Bridging the Gap: Mainstreaming Climate Change Adaptation at the new County Level in Kenya Elfreda M. M. Whitty

Supervisor: Professor Mo Hamza Master of Disaster Management (MDMa) | University of Copenhagen Submitted: 4th December 2013

           

                             

  ii  

When in Africa in March the long rains begin after four months of hot, dry weather, the richness of growth and the freshness and fragrance everywhere are overwhelming. But the farmer holds back his heart and dares not trust to the generosity of nature: he listens, dreading to hear a decrease in the roar of the falling rain. The water that the earth is now drinking in must bring the farm, with all the vegetable, animal, and human life on it, through four rainless months to come. It is a lovely sight when the roads of the farm have all been turned into streams of running water, and the farmer wades through the mud with a singing heart, out to the flowering and dripping coffee-fields. But it happens in the middle of the rainy season that in the evening the stars show themselves through the thinning clouds; then he stands outside his house and stares up, as if hanging himself on to the sky to milk down more rain.  Sometimes a cool, colourless day in the months after the rainy season calls back the time of the marka mbaya, the bad year, the time of the drought...It was during those long days that we were all of us merged into a unity, so that on another planet we shall recognise one another.                                                      Extract from "Out of Africa", Karen Blixen (1937)                          

                 

  iii  

   

  iv  

Abstract With the recent launch of the National Climate Change Action Plan (NCCAP), the Government of Kenya has acknowledged that the country's vulnerability to climate change will pose a major threat to the development of the country in the decades to come. Part of the NCCAP's response seeks to build the country's adaptive capacity through mainstreaming concrete adaptation measures into long-term development planning. The NCCAP has also been synchronised with the introduction of devolved government in Kenya, displaying that the government has recognised that national adaptation policies must be mainstreamed cross-sectorally and synchronised with the newly decentralised government planning processes in order to comprehensively reduce the vulnerability of the country over the long term. Using a qualitative study based on open-ended key informant interviews, this thesis explores how the Kenyan government plans to operationalise the NCCAP at the newly devolved county level. The discussion centres on the capacity and coordination challenges between the national and newly formed county levels. Namely, how effectively national level climate change governance plans and strategies, through horizontal integration, will effectively vertically mainstream climate change adaptation at county level in Kenya. It also explores current county capacity, and asks how decentralisation can lead to more innovation and experimentation at county level to help inform and guide the national level to carry out overall better development planning. Turf mentalities between ministries, low institutional capacity in the counties and weak political commitment currently threaten to undermine both horizontal and vertical integration of climate adaptation measures. An overarching legislative and institutional framework to implement these measures, as well as formal evaluation and integration of bottom-up best practices to inform the national level will be essential to ensure that adaptation is comprehensively integrated into the planning processes for successful long-term development and reducing the vulnerability of the country. Key words: Climate change adaptation; mainstreaming; development; adaptive capacity; vulnerability; devolution.

     

                       

       

  v  

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acknowledgments .............................................................................................................. vii

List of Acronyms ................................................................................................................ viii

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 1 1.1. Context ....................................................................................................................... 1 i) Problem formulation ....................................................................................... 2 ii) Rationale ..................................................................................................... 3 iii) Conceptual background ................................................................................... 3 1.2. Objectives ................................................................................................................... 4 1.3. Methodology .............................................................................................................. 4   i) Data collection ............................................................................................... 5 ii) Government policy documentation ..................................................................... 5 iii) Key informant interviews ................................................................................ 6 iv) Field study ................................................................................................... 6 v) Limitations ................................................................................................... 7 vi) Ethical considerations ..................................................................................... 7

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW AND CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK ........................... 7 2.1. Key concepts ............................................................................................................... 7   i) Adaptation, adaptive capacity and vulnerability ........................................................ 7 ii) Development and adaptation mainstreaming ......................................................... 9 iii) Multi-level governance and mainstreaming .......................................................... 11 iv) Effectively linking the national and local level through multi-level governance ............... 12 2.2. Context ..................................................................................................................... 14     i) The National Climate Change Response Strategy .................................................... 14 ii) The National Climate Change Action Plan ........................................................... 15 iii) Vision 2030 and the 2010 Constitution ............................................................... 15 iv) The National Adaptation Plan .......................................................................... 17 2.3. "Mind the Gaps" ...................................................................................................... 19  

CHAPTER 3: FINDINGS ....................................................................................................... 20 Objective 1 ...................................................................................................................... 20

Policy and legislation ............................................................................................. 20 Institutional capacity ............................................................................................ 21 Information and awareness ..................................................................................... 21  

Objective 2 ...................................................................................................................... 22 Policy and legislation ............................................................................................. 22

Institutional capacity ............................................................................................ 22 Information and awareness ..................................................................................... 24  

Objective 3 ...................................................................................................................... 25 Policy and legislation ............................................................................................. 25

Institutional capacity ............................................................................................ 26 Information and awareness ..................................................................................... 26  CHAPTER 4: DISCUSSION .................................................................................................. 27

1) Policy and Legislation Gap .................................................................................. 28 2) Institutional Capacity Gap ................................................................................... 30 3) Information and Awareness Gap ........................................................................... 34

  vi  

4)"Mind the Gaps" .................................................................................................... 35

CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION - BRIDGING THE GAPS ......................................................... 37 References ........................................................................................................................... 40    ANNEXES

Annex 1: Geographical map of Kenya .............................................................................. . 44

Annex 2: Future climate projections forecast for Kenya ................................................. 45

Annex 3: The 47 Counties of Kenya .................................................................................. 47

Annex 4: List of key informants ........................................................................................ 48

Annex 5: Key informant consent form ............................................................................. 49

Annex 6: Horizontal and vertical climate policy integration .......................................... 50

Annex 7: ATAR Agriculture Resilience Pathway and factsheet ....................................... 51

Annex 8: Tracking Adaptation and Development Methodology (TAMD) ...................... 53

Annex 9: Old and new signs in Kajiado County administrative headquarters ................ 55

Annex 10: "Devolving the Mind" ..................................................................................... 56  

         

  vii  

Acknowledgements There are several people I would like to thank for their support during the research and writing of this thesis. My supervisor, Mo Hamza for his guidance and confidence in me. Alexandra Strand Holm for her advice, encouragement and making Delta Base a home from home and, Laura Sewell who was with me every step, and emoticon, of the way. I am extremely grateful to all the people who facilitated my field research in Kenya, especially Irene Karani, Mica Longanecker, Tom Downing, Stephen Mutimba, Virinder Sharma, and Simon Anderson. I am also indebted to Mamo Mamo and his staff for their karibu and assistance in Kajiado. I would also like to express my sincere thanks to those who took the time out of their day to participate in my interviews. Their insight, expertise and contributions made the words on this paper possible. And finally, my deepest gratitude goes to my parents, Niall and Elke Whitty, without whom I would never have had the opportunity to put my disaster manager helmet on. Asante sana                                                        

  viii  

List of Acronyms  ASAL ............................................................................................... Arid and Semi Arid Land

ATAR ......................................................................... Adaptation Technical Analysis Report

CAF ................................................................................................. County Adaptation Fund

CAP .................................................................................................. County Adaptation Plan

CCA ............................................................................................ Climate Change Adaptation

CCS .............................................................................................. Climate Change Secretariat

CCCU ........................................................................................ Climate Change County Unit

CIDP ........................................................................... County Integrated Development Plan

CSO ............................................................................................... Civil Society Organisation

DfID ................................... Department for International Development, United Kingdom

EDE .......................................................................................... Ending Drought Emergencies

ELIF ........................................................ Enabling Legislative and Institutional Framework

GoK ..................................................................................................... Government of Kenya

IDLO ............................................................. International Development Law Organisation

IPCC ............................................................... Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

LDC ............................................................................................. Least Developed Countries

LPAR .................................................................................... Legal Policy Assessment Report

MDP ............................................................................ Ministry of Devolution and Planning

MEWNR ........................................ Ministry of Environment, Water and Natural Resources

MEMR ...................................................... Ministry of Environment and Mineral Resources

MLG ................................................................................................. Multi-Level Governance

MOA .................................................................................................. Ministry of Agriculture

MTP ......................................................................................................... Medium Term Plan

NAdP ............................................................................................. National Adaptation Plan

NAMA .............................................................. Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions

NAPA .................................................................. National Adaptation Programme of Action

NCCAP ....................................................................... National Climate Change Action Plan

NCCC ................................................................................ National Climate Change Council

NCCRS .............................................................. National Climate Change Response Strategy

NDMA ................................................................. National Drought Management Authority

NEP ........................................................................................... National Environment Policy

NGO ................................................................................... Non-Governmental Organisation

NPBMF .................................. National Performance and Benefit Measurement Framework

  ix  

TA ....................................................................................................... Transitional Authority

TAMD ................................................... Tracking Adaptation and Measuring Development  UNDP .................................................................. United Nations Development Programme

UNEP .................................................................... United Nations Environment Programme

UNFCCC .................................. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change                                                                                      

  x  

                             

  1  

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION    1.1. Context

Evidence shows that Kenya is already suffering from the consequences of climate change. Droughts and

flooding affecting this East African equatorial country (Annex 1) have increased in frequency and

severity over the last fifty years impacting on both Kenyan society and the country's economic

development (NCCRS, 2010). The 2006-2009 drought is reported to have left approximately ten

million (one quarter of the Kenyan population) facing starvation and the 1999 and 2000 droughts caused

damage equivalent to 2.4 of the country's GDP (NCCRS, 2010). Estimates project that the costs of

climate change damage could be as high as the equivalent of 2.6 per cent of GDP in Kenya each year by

2030 (Stern (2009) in Mutimba and Wanyoike, 2013). Kenya's vulnerability to climate change is

compounded by the economy's reliance on natural resources and environmental services and its low

ability to cope with climate variability and impacts.

Kenya's vulnerability has been further exacerbated by political instability, bad governance, weak

institutions, inadequate infrastructure, lack of access to financial resources, and not least increasing

levels of poverty and thereby vulnerability (NCCRS, 2010). Worryingly, climate projections forecast

that the country is likely to become more exposed to further frequent and intense climate events in the

future (Annex 2), further adding to the country's vulnerability and inability to cope. The country's

exposure to these climatic stresses and strains means that Kenya must increase its capacity to adapt. As

the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) outlined in its Fourth Assessment Report

(AR4) in 2007, exposure to climate impacts mean that for many African countries, adaptation is not just

an option, but also a necessity (IPCC, AR4, 2007 p.452). The level of the adaptive capacity of a

country, especially of developing countries such as Kenya, therefore necessitates that the right policies

and strategies are in place to ensure that the country's society will become more resilient and capable of

reducing its vulnerability to climate impacts (Mazwamuse, 2010 p10). This also means that behind these

policies, it is essential to have an effective institutional and legal framework in place to avoid obstructing

responses to adaptation.

The Government of Kenya (GoK), recognising that improving Kenya's capacity to adapt to the

effects of climate change will be crucial to the country's future health and prosperity, have adopted a

number of national development plans. In 2010, the government published the National Climate Change

Response Strategy (NCCRS) which was the first attempt to coordinate and harmonise the country's

climate change activities and to address the challenges that pose a threat to the country's future socio-

economic development and increase its vulnerability. The subsequent National Climate Change Action

Plan (NCCAP), launched in March 2013, was written with the aim of putting these measures into

  2  

operation, through national-led policies that address adaptation measures and provide guidelines for

their mainstreaming into key governmental sectors and institutions.

i) Problem formulation

Up until now, adaptive capacity at local government level in Kenya has been weak and any adaptation

promotion has been carried out by individual actors, local NGOs or civil society organisations (CSO)

(Schiller and Remling, 2011). This problem has been exacerbated by the large gap that exists between

the national and local level in terms of policy implementation and coordination, by lack of institutional

capacity and legislative authority to mobilise governmental departments and the different administrative

levels (Schilling and Remling, 2011), and by an overall lack of coordination between government,

private sector and civil society (OECD, 2002). The cross-sectoral nature of climate change and its wide-

ranging consequences and complexities result in the need for suitable policies and strong coordination to

be carried out at a high level and across all sectors in national development plans such as the NCCAP.

Policy integration - or mainstreaming climate change adaptation (CCA) responses into national long-term

development policies, plans and decision-making is widely recognised as an effective response to do this

(Adelle and Russel, 2013). In the development of the NCCAP, the government acknowledges this by

putting as one the Action Plan's main objectives, a long-term adaptation plan and institutional and

regulatory climate policy framework. As set out in the Action Plan, for there to be successful adaptation

to climate change, adaptation measures must be factored into all relevant plans and across all sectors and

governmental levels (ATAR, 2012) in order to create a climate resilient country with long term growth

(OECD, 2002). Madzwamuse ascertains that successful climate change mainstreaming necessitates that a

wide range of stakeholders, from the national to the local level, are involved in the planning, decision-

making and implementation of the solutions (2010).

Climate change invariably impacts on those at the very local level; those communities who are

on the front line and who must learn how to adapt their livelihoods as rapidly as possible, as a matter of

survival. Subsequently, in order to have a coherent and effective response in place, mainstreaming CCA

into national policy and decision-making should also span all levels of governance. The launch of the

NCCAP in March 2013 coincided with the election of a new national government and newly

decentralised powers, under the Constitution of 2010 with the formation and election of 47

constitutionally autonomous county governments (Annex 3), which have defined spheres of powers and

functions. Devolving competencies down to lower levels of government implies strengthening local

capacity and bringing government closer to the citizen (OECD, 2002). The Government of Kenya has

recognised that CCA is central to decreasing the country's vulnerability and that adaptation must be

carried out across all sectors and levels to do this. This thesis will therefore explore what actions are

being taken by the national government to facilitate mainstreaming adaptation at the county level to

  3  

satisfy most effectively the needs of those living on the frontline to the impacts of climate change while

ensuring the successful future long-term development of the country.

ii) Rationale In a country that is closely interweaving its capacity to adapt to climate change with its future long-term

economic growth, this research is widely applicable to our overall understanding of the complex task of

mainstreaming climate change into governmental institutional structures for long-term development and

building adaptive capacity (ATAR, 2012). With the 47 counties only becoming fully operational

following the general elections in March 2013, this is a critical time to explore the political drivers

behind the NCCAP, set against the backdrop of a new constitution, new government and newly

decentralised powers. More specifically, it is an extremely interesting time to explore the nexus

between new national climate change measures and the huge on-going institutional, legal and

constitutional reforms that are running concurrently in Kenya following the elections. This study

therefore aims to look specifically at the inter-connection between national climate mainstreaming plans

and the development of new county administrative structures. In the following chapters, the author aims

to ask: How far will national climate development planning and the birth of devolution

facilitate climate adaptation policy mainstreaming at the new county level?

iii) Conceptual background As outlined above, this study will focus on two key enabling factors, which will be critical for successful

mainstreaming of adaptation at county level in Kenya: namely, new national climate change governance

in the shape of the NCCAP, and the emergence of devolution. The complexities of devolution in Kenya

are resulting in huge institutional transformations across the board, which will therefore require very

careful coordination and close cooperation between the institutions and sectors of the governmental

policy-making levels (ELIF, 2012). So as to assess the flow of movement of mainstreaming policies

between the national and county institutional levels, this study will take a look through the conceptual

lens of multi-level governance (MLG) in order to understand the multi-directional institutional and

policy relationships between the national and newly devolved county level in Kenya (Mickvitz et al.,

2009; Chablit, 2011). This helps to gauge the level of coordination and potential capacity gaps that may

exist between policy-making, coordination and actual implementation, which this thesis argues, acts as a

barrier to effective mainstreaming at county level. This 'coordination and capacity gaps' approach

(Chablit, 2011) is particularly applicable due to climate change falling under concurrent jurisdiction,

between the two levels under the new Constitution. These gaps are divided into policy and legislative

implementation, institutional capacity and information and awareness. These challenges will be explored in

more detail in a literature review of what climate adaptation mainstreaming is and how this links with

strengthening adaptive capacity at local level through climate governance.

