Examining Government and CSO Collaborations in Kenya

Examining Government and CSOCollaborations in Kenya: A Study OfSelected Successful Case Stories: WhatCan We Learn?REPORT OF A STUDYCOMMISIONED BYAGA KHAN DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME (KENYA)SUBMITTED BYPOVERTY ERADICATION NETWORK

TABLE OF CONTENTSABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ........................................................................................... I1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..........................................................................................................III2.1 BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY .......................................................................................................12.2 RATIONALE OF THE STUDY............................................................................................................12.3 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY ............................................................................................................22.4 STUDY PROCESS AND METHODOLOGY ..........................................................................................22.5 LIMITATIONS AND ASSUMPTIONS .................................................................................................33.1 THE SCOPE, NATURE AND HISTORY OF COLLABORATIONS STUDIED..........................................43.2 WHO INITIATES COLLABORATIONS? ............................................................................................53.3 DURATION OF COLLABORATIONS.................................................................................................63.4 WHY COLLABORATE? ...................................................................................................................73.5 FRAMEWORK FOR COLLABORATIONS ...........................................................................................84.0 ROLE PLAYED BY GOK AND CSOS IN THE COLLABORATIONS ..................................85.0 IMPACT OF COLLABORATIONS ...........................................................................................96.0 CHALLENGES FACED DURING COLLABORATIONS ....................................................147.0 LESSONS LEARNT...................................................................................................................178.0 RECOMMENDATIONS...........................................................................................................20SECTION 2: THE CASE STUDIES ................................................................................................21THE CASE STUDIES1. The case of Resource Projects Kenya (RPK) collaboration with GoK2. Learning from Legal Resources Foundation Trust (LRF) collaborations withGoK3. Amref’s collaboration with government and other CSOs in Kenya:4. How Nomadic Communities Trust (NCT) is collaborating with Government and otherCSOs in Samburu district5. IFAD fronted collaboration with CSOs6. For the sake of a Land Policy for Kenya: the forced marriage between Kenya LandAlliance and the Ministry of Lands7. All for one, one for all: CSOs collaborations with the Ministry of Trade at WTOnegotiations8. Constructive Engagements: the case of PLAN Kenya in Kwale district9. Community Research in Environment and Development Initiatives (CREADIS): A casestudy of Government/NGO collaboration10. Providing a firm foundation: Homa Hills Community Development Programmescollaborations with the Government on Early Childhood Education

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMSCSONGOGOKWTOMOUSEATINIKLARBAAKDNPENFGDFBOINGOAMREFLRFHHCDONCTRPKKPPPCAPsECDNEMACBOVCTADPDDC‘Maanisha’CACCsPLWHAsCCIDHMTCORPsVHTsPMTCTDLPOTSCDSGDDODFODWEDSDOMOHCivil Society OrganizationNon Governmental OrganizationGovernment of KenyaWorld Trade OrganizationMemorandum of UnderstandingSouthern and East African Trade Negotiations InstituteKenya Land AllianceRights Bases ApproachAga Khan Development NetworkPoverty Eradication NetworkFocused Group DiscussionsFaith Based OrganizationInternational Non Governmental OrganizationAfrican Medical Research FoundationLegal Resources FoundationHoma Hills Community Development OrganizationNomadic Community TrustResource Projects KenyaKenya Prisons Paralegal ProjectCommunity Action PlansEarly Childhood DevelopmentNational Environmental Management AuthorityCommunity Based OrganizationsVoluntary Counseling and TestingArea Development ProgrammeDistrict Development CommitteeGiving meaning to lifeConstituent Aids Control CommitteesPeople Living With HIV/AidsCross Cutting IssuesDistrict Health Management TeamCommunity Own Resource PersonsVillage Health CommitteesPrevention of Mother to Child TransmissionDistrict Livestock Promotion OfficerTeachers Service CommissionDistrict Steering GroupDistrict Development OfficerDistrict Forest OfficerDistrict Water EngineerDistrict Social Development OfficerMedical Officer of Healthi

DPHOCBHMISACCDCDFRLMFCKDAMKEPPCIGNARCMAIVCOCREADISInitiativesDistrict Public Health OfficerCommunity Based Health Management and Information SystemArt College of Design (California-USA)Constituency Development FundRural Levy Maintenance FundCentral Kenya Dry Area ProjectMt. Kenya East Pilot ProjectCommon Interest GroupNational Alliance Rainbow CoalitionMultilateral Agreement on InvestmentsVolunteer Children’s OfficerCommunity Research in Environment and Developmentii

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARYThis study covers collaborations between 10 Civil Society Organizations(CSOs) and a cross section of government line ministries. Seven (7) of thecollaborations are localized at district level while three are national in naturewith two focusing on policy formulation while another one focuses oninternational trade relations with aspects of national policy formulation. It isevident that indeed, there are successful ongoing collaborations betweengovernment and CSOs with a view to achievement of mutual objectives. In allthe collaborations studied, there is the recognition that both government andCSOs aim at promoting development and improving the quality of life ofKenyans. Secondly, there is the acknowledgement that government and CSOshave certain comparative advantages that they bring on board - hence theneed for partnerships.Additionally, CSOs have the awareness that for their interventions to besustainable, they need to involve the government since most CSOprogrammes are project based and time bound while the GoK is there for thelong term. Related to the foregoing was the concurrence that delivery of basicservices and addressing poverty was, fundamentally, the responsibility of thegovernment and not CSOs’. CSOs only come in to augment the government’sefforts hence the need for collaborations.Those interviewed generally agreed that the collaborations contributedtowards fulfillment of their objectives, missions and visions.One of the challenges raised by both government and CSOs during the studywas the inadequate policy and legal framework to guide collaborations. Thistended to make collaborations fairly ad hoc and informal and particularly atdistrict level, largely dependant on the goodwill and willingness of individualofficers to engage in such collaborations. Further, government officers atdistrict level were in most instances unwilling to enter into Memoranda ofUnderstanding with CSOs since they argued that only Permanent Secretariescould commit the government to any kind of agreement. It was interesting tonote that even high profile collaborations such as that between CSOs and theGoK in the negotiations for fair terms of trade at the World TradeOrganization (WTO) were not institutionalized and could theoretically beterminated at any time.Generally, the feeling is that there was need for a comprehensive policyframework for CSO/GOK relations which would also provide a basis forspecific Memorandum of Understandings (MOUs) between GOK and CSOs atvarious levels. In the absence of such a framework it would appear thatiii

them to make the government and other service providers accountable andensure it delivers effective and efficient services. The foregoing factors thenraise a fundamental concern as regards the philosophical underpinnings ofCSO/GoK relations and most importantly weather GoK/CSO collaborationsin Kenya constitute constructive engagements or an uneasy coexistence?vi

2.0 INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW2.1 Background to the studyThis study was commissioned by Aga Khan Development Network (AKDN) inKenya and undertaken by Poverty Eradication Network (PEN) through threeassociate consultants. The study, which covered 10 collaborations between theGovernment of Kenya (GoK) and Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) in variousparts of the country, was conducted between February and April 2007. The studyentailed conducting consultations and interviews with a wide variety ofrespondents from government departments at various levels as well as CSOs’practitioners, with a view to documenting experiences, successes, challenges andlessons learnt during these collaborations; and to build a case for increasedsupport for such partnerships by all. The study also explores the possibility ofinstitutionalizing such collaborations in government policy.2.2 Rationale of the studyMost development practitioners are in agreement that to a greater or lesser extentthe relationship between the government and CSOs in Kenya, as in many othercountries, is less than satisfactory: there are often attitudinal problems that getinto the way of a smooth and mutually supportive working relationships -sometimes due to oppressive laws and regulations that undermine cordialcoexistence; and often due to reciprocated negative perceptions and prejudices.It is also widely acknowledged that most of these relationships change over time– becoming better or worse due to a variety of factors – politics, individuals,development partners’ pressure, and experience of development problems.Despite the various doubts and misgivings expressed powerfully by bothgovernment and CSOs about each other, there actually exists a strong body ofexperience of good collaboration between government and CSOs, but this hasnot been documented, recognized, built on and absorbed into developmentpolicies. It is particularly recognized that the best examples of suchcollaborations are more likely to be found at the district and lower levels.This study is therefore designed to identify examples of good and mutuallyrewarding collaborations between government and CSOs, document the findingsand demonstrate to development practitioners, government and the widercommunity the advantages that come with such collaborations; and seek toinfluence policy changes in government whereby CSOs are involved in district,regional and national planning and implementation.1

2.3 Objectives of the studyThis study was designed to meet four specific objectives:1. To research and document, according to a structured framework, examples ofgood and mutually rewarding collaborations between GoK and CSOs inKenya;2. To develop Case Studies on these collaborations; and3. To assess challenges, lessons learnt and make recommendations forstrengthening these collaborations2.4 Study process and methodologyThe study team used a wide range of methods and sources to gather theinformation. A combination of open ended questions and checklists were useduniformly by all researchers. This method was preferred because it was easy tocompare and analyze responses from a large number of respondents. The teamalso used the semi-structured methods for its flexibility; and also to obtain fullunderstanding and impressions or experiences of the partnerships through keyinformants; but also because the method collects a full range and in-depthinformation.Further, the team reviewed existing documentation on the collaborations; goingthrough documents such as memoranda of understanding, web literature, andpartnership meeting minutes, partnership agreements and other documents. Thisenabled the team not only to collect valuable historical information but alsogather already existing information that was less prone to prejudices andmisinterpretation that is always likely in research work.Even more important the team used direct observation, where the participant’sbody language and remarks, as well as the environment were observed.Lastly, where appropriate, the team used Focused Groups Discussions (FGDs)with individuals to gain information on their experiences of the partnership. Thismethod was seen as a reliable source of impressions that are shared by all, and asan efficient way of getting a broad range and depth of information.The process of the study entailed web research, listing of GoK and CSOCollaborations in the public domain (more than 20 collaborations were listed forfurther scrutiny). Initial visits were made to relevant Government and CSOoffices before 10 collaborations were eventually sampled for detailed study. Thesampling of the collaborations to study was based on their scope, geographicallocation, thematic emphasis and recommendations from various offices visited.Initial contacts with key people in these collaborations were made thoughtelephone and confirmed though emails. Interview dates and venues were setwith key people.2

After discussions with key respondents from the main collaboratingorganization, further interviews were conducted with other partners, whoincluded, as far as possible, the beneficiaries. The information collected thoughthis process was then distilled and analyzed by the study team into this report.The report has two main parts: the introductory part that captures the scope,process and key findings – including successes, challenges, and lessons learnt;and the second part that is largely an appendage of the actual case studies asthey were captured.2.5 Limitations and assumptions2.5.1 Assumptions:This Study is based on the assumption that there already exists mutuallyrewarding collaborations between government and CSOs in Kenya; that theresearch team is able to identify and study the very best of these collaborations;and that sampling just a few representative government and CSO partnershipswill suffice in building a generalized opinion on collaborations. It is furtherassumed that there are still existing successful collaborations especially at thelocal (district and below) that have not been documented.Development practitioners are yet to agree on what constitutes CSOs. Soquestions abound as to whether or not Community Based Organizations (CBOs),Faith Based Organizations (FBOs), Self Groups, Non GovernmentalOrganizations (NGOs), Networks, Trusts and Foundations, International NonGovernmental Organizations (INGOs), Welfare Associations, Clan groupingsand Political Parties constitute CSOs. All these questions are assumed in thestudy.A further assumption is that there was a common understanding of thecollaboration and process involved in entering into these relationships.Despite the foregoing, the study intends to discover what existing strongcollaborations between government and CSOs are, report the issues and sharewidely with different interested partners.2.5.2 LimitationsThe study had the following limitations:‣ The scope of the interview was not extensive enough to capture the widestsection of the country or even the broadest range of collaborations. Assuch the study findings may not be fully representative.3

3.3 Duration of CollaborationsWhile all the collaborations were ongoing at the time of the study, they wereinitiated at different times for different reasons. For instance the collaborationbetween the CSOs and the Ministry of Trade can be traced to 1994 when thirdworld countries began to seriously question the skewed trade relationshipsbetween the North and the South. Oduor Ong’wen 3 , who was then working forECONEWs, takes credit for initiating the collaboration although it is not until1998 that the collaboration took off in earnest when the then Minister for TradeNicholas Biwott directed that CSOs be included in the government team to theWorld Trade Organization (WTO) talks. The collaboration is ongoing and shouldcontinue in the foreseeable future.The collaboration between KLA and the Ministry of Land is centered on thedevelopment of a comprehensive land policy for Kenya and a draft policy wascompleted in 2005. At the time of the interview with KLA the government hadnot released a final draft, however, on April 19, 2007 the government released afinal draft of the policy and it is expected that National Land Policy Formulationprocess will end with a planned National Symposium from April 26-27, 2007.Effectively the collaborations between the KLA and the Ministry of Trade wouldprobably end then.The collaboration between MOH Samburu and Nomadic Community Trust - aCommunity Based Organization - is barely four years. It is aimed at deliveringhealth care services to the underserved and inaccessed people in the remotestparts of Samburu district and beyond using camel mobile 4 . Highly rated bypartners in the district for its services to the forgotten people, the CBO hasconsistently received support from MOH in terms of drugs, technical supportand other reproductive health materials.The government and IFAD supported GOK and CSOs collaborations in Nyeriand Embu (treated as one case in this study) are seven and three yearsrespectively. These are pilot projects aimed at delivering sustainabledevelopment to the people though participatory approaches, buildingpartnerships and sharing cost of implementation; where the government, donorsand the community have defined contributions to make and these are factoredinto the plans 5 and budgets.In the case of the Kenya Prisons Paralegal Project (KPPP), it was the LegalResources Foundation (LRF) that brought together a team of civil society3 Oduor Ong’wen is a leading CSO activist on fair Trade and former chairman of National Council ofNGOs in Kenya4 Refer to the case study on Nomadic Community Trust5 Plans are based on Community Action Plans (CAPs)6

organizations with the mutual goal of promoting access to justice. In 2003, thethen Prison’s Commissioner declared that Prisons needed to be opened up. LRFand its team considered this to be a ripe moment and immediately soughtcollaboration with government agencies in the justice system. They felt at thattime, that since several leaders of civil society had joined government, muchcould be achieved in terms of reform. Nevertheless, the parties drew up an entireprogram based on goodwill – to ensure that access to prisons would continue tobe guaranteed.The other partnerships between Plan Kenya, Homa Hills and Resource ProjectsKenya and the government are over 10 years old and it is anticipated that theywill continue for as along as the CSOs continue to operate in their current areasof operation delivering the same services.3.4 Why Collaborate?When asked why they engaged in collaborations, those consulted gave thefollowing responses:‣ GoK has the technical capacity and the mandate of the Kenyan people,and it is the custodian of policy;‣ GoK has technical staff but not enough financial resources; CSOs cancomplement government efforts and in the end contribute to improvedquality of service delivery;‣ CSOs are more flexible and able to consult and get immediate feedback tomake decisions thereby leading to faster implementation of projects anddelivery of services;‣ To alert the government on issues that would affect Kenyans particularlythe poor people who would be adversely affected by the commitmentsthey make through international agreements;‣ To make the GoK realize that while it might not have sufficient capacityparticularly technical capacity, the sector could help mobilize suchsupport both locally and internationally;‣ To enhance coverage;‣ For Sustainability and to ensure continuity since most CSOs work withcommunities for a limited period and mainly subject to donor fundingwhile GoK departments are always there;‣ GoK does not have adequate resources on its own to deliver sufficientlybasic services within specific areas; and‣ It is not the mandate of CSOs to provide basic services such as health oreducation; it is the obligation of the government to provide this.Government owns the responsibility so it can not be left behind. CSOsonly come in to complement the government.7

3.5 Framework for CollaborationsOne of the issues raised by both government and CSOs during the study was theinadequate policy and legal framework to guide collaborations. This then tendedto make collaborations fairly ad hoc and informal and particularly at districtlevel, largely dependent on the goodwill and willingness of individual officers toengage in such collaborations. Further, government officers at district level werein most instances unwilling to enter into any kind of Memoranda ofUnderstanding with CSOs since they argued that only Permanent Secretariescould commit the government to any kind of agreement.Nonetheless, Plan Kenya for instance had entered into a Country Agreementwith the Kenyan government in 1982 that spells out the roles and obligations ofthe two parties.KLA on the other hand had developed a Conceptual paper with the governmentto guide the formulation of the National Land policy. In KLA’s case, they wereemphatic that the Conceptual paper had been critical in ensuring that thegovernment did not renege on its obligations and in the words of LumumbaOdenda the National Coordinator of KLA: ‘remained on track”. In the case ofResource Projects Kenya the Environmental Coordination Act 1999 provided forthe involvement of a specific number of CSOs. They were nominated toparticipate at district level subsequently gazzetted.In the case of AMREF’s Busia Child Survival project, the project had signed aMemorandum with Busia MOH spelling the roles and responsibilities of each,while AKDN’s ECD programme operates under the ECD policy, developed in2007, which provides guidelines on how partners could collaborate.Generally, however, the feeling was that there was need for a comprehensivepolicy framework for CSO/GOK partnerships that would also provide a basisfor specific MOUs between GOK and CSOs at various levels.4.0 ROLE PLAYED BY GOK AND CSOs IN THE COLLABORATIONSFrom the study it emerged that particularly at district level, NGOs mainlyprovided financial and material support while the government providedtechnical support. In some instances where the government was short staffed,CSOs provided the personnel. This was evident in Samburu district for instancewhere the National Environmental Management Authority (NEMA) used thestaff of RPK to enhance their outreach since they only had one staff member tocover the whole district. In Kwale district as well, the Children’s Office used staffof Plan International to broaden their outreach due to limited staff - only two.But it also emerged that in some instances, like in the case of Nomadic8

