ABSTRACT

1.        Introduction

Agriculture remains one of Togo’s key economic and social pillars, accounting for over 40% of the gross domestic product and providing a livelihood for nearly two-thirds of the working population.[1] However, this sector, essential for food security and socioeconomic stability, is particularly vulnerable to the effects of climate change, notably rainfall variability, soil degradation, and biodiversity loss.[2] In this context, the transition to sustainable and resilient agriculture is a national and regional priority.[3] Yet, financing this transition remains a significant challenge. Available resources remain fragmented, dependent on international donors, and poorly aligned with local needs. The weakness of agricultural financing mechanisms in West Africa often stems from a lack of inter-institutional coordination and weak integration of climate policies into regional development strategies.[4]

Despite the proliferation of initiatives and the commitment of organizations such as the Green Climate Fund (GCF), the Global Environment Facility (GEF), the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), and various bilateral cooperation programs, the results remain mixed. Agricultural financing in Togo remains insufficiently structured and poorly oriented towards environmental sustainability. The dominant approaches, often top-down and technocratic, struggle to strengthen local capacities or generate lasting effects on the ground. Top-down financing mechanisms frequently fail to enhance regional resilience because they perpetuate centralized allocation logics that overlook territorial dynamics.[5] For decentralization to be effective, it must be accompanied by genuine decision-making and financial autonomy for local authorities.[6] In Togo, this structural dependence on external aid and the weak local ownership of programs compromise the sustainability of interventions, a phenomenon reflected in the persistence of institutional and financial fragmentation.

Faced with these limitations, it becomes necessary to rethink financing models for sustainable agriculture using an integrated, participatory, and systemic approach. The model proposed in this research aims to articulate the economic, social, institutional, and environmental dimensions of financing, to enhance the coherence, transparency, and sustainability of the actions undertaken. This approach is part of an integrated investment logic that links global and local scales, mobilizing public, private, and community actors to achieve a comprehensive approach. The performance of financial mechanisms depends less on the volume of resources mobilized than on the quality of their institutional anchoring and multi-stakeholder governance.[7]

From a scientific perspective, this approach helps fill a dual gap. On the one hand, it addresses empirical weaknesses identified in the management of climate and agricultural funds, particularly the weak alignment between local priorities and donor-imposed conditions.[8] On the other hand, it provides an original conceptual contribution to the emerging literature on territorialized climate finance in West Africa.[9]

The purpose of this article is to conceptualize and analyze an integrated investment model capable of financing sustainable and resilient agriculture in Togo.
Accordingly, the study pursues three objectives: (i) analyze current limitations in the territorial governance of climate finance, (ii) propose an integrated investment model adapted to local contexts, and (iii)  identify the institutional mechanisms that facilitate the operationalization and long-term sustainability of such a model, drawing on a comparative analysis of decentralized climate-finance and territorial agroecology experiences in Rwanda, Senegal, and Niger. The central research question guiding this work is: How can an integrated investment model improve the efficiency, accessibility, and sustainability of climate finance for agriculture in Togo?

Anchored in the fields of adaptive governance and territorialized climate policy, the study adopts an inductive and systemic analytical approach.

2.       Literature Review

Territorial governance has become a central analytical framework for understanding the effectiveness of climate finance at local levels. The literature emphasizes that financial flows are shaped not only by funding volumes but also by governance arrangements, institutional coordination, and the capacity of territorial actors to articulate and implement local priorities.[10]^,[11] In developing-country contexts, weak decentralization, limited local participation, and fragmented institutional mandates often undermine the alignment between climate-finance interventions and territorial development needs.[12] As a result, climate-finance mechanisms frequently remain donor-driven and poorly embedded in local governance systems, reducing their long-term effectiveness.

In response to these challenges, the concept of integrated investment models has gained increasing attention in the literature. Integrated approaches seek to overcome the limitations of isolated, project-based financing by combining financial, institutional, social, and environmental dimensions within a unified framework.[13]^,[14] Such models emphasize coordination across sectors and scales, the blending of public and private resources, and the alignment of investments with development and climate objectives. While integrated investment frameworks have been explored in infrastructure and urban development, their application to climate finance in agriculture particularly in African contexts remains limited and insufficiently theorized.[15]

Agroecological transition is widely recognized as a key pathway toward climate resilience in agriculture, especially in regions characterized by high vulnerability and limited adaptive capacity.[16]^,[17] Agroecology emphasizes ecological diversification, local knowledge, and socially inclusive production systems, offering multiple co-benefits for food security, biodiversity conservation, and climate adaptation. However, the literature highlights a persistent mismatch between agroecological objectives and prevailing financing mechanisms, which tend to prioritize short-term productivity gains over long-term ecological sustainability.[18]^,[19] This financing gap constrains the scaling-up of agroecological practices and underscores the need for climate-finance models that explicitly support resilience-oriented agricultural transitions.

Climate finance is inherently multi-level, involving interactions among global institutions, national governments, and subnational actors. Adaptive governance frameworks provide important insights into how such multi-level systems can enhance flexibility, learning, and responsiveness to uncertainty.[20]^,[21] Empirical studies suggest that adaptive and participatory governance arrangements improve climate-finance outcomes by strengthening local ownership, feedback mechanisms, and institutional learning. In West Africa, however, adaptive governance remains constrained by centralized administrative systems, limited fiscal autonomy at the local level, and weak coordination between climate and development policies.[22]

The performance of climate-finance mechanisms is therefore closely linked to institutional quality, including transparency, accountability, coordination, and inclusiveness. Research consistently shows that institutional fragmentation increases transaction costs, delays implementation, and weakens the sustainability of funded interventions.[23] Conversely, financing mechanisms that are territorially anchored and supported by participatory institutions tend to achieve higher levels of efficiency, equity, and resilience.[24]These findings suggest that institutional design plays a decisive role in determining whether climate finance delivers lasting development and adaptation outcomes.

Despite the growing body of literature on climate finance and governance, significant gaps remain in the West African context. Few studies explicitly examine how territorial governance arrangements shape the effectiveness of climate-finance investments in agriculture, and integrated investment models adapted to local realities remain largely unexplored.[25] Moreover, empirical analyses of the institutional mechanisms that enable the operationalization and sustainability of such models are scarce. Addressing these gaps is essential to advancing both theory and practice, and it is within this context that the present study contributes by proposing and analyzing an integrated, territorially grounded climate-finance model for sustainable agriculture in Togo.

