aa rreevviieeww ooff tthhee mmaallaawwii...
TRANSCRIPT
i
AA RREEVVIIEEWW OOFF TTHHEE MMAALLAAWWII
DDEECCEENNTTRRAALLIISSAATTIIOONN PPRROOCCEESSSS::
LLeessssoonnss ffrroomm sseelleecctteedd ddiissttrriiccttss
AA jjooiinntt ssttuuddyy ooff tthhee MMiinniissttrryy ooff LLooccaall GGoovveerrnnmmeenntt
aanndd RRuurraall DDeevveellooppmmeenntt aanndd CCoonncceerrnn UUnniivveerrssaall
FFiinnaall RReeppoorrtt
DDeecceemmbbeerr,, 22001100..
DDrr.. AAssiiyyaattii LLoorrrraaiinnee CChhiiwweezzaa ((MMrrss..))
DDeeppaarrttmmeenntt ooff PPoolliittiiccaall aanndd AAddmmiinniissttrraattiivvee SSttuuddiieess,,
CChhaanncceelllloorr CCoolllleeggee,,
PP..OO.. BBooxx,, 228800
ZZoommbbaa..
aacchhiiwweezzaa22000011@@yyaahhoooo..ccoomm
ii
Table of Contents Acronyms and Abbreviations ............................................................................................ iv
Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................ vi Executive Summary ............................................................................................................ 1 CHAPTER ONE ............................................................................................................... 16 Introduction and Background ........................................................................................... 16 1.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 16
1.1Objectives of the review .............................................................................................. 16 1.2 Study Approach and Limitations ................................................................................ 17
1.2.1 Study areas ........................................................................................................... 17 1.2.2 The Study approach ............................................................................................. 17
1.3 Country Context .......................................................................................................... 18
1.3.1 Geography and population ................................................................................... 18 1.3.2 Socioeconomic Context ....................................................................................... 19
1.4 The context of decentralisation ................................................................................... 20
1.4.1 The Constitution................................................................................................... 20 1.4.2 Local Government Act and Decentralisation Policy (1998) ................................ 21 1.4.3 The District Development Planning System (2001) ............................................ 21
1.4.4 The Malawi Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (2002) ....................................... 22 1.4.5 The Malawi Economic Growth Strategy (2004) and Malawi Growth and
Development Strategy (2006) ....................................................................................... 22 1.5 The experience of decentralisation in Malawi since 1998 .......................................... 23
1.5.1 The institutional structure of Local Government ................................................. 23
1.5.2 Relationship between Central Government and District Councils ...................... 25 1.5.3 The National Decentralisation Programme I (NDPI: 2001-2004) .................. 26
1.5.3 The National Decentralisation Programme II (NDPII: 2005-2009) .................... 27 CHAPTER TWO .............................................................................................................. 29
Study Findings .................................................................................................................. 29 2.0 Establishment and functionality of district and community structures ................... 29
2.1 The District Council ............................................................................................ 29
2.1.1 The Political decision making structure ........................................................... 29 2.1.2 The District administrative structure ............................................................... 31
2.1.3 District Executive Committee (DEC) .............................................................. 39 2.2 Functionality of Sub district structures: ADC, AEC and VDC .......................... 40 2.2.1 Emergence of various strands of sub-district structures .................................. 45
2.2.2 Sub-district structures: Identity crisis! ............................................................. 46 2.2.3 Other observations on the functioning of District structures ........................... 47
2.3 Impacts of decentralisation on food security and access to services ...................... 48 2.4 Factors affecting the effectiveness of the decentralisation process ........................ 53
2.4.1 Opportunities.................................................................................................... 53 2.4.2 Inhibiting Factors ............................................................................................. 54 2.4.3 Enhancing Factors ............................................................................................ 57 2.4.4 Possible Threats ............................................................................................... 58
2.5 Support provided by development partners & other NSAs. ................................... 58 2.5.1 Previous Support provided by donors to the decentralisation process ............ 59 2.5.2 Current support provided by Donors and other Non- State Actors ................. 60
iii
2.5.3 Current supporting being provided by NSAs operating in the study districts . 62
CHAPTER THREE .......................................................................................................... 71 Conclusions and Recommendations ................................................................................. 71 Appendix 1: Terms of Reference ...................................................................................... 78
Appendix 2: List of people Consulted .............................................................................. 83 Appendix 3: Mapping of support to the decentralisation process.................................... 99 Appendix 4: Area Development Committees in Practice ............................................... 105 Appendix 5: Documents Consulted ................................................................................ 108
Figure 1: Key Events in the Malawi Decentralisation Process ......................................... 28 Figure 2: Revenue trends Dedza ....................................................................................... 34
Figure 3: Revenue trends Mulanje .................................................................................... 35 Figure 4: Revenue Trends Ntcheu .................................................................................... 35 Figure 5: Revenue trends: Rumphi ................................................................................... 36
Figure 6: Examples of emerging sub-district structures ................................................... 45 Figure 7: Framework for empirical investigation ............................................................. 48
Figure 8: Number of corruption cases received by ACB in relation with Local
Governments: 2000-2010.................................................................................................. 54 Figure 9: Types of projects implemented in Dedza District (2004-2009) ........................ 67
iv
Acronyms and Abbreviations
ADB African Development Bank
ADC Area Development Committee
ADOF Assistant Director of Finance
AEC Area Executive Committee
AEDO Agriculture Extension Development Officer
CBO Community Based Organisation
CCLGRT Cabinet Committee on Local Government and Rural Transformation
CDA Community Development Assistant
CDF Constituency Development Fund
CU Concern Universal
CSO Civil Society Organisation
DADO District Agriculture Development Officer
DC District Commissioner
DCC District Consultative Committee
DCF District Consultative Forum
DCP Democracy Consolidation Programme
DDC District Development Committee
DDF District Development Fund
DDP District Development Plan
DDPS District Development Planning System
DEC District Executive Committee
DEP District Education Plan
DFID Department for International Development
DPD Director of Planning and Development
EPA Extension Planning Area
FBO Faith Based Organisation
FGD Focus Group Discussion
GDP Gross Domestic Product
GOM Government of Malawi
GRF General Resource Fund
GVDC Group Village Development Committee
IFMIS Integrated Financial Management Information System
IIC Institutional Integrity Committee
ITCD Inter-ministerial Technical Committee on Decentralisation
JICA Japan International Cooperation Agency
LDF Local Development Fund
LDSP Local Development Support Programme
LG Local Government
LGDMP Local Government Development Management Programme
LOGSIP Local Government Strengthening and Investment Programme
MALGA Malawi Local Government Association
MASAF Malawi Social Action Fund
MDGP Malawi Decentralised Governance Programme
v
M&E Monitoring and Evaluation
MEGS Malawi Economic Growth Strategy
MGDS Malawi Growth and Development Strategy
MGPDD Malawi Germany Programme for Democracy and Decentralisation
MLGRD Ministry of Local Government and Rural Development
MP Member of Parliament
MPRSP Malawi Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper
NDP National Decentralisation Programme
NGO Non- governmental organisation
NICE National Initiative for Civic Education
NLGFC National Local Government Finance Committee
NSA Non State Actor
OPC Office of the President and Cabinet
ORT Operational and Recurrent Transactions
PEA Primary Education Advisor
PHA Primary Health Assistant
RRG Research Reference Group
SDC Swiss Development Cooperation
SEP Socioeconomic Profile
TA Traditional Authority
UNCDF United Nations Capital Development Fund
VAP Village Action Plan
VDC Village Development Committee
VEM Village Extension Multiplier Model
WVI World Vision International
vi
Acknowledgements
I would like to gratefully acknowledge the support that I received from Concern
Universal and Ministry of Local Government and Rural Development for the successful
completion of this study. Thanks should also go to the members of the Research
Reference group (RRG) that was set up for the study. They provided important direction
and critical comments at a time I needed them most. I also greatly appreciate all the
people who provided valuable information at the national, district, and community levels
and to Michael Chasukwa and George Mhango for the excellent research assistance
provided.
1
Executive Summary
Decentralisation of power to local authorities was adopted in October 1998 as a vehicle
for poverty reduction in terms of delivering better services to the Malawian population
but also as a means for strengthening democratic institutions and participation at the local
level. Decentralisation is expected to improve the delivery of public goods and services to
people at all levels, especially in rural parts of the country where the majority of
Malawians reside. The policy was implemented through NDP1 which ran from 2001 to
2004. NDP II, a successor programme to NDP I was designed with full consideration of
the lessons and challenges identified in the 2004 review of NDPI to guide
implementation of the decentralisation process from 2005-2009. This report documents
the results of a study commissioned by Ministry of Local Government and Rural
Development (MLGRD) and Concern Universal (CU) whose aim was to review the
status of the decentralisation process, its functionality, effectiveness, and potential
contribution to improving rural livelihoods.
The specific objectives of the study were to: appraise the extent to which district and
community structures are established in line with the Act and their functionality with
respect to their contributions to the process; assess the effects/impacts of decentralisation
on food and nutrition security and access to services at the community level; identify key
factors that enhance or inhibit the effectiveness of the decentralisation process; examine
the support provided to districts by Donors and NSAs for the Decentralisation process
and its effectiveness and make recommendations on how the Government, Concern
Universal (CU) and other NSAs could realistically support and contribute to improving
the effectiveness of the decentralisation process on rural livelihoods.
The study was conducted between July and August, 2010 in the districts of Ntcheu,
Rumphi, Dedza, and Mulanje plus consultations with relevant organisations at the
national level. The study approach was mainly qualitative and it focused on extracting
the logic and objectives of decentralisation including legal and policy provisions from
official policy documents and comparing this with the practice on the ground. An effort
was made to ensure that the views of diverse actors were solicited and analysed. The
process thus included semi structured interviews with key informants and a broad range
of stakeholders at the national, district, and community level.
In total the team interacted with a total of 595 people some of whom were central
government actors, donors, NGO/CSO representatives operating at the national and
district level, Members of Parliament, Former Councillors, District officials, sub district
officials, community members, CBOs, FBOs, cooperatives, farmers clubs, and traditional
chiefs. (See Appendix 2 for the full list of people met). Preliminary results of the study
were presented to a reference group comprising of CU staff, MLGRD officials, a
representative of the District Councils and an official from the Office of the President and
Cabinet. The results were also presented to a variety of stakeholders at a workshop that
was organised on 11th
November, 2010. Through these processes important feedback was
received and it has contributed to the final outlook of the report.
2
Due to the sample size and the sampling strategy the study‟s findings may not be easily
generalisable to the whole of Malawi but they do provide important insights and
experiences which are applicable to many District Councils in Malawi.
Overall assessment
The study has found that decentralisation reforms that were introduced with the
Decentralisation Policy and Local Government Act of 1998 have led to important
institutional changes in government structures and decision-making processes at the local
level. District Councils were established in 28 districts as legitimate centres of
implementation of responsibilities for delivery of services at the local level, with the aim
of improving the efficiency, effectiveness of development interventions. Along with the
district structures, sub district structures were also implemented to facilitate bottom up
development planning and enhance a coordinated approach to local level development.
Evidence from the four districts studied suggests that not much service delivery could at
present be attributed to the decentralisation process itself. The potential for
decentralisation to contribute to improved service delivery and rural livelihoods very
much depends on the implementation status of decentralisation itself and the functionality
of the decentralised structures and systems that are meant to promote service delivery and
rural livelihoods.
The study noted that the implementation of decentralisation is still ongoing. Phase one
was done through the National Decentralisation Programme I (NDPI: 2001-2004) with a
focus on Legal Reforms, Institutional Development and Capacity Building, Building a
Democratic Culture, Fiscal Decentralisation, Accounting and Financial Management,
Sector Devolution, Local Development Planning and Financing Mechanisms. A review
of NDPI that took place in 2004 revealed a mixture of some successes and many
implementation failures. NDPII, a successor programme to NDPI, designed to deal with
problems identified in the review of NDPI, and facilitate the implementation of the
second phase from 2005-2009, was never brought to a round table meeting due to
postponement of local government elections. This affected the capability of the MLGRD
to mobilise funding for the implementation of NDPII. Except for very few development
partners who still supported some limited aspects of NDPII, there was no visible
commitment towards supporting decentralisation since 2005. This has greatly affected the
implementation of activities identified in NDPII and has in effect led to the stalling of
many activities meant to accelerate decentralisation both at the national and district level.
Since then the process of decentralisation has been experiencing considerable setbacks
which have constrained the performance and influence of District Councils to emerge as
sustainable, efficient, and accountable service providers. Some of them include, non-
functional nature of key institutions meant to drive the decentralisation process,
resistance to change, staffing problems at the district and sub-district levels, limited
discretionary and donor funding to finance the district development plans, limited
capacity of sub-district structures, weak M&E systems and practices, dwindling
knowledge and awareness of decentralisation among sector, district staff and political
leaders, limited dialogue on decentralisation, limited downward accountability, as well as
3
limited coordination of NSA support to the districts. These problems taken together have
curtailed the potential of the decentralisation process to institute District Councils as
integrated units at the local level with substantial capacity to deliver services effectively
and contribute towards improved rural livelihoods.
These factors notwithstanding, the study noted that there are also some opportunities and
other positive developments that are bringing fresh hope for a revitalised decentralisation
process. There is some enthusiasm and a widely held perception among many
stakeholders and local citizens interviewed that decentralisation is a useful and important
principle for local level development. Since 2009, a number of opportunities have
emerged. These include: the increase in the number development partners willing to
support district capacity building efforts and other areas at the national level that have
constrained the effectiveness of the decentralisation process, the introduction of the Local
Development Fund and the District Charters programme. The number of sectors
devolving their functions to the districts is growing and this is accompanied by an
increase in central government transfers flowing to the districts. More recently, the
announcement of local government elections to take place in April 2011, and the
commencement of voter registration and other related activities can be considered as a
key move towards unblocking the process. In the same way, efforts that have been taken
by the Ministry of Local Government and Rural Development to give attention to the
sector devolution process and resuscitate the key drivers of decentralisation at the
national level provide hope that a process of reviving activities that had almost stalled has
began in earnest.
In more specific terms, with respect to objective one, the study noted that the
composition of the political body of the Council is not line with the provisions of the
Local Government Act. Due to the postponement of the local elections a make shift
institution called District Consultative Council (DCC) has taken charge of district
decision making. However, its functionality is limited because the current composition
creates a fusion between legislative and executive powers, and the DCC does not have
legal mandate to approve or enforce bylaws. The study found that generally meetings of
DCC serve as information sharing forums and decision making on urgent limited matters
but with limited attention to strategic direction of the entire Council, in terms of
examining the performance of the District Councils and playing financial oversight roles.
The study also found that Members of Parliament rarely attend the meetings of the DCC,
except if they have some interests on development projects. Because of these factors a
general perception persists amongst people interviewed for this study that the DCC is a
toothless mechanism in ensuring efficient, effective, and accountable operations of the
Councils.
With respect to the District Administrative structure, the study found that the line
agencies have not fully integrated into one administrative unit with composite budgeting
due to the incomplete nature of the sector devolution process. Sector development
budgets are still centralized and many development projects are budgeted and managed
by the centre and the districts are used as implementation points. Furthermore, some key
functions such as recruitment, payroll management, discipline, training, performance
4
management, and promotions for sector staff are still centralised creating a problem of
unity of command and dual accountability. As a result, even though the sector
departments and the Council secretariat are working together and there is a lot of
cooperation and sharing of resources in the implementation of district level activities, full
integration has not been achieved.
The functionality of the District Councils to facilitate improved service delivery and rural
livelihoods is further constrained by limited ability of the Councils to generate own
revenues, and limited discretionary funding for supervision and training of sub-district
structures and financing district priority projects. The Local Development Fund provides
potential for discretionary funding towards the implementation of priority investments
identified through the District Development Planning system (DDPS) but it is still in an
early stage and only a limited number of development partners have provided funding
through the LDF. The Constituency Development Fund, another funding modality for
districts currently operates using parallel political structures and is not connected to the
recognised District Planning System structures. As a result CDF decision making does
not benefit from community priorities already expressed in the Village Action Plans
(VAP) or even the DDP. The overall effect is that District Plans are hardly implemented.
The study further noted that the LDF decision making process has potential to act as a
rallying point for the various district players such as MPs, councillors, chiefs, and
communities to work together and cooperate in the determination of local level priorities.
If District Councils can be seen to be delivering on their mandates and people‟s
development priorities, decentralisation holds the potential of enhancing the legitimacy of
the state in the eyes of many rural citizens. On the other hand, the CDF in the manner in
which it is currently being operationalised is creating a power centre for one dominant
actor to consolidate and showcase his/her status and influence at the local level. In the
districts and areas visited, the fund is doing the opposite in the sense that it is creating
negative perceptions about both the state and the actors. It also holds the potential of
heightening conflicts and antagonism at the local level with councillors once they are
elected.
The study also noted that the functionality of the Councils is further constrained by weak
staffing position at the point of action (street level bureaucrats), weak and poor quality
staff in the Finance Directorate (although there are now some efforts by the MLGRD to
deal with this issue), and weak monitoring and evaluation practices. In many districts, the
district data banks are not functional. Coupled with poor record keeping, critical up-to
date information to facilitate decision making is not readily available. The study also
noted a lack of strategic leadership skills within the administrative structure in terms of
getting the council to operate as a coordinated team and providing direction to get
officers to do what they are supposed, Consequently a lot of activities and meetings
appear to be ad hoc, uncoordinated, and unplanned.
With respect to the District Executive Committee (DEC), a technical advisory body of the
Council that is meant to facilitate the District Development Planning process and
5
implementation of the District Development Plan (DDP), the study found the DEC in all
districts is constituted as provided for in the District Development Planning guidelines. In
almost all the districts, the committee meets frequently but largely on an ad hoc basis-
usually on request from NGOs wishing to disseminate some information or work in the
district. However, there are very limited scheduled meetings to discuss and examine the
functionality of the District planning process, review the implementation of the DDP in
order to take corrective actions. For a variety of reasons most DEC members do not have
copies of the most basic district development guide documents such as District
Development Plan (DDP) and Socio-Economic Profile (SEP). The study also found that
DEC plays a limited role in monitoring and supervising sub-district structures such as
Village Development Committees (VDC), Area Executive Committees (AEC) and Area
Development Committees (ADC). This limits the extent to which these bodies can
effectively perform their roles at the community level. As a result the planning process at
the district and community level is not is not effectively being coordinated with a variety
of actors creating their own structures and developing multiple Village Action Plans.