Community Trust in Samburu, the government provided material support –such as drugs, nets, reproductive health materials – to be taken to very remoteareas of the district only accessible by the CBO; while under the IFAD supportedpartnership, the government funded an agreed proportion of the total budget.Overwhelmingly, however, collaborations studied at district level involved CSOsproviding support in terms of finances and materials and even transport whilethe government provided technical support in terms of training and design ofprojects. NGOs were also heavily involved in community mobilization where itwas felt they had a distinct advantageHowever, at the national level, CSOs were involved in providing technicalsupport as well as policy formulation. In the case of the KLA and Ministry ofland collaboration, the former mainly engaged in stakeholder mobilization andprovision of technical inputs in the formulation of the policy due to their wideexpertise in the area. Indeed, at some stage KLA was of the opinion that thegovernment should fund their activities because they were involved in anexercise of national import. In the case of the Ministry of Trade and CSOs, thelatter were involved in both providing technical and financial support to thegovernment. The government mainly played the role of involving the CSOs indecision making regarding Kenya’s position at the WTO and in accrediting CSOrepresentatives to be part of the official Kenyan delegation to the talks.5.0 IMPACT OF COLLABORATIONSThe cases surveyed demonstrated various levels of impact.5.1 Strengthening GoK capacity to negotiate on behalf of Kenyans for fair tradepolicies internationallyAccording to SEATINI, CSOs sought to collaborate with the government in theWorld Trade Organization negotiations for two main reasons: firstly, to alert thegovernment on issues that would affect Kenyans particularly the poor peoplewho would be adversely affected by the commitments they made throughagreements at the WTO and secondly, to make the GoK realize that while itmight not have sufficient capacity particularly human resources to negotiateeffectively at the WTO, the CSO sector could help mobilize such support not onlyas part of the governments delegation, but also as CSOs working with otherCSOs even from those countries which sought to take advantage of Africancountries through skewed trade agreementsBoth ActionAid International Kenya and SEATINI point to the stalling of theWTO talks in Seattle, USA in 1999 as a significant impact of their collaborations,9

challenge by CSOs elsewhere in this report. Nonetheless, due to this realizationthe Committee has, according to ActionAid, asked the Ministry of Agriculture toreview the Strategy and the Ministry is currently putting in place modalities fordoing the same.5.2 Creating synergies for effective service deliveryIn Samburu, RPK and the government departments tend to perceive their impactin terms of the manner in which they have used their comparative advantages toexpand their reach, empower communities and improve service delivery. Whatwas evident in Samburu was that the government departments had the technicalresources but in many instances lacked adequate material and financialresources. At the same time government departments tended to be relativelyweak in community mobilization. On the other hand there was an overallrecognition that government could provide the legal and policy support toenable the work of CSOs such as RPK.By playing to their collective strengths, RPK and GOK institutions in Samburuhave been able to realize notable successes. Communities in the outlying areasnow have access to veterinary services and drugs due to the training andequipping of Community based service providers. Further, beekeeping is fastbecoming an important source of livelihoods due to the training of local farmersin modern bee keeping methods and ongoing technical support from the DistrictLivestock Promotion Office.On the other hand a joint collaboration between the RPK, the ProvincialAdministration, the Police department, Forestry Department and the NEMA hasempowered communities to take the initiative in the conservation of naturalresources and environmental protection. Community based EnvironmentConservation Committees are currently provided with letters empowering themto arrest those whose actions are a threat to the environment and the sustainableuse of natural resources. Due to this empowerment communities feel they areable to even challenge government officials if they feel their actions are a dangerto the environment and the preservation of natural resources. According to theDistrict Forest Office, collaborations have assisted in enhancing forest cover andforest conservation as well as ensuring increased outreach by the government.The foregoing have been possible through provision of transport by RPK as wellas the activities of the Community Environment Conservation CommitteesOn a different front, Resource Project Kenya has been gazzetted through the AridLands Programme to join the District Steering Committee which plays asignificant role in environmental conservation at district level. This has in turnenabled RPK to enjoy more influence in shaping the direction of environmentaland agricultural interventions at district level. They have also been able to11

articulate community issues more effectively since the gazzetment has in effectgiven them legal recognition.At the same time, NCT – a Community Based Organization with activities inSamburu district and beyond – has been enabled by MOH through support withdrugs, treated nets, reproductive health materials and technical assistance tomaximize on its unique approach of using camels to reach the remotest parts ofthe district where, in the words of NCT’s Programmer officer, Ms Rose Kimanzi,‘no one else dreams of going’. Thanks to the activities of the CBO, healthmessages and treatment have been taken to the underserved, while mobile VCTservices and advocacy against Female Genital Mutilation have been intensified.Their unique model of ‘mobile camels’ has raised global interest.5.3 Enhancement of constructive engagementsPlan Kenya stands out as a CSO that has reached an outstanding rapport withgovernment. Salim Mvurya of Plan Kenya’s Kwale Area DevelopmentProgramme (ADP), believes that the cordial relation it has with government isbased on its moderate and non confrontational approach as well as credibilityborne out of their ability to deliver on their commitments. He considers theannual conference between Plan and District Commissioners from all thedistricts that Plan operates in as one of the organizations most significantsuccesses in its relationship with government. During the conference Plan andthe Provincial Administration review the state of their collaboration with a viewto strengthening it. It is a mark of Plans favoured status in government circlesthat it sits in the District Executive Committee which is the executive arm of itsDDC, a privilege that no other CSO has. Generally speaking, Plan is recognizedas a major stakeholder by government departments in all their districts ofoperation.A key dividend accruing from Plans collaborations with government has beenthe improved service delivery and enhanced outreach particularly in the deliveryof health and child rights services. Immunization coverage, for instance hasincreased in Kwale district. The District Health Office further confirms that dueto Plans rehabilitation and equipping of health clinics, members of the public cannow access improved health services in Kwale district.Plan’s support to the Children’s Department has ensured that public awarenesson Children’s rights has reached an unprecedented high (as evidenced by theincrease in reported cases of rights violations). Indeed it was found necessary totrain the local police on children’s rights in order to bring them at par withpublic’s level of awareness. Further, as a direct result of the partnership twopolice stations in the district have established Children’s Desks. The departmentis however emphatic that with only two staff, the Children’s Office would never12

have reached the current high level of success. According to the Children’sDepartment fact that all key stakeholders including teachers and the ProvincialAdministration have been reached through the Plan/Children’s Departmentpartnership is an indication of success.The impact of AMREF’s ‘Maanisha’ Lake Victoria Basin Project in fightingHIV/Aids has been well documented 6 . In collaboration with the MOH, localConstituency Aids Control Committees (CACCs), Provincial Administration andother CSOs, the programme has initiated and implemented strategies for fightingHIV/Aids in a holistic manner, recognizing that AIDs is as much a medical aswell as a socio-economic issue. The programme has adopted an approach ofaddressing the Cross Cutting Issues (CCIs) around Aids – social, cultural,economic, attitudinal, and policy etc. This has enabled many Persons LivingWith HIV/Aids (PLWHAs) to access drugs, practice safe sex, lead healthy lives;and engage in gainful economic activities as well as reduce the rate of newinfections.On the other hand, AMREF has, through its Busia Child Survival Project 7 ,managed to initiate and build the capacity of the Busia District HealthManagement Team (DHMT) bringing together all heads of departments in BusiaHospital, various departmental heads from other ministries, all other healthbased organizations in the district and community representatives. This team isresponsible for planning and implementing all health issues in the district; andeach partner has clear commitment, roles and responsibilities in thecollaboration. The system relies on a well defined information flow and datacollection right from the community through Community Own Resource Persons(CORPs), Village Health Committees (VHTs), to the Dispensaries, HealthCentres, Sub district and Mission Hospitals to the management team and back.This collaboration has increased coverage of health activities, reduced infant andmaternal mortality, Prevention of Mother To Child Transmission (PMTCT, andincreased immunization coverage. This model has attracted the attention of theBill Gates Foundation which is considering replicating it in other districts.5.4 Increasing participation of public in policy developmentThe Kenya Land Alliances partnership with the Ministry of Lands have beeninvolved in a collaboration aimed at ensuring that Kenya at last has a forwardlooking draft land policy. However their sometimes tumultuous relationshipinvites an analogy to that of parties in a difficult marriage. The focus ondelivering a draft policy to Kenyans then became the child in a relationship inwhich the main parties did not always see eye to eye, and the Conceptual Paperthat guided the policy development process became the marriage certificate that6 Refer to case study on ‘Maanisha’ Programme7 Refer to report on Busia Child Survival Project13

constantly reminded them of their marriage vows and obligations and kept themon track.The involvement of CSOs in the policy development process provided muchneeded legitimacy to the process since the CSOs were able to mobilize broadparticipation and bring on board the views of grassroots communities includingthe poor and marginalized on the land question. Consequently, the developmentof the land policy has showed that policy development is not the remit ofgovernment but a public exercise. In this context then the success of thecollaboration with government can not only be perceived in the final product,but rather in the process and the precedence it sets for future policy developmentprocesses in Kenya. As a result of the participatory nature of the land policyformulation process, other government departments have borrowed a leaf bytrying to ensure broad participation in their own processes even if publicinvolvement has not always been as comprehensive as in the land policy process.It is important to note that at the time of writing this report, the government hadpublished in the leading dailies a final draft policy document and issued astatement signed by both the Permanent Secretary in the Ministry of Lands andKenya Land Alliance. Perhaps, even more telling is the press statement 8 issuedby the Lands Permanent Secretary, in which he describes the development of thedraft land policy as perhaps the most successful policy development initiativeinvolving the public sector, CSOs and the private sector. Clearly the KLA hasmoved from a suitor forcing himself on a reluctant partner to a valued spousewho can finally be given public recognition.6.0 CHALLENGES FACED DURING COLLABORATIONSThe study noted that GOK/CSO relationships were faced with a myriadchallenges, some peculiar to specific collaborations. Nonetheless it was possibleto pick out broad areas that characterize most of the collaborations.The lack of a comprehensive policy framework for CSO/GOK relationship wasseen as a major handicap since it meant that both government and CSOs werenot obligated to work with each other. While organizations such as Plan had aCountry agreement with the government, this was an exception rather than thenorm and quite often GOK/CSO relations were dependent on the goodwill ofindividuals and the kind of rapport they were able to strike. This made thecollaborations fragile and in many instances unsustainable. Concurrently, GOKrepresentatives at district level appeared to have little leeway for making any8 Daily Nation April 19, 200714

form of commitments towards the collaborations and could for instance not enterinto Memorandums of Understanding since this was the purvey of thePermanent Secretary.Another recurring challenge was the frequent transfer of government officerswhich meant that CSOs were constantly being required to develop newrelationships with new officers, a factor that affected the quality ofcollaborations. This often meant trying to win the confidence of new officers andtrying to get them to buy into collaborations. In the case of the CSO/Ministry ofTrade collaborations, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs requirement that Tradenegotiators in Geneva could only serve for certain duration before beingtransferred, meant that the collaboration constantly lost well trained officers withexperience in trade negotiations. This was the direct opposite of USA and EUwhose negotiators had served consistently for over 30 years.Further, poor Information flow within GOK itself and lack of internal synergiesbetween government departments constantly means that different governmentdepartments would at times take different positions on the same issue making itvery confusing for CSOs involved in collaborations with them. The Ministry ofFinance for instance was said taken positions in its talks with the World Bankthat have contradicted what the Ministry of Trade has been trying to negotiate atWTO negotiations.On the other hand government departments expressed concern about thereluctance by NGOs to transparently provide information on their programmesand operations. It was alleged that a number of NGOs only visited governmentoffices when their donors demanded proof of collaborations with governmentand even then went about it in a perfunctory manner. Related to this wasperceived reluctance by NGOs to consult with GOK at the design stage of theirprogrammes to ensure that these responded to the priorities and realities of thesituation in the areas of operation. This led to wasteful duplication and poorquality programmes. The District Livestock Promotion Officer in Samburu forinstance could only recall one NGO having visited him to consult on programmeformulation. It would appear that this has a lot to do with residual suspicion andlack of trust between the government and CSOs.Additionally, the paucity of functional CSO networks at district level often meantthat they lacked structures to monitor standards, peer review each other andshare information with a view to avoiding duplication . Further NGOs tended touse different community development approaches that in some cases “muddiedthe waters” for other NGOs and the government. In Samburu for instance it wasobserved that the practice of some CSOs to pay community members forattending training/ workshops contradicted the Ministry of Livestock’s policy15

not to do the same. This had affected negatively the DLPOs ability to attractcommunity members to their training.Generally, GOK representatives were concerned about lack of consistentstandards by NGOs, a factor that raised questions about the quality of some ofthe services they delivered. CSOs were also accused of being reluctant to consultgovernment to obtain guidelines on minimum standards thereby leading todelivery of poor quality services.CSOs on the other hand complained that while government might havecommitted and trained staff, they were often under resourced. At district levelthis meant they were often unable to deliver their part in the collaborations dueto lack of transport for instance. In the collaborations on trade negotiationsconcerns were expressed on the low resource allocation to the extent that it wasmany times not possible to bring the trade negotiation teams back for debriefing.Related to the issue of resources was the sensitive issue of payment togovernment staff by CSOs in the form of per diems, facilitation fees, top-ups oreven scholarships. While it appeared to be an uncomfortable subject for bothgovernment and CSOs, it was evident that these payments were a majormotivational factor for civil servants to lend technical support to CSOs. In Kwaledistrict for instance, Plan had to delay a project because government staff wereinvolved in the Tianomin 9 project by a CSO which was giving better terms.Indeed, it would appear that CSOs would sometimes try to entice technicalsupport from government staff by offering better terms than competing CSOs. Itis perhaps an indicator on the importance of these payments that CSOs such asPlan and RPK actually budget for the same.CSOs surveyed also indicated they had difficulties in understanding GOKpolicies, structures and procedures. They were particularly concerned aboutchanges in responsibilities and structures which were rarely communicated tothem meaning they constantly had to move from one office to another trying toascertain issues. For instance the recent changes in the water Act of 2002 thathave seen the Ministry of Water second several District Water Engineers tovarious water companies has thrown many CSOs dealing in water services intoconfusion.Inter-dependence poses its own challenges and in many cases, some actors areunable to carry out their role effectively in the collaboration because a criticalactor (who functions independently of the collaboration) is moving too slowly indelivering on its mandate. For example, under the Early Childhood9 Tiomin mining in Kwale district has sparked controversy between local community and the company16

Development Collaboration, the schools need to have their ECD teachersregistered by the Teacher’s Service Commission (TSC). However, in Mombasaand the environs, this is yet to be implemented. Hence the teachers do notreceive the expected remuneration. Yet, there is a policy that commits the TSC toemploy two ECD teachers per school.Working with different organizations trying to achieve the same goal is energydraining. Adequate skills in human relations are required. For example, thedynamics in collaborations may lead certain partners to celebrate the initiative’ssuccess as their own and to attribute failures to the other partners. If a newspaperfeatures a successful initiative but highlights the role of only one partner, tensionis bound to be created. In many cases, credit goes to the visible implementingpartner and the silent partners, who play a role in facilitation and funding, maynot be recognized.Finally, it would appear that historical factors still dog the government and CSOcollaborations. The strained relationship in the 1990s that led to the formation ofthe NGO coordination Board that was perceived by many CSOs, particularlyNGOs as a policing instrument still lingers today, fuelling mutual suspicion andmistrust. Todate, CSOs generally perceive government as punitive andoverbearing, while the government perceives CSOs as busy bodies who playholier than thou, lack legitimacy and being self seekers.7.0 LESSONS LEARNT7.1 Persistence, patience and Competence are key to convincing government tocollaborateWithout exception, all CSOs and government departments saw the ability byCSOs to demonstrate competence as key to convincing the government to enterinto collaborations with them. Competence was generally viewed in terms offinancial capacity, financial skills and track record in service delivery. AMREF,SEATINI and ActionAid are emphatic that for government to give CSOs ahearing, CSOs have to show that they are technically sound.The Kenya Land Alliance also supports the view that government would nevercollaborate with a CSO which cannot demonstrate technical ability and goesfurther to emphasize the need for well researched positions backed by facts.Despite the initial antipathy that government had towards KLA, their doggedpersistence and track record on land issues finally convinced the government totake them on Board in the development of the land policy and eventually acceptthem as an equal partner in the process.17

In the case of Plan Kenya and AMREF, the organizations’ track record inprogramme implementation and ability to deliver on their commitmentsparticularly in the provision of tangible services and implementation ofhardware projects such as construction of dispensaries is a key factor in theirrecognition by the government. Government representatives interviewed inKwale all pointed at the tangible support that Plan was providing both directlyto communities and in the facilitation of government development efforts. InSamburu district as well, government officials described RPKs projects such asthe provision of drug kits to community based veterinary officers as evidence oftheir credibility and competence. In Rachuonyo district Homa Hills CommunityDevelopment Organization has formed a longstanding partnership with theEarly Child Hood Development office (ECD) because of the support to ECDcenters in terms of equipment and materials and in the training of teachers.7.2 Transparency and sharing of information (communication) is important inestablishing trust and sustaining collaborationsMost CSOs emphasized that they had been able to establish good workingrelationship with the government because they were transparent about theiroperations and shared their budgets and work plans with their all theirstakeholders, including the local communities. Government officials werehowever of the view that while CSOs continued to demand for accountabilityand transparency from government, they themselves were reluctant to embracetransparency and were reluctant to share information on their operations withgovernment. Indeed, there was a strong feeling that the government was edgingahead of CSOs on the transparency front since with the public sector reforms,government departments were openly displaying their service charters andsharing information and soon CSOs would find the traditional argument thatgovernment lacked transparency hard to sustain.Government officials felt that the larger international NGOs tended to be moretransparent and willing to share information than the smaller local NGOs. It ispossible that a contributing factor could be poor standards and practices in somelocal NGOs due to inadequate capacity.According to AMREF the concern about lack of transparency by some localNGOs is real and that is why they avoid collaborating with others because theyare reluctant to open themselves up for scrutiny. RPK indicates that one strategyit has employed to convince government officials to collaborate is to invite themto accompany them on field visits. During such visits, the local communitiesexplain to the Officer what RPK was doing and what benefits were being derivedfrom their projects. More often than not Officers become more amenable towardspartnering with RPK.18