3.       Methodology

This study adopts an inductive and systems-based methodological framework to develop an integrated investment model for financing sustainable and climate-resilient agriculture in Togo. The research design is structured in two complementary stages. First, empirical data are collected and analyzed to identify local governance dynamics, financing practices, institutional constraints, and successful field-based experiences related to climate finance and agricultural resilience. Second, insights derived from this empirical analysis are synthesized through conceptual modeling, which translates observed patterns and relationships into an integrated investment framework. This inductive process ensures that the proposed model is grounded in empirical evidence rather than imposed a priori.[26] In parallel, the systems approach enables a holistic examination of the interactions among economic, social, institutional, and ecological dimensions of agricultural finance, thereby capturing the complexity of climate-resilient agricultural systems.[27]

This study adopts a multi-level climate governance perspective and employs a qualitative research design combining semi-structured stakeholder interviews, comparative case analysis, and analytical synthesis. It seeks to address the need to rethink agricultural financing mechanisms in light of the limitations of the fragmented sectoral approaches observed in Togo. The methodology is based on three complementary pillars: a thorough literature review, an empirical analysis grounded in interviews and case studies, and a systems modeling approach to construct an operational investment framework. This methodological triangulation strengthens the reliability of the results and the transferability of the model to other African contexts.[28]

The data used came from multiple and cross-referenced sources. The literature review encompassed institutional policies and reports related to climate and agricultural finance (FAO: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations; IFAD: International Fund for Agricultural Development; GCF: Green Climate Fund; GEF: Global Environment Facility; World Bank; UNDP: United Nations Development Programme.) for the period 2010-2024, thereby situating the research within existing conceptual and strategic frameworks. In parallel, 36 semi-structured interviews were conducted with public, private, and community stakeholders involved in climate finance governance in Togo. Finally, a comparative analysis was carried out on three African case studies (Rwanda, Senegal, and Niger), selected for their advanced experience in decentralized climate finance and territorialized agroecology.

The qualitative analysis was conducted using a structured thematic framework built around five analytical dimensions: accessibility, efficiency, governance, sustainability, and territorial adequacy. These dimensions were defined a priori based on the study objectives and the conceptual framework developed from the literature review. Semi-structured interviews were fully transcribed and imported into NVivo 14, where a two-stage coding process was applied. First, a deductive coding phase assigned interview excerpts to the five predefined dimensions. This was followed by an inductive coding phase that allowed emerging sub-themes and context-specific categories to be identified within each dimension. The coding process enabled the identification of recurrent discursive patterns and conceptual categories related to the performance and sustainability of existing climate-finance mechanisms.

The results of the qualitative analysis were then systematically compared with institutional and policy analyses to identify areas of convergence and divergence between national-level stakeholders and local actors. This comparative interpretation informed the identification of structural constraints, governance gaps, and enabling factors across scales. Building on these findings, the study adopted a systemic modeling approach to represent the interactions between financial, institutional, and territorial variables. The model was constructed by translating the empirically identified relationships into causal links, organized through a theory-of-change logic that connects governance arrangements, financing instruments, and expected outcomes in terms of resilience and sustainability.[29] This approach enables the formalization of causal relationships between the system’s components and the identification of levers for action to enhance the sustainability of financing.[30]

The development of the integrated model unfolded in three stages. The first involved an analytical assessment of existing financing mechanisms in Togo, highlighting institutional fragmentation, external dependence, and a lack of intersectoral coherence. The second focused on leveraging successful experiences from African case studies, where hybrid financing models (public-private, community-based, cooperative) demonstrated greater resilience. The third led to the modeling of the integrated framework, articulating four essential components: (i) inclusive multi-level governance, (ii) hybrid financial instruments, (iii) technical and institutional support mechanisms, and (iv) a participatory monitoring and evaluation system.

Table 1: Steps in Building the Integrated Model

Finally, the model’s validity was assessed across two dimensions: internal consistency, measuring the compatibility between the system’s components, and external transferability, verified by comparison with the experiences of Rwanda, Senegal, and Niger. These two criteria ensure the model’s scientific robustness and operational relevance in a West African context characterized by similar constraints.[31] This dual validation strengthens the model’s capacity to serve as a strategic framework for directing international financial flows toward truly sustainable and resilient agriculture.

In summary, this methodology combines empirical rigor, conceptual coherence, and operational relevance. It is part of a logic of collective learning and adaptive governance, which are essential conditions for the sustainability of climate finance mechanisms in West Africa.[32]

4.       Findings and Discussion

4.1.         Characteristics of International Financing Mechanisms Active in Togo

An analysis of international financing mechanisms supporting the agroecological transition in Togo reveals a complex architecture, characterized by a diverse array of instruments, a multitude of actors, and limited institutional coherence. The main mechanisms identified include the Green Climate Fund (GCF), the Global Environment Facility (GEF), the Adaptation Fund (AF), and UN agencies such as the World Bank, the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), the FAO, and the World Food Programme. These mechanisms mobilize significant resources, but their focus remains primarily on agricultural productivity and climate resilience, to the detriment of genuine support for agroecology.

According to the data collected, the total volume of funding mobilized between 2010 and 2024 is estimated at approximately USD 248 million, of which only 12% is directly allocated to explicitly agroecological projects. The main mechanisms identified include the Green Climate Fund and the Global Environment Facility; however, their direct contribution to agroecological transformation remains marginal. This proportion reveals a priority given to projects involving technological adaptation, irrigation, improved inputs, and rural infrastructure, rather than integrated approaches to the ecological management of agricultural systems.

Table 2: Summary Table of Mechanisms Active in Togo for Financing Agroecological and Climate Projects since 2010

The nature of these mechanisms differs in their mode of intervention: the GCF and GEF finance structuring projects with national or regional scope, while IFAD and FAO favor a grassroots approach through community-based financing, training, and technical support. However, their impact on the agroecological transition remains limited. The majority of funding remains focused on climate resilience without a profound transformation of production practices.

In terms of the actors involved, governance is characterized by the coexistence of international institutions, public administrations, non-governmental organizations, and farmers’ cooperatives. This diversity, while a source of complementarity, also leads to significant institutional fragmentation. Several donors intervene on similar themes without systematic coordination. It has been observed that the overlap of IFAD, FAO, World Bank, and GCF programs in specific regions results in duplication and a dispersion of resources. This observation aligns with researchers’ findings that the dispersion of climate finance instruments in West Africa limits the coherence of interventions and dilutes the overall impact of investments.[33]

From the institutional coherence perspective, interviews with representatives of sectoral ministries and Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) revealed that coordination mechanisms are still in their early stages of development. National monitoring committees are often considered ineffective or intermittent. The multiplicity of administrative procedures (access methods, eligibility criteria, approval times) constitutes a significant obstacle to local actors’ appropriation of funds. These observations confirm that multi-level governance remains one of the weakest links in Togo’s climate finance architecture.

Comparative analysis also shows that bilateral mechanisms (such as those of the AFD: French Development Agency) offer greater operational flexibility but sometimes lack post-project sustainability. Conversely, multilateral mechanisms like the GCF and the GEF, although endowed with significant resources, are hindered by strong bureaucratic constraints and lengthy approval processes. Projects often require more than two years between their conception and actual implementation, which reduces their capacity to adapt to local realities. These results corroborate researchers’ analyses, according to which the proliferation of financial instruments, without territorial coordination mechanisms, compromises the systemic coherence of agroecological transition.[34]^,[35] Similarly, it appears that the dispersion of climate funds in West African countries reduces their leverage effect and reinforces institutional dependence on donors.[36]

In summary, the structure of international financing mechanisms active in Togo reveals a paradox: the diversity of actors and available resources testifies to a genuine global commitment, but this diversity is accompanied by a weak integration of local dynamics and a lack of inter-institutional coordination. Access constraints, slow procedures, and the low visibility of these mechanisms for local communities limit the transformative impact of the financing. These observations call for a rethinking of financial architectures based on a territorial, participatory, and systemic logic, an essential condition for making international investment more effective in supporting the agroecological transition.

