National and Local Ownership and Governance

Rethinking the Institutional Architecture for the Governance of Climate Change Adaptation Finance in Tanzania
Authors: Peter Msumali Rogers, Edmund B. Mabhuye, and
Noah M. Pauline.

Affiliation: Institute of Resource Assessment & Centre for Climate Change Studies, University of Dar es Salaam, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.

Abstract
Climate change adaptation finance plays a prominent function in the global adaptation efforts,
yet its governance remains underexplored in Tanzania. This paper evaluates the existing
institutional architecture governing adaptation finance established by the Environmental
Management Act of 2004 to understand key institutions, interactions, and governance gaps
to propose an effective architecture. Using qualitative methods, data was collected through
institutional review and key informant interviews and was thematically analyzed using NVivo
13. Results show that adaptation finance is governed by institutions within the operating
architecture, such as the Vice President’sOffice, and by institutions outside the architecture,
such as the Planning Commission. There are governance gaps in coordination, overlapping
duties, and inadequate linkages. Results propose to retain existing institutions and introduce
others to enhance the architecture. This paper concludes that strengthening architecture is
essential for effective governance of climate adaptation finance in Tanzania. It recommends
timely reviews of the architecture to enhance institutional performance.

Keywords
adaptation finance, institutional architecture, climate governance, Tanzania

Community-Led Innovation as Climate Adaptation: Evaluation Evidence from 94 Community-Designed Solutions in Four Crisis-Affected Countries
Authors: Krisztina Varga, Yuval Ofek (Key Impact); country evaluators Patricia Diaz Menendez, Basyrah Alwi, Philip Emmanuel C. Penaflor, Christine Kamau. Commissioned by the Community-Led Innovation Partnership (Elrha; Start Network; Asian Disaster Reduction and Response Network; six national partners). Funded by the UK FCDO.

Climate adaptation and humanitarian response are both dominated by externally designed interventions; evidence on what crisis-affected communities achieve when they control problem definition, design and resources is thin. This independent final evaluation of a six-year (2020-2026) programme in Guatemala, Indonesia, the Philippines and South Sudan addresses that gap. It supported 94 community-designed innovations, drawn from 252 community ideas across 12 regions, engaging some 3,300 innovators and affecting over 150,000 people in settings exposed to drought, flooding, typhoons, landslides and seismic hazards.

The evaluation combined a theory-based approach with Outcome Harvesting and case studies: 67 interviews and 35 focus groups with 366 stakeholders, field visits to 20 locations and 25 innovations, and 126 verified Outcome Statements, analysed through a five-domain community resilience lens.

74% of innovations progressed beyond piloting into growth or scaling, higher than typically observed in top-down humanitarian innovation. Solutions grounded in local, Indigenous and traditional knowledge delivered multidimensional resilience gains: soil restoration and drought-adapted agriculture, forest and coastal stewardship, waste systems cutting landslide and flood risk, and livelihoods displacing damaging coping strategies. Environmental gains arose mostly as co-benefits of livelihood, food security and disaster risk work rather than as stated climate objectives. Economic sustainability was weakest, and climate and humanitarian finance did not follow community-led solutions beyond local government - the central unmet condition for scaling.

Giving Communities the Right to Govern Their Natural Resources: A Case of the Asunafo-Asutifi Landscape in the Ahafo Region of Ghana, West Africa
The Asunafo-Asutifi Landscape Initiative, located in Ghana’s Ahafo Region, aims to balance cocoa production with environmental conservation. Recognizing that cocoa farming, while vital to Ghana’s economy, often drives deforestation, the initiative integrates traditional and modern agroforestry techniques to create a deforestation-free, climate-resilient cocoa landscape. The initiative seeks to improve farmers’ livelihoods while preserving biodiversity and critical forest areas through collaboration among government agencies, private sector entities, and local communities. The landscape management plan incorporates sustainable farming, forest protection, and proactive community participation. By promoting biodiversity conservation, addressing the cocoa swollen shoot virus, and fostering ecological connectivity, the initiative emphasizes sustainable resource management aligned with the principles of Socio-Ecological Production Landscapes and Seascapes (SEPLS). As an example of how to harmonize environmental stewardship with economic growth, this project sets a model for integrated landscape management in Ghana and beyond. The initiative demonstrates Ghana’s commitment to sustainable cocoa production, aiming for long-term ecological and economic benefits through comprehensive and collaborative measures.

Rethinking Country Ownership: Evaluation Evidence Behind the Green Climate Fund's Updated Approach
Country ownership is a cornerstone of effective climate finance, yet translating the principle into practice remains a persistent challenge. In response, the Green Climate Fund (GCF) has developed updated country ownership guidelines that seek to establish a more dynamic, inclusive, and operational approach to country leadership throughout the climate finance cycle. 

This session examines the evidence underpinning these reforms, drawing on the Independent Evaluation of the GCF's Approach to Country Ownership (2025). The independent evaluation found that while mechanisms such as National Designated Authorities, direct access entities, readiness support, and no-objection procedures are well established, they often operate as fragmented processes rather than as a coherent system that enables sustained country leadership. Ownership frequently remains procedural and concentrated around project approval stages, while institutional strengthening, stakeholder engagement, accountability, and implementation oversight remain uneven.  

Since the independent evaluation of the GCF’s country ownership approach by the GCF IEU, the GCF Secretariat has developed updated country ownership guidelines. The updated guidelines were presented to the GCF Board and discussed at the 45th meeting of the Board (B.45) mid-year in 2026. While no Board decision was made on this item during B.45, the updated guidelines responded directly to the evaluation findings and were designed to ‘provide a clearer framework for country ownership.’ The updated guidelines are said to ‘emphasize inclusive participation, stronger national institutions, direct access, use of country systems, mutual accountability, and continuous engagement throughout planning, programming, implementation, monitoring, and learning’ for GCF stakeholders.  

Using the GCF experience as a case study, the session will explore how evaluation evidence can inform institutional reform and policy (re)design and strengthen country-led climate finance across the wider climate finance architecture.