District budget analysis study report final

District Budget Analysis Study Report, 2014.
District Budget Analysis Study
Including Funds Sources and DADPs Allocations
in Kilosa and Chamwino District Councils
Final Report
June 2014
1 | P a g e

Acknowledgement
I would like to thank ActionAid and its members for granting me this consultancy opportunity.
Special thanks to Mr. Elias O. Mtinda for his tireless support and readiness for consultation in
the times of difficulties experienced in the course of this study.
Am also highly indebted to Mr. Idd A. Mshili -District Executive Director, Ms. Tatu Said Kachenji-
DAICO, Mr. Deonis Mboya -PAO-I, and Mr. Ludwig Ngakoko- DPLO for Kilosa District Council and
Mr. Adrian. J. Jungu- District Executive Director and Mr. Godfrey Mnayamale- DAICO for
Chamwino District Council for their well reception and invaluable support availed to make this
study a success.
Many thanks should also go to Mr. Sigiene Samson for his invaluable contribution he made in
data collection and analysis for this study.
Lastly but not least, I would like to express my gratitude to Mvumi community representatives
for their insightful information regarding the operationalization of DADPs at the local level as
well as its impact on people’s life.
2 | P a g e

List of Abbreviations
AMCOS Agricultural Markets and Cooperatives
ASLMs Agriculture Sector Lead Ministries
ASDP Agriculture Sector Development Programme
BF Basket Fund
CC Climate Change
CBG Capacity Building Grant
CDCF Constituent Development Catalyst Grants
CDG Council Development Fund
DADPs District Agricultural Development Plans
DAICO District Agricultural Irrigation and Cooperatives
DDP District Development Plan
DIDF District Irrigation Development Fund
DPLO District Planning and Land Officer
GHG Greenhouse Gas
JICA Japanese International Cooperation Agency
LDF Livestock Development Fund
LGAs Local Government Authorities
LGCDG Local Government Council Development Grant
MJUMITA Community Forest Conservation Network
MVIWATA Mtandao wa Vikundi vya Wakulima Tanzania
O & OD Opportunities and Obstacles in Development
PFM Participatory Forest Management
RWSSDP Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Development Programme
SACCOS Savings and Credit Cooperatives
3 | P a g e

SEDEP Small Enterprises Development Programme
TACAIDS Tanzania Commission for AIDS
TASAF Tanzania Social Action Fund
VADPs Village Agricultural Development Plans
WADPs Ward Agricultural Development Plans
4 | P a g e

TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF ABREVIATIONS …………………………………………………………………………………………
Executive Summary …………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
TABLE OF CONTENTS..........................................................................................................................5
1.0 INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................10
2.0 AIM, SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE AND SCOPE OF THE ASSIGNMENT..........................................12
2.1 Specific Objectives .................................................................................................12
2.2 Scope of Work ........................................................................................................12
2.3 The Expected output ..............................................................................................13
3.0 THE STUDY APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY ....................................................................13
4.0 STUDY FINDINGS......................................................................................................................13
4.1 Funding Sources, Sector-wise Allocations and Priorities........................................14
TABLE 1: KILOSA DISTRICT SOURCES OF FUNDS BY SECTOR FOR FY 2012 -2013...............14
FIGURE 1: KILOSA DC SOURCES OF FUNDS FOR 2012/2013 FINANCIAL YEAR....................16
FIGURE 2: KILOSA DC SOURCES OF FUNDS FOR 2013/2014 FINANCIAL YEAR..................16
16
FIGURE 3: CHAMWINO DC SOURCES OF FUNDS FOR 2012/2013 FY ..................................17
FIGURE 4: CHAMWINO DC SOURCES OF FUNDS FOR 2013/2014 FY.....................................18
FIGURE 5: KILOSA SECTOR-WISE BUDGET ALLOCATION FOR 2012/2013.........................20
FIGURE 6: KILOSA DC SECTOR-WISE BUDGET ALLOCATION FOR 2013/2014.......................21
FIGURE 7: CHAMWINO DC SECTOR-WISE BUDGET ALLOCATION FOR 2012/2013..............21
FIGURE 8: CHAMWINO DC SECTOR-WISE BUDGET ALLOCATION FOR 2013/2014 FY.......22
4.2 Budget Utilization by Sector ................................................................................22
TABLE 2: KILOSA DISTRICT COUNCIL APPROVED BUDGET, RELEASED AND SPENT FOR
2012/2013.......................................................................................................................23
5 | P a g e

2013/2014.......................................................................................................................24
FIGURE 9: CHAMWINO DC OVERVIEW OF BUDGET APPROVED, RELEASED AND SPENT
SECTOR-WISE FOR 2012/2013 FINANCIAL YEAR.....................................................25
SECTOR-WISE FOR 2013/2014....................................................................................26
4.3 DADP Allocations and Priorities for Kilosa District..................................................26
4.4 Main Economic Activities for Kilosa and Chamwino District Councils ...................28
4.4.1 Kilosa District Main Economic Activities...........................................................28
4.4.2 Chamwino District Main Economic Activities....................................................29
4.5 Possible Opportunities for Diversification of the Districts Funding Sources...........29
4.5.1 Kilosa District....................................................................................................29
4.5.2 Chamwio District...............................................................................................30
5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS............................................................................31
5.1 Conclusions.............................................................................................................31
5.2 Recommendations...................................................................................................33
6.0 REFERENCES................................................................................................................................34
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1: KILOSA DISTRICT SOURCES OF FUNDS BY SECTOR FOR FY 2012 -2013...ERROR:
REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND
2012/2013................................................ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND
TABLE 3: .....KILOSA DISTRICT COUNCIL APPROVED BUDGET, RELEASED AND SPENT FOR
2013/2014................................................ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND
LIST OF FIGURES
6 | P a g e

