Climate change is already reshaping development pathways across Africa, with rising climate risks threatening food security, infrastructure, employment and financial stability.
Despite growing recognition of the need for adaptation, investment has lagged behind mitigation; adaptation finance has remained fragmented, under-prioritised and inconsistently embedded in development planning.
The Africa Adaptation Acceleration Programme (AAAP) was launched in 2021 to address this gap by accelerating and scaling adaptation action across the continent.
Our independent evaluation assessed how effectively the AAAP- a €83 million programme designed to influence an estimated US$25 billion in adaptation investments, has used upstream technical assistance and policy engagement to drive large-scale climate adaptation outcomes across Africa.
Commissioned by Norad, our work came at a critical moment as the programme reached the end of its initial phase and donors considered future directions for adaptation support. The evaluation is focused on learning, accountability and evidence to inform donor decision-making and future adaptation programming.
About the Africa Adaptation Acceleration Programme
Led by the Global Center on Adaptation (GCA) in partnership with the African Development Bank (AfBD), AAAP was designed as an African-led response to influence large-scale public and private investment. It aims to embed climate adaptation into core economic sectors, such as agriculture, infrastructure, jobs and finance.
Rather than delivering projects directly, AAAP focuses on shaping how major investments are designed, financed and implemented to achieve transformational system-level change.
Our role
We were commissioned by Norad to assess how effectively and efficiently AAAP has contributed to climate adaptation outcomes and whether these contributions are likely to be sustained over time.
With a particular focus on AAAP’s Upstream Financing Facility, our evaluation examines what lessons AAAP offers for the wider climate adaptation and development community.
Specifically, we assessed four core areas:
- Efficiency and effectiveness
- Impact and sustainability
- The added value of GCA’s business model
- The strength of AAAP’s monitoring, evaluation and learning systems
Ultimately, our aim was not only to judge performance, but to identify what has worked, where gaps remain, and how AAAP’s approach might be strengthened in future phases. The findings are intended to inform Norad’s future engagement with AAAP and contribute broader lessons to the climate adaptation sector.
Methods and approaches
Our work was both accountability‑ and learning‑oriented, designed to support evidence‑based decision‑making for donors while also providing practical insights for GCA and its partners.
The evaluation examined AAAP’s influence across multiple levels, from international policy and development finance institutions to national governments and, where relevant, local actors.
While recognising that AAAP does not directly implement projects, we focused on understanding how GCA’s upstream activities (such as technical assistance, policy engagement, convening, and capacity building) shape downstream investment and practice.
We used a utilisation‑focused, mixed‑methods evaluation approach, designed to generate findings that are both rigorous and practical for decision‑making.
We used a range of methods, including:
- review of AAAP programme documentation, donor reports, project briefs and relevant external literature
- key informant interviews with Norad, GCA and AAAP staff as well as national stakeholders
- an in-depth country case study of AAAP’s work in Senegal
- AI-assisted portfolio analysis of 146 project briefs to analyse patterns
Findings
We found that AAAP has made its strongest contributions upstream, particularly by shaping how climate adaptation is prioritised within development finance and government systems.
GCA’s convening power and policy engagement have helped elevate adaptation on the agendas of multilateral development banks and international financial institutions, and contributed to the creation or reform of adaptation‑relevant financing instruments.
At the national level, AAAP has supported governments to integrate climate risk analysis into planning, budgeting, and investment decisions. Climate risk assessments, technical diagnostics and advisory support have directly influenced the design of large‑scale agriculture, infrastructure and urban programmes, improving their resilience to climate shocks. In several countries, these tools are beginning to be embedded within government systems, though this is not yet consistent.
AAAP has also contributed to strengthening skills ecosystems for adaptation. Training programmes, masterclasses and support to universities and vocational institutes have helped establish new pathways for adaptation‑related skills and jobs, particularly for youth. Where these have been localised and institutionalised, they show promise for long‑term impact.
However, the evaluation also highlights important limitations:
- evidence of community‑level and locally led adaptation impact remains modest and uneven across countries
- GCA’s centralised operating model and reliance on external consultants limit its ability to consistently support participatory, locally driven processes
- weaknesses in monitoring, evaluation, and learning systems constrain the programme’s ability to robustly demonstrate impact, value for money and contribution
Outcomes and impact
For the wider sector, our findings underline both the potential and the risks of upstream adaptation models. AAAP shows that relatively small investments in policy influence and technical assistance can shape very large development flows – but only if sustainability, localisation and learning systems are strengthened alongside.
Our evaluation provides valuable lessons to inform future funding decisions and organisational learning within GCA, as well as contributing to the evolving global conversation on how adaptation can be delivered at scale.
The GCA produced a management response following the finalization of the evaluation. It outlined general appreciation and support for the work that had been done and the content of the report, while offering some nuance and additional perspectives to some of the findings, as well as information about measures planned or underway to address some of the limitations.
