analysis of budget allocation and expenditures on ... · i analysis of budget allocation and...
TRANSCRIPT
i
Analysis of Budget Allocation and Expenditures on Agriculture, Kilolo
District Council, Tanzania
FINAL REPORT
Author: Magreth Henjewele,
Report prepared for Tanzania National Learning Alliance on Sustainable Agricultural
Intensification (SAI)
June 2019
ii | P a g e
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS ......................................................................................................................... II
LIST OF ACRONYMS .......................................................................................................................... III
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ..................................................................................................................... V
1. INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................................................................1
1.1 BACKGROUND ......................................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 THE SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES AND PURPOSE OF THE STUDY ................................................................................. 2
2.0 APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY ..................................................................................................2
3. KEY FINDINGS ................................................................................................................................3
3.1 AGRICULTURAL BUDGET TRENDS IN KILOLO DISTRICT COUNCIL ....................................................................... 3
3.2 ALLOCATIONS TO AGRICULTURE AND OTHER KEY SECTORS IN KILOLO DC .......................................................... 5
3.3 KDC ALLOCATIONS TO RECURRENT AND DEVELOPMENT BUDGETS IN AGRICULTURAL SECTOR .............................. 6
3.4 MAJOR SOURCES OF AGRICULTURE FINANCING IN KDC ................................................................................. 8
3.5 COMPARISON OF APPROVED BUDGET, ACTUAL RECEIPTS AND EXPENDITURES ................................................. 10
3.6 AGRICULTURAL SPENDING PRIORITIES IN KILOLO DISTRICT ............................................................................ 11
3.7 ASSESSMENT OF 10% ALLOCATION TO WOMEN AND YOUTH DEVELOPMENT FUND AND ITS CONTRIBUTION TO
AGRICULTURE ............................................................................................................................................. 12
3.7.1 Overview of COS allocation to Women and Youth Development Fund in KDC .......................... 13
3.7.2 Comparison of the Approved and Actual Expenditures ............................................................. 15
3.7.3 Distribution of the WYDF Allocations between Women and Youth ........................................... 15
3.7.4 How the WYDF was spent .......................................................................................................... 16
4. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................................................... 19
5. REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................. 21
6. LIST OF PEOPLE MET ..................................................................................................................................... 21
iii | P a g e
LIST OF ACRONYMS
A-CBG Agriculture – Capacity Building Grant
ANSAF Agricultural Non-Sate Actors Forum
ASDP Agricultural Sector Development Programme
CAADP Comprehensive African Agricultural Development Programme
CG Central Government
COS Council Own Source
DADG District Agricultural Development Grant
DADP District Agricultural Development Plan
DAICOs District Agricultural Irrigation Cooperative Officers
DCDO District Community Development Officer
DED District Executive Director
DG Development Grant
DIDF District Irrigation Development Fund
DLDF District Livestock Development Fund
DPLO District Planning Officer
DPs Development Partners
FAO United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization
GDP Gross Domestic Product
GoT Government of Tanzania
KCCMP Kihansi Catchment Conservation Management Programme (WB)
KDC Kilolo District Council
LAAC Local Authorities Accounts Committee
LGA Local Government Authority
LGCDG Local Government Capacity Development Grant
LGPFA Local Government Public Finance Act
NBS National Bureau of Statistics
PwDs People with Disabilities
SAI Sustainable Agricultural Intensification
SAIRLA Sustainable Agricultural Intensification Research and Learning in Africa
iv | P a g e
SSIDP Small Scale Irrigation Development Programme
TAFSIP Tanzania Agriculture and Food Security Investment Plan
TDV Tanzania Development Vision
T-NLA Tanzania -National Learning Alliance
TZS Tanzania Shillings
URT United Republic of Tanzania
WYDF Women and Youth Development Grant
v | P a g e
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This Budget Analysis Report for Kilolo District is the product of the Tanzania National Learning Alliance on
Sustainable Agricultural Intensification (T-NLA). The T-NLA Facilitation Team would like to acknowledge
and thank the National Bureau of Statistics for providing research permit which enabled the conduct of
this study; the Kilolo District Council Management Team, in particular, the office of District Executive
Director (DED), District Planning, the District Agriculture Irrigation and Cooperatives Officer (DAICO),
District Livestock and Fisheries Development Officer (DLFDO), District Community Development Officer
(DCDO) and the District Treasurer (DT) for making available data for the analysis; and the Management
Team of the Sustainable Agricultural Intensification Research and Learning in Africa (SAIRLA) Programme
stationed at WYG International and the University of Greenwich in UK for their administrative and
technical support.
Finally, T-NLA Facilitation Team would especially like to thank the United Kingdom Department for
International Development (UKAid) for their financial support of the SAIRLA Programme.
The report has been written by Magreth Henjewele, the M&E Expert for T-NLA. Editorial work was done
by Richard Lamboll of the Natural Resources Institute (NRI) at the University of Greenwich, who also
provided valuable comments which improved presentation of the technical contents and layout of the
report.
Audax Rukonge
T-NLA Lead Facilitator
1 | P a g e
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
Agriculture is the major source of livelihood of the Tanzania population, contributing 95% of food
consumed and providing about 66.9% of employment to urban and rural population of which, 53% is
women. In addition, the sector provides 65% of inputs to manufacturing industries, and account for about
29% of GDP and 30% of total exports, mostly traditional crops such as cashew nuts, tea, coffee, cotton
and tobacco.1 This implies that the sector can play a central role in transforming the economy and
improving the status of food and nutrition security in country. It is based on this realization that the
government of Tanzania (GoT) has taken deliberate measures to transform the sector. One of the
measures was to commit to implementation of the target set under the Comprehensive African
Agricultural Development Programme (CAADP) to allocate 10% of the national budget to agriculture, and
attain a 6% growth rate per annum.2 Other measures include formulation of policy and institutional
frameworks to promote agricultural production and productivity - such as Agricultural Sector
Development Programme, (ASDP), Tanzania Agriculture and Food Security Investment Plan (TAFSIP)
2011/2012 – 2020/2021, the Southern Agricultural Growth Corridor of Tanzania (SAGCOT) and Kilimo
Kwanza, to mention just a few.
