Fellowship Interview with Lameck Kachena

The following interview is the fifth in the series of seven blogs with the Accountable Adaptation Fellows about their research and fellowship experience. The interviews were all conducted by Susmita Puri (Accountable Adaptation).

Lameck Kachena is a PhD candidate at the Department of Environment and Geographical Science at the University of Cape Town.

Q: Tell us a bit about what you’re currently doing?  

A: I am Lameck Kachena and I’m currently pursuing my PhD at the Department of Environment and Geographical Science at the University of Cape Town. My research focuses on transboundary conservation and cross border mobilities in Southeast Africa. Before this, I worked extensively on climate change and recovery efforts, especially after Cyclone Idai in 2019 in southeastern Zimbabwe. That experience exposed me to climate response initiatives and humanitarian support for vulnerable communities.  

Q: Tell us about your research under the AA Fellowship. What was its aim and focus?  

A: As part of the AA fellowship, I explored how local government and district-level actors can collaborate, bridge the gap between policy and community expectations, and strengthen cooperation among themselves. My main goal was to encourage these local government actors to hold each other accountable, which I called “peer-to-peer accountability”. I wanted to understand whether this horizontal accountability actually works and what the dynamics and situations are that help or hinder it. My research was carried out in Chimanimani in Zimbabwe.  

Q: What were your key learnings about accountability in adaptation?  

A: One of the key things I learned from this project is that power dynamics are crucial. If you are trying to hold someone accountable, you must consider who has the power to define the initiative being implemented, and who has the power to hold others accountable. Even when actors appear to be on the same level, as they work in the same locality, district, or administrative tier, they do not necessarily have equal power. Some actors still have more power than others. If we do not recognise this, we risk missing important aspects of how local actors can actually be accountable to each other.  

Closely related to power is the issue of information. When one actor has more information than others, they can influence other actors in terms of accountability. But having information is not enough; it also matters where and how they can submit that information so that accountability becomes meaningful and information can be acted upon. At the peer level, actors often rely on soft sanctions, but when there are real gaps or serious issues at the local level, a key question remains: where should actors report or submit information about underperformance by actors? This is an important challenge for ensuring that accountability can function among local actors.  

Q: Based on your experience, what message would you like to share with adaptation funders and policymakers?  

A: I think one important point is revisiting and redefining the concept of accountability so that it applies to different groups of people. The actors who implement climate change response initiatives, and those who receive them, are not a homogeneous group. To problematise accountability, I would pose the question: “Whose accountability are we talking about? Are implementers accountable to donors? To local actors? To the government? To the communities they work with?” We need to unpack this so that specific groups have the power to hold others accountable in a meaningful way.  

For example, what I found is that local actors or communities, who are the recipients of climate change response initiatives, are currently not capable of holding donors or governments accountable for what is being done in their communities. Therefore, it is important to clearly define the accountability process so that local actors understand what accountability means. When initiatives take place, they should have enough power to question them: “Is this happening for our benefit?” They should also be able to question the government and donors: “Will this initiative work in the next ten years? Will it benefit future generations?”  

This process is missing. I would encourage academics, scientists, donors, and governments to give some form of power to local actors, not just as recipients of aid or response initiatives, but to enable them to hold donors and implementers accountable as well.  

Q: How has your experience been working with other AA fellows?  

A: I think one of my best experiences was in Kenya. During our participatory engagements with other fellows, I learned a lot about the work they were doing. I was especially struck by Simbarashe’s work on children, where he is trying to bring children’s voices into climate change responses and ensure that they can hold governments and agencies accountable for the climate challenges they are impacted by. 

I also appreciated the conversations with other fellows, where we brought together different insights  from across Africa and the wider Global South. For example, I really enjoyed hearing about Danley’s work on women in Ghana and how they are holding agencies accountable for their work in climate response initiatives. Overall, I really liked the participatory nature of the entire program and the opportunity to contribute our perspectives, share ideas, and learn from each other as fellows.