Page 96 - CIWA-AR24

Annexes

Annexes

Figure A1.1: Allocations by Grant Type
Annex 1

Allocations Recipient-Executed Grants 62.1%
nnex 1 describes the CIWA
A
portfolio in terms of the proportion
of its allocations 50 according to grant
types, partner types, engagements
(geographical), and primary outcomes.
29%
The key points are:
Bank-Executed Direct
Figure A1.1 shows that RETF grants still Support to Clients
dominate the portfolio. The two active
RETF grants are the NCCR and SADC
Groundwater Management Phase 2
projects. RETF grants are 62 percent of
the cumulative portfolio, a decrease from Preparation and
previous years. The costs for preparation Supervision for 4.7%
and supervision of grants remain below 6 Recipient-Executed
percent. 4.1% Bank-Executed Africa-Wide

Figure A1.2 shows that CIWA’s cumulative
portfolio includes a wide diversity of
regional institutions. As in previous years,
the majority (64 percent) of RETF clients
and technical assistance partners are Figure A1.2: Allocations by Partner Type
regional RBOs. The breakdown aligns with
CIWA’s intention to provide long-term
sustained support to regional RBOs while
also diversifying support to new types of Bank-Executed Africa-Wide 14%
partners.

Figure A1.3 includes all engagements.
CIWA has engagements in all Sub-Saharan National 11%
Africa regions: the Nile Basin share of Government
engagements is roughly 45 percent, the
Southern Africa portfolio is 22 percent,
HoA is 12 percent, and West and Central Africa-Wide
Africa allocations are 17 percent (the Bank-Executed 5%
remaining going to Africa-wide technical
assistance).
Non-Governmental 5%
Organization
Figure A1.4 shows the cumulative primary
outcome of CIWA allocations (including
the pipeline). CIWA allocations to large Transboundary Utility 1%
infrastructure stayed at 12 percent. Small
and nature-based investments are 15
percent, and institutional and information
systems support is 73 percent. River Basin Organization 64%

50 Every year’s allocation analysis is cumulative except where explicitly described otherwise and include pipeline allocations, which are listed in Table A4.5 of
the respective CIWA Annual Report. Caveats are present in the longitudinal allocation data because changes can occur in the pipeline (although endorsed
by the Advisory Committee) and major country context shifts can also be influential.
91