4.2.       Presentation of the Integrated Investment Model

Based on a diagnosis of the financial mechanisms, an integrated investment model is proposed for Togo, aligned with a structural transformation of agricultural finance in response to current climatic, economic, and institutional challenges. It aims to articulate the financial, institutional, and territorial dimensions of agrarian resilience, ensuring the coherence, transparency, and sustainability of financial flows. The fragmentation of current mechanisms, their dependence on external partners, and their weak local roots necessitate a systemic reorganization of agricultural finance. This approach is based on the idea, widely discussed in the international literature, that financing mechanisms must be integrated into multi-level and participatory governance frameworks.[37]

The first component of the model is based on participatory governance, considered the foundation of institutional sustainability. This involves creating coordination structures between national actors (ministries, public agencies), territorial actors (local authorities, research institutions), and community actors (farmers’ organizations, local NGOs). This approach aims to strengthen accountability and transparency, two fundamental criteria of sustainable climate finance.[38] The success of adaptation policies depends on the capacity of local institutions to participate actively in governance and co-create policies.[39] This idea aligns with the findings of researchers who emphasize the role of local structures in the ownership and sustainability of climate finance projects.[40] The Togolese model, therefore, proposes a decentralized governance architecture that combines regional investment platforms and multi-stakeholder monitoring committees, aiming to bring decisions closer to local realities and reduce institutional asymmetries.

The second pillar of the model concerns the diversification and hybridization of funding sources. Togo’s dependence on international donors limits the flexibility and sustainability of its agricultural programs. The model proposes combining public, private, and community contributions through co-financing and risk-sharing. This approach aligns with FAO and researcher recommendations that hybrid financing mechanisms not only mobilize more capital but also ensure the long-term involvement of local stakeholders in fund governance.[41]^,[42] The viability of agricultural investments depends less on the volume of funds mobilized than on the quality of institutional partnerships and the degree of financial inclusion.[43] Similarly, the importance of models that combine public funds with green financial instruments, such as climate bonds and community adaptation funds, in increasing the economic resilience of farms is crucial.[44]

The third component relies on strong territorial anchoring, aiming to align financial interventions with local development priorities. The study indicates that territorial coherence and community participation are the primary levers for ensuring the effectiveness and sustainability of agricultural financing. This territorial approach strengthens intersectoral coordination and facilitates the integration of farming and climate policies into local development plans. Decentralization is only truly effective when it is accompanied by budgetary and decision-making autonomy for local authorities.[45] From this perspective, integrating the model into Municipal Development Plans (MDPs) and the National Agricultural and Food Investment Plan (NAFP) represents a significant step forward. Furthermore, the experiences of Senegal and Rwanda show that aligning climate funds with territorial frameworks promotes the effectiveness and coherence of actions.[46]

The fourth component of the model involves implementing a participatory monitoring and evaluation system, grounded in transparency, accountability, and collective learning. Local beneficiaries are involved in performance evaluation, notably through community audits, sustainability indicators, and digital platforms for monitoring funds. The sustainability of the model relies on continuous, participatory evaluation integrated into the decision-making cycle. This approach aligns with the principles of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and the World Bank, which recommend the co-construction of monitoring and evaluation frameworks to strengthen institutional legitimacy and transparency.[47] Furthermore, adaptive governance requires the establishment of feedback loops between levels of action, allowing strategies to be adjusted based on feedback from the field and organizational learning.[48]

Finally, the fifth component introduces a dimension of social and technological innovation, essential for addressing the structural challenges of the agroecological transition. The model advocates for the deployment of digital tools for monitoring climate risks, the digitalization of agricultural payments, and the promotion of agroecological practices based on the co-creation of knowledge. These innovations foster productivity, social inclusion, and community resilience. Inclusive innovations, particularly digital and organizational ones, play a central role in adapting African agricultural systems to climate change.[49] Furthermore, researchers emphasize the need to invest in social and financial innovations to reduce asymmetries in access to finance and improve the governance of natural resources.[50]

Table 3: Components of the Integrated Model and Key Functions

To ensure the economic benefits of the proposed investment model, it is essential to assess its efficiency, particularly in an agricultural context characterized by resource constraints. This requires a rigorous analysis of the relationship between costs incurred and expected benefits. With this in mind, a simplified economic model was developed to estimate the potential profitability of the proposed system over a five-year period. This approach aims to objectively demonstrate the financial viability of the integrated agroecological transition model within an experimental framework representative of rural Togo.

The costs associated with implementing the model were estimated based on the assumption of a pilot application in three distinct agroecological zones: Binah, Tchamba, and Oti-Sud. These costs encompass the main technical, institutional, and social components of the model, such as local planning, activation of community funds, support for producers, and the monitoring and evaluation system.

Table 4: Estimated Costs of Implementing the Model

These amounts, indicative yet realistic, are based on budgetary references observed in similar projects financed by the International Fund in West Africa, adjusted to reflect Togolese operational realities.

The potential benefits of the model were estimated from a cautious extrapolation of data collected in the field from target producers, taking into account the anticipated increase in income and the spread of agroecological practices over new areas.

Table 5: Projected Expected Profits

This estimate remains intentionally conservative, not yet factoring in the positive external effects of the model, such as soil regeneration, reduced chemical inputs, or increased local biodiversity.

To assess the economic viability of the model, a simplified cost-benefit ratio was calculated based on previous projections. The B/C ratio is defined as follows:

Profit/Cost Ratio = Cumulative Net Profits / Total Investment Cost. Applying this formula, the Profit/Cost Ratio = 5,250,000 / 1,150,000 = 4.57. This result indicates that for every dollar invested, the model is likely to generate a net return of $4.57 in additional revenue for producers. Such a return demonstrates the model’s significant economic efficiency, justifying its wider adoption.

A sensitivity analysis was conducted to assess the model’s robustness under various performance assumptions. Three contrasting scenarios were considered: pessimistic, median, and optimistic. The results are summarized in the following table.

Table 6: Sensitivity Analysis through Model Robustness under Different Scenarios

The analysis shows that even in the worst-case scenario, the model maintains moderate economic profitability, thus demonstrating its resilience to performance fluctuations. The median scenario reinforces its economic relevance, while the optimistic scenario opens up prospects for sustainable structural transformation.

This model remains intentionally simplified, based on average yield assumptions, and does not incorporate dynamic modeling or monetary valuation of ecosystem services. To further explore this, a multi-criteria sensitivity analysis by sector (e.g., market gardening, agroforestry, rice cultivation), coupled with climate projections, would enable better differentiation of performance according to local contexts. Furthermore, integrating non-market benefits, such as nutritional security, social resilience, and carbon sequestration, would strengthen the model’s relevance from a green climate finance perspective.