With respect to the sub-district structures, ADC and VDC, the study findings show a
mixed bag of experiences emanating from the districts. Generally the composition of
these committees varies from one district to the other and from one area to the other
within the district. The key finding however is that except in places where NGOs operate
and are willing to support their functioning, in many places the committees‟ composition
is not consistent with the DDPS guidelines and the committees are not functional. Where
new committees have been initiated by the Assembly, there has not been any training
given to them to enable them to perform their roles. Hence many members of these
committees have a hazy understanding of what they are meant to do but with no technical
skills of how to do it. The study also noted that a number of structures have proliferated
at the community level under different names, some of which are running parallel to the
DDPS structures and some are strengthening or extending the reach of the structures to
the individual village level. There was also of evidence of elected leaders trying to
influence formation of VDCs and failure to recognise the roles of ADCs and VDCs either
due to limited practical orientation or knowledge about how the systems work or an
attempt to politically influence local structures. The study further noted that functionality
of ADCs and VDCs is affected by the following: limited feedback about submitted
project priorities and weak communication and coordination among the decentralised
structures, limited information about district processes to enable them work effectively,
little or no supervision by district level actors, including AEC. On the overall the
impression of VDCs and ADCs is that they are passive institutions because they lack
capacity (human resource/knowledge and financial), and members are demoralised, due
to lack of delivery and feedback. If these committees are going to serve as structures for
facilitating the goals of decentralisation in Malawi in promoting participation of the rural
masses in decision making, a lot of work and financial support is needed to reorganise
these committees and make them truly functional.
The findings for the AECs are not very different from the VDC and ADC. Like the DEC,
the AEC is also a technical arm and it is composed of technocrats working in districts at
the community level. Due to limited supervision by DEC, AEC committees rarely meet
6
and there is no deliberate effort by AECs to follow up on ADCs and VDCs, unless they
are working in an NGO impact area and there are some incentives being offered. The
study also noted that even in places where there is NGO support there were some
challenges in garnering the commitment of AEC members to do their work. This
illustrates the limits of NGO support in inducing lasting behaviour change among local
level actors and it underscores the need for District Councils to assume ownership and a
leading role in strengthening and supervising sub-district structures and their actors. If the
District Council does not assert its leadership of the process of local development
planning by ensuring that local level staff such as AECs members are appropriately
trained and are doing what they are supposed to do, the planning processes may be
compromised.
With respect to the entire District Development Planning system, the study noted that
feedback mechanisms that were designed as part of the system are not working
effectively. As a result as you move down the hierarchy from the district to the
communities there is a dearth of and huge demand for information about the operations of
the Assembly, key Assembly decisions taken, and the operations of initiatives such as
LDF, CDF. This has given room for confusion and opportunistic tendencies to prevail
particularly with regard to individuals claiming responsibility for projects being
implemented in the community which are sometimes initiated by communities and
identified through the planning system.
On the overall, a general perception persists among community members and local
leaders interviewed that while decentralisation is meant to empower them, they do not
feel that the processes are empowering because they have no information about Assembly
operations, allocation of resources, and how Assembly funds are managed. Although
people in the communities have heard about „mphamvu ku wanthu‟ or literary „power to
the people‟, the people do not know for sure what that this power means in the current
context and how to actualise it in practice.
Turning to the second objective, on the assessment of the impact of decentralisation on
food and nutritional security and access to services the study noted that this is rather
difficult to establish in the Malawi case due to the incomplete nature of the sectoral and
fiscal decentralization process. Most of the food and nutritional activities are developed
and financed by central government or done through projects managed by NSAs. The
second limitation is absence of baseline and up to date data on trends in access to services
and food security with which to measure impacts. Thus to gauge the actual contribution
of decentralisation in such cases becomes a daunting task and problems of attribution
arise. However, anecdotal evidence based on qualitative enquiries indicates that
decentralisation appears to have improved community participation in education, quality
and quantity of district staff in the agriculture and education sector. The study also notes
that the quantity of extensions workers and quality of extension service and supervision
of primary education has not improved with decentralisation. There are mixed views in
terms of its impacts on food security because many view the subsidy programme as a
centrally driven and funded initiative.
7
With respect to the third objective on the assessment of key factors that are
promoting/boosting the process of decentralisation, the study noted that while there are
some opportunities and enhancing factors. In this regard, the study noted that a conducive
policy environment, announcement of local government elections to take place in 2011,
willingness of a variety of donors to support the process since 2009, the introduction and
rolling out of Institutional Integrity Committees and the Service Charters programme by
government can all be considered opportunities, which if effectively utilised hold
potential for the resuscitation of a process that had almost stalled.
The study noted further that, in spite of no local elections being conducted, the number of
sectors transferring their functions to the districts has been growing and has been
accompanied by an increase in the flow of sector resources to the districts suggesting a
move towards deconcentration rather the proclaimed devolution or democratic
decentralisation. A number of development partners such as GTZ and UNDP/UNDCF
have provided continuity of support at a time that many were not keen to support
decentralisation and this has somehow assisted to sustain the process that was almost
stalling. More recently, a number of steps that have been taken by the MLGRD to
revitalise the sector devolution process and reactivate the key coordinating bodies of
decentralisation illustrate important signals of reviving the process of decentralisation.
However, despite the existence of a supportive policy framework, there has been lack of
political will to fully implement decentralisation in the way it is provided for in the
country‟s legal and policy framework as reflected in the continuous postponement of the
local government elections and a predisposition towards use of institutions and actors that
do not really have full mandates for the functions of local government. This has affected
the growth of an efficient and accountable system of local government and mobilisation
of funds for the implementation of NDPII. Other inhibiting factors include the non-
functional nature of the institutions meant to drive the process, i.e. the Interministerial
Committee on Decentralisation and Cabinet Committee on Decentralisation and Rural
Transformation; limited coordination and dialogue on decentralisation, limited sector
devolution due to resistance to change; loss of institutional memory and limited
awareness on decentralisation among central and district level actors. The study also
found that at the local level, the defunct state and limited capacities of many sub-district
structures has limited their effectiveness in carrying out their mandated functions in
support of the District Development Planning System. If not addressed it remains a
potentially serious inhibiting factor to the operations of the community window of the
Local Development Fund.
The majority of the people interviewed for the study also noted that despite the positive
signals, the biggest threat to the whole process still remains further postponement of the
local government elections. Any further postponement of the local elections is likely to
dampen goodwill among many actors and jeopardise any future prospects of a viable
devolved system of local government in Malawi. The other threat relates to voter apathy
due to limited civic education on the role of councillors and local government elections.
Unless urgent attention is taken to deal with this area and ensure that NSAs who have
structures on the ground are actively being engaged to provide the necessary and relevant
8
information, chances of low voter turnout are likely to be high as was the case with the
2000 local elections.
With respect to the fourth objective, the study found the implementation of
decentralisation has been supported by a variety of actors which dates back to 1992. The
key development partners have been UNDP/UNCDF and GTZ. UNDP/UNCDF support
has contributed to the development and adoption of decentralisation policy and Local
Government Act, the current District Development Planning system and the handbook
that is currently being used to guide the planning processes. Among other areas, MGPDD
has assisted the MLGRD to develop a guidebook on decentralisation, a training manual
for training of Village Development and Area Development Committees, a Village
Action Planning (VAP) manual, and a capacity development programme for the
decentralisation process. Some support has also been provided by World Bank through
Malawi Social Action Fund (MASAF), NORAD, and African Development Bank
through the Malawi Decentralised Governance Programme.
The study found that since 2009 there has been some improvement in the number of
development partners willing to support the decentralisation process and the main areas
of support being provided by various programmes touch on a number of problem areas
that have been identified in this report including supporting national drivers and building
the capacity of districts. This provides hope for reviving many of the processes that were
either stalled or moving slowly. The areas of support being provided by the various
development partners also seek to deal with both demand and supply side of
decentralisation. However there are some gaps in terms of geographical coverage and
scope of the support. On the supply side while there are some development partners
pulling resources together to ensure national coverage, the support being provided by
UNDP/UNCDF and GTZ only covers 21 districts and leaves 7 districts with no support
of the nature being provided by the two major actors. To avoid inter-district disparities,
this area needs attention but also some harmonisation and coordination with the
performance window of the LDF.
The study also noted that on the demand side, apart from NICE and the communications
strategy being developed by the LDF, there is not much support towards provision of
information to enable citizens understand the Malawian local government system i.e. the
decentralisation process, the mandates and how local councils work, Assembly decision
making systems, the role of various actors and how citizens can effectively participate
and engage with such institutions such processes.
In the same manner, the study noted that very few Civil Society Organisations (CSOs)
focus on local government in particular and many do not have a functional working
knowledge of the decentralisation process, the local government system, and its
operations. As a result a lot of the civic education activities conducted by CSOs have
focused on questions of democracy, good governance, and citizen rights and electoral
processes while somewhat neglecting questions about the decentralisation process and
how local governments are supposed to work. These are areas that need attention in
enhancing support towards the demand side.
9
In the districts where this study was conducted, it was noted most of the NGOs and CBOs
operating in those districts do not have specific projects whose concept is decentralisation
but it is mainstreamed in other projects as a cross cutting issue The support that NSAs
provide to the districts can be classified into three categories. There is support towards
reorganising and training sub-district structures, support towards implementation of
projects and service delivery, and support to Assembly operational activities.
In this regard, the study found that very few NSAs were directly supporting the
reorganising and training of sub-district structures to ensure that their composition and
functioning is in line with the requirements of the District Development Planning
Handbook and that they are able to play their rightful role in the decentralisation process
besides being used in the implementation of the NSAs‟ own programmes.
In terms of effectiveness and relevance of the training, the study noted that the trainings
generally focused on key and basic aspects of decentralisation in Malawi that would
enable local actors to have basic knowledge about their responsibilities including how to
facilitate the Village Action Planning exercise. In terms of the effectiveness of the
trainings, the trainings were considered effective in enabling VDCs and ADC to have a
clear understanding of their roles and responsibilities with respect to facilitating
development in their respective areas.
The study also noted that a variety of NSAs also provide very useful training to the VDCs
and ADCs but of a limited focus. Such training includes areas like democracy, human
rights, gender awareness, women‟s and farmer‟s rights, community participation and
advocacy. It enables to the VDCs to operate effectively within the context of the NGO
project but does not ground them in their primary role in line with the decentralisation
process responsibilities as contained in the DDPS. If not monitored and coordinated
there is the potential of disorienting the committees as a result of them getting too
acquainted with specific issues of particular NGOs.
The study found that apart from providing training, a majority of the NGOs and CBOs
are complementing the role of the Assembly in service delivery and implementation of
projects at the district in areas like food security, water, health, orphan care, education
and income generation initiatives. Many of them operate in small areas and some have
demonstrated positive impacts in terms improved rural livelihoods in areas such as food
and income security in their impact areas. Others also support the Councils with other
operational activities such as allowances for meetings at the district, area and village
level, fuel for motorcycles etc.
While there is potential for NSAs to contribute to the implementation of the District
Development Plans, there is limited coordination and synchronisation of activities with
the Councils and amongst the NSAs themselves. There is also evidence of limited
accountability in terms of reluctance to disclose how much they are bringing into a
district. The study noted that beyond DEC there is nothing institutionalised to guide the
coordination of NSAs at the district level and coordination initiatives appear to depend
10
very much on the calibre and capacity of the District Commissioner, Director of Planning
or the specific sector where the project is working. There could be a missed opportunity
here of leveraging district support provided by NGOs. These issues are not new. The
2004 review of the NDPI raised similar problems about the operations of NGOs and
recommended the MLGRD should prepare appropriate guidelines for use by NGOs and
should establish a monitoring mechanism to ensure that guidelines are being complied
with. However, to date no such guidelines have been developed.
In light of this background, the study makes a number of recommendations on how
various actors can realistically support the growth of the process of decentralisation and
contribute to improving its effectiveness in terms of services delivery and rural
livelihoods. These recommendations are being made on the understanding that the
effectiveness of the process of decentralisation in the districts cannot be achieved, if other
wider systemic issues at the national level that have a bearing on the functioning of the
districts are not addressed:
Recommendations for Central Government
1. Holding of local government elections should be treated as a matter of priority in
order to unblock the processes that have stalled and deal with problems connected
to this, including some funding support from development partners. In the current
setup, the President of the country, who is in charge of all policy direction, holds
the key to this process and would be the most appropriate champion to lead the
way in promoting a right perception about decentralisation policy among cabinet
ministers, other politicians, and top government officials. This will ensure that
there is some unity of command concerning decentralisation matters.
2. The OPC in cooperation with the MLGRD and other relevant actors should
accelerate the sector devolution process that has already been initiated.
Decentralisation should be linked to other wider Public Sector Reforms that the
country is undertaking and OPC should take a leading role of enforcing the
necessary changes that sectors have to take with respect to the implementation of
the decentralisation policy. As was the case previously, OPC‟s role would also to
ensure that sectors adhere to particular deadlines and time frames. This would
ensure that the districts are able to operate as an integrated unit that responsible to
the District Council.
3. A key priority of the MLGRD should seek to accelerate the resuscitating of the
central coordinating mechanisms of decentralisation that has already been
initiated. This includes the Interministerial Technical Committee on
Decentralisation, the Cabinet Committee on decentralisation and Rural
Development and other coordinating bodies. Due to the changes that have taken
place since the last general election there is need for orientation of these
committees to ensure that they understand decentralisation and can lead the
process as the country prepares for the local government elections. The idea is to
prepare both political and technical leaders to drive the process.
11
4. The MLGRD together with other relevant sectors should develop and coordinate a
broad based IEC strategy on decentralisation. During NDPI, a strategy was
developed but it would need to be revised to take into account changing
circumstances. The strategy should seek to deal with the knowledge and
information gaps the report has identified and should seek to clarify roles of
various actors. In this regard, there is need to synchronise with the
communications strategy that LDF is currently developing to ensure a more
systematic approach to orientation and sensitisation so that the messages that
would be going out are concrete, uniform, integrated and address the needs of all
levels of Malawians.
5. Coordination, Cooperation, and harmonisation are the key issues that have
emerged as requiring attention both at the national and district levels to ensure
that the support being provided does not lead to inter and intra district disparities.
Therefore in order to promote the ideals of the decentralisation policy which
emphasises balance development, the MLGRD should coordinate and negotiate
with the Development partners around the implementation of NDPII to address
issues of geographical funding gaps that this report has identified, particularly the
seven remaining districts.
6. The MLGRD with the support of the development partners should pay particular
attention towards ensuring that once the councillors are in place, they should be
given appropriate training and support to enable them deliver on their mandates
within a multiparty environment that is characterised by dominance of traditional
authorities and has a history of competition and conflict between MPs and
Councillor. Training programmes for Councillors should be concrete, uniform,
integrated, and should go beyond an understanding of basic concepts to deal with
practical issues and promote cooperation among the various actors while
recognising the power relations among these local actors. Piecemeal and
fragmented approaches towards training of these key actors should be avoided at
all cost.
7. The MLGRD in cooperation with the Ministry of Economic Planning and
Development and relevant sector should work towards harmonising and
functioning district M&E system, ensuring that the district data banks systems are
functional and districts use the data in planning and decision making processes.
8. The Ministry of Finance in cooperation with the MLGRD and NLGFC should
ensure that districts are provided with adequate discretionary funding (GRF) in
accordance with the provisions of the Decentralisation and Local Government
Act.
9. The development funding modalities such as CDF and LDF need to be
harmonised in such a way that they promote effective decentralisation of power to
districts and community participation in planning processes.
12
10. Following from the recommendations of the NDPI review, and to ensure aid
coordination at the district level, The MLGRD in cooperation with relevant
sectors should prepare appropriate guidelines for use by NGOs and other NSAs
who wish to work in the districts in complementing the mandates of the District
Councils. It should also establish a monitoring mechanism to ensure that the
guidelines are being complied with.
11. To promote accountability and quality service delivery, District Councils should
be encouraged to develop strategic plans and the MLGRD should consider
instituting a performance management system for the Councils with clearly
defined standards of performance.
Recommendations for District Councils
1. To revive the defunct sub-district structures, and garner the commitment of AEC
members to do their work, District Councils should assume ownership and a
leading role in strengthening and supervising sub-district structures and their
actors. In this regard, the Council with the assistance of DEC should develop an
action plan of how the remaining untrained ADCs and VDCs will be handled.
This can be used by the DEC to proactively begin to mobilise funds for the
district while taking into account funding that has already been committed by
development partner programmes on such issues (see appendix 3).
2. To avoid ad-hoc activities and improve planning of activities, District Councils
should develop, implement, and monitor a district schedule of activities and
meetings to ensure that relevant activities of key committee such as DCC, DEC,
and other review meetings are planned and funds for such purposes are solicited
in a systematic manner.
3. District Development Plans should be monitored annually jointly by all
stakeholders including NSAs operating in the district through an annual
workshop. The annual gathering should be informed by progress papers from all
the sectors and NSAs on implementation status, issues arising, lessons for the
future and corrective action to be taken.
4. District Councils should prioritise support to front line operational staff such as
AEDOs, PEAs, CDAs and HSAs and should monitor and supervise their activities
to enhance service delivery at the local level.
5. To improve availability of information on key areas and indicators, District,
Councils should develop simple methods of record keeping and managing
information and should promote a culture of record keeping among all staff
among all sector staff. Emphasis should be placed on evidence based decision
making in order to improve the effectiveness of Council activities
13
6. NSAs main role is to support and complement the functions of the Council. Thus
Councils should have clear policies on food security and rural livelihoods that are
consistent with national policies and strategies.
a. To ensure that the outputs of NSA with respect to rural livelihoods are
captured in the District reporting system, District Councils should put in
place mechanisms of ensuring that NSA work plans and monitoring
indicators are harmonised with those of NSAs working in the same area.
b. The Councils should also ensure that there are joint monitoring exercises
and written monitoring reports are submitted to the relevant departments
and the M&E office on a regular basis.
c. To this end, the councils should carry out a mapping exercise of NSA
actors operating in the district in different priority areas including food
security and rural livelihoods,
d. The mapping exercise should identify the district priority gaps that exist,
enter into dialogue with the NSAs on how the implementation of activities
in these different areas can be harmonised. The result of the mapping
exercise can also be used by DEC as a tool to inform decision making on
new NSAs who wish to operate in the district.
Recommendations for Development Partners
1. Development Partners should seek to support the full implementation of NDPII
and the associated Capacity Building Development Programme that was
developed some few years ago.
2. To promote the ideals of the decentralisation policy in Malawi in its quest for
balanced development, and also the need for aid coordination, cooperation, and
harmonisation as required by the Paris Declaration, there is a greater need for
dialogue and coordination among Development partners and those supporting and
implementing the LDF around the implementation of NDPII to address issues of
geographical funding gaps that this study has identified, particularly the seven
remaining districts.
