Problems and Purpose

The FIGCCC initiative came about due to climate governance and climate change challenges that was faced in South Africa. There had been an issue with the engagement of civil society organisations and communities in climate policy and planning decision-making. CSO’s and communities were not well equipped with knowledge or capacity to influence policy frameworks, investment or municipal budgeting. Because of it, climate strategies were often based on a top-down approach that lacked development needs that communities required (Democracy Works Foundation, 2024). This exclusion resulted in skewed socio-economic mitigation regulations and local adaptation which failed to take into account the life experiences of vulnerable populations. Municipal authorities and Independent Power Producers (IPP’s) often developed climate response strategies independently. This gap between the two further creates fragmentation amongst civil society, local government and private actors (DWF, 2024). This disconnect amongst actors does not contribute towards the sustainability of climate response strategies and ultimately diminishes the overall effectiveness of interventions since stakeholders were operating independently and could further deepen the already existing inequalities in the affected areas: Karoo Hoogland and Witzenberg municipalities.

The FIGCCC thus sought to bridge the gaps between these stakeholders by promoting collaborative governance where all stakeholders (IPPS’s, CSO’s, residents of vulnerable communities, and municipal authorities) could be involved in the formulation of climate mitigation and adaptation strategies. One of FIGCCC’s key innovations, the Climate Change Needs Assessment and Response Plan Toolkit (CCNAP), was developed to enhance participation, especially that of community members and CSO’s, for meaningful engagement on the issue of climate planning. The CCNAP initiative therefore acted as an instrument to enhance participation of communities that were at risk and who could benefit from participating in local policy-making, subsequently converting democratic participation into concrete environmental outcomes (DWF, 2024).

Theoretically speaking, the FIGCCC project addresses what Fung (2006, p.70) conceptualises as a ‘democratic deficit’ in governance settings where the voices of the vulnerable are often marginalised by expert-driven decision structures. The project opertaionlises Fung’s empowered participation model which combines citizen deliberation with technical expertise, by embedding structured engagement within municipal processes. Moreover, the project responds directly to Eade’s (1997, p.25) concept of capacity-centred development which ensures that empowerment extends beyond token involvement and towards the cultivation of institutional competence that is sustainable. In doing so, FIGCCC positions participation as a transformative act of environmental justice that is aimed at redistributing authority to voices who matter when it comes to local climate governance systems, and not merely as a procedural obligation.

Background History and Context

The FIGCCC project was introduced to counter the conditions under which the country’s climate governance frameworks were evolving. Since the early 2000’s, South Africa has established comprehensive set of climate policy measures, such as the 2004 National Climate Change Response Strategy and the National Climate Change Response White Paper in 2011, that aimed to incorporate climate resilience into local and national development (Averchenkova, Gannon & Curran, 2019, p.3). However, fragmented coordination among stakeholders, political instability, and limited municipal capacity has constrained the implementation of policy. These structural barriers generated an opportunity for the relevant stakeholders to strengthen grassroots participation and to localise national commitments (Averchenkova et al., 2019, p.9).

DWF launched the FIGCCC project in 2021 with funding from the European Union (EU). The project was designed to combat gaps in implementation pertaining to climate by facilitating collaboration between IPP’s, municipalities, CSO’s and community members; improving climate literacy and supporting municipal-level planning (DWF, 2024). The project came about at the right time as the country was undergoing renewed debates (i.e the Renewable Energy Independent Power Producer Procurement Programme [REIPPP]) around energy transitions, rising climate impacts such as recurrent floods and droughts in crucial agricultural regions. The urgency of the climate crisis reinforced participatory climate planning at a local government level (Averchenkova et al., 2019, p.15). Democratic innovations are not new to South Africa. Innovations for participation such as public deliberation under the Municipal Systems Act and Imbizo consultations and participatory budgeting were introduced as a post-apartheid mechanism for participation (Masiya, 2021, p.325-342; Mnguni, 2018). Many of these initiatives, however, remained uneven instead of empowering. The FIGCCC project was therefore built on existing participatory mechanisms but was specifically applied to renewable-energy governance and climate adaptation. The FIGCCC project has hence developed a practical model that resembles existing participatory mechanisms for climate governance that incorporates all relevant stakeholders for engagement (DWF, 2024).

