New budget analysis shows rising climate allocations across water, agriculture and infrastructure. Civil society groups, however, say stronger public participation and clearer expenditure tracking are needed to ensure community priorities are not left behind.

Every financial year, Siaya County sets aside billions of shillings to fund healthcare, roads, agriculture, water and other essential services. Yet for many residents, the county budget is judged not by the figures presented in official documents, but by whether medicines reach hospitals, roads become passable and clean water reaches their homes.

The central question is therefore not only how much money Siaya receives, but where it goes, who benefits and whether public spending reflects the county’s most urgent needs. Following the budget trail reveals the difficult choices, competing priorities and accountability questions shaping everyday life across Siaya.

Siaya is spending more on climate action

Climate change is no longer confined to Siaya County’s environment department.

It is increasingly shaping decisions about water, farming, roads, healthcare, education and urban development. The shift can be seen in the county’s rising climate-related allocations, but the figures also raise an important question: are communities helping decide where that money goes?

That question shaped the Quarter Three consultative meeting involving the County Government of Siaya, the Devolution and Climate Change Adaptation Programme, known as DaCCA, and civil society organisations.

The meeting brought together county officials, technical staff and community representatives to review climate commitments, examine the 2025/2026 climate budget and assess whether local priorities are being reflected in county planning.

The meeting main facilitator was Mike Joseph, a climate finance officer and project officer, where he works on the Devolution and Climate Change Adaptation (DaCCA) Programme. Among the officials present were Environment, Climate Change and Natural Resources Director Gabriel Oduong, Water and Irrigation Director Henry Juma, Budget Director Jared Abwao and Deputy Director of Public Participation Rebecca Opondo.

The discussion revealed a county making measurable progress in climate financing. It also exposed continuing concerns about accountability, dependence on external funding and the quality of public participation.

Climate financing is approaching KSh2 billion

The Siaya County Climate Financing Budget Analysis for the 2025/2026 financial year identified grants as the largest source of climate funding.

Grants accounted for KSh1.183 billion, representing 58 percent of the climate financing analysed. Other financing sources contributed KSh778.6 million, or 38 percent, while the county’s direct contribution stood at KSh77 million, equivalent to 4 percent.

The county contribution is channelled through the County Climate Change Fund, which allocates a portion of the annual development budget to climate action.

The figures show that Siaya has access to significant resources for climate programmes. However, they also reveal how heavily those programmes depend on grants and financing originating beyond the county.

That dependence matters because climate resilience requires predictable, long-term investment. Water systems, resilient roads, agricultural support and disaster preparedness cannot be sustained if funding becomes uncertain or disappears when a particular programme ends.

Participants therefore called for stronger local revenue mobilisation to provide a more reliable foundation for climate action.

Water and environment received the largest allocation

The Water, Environment, Climate Change and Natural Resources sector remained the biggest recipient of climate-related funding.

Its allocation increased from KSh710.8 million in the 2024/2025 financial year to KSh858.1 million in 2025/2026. The increase reflects the importance of water access, environmental protection and natural resource management in a county where communities face floods, irregular rainfall and pressure on agricultural livelihoods.

The Public Works, Energy, Roads and Transport sector recorded one of the most dramatic changes. It moved from no identified climate allocation in 2024/2025 to KSh549.5 million in the current financial year.

This suggests that climate resilience is beginning to influence how the county thinks about infrastructure. Roads, bridges and drainage systems increasingly need to withstand heavy rainfall, flooding and other climate-related risks rather than simply meet ordinary construction standards.

Agriculture, Livestock, Fisheries and Blue Economy also received a larger allocation. Its climate financing rose from KSh364.5 million to KSh474.2 million, supporting climate-smart agriculture, resilient food systems and livelihoods connected to land and water.

Additional climate-related allocations were identified in education, health and the municipalities of Siaya, Bondo and Ugunja. This expansion suggests that climate considerations are gradually moving beyond traditional environmental programmes.

A larger budget does not automatically mean greater impact

The increase in climate allocations is significant, but budget figures alone cannot show whether communities are becoming safer or more resilient.

The more difficult questions concern implementation. Which projects are completed? Who benefits from them? Can the public trace the money from the approved budget to a functioning water system, resilient road or supported farming community?

