Kenya is one of the most disaster-prone countries in the Greater Horn of Africa, facing an increasing frequency and intensity of natural disasters such as floods and droughts. According to government statistics, more than 70 percent of natural disasters in Kenya are a result of extreme climatic events. These calamities disrupt livelihoods, hinder economic growth, and threaten the country’s progress in development. The numbers are staggering—annually, 3 to 4 million Kenyans are directly impacted by these disasters, with their lives and livelihoods severely affected. Compounding the natural threats, human-made disasters, such as fires and industrial accidents, add to the country’s vulnerability.

In response to this growing risk, Kenya developed a Disaster Risk Management (DRM) policy in 2017. The policy’s vision is clear: “Build a safe and disaster-resilient nation through the establishment of a robust Disaster Risk Management system that contributes to and protects the achievements of Kenya’s national development.” The policy seeks to create an integrated, multi-hazard approach to managing risks at both national and county levels. Its primary goal is to reduce the impact of natural and human-induced disasters, thereby safeguarding Kenya’s social, economic, and environmental gains.

While the policy is ambitious, the evolving nature of risks raises concerns about its coherence and effectiveness. The policy, crafted in 2017, did not foresee the full spectrum of risks Kenya would face in the coming years, such as the global COVID-19 pandemic and local emergencies like the Endarasha School fire. Furthermore, climate experts have warned that Kenya’s Northern region may soon face another La Niña, which could bring prolonged droughts and further strain the country’s disaster response systems. These emerging risks suggest that Kenya’s current disaster management framework may not be adequately prepared to respond to the increasingly complex threats posed by both natural and human-made hazards.

The evolution of these risks underscores a growing question: Is Kenya’s policy approach coherent, and does it effectively address the multifaceted nature of disasters in today’s world? A deeper analysis reveals both strengths and weaknesses in the country’s disaster management strategy.

Strengths of the policy

From the onset, the policy reflects a progressive understanding of disaster risk reduction. It recognises the need for a multi-hazard, multi-sectoral approach, integrating both national and county-level governance structures. This decentralisation is crucial as it allows counties, which are often at the front lines of disaster response, to take ownership of disaster preparedness and mitigation efforts. For example, counties that are regularly affected by floods or droughts can develop tailored strategies that address their unique vulnerabilities.

The policy also emphasises capacity building. By advocating for the training and equipping of personnel at all levels of governance, it attempts to create a more resilient and knowledgeable workforce capable of responding to disasters effectively. Moreover, it promotes partnerships between the public and private sectors, civil society, and international organisations, fostering collaboration that is vital for a well-rounded disaster response system.

Kenya’s DRM framework further highlights the importance of public awareness and community involvement. By encouraging communities to participate in disaster preparedness and response activities, the policy recognises that the people most affected by disasters should play a central role in mitigating their impact. Communities can provide valuable local knowledge, and their involvement ensures that disaster response is more targeted and effective.

Gaps in the policy

Despite these strengths, there are significant gaps that raise questions about the overall coherence of the DRM policy. One major issue is the limited focus on risk forecasting and scenario planning. While the policy acknowledges the importance of disaster preparedness, there is a lack of a comprehensive mechanism for anticipating and preparing for the kind of emerging risks Kenya has faced in recent years, such as pandemics or the increasing frequency of climate-related events like La Niña. The absence of this foresight leaves the country vulnerable to unanticipated disasters, which can overwhelm existing resources and capacities.

The policy also struggles with implementation challenges. While it is well-crafted on paper, the actual execution of its provisions has been slow and uneven across counties. This is partly due to the insufficient allocation of resources for disaster preparedness and mitigation. For example, while counties are tasked with developing disaster management plans, many lack the technical and financial resources to do so effectively. The result is a patchwork of preparedness levels across the country, with some regions significantly more vulnerable to disasters than others.

Another major gap is the insufficient engagement with the private sector. While the policy encourages partnerships, there is little guidance on how corporates can contribute to disaster preparedness and response. The private sector, especially in industries like agriculture, manufacturing, and telecommunications, has a crucial role to play in both disaster risk reduction and post-disaster recovery. However, the policy does not provide clear avenues for corporate involvement, leaving a significant potential resource untapped.

What needs to be done

To address these gaps, there is a need to update the policy to reflect the changing nature of disaster risks in the country. This begins with a stronger focus on risk forecasting and scenario planning. Incorporating advanced data analytics and climate modelling can help predict potential disasters more accurately, giving the country time to prepare. Additionally, establishing a national disaster response fund, with contributions from both public and private sectors, could ensure that resources are readily available when disasters strike.

The government should also enhance its focus on capacity building, particularly at the county level. Counties that lack the technical and financial capacity to implement disaster management strategies need more support. This could come in the form of targeted funding, training programs, and partnerships with international organisations that have expertise in disaster risk forecasting, management and mitigation.

Furthermore, there is a need for a more structured approach to engaging the private sector. Corporates, as responsible citizens, have a significant role to play in disaster risk management. For example, companies in the telecommunications sector can support early warning systems, while agribusinesses can develop climate-resilient farming techniques. The government should create incentives for corporates to invest in disaster preparedness and response capabilities, whether through tax breaks, public recognition, or formal partnerships in national disaster planning initiatives.

The role of corporates in disaster management

Corporations in Kenya have a unique opportunity to contribute to the country’s disaster resilience. By building internal capabilities for disaster preparedness, businesses can not only protect their assets and employees but also contribute to national efforts. For instance, companies can develop business continuity plans that consider potential disruptions from natural disasters, such as floods or pandemics. These plans can ensure that businesses remain operational during crises, thereby reducing the economic impact of disasters.

Moreover, corporate social responsibility (CSR) programs can be designed to support community-level disaster preparedness and response. Companies can offer financial support, technical expertise, or logistical resources to aid communities in building resilience against future disasters. In doing so, businesses can enhance their reputations as responsible corporate citizens while contributing to national development goals.

Conclusion

The Disaster Risk Management Policy, 2017, provides a solid foundation for addressing the country’s vulnerability to disasters. However, the evolving nature of risks—both natural and human-made—demands that the policy be updated and strengthened. The government must enhance its focus on risk forecasting, capacity building at the county level, and structured engagement with the private sector.

By doing so, Kenya can build a more robust and coherent disaster risk management system that not only mitigates the impact of disasters but also protects the country’s long-term development gains. Corporates, as responsible citizens, also have a critical role to play in this effort, and their active participation will be key to Kenya’s future resilience.