By Morven Macewen
Public participation and community empowerment are fundamental to the success of Sustainable Development Goals; particularly, Goal No.7 that seeks to increase the ‘proportion of the population with access to electricity’, SDG 13 that aims at avoiding anthropogenic climate change, and SDG 5 concerning gender equality.
This blog conceptualises this notion based on empirical research done in Makueni County, Kenya, on the uptake of solar power.
Background
The County Government of Makueni (GoM) is committed to a redistribution of power and resources through a strong policy of Public Participation and investment in development projects (Gathii & Otieno, 2018; Wesangula, 2018; Omolo, et al., 2018). The policy of Public Participation subdivides the county into five layers of governance: (1) village level, (2) cluster level, made up of 5 villages grouped together, (3) the sub-ward level, (4) ward level, made up of 7 geographical regions that divide that county, and finally (5) the county level (Government of Makueni, 2014). All of these levels of governance partake in public participation foras concerning community decisions. It is also taught via civic education efforts that the first layer of governance is the self and the second is the household, and that everyone should be given the dignity to make decisions that impact both levels (ibid.). The county's policy of Public Participation recognises that institutions and systems of provision interact with the individual. Decision-making is understood as important in its own right – it is a form of ‘capacity building’ in the lingo of international development scholars (Eade, 1997). Community participation in deliberative processes aids the sustainability of a development project and the democratisation of development aids individual empowerment. This ethos is what the County Government call operation Mwolyo Out, which entails a shift to citizens overseeing development projects through direct governance and public consultation:
“…it is a project that is driven by mind-set change and is engendered in the understanding that democracy requires the responsible self-governance of each individual and can be manifested in decisions to arise and take charge of one's development while the government remains a facilitator” (GoM, 2018).
This involvement of the community in decision-making is embodied in the GoM participatory budgeting scheme where annually 30 budget consultations take place at Ward level to determine resource allocation (GoM, 2018; Wanjiru, 2017) – in the FY 2014/15 almost 15% of the county participated in deliberations (Wanjiru, 2017). It is understood that an intentional redistribution of resources is necessary to achieve fairness and that this is obtained by allowing people to express their needs and interests. Indeed, the slogan adopted by County officials is Andu Mbee, o kila nyumba kalila, which directly translates as ‘people first, and every house should get some milk.’
The success of the participation framework in Makueni is evidenced through the fact that in August 2018 the Council of Governors held a two-day peer-to-peer learning workshop in collaboration with development partners so that other counties could learn from Makueni’s success. Indeed, other counties have highlighted it as their benchmark to emulate in terms of effective public participation (Wajir, Nyeri, Nyamira, Lamu and Tana River county) (GoM, 2018). The core three mechanisms through which the policy of public participation is facilitated are: (1) interest groups, (2) publicly elected management committees for development projects and (3) offering locals the first opportunity to provide goods and services (GoM, 2014). There is also a strong emphasis on effective information dissemination; this is achieved through ward administrators notifying interest groups, through social media platforms (organised via interest groups and geographically), a quarterly newsletter called ENE (the word for ‘theirs’ in Kamba, meant to symbolise community ownership in county development), and the GoM even has an ICT system that holds the phone numbers of all county members (this is used to contact people for county level meetings) (Wanjiru, 2017). Therefore, it is clear that the GoM is trying to achieve the long-term success of development projects through citizen engagement and public participation.
Results: Solar and Public Participation
Of the 32 interviewees, all expressed an understanding that public participation is key to the success of solar projects; be that solar mini-grids, solar home systems or grid-connected solar. Furthermore, participants also expressed that a lack of inclusive public participation undermines the sustainability of a project.
(i) Kitonyoni Mini-grid:
As part of the research process, a solar mini-grid in the village of Kitonyoni (constructed in 2012) was visited. The mini-grid was a donated initiative of the Energy for Development Network funded by RCUK Energy programme in collaboration with multiple stakeholders[1] (SERG, 2013). It was, however, handed over to the community in 2015 and it is now run as a cooperative. Before the mini-grid was implemented, community consultation was conducted in the form of barazas, with special attention given to youth and women, and a household survey, lasting 3 months. According to a 7-year study that assessed the impact of the project on local development, the mini-grid has had a positive effect on the overall background development of the areas (Bahaj, et al., 2019). Furthermore, in-line with what the officials of the mini-grid committee expressed to me, the fact that the project is a community-based operation is said to have aided its success (ibid.).
Nevertheless, some County officials stated that the project is encountering issues of governance due to a failure of inclusive participation because the project was implemented before the establishment of the County Government and its policy of public participation. In their opinion, community consultation prior to project implementation did not do enough to target all members of the community, and groups were not sensitized properly to the project developers’ aims. Although members of the community are no longer sceptical of the motives of the developers, it was expressed that some community sub-groups – especially women and youths – are not engaged with the project. The grid is said to operate at only 40% capacity because those in the market it supplies have chosen not to top up their electricity card, and because the supply is not being used to facilitate entrepreneurial activities such as chicken incubation. According to one County official the benefits of the project are not being fully exploited because of an issue of peoples’ mind-set:
“You know there is also the problem of mentality...when a donor brings something it is supposed to be free, so the sustainability aspect has been a challenge, because ideally people are supposed to pay for this power to have it maintained, for the batteries, to pay their staff, but some say ‘it was a free donation so we shouldn’t have to pay.’”
