district budget analysis study report final

District Budget Analysis Study Report, 2014.

District Budget Analysis Study

Including Funds Sources and DADPs Allocations

in Kilosa and Chamwino District Councils

Final Report

June 2014

1 | P a g e


Acknowledgement

I would like to thank ActionAid and its members for granting me this consultancy opportunity. Special thanks to Mr. Elias O. Mtinda for his tireless support and readiness for consultation in the times of difficulties experienced in the course of this study.

Am also highly indebted to Mr. Idd A. Mshili -District Executive Director, Ms. Tatu Said Kachenji- DAICO, Mr. Deonis Mboya -PAO-I, and Mr. Ludwig Ngakoko- DPLO for Kilosa District Council and Mr. Adrian. J. Jungu- District Executive Director and Mr. Godfrey Mnayamale- DAICO for Chamwino District Council for their well reception and invaluable support availed to make this study a success.

Many thanks should also go to Mr. Sigiene Samson for his invaluable contribution he made in data collection and analysis for this study.

Lastly but not least, I would like to express my gratitude to Mvumi community representatives for their insightful information regarding the operationalization of DADPs at the local level as well as its impact on people’s life.

2 | P a g e


List of Abbreviations

AMCOS Agricultural Markets and Cooperatives

ASLMs Agriculture Sector Lead Ministries

ASDP Agriculture Sector Development Programme

BF Basket Fund

CC Climate Change

CBG Capacity Building Grant

CDCF Constituent Development Catalyst Grants

CDG Council Development Fund

DADPs District Agricultural Development Plans

DAICO District Agricultural Irrigation and Cooperatives

DDP District Development Plan

DIDF District Irrigation Development Fund

DPLO District Planning and Land Officer

GHG Greenhouse Gas

JICA Japanese International Cooperation Agency

LDF Livestock Development Fund

LGAs Local Government Authorities

LGCDG Local Government Council Development Grant

MJUMITA Community Forest Conservation Network

MVIWATA Mtandao wa Vikundi vya Wakulima Tanzania

O & OD Opportunities and Obstacles in Development

PFM Participatory Forest Management

RWSSDP Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Development Programme

3 | P a g e


SACCOS Savings and Credit Cooperatives

SEDEP Small Enterprises Development Programme

TACAIDS Tanzania Commission for AIDS

TASAF Tanzania Social Action Fund

VADPs Village Agricultural Development Plans

WADPs Ward Agricultural Development Plans

4 | P a g e


TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF ABREVIATIONS …………………………………………………………………………………………

Executive Summary …………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

1.0 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................10

2.0 AIM, SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE AND SCOPE OF THE ASSIGNMENT.............................11

2.1 Specific Objectives................................................................................................11

2.2 Scope of Work......................................................................................................11

2.3 The Expected output.............................................................................................12

3.0 THE STUDY APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY.........................................................12

4.0 STUDY FINDINGS..........................................................................................................12

4.1 Funding Sources, Sector-wise Allocations and Priorities ...............................13

4.2 Budget Utilization by Sector............................................................................22

4.3 DADP Allocations and Priorities for Kilosa District .........................................26

4.4 Main Economic Activities for Kilosa and Chamwino District Councils ...........28

4.4.1 Kilosa District Main Economic Activities............................................................28

4.4.2 Chamwino District Main Economic Activities.....................................................29

4.5 Possible Opportunities for Diversification of the Districts Funding Sources 29

4.5.1 Kilosa District.................................................................................................29

4.5.2 Chamwio District............................................................................................31

5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS..............................................................32

5.1 Conclusions.......................................................................................................32

5.2 Recommendations.............................................................................................33

5 | P a g e


6.0 REFERENCES..................................................................................................................34

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE 1: KILOSA DISTRICT SOURCES OF FUNDS BY SECTOR FOR FY 2012 -2013 .............13

TABLE 2: KILOSA DISTRICT COUNCIL APPROVED BUDGET, RELEASED AND SPENT FOR 2012/2013.....................................................................................................................22

TABLE 3: .....KILOSA DISTRICT COUNCIL APPROVED BUDGET, RELEASED AND SPENT FOR 2013/2014.....................................................................................................................23

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE 1: KILOSA DC SOURCES OF FUNDS FOR 2012/2013 FINANCIAL YEAR .................... 15

FIGURE 2: KILOSA DC SOURCES OF FUNDS FOR 2013/2014 FINANCIAL YEAR .................... 16

FIGURE 3: CHAMWINO DC SOURCES OF FUNDS FOR 2012/2013 FY ..................................... 17

FIGURE 4: CHAMWINO DC SOURCES OF FUNDS FOR 2013/2014 FY ..................................... 17

FIGURE 5: KILOSA SECTOR-WISE BUDGET ALLOCATION FOR 2012/2013 ............................ 19

FIGURE 6: KILOSA DC SECTOR-WISE BUDGET ALLOCATION FOR 2013/2014 ..................... 20

FIGURE 7: CHAMWINO DC SECTOR-WISE BUDGET ALLOCATION FOR 2012/2013 ............ 20

FIGURE 8: CHAMWINO DC SECTOR-WISE BUDGET ALLOCATION FOR 2013/2014 FY ....... 21

FIGURE 9: .....CHAMWINO DC OVERVIEW OF BUDGET APPROVED, RELEASED AND SPENT SECTOR-WISE FOR 2012/2013 FINANCIAL YEAR .................................................... 24

FIGURE 10: CHAMWINO DC OVERVIEW OF BUDGET APPROVED, RELEASED AND SPENT SECTOR-WISE FOR 2013/2014 ................................................................................... 25

LIST OF APPENDICES

Check list of Questions for District Staff and Farmers Discussions

List of People Contacted

6 | P a g e


Executive Summary

This report gives the findings for the study conducted in Kilosa and Chamwino districts in the respective regions of Morogoro and Dodoma in Tanzania. The study aimed at conducting District budget analysis for the district councils of Kilosa and Chamwino and identify funding sources for the district budget and its utilization including DADPs allocations for 2012/2013 and 2013/2014 financial years. It also aimed at providing recommendations on the basis of the analysis on how best the district can diversify its funding sources for district development. The study employed the desk review and discussions with the District staff and farmers using a checklist guide of questions to help in the assessment of the funding sources for the district councils and its sectors of utilization, understanding of the districts’ priorities of the district and how much is allocated for each sector or priorities. Parallel to this, the assessment of was made to bring insights for the DADPs allocations and priorities in the two district Councils for 2012/2013 and 2013/2014 financial years. And how effective DADPs has been in improving people’s life. Similarly, the focus was put on earmarking possible opportunities for diversification of district funding sources and assessment of the main economic activities in the districts and its contribution to the district economy.

