Multilateral Climate Finance Coordination : Politics and Depoliticization in Practice
(2023) In Global Environmental Politics 23(2). p.125-147- Abstract
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... (More)
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.
(Less)
- author
- Skovgaard, Jakob LU ; Adams, Kevin M. ; Dupuy, Kendra ; Dzebo, Adis ; Funder, Mikkel ; Fejerskov, Adam Moe and Shawoo, Zoha
- organization
- publishing date
- 2023-05-01
- type
- Contribution to journal
- publication status
- published
- subject
- in
- Global Environmental Politics
- volume
- 23
- issue
- 2
- pages
- 23 pages
- publisher
- Project MUSE
- external identifiers
-
- scopus:85159419747
- ISSN
- 1526-3800
- DOI
- 10.1162/glep_a_00703
- language
- English
- LU publication?
- yes
- additional info
- Funding Information: * This work was supported by the Swedish Research Council through the project “Share or Spare? Explaining the Nature and Determinants of Climate Finance Coordination” (grant 2017-05591). We thank Erik Lundsgaarde, the editors of GEP, and the three anonymous reviewers for their very useful comments and suggestions. We are also grateful to Elvine Kwamboka (SEI Africa) and the Southern African Institute for Policy and Research (SAIPAR), who participated in and facilitated data collection. Publisher Copyright: © 2022 by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
- id
- a0585b88-888d-4d25-8d13-7121cb85def1
- date added to LUP
- 2024-01-15 10:40:39
- date last changed
- 2024-01-15 10:42:43
@article{a0585b88-888d-4d25-8d13-7121cb85def1,
abstract = {{<p>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.</p>}},
author = {{Skovgaard, Jakob and Adams, Kevin M. and Dupuy, Kendra and Dzebo, Adis and Funder, Mikkel and Fejerskov, Adam Moe and Shawoo, Zoha}},
issn = {{1526-3800}},
language = {{eng}},
month = {{05}},
number = {{2}},
pages = {{125--147}},
publisher = {{Project MUSE}},
series = {{Global Environmental Politics}},
title = {{Multilateral Climate Finance Coordination : Politics and Depoliticization in Practice}},
url = {{http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/glep_a_00703}},
doi = {{10.1162/glep_a_00703}},
volume = {{23}},
year = {{2023}},
}