WATER SECTOR: A MARGINALISED PRIORITY DECLINING LEVELS OF FINANCING IN THE WATER, SANITATION AND HYGIENE (WASH) SECTOR IN MALAWI 2012/2013 WATER SUPPLY AND SANITATION SECTOR BUDGET ANALYSIS For Water and Environmental Sanitation Network (WES Network) Lilongwe March 2013 Contents I. LIST OF TABLES ...................................................................................................................................................4 II LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS.....................................................................................................................................5 1. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................................6 2. WESNET’S MOTIVATION FOR THE BUDGET ANALYSIS ........................................................................................6 2.1 SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES OF THE BUDGET ANALYSIS .............................................................................................................. 7 2.2 METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................................................................................ 8 2.2.1 Literature Review: ....................................................................................................................................... 8 2.2.2 Field Work ................................................................................................................................................... 8 3.0 ANALYSIS AND STUDY FINDINGS ........................................................................................................................8 4.0 BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT ..........................................................................................................................11 5.0 2012/2013 WASH BUDGET ANALYSIS ...............................................................................................................12 5.1 BUDGET FRAMEWORK FOR 2012/13 FY ..................................................................................................................... 12 5.2 COMPARISON BETWEEN THE 2012/13 FY AND BUDGETS FOR TWO PREVIOUS FY ............................................................... 13 5.3 BUDGET ALLOCATIONS FOR WASH FROM 2009/10 TO 2012/13 FY .............................................................................. 16 5.3.1 Budget Related Mandate of Ministry of Water Development and Irrigation (MoWDI) ........................... 16 5.4 BUDGET ALLOCATION TO MOWDI ............................................................................................................................. 18 5.5 COMPARISON BETWEEN RECURRENT AND DEVELOPMENT BUDGETS OF MOWDI ................................................................ 19 5.6 ORT WASH ALLOCATIONS ....................................................................................................................................... 20 5.7 MAIN OUTPUTS PLANNED TO BE ACHIEVED BY MOWDI IN 2012/13 BUDGET ................................................................... 21 5.8 INCREASED AND DECREASED BUDGET LINES UNDER MOWDI .......................................................................................... 22 5.8.1 Increased Allocations ................................................................................................................................ 22 5.8.2 Decreased Allocations ............................................................................................................................... 24 5.9 5.10 WHO GETS HOW MUCH OF THE 2012/2013 MOWDI BUDGETS? ................................................................................. 25 ADEQUACY OF THE 2012/2013 MOWDI BUDGET .................................................................................................. 26 5.10.1 Financing for WASH ............................................................................................................................. 26 5.10.2 The guiding Policy Framework for WASH ............................................................................................. 27 5.10.3 Weakest Link: WASH, MGDS Priorities and the 2012/13 Budget......................................................... 28 5.11 DECENTRALIZED BUDGETS AND WASH ALLOCATIONS IN 2012/13 BUDGET .................................................................. 29 5.11.1 District Council Budgets and Sector Allocations ................................................................................... 29 5.11.2 Less Significant Allocation to Water in Local Council Transfers ........................................................... 31 2 5.11.3 6.0 CASE STUDIES: DISTRICT COUNCIL ALLOCATIONS FOR WATER SUPPLY, SANITATION AND HYGIENE ................33 6.1 BUDGETS FOR MCHINJI DISTRICT COUNCIL ................................................................................................................... 33 6.1.1 Mchinji Budget Allocations for WASH ....................................................................................................... 33 6.1.2 Declining Financing for Mchinji Water Department ................................................................................. 34 6.1.3 Inadequate Staff Capacity ........................................................................................................................ 34 6.1.4 Contributions from Development Partners ............................................................................................... 34 6.2 BUDGETS FOR MANGOCHI DISTRICT COUNCIL ............................................................................................................... 35 6.2.1 Mangochi Budget Allocation for WASH .................................................................................................... 35 6.2.2 Implications of the inadequate financing ................................................................................................. 35 6.2.3 Rescuing the Situation: Role of Development Partners ............................................................................ 36 6.2.4 Low Levels of Staffing ............................................................................................................................... 37 6.3 BUDGETS FOR NKHATA-BAY DISTRICT COUNCIL ............................................................................................................. 37 6.3.1 WASH Budget Allocation for Nkhata-bay ................................................................................................. 38 6.3.2 Static Allocations to Water Sector in Nkhata-bay .................................................................................... 38 7.0 8.0 WASH in the Economic Recovery Plan (ERP) ........................................................................................ 32 BUDGET FOR CHIKWAWA DISTRICT WATER PLANS......................................................................................................... 39 7.1 The 2012/2013 Chikwawa Water Sector Budget Allocation ......................................................................... 39 7.2 Implications of the reduced funding to the water sector .............................................................................. 40 7.3 Role of other players in the sector in the district ........................................................................................... 40 7.4 Constraints and Challenges with WASH provision in the district ................................................................... 41 RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................................................................................................41 8.1 RECOMMENDATIONS TO MALAWI GOVERNMENT (CENTRAL GOVERNMENT) ...................................................................... 41 8.2 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR LOCAL AUTHORITIES ............................................................................................................. 42 8.3 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS...................................................................................................... 43 8.4 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR WES NETWORK AND OTHER CSOS ......................................................................................... 43 9 CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................................................45 10 REFERENCES .....................................................................................................................................................46 9.0 LIST OF ANNEX ...................................................................................................................................................1 9.1 ANNEX 1: QUESTIONNAIRE ......................................................................................................................................... 1 3 i. List of Tables Table 1: Summary Budget Framework for 2012/13 Malawi Budget......................................................... 12 Table 2: Budget Framework for 2010/11 and 2011/12 FY........................................................................ 13 Table 3: Approved and Revised Budget Framework for 2009/10 and 2010/11 (K, millions) ................ 14 Table 4: Summary of Budget Framework for 2009/10 FY ......................................................................... 15 Table 5: Multi-year budget expenditure comparative analysis .................................................................. 15 Table 6: Objectives and Strategies of MoWDI .............................................................................................. 17 Table 7: 2011/12 Budget Outputs and Progress Made ............................................................................... 18 Table 8: Ministry of Water Budget ................................................................................................................ 19 Table 9: Selected Outputs of the 2012/13 Development Budget for MoWDI ........................................... 21 Table 10: Summary of Recurrent Estimates by Cost Center ....................................................................... 26 Table 11: Water Sector Investment Requirements ..................................................................................... 26 Table 12: Budget Allocations to the 9 MGDS Priorities ............................................................................... 28 Table 13: MGDS Allocations as a Percentage of Total Budget Allocations ................................................. 29 Table 14: Transfers to Local Councils by Sector .......................................................................................... 30 Table 15: Share of Water Sector Budgets in Comparison with Total Local Council Transfers ................ 31 Table 16: Monthly Transfers to Mangochi Water Department in First Quarter of 2012/13 FY .............. 36 4 Ii List of Abbreviations AIDS CCAP CDF DC DP ERP ESCOM FY GDP GoM GRF HIS HIV ICEIDA JICA MDGs MEJN MGDS MoWDI NAC NGO NLGF NOVOC NSO NWDP ODF ORT OVC PS SWaP UNICEF USAID VIP WASH WES Net WSM Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome Church of Central Africa Presbyterian Constituency Development Fund District Commissioner Development Partner Economic Recovery Plan Electricity Supply Commission of Malawi Fiscal Year Gross Domestic Product Government of Malawi General Resource Fund Integrated Household Survey Human Immune Vector Iceland International Development Agency Japanese International Cooperation Agency Millennium Development Goals Malawi Economic Justice Network Malawi Growth and Development Strategy Ministry of Water Development and Irrigation National Aids Commission Non Governmental Organization National Local Government Fund Network of Organizations on Orphans and Other Vulnerable Children National Statistical Office National Water Development Programme Open Defecation Free Other Recurrent Transactions Orphans and Other Vulnerable Children Principal Secretary Sector Wide Approach United Nations Children’s Education Fund United States Aid for International Development Ventilated Improved Pit Latrine Water Sanitation and Hygiene Water Environment and Sanitation Network Welfare Monitoring Survey 5 1. Introduction Water is life. The right to life is what every system, society, and institution endeavor to protect and promote at all times. Water access and availability are therefore critical functions which must be jealously guarded, patriotically championed, and selflessly promoted to ensure that this fundamental right is enjoyed by all people in both urban and rural locations. However, access and availability tend to be limited by a number of factors. This report focuses on one such factor: financing. As has been the case in the previous financial years (FY), the Malawi budget for the fiscal year 2012/2013 has allocated funds to support the water supply, sanitation and hygiene sector. In addition, Malawi’s development partners (DPs) have committed financing for the sector. In line with the ongoing decentralization efforts, Government of Malawi (GoM) continues to transfer funds to district councils where water, sanitation and hygiene form part of the devolved sectors. The most glaring question in recent times is about the adequacy of financing to the water supply, sanitation and hygiene sector. It is becoming increasingly important to understand the levels of budget allocation to the water sector as a way of gauging the extent of commitment by government and all development partners. Of paramount interest in recent times is the desire to assess the practical steps that government is taking to protect and promote the right to life through increasing access and availability of water to rural and urban communities. Ultimately, an assessment of the levels of financing to the water, sanitation and hygiene sector will provide succinct clue on progress that Malawi is making in achieving targets set within the Malawi Growth and Development Strategy (MGDS) as well as the global Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) as translated in the Malawi Water Sector Investment Plan. In a nutshell, the Investment Plan presents three scenarios to the Malawi Government to choose from, the business as usual, which will not make not achieve the MDG goals especially in improved sanitation; and two others that would require Malawi to increase substantially its level of funding for WASH. The report strongly recommends that Malawi needs to invest $140 million annually from now till 2030 to accelerate universal access to water and 87% access to sanitation by 2025. This would move Malawi out of the business as usual scenario in which Malawi has been investing $42 million into water and sanitation annually since 2011 up until 20151. This report would assess levels of the 2012/2013 funding against this background and come up with a set of recommendations on how Malawi could remain on course to attaining its goal in access to water and improved sanitation. . 