The UPND government once again increased constituency development fund (CDF) allocation for 2024 to K30.6 million—from the current K28.3 million. Critics say this has actually become ‘Constituency ‘Dealing’ Fund – in light of mismanagement of the funds. Whereas the government wants to believe that it is ensuring “resources are directly provided to communities for local development, including basic services such as clean and safe water, maternity wings, and school desks,” (Situmbeko Musokotwane – Minister of Finance and National Planning), many believe this move by the government has not been accompanied by a systematic assessment of capacity gaps at different governance levels.
In an interview, an international development expert based in the UK recently argued ‘so far so bad with the fund’ with other asserting “nothing exciting about CDF increment, it’s just figures.” There are reports such as those in the News Diggers that increased CDF reflects corruption and abuse of resources in local structures, including irregularities around procurement such as inflated tenders. There are accusations that in its current form, CDF only enriches decision makers at district and constituency level.
The structure and organisation of the Fund that enabled influence by political actors raises another issue which leads to narrow and exclusionary constructions of development projects. There are reports that show that there are way too many isolated and poorly linked projects being commissioned without much scrutiny. One consequence is that the supposed transformational value of CDF is only a pipe dream, and the related regional impacts might be non-existent.
Meanwhile, there are no clear guidelines on how CDF can be advanced to build on preexisting policy tools such as the Integrated Development Plans (IDPs). This means in some cases, CDF projects stand in isolation if not antagonistic with wider plans. Development experts have called for the need to maximise on joint IDPs: 1) Chasefu, Lumezi and Lundazi, 2) Lusangazi and Petauke, 3) Chipata, Chipangali and Kasenengwa. The argument is that joint IDPs could be deployed in such a way as to align to wider development efforts and maximise regional impacts. Experts point to possibilities of joint procurement and pooling of resources that can advance regional value addition. Only through this line of thought that Constituency Development Funds (CDFs) can garner the reputation of being an effective driver of growth.
Capacity of local structures such as Ward Development Committees (WDCs) is another concerning issue. These structures are poorly resourced and face a whole variety of logistical challenges. They lack technical capacity to monitor projects. Local structure can also be blinded and excluded in processes that matter the most such as decisions on projects and procurement. There are reports that reveal challenges of downward accountability. Against this background, one sees a remarkable similarity on CDF projects – Graders, building schools and clinics, covets etc. unfortunately, these projects are commissioned without clarity on what impacts they should have on a population and the sustainability logics in them. A lack of cost benefit analyses means certain projects have been commissioned even where related costs of implementation are astronomic due to poor transport networks.
How local structures can be made to embody skills and knowledge on financial regulations, capacity on financial management skills is an important area of policy. The voluntary nature of WDCs is problematic for key decision-making processes and implementation. Overall, one gets a sense that in its structure and organisation CDF is only a Constituency ‘Dealing’ Fund with minimal potential for rural transformation. Existing guiding frameworks need strengthening. For the UPND Government, financial allocation is progressive but insufficient to realise the full potential of transformation of constituencies. Increasing appropriations is probably the easiest part. Ensuring that public resources are put to good use, are changing people’s lives and that there is value for money is the difficult area of policy and implementation.
