2
AUTHORS
Winnie Khaemba
Raghu Vyas
Inga Menke
CONTRIBUTORS OR REVIEWERS
Down2Earth Policy development Team
Abebe Tadege
Mustafe Elmi
Teun Shrieks
Michael Singer
Ann van Loom
Burcu Yesil
Mark Tebboth
Roger Few
Toby Pitts
CITATION AND ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This publication can be reproduced in whole or in part for educational or non-profit
services without the need for special permission from the Down2Earth Project,
provided acknowledgment and/or proper referencing of the source is made.
This publication may not be resold or used for any commercial purpose without prior
written permission from the Down2Earth Project.
We regret any errors or omissions that may have been unwittingly made.
This document may be cited as:
Climate Analytics. 2022. Policy Analysis Report, Down2Earth Project
Supported by:
We would like to thank the EU H2020 for providing the funding for this work
Contract number: 869550
3
1. Executive Summary
Ethiopia, Kenya and Somalia continue to be faced with climate change impacts especially
drought and floods that have increased in both frequency and intensity over the past few
years. IPCC projections show that this trend will continue as global warming persists. Impacts
from such changes include worsening water and food insecurity in a region that is mostly arid
and semi-arid. In cognizance of these challenges the countries in the region have put in place
policies on climate adaptation, water and food security at both national and subnational level.
This report presents findings from an analysis of over 60 such policies in all three countries at
national and regional level using a policy triangle approach to consider the context, processes,
content and actors involved in developing the policies.
The analysis reveals that climate change policies have mostly been influenced by international
processes at the UNFCCC. Water policies have been shaped by national and regional
circumstances where water remains scarce and inaccessible to a significant percentage of the
population. Food security policies on the other hand have mostly been informed by continent
wide strategies such as Comprehensive African Agricultural Development Programme (CAADP) as
well as national priorities in ensuring food sufficiency. As a result most policies rank highly in
terms of linkages with other policies and processes averaging 3.3 for Kenya, 2.8 for Somalia
and 2.8 for Ethiopia.
For the NDCs analysis, assessment of 10 Eastern Africa NDCs shows that linkages at 3.6,
implementation plans and inclusion at 3 are the highest rated signaling greater effort to link
with both national, regional and international policies. These policies have an average score
of 2.8. South Sudan’s NDC has the highest score of 3.3, followed by Rwanda and Burundi with
3.1 while Djibouti has the lowest score at 2.1.
The collective performance of all 3 countries in each sector varies. Water policies average 2.6
for the three countries. Kenya’s water policies rate highly at an average score of 3.4, with the
Water Act of 2016 rated 3.5. This was the highest scoring policy in the entire analysis. This is
followed by Somalia with an average sector-wide score of 3.1, and Ethiopia with an average
score of 2.1.
For food security policies, Kenya had the highest-scoring policies, with an average score of
3.3, followed by Ethiopia at 2.9, and Somalia 2.7. Kenyan food security policies scored highest
on inclusion and rights, with all of the country’s sectoral policies scoring a 4 in these
categories. With a score of 3.4, Ethiopia’s Agriculture Sector Policy and Investment
Framework is the highest scoring policy in the food security sector. The Proclamation to
amend the proclamation No. 56/2002, 70/2003, 103/2005 of Oromia rural land use and
administration proclamation 130/2007 followed closely with a score of 3.3.
4
Lastly, the climate change adaptation sector explored the National Adaptation Plan (NAP) or
National Adaptation Programme of Action (NAPA) of each country. With a score of 3, Kenya’s
NAP was the best-performing of the policies analyzed. This was followed by Ethiopia’s NAP
with a score of 2.5, and Somalia’s NAPA with a score of 2.3. In the climate change adaptation
sector, all three policies performed especially poorly with regards to policy enforcement,
scoring an average of 1.3. This was followed by budgetary allocation and information
management systems, both of which had an average score of 2 across all the countries.
As can be seen from the sector-level analysis, Kenyan policies tended to perform
comparatively well overall, followed by Ethiopian policies. Somali policies tended to perform
comparatively poorly on average. However, there is significant variation in the quality and
scoring of policies within each country. These variations can be better understood through
the lens of the sector and/or the elements of the policies being analyzed.
Rights and inclusion are a strength in most policies with a score of 2.9 and 3.3 respectively
across policies where rights to a clean and healthy environment, right to water and the right
to food as well as the recognition of vulnerable groups and how they can be included and
actively participate in planning, decision making and implementation of policies.
Enforcement and budgetary allocation with a rating of 2.2 and 2.4 respectively are two of the
key elements that repeatedly score poorly across most policies including those with well set
out plans. East African countries will need to devise ways in which to enforce set policies to
assure implementation and enhance accountability. For budgetary allocation it is important
that countries ensure that resources are earmarked for policy implementation in whose
absence they may only remain on paper. While international finance is often outlined in
policy, international climate finance remains unpredictable, not additional, and inadequate
thus efforts have to be made to avail this finance for climate adaptation especially by
developed countries that bear the highest responsibility for global warming.
This said the real test is in the implementation of the set policies in these countries. The next
phase of this research will focus on the efficacy of the policies in place where the focus will
be on the progress in implementation of the measures outlined in the policies and the
impact/result of such implementation.
5
Table of Contents
1. Executive Summary 3
2. Introduction 7
3. Methodology 12
a. Background 12
b. Policy Triangle 13
c. Framework of analysis (criteria) 13
d. Policy selection 20
4. Results 21
a. Country level analysis (including stakeholder input) 21
i. Kenya 21
ii. Ethiopia 38
iii. Somalia 50
b. Sectoral analysis (cross-country) 61
i. Water management 61
ii. Food security 64
iii. Climate change adaptation: NAP/NAPA 68
iv. NDC analysis (including additional countries) 70
5. Conclusion 72
a. Key take aways 72
i. Criteria 72
ii. Country 72
iii. Sector 73
b. Recommendations 73
i. Criteria 73
ii. Country 74
iii. Sector 74
6. References 76
6
List of Figures
Figure 1: Schematic of the Down2Earth Project ....................................................................... 7
Figure 2: Map of Ethiopia, Kenya and Somalia ........................................................................ 8
Figure 3: Observed Annual Mean-Temperature, 1901-2021 (Kenya)
6
..................................... 9
Figure 4: Observed Annual Mean-Temperature, 1901-2021 (Somalia)
7
................................. 10
Figure 5: Observed Annual Mean-Temperature, 1901-2021 (Ethiopia)
8
................................ 10
Figure 6: Policy Triangle (Walt and Gilson, 1994) ................................................................. 12
Figure 7:Vertical and Horizontal Interplay (Young, 2002) ..................................................... 13
Figure 8: Policy Analysis Framework (Walker, 2000) ............................................................ 13
Figure 9: Policy analysis process ............................................................................................. 20
Figure 10: Conceptboard visualization and organization of information for policy analysis .. 21
Figure 11: Rating for Kenya Policies....................................................................................... 23
Figure 13: Rating for Isiolo County Policies ........................................................................... 33
Figure 14: Ethiopia's climate adaptation, food and water security policies ............................. 38
Figure 16: Rating for Ethiopia policies .................................................................................... 40
Figure 17: Rating for Oromia State Policies ............................................................................ 47
Figure 18: Rating for Somalia Policies .................................................................................... 52
Figure 19: Rating for Somaliland Policies ............................................................................... 57
Figure 20: Rating for Water Policies for Ethiopia, Kenya and Somalia .................................. 62
Figure 21: Rating for Food Security Policies .......................................................................... 65
Figure 22: Rating for NAPs/NAPA ......................................................................................... 69
Figure 23: Rating for Eastern Africa Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) ............. 70
List of Tables
Table 1: Key Statistics for Ethiopia, Kenya and Somalia ............................................................ 9
Table 2: Components of the Policy Triangle ............................................................................ 15
Table 3: Areas of rating for policy analysis .............................................................................. 17
Table 4: Water Policies ............................................................................................................ 62
Table 5: Food Security Policies................................................................................................. 64
Table 6: National Adaptation Plans/Plans of Action ................................................................ 68
7
2. Introduction
The Down2Earth Project
Climate change continues to impact the Eastern Africa region to a very large extent. The
Down2Earth project
1
seeks to translate climate information for effective adaptation to
climate change. Under this project, Climate Analytics, has conducted policy analysis looking
at different policies relating to food security and water in Ethiopia, Kenya and Somalia. A
schematic of the overall project and its outputs is shown below.
Figure 1: Schematic of the Down2Earth Project
The policy analysis work is in fulfilment of Task 1.2 on Identifying existing water management
and food security policies and their efficacy in the Horn of African Drylands (HAD). The policy
analysis specifically targeted overall climate adaptation policies and those relating to water
and food security in Ethiopia, Kenya and Somalia. The aim was to understand existing policies,
assess local-level climate adaptation governance and its linkage with government policies and
assess the efficacy of policies. This will be instrumental in co-developing robust climate
adaptation policy frameworks to support adaptation and foster resilience in a changing
climate.
8
Regional Context: Ethiopia, Kenya and Somalia
The Eastern Africa region is among those that are highly vulnerable to climate change
impacts
2
. This is occasioned by its geographical location and physical features including the
fact that much of its land is arid and semi-arid in addition to its high vulnerability and low-
coping capacity. The three countries of focus (Ethiopia, Kenya and Somalia) frequently
experience droughts and floods, sea-level rise, cyclones, incidences of pests, heat stress
among other climate extremes. According to the latest IPCC report, such extremes will
continue, increasing in both frequency and intensity as a result of climate change
2
. This has
the result of exacerbating loss of life and livelihoods, biodiversity loss and increasing the
vulnerability of already vulnerable and poor populations especially women
2
.
Figure 2: Map of Ethiopia, Kenya and Somalia
9
Table 1: Key Statistics for Ethiopia, Kenya and Somalia
Population
(millions)
Area (km
2
)
% of Arid
and Semi-
arid Land
(ASAL)
Climate
change
impacts
% of Pop
without
access to safe
drinking
water
Food
Insecure
Pop. (2022)
Ethiopia
112
3
1,104,300
55%
Drought,
floods
58%
18m
Kenya
47.5
4
582,646
85%
Drought,
floods, sea-
level rise
40%
4.1m
Somalia
15.8
a
637,655
87%
Drought,
floods, sea-
level rise
47%
b
5
7.1m
The AR6 WG2 report Africa chapter
2
states that there has been a rise in temperatures in East
Africa of between ‘0.7°C–1°C from 1973 to 2013’ and this is projected to go higher as climate
change impacts increase. Indeed available data shows an increase in mean temperatures as
depicted in the figures below.
Figure 3: Observed Annual Mean-Temperature, 1901-2021 (Kenya)
6
a
Somalia has not conducted an official census since the early 1990’s.
b
The Somali Health and Demographic Survey, 2018-2019 conducted by the Directorate of National Statistics found this to be at 45.7%. In
urban areas those without access are 28.6% as compared to rural areas where 75.8% of the population do not have access. For sanitation
those without access to sanitation services were 57.4% nationally representing a 6.9% improvement since 2000 (the report does not provide
rural/urban statistics for this).
10
Figure 4: Observed Annual Mean-Temperature, 1901-2021 (Somalia)
7
Figure 5: Observed Annual Mean-Temperature, 1901-2021 (Ethiopia)
8
According to the Climate Action Tracker, global mean temperatures are set to surpass 1.5°C
by 2035, 2°C by 2055, and in excess of 3°C by 2100
9
. This will have additional impacts on these
countries already impacted by a warming climate.
Food and Water Security
East Africa’s Arid and Semi-Arid Lands (ASALs) are host to millions of pastoralists who rely
primarily on livestock for their survival and livelihood. Pastoralists in the region are among
the most vulnerable to climate. Subsistence crop farming in the region (for crops including
maize, wheat, and others) is also predominantly reliant on rainfall which has become erratic
and unpredictable resulting in crop failure and reduced yields. Future projections show
reduced productivity in these crops in the region under various scenarios in a changing
climate
10
since they are sensitive to temperature changes. Maize for instance is particularly
11
sensitive to climate change, which is significant given that the crop accounts for 33.3% and
19.5% daily calories per capita in Kenya and Ethiopia respectively.
IGAD’s Food Crises report
11
shows that Ethiopia had 16.76m people in food crisis between
May- June 2021 and it was forecasted that 18m people will be in food crisis in 2022. Kenya is
also currently experiencing a food crisis with 2.37m Kenyans having faced food insecurity
between November 2021 and January 2022, and 4.1m forecast to have been in a food crisis
between March-June 2022. Somalia had 3.47m people facing food crisis in October –
December 2021 and 7.1m forecasted to be in crisis in June – September 2022. Of these 2.13m
would be in food emergency state and 213,000 in a state of catastrophe (IPC
c
Phase 5). With
the region currently faced with a fifth failed rain season that is compounding an already
ongoing drought
12
this situation is set to make things worse for the region.
All three East African countries are considered water scarce with Kenya having the highest
access to safe water at about 60%, followed by Somalia at 53%
5
and Ethiopia at about 42%
13
.
Ongoing water scarcity is as a result of incessant drought in the region which are set to
increase in intensity and frequency as a result of climate change
13
. Water is an essential
element that supports populations in the region and is inextricably linked to food security as
well as energy. With climate projections showing an increase in temperatures in the region
due to global warming the water scarcity situation is set to grow even worse. Of the three
countries, Ethiopia boasts of higher amounts of inland water as a percentage of its land mass.
The three countries share the 805,100km
2
Juba-Shabelle river basin.
Over the years the three countries have set in place various initiatives including approaches
on integrated water management, poverty eradication, water supply and sanitation
initiatives, conservation of water towers, and several others, in a bid to better manage
available water resources. These will be discussed in detail in the following sections of this
report.
This report is an analysis of access to water, food security and climate adaptation policies in
the three countries to be able to understand their strengths and gaps as well as efficacy of
the policies in place. This understanding will help shape the development of a robust policy
framework that might be applied for enhanced climate adaptation to ensure food and water
security in a changing climate.
c
Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC) is an innovative classification system with 5 levels: (1) Minimal/None, (2) Stressed, (3)
Crisis, (4) Emergency, and (5) Catastrophe/Famine
12
3. Methodology
a. Background
Climate change adaptation is vital for developing countries that already face severe climate
change impacts
14
that are also set to increase with additional global warming. The
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) defines climate change adaptation
as:
Adaptation to climate change takes place through adjustments to reduce vulnerability or
enhance resilience in response to observed or expected changes in climate and associated
extreme weather events. Adaptation occurs in physical, ecological and human systems. It
involves changes in social and environmental processes, perceptions of climate risk, practices
and functions to reduce potential damages or to realize new opportunities. (p. 720).
In line with this, countries have developed various policies, laws and regulations to adapt to
climate change at different levels. Most of those related to climate change have followed the
national priorities
15–17
, regional priorities and international policymaking
18
. To be able to
understand the policies and analyze them to infer insights on existing gaps, strengths, and
opportunities for enhancement (among other findings), it was necessary to first conduct a
literature review of some of the policy analysis approaches that have been applied as part of
a process to identify a suitable approach.
There are various approaches that have been used to analyze policies. To undertake this work,
a number of approaches were considered starting with the Policy Triangle
19
which considers
context, content, process and actors in the policy process; the vertical and horizontal
interplay
20
that focusses on various intersections at the vertical and horizontal level and how
these influence policies and policymaking; and, the policy analysis framework
21
that looks at
goals and objectives as part of a value system, internal factors as well as external influences
that interact to generate certain outcomes. These are shown in the figures below.
Figure 6: Policy Triangle (Walt and Gilson, 1994)
13
Functional interdependencies
Politics of institutional design and
management
Vertical (cuts across levels i.e.
local, regional, national)
Horizontal (cross-sectoral linkages)
Figure 7:Vertical and Horizontal Interplay (Young, 2002)
Figure 8: Policy Analysis Framework (Walker, 2000)
b. Policy Triangle
The Policy Triangle
19
is an approach that considers actors, content, context and process and
how these interact as already described above. This approach was selected because of its
applicability and usefulness to the current research. Additionally, the horizontal and vertical
interplay
7
in policy analysis was also integrated to capture linkages as well as measures and
goals set out in the policies in recognition of the vitality of these in the implementation and
achievement of desired policy outcomes.
c. Framework of analysis (criteria)
In a bid to streamline and make for effective analysis a detailed framework of key elements
of focus was developed. Within the area of content, the aspects are explored under this
analysis as follows:
Rights: According to the Human Rights Council “climate change-related impacts have a range
of implications, both direct and indirect, for the effective enjoyment of human rights” thus
climate change policies have to integrate human rights incorporating the right-holders -often
14
the marginalized and most vulnerable-and duty bearers
22
. An OHCHR
23
submission to the
UNFCCC COP 21 listed rights most impacted by climate change including the right to food,
water and sanitation, development, life, rights of future generations and of those most
impacted by climate change among others, noting that these have to be protected in climate
policy at all levels. The IOM
24
, Berchin
25
and others consider rights in climate change in terms
of migration and displacement where environmental/climate refugees. (2016)
26
notes that
inclusion of rights in policies creates an accountability element for policymakers.