2. WESNET’s motivation for the budget Analysis The desire to unearth evidence on trends of financing to WASH and the need to conduct advocacy for increased and quality financing to the sector, motivated the Water, Environment and Sanitation (WES) Network in Malawi to commission this budget analysis with the primary interest to understand the financing patterns in the 2012/13 Malawi budget. Essentially, WES Net has the specific interest to assess the extent to which water, sanitation and hygiene are prioritized amongst the other equally important priorities in the budgets as well as in the national policies. This report therefore presents analyses of the 2012/2013 national budget 1 Malawi Water Investment Plan, May 2012 page 6 6 and how much financing the water, sanitation and hygiene sector is expected to receive in the FY. The analysis also helps to establish a clear picture as to how much of the allocated resources are going through the National Water Development Programme (NWDP II), through the district councils and also through the central government line ministries, i.e. Ministry of Water Development and Irrigation (MoWDI), Ministry of Health, Ministry of Education, and other relevant line ministries. The analysis would further assist WES Net to understand any key shifts in the budget allocation over the years and their implications especially to water service delivery. Considering the unique and pivotal role that WES Net plays as a non-state actor in Malawi, the report presents the analysis in a simplified and user-friendly format to enable ease of use by WES Net members during stakeholder dialogue, lobby with Malawi government as well as parliament, and also for use in various advocacy engagements. The 2012/13 budget analysis for WES Net is therefore designed to launch a new chapter of active, evidence-based, and constructive engagement between WES Net members and all development stakeholders in the water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) sector. 2.1 Specific Objectives of the Budget Analysis The specific objectives of the budget analysis are: (a) To compare the allocation to the sector for 2012/2013 in relation to previous three years. (b) To determine trends for the past three years in WASH allocations, including: i. Budget allocations going to WASH Sector compared proportionally with other social sectors such as Education and Health budget, at the national level as well as in local councils ii. Actual funds disbursed comparing the same to the provisions in the MGDS2 and MDGs. iii. How WASH financing is shifting as per the Decentralization Policy. iv. Shifts in funding delivery mechanisms, including NWDP, councils, and the Ministry levels v. Changes in WASH financing sources, including government financed allocations, compared to donor or bank financed allocations. vi. Shifts in priorities within the WASH sector, such as rural versus urban, or water versus sanitation versus hygiene activities (c) Within the sector, to establish specific allocations going to Irrigation, water, sanitation and hygiene sub sectors, as well as the types of allocations (development funding, PE, and recurrent transactions) within each. (d) To establish how much WASH resources are going though other Ministries and stakeholders i.e. Health and Education as well as NGOs. (e) To identify key shifts in 2012/13 budget and their impact and potential implications to the provision of water and sanitation services. (f) To support the development of a Position Paper of the Status of WASH Sector financing about the implications of the trends noted above on WASH service delivery and sustainability. 7 2.2 Methodology From the Terms of Reference provided, the analysis was mostly a combination of documentary analysis (desk study) and district visits. The field visits were made to 4 districts namely Chikwawa, Mangochi, Mchinji, and Nkhata-bay. Section 6 under Case studies provides details of findings. 2.2.1 Literature Review: This exercise provided the documentary evidence mostly interrogated the legal and policy framework that governs the WASH sector in Malawi. The exercise also helped to identify gaps and challenges around budgeting for WASH in the country. Some of the key literature documents that were reviewed are listed in the bibliography section of this report. 2.2.2 Field Work As indicated above, district visits were made to collect primary data on the performance of the WASH sector. Primarily, interviews were conducted using a semi-structured questionnaire (see attached in Annex) and was administered to district council officials and officers in the district water departments. The objective of the field interviews was: a. To track how much resources go to WASH, the timeliness of disbursements as well as adequacy of the funds in relation to what is planned and budgeted by the district and city councils and also the implications of budget cuts by the central government to water service provision in the aforementioned areas. b. To gauge how WASH financing is shifting with the Decentralization policy and to bring forth governance policy issues emerging from the shifts if any. c. To establish coordination and collaboration on WASH issues amongst players in the sector and also to gauge how much other funds are trickling through NGOs and other players at the local level parallel to the National budget and other formal channels and also how the financing is harmonized. 3.0 Analysis and Study Findings This section presents the detailed budget analysis in line with the study expectations and highlights the key findings. The major key findings are as follows: Financing to WASH is governed by a policy and legal framework and some of the major documents used are the MGDS I & II, the Malawi Water Sector Investment Plan, Volume 1 & II, District Water plans and the Millennium Development Goals (MDG). Both WASH and Sanitation are not stand alone budget lines but are commingled with Green Belt and Water Development and Public Health, Sanitation, Malaria, HIV and AIDS management respectively. This on its own is a challenge as the two aspects may easily get swallowed up within the mixture. The Malawi Water Sector Investment Plan stipulates that Malawi requires investing at least $140 million annually between now till 2030 to accelerate universal access to water and 87% access to basic sanitation by 2025. Current average annual investment (2011 to 2015) has been $42 million; with this level of investment Malawi would attain the MDG goals to halve, by 2015 the proportion of people without sustainable access to safe drinking water, exceeded the 70% mark by 10%; however forecast for access to basic sanitation objective to reach 8 the 71% mark would not be attained as the forecast is that Malawi would only reach a 12% mark by 2015 unless funding to sanitation is increased to $200 million dollars annually. National Budget Financing to WASH shows a downward trend. K4.63 billion in 2012/2013 Fiscal Year compared to K7.27 billion later revised upwards to K7.822 billion in the 2011/2012 Fiscal Year representing a reduction of 40.8%. This is a great contrast to other priority areas such as Agriculture and Food Security, Education and Health which have experienced nominal increase over the last three Fiscal Years The decline is owed much to reduced allocation in the Development Budget which has decreased from K7.296 billion in the 2011/12 budget to K4.029 billion in 2012/2013 representing a 44.7 percent decrease The MoWDI budget continues to rely heavily on Development Partners who contribute close to 71% while the rest of 29% comes from local resources. The low funding from the National Budget could be construed by some quarters to mean that WASH is not one of the major priority areas to the Malawi Government. The 2012/2013 MoWDI Budget also shows that, the Development Budget has 87% share of the total while ORT has a 13% share. However, Irrigation services dominate the Development Budget in comparison to WASH activities which means the 2013/2013 Water Budget has prioritized Irrigation against WASH services. As for ORT, MK252 million representing 42 % of the entire ORT of MK601 m has been allocated to the MoWDI headquarters leaving 58% to be shared where activities take place. And the share of the ORT to activities, WASH has a 13% share while Irrigation services have 30% share further showing that Irrigation is preferred more to WASH even in the ORT budget line. There are more losers than winners under in the 2012/2013 MoWDI Development Budget compared to the 2011/2012 revised budget and the biggest loser being WASH activities. For instance, WASH activities were allocated K100 million in the previous budget 2011/12 FY but in has been allocated nil (zero allocation) in the 2012/13 FY Although allocation to WASH and the Water sector in general follows the decentralization structures, the three Regional MoWDI offices (South, Central and North) combined received MK140 m from the MK601 million ORT allocation representing 23% of the total second to the MoWDI headquarters. This leaves 35% of the ORT to be shared amongst all districts in Malawi, hence the meager ORT allocations at District Water Offices. Further analysis of funding to the four districts Mchinji, Nkhata-bay, Mangochi and Chikwawa show reduced funding to the Water Sector and also the sector being the least funding in comparison with Agriculture, Health and Education. o Water Sector Budget for Mchinji in the 2012/2013 FY is MK 962,056, or 0.13% of the district total funding. o Water Sector in Mangochi budget has been allocated a K1.2 million (K1, 283,728.00) representing 0.12 percent of total district Vote. 9 o The Water Sector in Nkhata-bay has been allocated K1.3 million (K1, 335,670.00) representing 0.24 percent of total district council Vote while the health Sector accounts for 36 percent (largest share), followed by Education and Headquarter spending at 33 percent and 24 percent respectively. Irrigation Sector with K3 million representing 0.5 percent o Chikwawa district Water sector budget has been allocated MK1.3 million out of MK684 million representing a 0.19% share, while Education has MK 212 m, or 31% of the total budget, Agriculture MK21 m or 3% and health MK315 m or 46%. Water provision in the four districts is also challenged by constraints such as inadequate staff as there are so many established and yet unfilled posts; inadequate material and financial resources, poor coordination amongst players in the sector some working outside or parallel to district water plans. 10 4.0 Background and Context Malawi is a country of 13.6 million people with 18 percent of the population living in urban areas. Poverty us also widespread with 52 percent of the population living in poverty and 22 percent are ultra poor2. According to the Welfare Monitoring Survey (WSM) of 2008, the poverty and ultra poverty levels are expected to be at 45 percent and 15 percent respectively. Malawi is considered a water stressed country with less than 1,700 cubic meters of fresh water per capita3. To improve access to WASH, the Malawi government with support from the World Bank conducted a needs assessment on WASH which led to the development of the Malawi Water Investment Plan in May 2012 to govern and benchmark financing to the sector to ensure universal access to water as well as improved sanitation. Water scarcity is increasingly compounded by a rapidly growing population in the urban and peri urban areas. Projections are that the fresh water per capita will fall to less than 1,000 cubic meters by 2015 as demand for water rises sharply. Currently, between 65 percent and 77 percent of Malawi’s population has access to improved water and sanitation. However, the access levels are constantly undermined by water points which are non functional. It is estimated that about 37 percent of water points in Malawi are non functional at any given point in time. Although the country has been rated as on track to meeting the MDG targets on water and sanitation, there is more that needs to be done. Over 6 million people will require improved access. One of the areas cited as critical to improving access is financing. Attainment of the MDG targets largely relies on increased water, sanitation and hygiene sector financing as well as improved capacity to utilize available financing. Other challenges to meeting the MDG targets include aging water systems, growing urban and peri-urban populations, high levels of non-revenue water and low cost recovery within the utilities (water boards), often exacerbated by non-payment of Government bills. It is therefore projected that Malawi is likely to exceed the goal on access to improved water, reaching close to 80% access by 2015, exceeding the MGD goal of 70%. But with the same current levels of funding Malawi is unlikely to achieve access to basic sanitation, more especially improved sanitation as the forecast indicates that only 12% of Malawi population would have access to improved sanitation by 2015 far below the projected 71% by 2015. If Malawi were to attain the 71% mark the government will have to invest close to $200 million into rural and urban sanitation, four times the current annual investment into access to water4. On the WASH front, Malawi is faced with a challenge where communal water points and sanitation facilities increasing under-serve market centers and small town. In addition, pit latrines often interact with shallow wells in peri-urban and slum areas thereby complicating the sanitation problem further. The country is plagued with poor water and sanitation coverage both in rural and urban areas. This leads to waterborne diseases and sanitation related illnesses5. Provision of waterborne sanitation services is inadequate and not complimented by safe hygiene practices wherever they exist. Sanitation is put into 2 categories namely basic sanitation, and improved sanitation. Pit latrine is the most common form of sanitation used by 82.1 percent of the population. It is also used Integrated Household Survey (I H S) 2005 Malawi Water and Sanitation Profile, USAID publications 4 Malawi Water Investment Plan, May 2012, page 7 5 National Sanitation Policy, 2008 2 3 11 by 78.1 percent of all people that stay in Malawi’s urban areas. Flush toilet is used by only 3.1 percent of the population and by 16.4 percent of all urban dwellers. Other types of sanitation facilities are ventilated improved pit and VIP latrine6. As a result, basic sanitation coverage is at 86 percent while access to improved sanitation is at 46 percent in rural areas and an estimated 65 percent in urban areas. However, hygiene remains critically low. Similarly, and mutually reinforcing, government financing and investment in the WASH sector is low. Donors account for the majority of the investment under the NWDP II. Such low levels of government commitment put to question the rhetoric that WASH is one among the priorities within government priorities. 