There was consensus throughout the study, that sharing of information and keydocuments such as work plans and budgets contributed significantly toimproved GOK/CSO collaborations since it built trust and facilitated effectiveplanning. Concurrently, it was agreed that a lot needed to be done by bothgovernment and CSOs to ensure regular and transparent flow of qualityinformation regarding activities which would then contribute to building mutualconfidence and trust.7.3 Regular Reviews and Joint Monitoring facilitate effective and efficientcollaborationsThe need for CSOs and GOK to regularly meet and review their collaborationswas seen by collaborators as important in ensuring effective partnerships. PlanKenya saw the annual reviews they had nationally with District Commissionersand their involvement in the District Executive Committee as usefulopportunities for strengthening their collaborations. Resource Projects Kenyaalso considered the District Steering Group (DSG) which has been establishedunder the aegis of the Arid Lands Development programme (Office of thePresident) as a useful forum since it brought CSOs and GOK together to discusstechnical issues. AMREF’s Busia Child Survival Project attributes their success tothe District Health Management Team that is responsible for planning andimplementing health activities in the district. In recognition of the importance ofregular joint reviews and planning, RPK has organized in Samburu a districtlevel monitoring team. The team consists of the DLPO, District EnvironmentalOfficer, DFO, District Water Engineer, RPK, DDO and the Lands officer.It was noted that the District Development Committee which has always beentouted as the ideal structure for CSO/GOK collaborations was not appropriatedue to its large size and composition which made it unable to address technicalissues. A structure such as the District Steering Group was suggested by bothCSOs and GOK representatives as most ideal. Nonetheless, it was observed thatas currently constituted it was not inclusive since it was limited to organizationsinvolved in the Arid Lands Programme.7.4 Attitude Change and Better Mutual understanding important in developingand sustaining relationshipsMost respondents were unanimous that one of the biggest obstacles to effectiveCSO/GoK collaborations are the preconceived attitudes that both partiessometimes bring with them to the negotiation table. However, both governmentand CSOs have the same objective of reducing poverty and as such there shouldbe no conflict in their operations. Both CSOs and GOK should strive tounderstand each others systems and policies in order for them to work togetherharmoniously. The District Children’s Officer in Kwale perhaps best epitomizesthis advice when he points out that through their work with Plan; they have each19

developed a mutual understanding and appreciation of each other’s approachand policies to the extent that he says “For me Plan is part of the Children’sOffice”.8.0 RECOMMENDATIONS8.1 Government and CSOs should work synergisticallyThere was a recognition form those interviewed that GOK and CSOs basicallyhave the same objectives and serve the same people. Further, the governmenthad the responsibility and the mandate for leading policy formulation andimplementation. In many instances it was observed, NGOs have the money andmaterials resources but lack the expertise while GOK has the technical abilityand the staff but could not implement activities effectively due to insufficientfunding. In the cases studied, the recognition of the various comparativestrengths and weaknesses and the deliberate effort towards each others strongpoints yielded positive results. In Kwale district government technical supportand Plans financial contribution have led to improved health services andprotection of children’s rights among others, while the collaboration betweenCSOs and the Ministry of Trade has ensured that issues affecting poor farmers inKenya have formed the basis of Kenya’s trade negotiations at the WTO.8.2 Need to enhance CSO’s technical capacityGovernment representatives were concerned that NGOs unlike governmenttended to invest less in building the technical capacity of their staff preferring tofocus on programme implementation and meeting deadlines. This in their viewcompromised the quality of services and programmes implemented andundermined CSO/GOK collaborations. It was proposed that CSOs work withrelevant government departments to determine the relevant guidelines andstandards required for specific technical areas before embarking onimplementation of programmes. There was a particular concern aboutCommunity Resource Persons who were at times given haphazard training thendeployed in communities to provide services in technical areas such asVeterinary services. This it was stated ended up undermining government effortsin promoting best practices.8.3 CSOs and GOK should strive to understand each others policies and systemsA constant challenge for CSO/GoK relations is the adequate understanding andperhaps a reluctance to appreciate each others policies, processes and systems.This tends to perpetuate clichéd and stereotyped statements such as“government is too bureaucratic” or “CSOs are too hurried”. The studyestablished the need for CSOs and the public sector to include as part of theircollaborations deliberate efforts to educate each other on their processes and20

systems. While the need to understand each other should not obviate the need toreview policies and approaches that militate against successful collaborations(already addressed in challenges), it is evident that increased communication andunderstanding on the intrinsic factors that make CSOs and GoK conduct theirbusiness they way they do can go along way in eliminating the institutionalbottlenecks to successful partnerships.8.4 Development of joint structures for planning, coordination, monitoring andevaluation imperativeThere is a clear need for joint fora where government and CSOs can develop andcarry out joint planning and develop standards for implementation andmonitoring. There were also concerns that NGOs at district level lackedstructures for coordinating activities and peer reviewing each other. The fact thatan organization such as the NGO Council which is supposed to monitor selfregulation in the NGO sector has been undergoing problems has furtherexacerbated this problem. It was also evident that the DDC due to its widecomposition and none technical nature is not ideal for planning, promoting andmonitoring standards. Nonetheless, those interviewed were of the opinion that astructure modeled around the District Steering Group which has beenestablished under the Arid Lands programme would be ideal. Additionally, itwas proposed that NGOs set up district level networks to facilitate planning andmonitoring, avoid wasteful duplication and promote adherence to standards andbest practices.8.5 Document successful CSO/GoK collaborationsIt was proposed that the documentation and dissemination of successful publicsector/CSO collaborations would assist in advocating for such collaborationsand give useful insights on best practices through lessons learnt.SECTION 2: THE CASE STUDIES1. The case of Resource Projects Kenya (RPK) collaboration with GoK2. Learning from Legal Resources Foundation Trust (LRF)collaborations with GoK3. Amref’s collaboration with government and other CSOs in Kenya:4. How Nomadic Communities Trust (NCT) is collaborating withGovernment and other CSOs in Samburu district5. IFAD fronted collaboration with CSOs6. For the sake of a Land Policy for Kenya: the forced marriagebetween Kenya Land Alliance and the Ministry of Lands7. All for one, one for all: CSOs collaborations with the Ministry of Trade atWTO negotiations21

8. Constructive Engagements: the case of PLAN Kenya in Kwaledistrict9. Community Research in Environment and Development Initiatives(CREADIS): A case study of Government/NGO collaboration10. Providing a firm foundation: Homa Hills Community DevelopmentProgrammes collaborations with the Government on Early ChildhoodEducation22

1. THE CASE OF RESOURCE PROJECTS KENYA (RPK) COLLABORATION WITHGoKResource Projects Kenya (RPK) is national NGO, an offshoot of Belerive Foundationwhich was dissolved by the Aga Khan who was its sponsor. The Kenyan staff of theBellerive established a local NGO Resource Projects Kenya which inherited some ofBellerives assets. RPK started with a Forestry project in Samburu district. Nationally,RPK has three main programmes: Samburu Pastoral program, a high potential programin Kakamega and Vihiga, Meru Dry land farming (which was inherited from SOS Sahelan NGO which dissolved)The story of Resource Projects Kenya (RPK) and its work with government in Samburudistrict reflects remarkable innovation and pragmatism. RPK has worked in SamburuDistrict since 1996.Indeed, RPK was quick to establish a relationship with the GOK from the time itentered the district since they were initially housed at the District Forest Office. PiusKisusya the RPK Programme Manager in Samburu opines that the nature of theorganization’s entry into the district was instrumental in the development of the cordialrelations that it has been able to build with the government. This is because they wereable to explain their intentions and programmes to government agencies and thereforeallay possible suspicion or mistrust. It was important that from the very beginning theydevelop a climate of trust.From the onset RPK was committed to using a participatory approach in its work inwith the pastoralist communities of Samburu towards sustainable utilization of theresource base. It started working initially with three group ranches along the plateauwhere they designed a project in consultation with the local community. The Identifiedthreats to the natural resources specifically; threat of fires due to bee hunting, threat oftheft of forest resources and the threat of destruction of water catchment areas. Theysought to know from the community its traditional methods for conservation and weretold there was the institution of community committee elders which had theresponsibility of overseeing the preservation of natural resources. RPK built onto theseinstitutions to establish Community Environment Conservation Committees.Committees were established in each village. RPK trained the committees who realizedthat natural resources were for there benefit. They became very strong in defending theirlocal resources and they began to raise their voices even to the ProvincialAdministration. In instances where they felt they condoned actions inimical to theconservation of the environment.In an innovative venture that has involved partnerships between local communities andthe government, RPK lobbied the Provincial Administration, the Police, ForestryDepartment and the NEMA to provide letters to Community based EnvironmentConservation Committees (set up with support from RPK) with letters empoweringthem to arrest those whose actions are a threat to the environment and the sustainableuse of natural resource. This has in turn empowered communities to take the initiative23

in the conservation of natural resources and environmental protection to the extent thatthey feel they are able to even challenge government officials if they feel there actionsare a danger to the environment and the preservation of natural resources.The coming into being of the Environmental Coordination Act of 1999 helped furthersince it provided a locus standi by empowering any one to arrest those interfering withforest resources. This contributed greatly in reducing instances of destruction of forests.RPK went on to further assist communities to develop management plans for theirnatural resources.From the initial relationship with the District Forestry Office RPK has expanded its listof government Collaborators to Arid Lands Programme under the Office of thePresident, the District Livestock Promotion Office (DLPO), District Environment Office,and District Water Office. When the District Steering Group (DSG) was initiated underthe aegis of the Arid Lands Programme, a provision was made for NGOs /CBOs to begazzeted to join the DSG through NEMA. RPK was invited to join the DSG in Samburudistrict. According to Kisusya, RPK was selected because their credibility and trackrecord. He notes, however, that they were informed of their selection after they had beengazzeted. Nonetheless, the gazzetment gave their work legal recognition.According to Jackson Nzou the DFO in Samburu, the collaborations between hisDepartment and RPK have contributed directly to increasing forest cover and enhancingenvironmental conservation in the district. He considers the support provided by RPK inproviding transport to Forestry officials as of particular importance since it hasincreased their capacity to outreach.For Lekenit Patrick Pureina the District Environment Officer with the NationalEnvironmental Management Authority (NEMA), working with RPK has enabled NEMAto surmount the handicap of having only one officer (Pureina himself) to serve thewhole District since they have been able to outreach using RPK staff. Ideally, NEMA issupposed to have 6 Environmental Officers to cover the 6 divisions in Samburu inpromoting environmental awareness and conservation. However, at the time of theinterview these were not in place thereby making the collaborations with RPK godsend.Indeed, for both the District Forest Office and NEMA a key contribution from RPK hasbeen the NGOs development of grassroots environmental networks and communityenvironmental management structures which are being used by governmentdepartments to mobilize and outreach to local communities. Through RPK/NEMAcollaborations for instance, local community institutions have been strengthenedthrough training on governance, integration of gender representation in the forestConservation committees, and development of Self Help Group constitutions.For Maurice Ouma the District Livestock Promotion Officer (DLPO) for Samburu, RPKhas been instrumental in promoting beekeeping as a viable income generating activity inthe district. The collaborations with the DLPOs office have led to the introduction ofmodern beekeeping including the use of smokers and improved hives. This has in turnled to a reduction in the use of traditional methods that were environmentally24

unfriendly. The training and support given to beekeepers has enhanced production andincreased their management capacity leading to the establishment of Cooperative. At thetime of the study, there were 21 Beekeeping groups in Samburu district.RPK is also working closely with the DLPO to promote livestock production throughtraining of Community Health Animal Workers. A criterion has been developed withthe District Development Office to be used in selecting those to be trained in thecommunity. Further a curriculum has been developed in conjunction with thegovernment for the training the Community Health Animal Workers. Once training isover, each worker is given a kit as a grant with an agreement that the kit to be used forcommunity benefit. While the health workers charge local livestock owners for theirservices, they are enjoined to ensure that fees are affordable.RPKs innovativeness does not end there, in an attempt to promote school enrolment forchildren in this largely nomadic community, RPK is currently work with local teachersthrough the Ministry of Education on how to accommodate children who take care oflivestock in the day time. They have thus established an informal programme for thesechildren in the evenings. The approach has enjoyed some successes and some studentsin the programme have joined the formal school system at standard 5. There arecurrently two schools in Wamba and Baragoi. The intention is to use the model toexpand to other areas.In order to enhance learning’s from its programmes and strengthen its collaborationswith local government departments, RPK has initiated a district level monitoring teamThe team consists of the DLPO, District Environmental Officer, District Forest Officer,District Water Engineer, District Development Officer and the Lands officer. Every yearthe team carries out field visits to monitor and review RPKs programmes. According toKisusya, these reviews have been particularly important in not only improving theimplementation of RPK programmes but have also contributed to enhancing RPKscollaborations with the government.Nonetheless, Kisusya is the first to admit that working with the government has notbeen without its challenges. He is particularly concerned about the lack of a policyframework for CSO/GoK collaborations. RPK's work with the government has beenlargely based on the formers ability to forge and foster relations with individualGovernment officers meaning that when such officers are transferred, the collaborationsare affected. RPK often has to start all over again with the incoming officers some ofwhom might be skeptical on the need for such cooperation. Another challenge whichKisusya was not particularly comfortable in discussing was the issue of per diems, itwas apparent that RPKs ability to provide per diems for government officers was a keymotivator in ensuring the latter’s support. Kisusya reluctantly admitted that if this wasnot provided it might affect adversely the level of support from the governmentofficials. It is particularly telling that while initially RPK did not budget for per diems, ithas since integrated the same in its plans. A related problem is inadequate resources byGovernment Department s for instance lack of operational vehicles. This often meansthat the government is at times unable to meet its obligations in the collaborationleading to delays in implementation of projects.25

Why work with governmentSpeaking to Kisusya one is struck by the level of focus he displays in justifying the needfor his organization to work with the government. He observes that RPK is aware that asan NGO, their approach is project based and subject to continued donor funding. Assuch, working with the government becomes a key strategy in ensuring thesustainability of their projects since the government is there to stay in Samburu district.He further notes that the government has personnel with technical skills in areas whereRPK is limited such as water engineering hence the need for collaborations.AchievementsIn Kisusya’s view, the collaborations with the government have been critical in ensuringskills improvement for RPK. Further, their gazzetment as a collaborator with NEMA hasgiven them a voice to more effectively articulate issues affecting local communities. Theformal recognition by the government of Community based EnvironmentalConservation Committees which was facilitated by RPK has further empowered localcommunities to take charge of the management of their natural resources. Ultimately,the collaborations have contributed to improved livelihoods for local communities.According to Maurice Ouma the DLPO in Samburu district, the collaborations with RPKhave been important in enabling both the government and RPK to obviate their relativeweaknesses by building on their relative strengths. This has involved the governmentfor instance providing technical resources while RPK contributes material support.Further, the government has successfully utilized RPKs skills in communitymobilization to outreach to communitiesLessonsIn RPK's experience, involving the government in all aspects of an NGOs programme iskey to getting its support. RPK has therefore deliberately created structures such as theDistrict Level Monitoring Team as a means of enhancing their inclusion of localgovernment Departments in their programmes. Nonetheless, RPK has learnt that despiteits best efforts, the success of the collaborations can either be furthered or curtailed bythe attitude of individual government officials towards the collaborations. Additionally,the need to provide for some form of motivation for government officials especiallythrough per diems can not be gainsaid.Way ForwardRPK sees a bright future for CSO/GOK relationships, the coming into force ofPerformance Contracts and Service Charters in government operations provide a uniqueopportunity for CSOs to engage with government around specific areas and standardsof performance and will ensure predictability in terms of what to expect fromgovernment departments they are collaborating with. Nonetheless, it is Kisusya’s view26

that NGOs in Samburu district need to have a forum at district level to ensure theiractivities are coordinated. Further, in his view, more organizations should participate inlocal development forums such as the District Development Committees (DDC). He wasalso expresses concerns that lack of documentation of successful CSO/GoKcollaborations has meant that the benefits of such collaborations have not been widelyshared as a means of promoting the same.2. LEARNING FROM LEGAL RESOURCES FOUNDATION TRUST (LRF)COLLABORATIONS WITH GOKThe Legal Resources Foundation Trust (LRF) is an NGO, whose vision is a Kenya whereeveryone, including the poor and marginalized are able to access justice and fullrealization of their rights. Its mandate is to promote critical legal and human rightsawareness and rule of law in Kenya. It does this through participatory interventionsaimed at empowering communities to claim and defend their rights. The promotion andprotection of human rights is the responsibility of the state but the active participation ofnon-state actors (NGOs) is vital to ensuring access to justice, rule of law and realizationof human rights. LRF’s key strategic objectives are to:• Implement innovative, high impact human rights education projects relevant tothe stakeholders.• Advocate and lobby for the development and enforcement of policies and lawsthat promote access to justice among the poor and marginalized.• Document, track and disseminate the results of LRF’s work.In March 2003 when the then Prison’s Commissioner declared that Prisons needed to beopened up, LRF, under its Human Rights Education Program brought together a team ofcivil society organizations with the mutual goal of promoting access to justice. The teamsought collaboration with government agencies in the justice system. It was felt at thattime, that since several leaders of civil society had joined government, much could beachieved in terms of reform. Indeed, the year after the last elections, i.e. 2003, was themost successful year and there were many achievements.The collaborating team drew up an entire program based on goodwill - that such accesswould be ensured. The core steering group of initiative is made up of Kenya HumanRights, The Child Rights Advisory Documentation and Legal Centre (CRADLE), TheJudiciary, Police, Prosecution and the Attorney General. The project was piloted in threemonths in Nairobi Remand and Allocation Prison, Lang’ata Women Prison, KabeteChildren’s Remand Home and Thika Men Prison. The government played their rolewithout inhibitions in 2003. Later in 2004, the project expanded to more prisons.The main collaborating agencies from the government include Prisons, Judiciary, Police,Probation Department and the Children’s Department. Other partners include the27

Kenya Legal Reform Commission. They are helping LRF bring up a Small Claims CourtsBill and Courts of Petty Sessions Bill as a way of lessening the caseload of the ordinarycourts. They have managed to get this prioritized through the Governance Justice Lawand Order Sector (GJLOS) reforms program.The main objective of the collaboration is to promote access to justice among theunrepresented remandees in prisons by providing them with knowledge and skills toqualitatively represent themselves in their trials. It also seeks to improve coordinationamong criminal law justice actors in Kenya with a view to improving access to justiceamong persons in the criminal justice system. The ultimate goal is to decongest prisons.The program is housed by Kenya Prisons Service as it mainly targets persons in thecriminal justice system. During their work, the partners are subject to the Kenya PrisonsService’s code of conduct.LRF is the coordinating agency of the partnership project. It provides training toparalegals (i.e. persons who provide legal aid to ordinary people) and has been able tospearhead the formation of access to justice committees (AJCs) at the prisons, whichbring together the judiciary, prisons, police, probation and other actors in the justicesystem to discuss and come up with local solutions to local problems in the justicesystem. In addition, paralegals have helped improve prison conditions by monitoringthe human rights conditions and following up on the issues to ensure that appropriatestandards are maintained. Paralegals work with prison officers to screen and filterprisoners who are in prison unlawfully or inappropriately and bring them to theattention of the authorities. LRF has also produced information, education andcommunication materials in the form of posters, videos and booklets that are used byremand prisoners all over the country.An independent evaluation of the Kenya Prisons Paralegal Project in December 2004described the project as having significantly helped the prisons in which the project wasoperating to decongest by speeding up the determination of cases that had been pendingfor long. Since its inception, the project has seen:• Several other civil society organizations venturing into prisons in their areas e.g.Muslim Human Rights Initiative (MUHURI) in the Coast province surrenderedan officer to start the project in that region. St Martin’s Nyahururu Churchtargeted Rumuruti and Thomson’s Falls areas while the Catholic Justice andPeace Commission is focusing on Kitale and Kapenguria. The project gave theseactors the confidence, material and logistical support and national clout theyneeded to operate.• More prisoners who have developed confidence to represent themselves in court.In court, many remandees have been able to ask relevant questions during crossexamination,ask for bails, reduction of bails and termination of cases on legalamong other grounds.• Increased awareness on prison conditions among the actors in the criminaljustice system, which has promoted them to institute measures to address thesame. Some of the measures include increased use of non custodial sentences andissuance of affordable bail by the judiciary. In the last 6 months (August 2006-January 2007), 343 remandees were put on probation as first offenders; 50628

eceived community service orders; 906 were acquitted and 917 had their bondslowered.• Increased cooperation, coordination and better communication in places whereaccess to justice committees have been established.Most of those who are in prison (42%) are suspects. Few are able to access lawyers asthey cannot afford them. The court system is usually very harsh and many in remandaccept wrong advice to their detriment. However, the project gives them confidence.Many in remand are able to raise questions in court regarding their rights, theirtreatment or their case and the prosecution is therefore more wary of taking shortcuts. Aremandee from Lang’ata Women’s Prison states that, “The paralegals have given ushope and a sense of dignity. They counsel us and in my case traced for me my relatives.As we speak now, they are out there trying to raise money for my bond and surety. I amso grateful.” Similarly, a remandee from Thika Men’s Prison avers, “When theparalegals are here we feel like kings, even those harsh and brutal wardens behave andcan listen to one’s request.”The Prison’s officials are also full of praise for the project, as it has assisted theseoverstretched and under-resourced agencies to fulfill their obligations. An official fromLang’ata Women’s Prison was of the opinion that, “The main issue here is gender, wherea woman is forced by circumstances to be imprisoned in remand with her young kid. Itis true we do everything to make them comfortable but we know the effect it has on ayoung child’s proper development. The indignity and stigma it carries does notguarantee the child a healthy adult life and we are concerned because the kid isinnocent…The paralegals are doing a lot to help not only the woman but the child aswell.”Through the collaboration, the Kenya Prisons Service has been able to lobby andincrease the number of probation officers. They have also been able to secure more stafffor the community service orders department. In addition, CSOs now have moreconfidence and latitude to criticize poor practice. The collaboration has also nurturedweak partners especially in the Prison’s service to speak out e.g. where an order to arrestmore than 800 people could lead to adverse consequences in already congested prisons.There is increased dialogue amongst the actors and a growth of confidence from thosewho did not formally support the project.A project of this type requires support from all relevant stakeholders to be successful. Inparticular, the collaboration served the important role of increasing the program’slegitimacy. Earlier efforts by individual CSOs in similar work had minimal impact. TheCSOs were only able to access persons who had gone through the criminal justicesystem after their release, and hence, could only on anecdotal evidence of theexperiences within prisons. The basis of the working relationship is one of trust.Problems identified are reported to the appropriate authorities and discussed in forumswhere these authorities are represented. Serious and repeated breaches of the law arereferred to the watchdogs charged with investigating such incidents.29