FIGURE 1: KILOSA DC SOURCES OF FUNDS FOR 2012/2013 FINANCIAL YEAR..........ERROR:
FIGURE 2: KILOSA DC SOURCES OF FUNDS FOR 2013/2014 FINANCIAL YEAR..........ERROR:
FIGURE 3: CHAMWINO DC SOURCES OF FUNDS FOR 2012/2013 FY.....ERROR: REFERENCE
SOURCE NOT FOUND
FIGURE 4: CHAMWINO DC SOURCES OF FUNDS FOR 2013/2014 FY.....ERROR: REFERENCE
SOURCE NOT FOUND
FIGURE 5: KILOSA SECTOR-WISE BUDGET ALLOCATION FOR 2012/2013...................ERROR:
FIGURE 6: KILOSA DC SECTOR-WISE BUDGET ALLOCATION FOR 2013/2014...........ERROR:
FIGURE 7: CHAMWINO DC SECTOR-WISE BUDGET ALLOCATION FOR 2012/2013. .ERROR:
FIGURE 8: CHAMWINO DC SECTOR-WISE BUDGET ALLOCATION FOR 2013/2014 FY
....................................................................ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND
FIGURE 9: ......CHAMWINO DC OVERVIEW OF BUDGET APPROVED, RELEASED AND SPENT
SECTOR-WISE FOR 2012/2013 FINANCIAL YEAR....ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE
NOT FOUND
SECTOR-WISE FOR 2013/2014.............ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND
LIST OF APPENDICES
Check list of Questions for District Staff and Farmers Discussions
List of People Contacted
Executive Summary
This report gives the findings for the study conducted in Kilosa and Chamwino districts in the
respective regions of Morogoro and Dodoma in Tanzania. The study aimed at conducting District
budget analysis for the district councils of Kilosa and Chamwino and identify funding sources for
the district budget and its utilization including DADPs allocations for 2012/2013 and 2013/2014
financial years. It also aimed at providing recommendations on the basis of the analysis on how
7 | P a g e

best the district can diversify its funding sources for district development. The study employed the
desk review and discussions with the District staff and farmers using a checklist guide of questions
to help in the assessment of the funding sources for the district councils and its sectors of
utilization, understanding of the districts’ priorities of the district and how much is allocated for
each sector or priorities. Parallel to this, the assessment of was made to bring insights for the
DADPs allocations and priorities in the two district Councils for 2012/2013 and 2013/2014
financial years. And how effective DADPs has been in improving people’s life. Similarly, the focus
was put on earmarking possible opportunities for diversification of district funding sources and
assessment of the main economic activities in the districts and its contribution to the district
economy.
The findings from this study revealed that the two districts have various sources of funds
supporting the implementation of various development projects and operations across different
sectors. However, the implementation of various activities including DADPs related ones is not
adequately effected as a result of delayed disbursement and lengthy procurement procedures.
For instance, the overall disbursement of funds against the total allocations for all sectors in
Kilosa District Council for the 2012/2013 was 78.5% of which 72% of was spent. The trend for the
overall disbursement and the expended amount decreased to 68.6% and 63%, respectively in
2013/2014 financial year. Looking at many other parameters assessed in this study, the
conclusions and recommendations are drawn as follows:-
 Although the planning process for the identification of DADP intervention is done in a
participatory manner using DADP guideline, still there is somehow a top-down approach
in which the District Councils are obliged to comply with ‘one district- one crop value
chain’ approach which is like ‘one- size fits all’ approach, thus limiting the District
Councils and its communities to exploit some other areas with potential for investment
using DADP fund. It should be noted that communities have varied capacities and
interests, thus would be a good idea to provide them with a bit wide scope of choice for
priority interventions;
 There is a shortfall in selection of farmers’ representatives for the District planning team
for DADP interventions in the sense that the selected representatives come from SACCOS
or farmer-groups. But not all farmers especially the poor and vulnerable segment of the
community are capable to join SACCOS or farmer-based groups. In this case, it is
uncertain that the real needs of the poor members of the community are taken into
account during the planning process;
 The District Councils largely depend on the central government and bilateral funding
agencies for financial support to carry out development activities. The little fund which is
obtained through own District Councils’ sources of fund is often spent for running
councils’ meetings. In view of this, it is difficult for the district councils to allocate funds
on the basis of own priority sectors and often are provided with the ceiling budget. This
has also a negative impact on meeting the implementation of development activities;
8 | P a g e

 DADP has a big room for exerting a substantial impact to people’s life only that
disbursement of its approved funds and procurement of services needed should be
effected in an efficient and effective way; and
 The two districts have a wide range opportunities for economic investment in agriculture
and livestock sectors by improving the delivery of extension services and ensuring the
existence of improved infrastructure essential for increased production, processing for
value addition, storage and market access.
Based on the above conclusions, the following recommendations are put forward as the
necessary steps in filling the gaps experienced in the district and the DADPs budget
allocation and utilization:-
• Since the budget resources allocation is to a certain extent being determined by the
central government with some restriction of the budget ceilings irrespective of the
district’s priorities, it would then be a good idea for the district councils to put more
efforts in exploring other potential areas from which they can be able to generate own
funds to fill the budget gaps and allocations on the basis of their priority interventions;
• The DADP planning process should take into account the interests of the poorest
segments of the community through a strategic and purposeful inclusion of the poor
farmers in the planning process. This cannot be possible without the review of the
process for the selection of community representatives provided in the DADP guideline.
This should also take into account the flexibility issues rather than the current process
which is restricted to one-size fits all approach commonly known as ‘one-district –one
crop’ value chain approach;
• Efforts should be taken to ensure that the approved district budgets including that for
DADPs are timely disbursed to the district to allow a big room for implementation of
planned development projects in an efficient and effective way, thus assurance of quality
and value for money. More importantly, good governance principles should be adhered
at different levels right from the central government to the community so as to avoid
unnecessary bureaucratic procedures which create the barrier for efficient and
effectiveness in the delivery of services and financial disbursements;
• Government expenditures should be treated as a public goods rather than being seen as
confidential. This will not only give a room for ensuring accountability in the delivery of
services, but also for delivery of advices and necessary support from non-state actors;
and
• The District Council should in collaboration with other development actors undertake
strategic initiatives geared to exploiting the identified possible opportunities for
diversification of own resources. This will essentially help the district allocation of its
9 | P a g e

financial resources on the basis of own priorities as opposed to the current situation
whereby the big chunk of the District budget relies on external support.
1.0 INTRODUCTION
ActionAid Tanzania, Community Forest Conservation Network (MJUMITA), the Farmer’s Network
of Tanzania (MVIWATA), the Tanzania Forest Conservation Group and the Tanzania Organic
Agriculture Movement received funding from AcT for implementation of the project titled
“Climate change, agriculture and poverty alleviation: putting small-scale farmers at the heart of
policy and practice” in 2 districts of Kilosa and Chamwino. Development of this project is based
10 | P a g e