Accessibility: Access is understood differently in literature. Some studies take it to include
basic needs, basic rights and decisionmaking
27
. In this analysis we take access to mean
availability of information and opportunities to increase knowledge and know-how (including
technological) as well as capacities and be able to take part in or utilize adaptation initiatives.
Inclusion: Inclusion is often taken to mean the participation by women, youth and children,
persons with disability (PWDs), indigenous groups, the elderly and other vulnerable and
marginalized groups. A bulk of the literature on inclusion in climate policy focuses on women
and gender equality, with less literature on youth, PWDs, indigenous groups and others but
all of these note the importance of including these groups to understand and plan for
differentiated impacts, risks and vulnerabilities and ensure equity and just responses to
climate change
14,28
. A 2022 status report on disability inclusion in climate policy
29
showed that
just 35 out of 192 parties to the Paris Agreement mentioned PWDs in their NDCs
d
. The
Adaptation Gap Report emphasizes the need for inclusion, noting that it enhances
ownership
14
and thus communities at local level and other stakeholders have to be included
from the outset.
Enforcement: Enforcement is a key ingredient in ensuring policies work, the IPCC AR4
30
notes
that ‘instruments must be monitored and enforced to be effective’. The Paris Agreement
18
includes a facilitative compliance framework for states to be able to comply with the
obligations set out in the agreement as well as those states have set out for themselves in
their NDCs. Without provisions on enforcement or a compliance framework it may be difficult
to implement policies.
Budgetary allocation: Resource allocation is key in implementation of set policies. Literature
shows that inadequate finances are to blame for the non-implementation of policies
27,31–33
.
International climate regimes such as the UNFCCC, the Paris Agreement
5
as well a NDCs have
emphasized the need for predictable, adequate finance for addressing climate change and
various national policies, development blueprints and plans have estimated the costs
required to adapt to climate change underlining the importance of budgets and allocation of
resources for the successful realization of policy goals and objectives.
d
Of the Eastern African countries that are part of the D2E Project, Ethiopia included PWDs in its initial NDC but not in the updated one; Kenya
has PWDs subsumed in ‘other vulnerable groups’; while Somalia does not include PWDs. All NDCs reference women.
15
Implementation Plans: For policies to be successful, implementation plans to operationalize
their objectives are imperative. Implementation plans have to include timelines as well as
those responsible for delivery, indicators and expected outputs and outcomes
14,34–37
.
Information Management System: Systems to manage and monitor information are vital in
management, monitoring and evaluation.
Linkages to other policies: The IPCC AR4
30
states that ‘a combination of policy instruments
may work better in practice than reliance on a single instrument’. This, as a result of the
interconnectedness of climate change issues.
Other components are explored as well as summarized below in recognition that content is
also a product of actors, processes and context. Walt and Gilson (1994)
19
note that ‘focus on
policy content diverts attention from understanding the processes which explain why desired
policy outcomes fail to emerge’ making a case for understanding the varied contexts,
processes as well as actors involved in policymaking.
Table 2: Components of the Policy Triangle
Area
What to look out for
Content (What is included in
the policy?)
▪ Rights, goals for adaptation especially for women,
pastoralists, indigenous people, persons with disability,
youth and other marginalized groups
▪ Accessibility for all
▪ Inclusion
▪ Enforcement mechanisms to ensure implementation
▪ Budgetary allocation to assure implementation – e.g.
funds for capacity building etc
▪ Implementation plans
▪ Information management system
▪ Links to other policies – to integrate the horizontal and
vertical interplay
Context (Political, economic,
social contexts in which policy
is developed)
▪ Power relations between government and people
▪ Public and private sector interests
▪ Cultural considerations
▪ Public information
▪ Constitutional reforms
▪ International processes (SDGs, UNFCCC)
▪ Regional processes (EAC, AU Agenda 2063)
▪ Links to other policies (potential for cross-referencing
etc)
16
Process (How was the policy
developed?)
▪ Inclusivity (or exclusivity) of the processes
▪ The individuals and/or groups that participated in the
policy development process
▪ The extent and nature of public consultations
conducted
▪ The types of evidence used to inform the development
process (IPCC report, review of best practices etc)
Actors (Who are the actors:
groups/individuals involved?)
▪ The levels at which actors were involved (local,
regional, and/or international)
▪ Involvement of:
o Women/gender advocates
o Persons with disability
o Youth advocates?
o Indigenous groups?
o Pastoralists/farmers
o Community elders/ religious leaders
The table below outlines the areas for rating. Allocated ratings are completed separately for
each policy and an explanation of why the rating has been allocated has to be indicated. The
ranking system is based on how concretely (or not) a policy addresses the given issue.
17
Table 3: Areas of rating for policy analysis
High (Score 4)
Medium (Score 3)
Poor (Score 2)
Weak (Score 1)
Rights (clean and healthy
environment, water, food
security) for women,
pastoralists, indigenous
people, persons with
disability and other
marginalized groups that
align with climate
adaptation
Policy explicitly acknowledges
that all citizens have a right to
a (clean and healthy
environment, water, food
security) thus adaptation to
the impacts of climate change,
has a clear goal and
specifically mentions those
who are most vulnerable.
Policy explicitly acknowledges
that all citizens have a right to a
(clean and healthy
environment, water, food
security) thus adaptation to the
impacts of climate change but
does not have clear/explicit
goal but mentions those who
are most vulnerable
Policy explicitly (or even implicitly)
acknowledges that all citizens have
a right to a (clean and healthy
environment, water, food security)
thus adaptation to the impacts of
climate change but does not have
clear/explicit goal and does not
mention those who are most
vulnerable
No mention
of rights, no clear
goals nor mention
of the most
vulnerable
Accessibility for all
Policy fully addresses
accessibility for all groups of
the population to information
and means for adaptation to
the impacts of climate change
(includes FPIC e.g. in cases of
co-benefits from mitigation
action)
Policy mentions accessibility for
all especially those that will be
most impacted but with no
clear focus on what this entails
Policy addresses accessibility but
fails to highlight those most
impacted and how
Policy does not
specifically
mention any of
these
Inclusion
Policy addresses capacity
building, training, technology
transfer, empowerment,
public participation, local
knowledge and scientific
research (ACE, tech transfer)
to ensure that the most
Partially addressed with
mention of the most vulnerable
but with little/no reference to
training, capacity building, tech
transfer etc.
Only addressed implicitly; no
training, capacity building, tech
transfer etc. for most vulnerable
and general population
Policy does not
mention any needs
for inclusive
climate adaptation
18
vulnerable are included in
adaptation to climate change
Implementation plans
Policy has clear plan of action
including specific actions to be
taken and responsible parties
with respect to those that are
most vulnerable to climate
change
● Set out in or in
tandem with the
policy documents
● Actors and targets are
clearly indicated
● Monitoring plan is
clearly set out
● Intervals for
monitoring are
specified
Policy mentions a clear plan of
action with different
components but does not
specify the detail of who does
what, how and when to
monitor and budget guidelines
Policy sets out an action plan but
without any specific mention of
actors, monitoring, budget, etc.
Policy does not set
out any plan of
action or
monitoring plan
Enforcement mechanisms to
ensure equality
Clear enforcement
mechanism is described with
the specific enforcement
agency named;
Clear penalties for non-
compliance (e.g. through an
Act related to the policy);
Not taking proactive steps to
implement the policy is seen
Describes the enforcement
mechanism and contains
penalties but no mechanism for
enforcement is specified in the
policy; there is no mention of
penalties for not implementing
the policy proactively.
Minimal description of an
enforcement mechanism with
minimal penalties and only a focus
on obstruction of the policy
implementation rather than lack of
proactive implementation.
No mention of
enforcement and
penalties
19
as non-compliance in addition
to obstructing the
implementation
Budgetary allocation to
assure implementation
Budget guidelines for climate
adaptation are clearly
specified in terms of
● What has to be
budgeted for
● Where budget should be
allocated from
● Funding is mandated and
must be made available
Budget guidelines for climate
adaptation are specified in
terms of
● What has to be budgeted
● Where budget should be
allocated from
● But Funding is conditional
(on budget availability)
Budget guidelines are not
specified specifically for climate
adaptation and funding is
conditional on budget availability
No clear budgetary
guidelines and no
mandated
budget for climate
adaptation
Information management
system
The policy specifies clearly
what information should be
collected, by whom, at what
intervals and what indicators
will be used to monitor
progress of climate adaptation
The policy specifies the need for
data and a plan for what
information should be
collected concerning climate
adaptation but with minimal
detail on who should collect it,
when and what indicators
should be used for monitoring
No clear
Information Management System
(IMS) for climate adaptation but
some recognition that data
collection is important for
monitoring
There is no IMS
specified, nor the
importance of
data recognized for
climate adaptation
Links to other policies – to
integrate the horizontal and
vertical interplay
The policy clearly identifies
what linkages exist and how it
builds on those with specific
mention of actions to ensure
the linkages are
strengthened/integration is
achieved to contribute to
climate adaptation
The policy clearly identifies
what linkages exist but with no
mention of specific actions to
ensure the linkages are
strengthened/integration is
achieved to contribute to
climate adaptation
The policy identifies what linkages
exist but there is no mention of
actions to ensure the linkages are
strengthened/integration is
achieved to contribute to climate
adaptation
There is no
mention of the
policy linkages or
how it builds on
those for robust
climate adaptation
20
The entire process can be summarized as shown in the figure below:
d. Policy selection
Lesnikowski et al., (2019)
38
in making a case for a policy mixes approach, argue that
governments normally develop several policy instruments to address issues such as climate
change and that it is difficult to find options encapsulated in a single policy due to the
crosscutting nature of issues such as climate change. Similar views are reflected in other
literature
14,30
with emphasis on the fact that adaptation is a cross/multi-sectoral issue
requiring multi-sectoral and multi-stakeholder approaches.
Broader responsive policies development, argues the National Academies Press in their 2011
book (“Advancing the Science of Climate Change,” 2011)
39
is possible with an iterative process
that considers monitoring, evaluation and learning (MEL), emerging co-benefits/disbenefits
and the ways in which they interact with each other. This thinking alongside other
considerations informed our choice of policies.
Identification of the relevant policies for analysis
was done consultatively with partners within the
consortium as well as government officials and
other actors who contributed to an initial list of
identified policies. Over 100 relevant policies on
adaptation, water and food security were
identified and listed. These were categorized as
national, regional and local and codified or
uncodified and visualized via an online platform
called Conceptboard. Regional policies from the
specific areas under focus are those for Oromia, Somaliland and Isiolo. Once the selection was
finalized, priority policies for analysis numbering 40 were identified in consultation with the
Down2Earth project partners and other stakeholders. This prioritization was done considering
how relevant the policies were to project objectives and the needs of various consortium
partners in implementing their own tasks under the Down2Earth project.
Policy
Analysis
Approach
Policy Triangle
Content
Rating
Identification
of Policies
Prioritization of
Policies
Policy
Analysis
Broad Categories
Water - irrigation, water
harvesting, resource management
Food Security - agriculture,
irrigation, nutrition
Climate Change - adaptation
Levels
Regional
National
Sub-national
Codified and non-codified policies
Figure 9: Policy analysis process
21
Figure 10: Conceptboard visualization and organization of information for policy analysis
4. Results
The comprehensive policy analysis conducted based on the above research and planning led
to several noteworthy insights on the current state of relevant policies in Kenya, Ethiopia,
and Somalia.
The outcomes of the analysis are summarized below and disaggregated based on the most
noteworthy findings. First, the results are presented at a country-level to provide insights
into the state of key policies in each country and their respective national contexts. This is
followed by a sector-specific analysis that summarizes findings on policies across all three
countries according to specific themes.
a. Country level analysis (including stakeholder input)
i. Kenya
Kenya has made significant efforts in terms of developing its climate change, food security,
and water related policies to address climate change. Some of these policies include the
Climate Change Act of 2016, which is one of the very first pieces of climate change legislation
to come from the region. This act seeks to guide Kenya’s priorities for addressing climate
change focusing on both climate adaptation and climate mitigation. The history of
environmental policymaking in Kenya is long, dating back to the period after independence
with the Sessional paper No. 10 that addressed the control and use of resources noting that
such resources were to be used for the benefit of all
40
. Significant environmental policy was
not developed until the 1999 Environmental Management and Co-Ordination Act (EMCA),
which set out the management of environmental and environmental resources in Kenya. In
22
subsequent years, policies focusing on the various sectors have been developed to address
current challenges guided by the development blueprint, Vision 2030
41
as well as the National
Constitution and other international regimes on climate, water, food security and related
areas.
1. National
Context, Actors and Process
At national level Kenya has the 2016 Water Act
5
, the National Water Harvesting and Storage
Regulations, a Water Masterplan
42
and a draft water strategy. On food security, Kenya has
the Agricultural Sector Development Strategy (2010-2020)
43
to address issues of agricultural
development for food security in Kenya. This has been succeeded by the Agricultural Sector
Transformation and Growth 2020)
44
whose main innovation is the establishment of the
Agricultural Transformation Office as the implementation and enforcement entity for the
strategy. There is also a National Food and Nutrition Security Policy and its implementation
framework.
When it comes to climate adaptation, as mentioned earlier, Kenya has a Climate Change Act
of 2016
45
. There is also a National Climate Change Action Plan
46
, a Climate Change Policy and
a Nationally Determined Contribution updated in 2020
16
, a National Policy for Disaster
Management as well as the National Adaptation Plan and its Adaptation Technical Analysis
Report
47
. Kenya has also embarked on developing a National Framework for Climate Services
and has held several stakeholder meetings to advance this. This is pursued as part of its
commitment to the global framework for climate services.
An analysis of the various policies that Kenya has put in place shows that the country’s climate
adaptation the policies are relatively updated and aligned with existing international laws and
policies. The climate policies were developed in compliance with, and as a response to the
international climate regime, including the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement.
The climate adaptation policies were developed as part of Kenya’s bid to comply with the
international climate policy discussions that have been ongoing since the establishment of
the UNFCCC and its various outcomes, including the 2015 Paris Agreement that set out a
requirement for countries to develop their Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC). Water
sector policies and laws are a result of water sector reforms initiated to streamline the sector
and ensure access to water and sanitation for all citizens by 2030. Agriculture sector policies
on the other hand are informed by the national priority of addressing food security concerns
in the country in a bid to ensure food security by 2030, as is articulated in Kenya’s Vision 2030.
Policies developed after the implementation of the 2010 Constitution have tended to follow
5
This repealed the 2001 Water Act. It sought to align the water sector to the 2010 constitution as well as Vision 2030 and was preceded by
water sector reforms to the water sector and ensure access to water and sanitation by all Kenyans by 2030.
23
consultative processes with the engagement of a wide spectrum of actors including
community members, civil society, and private sector in a bid to meet the requirements laid
out in the constitution.
Content
Out of a maximum score of 4, the 2016 Water Act is the highest scoring at 3.5 followed by the
Water Strategy and the Draft Irrigation Policy and the National Food and Nutrition Security
Policy Implementation Framework (2017-2022) each scoring 3.4. The National Disaster
Management Policy is the lowest scoring at 2.5. All policies analysed have a combined score
of 3.2 which is the highest country average for national policies. The scores and areas of rating
are shown in the figure below and discussed in detail thereafter.
Figure 11: Rating for Kenya Policies
0
1
2
3
4
Rights
Accessibility
Inclusion
Implementation plans
Enforcement
Budgetary allocation
Info management
system
Links to other policies
Kenya
NDC (2020)
NAP (2015-2030)
NCCAP (2018-2020)
Agriculture Sector Development Strategy (2010-2020)
Community Land Act (2016)
Water Act (2016)
National Disaster Risk Management Policy (2017)
Water Strategy
Water Policy
Draft National Irrigation Policy, 2015
National Food and Nutrition Security Policy (2011) - Kenya
National Food and Nutrition Security Policy Implementation Framework (2017-2022) - Kenya
24
Rights
Kenya’s 2010 constitution stipulates that every citizen has a right to a clean and healthy
environment. Consequently, policies developed after 2010 all seem to have adopted this
approach stating clearly that ‘citizens have a right to a clean and healthy environment’, a right
to water in the water services policies to meet their basic needs, and access to food as a basic
need.
This is the highest ranked area with a combined score of 3.8 which is the highest for all policies
analysed in this research. The Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) and National
Disaster Risk Management (DRM) policy each have a score of 3, while the rest have a score of
4. Rights are especially when thinking about the populations that are more vulnerable to
climate change and will therefore need to be protected under the law and be facilitated to
adapt to the changing climate when it comes to being able to access water as well as food.
Furthermore, Kenya’s NDC specifically talks about the gendered impacts of climate change
for women, youth, coastal communities, and inhabitants of arid and semi-arid areas as being
specifically impacted by climate change. It also highlights the issue of climate refugees and
mentions food security for its citizens as part of its mandate in terms of safeguarding the basic
rights of its citizens. Similarly, the National Adaptation Plan (NAP) of 2015-2030 and the
National Climate Change Action Plan (NCCAP) contain these provisions. The NAP and the
Irrigation Policy, both with a score of 4 in the rights component, quote the Constitution and
Vision 2030 with regards to the provision for the right of all citizens to a ‘clean and healthy
environment’. The NCCAP has provisions on gender equality and, notably, also talks about
traditional practices that may deny women equal rights.