  4  

1.2. Objectives

Research question: How are new national level climate change measures facilitating the effective mainstreaming of climate change adaptation into long-term development at the newly devolved county level in Kenya?

Main objective:   To explore how the emerging national climate change landscape in Kenya is facilitating the mainstreaming of climate change adaptation at the newly devolved county level with the ultimate goal to help achieve better overall adaptive capacity and sustainable socio-economic development in Kenya.

Specific objectives:

1. To assess national level capacity to mainstream climate change adaptation into the county level planning processes through the new NCCAP. 2.  To evaluate the initial capacity of county level adaptation mainstreaming following the formation of the devolved counties. 3. To consider how the local level will inform county and national measures for successful long-term integration of adaptation measures into national planning processes.

1.3. Methodology

As identified in the above objectives, the overall aim of this thesis is to explore how emerging national

climate change governance in Kenya is facilitating the mainstreaming of climate change adaptation

policies into long-term planning at the newly devolved county level. Therefore, this thesis has used an

inductive approach to explore emerging trends and relationships that are forming in which

mainstreaming is increasingly viewed as an effective tool to integrate climate change adaptation cross-

sectorally into policies throughout government in Kenya - and for this research, to specifically explore

this process at the newly formed county level. This research will use multi-level governance as a

conceptual lens to guide and shape the exploration of the institutional relationships between the national

and county level and the coordination and capacity gaps between the government levels, which this

thesis argues, acts as a barrier to effective mainstreaming of climate change adaptation at county level.

This research is of a fully qualitative nature using policy analysis. A synthesis of existing secondary data

and key informant interviews is brought together to evaluate the options and bottlenecks, with a view to

open up a discussion and identify key gaps which need to be bridged to eventually help inform decision

makers.

  5  

i) Data collection

As a starting point, using available grey literature, this thesis provides a broad contextual overview of

the emergence of the Kenyan National Climate Change Strategy, the Action Plan and its link to Vision

2030 and the new Constitution of Kenya. Having set the context, a review of existing peer-reviewed

literature based on academic discussion investigates key concepts behind adaptation, using the

parameters of adaptation, adaptive capacity, vulnerability, development, and adaptation mainstreaming. Multi-

level governance was then identified as the central conceptual lens in which to apply the reviewed concepts

and analyse the data. The data were collected through literature searches on common search engines

such as Google Scholar and through the use of the University of Copenhagen's Rex library, as well as

from material used during the Master of Disaster Management course. The Kenyan government's

NCCAP satellite website, which contained the key background documents to the Action Plan, was the

foundation of this research and the data available at this source were critical to initiating the process of

the research, identifying key markers for the further development of this research and analysing the

institutions and key stakeholders involved. While a significant amount of the data was available online,

the author also was provided with hard copies of updated governmental documentations and reports

from key stakeholders during the field study stage in Kenya.

ii) Government policy documentation

The secondary data collected for contextual and conceptual background thus set the stage for an analysis

of the impacts of proposed policies relevant to this research in order to understand and scrutinise the

emerging relationship between the national and the new county levels. Central to the policy analysis was

the IDLO's Enabling Legislative and Institutional Framework (ELIF) report and its Legal Preparedness

Assessment Report (LPAR), together with the LTSi's Adaptation Technical Analysis Report (ATAR) of

the National Adaptation Plan (NAdP). The recommendations of these reports currently make up two of

the sub-components of the NCCAP1. They detail priority regulatory and policy recommendations for

CCA response and specifically deal with mainstreaming processes at the county level, coordinating

functions and institutional capacity. Due to the infancy of the Action Plan however, and to these

chapters being subject to on-going stakeholder consultations, validation procedures, and continuous

work, these sub-components are still very much work-in progress as the Action Plan rolls out over the

long-term. This however forms a vitally important aspect of the research, as the author believes that the

aim is to look at the processes of how current institutional capacities and planned policy frameworks will

facilitate mainstreaming adaptation responses at county level.

                                                                                                               1 Enabling Legislative and Institutional Framework (ELIF) report and Legal Preparedness Assessment Report (LPAR) for NCCAP Sub-Component 2: Enabling Policy and Regulatory Framework. Adaptation Technical Analysis Report (ATAR) for NCCAP Sub-Component 3: National Adaptation Plan

  6  

iii) Key informant interviews

To build on the policy analysis, interviews with key government institutions at national, sector and sub-

national level as well as experts also provided necessary information and insights into the subject matter.

These interviewees make up many of the relevant actors involved at both national and country levels as

well as other key stakeholders, including those international partners working with the Kenyan

government on local level adaptation and representatives of civil society organisations and non-

governmental organisations (NGO) working on government-led projects at county level. The selection

process involved purposive and convenient sampling. The author identified a number of names of

experts who were instrumental in their contributions to the key policy documents mentioned above.

Other relevant experts, including consultants and academics involved in the preparation of the Action

Plan, were also identified and contacted. Several of these interviewees were contacted pre-field study

while other interviewees were identified once the author was in the process of carrying out her field

research. This was partly due to names of new contacts arising while the author carried out her field

study (See Annex 4 for list of key informants).

iv) Field Study

The field study consisted of in-depth key informant interviews and information gathering carried out

over a period of four weeks between April and May 2013. The field study largely took place in Nairobi

where the majority of the key informants' offices were based. All interviews were carried out in person.

While in Nairobi the author planned a trip to Kajiado, 100km south of Nairobi. Kajiado is the

administrative headquarters of Kajiado County and this was an opportunity to carry out a number of

interviews with county officials as well as an opportunity to make informal observations of a new county

administration taking shape. This particular county was selected due to its status as an ASAL (Arid and

Semi-Arid Land) as well as its proximity and ease of access to Nairobi. All interviews were open and

loosely structured to allow the key informant to go into as much depth as possible. All interviewees will

remain anonymous and the results of this study will be made available to them. Beyond the scope of the

interviews, the researcher was also invited by DfID to a meeting of the "Stark+ Adaptation

Consortium" meeting in Nairobi as an observer where she was able to speak informally to key

stakeholders working with the counties. This fell outside the formal part of the field study but gave

uniquely valuable insights into ongoing stakeholder input and processes at the county level.

Following the transcribing of the interviews, the data gathered were reviewed and coded and

reorganised into themes that relate to the multi-level governance coordination and capacity gaps, as

identified in the Literature Review section, and then organised in the Findings section.

  7  

v) Limitations

The devolved counties came into being following the national and county elections on 4 March 2013.

The NCCAP was launched on 27 March 2013 and the President was officially inaugurated two weeks

later, on 9 April 2013. While the country's climate change plans are in their infancy, with the Action

Plan at the very earliest stages of implementation, the researcher believed that this was an important

factor in her research. Mainstreaming CCA is not a goal but an iterative process and no more so is this

the case than at the new county level, where it is important to examine the factors which will be critical

for the Plan's measures to be sustainable and successful in the long-term and have a lasting impact on

those people who are most affected by climate change. The timing of the research immediately after

national and county elections meant that the country was going through a great deal of change as the

counties set up their structures. This made access to key informants in Kenya more challenging and not

all were available due to prior commitments. This was also a self-funded research, which limited the

scope for data collection. During the writing stage, new governmental documents relevant to the study

were published leading to reviewing and changing some of the pre-existing data.

vi) Ethical considerations

As mentioned above, a part of this research involved carrying out face-to-face interviews with key

informants in Kenya. Before the commencement of the interview the researcher ensured that an

agreement of informed consent, has been read and signed by the interviewee (Annex 5). Interviews

were audio-recorded and transcribed after the interview. One interviewee did not give consent to being

recorded but was happy to have the researcher take down written notes.

CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW AND CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

This chapter will start by looking at the key concepts based on a review of existing academic literature,

followed by an account of the conceptual framework of multi-level governance relevant for

mainstreaming adaptation between government levels. To set the context for this particular study in

Kenya, this will then be followed by a more in-depth policy review of the key national governmental

entry points to facilitate mainstreaming climate change adaptation in the 47 counties. A third section -

"Mind the Gaps" - will then connect these to tie the academic discussion and policy review together.

2.1 Key Concepts

i) Adaptation, adaptive capacity and vulnerability

  8  

Fundamentally, CCA seeks to lower the risk and vulnerability of those affected by climate impacts and

aims to improve their ability to cope. The IPCC defines adaptation as "adjustments in ecological, social,

or economic systems in response to actual or expected climatic stimuli and their effects or impacts"

(IPCC, AR4, WGII, 2007, p6). There is wide consensus in the literature that developing countries are

particularly vulnerable to these climatic impacts due to their low adaptive capacity and dependence on

natural resources (IPCC, AR4, WGII, 2007; Cole, 2007; Huq et al., 2003; Habtezion, 2009;

Madzwemuse, 2010; Cole, 2007). The IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report specifically highlights the

vulnerability of African countries to climate stresses mixed with 'other factors' stating that adaptation is

"not an option but a necessity" (IPCC, 2007, p452). Sub-Saharan Africa especially, is earmarked as one

of the most vulnerable areas to climate impacts due to its 'low adaptive capacity' (Habtezion, 2009;

Brooks et al., 2005; Downing et al., 1997).

The close relationship between adaptive capacity and vulnerability are central and consistent

concepts within the adaptation literature (IPCC, AR4, 2007; Adger, 2001; Smit and Wandel, 2006).

According to the IPCC, "Vulnerability is the degree to which a system is susceptible to, or unable to

cope, with adverse effects of climate change...Vulnerability is a function of the character, magnitude and

rate of climate change and variation to which a system is exposed, its sensitivity, and its adaptive

capacity" (IPCC, AR4, WGII, 2007, p6). The IPCC indicates that the "vulnerability of a society is

influenced by its development path, physical exposures, the distribution of resources, prior stresses and

social and government institutions" (IPCC, AR4, WGII, 2007, p6). Adaptive capacity is defined as, "the

ability of a system to adjust to climate change, including climate variability and extremes, to moderated

potential damages, to take advantage of opportunities, or to cope with the consequences" (IPCC, AR3,

2001, p881). Smit and Wandel explain the relationship as, "vulnerability of any system (at any scale) is

reflective of (or a function of) the exposure and sensitivity of that system to hazardous conditions and

the ability or capacity or resilience of the system to cope, adapt or recover from the effects of those

conditions" (2006, p286). Simply put, a system's vulnerability can be reduced when its adaptive capacity

is improved. The level of adaptive capacity can also hugely vary depending on the scale i.e. from country

level, to community level, to individual level. These scales are also interdependent. Here Smit and

Wandel determine that, "the capacity of a household to cope with climate risks depends to some degree

on the enabling environment of the community, and the adaptive capacity of the community is reflective

of the resources and processes of the region" (2006, p287).

While Smit and Wandel point out that adaptations are manifestations of adaptive capacity,

possessing adaptive capacity however does not automatically manifest itself as adaptation or guarantee

that it will be used effectively to reduce vulnerability. It is instead the potential for adaptation to take

place (Brooks, 2003; Klein and Smith, 2003; Burton and Lim, 2001 in Burton et al., 2002; Smit and

  9  

Wandel, 2006). Klein and Smith describe adaptive capacity as, "the ability to plan, prepare for,

facilitate and implement adaptation measures" (in Smith et al. 2003, p318).

In order to transform adaptive capacity into concrete adaptation, focused and targeted actions

are necessary, aimed at facilitating actual adaptation (Oulu, 2011, p377). Successful adaptation is

therefore reliant on the capacity of systems to adapt and also "on the will or intent to deploy adaptive

capacity to reduce vulnerability"2 (Burton and Lim, 2001 in Burton et al., 2002, p6).

The above indicates that adaptation responses do not occur instantaneously (Brooks et al. 2005).

Adaptation measures are determined by a complex number of factors in relation to levels, timescales,

forms, spatial scope, purpose and actors involved (Klein and Smith, 2003; Smit and Wandel, 2006).

Adaptation can be autonomous or spontaneous and/or be responses taken by individuals or sectors on

their own in response to climate impacts (Klein and Smith, 2003). Adaptation can be often "reactive" or

concurrent where it is "triggered by past or current events" (Adger et al, 2005, p76). Conversely,

adaptation measures can be planned (proactive or anticipatory) (Downing et al., 1997; Adger et al.,

2005; Klein and Smith 2003; Huq et al., 2003; Smit and Wandel, 2007; Oulu 2011). Adger et al.,

(2005) explain that anticipatory adaptation is based on an assessment on the future while Klein and

Smith (2003) tell us that proactive adaptation tells us how effective policy interventions can be.

Anticipatory, or planned adaptation is very often carried out by governments on behalf of their citizens

(Huq et al., 2003; Oulu, 2011) and is carried out over the medium to long term. Adaptation responses

are also determined at different levels by the actions of individuals, groups and governments and

motivated by a number of complex economic, social and institutional dynamics and, fundamentally, are

not taken in insolation of other decisions. (Adger, 2001; Smit and Wandel, 2006). The vulnerability and

adaptive capacity of societies are therefore very much influenced by wider institutional and economic

considerations and therefore there is a very significant role for public policy and governments to create

the right environment for appropriate adaptation responses to climate change (Huq et al., 2003; IPCC,

AR4, WGII, 2007). To operationalise these adaptation measures, political commitment for adaptation

must be centralised and come from the highest political authority, to enhance the level of awareness

across government and drive forward the process (Oulu, 2011).

ii) Development and adaptation mainstreaming

To harness effective adaptive capacity and transform it into adaptation, the appropriate policies and

legislative frameworks must be in place in order to reduce the vulnerability of those most exposed at all

levels of society. Effective adaptation policies are therefore dependent on governmental policies and

strategies that respond to the needs as well as enhance the resilience of the most vulnerable systems and

groups in society (Madzwamuse, 2010). On top of a heavy reliance on natural resources (e.g.                                                                                                                2 Author's own highlighting

  10  

agriculture, water), weak governance mechanisms, poor institutional capacity and inadequate

infrastructure leave developing countries' societies even less protected from climate change impacts.

Climate change can therefore be closely intertwined with a country’s development path.

Adaptation to climate change is now widely viewed as a key aspect of good development practice while

long-term development planning is increasingly being seen as a critical route for building the adaptive

capacity of all levels within society (OECD, 2006; Eriksen et al., 2007; Huq and Ayers, 2008; Green,

2012; Agrawal, 2008). This is especially the case in developing and least developed countries where

climate change is posing the biggest threat to development objectives. The literature and evidence

increasingly tells us that development and adaptation must also be tied together to avoid 'maladaptation'

- where a country's development choices increase its vulnerability to climate impacts (Huq and Ayers,

2008). One example given is where development triggers settlement in a climate sensitive area, such as

on low-lying coastlines or a flood plain raising the vulnerability of the people living in the settlement

(IDS, 2006, p6). Smit and Wandel tell us that adaptation is most successful if combined with other

strategies and plans at various levels (2006). Climate change therefore injects urgency for national

governments to comprehensively improve policies and institutional mechanisms that affect development

and the vulnerable of society, which may result in the need for changes in development planning or

institutional reform to take account of climate risks (UNDP-UNEP, 2011).

Given the cross-cutting nature of climate impacts there is increasing acknowledgement that

CCA needs to be supported by an integrated, cross-cutting policy approach - or 'mainstreamed' into

development planning (Smit and Wandel, 2006; Huq and Ayers, 2008; IDS, 2006; UNDP-UNEP,

2011; Madzwamuse, 2010; Justice, 2012). Mainstreaming adaptation is thus viewed as the most

effective way to align adaptation policy into development over the long term (Huq and Ayers, 2008).

Mainstreaming focuses on integrating CCA into ongoing policy processes such as national development

plans, or strategies based on the context specificities of that country (Justice, 2012). Many have

observed that climate change is usually packaged or seen purely as an environmental issue with no

linkages to other key sectors of the economy. Integration into wider development plans is therefore

critical for effectively mainstreaming climate adaptation (Madzewmuse, 2010).

