ABSTRACT

1. Introduction

In a global context marked by intensifying climate change, African agricultural systems are facing increasing environmental and socioeconomic pressures. In sub-Saharan Africa, and particularly in Togo, agriculture remains the cornerstone of the national economy, employing over 60% of the active population and contributing significantly to the gross domestic product. However, it remains highly dependent on climatic conditions and vulnerable to rainfall variability, soil degradation, and fertility loss. These constraints exacerbate food insecurity and jeopardize long-term sustainability goals. In this context, the agroecological transition is emerging as a strategic pathway to reconcile productivity, resilience, and the preservation of ecosystems.

Agroecology, defined as “an integrated approach to food systems based on ecological principles and the co-creation of knowledge,”  proposes a structural transformation of the agricultural model. It values local knowledge, biodiversity, and the sustainable management of natural resources, while promoting the active participation of producers in decision-making processes. In Togo, agroecology is not simply a production technique, but a social and territorial process aimed at rethinking the relationship between people, nature, and the economy. However, the realization of this transition remains dependent on the availability and effectiveness of international financing mechanisms intended to support national adaptation and sustainability policies.

Since the Paris Agreement, several multilateral financial instruments have been created to support agricultural resilience in developing countries. These mechanisms aim to mobilize and channel resources toward local ecological and climate transition initiatives. However, numerous studies highlight the difficulties in accessing and the inadequacies of this funding in the face of regional realities. Despite the proliferation of financing mechanisms, their effectiveness remains limited by administrative complexity, a lack of institutional flexibility, and insufficient integration of local specificities into project design. In fact, agricultural projects supported by international donors often struggle to achieve their sustainability objectives due to a lack of construction with beneficiaries and weak post-project continuity.

This study is based on the hypothesis that the effectiveness of international financing mechanisms depends less on the volume of resources mobilized than on their alignment with local dynamics. More specifically, it assumes that financing becomes more impactful when it integrates agroecological specificities, strengthens the capacities of field actors, and ensures the effective participation of communities. In this perspective, agroecology provides a practical framework for testing these assumptions, as it promotes collective learning and localized governance, thereby offering a pathway to rethink how international financing can sustainably support agricultural transitions.

This research examines the interactions between the agroecological transition and the effectiveness of international financing mechanisms in Togo, with the aim of assessing how locally grounded dynamics can enhance the performance and relevance of support systems for sustainable agriculture. The analysis focuses on the extent to which the incorporation of agroecological practices, the strengthening of local actors’ capacities, and the involvement of communities contribute to improving the outcomes of funded interventions. Accordingly, two central questions structure the study: (i) how agroecological practices influence the implementation and performance of international financing mechanisms, and (ii) how these mechanisms can be reoriented or adapted to more effectively support the resilience and long-term sustainability of Togolese agricultural systems.

The originality of this research lies in its direct link between the global logic of climate finance and the territorial dynamics of agroecology, two fields often studied separately in African literature. By combining institutional analysis, a territorial approach, and an empirical perspective, it provides a systemic understanding of the conditions for the effectiveness of international financing in sustainable agriculture. The findings aim to inform the design of hybrid, inclusive, and contextually adapted investment models that can align the objectives of international donors with local socio-ecological priorities. This study thus contributes to the ongoing discussion on the territorialization of climate finance and the governance of agroecological transitions in developing countries.

2. Literature Review

International financing for the agroecological transition is embedded within a diversified institutional architecture that includes multilateral, bilateral, and regional mechanisms. These instruments aim to strengthen agricultural systems in regions highly exposed to climate risks, particularly in West Africa. In Togo, the main sources of climate-related agricultural funding include the Green Climate Fund (GCF), the Global Environment Facility (GEF), the Adaptation Fund (AF), the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), and various World Bank programs. Their interventions generally focus on enhancing climate resilience, restoring degraded ecosystems, supporting agricultural value chains, and modernizing rural infrastructure.

The GCF and the GEF play a central role in financing large-scale national initiatives focused on mitigation, adaptation, and environmental rehabilitation. The GCF, now the world’s largest multilateral climate fund, increasingly emphasizes private-sector engagement as a lever for climate finance in the Global South. The GEF, for its part, operates as the designated financial mechanism for several multilateral environmental agreements, mobilizing long-term resources for biodiversity conservation and land restoration. Despite their financial capacity, both mechanisms are often criticized for technocratic procedures and stringent accreditation requirements that limit access for local organizations and constrain the integration of territorially grounded agroecological practices.

The Adaptation Fund offers comparatively more flexible modalities, facilitating direct access for national entities and enabling community-based interventions in areas such as water management, resilient cropping systems, and participatory reforestation. Yet, its financial scale remains modest compared to the GCF and GEF. IFAD stands out for its decentralized and participatory governance model, which strengthens institutional proximity and co-construction with local actors. In Togo, two flagship initiatives, the Risk-Sharing Agricultural Finance Incentive Mechanism Project (ProMIFA) and the Regional Program for the Integration of Agricultural Markets (PRIMA), support producer organizations, improve access to credit, and promote agroecological practices adapted to local socio-ecological contexts. This approach aligns with insights from development ethnographies, which highlight the importance of locally embedded governance and iterative learning in project effectiveness.

World Bank programs adopt a more centralized, infrastructure-oriented model. Although these initiatives contribute to the modernization of production systems, their alignment with agroecological principles remains uneven, echoing criticisms that standardized development tools tend to overlook local knowledge systems and ecological dynamics.

Effectiveness across financing mechanisms is commonly evaluated through accessibility, accountability, and impact. Accessibility remains uneven: while the GCF and GEF mobilize significant resources, their complex eligibility requirements restrict direct engagement by local actors. The Adaptation Fund’s direct-access model and IFAD’s participatory project design promote greater inclusion of smallholders, women, and youth. Impact also varies: GCF and GEF projects contribute to long-term ecological restoration, while IFAD programs tend to yield more immediate improvements in yields, diversification, and household resilience. World Bank interventions exhibit mixed ecological coherence, combining infrastructure gains with inconsistent support for agroecological transition objectives.

A growing body of literature highlights the broader challenge of aligning international financing mechanisms with territorial dynamics. Many global funds rely on standardized performance indicators, such as carbon mitigation metrics or hectares restored that inadequately capture the long-term, knowledge-intensive, and relational nature of agroecological transformations. This methodological mismatch limits the recognition of indigenous knowledge, farmer-led innovations, and traditional land-management practices. Community-driven and co-designed interventions, illustrated by ProMIFA and PRIMA, demonstrate stronger ownership, adaptive capacity, and sustainability. Conversely, highly centralized and technocratic projects often struggle to maintain results beyond the funding cycle.

Overall, the literature underscores persistent structural tensions between top-down global climate-financing architectures and the need for territorially embedded processes to advance agroecological transitions. Enhancing the effectiveness of international financing requires more flexible procedures, stronger inter-institutional coordination, and a more explicit recognition of local knowledge systems and community governance mechanisms.

3. Methodology

The study was conducted in Togo, a West African country located between 6° and 11° North latitude and between 0° and 2° East longitude, covering approximately 56,785 km². The study focused on three representative prefectures of Togo: Tchamba (Central Region), Binah (Kara Region), and Oti Sud (Savanes Region). These areas, highly exposed to climatic hazards such as drought, rainfall variability, and soil degradation, reflect significant ecological and socioeconomic diversity. They also offer contrasting institutional contexts, marked by the presence of local agroecological initiatives, making them ideal sites for a multilevel analysis of the transition. These areas illustrate the diversity of territorial and institutional dynamics within which international funding programs dedicated to agroecology and climate resilience are embedded.