The findings from this study revealed that the two districts have various sources of funds supporting the implementation of various development projects and operations across different sectors. However, the implementation of various activities including DADPs related ones is not adequately effected as a result of delayed disbursement and lengthy procurement procedures. For instance, the overall disbursement of funds against the total allocations for all sectors in Kilosa District Council for the 2012/2013 was 78.5% of which 72% of was spent. The trend for the overall disbursement and the expended amount decreased to 68.6% and 63%, respectively in 2013/2014 financial year. Looking at many other parameters assessed in this study, the conclusions and recommendations are drawn as follows:-

Although the planning process for the identification of DADP intervention is done in a participatory manner using DADP guideline, still there is somehow a top-down approach in which the District Councils are obliged to comply with ‘one district- one crop value chain’ approach which is like ‘one- size fits all’ approach, thus limiting the District Councils and its communities to exploit some other areas with potential for investment using DADP fund. It should be noted that communities have varied capacities and interests, thus would be a good idea to provide them with a bit wide scope of choice for priority interventions;

There is a shortfall in selection of farmers’ representatives for the District planning team for DADP interventions in the sense that the selected representatives come from SACCOS or farmer-groups. But not all farmers especially the poor and vulnerable segment of the community are capable to join SACCOS or farmer-based groups. In this case, it is uncertain that the real needs of the poor members of the community are taken into account during the planning process;

7 | P a g e


The District Councils largely depend on the central government and bilateral funding agencies for financial support to carry out development activities. The little fund which is obtained through own District Councils’ sources of fund is often spent for running councils’ meetings. In view of this, it is difficult for the district councils to allocate funds on the basis of own priority sectors and often are provided with the ceiling budget. This has also a negative impact on meeting the implementation of development activities;

DADP has a big room for exerting a substantial impact to people’s life only that disbursement of its approved funds and procurement of services needed should be effected in an efficient and effective way; and

The two districts have a wide range opportunities for economic investment in agriculture and livestock sectors by improving the delivery of extension services and ensuring the existence of improved infrastructure essential for increased production, processing for value addition, storage and market access.

Based on the above conclusions, the following recommendations are put forward as the necessary steps in filling the gaps experienced in the district and the DADPs budget allocation and utilization:-

Since the budget resources allocation is to a certain extent being determined by the central government with some restriction of the budget ceilings irrespective of the district’s priorities, it would then be a good idea for the district councils to put more efforts in exploring other potential areas from which they can be able to generate own funds to fill the budget gaps and allocations on the basis of their priority interventions;

The DADP planning process should take into account the interests of the poorest segments of the community through a strategic and purposeful inclusion of the poor farmers in the planning process. This cannot be possible without the review of the process for the selection of community representatives provided in the DADP guideline. This should also take into account the flexibility issues rather than the current process which is restricted to one-size fits all approach commonly known as ‘one-district –one crop’ value chain approach;

Efforts should be taken to ensure that the approved district budgets including that for DADPs are timely disbursed to the district to allow a big room for implementation of planned development projects in an efficient and effective way, thus assurance of quality and value for money. More importantly, good governance principles should be adhered at different levels right from the central government to the community so as to avoid unnecessary bureaucratic procedures which create the barrier for efficient and effectiveness in the delivery of services and financial disbursements;

8 | P a g e


Government expenditures should be treated as a public goods rather than being seen as confidential. This will not only give a room for ensuring accountability in the delivery of services, but also for delivery of advices and necessary support from non-state actors; and

The District Council should in collaboration with other development actors undertake strategic initiatives geared to exploiting the identified possible opportunities for diversification of own resources. This will essentially help the district allocation of its financial resources on the basis of own priorities as opposed to the current situation whereby the big chunk of the District budget relies on external support.

9 | P a g e


1.0 INTRODUCTION

ActionAid Tanzania, Community Forest Conservation Network (MJUMITA), the Farmer’s Network of Tanzania (MVIWATA), the Tanzania Forest Conservation Group and the Tanzania Organic Agriculture Movement received funding from AcT for implementation of the project titled “Climate change, agriculture and poverty alleviation: putting small-scale farmers at the heart of policy and practice” in 2 districts of Kilosa and Chamwino. Development of this project is based on the fact that the majority of people in Tanzania are smallholders and depends on agriculture for their livelihood. When it comes to climate variability, it is small-scale farmers who are hit first and hardest by the climate change (CC). It has been realized that land use changes particularly deforestation as a result of shifting agriculture, is the largest source of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in Tanzania. Investment in agriculture and agricultural policies and practices are prioritizing a shift to more mechanized, fossil fuel dependent, larger scale agriculture with the aim of increasing productivity and commercializing smallholder production. Whilst this approach may increase short-term yields, it risks making small-scale farmers poorer and more vulnerable to CC. It is believed that there are alternative approaches to land use and food production that would bring ‘wins’ in terms of CC adaptation and mitigation, but lack of awareness to small-scale farmers and policy makers on the adaptation and mitigation to CC has been the problem. In view of this, the project goal is centered at reducing poverty amongst small-scale farmers in Tanzania and greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture through the widespread adoption of climate resilient, low emission agricultural practices. Consistently, it envisages to see that Tanzania has developed and is implementing policies and strategies that prioritize support to small-scale farmers to enable them to improve their livelihoods through the adoption of climate smart agriculture and sustainable land and natural resources management. In this regard, the project specifically intends at achieving the following intermediated objectives:-

Immediate objective 1. Small-scale farmers and other stakeholders are demanding the integration of climate smart, small-scale agriculture and sustainable land and natural resources management in national policy and policy implementation.

Immediate objective 2. Government, private sector and civil society are cooperating to support Small-scale farmers to benefit from climate smart agriculture and sustainable land and natural resources management.

The achievement of the above intermediate objectives ought to contribute to among others realization of the outcomes various levels including small-scale farmers, district officials and elected representatives. More precisely, ultimately looks to bring the following changes:-

Empowering small-scale farmers to hold local and national government accountable for the delivery of efficient and effective support services that enable farmers to adopt climate change adaptation and mitigation strategies in ways that improve their livelihoods. Parallel to this, small-scale farmers are expected to be practicing and be aware of good governance practices and community rights;

10 | P a g e


Making district officials aware of climate change adaptation and mitigation and capacity to integrate climate change issues in their plans and budgets including the DADPs and serve local communities by providing them with the necessary support reflecting farmers identified priorities in the district. Moreover, communities will be involved in the planning, budgeting, implementation and monitoring of DADPs;

Elected representatives are actively pushing at national and local level for improved services to support small-scale farmers to adopt climate smart agriculture. They are using their influence to ensure that the laws, policies and plans that are submitted to them for approval, integrate support for small-scale farmers in relation to climate change adaptation and mitigation.

In view of the above, Action Aid committed a study on the District budget analysis for which its objectives and the scope are provided hereunder.

2.0 AIM, SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE AND SCOPE OF THE ASSIGNMENT

The study aimed to conduct District budget analysis including identification of funding sources for the district budget and DADPs allocation.

2.1 Specific Objectives

The specific objectives of the study were:-

To undertake budget analysis for the district council of Kilosa and Chamwino and identify funding sources for the district budget and its utilization for 2012/2013 and 2013/2014 financial years; and

Provide recommendations from Consultant’s analysis on how best the district can diversify its funding sources for district development

2.2 Scope of Work

In the fulfilment of this assignment, the Client expected the consultant to undertake a district budget analysis study, including identification of funding sources for the district budget and DADPs allocation. In consideration of this, the Consultant was expected to take into account the following issues among others in the analysis:

11 | P a g e


Assess the funding sources for the district council and its sectors of utilization, what are the priorities of the district and how much is allocated for each sector or priorities;

Assess DADPs allocations for 2 financial years and DADPs priorities for the 2 districts, how effective DADPs has been in improving people’s life;

Earmark possible opportunities for diversification of district funding sources; and

Assess the main economic activities in the districts and its contribution to the district economy.

2.3 The Expected output

A report with in-depth district budget analysis, and DADP allocations and priorities for 2012/13 and 2013/14 financial years. Parallel to this, the report should earmark possible opportunities for diversification of district funding sources and main economic activities in the districts and its contribution to the district economy.

3.0 THE STUDY APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY

The information described in this report were mainly obtained through a desk review of various documents in the studied districts. For clear understanding and clarification of some information, discussions were held with District staff mainly DAICO, Irrigation Officers, and DPLOs. Apart from these, representative farmers and elected representative were interviewed in Kilosa to obtain their overview and understanding of DADP, climate change issues and how these are taken into the Districts priorities and the level of farmers’ engagement in decision and planning processes.

4.0 STUDY FINDINGS

Prior to reporting of the findings, it is important to note that the study embarked on undertaking the District budget analysis for Kilosa and Chamwino District Councils with primary focus on identifying funds sources and exploration of DADPs allocations and priorities for the Financial Year (FY) 2012/2013 and 2013/14. Specifically, it looked at getting an overview of funding sources and budget utilizations across various sectors as well as insights on the districts priorities and how much is allocated for each sector or priorities. Moreover, an exploration was made to understand main economic activities in the districts and its contribution to the district economy. The study also looked at identifying possible opportunities for diversification of the districts’ funding sources. Despite all these and the strategic focus made on the assessment of the required budget analysis parameters, it is important to note that independent budget

12 | P a g e


analysis requires access to comprehensive, timely, and useful budget information . Contrariwise, this study was faced with difficult access to all the key documents with the necessary data on the direct and indirect expenditures for all sources of funds including DADPs. In Chamwino for instance, expenditure for the 2013/2014 could not be accessed for the reason that the closure of accounts is yet due on the 30th June 2014. Such situation made this study a bit more difficult to come up with clear insights and comprehensive assessment of some of the required aspects. In this regard, the findings of this study are based on somehow general and partial information which were made available for the review and also discussions with some district staff and interviewed farmers as presented hereunder.

4.1 Funding Sources, Sector-wise Allocations and Priorities

The assessment of sources of funds for the 2012/2013 and 2013/2014 financial years revealed that the two districts have various sources of funds supporting the implementation of various development projects and operations across different sectors. Some of the funding sources provided support to more than one sector as shown in Table 1. In view of this, a comprehensive analysis was made to understand the total contribution of each source of fund in each district for each particular financial year. The results of such analysis are depicted in Figure 1 and 2 for Kilosa District Council and Figure 3 and 4 for Chamwino with clear statistical description of the extent at which each source of funds contributed to the districts budgets in each of the financial year under this study.

