All the way from Korogwe to Nanyumbu andTandahimba: What have we learnt so far?

ANSAF’s Social Accountability Monitoringprograms 2014

Selected Cases

Emerging issues and trend in Social AccountabilityExercise of 2014

Introduction

In the year 2014 alone, ANSAF has conducted social accountability monitoring atdifferent stages in more than 10 districts. While at the beginning of the year thefocus was to undertake feedback sessions from the previous year’s exercises, laterthe focus changes towards introducing the exercise to new districts and building thecapacity of members to initiate; undertake and oversee the exercise. The list ofdistricts, member and undertaken activities in 2014 were as follows;

District Member ActivitiesMeru HakiKazi Catalyst Training, Analysis,

FeedbackMonduli Farmers Pride TrainingRombo Farmers Pride TrainingKorogwe Katani Ltd. Training, Analysis,

FeedbackTandahimba TAFA Training, Analysis,

Feedback (pending)Masasi UPT TrainingNanyumbu NADEFO Training, Analysis,

Feedback (pending)Mtwara-Mikindani UPT Training Singida ActionAid TrainingUlanga CEMDO/MAUH-CBO Feedback(2013), Training,

Analysis, Feedback (pending)

Biharamulo Concern Worldwide TrainingNgara Concern Worldwide TrainingKaragwe KADERES Training, Analysis,

FeedbackKongwa RMDI TrainingMpwapwa RMDI TrainingAll these stages were done with our internal human resources with a light touch support of consultants in places where it was needed.

Rationale

It is in the nature of the SAM exercise itself to emerge with observations andprovide recommendations depending on what you see in the field. As we draw closer to the end of the year, thePolicy and Budget Analysis

Department finds it imperative to share critical findings of SAM teams in each district which undertook the analysis; articulate emerging trends and set basis for recommendations forstakeholders including Government (Central and Local), development partners, the Parliament and private

sector actors.

This brief compilation of the findings and recommendations shall become anintegral part of secretariat and member’s learning; while the wider inference can beused for sharing with other stakeholders in various platforms.

The presentation of this brief shall be of highlighting unique case studies as studiedby the SAM teams in the districts, pointing out critical areas of articulation andinterest while providing a critical analysis and recommendations for the relevantstakeholders.

Selected study findings: Korogwe, Tandahimba, and Nanyumbu

Tandahimba:

The synopsis: The Tandahimba LGA initiated a series of projects to support specificvalue chains under the “one-district one-crop” initiative. Rehabilitation and upgradeof the traditional irrigation scheme, construction of a storage facility, purchase ofpaddy milling machine and key agriculture inputs for rice farming were part of theinitiatives directed to Lipalwe village. These projects aimed to increase productionlevels and productivity, benefiting 863 households with eventual household incomeincrement of 75%. Of the four concurrent undertakings, the SAM team chose tonarrow their analytical focus on the warehouse construction project. (Source: MTEF -Vote 505, Sub vote 5033, Objective 3, Activity No, D01D04)

Analysis and findings:

In the planning phase of the project, there was observed to be repetitive discrepancies in various planning documents about the same project. The DADP’s figures were different from MTEF on the amount allocated for the warehouse construction in Lipalwe village.

Year Allocation (as per MTEF)

Allocation (as per DADPs)

Variance

2012/13 20,835,000 25,180,505 4,345,5052013/14 22,918,500 27,698,556 4,780,0562014/15 30,216,606 25,002,000 5,214,606

Such discrepancies tend to affect the overall impression of the quality of theplanning process at the LGA level.

Similar discrepancies have extended to the reporting stage. The LGA reporteddisbursing TZS 20,000,000/- of the TZS 25,180,505 allocated for theconstruction, showing a remainder of 5,180,505/-. However, the village’sproject oversight committee recorded being awarded the full amount.

District implementation report for quarter 4 of 2013/14 showed allocation ofTZS 43,000,000/- for the overall project, and a disbursement of only TZS30,000,000 for the same.

Apart from planning and reporting discrepancies between various authorities beingthe major issue in Tandahimba, other highlighted issues were as follows;

1. Unrealistic budgetary allocations by the district which eventually lead to costvariations during the implementation phase.

2. Lack of coordination between LGA’s department during the planning phase; inthis case being the Planning department, DAICO’s office and the Districts EngineersOffice.

3. Failure to take into account the local conditions prior to the commencement ofthe project. It was evident after the field visit that, the warehouse was not fully useddue to lack of water near the building, and the lack of toilet facility in the structuredesign too.

4. Dual use of the facility also emerged to be an issue of concern. With the initialintention for the facility being a storage unit, the actual construction was made toaccommodate a milling machine and a storage space. Contrary to its initial intendeduse, the SAM team warned of the sustainability of the facility if the intentionpersists.

