Corruption Risks and Integrity in Locally-Led Climate Action
Outcomes of session 3 of the webinar series on Climate Change and Corruption, organized by the SDC’s CDE and PGE Networks together with U4.
Event summary
Webinar 3 of the U4–SDC series on Climate Change and Corruption, “Localizing Climate Action: Corruption Risks and Integrity in Locally-Led Climate Action,” held on 4 November 2026, examined whether locally led climate action reduces corruption risks or merely redistributes them across governance levels. Following an introduction by André Wehrli (SDC), who briefly recapped the previous sessions, Robert Forster (CMI-U4) emphasised that localisation changes rather than eliminates corruption risks. Community participation alone does not guarantee accountability, while trust between communities and implementing partners depends on integrity.
Achiba Gargule (Tufts University) presented findings from U4’s study of Kenya’s FLLoCA programme, which manages around USD 350 million across 47 counties. He highlighted how larger climate finance flows can create greater opportunities for corruption, while devolution has reshaped rather than eliminated existing patronage networks. Risks arise throughout the project cycle, from expedited readiness processes and political appointments, through pressured prioritisation, to manipulated inspections and payments for incomplete work. Community participation fades once delivery moves into county finance systems, while pending bills represent a major risk. He called for stronger national oversight, timely and protected transfers, and civil society oversight in remote areas.
Katherine Browne (Stockholm Environment Institute) presented her “imperfect equity” approach, drawing on research in Madagascar where patronage shaped access to adaptation funds. Her research illustrated how national-level patronage networks can capture adaptation resources, potentially excluding the most vulnerable communities. She argued that reaching the most vulnerable may require accepting trade-offs and understanding how outcomes are achieved. Downward accountability can be strengthened through practical measures, such as translating project documents into local languages. However, she cautioned that working within existing patronage systems may entrench them over the long term.
Bosko Kenjic (Swiss Embassy in Bosnia and Herzegovina) linked corruption to shrinking civic space and weak democratic mechanisms in Bosnia and Herzegovina. He described SDC’s zero-tolerance approach, which is communicated to partners, applied in the field and incorporated into contracts. He emphasised that integrity work begins with partner risk analysis and establishing integrity management systems before large investments are made. He also described how SDC in Bosnia and Herzegovina assessed the entire cooperation portfolio to enhance anti-corruption mainstreaming.
Ikal Angelei (Friends of Turkana) argued that “local” must be clearly defined and that meaningful participation should be assessed by whether communities influence decisions, rather than merely attend consultations. Drawing on the Lake Turkana Wind Farm Project, she described a finding of unlawful land allocation and warned that climate finance can be used to justify other violations, while affected communities bear the costs of litigation. She called for readiness processes that resolve competing claims before funding is committed, and for analysis that goes beyond audits and procurement to examine institutional power and cross-border conflicts of interest.
Group discussions highlighted corruption risks across the climate finance cycle, including discretionary allocation of funds, politically connected procurement and integrity challenges within NGOs.
Three overarching messages emerged. First, localisation does not eliminate corruption risks: unequal power relations and patronage can persist or take new forms when decision-making and resources are devolved. Understanding local political economies is therefore essential. Second, meaningful participation requires more than consultation or transparency; it depends on communities having influence over decisions and access to effective accountability mechanisms. Third, promoting equitable access to climate finance and national ownership within imperfect governance systems involves difficult trade-offs. Donors, national authorities and civil society have complementary roles in addressing these risks, from strengthening integrity safeguards and enforcement to supporting independent oversight. A fundamental question remains: who defines what is “local,” and who ultimately controls decisions and resources?
Documentation
Other sessions in this series
Understanding corruption risk in climate finance
Outcomes of session 1 of the webinar series on Climate Change and Corruption, organized by the SDC’s CDE and PGE Networks together with U4.
Managing Corruption Risks in Multilateral Climate Funds
Outcomes of session 2 of the webinar series on Climate Change and Corruption, organized by the SDC’s CDE and PGE Networks together with U4.