Development Gateway: An IREX Venture’s (DG’s) “At a Glance” series explores the highlights in DG’s white papers and other publications. In this installment of the series, we explore the white paper titled “Tracking Climate Finance in Africa: Political and Technical Insights on Building Sustainable Digital  Public Goods,” which was written by Dr. Catherine Weaver from the University of Texas at Austin and Tom Orrell, previously of DataReady and now a Deputy Director of Programs at DG. Weaver and Orrell explore the importance of climate finance tracking (CFT), common barriers to establishing climate finance tracking systems, and five insights on developing climate finance tracking systems.  

What is Climate Finance and a Climate Finance Tracking system? 

In order to combat the effects of climate change, financing is needed to fund effective climate fighting strategies, including funding to develop tools, programming, etc. that aim to equip governments and communities to predict, prevent, and address the needs provoked by climate change. Overall, climate finance is funding aimed at not only bringing the world closer to compliance with such climate policy as the 2015 Paris Agreement but is also aimed at protecting individuals and communities who are particularly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. A climate finance tracking system is the planned process(es) and infrastructure supporting the tracking and monitoring of climate financing so that its impact can be tracked, analyzed, and (when appropriate) advanced or duplicated. 

The first barrier to climate finance and creating a climate finance tracking system is that the definition of climate finance is often subject to debate because of politically motivated contestation and ambiguity over what activities are directly or indirectly motivated by climate change concerns. Therefore, the first step in establishing a climate finance tracking system is arriving at a consensus amongst stakeholders (including countries, international organizations, the private sector, and civil society) on what counts as climate change activity.   

Once a common definition of climate change activity—and therefore, what constitutes climate finance—is established, a climate finance tracking system is needed in order to ensure climate finance is appropriately utilized and to track impact. While the specifics of what a climate finance tracking system looks like depends on the context in which it’s established, such a system can include tools like DG’s Aid Management Platform, an open-source tool that facilitates the monitoring of development activities in order to enhance aid effectiveness by allowing stakeholders to track activities from planning to implementation, and GIZ’s TruBudget, a collaborative and secured platform to track and coordinate the implementation of donor-funded investment projects. (Learn more about these tools and climate finance here.)

However, in order for any tools in a climate finance tracking system to be effective, the context in which the system is being established will ideally have many components, including digital infrastructure, human and computational capacity, data and accounting literacy, and complementary institutions and policies to ensure climate data is usable and useful for decision-making. Therefore, significant resources are needed in order for a climate finance tracking system to be effectively implemented. Here is an overview of five insights DG has identified on how best to create a climate finance tracking system.   

Dive deeper into these insights and learn more about climate finance tracking and climate finance tracking systems in the white paper.

This year, the World Health Organization (WHO) has designated the theme for World No Tobacco Day (WNTD) as ‘protecting children from industry interference’. The topic is more timely than ever, particularly in the African context that Development Gateway: An IREX Venture (DG) operates in through the Data on Youth and Tobacco in Africa (DaYTA) program and the Tobacco Control Data Initiative (TCDI). 

For one, African countries are home to an extremely youthful populace. In Nigeria, over 50 percent of the population is under the age of 18, while in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), over 60 percent of the population is under the age of 24.

Over the years, the tobacco industry in Africa has successfully thwarted legal and institutional measures to combat its interference through a creative suite of tactics. The historical deception surrounding the tobacco industry’s representation of smoking’s adverse public health impacts has diminished its credibility amongst policymakers and civil society. As a result, the industry players have reverted to the use of front groups (i.e., manufacturers, media/PR firms, farmers associations, etc.), exploitation of public opinion, aggressive lobbying, and conflicts of interest to gain influence and repair its social image in the public eye.

