1 Introduction

The Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), introduced in Article 12 of the Kyoto Protocol (KP), might be considered as the main incentive for developing countries (DC) so far to participate in the global effort to combat climate change. This mechanism allows industrialized countries (IC) that are signatories to the KP to partly meet their emission limitations by buying certified emission reductions (CERs) generated from greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation projects implemented in DCs. The mechanism has been operational since February 2005, when the KP entered into force. Since then 1,596 CDM projects have been registered (as of May 1, 2009) (URC 2009). These projects are estimated to reduce 1,594.2 million tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) GHGs by the end of first commitment period of the KP (i.e., 2012). Moreover, 3,137 additional projects are in pipeline for registration, which are expected to deliver another 1,337.6 million tons of CO2e by 2012 (URC 2009).

Like other DCs, countries in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) region are expected to get opportunities for cleaner and low carbon economic development through the CDM as well as other climate change mitigation funding mechanisms such as World Bank’s Climate Investment Funds (CIFs), Forest Carbon Partnership Facility, (FCPF) and the Reducing Emissions through Deforestation and Degradation (REDD). Until now, however, SSA’s participation under the CDM has been extremely low. Out of the 1,596 projects already registered under the CDM only 20 are in the SSA (and 15 out of the 20 in South Africa). In terms of CERs to be delivered by 2012, these projects account for 2.25% of the total. Even if all 4,733 CDM projects already registered, requesting registration and submitted for validation are considered, SSA’s share merely accounts for 1.6% in terms of the number of projects and 2.5% in terms of emission reduction by 2012. Why is SSA participation in CDM so low? Is this because of a lack of potential CDM projects in the region? No comprehensive answer is yet available to this question. What are the barriers that have prevented implementation of CDM projects in the region? What could be possible strategies to overcome these barriers? This study aims to answer these questions.

Only limited studies are available in the literature exploring GHG mitigation potential in SSA (e.g., URC 1995, 2001a). These studies only address selected countries, and they do not assess CDM potential. Some studies, such as Ajayi (2009), Sebitosi and Pillay (2008), Batidzirai et al. (2009) and URC (2001b), assess the renewable energy potential in selected countries in SSA, but they do not estimate GHG mitigation potential. Most recent climate change related studies in SSA are focused on climate change adaptation instead of climate change mitigation (e.g., Osbahr et al. 2008; Paavola 2008; Stringer et al. 2009; Thomas 2008).Footnote 1 Thus, studies covering the wide range of GHG mitigation options in all SSA countries would fill an important gap in climate change mitigation research in SSA region.

Using a bottom-up approach this study investigates potential CDM projects and estimates the GHG mitigation that can be achieved from those projects in 44 countries in the the SSA region. The methodologies developed by the CDM Executive Board (CDMEB) to screen CDM projects were used to identify the potential CDM projects in the study. The projects identified are from energy supply and demand side activities. Supply side activities include, among others, cleaner fossil fuel based power generation (e.g., combined cycle power plants, combined heat and power); electricity generation from renewable sources (e.g., hydro, photovoltaics, biomass, landfill gas); oil and gas upstream activities (e.g., gas flare control, coal bed methane) and efficient production of charcoal. Demand side options include energy efficiency improvement and fuel and technology switching activities in industry, transport and residential sectors (e.g., steam efficiency improvement in industry, compact fluorescent lamps, energy efficient electrical appliances, clinker reduction in cement manufacturing, substitution of diesel with Jatropha based biodiesel, etc.).

Our study identifies 3,227 potential CDM projects, including 361 programs of activities,Footnote 2 with GHG mitigation potential of 740.7 million tons of CO2eq annually in the 44 SSA countries. These projects are estimated to attract US$158 billion of total investment to the region and could generate US$7.5 billion of carbon revenue annually at a modest carbon price of US$10/tCO2. Moreover, these projects could add 149 GW of clean electricity generation capacity, which is more than twice the region’s current total electricity generation capacity of 68,675 MW. In addition, the energy efficiency CDM projects could avoid 21.5 GW of capacity addition, 31.3% of current existing capacity in the region. Many of these options comply with the conventional energy sector’s strategy to provide consumers with sufficient, cost-effective, and reliable energy supplies. However, the potential has never been estimated before, and investment communities are therefore unfamiliar with it. The exploitation of this potential is contingent on the assistance in overcoming several barriers, such as market failure, lack of infrastructure and institutional capacity, lack of local skilled human resources, lack of awareness and information sharing, and, most importantly, lack of financial resources and foreign investors’ perception that investment in SSA is risky. There exists a general perception that the SSA region has few industries, emits fairly small amounts of GHG emissions, and therefore has limited opportunities to reduce these emissions.