The biggest challenge is determining how to get government officers to do their work inexchange for pay or without off-loading their responsibilities on paralegals in exchangefor allowed access to the prisons. Collaboration is relatively smooth where there is nomajor problem but where e.g. there is death in the prison due to neglect, thecollaboration is strained. Often, at such times, the paralegals are ordered to restrictthemselves to their mandate. The system is not fully open to reform and officials usuallyfall back to repressive laws and policies when it suits them. Nonetheless, prisons havebeen more open than the judiciary and the police. The latter keep questioning the teamof CSOs where they get their legitimacy from and quote the Prison’s Act, which doesn’tallow access. Another drawback is that certain officers will try to incriminate paralegals.Another challenge is due to the fact that a lot of this work is purely dependent ongoodwill especially at the higher level. However, there is usually no recognition fromofficials at the lower ranks. Many of these insist that where there has been no priornotification from paralegals, there can be no entry into prisons. Nonetheless, LRFmaintained that this project was a partnership and continuously referred to the originalagreement that created the space for the work to proceed. When the project begun, LRFmade it clear that all the actors involved, including the AG, Commissioners, Police andProsecutors, must see this as their project. Initially, the officials from the governmentagencies sent their representatives to attend meetings but as time went by, it was clearthat there was no institutional support afforded to their role in the project as therepresentatives would constantly be transferred to other departments, only to bereplaced by new ones who did not have much information regarding the project. ThePrison Service has not yet institutionalized the reform i.e. they have not identified onefocal point for reform. There is no process in place to ensure continuity and that thereform is sustainable beyond the term of an individual’s service in office.The Probation Department also reiterates that there is also no clear operational mandateregarding the collaboration. Past administrations did not have any guidelines on how togo about such collaborations so it was left to the whim of whoever was at the top of thegovernment agency at that time. If there was a specific or general policy that enabled theDepartment to say ‘We are allowed to work in this direction”, it would be very helpful.This is particularly necessary especially in the area of aftercare where the Department isworking on the basis of an arrangement with the Prison’s Department as most of thework is within the latter’s docket. However, a clear legal framework would enable theDepartment to work with more civil society organizations.Another challenge faced by the Probation Department is figuring how to get other civilsociety actors to work with the Department because under the GJLOS program, throughwhich this initiative is funded, the Department does not have any direct relationshipwith civil society. It is up to the central government to fund the Department’s activities.The civil society partners have learnt through working with the government on thisproject is that the criminal justice system is slowly improving. Hopefully, it will be ableto reorient itself sufficiently to be responsive to the needs of vulnerable groups, withouta third party intervening. They have also learnt that government officers think and actdifferently. In the presence of senior officials, lower cadre officials can be very30

esponsive. The question is, how do you keep the reform agenda predictable across theboard? LRF offers the following suggestions:First, if you would like to bring about reform, you cannot target one department orgovernment agency. There are no standards that exist across the board of the e.g.criminal justice system. You need to target all those involved to ensure that the reform ismore holistic. Second, if you negotiate for space and draw up an agreement ofcollaboration, then you are able to make progress even when an individual officialleaves his office. Third, visit the officers. While ensuring that middle and junior officerscan see the immediate repercussions for violations, seek to educate them so that they cansee the benefits of the project. Fourth, let the civil society keep in touch with theirmonitoring/watch-dog role. Let them inform the government where some of thereforms are not rolling down to the target beneficiaries.Mr. Clemet Okech of the Probation Department offers the following advice to thoseinterested in working with government: “Civil society organizations should not fearworking with the government. The government has changed gradually and it is nowmore open. Working with the government actually leads to working directly with andfor the people. In case something is being done wrong by the government, the best wayto address it is to seek to collaborate with the government to enable it to do it well.Otherwise standing back and merely criticizing government does a disservice to thepeople. I would urge CSOs that are doing similar or related work to come and workwith the government. As it is, government does not have sufficient resources butthrough collaborations, the resources can go so much further and more can be achieved.People will be served so much better that way”.3. AMREF’S COLLABORATION WITH GOVERNMENT AND OTHER CSOs INKENYA:AMREF is an international Health Organization with a huge base in Africa. It is thelargest African based health organization. Started in 1957 by Flying Doctors Society, ithas since evolved into a giant organization across the region. It has 60 projects in Kenyaalone; a huge showing in Uganda, Tanzania, Ethiopia, South Africa, Somalia andSouthern Sudan.AMREF is a key player in capacity building for health related programmes in the wholeof Africa. There is a variety of programmes offered for students from all over Africa:Diploma in Community Health and 17 short courses that attract even people fromAmerica, Asia and Europe.According to Ms. Mette Kjaer, AMREF’s Country Director, its greatest single successtodate is perhaps ability to identify and forge viable collaborations with like mindedpartners - Government, Donor Organizations, Civil Society Organizations andCorporate community – to jointly initiate, develop and implement programmes for thebenefit of vulnerable members of the community. She indicated that some of the mostthriving collaborations were to be found in Eastern, Riftvalley, Nyanza and Western31

provinces, where AMREF has operated over a long period of time. She was particularlyimpressed with the ‘Maanisha’ HIV/Aids programme in the Lake Victoria Region aswell as the Busia Child Survival Project where joint efforts of the government, variousCSOs and the community had solid impacts of collaboration.On the strength of this information, the study team ventured into an in-depth look of thenature of the collaborations under AMREF’s Lake Victoria Basin ‘Maanisha’ HIV/Aidsand the Busia Child Survival projects and files the following report.The Lake Victoria Region (LVR) ‘Maanisha’ HIV/Aids Control Project:A volunteer based in Maanisha’s Kisumu office, Ms Catherine Ndege, explains the termas Swahili for ‘giving meaning to life’, but more technically the word is used to mean‘Understanding and addressing Cross Cutting Issues [CCIs] in the spread and impact ofHIV/Aids in the Lake Victoria Region of Kenya’.Mr. A. Kombo, the Project Manager, describes the rationale of this project as promoting‘Community Focused Initiatives to Control HIV AIDS’. According to Kombo, the projectfaces the following challenges:♦ Ensuring optimal risk reduction in uncertain CSO environment is a demanding task• Quality assurance and monitoring of several groups is problematic• Varying capacity levels among groups - difficulty in addressing the many uniqueneeds• Lack of appreciation for the value of reporting• Competition for coordination between NACC and MOH structures at district leveldue to accompanying benefits such as allowances• Application of CCI is a new and not widely understood concept• CCI mainstreaming requires along time to generate results• CCI are difficult to measure quantitatively• Some CCIs have a political dimension e.g. women’s rights and thus require a highlevel of transformative process.Lessons learnt• Involvement of GOK staff [CACCs] in training and monitoring of CSOs improvesthe relationship between the two groups. This is important for supervision,monitoring and future continuity• Exposing grassroots CSOs in national/government strategies and guidelines cansignificantly influence their activities and reshape them towards national efforts.• Participation of vulnerable groups lead to better understanding and acceptance ofCCIs• Involving the custodians of culture such as community leaders improves localappreciations of CCIs and enhances targeted programming• Operations research is necessary to inform strategies for mainstreaming CCIs inHIV/AIDS interventions32

Further Interviews:Out of the 29 CSOs in Busia district supported under the ‘Maanisha’ Programme theinterview team randomly picked on one – Busia Young Men Christian Association(YMCA).Busia Young Men Christian Association;According to the Programme Manager, Mr. Johnson Maina, Busia YMCA is a FaithBased Organization whose mission is to develop body, mind and soul of young people.To this effect, the organization has a school and a number of sporting programmesincluding Basketball, Karate, Soccer and Drama group.Says Mr. Maina, ‘although the organization is not for profit, it initiates a number ofprojects to sustain itself. It also writes proposals to donors for further support. One ofsuch supporters is AMREF under the Maanisha Programme’.A volunteer with the organization, Mr. John Wamukoya adds, ‘Busia YMCA wrote aproposal to AMREF Maanisha Programme which was funded to the tune of Kshs.677,900. With these funds the organization managed to support youth activities:sporting activities; youth education on prevention of HIV/Aids and peer education.Further the money was used in supporting PLWHAs and orphans. 20 PLWHAs weregiven nutritional support and counseling while 40 orphans in primary schools weresupported and fees paid for 8 students in secondary schools’.He continues, ‘The organization also trained PLWHAs and volunteers on IncomeGenerating activities in an effort to support them in starting small scale incomegenerating projects’.Busia YMCA received further support from Maanisha Programme in the form ofcapacity building. Four members of the organization were trained on report andproposal writing as well as in financial management. Another 14 volunteers weretrained as Trainers (ToTs) on Home Based Care and another 20 trained in incomegeneration.Other collaborators:Mr. Maina names other key collaborators as Busia MOH which provides facilitators andmaterials during trainings as well as follow ups in home based care; the ProvincialAdministration which supports in community mobilization during support activitiesand identifying the needy; and the Constituency Aids Control Committee (CACC)which monitors Maanisha Programme and provides Information, Education andCommunication (IEC) materials.OutcomesAccording to Mr. Maina, the Programme has:• Enabled the delivery of organizational Vision Mission and Goals; and has made itmore visible in the community;33

• Made significant impact on PLWHAs, orphans and the care givers; a good exampleis in instances where PLWHAs have started small but viable businesses to supporttheir familiesChallenges:There are many challenges in the partnership:• Delay in funding has meant delay in implementation of planned activities• Demand generated in the community has far outstripped the resources available• Some of the concepts such as Cross Cutting Issues are not easily understood bypartner CSOs, making it difficult to disseminate them.Lessons LearntOne of the major lessons is that CSOs need to go beyond just handouts and look at moresustainable interventions such as improvement of food security and IGAs. Secondlycommunities should come up with systems of supporting post primary education suchas endowment fund, bursary schemes and so forth because many needy students willotherwise not go to school.Busia Child Survival ProjectMr. Wangalwa feels very strongly about collaboration between different partners. ‘Ithelps avoid duplication of effort and increases access to services. For example AMREFdoes not provide Anti-Retroviral (ARVs) but works closely with MSF Spain thatprovides drugs to patients in need of such medication where we work’.‘Furthermore’, he continues, ‘little will be achieved without collaboration because it iscostly to set up parallel health structures and facilities, equipments and humanresources. MOH and other partners already have these resources; the community hasmanpower and local know how, why photocopy?’.And he says that ‘the beneficiaries are not only aware but also quite excited about thecollaboration between MOH, AMREF and the community in health service delivery’.Mr. Wangalwa cites a case where, after public health awareness baraza, one local leaderremarked: ‘We thank AMREF for initiating this unique approach of projectimplementation that fully involves members of the community in all stages. We haveseen our local people doing things that were thought to be understood only by trainednurses and outsiders!’.He further says that it is only through collaboration and networking that a system ofdecision making process can be based on empirical evidence. ‘For instance, based oninformation gathered from the community, training can be tailor made to address theneeds’. He faults the current decision making at the DHMT that is based on informationfrom health facilities, dismissing it as under reporting. ‘Take the case of people who goto hospital: only those who have the need and can afford! Many other people go totraditional healers and no one reports this. The chiefs collect data on births and deathsand remit this information to registrar of births and deaths, information that may not getto the MOH. This often results in under reporting of morbidity and mortality trends’.34

A well thought out collaboration is often all-inclusive and sets in motion an exit strategythat ensures continuity of activities after certain supporters phase out. Many CSOs,especially NGOs, have been accused of ‘abandoning’ their beneficiaries withoutstrategies of ensuring sustainability of initiated projects and activities, which frequentlycollapse straight away.He concludes that collaborations generally ensure that goods and services reach thegreatest number of people within the widest spread in the cheapest manner possible.Challenges faced during collaborationDespite the obvious merits of collaboration between government and CSOs, there are anumber of glaring challenges as seen by the AMREF Busia Project staff.One of the most conspicuous of all challenges is the of question opposing responsibilitiesbetween CSO and government staff. While government staff may be required to performcertain duties for the collaboration, the same staff has equally pertinent coreresponsibilities for their employer, which brings in the issue of availability ofgovernment staff. Matters are not helped by the current shortage of personnel within theministry.Expectations from the different partners are more often than not too high. Communityvolunteers, especially CHWs demand salaries, citing heavy toll on their time;government personnel demand salaries or allowances for participating in thepartnerships; donors demand more time with government personnel than realisticallypossible; and the beneficiaries demand immediate and tangible results or benefits.The very definition of quality of services to be provided is seen differently by differentpartners. The community for instance looks at quality of health services as increase inthe supply of drugs; the DHMT will talk of enhancing level of health information whiledonors are more concerned with others issues such as coverage, accountability andtransparency. Finding a middle ground often calls for dialogue and understandingwhich may not be easy.Reconciling the CSO goals and objectives, which are often divergent, to comply withthose of the partnership is always challenging. This is because most CSOs operate withinrigid guidelines - distinct geographical locations, under specific objectives and withindefined time frames. This makes it difficult for most CSOs to be flexible and responsiveto the needs of the collaborations.Different partners move at different pace. Whereas most CSOs expect to move withspeed to implement planned activities, the government counterparts are often slow dueto bureaucratic procedures and practices, a situation that often delays implementation.Furthermore different partners in the collaboration tend to have varied levels ofcommitment and motivation, largely depending on their expectations. Governmentmorale is almost always low, citing low compensation and remuneration, and indicatingthat CSOs are over rewarded for their overrated efforts. There are often undertones from35

the government that most CSO personnel are ill qualified for their positions, and thatsome promote certain activities for individual gains, raising questions of transparencyand accountability.The issue of sustainability of programmes is always problematic and recurring matter.Running certain programmes is costly and involves massive use of resources. Thegovernment may not always have this amount of resources to spend in a defined area,usually a small focus area, and may thus not continue activities when main supporterleaves.Lesson learnt:• Engaging all partners in all stages of decision making process wins theparticipation, support and recognition by all and results in more sustainableprogrammes• Sharing of knowledge and information results in better solutions duringplanning and assists in interventions that address the real needs and aspirationsof all partners• The hitherto perceived animosity and mistrust between government and CSOsappears to be giving way to dialogue and transparency which is a prerequisite torelationship building for the benefit of the less fortunate in society.• Collaboration is the way to go despite its challenges because it makes best use ofresources and materials, and maximizes delivery of services.• CSOs have learnt to work together among themselves with less suspicion andcompetition and have accepted the government as a key player and facilitator indevelopment.Busia District HospitalIn Busia District Hospital, the study team had opportunity to simultaneously interviewMr. James Kwiya, the District Health Records and Information Officer (DHRIO) and theDistrict Public Health Nurse (DPHN), Ms Roseline Oboya.According to Mr. Kwiya, the hospital collaborates with different governmentdepartments as well the CSOs and the community in the field. ‘We work in closecollaboration with DSDO, MOE, DDO, MOA, DSO, DC and other related departmentsto implement health activities. This is because the ministry treats health as a crosscutting issue that has a bearing on all other sectors. And of course we have strongpartnerships with NGOs, CBOs and not least the communities. We really embracecollaborations.’‘The most active collaborators in the NGO sector’ interjects Ms. Oboya, ‘include AMREF,MSF Spain, AMPATH, APHIA II, World Vision, and Population Services Internationalamong others. Each of these organizations complements MOH in various distinct ways’.MSF Spain for example, supports activities in HIV/Aids: Provision of ARVs; hiresadditional staff to support MOH; supports Comprehensive Care Centres formanagement of HIV patients; and builds capacity of MOH staff. MOH on the other hand36

provides human resources and expertise, space and government facilities and isinvolved in MSF staff recruitment.PSI is very active in the provision of Long Lasting Insecticide Treated Nets (LLITNs)especially for pregnant mothers and under fives.According to Mr. Kwiya, AMREF Busia is the most visible and active collaborator. It isthe brains behind the joint planning and implementation committee that brings togethervarious government departments and health organizations in the district to design andimplement health activities. Further, it builds capacity of MOH from districtmanagement to the community level. It is active in supply of hospital equipments suchas delivery sets, autoclaves, blood pressure machines, fridges, and microscopes. Besides,it is involved in renovating health facilities, training shopkeepers on dispensing antimalarialdrugs, supply of nets as well as streamlining Community Based HealthManagement Information Systems (CBHMIS) where information generated at thecommunity level flows through the system (from Community, Dispensary, HealthCentre, District, sub district and Mission hospitals) to the district coordinating level.The government on the other hand provides human resources and expertise, staticfacilities, used as resource persons during AMREF trainings at all levels and providesthe framework to implement CBHMIS as well as legitimacy.Benefits of collaboration:Both Kwiya and Oboya agree that the spirit of collaboration should be nurtured furtherbecause it has resulted in visible results that none of the partners could haveindividually managed. They are unanimous that collaboration has:• Enabled the actors to reach more clients especially during campaigns such asimmunizations, where the strongest combination of skill and resources has beenused.• Combined efforts have increased awareness in the community on health servicesprovided as well as health information• Increased the number of facilities and equipmentsChallenges:Oboya and Kwiya readily concede that collaborations are bedeviled with numerousconstraints. They cite some of them as:• Competing tasks where government staff is expected to perform otherresponsibilities from partners on top of their core duties from the ministry. Thisis worsened by the fact that the government staff is less well facilitated in termsof resources.• Many partners are seen by government as being inflexible: only being able tooperate in certain geographical areas (Bundalangi division only); support onlyspecific activities (can only provide nets, are only allowed to do capacitybuilding); operate within limited time frames only (for three years only); andspecific targets (visually impaired people only).• Government staff who get directly involved in the implementation of partnerprogrammes are see to have more incentives and are coveted by other staff. Such37

staff has been known to enjoy benefits like specialized training often abroad, topups and other tokens.• Understaffing and regular transfers within the government setting are seen todisrupt partnerships as some highly trained staff may be moved away to areaswhere there are no such collaborations. Training new staff to acquire these skillsmay be very expensive in terms of money and time.• All partners have not uniformly addressed the question of communityvoluntarism systems. This leaves a situation where some partners are moreattractive to volunteers than others because the reward the volunteers. Thissituation should be harmonized as it affects sustainability of community projects.Busia District Social Development office:The Busia DSDO, Ms. Margaret Ojago, confirms that AMREF Busia Project is one of theseveral CSOs that are quite visible and transparent in their operations. She names otheractive players in the district as MSF Spain, World Food Programme, Christian Children’sFund, Kenya Orphans Development Programme, World Vision and Population ServicesInternational.She laments, however, that ‘While Busia district is said to have over 400 NGOs, most ofthem are shrouded in the culture of secrecy; they never file returns or share informationwith any one. Many of them are known to be briefcase NGOs, whose founders are onlybent on enriching themselves’.Commending further on Busia AMREF’s contributions, Ojango says ‘It has established adistrict health committee that brings together different government departments andother CSOs involved in health to plan and implement health issues. We are happy to beactive participants in that committee as we know who is doing what health activity inwhich area under whose support’.She further explains that AMREF is active in prevention of malaria and HIV/Aids inButula and Bunyula divisions where it is involved in a whole range of activities. It alsohelps in strengthening the District Health Management Team to deliver health servicesto the community more efficiently.Ms. Ojago gives some of the advantages of collaboration as information sharing, pullingresources together, driving in the same direction to make the burden lighter, anddescribes it as the only effective way of fighting poverty.Challenges:Saying that the challenges are many and enormous, she picks the most conspicuous as:secrecy, competition for resources among partners, high levels of poverty, highdependency rates, and mistrust between government and some CSOs.38