on the fact that the majority of people in Tanzania are smallholders and depends on agriculture
for their livelihood. When it comes to climate variability, it is small-scale farmers who are hit first
and hardest by the climate change (CC). It has been realized that land use changes particularly
deforestation as a result of shifting agriculture, is the largest source of greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions in Tanzania. Investment in agriculture and agricultural policies and practices are
prioritizing a shift to more mechanized, fossil fuel dependent, larger scale agriculture with the
aim of increasing productivity and commercializing smallholder production. Whilst this approach
may increase short-term yields, it risks making small-scale farmers poorer and more vulnerable
to CC. It is believed that there are alternative approaches to land use and food production that
would bring ‘wins’ in terms of CC adaptation and mitigation, but lack of awareness to small-scale
farmers and policy makers on the adaptation and mitigation to CC has been the problem. In view
of this, the project goal is centered at reducing poverty amongst small-scale farmers in Tanzania
and greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture through the widespread adoption of climate
resilient, low emission agricultural practices. Consistently, it envisages to see that Tanzania has
developed and is implementing policies and strategies that prioritize support to small-scale
farmers to enable them to improve their livelihoods through the adoption of climate smart
agriculture and sustainable land and natural resources management. In this regard, the project
specifically intends at achieving the following intermediated objectives:-
Immediate objective 1. Small-scale farmers and other stakeholders are demanding the
integration of climate smart, small-scale agriculture and sustainable land and natural resources
management in national policy and policy implementation.
Immediate objective 2. Government, private sector and civil society are cooperating to support
Small-scale farmers to benefit from climate smart agriculture and sustainable land and natural
resources management.
The achievement of the above intermediate objectives ought to contribute to among others
realization of the outcomes various levels including small-scale farmers, district officials and
elected representatives. More precisely, ultimately looks to bring the following changes:-
• Empowering small-scale farmers to hold local and national government accountable for
the delivery of efficient and effective support services that enable farmers to adopt
climate change adaptation and mitigation strategies in ways that improve their
livelihoods. Parallel to this, small-scale farmers are expected to be practicing and be
aware of good governance practices and community rights;
• Making district officials aware of climate change adaptation and mitigation and capacity
to integrate climate change issues in their plans and budgets including the DADPs and
serve local communities by providing them with the necessary support reflecting farmers
identified priorities in the district. Moreover, communities will be involved in the
planning, budgeting, implementation and monitoring of DADPs;
11 | P a g e

• Elected representatives are actively pushing at national and local level for improved
services to support small-scale farmers to adopt climate smart agriculture. They are using
their influence to ensure that the laws, policies and plans that are submitted to them for
approval, integrate support for small-scale farmers in relation to climate change
adaptation and mitigation.
In view of the above, Action Aid committed a study on the District budget analysis for which its
objectives and the scope are provided hereunder.
2.0 AIM, SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE AND SCOPE OF THE ASSIGNMENT
The study aimed to conduct District budget analysis including identification of funding sources
for the district budget and DADPs allocation.
2.1 Specific Objectives
The specific objectives of the study were:-
To undertake budget analysis for the district council of Kilosa and Chamwino and identify
funding sources for the district budget and its utilization for 2012/2013 and 2013/2014 financial
years; and
Provide recommendations from Consultant’s analysis on how best the district can diversify its
funding sources for district development
2.2 Scope of Work
In the fulfilment of this assignment, the Client expected the consultant to undertake a district
budget analysis study, including identification of funding sources for the district budget and
DADPs allocation. In consideration of this, the Consultant was expected to take into account the
following issues among others in the analysis:
⇒ Assess the funding sources for the district council and its sectors of utilization, what are
the priorities of the district and how much is allocated for each sector or priorities;
⇒ Assess DADPs allocations for 2 financial years and DADPs priorities for the 2 districts,
how effective DADPs has been in improving people’s life;
12 | P a g e

⇒ Earmark possible opportunities for diversification of district funding sources; and
⇒ Assess the main economic activities in the districts and its contribution to the district
economy.
2.3 The Expected output
A report with in-depth district budget analysis, and DADP allocations and priorities for 2012/13
and 2013/14 financial years. Parallel to this, the report should earmark possible opportunities
for diversification of district funding sources and main economic activities in the districts and its
contribution to the district economy.
3.0 THE STUDY APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY
The information described in this report were mainly obtained through a desk review of various
documents in the studied districts. For clear understanding and clarification of some
information, discussions were held with District staff mainly DAICO, Irrigation Officers, and
DPLOs. Apart from these, representative farmers and elected representative were interviewed
in Kilosa to obtain their overview and understanding of DADP, climate change issues and how
these are taken into the Districts priorities and the level of farmers’ engagement in decision and
planning processes.
4.0 STUDY FINDINGS
Prior to reporting of the findings, it is important to note that the study embarked on
undertaking the District budget analysis for Kilosa and Chamwino District Councils with primary
focus on identifying funds sources and exploration of DADPs allocations and priorities for the
Financial Year (FY) 2012/2013 and 2013/14. Specifically, it looked at getting an overview of
funding sources and budget utilizations across various sectors as well as insights on the districts
priorities and how much is allocated for each sector or priorities. Moreover, an exploration was
made to understand main economic activities in the districts and its contribution to the district
economy. The study also looked at identifying possible opportunities for diversification of the
districts’ funding sources. Despite all these and the strategic focus made on the assessment of
the required budget analysis parameters, it is important to note that independent budget
analysis requires access to comprehensive, timely, and useful budget information. Contrariwise,
this study was faced with difficult access to all the key documents with the necessary data on
the direct and indirect expenditures for all sources of funds including DADPs. In Chamwino for
instance, expenditure for the 2013/2014 could not be accessed for the reason that the closure
of accounts is yet due on the 30th
June 2014. Such situation made this study a bit more difficult
to come up with clear insights and comprehensive assessment of some of the required aspects.
13 | P a g e

In this regard, the findings of this study are based on somehow general and partial information
which were made available for the review and also discussions with some district staff and
interviewed farmers as presented hereunder.
4.1 Funding Sources, Sector-wise Allocations and Priorities
The assessment of sources of funds for the 2012/2013 and 2013/2014 financial years revealed
that the two districts have various sources of funds supporting the implementation of various
development projects and operations across different sectors. Some of the funding sources
provided support to more than one sector as shown in Table 1. In view of this, a comprehensive
analysis was made to understand the total contribution of each source of fund in each district
for each particular financial year. The results of such analysis are depicted in Figure 1 and 2 for
Kilosa District Council and Figure 3 and 4 for Chamwino with clear statistical description of the
extent at which each source of funds contributed to the districts budgets in each of the financial
year under this study.
Table 1: Kilosa District Sources of Funds by sector for FY 2012 -2013
Source Sector Budgeted
CDG Livestock and Fisheries 137,225,000.00
LGCDG Culture 47,917,086.00
CDG Secondary Education 137,000,000.00
CDG Primary Education 230,000,000.00
Central Govt. Secondary Education 100,000,000.00
CBG Administration 59,000,000.00
WAJIBIKA Planning 27,500,000.00
CDG Planning 1,838,677,731.00
CDCF Planning 131,359,500.00
TASAF Planning 74,852,460.00
CDG Administration 521,425,183.00
14 | P a g e

