Introduction
This brief explores the practices, challenges, and opportunities in localizing the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and their financing at Kenya’s sub-national level. Kenya’s devolved system of governance presents a unique opportunity to tailor the SDGs to local needs and, in addition, ensure they directly address community priorities. However, the financing for SDGs at the sub-national level faces challenges and limitations ranging from weak integration of SDGs in county plans and budgets, which is coupled with poor transparency and poor public engagement.
While much of the focus on the SDGs has remained at the national level, less attention has been given to how these goals are integrated within sub-national level systems. Localization of the SDGs involves translating these global ambitions into sub-national level plans and budgets to reflect local priorities and needs. This includes creating space for communities to participate meaningfully in decision-making processes from planning and prioritization to tracking budget implementation and monitoring service delivery outcomes. Although Kenya has made commendable progress at the national level, particularly in Voluntary National Reporting (VNR), with 17 counties contributing to the 2024 VNR process, integration of SDGs into county budgeting remains uneven.
This brief is based on observations from eight counties (Kitui, Kwale, Homa Bay, West Pokot, Embu, Narok, Wajir and Samburu) of which five (Narok, West Pokot, Wajir, Homa Bay, and Embu) have demonstrated effort in tracking SDGs progress. However, it is not clear how these efforts are outlined in county budget documents with regard to SDGs related programmes and their allocations. This initiative aims to bridge that gap by focusing on SDGs closely linked to county mandates and cross-cutting themes such as gender equality (SDG 5) and are examined through the lens of budget credibility[1] (SDG 16). We are examining how SDG priorities are reflected in county budgets, the roles of County Assemblies in approving budgets and providing oversight to ensure integration of SDGs in budgets and resourcing, and the degree to which citizen voices are considered in budget formulation and approval processes.
SDGs and Sub-National Level Budgets
Analysis of budget documents in eight counties (Kitui, Kwale, Homa Bay, West Pokot, Embu, Narok, Wajir and Samburu) reveals little to no coherence between the global indicator framework for the SDGs and the sub-national programme-based budgets. The programme-based budgeting approach enables budgeting that is structured around specific programmes and their objectives, offering a good opportunity for aligning budgets with the SDGs framework. However, this has not been the case, as it remains challenging to identify how county budgets, particularly programmes and their objectives, are linked to the SDGs and, more specifically, the SDGs indicator framework, which outlines the markers of progress. Without clarity on this linkage, it is difficult to assess the progress being made towards the attainment of the SDGs, especially in determining whether counties are allocating resources to programmes and objectives that contribute to reaching the SDGs.
The County Budget Transparency Survey measures how well county budget documents link to other plans, including the SDGs. Counties score 72 out of 100 for this linkage, which is notable. They show the SDGs connection in their County Integrated Development Plans and Annual Development Plans, but this is often superficial and may simply meet planning requirements. This connection weakens during later stages of budget formulation and approval, as seen in eight county budget documents. For example, West Pokot County clearly links SDGs with its main priorities, which help guide Budget Estimates. However, most counties do not maintain strong connections between SDGs and their budgets and thus makes it difficult for the citizens to relate the interventions between various decision-making stages.
Where subsequent budget documents fail to show the linkage as is in the planning documents, this complicates tracking of progress, evaluating impact, or holding specific departments accountable for their SDG commitments, despite the development plans indicating intended contributions. The lack of this information subsequently hampers citizens’ ability to track the implementation of programmes potentially related to the SDGs. Memoranda submitted to county assemblies by communities (budget facilitators and champions) highlight a lack of information on SDG financing in county budgets.
Achieving the SDGs extends beyond mere financing to the actual implementation of these programmes. Recently, the implementation stage has been marked by supplementary budget alterations, which can shift priorities or, in extreme cases, eliminate some initially identified projects/ priorities. This stage is often characterized by limited public engagement, risking the loss of public input into approved budgets. Upholding citizen priorities during budget execution requires a coordinated effort from the County Executive, which is responsible for executing budgets, the County Assembly, which provides oversight, and citizens themselves, who have a role in oversight, monitoring progress, and holding the government accountable.
Regarding the SDGs, effective monitoring and oversight of budget implementation will only be viable if the problems of weak integration and the lack of comprehensive information on SDGs are addressed. Where information exists, it is the responsibility of county governments to produce and publish regular budget implementation reports to facilitate oversight. According to the County Budget Transparency Survey, all these counties produced and published all four quarterly budget implementation reports in FY 2023/2024. To that end, some counties have demonstrated good practices, and even at the implementation provided clear tagging of SDGs linking with the KPI and showing their achievements with detailed remarks, this is a good step especially for counties that missed such opportunities during the Programme Based Budget as not all is lost. In the snippet below is good practice on how counties can show the linkage of budgets to SDGs.
Conclusion & Recommendations
The annual budget circular that guides the preparation of the budget for an upcoming year presents an opportunity for counties to require and define how budgets can be responsive to the SDGs targets and intended objectives. This requires initiative from the Executive and particularly the County Treasury, as there is limited opportunity for public input at this point.
Counties can tailor the SDG targets and indicators to fit their county budgeting framework, especially when using programme-based budgeting. In line with Kenya’s national indicator framework, counties can identify the interventions that contribute to the realization of the SDGs and explicitly state this in county budget documents to show the linkage.
As citizens become more aware of the SDGs, the goals, the targets and the objectives, and in addition to their lived experiences and priorities, there is a need for greater incorporation of public input in proposed and approved budgets. Feedback is a critical component of meaningful public engagement, and as such, counties should enhance their reporting on public participation by publishing the public participation reports or making this information available within approved budget documents. This will help observe the SDGs-related priorities that come from the citizens.
[1] Budget Credibility refers to the ability of governments to spend in line with their approved budgets without deviating from priorities and especially those identified through highly consultative public participation processes.