3. Immediate support should go towards the local government elections, building
and implementing a civic education strategy that is concrete, consistent, and
coherent to avoid voter apathy as was the case in 2010. This is an urgent matter.
4. Donor support would be crucial towards the systematic development and
implementation of orientation and training programmes for MPs, Councillors and
traditional chiefs. This should seek to complement what other development
partners and NSAs such as GTZ and IDASA have already included in their
programmes. Piece meal and fragmented capacity building approaches should be
avoided.
5. There is also an urgent need to build the capacity of the MLGRD, particularly to
increase the number of staff in the Directorate of Local Government to ensure that
14
the ministry can ably coordinate and drive the processes and support the districts
efficiently and effectively. Attention should also be given to supporting
institutions such as the NLGFC, MALGA and possibly creation of an inspectorate
department within the ministry to be responsible for monitoring and performance
assessment of districts.
6. On the demand side, there is need for support towards building a critical mass of
local civil society organisations (CSOs) with functional knowledge of local
government and decentralisation in order to deal with problems of limited
knowledge on local government by the CSOs and the Malawian public in general.
7. Accelerating the sector devolution process to ensure that districts are able to carry
the functions assigned to them. Sector working groups should in their strategies
include clear plans of how they can effectively support and promote sector
devolution processes to ensure that districts operate as an integrated unit.
8. The NDPII document states that The NDP II (and its supporting CDPD) should be
monitored annually jointly by all stakeholders, at an annual Round Table
Conference. This conference should be informed by a briefing paper from the
Inter-Ministerial Technical Committee on progress and issues arising, which
would have been scrutinized and approved by the Cabinet Committee on
Decentralisation. Donor support would be crucial toward the organisation of the
Round Table Conference.
9. To improve service delivery and rural livelihoods at the district level, support is
needed towards:
a. The rolling out and implementation of District Service Charters and
Institutional Integrity Communities. Some support towards the District
Charters is already being provided by Irish Aid and MGPDD but there has
been limited attention towards Integrity Committees.
b. Building the capacity of District Council staff for transformational
leadership.
c. Building the capacity of District Council staff, management systems,
strategic planning, monitoring and capacity for evidence based decision
making.
d. Strengthening the District Development Planning system and its links with
rural livelihood activities, including the revamping and training of sub
district structures such as Village and Area Development Committees as
well as the Area Executive Committee.
e. Building the district financial capacity, management, transparency and
accountability so that the districts can be able to finance and implement
services and demand driven rural livelihood activities.
Recommendations for Other Non- state Actors
15
1. NSAs operating in the districts should collaboratively continue to support capacity
building of sub-district structures and participatory planning in cooperation with
the Councils in such a manner that will not lead to significant intra-district
disparities.
2. NSAs operating in the districts should continue to complement District Council
efforts in implementation of District and Community priority investments as
identified in the District Development Plans.
3. NSAs should make provision and allow for joint monitoring of their projects with
Council members. NSAs should also support District joint review meetings,
promote dialogue, share lessons and best practices, and partner with other NSAs
working in the same fields in the district.
4. To avoid stifling District Council activities and to promote the effectiveness of
District Council staff and government systems, NSAs should synchronise their
work plans with those of the relevant sector and collaborate with the relevant
Council offices on the use of government staff such as extension workers,
community development assistants, primary education advisors and others for
NSA activities.
16
CHAPTER ONE
Introduction and Background
1.0 Introduction
Decentralisation of power to local authorities was adopted in October 1998 as a vehicle
for poverty reduction in terms of delivering better services to the Malawian population
but also as a means for strengthening democratic institutions and participation at the local
level. The Malawi Growth and Development Strategy (MGDS), which represents the
country‟s overarching policy framework for 2006-2011 for reducing poverty, also
recognises decentralisation to local authorities as key to achieving the national
development and good governance goals. This is expected to improve the delivery of
public goods and services to people at all levels, especially in rural parts of the country
where the majority of Malawians reside. This report provides results of a review of the
decentralisation process that was undertaken in the districts of Ntcheu, Rumphi, Dedza,
and Mulanje between July and August, 2010. The review was jointly undertaken by the
Ministry of Local Government and Rural Development (MLGRD) and Concern
Universal (CU).
1.1Objectives of the review
In line with the terms of reference (see appendix 1), the overall objective of the review
was to determine the status of the decentralisation process, assess its functionality,
effectiveness and potential contribution to improving rural livelihoods.
Specifically the study had the following objectives:
1. To appraise the extent to which district / community structures are established in
line with the Act and their functionality1 with respect to their contributions to the
process.
2. To assess the effects/impacts of Decentralisation on food and nutrition security
and access to services at the community level.
3. To identify the key factors enhancing or inhibiting the effectiveness of the
decentralisation process.
4. To examine the support provided to districts by Donors and NSAs for the
Decentralisation process and its effectiveness.
5. To make recommendations on how the Government, Concern Universal (CU) and
other NSAs could realistically support and contribute to improving the
effectiveness of the Decentralisation process on rural livelihoods.
1 Functionality in the context of this study refers to: 1. fulfilling all administrative and legal requirements in
accordance with the Decentralisation act (1998), 2. Following prescribed guidelines on how the structures
operationalise their roles and responsibilities, 3. Peoples‟ perceptions on how effective and efficient the
structures are in undertaking their duties.
17
1.2 Study Approach and Limitations
1.2.1 Study areas
The MLGRD and Concern Universal selected Ntcheu, Dedza, Rumphi, and Mulanje as
study districts in addition to consultations at the national level. Dedza and Ntcheu were
chosen primarily because the Local Development Support Programme (LDSP), a
programme of CU that has funded the study and has a major capacity building / support
component for local governments, is being implemented in the two districts. It was
therefore hoped that a deeper understanding of the decentralisation process in these
districts would help in the design of interventions that would strengthen the positive
elements and mitigate against the negative elements. The addition of two districts,
Rumphi and Mulanje, was to enhance the learning process and make it more
comprehensive so that the understanding of the process, the study findings, and the
recommendations would be drawn out of a wider sample of local governments.
However, this sample does not represent the full range of local authorities in Malawi as it
focuses on rural local authorities only. Therefore the study‟s findings should be viewed
as providing important lessons on the status and functionality of the decentralisation
process in rural councils which may also hold true for many similar types of councils.
The size of the sample and the sampling strategy limits the extent to which the findings
can be used to make generalisations about the functionality of the decentralisation
process for the whole of Malawi.
1.2.2 The Study approach
The review approach was mainly qualitative2 and it focused on extracting the logic and
objectives of decentralisation including legal and policy provisions from official policy
documents and comparing this with practice on the ground. An effort was made to ensure
that views of diverse actors were solicited and analysed. The process thus included semi
structured interviews with key informants and a broad range of stakeholders at the
national, district, and community levels.
At the national level consultations involved sector ministries and other government
departments, donors, NGOs and civil society organisations currently supporting the
process of decentralisation and others that deal with livelihoods issues. At the district
level, discussions were held with District Consultative Committees and District
Executive Committee members. Separate discussions were held with NGOs, CSOs, and
faith based organisations (FBOs) that are supporting the process of decentralisation and
those that have livelihood programmes in each district. At the community level, focus
group discussions (FGDs) were held with Area Development Committees, Village
Development Committees and Area Executive Committees to assess issues of
functionality and effectiveness of the committees in undertaking their prescribed duties as
well the factors that are inhibiting and enhancing the effectiveness of the decentralisation
process. Discussions were also held with farmers clubs, community based organisations
2 Some quantitative data was also collected particularly in finance matters.
18
(CBOs) dealing with issues of livelihoods, other village committees and even
cooperatives where they exist on the potential of the decentralisation process to promote
rural livelihoods.
Focus group discussions were held with community members to gauge their perceptions
of access to services and the functionality and effectiveness of VDC, ADC, and DAs in
undertaking their prescribed duties. Separate groups were organised for men and women
to ensure that both male and female voices were heard. During these meetings, ranking
exercises were done with community members to assess their perceptions of the utility of
local structures that exist in their villages in terms of their impact on the capability to
improve people‟s livelihoods.
In total the team interacted with a total of 595 people of whom, 6% were central
government actors, 1% donors, 11% NGO/CSO representatives, 20% District actors, 23%
sub district officials, 25% community members and 13% chiefs. (See Appendix 2 for a
full list of people met).
In terms of data collection tools, an in-depth interview schedule was developed to
facilitate the key informant interviews and focus group discussions. Two data templates
were also developed. The first one was used to facilitate collection of support data from
donors and NGOs. The other one was used for collection of data on improvements in
access to services and food security, and composition structure of district and sub-district
committees. However, due to poor record keeping and non functionality of the district
data banks in most of the districts it was not possible to get a comprehensive & consistent
set of relevant hard data from the assemblies to supplement qualitative enquiries and
enable comparisons across the four districts. The data that was used to inform the study‟s
judgements was constructed from the Assembly‟s own records, annual reports, and
district socioeconomic profiles but of varying periods.
The qualitative approach adopted in the study also influenced the manner in which the
data was analysed and the writing of the report. In some cases, maps have been used and
in other cases direct quotes have been used to illustrate, enliven, and unravel some of the
findings through the actual voices of the respondents. Graphs have also been used to
convey quantitative data particularly on finance matters.
1.3 Country Context
1.3.1 Geography and population
Malawi is a landlocked country south of the equator in Sub-Saharan Africa. Long and
narrow, the country stretches 901 kilometres north - south covering an area of 118,484
square kilometres. Malawi shares borders with Tanzania to the northeast; Mozambique to
19
the east, south and southwest; and Zambia to the west and northwest. A high plateau
2,500 to 4,500 feet above sea level covers much of the country.3
Administratively the country is divided into three regions: Northern, Central, and
Southern (National Statistical Office, 2001). The regions are subdivided into 28 districts,
six in the Northern region, nine in the Central, and thirteen in the Southern. Of the 28
districts, only four have sections within the districts that are categorised by government
as cities. These are Blantyre, Zomba, Lilongwe, and Mzuzu. Two are municipalities:
Luchenza and Kasungu4. The rest are classified as rural areas.
Malawi has a population of 13.1 million5 . According to the 2008 census about 87%
reside in the rural areas. The rural economy is culture bound, living in communities
where the writ of customary law remains pervasive (Cross and Kutengule, 2001). In the
rural societies, traditional kinship and chieftaincy structures dictate power relations in
society (Poeschke and Chirwa, 1998).
1.3.2 Socioeconomic Context
In 2010, Malawi has been ranked 153 out of 169 countries on the Human Development
Index (UNDP, 2010). This is an improvement from the previous ranking of 160 in 2009.
There has also been an improvement in the proportion of Malawians living below the
poverty line of US$1 per day from 52.4% (2004/05 Integrated Household Survey), to
40% in 2008 (Welfare Monitoring Survey, 2008). According to the 2008 census, life
expectancy at birth is 52.4 years and adult literacy as a percentage of the population over
15 years is 71.8%.
Structurally, Malawi is an agro based economy. Agriculture accounts for more than 80%
of all Malawi‟s export earnings, it is the main source of livelihood for 90% of the
country‟s total population and constitutes the predominant economic activity for almost
half of poor households, particularly in rural areas (Malawi Government, 2002).
Macroeconomic performance has shown a steady progress since 2005. Real GDP grew
from 2.1 percent in 2005 to 7.4 percent in 2007, 9.7 percent in 2008 and 7.6 percent in
2009. A strong recovery in the agriculture sector particularly smallholder crop production
following two successive bumper yields and implementation of the subsidy programme,
strict adherence to policy reforms and favourable donor support have contributed to the
GDP rebound. Even though there have been some improvements in agriculture food
production, GDP trends, and poverty statistics, Malawi still remains one of the least
developed countries in the world. Poverty is more prevalent in the rural than urban areas
and the poor have low levels of access to basic social services and a weak economic
status.
3 Information on the geography of Malawi derives from Hutcheson (1998), Africa South of the Sahara:
Physical and Social Geography Malawi and National Statistical Office (2001), Malawi Demographic and
Health Survey 2000. 4 As part of the 2010 amendments to the Local Government Act, towns no longer exist as local authorities.
They have been merged with district councils and they exist as development centres within the district
council. 5All population figures in this report are based on the last National Census results conducted in 2008 unless
otherwise stated.
20
1.4 The context of decentralisation
Democratic decentralisation reforms in Malawi were introduced in the wake of the
democratic changes that took place in 1994. Malawi‟s new constitution of 1994
introduced multi-party democracy after 30 years of centralised, one-party rule. These
changes saw the collapse of the autocratic one-party state machinery and adoption of a
liberally democratic constitution in 1995 which among other things guarantees a full
range of civil, cultural, political, social and economic rights, democracy, good
governance and rule of law. It opened the way for decentralisation by setting down
powers and functions of democratically elected local governments.
However, it is important to note that the move towards decentralisation in Malawi is part
of an unfolding process that goes back to the country‟s history during the pre-colonial,
colonial period and Dr Banda‟s single party era. Suffice to say that after so many years
of experimenting with decentralisation since the colonial period, the process of
reconsidering decentralisation in light of poverty was triggered by a World Bank
Assessment Report of 1987/88 which concluded that the fight to eradicate poverty in
Malawi could not be won without the direct involvement of people in the development
process (Mbeye, 2003). Furthermore, a joint Government of Malawi and United Nations
Situation Analysis of poverty was undertaken in the early 1990s, in which the question of
an appropriate institutional framework for poverty alleviation arose. Recommendations
arising out of this examination called for a participatory process in which the
government, civil society, and the private sector would organise themselves to explore
grassroots solutions to poverty. The result was that government explicitly adopted
decentralisation as an institutional objective and a strategy for the implementation of the
poverty alleviation efforts, starting with the 1994 Poverty Alleviation Programme.
Decentralisation took on a new verve with the change of regime in 1994 as the new
democratically elected government sought to revamp the machinery of government and
launch its Poverty Alleviation Programme. It featured prominently on the agenda of
government and appropriate amendments were made in the 1994 Republic Constitution
to reflect the government‟s aspirations of decentralisation and local government
authorities.
1.4.1 The Constitution
The 1994 Constitution in section 146 recognises a viable local government system as an
integral building block of a functional democracy, service delivery system, and economic
development. To this end, the 1994 Constitution enshrines decentralisation as a state
objective and chapter xiv of the Constitution clearly strengthens local government
institutions and makes them responsible for welfare provision, the promotion of
democratic institutions and participation, the promotion of infrastructural and economic
development through the formulation and execution of local development plans, and the
representation to central government of local development plans.
21
1.4.2 Local Government Act and Decentralisation Policy (1998)
Appropriate instruments such as the Decentralisation Policy 1998 and Local Government
Act 1998 were promulgated to concretise the fundamental ideals embodied in the 1994
Constitution. The policy provides the framework for establishing the structure of local
government institutions at the district level (Assemblies, now known as Councils), their
composition, powers, functions, committees and financing. It devolves administration
and political authority to the district level; integrates governmental agencies at the district
and local levels into one administrative unit, through the process of institutional
integration, manpower absorption, composite budgeting and provision of funds for the
decentralised services; diverts the centre of implementation responsibilities and transfers
these to the districts; assigns, functions and responsibilities to the various levels of
government; and promotes popular participation in the governance and development of
districts. Thus the policy emphasises elected local government with the twin goals of
poverty reduction and governance, and is based on participation, democratisation,
accountability, and people‟s empowerment.
A Local Government Act which was approved in 1998 supports the implementation of
the decentralisation policy. Both the policy and the Act seek to achieve the following
objectives:
to create a democratic environment and institutions in Malawi for governance and
development at the level that will facilitate the participation of grassroots in
decision-making;
to eliminate dual administration at the district level with the aim of making public
services more efficient, more economic, and cost effective;
to promote accountability and good governance at the local level in order to help
government reduce poverty; and
to mobilise the masses for socioeconomic development at the local level.
1.4.3 The District Development Planning System (2001)
Devolving the planning and implementation of local projects to the local authorities was
widely believed to be a more effective and efficient means of reducing poverty than using
central government structures in Malawi (MLGRD, 2009). Section 9 of the
Decentralisation Policy clearly states that District Councils have been charged with the
overall development of the district and requires the Councils to provide for local people‟s
participation in the formulation and implementation of the District Development Plan
(DDP). It is in this respect that the Policy also requests Councils to form action
committees at area, ward, and village level.
Decentralisation is thus intended to promote participatory planning at sub-district level
and representative democracy at the district level through the election of councillors to
the Councils. For the purpose of facilitating participation and local development
planning, government has put in place a District Development Planning System (DDPS).
Currently conceived as an interface between grassroots communities and the District
Councils, the District Development Planning System offers possibilities for processes of
participatory planning and dialogue between citizens and their local leaders in order to
22
influence project priorities of local government. A District Development Planning
Handbook, developed by the Ministry of Local Government and Rural Development with
UNDP/UNCDF support is the blueprint for local development planning. Revised and
adopted in 20016, the handbook sets out the procedures for the formulation of the District
Development Plan (DDP). It also provides for the creation and roles of basic planning
structures such as the District Executive Committee (DEC) at the district level, the Area
Development and Executive Committee at the Area level and Village Development
Committee at the community level.
The legality of these committees has been a subject of debate since the inception of the
decentralisation process and a number of studies have raised the need to clearly define
and formalise community level structures. There have been suggestions to designate the
ward as the planning unit below the district with VDCs as planning units below the
wards7. However, to-date no action has been taken. As a result, with the passage of time,
and absence of councillors due to postponement of local elections, VDCs and ADCs have
been recognised by District Councils, communities, and many NSAs as the „formal‟
avenues through which communities participate in decision making on issues that affect
their daily lives, for example participating in addressing issues of food insecurity, poor
access to infrastructure, markets and public services. Therefore, even though the Local
Government Act and Decentralisation Policy did not specify the type of committees that
should exist at the sub-district level, the implementation of decentralisation in Malawi
has by default relied and almost „institutionalised‟ these sub-district committees as
avenues that would allow the grassroots communities to connect with the local
government councils.
1.4.4 The Malawi Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (2002)
The Malawi Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (MPRSP), which the Government
launched in 2002, recognized decentralisation as a strategy for facilitating poverty
reduction. The overall goal of the Malawi Poverty Reduction Strategy was to achieve
sustainable poverty reduction through socio-economic and political empowerment of the
poor. The strategy explicitly declared its philosophy as one that saw the poor not as
„helpless victims but as masters of their own destinies‟ through socio-economic and
political empowerment of the poor (Malawi Government, 2002: 1). In this case
decentralisation policy was considered an appropriate strategy because a key feature of
the policy is to promote popular participation of the poor in the process of promoting
socioeconomic development for the purpose of reducing poverty.
