Acknowledgements This report was prepared by a team composed of Annette Omolo, Bruce Macphail and Rose Wanjiru under the guidance of Tiago Peixoto. The team received inputs from Jez Hall (PB Specialist, PB partners UK) and Giovanni Allegretti (Coimbra University, Portugal) who have been instrumental in training Kenyan counties on implementing Participatory Budgeting. The report benefitted from the insights of peer reviewers namely Sanjay Agarwal and Simon Carl O’Meally; and editorial contributions from Anne Wangalachi. Partnership with Kenyan Counties engaged in the first phase of the Kenya Participatory Budgeting Initiative was instrumental in the development of this report. The Kenya Participatory Budgeting Initiative (KBPI) is implemented under the World Bank’s Kenya Accountable Devolution Program led by Helene Carlsson Rex and is a joint initiative with the Governance Practice under the leadership of Tiago Peixoto. The KBPI also partners with key government institutions, namely the Ministry of Devolution and Planning, the Council of Governors, the Commission on Revenue Allocation and the Kenya School of Government. The team acknowledges the critical support provided by KADP donors, namely Denmark, DFID, European Union (EU), Finland, Sweden and USAID. Design: Claudio Mendonca Images: World Bank © 2017 Contents Executive Summary.......................................................................................................................1 Process improvements..................................................................................................................1 Emerging outcomes......................................................................................................................2 Introduction...................................................................................................................................4 Background ...................................................................................................................................4 Defining Participatory Budgeting................................................................................................5 Understanding and contextualizing Participatory budgeting 10 steps framework................7 Participatory Budgeting in Kenya................................................................................................8 Implementation of Participatory Budgeting in Makueni County.............................................10 County Profile................................................................................................................................10 Development budget allocated to PB...........................................................................................14 Key Elements of the PB Process in Makueni .............................................................................15 The case of participation in Makindu Ward...............................................................................19 Implementation of Participatory Budgeting in West Pokot......................................................23 County Profile................................................................................................................................23 Development budget allocated to PB...........................................................................................24 Key elements of the PB Process...................................................................................................28 Implementation: Success stories from citizen engagement.....................................................40 Emerging results and early lessons of implementing Participatory Budgeting ...................41 Process improvements..................................................................................................................41 Emerging outcomes......................................................................................................................42 ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS CEC County Executive Committee CEPPS Civic Education and Public Participation CSO Civil Society Organization ECD Early Childhood Development FY Financial Year KPBI Kenya Participatory Budgeting Initiative MCA Member of County Assembly PB Participatory Budgeting PMC Project Management Committee Participatory Budgeting in Makueni and West Pokot Counties Executive Summary T he introduction of “citizen engagement” into law is an idea that is gaining popularity around the world1. New provisions in Kenya’s Constitution enshrine openness, accountability and public participation as guiding principles for public financial management. Yet, translating participation laws into meaningful action on the ground is no simple task. Experience has shown that in the absence of commitment from leaders and citizens and without appropriate capacities and methodologies, public participation provisions may lead to simple “tick the box” exercises2. With support from the Kenya Participatory Budgeting Initiative (KPBI), and the commitment from West Pokot and Makueni County leaders, Participatory Budgeting (PB) is being tested as a way to achieve more inclusive and effective citizen engagement processes while complying with national legal provisions. The initial results are quite encouraging. Process improvements Inclusiveness – While typical county budget consultations in Kenya consist of few meetings and limited inclusiveness, PB has increased opportunities for women and remote communities to take part in expenditure prioritization. Makueni County follows a sequential process of identifying citizens’ priorities, starting at the hyperlocal level and moving up through levels of community organization. With a total of 3,867 meetings and over 350,000 participants, this process includes forums in villages, sub-wards, wards, sub-counties, and one county forum, where 1,000 individuals 1  See, for instance, Sintomer et al. 2013, McNulty & Wampler 2015. 2  See, for instance, McNulty 2013. 1 from across the county set the final expenditure priorities. In West Pokot County, prior to the implementation of PB, women were systematically excluded from budget consultations, representing on average no more than 11% of participants. With the Participatory Budgeting in Makueni and West Pokot Counties introduction of PB, a combination of new engagement methods and consultations held closer to women’s homesteads there was a three-fold increase in their participation (35%). While further inclusiveness is an imperative, these are promising results that will inform future adjustments of participatory processes in the two counties. Credibility – Previous budget consultations in the counties consisted of unstructured hearing processes. During these, community representatives proposed an endless list of (often unfeasible) projects for the county. The selection of projects to be implemented remained at the discretion of government officials, based on no formal criteria. This method, which raised citizens’ expectations and simultaneously incentivized “selective hearing” on the part of government officials, undermined citizens’ very trust in the participation process and fueled officials’ skepticism towards the value of such processes. The adoption of PB provides clear rules of the game for; the identification, selection, prioritization and validation of projects. PB ties the selected projects to a specific percentage of the capital budget (approximately 30%), thus better managing expectations and enhancing the overall credibility of the process. Compliance – The introduction of PB has facilitated compliance with legal requirements for public participation included in the County Government Act (2012) and the Public Financial Management Act (2012). The PB approach has also been shown to lower the transaction costs of such compliance. By providing a structured, streamlined and coherent process, PB avoids fragmented public participation that results in repetitive and overlapping activities which can be costly in terms of participants’ and organizers’ time and resources. Emerging outcomes Budget variance – Some early lessons are emerging on how PB is impacting the content of county budgets. Prior to PB, capital expenditures were debated between sectoral departments who were, in large part, concerned with increasing their budget envelopes, which resulted in resource allocation that did not respond to actual needs. An analysis of recent Makueni and West Pokot budgets shows that the PB process has changed this logic, with budget allocation increasingly aligned with citizens’ priorities. Previously, project proposals focused on building new facilities. Under the PB process citizens’ preferences have tended towards the upgrading or renovation of existing facilities. While previously sectoral departments were interested in larger flagship projects, county budgets now include more community-level projects such as 2 women’s development funds and wells (e.g., women’s development funds and wells). Budget approval – PB has also facilitated budget approval mechanisms by involving Members of the County Assembly (MCAs), who tended to disagree over resource allocation and the use of funds, in the deliberation process. Their participation in – Participatory Budgeting in Makueni and West Pokot Counties and commitments made during – the PB meetings have allowed for swifter approval of budgets. In West Pokot, where the County Assembly members would previously deliberate on and change the allocations made. However following their engagement in the PB forums, fewer changes were made to the proposed budgets. Of course, these are preliminary results. Significant challenges remain, such as furthering inclusiveness and strengthening citizens’ capacity to oversee budget execution. This report describes the Participatory Budgeting approach being adopted by Makueni and West Pokot counties. It seeks to provide detailed information on the step by step process that the two Counties have adopted and describes the support provided by the KPBI. At the national level, the report is mostly targeted towards PB practitioners and county officials interested in introducing PB as part of their budgeting cycle. The report seeks also to inform a wider audience of PB and citizen engagement practitioners on the Kenyan experience to date. 3 Participatory Budgeting in Makueni and West Pokot Counties Introduction Background T 1 he Constitution of Kenya 2010 and supportive legal framework on devolution, place strong emphasis on public participation, transparency and accountability as a means of improving efficiency, equity and inclusiveness of government and service delivery3. The devolution framework contains multiple provisions requiring county governments to make information publicly available and consult with citizens in planning, budgeting and monitoring of service delivery. 2 Over the past three years, counties have made some considerable progress implementing the legal provisions, but with some challenges. Counties have been allowing reasonable access to citizens to participate in the formulation of budgets and policies through holding of public forums and Town Hall meetings. They have also been establishing mechanisms to facilitate public communications and access to information with the widest public outreach through the use of local FM stations and community radio, county websites and social media, public notices and print media. However, progress has been varied and counties still need to improve the quality of budget consultation forums for more meaningful engagement. In particular, counties continue to face challenges related to tokenistic forms of participation where forums are held without provision of adequate notice or advance copies of budget documents in simple user-friendly versions. The meetings often do not follow an organized format, where citizens are asked to prioritize their needs within a set budget ceiling. Both counties and CSOs have expressed concerns that meetings too often turn into citizens presenting wish lists in an unsystematic way making it difficult to translate 4 them into practical development projects. 