Non-Governmental Organizations Co-ordination Board N Sekoh Nyadiero Corporate Affairs Manager Birchwood Hotel & Conference center Johannesburg, South Africa– March , 2013
2ND HIV CAPACITY BUILDING PARTNERS SUMMIT, 19TH – 21ST MARCH 2013,BIRCHWOOD HOTEL & CONFERENCE CENTER, JOHANNESBURG, SOUTH AFRICA
Introduction NGOs in Kenya encompass organizations with modest budgets of a few thousand shillings to those managing over a billion Kenya shillings per year. The positive impact of increased NGO activity cannot be gainsaid and indeed the sector is increasingly becoming a major player in the provision of basic services in many parts of the country. Nevertheless, the expansion also brings with it high risks of potential abuse both for the public who interact with these organizations on a day to day basis as well as for overall national security and economic stability.
Cont…. Activities of rogue NGOs pose a direct threat to public safety and can also impact negatively on the economy inter alia through acts of fraud, money laundering and financing of terrorism. It is estimated that the sector is contributing over 80 Billion annually to the economy. Nevertheless, it has been difficult to get accurate data on exactly how much NGOs are contributing to the economy due to low compliance in submission of annual returns to the Board as well as filing of inaccurate data.
Growth of the NGO Sector in Kenya Since the enactment of the NGOs Act (Cap 19) of 1990 and the operationalization of the NGOs Co-ordination Board in 1992, the NGO sector has grown significantly. Since 2001 there has been a significant growth in the number of organizations registering under the NGOs Co-ordination Act and by December 2012, the Board had registered over of 8,500 organizations.
Cont…. During the financial year 2010/2011 NGOs spent about KES 80 billion on projects in various parts of the country. The biggest beneficiaries were Relief, HIV/Aids, Health, Education and Agricultural sectors. NGOs also provide employment to over 200,000 people in the country. Clearly, this demonstrates the important role NGOs play in the country’s development.
Amount of Funds Spent in Various Projects NGOs spent a total of KES 53,301,977,708.29on various projects compared toKES 51,877,281,716.72in 2010-2011. It is important to note that NGOs do not spend the total amount donated to them in a financial year since some programmes run for more than a year. KES 41,315,408,312.24 was spent in implementing projects in Kenya whereas KES 11,986,569,396.05 was spent in projects in other countries.Highest amount of funds was spent on Health (17 per cent), HIV/Aids (15 per cent), Children (9 per cent) and Education (7 per cent) respectively as indicated in figure 3.2.1.
Source of funding as per annual returns During the financial year 2011-2012 NGOs received a total KES 79.98 billion from local and international sources compared with KES 70.23 billion in 2010 -2011 which represented 12.2 percent increase in funding. Donations were secured from both public and private organizations. The leading source was from NGOs’ parent organizations (29 per cent) Foreign government agencies (21 per cent)and United Nations agencies (13 per cent) as illustrated in figures 3.0.1 and 3.0.2.
Amount of funds donated to NGOs between2002/2003-2011/2013
Distribution of funding sources for NGOsin financial year 2011-2013
Distribution of donor funding per continent Most of the funding in year 2011/12 were from Europe (34 per cent), followed by North America (33 per cent) and Africa (24 per cent) respectively. It is also notable that donor funds from the South America (0%) continent was minimal compared to other continents. Further analysis indicated that 87 per cent of the organizations that received funds were international organizations. This particular trend could be attributed to the fact that international NGOs have developed extensive networks as opposed to the local/National organizations since their mother organizations are based in major donor countries, especially in the European continent. See figures 3.0.3 and 3.0.4 for more details.
Amount of donation received per continentContinent International National Not specified Grand TotalEurope 23,771,208,178 3,176,978,486 474,996,974 27,423,183,638North 23,219,942,573 3,312,644,495 66,900,625 26,607,957,692AmericaAfrica 13,232,804,502 5,730,975,814 425,946,247 19,391,226,963Asia 1,683,033,555 344,094,415 120,547,180 2,147,675,150
Cont…Continent International National Not specified Grand TotalAustralia 486,273,432 224,815,749 7,541,065 718,630,246South 106,000 0 0 106,000AmericaNot 3,011,540,541 519,696,356 164,007,607 3,695,244,504indicatedTotal 65,404,908,781 13,309,205,314 1,269,910,098 79,984,024,193
Staff training and Development Data collected during the financial year 2011/2012 showed that out of 23,250 Kenyans employed, 23,022 were trained in various areas compared to 690 foreign nationals who were also trained by their respective employers. This implies that 97 per cent of the Kenyans benefited from training as opposed to 3 per cent of foreign staff. It is also important to note that most of the training were conducted in- house (65 per cent) by various organisations as illustrated in figure 3.4.2.
Collaborations Information on type and nature of collaborations by various organisations were also tracked and analysed. Data analysis showed that NGOs collaborated and networked with other stakeholders with a view to sharing and maximising on scarce resources, ensuring synergies and sharing lessons learnt.