4. HOW NOMADIC COMMUNITIES TRUST (NCT) IS COLLABORATING WITHGOVERNMENT AND OTHER CSOs SAMBURU IN DISTRICT:About Nomadic Community Trust (NCT)Walking into Nomadic Communities Trust office situated within the prestigiousSamburu Safari Lodge, one cannot help wondering why it was located there in the firstplace. Set in one of the numerous cottages within the facility, the office is cosy andprofessionally arranged, and we soon find out why.‘This office space was actually donated to us by the owner of the place in recognition ofour good services to the community,’ offers the lone member of staff in the office. She isMs. Rose Kimanzi, the Programme Officer. ‘The rest of the team is out in the field, that’swhere the activities and the people are. In fact I am just back from a three-weekexpedition of the district. It takes vehicles, camels and walking to complete it. But theexperience is both humbling and challenging, with plenty to learn,’ she continues.We soon learn, to our astonishment, that CNT is in fact not an NGO but a CommunityBased Organization (CBO). For its size and budget, this comes as a real shocker andrevelation. She avers, ‘we are registered under the department of Culture and SocialServices as a CBO. We started our operations in 2002 and cover the whole of Samburuand parts of Marsabit district’. As we digest this information she jogs our minds, ‘whosaid all organizations must register as NGOs? The important point is that organizationsserve communities in the most efficient and sustainable manner possible, registrationstatus notwithstanding! She adds with definite conviction.She continues, ‘Before we phased in we seriously thought about a sustainable phase outstrategy, and decided that the best approach would be to involve and collaborate with asmany partners as possible, more particularly with the government and other permanentservice delivery structures. So every activity we do is through consultation and approvalof key partners’.She further explains, ‘we exist to take health services to the remotest, underserved andinaccessible communities within Samburu district and its environs. Being a health basedorganization obviously our principal collaborator is MOH’.Their activities and strategiesAccording to Ms. Kimanzi, their main objective is to take general health care servicesand information to the neediest and remotest areas of the district. Their portfolio ofactivities include: conducting mobile clinics; curative treatment; immunizationcampaigns; health information and education; advocacy against Female GenitalMutilation (FGM); HIV/Aids education; condom distribution; and mobile VCT services.To realize these activities, they use a variety of means – camels, vehicles, bicycles andfoot. They have been widely recognized in the district and beyond as unique for beingthe only organization using camel mobile services to deliver health care services.39

‘This innovative approach, says Ms Kimanzi, ‘has raised global interest and excitement,particularly from the World Bank. It all started when the Bank requested organizationsto forward proposals on innovative ways of serving the community. Out of over 2000proposals sent from all over the world, NCT was among the 103 that were short listedfor finalists. NCT’s concept of camel mobile refrigeration was featured in severalAmerican Magazines and aired through the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) forits uniqueness. I will be making a presentation on this approach before the World Bankthis May.’NCT is currently working in collaboration with Art College of Design (ACCD) ofCalifornia to design solar panels that will facilitate camel refrigeration. The solar medicalkits will be mounted on camels for use in remote areas. Already samples of rack sackscontaining solar panels with rechargeable batteries with capacity to charge cell phonesand Satellite phones have been presented to NCT.Why collaborate and with whom?The organization sees collaboration as the strongest basis for sustainability.Collaboration results in provision of technical and material assistance as well as sharingof the needs of the people and their location. Further, collaboration leads to the holisticownership of the achievements of the interventions by the government and all otherparticipants.NCT liaises with different government departments and other partners for specificreasons. For instance it receives direct medical supplies from MOH; the District ARVNurse is important for provision of ARV information as well as strengthening of referralsystems (cases from NCT are referred directly to specific individuals for specialattention); the DASCO is responsible for compilation of VCT codes; the DistrictNutritionist provides support in training vulnerable groups of PLWHAs on innovatinglocally available but nutritious sources of food to improve their health status.Through the Ministry of Education teachers are used to disseminate HIV/Aidseducation focusing on abstinence, formation of abstinence clubs, distribution of onHIV/Aids information and in the quality control of services and materials offered byNCT. The Provincial Administration is important for mobilization and to facilitateuptake and ownership of programmes, as well as helping identify community resourcepersons who are acceptable in the community, help in planning and provide feedback tohelp streamline programmes.The DDO is important for information sharing, especially because health is a crosscutting issue that affect other sectors of development and also as a member of theDistrict Technical Committee; the DSDO is the regulating body, advises on groupdynamics and provides legitimacy; while the DIO is responsible for incorporating allreports into the publication of district reports.Other collaborators include: Samburu Aids In Africa (SAIDIA) who helps in informationand experience sharing, referrals and linkages as well as mapping of activities; and40

Community Development Empowerment (CODE) who is mainly a CBD distributor andprovides VCT counselors.Merits of collaborationMs Kimanzi says the benefits of collaboration are immense: It helps partners to map outareas of operation and activities to avoid duplication; helps identify areas of eachpartner’s strength and reinforces linkages and referrals; helps in the formulation ofsustainable projects which factor in phase out arrangements; and encourages crossreferences (MOH may referee NCT to donors).Impact to the communityThrough these collaborative efforts, the community has gained by: increased coverageand reduction of child mortality; VCT services have been taken to the remotest of areas;reduction in stigma related to HIV/aids as a result of door-to-door counseling andincreased general awareness in heath issue.What have been the challenges?Ms Kimanzi quickly cites three: some government personnel perceive collaborations assource of additional incomes rather than an effort in delivering sustainabledevelopment, they look at individual gains rather than collective gains especially to thebeneficiaries; many CSOs are not willing to share their reports with government andother partners because they are either not transparent or exist only on paper; and thereare many disparities in the CSOs’ policies, an issue that works against the spirit ofpartnership.Lesson learntThat teething problems at the inception of collaborations should not deter progressbecause many of them are based on misconceptions. For example some organizationsthink collaboration means interference in their operations, especially their financialindependence. On the contrary collaborations need not affect administrative structures;they should focus on strategies for achieving deliverables and are therefore strength.That collaboration is not competition; it is in fact, supplementation or complementationof effort towards achieving a common general goal say, poverty eradication.The research team then randomly consulted other development partners of NCT tocollaborate this information. We visited Samburu District Hospital (MOH) andLokiriama Self Help Group.Samburu District HospitalWe introduce ourselves and our mission to the Samburu Medical Officer of Health, Dr.Too, who immediately summons the District Public Health Nurse, Mr. James Ikonya.Soon Dr. Too excuses himself to attend to an emergency, leaving us in the good hands orMr. Ikonya, an amiable and easygoing person.We quickly delve into our topic, enquiring from Mr. Ikonya whether they any workingrelationship with Nomadic Community Trust.41

He retorts without hesitation, ‘NCT is in fact one of our major collaborators, we liaisefrequently especially on issues of Primary Health Care. We jointly identify communityhealth needs and map out areas in the district to cover and what activities to conduct’.Further, he continues, ‘NCT is very interested in HIV/Aids: conducting mobile VCTservices in remote areas in the district using camels; providing door to door counseling,advocating against female genital mutilation; providing general health education andimmunization. It is recognized all over the district as an active player in health with avery unique approach of mobile camels to reach the underserved’.He goes on, ‘While the MOH gets their logistical support to reach the remotest areas, theministry supports NCT by providing them with drugs, test kits and vaccines (coldboxes). The MOH also links them to rural health facility staff for support at that level(Health Centres and Dispensaries). Other support given by the ministry includestraining of CSO staff during MOH training as well as incorporating them in the districtquarterly stakeholders meeting where experiences, successes, lessons and way forwardare shared’.According to Mr. Ikonya, other CSOs in the collaboration are SAIDIA, FriendsChurch, Catholic Diocese of Maralal, and Lutheran Church.Gains of the collaborationsMr. Ikonya says the benefits real and enormous. The collaboration has helped theplayers to reach the widest possible coverage in health aspects even where there are nodirect links; while sharing of unique experiences has improved learning and planning ofbetter interventions.ImpactAccording to Mr. Ikonya, within the last two years of this collaboration the communityhas benefited immensely. He says that there has been marked improvement in servicedelivery: skilled delivery of expectant mothers, for instance, improved from 42% in 2005to 79% in 2006, an achievement that could be attributed to distribution of disposabledelivery bags to CBOs, NGOs and Faith Based Organizations (FBOs) who reach manymothers in various parts of the district; immunization coverage improved from 59% in2005 to 68% in 2006; while HIV/Aids information and services were taken the remotestparts of the district.Main constraintsThe collaboration has not been without its share of challenges. The CSOs priorities areoften determined by donors and may not agree with community priorities or theidentified collective issues in the collaboration. This begs the question, whose prioritiescount?Secondly, supervision and coordination of activities by the ministry is challenge partlydue to staffing issues (government is often under staffed) and partly to avoid appearingto police CSOs, a situation that may compromise quality of service provision.42

What can one learn from these collaborations?Mr. Ikonya thinks of two: That collaborations reduce workload and expand coverage;and that they bring out the widest range of experience, expertise and resources, and theyshould therefore be strengthened.Lokiriama Self Help GroupThis self help group is composed of 60 members, all of them living positively withHIV/Aids. We notice that most of PLWHAs are, in our estimation, between 20 and 45years; are quite healthy looking and they appear happy with themselves. After briefintroductions we meet Mr. Eric Lesintiyo, the Community Resource Person (CRP).Mr. Lesintiyo takes over, ‘Through the support of NCT, I attended 45- day training inNairobi on VCT counseling. Equipped with these skills – and more others courtesy ofNCT, CCF and ITDG- I was expected to support the community, especially PLWHAsand orphans’.He further explains his role as: providing VCT Counseling and testing; sourcing andproviding food to PLWHAs; referral system for the bedridden and those positive to gofor ARVs, the treatment of opportunistic diseases to specific experts in Samburu districthospital; and assisting in group dynamics.The PLWHAs were advised to own up to the scourge and start a sustainable project tosupport themselves. They registered their group with Culture and Social Services andstarted peer-counseling activities. Soon ITDG came in and supported the group throughtraining them in small scale business management and simple book keeping beforegiving them a revolving loan fund to the tune of Kshs. 400,000, to be repaid at 10%interest.With this support, all the 60 PLWHAs started small businesses from which they areearning a living. The businesses range from groceries, second-hand cloth trading, andsale of paraffin to water vending and general-purpose kiosks.Mrs. Pheris Lekaratiwa, a widowed- 28- year-old beneficiary volunteers, ‘Before Ireceived counseling and ARVs from NCT I had given up on life. I had been so sickly andemaciated, my husband had just passed on and I had no one to look up to. You can nowsee me, God works miracles- He sent NCT and ITDG to my rescue’.She goes on excitedly, ‘Just when I was feeling better from medication and counseling,ITDG came calling. I was trained in small business management and book keeping, andthen given a loan of Kshs. 30,000. Equipped with this knowledge and capital, I started asmall boutique in Maralal town. The business has expanded into a big enterprise, and Iam now employing two assistants to help me run it. My life has truly changed for thebetter.’Joseph Kabua’s story, a 40 year-old beneficiary and a father of 5 children, is the same. Ireceived similar training a loan of Kshs. 10,000 from ITDG. I bought a huge water tank. Ihire people to bring water in 20 litre jerricans, which I buy at Kshs.2 and sell to villagers43

at Kshs. 5 per jerricans. Considering that I sell over 400 jerricans per day, I cannotcomplain’, he concludes with a smile.Mr. Lesintiyo takes over, ‘NCT is taking services to the people rather than peoplecoming for services. It has a way of accessing places that the government can rarelyreach’.5. IFAD FRONTED COLLABORATION WITH CSOsThe study team researched the international Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD)supported collaboration between government’s inter-departmental partnerships andCSOs in the Mt. Kenya region (emphasizing on Natural Resources Management) and theCentral Kenya Dry Area Project in Central province.Mt. Kenya East Pilot Project (MKEPP): A Collaborative Effort Towards NaturalResources ManagementProject backgroundSituated about 5 km along the Embu – Meru road, MKEPP is a government project thatwas initiated to pilot Natural Resources Management in River Tana basin over a periodof seven years starting from 2004.‘This project was motivated by results of a study conducted on River Tana Basinbetween 2001 and 2002’, says. Ms. Faith Muthoni, the programme Manager. ‘The studyrevealed that increasing destruction of forest cover, inappropriate land use practices inthe farmlands and overgrazing in the pastoral lowlands had triggered increasing soilerosion which continued to contribute a high sediment load to the river, its tributariesand to the hydroelectric dams. This had declined land productivity causing increasedpoverty to people largely dependent on agriculture for their livelihood. The decreasingand fluctuating waters of river Tana had led to allocation of water resources withpotential to trigger ethnic tensions and conflict.’She adds, ‘It was with the desire to intervene and reverse this vicious degradation cyclethat MKEPP was conceived and formulated by the government following which, theInternational Fund for Agricultural Development and other donors were approached tosupport the initiative’.MKEPP is thus a seven-year project whose implementation is period is between 2004and 2011. The funding is from IFAD (65.3%), Global Environmental Facility (GEF 18.9%),GOK (6.9%) and local community contribution (8.9%)Project objectives and TargetThe design of MKEPP is based on the conceptual framework in which poverty is clearlyidentified as the core driving force to environmental degradation, which ultimatelygenerates more poverty. The overall objective of the project is to reduce poverty through44

improved food security and income levels of farmers, particularly rural women. This isdone by promoting effective use of natural resources, improving access to water andintroducing better farming and water management practices for sustainable use of landand water resources. The project targets about 600,000 people from 136 households whoare considered to be poor and are at the risk of sliding deeper into poverty.Project coverageThe project is located in an area with dualistic characteristics: one area has highagricultural potential; the other with marginal potential – the arid and Semi Arid Lands.The project is being implemented in five selected river basins: Kapingazi and Ena (Embudistrict); Tungu and Mutonga (Meru South district); Kathita and Mutonga (Tharakadistrict); Rupingazi and Ena (Mbeere district) and Kathita and Kathenu (Meru Central).These river basins were selected because: they have high concentrations of poor people;high perennial flow; high number of abstractions with high water use inefficiencies; theyover diverse ecological zones; traverse a number of districts; and have diverse use ofwater including domestic, irrigation, heavy and low consumption.Project uniquenessAccording to Ms. Muthoni, this initiative is distinctive because of: its project focus(Natural Resources Management – degradation of natural resources is undermining thelivelihoods and future of opportunities of a large number of poor people); itsimplementation approach (a blend of top-down and bottom-up approaches in planning,implementation, monitoring and evaluation that ensure both policy focus and takecognizance of local community priorities and sustainability – plans must incorporateCommunity Action Plans (CAPs) derived from Participatory Rural Appraisals (PRAs)and must be technologically innovative, learn from past experiences and up scaling ofsuccesses; its river basin approach that that takes water as the entry point to becauseavailability of good quality and quantity of water determines the developmentmanagement of natural resources.Project componentsThe project has five major components: Water Resource Management; EnvironmentalConservation; Rural livelihoods; Community Empowerment; and project managementand coordination. While all these components are important, greater emphasis is oncommunity empowerment- where local communities are facilitated through their CBOsand groups to form River Waters and Water Users Associations, supported toimplement innovative community initiatives and trained on identified needs tostrengthen them to take charge of their own development processes. The component ofRural Livelihoods is designed to increase food security and reduce poverty at thehousehold level through sustainable on-farm and on and off-farm income generatingactivities. Key activities in this component include training of farmers on soil and waterconservation, soil fertility management, stream bank protection, promotion of agroforestry, improved crops and animal husbandry practices, promotion of agro processingand value adding and support to marketing and related activities.45

The overall management and coordination of activities is the responsibility of Ministryof Water and Irrigation, which is the Lead Project Agency (LPA), while dailyimplementation is under a Project Management Unit and a secretariat which isresponsible for implementation of policies and ensuring establishment and functioningof relevant coordinating committees at national, district, division and community level.These committees must incorporate the widest actors in the respective areas(government departments, quasi government organizations, private organizations andCivil Society Organizations) for information sharing, planning and implementation ofactivities.The MKEP Project brings together various government ministries (Ministry of Waterand Irrigation, Ministry of Agriculture, Ministry of Livestock, Ministry of Environment,Ministry of Planning, Ministry of Public Works, Ministry of Finance and Ministry ofGender, Culture and Social Services), various NGOs, KARI and other CSOs to supportits activities.ChallengesAccording to Ms. the partnership encounters several problems: the flow of funds isunfavourable, it is to procedural and bureaucratic and always too slow, communitiesmove faster than the supporters; there is limited capacity within governmentdepartments to implement programmes due to shortage of staff and frequent transfers,unlike NGOs such as Plan and World Vision that are more timely; and that the lengthyprocurement procedure hamper quick results.Incorporation of the most vulnerable members of the community has been a nightmarebecause they often do not attend community functions or associate themselves with thebetter off members, therefore their views or participation is always assumed. Thisimplies that projects planned for mostly address the needs of the better off incommunity, undermining the collaboration’s motive of serving the most vulnerablemembers of the community.Due to poor governance most of the development resources do not reach the intendedcommunities. This is because communities have not been empowered enough toquestion partners on use of resources, an issue that the project is keen to address.Lessons learntMs. Muthoni says of the lessons learnt: ‘when communities are involved projects aremore likely to succeed and the impact is better realized. In fact communities would liketo, and they know how to get out of poverty, but what they lack are resources andorganization. They need to mobilized and facilitated to realize their potential’.Secondly, transparency and accountability are ‘important pillars’ to the success of anyproject. Organizers that are accountable to stakeholders, especially to the communitythey serve are likely to be successful. The idea of using participatory methodologies inplanning and implementation as well as monitoring of activities has led increasedcommunity participation and ownership of MKEPP by the community.46

Finally, government alone cannot be expected to provide all the necessary services to thecommunity; it will need other stakeholders to come on board to strength servicedelivery, technical expertise and experience, and reinforce the spirit of interdependence.And it is crucial that partnering organizations enter into a memorandum ofunderstanding to reinforce commitment to the attainment of the cause.Central Kenya Dry Area Project (CKDAP)This project was started in 2001 with the broad objective of contributing to povertyreduction in central Kenya through promotion of dry farming in relatively arid areas ofthe region. The project contributes towards reduction of vulnerability to diseases andhunger for 42,000 rural households in the marginal areas of five districts of centralprovince: Nyeri, Kirinyaga, Maragwa, Thika and Nyandarua.The project addresses this project through five components namely: Primary HealthCare; Agricultural Extension Services; Domestic Water Supply and Technical services;Poverty Alleviation Initiatives and Community Empowerment.CKDAP is an integrated development approach where issues f health, water andagriculture are addressed holistically. Where, for instance, primary health care is theentry point, other issues such as water, horticulture, livestock development andcommunity are quickly incorporated. The project believes that all these sectors areinterrelated and lack of one may result to shortage of all the other sectors, and thataddressing one without the others is an effort in futility.According to Mac’Botongore, the Project Manager, The project reaches the poorest of thepoor clusters in the districts by establishing which focal area – usually a sub location –does more deserve through set criteria. A bottom up approach, Participatory RuralAppraisal, which is a transparent exercise that leads Community Action Plans (CAPs)that do no belong to IFAD, is used to identify which interventions are made. Using thebasket of problems generated by the community through this process, the project linksthe community to different partners who may implement activities outside their plans orbudget. For example issues of HIV/aids are referred ministry of health, local CACCsand CSOs addressing such issues; while the issue of poor roads may be referred to CDFor RLMF. The experience is that once the community problem identified through wideconsultation has been referred to a partner from another it is often addressed as apriority.Mac’Botongore says ‘the Technical officers only assist in prioritizing and costing theactivities, which are filtered to take on board only activities relevant to IFAD. Theremaining community plans are used to source for funding from other partners’.The CKDAP is both a loan and a grant: IFAD funding is a loan to support specificprojects; while contributions from Belgium Survival Funds, government and thecommunity are all treated as grants. The government meets 5% of the CKDAP budgetwhile the community has to meet 25% of the project cost – usually through unskilledlabour, cash contribution, money generated from other sources like CDF, waivers fromlocal councils and donation of land.47