The data used were drawn from primary and secondary sources. Primary data were collected from January to June 2025 through: (i) a quantitative survey of 398 agricultural producers, selected using stratified sampling by area and farm size (small, medium, large); (ii) semi-structured interviews with 24 institutional representatives from ministries, Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs),  financial institutions, and international projects; and (iii) focus groups of 150 participants per prefecture, bringing together producers, technical agents, and community leaders. The questionnaires were designed and implemented using the KoboKollect application. The topics covered included mechanisms for accessing finance, agroecological practices, territorial governance, and project sustainability. Secondary data were sourced from institutional reports, international databases such as FAOSTAT, GCF, IFAD, and the World Bank Climate Portal, as well as national policy documents collected for the period 2010-2024.

Sampling was conducted using a stratified probabilistic method for the quantitative survey, taking into account an estimated agricultural population of around 370,000 producers and livestock farmers. The sample of 398 respondents was calculated with a margin of error of less than 5.5%, distributed proportionally among the three prefectures (43.3% in Tchamba, 36.2% in Oti Sud, and 20.5% in Binah). For the qualitative surveys, purposive sampling supplemented by the snowball sampling method enabled the targeting of key profiles, including peasant leaders, NGOs, and decision-makers, until theoretical saturation was achieved.

Data processing employed a mixed-methods approach, combining statistical analyses, multi-criteria evaluation, and qualitative analysis. Quantitative data were entered into Excel 2016 and analyzed using SPSS version 26. Descriptive statistics (means, frequencies, standard deviations) were used to characterize farms and forms of support. Chi-square (χ²) tests assessed the relationships between the adoption of agroecological practices and certain explanatory variables (sex, age, farm size, access to credit). Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was also performed to compare mean differences in key agroecological adoption indicators across farm categories and intervention groups. Logistic regression models were then used to identify the determinants of adoption, according to the following relationship:

P_i is the probability of adopting an agroecological practice, X_n are the explanatory variables (access to financing, training, membership in an organization, education level), βn are the estimated coefficients, and ε_i is the error term. The results were interpreted at a 5% significance level (p < 0.05).

The qualitative data from interviews and focus groups were transcribed and then analyzed using NVivo 12 Pro software. Thematic coding was performed using a grid developed through an inductive and deductive approach, drawing on conceptual categories from the literature (governance, sustainability, ownership, effectiveness) and those emerging from the stakeholders’ discourse. This approach allowed for the identification of perceptions, obstacles, and drivers of performance related to the financing mechanisms.

The performance of international financing mechanisms was examined through a multi-criteria analysis structured around three interdependent dimensions. The first dimension, accessibility, focused on the conditions for entry into and participation in financing mechanisms. It assessed, in particular, eligibility criteria, the simplicity and transparency of procedures, and the level of inclusion of vulnerable groups, such as women, youth, and people with disabilities. The second dimension, efficiency, addressed the capacity of the mechanisms to produce tangible results within reasonable timeframes. It considered the coherence of funded activities, the quality of inter-institutional coordination, and the speed of implementation of interventions. Finally, the third dimension, sustainability and ownership, assessed the continuity of actions beyond the project phases, the strengthening of local capacities, and the active participation of beneficiary communities. This approach enabled the measurement of not only the immediate effectiveness of the financing but also its contribution to sustainable and inclusive agricultural development.

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 Program. 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.

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 who emphasize that the dispersion of climate finance instruments in West Africa limits the coherence of interventions and dilutes the overall impact of investments.

The institutional coherence perspective, as revealed in interviews with representatives of sectoral ministries and NGOs, suggests 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 multilevel governance remains one of the weakest links in Togo’s climate finance architecture.

Comparative analysis also shows that bilateral mechanisms 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 transitions.^, Similarly, it appears that the dispersion of climate funds in West African countries reduces their leverage effect and reinforces institutional dependence on donors.

Table 1: Summary Table of Mechanisms Active in Togo for Financing Agroecological and Climate Projects Since 2010

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. Accessibility and Ownership by Local Stakeholders

An analysis of access to and appropriation of international financing mechanisms in Togo reveals marked inequalities among categories of actors, territories, and types of mechanisms. Although instruments such as the Green Climate Fund (GCF), the Global Environment Facility (GEF), the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), and bilateral cooperation (e.g., AFD, GIZ) officially support the agroecological transition, their reach remains limited by structural and institutional asymmetries. These mechanisms are still primarily characterized by centralized governance, weak territorial integration, and complex procedures poorly adapted to local capacities.

