Needed: New formula for resource allocation in Kenya

NAIROBI: The hotly-debated matter of revenue allocation remains at the forefront of the national development agenda across counties.

The challenges associated with devolution of resources in the country are centred on the current data available. The Constitution provides for equitable distribution of resources for the people and indeed shows us right from the preamble, that "we the people" are the primary consideration for any agenda.

At the same time the Constitution does not provide a specific formula for allocation of resources to the counties, rather it provides for the Commission for Revenue Allocation (CRA).

The current CRA allocation formula is such that only 45 per cent of resources are allocated in accordance with population density. The remaining 55 per cent of resources are allocated in the following manner:  geographical size 8 per cent, poverty levels 20 per cent, equal shares 25 per cent and fiscal responsibility 2 per cent.

This means that counties with a large population with small geographical size, though highly dense in population, are at a disadvantage. A comparison thus, of Bungoma and Isiolo for example illustrates the problem with the current formula. Bungoma, with a population of over 1.6 million people received Sh5.9 billion in the financial year 2013-2014, while Isiolo with a population of 143,294 received Sh2.4 billion in the same period. Bungoma's County government therefore had Sh3,647.39 to spend per person, while Isiolo had Sh16,912.62 to spend per person. In this case, Isiolo's allocation is over 5 times per capita than Bungoma's.

Though there is a current Constituency Development Fund available, only 25 per cent of the CDF fund formula allocates resources according to population. The remaining 75 per cent is allocated equally across all constituencies. This becomes unconstitutional, in the sense that the CDF formula does not allocate enough resources according to populations, putting highly dense constituencies at a clear disadvantage, and exerting pressure on MPs and CDF committees of highly dense regions that are "underfunded". Thus, in the 2013-2014 financial year, constituencies in Bungoma on average had Sh440.35 per capita CDF allocation, while constituencies in Lamu had on average Sh1,252.63 per capita CDF allocation.

The problem becomes compounded with the usage of disputed census results. In 2009, both the Kenya National Bureau of Statistics and the Ministry of planning disputed their own census results; their reason was that areas such as North Eastern, Marsabit and Turkana had exhibited a growth pattern that defied all scientific explanations. Reason being, while the national average population growth rate was at 4 per cent, the growth rate in these areas was well over 15 per cent; more than double the national average. To sustain such growth, infant and child mortality rates would have to be extremely low. This population boom in these counties did not correlate with other population indicators such as corresponding increase in the number of households, villages and towns and the given high poverty levels.

At the time, Wycliffe Oparanya, who was then Minister for Planning and National Development, cancelled the results in Mandera, Garissa, Wajir, Marsabit, Isiolo and Turkana and ordered KNBS to repeat the census in those areas. The leaders from these areas moved to court to challenge the minister, stating that he had no powers to cancel the results. The matter was brought before Mohammed Warsame, who ruled that the minister and KNBS had provided no justification for cancelling the results in the affected counties, because they showed no irregularities with the process of the census.

The repercussions of the situation were such that the Government was bound to use data KNBS believed to be erroneous. The IEBC in particular, was then compelled to use impugned census data to demarcate electoral boundaries. Consequently areas with the erroneous population boom were allocated several constituencies.

Far reaching consequences were such that the CRA and CDF were also compelled to use the impugned census data; resulting in further unfair allocation of finances to counties and constituencies. Indeed, other government bodies are also compelled to use the same data in their planning; the Public Service Commission, Teachers Service Commission, National Police Service Commission are all required to do their recruitment in a manner that reflects the national diversity, areas with the erroneous population boom unfairly benefit at the expense of highly dense areas.

The formula for resource allocation needs to be reworked to become people-focused. Factors in the formula such as equal shares need to be scrapped altogether in favour of more equitable criteria. In addition, the disputed data from the 2009 census needs to be set aside entirely, instead, KNBS should be required to prepare and publish yearly population and poverty level estimates that clearly indicate all parameters used in reaching final figures. A more rigorous approach will allow Ggovernment planning to be based on current and updated data, instead of the current situation where data is refreshed once every 10 years.

Finally, the relevant laws should be amended to streamline the conducting of the census process; with clear procedures that are publicly verifiable and a recourse mechanism made available in law should those procedures be breached.