The study is organized as follows: Section 2 briefly discusses the overall methodological framework, followed by the estimation of CDM potential in Section 3. Investment flow that the potential CDM project could create is presented in Section 4, and the analysis of clean electricity generation and energy savings potential is presented in Section 5. Section 6 highlights the major challenges that the exploitation of CDM potential would face in the region. Finally, key conclusions are drawn in Section 7.

2 Methodological approach

The study selected 22 technologies or types of CDM projects based on suitability to a specific country or the region as a whole, availability of CDM methodologies for baseline establishment, and potential multiple benefits (e.g., reduction of energy dependency, improvement of local air quality) pertaining to economic development and environmental quality in the region. Table 1 lists the selected GHG mitigation technologies.

Table 1 GHG mitigation technologies selected for the study
Full size table

The overall approach used in the study to determine the technical potential and investment curve for abatement is illustrated in Fig. 1.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Overview of the methodological approach

Full size image

As can be seen from the figure, we used already approved CDM baseline and monitoring methodologies to estimate GHG mitigation from the selected options or potential CDM projects.Footnote 3 Table 2 presents the CDM methodologies either used in this study or similar to the methods used in the study to estimate GHG mitigation from the activities considered under the study.

Table 2 CDM methodologies used to estimate GHG mitigation
Full size table

The estimation of technical potential involves a large set of data and assumptions. Detailed descriptions of data and assumptions and the step by step process employed for the estimation of technical potential and investment requirements are available in de Gouvello et al. (2008). A summary of key assumptions is presented in the Appendix, where the basis for estimating numbers of CDM projects under each project category is also indicated. Note however that estimation of CDM potential in the study requires a large volume of data, parameters and technical details in addition to these key assumptions. We recommend readers who are interested to reproduce the results to refer to Gouvello et al. (2008).

The unit investment costs are calculated by dividing the total investment requirement for a project by the volume of GHG mitigation that can be achieved throughout the CDM life of that project. Total investment of a CDM option is estimated by multiplying total capacity by the unit capital cost. In the case of electricity generation projects, for example, investment costs are estimated by multiplying total installed capacity (MW) in each project by unit capital cost (US$/MW). Total investments have not discounted as the study does not develop investment plans, instead it estimates the investment need if all technical potential were to be realized immediately. Following current CDM regulations, the CDM project lives are either 10 years or 21 years depending upon the project type. While, biodiesel from jatropha, hydroelectricity and bus rapid transit system are assumed to have 21 years of CDM operation, the rest of the projects are assumed to have 10 years. Even with the longer CDM life period (i.e., 21 years), the unit investment costs of GHG mitigation from a project may be overestimated as the economic life of many project types would be much higher than their CDM life period. While unit investment costs calculated considering the full economic life of a project would be more relevant from societal perspective, unit investment costs calculated based on CDM life (i.e., truncated economic life of the project) would be more relevant for a CDM investor. While it would be highly relevant to analyze GHG abatement costs that capture both incremental capital costs and benefits from energy savings, this is beyond the scope of this study. Such an analysis requires numerous economic comparisons of these low-emission energy alternatives with more conventional ones at the local level. We consider that the abatement cost analysis could be part of a further study. Moreover, although at present, economic analyses are normally used for additionality test, all projects considered in this study are likely to pass the additionally test through other barrier analysis and hence economic analysis might not be needed. In addition, the fact that a large number of similar CDM projects are being implemented in other countries, mainly by the private sector, strongly indicates that such projects can be attractive when taking carbon revenue into account. The study assumes that project hosts (i.e., SSA country parties) receive a net price of US$10/tCO2 while estimating carbon revenue from all potential CDM projects and program of activities.

