia Guinea-Bissau, Liberia, Angola, Cameroon, Guinea, Madagascar, Mauritania, Senegal, Sierra Leone, 2.5–5.0 200–500 Sierra Leone, Tanzania, Togo Somalia, Togo Cameroon, Eq. Guinea, CIV, Gabon, Ghana, Kenya, Liberia, 1.0–2.5 Gambia, Guinea, 100–200 Mauritania Mozambique Angola, DRC, Rep. Congo, CIV, Eritrea, Ghana, Kenya, DRC, Rep. Congo, Eq. Guinea, Eritrea, Gambia, 0–1.0 Madagascar, Namibia, Nigeria, South Africa, Tanzania 0–100 Guinea-Bissau, Nambia, South Africa 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 2 4 6 8 Number of countries Number of countries Notes: The bar graphs on the right show the population exposed based on the number of people exposed (upper right) and percent of the population exposed (bottom right). CIV = Côte d'Ivoire. DRC = Democratic Republic of the Congo. Rep. Congo = Republic of the Congo. Eq. Guinea = Equatorial Guinea. Source: Authors, using data from World Bank 2022b. certain countries due to climate change, and Benin and Gabon jeopardizes livelihoods and income stability. East Africa, the are among the most vulnerable to coastal impacts in terms of Sahel, and the Horn of Africa are particularly vulnerable, expe- percentage of population affected. riencing prolonged droughts that have caused food insecurity, crop failures, livestock death, and displacement. For example, Drought risk in SSA is severe, driven mainly by increasing Lake Chad’s water levels have decreased over 90 percent since temperatures and erratic rainfall patterns, which significantly the 1960s, worsening conflicts and causing displacement such impact agriculture, food security, and water security. Seven out as when over 30,000 people from North Cameroon fled to of the 10 countries with the highest global drought risk globally neighboring Chad in December 2021 (UNHCR 2021). Southern are in Africa (Meza et al. 2020), and drought events over the African countries, such as Namibia, Botswana, and Zimbabwe, past five decades have led to economic losses exceeding $70 as well as others like Mauritania, are expected to have agricul- billion (WMO 2022). With 95 percent of SSA’s agriculture being tural systems highly exposed to drought (Figure 6). rain fed (IPCC 2022a), drought undermines food security and Intersecting challenges of nature loss, climate risk, and development needs  | 23 Figure 6 | Historical agricultural drought as a function of hazard and exposure, 1980–2016 Hazard exposure index (agricultural drought) Botswana, Lesotho, Mauritania, >1.5 Namibia, Zimbabwe Kenya, Mozambique, Niger, Somalia, South Africa, Sudan, 1.0–1.5 Zambia Angola, Benin, Chad, Eritrea, Eswantini, Hazard/exposure 0.5–1.0 Ethiopia, Ghana, CIV, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, South Sudan, Togo, Uganda, Tanzania (all crops) Low (0–0.5) Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, CAR, DRC, Eq. Guinea, Gabon, Gambia, Guinea, Medium (0.5–1.0) 0–0.5 Guinea-Bissau, Liberia, Nigeria, Rep. Congo, High (1.0–1.5) Rwanda, Senegal, Sierra Leone Very high (>1.5) 0 5 10 15 20 Number of countries Notes: Hazard reflects mean drought conditions from 1980 to 2016, as assessed through the WaterGAP model and Global Crop Water Model. The exposure indicator evaluates elements that could be affected in drought-prone regions, incorporating the harvested area of irrigated and rainfed crops and using data from the MIRCA2000 dataset. Bar graphs on the right specify countries facing high hazard/exposure to agricultural drought. CIV = Côte D'Ivoire. CAR = Central African Republic. DRC = Democratic Republic of the Congo. Eq. Guinea = Equatorial Guinea. Rep. Congo = Republic of the Congo. Source: Authors, using data from Meza et al. 2020. In SSA’s upland and rural areas, landslides and wildfires fueled by extreme weather patterns can damage infrastructure, Climate impacts in urban displace people, and fragment livelihoods. Landslides are often areas—urbanization, flooding, triggered by heavy rainfall and are exacerbated by deforestation and unsustainable agriculture, and can destroy infrastructure heat, and loss of green spaces and displace communities, as seen in Uganda’s 2019 landslide, Urbanization in Africa started later than in other regions world- which claimed over 300 lives (ReliefWeb 2019). Unplanned wide, yet it is accelerating rapidly, with the overall population settlements encroaching on steep hillsides further increase expected to double by 2050, mainly in urban areas (UN 2022). landslide risk, endangering the settlements and communi- This surge is driven by migration from rural to urban areas, as ties downhill (Redshaw et al. 2017). Erosion from landslides people seek better economic opportunities and escape climate also deteriorates water quality by increasing sedimentation. impacts and conflicts (UN-Habitat 2019). This rapid growth Wildfires are worsened by high temperatures and prolonged presents challenges, as two-thirds of the urban infrastructure droughts (Van Niekerk and Nemakonde 2017). Although needed by 2050 does not yet exist (AfDB 2022). Existing and wildfire is an important and natural part of some ecosystems aging infrastructure is already under strain, with almost 600 in SSA, increasing temperatures heighten fire risk and the million people lacking electricity, 400 million lacking access potential for larger and more catastrophic fires (Nieman et al. to basic drinking water, and nearly 800 million without basic 2021). While not as deadly as other hazards, wildfires cause sanitation services (Hallegatte et al. 2019; ICA 2022). As a result, significant socioeconomic losses, damaging property and many people live in informal settlements (World Bank 2021b), livestock (Mulugeta et al. 2007). For instance, in Mauritania, which are often overcrowded and poorly built with limited the increasing incidence of bushfires driven by rising tempera- access to safe water and sanitation, and lacking secure land tures presents a significant hazard to pastoralist refugees and rights (UN-Habitat 2019). These settlements are often located in surrounding communities, whose subsistence heavily depends vulnerable areas highly exposed to natural hazards and climate on maintaining large herds of livestock (WMO 2021). change impacts, such as in floodplains, drained wetlands, or along coastlines (UNEP 2022b), and are excluded from official urban planning, perpetuating inadequate resource allocation and exposure to climate risks (AfDB 2020a). Rapid urbanization without proper planning and infrastructure development has led to a significant increase in settlements in flood-prone areas (UNEP 2022b). Globally, the expansion of settlements in areas with high flood risk outpaces growth in safer areas, and SSA is outpacing regions like Latin America and central Asia in this trend (Rentschler et al. 2023). In coun- 24 |  Growing resilience: Unlocking the potential of nature-based solutions for climate resilience in sub-Saharan Africa tries like Chad, Mali, and Sudan, over 100 square kilometers of Combined with climate change, urbanization has intensified built-up area, equivalent to over 10 percent of built-up area in the urban heat island effect in SSA, where concrete and asphalt the country, are located within 100-year flood zones, exposing absorb and radiate heat, leading to higher temperatures. By the millions to severe flooding risks (Figure 7). As rainfall variabil- end of the century, heat exposure in African cities is antici- ity and intensity increases, and cities continue to expand into pated to rise by 20 to 52 times (Rohat et al. 2019). Low-income flood zones, flood risks are expected to rise further. Between neighborhoods are disproportionately affected due to a scarcity 1985 and 2015, areas exposed to severe flood risk expanded dra- of green spaces, and limited infrastructure for shade and matically, with built-up areas at risk of flooding over 1.5 meters cooling (Venter et al. 2020) such as air conditioning or insula- deep increasing over 100 percent (Rentschler et al. 2023). tion (OECD 2020b). Informal settlements face heightened heat stress due to overcrowding, poor ventilation, and the high heat retention of low-quality building materials (Laue et al. 2022). Figure 7 | Estimated built-up area in urban areas exposed to 100-year flooding, 1985–2015 Urban flood exposure (built-up area, km ) Low (0–25) Medium (25–50) High (50–100) Very high (>100) Urban flood exposure Urban flood exposure (% of build-up area) (km build-up area) Chad, Liberia, Mali, Niger, Chad, Ghana, Mali, Somalia, South Sudan, Nigeria, South Africa, >10.0 >100 Sudan Sudan, Tanzania Eq. Guinea, Cameroon, CIV, DRC, Madagascar, Kenya, Madagascar, 5.0–10.0 Mauritania, Namibia, 50–100 Mozambique Nigeria, Senegal Botswana, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, CAR, Angola, Benin, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, 2.5–5.0 Rep. Congo, CIV, Ethiopia, Gabon, Ghana, Guinea, Kenya, 25–50 Guinea, Liberia, Malawi, Niger, Senegal, Sierra Mozambique, Sierra Leone, Tanzania Leone, Somalia, Uganda, Zambia Angola, Benin, DRC, Eritrea, Eswantini, Guinea-Bissau, Burundi, CAR, Rep. Congo, Eq. Guinea, Eritrea, Eswatini, 0–2.5 Lesotho, Malawi, Rwanda, South Africa, Togo, Uganda, 0–25 Gabon, Guinea-Bissau, Lesotho, Mauritania, Namibia, Zambia, Zimbabwe Rwanda, South Sudan, Togo, Zimbabwe 0 3 6 9 12 15 0 3 6 9 12 15 Number of countries Number of countries Notes: Bar graphs on the right show built-up area exposed and area exposed relative to the total built-up area in the country. km2 = square kilometers. S. Africa = South Africa. CIV = Côte d'Ivoire. DRC = Democratic Republic of the Congo. CAR = Central African Republic. Rep. Congo = Republic of the Congo. Eq. Guinea = Equatorial Guinea. Source: Authors, using data from Rentschler et al. 2023. Intersecting challenges of nature loss, climate risk, and development needs  | 25 Between 2012 and 2016, over 200 million individuals were exposed to high heat stress conditions at least once per year in Fragility, institutions, policy urban areas, with cities along the East and West African coasts barriers, and fiscal constraints and the Sahel—like Mali, Niger, Senegal, Nigeria, and Benin— Political instability, policy barriers, weak governance struc- facing particularly high exposure, in some cases exceeding tures, and limited implementation capacities, together with 30 days of high heat stress annually (Figure 8). This trend is fiscal constraints, limit the ability of certain countries in SSA expected to worsen, posing significant challenges to both pub- to adapt to climate risks (Sarkodie et al. 2022). The lack of lic health and economic productivity (Rohat et al. 2019). enabling policies and legal and financial frameworks reduces Over the past 20 years, vegetation in SSA cities has decreased the ability of countries to plan and implement adaptation mea- by 1.1 percent annually, mainly due to rapid and unplanned sures country-wide. This includes upscaling NBS investments, urbanization, depriving urban residents of ecosystem services which requires polycentric governance and policy coherence at and biodiversity. The adverse effects of this growth are visible in multiple scales and sectors (e.g., environment and water) to be areas with increasing deforestation surrounding urban centers effective and sustainable (Martin et al. 2021). and along transport corridors, leading to the fragmentation of The complex interplay of political instability, social fragility, and natural habitats (Güneralp et al. 2017) (Figure 9). The loss of climate vulnerability in SSA creates significant challenges for vegetation coverage also contributes to natural hazards and cli- sustainable development and disaster resilience. Many coun- mate impacts such as the urban heat island effect and flooding tries in SSA exist in unstable political landscapes, characterized (TNC 2021a). As a result, the preservation and enhancement of by elevated levels of institutional and social fragility and violent urban green spaces are critical for sustaining urban biodiversity conflict (TFP 2023). Between 2008 and 2022, the region expe- and ensuring the resilience of cities to climate change (Sed- rienced 29 coups, both successful and attempted (Duzor and don et al. 2020). Williamson 2023). These events, compounded by factors like food insecurity, poverty, drought, and floods, have intensified social tensions and displaced thousands (UNEP 2022a). States characterized by fragility are disproportionately impacted by Estimated number of high heat stress days per year in urban areas aggregated to the country Figure 8 |  level, 2012–16 Urban high heat stress days (per year) Benin, Burkina Faso, Chad, Eritrea, Gambia, Guinea-Bissau, Liberia, Mali, Niger, Nigeria, >15 Senegal, Togo Cameroon, CIV, Ghana, Guinea, Kenya, Mauritania, Mozambique, Sierra Leone, 5–15 Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan Angola, CAR, Rep. Congo, DRC, Eq. Guinea, High heat stress in urban areas 1–5 Eswatini, Ethiopia, Gabon, Madagascar, South Africa, Tanzania, Zambia, Zimbabwe (days per year) None (0) Botswana, Burundi, Limited (1–5) 0 Lesotho, Malawi, Namibia, Rwanda, Uganda Substantial (5–15) High (>15) 0 3 6 9 12 15 Number of countries Notes: High heat stress days are defined as days with a wet bulb globe temperature of over 30 degrees Celsius between 2012 and 2016. The graph on the right shows the number of heat stress days in urban areas by country. CIV = Côte d'Ivoire. CAR = Central African Republic. Rep. Congo = Republic of the Congo. DRC = Democratic Republic of the Congo. Eq. Guinea = Equatorial Guinea. Source: Authors, using data from Williams et al. 2024. 26 |  Growing resilience: Unlocking the potential of nature-based solutions for climate resilience in sub-Saharan Africa Figure 9 | Urban green space loss at the country level, 2000–20 Urban green space loss (%) Eq. Guinea, >20 Sierra Leone Angola, Benin, Congo, CIV, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Liberia, 10–20 Mozambique, Nigeria, Rwanda, Uganda Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Urban green CAR, DRC, Mali, Mauritania, space loss 5–10 Senegal, Tanzania, Togo (%) Stable (<0.5) Low (5–10) Rest of the countries in SSA <0.5 Medium (10–20) High (>20) 0 5 10 15 20 Number of countries Notes: Data came from the annual Enhanced Vegetation Index (EVI) from the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) extracted for urban settlements from the Global Human Settlement Layer. Eq. Guinea = Equatorial Guinea. CIV = Côte d'Ivoire. CAR = Central African Republic. DRC = Democratic Republic of the Congo. Source: Authors, using data from NASA n.d.; European Commission 2023. climate-induced disasters, despite their minimal contributions Investor concerns over corruption, weak legal and regulatory to the underlying problem of climate change. In fact, three institutions, political instability, and ineffective enforcement times more people are affected by natural disasters in fragile mechanisms hinder substantial investments. Moreover, high states than in other countries and disasters in fragile states also debt burdens across SSA—where roughly a third of countries displace more than twice the share of the population (Jara- carry debt levels exceeding 70 percent of GDP (IMF 2022)— millo et al. 2023). As a result, fragile states, facing heightened strain national budgets, reducing funds for infrastructure and challenges from climate vulnerability, conflict, and population climate adaptation. High debt levels reduce funds available displacement, are in critical need of robust governance and for infrastructure projects and climate adaptation measures institutional structures to effectively address these issues. because they strain national budgets to pay for debt servicing Unclear land tenure and property rights, common in SSA, often and make it harder for countries to access additional financ- lead to conflicts and delay or deter infrastructure development ing on favorable terms, which is often needed for large-scale due to disputes over ownership. These conflicts can result in infrastructure projects and emergency climate responses. population displacement and political instability, adversely Further limiting financial autonomy, many government agen- affecting social and economic stability. Urban land conflicts can cies and regional governments face restrictions on borrowing delay or complicate infrastructure projects, posing difficulties from financial institutions, curtailing their capacity to fund for land acquisition for construction (Gulati and Scholtz 2020). ​ large-scale projects independently. Additionally, countries with higher climate vulnerability face a greater risk of default, which The region’s political instability exacerbates fiscal challenges amplifies their economic instability and limits investment in like high borrowing costs and elevated debt levels, further resilient and adaptive infrastructure (IMF 2020). impeding the implementation of development projects and heightening climate vulnerability. SSA requires an estimated $130–$170 billion annually from 2020 to 2030 to address critical infrastructure needs in water, sanitation, energy, transpor- tation, and urban development (Haas et al. 2023). However, perceived risks in the region have made funders and inves- tors wary of deploying both grant and market-rate capital. Intersecting challenges of nature loss, climate risk, and development needs  | 27 The Albertine Rift Conservation Society (ARCOS) TerraFund for AFR100, Rwanda. Photo by Seraphin Nayituriki. Status of and trends in NBS for climate resilience in SSA To evaluate the status of and trends in NBS in SSA, we identified 297 NBS projects for climate resilience in the region that were initi- ated between 2012 and 2023. This included 246 projects initiated between 2012 and 2021 that were financed by MDBs, multilateral funds, governments, and the private sector, complemented by a set of 51 NBS projects for which the World Bank and AfDB approved financing in 2022 and 2023. By evaluating over a decade of NBS projects, this section highlights regions where NBS are gaining momentum, identifies key players in project development, examines funders and funding instruments, and pinpoints areas where addi- tional resources and support are needed to unlock the full potential of NBS for climate resilience. Overview and methods We reviewed project databases, completed a literature review, The distinctions among project types have implications for and conducted a survey to compile projects that used NBS for project planning, resource allocation, stakeholder engagement, climate resilience (see Box 2). For some portfolios, projects may and impact assessment. Large-scale projects often involve be underrepresented in the database as additional projects coordination among multiple stakeholders, require extensive were identified after the research phase (Appendix A provides planning and management, and have broader socioeconomic additional details on the methodology and its limitations). and environmental impacts. In contrast, small-scale projects We used database filters and keyword searches and reviewed tend to be more focused, nimble, and community driven, with project documents to identify projects that met the following a primary emphasis on addressing specific challenges within a four requirements: localized context. Green versus green-gray projects may attract different funders, target different landscapes, or utilize different 1. Located in countries in SSA, following the World Bank’s NBS interventions for climate resilience. 2023 definition of the region22 For each project, we scanned project documents qualitatively 2. Initiated between 2012 and 2021 (except for the 2022–23 to collect data on specific project attributes and analyzed World Bank and AfDB projects); this is the year the project them to compare trends. This included overall trends such as began and/or secured first financing; for MDBs, this cor- the temporal and geographic distribution of projects; attri- relates with “approval year” butes specific to NBS (such as climate resilience objectives, 3. Secured at least $50,000 in funding geographic context, and NBS interventions used); and trends regarding the amount of funding secured, funding and financ- 4. Used NBS as a tool to achieve climate resilience objectives ing instruments, and key stakeholders involved (such as project developers and funders). In cases where there was more than Based on an analysis of the projects, three categories of NBS one climate resilience objective or funder, up to three objectives projects emerged, referred to herein as project types: or actors were listed per project. In addition, we examined social and political considerations, such as gender equity • Green-gray: Large-scale (over $1 million secured) hybrid inclusion, the use of Indigenous and traditional knowledge, and projects that include green elements integrated into infra- countries’ FCV statuses (see Table A-1 for the full list of NBS structure projects with gray or human-built elements and interventions and Table A-4 for the list of project attributes). with explicit mention of climate resilience objectives (e.g., The sections below include the main findings from this analysis, mangrove restoration integrated with a system of sea walls in which we highlight key implications for green, green-gray, for coastal flood protection) and small-scale projects where they could be distinguished. • Green: Large-scale (over $1 million secured) nature pro- tection, enhancement, or restoration projects with explicit mention of climate resilience objectives (e.g., mangrove restoration for coastal flood protection) • Small scale: Both green or green-gray projects that secured over $50,000 but less than $1 million with explicit mention of climate resilience objectives NBS project identification process, 2012–23 Box 2 |  We conducted a multipronged approach to identify NBS projects for climate resilience in SSA that met the four selection crite- ria. The five assessments we conducted include the following: Assessment 1—MDB project databases: World Resources Institute (WRI) partnered with the World Bank and AfDB to scan proj- ect portfolios using a keyword search. We identified 80 NBS projects that were approved between 2012 to 2021. We identified an additional 51 projects approved between 2022 and 2023. Assessment 2—Project databases: WRI completed a desktop scan of databases in SSA and used database filters and a key- word search to identify 105 NBS projects launched between 2012 and 2021. Assessment 3—TerraMatch: WRI reviewed projects funded by TerraMatch in 2021 using a keyword search to iden- tify 48 projects. Assessment 4—Literature review: WRI reviewed global and SSA-specific publications and found six additional projects. Assessment 5—Survey: WRI submitted a survey in 2021 to networks including AFR100 and identified seven more eligible projects. Status of and trends in NBS for climate resilience in SSA  | 29 Finding 1. Investment in NBS for climate resilience rose across the region Project initiation There was a steady increase in the number of NBS projects Bank’s Northern Congo Agroforestry Project approved in initiated in SSA per year between 2012 and 2023 (Figure 10). 2022 secured a total of $15.58 million in funding, but only $7.4 Project initiation increased with an annual average growth rate million was earmarked specifically for NBS activities related to of 15 percent from 2012 to 2021. Projects from the World Bank agroforestry. The remaining funds supported other initiatives, and AfDB portfolios grew at a similar rate, but had a sharp such as strengthening agriculture value chains and piloting increase in 2022–23, where the number of projects doubled household payments. While some of these elements involve from 2021 to 2022. nature, these activities do not directly finance the implementa- tion of NBS for climate resilience. Funding secured Below is a breakdown of total funding and NBS-specific funding NBS for climate resilience projects in SSA from 2012 to 2021 by project type for 2012–21: secured approximately $12.5 billion. Funding information was available for only 200 projects, so total investment amounts • Green-gray projects (95 projects between 2012 and 2021) secured $8.8 billion of total committed funding and financ- were likely higher. Most small-scale projects received smaller ing, with $3.5 billion reserved for NBS implementation. These investments (an average of $370,000 per project), while green projects made up the largest share of NBS efforts in terms projects garnered moderate-scale finance (an average of $54 of project count and funding amounts, with projects often million per project) and green-gray projects attracted the larg- securing between $100 and $500 million. est funding amounts (an average of $108 million per project). For the projects that listed funding information (200 projects), • Green projects (83 projects between 2012 and 2021) secured green-gray projects represented about 71 percent of the share of $3.7 billion of total committed funding and financing, with total funding, green projects represented about 29 percent, and $1.8 billion dedicated to NBS implementation. These projects small-scale projects comprised less than 1 percent. accessed medium-scale funding amounts in comparison to green-gray projects, with projects most frequently securing About 42 percent of the total funding secured by these proj- between $25 and $50 million. ects—equivalent to $5.3 billion—was allocated specifically to NBS implementation. The remaining 58 percent represented gray infrastructure, capacity building, and/or other activities included in project funding packages. For instance, the World Figure 10 | Project initiation by year for NBS projects for climate resilience in SSA, 2012–23 30 25 Number of projects initiated 20 15 10 5 0 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Year WB and AfDB portfolios Projects from other portfolios Notes: We excluded 48 small-scale projects that received funding from the African Forest Landscape Restoration Initiative’s TerraMatch in 2021 as we could not determine the project start year. Project counts for 2022 and 2023 represent projects from only the World Bank and the African Development Bank (overall number of NBS projects are likely higher). NBS = nature-based solutions. SSA = sub-Saharan Africa. WB = World Bank. AfDB = African Development Bank. Source: Authors. 30 |  Growing resilience: Unlocking the potential of nature-based solutions for climate resilience in sub-Saharan Africa “Rice Bowl”, Madagascar. Photo by Rod Waddington. • Small-scale projects (21 projects out of the 67 small-scale While this division may generally correspond to the sizes of projects between 2012 and 2021 disclosed total project these regional economies and their infrastructure investments, funding) secured $6.7 million in total funding. Due to their the relatively high investment in Eastern Africa is notable relatively small size and lower profile, small-scale projects even when considering the size of its economies (IMF 2024). were more difficult to survey. These projects did not differen- For instance, between 2019 and 2020, Eastern Africa allocated tiate NBS-specific funding from total funding secured. $20–$22 billion annually toward green-gray infrastructure and Western Africa spent $15 billion (ICA 2020). In contrast, World Bank and AfDB projects from 2022 to 2023 committed Southern and Central Africa allocated about one-third the level an additional $8.7 billion with $2.9 billion dedicated to NBS of funding (ICA 2018). specifically. Of the 51 projects approved during this period, 19 were green projects and 32 were green-gray projects (there were no small-scale projects). The average percent of total funding Finding 2. allocated to NBS was 40 percent for green projects and 33 per- cent for green-gray projects. NBS projects often had multiple climate resilience objectives Geographic distribution Most NBS projects simultaneously pursued multiple climate For projects initiated between 2012 and 2021, Eastern Africa resilience objectives (83 percent addressed more than one had the greatest share of NBS project investment, followed by objective). Many focused on improving water quality, enhanc- Western Africa, Southern Africa, and Central Africa. Eastern ing water supply, and mitigating the risks of climate-related Africa represented 49 percent of total funding secured for NBS hazards like flooding, erosion, or landslides. projects, concentrated in a few countries. For example, Ethiopia The most recurrent project objectives were enhancing water had 20 percent of total funding secured for SSA and 43 percent quality and improving water supply (Figure 12). These proj- of funding for the eastern region. Western Africa followed at ects aimed to protect or enhance water quality by mitigating 30 percent of total funding, Southern Africa at 15 percent, and chemical pollutants, organic disturbances, and erosion’s impact Central Africa at 6 percent (Figure 11). In contrast, from 2022 to on water quality (61 percent). They also sought to safeguard or 2023, 42 percent of investment from the World Bank and AfDB improve the water supply, including both temporal and spatial projects was in Western Africa. water distribution (57 percent). Although water supply was a common project objective, there was limited quantifiable evi- dence on the impact of NBS on water supply, highlighting the need for more investment in local research and data, and rig- orous pre- and post-project monitoring (Acreman et al. 2021). Status of and trends in NBS for climate resilience in SSA  | 31 Figure 11 | Geographic distribution of funding secured for NBS climate resilience projects in SSA, 2012–21 Total funding secured (Millions, US$) 0–500 501–1,000 1,001–1,500 1,501–2,000 2,001–3,000 None SENEGAL BENIN KENYA Stormwater Management Strengthening the Resilience Green Zones and Climate Change Adaptation Projecta of the Energy Sector in Benin to the Impacts Development Support Projectc of Climate Changef Investment objective: Urban and Investment objective: Improved riverine flood mitigation Investment objective: Erosion/landslide water supply NBS: Creation and restoration risk reduction, riverine flood mitigation NBS: Reforestation, improved of floodplains, bypasses, and wetlands NBS: Reforestation and a orestation agroforestry and silvopasture, and sustainable to restore riverbeds and riparian areas farmland best practices Lead: Municipal Development Agency Lead: Ministry of Energy, Lead: Ministry of Finance Funding secured: $172.40 million ($143.90 million for NBS Mining and Petroleum Exploration, Water Funding secured: $54.38 million, implementation) and Renewable Energy Development ($15.37 million for NBS implementation) Funding secured: $38.57 million (amount for NBS unknown) Mauritania Cabo Verde Mali Niger Eritrea Sudan The Gambia Chad Djibouti Guinea-Bissau Guinea Sierra Leone Nigeria Ethiopia Liberia Central South African Republic Sudan Somalia Côte d'Ivoire Togo Burkina Faso Uganda Cameroon Ghana Equatorial Rwanda Guinea Burundi Seychelles Gabon Republic of Congo Angola Comoros Zambia DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF THE CONGO Zimbabwe Namibia Malawi Mauritius Batshamba- Tshikapa Road Botswana Improvement Project: Lovua- Tshikapa Sectione TANZANIA Investment objective: Erosion/landslide Adaptation measures for the coastal risk reduction,riverine flood mitigation communities of Tanzaniag NBS: Protection and Investment objective: restoration of grasslands and forests Coastal flooding/erosion reduction Lesotho Lead: Ministry of Infrastructure, NBS: Restoration of Public Works and Reconstruction Eswatini mangroves, rehabilitation of Mozambique coral reefs, and the building and Funding secured: $105.28 million reparation of sea walls ($170,000 for NBS implementation) Lead: Division of Environment MADAGASCAR Funding secured: SOUTH AFRICA Mangroves for Community and Climateb $4.5 million (amount for NBS unknown) Alien species Investment objective: Reduced clearing coordination in Wolseley coastal flooding/erosion Water Users Associationd NBS: Protection and Investment objective: Improved restoration of mangroves water supply, improved water quality, Lead: World fire risk mitigation Wildlife Fund Madagascar NBS: Invasive species removal Funding secured: $4.5 million Lead: World Wildlife Fund (all allocated for NBS implementation) Funding secured: $0.82 million, (amount for NBS unknown) Notes: Countries in northern Africa were not included in this analysis and are shaded in gray. NBS = nature-based solutions. SSA = sub-Saharan Africa. Source: Authors; a World Bank 2022a; b WWF n.d. c AfDB 2023a; d Lephaila 2021; e AfDB 2023b; f GEF n.d.; g UNEP 2019. 32 |  Growing resilience: Unlocking the potential of nature-based solutions for climate resilience in sub-Saharan Africa Figure 12 | Climate resilience objective by project type, 2012–21 Improved water quality Improved water supply Climate resilience objective Flood mitigation Erosion/landslide risk reduction Fire risk mitigation Green Green-gray Urban heat Small scale mitigation 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% Percent of projects with each objective Note: Up to three climate resilience objectives were selected per project. Source: Authors. Most of the projects that aimed to enhance water quality or In addition to their climate resilience objectives, NBS projects supply used forest restoration as their intervention (57 percent) also identified desired co-benefits, including environmental, and most of the work was concentrated in rural areas. Studies economic, and societal outcomes. Of the 246 projects from 2012 in SSA have shown that forest-related NBS interventions, such to 2021 reviewed, all identified at least one co-benefit, and 207 as native forest restoration or conservation, can consistently noted at least three (Figure 13). The most frequent co-benefits deliver positive impacts for water quality (Acreman et al. 2021). included job creation and biodiversity protection (see Box 3), underscoring the multifaceted impact of these initiatives. Job Flood mitigation and erosion or landslide risk mitigation were creation is an important factor in SSA due to high unemploy- the next most common objectives, present in 44 percent and ment and population growth while biodiversity and habitat 42 percent of the projects in the database, respectively. Slightly protection can help combat ecosystem degradation and green less than half (48 percent) of the flood mitigation projects also space loss faced by the region. included erosion or landslide risk reduction as a co-objective. Most flood-related projects focused on reducing riverine flood Additional co-benefits identified include enhanced food risk (24 percent) compared with coastal flood risk (14 percent) security and improved public health. Food security is of great and urban flood control (6 percent). concern in SSA, where climate disasters, global trade disrup- tions, and ecosystem degradation threaten agriculture and Few projects focused on fire risk mitigation and urban heat subsistence farmers. Public health improvements were com- mitigation, indicating an underinvestment in these emerging mon in green-gray projects, where NBS integrated into water threats. Despite growing evidence that increasing temperatures and sanitation efforts helps filter water naturally, reducing will impact local fire regimes (Lehmann et al. 2014), only 10 disease risk and water treatment costs (Cross et al. 2021). projects were designed to address this challenge. Fire risk will require greater planning and mitigation efforts in rural areas Community cohesion was another important co-benefit. where higher fuel loads exist. Only two projects identified This was particularly targeted in green-gray projects where addressed urban heat, and both were small-scale projects that it can mitigate conflict among local communities in large used expanding urban canopy cover, parks, and forests. Urban infrastructure projects, exemplified by the White Nile Corpora- heat mitigation is an area needing more investment in SSA, tion’s project in Sudan, which used inclusive decision-making as rapid urbanization and climate risks escalate. The lack of to resolve conflicts among farmers and pastoralists while focus on this issue may stem from limited awareness, data gaps, improving water security and land productivity (see section resource constraints, and governance challenges (Enu et al. “Challenges to and strategies for advancing NBS in SSA”). 