The politics of climate finance coordination

The document examines the political challenges hindering the coordination of climate finance, focusing on the relationship between the Climate Investment Funds (CIF) and the Green Climate Fund (GCF). It highlights how divergent governance structures, domestic bureaucratic politics in recipient countries, and fragmented development coordination frameworks create inefficiencies. Using examples from Kenya and Zambia, it illustrates the tension between different government ministries over who should lead climate finance coordination. The brief recommends that contributor governments provide more consistent guidance and that the UNFCCC Standing Committee on Finance helps clarify the organizational strengths and roles of various funds.

• Coordination challenges between the Climate Investment Funds (CIF) and the Green Climate Fund (GCF) are driven by political differences and a lack of clarity regarding their respective comparative advantages and roles.
• The CIF's failure to implement its sunset clause upon the operationalization of the GCF has complicated the definition of the two funds' roles and led to resource competition, such as during the 2019 GCF replenishment and CIF recapitalization efforts.
• Intra-governmental coordination in contributor countries is hindered because different units within the same government often oversee relations with the CIF and GCF separately, reflecting a divide between those managing multilateral development banks and those managing UN entities.
• At the national level, there is political contention over whether environment ministries or finance ministries are better suited to lead climate finance coordination; 60% of GCF National Designated Authorities (NDAs) are environment ministries.
• National coordination models vary by country: Kenya utilizes the National Treasury as the GCF NDA and CIF focal point, while Zambia uses the Ministry of National Development Planning as the GCF NDA to align with national development priorities.
• Existing development aid coordination, which is often compartmentalized by sector, can conflict with the cross-sectoral nature of climate finance and divert attention from dedicated funds like the GCF and CIF.

APA

Lundsgaarde, E., Adams, K. M., Dupuy, K., Dzebo, A., Funder, M., Fejerskove, A. M., Shawood, Z., & Skovgaard, J. (2021). The politics of climate finance coordination. Stockholm Environment Institute. https://www.sei.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/211015a-burton-shawoo-climate-finance-pb-2109f-final.pdf

Chicago

Lundsgaarde, Erik, Kevin M. Adams, Kendra Dupuy, Adis Dzebo, Mikkel Funder, Adam Moe Fejerskove, Zoha Shawood, and Jakob Skovgaard. The politics of climate finance coordination. Stockholm Environment Institute, 2021. https://www.sei.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/211015a-burton-shawoo-climate-finance-pb-2109f-final.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Lundsgaarde |first1=Erik |last2=Adams |first2=Kevin M. |last3=Dupuy |first3=Kendra |last4=Dzebo |first4=Adis |last5=Funder |first5=Mikkel |last6=Fejerskove |first6=Adam Moe |last7=Shawood |first7=Zoha |last8=Skovgaard |first8=Jakob |title=The politics of climate finance coordination |publisher=Stockholm Environment Institute |date=September 2021 |url=https://www.sei.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/211015a-burton-shawoo-climate-finance-pb-2109f-final.pdf |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{lundsgaarde2021politics, author = {Lundsgaarde, Erik and Adams, Kevin M. and Dupuy, Kendra and Dzebo, Adis and Funder, Mikkel and Fejerskove, Adam Moe and Shawood, Zoha and Skovgaard, Jakob}, title = {{The politics of climate finance coordination}}, institution = {Stockholm Environment Institute}, year = {2021}, month = sep, url = {https://www.sei.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/211015a-burton-shawoo-climate-finance-pb-2109f-final.pdf}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }