Authors: Leonardo Medina, Frans Schapendonk, Martina Jaskolski, Joab Osumba, Alice Jebiwott, Radhika Singh, Joyce Takaindisa, Grazia Pacillo.
Executive summary
The Conflict Sensitive Adaptation Governance analysis, part of CGIAR’s Climate Resilience initiative (ClimBeR), aims to evaluate multi-level climate adaptation policies on whether these instruments are intentionally designed, implemented, and assessed for their ability to prevent new conflicts, create legitimate venues for conflict resolution, and harness their peacebuilding potential.
This analysis focuses on Kenya’s County Climate Change Fund (CCCF) mechanism. This adaptation policy instrument operates under the principles of locally-led adaptation. It is intended to assist county governments across Kenya in establishing a dedicated fund that can be readily accessed by community-led adaptation committees to finance locally prioritized and designed adaptation projects.
This research developed a practical framework for evaluating climate adaptation policies through a conflict sensitivity lens. The framework includes 22 assessment criteria to guide the analysis across three policy phases: 1) agenda setting and formulation, 2) policy implementation, and 3) policy review. Furthermore, the framework is organized around three key dimensions which can theoretically enable governance conditions for conflict sensitivity to emerge: multilevel governance, adaptive governance, and representative governance.
Key findings
The County Climate Change Fund (CCCF) provides a promising model for conflict-sensitive climate governance by empowering ward-level planning committees and fostering inclusive, communitydriven decision-making. Despite its successes, several opportunities for conflict sensitivity and peacebuilding integration remain. This summary outlines key findings and recommendations.
Sources of conflict sensitivity:
1. Inclusive local governance:
• Ward Climate Change Planning Committees (WCCPCs) and project management committees promote broad community representation, fostering local ownership, accountability, and trust.
• These committees strengthen state-society relations and build political legitimacy by aligning adaptation activities with local needs.
• Empowered local actors demand accountability and adapt governance to local socioecological dynamics.
2. Vertical and sectoral coordination:
• The CCCF enhances coordination among governance actors through mechanisms like technical advisory support and inter-ward meetings.
• Participatory vulnerability assessments allow communities to analyze climate risks and identify resilience strategies tailored to local contexts.
3. Corruption prevention and transparency:
• The CCCF mechanism has established robust frameworks to prevent corruption and rentseeking, particularly in procurement processes, aligning with national and county-level regulations like the Procurement and Asset Disposals Act and Public Financial Management Act.
• Transparent practices include the ‘Minutes Journal’ documenting community consultations and tender evaluations, public radio broadcasts, and community meetings (barazas).
• A formal complaints procedure enables stakeholders to challenge unethical conduct, reinforcing accountability. Beneficiary feedback reflects high confidence in the absence of corruption within CCCF operations.
4. Conflict prevention measures:
• Projects often employ harm-avoidance strategies, such as locating initiatives in noncontested areas and using consensus-based decision-making.
• Community-based adaptation projects improve inter- and intra-communal relationships, reducing resource conflicts and fostering cooperation.
5. Grievance Mechanisms:
• Structured channels for community feedback enhance transparency and accountability across CCCF operations, building trust and enabling redress.
Opportunities for conflict sensitivity:
1. Limited integration of peacebuilding actors:
• Peace and conflict stakeholders, such as the National Steering Committee on Peacebuilding and Conflict Management (NSC), are not formally represented in CCCF planning.
• Conflict sensitivity is inconsistently embedded in institutional learning tools and participatory assessments.
2. Data and monitoring:
• Conflict dynamics identified through participatory assessments are not systematically documented or leveraged to inform governance or research frameworks.
• The robust M&E framework developed during pilot phases has not been widely implemented, limiting the ability to track socio-political impacts or develop early-warning systems.
3. Transboundary and landscape-level challenges:
• Projects often focus on localized solutions, missing opportunities for larger-scale, integrated approaches like ecosystem-based adaptation.
• Landscape approaches risk exacerbating conflict dynamics due to competing community interests and historical tensions. .
4. Sustainability Risks:
• Interruptions in mandated funding and lack of follow-through on government commitments undermine community trust and adaptation efforts.
• Communication gaps after participatory assessments create frustration and disillusionment among communities.