Its systemic and operational nature distinguishes the proposed model, as it simultaneously integrates the economic, social, institutional, and ecological dimensions of agricultural development. Unlike technocratic approaches focused on short-term profitability, it adopts a holistic approach that articulates the levers of governance, financing, and sustainability. This logic aligns with researchers’ analyses, which suggest that the performance of climate finance depends on its institutional anchoring and the flexibility of multi-stakeholder arrangements.[51] Furthermore, the participatory and territorial dimension of the model resonates with the vision of researcher Ribot, who considers climate decentralization a driver of resilience when it is based on genuine autonomy for local communities.[52] This model also responds to recent recommendations from researchers calling for the creation of integrated financial frameworks that can link global investments to local dynamics of agroecological transition. By merging citizen participation, financial responsibility, and technological innovation, it creates the conditions for a sustainable and inclusive transformation of the Togolese agricultural sector. [53]^,[54]

In summary, the economic analysis presented confirms that the integrated agroecological transition model, although still in the experimental stage, has high potential for a return on investment. Its adoption could constitute an economically viable response to the combined challenges of agricultural productivity, climate adaptation, and territorial equity, provided it is supported by a rigorous monitoring and evaluation system over time.

4.3.       Analysis of the Performance and Sustainability of the Integrated Model

The analysis of the performance and sustainability of the integrated investment model for Togo is based on a systemic reading of the criteria of efficiency, inclusion, transparency, and sustainability. This approach enables the assessment not only of the model’s short-term relevance but also its capacity to become institutionalized and generate lasting effects over time. The model is distinguished by its aim to articulate the financial, institutional, social, and environmental dimensions of rural development, while also meeting the imperatives of international climate finance.[55]^,[56]

Empirical results from field studies and comparative analyses with Rwanda, Senegal, and Niger reveal average to high performance depending on the criteria considered. Institutional effectiveness and policy coherence remain sensitive issues; however, progress in local participation and territorial integration is notable. The Togolese model provides a basis for the gradual operationalization of agricultural climate finance, provided that its institutional foundations and inclusive governance are strengthened.

Regional comparisons show that countries that have institutionalized their climate finance mechanisms (Rwanda, Senegal) achieve better results in terms of transparency, monitoring and evaluation, and financial diversification.[57] In Togo, the creation of a national agroecological investment fund, backed by green taxation, is a strategic lever for reducing external dependence and enhancing fiscal resilience. The effectiveness of adaptation programs depends on the ability of states to generate domestic resources while strengthening multi-stakeholder partnerships.

In terms of inclusion and territorial equity, the proposed Togolese model demonstrates relatively satisfactory performance. It incorporates mechanisms of positive discrimination in favor of women and young people, as well as participatory tools that promote the co-construction of local priorities. This approach aligns with researchers’ conclusions that the inclusion of vulnerable groups is a crucial condition for the social sustainability of agroecological systems.[58]^,[59]

Table 7: Performance Factors and Sustainability Conditions of the Integrated Model

The sustainability of the model depends, above all, on a strong and sustained political commitment, supported by institutional mechanisms that can sustain the agroecological transition over the long term. The model’s success hinges on integrating its principles into national strategic frameworks, such as the National Integrated Agricultural and Natural Resources Plan (NIANRP), the revised Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), and the National Climate Plan. This institutional embedding is essential to ensure cross-sectoral coherence and the international visibility of the approach.

However, institutional fragmentation remains a significant obstacle to the model’s overall performance. As several studies on climate governance in West Africa note, the dispersion of responsibilities among ministries, agencies, and local authorities hinders the coordination and effective implementation of adaptation policies.[60]^, [61] In Togo, creating an inter-institutional coordination framework is therefore crucial for aligning agricultural, environmental, and economic policies within a systemic framework.

The social dimension of the model is also a key factor in its sustainability. Community buy-in and the active participation of local stakeholders strengthen the legitimacy of the initiative and facilitate its adoption. The proposed mechanisms, including citizen audits, multi-stakeholder committees, and territorial forums, [62]

From a technical standpoint, the model relies on an integrated territorial approach based on Local Agroecological Transition Plans (LOATPs), which are linked to Communal Development Plans (PDCs). This linkage aims to strengthen participatory planning and ensure alignment between climate priorities and local realities. The experiences of Rwanda and Senegal demonstrate that territorializing funding enhances the efficiency and transparency of investments.[63]

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) also emphasizes the need to adapt agroecological practices to regional bioclimatic specificities, particularly in the face of increasing rainfall variability.[64] The Togolese model addresses this requirement by implementing agroclimatic diagnostic tools and participatory monitoring, integrated within an adaptive governance framework.

Strengthening local capacities remains a prerequisite for sustainability. This implies ongoing training for public actors, farmers’ organizations, and local Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) in the design and management of climate projects. Developing local expertise through co-creation, training, and skills transfer enables the sustainable integration of the agroecological transition within local communities.[65]

One of the significant contributions of the integrated model lies in its capacity to promote the active inclusion of women, young people, and vulnerable groups. These social categories, often marginalized in traditional systems, are given a central role in the governance and planning of local initiatives. The integration of gender-sensitive indicators and representation quotas in decision-making structures helps strengthen social justice and collective resilience.[66]

The territorial dimension of equity is also crucial: resource redistribution and differentiated access to funding must be considered at the local ecosystem scale. By facilitating access to climate funds for isolated rural areas, the model helps reduce regional disparities and strengthen territorial cohesion.

Ecological sustainability is the strongest dimension of the model. Adopting proven agroecological practices such as agroforestry, composting, and intercropping helps restore soil fertility and increase environmental resilience. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), models that incorporate ecosystem regeneration and integrate ecosystem services demonstrate the best long-term sustainability indicators.[67]

The post-implementation longitudinal monitoring system proposed in this study is based on Local Observatories of Agroecological Transitions (LOATs) and represents a significant innovation. It enables the continuous collection of empirical data, the direct participation of producers, and the strengthening of local monitoring capacities. This system is fully aligned with Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) recommendations, which encourage the development of adaptive governance systems supported by participatory indicators.[68]

The overall assessment indicates that the proposed Togolese model effectively combines operational efficiency, social inclusion, and environmental sustainability, while laying the groundwork for sustainable institutional reform. However, its success will depend on the ability to secure long-term financing, strengthen local institutions, and maintain a decentralized and participatory governance structure. In a regional comparison, the Togolese model is at an intermediate level of maturity. Still, it has strong potential for replication in West Africa, particularly in similar socio-ecological contexts such as those of Rwanda, Niger, and Senegal. These results confirm researchers’ observations that the performance of integrated models relies on the convergence of political will, inclusive governance, and territorial innovation.[69] Ultimately, the Togolese model contributes to redefining the paradigms of agricultural climate finance in sub-Saharan Africa, placing institutional coherence and environmental justice at the heart of sustainability.