3  Constitution of Kenya 2010; County Government Act 2012; Public Financial Management Act 2012; Urban Areas and Cities Act 2011 3 Counties have sought guidance on how to make their processes more inclusive at the same time ensuring that citizen voices are represented in objective and structured processes. At the national level, the Ministry of Devolution and Planning Participatory Budgeting in Makueni and West Pokot Counties with support from the World Bank has developed guidelines on public participation that provide counties with a set of minimum standards, principles and best practice to effect quality citizen engagement4. The Ministry, jointly with other stakeholders, has also developed civic education curricular. The Kenya Participatory Budgeting Initiative builds on ongoing practices supporting public participation and social accountability at both the county and national levels. It seeks to strengthen the capacity building processes by introducing an innovative tool at the County level for a more intensive form of public participation. 4 The specific objectives of the Participatory Budgeting Initiative are to: i. Demonstrate feasibility and effectiveness of Participatory Budgeting in the Kenyan context at the County level ii. Provide an effective method for Counties to respond to constitutional require- ments with regards to public participation in the budget process iii. Reinforce the County governance system through the promotion of transpar- ency, participation and accountability iv. Provide an opportunity to citizens, focusing on traditionally excluded groups, to meaningfully engage in County budgeting processes v. Increase County responsiveness to citizens’ needs Defining Participatory Budgeting 5 Participatory Budgeting (PB), is the process of directly involving local people in making decisions on the priorities and spending for a defined amount of the public budget5. This means engaging residents and community group representatives of all sections of the community to discuss and vote on spending priorities, as well as giving citizens a role in the scrutiny and monitoring of the public spending and budget implementation. 4  See http://www.devolutionplanning.go.ke/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/County-Public-Participation.pdf 5  For a more detailed definition of PB, see https://democracyspot.net/2012/09/12/participatory-budgeting-seven-de- fining-characteristics/ 5 Benefits of PB 6 Originating from the Brazilian city of Porto Alegre in 1989, participatory budgeting has been used in over 2500 cities, municipalities and local authorities all over the world6. Participatory Budgeting in Makueni and West Pokot Counties This is a proof of its great adaptability as a methodology of citizens’ engagement. These international experiences have generated a growing body of evidence on the benefits of involving citizens in budgeting decisions, including increases in tax revenues, pro-poor spending, access to services, and decreased infant mortality7. Participatory budgeting has also been shown to be attractive in benefitting various stakeholders from elected officials, administration and the community, see Figure 1.1. Participatory budgeting government officials Politicians Community/public Implementing Development Closeness to the people Voice heard Projects Election pledges fulfiled Empowerment Generating reports Increased approval rating by the Community cohesion Evaluating social and economic public Economic and Social benefits impact Improved communication of the projects (employment, Government closer to the Re-election services) people Sense of control and ownership Credibility of government Figure 1.1: Benefits of Participatory Budgeting to Key Actors 7 Experiences of county budget consultations are that in most cases they fall short in: Ensuring citizen priorities are identified;  Applying an objective selection process based on technical input, voting or consensus; Establishing project management teams which incorporate citizens’ represen- tatives that can participate in the supervision of the implementation of projects. 8 Participatory budgeting typically employs a ten-step model8 that provides a framework through which counties can initiate new or adapt their current budget consultation processes to make them more effective and people-centered. Participatory budgeting further enhances the budget consultations by ensuring 6  See Sintomer et al. 2013. 7  See, for instance, Gonçalves 2014, Beuermann & Amelina 2014, Touchton & Wampler 2014. 8  The Ten Steps PB Framework has been originally developed by Prof. Giovanni Allegretti, leading expert in Participato- 6 ry Budgeting and one of the advisers of the KPBI. Participatory budgeting 10 steps framework Participatory Budgeting in Makueni and West Pokot Counties 1 Choose the general strategy (where, what, when). 2 Prepare the organizational model (e.g. any online engagement, budget set aside for PB, source of the PB fund e.g. Donor, CDF, Ward Fund, etc.), rules of engagement. 3 Develop informational material and mobilize citizens. 4 Hold first public meeting to identify citizens’ priorities, and proposals for projects; ensure consultation with as many people as possible. Make process/venue easily accessible by going to where the people are (do not ask them to come to you); incorporate people’s values and needs. 5 Carry out technical evaluation of proposal (are they the right solutions, the right projects and quality projects). 6 Refine and publish the final list of proposals (ensure citizens are involved wherever possible). 7 Voting day (may include use of ballots, online voting, sms, or queue voting). 8 Create voluntary working groups on selected proposals (the project committees comprising of citizens have ownership over the projects and ensure they are implemented). 9 Approve the budget and achieve sign off by accountable body. Ensure that all the approved citizen projects have budget allocation. 10 Review what went well and what did not go well; measure the effectiveness and efficiency of the interventions and projects; Assess the impact and sustainability of the projects. 7 that the outcomes of the process results in implementation of projects that have specifically being selected by the citizens, going from open ended consultations to binding consultations. Box 1 below provides the 10 steps of the PB framework. Participatory Budgeting in Makueni and West Pokot Counties Understanding and contextualizing Participatory Budgeting in Kenya Design and Methodology 9 The Participatory Budgeting (PB) initiative started in October 2015 with a workshop held at the Kenya School of Government with the County Governments. International experts provided an overview of PB including experiences, lessons and results in other countries. Counties shared relevant Kenyan experiences in planning, budgeting and participation. The workshop was followed by a seminar focusing on PB 10 steps with a narrower group of twelve counties that showed interest and have ongoing activities in public participation in the budget process. The identification of participating Counties was made according to a combination of self-selection and criteria. About ten counties committed to roll out PB by confirming that they were willing to: Commit a percentage of their development budget (at least 5% of overall investment/development budget) to a process of participatory budgeting where citizens’ decisions on what investments the county makes will be binding; Adopt participatory budgeting in the next budget process; Demonstrate that citizen input in previous county budget exercises was integrated into the final budget 10 Out of the ten counties, six were selected based on their initial action plans to implement participatory budgeting. Training participating counties in the design of the PB process 11 For the Financial Year (FY) 2015/16 three counties were selected for further training on design and implementation. The other three counties would implement PB in the next FY 16/17 while the remaining 41 counties will benefit through the accompanying measures of the Initiative, which include site visits during key moments of the PB process (e.g. deliberation and prioritization), annual workshops, as well as the learning materials produced. 12 A design workshop was held with the three counties, Makueni, West Pokot and Kakamega in January 2016, engaging a broad set of actors from government and civil society. The objective of the workshop was to facilitate county officials and civil society representatives to design PB processes at the County level, as well 8 as provide them with the necessary tools and methods for the implementation of PB within the budget preparation cycle ending on 30th June 2016. The workshop was followed by a set of activities intended to provide individualized support to the counties as well as to strengthen the authorizing environment during the Participatory Budgeting in Makueni and West Pokot Counties implementation process: ongoing organizational and mentoring support, design and implementation of outreach strategies, and support with the production and dissemination of communication material. Key action points agreed upon by the counties during the workshop 13 By design, the KPBI seeks to foster a County owned process with each county, carrying out its own unique activities. Each of them is designed to respond to locally defined problems and tailored to the processes that Counties identified during the design training and in consultation with the elected officials. 14 During the PB Design Training, each of the three Counties found a different approach that matched their own local culture and context. 15 Some of the practices Makueni County has espoused in the previous financial years closely relate to the PB methodology, and the county opted to revise their existing processes. The county aimed at the engagement of communities at the lowest levels possible (village, from previous sub-ward level) with an emphasis on involvement of thematic groups particularly women and youth. 16 West Pokot, struggling with issues of geography and extreme rurality had to think more radically, working with thematic approaches, and servicing basic needs. The county set aside 5% of the total development fund to specific projects identified and prioritized by the communities through the PB process. The projects would be Ward level projects. 17 Kakamega County hoped to pilot the PB process in 12 wards (6 rural and 6 urban) under the banner Maendeleo Mashinani (Development at the grassroots). The county officials planned to use the already allocated Ward Development Funds to drive this process. The success of the pilot in 12 wards would enable the county expand the process to other wards in the next budget cycle. The county however did not eventually implement the PB process due to failure to commit to the process. 18 It was anticipated that the Counties would use the PB 10 steps framework as a guiding document and adapt their practices over time from their experience and that of other Counties with which they will be encouraged to exchange during KPBI learning events. Also, given the fact that phase 1 of the KPBI was launched while the Fiscal Year was well underway, the initial county initiatives are expected to be very preliminary but provide some introductory lessons for building upon (see Annex I for the action plans). 19 This report captures the experiences of Makueni and West Pokot Counties. 