Climate Change Integration and Budgeting in National and Subnational Policies in Tanzania and Uganda

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-4684680/v1

Download PDF

Research Article

Climate Change Integration and Budgeting in National and Subnational Policies in Tanzania and Uganda

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-4684680/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

Climate change integration and budgeting are essential components of policies, programs, and strategies for addressing climate change. Integrating adaptation and mitigation measures into policies and strategies ensures a more holistic response to climate change, considering both short-term and long-term goals and leading to greater synergies, efficiency, and cost-effectiveness. Climate policy integration refers to incorporating climate change mitigation and adaptation objectives into all policy sectors, including non-environmental sectors, at all stages of policy-making. This study aims to assess climate change integration in national and subnational policies in Tanzania and Uganda and evaluate the degree of climate finance integration into government budget cycles. We conducted a content analysis of 157 policy documents in Tanzania and Uganda to evaluate climate change integration across governance levels. The selected documents focused on agriculture, natural resources, including land, water, and forestry, and climate change development and action plans. The assessment of climate change integration utilized two frameworks: Gumucio and Tafur-Rueda (2015) and Mickwitz et al. (2009), to analyze the degree of integration based on varying but complementary variables. We adjusted both frameworks to assess the extent to which existing policies integrate climate change concerns. The analysis results indicate that although Tanzania and Uganda have made progress in integrating climate change concerns into national and subnational policies, more work remains, including developing effective climate budgeting.

Regarding climate budgeting integration, we found a lack of clarity and coherence in integrating climate budgeting into government budget cycles in both countries. Climate budgeting varies inconsistently across administrative levels, with intermittent budget allocations. The alignment between national and subnational climate change policies, budget allocation, and execution also varies. Based on these findings, we recommend further research on effective approaches for developing and implementing transparent, accountable, and effective climate budgeting.

climate change

adaptation

mitigation

climate change integration

climate change policy

climate finance

climate budgeting

Tanzania and Uganda have made efforts to incorporate adaptation and mitigation goals into their national and subnational policies.

Both Tanzania and Uganda prioritize climate change adaptation over mitigation in their national and subnational-level documents, aligning with the vulnerability of developing countries. Integrating both adaptation and mitigation to tackle climate change requires a synergistic approach.

Integration of climate change measures is higher at the national level and limited at lower administrative levels. Addressing these discrepancies is crucial for comprehensive implementation.

Uganda places greater importance on climate change mainstreaming and integration compared to Tanzania. Consistent prioritization of climate change goals is essential for achieving national climate targets.

Climate change budget allocations at the subnational level are declining or stagnant in both countries, requiring strategic investments and leveraging additional finance from various sources.

1.1 Context

Despite ongoing adaptation and mitigation efforts, climate change continues to severely impact natural and human systems in developed and underdeveloped societies (IPCC 2022; IPCC, 2014). Africa, including East Africa, is particularly vulnerable to climate variability and change (IPCC, 2022; Ofori et al., 2021; Oxfam, 2017). East Africa, specifically Tanzania and Uganda, has witnessed an increase in extreme climate events such as droughts, floods, erratic rainfall, and rising sea levels (Apollo & Mbah, 2021; Adhikari et al., 2015). Factors such as over-reliance on land and water resources, dependence on rain-fed agriculture, limited knowledge of adaptation options, difficulty accessing and adopting technologies, lack of financial services for adaptation and mitigation, poverty, marginalization, and the COVID-19 pandemic exacerbate Tanzania and Uganda’s vulnerability to climate change (Newell & Dale, 2020; Radtke & Weller, 2020; Kahimba et al., 2005; Hepworth & Goulden, 2008; UNDP-UNEP, 2004). These factors have hindered their resilience and capacity to address climate change impacts (Hepworth, 2010; Frank & Buckley, 2012). According to the African Development Bank (AFDB, 2019), Eastern Africa could face a GDP loss of up to 3.6% by 2030 and approximately 15% by 2050 due to climate change. In a high-warming scenario, Tanzania’s projected GDP loss by 2030 could reach up to 4.8 percent, placing it among Africa’s top five most affected countries. Furthermore, by 2050, the potential GDP loss could escalate to 18.6% (AFDB, 2019). Uganda is one of the countries particularly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change (Bird, 2017). Given this context, it is crucial to implement climate change mitigation and adaptation measures, integrate them into policies, and develop national climate budgeting strategies (IPCC, 2014, 2022). This paper aims to contribute to understanding the extent and level of climate change integration, climate change budgeting, and expenditures in national and subnational policies in Tanzania and Uganda.

1.2 Climate change integration

Analysts have stressed the growing necessity of integrating adaptation and mitigation measures into policies, programs, and strategies to optimize resource use, enhance agricultural livelihoods, and ensure food system availability and stability (Biesbroek, 2021; Jana & Majumder, 2010; FAO, 2009). As defined by Lafferty and Hovden (2003), environmental policy integration involves incorporating environmental goals throughout the policy-making process in non-environmental sectors. Climate policy integration builds upon this definition, incorporating climate change mitigation and adaptation objectives into policy-making across various sectors (Mickwitz et al., 2009). Integration occurs when specific climate responses, such as adaptation or mitigation, are incorporated into policy, planning, budgeting, and implementation strategies (OECD, 2011). Integrating adaptation and mitigation actions within climate change policies and strategies allows for conceptualizing multiple goals, assessing trade-offs, and pursuing mutually beneficial outcomes (Qi & Terton, 2022; Pramova et al., 2015). In recent years, Tanzania and Uganda have made significant strides in integrating climate change considerations into their national and subnational policies, strategies, and development plans.

1.3 Climate change budgeting

Climate finance refers to financial resources allocated by national, regional, and international entities for climate change mitigation and adaptation projects (Lévêque, 2022; Shachi, 2016). Developed countries initially committed to mobilizing US$100 billion annually by 2020 to support developing nations in transitioning to low or zero emissions (UNFCCC, 2009). However, the actual climate finance provided and mobilized by developed countries in 2019 fell short at US$79.6 billion (OECD, 2021). The first needs report ahead of COP26 estimated that developing countries require a staggering US$3 trillion in climate finance, highlighting a significant gap between financial needs and current delivery (UNFCCC, 2021). Developing countries must utilize their domestic budgets to bridge this gap and support climate change actions (Venkatramani & Hillier, 2021; Duncan et al., 2016). However, climate finance flows remain insufficient. For example, total climate finance flows in Africa, including domestic and international sources, only reached US$30 billion in 2020, a mere 12% of the required amount (CPI, 2023).