On food security, the Agricultural Sector Development Strategy (ASDS) for 2010-2020 also
provided for ensuring food and nutritional security for all Kenyans, and the strategy itself
aimed at ‘generating high income as well as employment especially in rural areas’. The ASDS
also recognizes that agriculture is the backbone of Kenya's economy, meaning that the
livelihoods of most of the population are drawn from farming activities. Thus, investing in
achieving the ASDS also had the goal of ensuring food security and poverty reduction in the
longer term. An assessment on the performance of this strategy in the literature points to
challenges in its implementation that resulted in it not meeting some of the objectives set
out.
The Community Land Act also mentions issues of rights, referencing the Constitution, human
rights, and Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Community members, according to this
Act, have a right to the use and management of their community land and should be able to
participate in decision making. It also mentions the need to take the grazing rights of
pastoralists into consideration when it comes to community land. Additionally, there are
provisions around non-discrimination to ensure that all members within the community have
25
the right to access and use land, including women and children, youth, persons with disability,
and other marginalized groups.
The Water Act also recognizes the ‘right to a clean and healthy environment’ and specifically
highlights the right of Kenyans to ‘access clean and safe water in adequate quantities and
within reasonable standards are stipulated in article 43 of the Kenyan Constitution. Article 7
of the Water Act talks about rights to water resources noting that these ‘are only as prescribed
in the Act’. Water rights here are defined as ‘the right to have access to water through a water
permit’.
The National Disaster Risk Management (DRM) Policy of 2017 is also guided by the bill of
rights in the Constitution and reiterates the same provisions of having access to ‘a clean and
healthy environment’. It also provides for non-discrimination during disaster response.
A common thread that can be seen across all these policies in Kenya is the fact that the rights
to water, the rights to food and the rights to a clean and healthy environment are all included
in the policies.
Access
Access, with a combined score of 3.3, is covered in different ways in the different policies. For
instance, with the NDC of 2020, which has a score of 2, there is reference to enhanced climate
information uptake, but further details are not provided despite the NDC including provisions
for capacity building, awareness, and other measures that might contribute to this enhanced
uptake of climate information. The NAP, which scores 3, provides for citizens’ role in planning,
implementation, and monitoring. One of the actions is enhancing the adaptive capacities of
multiple groups, especially women and children, but there is no detailed plan of action
outlined in the NAP. The NCCAP, with a score of 3, details improved access to water, food
security, and enhanced resilience as some of the measures targeting vulnerable categories of
the population. There is specific mention of using technology, including mobile technology,
for dissemination of early warning to enable groups to make informed decisions and cope
better with the impacts of climate change. However, further details on such measures are not
provided. The ASDS had several relevant key objectives, including identifying priorities for
climate adaptation and mitigation, developing a comprehensive national education and
awareness creation program, and establishing specific cross-sectoral adaptation measures for
vulnerable groups, communities, and regions. There was also provision for periodic reviews
of prevailing climate change threats, conducting risk assessments at national and local levels,
and developing national capacity building frameworks to address climate change. This was
relatively comprehensive, and is the reason for the ASDS’s high score of 4 when it comes to
issues of access. The draft Irrigation Policy, National Food and Nutrition Security Policy (2011)
and the National Food and Nutrition Security Policy Implementation Framework (2017-2022)
26
also score 4 owing to their provisions for access including availing of technology for the
vulnerable, trainings, and other measures to ensure food sufficiency.
The Community Land Act states that land is vested in the community and can consequently
be registered as communal or reserved land for specific purposes set out by the community,
which has access to this land for their own use and benefit. It also spells out benefit sharing
6
and how this will be handled on community land, including provisions for an Environmental
Impact Assessment (EIA) study, compensation, royalties, as well as being able to mitigate
against any negative impacts that might occur. There is also a provision for public education
and awareness to ensure that communities are informed about their rights and community
land. One challenge, however, is that, aside from the measures articulated on benefit sharing,
there is little focus on enhancing resilience of communities to a changing climate through
measures such as enhancing access to technology and provision. This is especially the case for
pastoralists.
The Water Act in Article 9 talks about citizens’ rights to access water and specifically mentions
the poor living in urban areas and those who are living in rural areas. It also addresses benefits
for the poor from financing in various projects that will ensure access to water resources.
There is also a provision that the public should be able to access information about issued
permits, and that broader information generated under this Act should be publicly available
and provided upon request.
For the National DRM policy, which has a score of 3, initiatives are outlined in terms of
collaboration with communities under various areas, including resilience building, early
warning systems to provide information for people to be able to respond to identified risks,
capacity building, and technical training to build community members’ skills to enable them
to adapt to climate change or to respond to any disasters that might occur. The DRM also
emphasizes local management of disasters through what is labeled as a ‘people centered
multi hazard approach’.
Inclusivity
When it comes to inclusion, the policies (which have an average score of 3.7 for this
component) generally mention categories of people that are vulnerable to climate change
impacts and articulate related measures. For example, the NDC (which has a score of 3 for
inclusivity) specifically references local communities, women, youth, and other vulnerable
groups that will be targeted for adaptation technology uptake which integrates both scientific
as well as indigenous knowledge to be able to implement the NDC. It also outlines
involvement by various actors including civil society, county governments, academia,
research, and the private sector. The NAP, which also has a score of 3 for this component,
talks about integrating climate change into the education curriculum through the Kenya
6
These includes benefits from natural and mineral resources or such other utilization of community land.
27
Institute of Curriculum Development. Media is also expected to play a key role in information
dissemination to the public. Vulnerable groups such as women, children, persons with
disability, and the elderly will be specifically targeted. The draft Irrigation Policy, with the
highest score of 4, specifically addresses capacity-building, technology transfer, public
participation, and other measures for enhanced inclusion. The most vulnerable and relevant
groups to irrigation development have been identified, and the interventions demonstrate
how they will be included in and benefit from technology transfer, capacity building, and
other initiatives.
The NCCAP, which also has a score of 3, specifically talks about supporting youth in
innovations as well as local level adaptation action and education on risks and hazards. This
is specifically targeted at young people and mentions capacity building for access to climate
finance as one of the key areas of focus. The ASDS, with a score of 4, focuses on the
strengthening of extension services to further links between research services, local
communities and grassroot farmer organizations to further empower stakeholders in the
sector and provide them with information to facilitate food security. This includes (among
other measures) supporting them with appropriate technologies, training, and having
demonstration centers for practitioners to increase their skills and adapt to climate change.
With a score of 4, the Community Land Act states that community land can be held as
communal, family or clan, reserve, or another category under the Act or in another law. For
this provision it is up to the community to decide how it wants to register the particular land,
and which actors are subsequently included and affected. Customary rights and cultural use
of land is recognized under the Act. The Community Land Act specifically states that any
disposal or alienation of community land has to be agreed to by at least two-thirds of the
registered community land members, which is critical for ensuring that a majority of the
community members are included in decision making on their land.
Under the Water Act, committees and boards that are established must consider a two-third
gender rule as outlined in the Constitution, which facilitates a greater inclusion of women are
in the committees and boards. Water Resource User Associations (WRUAs) are created under
the Act. WRUAs are essentially user associations at sub-basin level that consist of community
members residing there and using the water resources for one use or another. They are
charged with the responsibility of developing their own plans and managing water resources
and access to these. They are also eligible to receive funding, training, and other capacity
building support in their planned activities to ensure they have access to water resources.
The National DRM Policy considers gender mainstreaming, community empowerment, and
public-private and community partnerships as guiding principles. The policy is also cognizant
of nondiscrimination noting that, ‘while providing compensation and relief to the victims of
28
disaster there shall be no discrimination on the basis of tribe, community disability, gender,
religion or political party affiliation’’.
Implementation Plans
For implementation plans, all of Kenya's national level policies score quite well, with an
average score of 3.1. The National DRM Policy of 2017 proved to be an exception, with a score
of 2. The policy talks about its operationalization through legislation guidelines, regulations,
rules, and executive orders but fails to articulate a detailed plan in the document itself,
despite noting that this will be developed at a future date. The plan is still not available, but
there is an ongoing process to finalize the Disaster Management Bill which is currently before
Parliament
7
. The finalization of the Bill is hoped to facilitate the articulation of a
comprehensive implementation plan for the DRM Policy.
The NDC, which has a score of 3, has prioritized adaptation programs covering all the sectors,
and these include specific measures to be undertaken in each sector. The NCCAP, with a score
of 4, provides a detailed implementation plan which includes specific actions, outcomes,
indicators, and the responsible organizations. There is also a timeline and budget for
implementation up to 2023. Monitoring on the delivery of the policy’s interventions is to be
conducted through the National Forest Monitoring System (NFMS) and the Forest Reference
Level (FRL), as well as national performance-based monitoring framework. The NAP further
refined the areas that were prioritized in the NCCAP as well as the Adaptation Technical
Assessment Report (ATAR). These refinements were based on urgency and compatibility with
the action plan and the medium-term plan (MTP) of Kenya’s Vision 2030 and low regret
scenarios
8
. For these, short-term and long-term goals, budgets, and those responsible are
outlined. 17 indicators for monitoring and tracking adaptation measures are articulated in
the NCCAP. Additionally, counties are expected to develop their own respective context-
specific action plans in line with the listed actions, while ensuring that any potential additional
areas of action do not lead to maladaptation.
The ASDS also has a detailed implementation plan, including specific targets such as achieving
an average growth rate of 7% in five years (2010-2015) in the sector, and the increasing
productivity and commercialization competitiveness of agricultural commodities and
enterprises by developing and managing key factors of production. It has a score of 3.
The Community Land Act establishes Community Land Management committees with the
mandate of overseeing the land and related issues, including coordination, conflict resolution,
and setting rules and regulations for use in land management (which must ultimately be
7
The Disaster Bill has been pending since the early 2010’s and has undergone various changes to cater and align to the different agencies
charged with disaster response in Kenya ranging from the NDMA, NDMU and NDOC to the various Ministries and Counties.
8
Low-regret scenario’s here refer to scenarios that will cost the country less both in terms of finance as well as impact on the population
29
ratified by the community). The Act also provides for a procedure on how community land is
recognized and adjudicated.
The Water Act establishes several bodies which have a clear mandate and functions related
to the Act. However, timelines are not clearly indicated, except for a few elements. For
instance, there is the requirement for a water strategy to be developed every five years with
explicit details on the protection and the management of water resources.
Enforcement
With an average score of 2.3 across all the policies analyzed, enforcement is the weakest
across Kenya’s national policies (with the exception of the Community Land Act and the Water
Act, which both scored a 4). For the Community Land Act, there are entities that are directly
in charge of various aspects. These include the community land registrar, who registers
community land, and a community land committee responsible for coordination and
management of community land. The Act outlines a dispute resolution mechanism, including
through traditional systems and structures, community by-laws contained or developed by
the community land committee, and courts of law. There is also a provision for mediation and
arbitration, which can be pursued as a way of dispute resolution. The Act considers unlawful
occupation of community land an offense that attracts conviction for up to three years in
prison or payment or a fine up to 500,000 Kenya shillings. The provision of fines and other
punitive measures serves as a deterrent for non-compliance. However, there are also
procedures that actively encourage and incentivize compliance.
The NCCAP and NAP specifically reference the National Environment Management Authority
(NEMA) as being responsible for their enforcement, but do not provide any further details
about it. The Climate Change Directorate is also charged with the responsibility of
coordination and ensuring implementation of these policies.
The NDC, which has a score of 2, does not clearly articulate measures for enforcement. It
simply states that measures would be undertaken to enhance implementation. This is also
the case for the ASDS and the National DRM Policy, which both have a score of 1, and do not
contain any noteworthy information on enforcement or compliance.
Budget
Budgets are not very well articulated in any of the Kenyan policies, which have an average
score of 2.8. The Water Act ranks highly at 4 because it seeks to establish a Water Sector Trust
Fund in article 113. The Fund will provide funding to counties in marginalized areas for
development of water resources. The Water Sector Trust Fund shall receive resources from
30
government budgetary allocations, the equalization fund, county governments, donations,
grants, and other means.
Even though the DRM Policy seeks to establish a disaster risk management fund, it is not clear
where the funds will be sourced from. The Policy simply noted that this will be from
government and other sources. In the absence of a legal framework, such a fund may be
difficult to set up and operationalize. The current iteration of the Disaster Bill includes a Fund,
which may ultimately be established via an Act of Parliament. The Community Land Act does
not include a budget, but states that the fees and taxes for land registration are to be borne
by those registering. It is thus unclear where the various committees— especially at
community level, such as the community land committees— will draw funds for their
operations from. In practice, such committees rely on member/community contributions to
run their affairs as garnered from stakeholder visits in Nairobi and Isiolo.
The NDC states that the government will provide 10% of the funding for adaptation costs and
21% for mitigation, which translates to an overall commitment of 13% of USD 62 billion
deemed necessary by 2030. There is no specificity on where the funds will be allocated from,
but Kenya has a Climate Finance Policy that may guide and facilitate this allocation.
Furthermore, climate budget codes designed to track allocations to climate change activities
and sectors are expected to mainstream climate in all initiatives and plans. The NAP and the
NCCAP outline adaptation actions, and the ATAR provides further analysis in relation to these,
but no further details are provided on the funding sources for these adaptation interventions.
The ASDS states that implementation will be funded through the medium-term expenditure
framework with financial allocation from the National Treasury. However, the policy also
states that each ministry will have to work out details of its activities and develop a financing
plan that can be acted on.
Information Management System
Information Management Systems, which have an average score of 3, consistently reference
the National Integrated Monitoring and Evaluation System (NIMES) and the County Integrated
Monitoring and Evaluation System (CIMES), which will be used for tracking progress. The NAP
and NCCAP refer to the National Forest Monitoring System and the monitoring, reporting and
verification system (MRV) as part of the information management system that will be used
for monitoring purposes. The ASDS refers to an agricultural sector results framework that
would be used for monitoring.
The Community Land Act provides for an inventory system with the register of community
land, including cadastral maps, names of the community land registered members, the uses
of land, and any other information that may be relevant. However, it is not clear how this will
be managed within a system.
31
The Water Act establishes a national monitoring and information system overseen by the
Water Resources Authority (Article 11). This system is meant to be accessible to the public. In
article 70, the Water Services Regulatory Board (WASREB) is also charged with the role of
establishing an information system and will maintain a national database and georeferenced
information system on water services. In practice, a central system accessible to the public is
not yet in place, but the two agencies maintain internal databases and inventories and
provide information on request with most information also published on their respective
websites. Engagement with WASREB revealed significant progress in fulfilling their mandate
including the presence of a database and reports as well as rules and regulations set in place
to achieve its mandate.
Link to other policies
When it comes to linkages with other policies, the Kenyan policies analyzed score an average
of 3.3 due to the wide range of linkages to, among others, the UNFCCC and its decisions, the
Paris Agreement, the National Inventory Report, Vision 2030, Kenya’s 2010 Constitution,
other sectoral policies, SDGs, AU 2063, and CAADP.
2. Regional
Context, Actors and Process
On regional policies in Kenya, the focus is on Isiolo County which is the site of the Down2Earth
project in Kenya. These policies were developed as a result of devolution where counties are
expected to develop their own policies and laws as a way of cascading relevant national and
international law and policy to local level. In this way policies at county level are expected to
capture their specific contexts, circumstances, capabilities, diversities, priorities and other
intervening factors present at county level.
Under the constitution, policies at county level are supposed to be participatory involving
community members, private sector, women, youth, persons with disability, indigenous
groups, religious organizations among others. As a result, policies at this level have mostly
tended to follow these and generally included these categories of people during consultative
processes to develop their various policies and in committees. In terms of process, typically
policies at county level are discussed at community Baraza’s and other local level meetings
where different stakeholders are able to contribute to the discussions on these policies. The
CIDP and the Isiolo Climate Change Fund Act particularly followed this process with the
involvement of different actors from local level. In fact the Climate Change Fund Act itself
32
creates Ward Climate Change Planning Committees at the ward level to be able to deliberate
on and formulate activities for implementation under the Act.
When it comes to reflection of local contexts, the Isiolo County Customary Natural Resource
Management Bill, 2016 was specifically developed to anchor traditional community resource
management within the law. This is in recognition of the very vital and important role that
communal structures play in the management of resources especially in arid and semi-arid
areas characterized by expansive grasslands inhabited by humans, their livestock and wildlife.
33
Content
The Isiolo County Community Conservancies Bill, 2021 is the highest scoring at 3.1 followed
by the Climate Change Fund Act (2018), Isiolo County Wildlife Management and Conservation
Bill (2021) and the CIDP all with a score of 3. The lowest scorer is the Isiolo County Customary
Natural Resource Management Bill (2016) at 2.5. The combined score for all county policies
is 2.9. The scores and areas of rating are shown in the figure below and discussed in detail
thereafter.
Figure 12: Rating for Isiolo County Policies
Rights
The various policies have not explicitly captured rights which has the least score of 2.5. The
Climate Change Fund Act (2) for instance mentions vulnerable groups as the ones that would
benefit from some of the projects for implementation at county level and these projects must
incorporate gender, but there is no explicit mention of rights as captured in the constitution.
