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