Transparency in climate budgeting is crucial for ensuring accountability and citizen participation. It requires developing new systems to track government expenditures related to climate change, as these often cut across existing expenditure classification systems (Petrie, 2022). Integrating climate finance into national planning and budgeting processes is a global objective for developing countries, aiming to reduce carbon emissions and adapt to climate change (CABRI, 2021; Shachi, 2016). However, there is a lack of clarity in integrating climate finance into government budget cycles, and further research and assessments are needed (Goel, 2017). Addressing these challenges and gaps in climate change budgeting is vital to ensure the effective allocation of financial resources for climate action. In Uganda and Tanzania, integrating climate finance into national planning and budgeting processes is of utmost importance to address the significant climate finance gap and effectively allocate resources for climate change mitigation and adaptation efforts in these countries.

2.1 Selection rationale: Uganda and Tanzania as case studies for policy integration and climate budgeting

This paper builds on PACCA research, a major project that identified climate-smart agriculture priorities within the CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture, and Food Security (CCAFS), focusing on Uganda and Tanzania. Both countries have integrated climate change considerations into their policies, strategies, and development plans (Pilato et al., 2018; Irish Aid, 2017a, 2017b; Ampaire et al., 2017;), receiving substantial climate finance from development partners (Bakiika et al., 2020; UN DESA 2021). They serve as a comparative case study for climate budgeting analysis.

Additionally, Tanzania and Uganda were early adopters of decentralization in their public sector reforms, granting decision-making authority to central and local governments for effective climate change implementation (Mushemeza, 2019; Ojambo, 2012; Brosio, 2000; Picard, 1980). National policies establish a broad climate action framework, while subnational policies address local contexts. Analyzing policy effectiveness at both levels identifies gaps, opportunities, and best practices, guiding coordinated strategies to enhance climate resilience and reduce vulnerability. Finally, distinguishing between adaptation and mitigation is crucial in assessing climate change integration, allowing for tailored policies and strategies that address each aspect’s specific challenges and opportunities. Adaptation focuses on building resilience and reducing vulnerability to climate change impacts, while mitigation aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Recognizing these differences enables the identification of gaps, synergies, and trade-offs, leading to targeted and sustainable climate policies and strategies.

2.2 Methodology for assessing climate change integration in national and subnational policies in Tanzania and Uganda

2.2.1 Selection of reviewed policy documents

In this study, we conducted a content analysis of 157 policy documents from Tanzania and Uganda at national and subnational levels. National-level documents were collected from official websites, while we obtained subnational documents from relevant government offices. The document selection covered three governance levels: national, district, and ward levels in Tanzania and national, district, and subcounty levels in Uganda. The selected documents focused on agriculture, natural resources (land, water, and forestry), climate change, and development and action plans (Table 1). We specifically focused on these sectors as they are crucial in determining vulnerability and adaptation to climate change impacts. While other sectors like infrastructure, urban development, energy, and transportation are important for climate integration, we excluded them from this study to closely examine the role of agriculture and natural resources in climate change adaptation and mitigation. The emphasis on these sectors aligns with the specific project this policy paper is based on, considering the agriculture sector’s potential to contribute to climate change goals and sustainable land use practices.

Table 1

Number of national and subnational documents reviewed by themes
Thematic Areas	Tanzania			Uganda
Thematic Areas	National	District	Ward	National	District	Subcounty
Agricultural sector: policies, plans, and programs	9	2	0	8	0	0
Climate change sector: strategies and guidelines	11	0	0	10	0	0
Development and action plans	4	3	12	5	18	41
Environmental and natural resources (land, water, and forests)	15	10	1	13	0	0
Total	35	15	13	35	18	41

2.2.2 Framework for assessing climate change integration in national and subnational policy documents

The assessment of climate change integration in Tanzanian and Ugandan policy documents utilized two frameworks: Gumucio and Tafur-Rueda (2015) and Mickwitz et al. (2009). These frameworks are justified for evaluating climate policy integration. Mickwitz et al. (2009) define climate policy integration as the comprehensive incorporation of climate change aims throughout policy-making, considering mitigation, adaptation, and minimizing contradictions with other policy areas. Stakeholders can achieve climate policy integration by employing mainstreaming, coordination, and targeting mechanisms. Gumucio and Tafur-Rueda (2015) align policy instruments and goals across different areas, emphasizing coherence and consistency in policy design, implementation, and evaluation. It complements Mickwitz et al. by analyzing the integration of environmental concerns. Combining these frameworks allows for a comprehensive analysis of climate change integration in policies, identifying areas for improvement, and informing policy development. Limitations include focusing on policy design rather than implementation, a lack of clear implementation guidelines, and framework complexity. Stakeholders may face difficulties in comprehending and applying them effectively. Despite these limitations, the selected frameworks provide a solid foundation for evaluating climate policy integration and conducting a comprehensive assessment of the integration process.

It is worth mentioning that while considering various frameworks, we found some were unsuitable for this study’s scope, data availability, and indicators. For instance, Garcia Hernandez’s framework (2022) explores the integration of climate change into national sectoral policies, using theories like the advocacy coalition framework, the policy cycle model, punctuated equilibrium, and the multiple streams framework (MSF). While the MSF focuses on agenda-setting and alternative specification, it lacks coverage of subsequent stages, such as choice among alternatives and policy implementation, particularly climate budgeting. Cejudo and Trein (2022) adopt a ‘subsystems’ perspective to analyze policy integration, examining political obstacles and potential strategies. However, their method and procedure do not directly align with climate integration, as their approach centers on human interactions, agencies, and frameworks, evaluating actions and responses to climate change.

2.2.3 Assessment of climate change integration in national and subnational policy documents

We applied the two complementary frameworks to assess climate change integration in this analysis. They were adjusted to align with the study’s objectives, which focused on evaluating the incorporation of climate change concerns in existing policies. Additionally, we examined frequently referenced key terms and concepts related to climate change.