0
1
2
3
4
Rights
Accessibility
Inclusion
Implementation plans
Enforcement
Budgetary allocation
Info management system
Links to other policies
Isiolo County Policies
Climate Change Fund Act (2018)
Isiolo County Customary Natural Resource Management Bill (2016)
Isiolo County Wildlife Management and Conservation Bill (2021)
CIDP
The Isiolo County Community Conservancies Bill, 2021
Isiolo County Climate Change Draft Policy
34
The County Wildlife Management and Conservation Bill (3) talks about conservation and
management of wildlife for the benefit of ‘present and future generations’, suggesting intra
and inter-generational rights. The draft Climate Change policy has the highest score of 4 since
it reiterates the rights for all to a clean and healthy environment.
The CIDP (3) on its part makes linkages with the Africa Union Agenda 2063, SDG 13 as well as
mentioning the constitution and the rights of the minority and marginalized communities. It
also highlights the fact that it is one of the counties that is vulnerable to climate change
impacts but it does not mention the right to a clean and healthy environment. The community
conservation bill of 2021 only implicitly acknowledges the issue of rights and does not focus
too much on this while on the other hand the draft climate change policy explicitly talks about
rights linking this to article 42 of the constitution on the right to a clean and healthy
environment. It also highlights resource rights and the rights to community land.
Access
On access with a score of 2.8, the various policies provide for access to training and awareness
in the county so as to ensure that people within the county can be able to access and benefit
from the provisions of the policies and laws. The Climate Change Fund Act provides for
training as well as research and providing information that will enable better planning at all
levels as does the draft climate change policy both with a score of 3.
The Customary Natural Resource Management Bill which scores 2 has an objective of ensuring
access for all to natural resources within the county but is silent on issues of free, prior and
informed consent. The County Wildlife Management And Conservation Bill, 2021 with a score
of 3 on its part has a provision on awareness and especially towards conservation and
contains using indigenous knowledge as part of its management regime for natural resources.
Additionally, it provides for a mechanism for benefit sharing with communities living in
wildlife areas. For the Isiolo County Conservancies Bill there are provisions for establishment
of community conservancies where representatives of different categories of people will be
involved to make decisions on how they will be able to access and benefit from the resources
in the conservancies. In terms of early warning this is provided for in the draft climate change
policy which talks about provision of early warning information to communities so that they
can be able to prepare and respond to any changes ahead of time or in time. There are also
provisions for monitoring to ensure that information can be accessed and made available to
the communities especially those who are vulnerable for early action.
Inclusivity
When it comes to inclusivity which has the highest score of 3.3, the policies seem to pay
attention to this, specifically mentioning women, youth and persons with disability,
35
indigenous peoples and local communities inhabiting this area as well as other vulnerable
groups. The Climate Change Fund Act with a score of 4 has a specific provision to have Ward
planning committees composed of these different categories of people as part of the
composition. They are engaged in outreach at the ward level as well as leading the
formulation and development of proposals for projects on climate change adaptation for that
particular ward. In practice, the Ward Planning Committees in Isiolo have all been set up and
some have already developed and submitted their plans for implementation.
For the climate change policy there is recognition of traditional practices used in management
for example the Dedha system amongst the Borana where community elders decide and
agree on use of resources especially in migration patterns at different times during the various
seasons across the year. However, there is no specific role assigned to these traditional
systems within the climate change policy. The final version of the policy incorporated the
other traditional systems as well including those of the Samburu, Somali, Turkana and Meru
that inhabit the area recognizing the traditional system as part of the co-managers of natural
resources that are found within the county and their significant authority and influence on
community matters.
Implementation Plans
When it comes to actions, roles and responsibilities, the policies and Acts all with the
exception of the draft climate change policy which scores 2 have some form of
implementation plan outlining different roles and responsibilities of various actors to ensure
that there is implementation of the specific policy. The combined score for this area is 3. The
county customary natural resource management bill, for example, talks about the role and
responsibility of community elders specifically the Aaba Erega for example who manages the
allocation of water resources within the Borana community. It is however not clear how
monitoring and evaluation for these will be done and who will be responsible for M&E. For
the Climate Change Fund Act a framework is set out for the county where the climate finance
framework has to be developed every three years. The county planning committee has the
responsibility of developing a monitoring and evaluation framework and providing monitoring
and evaluation information during implementation of the funded projects. The specific plans
of the projects are developed by the Ward planning committees established at Ward level
and presented to the county for funding each financial year. The CIDP with a score of 3 is
perhaps the most advanced in terms of setting a monitoring and evaluation plan with
indicators and targets set per sector. This further includes projects in each sector such as
agriculture, water and climate change with a timeline of five years. The Isiolo County
Community Conservancies Bill with the highest score of 4 has a detailed implementation plan
which has highlighted roles and responsibilities for different actors including the functions
and roles of the established fund, the boards and committees.
36
Enforcement
When it comes to implementation the combined score is 3.2. For the Climate Change Fund
Act scoring 3, a county planning committee is responsible for implementation. For the
Customary Natural Resource Management Bill that scores 4 it has set out penalties on
activities that have a negative impact on the sustainability of resources. In this bill, the council
of elders is charged with determining fines or penalties for offenders so in this case it is seen
as a quasi-judicial entity. It is however not clear how the council will be established
considering the metropolitan nature of the county that hosts about five communities each
with their council of elders.
For the County Wildlife Management and Conservancies Bill, the Isiolo Wildlife Service
9
is
charged with enforcement and this includes anti-poaching and so on. Fines as well as
imprisonment are also outlined and there is also a procedure for inquiry which is well defined
(Part 4 of the Schedule). Additionally, all developments within the wildlife areas will be
subjected to environmental impact assessments. For the CIDP, various targets and indicators
in each sector as outlined in the monitoring and evaluation plan are connected to the
performance contracts for the various officers responsible for enforcement. The Community
Conservancies Bill (3) on its parts has regulations in terms of management of the various
boards and even conditions for removal of members from the board. Procedures for conflict
of interest among others are also outlined. The draft climate change policy has no provisions
for enforcement and compliance although it mentions linkages to the county integrated
monitoring and evaluation system (CIMES).
Budget
When it comes to budgeting, the county allocates 2% of its annual county budget to climate
change activities in the Climate Change Fund Act (4). A breakdown is further provided as
follows: 3% for administration, 27% for awareness, research and ‘county-wide’ projects, while
70% is allocated for ward planning committee projects. In interviews with stakeholders during
a visit to the county, progress on implementation of these faces some challenges especially
as a result of COVID-19. As a result, the Ward planning committee's proposals have not been
funded by the county as yet. Plans have however been forwarded for funding and have
received support in terms of development and finalization of their project proposals and
overall training on climate change planning by the county government through its Ministry of
Environment and Water, NDMA and other partners.
For the Wildlife Management And Conservation Bill a Wildlife Conservation and Management
Fund is established with funds drawn from the county budget as well as other sources. The
CIDP on its part also has a budget for each of the activities that are outlined and sources of
9
It is not clear how the service will operate vis-à-vis the Kenya Wildlife Service which has a national mandate and provided for under national
law.
37
funding are defined as the county budget as well as different partners for climate adaptation
related activities (annex 1.2 pg. 93).
The County Community Conservancies Bill with a score of 4 also has provisions for a budget
including remunerations for its officials with the budgetary allocations from the county. It also
establishes a Community Conservancies Fund to provide support to community
conservancies, facilitate development of infrastructure to community conservancies as well
as other functions. There are also various requirements for reporting as well as keeping
records. Unfortunately, the Customary Natural Resource Management Bill has no provision
for a budget, which is especially challenging given the responsibilities outlined especially for
the council of elders and other traditional community structures where this is not clear when
it is not clear whether the expectation is for the council of elders to continue operating as a
non-codified entity but within a codified system. Budgetary allocation has a score of 2.7.
Information Management System
When it comes to the information management system the policies score 2.5 which is the
least score, the CIDP with a score of 4 is specifically linked to the county information
monitoring and evaluation system (CIMES). Clear targets as well as indicators that are linked
to performance contracting are
outlined. The Climate Change Fund Act
(2) has the climate finance framework
as part of its monitoring and evaluation
but there are no further details in terms
of a central information management
system. Under the climate change
policy with a score of 3 information is to
be linked to NIMES at national level.
For the County Community Conservancies Bill, records are to be kept especially in terms of
accounting and financial records but there is no clear stipulation in terms of an information
management system. This is the same case with the County Wildlife Management and
Conservancies Bill and the Customary Natural Resource Management Bill that do not include
this provision.
Link to other policies
Linkages to other policies are outlined and this has the highest score of 3.3 similar to inclusion.
They link to some national as well as international policies for example for the case of the
Climate Change Fund Act which are linked to the Climate Change Act and climate change
policy at national level and the UNFCCC at international level. They also link to the Kenya
Key Messages
Rights – there is need to reiterate this especially at
county level where vulnerable communities
continue being impacted
Budgets – the Isiolo Customary Natural Resource
Management Bill does not include the source of
funds for the measures and systems to be set up
IMS – there is need for provision of IMS for data
collection, storage and processing important for
tracking progress and reporting
38
constitution, the County Government Act, Vision 2030 among other relevant laws and
policies.
Stakeholder Engagement
As part of the stakeholder engagement, a team from the D2E project visited the Isiolo WRUA
located just outside Isiolo town. WRUA’s are enshrined in the water act and play a key role in
the management of water resources at local level. The team also got sub-catchment
management plans (SCAMPS) from various WRUA’s from the WRA. Below we look at the Kuro
Bisam Owo Sub catchment WRUA SCAMP. The SCAMP provisions are discussed below.
Kuro Bisam Owo Sub Catchment Management Plan, Isiolo
As a follow up on implementation, visits to the WRA yielded copies of the Sub-Catchment
Management Plans developed by WRUA’s. The Kuro Bisam Owo SCMP was analyzed. The plan
includes various activities such as rehabilitation and catchment protection, school programs
for education and awareness in catchment protection, establishment of tree nurseries at
Bisan Marara, Bisan Biliqo and Dima Adho centres and the protection of Kuro springs.
For Kuro Bisam, timeframes are not provided for all activities stated even though there are
indications in the detailed budget in the appendix. Some items e.g. planting indigenous trees
along catchment are not elaborated (budget of 21m is stated) in appendix B this is quantified
(600,000 trees at 25KShs.each). Further visits and follow-up will be pursued to determine
progress made by the WRUA in achieving some of the set objectives during subsequent visits
to the WRUA.
ii. Ethiopia
1. National
Figure 13: Ethiopia's climate adaptation, food and water security policies
39
Context, Actors and Process
The context for the development of various policies in Ethiopia is shaped by various factors
internally as well as externally. For climate change policies for example, these have also been
mostly shaped by the international climate change discussions at the UNFCCC where
countries are expected to develop national adaptation plans, NDCs etc thus Ethiopia has
developed policies to be able to comply with this similar to the other two countries Kenya and
Somalia.
Ethiopia has also developed policies to align with its Climate Resilient Green Economy
Strategy (CRGE) of 2011
48
that seeks to transform the country to middle income status while
achieving sustainable development. For the agricultural sector, the Policy and Investment
Framework was developed to align with the CAADP compact as well as Ethiopia's five-year
Growth and Transformation Plan
49
. The Ethiopian National Policy and Strategy on Disaster
Risk Management, 2013
50
on its part seeks to amend the 1993 policy on National Disaster
Prevention and Management it sets out to provide for a more coordinated and decentralized
system of addressing disasters in Ethiopia. Ethiopia has also set up its National Framework for
Climate Services
51
as envisioned and agreed under the WMO’s global framework. This was
done via stakeholder engagement processes and is aimed at inclusion of various stakeholders.
In terms of processes, most of the policies involved a number of stakeholders led by
government ministries and agencies as well as development partner organizations. For most
of these policies information around the participation of communities, civil society, women
youth and other groups is not provided.
Content
The Agriculture Sector Policy and Investment Framework is the highest scoring policy with 3.4
while the Irrigation policy is the lowest scoring at 1.4. The policies have a combined score of
2.4. The scores and areas of rating are shown in the figure below and discussed in detail
thereafter.
40
Figure 14: Rating for Ethiopia policies
Rights
Rights have a combined score of 2.1. Ethiopia's NDC
15
, National Adaptation Plan, Irrigation
Policy and Hydropower Policy do not mention rights. The CRGE
48
and the CRGE water and
energy and the CRGE agriculture and forestry detail local user rights especially as it relates to
forestry. The Water Strategy, 2001
52
on its part talks about Ethiopian citizens having ‘access
to sufficient water of acceptable quality to satisfy basic human needs’ similar to the Ethiopia
Water Resources Management Policy with a score of 4 which includes protection of rights of
all citizens and the policy and reiterates this provision. The Water Supply And Sanitation Policy
with a score of 3 outlines that ‘water for basic human and livestock needs is a priority’. The
Agricultural Sector Policy and Investment Framework (2) on its part mentions the protection
0
1
2
3
4
Rights
Accessibility
Inclusion
Implementation plans
Enforcement
Budgetary allocation
Info management system
Links to other policies
Ethiopia
NDC (2020) - NDC (2021)
NAP (2019)
CRGE (2011)
Water Strategy (2001)
CRGE Strategy Water and Energy (2015)
Ethiopian Water Resources Management Policy
Water Supply and Sanitation Policy
Irrigation Policy
Hydropower Policy
Republic of Ethiopia Food Security Strategy (2002)
Agriculture Sector Policy and Investment Framework
Ethiopia National Policy and Strategy on Disater Risk Management (2013)
41
of women rights as included in the National Action Plan on Gender but the document does
not include other rights. And finally, even though the Ethiopian National Policy and Strategy
on Disaster Risk Management does not explicitly mention rights its objectives are centered
around saving lives and livelihoods of those impacted by disasters thus this implicitly captures
issues of rights.
Access
On access which has a combined score of 2.8, the NDC with a score of 2 only implicitly talks
about providing information and enabling access for those that are vulnerable and does not
explicitly provide for this. The NDC also talks about consideration for the vulnerable and
ensuring equitable benefits for all when it comes to adaptation measures. There is also the
mention of community-based forest management within the NDC as a strategy which can
potentially increase the participation, access and knowledge for community members.
The National Adaptation Plan with a score of 2 mentions a communication strategy to reach
out to vulnerable groups, educate and inform the groups and disseminate information
including in local languages. The CRGE on its part is not clear about access issues. The Water
Strategy links morbidity and mortality to water provision and details provision of microfinance
and access to other financial resources for increased water supply and sanitation. It also
provides for capacity building including training for users to better manage water resources
as well as contribute to increased productivity. This includes training for Water Resource
Users Associations to be able to better manage their water resources and deploy technology
such as water harvesting, irrigation among others. The CRGE strategy on water and energy
with a score of 2 notes that access to water and energy is linked to improved lives and
‘reduced mortality of up to 1.2 million people’. As a result, resources will be availed for
technical training to increase the capacity of users to better utilize water resources especially
in the face of climate change. The Water Supply and Sanitation Policy with a score of 3 is
specifically interesting in its provision as it sets out a social tariff to enable poor communities
to access water. The irrigation policy on its part aims at household level training and
development of irrigation projects for enhanced food security. This will specifically target
farmers and women in a participatory approach to ensure enhanced access. The Agriculture
Sector Policy and Investment Framework on its part intends to support farmers through
training, research and availing of information to ensure increased access to technologies and
knowledge for enhanced productivity as well as commercialization. The National Policy and
Strategy on Disaster Risk Management on its part identified the various vulnerabilities of
women, children, the elderly, persons with disabilities and those living with HIV/AIDs and
proposed strategies to ensure access of these vulnerable groups to information that will
reduce their vulnerability especially early warning systems that are people centered, risk
awareness trainings and investment in local response capabilities with a longtime aim of
minimizing disaster impacts.
42
Inclusivity
On inclusivity, the Policy and Strategy on Disaster Risk Management which scores 2
highlighted a participatory framework/approach with government agencies and other
concerned actors but it did not clearly lay out how vulnerable categories of people will
participate in the design and implementation of the policy even though it perceives DRM as
a ‘decentralized and community centered’ endeavor. The Policy and Investment Framework
of the agricultural sector mentions that farmers were engaged in the process of development
but it is not clear how these particular groups will be involved in the implementation apart
from being recipients of some of the measures that have been outlined. For the Hydropower
policy, local industries will be involved in supply of materials for hydro projects within their
communities while for the Irrigation Policy there will be enhanced participation of farmers,
cooperatives as well as other stakeholders when it comes to planning, implementation and
operation of irrigation projects. The policy also seeks to foster coexistence of indigenous
people and irrigation projects and has a score of 3.
The Water Supply and Sanitation Policy with a score of 2 in this area prioritizes basic water
supply for human and livestock needs so here the needs of both humans and livestock are
recognized even though it is not clear how community members or the vulnerable will be
involved in this particular process. For the Ethiopia Water Resources Management Policy it
recognizes that water is a common resource shared by all Ethiopians and adopts ‘a rural-
centered decentralized management participatory approach as well as integrated
framework’. It specifically identifies women participation in water resource management as
being vital. In terms of water allocation, it identifies basic human, livestock and environmental
needs for water as being of high priority. The policy was set to create forums for discussions
with various stakeholders including community members and also support community led
initiatives on water.