Source Sector Budgeted
Central Govt. Administration 100,000,000.00
PFM Natural Resource 66,265,000.00
RWSP Water 538,330,000.00
DADP Agriculture 667,655,000.00
DIDF Agriculture 403,125,000.00
LDF Livestock and Fisheries 10,415,000.00
TACAIDS Community Dev. 218,281,000.00
Road Fund Works 831,500,000.00
MMAM Health 151,486,000.00
CDG Health 156,000,000.00
CDG Environment and Sanitation 15,603,000.00
TUNAJALI Health 429,397,500.00
Basket Fund Health 1,329,289,200.00
15 | P a g e

Figure 1: Kilosa DC Sources of Funds for 2012/2013 Financial Year
Figure 2: Kilosa DC Sources of Funds for 2013/2014 Financial Year
16 | P a g e

The information presented in Figure 1 and 2 above show sources of funds allocated for Kilosa
District Council in the respective FY 2012/2013 and 2013-14. The Figure 1 depicts that the major
share of funds for FY 2012/2013 was channeled to the local level through the Council
Development Grant (CDP) 37% and Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Program (RWSSP) 36% in
FY 2013/2014. The Allocation through RWSSP increased by 29% in FY 2013/2014 while that for
CDP decreased by 26% when compared to FY 2012/2013. Undoubtedly this is due to the
national focused initiatives on the Big Results Now (BRN) which among other things emphasizes
on enhancement of irrigation water supply as part of improving the poor small-scale farmers’
livelihoods. Other sources which mainly contributed to Kilosa District Council budget were
Basket Fund 16%, Road Fund 10%, District Agricultural Development Plans (DADPs) 8% and
District Irrigation Development Fund (DIDF) 6% in FY 2012/2013 and Basket Fund 10%, DADP 9%
Local Government Council Development Grant (LGCDG) 7% and DIDF 6% in FY 2013/2014.
Interestingly the allocation for DADP increased by 1% from 8% in FY 2012/2013 to 9% in FY
2013/2014.
Similarly information drawn in Figure 3 and 4 below indicate that the main sources of funds for
Chamwino District Council for FY 2012/2013 were CDG 39% followed by Road Fund 16%, RWSSP
14%, Basket Fund 10%, Tanzania Social Action Fund (TASAF) 8% and DADPs 6% while in FY
2013/2014 CDG contributed 27% of the district budget followed by RWSSP 24% with an increase
of 10%, Road Fund 13%, TASAF 12%, Other Charges (OC) 8% and 5% for DADPs with a decrease
of 1% compared to FY 2012/2013.
Figure 3: Chamwino DC Sources of Funds for 2012/2013 FY
17 | P a g e

Figure 4: Chamwino DC Sources of Funds for 2013/2014 FY
Moreover, it is worth noting that, apart from the findings described above, desk review of
progress reports revealed that for the financial year 2013/2014 Kilosa District Council approved
a total of TZS 8,914,079,277 accrued from DADP, DIDF, MMEM, MMES, LGCDG, MMAM,
TACAIDS and TASAF funding for 2012/2013. Up to 31st December 2013, the District spent TZS
6,206,047,791 which is 70% of accrued amount in implementation of 2012/2013
unaccomplished development projects. The review further revealed that of the accrued amount,
DADPs had TZS 780,217,660 of which TZS 778,997,760 (99.84%) was released for expenditure
but only TZS 135,883,672.00 (17%) of the DADPs released was spent up to 31st
December, 2013. From this analysis, it is obvious that implementation of a number of
development activities including DADPs failure to take place as planned mainly due to delayed
disbursement of funds and lengthy procurement procedures. Indeed, for the financial year
2013/2014 the district had a plan to implement different development project worth TZS
6,503,381,860 of which until 30th
December 2013, only TZS 3,651,021,885.91 (56.14%) was
disbursed. Of this disbursed amount TZS 325,734,513 were meant for Gairo District which its
money still pass through Kilosa District Account. Apart from this, Kilosa District received TZS
778,646,369.91 comprised of TZS 582,479,260 and TZS 196,167,109.91 which were approved in
2012/2013 for respective implementation of DADPs and roads projects but could not be
disbursed due to shortage of funds.
Assessment of FY 2012/2013 and 2013/2014 sector-wise resource allocations and priorities is
clearly shown in Figure 5 and 6 and Figure 7 and 8 for Kilosa and Chamwino District Councils,
18 | P a g e

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

Figure 5: Kilosa Sector-wise Budget Allocation for 2012/2013
20 | P a g e

Figure 6: Kilosa DC Sector-wise Budget Allocation for 2013/2014
Health
16%
Environment and
Sanitation
1%
Primary
Education
1%
Secondary
Education
5%
Agriculture
13%
Livestock and
Fisheries
3%
Works
7%
Natural
Resources
1%
Policyand
Planning
9%Administration
6%
Information
Technology
1%
Community
Development
1%
Water
36%
Trade
0.001%
Figure 7: Chamwino DC Sector-wise Budget Allocation for 2012/2013
Secondary Education
2%
Health
12%
Works
19%
Water
17%
Livestock and
Fisheries
2%
Agriculture
6%
Livestock and
Fisheries
0%
Community
Development
2%
Administration
0%
Planning
39%
Land
0%
Primary Education
1%
21 | P a g e

