open access publication

Article, 2022

Country ownership in climate finance coordination: a comparative assessment of Kenya and Zambia

Climate Policy, ISSN 1752-7457, 1469-3062, Volume 22, 9-10, Pages 1266-1280, 10.1080/14693062.2022.2098227

Contributors

Shawoo, Zoha 0000-0001-5561-8463 (Corresponding author) [1] Dzebo, Adis 0009-0009-2612-9498 [2] [3] [4] Funder, Mikkel 0000-0002-3808-919X [5] Dupuy, Kendra E 0000-0002-6508-7712 [6]

Affiliations

  1. [1] Stockholm Environment Institute
  2. [NORA names: United States; America, North; OECD];
  3. [2] German Institute of Development and Sustainability
  4. [NORA names: Germany; Europe, EU; OECD];
  5. [3] Stockholm Environment Institute
  6. [NORA names: Sweden; Europe, EU; Nordic; OECD];
  7. [4] Utrecht University
  8. [NORA names: Netherlands; Europe, EU; OECD];
  9. [5] Danish Institute for International Studies
  10. [NORA names: DIIS Danish Institute for International Studies; Governmental Institutions; Denmark; Europe, EU; Nordic; OECD];

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to investigate how political and technical factors influence climate finance coordination in different country contexts. Emerging scholarly and policy literature calls for the improved coordination of climate finance to enhance the effectiveness of multiple sources of funding for adaptation and mitigation purposes, with country ownership over coordination emerging as a potential approach. However, few studies have examined how climate finance coordination unfolds at the national level in developing countries. This paper presents findings from a comparative assessment of climate finance coordination practices in Kenya and Zambia, drawing on semi-structured interviews, policy documents, and relevant literature. Specifically, the paper investigates how political and technical forces shape climate finance coordination in contexts with varying country ownership over the coordination process. We find that political factors relating to power dynamics, framings of climate finance, and vested interests play a strong role in shaping how actors interact, hampering coordination efforts within the climate finance landscape in both countries. This adds a new dimension to calls for greater country ownership, which we suggest needs to be paired with a critical examination of political struggles and contestation. Underlying political factors relating to conflicting vested interests, different framings and discourses, political will, and power dynamics play a substantive and overarching role in shaping climate finance coordination in Kenya and Zambia. These political factors limit the extent to which greater country ownership translates to better or more effective coordination of climate finance; as such, ownership needs to be examined in the context of political struggles and contestation. Instead of just aiming to improve coordination through more formalized coordination structures, capacity building and reduced fragmentation, countries also need to be more transparent and acknowledge the deep-seated interests within the climate finance landscape, to make visible the winners and losers of various coordination mechanisms and structures. Underlying political factors relating to conflicting vested interests, different framings and discourses, political will, and power dynamics play a substantive and overarching role in shaping climate finance coordination in Kenya and Zambia. These political factors limit the extent to which greater country ownership translates to better or more effective coordination of climate finance; as such, ownership needs to be examined in the context of political struggles and contestation. Instead of just aiming to improve coordination through more formalized coordination structures, capacity building and reduced fragmentation, countries also need to be more transparent and acknowledge the deep-seated interests within the climate finance landscape, to make visible the winners and losers of various coordination mechanisms and structures.

Keywords

Kenya, Zambia, actors, adaptation, building, calls, capacity, capacity building, climate, climate finance, climate finance landscape, comparative assessment, contest, context, context of political struggles, coordinated effort, coordination, coordination mechanism, coordination practices, coordination process, coordination structure, countries, country context, country ownership, deep-seated interests, developing countries, discourse, documents, dynamics, effect, effect of multiple sources, effective coordination, efforts, examination, factors, finance, finance landscape, findings, fragments, frame, improve coordination, interest, interviews, landscape, levels, literature, losers, mechanism, mitigation, mitigation purposes, multiple sources, national level, ownership, policy, policy documents, policy literature, political factors, political struggle, political will, power, power dynamics, practice, process, purposes, reduce fragmentation, relevant literature, semi-structured interviews, source, structure, struggles, study, vested interests, will, winners

Funders

  • Swedish Research Council

Data Provider: Digital Science