Surveys indicate that only 36% received financial or technical support in the past five years, and only 18% reported that this support came directly from international funds. The gender breakdown confirms a persistent inequality: women represent barely 32% of beneficiaries, despite their central role in agricultural production and processing. Rural beneficiaries feel that the procedures remain too complex and ill-suited to their socioeconomic realities.

Table 2 : Cross-Tabulation of Gender, Support Received, and International Funding

Disparities also exist across different regions. The Binah prefecture accounts for 42% of beneficiaries, compared to 35% in Tchamba and 23% in Oti-Sud, reflecting a significant disparity between regions (p < 0.05), attributable to institutional density, the presence of development NGOs, and administrative proximity.

Table 3: Level of Access to Financing Mechanisms by Gender and Study Area

Statistical analysis (ANOVA, p < 0.05) confirms that access to financing varies significantly across areas, reinforcing the idea that institutional geography and organizational density directly influence actors’ ability to access resources. Another major differentiating factor is membership in a farmers’ organization. Producers belonging to a cooperative or group have a participation rate of 68%, compared to 21% for isolated producers. This difference is highly significant (χ² = 14.27; p < 0.01). A producer interviewed in Binah illustrates this trend: “The best-organized groups are always the first to receive funding. On your own, you have no chance of getting support.”

Beyond access, the level of ownership of the mechanisms varies according to the type of funding. IFAD projects, characterized by a participatory approach and close monitoring, achieve an average ownership score of 3.7 out of 5, while those of the GEF score 3.5 and those of the GCF score 2.8, demonstrating a lack of local integration.

Table 4: Average Scores of Ownership and Participation According to the Type of Funding (scale 1-5)

Programs incorporating enhanced technical support promote the sustainable internalization of agroecological practices. These results confirm the need for a capacity-building approach rather than a strictly financial one.

The main constraints to access identified are the complexity of administrative procedures, a lack of information on available mechanisms, weak local financial engineering, centralized decision-making, and poor inter-institutional coordination. One institutional manager interviewed emphasized that “funding applications are prepared in Lomé; producers only hear about them once the projects have already been approved.” These structural obstacles restrict the participation of vulnerable groups, particularly women and young people, who remain underrepresented among beneficiaries (27% for those under 35 compared to 45% for those over 45).

4.3. Alignment with Territorial Dynamics

The assessment of the alignment between international financing mechanisms and territorial dynamics of sustainable development in Togo highlights a persistent gap between global financing logics and local climate governance needs. While most donors, notably the Green Climate Fund (GCF), the Global Environment Facility (GEF), the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), and bilateral cooperatives (AFD and GIZ), recognize the importance of territorialization, the implementation of financing remains centralized. Analysis of the study’s data shows that only 38% of the identified projects are aligned with local development plans (LDPs) or municipal strategies. In comparison, 62% are primarily driven by priorities defined at the central or international level.

This situation highlights a structural imbalance between national planning and territorial governance, which is often exacerbated by the administrative and financial dependence of municipalities on external partners. In the Plateaux region, funding is channeled through a decentralized governance approach, supporting municipal development plans; however, the setting of priorities remains driven by national institutions and donors. Interviews conducted with local authorities confirm this tension between the ambitions of decentralization and the reality of top-down governance of climate funds.

Table 5: Alignment of Financing Mechanisms with Territorial Planning Frameworks

IFAD and bilateral cooperation projects stand out for their greater territorial integration, with alignment rates of 52% and 45% respectively, compared to only 28% for GCF projects. These differences reflect the disparity between approaches based on institutional proximity and those guided by compliance with international standards.

Statistical analysis (Chi-square test = 16.42; p < 0.01) confirms a significant correlation between the type of financial mechanism and its degree of territorial integration. Projects co-financed or managed locally have alignment scores that are, on average, 18 percentage points higher than those managed exclusively by central structures.