5.0 2012/2013 WASH Budget Analysis 5.1 Budget Framework for 2012/13 FY The total budget for 2012/13 FY as approved by Malawi parliament in June 2012 is an expenditure estimate of K406.08 billion. This is in comparison to lower revenue (total revenue and grants) of K394.47 billion. This revenue projection expects the domestic revenue sources to contribute K270.3 billion while the remaining K123.7 billion is expected to come from donors, representing over 30 percent of total revenue. The budget has built in a deficit of K13.49 billion carried over from the 2011/2013 FY. Recurrent expenditure comprises the largest share of the total budget expenditure with a nominal allocation of K328.91 billion while development expenditure is planned at K77.1 billion. As has been further analyzed, the water, sanitation and hygiene related expenditures are also built into the expenditure estimates. Within the recurrent expenditure category, wages and salaries are allocated K86.8 billion while debt repayments (interest) on both foreign debt and domestic debt are estimated to cost K28.75 billion with domestic debt claiming the lion’s share of this expenditure (K25.3 billion). Details of the Revenue and Expenditure are given in Table 1.0 below. Table 1: Summary Budget Framework for 2012/13 Malawi Budget Total Revenue and Grants Domestic Revenue Tax Revenue Non-Tax Revenue Total Expenditure and Net Lending Domestic Recurrent Expenditure Wages and salaries Interest on Debt Foreign Domestic Development Expenditure Domestic (Part II) Foreign (Part I) Net Lending Overall Balance including grants 2010/11 Revised 296,908 121,574 175,022 37,552 309,995 190,383 57,948 20,127 956 19,171 85,052 31,625 53,427 2,300 (13,087) Source: MEJN Budget Analysis, 2012/2013 6 NSO, Population and Household Census, 2008 12 2011/12 Projection 307,709 242,476 203,504 38,973 303,724 218,780 66,008 19,795 1,124 18,671 69,897 40,442 29,475 3,985 2012/2013 Projection 394,47 270,39 236,46 33,93 406,08 328,91 86,8 28,75 3,5 25,3 77,17 (13,49) 5.2 Comparison between the 2012/13 FY and Budgets for two Previous FY This section compares the 2012/13 Budget with budgets of three previous financial years (2009/2010, 2010/11, and 2011/12) with details provided in Table 2 below. The 2011/12 Budget was designed to be a “Zero Deficit Budget” with an estimated more revenue (K307.7 billion) and lower expenditure outlay of K303.7 billion. However, the assumptions that underpinned the implementation of the Zero Deficit Budget were undermined by low domestic revenue collection and suspension of budget support by donors. The economy in 2011 was also faced with structural challenges like forex shortage and fuel scarcity. At the end of the FY, the total expenditure was revised downwards to K300 billion. The 2012/13 Budget has therefore increased expenditures in nominal terms by about 25.3 percent over the 2011/12 budget. Table 2: Budget Framework for 2010/11 and 2011/12 FY Total Revenue & Grants Domestic Revenue Tax Revenue Non Tax Revenue Grants Programme Dedicated grants Food Security NAC Health SWaP Education SWaP Roads Project Grants Total Expenditure, Net lending and Direct Payments Total Expenditure Recurrent Expenditure Wages and salaries Interest on Debt Foreign Domestic Goods, Services and transfers Of which subventions Subsidies Social Benefits(Pensions & Gratuity) Development Expenditure Domestic (Part II) Foreign (Part I) Net Lending Overall Balance including grants Total Financing Foreign (net) Borrowing Program Project Loans Amortization Domestic(net) 2010/2011 Revised 296,908 212,574 175,022 37,552 84,334 16,828 35,655 3,832 11,080 14,188 6,555 2010/2011 Actual 273,252 208,923 176,974 31,949 64,329 14,923 30,530 2,682 9,630 10,004 7,191 31,851 309,995 307,695 222,643 57,948 20,127 956 19,171 113,460 12,807 23,508 7,600 85,052 31,625 53,427 2,300 -13,087 13,087 24,948 27,004 5,428 21,576 -2,056 -11,861 13 18,876 296,195 2011/2012 Approved 307,710 242,477 203,504 38,973 65,233 19,811 28,336 2,545 4,812 10,064 8,868 2,048 17,086 303,724 2011/2012 Revised 287,468 242,477 203,504 38,973 44,991 29,164 7,515 5,807 2,100 13,742 15,827 300,093 295,195 230,225 58,092 22,819 610 22,209 114,913 14,635 22,359 12,042 64,971 33,284 31,687 1,000 -22,943 24,756 10,719 12,693 12,811 1,974 14,037 303,724 233,827 66,182 19,795 1,124 18,671 114,245 13,930 21,606 12,000 69,897 40,422 29,475 3,986 -3,986 11,378 13,747 1,357 12,389 -2,369 -15,364 300,893 229,099 67,916 20,433 18,671 1,762 106,413 14,730 23,337 11,000 70,195 41,979 28,216 800 -12,626 12,626 12,942 15,311 2,921 12,389 -2,369 -316 On the other hand, the 2010/2011 Budget as detailed in Table 3 below was formulated at a time when the global economy was registering recovery from the economic recession of 2008. At the domestic front, there were challenges related to forex shortages and electricity problems. The 2010/2011 Budget was therefore designed to deal with the effects of the economic recession at the same time ensuring that it supports and sustain GDP growth above 6 percent, ensuring conducive macroeconomic environment for private sector and poverty reduction initiatives, and to retire as much domestic debts as possible at the same time improving import cover to 3 months Table 3: Approved and Revised Budget Framework for 2009/10 and 2010/11 (K, millions) Total Revenue and Grants Domestic Revenue Tax Revenue Non-Tax Revenue Grants Programme Dedicated grants Food Security NAC Inflows Health SWAp Education SWAp Project grants Total Expenditure and Net Lending Total Expenditure Recurrent Expenditure Wages and salaries Interest on Debt Foreign Domestic Goods, Services and Transfers -of which subventions Subsidies Social Benefits Development Expenditure Domestic (Part II) Foreign (Part I) Net Lending Overall Balance including grants Total Financing Foreign (net) Borrowing Program Project Loans Amortization Domestic (net) 2009/10 Revised 2009/10 Actual 2010/2011 Approved 2010/2011 Revised 263,216 171,135 140,030 31,105 92,082 28,819 33,419 3,519 14,344 15,555 259,129 180,680 143,384 37,296 78,449 34,040 18,565 3,599 6,711 8,255 29,844 268,352 25,844 257,098 287,117 201,748 171,196 30,552 85,369 19,888 33,630 3,034 11,421 13,729 5,446 31,851 297,084 296,908 121,574 175,022 37,552 84,334 16,828 35,655 3,832 11,080 14,188 6,555 31,851 309,995 267,152 195,390 43,584 21,672 1,172 20,500 102,098 255,948 195,862 44,792 21,498 695 20,803 101,258 294,784 216,907 57,748 20,127 956 19,171 111,023 307,695 222,643 57,948 20,127 956 19,171 113,460 11,816 20,636 7,400 71,761 28,469 43,292 1,200 (5,135) 12,494 21,938 6,376 60,086 25,816 34,271 1,150 2,031 11,757 20,609 7,400 77,877 28,974 48,903 2,300 (9,967) 12,807 23,508 7,600 85,052 31,625 53,427 2,300 (13,087) 5,135 17,885 19,286 5,837 13,449 (1,401) (15,050) 70 6,824 8,427 8,427 1,604 (6,753) 9,967 21,036 23,092 6,040 17,052 (2,056) (11,919) 13,087 24,948 27,004 5,428 21,576 (2,056) (11,861) Source: Compiled from the 2011/2012 Financial Statement 14 As shown in Table 3 above and Table 4 Below, Malawi parliament approved total expenditure of K297 billion for the 2010/11 FY. However, the allocation was revised upwards to K310 billion at the end of the financial year. A comparison of the approved budgets reveals a smaller percentage increase of about 2 percent over the 2011/12 approved budget. On the other hand, the 2009/10 budget approved a total expenditure of K256.7 billion which was later revised upwards to K268.3 billion at the end of the FY. Table 4.3 below further indicates that largest share of the total expenditure went to the recurrent side of the budget which was approved a total sum of K181.1 billion, of which K43.5 billion was earmarked for wages and salaries. The Development Budget had an expenditure allocation of K77 billion. In comparison with the 2009/10 approved budget, the 2010/11 Budget experienced a nominal increase of K41 billion or 14 percent expenditure increase. Table 4: Summary of Budget Framework for 2009/10 FY Total Revenue and Grants Of which: Domestic Revenue Grants Of which: NAC Total Expenditure Of which: Recurrent Expenditure Of which: Wages and salaries Goods and Services (ORT) Total Development Expenditures 2009/10 Approved (K‘000 million) 244,293 163,200 2009/10 Revised (K‘000 million) 263,216 171,135 81,093 12,513 256,768 181,181 92,082 14,344 268,352 195,390 43,538 43,584 77,282 66,588 83,377 71,761 Source: Budget Estimate Documents, 2009/2010 FY A multi-year comparison across the four (4) financial years inclusive of the 2012/13 FY as given in Table 5 below reveals a cumulative nominal budget (expenditure) increase of about 37 percent. This is because in nominal terms, total budget expenditures have expanded from the K256.7 billion approved in 2009/10, to K406.8 billion approved in 2012/13 FY. Total revenue approved by Malawi parliament has also followed similar trend. The 2009/10 Budget approved total revenue and grants of K244.2 billion. In 2010/11, the approved total revenue was K287.1 billion, while in 2011/12 the approved revenue estimates were K307.7 billion. As pointed out earlier, the 2012/13 FY had approved total revenue and grants of K394.7 billion. The resource envelope for Malawi budgets has therefore expanded in nominal terms by over K150 billion from 2009/10 FY to the current 2012/13 FY, representing about 38 percent increase. Table 5: Multi-year budget expenditure comparative analysis Total Revenue and Grants Domestic Revenue Tax Revenue Non-tax Revenue NAC Grants 09/10 Approved Budget (‘000 m) 244,293 163,200 139,900 23,300 12,513 09/10 Revised Budget (‘000 m) 263,216 171,135 140,030 31,105 14,344 Source: NOVOC Budget Analysis for OVC, 2010 15 Difference Between 09/10 Approved- Revised Budget (‘000 m) 18,924 7,935 130 7,805 1,831 5.3 Budget Allocations for WASH from 2009/10 to 2012/13 FY Funds for WASH are carried in different budget votes at central government level but also at district assembly level. Key line ministries with WASH related budget lines include MoWDI, Ministry of Health, and to some extent, Ministry of Education especially on account of school latrines and school hygiene. However, this budget analyses focuses much attention on the MoWDI. It is also important to note that the MoWDI budgets over the years have had a larger element of donor dependence. IN the 2012/2013 MoWDI, 61 percent of the total Ministry Vote is funding expected from donors. This finding is mainly on account of donor contribution to the Development Budget where foreign financing accounts for 70.2 percent of all development projects. Local financing (Malawi Government) accounts for the remaining 28.8 percent of the total Development Budget funding. While donors need to be commended for playing a critical and important role of financing the water sector in Malawi, the lower contribution by Malawi government partly demonstrates lower commitment and therefore confirms the posture that water sector is considered a lower priority. In addition, some projects operate on matching funds (or counterpart funding) basis. Any delays on the part of donors to disburse funds result into delays in the take off of the project. Similarly, failure by Malawi Government to release Donor funds could lead to failure in the implementation of part or the entire project. 5.3.1 Budget Related Mandate of Ministry of Water Development and Irrigation (MoWDI) MoWDI is assigned Vote Number 210 according to the budget nomenclature. The Controlling Officer for the Ministry is the Secretary (Principle Secretary-PS) for Water Development and Irrigation7. The mission of the Ministry is to manage and develop water resources for sustainable, effective and efficient provision of portable water, sanitation and irrigation systems in support of Malawi’s economic growth and development agenda. From this mission statement, it is clear that the Ministry combines two unique and often divergent functions namely WASH functions on one hand, and irrigation management on the other hand. The mixing of these two distinct functions has been a source of conflict in as far as prioritization of financing for the WASH sector is concerned8. However, if well managed, the two functions can coexist, for example through construction of multipurpose dams and improving water harvesting infrastructures. The Table 6 below summarizes the main objectives and strategies of MoWDI. 7 8 Output Based Budget Document No.5 of the 2012/13 Budget Estimates MEJN and Water Aid Budget Analysis, 2010 16 Table 6: Objectives and Strategies of MoWDI Objectives To achieve universal access to improved sanitation and safe hygiene practices, while ensuring sustainable environmental management for economic growth Strategies Intensify information and public sensitization campaigns on the need for good sanitation and use of safe hygiene practices Promote and encourage safe and efficient management, reuse and or recycling of waste To contribute to economic growth and development by enhancing irrigated agriculture production for food security and export Identify and develop areas with irrigation potential Mobilize smallholder farmers to develop and manage irrigation schemes Conduct research in irrigation technology Use renewable sources of energy and ensure social and environmental considerations Increase number of people connected to water supply systems Promote community based management of rural water supply facilities Undertake rehabilitation, installation and construction of water supply and sanitation infrastructure Develop potential multipurpose dam sites on perennial rivers and streams Development of potential groundwater resources Improve existing water harvesting infrastructures Promote empowerment of local communities to own, manage and utilize water resources. To increase availability and accessibility of potable water for socio-economic growth and development To achieve sustainable and integrated water resources management and development that make water readily available and equitably accessible to and use by all Source: Budget Estimate Document No. 5 5.3.2 Budget Related Achievements of MoWDI in 2011/12 FY The MoWDI registered a number of achievements in line with the objectives outlined above. These achievements will be assessed based on the two combined functions of WASH and water for irrigation being implemented in a dual manner by the Ministry. Below is a summary of the achievements that the Ministry has made and in some cases, continues to register from the 2011/12 FY to the present. Developed 464.6 hectares of land for irrigation. This brings the total land under smallholder irrigation to 42,968 hectares and benefiting 365,844 smallholder farmers. 49,340 hectares of land is under irrigation in the commercial sector mainly by estates. This brings the total land under irrigation to 92,326 hectares Completed construction of Phase 1 of Luchenza Dam in Thyolo Completed detailed design of Songwe River Basin Development Program Undertook preparatory phase of Shire River Basin Development Programme] Established 35 Groundwater resources countrywide Drilled 100 boreholes under Dispersed Borehole Construction Programme Drilled 60 boreholes under Mwanza Neno Groundwater Development Programme Drilled 110 boreholes under UNICEF WASH in Mwanza, Mangochi, Mchinji, Mzimba and Salima On sanitation, 208 communities have been declared Open Defecation Free (ODF) reaching a population of 21,000 Trained extension service workers and 6 district coordination teams Developed a 10 year Sanitation Investment Plan as a framework for partners to provide support under the Water Sector Wide Approach 17 The MoWDI also planned a number of priority outputs to be achieved through the 2011/12 Budget implementation. There were four (4) such priority outputs, and the Table 7 below highlights progress so far made. Table 7: 2011/12 Budget Outputs and Progress Made Output Planned Outputs Construction of sanitation and 1266 villages on community led hygiene units total sanitation, 495 villages attain ODF status, construction of 285 latrines in schools 2011/12 Progress (Selected) 208 communities declared ODF, training of ODF extension workers and 6 district coordinating teams, installed 9,888 new water connections Increased access to safe water (90 percent peri-urban and urban, 75 percent town and market centers, 80 percent rural by 2016 Construction of 6 water supply Installed new water connections schemes, 9 schemes in the major cities. Constructed rehabilitated, construction of 4 water supply units market center water supply, 4 water points and boreholes constructed, and 4 Water User Associations (WUAs) formed Increase area under irrigation farming to 200,000 hectares by 2016 (minimum of 6% annual growth rate) Develop 3559 hectares of Increased irrigated land using various beneficiaries technologies, construct 37 km of scheme canal Increased access to adequate 115 boreholes constructed, 10 and quality water resources for boreholes rehabilitated, 9 multipurpose use stations installed with new hydrological equipment, 1 boat house constructed, finalize Luchenza Dam, Detailed designs for Songwe lower river dam produced, detailed designs for 3 dams produced 5.4 number of of irrigation Completed construction of Phase 1 of Luchenza Dam in Thyolo, Completed detailed design of Songwe River basin Development Programme, Established 35 groundwater countrywide, Drilled 100 boreholes, drilled 60 boreholes, drilled 110 boreholes under UNICEF WASH Budget Allocation to MoWDI The Ministry of Water and Irrigation Development has a total Vote allocation of K4.63 billion (K4, 630,535,241) representing about 1.13% share