Kabul Strengthening Municipal Nahias Program (K-Smnp)

The impact / overall objective (OO) is to improve stability and stimulate local economic development in Kabul city through enhancing municipal governance and strengthening the social contract between citizens and the state.

The Specific Objective (SO) is to improve tenure security and land management and administration for inclusive urban economic growth and service delivery in Kabul city

The three expected Results (R) are:

R1:          Strengthened municipal capacities and systems for urban planning, land management and municipal revenue/finance;

R2:          Improved municipal service delivery and strengthened 'social contract' between citizens              and municipal authorities;

R3:          Improved enabling environment for urban land management and administration,            municipal governance, local economic development and service delivery.

The core program activities/outputs include:

A1.1 - Municipalities to undertake citywide property survey/registration and house numbering;

A1.2 - Strengthen municipal finance and revenue collection systems and capacities especially of Nahia offices;

A1.3 - Support strategic urban planning for LED and inclusive service delivery;

A2.1 - Kabul Municipality delivers strategic service/infrastructure projects in line with Nahia strategic plans to stimulate local economic development;

A2.2 - Establish representative Gozar Assemblies (GAs) to foster improved municipal-citizen relations in land management, service delivery to build social contract and sense of civic responsibility, and government legitimacy;

A2.3 - Improve access to Gozar-level infrastructure and services;

A3.1 - Strengthen the national enabling environment and institutional capacities (MUDA, ARAZI and KM) for land management, strategic urban planning, and inclusive municipal governance.

  Impact hypothesis and theory of change

 Overall impact hypothesis:

·         Land is a fundamental resource in Afghanistan's cities, yet insecurity of tenure, and uncertainties in access to and control over it are key drivers of conflict, fragility, and socio-economic exclusion, especially for women and IDPs. Increasing de-facto tenure security, through an incremental process (see Figure 1) produces considerable socio-economic benefits including improving state-society relations and stimulating household and city economic development and investment. This tenure security improvement will have a direct impact on people's lives through facilitating investment in housing improvements and people's feelings of social inclusion.

·         Medium-term Strategic Municipal Action Planning (SMAP) and short-term Nahia level action planning are essential for managing urban growth, effective land utilization and management, environmental protection, service delivery planning, and stimulating local economic development, especially in a context of limited financial resources and socio-political fragility;

·         As donor funds reduce in the coming decade, greater emphasis will be placed on raising local revenues. Safayi taxation is a cost-effective and sustainable revenue source for municipalities. Safayi also supports improved urban land management. Significant gains can be made in reducing inefficiencies and stumbling blocks by improving the enabling environment (e.g safayi  regulations);

·         However, citizens will only pay Safayi tax if they trust that their tax is used accountably and transparently for inclusive service delivery from which they directly benefit;

·         A virtuous cycle of improved state-society relations can be fostered where citizens pay tax and municipalities deliver services accordingly. This can be achieved by simultaneously building the human and institutional capacity of municipalities (duty bearers) and expanding opportunities for the meaningful participation of citizens in municipal decision-making (rights holders) (see Figure 2, Conceptual Model);

·         However, the 'virtuous cycle' can also become predatory and counter-productive to the overall goal, therefore effective and sufficient systems and safeguards need to be put in place to ensure transparency and accountability of revenue collection and use, and to ensure the land and property rights of women, IDPs and the vulnerable are upheld;

·         Appropriate national policies and guidelines (e.g. on land, settlement upgrading, municipal finance, revenue management and urban planning and design) buttress improved governance structures for Municipalities. Such policies and guidelines support improved efficiency and effectiveness within the operations of municipal and national institutions and can help make more gender-responsive urban environments; and

·         Improving state-society relations in cities significantly contributes to national state building and peace-building efforts. As nearly 50% of Afghan men, women and children will live in cities by 2060, improvements in municipal governance and the economy can achieve a significant impact for millions of Afghans in the long term.