9 Participatory Budgeting in Makueni and West Pokot Counties Implementation of Participatory Budgeting in Makueni County 20 Makueni County lies in the arid and semi-arid regions of eastern Kenya. County Profile The County is divided into Six (6) Location: Eastern Kenya sub-counties. These are, Makueni, Mbooni, Kaiti, Kibwezi East, Kibwezi Size : 8,034.7 Km West and Kilome which are further Population : 922,183 subdivided into 30 wards. The county Economy government further devolved the Subsistence Agriculture wards into 3 sub-wards, making them (livestock farming, fruit growing, a total of 90 sub-wards. grains, bee-keeping) & small trade and commerce, eco-tourism. No. of sub-counties: 6 No. of wards: 30 No. of households: 186,478 Climate Temperatures Minimum 12 °C - Maximum 28°C 10 Table 2.1 - Makueni County Characteristics and Data The PB Ten Steps in Makueni Participatory Budgeting in Makueni and West Pokot Counties 1 Step 1: General Strategy Key elements of the approach A continuation with the past tendencies, in line with provisions in the legal framework and perfecting them. Introduction of meetings at village level, (one level below sub- ward) and selection and validation of projects at both sub-county and county levels. Identification of needs and possible solutions for various thematic groups: youth, women, persons with disabilities, orphans and vulnerable children, Persons Living with HIV/AIDs and the small scale traders. PB applied to 12% of entire county budget (32% of development budget) Central Goals and underlying values for prioritizing citizen engagement Improve accountability and integrity –reinforces credibility of government. Inclusiveness - access the villager who has never left his/her immediate environment, except to go the market place and never proposed a project). Equity and fairness - equal resource allocations to each ward. Promote civism - to meet the Constitutional requirement to engage citizens in decision making. Responsiveness – to ensure that services are better tailored to local circumstances and targeted to meet local needs. 2 Step 2: Organizational model Existing logo: “Andu Mbee” which means people first. Strapline: “O Kila Nyumba Kalila”, which means every household will have equal opportunity for the shared resources. The County introduced a mission, its rallying call being “Our County, our Future,” Participation process is based on a model that uses sub-territories. The County has organized structures in place to facilitate public participation. This is a joint process between the Country Treasury and County Department of Devolution and Public Administration. Under the Department of Devolution, there are officers in place to conduct civic education and public participation (Civic Education and Public Participation –CEPPS officers). The CEPPs were trained on the new elements of the PB process before implementation. The county conducts civic education through training of trainers’ process. After CEPPs are trained, they train 30 interlocutors from each of the 30 wards. In total there are 900 interlocutors who conduct civic education in the county. 11 A civic education handbook has been developed and is used during trainings. 3 Step 3: Mobilization Channels of mobilizing citizens: A public advertisement, as required by law, was placed in the major dailies by the County Participatory Budgeting in Makueni and West Pokot Counties Treasury, detailing dates, venues & timings for the meetings. It targeted meetings from the ward levels upwards. It also provided for written submissions to be made to the finance official via email. Local radio: Talk shows and radio announcements were used to inform the public about the scheduled public forums. This had the greatest outreach and impact Announcements were made at public gatherings such as church meetings and local administrative barazas. This was also very effective. Ward administrators mobilized citizens through the village leaders and opinion leaders. The governor’s office, other county officials and local leaders utilized social media, telephone calls and sms to reach the public. They also leveraged Whatsapp groups, Facebook and twitter handles. 4 Step 4-8: Public forums, selection of projects, priority lists, technical evaluations Public forums 5 To create an enabling environment for citizens to participate in the development of 6 policies and budgets, the county has developed a public participation framework. The framework is in line with section 14 of the fourth schedule of the Constitution, which 7 requires Counties to enable participation at the lowest possible level. The framework aims to reduce/eliminate gatekeepers to the participation process and 8 ensure unrestricted access to community members to hear their voices. Selection of projects & priority lists Deliberation and selection of projects took place at every administrative level. Mapping of the ward was undertaken by citizens to guide the selection of projects. From each of the levels, 11 people were selected as the development committee to represent the community at the next administrative level. Priority lists of projects captured and presented at the next level for deliberation and selection. A final priority list was validated at the County Forum. Technical Evaluations Technical input from the departmental staff can change a project given the limited technical knowledge of the citizens when identifying a project. In the preparation of the budget for financial year 2016/17 technical evaluation was conducted after the citizens selected the projects. In the next phase for the budget 2017/18, the county will be looking towards introducing technical input earlier so that citizens prioritize and make final decisions on projects based on technical assessments 12 9 Step 9: Approval of Budget by Assembly The ward development proposals presented by the citizens were captured in the final executive budget presented to the County Assembly in May 2016. Participatory Budgeting in Makueni and West Pokot Counties County Assembly public participation forums were held in the first to second week of June 2016 to ascertain the development proposals from citizens. According to a new legislation, the County Assembly can only make amendments to a ceiling of 10% of the entire budget. 10 Step 10: Monitoring Project Implementation The uniqueness of Makueni’s participation model is that it involves citizens in the implementation of projects. This process is managed through the Project Management Committee (PMC). This ensures accountability as the community members provide checks and oversight alongside the County Assembly. To form the PMCs, the departments responsible for the implementation of the project, in collaboration with the Public Participation Officers and Ward Administrators, mobilize communities for a public forum. During the forum the officials provide feedback on the approved projects and respective budget allocated and the implementation plan for the projects. The community members elect the PMC members to provide oversight throughout the project implementation. 13 Participatory Budgeting in Makueni and West Pokot Counties Development budget allocated to PB 21 In Makueni, the Ward Development Projects, are those subjected to a participatory approach and with support of the KPBI have adopted participatory budgeting. There has both been a progressive increase in the number of projects and amounts of money allocated to the participatory process since FY 2013/14 at the start of the devolution process as shown in Figure 2.1. In the consultations for the budget 2016/17, 32 percent of the county development budget was dedicated to participatory processes. The budget allocated for PB was in total Kshs. 823 million which comprised 12 percent of the total budget. Makueni county development budget Budget in millions KShs 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 FY 2013/14 FY 2014/15 FY 2015/16 FY 2016/17 total development budget ward development projects 14 Figure 2.1: Budget allocations to participatory processes: Key Elements of the PB Process in Makueni Public Forums, Selection of Projects, Priority Lists and Technical Evaluation Participatory Budgeting in Makueni and West Pokot Counties County People Forum 1,000 delegates Sub-County People’s Forum Elects a development committee of 11 Ward People’s Forum Development Committee of 11 members Sub-Ward People’s Forum - 60 Units Development Committee of 11 members Village Cluster People’s Forum - 315 Units Development Committee of 11 members from each village Village People’s Forum - 3455 Units Each elects a development committee of 11 members Figure 2.2: Schema of public participation in Makueni County At the village level: 22 The village structures had previously been neglected as an avenue for engaging citizens and were introduced as a strategy to be more inclusive. The county revived the use of the structures in 2016, asking community residents in the 3,455 villages to discuss and identify the following issues: The development projects in the area and who had initiated them, whether gov- ernment or civil society. What needed to be done in the village. 23 The issues were deliberated in each village for a period of 5 days in meetings convened by the village headman. The villagers were asked to elect a representative leadership of 11 people to take that agenda to the next level. The villages were then placed into groups of commonality based on geographic and development interests, resulting in 315 clusters. Every cluster had between 11-15 villages and each village was represented by the 11 elected representatives who presented the development proposals from their villages. From the cluster meetings, an initial priority list of development and governance issues was developed. 15 Sub-ward and ward levels: 24 At the sub-ward level, 3-7 village clusters were grouped together to present their issues and proposed projects and these were then prioritized. Meetings then progressed to Participatory Budgeting in Makueni and West Pokot Counties the ward level, the first level of official representation. Here the residents affirmed the projects prioritized at the sub-ward and proceeded to prioritize ward level projects. Previously, political representatives, could insert their own priorities even when they had heard the views of the people. According to the county government officials the process of prioritization of projects brought forward from the sub- ward level protects what was said at sub-ward level as new projects cannot be introduced at ward level. The cascading process of the priority list ensures that projects confirmed at the ward level are those that emerged from the lower level (including villages) and gained continuous support to the next level of discussion up to the ward level. 25 From each of the levels, 11 people are selected as the development committee that represents the community. Within these committees there is no chairperson, or secretary or treasurer, so that it is a representation of equals. What pertains is members chairing different sessions, so that everyone has a taste of the leadership. This builds capacity of the community. There is no specific profile on competence (academic) for selection of the development committee, but it is mostly based on skills and leadership that individuals are known for at the village level. “Devolution is about reaching everybody in the quiet places, the nooks of the village, hearing everyone’s voice, the people who do not speak,” Kawive Wambua County Executive Minister, Ministry of Devolution and Public Service (Currently Executive Minister for Roads) 16 The Sub-County Level Forum 26 At the sub-county level two key processes took place Validation of the projects identified and passed at the Ward level – this involved Participatory Budgeting in Makueni and West Pokot Counties ensuring projects were accurately captured. Identification of priority projects that would be implemented at county level – involved plotting of sub county headline projects and Ward level flagship projects on a map (those initiated and completed in 2014/2015 fiscal year). Using the map the participants then engaged in identifying priority projects. Diaspora Meeting 27 The Diaspora meeting is organized by the County to seek views from professionals working in Nairobi, but who are originally from Makueni. The professionals have organized themselves into a group, the Makueni County Development Forum and the forum is organized based on representation from the ward and sub-county level. Each of the 6 sub-counties has members from the various wards, each ward in the sub-county is represented by a chairperson and one of the chairpersons is elected as chairperson of the sub-county forum. All the sub-counties are represented by an elected overall chairperson who facilitates the consultative meeting with the county. 