3 Potential GHG mitigation under the CDM

This study finds a large, diversified range of CDM opportunities across Sub-Saharan Africa’s energy sector. Table 3 presents the estimated number of potential CDM projects, annual GHG mitigation that can be achieved from those projects and CDM proceeds at US$5/tCO2 and US$10/tCO2 CER prices. As can be seen from the table, more than 3,200 potential CDM projects, including 361 Programs of Activities, each consisting of hundreds of single activities, could be possible in the 44 SSA countries from the 22 technologies considered. If implemented, these projects would reduce about 740 million tCO2 annually, more than the region’s current annual GHG emissions (680 million tCO2).Footnote 4 Moreover, these projects would install more than 170 GW of additional power-generation capacity, more than twice the region’s current installed capacity. The additional energy provided, both electrical and thermal, would equal roughly four times the region’s current non-conventional energy production.

Table 3 Estimation of CDM potential in Sub-Saharan Africa
Full size table

The distribution of GHG mitigation potential across project types (i.e., GHG mitigation option) is notable. About 65.7% of the annual emission reduction potential would be achieved through supply side options, mainly biomass based electricity generation (e.g., bagasse, agricultural and agro-industrial residues, and forest and wood-industry residues). On the other hand, demand side options have relatively smaller potential, options such as energy efficiency improvements and fuel and technology switching activities in industry, transport and residential sectors, etc., would reduce only 34.3% of the total potential. In terms of CDM life time emissions, supply side options account for 52.6%. More than half of the total electricity capacity addition (i.e., 53%) would be contributed mainly by cleaner fossil fuel based technologies. One should also note that clean energy projects that incur only incremental investment on already existing facilities, (e.g., fossil fuel or sugarcane–based cogeneration in industry) could deliver one-third potential additional capacity and one-fifth emission reductions.

Table 4 presents the distribution of potential CDM projects and emission reductions across 44 Sub-Saharan countries considered in the study. South Africa exhibits the highest potential of emission reductions with 23.8% of the total emission reduction potential. This is followed by Nigeria (15.4%), Democratic Republic of Congo (7.1%) and Angola (5.3%).

While unexpectedly large, this potential is not inconsistent with the rapid scaling up of the CDM worldwide, which is roughly doubling each year, (URC 2009). Indeed, the potential can be considered underestimated for two major reasons. First, the number of methodologies approved by the CDM’s Executive Board is increasing every two months, suggesting that many more clean-energy activities might be applicable to the region. Second, various other types of projects (e.g., geothermal, concentrated solar power, wind farms, small hydropower plants, waste-to-energy projects¸ building energy efficiency, solar water heaters and improved household stoves) are left out due to the lack of data. In fact, the results are indicative rather than exhaustive.

Table 4 Distribution of CDM projects and emission reduction by country
Full size table

4 Investment requirement

The study also estimates total investment or capital costs required to implement the CDM projects. Figures 2 and 3 illustrate the magnitude of investment by project type and by country, respectively. Due to a lack of data, investment requirement could not be estimated for some project types, namely, T&D loss reduction, energy efficient appliances in household and industry, gas flaring reduction, improved steam systems, BRT and biodiesel for transport, all together representing 417 CDM projects. A conservative estimate of the total capital cost of the remaining 2,755 clean energy projects is about US$155 billion.Footnote 5 If investment required for the options for which detailed data are missing were included, the capital cost estimate could exceed US$200 billion.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Investment demand by project type (in billion US$)

Full size image
Fig. 3
figure 3

Investment demand by country (in billion US$)

Full size image

Figure 2 illustrates that replacement of electricity generation based on diesel with that based on biodiesel produced from jatropha could require as much as US$54 billion in capital costs. This is followed by power generation from agricultural residue, combined heat and power for industry, and forest residues. Substitution of inefficient lighting systems with efficient compact fluorescent lamps would require approximately US$5 billion.

The total investment requirement of US$155 billion represents 39.4% of the GDP of the 44 countries included in the study in 2006. The flow of these funds to SSA through climate change mitigation funding mechanisms, particularly the CDM, would thus significantly help sustainable development of the region. From an economic perspective, the net costs of CDM projects would be very small because most of these projects are electricity generation projects and most of the cost of such project can be recovered through the sale of electricity. For example, the jatropha biodiesel based electricity generation CDM projects are estimated to produce 218,767 GWh electricity annually. With a relatively low price of electricity of US$30/MWh, the CDM projects would generate approximately US$57 billion from electricity sale alone at a 10% discount rate over a CDM life of 21 years. This revenue is approximately 6% higher than the required investment of US$53.6 billion. Although we have not presented it in the study, a rough estimation indicates that many of these CDM projects with relatively large emission reduction potentials are likely to produce more revenue than they cost when their carbon reductions are priced at US10/tCO2. This simple calculation indicates that many of the CDM projects could be attractive to private investors on purely financial ground. However, investors tend to consider many risks, including political risks, and therefore might not be interested in investing in CDM projects in SSA countries unless the various risks they perceive can be minimized. Moreover, CDM projects could face several barriers as discussed in Section 6. Hence, involvement of multi-lateral institutions such as the World Bank and African Development Bank, which have higher risk management capacities, looks imperative to realize the investment demand under the CDM in SSA countries.