of the MK406.8 billion 2012/2013 budget. This allocation is 40.8 percent lower that the approved budget for the previous financial year which was K7.27 billion (K7, 270,423,302) which later revised upwards to K7.822 billion. The decrease in this nominal allocation is mainly because of a huge decrease in the Development Budget of the Ministry which has dropped from the 2011/12 budget of K7.296 billion to K4.029 billion representing a 44.7 percent decrease. Further to this, the decrease is primarily because of a reduction in the donor contribution to the Ministry’s development budget. Donors are expected to provide K2.8 billion. This is lower compared to the K5.3 billion donors provided to the development budget in the previous year (2011/12). Another source of the decline is a reduction in the Malawi Government contribution to the 18 Development Budget (Part II). The contribution has gone down to K1.19 billion from the previous year’s revised budget of K1.92 billion, a nominal decrease of over K800 million. This is highlighted in Table 8 below. Table 8: Ministry of Water Budget MK 000,000 2011/12 2011/12 Approved Revised 390.96 135.21 Personal Emoluments Other Recurrent Transactions (ORT) Recurrent – TOTAL 526.18 Development Budget (Part II) 1,374.56 Development Budget (Part I) 5,369.68 Development Budget - TOTAL 6,744.24 VOTE 210: Water Development 7,270.42 and Irrigation – TOTAL VOTE Source: Ministry of Finance, Output Based Budget 2012/13 5.5 2012/13 Estimate 439.75 85.96 466.10 135.21 525.70 1,926.90 5,369.68 7,296.58 7,822.29 601.32 1,196.87 2,832.35 4,029.22 4,630.54 Comparison Between Recurrent and Development Budgets of MoWDI The Recurrent Budget for the Ministry has been allocated K601 million (K601, 317,881). This is an increase of about K75 million over K525 million (K525, 704,971) allocated for the same purpose in the previous financial year. The major source of this increase is Wages and Salaries (Personal Emoluments –PE) which has increased by about K50 million, while ORT accounts for the remaining about K25 million. Personal Emoluments (PE) accounts for 77.5 percent of total Recurrent Budget while ORT accounts for the remaining 22.5 percent. However, PE accounts for 10 percent of total Vote of the MoWDI in the 2012/13 Budget. The Development Budget therefore accounts for the largest share of the total Ministry allocation at 87 percent of the Vote. The Recurrent Budget represents the remaining 13 percent of the Ministry allocation. The funds under the Development Budget are a mix of finances for WASH and for funds for water for development, mainly for irrigation purposes. The 2012/13 Budget has set aside finances for 10 projects under the Ministry. The projects total financing is K4,029 billion and aim at achieving results in WASH and water for production (irrigation) purposes. Examples of WASH related projects in the 2012/13 Budget include: Dispersed Borehole Construction with total allocation of K125 million to be funded by Malawi Government Ground Water Extraction for Rural Piped Water Supply with an allocation of K66.8 million to be funded by Malawi Government On the other hand, there are more irrigation related projects in the 2012/13 FY than there are WASH related projects under the Vote of the Ministry of Water and Irrigation Development. Examples of irrigation or water for development related projects include: Malawi Irrigation Support Programme with total budget of K200 million funded by Malawi Government (Development Part II). 19 Small Farms Irrigation Project with budget value of K115 million to be financed by Malawi Government Smallholder Marketing and Crop Production with total allocation of K1.050 billion of which K950 million to be donor financed (Development Part I) and the remaining about K100 million to be funded by Malawi Government. Songwe River Basin Programme is allocated K54 million with K4 million from donors and the rest from Malawi Government The 2012/13 development budget for the MoWDI has also allocated funds to projects whose aims crosscut the WASH and irrigation (production) functions and are supportive to the delivery of the two core functions. Such projects include: Ground Water Development and Management Project which has a total allocation of K40 million under the Malawi Government financing National Water Development Programme (NWDP II) which has been allocated K1, 844 billion. However, this amount is a decrease from the previous year’s approved and revised budgets of K3, 090 billion. The entire K1,844 billion is expected to be donor financed. Strengthening Water Sector Monitoring and Evaluation has an allocation of K33.41 million expected from donors Water Retention Structure Development Programme is allocated K500 million to be financed by Malawi Government. The fourth category of projects under the Development Budget of the MoWDI is that of “missing projects”. These are projects that are both WASH and irrigation in nature. They were funded in the previous budgets but they have not been allocated any finances in the 2012/13 MoWDI development budget. These are: Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH) project. The Project was allocated K100 million in the previous budget 2011/12 FY. It has been allocated nil (zero allocation) in the 2012/13 FY Motorized Pump project was allocated K115 million in 2011/12 FY and has no allocation in 2012/13 Development Budget of the MoWDI Mwanza-Neno Ground Water Development Project had K30 million in 2011/12 FY. The Project also has a zero allocation in 2012/13 FY While the absence of financing to these projects in the 2012/13 FY may be explained by the fact that investment projects are done once over a long period of time, the development is a concern considering that water access , sanitation and hygiene levels are not yet 100 percent. In addition, the profile of the projects above only indicate that the Development Budget of the MoWDI have a bias towards irrigation projects while WASH related projects have less priority. 5.6 ORT WASH Allocations A similar analysis of the of the Recurrent Budget shows that the ORT funds are heavily leaning away from supporting WASH related activities. Water Supply and Sanitation account for a lesser proportion of the Recurrent Budget for Vote 210. Of the total Recurrent Budget of K601 20 million, only K103 million is for Water Supply and Sanitation. There is no specific mention of ORT support for the “hygiene” component as the ORT programs only mention water supply and sanitation. Hygiene is only implied and this has a negative implication on financing for the hygiene sub sector. Water Supply and Sanitation (WSS), accounts for only 17 percent of the total Recurrent Budget while ORT support to irrigation services account for 30 percent of total Recurrent Budget. On the other hand administrative services (Public Administration) has been allocated K205 million and therefore accounts for 34 percent. Within the Public Administration program total of K205 million of the MoWDI, Management and Support Services alone has been allocated K187 million. 5.7 Main Outputs planned to be achieved by MoWDI in 2012/13 Budget The total allocation of K601.3 million to the Recurrent Budget of the MoWDI intends to achieve the following outputs: o The K178 million allocated to Irrigation Services is expected to support the developing of 700 hectares of land for irrigation o The K103 million allocated to Water Supply and Sanitation is expected to support the maintenance of 13 boreholes o The K114 million allocated to the program of Water Resources Development is expected to support the work of collecting and analyzing 1500 samples, maintain 35 Groundwater Monitoring Stations o The K187 million for Management and Support Services is expected to help improving provision of managerial and administrative support. o K17.5 million has been allocated to train 8 officers. The outputs above are not adequate to meet the overwhelming needs of communities. WASH outputs with a direct link to the provision of community needs for water for domestic use are also less emphasized in the budget plans. Item 2 above (13 boreholes) is the only output which comes close to meeting the immediate needs of the people. The rest are merely supportive and indirect to the WASH related needs of communities. An examination of the outputs in the Development Budget of MoWDI also exhibit similar trends where, apart from the dwindling budget allocations, there is an emphasis on irrigation related outputs compared with WASH related outputs. The K4.02 billion earmarked for the Development Budget of the MoWDI is expected to achieve the following (selected) outputs as given in Table 9 below. Table 9: Selected Outputs of the 2012/13 Development Budget for MoWDI Project Allocated Budget Dispersed Borehole K125 million Construction Ground Water Extraction for K66.87 million Rural Piped Water Supply in Malawi 21 Planned Output 100 boreholes drilled Construction of security fences and control houses for the boreholes; installation of solar panels; line excavation and laying of pipe lines; construction of water points; construction of intakes and water storage tanks Malawi Irrigation Programme Support K200 million 16 irrigation schemes to be constructed covering 601 hectares, 16 irrigation groups formed and 640 farmers to be trained in water management principles Development of new water sources at Diamphwe in Dedza and Mombezi in Chiradzulu; Expand the capacity of the treatment plant and pumping capacity at Chileka; Construct and rehabilitate gravity fed rural piped water supply systems Two irrigation schemes to be developed covering 782 hectares; Three earth dams constructed and 70 km of canals constructed Construct 8 gravity fed, 1 motorized based and 2 treadle pump based irrigation schemes with a total area of 416 hectares developed; Construct 5 market centers, construct 12 boreholes in market centers; Form 9 Water User Associations (WUAs) and 310 Savings and Credit Groups Procure consultant, Update feasibility study, undertake strategic environmental and social assessment, maintain 8 hydrological stations and collect data for Songwe National Water Development K1.844 billion Programme II Small Farms Irrigation project K115 million Small Holder Crop Production K1.050 billion and Marketing Songwe River Basin K54 million Development Programme Water Retention Structure K500 million Development Programme Preliminary and detailed design studies for 6 dams; Construct 6 multi-purpose dams; Rehabilitate 6 dams catchment areas Source: Ministry of Finance, 2012/13 Budget Document No.5 5.8 Increased and Decreased Budget Lines under MoWDI 5.8.1 Increased Allocations Compared with the allocations for the previous financial years, some program budget items for Vote 210 have either increased or experienced nominal decreases. The analysis of these nominal trends has implications on the capacity of MoWDI to achieve the outputs and results planned for 2012/13 FY. Below are some of the winners based on the previous 2011/12 revised budget figures: ORT for the program of Irrigation Services has increased from K117 million to K178 million ORT for the program of Water Resources Development has risen from K93.6 million to K114 million ORT for the program of Management and Support Services has increased from K131.9 million to K187.4 million However, as will be shown in the later sections of the analysis, these increases are only in nominal terms and not in real terms. The purchasing power of the 2012/13 ORT allocations is far much lower that of 2011/12 and the previous financial years. The so called winners in 22 this case are only in nominal terms and most of these winners are in essence losers, in real terms. Other winners in nominal terms include: Salaries have increased by 19.6 percent. However, this is largely because of the salary restructuring and annual adjustment of average 21 percent which was announced for all civil servants Office Supplies and Expenses have increased by 65 percent. However, the actual allocations are small in nominal and real terms since the increase is from a mere K9 million in 2011/12 FY to K23 million in 2012/13 FY Motor vehicle running expenses for MoWDI have increased by 23.6 percent from K13 million to K25.6 million while routine maintenance of asserts has risen by 108 percent from about K190,000.00 to about K610,000.00 In the context of the Development Budget, there are also budget items in the MoWDI which are winners in the same nominal sense. These include: Allocation for Designs for Water Reticulation and Produce which was at K30.5 million in the previous year, and is allocated a nominal K66.8 million in 2012/13 Budget The Malawi Irrigation Support Programme had K70 million which has increased to K200 million This analysis shows that there are more losers than winners under the Development Budget of the MoWDI in 2012/13 compared with the revised budget of 2011/12. As explained earlier, this further highlights why the 2012/13 Development Budget of the MoWDI has drastically reduced compared with the previous FY, resulting into a general reduction in the total Vote for the Ministry in comparison with previous budgets. However, there are some “strange” increases under the Development Budget of MoWDI. Most of these “strangers” are so called because they are ORT in nature yet they appear on the development side of the budget. On explanation is that such budget lines are part of the administrative funds built into the projects. They include: An increase by 133 percent on Internal Travel in the MoWDI with nominal rises from K131 million to K305.8 million Public utilities have jumped up with the sharpest increase of 2225 percent represented by K29 million which has risen to K677 million. Although tariffs for both water and electricity have been adjusted by ESCOM and the water boards, this is still a surprise rise as it does not correspond with the decline in the projects and the financing for the Development Budget in the 2012/13 budget of the MoWDI. Office Supplies for Development Budget has increased by 86 percent from K66 million to K124 million Office Supplies has also risen by 226 percent from K4 million to K13.8 million Training expenses has registered an increase from K138 million to K215 million representing a 54.9 percent jump Motor vehicle running expenses too have skyrocketed by 172.5 percent from K79.8 million to K217.6 million 23 These increases in “ORT-like-items” for the Development Budget means that most of the development projects under the MoWDI have overhead costs and the projects carry with them a significant component of administration funds. This could most likely reduce the actual benefits of the projects to the communities and may lead to low impact on the WASH and irrigation indicators related to MGDs and the MGDS. This scenario could also lead to a situation where the country may be receiving more funds from donors and from Malawi Government for WASH and irrigation related projects, yet communities are experiencing insignificant impact of the financial inflows because a higher component of the funds is spent on “administration-like” activities. 