28 The members from the forum engaged the county on the progress made on the implementation of the budget 2015/16, summaries of the projects proposed by citizens at the ward level meetings on the budget 2016/17 and problems and issues affecting thematic groups and the proposed interventions. The County Forum (Makueni People’s Forum) 29 The forum was held on March 18th 2016, one week after the ward level meetings. The main objectives were: The sub-counties community representatives shared development proposals for the 2016/17 budget for review by the Governor and Cabinet and for onward presentation to the County Assembly. The County Treasury presented the entire draft budget 2016/17 to the county and members of the public. 30 The County’s emphasis on civic education was evident. In his key note address, the governor focused on educating the public on their role in the development process. He elaborated why the county was engaging citizens in deliberations on the budget, reading out specific legislation from the Constitution and County Government Act 2012. 17 31 One important activity at the meeting was the affirmation by the public of what they had selected at both the sub-county forums and ward level forums. The county presented the final list of projects and where there were errors, the Participatory Budgeting in Makueni and West Pokot Counties representatives alerted the county for rectification. The county set up a complaints desk to systematically address the process of receiving corrections from the wards. 32 Marginalized groups, specifically persons with disabilities were given an opportunity to express their concerns to the county. Their representative stated that though the county had involved them at the County level meeting, there was no proper facilitation of their participation at the ward and sub-county level meetings. 33 The meeting concluded with the selection of the County Development Committee that would oversee the implementation of the projects selected by the citizens (Annex II provides a summary of the process). 34 The Governor Makueni county and the CEC Member of Finance listen and take notes during presentations at the County Forum. 35 Ward level representatives present their complaints to county officials on projects erroneously captured in the final project budget list at the desk set up by the county. “We have a duty and responsibility as the technical officers to scientifically analyze the information from participation and people’s preferences and wishes, and provide the right prescription. The department has the responsibility to inform citizens of projects that are technically viable.” Douglas Mbilu, County Executive Member, Ministry of Water, speaking on technical evaluation of projects selected by the citizens. 18 Participatory Budgeting in Makueni and West Pokot Counties The case of participation in Makindu Ward Participants in Makindu Ward deliberating on ward priorities during the budget consultation meeting There are two sub-wards in the ward, selected. Kiboko Twan and Makindu. The budget “We are the citizens and we are the consultation was structured as follows: ones who selected the projects because Introductions and confirmations of we have a need for them.” complained projects selected at sub-ward level a citizen when she realized their The meeting started with introductions project from the village level had been and a recap of projects selected from excluded from the sub-ward project the sub-ward level. The director of priority list. devolution read out the projects to The director explained that there was enable their confirmation by the a process of prioritization at sub-ward delegates selected to represent the level, so not all the projects that had sub-wards at the ward level meeting. been selected from the villages made it Community members pointed out into the list of priorities. The projects that some projects they had selected are selected based on their weight, had not been included in the list read which is determined by priority and out. Several other citizens drawn from need. He advised the participants that the village clusters queried why some in the selection of projects at ward projects were not included and some level, it would be good to compromise members got upset as they did not and allow others with greater need to understand why they had to sit in be selected. He clarified that having the meeting if their projects were not a loud voice did not mean that one’s 19 project would be selected but only some of the various stakeholders those with greater need would make whose issues were being mentioned it to the final list of priorities. Some were not present. The community Participatory Budgeting in Makueni and West Pokot Counties projects that were ongoing were also members were not informed prior that excluded from the priority list. they would undertake the exercise so they were not well prepared. Selection of the meeting chair: Prioritization of projects from the sub- The community members selected a wards chairperson to facilitate the meeting and a chiefwhip. The chairperson The community members are given selected was male and the chief time to prioritize projects from the whip, female. Both were drawn from sub-wards. All projects from sub- the community and not from the wards are listed. They are prioritized county executive. The chief whip based on open debate and consensus. is responsible for order during the Mapping is done to aid the community meeting including time keeping. identify which projects are missing in the ward and which areas within the Identification of key issues affecting ward have not received any funding thematic stakeholders in the county for projects. The various delegates The ward administrator led and representatives from villages sit participants through a process to together per sub-ward and agree on identify the key issues affecting the final list of ward level projects. various community stakeholders in The following projects were finally the county, namely the youth, women, selected: business community, children, orphans and vulnerable children, An Early Childhood Development farmers, Persons living with HIV Center AIDs and Persons with disabilities. Borehole The objective of identifying these Training college issues was to propose projects and interventions that address the Adult learning centre challenges. The citizens identified Dispensary and then proposed the possible Stadium interventions. This was a new addition to the consultation process, as the Out of the total 117 participants at county had previously not undertaken the forum, there were slightly more it. While this was a good initiative, women (61) than men (56). 20 Monitoring Implementation of the PB Projects 36 The uniqueness of Makueni’s participation model is that it involves citizens in the implementation of projects. This process is managed through the Project Participatory Budgeting in Makueni and West Pokot Counties Management Committee (PMC). This ensures accountability as the community members provide checks and oversight alongside the County Assembly. 37 As soon as a project is approved the (PMC) is established. To form the PMCs, the departments responsible for the implementation of the project in collaboration with the Public Participation Officers and Ward Administrators, mobilize communities and hold a public forum to provide feedback on the approved projects, the budget allocated and the implementation plan for the projects. During these follow up public forums, the PMCs are elected. The Committee is selected by community members residing within the area of the project implementation. The committee usually has a chairperson, secretary, treasury and members. 38 The main role of PMCs is to oversee the implementation of the project. The Citizens usually are involved in; the allocation of the resources to various processes within the implementation of the projects, the design of project documents such as bills of quantities, supervision of the implementation of the project and feedback to the county on issues arising and to the community on progress of the project. The oversight process for each PMC may vary depending on the nature of the project. In a construction project for instance, PMCs may be involved in the procurement, by reviewing the Bill of Quantities, analyzing the costings of components of the project; they are also involved in the day to day monitoring and supervision of delivery and use of material on site. They sign delivery notes, and give a report on the implementation, trouble shoot, and eventually provide an approval for the payment to the contractor when satisfied that the project has been implemented according to specifications. The PMCs may not handle the finances directly, but they are fully aware of the cost and spending on the project throughout its implementation. 39 The county department responsible for the project usually provides training for the committee on their roles and responsibilities. This training occurs after the members are elected. Community members are trained on supervisory roles, such as inspection of quantities and use of correct material as stated in the design documents and progress as per set timelines. The training is usually organized and facilitated by the ward administrator. In addition to the training, the county officials observed that members in the PMC continually consult the professionals within the community, to provide them with guidance during the project design and implementation. Community members, have for instance, reverted to the county to inform them that the financial resources allocated to a project are inadequate or too high. When the county department scrutinizes the costing of the project, they realize the validity of the community’s concerns. The PMCs usually take minutes 21 of meetings, that are submitted to the relevant implementing department and provide progress updates to Participatory Budgeting in Makueni and West Pokot Counties community members periodically (as frequently as once a week in some instances). Community members drawing a map of projects 40 The county officials appreciate the within Makindu ward role of the community because in that set up, there are no blame games. The community and government identify and implement the project together, and review it periodically through joint efforts. There is more ownership of the projects by the community. Previously the county would provide compensation to individual community members whenever there was need to purchase land to put up a project. Through participation, citizens get to understand that the project will benefit them and they pool together and offer portions of acres of their land. This has facilitated the County to construct 84 medium size dams, to address the water problem in Makueni. In construction of all of the dams the government has not had to purchase any land. Participants listening to presentations at the Nzau Kalili ward budget consultation meeting. 