Figure 8: Chamwino DC Sector-wise Budget Allocation for 2013/2014 FY
4.2 Budget Utilization by Sector
Apart from assessment of the budget allocations and priorities by sector as discussed in section
4.1, the study went further exploring the expenditures against the amount disbursed for each
sector in FY 2012/2013 and 2013/2014. As pointed earlier, it was not possible to obtain the
information with detail description of both direct and indirect expenditure, so this assessment
will just provide a general overview based on the information disclosed as shown in Table 2 and
3 for Kilosa and Figure 9 and 10 for Chamwino. Looking at the presented information, it is
obvious that in all the studied districts and financial years there some sectors which received
above the approved budget, some received the whole amount approved while others received
even far less compared to the approved budget. But the overall ddisbursement of funds from
Central Government against the total allocations for all sectors in Kilosa District Council for the
2012/2013 was 78.5% of which 72%b of the disbursed amount was spent. Contrarily, the overall
disbursement and the expended amount decreased to 68.6% and 63%, respectively in
2013/2014 financial year. Information provided in Table 2 also indicate that health and natural
resources had -1% and -64% of unreleased budget implying that they received more than what
was budgeted and approved by Kilosa DC for the FY 2012/2013 while 15%, 45% and 44% of the
approved budget for the respective primary and secondary education, administration and water
sectors could not be disbursed to the District Council in the same financial year. A similar trend
was experienced in Chamwino District Council for the studied 2012/2013 and 2013/2014
financial years. It was explained that the extra amount disbursed to some sectors is often
22 | P a g e

derived from previous year unreleased amount. The analysis have also indicated that some
sectors have spent less amount compared to the amount received while others have managed
to spend 100% of the released budget. The health, works, water and planning sectors are the
good examples as illustrated in Figure 9 for Chamwino pattern of approved, released and spent
budget in FY 2012/2013 and 2013/2014, respectively. Thus, it can be deduced from this study
that, to a certain extent the budgeting and budget approval have a close link with sector
priorities set and budget ceiling being provided by the Central Government while sector
utilization is largely determined by the time the approved budgets are disbursed from treasury
and bureaucratic procedures involved in the procurement of services. Information given in
Figure 10 is explicitly an affirmation behind this assertion through the funds release in each
could not be spent as a result of delayed disbursement. Cementing to this affirmation, the
interviewed district staff pointed out that, in some cases the disbursements are made close to
the end of a financial year or even off growing season for agriculture sector for instance, hence,
making it difficult to spend it. This was pointed out by district staff as one of the bottleneck
contributing to inefficient performance of the District Councils. Often they tend to rush spending
the funds lately received, thus compromising the quality of work and value for money in
interventions and service delivery. It was proposed that a mechanism should be sought out to
avoid the bureaucratic procedures which often cause unnecessary delays in disbursement and
procurement of services.
Table 2: Kilosa District Council Approved Budget, Released and Spent for 2012/2013
Sector Budget TZS Released TZS Unreleased TZS
%
Unreleased
TZS Spent TZS % Spent
Health 1,484,163,411 1,497,905,511 -13,742,100 -1% 1,217,853,949 81%
Primary &
secondary
education
756,885,080 646,254,114 110,630,966 15% 542,922,927 84%
Agriculture 2,060,952,660 2,064,732,760 -3,780,100 0% 1,179,009,962 57%
DADP 1,115,537,660 1,114,317,760 1,219,900 0% 318,416,962 29%
Works 725,763,072 724,282,681 1,480,391 0% 643,896,452 89%
Natural
resources
28,900,000 47,315,000 -18,415,000 -64% 47,315,000 100%
Policy &
planning
381,891,722 377,446,087 4,445,635 1% 294,170,050 78%
Administration 722,410,890 399,810,890 322,600,000 45% 145,149,172 36%
23 | P a g e

Sector Budget TZS Released TZS Unreleased TZS
%
Unreleased
TZS Spent TZS % Spent
Information
technology
47,917,086 47,917,086 0.00 0% 29,997,899 63%
Community
development
44,101,200 44,101,200 0.00 0% 44,101,200 100%
Water 5,257,419,163 2,945,239,948 2,312,179,215 44% 2,663,746,269 90%
Trade 30,000,000 30,000,000 0.00 0% 20,482,500 68%
Total 12,655,941,944 9,939,323,037 2,716,618,907 21% 7,147,062,342 72%
Table 3: Kilosa District Council Approved Budget, Released and Spent for 2013/2014
Sector Budgeted Released Unreleased %
Unreleased
spent %
Spent
Health
2,936,142,671
2,949,884,77
1
15,4223,772 -47% 1,693,046,636
57%
Environment
and Sanitation
185,233,000 89,074,00
0
96,159,000
52%
87,152,000
98%
Primary
Education
210,000,000 197,973,23
2
12,026,768 5.7% 112,269,034
57%
Secondary
Education
902,149,080 950,464,27
8
-48,315,198 -5.4% 542,452,157
57%
Agriculture 2,380,358,400 1,844,312,356 536,046,044 23% 1,077,848,222 58%
Livestock and
Fisheries 549,450,000 451,735,000 97,715,000 18% 175,438,790 39%
Works 1,273,989,508 2,153,344,167 -879,354,659 -69% 1,260,744,560 59%
Natural
Resources 135,760,040 69,581,354 66,178,686 49% 55,500,000 80%
Policy and 1,654,402,889 776,624,882 877,778,007 53% 502,072,766 65%
24 | P a g e

Sector Budgeted Released Unreleased %
Unreleased
spent %
Spent
Planning
Administration 1,085,740,407 420,755,890 664,984,517 61% 152,833,172 36%
Information
Technology 47,917,086 47,917,086 0 0% 29,997,899 63%
Community
Development 196,897,900 172,749,297 24,148,603 12% 85,217,555 49%
Water 6,544,819,163 3,855,643,415 2,689,175,748 41% 2,771,746,269 72%
Trade 30,000,000 30,000,000 0 0% 20,482,500 68%
Total 13,929,062,236 9,560,668,205 4,536,359,903 33% 6,052,769,988 63%
Figure 9: Chamwino DC Overview of Budget Approved, Released and Spent Sector-wise for
2012/2013 Financial Year
0
500,000,000
1,000,000,000
1,500,000,000
2,000,000,000
2,500,000,000
3,000,000,000
3,500,000,000
Budgeted
Released
Spent
25 | P a g e

