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

publishedVersio

The politics of climate finance coordination

• Climate finance coordination challenges reflect political differences, including divergent interests among ministries involved in the governance of multilateral climate funds.• Differences in the histories and governance of the Climate Investment Funds (CIF) and Green Climate Fund (GCF) – two key multilateral climate funds – shape debate on their respective advantages and future roles.• The multilateral funds have encouraged cross-governmental coordination at country level. However, there are competing views on which governmental actors at national level are best-suited to take responsibility for coordinating climate finance planning and implementation.• The cross-sectoral orientation of climate finance coordination contrasts with existing development coordination approaches, which emphasize coordination within separate policy sectors

Multilateral climate finance coordination: politics and depoliticization in practice

The governance of public climate finance for mitigation and adaptation in developing countries is fragmented on both the international and national levels, with a high diversity of actors with overlapping mandates, preferences, and areas of expertise. In the absence of one unifying actor or institution, coordination among actors has emerged as a response to this fragmentation. In this article, we study the coordination efforts of the two most important multilateral climate funds, the Climate Investment Funds (CIF) and the Green Climate Fund (GCF), on the global level as well as within two recipient countries, Kenya and Zambia. The CIF and the GCF are anchored within the World Bank and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, respectively, and represent two diverging perspectives on climate finance. We find that on both levels, coordination was depoliticized by treating it as a technical exercise, rendering invisible the political divergences among actors. The implications of this depoliticization are that both funds coordinate mainly with actors with similar preferences, and consequently, coordination did not achieve its objectives. The article contributes to the literatures on coordination, climate finance, and environmental governance by showing how a response to the fragmentation of climate governance did not overcome political fault lines but rather reinforced them

How does policy coherence shape effectiveness and inequality? Implications for sustainable development and the 2030 Agenda

During the formulation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, many promoted policy coherence as a key tool to ensure achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in a way that “leaves no one behind.” Their argument assumed that coherent policymaking contributes to more effective policies and supports over-arching efforts to reduce inequality. As the 2030 Agenda reaches the halfway point, however, countries are falling short on many SDGs, particularly SDG 10 (reduce inequality). This study revisits the basic assumptions about policy coherence underpinning the SDGs. We systematically screened the peer-reviewed literature to identify 40 studies that provide evidence about whether coherent policymaking contributes to more effective outcomes and helps to reduce inequality. We find that coherent policymaking did not help reduce inequality in a majority of cases and made it worse in several. Our findings challenge the narrative that coherence is a necessary pre-condition for progress on the SDGs for all people

Toward Climate-Neutral Heavy Industry: An Analysis of Industry Transition Roadmaps

Global efforts to decarbonize heavy industry remain insufficiently aligned. While relatively new forms of international collaboration between and among states and companies are emerging, there is still considerable room to embark on more structured knowledge-sharing activities and coherent action among nations. In order to assess the concrete needs of an industry transition at scale, this paper analyzes 29 industry transition roadmaps across 13 countries, spanning the value chain of extractive, processing, and end-use heavy industry sectors. We compare and contrast these roadmaps according to the degree of ambition in decarbonization targets, the financial costs of implementing the roadmaps, and the key mitigation measures to achieve decarbonization targets. Importantly, this paper synthesizes and categorizes key policy, finance, and technology requirements called for to enable roadmap implementation. We demonstrate that the implementation of roadmaps across different industries and countries encounters common and comparable barriers and challenges, highlighting the need for international cooperation to facilitate global industry transitions

How does policy coherence shape effectiveness and inequality? Implications for sustainable development and the 2030 Agenda

During the formulation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, many promoted policy coherence as a key tool to ensure achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in a way that “leaves no one behind.” Their argument assumed that coherent policymaking contributes to more effective policies and supports over-arching efforts to reduce inequality. As the 2030 Agenda reaches the halfway point, however, countries are falling short on many SDGs, particularly SDG 10 (reduce inequality). This study revisits the basic assumptions about policy coherence underpinning the SDGs. We systematically screened the peer-reviewed literature to identify 40 studies that provide evidence about whether coherent policymaking contributes to more effective outcomes and helps to reduce inequality. We find that coherent policymaking did not help reduce inequality in a majority of cases and made it worse in several. Our findings challenge the narrative that coherence is a necessary pre-condition for progress on the SDGs for all people.Funding: Svenska Forskningsradet Formas [2018-01706, 2020-00396]</p

Evaluating the adequacy of the outcome of COP21 in the context of the development of the broader international climate regime complex : deliverable 4.2 ; COP21 - results and implications for pathways and policies for low emissions European societies

Much mitigation-related governance activity is evident in a range of sectoral systems, and regarding particular governance functions. However, there is a tendency for this activity to relate to the easiest functions to address, such as "learning and knowledge building", or to take place in somewhat limited "niches". Across all sectoral systems examined, the gap between identified governance needs and what is currently supplied is most serious in terms of the critical function of setting rules to facilitate collective action. A lack of "guidance and signal" is also evident, particularly in the finance, extractive industries, energy-intensive industries, and buildings sectoral systems. Of the sectoral systems examined, the power sector appears the most advanced in covering the main international governance functions required of it. Nevertheless, it still falls short in achieving critical governance functions necessary for sufficient decarbonisation. Significantly, while the signal is strong and clear for the phase-in of renewable energy, it is either vague or absent when it comes to the phase-out of fossil fuel-generated electricity. The same lack of signal that certain high-carbon activities need actively to be phased out is also evident in financial, fossil-fuel extractive industry and transport-related sectors. More effective mitigation action will need greater co-ordination or orchestration effort, sometimes led by the UNFCCC, but also from the bodies such as the G20, as well as existing (or potentially new) sector-level institutions. The EU needs to re-consider what it means to provide climate leadership in an increasingly "polycentric" governance landscape

Increasing policy coherence between NDCs and SDGs: a national perspective

This new analysis — from SEI, DIE, Linköping University and Utrecht University — looks at six countries and identifies the synergies and conflicts between nationally determined contributions and Sustainable Development Goals