5.       Conclusion

This research was undertaken in response to the persistent structural weaknesses of agricultural finance mechanisms in Togo, which remain largely fragmented, donor-dependent, and insufficiently aligned with sustainability and resilience objectives. The primary purpose was to design an integrated investment model that enhances the efficiency, inclusiveness, and sustainability of agricultural finance in the context of climate change. Through a systemic and participatory approach, the study sought to link international financial mechanisms and local governance structures to support a transition to climate-resilient and sustainable agricultural systems.

The results demonstrate that the proposed model effectively bridges the gap between international financing frameworks and territorial development priorities. By integrating financial, institutional, and territorial dimensions, the model fosters coherence between agricultural policies, local governance, and climate resilience strategies. The findings highlight five interdependent components: multi-stakeholder governance, hybrid financing mechanisms, territorial integration, participatory monitoring, and innovation. These elements, taken together, address the limitations of existing approaches, often characterized by weak local ownership and insufficient coordination. Empirical analyses reveal that regions with more developed participatory governance exhibit sustainability and efficiency scores up to 25% higher than those operating under top-down financial models.

From a scientific perspective, this research makes several significant contributions. It advances theoretical understanding by linking investment performance to institutional sustainability and agroecological resilience, thus filling an essential gap in the literature on decentralized climate finance in Africa. The integrated model also offers an operational framework that can guide policymakers and development partners in aligning climate finance with territorial governance. Specifically, it provides policymakers with a coherent strategy for improving coordination among stakeholders, strengthening transparency, and ensuring the long-term viability of investments through hybrid financing that combines public, private, and community resources. This approach reinforces the idea that sustainable transformation requires more than just financial contributions: it demands systemic governance and inclusive participation.

However, this study has some limitations. The lack of large-scale empirical validation limits the ability to fully measure the model’s impact on agricultural productivity and community resilience. Furthermore, the availability of institutional data limited some comparative analyses between regions. Future research should therefore focus on applying and testing the proposed framework in diverse agricultural and climatic contexts in West Africa, particularly in Benin and Ghana. Comparative and longitudinal studies would enable an assessment of its scalability, economic efficiency, and adaptability to various governance regimes.

Specifically, this study recommends the creation of national coordination frameworks for sustainable agricultural finance, the strengthening of local capacities in project management and evaluation, and the institutionalization of participatory monitoring systems. Encouraging public-private-community co-financing mechanisms would strengthen ownership and accountability. These findings echo international recommendations for transparent, inclusive, and locally rooted climate finance governance.

Overall, this research concludes that the proposed integrated investment model offers a promising pathway for reshaping climate and agricultural finance in Togo. By anchoring financial flows in local governance systems and promoting participatory mechanisms, it lays the groundwork for a more equitable, efficient, and resilient approach to agricultural transformation. In doing so, Togo can become a benchmark for inclusive and sustainable climate finance governance in West Africa, thereby contributing to national adaptation strategies and the global agenda for resilient food systems.

6.       Conflict of Interest

The author states that there is no conflict of interest.

7.       Acknowledgment

The author acknowledges the support of Professor Klemens Katterbauer for his invaluable guidance and comprehensive review during the preparation of the dissertation process from which this article was published.

References

Agarwal, Arun, Nicolas Perrin, Ashwini Chhatre, Catherine S. Benson, and Minna Kononen. ‘Climate Policy Processes, Local Institutions, and Adaptation Actions: Mechanisms of Translation and Influence’. WIREs Climate Change 3, no. 6 (2012): 565–79. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.193.

Agrawal, Arun. ‘Accountability in Decentralization: A Framework with South Asian and West African Cases’. The Journal of Developing Areas 33, no. 4 (1999): 473–502.

Ajayi, Oluwatosin Omotola, Adekunle Stephen Toromade, and O. Ayeni. ‘Climate-Smart Agricultural Finance (CSAF): A Model for Sustainable Investments in Agriculture’. World Journal of Advanced Research and Reviews 24, no. 02 (2024): 001–011.

Altieri, Miguel A., Clara I. Nicholls, Alejandro Henao, and Marcos A. Lana. ‘Agroecology and the Design of Climate Change-Resilient Farming Systems’. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 35, no. 3 (2015): 869–90. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-015-0285-2.

Attridge, Samantha, and Lars Engen. Blended Finance in the Poorest Countries: The Need for a Better Approach. ODI Report, 2019. https://www.econstor.eu/handle/10419/206745.

Balaka, Manamboba Mitélama, and Koffi Yovo. ‘Effet Du Changement Climatique Sur La Production Vivriere Au Togo’. African Development Review 35, no. 1 (2023): 11–23. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8268.12678.

Barrett, Christopher B., Tim Benton, Jessica Fanzo, et al. Socio-Technical Innovation Bundles for Agri-Food Systems Transformation. Springer Nature, 2022. https://library.oapen.org/handle/20.500.12657/54421.

Below, Till, Astrid Artner, Rosemarie Siebert, and Stefan Sieber. Micro-Level Practices to Adapt to Climate Change for African Small-Scale Farmers: A Review of Selected Literature. International Food Policy Research Institute, 2010. https://hdl.handle.net/10568/154682.

Buchner, Barbara, Alex Clark, Angela Falconer, et al. ‘Global Landscape of Climate Finance 2019’. Climate Policy Initiative 32, no. 1 (2014): 1–38.

Calvin, Katherine, Dipak Dasgupta, Gerhard Krinner, et al. ‘IPCC, 2023: Climate Change 2023: Synthesis Report, Summary for Policymakers. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing Team, H. Lee and J. Romero (Eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland.’ IPCC, 2023: Climate Change 2023: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing Team, H. Lee and J. Romero (Eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland., Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 25 July 2023, 1–34. https://doi.org/10.59327/ipcc/ar6-9789291691647.001.

Checkland, Peter, and John Poulter. ‘Soft Systems Methodology’. In Systems Approaches to Making Change: A Practical Guide, edited by Martin Reynolds and Sue Holwell (Retired). Springer, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-7472-1_5.

Chirambo, Dumisani. ‘Integrating Microfinance, Climate Finance and Climate Change Adaptation: A Sub-Saharan Africa Perspective’. In Climate Change Adaptation, Resilience and Hazards, edited by Walter Leal Filho, Haruna Musa, Gina Cavan, Paul O’Hare, and Julia Seixas. Springer International Publishing, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-39880-8_12.

Christensen, I., and M. Romano. Social Analysis for Inclusive Agrifood Investments: Practitioner’s Guide. Food & Agriculture Org., 2023.

Corfee-Morlot, Jan, Virginie Marchal, Céline Kauffmann, et al. Towards a Green Investment Policy Framework: The Case of Low-Carbon, Climate-Resilient Infrastructure. OECD, 2012. https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/environment/towards-a-green-investment-policy-framework_5k8zth7s6s6d-en.

Creswell, John W., and Vicki L. Plano Clark. Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research. Sage publications, 2017.