The Sustainable Agricultural Intensification Research and Learning in Africa (SAIRLA) programme is one of
the initiatives by Development Partners to support these GoT efforts. SAIRLA is a UKAid funded
programme that seeks to generate research based evidence and design tools to enable governments,
private investors and stakeholders to deliver more effective policies and investments on sustainable
agricultural intensification (SAI).3 Essentially, SAI means increasing agricultural productivity while
minimizing environmental impacts, such as chemical contamination. This will contribute to achieving
Sustainable development Goal 2 which aims to end hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition
and promote sustainable agriculture. The Tanzania National Learning Alliance (T-NLA) on Sustainable
Agricultural Intensification was established in 2017 to provide a multi-stakeholder platform for sharing
research evidence, social learning and capacity building on issues related to SAI.4 The Alliance has three
thematic areas which include equity, trade-offs and services. It works hand in hand with 5 SAIRLA research
projects that are implemented in selected districts of Mbeya, Iringa, Mtwara and Tanga regions.
The equity theme looks into how issues such as power relations, decision making and budgeting can be
best incorporated into policies and practice to ensure the needs and interests of marginalized smallholder
1 FAO, Country Programming Framework for United Republic of Tanzania, 2017-2020, p.1, Jan 2017 http://www.fao.org/3/a-bt133e.pdf 2 CAADP is Africa’s agricultural development initiative which is aimed at transforming agriculture and end hunger by 2025. It was initiated in 2003 in Maputo, Mozambique and ten year later in 2014, the heads of states from African countries members of African Union met in Malabo, Equatorial Guinea to review progress and set new targets. 3 SAIRLA Programme is implemented in six countries of Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, Ghana, Malawi, Tanzania and Zambia. It is
managed by WYG International and the Natural Resources Institute (NRI) at the University of Greenwich, UK. 4 The target stakeholders of T-NLA include public and private investors both domestic and foreign, research institutions, the
media, development partners (donors) and civil society organizations
2 | P a g e
farmers especially women and youth are properly addressed. The services theme aims at strengthening
the quality of extension services and improves the interaction between farmers, extension officers and
researchers, particularly through the use of ICT. The trade-offs theme allows stakeholders to explore the
economic, environmental, food and nutrition security trade-offs driving both public and private
investment decisions in the implementation of SAI in Tanzania.
This study seeks to generate evidence around agricultural sector budget allocations and expenditures in
Kilolo District Council (KDC). The main objective is to inform local government officials, councillors and
other stakeholders about KDC spending priorities, budget performance and challenges, and propose
interventions that could significantly lead to more equitable allocation of resources and sector
transformation.
1.2 The Specific Objectives and Purpose of the Study
The specific objectives and purpose of this budget analysis study were described in the terms of reference
(ToR) as follows:
i. To identify the amount of budget allocated to agriculture for the last five years i.e. 2013/14
through to 2017/2018 for each of the council’s four main sources;
ii. To assess how the funds allocated for agriculture development were spent;
iii. To find out whether the GoT guidelines on 20% and 10% budget allocation from the Council’s own
revenue sources are going to agriculture and special development fund for youth and women
(WYDF) respectively;
iv. To establish the amount of funds allocated to youth and women for agricultural related activities
and how this was used; and
v. To provide recommendations on how to improve the planning and budget policies and practices
in Kilolo DC.
Findings from the study will be used to advance T-NLA’s social learning agenda for improving policies and
investments in equitable SAI at the local and national levels.
2.0 APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY
This budget analysis study relied on documented information on budget allocations and expenditures for
fiscal years 2013/14 to 2018/19 and face to face interviews with key informants at Kilolo District Council.
Most of the information was obtained from government policy documents, budget books and guidelines,
financial reports and official progress and monitoring reports prepared by the relevant departments, and
other reports obtained from internet sources. The officials involved in interviews came from Departments
of District Planning; District Agricultural, Irrigation and Cooperatives; District Livestock and Fisheries
Development; District Community Development and District Treasurer. These provided an overview of
the district agricultural development plans, budgets and the processes and procedures involved in
provision and implementation of the Women and Youth Development Fund (WYDF) in the district.
The study was conducted in February 2019. The findings from this study are presented in the section that
follows.
3 | P a g e
3. KEY FINDINGS
3.1 Agricultural Budget Trends in Kilolo District Council
Although the agricultural sector is the main source of food and livelihood for the people of Kilolo district,
it has been receiving small budgetary allocations for the last five years, 2013/14 -2017/18. In the fiscal
year 2013/14 for instance, agriculture received TZS 1.4 billion, equivalent to 5.9% of the total KDC budget
in absolute nominal terms, but the percentage share of the sector declined to 4.7% in 2014/15. The
agriculture budget share in the overall council budget further dropped to 2.9 in 2015/16. There was
significant increment in agriculture budget by 3.1 percent in 2016/17 but one year later, allocations to the
sector were reduced from 6.0% (2016/17) to 4.6% in 2017/18. In the 2018/19 budget, the agricultural
sector has been allocated TZS 1.4 billion, which is the same as the sum of sector’s budget allocated five
years earlier in 2013/14.
Available data show that there has not been any annual incremental increase in the agricultural budget
for the past six years, except for fiscal year 2016/17 where allocations to the sector were more than
doubled (See Table 1 below)5. This increment was due to a huge increase in the budget that was allocated
to salaries and allowances (Personnel Emoluments) for KDC staff responsible for development of
agriculture, livestock and fisheries –from TZS 1.0 billion in 2015/16 to nearly 2.2 billion in 2016/17. There
could be various reasons pertaining to this, but one of it could be recruitment of new staff following the
election of a new government leadership in the previous year (2015). The 2016/17 budget was the first
budget to be developed by the fifth phase government under President Magufuli.
Table 1: Trend of Total Nominal Budget and Allocation to Agriculture in KDC, 2013/14 -2018-2019
Financial Year Total KDC budget
in Millions TZS
Total KDC agric. Budget in
Millions TZS % increase in agric. budget
Agric. budget as % of council
budget % change in the
allocation
2013/14 24,359.3 1,428.4 5.9
2014/15 28,740.3 1,354.0 -5.2 4.7 -1.2
2015/16 39,719.0 1,167.4 -13.8 2.9 -1.8
2016/17 41,667.4 2,483.4 112.7 6.0 3.0
2017/18 45,377.6 2,072.7 -16.5 4.6 -1.4
2018/19 34,808.9 1,422.3 -31.4 4.1 -0.5
Source: KDC District Planning Department, February 2019
The study also compared budgetary allocations to agriculture at the national level against Kilolo District
Council between fiscal years (FYs) 2013/14 and 2018/19. The main purpose was to find out if there is any
relationship between sector’s allocations at national level and local government authorities (LGA). This is
important because central government (CG) has been a major source of local government revenues,
contributing 80% - 90% of all LGA expenditures in Tanzania. As such, budgetary allocation at the national
levels is likely to affect sector’s allocation at the local level. Figure 1 below compares the percentage share
5The budget figures presented in this section includes both development and recurrent budgets for agriculture, livestock and fisheries sub-sectors
4 | P a g e
of agriculture in the total national budget and the sector’s share in the KDC budget over the past six years.
