Local benchmarking tips for counties

Today, I will start with a rhetorical question: What does devolution aim to achieve?

Devolution, by its character, object and principles, aims to provide an opportunity for greater citizen participation in local development and permits the Government to respond quickly to local needs because the leaders are close to the people. In other words, it should hasten decision-making.

Looked at critically, it means that devolution could as well shoot Kenya's growth into a Middle Income status before 2030.

In its December 2014 report,  'Decision Time: Spend more or Spend Smart', The World Bank recognises devolution as one of the key contributors to the positive leap in GDP growth last year, clocking above 6 per cent.

No doubt, the cardinal principle of devolution is to distribute administrative, financial and political power to the local levels in order to augment the adeptness and efficacy of government.

These principles, in turn, require enough resources to help the devolved governments realise the dreams of their people.

Most counties as of now are dependent on the shareable revenue from the national government. Even though a few of the counties have exhibited their investment potential to the investors, so far we have not seen results for that effort and the fanfare.

Therefore, many counties are running at a deficit since locally-generated revenue does not meet the expected targets. Faced with that reality, a quick rethink to shift the minds of the people and the leaders is needed urgently.

As a start, the counties will need to be innovative and raise their revenues by undertaking projects that are geared towards raising revenue rather than spending lots of funds on projects that don't give returns.

One way many county governments believe will help them find ways to generate more revenue or learn about development models that are working is to travel to other parts of the world to learn best practices.

After two years of criss-crossing the world, I guess most voters will tell you, nothing out of the ordinary has been witnessed on the ground.

Many of these benchmarking efforts have not borne much fruit, so what is to be done? I propose that instead of hopping from one capital city of the world to another, county government officials need to visit each other and share experiences.

 

In May 2014, the Commission on Revenue Allocation launched model laws to help county governments plan and legislate for revenue raising policies. These model laws give a clear guideline which, if adopted, would help enhance the ability of the county governments to generate revenue.

The county governments have a lot to learn from each other when it comes to benchmarking. I visited Bomet County recently. I witnessed an amazing phenomenon. A modern international standard sports stadium is being constructed.

The stadium, I was told, will be the third largest after Moi Sports Stadium Kasarani and Nyayo National Stadium. Amazingly, the construction is being done by the county government and has provided employment to hundreds of people.

The cost is conservatively low, meaning the county saved millions of shillings which otherwise would have been wasted through a lengthy and sometimes obscure procurement process.

The Bomet case is unique because a state-of-the-art stadium with a capacity of 37,000 spectators will no doubt generate revenue for the county government and increase the county's ability to spend more money on development especially should Kenya go ahead and bid to host the 2017 Africa Cup of Nations.

Bomet is two hours from Nairobi and may be, just may be, it will have set up an airport for light aircraft by the time.

Another best practice is Kiambu County, which was assisted by the UN-Habitat to analyse ways of generating revenue. In 'Scoping Analysis of Revenue Generating Capacity and Potential of Kiambu County, Kenya 2013', the UN-Habitat presented very crucial recommendations to assist the county government identify efficient ways of collecting revenue.

The recommendations included inviting investors by allocating land to them. It also introduces legislation that will make investment in the county easier and friendlier.

Therefore, it is not that counties don't have the opportunity to increase their revenue base, the problem is more in managing the available resources and maximising output from the existing potential.

Benchmarking with counties within the country will immensely help boost the ability of the counties to do better in revenue collection and development.

For example, many counties don't have proper land registry systems. I would call these the low-hanging fruits. One way of quickly generating revenue is by operationalising the land registry. People want title deeds to access credit from financial institutions.

But counties must ensure that the rot at the National Land Registry is not replicated because that would mean going back to where we started.

Counties could also compete and market themselves individually as destinations for visitors, investors, students and workers.

I have visited various places in the last two years and I have not felt a great deal of a difference between the places.

I don't see something that invites me to, let us say, invest in the scenic Elgeyo Marakwet or Baringo or in Mombasa or in Kisumu or Laikipia.

Anything means less tax, an assurance of security and clean, unpolluted air. A few have tried, but more needs to be done nonetheless.