ADVERT 
ADVERTA fresh proposal by Dr David Oremo of ACACIA Foundation is challenging the Siaya County Government to take devolution to the doorstep of ordinary citizens through a structured grassroots governance model that combines village councils, participatory planning, climate adaptation and community-driven development financing.
In a detailed concept note dated October 2026, Dr Oremo proposes the establishment of five Micro-Planning Zones within every recognised village in Siaya County, arguing that the additional planning units would help government identify local needs more accurately, improve service delivery and ensure development interventions respond to the distinct circumstances of individual communities.
The proposal seeks to translate the promise of devolution into tangible improvements at the village level by strengthening existing legal and administrative structures rather than creating an entirely new tier of government.
At its heart is a straightforward proposition: development planning should begin where people live, with communities identifying their priorities and participating directly in decisions affecting their livelihoods, environment and future.
THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK IS ALREADY IN PLACE
ADVERTDr Oremo anchors his proposal in the Constitution of Kenya, 2010, the County Governments Act, 2012, the Physical and Land Use Planning Act, 2019, and the Siaya County Village Administrative Units Act, 2020.
Article 176(2) of the Constitution provides for decentralisation of county government functions and services to the extent that it is efficient and practicable. The County Governments Act also provides for village units, Village Administrators and Village Councils as instruments of grassroots administration and citizen participation.
The concept note argues that these provisions provide an existing legal foundation upon which Siaya can deepen participatory governance and improve the coordination of local development.
However, the proposal identifies a persistent planning challenge: villages are not always uniform communities. Some encompass extensive geographical areas, diverse settlement patterns, different economic activities and varying levels of exposure to environmental risks.
Treating an entire village as a single planning unit, Dr Oremo argues, can make it difficult to identify and prioritise the needs of individual settlements.
His proposed solution is to subdivide each recognised village into five Micro-Planning Zones, using factors such as population distribution, geographical features, livelihoods, ecological conditions, settlement patterns and shared community interests.
The zones would serve as smaller planning and service-delivery units within existing village structures, allowing authorities and residents to identify specific needs, map available resources and monitor development projects more effectively.
The distinction is important: the proposal envisages smaller units for planning and coordination, not necessarily the creation of five new administrative jurisdictions in every village.
VILLAGE COUNCILS AT THE CENTRE OF DEVELOPMENT
A central pillar of the proposal is the effective operationalisation of Village Administrators and Village Councils, institutions intended to bring county administration closer to residents.
Dr Oremo argues that these structures should become meaningful platforms for community participation, local project coordination, accountability and the identification of development priorities.
Under the proposed arrangement, residents would participate in mapping their settlements, identifying service gaps, assessing environmental risks and preparing plans for their respective zones.
Such plans would identify priority interventions in areas including water and sanitation, agriculture, education, health, infrastructure, youth empowerment, women’s economic participation and environmental conservation.
The proposal also envisages stronger coordination between Village Councils, county departments and National Government Administrative Officers, including chiefs and assistant chiefs.
For Siaya, the practical question is whether existing village structures can be equipped with the personnel, resources, technical capacity and administrative support needed to perform these responsibilities effectively.
Establishing institutions on paper is only the beginning. Their value ultimately depends on whether residents can use them to influence public priorities, monitor implementation and demand accountability.
ADOPT-A-VILLAGE: A NEW APPROACH TO GRASSROOTS FINANCING
Perhaps the most distinctive element of Dr Oremo’s concept note is the proposed Adopt-A-Village programme, which seeks to mobilise resources and expertise from beyond the county government’s ordinary budgetary framework.
The initiative would allow professionals, members of the diaspora, corporate organisations, foundations, faith-based institutions, universities and other development partners to support specific villages or Micro-Planning Zones.
Under the proposed model, adopters could contribute financial resources, technical expertise, mentorship, market linkages, equipment or other forms of assistance towards projects identified by local communities.
Partnerships would ordinarily run for three to five years, subject to renewal, with clearly defined responsibilities and accountability arrangements.
For example, a professional working in Nairobi or abroad could support a village water project, help establish a youth enterprise initiative or provide technical expertise for climate-smart agriculture. A corporate organisation could support skills development, while a university might assist with local research, environmental mapping or agricultural innovation.
The defining principle is that communities would identify their needs before partners commit their support.
The concept note proposes formal partnership agreements, transparent project selection, public reporting, joint monitoring and safeguards against the diversion of community priorities by influential individuals.
It also envisages a county-level Adopt-A-Village Coordination Desk to maintain a registry of villages seeking support, document their priority projects and match them with interested partners.
If implemented with credible oversight, the model could provide an additional channel for mobilising local and external resources. Its success, however, would depend on transparent financial management, proper vetting of partners and clear arrangements for ownership and maintenance of completed projects.
Crucially, the programme would complement rather than replace the county government’s constitutional and statutory responsibilities.
CLIMATE ADAPTATION BECOMES A GRASSROOTS PRIORITY
Dr Oremo’s proposal goes beyond administrative reform by integrating climate adaptation into local physical and land-use planning.
The concept note recommends the preparation of what it calls People’s Adaptation Plans at the Micro-Planning Zone or village level.