22 Women participating in the ward level forums. Participatory Budgeting in Makueni and West Pokot Counties Implementation of Participatory Budgeting in West Pokot 41 West Pokot is situated in the Rift valley region along Kenya’s Western County Profile boundary with Uganda. The county is Location: Rift Valley Region characterized by a variety of topographic Size : 9169.4 Km features. On the Northern and North Population Eastern parts are the dry plains, and Estimated at 700,414 on the South eastern part sit hilly (was 512,690 in 2009 population census) terrain with an altitude of 3,370 metres above sea level. The high altitude Population Density areas have high agricultural potential, 56 people per sq. Km while medium and low altitude areas Economy receive low rainfall in addition to being Agriculture (nomadic and cattle predominantly pastoral land. The low farming, subsistence agriculture – lands receive 600 mm of rain while maize, onions & potatoes and some cash the highlands receive 1600 mm per crop farming) mining and commercial activities. annum. The county also experiences great variations in temperature from No. of sub-counties: 4 10 degrees celcius in the North to 30 No. of wards: 20 degrees in the South. No. of sub-location: 222 Table 3.1 West Pokot County Characteristics and data 23 42 The four sub-counties are North Pokot/Kacheliba, Sigor, Pokot South and Kapenguria which are further sub-divided into 20 wards. West Pokot is amongst the marginalized counties in Kenya. At the onset of devolution, the county’s network Participatory Budgeting in Makueni and West Pokot Counties of roads was only 151km of Bitumen surface, 349 km of gravel and 697 km of earth roads. A significant proportion of the county has been inaccessible by road. The health sector was equally marginalized with a doctor patient ratio of 1: 84,528 with few health facilities, namely 1 district hospital, 27 dispensaries and 3 health centers. Development budget allocated to PB 43 The budget allocated for PB was Ksh.575 million which comprised 32 percent of the development budget and 12 percent of the total county budget9. There was an increase of 15 million allocated to the ward development projects in the budget for the FY 2016/17 compared to the budget for 2015/16. West Pokot Development Budget Budget in millions KShs 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 FY 2013/14 FY 2014/15 FY 2015/16 FY 2016/17 total developmente budget ward development projects Figure 3.1: Budget Allocation for Development and Participatory Budgeting FY 2013/14 FY 2014/15 FY 2015/16 FY 2016/17 Total Budget (in billions) 3.631 4.273 4.830 4.712 9  for FY2016/2017 Budget as of April 30th the County Allocation of Revenue Act (CARA) had not been issued therefore the County Equitable Share is subject to change. Also County Assembly ceilings are subject to change which might affect final 24 Development amount The PB Ten Steps in west pokot Participatory Budgeting in Makueni and West Pokot Counties 1 Step 1: General Strategy Key elements of the approach West Pokot chose to adapt participatory budgeting within its budget consultations for the ward development fund. Increase of outreach to citizens from ward level to sub-location level (Shift from 20 forums to over 160). Active engagement of women. Central Goals and underlying values for prioritizing citizen engagement Equity and redistributive justice: to achieve equal distribution of resources to all the regions and in particular help allocate scarce resources to the very needy areas leading to even development across the county. Greater inclusiveness and participation of women. Empower citizens & engender ownership: The County sought to move away from imposing projects on the community so that there is greater involvement of citizens in the development process. Increase effectiveness and efficiency of the process through prioritization. 2 Step 2: Organizational Model Logo: Kokwo Totut (sharing and planning together). Strapline: Our Budget, Our destiny. Political buy in of the PB methodology and approach by county top leadership (Active engagement and sensitization) Training of County Executive staff, ward administrators and the County Assembly. The ten steps of the PB process was presented and participants discussed at length how this could be contextualized. 3 Step 3: Mobilization Channels of mobilizing citizens: Newspaper advert as per legislative requirements although according to the county staff, this is not effective because of poor accessibility of the newspapers to locals and high illiteracy levels. 2 weeks prior to the participation forums, an advert in the local vernacular radio station, was run twice daily for a period of two weeks. Announcements were also made during public events as a reminder is run. Radio turned out to be amongst the most effective channel as it accessed both the literate and illiterate in a language familiar to them. Public notices were put up one month prior to the event at chiefs’ camps, ward offices, schools, market places and other public places. 25 Letters of invitation were sent out to the churches, mosques, NGOs and youth with a schedule of meetings attached. Local and political leaders: MCAs and their ward managers worked jointly with the local Participatory Budgeting in Makueni and West Pokot Counties administration (chiefs and village elders) and ward administrators on ground level mobilization. This person to person information sharing is considered another effective method in mobilizing people at the rural areas. Revenue officers distributed the schedule of meetings during market days. A Roadshow was held one week prior to the forums. This was undertaken in one ward (Chepararia). Under the PB process, the county piloted a personalized voice message from the governor to the citizens on the ongoing public participation forums. Although the messages were initially targeting the sub-location meetings, they ran during the ward level meetings. 4 Steps 4-8: Public Forums, Selection of Projects, Priority lists, Technical Evaluations Public forums 5  Meetings were held at sub-location and were open to every community member to participate. Introduction of prioritization of 3 key projects at sub-location level.  6 Voting seemed an entirely new concept, but each locality represented was advised to customize  it as best possible. 7 Ward level meetings comprised sub-locational delegates or venue witnesses elected by the  8 communities themselves, chiefs and one delegate appointed by the MCA – politician. The ward delegates would participate in the final prioritization of projects at ward level. Ward delegates took into consideration the technical evaluation and costing of projects done by  the county prior to the meeting, to inform ward priority selections The delegates prioritize and allocate resources while taking into consideration the set budget  ceiling at ward level (KShs. 22 million). 26 9 Step 9: Approval of Budget by Assembly The Assembly and its staff were represented at all the budget consultation meetings. Assembly members and staff documented the priorities. At the time the Executive presents Participatory Budgeting in Makueni and West Pokot Counties the proposed report, the Assembly confirms that what was presented by citizens is what is included in the final budget report. The Assembly does not hold separate public participation forum meetings before approval of the executive budget since they are engaged in the formulation process. This collaboration makes the budget approval process faster. 10 Step 10: Monitoring Project Implementation West Pokot is yet to actively engage citizens in monitoring of selected projects. By taking the participatory process to the sub-location level, the county feels it is better able to conduct an audit of the projects initiated and their impact. The community can provide information on how effective the projects are for instance whether a cattle dip is in use, and a borehole is functional? The county is then able to collect accurate information for monitoring and evaluation. 27 Key elements of the PB Process How Public participation was conducted in the past Participatory Budgeting in Makueni and West Pokot Counties 44 Public participation on the budget was previously conducted at the ward level. Citizens attended the ward level meetings from the different 222 sub-locations. Given the distance from their localities, only a few representatives from each sub-location would often make it to the wards. The challenges of infrastructure would restrict the community from attending. The wards being very vast meant the concentration of participants would come from the exact location and immediate environs where the meeting was held and they would articulate their specific needs. This implied that the communities nearer where the public forums took place had a stronger representation and stronger voice while majority of citizens residing in the locations and sub-locations were unreached and their needs and views excluded from the budget consultations. Table 3.1 which shows the size in kilometers of the respective wards in the sub-county, gives an indication of the vastness of the regions. Sub-county Nº of wards Nº of locations Nº of sub-locations Area (Km2) North Pokot/Kacheliba 6 19 71 3,953.2 Pokot Central/Sigor 4 13 47 2,109.7 West Pokot/Kapenguria 6 19 67 1822.5 Pokot South 4 10 37 1,284 Total 20 61 222 9169.4 Table 3.1 Demographic features Source: West Pokot Planning unit 45 The challenge the county faced using the previous strategy of engagement was the listing of too many projects against a limited budget. During the consultations, the representatives would come up with a full list of projects they wanted the county to implement. The lists often had over 30 projects sometimes even up to 50 projects per ward. The planning and budget department would consolidate these projects and share them with the respective departments. Given the overwhelming number of projects submitted, the departments did not have any specific order to determine which projects would qualify for implementation. A few projects were however implemented successfully, such as the Milk cooling plant in Siyoi ward, which was given priority as the citizens had already organized themselves and contributed land and a substantial portion of the funds (a case study is included under the implementation of projects section). 