10 June 2015

COMMENTS ON DRAFT DEVOLUTION POLICY

PRESENTED ON 4TH JUNE 2015 AT KENYA SCHOOL
OF GOVERNMENT
The International Budget Partnership Kenya is pleased to comment on the draft devolution policy
document shared on Thursday, 4th June 2015. For more information, please contact us at the address
on the letterhead below.
A. ABOUT IBP KENYA
The International Budget Partnership (IBP) is a non-governmental organization that conducts research
and provides technical assistance to citizens, oversight bodies and government on issues of public
finance. Our work in Kenya focuses on transparency and participation of the public in budgeting, with a
particular emphasis on devolution.
B. ANALYSIS OF THE DEVOLUTION DRAFT
1. The policy talks about providing funding to KSG to build capacity of county staff (page 11). The
policy later sees a role for CSOs of "advocacy, civic education and community mobilization" (page
35). In fact, KSG does not have all the knowledge in-house that it needs to provide capacity, and
CSOs have a role to play in this as well. We believe that KSG's own lack of capacity cannot be
resolved only through funding, but a there is a need to think more about how KSG is structured and
how it learns about what is happening at county level and incorporates this into its training materials,
etc.
2. Generally, the policy is very weak in identifying the problems it is trying to solve. This makes it
difficult to assess the quality of the solutions being offered. Some of the problems identified are
superficial and lack a deep understanding of the issues. For example, it is stated on page 18 that the
problem in many counties is that the county assemblies want to implement projects outside the
County Integrated Development Plan (CIDP). This may be true, but there is an even deeper
problem - CIDPs were rushed, developed by consultants with limited ownership by county residents,
and many of them are unworkable. For these reasons, many counties are currently reviewing and
revising their CIDPs.
3. The section on public finance management (page 18) lacks precision and it is not clear what the
policy direction really is and who the implementer is. For example, the first policy measure is

"develop and implement a fiscal policy" Fiscal policy is the domain of the National Treasury or
the County Treasury; the MODP has no role to play. In any event, it is not clear what kind of fiscal
policy is meant here since this policy is to harmonize other policies on economic development
and labour mobility.
4. There are a number of other policy measures that are unclear as to who/what the target is and who is
the implementer. For example, the second policy measure on page 18 is "adhere to the
Constitution". Aside from the fact that adhering to the constitution is not really a policy, who is this
targeted at? MODP? Or at county officers? Who is supposed to implement? A similar question
could be asked for many of these points: "strengthen tax administration to raise adequate revenues."
What role does MODP have to play in raising revenues? Who is the target here? Kenya Revenue
Authority or county governments?
5. Point ten mentions development of "guidelines on management of non-conditional and conditional
grants." This appears to target counties, but there is no policy for such grants at the national level, so
how can guidelines be developed for counties? And what exactly would these guidelines entail that is
not covered by the PFM Act Regulations and the policies governing specific grants?
6.

On inter-governmental relations pillar, there is a mention of strengthening and facilitating

mechanisms, but what exactly is the problem and how is the policy going to solve it? There is
nothing specific enough that would constitute a "policy".

7. Equity and inclusivity pillar speaks only about specific marginalized groups, but not about broader
equity principles in the allocation and use of resources at the county level. For example, ensuring that
areas with poor access to services are given more resources to lift them up (pages 29-30).
8. On management of transfer of power and functions (page 30), a myriad of activities that all should
have been done already but have not been completed are mentioned. However, there is no
discussion of how these things will be done differently moving forward. The question that remain is
why would the proposed policy result in different results than what has happened in the past?
C. RECOMMENDATIONS
1. A policy document for the Ministry of Devolution and Planning should explain clearly what
the Ministry is going to do. There should not be long lists of actions or plans that are almost
certainly to be carried out by others and over which the Ministry has no control.
2. A policy should be motivated by an in-depth analysis of contemporary challenges that the
policy is then designed to solve. The superficial analysis here needs to be replaced by a more
thoughtful assessment of the challenges of implementing devolution, including some citations to
reports and interviews with key stakeholders.
3. The Ministry also needs to define its own role and niche with respect to the other key players
in the sector. Why should MODP have a role to play on PFM when the National Treasury, CRA,
COB and others already exist? If MODP has a role to play, this must be explained in terms of gaps
left by other institutions. Otherwise, PFM should not be part of the policy. This same rule applies
to other areas. The sheer existence of MODP does not justify it being involved in every aspect of
county existence.
4. The policy should consider the needs and demands of counties or other actors in
determining what role is most suitable for the Ministry. The Ministrys clients should have their
views incorporated into the document to avoid a top-down approach to devolution inconsistent with
the spirit of the constitution.