The analysis displays mixed trends. Similar to Kilolo DC, there was a decline in the share of agriculture in
the national budget between FYs 2013/14 and 2014/15 (i.e. from 7.2 percent in 2013/14 down to 5.1
percent in 2014/15). However, agricultural budget trends were very different between 2015/16 and
2017/18. For instance, the sector’s share in the national budget grew from 5.1 percent in FY 2014/15 to
5.4 percent in FY2015/16, whereas in Kilolo DC, the percentage share of agriculture declined from 4.7
percent to 2.9 percent during the same period. Similarly, the share of agriculture in the national budget
increased from 4.5 percent in FY 2016/17 to 5.3 percent in FY 2017/18, in contrast with KDC where the
agriculture budget share dropped from 6.0 percent to 4.6 percent during the same period.
Figure 1: Agriculture Budget Share of the National Budget and KDC Budget, 2013/14 -2018/19
Source: ANSAF Budget Analysis Report, 2018 and Computation by Author
Generally, these results show that allocations to the agriculture budget in Kilolo DC are not directly aligned
with (and only partially influenced by) agricultural budget trends at the national level. As could be seen in
figure 1, the proportion of the national budget allocated to agriculture was substantially reduced to 2.7
percent in fiscal year 2018/19 against 4.1 percent of Kilolo DC. This may be explained by the fact that
agriculture budget at the national level has to be shared among at least four agricultural sector lead
ministries (ASLM) which includes (i) The Ministry of Agriculture (MoA), (ii) Ministry of Livestock and
Fisheries (MoLF); (iii) President’s Office –Regional Administration and Local Government (PO- RALG); and
(iv) the Department of Marketing of the Ministry of Industries, Trade and Investment (MITI). Furthermore,
part of LGAs’ revenues is allocated to agriculture and they also receive subventions from other ministries
and development partners to implement agricultural related activities such as irrigation, water and
conservation projects.
7.2%
5.1%5.4%
4.5%
5.3%
2.7%
5.9%
4.7%
2.9%
6.0%
4.6%4.1%
0.0%
1.0%
2.0%
3.0%
4.0%
5.0%
6.0%
7.0%
8.0%
2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19
p
E
R
C
E
N
T
A
G
E
Agriculture share in National Budget Agriculture share in KDC Budget
5 | P a g e
3.2 Allocations to Agriculture and Other Key Sectors in Kilolo DC
Over the past six years, Kilolo district council allocated a cumulative sum of TZS 214. 6 billion to cover
administrative costs and facilitate implementation of development projects across the different sectors.
Table 2 below presents the distribution of KDC budget between five key sectors namely; education,
agriculture, health, water, rural roads and other remaining sectors from fiscal years 2013/14 to 2018/196.
Table 2: Budget Allocation in Kilolo DC by Sectors, 2013/14- 2018/19
Financial Year
Amounts in Millions of TZS
Agriculture Education Health Rural Roads
Water Other Sectors
Total Budget
2013/14 1,428.5 13,129.3 2,909.6 1,891.5 667.1 4,333.2 24,359.3
2014/15 1,354.0 17,152.2 2,605.9 1,250.6 485.8 5,891.6 28,740.3
2015/16 1,167.4 23,275.4 3,419.4 2,411.1 890.2 8,546.4 39,710.0
2016/17 2,483.4 23,180.7 3,939.7 2,932.9 415.4 8,715.3 41,667.4
2017/18 2,177.2 23,215.6 4,775.2 3,450.6 749.5 11,113.7 45,377.6
2018/19 1,422.2 19,444.9 6,343.5 178.1 779.3 6,640.6 34,808.9
Total 10,032.8 119,398.3 23,993.5 12,114.9 3,987.4 45,240.9 214,663.6
Source: Planning Department, Kilolo District Council
A comparative analysis of budgetary allocations in five key sectors shows that the sector that receives
most of the financial attention is education which was allocated more than half (55.6%) of the total
cumulative budget in nominal terms (see Figure 2). The second priority sector is health (11.2%), followed
by rural roads (5.6%), agriculture (4.6%) and water (1.9%), the third, fourth and fifth sectors respectively.
It is evident from this analysis that of the five key sectors agriculture is one of the two sectors that receives
the smallest amounts of allocation from KDC budget.
The Kilolo agricultural sector provides nearly 100% of all food consumed, 90% of the employment,7 and
more than 80% of council own revenues in Kilolo come from the agricultural produce cess. Hence, there
is a need to prioritize the sector in KDC spending in order to increase agricultural production and
productivity, and thereby improve food and nutrition security in Kilolo DC.
Figure 2: Cumulative Allocations to Agriculture and Other Key Sectors, 2013/14- 2018/19
6 Other sectors include-Land and natural resources, general administration, finance and trade, legal, community development
& gender 7 Kilolo District Socio-Economic Profile, 2013, pp.36 -37;
6 | P a g e
Source: Compiled by Author
3.3 KDC Allocations to Recurrent and Development Budgets in Agricultural Sector
Traditionally, the LGA budget is composed of recurrent and development budgets. Recurrent budget
describes the amount of resources that the council plans on spending to cover the cost of: (1) salaries
and allowances for LGA employees, also referred to as personnel emoluments (PE) in budgetary terms;
and (2) operational expenses including council administration, travel, transportation and purchase of
working equipment and materials such as stationeries, computers, office tables and chairs i.e. Other
Charges (OC). Development budget, on the other hand, shows how much of the LGA resources will be
spent on financing development activities such as construction of irrigation schemes, storage facilities and
market structures.
Assessment of the amount of agricultural resources allocated to development activities is necessary
because it enables one to see the volume of resources injected into the sector to stimulate growth and
facilitate the provision of quality extension services needed by farmers in order to sustain agricultural
production and productivity. It is the development budget which if effectively used can have a direct
impact on sector’s growth and reduction of hunger and income poverty in Tanzania.
The analysis of agricultural budget allocated to recurrent and development activities over the past six
years reveals that the overall share of the sector’s budget going to development has remained smaller
despite commitment by the fifth phase government to reduce unnecessary administrative costs and direct
more resources towards development interventions that can bring benefits to poor people at the local
level. In 2013/14, the proportion of agricultural budget allocated to development was 26.9%, and one
year later the allocation was raised to 30.5% (in 2014/15). However, the share of development budget in
agricultural sector was significantly reduced to 6.9% in 2015/16 and has only risen to 11.9% in 2018/19
(See Table 3). These findings indicate that KDC is not prioritizing agriculture in its development
AGRICULTURE, 4.6%
EDUCATION, 55.6%
HEALTH, 11.2%
RURAL ROADS, 5.6% WATER, 1.9%
7 | P a g e
expenditures. Graphic presentation of the percentage share of recurrent and development budget in
agriculture for the past six years is provided in Figure 38.