Quantitative data also confirm that territorially based programs achieve better results in terms of satisfaction and ownership. Average scores for perceived impact and territorial coherence differ significantly depending on the funding mechanism.

Table 6: Average Scores for Territorial Coherence and Local Impact (scale 1-5)

IFAD programs, grounded in local consultation frameworks, achieve scores of 4 or above for community participation and territorial coherence. At the same time, GCF initiatives only achieve a rating of 2.7 out of 5, reflecting weak integration into the local context. Pearson correlations (r = 0.46; p < 0.05) between inter-institutional coordination and perceived impact confirm the crucial role of multilevel governance in project effectiveness.

Furthermore, the results suggest that local institutional density has a positive influence on territorialization. Regions with a more structured organizational fabric (NGOs, cooperatives, stakeholder platforms) register alignment rates 20 to 25 points higher than the national average. This data supports the idea of a direct correlation between territorial institutional capital and the anchoring capacity of climate finance, as argued by the FAO, which considers the territorial integration of policies and investments to be a lever for coherence and sustainability.

The scientific discussion of the results highlights several structural tensions between international donor requirements and local realities. Funding frameworks often impose performance-based logics focused on administrative compliance, reporting, and standardized performance indicators. While these instruments guarantee budgetary transparency, they nevertheless tend to marginalize local timeframes and priorities. Technocratic approaches to climate finance impose a managerial rationality that weakens social and institutional adaptation processes at the regional level.

In Togo, these tensions manifest themselves in the limited administrative capacity of local authorities to manage international funds directly. Only 12% of the municipalities surveyed have staff trained in environmental project management, and 18% have a local budget specifically dedicated to climate adaptation. These figures reveal a structural deficit in resources that limits the active participation of local authorities in financial governance.

Table 7: Success Factors for Territorial Integration (weighting 0-5 according to perceived importance)

These results indicate that stakeholders view intersectoral coordination and local capacity building as the most crucial levers for achieving successful alignment. These factors account for nearly 70% of the variance observed in territorial performance scores, as determined by multiple regression analysis (R² = 0.68).

Regional comparisons support these findings. In Senegal, the Local Climate Resilience Support Program has demonstrated that localizing funding through local authorities increases coherence between adaptation policies and local priorities. In Rwanda, the establishment of decentralized funding windows has improved the effectiveness and sustainability of programs supported by the GCF.

Conceptually, these observations align with the work of researchers on adaptive climate governance, who argue that territorial resilience depends on the ability to link international frameworks to local dynamics through flexible and inclusive mechanisms. Similarly, decentralization only strengthens climate justice when it is accompanied by genuine decision-making and budgetary autonomy for local authorities.

Ultimately, the results from Togo suggest a dynamic of gradual, but still incomplete, improvement in the alignment between international financing and territorial frameworks. The programs most firmly rooted in the local context, particularly those of IFAD and bilateral cooperation, demonstrate that participatory governance and strengthened inter-institutional coordination promote the sustainability of investments. However, the persistence of centralization, institutional fragmentation, and weak local capacities constitutes major obstacles to the full territorialization of climate finance. These findings confirm the need to rethink the multilevel governance of international financing in an integrated and territorially based approach. They pave the way for a broader reflection on the conditions for the performance and sustainability of financial mechanisms.

4.4. Conditions for the Performance and Sustainability of Financing

The evaluation of the performance and sustainability of international financing mechanisms in Togo reveals marked contrasts between highly institutionalized systems and those more rooted in community dynamics. Empirical results indicate that project performance is primarily dependent on three interdependent dimensions: the quality of governance, operational efficiency, and financial sustainability. Thus, project sustainability is closely linked to local governance and post-financing monitoring. The results indicate that projects financed by IFAD, AFD, and GIZ have the highest average efficiency and sustainability scores, 4.2/5 and 4.0/5, respectively, compared to 3.1/5 for the Green Climate Fund (GCF). These differences reflect greater institutional coherence and operational proximity in mechanisms that integrate local authorities and producer organizations in the design and implementation phases.

