As the political dust settles following the 2026 general election, the focus of national discourse shifts from campaign promises to governance realities. As the new Members of Parliament (MPs) take their seats in the 14^th National Assembly, they face an array of competing priorities and a test of turning promises into development that can withstand climate shocks. Thus, the question is no longer only how much the country will spend, but whether that spending will protect lives, livelihoods and public assets in an unpredictable and fast-changing climate.

Meteorological forecasts have already warned about the looming Super El Niño for 2026/2027 season. The 2023-2024 drought made the cost of inaction clear and demonstrated just how quickly a climate event can become a national economic crisis. Agriculture suffered, electricity generation constrained, water security weakened, and households and businesses paid the price. This experience offers a stark and undeniable lesson that macro-financial policy can no longer be decoupled from ecological reality. The country’s ambitions remain high including job creation, enhancing irrigation, food production, copper output and energy expansion. However, each priority will succeed only if the national budget treats climate resilience as part of development not as an optional extra.

Historically, fiscal policy in Zambia has treated climate change as an external environmental issue, relegated to international summits, donor-funded pilot projects, or speeches delivered by the Ministry of Green Economy and Environment. This fragmented approach is no longer feasible. If the country is to build genuine economic stability in the 2026-2028 Medium-Term Budget Plan, climate action must be mainstreamed directly into the core of the national budget. This is because MPs hold the ultimate constitutional power of the purse to mandate this shift. Manifestos set intentions, but budgets reveal priorities.

Parliament’s authority over public finance expanded significantly with the enactment of the National Planning and Budgeting Act No. 1 of 2020. MPs are no longer passive approving authorities tasked merely with rubber-stamping executive expenditure proposals presented late in the fiscal year. The legal framework grants parliamentarians explicit mandate during the pre-budget consultation phase. Through the consideration of the Green Paper, the Budget Framework Paper, and committee hearings, MPs have the statutory leverage to critique, shape, and redirect fiscal allocations before the final 2027 National Budget policy statement is delivered. If government builds a road without accounting for increased flood risk, or designs irrigation infrastructure without considering changing water availability, that is a climate-budget failure. If a school, clinic or bridge is built in a flood-prone area without appropriate standards, taxpayers may pay twice to build it and again to repair or rebuild it. Therefore, the central question facing the 14^th Assembly as it prepares for the 2027 budget cycle is clear: How will they utilise this statutory power to embed climate resilience into public finance?

First, parliamentarians must demand explicit climate budget tagging across all government ministries, provinces, and spending agencies (MPSAs). Currently, tracking how much public money actually goes towards climate adaptation and mitigation remains a challenging task. When the Minister of Finance presents the 2027 Estimates of Revenue and Expenditure (Yellow Book) lawmakers across the political divide must interrogate every line item:

• What proportion of the agricultural allocation is dedicated to climate-resilient farming techniques, drought-tolerant seed varieties, and smallholder micro-irrigation, as opposed to traditional chemical fertilizer subsidies?
• How much capital is directed toward decentralizing off-grid solar energy grids for rural schools, health centers, and water pumping stations to safeguard against national grid failures?
• Are public infrastructure budgets funding roads, bridges, and civic buildings engineered to withstand extreme weather events, or are taxpayers repeatedly paying to rebuild cheap infrastructure washed away by seasonal flash floods?

Second, parliamentary oversight must be intensified within portfolio committees. The Expanded Committee on Estimates, alongside committees covering Agriculture, Energy, Water Development, and Local Government, must scrutinize ministerial budget requests through a climate lens. Lawmakers must require controlling officers to demonstrate how their proposed allocations directly contribute to Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) under the Paris Agreement and the objectives of the 8^th and upcoming 9^th National Development Plans.

Third, lawmakers should reinvigorate cross-party parliamentary coalitions such as the Parliamentary Caucus on Climate Change. Climate shocks do not select victims based on political party lines; drought starves households in opposition and ruling party constituencies alike. By establishing a unified, bipartisan front on green budgeting, MPs can ensure that climate resilience is treated not as a partisan talking point, but as a non-negotiable pillar of national security and economic sovereignty.

The 2026 election granted the newly elected MPs the most important test of their mandate sooner than many expect. Passing the annual national budget is the most consequential vote an MP casts each year. If lawmakers continue to view the 2027 budget through a traditional, siloed lens without factoring in systemic climate risk, they will be budgeting for future economic disruption. The 14^th National Assembly must assert its authority to ensure that every Kwacha spent in 2027 builds an economy capable of surviving the climate challenges of tomorrow.

Author

Solomon Mwampikita is a Sustainable Development Expert, currently serving as the Lead Researcher on Climate Change and Environment at the Centre for Trade Policy and Development (CTPD).