MDMA_Thesis_2013_Elfreda Whitty

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)

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

Objective 3 ...................................................................................................................... 25

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

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

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
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

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
26
Government of Kenya Ministry Official
27

28
Set up by the Government of Kenya, and funded by DfiD and facilitated by IIED
29
Government 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
33
National CSO Representative
34

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

MDMA_Thesis_2013_Elfreda Whitty

MDMA_Thesis_2013_Elfreda Whitty

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (10)

Similar to MDMA_Thesis_2013_Elfreda Whitty

Similar to MDMA_Thesis_2013_Elfreda Whitty (20)

MDMA_Thesis_2013_Elfreda Whitty