We utilized Gumucio and Tafur-Rueda’s (2015) grading framework to evaluate the degree of climate change integration and modified grades to suit the study’s goals. Policy documents were assigned grade 1 if they did not address climate change or environmental concerns. Documents focusing on environmental issues but not specifically on climate change received grade 2. For documents addressing climate change, we graded integration levels from 3 to 5. Policy documents receiving grade 6 underwent further analysis to evaluate the proportion of the total budget allocated to climate change activities. We also adapted Mickwitz et al.’s analytical framework (2009), which includes five criteria: inclusion, weighting, consistency, reporting, and resources, to assess climate policy integration. For this study, we selected inclusion, weighting, and consistency as relevant factors for evaluating the level of climate change integration.

Criterion 1: Inclusion

Our inclusion criterion evaluated the presence of climate change mitigation and adaptation aims in both general and sectoral policy documents. Documents that overlooked both climate mitigation and adaptation aims received a score of 1. Those that solely addressed adaptation aims scored 2. Documents focusing solely on mitigation aims scored 3. Finally, documents incorporating climate change adaptation and mitigation aims received a score of 4.

Criterion 2: Weighting

We examined the extent to which the implementation plans of national and subnational-level documents in Tanzania and Uganda integrated climate change goals. This assessment provides insights into the prioritization of climate change objectives in comparison to non-climate change goals. When implementation plans effectively integrate climate change goals, it indicates a strong emphasis on climate change within sectoral policies. Conversely, if the implementation plan primarily prioritizes non-climate aspects, it implies a lower priority given to climate change. Documents that did not consider climate change goals were assigned a score of 1, while those that integrated climate change goals in the implementation plan received a score of 2.

Criterion 3: Consistency

The third criterion focuses on the consistency of integrated climate change goals with other policy objectives. In this study, the assessment of consistency compared sectoral goals within the selected policy documents with the national climate change goals outlined in the 2021–2026 National Climate Change Response Strategy of Tanzania and the 2021 National Climate Change Act of Uganda. These two national climate change documents served as the benchmark for evaluating all sectoral goals within the selected documents. Policies that did not address climate change goals in their sectoral goals were assigned a score of 1. Policies that exhibited some alignment with national climate change goals received a score of 2. Lastly, policies in which the sectoral goals were consistent with national climate change goals achieved a score of 3.

2.3 Methodology for assessing climate change budgeting in Tanzania and Uganda

2.3.1 Selection of reviewed budget documents

We focused on analyzing local-level budgets for climate change activities in Tanzania and Uganda. Challenges in accessing national-level budget documents and the complexity of budgeting processes drove the choice of analyzing only local-level budgets. In both countries, national-level budget documents were difficult to access. Additionally, budgeting for climate change activities varied across different ministries, making analysis at the national level complex and time-consuming. Focusing on local-level budgets provided a more feasible approach. Local-level budgets are relatively more accessible than national budgets, as they are often more transparent and available to the public. These factors allowed for a targeted examination of budgeting decisions and allocations specifically related to climate change activities at the grassroots level. In Tanzania, collaboration with the Climate Change Forum was instrumental in accessing otherwise inaccessible documents. In Uganda, extensive efforts were required to obtain and photocopy the documents, despite established working relationships. Additionally, the lack of clear guidelines for data documentation and issues with data quality posed obstacles to the usability of the collected data in decision-making and policy formulation. While analyzing local-level budgets offers valuable insights, we acknowledge that a comprehensive analysis of national-level budgets would provide a more complete understanding of the overall climate change budgeting landscape. However, due to the challenges in accessing and navigating national-level budgets, we opted for a localized approach to gain meaningful insights into climate change budgeting at the grassroots level.

2.3.2 Budget extraction

We collected budget data from Tanzania and Uganda from various sources, including action and development plans, Medium-Term Expenditure Frameworks (MTEF), and District Agriculture Development Programme reports. The MTEF budget extraction process involved considering three funding sources: own sources, local government block grants, and development grants. We consulted local staff at different administrative levels in both countries to validate the data and provide additional information on the budget sources. We analyzed expenditures specifically allocated to climate change action within the overall budget. Based on the authors’ judgment and consultation with local staff, we categorized these activities as either mitigation or adaptation (Fig. 1). Activities with elements of both mitigation and adaptation, such as sensitizations and workshops, were considered adaptation-mitigation co-benefit activities. Although not explicitly targeting climate change mitigation and adaptation, we also considered activities that contributed to achieving those objectives. In Uganda, we focused on the budgets of the agriculture and environment departments at the subnational level. In Tanzania, we concentrated on agriculture and food policies within the departments of natural resources, water and irrigation, and agriculture.

2.3.3 Framework for assessing climate change integration in subnational budgets

We utilized the UNDP guideline CPEIR (Climate Public Expenditure and Institutional Review) to assess climate-change relevant public expenditure, policies, and institutional frameworks. Specifically, we employed Approach 1 of the CPEIR analytical framework to analyze climate change finance flows at national and subnational levels, focusing on allocating and utilizing financial resources dedicated to climate change initiatives. It incorporated the CPEIR Climate Relevance Index within Approach 1 to assess program effectiveness in addressing climate change challenges. We benchmarked programs as high, medium, low, or marginal based on their objectives and outcomes (refer to Table 2) (Adelante and Le, 2015). We categorized activities into climate change mitigation and adaptation strategies to comprehensively evaluate resource allocation and overall effectiveness.

Table 2

CPEIR Climate Relevance Index (Adelante & Le, 2015)
CPEIR Climate Relevance Index	High Relevance	Medium Relevance	Low Relevance	Marginal Relevance
Rationale	A clear primary objective of delivering specific outcomes that improve climate resilience or contribute to mitigation	Secondary objectives related to building climate resilience or contributing to mitigation OR mixed programs with a range of activities that are not easily separated but include some that promote climate resilience or mitigation	Activities that display attributes where indirect adaptation and mitigation benefits may arise	Activities with very indirect and theoretical links to climate resilience
Weighting	> 75%	50–74%	25–49%	< 25%
Examples	• Energy mitigation, e.g., renewables, energy efficiency, of over 75% • Disaster risk reduction and management capacity • The additional costs of changing the design of a program to improve climate resilience, e.g., extra costs of climate-proofing infrastructure, beyond routine maintenance or rehabilitation • Anything that responds to recent drought, cyclone, or flooding events, as this will be beneficial during future extreme events	• Forestry and agroforestry, motivated primarily by economic or conservation objectives; this will produce some mitigation effect • Water storage, efficiency, and irrigation, as this will also mitigate drought • Biodiversity and conservation, unless explicitly aimed at increasing the resilience of ecosystems to climate change or mitigating effects • Livelihood and social protection programs, motivated by building household reserves and assets and reducing vulnerability. Programs include those promoting economic growth, e.g., vocational training, financial services, and maintenance and improvement of roads and railways	• General livelihoods, motivated by poverty reduction, but building household reserves and assets and reducing vulnerability in areas of low climate change vulnerability • General planning capacity, either at the national or local level, unless explicitly linked to climate change, in which case it would rank as having high relevance	• Short-term programs, including humanitarian relief. The replacement element of any reconstruction investment, splitting off the additional climate element as having high relevance • Education and health that do not have an explicit climate change element