Table 1: Kilosa District Sources of Funds by sector for FY 2012 -2013

Source Sector Budgeted

CDG Livestock and Fisheries 137,225,000.00

LGCDG Culture 47,917,086.00

CDG Secondary Education 137,000,000.00

CDG Primary Education 230,000,000.00

Central Govt. Secondary Education 100,000,000.00

CBG Administration 59,000,000.00

WAJIBIKA Planning 27,500,000.00

13 | P a g e


Source Sector Budgeted

CDG Planning 1,838,677,731.00

CDCF Planning 131,359,500.00

TASAF Planning 74,852,460.00

CDG Administration 521,425,183.00

Central Govt. Administration 100,000,000.00

PFM Natural Resource 66,265,000.00

RWSP Water 538,330,000.00

DADP Agriculture 667,655,000.00

DIDF Agriculture 403,125,000.00

LDF Livestock and Fisheries 10,415,000.00

TACAIDS Community Dev. 218,281,000.00

Road Fund Works 831,500,000.00

MMAM Health 151,486,000.00

CDG Health 156,000,000.00

CDG Environment and Sanitation 15,603,000.00

TUNAJALI Health 429,397,500.00

Basket Fund Health 1,329,289,200.00

14 | P a g e


Figure 1: Kilosa DC Sources of Funds for 2012/2013 Financial Year

15 | P a g e


Figure 2: Kilosa DC Sources of Funds for 2013/2014 Financial Year

The information presented in Figure 1 and 2 above show sources of funds allocated for Kilosa District Council in the respective FY 2012/2013 and 2013-14. The Figure 1 depicts that the major share of funds for FY 2012/2013 was channeled to the local level through the Council Development Grant (CDP) 37% and Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Program (RWSSP) 36% in FY 2013/2014. The Allocation through RWSSP increased by 29% in FY 2013/2014 while that for CDP decreased by 26% when compared to FY 2012/2013. Undoubtedly this is due to the national focused initiatives on the Big Results Now (BRN) which among other things emphasizes on enhancement of irrigation water supply as part of improving the poor small-scale farmers’ livelihoods. Other sources which mainly contributed to Kilosa District Council budget were Basket Fund 16%, Road Fund 10%, District Agricultural Development Plans (DADPs) 8% and District Irrigation Development Fund (DIDF) 6% in FY 2012/2013 and Basket Fund 10%, DADP 9% Local Government Council Development Grant (LGCDG) 7% and DIDF 6% in FY 2013/2014. Interestingly the allocation for DADP increased by 1% from 8% in FY 2012/2013 to 9% in FY 2013/2014.

Similarly information drawn in Figure 3 and 4 below indicate that the main sources of funds for Chamwino District Council for FY 2012/2013 were CDG 39% followed by Road Fund 16%, RWSSP 14%, Basket Fund 10%, Tanzania Social Action Fund (TASAF) 8% and DADPs 6% while in FY 2013/2014 CDG contributed 27% of the district budget followed by RWSSP 24% with an increase

16 | P a g e


of 10%, Road Fund 13%, TASAF 12%, Other Charges (OC) 8% and 5% for DADPs with a decrease of 1% compared to FY 2012/2013.

Figure 3: Chamwino DC Sources of Funds for 2012/2013 FY

Figure 4: Chamwino DC Sources of Funds for 2013/2014 FY

17 | P a g e


Moreover, it is worth noting that, apart from the findings described above, desk review of progress reports revealed that for the financial year 2013/2014 Kilosa District Council approved a total of TZS 8,914,079,277 accrued from DADP, DIDF, MMEM, MMES, LGCDG, MMAM, TACAIDS and TASAF funding for 2012/2013. Up to 31st December 2013, the District spent TZS 6,206,047,791 which is 70% of accrued amount in implementation of 2012/2013 unaccomplished development projects. The review further revealed that of the accrued amount, DADPs had TZS 780,217,660 of which TZS 778,997,760 (99.84%) was released for expenditure but only TZS 135,883,672.00 (17%) of the DADPs released was spent up to 31st December, 2013. From this analysis, it is obvious that implementation of a number of development activities including DADPs failure to take place as planned mainly due to delayed disbursement of funds and lengthy procurement procedures. Indeed, for the financial year 2013/2014 the district had a plan to implement different development project worth TZS 6,503,381,860 of which until 30th December 2013, only TZS 3,651,021,885.91 (56.14%) was disbursed. Of this disbursed amount TZS 325,734,513 were meant for Gairo District which its money still pass through Kilosa District Account. Apart from this, Kilosa District received TZS 778,646,369.91 comprised of TZS 582,479,260 and TZS 196,167,109.91 which were approved in 2012/2013 for respective implementation of DADPs and roads projects but could not be disbursed due to shortage of funds.

Assessment of FY 2012/2013 and 2013/2014 sector-wise resource allocations and priorities is clearly shown in Figure 5 and 6 and Figure 7 and 8 for Kilosa and Chamwino District Councils, respectively. As depicted from these figures, planning and health sectors were mainly allocated with 25% each, followed by agriculture 13%, works 10%, administration 8% and water 6% for Kilosa and planning 39%, works 19%, water 17%, health 12% and agriculture 6% for Chamwino in FY 2012/2013. In FY 2013/2014 the biggest chunk of the budget (36%) for Kilosa was allocated to water sector followed by 16% for health and 13% for agriculture, while the bigger part of Chamwino budget was allocated to planning sector (31%) followed by 27% water, works (15%), primary education (9%) and health sector (8%). The trade sector received the least 0.001% of total district budget while other sectors including land, community development and livestock and fisheries had 1% allocation each. It should be noted from the analyzed information that the trend of budget varied with an increase or decrease in budget allocation to some sectors compared to the previous financial year. Such trend of increase or decrease in allocation has little to do with the districts priorities but often largely determined by Central Government or bilateral funders budget ceiling. It was realized through the discussion with district staff that, technical staff from Regional Secretariat do carry out Council performance assessment prior to each next year budgeting. The results from such an assessment largely contribute in determining the allocation for the development grants to District Councils. The poor the results means less allocation for the subsequent year.

18 | P a g e


Figure 5: Kilosa Sector-wise Budget Allocation for 2012/2013

19 | P a g e


Figure 6: Kilosa DC Sector-wise Budget Allocation for 2013/2014

Figure 7: Chamwino DC Sector-wise Budget Allocation for 2012/2013

20 | P a g e


Figure 8: Chamwino DC Sector-wise Budget Allocation for 2013/2014 FY

4.2 Budget Utilization by Sector

Apart from assessment of the budget allocations and priorities by sector as discussed in section 4.1, the study went further exploring the expenditures against the amount disbursed for each sector in FY 2012/2013 and 2013/2014. As pointed earlier, it was not possible to obtain the information with detail description of both direct and indirect expenditure, so this assessment will just provide a general overview based on the information disclosed as shown in Table 2 and 3 for Kilosa and Figure 9 and 10 for Chamwino. Looking at the presented information, it is obvious that in all the studied districts and financial years there some sectors which received above the approved budget, some received the whole amount approved while others received even far less compared to the approved budget. But the overall ddisbursement of funds from Central Government against the total allocations for all sectors in Kilosa District Council for the 2012/2013 was 78.5% of which 72%b of the disbursed amount was spent. Contrarily, the overall disbursement and the expended amount decreased to 68.6% and 63%, respectively in 2013/2014 financial year. Information provided in Table 2 also indicate that health and natural resources had -1% and -64% of unreleased budget implying that they received more than what was budgeted and approved by Kilosa DC for the FY 2012/2013 while 15%, 45% and 44% of the approved budget for the respective primary and secondary education, administration and water sectors could not be disbursed to the District Council in the same financial year. A similar trend was experienced in Chamwino District Council for the studied 2012/2013 and 2013/2014