1.4.5 The Malawi Economic Growth Strategy (2004) and Malawi
Growth and Development Strategy (2006)
6 The first edition of the handbook was produced and used under the GOM/UNDP 5
th country programme
under the District Focus Approach to decentralisation. 7 See Kutengule et.al (2004), Review of the NDP1; MLGRD (2009), National Decentralisation Programme
II.
23
The Malawi Economic Growth Strategy (MEGS) was adopted in 2004 to complement the
MPRSP in generating high and sustainable broad-based economic growth through
stimulation of investment by focusing on mining, cotton, agro processing and eco-
tourism. The strategy was however short lived and it was superseded by the Malawi
Growth and Development Strategy (MGDS) in 2006. The MGDS, builds on the MEGS
and incorporates lessons learnt from the MPRSP. It currently serves as the overarching
policy framework for reducing poverty for the 2006- 2011 fiscal years and it identifies
local authorities as key to achieving national development and good governance goals in
Malawi. The strategy recognises that broad based economic growth and development
cannot be achieved without good governance. In this context, decentralisation through
local government institutions is regarded as a vehicle for delivering better services to the
Malawian population but also as a means for strengthening democratic institutions and
participation at local level.
1.5 The experience of decentralisation in Malawi since 1998
When the Local Government Act and decentralization policy were approved in 1998, a
number of steps were taken to implement decentralization in Malawi. Some key activities
include the holding of local elections and the establishment of 38 local government
Councils in 20008.
1.5.1 The institutional structure of Local Government
Decentralisation in Malawi has taken the form of devolution of administrative and
political authority to Districts. Devolution is the transfer of authority from the central
government to political actors and institutions at the local level for decision-taking and
the resources needed to carry out such decisions, to implement various sectoral policies,
programmes, and activities. This is contrast to other forms of decentralisation, the most
widely known being deconcentration. Deconcentration is generally understood as the
transfer of power and responsibilities to local branches of the central state, whereby the
central government does not give up any authority but simply relocates its officers to
different levels within the national territory. In this case, local entities act largely as the
local agents of central government, and the entities maintain the same hierarchical level
of accountability to the central ministry or agency rather than to representatives of a local
community.
Decentralisation in the manner in which it is provided for in the Malawi legal and policy
framework, as devolution, is basically a political reform process bordering on the
question of who controls, and has access to, public resources. It entails promoting a
democratic system within which government officials can be held accountable to the
local people that they are supposed to serve.
The Local Government Act in Sections 5 to 11 and the Decentralisation Policy provides
for the creation and duties of the District Council with both a political and administrative
8 Neno and Likoma were later added bringing the number to 40.
24
structure. Thus the local government councils that were created in 2000 had the political
and administrative structure. The political structure is the basic decision making body of
the council and comprises elected councillors as voting members. Until recently,
Traditional authorities, Members of Parliament (MPs) and interest group representatives
were serving as ex officio members of the Council. The 2010 amendments to the Local
Government Act have changed the status of MPs to that of voting members. The Council
is supposed to be headed by a chairperson who is democratically elected from amongst
the councillors during their first meeting. Section 14 of the Local Government Act also
prescribes the creation of other committees such as Finance, Development, Education,
Works, Health and Environment as mechanisms for the councillors to discharge the
functions of the Council.
However, since the term of office of the first councillors expired in 2004, the Councils
have operated without the elected members due to the postponement of local elections
which were supposed to take place in 2005. Instead a make shift institution, the District
Consultative Committee (DCC)9 was instituted to fill the vacuum created by the absence
of councillors.
The administrative structure of the District Council is the implementing arm of the
Council. It is popularly referred to as the Council secretariat and it is responsible for
implementing various sector-programme policies and activities under the leadership of
the District Commissioner or Chief Executive. It comprises of directorates according to
the functions of the council. These include directorates of devolved sectors such as
Health, Agriculture, and Education etc. It also includes directorates such as Finance,
Planning and Development, and Administration. Each Directorate is headed by a
Director, who also serves as the secretary of the requisite Council Committee.
Sector devolution began in earnest in 2005 with sectors of health, education and
agriculture devolving their functions to the districts and sector funds from central
government started flowing directly to the Assemblies. An intergovernmental fiscal
transfer formula to ensure that local governments would have the necessary funds for
service delivery was also designed and adopted by Parliament in 2002. In the same 2005,
District Commissioners were designated as controlling officers with direct responsibility
for management of public funds transferred to the authorities.
At the sub-district level, the Local Government Act in section 14 (3) specifies that the
Councils may establish other committees at ward, area, or village level as it may
determine10
. However, as indicated in section 1.4.3, for the purpose of facilitating
participation and local development planning, the DDPS recognises the DEC, ADC and
AEC and VDC as decentralised sub-district structures.
Figure 1 below illustrates the institutional framework of local government at the district
level. It depicts the connection between the district and sub-district structures discussed
herein.
9 In some districts it is known as District Consultative Forum (DCF).
10 The policy also stipulates that Districts will have powers to create committees at ward, area and village
level for the purpose of facilitating participation of people in the Assembly‟s decision making.
25
Figure 1: Institutional Framework for District Local Government
1.5.2 Relationship between Central Government and District Councils
It is also important to note that the District Councils do not operate in a vacuum. The
Decentralisation Policy provides that the central government should support the Councils
with policy guidance, finance, and technical assistance. In this case, the Ministry of
Local Government and Rural Development has a pivotal role in the management of the
decentralisation programme. It has primary responsibility for providing guidance and
support to the Councils and acting as a link between central government and the councils.
Some of its work is done through specialised local government institutions such as the
National Local Government Finance Committee (NLGFC) and the Local Government
Services Commission (LGSCOM). The NLGFC was established under section 149 of the
Malawi Constitution, and was set up in 2001. NLGFC is responsible for managing and
monitoring the financial relationship (in terms of both recurrent and development
finance) between central and Local Government, among the Assemblies, and for
supporting and monitoring the financial performance of Assemblies. The LGSCOM was
also established under the Malawi Constitution. The previous Local Government Act
empowered LGSCOM to appoint Council employees from position of Director up to
Chief Executive including recruitment, promotion, and discipline of Council personnel.
However, the 2010 Local Government Act amendments have changed the provisions
26
regarding recruitment of District Commissioners. District Commissioners will now be
appointed by the Minister of Local Government and Rural Development.
The Decentralisation Policy also assigns line (sector) ministries the responsibility for
policy formulation, policy enforcement, and inspectorate, establishment of standards,
training and curriculum development for their respective departments at the district level.
The Office of the President and Cabinet (OPC) provides overall guidance to the
decentralisation process through the Cabinet Committee on Local Government and Rural
Transformation. The Cabinet Committee on Local Government and Rural Transformation
(CCLGRT) is the main policy making body whose terms of reference include Local
Government, devolution, and the administration of traditional authorities. The Committee
has 11 members nominated by the President.
Another policy level coordinating committee is the Inter-ministerial Technical
Committee on Decentralisation (IMTCD). This Committee is composed of technical
experts from all devolving sectors and the Office of the President and Cabinet, Ministries
of Local Government and Rural Development, Finance, Economic Planning and
Development. The IMTCD on Decentralisation is responsible for providing technical
support to decentralisation process. This Committee reports to the Cabinet Committee on
Decentralisation and Rural Transformation through the MLGRD. The Committee is
chaired by the Secretary for Local Government in the MLGRD.
1.5.3 The National Decentralisation Programme I (NDPI: 2001-2004)
After the adoption of the policy and approval of the Local Government Act, the first
National Decentralization Programme was developed in 2001 as a framework for the
implementation of the policy for the period 2001-2004. The programme focused on seven
components, namely: Legal Reforms, Institutional Development and Capacity Building,
Building a Democratic Culture, Fiscal Decentralisation, Accounting and Financial
Management, Sector Devolution, Local Development Planning and Financing
Mechanisms. The Launch of the NDPI provided an opportunity for mobilisation of
resources for the decentralisation process and quite a number of donors were keen on
supporting decentralisation. For example, the 2004 NDPI review noted that at the donor
round table conference which took place in 2001; there were 17 representatives of
development partners and 73 national and international civil society organisations.
However, by 2004 the key donors with strong support for decentralisation were GTZ,
UNDP/UNDCF, NORAD and ADB and they supported the implementation of various
components of the decentralisation identified in NDPI.
A review of NDP I that took place in 2004 found substantial commitment to
decentralisation within the district councils, but reluctance from a number of national
ministries to devolve functions to the district level. Other challenges that were noted
include ineffective linkages between decentralization policy and other public policy
reforms, persistent power struggles and conflicts of roles between elected members such
as Members of Parliament, Councillors and Traditional Authorities; weak district
institutional capacity, high turnover of key staff like accountants, and other specialists,
ineffective institutional coordination arrangements, ineffective participation of the local
27
communities due to lack of information, knowledge and skills, and inadequate financial
resources among others (Kutengule et. al, 2004)11
. The review made a large number of
recommendations for NDP II, but identified the following four as the key ones: 1) further
sector devolution and the need for political incentives and strong drivers of change for the
decentralisation process 2) institutional development and capacity building, 3) fiscal
devolution and financial management, and 4) local development planning and financing
mechanisms.
1.5.3 The National Decentralisation Programme II (NDPII: 2005-2009)
NDP II, a successor programme to NDP I was designed with full consideration of the
lessons and challenges identified in the 2004 review of NDPI to guide implementation of
the decentralisation process from 2005-2009. However, it was not officially brought to a
donor‟s round table meeting in order to solicit funding support as the postponement of
Local Government Elections made it difficult for the MLGRD to justify the programme
to the development partners (Ministry of Local Government and Rural Development
2009: 6). The NDP II has since been revised and it is now focusing on the period 2008-
2013. It seeks to provide a coherent framework for the implementation of decentralisation
and also serves as a tool for coordinating donor support towards the decentralisation
process.
Even though NDP II was not officially launched there have been a number of donors and
NGOs that have continued to support the implementation of decentralisation with a
variety of programmes at various levels and dealing with different sectors. Some of the
programmes have sought to strengthen the capacity of the district councils at various
levels including formal participatory planning structures of District Assemblies. Others
have built parallel structures to facilitate the participation of grassroots and enhance
accountability at the local level. Others have focused on developing training materials
and manuals and improving the revenue generation and utilisation of aspects of local
assemblies. Full details of the support by donors are provided in section 2.5 in chapter 2.
There have also been some developments at the national level which have had a bearing
on the effectiveness and functionality of the decentralisation process in Malawi. A
notable aspect has been an increase in the number of sectors transferring functions to the
districts. By 2008, the number of sectors that devolved their functions to local authorities
had increased from 3 to 9.12
There has also been an increased level of central government
recurrent transfers to the assemblies and the establishment of the Local Development
Fund and Constituency Development Fund to provide development funding to local
assemblies. Recently, there have also been some developments such as the amendments
to the Local Government Act (1998) in 2010, the introduction of Public Service Charters
programme and the formation of Institutional Integrity Committees (IIC) to combat
corruption among others. How are these initiatives likely to affect the functionality of the
district and community structures and the decentralisation process? Figure 2 below
11
For a good discussion of the status of decentralisation up to 2004 see the Review of NDP1, 2004. 12
These include Health, agriculture, education, gender, housing, trade, water, environment and forestry.
28
illustrates the key developments in the history and implementation of democratic
decentralisation in Malawi.
Figure 2: Key Events in the Malawi Decentralisation Process
It is therefore important to understand and interpret the findings of this review in light of
the contextual and background information that has been presented. The effectiveness
and functionality of decentralisation can best be understood only within the social,
economic, and political context in which it is anchored.
29
CHAPTER TWO
Study Findings
This chapter presents the main findings of the study and they are organised according to
the specific objectives of the study. The findings are based on the field work conducted in
the four districts, national consultations, and analysis of Assembly records and other
reports. In terms of timeline, the study focuses on the period 2005- 2009 as the most
realistic five year period because of two reasons: sector devolution accompanied by fiscal
decentralisation started in earnest in 2005 and a full national review of the national
decentralisation process took place in 2004. Even though this review is not an assessment
of the whole decentralisation process as was the case with the 2004 review, it is still
important to look at the 4 study districts within this period.
2.0 Establishment and functionality of district and community
structures
This objective sought to establish the extent to which district and community structures
are established in line with the Act and are functional with respect to their contribution to
the process of decentralisation. Functionality in the context of this study refers to: (a)
fulfilling all administrative and legal requirements in accordance with the
Decentralisation policy and Local Government act (1998), (b) Following prescribed
guidelines on how the structures operationalise their roles and responsibilities, (c)
Peoples‟ perceptions on how effective and efficient the structures are in undertaking their
duties. The structures under discussion here include the District Assembly and its
committees, the District Executive Committee, the Area Development Committee, the
Area Executive Committee and the Village Development Committee.
2.1 The District Council
2.1.1 The Political decision making structure
As indicated in section 1.5.1, due to the postponement of local government elections, the
political body of councillors and its committees does not exist. Instead a make shift
institution called District Consultative Committee/ Forum (DCC/DCF)13
. The DCC/DCF
exists with no legal mandate for decision making at the District level. The DCC cannot
approve or enforce bye-laws that are outdated, cannot sanction the Council to borrow
money because section 15 (1) of the Local Government Act states that the Council shall
not delegate its powers to borrow money, make by-laws and standing orders, and levy a
fate.
The study found that the actual composition of the DCC/DCF also varies from district to
district. For example, in Ntcheu, Dedza and Mulanje membership is limited to Traditional
Authorities (TAs), MPs, District heads of directorates and representatives of interest
13
The study noted that different Councils employ different terms for this committee.
30
groups. For Rumphi, the composition is broader & more inclusive. Apart from senior
chiefs, MPs, District Heads of directorates and representatives of interest groups, the
DCC in Rumphi also includes leaders of all political parties represented in the district,
representatives of various religious faiths and chairperson of the closest Area
Development Committee. The study noted that the inclusive nature of the DCC in
Rumphi facilitated a more open and rich discussion during meetings, hence improved
decision making than is the case in the other districts.
The composition of the DCC generally compromises the independence of this structure as
a decision making and oversight body because the presence of heads of Council
directorates creates a fusion of legislative and executive functions in one institution with
limited checks and balances. In the process corporate governance issues are
compromised.
Frequency of meetings varies from district to district. For some districts, meetings are
done quarterly as provided for in Council guidelines, but for many districts meetings are
done on an ad hoc basis depending on what information the Council staff members want
to share with the representatives. One key informant indicated that, „when we had
councillors we used to meet regularly and consistently. Now we are only invited when an
NGO or another organisation wants to have a meeting with us like the way you have
come. When we meet we do not discuss Council finances and how the Council is
running‟.14
Similar sentiments were expressed in almost all the districts visited. In Dedza
members expressed an understanding that, „our meetings are generally briefings and not
consultative. Usually we are not told how funds are spent. Where financial reports are
circulated, they are handed down during the meeting and we have no time to scrutinise
them thoroughly‟.15
This implies that generally meetings of DCC serve mainly as
information sharing forums and decision making on urgent limited matters. There is
limited attention to strategic direction of the Assembly in terms of examining the
performance of the District Councils, and playing financial oversight roles. This is
compounded by the absence of Council committees such as Finance, which had the
mandate of scrutinising issues in greater detail and providing recommendations to the full
council meeting. Previous studies have shown that even though the performance of
councillors in many districts was not as expected due to teething problems, in some
districts, Councillors closely scrutinised and monitored the uses of resources, demanded
reports, and officers faced pressure to work harder than before16
.
In all districts, the study found that MPs rarely attended Council meetings except where
they had some interests e.g. development projects. With the exception of Rumphi where
the membership was more inclusive, the main actors in the other districts remained
chiefs, NGOs and District Executive Heads. When MPs attend, the study noted
tendencies of senior MPs to override decisions of the DCC. The 2004 review of the NDPI
also noted that the decentralisation process was being pursued in an environment
characterised by the persistent influence and power struggle between elected members of
14
DCC Meeting, Ntcheu District. 15
DCC Meeting, Dedza District. 16
See Chiweza (2007), Democracy, Decentralisation, and Development in Malawi.
31
Local Governments, Members of Parliament and Traditional Authorities. Generally, the
respondents were of the view that unless councillors and communities are empowered to
play their roles effectively at the district level power struggles are likely to persist given
the recent amendments to the Local Government Act which have extended council voting
powers to MPs.
Due to the factors outlined above, a general perception persists amongst people
interviewed for this study that the DCC is toothless in ensuring efficient, effective and
accountable operations of the Councils.
2.1.2 The District administrative structure
According to section 2 of the policy, decentralisation in Malawi diverts the centre of
implementation responsibilities and transfers these to the districts. The essence is to have
governmental agencies at the district and local levels integrated into one administrative
unit, through the process of institutional integration, manpower absorption, composite
budgeting and provision of funds for the decentralised services. The devolved functions
and responsibilities assigned to the District Councils should lead ultimately to devolution
of both staff and budgets.
However, the study noted that the line agencies have not fully integrated into one
administrative unit with composite budgeting due to the incomplete nature of the sector
devolution process. For example, in key sectors such as agriculture, health, and education
it is only the ORT budget that has been devolved to the districts and funds for this flow
directly to the districts. Even within the ORT itself, there are also some variations. For
example, in the education sector, procurement of teaching and learning materials is done
by the Ministry of Education. Even though the schools themselves have some budget for
local smaller purchases, much of the procurement on teaching and learning is still being
done centrally. In the Health sector, the budget for drugs is dictated by the central
ministry even though the purchase of drugs has been devolved to the districts. Sector
development budgets are still centralized and many development projects are budgeted
and managed by the centre and the districts are used as implementation points. The study
noted that the Development Section of Ministry of Economic Planning and Development
has started looking at the development side by developing local Public Sector Investment
Programme. If appropriately coordinated, this initiative is likely to improve the
coordination and implementation of the Council development budgets
In addition, sectors have plans at the District level (like the Health Implementation Plan,
District Education Plan) that cover both development and recurrent needs of the sector.
These sector plans are developed through parallel processes geared towards meeting the
sector standards and targets, although the district staff in the respective sectors do
indicate that these plans feed into the District Development Plan.
Further, some key functions such as recruitment, payroll management, discipline,
training, performance management, and promotions for sector staff are still centralised.