Statistical analysis (ANOVA, F = 6.87, p < 0.01) reveals a significant difference in performance between the various mechanisms. Models incorporating community participation show, on average, 15% higher scores than purely institutional mechanisms. These results confirm the thesis that the effectiveness of climate finance relies on firm local embeddedness, aligning with the conclusions of researchers who believe that fund performance largely depends on the level of institutional entrenchment and the clarity of governance mechanisms. Qualitatively, several performance factors clearly emerged from the interviews. On the one hand, the clarity of procedures, beneficiary training, and post-project technical support are among the main determinants of success. On the other hand, administrative rigidity and weak inter-institutional coordination are identified as significant sources of underperformance. In this regard, some community projects managed to maintain their activities after donor withdrawal thanks to the commitment of local cooperatives and the pooling of resources, illustrating the crucial role of participatory governance in sustainability.

Table 8: Factors Contributing to the Success and Fragility of Financing (average weighting out of 5)

These statistical trends corroborate FAO observations, which emphasize that the sustainability of climate finance stems from a balance between inclusive governance, procedural flexibility, and organizational learning.

The results highlight three significant sustainability dimensions: inclusive governance, financial sustainability, and institutional resilience. First, inclusive governance, based on community participation, transparency, and accountability, proves crucial for the legitimacy of projects. The sustainability of financial mechanisms depends on their ability to link local and national levels of governance. Furthermore, financial sustainability relies on diversifying funding sources and implementing hybrid models that combine public investment, private contributions, and community contributions. Results from Togo show that projects adopting co-financing mechanisms have post-project continuity rates 22% higher than the average for projects entirely dependent on external subsidies. These results align with researchers’ analyses of the role of co-financing in stabilizing climate funds.

Finally, institutional resilience is manifested by the capacity of local structures to adapt to uncertainty and budgetary fluctuations. The study’s results reveal that local authorities with autonomous monitoring and evaluation units exhibit greater institutional sustainability (+18% on the performance index). Adaptive governance, based on collective learning and flexibility, is a crucial condition for the sustainability of climate policies.

Table 9:  Systemic Conditions of Sustainability Observed in Financing Mechanisms in Togo

Comparative analysis reveals that projects combining these conditions achieve performance scores above 4 out of 5, compared to 3 out of 5 for projects with weak integration. These trends confirm results observed in other African contexts. In Burkina Faso, for example, the effectiveness of adaptation funds relies on participatory monitoring and transparency of financial flows.

Thus, Togo’s results illustrate the tension between international requirements focused on accounting performance and local realities grounded in social sustainability. Climate-related decentralization is only sustainable when it grants genuine autonomy to local authorities. These observations highlight the need for multilevel, flexible, and adaptive governance that can bridge the gap between donor logic and regional needs.

In conclusion, the results indicate that the performance and sustainability of financing mechanisms are primarily dependent on four key conditions: strong institutional anchoring, inclusive governance, resource diversification, and increased transparency of processes. These results confirm that the success of localized climate policies in Togo requires an integrated governance approach that articulates local and international perspectives in accordance with the principles of subsidiarity, accountability, and long-term sustainability.

5. Conclusion

This study examined the effectiveness, accessibility, and sustainability of international financing mechanisms that support the agroecological transition in Togo, within a context of increasing climate vulnerability. It assessed how mechanisms such as the Green Climate Fund (GCF), the Global Environment Facility (GEF), IFAD, and bilateral cooperation align with territorial dynamics and contribute to transforming agricultural systems toward resilience. Grounded in a multilevel governance framework, the research aimed to connect global investment strategies to local adaptation and sustainable resource management practices.

The results reveal a diverse and complex climate finance landscape characterized by uneven performance among funding mechanisms. Programs managed by IFAD and community-based organizations exhibit higher levels of effectiveness and institutional coherence compared to more centralized initiatives. Accessibility and local ownership emerged as key determinants of success, with projects featuring strong community participation achieving sustainability scores approximately 20% higher than those of technocratic projects. However, alignment between international financing and local development planning remains limited, with persistent gaps in inter-institutional coordination and integration into municipal frameworks.