2023). Urban heat stress will require new approaches to urban Despite the potential for revenue through recreation and eco- planning and investment to protect SSA’s rapidly urbaniz- tourism, few projects highlighted this as a co-benefit. ing populations. Status of and trends in NBS for climate resilience in SSA  | 33 Figure 13 | Main project co-benefits, 2012–21 Job creation/ livelihood enhancement Biodiversity/ habitat protection Enhanced food security Co-benefit Climate mitigation Public health enhancement Community Green cohesion Green-gray Recreation/ Small scale ecotourism 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Percent of all projects Source: Authors. Box 3 | Biodiversity safeguards With the growing biodiversity loss that SSA faces, outlined in section “Intersecting challenges of nature loss, climate risk, and development needs,” it is crucial that NBS projects avoid exacerbating harmful practices, such as planting non-native species or disrupting native habitats. Adhering to strict biodiversity safeguards when designing and implementing projects is critical to ensuring ecological integrity and promoting the sustainable management of natural resources. The AfDB’s biodiversity safeguards suggest a mitigation hierarchy where projects should aim to first avoid biodiversity loss, then minimize loss, rehabilitate, and lastly offset impacts.a In addition to ecological benefits, biodiversity safeguards con- tribute to social resilience by supporting local livelihoods and inclusive economic development. Sustainable practices, for instance, can help preserve ecosystem services essential for community well-being, aligning conservation efforts with local development needs. An example of this approach is Uganda’s Biodiversity Trust Fund (UBF), established to address funding shortfalls for halting biodiversity loss and to provide alternative livelihoods for communities in Key Biodiversity Areas. With a seed grant from the US Agency for International Development (USAID), UBF was established as an independent entity capable of pooling funds from international, domestic, and private sources. It can invest this capital in an endowment and use the investment returns to pro- vide grants for on-the-ground projects.b Currently, USAID and the European Union both directly contribute resources to UBF, which has redistributed funds to four projects that focus on conserving protected forest areas through community engage- ment and livelihood transitions. UBF supervises these projects to ensure that they uphold biodiversity safeguards, promoting ecological integrity and social resilience. Notes: a AfDB 2023c. b UBF 2017. 34 |  Growing resilience: Unlocking the potential of nature-based solutions for climate resilience in sub-Saharan Africa Finding 3. Most projects focused on rural landscapes. Forest restoration and improved agriculture were the most common interventions Rural landscapes were the predominant geography for projects and often used forest management and improved agriculture to achieve climate resilience objectives. Almost 70 percent of proj- ects occurred in rural landscapes, including upper watersheds, agricultural and forested landscapes, and natural grasslands and wetlands. Sustainable forest management and restoration, as well as improved agriculture, were used in 63 percent and 46 percent, respectively, of projects to improve the water supply and water quality and mitigate erosion and riverine flooding. Sixteen percent of projects focused on urban landscapes from 2012 to 2021. For World Bank and AfDB portfolios, urban projects constituted 25 percent of projects (20 out of 80) during 2012–21, increasing to 50 percent (25 out of 51 projects) for 2022–23. Urban projects relied on constructed wetlands, rain gardens, and urban parks to address flooding and improve water quality. Green roofs and urban canopies were used less frequently (1 percent of total projects). About 14 percent of projects were implemented in coastal landscapes, including mangroves, salt marshes, coral reefs, seagrasses, and sandy beaches and dunes. The most common intervention for projects in this landscape was the protection, restoration, or management of mangroves to reduce coastal Water tanks from the Freetown WASH and Aquatic Environment flooding and erosion. Other coastal interventions included the Revamping Project, Sierra Leone. Photo by AfDB. use of coral reefs, salt marshes, seagrasses, and sand dunes to address the same resilience objectives. However, these were used in less than 6 percent of coastal projects. ernments also co-funded projects and contributed expertise Fifteen percent of projects were implemented across more than for climate change, disaster risk management, and infra- one landscape or were designed to benefit residents not located structure planning. in the same geography. For example, the Landscape Resto- The government agencies leading NBS projects in this study ration for Increase Resilience in Urban and Peri-urban Areas of were mostly from the environment and natural resources sector Bujumbura project in Burundi aims to restore degraded land with some participation from the infrastructure and devel- through tree planting and anti-erosion terraces in the upper opment sectors, including energy, transportation, water and watershed to reduce flooding, landslides, and erosion (GEF sanitation, public works, and sustainable development. The 2020). These interventions benefit both rural residents, living environment and natural resources agencies led most green near the implementation sites, and the downstream urban projects and nearly half the green-gray projects. Infrastructure communities in Bujumbura. and development ministries led the other half of the green-gray projects. The participation of sectors beyond agencies that are Finding 4. directly engaged in environmental goals is notable and signals a promising political avenue for mainstreaming NBS. National governments drove While national governments were the main intermediaries with project development, often in funders, they often collaborated with subnational governments, partnership with MDBs NGOs, and other organizations to implement projects. For these reasons, subnational actors may be underrepresented National governments were the primary developers of NBS in the analysis as they were not the primary contact for MBDs projects, acting as the executive agency responsible for project and other funders. Subnational governments, with their implementation in 61 percent of projects (Figure 14). This local knowledge and contextual understanding, are crucial central role likely stems from their responsibility for policy for effective NBS implementation, as they are well-placed to implementation and their position as key focal points for oversee implementation of projects, facilitate stakeholder securing funding from multilateral donors, multilateral funds, and community engagement, and align activities with regula- and MDBs.3 Beyond permitting and approvals, national gov- tory requirements. Status of and trends in NBS for climate resilience in SSA  | 35 Figure 14 | Types of lead project developers, 2012–2021 National government National NGO International NGO Project developer Private company Local government Multiple national governments State government Green Intergovernmental organization Green-gray Infrastructure Small scale operator 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% Percent of projects Note: NGO = nongovernmental organization. Source: Authors. Infrastructure operators, such as hydropower and water utili- ties, led two projects. However, they stand to benefit financially and socially from investing in NBS (see Box 4 and section  ater utility leading NBS project Box 4 | W “Challenges to and strategies for advancing NBS in SSA”). These for climate resilience investments have the potential to reduce costs for addressing The Guma Valley Water Company (GVWC) in Sierra water quality and supply challenges, while creating jobs and Leone stands out among SSA utilities by actively enhancing community cohesion for surrounding residents. leading the Freetown WASH and Aquatic Environment Yet, many energy and water utility companies in SSA operate Revamping Project. This initiative addresses critical without national incentives to invest in NBS. Furthermore, water security challenges in Sierra Leone’s capital, many may lack the necessary NBS capabilities to support future Freetown, by restoring degraded lands and foster- planning, ongoing operations, and management, which can ing community-led watershed protection.a GVWC’s inform how best to obtain cost savings and invest in risk reduc- leadership in this project is driven by its mandate to ensure water security for Freetown’s residents. By tion activities. This challenge is exacerbated by issues such as spearheading conservation efforts in the Western limited asset data management, nonrevenue water, and uneven Area Peninsula, GVWC aims to protect the city’s pri- revenue collection (ICA 2022). mary water source, thereby enhancing the reliability and quality of the water supply. The landscape for small-scale NBS projects is distinct, with national NGOs leading 54 percent of initiatives, followed Note: a AfDB 2019. by international NGOs at 19 percent. NGOs bring valuable expertise in ecosystem restoration and disaster risk reduction, making them well-suited to spearhead these projects. Private companies led 15 percent of small-scale projects, indicating a growing business case for NBS and highlighting the potential for small and medium-sized enterprises to expand their role in scaling up NBS initiatives. 36 |  Growing resilience: Unlocking the potential of nature-based solutions for climate resilience in sub-Saharan Africa Finding 5. MDBs, multilateral donors and funds, and national governments were the primary funders of projects, often using grants or loans Funders Seventy-four percent of projects secured funding from multiple 2 percent of projects (5 projects) were primarily funded by organizations, with MDBs as the primary funder, followed by subnational governments, national climate funds, and intergov- multilateral donors and funds, and then national governments ernmental organizations (organizations formed across multiple (Figure 15). Notably, MDBs were involved in funding over 97 governments). Government funders were listed as co-funders percent of green-gray projects, underscoring their key role in (rather than the primary funder) for 36 percent of projects and funding large-scale infrastructure projects. MDBs and multi- multilateral donors and funds were co-funders for 32 percent. lateral donors and funds were the main source of funding for MDBs underwrote 83 percent of loans with the World Bank about 70 percent of NBS projects. This funding pattern aligns and AfDB as the primary lenders. The World Bank provided with Africa’s broader climate adaptation funding landscape, $6.3 billion and AfDB contributed $2.3 billion for both green where 70 percent of finance comes from multilateral organiza- and green-gray projects from 2012 to 2021. This reliance on tions, and 19 percent from African governments, highlighting MDBs for loan financing reflects their regional role in fund- both substantial external funding support and a growing ing the up-front capital for large-scale green-gray projects domestic commitment to tackling climate change (GCA 2023). (see “Funding and financing strategies for scaling up NBS National governments primarily funded green and green- investments” for a loan example). A technical note (Oliver and gray projects, while smaller projects were backed by national Marsters 2022) discusses the methodology for tracking these climate funds and intergovernmental bodies. In addition to NBS investments in MDB portfolios from 2012 to 2021. Box 5 frequently serving as the project developer, national govern- provides an updated analysis of these project portfolios with ments were the primary funder for 15 percent of projects. Only data from 2022 to 2023. Figure 15 | Primary funders of nature-based solutions by project type Multilateral development banks Multilateral donors and funds Government funders Primary funder Bilateral donors and funds Private sector Nongovernmental Green organizations Green-gray Small scale Other funders 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% Percentage of projects Notes: We tagged the primary funder (the largest contributor) for each project and listed up to two additional funders (co-funders) when applicable. This figure shows the primary funders for projects using nature-based solutions. Since multilateral organizations were the most common funder type, we further divided them into multilateral development banks and multilateral donors and funds. The “multilateral donors and funds” category includes entities that provide financial aid pooled from various governments and organizations, such as international organizations like the United Nations Environment Pro- gramme and United Nations Development Programme, and funds that mobilize and allocate resources from multiple donor countries or organizations, such as the Global Environment Facility and Green Climate Fund. The “other funders” category includes conservation trust funds, community development financial institutions, research organizations, and religious organizations. Source: Authors. Status of and trends in NBS for climate resilience in SSA  | 37 MDB key highlights from 2022–23 projects Box 5 |  We conducted an additional analysis of NBS projects from the World Bank and AfDB portfolios that were approved between 2022 and 2023. These MDBs supported a combined 51 projects in 2022–23 for a total of 131 projects approved since 2012. Most projects were green-gray (66 percent) and the remaining were green (34 percent). All projects secured over $1 million, and 51 percent of projects received above $100 million. The following include key trends for 2022–23 compared with previous years: • The annual average growth of project initiation tripled between 2022 and 2023 compared with the earlier decade. • The percentage of urban projects initiated almost doubled, from 26 percent to 50 percent during 2022–23. • More projects were designed to address erosion and landslide risk and urban heat mitigation in 2022–23 than in the previous decade. • The percentage of coastal projects tripled from 4 percent for 2012–21 to 12 percent for 2022–23. • There was a substantial increase in the number of projects incorporating gender equity strategies (incorporated into 98 percent of the 2022–23 projects), and although the inclusion of Indigenous and traditional knowledge increased from 8 percent to 25 percent, it remained underutilized. The private sector, including companies and corporate foun- Although loans were used in only 32 percent of projects, these dations, were the primary funder for less than 5 percent of projects accounted for over 73 percent of the total funding projects. These companies made financial commitments to across all initiatives, highlighting the use of loans in mobiliz- projects operating near water basins that affected their oper- ing capital for large-scale projects (Figure 17). Most of these ations, indicating interest in funding projects that ensure the loans were concessional and used in combination with grants operability of their businesses or help meet corporate envi- or government contributions for green-gray projects, empha- ronmental goals. sizing both the region’s need for concessional capital and the effectiveness of integrating NBS with traditional infrastructure There was limited representation from subnational govern- projects to secure up-front capital and unlock government ments as the primary funder, reflecting the centralized nature repayment streams. While not generally publicly disclosed, of government funding in many African countries. Only 7 loan repayments are often managed through national bud- percent of the 57 government-funded projects were primarily gets with specific terms and repayment sources varying by funded by subnational governments, including financial con- transaction. In comparison, funding for green projects still tributions and in-kind assistance. This represents a potential heavily relies on grants in combination with other instruments barrier for local- and community-led disaster risk reduction, rather than loans. climate adaptation, and infrastructure projects. Strengthening the capacity of local authorities to raise funds via tax revenues Despite the importance of grants and loans in funding projects, and land-value capture tools could enable increased invest- there is a need for greater diversification strategies: small-scale ment in effective, context-specific, and community-driven NBS projects offer insights into new funding sources. Although these to address growing climate risks. projects predominantly relied on grants, some also tapped into a broader range of supplementary funding instruments, includ- Funding instruments ing market-rate loans, private equity, and compensation and offsets. Five small-scale projects leveraged carbon credit sales Projects frequently used a combination of funding instruments, as a revenue-generating tool, signaling the potential to better including grants, loans, and government contributions. Grants utilize the carbon development market given the prominence of were the most common funding mechanism, used in 84 percent forestry- and agroforestry-related efforts. of projects, either alone or combined with other financial instruments (Figure 16). Most grants came from MDBs, mul- tilateral donors and funds, and national governments. Grants were involved in 51 percent of green projects, 32 percent of green-gray projects, and 81 percent of small-scale projects, demonstrating their importance in funding NBS in SSA. While grants offer the advantage of not requiring repayment, they often do not cover the full cost of project implementation and are typically term limited (i.e., they have a set duration for which they can be utilized), leaving a funding gap for ongoing maintenance costs and long-term project sustainability. 38 |  Growing resilience: Unlocking the potential of nature-based solutions for climate resilience in sub-Saharan Africa Figure 16 | Funding instruments by project count and NBS type, 2012–21 Grants Government contribution and grants Concessional Funding instrument loans and grants Concessional loans and government contribution Grants and market-rateloans Concessional Green loans Green-gray Market-rate Small scale loans 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Percent of projects Notes: We tagged each project with up to two funding instruments, including grants (nonrepayable funds), market-rate loans (debt at market interest rates), concessional loans (low-interest, flexible term loans), and government contributions (including financial or in-kind support from African governments). Less than 1 percent of projects combined grants with offsets, endowments, private equity, or market-rate loans with government contributions, and we excluded these from the figure due to their limited use. NBS = nature-based solutions. Source: Authors. Figure 17 | Funding instruments by percentage of funding and NBS type, 2012–21 Concessional loans & grants Concessional loans and government contributions Funding instrument Grants Grants and government contributions Concessional loans Grants and Green market-rate loans Green-gray Market-rate loans & government Small scale contribution 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% Percentage of funding Notes: Less than 1 percent of projects used market-rate loans, compensation and credits, or grants in combination with endowments, private equity, or com- pensation and credits. We omitted these from the figure due to their limited use. NBS = nature-based solutions. Source: Authors. Status of and trends in NBS for climate resilience in SSA  | 39 Finding 6. Social equity in NBS projects can be enhanced by integrating gender inclusion, Indigenous and traditional knowledge, and context-sensitive approaches in fragile regions Gender equity Sixty-eight percent of projects explicitly referenced gender Governments and multilateral organizations are incorporating equity in their design and implementation. A gender-respon- gender equity into NBS projects, yet there is significant room sive approach to NBS takes into account gender-specific for improvement, which could be achieved by enforcing inclu- climate adaptation needs, vulnerabilities, participation in sion requirements. MDBs showed an increase in the number decision-making, and access to financial benefits from nature- of references to gender equity for projects, increasing from 60 based investments (GIZ 2021). In this study, gender equity percent of projects from 2012 to 2021 to 98 percent from 2022 was recorded as a simple yes/no variable, meaning we didn’t to 2023. This is likely due to mandatory inclusion requirements measure the depth or quality of its incorporation. Of note, according to their environmental and social standards. This project documents did not track funding specifically allocated approach could benefit other funding entities if they enforced for gender equity initiatives, nor was it consistently clear if such similar standards to ensure gender equity is more consistently components were mandatory in all project proposals—though integrated into NBS projects across the board. Further, these more recent MDB projects must include these components. considerations should be more deeply integrated into project This points to a need for clearer metrics and more detailed design and implementation, which can be done by training reporting to assess how thoroughly gender equity is being inte- project developers, implementers, and other funders and grated into projects. sharing good implementation practices (World Bank 2023). Expanding such requirements could lead to more equitable outcomes and improve the overall impact of these initiatives. Scaling Urban Nature-based Solutions for Climate Adaptation in Sub-Saharan Africa (SUNCASA), Dire Dawa, Ethiopia. Photo by Cesar H. Arrais. 40 |  Growing resilience: Unlocking the potential of nature-based solutions for climate resilience in sub-Saharan Africa Indigenous and traditional knowledge Indigenous or traditional knowledge are rarely referenced or Although fragile countries can use NBS as a tool to address the integrated into projects, which may prevent projects from fully nexus between disaster management and FCV (World Bank addressing local challenges or maximizing community benefits 2024b), the majority of project financing was directed toward that could result from more meaningfully incorporating these more stable countries, likely due to the more favorable enabling elements. Only 13 percent of projects included information conditions. FCV 0 countries hosted the majority of NBS projects about incorporating or collaborating with Indigenous knowl- (55 percent). This trend reflects a broader bias in climate fund edge. As a key resource for local climate change adaptation and distribution toward countries with strong governance and reg- sustainable land management, Indigenous knowledge refers to ulatory frameworks, as highlighted in recent studies (Meattle et context-specific understanding, skills, and philosophies devel- al. 2022). It underscores the critical role of strong governance, oped by societies with long histories of interaction with their cross-sector collaboration, and stable land tenure in achieving natural surroundings (IPCC 2022b). Similar to the evaluation NBS implementation. of gender equity, the incorporation of Indigenous knowledge The use of more diverse funding and financing instruments in was evaluated as a yes/no variable through a qualitative scan low FCV countries highlights how stable environments can of project documents. This limited integration may stem foster fiscal innovation. Countries with lower FCV classifica- from a lack of formal requirements or enforcement mecha- tions (FCV 0 and 1–4) showed broader use of instruments like nisms, unlike the mandated incorporation of gender equity in endowments, compensation and credits, and private equity. MDB-supported projects. The absence of specific guidelines or Project funding sizes were nearly double in stable countries accountability for including Indigenous perspectives may lead ($7.5 million and $9 million for FCV 0 and 1–4 countries, project developers to undervalue or overlook the critical role respectively, compared with $4.3 million and $4.8 million for of Indigenous knowledge in sustainable resource management FCV 5–7 and 8–10). However, grants in stable regions still or climate resilience. Additionally, many projects may lack the funded nearly half of all projects, suggesting room for diversify- necessary frameworks or expertise to engage Indigenous com- ing financial instruments. munities effectively, further contributing to this gap. In contrast, fragile states tended to favor low-risk, small-scale Fragility, conflict, and violence initiatives. In these fragile countries, small-scale projects were more common and projects relied on a mix of government and We assessed the level of fragility in countries with NBS projects in-kind contributions, along with market-rate and conces- by examining frequently used funding sources and financial sional loans. While high-FCV nations co-funded more projects instruments. The World Bank categorizes countries by FCV through government contributions, their limited access to status each year, reflecting factors such as weak governance, alternative financing often led to a dependence on loans, which political instability, conflict, and vulnerability to natural in turn can lead to high debt burdens and compromise a bor- disasters. We grouped countries where NBS projects were rower’s long-term financial stability. found into four categories, based on the number of years they had received FCV designations from 2011 to 2021: FCV 0 (no fragility), FCV 1–4, FCV 5–7, and FCV 8–10. Table 1 compares the percentage of projects implemented in these categories and financial instruments. Table 1 | FCV status and financing instruments, 2012–21 INSTRUMENT FCV 0 YEARS FCV 1–4 YEARS FCV 5–7 YEARS FCV 8–10 YEARS Percent of total projects 55% 22% 5% 17% Grants 51% 48% 75% 40% Grants and government contributions 13% 4% 8% 37% Grants and concessional loans 7% 25% 17% 9% Notes: We grouped countries where NBS projects were found into four categories, based on the number of years they had received fragile, conflict-affected, and violent (FCV) designations from 2011 to 2021. We omitted other financing instruments that were infrequently used. Percentages may not sum to 100 per- cent evenly. Compensation and credits, endowments, and private equity alone or in combination with grants made up 4 percent of FCV 0 and 3 percent of FCV 1–4. Source: Authors. Status of and trends in NBS for climate resilience in SSA  | 41 “Water towers project in Mau Forest”, Kenya. Photo by Patrick Shepherd/CIFOR. Challenges to and strategies for advancing NBS in SSA Nature-based solutions hold significant potential for SSA, yet they have not achieved the investment and scale necessary to fully realize their benefits. This section explores the key barriers to NBS implementation, including the absence of enabling policies, limited resources and data, insecure land tenure, and financing challenges. It also identifies corresponding strategies—spanning policy, institutional, technical, social, and financial interventions—to address these obstacles and enhance the adoption of NBS. Countries in SSA, like many others worldwide, encounter urbanization, which increases informal settlements and land challenges in developing and implementing NBS, including conflicts, further reducing available space for NBS projects needing better partnerships, governance, and funding and (UNEP 2022b; Opperman et al. 2021; White et al. 2017; Gulati more robust policies (Marsters et al. 2021). Existing policy and and Scholtz 2020). planning frameworks often favor traditional gray infrastructure This section examines key barriers to increasing NBS adoption over NBS, and decision-making processes fail to recognize in SSA based on interviews with 50 project developers, funders, the disaster risk mitigation potential of combining NBS and and investors, alongside insights from global and regional gray infrastructure (G-G CoP 2020; Pérez-Cirera et al. 2021). literature. It highlights the top 10 challenges to planning, imple- The lack of coordination across sectors and levels of govern- menting, and sustaining NBS, organized around five enabling ment further impedes the integration of NBS in planning, as factors (Table 2). This is not an exhaustive list of relevant does insufficient technical capacity and data availability to challenges in SSA. Each barrier is described with strategies support landscape-scale assessments (WWAP and UN-Water for mitigation, illustrated by regional examples. We identified 2018; UNEP 2022c). interviewees through database contact information, literature In SSA, limited case studies and evidence on NBS successes reviews, and partnerships and did not include perspectives make these challenges especially pronounced (Gulati and from community representatives or small landowners—an Scholtz 2020). The region also struggles with data gaps, important addition for future research. Further details on the inadequate technical capacity for NBS design, and rapid interviews can be found in Appendix B. Table 2 | Overview of barriers to and recommended strategies for scaling up NBS in SSA ENABLING BARRIERS RESPONSE STRATEGIES EXAMPLE FACTORS Policy Lack of incentives or supportive Create or enhance NBS enabling policies FONERWA, Green Climate Fund, national policies to consider NBS and plans, aligning with NDCs, NAPs, and Rwanda NBSAPs. Policy preference for gray infra- Integrate NBS as alternatives or com- Roadmap for Resilient Infrastruc- structure plements to gray options in disaster ture, Ghana risk reduction, infrastructure, or urban planning policies (e.g., standards, official guidelines, permits). Institutional Limited budgets and resources for Improve coordination frameworks and Building Resilient Communities, multisectoral collaboration dedicate budget and resources to support Wetland Ecosystems, and Associ- engagement. ated Catchments, Uganda Lack of institutional buy-in for NBS Increase awareness of NBS’ economic and Green Roads for Water, Ethiopia social benefits. Technical Limited technical capacity to Improve workforce training and education. Resilient Urban Sierra Leone Proj- design, implement, and maintain ect, a component of the “Freetown NBS projects the Treetown,” Sierra Leone Insufficient scientific data to Develop and increase access to data and Ecosystem-based Adaptation for inform effective project design and site-specific guidance to inform design, Rural Resilience Project, Tanzania resources for MEL implementation, and replication strate- gies. Invest up front in MEL. Social Lack of incentives and resources to Ensure safeguards are in place to include White Nile Corporation, Sudan build trust and community support IPLC in all project stages, with adjust- for NBS ments to provide direct IPLC benefits and capacity building in territorial governance and NBS before project initiation. Foster a culture of co-design and collaboration to improve project outcomes. Social conflict and insecure land Increase clarity and transparency over Land associations, Ghana tenure land tenure and use. Create cooperatives and associations to increase negotiation power with governments. Financial Business cases and revenue Increase valuation of natural capital and Greater Cape Town Water Fund, streams are not developed for NBS conduct cost-benefit analyses. South Africa Funding covers implementation Increase availability and use of long-term Disaster Risk Management and alone and not longer-term NBS funding or financing mechanisms (e.g., Urban Development Project, Niger maintenance and monitoring domestic taxes, fees, and offsets) to main- tain and monitor NBS. Note: NBS = nature-based solutions. NDC = nationally determined contribution. NAP = national adaptation plan. NBSAP = National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan. MEL = monitoring, and evaluation, and learning. IPLC = Indigenous Peoples and local communities. Source: Authors, adapted from Browder et al. 2019. Challenges to and strategies for advancing NBS in SSA  | 43 Policy barriers National policies can promote NBS by providing a legal and Example: Rwanda’s Green Growth and Climate Resilience financial framework and resources for integrating NBS into Strategy outlines climate resilience