The Status of the Agriculture Sector after Devolution to County

Governments

Tim Njagi, Lilian Kirimi, Kevin Onyango, Nthenya Kinyumu

9th December, 2014

Importance of Ag Sector

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

-6

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

8

National GDP Agriculture GDP

2

Ag Sector Contribution to Household Income

Bomet

County

Bungo

ma Cou

nty

Busia

County

Elgeyo

Mara

kwet

County

Embu C

ounty

Garissa

Cou

nty

Homa B

ay C

ounty

Isiolo

Cou

nty

Kajiad

o Cou

nty

Kakam

ega C

ounty

Kiambu

Cou

nty

Kilifi C

ounty

Kiriny

aga C

ounty

Kisumu C

ounty

Kitui C

ounty

Kwale C

ounty

Laikipi

a Cou

nty

Lamu C

ounty

Mac

hako

s Cou

nty

Mak

ueni

County

Man

dera

County

Meru

Cou

nty

Migo

ri Cou

nty

Mom

basa

Cou

nty

Mur

ang’

a Cou

nty

Nairob

i Cou

nty

Nakur

u Cou

nty

Narok C

ounty

Nyamira

Cou

nty

Nyand

arua C

ounty

Nyeri

County

Sambu

ru C

ounty

Siaya C

ounty

Taita T

aveta

Cou

nty

Tana R

iver C

ounty

Trans N

zoia

County

Turka

na C

ounty

Uasin

Gishu C

ounty

Waji

r Cou

nty

Wes

t Pok

ot Cou

nty0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

3

Introduction…/3• Sector performance is key to food security, poverty

reduction, improving living standards and national economic performance

• Strong sector growth only possible if county governments register strong performance in the sector

4

Motivation• To achieve the ambitious targets and stimulate growth in the

sector:– Both National and County governments need to work seamlessly and

complementarily

• Need for stock-taking after one year in the devolved system to:– Understand how the sector is adjusting after devolving majority of

function to county govts– Establish good practices by County governments – Identify constraints/challenges and propose remedial actions– Identify strategies to strengthen the performance of the sector at the

counties5

Study Objectives• Determine the organizational structure of the Ag sector after

devolution• Identify policy communication channels–Between national and county–Between County govt & stakeholders in the county

• Define the planning process at the county, linkages to national plans, coordination & implementation of programs & projects

• Assess the level of financing for the sector • Establish challenges experienced, best practices and lessons learnt

6

Methodology• 16 counties purposively selected for the study in 4 regions

• Face to face key informant interviews with Ministry officials:• CECs• Chief Officers• County Directors

• A structured checklist used to obtain qualitative and quantitative data

Western Rift Valley Central EasternSiaya Trans Nzoia Nyandarua Makueni

Kisumu Uasin Gishu Nyeri Machakos

Kisii Bomet Kirinyaga

Migori Narok

Vihiga Nakuru

Kakamega

7

Transition to County Govts

8

Legal Provisions• The constitution provides for a phased

transfer of powers– in a period of <3 years from the date of

the first elections under the constitution• The National government shall facilitate

the transfer of power by:– Building the capacity of county

governments– Establishing the criteria that must be

met before particular functions are devolved to county governments

– Permit the asymmetrical devolution of powers

Reality• First elections were conducted in

March 2013– After taking office, county

governments have been establishing the requisite departments

• Due to political reasons, from 1st July 2013, county governments took over the majority of the functions listed in the fourth schedule, among them all the listed functions in the agricultural sector.

9

Transition Process

Organization of the sector

10

What changed - overall

11

Intergovernmental Relations Technical

Committee

National Government (Executive)

SummitMinistries, Departments and Agencies

County Governments

Council of Governors

County Departments

Sub County

Ward

Communities

What changed - Ag sectorCentralized system

• Two main but connected levels – Ministry HQ– Decentralized level

• Tiers (Province, District, Division)• Focus on District level

– Clear reporting channel from Location all the way to HQ

– HQ has authority over activities at decentralized levels

Devolved system

• Two distinct levels – National – County

• Tier (sub county and ward levels)

– National govt staff at county moved to county govts

– No clear feedback mechanism between National and County govts

12

Currently, organization structure remains largely the same as before devolution, with a few notable exceptions e.g. CS, PS, CECs, COs, CDAs Reforms taking place at the national level

Ag Sector Reforms• Reforms in the Ag sector aimed at increasing efficiency,

service delivery & standardization• Key laws enacted include AFFA Act, 2013 & Crops Act,

2013• Affect how ag sector is managed– Overlapping mandates between national & county governments e.g.

extension services & farm input subsidies

13

Human Resources• No structured handover of human resources from NG to CGs• Several challenges– Low staff levels at sub county and ward levels• Most critical- livestock, fisheries, coop development

– Low staff morale due to uncertainties• scheme of service, welfare issues (promotion, transfer)• a lack of facilitation in the most part of the FY

– Political environment considered unfavourable• Recruitment process different btw NG & CG