The project is emphatic that their support has had meaningful impact to the community.For one, all the five components have been well integrated with tangible benefits to thecommunity. Water has been used to good effect: for irrigation to produce high valuehorticultural crops for household consumption as well as for sale. The cost of land hasappreciated significantly even in areas where no one wanted to go before. CommonInterest Groups (CIGs) growing horticultural produce have organized themselves intomarket-oriented growers unlike before when each farmer was on their own,undermining bargaining ability. There has been increased food security at householdlevel, and a lot of farmers can now even sell the surplus. All this has also improved thehealth of the people.The upgrading of small stock – goats - has increased milk production. While an ordinarygoat produces an average of 100 milliliters per day, the improved goat can produce upto 2 litres, which can be consumed at home or sold or both. Local people say goat milk isa cure for many diseases. This is the case for rabbits and chicken.The health facilities supported by the project have brought health services nearer to thepeople while VCT services have been brought to many of these facilities.However the partnership has its own share of challenges. One of them is thebureaucratic disbursement system that not only delays implementation of activities butalso may keep other partners waiting for your contribution. The community especially isalways a head of the project; it is quick to make the required contribution and this delaymay kill their morale. Low staffing levels, coupled with frequent transfers withingovernment is another. Although there is a secretariat that manages the project, it is notinvolved in implementation. Finally, some partners may not all together meet theircontributions, which obviously impact badly on implementation.Nyaribo CommunityOur discussions with community of Nyaribo in Nyaribo sub location in Kyeniconstituency revealed that indeed the CKDAP collaboration was having tangiblebenefits to the community. We visited two projects: Nyaribo Self Help Dispensary andNyaribo Water Project.Further discussions with the community revealed how different collaborators supportedthe construction of the dispensary: the Municipal Council of Nyeri donated land;CKDAP not only provided training on health issues but also provided funds forconstruction; the community contributed funds and local materials as well as labour; thegovernment provided technical drawings; while CDF contributed funds for constructionof water tank.The water project was equally supported by different actors: CKDAP bought all pipesand trained communities; the government provided technical drawings; LATF cashtowards construction of the main water tank; CDF gave over Kshs. 700,000 towards theproject; CIDA supported piping from intake; while the community contributed cash,48

unskilled labour, local materials and attracted support from other institutions such asKimathi Institute of Technology, which is a beneficiary of the Project.According to Mrs. Margaret Wanini, the Nyaribo Water Project Treasurer and a smallstock farmer, CKDAP had linked the community to many other supporters and therewere many tangible benefits in water, health, agriculture, incomes and communityawareness as a result.6. FOR THE SAKE OF A LAND POLICY FOR KENYA: THE FORCED MARRIAGEBETWEEN KENYA LAND ALLIANCE AND THE MINISTRY OF LANDSOn April 19, 2007 the government released a final draft of the Kenya Land Policythrough a supplement in the Daily Nation. It was also announced that the National LandPolicy Formulation process would end with a planned National Symposium from April26-27, 2007. Instructively, the foreword to the Policy is jointly signed by the PermanentSecretary in the Ministry of Lands Kombo Mwero and Odenda Lumumba CoordinatorKenya Land Alliance an act remarkable for its symbolism and unprecedented in thesense that a government and civil society organization were openly acknowledging eachothers contribution in the development of a document of national interest.Perhaps, even more telling is press statement issued by Kombo Mwera the LandsPermanent Secretary in which he describes the development of the draft land policy asperhaps the most successful policy development initiative involving the public sector,CSOs and the private sector 10 .The foregoing developments belie a process that had not only been long drawn, but onethat had been replete with conflict, endless haggling and finally, an uneasy détente ofsorts. The story of the development of the Land policy for Kenya is in the words ofOdenda Lumumba a story of an uneasy and difficult “marriage “a union only sustainedby the pressures and hopes of an expectant nation and the persistence of civil societyorganizations determined to ensure that at long last the country would have a policyframework that would provide for the readdressing of historical injustices and set thetone for future equitable land distribution and use in Kenya. But perhaps the enduringlesson from the story of KLA/GoK collaboration in the development of a land policy forKenya is that of persistence, focus and commitment even in the face of seeminglyinsurmountable odds. It also confirms that the acrimony and suspicion that oftenprevails between the government and civil society can be surmounted even if onlytemporarily, once there is focus on a common goal.For Odenda Lumumba the foregoing developments must have been a source of quitesatisfaction and a just reward after years of hard work often punctuated by exasperation10 Nation TV (NTV) 9 o’clock news April 24, 200749

at the slow pace at which the policy formulation process was moving even as thetensions generated by the land crisis in Kenya seemed to worsen.Talking to Lumumba in his Nakuru office months before the draft policy was eventuallyreleased by the government; one could sense a mixture of hope and frustration. Hopebecause Lumumba evinces so much passion for redressing historical injustices in themanagement of land issues and because so much had been accomplished in thedevelopment of the draft policy and surely it could not come a cropper at this juncture.Yet frustration because of the period of time it had taken to even admit that the landissue was a problem in Kenya and the myriad processes that the country had undergoneto reach where it was.As Lumumba pointed out with irritation, a deadline had been agreed on before hand forthe publishing of the draft policy but this had long come and gone.Lumumba sees the development of a land policy in Kenya from the broad perspective ofthe historical happenings of the late 80s. He says that the fall of the Berlin Wall broughtabout the need for governments to undertake fundamental reforms. In Kenya land was akey fundamental problem. Earlier in Tanzania President Nyerere had through Ujamaamade radical land reforms. In South Africa the fall of the apartheid regime wassucceeded by land redistribution measures. In Kenya however, despite the massivesquatter problem and land grabbing, there had been a manifest reluctance to address theland issue with a constant excuse being that land was sensitive.For KLA and its network of CSOs land reforms in Kenya were long overdue and as theyset out to advocate and pressurize the government to develop a land policy they were ofthe view that Kenya could not allow itself to isolated as the only country in the regionthat did not see the need to address the land issue..Yet even as they embarked on their mission, development partners who can often bebanked upon to support issues of human rights and social justice remarkably alsoproved reluctant to provide support to civil society organizations involved inadvocating for land reforms citing the ‘sensitivity” of the issue. Yet according toLumumba, land was the most pressing problem in Kenya since it was a chief cause ofpoverty and social inequity in Kenya. The last land reforms in the country prior to thecampaign for a land policy had been in the 1950s and this had proven inadequate.Earlier, in 1999 the government established the Njonjo Commission to review the landlaw system. KLA was initially reluctant to participate due to Njonjo’s previous trackrecord particularly as he was partly responsible for the land problem in Kenya since hehad been the Attorney General. Nonetheless, KLA eventually decided to get involvedand was instrumental in mobilizing communities to participate and petition thecommission. The commission however, took more time than expected and kept onrenewing its mandate. Rumours started spreading that the report was not to be released.CSOs pressurized for it to be released. KLA was involved in exerting pressure for thereport to be published and it eventually came out in 2002. The Njonjo Commission by itsown assessment admitted that they had not conclusively addressed the land issue but50

ather that they had built a case for the review of the land policy. Lumumba sees theNjonjo commission as the first phase of the engagement between CSOs and thegovernment on land reforms.In 2000 the review of the constitution became a major issue and in particular, the widepowers held by the Presidency over land allocation. In the report compiled by theConstitution of Kenya Review of the Commission (CKRC), land appeared everywhereand was one of the key issues that the public indicated they wanted a social contractover. This gave the impetus for the lobbying by CSOs for a land policy. These were thebeginning building blocks. KLA developed memorandums and even organized aNational Symposium in which it made its case for comprehensive land reforms.By 2002 when new government came into power, KLA had influenced their agenda tothe extent that they accepted that land was an important issue. As such the NARCmanifesto recognized the issue of land as a pressing issue that needed to be addressed.Consequently, it appointed the Ndungu Commission to look at land issues in thecountry. All these formed the framework for a national land policy. KLA used theopportunity of the Ndungu commission to agitate for a development of a policy on land.The Njonjo, CRKC and the Ndungu report formed a clear basis for developing a landpolicy.The government then embarked on the process of developing a land policy but theprevailing opinion in government circles was that policy formulation and developmentwas the remit of the government. However, due to mounting pressure from CSOs for amore inclusive process, they finally relented and agreed to a more all encompassingprocess. CSOs however, went on to insist on a concept paper upon which the policywould be formulated. The proposal met stiff resistance from the government but due tothe insistence of CSOs the government eventually capitulated.After negotiations at the Kenya school of Monetary studies the government agreed totake on Board the views of CSOs in the Conceptual paper. The concept paper amongother things set out a clear time frame for the exercise which was however, neverfollowed otherwise the policy document would have been ready in June 2006. Indeed,the fact that the policy formulation process took longer than the initially envisaged 5years has been a source of great concern to KLA and epitomizes what Lumumbamemorably describes as the “ love hate “ relationship between the GOK and KLA evenas they worked together towards the development of the draft policy.According to Lumumba and in keeping with the marriage analogy, the collaborationbetween the KLA and government while not being “ a marriage of convenience” waspunctuated by mutual suspicion but was ultimately kept together by the need to sustainand deliver the baby : a draft land policy for Kenya. Nonetheless, it came at a heavyprice for KLA members. Lumumba recalls that International organization such as MSKenya and their officials were victimized because of their involvement in supportingland issues while local land advocacy organizations suddenly found themselves withoutdonors because of their militant stance on land issues.51

Perhaps of greater concern to KLA have been the irony and indeed the hypocrisy ofdonor organizations who while admitting that land and its inequitable distribution wasat the root cause of poverty and gender disparity, still insisted that it was politicallysensitive and would have nothing to do with it. This in turn meant that KLA and itsmembers rarely had adequate resources to push their agenda. Lumumba recalls thateven at the height of the efforts to develop the land policy, donors would indicate thatthey were not in a position to fund KLA even as they funded the GOK a situation thatwas untenable given that KLA was central to the development t of the policy. In fact,according to Lumumba the role played by KLA in the policy formulation process was soimportant to the extent that he feels KLA should have been funded through publicfunds.Indeed, Lumumba is critical of donors who continue to be oblivious to land as afundamental development problem in Kenya even as they talk about their commitmentto poverty eradication. For KLA, land is central to people’s livelihoods; it encompasses apeople’s sovereignty, economic development and culture. Because of its wideramifications, the land issue can not therefore be addressed without governmentinvolvement and according to Lumumba, KLA is “tied to whatever government is inpower to sort out the land issue”, perhaps harping on the fact that KLA had workedwith two governments in its campaign for a land policy. In Lumumba's view addressingthe land reforms in Kenya were as important as “financing defense or national securitygiven the potential impact of not addressing it.KLA’s experience in working with the Ministry of Land has enabled it to draw some keylessons on collaborations. According to Lumumba collaborations must have a sharedconcern bringing people together, a mutual interest, and in this particular instance landwas the issue bringing the CSOs and government to the negotiation table. CSOs clearlyrecognised that the land issue could not be addressed without involving thegovernment. Nonetheless, the government needed KLA and other stakeholders to lendlegitimacy to the land policy formulation process. Ultimately, the collaboration betweenKLA and the GoK lent legitimacy to both KLA and the government and by extensiontheir ability to sell the draft land policy to Kenyans.Secondly, it is important to have a framework or guidelines on which the collaborationsare based. In the case of the draft land policy the concept paper provided thisframework. In the words of Lumumba the document became the “marriage certificate”that brought sanity to their sometimes tumultuous relationship and according to himensured that the government did not stray and was brought “back on the rails “everytime they appeared to be in danger of derailing the process. According to Lumumba thegovernment would be the first to admit that the concept paper was critical in ensuringthat the integrity of the process was guarded and the process remained on coursedespite the many challenges.Thirdly, KLA realized the need to have a definite focus and hold on to specific principlesto guide its engagement with the government. In Lummubas view while thegovernment might not always have agreed on the strategies KLA employed to achieveits agenda, they could not fault them on principle since they never compromised on this.52

Lumumba is emphatic that collaboration must be on principle, “do not go in becauseyou are friends” He believes KLA was able to succeed because; “we never lost our eyeon the principles (sic)”From KLAs perspective, a key achievement from its collaborations with the Ministry ofLands has been the fact that it has demonstrated that the formulation of policy is not thesole remit of government but a public responsibility that should involve all stakeholders.Indeed, other government departments have subsequently borrowed from thecollaborations by trying to integrate CSOs and stakeholders in the policy developmentprocess. Lumumba is, however, skeptical about the honesty and motivation of some ofthose efforts and feels that many of them involve CSOs as a means of window dressing.Nonetheless, even the government itself appears eager to trumpet the collaboration withCSOs on the development of a draft land policy as a success as evidenced a publicstatement by the Permanent Secretary in Ministry of Lands alluded to earlier.Like all “marriages” the draft policy development process had a myriad of challengessome of which have already been alluded to. For instance at times the governmentwould indicate that they did not have sufficient funds to continue pursuing the policydevelopment process and CSOs would quickly mobilize development partners to fundthe process.A further challenge was the inadequate political goodwill to address the land issue inKenya, while the NARC government for instance accepted Ndungu report in itsentirety; it has so far been unable to act on it. Indeed, a lesson for KLA has been thatsustaining goodwill on an issue considered sensitive such as land was a big problem.A further challenge faced by KLA and other CSOs in the land formulation process wasthe fact that as soon as NARC came into power it quickly degenerated into factions andit was not even clear which was now the ruling party particularly with the establishmentof the government of national unity. According to Lumumba, formulating a policy witha government without a clear ruling political party and a definite ideology is a majorproblem. Unlike in the UK or USA for instance where the ideological leanings of theLabour and Republican parties are clear, it becomes difficult to anticipate what to expectfrom a policy formulation process in Kenya where political parties do not appear topossess ideological identity.The situation was further compounded by the prevailing sentiments that land was“sensitive issue” providing a convenient excuse for those in both government andamong the development partners who did not wish to deal with it.All in all while the KLA/GoK collaboration was a relationship often hounded by thescepter of mutual suspicion, in the final analysis the two parties were vindicated by thefact that the public could clearly see clearly what they have been battling over and itsimportance. Without a doubt, in Lumumbas view, as much as their collaboration wasnot always amicable, it was never a “marriage of convenience’ since it was sustained bythe need to deliver on a higher goal that of delivering a policy for the public good. The53

collaboration therefore lasted for the sake of the draft policy just like marriages are attimes sustained for the sake of the childrenNevertheless, while the draft land policy is finally out, the actual work for translatingthe policy into law has just stated, there are a litany of laws that deal with land in Kenyawhich would have to be harmonised and consolidated. Concurrently, some of theprovisions in the policy would require a review of the constitution since they areconstitutional in nature. This later aspect is particularly disconcerting given the currentuncertainty on the constitution review process.On the other hand KLA and its members also have to deal with the issue of their ownsustainability to ensure they continue to keep alive the demand for land reforms. WhileKLA has been recognized as an authority on land issues and many organizations turn tothem for information, there has been no concomitant interest in ensuring that theorganization is facilitated to continue carrying out its important responsibilitie4s.Further, the various constituencies affected by land such as women, fisher folk,pastoralists and people with disability remain largely fragmented and without adequatesupport, are unlikely to mature into the powerful land reform movement required totake the campaign to the next level.As Lumumba remarks in one of his trademark analogies; Land or reform is a long termissue yet the opportunities( available to address the same) is through the window not thoroughthe door and the window can easily close and the door is already closed.7. ALL FOR ONE, ONE FOR ALL: CSO COLLABORATIONS WITH THE MINISTRYOF TRADE AT WTO NEGOTIATIONSThe story of CSOs collaboration with the Ministry of Trade at the World TradeOrganization is partly the story of one man’s persistence, as well as the triumph ofpatriotism and commitment to the welfare of poor farmers in Kenya over the endemicsuspicion that has always charachterised CSO/GoK relations. It further, epitomizes theimportance of technical ability in making government governments listen to CSOsOduor Ong’wen who at the time of the interview was working with the Southern andEastern African Trade Information and Negotiations Institute (SEATINI) was right at thecenter of initiating the collaboration between the Kenyan government and NGOs at theWTO. He traces this to 1994 and the end of the Uruguay round of talks when the Actforming the WTO was signed. At the time Ong’wen was working with Econews. Hisfeeling was that the agreement was not good for the country. He visited the Ministry ofTrade to try and get access to the document. He was however, taken back and forth for 3weeks without ever getting access to the document. He was finally referred to theSolicitor Generals office at the AGs Chambers where he was informed all agreementsentered into by the country were kept. He finally got the document but was told hewould only be able to read it if he photocopied it. He ruefully recalls that it was a hugedocument but he went ahead and photocopied it.54