and low-carbon develop- economic development and sectoral strategies and planning ment pathways (RoR 2022). To fund these initiatives, 1 percent (UNEP 2022b). Such strategies can address the drivers of of Rwanda’s annual national budget is dedicated to the Rwanda disaster risk and ecosystem degradation, as well as support Green Fund (FONERWA), creating a dedicated source of capital the creation of climate-resilient infrastructure (G-G CoP for NBS and climate adaptation projects (RoR 2022). Strength- 2020). Policies can also influence decision-making processes ening the link between policy and finance, the fund’s supported and procedures that traditionally favor the adoption of gray projects have also been incorporated into Rwanda’s revised infrastructure over NBS (Browder et al. 2019; OECD 2020b). An NDC, submitted in May 2020, which emphasizes investments in enabling policy can impact financial frameworks which in turn restoring degraded forests and wetlands, increasing sustainable can give priority to NBS in various sectors and country-wide land management practices, and constructing new terracing to as well as remove barriers that hinder NBS implementation reduce erosion (Africa NDC Hub 2022; WWF 2021). (see Box 6). Multilevel governance structures further enhance Barrier: Policy preference for gray infrastructure. Many policy effectiveness by aligning national priorities with local policies, technical standards, and permits prioritize gray planning efforts. infrastructure, leading to a reluctance among decision-makers Barrier: Lack of incentives and supportive policies to con- to consider green or green-gray approaches. Additionally, gray sider NBS. NBS often provide benefits over the long term, but infrastructure projects are often politically attractive due to political and budget cycles tend to focus on short-term gains. their visibility and immediate impact, while there is limited This mismatch makes it difficult to prioritize and incentivize awareness of the economic and environmental benefits of NBS projects, which may not yield immediate, visible results. NBS—a challenge further explored under “Technical barriers.” Strategy: Aligning international commitments on climate Strategy: Integrate NBS as alternatives or complements to change and biodiversity, such as NDCs, NAPs, and NBSAPs, with traditional gray infrastructure in disaster risk reduction, infra- national policies, budgets, and planning processes can foster structure, and urban planning policies, including standards, incentives and promote NBS enabling policies. official guidelines, and permitting processes. Conducting a climate risk assessment of existing and planned infrastructure NBS enabling policy and financing framework Box 6 |  To ensure NBS implementation and realize NBS’ full potential, a supportive policy and funding framework is foundational. This requires cohesive policies across key sectors and levels, from high-level national development programs to national and subnational sector-specific policies (e.g., action plans, technical guidelines, or urban development plans), and should include dedicated funds to enact regulations and support implementation. An enabling policy and funding environment should do the following: 1. Remove barriers to NBS implementation and long-term viability (e.g., control pollution; reduce deforestation and green space loss; restrict construction permits on floodplains, coasts, and biodiversity hot spots; and remove the gray infrastruc- ture preference in permits, guidelines, and technical standards) 2. Enhance NBS uptake and related sustainable practices (e.g., create protected areas, secure land tenure, promote inte- grated water resource management, and support sustainable agriculture) 3. Allocate funding to increase regulatory enforcement, protect existing NBS, and incentivize NBS implementation Key actions for an enabling policy and funding framework include the following: • Establish common definitions and a shared understanding of NBS across policies • Adopt an integrated approach to issues and solutions across policy domains, with a focus on reducing environmental impact and leveraging NBS potential • Encourage collaboration across stakeholders, multilevel and multidisciplinary governance, and engagement from environ- mentalists and local communities, enabling them to adopt NBS • Ensure policy coherence by harmonizing instruments and using a blend of incentives and regulations • Elevate nature’s consideration within the hierarchy of laws, empowering enforcement and governance bodies accordingly • Monitor and evaluate outcomes to refine and strengthen policies over time • Dedicate funding and capacity to support policy implementation 44 |  Growing resilience: Unlocking the potential of nature-based solutions for climate resilience in sub-Saharan Africa can reveal vulnerabilities and opportunities where NBS can be water recharge (van Steenbergen et al. 2021). Implemented effectively integrated with gray infrastructure to enhance resil- along 1,100 kilometers of rural roads, GR4W has improved ience, reduce costs, and provide adaptation benefits. transportation for six million people, generating a fourfold return on investment. This approach saves the government Example: Ghana conducted a climate risk assessment for its from costly repairs and has boosted agricultural productivity, transport, water, and energy sectors called the Roadmap for offering $18,900 per kilometer in benefits compared with $1,800 Resilient Infrastructure in a Changing Climate (Adshead et al. per kilometer under traditional road repair (van Steenbergen 2022). This was designed to align and inform Ghana’s national et al. 2021; Yaron 2018). Due to its success, the program has strategic and development plans by identifying long-term cli- been replicated in 12 other countries globally, including Kenya, mate risks and mitigation solutions. The assessment evaluated Mozambique, Sudan, South Sudan, and Uganda (van Steenber- new green-gray infrastructure such as green-gray slope stabili- gen and Deligianni 2023). zation along highways to reduce erosion and revegetation along the Densu River to enhance flood resilience. It recommended Barrier: Limited budgets and resources for multisectoral how NBS can be incorporated into infrastructure planning and collaboration. Constraints in funding and capacity hinder feasibility assessments and highlighted financial incentives coordination across public and private sectors, national to do so, like greater access to climate adaptation funding. and local actors, and rural and urban stakeholders and can Demonstrating the multi-benefits of integrating NBS into gray affect all levels of NBS project development, including inter- infrastructure projects led to government interest in incorpo- agency planning. rating NBS into national infrastructure plans and prioritizing Strategy: NBS projects require integrated, cross-sectoral them within climate adaptation strategies. approaches, along with decentralized planning and funding at every stage, to ensure long-term success. Beyond securing Institutional barriers resources for initial coordination and stakeholder engagement, dedicated staff and sustainable funding are also needed for Institutional barriers arise from organizational structures, ongoing operations and maintenance (O&M). frameworks, and practices that hinder effective collaboration and implementation of NBS initiatives. NBS projects often Example: The Building Resilient Communities, Wetland demand coordination across sectors (e.g., infrastructure and Ecosystems and Associated Catchments project in Uganda environment) and scales (e.g., national and local), yet in SSA highlights the significant impacts of insufficient coordination conflicting policies and regulations can make this difficult among stakeholders. The project aimed to rehabilitate water- (Pérez-Cirera et al. 2021). Climate variability and extreme sheds degraded by unsustainable agricultural practices (Pers. weather events further complicate planning, and limited polit- Comm. 2022c). However, challenges arose when farmers were ical will, inconsistent policy enforcement, and bureaucratic relocated from riparian zones before they received planned delays also hinder progress. Clear roles and responsibilities, support for adopting sustainable practices. This premature and access to the necessary financial and technical resources, relocation, due to poor coordination among national agencies, are essential but often lacking in the SSA context. led to delayed project implementation and increased compen- sation costs, and required an extended community engagement Barrier: Lack of institutional buy-in for NBS. To secure the process to regain trust and support (UNDP 2020). This example necessary budgets and resources to effectively execute NBS underscores the critical importance of integrated planning and development, projects require institutional buy-in. Interviewees early, consistent engagement among all stakeholders to align raised concerns about the lack of this buy-in for NBS projects, on project goals, timelines, and resource allocation. particularly from sector agencies, infrastructure funders, and subnational governments. Many noted the disconnect between public-facing policies and internal resource allocation and Technical barriers prioritization. NBS require specific studies to be conducted to assess the Strategy: Institutional buy-in for NBS can be boosted through feasibility of solutions, and these need to be tailored to different increased understanding of the economic benefits of NBS, locations since NBS are highly contextual. This requires tech- such as the cost savings associated with improved delivery or nical knowledge of different NBS, integrating them with and avoided losses of services for infrastructure operators, or other comparing them to other engineering solutions, but also com- co-benefits, such as job creation and public health improve- munity outreach, resource management, data gathering, and ments. In SSA, these benefits are especially relevant given the funding expertise. Addressing these needs can expand the tech- region’s challenging economic and labor markets. nical and operational job opportunities in SSA, boosting job creation and enhancing economic productivity through a work- Example: In Ethiopia, the Green Roads for Water (GR4W) force with diverse skill levels. Furthermore, in SSA and globally, program demonstrates significant economic benefits by there is an underinvestment in monitoring, evaluation, and using wetlands, floodplain restoration, and water harvesting learning (MEL) practices, which provide data-driven insights, systems to reduce flood risk, making the case for a national measured progress, and areas for improvement. These practices viable model (van Steenbergen et al. 2021). MetaMeta, a private enhance accountability, support decision-making, and facilitate developer, works with the government across agriculture, adaptive management, leading to better project outcomes. water, and transportation agencies to identify where green- gray infrastructure solutions could reduce flooding, minimize erosion risks, and enhance water access for farms and ground- Challenges to and strategies for advancing NBS in SSA  | 45 Barrier: Limited technical capacity to design, implement, Example: After severe flooding and mudslides in 2017, and maintain NBS projects. The successful implementation Freetown, Sierra Leone, committed to reforesting the city and assessment of NBS and green-gray infrastructure projects and surrounding areas to mitigate flooding and erosion in a depend on the availability of technical capacity to prepare and campaign known as #FreetownTheTreeTown. One component manage these projects effectively. This entails an understanding of the campaign—the Resilient Urban Sierra Leone Project— of green and green-gray technical solutions, cost-benefit analy- trained youth to serve as project implementers, maintenance ses of potential solutions, biodiversity and social and economic crews, and procurement providers. Using TreeTracker, a mobile impact assessments, as well as studies to evaluate ongoing and application to monitor progress and pay for NBS maintenance, long-term maintenance of NBS (Silva et al. 2020; UNEP 2022c). participants of the program photographed where they had planted a tree, verified growth, and received payments for its Strategy: Technical capacity can be developed through proj- survival (Fisseha et al. 2021). Due to the up-front investment ect-based learning connected to NBS projects in the planning in training and MEL, the project had planted and monitored and operational stages as well as through formal training 557,000 trees as of 2022, generating 900 green jobs for youths, programs, such as engineering curricula. Moreover, improv- and restoring 578 hectares of land for flood protection (ILO et ing the technical skills of local operators can spur green job al. 2022; FCC 2022; Fisseha et al. 2021). creation, particularly for the agriculture and forestry sectors. Recognizing that countries in SSA are at different stages of Barrier: Insufficient scientific data to inform effective NBS adoption, technical assistance can be tailored to meet the project design. Given the highly contextual nature of NBS, needs of national, city, or municipal governments to advance local data are critical for the preparation of technical studies to project preparation (see Box 7). Furthermore, integrating identify suitable NBS in different locations. Interviewees high- relevant content into professional training programs can lighted the lack of Africa- and region-specific guidance on the provide more upstream, systemic capacity building beyond types of NBS that can be applied in local ecosystems and urban individual projects or enterprises. Knowledge exchanges and areas, the importance of conducting climate risk and vulnera- communities of practice can also be an effective way to scale bility assessments, and the need for guidance on native species the necessary capacity building (see Box 8). selection to maintain biodiversity and ecological connectivity (Pers. Comm. 2022a). Box 7 | Project preparation facilities NBS project preparation facilities and accelerators can help developers advance through the stages of project preparation, from concept to implementation. They can provide early-stage NBS project developers with the data and analysis tools they need to optimize design and planning for appropriate NBS interventions; provide training on project management, as well as financial and business acumen; and support the development of NBS-generated revenue streams. Project accelerators and facilities can foster project pipeline creation, brokerage functions, and partnerships, offering a virtuous learning cycle for project developers, governments, MDBs, and private sector actors. These models can enable faster replication and scale for successes and help advanced projects secure traditional and new sources of funds. The following are project accelerators already active in the region: • The Urban Water Catalyst Fund, managed by WaterWorx, provides grants and technical assistance specific to water utilities.a • The Nature Conservancy and Pegasys’s Nature for Water Facility offers technical assistance in hydrological, mapping, and economic modeling in addition to finance, governance, and project management to evaluate and accelerate NBS proj- ect preparation.b • The Green-Gray Infrastructure Accelerator, managed by WRI’s Cities4Forests and Urban Water Resilience initiatives, is providing technical assistance to more than 11 cities in seven countries in SSA to accelerate urban water resilience and social equity using NBS and green-gray strategies.c • The City Climate Finance Gap Fund, managed by the World Bank and European Investment Bank (EIB), supports ear- ly-stage project preparation for urban projects.d • The Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery, housed within the World Bank, helps countries better understand and reduce their vulnerabilities to natural hazards and climate change. It supports the integration of NBS into disaster risk management and climate adaptation strategies, providing technical assistance, capacity building, and financial support for NBS projects.e • The World Bank’s Global Program on Nature-Based Solutions for Climate Resilience aims to integrate NBS into climate resilience efforts, offering guidance, tools, and funding to develop and implement NBS projects. This program uses natural systems to address climate risks, improve ecosystem services, and enhance the resilience of communities and infrastructure.f Notes: a VEI 2022. b Nature for Water et al. 2024. c Authors. d World Bank et al. 2020. e GFDRR n.d.a. f GFDRR n.d.b. 46 |  Growing resilience: Unlocking the potential of nature-based solutions for climate resilience in sub-Saharan Africa Box 8 | Initiatives to build regional knowledge hubs Several high-profile initiatives to support NBS exist in the region, including AFR100, the Great Green Wall initiative, the Great Blue Wall, and the West Africa Coastal Areas program. These initiatives aim to protect and restore forests, grasslands, and coastal and marine ecosystems for climate resilience, and present an opportunity to develop knowledge hubs among prac- titioners to share challenges and lessons learned. Table B8-1 summarizes these initiatives, the countries involved, and their progress to date. TABLE B8-1 | Examples of regional initiatives for landscape and seascape restoration INITIATIVE COUNTRIES OBJECTIVES PROGRESS AFR100 Malawi, Mozambique, Niger, Preserve 100 million hectares by A preliminary assessment of Nigeria, Rwanda, Senegal, 2030. The first phase of AFR100 forest and landscape restoration Somalia, South Sudan, Tanzania, exceeded expectations by projects in 15 African countries Togo, Uganda, Zambia garnering commitments from 32 from 2016 to 2021 estimated that countries to preserve almost 128 there were 900,000 hectares million hectares. under restoration. Recent estimates suggest over 5 million hectares of land are under restoration.a Great Green Wall Burkina Faso, Chad, Djibouti, GGW Sahel aims to restore 100 GGW Sahel: By 2020, 18 million (GGW) Eritrea, Ethiopia, Mali, Mauri- million hectares of degraded hectares of land had been tania, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal, land, sequester 250 million tons restored (i.e., 18 percent of Sudan of carbon, and create 10 million the initial target of 100 million green jobs by 2030. The project hectares), 350,000 new jobs had was launched in 2007 with an been created, and $90 million in initial focus on 11 countries. revenue had been generated.b Great Blue Wall Comoros, Kenya, Madagascar, Increase marine protected The Tanga-Pemba Seascape Mauritius, Mozambique, Sey- areas from 8 percent in 2021 to in Tanzania and Quirimbas chelles, Somalia, South Africa, 30 percent by 2030 in the South Seascape in Mozambique have Tanzania Western Indian Ocean; conserve been officially designated for and restore 2 million hectares of marine or coastal protection and critical blue ecosystems; seques- restoration.c,d ter 100 million tons of CO2; and create 1 million jobs in the blue economy by 2030.c,d West Africa Benin, Côte d’Ivoire, Ghana, Multicountry and regional Several national projects, Coastal Areas Guinea, Liberia, Mauritania, action is used to strengthen the regional integration, and sup- (WACA) Manage- Nigeria, São Tomé and Príncipe, resilience of coastal communities port activities are underway. The ment Program Senegal, Sierra Leone, Togo and assets in 11 countries in West WACA platform was set up as a Africa vulnerable to erosion, mechanism to scale up knowl- flooding, and pollution.e edge, dialogue, and funding for coastal resilience in West Africa.e ​Note: CO2 = carbon dioxide. AFR100 = African Forest Landscape Restoration initiative. Sources: a FAO 2023. b Africa NDC Hub 2022. c IUCN 2022a. d IUCN 2022b. e World Bank 2018. Strategy: Project developers can work with governments to a lack of scientific research and guidance. The seedlings and technical experts to develop guidelines and standards for were affected by drought conditions, resulting in low seedling specific sectors and landscapes in SSA. Such guidance should survival rates in the first year of planting (Pers. Comm. 2022d). emphasize scientifically sound decisions for regionally suitable However, consultation with local communities inspired a NBS interventions and adaptive management. It should also collaboration with the Tanzania Forest Services Agency, which establish MEL frameworks early in project planning, allocating helped select indigenous tree species and suggested a shift dedicated funds to continuously self-assess and offer lessons toward planting more mature seedlings to improve survival. To learned for replication. boost success, the project engaged NGOs to train local com- munities on locally tested restoration techniques (Pers. Comm. Example: Tanzania’s Ecosystem-based Adaptation for Rural 2022d). By adjusting the project design based on local input Resilience Project initially planted young, non-native seed- lings across 2,000 hectares for water security (GEF 2016) due Challenges to and strategies for advancing NBS in SSA  | 47 and scientific data, the project improved its chances of success, Example: The White Nile Corporation’s project in Sudan demonstrating the importance of integrating adaptive manage- incorporated local farmers and pastoralists in planning and ment and region-specific guidelines from the outset. implementation on the restoration of wadis (channels that are dry except during the rainy season), which had been degrading Social barriers due to unsustainable land management practices upstream. To increase water security, the project developed natural resource management committees that relied on the farmers Social barriers to NBS project development include a lack and pastoralists to co-design improved strategies for rangeland, of participation and engagement by IPLCs,4 women, and farmland, and other natural resources using green-gray infra- other typically underrepresented groups in decision-making structure (Hou-Jones et al. 2021). The project not only reduced processes and management, and perceived threats among conflict, but also enhanced water resilience and improved the local communities of NBS to livelihoods and resulting land use productivity of agriculture and grazing (Hou-Jones et al. 2021). changes (UNEP 2022c). Interviewees identified that the chal- lenge lies not just in the availability of resources, but in how the Barrier: Social conflict and insecure land tenure. Land existing resources are prioritized and the baseline capacity of tenure insecurity is a significant hurdle for NBS implementa- partners to effectively engage and collaborate with local com- tion in SSA due to a complexity of factors involving community munities. If NBS projects fail to recognize community uses and reliance on natural resources, unplanned development, and their role in managing ecosystems, NBS projects can impinge limited land tenure records and management. The premise on the rights of communities (UNEP 2022c). These dynamics of land ownership as a requirement for certain types of NBS can lead to mistrust between NBS project developers and local and insecure land tenure can delay project implementation, communities, limiting opportunities to explore the benefits jeopardize funding avenues, and prevent NBS from being and potential trade-offs of more sustainable land management implemented at a scale that can deliver meaningful disaster practices or investment in more resilient infrastructure. risk reduction and ecosystem functionality. Consideration of informal uses of public lands is important for restoration Barrier: Lack of incentives and resources to build trust and or afforestation projects as they may inadvertently disrupt community support for NBS. Projects often fail to properly housing, livelihoods, or food sources for groups relying on engage impacted communities, whether due to budgetary non-timber forest products, even if they lack legal or formal restrictions or limited capacity. This is reflected in the project land ownership. Addressing these equity issues can help ensure database presented in section “Status of and trends in NBS for that NBS projects are inclusive and do not disadvantage vulner- climate resilience in SSA,” where only 14 percent of projects able communities. reported incorporating Indigenous and traditional knowledge in NBS projects. Although challenging, effective IPLC engage- Strategy: Project developers must understand the rights to and ment can uncover and amplify the multiple benefits of NBS uses of land and, where applicable, work with communities and projects while helping to mitigate potential negative impacts governments to improve land tenure rights and design appro- (World Bank 2023). Conversely, interviewees noted that project priate engagement strategies and compensation mechanisms developers often assume that local communities will want to be for communities. Transparent land tenure can help protect the involved in and become the long-term owners of NBS projects rights of IPLCs and enable swifter NBS implementation. At the (Pers. Comm. 2022e). This is not always the case, and over time community level, collectives and associations are increasingly this expectation can lead to the failure of NBS projects and important in securing land tenure. reduced trust in project developers. It is important that incen- tives and governance structures are in place before project Example: In Ghana, land managers—including agricultural implementation to facilitate long-term community ownership. producers and forest managers—formed a land management association to collectively advocate for more secure and Strategy: Project developers must apply robust environmental transparent land tenure rights with the government (Pers. and social safeguards to ensure that affected communities, Comm. 2022g). Through this association, members were able especially IPLCs, including women and other vulnerable to unify their efforts, amplifying their negotiating power and groups, are included throughout all stages of NBS project ensuring that government policies better recognize and protect development and implementation. Participatory stakeholder their interests. Associations and cooperatives like this can be mapping and consultations should be used to understand com- powerful tools for consolidating voices and promoting shared munity needs; differential access to natural resources; prevalent interests; however, it is essential to establish these groups with gender and social norms dictating power dynamics; the socio- the full participation of IPLCs to prevent any potential infringe- political context; and vulnerabilities to flooding, drought, and ment on their rights. climate risks (Buckingham et al. 2018; Pers. Comm. 2022d; Pers. Comm. 2022j). Even better is the practice of including IPLCs in the co-design and creation of projects, which has been shown Financial barriers to improve project outcomes by ensuring that interventions The financial barriers to investing in NBS are often com- are contextually appropriate and equitable. These community pounded by concerns about investing in SSA, including unclear engagement and social safeguard processes can be established regulations, a lack of transparency, and a history of poor through national policies and standards, stipulations in grants performance, among others. Specific to NBS adoption, funders or loans by project funders, and/or internal policies and proce- expressed concern about finding investment-ready projects dures set by project developers. with clear, reliable repayment streams—a challenge common to 48 |  Growing resilience: Unlocking the potential of nature-based solutions for climate resilience in sub-Saharan Africa NBS projects globally (Browder et al. 2019; Marsters et al. 2021). Two barriers that must be addressed to help projects advance to the next stage of maturity in project preparation and secure financial investment are the following: the challenge of develop- ing a robust business case to quantify cost effectiveness and unlock public and private cash flows, and the lack of long-term funding mechanisms to pay for O&M and MEL to prove that projects can deliver on intended outcomes. Barrier: Business cases and revenue streams are not devel- oped for NBS. A sound business case clearly demonstrates the financial, social, and environmental benefits of a project that meet a funder’s or investor’s objectives, such as revenue gener- ation, cost savings, reputational benefits, increased community resilience, or enhanced delivery of infrastructure services. NBS Eldoret-Iten Water Fund, Kenya. Photo by Roshni Lodhia/ are often cost-effective compared with their alternatives, and The Nature Conservancy. the business case should make this clear. The interviewees noted difficulties in creating a compelling business case for NBS due to the correlated barriers of limited scientific data and access to technical expertise. Additionally, while the business the up-front costs of design, planning, and implementation; pay case can be theoretically sound, there is a need for new financ- for ongoing O&M and MEL costs; or, if debt finance is utilized, ing and investment models to translate this potential into repay investors. Unlike gray infrastructure, the up-front capital actual revenue streams. expenditures (CAPEX) for NBS projects is often relatively small, making them less attractive to institutional investors Strategy: Business cases should be developed in partnership unless bundled with other projects. For MDBs, standalone NBS with potential payers and beneficiaries, such as governments, projects are typically too small or CAPEX is not large enough, businesses, water and energy utilities, and development banks. resulting in financing being channeled through intermediated This ensures projects are designed to deliver returns specific mechanisms or as part of larger infrastructure projects. Coun- to the willing payer. For example, an NBS project designed to terpart funders, like national governments, typically cover the deliver cost-effective improvements in water quality can unlock operating expenditures for these large-scale projects, suggest- funding from water utilities by adopting their water quality tar- ing that NBS projects need more explicit budget allocations for gets as the project’s own. Designing projects to deliver specific upkeep and maintenance. outcomes or co-benefits can help unlock longer-term public and private funds. Conducting natural capital assessments Strategy: There are several tactics to increase funding sources and cost-benefit analyses can help demonstrate the economic that can help sustain projects throughout their life cycles, and value of nature and investment trade-offs for investing in they should be established from the onset of project planning NBS, respectively. and preparation. These include creating a governance vehicle or financing vehicle such as a conservation trust fund or water Example: The Greater Cape Town Water Fund (GCTWF) fund that can pool multiple sources of capital, enabling projects emerged from a coordinated effort involving government to access more diverse funding sources and smooth funding entities, businesses, utilities, and international development gaps. Other strategies include investing up-front capital in partners who sought to address Cape Town’s severe water crisis endowments; employing payment for ecosystem services (PES) from 2015 to 2018 (Holden et al. 2022). By uniting the interests schemes where the project generates revenue based on the of these diverse stakeholders, GCTWF presented a compelling value of the ecosystem service provided; or securing dedicated case for investing in watershed restoration and invasive species fees, tariffs, or taxes that can contribute annual appropriations removal as cost-effective solutions to improve water availabil- for O&M and MEL. ity. The fund projected that a $25.5 million investment in NBS, such as removing invasive species, would generate over 55 Example: The World Bank’s Disaster Risk Management and billion liters of water annually within six years, whereas gray Urban Development Project in Niger highlights the conse- infrastructure solutions, including reservoirs and desalination, quences of inadequate guidelines and safeguards for long-term would cost $540 million and deliver 127–146 billion liters in funding and maintenance (Soto and Lorillou 2022). Launched nine years (Stafford et al. 2019). This cost-benefit approach in 2013 to expand and restore urban green spaces for flood and successfully attracted investment from development banks and heat mitigation, the project lacked clear responsibilities for private partners, which saw a lower financial risk and a promis- maintaining and monitoring these areas (Pers. Comm. 2022f). ing water security initiative. In 2019, the City of Cape Town, the Project funders anticipated community-led maintenance, while largest beneficiary, pledged $4.3 million to match private and the community assumed that project implementers would philanthropic funding, supporting restoration across 23,700 provide long-term support. This misalignment led to reduced hectares and creating 570 green jobs (Benn 2022). vegetation coverage and diminished benefits. In the project’s second phase, the municipality was required to allocate an Barrier: Funding covers implementation and not lon- annual budget, resources, and capacity for green space upkeep ger-term NBS maintenance and monitoring. NBS projects and monitoring (Soto and Lorillou 2022), thus course correct- need consistent, transparent, and certain cash flows to pay for ing its previous mistake. Challenges to and strategies for advancing NBS in SSA  | 49 GEF Blue Forest Project, Gazi Bay, Kenya. Photo by Rob Barnes/GRID-Arendal. Funding and financing strategies for scaling up NBS investments Nature-based solutions face a substantial funding and financ- ing gap that must be addressed to achieve meaningful scale. This section examines opportunities to leverage diverse finan- cial instruments, including green bonds, dedicated taxes, and debt-for-nature swaps, alongside market-based mechanisms like PES and carbon credits. Achieving scalable financing will require strengthened enabling conditions, such as robust pol- icy support; transparent management systems; and enhanced collaboration among governments, private investors, and multilat- eral organizations. Investments in NBS are