5.8.2 Decreased Allocations As indicated in earlier sections, the total Vote 210 has experienced a decline of 40.8 percent in 2012/13 when compared with the approved budget of 2011/13. Therefore, on average, the Ministry vote is the biggest loser. By extension, the WASH programs are the ultimate losers together with irrigation programs that are under the mandate of the Ministry. However, within this loss are budget programs and budget items which made individual contributions towards this loss. Within the ORT category, the losers include: a) Water Supply and Sanitation program which has been allocated K50 million less than the 2011/12 FY revised budget. The actual allocation is down to K103 million and it was allocated K153 million in 2011/12 budget. b) External travel has declined by 58.9 percent from K13.2 million to K7.2 million. This is commendable and it is line with general governance proposals to reduce external travel in the public sector. However, this gain is reversed by an increase in Internal Travel which has nominally risen from K21.7 million to K32.2 million. c) Other Goods and Services have gone down by about 70 percent although the nominal amounts are smaller from K450,000.00 to K220,000.00 Under the Development Budget, WASH projects too are main losers. The project for Dispersed Borehole Construction has registered neither increase nor decrease (0 percent change). This is contrary to the whelming need for more boreholes by communities that are not supplied with piped water. Other losers are: I. Mwanza-Neno Ground Water Development project which has zero allocation representing a 100 percent decrease. This raises questions about the future of the project beyond the production of project designs. II. The NWDP II is another massive loser whose budget has declined from K3.090 billion to K1.844 billion. This is a huge loss both in nominal value but also in real terms. This decrease also provides the heaviest weight to the downward allocation of the entire Development Budget of the MoWDI in the 2012/13 FY. III. Small Farms Irrigation project has decreased from K125 million to K115 million IV. Songwe River Basin Development Programme is another big loser whose allocation has decreased from K690 million to only K54 million V. Water Retention Structure Development Programme has decreased from K802.3 million to K500 million. 24 WASH continues to experience negative financing flows. Under the Development Budget, the WASH project has experienced a zero allocation, or a 100 percent decrease compared with the K100 million which was allocated to the project in the previous financial year. The continued presence of communities without water, sanitation and hygiene in Malawi entails that the WASH project needed to be scaled up and not scaled down. Other notable decreases include: Acquisition of technical services under the Development Budget has gone down drastically both nominally and in real terms from K3.32 billion in 2011/12 FY to K347.9 million. This represents about 87.4 percent decrease. Other goods and services have dropped by 43.5 percent from K28 million to K15.8 million Acquisition of fixed assets has also dropped by 41.4 percent with significant nominal and real value erosion from K3.4 billion to K1.9 billion. On aggregate, Vote 210 of Water Development and Irrigation has had its Development Budget suffering a 40.26 percent budget reduction. The 2011/12 Revised Budget allocated K7.296 billion. The 2012/13 Budget allocated an estimate of K4.029 billion. This represents a significant reduction in investment in the water supply, sanitation, hygiene as well as irrigation sector. Such a decline puts in perspective the extent to which the sector is regarded as a priority. Notably, since WASH is the lesser financed sub sector of the two (WASH and irrigation), the declining financing trends also mean that WASH is pushed to the periphery on list of Malawi Government priorities. 5.9 Who Gets How Much of the 2012/2013 MoWDI Budgets? Out of the total Recurrent Budget of K601 million to Vote 210, there are some cost centers (offices) which have been allocated the lion’s share and some have been allocated the least funds. The location of concentration of budget funds helps to determine the propensity by Government to attain the MGDS or MDG indicators. The Ministry headquarters has been allocated the largest proportion of the total Recurrent Budget. Headquarters has K252 million of the K601 million, representing 42 percent of the Recurrent Budget. This means more money is being spent in Lilongwe compared with funds spent closer to where the people are. Second in terms of largest proportion of budget allocation is money allocated in the regional offices (North, Center and South) which total K140 million, representing 23 percent of total Recurrent Budget. This further implies that about 65 percent of the Recurrent Budget is allocated away from the communities where the people are expected to experience the results. The full picture is clear when Recurrent Costs of the Irrigation Services Headquarters (another cost center) are added. The cost center is allocated K62 million or 10 percent of the Recurrent total. This takes all funds allocated to headquarters and regional offices to 75 percent. The remaining 35 percent has to be scrambled over by the district offices. However, these district offices are in connection with the provision of irrigation services and not WASH. This is another fact which points to the marginalization of financing of the WASH sector. However, it is argued that this is so because ORT for water supply and sanitation is included in the district council (decentralized) budgets. Nonetheless, as will be demonstrated in the next sections, the decentralized budgets are equally far from being adequate to deliver results for the WASH sector. Table 10 below shows this inequitable allocation of budget funds between headquarters and districts, and between WASH and irrigation services. 25 The MoWDI budgets have a bias towards irrigation services while less priority in terms of financing is given to WASH activities. Table 10: Summary of Recurrent Estimates by Cost Center Cost Center Headquarters North Center South Shire Valley Irrigation Services Blantyre MU Irrigation Services Machinga Irrigation Services MU Salima MU Irrigation Services Lilongwe MU Irrigation Services Kasungu MU Irrigation Services Mzuzu MU Irrigation Services Karonga MU Irrigation Services Irrigation Services Headquarters Grand Total 2011/12 Approved 231,014,025 35,799,852 55,141,841 58,114,854 12,492,939 5,136,100 18,527,731 10,423,157 11,083,013 10,090,472 12,944,455 12,516,455 52,894,095 526,178,989 2011/12 Revised 250,028,900 34,342,709 53,502,562 56,293,419 11,655,080 3,788,259 17,143,447 9.585,287 9,888,324 8,888,324 11,851,591 11,678,587 47,065,944 525,704,971 2012/13 Estimate 252,224,639 39,750,756 56,049,542 65,218,526 13,747,403 13,769,184 19,845,803 12,732,704 13,554,013 11,404,804 16,647,241 24,365,480 62,007,786 601,317,881 Source: Ministry of Finance, 2012/13 Budget Document No.4 (Detailed Estimates) 5.10 Adequacy of the 2012/2013 MoWDI Budget 5.10.1 Financing for WASH This section intends to do a comparative analysis of the funding needs stipulated in the Water Sector Investment Plan and the allocations on the 2012/2013 budget to MoWDI. Table 11 below provides some indicative investment needs to the water sector to enable Malawi attain access to basic water and improved sanitation by 2015 and beyond. In a nutshell, the Table shows that if Malawi is to move towards ensuring universal access to water as well as basic sanitation services, there is need for more investment to the sector. At least Malawi needs to invest $140 million annually to accelerate universal access to water services as improved sanitation. This four times the current $40 million which is invested to sector by various players including government. Table 11: Water Sector Investment Requirements Scenario Comments Recommendations Details & Business as Usual, maintaining maintaining the current $40 Will make Malawi attain access the status quo of financing million between now and 2015 to basic water but fail on attaining basic sanitation by 2015 Increasing Investment At least $140 million annual This would ensure access for between 2016 and 2030 98% of population to improved water supply system as well adequate water supply to cities, rural areas and also 90% of population accessing basic sanitation by 2030 26 Increasing annual investment to At least $25 million per annum sanitation between 2016 and 2030 translating into $400 m for the period Improved hygiene, sanitation in At least $30 million is required Schools especially where the to meet this systems are dilapidated This would push access to basic sanitation from 10% in 2010 to 90% in 2030 Can only be achieved if Ministry of Education Science and Technology (MoEST), included the requirements for current and future schools to be built in their plans. Source: Water Investment Plan, Volume I, May 2012; Table is by the author In dollar terms, the 2012/2013 MoWDI at the current rate of 1$ to MK 407, the MK4.63 billion translates to $11.4 million. This is less by $28.7 million in comparison to the annual investment requirement of $40 million stipulated in the Water Investment Plan. This level of funding falls short to meet WASH requirements bearing in mind also that a big chunk of the funds have been allocated to Irrigation Services. Since the budget is in the local Malawian currency, the amount is further reduced by the high inflation now pegged at about 35.10% in January 2013 which means that real amount in the 2013/2013 budget is MK3.005 billion or $7.4 million dollars. This allocation would further be affected by the 49 % devaluation and as well as the floatation of the kwacha against the major currency which entails that prices of goods and services change at any time making it difficult to plan as prices keep on fluctuating. The bottom line therefore is that the 2012/2013 MoWDI allocation is far from being adequate to meet WASH requirements as set in the Water Sector Investment Plan. 5.10.2 The guiding Policy Framework for WASH Besides the Water Sector Investment plan, another policy document which regulates and guides financing for WASH is the Malawi Growth and Development Strategy (MGDS), the overarching strategy for all development activities. The current MGDS II was endorsed in 2012 and will run up to 2016. It contains 9 priorities namely Agriculture and Food Security; Transport Infrastructure; Energy, Industrial Development, Mining and Tourism; Education, Science and Technology; Public Health, Sanitation, Malaria, HIV and AIDS management; Integrated Rural Development; Greenbelt Irrigation and Water Development; Child Development, Youth Development and Empowerment and Climate Change, Natural Resources and Environmental Management. However, as usual, the WASH sector is commingled with the Irrigation services sector. The Greenbelt Initiative is also combined into the sector and together, the priority is called Greenbelt and Water Development. Such complex combinations have the effect of crowding out the WASH sector as irrigation programs overshadow the water supply, sanitation and hygiene activities. The commingling of these sectors at such high policy level has an additional effect of pushing the WASH sector to the margins of financing priorities. Sanitation has also been prominently highlighted as a subcomponent of the public health programs. This too leads to the dispersing and allocation of scarce resources too thinly across sectors leading to minimal impact on sanitation targets. However, the combination of sanitation into the health sector could mean that it is a crosscutting sector which needs attention by all critical sectors like health, education, agriculture, environment, child development sector and others. 27 5.10.3 Weakest Link: WASH, MGDS Priorities and the 2012/13 Budget The 2012/13 Budget is aligned to the MGDS II priorities. About 85 percent of the total budget has been allocated to MGDS key priority areas. However, the WASH and Green belt Irrigation priority has the weakest linkage with the Budget. The Budget has allocated K76.4 billion to the Education Science and Technology priority while Agriculture and Food Security has been allocated K66.5 billion. These two priorities are followed by Public Health which is funded with K49.1 billion. Transport Infrastructure has K35 billion while Integrated Rural Development has an allocation of K15.3 billion. As Table 12 shows, although the WASH sector has been combined with Greenbelt Irrigation, its position as a priority is reduced to insignificance. This is because the so called priority has been allocated a mere K4.7 billion. This is additional to the fact that the sector has experienced a decreased allocation from the K7.8 billion revised budget of 2011/12 FY. Table 12: Budget Allocations to the 9 MGDS Priorities Priority Agriculture and Food Security Transport Infrastructure Energy, Industrial Development, Mining and Tourism Education, Science and Technology Public Health, Sanitation, Malaria, HIV and AIDS management Integrated Rural Development Greenbelt Irrigation and Water Development Child Development, Youth Development and Empowerment Climate Change, Natural Resources and Environmental Management 2011/12 Revised K41 billion K30.3 billion K9 billion 2012/13 Estimate K66.5 billion K35 billion 9.2 billion K61.1 billion K37.4 billion K76.4 billion K49.1 billion K16.6 billion K7.9 billion K4.2 billion K15.3 billion K4.7 billion K11.7 billion K2.9 billion K1.8 billion Source: MEJN Budget Analysis 2012/13 Further evidence that the WASH sector is a marginalized priority obtains from the observation that while the MGDS priorities have on a average experienced nominal increases in their 2012/13 Budget allocations, the WASH and Irrigation sector (combined) has experienced a chop in its allocation. This decrease represents a double marginalization of this ‘priority’ – nominal decrease and decline in real terms. The sector is second from the bottom of least funded priorities despite the Constitutional assertions that water is a fundamental human right bordering on the right to life since water is life. The declining financing and low prioritization of water supply, sanitation and hygiene alienates majority urban and rural population from accessing this essential commodity. Such alienation amounts to a form of execution by thirsting9. The percentage share of Water Development and Greenbelt Irrigation to the total 2012/13 Budget further confirms the dwindling financing to the sector and the marginalization of the sector as a priority. 9 Term coined by the authors. 28 Table 13: MGDS Allocations as a Percentage of Total Budget Allocations Priority Agriculture and Food Security Transport Infrastructure Energy, Industrial Development, Mining and Tourism Education, Science and Technology Public Health, Sanitation, Malaria, HIV and AIDS management Integrated Rural Development Greenbelt Irrigation and Water Development Child Development, Youth Development and Empowerment Climate Change, Natural Resources and Environmental Management Other10 TOTAL 2011/12 Approved 2011/12 Revised 2012/13 Estimate 13% 11% 3% 18% 14% 4% 2% 1% 1% 13% 10% 3% 20% 12% 5% 3% 1% 1% 21% 11% 3% 24% 15% 5% 1% 4% 1% 31% 100% 32% 100% 16% 100% Source: Malawi Government, Economic Report 2012 The Table 13 above highlights how the water supply, sanitation and hygiene sector is a marginalized priority. The sector is allocated a mere 1 percent of the total 2012/13 Budget aligned to the MGDS. The implication is that while the MGDS stresses that WASH is a priority, the actual budgetary allocation and financing gives a different picture that it is not. The WASH sector, although combined with the Greenbelt and irrigation services still ranks lowest in terms of financing and in terms of alignment with the MGDS II. Education, Science and Technology accounts for the lions share with 20 percent of the MGDS allocations while Agriculture and Food security ranks second with 13 percent. Public Health follows closely with a 12 percent share. This trend is the same from the previous 2011/12 Budget. 5.11 Decentralized Budgets and WASH allocations in 2012/13 Budget The Water Sector is one of the devolved sectors under the decentralization process. Malawi had its first Local Government Act in 1998. The Decentralization Policy was later adopted. Institutional systems have also been developed over the years and this includes the establishment of the National Local Government Fund (NLGF) which supports the funds transfers and capacity needs of local councils. Effective 2005-2006 fiscal year, GoM started devolving sector ORT budgets to local councils. The first 3 sectors to be devolved in 2005/06 were Health, Education and Agriculture with a total devolved budget of K3 billion. Currently, the number of devolved sectors in the 2012/13 is 14 (fourteen) and “water” is among these sectors. This section analyses the extent to which WASH is given priority in the district council budget allocations and financing. 