Crick, Florence, Ced Hesse, Victor Orindi, Mumina Bonaya, and Jane Kiiru. ‘Delivering Climate Finance at Local Level to Support Adaptation: Experiences of County Climate Change Funds in Kenya’. Nairobi, Kenya: Ada Consortium.[Google Scholar], 2019. https://www.iied.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/migrate/G04415.pdf.

Darou-nansam, Yasser. THE IMPACT OF CLIMATE CHANGE ON AGRICULTURAL YIELDS IN TOGO: MODELING APPROACHES AND FUTURE SCENARIOS. 2025. https://irpj.euclid.int/articles/the-impact-of-climate-change-on-agricultural-yields-in-togo-modeling-approaches-and-future-scenarios/.

Dietz, Thomas, Elinor Ostrom, and Paul C. Stern. ‘The Struggle to Govern the Commons’. In International Environmental Governance. Routledge, 2008.

FAOoftheUN. The State of Food and Agriculture 2021: Making Agrifood Systems More Resilient to Shocks and Stresses. FAOoftheUN, 2021.

Folke, Carl. ‘Resilience: The Emergence of a Perspective for Social–Ecological Systems Analyses’. Global Environmental Change 16, no. 3 (2006): 253–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.04.002.

INFRASTRUCTURE, RETHINKING. Financing Climate Futures. n.d. Accessed 5 November 2025. https://www.developmentaid.org/api/frontend/cms/file/2018/11/9789264308114-en.pdf.

Johnstone, Injy. 10. Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD). n.d. Accessed 3 November 2025. https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/yiel/yvac037.

Krombacher, Anna. ‘Digital Social Innovation : Leveraging Digital Technologies for a Sustainable Future’. Doctoral thesis, Bayreuth, 2025. https://epub.uni-bayreuth.de/id/eprint/8514/.

Laborde, David, and Maximo Torero. ‘Modeling Actions for Transforming Agrifood Systems’. Science and Innovations for Food Systems Transformation, Springer International Publishing Cham, 2023, 105–32.

Le Roy, Alain, and Jean-Michel Sévérino. Diversification et fragmentation du financement public du développement: Rendre moins opaque et rationaliser la structure éclatée des financements du développement. Working Paper P321. FERDI Document de travail, 2023. https://www.econstor.eu/handle/10419/276974.

Lee, Hoesung. ‘AR6 Synthesis Report: Climate Change 2023’. Summary for Policymakers, 2023. https://cir.nii.ac.jp/crid/1370302864830547216.

Lemos, Maria Carmen, and Arun Agrawal. ‘Environmental Governance’. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 31, no. 2006 (2006): 297–325.

Lipper, Leslie, and Romina Cavatassi. ‘The Challenge Climate Change Poses to Achieving Resilient and Inclusive Rural Transformation (RITI)’. Global Food Security 43 (December 2024): 100811. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2024.100811.

Lipper, Leslie, Romina Cavatassi, Ricci Symons, Alashiya Gordes, and Oliver Page. ‘Financing Climate Adaptation and Resilient Agricultural Livelihoods’. Rural Development Report, IFAD Research Series, 2022. https://www.rfilc.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Financing-climate-adaptation-and-resilient-agricultural-livelihoods.pdf.

Michaelowa, Axel, Stephan Hoch, Anne-Kathrin Weber, Ruth Kassaye, and Tesfaye Hailu. ‘Mobilising Private Climate Finance for Sustainable Energy Access and Climate Change Mitigation in Sub-Saharan Africa’. Climate Policy 21, no. 1 (2021): 47–62. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2020.1796568.

Miles, Matthew B., A. Michael Huberman, and Johnny Saldana. ‘Qualitative Data Analysis: A Methods Sourcebook’. (No Title), 2014. https://cir.nii.ac.jp/crid/1970023484843333791.

North, Douglass C. ‘Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance’. Cambridge Univ Pr, 1990.

OECD. ‘OECD Business and Finance Outlook 2021’. 24 September 2021. https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/oecd-business-and-finance-outlook-2021_ba682899-en.html.

‘Organisation de Coopération et de Développement Économiques — OCDE | 102 | V2’. Accessed 8 July 2025. https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9781003179900-102/organisation-economic-co-operation-development%E2%80%94oecd-helen-canton.

Ostrom, Elinor. ‘A General Framework for Analyzing Sustainability of Social-Ecological Systems’. Science 325, no. 5939 (2009): 419–22.

Pahl-Wostl, Claudia. ‘Dealing with Water Extremes: Will Drought Crises Trigger Transformative Adaptation?’ SSRN Scholarly Paper 5346794. Social Science Research Network, 10 July 2025. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5346794.

‘Policies for Agroecological Transitions in West Africa: What Approaches and Alternatives? | FAO’. Accessed 30 April 2025. http://www.fao.org/agroecology/database/detail/en/c/1468767/.

Ribot, Jesse C. ‘Authority over Forests: Empowerment and Subordination in Senegal’s Democratic Decentralization’. Development and Change 40, no. 1 (2009): 105–29. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7660.2009.01507.x.

Smith, Pete, Jean‐Francois Soussana, Denis Angers, et al. ‘How to Measure, Report and Verify Soil Carbon Change to Realize the Potential of Soil Carbon Sequestration for Atmospheric Greenhouse Gas Removal’. Global Change Biology 26, no. 1 (2020): 219–41. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14815.

Sorgho, Raissa, Carlos A. Montenegro Quiñonez, Valérie R. Louis, et al. ‘Climate Change Policies in 16 West African Countries: A Systematic Review of Adaptation with a Focus on Agriculture, Food Security, and Nutrition’. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 17, no. 23 (2020). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17238897.

‘The Agroecological Transitions Program for Building Resilient and Inclusive Agricultural & Food Systems | FAO’. Accessed 14 April 2025. https://www.fao.org/family-farming/detail/en/c/1634714/.

Tittonell, Pablo. ‘Ecological Intensification of Agriculture—Sustainable by Nature’. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 8 (2014): 53–61.

Weiss, Carol H. ‘Evaluation: Methods for Studying Programs and Policies’. (No Title), 1998. https://cir.nii.ac.jp/crid/1130282271539494144.

Wezel, Alexander, Barbara Gemmill Herren, Rachel Bezner Kerr, Edmundo Barrios, André Luiz Rodrigues Gonçalves, and Fergus Sinclair. ‘Agroecological Principles and Elements and Their Implications for Transitioning to Sustainable Food Systems. A Review’. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 40 (2020): 1–13.

Yovo, Koffi, and Kossi Eddy Lantomey. ‘Stratégies d’adaptation au changement climatique et production agricole dans la région maritime au Togo’. Économie rurale. Agricultures, alimentations, territoires, no. 385 (August 2023): 385. https://doi.org/10.4000/economierurale.11783.

[1] Yasser Darou-nansam, THE IMPACT OF CLIMATE CHANGE ON AGRICULTURAL YIELDS IN TOGO: MODELING APPROACHES AND FUTURE SCENARIOS , 2025, https://irpj.euclid.int/articles/the-impact-of-climate-change-on-agricultural-yields-in-togo-modeling-approaches-and-future-scenarios/.