It would also be interesting to analyze the investment intensity of the CDM projects identified. Figure 4 presents an investment curve for GHG abatement. As can be seen from the figure, CDM projects for reducing clinker use in cement industry, improving energy efficiency in charcoal production, generating electricity from landfill gas and coal mine methane require relatively small investment per unit of GHG reduction (< US$5/tCO2). However, the emission reduction potential is also relatively small from these options: 262 million tons during their CDM project cycle. On the other hand, CDM projects replacing diesel with biodiesel from jatropha offer the highest volume of GHG mitigation (3,712 million tons) but are estimated to require US$14/tCO2 of investment. CDM projects using agricultural, forest and wood residues to produce electricity are estimated to reduce 2,228 million tons of GHG during their project cycle with investment of US$27-28/tCO2. The investment cost curve reveals, contrary to general perception, that GHG mitigation or CDM projects are not expensive in SSA. Note that the investment per unit of GHG mitigation presented in Fig. 4 is the total investment under the CDM scenario; this is not incremental to the baseline investment. Still, these costs are relatively low. Moreover, most options considered in the study not only reduce GHG emissions but also produce electricity through clean sources. If revenue generated from electricity sales is accounted for, most of these projects would be economically attractive even at a relatively low carbon price (< US$10/tCO2). For example, using a 10% discount rate, we find that electricity revenue alone would be higher than investment at the lowest electricity price of US$30/MWh available in SSA for the CDM projects with larger mitigation potentials (e.g., jatropha, agricultural, wood and forestry residues).Footnote 6

Fig. 4
figure 4

Investment curve for GHG abatement in Sub-Saharan Africa

Full size image

5 Electricity generation and saving potential of the CDM project

One of the main objectives of the CDM is to help developing countries to achieve their sustainable development (UNFCCC 1998). Electricity generation from clean or green sources to increase access to modern energy in SSA certainly helps to meet this objective. Considering this objective, the study focused mostly on those projects which have the potential to produce clean electricity while reducing GHG emissions. Table 5 presents electricity generation capacity and annual generation of clean electricity from the potential CDM projects. The table also presents potential savings in electricity consumption and avoidance of capacity addition due to demand and supply side energy efficiency improvements.

Table 5 Potential clean electricity generation and savings
Full size table

As can be seen from the table, the clean electricity CDM projects could produce 1,178 TWh of electricity annually, more than three times as much as the 2006 total generation of 375.5 TWh in the region. Similarly the energy efficiency CDM projects could save 66 TWh annually, or 17.6% of total generation in 2006. The clean electricity generating CDM projects would add approximately 149 GW of capacity, more than double the 2006 capacity of 68.7 GW. Similarly, the energy efficiency CDM projects could avoid 21 GW of additional capacity, or 31.2% of the total installed capacity in 2006. Thus, the CDM projects considered in the study clearly meet both objectives of the CDM, promoting sustainable development in developing countries and lowering the cost of GHG mitigation in industrialized countries.

6 Challenges to realizing the potential

A large number of technical, regulatory and economic barriers have been preventing the implementation of clean energy projects, even if the CDM provides some incentives for their implementation. Examples of these barriers include the lack of: (i) infrastructure planning and development, (ii) awareness and information sharing, (iii) local capacity for operating clean energy technologies, (iv) research and development, (v) development of level-playing field for clean energy projects, and (vi) other facilitative mechanisms besides CDM.

Lack of infrastructure planning and development is one of the main barriers to the development of CDM projects. For example, biomass-based energy generation faces a dual infrastructure challenge: collection and transport to the energy production facility and construction of transmission lines to deliver power to the market. Lack of awareness and information sharing contributed to the slow start of the CDM process in SSA. Most of the region’s small- and medium-sized industries ignore the opportunity provided by energy-efficient options for improved profitability and competitiveness. As a result, the use of older, inefficient and polluting equipment persists. With regard to agro-industry and forest and wood-processing industries, residual biomass (e.g., sugarcane bagasse, groundnut shell, rice husk, and palm fiber) is commonly viewed as a waste-disposal issue or, in certain cases, is burned inefficiently to generate a limited amount of process heat to eliminate an undesirable byproduct. In addition, there exists a lack of knowledge and information regarding the CDM and carbon finance (CF) opportunities and procedures. This presents a key obstacle to CDM project identification.