Through the DaYTA program, DG is gathering primary data on tobacco use rates and trends among 10-17-year-olds in Kenya, Nigeria, and the DRC. This research will include new and emerging nicotine and tobacco products, such as electronic nicotine and non-nicotine delivery systems and heated tobacco products. Additional data gaps the DaYTA program seeks to fill include the socio-behavioral influences motivating minors to initiate tobacco use, as well as the nature of youth interactions with tobacco industry marketing. 

In the DRC context, having data on prevalence is especially crucial. Presently, the only youth prevalence data available comes from the Global Youth Tobacco Survey (GYTS), conducted in 2008. In addition, this dataset is limited to in-school youth in urban areas, excluding two major demographics: out-of-school and rural youth.

Through the TCDI program’s ongoing comprehensive work filling tobacco data gaps in six countries, DG has enabled tobacco control stakeholders to combat tobacco industry interference using legislative and regulatory mechanisms. For example, during a recent meeting held in the DRC, tobacco control stakeholders from the WHO, civil society organizations, and various departments of the Ministry of Health (MoH) reiterated the need to utilize results from TCDI’s primary research on illicit trade, to support efforts to ratify the Protocol for the Elimination of Illicit Tobacco Trade in the DRC parliament. Notably, in 2023, then Prime Minister, Sama Lukonde, issued a ministerial decree (040) banning smoking in public places.

The tobacco industry has devised and deployed a number of creative strategies to target young people–advertising near schools and playgrounds, giving away products for free, and selling appealing flavors in new and emerging tobacco products. During the DaYTA program’s rapid assessment in the DRC, stakeholders explained that one of the ways the tobacco industry captures children’s attention is by leveraging the use of toys and sweets. Specifically, they indirectly advertise near schools by selling candy mimicking the appearance of a cigarette, including the names and packaging of major cigarette brands. This subliminal messaging may lead children to become curious about real tobacco products, encouraging consumption later in life.

Since the TCDI program began in 2019, the number of African countries participating in the Global Tobacco Industry Interference Survey has steadily increased–from a mere 5 countries in 2019 to 20 in 2023. This survey details how governments are responding to tobacco industry interference and how closely governments are adhering to the requirements stipulated by the WHO’s Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC).

The research and knowledge base stemming from the TCDI program has highlighted a host of recommendations to tobacco control stakeholders on how to address the industry interference, including but not limited to:

• Require transparency from the tobacco industry. Ensure the public has access to tobacco industry information, such as disclosures. This facilitates openness and accountability.
• Establish a provision of standards or code of conduct to regulate interactions between public officials and the tobacco industry. For instance, an official or state employee should not accept gifts or services, in cash or in-kind, from the tobacco industry. Moreover, governments should not accept, support, or endorse any voluntary code of conduct put forth by the tobacco industry in place of legally binding tobacco control measures.
• Reject any and all partnerships with the tobacco industry, especially when it involves the industry attempting to position itself as a socially responsible stakeholder through engagement in corporate social responsibility activities.
• Enforce Monitoring & Enforcement mechanisms such as penal sanctions and whistleblower policies.
• Avoid granting preferential business treatment to the tobacco industry.

As youth represent one of the most vulnerable populations being targeted by aggressive marketing of retail nicotine and tobacco products, it is imperative that interventions to combat tobacco industry interference can be pursued and implemented effectively. The six TCDI focus-country dashboards remain an excellent resource for stakeholders to expose lies perpetuated by the tobacco industry. For example, in many African countries, the stakeholders claim that tobacco control laws are unconstitutional or infringe on international trade and investment agreements. This is categorically false, as the WHO FCTC represents a legal basis for the policies being challenged, as there exists an international consensus on the adverse effects of tobacco use.

On this year’s World No Tobacco Day, DG is more cognizant than ever of the importance and impact of our tobacco control portfolio. Our longstanding efforts to equip policymakers, civil society, and the general public with access to timely and relevant data aids in facilitating sound decision-making, bolstering public trust, and creating opportunities for youth participation. Access to timely, accurate, and context-specific data on adolescent tobacco use is essential for cementing a robust tobacco control framework, one that can proactively combat tobacco industry interference, particularly in policymaking processes. 