Figure 10: Chamwino DC Overview of Budget Approved, Released and Spent Sector-wise for
2013/2014
4.3 DADP Allocations and Priorities for Kilosa District
The Agriculture Sector Development Programme (ASDP) is a Sector Programme largely
implemented at the district level through the District Agricultural Development Plans (DADPs) as
an integral part of the District Development Plan (DDP). The government started implementing
the Agriculture Sector Development Programme from 2006/2007 onwards via donor-provided
Basket Funding (BF) through the Agriculture Sector Lead Ministries (ASLMs). Principally, the
district Councils are responsible for preparing and implementing DADPs while the Agriculture
Sector Lead Ministries are responsible for ensuring the quality of DADPs’ design and
implementation. Based on the findings of this study, previously in 2012/2013 and some other
financial years back to the time when DADP was grant was established, the budget resources
allocation of DADP resources was given as consolidated budget in which the district had to
allocate it for implementation of livestock and agricultural based on priority interventions
identified by the district through a participatory planning process. Different to this, in 2013/2014
DADP resources allocation is based on the DADP planning guideline which requires each district
to identify one potential intervention on the basis of value chain analysis known as ‘one district
–one crop’ which looks like one –size fits all approach. Once the specific intervention dealing
with one crop identified, the DADP resources is distributed to cover different areas essential for
the intervention including capacity building, supervision and also direct costs related to the
intervention. Nonetheless, as pointed out earlier, it was not possible to obtain detail costs
26 | P a g e

particularly those related to indirect expenditures, thus making it difficult to undertake deeper
analysis for comparison of budget allocation with coverage of both indirect and direct costs.
Furthermore, this study revealed that each District Council (DC) has its own vision through which
a 5 years Strategic Development Plan is developed with strategic areas of development
interventions in compliance to MTEF objectives. Along this line, the District Councils’ targets and
activities are established to ensure the objectives are achieved. In this regard, it can be realized
that the setting of the District’s strategic objectives, targets and activities in compliance to MTEF
makes it difficult to escape the top-down approach phenomenon and paradigm. Conversely, the
DADP priorities setting follows a specific laid guideline with emphasis on the use of a
participatory Value Chain known as ;one district one crop’ development approach. Despite the
DADP’s planning guideline emphasis on participatory approach, yet it is my view on the basis of
this study findings that, it is hardly difficult for the DADP priorities setting to go out of a biased
round trap of already existing DC’s institutional priorities within the District Strategic Plan
interventions targets which are aligned with MTEF sheets.
Nonetheless, discussions with the District staff and also farmers revealed that farmers are aware
of DADPs as they have been involved in preparing their Village Agricultural Development Plans
(VADPs) which are included in the Ward Agricultural Development Plans (WADPs).These plans
from lower levels are consolidated into DADPs. But unlike O & OD which used to undertake a
participatory analysis from the hamlet level, the DADP planning guideline is questionable
whether it takes into account the real needs of the poorer segment of farmers in the
community. The reason behind this assertion is that, the community representatives
participating in the DADP interventions planning process are selected through their farmer’s
organization such as AMCOS, SACCOS or farmers groups which often comprised of a bit well-off
and elite members of the community, thus leaving behind the poorer farmers interests and
representation. Above this, rarely farmers are involved in the budgeting only that they are
notified in writing their VADP interventions that will be implemented in the coming year District
Development Plan. It should be acknowledged however, the implementation process is to a
large extent done in a transparent manner in the sense that funds for DADPs activities are sent
to community bank accounts thus increasing ownership, accountability and transparency in
project management. Consistent to this, farmers and district staff interview affirmed that DADPs
have made substantial impact on people’s life. In Kilosa for instance;
• A number of traditional irrigation schemes including Mwasa, Lumuma, Madizini,
Chabima, Malolo, Ilonga, Chanzuri, Rudewa, Mvumi, Kichangani and Uleling’ombe
villages have been improved;
• Farmers have been trained on good agricultural production practices and techniques
including exposure visits. In some areas, power tillers, tractors and rice milling
machines have been provided. All these have contributed to increased rice production
27 | P a g e

from 7kg to 20 or 25kg per acres as affirmed by farmers in Mvumi village, implying for
increase of households’ income;
• One important achievement is that DADPS projects are owned and managed by
farmers themselves. This is an important aspect for making the projects sustainable.
Farmers through their SACCOS/Irrigators Organizations meet and plan for their farms
without undue interference from the Council staff and other stakeholders;
• DADP projects has improved farmers’ capacity in crop production due to involvement
in land preparation, nursery management, transplanting of seedlings, pest and disease
control, rotational irrigation management and other crop husbandry practices; and
• DADP projects have succeeded to impress the youth group to remain in the villages.
For example at Chinangali II grape farm, grape production creates an assurance of
about 6 to 15 tons per acre per year and guarantees stable income for the period of
about 50 years.
4.4 Main Economic Activities for Kilosa and Chamwino District Councils
4.4.1 Kilosa District Main Economic Activities
The main economic activities in Kilosa district are agriculture and livestock keeping. More
than 80% of people in Kilosa district are fully depending on agricultural activities growing
maize, paddy, sorghum, cassava, and legumes as major staple food while major cash
crops comprise cotton, sisal, sugarcane and oilseeds
Nevertheless, the agricultural sector in Kilosa is limited by a number of constraints
including:-
• Poor road network especially during rainy season which limits timely availability
of fuel, spare parts, and other inputs especially to villages located in remote
areas; and
• Unreliable rainfall making farming to be high risky enterprises making farmers opt
for low input technology.
Livestock keeping `is also an important economic venture that has a big potential in
boosting the district’s economy. Surprisingly, it was learnt through this study that the
district is making deliberate efforts for livestock destocking as a remedy to conflicts
between farmers and pastoralists in the area. There is an accusation that the pastoralists
have been the main cause of conflict
28 | P a g e

4.4.2 Chamwino District Main Economic Activities
On the basis of literatures and discussion with DAICO for Chamwino, agriculture and
livestock sectors are considered as the main economic activities in Chamwino district
largely providing employment and income to majority of the district population. More
than 90 percent of the community members in the district rely on agriculture. Only a
small number of the population is engaged in commercial and industrial sectors whilst
the industrial is still limited to small scale enterprises mainly carpentry, oil mills and
tailoring. Second to agriculture is a livestock which is viewed as a vital economic activity
in the district. This is clearly evident in the sense that its cattle population accounts for
about 20% of the regional cattle herd and Chamwino ranks second to Kondoa district in
terms of livestock numbers. In 2012 the district had an estimate of 284,749 indigenous
cattle based on 2002 livestock census projection, where number of cattle was
185,659,goats 41,384 and sheep 9,007. Nonetheless, its actual contribution to the district
output growth in terms of provisions of income, employment and contribution to GDP
and Per Capita income is less recognized due to pre-existed negative notion against
pastoralism mode of life, thus little efforts in laying strategic initiatives for promotion of
livestock sector contribution to the district economy.
4.5 Possible Opportunities for Diversification of the Districts Funding Sources
4.5.1 Kilosa District
Discussion with district staff in Kilosa came out with the findings that Kilosa has a varied
range of agro-ecological conditions with considerable potential for irrigated and rain-fed
agriculture for a variety of crops mainly cereal crops, sugar cane, horticultural crops,
rice, cocoa and many others. Despite this potential, the district has largely relied on
collection of own revenue from agriculture which predominantly relies on traditional
cropping system with low productivity. Low production is often attributed to low
knowledge and understanding of good agricultural practices as a result of inadequate
delivery of agricultural extension services. Nonetheless, it was learnt that the district has
about 132 agricultural extension staff. This alone is a potential opportunity which the
district could invest to ensure that the existing human capital is effectively utilized to
support farmers with the knowledge and skills needed to transform them from
subsistence to commercial farming for improved production, hence, a widened room for
revenue collection by the district. Similarly, Kilosa district has potentially ample arable
land and 37 perennial rivers which could be utilized for improved crop production
should the district ensure farmers access to good and reliable agricultural extension
services, improvement of traditional irrigation systems. The situation to date indicates
that out of 35 traditional irrigation schemes only 12 have been improved mainly through
DADP and JICA support. This should go parallel with the timely provision of weather
information to farmers as a strategy to curb among others climate changes effects.
Moreover, the district should strive together with involvement of private sectors and
29 | P a g e