21 | P a g e


financial years. It was explained that the extra amount disbursed to some sectors is often derived from previous year unreleased amount. The analysis have also indicated that some sectors have spent less amount compared to the amount received while others have managed to spend 100% of the released budget. The health, works, water and planning sectors are the good examples as illustrated in Figure 9 for Chamwino pattern of approved, released and spent budget in FY 2012/2013 and 2013/2014, respectively. Thus, it can be deduced from this study that, to a certain extent the budgeting and budget approval have a close link with sector priorities set and budget ceiling being provided by the Central Government while sector utilization is largely determined by the time the approved budgets are disbursed from treasury and bureaucratic procedures involved in the procurement of services. Information given in Figure 10 is explicitly an affirmation behind this assertion through the funds release in each could not be spent as a result of delayed disbursement. Cementing to this affirmation, the interviewed district staff pointed out that, in some cases the disbursements are made close to the end of a financial year or even off growing season for agriculture sector for instance, hence, making it difficult to spend it. This was pointed out by district staff as one of the bottleneck contributing to inefficient performance of the District Councils. Often they tend to rush spending the funds lately received, thus compromising the quality of work and value for money in interventions and service delivery. It was proposed that a mechanism should be sought out to avoid the bureaucratic procedures which often cause unnecessary delays in disbursement and procurement of services.

Table 2: Kilosa District Council Approved Budget, Released and Spent for 2012/2013

Sector Budget TZS Released TZS Unreleased TZS

% Unreleased TZS Spent TZS % Spent

Health 1,484,163,411 1,497,905,511 -13,742,100 -1% 1,217,853,949 81%

Primary & secondary education

756,885,080 646,254,114 110,630,966 15% 542,922,927 84%

Agriculture 2,060,952,660 2,064,732,760 -3,780,100 0% 1,179,009,962 57%

DADP 1,115,537,660 1,114,317,760 1,219,900 0% 318,416,962 29%

Works 725,763,072 724,282,681 1,480,391 0% 643,896,452 89%

Natural resources

28,900,000 47,315,000 -18,415,000 -64% 47,315,000 100%

Policy & planning 381,891,722 377,446,087 4,445,635 1% 294,170,050 78%

22 | P a g e


Sector Budget TZS Released TZS Unreleased TZS

% Unreleased TZS Spent TZS % Spent

Administration 722,410,890 399,810,890 322,600,000 45% 145,149,172 36%

Information technology

47,917,086 47,917,086 0.00 0% 29,997,899 63%

Community development

44,101,200 44,101,200 0.00 0% 44,101,200 100%

Water 5,257,419,163 2,945,239,948 2,312,179,215 44% 2,663,746,269 90%

Trade 30,000,000 30,000,000 0.00 0% 20,482,500 68%

Total 12,655,941,944 9,939,323,037 2,716,618,907 21% 7,147,062,342 72%

Table 3: Kilosa District Council Approved Budget, Released and Spent for 2013/2014

Sector Budgeted Released Unreleased % Unreleased

spent % Spent

Health 2,936,142,671

2,949,884,771

15,4223,772 -47% 1,693,046,636 57%

Environment and Sanitation

185,233,000 89,074,000

96,159,00052%

87,152,000 98%

Primary Education

210,000,000 197,973,232

12,026,768 5.7% 112,269,034 57%

Secondary Education

902,149,080 950,464,278

-48,315,198 -5.4% 542,452,157 57%

Agriculture 2,380,358,400 1,844,312,356 536,046,044 23% 1,077,848,222 58%

Livestock and Fisheries 549,450,000 451,735,000 97,715,000 18% 175,438,790 39%

Works 1,273,989,508 2,153,344,167 -879,354,659 -69% 1,260,744,560 59%

23 | P a g e


Sector Budgeted Released Unreleased % Unreleased

spent % Spent

Natural Resources 135,760,040 69,581,354 66,178,686 49% 55,500,000 80%

Policy and Planning 1,654,402,889 776,624,882 877,778,007 53% 502,072,766 65%

Administration 1,085,740,407 420,755,890 664,984,517 61% 152,833,172 36%

Information Technology 47,917,086 47,917,086 0 0% 29,997,899 63%

Community Development 196,897,900 172,749,297 24,148,603 12% 85,217,555 49%

Water 6,544,819,163 3,855,643,415 2,689,175,748 41% 2,771,746,269 72%

Trade 30,000,000 30,000,000 0 0% 20,482,500 68%

Total 13,929,062,236 9,560,668,205 4,536,359,903 33% 6,052,769,988 63%

Figure 9: Chamwino DC Overview of Budget Approved, Released and Spent Sector-wise for 2012/2013 Financial Year

24 | P a g e


Figure 10: Chamwino DC Overview of Budget Approved, Released and Spent Sector-wise for 2013/2014

4.3 DADP Allocations and Priorities for Kilosa District

The Agriculture Sector Development Programme (ASDP) is a Sector Programme largely implemented at the district level through the District Agricultural Development Plans (DADPs) as an integral part of the District Development Plan (DDP). The government started implementing the Agriculture Sector Development Programme from 2006/2007 onwards via donor-provided Basket Funding (BF) through the Agriculture Sector Lead Ministries (ASLMs). Principally, the district Councils are responsible for preparing and implementing DADPs while the Agriculture Sector Lead Ministries are responsible for ensuring the quality of DADPs’ design and implementation. Based on the findings of this study, previously in 2012/2013 and some other financial years back to the time when DADP was grant was established, the budget resources allocation of DADP resources was given as consolidated budget in which the district had to allocate it for implementation of livestock and agricultural based on priority interventions identified by the district through a participatory planning process. Different to this, in 2013/2014 DADP resources allocation is based on the DADP planning guideline which requires each district to identify one potential intervention on the basis of value chain analysis known as ‘one district –one crop’ which looks like one –size fits all approach. Once the specific intervention dealing with one crop identified, the DADP resources is distributed to cover different areas essential for the intervention including capacity building, supervision and also direct costs related to the intervention. Nonetheless, as pointed out earlier, it was not possible to obtain detail costs

25 | P a g e


particularly those related to indirect expenditures, thus making it difficult to undertake deeper analysis for comparison of budget allocation with coverage of both indirect and direct costs.

