Real voices from stakeholders: What do they say about effective climate finance coordination in Kenya?
Despite the long journey, stakeholders involved in climate finance, including government representatives, have traveled from Nairobi to Turkana County in northern Kenya. They recognize the importance of meeting with sub-national and local actors on their own ground, as the last discussions were held in the capital. The purpose of the meeting is clear: to untangle the threads of what makes climate finance coordination truly effective.
As the conversation continues, differing views on the current coordination mechanisms quickly emerge. Optimism and tension fill the room as each stakeholder presents their views, but consensus remains absent. This disagreement over how to best organize climate finance mechanisms can cause delays, poor implementation, or even ineffective climate change projects. The stakes are high, and the consequences of such fragmented coordination could be fatal: vulnerable communities may receive insufficient support, sensitivity to climate-related disasters could increase, and long-term sustainability goals could become even harder to achieve. After a while, the meeting room fills with a mix of excitement and anticipation, gradually replacing the earlier tension. The discussion is progressing, and everyone understands that discussing climate finance mechanisms is complex, but they also know that the future depends on it.
As part of the GAP research program, the newly published article “Effective climate finance coordination? Stakeholder perceptions, climate change policy implementation and the underlying political economy factors in Kenya” in the journal Climate Policy analyzes stakeholder perceptions of effective climate finance coordination mechanisms in Kenya. This article highlights that the conversation surrounding climate finance coordination in Kenya is tainted by competing narratives, complex political economy dynamics, and diverse voices, each contributing their own experiences and perspectives. Climate finance coordination is not just a matter of policies and frameworks but represents a battlefield of ideas where various visions for the future from individual actors and institutions can clash and converge.
What is climate finance coordination in Kenya?
Climate finance coordination happens when various stakeholders, including government agencies, non-profit organizations, international donors, and local communities, work together within a structured legal and institutional framework to manage and use funds to tackle climate change challenges. The coordination mechanism could involve the creation of policies that guide decision making and administration of climate finance, tracking the use of climate funds, accountability and reporting.
The climate finance coordination mechanism in Kenya is protected in the Climate Change Act of 2016. This legislation created various institutions responsible for orchestrating climate finance at both the national and sub-national levels. Among the institutions established include the National Climate Change Council, meant to be chaired by the president, the National Climate Change Fund, to be housed at the National Treasury but administered by the NCCC and the Climate Change Directorate at the Ministry of Environment and Natural resources. However, seven years after the Act was passed, only the Climate Change Directorate has been operationalized. The rest of the institutions have not yet been made operational due to disagreements and conflicting views among climate change stakeholders.
CSO and government respondents agree to disagree
It is becoming clear that stakeholder views of the current coordination mechanisms largely differ. Representatives from government institutions strongly support the established policies. They claim that this framework provides an effective way to coordinate climate finance, saying: ‘It is effective. Look at climate finance coming in. It points to donor confidence.’ Most respondents who recognized the fact that Kenya had a functional coordination mechanism were from government institutions. ‘What we have is the best we can have. Our legal framework is clear on coordination,’ a government respondent proclaimed while also clearly acknowledging the technical and political challenges in the climate finance coordination landscape. Two issues that will be revisited later. First, a closer look on the different perceptions of effective climate finance coordination.
It is not surprising that those people being a part of the official framework and legal structures responsible for climate finance coordination see the coordination mechanisms as effective, as it is their role to ensure its effectiveness. They view the country's ability to mobilize climate financing as evidence of the effectiveness. However, people outside of government-controlled climate coordination have different views.
The opinions of civil society organization (CSO) respondents diverge significantly from those of government representatives. One CSO respondent, focusing on the lack of functional institutions established under the Climate Change Act 2016, said: ‘The operationalization of this outfit (NCCC) would have been the best to coordinate climate finance and citizen views because there was representation from indigenous people, civil society, academia, private sector, etc. so when it is not there…there is no coordination, basically’.
The NCCC was intended to provide overall coordination and administration of climate finance and was primarily advocated by the CSOs. Currently it is not working as it was intended: “Do we really have a coordination mechanism?”, one CSO respondent from Nairobi stated. The absence of operational NCCC signifies the lack of an effective climate finance coordination mechanism. This could be one of the reasons why CSO respondents refer to the current coordination mechanism as disjointed: “everyone is doing their own thing. It is a disjointed effort with no coordination.”
A political question is difficult to answer
The article also points out that whether climate change coordination mechanisms in Kenya are truly effective is a political question – the differing views of stakeholders underscore the complex interplay of interests, power dynamics, and institutional challenges that shape the landscape of climate finance coordination in the country.
‘Policy is what ought to be, politics is the reality,’ a CSO respondent commented when discussing the influence of politics on climate change policy implementation and climate finance coordination. This opinion is echoed by government respondents, such as one who stated, ‘In climate finance coordination, the political is more important than the technical because it is about money’. Although CSO and government respondents agree to disagree on the perception of effective climate finance coordination, the two issues mentioned earlier – technical and political challenges – are points of agreement among the stakeholders involved.
Technical challenges primarily involve differences in the rules for reporting climate finance. The Climate Finance Policy of 2016 established a climate finance tracking system that applies only to funds flowing through government systems and institutions. CSOs and other non-state actors are not legally required to report their finances to the government except on a voluntary basis. Additionally, verifying the accuracy of voluntary reports submitted to the National Treasury remains problematic. One proposed solution is for non-state actors to establish their own coordination, tracking, and reporting mechanisms and then report to the National Treasury and the Climate Change Directorate (CCD).
Under this technical issue, a much more complex and ongoing challenge emerges: the challenge of understanding the influence of political economy factors on the perceptions of effective climate finance coordination. Although its impact is difficult to measure precisely, its presence is undeniable. One CSO respondent articulated this, stating ‘policy implementation and resource allocation is all political.’
Politically, the allocation and use of climate finance is heavily influenced by power struggles and political considerations. For instance, the delay in operationalizing the NCCC and the National Climate Change Fund is seen by stakeholders from the CSOs and development partners as a planned move by the government to retain control and power over financial resources. As one government respondent put it, "in climate finance coordination, the political is more important than the technical because it is about money.” On the contrary, government representatives blamed delays to internal conflicts within CSOs over their representation at the NCCC.
This delay can be seen as a reflection of the political beliefs, worldviews, and ideologies that influence how stakeholders view effective climate finance coordination. These perceptions affect actions. Ultimately, it comes down to whether there is enough political will to drive effective climate change coordination. As one government official from Turkana put it, ‘climate finance coordination is not about structures but political will.’
So, where are we left?
The analysis of climate finance coordination in Kenya revealed a complex mix of technical and political challenges, competing ideas, and differing perceptions among stakeholders. Poor coordination leads to delayed or poorly understood decisions, which can potentially leave efforts meant to help improve climate change adaptation flawed or ineffective at worst. While there is agreement on the presence of significant technical and political issues, effective coordination of climate finance remains a controversial and political issue. Statements and quotes from key sources presented in this blog provide strong evidence that stakeholders hold different views when asked the same question: What is effective climate finance coordination in Kenya? The path forward requires addressing these deep-rooted factors, improving honest political will, and guaranteeing inclusive and transparent processes that engage all stakeholders.