The CRGE and CRGE on water and energy addresses universal access to energy and water for
all categories of the population but there is no clarity on how women and other groups that
are disadvantaged will be included in planning and decision-making processes. The Water
Strategy includes aspects involving customary organizations, religious groups, NGOs and civil
societies in their role in water management as well as supply with the aim of ensuring equity
as well as fairness. This particular policy highlights the important role of women and their
inclusion. This is in addition to incorporating customary practices on livestock watering in its
implementation strategy (pg. 21). The policy also establishes a process for the participation
of all stakeholders for efficient management of water supply and sanitation systems.
For the NDC as well as the National Adaptation Plan (NAP), there is reference to trainings and
capacity building as well as technology transfer with a gender responsive approach but further
details are not provided. The Food Security Strategy has the highest score of 4 as it clearly
43
lays out the inclusion of vulnerable groups including women and the poor. Policies have a
combined score of 2.8 in this area.
Implementation Plans
On implementation plans, the NDC which score 3 sets out 45 adaptation interventions that
were arrived at through a 12-step process. An MRV system is also mentioned which is key to
monitoring and evaluation. For the CRGE, implementation is through the GTP, the CRGE
agriculture and forestry and the CRGE water and energy as well as other sectoral plans and
strategies as a result of this CRGE. The Water Strategy sets out measures to be implemented
in the short term to the long term but indicators and those responsible are not indicated.
For the Agriculture Sector Policy and Investment Framework which score 4, the Ministry of
Agriculture and rural development is charged with implementation together with other
agencies at regional and Woreda level and an M&E system based on a detailed result
framework is included in Annex 1. This includes specific outcomes, milestones and indicators
of progress and it is also time bound indicating the percentage annual increase or
improvements towards achieving its objectives. The National Policy and Strategy on Disaster
Risk Management has a disaster risk management council charged with overseeing
implementation which is pegged on the formulation of laws, policies and directives
subsequent to the policy. Agencies responsible for ensuring this happens are clearly outlined
within the policy and disaster risk management coordination structures are set to be created
at Woreda level so as to coordinate and oversee implementation of the policy. It further states
that policy and strategy focal points at government institutions will be responsible for
coordination at federal, regional and woreda levels.
The Water Resources Management Policy, water and sanitation policy, the irrigation policy
and the hydropower policy do not include specific implementation plans.
Implementation plans have a combined score of 2.3.
Enforcement
Enforcement has a combined score of 1.9. The Disaster Risk Management Policy and
Strategy’s enforcement is pegged on the formulation of laws and directives. These are not yet
in place but the policy states that DRM coordination structures will be subsequently formed
to lead and coordinate compliance strategies, the enforcement measures are not outlined as
yet. The policy scores 2.
In the Agriculture Sector Policy and Investment Framework, those responsible for ensuring
implementations are clearly outlined and external evaluation is provided for where an expert
review panel evaluates the work of the PIF twice within a 10-year period. However, the
specific enforcement, compliance and non-compliance frameworks are not included in this
policy. For the hydropower policy, establishment of codes on hydropower projects is
mentioned as part of ensuring compliance with environmental guidelines but no further
44
details are provided. The irrigation policy, the Water Supply and Sanitation Policy and the
CRGE water and energy do not include any enforcement procedures.
The Ethiopia Water Resources Management Policy intends to set up a framework to support
water user associations and community participation as well as come up with a legal
framework with penalties for violation against set rules. These regulations and guidelines
were not accessed. For the 2001 Water Strategy there was planned development of
guidelines, standards and policies as well as a legislative framework for effective enforcement
but it is not clear whether this was developed or not but the CRGE energy and water which is
linked to this policy does not have enforcement procedures. The CRGE water and energy only
mentions enforcement in terms of fuel efficiency standards and includes a budget for these.
In the National Adaptation Plan the EFCCC is charged with coordination and follow up with
other agencies to ensure enforcement but further details are not provided for this. Similarly,
the NDC does not make much reference to enforcement focusing instead on actions or
measures to strengthen implementation.
Budget
Budgetary allocation has the lowest combined score at 1.9. The NDC provides a budget
outlining conditional and unconditional funding unconditional funding. This is indicated at 58
billion Usd to be provided by the government of Ethiopia to finance climate action covering
both adaptation and mitigation. The costs for adaptation are estimated at 13 billion Usd. For
conditional funding, this is indicated at 235 billion Usd until 2030. There is however no clarity
on the source of this unconditional funding from within government and the itemized budget
with specific interventions and their targets is not indicated. The policy scores 2. For the
National Adaptation Plan 6 billion Usd per year until 2034 is budgeted for. This will be sourced
for internally and also externally mobilized. The action plan includes detailed budgets. The
CRGE on the other hand, has a budget of 150 billion U.S. dollars by 2030 from external and
internal sources but similar to the NDC and NAP this is not mandated in terms of government
sources.
The CRGE water and energy with a score of 3 requires 895 million by 2030 and provides a
budget for the two sectors but a more detailed one is expected after further analysis is
concluded. It indicates that four specific projects have been selected for fast tracking in terms
of financing through the CRGE facility where the funds will come from government, investors
as well as from international climate finance. The Water Strategy, Water Resource
Management Policy, the Water Supply and Sanitation Policy, the Irrigation Policy and the
Hydropower Policy do not include budgets. This is despite the fact that a 2000 proclamation
set up the Water Development Fund and another proclamation in 2002 established a National
Disaster Prevention and Preparedness Fund Establishment.
Information Management System
45
The Hydropower Policy, Irrigation Policy and the Water Supply and Sanitation Policy do not
include an information management system thus all of them score 1. The NDC indicates an
aspiration for strengthening the MRV and monitoring and evaluation systems and integration
of all of these with sector targets and indicators. The NAP anticipates the creation of a climate
impact database and knowledge management system but does not provide further details
around this. For the CRGE, the EPA has the role of overseeing the technical elements and is
responsible for the MRV systems as well as ensuring that information on progress is made
available to citizens. The Water strategy provides for an information management system
which is publicly accessible and will contain information that can be analyzed and used for
better management of water resources.
The CRGE water and energy includes having data systems for decision support as well as
consolidating available data for use in decision making. It includes the use of existing
databases including those on groundwater such as the national groundwater information
system, hydrological observation networks on river floods, rainfall and temperature data etc
and thus proposes a user focused data development plan at a cost of 1,000,000 Usd.
The Ethiopian Water Resources Management Policy on its part seeks to develop the Ethiopian
water resources information system by establishing the Ethiopian water resource Information
Center for the collection of data, processing, analysis as well as dissemination. This policy has
a high score of 4. For the Agriculture Sector Policy and Investment Framework, it also scores
4 since it establishes a system for collecting and monitoring information and aggregation of
this information for monitoring and evaluation which is said to be a continuous process and
indicators and targets are clearly outlined in the result framework. For the Ethiopian National
Policy and strategy on Disaster Risk Management it mentions an information management
system that includes collection of gender disaggregated data and collaboration with different
actors as well as setting up of a database to inform action but no further details about these
information management systems are outlined.
This area has a combined score of 2.5.
Link to other policies
There are different policies outlined linked to the Growth and Transformation Plan, the CRGE,
the UNFCCC, the CAADP, the National Agricultural Development and Industrialization
strategy, the National Economic Development Strategy, Ethiopia 2030 and other policies and
plans. This area has a combined score of 2.8 mostly because the Water strategy and the
hydropower policy are weak on linkages.
2. Regional
46
Context, Actors and Process
Regional policies in the state of Oromia are developed to address challenges faced by the
specific state, to align with national and international policies, and in fulfillment of the state's
mandate in coming up with rules, regulations, policies and bylaws. Most of the regional
policies are in the form of regulations and proclamations. The Urban Local Government
Proclamation of the Oromia National Regional State
53
was developed to streamline
operations and organizations of urban local governments for good government governance
and democracy to enable them develop and improve the living standards of residents. It is
not clear what process was undertaken to develop this proclamation nor the actors involved
apart from the Oromia state.
Proclamation No. 180/2013
54
on establishment of the Irrigation Development Authority of
Oromia national regional state was necessary for the expansion of irrigation development for
food security ‘without being dependent on erratic and uneven rainfall distribution’. This
alludes to changing weather patterns and climate change.
The Proclamation to amend the proclamation No. 56/2002, 70/2003, 103/2005 of Oromia
rural land use and administration proclamation 130/2007
55
is set out to implement existing
proclamations on the rights, obligations and security of rural land.
Content
The Proclamation to amend the proclamation No. 56/2002, 70/2003, 103/2005 of Oromia
rural land use and administration proclamation 130/2007 ranks high with a score of 3.3
followed by the Proclamation No. 180/2013 on establishment of the Irrigation Development
Authority of Oromia with 2.4. The Urban Local Government Proclamation of the Oromia
National Regional State has the lowest score at 2. All the policies combined average 2.5. The
areas of rating and scores are shown in the figure and discussed in detail below.
47
Figure 15: Rating for Oromia State Policies
Rights
One of the objectives of the proclamation is to promote a safe and clean urban environment
suitable for development, work and residence. It also states that urban local governments
shall provide environmental services. The proclamation also states the fact that the residents
have the final say in all activities including the recall of representatives. It however fails to
explicitly mention rights thus scores 2.
The Irrigation Development Authority Proclamation states that its objective is to ‘support by
irrigation development to hasten socio-economic growth of the farmers and pastoralists
community of the region, to alleviate shortage of food crops and for the people of the region
to attain food self-sufficiency in sustainable manner’. There is however no direct reference to
rights thus this policy also rates 2.
The Proclamation to amend the proclamation No. 56/2002, 70/2003, 103/2005 of Oromia
rural land use and administration proclamation 130/2007 in its preamble stating that
agriculture is the main source of livelihood reiterates that its utilization should not
‘compromise the development endeavors of the coming generation’. This underscores
intergenerational equity issues. The Proclamation provides for the right to acquire rural land
0
1
2
3
4
Rights
Accessibility
Inclusion
Implementation plans
Enforcement
Budgetary allocation
Info management system
Links to other policies
Oromia State Policies
Urban Local Government Proclamation of the Oromia National Regional State
Proclamation No. 180/2013 on establishment of the Irrigation Development Authority of Oromia
Proclamation to amend the proclamation No. 56/2002, 70/2003, 103/2005 of Oromia rural land use
and administration proclamation 130/2007
48
for residents. It also states that women have equal rights with men ‘to possess use and
administer rural land’. Pastoralists also have a right to rural land through donations,
inheritance and from the government. Similarly, government, private investors and other
organizations also have a right to acquire rural land. Land use rights are thus clearly set out in
the proclamation making it have a score of 4.
Access
This is not provided for in the Urban Local Government Proclamation thus a low rating of 1.
The Irrigation Development Authority Proclamation rating is 3 since it provides that the
Irrigation authority will support and strengthen micro-irrigation undertaken by the
community. It is also charged with providing Technical Support and training of users and
support maintenance where users do not have this capacity. The authority shall also provide
extension services and provide advisory services for farmers.
The Proclamation to amend the Proclamation No. 56/2002, 70/2003, 103/2005 of Oromia
rural land use and administration proclamation 130/2007 provides that residents practicing
agriculture and aged over 18 have a right to get rural land at no cost. It also outlines how
other groups of people can access land for their activities. This is why the policy has a high
score of 4.
Inclusivity
This is the highest scoring area with an average of 3.3 in terms of the content of the policies.
The Urban Local Government Proclamation States that ‘residents, organizations and private
sector shall discuss, debate and express their views on the city's annual work program budget
project ideas performance as well as financial and audit reports’. The proclamation also
provides for the participation of the elderly and traditional leaders to achieve development.
The Irrigation Development Authority Proclamation provides for the engagement of users in
irrigation projects within their communities including in terms of technical training to be able
to develop and maintain as well as invest in micro irrigation projects. It also provides for water
user associations which are organized by the authority in charge with the responsibility of
developing their own bylaws etc for the management of irrigation resources. The authorities
were also charged with the responsibility of ensuring the participation of women and youth
in irrigation development.
The Proclamation to amend the Proclamation No. 56/2002, 70/2003, 103/2005 of Oromia
rural land use and administration proclamation 130/2007 provides for inclusion of women,
farmers, pastoralists, youth, private investors, NGOs and others in accessing and using rural
land.
49
Implementation Plans
The Urban Local Government Proclamation lists functions of various agencies that are created
at city level; this includes the mayor, the speaker, the mayor's committee, the city manager
and other executive bodies as well as the city courts. All these have a specific role and function
within the proclamation. There is however no specific implementation plan or timelines
indicated so the proclamation is rated 2.
The Irrigation Authority shall be in charge of developing plans and projects on irrigation
development and will also support water resource users to develop their plans and bylaws
around irrigation development. An implementation plan is not provided.
An implementation plan is not set out by the Proclamation to amend the proclamation No.
56/2002, 70/2003, 103/2005 of Oromia rural land use and administration proclamation
130/2007 but various timelines are set within which certain land use rights are performed for
example sale of fixed asset products. The proclamation came into force in July 2007.
Enforcement
In terms of enforcement, the performance is rather good with an average of 3 for all the
policies. The Urban Local Government Proclamation provides for procedures for appointment
to the various functions that are set out as well as dismissal from these functions due to non-
performance among other factors. A City Court is provided for and shall be established by the
urban local government in collaboration with neighboring cities and will have jurisdiction on
cases involving implementation of urban planning laws, housing, environmental sanitation
among other services. The Irrigation Authority is charged with implementation of irrigation
development related laws but further enforcement procedures are not stated.
The Proclamation to amend the proclamation No. 56/2002, 70/2003, 103/2005 of Oromia
rural land use and administration proclamation 130/2007 sets out an enforcement procedure
including penalties for those who violate provisions and states that they will be tried under
applicable laws. The proclamation obliged persons to cooperate with relevant authorities for
the implementation of the proclamation. The Oromia Agricultural Rural and Development
Bureau is responsible for execution of the proclamation while the Oromia Regional Council is
responsible for setting regulations to implement the proclamation. This Proclamations thus
has a rating of 4.
Budget
This is the least scoring area of rating with an average of 1.3 where the Urban Local
Government Proclamation (1) does not include a budget. Activities will be funded by the
50
government. The Irrigation authority is funded by the government as well as various levies
paid for various services and financial assistance. This proclamation score 2. The Proclamation
to amend the Proclamation No. 56/2002, 70/2003, 103/2005 of Oromia rural land use and
administration proclamation 130/2007 does not provide a budget for its implementation thus
a score of 1. It is assumed that this would be funded by the Oromia state. This as reiterated
above is a major challenge for implementation.
Information Management System
The Urban Local Government Proclamation does not include an IMS. Even though the
irrigation authority proclamation does not include an information management system, one
of the rules of the authority is to collect information for monitoring and evaluation. It is
however not clear how the information will be managed.
The Proclamation to amend the proclamation No. 56/2002, 70/2003, 103/2005 of Oromia
rural land use and administration proclamation 130/2007 provides for a land information
management system where all rural land related data is collected, analyzed and availed for
users. With this the proclamation ranks highly (4).
Link to other policies
The proclamations are linked to state laws and regional laws. This is stated in the text of the
proclamations thus this area has a score of 3.
iii. Somalia
1. National
Context, Actors and Process
Somalia, like the other countries, has developed its policies on climate adaptation, food
security as well as water scarcity to address challenges in a changing climate. Somalia
developed its first nationally determined contribution in 2015 and developed and submitted
an updated version in 2021. The NDC was prepared in line with the UNFCCC and its Lima call
for action in the Paris agreement. It is also best on Somalia's Compact New Deal as well as 25
policies which relate to climate change issues in Somalia. national and regional stakeholders
including government agencies, development partners and other actors were involved in the
development process.
The National Adaptation Plan of Action was developed in 2013
56
and is one of the policies
developed after the Somalia federal government came into place following a prolonged
period of instability. The NAPA is a result of a consultative process that involved Somaliland
and Puntland states. Those involved in the process include government institutions and
51
authorities, traditional and religious leaders, pastoralist and agro-pastoralists, youth, women,
NGOs, academia and private sector. The plan incorporates modeling data on climate change
and variability from ICPAC.
The Somalia National Food Fortification Strategic Plan of 2019 – 2024
57
, was developed to
respond to the growing issues of malnutrition and food insecurity in Somalia; it aims at ending
malnutrition by 2030. This strategy was preceded by the Somalia National Micronutrient
Deficiency Control Strategy of 2014 - 2016. It was developed by the government in liaison
with development partners and the Scaling Up Nutrition (SUN) movement
10
. The strategy
states that various documents were reviewed as part of the process of developing it. These
include policies such as the Somali Nutrition Strategy of 2011-2013, Federal Government of
Somalia Health Sector Strategic Plan of 2018 to 2021, Federal Government of Somalia NDP of
2017 -2019 as well as sustainable development goals among others. Similar to the other
policies a number of actors were involved during the development of the strategy including
ministry officials and government agencies, the SUN movement and the office of the Prime
Minister.
The National Water Resource Strategy of 2021-2025 was developed as a result of a gap
identified in the 2020 to 2024 national development plan. As a result, this strategy will
support development objectives that are set out in the national development plan. This policy
was also developed through a stakeholder engagement process that consisted of the Ministry
of Energy and Water Resources, government ministries, international partners, private sector,
civil society, UNDP and UNICEF.
