MainDBDraft: Supporting Counties in Kenya to Mainstream Climate Change in Development and Access Climate Finance, Kenya: the Isiolo County Climate Change Fund (ICCCF)
Title:
Supporting Counties in Kenya to Mainstream Climate Change in Development and Access Climate Finance, Kenya: the Isiolo County Climate Change Fund (ICCCF)
Geographic region:
Africa
Target group:
Purpose:
Activities:
Expected outcome:
Indicators of achievement:
Date of submission:
11/01/2021
Further information:
https://pubs.iied.org/pdfs/17620IIED.pdf https://www.iied.org/eba-evidence-policy-kenya
NWPPartner:
UK Department for International Development in Kenya
NWPPartners:
Other action pledges:
NWPCountryItem:
NWPUpdate:
NWPContentType:
Geographic scope:
Adaptation element:
Adaptation sector/theme:
Climate hazard:
Drought
Implementing partners:
Ada Consortium, Kenya Kenyan National Drought Management Authority (NDMA)
NWPOrganizationName:
Abbreviation:
Weblink:
Type of organization:
Civil society
NWPUserTitle:
NWPName:
NWPSurname:
Job title:
NWPStreet:
NWPZip:
Country:
Kenya
NWPTel:
NWPPrimaryEmail:
NWPSecendaryEmail:
NWPGPLL:
Community involvement and participation has been actively sought throughout all stages of ICCCF design and implementation, and has been formalised in management structures and decision-making processes. This has allowed local people to retain control of responses to their development and adaptation priorities. Participatory livelihood and local economy resilience assessments helped identify possibly investments. Supporting WCCPSs’ customary range management institutions (dedhas) was an integral part of the ICCCF, and by supporting traditional management institutions, local knowledge was also prioritised. The strong levels of participation throughout the ICCCF process were central to building local resilience, but this required facilitation and capacity building to ensure success. Effective rangeland management requires jurisdiction over large areas, but administrative boundaries and the imposition of different tenure and land use systems can disrupt pastoralist mobility and their ability to manage stock effectively. Catchment-level planning is also important to ensure pastoralist access to water in this dry area. Continued provision of ecosystem services from the rangelands for pastoralism thus requires landscape-level management approaches. ICCCF investments operated at the level of Isiolo County, so whilst the scale of operation was large, the area was still limited by administrative boundaries. Measuring value for money or returns on investment is difficult in Isiolo because the people are highly mobile and many benefits are difficult to quantify. Pastoral production systems have historically been undervalued as a land use choice, in part because it is not easy to measure and quantify the full benefits they provide. Quantifying the broader economic benefits of ecosystem services and pastoral production systems is even harder than quantifying the immediate direct benefits. As a result, their true value is often overlooked. A number of social, institutional and political issues influenced ICCCF implementation. Key challenges at the local level related to basic infrastructure and services provision in Isiolo, the historical mismanagement of water and grazing resources, and the disconnect between communities and formal governance systems. A general lack of arid and semi-arid land ecosystem knowledge amongst government staff at the county level proved challenging. This has led to under-investment in pastoralism. Poor access to climate information and limited capacity to track the impact of adaptation interventions has also been challenging at the county level, as has securing county-level government support and the necessary multi-sectoral coordination. At the national level, a historical legacy of limited and often inappropriate development in Kenya’s drylands has left them impoverished and with weak institutions for governance and planning. Centralised planning systems have also meant that coordination and communication have been poor, and planning inflexible. The true value of ecosystems is also poorly understood. There are, however, a number of social, institutional and political opportunities that have supported ICCCF implementation in Isiolo. Local institutions (ie WCCPCs and dedha) are now strong, empowered and heavily engaged in adaptation planning. This required considerable investment at first, but legitimising and supporting local institutions in this way has meant communities are now in control of designing and supporting initiatives to meet their development and adaptation needs. County-level support for addressing climate change and supporting ICCCF processes is apparent. Governance and coordination is strong at the county level. At the national level, Kenya has a number of policies and institutions that support climate change planning. A national commitment to devolution has also provided opportunities to enhance community participation in decision making and support community land ownership, both of which are cornerstones of ICCCF effectiveness.
References NWP:
Year of publication:
NWPTypeOfKnowledge:
Technical document/report
Description:
The Adaptation Consortium aims to prepare county governments to access global climate finance in order to support adaptation and climate resilient development, and to mainstream mechanisms that allow communities to prioritise investments in public goods that build their resilience to climate change.
Outcome:
A wide range of social co-benefits emerged from ICCCF-funded rangeland management improvements. These included improved local natural resource management, conflict resolution, community cohesion, more employment opportunities, enhanced natural resource management skills, improved diets and improved health. Trade-offs in terms of who benefitted and also where and when these social co-benefits materialised appeared to be minimal. There are a great number of broader economic benefits emerging from ICCCF investments in Isiolo, such as insurance for disasters, option value (similar to insurance or having savings), income substitution for reduced expenditure, capital for investment and access to credit. There may also be avoided costs and avoided losses from EbA implementation. Economic benefits look likely to materialise fast and last for a long time. Possible financial trade-offs included losses suffered by neighbouring communities with reduced access to water, and by extension pasture.
NWPInformationType:
Case study
NWPStatus:
Processed
NWPRelevantWeblinks:
Created at 11/01/2021 11:45 by
Last modified at 11/01/2021 11:45 by crmmocservices
Go back to list
Home(NWPStaging)