Table 3: Allocations to Recurrent and Development in Agriculture Budget for Kilolo DC
Fiscal Year
Total Agric. Budget in millions TZS Recurrent % Development %
2013/14 1,428.5 1,039.5 72.8% 388.9 26.9%
2014/15 1,354.0 941.6 69.5% 412.4 30.5%
2015/16 1,167.4 1,087.4 93.1% 80.0 6.9%
2016/17 2,483.4 2,193.6 88.3% 289.7 11.7%
2017/18 2,177.2 2,072.7 95.2% 104.4 4.8%
2018/19 1,422.2 1,252.8 88.1% 169.4 11.9%
Grand Total 10,032.8 8,587.8 85.6% 1,445.0 14.4%
Source: KDC Planning Department and computation by Author
Figure 3: Percentage Share of Recurrent and Development Budgets in Total Agricultural Budget in KDC,
2013/14-2018/19
Source: Planning Department, Kilolo District Council, February 2019
8 The budget figures referred in this section includes the sum of allocations from central government subventions, council own
sources and contributions from development partners.
72.8%69.5%
93.1% 88.3%95.2%
88.1%
26.9%30.5%
6.9%11.7%
4.8%11.9%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
100.0%
2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19
Pe
rce
nta
ges
Recurrent Development
8 | P a g e
3.4 Major Sources of Agriculture Financing in KDC
Like other local government authorities, Kilolo DC derives its resources from four (4) major sources namely
subventions from central government (CG), contributions from Development Partners (DPs), local
borrowing and council own sources (COS). The Local Government Financial Act, 1982 provides a full list of
sources from which local councils can collect revenues from, within their respective administrative
boundaries. These include, among others, agriculture produce cess, land rent, service levy, tender
application fees, hotel levy, forest produce cess, stand bus fees, sale of plots and council properties,
various licenses, fees and charges. This section presents findings from an analysis of budget allocations to
agricultural activities from diverse sources for the last six years.
Table 4: KDC Budgetary Allocation in agriculture by Source, 2013/14-2018/19
Year Total Agric Budget in million of TZS
Central Government Subventions
Council Own Sources
Development Partners9
Amount % Amount % Amount %
2013/14 1,428.5 1,415.0 99.1% 13.4 0.9% 0 0.0%
2014/15 1,354.1 1,333.2 98.5% 20.8 1.5% 0 0.0%
2015/16 1,167.4 1,087.4 93.1% 80.0 6.9% 0 0.0%
2016/17 2,581.3 2,193.6 85.0% 289.7 11.2% 98.0 3.8%
2017/18 2,297.3 2,072.7 90.2% 104.4 4.5% 120.0 5.2%
2018/19 1,472.2 1,252.8 85.1% 169.4 11.5% 50.0 3.4%
Grand Total 10,300.8 9,354.9 90.8% 677.9 6.6% 268.0 2.6%
Source: Planning Department, Kilolo District Council, February 2019
The review of budget documents from Kilolo DC reveals two important issues. Firstly, the agricultural
budget in the district is largely dependent of resources from CG. On average, the central government
contributed 90.8% of total agricultural budget during the period between 2013/14- 2018/19. This is
precarious given the nature of the political environment in Tanzania. In most cases, government spending
priorities changes with new leadership and thereby affecting budgetary allocations in some sectors. Table
4 presents budgetary allocations to agriculture by source. As can be seen, the LGA contributed only 6.6%
of the total cumulative budget, although this was significantly higher than the 2.6% of the sector’s
allocation which came from development partners.
Secondly, the government guidelines requiring LGAs to allocate 20% of council own collections from crop
produce cess to agriculture are not properly followed in Kilolo DC. For instance, in fiscal year 2013/14 the
council allocated only 1.6% of total approved annual collections from crop cess to the sector. The
allocation was raised to 4.1% in 2014/15 and by 2016/17 it went up to 44.5%, which is far beyond the
required rate of 20%. One year later, the amount of crop cess collections going to agriculture was
significantly reduced to 11.9%, but in 2018/19 it was raised to 31.3% even though no disbursements were
actually made to support agricultural activities up until the end of February 2019 when this study was
9 All contributions came from Kihansi Catchment Conservation and Management Project (KCCMP)
9 | P a g e
conducted. It is important to note that 98% of all collections from crop cess were allocated to
development activities as opposed to recurrent activities which were allocated only 2% of all cess
collections. The budget guidelines for 2018/19 issues by the Ministry of Finance and Planning on (MoFP)
also require each LGAs to allocate 15% of own revenues from fees and charges imposed on livestock, as
well as 5% of COS collected from fisheries to be re-invested into the respective sub-sectors. However,
based on available information the study could not establish the extent to which Kilolo district council
implements these instructions.
A closer look at the agriculture budget shows that allocations from central government to finance
development activities included different financing components such as (1) District Agricultural
Development Grant (DADG); (2) Agriculture Capacity Building Grant (A-CBG); (3) District Irrigation
Development Fund (DIDF), now referred to as Small Scale Irrigation Development Project (SSIDP). DADG
funds are intended to support actual investment in agriculture such as provision of farm equipment and
machinery, construction of irrigation schemes, market structure storage facilities, seeds, and agro
chemicals. Whereas, A-CBG grants were meant to support training/ capacity building of farmers and
improvement of extension service system and/or advisory services at the local government respectively.
Figure 4 presents percentage of cumulative allocations from CG and other financing windows to support
to agricultural development activities in Kilolo district covering a period between 2013/14 and 2018/19.
Budgetary allocations by year are provided in Table 5.
Figure 4: Total Allocations from varied Financing Channels to Agricultural Development Activities in
Millions of TZS, 2013/14-2018/19
Source: Compiled by Author
DIDF/SSIDP, 50.4%
DADG (LGCDG),30.1%
Council Own Source, 13.1%
KCCMP, 5.3%
A-CBG, 1.2%
10 | P a g e
The analysis finds that over the last six years, a cumulative total of TZS 5.1 billion was allocated to support
agricultural development activities in Kilolo DC. Of all allocations, over 50% came from DIDF/SSIDP (TZS
2.5 billion) followed by DADG/LGCDG (30.1%) Council Own Resources (13.1%) KCCMP (5.3%) and CBG
(1.2% ).10 It is pertinent to note that this analysis was only limited to financing channels directed to
development activities related to the crop sub-sector. By definition, agriculture involves all activities
related to crop cultivation/farming, livestock and fisheries. However, some relevant financial reports from
Livestock and Fisheries Department at KDC were not available to enable assessment of the entire budget
that goes to agriculture.