Content
Somalia’s National Water Resource Strategy 2021-2025
58
is the highest scoring policy at 3.1
followed by the Somalia National Food Fortification Strategic Plan (2019-2024) at 3, the
updated NDC at 2.9 and the NAPA with the lowest score of 2.3. The policies have a combined
score of 2.8. The areas of rating and scores are shown in the figure and discussed in detail
below.
10
The Scaling Up Nutrition (SUN) Movement which aims at ending all forms of malnutrition brings together 65 countries and 4 Indian
States. It was launched by the UN Sec-Gen in 2010.
52
Figure 16: Rating for Somalia Policies
Rights
Rights are the highest scoring at 3.5. The National Water Resource Strategy scores quite highly
at 4 because it includes the guiding principle #8 which states that ‘access to clean potable
water is a fundamental human right’. This is also reiterated in guiding principle #12 which
highlights a clean and healthy environment. It also refers to article 25 of the Somalia
constitution which states that ‘every citizen has the right to an environment that is not
harmful to their health and well-being and to be protected from pollution and harmful
materials and that every person has the right to have a share of the natural resources of the
country whilst being protected from excessive and damaging exploitation of these natural
resources’. Within this strategy these rights are elaborated on as concerns vulnerable groups
and measures to be able to secure these rights are included.
The Somalia National Food Fortification Strategic Plan with a score of 4 states that
malnutrition infringes on ‘basic children’s right to survival and development’. The plan goes
ahead to set out strategies for addressing malnutrition for children especially those under 5.
The National Adaptation Plan of Action which also scores 4 reiterates the constitutional
provision on rights and outlines measures to advance these rights. In a departure from the
rest of the documents the NDC with a score of 2 has no mention of rights as contained in the
0
1
2
3
4
Rights
Accessibility
Inclusion
Implementation plans
Enforcement
Budgetary allocation
Info management system
Links to other policies
Somalia
Updated NDC (2021)
NAPA (2013)
Somalia National Food Fortification Stategic Plan (2019-2024)
National Water Resource Strategy (Somalia) 2021-2025
53
Somalia constitution; rather, it mentions women, refugees and IDPs as those that need
particular focus through mainstreaming of the specific needs and climate interventions.
Access
Access has a combined score of 2.5. The National Water Resource Strategy (3) advocates for
engagement by all sections towards its implementation including engagement on capacity
building and awareness initiatives as well as provision of services and initiatives which benefit
communities. As an example, the promotion of irrigation is included as a measure to ensure
food security.
On access, the Somalia National Food Fortification Strategic Plan (3) Outlines measures such
as consumer education and capacity building including support to farmers to adopt
appropriate technologies and working with them as well as communities towards food
fortification. It is however unclear on exactly how this will be done.
The National Adaptation Plan of Action (2) Is unclear about ensuring access even though it
mentions information dissemination and education at all levels including those who are
vulnerable to climate change.
Somalia’s NDC (2) makes reference to increased access to weather information for the
agriculture sector as well as the consideration of indigenous and local knowledge. It is
however not clear how this will be integrated in the implementation of the NDC.
Inclusivity
The national water resource strategy scores 3 since it outlines the needs of women and girls.
Women, youth and other groups that are vulnerable to climate change are included as a
guiding principle. Capacity building for women and gender mainstreaming for equity is
outlined as an activity in flagship project 3 which is included in the National Water Resource
Strategy Roadmap.
The Somalia National Food Fortification Strategic Plan which scores 3 Includes children as well
as other vulnerable populations that are those in need of some of the proposed interventions
including providing of supplements to all community members. There is however little clarity
on the role of these vulnerable populations in the implementation of the strategy.
The National Adaptation Plan of Action scoring 3 identifies rural populations and pastoralists
as those most vulnerable to climate change impacts. Women and youth outlined as
particularly vulnerable. Internally displaced persons are also included among those who are
vulnerable. The impacts to these various populations are included within the NAPA and with
these measures such as trainings, sharing of information etc but further details are not
54
provided. The NDC which score 3 specifically mentions pastoral and farming communities as
a primary target with specific focus on women and youth in these communities. It outlines
engagement with these vulnerable groups as a way of implementing the various interventions
and meeting the climate targets that have been set out. It also mentions inclusivity and
transparency as guiding principles of the NDC.
Implementation Plans
A detailed National Water Resource Strategy Roadmap was developed as part of the strategy.
It provides for implementation of this strategy via a fast approach starting with 13 flagship
products the timelines for actions under the flagship projects are outlined in the relevant
ministry and agencies responsible are all claimed. This road map also includes a strategic
results framework which outlines principles, strategic objectives and actions to be
implemented. This policy scores 3.
The Somalia National Food Fortification Strategic Plan that is rated 3 provides an
implementation plan with an annual budget and specific actions. Monitoring framework is
also included providing details on the roles and responsibilities as well as the indicators which
are time bound.
The National Adaptation Plan of Action which scores 2 includes a number of approaches for
implementation including development of capacity, demonstrations and dissemination which
are part of M&E. The ministry for natural resources is mandated with leading implementation
but a detailed plan is not provided. However next steps are outlined mainly for the
development of proposals as well as fund raising. Three project profiles are included; these
are meant to be developed into full proposals with detailed implementation and monitoring
plans. The updated NDC which scores 3 sets a timeline of up to 2030 and has outlined eight
areas for intervention under adaptation. The combined score for implementation plans is 2.8.
Enforcement
Enforcement is the lowest scoring area at 2. The National Water Resource Strategy which
scores 2 does not include enforcement mechanisms and procedures but states that this will
be developed as part of implementing all the strategy. A compliance, monitoring and
enforcement strategy is also set to be developed.
In the Somalia National Food Fortification Strategic Plan a monitoring and enforcement
framework allots responsibility for monitoring and review to specific agencies within
government including the Ministry of Agriculture. Indicators outlined are useful for
enforcement but no clear procedures are set out for this. This policy is rated 2.
55
The National Adaptation Plan of Action does not include an enforcement mechanism. The
NDC states that the directorate of environment and climate change under the office of the
Prime Minister is charged with implementation and coordination. No specific measures for
compliance or non-compliance are set out.
Budget
Budgetary allocation has a score of 2.5. The national water resource strategy (2) mentions
that it will depend on international support for financing as well as money from domestic
government sources. This will be mobilized after the development of our funding and
resource mobilization strategy. Specific resources are not delineated for the implementation
of this strategy and its road map.
The Somalia National Food Fortification Strategic Plan which scores 3 includes a detailed
budget for each of the listed actions but there is no clarity on exactly where the funding will
come from. It is mentioned that financial support from partners and other non-state actors
to implement the strategy is expected.
An indicative budget is provided in the National Adaptation Plan of Action for the three
project profiles that are included. These profiles are said to be developed into full proposals
with detailed budgets thus this is not included in the plan. The initial NDC had a number of
projects with detailed budgets but funding for this was expected from international sources.
they updated NDC it does not outline specific projects but gives an indication of the amount
of funds required for its implementation. This is rated 3.
Information Management System
The combined score for these policies is 2.8. Sub strategy 13 of the National Water Resource
Strategy is about information management setting out what information will be collected,
analyzed and disseminated. There will be collaboration across agencies to collect data for
better information management. The system developed will be open, transparent and easily
shareable. A national hydromet service center will be established for access and utilization of
information. In improving systems Somalia will seek to transfer some of the services held by
FAO- SWALIM in terms of information and data. This policy will also implement regional data
and information sharing protocols and has the highest score of 4.
The Somalia National Food Fortification Strategic Plan (3) provides for the collection and
processing of information through a monitoring framework which has outlined indicators.
There is however no particular system that is referenced, and it is not clear where this will be
domiciled.
56
The National Adaptation Plan of Action scores 1 since it does not provide for an information
management system, but the NDC which is related to this plan includes a monitoring review
and verification system to capture and track progress thus scores 3.
Link to other policies
Somalia's policies are linked to various International regional and national policies thus have
a score of 3.3 in this area. These include the Paris agreement, the National Development Plan
of 2020 to 2024, the constitution of Somalia 2012, Somalia Compact and New Deal, SDGs
among other policies.
2. Regional
Context, Actors and Process
In recent years, Somaliland has developed a number of laws in nearly every sector including
climate adaptation, food security and water security. A number of the laws and policies have
been developed to align with the Somaliland vision 2030 which envisions, ‘a stable,
democratic and prosperous country where people enjoy a high quality of life’. Vision 2030 was
developed through a consultative process including citizens as well as government agencies.
This was done through stakeholder meetings in Hargeisa where a SWOT analysis was
conducted and working groups established to synthesize views from various stakeholders
including development partners, public organizations, NGOs and civil society, private sector
and citizens among others.
The Somaliland National Disaster Risk Management Policy of 2019 was developed to address
disasters that continue to affect Somaliland. To prepare the policy, the National Disaster
Preparedness and Food Reserve Authority held workshops with various stakeholders
including UN agencies, government ministries and civil society.
The National Food Reserve Initiative Management Policy also involved various actors in its
development. These include NGO's, government representatives UN agencies among others
engaged at two consultation workshops.
The Somaliland Food and Water Security Strategy Was developed to operationalize the
Somaliland vision 2030 that includes provisions on food and water security. Consultative
processes were convened by government agencies to develop the policy. Actors involved
include the Office of the President, IFAD, FAO, UNDP, WFP, IGAD, Sama Development
Institute, and the Ministry of Planning and Development.
57
Content
The Somaliland Food and Water Security Strategy 2030 is the highest scoring at 3, followed
by the DRM policy with 2.6. The lowest scoring policy is the Rangeland Management Policy
with a score of 2.1.
The policies have a combined score of 2.5. The areas of rating and scores are shown in the
figure and discussed in detail below.
Figure 17: Rating for Somaliland Policies
0
1
2
3
4
Rights
Accessibility
Inclusion
Implementation plans
Enforcement
Budgetary allocation
Info management
system
Links to other policies
Somaliland Policies
Rangeland Management Policy
(Draft)
Somaliland Food and Water Security Strategy 2030
Somaliland vision 2030
National Food Reserve Initiative Management Policy
DRM policy
58
Rights
Rights have a combined score of 2.6. Somaliland vision 2030 with a score of 3 includes equity,
good governance and citizen participation as part of its guiding principles. the protection of
citizen rights is included under the good governance principle noting that there should be no
discrimination based on gender, age, clan, political affiliation or beliefs. The right to basic
education is also outlined. The National Food Reserve Initiative Management Policy which has
a high score of 4 is guided by the international human rights law recognizing the 1948
declaration ‘on the right to an adequate standard of living’, including adequate food, and the
‘fundamental right to be free from hunger’. It also reiterates national human rights, stating
that the Somaliland government exists and recognizes universal human rights. The policy
states that other laws relating to the right to access to water, land, health work, and living in
dignity are also contained in other policies enacted by the Somaliland parliament. The DRM
policy with a rating of 2 mentions that it is guided by human rights including the right to
development but further details are not provided.
The Somaliland Food and Water Security Strategy, 2030 with a rating of 2 mentions that it
responds to ‘the urgent need of the Somaliland people for a more food and water secure
environment that is healthy for life and work’. The right to food and water is therefore
implicitly stated here. The draft Rangeland Management Policy which scores 2 does not
mention rights explicitly but identifies several groups, actors, and areas as relevant to
rangelands and their management.
Access
Somaliland’s vision 2030 includes education and public awareness as an enabler for the
implementation of this vision however further details on this are not provided. This policy is
rated 2.
The National Food Reserve Initiative Management Policy rated 2 does not explicitly address
issues of access. It however mentions provision of food assistance to 150,000 households
which is a significant contribution to ensuring access to food by the most vulnerable. The DRM
policy notes that actions will be aimed at resilience and capacity strengthening for households
and communities to limit impacts of disasters. The DRM policy also mentions accessibility and
non-discrimination in participating in Disaster Risk Reduction. It also includes guidelines on
information access.
The Somaliland Food and Water Security Strategy rated 4 includes expanded training as well
as access to implements for farmers as a way of ensuring food and water security for
enhanced productivity. There's also access to financial services technology adoption support
in sustainable practices. Additionally, linkages to markets and market information for crop
farmers and pastoralists is outlined. The Rangeland Management Policy rated 3 has provisions
59
for access noting that 85% of Somaliland is rangeland. Accessibility for most (if not all) is
covered through interventions for pastoralists, villages, associations, farmers, and wildlife.
All policies have a combined rating of 2.8 in this area.
Inclusivity
This area has a score of 3.2 which is the highest score for the policies in an area. The National
Food Reserve Initiative Management Policy with a rating of 2 mentions women and children
as among those most impacted by poverty and susceptible to hazards including climate
induced disasters. It is however not clear how this category will participate in the
implementation of the policy or decision making apart from us recipients of food assistance.
Vision 2030 rated 2 includes gender equality as well as women's empowerment and mentions
that women and youth will be particularly targeted but further details are not included. The
DRM policy mentions empowerment of women and persons with disability for leadership in
disaster risk management thus rates highly at 4. The policy mentions the promotion of gender
equality, the vulnerability of women and children to disaster impacts and the need for all of
society engagement to address disasters. Other details are included in actions listed under
priority areas. Under the policy pastoralists in communities led by local leaders will be
responsible for identifying causes of their vulnerability and implementation of programs to
reduce risks.
The Somaliland Food and Water Security Strategy which scores 4 includes ‘community-based,
bottom-up in participatory approach where the food and water insecure should be assisted
and made agents of their own development’. It is noted in this strategy that the entire
Somaliland population is food insecure especially the elderly, women, persons with disability,
street children, refugees and IDPs. Measures for engaging these categories are outlined in the
strategy. The Rangeland Management Policy also scores 4. It lists capacity-building, training,
public participation, local knowledge, and scientific research as interventions. Pastoralists,
villages, etc are covered by the interventions, and are the primary actors identified in the
Policy.
Implementation Plans
The National Food Reserve Initiative Management Policy rated 1 will be reviewed every three
years as part of evaluation.
An implementation plan for vision 2030 is not included but it is stated that the ministry for
national planning and development will come up with a plan, mobilize resources, set up a
monitoring and evaluation framework in report on progress and achievements. The vision will
be reviewed every two years at a stakeholders meeting. This document is rated 2.
60
Measures, roles and responsibilities are set out in the DRM policy which is rated 2. NADFOR,
District Disaster Management Committees, government and government departments,
development partners and private sector have various designated roles. A detailed
implementation plan is not provided. The Rangeland Management Policy scores 2 since it is
not clear on its plan but sets out 14 different policy statements/interventions.
The Somaliland Food and Water Security Strategy rated 2 establishes a food and water
security office for its implementation. This office we'll develop programs and projects to
actualize the strategy. It will also set performance indicators, design an information and
communication system, monitoring and evaluation etc. Timelines for implementation are not
included. Implementations plans score 1.8 which is the lowest score in an area of rating for
Somaliland policies.
Enforcement
Enforcement has a combined score of 2. The National Food Reserve Initiative Management
Policy with a score of 2 states that the National Disaster Preparedness and Food Reserve
Authority (NADFOR) has the responsibility of managing disaster related risks and he's also
charged with food safety control. The NADFOR is also responsible for the implementation of
the DRM policy. Furthermore, the DRM policy lays out roles and responsibilities for various
actors including the District Disaster Management Committees, pastoralists at local level,
government departments and others.
The Somaliland National Planning Commission is responsible for the realization of vision 2030.
Further details on enforcement are not provided. The Rangeland Management Policy does
not mention enforcement. A Food and Water Security Strategy Office will be established to
implement the Somaliland Food and Water Security Strategy which scores 3. This office will
be led by the national food and water security committee that comprises different
government agencies.
Budget
Similar to implementation plans budgetary allocation has the lowest score of 1.8. The
National Food Reserve Initiative Management Policy has the highest score of 3, stating that it
will be funded through the government with costs estimated at 7,000,000 U.S. dollars
annually. This is meant to provide food for ‘150,000 households for three consecutive months.
A contingency fund of 3.5 million U.S. dollars is also mentioned. Somaliland will also seek
international finance as well as local donations especially in times of emergencies/disasters.
Vision 2030 does not include a budget. This is to be developed by the ministry of National
Planning and Development. The Rangeland management policy does not have a budget. The
DRM policy with a score of 2 notes that it will be funded through budgetary allocation to the
61
NADFOR, Ministry funds, contributions and fund-raising committees. It also proposes a
national contingency fund. The amounts required are not indicated.
A budget is not provided thus it is not clear where resources for the implementation of the
Somaliland Food and Water Security Strategy will come from.
Information Management System
The National Food Reserve Initiative Management Policy scores 2. It mentions the provision
of information on the food situation as well as the dissemination of disaster risk management
information but there is no clarity on a particular information management system that will
be utilized. Vision 2030 with a score 2 mentions that there will be indicators for measuring
progress and the ministry will be in charge of reporting on achievements and targets but a
specific information management system is not provided for. The DRM policy information
management system including monitoring and evaluation will be implemented by the
NADFOR. This policy has a rating of 3. The Rangeland management policy, with a score of 2,
refers to the importance of collecting data and conducting research to inform appropriate
Rangeland Management actions in various zones, ecosystems, communities, and districts but
no further details are indicated.