critical for addressing the impacts of climate change, ecosystem degradation, and urbanization challenges in the region. However, current funding flows fall short. In 2021–22, climate finance covered only 23 percent of the estimated annual funding that African countries need to achieve their NDCs and fulfill 2030 climate goals (CPI 2024). This funding gap is particularly pressing in SSA, where scaling up NBS is essential to sustain biodiversity, achieve SDGs, and effectively manage climate impacts​ . Although the economic and societal benefits of NBS—such as job creation, enhanced food security, and strengthened public health—are widely recognized, as demonstrated by their prominence in the project database, they remain challenging to quantify and convert into financial revenue streams in SSA (Pettinotti and Quevedo 2023). Project developers are increas- ingly tapping into different methods to compare and quantify the benefits of NBS, including through cost-benefit analysis, which often favors NBS against traditional gray infrastructure, to make the case to invest in NBS (van Zanten et al. 2023). The database showed that most projects rely on grant funding either alone or in combination with other instruments, with multilateral organizations often serving as primary funders. Grants and government contributions are the backbone of NBS funding, typically paying for initial project costs, like design and planning, to advance projects toward bankability. However, these sources alone cannot bridge the funding gaps. There are emerging opportunities to diversify funding sources “Railway Town”, Madagascar. Photo by Rod Waddington. and leverage a range of financial instruments for NBS in SSA. These include dedicated taxes, certified green bonds, debt- for-nature swaps or climate conversions, and payments for ecosystem services. Though applied with varying frequency, such as Rwanda’s FONERWA (see section “Challenges to and these instruments are already in use by regional actors (Figure strategies for advancing NBS in SSA”) or Benin’s National Fund 18), whose expertise can be leveraged to structure and support for the Environment and Climate, which is described below. NBS projects. These instruments can be combined to maximize Example: Benin’s National Fund for the Environment and their effectiveness. This section examines eight sub-instru- Climate (Fonds National pour l’Environnement et le Climat; ments that can be replicated and scaled, broaden capital FNEC) is funded through a tax on the use of fossil fuels and access, and diversify funding sources for NBS projects (Table 3). greenhouse gas emissions (Pers. Comm. 2023). These dedicated contributions provide a reliable source of matching funds, Fiscal and regulatory helping to attract additional international and accredited instruments climate financing, such as from the GCF, which the FNEC has utilized to co-finance adaptation and mitigation projects that align with Benin’s NDCs and NAP. One $10 million GCF project Fiscal and regulatory instruments, such as taxes, fees, and required 10 percent co-financing from the FNEC and focused subsidies, can provide essential up-front and O&M funding on climate resilience initiatives for rural farmers in northern for NBS in SSA. These domestic capital sources are particu- Benin by building technical capacity and promoting sustain- larly valuable for meeting national climate, biodiversity, and able agricultural practices (Pers. Comm. 2023; GCF 2019). disaster risk reduction targets, as they operate independently The FNEC also funded green-gray interventions in the Ouémé of international donors and can be used to secure matching River Basin to mitigate flood risks and improve agricultural contributions. productivity (World Bank 2022c). Currently, Benin is exploring the establishment of a carbon market to meet its NDC commit- Dedicated taxes, fees, ments and generate additional revenue for environmental and or fiscal policies social projects (Pers. Comm. 2023). Description: Public sources like fees, tariffs, or taxes can serve Opportunity for replication: FNEC’s example illustrates how as anchor funding for NBS projects, especially for ongoing oper- taxes can be used to finance NBS projects at different scales. ations and maintenance (Browder et al. 2019; Marsters et al. To be successful, countries will need to identify consistent 2021). Across the region, several national climate funds rely on sources of revenue and garner strong government support and annual appropriations ( funds allocated by a legislative body), policy backing. Funding and financing strategies for scaling up NBS investments  | 51 Figure 18 | Overview of funders and financial instruments for NBS in SSA Type of funder Funder Instrument Sub-instrument Public Grants Non-repayment Government Direct contributions instruments Fiscal and regulatory Multilateral donor Taxes, fees, subsidies instruments Market and Bilateral donor consessional loans Debt financing MDB Blue and green bonds instruments National finance Debt-for-nature or institution climate conversations Infrastructure operator Market-based Payment for (utility) instruments ecosystem services NGO Carbon credits Risk sharing Corporate actor Guarantees instruments Commercial bank Insurance Institutional investor Equity Private equity Private Venture capital Notes: This table integrates database findings and climate finance literature and does not represent an exhaustive list of the funders or financial instruments in use in the region. Public funders include multilateral development banks (MDBs), multilateral and bilateral donors (e.g., Global Environment Facility), gov- ernments (national or subnational), and national finance institutions (e.g., national development banks or national climate funds). Private funders range from corporate actors (such as a beverage company operating in a local watershed), nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) (e.g., conservation trust funds and corporate foundations), commercial banks, and institutional investors. Infrastructure operators (utilities) may operate as either public or private entities. While both government sources, direct contributions refer to general revenue from national budgets, and taxes, fees, and subsidies refer to the direct mechanism used to generate funding. Sub-instruments marked by a gray box are covered in depth in this section and those with an orange outline indicate that they were used by projects analyzed in this report. Guarantees are used in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) but have not yet been used for nature-based solutions (NBS). Source: Authors. 52 |  Growing resilience: Unlocking the potential of nature-based solutions for climate resilience in sub-Saharan Africa Table 3 | Funding and financing instruments to increase capital for NBS in SSA INSTRUMENT AND SUB- DESCRIPTION EXAMPLE(S) OPPORTUNITY FOR DEFINITION INSTRUMENT(S) REPLICATION Fiscal and regulatory Dedicated taxes, Government-imposed finan- Benin’s National Fund Countries with instruments fees, or fiscal cial mechanisms specifically for Environment and strong governance Use taxation, subsidies, and policies designed to raise funds for Climate structures public spending to influence environmental stewardship economic behavior, raise and conservation efforts revenue, or provide finan- cial incentives to promote desired actions and policy outcomes Debt-financing instruments Market and con- Borrowing money up front The Restoration Countries that lack Raise substantial capital up cessional loans with repayment terms and of Lake Guiers in up-front capital but front by borrowing against interest Senegal have high credit future revenue streams or ratings specific project outcomes Certified green, Bonds (private capital) for Benin’s Countries that lack blue, forest, projects that are earmarked sustainability bond up-front capital but biodiversity, and for climate-focused or envi- have high credit sustainability ronmental benefits ratings bonds Debt-for-nature or Financial arrangements Seychelles’ debt-for- Countries with high climate conversion where a portion of a nation’s nature swap debt and in need foreign debt is forgiven in of conservation or exchange for commitments climate-resilient to environmental or cli- industries mate-related projects Market-based instruments Payments for eco- Market-based approach Upper Tana-Nairobi Countries with strong Leverage economic incen- system services whereby beneficiaries of Water Fund institutional frame- tives and market signals by ecosystem services com- works and community assigning monetary value to pensate those who manage interest goods and services, encour- these services sustainably aging behavior change (excludes carbon finance) through financial benefits Carbon credits Market-based approach Kenya’s Mikoko Countries with or costs by market assign- whereby reductions in Pamoja project strong institutional ing monetary values to the carbon dioxide or other frameworks; forest, benefits nature provides to Rabobank’s Acorn greenhouse gas emissions trading platform agricultural, and humans are achieved through proj- reforestation projects; ects such as reforestation, and community and are then sold as credits interest to individuals, companies, or governments to offset their own emissions Risk-sharing instruments Guarantees Financial instruments that The Swedish Interna- Countries with lower Reduce financial exposure provide a backstop or assur- tional Development credit ratings or of lenders or borrowers by ance to lenders, reducing the Cooperation Agen- projects with higher lowering the perceived risks risk associated with investing cy’s guarantee perceived risk in environmentally focused projects Insurance Financial products designed R4 Rural Resilience Countries with to transfer and manage the Initiative high climate risk, risks associated with imple- supportive pol- menting and maintaining icy environments, NBS, providing coverage for and community potential losses due to oper- engagement ational challenges, thereby ensuring financial stability and sustainability for these projects Note: NBS = nature-based solutions. SSA = sub-Saharan Africa. Source: Authors. Funding and financing strategies for scaling up NBS investments  | 53 Debt-financing instruments Debt-financing instruments, such as bonds, loans, and debt- dent on the lake for drinking, irrigation, and livelihoods. The for-nature swaps or climate conversions, can be used to fund Project to Restore the Ecological and Economic Functions of NBS projects. These instruments allow governments and Lake Guiers was co-financed with a $1 million grant from the organizations to raise substantial capital up front by borrowing GEF and a $3.8 million contribution from the government of against future revenue streams or specific project outcomes. Senegal. The financing enabled the rehabilitation of existing While debt-financing instruments can provide critical capital canals and the construction of new channels and reservoirs, for projects that might not otherwise have access, they can also increasing the lake’s flow capacity from 1.2 billion to 2.1 billion increase debt burdens and limit future borrowing capacity. cubic meters per year. This expansion improved water retention and distribution for irrigation, drinking water supply, and eco- Market and concessional loans system support. Community members noted that the project greatly increased drinking water availability in Dakar and other Description: Loans can provide countries in SSA with major Senegalese cities (AfDB 2020b). By project completion significant up-front capital to get large-scale projects—like in 2019, AfDB had contributed 98.5 percent of its pledged loan infrastructure—off the ground and spread repayments over (GEF IEO 2023). time, making it easier to manage large budgets and align costs with future income or benefits from the project. Concessional Opportunity for replication: Loans are likely to continue to loans often offer lower interest rates and longer repayment be a steady source of capital for infrastructure and large-scale periods compared with market-based loans, making them more green projects, offering avenues to scale up NBS in future accessible to countries with limited financial resources. Typical financing packages. The participation of reputable lenders, like repayment sources for government loans include general reve- MDBs, can attract additional co-financing from other lenders or nue in national budgets. support a blend of grants, loans, and government contributions. Over half of the 297 projects relied on loans or a combination Example: The AfDB provided a $14.8 million concessional of loans and grants, primarily funded by multilateral organiza- loan to restore Lake Guiers in Senegal, aiming to enhance both tions, demonstrating the current regional application of loans. ecological (water flow and quality through wetland restoration) Blending loans with grants could help attract new investors to and economic (support for agriculture, fisheries, and job NBS projects by reducing overall project risk. creation) functions to benefit over four million people depen- Scaling Urban Nature-based Solutions for Climate Adaptation in Sub-Saharan Africa, Johannesburg, South Africa. Photo by Jenna Echakowitz. 54 |  Growing resilience: Unlocking the potential of nature-based solutions for climate resilience in sub-Saharan Africa Certified green, blue, Debt swaps or conversions and sustainability bonds Description: Debt-for-nature/climate conversions offer Description: A promising approach to finance NBS in SSA another innovative approach to allocate more capital to NBS involves issuing certified green, blue, or sustainability bonds. projects. These conversions, with a sovereign guarantee, enable These bonds function like traditional bonds by sourcing capital interested buyers—like international finance institutions—to from private markets and have a mandate to allocate funds to purchase a country’s existing debt at more favorable terms. quantifiable and measurable climate-focused or environmental By refinancing the debt at a lower interest rate, the debtor objectives, such as biodiversity conservation or restoration. country can realize savings, which are then directed toward Green bonds are directed toward low-carbon initiatives, climate resilience, conservation, and/or other nature-related blue bonds finance marine-related efforts, and sustainability activities (Chamon et al. 2022). This approach benefits both the bonds combine both environmental and social outcomes. This debtor country, which reduces its debt servicing costs, and the method of financing allows countries to efficiently raise capital environment, as it provides a sustainable funding source for for green and green-gray projects that address environmental climate and nature initiatives. It leverages the structure of debt and/or socioeconomic challenges. refinancing to free up resources without requiring new loans, making it an appealing strategy for countries facing high debt Example: In 2021, the government of Benin, in partnership burdens and pressing climate and environmental needs. with the investment bank Natixis and the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network, issued a 12.5-year, €500 mil- Example: In 2015, the Republic of Seychelles restructured lion ($560 million) sustainability bond at a low interest rate for $21.6 million of its sovereign debt through a debt-for-nature the region (5.25 percent) and a 0.20 percent negative new issue swap with Paris Club creditors (Belgium, France, Italy, and the premium, indicating high investor interest (Caumes and Merle United Kingdom) (Convergence and TNC 2017), in partner- 2021; Pers. Comm. 2023). The bond proposed supporting NBS ship with The Nature Conservancy’s (TNC’s) NatureVest and interventions, including sustainable forest management, agro- the newly established Seychelles Conservation and Climate forestry and sustainable agriculture, urban green spaces and Adaptation Trust (SeyCCAT). TNC facilitated the purchase of stormwater management, mangrove and wetland restoration, the debt by combining $5 million in grants with $15.2 million in and capacity building and research in environmental sustain- loans, complemented by $1.4 million in debt forgiveness from ability (Caumes and Merle 2021; Pers. Comm. 2023). Benin’s creditors (Convergence and TNC 2017). The terms required the bond stands out from the debt-distress trends in SSA due to Seychelles to repay the loan at a 3 percent interest rate over 10 strong alignment with the SDGs, government backing, and years toward conservation efforts, including annual contri- effective market positioning, including participation in a joint butions of $280,000 to marine- and climate-related projects International Monetary Fund–United Nations pilot program and $150,000 to the SeyCCAT endowment, which would help on SDG financing, which helped boost investor confidence sustain future conservation activities in the Seychelles beyond and appeal to environmental, social, and governance–focused the life of the loan (Convergence and TNC 2017). This blend of investors (Sustainabonds 2021)​ . public and private financing reduced risk via partial guaran- tees, and leveraged public debts, while enhancing local tourism Opportunity for replication: Certified green, blue, and and economic activities through marine conservation, includ- sustainable bonds are best poised for large-scale projects, as ing expanding marine reserves to 30 percent (Convergence smaller projects face barriers in covering the higher costs and and TNC 2017). risk premiums associated with bond issuance unless pooled with other projects. Investment-ready projects already included Opportunities for replication: Debt relief instruments offer in national government budgets are particularly well-posi- strong potential in SSA, where aligning debt forgiveness to cli- tioned for bond financing given that national governments mate goals could ease debt burdens tied to multilateral donors are the traditional bond issuers in SSA, with limited access for (Chamon et al. 2022). Debt-for-nature conversions can help subnational actors. Governments can leverage their NDCs, finance green and green-gray projects or bundle smaller green NBSAPs, NAPs, and SDGs to align policy priorities with bond projects into a larger package to maximize impact. However, proceeds, focusing on eligible and investable NBS projects. This these mechanisms must be carefully structured and transpar- supportive framework can be achieved through legal, finan- ently managed to avoid negative impacts on credit ratings and cial, and institutional reforms. Transparency in how funds are future borrowing costs. Countries with strong public-private used and the outcomes they achieve, combined with strategic partnerships can replicate Seychelles’ model by creating auton- marketing, is key to attracting local and international investors. omous entities like SeyCATT, which attracted private capital Countries with higher credit ratings are generally more success- and ensured proper fund management (Booth and Brooks 2023; ful in securing investments at favorable rates, and MDBs can Pouponneau 2021). Capacity building and engagement at the lend credibility and structuring support. local level are critical for communities to access and benefit from these funds sustainably. The debt-for-nature model is particularly useful for countries aiming to reduce debt distress, while protecting significant biodiversity areas (IISD 2022). Funding and financing strategies for scaling up NBS investments  | 55 Market-based instruments Market-based instruments can be used to incentivize land Example: The Upper Tana-Nairobi Water Fund (UTNWF) managers or users to implement and maintain NBS. By assign- was established in 2014 to address deteriorating water quality ing monetary value to the ecosystem services nature provides, and quantity in the Tana River, which supplies 95 percent of these tools leverage market forces to attract private sector Nairobi’s freshwater supply and 40 percent of Kenya’s hydro- involvement and/or generate revenue that can be reinvested power (TNC 2021b). The initiative secured over $7 million by into NBS initiatives. 2015, engaged more than 51,000 farmers in the upper water- shed, and provided training on land management practices, Payments for ecosystem services leading to a 16 percent improvement in water quality and a 10 percent increase in water availability (TNC 2021b). Identi- Description: PES compensate landholders for adopting fied benefits for municipal water suppliers and hydropower practices that provide or safeguard ecosystem services. They producers included increased water yield, which led to fewer can be used by governments, corporations, water and energy interruptions and an increase in electricity generation, as well utilities, agricultural enterprises, or irrigation users, among as lowered sediment concentrations to avoid backwashing and others, to pay upstream landholders for projects that improve use of flocculants. It is estimated that the fund would increase water quality and enhance reliable water supply downstream annual revenue for the Kenya Electricity Generating Company (Salzman et al. 2018; Ezzine-de-Blas et al. 2016). PES are widely by $600,000, that it would save the Nairobi City Water and Sew- used internationally; however, their adoption in SSA remains erage Company about $250,000 per year (TNC 2015), and that relatively sparse. While the database did not reveal any suc- the $10 million investment in interventions would return $21.5 cessful projects that relied on PES schemes as the main funding million in economic benefits over 30 years. Post-business case, source, project developers in SSA expressed interest in develop- the UTNWF board successfully promoted and gathered over ing these models to support O&M costs for established NBS as $1.35 million in seed capital for a Water Fund endowment. This part of watershed restoration initiatives above hydropower and project has helped transition from investments in gray infra- drinking water facilities. Upper-Tana Nairobi Water Fund, Kenya. Photo by Michael North/The Nature Conservancy. 56 |  Growing resilience: Unlocking the potential of nature-based solutions for climate resilience in sub-Saharan Africa structure alone—like water treatment plants and reservoirs—to hectares) and is monitored for 20 years using digital platforms green-gray projects that protect water sources upstream (TNC (Rabobank 2023; Pers. Comm. 2022h; Rabobank 2021). In 2021b; IWA n.d.). parallel, Rabobank created the Cooperative Carbon Fund, a €100–€250 million ($103–$260 million) fund with an 8-to-10- Opportunities for replication: PES schemes have the poten- year horizon and 8 percent target return. This fund provides tial to be applied effectively to both large- and small-scale up-front grants or loans to smallholder farms that are repaid green and green-gray projects in SSA. Notable examples in through future CRU sales. Rabobank collaborates with coopera- the region include water funds that protect and restore water tives to help farmers adopt sustainable practices and aggregate sources by connecting upstream landholders with payments farms to achieve the preferred transaction scale to sell CRUs on from downstream beneficiaries of the improved water quality Acorn (Rabobank 2023; Pers. Comm. 2022h). or flood reduction. Other options include biodiversity con- servation programs and sustainable agriculture initiatives. For successful PES implementation in SSA, it is crucial to identify and incentivize beneficiaries of NBS projects to pay for the ecosystem services they receive, either through policy Box 9 | Considerations for carbon credits measures or compelling cost-benefit analysis. Hydropower operators, irrigation districts, and water utilities are prime Africa saw an 11 percent increase in demand for candidates for water fund models. By investing in NBS, these its carbon credits from 2021 to 2023, while global demand stagnated.a However, this growth in credit entities can lower infrastructure service costs related to climate sales was accompanied by technical and ethical impacts and unsustainable practices, generate revenue through concerns regarding the implementation and impact enhanced service delivery, and improve long-term climate and of projects. Carbon project developers rely on scale water security. (i.e., area of land) to be cost-effective and cover the high transaction costs of taking carbon inventories, Carbon credits improved management plans (i.e., longer rotations, no till, or combining trees into crop rows), and third- Description: The growing demand for high-quality carbon party monitoring. The minimal viable project size is credits presents new funding opportunities for NBS projects in estimated to be over 2,000 hectares, representing an SSA. Unlike PES, carbon credits specifically fund projects that aggregation challenge for carbon project develop- reduce or sequester carbon, with one credit equivalent to one ers in SSA, as most farms are less than 20 hectares.b ton of carbon dioxide reduced, sequestered, or offset. By incor- In addition, these landscape-scale transactions are often mired in regulatory barriers, land tenure porating carbon credit sales into NBS business models, project uncertainty, and community conflicts.c If not carefully developers can enhance financial credibility and generate managed, IPLCs may be excluded from benefiting cash flows, particularly for forest- and agriculture-related NBS financially from carbon credits generated on their projects. SSA, with its vast savannas, forests, and agricultural land, raising equity, consent, and fair compensation landscapes, holds significant potential for these nature-based issues, which could also generate conflict.d This high- carbon projects. The region is one of the fastest-growing lights the need for clear frameworks for ownership markets for voluntary carbon credits, attracting interest from and benefit-sharing. investors and corporations (Pers. Comm. 2022k; Pers. Comm. Concerns also remain regarding additionality, 2022b; Filmanovic and Hunt 2023). Governments are also keen greenwashing, and credit stacking.e Credit stacking— to develop domestic markets. At COP27 in November 2022, the when multiple ecosystem services, such as carbon Africa Carbon Markets Initiative was launched, aiming to scale sequestration and biodiversity, are credited from the voluntary carbon credits to 300 million by 2030, potentially same project—raises the risks of double-counting generating over $6 billion in revenue (Owen-Burge 2023). None- and inflated environmental claims. To mitigate these theless, carbon markets are still relatively new and volatile, with risks, both the quality of carbon credits (supply) and the global voluntary carbon market experiencing a significant the buyer of these credits (demand) matter greatly. dip in 2023 due to growing criticism, particularly regarding the For buyers, carbon credits should be considered effectiveness of nature-based offsets (see Box 9). as a tool to meet net-zero commitments only after making all possible efforts to reduce emissions.f For Example: Rabobank developed Acorn, a trading platform project developers, there should be a robust and that allows companies and consumers to purchase carbon transparent verification methodology to ensure claims removal units (CRUs) directly from small-shareholder farmers, are legitimate.g bypassing intermediaries and returning 80 percent of revenue Notes: a CPI 2024. b Jayne et al. 2022; Lowder et al. 2021. c to farmers (Rabobank 2023; Pers. Comm. 2022h). This model Pers. Comm. 2022l; Pers. Comm. 2022g. d Pérez-Cirera et al. supports sustainable agriculture practices on small farms by 2021. e Elgin et al. 2023. f Elliott et al. forthcoming. g Elgin et providing up-front funding and ensuring rigorous monitor- al. 2023. ing and verification of carbon sequestration (Rabobank 2023; Pers. Comm. 2022h). To be eligible, buyers must demonstrate operational emission reduction efforts through science-based targets, written strategies, or proven greenhouse gas reductions (Rabobank 2023). To ensure legitimacy, each CRU represents a verifiable carbon biomass on small farms (less than 10 Funding and financing strategies for scaling up NBS investments  | 57 Opportunities for replication: If appropriately designed and Opportunities for replication: Guarantees can enhance the sold, carbon credits can be a sustainable income generator for attractiveness of NBS projects by mitigating risks and improv- NBS projects, providing long-term cash flows for operations, ing their risk-return profiles, thereby mobilizing private sector maintenance, and monitoring. They can also cover various participation and capital (Meattle et al. 2022; FSD Africa 2022; aspects of land and resource management, from grazing Barry and Adoh 2021). Several development agencies, including practices and mangrove conservation to sustainable agricul- the African Guarantee Fund, the Multilateral Investment Guar- ture. Well-designed projects prioritize community engagement antee Agency managed by the World Bank Group, and SIDA, and benefit-sharing, ensuring that the economic outcomes of are equipped to issue guarantees in the region. In developing carbon credit sales directly benefit the local communities and countries, guarantees could have a multiplier effect two to four farmers involved. Carbon credits can be valuable for both large- times higher than direct cash or equity inflows (Hourcade et and small-scale green projects. For large-scale projects, such as al. 2021), making them an important tool for banks to de-risk reforestation or mangrove restoration, NGOs and carbon devel- investments in cash-limited environments. The key will be opers can support the aggregation of multiple land parcels to identifying investment-ready NBS projects that can attract meet the minimum viable project size, making it cost-effective private investment with a guarantee. Countries with a support- to cover transaction costs and ensuring robust carbon inven- ive environment for private investment, strong governance, and tory and management plans. For small-scale projects, platforms sufficient technical capacity should explore the application of like Rabobank’s Acorn enable direct trading of carbon removal this instrument for NBS. units with smallholder farmers. Insurance Risk-sharing instruments Description: Insurance policies provide financial compen- sation for losses due to damages or risks, such as natural Risk-sharing, or risk-mitigation, instruments, such as guaran- disasters. While these policies mitigate financial impacts, NBS tees and insurance, can help manage financial and operational can help reduce physical damage. For example, insurance cov- uncertainties, lowering the perceived risks of investment in ers financial payouts, but NBS like reforestation and wetland projects for public funders and private investors. restoration for flood mitigation can reduce infrastructure dam- age, ultimately lowering the frequency and cost of claims. This Guarantees creates a positive cycle for both insurers and policyholders. Description: Guarantees are used to reduce risk for investors Example: Launched in 2011 by the World Food Programme and lenders by promising compensation for losses if specific and Oxfam America, the R4 Rural Resilience Initiative is a criteria or performance benchmarks outlined in the guarantee comprehensive risk management program to increase the agreement are not achieved (e.g., environmental benefits or resilience of rural households through risk reduction, risk financial returns). Typically, a project developer or borrower transfer, prudent risk-taking, and risk reserves (WFP 2021). seeks a guarantee from a government entity or financial institu- Initially focused on drought resilience, R4 has expanded to tion (guarantor), who will assess the project’s risk and set terms address a broader range of climate risks for vulnerable rural accordingly. Once the guarantee is issued, it provides a safety communities. The innovation behind R4 lies in its ability to net for lenders or investors, making it easier for the project to provide microinsurance policies to cash-poor farmers, who secure financing. Guarantees have been used in SSA for many can work off their insurance premiums by contributing labor infrastructure and clean energy projects, but their application to community-identified NBS projects, like large-scale irriga- for NBS has yet to be realized. There is great potential for them tion systems, improved soil management activities, or flood to enhance the attractiveness of NBS projects. diversion canals to capture runoff. The initiative uses weather index microinsurance whereby extreme weather events, such Example: The Swedish International Development Cooper- as rainfall or drought, trigger rapid payouts (typically within 60 ation Agency (SIDA) leverages Sweden’s AAA credit rating to days) to farmers (Chassin 2024). This approach aligns farm- offer guarantees to facilitate public-private sector lending ers’ and insurers’ interests in building resilient infrastructure, aligned with its sustainable development goals (SIDA 2022). increasing household financial security, and promoting NBS as These guarantees act as insurance for lenders, covering a significant contributors to enhanced livelihoods and economic portion of losses if borrowers default, which reduces the per- opportunities. ceived risk and promotes private investment. Applicants must demonstrate that private sector lenders would not participate Opportunity for replication: The R4 pilot, originally imple- without the guarantee, which can increase transaction costs mented in Ethiopia, has been successfully replicated in Senegal, due to additional diligence and approval processes (SIDA 2022; Kenya, Burkina Faso, Malawi, Zambia, and Zimbabwe, show- Pers. Comm. 2022i). A risk assessment is performed by Sweden’s casing its scalability and effectiveness in building resilience National Debt Office, evaluating the political or credit risk of across diverse contexts (WFP 2021). Its potential for broader the project and assigning an expected loss value, which trans- application in drought-prone areas is significant, particularly lates to a fee charged to the guarantee recipient (SIDA 2022; where agriculture is vital to the economy and rural livelihoods. Pers. Comm. 2022i). While the guarantee has supported a wide By integrating tailored relief and risk reduction strategies array of energy and financial projects, the instrument has not such as microinsurance with improved water management yet been utilized for NBS (Pers. Comm. 2022i). and drought-resistant crops, communities can enhance their resilience to agricultural drought and safeguard food secu- 58 |  Growing resilience: Unlocking the potential of nature-based solutions for climate resilience in sub-Saharan Africa NBS, including run-off harvesting measures, installed along three kilometers of road for the "Drain to Gain Project", Kenya. Photo by MetaMeta. rity, livelihoods, and socioeconomic stability. Engaging local To garner the interest of commercial and institutional communities and farmers in these initiatives ensures active investors, NBS projects will need more than just proof of participation and benefit-sharing, enhancing their buy-in environmental or economic benefits; NBS projects must clearly and commitment. show how they will generate consistent cash flow and returns, ensuring they meet the financial goals of both commercial There are a number of funding and financing instruments that and concessional investors. Leveraging existing expertise and can help NBS projects in SSA secure the capital needed to plan, successful initiatives in the region is key to strategically aligning design, implement, and maintain projects. Debt-financing project development with the most appropriate funding instru- options like green bonds and debt-for-nature swaps or climate ments to meet local needs. This approach can help countries conversions can provide significant up-front capital, while mar- in SSA scale up NBS investments, support biodiversity, and ket-based tools such as PES and carbon credits can generate manage climate impacts more effectively. long-term revenue for NBS projects. Public funders, such as MDBs and governments, play a key role by providing initial cap- ital and fostering favorable regulatory environments to attract additional public or private investments. Risk-mitigation tools, like guarantees and insurance, can reduce investment risks, making NBS more appealing to private investors. Funding and financing strategies for scaling up NBS investments  | 59 Scaling Urban Nature-based Solutions for Climate Adaptation in Sub-Saharan Africa (SUNCASA), Johannesburg, South Africa. Photo by Jenna Echakowitz. Recommendations to scale up NBS adoption NBS can be a powerful tool to help countries and communities in SSA enhance their environmental, economic, and social resil- ience as they face growing climate change impacts. They provide a potent strategy to protect the region’s biodiversity and natural resources, enhance the delivery of key infrastructure services like clean water and energy, and increase sustainable economic oppor- tunities for communities. Yet the current scope and scale of NBS projects in SSA are insufficient to address the region’s challenges, despite their significant potential. In this section, we propose six recommendations to increase the adoption of and scale up investment in NBS, while address- Recommendation 1 ing key barriers identified in the region (Table 4): Better integrate NBS into relevant 1. Better integrate NBS into relevant policies and plans across policies and plans across SSA SSA to institutionalize their role in addressing climate and Integrate NBS into relevant policies, such as laws, regu- development challenges. lations, and technical standards related to infrastructure 2. Improve NBS project preparation and NBS-specific techni- and climate resilience planning, to further enable their cal capacity to develop a project pipeline. implementation. Reforming existing climate and environ- mental policies can constitute a first step in integrating NBS 3. Enhance NBS project integrity and effectiveness by incor- in national and local policy frameworks. For instance, several porating gender equity and Indigenous and traditional countries in SSA already promote NBS for climate resilience knowledge, increasing NBS responsiveness to community in their climate and biodiversity contributions (NDCs and needs, and safeguarding biodiversity. NBSAPs), and NBS should be further integrated in national 4. Diversify funders and funding sources by applying conven- adaptation plans and policies. Updating NAPs to prioritize NBS tional and innovative financial mechanisms. could offer a low-cost approach to enhance climate adap- tation efforts while providing co-benefits such as improved 5. Apply country-level implementation strategies based on climate mitigation, biodiversity protection, and enhanced natural hazards, fragility, and climate impacts. human well-being. 