In many cases decisions on sector staff transfers are done centrally without the
32
knowledge of the District Commissioner who is supposed to be the head of the
administration unit. There are some sector district activities that are dictated by central
sectors. As a result, even though the sector departments and the Council secretariat are
working together and there is a lot of cooperation and sharing of resources in the
implementation of district level activities, full integration has not been achieved. The
sectors still operate as „mini units‟ within the District Council, and sector staff members
account to District Commissioner, mainly for the ORT issues, but continue to account
vertically to their sector ministries for substantive matters such as recruitment, inspection,
promotions, training, redeployments and disciplining. Problems of unity of command
and dual accountability still persist in the District Councils.
a) Staffing issues Generally the 4 councils studied had key technical and managerial staff on the ground.
These included sector heads and technical staff in key sectors such as Agriculture,
Health, Education, the District Commissioner, Director of Planning, Director of Finance
and Monitoring and Evaluation Officer even though most were serving in an acting
capacity.
The study also noted that while decentralisation had improved the numbers and technical
capacity of sector staff such as departmental heads and other technical staff at the district
level, the capacity of the councils to effectively deliver on decentralised functions was
constrained by staffing shortages at the point of action, that is, below the district.
Information collected from the district socioeconomic profiles and interviews indicated
that this problem relates to agriculture extension workers (AEDOs), primary education
advisors (PEA) and primary health assistants (PHA). The problem is more pronounced in
the Agriculture sector in as much as it was a problem in Health and Education. For
example, in Rumphi district out of 55 EPA sections there are 43 Agricultural Extension
Development Officers (AEDOs). The extension worker to farmer ratio is 1: 1680
exceeding the recommended ratio of 1 extension worker to 500 farmers17
. In Ntcheu out
of 107 EPA sections, there are 42 AEDOs and the extension worker to farmer ratio is 1:
3500. In Dedza, out of 169 EPA sections, there are 85 AEDOs and the extension worker
to farmer ratio is 1: 2500. This problem was widely acknowledged throughout the study‟s
consultations with the Ministry of Agriculture, district and sub district staff and the
communities in the four districts.
Related to this is a problem of incentives for the extension workers. The study found that
over 50% of the AEDOs are not based in the villages as per the logic of new demand
driven extension service policy due to shortage of houses and hostility of the environment
in which they operate. Lack of transport also affects the mobility of AEDOs as most of
them do not have bicycles which the Council is supposed to provide. Where the staff
members have personal bicycles the Council provides an allowance of MK
180.00/month- US$1.2/ month to cater for wear and tear. Where the council has
motorcycles, the extension workers are provided with fuel depending on availability of
funds. In the districts visited the AEDOs indicated that fuel is rarely provided from the
Council to enable them reach the number of farming families that have to be served.
17
This is a term that is referring to farming families not individual farmers.
33
They indicated that the usual excuse provided by their departments is limited budget for
such activities.
These problems taken together severely affect the provision and delivery of agriculture
extension services in many areas thereby contributing to low yields and continued
adoption of inefficient farming technologies (Rumphi SEP, 2009). However, in areas
where NGOs operate and the NGO is implementing projects that require the services of
the AEDOs, the quality of extension service is reported by the communities to be high
because the NGOs offer them incentives such as allowances and fuel for their mobility.
This behaviour has compounded the already precarious staffing situation of the Councils
in the sense that most of the extension would concentrate their energies on project work
at the expense of the Councils day to day activities. The study noted that this behaviour
compromised the commitment of the extension workers towards Council activities and
also contributed towards inequitable access to extension services in favour of those areas
that are served by NGOs.
The other key problem the study noted relates to the quality and technical capacity of
staff in the Finance directorate due to inability of the Councils to attract and retain
qualified and competent staff. This was evidenced by poor record keeping, and inability
by many officers to correctly produce final accounts. Section 51 (1) of the Local
Government Act requires all councils to keep proper books of accounts and other records
and to balance their accounts for each year and produce statements of final accounts
within six months from the end of each financial year. The Integrated Financial
Management Information System (IFMIS) that government introduced to improve
financial management and control has not yet been rolled out to District Councils in full.
As such the Councils are still using manual systems in processing financial transactions.
Our consultations revealed that in many cases the existing finance staff experienced
challenges with the preparation of financial statements. For example, results of the audit
that was coordinated by the National Audit Office for the accounts for the years ending
2006, 2007 and 2008, showed that out of a total of 93 audit opinions for 39 District
Councils, 16% (15) had adverse opinions due to disagreements on accounting principles
used in the preparation of the financial statements, 75% (70) had disclaimers of opinion
issued due to lack of documentation to substantiate figures in financial statements while
the rest were qualified opinions.
Efforts to recruit retired civil servants by the MLGRD have not yielded much fruit and
their performance has not been as expected, partly due to limited induction into local
government finance management and inability of the recruited staff to adapt to changing
needs and systems of local authorities. Further efforts are being made by the MLGRD to
beef up the capacity of the Finance Directorate in the councils by recruiting graduates
from University. Recently, the office of the Accountant General has instituted an
instruction to harmonise the District finance office directorate so that all finance staff
from the sectors are pulled together and work under one roof under the Director of
Finance. This is likely to boost the capacity of the directorate since their technical
capacities and skills will complement each other. There is also an initiative to recruit
finance advisers in selected local authorities with support from USAID (see appendix 3).
34
However, the question of sustainability of these initiatives still remains. The other
challenge is to ensure that the advisers do not end up focusing on day to day operations
and that concrete mechanisms of ensuring skills transfer to Council staff are put in place.
Another challenge the study noted in most of the councils visited relates to issues of
strategic transformational leadership in terms of getting the council to operate as a
coordinated team with a shared vision of what the Assembly has to achieve, and
providing direction to get officers to do what they are supposed at a particular point in
time. This is generally lacking in most Assemblies, as a result a lot of activities and
meetings appear to be ad hoc, uncoordinated, and unplanned. Team building activities
that were facilitated by GTZ to deal with some of these problems appear to have had
limited impact due to frequent transfers of staff.
b) Financial Capacity
Section 10 of the decentralisation policy provides for a variety of revenue sources. These
include central government transfers, locally generated revenues and ceded revenues.
Locally generated revenues are of critical importance for local accountability, ownership,
sustainability, and viability of the entire system of decentralisation. The Act and the
policy also allow District Councils to borrow and receive assistance from non-
governmental organisations.18
Central government transfers are mainly in the form of
General Resource Fund (GRF) which represents the unconditional grant, sector funds
which represent conditional grants to Councils for devolved sectors, and Constituency
Development Fund (CDF), a fund established in the 2006/2007 fiscal year to cater for
immediate short term projects. Other transfers include chiefs‟ honorarium and salary
subsidy for staff paid by the central government.
An analysis of financial data over the period 2004- 2009 as noted from figures 3 to 6
below shows that Council revenues are going up. This is as a result of an increase in
sector recurrent transfers to the Councils but they are ring fenced and are managed by the
relevant sector department concerned.
Figure 3: Revenue trends Dedza
18
This includes all NSAs
35
Source: compiled from NLGFC records and budget handbooks.
Figure 3 shows that in Dedza, the share of sector transfers as a proportion of all Council
revenues has increased from 21% in 2004/05 to 92% 2008/09. However, a good
proportion of the funds are for the sectors of health, agriculture, and education.
Figure 4: Revenue trends Mulanje
Source: compiled from NLGFC records and budget handbooks.
The same trend can be observed in Mulanje as shown in figure 4. The share of sector
transfers as a proportion of all Council revenues has increased from 12% in 2004/05 to
93% 2008/09. At the same time the level of GRF and locally generated revenues is
negligible suggesting that the Assembly is far from becoming autonomous in financial
terms.
Figure 5: Revenue Trends Ntcheu
36
Source: compiled from NLGFC records and budget handbooks.
A similar observation can be made for Ntcheu and Rumphi. In Ntcheu, figure 5 shows
that the share of sector transfers as a proportion of all Council revenues has increased
from 27% in 2004/05 to 92% 2008/09 while in Rumphi figure 6 shows that the share of
sector transfers as a proportion of all Council revenues has increased from 32% in
2004/05 to 92% 2008/09.
Figure 6: Revenue trends: Rumphi
Source: compiled from NLGFC records and budget handbooks
On the whole, the trends show that in all districts, GRF and locally generated revenues do
not seem to be increasing that much and constitute a very small proportion of all Council
revenues. In case of the GRF, the decentralisation policy requires that government should
transfer 5% of net central government revenues to local authorities as discretionary
financing for the local authorities. Government is not meeting the commitment in the
Decentralisation policy and over the years these transfers have been fluctuating but they
have been much less than 5%. For the most part it has been less than 1%.
With respect to locally generated revenues it is important to highlight that Rumphi,
Dedza, and Ntcheu districts have been getting support from GTZ in local revenue
mobilisation. In particular, the districts were supported to develop district strategic plans
for revenue enhancement. Despite this initiative, local revenues have not significantly
increased over the period of the study.
The figures also show that donor support was visible up to the 2006/07 financial year.
This is very much related to support provide to districts for district investments through
the District Development Fund (DDF) with support from UNDP/UNCDF, ADB, and
NORAD. The programme came to an end in 2007. After that there has not been any
significant injection to the districts for development financing and the DDF has
transformed into the current LDF.
37
In terms of expenditure, the GRF and locally generated revenues are mainly used for the
Council‟s secretariat operational activities and payment of salaries to staff members that
are employed directly by the District Council. Sectoral transfers are mainly for recurrent
activities of the sector. They are conditional transfers and as such they cannot be used at
the discretion of the Council to deal with other problems other than for the earmarked
sector. According to Council budgets analysed, key expenses include purchase of drugs
and medical supplies for the hospitals, internal travel and motor vehicle running, office
supplies and services, public utilities and formation and maintenance of council capital
assets. Agriculture inputs consume very little of the Council‟s budget. Similarly, very
little or nothing is allocated for development activities, training, supervision, and
monitoring of sub district activities from the Council revenues. This explains why there
is limited planned monitoring and supervision of sub-district structures and development
activities by District Council staff even though the total amount of funds flowing to the
districts shows an upward trend. It also explains why there is little attention to service
delivery itself and investment in rural livelihood activities.
With respect to development financing, the development budget for many sectors has not
yet been devolved as many development activities, financed by a variety of donors, are
still coordinated from the sector ministries. However, since the 2006/07 financial year,
government has been transferring some development financing to the District Councils in
the name of Constituency Development Fund (CDF). The CDF provides MPs and their
constituents communities with the opportunity to make choices and implement projects
that maximise their welfare in line with their needs and preferences (MLGRD,
2006).19
The projects are supposed to be identified by the communities and the MP. The
MP is also responsible for day to day monitoring of the CDF projects.
In practical terms, the study noted that there is little or no community involvement in the
selection of CDF projects. In all the districts visited (except for one constituency) its
operations are facilitated by the MP in conjunction with constituency governor and party
structures. The CDF also bypasses planning structures at the local level namely the VDC,
ADC and the entire District Development Planning system. As a result, CDF decision
making does not benefit from community priorities already expressed in the Village
Action Plans (VAP) or even the DDP. This is not surprising because the CDF guidelines
do not stipulate the nature of mechanisms for ensuring grassroots participation and
accountability of the MP to the constituency. These are the issues that are central to the
decentralisation process in Malawi.
In the communities visited there is generally a lot of resentment towards the CDF and is
widely perceived by communities, chiefs, and other actors as not promoting participatory
decentralised decision making but only serving the needs and partisan interests of the MP
and loyal party members and not the entire community. For example, during one meeting
in Ntcheu, participants indicated that „people do not take part in CDF. It rests on the
prerogatives of one person. It is a political fund‟.20
In Dedza during a meeting with
chiefs, it was indicated that, the MP does not come here and there is no link between the
19
This is clearly stated in the CDF guidelines 20
DCC meeting, Ntcheu district
38
CDF and the ADC. We do not interact with him‟.21
In Mulanje VDC members expressed
an understanding that‟ even though we have LDF and CDF, the CDF does not follow
decentralisation procedures. The MP decides what he wants and most of the times the
CDF projects do not meet the needs of the people but they are used as a campaign tool.
What was needed was for him to come to the people and ask them their needs‟.22
Thus in
its current form the CDF funding is not discretionary to the Councils or the communities
and it does not enhance the implementation of the DDP and the decentralisation process.
Council officers also indicated that they find it difficult to provide advice on the
operations of CDF because it is considered a political fund.
While government is implementing CDF, it has also begun to implement the Local
Development Fund (LDF) since March 2009. According to a government position paper
on LDF, government established the Local Development Fund as a nationwide,
standardise, transparent, and discretionary development financing mechanism for local
governments. Unlike the CDF, the LDF explicitly indicates that the District Councils will
access financing for the LDF on the basis of the Assembly‟s approved project
submissions as contained in the District Development Plans. The District Development
Plan constitutes an important local development framework for effective implementation
and monitoring of development activities, and utilization of funds in Councils.
Therefore if you compare the two funding modalities, the LDF provides potential as a
discretionary fund for development financing for the Assemblies but it is still in its early
stages and some funding has currently been earmarked for particular projects. For
example, World Bank support towards the teachers houses project and the ADB support
towards the Local Economic Project. The LDF decision making process has potential to
act as a rallying point for the various district players such as MPs, councillors, chiefs, and
communities to work together and cooperate in the determination of local level priorities.
If District Councils can be seen to be delivering on their mandates and people‟s
development priorities, decentralisation holds the potential of enhancing the legitimacy of
the state in the eyes of many rural citizens. On the other hand, the CDF in the manner in
which it is currently being operationalised is creating a power centre for one dominant
actor to consolidate and showcase his/her status and influence at the local level. In the
districts and areas visited, the fund is doing the opposite in the sense that it is creating
negative perceptions about both the state and the actors. It also holds the potential of
heightening conflicts and antagonism at the local level with councillors once they are
elected.
On the overall, district key informants were generally of the view that the championing of
LDF and CDF at the same time demonstrates some kind of policy incoherence because
by doing the government is promoting parallel institutions on district development
financing and it is running counter to government‟s proclaimed initiative of creating a
standardised and transparent development financing mechanism for local government. It
is important for government to consider harmonising these funding modalities.
21
Meeting with chiefs, Dedza district 22
GVDC meeting, T/A Njema, Mulanje district.
39
c) Monitoring and Evaluation Capacity
Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) officers and district M&E teams exist in all the 4
districts. However, the teams are not fully functional because of limited funding for M&E
and some of the members have other portfolios and they devote little time to M&E
activities.
In all the districts visited, data banks created for the purpose of facilitating easy access of
data do not seem to function as envisaged. The study also noted that data collection and
submission is event driven, particularly when requested by the centre. Most of the sectors
and NGOs do not provide data until they have been reminded a number of times by the
data entry clerks or there is a need for data. There is a tendency by many actors to
provide verbal reports during DEC meetings. As a result critical up-to date information to
facilitate decision making is not readily available and there appears to be limited use of
M&E results locally to improve on Council activities.
2.1.3 District Executive Committee (DEC)
This is a technical advisory body of the Council and is meant to facilitate the process of
District Development Planning process and implementation of the District Development
Plan. Formally it is comprised of heads of council directorates, NGOs, and other
government institutions in the District.
According to the District Development Planning handbook, the functions of DEC include
assisting in the identification, prioritisation and preliminary feasibility studies of the
community needs, undertaking technical appraisal of project proposals, train VDC, AEC,
ADC in technical, leadership and management skills, acting as a technical advisory body
on local development, advising the District Council on sectoral policies and programmes
and assisting in soliciting funds from local and external sources.
In many districts, except a few, DEC meets frequently but largely on an ad hoc basis-
Usually on request from organisations wishing to disseminate some information or work
in the district. Council staff members consider these meetings important as they facilitate
information sharing and coordination of activities at the district level.
In all cases, there are very limited scheduled meetings that are planned to discuss and
examine the performance of Council development activities and DEC plays a limited role
in monitoring and supervising sub-district structures, projects, and NGO activities due to
limited funding. While there is a lot of reporting at DEC meetings, reporting systems and
indicators of change are not harmonized, there is limited joint monitoring and supervision
of NGO projects in order to ensure quality control and track progress.
Most DEC members do not have copies of the most basic district development guide
documents; District Development Plan (DDP) and Socio-Economic Profile (SEP), either
because they are sold out or they get misplaced overtime.
40
Further, in all districts visited there was no evidence of DEC‟s role in assisting in
soliciting funds from local and external sources. As district technocrats with a variety of
skills, there is great potential for DEC members to cooperate and write proposals to
interested actors. This would go a long way in assisting the Councils to get some funds
for many of the activities they are not able to finance through the Council budget.
2.2 Functionality of Sub district structures: ADC, AEC and VDC
These committees are part of the District Development Planning System, created to
facilitate decentralised bottom up planning with the aim of reducing poverty.23
The
planning system is premised on four main principles: district focussed, people centred,
bottom up, and participatory.
a) Village and Area Development Committees.
According to the District Development Planning handbook (2001), the VDC is a
representative body from a group or group of villages charged with the responsibility of
facilitating planning and development at the grassroots: The functions of the VDC are to:
(1) coordinate community-based issues with the ADC and DEC and communicate
messages from the ADC and DEC to the communities; (2) encourage and mobilize
community resources for popular participation in self-help activities; (3) assist in
identifying, prioritizing, and preparing community needs and submit the same to the
ADC; (4) supervise, monitor, and evaluate the implementation of development activities
in the villages; (5) solicit external funding for prioritized community-based projects; (6)
initiate locally funded self-help activities; (7) and report to the Group Village Headman
(GVH) all activities and discussions of the committee. According to the handbook the
committee comprises of elected member from each village within the VDC, ward
representatives, four women representatives nominated by people within the VDC and
elected extension worker representative. The handbook also states that a Group Village
Head cannot chair a VDC but supervises the VDC and all other committees within his/her
jurisdiction. The term of office is 3 years.
According to the same guidelines, The ADC is a representative body of VDCs under the
jurisdiction of a Traditional Authority (T/A): The ADC has the responsibility of (1) Organizing
monthly general meetings of the ADC in liaison with the relevant VDCs; (2) assisting in the
identification, prioritisation, and preparation of community needs which encompass more
than one VDC and submitting them to the DEC; (3) supervising, monitoring, and
evaluating the implementation of projects at TA level, (4) mobilizing community
resources and soliciting funds, and (5) receiving, prioritizing, and preparing project
proposals from VDCs for submission to the DEC. The ADC comprises of VDC
chairperson and Vice Chairperson, ward representatives, representatives of religious
faith, representatives of youth and women groups in the area, representatives from the
business community and chairperson of AEC. The guidelines also stipulate that the T/A
23
For a good understanding of their composition, mandates and roles see The District Development
Planning Handbook for District Assemblies, 2001
41
should not chair the ADC but supervises it and all other committees. The term of office is
3 years.