Ong’wen continued to seek engagements with the Ministry of Trade but he was treatedwith a lot of suspicion. He wrote two articles in the Sunday Nation regarding theagreement. The two articles made the Ministry extremely unhappy and they called himto express their unhappiness. The Ministry became extremely hostile. Despite thisOng’wen continued to engage them. Nonetheless, it is not until 1996 at the MinisterialConference in Singapore where the government had sent a delegation and the civilsociety were also represented, that the government finally deigned to recognize theCSOs.At the time, the European Union with the support of the USA were trying to push forthe liberalization of investments, government procurement and the implementation ofcompetitive policies or what was referred to as Trade Facilitation. The Civil Societyorganizations at the conference felt that these proposals were not good for thedeveloping countries and lobbied for African governments not to negotiate these areas.The then Minister for Trade did not want to engage with civil society nonetheless, civilsociety groups managed to convince developing country representatives not to sign theagreement. Before the conference, Ong’wen had written an analysis around the keyissues coming up for discussion in Singapore and submitted the same to the Ministrybut this was ignored. On coming back from the conference and perhaps based on theseminal role played by CSOs in Singapore the Ministry of Trade through the thenPermanent Secretary the late Owuor called Ong’wen. It transpired the Ministry inretrospect felt that perhaps there was merit in the analysis that he had written prior toSingapore.The engagements where, however, still not formal and far reaching but the governmentwas beginning to realize that the civil society had genuine issues based on the interestsof the country and the continent and not merely rabblerousing. Nevertheless, it is notuntil 1998 when the developed countries were negotiating the Multilateral Agreementon Investments (MAI) that the engagements gained momentum. At the time the civilsociety organizations realised that the developing countries would be required to jointhe agreement once it was concluded. They began lobbying against it. CSOs wrote to theKenyan government and asked it not to agree to the agreement. The Ministry of Tradehowever, argued at the time that it was trying to attract investments and could notafford to ignore the agreement. However, the CSOs wrote articles supporting theirposition and the government on studying the articles decided to review its position andopposed the agreement.This was the beginning of sustained GOK/CSO collaborations at the WTO. At about thistime before the Seattle round of talks conference CSOs led by AAK and Econewsorganized a major stakeholders conference in which they invited international speakers.The then Minister for Trade Hon. Nicholas Biwott was invited to open it. From theconference he appreciated that fact that CSOs had so much knowledge on trade issuesand took the practical decision that a number of CSO representatives join thegovernment delegation. That was the beginning of formal CSO/GOK relations at WTO.When the National Steering Committee on WTO was subsequently, established it wasnatural that CSOs be involved and they were indeed engaged in all the Committees of55

the National Steering Committee. From that period the Involvement of CSOs as part ofthe government delegation then became the norm.Action Aid Kenya was one of the CSOs that were included in the governmentdelegation. Just like Ong’wen, Angela of Action Aid avers that ultimately it was theirproven technical competence that persuaded the government to take them on Board.Angela is emphatic that in order for the government to listen to CSOs there is need forthem “Need to show proof that you are technically sound”For Action Aid working with the government at WTO was a strategic move aimed atensuring that the government representation at the trade talks was sensitive to theconcerns of poor framers in Kenya and the impact that decisions made there might haveon their ability to attain food security(right to food) and sustainable livelihoods. It hasbeen part of a process of influencing the legal and policy environment to ensure thatthey take in board the interests of the excluded, poor and marginalized.Action Aid s approach to international level policy engagements looks at internationalpolicies and their effect on the realisation of the rights to food at the household level.Over the years, Action Aid has been part of CSOs initiatives to ensure that thegovernment’s position at the WTO was in tandem with the needs and aspirations of thesmall farmer. As part of this process Action Aid has organized forums bringing togetherfarmers and governments officials to ensure that the government can listen to farmersconcerns. Action Aid was initially concerned that government negotiators at the WTOwho are based in Geneva rarely got the opportunity to come home for briefing and toacquaint themselves with the situation on the ground. This in turn affected their abilityto competently represent pertinent issues affecting particularly Kenyan farmers giventhe centrality of agriculture to the Kenyan economy.Over the years Action Aid has won the confidence of the Ministry of Trade to the extentthat quite frequently they have been called upon to help organize meetings for GOK todevelop statements that are urgently required in Geneva. For instance if the Chair of theCommittee on Agriculture in Geneva issues a statement which countries need torespond to the Ministry of Trade would then talk to AAK to ask them if they have fundsto organize a quick meeting with stakeholders. Many times Action Aid would workwith other CSOs such as Oxfam and Econews in what they refer to as a “Rapid responsemechanism” to raise the necessary resources for such meetings. The meeting would thenbe held and a joint statement is drafted based on agreed issues and a position on thesame is e-mailed on the same day. The Negotiators in Geneva are thus enabled to statethe governments position AAK also facilitates meetings for national and regional publicofficials particularly Parliamentarians. AAK like SEATINI have been active indeveloping policy briefs as a way of influencing the government position on key issues.They also supported MPs to attend key conferences such as the Cancun MinisterialConference in 2002. Action Aid has also been active in conducing researches to informthe government position on trade issues for instance the organization has conducted aresearch on “the impact of sugar surges” on the Kenyan economy.56

Nonetheless, collaborations with government have not been without challenges, indeedat the time of the interview Action Aids which has been participating in the EconomicPartnership Agreement in the Agriculture Cluster under the Aegis of the Ministry ofTrade, has not been invited to the meetings and AAK has subsequently heard frominside sources that this is because it is felt that AAK is too critical. Further, while theexistence of the National Committee on WTO at the Ministry of Trade has reinforced theinvolvement of CSOs in working with the government, the committee is not anchored inthe law and there is a fear by CSOs is that if somebody came along in the Ministry whodid not like the idea of the Committee it could easily be scraped off. CSOs have thereforebeen fighting for the Committee to be established by law.A further concern has been the reluctance by the government to ensure consistency inKenya’s representation at the WTO talks and an apparent inability to have a strategicand long term approach to the negotiations. Both Ong’wen and Angela point to Kenya’sinsistence on subjecting Kenyan negotiators to the requirement that civil servants indiplomatic postings only serve for a specific period of time after which they aresummoned back. This approach has ensured that Kenya consistently loses experiencedand well trained negotiators while the Northern delegations such as the USA and the EUhave ensured that they retained there best personnel over the years. Kenya has thereforebeen put at a considerable disadvantage.Related to the foregoing, has been the low investment in terms of resources to ensurethat Kenya is sufficiently capacitated to provide the best possible representation toKenyans, Angela points to the fact that the government rarely provides funds to bringtrade Negotiators back home for briefings . Further, the Ministry of Trade has not madesufficient provisions for research to inform its position on Trade issues or even to studythe impact of current policies. It is this “any thing goes approach” argues Angela, thathas made CSOs to be particularly aggressive in foregrounding trade issues in theiradvocacy work.The low resource investment has been further compounded by the lack of synergies, andcollaborations as well as poor information flow between different governmentdepartments. Angela for instance states that it is not uncommon for the Ministry ofFinance take a position in its talks with the World Bank that contradicts what theMinistry of Trade is trying to negotiate at WTO.Despite the hiccups however, both SEATINI and Action Aid consider theircollaborations with government to be largely successful. They both point to the collapseof the WTO talks in Seattle as a major success since it pointed to an emerging fromincreased capacity by government delegations making them less susceptible tomanipulation. According to Ong’wen, while the collapse of the Seattle talks has beenascribed to the riots that preceded it, the main reason for the failure of the talks was dueto the fact that CSOs mobilized African Ministers to reject the so called Singapore issues.Generally, AAK and SEATINI see a major dividend from the collaborations as havecreated space for African countries to negotiate due to increased knowledge andnegotiation skills. The South and Eastern African Trade Negotiations Institute57

(SEATINI) for which Ong’wen works for was for instance, created after the Singaporeround of talks and has been instrumental in building the knowledge base of Ministersand public officials in Kenya and other African countries.According to Action Aid, the success of the collaborations between the government andCSOs can further be seen in the fact that debate on trade issues is now in the publicdomain. The media especially is now sufficiently educated to competently write andanalyse trade issues and has been in instrumental in keeping the public` debate alive.Further, due to increased sensitization and capacity building the ParliamentaryCommittee on Agriculture /Trade? has directed that Kenya’s strategy for revitalizing theAgricultural sector which focuses on full liberialisation and is in direct contradiction tothe countries position at the WTO be revised.Ong’wen on the other hand gives an interesting spin to the success of civil society inchanging developing the capacity of public officials on trade issues. Years after thesigning of the WTO treaty in 1994, he gives an anecdote of his meetings with the TradeMinisters of Kenya and Uganda at the time of the signing of the treaty. The Kenyanwho is now an MP related to Ong’wen that in retrospect he realized that at the time heknew nothing about what he was committing the country to and in hindsight wouldhave benefited immensely from the CSO expertise. His Ugandan counterpart at the timemade more or less the same admission stating that at the time he was not sufficientlyaware of the implications of the treaty for Uganda.There is no doubt that collaborations between the Ministry of Trade and CSOs at theWTO have enhanced the representation of the country’s interests on trade issuesinternationally. Nonetheless, it must be noted that considerably more needs to be doneto translate these gains into specific policies and concrete concessions internationally forKenyan farmers and businesses whose livelihoods and wellbeing depend on thenegotiations. To a large extent, this will depend on the ability of both the governmentand CSOs to build on existing strengths and learn from past mistakes. Specifically, itmight be necessary to find a way of formalizing the collaborations as a first step inensuring a more deliberate and strategic approach to the trade negotiations.8. CONSTRUCTIVE ENGAGEMENTS: THE CASE OF PLAN KENYA IN KWALEDISTRICTPlan Kenya stands out as a CSO that has reached an outstanding rapport withGovernment. Salim Mvurya head of the Kwale Development Area believes that thecordial relations they have with government is based on their sober and nonconfrontational approach as well as a credibility borne out of their ability to deliver ontheir commitments. Mvurya considers the Annual Conference between Plan and DistrictCommissioners from all the districts that Plan operates in, as one of the organizationsmost significant successes in its relationship with Government. During the conference,Plan and the Provincial Administration review the state of their collaboration with aview to strengthening the same. It is a mark of Plans favored status in government58

circles that its sits in the District Executive Committee which is the executive arm of theDistrict Development Committee (DDC) a privilege that no other CSO has. Generallyspeaking, Plan is recognized as a major stakeholder by Government Departments in alltheir Districts of operation according to Mvurya.Plan Kenya has been operating in Kenya since 1982. It currently operates in parts of 10Districts in Kenya: Kisumu, Homabay, Bondo, Nairobi, Thika, Machakos, Embu,Tharaka, Kilifi, and Kwale.Plan currently works in 4 Divisions in Kwale District addressing 5 key areas namely:• Health and empowerment• Education-skills training for teachers• Household Economic security- involving Agriculture, Microfinance-• HIV/AIDS• Development of Civil society-capacity building, child protectionsPlan works with local Community Based Organizations (CBOs) to develop activities atcommunity level. Presently Plan has collaborations with 14 CBOs in Kwale District.Mvurya describes Plan as a Child centered organization working with government andthe community.The organization recognizes the need for partnerships and networking and thusfacilitates participation by communities in its programmes. As part of this strategy, Planworks to support community institutions/groups. In doing the foregoing, Plan isalways on the lookout for opportunities for scaling up good practices.Plan promotes partnerships and networking and builds alliances locally, nationally andinternationally. Plan’s work with the Government unlike many CSO’s, is anchored in aCountry Agreement signed in 1982 when Plan first came to Kenya. The CountryAgreement provides a frame work for the collaborations and defines what Plan and theGOK are going to do respectively. Additionally, Plan has endevoured to enter intoindividual Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) with Government Departments atlocal level. However, Mvurya is the first to admit that there has been minimal success onthis front since typically, most Departments /Ministries at District level argue that theydo not have the capacity to enter into such agreements since this is the prerogative oftheir respective Permanent Secretaries. Initially, Plan was able to enter into a number ofMOUs with some GoK Departments but was unable to renew these because of theforegoing reasons.Why work with government?When asked on why Plan works with Government. Mvurya articulates with confidencethe reasons for the partnership. He observes that it is not the mandate of Plan to providehealth or education, but rather the responsibility of the Government. By this very fact,Plan can not seek to improve the delivery of basic services without involving theGovernment. Further, Plan can only come in to supplement the Government’s efforts.59

He further observes that while CSOs such as Plan might work in a District for certainduration, Government is there to stay and working with it ensures sustainability ofPlan’s projects. Additionally, Plan recognizes the comparative advantages that both Planand the Government bring to the collaboration with the former contributing additionalfunds while the Government brings technical expertise.Patrick Gitau the Kwale District Children’s Officer concurs with Mvurya and observesthat “some NGOs and even some Government Departments believe we are competitors (NGOsand government) but it is the government with mandate it is the one with the responsibility (todeliver services) this is not Plan’s or any NGOs responsibility”.AchievementsMvurya sees the Annual conference with all the DCs in areas that Plan works as a majorsuccess in its work with the Government. The Annual event enables Plan and GoK toprovide feedback and review their status of their partnership. The fact that thePermanent Secretary in the Office of the President in charge of Internal Security isalways represented at the Conference, has served to give a high profile to the event. Asa result of Plans high level interactions with the GoK, Plan has had the unprecedenteddistinction of being made a member of the District Executive Committee(DEC) in all itsDistricts of operation. DEC is a technical committee of the District DevelopmentCommittee (DDC). Plan also seats on a myriad other GoK committees. Furthermore,Plan has been generally recognized at District and National level as a key stakeholder bythe government.Due to Plans strategic partnerships with CBOs, Mvurya avers that there has been anincreased awareness by communities on services offered by the Government and thishas also led to local communities making demands for improvements in the quality ofservices delivered. CBOs have also been integrated at the Sub DDC level thus enablingthem to participate in local development planning.Generally, due to Plan’s work with the GoK, service delivery has improved. Mvuryapoints out to the increased immunization coverage in Kwale District as a key dividendfrom their collaborations. Other areas include disseminating the Children’s Act 2001 tothe village level; training of Health Center Staff; and equipping of schools and HealthCenters. Plan has also renovated Health Centers and constructed Schools alongsidetraining of School Management Committees.The District Medical Officer confirms Mvurya’s observations by admitting that a keydividend accruing from Plans collaborations with government has been the improvedservice delivery of health services and enhanced outreach to outlying areas in KwaleDistrict. The District Health Office further confirms that due to Plans rehabilitation andequipping of health clinics, members of the public can now access improved and qualityhealth services in the district.The Children’s Department is one of the few Government Departments that has legalbacking for its work with the CSOs. This is provided for under section 31(1) of the60

Children’s Act 2001. The Act expressly provides for participation by NGOs in theNational Council for Children’s Services. Through its collaborations with Plan, theChildren’s Department has been able to train all the officers in the local Police Stations,trained Volunteer Children’s Officers(VCOs) as well as Teachers. . A Key factor in thesuccess of Plans work with the Children’s Office has been the relative openness withwhich they have approached their relationship through sharing of work plans andbudgets. Gitau per harp’s best epitomizes the buoyant outlook on the collaborationsbetween Plan and the Children’s Office when he remarks that for him “Plan is like theChildren’s Office”According to Gitau, Plan’s support to the Children’s Department has ensured that publicawareness on Child rights had reached an unprecedented high (as evidenced by theincrease in reported cases of rights violations). Further, as a direct result of thepartnership between Plan and the Children’s Department, two (2) police stations in thedistrict had established Children’s Desks. Gitau is emphatic that with only two staff, theChildren’s Office would never have reached the current high level of success. He pointsto the fact that all key stakeholders including teachers and the Provincial Administrationhad been reached through the Plan/Children’s Department partnership and is clearlyoptimistic that the collaborations can only bode well for the future.Indeed according to Gitau, without Plan’s Support, the Children’s Office would neverhave enjoyed the wide outreach it currently has particularly as the Office only has twostaffers. Nonetheless, with Plans support, the Children’s Office has been able to sensitizelocal communities to the extent that at some stage wananchi were more aware on ChildRights issues than the local Police who were consequently unable to respond effectivelyto the increasing number of complaints brought to them by the people. This promptedPlan and the Children’s Office to organize training for the Police as well as theProvincial AdministrationFor MOH Kwale District, the partnership between Plan and the Ministry of Health inKwale has been most opportune. He observes that the Ministry of Health (MoH) doesnot have adequate resources on its own to deliver adequately on health services. As suchPlan has been very useful in supplementing the efforts of the Government. He notes thatthe partnership with Plan has been based on a mutual exchange where the GoKprovides technical capacity (and advice on which areas it needs support) through itsstaff while Plan provides the funds.. As a result, the District has been able to train a poolof VCT Counselors and Prevention of Mother to Child Treatment (PMTCT) serviceproviders. Further, Plan has assisted in equipping and renovating Dispensaries. Inkeeping with the MoHs pool system for drug storage and distribution, Plan provides theMoH with drugs which it then distributes to the Dispensaries and Health Centres basedon need.Asked whether Plans seemingly “favoured” status and good relations with governmentwas due to Plan being a large international NGO , Mvurya is emphatic that Plan’scredibility ( because they deliver) and strategy were the contributing factors. He,however, admits that the government has tended to be more comfortable with Planbecause of the organization’s apolitical and non confrontational approach which the61

government sees as none threatening. According to Mvurya, Plan sees its role asproviding information to the communities to peacefully engage Government and notprovoking them to agitate against authority.Lessons learnt and recommendationsAsked about the lessons that they have drawn from their partnership, Plan and its GOKcollaborators note that initially there was suspicion engendered by the historicalmistrust between CSOs and Government in Kenya, but as they became more open witheach other through sharing of work plans and budgets, the suspicion began to ease off.The District Medical Officer confirms this stating that sharing of work plans has ensuredmore efficiency and effectiveness in the delivery of health services.Subsequently, a key lesson that they have all learnt is that GOK and NGOs basicallyhave the same objectives and serve the same people. Many times NGOs have the moneyand resources but lack the expertise while GOK has the technical ability and the staff butcan not adequately implement due to insufficient funds. On the other hand Plan as anNGO recognizes that the Government has the mandate to pursue the development of itspeople and that it (GoKs) is primarily responsible for formulating and implementingpolicies towards this end. It is therefore imperative that Plan seeks to be integrated inthis process rather than try to pursue a parallel agenda.A further, lesson that Plan and its GoK partners have learnt is the importance ofconstant communication to explain positions and clarify any emerging issues that mightcause conflict. Gitau of the Children’s Office for instance indicates that it is importantthat CSOs and GoK agree upfront on how they are going to share credits and ownershipof projects as a means of ensuring win-win situations and guarding against situationswhere one party might feel it is being exploited.An additional area of consensus is the need to have a GOK/CSO forum to ensurecoordination and avoid duplication. The District Medical Officer is particularlyemphatic on the foregoing matter arguing that it is important that NGOs entering aDistrict to provide Health services consult the MOH for guidance to avoid duplicationand wastage of resources. He is also feels that there should be forums at district levelbased on the sector wide approach to assist in addressing emerging problems inGoK/CSO partnerships.Government Officers interviewed in the district admitted that NGOs because of their flatmanagement structure ensured swift processes and contributed to faster delivery ofservices. NGOs were also better placed to make quick management decisions since thereofficers enjoyed greater flexibility and could easily consult with their head offices unlikethe government. This advantages they argued, could be exploited for more efficient andeffective delivery of services at District level.62

Government Officials nonetheless, also expressed their concern that CSOs tended tohave preconceived attitudes towards government thereby impinging on successfulcollaborations.ChallengesAccording to Mvurya a major challenge in CSO/GoK collaborations is understandingGOK policies and systems. These coupled with the fact that CSOs and GoK tend to havedifferent policies and financial years are challenges that collaborators need to deal within order to ensure successful collaborations.In the case of Plan, years of collaborations have enabled them to understand keygovernment policies that have implications for their work together. On the part of theGoK, Gitau of the Children’s Office also admits that his office has had to come to termswith the different approaches and policies of CSOs (such as Plan) in order to ensuresmooth implementation of joint projects. For instance he observes that Plans financialcycle is different from government and that initially, his department had problems sincethey tended to follow the GoK financial year when seeking or reporting on support fromPlan a factor that created confusion. He however avers that once there is mutualunderstanding of each others systems and procedures, GoK/CSO collaborations are ableto proceed with relative ease.For Plan the GOK's hierarchical approach and lack of flexibility has tended to stifleefficiency in decision making. Mvurya observes that at times competent GoK staff isrendered ineffective by cumbersome GoK procedures and lack of space to perform theirduties. He is particularly concerned that junior offices rarely have the opportunity tocontribute to decision making and are expected to obey orders without questions.For GoK representatives on the other hand, there was the concern that CSOs tended tolack consistency in their stated programme areas since these kept on changing based onperceived availability of funding. According to Gitau, some NGOs would one day befound engaged in working with the Girl Child but next time you interact with them youfind they have “moved on to something else”( because there was available funding for thenew activity).According to the District Medical Officer, the tendency by NGOs to chose healthinterventions that failed to address local health priorities was an issue that neededaddressing. For the DMO this often happened because such NGOs failed to hold priorconsultation with his office before designing their programmes. Once they had beenfunded it became very difficult to review their activities since the funds they got wereoften designated.According, to Gitau, the reluctance by NGOs to consult the Government beforeembarking on interventions at District level had more to do with their reluctance to betransparent about their operations. They therefore tended to be very economical withthe information they provided on their programmes and only went to Governmentoffices when their donors required it.63