In South Africa, the evolution of environmental participatory governance has shown a gradual shift from formal consultation to genuine empowerment. Masiya (2021, p.325-342) contends that early mechanisms for democratic participation such as integrated development planning and ward committees frequently suffered from elite capture which limited the influence of grassroots. Therefore, FIGCCC acts as an attempt to bridge the gap of implementation by translating constitutional participatory ideal into climate-specific frameworks. FIGCCC’s integration of IPP’s and CSO’s illustrates what Reed (2008, p.2421) conceptualises as ‘adaptive participation’ which refers to stakeholders regularly negotiating their roles as contexts change. By positioning itself in both local traditions of participation and global climate-finance systems, FIGCCC closes the gap between multi-level governance divisions which reinforces Averchenkova et al.’s (2019, p.17) argument that the vertical alignment of community agency and national policy are what is needed for sustainable adaptation.

Organizing, Supporting, and Funding Entities

The FIGCCC project forms as part of DWF’s broader Climate and Environmental Governance Programme that seeks to promote environmental participation throughout South Africa. DWF’s expertise in strengthening CSO’s, accountability and participatory governance positioned FIGCCC to bridge local government and grassroots (DWF, 2024). The primary financial donor was the European Union who provided both funding and strategic support that aligns with the EU’s global climate-finance agenda (EU, 2021, p.12). The EU granted DWF the flexibility of adapting their activities to local contexts but the EU still maintained oversight through reporting requirements.

Implementation relied on a multi-stakeholder collaboration comprising of IPP’s, CSO’s and the Witzenberg and Karoo Hoogland municipalities. IPP’s were responsible for investment that aligns community development goals with renewable-energy projects. CSO’s were assigned with facilitating community engagement and providing climate education (DWF, 2024). Municipalities were constitutionally mandated to provide service delivery such as climate adaptation policies. This collaboration showcases Arnstein’s ladder of participation where decision-making power and operational duties are decentralised and collectively managed (Arnstein, 1969, p. 217). DWF prioritized capacity-building and sustainability above short-term outcomes by making use of participatory toolkits and by training local facilitators instead of external consultants. Therefore, the FIGCCC project created a multi-layered system of governance in which facilitation, deliberation and decision-making power were shared amongst several stakeholders (EU, 2021, p.15).

The institutional planning of the FIGCCC project shows that there are widespread global trends in participatory governance. Fung (2006, p.74) states that when authority is dispersed among complementary institutions that share knowledge and accountability, complex governance systems benefit from this. The partnership between Democracy Works Foundation and the European Union exemplifies a hybrid governance model that balances local autonomy with donor oversight. DWF operationalises Eade’s (1997, p.24) viewpoint that empowerment is most suitable when capacity-building originates within communities themselves, by equipping facilitators that are drawn from CSO’s instead of external consultants. Furthermore, the collaboration between IPP’s, municipalities and CSO’s embodies Arnstein’s (1969, p.221) ‘partnership rung’ which means that hierarchical relations transforms into cooperative governance networks when citizens are able to acquire partial decision-making control.

Participant Recruitment and Selection

The recruitment and selection strategy that FIGCCC adopted targeted groups that were most at-risk to the impacts that climate change would bring about as well as groups who were best positioned to influence local governance. The Witzenberg and Karoo Hoogland municipalities were identified to be most at-risk to climate impacts and were therefore chosen to implement the FIGCCC project. Stakeholders in these regions included IPP representatives, ward committees, CSO’s, youth organisations, small-scale farmers, and municipal officials (DWF, 2024). This recruitment and selection strategy is in alignment with Chambers’s participatory rural appraisal methodology which emphasises contextualised facilitation practices of to centre the voices of the vulnerable (Chambers, 2002, p.86). Additional participants such as technical advisors from partner universities and climate experts played advisory roles to ensure that knowledge transfers would not displace community ownership (DWF, 2024).

Recruitment was not based off random sampling but it rather leveraged local networks such as municipal announcements, community networks and CSO outreach to ensure representation. To mitigate barriers of participation, organisers provided participants with meals, stipends and transport. Participants were driven to engage both by the desire to shape local climate-resilience strategies as well as the direct experience of floods and droughts (Averchenkova et al., 2019, p.18). The combination of incentives, joint effort and outreach aided in embedding the principles of deliberative inclusion which is central to Fung’s (2006, p.67) model of empowered participatory governance.

The participatory recruitment process that FIGCCC adopted reflects Chambers’s (2002, p.88) emphasis on ‘reversal learning’ which means that facilitators privilege local experience over external expertise. FIGCCC deliberately included a diverse variety of participants ranging from women to small-scale farmers and the youth, which ensured that the intersection of needs were well represented and recognised in policy dialogue. This is in alignment with Reed’s (2008, p.2422) core principle that participation needs to integrate a diverse set of knowledge systems in order to be legitimate. Moreover, FIGCCC’s reliance on community-based communication and social networks reflects Morgan’s (1997, p.38) recognition that when embedded in existing relational structures, focus-group methods are most effective. Through this, FIGCCC was able to foster local ownership and horizontal accountability which are key features of environmental democratic governance.