Table 5: Agricultural Development Financing in Kilolo DC, 2013/14-2018/19
Description 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19
Total per Source
DADG (LGCDG) 1,244.1 255.0 0.0 0.0 34.2 0.0 1,533.4
Capacity Building Grant (CBG)
20.0 41.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 61.0
DIDF /SSIDP 328.1 632.0 703.0 0.0 0.0 900.0 2,563.1
Council Own Source 0.0 20.8 80.0 289.7 104.5 169.4 664.4
KCCMP 0.0 0.0 0.0 98.0 120.0 50.0 268.0
Grand Total 1,592.3 948.8 783.0 387.7 258.7 1,119.4 5,089.9
Source: Kilolo DC, Departments of Planning and Agriculture, February 2019
3.5 Comparison of Approved Budget, Actual Receipts and Expenditures
Data from Medium Term Expenditure Framework (MTEF) Plans and Budgets for Kilolo DC as well as
Quarterly Performance Reports prepared by DAICO’s office for the past six years show that except for
2013/14 FY, the council has always received fewer disbursements as compared with approved budget.
Table 6 below compares the amounts of approved budget, actual receipts/disbursements, and actual
expenditures. In 2013/14 there was no deficit at all (i.e. it was 0.0% of the approved estimates), but in
2014/15 the deficit was recorded at TZS 286.7 million (30.2%), meaning that the council received 69.8%
of the total approved budget. The financing gap had been bridged to 97.4 % in 2015/16 and by the end
of fiscal year 2017/18 the percentage of actual receipts against approved budget was 86.8%. However, in
2018/19, the council received only 4.5% of the total approved agriculture budget up until the end of
February 2019 when this study was conducted. The government financial year ends in July 2019 and
therefore the gap between approved budget and actual receipts might be bridged by then.
Council officials at DAICO’s office observed that, in addition to insufficient disbursements, transfers from
CG and other sources have been unpredictable and often delayed which hinders effective implementation
of development projects and delivery of quality extension services to farmers. In fact, it was noted that
since completion of ASDP phase one in 2012, financial disbursements from CG have been significantly
10 Kihansi Catchment Conservation Management Programme (KCCMP) is a World Bank funded programme providing funding to support conservation activities in agriculture
11 | P a g e
reduced leading to failure in implementation of planned activities as it was for example reported by one
official:
“… it has been four years since our car was broken and so we don’t have a reliable means of transport …a
car or even a motorcycle to enable extension staff to go to the villages to offer advisory services… the
budget allocated to OC is around TZS 2 million per annum which is hardly enough to support supervision
and other operational activities throughout the year ….generally we are stuck….”
Table 6: Comparison of Approved Budget for Agricultural Development with Actual Disbursements and Expenditure in KDC, 2013/14 -2017/18
Year Approved Budget
Actual Receipts in TZS millions
Deficit in TZS millions
Actual receipts as percentage of Approved Budget
Expenditures in TZS millions
Expenditure as percentage of Actual Receipts
2013/14 1,592.2 1,592.2 0 100.0% 1,592.3 100.0%
2014/15 948.7 662.0 -286.7 69.8% 662.0 100.0%
2015/16 783.0 763.0 -20.0 97.4% 763.0 100.0%
2016/17 387.7 252.7 -135.0 65.2% 252.7 100.0%
2017/18 258.7 224.4 -34.2 86.8% 224.4 100.0%
2018/19 1,119.4 50.0* -1,069.4 4.5% 50.0 100.0%
Grant Total 5,089.9 3,544.5 -1,545.5 69.64% 3,544.5 100.0%
Source: Kilolo DC, District Agriculture Irrigation and Cooperative Office, February 2019
*Up to February 2019
Nevertheless, a comparison of KDC expenditures against actual receipts in agriculture demonstrates that
during the study period the council received a cumulative total of 3.5 billion to implement agricultural
development activities. By the end of February 2018/19, all the funds (100%) were already spent (see
Table 6). This implies that the district was able to utilize the resources availed to them.
3.6 Agricultural Spending Priorities in Kilolo District
The analysis of budget figures based on financial receipts and annual expenditures in agriculture does tell
little about how the money that is meant to develop the sector is actually spent. Therefore, one would
need to further identify spending priorities within the sector. Figure 5 provides a glance on spending
priorities between fiscal year 2013/14 – 2018/19. It is observable that the main priority spending area was
construction/maintenance of irrigation schemes covering 72.3% of all actual expenditures (cumulative).
Other spending areas such as agriculture shows/exhibition took 24.2% where as capacity building
activities recorded 3.5% of total cumulative expenditures.
More findings revealed that for the past five years the council has not injected any funds to facilitate
improvement of the quality of extension staff, availability and access to agro inputs and agriculture
mechanization of which, according Agricultural Officers at KDC, has resulted into low productivity.
12 | P a g e
Figure 5: KDC spending priorities in agriculture, 2013/14-2018/19
Source: Kilolo DC, District Agriculture Irrigation and Cooperative Office, February 2019
3.7 Assessment of 10% Allocation to Women and Youth Development Fund and its Contribution to Agriculture
According to the socio – economic profile for Kilolo DC, agricultural activities are mainly characterized by
production of staple crops such as maize, paddy and banana.11 Other activities include horticulture, animal
husbandry and fishing. Women (51.5%) and youth12 (38.9%) comprise the majority of population; of which
over 70% are engaged in agriculture. As such, women and youth have the potential to improve agricultural
production and productivity. However, across the country women and youths in agriculture face many
more challenges than men aged above 35 years. These challenges include lack of access to production
capital, productive land and decision making power. The introduction of women and youth development
fund (WYDF) is one of the initiatives taken by the government of Tanzania to address some these
challenges, and empower women and youth to engage in agriculture and other economic activities more
productively. WYDF is designed to provide soft loans to women and youth economic groups at the local
level.13
The guidelines for preparation of LGAs’ annual development plans and budget issued Ministry of Finance
and Planning have consistently emphasized each LGA to allocate part of their own revenues to finance
11 MTEF 2017/18 12 The National Youth Development Policy, 2007 defines youth as young men and women from the ages of 15 to 35 years. 13 Previously, beneficiaries of Women and Youth Development Funds were required to repay the full loan amount plus 10% interest rate but interest rate has been removed beginning 2018/19 fiscal year which means that they will only pay back the loaned amounts.