Furthermore, this study revealed that each District Council (DC) has its own vision through which a 5 years Strategic Development Plan is developed with strategic areas of development interventions in compliance to MTEF objectives. Along this line, the District Councils’ targets and activities are established to ensure the objectives are achieved. In this regard, it can be realized that the setting of the District’s strategic objectives, targets and activities in compliance to MTEF makes it difficult to escape the top-down approach phenomenon and paradigm. Conversely, the DADP priorities setting follows a specific laid guideline with emphasis on the use of a participatory Value Chain known as ;one district one crop’ development approach. Despite the DADP’s planning guideline emphasis on participatory approach, yet it is my view on the basis of this study findings that, it is hardly difficult for the DADP priorities setting to go out of a biased round trap of already existing DC’s institutional priorities within the District Strategic Plan interventions targets which are aligned with MTEF sheets.

Nonetheless, discussions with the District staff and also farmers revealed that farmers are aware of DADPs as they have been involved in preparing their Village Agricultural Development Plans (VADPs) which are included in the Ward Agricultural Development Plans (WADPs).These plans from lower levels are consolidated into DADPs. But unlike O & OD which used to undertake a participatory analysis from the hamlet level, the DADP planning guideline is questionable whether it takes into account the real needs of the poorer segment of farmers in the community. The reason behind this assertion is that, the community representatives participating in the DADP interventions planning process are selected through their farmer’s organization such as AMCOS, SACCOS or farmers groups which often comprised of a bit well-off and elite members of the community, thus leaving behind the poorer farmers interests and representation. Above this, rarely farmers are involved in the budgeting only that they are notified in writing their VADP interventions that will be implemented in the coming year District Development Plan. It should be acknowledged however, the implementation process is to a large extent done in a transparent manner in the sense that funds for DADPs activities are sent to community bank accounts thus increasing ownership, accountability and transparency in project management. Consistent to this, farmers and district staff interview affirmed that DADPs have made substantial impact on people’s life. In Kilosa for instance;

A number of traditional irrigation schemes including Mwasa, Lumuma, Madizini, Chabima, Malolo, Ilonga, Chanzuri, Rudewa, Mvumi, Kichangani and Uleling’ombe villages have been improved;

Farmers have been trained on good agricultural production practices and techniques including exposure visits. In some areas, power tillers, tractors and rice milling machines have been provided. All these have contributed to increased rice production

26 | P a g e


from 7kg to 20 or 25kg per acres as affirmed by farmers in Mvumi village, implying for increase of households’ income;

One important achievement is that DADPS projects are owned and managed by farmers themselves. This is an important aspect for making the projects sustainable. Farmers through their SACCOS/Irrigators Organizations meet and plan for their farms without undue interference from the Council staff and other stakeholders;

DADP projects has improved farmers’ capacity in crop production due to involvement in land preparation, nursery management, transplanting of seedlings, pest and disease control, rotational irrigation management and other crop husbandry practices; and

DADP projects have succeeded to impress the youth group to remain in the villages. For example at Chinangali II grape farm, grape production creates an assurance of about 6 to 15 tons per acre per year and guarantees stable income for the period of about 50 years.

4.4 Main Economic Activities for Kilosa and Chamwino District Councils

4.4.1 Kilosa District Main Economic Activities

The main economic activities in Kilosa district are agriculture and livestock keeping. More than 80% of people in Kilosa district are fully depending on agricultural activities growing maize, paddy, sorghum, cassava, and legumes as major staple food while major cash crops comprise cotton, sisal, sugarcane and oilseeds

Nevertheless, the agricultural sector in Kilosa is limited by a number of constraints including:-

Poor road network especially during rainy season which limits timely availability of fuel, spare parts, and other inputs especially to villages located in remote areas; and

Unreliable rainfall making farming to be high risky enterprises making farmers opt for low input technology.

Livestock keeping `is also an important economic venture that has a big potential in boosting the district’s economy. Surprisingly, it was learnt through this study that the district is making deliberate efforts for livestock destocking as a remedy to conflicts between farmers and pastoralists in the area. There is an accusation that the pastoralists have been the main cause of conflict

27 | P a g e


4.4.2 Chamwino District Main Economic Activities

On the basis of literatures and discussion with DAICO for Chamwino, agriculture and livestock sectors are considered as the main economic activities in Chamwino district largely providing employment and income to majority of the district population. More than 90 percent of the community members in the district rely on agriculture. Only a small number of the population is engaged in commercial and industrial sectors whilst the industrial is still limited to small scale enterprises mainly carpentry, oil mills and tailoring. Second to agriculture is a livestock which is viewed as a vital economic activity in the district. This is clearly evident in the sense that its cattle population accounts for about 20% of the regional cattle herd and Chamwino ranks second to Kondoa district in terms of livestock numbers. In 2012 the district had an estimate of 284,749 indigenous cattle based on 2002 livestock census projection, where number of cattle was 185,659,goats 41,384 and sheep 9,007. Nonetheless, its actual contribution to the district output growth in terms of provisions of income, employment and contribution to GDP and Per Capita income is less recognized due to pre-existed negative notion against pastoralism mode of life, thus little efforts in laying strategic initiatives for promotion of livestock sector contribution to the district economy.