Mainstreaming comprises of, "the integration of policies and measures to address climate change

into ongoing sectoral planning and management, so as to ensure the long-term viability and sustainability

of sectoral and development investments as well as to reduce the sensitivity of development activities to

both today’s and tomorrow’s climate" (Eriksen et al, 2007, p11)3. The IPCC WG III, states that,

"mainstreaming means that the development policies, programmes and/or individual actions that

                                                                                                               3 'The concept of mainstreaming has been largely borrowed from development discourses, where the mainstreaming of gender issues has long been understood as an effective way of ensuring gender equity in development policies (Eriksen et al. 2007).

  11  

otherwise would not have taken climate change mitigation into consideration explicitly include these

when making development choices” (2007, p723). It should be noted that mainstreaming adaptation is

not included in the IPCC's definition4 (Justice, 2012).

A more comprehensive definition of CCA mainstreaming from UNDP-UNEP is: "(T)he

iterative process of integrating considerations of climate change adaptation into policy-making,

budgeting, implementation and monitoring processes at national, sector and subnational levels. It is a

multi-year, multi-stakeholder effort grounded in the contribution of climate change adaptation to human

well-being, pro-poor economic growth, and achievement of the MDGs5. It entails working with a range

of government and non-governmental actors, and other actors in the development field" (UNDP-

UNEP, 2011, p3). Critically from this definition we can see that mainstreaming climate change

adaptation into policy is a continuous process, which will involve action from many actors at all levels of

society and government.

This definition of adaptation mainstreaming closely reflects the concept of 'climate policy

integration' (CPI). As defined by Mickwitz et al., (2009), it is the "incorporation of the aims of climate

change mitigation and adaptation into all stages of policy-making in other policy sectors (non-

environmental as well as environmental)"6. They tell us that if a policy objective - such as climate

adaptation measures - should be integrated into other policies, this should be reflected in policy

strategies such as government programmes, as well as in sector-specific ones such as policy instruments

(e.g. laws, taxes) by which the strategies are implemented (Mickwitz et al., 2009). Central to this and in

line with classical policy integration concepts is that policy integration can be divided into 'horizontal

policy integration' and 'vertical policy integration' (See Annex 6). Oulu tells us adaptation

mainstreaming can be operationalised through these horizontal and vertical policy dimensions (2011).

Horizontal policy integration refers to cross-sectoral measures undertaken by government to integrate

climate measures into public policies. Vertical policy integration can refer to integration between

different levels of policy-making - i.e. the national, county, and local level - according to common

multi-level governance approaches (Bache and Flinders, 2004 in Mickvitz et al. 2009, p22).

iii) Multi-level governance and mainstreaming

Multi-level governance traditionally contains both vertical and horizontal dimensions relating to the

increasing interdependence between different levels (institutionally, financially, socio-economically)

(Mickvitz et al., 2009, p25). Charbit refers to multi-level governance as the term used to characterise

the relationship between public actors situated at different administrative levels. Multi-level governance                                                                                                                4 With the growing awareness and focus of the value of CCA mainstreaming, it will be interesting to note if its significance will be reflected

in the forthcoming IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) in 2014. 5 MDGs: Millennium Development Goals 6 For the purpose of this study we will be solely focusing on adaptation climate policy integration.  

  12  

is the "explicit or implicit sharing of policy-making authority, responsibility, development and

implementation at different administrative and territorial levels, i.e. (i) across different ministries

and/or public agencies at central government level (upper horizontally), (ii) between different layers of

government at local, regional, provincial/state, national and supranational levels (vertically), and (iii)

across different actors at sub national level (lower horizontally)" (Charbit, 2011, p13).

As more countries are decentralising (and recentralising) political, fiscal and social

competencies, managing the complexities of the relationships throughout these different government

levels has become the main challenge (Charbit, 2011). When mapping who is responsible for the design,

regulation, budgeting and implementation of particular policy areas that the government wishes to

improve, one concern is that actors’ functions will overlap - or there will be duplication of

responsibilities. This is not a concern when there is effective coordination between the relevant

stakeholders involved in the public policy area. When there is a coordination deficit however, Charbit

states that 'coordination gaps' may emerge. Policy 'vacuums' or policy interdependence can also emerge

when new issues arise (e.g. environmental concerns) that are not allocated clearly defined competencies

or related responsibilities to the relevant actor(s). Capacity and coordination between stakeholders is

therefore crucial to avoid this vacuum (Charbit, 2011).

Correspondingly, seven dominant gaps which challenge effective multi-level governance in

public policy have been identified by Charbit: information, capacity, fiscal, policy,

administrative, objective and accountability - challenges which all countries confront when

trying to implement public policy in decentralised political systems. This 'coordination and capacity

gaps' approach, works as a 'diagnosis tool' to identify the main challenges in implementing effective

policies in a decentralised context (Charbit 2011, p16). This approach also helps to iron out coherence

problems between sectors and policies to achieve more equitable and sustainable public policies and

overall more effective policy integration (Mickvitz et al., 2009; Charbit, 2011). It is suggested by

Charbit that coordination mechanisms between the different governmental levels, such as strategic plans

and annual budgets, can help to bridge these gaps (Charbit, 2011).

v) Effectively linking the national and local level through multi-level governance

Multi-level governance is a critical issue for national governments, due to the impacts that climate

change will have at all levels. An important issue for policy makers at the national level is what they can

do, first, to empower local governments to become more effective in the design and implementation of

policies for adaptation to climate change and, second, to take advantage of the opportunities to learn

from local level projects and innovation. It is argued that often CCA is viewed as belonging to one level

of governance and if several levels are concerned, adaptation is viewed as a top-down 'control problem'

(Mickwitz et al., 2009). This however jars with the fact that climate change impacts are most severely

  13  

felt at local level. Indeed the adaptation literature overwhelmingly tells us that climate impacts become

manifest at the local level, affecting disadvantaged social groups in society disproportionately. As already

discussed above, vulnerabilities within countries can be highly localised and consequently adaptation

responses must be tailored to these localised needs. Agrawal tells us that local institutions have influence

over which social groups gain access to resources and assets. He argues that since CCA is inherently

local, local government institutions can closely influence adaptation and vulnerability (2008). Local level

adaptation responses are also very much influenced by wider institutional and economical governmental

dynamics. As a result, local communities can only succeed in adapting to climate change if they have

effective support from local and national governmental levels (Justice, 2012). As Oulu explains,

government policies and individual or community actions are codependent and these actions are

"embedded in governance processes that reflect the relationship between individuals, their capabilities

and social capital, and the government" (2011, p377). Climate change governance must therefore be

able to operate at multiple levels due to the scope and scale of adjustments necessary for climate

adaptation at every level of society (Madzewmuse 2010, p28). This gap between the national level

planning and local level requires more focus on adaptation mainstreaming, cross-sectorally and between

the different levels of government where, as Charbit tells us, 'sub-national and central governments are

"mutually dependent"' (2011, p5).

Adaptation strategies also require coordination at both horizontal and vertical levels. There is no

'one size fits all' method. So adaptation issues require appropriate solutions relevant to the affected local

level instead of standardised national solutions (Corfee-Morlot et al., 2009). As is pointed out, this does

not mean that national governments are not involved in local solutions, but it does highlight the need for

coordination and integration of adaptation measures into a comprehensive overall policy framework.

The cross-sectoral, multi-level focus of CCA means that understanding the linkages between national

and local level is crucial - from both a top-down and bottom-up (or multi-level governance) perspective.

While adaptation in local policies, in for example agriculture or water resource management, is

essential, those policies need to be supported by appropriate national level strategies and legal

frameworks. In particular, national level responses must be rooted in local conditions (UNDP-UNEP,

2011). Many countries however lack a coherent policy framework to carry out effective adaptation.

With the increased recognition of adaptation as an effective response to climate change, in recent years

there have been more focused efforts to integrate comprehensively adaptation into national climate

change strategies and, in Least Developed Countries (LDCs) to create NAPAs - National Adaptation

Plans for Actions (in line with the UNFCCC reporting requirements). While NAPAs aim to identify and

prioritise adaptation actions including building institutional capacity, building awareness and

encouraging local participation, adaptation tends to be a mix of fragmented environmental and

  14  

development policies (Madzwamuse, 2010). Research analysing NAPA documents from different

countries has also shown that many NAPA projects have focused on national level and 'top-down' actions

and on the capacity of national governments and agencies instead of concentrating on building the

capacity of local actors and institutions to carry out adaptation. According to Agrawal's research (2008)

at that time, only twenty per cent of the projects described in the NAPA documents analysed local

institutions and only twenty out of the 173 projects described in the NAPA reports identify local level

institutions as partners or agents in facilitating adaptation projects (p 42). He also reports that there was

little evidence of consultation and coordination between the local and national level and the needs of

those most vulnerable sectors in society such as women and or subsistence farmers were being ignored

(Argawal, 2008). In addition, while these plans often go in the right direction of recommending

mainstreaming as a priority intervention, they do not generally focus on mainstreaming climate change

directly into development plans (UNDP-UNEP, 2011).

From this we can see that multi-level governance understands that the relationships between the

different governmental levels are 'complex and multi-directional' (Mickvitz et al, 2009). As climate

change impacts on all levels of society, and thereby all levels of government, adopting a multi-level

governance perspective is vital for understanding how to integrate climate adaptation measures between

the governance levels for effective climate change response.

2.2 Context

i) The National Climate Change Response Strategy

In 2010, the then Ministry of Environment and Mineral Resources7 (MEMR), acting on the advice of its

Climate Change Secretariat (CCS), published the NCCRS. The NCCRS was important, as it was the

first attempt to address comprehensively the development challenges that expose Kenya to climate

vulnerability. The central aim of the strategy was to ensure that CCA and mitigation measures were

mainstreamed in all government planning and development objectives. It looked to strengthen

nationwide action towards adapting to, and mitigating, climate change impacts by engaging with a wide

range of stakeholders, while taking into account the vulnerable nature of both the country’s natural

resources and the vulnerability of Kenyan society as a whole. The Strategy was the first attempt to

mainstream climate change horizontally into sectoral policies but it also pointed out that there was no

existing policy or legal framework to address directly climate change in Kenya. The only policy

document that has come close to addressing climate change was the draft National Environmental Policy

(NEP).8 This policy however lacks explicit provisions for CCA and only makes a vague statement

                                                                                                               7 Under the cabinet reshuffle following the 2013 elections, MEMR has become the Ministry of Environment, Water and Natural Resources (MEWNR). For the rest of this thesis it will be referred to under its new name. 8  First drafted in 2008 and currently in its 5th draft version in 2012.  

  15  

towards implementing the NCCRS (NEP, 2012). CCA provisions until this point have been carried out

through various disjointed sectoral laws and policies in Kenya. These include the Forest Act, the

Agricultural Act, the Energy Policy, the Forest Policy and the Arid and Semi Arid Lands Policy

(Madzwamuse, 2010). In 2012 a stand-alone proposal for climate change legislation came in the form of

the draft 'Climate Change Authority Bill' (2012), primarily developed by CSOs. While the drafting of

the bill indicated that climate change response was gaining traction in Kenyan politics, it has struggled to

gain enough support and there was a certain amount of criticism levelled at it. Particularly, the draft

Authority Bill failed to provide guidance on how climate change – being a cross-sectoral governance

issue by nature – can be effectively mainstreamed across national and county level government

functions. In its present form the draft Bill9 would therefore be unsuited to be the executing framework

for the NCCAP (see below). Overall, these past policy and legal instruments have been generally seen to

be weak with the focus on environmental management, which does not fully address the cross-cutting

aspects of climate change.

ii) The National Climate Change Action Plan

In order to operationalise the NCCRS, the Kenyan government (with support from a number of national

and international partners10) developed the NCCAP. The Action Plan proposes a set of mechanisms to

implement the NCCRS, through national-led comprehensive policies that address mitigation and

adaptation and provide guidelines for their integration and mainstreaming into key governmental sectors

and institutions. It aims to establish an enabling policy, legal and institutional framework to combat

climate change, setting out actions to implement the measures and projects outlined in the Strategy in

order to "enable Kenya to reduce vulnerability to climate change and improve our country's ability to

take advantage of the opportunities that climate change offers" (NCCAP, 2013, p1). The Action Plan,

which is to be reviewed and updated on a five-year cycle starting in 2013 - in line with Kenya’s Vision

2030 (see below) - is made up of eight sub-components: i) Long-term National Low Carbon

Development Pathway; ii) Enabling Policy and Regulatory Framework; iii) National Adaptation Plan

(NAdP); iv) Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs); v) National Climate Change

Technology Action Plan; vi) National Performance and Benefit Measurement Framework (NPBMF); vii)

Knowledge Management and Capacity Development; and viii) Finance. The Action Plan also aims to

meet Kenya’s international obligations and responsibilities under the UN Framework Convention on

Climate Change (LPAR, 2012).

iii) Vision 2030 and the 2010 Constitution                                                                                                                9 At the time of writing the Authority Bill was in its third reading in the Kenyan Parliament. 10 UK Department for International Development (DFID); Climate and Development Knowledge Network (CDKN); Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA); French Development Agency (AFD); Danish International Development Agency (DANIDA); Africa Adaptation Program (AAP Kenya), which is funded by the Government of Japan through the UNDP; and EU-UNDP Low Emission Capacity Building (LECB).

  16  

The Kenyan government launched its long-term national development blueprint "Vision 2030", in

2008. Vision 2030 aims to "create a globally competitive and prosperous nation with a high quality of

life by 2030, through transforming Kenya into a newly industrialised, middle-income country providing

a high quality of life to all its citizens in clean and secure environment" (GoK, Vision 2030). Vision 2030

is to be implemented in a series of five year national Medium-Term Plans (MTPs) founded on three

pillars - economic, social and political governance. Notably, however, climate change was not explicitly

mentioned in the First MTP 2008-2013. It was only with the development of the NCCRS in 2010 - two

years after the launch of Vision 2030 - that climate change was officially recognised by the government

as a barrier to the country's long-term development. The Strategy proposed climate-proofing solutions

in order to help achieve the Vision 2030 objectives (GoK, NCCRS, p47). Even more significantly, the

subsequent NCCAP, which brings the NCCRS into operation, was officially linked to support the

attainments of the Vision 2030 goals and was synchronised with subsequent MTPs.

The Ministry of Devolution and Planning11 (MDP) published the Second MTP in October 2013.

Entitled, “Transforming Kenya: Pathway To Devolution, Socio-Economic Development, Equity And

National Unity", the Plan covers the period 2013-2017, coinciding with the term of the new Jubilee

Government. It was also developed, and is set to be implemented, under the guidance of the new

Constitution, which as of the March 2013 elections has fundamentally altered the Kenya governance

framework to a devolved structure through the creation of a two-tier government. The new

Constitution moves away from a centralised government, to which provinces, districts and divisions

were answerable, and introduces 47 constitutionally autonomous county governments who have defined

spheres of power and functions as outlined in the Fourth Schedule to the Constitution of Kenya (2010,

p.174). The devolution of functions to counties is central to the Second MTP. These functions include

agriculture, environment, county hospitals and public health, early child education, cooperatives, trade,

transport, county roads, fisheries and livestock. Under the Constitution, each county is also required to

develop a County Integrated Development Plan (CIDP). These five-year development plans should

inform the county's annual budget and reflect the strategic mid-term priorities of the county

governments. They are designed to align to the national MTP framework, with eight key chapters

aligned to different sectors under which there are opportunities to mainstream climate change into each

chapter (TISA). The CIDPs will be crucial for the counties as without them, the counties are unlikely to

be able to utilise the funds that have been allocated to the counties from the national government.

Consequently, a central aim of the Second MTP is to harmonise with the CIDPs to ensure faster delivery

of the development promises of the country as a whole (GoK, MTP II, 2013).

                                                                                                               11 Formally known as Ministry of Planning, National Development and Vision 2030 pre-March 2013 elections. It will be referred to under its new title MDP throughout this thesis.