2.3.4 Framework for assessing budget transparency in subnational budgets

We utilized the Open Budget Survey, an independent data initiative sponsored by the International Budget Partnership (IBP), to assess the transparency of the budget processes in the two countries. The OBS provided a framework for evaluating the transparency of budget processes, considering factors such as the availability, timeliness, and comprehensiveness of budget documents. The OBS measures the online availability, timeliness, and comprehensiveness of eight key budget documents using 109 equally weighted indicators and assigns a score to each country on a scale of 0 to 100. A transparency score of 61 or above indicates that a country is likely publishing sufficient material to facilitate informed public debate on the budget (IBP, 2021).

3.1 Climate change integration at the national and subnational level in Tanzania and Uganda

3.1.1 Selection of terms and concepts used for climate change

This study aimed to comprehensively analyze the frequency of key terms and concepts related to climate change in the national-level documents of Tanzania and Uganda (Supplementary Material Figure S1). We derived key terms and concepts from various literature sources, including Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) documents (IPCC, 2012, 2014, 2022). We analyzed 70 national-level documents (35 from each country) and recorded the number of mentions for each specific term and concept. The results indicate that the term “adaptation” is the most frequently mentioned in both countries, with 1,584 mentions, followed by “mitigation” with 774 mentions. Both Tanzania and Uganda mention climate variability in their national-level documents, with 101 mentions for Tanzania and 86 mentions for Uganda. Both countries emphasize the significance of enhancing resilience in sectors affected by climate change, with 227 mentions for Tanzania and 152 mentions for Uganda. Additionally, we found that Uganda places greater emphasis on climate change mainstreaming and integration in national-level documents, with 255 mentions compared to 53 mentions for Tanzania (Supplementary Material Figure S1).

3.1.2 The degree of climate change integration

We analyzed the level of climate change integration in Tanzania and Uganda’s national and subnational documents using a six-grade scoring system (Supplementary Material Figure S2).

In Tanzania, 43% of the sampled national-level documents achieved a grade of 5, indicating the integration of climate change and the inclusion of implementation plans. Only 23% of Tanzania’s national-level documents received a grade of 6, denoting full integration of climate change with a budget for implementing adaptation and mitigation measures. Tanzania intentionally focused approximately 64% of its national-level documents on climate change efforts, scoring grade 3 and above. At the district level, around 40% of the documents fully integrated climate change concerns with allocated resources for implementing planned activities (grade 5). About 53% of the district-level documents did not explicitly target climate change but addressed environmental concerns (grade 2), with budget allocation for environmental activities that indirectly contribute to mitigation and adaptation efforts. For example, the Kilolo District Five Year Development Plan included activities such as strengthening forest reserve surveillance, which is considered a climate change mitigation strategy for the forestry sector. Among the sampled district-level documents, only 47% mentioned climate change in their objectives or under cross-cutting issues (grade 2). At the ward level, 92% of the documents did not reference climate change (grade 1) (Supplementary Material Figure S2).

In Uganda, 37% of the national-level documents achieved a grade of 4, indicating climate change integration, while 77% deliberately focused on climate change efforts (grade 3 and above). Notable documents include Uganda’s Interim Nationally Determined Contributions (NDC) of 2021 and Uganda’s National Adaptation Plan for the Agricultural Sector of 2018. Furthermore, 31% of the national documents fully integrated climate change, with budgets for implementing planned activities (grade 6). Among the sampled district and subcounty-level documents, 50% and 68% had implementation plans supported by budget allocations (grade 6). Approximately 78% of the 18 district-level documents and 88% of the 41 subcounty-level documents made non-deliberate efforts emphasizing environmental concerns rather than climate change concerns (grade 2). Nevertheless, these efforts closely align with climate change adaptation and mitigation objectives (refer to Supplementary Material Figure S2).

3.1.3 Assessing the degree or level of climate change integration through Mickwitz’s framework

3.1.3.1 Criterion 1: Inclusion

Regarding the inclusion of climate change mitigation and adaptation aims, a significant proportion of national-level documents in Tanzania (64%) and Uganda (74%) have integrated both measures, earning a grade of 4. In these countries, measures for vulnerable sectors like agriculture, water, forest, and land use determine the presence of climate change mitigation and adaptation aims in national-level documents. Tanzania and Uganda have focused on including adaptation aims in their National Adaptation Programmes of Action (NAPA) to identify immediate and urgent actions for sectors highly vulnerable to climate change. At Uganda’s district and subcounty levels, 94% and 63% of documents, respectively, have ensured the inclusion of both climate mitigation and adaptation aims. However, the extent of inclusion is limited. Among the sampled district-level documents in Uganda, only 17% made deliberate climate change efforts, while 5% of subcounty-level documents did so. Some subcounty-level documents in Uganda (29%) included only climate change mitigation aims (grade 3), but these mostly related to environmental mitigation activities that could also contribute to climate change mitigation. In Tanzania, approximately 53% of district-level documents included both climate change mitigation and adaptation aims. Among Tanzania’s sampled district and ward-level documents, only 13% of district-level documents made deliberate efforts to address climate change. Most ward-level documents in Tanzania did not reference climate change or environmental concerns, resulting in a grade 1 score for the absence of climate change mitigation and adaptation aims (see Supplementary Material Figure S3).