6. Improve monitoring, evaluation, and learning to ensure projects deliver intended climate impacts and co-benefits. Table 4 | Barriers to NBS addressed through six recommendations BARRIERS RECOMMENDATIONS TO NBS 1. Integrate 2. Increase 3. Enhance 4. Diversify 5. Apply Invest in MEL 6.  NBS into technical project funders and country-level policies and capacity integrity and funding strategies plans effectiveness instruments Lack of policies x x x considering NBS Policy preference for gray infra- x x x x x structure Limited multisec- x x x toral collaboration Lack of institutional x x x x buy-in Limited technical x x capacity Insufficient scien- x x x tific data Lack of incentives for community x x x x support Social conflict and insecure land x x x tenure Underdeveloped x x x business case Lack of long-term x x x funding for NBS Notes: See Table 2 for barriers. NBS = nature-based solutions. MEL = monitoring, evaluation, and learning. Source: Authors. Recommendations to scale up NBS adoption   | 61 Mainstream NBS in sectoral policies and planning. To Lessons and best practices can be drawn from existing effectively enable NBS, policy reforms must go beyond the programs including the Global Program on Nature-Based Solu- traditional scope of environmental and climate policies. Poli- tions for Climate Resilience (GPNBS), under the World Bank cies in sectors such as water management, agriculture, urban Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery, and the planning, and infrastructure development need to embed Nature-Based Infrastructure Global Resource Centre. GPNBS NBS as a standard option and adopt an integrated approach. promotes and scales up the use of NBS globally through the For instance, infrastructure portfolios can consider natural sharing of knowledge, tools, and experiences related to design, floodplain management or coastal ecosystems as alternatives implementation, and monitoring. This can involve adopting to traditional gray infrastructure. This can be done through proven strategies, utilizing available resources and guidelines, master plans at the national or subnational level for urban and participating in capacity-building programs offered by development, coastal management, housing, transport, water, the GPNBS to build a robust pipeline of NBS projects (GFDRR and energy ( for an example, see Ghana’s Roadmap for Resilient n.d.b). The Nature-Based Infrastructure Global Resource Infrastructure in a Changing Climate, described in section “Chal- Centre offers a range of resources, including data, training, and lenges to and strategies for advancing NBS in SSA”). Countries sector-specific valuations, to support stakeholders in making can incorporate natural capital accounting (the process of informed decisions about infrastructure investments and quantifying and valuing natural resources like forests, water, integrating NBS into infrastructure planning and development and biodiversity) to help promote the integration of NBS. processes. Leveraging the insights, methodologies, and success- ful case studies from these programs can enhance preparation Update policy and regulatory frameworks to remove bar- and technical capacity for NBS projects (IISD 2021). riers and unlock funding for NBS. Existing regulations that inadvertently hinder the adoption of NBS should be reviewed and updated. For example, in water or agriculture policies, clear Recommendation 3 water allowances and pollution control mechanisms need to be integrated to prevent overexploitation and ecosystem degra- Enhance NBS project integrity and dation. Building codes and land-use regulations should allow the use of blue-green solutions, while limiting construction in effectiveness by incorporating vulnerable zones like floodplains and coastlines. Additionally, gender equity and Indigenous and policy reforms and incentives can drive financing for NBS proj- traditional knowledge, increasing ects, as demonstrated by Rwanda’s Green Growth and Climate Resilience Strategy, which secured a portion of the national NBS responsiveness to community budget for NBS initiatives (RoR 2022). These targeted policy needs, and safeguarding biodiversity actions can serve as a model for other SSA countries to embed NBS projects can help address gender equity gaps through NBS into national development agendas. practical actions. Sixty-eight percent of projects in the data- base—including 98 percent of the projects from the World Bank Recommendation 2 and AfDB from 2022 to 2023—explicitly mentioned gender equity in their design or implementation. This is a positive Improve NBS project preparation development, which should be reflected in non-MDB projects and the practical implementation of NBS. For this, projects and NBS-specific technical capacity should discuss how women and girls are affected by NBS to develop a project pipeline project design (e.g., including street lighting in green parks for safety), and how capacity building activities can ensure gen- Enhancing early-stage project preparation with targeted der-balanced participation in training and income-generating technical support could significantly improve the bankability opportunities (World Bank 2023). In projects where land tenure and success of NBS projects, especially in low-capacity and is under discussion, project developers should make sure that FCV environments. Project developers require specialized there is equal tenure access irrespective of gender. assistance at this critical phase, where decisions on project objectives and feasibility are made. Preparation facilities and NBS projects can greatly benefit from integrating the accelerators can be instrumental in delivering this support, insights of Indigenous Peoples and local communities, who helping developers build a strong business case for NBS over possess valuable, intergenerational knowledge shaped by traditional infrastructure by demonstrating the comparative centuries of direct interaction with their environments. benefits and cost-effectiveness of NBS solutions (van Zanten Involving IPLCs early and throughout project development et al. 2023). Developers also need analytical tools and skills fosters shared ownership and responsibility while ensuring that in community engagement to adapt projects to the specific local expertise is harnessed for project success; however, this ecological, geographic, and socioeconomic conditions of each was done in only 13 percent of the projects in the database. To setting, addressing unique climate threats. Increased integra- achieve this, well-defined governance mechanisms are essen- tion of gender equity and IPLCs can lead to more successful tial, allowing for meaningful participation, dispute resolution, and enduring outcomes (World Bank 2023). Project developers and responsiveness to the unique challenges and aspirations should also identify weaknesses and barriers in the typical NBS of these communities. Particular attention should be given to project cycle and help projects advance their planning, design, land tenure and risk of loss of rights in areas where projects implementation, and monitoring to improve project readiness are being considered (Pérez-Cirera et al. 2021; Browder et al. for finance (see Box 10). 2019). A culturally sensitive and collaborative approach with 62 |  Growing resilience: Unlocking the potential of nature-based solutions for climate resilience in sub-Saharan Africa Box 10 | The NBS project cycle Step 1: Awareness building and upstream engagement. Engage early and often with government officials and local residents to introduce and showcase NBS climate resilience and co-benefits, such as disaster risk mitigation, cost savings, job cre- ation, and improved livelihoods, among others. Upstream engagement is stakeholder engagement conducted before project identification and planning and is crucial for fostering buy-in and support for NBS adoption. Organize introductory regional or sector-specific training sessions and use case studies to demonstrate the tangible economic and social benefits of success- ful NBS projects. Step 2: Identification and planning. Map existing natural infrastructure assets and biodiversity hot spots for protection, con- servation, or restoration initiatives, safeguarding current ecosystem services. Conduct comprehensive risk and natural capital assessments tailored to SSA’s challenges to identify cost-effective climate resilience solutions that protect existing and planned infrastructure, economic development, biodiversity, and communities. Identify potential NBS locations using spatial and data analysis, incorporating climate, biodiversity, and water risks and engaging IPLCs for locally led solutions. Step 3: Design and implementation. Develop cost-benefit analysis or other valuation tools to integrate NBS with gray infrastructure. Engage key stakeholders, including IPLCs and other potentially vulnerable affected groups, in the design and implementation of NBS to identify trade-offs, discuss compromises and solutions, and enhance project benefits. Improve technical capacity to integrate NBS with traditional engineering through formal training, on-the-job learning, and sector-spe- cific guidelines. Identify indicators for long-term impacts, such as socioeconomic, biodiversity, climate, and water resilience indicators. Confirm and clarify roles, responsibilities, budgets, resources, and activity sequencing. Clearly define O&M respon- sibilities and MEL indicators during design and planning and confirm them during implementation. Step 4: Operations and maintenance. Dedicate funding and capacity to support maintenance and monitoring of projects. Incorporate adaptive management to improve project delivery and impact. Document and share lessons learned. Step 5: Monitoring, evaluation, and learning. Develop cost-effective, locally applicable MEL tools based on pre-identified indicators to establish baselines and measure NBS success over the short, medium, and long terms. Train project developers on geographic information system, spatial, and remote sensing tools to enhance measurement. grassroots organizations is necessary to design and implement NBS as these practices can negatively impact native species NBS projects that meet the specific social and cultural needs of and compromise ecosystem integrity. Effective NBS must align people in SSA. Without such integration, there is a risk of mal- with efforts to deliver both human well-being and biodiversity adaptation, where projects could harm livelihoods rather than benefits. To achieve this, projects need to adhere more strongly support them, making early inclusion of IPLC concerns crucial to biodiversity safeguards, directly respond to evidence-based for project success (World Bank 2023). assessments of the drivers of ecosystem loss, and avoid or miti- gate unintended harm (IUCN 2020). Active involvement of local communities ensures that projects are tailored to their specific needs and conditions, fostering a sense of ownership and responsibility and cre- Recommendation 4 ating socioeconomic benefits relevant to local needs. This can be achieved through participatory planning processes, reg- Diversify funders and funding ular consultations, and inclusive decision-making frameworks. sources by applying conventional Including participatory approaches in early stages of project development can help developers identify existing inequities and innovative financial mechanisms that can be addressed through inclusive NBS projects. This may To ensure long-term success and scalability, NBS projects require identifying groups at risk of exclusion from NBS project will need to explore sustainable financial strategies that go benefits, understanding the reason why these groups are being beyond international grants. As laid out in the report, NBS excluded, designing actions to address these gaps, and measur- are most often financed from public sources, with interna- ing the impact of proposed actions (World Bank 2023). tional concessional and grant financing forming an important NBS projects must result in net gains for biodiversity and part of financing streams. These forms of financing are critical ecosystem integrity to ensure long-term environmental for capacity building, technical assistance, and early-stage sustainability, enhance climate resilience, and meet global project development, helping to reduce financial risk and conservation and development goals. Fifty-seven percent of attract further investment. However, projects need a broader projects did not explicitly include biodiversity enhancement range of funders and funding instruments to reduce fiscal gaps or habitat protection as a co-benefit of projects despite the associated with the cyclical nature of grants, particularly for importance of ecosystem health to achieving climate resilience medium-to-long-term maintenance and operations and mon- outcomes. Projects that use nature to deliver climate out- itoring costs. Based on the analysis, this report recommends comes but introduce invasive species or plant monocultures the following: or displace natural ecosystems undermine the true goals of Recommendations to scale up NBS adoption   | 63 • Continue to tap into conventional funding streams for Recommendation 5 large-scale green and green-gray projects from infrastruc- ture funders, like MDBs and multilateral donors, using both Apply country-level implementation market-rate and concessional loans, when fiscally appropri- ate. This will require additional facilitation to access bank strategies based on natural hazards, loans and local revenue sources for repayment. Continue to fragility, and climate impacts integrate green elements into relevant infrastructure sector Countries in SSA should establish national priorities for portfolios (e.g., water and sanitation, housing and urban NBS investments that directly address climate change development, energy, and transportation). impacts and natural disaster risks specific to their regions. • Market the climate and biodiversity benefits of NBS Since these impacts vary widely across SSA, targeted NBS projects to unlock committed climate and biodiversity interventions can be more effective in areas of high climate finance through the issuance of green, blue, and sustainabil- risk, potentially yielding significant welfare gains by increas- ity bonds or debt-for-nature swaps or climate conversions. ing resilience. This approach involves not only restoring or These innovative financing mechanisms require clear creating green or green-gray infrastructure but also strate- articulation of a project’s intended climate, biodiversity, and gically protecting natural assets that play a critical role in social impacts, along with robust monitoring and reporting disaster prevention—such as green belts around urban areas, systems to ensure accountability. Fully aligning NBS projects forested catchments for flood regulation, and coastal dunes with national environmental and climate priorities enhances and beaches that buffer storm surge impacts. Prioritizing NBS their credibility and can help leverage international funds. investments at the country level should consider local climate Additionally, securing accreditation with international fund- risk exposure, relevant NBS options for the geographic context, ing bodies can provide access to larger funding pools and institutional capacity, FCV conditions, and financing opportu- enable co-financing opportunities. nities (see Table 5). • Increase domestic sources of funding for NBS through Urban areas, in particular, require increased invest- fees, taxes, and subsidies that can provide capital for project ment and targeted approaches to address infrastructure initiation, O&M, and ongoing monitoring, or serve as repay- demands and enhance resilience to hazards such as heat ment sources for debt finance. Use these dedicated sources stress, flooding, and green space loss. This report found that of capital to seed national climate funds, conservation trust urban NBS projects received limited funding. For instance, funds, or water funds for operations and endowments, allow- only two projects from 2012 to 2021 addressed urban heat ing them to pool multiple sources of capital, thus enabling mitigation, both of which were small scale. Addressing these projects to access more diverse funding sources and smooth challenges necessitates tailored approaches that consider the funding gaps. Capture the cost savings and additional eco- complex socioeconomic dynamics, spatial limitations, and nomic output of NBS to secure local contributions from NBS local governance structures unique to cities. Effective urban beneficiaries, such as infrastructure operators or bottling NBS must integrate natural systems into densely populated companies, through PES schemes. areas while addressing critical issues such as informal set- • Continue to develop the revenue-generating potential tlements and competing land uses to ensure equitable and sustainable outcomes. of NBS. The carbon market offers the most mature market for NBS projects to tap into, although biodiversity credits Supporting the implementation of NBS interventions in may soon become a more mainstream option as well. The FCV countries requires strategies to further tailor inter- integrity of these revenue-generating products is paramount ventions to their unique sociopolitical contexts. Countries to avoid greenwashing, credit stacking, and the inequitable with higher fragility and conflict tend to have a reduced ability distribution of benefits. to borrow, lower institutional capacity, and less access to • Deploy more risk-sharing instruments, such as guaran- funding. In addition, countries characterized by fragility are tees and insurance, to address the perceived and real risk of disproportionately impacted by climate-induced disasters and investing in NBS projects in SSA. Guarantees can play a sig- have a harder time recovering (Jaramillo et al. 2023). NBS can nificant role in de-risking NBS projects, potentially spurring be an impactful tool to build resilience to climate hazards as greater private sector investment in disaster risk mitigation well as generate additional co-benefits such as job creation, and infrastructure development in the region. Insurance livelihood enhancements, and community cohesion. Investing products will be an important tool to safeguard existing in community-driven projects that increase local resilience and infrastructure assets and community livelihoods, like the R4 provide immediate co-benefits can be particularly effective in microinsurance policy. Aligning insurance policies with NBS these settings (World Bank 2024b). investments can yield complementary financial protection and reduce physical damage related to climate impacts. 64 |  Growing resilience: Unlocking the potential of nature-based solutions for climate resilience in sub-Saharan Africa Table 5 | Climate impacts, exposure, and related NBS strategies CLIMATE- EXPOSED CONSIDERATIONS FOR DEVELOPING IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES RELATED COUNTRIES NATURAL NBS Geography Planning and Financing Fragility, HAZARD interventions policy options conflict, and violence Riverine flooding >2M people Restoration or Highlands: Governments Economic analysis FCV: Countries like exposed to protection of wet- Countries with should main- can determine Sudan and Soma- flooding annually: lands, floodplains, highlands, such stream flood risk the return on lia may choose Ethiopia, Nigeria, and forests as Ethiopia, can considerations investment of NBS to focus on many Somalia, Sudan implement forest into policies for to avoid flood-re- small-scale res- conservation or relevant sectors. lated losses. This toration projects 1–2M people restoration proj- This may include can build on the that are highly exposed to ects in watersheds removing perverse work that some community driven flooding annually: to reduce flooding incentives that countries, such to ensure inter- Democratic and mitigate drive degrada- as Ethiopia, have ventions survive Republic of the landslides and tion, improving done with NGO in a low-resource Congo, Kenya, erosion risk. watershed man- partners to build environment. Madagascar, agement through baseline water risk Mozambique, Plains: Countries Non-FCV: technical assis- models.b Tanzania with extensive Countries like tance to farmers, plains, like Nigeria, Downstream Kenya can invest and integrating can benefit from beneficiaries, in larger-scale watershed protec- improved grass- including gov- restoration or tion into the water lands to manage ernments and floodplain proj- supply develop- floodwaters businesses, can ects, especially ment agenda.a and effectively serve as payers for upstream of major enhance water PES schemes. cities. retention. Different geographies present varying opportunities for integration with gray infrastruc- ture such as flood bypasses, dikes, and levees. Coastal flooding >500,000 people Measures involv- In high-sediment Governments Disaster resilience FCV: Countries exposed to a 100- ing mangroves, coastal environ- can promote funds can pay for like Somalia may year flood: Benin, coral reefs, ments on plains, integrating green coral reef protec- require high-ca- Mozambique, beaches, and on barriers, and elements like tion or restoration. pacity, multilateral Nigeria, Senegal, dunes in deltas, dunes mangrove or coral Ecotourism or donors to assist Somalia and mangrove reef restoration fishing revenues with small-scale measures may into infrastruc- can support these projects that are 200,000–500,000 mitigate impacts ture projects like activities as they also linked to live- people exposed to from storms and sea walls and both benefit from lihood provision, a 100-year flood: reduce coastal implement robust healthy coral such as mangrove Angola, Cam- erosion. Many zoning regula- reefs. protection. eroon, Guinea, such coastlines tions to prevent Madagascar, Non FCV: are found in West construction in Sierra Leone, Countries like Africa, Benin, and high-risk areas.c Tanzania, Togo Seychelles can Senegal. invest in larg- In countries such er-ticket coral as Mozambique reef investments, with partly rocky perhaps linked and coralline to ecotourism or coastlines, reefs fisheries projects. reduce storm surge, wave impacts, and coastal erosion. Recommendations to scale up NBS adoption   | 65 Table 5 | Climate impacts, exposure, and related NBS strategies (cont.) CLIMATE- EXPOSED CONSIDERATIONS FOR DEVELOPING IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES RELATED COUNTRIES NATURAL NBS Geography Planning and Financing Fragility, HAZARD interventions policy options conflict, and violence Agricultural Very high Measures involv- Southern Africa Governments Aid and philan- FCV: Countries drought exposure to agri- ing wetlands and the Horn should imple- thropic funds may with high fragility cultural drought: and floodplains, of Africa face agri- ment regulations be needed to sup- may focus on Botswana, terraces, agrofor- cultural drought and incentives port initial project many small-scale Lesotho, Mauri- estry, and sand due to a lack to promote sus- development, agroforestry or tania, Namibia, dams of precipitation tainable water but more mature terracing projects Zimbabwe and increasing use, focusing on projects can seek that are highly temperatures. sector-specific to use revenue community driven High exposure Agroforestry guidance at the from agricultural to ensure survival to agricultural and sand dams basin level. This production and in a low-resource drought: Burkina can improve soil includes targeted non-timber forest environment. Faso, Chad, Kenya, moisture retention, guidance for products, among Mali, Mozam- Non-FCV: Coun- reduce runoff, and irrigation—one others. bique, Niger, tries like Botswana enhance water of the primary Senegal Somalia, can invest in larg- supply, support- water-consuming South Africa, er-scale projects ing agricultural activities in many Sudan, Zambia linked to govern- resilience and SSA countries— ment investments productivity. while encouraging in agricultural sustainableground- The Sahel region extension services water use where faces a lack of and other efforts resources remain precipitation, to increase tech- untapped.d increased tem- nical capacity in peratures, and Governments communities.f a lack of water can also promote mobilization. drought resilience Small-scale water through policies mobilization can that scale up NBS help collect water practices. For locally close to example, policies point of use. that allow farmers greater rights to manage trees on their farms and grazing areas can increase agrofor- estry practices.e Urban flooding >100 km2 of Measures involv- Dry climates: In Governments Stormwater util- FCV: Countries built-up area ing wetlands countries with should enhance ities or operators with high fragility exposed to flood- and floodplains, drier climates, like disaster pre- of transportation like Sudan may ing: Chad, Ghana, stream rena- Sudan, developing paredness by infrastructure choose to focus on Mali, Nigeria, turation, and green spaces and mandating the may be potential community-based South Africa, bioretention areas bioswales can use of perme- funders of green projects to create Sudan, Tanzania help absorb water able surfaces in roofs or rain natural stream from irregular rain new develop- gardens for buffers. 