The document summarizes the results of a capacity assessment conducted in Kenya to identify gaps and develop a capacity development plan to strengthen institutions in addressing agriculture in national adaptation plans. The assessment evaluated 6 key institutions and found weaknesses in knowledge generation and sharing, partner engagement, and implementation abilities. Priority areas for capacity building included improving the enabling environment for knowledge and implementation, as well as individual capacities. A capacity development process is underway with stakeholder meetings to identify support areas and resource mobilization efforts.

1. Effective individual and institutional capacity development
approaches to address the agriculture sectors in NAPs
Case Study of Kenya
Zipora Otieno (National Coordinator)

2. Outline of presentation
Introduction and Background
Objectives of the assessment
Scope of the Assignment
Approach and Methodology
Assessment Results
Capacity Development Process
Lessons/challenges

3. Introduction & Background
• Capacity Assessment was commissioned by the FAO and
UNDP Kenya representations under the auspices of the NAP-
Ag project.
• Project implemented in 11 countries-Africa, Asia and Africa.
• Kenya is part of the NAP-Ag programme.
• Four outcomes are envisaged in the programme.
a. Strengthened technical and institutional capacity on NAPs
b. Integrated roadmaps for NAPs developed
c. Evidence-based results for NAPs improved
d. Advocacy and knowledge-sharing on NAPs promoted

4. Objective of the Assessment
• To identify key capacity gaps (technical and functional) in key
MDAs and assess the degree to which they are aligned to
deliver on their mandate, and
• To develop a Capacity Development Plan that can be
implemented during and after the life of the project

5. Scope of the Assessment
• Collecting and analyzing information from previous capacity
assessments;
• Assessing current roles, responsibilities and capacities of the
institutions for climate change adaptation planning;
• Identifying the capacity gaps, both individual/ technical and
institutional;
• Based on the gaps, identify opportunities and entry points for
strengthening the institutions as well as capacities of technical
staff in the climate change related units/departments;
• Develop a Capacity Development Plan for each institution
assessed.

6. Institutions Assessed
i. Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries
ii. Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources
iii. Ministry of Devolution and Planning
iv. Ministry of Water and Irrigation
v. National Drought Management Authority
vi. The National Treasury-NDA for the Green Climate Fund in
Kenya

7. Approach and Methodology
Phase 1: Literature
Review.
• Literature review: Review of
Strategic Plans for the parent
Ministry, relevant policies
and Acts.
• lnitial Contacts: Attendance
of launch of the NAP, made
initial contacts and
appointments.
• Review of the NAP and
Climate Change Act.
• Develop questionnaire.
Phase 2: Face to face
Interviews.
• Circulate Questionnares to
each Climate Change Unit.
• Face to face meeting with
Climate Change Unit staff,
presentation of background
to the assignment,
elaboration of methodology,
and guidance on how to fill
the questionnaire.
• Open discussion on the key
issues, challenges and
opportunities for capacity
development
Phase 3: Self
assessment using
questionnaires.
• Reflection by key staff and
self assessment using the
questionnaire (each was
given two days for this).
• Data compilation and
analysis of the returned
questionnaires for each MDA
CC Unit.
• Preparation of capacity
assessment report for each
MDA CC Unit.
• Capacity Development Plans

8. Approach and Methodology
The Approach was informed by two Frameworks, namely:
 The UNDP Capacity Needs Assessment Framework (CNAF)
and
 The World Resources Institute’s (WRI) National Adaptive
Capacity (NAC) Framework .

9. Approach and Methodology
• Four Functional Capacities were defined for the assessment:
 Policy and Normative Capacity - (What are the capacity
strengths for policy formulation and implementation?)
 Knowledge Management Capacity - (What capacity exists to
generate, share and adapt relevant knowledge?)
 Partnering Capacity - (What capacity exists to engage
Partners, actors and stakeholders?)
 Implementing Capacity – (What capacity exists to implement,
monitor and evaluate relevant projects/programmes).

10. Approach and Methodology
• Each of these functional capacities were assessed in
three dimensions:
Enabling Environment,
The Organization,
Individual Capacity.

11. Assessment Results for State Dept. of Agric
Score on a scale of 1-5 (1=Very Low; 2=Low 3= Moderate
4=High 5 = Full Capacity)

12. Summary Analysis: Capacity Assessment for
State Dept. of Agriculture
Action: Enhance Resilience in the Agriculture Value Chain SCORE
Score on a scale of 1-5 (1=Very Low; 2=Low 3= Moderate 4=High 5 = Full
Capacity) Short Term
KNOWLEDGE CAPACITY (What capacity exists to generate, share and
adapt relevant knowledge)
Dimension 1: Enabling Environment 1.3
Dimension 2: The Organization 2.5
Dimension 3: Individual Capacity 1.5
PARTNERING CAPACITY (Capacity to engage actors, partners, and
stakeholders).
Dimension 1: Enabling Environment 2.8
Dimension 2: The Organization 3.1
Dimension 3: Individual Capacity 1.6
CAPACITY TO IMPLEMENT (Capacity to implement and evaluate relevant
programmes)
Dimension 1: Enabling Environment 1.3
Dimension 2: The Organization 2.5
Dimension 3: Individual Capacity 2.4

13. Summary for priority Capacity
Development
Priority Capacity Development
Focus. Current Level
Knowledge : Enabling
Environment 1.3
Knowledge : Individual Capacity
1.5
Partnering: Individual Capacity
1.6
Implementation: Enabling
Environment 1.3
Implementation: Individual
Capacity 2.4

14. Qualitative Assessment
• Typically involved face to face interviews with the
CCU teams.
• Staff were encouraged to provide additional
qualitative information when providing responses to
the questionnaires. These were summarized to show
the existing strengths, weaknesses and prioritized
needs.

15. Capacity Development Process
• Already underway
• Primary stakeholders meeting held in early January
2017 to identify potential areas of support under the
NAP-Ag project.
• To this end, four areas of support have been
identified and incorporated in 2017 workplan.
• Resource mobilization for a broader capacity
development programme underway (GCF NAP
Readiness funding window).
• Resource-mobilization led by Govt and FAO

16. Lessons Learnt
• Policies, Strategies and Action Plans to facilitate climate
change adaptation planning exist. The main challenge lies in
implementation.
• Knowledge generation is not a problem. Main challenge lies in
packaging the information to different end-users and/or duty
bearers.
• The assessment offers a great opportunity to incorporate the
priority actions in the NAPs.
• “Silo” approach to adaptation planning and implementation
within the agric sub-sectors (weak partnering capacities)

17. Challenges
• Only a few countries have done capacity assessments for
climate change adaptation planning-most assessors are either
good at conventional institutional capacity assessments or
climate change adaptation implementation. Finding an
assessor with a blend of expertise was difficult.

18. THANK YOU