Deconstructing walls: Identifying the devolution financial portholes from camp to integrated settlement under the Shirika plan

By Esther-Blessing Nasimiyu*

Introduction

Picture a campsite. The said camp is not the idyllic one you envisioned while crafting your bucket list and filling out the 'list of activities' section at the start of the year. Rather, I would like to draw your attention towards the sites in Kakuma and Dadaab, Kenya's refugee settlements.^[i] One major factor in a camp setup is its temporary structural design. However, the word 'temporary' is quite elusive where refugees and asylum seekers are concerned and, by nature or human design, deliberately so. This is largely due to unresolved conflicts that forced them to flee and emerging calamities that inhibit them from reclaiming their original residences.^[ii]

On 17 December 2018, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution following the affirmation of the Global Compact on Refugees (GCR).^[iii] The resolution reiterated the state's primary responsibility in ensuring refugee protection which could only be achieved through three founding factors: the state's action, full and effective cooperation and political resolve.^[iv]

Therefore, by delving into Kenya's refugee sector, this blog acknowledges the Shirika milestone. Secondly, the blog's focus zones in on the fiscal and functional concerns between the national government and Garissa and Turkana county governments. Thirdly, this paper highlights remarks by both the host community and refugee population on the government's capacity in its objective to paint a clear picture prior to the anticipated shift. The paper's conclusion will be a reiteration of recommendations.

The Shirika Plan

Kenya's Socio-Economic Hub for Integrated Refugee Inclusion, abbreviated to the 'Shirika plan', was articulated in February 2022 and is a marked response in line with the Global Compact on Refugees.^[v]Shirika is a Kiswahili term that can be translated to 'coming together'. It is worth noting that both definitions set the stage for one grand proposal; integration and inclusion. The multi-year plan, set to be rolled out in November 2024, will be characterised by the implementation of the Refugee Act, 2022. Secondly, the plan spearheads the transition from encampment to integrated settlement and lastly, the anticipated shift of the requisite obligations from humanitarian actors to national and county government.^[vi] For purposes of this discussion, the primary focus will be on the third characteristic.

The paradigm shift from encampment to integrated settlement has been lauded for its visionary tenet and accorded for being nothing short of trailblazing.^[vii] The plan's success will guarantee the adoption of Kenya's multifaceted template in refugee protection worldwide.^[viii] Notable reasons in support of the plan are: one, lessening reliance on humanitarian actors with regards to service provision; and two, enhancing self-reliance for refugees and expanding Kenya's economy.^[ix]

At this juncture, it is vital to analyse a looming concern over the service delivery of water, health and education in reiterating the role of the levels of government in refugee protection.

Devolution financial concerns and the planned integration of refugees

The relationship between the national and county governments is expressed financially, through allocation of funds vide the Consolidated fund, and functionally. Inasmuch as refugee protection is the domain of the national government under the auspices of the Department of Refugee Services, both the national and county governments of Garissa and Turkana have a stake in the devolved functions in water, health and education.^[x] Therefore, the need to clearly delineate, unbundle and cost the bare component of functions of the deserving level of government becomes an essential factor in ridding the gaps that may arise from the anticipated shift.^[xi] This is because the replication of the current functional division to the refugee population is to be expected as a matter of course.

Central to the discussion of resource provision and allocation, is the question of funding. This paper's focus is centred on transfers from the national government as county governments' revenue source to the exclusion of other sources.

In the last fiscal year 2023/2024, the national funds transfer to the county governments of Turkana and Garissa in line with equitable share was KES 14.56 billion, with KES 10.108 billion for recurrent expenditure and KES 4.45 billion for development expenditure, and KES 7.194 billion, with KES 5.262 for recurrent expenditure and KES 1.93 billion in development expenditure, respectively.^[xii] The estimated budget for the financial year had been KES 17.22 billion and KES 10.7 billion for Turkana and Garissa counties respectively hence the resultant budget deficits were KES 2.662 billion and KES 3.50 billion respectively.