·         (See Table 4 for a detailed theory of change)

Table 4: Theory of change underpinning program intervention

Causality level

Expected change

Critical assumptions

Input

(sub-activities)

By...

·         supporting Kabul to undertake full citywide property survey/registration and house numbering,

·         whilst strengthening, municipal finance and Safayi taxation collection systems and capacities to accountably collect and spend Safayi tax;

·         and supporting a participatory Strategic Municipal Action Planning (SMAP) process for LED and inclusive service delivery;

·         then providing block grants to municipalities to implement part of the SMAP plans using matching funds from increased safayi  revenues;

·         always utilizing a 'learning by doing' approach that enables quick and meaningful impact on attitudes and behaviours of local stakeholders, including women and girls,

·         and institutionalising the tools and processes within the tashkeel  structure in both district and municipal offices while also seeking to increase the share of female staff;

·         While developing and institutionalising improvements in the accountability and transparency of municipal operations and finances to citizens;

·         and expanding opportunities for the engagement and participation of men and women, girls and boys, as well as marginalised groups such as IDPs, in municipal affairs (in SMAP and through MABs and Gozars);

·         and empowering women in leadership and decision-making positions in the Gozar establishment and Nahia-level mobilisation and action planning;

·         Whilst also providing technical assistance to central government authorities to improve the broader enabling framework in the areas of land, urban planning and municipal finance;

·         including strengthening the capacity of KM, ARAZI and MUDA;

·         enhancing urban planning and land management capacities and coordination between responsible institutions (ARAZI, MUDA);

·         pro-actively improving data and monitoring for improved municipal governance and urban development decision-making;

·         and reviewing, developing and improving national policies and guidelines based on this data, evidence and lessons learned;

 

 

·         Absorptive capacity of authorities; political will to engage;

·         Capacity and willingness of central authorities to engage and take a leadership role;

·         Security conditions allow implementation

·         Data can be collected and used in a timely and cost-effective manner for planning decisions;

·         Block grants are used cost-effectively and for benefit of most vulnerable and needy;

Output

(Activities)

This produces...

·         Increased tenure security for urban households which makes a significant improvement in their lives in terms of economic and social stability;

·         an improved safayi  system, including user-friendly citywide property databases invoicing systems, and institutionalised tax collection systems in the target cities, a process owned and administered by municipal staff and authorities;

·         which enables a sustainable increase in municipal revenue from safayi  taxation as well as increases tenure security for approx. 330,027 households, including female-headed households;

·         and supports informed urban spatial planning and land management, including supporting participatory land, housing and economic assessments/profiles;

·         which feed into 5-year Strategic Municipal Action Plans (SMAP) for each city with associated (realistic!) Capital Investment Plans (CIPs);

·         of which tangible demonstration projects are implemented by KM using program block grants and matching funds (on-budget) from increased safayi  taxes, which directly improve people's lives in terms of better neighbourhood services and infrastructure;

·         which improve the living conditions of men, women and children and show tangible service delivery from municipalities;

·         and demonstrate the improved capacities of municipal staff and systems to implement the planning, financing, management, monitoring, and evaluation of inclusive and gender-sensitive service delivery projects to benefit citizens;

·         in an accountable and transparent manner through strengthened engagement of men and women in municipal affairs (e.g. MABs, Municipal outreach activities, and annual participatory budgeting processes;

·         Alongside improvements in national government capacities and the broader enabling environment;

·         including the passing of the Informal Settlements Upgrading Policy, revising the Safayi Regulation, and establishing safayi  guidelines for municipalities;

 

·   Land registration does not create or exacerbate conflict;

·   Stakeholders are involved and can reach consensus;

·   Kabul Municipality is  willing to adopt and institutionalise an updated safayi  system; (this requires the before mentioned political will and incentives (block grants)

·   Stakeholders can work together and agree on strategic plans/priorities;

·   Funds are used based on plans developed;

·   MABs are present and willing to engage through the security sub-committee;

·   Citizens are willing to engage with municipalities in constructive dialogue;

·   Political willingness to pass policies and approve guidelines

Outcome

(results)

Which result in...