3.1.3.2 Criterion 2: Weighting

Weighting is the second criterion of climate change integration in Tanzania and Uganda’s national and subnational documents. In this study, we examined the importance given to climate change goals by analyzing the inclusion of these goals in the implementation plans of the documents (Supplementary Material Figure S4). In Tanzania, climate change goals are considered in the implementation plans of 83% of the sampled national-level documents and 67% of the district-level documents, indicating a significant weighting given to these goals. However, at the ward level, the inclusion of climate change goals in the implementation plans was very limited, with only 8% of the sampled documents reflecting such inclusion. On the other hand, in Uganda, climate change goals have been strongly prioritized in most national and subnational-level documents. A high percentage of national-level documents (91%), district-level documents (94%), and subcounty-level documents (94%) explicitly include targets related to climate change (Supplementary Material Figure S4). For example, some implementation plans focus on mitigating and adapting to climate change impacts, such as enhancing adaptive capacity, promoting adaptation mechanisms, and regulating activities contributing to greenhouse gas emissions, such as forest burning.

3.1.3.3 Criterion 3: Consistency

This study evaluated the alignment between sectoral goals in the national and subnational documents of Tanzania and Uganda and the national climate change goals outlined in the 2012 National Climate Change Strategy of Tanzania and Uganda’s 2015 National Climate Change Policy. These national documents served as benchmarks for assessing the goals mentioned in other national and subnational documents. For instance, we compared the objectives stated in Tanzania’s 2013 National Agriculture Policy to the five strategic objectives for the agricultural sector outlined in Tanzania’s 2012 National Climate Change Strategy. We found that all agricultural policy objectives were consistent with the climate change goals of the national strategy. Overall, most sectoral goals in the national-level documents of Tanzania and Uganda (71% and 66%, respectively) aligned with the national climate change goals, earning a grade of 3 (Supplementary Material Figure S5).

Regarding district-level documents, there was some alignment between the sectoral and national climate change goals outlined in the 2012 National Climate Change Strategy of Tanzania and Uganda’s 2015 National Climate Change Policy (see Supplementary Material Figure S5). However, at the ward level in Tanzania, nearly all documents (92%) did not consider the climate change goals of the national strategy. In Uganda, around 93% of the subcounty-level documents exhibited some consistency with the national goals of the National Climate Change Policy of Uganda (Supplementary Material Figure S5). Only 5% of the 41 sampled subcounty documents made deliberate efforts to address climate change.

3.2 Climate change budgeting at the subnational level in Tanzania and Uganda

3.2.1 Gaps between estimated and actual budgets

At the district level in Tanzania, there is a notable decrease in climate change budgeting, as observed from 2010/2011 to 2013/2014, even though the actual budgets were higher than the approved and forward budgets (Supplementary Material Figure S6). An allocation from a livelihood project that was not originally budgeted for influenced this variance (see Ampaire et al., 2020).

In Uganda, at the district level, the estimated budgets and approved budgets are higher than the actual budgets received, with the actual budgets constituting less than 1% of the total budget. The actual budgets declined from 2008/2009 to 2012/2013, and the data for the preceding financial years were not provided. However, there is a growing interest in climate change activities, as reflected by the increasing budget estimates over the years (Supplementary Material Figure S7).

At the subcounty level, the estimated budgets are, on average, higher than the projected, approved, and actual budgets by 2%, 3%, and 3%, respectively. Actual budgets were reported for the financial years 2011/2012 to 2015/2016, with 2010/2011 and 2014/2015 having actual budgets of 3% of the total budget, which is 2% higher than the approved budgets (Supplementary Material Figure S8), signaling limited skills in budget data capture.

3.2.2 Gaps between mitigation and adaptation

In Tanzania, authorities allocated budget for mitigation and adaptation activities, with more allocated to adaptation activities. However, at the ward level, mitigation activities received a larger allocation (Supplementary Material Figure S9).

In Uganda, districts primarily budgeted for mitigation activities, with actual expenditures reported from FY 2008/2009 to 2012/2013. Authorities allocated budgets for adaptation activities only in 2012/2013 and 2015/2016, with the respective projected and estimated budgets reported, respectively (Supplementary Material Figure S10). At the subcounty level, mitigation activities received the majority of the budget allocations, with actual budgets reported from FY 2010/2011 to 2015/2016. Authorities allocated budgets for adaptation activities only from FY 2014/2015 to 2016/2017, with an actual budget reported only for 2014/2015 (Supplementary Material Figure S11).

At the national level, an analysis of the 2020/2021 climate-related actions and their budget allocations (PFCC-U, 2022) reveals that, apart from the Ministry of Water and Environment (MWE), only three sectors—roads, agriculture, and energy—have direct components addressing climate change in their budgets. In summary, only 10% of the sectors have incorporated environment and climate change into their programming (MOFPED, 2019), which contradicts the desire of most Ugandans to mainstream climate change in all sectors. According to the report, allocations to local governments have not significantly increased in other instances, remaining stagnant despite the growth of new districts and other administrative units (PFCC-U, 2022).

3.2.3 Gaps in transparency from funding flows

Finally, we examined the transparency of budget processes and the availability of information regarding funding flows in the two countries. According to the 2021 results of the Open Budget Survey, Uganda received a transparency score of 58 and ranked 43 out of 120 countries assessed. This finding indicates that Uganda has made some progress in making budget-related information available to the public, although there is room for improvement. Tanzania received a transparency score of 21 and ranked 100 out of 120 countries. These results highlight a significant lack of transparency in budget processes and limited availability of budget-related information in Tanzania.

4.1 Climate change integration at the national and subnational level in Tanzania and Uganda

The findings indicate that both countries prioritize climate change adaptation over mitigation in their national-level documents, aligning with existing literature that emphasizes the importance of adaptation in developing and low-income countries due to their vulnerability to climate impacts. While both countries recognize the need to integrate climate change considerations into sectoral planning and implementation, there is still room for further integration. Notably, Uganda exhibits a higher level of integration than Tanzania, suggesting political will and institutional capacity differences. These findings emphasize the ongoing need to prioritize climate change adaptation and mitigation in national policies in both countries and underscore the importance of building resilience and mainstreaming climate change considerations into government policies and decision-making.