Methods and Tools Used

FIGCCC utilised a full suite of collaborative tools and techniques to strengthen the inclusivity of local climate governance. The tool that took precedence was the stakeholder engagement workshops. These workshops intended to create open spaces for community dialogue, municipal officials, CSO’s and IPP’s to collectively participate in the climate matter and to prioritise and plan interventions (Chambers, 2002, p.86). Feedback loops and periods for public comment were granted to ensure a deliberative review of draft municipal climate plans. These practices are aligned with Fung’s (2006, p.72) model of deliberative democracy where officials and citizens collectively manufacture solutions through hosting recurrent dialogue sessions. Key-informant interviews and focus groups provided deeper insights into sector-specific areas such as energy, agriculture and water (Morgan, 1997, p.36). Corresponding capacity-building activities such as facilitator development and climate-literacy training enabled communities to shift away from passive consultation towards active decision-making (Eade, 1997, p.23).

Participatory-planning frameworks drew from Reed’s (2008, p.2420) multi-stakeholder model and the Let’s Respond Toolkit. All activities were anchored in the CCNAP toolkit which also drew from Reed’s model. Overall, the process resonates with Arnstein’s (1969, p.219) idea of participation which contends that citizens share responsibilities with institutions. As a collective, these tools operationalised participatory governance by linking municipal policy formation, community agency and knowledge generation (DWF, 2024). Beyond focus-groups and workshops, the combination of recurrent knowledge co-creation and feedback loops mirrors Reed’s (2002, p.2418) adaptive co-management model where learning evolves around repetitive stakeholder engagement. The usage of participatory toolkits also brought Arnstein’s (1969, p.220) vision of citizen agency by institutionalising joint control over planning outcomes into effect. Furthermore and more importantly, these methods brought into effect Fung’s (2006, p.69) argument that participatory innovations needs to be deliberative and consequential, that instead of merely serving symbolic purposes, it needs to be capable of influencing actual decisions. By embedding municipal systems with these techniques, FIGCCC was able to translate participatory ideals into actual administrative practice.

What Went On: Process, Interaction, and Participation

Implementation of the FIGCCC project consisted of policy dialogues, training sessions and interactive workshops to ensure a structured deliberation process. These spaces fostered participants’ climate literacy to ensure effective climate engagement that would lead to climate response plans that considered all stakeholders (DWF, 2023). Consensus-building exercises, plenaries and small-group discussions formed part of the deliberation activities which allowed diverse participants to engage meaningfully and negotiate priorities. While some of these sessions tended to be dominated by CSO leaders, facilitators made sure that participation was balanced and that these sessions could sustain inclusivity. Actionable policy recommendations that were captured in briefs and advocacy campaigns were the result of these deliberation sessions. The briefs and policy recommendations were then communicated to municipal officials and as well as national stakeholders. These processes illustrate what Fung (2006, p.72) conceptualises as ‘empowered deliberation’ meaning that decision-making authority is shared among government actors as well as civil society. FIGCCC, through its participatory practices, were able to translate community knowledge into influencing policy which reinforces the democratic legitimacy of local climate governance (Participedia, 2024; DWF, 2024).

The deliberative process under FIGCCC enhanced the democratic practices as it was consistent with the conception of Fung (2006, p.71) of problem-focused participation where by dialogue does not merely legitimise decisions, it actually seeks to address particular issues in governance. By integrating community viewpoints into municipal plans demonstrates Arnstein’s (1969, p.89) call for a redistribution in authority from those who hold power, over to citizens. Moreover, as Chambers (2002, p.89) notes, recurring dialogues such as these fosters empathy and trust across social divides which is an essential precondition for cooperative climate action. Therefore, FIGCCC’s deliberations extended beyond consultation to a pure co-production of policy knowledge that reinforces the procedural and moral legitimacy of local governance.