28 New elements based on PB approach 2015/16 2016/17 Participatory Budgeting in Makueni and West Pokot Counties 28 ward forums were held 168 forums (164 at sub-location level and 4 at sub-county for ward prioritization) 4779 participants 11,549 participants at sub-location level and 349 delegates at Ward forums held at the sub-county headquarters par- ticipants Separate process between Collaboration in both budget formulation and approv- Executive and Assembly al Public participation forums between the Executive and Assembly Long list of priorities Long list reduced to 3 most pressing priorities per sub-lo- from Ward level submit- cation. These are also from different sectors. These 3 ted to budget office and priority projects were consolidated to form Ward priority then redistributed to the projects which were presented at the Ward meeting. During various sectors. the Ward level meeting, these priority projects were further evaluated, debated and prioritized by the representatives of sub-locations (delegates). A final Ward Project list was submitted which ensured that projects were balanced by sector and sub-location. This final list took into consider- ation the amount available for new projects for the Ward. No technical evaluation of Technical evaluation by technocrats provided to partici- projects during the public pants at the ward level (It was mostly based on estimated forums costs and whether County or National function rather than other technical considerations) Long list reduced to select Using the technical evaluation feedback, equity and equal- projects by technocrats ity considerations, and review of ongoing and completed from various departments projects from the previous financial years, public forums & budget officers identified a priority project per sector. Emphasis was placed on ensuring that each sub-location had at least 1 project. Table 3.2: Changes in the process comparing FY 2015/16 and FY 2016/17 29 Territorial Scope 46 To manage the participation forums at sub-location level during the PB process, some of the sub-locations were grouped together for joint meetings, while in the Participatory Budgeting in Makueni and West Pokot Counties larger sub-locations that were also a distance away from others, singular meetings were held. Table 3.3 shows the breakdown of the number of forums held per ward. WARD No. of sub-locations No. of Public Forums Alale Ward 20 8 Batei Ward 8 8 Chepareria Ward 17 10 Endugh Ward 8 6 Kapchok Ward 8 9 Kapenguria Ward 10 10 Kasei Ward 12 7 Kiwawa Ward 14 8 Kodich Ward 10 6 Lelan Ward 13 10 Lomut Ward 14 7 Masool Ward 6 12 Mnagei Ward 9 9 Riwo Ward 17 7 Sekerr Ward 8 4 Siyoi Ward 9 9 Sook Ward 16 3 Suam Ward 7 15 Tapach Ward 9 6 Weiwei Ward 11 9 Total 222 164 Table 3.3 Number of forums held per ward and sub-location 30 Effects of mobilization: 47 The total number of participants who engaged in the budget process in 2015/16 cycle and in the 2016/17 varied considerably. In the 2015/16 cycle the public participation fo- Participatory Budgeting in Makueni and West Pokot Counties rums had a total of 4779 compared to 11,898 participants in 2016/17 as shown in table 3.4. Levels Female % to total Male % to total Total No. of Participants Wards 37 11% 312 89% 349 Sub-location 4010 35% 7539 65% 11,549 Table 3.4: Mobilization and Participation of Communities during FY2016/17 Budget Formulation 48 The women representation more than tripled (from 11% to 35%) when the meetings were held closer to their homesteads at the sub-location level. This was a great increase in women’s voice and representation in the public forums10. Annex III (a) further shows the breakdown of the engagement of women in the sub-locational meetings, while annex III (b) provides further breakdown of the profile of participants per gender and age at the sub-county meetings for ward level prioritization of projects. The percentage of women represented at ward level prioritization meetings held at the sub-county were however very low compared to the male counterparts. A delegates approach was used to identify representation at the sub-county meeting. The sub-locations nominated one representative. Process of engaging citizens; evaluation, priority lists, selection of final proposals Engagement of citizens at the Sub-location level: 49 The participatory budgeting process was incorporated into the budget consultation process and not undertaken as a separate engagement process. This helped the county lower the costs associated with the implementation of the participatory process. The PB process was specifically targeted at ward specific projects which are first identified by citizens at the sub-location level. Citizens were provided with guidance on the kind of projects to select within the sectors for which counties are responsible namely health, agriculture, roads, and early childhood education. The meetings were facilitated by the ward administrators, assisted by the chiefs and assistant chiefs. The MCA and/or the ward managers were present. 10  Case story included later indicates how the various wards ensured women’s voice and influence in decision making. 31 50 The meeting agenda progressed as follows: Opening remarks from the local leaders (MCA and the chief). Overview of the projects undertaken by the government in the area (MCA). Participatory Budgeting in Makueni and West Pokot Counties Ward administrator provides guidelines for the conduct of the meeting. Discussion of the needs of the areas and generation of project list. Selection of the top three priorities (in order of priority) from the project list. Voting for the venue witness (delegate to the ward level meeting held at the sub- county). Closing remarks by the MCA and county team. 51 During the opening remarks, the MCA explained the purpose of the meeting and its objectives. In this instance the MCAs also took time to explain why the process was different, and to endorse PB as an initiative bringing the government closer to the people and to help in identifying the correct needs of a given region. The MCA also explained his role during the meeting, which was to listen to the priorities as identified by the community, and to follow up on these priorities when the proposed budget would be presented to the Assembly by the executive. The MCAs would provide oversight to ensure the projects are correctly captured and that they are implemented by the executive. Participants voting for a road project in Serowo sub-location “If you woke up at midnight and thought about that problem, or issue that is lacking in the region, then you know that is your priority,” MCA Chepararia ward in helping community members try to understand the concept of prioritization in their sub-location. 32 52 The main focus of the sub-location meeting was the discussion and selection of priorities. Final priorities were determined through discussions and consensus, sometimes by voting. The process of arriving at a final decision on the three priorities Participatory Budgeting in Makueni and West Pokot Counties was unique for different sub-locations. In some areas, voting was adopted while in other sub-locations there was consensus arrived at through a guided process of what was more important, and the availability of existing community resources to facilitate the implementation of the projects. 53 Comprehensive lists presented by sub-locations varied in their numbers but each had to narrow the list to three priorities. In Korellach sub-location a list of 21 projects were initially selected by community members. Out of these the three final projects selected through discussion and consensus were a dispensary, a cattle dip and the construction of a road to the chief’s office. In Chepturguny sub-location a shorter list of 12 projects was initially generated and shortened to 3 priority projects through discussion and consensus. Voting only occurred for the two venue witnesses. 54 In Serowo sub-location in Riwo ward, community representatives resorted to voting to select projects, when consensus was not arrived at. The sub-location representatives had listed several projects, and agreed on two priorities, but could not arrive at a consensus on the third priority. They therefore chose to vote between the two, the construction of a road from one area to another, and the construction of an ECD. Majority voted for the construction of the road. 55 The results of the voting were however not acceptable to all, even though there was a clear majority vote. The outcome generated further debate from the community when one of the two who had voted for the ECD, refused to endorse the voting and grabbed the pen from the chair who was taking notes. He tried to convince the other members that if they chose to construct an ECD which was more progressive for their community, the road would automatically follow, as it would be required to deliver materials for construction of the ECD. A heated debate arose, and the chair in a bid to diffuse tempers, proposed that both the road and ECD be shelved for a neutral project. Participants who had voted for the road however disagreed saying they had voted and there was a clear majority. In the end, the road was listed as the third priority despite there being dissenting minority voices. 33 Participatory Budgeting in Makueni and West Pokot Counties Participants note down their top three priorities out of the broad project list 56 The public consultation process in Simotwo sub-location had a more vibrant and conciliatory voting process. Community members initially went through a systematic process of detailing projects by the different sectors. From the comprehensive list, the community then narrowed down to the priorities. The sub-location is very vast with long distances to cover between the two main centres, Simotwo and Msywon. In the health sector members had selected two dispensaries to be located in both centers. The county executive and the assembly led by the MCA, requested the residents to select one dispensary due to the cost implications, which could result in one dispensary being constructed without a third priority project. An intense deliberative process then took place with citizens residing in each of the centers advocating for the dispensary to be constructed in their locality. Eventually through a trade-off process, it was agreed that the dispensary would be situated in Simotwo, due to the ready availability of donated land and a water project would go to Msiywon. Residents then had to vote for a third project to replace the extra dispensary initially selected. The decision was between a bridge and a box culvert. During the voting, to avoid cheating, the chief requested that members who had already voted stand up and step aside, and those seated were then counted. The majority vote went to the bridge. Voting process during project prioritization in Simotwo Sub-location Community residents in Simotwo Sub- To ensure a transparent voting Participants who opted for the culvert location voting to select a bridge over process, where members do not vote remain seated. 34 a box culvert. Women participants are twice, participants who voted for the involved in the process bridge are asked to step aside. “I came to the meeting to listen to the views of mem- bers of my sub-location. The priorities given are good Participatory Budgeting in Makueni and West Pokot Counties and will help our community which for instance has not had a cattle dip and one has to travel long dis- tances to access the nearest one. The same applies to the dispensary, having a nearby one would serve us well. If they also fix the local roads it would help our children access the school, which has been perform- ing well in national exams. This time, the govern- ment has been able to access us, last time they held the meeting at ward level, we could not attend as it was too far, and we did not even receive notification. This time they publicized the meeting”. Joyce Tarama, Korellach sub-location in Chepararia Ward. She participated and gave her views on support for vulnerable groups particularly widows. 