By Millicent Omala & Marie Ladekjær Gravesen
KEY FINDINGS
- There is a great deal of political contestation among stakeholders on how institutions should coordinate climate finance.
- Local ownership is essential for effective adaptation. With governance structures that take a starting point in local needs and ideas, some stakeholder conflicts may be avoided.
- It is essential to get the coordination mechanisms right and avoid creating hollow institutional structures that look good but fall short in practice.
Climate finance coordination mechanisms in recipient countries in the Global South are impeded by conflicting interests, political contestation, and contradictory understandings of what constitutes effectiveness.
As climate financing to the Global South has increased over the past two decades, totalling about US$447 billion between 2002 and 2021, it has put a spotlight on coordination challenges in recipient countries. A new study conducted in Kenya indicates that political contestation over what constitutes an effective climate finance coordination mechanism has impeded the operationalisation of the much-needed coordination mechanisms and efficient implementation of climate change interventions.
Despite the glaring climate finance coordination challenges in the Global South, the climate finance coordination debate has, until recently, largely been centred at global level with limited attention paid to recipient countries. Recent calls on recipient countries to establish effective climate finance coordination mechanisms by the United Nations agencies, multilateral development banks and other global actors have not, however, provided clarity on what constitutes an effective climate finance coordination mechanism. This lack of clarity and of any standard measures of effectiveness has resulted in various interpretations and understandings, and led to contestation among climate change stakeholders over the operationalisation of coordination mechanisms.
The case of Kenya
Kenya is one of the countries in the Global South hardest hit by the impacts of climate change, manifested in prolonged droughts and flooding. In response, the country has established policy and institutional mechanisms to guide climate action and coordination of climate finance at the national and sub-national levels. Over the years, the country has served as a leader in addressing climate change issues in the African region, and it was the first country in Africa to enact a comprehensive climate change policy and law.
However, despite having established a comprehensive policy and institutional infrastructure to secure an effective flow of climate finance from the national to the local implementation level, operationalisation of the institutional infrastructure has been delayed. Climate change stakeholders from the government, civil society organisations and the private sector at national and sub-national levels are pushing for operationalisation of the infrastructure based on their own perceptions and conceptions of what an effective coordination mechanism looks like. This has resulted in contestation, which has muddled climate finance coordination and hindered collaboration among actors.
There is disjointed effort with no coordination. Everyone is doing their own thing. - Civil society representative in Nairobi
Stakeholder perceptions
Stakeholders have divergent perceptions of the current coordination mechanism. Government stakeholders acknowledge Kenya’s functional climate finance coordination mechanism led by the national treasury and the climate change directorate. To them, the country’s ability to mobilise climate financing is a testament to the effective coordination mechanism in place.
For civil society organisations, however, the country does not have a coordination mechanism. This is linked to the fact that some institutions established under the Climate Change Act 2016 are yet to be operationalised, including the national climate change fund and the national climate change council. The national climate change council is meant to provide overall coordination and administration of climate finance.
Conflicting ideological views
Kenya’s climate change policy formulation process was largely led by civil society. The ideology pushed by the civil society organisations was that locating climate change coordination at the presidency would endow it with greater convening power. The national climate change council is meant to be chaired by the president. But now, seven years after the enactment of the policy and the law, it is emerging that stakeholders have divergent views on the chairmanship of the national climate change council. While the civil society organisations see the president as the suitable chair of the council, their government counterparts hold the view that the role ought to be filled by an individual who is accountable to a higher authority; for example a cabinet minister. In addition, they argue that the president cannot chair the council, which consists of a few cabinet ministers, and then present its resolutions to the full cabinet for approval because the cabinet cannot alter what the president has already approved at the council.
Regarding the establishment of the national climate change fund, government stakeholders argue that the fund needs to be established under the Public Finance Management Act, not the Climate Change Act. They further argue that the fund administration role ought to be given to an individual, not the council, for accountability. According to them, the council should only provide overall coordination and oversight but not administer the fund. The civil society organisations, however, view the reasons provided by their government counterparts as just excuses, aimed at delaying the operationalisation of the council and the fund for fear of losing some of their powers to the council and of being subjected to the accountability that the council and the fund would bring.
As a stakeholder in the climate finance coordination space, you constantly have to look at the political implications of your technical vibrancy. - Civil society representative in Turkana
Even as civil society pushes for the operationalisation of the climate finance infrastructure, they no longer hold the consolidated power and voice that they had during the climate policy formulation process. Power wrangles over the civil society representation on the climate change council have led to a split in the civil society coalition. This has not only delayed agreement on civil society representation at the council but also threatens to jeopardise efforts to track and report on climate financing channelled to non-state actors. The tracking mechanisms established under the climate finance policy are only applicable to climate financing channelled through state institutions. Non-state actors need to jointly establish a robust tracking and reporting mechanism to consolidate their reports and submit to government.
Furthermore, political contestation is evident in climate change resource allocation. Political leaders exercise their power by making resource allocation decisions out of political expediency rather than based on climate change vulnerabilities. Full operationalisation of the climate finance coordination infrastructure should therefore not only seek to address the technical components but the political and power relations dynamics as well.
Considering the ongoing contestation, it is clear that the operationalisation of the climate finance coordination infrastructure may face further delays.
Implications and recommendations
Firstly, delays in getting finance coordination to work will evidently stall climate change adaptation. Wider consultation processes focused on building consensus around contentious issues among climate change stakeholders are needed. Existing platforms, including the multi-sectoral climate change working groups at the national level, civil society coalitions, private sector alliances, and sub-national-level climate change committees among others can be utilised to mobilise stakeholders to dialogue around the contentious issues. This could be facilitated by the climate change directorates at national and sub-national level. Reconciling actors and institutions with different interests, mandates and power, although difficult, will be necessary to address the climate finance coordination barriers and political conflicts that characterise the climate finance architecture in Kenya as well as in other recipient countries.
Secondly, power wrangles over civil society representation on the climate change council weaken the civil society voice and power needed to push for full operationalisation of the climate finance coordination infrastructure. Furthermore, the split in the civil society coalition threatens to jeopardise efforts by non-state actors to establish a climate finance tracking and reporting mechanism that can complement the government tracking mechanism. Civil society organisations need to build consensus around their representation on the council. A selected representative could then spearhead the process of establishing the climate finance tracking and reporting mechanism together with other non-state actors.
Finally, political contestations and the exercise of power by political leaders have an impact on allocation and coordination of climate change resources. Empowering communities to prioritise their climate change needs and demand accountability from politicians is one way of shifting power from the politicians to the people. Civil society organisations need to channel efforts towards empowering communities by providing them with information regarding climate finance allocations and ways of demanding accountability from political leaders. The civil society organisations have been demanding accountability on climate financing from political leaders, but in processes that often do not go beyond paper trails. Communities are, however, better placed to demand accountability from political leaders because they hold the voting power that the political leaders depend upon.
If meaningful stakeholder dialogues that seek to build consensus around contentious issues are not urgently held, the established coordination mechanism will fail to gain widespread legitimacy among stakeholders. Such a scenario could have a detrimental impact on the implementation of much-needed climate action.