Climate Accountability: a Two-Way Street

This research paper by Oxfam America, published as part of the 2010 World Resources Report, examines how civil society organizations (CSOs) can support and hold national governments accountable in integrating climate change risks into policy. The authors argue that while CSOs are vital for emergency disaster response, their most significant contribution lies in addressing long-term climatic risks through mutual partnership with states and communities. Using research from seven countries, including Cambodia, the paper highlights the risks of top-down fund management and advocates for transformative citizen participation to ensure climate finance reaches the most vulnerable populations.

• Civil society organizations (CSOs) provide critical immediate support during extreme weather events by coordinating with disaster authorities, distributing relief, and managing recovery. For example, during Cyclone Ketsana in 2010, which affected the Philippines, Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia and caused 360 deaths and over USD $600 million in damage, CSOs were essential in reaching communities and relaying information to decision-makers.
• The authors contend that the most significant value of CSOs is not in emergency response, but in managing long-term climatic risks. To achieve this, CSOs must move beyond receiving grants as benevolent recipients and instead become active partners in a process of mutual development alongside state representatives and the communities they serve.
• CSOs act as essential conduits for awareness and grassroots innovation. In Cambodia, CSOs identified the System of Rice Intensification (SRI)—a set of crop husbandry practices that improve productivity and climate resilience—which was subsequently adopted into national agricultural strategies in various developing countries. Additionally, CSOs help identify overlooked risks such as forced displacement of small farmers and land concentration caused by commercialized agriculture.
• Current climate finance and planning mechanisms in developing countries often follow a top-down approach that excludes civil society and state interests. In Cambodia, engagement has been limited; for instance, CSOs consulted on the National Adaptation Programme of Action (NAPA) were only asked to react to nearly finalized documents rather than providing early-stage input. Similarly, consultations held by the World Bank's Pilot Program for Climate Resilience (PPCR) and the Cambodian Climate Change Alliance (CCCA) were described as rushed, non-interactive, and limited in scope.
• There is a significant gap in incorporating the needs of rural communities into climate adaptation plans. In Cambodia, while official documents may mention the need to communicate with rural populations, there is no evidence of this happening in practice. CSOs could bridge this gap by building the capacity of local commune governments and monitoring how funds are used.
• Governance of climate finance is hindered by limited government capacity and a reliance on international consultants, which weakens the bond between the state and civil society. Donors are sometimes reluctant to invest in Ministries of Environment due to administrative delays or misappropriation of funds; however, circumventing government structures can further impede the ability of vulnerable groups to engage with their own government.
• To ensure accountable climate finance, the authors recommend that governments establish national civil society networks or coalitions to facilitate participation. They suggest implementing minimum standards for consultation from the design to evaluation phases and point to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria as a successful example where civil society representatives served on oversight or governance boards to reduce transaction costs and ensure direct input.

APA

Lund, B., & Pearl-Martinez, R. (2010). Climate Accountability: a Two-Way Street. World Resources Institute. https://files.wri.org/d8/s3fs-public/2023-02/wrr-2010-11-question-9-response-1_0.pdf

Chicago

Lund, Brian, and Rebecca Pearl-Martinez. Climate Accountability: a Two-Way Street. World Resources Institute, 2010. https://files.wri.org/d8/s3fs-public/2023-02/wrr-2010-11-question-9-response-1_0.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Lund |first1=Brian |last2=Pearl-Martinez |first2=Rebecca |title=Climate Accountability: a Two-Way Street |publisher=World Resources Institute |date=2010 |url=https://files.wri.org/d8/s3fs-public/2023-02/wrr-2010-11-question-9-response-1_0.pdf |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{lund2010climate, author = {Lund, Brian and Pearl-Martinez, Rebecca}, title = {{Climate Accountability: a Two-Way Street}}, institution = {World Resources Institute}, year = {2010}, url = {https://files.wri.org/d8/s3fs-public/2023-02/wrr-2010-11-question-9-response-1_0.pdf}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }