Decentralising climate action

Climate change is no longer a distant threat for Pakistan; it is a lived reality. From catastrophic floods and prolonged droughts to urban heat stress and water scarcity, climate shocks are increasingly shaping livelihoods, growth prospects and social stability. Yet, despite rising international attention and climate finance commitments, a critical question remains unanswered: why does climate finance so often fail to translate into real resilience on the ground? The answer lies less in the availability of funds and more in how climate action is governed.

Pakistan's climate finance architecture remains highly centralised, moving through federal and provincial channels that are often disconnected from local realities. While national climate commitments and provincial development plans exist on paper, climate risks are experienced locally by communities, municipalities and districts that rarely have a meaningful role in shaping or financing solutions. This governance disconnect creates what many experts describe as a structural bottleneck. Projects are designed far from their implementation sites, relying on generic templates that overlook local vulnerabilities such as neighbourhood level flooding, groundwater depletion or heat exposure. The result is delayed approvals, weak implementation and poor outcomes despite good intentions and growing climate awareness.

One of the most pressing issues is the continued reliance on outdated planning and approval systems, particularly the PC-1 framework. Designed for large, centralised infrastructure projects, this system is ill-suited for the flexible, data-driven and community-based adaptation measures that climate resilience demands. For local governments, the complexity of these processes effectively excludes them from initiating or shaping climate projects, even though they are closest to the risks. The solution is not to abandon oversight, but to modernise and decentralise climate planning.

Experts increasingly argue for simplified project approval mechanisms tailored to small and medium-scale climate adaptation initiatives. Allowing local governments to initiate projects using streamlined templates supported by technical assistance and safeguards can dramatically improve responsiveness while maintaining accountability. Equally important is direct access to climate finance for capable metropolitan and district governments. Pilot programmes at divisional or district levels can test decentralised approval and funding models, allowing lessons to be learned before scaling up nationally. Such pilots would help bypass bureaucratic delays and ensure that climate investments are guided by evidence and community need rather than administrative convenience.

Another recurring challenge is the lack of localised climate data. Without reliable, hyper-local information, planning remains generic and reactive. Investing in local vulnerability assessments and data systems is essential if climate finance is to support targeted, effective interventions rather than broad, one-size-fits-all projects. Financing innovation must also play a role. Dedicated climate resilience windows within existing national funds, nature-based solution bonds and risk-sharing mechanisms for private investment can help crowd in additional resources, provided local governments are treated as credible partners rather than passive implementers. In this reform agenda, academia has a critical role to play. By supporting evidence-based analysis, piloting new governance models and building local capacity, universities can help bridge the persistent gap between climate finance theory and implementation.

Ultimately, decentralising climate action is not about shifting responsibility downward without support. It is about aligning authority, data and finance with the places where climate impacts are most severe. Climate Week discussions and expert dialogues make one thing clear: Pakistan's climate resilience will be built locally or not at all. The time has come to move beyond centralised planning and embrace locally-led, accountable and evidence-driven climate action. Without this shift, climate finance risks remaining trapped in policy documents, while communities continue to bear the cost of inaction.