·         an improved enabling environment for municipal governance, local economic development and accountable service delivery;

·         improved municipal capacities and systems for gender-sensitive urban planning, land management and municipal revenue/finance;

·         with an associated improvement in accountable municipal service delivery and therefore a strengthened 'social contract' between citizens and municipal authorities and improvement in people's economic opportunities and social inclusion;

·    Political will and capacity for participatory governance approaches

·    Citizens see the program as government program, not donor program;

·    KM use their increased capacity

Impact

(Specific Objective and Ultimate Objective)

Which ultimately leads to...

·         a sustainable increase in municipal revenues and strengthened urban management for inclusive and accountable service delivery;

·         improved socio-political stability through increased trust and legitimacy of municipalities to promote and manage inclusive and gender-sensitive cities and achieve local economic development, with significant impact on people's lives;

·         And expansion and replication to other cities to contribute to national state building and peace-building objectives.

·         Political and security stability in country

·         Continued economic development/ stability

·         Continued improvement in state-society relations;

  

Description of the target groups and the expected changes

Direct target groups: The direct target groups of the program can be sub-divided into six sub-groups:

1.       330,027 urban households (HH)  (~2.9 million people; 50% women and girls) will have improved tenure security and land rights, and a sense of urban inclusion resulting from the property registration process.

2.       386 Gozar Assemblies registered with municipalities and with elected representatives, including female engagement and representatives in leadership positions.

3.       80 Gozar Assemblies (80,000 HH; 720,000 residents; 50% women and girls) with improved services and local infrastructure through Gozar grants.

4.       Nahia residents (est. ~2.9 million people. 50% women and girls) of 20 Nahias in Kabul City with improved living conditions from the Nahia block grant projects and improved opportunities for municipal engagement;

5.       The private sector in Kabul City will benefit from improved opportunities and stability for local investment, business expansion, and construction contracts from the Municipal and Gozar block grant projects; and this increased local investment and economic development in the city will improve construction employment opportunities for city residents.

6.       Kabul Municipality will have increased capacity and municipal revenues in including: (i) Nahia offices; Engineering Departments; Finance Departments; Revenue Departments (including GIS section); Property Management Departments; and strengthened municipal-citizen engagement mechanisms.

7.       Government Institutions in Kabul will have clearer land rights and improved tenure security and improved local services and infrastructure;

8.       Central government authorities, including MUDA, IDLG/GDMA and ARAZI, will have increased human and institutional capacity and improved coordination and engagement with Kabul Municipality;

 Secondary target groups include the following:

a.       Line departments in Kabul City that will have increased opportunities to plan, align, and implement projects and plans with Strategic Municipal and Nahia Action Plans;

b.      The Ministry of Finance will have improved understanding of the municipal finances of Kabul City, and opportunities for structural improvements and improved fiscal transfers;

c.       The Central Statistics Organization, Afghanistan National Disaster Management Agency (AMDMA), and the Ministry of Interior (MoI) will have improved data on the spatial distribution of households in Kabul City to help with their programs and interventions (e.g. ANDMA earthquake risk mapping; MoI e-taskera roll-out);

d.      The international community, donors and international investors will have a clearer baseline assessment of Kabul city, and an government-endorsed urban planning framework for investments and interventions during the Transformation Decade, aligned with the Urban National Priority Programme (U-NPP).

Outreach: geographical area of the intervention and level of intervention

The program will be implemented in Kabul City, using the municipal boundary in the JICA Masterplan, approved by H.E. President Karzai, which has 22 city Nahias. Two Nahias will be covered under the MGSP program (acting as a 'phase one' roll-out for this program, tentatively District 5 and District 11). Therefore, this program will operate in the remaining 20 Nahias.