The Somaliland Food and Water Security Strategy with the highest score of 4, establishes the
food and water security information system to provide’ evidence-based intervention'. This
system will analyze data and disseminate information, support food and nutrition
surveillance, conduct vulnerability assessments among other roles. It will also share
information. The policy also sets out the creation of a register for food insecure households.
Finally a monitoring and evaluation system linked to other information systems on disaster
management health poverty among others is envisaged.
Link to other policies
The policies are linked to a number of Somaliland policies including the Somaliland Vision
2030, national disaster policies, the constitution as well as international laws and policies
including those relating to disaster, human rights and SDGs. This area has a rating of 3.
b. Sectoral analysis (cross-country)
In this section we look at the different sectors that we have analyzed across the various
countries to see what are some of the similarities as well as the differences.
i. Water management
1. Which policies fall under this topic
62
Table 4: Water Policies
Country
Policy
Ethiopia
Water Strategy (2001)
Ethiopia
CRGE Strategy Water and Energy (2015)
Ethiopia
Ethiopian Water Resources Management Policy (n.d)
Ethiopia
Water Supply and Sanitation Policy (n.d)
Ethiopia
Irrigation Policy (n.d)
Ethiopia
Hydropower Policy (n.d)
Kenya
Water Act (2016)
Kenya
Water Strategy
Kenya
Water Policy
Somalia
National Water Resource Strategy (Somalia) 2021-2025
2. cross-country analysis
Figure 18: Rating for Water Policies for Ethiopia, Kenya and Somalia
All three countries have water policies at national level and local level. Ethiopia’s water
policies appear to be less streamlined averaging 2 with various sets of policies initially
developed for the water sector but not yet updated to align especially with the CRGE. For
instance, the irrigation policy, the water and sanitation policy do not have budgets,
enforcement procedures or implementation plans and there is no clarity on whether the
water resources management policy is a successor to these policies and how the CRGE water
and energy fits in. Ethiopia’s Hydropower has the lowest score at 1.4 followed by the Irrigation
policy at 1.6 as a result of these gaps. In addition to this Ethiopia has a proclamation
establishing a water fund but such details are not contained in the policies analyzed. The
63
country will need to address this gap and align its water policies to be able to further
guarantee water security to its citizens.
For water policies in Kenya averaging 3.4, the sector seems to have been streamlined to an
extent following the water sector reforms undertaken to improve coherence and
coordination. Kenya’s water Act that lays down a comprehensive framework for water sector
reforms. Kenya especially has linked all its policies to the constitution and to each other to
ensure a well-coordinated and streamlined sector in accordance with the ongoing water
sector reforms with the Water policy scoring 4 and the strategy and Act scoring 3. For Kenya’s
water policies these includes the development of water sector regulations. Research into this
revealed that regulations on water services, water harvesting and storage and water
resources were developed and approved in 2021
48
via a consultative process and these are
currently in use. Various body corporates established under the Water Act have also
developed their individual plans for implementation of their mandates.
Somalia’s National Water Resource Strategy (Somalia) 2021-2025 with an overall score of 3.1
is weak on enforcement (2) and budgetary allocation (2). This may be as a result of prevailing
circumstances where funding has mostly been drawn from external support for the
implementation of set activities. It is however strong in the other areas including rights and
an implementation plan which also includes a comprehensive roadmap
11
. The Strategy is also
one of the most inclusive policies where it has included the vulnerable groups such as women
and set out specific measures for their inclusion which are further laid out in the Roadmap.
Enforcement averaging 1.3 also remains weak for Ethiopia policies. For instance, under the
CRGE, water regulations and guidelines are set to be developed but specific timelines for this
have not been provided. The Irrigation policy in the section on technical issues outlines the
development of guidelines, manuals and procedures to ensure sustainable irrigated systems.
Further details on implementation plans and timelines as well as responsible entities is not
provided. Rights also remain a gap in Ethiopia’s policies, an aspect that would be important
to address so as to promote access to water services by all.
Across the water policies in the region implementation plans (2), budgetary allocation (2.1)
and enforcement (2.2) are weak. Infact, in some of the policies such as Irrigation policy and
water supply and sanitation policy of Ethiopia, these provisions do not exist at all.
Inclusion is a strength for most policies explaining why it Is the highest scorer on average at
3.2. Ethiopia’s Water Resources Management Policy scores 4 on inclusion as do Kenya’s
policies and Somalia’s National Water Resource Strategy. This is significant since it points
towards increased participatory approaches in the water sector especially through the
creation of the water resource user associations contained in all the top scoring policies and
11
The roadmap was analyzed but not separately included here since it is considered as part of the strategy
64
their intent to ensure the vulnerable access water and that they are also engaged in various
processes and decision-making on water resources.
ii. Food security
1. Which policies fall under this topic
Table 5: Food Security Policies
Country
Policy
Kenya
Draft National Irrigation Policy, 2015
Kenya
National Food and Nutrition Security Policy (2011)
Kenya
National Food and Nutrition Security Policy Implementation Framework (2017-
2022)
Somalia
Somaliland Republic: National Rangeland Management Policy
(Draft)
Kenya
Agriculture Sector Development Strategy (2010-2020)
Ethiopia
Agriculture Sector Policy and Investment Framework
Ethiopia
Republic of Ethiopia Food Security Strategy (2002)
Somalia
Somaliland Food and Water Security Strategy 2030
Somalia
Somalia National Food Fortification Strategic Plan (2019-2024)
Kenya
Community Land Act (2016)
2. cross-country analysis
65
Figure 19: Rating for Food Security Policies
The results offer several noteworthy insights into the current landscape of food security
policies in the Horn of Africa drylands. These include direct observations, as well as insights
from more detailed explorations of the results for each category analyzed.
From direct observations, the weakest food security policy out of those analyzed is the
“Rangeland Management Policy (Draft) – Somaliland”, which had an average score of 2.13 out
of 4. This is closely followed by the “Food Security Strategy (2002) – Ethiopia”, which had an
average score of 2.38 out of 4. Both policies performed particularly poorly in categories
related to enforcement and budgetary allocations, receiving the lowest possible score (1 out
of 4) in each category.
Conversely, the strongest policies out of those analyzed each scored a 3.38 out of 4. These
are the “Draft Irrigation Policy (2015) – Kenya”; the “National Food and Nutrition Security
Policy Implementation Framework (2017-2022) – Kenya”; and the “Agriculture Sector Policy
and Investment Framework – Ethiopia”. These policies performed particularly well in a range
of categories, including those related to accessibility, implementation planning, budgetary
allocations, and information management systems. The policies scored a 3 or 4 in the majority
of categories analyzed.
A more detailed exploration of each individual analysis category also provides valuable
insights into the overall strengths and weaknesses of policies related to food security. On
average, the policies analyzed collectively performed best with regards to inclusion. The
66
policies have an average score of 3.8 out of 4 in this category, with eight (8) out of ten (10)
policies receiving the highest possible score. Two policies had a medium score of 3 out of 4 in
this category. This indicates that, for the most part, the policies analyzed tend to mention the
most vulnerable populations and/or ensure that they are accounted for in the policy
interventions through mechanisms including (but not limited to) capacity building, training,
technology transfer, empowerment, public participation, local knowledge, and scientific
research.
In a similar vein, the policies analyzed also collectively performed well with regards to
accessibility. The policies have an average score of 3.5 out of 4 in this category, with five (5)
out of ten (10) policies receiving the highest possible score. The remaining six (6) policies all
scored a 3 out of 4. The performance of the policies in this category demonstrates that some
of the policies fully address accessibility for all population groups to information and means
for adaptation to food insecurity (and, where relevant, broader climate change impacts).
However, most of the policies only mention accessibility for all without any clear details on,
or articulation of what this might entail.
The policies had a collective average score of 3.2 in the category pertaining to rights. In this
category, however, the policies were almost evenly divided between those with high scores
and those with poor scores. Six (6) out of the ten (10) policies analyzed received the highest
possible score in this category. The remaining five (5) policies received a poor score of 2. This
disparity indicates that slightly over half of the policies analyzed explicitly acknowledge that
all citizens have a right to food security, and, by extension, a right to adaptation to the impacts
of climate change. These policies also articulate clear goals and specifically mention those
who are most vulnerable to food insecurity. The remaining policies, on the other hand,
explicitly or implicitly acknowledge the right of citizens to food security, but do not articulate
clear or explicit goals. They also do not mention or identify the most vulnerable population
groups.
With regards to linkages to other policies, the food security policies analyzed had a collective
average score of 3.1. Three (3) out of the ten (10) policies analyzed received the highest
possible score in this category. Five (5) of the policies scored a medium 3 out of 4, and the
remaining two (2) scored a poor 2 out of 4. The highest-scoring policies clearly identify the
linkages that exist with other policies, and how they build on these linkages. The policies
mention specific actions to ensure the sustained strengthening and integration of linkages.
The policies that scored a 3 out of 4 clearly identify the existing linkages, but do not mention
specific actions to ensure the strengthening and/or integration of linkages. Lastly, the policies
that scored a 2 out of 4 identify some linkages that exist but did not mention any actions in
any manner to facilitate the strengthening or integration of linkages.
67
With an average score of 3.1, the policies also collectively showed a medium performance
with regards to information management systems (IMS). Three (3) out of the ten (10) policies
analyzed received the highest possible score in this category. Six (6) policies scored a 3 out of
4, while two (2) policies (the “Food Security Strategy (2002) – Ethiopia” and the “Rangeland
Management Policy (Draft) – Somaliland”) received a poor score of 2 out of 4.
This relatively mixed performance indicates that most of the policies analyzed articulate the
need for data, as well as a plan for what information should be collected concerning food
security. However, most of the policies do not provide sufficiently robust details on the actors
responsible for collecting data, the timelines for collection, and possible indicators to be used
to monitor the progress of food security interventions. Only the policies scoring a 4 out of 4
articulated a clear IMS that specifies the type of information to be collected, by whom, at
what intervals, and which indicators may be used. The policies that scored a 2 out of 4 have
some recognition of the importance of data collection for monitoring of policy progress, but
do not articulate any clear IMS for food security.
The policies analyzed have a collective average score of 3 out of 4 in the implementation
planning category. Only two (2) policies (the “Draft National Irrigation Policy (2015) – Kenya”
and the “Agriculture Sector Policy and Investment Framework – Ethiopia”) out of ten (10)
received a score of 4 out of 4. Seven (7) policies have a medium score of 3 out of 4, and the
remaining two (2) policies (the “Food and Water Security Strategy 2030 – Somaliland” and
the “Rangeland Management Policy (Draft) – Somaliland”) have a low score of 2 out of 4. The
highest scoring policies have a clearly identified plan of action, targets and responsible actors,
and a monitoring plan and timeframe for tracking implementation progress. In contrast, most
of the policies analyzed (which scored a 3 out of 4) mention a clear plan of action with
different components but do not specify responsible actors, processes, or monitoring
guidelines. Projects that scored a 2 out of 4 also do not articulate responsible actors,
processes, or monitoring guidelines, and only mention a general action plan.
On average, the policies analyzed perform poorest in the categories related to budgetary
allocations and enforcement mechanisms. The policies have a collective average score of 2.3
out of 4 in the budgetary allocations category. Out of ten (10) policies, only one (1) policy (the
“Agriculture Sector Policy and Investment Framework – Ethiopia”) received the highest
possible score in this category. Four (4) policies received a medium score of 3 out of 4, and
three (3) policies received a low score of 2 out of 4. The remaining three (3) policies received
the lowest possible score of 1 out of 4. For a policy to receive a 4 out of 4, it should clearly
specify budget guidelines in terms of what has been budgeted for, and how the budget will
be financed. The funding for the policy should be explicitly mandated and made available.
Projects that received a 3 out of 4 met all these requirements, but the funding for the policy
was conditional to budget availability rather than being mandated. Projects that received a 2
out of 4 only vaguely or briefly mentioned budgetary guidelines, and did not mandate funding
68
for the policy. Lastly, policies that received a 1 out of 4 did not provide any budgetary
guidelines or mandated budget at all for food security interventions.
With a collective average score of 2.1, the policies analyzed perform the weakest in the
enforcement mechanisms category. Only one (1) policy (the “Community Land Act (2016) –
Kenya”) out of the ten (10) analyzed scored a 4 out of 4. Three (3) policies have a medium
score of 3 out of 4, and another three (3) policies have a low score of 2 out of 4. The remaining
four (4) policies have received the lowest possible score of 1 out of 4. To receive a 4 out of 4,
the policy has to clearly describe an enforcement mechanism, identify a specific enforcement
agency, and articulate clear penalties for non-compliance or non-proactive implementation
of the policy. Policies scoring a 2 or 3 only have minimal descriptions (if at all) of a concrete
enforcement mechanism, and have little-to-no mention of penalties for non-compliance or
non-proactive implementation of the policy. The four (4) policies that scored a 1 out of 4 failed
to mention any enforcement mechanisms or penalties whatsoever.
A brief country comparison also provides interesting insights into the overall strengths of food
security policy infrastructure in the HAD region. Kenyan policies tend to score the highest,
with the average score for individual policies ranging between 3.25 to 3.38. The scores of
Ethiopian policies tend to be more widely distributed, with average scores as low as 2.37 and
as high as 3.38. Somali policies tend to score the lowest, with average scores for individual
policies ranging from 2.38 to 3.0.
A qualitative analysis of the food security sector policies provides further takeaways. Several
of the food security policies in Kenya and Ethiopia are outdated. The Agriculture Sector
Development Strategy of Kenya, for example, expired in 2020, while the Food Security
Strategy of Ethiopia was developed in 2002. Conversely, Somalia policies seem more timely,
with two of the strategic plans lasting until 2024 and 2030.
iii. Climate change adaptation: NAP/NAPA
1. Which policies fall under this topic
Table 6: National Adaptation Plans/Plans of Action
Country
Policy
Ethiopia
NAP (2019)
Kenya
NAP (2015-2030)
Somalia
NAPA (2013)
2. Cross-country analysis
69
Figure 20: Rating for NAPs/NAPA
National Adaptation Plans are envisaged as part of the climate change documentation for
countries under the UNFCCC to elaborate on country specific plans and actions to cope with
climate change impacts.
NAPs/NAPA averaging a score of 2 are on the same level when it comes to budgetary
allocation. There is no specificity provided in terms of exactly where the funding for the
implementation of these policies will be drawn from. This is a major gap that might
compromise the successful implementation of the policies. Enforcement is also a collective
lacuna with the lowest score of 1.7 for the three policies and this would have ramifications
on the efficacy of the policies in the long run. This is followed by budgetary allocation and
information management systems both areas with a score of 2.
Kenya and Somalia’s NAP/NAPA both with a score of 4 put emphasis on the issue of rights
outlining the importance of rights to a clean and healthy environment for all their citizens.
Links to other policies with the highest score of 3.7 is well articulated in policy but it remains
to be seen how this is implemented in practice. Granted, climate adaptation policies have
made efforts in mainstreaming climate change across sectors and using a mix of policies to be
able to enhance implementation
6,49
. Inclusion is also a shared strength with a score of 3 with
all the policies outlining the participation and inclusion of vulnerable groups in their activities.
Implementation plans and accessibility have a score of 2.7, thus attention will also need to
focus on strengthening this especially to ensure proper monitoring and evaluation supported
by evidence. When it comes to individual NAPs/NAPA scores, Kenya’s NAP is the highest at 3,
followed by Ethiopia’s NAP at 2.5 and Somalia’s NAPA at 2.3.
70
iv. NDC analysis (including additional countries)
1. Which policies fall under this topic
In this section, analysis of the NDCs of Burundi, Djibouti, Ethiopia, Kenya, Rwanda, Somalia,
South Sudan, Sudan, Tanzania and Uganda were undertaken. This broader approach to
include other East African country NDCs was informed by a request from partners to provide
this analysis.
2. cross-country analysis
Figure 21: Rating for Eastern Africa Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs)
As previously stated, inclusion of rights in policies to ensure that citizens are protected under
the law and policies, especially those on the right to a clean and healthy environment, water
and food security is important for the most vulnerable. South Sudan’s NDC scores highly (4)
on rights because it highlights human rights and gender equality including information on how
the NDC will ensure that vulnerable groups adapt to climate change. Infact, South Sudan’s
updated NDC is the highest scorer overall at 3.3 which is remarkable for the most recent
entrant to the UNFCCC. Except for the enforcement mechanism and the information
management system with a low score of 2, the rest of the areas accessed rank highly at 3 or
4.
On the other hand, Ethiopia, Somalia, Djibouti, Rwanda and Tanzania score poorly on rights
at 2 for all of them since they do not explicitly provide for this. The Eastern Africa NDCs have
gaps in enforcement where they score poorly averaging 2.2 which is the lowest score for areas
71
accessed. They do not clearly show how they will enforce their NDC. Uganda, Sudan and
Djibouti’s NDCs specifically have a low score of 1. Most NDCs are not clear on their compliance
and enforcement.
In terms of resource allocation, budgeting scores 2.8 in this area for the NDCs accessed since
they have included budgeted amounts and where funds will be sourced from. The Eastern
Africa countries, excluding Tanzania, have included unconditional targets in their NDCs. This
means that domestic funding will be mobilized to implement the NDCs. Despite this
remarkable progress, international climate finance for adaptation remains scanty, estimated
by the GCA to be just about 30% of climate finance channeled to Africa
50
. International finance
thus remains inadequate, not additional to ODA and unpredictable (Roberts et al, 2021).