Lack of local capacity, particularly the skilled human resources required for proper operation and maintenance of equipment, contributed to energy losses and increased emissions. For example, when steam traps in industrial steam systems malfunction, the traps are not immediately repaired or replaced, thereby causing the release of condensate into drainage lines and loss of considerable amounts of energy. In the area of bio-energy, lack of proper operational skills for certain techniques also generates bottlenecks that limit the development of corresponding clean-energy potential. The capacity to adapt clean technologies to local resources is low in SSA as compared to other developing regions. For example, most countries in the region lack the equipment required to obtain the full energy potential from local biomass. R&D activities to adapt efficient, pre-use transformation solutions and combustion equipment to the unique characteristics of diverse biomass residues found in SSA are absent.

Overcoming the barriers mentioned above is the greatest challenge to implementing CDM projects in SSA. Some options with the potential to address the challenges include: (i) focusing of new instruments for low carbon economic growth (e.g., clean energy technology fund of the World Bank) to SSA region, (ii) establishment of SSA region specific carbon finance facilities, (iii) enhanced south-south cooperation and (iv) addressing social, political and cultural needs.

While the CDM is the main vehicle for climate change mitigation investment in developing countries, the CDM alone will not solve the financing problem SSA is currently facing to implement climate change mitigation projects. This is because the carbon revenue could be very small compared to the total investment required in many CDM projects with large infrastructure components, and it will not usually suffice to ensure financial closure. Therefore, additional funding, either for the preparation or the implementation of climate change mitigation projects, is imperative to realizing the CDM potential in SSA. Moreover, in the context of resource constraints and political pressure on public utilities to contain a looming energy crisis, most industrial companies seek quick fixes and less capital-intensive options, which are usually more carbon intensive. For many of the region’s smaller poor countries (e.g., Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cape Verde, Chad, and Senegal), this frequently means the multiplication of small diesel or heavy fuel-oil generators (less than 10 MW each) and simple, short-lived repairs of inefficient, outdated generators. In larger countries (e.g., Kenya and Nigeria), it is more likely that power-utility decision makers will implement single-cycle gas turbines, which are faster to build and cheaper to operate compared to combined-cycle systems or large hydropower plants. Breaking this vicious circle, which harms not only these countries’ economies but also the global environment, requires new investment financing instruments, earmarked to promote medium-term clean and efficient solutions, in addition to existing instruments to finance shorter-term solutions and carbon funds to internalize global benefits. Thus, compatibility between new funding for clean technology (e.g., the Clean Technology Fund, CTFFootnote 7 of the World Bank) and the CDM is critical since many of the region’s clean energy projects must overcome both a lack of investment financing and low returns compared to other investment opportunities, and thus may need to remain eligible for CDM and CTF.

Although this study finds huge technical potential of CDM projects in SSA countries, this does not imply a dramatic increase in CDM projects in the region because removal of key barriers to these projects takes time. Moreover, a similar study could identify much higher CDM potential in big countries, such as China, India, Brazil and Indonesia, where investment markets and climate are more favorable than that in the SSA region. Most countries in SSA have less attractive investment climate as compared to the rest of the world. The World Bank’s ‘Doing Business 2010’ report ranks most countries in SSA at the bottom of the list of 183 countries (World Bank 2009a).Footnote 8 Hence, new and innovative mechanisms should be introduced to facilitate clean energy investments in the SSA region. One approach could be an establishment of clean investment mechanisms dedicated to this region. The CTF established at the World Bank could be an in important milestone in this direction as it aims to facilitate the flow of both public and private sector investment to climate change mitigation activities in the developing countries. Through the public sector channel, it directly invests in clean energy projects and programs. On the private sector front, it provides incentives necessary to engage the private sector in clean energy projects including a range of concessional financing instruments, such as grants and concessional loans, and risk mitigation instruments, such as guarantees and equity (World Bank 2009b). However, considering the current size of this fund and its mandate and also considering the competition from other regions for the same resources, its contribution to realize the full CDM potentials in the SSA region would be limited.