57 The final projects selected are listed on a project submission form which is co- signed by the ward administrator, area assistant chief, the ward manager and the venue witness. (Annex V is a sample of the project submission form at sub-location level and Annex VI at ward level). Case study on the participation of women in West Pokot 58 Implementing participatory budgeting at the sub-location level resulted in an increase in the number of women engaging in the budget process. Majority of women were previously unable to attend the meetings when they were held at ward level. In majority of the sub-locations, the women sat separately from men, as per the cultural norms. The West Pokot community is largely a patriarchal society, where women defer to the decisions made by their male counterparts. This has been reflected in past budget consultations, where women sit separately from the men and endorse the projects that their male counterparts propose without direct involvement. During the training 35 Participatory Budgeting in Makueni and West Pokot Counties Women seated separately from men during the joint Korellach sub-location prioritization meeting starts out sub-location briefing meeting in Chepararia ward with the men talking and women standing behind listening Women observing the meeting proceedings from a distance The ward administrator asks the women to join the men and positions them centrally A representative of a widows group gives her views Another woman gains confidence and takes the floor to advocating for vulnerable groups present her views Women continue with their presentations, even as their fellow Both men and women voted for the venue witness/ women proceed with their daily tasks of weaving as they listen delegate to the sub-county meeting in Chepararia 36 process, the county asked the ward administrators to facilitate the engagement of women and the representation of their views in the selection of priorities. While this was not uniformly achieved in all the sub-locations, there were significant milestones Participatory Budgeting in Makueni and West Pokot Counties made in several sub-locations where women spoke up on their priorities and these were reflected in the final selection of projects. 59 An observation of the engagement of the women in different sub-location shows the varying degrees of their participation depending on the cultural contexts. In all the meetings, the women sat separately from or behind the men, but during the selection of priorities, in some sub-locations that were closer to urban centers, the women spoke up sometimes in the midst of the men. In other sub-locations the men asked the women to give their priorities, even though they still sat separately whilst in other sub-locations which were more distant from urban centers, the women merely endorsed what their male counterparts selected. The active participation of women was particularly evident in Korellach sub-location in Chepararia ward. Here the facilitator asked the women to step forward and give their priorities. Several women were able to raise the problems facing them including the need for construction of dispensaries, water projects and support for widows. By contrast, in Chepturguny sub-location in Chepararia, the men did not involve the women during the selection of priorities and noted that the women would endorse the projects they had chosen. The projects were a cattle dip as the first priority, construction of three classrooms and a water project. Kopwosis sub-location was among the few where a woman was selected to represent the community at the sub-county ward prioritization meeting. 60 In Serowo sub-location in Riwo ward, while the women were not present, the top two priorities captured womens’ concerns. According to the chair of the representatives the priorities addressed issues in the community the women had been asking for namely a maternity wing at the local dispensary and a nearby water borehole. 61 In a nearby sub-location Chepkram, still in Riwo ward, the men asked the women to give their top priorities and these were listed as the first two. The projects were drilling of boreholes in ongoing ECD construction projects. The third priority was selected by the men, - the construction of a cattle metallic crush for vaccinating their animals. 37 Participatory Budgeting in Makueni and West Pokot Counties Different atmosphere in Chepturguny sub-location In Chepkram, women sat separately but were given the where the men dominated the discussions and did not opportunity to give their priorities that were listed as involve the women, except to endorse the projects the first two Final selection of project priorities: 62 A budget allocation of KShs. 28 million is set aside for ward specific projects. Citizens make final decisions on projects to be implemented in their sub-location within a budget ceiling of KShs. 20 million. 2 million covers the cost of implementation of the projects, while the rest is reserved for bursaries. Following the sub-location meetings, the planning and budget team compiled and published a list of all the sub- location project priorities for each of the wards. The list was for use during the final ward prioritization process held at the sub-county. The planning and budget team also prepared a standard costing sheet that listed the costs for completion of specific projects including dispensaries, boreholes, construction of ECD classrooms amongst other. Annex VII captures all the projects provided in the costing sheet. 63 Participation in the process was limited to a small number of representatives of the community. All the venue witnesses or delegates representing the sub- locations in all the 20 wards, the sub-chiefs, chiefs, ward administrators, and 2 nominated delegates by the MCA’s per ward and MCA’s participated in the final prioritization process. The MCAs were given opportunity to select delegates to the ward level prioritization. The process of selection of the delegates involved the planning and budget office and county assembly (MCA’s). This process ensured that the politicians accepted the legitimacy of the budget formulation procedure. 64 The final prioritization process was characterized by intensive discussion, negotiation and consensus to arrive at decisions. The participants were guided by several factors to arrive at the final list of projects. Teams assembled in their respective wards for prioritization, with the MCA and ward manager and the county executive technical team present to give guidance. Participants took into account the need to balance out projects within the ward with a bias towards regions lacking certain infrastructure and facilities; projects that were ongoing or already had a planned start date for implementation; project and implementation costs and their implications for other sub-locations vis a vis the overall budget. These factors implied that some 38 projects were dropped off the priority lists. For instance, the cost of a dispensary is KShs. 5 million and where 3 sub-locations in a ward each selected a dispensary, the costs would significantly cut into the Kshs. 20 million budget. The sub-locations had to negotiate and take into account several factors to finally decide who would get the dispensary. Voting did not work very well during the final prioritization process Participatory Budgeting in Makueni and West Pokot Counties and agreements were reached based on consensus. In one ward where three sub- locations had each selected dispensaries, members decided to take a vote on where the dispensary should be located. The results of the voting process were however not broadly accepted by all the representatives present. In the end, the MCA led the team through a discussion that saw the sub-location that had won the vote, give up the dispensary amicably to another sub-location that already had land available for the project. This type of conflict is normal and expected when different groups can have competing interests in the allocation of resources, this needs to be kept in mind during the Participatory Budgeting processes and be managed appropriately (by ensuring inclusive participatory process and transparency in the selection of sub-projects). 65 In some wards, the representatives systematically selected the priorities as they were listed in each sub-location until they arrived at the 20 million ceiling. This sometimes meant the top two priorities in each sub-location were selected, and the rest of the projects cut off. Citizens are provided with refreshments as they deliberate on priorities 66 Representatives from the sub-locations provided feedback that the communication to their community members at the time of selecting the top three priorities should have included clarity on the 20 million budget ceiling. The representatives said they would have to go back to explain to the community members at the sub-location why some of the project priorities were not included in the final list, but this could have been made easier if information on the budget cut-off had been availed earlier. It would also have 39 informed the community members to be more strategic on their choices. Participatory Budgeting in Makueni and West Pokot Counties Citizens deliberating priorities in their respective wards Implementation: Success stories from citizen engagement The Siyoi Milk cooling plant 67 West Pokot is yet to move towards actively engaging citizens in the implementation and monitoring of projects, however, there are a few success stories that the county can draw lessons from. One such successful story is the milk cooling plant in Siyoi ward. The construction of the plant was the result of a public participation process. Local residents had gotten together and raised initial funds to start the project. When the county held the budget consultations for the FY 2014/15, the citizens requested the county to support the construction of the project. The county government approved the project and constructed the plant. The local residents oversee the day to day logistics. The plant has had a positive impact in the lives of the locals especially women. Previously the women would milk their cows and have to sell the milk on the same day due to the lack of storage facilities. The proceeds from the daily sales were low and the women were not able to plan effectively on how to utilize the funds. With the availability of cooling and storage facilities, the milk is now sold in bulk to processing companies. The women earn as much as KShs. 50,000 per month and with this substantial amount of funds have been able to undertake entrepreneurship projects, investment activities and educate their children. 40 Emerging results and early lessons of implementing Participatory Budgeting Participatory Budgeting in Makueni and West Pokot Counties 68 While in very early stages, some emerging results and early lessons on implementing PB in Counties can be drawn from these two experience. On a general note, the importance of political commitment to public participation in decision making has been shown to be a key factor for effective public participation. In both Makueni and West Pokot counties the commitment emanated from the top political leadership starting with the Governor and the MCAs in West Pokot. The leadership then communicated and facilitated the bureaucrats and technocrats to implement this vision. Specifically, with regards PB, the following process improvement and emerging outcomes have been identified: Process improvements 69 Inclusiveness – While typical county budget consultations in Kenya consist of few meetings and limited inclusiveness, PB has increased opportunities for women and remote communities to take part in expenditure prioritization. Makueni follows a sequential process of identifying citizens’ priorities, starting at the hyperlocal level and moving up through levels of community organization. With a total of 3,867 meetings and over 350,000 participants, this process includes forums in villages, sub-wards, wards, sub-counties, and one county forum, where 1,000 individuals from across the county set the final expenditure priorities. In West Pokot, prior to the implementation of PB, women were systematically excluded from budget consultations, representing on average no more than 11% of participants. With the introduction of PB, a combination of new engagement methods and consultations held closer to women’s homesteads led to a three-fold increase in their participation (35%). While further inclusiveness is an imperative, these are promising results that will inform future adjustments of participatory processes in the two counties. 