–Mismatch between skills and roles

14

Communication

15

Communication Channel../1Channel before devolution

• Modes used included letters, circulars, telephone and e-mails• Food security reports were done monthly, other reports done

annually, half-yearly (subject matter reports)• Communication was more frequent – several times in a week• Reverse communication followed the same channel

MoA PDA DAO DivAEO

16

Communication Channel../2

Channel after devolution

• Most communication from NG is still sent through circulars, letters and e-mails

• Communication from Counties include monthly food situation reports and specific section reports done on need basis/on request

• The reverse communication is supposed to follow same channel– In most cases this does not happen, instead we have: • SCAO-CDA- HQ, or • SCAO-CDA-Chief Officer- HQ

Ministry of Agriculture

Ministry of Devolution

Council of Governors

County Governor

C.E.C

Chief Officer

Director

Action

Section

17

Communication channel../3• The channel is long and results into– Untimely arrival of information & failure to reach the action points– Distortion of information–Wastages in information verification process (resources and time)– Enhanced mistrust between officials in the channel

• The MoALF deployed liaison officers to link up with counties– Strong opposition from counties resulted in their rejection– Those still at the county perform other roles

• Information exchange has reduced significantly

18

Planning & Implementation of Programs

19

Planning & Coordination before devolution../1

• Agriculture sector had several line ministries including Agriculture, Livestock Development, Fisheries, Cooperatives Development

• There were 2 levels of planning: national and district• At the national level, planning was coordinated by the Agriculture

and rural development sector– The sector mechanisms coordinated identification of priorities and funding

• The ministries of Ag, Livestock & Fisheries formed ASCU which was to spearhead the coordination of Ag sector

20

Planning & Coordination before devolution../2

• At the decentralised levels, projects and programs were identified, planned and implemented through:– District Development Committee (DDC)– District Executive Committee (DEC)– Sub-district Development Committee (Sub-DDC)– Location Development Committee

• Major challenge was a mismatch between planning & budgeting– Priorities identified at the national level were more often different

from what districts identified as priorities

21

Planning & Coordination after devolution../1• Most counties have finalized their CIDPs–MoDP gave guidelines to develop CIDP– CIDP be in line with the Vision 2030, MTP 2, and Sector Plans– Public participation a constitutional requirement

• Most counties put more emphasis on public participation and Governors’ manifestos– Involvement of technical experts limited– Prioritization of development needs?– Quality of public participation?– Sustainability of CIDPs??

• Final approval of CIDPs by County Assembly– Viability? 22

Planning & Coordination after devolution../2• Plans captured in CIDPs for many counties include:

Farm input subsidy program Soil sampling and analysis Promotion of horticultural crops (Bananas, Passion fruit, Potatoes, etc) Value addition (Milk coolers, Fruit processors, Mills etc) Farm Mechanization Promotion of Poultry, Apiculture and Fish farming following ESP model Revival and expansion of Animal health services Investment in Irrigation, Drainage and Water harvesting Revival and strengthening of farmer cooperatives and other Agricultural

institutions Eg ATCs

23

National Government programs in counties

• ASDSP (2022) - GoK• NMK (2015) – GoK• KAPAP (2014) – World Bank• EAPP (2017) – World Bank – Dairy & Several value chains

• SHEPUP (2015) – Jica/GoK – Horticultural production and marketing

• SHOMAP (2015) – IFAD – Horticulture, Markets, Storage facilities

• SHDP (2015) – IFAD – Dairy production and value addition

• ALPRO – 2015 – Livestock production

• General fertilizer subsidy

24

Programs inherited by Counties

• Maize grain drying services• NAAIAP - Renamed to Farm Input Support (FIS)

• AI services provision • Agricultural mechanization• Water harvesting and storage• Stocking and restocking of fish ponds• Extension and training• ATCs, AMCs and ATDCs

25

Programs initiated by counties

• Farm input subsidy program (independent in some counties, collaborative effort with NG in others)

• Horticultural crop development and promotion• Farm mechanization – free tractor service program• Value addition for livestock & livestock products• Pyrethrum development and promotion program (collaboration

with NG)• Agricultural land development – conservation & reclamation• Traditional high value crop development and marketing

26

27

Legislation

Bills for Ag sector at County Level

• Most counties have not passed any bills relating to the sector– Only 6 Ag sector related bills in the counties were being processed• County agricultural mechanization structure bill – Kirinyaga• Potato packaging bill – Nakuru• Agricultural boards and committees bill – Kisii• Revolving fund bill – Siaya• Animal health and disease control bill – Uasin Gishu• Input subsidy and supply bill – Trans Nzoia

• Serious lack of capacity to formulate and draft legislation/bills– At Dept level and County Assembly

• Yet bills are needed to operationalize certain sector functions 28

Ag sector reforms

• The Crops Act, 2013 establishes a crop development & promotion authority– Potential conflict with county mandate for promotion & development

29

Farmer Perceptions

30

AGRICULTURAL SECTOR FUNDING BY COUNTY GOVERNMENTS

• Key concerns– Adequacy of funding to the sector• Counties may allocate a big % to non-core expenditure• Prioritization among different sectors

