Climate–aquatic foods policy coherence: Entry points for mutual integration of climate and aquatic foods in Kenya and Zambia

Climate change poses growing risks to aquatic food systems, particularly in vulnerable regions. At the same time, aquatic foods offer potential for climate adaptation and mitigation because of their relatively low environmental footprints and contributions to livelihoods and nutrition. Despite this dual role, however, the extent to which climate policies and aquatic foods policies are aligned is seldomly considered. This report assesses the coherence between climate policy and aquatic foods policy in Kenya and Zambia. The analysis focuses on sectoral fisheries and aquaculture policies and national-level climate frameworks, specifically Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), National Adaptation Plans (NAPs), and climate action strategies. Using a structured analytical framework, coherence was assessed across objectives, measures, policy instruments, implementation arrangements, monitoring and evaluation (M&E), and horizontal and vertical coordination. Thirteen national-level policy documents were analyzed: seven from Kenya and six from Zambia. Documents were systematically coded using keyword searches and a deductive codebook, and each was scored using a coherence index (scale 1–10) that weighted objectives, instruments, implementation, M&E, coordination, and aquatic foods specificity. Overall, the results show a fragmented but evolving policy landscape in both countries. Climate frameworks tend to integrate aquatic food systems more consistently than fisheries and aquaculture policies integrate climate considerations. In Kenya, the National Climate Change Action Plan (NCCAPIII) and the country’s NAP demonstrate strong coherence, with clear objectives, multiple instruments, quantified targets, budget allocations, and defined institutional responsibilities. In Zambia, coherence is strongest in the National Aquaculture Trade Development Strategy, which operationalizes climate-smart aquaculture as part of an economic growth and diversification agenda. In contrast, older fisheries legislation and sectoral implementation plans in both countries show little or no reference to climate risks, adaptation, or mitigation. These documents score lowest on coherence, highlighting a lag between rapidly evolving climate policy agendas and slower sectoral and legal reform processes. A key finding is that alignment at the level of objectives alone is insufficient. High coherence is associated with concrete instruments, implementation pathways, budget lines, and M&E frameworks. Where climate–aquatic foods linkages remain largely aspirational, such as in some NDCs and high- level policies, coherence is considerably weaker. Common gaps across both countries include limited M&E systems, weak vertical coherence between national and subnational levels, and a lack of formal cross-referencing between climate and aquatic foods policies. The findings suggest that strengthening coherence requires aligning and updating existing policies rather than creating and layering new ones. Key entry points include revising fisheries and aquaculture policies to embed climate resilience, strengthening M&E systems, and improving coordination across climate, fisheries, and planning institutions. The analytical framework used in this study is lightweight and replicable, offering potential for broader application to support climate-responsive governance of aquatic food systems in other countries.