In late April 2024, Development Gateway: An IREX Venture, together with the Thai Youth Anti-Corruption Network, organized an invite-only roundtable in Bangkok, Thailand to discuss how to  efficiently and effectively use climate financing, which is money committed for activities to mitigate or adapt to the impacts of climate change. 

Participants of the roundtable, hosted by the HackCorruption project led by Accountability Lab, came from a broad range of local, regional, and global civil society organizations; media; and private sector, academic, and development partner organizations. Together, we explored the concept and current execution of climate financing strategies. How do we define, access, monitor, and assess the impact of these financial flows? 

Ultimately, the group  determined that ensuring funds allocated to curb the negative impacts of climate change have the greatest impact requires a multi-disciplinary and multi-stakeholder approach that prioritizes local contexts, inclusive governance, transparency, accountability, and equitable distribution of resources. 

Disparate but Necessary Efforts: The Current State of Climate Financing

The current state of climate financing—in short—is a mess. 

At COP28 in 2023, climate finance was at the forefront. Several member states, notably developing countries, highlighted the need to lean into climate finance transparency and develop rigorous national climate finance tracking frameworks. Public, private, and blended funding and financing mechanisms are proliferating around the globe in a sea of market and regulatory experimentation. From carbon taxes, trading, and capture schemes to direct subsidies, governments and international organizations are simultaneously pursuing multiple (sometimes untested) funding and financing approaches.

While these necessary but disparate efforts continue to evolve, fundamental questions about climate finance remain unanswered. For instance, what investments constitute climate investments? How do we track financial flows and market activity while avoiding double counting investments? How do we ensure that investments in certain climate mitigation strategies are not harming the people living in areas that it is intended to help? The absence of agreed global standards and classifications regarding this cornerstone issue makes it challenging to track and measure what types of initiatives provide the greatest return on investment and positive environmental impact.

Additionally, a shared understanding of how climate investments are monitored and how impacts are  tracked is critical to understand  progress toward the  legally binding commitment UN Member States made at the Conference of the Parties to the UN Climate Change Conference in 2015 (COP21 Paris) to hold “the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2o C above pre-industrial levels [and aim] to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 o C above pre-industrial levels.”

 The cost of meeting this commitment is astronomical. The Climate Policy Initiative’s most recent estimates for meeting the Paris Agreement, “range from USD 5.4 trillion to USD 11.7 trillion per year until 2030, and between USD 9.3 trillion and USD 12.2 trillion per year over the following two decades.” This comprises funds allocated for the transformation of energy systems, restoring and protecting natural resources as well as methane abatement, increased resilience, and coping with damage. 

The 100 trillion-dollar question: how do we ensure good governance of climate finance mechanisms and data flows?

Shining light on climate finance and ensuring that it is used for positive change requires inclusive, accountable, and equitable systems. In the absence of clear global standards of how climate finance can be used to create positive social and environmental impacts, the priorities and needs of local contexts must take precedence to ensure that investments achieve desired impact and that solutions are locally owned as well as locally beneficial. Discussions with representatives of civil society organizations in Thailand highlighted the uneven and messy execution that can occur with climate projects aimed at outcomes aligned with donor priorities that are sometimes in opposition with those of communities. 

Given the vastness of climate change challenges that the world faces—touching on all aspects of natural, social, economic, political, and cultural life, the identification and articulation of local priorities must happen through both multi-disciplinary and multi-stakeholder processes that account for this all-encompassing scope and effectively contextualize local priorities and interventions. Without the serious engagement of local communities (e.g., smallholder farmers, indigenous and pastoralist groups, and other local land stewards) in carbon offset plans, things can quickly go wrong; for instance, planting monoculture forests that do more harm than good. Roundtable participants described how farmers and rural residents could collaborate with agricultural professionals and local industry to propose changes that were the most beneficial and least harmful to all. 