72.3%
3.5%
24.2%
Irrigation scheme Farmers capacity building Others
13 | P a g e
WYDF in their respective areas. In 2016/17 fiscal year, the mandatory requirement was 5% of LGA own
resources but the percentage was raised to 10% in 2017/18. In fact, the latest guidelines (2018/19) clearly
instruct that 4% of the COS allocation should go to women, another 4% to youth and the remaining 2% to
people with disabilities (PwDs).14 In addition to provision of funds, Local authorities are required to
monitor the use of fund in order to achieve the intended objectives. This section presents the findings of
this study on KDC allocation to women and youth development fund over the last six years.
3.7.1 Overview of COS allocation to Women and Youth Development Fund in KDC
The review of reports on KDC allocations to special development fund for women and youth revealed that
during the study period, the council allocated a sum of TZS 201.5 million, equivalent to 1.5% of the total
actual COS collections. The 2013/14 report has not recorded any allocations but in 2014/15, the council
allocated TZS 4.5 million (0.2%) in total for women and youth, and since then the council has been
consistently allocating funds to WYDF. In 2015/16 the allocation was TZS 13.0 million in (0.6%) and it was
raised to 18.0 million (0.8%) in 2016/17. But allocation to WYDF was again reduced to TZS 16 million (0.6%)
in 2017/18. The only time when KDC allocated significant amounts of funds to WYDF was fiscal year
2018/19 where total remittances were TZS 150.0 million in 2018/19 which is equivalent to 9.2% of total
COS collections until end of February 2019 (Table 7)
Table 7: Budgetary Allocations to Women and Youth Development Fund in Millions of TZS , 2013/14- 2018/19
Year
Total Own Source15
(Actuals) in Million TZS
Approved Expenditures
to WYDF Actual
Disbursement to WYDF
% of own source
allocated WYDF
Actual expenditures
Expenditure as percentage
of actual disbursement
2013/14 2,965.6 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 Not applicable
2014/15 1,923.3 96.2 4.5 0.2% 4.5 100.0%
2015/16 2,180.1 241.5 13.0 0.6% 13.0 100.0%
2016/17 2,319.5 290.2 18.0 0.8% 18.0 100.0%
2017/18 2,784.5 290.0 16.0 0.6% 16.0 100.0%
2018/19* 1,628.1 241.6 150.0 9.2% 0.0 0.0%
Total 13,801.1 1,159.4 201.5 1.5% 51.5 25.5%
Source: Department of Community Development, KDC – February 2019; * Up to February 2019
Based on these findings, it can be deduced that the government guidelines on 10% allocation of COS to
women and youth development fund are not properly implemented in Kilolo DC. The report shows that
in fiscal year 2016/17 alone, the council failed to issue more than TZS 97 million. The amount of non –
14 URT, Guidelines For The Preparation Of Plans And Budget 2018/19 Ministry Of Finance And Planning November, Ministry of Finance and Planning, November 2017 15 This include both proper and closed COS
14 | P a g e
remitted funds had risen to TZS 262.4 millions in 2017/18. Figure 6 below compares the approved budget
with actual disbursements. The figures show that the gap between the two components is even wider.
Figure 6: Comparison of the Approved Budget and Actual Remittances for WYDF
Source: Department of Community Development, KDC – February 2019
According to KDC officials at Revenue Department, the main reasons for failure to meet WYDF funding
obligation include fewer and delayed disbursement of Other Charges (OC) and general-purpose grants
from CG which compels the council to use significant part of its COS to cover basic operations costs such
as council meetings, salaries for council employees working at sub-district levels etc.
The officials further highlighted that the situation might worsen beginning fiscal year 2019/20 due to
possible reduction of LGA collections from COS. Reportedly, the CG has recently taken away some
important sources of LGA revenue such as property taxes, billboards and parking fees which contributed
to COS significantly. Another official observed that: “ …the new government policy which disallow LGAs
to collect crop cess from traders whose total agricultural produce at sale point does not exceed one tone
(1,000 Kgs) has already started to show its negative effects… On top of that, the LGAs are also losing
significant amounts of collections from business licenses following the introduction of Machinga Identity
Cards…” It was explained that the government has recently instructed all those who are engaged in small
businesses (famously known as Machingas) across the country to pay a total of TZS 20,000/= to Tanzania
Revenue Authority (TRA) in order to obtain a Machinga ID card. Owners of these special ID cards are
permitted to do business without paying any business fees and charges applicable at the local level.
Although this decision came with the intention of improving revenue collections and business
formalization process on the part of government, the same is considered a challenge as it limits COS
collections at the LGA level. Initially, all traders and businesses were required by law to pay fees and
other charges to their respective LGAs in order for them to be allowed to do business and/or sell their
produce at the market.
0.0
50.0
100.0
150.0
200.0
250.0
300.0
2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19
0.0
96.2
241.5
290.2 290.0
241.6
0.04.5 13.0 18.0 16.0
150.0
Am
ou
nts
in M
illio
ns
TZS
Approved budget Actual Disbursement
15 | P a g e
Recently, several measures have been taken by the government to improve LGA transfers to WYDC. These
include special audits of WYDF by the Controller and Auditor General (CAG) in each LGA and declaration
of non- remittance of the mandatory fund as a ‘criminal offence’. Apparently, this move is considered to
have improved allocations to WYDF in Kilolo DC. However, there is a need for KDC to identify additional
financing mechanisms in order to ensure sustainable provision of adequate financing to women and
youth.
3.7.2 Comparison of the Approved and Actual Expenditures
The analysis further shows that since 2014/15, the council was able to spend a cumulative sum of TZS 5I.5
millions (25.5%), which is far lower than total remittances to WYDF account i.e. TZS 201.5 millions. The
study attempted to find out the main reasons for underutilization of WYDF. It was noted that all
expenditures for fiscal year 2018/19 were still on hold due delayed transfer of funds to the WYDF account.
By the time this study was conducted (End of February 2019) the department of community development
and the loan committee were still in the process of soliciting and reviewing proposals from potential
economic groups. The time frame for final selection and approval of the proposals, as well as transfer of
the loans to beneficiary groups was not very clear. Given, that the government financial year ends in July
2019, one wonders whether the beneficiary groups will be able to implement their projects in a timely
fashion.