Influence, Outcomes, and Effects

The aimed end result of the FIGGGC initiative has resulted in significant progress. Its short-term outcome included climate-literacy workshops, municipal adoption of community-driven climate plans and the co-development of the CCNAP toolkit. The Witzenberg municipality, in 2024, launched its Climate Needs Assessment and Response Plan which demonstrates concrete policy adoption, implementation and outcome (DWF, 2024; Witzenberg Municipality, 2024). At the local level, this toolkit has inspired other districts who then adopted the kit and implemented it accordingly with the hopes of participation from all relevant stakeholders and to achieve more or less the same outcome that the FIGCCC project brought about. Although policy changes remained limited, the initiative established foundations for a bottom-up approach at the national level. This project strengthened and enabled CSO’s to engage more meaningfully and strategically in municipal climate advocacy and planning (Inspire, 2024). FIGCCC not only played a part in towards organisational transformation, but it also aided in the development of community engagement and civic-mindedness.

Workshops empowered citizens to articulate their developmental needs more effectively through expanding their knowledge on climate awareness (Witzenberg Municipality, 2024). Although quantitative data with regards to behavioural change might not be available, qualitative data suggests an increase in community agency as well as sustained engagement in climate governance (Averchenkova et al., 2019, p.21). However, as much as there is an improvement in the relationship between IPPS and that of CSO, a mismatch in the relationship between community priorities and investment by the private sector still exists. The sustainability of the long run must rely on the adoption of participatory practices at the institutional level and municipal budgetary allocations (DWF, 2024). The collaboration techniques would have to be integrated into the institutional structures and local government financial plans to ensure long-term sustainability (DWF, 2024).

The FIGCCC initiative’s outcomes verifies Reed’s (2008, p.2423) notion that by embedding feedback and deep thoughtfulness into government structures, participatory processes will then enhance long-term resilience. The influence that the project exerted onto municipal planning illustrates how participatory approaches, when coupled with sustained institutional support, can generate measurable policy outputs. These achievements, in the short-term, resonates with Eade’s (1997, p.26) focus on building domestic/in-house leadership that is capable of sustaining development beyond third-party cultivation cycles. However, as Arnstein (1969, p.222) warns that participatory gains risk regression to tokenism without institutionalisation and that maintaining power-sharing requires continuous vigilance. Therefore, the legacy of whether FIGCCC will become transformative will be determined by whether the CCNAP toolkit will be adopted by other municipalities. Otherwise, it will just remain project-bound.

Analysis and Lessons Learned

The FIGCCC project illustrates that when deliberative structures and capacity-building, when coupled with participatory governance, can enhance climate action at the local level. FIGCCC’s achievement in convening private actors, municipal officials and CSO’s shows that structured participation has potential and that it can yield concrete outcomes. The CCNAP toolkit acted as a pedagogical tool and a planning instrument that facilitated both consensus-building and influence policy (DWF, 2024). The project, theoretically, embodies the following frameworks: (a) Arnstein’s (1969, p.217) ladder of participation which emphasises the power of redistribution, (b) Fung’s (2006, p.70) model of deliberative governance which highlights inclusive problem-solving and (c) Reed’s (2008, p.2422) participatory-planning approach which emphasises collaborative engagement among stakeholders.

The triangulation of these theories shows that the FIGCCC project moved towards delegated power and partnership and beyond mere consultation although asymmetries in structure still persist. Arnstein’s warning about tokenism reflects the structural asymmetry as officials and technical experts sometimes dominated decision-making processes. In addition, it was also possible to disenfranchise less-networked people because of the dependence on CSO networks (Witzenberg Municipality, 2024). To better enhance the long-term effectiveness of FIGCC, the interventions must integrate power relations-based approaches to equip the facilitators better, institutionalise monitoring and feedback systems and reach out to geographically or digitally disadvantaged groups (Fung, 2006; Reed, 2008, p.2423). The experience of the FIGCCC initiative also shows the necessity to balance the priorities of the grassroots and the technical expertise to maintain trust and validity (Chambers, 2022, p.89).

Fung (2006, p.73) proposes that unless participants has the resources and capacity to deliberate on equal footing (a challenge that FIGCCC was able to partially mitigate through facilitation and climate-literacy training), inclusion alone is insufficient. Furthermore, Chambers’s (2002, p.87) perception that empowerment stems from recurring reflection highlights the need for continuous participatory monitoring. The incorporation of these types of feedback loops would turn FIGCCC into a living system of governance. In this respect, this project can be seen as an example of what Reed (2008, p.2421) refers to as a form of reflexive participation in the sense that learning and adjustment are ongoing processes that are generally capable of making the inclusion of climate governance an effective and just process. All in all, FIGCCC is a replicable example of participatory climate governance in South Africa. Through the institutionalisation of methodological processes, it showed how inclusive environmental governance can make the policy responsive and communities self-governing towards their adaptive futures.