Conclusively, the county budget deficits pose a challenge in the integration of 289,861 and 383,048 refugees and asylum seekers into the populations of Turkana and Garissa counties respectively if the same is to be repeated in the current fiscal year.^[xiii] Therefore, the author emphasises the need to factor in the refugee population where equitable sharing of national revenue is concerned by virtue of the protection requirement.^[xiv] Article 203(a), (f) and (h) of the Constitution can be construed, in refugee protection terms, as factors that ought to be taken into consideration in terms of national interest as propounded by the Global Compact on Refugees, the vulnerability of the refugee population and the needs of the host counties when determining the equitable share.

The direct correlation between funds and service provision under the Shirika plan is exemplified in the context of pre-primary education which is the reserve of the county governments. The population of refugees within the age bracket of 0 and 11 stands at 276,488 children countrywide with Dadaab hosting a total of 152,604 children whereas Kakuma hosts 104,611 children.^[xv] Therefore, the responsibility of pre-primary education falls squarely on the relevant county governments to ensure quality education for each of these children as of November 2024. Thus, the failure of the latter to perform their mandate becomes hazardous to the realisation of the right to education to tens of thousands of children.

This example emphasises the need for proper, adequate and timely funding by the state in enhancing access to services. Further, the gap created presupposes a cross cutting reliance on humanitarian assistance, as a result of deficit due to budget cuts, which defeats the original purpose of the plan to reduce reliance on humanitarian aid.^[xvi] The possible conclusion is that as opposed to decreasing reliance, the state will be forced to receive donations and funding in trust for the refugee population. In addition, the creeping danger of austerity measures and other caveats imposed by donors becomes a foreseeable challenge if the latter course of action is taken by the State in remedying the lack of funds for provision of services.^[xvii]

To solve this anticipated challenge, the author urges the government to refrain from budget cuts where the host counties are involved, to increase funding to the host counties due to the evolving factors for consideration in the equitable share and to take the necessary measures in preventing delays in transfer of funds.

Insights from the refugee community and the host population on the government's capacity for service provision

Despite widespread acclamation, the vitality of both host community and refugee population feedback to the integration question cannot be deemphasised. The magnitude of criticism is downplayed by various factors including the lack of awareness creation strategies, the relegation of community members to the latter stages of the plan and subsequent exclusion from its inception, the lack of an integration roadmap and a comprehensive risk awareness plan.^[xviii]

In July 2024, I had an opportunity to interact with refugees as well as members of the host community in Kakuma and Kalobeyei Settlement while collating data for a study dubbed the 'Inclusive refugee response programme' under the auspices of the Danish Embassy. The ten interviewees (names withheld) we met in Kakuma voiced that the anticipated integration of refugees was largely welcomed due to the fostered interactions and relations. However, they remarked that provision of services by the county government was largely insufficient to cater for the host population as at August 2024 who oft times sought to share resources with the refugees.^[xix] This is a clear indication of the limited resources that the government is urged to address. The lack of trained personnel, insufficient equipment, and infrastructure largely due to underdevelopment were some of the mentioned challenges in the course of the interview.^[xx]

Conclusion

In sum, the Shirika plan is notable for its pursuit of deconstructing camp walls. By bringing the provisional needs of the refugee population under the ambit of the Kenyan government, the move goes beyond fostering a sense of cohesion and complying with international obligations. However, keen interest has to be paid to Kenya's devolved functions and the dynamics between national and host county governments where national transfer of funds is concerned to ensure that the refugee population is catered for in the equitable allocation of funds and subsequent service delivery in galvanising refugee protection.

* The author is an LLB Candidate, the Editor in charge of Peer Review for the Kabarak Law Review and the Student Commissioner for the African Society of International Law.

[i] Kakuma and Dadaab host a refugee population of 289,861 and 383,048 respectively and have been gazetted as municipalities under the auspices of the Shirika plan. See, United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, 'Statistical summary as of June 2024' -<[ii] Aderanti Adepoju, Migration dynamics, refugees and Internally displaced persons in Africa' United Nations -<[iii] United Nations, Global compact on Refugees, United Nations, New York, 2018, para 20 and 21.