  17  

As in the case of the First MTP of Vision 2030 and other key legal instruments, the new Kenyan

Constitution also made no clear reference to climate change or how exactly government should respond

to it (LPAR, 2012, p10). Since climate change is not mentioned in the Fourth Schedule as a function of

either the national or the county level of government, article 186(3) of the Constitution by default is

applied which interprets climate change to be a function of national government (ELIF, 2012, p47). It is

likely however that the 47 county governments will be responsible for the implementation of specific

measures that emerge from climate law and policy under the functions devolved to them by the

constitution. These functions, as mentioned, include the implementation of environmental policy, water

services, agriculture, transport and health services and overall county development planning (ELIF,

2012, p47). The NCCAP has therefore been developed with the aim to be implemented in close

alignment with Vision 2030, its future MTPs, and the devolution process. To reflect this recognition of

the importance of climate change and the linking of the NCCAP to the attainment of the country's long-

term development plans, the subsequent MTPs are meant to incorporate CCA measures across all of its

sectors. Since counties will be the main implementers of climate related policies, it will be crucial for

there to be close cooperation between the national and county governments in all aspects of the policy

design, coordination, and implementation of climate change responses. Furthermore, since the

Constitution warrants full and effective public participation and socio-economic rights, this should also

be incorporated into the climate change governance framework and be central to the future Action Plan

process (LPAR, 2012, p11).

iv) The National Adaptation Plan

Specifically with regard to adaptation, which has been recognised as Kenya’s primary response to climate

change (NCCAP, 2013), one of the Kenyan government's main objectives in the NCCAP is to put in

place a long-term National Adaptation Plan (NAdP) (sub-component 3). The aim of the NAdP is to

show the close links between development, adaptive capacity and reducing vulnerability of the country.

The NAdP is to play a central role in addressing the country's vulnerability by mainstreaming CCA

measures into existing and new policies and programmes at national and county level. Corresponding to

the alignment of the NCCAP with Vision 2030, the NAdP should integrate CCA into all relevant new

and existing policies, programmes and activities within all the relevant sectors and at different levels,

through the MTP process (ATAR, 2012, p99). During the period of the field study and writing of this

thesis, the NAdP was still under development following a delay in the drafting process12. Evidence and

recommendations to guide the drafting of the NAdP however, have stemmed from the Adaptation

Technical Analysis Report (ATAR), which has been the most important input to the NAdP. Key to the

                                                                                                               12 Completion now estimated start 2014.

  18  

preparation analysis was how adaptation would be integrated through the medium-term planning

processes by linking a set of proposed priority adaptation actions to each sector of Vision 2030 where an

'adaptation outcome' was proposed for each MTP 'theme' or sector (e.g. agriculture, fishing, livestock;

education and training) to help reach the goals at the end of each MTP five year period. For each theme,

a set of priority actions were identified, which have been referred to as 'resilience pathways' with the

actions aiming to be timely, aid decision-making and build adaptive capacity. The adaptation actions

identified in the ATAR follow the existing structure for delivering development and economic growth in

Kenya as set out in the MTP themes. Through the resilience pathways identified for each theme, the

ATAR focuses on the actions to be undertaken within the next 5 years, from 2013 to 2017 to reach the

'adaptation outcome'. (See Annex 7 for Agriculture pathway). The aim is therefore to synchronise CCA

with the Vision 2030 goals, allowing climate change to be integrated into mainstream development

planning across Kenya (ATAR, 2012, p99). These adaptation actions together with the Second MTP are

designed to inform the drafting of the NAdP which will act as the governance framework of climate

adaptation decision-making and implementation from local to national level.

Part of this process involves the development of County Adaptation Plans (CAPs) by counties

based on the guidance provided by the NadP. The ATAR states that the CAPs will "provide information

on the impacts of climate change in the county, existing adaptation activities to address them, proposed

adaptation activities specific to the county, the location in the specific county, how they will be

implemented, by whom (e.g. county technical ministries, civil society, private sector) where the

financing will come from and how they will be monitored and evaluated" (ATAR, 2012, p7).

Corresponding to the NAdP linking with the Second MTP, the CAPs should synchronise with the CIDPs

to capture climate change and environment issues at the county level. Ultimately, these proposed

interventions aim to respond to Kenya's development needs and climate vulnerability by proposing

actions to build adaptive capacity and resilience through social sectors (NCCAP, 2013, p45).

In order to evaluate the adaptation actions set out in the ATAR, a monitoring and evaluation

(M&E) system for adaptation has been planned as part of the National Performance and Benefit

Measurement Framework (NPBMF) sub-component of the NCCAP. Adaptation M&E is seen as an

essential part of ensuring that the prospective benefits of adaptation interventions aimed at building

adaptive capacities and enhancing resilience are being realised and examples of best practice assist overall

government long-term planning. The proposed method in the NCCAP, is the Tracking Adaptation and

Measuring Development (TAMD)13 which develops indicators that reflect levels of institutional adaptive

capacity (measuring top-down adaptations) and vulnerability (measuring bottom-up adaptations), rather

                                                                                                               13 Developed by the IIED.

  19  

than climate impacts or risks. According to the TAMD methodology, "institutional adaptive capacity is

measured from the top down because effective action to drive institutional change at county level and

below depends on decisions made in the highest levels of government. Vulnerability is measured from

the bottom up because effective action to reduce climate change vulnerability needs to take place at a

local level...vulnerability is spatially very variable, and therefore difficult to address through national

action" (ATAR, 2012, p160). The TAMD is therefore seen as an opportunity to mainstream informed

CCA decision-making in the new county governments through the systematic collection of data on

climate impacts on communities to show if they are adapting, and whether their vulnerabilities are

increasing or decreasing as a result of these impacts. With the information that this system provides,

based on a number of indicators, it is then hoped that this will result in county governments prioritising

community development14 (See Annex 8 for TAMD methodology and list of indicators).

2.3. "Mind the Gaps"

As indicated in section 2.1, a country's vulnerability may be severely impacted and its future

development compromised unless CCA considerations are also factored into all relevant plans, policies

and programmes at all levels of government. Climate change poses an immense threat to Kenya and its

development ambitions. Mainstreaming CCA horizontally and vertically into Kenya's national

development plans, sectoral policies budgets and across governance levels, is integral to helping ensure

that climate change threats are successfully addressed not only now but also over the long-term. Climate

change mainstreaming has been adopted as the key technical approach in the analysis of Kenya's

emerging climate change governance (ELIF, 2012, p51). Combined with a national climate change

policy and legal framework law, the Action Plan would make up a comprehensive approach to

mainstreaming climate change policy horizontally across government. It is hoped that by linking the

horizontally integrated national level Action Plan and eventual climate change policy and law through

mainstreaming, with the priorities and functions of counties, effective vertical integration will also be

achieved (ELIF, 2012 p72).

Accordingly, this thesis examines the main coordination mechanisms or mainstreaming entry

points used by the Government of Kenya at national level to facilitate mainstreaming of CCA at county

level as the new Action Plan is rolled out. Using the theoretical lens of multi-level governance to

understand the institutional and policy linkages between the national and newly devolved county level,

the following chapters will centre around the capacity and coordination challenges faced in how

effectively national level climate change governance plans and strategies (horizontal integration) will

                                                                                                               14 "The Utility of TAMD", Irene Karani, IIED 2013 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbbLUw-LK60&list=PL1iUHL94bWo7sfTCiEdXFEQmIhKBWcXv4&index=2

  20  

effectively vertically integrate CCA mainstreaming at county level. This will help to assess the level of

coordination and possible gaps and bottle-necks that exist between policy-making and actual effective

mainstreaming. It will also ask whether decentralisation in Kenya can lead to more innovation and

experimentation at county level, leading to the local level helping to inform the national level in terms

of providing guidance for future national planning. For the purpose of this particular research, this thesis

has identified three areas where gaps can occur, which have been adapted from Charbit's "coordination

and capacity gaps" approach (2011, p16). These three areas are: Policy and legislative

implementation; Institutional capacity; and Information and awareness. If gaps appear in

these areas, this thesis argues that they present problems both horizontally and vertically in terms of the

effective mainstreaming of climate change adaptation policies at the county level in Kenya.

CHAPTER 3. FINDINGS

This chapter sets out a summary of the results of the research gathered from the relevant national policy

documents and key informant interviews carried out in the field study - the findings of which are

grouped under the main mainstreaming entry points, relating to the stated objectives of this thesis.

Under each objective the findings have been organised by the identified themes of policy and legislative

implementation, institutional capacity and information and awareness (see above).

Objective 1: To assess national level capacity to mainstream climate change adaptation into the county level planning processes through the new NCCAP.

Policy and legislative implementation: Several informants felt that a national climate change

policy and an enabling legislative framework should have been established before the NCCAP was

developed. "While the Action Plan is useful, the problem is that it is ideally a set of very practical steps

but if you don't read the background key reports, then it doesn't really make sense."15 Another

participant said that, "for me, as long as we still don't have a climate change policy and legislation at the

national level, we're just planning" as the government has no obligation to implement the Action Plan.16

It emerged that the progress of the NAdP, which was supposed to be closely linked to the Vision 2030

goals, had been set back severely due to the elections and change in government. Accordingly there had

not been enough time or resources to finish the NAdP on time.17

                                                                                                               15 Consultant on NCCAP Sub-component 2 16 NGO Representative 17 Consultant on NCCAP Sub-component 3

  21  

The strongest element of CCA mainstreaming in the Second MTP 2013-2017 appeared in the newly

included sector "Ending Drought Emergencies". Its thematic working group was chaired and

coordinated by the National Drought Management Authority (NDMA) under the MDP who manage and

coordinate disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation in the ASAL regions. From this it

became clear that the MDP and the NDMA were currently driving the process of CCA mainstreaming.18

Institutional capacity: The issue of the role and capacity of the Climate Change Secretariat (CCS)

and where it should be placed is a real one and came up in several interviews. It appeared that the

current CCS, which has been in charge of the development of the NCCRS and NCCAP, was likely to be

the department to take over this new CCS role, due to its current institutional and technical capacity,

until an enabling regulatory and institutional framework had been established. One participant involved

in the drafting of the NAdP, described the current CCS as "toothless". "They don't have convening

power, they are not given a lot of resources...there was a lot of lobbying during this process that climate

change coordination should be placed in a ministry or institution that has convening power across all

sectors because it (climate change) is multi-sectoral; it's not environmental and should be given the

prominence it needs."19

There was clearly a lack of cooperation between the MDP and MEWNR who had overlapping mandates

when it came to coordinating CCA and according to one informant, linkages between the two ministries

had not been made.20

Again a coordination gap and capacity gap became visible where the CCS failed to coordinate its county

adaptation mainstreaming training with the UNDP who had been mandated by the MDP to carry out

that training for all the counties in their preparation of the CIDPs.

One key informant saw a lot of synergies coming together with the merging of a number of ministries.

This he hoped would also help to avoid duplication, which has been a big problem in the past, especially

at ministerial level.21 This point on duplication was emphasised as a problem by several informants.

It was also apparent that the Kenyan government would be relying on DfID to provide the financing and

technical capacity for mainstreaming and implementing all chapters of the NCCAP across government

through a forthcoming tender for a service provider. DfID would also establish a climate change fund to

allow the counties, NGOs, and private sector to draw money from the fund for climate change in line

with the NCCAP.

                                                                                                               18 UNDP Official 19 Consultant on NCCAP Sub-component 2 20 UNDP Official  21 Government of Kenya Official, Kajiado

  22  

Information and awareness: Despite the NAdP drafting being on hold, it was felt by a Ministry

official that since the broad issues of adaptation had been included in the NCCAP and the fact that this

had been validated and endorsed by the outgoing Cabinet in February 2013 showed "some semblance of

ownership from the government side" which can act as springboard to sell the ideas of the Action Plan to

other stakeholders. Crucial to this would be sensitising more people within the government for “buy-in

with the different sectors."22

One informant believed that on one level there is "clear understanding that it (climate change) is a

priority." This is because "the investments being made in Vision 2030 are huge and the cost of that

would be reversed or undermined if we don't do things right." However, he also indicated that unless

the Ministries have incentives for mainstreaming climate change measures, they would not pay attention

to 'climate proofing' such as road infrastructure.23

There were also strong indications of low awareness across the various government ministries on the

role of the MEWNR and the NCCAP and of the need to mainstream CCA across those ministries.

Objective 2: To evaluate the initial capacity of county level adaptation mainstreaming following the formation of the devolved counties.

Policy and legislative implementation: Under the NCCAP, one of the key actions proposed as

part of the NAdP for mainstreaming climate change into county policy and planning processes was to set

up County Adaptation Plans (CAP). Counties were in the process of preparing CIDPs however and the

proposed CAPs under the NAdP had not been established yet due to the NAdP drafting delay.24

Consequently the NAdP was not able to influence the writing of the CIDPs which would have as one of

the actions in the CIDP a duty to develop a CAP as a separate plan, with each county drawing from the

national documents (Second MTP and NAdP) and coming up with their own plan suited to their own

context and needs.

Institutional capacity: It was clear that the mechanisms and structures were just beginning to be put

in place at county level. The priority of the county governments and leaders was to first put in place the

structures and mechanisms needed to plan policy. The Transition Authority (TA) played a significant

role in the setting up of new structures in the counties and overseeing capacity building in the counties,

by providing them with the technical skills, and human resources to set up institutions. As one informant

explained, under the Transition to Devolved Government Act (2012), the Constitution allows for the

suspension of certain functions, from being transferred to county governments for up to three years such

                                                                                                               22 Government of Kenya Ministry Official 23 Consultant on NCCAP Sub-component 3  24 Consultant on NCCAP Sub-component 3; Government of Kenya Ministry Official

  23  

as key aspects of health care and water services, until it is considered that the county governments have

the capacity to spend the money properly.25

The MEWMR indicated that they were hopeful of setting up a County Climate Change Unit (CCCU) to

facilitate the implementation of mainstreaming at county level. "But it depends on the county

governments because we cannot dictate to them."26

From the interviews it became clear that Isiolo County was the most advanced county in terms of having

the capacity for mainstreaming adaptation measures. Isiolo, an ASAL situated in the north of Kenya and

particularly vulnerable to drought had been earmarked by the Government of Kenya during the

development of the NCCAP, as a pilot for adaptation planning at district and then county level.27 From

earlier viewed drafts it was also clear that Isiolo was advanced in terms of mainstreaming adaptation into

their CIDP, which has benefited from resource mapping and mobilising communities.

Isiolo County: Isiolo has set up a County Adaptation Committee (CAC) made up of five technical ministries, two civil societies, and representation from the ward adaptation committees, which has led to the drafting of the first CAP. It is also benefiting from the Climate Adaptation Fund28 (CAF) which has allowed the county to advance far more than it's counterparts where the various stakeholders - the technical ministries, civil societies, representatives from ward committees as well as businesses, NGOs and the private sector are coming together to prioritise their interventions on climate change action. Communities in the five pilot wards can suggest proposals to the fund through their ward-level committee. The CAC at the county level then assesses these proposals. The fund addresses local development needs and vulnerabilities by ensuring that local planning integrates actions for climate adaptation based upon the knowledge of local people and planners. It emerged that the communities in Isiolo are even at the stage of talking to the county government saying that they are benefiting from this CAF and asking the government whether they can adapt their CIDPs to include this fund. Since county governments are under pressure to get funds, from inside and outside, the CAF can act as a win-win. This CAF is also allowing the county to innovate with climate change such as using a market approach to link up with different sectors such as energy and water services, in order to use local public goods for adaptation. Isiolo is also at the stage of looking at local contractors to implement this.

It was evident from speaking to informants involved in work at the counties that their work would be

aided due to the decentralisation of decision-making under the new Constitution. A Government of

Kenya representative in Kajiado County felt that issues could now be addressed faster due to devolved

funds and structures. "In the past you had to take your budget to Nairobi. Now we have our budget

here, you discuss with the governor's team." It has also increased capacity at county level. "Our

department have been here before but our capacity was very small with one person on the ground."29

However, it was also very apparent that some counties, such as Kajiado, still had a lot of work to do in

terms of building capacity (see overleaf).