25–100 km2 of events, mitigating ments, offering stormwater man- built-up area Non-FCV: Coun- urban flooding. incentives for agement. In areas exposed to tries like South retrofitting existing with a robust flooding: Angola, Tropical climates: Africa can invest in infrastructure ratepayer base, Benin, Botswana, Tropical countries large green-gray with green roofs tariffs may help Burkina Faso, like Ghana can infrastructure and rain gardens, finance NBS. Cameroon, Côte invest in wetland systems such as and investing in d'Ivoire, Demo- restoration to large-scale wet- comprehensive cratic Republic manage storm- land restoration stormwater man- of the Congo, water runoff and and urban river agement systems Ethiopia, Guinea, reduce urban restoration. that combine Kenya, Liberia, flood risks. green and gray Madagascar, infrastructure Malawi, Mozam- solutions.g bique, Niger, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Uganda, Zambia 66 |  Growing resilience: Unlocking the potential of nature-based solutions for climate resilience in sub-Saharan Africa Table 5 | Climate impacts, exposure, and related NBS strategies (cont.) CLIMATE- EXPOSED CONSIDERATIONS FOR DEVELOPING IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES RELATED COUNTRIES NATURAL NBS Geography Planning and Financing Fragility, HAZARD interventions policy options conflict, and violence Urban heat >15 days of high Urban forests, Urban heat: Rapid Governments Aid and philan- FCV: Countries heat stress days green spaces, urban growth in should integrate thropic funds may with high fragility per year in urban green roofs West African coun- green infra- be needed to sup- like Niger may areas: Benin, tries is leading to structure into port initial project choose to focus on Burkina Faso, increased expo- urban planning, development, but conserving large Chad, Eritrea, sure to extreme incentivize sus- more mature proj- existing trees in Guinea-Bissau, heat. Urban areas tainable practices, ects may be able cities to provide Liberia, Mali, in tropical coun- enforce zoning receive support shade or tree Niger, Nigeria, tries, like Liberia, regulations, foster through building planting programs Senegal, Togo can significantly public-private code requirements that can create reduce heat stress partnerships, or use of city gen- jobs. 5–15 days of high through urban engage communi- eral revenues. heat stress days Non-FCV: Coun- forests, green ties, and establish per year in urban tries like Sierra spaces, and green monitoring sys- areas: Cameroon, Leone can invest roofs, which also tems to address Côte d'Ivoire, in ambitious urban help manage climate change Ghana, Guinea, forest programs stormwater runoff. impacts in African Kenya, Maurita- and green roofs. cities.h They should nia, Mozambique, For example, the establish funding Sierra Leone, country’s #Free- mechanisms for Somalia, South townTheTreetown community-based Sudan, Sudan campaign is a green initiatives good example of a and subsidize highly participa- costs for urban tive approach to parks and trees addressing urban in low-income heat.i neighborhoods. Notes: Exposed countries were identified from the data and maps on climate risks presented in section “Intersecting challenges of nature loss, climate risk, and development needs.” FCV = fragile, conflict-affected, and violent. M = million. km2 = square kilometer. NGO = nongovernmental organization. PES = payments for ecosystem services. SSA = sub-Saharan Africa. Sources: a Battistelli et al. 2022. b Adane et al. 2021. c Beeston et al. 2023. d FAO 2021. e Abasse et al. 2023. f Msuya et al. 2017. g WWA 2024. h Dossa and Miassi 2024. i Fisseha et al. 2021. Recommendation 6 Improve monitoring, evaluation, and learning to ensure projects deliver intended climate impacts and co-benefits NBS project developers should significantly increase their While this study did not evaluate project effectiveness, investment in MEL to better gauge project effectiveness future research should evaluate these NBS projects and in delivering climate resilience and co-benefits; use the collect data on project impacts and lessons learned to data to improve project design; and showcase the findings inform future design, enhance the robustness of available to build confidence among communities, governments, scientific data, and demonstrate the viability of NBS as a and investors. NBS projects are designed to achieve multiple cost-effective climate resilience tool. Findings should be climate objectives and co-benefits, as the database revealed, tailored for specific actors (i.e., investors, governments, or yet many did not measure, track, or effectively communicate communities) interested in biodiversity, economic and labor these impacts. For example, more than 50 percent of NBS conditions, community well-being and public health, or climate projects analyzed in this study listed “improved water sup- adaptation and communicated through knowledge products, ply” as an objective, but current research has not consistently technical curricula, and communication tools. Substantial demonstrated that NBS improve downstream water quantity investments in MEL and knowledge dissemination can create (Acreman et al. 2021). Improved monitoring of the impact of a positive feedback loop, generating greater awareness, buy-in, NBS projects on water supply could help projects design their and adoption of NBS. interventions more effectively or decide whether to prioritize other objectives or interventions. Furthermore, while many projects cited co-benefits such as biodiversity enhancement or job creation, they often lacked publicly available MEL plans or measurable outcomes to substantiate these claims. Recommendations to scale up NBS adoption   | 67 Actor-specific recommendations The following are recommendations to specific actors to help • Integrate NBS into urban planning and local devel- scale up NBS projects in SSA. Many of these suggestions tie opment strategies: Incorporate NBS or green-gray back to the recommendations outlined above. interventions into local policies, such as urban planning, to improve measurement, monitoring, strategic planning, part- African national governments create the policy, institutional, nerships, financing, and market development for resilient and financing frameworks that set the enabling conditions for infrastructure. NBS design, implementation, maintenance, and replication. We recommend that they do the following: • Increase funding sources for NBS: Capture the increased value of land and property resulting from infrastructure • Revise policy and regulatory frameworks: Update laws, improvements and reinvest it in NBS. Utilize new financing regulations, and infrastructure planning and tendering mechanisms, such as development fees, impact fees, or other processes to integrate NBS, focusing on sectors like water, land-value capture mechanisms. energy, agriculture, and transport. In addition, review commitments to global climate and environmental pacts, • Use local training and knowledge sharing: Seek out train- ing and knowledge, including from Indigenous Peoples, on such as the NDCs, NAPs, and NBSAPs, to identify opportu- successful community engagement and social equity consid- nities to integrate NBS. Align goals and policy approaches erations, and work to build the capacity of the implementing on biodiversity with those on climate and use NBS to help agencies in these areas. Ensure this training and knowledge deliver on both. is formally incorporated into the NBS project development • Foster multisectoral collaboration: Collaboration among cycle, including planning, financing, implementation, cabinet ministries (e.g., finance, water, environment, and and monitoring. infrastructure) can promote cross-sector policies. MDBs, multilateral donors, and multilateral funds are some • Build project bankability through technical assessments: of the primary funders of NBS projects and play roles as project Conduct climate risk assessments, natural capital evalu- developers and research organizations. We recommend that ations, and economic benefit models to demonstrate the these actors do the following: value of NBS, fostering investment-ready projects with clear financial and resilience benefits. • Support policy reform and strategic integration of NBS: • Promote gender equity and engage with IPLCs: Leverage assessments, like the World Bank’s Country Climate and Development Reports (World Bank n.d.) and Climate Strengthen frameworks, laws, and protocols to promote gender equity and ensure inclusive engagement with Indig- Change Action Plans (World Bank 2021c), to inform policy enous communities by establishing systematic, consultative dialogue that integrates NBS into national climate and infra- processes for incorporating Indigenous knowledge and structure strategies. enhancing land titling and resource access (including water) • Provide technical assistance and capacity-building for Indigenous Peoples and women. support: Provide early-stage and project preparation • Increase funding sources for NBS: Dedicate a portion of support for NBS projects, helping to make the case for new approaches through technical studies. Address capacity gaps the national budget to initiatives or funds, such as national climate funds, conservation trust funds, or water funds, that through programs like the World Bank and EIB’s City Climate can reallocate capital to projects. Within ministerial sectors, Finance Gap Fund and provide tailored technical assistance allocate funding to maintain, protect, and restore NBS. to ensure that local expertise and resources are available for the effective design and implementation of NBS projects • Enhance local capacity and resources: Partner with (GIZ et al. 2020). international or local NGOs to enhance country-specific NBS research and knowledge transfer. Existing national • Enforce requirements for social and environmental institutions such as ministries, universities, and agri- impact: These organizations can ensure that their fund- cultural extension services can play a role in translating ing recipients meet standards for addressing community research and building the capacity of local communities and engagement, gender and social equity, and Indigenous and project developers. traditional knowledge. They can also provide technical assistance and capacity-building resources to help proj- • Empower local governance for NBS: Decentralize fiscal ect implementers effectively develop and carry out these authority to give cities and municipalities the budgetary inclusive practices and establish monitoring and evaluation autonomy to develop and implement NBS projects, particu- mechanisms. Furthermore, they can provide the required larly for localized climate resilience needs. assistance and expertise to help ensure NBS deliver on biodi- versity and positive environmental outcomes. African subnational governments, including states, prov- inces, counties, and cities, can use policy and local funding • Expand funding and extend project timelines: Provide streams to promote NBS as a solution to climate change capital to de-risk projects and leverage finance to attract impacts and urban growth challenges. We recommend that other sources of funds. Increase grant capital for NBS project these actors do the following: preparation, implementation, green workforce training, and monitoring. Consider extending project timelines beyond standard cycles to support NBS maturation. 68 |  Growing resilience: Unlocking the potential of nature-based solutions for climate resilience in sub-Saharan Africa • Mainstream NBS across sector portfolios: Integrate NBS Private sector actors including commercial banks, institu- within sector-specific portfolios, such as water, sanitation, tional investors, and real asset investors can enhance project housing, urban development, energy, and transportation, bankability. We recommend that these actors do the following: to increase NBS adoption in infrastructure projects. Col- laborate with government finance and planning ministries • Provide technical assistance for project development: to highlight the economic and resilience benefits of green- Support the development of risk assessments, including gray infrastructure, reducing barriers to less familiar NBS scenario planning and long-term forecasting, that can equip solutions. These may involve technical studies that explore project developers with data and insights to improve project potential types of NBS applicable in each case, cost-ben- design and increase confidence among investors. efit analysis that compares NBS and non-NBS solutions, operations and management plans, and design options, • Expand financing for NBS projects: Increase financial contributions to NBS through mechanisms like equity, green among others. bonds, and insurance tools, addressing the funding gap in NBS by meeting sustainability targets and creating new mar- NGOs (both national and international) can bring their ket opportunities in green finance. expertise to the planning, design, and implementation of NBS projects. We recommend that these organizations • Showcase and advocate for NBS investments: Promote do the following: successful NBS case studies to showcase financial viability, risk reduction benefits, and potential returns, helping to • Provide targeted technical assistance: Enhance local create a clear business case for private sector adoption. capacity for NBS by supporting enabling conditions, address- ing capacity gaps, and offering tailored technical assistance. • Enforce requirements for social considerations: This can ensure that projects they fund meet standards for address- This includes providing tailored technical assistance to ing community engagement, gender and social equity, and ensure that local expertise and resources are available for the Indigenous and traditional knowledge. They can require effective design and implementation of NBS projects. monitoring and evaluation from project developers to ensure • Build and disseminate knowledge: Strengthen the busi- compliance and measure impact. ness case for NBS by producing white papers, case studies, and reports, as well as thorough project monitoring and Infrastructure operators including water and energy utilities, tracking. Sharing successful examples and best practices can along with transportation networks, can greatly benefit from help expand awareness and drive further adoption of NBS. NBS as a cost-effective means to extend the lifespan of existing assets and protect future investments. A few actionable items • Host or support project preparation facilities, accel- include the following: erators, and other programs dedicated to enhancing NBS projects: Accelerator programs devoted to NBS could further enhance technical capacity by providing resources, • Integrate NBS in project planning: Proactively assess the potential of NBS solutions for both existing and planned training, and support to project developers (see Box 5). This infrastructure projects. Where feasible, include NBS ele- approach would not only enhance the understanding of what ments in green-gray or standalone green project designs to NBS are and how to prepare NBS projects but also foster a enhance asset longevity and resilience. network of practitioners committed to advancing climate resilience and sustainable development across SSA. In • Advocate for NBS in financing packages: Collaborate with addition, establishing communities of practice can facilitate financiers to champion green-gray financing packages that coordinated efforts to address specific challenges, share incorporate NBS, helping to secure funding by demonstrating knowledge, and develop solutions collaboratively (see Box 8). the cost-effectiveness and added value of NBS in extending infrastructure lifespan. • Ensure social considerations are a core component of project planning and technical support: NGOs serve • Commit to sustainable funding for NBS: Establish long- as intermediaries between local communities and out- term funding contributions for NBS projects, moving beyond side actors (project developers including governments, traditional grant cycles to provide ongoing support that multilateral organizations, and businesses) to ensure that strengthens and sustains NBS outcomes over time. community needs are integrated in projects. They can work with forest and agricultural producers to adopt NBS-friendly strategies and help these producers benefit from improved resilience and economic opportunities. • Support country-specific NBS interventions: Well-es- tablished NGOs have a strong understanding of the local context, including with historic localized datasets, and can play a crucial role in conveying community needs to project developers including governments, multilateral organizations, and businesses. This can include facilitating communities of practice to share knowledge, coordinate efforts, and collaboratively address region-specific challenges in NBS adoption. Recommendations to scale up NBS adoption   | 69 “Women Net Fishing”, Madagascar. Photo by Rod Waddington. Conclusion Next steps NBS offer a promising pathway for addressing SSA’s multi- financial instruments are crucial steps to scale these solutions faceted climate and developmental challenges. This report effectively. Additionally, prioritizing community involvement highlights a steady increase in NBS project initiation and and incorporating gender and social equity as well as Indig- funding over the past decade, as well as a diversity of project enous knowledge in NBS project design will further align objectives, geographies, and intervention types. Despite this projects with local needs, enhancing their resilience and growing interest, current levels of funding and project imple- sustainability. mentation fall short of meeting SSA’s urgent climate adaptation With targeted efforts to overcome policy, financial, and needs. As climate change impacts intensify and urbanization technical barriers, NBS can be transformative in protecting accelerates, SSA’s vulnerability to natural disasters and environ- SSA’s natural resources, reducing disaster risk, and building mental degradation will likely deepen, making NBS essential for climate resilience. We hope that policymakers embrace this sustainable, climate-resilient development. report’s recommendations to build a roadmap for NBS as a vital To close this gap, SSA must foster a supportive policy environ- component of SSA’s climate adaptation strategy, promoting ment, diversify funding sources, and invest in local capacity long-term ecological, economic, and societal benefits for the building to accelerate NBS adoption. Mainstreaming NBS region and its people. across policy sectors and enhancing access to innovative “COBAM workshop group”, Democratic Republic of Congo. Photo by Ollivier Girard/CIFOR. Conclusion  | 71 “ABCD in Regreening project”, Kenya. Photo by Zachary Ochieng/CIFOR-ICRAF. Appendices Appendix A. Project database This report is accompanied by a technical note that details the We assigned the climate resilience objectives qualitatively research methods used to find NBS projects in the World Bank’s through an evaluation of project documents. Although meeting and AfDB’s portfolios from 2012 to 2021 (Oliver and Marsters at least one climate resilience objective was a key criterion to 2022). This report builds on that methodology for a broader scan being included in the database, these objectives were not neces- of NBS projects. Additional details regarding the methods of sarily the official project development objectives for the projects, this report follow. which were often more related to broader development goals. We analyzed additional goals in selected projects as co-benefits, Project selection criteria for database including job creation/livelihood enhancement, biodiversity/hab- itat protection, enhanced food security, climate mitigation, public WRI established the following criteria for projects’ eligibility for health enhancement, community cohesion, and recreation/eco- inclusion in the report’s database: tourism. Projects benefiting the agriculture sector were limited to those that did so through at least one of the climate resilience 1. Projects must be implemented in a country in SSA as defined objectives listed (e.g., water supply) and did not include those by the World Bank in 2023.5 Projects in North Africa were not that delivered benefits solely outside of this scope. included in the scope of this report. 2. Projects should have a start date between 2012 and 2021 Types of NBS interventions included for 2.  (except for the analysis of World Bank and AfDB projects project selection from 2022 to 2023). This is the year the project begins and/or We also analyzed NBS intervention types, with each project secured first financing. In MDB projects, this correlates with listing between one and three NBS interventions used to address “approval year.” the climate resilience objectives identified. We also assigned 3. Projects must have secured at least $50,000 in funding. NBS intervention type qualitatively through an evaluation of project documents. 4. Projects must have used NBS as a tool to achieve climate risk reduction objectives (detailed further below). The categories for climate resilience objectives and NBS inter- ventions used in this report are based on past literature from To select projects using these four criteria, we reviewed publicly a global context including Browder et al. (2019), Watkins et al. available and internal project databases, and conducted desktop (2019), and Ozment et al. (2021), denoted in Table A-1. We used scans, a literature review, and a survey. For the databases, WRI them to develop the typology for this study in SSA, noting that used keyword searches to filter and identify eligible projects and the actual application could be broader. The landscape where then did a deeper qualitative evaluation of documents to evalu- the NBS project takes place was added in the first column, ate whether projects should be included in the report’s database. recognizing that many of these NBS interventions can fall across Further detail on these processes is provided in the project identi- landscape categories and that projects were often designed to fication section below. address more than one landscape. Additional details on the fourth criterion Project identification of project selection: NBS as a tool for We identified projects through a multipronged review process, climate risk reduction objectives which included the following five processes: Climate resilience objectives included in 1.  1. An assessment of the World Bank and AfDB project databases project selection 2. A desktop assessment of climate-related databases (e.g., Projects selected in the database for this report employed NBS climate fund databases) and websites to achieve specific climate resilience objectives, ensuring that natural systems contribute to both environmental and structural 3. An assessment of AFR100’s TerraMatch database resilience. Projects selected had to meet at least one and up to 4. An assessment of projects from a literature review on NBS for three of these climate resilience objectives: climate resilience • Improved water quality 5. Identification of projects from a survey designed and conducted by WRI • Improved water supply (encompassing drought prevention, improvement of seasonal flows, and aquifer recharge) Each approach varied slightly due to the nature of the assess- • Urban flood mitigation ment and is described in detail below: • Flood mitigation Assessment 1: MDB project databases. WRI worked with partners at the World Bank and AfDB to scan their project portfolios • Landslide or erosion risk reduction for projects that were likely to meet our selection criteria. The • Fire risk mitigation World Bank had already conducted a scan of NBS projects and provided WRI with a project list that was developed based on a • Urban heat mitigation list of keywords and phrases (see Table A-2). For AfDB, WRI used Appendices  | 73 Table A-1 | Typology of NBS interventions for climate resilience objectives LANDSCAPE PROTECT, FLOOD IMPROVED IMPROVED EROSION/ FIRE RISK HEAT RESTORE, MITIGATION WATER WATER LANDSLIDE MITIGATION MITIGATION MANAGE, OR QUALITY SUPPLYA MITIGATION CREATE … Rural Forest Agroforestry/silvo- pasture Farmland best practices Floodplains and bypasses Riverbeds and riparian areas Grasslands and other vegetation Sand dams Inland wetlands Coastal Mangroves Salt marshes Coral reefs Seagrasses Sandy beaches and dunes Urban Bioretention areas/ rain gardens Urban canopy Urban parks Constructed and urban wetlands Green roofs and other green build- ing spaces Notes: Dark green denotes common NBS applications; light green indicates that NBS are sometimes used to address the objective; and white indicates that the given NBS generally do not apply to the corresponding objective. a Water supply encompasses drought prevention, improvement of seasonal flows, and aquifer recharge. Sources: Authors, adapted from Browder et al. 2019; Watkins et al. 2019; Ozment et al. 2021. 74 |  Growing resilience: Unlocking the potential of nature-based solutions for climate resilience in sub-Saharan Africa the MapAfrica draws from the Bank’s internal project systems site during the desktop scan, we reviewed the website and any that fit the criteria and then conducted a rapid review of projects relevant project documents to assess the project’s eligibility. We with keywords to determine if the project was “in,” “out,” or “to be identified 105 projects from this assessment. determined.” The projects were then reviewed in more detail with Assessment 3: TerraMatch. WRI’s AFR100 TerraMatch program a deep dive qualitative assessment of project documents. Proj- includes projects funded in 2021. The program’s data include ects that did not meet the criteria were removed. Eighty projects application materials from submitted proposals that are not were identified from the MDB project databases. See Oliver and publicly available; however, the authors were able to access Marsters (2022) for further details on MDB projects from 2012 to these documents to identify eligible projects. We reviewed only 2021. As this was the first of the project scans conducted, projects projects that secured funding of at least $50,000. We then filtered found through either of the MDBs’ portfolios were counted and these projects through a keyword search using the same terms included under the MDBs, recognizing that many projects were as those used in Assessments 1 and 2 and performed a qual- co-funded by other entities. For example, the Nigeria Erosion and itative scan of project documents to ensure projects met the Watershed Management Project was funded by the World Bank, criteria. In some cases, we contacted the project developers to GEF, EIB, government of Nigeria, and others and is counted in the request additional information. We identified 48 projects from World Bank portfolio because it was first identified there during this assessment. the initial scan. Assessment 4: Literature review. WRI conducted a literature A second review of World Bank and AfDB projects added projects review for the report that covered the challenges of NBS, approved between 2022 and 2023. The MDBs each provided a enabling conditions of NBS, NBS for climate resilience, NBS for list of projects and filled out the associated attributes relevant water resilience, funding and financing needs for NBS, and for the study. WRI then combed through the list and flagged, co-benefits of NBS. The authors reviewed global and SSA-spe- double-checked, and removed any projects that did not meet the cific sources using Google Scholar and other online search criteria. An additional 51 projects were identified. engines to find scholarly articles. Instead of using a keyword Assessment 2: Project databases and websites. WRI conducted search, during the literature review, we flagged NBS projects that a desktop scan to identify relevant databases of NBS projects in were listed in publications. For each project flagged, we then SSA (see Table A-3). Other databases that were searched but for reviewed online websites and project documents to verify if it met which no projects were found are not listed. As each database the project criteria. We identified six projects this way. is distinct, the authors applied a combination of using database Assessment 5: Survey. To capture any projects that were not filters and a keyword search. For example, we first applied a filter identified in the desktop or literature scan, WRI developed and for region (sub-Saharan Africa) or theme (climate resilience or sent a survey in French and English to partner listservs to solicit climate adaptation), and then conducted a keyword search using additional projects. Participants and their email addresses were the words outlined in Assessment 1 to identify an initial list of identified through the AFR100, NDC Partnership, and Cities4For- potential projects. Afterward, we did a qualitative scan for each ests Network, totaling over 15,000 individuals. The survey detailed project by looking through project documents to verify whether the four selection criteria for the database. WRI received 40 projects met the criteria. If we identified a specific project web- Table A-2 | Keyword list for project identification for assessments 1–3 Natural infrastructure Forestation Ecosystem management Nature-based infrastructure Wetlands Natural resource based Green infrastructure Bioengineering Nature regeneration Nature-based solutions Water quality Co-benefits Nature based Drought Watershed management Ecosystem based Erosion reduction Storage Ecosystem-based adaptation Nature restoration Land use Building with nature Discharge regulation Aquifer storage Engineering with nature Watershed investments Discharge regulation Green space Reservoirs Integrated planning Payments for ecosystem services Ecosystem recovery Retention Flood mitigation Note: The initial word search in orange expanded to also include any documents that referenced the terms in orange in combination with those in green. The list of keywords and phrases were used in portfolio review exercises conducted by the World Bank Global Water Practices and the Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery to screen for projects that used nature-based solutions (NBS) to enhance water quality, address water security issues, control flood- ing, or mitigate other environmental hazards. This list was applied to the desktop scan of NBS projects throughout this study. Source: Authors, adapted from Oliver and Marsters 2022. Appendices  | 75 Table A-3 | List of sources to build NBS project database for climate resilience ASSESSMENT PROJECT INFORMATION NUMBER OF WEBSITE OR REFERENCE SOURCE PROJECTS MDB lending 1:  World Bank portfolio 80 https://projects.worldbank.org/en/projects-operations/proj- portfolio ects-home African Development Bank 51 https://mapafrica.afdb.org/en/ database NBS project 2:  Adaptation Fund 10 https://www.adaptation-fund.org/ databases Forest Trends project list 2 https://www.forest-trends.org/project-list/ and websites Global Environment Facility 44 https://www.thegef.org/projects-operations/database Green Climate Fund 15 https://www.greenclimate.fund/projects International Climate Initia- 9 https://www.international-climate-initiative.com/en/ tive (IKI) project database Nature 4 Cities project 3 http://implementation-models.nature4cities-platform.eu/ database Nature-based Solutions 1 https://www.naturebasedsolutionsinitiative.org/research/ Initiative projects Nordic Development Fund 1 https://www.ndf.int/what-we-finance/projects/project-data- base.html SANBI project list 2 https://www.sanbi.org/ UNEP EbA database 5 https://www.unep.org/explore-topics/climate-action/what- we-do/climate-adaptation/ecosystem-based-adaptation Urban Nature Atlas 3 https://una.city/ WWF NBS database 2 https://www.worldwildlife.org/pages/nature-based-solutions Mali Climate Fund 2 https://mptf.undp.org/fund/3ml00 SeyCCAT 2 https://seyccat.org/projects/ TNC Water Fund 3 https://waterfundstoolbox.org/ Islamic Development Bank 1 https://www.isdb.org/llf/approved-projects (website was under mainte- nance at time of research) 3: TerraMatch TerraMatch 48 https://www.terramatch.org/ projects 4: Literature C40 report 1 C40. 2021. Urban Heat and Equity: Experiences from C40’s Cool scan Cities Network. C40. Cities4Forests 1 https://cities4forests.com/cities/fianarantsoa/. Ecological Infrastructure for 1 Government of South Africa. 2014. “SIP 19: Ecological Infra- Water Security (South Africa) structure for Water Security: Minister’s Approved Draft for Submission to the Presidential Infrastructure Coordinating Commission.” Government of South Africa. NatuRes: Natural Resources 1 NatuRes. n.d. “South Africa – Economic Growth Powered by Stewardship Programme Its Diverse Natural Resources: UMhlathuze Water Stewardship Partnership (UWASP).” NatuReS (blog). https://nature-steward- ship.org/where-we-work/south-africa/. Accessed April 7, 2023. UN Economic Commission 1 UN Economic Commission for Africa. 2020. “Launch of Project for Africa to Enhance ‘Nature Based Solutions for Water Resources Infra- structure and Community Resilience in Ethiopia.’” UN Economic Commission for Africa. WWF report 1 Magdelenat, C., N. Malpiece, and Y. Josse, Eds. 2021. Urban Nature Based Solutions: Cities Leading the Way. WWF and EcoAct. 5: Survey Survey (French and English) 7 AFR100, NDC Partnership, and Cities4Forests Network Note: MDB = multilateral development bank. NBS = nature-based solutions. SANBI = South African National Biodiversity Institute. UNEP EbA = United Nations Environment Programme Ecosystem-based Adaptation. WWF = World Wildlife Fund. SeyCCAT = Seychelles Conservation and Climate Adaptation Trust. TNC = The Nature Conservancy. UN = United Nations. AFR100 = African Forest Landscape Restoration initiative. NDC = nationally determined contribution. Source: Authors. 76 |  Growing resilience: Unlocking the potential of nature-based solutions for climate resilience in sub-Saharan Africa responses, and the authors then examined each response and This research project was ambitious in scope by attempting to its corresponding project documents to evaluate the project’s identify projects across 48 countries. Data collection encountered eligibility. A keyword search was not used. We included seven several limitations worth noting, including the following: additional projects based on the survey. Comprehensiveness. For NBS project database reviews, we performed a keyword search on project titles and tagged project Project documentation attributes to identify possible matches with the project criteria. For each project that met the selection criteria, we created files Given this approach, it is possible that some projects that met the containing project documents, project descriptions, and any inclusion criteria but did not have the right keywords in their titles other key project information that was available for that given or cataloging were omitted from the database. For example, project (Table A-4). One researcher recorded each project and since the drafting of this report, additional NBS projects were its corresponding information and another reviewed the files identified in Rwanda, Gabon, Somalia, Kenya, and Tanzania for accuracy. A systematic scan of the database was per- and within the AfDB portfolio, an indication that this report has formed to flag inconsistencies that were then resolved. As with underrepresented the number of projects being developed any manual-entry database, a certain margin of error must across the region and that the initial scans failed to encompass be acknowledged. all eligible projects. Representative sample limitations. Some NBS projects meeting Dataset limitations the eligibility requirements for this study may not have been included in the inventory due to the difficulty of identifying, The dataset aimed to capture NBS investments for climate tagging, and cataloging them. Moreover, many projects may resilience from 2012 to 2021, and additional investments from incorporate NBS practices, but these might not have been the World Bank and AfDB for projects approved between 2022 identified as such if the practices were not tagged or included and 2023. We recognize the limitations of this selection. Many in publicly available documents. Initial project filtering was online databases do not currently have coordinated systems to performed by several researchers who may have had different systematically and publicly tag, track, and report use of NBS in interpretations of eligibility criteria, which could have resulted in projects, whether they are being implemented to support climate project omissions. However, a second researcher reviewed each adaptation and/or mitigation, deliver infrastructure services, or project to confirm that the project was eligible and that attributes address other types of societal challenges, nor do they have clear had been accurately tagged. and agreed on criteria to identify what would be considered NBS for climate resilience. We used a multifaceted approach to iden- Anglophone lean: Most of the projects discovered during the tify as many NBS projects in SSA as possible; however, the varied scan were centered in Anglophone nations potentially because methods used in each assessment may have introduced inconsis- English is the dominant language of the author team. Further- tencies, potentially leading to data limitations across the scanned more, international databases tend to be populated in English, projects. Limited time and resources available for this study which can lead to underrepresentation of relevant projects in inhibited a thorough review of all documents for all projects in non-Anglophone countries. While the NBS project survey was relevant sectors that were implemented in SSA during the study’s distributed in French as well, the French survey had a lower time period. As such, the NBS project portfolios likely reflect an response rate compared with the English survey, which is in line undercount of total projects that meet the selection criteria. with other academic research findings (Enu et al. 2023). Data availability and data gaps: Most of the projects surveyed provided only public-facing documents, which did not include assessments to confirm that the project was executed as planned. Follow-up surveys and interviews with project devel- opers attempted to verify accuracy on all projects that passed Table A-4 | Project information collected and analyzed BASIC PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT OBJECTIVES OR NBS DATA FUNDING AND FINANCING DATA Project name Climate resilience objectives (up to 3) Funder or financer (up to 3) Start and end years Intervention type (green, green-gray) Funder or financer type Project developer (up to 3) NBS intervention (up to 3) Financial instruments (up to 2) Project developer type Co-benefits (up to 3) Total secured funding ($, millions) Country Gender equity inclusion (Y/N) Total secured NBS funding ($, millions) Region Indigenous knowledge inclusion (Y/N) Note: Not all data types were available for all projects. NBS = nature-based solutions. Y/N = yes/no. Source: Authors. Appendices  | 77 initial eligibility, but the response rate was not 100 percent. If the minimum project selection criteria were not verifiable, projects Appendix B. Interviews were excluded. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 51 representa- tives involved in implementing, funding, or investing in NBS or The level of project detail varied greatly by source: There are similar nature-based assets. The individuals interviewed fell into many data types for individual projects that were “unknown” due three categories: to data gaps. Information on funder type, funding instruments, and total funding amount was not available for all projects. While Project developers (23): National, state, and local governments; projects in the database secured at least $50,000, total project international and national NGOs; and private companies amounts or alternative funding mechanisms were not always Funders (19): Development finance institutions, UN agencies, and known. In addition, financial data were not often disaggregated multilateral and national climate funds to separate NBS funding from total project funding, making it difficult to pinpoint exact funding allocations. O&M and M&E Investors (9): Public and private equity investors and are also data categories that often lacked funding amounts commercial banks and project information. It was common to find information that indicated an O&M and M&E program was in place, but no infor- We selected interviewees using a combination of sources. Inter- mation on the status and findings of the projects. Projects from viewees included project developers in the NBS project database the World Bank and AfDB portfolios had more comprehensive with representatives from each region (East, West, Central, and information available, and as a result, the findings may dispro- Southern Africa), country, project location (urban, coastal, and portionately reflect these projects. rural), sector, and NBS project objective. Interviewees were also sourced from in-country experts and WRI project partners Effectiveness of NBS: This study did not evaluate the effectiveness helping to design, fund, finance, or invest in SSA. Interviews were or sustainability of the NBS components of the projects. It relied conducted virtually, and research questions sought to under- on publicly available data, usually from project preparation and stand the challenges during the NBS project stages: project implementation materials, which as stated above, did not pro- identification and design, O&M, MEL, and funding and financing. vide updates on NBS performance or durability in the region. We prepared summaries for each of the interviews completed. Additional considerations for 2022–23 projects: Additional lim- We then analyzed the text to record the barriers mentioned into itations exist for the 2022–23 MDB portfolio. First, projects from a “barriers matrix” with the following categories: political; legal; only these two MDBs were collected, and the MDBs provided policy, governance; institutional; technical; funding; and social. the initial lists. WRI did its best to scan and filter these projects to We designed the barriers matrix based on the authors’ experi- exclude any projects that did not meet the criteria. Additionally, ences and a literature review on barriers to implementing and projects were added and analyzed later, not becoming part of investing in NBS. A list of the interviewees and definitions for each the full data analysis but rather a sub-analysis comparing the of the barriers are provided in Tables B-1 and B-2, respectively. 2022–23 projects to those from 2012 to 2021. Table B-1 | List of interview participants by type NAME(S) ORGANIZATION TYPE OF ORGANIZATION Project developers Anastasia Deligianni, Michael Maluki MetaMeta, Makueni County Government, Government/not-for-profit Kenya Michael Vice, Hannah Benn Pegasys Private sector Vahid Fotuhi Blue Forest NGO Harrison Nnoko AJESH NGO Emmanuel Niyonsenga ADEAR Ltd. Private sector Emmanuel Kogo, Richard Ntibrey Catholic Relief Services NGO Georgina van Biljon Intaba Environmental Services NGO Thomas Sberna IUCN NGO Kasenga Hara National Water Supply and Sanitation Government Council, Zambia Scott Thacker Oxford Infrastructure Analytics Private sector Fred Kihara The Nature Conservancy NGO Caroline Gelderblom WWF NGO 78 |  Growing resilience: Unlocking the potential of nature-based solutions for climate resilience in sub-Saharan Africa Table B-1 | List of interview participants by type (cont.) NAME(S) ORGANIZATION TYPE OF ORGANIZATION Chris Henderson Practical Action NGO Benjamin Larroquette UNDP UN agency Radhika Dave, Charles Nyandiga UNDP UN agency Adewale Awoyemi International Institute of Tropical NGO Agriculture Lilian Nyaega Wetlands International NGO Mandy Barnett SANBI Government Evans Lyndon Baines-Johnson, Tommy Environmental Foundation for Africa NGO Garnett Samantha Petersen, Louise Heaps WWF NGO Rod Braun Conservation International Nonprofit Charlotte Boyd Conservation International Nonprofit Jessica Chaplin Northern Rangelands Trust Nonprofit Funders Timmo Gaasbeek Embassy of the Netherlands Bilateral donor Rowan Palmer UNEP UN agency James Nyarobi, Paz Lopez-Rey Tanzania Vice President’s Office, UNEP Government/UN agency Alexander Forbes UNEP UN agency Kenichiro Tachi World Bank MDB Benson Bumbe Nkhoma African Development Bank MDB Claudia Soto World Bank MDB Dinkneh Tefera, Martin Onyach-Olaa World Bank MDB Nelvina Barreto UNDP UN agency Eric Dickson World Bank MDB Saphira Patel The Development Bank of Southern Africa African Development Bank Avril Dominguez GEF Multilateral climate fund Samuel Lefèvre, Célina Carrier, Audrey Agence Française de Développement DFI Chenevoy Remy Ruat GEF Multilateral climate fund Ole Stubdrup Urban and Municipal Development DFI Fund, AFDB Lisa Sundberg SIDA DFI Jeanne Adanbiokou Akakpo, Martin Pépin Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Government Aina, Memanton Boni Yalla Development, Benin    Investors Roland Hunter South Pole Private equity Ahmed Aziz South Pole Private equity George McPherson Criterion Africa Partners Private equity Stephanie Bishop New Forests Private equity Oliver Phillips, Lamia Alkhoori Standard Chartered Commercial bank Appendices  | 79 Table B-1 | List of interview participants by type (cont.) NAME(S) ORGANIZATION TYPE OF ORGANIZATION Kelvin Massingham, Jonathan Israel, and FSD Africa Nonprofit Ravi Sikand Noah Wescombe PRI Technical financial advisor Margreet Muizebelt, Julia Peters Rabobank Commercial bank Carl Johan Wahlund Norfund (Norwegian Investment Fund) DFI Note: NGO = nongovernmental organization. IUCN = International Union for Conservation of Nature. WWF = World Wildlife Fund. UNDP = United Nations Development Programme. SANBI = South African National Biodiversity Institute. UNEP = United Nations Environment Programme. UN = United Nations. GEF = Global Environment Facility. MDB = multilateral development bank. DFI = development finance institution. SIDA = Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency. Source: Authors. Table B-2 | Definitions of barriers for project developer and investor interviews CRITERION SUBCATEGORY DEFINITION MENTIONS Funding Eligibility challenges (scale of NBS projects did not meet funder requirements (i.e., the project 9 project too small) identified available capital but it was ineligible to secure the funds or the scale of the project was too small for funders) Inability to attract funding or NBS projects did not secure the up-front or long-term capital to 21 finance implement, maintain, or scale up projects Lack of credit worthiness or Risk profiles between funders via grants/equity/debt and project 11 high risk developers were not aligned (i.e., investment was considered too risky compared with expected financial or environmental outcomes) Financing mechanisms do Misalignment between funding cycles and NBS benefit accruals (i.e., 21 not match project needs two-to-three-year grant cycles versus long-term, consistent funds to support the full project life cycle) Inability to develop detailed NBS projects did not secure funding due to an inability to demon- 20 business case strate cost savings, net profits, or a compelling business case Policy Lack of incentives or support- Lack of federal, state, or municipal regulations that promote or 22 ive policies incentivize action Lack of political support Unable to obtain required verbal or written commitments from 16 for NBS over traditional infra- elected officials for NBS structure Perceived corruption Concerns about or reputation of dishonest or fraudulent practices 8 by the government Regulatory uncertainty Refers to the legal, regulatory, and political uncertainty arising out 14 of changing rules, regulations, and interpretations of federal and state agencies and other government entities Institutional Lack of institutional buy-in An organization’s leadership does not support NBS objectives 19 through verbal or written policies (includes public and private orga- nizations) High staff turnover Refers to staff departures at an institution that halt or delay support 3 for NBS Counterparty risk Refers to concerns about project or investor confidence in the coun- 6 terparty’s ability to deliver on contract or their part of the deal Lack of coordination among Siloed operations that prevent cross-sectoral collaboration at both 15 sectors, levels, or scales inter- and intra- levels Limited resources or budget Refers to insufficient staff capacity or budget constraints at an orga- 21 nization or government agency 80 |  Growing resilience: Unlocking the potential of nature-based solutions for climate resilience in sub-Saharan Africa Table B-2 | Definitions of barriers for project developer and investor interviews (cont.) CRITERION SUBCATEGORY DEFINITION MENTIONS Social Insecure land tenure Refers to conflict or issues with how property rights to land are allo- 17 cated, transferred, used, or managed Lack of social or community Refers to a lack of social or community understanding, awareness, 9 buy-in, politically unpopular or support for NBS Lack of community champion The lack of a community leader or project manager to promote NBS 9 and help execute project goals to include and incorporate NBS Lack of incentives to promote Lack of incentives (or benefits) for local communities to meaningfully 19 community support participate throughout all stages of the NBS project Technical Lack of data Missing or gaps in technical information to inform decision-making 14 and prioritization of interventions Lack of staff capacity for Limited staff capacity or technical ability to support the design, 16 design planning, and feasibility of NBS projects Lack of capacity for imple- Lack of staff capacity or technical ability to implement the NBS 22 mentation projects Lack of capacity for ongoing Lack of staff capacity or technical ability to maintain NBS projects 21 operations and maintenance past implementation Lack of scientific clarity on Uncertainty about NBS performance post-implementation due to a 20 project outcomes/impacts lack of data or inability to track and collect these metrics; typically in reference to how gray infrastructure performs as a risk-mitigation solution or for service delivery Political Redirection of project’s Project objectives changed after kickoff 3 objective priorities by the client De-prioritization of NBS NBS were initially a priority in project planning or investments, 4 due to changes in political, but were deprioritized due to changes in political (i.e., elections) environmental, or financial or environmental (i.e., degradation, disasters) priorities or budget priorities resources Note: NBS = nature-based solutions. Source: Authors. Appendix C. List of NBS projects in Sub-Saharan Africa Table C-1. List of NBS projects in Sub-Saharan Africa, 2012–23 is available here: https://files.wri.org/d8/s3fs-public/2025-02/ growing-resilience-table-c-projects-list.csv. Appendices  | 81 Abbreviations AfDB African Development Bank  MEL monitoring, evaluation, and learning  AFR100  frican Forest Landscape Restoration A NAP national adaptation plan  Initiative NBSAP N  ational Biodiversity Strategy and CAPEX capital expenditure Action Plan CBD  nited Nations Convention on Biological U NBS nature-based solutions Diversity NDC nationally determined contribution  CRU carbon removal unit  NGO nongovernmental organization DFI development finance institution  O&M operations and maintenance  EIB  European Investment Bank PES payments for ecosystem services  FCV fragile, conflict-affected, and violent  SDG  Sustainable Development Goals FNEC  onds National pour l’Environnement et le F SeyCCAT S  eychelles Conservation and Climate Climat; National Fund for the Environment Adaptation Trust and Climate SIDA  wedish International Development Coop- S FONERWA Rwanda Green Fund  eration Agency GBF Global Biodiversity Framework  SSA sub-Saharan Africa GDP  gross domestic product TNC The Nature Conservancy  GCF Green Climate Fund  UBF  Uganda’s Biodiversity Trust Fund GCTWF Greater Cape Town Water Fund  UN United Nations GEF Global Environment Facility  UNDP United Nations Development Programme  GGW Great Green Wall UNEP United Nations Environment Programme  GR4W Green Roads for Water  USAID  nited States Agency for International U GVWC Guma Valley Water Company Development IPLC ndigenous Peoples and Local Commu- I UTNWF Upper Tana-Nairobi Water Fund nities WACA  West Africa Coastal Areas IUCN nternational Union for Conservation of I WASH  water, sanitation, and hygiene Nature WRI  World Resources Institute MDB multilateral development bank  WWF World Wildlife Fund 82 |  Growing resilience: Unlocking the potential of nature-based solutions for climate resilience in sub-Saharan Africa Endnotes 1. The term “project” is used throughout the report and 4. Indigenous Peoples and local communities include Sub-Sa- refers to NBS initiatives including individual projects, pro- haran African Historically Underserved Traditional Local grams, or funds. Communities. These are groups that have identities and aspirations that are distinct from mainstream groups in 2. Subregions and the respective 48 countries in SSA are national societies and often are disadvantaged by tradi- defined by the World Bank and include Angola, Benin, tional models of development. See “Environmental and Botswana, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cabo Verde, Cameroon, Social Framework,” Open Knowledge Repository, World Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Congo (Demo- Bank Group, 2017, https://thedocs.worldbank.org/en/ cratic Republic), Congo (Republic), Côte d’Ivoire, Djibouti, doc/276101511809520481-0290022017/original/Environmen- Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Eswatini, Ethiopia, Gabon, talSocialStandardESS7FactSheetWBESF.pdf. Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Kenya, Lesotho, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, 5. Subregions and the respective 48 countries in SSA are Mozambique, Namibia, Niger, Nigeria, Rwanda, São Tomé defined by the World Bank and include Angola, Benin, and Príncipe, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cabo Verde, Cameroon, South Africa, South Sudan, Tanzania, Togo, Uganda, Zambia, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Congo (Demo- and Zimbabwe. See “FOCUS: Sub-Saharan Africa,” Open cratic Republic), Congo (Republic), Côte d’Ivoire, Djibouti, Knowledge Repository, World Bank Group, n.d., https://open- Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Eswatini, Ethiopia, Gabon, knowledge.worldbank.org/pages/focus-sub-saharan-africa, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Kenya, Lesotho, accessed July 2024. Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mozambique, Namibia, Niger, Nigeria, Rwanda, São Tomé 3. Multilateral donors refers to entities that provide financial and Príncipe, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Somalia, aid pooled from various governments and organizations, South Africa, South Sudan, Tanzania, Togo, Uganda, Zam- such as international organizations like the United Nations bia, and Zimbabwe. Environment Programme and United Nations Develop- ment Programme. Multilateral funds mobilize and allocate resources from multiple donor countries or organizations, and examples include the Global Environment Facility and Green Climate Fund. Appendices  | 83 References Abasse, T., M. Massaoudou, H. Rabiou, S. Idrissa, and D.G. Iro. Africa NDC Hub. 2022. Doubling Down on Delivering Africa’s Cli- 2023. Farmer Managed Natural Regeneration in Niger: The State mate Action Priorities: Policy Recommendations from the Africa of Knowledge. Tropenbos International. https://www.tropenbos. NDC Hub. https://africandchub.org/sites/default/files/2022-12/ org/news/farmer+managed+natural+regeneration+in+ni- ANDCH%20COP27%20Flagship%20Report_%20version_ENG_.pdf. ger:+the+state+of+knowledge. African Union. n.d. “Agenda 2063: The Africa We Want.” https:// Acreman, M., A. Smith, L. Charters, D. Tickner, J. Opperman, au.int/en/agenda2063/overview. Accessed February 2024. S. Acreman, F. Edwards, et al. 2021. “Evidence for the Effec- tiveness of Nature-Based Solutions to Water Issues in Africa.” AICCRA (Accelerating Impacts of CGIAR Climate Research for Environmental Research Letters: ERL 16 (6). https://doi. Africa). 2022. “Africa’s New Climate Change Strategy Offers a org/10.1088/1748-9326/ac0210. Continental Roadmap.” AICCRA (blog). October 18. https://aiccra. cgiar.org/news/africas-new-climate-change-strategy-of- Adane, Z., T. Yohannes, and E.L. Swedenborg. 2021. “Balancing fers-continental-roadmap. Water Demands and Increasing Climate Resilience: Establishing a Baseline Water Risk Assessment Model in Ethiopia.” Technical ANRMIC (African Natural Resources Management and Invest- Note. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute. https://doi. ment Centre). 2022. Debt for Nature Swaps: Feasibility and Policy org/10.46830/writn.19.00123. Significance in Africa’s Natural Resources Sector. Abidjan, Côte d'Ivoire: AfDB. https://www.greenfinanceplatform.org/research/ Adshead, D., S. Thacker, L.I. Fuldaeur, S.S. Gall, N. Chow, R. Pant, debt-nature-swaps-feasibility-and-policy-significance-afri- T. Russell, et al. 2022. Ghana: Roadmap for Resilient Infra- cas-natural-resources-sector. structure in a Changing Climate. Accra, Ghana: Ministry of Environment, Science, Technology & Innovation. Archer, E., L. Dziba, K.J. Mulongoy, M.A. Maoela, and M. Walters. 2018. The IPBES Regional Assessment Report on Biodiversity and AfDB (African Development Bank). 2018. African Economic Ecosystem Services for Africa. IPBES. https://www.ipbes.net/ Outlook. Abidjan, Côte d'Ivoire: AfDB. https://www.afdb.org/ assessment-reports/africa. fileadmin/uploads/afdb/Documents/Publications/African_Eco- nomic_Outlook_2018_-_EN.pdf. Baah, S.K.T., and C. Lakner. 2023. “Fragility and Pov- erty in Sub-Saharan Africa: Two Sides of the Same Coin.” AfDB. 2019. Sierra Leone: Project Freetown WASH and Aquatic World Bank (blog). August 15. https://blogs.worldbank.org/ Environment Revamping Project—Appraisal Report. Abidjan, Côte en/opendata/fragility-and-poverty-sub-saharan-afri- d'Ivoire: AfDB. https://www.afdb.org/en/documents/document/ ca-two-sides-same-coin#:~:text=In%201990%2C%20about%20 sierra-leone-project-freetown-wash-and-aquatic-environ- half%20of,poverty%20reduction%20in%20the%20region. ment-revamping-project-appraisal-report-106857. Barry, K., and O. Adoh. 2021. “Private Equity in Africa: Trends and AfDB. 2020a. Economic Brief: The Africa Infrastructure Develop- Opportunities in 2021.” White and Case. https://www.whitecase. ment Index (AIDI) 2020–July 2020. Abidjan, Côte d'Ivoire: AfDB. com/insight-our-thinking/private-equity-africa-trends-and-op- https://www.afdb.org/en/documents/economic-brief-africa-in- portunities-2021. frastructure-development-index-aidi-2020-july-2020. Battistelli, F., J.A. Tadesse, and L. Marsters. 2022. “Financing AfDB. 2020b. The Project of Restoration of the Socio-ecological Sustainable Watershed Management in Ethiopia: Exploring Inno- Functions of the Lake of Guiers. Abidjan, Côte d'Ivoire: AfDB. vative Financing Strategies for Nature-Based Solutions.” Working https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=2pBGf1j2bfQ. Paper. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute. https://doi. org/10.46830/wriwp.20.00154. AfDB. 2022. African Economic Outlook 2022. Abidjan, Côte d'Ivoire: AfDB. Beeston, M., J. Howard, C. Lovelock, C. Cameron, J. Sippo, V. Hag- ger, C. van Bijsterveldt, et al. (Eds.) 2023. Best Practice Guidelines AfDB. 2023a. Kenya—Green Zones Development Support Proj- for Mangrove Restoration. Global Mangrove Alliance. https:// ect—Phase II. Abidjan, Côte d'Ivoire: AfDB. https://projectsportal. www.mangrovealliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/ afdb.org/dataportal/VProject/show/P-KE-AAD-005. Best-Practice-Guidelines-for-Mangrove-Restoration_v4.pdf. AfDB. 2023b. Democratic Republic of Congo—Batshamba-Tshi- Benn, H. 2022. “Nature for Water Facility Overview.” Presented at kapa Road Improvement Project—Lovua-Tshikapa Section. the Addressing the Barriers to NBS Adaption for Climate, Water Abidjan, Côte d'Ivoire: AfDB. https://projectsportal.afdb.org/ and Biodiversity WRI Workshop. Nairobi, Kenya, October 5. dataportal/VProject/show/P-CD-DB0-008. BFC (Blue Future Conference). 2023. “Moroni Declaration for AfDB. 2023c. African Development Bank Group’s Integrated Safe- Ocean and Climate Action in Africa.” Presented at the Blue Future guards System. Abidjan, Côte d'Ivoire: AfDB. https://www.afdb. Ministerial Conference on Blue Economy and Climate Action org/sites/default/files/documents/policy-documents/final_-_ in Africa: Island and Coastal States at the Forefront. Moroni, updated_integrated_safeguards_system_en.pdf. Comoros, June 14. https://www.uneca.org/eca-events/sites/ default/files/resources/documents/sro-ea/blue-future-confer- AFR100. n.d. “People Restoring Africa’s Landscapes.” https:// ence-2023/Declaration%20English.pdf.   afr100.org/. Accessed 2024. Booth, M., and C. Brooks. 2023. “Financing Marine Conservation from Restructured Debt: A Case Study of the Seychelles.” Frontiers in Marine Science 10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2023.899256. 84 |  Growing resilience: Unlocking the potential of nature-based solutions for climate resilience in sub-Saharan Africa Browder, G., S. Ozment, I.R. Bescos, T. Gartner, and G.-M. Lange. Ekolu, J., B. Dieppois, Y. Tramblay, G. Villarini, L. Slater, G. 2019. Integrating Green and Gray: Creating Next Genera- Mahé, J.E. Paturel, et al. 2024. “Variability in Flood Frequency in tion Infrastructure. Washington, DC: World Bank and World Sub-Saharan Africa: The Role of Large-Scale Climate Modes of Resources Institute. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/han- Variability and Their Future Impacts.” Journal of Hydrology 640: dle/10986/31430. 131679. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2024.131679.   Caumes, A., and C. Merle. 2021. “Republic of Benin’s ELD Initiative and UNEP (United Nations Environment Pro- Trailblazing €500m 12,5-Y Inaugural Issuance under gramme). 2015. Economics of Land Degradation in Africa: Its New SDG Bond Framework.” Natixis. July 28. https:// Benefits of Action Outweigh the Costs. https://www.eld-initiative. gsh.cib.natixis.com/our-center-of-expertise/articles/ org/fileadmin/pdf/ELD-unep-report_07_spec_72dpi.pdf.  republic-of-benin-s-trailblazing-500m-12-5-y-inaugural-is- suance-under-its-new-sdg-bond-framework. Elgin, B., A. Marsh, and M. de Haldevang. 2023. “Faulty Credits Tarnish Billion-Dollar Carbon Offset Seller,” March CBD (Convention on Biological Diversity). n.d. “Search Pre- 24. Bloomberg. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/ COP-15 NBSAPs and National Reports.” https://www.cbd.int/ features/2023-03-24/carbon-offset-seller-s-forest-protec- nbsap/search. Accessed 2024. tion-projects-questioned.  CBD. 2023. “National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans Elliott, C., C. Schumer, K. Ross, and N. Singh. Forthcoming. (NBSAPs).” https://www.cbd.int/nbsap/. Realizing Net Zero: Good Practice for Implementing a Just Transition to National Net Zero Emissions. Washington, DC: World CBD. 2024. “T19 (National Biodiversity Finance Plan): How to Use Resources Institute.  GEF Funding.” https://www.cbd.int/financial/t19.shtml. Enu, K.B., A. Zingraff-Hamed, M.A. Rahman, L.C. Stringer, and S. Chamon, M., V. Thakoor, E. Klok, and J. Zettelmeyer. 2022. “Debt- Pauleit. 2023. “Review Article: Potential of Nature-Based Solutions for-Climate Swaps: Analysis, Design, and Implementation.” to Mitigate Hydro-meteorological Risks in Sub-Saharan Africa. Working Paper. Washington, DC: International Monetary Fund. Risk Assessment, Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies, Socioeco- nomic and Management Aspects.” Natural Hazards and Earth Chassin, L. 2024. “De-risking Smallholder Farmers Lend- System Sciences 23 (2): 481–505. https://egusphere.copernicus. ing: How Weather Index Insurance Can Improve Access to org/preprints/2022/egusphere-2022-604/.  Credit.” GSMA AgriTech Accelerator. July 9. https://www. gsma.com/solutions-and-impact/connectivity-for-good/ European Commission. 2023. (Database.) GHSL—Global Human mobile-for-development/mobile-for-development-2/ Settlement Layer. https://human-settlement.emergency. de-risking-smallholder-farmers-lending-how-weather-index-in- copernicus.eu/.  surance-can-improve-access-to-credit/. Ezzine-de-Blas, D., S. Wunder, M. Ruiz-Pérez, and R. del Pilar Convergence and TNC (The Nature Conservancy). 2017. “Sey- Moreno-Sanchez. 2016. “Global Patterns in the Implemen- chelles Debt Conversion for Marine Conservation and Climate tation of Payments for Environmental Services.” PloS One 11 Adaptation.” Case Study. Convergence. (3): e0149847.  CPI (Climate Policy Initiative). 2024. Landscape of Climate FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). Finance in Africa 2024. https://www.climatepolicyinitiative.org/ 2020. A Fresh Perspective: Global Forest Resources Assessment publication/landscape-of-climate-finance-in-africa-2024/. 2020. Rome: FAO. https://www.fao.org/interactive/forest-re- sources-assessment/2020/en/.   Cross, K., C.A. Arias, L. Amin, R. Ananthatmula, L. Andrews, H. Baxpehler, L.L. Behrends, et al. 2021. Nature-Based Solutions for FAO. 2021. “Irrigation Water Withdrawal.” AQUASTAT—FAO’s Wastewater Treatment: A Series of Factsheets and Case Studies. Global Information System on Water and Agriculture. https:// IWA, TNC, and SNAPP. www.fao.org/aquastat/en/data-analysis/irrig-water-use/ irrig-water-withdrawal. Curran, T., G. Perry, S.V. Wyse, and M.A. Alam. 2017. “Managing Fire and Biodiversity in the Wildland-Urban Interface: A Role for FAO. 2023. Progress on African Forest Landscape Restoration Green Firebreaks.” Fire 1 (1): 3. Initiative (AFR100). Prepared with support from the AFR100 Secretariat, hosted by the African Union Development Agency Degefu, M.A., M. Argaw, G.L. Feyisa, and S. Degefa. 2023. (AUDA-NEPAD). Rome: FAO. https://openknowledge.fao.org/ “Dynamics of Green Spaces: Land Surface Temperature Intensity server/api/core/bitstreams/9ad82c78-c0db-4c5e-9618- Nexus in Cities of Ethiopia.” Heliyon 9 (2): e13274.  7026c0f1ad79/content. Dirwai, T.L., E.K. Kanda, A. Senzanje, and T.I. Busari. 2021. “Water FCC (Freetown City Council). 2022. “Freetown’s First Climate Resource Management: IWRM Strategies for Improved Water Action Strategy 2022–2030.” Freetown, Sierra Leone: Freetown Management. A Systematic Review of Case Studies of East, West City Council. https://fcc.gov.sl/freetowns-first-climate-ac- and Southern Africa.” PLOS ONE 16 (5): e0236903.  tion-strategy/.  Dossa, K.F., and Y.E. Miassi. 2024. “Urban Planning and Green Filmanovic, M.E., and C. Hunt. 2023. Carbon Developer Ecosys- Infrastructure under a Changing Climate in Africa.” International tem. Abatable.   Journal of Regional Development 11 (1): 1.  Duzor, M., and B. Williamson. 2023. “Coups in Africa.” VOA News. https://projects.voanews.com/african-coups/.   Appendices  | 85 Fisseha, T., A. Toya, N.M. Cowan, and L. Duma. 2021. “#Freetown- Haas, A.R.N., A. Cartwright, A. Garang, and V. Songwe. 2023. From TheTreeTown Campaign: Using Digital Tools to Encourage Tree Millions to Billions: Financing the Development of African Cities. Cultivation in Cities.” World Bank (blog). July 20. https://blogs. African Development Bank. https://www.afdb.org/sites/default/ worldbank.org/sustainablecities/freetownthetreetown-cam- files/documents/publications/financing_the_development_of_ paign-using-digital-tools-encourage-tree-cultivation.  african_cities_-_afdb-bigwin_report_2023.pdf.  FSD Africa. 2022. FSD Africa Impact Report—2022. FSD Africa. Hallegatte, S., J. Rentschler, and J. Rozenberg. 2019. Lifelines: The https://fsdafrica.org/publication/impact-report-2022/.   Resilient Infrastructure Opportunity. Washington, DC: World Bank Group. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/entities/publica- Garuma, G.F. 2023. “Tropical Surface Urban Heat Islands in East tion/c3a753a6-2310-501b-a37e-5dcab3e96a0b. Africa.” Scientific Reports 13 (1): 4509.   Hassan, I., S.R. Chowdhury, P.K. Prihartato, and S.A. Razzak. 2021. GCA (Global Center on Adaptation). 2023. State and Trends in “Wastewater Treatment Using Constructed Wetland: Current Adaptation Report 2023. Rotterdam, Netherlands: Global Center Trends and Future Potential.” Processes 9 (11): 1917.   on Adaptation. https://gca.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/ STA23_web-version.pdf.   Holden, P.B., A.J. Rebelo, P. Wolski, R.C. Odoulami, K.A. Lawal, J. Kimutai, T. Nkemelang, et al. 2022. “Nature-Based Solutions in GCF (Green Climate Fund). 2019. “Fonds National pour L’Envi- Mountain Catchments Reduce Impact of Anthropogenic Climate ronnement.” https://www.greenclimate.fund/ae/fnec-benin.   Change on Drought Streamflow.” Communications Earth & Envi- ronment 3 (1): 51.   GEF (Global Environment Facility). n.d. “Strengthening the Resilience of the Energy Sector in Benin to the Impacts of Cli- Hou-Jones, X., D. Roe, and E. Holland. 2021. Nature-Based Solu- mate Change.” https://www.thegef.org/projects-operations/ tions in Action: Lessons from the Frontline. Bond. https://www. projects/5431.   bond.org.uk/resources/nature-based-solutions-in-action-les- sons-from-the-frontline/.   GEF. 2016. “Ecosystem-Based Adaptation for Rural Resilience.” https://www.thegef.org/projects-operations/projects/5695.   Hourcade, J.-C., D. Dasgupta, and F. Ghersi. 2021. “Accelerating the Speed and Scale of Climate Finance in the Post-pandemic GEF. 2020. “Landscape Restoration for Increase Resilience in Context.” Climate Policy 21 (10): 1383–97.   Urban and Peri-urban Areas of Bujumbura.” https://www.thegef. org/projects-operations/projects/10099.   Hunink, J.E., S. Contreras, G. Simons, and P. Droogers. 2017. Hydrological Evaluation and Ecosystem Valuation of the Lukanga GEF IEO (Global Environment Facility Independent Evaluation Swamps. Wageningen, Netherlands: FutureWater. https:// Office). 2023. “Terminal Evaluation Validation Form: Project for www.futurewater.nl/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Zambia_ the Restoration and Strengthening the Resilience of the Lake Lukanga_v8.pdf.   de Guiers Wetland Ecosystems (PRRELAG).” https://www.gefieo. org/sites/default/files/documents/projects/ters/5371-ter- ICA (Infrastructure Consortium of Africa). 2018. Infrastructure 2023-final.pdf#:~:text=project%20complemented%20the%20 Financing Trends in Africa—2018. African Development Bank. AfDB%2Dfunded%20project%20titled%20%22Restoration&tex- https://www.icafrica.org/fileadmin/documents/IFT_2018/ICA_ t=ecological%20functions%20of%20the%20Lake%20Guiers%20 Infrastructure_Financing_in_Africa_Report_2018_En.pdf.   system%20and%20strengthen%20socio%2Deconomic.  ICA. 2020. Key Achievements in the Financing of African Infra- GFDRR (Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery, structure in 2019–2020. Infrastructure Consortium of Africa. World Bank). n.d.a. “Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and https://www.icafrica.org/en/topics-programmes/key-achieve- Recovery.” https://www.gfdrr.org/en. Accessed 2024. ments-in-the-financing-of-african-infrastructure-in-2019-2020/.   GFDRR. n.d.b. “The Global Program on Nature-Based Solutions.” ICA. 2022. Infrastructure Financing Trends in Africa 2019–2020. https://www.gfdrr.org/en/nbs. Accessed 2024. Infrastructure Consortium for Africa and African Development Bank. https://www.afdb.org/en/documents/infrastructure-fi- G-G CoP (Green-Gray Community of Practice). 2020. Practical nancing-trends-africa-2019-2020.   Guide to Implementing Green-Gray Infrastructure. Green-Gray Community of Practice. https://www.conservation.org/projects/ IISD (International Institute for Sustainable Development). global-green-gray-community-of-practice.   2021. How Can Investment in Nature Close the Infrastructure Gap? Winnipeg, Canada: International Institute for Sustain- GIZ (Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit), World able Development.   Bank, and European Investment Bank. 2020. “City Climate Finance Gap Fund.” https://www.citygapfund.org/.   IISD. 2022. “AfDB Report Assesses Feasibility of Debt-for-Nature Swaps in Africa,” October 19. SDG Knowledge Hub. https://sdg. GIZ. 2021. Toward Gender-Responsive Ecosystem-Based Adap- iisd.org/news/afdb-report-assesses-feasibility-of-debt-for-na- tation: Why It’s Needed and How to Get There. Bonn, Germany: ture-swaps-in-africa/.   GIZ. https://www.adaptationcommunity.net/wp-content/ uploads/2021/07/Toward-gender-responsive-EbA.pdf. ILO, UNEP, and IUCN (International Labour Organization, United Nations Environment Programme, and International Union for Gulati, M., and L. Scholtz. 2020. The Case for Investment in Green Conservation of Nature). 2022. Decent Work in Nature-Based Infrastructure in African Cities. WWF.   Solutions 2022. https://www.unep.org/resources/report/decent- work-nature-based-solutions. ILO, UNEP, and IUCN. Güneralp, B., S. Lwasa, H. Masundire, S. Parnell, and K.C. Seto. 2017. “Urbanization in Africa: Challenges and Opportunities for Conservation.” Environ. Res. Lett. 13 (1).   86 |  Growing resilience: Unlocking the potential of nature-based solutions for climate resilience in sub-Saharan Africa IMF (International Monetary Fund). 2020. Regional Economic IWA (International Water Association). n.d. “Basin Stories: Outlook: Sub-Saharan Africa. Washington, DC: International Upper Tana-Nairobi Water Fund.” https://www.iwa-network. Monetary Fund, Chapter 2.  