The majority of the dwelling stock in Kabul is detached houses (90%). One-quarter (26%) are in a regular urban form, nearly half (48%) irregular urban form; and 16% on hillsides.[3] Based purely on urban form (i.e. not land tenure arrangements), this corresponds to the prevailing anecdote that “around 70% of housing in the city is informal” (48% irregular plus 16% hillsides). Notably, the majority of housing is irregular but in a suitable location and can therefore be upgraded in-place by 'micro-surgery' for improving streets, housing and infrastructure improvements. Property registration is the first step for this process.

Figure 3 below shows the number of dwellings in each city district (Nahia) and the average residential density. District 5, for example, has a diversified housing stock, a high number of dwellings (25,570 houses and 3,134 apartments), and high density (26 dwellings per hectare). In contrast, District 13 is almost wholly irregular housing (32,996 irregular and 572 hillside) and has a lower density (24 dwellings per hectare). Overall, the inner city districts have much higher densities than the peripheral districts (D14, and 18-22).

Table 5 details the geographical reach of the program according to Nahias. The data is based on the rapid assessment from the State of Afghan Cities 2014/15 Programme.

Table 5: Overview of program scope for each Nahia

Nahia

Residential

Vacant land (hectares)

Commercial and industrial land (ha)

Institutional land (ha)

Est. No. non-residential properties***

Number dwellings

Est. population[4]

Number Gozars to be estab-lished

1

                    4,860

                 43,740

5

10

62

96

        1,458

2

                    8,516

                 76,644

9

3

38

211

        2,555

3

                 12,730

               114,570

13

5

34

269

        3,819

4

                 18,724

               168,516

19

41

132

166

        5,617

5

                 26,950

               242,550

                27

190

109

805

        8,085

6

                 26,840

               241,560

27

298

29

451

        8,052

7

                 33,802

               304,218

34

164

46

288

     10,141

8

                 30,845

               277,605

31

398

97

299

        9,254

9

                 17,763

               159,867

18

240

647

369

        5,329

10

                 21,468

               193,212

21

83

22

196

        6,440

11

                 28,687

               258,183

29

20

56

125

        8,606

12

                 20,539

               184,851

21

464

60

457

        6,162

13

                 38,494

               346,446

38

572

59

59

     11,548

14

                    7,225

                 65,025

7

385

21

246

        1,445

15

                 21,524

               193,716

22

211

87

462

        6,457

16

                 19,956

               179,604

20

167

74

145

        5,987

17

                 26,346

               237,114

26

1,501

89

168

        7,904

18

                    1,953

                 17,577

2

422

524

19

           391

19

                    2,691

                 24,219

3

658

615

1229

           538

20

                    5,289

                 47,601

5

606

38

346

        1,058

21

                    3,895

                 35,055

4

2,451

44

15

           779

22

                    6,567

                 59,103

7

499

17

57

        1,313

Total**

330,027

2,970,243

387

9,180

2,734

5,549

96,246

* Each Gozar contains an average of 1,000 households, with an average of 9 persons per household (1.2 families).

** Total excluding D5 and D11, which will be covered under MGSP.

*** Non-residential properties estimated at 30% residential properties for inner-city Nahias, and 20% for 'peri-urban Nahias of D14, and D18-22.

Level of the intervention

As articulated in the preceding sections the program aims to work at the micro (Gozar/community); meso (Municipal/local government) and macro (national government) levels. The implementing agency will harness its ability to work at these multiple levels and promote coordination, exchange and integrated solutions across them, always putting people - especially communities, women and people in vulnerable situations - at the centre of development processes whilst also building government capacity and legitimacy.

[1] See: UN-Habitat (2015) Managing Land, Mobilising Revenue, for an overview of the importance of increasing tenure security along the lines of UN-Habitat's Continuum of Land Rights.

[2] Full citywide coverage is essential. Piecemeal coverage (as seen in previous and current programmes, including UN-Habitat CBMSP, is difficult to enforce and achieve significant impacts, for various reasons, explained below.

[3] GoIRA (2015) The State of Afghan Cities 2015. GoIRA: Kabul

[4] Assuming an average of 9 people per household (HH) (average of 1.2 families per household)