In the absence of clearly articulated definitions of  what counts as “climate finance,” the opportunities for double-counting, misappropriation, or embezzlement of money are significant. Given the enormity of the sums involved in servicing climate change adaptation and mitigation needs, open government principles of transparency, inclusive governance, and accountability are especially important. Regulation of new carbon markets will only succeed if founded in these principles, which function to both establish a predictable and certain regulatory environment as well as act as a brake and series of checks and balances on the potential misappropriation of funds.

Finally, the equitable distribution of the risks and benefits of climate financing mechanisms must be taken seriously and baked into climate finance discourse. Market-oriented mechanisms such as carbon trading schemes are currently geared at incentivizing transnational corporations to reduce their carbon footprints by placing a price on carbon emissions. However, extrapolating the model to a global level where companies in rich countries are able to offset their emissions through interventions in poorer countries significantly raises the risk of inequitable outcomes in the market. 

Moving forward, Development Gateway: An IREX Venture plans to build on the lessons learned in Bangkok. In particular, our focus will be on the role and function that open-source digital public goods and civic technology can play in supporting the co-design, building, and scaling of inclusive, accountable, and equitable climate finance ecosystems. We are particularly interested in how civic technology can be co-created with youth stakeholders so that it can be tailored to the particular needs and priorities of young adults for ensuring greater transparency.

Today, we’re excited to announce our Tobacco Control Data Initiative (TCDI) published groundbreaking research shedding light on reasons for shisha smoking across Nigeria. The research paper, “Reasons for shisha smoking: findings from a mixed methods study among adult shisha smokers in Nigeria,” was published by PLOS Global Public Health and provides vital context-specific evidence to inform the national response to increased shisha smoking. This study, the first of its kind to be conducted in Nigeria, used a mixed methods approach and covered all geographical regions of Nigeria. It was produced in partnership with R-DATS consulting and funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

Key Findings

The research, led by Dr. Noreen Dadirai Mdege, comprises in-depth interviews with 78 current shisha users in 13 states, along with a quantitative survey involving 611 current shisha users across 12 states, spanning Nigeria’s six geopolitical zones.

One of the most common, self-reported reasons for smoking shisha was shisha flavors. Shisha came in a variety of flavors that made people want to try or continue smoking it, and also gave both smokers and non-smokers the impression that shisha is safe, or safer than cigarettes. In addition,  shisha smoking was also driven by curiosity about other product attributes such as the smoke; beliefs that it was helpful for coping with challenging life situations such as stress, sadness or joblessness; limited knowledge on the negative health effects; the availability of and ability to smoke shisha in many places, including places where cigarette smoking is prohibited; and poor enforcement and compliance monitoring of the existing tobacco control laws. The presence of friends and family members who smoke shisha, coupled with the need to belong during social events, also played a significant role in promoting shisha smoking.

On the other hand, negative societal views towards shisha smoking and the high costs of shisha discouraged people from smoking it. Additionally, the research indicates that quitting shisha smoking without support is a challenging endeavor.

Implications for public health

This study makes a significant contribution to evidence for decision-making in regards to public health. Restrictions on flavors, strengthening compliance monitoring and enforcement of the tobacco control laws in relation to shisha (e.g., smoke-free environments in indoor and outdoor public places; having health warnings in English on shisha products; and tax measures) have the potential to minimize initiation and use, and to protect the health and wellbeing of Nigeria’s general public.

Dr. Mdege states, “We conducted this study as a response to an expressed need from the tobacco control community in Nigeria for data to inform policy-decisions on how to tackle the alarming surge in shisha smoking. We, therefore, hope that this research and the underlying data will contribute to strengthening tobacco control efforts in Nigeria as well as in other similar contexts.”

The full research paper is available here at PLOS Global Public Health. Access our tobacco control data for Nigeria here.