5.11.1 District Council Budgets and Sector Allocations The 2012/13 Budget has allocated a total of K18.14 billion to the local councils. This represents a 12 percent increase over the funds allocated and approved to the same councils in the 2011/12 Budget which had K15.9 billion. The local government fiscal transfers are made up of four key components and these are: 10 General Resource Fund which has an allocation of K1.15 billion Refers to other Budget Votes which are part of the 2012/13 Budget but are not among the 9 MGDS priorities 29 Devolved Sector Funds with an estimate allocation of K15.86 billion The Constituency Development Fund with a total of K772 million City Council Infrastructure Development Fund at K360 million Table 14 below highlights the actual allocations and comparisons across the devolved sectors. A positive observation with the decentralized budgets is that water and irrigation have been costed and are financed as separated sectors. However, the marginalization of water as a priority continues to take its toll and arguably reaches its pathetic peak in the district council budgets. Since the decentralization of the budgets took effect as the Table shows, the Education Sector has always enjoyed the lion’s share of the total district budgets. In addition, the Health Sector has the largest share (over 50 percent) of the total local council transfers, and this has been the trend since 2005/06. Table 14: Transfers to Local Councils by Sector Sector Agriculture Sector Education Sector Health Sector General Resource Fund Constituency Development Fund Housing Trade Water Gender Environment Forestry Fisheries OPC-NRB Labour Infrastructure Development Fund Immigration Irrigation TOTAL 11/12 Approved Budget 11/12 Revised Budget 517.10 2,646.80 9,992.39 1,132.63 772.00 35.16 33.97 33.48 127.12 51.90 35.33 70.33 38.53 30.27 360.00 30.00 84.00 15,990.29 517.10 3,420.11 9,486.94 1,132.63 772.00 35.16 33.97 33.48 127.12 51.90 35.33 70.33 38.53 30.27 360.00 30.00 84.00 16,258.89 12/13 Estimates 517.10 5,692.00 9,076.92 1,152.63 772.00 35.16 33.97 33.48 127.12 51.90 35.33 70.33 38.53 30.27 360.00 30.00 84.00 18,140.74 % Change (12/13 vs. 11/12) 0% 53% -10% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 12% Source: Ministry of Finance, Output Based Budget Document 2012/13 However, it is the Education Sector which has registered the only significant percentage change of 53 percent in its 2012/13 district council estimated transfers compared with the previous fiscal year of 2011/12. This is seconded by the General Resource Fund which has an estimated increase of 2 percent. On the other hand, the Health Sector has suffered the largest and only decrease of 10 percent. The rest of the sectors, have surprisingly, registered zero change (neither decrease nor increase) and this includes the water sector as well as the irrigation sector. The sectors can therefore be put into four categories in terms of increases or decreased transfers as follows: Big Winner: There is only 1 big winner, the Education Sector with the 53 percent increase 30 Small Winner: Out of the 14 devolved sectors, General Resource Fund is the “small winner” with the 2 percent increase. Loser: There is only 1 loser, the Health Sector with the 10 percent decrease No Win, No Loss: The remaining 11 devolved sectors are neither winners nor losers since they have been allocated the same transfers compared with the previous fiscal year 5.11.2 Less Significant Allocation to Water in Local Council Transfers ORT for the water sector is in the 4th category (No Winner and No Loser) of the classification above. However, in real teams the 11 devolved sectors with the zero percentage increase/decrease are all losers. This is because the purchasing power of the budget allocations is not the same in 2012/13 FY as it was in the previous fiscal years. This is argument is strong in the face of the currency devaluation that Malawi economy continues to experience under the liberalized and floated exchange rate regime. This observation is also made in view of the skyrocketing inflation which was at 28.3 percent in October 2012 compared with the average less than 10 percent inflation in 2011. The purchasing power argument also means that the so called “big winner” and “small winner” join the other sectors as losers because the increases are below the over 70 percent devaluation combined with the over 28 percent inflation. Put simply, the entire budget for the district council transfers has increased by 12 percent only, an increase that is below inflation and far too below the level of ongoing currency devaluations. The water sector suffers triple loss under the circumstances. First, the sector has experienced no budget increase. Second, water sector under the district council transfer budgets is not spared from the eroding purchasing power due to the volatility in inflation and steep currency devaluation. The K33.48 million allocated as ORT for water can buy less than half of the goods and services that the same amount of money could buy in the previous fiscal year. Thirdly, water is more or less pushed to the periphery of district council funding priorities due to its lowest nominal allocation of K33.48 million when compared with other 13 devolved sectors. Water allocation in the district council transfer budgets represents a mere 0.18 percent of the total local council annual budget. Table 15 below shows the share of water budget in the local council transfers in comparison with selected sectors. Table 15: Share of Water Sector Budgets in Comparison with Total Local Council Transfers Sector Agriculture Sector Education Sector Health Sector General Resource Fund Constituency Development Fund Housing Trade Water Gender 2012/13 Estimates (MK’000) 517.10 5,692.00 9,076.92 1,152.63 772.00 35.16 33.97 33.48 127.12 31 Percentage Share of Total Local Council Budget (2012/13) 2.8% 31.3% 50% 6.3% 4.2% 0.19% 0.18% 0.18% 0.7% Environment Forestry Fisheries OPC-NRB Labour Infrastructure Development Fund Immigration Irrigation TOTAL 51.90 35.33 70.33 38.53 30.27 360.00 30.00 84.00 18,140.74 0.28% 0.19% 0.38% 0.21% 0.16% 2.0% 0.16% 0.46% 12.0% Source: Compiled by Authors The Health Sector has the largest share of over 50 Percent of the local council transfer budget for 2012/13. This is followed by Education which accounts for 31.3 percent of total allocation. General Resource Fund (GRF) and CDF take third and fourth positions with 6.3 percent and 4.2 percent shares respectively. However, water sector is among the “bottom four” lowest financed sectors accounting for only 0.18 percent of total local council transfers in the 2012/13 Budget. Irrigation Sector has a higher allocation of K84 million representing about 0.46 percent of the total local council budget, higher than the water sector. The bottom four includes Trade Sector, Water Sector, Labour Sector, and Immigration Sector in that order of least prominence. This means that Water Sector is the 3rd poorly financed sector in the local council transfer budgets. Immigration is the least poorly financed. However, the fact that water is life and therefore delivers on the fundamental right to life means that water is the least prioritized sector of the pro-poor sectors of the local council budgets. 5.11.3 WASH in the Economic Recovery Plan (ERP) The GoM has embraced the ERP as a tool for resuscitating the Malawi economy under the new political leadership from April 2012. The ERP is “based on the MGDS” and is being implemented through the 2012/13 Budget for a short term period of 18 months although it has medium and long terms strategic options. The ERP narrows down the MGDS priorities into 5 priorities which the current government administration is focusing its energy and resources. However, WASH is the missing priority on the list of ERP priorities. The absence of WASH could have serious negative implications on resource allocations at a time when Malawi economy is experiencing challenges. It is easy to relegate WASH further downwards to the bottom and government could easily justify erratic financing to the sector on account of its absence on list of priorities that are being pursued in the short term. The linkage between WASH and the Constitutional human right to life means that the sector cannot be implemented in piecemeal and rationed fashion. The provision of life sustaining goods, commodities and services cannot be compartmentalized as such an approach can lead to loss of life or degradation of the welfare of some quarters of the population especially of the poor and the vulnerable. This is what the ERP must at all cost avoid. Despite the economic challenges of Malawi, WASH needs to retain its priority position both in policy content as well as in actual financing. The lack of a strong alignment of the ERP to the budget could also have a negative implication even if WASH was finally accepted among the ERP top priority sectors. There is need for a clear resource envelope for implementation of the ERP strategies as this would guarantee the “ring fencing” of finances to critical sectors like WASH. 32 6.0 Case Studies: District Council Allocations for Water Supply, Sanitation and Hygiene The WASH sector budget analysis has benefited from input from local council staff especially officers from the Water Department. The information collected and analyzed show different levels of investment in the WASH sector across the four districts of Chikwawa, Mangochi, Mchinji and Nkhata-bay. However, financing difficulties and low levels of budget allocation to the Water Departments are the common challenges coupled with low levels of staffing. 6.1 Budgets for Mchinji District Council Mchinji District Council is Vote 914 and the Controlling Officer11 is the District Commissioner. Established through the 1998 Local Government Act, Mchinji District Council’s mandate is to lead through local governance structures in the provision of best social and development services to its local populace. The Council’s vision is to achieve a thriving, educated and health citizenry capable of fully participating in the social, cultural, political and development spheres of life. The Council has set for itself a target to achieve over 70 percent of the MDGs by 2015. WASH targets are also part of the MDGs targets and Mchinji is geared to actively pursue these WASH targets as it pursues all other MDG targets. In line with this agenda, the Council has the specific objective to increase access to clean and portable water within the communities, schools, health centers and Community Based Care Centers (CBCCs) from 65 percent to 70 percent. 6.1.1 Mchinji Budget Allocations for WASH Mchinji district council has been allocated K702.6 million (K702, 602,111) in the 2012/13 Budget12. Health has the largest proportion of the budget at K302.2 million representing 43 percent seconded by education with K196.5 million accounting for about 28 percent of the district council Vote. Funds allocated to the Headquarters (as a cost center) which includes GRF, CDF, and others amount to K162.1 million. Agriculture is allocated K21.6 million. However, the picture is different when the water sector/department budget is analyzed. A total of K962, 056.00 (or nine hundred and sixty two thousand kwacha) only is located as ORT for the Water Department. This represents a meager 0.13 percent of the Mchinji District Council budget for 2012/13. The water sector allocation is also the second least after Labour Sector which is allocated K803 million. The national trend of declining financing for water takes an even more serious plunge at the district level. Furthermore, the K962, 056.00 is split into ORT for Water Resources and Development which takes K528, 056.00 and Public Administration (Support Services and Human Resources Management) takes the remaining K434, 000.00. 11 Officer in charge of management of public finances mandated by the Public Finance Management Act (PFMA) of 2003 12 However, the figure differs from one budget document to the other. The 2012/13 Out Put Based Budget Document (page 397) quotes K603.8 million as the allocation for Mchinji District Council. 33 6.1.2 Declining Financing for Mchinji Water Department Measured by any standard, the allocation is far too low to meet all the ORT requirements for Mchinji Water Department. According to officials from the Water Department at Mchinji District Council, the ORT is not adequate as it only caters for utility bills. The ORT is also decreasing compared with allocations from previous years, as well as loss of the purchasing power (real value) of the annual and monthly transfers. The low financing translates to monthly funding of between K60, 000.00 to K80 000.00. The funding does not suffice for office stationery, office fuels, and telephone bills. The challenge is that the Water Department is also expected to use part of the same meager resources to carry out monitoring activities, a task which is impossible because of the financial inadequacy. However, the times at which the funds are transferred to the Water Department ranges from 10th to the 20th day of the month. Although there are such slippages in the timing, they do not significantly disturb operations of the Department, because the funds are small in any case and as pointed out, are mainly used to settle utility bills. 6.1.3 Inadequate Staff Capacity The Mchinji Water Department has inadequate staff. For some time, an official from the Health Department has been acting as the District Water Officer until May 2012 when a substantive officer was appointed. However, the Department has 4 (four) technical staff only – the district water officer, and 3 monitoring assistants. The required number of staff is 11 and each traditional authority (T/A) is supposed to supported by a monitoring assistant. This means that the staff is being overstretched, although with the lack of funding, there are times when the few staff are also idle. Another related challenge is that Mchinji District Council has no Sanitation Officers forcing the Water Officers to combine with sanitation work yet some of them are not trained as specialists in sanitation issues. Nonetheless, the Department has 1 vehicle and 3 motorbikes which suit the needs of the current number of available staff, although this is on condition that fuel funds are available. 6.1.4 Contributions from Development Partners Apart from Malawi Government ORT funding, there are other development partners who support implementation of the WASH activities in Mchinji district. These include (but not limited to) UNICEF, JICA, Pump Aid, World Vision, Nkhoma Synod of CCAP Church, Assemblies of God, and InterAid (through its Tikonze N’jigo project). The development partners fill a critical gap left by inadequate government financing. Overtime, the presence of development partners has helped Mchinji to be among few districts in Malawi to register better progress on WASH indicators. The district was among the first to register significant progress with the Open Defecation Free (ODF) strategy. With UNICEF support, Mchinji has better borehole facilities compared with other districts. Over 100 boreholes were drilled in previous fiscal years with UNICEF support, and currently, it is easy to manage the boreholes because InterAid has established access points where spare parts can be sourced within the communities. JICA has also started a programme for strengthening systems of community management of the boreholes. 