3.7.3 Distribution of the WYDF Allocations between Women and Youth
Reports from the Community Development Department at KDC indicate that, during the fiscal year
2014/15 WYDF allocations were equally shared between women and youths. However, in fiscal year
2015/16 a bigger proportion of the fund went to youth (76.9%) as compared to women (23.1%), the same
applies to FY 2016/17 where nearly 78% of the fund was allocated to youth. In addition to WYDF
allocation, the youth also received a total of TZS 29 millions in FY 2014/15 and TZS 10 millions in 2016/17
from the Ministry responsible for Youth Development, making youth the majority beneficiary of the
development fund. In FY 2017/18 more than two thirds of the WYDF allocations went to women (68.8%)
compared with youth (31.3%). During the same period, the youth received an addition of TZS 13 million
from the Ministry of Youth Development and Sports. Generally, these findings show that, except for FY
2014/15, the GoT guidelines on distribution of the WYDF were not properly observed. However, in
2018/19, a decision was made to allocate WYDF allocations equally between youth and women. But, it
was not clear as to how much of the allocation will be directed to people with disabilities.
According to LGA officials at DCDO office, a total of 133 youths (24 economic groups) and 179 women (9
economic groups) benefited from WYDF since 2014/15. This is just a small number compared to the
population of youth and women in KDC, now estimated at 120,541 and 89,632 respectively. Therefore,
more efforts are needed to ensure that the fund is accessible to each and every woman and young person
in Kilolo district.
Table 8: Distribution of the “10%” Own Source by Specific Groups
16 | P a g e
Year
Total Allocation to Special
Development Fund (Actuals) in
Million TZS COS Allocation to Youth % COS Allocation
to Women %
2013/14 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0%
2014/15 4.5 2.25 50.0% 2.25 50.0%
2015/16 13.5 10.0 76.9% 3.0 23.1%
2016/17 18.0 14.0 77.8% 4.0 22.2%
2017/18 16.0 5.0 31.3% 11.0 68.8%
2018/19 150.0 75.5 50.0% 75.0 50.0%
Total 201.5 106.25 52.7% 95.25 47.3%
Source: Department of Community Development, KDC – February 2019
3.7.4 How the WYDF was spent
This section provides an assessment of WYDF key spending areas and whether the fund has had any
contribution to agriculture. KDC allocations across the different projects that were implemented between
2013/14 and 2017/18 are presented in Table 9 and Figure 7 below. It is evident that a bigger portion of
the fund was spent on agricultural related activities. The first three priority activities were crop cultivation
(38.5 million), horticulture (16.0 million) and fish farming (10million). Other projects that were funded
under WYDF include timber business (10 millions); leather shoe making (7 million); furniture making (7
millions) ; bee-keeping (5.5 million); poultry, (3 millions) livestock /pigs (2.5 million), tree farming (2
millions), and embroidery (2 millions).
Going by figures, one would be curious to know if WYDF has been providing the kind of support that is
really needed by women and youth to be able to implement investment projects effectively. This was
beyond the scope of this study, but a quick look at WYDF expenditure shows that a total of TZS 31.2 million
were directed to 24 youth economic groups, and each group had about 5- 10 members . If we divide this
fund to 24 groups it would mean that each youth economic group received approximately TZS 1.3million.
The critical question is whether this amount is adequate enough to implement any viable communal
investment project meaningfully. Perhaps there is a need for KDC to consider allocating WYDF strategically
to fewer projects than spreading the funds thinly across varied projects. Priority could be given to projects
and value chains which have multiplier effect and the potential to employ other women and youth.
Table 9: WYDF allocations in KDC by projects, in millions TZS
17 | P a g e
Funded Activities 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 Total
Crop Cultivation
22.0 9.5 7.0 38.5
Horticulture
4.5 6.0 0.5 5.0 16.0
Fish farming
10.0 10.0
Timber business
10.0 10.0
Shoe making
7.0 7.0
Furniture making
1.0 6.0 7.0
Bee keeping
2.0 3.5 5.5
Poultry
1.0 2.0 3.0
Livestock (pigs)
2.5 2.5
Tree farming
2.0 2.0
Embroidery
20.0 2.0
Total 0.0 4.5 42.0 28.0 47.0 103.5
Source: DCDO Office - Kilolo DC, February 2019
Figure 7: The Proportion of WYDF allocation to different projects
Source: Computation by Author
Administratively, all activities related to the women and youth development fund are managed by district
community development department. In particular, the DCDO is the main officer in charge but works in
consultation and collaboration with head of gender unit, community development officers (CDOs)
stationed at the district and sub-district levels and other departments. As far as the fund is concerned,
the work of DCDOs involves identifying prospective beneficiary groups, soliciting loan applications,
reviewing proposals, and managing loan approvals and issuance. Other duties include supervision,
37.2%
15.5%
9.7%
9.7%
6.8%
6.8%
5.3%
2.9% 2.4% 1.9%1.9%
Crop Cultivation
Horticulture
Fish farming
Timber business
Shoe making
Furniture making
Bee keeping
Poultrry
Livestock (pigs)
Tree farming
Embroidary
18 | P a g e
monitoring and reporting. Interviews with relevant officials at DCDO office indicate that the council uses
a bottom up management system – involving different actors at all levels
It was explained that the processes and procedures for WYDF applications start at the village level where
there is a loan committee which mobilizes potential groups to apply for loans, reviews loans applications
from their respective villages and provide recommendations on the best proposals for loan
considerations. These recommendations are then forwarded to the loan committees at the ward level,
which reviews selected proposals from each village before they are shared with the district loan
committee through DCDO’s office for final review and approval. This approach is commendable as it
provides a room for participation of varied actors in the selection of the best project proposals. However,
the study noted a number of challenges facing the Kilolo district council in relation to management of the
special development fund for women and youth as follows:
(i) Although a bigger portion of WYDF was spent on agricultural related projects, the loan committee
at the district level is not inclusive of KDC officials responsible for development of agriculture,
livestock and fisheries sub-sectors. These officials could be of much help in terms of offering
advisory services and support needed by beneficiary groups in order to ensure effective
implementation of their projects. Currently, the district loan committee is composed of a Member
of Parliament (MP), district executive director (DED), DCDO, Head of Gender Unit, DPLO, Internal
Auditor, District Attorney, District Treasury and the council chairperson.
(ii) Lack of resources to support capacity building, supervision, monitoring and evaluation activities. This has resulted into ineffective loan recovery and loss of funds that could have been loaned to other groups. At the moment the entire budget goes directly to beneficiary groups.
(iii) Lack of enforceable terms on loan issuance and lower commitment on the part of beneficiaries to pay back the loans. It was reported that, some economic groups use the money for unapproved activities while others divide the money among individual group members and/or run away with funds leaving the responsibility of paying back the loans to fewer group members. The Government directive on provision of interest free loans beginning this year 2018/19 is expected increase intensity of the problem.
(iv) Some politicians interfere with WYDF management by misleading and encouraging beneficiary groups not to pay the loans for their own personal political gain.
