Kenya has developed a clear and ambitious climate policy framework that puts heavy emphasis on climate adaptation: the ability of citizens to respond to drought, flood, heat and other impacts of climate change. The Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) calls for total adaptation financing of about KSh 468.5 billion per year, of which 10% is meant to come from government. But is the country putting its money where its mouth is? Is Kenya’s national budget financing adaptation at the scale, consistency, and sustainability required to deliver real resilience outcomes? IPF’s analysis of adaptation-relevant programmes in the Annual National Shadow Budget suggests a clear answer: no.
In this blog we makes two key arguments based on a limited analysis of adaptation-relevant programmes in: Environment, Protection, Water and Natural Resources (EPWNR) and Agriculture, Rural and Urban Development (ARUD), covering the FY 2018/19–FY 2025/26 period. First, adaptation financing is declining and highly unstable rather than scaling up toward Kenya’s stated adaptation commitment targets. Second, adaptation financing remains heavily dependent on external resources and is not structured to sustain resilience investments beyond project cycles. Both challenges are compounded by the fragmentation of adaptation spending across the national budget, which makes it difficult to track. One caveat: our analysis covers only the two key climate-related sectors and misses some adaptation spending in other sectors.
Adaptation financing is declining and highly unstable, rather than scaling up toward NDC targets. Across both sectors, allocations show sharp fluctuations and a downward trend. In the ARUD sector, total adaptation-relevant allocations, both domestic and external sources, amount to approximately KSh 81 billion over the period. However, annual financing declines sharply over time, falling by nearly 90% between its peak and FY 2025/26. A similar pattern is observed in the EPWNR sector, where total allocations amount to approximately KSh 50 billion, but with financing contracting by about 44%.
Adaptation financing remains heavily dependent on external resources and insufficiently structured to sustain resilience investments beyond project cycles. External financing accounts for a significant share of adaptation resources. On average, external finance accounts for 58% in ARUD, while in the EPWNR sector, it has recently exceeded 80% of total allocations. While reliance on external financing is broadly consistent with Kenya’s climate policy frameworks, recent trends suggest neither domestic nor external resources are being mobilised at the scale required for long-term adaptation commitments. As externally financed programmes wind down, overall adaptation financing has contracted rather than stabilised or expanded in line with NDC financing needs.
In the ARUD sector, major externally financed programmes such as the Drought Resilience and Sustainable Livelihood Programme (DRSLP), the Rural Livelihoods Adaptation to Climate Change (RLACC), and the Climate Smart Agricultural Productivity Project (CS-APP) reached their closure timelines between 2023 and 2024. The programmes closed with completion rates of 100%, 83%, and 94% respectively. However, resilience is not a project, and requires long-term investment.
Climate risks do not disappear when a project cycle ends. Drought, water insecurity, and flood exposure persist beyond donor timelines. Kenya’s climate frameworks, including the NDC (2020–2030/2031–2035) and CSA Framework (2017–2026), set out forward financing needs extending to 2035. CSA alone requires about KSh 500 billion up to 2026, with annual needs of roughly KSh 50 billion. Importantly, these CSA-type commitments do not end in 2026: they require ongoing financing under the NDC, the MTP IV (2023–2027), Vision 2030, and NAP (to 2030).
For the 2026–2030 period, the NDC estimates adaptation financing needs at approximately KSh 468.5 billion annually across sectors. The post-2030 updated NDC (2031–2035), estimates total adaptation financing needs of about KSh 2.2 trillion (roughly KSh 440 billion annually). However, budget allocations in the agriculture and environment sectors are already declining, creating a mismatch between long-term commitments and short-term fiscal contraction.
Adaptation spending remains fragmented and insufficiently visible within the national budget system. Adaptation-related expenditures are often fragmented across sectors and programmes, making it difficult for Parliament, oversight institutions, and the public to consistently identify how much financing is directed toward adaptation priorities. Parliament and the public cannot oversee what they cannot see. Strengthening climate finance tagging and reporting systems would improve transparency, accountability, and oversight of Kenya’s adaptation commitments.
Addressing these gaps requires coordinated action across Parliament, the National Treasury, and sector Ministries, Departments, and Agencies (MDAs). Parliament can strengthen oversight by scrutinising adaptation allocations during budgeting, with particular attention to the continuity of priority programmes in drought resilience, water infrastructure, and climate-smart agriculture. The National Treasury plays a central role in embedding adaptation within medium-term expenditure frameworks and improving transparency on how domestic financing is expected to evolve as external support changes. MDAs, in turn, can strengthen continuity by ensuring that major adaptation programmes have clear transition arrangements or successor interventions as they approach closure.
This blog has been authored by John Kiplagat, Research Analyst, Institute of Public Finance