4.5 Possible Opportunities for Diversification of the Districts Funding Sources

4.5.1 Kilosa District

Discussion with district staff in Kilosa came out with the findings that Kilosa has a varied range of agro-ecological conditions with considerable potential for irrigated and rain-fed agriculture for a variety of crops mainly cereal crops, sugar cane, horticultural crops, rice, cocoa and many others. Despite this potential, the district has largely relied on collection of own revenue from agriculture which predominantly relies on traditional cropping system with low productivity. Low production is often attributed to low knowledge and understanding of good agricultural practices as a result of inadequate delivery of agricultural extension services. Nonetheless, it was learnt that the district has about 132 agricultural extension staff. This alone is a potential opportunity which the district could invest to ensure that the existing human capital is effectively utilized to support farmers with the knowledge and skills needed to transform them from subsistence to commercial farming for improved production, hence, a widened room for revenue collection by the district. Similarly, Kilosa district has potentially ample arable land and 37 perennial rivers which could be utilized for improved crop production should the district ensure farmers access to good and reliable agricultural extension services, improvement of traditional irrigation systems. The situation to date indicates that out of 35 traditional irrigation schemes only 12 have been improved mainly through DADP and JICA support. This should go parallel with the timely provision of weather information to farmers as a strategy to curb among others climate changes effects. Moreover, the district should strive together with involvement of private sectors and

28 | P a g e


donors to ensure farmers with supportive business environment through improvement of rural feeder roads and support for processing and storage/warehouses for enhanced market access. This will definitely make agriculture as a profitable venture from which the district can reap the benefits through revenue collection.

Apart from the above, Dumila, Kilosa and Mikumi are earmarked centers for future district investment. Currently, European Union has agreed to support the development of roads infrastructure and supply of essential services like water, electricity and sewage systems so as to attract private investors let alone the fact that the district will also generate revenue through selling of surveyed plots.

It was further pointed out that the Council is currently loosing revenue by relying on collection of revenue from sugar cane plantation through the contracted Revenue Collection Agencies. The District Council is suspicious that the collection being reported by agencies is not realistic. In this regard, it would be good for the District to look for system or mechanism which will ensure high level of efficiency and accountability in the revenue collection so as to raise the District Council’s own source of income. The district staff also had a view that a decentralized government that shifts the power to LGAs is another grey area with potential for enhancement of the district’s diversification of its funding sources. What is needed is to ensure adequate capacity building is taking place to improve the staff working efficiency particularly in resources mobilization as a way of soliciting resources – from different sources including donors.

Moreover, Kilosa has a roads network linked to Dodoma – Dar es Salaam and also Mbeya roads thus creating a wealth of investment opportunity. The district views this as a potential opportunity with great strengths and advantages as an investment location adding to the district opportunity for diversification of economic gains.

On top of the above, livestock remains an important sector in the district’s economy although the government has a negative perspective linked to the cause of conflicts with farmers and also environmental degradation. It would have been more important to look for good strategies in addition to land use plans so as to harness the existing potential for the productivity of the livestock sector.

4.5.2 Chamwio District

Although agricultural sector employs 90% of the district population, yet this opportunity has not been fully exploited due to a number of factors including rain fed farming, low use of technology, low farming skills and climate change effects. These challenges have made 70% of total arable in the district that would suitably be used for crop production to remain unutilized. This means that out of 563,920 hectares suitable for agricultural production only about 246,821(44%) hectares are used for crop production. Failure to

29 | P a g e


potentially utilize the arable land has constituted to the declining of the sector contribution to the economy of Chamwino. Addressing of the above challenges then is of critical importance as a possible opportunity for the district diversification of its funding sources. Information obtained through a desk study indicate that Chamwino has earmarked grapes production and processing, fruits production, processing and marketing, beekeeping and honey processing, fishing and hotels development as potential economic ventures which if well exploited can provide the district with great opportunity for diversification of its funding sources. Strategies on how to promote the mentioned investments are as outlined hereunder:-

i. Providing assistance with trading license and permits within a minimum period of thirty days including authorizations, registration, and other matters required by law for a person to set up and operate enterprises;

ii. Assist in identifying investment sites, estates or land together with associated facilities of any sites for the purpose of investors and investment in general;

iii. Provide and disseminate up to date information on benefits or incentives available to investors;

iv. Assist in looking for labour supplies. Labour is easily available in Chamwino although it is largely unskilled; and

v. Through commercial courts ensure that where a dispute arises, efforts shall be made to settle the disputes through negotiations for an amicable settlement.

Apart from agriculture, livestock production is another possible opportunity in which the

district can invest for diversification of its funding sources. What is needed is

strengthening of the livestock extension services and improvement of pastures as

strategic initiatives for enhancing the contribution of livestock sector to the district

economy.

5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the findings, this study came up with the following conclusions and recommendations.

5.1 Conclusions

It can be concluded from this study that:-

i. Priorities that are set by the District Councils often focus on meeting the objectives found in the Council’s strategic plan in compliance with the MTEF guideline. Certainly this has great influence in guiding the identification of small-scale farmers priorities in somehow biased perspective during the planning processes;

30 | P a g e


ii. Although the planning process for the identification of DADP intervention is done in a participatory manner using DADP guideline, still there is somehow a top-down approach in which the District Councils are obliged to comply with ‘one district- one crop value chain’ approach which is like ‘one- size fits all’ approach, thus limiting the District Councils and its communities to exploit some other areas with potential for investment using DADP fund. It should be noted that communities have varied capacities and interests, thus would be a good idea to provide them with a bit wide scope of choice for priority interventions;

iii. There is a shortfall in selection of farmers’ representatives for the District planning team for DADP interventions in the sense that the selected representatives come from SACCOS or farmer-groups. But not all farmers especially the poor and vulnerable segment of the community are capable to join SACCOS or farmer-based groups. In this case, it is uncertain that the real needs of the poor members of the community are taken into account during the planning process;

iv. The District Councils largely depend on the central government and bilateral funding agencies for financial support to carry out development activities. The little fund which is obtained through own District Councils’ sources of fund is often spent for running councils’ meetings. In view of this, it is difficult for the district councils to allocate funds on the basis of own priority sectors and often are provided with the ceiling budget. This has also a negative impact on meeting the implementation of development activities;

v. Disbursements for the District Councils’ approved financial year budget often take place late with some of it not being disbursed at all. This also includes those funds approved for the implementation of DADP interventions. This coupled with bureaucratic processes involved in the procurement processes do largely affect the implementation on the ground and therefore the realization of the expected results;

vi. To a large extent budget expenditure of the District Councils is viewed by some of the District Officers as something not for public consumption i.e. ‘confidential’ thus opposing the good governance principles which put emphasis on transparency;

vii. DADP has a big room for exerting a substantial impact to people’s life only that disbursement of its approved funds and procurement of services needed should be effected in an efficient and effective way; and

viii. The two districts have a wide range opportunities for economic investment in agriculture and livestock sectors by improving the delivery of extension services and ensuring the existence of improved infrastructure essential for increased production, processing for value addition, storage and market access. This should go parallel with deliberate initiatives for transforming the small-scale farming to commercial kind of production not only for assured benefits to farmers, but also the councils’ increase in income through produce revenue collection.