org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Basin-stories_Nairobi-wa- ter-fund_final.pdf.   IMF. 2022. Regional Economic Outlook: Sub-Saharan Africa, Living on the Edge. World Economic and Financial Surveys. Jaramillo, L., A. Cebotari, Y. Diallo, R. Gupta, Y. Koshima, Washington, DC: International Monetary Fund. https://www. C. Kularatne, D.J.D. Lee, et al. 2023. Climate Challenges in imf.org/-/media/Files/Publications/REO/AFR/2022/October/ Fragile and Conflict-Affected States. Washington, DC: Interna- English/text.ashx.   tional Monetary Fund. https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/ staff-climate-notes/Issues/2023/08/24/Climate-Challeng- IMF. 2024. (Database.) World Economic Out- es-in-Fragile-and-Conflict-Affected-States-537797.  look Database. https://www.imf.org/en/ Publications/WEO/weo-database/2024/October/weo-repor Jayne, T.S., A. Wineman, J. Chamberlin, M. Muyanga, and F. t?c=612,614,638,616,748,618,624,622,626,628,632,636,634,662,611, Kwame Yeboah. 2022. “Changing Farm Size Distributions and 469,642,643,734,644,646,648,652,656,654,664,666,668,672,6 Agricultural Transformation in Sub-Saharan Africa.” Annual 74,676,678,682,684,686,688,728,692,694,714,716,722,718,724,7 Review of Resource Economics 14: 109–30. https://doi.org/10.1146/ 26,199,733,732,738,742,744,746,754,698,&s=NGDPD,NGDPDP- annurev-resource-111220-025657.   C,LP,&sy=2019&ey=2024&ssm=0&scsm=1&scc=0&ssd=1&ssc=0&sic =0&sort=country&ds=.&br=1. Johnson, J.A., G. Ruta, U. Baldos, R. Cervigni, S. Chonabayashi, E. Corong, O. Gavryliuk, et al. 2021. The Economic Case for Nature: IPBES (Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity A Global Earth-Economy Model to Assess Development Policy and Ecosystem Services). 2018. The Regional Assessment Report Pathways. Washington, DC: World Bank. https://openknowledge. on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services for Africa. Bonn, Ger- worldbank.org/handle/10986/35882.  many: IPBES. https://www.ipbes.net/assessment-reports/africa. Kiribou, R., S. Djene, B. Bedadi, E. Ntirenganya, J. Ndemere, and IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2022a. K. Dimobe. 2024. “Urban Climate Resilience in Africa: A Review Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerabil- of Nature-Based Solution in African Cities’ Adaptation Plans.” ity. Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Discover Sustainability 5 (1): 94.   Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. https://doi. Kotzé, L.J. 2021. “Africa.” In The Oxford Handbook of International org/10.1017/9781009325844.  Environmental Law, edited by L. Rajamani and J. Peel. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.   IPCC. 2022b. Climate Change and Land: An IPCC Special Report on Climate Change, Desertification, Land Degradation, Sustain- Kuzma, S., M.F.P. Bierkens, S. Lakshman, T. Luo, L. Saccoccia, E.H. able Land Management, Food Security, and Greenhouse Gas Sutanudjaja, and R. Van Beek. 2023. “Aqueduct 4.0: Updated Fluxes in Terrestrial Ecosystems. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Decision-Relevant Global Water Risk Indicators.” Technical University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157988.   Note. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute. https://doi. org/10.46830/writn.23.00061.    Iseman, T., and F. Miralles-Wilhelm. 2021. “Nature-Based Solu- tions in Agriculture: The Case and Pathway for Adoption.” Food Laue, F., O.B. Adegun, and A. Le. 2022. “Heat Stress Adapta- and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and The tion within Informal, Low-Income Urban Settlements in Africa.” Nature Conservancy. https://doi.org/10.4060/cb3141en.  Sustainability: Science Practice and Policy 14 (13). https://doi. org/10.3390/su14138182.   IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature). 2020. Global Standard for Nature-Based Solutions. A User-Friendly Lehmann, C.E.R., T.M. Anderson, M. Sankaran, S.I. Higgins, S. Framework for the Verification, Design and Scaling Up of NbS. Archibald, W.A. Hoffmann, N.P. Hanan, et al. 2014. “Savanna First Edition. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. Vegetation-Fire-Climate Relationships Differ among Continents.” Science 343 (6170): 548–52.   IUCN. 2022a. “Leaders from Western Indian Ocean Countries Share Progress on Great Blue Wall at COP27.” https://www.iucn. Leisher, C., N. Robinson, M. Brown, D. Kujirakwinja, M.C. Schmitz, org/news/202211/leaders-western-indian-ocean-countries- M. Wieland, and D. Wilkie. 2022. “Ranking the Direct Threats to share-progress-great-blue-wall-cop27.   Biodiversity in Sub-Saharan Africa.” Biodiversity and Conserva- tion 31 (4): 1329–43.   IUCN. 2022b. The Great Blue Wall: Good Practices for Marine and Coastal Conservation in the Western Indian Ocean. Lephaila, D. 2021. “Partnering to Support Healthy Riverbanks and Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. https://ssfhub.org/resource/ Livelihoods in Ceres.” World Wildlife Fund. https://www.wwf.org. great-blue-wall-good-practices-marine-and-coastal-conserva- za/our_news/our_blog/partnering_to_support_healthy_river- tion-western-indian-ocean. banks_and_livelihoods_in_ceres/.   IUCN ESARO (International Union for Conservation of Nature Lowder, S.K., M.V. Sánchez, and R. Bertini. 2021. “Which Farms Regional Office for Eastern and Southern Africa). 2020. State of Feed the World and Has Farmland Become More Concentrated?” Protected and Conserved Areas in Eastern and Southern Africa. World Development 142: 105455.   First Edition. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN Regional Office for East- ern and Southern Africa. https://portals.iucn.org/library/sites/ library/files/documents/2020-034-En.pdf.   Appendices  | 87 Mahendra, A., and K.C. Seto. 2019. Upward and Out- Niang, I., O.C. Ruppel, M.A. Abdrabo, A. Essel, C. Lennard, ward: Managing Urban Expansion for More Equitable J. Padgham, P. Urquhart, et al. 2014. AR5 Climate Change Cities in the Global South. Working Paper. Washington, DC: 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. IPCC, 1199–1266. World Resources Institute. https://www.wri.org/research/ https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WGI- upward-and-outward-growth-managing-urban-expan- IAR5-Chap22_FINAL.pdf.   sion-more-equitable-cities-global-south.  Nieman, W.A., B.W. van Wilgen, and A.J. Leslie. 2021. “A Review of Marsters, L., G. Morales, S. Ozment, M. Silva, G. Watson, M. Fire Management Practices in African Savanna-Protected Areas.” Netto, and G.L. Frisari. 2021. Nature-Based Solutions in Latin Koedoe 63 (1): 13.   America and the Caribbean: Financing Mechanisms for Regional Replication. Washington, DC: Inter-American Development Bank OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Develop- and World Resources Institute. https://www.wri.org/research/ ment). 2020a. Quality Infrastructure in 21st Century Africa. Paris, nature-based-solutions-latin-america-and-caribbean-financ- France: OECD Publishing. https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/ ing-mechanisms-replication.   quality-infrastructure-in-21st-century-africa_83f17831-en.html. Martin, J.G.C., A. Scolobig, J. Linnerooth-Bayer, W. Liu, and J. OECD. 2020b. Nature-Based Solutions for Adapting to Water-Re- Balsiger. 2021. “Catalyzing Innovation: Governance Enablers lated Climate Risks. OECD Environment Policy Papers No. 21. of Nature-Based Solutions.” Sustainability 13 (4). https://doi. Paris, France: OECD Publishing. https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/ org/10.3390/su13041971.   environment/nature-based-solutions-for-adapting-to-water-re- lated-climate-risks_2257873d-en.   MDBs (Multilateral Development Banks). 2021. “Joint Statement by the Multilateral Development Banks: Nature, People and OECD. 2021. Water Governance in African Cities. OECD Studies Planet.” COP26 MDB Joint Statement on Nature. https://ukcop26. on Water. Paris, France: OECD Publishing. https://www.oecd. org/mdb-joint-statement/. org/en/publications/2021/03/water-governance-in-african-cit- ies_7280cf28.html. Meattle, C., R. Padmanabhi, P. de Aragão Fernandes, A. Balm, D. Chiriac, and B. Tonkonogy. 2022. Landscape of Cli- Oliver, E., and L. Marsters. 2022. Nature-Based Solutions in mate Finance in Africa. Climate Policy Initiative. https://www. Sub-Saharan Africa for Climate and Water Resilience. Technical climatepolicyinitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Land- Note. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute. https://www. scape-of-Climate-Finance-in-Africa.pdf.   wri.org/research/nature-based-solutions-sub-saharan-afri- ca-climate-and-water-resilience.   Meza, I., S. Siebert, P. Döll, J. Kusche, C. Herbert, E.E. Rezaei, H. Nouri, et al. 2020. “Global-Scale Drought Risk Assessment for Opperman, J., E. Oyare, H. Baleta, S. Fahrbach, and R. Camargo. Agricultural Systems.” Natural Hazards and Earth System Sci- 2021. Waterways to Resilience: Nature-Based Solutions for Adap- ences 20: 695–712.   tation in Africa. Gland, Switzerland: WWF International.   Mkandawire, P., and G. Arku. 2009. “Environmental Legislation Owen-Burge, C. 2023. “Africa Carbon Markets Initia- and Regulation in Sub-Saharan Africa: ‘Green Development’ or tive Announces 13 Action Programs.” January 16. https:// ‘Green Imperialism’?” In Environment and Health in Sub-Saha- climatechampions.unfccc.int/africa-carbon-markets-initia- ran Africa: Managing an Emerging Crisis: Selected Papers from tive-announces-13-action-programs/.   ERTEP 2007, edited by I.N. Luginaah and E.K. Yanful. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer Netherlands, 95–110.   Ozment, S., G. Ellison, and B. Jongman. 2018. “Nature-Based Solutions for Disaster Risk Management.” Washington, DC: Msuya, C.P., F.K. Annor-Frempong, M.N. Magheni, R. Agunga, C. World Bank Group. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/ Igodan, A.A. Ladele, K. Huhela, et al. 2017. “The Role of Agri- en/253401551126252092/Bookle.   cultural Extension in Africa’s Development: The Importance of Extension Workers and the Need for Change.” International Ozment, S., M. Gonzalez, A. Schumacher, E. Oliver, A.G. Morales, Journal of Agricultural Extension 5 (1): 51–58.   T. Gartner, M.S. Zuniga, et al. 2021. Nature-Based Solutions in Latin America and the Caribbean: Regional Status and Priori- Mulugeta, G., S. Ayonghe, D. Daby, P.O. Dube, F. Gudyanga, F. ties for Growth. Washington, DC: Inter-American Development Lucio, and R. Durrheim. 2007. Natural and Human-Induced Haz- Bank and World Resources Institute. https://files.wri.org/d8/ ards and Disasters in Sub-Saharan Africa. Pretoria, South Africa: s3fs-public/2021-10/nature-based-solutions-in-latin-america- ICSU Regional Office for Africa.   and-the-caribbean-regional-status-and-priorities-for-growth_1. pdf?VersionId=.3xcu8Ruodnxf5mw9wCUAYgdEK6evOMa.   Narayan, S., M.W. Beck, B.G. Reguero, I.J. Losada, B. van Wesen- beeck, N. Pontee, J.N. Sanchirico, et al. 2016. “The Effectiveness, Pérez-Cirera, V., S. Cornelius, and J. Zapata. 2021. Power- Costs and Coastal Protection Benefits of Natural and Nature- ing Nature: Creating the Conditions to Enable Nature-Based Based Defences.” PloS One 11 (5): e0154735.   Solutions. Gland, Switzerland: WWF. https://lp.panda.org/power- ing-nature-report.   NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration). n.d. (Database.) MODIS Vegetation Index Products (NDVI and Pers. Comm. (Personal communication). 2022a. Personal com- EVI). https://modis.gsfc.nasa.gov/data/dataprod/mod13.php. munication between the authors and Radhika Dave, Climate Accessed 2020.  Change Technical Advisor, and Charles Nyandiga, Programme Advisor for Land Degradation and Forestry, United Nations Nature for Water, The Nature Conservancy, and Pegasys. 2024. Development Programme.    “Nature for Water.” https://nature4water.org/.   88 |  Growing resilience: Unlocking the potential of nature-based solutions for climate resilience in sub-Saharan Africa Pers. Comm. 2022b. Personal communication between the Redshaw, P., T. Dijkstra, M. Free, C. Jordan, A. Morley, and S. authors and Roland Hunter, Sourcing Manager for Nature-based Fraser. 2017. “Landslide Risk Assessment for the Built Environ- Solutions in Africa, South Pole. ment in Sub-Saharan Africa.” Advancing Culture of Living with Landslides, 5–12.   Pers. Comm. 2022c. Personal communication between the authors and Benjamin Larroquette, Climate Change ReliefWeb. 2019. “Uganda: Floods and Landslides—Oct 2019.” Adaptation Regional Technical Advisor, United Nations Develop- https://reliefweb.int/disaster/fl-2019-000163-uga.   ment Programme.  ReliefWeb. 2021. “Tropical Cyclone Eloise—Jan 2021.” https://relief- Pers. Comm. 2022d. Personal communication between the web.int/disaster/tc-2021-000008-moz.   authors and James Nyarobi and Paz Lopez-Rey, Tanzania Vice President’s Office, United Nations Environment Programme.   Rentschler, J., P. Avner, M. Marconcini, R. Su, E. Strano, M. Vous- doukas, and S. Hallegatte. 2023. “Global Evidence of Rapid Urban Pers. Comm. 2022e. Personal communication between the Growth in Flood Zones since 1985.” Nature 622: 87–92.   authors and Michael Vice, NBS Consultant, and Hannah Benn, Engagement Manager, Pegasys.   Rohat, G., J. Flacke, A. Dosio, H. Dao, and M. van Maarseveen. 2019. “Projections of Human Exposure to Dangerous Heat in Afri- Pers. Comm. 2022f. Personal communication between the can Cities under Multiple Socioeconomic and Climate Scenarios.” authors and Claudia Soto, Disaster Risk Management Special- Earth’s Future 7 (5): 528–46.   ist, World Bank.   RoR (Republic of Rwanda). 2022. Revised Green Growth and Pers. Comm. 2022g. Personal communication between the Climate Resilience: National Strategy for Climate Change and authors and Stephanie Bishop, Associate Director, New Forests.    Low Carbon Development. Kigali, Rwanda: Republic of Rwanda. https://www.rema.gov.rw/fileadmin/user_upload/Rwanda_ Pers. Comm. 2022h. Personal communication between the Green_Growth___Climate_Resilience_Strategy_06102022.pdf.   authors and Margreet Muizebelt, Account Manager, and Julia Peters, Account Manager, Rabobank.   Salzman, J., G. Bennett, N. Carroll, A. Goldstein, and M. Jenkins. 2018. “The Global Status and Trends of Payments for Ecosystem Pers. Comm. 2022i. Personal communication between the Services.” Nature Sustainability 1 (3): 136–44.   authors and Lisa Sundberg, Advisor of Guarantees and Catalytic Development Financing, Swedish International Development Sarkodie, S.A., M.Y. Ahmed, and P.A. Owusu. 2022. “Global Adap- Cooperation Agency.   tation Readiness and Income Mitigate Sectoral Climate Change Vulnerabilities.” Humanities and Social Sciences Communica- Pers. Comm. 2022j. Personal communication between the tions 9 (1): 113.  authors and Harrison Nnoko, Chief Executive Officer of AJESH. Seddon, N., E. Daniels, R. Davis, A. Chausson, R. Harris, X. Hou- Pers. Comm. 2022k. Personal communication between the Jones, S. Huq, et al. 2020. “Global Recognition of the Importance authors and Oliver Phillips, Africa and Middle East Lead, Sustain- of Nature-Based Solutions to the Impacts of Climate Change.” able Finance, and Lamia Alkhoori, Sustainable Finance for Africa Global Sustainability 3. https://doi.org/10.1017/sus.2020.8.   and Middle East, Standard Chartered Bank. SIDA (Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency). Pers. Comm. 2022l. Personal communication between the 2022. “SIDA’s Guarantee Portfolio.” https://www.sida.se/en/ authors and George McPherson, Managing Director and Invest- for-partners/private-sector/sidas-guarantee-instrument.   ment Committee Member, Criterion Africa Partners. Silva, M., G. Watson, A.L. Amin, G. Watkins, A. Rycerz, and J. Firth. Pers. Comm. 2023. Personal communications between the 2020. Increasing Infrastructure Resilience with Nature-Based authors and Jeanne Adanbiokou Akakpo, Deputy Minister; Martin Solutions (NbS). Washington, DC: Inter-American Development Pépin Aina, Director of Planning, Administration, and Finance; Bank. https://publications.iadb.org/en/increasing-infrastruc- and Memanton Boni Yalla, Director of Banks and Financial ture-resilience-with-nature-based-solutions-nbs.   Institutions, Benin Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development.    Smyth, C.G., and S.A. Royle. 2000. “Urban Landslide Hazards: Incidence and Causative Factors in Niterói, Rio de Janeiro State, Pettinotti, L., and A. Quevedo. 2023. Mapping Finance Sources for Brazil.” Applied Geography 20 (2): 95–118.   Nature-Based Solutions in Africa. London, UK: ODI. https://media. odi.org/documents/Mapping_finance_sources_for_NBS_ Soto, C., and C. Lorillou. 2022. “Using an Integrated Urban updated_5CZMgRA.pdf.  Development and Disaster Risk Management Approach to Combat Climate Risks in Nigerien Cities.” World Bank (blog). Pouponneau, A. 2021. “Seychelles’ First Debt-for-Nature Swap for May 16. https://blogs.worldbank.org/sustainablecities/ Ocean Conservation.” PANORAMA. March 17. https://panorama. using-integrated-urban-development-and-disaster-risk-mana- solutions/en/solution/seychelles-first-debt-nature-swap- gement-approach-combat.   ocean-conservation.   Soz, S.A., J. Kryspin-Watson, and Z. Stanton-Geddes. 2016. The Rabobank. 2021. Methodology for Quantifying Carbon Bene- Role of Green Infrastructure Solutions in Urban Flood Risk Man- fits from Small-Scale Agroforestry. Rabobank. https://assets. agement. Washington, DC: World Bank.   ctfassets.net/9vhdnop8eg9t/3eBM1X1W2dZmO1cINRFHNz/ bb02af4176d8c287fa91f732dad34081/Acorn_Agroforestry_ Methodology_v1.0_2021.pdf. Rabobank. 2023. “Acorn.” https://acorn.rabobank.com/en/.   Appendices  | 89 Stafford, L., D. Shemie, T. Kroeger, T.J. Baker, C. Apse, J. Turpie, UNDP (United Nations Development Programme). 2020. and K. Forsythe. 2019. The Greater Cape Town Water Fund: 2019 Annual Performance Report for FP034: Build- Assessing the Return on Investment for Ecological Infrastruc- ing Resilient Communities, Wetland Ecosystems and ture Restoration. Arlington County, VA: The Nature Conservancy. Associated Catchments in Uganda. United Nations Devel- https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.23814.11844.   opment Programme. https://www.greenclimate.fund/ document/2019-annual-performance-report-fp034-building-re- Sustainabonds. 2021. “Benin Sends Message, Saves Costs with silient-communities-wetland-ecosystems-and.   First African Sovereign SDG Bond.” July 27.  UNDRR (United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction). n.d. TFP (The Fund for Peace). 2023. Fragile States Index Annual Implementing the Sendai Framework: Voluntary Commitments. Report 2023. Washington, DC: The Fund for Peace. https:// https://www.undrr.org/implementing-sendai-framework/volun- fragilestatesindex.org/2023/06/14/fragile-states-in- tary-commitments. Accessed 2024. dex-2023-annual-report/. UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme). 2016. “Is Africa’s TNC (The Nature Conservancy). 2015. Upper Tana-Nairobi Water Natural Capital the Gateway to Finance Its Development?” UNEP Fund Business Case (No. 2). Arlington County, VA: The Nature News, Stories & Speeches. September 21. https://www.unep.org/ Conservancy. https://www.nature.org/content/dam/tnc/nature/ news-and-stories/story/africas-natural-capital-gateway-fi- en/documents/Nairobi-Water-Fund-Business-Case_FINAL.pdf.   nance-its-development.   TNC. 2021a. The Blue Guide to Coastal Resilience. Protect- UNEP. 2019. “Implementation of Concrete Adaptation Measures ing Coastal Communities through Nature-Based Solutions. A to Reduce Vulnerability of Livelihoods and Economy of Coastal Handbook for Practitioners of Disaster Risk Reduction. Arlington Communities of Tanzania.” January 21. http://www.unep.org/ County, VA: The Nature Conservancy.    explore-topics/climate-action/what-we-do/climate-adaptation/ ecosystem-based-adaptation/ecosystem-5. TNC. 2021b. Upper Tana Nairobi Water Fund Trust: Annual Report 2021. Arlington County, VA: The Nature Conservancy.   UNEP. 2021. State of Finance for Nature: Tripling Investment in Nature-Based Solutions by 2030. Nairobi, Kenya: UNEP. https:// Trivedi, A., E. Juno, J.-R. Pool, N. Elwell, P. Langer, S. Ray, www.unep.org/events/publication-launch/state-finance-na- and T. Virsilas. 2020. Learning Guide: Social Equity Con- ture-tripling-investments-nature-based-solutions-2030. siderations for Cities’ Decision Making Related to Inner, Nearby, and Faraway Forests, edited by J. Ander- UNEP. 2022a. “UN Environment Assembly Concludes with 14 Reso- son. Cities4Forests. https://cities4forests.com/resource/ lutions to Curb Pollution, Protect and Restore Nature Worldwide.” social-equity-considerations-for-cities-decision-making-relat- http://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/press-release/un-envi- ed-to-inner-nearby-and-faraway-forests/. ronment-assembly-concludes-14-resolutions-curb-pollution.   UBF (Uganda Biodiversity Trust Fund). 2017. Uganda Biodi- UNEP. 2022b. Adaptation Gap Report. Nairobi, versity Fund: Strategic Plan 2017–2022. Uganda Biodiversity Kenya: UNEP. https://www.unep.org/resources/adapta- Trust Fund. https://ugandabiodiversityfund.org/wp-content/ tion-gap-report-2022. uploads/2022/10/UBF-Strategic-Plan.pdf.   UNEP. 2022c. Harnessing Nature to Build Climate Resilience: UN (United Nations). 2022. World Population Prospects Scaling Up the Use of Ecosystem-Based Adaptation. Nai- 2022. United Nations. robi, Kenya: UNEP. https://www.unep.org/resources/report/ harnessing-nature-build-climate-resilience-scaling-use-ecosys- UNCCD (United Nations Convention to Combat Desert- tem-based-adaptation.   ification). 2020. The Great Green Wall: Implementation Status and Way ahead to 2030. United Nations Convention UNEP. 2022d. “What You Need to Know about the COP27 Loss and to Combat Desertification. https://www.unccd.int/resources/ Damage Fund.” https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/ publications/great-green-wall-implementation-status-and- what-you-need-know-about-cop27-loss-and-damage-fund.   way-ahead-2030.  UNEP. 2022e. “15/4 Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity UN Decade (United Nations Decade), United Nations Environ- Framework.” Reported from the Conference of the Parties to ment Programme, and Food and Agriculture Organization of the the Convention on Biological Diversity. Montreal, Canada, United Nations. n.d. “What Is Ecosystem Restoration?” https:// December 7–19. https://www.cbd.int/doc/decisions/cop-15/cop- www.decadeonrestoration.org/what-ecosystem-restoration. 15-dec-04-en.pdf.    Accessed 2024.   UNEP EA (UNEP Environment Assembly). 2022. 5/5. Nature-Based UNDP (United Nations Development Programme). 2023. “UNDP Solutions for Supporting Sustainable Development: Resolution/ Identifies Africa’s Investment Opportunities with Both Financial Adopted by the United Nations Environment Assembly. Nairobi, and Impact Potential for People and the Planet.” UNDP Sustain- Kenya: UNEP Environment Assembly. https://digitallibrary.un.org/ able Finance Hub. July 13. https://sdgfinance.undp.org/news/ record/3999268?ln=en&v=pdf.   undp-identifies-africa%E2%80%99s-investment-opportuni- ties-both-financial-and-impact-potential-people.   UNEP-WCMC, IUCN, and NGS (UNEP–World Conservation Mon- itoring Centre, International Union for Conservation of Nature, and National Geographic Society). 2018. Protected Planet Report 2018: Tracking Progress towards Global Targets for Protected Areas. Cambridge, UK; Gland, Switzerland; and Washington, DC: UNEP-WCMC, IUCN, and NGS. https://livereport.protectedplanet. net/pdf/Protected_Planet_Report_2018.pdf.   90 |  Growing resilience: Unlocking the potential of nature-based solutions for climate resilience in sub-Saharan Africa UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate WFP (World Food Programme). 2021. “The R4 Rural Resilience Change). n.d. “Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs).” Initiative.” https://www.wfp.org/r4-rural-resilience-initiative.  https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-paris-agreement/ nationally-determined-contributions-ndcs. Accessed 2024. White, R., J. Turpie, and G.L. Letley. 2017. Greening Africa’s Cities: Enhancing the Relationship between Urbanization, Environmen- UNFCCC. 2023. “Submitted NAPs.” https://napcentral.org/ tal Assets, and Ecosystem Services. Washington, DC: World Bank. submitted-naps. http://hdl.handle.net/10986/26730.   UN-HABITAT (United Nations Human Settlements Programme). Williams, E., C. Funk, P. Peterson, and C. Tuholske. 2024. “High 2019. Annual Progress Report 2019. https://unhabitat.org/sites/ Resolution Climate Change Observations and Projections for the default/files/2020/03/annual_report_2019.pdf.   Evaluation of Heat-Related Extremes.” Scientific Data 11 (1): 261.   UNHCR (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees). 2021. WMO (World Meteorological Organization). 2020. State of the “Deadly Clashes over Scarce Resources in Cameroon Force Climate in Africa 2019. Geneva, Switzerland: World Meteorologi- 30,000 to Flee to Chad.” Briefing Notes. UNHCR. December 10. cal Organization. https://library.wmo.int/idurl/4/57196.   https://www.unhcr.org/us/news/briefing-notes/deadly-clashes- over-scarce-resources-cameroon-force-30-000-flee-chad.   WMO. 2021. State of Climate in Africa 2020. Geneva, Switzer- land: World Meteorological Organization. https://www.uneca. van Niekerk, D., and L.D. Nemakonde. 2017. “Natural Hazards and org/sites/default/files/ACPC/State-of-the-Climate-in-Africa/ Their Governance in Sub-Saharan Africa.” Natural Hazard Sci- WMO_State%20of%20the%20Climate%20in%20Africa%202020_ ence. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780199389407.013.230.   Report_en.pdf.   van Steenbergen, F., F. Arroyo-Arroyo, K. Rao, T. Ale- WMO. 2022. State of the Climate in Africa 2021. Geneva, Switzer- mayehu Hulluka, K. Woldearegay, and A. Deligianni. land: World Meteorological Organization. https://library.wmo. 2021. Green Roads for Water: Guidelines for Road Infra- int/viewer/58070/download?file=1300_State_of_the_Climate_ structure in Support of Water Management and Climate in_Africa_2021_en.pdf&type=pdf&navigator=1.   Resilience. Washington, DC: World Bank. https://documents1. worldbank.org/curated/en/102951623742853259/pdf/ World Bank. n.d. “Country Climate and Development Reports Green-Roads-for-Water-Guidelines-for-Road-Infrastructure-in- (CCDRs).” https://www.worldbank.org/en/publication/coun- Support-of-Water-Management-and-Climate-Resilience.pdf.  try-climate-development-reports. Accessed 2024. van Steenbergen, F.W.M., and A. Deligianni. 2023. “Green Roads World Bank. 2018. “World Bank Board Approves West Africa for Water: Road Infrastructure in Support of Water Manage- Coastal Areas (WACA) Resilience Investment Project.” https:// ment and Climate Resilience.” Presentation prepared by Green www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2018/04/09/ Roads for Water. https://roadsforwater.org/wp-content/ world-bank-board-approves-west-africa-coastal-areas-wa- uploads/2023/04/Green-Roads-for-Water_Intro-Global-Experi- ca-resilience-investment-project.   ence_small.pdf.   World Bank. 2021a. The Changing Wealth of Nations 2021: Man- van Zanten, B., K. Arkema, T. Swannack, R. Griffin, S. Narayan, K. aging Assets for the Future. Washington, DC: World Bank. http:// Penn, B.G. Reguero, et al. 2021. “Chapter 6: Benefits and Costs of hdl.handle.net/10986/36400.   NNBF.” In International Guidelines on Natural and Nature-Based Features for Flood Risk Management, edited by T.S. Bridges, World Bank. 2021b. A Catalogue of Nature-Based Solutions J.K. King, J. Simm, M.W. Beck, G. Collins, Q. Lodder, and R.K. for Urban Resilience. Washington, DC: World Bank. https:// Mohan. Vicksburg, MS: US Army Engineer Research and Devel- openknowledge.worldbank.org/entities/publication/c33e226c- opment Center.   2fbb-5e11-8c21-7b711ecbc725.   van Zanten, B.T., G. Gutierrez Goizueta, L.M. Brander, R.B. World Bank. 2021c. World Bank Group Climate Change Action Gonzalez, R. Griffin, K.K. Macleod, A.I. Alves Beloqui, et al. 2023. Plan 2021–2025: Supporting Green, Resilient, and Inclusive Assessing the Benefits and Costs of Nature-Based Solutions for Development. Washington, DC: World Bank. http://hdl.handle. Climate Resilience: A Guideline for Project Developers. Washing- net/10986/35799.   ton, DC: World Bank.   World Bank. 2022a. “Stormwater Management and Climate VEI. 2022. “WaterWorX, KfW and GIZ, Join Forces to Develop a Change Adaptation Project.” https://projects.worldbank.org/en/ Financing Facility Supporting Water Utility Turnarounds in the projects-operations/project-detail/P122841.   Global South.” VEI News, January 2. https://www.vei.nl/news/ World Bank. 2022b. Living on the Water’s Edge: Flood Risk and waterworx-kfw-and-giz-join-forces.   Resilience of Coastal Cities in Sub-Saharan Africa. Washing- Venter, Z.S., C.M. Shackleton, F. Van Staden, O. Selomane, and ton, DC: World Bank, Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and V.A. Masterson. 2020. “Green Apartheid: Urban Green Infrastruc- Recovery. https://documents.worldbank.org/en/publication/ ture Remains Unequally Distributed across Income and Race documents-reports/documentdetail/099042623122580007/ Geographies in South Africa.” Landscape and Urban Plan- p17703604875c205e0a95b0d3f8997b32c8.   ning 203: 103889.   World Bank. 2022c. “Benin: Reducing Flood Risks in Sec-  Watkins, G., M. Silva, A. Rycerz, K. Dawkins, J. Firth, V. Kapos, L. ondary Cities through Infrastructure Resilience and Canevaril, et al. 2019. Nature-Based Solutions Scaling Pri- Capacity Building.” https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/ vate Sector Uptake for Climate Resilient Infrastructure in Latin press-release/2022/09/29/benin-reducing-flood-risks-in-sec- America and the Caribbean. Washington, DC: Inter-American ondary-cities-through-infrastructure-resilience-and-ca- Development Bank.   pacity-building.   Appendices  | 91 World Bank. 2023. Integrating Gender and Inclusion in WWAP (United Nations World Water Assessment Programme) Nature-Based Solutions. Washington, DC: World Bank. https:// and UN-Water. 2018. The United Nations World Water Devel- documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/099060123165042304/ opment Report 2018: Nature-Based Solutions for Water. Paris, pdf/P1765160ae46bb0aa0aefa0235601f9d0c6.pdf.   France: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. https://www.unwater.org/publications/world-wa- World Bank. 2024a. The Nature-Based Solutions Opportunity ter-development-report-2018. Scan: Leveraging Earth Observation Data to Identify Invest- ment Opportunities in NBS for Climate Resilience in Cities and WWF (World Wildlife Fund). 2017. Extractive Industry: It’s Inter- Coasts across the World. Washington, DC: World Bank. https:// actions with Conservation and Management of Ecosystems openknowledge.worldbank.org/entities/publication/f350c5c0- in Central Africa. Yaounde, Cameroon: WWF Regional Office b17b-4f35-ad29-cb3ddc101958.   for Africa. https://wwfint.awsassets.panda.org/downloads/ wwf_extractive_industry_study_congo_basin__final_updated_ World Bank. 2024b. The Role of Nature-Based Solutions in Disas- version__english.pdf.   ter Risk Management in Fragile, Conflict and Violence-Affected Countries. Washington, DC: World Bank. https://hdl.handle. WWF. 2021. Africa NDCs: Recommendations for Decision-Makers. net/10986/42065.   WWF Africa. https://wwfint.awsassets.panda.org/downloads/ wwf_africa_ndcs_recommendations_for_decision_makers.pdf.  World Bank, European Investment Bank, and Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit. 2020. “Turning Resilient WWF. n.d. “Nature-Based Solutions: Working with Nature Low-Carbon Ideas into Strategies and Finance-Ready Projects.” to Tackle Societal Challenges and Benefit People, Nature https://www.citygapfund.org/.   and Climate.” https://wwf.panda.org/discover/our_focus/ climate_and_energy_practice/what_we_do/nature_based_ WWA (World Weather Attribution). 2024. “Urban Planning at solutions_for_climate/.  Accessed 2024. the Heart of Increasingly Severe East African Flood Impacts in a Warming World.” https://www.worldweatherattribution.org/ Yaron, G. 2018. Case Study: Exploring the Cost-Benefit of Roads urban-planning-at-the-heart-of-increasingly-severe-east-afri- for Water in Ethiopia. Itad. https://roadsforwater.org/wp-con- can-flood-impacts-in-a-warming-world/.   tent/uploads/2019/01/GRP-CBA-Case-Study-FINAL.pdf.  92 |  Growing resilience: Unlocking the potential of nature-based solutions for climate resilience in sub-Saharan Africa About WRI About African Development Bank World Resources Institute works to improve people’s lives, protect Established in 1964, the African Development Bank is the premier and restore nature and stabilize the climate. As an independent pan-African development institution, promoting economic research organization, we leverage our data, expertise and growth and social progress across the continent. There are 81 global reach to influence policy and catalyze change across member states, including 54 in Africa (Regional Member Coun- systems like food, land and water; energy; and cities. Our 2,000+ tries). The Bank’s development agenda is delivering the financial staff work on the ground in more than a dozen focus countries and technical support for transformative projects that will and with partners in over 50 nations. significantly reduce poverty through inclusive and sustainable economic growth. In order to sharply focus the objectives of the Ten-Year Strategy (2024 – 2033) and ensure greater develop- mental impact, five major areas, all of which will accelerate our About World Bank delivery for Africa, have been launched, namely; i) Light up and Power Africa, ii) Industrialize Africa, iii) Integrate Africa, iv) Feed The World Bank Group is one of the world’s largest sources of Africa, and v) Improve the Quality of Life for the People of Africa. funding and knowledge for developing countries. Our five institu- tions share a commitment to end extreme poverty, boost shared prosperity on a livable planet. About the Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery Established in 2006, the World Bank’s Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery (GFDRR) is a global partnership that helps low- and middle-income countries better understand and reduce their vulnerability to natural hazards and climate change. Back cover photo: Tree planting campaign supported by the GEF’s Ecosystem Based Adaptation for Rural Resilience (EBARR) Project in Mbugani Village, Tanzania. Photo by Vice President's Office, United Republic of Tanzania. Appendices  | 93