From a scientific standpoint, this research contributes to the growing body of work on decentralized climate finance by demonstrating that governance quality, rather than funding volume, is the primary driver of effectiveness. It highlights the importance of territorialized and participatory approaches that integrate multiple stakeholders and reinforce institutional learning. Practically, the findings underscore the need to enhance coordination between public, private, and community actors, simplify funding procedures, and promote inclusive and transparent governance systems that ensure long-term project sustainability.

Despite its contributions, the study faces certain limitations, including restricted data availability, a relatively short observation period, and limited representation of private sector and remote rural actors. Future research should expand the comparative scope across West African contexts and explore hybrid financing models that combine public, private, and community resources to enhance the effectiveness of development initiatives. Ultimately, the study concludes that Togo’s agroecological transition depends on a profound reform of its financing architecture, transforming climate funds into instruments of territorial development that can drive resilient and inclusive agricultural systems across the region.

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

Altieri, M. A., and C. I. Nicholls. ‘Agroecology: A Transdisciplinary, Participatory and Action-Oriented Approach’. CRC Press, 2017.

Arimiyaw, Abdul Wahid, Charity Osei-Amponsah, and Giriraj Amarnath. Understanding Climate Change Adaptation Governance and Building Resilience among Local Communities in Senegal: A Review. CGIAR System Organization, 15 December 2022. https://hdl.handle.net/10568/127724.

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.

Batra, Geeta, Juha I. Uitto, and Osvaldo N. Feinstein. Environmental Evaluation and Global Development Institutions: A Case Study of the Global Environment Facility. Taylor & Francis, 2022. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003207979.

Baue, Bill, and Ralph A. Thurm. Thresholds of Transformation: UNRISD Sustainable Development Performance Indicators Pilot Testing – Synthesis Report. Working Paper 2022–1. UNRISD Working Paper, 2022. https://www.econstor.eu/handle/10419/273855.

Brockhaus, Maria, Veronique De Sy, Monica Di Gregorio, et al. ‘Data and Information in a Political Forest: The Case of REDD+’. Forest Policy and Economics 165 (August 2024): 103251. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2024.103251.

Canton, Helen. ‘International Fund for Agricultural Development—IFAD’. In The Europa Directory of International Organizations 2021, 23rd ed. Routledge, 2021.

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/.

‘FIDA. (2020). “Rapport de Conception Du Projet (RCP) – PRIMA.” Fonds International de Développement Agricole, EB 2020/131/R.11. – Recherche Google’. Accessed 23 May 2025. Fund, Green Climate. ‘Mitigation and Adaptation Performance Measurement Frameworks’. Text. Green Climate Fund, Green Climate Fund, 17 October 2014. https://www.greenclimate.fund/document/mitigation-and-adaptation-performance-measurement-frameworks.

Gliessman, Stephen R. ‘Agroecology: The Ecology of Sustainable Food Systems’. JSTOR, 2016.

Global Environment Facility. ‘Being Accountable’. 5 October 2017. https://www.thegef.org/newsroom/news/being-accountable.

Horstmann, Britta. ‘Operationalizing the Adaptation Fund: Challenges in Allocating Funds to the Vulnerable’. Climate Policy 11, no. 4 (2011): 1086–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2011.579392.

Kalinowski, Thomas. ‘The Green Climate Fund and Private Sector Climate Finance in the Global South’. Climate Policy 24, no. 3 (2024): 281–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2023.2276857.

Kumar, Amrendra. ‘4. Global Environment Facility (GEF)’. Yearbook of International Environmental Law 33, no. 1 (2022): 253–59. https://doi.org/10.1093/yiel/yvad051.

Le Rwanda et les ambitieuses politiques en matière de développement durable – L’Afrique des idées. n.d. Accessed 30 April 2025. https://www.lafriquedesidees.org/rwanda-ambitieuses-politiques-matiere-de-developpement-durable/.

