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