Most of the region’s CDM projects might be smaller in size than that required by many existing carbon funds. Most investing parties would be interested in investing emission reductions activities in relatively large deals, because working through a large number of relatively small projects not only possesses a huge transaction costs but also turns out to be too burdensome administratively. This issue can be addressed, in part, by bundling together many similar smaller projects under the CDM’s new Program of Activities. However, the challenge is to develop regional institutional approaches for bundling together a large number of projects and offering them to a “buyer” as a package. Moreover, bundling of projects activities could trigger additional coordination challenges that may be difficult when similar projects are scattered across countries, some of which may be located in conflict or post-conflict zones. Nevertheless, African countries have already started to present themselves as a unified group in the international climate change negotiations.Footnote 9 This spirit could continue to set up regional or sub-regional institutions that coordinate issues like bundling of CDM projects. Existing regional or sub-regional economic organizations, such as The African Union, The Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA), The Southern African Development Community (SADC), The East African Community (EAC), The Economic Community of Central African States (ECCAS), and The Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), could be helpful for this purpose.

Another possibility to promote CDM implementation in SSA countries could be enhanced south-south cooperation. A large proportion of registered CDM projects in middle income developing countries such as Brazil, China and India are unilateral projects. The private or public sectors of these countries, which have already acquired good experience with CDM project development, could also be interested in CDM projects in SSA countries. Even the private sectors of the middle income countries within the region, such as South Africa, could invest in clean energy projects in other SSA countries.

One of the specific characteristic of most countries in the SSA region is that CDM projects that help meet social, cultural and political needs would likely be more successful as compared to others. Unemployment among the unskilled population is a key source of crime, political violence and social backwardness. CDM projects that create more jobs for unskilled populations would help address this issue. CDM projects such as agricultural and forest residues for power generation, jatropha based biodiesel for transportation and power generation are likely to create more jobs to unskilled population. For example, harvesting jatropha is very labor intensive. Interestingly, this study finds the largest number of CDM projects and the highest amounts of GHG mitigation in these project categories.

7 Concluding remarks

Using a bottom-up approach, this study estimates greenhouse gas mitigation through potential CDM projects in the sub-Saharan Africa region. The study identifies 3,227 potential CDM projects, including 361 programs of activities, with GHG mitigation potential of 740.7 million tons of CO2eq annually in the 44 SSA countries. These projects are estimated to draw more than US$200 billion of total investment in the region and could generate US$7.5 billion of carbon revenue annually at a modest carbon price of US$10/tCO2. Moreover, these projects could add 149 GW of clean electricity generation capacity, which is two times as high as the region’s current total electricity generation capacity. In addition, the energy efficiency CDM projects could avoid 21.5 GW of capacity addition, i.e., 31.3% of current existing capacity in the region. Many of these options comply with the conventional energy sector’s strategy to provide consumers with sufficient, cost-effective, and reliable energy supplies. However, this potential has never been estimated before, and therefore investment communities are unfamiliar with it. The exploitation of this potential is contingent on the removal of several barriers, such as market failures, lack of infrastructure and institutional capacity, lack of local skilled human resources, lack of awareness and information sharing, and, most importantly, lack of financial resources and foreign investors’ perception that investment in SSA is risky. There exists a general perception that the SSA region has few industries and opportunities for GHG mitigation, but this study demonstrates that the potential for clean energy projects in Sub-Saharan Africa is large. In this context, innovative, climate change–related financial instruments offer an unprecedented opportunity to explore this overlooked potential for the socioeconomic benefit of countries across the region. This goal can be achieved via appropriate coordination of new climate-change aid with conventional energy sector–based support provided by development aid agencies. An illustration of such required coordination is the need to fill regulatory gaps in the region’s energy sectors, which prevent implementation of clean energy projects. Without appropriate coordination between climate-change and conventional-development aid, economies in Sub-Saharan Africa will be further hindered, or even prevented, from receiving their share of the carbon revenues that already flow to the world’s other developing regions.

As discussed above, the financing required to implement some 2,755 potential clean energy projects for which preliminary costing could be done is estimated at about $US155 billion. If the capital cost of projects related to large flared, associated-gas recovery could be calculated, this figure would likely exceed US$200 billion. While this figure may be perceived as large, in the context of global climate change, it represents only a small fraction of recently estimated amounts required for industrialized countries to shift from conventional to cleaner energy over the next several decades.