Types of Collaborations Based on the annual reports submitted by NGOs, 24per cent of collaborations were among NGOs followed by CBOs (16 per cent), Government agencies (14per cent) and donor agencies (13 per cent) respectively. Further analysis also indicated 9 per cent of NGOs partnered with health institutions, and another 8 per cent collaborated with academic institutions and Faith Based Organisations. It is also important to note that 7 per cent partnered with Research institutions.
Nature of collaboration Most collaborations involved exchange of information (50 per cent) between NGOs and other organisations. 25 per cent of NGOs provided technical support to partners, 13per cent received technical support from partners,6 per cent provided funds to their partners and 3 per cent received funding from their partners. On the other hand, 2 per cent provided equipment to their partners and one per cent received equipment support from their partners
Source of funding as per statisticsprovided by NACC aid report 2011Source US $ MillionsUS Government 510United Nations System 9Global Fund to Fight Aids, TB & Malaria 32.5UK Government 5Clinton Foundation 11.7Government of Germany 4.5Government of Japan 2.6Government of Kenya 34World Bank Credit (Total War on Aids) 20TOTAL 629.3
Cont…. Bilateral donor support for HIV programmes nearly doubled in 2006–2007 and 2008–2009, rising from Ksh 20.26 billion to Ksh 39.96 billion (NACC, 2010). The U.S. government’s PEPFAR programme is the single largest HIV initiative in Kenya. In addition to serving as a cornerstone of Kenya’s efforts to bring antiretroviral treatment to scale, PEPFAR also supports HIV prevention programming, blood safety interventions, assistance for children orphaned or made vulnerable by the epidemic, and capacity-building interventions.
Cont… The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria – established in 2001 following the Special Session of the UN General Assembly on HIV/AIDS – has served as a critical source of resources for the HIV response in Kenya. To date, Kenya has been approved for 10 grants, including five HIV- specific grants,
Cont… In 2008, the Total War against HIV and AIDS (TOWA) was launched with US$ 80 million four-year loan from the World Bank. Numerous other donors and development partners aid in Kenya’s response to HIV. For example, the U.K. Department for International Development finances HIV prevention programming, including community mobilization efforts, and the Governments of Germany and Japan also contribute to the HIV response. The Clinton Foundation has supported paediatric HIV treatment programmes, while the U.K., the U.S., UN partners and other international players provide HIV-related technical support and capacity-building assistance.
Funding allocation Kenya’s strategic HIV plan provides that treatment and care will account for 57.9% of HIV spending in 2009–2013 Other allocations include 19.5% for prevention, 13.8% for programme management, 8.4% for programmes focusing on orphans and vulnerable children, 0.2% for human resources, and 0.1% for activities related to ensuring an enabling environment
Sustainability While funding trends for HIV efforts in recent years have been encouraging, the outlook for future HIV financing is uncertain. Unless new resources for AIDS are mobilized, the gap between available funds and actual needs will grow, imperiling the sustainability of recent gains. While the contributions of the international community have enabled Kenya to undertake initiatives that are saving lives and improving the quality of life for hundreds of thousands of people, the heavy reliance on external support inevitably raises concerns about the long-term sustainability of the country’s HIV response
Cont… In particular, the fact that programmes are largely underwritten by external actors renders the country’s HIV response potentially vulnerable to the changing priorities of high-income countries. Already, a modest shift in donor priorities from disease-specific programmes to broader sectoral support for health systems is resulting in funding shortfalls for HIV treatment programmes, forcing some clinical sites in East Africa to cap access to antiretroviral treatment or to place treatment-eligible patients on waiting lists (McNeil, 2010).
Cont….. In 2009, for the first time in a decade, international funding for HIV programmes in low- and middle-income countries did not increase over the previous year (Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, UNAIDS, 2010). Global financial conditions are already having an effect on Kenya’s HIV response. The Clinton HIV/AIDS Initiative has announced plans to discontinue support for paediatric treatment and for second-line antiretrovirals in 2010. PEPFAR – which, along with the Global Fund, has been the primary funder for HIV treatment scale-up – has capped the number of antiretroviral patients it will support over the next two years at 190,000. The international NGO MSF is in the process of phasing out its treatment programmes, transferring its facilities and patients to the public sector.
Government of Kenya initiatives on self reliance to support HIV Given the uncertain global economic climate, the Government of Kenya has taken steps to ensure that sufficient finances are available to support HIV programmes. They include:- i. A resource mobilization strategy that will prioritize new domestic financing to complement external support (NACC, 2010). ii. Decentralization of antiretroviral treatment programmes could help close the country’s HIV funding gap.
Cont…. iii. Creation of an HIV trust Fund. Possible funding sources for a trust fund might include GOK, private corporations, international development partners and private philanthropists, supplemented by remittances from Kenyans living overseas and possible incremental levies on utilization of mobile phone technologies.