(v) Although the fund that is coming from the Ministry of Responsible for Youth Development is also
intended to support youth economic groups, the timing and procedures for loan applications and
issuance are very different from WDYF. Reportedly, the ministerial fund is coordinated by the
ministry itself with support from district authority and regional secretariat. It is also the same
Ministry which does the final review and approval of the proposals, and thereafter disburses the
funds directly to the bank accounts of the beneficiary groups. This practice might be challenging
in terms of ensuring efficiency and accountability in loan issuance and management.
19 | P a g e
4. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The current budget analysis study has tried to assess budgetary allocations to agriculture and the flow of
resources transferred from the central government, development partners and other sources to facilitate
implementation of agricultural development activities in Kilolo district. The findings show that for the last
six years (2013/14- 2018/19), agricultural budget has been characterized by fewer, delayed and
unpredictable disbursements of funds, which made it difficult for the council to achieve the objective and
targets set to improve availability and access to quality extension services, increase agricultural yields and
promote sustainable land use and water resources management, to mention just a few.16 The reduction
in agricultural budget is largely attributed to completion of ASDP phase one in 2012 which provided
consistent and reliable funding to LGAs.
It was also revealed that the sector’s contribution to the district council is significant, currently agricultural
produce especially tomatoes, maize, tomatoes, peas, beans, round potatoes, and fruits accounts for
approximately 80% of council own sources but scantly resources have been invested by KDC to develop
the sector. The percentage of council own source collections going to the sector has been consistently
lower than the rate set in budget guidelines for LGAs to allocate 20% of COS to agriculture. This indicates
that the country’s commitment to increase investments and grow the sector by 6% per annum is generally
far from being realized in Kilolo district. Even the WYDF which is expected to promote youth and women
involvement in productive agriculture has been allocated fewer resources than the mandatory
requirement of 10%. The main reasons for KDC’s failure to meet WYDF funding obligation include fewer
and delayed disbursement of Other Charges (OC) and general-purpose grants from CG which compels the
council to use significant part of its COS to cover basic operations costs such as council meetings and
salaries for council employees working at sub-district levels etc.
Budgetary allocation to youth and women development fund has increased significantly in 2018/19 and
has taken equity issues into consideration. However, this increment might not lead to attainment of the
expected results unless several issues are resolved including lack of funds to facilitate capacity building
and M&E activities; political interference in management of WYDF; embezzlement of funds on the part of
beneficiary groups and ineffective loan recovery rate.
In order to address some of these challenges, some LGA officials in Kilolo DC recommended the need for:-
1) GoT needs to review some financial policies/laws e.g. service levy, now charged at the rate of
0.3%) to enable LGAs to collect resources they deserve
2) GoT to review guidelines on 10% allocation to WYDF to provide funding for capacity building,
supervision and M&E. Also, the government may continue to charge 10% interest and use the money
to finance these activities. This will help to ensure effective utilization of the loans and realization of
WYDF objectives.
16 Medium Term Expenditure Framework (MTEF) Plan and Budget for Kilolo DC for the year 2017-18- 2020/21 and Estimates for
FY 2017/18-2020/21, March 2017
20 | P a g e
3) CG to conduct capacity assessment of LGAs and set a considerate rate of COS contributions to
agriculture and WYDF.
4) The government to issue guidelines for managing special development fund for youth. For the
past five years KDC has been using the guidelines provided for women and thus were uncertain
whether they have been managing the youth fund appropriately.
5) Central government to increase subventions to disadvantaged and/or resource poor LGAs. It was
observed that LGAs have different financial capacities (depending on geographical locations,
ecological characteristics and available sources of council resources), but they receive the same
directives and are equally measured when it comes to COS collections to support agriculture. The
‘richer’ LGAs with alternative sources of income would obviously allocate enormous amounts of
funds from own source to agriculture rather than those with fewer sources and yet the same
responsibilities.
In addition to these, this study recommends the following:
6) GoT to allocate and disburse adequate amounts of funds in a timely fashion to facilitate
implementation of district agricultural development plans in KDC. Although agricultural
production at the village level largely depends on individual farmer’s efforts, the government
support and investment can surely make a lot of difference.
7) CG to enforce and monitor implementation of budget guidelines on 20% allocation of LGAs own
source to support agricultural development. Also KDC to commit to implementation of budget
guidelines on 10% COS allocation to women and youth development fund
8) KDC to liaise with, mobilize and motivate private sector engaged in agriculture and related
activities to contribute agricultural financing beyond payment statutory levies such as service levy,
forest produce cess etc
9) The need to harmonize loan application processes and management for WYDF and the Ministerial
Fund to enable effective monitoring and accountability during loan implementation.
10) KDC to conduct impact assessment of the special development fund as soon as possible to
ascertain whether the fund is reaching the intended objective, and also identify lessons leant and
opportunities for improving management of WYDF
21 | P a g e
5. REFERENCES
URT, Kilolo DC, MTEF Plan and Budget for the year 2013-14- 2017/18 and Estimates for FY 2013/14-2017/18 Web: www.kilolodc.go.tz URT, Kilolo DC, MTEF Plan and Budget for the year 2014-15- 2016/17 and Estimates for FY 2014/15-2016/17, July 2015, July 2014 URT, Kilolo DC, MTEF Plan and Budget for the year 2015-16- 2017/18 and Estimates for FY 2015/16-2017/18, April 2015 URT, Kilolo DC, MTEF Plan and Budget for the year 2016-17- 2018/19 and Estimates for FY 2016/17-2018/19, April 2015, July 2016 URT, Kilolo DC, MTEF Plan and Budget for the year 2017-18- 2020/21 and Estimates for FY 2017/18-2020/21, March 2017 URT, KDC, TAARIFA MBALIMBALI ZILIZOWAKILISWA KWENYE KAMATI YA BUNGE YA HESABU ZA SERIKALI ZAMITAA (LAAC) MWAKA 2011/12, 2012/13 N 2013/14. OCTOBER 2014
6. LIST OF PEOPLE MET
1. Executive Director
2. David Msauka, Revenue Officer – Kilolo DC
3. Brown Pantaleo, Statistician DPLO Office, Kilolo DC
4. Mukungu Jasphon, District Planning Officer (DPLO)
5. Tumsifu Charles, Agricultural Office, DAICO Office
6. Dr John Mwingira, District Livestock and Fisheries Development Officer (DLFDO)
7. Green Mbwillo, Agrucultural Officer
8. Beatus Nyatu, Agricultural Mechnization Officer
9. Joshua Jahazi, Fisheries Officer
10. Pendo Peter, Community Development Officer-Youth
11. Irene Kazimoto, Community Development Officer- Women