Participants called for the institutionalisation of climate budget tagging, a process that identifies and tracks climate-related expenditure across government departments.

Without a consistent tagging system, climate spending can be difficult to follow once it is distributed across water, agriculture, roads, health and other sectors. Clearer tracking would make it easier for residents, county legislators and civil society groups to compare promises with actual expenditure.

The meeting also reviewed progress made since the previous quarter. A climate policy paper had been shared with the relevant county department, while discussions had begun on harmonising Community Adaptation Action Plans with county budgeting and FLLoCA project-prioritisation templates.

The Agriculture Department reported progress on the development of an Agroecology Policy. The Environment and Climate Change Department was also working to involve planning officials and other county sectors in the review of the Climate Change Policy.

Communities want a stronger voice in budgeting

Civil society representatives used the meeting to share their experiences from public participation forums for the 2027/2028 County Annual Development Plan.

They acknowledged that county officers arrived on time, but raised concerns about the limited period available for community participation. They also questioned whether residents were being guided too heavily on the number and types of projects they could prioritise.

Budget officials explained that the guidance was intended to encourage projects with greater impact, address pending bills and balance new development proposals against the resources available.

That explanation highlights a familiar tension in public budgeting. Counties must work within financial limits, but residents also need enough space to identify the risks and solutions that matter most in their communities.

Civil society groups called for public participation reports to be attached to final budget documents. This would create a record showing what residents proposed, which priorities were accepted and why other requests were excluded.

Such documentation would help move public participation beyond attendance lists and meetings. It would provide evidence that community views influenced the final decisions.

Persons with disabilities remain underrepresented

The meeting also raised concerns about the participation of persons with disabilities.

Although most venues were physically accessible, civil society representatives said participation by people with disabilities remained low. Public materials were also not available in sufficiently accessible formats, including Braille.

County officials acknowledged that invitations alone had not produced meaningful engagement.

This distinction is important. A public forum cannot be considered fully inclusive simply because people with disabilities were invited or could enter the building.

Meaningful participation requires accessible information, deliberate outreach and opportunities for people with different disabilities to contribute to the discussion.

Community climate plans are not yet fully integrated

Community Adaptation Action Plans are intended to capture climate priorities identified at the local level.

Participants reported that some priorities, particularly those related to agriculture, water and the environment, had been included in county budgets. However, integration remained limited, especially in supplementary budgets.

Most community priorities were concentrated in agriculture, water, environment, roads and public works.

Stakeholders argued that climate action should also be incorporated into health, education, trade, social services, urban development and disaster management. Climate change affects disease patterns, school attendance, food prices, businesses and the safety of settlements, making it relevant across the county government.

DaCCA supported ward-level budget analysis in five wards to examine whether community priorities were appearing in county spending. It also helped civil society and Community Representative Committee members participate in development-plan forums.

These activities are intended to strengthen the connection between what communities identify and what the county ultimately finances.

Climate focal persons could improve coordination

Another area of progress was the appointment of climate change focal persons in county departments.

Health, Tourism, Public Works, Lands, Trade and Siaya Municipality had submitted the names of officers expected to coordinate climate issues within their departments. The focal persons are expected to receive capacity building and support the integration of climate considerations into sector plans and budgets.

This approach could help prevent climate action from being treated as the responsibility of one department.

Its success, however, will depend on whether focal persons have clear responsibilities, technical support and sufficient authority to influence departmental decisions.

What Happens Next

Stakeholders agreed that every county department should incorporate climate considerations into its plans, budgets and projects. They also called for climate budget tagging, stronger local revenue mobilisation and fuller integration of Community Adaptation Action Plans into annual and supplementary budgets.

Public participation reports should be attached to final budget documents, while departmental climate focal persons should be appointed and supported across the county.

The resolutions create a clear accountability test for the next consultative meeting.

Siaya’s climate budget is growing, and climate considerations are appearing across more sectors. The next step is proving that the money can be tracked, that communities can influence how it is spent and that funded projects are producing visible improvements in people’s lives.

For residents facing water shortages, unpredictable rainfall, damaged roads or declining harvests, climate finance is not simply a figure in a county document.

Its true value will be measured by what changes on the ground.