                                                                                                               25 Consultant on NCCAP Sub-component 2 26 Government of Kenya Ministry Official 27 Consultant on NCCAP Sub-component 3  28 Set up by the Government of Kenya, and funded by DfiD and facilitated by IIED 29Government of Kenya Official, Kajiado

  24  

Kajiado County: Kajiado County located in the Rift Valley, borders Nairobi in the north and Tanzania in the south and its administrative headquarters - the town of Kajiado - lies in the heart of the Maasai land. Kajiado County is categorised as a Semi-Arid land covering a huge sparsely populated rural area made up of predominantly pastoralists. Despite the freshly painted signs pointing to the Governor's office (Annex 9), local county officers felt they were still working as "Olkejiado County Council" employees and they explained to me that the old structures had hardly changed.30 It was very apparent that Kajiado was still at the extremely early stage of operationalising the new counties and staff were still trying to come to terms with the changes. At that stage they had not yet started developing the CIDPs and felt they were behind in training. As one county officer said "we're so busy with restructuring institutions that it will take until June 2014 at the start of the next financial year for the CIDPs to be up an running"31.

There was consensus that devolution would help avoid duplication, which has been a problem at local

government in the past before the county governments were formed. For example duplication occurred

where districts did not know what NGOs were doing. The relief NGOs were cited as being a big

problem as they were driven by different motives such as donors and short time periods before leaving

again. This heightened vulnerability and a dependency syndrome.32 Therefore the pilot in Isiolo will help

to ensure that the ward level can implement adaptation actions and monitor themselves.

Information and awareness: It was felt in general that many officials still had to be sensitised to the

importance of adaptation mainstreaming at county level for institutional capacity to become operational.

One key informant explained that it was crucial to sensitise the planning officers in charge of the CIDPs

"so that they understand that climate change is not about planting trees but that it needs to be

mainstreamed."33

In relation to the political will to mainstreaming climate change at county level, the view emerged that

in general, governors were not taking climate change seriously and were mostly concerned with getting

higher salaries for themselves and not their county. In addition to this they are fighting with the TA who

are refusing to hand over further functions as they feel that the counties are not yet ready for them. "The

Governors are becoming the second most hated politicians after the MPs."34

There was also concern that, while efforts were on-going to promote adaptation through the NCCAP,

the governors would be carrying out other activities, which would be causing the opposite effect,

leading to maladaptation. "Climate change is not on their minds at all. They are not thinking. They are

not thinking long-term or planning... However, I think these are teething issues. Once people see the

                                                                                                               30 County officer, environment department, Kajiado 31 County officer, planning department, Kajiado 32 Consultant on NCCAP Sub-component 3 33 National CSO Representative 34 Consultant on NCCAP Sub-component 3

  25  

realities of how difficult it is to run a county, they will be bogged down with the work you have to do. If

you don't, you will be voted out in five years time."35

One participant pointed out that mainstreaming went beyond appointing a county level minister for

climate change and required sensitising ministers to the need to integrate climate change into the finance

and economic portfolios. "What mainstreaming does is that it allows us to determine further in advance

what type of investments are necessary. If you do not know what investments you need to make, that

means you can't put into the budgeting and planning cycle, which means you can't source the funds

which ends up with consistently dealing with the problems through contingency plans - which leads to

reactive adaptation responses." 36

With regard to measuring the level of institutional adaptive capacity, it turned out that Isiolo County

was partaking in the NCCAP monitoring and evaluation pilot with the aim that once counties become

more firmly established, the government and its partners will assist the counties to come up with

institutional adaptive capacity indicators to integrate into their individual County Adaptation Plans. This

will then measure the effectiveness of national initiatives to build institutional adaptive capacity at the

county level.

Objective 3: To consider how the local level will inform county and national measures for successful long-term integration of adaptation measures into national planning processes.

Policy and legislative implementation: It was felt that the counties have a central role in driving

mainstreaming of adaptation forward for the whole country. As one informant said, "The most critical

thing is how do we connect the national policy with the county policy? This has to be done by

strengthening the policy framework at the county level as policies at national level are going to be driven

by what countries feel is a priority - it's no longer going to be top-down. It's going to be bottom-up

because now counties are driving the agenda. If counties have a clear agenda, they stand a better chance

to influence the national policy."37

He also pointed out that it would be crucial for the counties to be continually informing the national

level as they mainstream climate change processes through the MTP. What will be key therefore is how

the Action Plan will be interpreted into the county context so that they fit into, for example, the

Turkana context, or Wajir context. Another informant believed that there was no reason for the county

government to take the NCCAP and implement their own adaptation legislation and policies through,

                                                                                                               35 NGO Representative 36 National Civil Society Organisation (CSO) Representative 37 NGO Representative

  26  

for example, installing early warning systems. "These types of policies do not cost much but are actions

that people can relate to and are quick-wins."38

Institutional capacity: Organisational and institutional changes meant it was important to ensure that

the national government still takes responsibility for the on-going process of CCA at the county level. In

the long run, however, one informant believed that in the next five to ten years and beyond, the county

governments are going to be very powerful. "So the logic is, how do you intervene in the short run so

you don't lose out on the foundations - and here we are talking about policy because county policies have

to be right from the word go but within the first five years, we can influence the policy at county level,

but in terms of resources, financial and even infrastructural resources, we still have to lobby the national

government." 39

Also emphasised was the role of civil society to help build the capacity of county governments. For

example, one CSO consortium are developing a county level civil society network in seven counties in

order to form a strong voice to engage with the county government and national government on climate

change issues that affect the local communities. As of now, it was explained that the county

governments, who are not a pool of experts, will be making policies and legislating so "civil society have

the capacity to influence the county governments at the early stage because the government is in

need."40

The success of Isiolo will hopefully be used as an example for other counties. The government

consultant involved in working with Isiolo, said that it was important for them to become a success as it

has implications for other similar counties.41

Information and awareness: Knowing the role of the communities, government, and civil society

and how they can come together in order for the community to be strengthened to absorb or live with

climatic stresses was seen as crucial. There was a good awareness of the importance of harnessing

indigenous local knowledge on addressing climate related disasters inherent within their own

community systems. One informant said that "It might not be documented anywhere so we need to pick

the best practices from different communities so that we can document them and see how well they can

be shared with the communities for them to survive in a changing climate."42

The head of a Government of Kenya department in Kajiado believed that the national level is looking for

examples from the local level on ways to adapt because the impact is really felt at the local level due to

                                                                                                               38 Consultant on NCCAP Sub-component 2    39 NGO Representative 40 NGO Representative 41 Consultant on NCCAP Sub-component 3 42 Government of Kenya Ministry Official

  27  

their vulnerability.43 With regard to priorities and main tasks that Kajiado had to tackle, he felt that it

was very important to initiate a number of stakeholder forums at the village levels in order to build

awareness among communities on climate change issues and to help them to develop home-made

solutions. This would then also inform relevant governmental policies for livestock, agriculture and

technology so that the pastoralist communities get help to adapt.

A former Maasai pastoralist leading a CSO consortium in Kajiado, explained that pastoralists understand

that there is a change in the climate as they observe the changes in the rainfall patterns and increase in

severity of the drought. But he also said that they do not know why things are changing and do not like to

talk about it. With regard to his particular livelihoods programme, they were carrying out small,

localised awareness-raising projects but he felt these were too small to have an effect or impact on the

whole county. One example of a visible adaptation strategy they were using, was to reduce the number

of livestock so as to avoid overgrazing so that they can manage the land and can afford to buy hay or grass

for the livestock in order to at least ensure that not too many of the animals die. "Not many people think

about conserving the environment - charcoal cutting... sand harvesting, which make dry river beds, and

not having adequate water that people can take in the dry period... that is something the government has

failed to check... it's no longer Maasai land..." He did however remain hopeful that when the county

government settles, his programme would try to sell the idea of land conservation to protect land from

increased urbanisation.44

It emerged that a formal mechanism will be established to record these examples at both county and

national level. "We are already developing a national climate change resources centre inside the Kenyan

Meteorological Department which we think will be a centre for excellence for sharing knowledge and

information related to climate change and responding to issues and questions raised by different

stakeholders at community level."45 The Government of Kenya official believed that this would also act

as the centre where the best practice examples from different communities could be shared across the

board to benefit other communities.

CHAPTER 4. DISCUSSION

Having now laid out the central findings of this research, this chapter centres on a discussion of the gaps

and challenges, emerging from the results, that may act as a barrier to integrating climate change

adaptation measures into the newly devolved county structures in Kenya. Adapting Charbit's "capacity

                                                                                                               43 Government of Kenya Official, Kajiado  44 Head of a livelihoods' CSO, Kajiado 45 Government of Kenya Ministry Official

  28  

and coordination gaps" approach, this discussion examines the policy and legislative gaps, institutional

capacity gaps and the information and awareness gaps that currently exist as identified in the previous

section. Chapter Five will then explore what potential solutions may exist to bridge these gaps so as to

ensure better implementation of CCA at the county level

1) Policy and Legislative Gap

With the development of the National Climate Change Response Strategy and the subsequent Action

Plan, climate change governance has become a matter of high-level focus for the Kenyan government

due to its increasing vulnerability and exposure to the threat that climate impacts pose on the country's

development objectives. The National Climate Change Action Plan 2013-2017 represents the

foundations of a governance framework critically recognising that the country's vulnerability can only be

reduced if its adaptive capacity is improved. Through the official linking of the NCCAP to Kenya's

Vision 2030 development path there is awareness of the importance of integrating adaptation into long-

term development planning and improving policies and institutional mechanisms to build the adaptive

capacity of the country at all levels throughout Kenyan society.

A core component of the NCCAP, and key to mainstreaming adaptation measures across

government is the proposed National Adaptation Plan. The actions and recommendations set out in the

Adaptation Technical Analysis Report for the NAdP aim to turn adaptive capacity into tangible

adaptation through targeted actions. From the interviews, it emerged however, that the drafting of

NAdP by the MEWNR had been delayed due to a lack of financial resources and the need for a different

skill set to complete the drafting. While it was hoped that the NAdP would be synchronised with the

publication of the Second Medium Term Plan in order to link the adaptation actions of each sector to

Vision 2030, the delay in the NAdP drafting has meant that the adaptation actions, as laid out in each

Resilience Pathway of the ATAR, for each sector have not up been fully integrated into the Second

MTP. To show an example of the proposed planned timelines provided in the ATAR, the Agriculture

Resilience Pathway (see Annex 7) states that within six months of NCCAP endorsement (March 2013),

the immediate next steps will be:

1) MoA (Ministry of Agriculture) to do final review and approve post-validation Agriculture ATAR adaptation actions; 2) MoA to meet with NAdP coordinating body to agree approach for delivering Agriculture ATAR actions; 3) MoA to meet with Ministry of Planning MTP review to agree integration of Agriculture adaptation activities in MTP 2013-2017; 4) MoA to identify key stakeholders and commence delivery of actions in partnership. (Adaptation Pathway factsheet for Agriculture theme Priority, ATAR, 2012, p131)

  29  

As we have seen from the NCCAP's adaptation technical report and from the interviews, the original

aim was for the National Adaptation Plan 2013-201746 to be completed before the second medium term

plan was finalised and in time for county planners to start drafting their CIDPs. This postponement in

the NAdP has had consequences for developing and mainstreaming targeted actions and priorities into

the County Adaptation Plans (CAP). According to the ATAR, county stakeholders were to develop

adaptation actions based on guidance from the NAdP which would: "provide information on the impacts

of climate change in the county, existing adaptation activities to address them, proposed adaptation

activities specific to the county, the location in the specific county, how they will be implemented, and

by whom (e.g. county technical ministries, civil society, private sector where the financing will come

from and how they will be monitored and evaluated" (p7). These would be based on counties' specific

vulnerabilities as related to climate risks in each county. The CAPs would also include a strong element

of bottom-up actions following the appraisal and selection of appropriate community based adaptation

projects for up scaling into the county plans. The actions within the CAPs were then meant to link with

the Second MTP by harmonising with the CIDPs, thus fully capturing climate change and environment

issues at the county level. These would also incorporate the lessons learned from the county adaptation

planning work being undertaken by other stakeholders such as the NDMA, local NGOs and CSOs.

Consequently, the failure to horizontally mainstream CCA into the national development plan and

finalise the NAdP, has had consequences for vertically integrating adaptation measures systematically

into county planning processes.

While the NAdP has not yet been linked to the Second MTP, there were not enough data

available to identify, whether there will be the opportunity for the ATAR adaptation actions to be still

integrated into the individual government ministry five-year strategic plans, to guide implementation

and budgeting for the MTP 2013-2017 at a later date, or whether the next steps of the MEWNR to

coordinate the mainstreaming of the adaptation actions highlighted above, would have to wait for the

NAdP to be completed.

What is clear however is that the delay in the NAdP and subsequent CAPs has resulted in a

missed opportunity to link the five year CIDP planning process and investments with concrete, targeted

adaptation measures to build adaptive capacity and reduce community vulnerability. During the time of

writing, the counties were busy consulting on and drafting their CIDPs so it was also not possible to

examine to what extent CCA measures had been integrated into the plans.

                                                                                                               46 The ATAR has been organised to allow the government to prioritise adaptation actions in different subsectors so that they can be integrated into the next MTPs, sector strategic plans and budgets and future adaptation actions are recommended to follow future MTP plan cycles: 2018-2022, 2023- 2027, etc. This time period is also consistent with the next term for the new Government of Kenya and thus is synchronised with political cycles (ATAR 2012, p99).

  30  

This has also revealed a horizontal policy gap between the MEWNR and the MDP. While the

ATAR-proposed actions had not been integrated into the Second MTP, what did emerge from the

findings was a whole new MTP sector, which had been created during the planning for the Second MTP,

called "Ending Drought Emergencies" (EDE). As one key informant explained, "This is where all the

CCA activities have been".47 This sector was chaired by the National Drought Management Authority

under the MDP, in 2012 at the same time as the ATAR adaptation actions were being consulted on and

compiled together for the other sectors, by the CCS. The Ending Drought Emergencies sector however

was not included as one of the ATAR resilient pathway sectors. What is most striking from these

findings is the lack of coordination between the two ministries; since the Ending Drought Emergencies

sector, emerged not as part of the delivery of the NCCAP coordination process driven by the CCS

within the MEWNR, but through a separate stream of advocacy by the NDMA, who sits under the

MDP. While there was agreement in the drafting of the Second MTP that climate change should be

mainstreamed across all the sectors and that there should be cross-sectoral collaboration, the Second

MTP only mentions the need to implement the NCCAP on one single occasion, under the

"Environment, Water and Sanitation" sector chapter of the Plan (MTP II, 2013, p86).

Accordingly, the strongest element of integrated CCA actions in the Second MTP, was found in

the Ending Drought Emergencies sector which, while is supposed to be applied cross-sectorally, reflects

the importance attached to reducing the risk of droughts in the ASALs (Arid and Semi-Arid Lands). This

sector covers 80 per cent of the territory of Kenya but does not cover adaptation actions for the non-

ASALs that makes up 80 per cent of the population and includes the economically and highly populated

and exposed urban areas of the capital city of Nairobi, the coastal city of Mombasa where coastal

flooding is a significant threat due to its low-lying nature, and the counties around the Great Lake region

in the west of the country. Therefore, it appears from the analysis, that at least for the moment, the

focus on CCA measures to respond to Kenya's development needs and climate vulnerability remains

largely focused on reducing the risk of drought; that is until/if the CCS have coordinated with the

relevant ministry of each sector, as well as the MDP, to post-validate the proposed ATAR adaptation

actions for each sector as either an addendum into the Second MTP or into the subsequent MTP.