Box1: Case Study of Fair NGO in Rumphi District
The study noted that these committees are recognised and accepted by communities as
key bodies that should facilitate decentralised planning and development decision
Empowering decentralized structures - The experience of Fair in Rumphi FAIR is an NGO that runs a Food Security Project in Rumphi using decentralized structures Through the DADO,
the program is run in four EPAs namely Chiweta, Bolero, Mhuju and Katowo. Right from its inception, the
program decided to utilize VDCs and ADCs as channels for delivering the projects output. Before rolling out
interventions, FAIR consulted 37 VDCs in the four EPAs in order to identify key livelihoods issues facing the
communities. The programme started with 14 VDCs in 2008 and latter increased to 26 VDCs in 2009. The VDCs
have been trained in Farmers rights, gender, women empowerment advocacy and financial management.
Why Use VDCs and ADCs?
FAIR observed that most NGO structures at community level were not sustainable once the NGO had phased out
operations. As such the development projects delivered were not being owned by communities. Hence the NGO
felt the best way was to use already existing government-initiated structures which would still remain with the
communities after the NGO‟s departure.
Potential for Decentralized Structures
FAIR provides funds to VDCs to be loaned to farmer clubs and cooperatives within the VDCs. Each VDC has
formed a finance sub-committee, have opened an account with NBS Bank (Rumphi) and are managing the funds
as a revolving fund. FAIR facilitated financial management and record keeping trainings in order to prepare the
VDCs for administering the funds. But each VDC makes its own rules for governing the fund and identifies
beneficiary clubs on its own. The experience so far has been that when clubs get loans they are more afraid of the
VDC than they are of FAIR because it is the VDC that follows up on loan repayment and calls them to account.
As such most groups do not default. The following merits have been noted in the programme:
1. Increased Accountability: At the end of every project year, FAIR invites all VDCs and ADCs to a
financial reconciliation meeting where FAIR reports the value of items it has given each VDC. Using
their financial records, VDCs verify this information and where anomalies exist, they reconcile with the
NGO. This has been seen as an empowering strategy.
2. Strong VDCs in areas where FAIR is working: the VDCs can even take FAIR to task wherever they feel
the NGO has missed procedures. For instance, the Project Coordinator argued that at one point a treadle
pump was delivered directly to a farmers club in the absence of the VDC. But the VDC queried the
organization arguing that the organization should have routed the treadle pump through the VDC, or at
least the VDC should have been called to witness the delivery of the item.
3. Good exit strategy: the approach gives NGOs a good strategy for phasing out projects with a guarantee of
community ownership and sustainability
However, a number of challenges exist:
1. Trainings: the VDCs have not been trained on their roles and functions but rather they have been trained
on project specific aspects.
2. Delays by the District Council to facilitate formation of new VDCs and ADCs: the VDCs and ADCs term
of office expired last year and this has created a crisis of legitimacy as communities are not taking
VDCs seriously due to their expired mandate. This is frustrating VDCs‟ efforts to recover loans
for the revolving fund hence jeopardizing the scheme.
42
making. They are also recognised by NGOs working in some districts as key vehicles for
the implementation of their programmes. The case of Fair, an NGO in Rumphi district
illustrates this point. In the FAIR case study, even though the VDCs had not been trained
on their prescribed roles and functions but on project specific aspects, it still illustrates
the potential that these existing structures hold to making decisions that meet the needs of
the people and holding other leaders and duty bearers accountable. This is an example of
a case where given proper supervision and monitoring; the Council would have detected
the gaps in the training and would have reoriented the training in such a manner that the
issue of decentralisation and the primary roles of the VDC are given pre-eminence
besides project specific topics.
Another example is that of World Vision International (WVI). According to the officers
interviewed, WVI had been using parallel structures comprising of Area Development
Programme Committees at the area level, and Commitment Area Committees at the
village level. WVI is now phasing out this system in favour of the ADCs and VDCs. The
organisation noted that sustainability of their structures and ownership of projects has
been a problem. They observed that in their impact areas, it has been the WVI
committees that were heavily involved while the rest of the community did not feel party
to the projects. Sometimes this was creating tension with other poorly resourced village
committees. As such it has been difficult for WVI to successfully hand over its projects to
local people hence prompting a change in policy towards use of VDCs and ADCs.
However, the study noted that even though there is general recognition of such
committees, with the exception of Rumphi, most ADC & VDC structures in the districts
visited had not been operational for quite a long period of time and in some cases the
required 3 year term of office had expired.
In terms of membership, ADCs and VDCs show great variation across districts and even
within the same district. In NGO impact areas, the study noted that there was an effort to
ensure that the composition should follow the rules and guidelines prescribed in the
handbook. In other places with no NGO presence, except for Rumphi, VDC/ADC
members were appointed by the chiefs and in others villages the communities selected
the representatives through an open meeting. In such places it was common to find chiefs
as members and chairs of VDCs and ADCs. This was the case in many parts of Ntcheu
and Dedza where there were no NGOs such as CU and WVI operating. In these places,
there was a general perception among traditional leaders that being a chair of a
development committee is a position of authority than being an overseer or supervisor.
What a supervisor or overseer means was less clear to many traditional leaders and they
indicated that it is a constant source of confusion.
A different scenario was evident in Mulanje and Rumphi. In these districts, particularly
the areas visited, the committees were chaired by persons elected by community
members. A summary example of ADC variations in the areas visited is found in
Appendix 4. The most striking was Rumphi where the elected chairpersons commanded a
lot of respect from the community members as well as the chiefs and a sense of mutual
understanding of each other‟s roles and limits appeared to exist. In this district, it was
43
noted that the chairpersons would consult the chiefs when a need to relay important
information to the communities arose or where communities needed to be mobilised for
some development work because of the perceived influence chiefs wield in their
communities.
The study also noted that where the reorganisation of committees was initiated by the
Council after the expiry of term of office, like in many parts of Mulanje, elections were
duly conducted around 2009 and were facilitated by AEC members. However, since then
no systematic training has been provided to enable them perform their roles due to lack of
funds. In such cases the study noted that many members of these committees possessed a
hazy understanding of what they were meant to do, and did not function as stipulated in
the District Development Planning Handbook. The experience was different in areas that
were previously supported by Oxfam. Even without organised Council training,
knowledge was being passed on to new members by those who were recipients of Oxfam
supported training. However, in both cases the committees were dormant because no
planning was taking place. In districts and areas where adequate training was provided
and there were NGO projects, such as CU and WVI impact areas in Dedza and Ntcheu
districts, the study noted that planning took place around the projects, the communities
developed their own VAPs, the committees were vibrant, gender balance was evident,
they met frequently and the level of knowledge about project activities and the roles of
the committees among community members was quite high.
The study also noted that functionality of ADCs and VDCs is affected by the following:
Limited feedback about submitted project priorities and weak communication and
coordination among the decentralised structures.
Lack of finances to carry out their work. ADCs and VDCs in all assemblies that
were visited do not receive any funding from the assembly for their operations.
This greatly affected their capacity to deliver and serve other institutions as
expected.
ADC, VDC members do not usually have information about district processes to
enable them work effectively. They do not have copies of the most basic district
development guide documents; District Development Plan (DDP) and Socio-
Economic Profile (SEP).
Further to this, the sub-district structures do not have copies of their own guiding
development tool, the Village Action Plan (VAP). This is because the documents
are usually produced with the idea of contributing towards the DDP and not
necessarily for the day to day use of the villages. This has contributed to the
uncoordinated manner in the way DEC, ADCs, VDCs and NGOs make choices
and prioritise development activities. Consequently many NGOs facilitate the
development of VAPs again but leaning more towards the needs of their projects.
Little or no supervision by district level actors, presumably because of limited
budget allocation and prioritisation to such activities.
b) The Area Executive Committee
44
According to the handbook, the AEC is responsible for advising the ADC on all aspects
of needs assessment, project identification and project proposal preparation. Its functions
are to: (1) Assist the ADC in the identification and preparation of project proposals; (2)
carry out field appraisal of projects; (3) review all project proposals before submission to
the DEC for consideration; (4) act as an advisory body to the ADC; (5) assist in
supervising project implementation at area level; conduct data collection and analysis at
community level; (6) prepare monthly reports; take the lead in the organization of VDCs;
(7) and act as trainers of VDCs and assist then in setting guidelines for development in
the area.
The study found that the above job description for AEC is mostly not observed. The most
notable diversion is that AECs appear to have turned into „Agricultural Subsidy
Programme Committees or Taskforces to the extent that communities think this is their
primary role. In all FGDs in Ntcheu, Mulanje and Dedza, it was established the AEC is
much associated with the running of the Agriculture Subsidy Programme. The study
noted that in many districts there were no elected extension worker representatives in the
VDCs as per the guidelines. With the exception of Rumphi district, there was limited
deliberate effort by AECs to follow up on ADCs and VDCs in the districts studied. For
instance, in TA Mabuka, Mulanje, chiefs lamented that since the establishment of new
ADCs in 2009, the AEC chairman, who was supposed to serve as secretary to the ADC,
had never attended any ADC meeting. In TA Njolomole, Ntcheu the AEC did not know
members of ADC yet the AEC is supposed to be the technical arm of ADC.
Even in places where there is NGO support such as TAs Kasumbu and Kachere in Dedza,
the study noted that there were some challenges in garnering the commitment of AEC
members to do their work. One key informant24
indicated that despite CU support, AEC
members in Kasumbu were not keen to do voluntary work and they usually claimed to be
busy. It was argued that only in circumstances where money was concerned did the AEC
members show interest in their work. This lack of meeting and action led to their being
invisible in the community since they were unable to follow up on ADC and VDCs. A
similar situation obtained in TA Kachere. It was reported that the AEC did not take an
initiative to meet despite interventions made by CU to facilitate frequent meetings. The
consequence was that the inactivity of the AEC was creating a void of expert advice to
ADCs, VDCs and CBOs in the area. This observation illustrates the limits of NSA
support in inducing lasting behaviour change among local level actors and it underscores
the need for District Councils to assume ownership and a leading role in strengthening
and supervising sub-district structures and their actors. There is a limit to which
supporting partners can go in strengthening local structures and getting the local level
actors to comply with appropriate standards. If the District Council does not assert its
leadership of the process of local development planning by ensuring that local level staff
such as AECs members are appropriately trained and are doing what they are supposed to
do, the planning processes may be compromised.
24
An excerpt from an interview with a CU officer in Dedza.
45
2.2.1 Emergence of various strands of sub-district structures
Due to limited coordination and supervision of sub district structures and NGO work,
different models of sub-district structures under different names are being used in
different districts as illustrated in figure 6. There is one model where NSAs implementing
projects in the districts are instituting structures parallel to the DDPS recognised
structures as in the example of the Save the Children in Mulanje. The result is a
multiplicity of committees at the local level all seeking to target same individuals.
The study noted as in the example of World Vision, parallel structures bring into the
community adverse competition and deepen the intensity of village politics. Structures
created by NGOs are supported (financially and technically) by the same and they boast
about their strong technical ability and financial base.
Figure 7: Examples of emerging sub-district structures
Source: Compiled from field enquiries.
Such competition and politics may be detrimental to development initiatives. Another
model emerging in Mulanje due to the legacy of Oxfam work is where there is emerging
46
an institutionalization of the Group Village Development Committee (GVDC) as a
terminology for what would be a VDC in the DDPS handbook. Oxfam established
vibrant VDCs at the village level around 1997 in the area to the extent that it was difficult
to have VDCs at the GVH level when the decentralised structures were being established
by the District Council later on. For the sake of not confusing people, the viable solution
was to leave the Oxfam VDCs at the village level intact and establish GVDCs at the
GVH level. With time, the GVDCs have become part of the decentralised structures in
Mulanje though not by design. The argument is that the VDC at the individual village
level facilitates effective community participation at this level than is the case at the
GVDC level where the aggregation process misses out some important issues.
A final model is where you have creation of a coordinating structure at a level that is
below the government recognised VDC, but located at individual village level as in the
example of Concern Universal in Dedza.
From our observations of the village structures in Mulanje and Dedza, the VDC in
Mulanje has some similarities with a Village Coordinating Committee (VCC) in CU
projects in Dedza. This is similar to an Umbrella Committees in Care International
Impact Areas25
and a Village Action Group in RLSP projects. Both serve as main
coordinating committees at the village level except that the VDC in Mulanje has planning
functions and the GVDC is only there to aggregate priorities set by each village for
onward transmission to the ADC. Both the Mulanje VDC and Dedza VCC draw
membership from the various committees, CBOs and associations existing at the village
level.
The key lesson from these experiments is that the village level committees facilitate
increased dialogue, coordination, community participation and identification of village
specific needs than is the case at the Group Village level. They also facilitate effective
dissemination and sharing of information at village level. While this is proving a useful
structure, the practicalities of setting up village committees and supporting their
operations need to be considered. Again, it is important to have a full picture of the
village structures being implemented by different NGOs in a representative sample of
districts in order to draw best practices with a view towards harmonisation of systems.
2.2.2 Sub-district structures: Identity crisis!
Communities perceive ADC and VDC as less helpful institutions than committees
established by NGOs. The reason is that VDCs and ADCs are not responsive to the
community needs when the Project Implementation Committees are results-oriented
hence responsive. “…anthu mu m‟midzimu akulalata ati bola mavuto awo akauze a
Africare kusiyana ndi kuuza ife a ADC kapena VDC” (people in the villages are very
disgruntled and they are saying that there would rather submit their requests to Africare
rather than the ADC or VDC). This implies that even though communities recognise the
role of the ADC and VDCs, they have much trust in committees that have been
25
The districts visited are not part of Care International Impact Areas. This information is based on
interviews conducted for the study with Care officers and reports provided.
47
established by NGOs than those established by the assembly because of lack of
responsiveness, non-delivery, and limited feedback.
In all FGDs in Ntcheu, Mulanje, and Dedza, it was established that the ADC and VDC
are more associated with the running of the Agriculture Subsidy Programme and
communities are beginning to think that this is their primary role. In some areas, the
identity of ADCs and VDCs is associated more with NGOs than Local
Councils/Government. The perception is that „…awa ndi a Oxfam ndipo awo ndi a
ADRA‟ (this VDC, ADC belongs to Oxfam, this one to ADRA). This description comes in
because of the support that particular NGOs provide to particular ADCs and VDCs.
On the overall the impression of VDCs and ADCs is that they are passive institutions
because they lack capacity (human resource/knowledge and financial), and members are
demoralised, due to lack of delivery and feedback. If these committees are going to serve
as structures for facilitating the goals of decentralisation in Malawi in promoting
participation of the rural masses in decision making, a lot of work and financial support is
needed to reorganise these committees and make them truly functional.
2.2.3 Other observations on the functioning of District structures
There is limited downward accountability & transparency. Except in places like Rumphi
district where literacy levels are high and demand for participation is high with various
representatives attending DCC meetings, the feedback mechanisms that were designed as
part of the system are not working effectively. As a result as one moves down the district
hierarchy there is a dearth of and huge demand for information about the operations of
the Assembly, key Assembly decisions taken, the operations of initiatives such as LDF,
CDF and decentralised development processes in general.
This has given room for confusion and opportunistic tendencies to prevail particularly
with regard to individuals claiming responsibility for projects being implemented in the
community which are sometimes initiated by communities and identified through the
planning system. This was clearly an issue in all districts in connection with the role of
various actors and speeches that are made during the recent LDF teachers houses project
launch processes.
There also appears to be a limited understanding on the part of elected leaders on the
fundamentals of the government policy of decentralisation policy, its structures, and
operations at the sub district level, maybe due to limited practical orientation or
knowledge about how the systems work.26
For example in one district, a Member of
Parliament dissolved all VDCs. In some areas MPs wanted to facilitate creation of new
ones and replace old committees. In another district, there was an expressed indication
from some elected leaders that they could not work with old ADCs and VDCs as they
were perceived to belong to former Members of Parliament.
26
The precise reasons are not known as it was not possible to meet the MPs during the study period as they
were engage in other activities. We can only infer from the review of the 2004 decentralisation which
actually noted that elected members including the first crop of councillors did not have adequate
orientation.
48
On the overall, there was a general perception among community members and local
leaders interviewed that while decentralisation is meant to empower them, they do not
really feel empowered because they have no information about Assembly operations,
allocation of resources, and how Assembly funds are managed. Although people in the
communities have heard about „mphamvu ku wanthu‟ or literary „power to the people‟,
the main problem is that institutions that were supposed to facilitate the participation of
people are not functional in many areas, the people do not know for sure what that this
power means in the current context and how to actualise it in practice. One of the major
obstacles to popular participation in many developing countries is lack of knowledge of
the rules and functions of the institutions promoting such processes (Schou, 2002).
Therefore, because of illiteracy and lack of awareness, ordinary citizens are unable to
take advantage of any opportunities to engage with the policy processes.
2.3 Impacts of decentralisation on food security and access to services
This objective of this question was to assess the impact or effects of decentralisation on
food and nutritional security and access to services and its potential for contributing
towards improved livelihoods. To do this the study adopted the rural livelihoods
approach in order to trace the impact of decentralisation on access to services, food
security, and potential for rural livelihoods.
Figure 8: Framework for empirical investigation
Source: Nyasulu, 2004 (adapted from Ellis and Freeman, 2004).
The theory on which this is based is that democratic decentralisation leads to improved
service delivery and rural livelihoods. As in figure 7 above, the framework assumes that
decentralisation would have an effect on livelihood assets both in terms of categories and
49
practical aspects which would in turn be reflected in improved livelihood activities at the
local level. This is a question about the extent to which decentralised planning and
management can make a difference to service delivery and improved livelihoods.
However, it is important to note that the relationship between decentralisation and
improved service delivery or improved rural livelihoods is not a direct one. Advocates of
democratic decentralization argue that such decentralized arrangements allow more
public participation in decision-making and therefore the voices of people are more likely
to be heard in policy decisions (Crook and Manor, 1998). In turn locally elected
representatives and institutional bodies will be more responsive to the demands of the
public, leading to greater efficiency and equity in the use of public resources. This theory
assumes a tree of causality, which suggests that an increase in citizen participation in
decision making processes leads to greater representation and empowerment, targeted
benefits for the vulnerable and marginalized groups, hence improved service delivery and
more rigorous poverty reduction efforts (Blair, 2000).
