Will Kenya’s new disaster law strengthen humanitarian response?

On 29 May 2026, Kenyan President William Ruto signed the National Disaster Risk Management Bill 2023 into law, marking one of Kenya’s most significant disaster governance reforms in decades. The signing came at a sombre moment for the country, still grieving after a dormitory fire on 27 May at Utumishi Girls Senior School that killed 16 students and injured dozens more. It also followed months of deadly flooding that displaced families, destroyed infrastructure and exposed persistent weaknesses in preparedness, coordination and accountability during emergencies.

The new law establishes a comprehensive legal and institutional framework for disaster risk management in Kenya through the creation of a National Disaster Risk Management Authority (NDRMA) and county disaster management structures. While the legislation has been widely welcomed, its real significance will not lie in the institutions it creates on paper, but in whether it can transform how disasters are anticipated and managed in practice.

From a humanitarian practitioner’s perspective, the law presents both an important opportunity and a significant implementation challenge. If effectively operationalised, it could strengthen preparedness, improve coordination between national and county governments and support more accountable disaster response systems. However, unless issues of localisation, financing, institutional overlap and community engagement are addressed, the reforms may simply reproduce many of the weaknesses that have historically undermined disaster management efforts in Kenya.

From reactive response to disaster risk governance

Disaster response in Kenya has largely been reactive. Major emergencies such as the 1997/98 El Niño floods, recurrent droughts in arid and semi-arid counties, the Covid-19 pandemic and devastating floods in 2023–2024 repeatedly exposed gaps in preparedness, fragmented coordination and delayed response mechanisms.

The new law attempts to shift Kenya from this cycle of reactive crisis management towards a risk governance approach that prioritises preparedness, early warning and resilience-building. In doing so, it aligns closely with the principles of the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030, which emphasises understanding disaster risk, strengthening governance, investing in resilience and enhancing preparedness to ‘Build Back Better’.

The law complements the government’s National Disaster Risk Management Strategy 2025–2030, which recognises climate change, urbanisation, disease outbreaks and environmental degradation as major risk multipliers. From my experience supporting humanitarian preparedness and emergency coordination in Kenya and the wider Horn of Africa, one of the most persistent operational problems during disasters has been the absence of a legally anchored coordination framework. In past emergencies, multiple actors, including government ministries, county authorities, UN agencies, NGOs, civil society groups and the private sector, often operated simultaneously but with varying coordination structures and reporting lines. This frequently resulted in duplicated assessments, uneven aid and relief distribution, competition for visibility and scarce resources and confusion over leadership roles. The establishment of the NDRMA therefore offers an opportunity to create a more predictable and coordinated system for preparedness and response.

Decentralisation advances, but mandate clarity remains weak

One of the law’s most significant aspects is its recognition of county governments as central actors in disaster management. The establishment of County Disaster Risk Management Committees and county emergency operations centres acknowledges the reality that counties are usually the first responders during floods, droughts, fires and disease outbreaks.

This is particularly important in Kenya because disasters manifest differently across counties. Turkana, Mandera, Marsabit and Wajir regularly confront drought-related emergencies, while counties such as Kisumu, Tana River, Garissa and Nairobi face recurrent floods and urban displacement risks. In practice, however, coordination between national and county structures has been inconsistent. During major emergencies, mandates often overlap, communication systems are weak and resource mobilisation can become politicised.

The new law does not fully resolve these challenges. While it establishes both national and county structures, it leaves important questions unanswered regarding operational authority, financing responsibilities and command structures during large-scale emergencies. From a practitioner’s perspective, this ambiguity could create delays during fast-moving crises. For example, if severe flooding affects multiple counties simultaneously, it remains unclear how operational leadership would transition between county authorities and the national government. Without clear standard operating procedures and interoperable coordination systems, institutional confusion may persist despite the new legal framework.

The potential overlap between the new Authority and the existing National Drought Management Authority (NDMA) is another important concern. Since drought is already managed under an established institutional framework, the absence of clearly defined roles risks duplication of mandates, competition for resources and fragmented coordination.

Localisation and community participation

In recent years, humanitarian actors in Kenya have increasingly promoted localisation, the principle that local organisations and affected communities should play a more central role in preparedness and response. The importance of localisation was strongly reinforced during the World Humanitarian Summit and in the Grand Bargain and remains central to humanitarian reform discussions globally.