2) Institutional Capacity Gap

The overall success of adaptation to climate change in Kenya, will depend on the extent to which

impacts are felt on the ground and how well local adaptive capacity is enhanced and supported by county

institutional structures which can effectively implement adaptation measures cross-sectorally. The role

of the county institutions and building their capacities is therefore critical for successfully adapting to

                                                                                                               47 Consultant on NCCAP Sub-component 3

  31  

climate change. It was clear from the interviews and the author's own observations that the county level

is still very dependent on the national authorities, who maintain an influential role in building capacity at

the county level. This was obvious from the omnipresence of the Transition Authority (TA), which has

been mandated by the MDP to coordinate the transition to the devolved system of government. As

climate change response falls under concurrent jurisdiction between the national government - who have

the competence to make climate change policy - and the county governments who implement the policy

- the need to enhance cooperative government and harmonise national capacity down to the county level

is very important.

From the interviews and observations made in Kajiado County, the focus was still very much on

getting structures in place and merging the resources, functions and jurisdiction between the national

sectoral agencies and the former district local government administrations. The county plans form the

basis for all budgeting and spending in a county and the Transition Authority was mandated to

coordinate and facilitate the preparation of the initial budget for the counties and coordinate assistance

on the CIDP for at least the first year. Therefore county governments will be limited in fully

implementing their CIDPs until they are believed to have the institutional capacity to set in place their

own budgets and economic plan. In addition, since the counties will be grappling in-between learning

the new governing principles and putting in place their governance structures, there will be limited

resources for county governments to actually focus on implementing any adaptation measures, which

will remain under the control of the national sectoral agencies and departments until they feel counties

are able to take full control.

In turn, this will impact on long term adaptation-planning, as one informant observed, the

actions taken in five to ten years time will be as a result of the priorities that are set now by the county

governments. Another interviewee believed that the CIDPs would be a good way to show the Transition

Authority, what the counties are capable of since the governors and their governments will be keen to

take ownership of the withheld functions before the three years, since they realise that they will be the

one who will be held accountable and not the TA, when they are up for re-election in five years.

This delay in the finalisation of the NAdP is also unfortunate as it was to be used as guidance to

build institutional capacity and to assist local actors in carrying out adaptation actions using

mainstreaming as the technical approach based on their needs and circumstances. From the ATAR, we

can see that the proposed NAdP seems to try to avoid many of the criticisms that the NAPAs of the Least

Developed Countries have incurred.

Mirroring the processes involved in developing the Second MTP and the CIDPs, the driving

force on building capacity in governmental structures on adaptation actions also currently lies with the

MDP and the NDMA. This is exemplified by the capacity building training at national and county level

  32  

on adaptation mainstreaming. Under the request of the MDP, the United Nations Development

Programme (UNDP) trained national planners in the preparation of the Ending Drought Emergencies

sector for the Second MTP, and then carried out capacity-building workshops with all the county

planners on mainstreaming disaster risk reduction and CCA into all the CIDPs. They also provided the

training for the NDMA desk officers from the 23 ASAL counties, as the NDMA are responsible for the

coordination and implementation of mainstreaming CCA actions in the ASAL counties. The lack of

capacity or influence by the MEWNR was highlighted in its failure to coordinate with the MDP and

UNDP to merge their own CCA training with the MDP's mainstreaming training into county

development planning. This resulted in the MEWNR still having to schedule their technical training on

mainstreaming CCA at county level. It also suggests that many counties will not have been trained on

the precise proposals within NCCAP and the need to mainstream CCA into their county plans.

Furthermore, this highlighted the strong feeling, which was also mentioned in the interviews,

that “turf-mentalities” - or rivalry existed between the ministries and that this would be reflected once

the national agency functions were fully devolved into the county level administrations. One informant

affirmed that the MEWNR had not yet established close linkages with the MDP. It was also suggested

that the merging of 47 ministries down to 18 ministries has compounded this problem. While merging

ministries has the aim to streamline the departments and avoid duplication, it can also lead to excessive

preoccupation with internal issues where ministries are focused on restructuring their own departments

and not on the quick establishment of linkages between ministries. It can also lead to increasing the

competition between the different sectors and agencies within each ministry.

There seems to be a large question mark at national level in regard to who will ultimately take

responsibility to ensure that CCA is mainstreamed comprehensively and coherently throughout the

counties. The NCCAP recommends that the CCS under the MEWNR will have the responsibility for

coordinating mainstreaming CCA across the ministries at national level as well as into county planning

processes. From the interview findings it was established that there was still a great deal of dispute about

under which authority the CCS and NCCC (National Climate Change Council) should go. The overall

feeling was that the NCCC, which would have the mandate to provide the overall guidance and

oversight across all levels of coordination and ensure mainstreaming by all the government departments

across all levels of government, should be placed under the Office of the President as this would have

the executive authority and provide the commitment to initiate concrete institutional reform.

The belief that climate change had to be unpacked from the MEWNR and put under a position

of authority with convening power was very clear. Several informants believed that if the current CCS

remained under the MEWNR, the other ministries would simply ignore any reform proposals. The

MEWNR under which the current CCS is sitting was described as being weak and lacking in resources

  33  

and would lack the legitimacy and authority necessary to inject adaptation objectives into the decision-

making of other ministries and into the county level. One informant however felt that the CCS which is

responsible for oversight of the Action Plan implementation, proposing climate change legislation and

national compliance, should remain under the MEWNR as this was the Ministry with the technical

capacity to carry out these functions.

The current recommendations however still leave the possibility of overlapping or duplication

of functions between the two ministries - the NDMA under the MDP on one hand, and the CCS (under

the MEWNR) on the other. This could possibly result in the duplication of effort with a CCS-led

County Climate Change Unit and an NDMA unit both trying to coordinate adaptation-planning

processes in the 23 ASAL counties and the CCS also coordinating adaptation mainstreaming in the 24

non-ASAL counties. Despite the publication of the NCCAP, currently the mandate to drive the NCCAP

forward remains under the CCS, which is also responsible for overseeing mainstreaming CCA into the

county structures. The MDP however is holding all the cards in terms of building capacity at the county

level and is at the centre of driving the development process of the country. Not least since the MDP are

the ministry that coordinates the TA who is responsible for building the capacity at county level. The

establishment of a high-level climate authority, placed under the Office of the President would iron out

the existing coordination and capacity issues that appear to lie between the MDP and the MEWNR. This

underlines the earlier observation by Mazwemuse, that climate change must be linked to other key

sectors of the economy and not seen as only an environmental issue. Until a coherent institutional

structure and legislative framework is set up clarifying roles and functions, there is likely to be little

change.

One final capacity issue that emerged in the interviews was that the Government of Kenya were

waiting on DfID to provide the financing and technical capacity to the MEWNR for mainstreaming and

implementing all chapters of the NCCAP (which was in the pipeline at the time of writing). This will be

essential to realising the completion of the NAdP and having it implemented at county level. DfID were

also planning to establish a national climate change fund to allow the counties, NGOs and private sector

to draw money from the fund for climate change matters which aligned with the NCCAP. While this

reliance on external donors might be viewed by some as a limitation, DfiD have been heavily involved in

the development of the NCCAP from the start, ensuring ownership by the Government of Kenya, as

well as providing the financing and technical capacity for the pilot studies, which focus on building

sustainable local adaptive capacity. Early indications were that they have targets to have four further

County Adaptation Funds, such as the one piloted in Isiolo, rolled out to other counties, by 2014/15

and have at least four more counties reflecting climate change mainstreaming in their budgets and CIDPs

by 2015.

  34  

3) Information and Awareness Gap

The fact that the level of understanding of mainstreaming CCA was very different between the county

planners highlighted the need to build awareness and share information across all the relevant

stakeholders at national and county level. In order to achieve the actions that are set out in the Action

Plan it will be necessary to build awareness of the importance of adaptation to climate change so that

counties can access the resources that will be trickling down from the national level. Building awareness

and capacity and ensuring that the county planners and different sectors are involved in the process is

crucial to have the capacity to advocate on policy development. This will be especially needed if climate

change policy formulation is seated at the national authority level as well as budgets being controlled at

national level by the Transition Authority in the immediate short term. Since the NAdP has not yet been

integrated at county level it will also be crucial to build awareness within the county governments'

structures in order for the counties to be able to translate the national level plans and future policy, into

county plans that relate specifically to their own needs. Translating mainstreaming adaptation measures

from national plans into county planning mechanisms will only be effective if the county cabinet and

county civil servants have the knowledge and capacity to be able to inform that process.

The role of civil society will play an important role in bridging this gap. In Kenya, civil society is

known to be a strong 'agent of change' through improving public awareness and advocating on climate

change issues. Since the NCCAP is not yet fully integrated at county level, mainstreaming climate

change and making investments targeted on climate actions is likely to take some time especially given

competing short term needs and a lack of capacity in key ministries and other key actors to assess

adaptation requirements. Therefore, the core capacities of county actors will need to be strengthened in

the areas of climate forecasting and scenario planning. This is where local level CSOs can play a crucial

role through sharing the knowledge they have collected on local climate change impacts and their

knowledge of local adaptation mechanisms. CSOs have both the knowledge and now the opportunity to

help to influence, and to build the capacity, of the county governments.

An important measure of this advocacy will be to ensure that county governors and the county

cabinets are aware of the need to integrate CCA into the different sectors. As Oulu asserts, "political

will is considered the sine qua non, or “electricity”, of adaptation mainstreaming" (2011). Under a high-

level political authority, such as the governor, counties will be able to determine and prioritise what

investments are needed, which enables them to integrate the measures into the county planning cycles

allowing for anticipatory adaptation and not reactive adaptation. This political will or interest in

earmarking climate change does not appear to be currently present, according to one key informant, and

the worry of maladaptation was highlighted, which as we have already seen in the literature, is widely

seen as a threat to long-term development goals.

  35  

Another advantage of building awareness at county level rather than at national level is that the

county level processes work faster than the national level because the county is more unified and more

aware of the specific local needs and vulnerabilities of their own county. Consequently if CSOs can

assist the counties to "run faster than the national government" this will also put pressure on the national

government to listen and catch up and harmonise their work with the counties. Therefore, it can be

argued that counties can actually lead from the front and the national level can learn from the counties

since the counties are far more aware than the national level of what their specific needs are.

4. "Mind the Gaps"

Due to the constitutional functions conferred on county governments for implementation of climate

related measures e.g. environmental policy, water services, agriculture and health services, close

cooperation between the national government and county governments in the designing and

implementing of climate response strategies will be vital. Devolution presents a huge opportunity by

bringing government closer to those most affected and bridging the gap between the top-down policy

operations by national government and allowing a bottom-up flow of information where communities

can more easily inform their local counties of their specific needs. This will then lead to rooting national

level responses in local conditions. Devolution avoids the 'one size fits all' method by setting adaptation

issues that are appropriate to the affected local level instead of standardised top-down national actions

that are so common. Subsequently multi-level governance and the multi-directional interactions

between the emerging national climate change governance framework, in the shape of the NCCAP, and

the newly decentralised government system in Kenya is central to successfully coordinating adaptation

measures which will bring effective adaptation policies to reduce overall vulnerability throughout

society. These local policies, will need to be supported by appropriate national level strategies and legal

frameworks. Adaptation strategies require coordination at both horizontal and vertical levels and the

multi-level governance approach indicates the need for top-down and bottom-up coordination and

integration of adaptation measures to ensure a comprehensive overall governance framework in Kenya.

From the policy analysis and the interviews this thesis argues that while a comprehensive and

wide-ranging Action Plan had been introduced, what is still very obviously missing is an enabling policy

and legislative framework in order to translate the identified priorities as set out in the NCCAP into

tangible climate change measures to guide the integration of CCA into broader development goals,

sectors and at different levels as well as coordinate the different sectors. While there is a strategic plan in

place in the shape of the NCCAP, for effective adaptation measures to be integrated at county level,

without the implementation of an overarching climate policy and legal framework, the plan, while

ambitious and broad of scope, will remain just a plan. This is mainly because it will be difficult for the

  36  

Kenyan government to set the policies, legal requirements, high level prioritisation, and coordination

mechanisms needed to successfully mainstream climate change horizontally across government functions

and vertically down to the county level. For example, counties had already started their budgets for the

first year and had started drawing up their mid-term development priorities through the CIDPs, which

would inform the budget for the counties over the next five years. Without any policy-setting backed up

by legal obligations there will be less urgency or political commitment to integrate long-term climate

policies of which the results may well only be seen in several years to come and certainly beyond one

political-term in office. Without the legislation and policy framework the adaptation actions in the

ATAR and subsequent NAdP, once finalised, will remain only proposals and will lack the necessary

incentives and obligations that are needed to implement them at county level.

The current lack of coordination, as obvious between the MDP and MEWNR, also poses a

serious threat for not only effectively mainstreaming climate change horizontally across the ministries

but also vertically through their sectoral agencies down to the county level. As a result, in addition to

building a policy and legislative framework, comprehensive institutional reform will be instrumental to

bridge the current capacity and coordination gap and reduce the counties' dependence on the national

level, that is currently evident. An overarching institutional framework would then provide the

mechanisms to coordinate and mainstream climate change response across national and county levels,

which under the direction of a high-level authority, would avoid the danger of a policy vacuum, as

previously described by Charbit. It will clarify roles and functions, avoid policy interdependence,

overlapping mandates and duplication, and improve the overall institutional capacity of those institutions

that are involved in climate related functions.

The Enabling Policy and Regulatory Framework sub-component in the NCCAP recognises the

importance for this institutional framework and makes recommendations for this to be established as

soon as possible. Key to these recommendations is the reform of the current CCS and the establishment

of a NCCC. If given the right political backing and resources, these bodies will be crucial for leading the

institutional reform to provide the technical capacity and coordination needed to carry out

mainstreaming and ensure the smooth coordination and collaboration between the national and county

level.

Beyond having a comprehensive governance framework in place, the effective mainstreaming of

adaptation through the NCCAP will depend on feedback and monitoring and evaluation of the targeted

adaptation actions. The NCCAP's proposed national performance-based framework component aims to

measure how the county is benefiting from national adaptation initiatives. These top-down indicators

measure the effectiveness of national initiatives to build institutional capacity at the county level, and

vice versa, bottom-up indicators will help to evaluate how the measures at county level are helping

  37  

reduce the vulnerability of the country as a whole. While the top-down adaptive capacity indicators and

the bottom-up vulnerability indicators were still at the very early stage of development (one pilot was

on-going in Isiolo) these indicators could prove to be an effective way to evaluate the success of

mainstreaming CCA at county level in Kenya. Applying this knowledge will help to inform the national

level in terms of providing guidance for future national planning. The proposed adaptation tracking and

measuring system in the NCCAP appears to be an effective and tangible way to anchor mainstreaming at

county level, especially if, as hoped, the indicators will extend beyond the county level, right down to

the local government (ward) level once the political structures are more stable. If successful, the pilots

which are about to be rolled out in some counties, such as Isiolo County, will then be able to be taken

up by other counties and replicated and up-scaled. This system then allows for a clear linkage with the

NPBMF, which has been designed with TAMD in mind, allowing for the collection of indicators that

measure vulnerability and development at the grass root level, to feed into the national level reporting

systems. Furthermore, the evaluations would assist in spreading awareness of climate change impacts

throughout the counties and help to capture the co-dependency and reliance that exists between the two

different levels of government.

We can see that almost all the necessary ingredients are there for the government to create a

recipe for successful adaptation to climate change over the long-term. For now, however, the NCCAP

lacks a long-term and overarching institutional and legislative framework to bind everything together

and effectively coordinate and implement the adaptation proposals and bridge the existing gaps.

MEWNR are driving the NCCAP process at the moment, but without full governmental buy-in or

support from the highest level, backed up by legislative obligations for all sectors to operationalise the

Action Plan, the actions to increase the adaptive capacity of the country will remain on the shelf. When

asked if he felt the government are on the right track with the NCCAP, the Maasai pastoralist told me:

"We don't know...plans have always been there...if all those plans were properly implemented we

would be much better off than we are."