Nanyumbu:

The synopsis: As part of the SAM introductory trainings, Nanyumbu hosted thefirst training-cum-field visit exercise. The selected special projects as annexed in theDADP’s 2012/13 plans were Mchangani A and Nakatete. These two identical projects

involved the construction of warehouse facilities aimed at improving storagepractises, reducing post-harvest losses and improve the integration prior to sellingthus fetching relatively higher market prices for the produce of the villages. TheSAM team embarked on assessing three components; first being planning andallocation of resources; second, accountability in expenditure; and lastly, efficiency.The team undertook desk review prior to complementing their findings with fielddata.

Analysis and findings;

Impressive levels of transparency enabled the SAM team to analyse DADP’s andMTEF from Nanyumbu district. On the allocative efficiency front, the team wassatisfied with the level engagement of the two villages in terms of participating inO&OD process and continuous participation throughout the project. Projects wereaccomplished on time, with allocated resources spent according to budget lines.Mchangani A, for example, spent Tsh. 43,000,000 as allocated for the project.

While assessing the implementation reports of the village oversight committee, theteam unveiled the following;

a) Despite being democratically elected, the oversight committee was impededin its function due to lack of written directives and experience in undertakingsuch activities.

b) In areas where minor constructions were yet to be accomplished (eg.Installation of a solar facility), it the difficult to pin the responsible party sincethe contracts did not stipulate clearly the roles and responsibilities of someitems.

c) The oversight committees lacked the expertise and directives to know as towhether the contractor was adhering to the agreed standards or not.Similarly, no training was afforded to them in attempt to build their capacity.

d) Field visit also unveiled the closure of Machangani A’s toilet facility due tolack of water in the village. It is critical that such construction practise shouldtake into account the local conditions, to avoid building unusable facilities,especially in villages.

Korogwe:

The synopsis: Katani undertook SAM on an irrigation project approved in the2011/12 budget for Mandera-Kaloleni Ward. Approval sought by the Korogwe LGA toCentral Government funding for DADPs entailed a total of 45,000,000 for theimprovement of the irrigation structure at the Mandera-Kaloleni ward which includedthe construction of a new irrigation canal for the purpose of expanding the areaunder irrigation made possible by River Pangani.

A team of 3 who composed the Korogwe SAM team embarked on following up of theprocess and outcomes of the project. The visits took place between January andFebruary 2014, and initial report was shared by the team. Since then, the SAM teamhas kept close contact with the occurrences at the project area. The feedback wasshared on June 24 and 25, 2014.

Analysis and findings:

a) LGA’s have developed a tendency of undertaking project with public fundswhile re-arranging/altering the fundamental units within the total budgetamount without proper authorization. Of the total Tsh. 45,000,000 of projectfunds, Tsh. 32,000,000 of which was initially envisioned to be used for theactual construction of 1000m canal. However, only Tsh. 22,000,000 was usedfor construction of 400m canal; and the rest diverted in other activities. Ouranalysis revealed such occurrences in items which involved direct paymentsto individuals or service providers; and less in materials or purchases ofgoods which prices are of common knowledge

b) There were several other non-functioning projects within the same villagewhich were also attributed to the weakness and mismanagement ofresources on the side of the DAICO’s office to support their successfulaccomplishment. These projects were the purchase of power tiller for farmersgroups and the assembling of a small flour milling plant.

c) Korogwe was the second district, after Ulanga, for the district leadership toshow resolve on taking action against alleged malpractices by its officials. Inthe feedback session in Korogwe, both the District Commissioner andDistricts Executive Director echoed the participant’s plea to take measureagainst malpractices by the concerned public officials.

Recommendations;

There is an increasing awareness and acceptability of the LGA’s and itsconsequent leadership towards the social accountability monitoring practice.It is imperative to build the capacity of local structure to uptake the role andfor ANSAF to focus its scope on less privileged areas rather than the usuallocations for SAM activities. ANSAF foresees future engagement which shallfocus more on building the capacity of LGA’s and not only analysis of existingpractises for the aim of improving accountability at LGA level.

Institutionalize labour and legal framework on manner of dealing with districtand government officials possessing mandate for delivery of public service.Such directives, laws and frameworks shall safeguard the citizens againstcorrupt practises of government officials. Such mechanisms should be madepossible with possible collaborations with other law enforcement institutions.

Increase the levels of participation and capacity building of citizens toparticipate in overseeing public project within their own locality. LGA’s shouldbuild the capacity of its citizens through providing them with oversightdirectives, internalization of local challenges within the framework of theprojects and identification of priorities during the O&OD phase of eachproject. This shall improve allocative and implementation efficiency of eachproject.