Nairobi City County MTEF Public Hearings Report
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
REPORT ON NAIROBI CITY COUNTY MEDIUM TERM EXPENDITURE FRAMEWORK (MTEF) 2014/15- 2016/17 PUBLIC HEARINGS HELD FROM 6TH -18TH FEBRUARY 2014 PREPARED BY THE INSTITUTE FOR SOCIAL ACCOUNTABILITY (TISA) March 2014 1 Introduction Public participation plays a critical role in deepening democracy and promoting good governance. Citizens’ involvement in governance processes ensures that their experiential and grounded perspectives inform government on their needs and how these needs can best be addressed. Given our past, the practice of critical engagement between citizens and government was frowned upon by an insular and self-perpetuating state; the new democratic government emphasized the need for critical engagement between itself and its citizens. It therefore, came as no surprise that public participation is a key Constitutional principle which clearly states that “people’s needs must be responded to, and the public must be encouraged to participate in policy making.” Public participation is a principle, which has now been underpinned in the new constitution and recognized as an important right. The Constitution of Kenya, 2010 is founded on the principle of public participation in all spheres of governance. The Constitution requires county governments to give effect to public participation through the Fourth Schedule Part 2 (14) which states the county will ensure and coordinate the participation of communities and locations in governance at the local level. Counties are also to assist communities to develop the administrative capacity for the effective exercise of the functions and powers and participation in governance at the local level. Article 201(a) also outlines public participation as one of the principles of public finance alongside openness and accountability. It is upon this premise that the Nairobi City County organised public sector ward level consultative forums between 6th-18th February 2014 for the preparation of MTEF FY 2014/15- fy 2016/17 which is a three year forward perspective that forms the basis for setting Nairobi City County priority programs and projects in a participatory manner with the aim of ensuring Methodology Used The County Government used Public hearings during this process, citizens were invited to give ward level priority issues to be considered in the County budget. Officials from the county governments facilitated the meetings, the officials gave an overview of the functions of the county government as per the fourth schedule of the constitution, and the scope of the county sectors-health, education, residents were then invited to give contribution according to ward’s priority areas. 2 The Institute for Social Accountability (TISA) and the International Budget partnership met with the County Government Representatives prior to the budget forums and undertook to assist in the sensitisation and mobilization of the public to participate in public hearing forums in 40 wards of the Nairobi City County. The specific objectives of this intervention were: To sensitize the public on the need to participate in the forums To monitor the processes employed by the County government in during the hearings To monitor the contributions of the members of the public from target wards To document the community priorities in the target wards The above objectives were achieved through; Training of 68 community facilitators drawn from civil society to assist in community sensitization Dissemination of IEC materials (10,000 community sensitization tool on the MTEF process, 1000 Copies of the County government’s advertisements, and 480 copies of the popular guide to County planning and budgeting handbook) Media sensitization; TISA programme officer on budget and oversight appearance on KBC TV talk show Good morning Kenya SMS messaging and alerts Assigning of TISA staff and the ToTs to participate, monitor and prepare ward level reports. Online campaigns on MTEF; through the website, social media (Twitter and Facebook). Daily alerts and messaging were undertaken through #MTEFBudget and #NairobiParticipate harsh tags which attracted online discussion on the process. 3 Fig 1: A screen shot of #MTEFBudget on Social Media FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The county government has taken a positive step to engage residents in the MTEF process. a. Participation The meetings were attended by ward residents, the local business community, local CBO’s/FBO’s, Church representatives, School heads, area chiefs in some wards, and Members of the County Assembly in some wards. However, several wards MCA’s did not attend the meetings citing the excuse that they had not been formally invited by the county executive. 4 b. Public hearings publicity The County Government advertised the public hearings on 3rd February 2014, three days prior to the start of the forums through national newspapers. Majority of participants felt that the newspapers are not accessible to majority of the residents. They also complained that the notice was given too close to the actual dates and this hindered effective participation. They felt that the three day notification was insufficient time for adequate preparation. “I don’t buy newspapers, only read a newspaper when I visit an office ,A resident in Sarang’ombe ward, Kibra c. Level of awareness and access to information Successful public participation depends on more than just granting a right to participate and setting out a procedure. Good information is vital for effective public participation. To participate effectively, people need to know that the exercise is happening and how they can get involved. In the Nairobi MTEF process, most of the residents had no idea on what MTEF entailed and what they were expected to do. The public relied on officials of the County government explanation on the functions of the County governments during the hearings and to guide their contributions. d. Participation of County leaders in the forums (MCA’s &Ward Administrators) One of the major roles of the members of the County Assembly is to maintain a close contact with the electorate. Most of the residents in the target wards felt that MCA’s were very relevant in the MTEF process since it was an avenue for acquainting themselves with the priorities of the communities they represented. However, MCA’s did not attend the meetings in several wards. The Ward administrators were also not introduced to the public in most of the forums. e. Consideration of populations with special interests Several of the venues of this forums were put in places far from reach, a number of residents complained that the forum venues were not at a central place for easy access. Some of the venues were not also conducive for people with disabilities. 5 Fig 2: Visually impaired participants at Laini Saba ward in Kibra Men, women and youth were given equal opportunity in the forums to present their views and identify their priority areas to the County Government of Nairobi. The officials also used both Kiswahili and English which made it very easy for participation of the people. However, there were no sign language interpreters for the deaf, nor braille materials for the blind. f. Facilitation The county government officials were expected to moderate and facilitate the meeting. They were directed to sensitise the public on the services provided by the county and to allow residents share their priority needs. After which there was a ranking process in which the top 5 priorities were selected. After which ward representatives were selected by the participants. Several of the officers appeared inexperienced moderating the public meetings, the submissions of less vocal groups may have been lost in this way. Several of the officials were not able to control the large numbers due to their inexperience in moderating public consultative meetings. In some cases officials were not able to clearly explain the format of the meeting resulting in time wastage and constant interruptions. In other meetings local residents were skeptical about the commitment of government officials due to past negative experiences under the LASDAP process under which they do not get feedback from the government. In several of the meetings the ward administrators and government officials sought to use the meeting to push for their priorities, especially the construction of offices for the ward administrators. citizens were asked to provide indicative budgets for their priorities which most could not realistically do. 6 Key Recommendations 1. The County government needs to advertise forums as early as possible to give the residence time to prepare and participate adequately in the process. 2. The County Government needs to employ alternative means of publicizing the consultative meetings. The County Government needs to utilize low cost publicity methods such as putting up notices in religious places of worship, shopping centers, collaborating with civil society organizations and using such as local radio stations to pass the information for a wider population 3. The ward administrators who are charged with responsibilities of informing and mobilizing the residence around such forums, needs to be present whenever such forums are held to establish a relationship with residents. Whereas the MCA’s need not attend the meetings due to the fact that they will ultimately approve the plan and budgets, they should give their blessings to the meeting by assisting in mobilization and perhaps opening the planning sessions. This shows a sense of unity and ownership and it also encourages participation of residence in such forums. MCAs should however desist from mobilizing residents based on partisan interests which will influence the outcomes of the meeting in their favour. 4. Community meetings should be held at central community halls which can be accessed by many people. these community halls need to be refurbished and well maintained to provide a continued avenue for community meetings. 5. Time management is very important, Most of the MTEF consultative meetings began very late and this affected the number of residents who participated in these forums. 6. Early mobilization of citizens needs to be undertaken to ensure they participate effectively.