Secondly, the results indicate differences in integrating climate change across administrative levels. At the national level, both Tanzania and Uganda demonstrate higher integration. In contrast, we observed limited integration at the district level in Uganda and no integration at the ward level in Tanzania. These findings highlight the need to enhance the integration of climate change measures at the administrative scales where deficiencies exist. Notably, subnational-level documents in both countries show a stronger focus on planned environmental activities and allocated budgets for natural resource management. This finding suggests that climate change may be interpreted as environmental challenges at the local level, necessitating further education on the distinction between climate change and environmental change.

Tanzania and Uganda have made efforts to incorporate both adaptation and mitigation aims in their national and subnational documents, particularly in vulnerable sectors such as agriculture, water, forest, and land use. However, there is significant variability across different levels of government, emphasizing the need for comprehensive planning for both mitigation and adaptation. Not considering both strategies can increase vulnerabilities and hinder the adaptive capacity to climate change impacts. Integrated approaches that leverage co-benefits and manage trade-offs are essential for effective climate change policies.

Assessing the weighting of climate change goals in implementation plans revealed that Uganda prioritizes climate change goals more than Tanzania, with national and district-level documents carrying more weight than ward-level documents. In both countries, national-level documents exhibit greater consistency in integrating sectoral goals across scales than subnational ones. The low prioritization and lack of consistency challenge achieving national climate goals. It is crucial to prioritize climate change goals at all levels of governance and across sectors, as acknowledging their significance is vital for successful policy integration and support for mitigation and adaptation measures. Our findings underscore the need to deliberately integrate climate change goals into the implementation plans of subnational documents in both Tanzania and Uganda.

Our study emphasizes the importance of increasing efforts to integrate climate change mitigation and adaptation measures into national and subnational documents in Tanzania and Uganda. Furthermore, it highlights the significance of political will and budgetary allocation to support climate change mitigation and adaptation actions.

4.4 Climate change budgeting at the subnational level in Tanzania and Uganda

In Tanzania and Uganda, climate change budgeting has generally been declining or stagnant, with actual budgets often falling short of estimates and approvals. The limited funds allocated for climate change activities mean limited implementation of such activities at the subnational levels, as local governments rely on conditional grants that they cannot redirect to other purposes.

Tanzania budgeted for both mitigation and adaptation activities, with a higher allocation for adaptation activities at the national level. However, at the ward level, most budgeted activities focused on mitigation rather than adaptation. On the other hand, in Uganda, districts primarily budgeted for mitigation activities, with limited allocation for adaptation activities. These variations between countries and administrative scales indicate differences in priorities at the governance level, as local governments have autonomy in decision-making. It also highlights a lack of coordination and coherence in planning and budgeting for climate action, which hinders achieving climate goals.

Despite the increasing acknowledgment that climate change is a development issue, this analysis has indicated evidence of limited mainstreaming of climate change across sectors, with only three sectors (roads, agriculture, and energy) in Uganda having direct components addressing climate change in their budgets. Additionally, allocations to local governments have not significantly increased, remaining stagnant despite establishing new districts and administrative units. These observations call for a harmonized multisectoral approach to climate action, accompanied by targeted investments in spaces with the most need.

Uganda, Tanzania, and other low-income countries must improve transparency in climate change budgeting at the district and subcounty levels. Governments must implement mechanisms to track public and private climate finance flows. Increasing transparency will not only enhance accountability, trust, and efficient use of resources; it will also help to achieve the desire of the majority of citizens to mainstream climate change considerations in all sectors. Furthermore, integrating climate change into budgetary decisions can ensure policy coherence across governance levels and sectors and attract climate finance, private sector investments, and international support for climate initiatives.

Our analysis highlights key points regarding integrating climate change into policy and budgeting in Tanzania and Uganda. While both countries have included both mitigation and adaptation measures in their policy documents, we found that policies prioritize adaptation over mitigation. This reflects the urgent need to address the immediate impacts of climate change on vulnerable communities, especially those reliant on agriculture. However, mitigation efforts are vital for limiting overall climate change impacts and achieving global climate goals.

Furthermore, our analysis demonstrates that efforts to address climate change are more prevalent in subnational documents than national ones, underscoring the crucial role of local governments in effective climate policy implementation. Our study emphasizes the importance of greater transparency in funding flows and the need to track investments to ensure financial resources flow to the areas of critical need. In addition, budget allocations for climate change activities are relatively small, highlighting the need to increase budgets to address climate change adequately.

Results have shown a need to better align national and local climate priorities and coordinate actions across scales. To effectively address the climate crisis, there is potential for synergies between adaptation and mitigation policies to yield mutually beneficial outcomes. Addressing this mismatch is important to ensure that national-level efforts translate into effective climate action at the local level.

We recommend that Tanzania and Uganda consciously integrate climate change considerations into long-term budget planning, particularly at the local level. Doing so will ensure the availability of domestic public resources and facilitate continued participation in the evolving international climate change architecture for national policies. Additionally, scaling up resilience-building and low-carbon development innovations in Africa will require increased climate financing, achieved by enhancing commitments and disbursement ratios, mobilizing financial support for a wide range of mitigation and adaptation activities within food systems, and tracking investments and identifying gaps between current financial flows and required expenditures.

Finally, we highlight the need for concerted efforts from governments, donors, and local communities, as well as collaboration across sectors and levels of government, to ensure sustainable and effective climate change action in Tanzania, Uganda, and other developing countries. By prioritizing mitigation and adaptation measures, integrating climate change into long-term planning and strategic financing, and promoting transparency and accountability in funding flows, countries can effectively address the immediate impacts of climate change while contributing to global efforts to limit its overall impact.

Acknowledgments

This work was implemented as part of the CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS), carried out with support from CGIAR Trust Fund and through bilateral funding agreements. For details, please visit https://ccafs.cgiar.org/donors. The views expressed in this document cannot be taken to reflect the official opinions of these organisations. The Policy Action for Climate Change Adaptation (PACCA) project, led by the International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA), supported the initial data collection. The Alliance of Bioversity International and CIAT provided additional data and supported the writing and analysis. Finally, we would like to thank Perez Muchunguzi and Sylvia Kyomugisha for the data collection and Ritah Kigonya and Pauline Muindi, who supported the data analysis.

Disclosure statement

The authors report no potential conflict of interest.