In the Malawi case however, drawing from the objectives of the decentralisation policy
we can hypothesise that devolving functions to the district level and building the capacity
of local government in Malawi to manage local government finances, plan and
implement projects identified through community participatory planning processes will
empower communities to access more efficiently produced and run, and more relevant
social and economic services, and thereby reducing levels of poverty in these
communities. Thus devolving functions to the Councils and building their capacity to
manage finances, plan and implement projects identified through a participatory process
is conceived as the means by which improved service delivery and rural livelihoods can
be achieved. In other words, improved service delivery and rural livelihoods may be
taken as the developmental objectives which are contingent on the successful
achievement of the means.
The study noted that the District Development Planning processes in all the four districts
does indeed identify food insecurity and livelihood issues as important areas requiring the
attention of district Councils. However, the major problem has been the limited ability of
the communities to propose realistic food security and livelihood projects beyond school
blocks, bridges, water projects and other infrastructural projects. Another problem has
been related to the restricted menu of projects that was allowed by the major bodies that
have been financing development projects arising out of the district planning process
since NDPI. For example, the allowable menu for the District Development Fund (DDF)
and the Malawi Social Action Fund (MASAF) emphasised infrastructural projects at the
expense of software food and other livelihood projects. As a result actual investment by
Councils into food security and rural livelihoods projects has been minimal.
A lot of livelihoods and food security activities currently being carried in the districts are
managed by the central government with own or donor financing but are implemented at
the local level. In other cases, livelihoods programmes such as small livestock
production, bee keeping, agricultural inputs, savings, and other nutrition activities are
being championed by NGOs who may or may not work through the district decentralised
50
structures or decision making system. Some NGOs like CU, WVI work through the
Council system. There are also a variety of donor funded livelihoods projects that are
also implemented through the Councils. These include the IFAD funded Rural Livelihood
Support Programme, EU/ FAIR Rumphi food security project, EU and Malawi Govt
Farm income diversification programme, World Bank, Malawi Govt and IFAD Irrigation,
rural livelihoods and agricultural development project, ADB and Malawi Govt Small
holder crop production and marketing project. Within the Ministry of Gender and
Community a variety of projects seeking to promote rural livelihoods also exist. The role
of the Councils in many cases is limited to issues of identification of beneficiaries,
implementation, monitoring and supervision. The key challenge is to see what impact
these have contributed to resolving food insecurity and livelihood problems in the district
because the various projects have different reporting modalities and many times these
reports do not reflect in the Council‟ reporting mechanism. There study noted that there
is no proper integration of outputs of a project into the district reports for planning as well
as documenting impact.
In the same way without tangible development financing for the Councils, some of the
social services provided at the district level are initiated and managed by central actors.
To gauge the actual contribution of decentralisation in such cases becomes a daunting
task and problems of attribution arise.
Secondly there is no baseline data that depicts the status of food and nutrition security
and access to services with clear measurement indicators at the start of the
implementation of decentralisation in the districts selected. This would have provided a
useful and valid basis for the comparison. Attempts were made to collect data from the
districts visited on district outputs in a number of sectors to check the trends for the five
year period (2005-2009). However, it has not been possible to generate a consistent data
set on which to derive any meaningful conclusions. The major reason is that in the
districts visited, the required data was not readily available and the data categories
presented in the profiles were not consistent from one period to the other with missing
data for some years. Thus, the evidence provided here is quite anecdotal and is mostly
based on qualitative enquiries for agriculture and education as these are the sectors where
information was crosschecked and triangulated from the local level to the national level.27
a) Perceptions on Agriculture
There are generally mixed views about the impact of decentralisation in the agriculture
sector. On the one hand there is a perception that decentralisation has improved human
resource levels (capacity) at the district level. However, this benefit has not trickled down
to the point of action. For instance, with decentralisation numbers of graduates at District
Development Agriculture Office has improved yet human resource is still a big problem
at the EPA level and has actually worsened over time (see section 2.1.2 a.). To
complement the capacity of the existing AEDOs, the Department of Agriculture
Extension of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security has developed a Village
27
Initially health was included but no interview was secured with the Ministry of Health to confirm the
issues emanating from the districts.
51
extension Multiplier system which relies on lead farmers to improve agricultural
extension outreach to farmers.
There are also mixed views about the contribution of decentralisation to food security
through the government subsidy programme. Many people interviewed view this as a
centrally planned and managed initiative even though VDCs and ADCs play a role in
the selection and scrutinization of beneficiaries, maintaining order during identification,
registration of beneficiaries and distribution of coupons.
The agricultural extension service to farmers is modelled after the principles of
decentralisation and uses a participatory demand driven system. Under this system
farmers have to demand for the agricultural extension services they are in need of in their
communities. The Agriculture Extension Development Officers (AEDO) facilitate the
articulation of demands from the communities their sections using various participatory
approaches/ techniques.
Where farmer‟s problems or agricultural development needs are beyond what the AEDOs
and the community itself can do, the AEDOs facilitate development of project proposals
that get submitted to the Village Development Committee of the area. The VDC endorses
the proposal and forwards it to the Area Development Committee which submits the
proposal to the District Executive Committee. The DEC appraises the proposals and
those that pass are channelled to the Assembly or various Non state actors (NSAs)
operating in the district. In a way through this system farmers are able to demand
agricultural services such as irrigation schemes through VDCs or ADCs. The key
problem has been the inability of the Council to respond through limited funding.
However, NGOs have mainly supported these initiatives using a number of projects, but
the key problem has been inadequate reporting of the project outputs as part of the
outputs of the Council.
b) Perceptions on Education
Discussions with key informants in the Ministry of Education were of the view that it
might be too early to talk about any impact of decentralisation given the incomplete
nature of the process. It is acknowledged that while the primary education function has
been devolved, it is only ORT funds that have been devolved to the districts. The
procurement of teaching and learning materials, decision making on the capital and
development budget, and the payroll is still with the central ministry.
On a positive note, education planning is done at the local level with the District
Education Plan as the final product.28
Through this process, the District Education
officers have acquired the capacity to analyse and know their needs and even market their
plans.
With decentralisation, the Primary Education Advisor (PEA) is at least given a chance to
choose items to be procured for his/her zone from the list that comes from District
28
DEPs are funded by JICA
52
Education Manager. „…This is a step towards real decentralisation where we will
actually be making decisions ourselves on what to buy‟.
Decentralisation is also felt to have enhanced the quality of community participation in
school governance particularly through the school committees.
It is also acknowledged that some school blocks have actually been built over the 5 year
period with support from a variety of actors. This together with the free primary
education has improved enrolment rates.
However, there is a general perception in all the four districts visited that despite an
improvement in numbers of school blocks, and gross enrolments rates, the actual quality
of education has gone down. This is due to shortage of teachers in most primary schools
leading to unsustainable teacher pupil ratios. For instance, as of 2009 the teacher-pupil
ratio was 1:83 in Ntcheu, 1:90 in Dedza, 1:100 in Mulanje and 1:71 in Rumphi
respectively29
. At St Joseph Primary School in Bembeke, Dedza, it was learnt that in
some classes one teacher attends to more than a hundred pupils. This is against the
recommended ratio of 1:40/50. Discussions with Ministry of Education officials revealed
that some steps are being taken to improve the pupil teacher ratio by 2013. These include
increasing the number of teacher training colleges, improving the teacher recruitment
process and introducing incentives for those teaching in the remote rural areas.
During the study, communities also lamented the lack of teachers‟ houses arguing that
there is no motivation for teachers to stay in rural areas when they are not guaranteed a
house. It was learnt that in the four districts visited, most primary teachers are renting
houses because government has not constructed houses in the schools. This, according to
some District Council official30
was due to the fact that school projects that were
provided under various funding modalities such as MASAF and DDF did not normally
provide a full package in the manner that most health facilities would do. Most projects
that have supported construction of education facilities have done this in a piece-meal
fashion where a school block is provided but without complementary infrastructure such
as teachers‟ houses, water and toilets, a library or even a laboratory etc. Currently,
government is trying to deal with the problem of teacher‟s houses through a special
programme on teachers houses within the community window of LDF. Government is
currently contributing MK1.2 billion towards the project in addition to World Bank
funding of $15,000,000 to build at least 1,000 teachers houses each year.
It was also noted that the quality of school inspection is not as good as it used to be
during the old days because PEAs rarely conduct school inspections due to limited
budget. As a result there are no consistent checks on the performance and behaviour of
teachers in many primary schools as was the case with inspectors in the past.
The key conclusion in this section is that given the history of the implementation of
decentralisation in Malawi it is difficult to make a fair judgement on its impact on service
29
Education Management Information Systems (2009). 30
DPD Mulanje District Council.
53
delivery at this point in time because decentralisation has not fully take root and available
services at the local have not entirely come about through district decision making.
However, the potential is there and the system needs to be given time and support to
grow for it to start delivering on its mandates.
2.4 Factors affecting the effectiveness of the decentralisation process
This section presents a general assessment of key factors that are promoting/boosting the
process of decentralisation and those that could be hindering or slowing down the
decentralisation process.
2.4.1 Opportunities
The Government of Malawi has in place a conducive policy and legal context that can
facilitate the progression of the decentralisation process. Decentralisation and the
developmental role of the local authorities are enshrined in the Constitution of Malawi,
Malawi Growth and Development Strategy (MGDS), the transparency and accountability
laws such as the Public Finance Management Act, Procurement Act, Public Audit Act,
Corrupt Practices Act, the Decentralisation Policy and Local Government Act (1998).
Also in place is the second phase of the National Decentralisation Programme (NDPII) to
guide the implementation of decentralisation reforms and a Capacity Building
Development Programme to support the implementation of NDPII.
The announcement of local government elections to take place in April, 2011, the
reinstitution of voter registration and civic education activities can be considered as
positive indications of the probability of having local elections and an opportunity to
garner further funding and technical support and revitalise the decentralisation process.
The study noted through consultations at all levels that people appreciate the concept of
decentralisation. There is a widely held view even among communities and bureaucrats
that decentralisation is a good concept and has potential to facilitate bottom up planning
and empowerment of citizens but it is only the implementation process that has been
problematic. Though communities are frustrated with lack of delivery of the Councils and
limited responses to their requests, there is generally a huge enthusiasm about
decentralisation in the communities and great expectation concerning the local
government elections.
The introduction and rolling out of Institutional Integrity Committees and the Service
Charters programme by government has the potential of curbing corruption and
improving local service delivery and accountability of duty bearers at the local level.
A lot of District staff are very keen and enthusiastic about decentralisation and they
would like to see it work. Many of them are of the view that central actors use capacity
excuses to hold on to power but the district actor‟s view that capacity is a chicken and
egg situation but they only need to be supported to improve on the problem areas.
Finally, there is the presence of NSAs who are still willing to provide funding and
technical support to the districts and particular sectors to allow the system to grow. This
54
is an opportunity which if well utilised can assist to revitalise the process of
decentralisation.
2.4.2 Inhibiting Factors
Despite the existence of a supportive policy framework, there has been lack of political
will to fully implement decentralisation in the way it is provided for in the country‟s legal
and policy framework. This is reflected in the postponement of the local government
elections and a predisposition towards use of institutions and actors that do not really
have full mandates for the functions of local government, e.g. the DCCs. This has been
evident through all the political regimes since the change of government in 1994.
Immediately afterwards all local government Councils were dissolved in 1995. Local
elections took place six years later. In the same manner after the 2004 elections, local
Councils were dissolved in 2005 until today. The postponement of local elections is
affecting the growth of an efficient and accountable system of local government that has
potential to deliver services effectively and it has given room to other institutions such as
traditional institutions that have filled the governance gap to become more embedded at
the local level. It is also affecting the learning process of political parties, elected
councillors, civil society organisations, and Malawian citizens in general on how to
effectively play their roles in a multiparty system in such a way as to ensure effective and
accountable service delivery. It has also impacted on mobilisation of funds for the
implementation of NDPII as some donor funding has been tied to this process.
With the absence of councillors, apart from reports sent to central government there is
limited oversight of Council activities and finances at the local level. Section 2.1.1 has
already discussed the limitations of the DCC in providing checks and balances at the
Council level. As a result incidences of corruption persist. Figure 8 below illustrates the
fluctuating trends in the corruption related cases that the Anti-Corruption Bureau receives
in relation to Local government council.
Figure 9: Number of corruption cases received by ACB in relation with Local
Governments: 2000-2010
Source: Anticorruption Bureau Records.
55
Institutional Integrity committees that are supposed to be a key mechanism for
controlling corruption in Councils have not yet been rolled out to all districts. They have
just started with Lilongwe and Blantyre City Councils.
In addition to the weaknesses of the DCC, there is also limited transparency and
downward accountability. Even though some Councils post financial and other
information on notice boards, it is not easily accessible by many people from the villages.
The notice boards at the DCs office have some shortfalls: they are not accessible to
everyone in the district, the language/tabulations in the reports is not understandable to
all, there is no mechanism of explaining the contents of the reports to the public and there
in no demand from the public for such reports since no sensitization has been done to
create awareness on access to such information. Thus accessibility of budget information
and local government financial reports still remains an issue. This is an important area in
view of the increasing amounts of sector funds that are being transferred to the district.
Even within the entire District Development planning system communities hardly have
any knowledge about Assembly operations and decision making processes and allocation
of resources for them to make informed decisions. Citizens lament that “We forward our
plans to relevant authorities at the assembly but no response is given. Timangodikira
chitukuko ngati m‟mene tikudikirira kubwera kwa yesu (We wait for a development
project as if we were waiting for the second coming of Jesus). We just do not need
positive feedback; even if they have negative news lets us be told so that we focus our
energy on other projects. Ngakhale munthu ochimwa amene abusa amamuuza kuti
asinthe, Ifeyo adzitiuza kuti sinthani apa kuti chitukuko chibwere (Even pastors tell
sinners where they are going wrong. We should also be told the wrong things we are
doing so that we can make necessary adjustments to enable development projects to come
to our areas).”31
There are some serious delays in implementation of some key decisions and reforms that
have a bearing on the effectiveness of the councils. A case in point here is the installation
of the Integrated Finance Management Information System which has dragged for
years.32
There is also evidence of resistance to change by central government actors to fully
devolve power. This is reflected in the slow process of sector devolution where some
functions are still being performed by central ministries and some funds are being held by
them. Partly, this could be as a result of a lack of popular awareness, lack of full
understanding of the process, and limited ownership of the sector devolution process.
Currently some officials perceive decentralisation as a project of the MLGRD and do not
treat it as government policy which they should take into account in their planning
processes. This explains the lack of pressure from Ministers and their civil servants to
take forward devolution with concrete steps. Partly it could also be the understandable
fear of losing control over resources and positions. This is quite common in many
African countries that have decentralised. However provision of relevant and timely
31
Ng‟onga ADC & AEC FGD 32
See Malawi Government, (2010). Local Development Fund: First joint annual review report.
56
information that addresses the fears of officials and having political and technical drivers
to steer the process and promote ownership can go a long way towards dealing with
resistance to change.
Related to the above is limited coordination and dialogue about decentralisation at the
national level due to the defunct nature of key coordinating committees such as the Inter-
ministerial Technical Committee on Decentralisation and the Cabinet Committee on
Decentralisation and Rural transformation. There is now an absence of a forum at the
centre to discuss progress of decentralisation and how best to push it forward. Many
actors interviewed at the national level were of the view that there is not much being
heard about decentralisation now as compared to the early years, between 1998 and 2004.
There is a kind of nostalgia for the past -the good old days of decentralisation- among
many national actors who have some knowledge about the past. During the study it was
common at the national level to come across sentiments like, „decentralisation is quite. It
has stalled. There is no sharing of information to keep people abreast of what is
happening like the way it used to happen before. The death of the technical working
committees has had a heavy impact on the decentralisation processes‟.33
The effect of this is that with staff changes and transfers at the central government level,
institutional memory is being lost and it is quite common to find staff at the central
government level that have little or no relevant working knowledge of decentralisation
but are holding key positions that should be spearheading the process. As a result many
sectors have gone ahead to decentralise in the way they see fit. As one informant
succinctly put it, „People need to understand and accept the decentralisation process at
the district and central government level. There is somehow a kind of confusion as to
whether it is devolution or deconcentration. Who should do what? Who should report to
who? Even people who developed the sector plans do not seem to have understood the
whole concept. It appears that sectors do not fully own these processes but donors
interested in devolution are supporting capacity building and various initiatives‟.34
Even within devolved sectors there is no discussion or review of sector devolution plans
and keeping staff updated on the implementation status. Loss of institutional memory and
limited knowledge on decentralisation is also an issue at the district level. One key
informant in Ntcheu district indicated that, „there are frequent transfers in the
government and some of them [the staff] have never been oriented on decentralisation as
such it becomes difficult for them to adjust to the current situation. As such the work
tends to derail in a way until these have also been oriented. Sometimes it is due
personalities, some are not ready up to now to apply decentralisation principles whilst
others are applying them. In such a situation, there is no adequate support to the grass
root level structures and in most cases the AEC does not tick as their sector heads are not
ready to work together‟.35
Practically this limits the ability of such staff to provide
guidance and direction to the decentralisation process.
33
Excerpts from a meeting with staff at the National Audit Office. 34
Excerpts from a meeting with staff in Ministry of Education, a devolved sector. 35
Excerpts from dialogue with CU staff, Ntcheu district.
57
Assemblies are not well funded. They have been given an enormous responsibility of
being in charge of a variety of functions at the local level yet their financial muscle has
not been fully strengthened and local generated revenues are not increasing. There is
shortage of staff at the point of action and poor quality staff particularly in the Finance
department. When you consider all the district councils beyond the 4 Councils that have
been studied a good number of positions are vacant and many are filled with officers in
acting capacity. Shortage of staff has weakened the capacity of the assembly to deliver
services to the people. The effect is that communities see Councils as less effective and
less helpful institutions than NGOs. These two issues have been clearly elaborated in
section 2.1.2 of this report.
The defunct state and limited capacities of sub-district structures such as VDCs, ADCs
and AECs limits their effectiveness in carrying out their mandated functions in support of
the District Development Planning System. This has implications on the operations of the
Local Development Fund. In this regard, the first annual Joint Review of the LDF noted
that the community window requires robust and functional grassroots institutions such as
VDCs and ADCs (Government of Malawi, 2010:18).