Leach, Melissa, Gerald Bloom, Adrian Ely, et al. Understanding Governance: Pathways to Sustainability. Report. The Institute of Development Studies and Partner Organisations, 2007. https://opendocs.ids.ac.uk/articles/report/Understanding_Governance_pathways_to_sustainability/26480455/1.

Leach, Melissa, Hayley MacGregor, Ian Scoones, and Annie Wilkinson. ‘Post-Pandemic Transformations: How and Why COVID-19 Requires Us to Rethink Development’. World Development 138 (2021): 105233.

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

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.

Martín Casas, Norman, Moumouni Compaoré, and Ximena Michemberg. Neither Enough, Nor Adequate: A Participatory Assessment of the Barriers to Local Access for Climate Finance in the Sahel. Oxfam Intermon, 14 November 2024. https://doi.org/10.21201/2024.000044.

Masson-Delmotte, V. P., P. Zhai, S. L. Pirani, et al. IPCC, 2021: Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, January 2021. https://researchspace.csir.co.za/items/doi:10.1017/9781009157896.001.

Mosse, David. Cultivating Development: An Ethnography of Aid Policy and Practice. Pluto Press, 2005.

Naidoo, Indran A., Deirdre Mc Grenra, and Suppiramaniam Nanthikesan. Thematic Evaluation of IFAD’s Support for Smallholder Farmers’ Adaptation to Climate Change. 2022. https://webapps.ifad.org/members/eb/134/docs/EB-2021-134-R-12-Rev-1.pdf.

Nakhooda, Smita. ‘The Effectiveness of International Climate Finance’. Overseas Development Institute, 2013. https://odi.org/documents/4057/8344.pdf.

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.

Patton, Michael Quinn. Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods. Vol. 3. Sage, 2002.

‘(PDF) Agroecological approaches to sustainable development’. ResearchGate, ahead of print, 27 December 2024. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2024.1405409.

‘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/.

‘Rapport Annuel 2023 | Fonds Vert Pour Le Climat’. Accessed 23 May 2025. https://www.greenclimate.fund/annual-report-2023.

‘Résultats Définitifs Du RGPH-5 (Novembre 2022) – INSEED’. Accessed 4 July 2025. https://inseed.tg/resultats-definitifs-du-rgph-5-novembre-2022/.

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.

sando.ali. ‘Actualisation du plan national d’adaptation aux changements climatiques (PNACC) au Togo’. Ministère de l’Environnement et de la Ressource Forestière, 23 December 2024. https://environnement.gouv.tg/actualisation-du-plan-national-dadaptation-aux-changements-climatiques-pnacc-au-togo/.

Schlosberg, David. ‘Theorising Environmental Justice: The Expanding Sphere of a Discourse’. Environmental Politics 22, no. 1 (2013): 37–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2013.755387.

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.

‘Strengthening the Resilience of Small Farmers through Climate Smart Agriculture Techniques in the Tahoua Region of Niger | UNDP Climate Change Adaptation’. Accessed 30 April 2025. https://www.adaptation-undp.org/projects/strengthening-resilience-small-farmers-through-climate-smart-agriculture-techniques-tahoua.

Tapsoba, Parfait K., Augustin K. N. Aoudji, Madeleine Kabore, Marie-Paule Kestemont, Christian Legay, and Enoch G. Achigan-Dako. ‘Sociotechnical Context and Agroecological Transition for Smallholder Farms in Benin and Burkina Faso’. Agronomy 10, no. 9 (2020): 9. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy10091447.

‘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/.

UNDP. ‘Climate Finance in Africa: An Overview of Climate Finance Flows, Challenges and Opportunities’. Accessed 23 May 2025. https://www.undp.org/africa/publications/climate-finance-africa-overview-climate-finance-flows-challenges-and-opportunities.

Wezel, A., S. Bellon, T. Doré, C. Francis, D. Vallod, and C. David. ‘Agroecology as a Science, a Movement and a Practice. A Review’. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 29, no. 4 (2009): 503–15. https://doi.org/10.1051/agro/2009004.

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.