Additional information

Funding

Publication of this work was supported by the International Development Association (IDA) of the World Bank from the Accelerating Impacts of CGIAR Climate Research for Africa (AICCRA) project under Grant number D7540; the Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture, and Food Security (CCAFS), under Grant number G135, and the International Fund for Agriculture Development (IFAD) from the Increasing Food Security and Farming System Resilience in East Africa through Wide-Scale Adoption of Climate-Smart Agricultural Practices project, under Grant number 2000000176.

Data availability statement

The data supporting this study’s findings are available from the corresponding author, Edidah Lubega Ampaire, [email protected], upon reasonable request.

Adelante, & Le, H. (2015). A Methodological Guidebook: Climate Public Expenditure and Institutional Review (CPEIR).
Adhikari, U., Nejadhashemi, A. P., & Woznicki, S. A. (2015). Climate Change and Eastern Africa: A Review of Impact on Major Crops. Food and Energy Security, 4(2), 110-132. https://doi.org/10.1002/fes3.61
AFDB (African Development Bank). (2019). Climate Change Impacts on Africa’s Economic Growth.
Ampaire, E.L., Jassogne, L., Providence, H. et al. (2017). Institutional Challenges to Climate Change Adaptation: A Case Study on Policy Action Gaps in Uganda. Environmental Science & Policy, 75, 81-90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2017.05.013AU (African Union). (2014). Draft African Strategy on Climate Change.
Ampaire, E.L., Acosta, M., Huyer, S., et al. (2020). Gender in Climate Change, Agriculture, and Natural Resource Policies: Insights from East Africa. Climatic Change, 158, 43-60. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-019-02447-0.
Apollo, A., & Mbah, M.F. (2021). Challenges and Opportunities for Climate Change Education (CCE) in East Africa: A Critical Review. Climate, 9(6), 93. https://doi.org/10.3390/cli9060093.
Bakiika, R., Mbatuusa, C., Mugeere, A. et al. (2020). Climate Finance Mobilization in Uganda: The Most Viable Financing Option, Kampala: ACODE, Policy Briefing Paper Series No.51.
Biesbroek, R. (2021). Policy Integration and Climate Change Adaptation, Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 2021, 52:75-81.
Bird, N. (2017). Budgeting for NDC Action: Initial Lessons from Four Climate-Vulnerable Countries. Available at: https://africaportal.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/National-budgeting-for-NDCs_web.pdf
Brosio, G. (2000). Decentralization in Africa. A Paper Prepared for African Department of the IMF. Available at: https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/seminar/2000/fiscal/brosio.pdf
CABRI (Collaborative Africa Budget Reform Initiative). (2021). The Integration of Climate Change into Budgeting and Finance, Policy Brief.
Cejudo, G., & Trein, P. (2022). Pathways to Policy Integration: A Subsystem Approach. Policy Sciences, 56, 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-022-09483-1.
CPI (Climate Policy Initiative). (2023, forthcoming). See also Guzman, S. et al. (2022).
Duncan, A., Allen, S., & Nicholson, K. (2016). Key Lessons for Developing Climate Change Financing Frameworks. Oxford Policy Management.
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations) (2009). How to Mainstream Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation into Agriculture Policies. EASYPol, Resources for Policy Making.
Frank, J., & Buckley, C.P. (2012). Small-Scale Farmers and Climate Change: How Can Farmer Organisations and Fairtrade Build the Adaptive Capacity of Smallholders? Sustainable Markets.
Garcia Hernandez, A.L. (2021). Understanding Climate Policy Integration as a Public Policy-Making Process: The Case of Energy Policy in Mexico.
Goel, J. (2017). A Framework for Understanding Climate Change Responsiveness of the Union Budget in India. Centre for Budget and Governance Accountability (CBGA).
Gumucio, T. & Tafur-Rueda, M. (2015). Influencing Gender-Inclusive Climate Change Policies in Latin America. Journal of Gender, Agriculture and Food Security, 1(2), 41–60.
Guzman, S., Dobrovich, G., Balm, A. et al. (2022). Climate Finance Needs of African Countries. Available at https://www.climatepolicyinitiative.org/publication/climate-finance-needs-of-african-countries/
Hepworth, N. (2010). Climate change vulnerability and adaptation preparedness in Tanzania. Heinrich Böll Foundation, Nairobi, Kenya.
Hepworth, N., & Goulden, M. (2008). Climate change in Uganda: Understanding the implications and appraising the response. LTS International, Edinburgh. Retrieved from http://reliefweb.int/report/uganda/climate-change-uganda-understanding-implications-and-appraising-response
IBP (International Budget Partnership). (2021). Open Budget Survey 2021. Available at https://www2.internationalbudget.org/open-budget-survey/open-budget-survey-2021
Irish Aid. (2017a). Uganda Climate Action Report for 2016. Available at: https://www.irishaid.ie/media/irishaid/allwebsitemedia/30whatwedo/climatechange/Uganda-Country-Climate-Action-Reports-2016.pdf
Irish Aid. (2017b). Tanzania Climate Actions Report for 2016. Available at: https://www.irishaid.ie/media/irishaid/allwebsitemedia/30whatwedo/climatechange/Tanzania-Country-Climate-Action-Report-2016.pdf
IPCC. (2012). Glossary of Terms. In C.B. Field, V. Barros, T.F. Stocker, D. Qin, D.J. Dokken, K.L. Ebi, M.D. Mastrandrea, K.J. Mach, G.-K. Plattner, S.K. Allen, M. Tignor, and P.M. Midgley (Eds.), Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation (pp. 555-564). Cambridge University Press.
IPCC. (2014). Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. In R.K. Pachauri and L.A. Meyer (Eds.), Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (pp. 117-130). IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland.
IPCC. (2022). Working Group II Report, Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability.
Jana, B. K. & Majumder, M. (Eds.). (2010). Impact of Climate Change on Natural Resource Management. Springer Science & Business Media.
Kahimba, F.C., Sife, A.S., Maliondo, S.M.S. et al. (2015). Climate Change and Food Security in Tanzania: Analysis of Current Knowledge and Research Gaps. Tanzania Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 14(1), 21-33.
Lafferty, W.M. and Hovden, E. (2003) Environmental Policy Integration: Towards an Analytical Framework. Environ. Politics 2003, 4016, 157–159.
Lévêque, A. (2022). Climate Finance: The $500 Billion Question, Au Courant, At the Heart of Development, Global Affairs Canada.
Mickwitz, P., Aix, F., Beck, S. et al. (2009). Climate Policy Integration, Coherence and Governance. MOFPED (Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development, The Republic of Uganda). (2019) National Budget Framwork Paper FY 2020-21. Available at https://www.finance.go.ug/sites/default/files/National%20Budget%20Framework%20Paper%20FY%202020-21_0.pdf
Mushemeza, E.D. (2019). Decentralisation in Uganda: Trends, Achievements, Challenges and Proposals for Consolidation, Kampala: ACODE Policy Research Paper Series No.93, 2019.
Newell, R., & Dale, A. (2021). COVID-19 and climate change: An integrated perspective. Cities & Health, 5(Suppl. 1), S100-S104. https://doi.org/10.1080/23748834.2020.1778844
Ofori, S.A., Cobbina, S.J., & Obiri, S. (2021). Climate Change, Land, Water, and Food Security: Perspectives From Sub-Saharan Africa. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 5. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2021.680924
OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). (2002). Best Practices for Budget Transparency.
OECD. (2011). Integrating Climate Change Adaptation into Development Planning: A Practice-Oriented Training Based on an OECD Policy Guidance Training Manual.
OECD. (2021). Climate Finance Provided and Mobilized by Developed Countries: Aggregate Trends Updated with 2019 Data.
Ojambo, H. (2012). Decentralisation in Africa: A Critical Review of Uganda’s Experience. PER vol.15 n.2 Potchefstroom Aug. 2012. Available at: http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1727-37812012000200005
Oxfam. (2017). A Climate in Crisis: How Climate Change is making Drought and Humanitarian Disaster Worse in East Africa. Available at: https://www-cdn.oxfam.org/s3fs-public/mb-climate-crisis-east-africa-drought-270417-en.pdf
Petrie, M. (2022). Climate Finance Transparency is Vital – and so is Avoiding Greenwashing, International Budget Partnership.
PFCC-U (Parliamentary Forum on Climate Change-Uganda). (2022). Climate Change and Uganda’s 2021/2021 National Budget. Available at https://pfccparliament.go.ug/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/CC-BUDGET-ANALYSIS.pdf
Picard, L. A. (1980). Socialism and the Field Administrator: Decentralization in Tanzania. Comparative Politics, 12(4), 439–457. https://doi.org/10.2307/421835
Pilato, G., Sallu, S., & Gaworek-Michalczenia, M. (2018). Assessing the Integration of Climate Change and Development Strategies at Local Levels: Insights from Muheza District, Tanzania. Sustainability, 10(2), 174. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10010174
Pramova, E., Di Gregorio, M., & Locatelli, B. (2015). Integrating Adaptation and Mitigation in Climate Change and Landuse Policies in Peru (Working Paper No. 184). Bogor, Indonesia: CIFOR.
Qi, J. and Terton, A. (2022). Addressing Climate Change Through Integrated Responses: Linking adaptation and mitigation, International Institute for Sustainable Development
Radtke, K., & Weller, D. (2020). Chapter 3: The World Risk Index 2020. In World Risk Report 2020 Focus: Forced Displacement and Migration. Available at: https://weltrisikobericht.de/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/WRR_2020_online_.pdf
Shachi, S.M. (2016). Budgeting for Climate Change. Available at http://kathmandupost.ekantipur.com/news/2016-04-19/budgeting-for-climate-change.html
UN DESA (UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs). (2021). Developing the Strategic Guidelines for Climate Financing, Considering Possible Linkages between Climate Financing and Post COVID-19 Agricultural Development in Tanzania. Available at: https://www.un.org/development/desa/dpad/wp-content/uploads/sites/45/DESA-Intdiv-TZA.pdf
UNDP-UNEP. (2004). Climate Change, the Environment and Human Welfare: Lessons Learned from the Lake Kyoga Catchment Area. Policy Brief. UNDP-UNEP Poverty-Environment Initiative.
UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change). (2009). Decision 2/CP. 15 Copenhagen Accord.
UNFCCC. (2021). Executive Summary by the Standing Committee on Finance of the First Report on the Determination of the Needs of Developing Country Parties Related to Implementing the Convention and the Paris Agreement.
Venkatramani, S., & Hillier, D. (2021). Climate Finance: Mobilizing Domestic Budgets and External Funds for Adaptation, Policy Paper, Oxford Policy Management.
World Bank. (2014). Moving Toward Climate Budgeting: Policy Note. Washington, DC. Available at: https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/21036