There are NGOs who would never share plans, you ask them what do you have before I ask(for support), they say just ask—you don’t know what to ask.Patrick Gitau, District Children’s Officer , KwaleSalim Mvurya however, considers the demand by government officers for per diemsand facilitation allowances whenever they worked with NGOs as one of the majordownsides in CSO/GoK collaborations. He observes that at times some governmentofficials tended to behave as if they were the ones helping the NGOs to providecommunities with services and not the other way round. Indeed, Mvurya interprets thesituation in terms of Government officials asking to be paid by NGOs to perform theirduties. Due to the increasing emphasis on these allowances, some CSOs and even UNagencies had come to accept them as the order of the day and even proceed to enticeGovernment officers through superior allowances to ensure their projects wereimplemented on time. He narrates an instance where Plan was unable to get GoK staffto support some programme activities for a period of three months because the relevantGoK staff were involved in the Tianomin saga (with an International Aid Agency) whichapparently was apparently more lucrative. Plan was forced to postpone its activities.9. COMMUNITY RESEARCH IN ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENTINITIATIVES (CREADIS): A CASE STUDY OF GOVERNMENT NGOCOLLABORATIONCommunity Research in Environment and Development Initiatives (CREADIS) is anNGO registered by the NGO Coordination Board in 2000. CREADIS aims atempowering communities by building their capacities in key areas to enable thembecome self-reliant and drive their own development process. Special attention is givento women, the vulnerable and disadvantaged groups. CREADIS works with over 30groups in eight divisions of Bungoma district The Organization has adopted anapproach that integrates various sectors to enable it contribute effectively in addressingthe challenges facing the people and enable realization of holistic development for thepeople of the region.CREADIS has proactively gone out to seek collaboration and partnerships withdevelopment actors including the government. It enjoys a lot of goodwill with manyactors in the district and beyond. This case study tries to document these partnerships.64

Existing collaboration with governmental agenciesMinistry of AgricultureMinistry personnel are involved in training of common interest farmer groups,facilitation in farmers’ field schools, as well as participating in monitoring andevaluation of projects. CREADIS has taken advantage of the long-term experiencewithin the government sector in dealing with farmers. This collaboration runs from thedistrict all through to the sub-locational level.Ministry of HealthThrough the HIV/AIDS project funded by NACC, CREADIS has collaborated with theMinistry of Health. The personnel have provided technical expertise in planning,implementation, monitoring and evaluation of activities in the HIV/AIDS activities.Ministry of sports, gender, culture and social services.Staff from this department are well distributed in the rural areas and work closely withCREADIS. They are involved in project identification, training and mobilization ofcommunity groups as well as monitoring and evaluation of activities. Communitygroups that we work with are also registered with this Ministry. Staff have beeninvolved in Group leadership and Dynamics trainings as well as Gender discussionforums. Currently, CREADIS is expecting a grant from the government through theNational Food Security Program.Office of the PresidentCREADIS has strong collaboration with local administrators from the district to thevillage level. Chiefs, assistant chiefs, and village elders participate are involved incommunity mobilization and creation of awareness through public forums. Therecounsel is sought in identification of activities to implement.Ministry of Planning and National DevelopmentThe office of the District Development Officer has been very instrumental in providingnational and district level information / data about. The department hosts the districtinformation and documentation center. Information on other actors in the district is alsoavailable here. The department also hosts and organizes collaborative meetings betweendifferent development actors in the district.Ministry of Environment, Natural Resources and WildlifeCREADIS has collaborated with this ministry on environmental issues of mutualconcern. Collaboration has taken the form of development of joint proposals andthrough information and communication material sharing.65

Children’s’ departmentThe department is very instrumental in clarifying policies and advising on children’sissues. CREADIS attends the area advisory committee meetings organised by thedepartment to coordinate children affairs. The department has been useful in ourprogramme dealing with OVCs.Kenya Agriculture Research Institute (KARI)Joint programmes are drawn with KARI for dissemination of new and superiortechnologies to farmers. They have also availed funding to CREADIS through theAgriculture Technology and Information Response Initiative (ATIRI), and theAgricultural Research Fund.National Environment Management Authority (NEMA)NEMA has facilitated CREADIS staff attend trainings and workshops on environmentalmanagement policies and issues. This has greatly assisted us planning and design ofenvironmental projects.National Aids Control Council (NACC)The council has provided funds for the HIV/AIDS prevention and home based careproject, which covers Sirisia constituency of Bungoma district.Change of attitudeFor a long time there has been mutual suspicion between the government and CSOs.CSOs have always had the perception that government is corrupt and that it is out tocontrol the work of the CSOs. The government on its part has been talking aboutduplication of development activities and the lack of local accountability of on the partof CSOs.There is however a big change in orientation on the part government and many officersare friendly and are now keen to collaborate with respectable CSOs. Performancecontracts that government officers are required to sign monitor how effectively they seekthese collaborations. Government staff have also realized that in order for them toachieve their targets, it is imperative for them to collaborateThe majority of government staff want to be associated with NGOs in order to increase their ownprofile and get something to write in their reports – Ms Gladys Simiyu – CEO CREADISThere is also need for the civil society organizations to change attitude, CSOs should beproactive in working with various networks, where they can interact with thegovernment. Through these meetings they will get to know of resources available at thegovernment level. Meetings organized by government are important forums to marketyourself to various stakeholders and convince them that you are working and theimpact of your work can be seen. NGOs should strive for collaboration and not bedependency.66

CSOs need also to be proactive and seek strategic partnerships with governmentagencies that are relevant to their work to enable them gain from government resourcesand further their missions. You need to engage the government, lobby for participationin the various processes that influence policy ‘’ Mr. Onesmus-----PATNET CEONature of CollaborationThere are several ways that collaboration is enhanced within the districtInformation sharingA major role of government departments is to collect data. These roles have beenperformed fairly well and many CSO organisations have confidence in the informationcollected by various departments. Government departments also see CSOs as goodsource of information from the grassroots and information contained in CSOs reportshas gone into the departmental reports and preparation of district development plans.District Development Committee:The District Development committee is meant to coordinate development activities inthe district. District focus for Rural Development policy envisions the Districtdevelopment committees as the main forum for collaboration and developmentcoordination within the district.The procedure in the district is for any CSO intending to initiate activities to passthrough the DDC. During the DDC meeting the CSO make presentations of proposedprogrammes, proposed approaches and locations. The DDC will then consider thepresentation and in many instances the CSO is advised to initiate activities in locationswhere there are no other players. This has worked fairly well, but you find that theDDC has no mechanisms of enforcing the compliance of its decision and y some NGOsdo not comply.The recent reality is not encouraging however. The DDC in Bungoma district is not wellcoordinated, its efforts are scattered, the agenda is set by the government (the DC andthe DDO only), meetings are not regular, are called at the last minute and in manyinstances they cancelled. Generally the DDC do not provide that vital drive andenvisioned leadership that is expected e.g. they have not brought to fore themanagement of CDFs to the agenda of the DDC. Most of the decisions of the DDC arealso not binding due to poor legislation, and are therefore flouted.Since NARC took over, MPs have killed the DDC since they have insisted that they must bepresent if the meeting has to take place. Many meetings have been postponed and even thoughthe requirement of their attendance has now been removed, this has diminished the morale.Onesmus Mwangale CEO PATNETGovernment contracting and fundingIn Bungoma District various government agencies do fund activities of CSOs as well ascontracting others to carry out certain activities on their behalf.67

CREADIS has benefited from various funding streams from government. This year theyhave received KES 2 million from the ministry of Agriculture to support groups that areinvolved in promoting agriculture as a business. Other agencies that have fundedCREADIS include Kenya Agricultural Research Institute (KARI) and the National AidsCouncil.PATNET another NGO found in Bungoma has enjoyed good collaboration withgovernment departments. It has received the following contracts:-• Ministry of agriculture has contracted PATNET to train its staff in proposalwriting, performance contracts as well as Monitoring and evaluation.• PATNET was commissioned by the Ministry of Planning and NationalDevelopment to train CDF committees in project planning, monitoring andevaluation.• PATNET has also been contracted by several ministries to train staff in managingcommunity initiatives, formulation of Work plans, procurement proceduresSpecific sector networksSeveral sector specific networks exist and are important forums for enhancingcollaboration. These networks are usually called by government departments or leadNGOs in the district. These forums include Constituency Aids control committees,National Agriculture and Livestock Extension Programme stakeholders forum, Areaadvisory committees meetings and District environment committee among others.Benefits from CollaborationAccess to informationThe government of Kenya carries out very many surveys and through its elaborateservice delivery structures and mechanisms a lot of information is collected. Thisinformation is analyzed and compiled into reports and is usually available to CSOs onrequest. Most of this information is used by CSOs as baseline information and is alsovery pertinent in planning and evaluation of their programmes. Information from theMinistry of agriculture, Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Planning and NationalDevelopment have particularly been invaluable.Duplication of effortsThrough working with government, CSOs efforts have seen increased coordination andthis has to some degree reduced duplication of efforts. The sector specific networkshave particularly improved coordination. The specific departments do keep andprovide information to CSOs on ongoing development efforts. This has also ensuredthat there is increased coverage in terms of the area and number of people in the district.The coordination efforts have ensured that organizations are not working in the samecommunities. In the past organisations used to work in locations around Bungomatown only, but now many are to be found working in outlaying areas68

Clarification of Government PolicyCollaboration with various arms of government has resulted in clarity of governmentpolicy. Various forums are used by government to explain government policies andplans. In these forums CSOs and other stake holder ask questions and query therationale of various policies and plans. This has ensured that CSOs work withingovernment policy framework.Harmonized planning at the community levelCertain collaboration with government has brought increased harmonization ofplanning. The National Agricultural and Livestock Extension Programme hasencouraged stakeholders to come together with communities and make joint actionplans. In this case the interests of all stakeholders are put into account and the efforts ofthe community are well focused. This has also reduced the incidences when many CSOswere going to the community with the same kind of message, sometime presenting it ina conflicting manner. In this way a lot more is achieved at the community level than itwould be if each organization/government department tried to support the communityon its own.Increased Resources from GovernmentDue to collaboration and partnership with government, numerous resources havebecome available to CREADIS and its partners. These include:-• Several of our partners have been linked to the Heifer International – aninternational NGO, which has assisted the groups to initiate dairy goat-keepingprojects.• CREADIS has received funds from NACC to support its home based care projectin Sirisia Division of Bungoma District. Through such collaboration CREADIShas accessed funds from Agricultural Technology and Information ResponseInitiative (ATIRI) and has also been linked to CIDA and the EU to work ondecentralized funds to steer this as a pilot project. CREADIS is now undertakinga consultancy with the Western Region Water Services Board. In additiongovernment has acted as referees for CSOs seeking donor funding.• CREADIS finds a source of ‘cheap’ technical expertise in government. It hasdone very well in tapping this resource and most its activities are carried outjointly with the ministry personnel. Government personnel are paid a smallallowance when they are out in the field or conducting residential training. E.g.the Ministry of Health has deployed numerous medical staff in HIV/Aidsprojects and training activitiesChallenges and Constraints in working with Government1. Most NGO do not include collaboration and partnership costs in their budget andwhat are finally approved budgets have to be spent as agreed with donors. This hasreduced the flexibility that NGOs have on issues of partnerships and collaborationand has tended to make the government feel that NGOs are not very helpful. In69

addition this has been exacerbated by the fact that many NGOs are not transparenton their budgets and this has tended to bring lack of trust and sometimes conflict.2. Lack of joint planning is another major constraint. In the district you find that CSOsconduct planning on their own and government does the same. This has madecollaboration difficult. CSOs end up getting short notice requests which are difficultto fulfill to due to the strict budgets.3. Although the spirit of mistrust has reduced considerably there is still fear that ifgovernment department works closely with CSOs, of government departments fearbeing exposed, if things are not working well.4. Lack of a harmonized policy on collaboration within the government serves also as aconstraint. Various departments adopt different modes of collaboration and thismakes it difficult for the CSOs to collaborate meaningfully with a wide array ofdepartments. Many government officers are also ill equipped and prepared tocollaborate with CSOs.5. Government bureaucracy has also been a set back in collaboration. If a senior officeris not in the office then issues are postponed until they are back to the office.Secondly many queries on policy issues are referred back to Permanent Secretary.6. Even though the government has experienced and staff with a lot of expertise theyare sometimes very unreliable and will expect too much from the NGO’s in return.In monetary terms.7. Government staff at the district level lacks expertise in some areas. For example for along time there have been top down implementation of policy. Consultationmechanisms have been improving but there is a lot of improvement needed.Bungoma development consortium –In the past the CSOs in Bungoma district formed a consortium to coordinate, harmonizetheir activities and ensure a strong voice for the sector. This was then seen as astructured way of engaging the government and lobbying for increased support andcollaboration with the government.However this initiative soon lapsed into inactivity due to the following reasons:-• The initiative was started hurriedly by one INGO. The INGO dictated theagenda of the forum and it supported the initiative as long as they had work inthe district.• Many other INGOs did not support since they could not have a say indetermining the agenda of the consortium.• Most CSOs who came for the meetings were small CSO and CBOs withexpectation of getting funding from the consortium. When this was notforthcoming they dropped out70

• The process of initiating this consortium did not consider institutionalization andsustainability issues especially funding a secretariat and activities organised bythe consortium.The lapse in this consortium has resulted in poor representation of CSOs in governmentforums. When important forums are called, the heads of departments chose CSOrepresentatives in an ad hoc and arbitrary manner and sometimes they missed outaltogether.Ways to improve collaborationVarious ways were cited on how to improve the collaboration. These includes:-• For CSOs to collaborate effectively with government, the Bungoma Districtconsortium needs to be revived. The CSOs need to be clear on who should be inthe consortium and why they are coming together. They should also bring in therequired commitment both financially and in terms of accountability - what theyare contributing to the sector.• The DDC should be professionalized, made leaner and have equal representationfrom the all the sectors. At the moment the government is over represented. Alaw should be passed in parliament to ensure that deliberations are supported bylegislation.• A community fund should be instituted where CSO can get direct funding andbe contracted by government. Management of this fund should be inpartnership between government, civil society and the private sector. Thefundraising should also mobilise resources from the private sector as well asfrom Bilateral.• Government should also come up with a proper policy paper on how tocollaborate with the CSOs. There is need to have a firm policy and a professionalcoordinating unit at the district to enhance coordination and consolidateactivities of NGOs at the district level. Government Staff capacity to managethese collaborations should also be enhanced.• The government should bring the actors together where they would have adistrict master (strategic) plan so that resources would be mobilise and thiswould enable many partners to have relevant contribution.10. PROVIDING A FIRM FOUNDATION: HOMA HILLS COMMUNITY DEVELOP-MENT PROGRAMMES COLLABORATIONS WITH THE GOVERNMENT ONEARLY CHILD HOOD EDUCATIONHoma Hills Community Development Programme (HHCDO) is a child centered NGOsituated on the shores of Lake Victoria in Rachuonyo District. The organization was71

initially established as an Agricultural center by the Norwegian Save the Children (ReddBanna) in 1980 before being transformed into a community development programme.When Redd Banna phased out the programme was handed over to a local Board whichcurrently manages the organization. HHCDO stands out as one of the few NGOs whichcan truly claim to be community based being located in a relatively remote rurallocation.As a child focused organization one of HHCDO's immediate concerns was the lowschool enrollment in West Karachuonyo where it is located as well as the poor quality ofeducation facilities and inadequate trained teachers. Perhaps of more concern to theorganization was the fact that Early Child Hood Education (ECD) was almost noneexistent. In the very few instances where some form of ECD was provided it wasgenerally considered as non specialist and managed by untrained teachers.According to Stephen Sunguti the Sponsorship Officer at HHCDO, the organizationapproached the government who indicated they lacked sufficient resources to fullysupport ECD in the area. HHCDO offered to sponsor local community members to betrained as teachers. Initially, and interestingly, to ensure retention of those trained, theorganization targeted women who were married in the area since they believed thesewere most unlikely to move away. The government on its part ensured thatopportunities were made available at government institutions for the Teachers to betrained. The government further mobilized community members to understand theimportance of ECD and the need for them to pay for their children to attend Pre School.Initially, however, the programme faced a big challenge since the Primary Schoolswhere most ECD centers were located, did not prioritize Pre School and tended toisolate the schools and their teachers. Homa Hills came in to provide physical facilitiesand at the same time started working with the Head Teachers to sensitize them with aview to mainstreaming the ECD centers in their schools. Concurrently, HHCDOmobilized local communities to provide support to the pre schools.AchievementsStephen Sunguti is proud of what HHCDO has been able to achieve over the years.Enrollment in the ECD centers is at an all time high and community members are nowsold on the need to provide ECED for their children. He points to the fact thatcommunity members currently come to the schools to prepare porridge to the childrenon a voluntary basis as a major plus for the programme.Every year, HHCDO has continued to hold workshops with trainers drawn from thegovernment to develop training materials using local available resources. Further, fromthe initial certificate training, a significant number of teachers have now moved up toDiploma level. While initially, only a few Primary schools had pre-schools, currently allthe Primary schools in Kanam A and B locations where most HHCDO activities areconcentrated, have pre-schools and the ECD teachers are now seen as part parcel of theschool fraternity. Interestingly, the HHCDO’s support to the ECD centers has been sosuccessful to the extent that the Pre-schools are now better equipped than the Primary72

Schools and Sunguti notes that children leaving pre school to enter the Primary Schoolshave had to face some adjustments.ChallengesThe programme has however, not been without its challenges. The low wage packageoffered to ECD teachers has made retaining them difficult. This has been exacerbated bythe fact that in some instances even the little pay they get is delayed due to late paymentof fees by Parents. The government on the other hand continues to provide onlyminimal support to ECD activitiesSunguti observes that in the whole of Rachuonyo district there are only threeGovernment staffers at the District Early Childhood Education Center (DECECE). Thismakes supervision and technical support especially challenging and has affected thequality of education offered in the ECD centers. He also notes that the Government hastended to offer little in the way of support in localities where NGOs such as HHCDOexist assuming that they (NGOs) will take up the responsibility of providing services.Lessons LearntHHCDO has over the years learnt that in order to work effectively with the GoK, it isimportant to share information and agree beforehand on mutual roles andresponsibilities. Otherwise according to Sunguti, there is a tendency for Government tooverload NGOs with responsibilities. Additionally, it is critical to understandgovernment policies and planning modalities. He notes for instance that initiallyHHCDO had difficulties in implementing projects with GoK because it did notunderstand the importance of the Governments financial year in determining financingof projects and therefore implementation.Why Work With Government?Homa Hills has deliberately set out to work with the Government because it believesthis is important for the sustainability of the projects it implements with localcommunities. HHCDO sees GoK as a key stakeholder in the development process andfeels it can not be left out of any development activities.Ultimately, Sunguti says, HHCDO sees the primary responsibility of providing basicservices to the communities as the Government’s. HHCDO therefore works towardssensitizing communities on existing services offered by government as well asopportunities for improving the quality of services it offers.73