Malawi’s efforts to strengthen resilience against climate change are facing fresh questions over the absence of clearly defined funding for climate adaptation and mitigation under the Reformed Constituency Development Fund (RCDF).
Civil Society Network on Climate Change (CISONECC) Executive Director Julius Ng’oma has criticised the lack of identifiable climate financing allocations within the fund, arguing that the gap reflects inadequate political commitment to confronting the country’s growing environmental challenges.
Ng’oma said climate adaptation and mitigation should receive a clearly defined share of RCDF resources instead of being treated merely as activities incorporated into other development projects.
He also pointed to the absence of accessible budget information on climate-related investments as a major concern, saying it makes it difficult to establish how much of the fund is being directed towards building climate resilience.
Governance expert Thomas Mwangupire, based in Salima, said climate-vulnerable countries such as Malawi require deliberate investment in local development financing to help communities withstand floods, droughts and other climate-related shocks.
Mwangupire stressed that constituency-level resources could play an important role in supporting communities to prepare for and recover from the effects of extreme weather events.
However, Salima District Acting Director of Natural Resources and Environment Adam Jason said the RCDF guidelines already provide room for climate-related interventions through community development projects.
Jason explained that eligible areas include agriculture and irrigation, water and sanitation, forestry, and natural resource management.
He clarified that the guidelines allow climate-related activities to be implemented through these development sectors rather than providing for a separate, direct allocation to climate change interventions.
The differing perspectives have brought renewed attention to whether the RCDF is adequately equipped to finance climate resilience at community level, particularly in districts vulnerable to environmental disasters.
The debate also raises questions about the need for clearer climate financing provisions, transparent budget allocations and stronger accountability to ensure that local development resources contribute meaningfully to protecting communities from climate risks.