CHAPTER 5. CONCLUSION - BRIDGING THE GAPS

This research has attempted to give a snap shot of the complex and fast-paced developments that the

Kenyan government is undertaking to improve its capacity to adapt and reduce the vulnerability of

Kenya to current and future climate impacts. Firstly, this thesis has provided an overview of the

concepts behind adaptation mainstreaming which provide the context necessary to relate to the

development and roll out of the key national level governmental entry-points - the NCCAP, Vision

2030 and the Constitution of Kenya - at national level, for mainstreaming CCA into the new county

  38  

structures. Mainstreaming CCA horizontally across the multiple sectors, and vertically between the

national level and county level takes climate change out of its environmental packaging and turns it into

an issue which must be dealt with by all areas of government. If proposals are harmoniously integrated

horizontally at national level, this will make the vertical and horizontal integration at county level far

easier. Using multi-level governance as the conceptual lens in order to understand the multi-directional

and complex institutional and policy relationships between the national and newly devolved county level

in Kenya, the findings and discussion centred around a "coordination and capacity gaps" approach in

order to identify the obstacles to effective mainstreaming of climate change at the county levels. This

conclusion now looks at what action is necessary in order to overcome the identified gaps within the

new governance structures.

Creating a climate change policy and legislative framework

From the findings of this research, applying the proposed adaptation measures from the national level to

the realities of day-to-day politics is likely to remain challenging for some time to come. The results

clearly show that a national policy and legislative framework for adaptation actions must be

implemented sooner rather than later in order for these mainstreaming actions to be effective in the

long-term at county level. As we have already witnessed with the drafting of the NAdP, delays in the

implementation process can lead to lost opportunities to incorporate the necessary changes at the crucial

early stages and these issues will have to be addressed quickly by the MEWNR in order for the NCCAP

to gain any traction across the sectors and between the national and county level.

Improve Institutional Capacity

This thesis has also identified that improving the institutional capacity will be critical for future

successful mainstreaming at county level. The current reliance on the national level and lack of capacity

at county level reinforces the need for guidance and legislation from a central and high-level authority on

climate change issues. Policy guidance from the national level will remain critical while the county

administrative structures take time to be built as county actors get to grips with the new governance

system and put their structures and institutions in place. As this research has identified, restructuring at

county level will take time however, which this thesis shows, underlines the need to ensure that

adaptation measures are integrated as early as possible. Adaptation should become part of the status quo

as county policy. Improved coordination at national level and between the key ministries will be vital to

achieve this as well as to avoid duplication. The implementation of an institutional framework however

will be the key mechanism to activate actual change.

Heighten information and awareness on CCA

Raising awareness on the need to integrate adaptation measures into these new planning processes will

be crucial in the county public sector. At present, it remains to be seen whether there is the political will

  39  

and resources necessary at both national and county level to accelerate mainstreaming of climate change

into the county structures. Local communities will have an important role to play here, with a wealth of

knowledge to help build awareness and inform the county and national level governments on how to

reduce vulnerability of the county. The decentralisation of decision-making should facilitate the

upscaling of local knowledge and the ongoing pilot projects in Isiolo County show great potential to

drive forward momentum into other counties. With devolution still extremely new to Kenya, the

change of mind-set to the new processes will take time, as has been widely commented on in the Kenyan

media (Annex 10).

Bridging the Gaps

Successfully mainstreaming climate change adaptation at the county level will ultimately require vastly

improved co-ordination between the different governmental levels, through strategies and development

plans, annual budgets and legal frameworks such as the NCCAP, MTPs and the CIDPs. As Charbit

noted, these mechanisms will help to bridge many of the barriers and gaps, which have been identified in

this research. Some of these mechanisms are already in place or partially in place but overall this thesis

has shown that a great deal of work still remains to be done. By linking the NCCAP to the long-term

development strategy of Vision 2030 to harness adaptive capacity, the Kenyan government has taken the

vital first steps required to meet the needs of those who struggle to adapt to climate change while

attempting to ensure that the country's long-term development is not impeded by climate change.

Implementing these measures in a timely fashion into the county level planning processes will become

the foundation for the long-term sustainable development of the country as a whole, while taking into

account the geographical and climatic variabilities that exist across Kenya.

This thesis has sought to show that the launch of the NCCAP coinciding with the creation of 47

autonomous counties has the potential to be a defining moment for Kenya in the battle with climate

change. Indeed it may be the window of opportunity for Kenya to do this through mainstreaming climate

change measures into the county government structures and if successful, could set an example to its

African neighbours. Mainstreaming climate change adaptation will be a long and iterative process,

especially at the new county level. The effective implementation of the factors identified above will be

critical for the Action Plan's measures to be sustainable and successful in the long-term and most

importantly, to have a lasting impact for those in Kenya who are most vulnerable to climate change.

 

  40  

REFERENCES

Adelle, C, Russel, D (2013). Climate Policy Integration: A case of déjà-vû? Environmental Policy and Governance Env. Pol. Gov. 23, 1–12 (2013) Published online in Wiley Online Library

Adger, W.N., (2001) Scales of governance and environmental justice for adaptation and mitigation of climate change. Journal of International Development, 13(7), pp.921–931. Available at: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/jid.833

Adger, W. N, Arnell, N.W. & Tompkins, E.L., (2005) Successful adaptation to climate change across scales. Global Environmental Change, 15(2), pp.77–86. Available at: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0959378004000901

Agrawal, A. (2008) The Role of Local Institutions in Adaptation to Climate Change. Paper prepared for the Social Dimensions of Climate Change, Social Development Department, The World Bank, Washington DC, March 5-6,

Brooks, N., Neil Adger, W. & Mick Kelly, P., (2005) The determinants of vulnerability and adaptive capacity at the national level and the implications for adaptation. Global Environmental Change, 15(2), pp.151–163. Available at: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0959378004000913

Brooks N., Anderson S., Ayers J., Burton I. & Tellam, I., (2011) Tracking Adaptation and Measuring Development, IIED Climate Change Working Paper Available at http://pubs.iied.org/pdfs/10031IIED.pdf?

Burton, I. et al., (2002) From impacts assessment to adaptation priorities: the shaping of adaptation policy. Climate Policy, 2(2), pp.145–159. Available at: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.3763/cpol.2002.0217.

Charbit, C., (2011) Governance of Public Policies in Decentralised Contexts: The Multi-level Approach”, OECD Regional Development Working Papers, 2011/04, OECD Publishing

Cole, Daniel H., (2007) "Climate Change, Adaptation, and Development" Faculty Publications. Paper 386. Available at: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/facpub/386

Corfee-Morlot, J., Kamal-Chaoui, L., Donovan, M.G., Cochran, I., Robert, A., and Teasdale, P-J., (2009) Cities, Climate Change and Multilevel Governance, OECD Environmental Working Papers N° 14, 2009, OECD publishing

Downing, T., L. Ringius, M., Hulme, D., Waughray (1997) ‘Adapting to Climate Change in Africa’, Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 2 (1) 19-44.

Eriksen, S. E. H., Klein, R.J.T., Ulsrud, K., Næss, L.O., O’Brien, K., (2007) Climate Change Adaptation and Poverty Reduction: Key interactions and critical measures Report prepared for the Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation (Norad) Government of Kenya (2010) The Constitution of Kenya. Published by the National Council for Law Reporting with the Author Government of Kenya/MEMR (2010) National Climate Change Response Strategy. Nairobi, Kenya

  41  

Available at: http://cdkn.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/National-Climate-Change-Response-Strategy_April-2010.pdf Government of Kenya/MEMR (2012) Draft National Environmental Policy Bill , 2012 Revised draft no. 5 http://www.environment.go.ke/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/National-Environment-Policy-06-07-12-Clean.pdf Government of Kenya/IDLO (2012) NCCAP Legal Preparedness Assessment Report (LPAR) Available at: http://www.kccap.info/index.php?option=com_phocadownload&view=category&download=308:legal-preparedness-assessment-report&id=39:enabling-policy-and-regulatory-framework Government of Kenya/IDLO (2012) NCCAP Enabling Legislative and Institutional Framework for Climate Change Response in Kenya (ELIF) http://www.kccap.info/index.php?option=com_phocadownload&view=category&download=309:legislative-and-institutional-framework-report&id=39:enabling-policy-and-regulatory-framework Government of Kenya/LTSi/Acclimatise (2012) NCCAP Adaptation Technical Analysis Report (ATAR) for the Government of Kenya Available at: http://www.kccap.info/index.php?option=com_phocadownload&view=category&download=146:nccap-adaptation-technical-analysis-report-atar&id=30:adaptation-analysis Government of Kenya/MEMR (2013) National Climate Change Action Plan 2013-2017, Nairobi, Kenya Available at: http://www.kccap.info/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=31 Government of Kenya/Presidency/MDP (2013) "Second Medium Term Plan 2013-2017 (MTP II) Transforming Kenya, Pathway to Devolution, Socio-economic development, Equity and National Unity". Available at: http://www.vision2030.go.ke/cms/vds/Second_Medium_Term_Plan_2013_-_20171.pdf Government of Kenya Vision 2030 webpage: http://www.vision2030.go.ke/index.php/vision

Green, D., (2012) From Poverty to Power: How active Citizens and Effective States Can Change the World, 2nd ed. Rugby, UK, Practical Action Publishing and Oxford: Oxfam International

Habtezion, Z, Chapter 4 Adaptation policies in Africa Challenges and opportunities in the application of tools and methods on climate change in Mwebaza, R. & Kotze, L.J,.2009. Environmental governance and climate change in Africa, Monograph, 167 November Available at http://www.issafrica.org/uploads/M167Full.pdf

Huq, S., Rahman, A., Konate, M., (2003). Mainstreaming Adaptation to Climate Change in Least Developed Countries (LDCS). Nottingham, UK, International Institute for Environment and Development.

Huq, S. and Ayers, J., (2008) Taking Steps: Mainstreaming National Adaptation, IIED Briefing Papers, November 2008 Available at: http://pubs.iied.org/17040IIED.html IDS (2006) Overcoming the barriers: Mainstreaming climate change adaptation in developing countries Climate Change and Disasters Group Institute of Development Studies

  42  

IPCC (2001) Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability, Contribution of Working Group II to the Third Assessment Report (AR3) of the IPCC Available at: http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg2/pdf/wg2TARchap18.pdf IPCC (2007) Climate Change 2007 – Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability, Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) of the IPCC Available at: Available at: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg2/ar4_wg2_full_report.pdf IPCC (2007) Climate Change 2007 – Mitigation of Climate Change, Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC Available at: http://www.ipcc-wg3.de/assessment-reports/fourth-assessment-report/working-group-iii-fourth-assessment-report

Justice, S., (2012) Final Report on Institutional Capacity Needs and Entry Points for Mainstreaming Climate Change Adaptation into Development Planning in Tanzania.

Madzwamuse, M. (2010) A Synthesis Report, Climate Governance in Africa: Adaptation Strategies and Instiutions, Henirich Boll Stiftung

Mickwitz, P. et al., (2009) Climate policy integration as a necessity for an efficient climate policy. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 6(58), p.582017. Available at: http://stacks.iop.org/1755-1315/6/i=58/a=582017?key=crossref.fc766f9de71a656ff643b6c74d1ba2f5

Mutimba, S. and Wanyoike, R.(2013) Towards a Coherent and Cost Effective Policy Response to Climate Change in Kenya, A Country Report, Heinrich Boell Stiftung. Prepared by Camco Advisory Services (K) Limited. Nairobi, Kenya

OECD (2002) Governance for Sustainable Development: 5 Case Studies. OECD Publications. Paris, France.

OECD (2006) Policy Brief: Putting Climate Change in the Development Mainstream Available at: www.oecd.org/dataoecd/57/55/36324726.pdf

Oulu, M.O. (2011) Mainstreaming climate adaptation in Kenya, Climate Law, 2, pp.375–394.

Schilling, J, and Remling, E. (2011) Local Adaptation and National Climate Change Policy in Kenya: Discrepancies, Options and the Ways Forward. Klimawandel und Sicherheit Working Paper

Smit, B. & Wandel, J., (2006) Adaptation, adaptive capacity and vulnerability. Global Environmental Change, 16(3), pp.282–292. Available at: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0959378006000410 [Accessed September 16, 2013].

Smith, J.B. and Klein, R. J.T., (2003) Enhancing the Capacity of Developing Countries to Adapt to Climate Change: A Policy Relevant Research Agenda in "Climate Change, Adaptive Capacity and Development" Smith , J.B., Klein , R.J. T., Huq , S (eds) Imperial College Press , 1 Jan 2003 Available at: http://edoc.gfz potsdam.de/pik/get/2067/0/227fffafb95b10d217811721e3dd5326/2067.pdf

The Institute for Social Accountability (TISA)  What You Need to Know About the

  43  

County Integrated Development Plan (CIDP) Available at http://www.tisa.or.ke/uploads/What-You-Need-to-Know-About-the-County-Integrated-Development-Plan.pdf

UNDP-UNEP (2011). Mainstreaming Climate Change Adaptation into Development Planning: A Guide for Practitioners, Nairobi, Kenya. Available at: http://www.unep.org/pdf/mainstreaming-cc-adaptation-web.pdf Front photo: Rain over the Ngong Hills, Kenya Back photo: Dust road, Kajiado, Kenya © Elfreda Whitty

  44  

ANNEXES Annex 1: Map of Kenya

Source: http://findkenya.com/tag/kenya-counties/ (Map provincial boundaries are pre-2013 change)

  45  

Annex 2: Future climate projections forecast for Kenya

Future temperature trends

[GCMs (Global Climate Models) are global-scale climate models that apply a series of equations based on established laws of physics and chemistry to the earth’s atmosphere and oceans. GCMs are useful to project trends in primary climate drivers such as temperature and precipitation and other proxy climate change trends, such as sea level rise or the frequency of tropical storms. (ATAR, 2012, p27 ]

30

2.5 Future Temperature Trends

GCM1 data indicates that the following trends are considered likely for temperature in Kenya.3 Statistics quoted are for an A1B (medium) emissions scenario, relative to the baseline period 1961-1990, unless otherwise stated (see Information box 1 for more details):

• Mean annual temperature is projected to increase by between 0.8 and 1.5°C by the 2030s and 1.6°C to 2.7°C by the 2060s.

• An increase is projected in the frequency of hot days and hot nights. Projections indicate that hot days could occur on 19-45% of days by the 2060s and 26-69% of days by the 2090s. Hot nights are projected to increase more quickly, occurring on 45-75% of nights by mid-century and 64-93% of nights by the end of the century.

• Projections suggest a decrease in the number of days and nights that are considered ‘cold’ in the current climate. Cold days and nights are expected to become very rare. Under emissions scenarios A2 and A1B, GCM projections suggest that there will be no cold days or nights by the 2090s.

Figure 2. provides a visualisation of the trend that GCMs have suggested for increased temperatures for Kenya.4 Here the size of the pixels indicates the degree of agreement over the magnitude of the increase. There is good model agreement of temperature increases of up to 3°C by 2100.

Figure 2.8. Temperature change for Africa by 2100 (from the 1960-1990 baseline) averaged over 21 CMIP3 models (A1B scenario).4

1 The GCMs are a sub-set of 15 from the 22 member ensemble used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) for the fourth Assessment report, published in 2007. For further details on these models, and results of their evaluation, see Randall et al. (2007)

  46  

Future precipitation trends

Source: Adaptation Technical Analysis Report (2012) p30-32

31

2.6 Future Precipitation Trends

GCM2 data indicates that the following trends may be seen for rainfall in Kenya.3 The following statistics are for an A1B (medium) emissions scenario unless otherwise stated (see Information box 1 for more details).

• GCMs suggest that there may be increases in average annual rainfall in Kenya by the 2060s. However there is considerable model disagreement with a range of projections varying from a 5% decrease to a 17% increase by the 2030s and no change to a 26% increase by 2060s.

• The increase in total rainfall is projected to be largest from October to December (-6 mm to +29 mm per month by 2030s and 0mm to 30 mm by the 2060s) and proportional changes largest in January and February (-14 % to +50 % by 2030s and -6 % to +60 % by the 2060s). Again, the broad span of projections indicates high levels of model disagreement.