[2] Koffi Yovo and Kossi Eddy Lantomey, “Climate change adaptation strategies and agricultural production in the maritime region of Togo”, Rural Economy. Agriculture, food, territories , no. 385 (August 2023): 385, https://doi.org/10.4000/economierurale.11783.

[3] Manamboba Mitélama Balaka and Koffi Yovo, “Effect of Climate Change on Food Production in Togo,” African Development Review 35, no. 1 (2023): 11–23, https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8268.12678.

[4] FAOoftheUN., The State of Food and Agriculture 2021: Making Agrifood Systems More Resilient to Shocks and Stresses (FAOoftheUN, 2021).

[5] Maria Carmen Lemos and Arun Agrawal, ‘Environmental Governance’, Annual Review of Environment and Resources 31, no. 2006 (2006): 297–325.

[6] Jesse C. Ribot, “Authority over Forests: Empowerment and Subordination in Senegal’s Democratic Decentralization,” Development and Change 40, no. 1 (January 2009): 105–29, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7660.2009.01507.x.

[7] Christopher B. Barrett et al., Socio-Technical Innovation Bundles for Agri-Food Systems Transformation (Springer Nature, 2022), https://library.oapen.org/handle/20.500.12657/54421.

[8] Injy Johnstone, 10. Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD) , nd, accessed November 3, 2025, https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/yiel/yvac037.

[9] Oluwatosin Omotola Ajayi et al., ‘Climate-Smart Agricultural Finance (CSAF): A Model for Sustainable Investments in Agriculture’, World Journal of Advanced Research and Reviews 24, no. 02 (2024): 001–011.

[10] Elinor Ostrom, ‘A General Framework for Analyzing Sustainability of Social-Ecological Systems’, Science 325, no. 5939 (2009): 419–22.

[11] Jan Corfee-Morlot et al., Towards a Green Investment Policy Framework: The Case of Low-Carbon, Climate-Resilient Infrastructure, OECD, 2012, https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/environment/towards-a-green-investment-policy-framework_5k8zth7s6s6d-en.

[12] Ribot, ‘Authority over Forests’.

[13] Barbara Buchner et al., ‘Global Landscape of Climate Finance 2019’, Climate Policy Initiative 32, no. 1 (2014): 1–38.

[14] ‘OECD Business and Finance Outlook 2021’, OECD, 24 September 2021, https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/oecd-business-and-finance-outlook-2021_ba682899-en.html.

[15] Samantha Attridge and Lars Engen, Blended Finance in the Poorest Countries: The Need for a Better Approach (ODI Report, 2019), https://www.econstor.eu/handle/10419/206745.

[16] Miguel A. Altieri et al., ‘Agroecology and the Design of Climate Change-Resilient Farming Systems’, Agronomy for Sustainable Development 35, no. 3 (2015): 869–90, https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-015-0285-2.

[17] Katherine Calvin et al., ‘IPCC, 2023: Climate Change 2023: Synthesis Report, Summary for Policymakers. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing Team, H. Lee and J. Romero (Eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland.’, IPCC, 2023: Climate Change 2023: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing Team, H. Lee and J. Romero (Eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland., Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 25 July 2023, 1–34, https://doi.org/10.59327/ipcc/ar6-9789291691647.001.

[18] ‘The Agroecological Transitions Program for Building Resilient and Inclusive Agricultural & Food Systems | FAO’, accessed 14 April 2025, https://www.fao.org/family-farming/detail/en/c/1634714/.

[19] Pablo Tittonell, ‘Ecological Intensification of Agriculture—Sustainable by Nature’, Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 8 (2014): 53–61.

[20] Carl Folke, ‘Resilience: The Emergence of a Perspective for Social–Ecological Systems Analyses’, Global Environmental Change 16, no. 3 (2006): 253–67, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.04.002.

[21] Thomas Dietz et al., ‘The Struggle to Govern the Commons’, in International Environmental Governance (Routledge, 2008).

[22] Arun Agarwal et al., ‘Climate Policy Processes, Local Institutions, and Adaptation Actions: Mechanisms of Translation and Influence’, WIREs Climate Change 3, no. 6 (2012): 565–79, https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.193.

[23] Douglass C. North, ‘Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance’, Cambridge Univ Pr, 1990,

[24] Arun Agrawal, ‘Accountability in Decentralization: A Framework with South Asian and West African Cases’, The Journal of Developing Areas 33, no. 4 (1999): 473–502.

[25] Till Below et al., Micro-Level Practices to Adapt to Climate Change for African Small-Scale Farmers: A Review of Selected Literature, International Food Policy Research Institute, 2010, https://hdl.handle.net/10568/154682.

[26] John W. Creswell and Vicki L. Plano Clark, Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research (Sage publications, 2017).

[27] Claudia Pahl-Wostl, ‘Dealing with Water Extremes: Will Drought Crises Trigger Transformative Adaptation?’, SSRN Scholarly Paper 5346794 (Social Science Research Network, 10 July 2025), https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5346794.

[28] Matthew B. Miles, A. Michael Huberman, and Johnny Saldana, “Qualitative Data Analysis: A Methods Sourcebook,” (No Title) , 2014, https://cir.nii.ac.jp/crid/1970023484843333791.

[29] Carol H. Weiss, ‘Evaluation: Methods for Studying Programs and Policies’, (No Title), 1998, https://cir.nii.ac.jp/crid/1130282271539494144.

[30] Peter Checkland and John Poulter, “Soft Systems Methodology,” in Systems Approaches to Making Change: A Practical Guide , ed. Martin Reynolds and Sue Holwell (Retired) (London: Springer, 2020), 201–53, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-7472-1_5.

[31] Barrett et al., Socio-Technical Innovation Bundles for Agri-Food Systems Transformation.

[32] Dumisani Chirambo, “Integrating Microfinance, Climate Finance and Climate Change Adaptation: A Sub-Saharan Africa Perspective,” in Climate Change Adaptation, Resilience and Hazards , ed. Walter Leal Filho et al. (Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2016), 195–207, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-39880-8_12.

[33] Pete Smith et al., ‘How to Measure, Report and Verify Soil Carbon Change to Realize the Potential of Soil Carbon Sequestration for Atmospheric Greenhouse Gas Removal’, Global Change Biology 26, no. 1 (2020): 219–41, https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14815.

[34] ‘Policies for Agroecological Transitions in West Africa: What Approaches and Alternatives? | FAO’, accessed 30 April 2025, http://www.fao.org/agroecology/database/detail/en/c/1468767/.

[35] Alexander Wezel et al., ‘Agroecological Principles and Elements and Their Implications for Transitioning to Sustainable Food Systems. A Review’, Agronomy for Sustainable Development 40 (2020): 1–13.

[36] Smith et al., ‘How to Measure, Report and Verify Soil Carbon Change to Realize the Potential of Soil Carbon Sequestration for Atmospheric Greenhouse Gas Removal’.

[37] Lemos and Agrawal, ‘Environmental Governance’.

