Assessment of Coastal Governance for Climate Change Adaptation in Kenya

Abstract

The coastline of Kenya already experiences effects of climate change, adding to existing pressures such as urbanization. Integrated coastal management (ICM) is increasingly recognized as a key policy response to deal with the multiple challenges facing coastal zones, including climate change. It can create an enabling governance environment for effective local action on climate change by facilitating a structured approach to dealing with coastal issues. It encompasses the actions of a wide range of actors, including local governments close to people and their activities affected by climate change. Functioning ICM also offers opportunities for reducing risks and building resilience. This article applied a modified capitals approach framework (CAF), consisting of five “capitals,” to assess the status of county government capacity to respond to climate change within the context of coastal governance in three county governments in Kenya. The baseline was defined in terms of governance relating to the implementation of the interrelated policy systems of ICM and coastal climate change adaptation (CCA). The CAF framework provided a systematic approach to building a governance baseline against which to assess the progress of county governments in responding to climate change. It identified gaps in human capacity, financial resource allocation to adaptation and access to climate change information. Furthermore, it showed that having well‐developed institutions, including regulatory frameworks at the national level can facilitate but does not automatically enable adaptation at the county level.

Identifying local governance capacity needs for implementing climate change adaptation in Mauritius

“…Financial capital comprises the availability of funds for climate change adaptation and disaster preparedness, and environmental capital encompasses environmental management strategies, as well as the level of ecosystem protection. For a deeper inspection of each capital, see Máñez Costa et al, 2014;Carmona et al, 2017;Ojwang et al, 2017;or Williams et al, 2018. It has been argued that applying indicator-based frameworks for comparative case study analysis and developing benchmarks as specific thresholds for what constitutes effective governance is not necessarily desirable or appropriate, as local conditions of climate change adaptation vary significantly from location to location (Baker et al, 2012;Dilling et al, 2019;Ojwang et al, 2017). Hence, each application of the CAF must be carefully modified by adjusting the evaluative criteria in accordance with the local context of climate change adaptation needs (Williams et al, 2018).…”

“…The unrelenting progression of climate change (IPCC, 2018a) necessitates innovations in governance systems to deal with climate change impacts. Increasing capacity for climate change adaptation through enhancing governance effectiveness, defined as the successful process of decision-making by a configuration of state, private and non-governmental organizations, and institutional arrangements to achieve desirable outcomes (Adger et al, 2003;Ojwang et al, 2017), can significantly decrease the impacts of climate change (Pahl-Wostl et al, 2013). Innovations in multi-level governance systems need to take the political setting of SISs into account to create the means of identifying context-sensitive, bottom-up and community-led solutions producing equitable, efficient and effective outcomes (Adger et al, 2003;UN, 2009).…”

A Method for Enhancing Capacity of Local Governance for Climate Change Adaptation

“…As an assessment approach, the CAF has shown to be highly valuable (Carmona et al, 2017). Created in an extensive codevelopment process with local stakeholders, it has been proven apt at identifying strengths and weaknesses in the ability of local governance to respond to climate change, while at the same time showing significant versatility in terms of context‐sensitive application (Carmona et al, 2017; Máñez Costa et al, 2014; Ojwang et al, 2017; Williams et al, 2018). However, similarly to the alternative indicator‐based governance assessment methods available, it does not prioritize between strengths and weaknesses or identify leverage points to affect virtuous system‐wide change across local governance systems.…”

“…In this research, local governance stakeholders are referred to as those who affect or are affected by a climate change adaptation‐related decision (Scheffran, 2006). Research has found that local governance can be and heavily constrained by institutional barriers and resource limitations (Ojwang et al, 2017; Rosendo et al, 2018). Strengthening the ability of local governance for climate change is therefore an urgent necessity in an attempt to cope with the impacts of 1.5°C, 2°C, and more severe global warming (Baker et al, 2012; Rosendo et al, 2018; IPCC, 2018).…”

“…Numerous indicator‐based governance assessment methods have applied this concept to evaluate adaptive capacity (Siders, 2019). To capture a holistic representation of a governance baseline, the capitals span across five dimensions, including social, political, human, financial, and environmental capital (Carmona et al, 2017; Goodwin, 2003; Gupta et al, 2010; Ojwang et al, 2017; Olsen et al, 2009; Ostrom, 2011; Williams et al, 2018).…”