The new legislation provides limited clarity on how local actors, community-based organisations, faith networks and volunteers will meaningfully participate in decision-making processes. This is a significant gap. From operational experience, communities themselves are always the true first responders long before formal assistance arrives. During floods, communities organise boat rescues, host displaced families and share food. During droughts, community elders and local civil society organisations provide the earliest warning signs of deteriorating conditions.

Some of the most effective disaster preparedness initiatives in Kenya’s Arid and Semi-Arid Lands (ASAL) have succeeded precisely because they integrated indigenous knowledge, participatory risk mapping and local leadership structures. Without stronger mechanisms of accountability to affected populations and community-led preparedness, there is a risk that the new system becomes overly centralised and technocratic. This may unintentionally slow last-mile response or weaken trust between government authorities and local communities.

The law also misses an opportunity to explicitly recognise auxiliary humanitarian actors such as the Kenya Red Cross Society, which has historically played a leading operational role during emergencies.

Financing preparedness – the real test

Perhaps the greatest determinant of the law’s success will be whether adequate and sustained financing is provided.

Kenya has historically invested more resources in emergency response than in prevention and preparedness. Yet evidence consistently shows that anticipatory action and preparedness financing are significantly more cost-effective than post-disaster relief. A recent study of WFP’s preparedness portfolio estimated a return on investment of approximately $3.40 in response cost savings for every dollar invested in preparedness measures.

Repeated cycles of drought and flooding in Kenya demonstrate this clearly. Year after year, humanitarian actors mobilise emergency appeals after disasters have already escalated, while investments in drainage infrastructure, resilient livelihoods, early warning systems and contingency planning remain inadequate.

The law contains provisions relating to disaster funds and preparedness planning, but there is still limited clarity regarding how county-level preparedness activities will be financed consistently. Many county governments face budgetary constraints and competing political priorities. Without ring-fenced preparedness budgets and transparent financing mechanisms, county disaster structures risk becoming underfunded administrative bodies with limited operational capacity.

As a humanitarian practitioner, I have observed that preparedness systems are often strongest immediately after major disasters, when public attention and political interest are high. Over time, however, funding declines until the next emergency occurs. Sustained preparedness requires long-term institutional commitment rather than reactive financing.

Accountability in disaster response

The law’s provisions on accountability and information management are among its strongest features. The inclusion of penalties for misuse of relief supplies and false disaster alerts responds to longstanding concerns about diversion, corruption and politicisation during emergency operations.

If implemented effectively, standardised data management systems and coordinated information-sharing could improve humanitarian targeting and prioritisation, reduce duplication and support evidence-based decision-making. This is especially important as Kenya faces increasingly complex and overlapping risks linked to climate change, urbanisation, displacement, public health emergencies and food insecurity. The threat of cross-border disease outbreaks, including Ebola risks from neighbouring Uganda and the Democratic Republic of Congo, highlights the need for stronger multi-sector coordination between disaster management institutions and line ministries such as health, water, agriculture and transport.

However, accountability cannot rely solely on punitive legal provisions. Effective oversight requires transparent procurement systems, public reporting mechanisms, independent monitoring and active community feedback channels. Without these safeguards, there remains a risk that relief operations could face the same leakages and political interference seen during previous emergencies.

A critical opportunity for reform

The enactment of the National Disaster Risk Management law represents an important milestone for Kenya. It signals growing recognition that disasters are no longer isolated humanitarian events, but systemic governance and development challenges closely linked to climate change, inequality, public health and urbanisation.

The law has the potential to significantly improve preparedness, clarify coordination mechanisms and strengthen institutional accountability. Yet legislation alone will not guarantee effective disaster response. Success will ultimately depend on political commitment, sustainable financing, intergovernmental coordination and the meaningful inclusion of communities and local humanitarian actors.

For humanitarian practitioners, the new framework presents an opportunity to advocate for stronger localisation, anticipatory action and accountability systems while supporting counties to build operational readiness before disasters occur.

As Kenya prepares for the possibility of another El Niño cycle later in 2026, with warnings already issued by the Kenya Meteorological Department and the World Meteorological Organization, the country may soon see whether this new legal framework can translate ambition into practical action.

If implemented effectively, the law could help Kenya move beyond repetitive cycles of emergency response towards a more resilient, coordinated and preparedness-driven disaster management system.

Francis Opiyo, PhD is a disaster risk management and humanitarian expert with WFP’s Eastern and Southern Africa Regional Office.