70 Credibility – Previous budget consultations in the counties consisted of unstructured hearing processes, during which community representatives proposed an endless list of projects for the county. The selection of projects to be implemented remained at the discretion of government officials, based on no formal criteria. This method, which raised citizens’ expectations and simultaneously incentivized “selective hearing” on the part of government officials, undermined citizens’ very trust in the participation process and fueled officials’ skepticism towards the value of such processes. The adoption of PB provides clear rules of the game for the identification, selection, prioritization and validation of projects and ties the selected projects to a specific percentage of the capital budget (approximately 30%), better managing expectations and enhancing the overall credibility of the process. 41 71 Compliance – The introduction of PB has facilitated compliance with legal requirements for public participation included in the County Government Act (2012) and the Public Financial Management Act (2012) in a meaningful way. The Participatory Budgeting in Makueni and West Pokot Counties PB approach has also been shown to lower the transaction costs of such compliance. By providing a structured, streamlined and coherent process, PB avoids fragmented public participation that results in repetitive and overlapping activities which, beyond producing little added value, are costly in terms of participants’ and organizers’ time and resources. Emerging outcomes 72 Budget variance – Some early lessons are emerging on how PB is impacting the content of county budgets. Prior to PB, capital expenditures were debated between sectoral departments who were, in large part, concerned with increasing their budget envelopes, resulting in resource allocation that did not respond to actual needs. An analysis of recent Makueni and West Pokot budgets shows that the PB process has changed this logic, with budget allocation increasingly aligned with citizens’ priorities. For instance, previously, project proposals focused on building new facilities, while under the PB process citizens’ preferences have tended towards the upgrading or renovation of existing facilities. Whereas before, sectoral departments were typically more interested in larger flagship projects, the county budgets now include more community-level projects (e.g., women’s development funds and wells). 73 Budget approval – PB has also facilitated budget approval mechanisms by involving Members of the County Assembly (MCAs), who would previously tend to disagree over resource allocation and the use of funds, in the deliberation process. Their participation in – and commitments made during – the PB meetings have allowed for swifter approval of budgets. In West Pokot, where the previous two years’ budgets were approved months after the deadline, MCAs’ public commitments during PB forums to implement citizen priorities have given impetus to more timely budget approval. 74 Of course, these are preliminary results. Significant challenges remain, such as furthering inclusiveness and strengthening citizens’ capacity to oversee budget execution. However, based on early lessons, county governments are already working on the design of new features and activities to be implemented this year. Simultaneously, as other counties join this effort, the KPBI is putting in place a robust monitoring and evaluation plan to assess whether PB is generating additional results, such as increased local tax revenues and improved service delivery. In the meantime, PB is off to a good start in better aligning resources to needs and leveraging the expertise of citizens to shape decisions that invariably affect their lives. 42 List of References Beuermann, D. W., & Amelina, M. (2014). Does Participatory Budgeting Improve Participatory Budgeting in Makueni and West Pokot Counties Decentralized Public Service Delivery? (No. IDB-WP-547). IDB Working Paper Series. Gonçalves, S. (2014). The effects of participatory budgeting on municipal expenditures and infant mortality in Brazil. World Development, 53, 94-110. McNulty, S. (2013). Improved Governance? Exploring the Results of Peru’s Participatory Budgeting Process. McNulty, S. L., & Wampler, B. (2015). Participatory Governance. Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences: An Interdisciplinary, Searchable, and Linkable Resource. Sintomer, Y., Herzberg, C., Allegretti, G., & Röcke, A. (2013). Learning from the South: participatory budgeting worldwide-an invitation to global cooperation: study [updated version]. InWent. Touchton, M., & Wampler, B. (2014). Improving social well-being through new democratic institutions. Comparative Political Studies, 47(10), 1442-1469. 43 44 Participatory Budgeting in Makueni and West Pokot Counties Annex I: Participatory Budgeting Action Plans Where they stood Opportunity Challenge Proposed Action Makueni Well-structured public Strong leadership Limited financial resources Introduce identification & participation framework/ commitment Process well advanced but selection of projects at lowest matrix Well-structured mechanism lacks systematic technical level possible ( village level) Identification of projects for engagement evaluation Introduce involvement of starts at ward level Effective communication Community needs thematic groups (women & Each ward has a public sensitization youth) participation & civic Political interference (weak Adopt technical evaluation education officer (30 in relationship between of projects alongside citizen total) & 3 interlocutors (90 executive & assembly engagement in total) West Pokot Community inputs not Goodwill from the public to Cultural – women often do Political mobilization & considered in year 1 of engage in budget meetings not speak in the presence of training of MCAs on PB devolved county, some Need for strategic men, arrangements made for More inclusivity including considered in year 2 planning at ward level for them to listen separately. of women and marginalized Meetings take place at ward more effective growth & Difference between national regions level for 20 wards development and county functions still Chief officers from Ward Specific Projects Act unclear to public in request Departments review citizen provides clear parameters for projects proposals and determine for decision making & Vast rurality of West Pokot what will go into budget project implementation Wish lists from citizens Ward development fund (500 million) is used for community identified projects. Annex II: Makueni Public Participation Matrix and Key Activities No. Level No. of Meetings Dates Population* Targeted Dev Committees Elected 1 Village Meetings Total Villages 3455 10th to 12th Feb 2016 345,500 (3,455x100) 38,005 Details of Activities Identify development and service delivery challenges and issues. Identify and prioritization of development projects. Election of village development committees. (11 Persons – across the social divide) 2 Village Clusters Total Village Clusters 315 13th - 15th Feb 2016 37,800 (120x315) 3,465 Details of Activities Prioritization of development projects – (Prioritizing the projects from the village levels) Election of Village cluster development committees (11 Persons) 3 Sub Wards Total Sub Wards 60 16th – 17th Feb 2016 7,200 (120x60) 660 Details of Activities Highlighting the main economic activities in the sub-ward. Identifying existing development projects (funded by County, National government other development partners) Resource mapping identifying the distribution of social amenities in the respective areas (Water, Health, Education and Environment Issues) Prioritization of development projects – (based on list of projects from the Village Clusters) Election of Sub Ward development committees (11 Persons). The committee include 20 coopted organized groups and special interest representatives. 45 Participatory Budgeting in Makueni and West Pokot Counties 46 Participatory Budgeting in Makueni and West Pokot Counties No. Level No. of Meetings Dates Population* Targeted Dev Committees Elected 4 Wards Total Wards – 30 10th – 11th Mar 2016 3,600 (120x30) 330 Details of Activities Mapping of all development projects (On a map) Identifying Ward specific economic activities and proposed strategic interventions geared towards boosting / improving the economic activities for sustained socio economic development. Identifying the challenges affecting specific key interest groups (Youth, children, Women, Business community, PWDs, OVCs, Farmers, Cooperatives, Boda Boda) and proposing strategic interventions to counter the challenges/ to improve their wellbeing. Prioritization of development projects – (Prioritizing the projects from the Sub Wards) Selecting Ward Flagship Projects Election of Ward development committees- (11 Persons). The committees included 20 coopted members representing organized groups and special interest representatives 5 Diaspora Hearings Nairobi 14th March 2016 200 0 Details of Activities Presentation on the County’s achievement’s (Development) Progress Presentations on the Thematic Group proposals. Discussions - (thematic Groups issues, Proposed interventions) 6 Sub County Total Sub Counties – 6 16th March 2016 720 (120x6) 66 Details of Activities Election of Sub County development committees- (11 Persons) & nomination of 20 representatives from Key interest groups. Validation of the Ward prioritized projects Identifying urban development initiatives (Development interventions for respective urban centers Selecting Sub County Flagship Projects (Prioritized from the Ward Flagship Projects) 7 County’s People 1 People’s Forum 18th March 2016 1,000   Forum Details of Activities Comprise 11 representatives from each of the 60 Sub Wards (660) and 10 Persons per ward from special interest groups (300). They are joined by other stakeholders (business associations, religious leaders) as well as elected leaders (MCAs, MPs), etc. Approximately 1000 people in total. Annex III (a): Overview of participation of women in the West Pokot forums (%) Sublocation Public Forums for Fy2016/17 Budget Formulation S/No Ward M/ Adult F/Adult M/ Youth F/Youth Total Attendance % Male % Female 1 Alale Ward 231 128 47 26 432 64% 36% 2 Batei Ward 420 177 128 14 739 74% 26% 3 Chepareria Ward 427 200 81 72 780 65% 35% 4 Endugh Ward 181 128 199 66 574 66% 34% 5 Kapchok Ward 118 60 36 20 234 66% 34% 6 Kapenguria Ward 440 179 137 8 764 76% 24% 7 Kasei Ward 374 247 87 10 718 64% 36% 8 Kiwawa Ward 297 297 0 0 594 50% 50% 9 Kodich Ward 251 313 100 52 716 49% 51% 10 Lelan Ward 189 136 104 62 491 60% 40% 11 Lomut Ward 280 137 157 64 638 68% 32% 12 Masool Ward 233 168 128 45 574 63% 37% 13 Mnagei Ward 260 147 96 120 623 57% 43% 14 Riwo Ward 242 165 162 83 652 62% 38% 15 Sekerr Ward 128 53 159 8 348 82% 18% 16 Siyoi Ward 244 92 82 82 500 65% 35% 17 Sook Ward 113 29 25 24 191 72% 28% 18 Suam Ward 301 141 153 46 641 71% 29% 19 Tapach Ward 440 179 137 8 764 76% 24% 20 Weiwei Ward 243 195 109 29 576 61% 39%   Total 5,412 3,171 2,127 839 11,549 65% 35% 47 Participatory Budgeting in Makueni and West Pokot Counties 48 Participatory Budgeting in Makueni and West Pokot Counties Annex III (b) Breakdown of Participants at the Sub-county forum based on Gender and Age WARD MEETINGS HELD AT SUB COUNTY FY 2016/2017 S/No Sub County Male Adult Female Adult Male Youth Female Youth Total Attendance % Male % Femaile 1 West Pokot 38 3 51 1 93 96% 4% 2 South 43 8 9 1 61 85% 15% 3 Central 36 5 19 3 63 87% 13% 4 Nort 89 10 27 6 132 88% 12%   Total 206 26 106 11 349 89% 11% Annex V Sample of sub-location priorities submitted Participatory Budgeting in Makueni and West Pokot Counties after budget consultations in West Pokot 49 Annex VI Ward Project submission form capturing Participatory Budgeting in Makueni and West Pokot Counties priorities from all the sub-locations in West Pokot 50 Annex VII Sample of the standard costing sheet used Participatory Budgeting in Makueni and West Pokot Counties during ward level prioritization in West Pokot 51