Rwanda’s NDC has the highest score at 4 since it has outlined their integrated system for data
and information management, reporting and progress tracking. Other countries also have
outlined their systems including Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania, Somalia, Ethiopia and Burundi. The
other NDCs also mention the Measuring, Reporting and Verification framework (MRV)
prescribed under the international climate regime.
All updated NDCs have clear linkages to national and international policies with a score of 3.6
as highlighted above. Ethiopia’s NDC is linked to the Climate Resilient Green Economy (CRGE)
and its 10-year Pathway to Prosperity plan. South Sudan’s updated NDC is especially detailed
with specific linkages to policies for each mitigation and adaptation action included.
72
5. Conclusion
a. Key take aways
i. Criteria
Enforcement and budgeting remain a major challenge in the implementation of policies
across the three countries with 2.2 and 2.4. They score 2.1 and 2.3 respectively for the food
security policies; 2.2 and 2.1 respectively for the water policies; 1.7 and 2 respectively for the
NAPs/NAPA; and, 2.2 and 2.8 respectively for NDCs. NDCs are the highest scoring when it
comes to budgetary allocation. In Kenya, respondents from the WRA confirmed that
enforcement remains a main challenge due to inadequate resources as well as socio-
economic factors that mean that some consumers do not have smart water meters installed.
Monitoring stations near river banks and lakes have been washed away due to flooding along
rivers and at the Rift valley lakes that are experiencing lake-level rise e.g. Lake Baringo and
Lake Nakuru. Lack of adequate personnel for the manual stations for reading and maintaining
stations due to insufficient funds is also an issue as well as vandalism of some measuring
equipment. The WRA is steering a move to trimetric stations to address the challenge of
manual stations. This has an impact on enforcement as adequate data and information for
decision making is not available. Funds for groundwater monitoring had been allocated and
the WRA will embark on expanding monitoring of water levels especially in ASALs. WRA noted
that Boreholes in ASALs were mostly for domestic use and animals and not necessarily
targeting irrigation since crop farming is not a main activity. They noted that usage had not
increased but there was increased abstraction along the Ewaso Ng’iro in Isiolo and Laikipia
county. On implementation and progress monitoring the ministry’s strategies are reviewed
every year to ‘gauge performance targets from the Cabinet Secretary to the various
departments’.
Rights and inclusivity are a strength across policies with most policies scoring high. They score
3.2 and 3.8 respectively for the food security policies; 3 and 3.2 respectively for the water
policies; 3 and 3 respectively for the NAPs/NAPA; and, 2.6 and 3 respectively for NDCs. Across
many policies these are the highest scoring.
ii. Country
All countries are reliant on external funding for their policies especially for the NDCs. The
Adaptation Gap Report notes that generally developing country policies have tended to rely
on external funding that is not always forthcoming
1
. In fact, adaptation funding still only
makes up a small percentage of international climate finance but all three countries and to a
very large extent Somalia rely on external financing for the implementation of their policies.
This noted, it is imperative to state here that domestic financing specifically for climate
change action and the attendant mainstreaming of climate change across sectors for national
government funding means that both Ethiopia and Kenya are now funding their initiative with
73
little international finance. In its updated NDC, Kenya notes that progress made in
implementing its initial NDC was mostly from domestic financing, an indictment of the
international climate finance mechanism. Even at county level, financing remains a challenge
with Isiolo stakeholders reporting that the plans finalized by the Ward Planning committees
had yet to be fully implemented since other priorities key of which is the COVID-19 pandemic
have meant that resources for adaptation are re-allocated. WRUA’s have faced similar
challenges with the Water Sector Trust Fund having minimal resources to support WRUA’s.
iii. Sector
Water policies are among the most inclusive in terms of measures stipulated encompassing
the setting up of the water resource user associations for the management and use of water
resources at local level. This model which is operational in Ethiopia and Kenya will go a long
way in entrenching participatory water resource management in the region yielding benefits
for community resilience as citizens gain knowledge and skills in managing their water
resources in a changing climate. Indeed, the WRA asserted that Water Resource User
Associations (WRUA’s) are central in water resources management. WRA added that the
further empowerment of the WRUA’s ensures enhanced enforcement since they will be able
to conduct monitoring and enforcement. In Isiolo, a visit to the Isiolo WRUA confirmed that
the Isiolo WRUA enforced water allocation regulations ensuring that water was equally
distributed between upstream and downstream users and that below certain levels rationing
was introduced. Similarly, the role of the Ward Planning Committees (WPCs) in leading
climate adaptation in Isiolo county was emphasized.
Food security policies still appear to be top-down in approach for instance while provision of
food and cash transfer to those affected by food insecurity are good short-term measure a
lot of effort needs to be put in place to ensure that communities are able to withstand future
climate shocks through early warning and response, insurance schemes, micro-finance and
credit provision, targeted livestock off-take programs etc. which are outlined as measures in
some of the policies. Stakeholder consultations revealed that cultural beliefs especially on the
importance of cattle in Isiolo had made it difficult for offtake programs as pastoralists are
unwilling to sell their livestock.
b. Recommendations
i. Criteria
While our criteria is illuminating in highlighting gaps and strengths. The criteria, largely
qualitative but with quantitative elements rates policy as written, not as implemented. Initial
follow-up consultations with stakeholders revealed implementation challenges with policies.
For instance Kenya’s Water Act which is among the highest scoring policies faces challenges
in implementation where for instance vulnerable community members already impacted by
drought and other climate change effects who are part of a water resource user association
74
but unable to access funds from the Water Trust Fund which has limited resources. Such
issues are not apparent when applying our criteria without subsequent follow-up. This is
planned for the next phase.
In practice, good/perfect policies may not always be easy to implement thus further work on
efficacy to determine the extent of implementation would be beneficial in establishing their
success. Innovation to adapt to local circumstances and contexts during implementation will
also be key in validating/invalidating the findings in the criteria used here.
Contexts, actors and processes highlighted in our criteria are important elements in
understanding the intent behind policies. In some cases information on this was not available
and background information was not accessed. Ultimately, these intentions influence
implementation of policies but it is difficult to access to what extent in our assessment.
Political economy approaches on policy implementation and other public policy
implementation approaches may be better suited for such assessments.
ii. Country
Rights and inclusivity rate highly across most policies. It is imperative that countries and
citizens alike ensure that such policies and mechanisms in place are fully utilized especially by
the most vulnerable to be able to adapt to climate change. Ethiopia needs to consider further
incorporation of rights in its policies to ensure the protection of its most vulnerable citizens.
Ethiopia, Kenya and Somalia have to set in place robust enforcement mechanisms for their
policies to ensure efficacy. This should include facilitative compliance with clear processes
and procedures that are inclusive.
All three countries need to urgently advocate for and demand for increased international
climate finance to support implementation of their policies given their insignificant
contribution to global warming contrasted against high susceptibility and vulnerability to
climate change impacts.
iii. Sector
For the water, food and climate policies, if implemented, they will enhance adaptation to
climate change by increasing water access and strengthening the resilience of the vulnerable
populations to climate change. There is need for monitoring and evaluation with clear
progress markers and the actualization of the information management systems proposed to
ensure that this happens. This will enable early warning, informed planning etc. thus active
citizen participation to ensure progress in this is imperative.
75
Water and food security are inextricably linked. Infact some of the policies such as those in
Somalia combine the two sectors which is instructive. This means that addressing issues in
one sector contributes to the other sectors. It is noteworthy that linkages remain a strength
of most policies but this needs to move beyond the policy text to implementation.
76
6. References
1. Down2Earth Project. Down2Earth Project. http://down2earthproject.org/ (2022).
2. IPCC. Working Group II: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. IPCC
https://www.ipcc.ch/working-group/wg2/ (2022).
3. Government of Ethiopia. Ethiopian Statistics Service.
https://www.statsethiopia.gov.et/ (2022).
4. Kenya National Bureau of Statistics - Republic of Kenya. 2019 Kenya Population and
Housing Census: Volume I - Population by County and Sub-County.
5. Federal Government of Somalia. Roadmap to Implementation of the National Water
Resource Strategy (2021-2025). (Ministry of Energy and Water Resources, 2021).
6. World Bank. Kenya - Summary | Climate Change Knowledge Portal.
https://climateknowledgeportal.worldbank.org/country/kenya (2022).
7. World Bank. Somalia - Summary | Climate Change Knowledge Portal.
https://climateknowledgeportal.worldbank.org/country/somalia (2022).
8. World Bank. Ethiopia - Summary | Climate Change Knowledge Portal.
https://climateknowledgeportal.worldbank.org/country/ethiopia (2022).
9. Climate Action Tracker. Kenya | Climate Action Tracker.
https://climateactiontracker.org/climate-target-update-tracker/kenya/ (2020).
10. Climate Analytics. Climate Impact Explorer. https://climate-impact-
explorer.climateanalytics.org/ (2022).
11. IGAD. IGAD Regional Focus of the Global Report on Food Crises 2022 - ICPAC.
https://www.icpac.net/fsnwg/igad-regional-focus-on-food-crises-2022/ (2022).
12. ICPAC. The Greater Horn of Africa is bracing for a 5th consecutive failed rainy season.
https://www.icpac.net/news/the-greater-horn-of-africa-is-bracing-for-a-5th-
consecutive-failed-rainy-season/ (2022).
13. Emmanuel Olet, Ousseynou Guene, Henry Ntale Kayondo & Osward Chanda. Water
Security in the Greater Horn of Africa: Addressing the Challenges. Regional Synthesis
Paper. https://www.afdb.org/pt/documents/water-security-greater-horn-africa-
addressing-challenges-regional-synthesis-paper (2020).
14. United Nations Environment Programme. Adaptation Gap Report 2020.
https://www.unep.org/resources/adaptation-gap-report-2020 (2021).
15. Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia. Updated Nationally Determined
Contribution. (Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, 2021).
16. Ministry of Environment and Forestry. Kenya’s Updated Nationally Determined
Contribution (NDC). (2020).
17. Government of Somalia. Somalia’s Intended Nationally Determined Contribution
(INDC).
18. UNFCCC Conference of the Parties, A. of the P. A. & (Dec. 12, 2015). Paris Agreement.
(UNFCCC, 2015).
19. Walt, G. & Gilson, L. Reforming the health sector in developing countries: The central
role of policy analysis. Health Policy and Planning vol. 9 353–370 Preprint at
https://doi.org/10.1093/heapol/9.4.353 (1994).
20. Young, O. R. The Institutional Dimensions of Environmental Change: Fit, Interplay, and
Scale. The Institutional Dimensions of Environmental Change (The MIT Press, 2002).
doi:10.7551/MITPRESS/3807.001.0001.
77
21. Walker, W. Policy analysis: a systematic approach to supporting policymaking in the
public sector | Semantic Scholar. Journal of Multi-criteria Decision Analysis (2000).
22. OHCHR. Applying a Human Rights-Based Approach to Climate Change Negotiations,
Policies and Measures.
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/issues/climatechange/index.htm.
23. OHCHR. Understanding Human Rights and Climate Change.
https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Issues/ClimateChange/COP21.
pdf.
24. IOM. Global Migration Indicators. www.iom.int (2018).
25. Berchin, I. I., Valduga, I. B., Garcia, J. & de Andrade Guerra, J. B. S. O. Climate change
and forced migrations: An effort towards recognizing climate refugees. Geoforum 84,
147–150 (2017).
26. Gabel, S. G. Understanding a Rights-Based Approach to Social Policy Analysis. 1–16
(2016) doi:10.1007/978-3-319-24412-9_1.
27. Grecksch, K. & Klöck, C. Access and allocation in climate change adaptation.
International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics 2020 20:2 20,
271–286 (2020).
28. Amponsem, J., Doshi, D., Toledo, A. I. S., Schudel, L. & Kemeh, S. D. Adapt for our
Future: Youth and Climate Change Adaptation. Background Paper https://gca.org/wp-
content/uploads/2020/12/AdaptForOurFuture.pdf (2019).
29. Disability Inclusive Climate Action Research Program & International Disability
Alliance. Status Report on Disability Inclusion in National Climate Commitments and
Policies.
https://www.internationaldisabilityalliance.org/sites/default/files/drcc_status_report
_english_0.pdf (2022).
30. Gupta, S. et al. Policies, Instruments and Co-operative Arrangements Coordinating
Lead Authors: Lead Authors: Review Editors: This chapter should be cited as.
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ar4-wg3-chapter13-2.pdf (2007).
31. Khan, M. R. & Roberts, J. T. Adaptation and international climate policy. WIREs
Climate Change 4, 171–189 (2013).
32. Narain, U., Margulis, S. & Essam, T. Estimating costs of adaptation to climate change.
Climate Policy 11, 1001–1019 (2011).
33. Barrett, S. Subnational climate justice? Adaptation finance distribution and climate
vulnerability. World Dev 58, 130–142 (2014).
34. Ampaire, E. L. et al. Institutional challenges to climate change adaptation: A case
study on policy action gaps in Uganda. Environ Sci Policy 75, 81–90 (2017).
35. Burton, I., Huq, S., Lim, B., Pilifosova, O. & Schipper, E. L. From impacts assessment to
adaptation priorities: The shaping of adaptation policy. Climate Policy vol. 2 145–159
Preprint at https://doi.org/10.1016/S1469-3062(02)00038-4 (2002).
36. Olazabal, M., Galarraga, I., Ford, J., Sainz De Murieta, E. & Lesnikowski, A. Are local
climate adaptation policies credible? A conceptual and operational assessment
framework. International Journal of Urban Sustainable Development 11, 277–296
(2019).
37. Ongugo, P. O. et al. A review of Kenya’s national policies relevant to climate change
adaptation and mitigation Insights from Mount Elgon.
https://www.cifor.org/publications/pdf_files/WPapers/WP155Russell.pdf (2014).
78
38. Lesnikowski, A., Ford, J. D., Biesbroek, R. & Berrang-Ford, L. A policy mixes approach
to conceptualizing and measuring climate change adaptation policy. Clim Change 156,
447–469 (2019).
39. National Research Council. Advancing the Science of Climate Change. Advancing the
Science of Climate Change 1–526 (2010) doi:10.17226/12782.
40. Government of Kenya. African Socialism and its Application to Planning in Kenya.
(Government of Kenya, 1965).
41. Government of the Republic of Kenya. Kenya Vision 2030: The Popular Version.
http://vision2030.go.ke/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Vision-2030-Popular-
Version.pdf (2007).
42. Republic of Kenya. National Water Master Plan 2030. https://wasreb.go.ke/national-
water-master-plan-2030/ (2013).
43. Ministry of Agriculture. Kenya Agricultural Sector Development Strategy (ASDS).
http://kilimodata.org/gl/dataset/kenya-agricultural-sector-development-strategy-
asds (2010).
44. Ministry of Agriculture, L. and I. Agricultural Sector Transformation and Growth
Strategy (ASTGS) (2019-2029). https://www.agck.or.ke/Downloads/ASTGS-Full-
Version-1.pdf (2019).
45. Government of Kenya. Climate Change Act. Kenya Gazette Supplement (Government
Printer, 2016).
46. Government of Kenya. National Climate Change Action Plan (Kenya) 2018-2022.
www.environment.go.ke (2018).
47. Government of Kenya. National Climate Change Action Plan (Kenya) Volume 2:
Adaptation Technical Analysis Report 2018-2022. www.environment.go.ke (2018).
48. Government of Ethiopia. Climate-Resilient Green Economy Strategy.
https://www.mofed.gov.et/media/filer_public/9e/23/9e23b2bc-0f3f-4035-ac8a-
f0009b5b704a/crge_strategy.pdf (2011).
49. Government of Ethiopia. Growth and Transformation Plan II (GTP II). (2016).
50. The Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia. National Policy and Strategy on Disaster
Risk Management. Addis Ababa. (2013).
51. Ethiopia Establishes National Framework for Climate Services | GFCS.
https://gfcs.wmo.int/node/1183.
52. Ministry of Water Resources (MoWR). The Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia.
Ministry of Water Resources. Ethiopian Water Sector Strategy. (Ministry of Water
Resources (MoWR), 2001).
53. Oromia National Regional State. Urban Local Government Proclamation No. 65/2003
of the Oromia National Regional State. Magalata Oromiyaa (Magalata Oromiyaa,
2003).
54. Oromia National Regional State. A Proclamation to Establish Irrigation Development
Authority of Oromia National Regional State. Magalata Oromiyaa (Magalata
Oromiyaa, 2013).
55. Oromia Regional State. Proclamation to amend the Proclamation No. 56/2002,
70/2003, 103/2005 of Oromia Rural Land Use and Administration Proclamation No.
130/2007. (Oromia Regional State, 2007).
56. Federal Republic of Somalia. Ministry of National Resources. National Adaptation
Programme of Action on Climate Change (NAPA). (2013).
79
57. Federal Government of Somalia. Somalia National Food Fortification Strategic Plan
(2019 – 2024). (2019).
58. Federal Government of Somalia. National Water Resource Strategy (2021-2025).
(Ministry of Energy and Water Resources, 2021).