donors to ensure farmers with supportive business environment through improvement
of rural feeder roads and support for processing and storage/warehouses for enhanced
market access. This will definitely make agriculture as a profitable venture from which
the district can reap the benefits through revenue collection.
Apart from the above, Dumila, Kilosa and Mikumi are earmarked centers for future
district investment. Currently, European Union has agreed to support the development
of roads infrastructure and supply of essential services like water, electricity and sewage
systems so as to attract private investors let alone the fact that the district will also
generate revenue through selling of surveyed plots.
It was further pointed out that the Council is currently loosing revenue by relying on
collection of revenue from sugar cane plantation through the contracted Revenue
Collection Agencies. The District Council is suspicious that the collection being reported
by agencies is not realistic. In this regard, it would be good for the District to look for
system or mechanism which will ensure high level of efficiency and accountability in the
revenue collection so as to raise the District Council’s own source of income. The district
staff also had a view that a decentralized government that shifts the power to LGAs is
another grey area with potential for enhancement of the district’s diversification of its
funding sources. What is needed is to ensure adequate capacity building is taking place
to improve the staff working efficiency particularly in resources mobilization as a way of
soliciting resources – from different sources including donors.
Moreover, Kilosa has a roads network linked to Dodoma – Dar es Salaam and also
Mbeya roads thus creating a wealth of investment opportunity. The district views this as
a potential opportunity with great strengths and advantages as an investment location
adding to the district opportunity for diversification of economic gains.
On top of the above, livestock remains an important sector in the district’s economy
although the government has a negative perspective linked to the cause of conflicts
with farmers and also environmental degradation. It would have been more important
to look for good strategies in addition to land use plans so as to harness the existing
potential for the productivity of the livestock sector.
4.5.2 Chamwio District
Although agricultural sector employs 90% of the district population, yet this opportunity
has not been fully exploited due to a number of factors including rain fed farming, low
use of technology, low farming skills and climate change effects. These challenges have
made 70% of total arable in the district that would suitably be used for crop production
to remain unutilized. This means that out of 563,920 hectares suitable for agricultural
production only about 246,821(44%) hectares are used for crop production. Failure to
30 | P a g e

potentially utilize the arable land has constituted to the declining of the sector
contribution to the economy of Chamwino. Addressing of the above challenges then is of
critical importance as a possible opportunity for the district diversification of its funding
sources. Information obtained through a desk study indicate that Chamwino has
earmarked grapes production and processing, fruits production, processing and
marketing, beekeeping and honey processing, fishing and hotels development as
potential economic ventures which if well exploited can provide the district with great
opportunity for diversification of its funding sources. Strategies on how to promote the
mentioned investments are as outlined hereunder:-
i. Providing assistance with trading license and permits within a minimum period of
thirty days including authorizations, registration, and other matters required by
law for a person to set up and operate enterprises;
ii. Assist in identifying investment sites, estates or land together with associated
facilities of any sites for the purpose of investors and investment in general;
iii. Provide and disseminate up to date information on benefits or incentives
available to investors;
iv. Assist in looking for labour supplies. Labour is easily available in Chamwino
although it is largely unskilled; and
v. Through commercial courts ensure that where a dispute arises, efforts shall be
made to settle the disputes through negotiations for an amicable settlement.
Apart from agriculture, livestock production is another possible opportunity in which the
district can invest for diversification of its funding sources. What is needed is
strengthening of the livestock extension services and improvement of pastures as
strategic initiatives for enhancing the contribution of livestock sector to the district
economy.
5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the findings, this study came up with the following conclusions and
recommendations.
5.1 Conclusions
31 | P a g e

It can be concluded from this study that:-
i. Priorities that are set by the District Councils often focus on meeting the objectives found
in the Council’s strategic plan in compliance with the MTEF guideline. Certainly this has
great influence in guiding the identification of small-scale farmers priorities in somehow
biased perspective during the planning processes;
ii. Although the planning process for the identification of DADP intervention is done in a
participatory manner using DADP guideline, still there is somehow a top-down approach
in which the District Councils are obliged to comply with ‘one district- one crop value
chain’ approach which is like ‘one- size fits all’ approach, thus limiting the District
Councils and its communities to exploit some other areas with potential for investment
using DADP fund. It should be noted that communities have varied capacities and
interests, thus would be a good idea to provide them with a bit wide scope of choice for
priority interventions;
iii. There is a shortfall in selection of farmers’ representatives for the District planning team
for DADP interventions in the sense that the selected representatives come from SACCOS
or farmer-groups. But not all farmers especially the poor and vulnerable segment of the
community are capable to join SACCOS or farmer-based groups. In this case, it is
uncertain that the real needs of the poor members of the community are taken into
account during the planning process;
iv. The District Councils largely depend on the central government and bilateral funding
agencies for financial support to carry out development activities. The little fund which is
obtained through own District Councils’ sources of fund is often spent for running
councils’ meetings. In view of this, it is difficult for the district councils to allocate funds
on the basis of own priority sectors and often are provided with the ceiling budget. This
has also a negative impact on meeting the implementation of development activities;
v. Disbursements for the District Councils’ approved financial year budget often take place
late with some of it not being disbursed at all. This also includes those funds approved
for the implementation of DADP interventions. This coupled with bureaucratic processes
involved in the procurement processes do largely affect the implementation on the
ground and therefore the realization of the expected results;
vi. To a large extent budget expenditure of the District Councils is viewed by some of the
District Officers as something not for public consumption i.e. ‘confidential’ thus opposing
the good governance principles which put emphasis on transparency;
vii. DADP has a big room for exerting a substantial impact to people’s life only that
disbursement of its approved funds and procurement of services needed should be
effected in an efficient and effective way; and
viii. The two districts have a wide range opportunities for economic investment in agriculture
and livestock sectors by improving the delivery of extension services and ensuring the
32 | P a g e