– Expectations from the electorate, Governors Manifestos

– Implication on implementation of sector activities

32

Budget and Flow of Funds

33

Before Devolution• Level of funding for ministries (recurrent and devt)

determined by the ARD sector• District level funding through AIEs to DAOs, DLPOs,

DFOs• Division level offices operated on imprests from the District• Flow of funds was quarterly or depending on project

agreement e.g. half yearly• Challenges included late receipts of AIEs, unfinanced AIEs

34

Trends in Ag Sector Funding (National)

1999/00

2000/01

2001/02

2002/03

2003/04

2004/05

2005/06

2006/07

2007/08

2009/10

2010/11

2011/12

2012/13

2013/14

10,00015,00020,00025,00030,00035,00040,00045,00050,00055,00060,000

Exp

endi

ture

KES

Mill

ions

35

Share of Ag sector allocation in total budget

2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/142.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

5.5

6.0

5.4 5.6

4.8

2.7 2.3

36

Agriculture Budget Allocation

2002/2003 2003/2004 2004/2005 2005/2006 2006/2007 2007/2008 2008/2009 2009/2010 2010/2011 2011/201220

30

40

50

60

70

80

Devt Recurrent

37

Funding after devolution……../1

• Over 90% of funds from National government, the rest are donor funds for specific projects (mainly national govt projects)

• Program based budgeting system adopted by many counties• Budgets approved by County Assembly & COB• Budget ceilings set for different depts • Recurrent funds transferred on monthly basis

38

Funding after devolution……../2

• Development funds transferred on reimbursement basis• Sub-counties are funded through AIE system in some counties• Generally, there is increased funding to the sector compared

to prior system • However, not adequate given the functions and

expectations/promises

39

Share of NG allocation in Total County Revenue (2013/14 FY)

0.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.91.0

40

Development Expenditure as a % of Total Expenditure (2013/14 FY)

Baringo

County

Bungoma C

ounty

Elgeyo

Mara

kwet C

ounty

Garissa

County

Isiolo County

Kakam

ega County

Kiambu County

Kirinya

ga County

Kisumu County

Kwale County

Lamu County

Makueni C

ounty

Marsab

it County

Migori C

ounty

Murang’a

County

Nakuru County

Narok C

ounty

Nyandaru

a County

Samburu County

Taita

Tave

ta County

Thara

ka-N

ithi C

ounty

Turka

na County

Vihiga County

West

Pokot C

ounty0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

41

Development Expenditure as a % of Total Expenditure for selected sectors (2013/14 FY)

Baringo

Bungoma

Elgeyo

Mara

...

Garissa

Isiolo

Kakamega

Kiambu

Kirinya

gaKitu

i

Laikipia

Mach

akos

Mandera

Meru

Mombasa

Nairobi

Nandi

Nyandaru

a

Samburu

Tanariver

Transn

zoia

Uasin Gish

uW

ajir0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Agr dev budget as % total expenditure Infrastr.dev budget as % total expenditure Trade dev.as % of total expenditure42

Ag development budget as % development budget (2013/14 FY)

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

43

Ag Budget for selected Counties (2013/14 FY)

44

Baringo

Elgeyo

Garissa

Kakamega

Kirinyaga

Kitui

KwaleLa

mu

Makueni

Mandera

Meru

Mombasa

SamburuVihiga

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Recurrent Development

Summary and Conclusions

45

Conclusions../11. Long and bureaucratic communication channel is a serious hurdle

in information flow

2. There is increased funding to Ag sector although share of budget is still relatively low

3. Counties heavily dependent on funds from National government

4. Most spending in last quarter of FY, similar to before devolution

5. Weak planning & budget making process– Political manipulation

46

Conclusions../26. Lack of capacity to formulate and draft legislation/bills7. Slow implementation of programs (lack of operationalizing policies)

8. Coordination failure – Between county governments • Programs, shared resources, alignment of goals

– Between national and county governments• Duplication of projects e.g. soil testing, fertilizer subsidies,

– Within the county• With other development stakeholders

– Implications• Missed opportunities by CGs to create impact• Failure to exploit synergies 47

Conclusions../310.Serious staff shortage especially in directorates of

Livestock, Veterinary, Fisheries and Cooperatives – S/county and wards

11.Low staff morale at county, sub-county and ward levels–Lack of offices and office facilities–Lack of transport (facilities or facilitation)–Lack of clear guidelines for staff recruitment, scheme of

service• Staff previously under national govt have their salaries paid by

counties but scheme of service is at national level48

Conclusion../4• Despite the challenges, there is reason for

optimism–Based on good practices in some counties•Counties have complemented NG programs•Picked up projects that were implemented by NG•Drafting of bills

49

Recommendations• Need to increase funding to the sector• Strengthen planning & budgeting processes– Technical input important in planning process– Make use of available data

• Address HR challenges– Harmonize recruitment at counties to be inline with PSC

• Operationalize mechanisms to improve coordination between NG and CGs and among CGs e.g. IGTRC

• Harmonize legislation to remove overlaps• Build capacity in county governments to effectively discharge their

functions 50

Thank You!

Acknowledgement

This study is made possible by the generous support of the American people through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). The contents are the responsibility of Tegemeo Institute and do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID or the United States Government.