34 However, the JICA project is operating on counter-part funding basis, meaning that Malawi Government has the responsibility to supplement the funding. Any delays or failure to provide the matching funds would have negative effects on progress of the projects. Another challenge that some development partners bring projects that fall outside the plans (District Implementation Plans) of the district council. Other donors even singularly identify or choose project areas where they want to implement the activities. Some of such preferred areas do not fall within the category of needy or vulnerable areas, and this leads to heaping of resources in areas which are not constrained. 6.2 Budgets for Mangochi District Council Mangochi District Council has the overall mission of providing demand driven sustainable and quality socioeconomic services through community participation in order to contribute to the socioeconomic development of the district. In terms of the WASH sector, the Council has the objective to increase access to potable water from 73 percent to 82 percent by the year 2015. In pursuit of this objective, the Council has deployed the strategy of improving the capacity of water point committees in operation and maintenance of water sources. 6.2.1 Mangochi Budget Allocation for WASH Mangochi District Council is Vote 913 under the oversight and management of the District Commissioner and the controlling officer. The 2012/13 Budget has allocated K994, 632,868.00 (about nine hundred and ninety four million Malawi Kwacha) for ORT financing13. Out of this amount, 48.5 percent is allocated to the Health Sector as a lion’s share of a nominal K483, 049,228. As is the case with all other decentralized Votes, the Education Sector is second in priority with K247.6 million representing about 30 percent of total Vote. Mangochi District headquarters comes third with K156.2 million, while Mangochi Town is allocated K54.8 million. As usual Water Sector in Mangochi budgets has been allocated a small sum that does not befit its status as a priority. The sector has been allocated K1.2 million (K1, 283,728.00) which represents only 0.12 percent of total Vote. 6.2.2 Implications of the inadequate financing The little ORT funding means that the Water Department of Mangochi District Assembly is a “forgotten” department. The department receives on average K123, 000.00 monthly funding. This is inadequate and makes it difficult to implement key activities and it is hard meet critical expenses. For example, the department is failing to maintain boreholes, 126 taps under the Gravity Fed System are dead and only 15 taps are working. In August 2012, the department received K63, 000.00 ORT funding. Table 16 below summarizes the monthly transfers in the first four months of the 2012/13 FY. 13 However, records from Mangochi District Council shows that the annual budget is K934,963,884.00 35 Table 16: Monthly Transfers to Mangochi Water Department in First Quarter of 2012/13 FY Month (2012) July August September October Actual Transfer (MK) 182,196.00 63,000.00 123,350.00 123,350.00 Source: Authors, Consultation with Mangochi Water Department The ORT is only adequate to cover monitoring of operations and the finances are specifically used to purchase fuel, stationery, pay utility bills, and communication bills. The major problem with this state of funding is that the financing is not based on actual needs. The funds are allocated based on annual ceilings dictated by treasury. If the budgets were to be based on needs, then the K994 million allocated to the entire district council would be exhausted within 7 month’s work. The inadequacy of the funds forces the department to prioritize payment of utilities. Monitoring and maintenance of water facilities, activities which are at the core of the department work, are given the last priority. In terms of timeliness of the funds transfer to the Water Department, there are certain months when the funds are delayed. For example, in August 2012, the funds were only transferred at the beginning of the fourth week instead of the normal second week (tenth day of every month). These developments confirm that WASH is not a priority in terms of financing. It is only a priority in paper in the policy documents. 6.2.3 Rescuing the Situation: Role of Development Partners Progress towards WASH indicators under the MDGs and the MGDS is anchored by the efforts of development partners who are taking steps to fill the gaps left by government financing. The key partners are UNICEF and ICEIDA. UNICEF is implementing a WASH programme where, among other, it has drilled 160 boreholes and rehabilitated 41 old boreholes. The WASH programme started in 2006 while actual implementation of activities took off in 2007. The annual budget for the programme in Mangochi is about K45 million which UNICEF has pledged towards the 2012/13 FY. Out of this amount, K20.3 million (K20, 349,312.00) has so far been made available. UNICEF has also provided 1 motor vehicle and 3 motorcycles. While UNICEF support is extremely commendable, the only key challenge which the Mangochi Water Department faces in connection with the support is that UNICEF does not disburse all the funds pledged in any financial year. This affects completion of all planned work by the Water Department. Another challenge relates to long periods of time taken for UNICEF to service the motor vehicle. The vehicle is serviced in Lilongwe, and the vehicle went for service in March 2012 and had not yet returned to Mangochi as at October 2012, a period of 7 months. The long absence of the motor vehicle affects service delivery and operations in the Water Department. ICEIDA also supports the WASH sector in Mangochi. This financial year, ICEIDA has set aside US$360,000.00 and this translated to about K60 million at the time of making the commitment. The Kwacha value could be higher at the moment considering the adjustments made to the exchange rate regime. ICEIDA started supporting Mangochi Water Department in 36 2007. ICEIDA has disbursed first quarter funding amounting to K21 million. The funding targets the drilling of 20 boreholes, rehabilitation of 19 boreholes, and digging of 10 shallow wells. A unique and commendable feature of the ICEIDA support is that it also contributes to institutional capacity development. ICEIDA funding pays for salaries for 16 staff in the Water Department, pays for motor vehicle fuels, and supports motor vehicle maintenance. ICEIDA has provided 2 motor vehicles for use in implementation of the project. The key challenge with ICEIDA support is that if focuses only on the project areas where it is working with little flexibility to intervene in other vulnerable areas. ICEIDA will work in T/A Chimwala only from 2012 to 2016. ICEIDA supported assets like motor vehicles, and staff on ICEIDA payroll can therefore not serve other areas. 6.2.4 Low Levels of Staffing The Water Department of Mangochi District Council has only 4 technical staff under Malawi Government payroll. This staff component is too small compared with the size of Mangochi, its population and challenging topographical terrain. However, there is an additional 16 technical staff under the payroll of ICEIDA. Of this ICEIDA staff component, 13 staff is working in T/A Chimwala while 3 staff have been deployed to other T/As as a way of alleviating the staff shortage problem. At the time of conducting of this study, Mangochi Water Department had no District Water Officer. Water monitoring assistants have been working in acting capacity, resulting into a heavier work load that did not match with remuneration. However, UNICEF supported the recruitment of the district water officer who was yet to report for duties at that material time. The double challenge that staff under GoM payroll faces in Mangochi relates to low motivation. Some of the water monitoring assistants have stayed over 17 years without any promotion. This is despite the hard work and commitment working under difficult circumstances. The staffs complain that they feel neglected yet they confirm that there are many vacant posts yet the authorities appear unwilling to fill the posts with existing experienced staff. Such low motivation has adverse effects and leads to less than satisfactory performance of the water supply, sanitation, and hygiene sector in Mangochi district. 6.3 Budgets for Nkhata-bay District Council The mission of Nkhata-bay District Council is to provide high quality services to the citizens of Nkhata-bay district through sustainable resource mobilization and efficient utilization. With regards to WASH, the Council has the objective to ensure that portable water is in sufficient quantity and sanitation is available and equitably accessible to everyone in the district at all times for the sustainable socio-economic development of the district. To achieve this objective, Nkhata-bay District Council has embarked on a strategy of rehabilitating and constructing more boreholes and shallow wells. Through this initiative, the Council targets a total of 1250 beneficiaries with access to sustainable water supply and sanitation in rural parts of the district. 37 6.3.1 WASH Budget Allocation for Nkhata-bay Nkhata-bay has been allocated K537.4 million in the 2012/13 Budget according to the Budget Document No.4 (Detailed Estimates for Local Authorities)14 also titled Consolidated Budget Estimates. This estimate differs from the allocation captured in the Budget Document No.5 (Output Based)15 which has K452.47 million as ORT for Nkhata-bay District Council. The differences in the quoted allocated amounts can cause serious accountability and financing challenges and could lead to less than planned levels of implementation of service delivery programs. Effects of such reduced service delivery can be more visible in the WASH sector which has already been a victim of low financing in previous fiscal years. Out of the K537.4 million, the Water Sector in Nkhata-bay has an estimate of K1.3 million (K1, 335,670.00). This is 0.24 percent of total district council Vote. Health Sector accounts for 36 percent (largest share), followed by Education and Headquarter spending at 33 percent and 24 percent respectively. Irrigation Sector in Nkhata-bay has been allocated an estimate of K3 million representing 0.5 percent, a position higher than Water Sector. The Water Sector is also a marginalized priority whose annual ORT allocation cannot adequately cover the sector needs and cannot effectively deliver on the WASH targets. 6.3.2 Static Allocations to Water Sector in Nkhata-bay The Nkhata-bay District Council budgets for the Water Sector show non movement in terms of the annual expenditure estimates. Such a static posture is in sharp contrast to the rising needs in the WASH sector, and is not a true reflection of recent dynamics and changes to the Malawi’s economic environment. Notably, this trend is also prevalent in the district council Votes as it is omnipresent in other sectors like Trade, Housing, Forestry, Fisheries and Labour, just to pick a few. For example, in 2010/11 FY, the approved budget for Nkhata-bay was K340.9 million. Of this amount, Water Sector was allocated K1, 335,670.00. The Revised 2010/11 Budget had the same amount for water. In 2011/12 Estimates, the same amount of expenditure was allocated to the Water Sector yet the overall 2011/12 Budget estimate for Nkhata-bay had increased by 7 percent to K415.4 million. The 2012/13 Budget for Nkhatabay District Council has also allocated the same amount for the Water Department. Such static and constant allocations could mean that the budgets are not based on actual needs, but on ceilings as observed under the Mangochi budgets. This makes the budgeting exercise a cosmetic and window dressing process leading to ineffective implementation of WASH activities. 14 15 Page 109 Page 397 38 7.0 Budget for Chikwawa District Water Plans Chikwawa district with a total land area of 4,755 square kilometers has a population of 438,89516 people with a population density of 91 people per square kilometer. Chikwawa is one of the poorest districts in Malawi and in the Southern region, with 54.5% of its population lining under $0.30/ day. Access to water In terms of access to safe drinking water only 55% of the population has access to clean and safe drinking water. It is estimated that water point ratios are at 1.54 water points against 1,000 people while the national average is 1:125. This means that Chikwawa has one of the poorest access to water points in the country. The plan of the district is to improve access to safe drinking water so that at least 80% of the population is reached with clean and safe drinking water by 201517. Sanitation Out of the 104,591 households only 40,840 have access to satisfactory sanitation representing or 44.7% of the population; 15.5% have access to satisfactory or rather improved pit latrines and 2% have latrines where there is also water. The district plan is also to see to it that by 2015 at least 80% have access to improved sanitation and pit latrines. Investment Requirements For Chikwawa district to attain an 80% access to both clean and safe water as well as improved sanitation, the district needs to invest at least $16 million ($15,891,677.35) between 2008 and 2015. The main areas of investment identified are: Boreholes, Piped gravity Water, shallow wells protected springs and improved pit latrines. They also planned to improve access to water and sanitation in health centers and schools.18 7.1 The 2012/2013 Chikwawa Water Sector Budget Allocation In the 2012/2013 budget, Chikwawa district Water sector budget, Vote 903, has been allocated MK1.3 million out of MK684 million total budget representing a 0.19% share, while Education has MK 212 m, or 31% of the total budget, Irrigation, MK3.9 m or 0.57%, Agriculture MK21 m or 3% and health MK315 m or 46%. The MK 1.3 m has remained the same in nominal terms since the 2011/2012 fiscal year but in real terms factoring in the 49% devaluation and the 35.10% inflation, the figure is far below the 2011/2012 water budget. It translates to MK 413,413.00 ($1,015) only. Allocation to Irrigation surpasses for WASH also. However the district annual investment requirement is at least $2 million. Of course the district investment plan makes it clear that the national budget may not provide all the funds and hence calls upon other players such as NGOs and Development partners to support the programme. 2008 Population and House Census Chikwawa District Strategic Plan, 2008-2015 18 Ibid 16 17 39 The ORT provided to support water activities in the district is MK70,000 per month maximum and often times this month is received between the 10th and 20th day of the month. This is far inadequate and comes in late to meet schedules of activities. The amount/figure in nominal terms, has not changed either in the last two fiscal years but in real terms this is far too low for the district to manage its projects bearing in mind that the entire other departments benefit from the funds as well. 7.2 Implications of the reduced funding to the water sector The district lined up activities to be carried out in this fiscal year with funding from the National budget. The major activity planned and budgeted for the MK1.3 million rehabilitating or maintaining 72 water points maintained at least 18 in each quarter.19 The reduced funding in real terms means reduced WASH services to the district and the result would be that there would be further reduced access to the population. 