existence of improved infrastructure essential for increased production, processing for
value addition, storage and market access. This should go parallel with deliberate
initiatives for transforming the small-scale farming to commercial kind of production not
only for assured benefits to farmers, but also the councils’ increase in income through
produce revenue collection.
5.2 Recommendations
The present study puts forward the following recommendations as the necessary steps in
filling the gaps experienced in the district and the DADPs budget allocation and utilization:-
• Since the budget resources allocation and to a certain extent being determined by the
central government with some restriction of the budget ceilings irrespective of the
district’s priorities, it would then be a good idea for the district councils to put more
efforts in exploring other potential areas from which they can be able to generate own
funds to fill the budget gaps and allocations on the basis of their priority interventions;
• The DADP planning process should take into account the interests of the poorest
segments of the community through a strategic and purposeful inclusion of the poor
farmers in the planning process. This cannot be possible without the review of the
process for the selection of community representatives provided in the DADP guideline.
This should also take into account the flexibility issues rather than the current process
which is restricted to one-size fits all approach commonly known as ‘one-district –one
crop’ value chain approach;
• Efforts should be taken to ensure that the approved district budgets including that for
DADPs are timely disbursed to the district to allow a big room for implementation of
planned development projects in an efficient and effective way, thus assurance of quality
and value for money. More importantly, good governance principles should be adhered
at different levels right from the central government to the community so as to avoid
unnecessary bureaucratic procedures which create the barrier for efficient and
effectiveness in the delivery of services and financial disbursements;
• Government expenditures should be treated as a public goods rather than being seen as
confidential. This will not only give a room for ensuring accountability in the delivery of
services, but also for delivery of advices and necessary support from non-state actors;
and
• The District Council should in collaboration with other development actors undertake
strategic initiatives geared to exploiting the identified possible opportunities for
diversification of own resources. This will essentially help the district allocation of its
financial resources on the basis of own priorities as opposed to the current situation
whereby the big chunk of the District budget relies on external support.
33 | P a g e

6.0 REFERENCES
Executive Summary Progress Report Q3 2012/13 Kilosa
Kilosa Five Year Strategic Development Plan 2011/2012 – 2015/2016
Revenue Summary of Council Budget Framework 2013/14 – 2015/2016
Summary of Sources of Funds and Allocations by Sector for 2012/13 -2013/14
Summary of Progress Report for Development Activities 3rd Quarter Ended 31st March, 2014, of
the Financial Year 2013/14
Kilosa - LGA Summary Sheet of DADP Quarterly Progress Report, Quarter 4, 2013/14
Kilosa - LGA Summary Sheet of DADP Quarterly Progress Report for 2012/13 Carry-over Fund,
Quarter 4, 2013/14
Chamwino District Council Summary of Sources of Funds and Allocations by Sector for 2012/13
-2013/14
Agricultural Investment Opportunities in Chamwino District
Summary of Resources for Implementation of the Kilosa Five Year Development Plan 2011/2012
- 2015/2016
34 | P a g e

APPENDICES
Check list of Questions for District Staff and Farmers Discussions
i. Questions for District Key staff
a. Are the communities aware of DADPs?
b. How are they involved in planning, budgeting and monitoring of DADPs?
c. What mechanisms in place to ensure transparent and accountable in the
execution of the DADPs.
d. Which initiatives or mechanisms in place for addressing corruption in the
agriculture and natural resources sector?
e. To what extent are the districts aware of climate change adaptation and
mitigation?
f. Do the district plans include climate change adaptation and mitigation issues in
their plans and budgets (PLANRep).
g. How do the districts support the development and implementation of village
land use plans and participatory forest management?
h. What is the community response?
i. To what extent do the districts support community access to REDD finance?
j. What resource capacity do the districts have in supporting communities’
adaptation and mitigation for climate change including ways minimization of GHG
emissions from agriculture? (put in mind of the following kind of support by the
district and resources requirements: training; assistance in improving access to
market or access to inputs such as more climate change resilient seed varieties;
construction of ward-level markets or improved irrigation systems; training and
technical support from Extension workers; and networking local farmers with
35 | P a g e

relevant national initiatives, laws enforcement to help CC mitigation and tackling
of corruption in the agriculture and natural resources sector)
k. Is the support based on farmers’ priorities? How are the priorities identified and
set?
ii. Questions to small-scale farmers
a. Questions will asked to seek their awareness and understanding of CC, DADPs?
b. How has DADPs impacted their lives?
c. Discussion questions will also focus to understand how they are involved in the
planning process, setting priorities and access to the district budgets and
allocations and good governance issue; and
d. Potential opportunities linked to CC adaptation and mitigation including the
existing economic activities
List of People Contacted
S/No. Name Designation Institution Contacts
1. Mr. Idd Abrahaman Mshili DED Kilosa District
Council
0785 337444
2. Mr. Adrian J. Jungu DED Chamwino
District Council
0755-516319
3. Ms. Tatu S. Kachenji DAICO Kilosa District
Council
0786 367629
4. Deonis Mboya PAO I Kilosa District
Council
0784 229821
5. Godfrey Mnyamale DAICO Chamwino
District Council
0713 765953
6. Ludwig Ngakoko DPLO Kilosa District
Council
0786 602662
7. Nicolus Simbeye Farmer -
Mvumi
DADP
Construction
0682 828691
36 | P a g e

Committee
Member
8. Ramadhan Hussein Farmer -
Mvumi
DADP Executive
Committee
Member
0685 937848
9. Neema Sitta Farmer -
Mvumi
DADP Executive
Committee
Member
0788 324601
37 | P a g e

District budget analysis study report final

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to District budget analysis study report final

Similar to District budget analysis study report final (20)

More from Climate Change Agriculture and Poverty Alleviation in Tanzania

More from Climate Change Agriculture and Poverty Alleviation in Tanzania (17)

District budget analysis study report final