BPRA declaration on the Constituency Development Fund

Bulawayo Progressive Residents Association (BPRA), over the month of May 2011 has been carrying out consultative meetings on the Constituency Development Fund (CDF) where it has been bringing together residents, Members of Parliament and Councilors to dialogue on the administration of the fund. The meetings have been a response by the residents of Bulawayo for accountability by elected public position holders as most of them demonstrated little or no interest whatsoever on reporting back to communities.

A brief overview of the fund

The Constituency Development Fund (CDF) was introduced by the Minister of Finance, Minister Tendai Biti in his National Budget presentation for 2010 in December 2009. In terms of the fund, each of the country’s 210 constituencies was allocated US$50 000 which

the minister said would be used to spearhead development in constituencies through the implementation of projects that would benefit communities. Minister Biti reportedly said that the money would be used for infrastructure development such as borehole drilling, refurbishment of schools and clinics and purchase of generators.

The CDF is overseen by the Ministry of Constitutional Affairs that is headed by Advocate Eric Matinenga. At constituency level, it is administered by fund committees constituting of councilors in the area. The committees are headed by the Member of Parliament while the senator is an ex-officio member of the committee. The fund committees are tasked with coming up with annual development plans that map out how the money from the fund is used.

BPRA acknowledges the concept of CDFs as an attempt to decentralize development projects so that communities are able to take charge of development processes and gear them towards their true needs. The association recognizes that the funds arose after a realization that there is a need for development initiatives to respond to local developmental needs and for people participation in the planning and development of infrastructure and services. BPRA also realizes that such developmental funds make use of local government in their disbursement and administration as they are mechanisms of channeling financial and technical assistance to the community to enable it to assume primary responsibility for local development and poverty alleviation programs. The CDF in Zimbabwe is therefore a means to put the planning and control of development processes in the hands of constituencies, with Members of Parliament supposed to be the key implementers. Ideally therefore, the CDF should be aimed at promoting people participation in the development of infrastructure and services in constituencies and at ward level and also in the alleviation of poverty at these levels.

The CDF is arguably, not a new kid on the block, considering that during the earlier years of Independence, the District Development Fund was administered to fast-track development all across the country. The CDF should be administered in a manner that attempts to decentralize decision making. The primary argument is that decentralization enhances and speeds up the process of development through the provision of social and economic services. The idea of the CDF was inherited from Uganda, Tanzania and Kenya in which administration is supported by Acts of Parliament. Administration of the fund is thus difficult in Zimbabwe as the economic and political conditions that were prevailing when these countries formulated their CDFs are not the same conditions eminent in Zimbabwe to date.

Summary of Findings:        

A total of 10 consultative meetings were carried out by BPRA in May and early June 2011 where numeral findings and recommendations were made over the administration of the funds. The relevant constituencies include Pelandaba/Iminyela; Njube; Mpopoma; Magwegwe; Tshabalala/Sizinda; Old Pumula; Nkulumane; Entumbane, Luveve/ Gwabalanda and Bulawayo Central respectively.

During the consultative meetings, residents raised a lot of issues concerning the nature of the administration of the fund. The following findings were made concerning the fund:

·         Residents pointed out that they were not involved in the administration of the fund, including the identification of projects.

·         Residents resolved that the MPs should constantly hold report-back meetings on the CDF.

·         Most residents suggested that the next batch of the CDF should be channeled towards easing the burden faced by parents in the payment of schools levies as most children were unable to access schools as they could not afford to pay fees.

·         Grassroots participation was very minimal and residents have not taken part in the identification of projects, a move deviating from the concept of devolution and decentralization.

·         Though there is protocol on how and what the money should be spent on, there is no mechanism to monitor how the funds are used and what pre-emptive measures are being taken to make sure that funds will not be misappropriated or embezzled. As such, rresidents recommended that there should be accountability mechanisms put into place to promote transparency.

BPRA thus recommends that:

·         Measures should be put in place to ensure that marginalised people such as women, children, People Living with HIV/AIDS and People Living with Disabilities benefit from the CDF.

·         There should be needs based development, with project needs identified by the people in a particular area instead of a prescription of what kind of development projects the CDF should finance. In this light, not only should MPs be expected to consult with the people, but the people should participate in identification of needs and implementation and management of projects.

·         In addition to MPs, councillors and senators, fund committees should also have residents’ representatives, Civil Society Organisation representatives etc.

·          The CDF should not duplicate roles by financing projects that are the mandate of local authorities or governmental institutions such as ZINWA, DDF and etc.

·          Extensive information dissemination on the fund needs to be done so that informed residents actively take part in project identification.

·         To stem abuse of the fund, all Members of Parliament who fail to adequately account for the funds or who are accused of misappropriating the funds should be audited by an impartial board

These findings and recommendations highlight the fact that the CDF is therefore meant to be a process of putting the planning and control of development processes in the hands of constituencies.