7.3 Role of other players in the sector in the district Chikwawa district water sector has a number of other non-governmental players. These are Water for People who have a budget of at least MK100m (2012-2013); the Evangelical Lutheran Development Services (ELDS); Water Aid with a budget of MK4 million; World Vision International and UNICEF (with a MK84m budget) just to mention the major ones. These players are making a difference to access to clean and safe water to local populations in the district. However there are challenges in the working style of most of these non state actors some of which are: Some of the NGOs work in isolation and even outside the district strategic plan so much so that coordination, cooperation and collaboration to achieve the district goals on water becomes a challenge Amongst these NGOs, there is adequate funding if they worked together as a sector however because most of them use a project approach and go it sole, it is difficult to quantify how much money is going to water in the district from different players besides the government funding Others are not really into water services but the water programmes comes in as a necessary activity for them to achieve other goals for instance food security. As a result, such NGOs do not often consult or work with the district water officer where water issues are involved. This becomes difficult for the district to quantify how much water is being provided and where there are deficits. 19 2012/2013 Local Authorities Output Based Budget, Budget Document No 5 page 36 40 7.4 Constraints and Challenges with WASH provision in the district Besides the financial, material inadequacies, the district also faces the following challenges: Staffing levels: there are six officers and one senior officer, these are far inadequate to manage water issues in the district Weak and poor collaboration amongst stakeholders; this undermines planning and execution of water activities as there are no synergies or cooperation amongst the players. Logistics-Chikwawa water office does not have a dedicated vehicle to ease mobility to rural areas and the office has to rely on the good will of the District Commissioner Demarcation of Southern region water board area from Rural Water Services-Since Chikwawa is generally a new upcoming town, it is a problem to demarcate boundaries to enable proper planning for water services. Lack of confidence from donors to allocate funds to the district. Most donors tend to manage their resources when it comes to working with district assemblies on the account that the assemblies do not have the pre-requisite capacity to do so. This leads to delays in disbursement which in turn delays completion of projects and often looked at as lack of absorption capacity by the assemblies when lost fun remain unused. Chikwawa is also experiencing reports on increasing number of non functional water points due to vandalism and lack of capacity to do simple maintenances 8.0 Recommendations The study makes key recommendations to various stakeholders. However, the main sets of recommendations are for the attention of Malawi Government and local government authorities. Worth pointing out is the need for all the stakeholders to harmonize efforts and push for increased financing to the WASH sector. Water needs to be lifted out of its status as a marginalized sector and ensure that it regains its priority status through adequate financing. 8.1 Recommendations to Malawi Government (Central Government) Government is the main duty bearer and is expected to deliver water as a human right to communities in the sense provided under the Republican Constitution. This includes taking into consideration the following specific recommendations: a. Increasing the budget allocation to WASH in line with the needs of the sector. There is an urgent need to adopt a needs-based-approach to allocating finances to the WASH sector b. The Ministry of Financed should adjust upwards the ceilings and expenditure limits provided to the water sector. There is the urgent need to peg the ceiling at a level commensurate with the recent changes to the Malawi economy and should be in tandem with current inflation trends c. The WASH sector budgets should be strongly linked to the MGDS II to enable more visible linkage between WASH indicators and budget allocations. Similarly, the ERP 41 should be reviewed to incorporate a strong emphasis on water supply, sanitation and hygiene. This is because almost all sectors of the economy rely on water for production, domestic use, and sanitation and for hygiene purpose. The ERP is incomplete without integrating WASH into the framework d. There is need for further coordination in integrating sanitation and hygiene with water supply. This will facilitate the process of budgeting and financial allocation since some sanitation and hygiene activities are implemented in other line ministries with little coordination with the MoWDI. e. There is an urgent need for systematic management of WASH and Irrigation Services and avoid disproportionate apportionment of finances at the disadvantage of WASH. Investment in the WASH sector should not be overshadowed by investment in the Irrigation Sector. Government should strike a fine line of complimentarity between the sectors. f. Budgets for WASH should be doubled to regain the loss of purchasing power experienced as a result of the May 2012 currency devaluation of 49 percent which currently hovers over a cumulative 100 percent. This doubling should happen independent of the recommendation to increase financing (based on need) suggested in (a.) above. g. Government should attract more donor funding for investment into the WASH sector. However, government should gradually increase its presence in financing the Development Budget of the WASH sector and engage a process of reducing the overdependence on donor support that is currently a key feature of the sector financing. h. Government should timely provide its pledged sums of counter-part finding to WASH projects that are designed to mix donor with GoM funding. 8.2 Recommendations for Local Authorities The main recommendation for local authorities borders on what needs to be done for the councils to be adequately financed and that they should in turn prioritize the WASH sector financing. Some of the recommendations need combined action between Central Government and the Local Authorities. The following specific recommendations are made for the local government councils: I. Recruitment of adequate staff for the Water Departments. This should be coupled with recruitment or more training for officers who should manage sanitation related issues. Staff should also be provided with motivation packages and other human resource related incentives II. Budgets for the local councils should be adjusted upwards to reflect cost of living, inflation and the current state of purchasing power 42 III. Annual allocations for the local councils and specifically those of the Water Department should be calculated based on needs and not on cosmetic and unrealistic ceilings. IV. ORT for the Water Departments at the district council level should be aligned to the deliverables expected under the MGDS and financing should be provided in tandem with the desire to meet the MDG targets for water, sanitation and hygiene. V. Financing for water sector monitoring and maintenance of water sources within the budgets of the Water Department should be ‘ring-fenced’ to protect them from unnecessary expenditure cuts. Funds allocation should strike a balance between financing utilities, office supplies, and also financing for monitoring and maintenance of water sources which are critical to meeting the WASH needs of communities. VI. There is need for more capacity building at the district level to increase accountability and reduce corruption in the use and management of funds. This could also help to build trust among development partners for increasing transfers to the local councils. 8.3 Recommendations for Development Partners Delivery of WASH services at the national as well as district levels is more visible due to the support from the development partners. The following recommendations are suggested for action: a) Development partners should implement projects that are within the District Sector Investment Plans (DIPs) and implementation plans. This will help to attain ownership, sustainability, and also achieve progress in a coordinated and unified fashion and will lead to more financial effectiveness. b) The partners should increasingly support ORT or operational costs of Water Departments in a manner that will allow seamless implementation of the WASH activities and goals set c) Partners should also disburse funds in a timely manner as well as providing all the pledged financing to reduce scenarios of incomplete implementation of projects and WASH activity plans d) Development partners should help to promote equity by targeting all areas that are WASH-constrained as opposed to concentrating their support and financing in one and the same area. This should however be based on consultations between development partners and district council officials. 8.4 Recommendations for WES Network and Other CSOs The WES Network and all civil society have an important role and the following specific recommendations for action: 43 1. Based on findings of this report, WES Network should design an advocacy strategy and embark on evidence based budget and public finance advocacy for increased financing for WASH 2. WES Network should institutionalized budget research in its institutional framework and conduct studies on developments in public finance and they affect WASH as a priority 3. Apart from general budget research, WES Network should conduct annual budget analysis that can help to follow trends and therefore carry out timely advocacy 4. Conduct networking, advocacy, and information sharing sessions with key parliamentary committees and with other influential leaders in parliament 5. Develop a Budget Training and Advocacy tool kit or manual to enable broader participation of the membership of WES Network and other CSOs in WASH financing advocacy 6. Carry out sensitization meetings with community members as a way broadening debate among communities on WASH and the need for adequate financing. This will help to integrate community voices in calling for increased and quality WASH financing 7. Conduct budget tracking of WASH to trace how finances are being used and to gauge the extent to which WASH funds are benefiting communities 8. Provide WASH budget information through popularized and simplified budget documents and brochures and leaflets 9. Engage into media advocacy through press conferences, media tours, and participation in radio and TV, special features and press statements in the print media(To be elaborated in the advocacy strategy) 10. Conduct direct lobby meetings with MoWDI, Ministry of Finance, and other relevant line ministries, NWDP II, Local Authorities, and development partners (DPs) for increased WASH financing 11. Commission further study on NGO financing to WASH and other extra-budgetary financing by donors who provide support outside official channels 12. Increase interface and networking with international campaigns for linking and learning, lesson sharing, and for mobilizing international voices around the WASH situation in Malawi and the need for concerted efforts towards meeting MDG targets. 44 9 Conclusion The levels of financing to the WASH sector in Malawi budgets continue to register a decline. This has a direct impact on WASH service delivery to communities and therefore compromising the progress towards fulfillment of the fundamental right to life. Current progress towards achievement of MDGs will be reversed if the financing levels are not improved. WASH is slowly but surely becoming a forgotten priority. This is despite policy pronouncements all the ‘noise’ in policy documents and on various for a proclaiming that water is among the priorities within priorities. WASH can be redeemed from its condemned position as a marginalized priority. This requires concerted effort by all players. GoM needs to take a leading role in walking the talk by increasing financing to WASH. Development partners need to scale up their support, both technical and financial, while non state actors too need to fill the gaps, demand accountability and mobilize communities to take action, until all parts of the country can access clean portable water, improved sanitation, and better hygiene. 45 10 References Chikwawa District Assembly, District Strategic Investment Plan, 2008-2015, November 2008 Civil Society Pre-budget/district Consultations report, MEJN 2010 Common Approach to Budget Support (CABS) Review Report, March 2011. Draft Budget Estimates Documents 20011/12 Draft Budget Estimates Documents, 2012/13 Inside the Proposed 2005/2006 National Budget, MEJN, 2005 Inside the Proposed 2006/2007 National Budget, MEJN, 2006 Local Authorities, 2012/2013 Output Based, Budget Document No 5 Malawi Aid Atlas, 2009/10 Financial Year, Malawi Government. Malawi Government, Millennium Development Goals Report, 2010 Malawi Growth and Development Strategy (MGDS), 2006-2011. Malawi Growth and Development Strategy II, 2011-2015 Malawi Poverty Reduction Strategy (MPRS), Malawi Government, 2002-2006. MEJN Budget Analysis reports for 2009/10 FY to 2012/13 FY. Ministry of Agriculture, Irrigation and Water Development, Malawi Water Sector Investment Plan, Volume 1, May 2012 Munthali, Thomas. ‘Impact of the global financial crisis on Malawi: Debt, foreign aid, and growth,’ Paper presented to the Society of Accountants in Malawi (SOCAM), Capital Hotel, Lilongwe, 30th April 2009. The People’s Manifesto, MEJN 2009 Welfare Monitoring Survey, National Statistics Office (NSO), 2010 46 9.0 List of Annex 9.1 Annex 1: Questionnaire WES Net Questionnaire on Financing for Water for Sanitation and Hygiene A. Policy Related Areas a. What policy documents guide you when planning, budgeting and implementing water and sanitation programmes in the district (tick where appropriate) i. MGDS ii. MDGs iii. Water sector investment plan iv. National Water Policy v. Decentralization Policy vi. All of the Above B Does the department have a district water investment plan? Yes No Not aware of one C Are you able to implement the district water investment plan? Yes NO 2 D Donors are not comfortable to pump resources (finances) directly to districts for water programmes. Reasons cited for this are low absorption capacity at the district level, mismanagement and corruption, do you agree? Yes Provide reason for your answer: NO Not sure B. Resource Related Areas a. How adequate is staffing in your department? (Give specific number of technical Staff based on established positions) b. Do you think that the ORT you get is adequate to meeting district needs? (To be based against district annual plans) Yes No Give Reason(s) for your answers C How timely is the monthly ORT disbursed to your department? First 10 days of the Month Between 10 and 20 days of the month Last 10 days of the month 3 D How adequate is the logistical support in your department? This is terms of: Transport Adequate Not adequate Communication Adequate Not adequate Office Supplies adequate Not adequate E Other than the government, which other partners provide financing to your department (Tick where appropriate) NGOs Development Partners Private Sector Individuals None of the above 4 3 Budget Related Area a. Is your department receiving increased amounts from national budget since 2010? i. Yes ii. No iii. Static B Where does your department get more funding? I. II. III. IV. C. National Budget NGO Donors Private Sector Has your department experienced budget cuts due to the austerity budget introduced in 2012/2013 I. II. III. 4 Yes No Not Aware Considering the financing trends experienced in your department, do you think that water for sanitation and hygiene is considered a priority like other MGDS priorities? I. Yes 5 II. III. 5 No Not sure New Emerging Issues in Water A Are there any new emerging issues that are affecting budgeting for water, sanitation and hygiene service in your district that you might want to share? A B C D 6