[38] ‘Organisation de Coopération et de Développement Économiques — OCDE | 102 | V2’, accessed 8 July 2025, https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9781003179900-102/organisation-economic-co-operation-development%E2%80%94oecd-helen-canton.

[39] Lemos and Agrawal, ‘Environmental Governance’.

[40] Axel Michaelowa et al., “ Mobilizing Private Climate Finance for Sustainable Energy Access and Climate Change Mitigation in Sub-Saharan Africa,” Climate Policy 21, no. 1 (January 2021): 47–62, https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2020.1796568.

[41] FAOoftheUN ., The State of Food and Agriculture 2021: Making Agrifood Systems More Resilient to Shocks and Stresses ( FAOoftheUN , 2021).

[42] Leslie Lipper et al., “Financing Climate Adaptation and Resilient Agricultural Livelihoods,” Rural Development Report, IFAD Research Series , 2022, https://www.rfilc.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Financing-climate-adaptation-and-resilient-agricultural-livelihoods.pdf.

[43] Christopher B. Barrett et al., Socio-Technical Innovation Bundles for Agri -Food Systems Transformation (Springer Nature, 2022), https://library.oapen.org/handle/20.500.12657/54421.

[44] David Laborde and Maximo Torero, “Modeling Actions for Transforming Agrifood Systems,” Science and Innovations for Food Systems Transformation , Springer International Publishing Cham, 2023, 105–32.

[45] Jesse C. Ribot , “Authority over Forests: Empowerment and Subordination in Senegal’s Democratic Decentralization,” Development and Change 40, no. 1 (January 2009): 105–29, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7660.2009.01507.x.

[46] Raissa Sorgho et al., ‘Climate Change Policies in 16 West African Countries: A Systematic Review of Adaptation with a Focus on Agriculture, Food Security, and Nutrition’, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 17, no. 23 (2020), https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17238897.

[47] RETHINKING INFRASTRUCTURE, Financing Climate Futures , nd , accessed November 5, 2025, https://www.developmentaid.org/api/frontend/cms/file/2018/11/9789264308114-en.pdf.

[48] Claudia Pahl-Wostl , “Dealing with Water Extremes: Will Drought Crises Trigger Transformative Adaptation?,” SSRN Scholarly Paper 5346794 (Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network, July 10, 2025), https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5346794.

[49] Hoesung Lee, “AR6 Synthesis Report: Climate Change 2023,” Summary for Policymakers , 2023, https://cir.nii.ac.jp/crid/1370302864830547216.

[50] Anna Krombacher , “Digital Social Innovation: Leveraging Digital Technologies for a Sustainable Future” (Doctoral thesis, Bayreuth, 2025), https://epub.uni-bayreuth.de/id/eprint/8514/.

[51] Christopher B. Barrett et al., Socio-Technical Innovation Bundles for Agri -Food Systems Transformation (Springer Nature, 2022), https://library.oapen.org/handle/20.500.12657/54421.

[52] Jesse C. Ribot , “Authority over Forests: Empowerment and Subordination in Senegal’s Democratic Decentralization,” Development and Change 40, no. 1 (January 2009): 105–29, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7660.2009.01507.x.

[53] I. Christensen and M. Romano, Social Analysis for Inclusive Agrifood Investments: Practitioner’s Guide (Food & Agriculture Org., 2023),

[54] Leslie Lipper and Romina Cavatassi , “The Challenge Climate Change Poses to Achieving Resilient and Inclusive Rural Transformation (RITI),” Global Food Security 43 (December 2024): 100811, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2024.100811.

[55] Leslie Lipper et al., “Financing Climate Adaptation and Resilient Agricultural Livelihoods,” Rural Development Report, IFAD Research Series , 2022, https://www.rfilc.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Financing-climate-adaptation-and-resilient-agricultural-livelihoods.pdf.

[56] Axel Michaelowa et al., “ Mobilizing Private Climate Finance for Sustainable Energy Access and Climate Change Mitigation in Sub-Saharan Africa,” Climate Policy 21, no. 1 (January 2021): 47–62, https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2020.1796568.

[57] Alain Le Roy and Jean-Michel Sévérino , Diversification and fragmentation of public development financing: Making the fragmented structure of development financing less opaque and rationalizing it , Working Paper P321 (FERDI Working Paper, 2023), https://www.econstore.eu/handle/10419/276974.

[58] Leslie Lipper and Romina Cavatassi , “The Challenge Climate Change Poses to Achieving Resilient and Inclusive Rural Transformation (RITI),” Global Food Security 43 ( December 2024): 100811, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2024.100811.

[59] Lipper et al., ‘Financing Climate Adaptation and Resilient Agricultural Livelihoods’.

[60] Jesse C. Ribot , “Authority over Forests: Empowerment and Subordination in Senegal’s Democratic Decentralization,” Development and Change 40, no. 1 (January 2009): 105–29, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7660.2009.01507.x.

[61] Lemos and Agrawal, ‘Environmental Governance’.

[62] Anna Krombacher , “Digital Social Innovation: Leveraging Digital Technologies for a Sustainable Future” (Doctoral thesis, Bayreuth, 2025),https:/epub.uni-bayreuth.de/id/eprint/8514/

[63] Sorgho et al., ‘Climate Change Policies in 16 West African Countries’.

[64] Katherine Calvin et al., “IPCC, 2023: Climate Change 2023: Synthesis Report, Summary for Policymakers. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing Team, H. Lee and J. Romero (Eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland.,” IPCC, 2023: Climate Change 2023: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing Team, H. Lee and J. Romero (Eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland. , Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), July 25, 2023, 1–34, https://doi.org/10.59327/ipcc/ar6-9789291691647.001.

[65] Florence Crick et al., “Delivering Climate Finance at Local Level to Support Adaptation: Experiences of County Climate Change Funds in Kenya,” Nairobi, Kenya: Ada Consortium.[Google Scholar] , 2019, https://www.iied.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/migrate/G04415.pdf.

[66] Florence Crick et al., “Delivering Climate Finance at Local Level to Support Adaptation: Experiences of County Climate Change Funds in Kenya,” Nairobi, Kenya: Ada Consortium.[Google Scholar] , 2019, https://www.iied.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/migrate/G04415.pdf.

[67] Katherine Calvin et al., “IPCC, 2023: Climate Change 2023: Synthesis Report, Summary for Policymakers. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing Team, H. Lee and J. Romero (Eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland.,” IPCC, 2023: Climate Change 2023: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing Team, H. Lee and J. Romero (Eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland. , Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), July 25, 2023, 1–34, https://doi.org/10.59327/ipcc/ar6-9789291691647.001.

[68] Anna Krombacher , “Digital Social Innovation: Leveraging Digital Technologies for a Sustainable Future” (Doctoral thesis, Bayreuth, 2025), https://epub.uni-bayreuth.de/id/eprint/8514/.

[69] RETHINKING INFRASTRUCTURE, Financing Climate Futures , nd , accessed November 5, 2025, https://www.developmentaid.org/api/frontend/cms/file/2018/11/9789264308114-en.pdf.