31 | P a g e


5.2 Recommendations

The present study puts forward the following recommendations as the necessary steps in filling the gaps experienced in the district and the DADPs budget allocation and utilization:-

Since the budget resources allocation and to a certain extent being determined by the central government with some restriction of the budget ceilings irrespective of the district’s priorities, it would then be a good idea for the district councils to put more efforts in exploring other potential areas from which they can be able to generate own funds to fill the budget gaps and allocations on the basis of their priority interventions;

The DADP planning process should take into account the interests of the poorest segments of the community through a strategic and purposeful inclusion of the poor farmers in the planning process. This cannot be possible without the review of the process for the selection of community representatives provided in the DADP guideline. This should also take into account the flexibility issues rather than the current process which is restricted to one-size fits all approach commonly known as ‘one-district –one crop’ value chain approach;

Efforts should be taken to ensure that the approved district budgets including that for DADPs are timely disbursed to the district to allow a big room for implementation of planned development projects in an efficient and effective way, thus assurance of quality and value for money. More importantly, good governance principles should be adhered at different levels right from the central government to the community so as to avoid unnecessary bureaucratic procedures which create the barrier for efficient and effectiveness in the delivery of services and financial disbursements;

Government expenditures should be treated as a public goods rather than being seen as confidential. This will not only give a room for ensuring accountability in the delivery of services, but also for delivery of advices and necessary support from non-state actors; and

The District Council should in collaboration with other development actors undertake strategic initiatives geared to exploiting the identified possible opportunities for diversification of own resources. This will essentially help the district allocation of its financial resources on the basis of own priorities as opposed to the current situation whereby the big chunk of the District budget relies on external support.

32 | P a g e


6.0 REFERENCES

Executive Summary Progress Report Q3 2012/13 Kilosa

Kilosa Five Year Strategic Development Plan 2011/2012 – 2015/2016

Revenue Summary of Council Budget Framework 2013/14 – 2015/2016

Summary of Sources of Funds and Allocations by Sector for 2012/13 -2013/14

Summary of Progress Report for Development Activities 3rd Quarter Ended 31st March, 2014, of the Financial Year 2013/14

Kilosa - LGA Summary Sheet of DADP Quarterly Progress Report, Quarter 4, 2013/14

Kilosa - LGA Summary Sheet of DADP Quarterly Progress Report for 2012/13 Carry-over Fund, Quarter 4, 2013/14

Chamwino District Council Summary of Sources of Funds and Allocations by Sector for 2012/13 -2013/14

Agricultural Investment Opportunities in Chamwino District

Summary of Resources for Implementation of the Kilosa Five Year Development Plan 2011/2012 - 2015/2016

33 | P a g e


APPENDICES

Check list of Questions for District Staff and Farmers Discussionsi. Questions for District Key staff

a. Are the communities aware of DADPs?

b. How are they involved in planning, budgeting and monitoring of DADPs?

c. What mechanisms in place to ensure transparent and accountable in the execution of the DADPs.

d. Which initiatives or mechanisms in place for addressing corruption in the agriculture and natural resources sector?

e. To what extent are the districts aware of climate change adaptation and mitigation?

f. Do the district plans include climate change adaptation and mitigation issues in their plans and budgets (PLANRep).

g. How do the districts support the development and implementation of village land use plans and participatory forest management?

h. What is the community response?

i. To what extent do the districts support community access to REDD finance?

j. What resource capacity do the districts have in supporting communities’ adaptation and mitigation for climate change including ways minimization of GHG emissions from agriculture? (put in mind of the following kind of support by the district and resources requirements: training; assistance in improving access to market or access to inputs such as more climate change resilient seed varieties; construction of ward-level markets or improved irrigation systems; training and technical support from Extension workers; and networking local farmers with relevant national initiatives, laws enforcement to help CC mitigation and tackling of corruption in the agriculture and natural resources sector)

34 | P a g e


k. Is the support based on farmers’ priorities? How are the priorities identified and set?

ii. Questions to small-scale farmers

a. Questions will asked to seek their awareness and understanding of CC, DADPs?

b. How has DADPs impacted their lives?

c. Discussion questions will also focus to understand how they are involved in the planning process, setting priorities and access to the district budgets and allocations and good governance issue; and

d. Potential opportunities linked to CC adaptation and mitigation including the existing economic activities

List of People Contacted

S/No. Name Designation Institution Contacts

1. Mr. Idd Abrahaman Mshili DED Kilosa District Council

0785 337444

2. Mr. Adrian J. Jungu DED Chamwino District Council

0755-516319

3. Ms. Tatu S. Kachenji DAICO Kilosa District Council

0786 367629

4. Deonis Mboya PAO I Kilosa District Council

0784 229821

5. Godfrey Mnyamale DAICO Chamwino District Council

0713 765953

6. Ludwig Ngakoko DPLO Kilosa District Council

0786 602662

7. Nicolus Simbeye Farmer - Mvumi

DADP Construction Committee Member

0682 828691

35 | P a g e


8. Ramadhan Hussein Farmer - Mvumi

DADP Executive Committee Member

0685 937848

9. Neema Sitta Farmer - Mvumi

DADP Executive Committee Member

0788 324601

36 | P a g e

district budget analysis study report final

Documents

budget utilization

kilosa dc sources of

funds sources

chamwino dc sources

study approach

study findings

sectorwise allocations

funding sources