This unwillingness to pay for the solar electricity from the mini-grid is representative of the fact that participation and development must go hand in hand; people’s perceptions of the project need to change if they are to fully maximise its potential. This statement is also consistent with another County official’s belief that because the area has a history of being highly saturated with development agencies and NGO’s there is a culture of dependency. This sentiment and the experience of the Kitonyoni mini-grid highlight the importance of participation to development and empowerment; the mini-grid has been successful to some extent in including the community in the project, but the cooperative needs to conduct more targeted community participation and empower the community by presenting the energy as an enabler for other economic and social activities.
(ii) Distribution of solar products:
On the other hand, some officials stated that the high number of non-state actors in Makueni has created “a fertile ground” for the government to introduce a policy of public participation. This ethos of participation can be said to have aided the uptake of solar products for the home, as it is through community groups that these products are often promoted. A women’s group selling M-KOPA solar lanterns, chargers and TV packages, were consulted. They have been selling the products for three years by promoting them in church, the market place and at barazas. They have a contract with M-KOPA that means they receive bonus payments when they have sold a certain number of products. The women said that they sell to other organized groups and that this works well as people trust the products that their group members also own. Makueni’s organized groups are effectively functioning as a value chain for solar products. This is a clear example of how the county-wide participative processes are facilitating solar uptake. Furthermore, these women are both economically and socially empowered as a result of their advocacy of solar products; they are receiving an income and they are in control of decisions that directly impact their lives and community. Therefore, it is clear that the County Government’s emphasis on public participation is aiding the private sector in solar production and it is bringing with it socio-economic empowerment.
Conclusion
Based on key stakeholder interviews and the Makueni Government’s policies of Public Participation, the perception of participation (and its relationship with development and empowerment) in the county is as follows (Government of Makueni County 2018; 2019):
Recommendations:
- Solar energy deployment should be considered alongside the wider decision-making processes of any context.
- As inclusion in decision-making is key to the uptake of solar energy, there must be concerted effort to target those who have historically been excluded from deliberative processes – this may necessitate, for instance, targeting women or young people.
- Solar power implementation must be considered alongside other attempts to empower citizens at the level of the individual and at the collective level.
Works Cited
- The Government of Makueni, Annual Public Participation Report 2017/2018 Available at: https://makueni.go.ke/reports/annual-public-participation-report-2017-2018/
- The Government of Makueni, Budget 2019 Public Participation Available at: https://makueni.go.ke/departments/finance/makueni-budget-2019/
- Bahaj, A., Blunden, L., Kanani, C., James, P., Kiva, I., Matthews, Z., . . . George, G. (2019). The Impact of an Electrical Mini-grid on the Development of a Rural Community in Kenya. Energies, 778. Retrieved from https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/12/5/778
- Eade, D., 1997. Capacity-building: an approach to people-centred development. Oxfrod: Oxfam Publishing.
- Gathii, J. T. & Otieno, H. M., 2018. Assessing Kenya's Cooperative Model of Devolution: a situation-specific analysis. Federal Law Review, 46(1), pp. 596-613.]
- Government of Makueni, 2014. Makueni County Public Participation in Governance Bill 2014. [Online]
Available at: https://makueni.go.ke/acts-and-policies/public-participation-in-governance-bill-2014/
[Accessed 20 May 2019]. - Government of Makueni, 2018. Annual Public Participation Report 2017/2018. [Online]
Available at: https://makueni.go.ke/reports/annual-public-participation-report-2017-2018/
[Accessed 3 June 2019]. - Omolo, A., Macphail, B. & Wanjiru, R., 2018. Inclusive and Effective Citizen Engagement: Participatory Budgeting - Makueni and West Pokot Counties. [Online]
Available at: https://elibrary.worldbank.org/doi/abs/10.1596/29620 - SERG, Energy for Development (E4D): Community Progress within the First Year Operation of the Solar Rural Electrification Project in Kenya (2013) Available at: http://www.energy.soton.ac.uk/e4d-first-year-operation/
[Accessed 3 June 2019]. - Wanjiru, R., 2017. Implementation of the Makueni County Participatory Budgeting Framework (FY 2015-2016). [Online]
Available at: https://participedia.net/case/4962
[Accessed 20 May 2019]. - Wesangula, D., 2018. Kibwana: Why Makueni is best example that devolution works. [Online]
Available at: https://www.standardmedia.co.ke/article/2001267429/kibwana-why-makueni-is-best-example-that-devolution-works
[Accessed 1 June 2019].
[1] The project consortium comprises the (a) University of Southampton’s Sustainable Energy Research Group (www.energy.soton.ac.uk) Faculty of Engineering and the Environments and the Centre for Global Health Population Poverty and Policy (www.soton.ac.uk/ghp3) within the Faculty of Social and Human Sciences, (b) Business School (http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/business-school) at Imperial College, London, and (c) core industrial partners IT Power Ltd and GVEP International. More details about the project and the partners can be found at: www.energy.soton.ac.uk and www.energyfordevelopment.net