• The GCMs suggest with greater confidence (on the basis of good model agreement) that the proportion of annual rainfall that occurs in heavy events will increase. The range of increase varies from 2 to 11% by the 2060s and 2 to 12% by the end of the century.

• There is also relatively good model agreement that 1 and 5-day rainfall annual maxima will increase. The range of predicted increase for 5-day events is between 2 to 19mm by the 2060s and 2mm to 24mm by the end of the century.

• Figure 2. provides a visualisation of the trend that GCMs have suggested for increased precipitation for Kenya. Here the size of the pixels indicates the degree of agreement over the magnitude of the increase. It shows that there is relatively strong model agreement that precipitation will increase over Kenya.

2 The GCMs are a sub set of 15 from the 22 member ensemble used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) for the Fourth Assessment report, published in 2007. For further details on these models, and results of their evaluation, see Randall et al. (2007)

!

"#!

!

!!"#$%&' ()*)' +&%,&-./#&' ,0/-#&' "-' 1%&,"1"./."2-' 32%' 43%",/' 56' (788' 93%2:' 7*;8<7**8' 5/=&>"-&?'

/@&%/#&A'2@&%'(7'BCD+E':2A&>=)'F0&'="G&'23'.0&'1"H&>='"-A",/.&='.0&'A&#%&&'23'/#%&&:&-.'2@&%'.0&'

:/#-".$A&'23'.0&'"-,%&/=&)I'

()J'K2L-=,/>"-#'MBC='

$%&'(!)%(!*(+,'-)&,.!,/!012+!%3+!&45*,6(7!+&8.&/&93.)':!,6(*!)&4(;!5*(7&9)&.8!',93'!,*!(6(.!*(8&,.3'!9'&43)(!)*(.7+!*(43&.+!7&//&9-')<!1'&43)(!9%3.8(!&4539)+!3*(!',93'':!+5(9&/&9!3.7!93.!63*:! 7*343)&93'':! ,6(*! *('3)&6(':! +43''! 3*(3+=! )%(! 73)3! *(+,'-)&,.! )%(! 9-**(.)!012+! &+! ),,!9,3*+(! ),! 5*(7&9)! 9'&43)(! &4539)+! 3)! )%(! ',93'! +93'(<!>,?.+93'&.8! &+! 3! 5*,9(++!?%(*(!012!,-)5-)!*(+,'-)&,.!&+!&.9*(3+(7<!

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

I)3)&+)&93'! 7,?.+93'&.8! &+! A3+(7! ,.! 7(6(',5&.8! 3!43)%(43)&93'! *('3)&,.+%&5! A()?((.!012!,-)5-)+!3.7!,A+(*6(7!)&4(!+(*&(+!,/!5*(9&5&)3)&,.;!)(45(*3)-*(!3.7!,)%(*!9'&43)(!63*&3A'(+<!G)! &+!4-9%! ',?(*!9,+)!A-)! *(J-&*(+!%&8%!J-3'&):!,A+(*6(7!9'&43)(!73)3!3)! )%(! ',93'! +93'(<! G.!377&)&,.;!-.9(*)3&.)&(+!5*(+(.)!&.!)%(!012+!3*(!'&K(':!),!A(!438.&/&(7!?%(.!355'&(7!),!+43''!3*(3+<!!

!

  47  

Annex 3: The 47 Counties of Kenya

Source:  http://gabriellubale.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/47-Counties-Of-Kenya.jpg

  48  

Annex 4: List of key informants Key Informant 1: Consultant on NCCAP Sub-component 3 (National Adaptation Plan), Nairobi Key Informant 2: Consultant on NCCAP Sub-component 2 (Enabling Policy and Regulatory Framework), Nairobi Key Informant 3: National Civil Society Organisation (CSO) Representative, Nairobi Key Informant 4: UNDP Official, Nairobi Key Informant 5: Government of Kenya Ministry Official, Nairobi Key Informant 6: NGO Representative, Nairobi Key Informant 7: Government of Kenya Official, Kajiado Key Informant 8: County Officer, planning department, Kajiado Key Informant 9: Kajiado County Officer, environment department, Kajiado Key Informant 10: Head of a livelihoods' CSO, Kajiado

  49  

Annex 5: Key informant consent form

Key Informant Consent Form

• I have read and understood the information sheet provided about this study, and/or the

interviewer explained to me the purpose of the research.

• I understand that my participation in this interview is voluntary.

• I have the right to not answer any question I don’t like or to stop the interview and withdraw

my answers, at any stage of the interview, without having to explain why.

• I understand that what I say will be kept confidential by the researchers and will only be

used for research purposes. My name will not be used in any research reports and nothing

will be published that might identify me.

• I understand that if I have any further questions I can contact one of the researchers listed

on the information sheet

• I agree to the interview being audio recorded YES / NO

• I agree to some of my comments or statements being quoted in the report, provided that I

cannot be identified YES / NO

• I would like to receive an edited copy of my interview transcript YES / NO

• I would like to receive a summary of the key findings from this study YES / NO

• If you would like a copy of interview transcript and/or a summary of the key findings,

please record your address below.

___________________________________________________________________

Declaration:

I, ____________________________________________ agree to be interviewed for this evaluation.

Signed: _____________________________(Participant) Date: ___/___/___

Signed: _____________________________(Researcher) Date: ___/___/___

  50  

Annex 6: Horizontal and vertical climate policy integration

Source: Mickwitz, P. et al., (2009) Climate policy integration as a necessity for an efficient climate policy. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 6(58) http://stacks.iop.org/1755-1315/6/i=58/a=582017?key=crossref.fc766f9de71a656ff643b6c74d1ba2f5

!"!"#$%&'()*"#+,(-.&'/0%&#*.1(!*2'0'.+'(%.3(4*5'0.%.+'

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

!"#$%&'()!*+%",+-./0'/-1'2&%."3/0'30"4/.&'5+0"36'"-.&#%/."+-'!"#$%&'$()!*(!+,-!.//0+1!2*3($%+,!45,$%6!$7(*83+($57!9+6!5%%:3!'$(;$7<!+=!'*,,!+=!>*('**7<!,*?*,=!"$-*-!7+($57+,!=(+(*<!=(+(*<!3*8$57<!,5%+,1-!

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

  51  

Annex 7: ATAR Agriculture Resilience Pathway and factsheet

130

Economic Pillar/ Agriculture, Livestock and Fishing/ Agriculture – Pathway and Factsheet

Figure 8.13. Resilience pathway for Agriculture theme

  52  

Source: ATAR, 2012, p130-131

131

Table 8.16. Adaptation actions factsheet for Agriculture theme

Priority adaptation actions for Agriculture Factsheet reference number: SC3_1.1

Action summary The production of food crops, industrial crops and horticultural products is a key component of the Kenyan economy, supporting small-scale subsistence farmers, contributing to food security and delivering foreign exchange earnings. The agricultural sector, however, is very climate sensitive and is negatively affected by current climate variability (e.g. drought, flooding, erratic and intense rainfall), leading to reduced productivity and insecure livelihoods. Negative impacts are also projected under future climate scenarios for many parts of the county, while some agricultural areas and products are projected to improve. While action is already being taken to build resilience by government, Kenyan farmers and other stakeholders (see NAdP database, County Consultation outputs), livelihoods are still being negatively affected. More action and support is therefore required to achieve Kenya’s development goals, build a resilient sector and take advantage of climatic opportunities where they arise. A range of potential actions have been identified for the Agriculture theme over the next 5 years, and are detailed in the adaptation action ‘long lists’ presented in Appendix 2. Priority actions proposed for GoK to roll out and support the desired adaptation outcome for 2017 are presented in the Agriculture resilience pathway (Figure 8.13). Further information on this factsheet relates to priority adaptation actions specifically. Areas of relevance GoK planning sector: 1.1 Agriculture (crop-related) MTP theme: Economic pillar: Agriculture, livestock and fishing. Geographic region: National For all actions: Adaptation ! Development ! For some actions: Mitigation ! Ecosystem-based ! Current status Many autonomous and planned adaptation activities are already underway across Kenya, at national and community level. Lead Agency to take actions forward At the national government level, the Ministry of Agriculture (MoA) is requested to lead on delivering sectoral actions. Stakeholder support required to take actions forward A range of supporting actors are required to deliver the various priority Agriculture adaptation actions. These include national level cross-ministerial organisations (i.e. the Agricultural Sector Coordination Unit), other line Ministries (e.g. Ministry of Development of Northern Kenya & Arid Lands, Ministry of Cooperative Development & Marketing, Ministry of Higher Education, Science & Technology, Ministry of Special Programmes, Ministry of Trade, Ministry of Regional Development Authorities), others government bodies (e.g. the Agricultural Finance Corporation, the Kenya Agricultural Research Institute), the private sector, NGOs, CSOs and communities. Specific stakeholders should be identified for each individual action. Indicative timeframe Launch timeframe: short-term, within next 5 years (the 2013-2017 MTP period). Duration of the actions: short, medium and long term; annual and 5-year reviews should be conducted to monitor success of existing projects, ensure improvements where necessary and agree priorities for next 5 year period. Quick win opportunity for many priority actions ! Cost associated with the Actions in Kenyan Shillings Indicative cost (NCCRS, 2010): Ksh 10.6 billion.5 This estimate does not cover all priority actions in this sector. It is therefore likely that actual costs will be higher. A full sectoral appraisal of Investment & Financial Flows is required. Immediate next steps (within 6 months of KCCAP endorsement) (1) MoA to do final review and approve post-validation Agriculture ATAR adaptation actions; (2) MoA to meet with NAdP coordinating body (see SC2 output) to agree approach for delivering Agriculture ATAR actions; (3) MoA to meet with Ministry of Planning MTP review and T21 teams to agree integration of Agriculture adaptation activities in MTP 2013-2017; (4) MoA to identify key stakeholders and commence delivery of actions in partnership.

5 Ibid

  53  

Annex 8: Tracking Adaptation and Development Methodology (TAMD)

6. Brooks N., Anderson S., Ayers J., Burton I. & Tellam I. (2011)

159

vulnerability within specific risk contexts (e.g. vulnerability to food insecurity in the face of increasing drought among rural populations).

9.5 Methodology used for developing adaptation indicators6 The Tracking Adaptation and Measuring Development (TAMD)7 approach was used by SC6 to develop the adaptation indicators. It was developed by the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED) and has been piloted with DFID and other projects in a number of countries with some success. The TAMD methodology describes the development of indicators that reflect vulnerability and institutional (adaptive) capacity, rather than climate impacts or risk (see Figure 9.1). By doing this, measurement of adaptation actions focuses on the development end of the adaptation continuum. The institutional adaptive capacity indicators are referred to as top-down indicators and the vulnerability indicators bottom-up indicators. In the following sections elaborate what this means and how the indicators have been identified. Figure 9.1 Methodology used for identifying indicators (based on IIED)

Explanation: The width of triangle indicates the number of indicators required. Process-based indicators dominate at the widest part of the triangles, outcome-based at the apex.

9.6 Top-down indicator development

The top-down indicators focus on measuring the progress towards increasing institutional adaptive capacity by government institutions from the top (national level), down to the county level. In time, it is hoped that the indicators will extend (down) to the local government (ward) level, but that undertaking was considered too ambitious for this project, given the political uncertainties surrounding county government and the depth of local knowledge required for their development.

  54  

Selected county level institutional adaptive capacity (top-down) indicators

Selected county level vulnerability (bottom-up) indicators

Source: ATAR 2012, p160-163

162

9.8 Indicator definition

Clear, precise and considered wording for each indicator is crucial for three reasons:

• Any ambiguity in the meaning of an indicator or in its interpretation renders the indicator worthless;

• The wording determines the value of an indicator for measuring adaptation performance: an indicator that is defined in general terms (such as “number of people with access to drinking water”) is a much less useful measure of adaptation than one that makes a link to climate or climate change or its associated impact (such as “number of people with access to drinking water during drought”);

• The wording also determines the data collection requirements: the additional burdens placed on the M&E staff of the GoK need to be moderate otherwise the indicator will not be measured.

Indicators also need to be placed in the context of an M&E framework, so that they can be properly interpreted and used to evaluate progress. To provide this context, SC6 designed an indicator data sheet template (see Table 9.1). The indicator data sheet was completed for the indicators proposed.

• The relative importance of the adaptation actions underpinning the indicator. For example, a climate resilient road network was considered particularly important because of its importance to the movement of agricultural produce to market and to the movement of tourists to key destinations.

• The measurability of the indicator. Those indicators that could be measured using few data sets and for which data are or could easily be accessible were favoured over those that did not have these characteristics.

Table 9.1 Selected county level institutional adaptive capacity (top-down) indicators

Ref. no. Proposed county level indicator

T.2 % of county roads that have been made "climate resilient" or that are not considered to be vulnerable [2,3,4,5,6]

T.3 % of new hydroelectric projects in the county that have been designed to cope with climate change risk [7,8,9,10,11]

T.5 % of population in areas subject to flooding and/ or drought in the county who have access to KMD information on rainfall forecasts [12,13,14,15,16,20]

T.8 % of people in the county permanently displaced from their homes as a result of flood, drought or sea-level rise [21,22,23]

T.12 % of poor farmers and fishermen in the county with access to credit facilities or grants [31]

T.13 % of total livestock numbers killed by drought in the county [32,33,41]

T.16 % of area of natural terrestrial ecosystems in the county that have been disturbed or damaged [43,44,46]

T.19 Ratio of water demand to supply in the county [23,44,48,56]

T.21 % of poor people (by gender) in drought prone areas in the county with access to reliable and safe water supplies [23,44,50,56]

T.28 Number of ministries at county level that have received training for relevant staff on the costs and benefits of adaptation, including valuation of ecoysystem

163

services 62,63]

The numbers in [square brackets] are the reference numbers for national level indicators to which these county level indicators relate.

9.9 Bottom-up Vulnerability Indicators

The indicators in the county level list reflect vulnerabilities that relate to climate impacts experienced across Kenya. Nevertheless, they are generic. Not all indicators will be relevant to all counties. Furthermore, it may not be possible to implement the necessary actions to reduce vulnerability. A shortlist of the county level indicators has been produced, however a prioritisation of these indicators is not possible until county governments have been established and relevant adaptation actions financed. The final selection was based on an assessment that considered the following criteria:

• The relative importance of the vulnerability indicator. For example, the number of people made permanently homeless due to climate events was considered particularly important because these people tend to end up in living conditions that are often life threatening.

• The measurability of the indicator. Those indicators that could be measured using few data sets and for which data are easily be accessible were favoured over those that did not have these characteristics.

The list of indicators in Table 9.2 includes reference to recent climate trends (which were flagged in the county consultations) that are covered by each indicator. Not all the climate trends identified are observed in all counties, so this information will be helpful for selection of relevant indicators at county level.

Table 9.2 Selected county level vulnerability (bottom-up) indicators

Ref. no. Proposed national level indicators RVD HRF SLR HF

B.1 Number of people made permanently homeless due to drought, flood or sea level rise [1,4,10,13,14,18,45,46,47] Y Y Y

B.4 ha of productive land lost to soil erosion [4,6,7,12,17]

Y

B.7* % rural households with access to water from a

protected source [19,20,22] Y

B.8* % urban/ rural households with access to piped water [19,20,22] Y

B.9* Cubic meters per capita of water storage [18,19,20,22] Y

B.11* % of land area covered by forest [18,19,20,23,24,25] Y Y

B.17* % of classified roads maintained and rehabilitated

[33,34,35] Y

B.18* Number of urban slums with physical and social infrastructure installed annually [21,30,36,37] Y Y

B.25* Number households in need of food aid [1,4,10,13,14,18,45,46,47,54,55] Y Y Y

B.27 Number of County Stakeholder Fora held on climate change [58,59,60,61,62] Y Y Y Y

  55  

Annex 9: Old and new signs in Kajiado County administrative headquarters

  56  

Annex 10: "Devolving the Mind"

Source: Gado (June 2013) http://gadocartoons.com/the-only-county-devolution-has-not-happened-yet

  57  

  58