These community-led plans would identify climate-related threats, map vulnerable households and settlements, and propose investments tailored to local environmental conditions.
Potential concerns include flooding, drought, soil erosion, changing lake levels and pressure on natural resources.
The proposal draws inspiration from the People’s Adaptation and local physical and land-use planning approach associated with Homa Bay Municipality, suggesting that similar principles could be adapted to Siaya’s varied settlement and ecological conditions.
Rather than relying exclusively on broad countywide assessments, local communities would help identify where risks are concentrated and what interventions are most urgently required.
A settlement vulnerable to flooding, for instance, may prioritise drainage, safer land-use practices and emergency preparedness. An area facing recurrent water shortages may require water-harvesting systems, improved storage or other locally appropriate solutions.
By connecting community mapping with county spatial plans and the County Integrated Development Plan, the proposed model seeks to make climate adaptation part of routine development planning rather than an occasional emergency response.
WHY CHIEFS AND COUNTY OFFICIALS MUST WORK TOGETHER
Another significant recommendation is the joint leadership of the process by the Siaya County Government and National Government Administrative Officers.
Dr Oremo argues that county officials responsible for governance, administration, lands and physical planning should work alongside the County Commissioner’s office and the wider national administrative hierarchy.
The proposed collaboration would combine county governments’ responsibilities for devolved services and local development with the established community networks and administrative presence of chiefs and assistant chiefs.
Chiefs and assistant chiefs could help convene public meetings, facilitate community mobilisation, provide local knowledge and help resolve disputes arising during the proposed boundary-mapping exercise.
County technical officers, meanwhile, would provide planning expertise, ensure alignment with statutory development plans and guide the integration of local priorities into county budgeting and implementation.
This arrangement would require clearly defined responsibilities to avoid duplication, jurisdictional confusion or the creation of parallel administrative structures.
The concept note accordingly calls for a joint County–National Government technical task force to coordinate implementation.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION MUST BE MORE THAN A FORMALITY
The proposal places considerable emphasis on public participation, recognising that changes to local planning boundaries and the allocation of development support can generate disagreements if communities feel excluded.
It recommends public meetings, focus-group discussions, household mapping where feasible, written submissions and digital engagement.
Special attention would be given to women, young people, persons with disabilities, older residents and other groups whose interests can be overlooked in conventional decision-making processes.
Preliminary zone boundaries, planning criteria and Adopt-A-Village guidelines would be published for public scrutiny, with a proposed consultation period of 14 to 21 days.
The process would also document concerns raised by residents and explain how those concerns were addressed before final validation and adoption.
Community consent would be a prerequisite for villages or zones entering the Adopt-A-Village programme.
These safeguards are particularly important because geographical boundaries can influence how communities organise themselves, identify shared needs and engage with development partners.
For the initiative to gain legitimacy, local residents must be participants in shaping the model, not merely beneficiaries expected to accept decisions made elsewhere.
THE 60-DAY CHALLENGE TO COUNTY GOVERNMENTS
Dr Oremo is calling on county governments, particularly Siaya, to move from policy discussion to implementation.
The concept note proposes that county governments formally consider and adopt the framework within 60 days, while a joint County–National Government technical task force would be established within 30 days.
It further recommends allocating seed funding through the appropriate development and budgetary processes for pilot zone mapping, preparation of People’s Adaptation Plans and establishment of the Adopt-A-Village Coordination Desk.
Other proposed measures include issuing administrative guidelines, strengthening existing Village Councils, developing standard partnership agreements and integrating the resulting plans into county spatial planning and development frameworks.
The document also calls for regular monitoring, public reporting and the sharing of lessons from pilot areas to guide possible expansion.
These timelines are recommendations contained in the concept note, not evidence that the county government has accepted or begun implementing the proposals.
Their adoption would require appropriate administrative, technical and budgetary consideration, as well as compliance with applicable legal procedures.
FROM CONCEPT NOTE TO PRACTICAL CHANGE
The proposal raises a broader question about the meaning of devolution nearly a decade and a half after the promulgation of Kenya’s 2010 Constitution: how can county governments ensure that the benefits of decentralised governance reach communities at the lowest practical level?
For Siaya, the suggested five-zone model offers a framework for connecting local knowledge with public planning, climate resilience and partnerships capable of mobilising additional expertise and resources.
But the idea will ultimately be judged by its implementation.
The county would need to establish whether five zones are appropriate for every village, determine the administrative and financial implications, clarify the legal status of the proposed planning units and ensure that the initiative does not create unnecessary bureaucracy.
It would also need to establish transparent criteria for selecting projects, protect public resources, prevent conflicts of interest and ensure that external partners cannot impose priorities on communities in exchange for their support.
A carefully designed pilot programme could help answer these questions before countywide implementation.
Ultimately, Dr Oremo’s concept note presents Siaya with an opportunity to examine how existing village governance structures can be made more responsive, how communities can exercise greater influence over local development and how partnerships can supplement public investment without undermining government accountability.
The central test is whether the proposal can move beyond a planning document to produce measurable improvements in service delivery, environmental resilience and community participation.
The message to Siaya County is clear: devolution must be experienced where people live. The village is not merely a geographical unit; it is where development priorities become personal, public services are tested and the promise of government is either fulfilled or left unmet.
