AfDB – sovereign
- Score:
- 81.6
- Position:
- 3 / 10 (Sovereign)
Overview
The African Development Bank (AfDB) promotes regional cooperation and unity across the African region. Its sovereign portfolio provides non-concessional and concessional loans, grants, and technical assistance to low and middle-income governments. AfDB became an IATI member in 2011 and started publishing IATI data in June 2013. AfDB was established in 1964.
Analysis
AfDB’s sovereign portfolio ranked 3rd among sovereign institutions assessed, with a score of 81.6 out of 100. Although this marks an improvement from its 2023 score of 71.27, the portfolio slipped one place from 2nd to 3rd. It came 4th in both the Core Information and Financial Information components and 2nd in both the Impact Management and ESG and Accountability to Communities components. This reflects a slight decline from 2023, when it placed in the top three across all four components.
AfDB came 4th in the Core Information component with a score of 21.38, moving down the rankings from 2nd place in 2023. It scored 100 per cent on 10 of the 18 indicators in this component. Progress since 2023 included improvements in format for the disbursement and E&S category indicators, both now being disclosed in bulk format. Drops in score from 2023 reflected sub-sector now only being disclosed in IATI, funding source no longer in bulk format and no project-level last update dates.
AfDB ranked top or joint-top in the Impact Management component in both 2023 and 2025, improving its score from 28 to 30 out of 30. In the previous Index, AfDB lost points only for not specifying which standards it aligned to; this year, however, it achieved a full score across all indicators, including disclosing activity indicators/metrics and results.
In the ESG and Accountability to Communities component, AfDB’s sovereign portfolio ranked joint 2nd with a score of 23.67 out of 30. Because of having a free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) policy, it now scored 100 per cent for all organisational-level indicators. At the project level, AfDB improved from last Index by scoring 100 per cent on the summary of E&S risks indicator. However, due to inconsistent disclosure of E&S documents, it no longer scored full points on the E&S project plans/assessments indicator. On assurance of community disclosure, its performance dropped because of inconsistent disclosure of place, method and language of community disclosure, as well as community disclosure for the IAM and PGM.
AfDB came 4th in the Financial Information component with a score of 6.58 out of 10. Significantly, it scored for all indicators in this component. However, it did not score higher because project-level indicators scored for the less accessible formats of publication. AfDB’s sovereign portfolio scored well on the new climate finance indicators, scoring for its methodology and for disclosing climate finance amounts which were disaggregated by mitigation and adaptation. However, it lost points for not providing a clear rationale for counting climate finance or a detailed budget breakdown.
Recommendations
- It should consistently publish Core Information data including client contact, disclosure date, last update date and should disclose project investment contracts for all sovereign investments.
- AfDB should include sub-sector, total investment cost, and funding source in its bulk download file to improve accessibility.
- AfDB should consistently disclose all identified E&S documents. It should also consistently disclose the place, method, and language of community disclosure (where required), and details of the PGM and IAM, including how they were communicated.
- It should include the currency of investment in its bulk download file.
- AfDB should include its project-level climate finance data in bulk download format and include a rationale for climate finance being counted as well as a detailed budget breakdown.