No competing interests reported.

SupMat.docx

Download PDF

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

Climate Change Integration and Budgeting in National and Subnational Policies in Tanzania and Uganda

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

Key policy insights

1. Introduction

1.1 Context

1.2 Climate change integration

1.3 Climate change budgeting

2 Methodology

2.1 Selection rationale: Uganda and Tanzania as case studies for policy integration and climate budgeting

2.2 Methodology for assessing climate change integration in national and subnational policies in Tanzania and Uganda

2.2.1 Selection of reviewed policy documents

2.2.2 Framework for assessing climate change integration in national and subnational policy documents

2.2.3 Assessment of climate change integration in national and subnational policy documents

2.3 Methodology for assessing climate change budgeting in Tanzania and Uganda

2.3.1 Selection of reviewed budget documents

2.3.2 Budget extraction

2.3.3 Framework for assessing climate change integration in subnational budgets

2.3.4 Framework for assessing budget transparency in subnational budgets

3 Results

3.1 Climate change integration at the national and subnational level in Tanzania and Uganda

3.1.1 Selection of terms and concepts used for climate change

3.1.2 The degree of climate change integration

3.1.3 Assessing the degree or level of climate change integration through Mickwitz’s framework

3.1.3.1 Criterion 1: Inclusion

3.1.3.2 Criterion 2: Weighting

3.1.3.3 Criterion 3: Consistency

3.2 Climate change budgeting at the subnational level in Tanzania and Uganda

3.2.1 Gaps between estimated and actual budgets

3.2.2 Gaps between mitigation and adaptation

3.2.3 Gaps in transparency from funding flows

4 Discussion

4.1 Climate change integration at the national and subnational level in Tanzania and Uganda

4.4 Climate change budgeting at the subnational level in Tanzania and Uganda

5 Conclusion

Declarations

References

Additional Declarations

Supplementary Files

Status:

Version 1