2.4.3 Enhancing Factors
In spite of no local elections being conducted, there has been growing commitment
towards sector and fiscal devolution suggesting a move towards deconcentration rather
than democratic decentralisation. By 2008, the number of sectors that devolved their
functions to local authorities had increased from 3 to 9 and funds were flowing directly to
the districts. At the time of the study, the Department of Immigration was in the process
of finalising its sector devolution plan with assistance from the MLGRD. The
introduction of the LDF and government provision of financing towards the fund in the
2009/10 and 2010/11 budget provides an important support to enhancing the capacity of
the fund to serve as a discretionally financing facility for the Assemblies‟ development
priorities. These are important elements that NSAs and others with an interest to support
the process can build on.
Some development partners such as GTZ, UNDP/UNDCF have provided continuity of
support at a time that many were not keen to support decentralisation and this has
somehow assisted to sustain the process that was almost stalling. Since 2009, the number
of donors willing to support decentralisation programmes has picked up as illustrated in
section 2.4 and Appendix 3. This is in contrast to the period after 2005, where there was
no vivid support and commitment of many donors to the decentralisation reform process
due to the postponement of the local elections.
With the support that is being provided by a variety of these development partners, a
number of steps have been taken by the MLGRD to deal with a number of bottle necks
that were constraining the process. First, the ministry has initiated a process of reviving
the key coordinating central structures that are supposed to drive the process of
decentralisation. The Inter-ministerial Technical Committee on Decentralisation has been
revived and is planned to meet in October. The Cabinet Committee on Decentralisation
58
and Rural Transformation is also being revived. Second, the Ministry has also initiated
the formation of task teams to drive the four components of NDPII. The teams have had a
series of meetings, terms of reference and work plans for each team have been developed.
Each of the task team is headed by a relevant ministry which will be spearheading the
process under the overall coordination of the MLGRD. For example the component on
local development planning is spearheaded by the Ministry of Planning and
Development, Fiscal devolution is spearheaded by Ministry of Finance etc. Third the
Ministry is initiating the review of the sector devolution plans to incorporate emerging
issues for the sectors that devolved during the first phase. These include Agriculture,
Health and Education. These initiatives are important signals of reviving the process of
decentralisation.
2.4.4 Possible Threats
The biggest possible threat is further postponement of the local government elections.
Any further postponements of the local elections are likely to dampen goodwill among
many actors and jeopardise any future prospects of a viable devolved system of local
government in Malawi.
The other threat relates to possible voter apathy due to limited civic education on the role
of councillors and local government elections. Previous reviews of decentralisation have
shown that there is some lack of clarity in the minds of many Malawians concerning the
roles of a Member of Parliament, Chief, and Local Government Councillor. The effect of
this is that in 2000 some communities did not understand why they had to vote again for
a Councillor when they already had a Member of Parliament. Unless urgent attention is
taken to deal with this area and ensure that NSAs who have presence on the ground have
the necessary information and are actively being engaged to provide the necessary and
relevant information, chances of low voter turnout are likely to be high as was the case
with the 2000 local elections.
The other one is related to the capacity and performance of the local government
councillors in a multiparty environment. Even after elections are held, the biggest
challenge would be to build the capacity of councillors to perform, and lead to improved
service delivery and be accountable to local citizens rather than their parties. The
experience of the first group of Councillors was that many of them did not perform very
well because of limited orientation and support.
2.5 Support provided by development partners & other NSAs.
The objective of this question was to assess the specific areas of support that
development partners and other NSAs are presently providing towards the
decentralisation process either indirectly through the MLGRD or directly to the districts.
Thus, this section discusses the support that is presently being provided by a variety of
actors but contextualises this support within previous support that has been provided to
the decentralisation process in order to show some continuities and discontinuities.
59
2.5.1 Previous Support provided by donors to the decentralisation process
Initial support for the decentralisation process was largely provided by UNDP/UNCDF36
.
The UNDP‟s Country Programme 1992 to 1996 piloted decentralised management,
participatory planning and the District Development Fund (DDF) in six districts:
Nkhatabay, Mchinji, Dedza, Nsanje, Thyolo and Mangochi. The District Development
Planning System was developed as part of this programme. Lessons derived from the
pilot districts fed into the decentralisation policy formulation in 1998 and the
promulgation of the Local Government Act (1998). These successes led to a further
programme, called the Local Governance and Development Management Programme
(LGDMP), whose aims were to support further decentralisation policy development and
to replicate the district planning system in all of Malawi's districts. The LGDMP was
implemented from 1998 to 2001. A handbook for the planning process was revised in
2001 as part of LGDMP. A further programme, The Malawi Decentralised Governance
Programme (MDGP: 2003-2007), supported by UNCDF & UNDP was aimed at
deepening the process and providing support towards institutional development and
capacity building, fiscal devolution and financial management, and local development
planning and financing mechanisms. Other partners such NORAD, and ADB joined
hands with UNDP to implement the MDGP but each partner had earmarked particular
districts to support. Apart from generic MDGP areas, NORAD also supported civic
education components and ADB supported some microfinance activities.
GTZ/MGPDD37
started in January 2003 as a first phase of a programme intended to
continue in three phases up to 2012. MGPDD support was organised in four components
namely Local Governance; Financial Management; Service Delivery; and
Decentralisation Management. MGPDD supported CSOs, LAs and national level
government institutions with capacity building, specific expertise and funding. To this
end MGPDD supported CSOs who conducted civic education and awareness raising
activities concerning decentralisation using various communication methods ranging
from public debates to radio and TV broadcasts. MGPDD assisted the MLGRD to
develop a guidebook on decentralisation38
, a training manual for the training of Village
Development and Area Development Committees and a Village Action Planning (VAP)
manual. These are materials that are currently available that could be utilised by a variety
of stakeholders. It also worked closely with the NLGFC to create a budget manual for
LAs, training materials for revenue collection and assisted NLGFC in drawing up a
strategic plan and reorganising its operations. It has facilitated the inclusion of a revenue
collection course in the permanent curriculum of the Staff Development Institute (a
government training institute for training government employees). It also supported some
districts with the process of reviewing by-laws, organising team building, and change
management workshops for Council officials. More recently, MGPDD developed,
together with MLGRD, a capacity development programme covering the entire
36
This information is extracted from ECI (2008). Final Evaluation of the Malawi UNDP/UNCDF Local
Development Programme (MDGP). 37
Information on areas of support by GTZ/MGPDD is derived from Boysen, T. & Chima, J. (2008). Final
evaluation 2008: Malawi Germany Programme for Democracy and Decentralization. 38
This is currently being revised by the MLGRD.
60
decentralisation process and has continued to assist MLGRD in the implementation of the
decentralisation reforms while using the draft NDP II as a rough guideline.
For both UNDP/UNCDF and GTZ, the areas of support in the new programmes as
indicated in Appendix 3 seek to build on these previous initiatives and their areas of
comparative advantage. Apart from these two major actors there was also support being
provided for implementation of projects and capacity building through the World Bank,
MASAF, and EU public works programme.
2.5.2 Current support provided by Donors and other Non- State Actors
Appendix 3 provides a summary of the support that is currently being provided (or being
planned in some cases) to the decentralisation process. This compilation has taken into
account information received from those that were consulted as part of the study.39
The
table demonstrates a positive indication of donor willingness to support the process of
decentralisation. The table shows that the main areas of support being provided by
various programmes touch on a number of problem areas that have been identified in this
report and this provides hope for reviving many of the processes that were either stalled
or moving slowly. Further, many of the programmes have just been developed and there
is room for cooperation and collaboration to ensure maximum effectiveness.
In this regard, there is one category of donors whose support relates to the process,
system and institutional side of decentralisation. This includes support towards
reactivating key institutions who are supposed to drive the decentralisation process such
as the Interministerial Technical Committee on Decentralisation, Cabinet Committee on
Decentralisation and Rural Transformation, sector task teams and the MOLGRD. Support
is also being provided towards the sector devolution process, strengthening the financial
management system, and building the capacity of district and community structures to
ensure functional and effective institutions for service delivery. These areas of support
are also congruent to the four components of NDPII namely: sector devolution,
institutional Development and Capacity Building, Fiscal Devolution and Financial
Management, Local Development Planning and Financing Mechanisms. GTZ, Irish Aid,
and UNDP/UNCDF are the key agencies in this regard.
The key issue about all this support is coordination and harmonisation to ensure that the
various projects complement each other, lead to maximum impact and reduction of inter-
district and intra district disparities. Ideally the LDF was meant to serve as a tool for aid
coordination but currently not all development partners are providing support through the
LDF. However, there are some development partners that are cooperating and pulling
resources together to ensure country wide coverage. These include joint programmes
between Irish Aid and GTZ (4 and 5), Irish Aid, GTZ, and EU (6) and those under LDF
(7). As a long as implementation is coordinated and monitored these joint initiatives have
the potential to improve the process of decentralisation in the various districts.
39
The author acknowledges that there is a lot of support that is being channelled through sector ministries
for promoting decentralisation but has not been captured in this summary.
61
The study also notes that the support provided by UNDP and GTZ while addressing
national issues, also seeks to support strengthened capacity of district and sub-district
structures to plan, and implement local services effectively. However, the total
geographical coverage of these two programmes, excluding the urban areas is 21 districts.
This leaves 7 districts with no support in the areas currently being tackled by UNDP and
GTZ. These include Rumphi, Likoma Island, Neno, Blantyre, Mulanje, Dowa, and
Lilongwe District Councils. Four of the districts that fall in this category namely Rumphi,
Likoma Island, Blantyre and Dowa were being supported by NORAD before it withdrew
aid on account of postponement of local elections. The rest were being supported by
ADB up until 2006/07 when their support programme came to an end. The disparities
these funding differences created in institutional building, planning capacities, and
overall capacity development of the districts need to be seriously considered. The
decentralisation policy in section10.5 emphasises balanced development of districts and
this needs to be addressed in the implementation of NDPII.
The second category relates to support towards implementation of investments generated
through the District Development Planning system. These include community, local
authority, and urban investments. The World Bank, ADB, IFAD and KFW are the lead
agencies in this regard.
The third category relates to support towards enhancing the demand side. This relates to,
building the capacities of communities to enable them play their rightful roles in the
decentralisation process. Examples include participation in planning processes,
monitoring of service delivery, and demanding accountability from duty bearers. The
table shows pockets of demand side activities dealing with selected districts and even
limited areas within the districts. Apart from the ones listed in the Appendix 4 there also
exists a variety of civil society networks in Malawi that are involved in promoting
community participatory monitoring, budget tracking, and other budget related advocacy
activities at both the national and local level. These include Malawi Economic Justice
Network (MJEN), Malawi Health Equity Network (MHEN), Civil Society Agriculture
Network (CISANET) and Civil Society Coalition for Quality Basic Education
(CSCQBE).
However, apart from a communication strategy which is being developed under LDF and
some work done by NICE and DCP country wide, there is not much support towards
provision of information to enable citizens understand the Malawian local government
system i.e. the decentralisation process, the mandates and workings of local councils, the
role of various actors, and how citizens can effectively participate and engage with such
institutions. A number of studies including the 2004 NDP I review also acknowledged
that even though civil society organisations are growing in number, capacity, and play an
important role in service delivery, their knowledge of, and involvement in NDPI hitherto,
had been patchy and sporadic. To date the situation has not changed much, as many of
them focus on service delivery, human rights, and general civic education on democracy
and electoral issues. Very few focus on local government in particular and many do not
have a functional working knowledge of the decentralisation process, the local
government system, and its operations. As a result a lot of the civic education activities
62
have focused on questions of democracy, good governance, and citizen rights and
electoral processes while somewhat neglecting questions about the decentralisation
process and how local governments are supposed to work. These are areas that need
attention in enhancing support towards the demand side. The LDF communications
strategy seeks to work with CSOs but also build the capacity of district communication
clusters.
2.5.3 Current supporting being provided by NSAs operating in the study
districts
The study noted that of the NGOs and CBOs operating at the district, most of them do not
have specific projects whose concept is decentralisation. In other words, decentralisation
is not a core business of NGOs and CBOs. Decentralisation is only mainstreamed in other
projects as a cross cutting issue but not as a standalone matter/project. Many are involved
in complementing the work of the Councils in the implementation of projects and service
delivery in a variety of areas. Therefore the support that NSAs provide to the districts can
be classified into three categories: support towards reorganising and training sub-district
structures, support towards implementation of projects and service delivery, and support
to Council operational activities.
a) Support towards reorganising and training of ADCs and VDCS
In the districts studied, very few NSAs were directly supporting the reorganising and
training of sub-district structures to ensure that their composition and functioning is in
line with the requirements of the District Development Planning Handbook and that they
are able to play their rightful role in the decentralisation process, besides being used in
the implementation of the NSAs‟ own programmes. For example, at the time of the study
Dedza had about 18 NGOs operating in the district but only 3 (18%) had some element of
direct support towards revitalising the sub-district structures. Ntcheu had 16 NGOs but 5
(31%) Rumphi had 33 NGOs but only 3 (9%) provided support towards the sub-district
structures in the manner that has been described in this section. The NSAs that had
provided this type of support include MGPDD and World Vision in Rumphi, World
Vision and CU in Dedza and World Vision, MGPDD, World Hope, Concern Universal,
and ADRA in Ntcheu.40
Figure 10 below presents a picture of the ADCs that were recently trained with support
from the NSAs in Rumphi. It basically shows that that MGPDD and World Vision
supported the reactivation and training of 5 (55%) of the 9 ADCs within T/A
Mwankhunikira and Chikulamayembe. All VDCs within each ADC trained were
covered. This implies that in Rumphi 45% of the ADCs have not been given the relevant
training to enable them perform their
40
Apart from the NSAs who have provided funding support towards the training of sub-district structures
in the study districts, there are also others such as Oxfam, Care International, and the RLSP who have
provided training support in districts where they are operating. This support is not discussed in greater
detail in this report because their areas of impact do not fall within the study sample. However, this
information was generated through national level consultations I had with these NSAs.
63
Figure 10: ADCs trained in Rumphi districts
Source: Map developed on basis of information from Council records.
In Ntcheu, as figure 11 shows out of 13 ADCs, 6 (46%) were trained with support from
CU, World Vision World Hope, ADRA and GTZ. What this means is that 54% of the
ADCs and their corresponding VDCs have not been systematically trained.
64
Figure 11: ADCs trained in Ntcheu district
Source: Map developed on basis of information from Council records.
In Dedza, 3(43%) out of 7 ADCs were trained with support from World Vision and
Concern Universal. The remaining 57% of the ADCs has not been given relevant
training.
65
Figure 12: ADCs trained in Dedza district
Source: Map developed on basis of information from Council records.
66
What is clear from the analysis that has been presented so far is that the geographical
coverage of the support within the district is quite limited and has potential of creating
intra-district disparities if no action is taken by the Council to deal with the gaps.
In operational terms, the NSAs provide funding and logistical support but the actual
training is conducted by Council staff under the coordination of the District Training
team41
. Councils use the District Development Planning Handbook and other training
materials developed by MGPDD and some materials available with the Community
Development department. In many cases trainers are drawn from various sectors but
many of the trainers are from the Community Development department, who are
presumed to have expertise in training of community leaders.
In terms of effectiveness and relevance of the training, the study noted from the Dedza
experience that the trainings generally focused on key and basic aspects of
decentralisation in Malawi that would enable local actors to have basic knowledge about
their responsibilities including how to facilitate the Village Action Planning exercise.
Topics that were covered include: Concepts of decentralisation, the history of
decentralisation in Malawi, the objectives of decentralisation, decentralisation structures
at the district level, composition, functions and terms of office bearers in each committee,
responsibilities of the Council in service delivery, Village Action Planning, Leadership,
Monitoring and Evaluation and Formation of Project Implementation Committees.
Key informants interviewed indicated that these trainings have been effective in that
VDC and ADC members have a clear understanding of their roles and responsibilities
with respect to facilitating development in their respective areas. The trainings have also
enhanced team work in the communities. They have also reduced conflicts of
responsibilities as all the members are well conversant with their roles and
responsibilities. The training in PRA tools has improved their level of knowledge as
regards participatory tools such that they are now able to facilitate the identification of
community needs, prioritisation, and identification of solutions and development of
action plans.
However it needs to be noted that there are some NGOs that also provide training but not
that which focuses on enabling the VDCs and ADCs to understand their primary role in
line with the decentralisation process. NGOs like FAIR in Rumphi and other human
rights bodies fall in this category. Such training includes areas like democracy, human
rights, gender awareness, women‟s and farmer‟s rights, community participation and
advocacy. This training though useful is general and to a large extent tailor-made to suit
the interests/nature of the project. If not monitored and coordinated there is the potential
of disorienting the committees here as a result of getting them acquainted with specific
issues of particular interests. These topics are very important but they are not adequate on
their own. It may be useful to consider these topics as part of a package that complements
a generic training on the roles of VDCs and ADCs.
41
The District training team is a subcommittee of DEC responsible for organising training in the district.
67
b) Support towards service delivery and implementation of projects
As indicated in section 2.5.3.a, the study found that many NGOs, CBOs and FBOs do
complement the role of the Councils in service delivery and implementation of projects at
the district in areas like food security, water, health, orphan care, education and income
generation initiatives. The study noted that some have demonstrated positive impacts in
terms improved rural livelihoods in areas such as food and income security in the impact
areas. This is a positive aspect of NGO support to the districts, but as was the case with
the training, the coverage is quite limited. The example from Dedza in figure 9 below
illustrates this point. It shows that a majority of NSAs are flexible to finance food
security projects but within limited areas unlike programmes such as CDF, DDF and
MASAF etc. These focus more on infrastructural projects supporting social services.
Details from the other districts also indicate that a majority of CDF, DDF and MASAF
projects are infrastructural in nature. This is directly related to the conditionalities and
philosophies underlying the various Funds which may not always be consistent with the
priorities of the District Development Plan. However, when you compare the first five
priorities of the District Development Plans of the Councils visited, food insecurity
emerges as an important priority.
Figure 13: Types of projects implemented in Dedza District (2004-2009)
Source: Compiled from Dedza Council records
NSA actors such as Fair and CU have also supported the piloting and implementation of
community based extension systems introduced by the Ministry of Agriculture to deal
with the problem of shortage of extension workers. In Rumphi, Fair has been supporting
65 lead farmers. In Ntcheu, CU has been supporting the piloting of the Village Extension
multiplier programme which emphasises the concept of Master Farmer. An evaluation
that was done in January 2010, noted that Village Extension Multiplier models were the
most important source of agriculture extension services in the Masasa area in Ntcheu.
This was confirmed by the findings of the questionnaire survey covering 100 men and
68
women which revealed that 83% of men and women accessed extension information and
services from VEMs compared to 56% of men and women who accessed extension
information from agriculture extension workers. As a result of the services, 87% of the
men and women interviewed indicated that their households had realised improved food
security; 22% had realised increased numbers of livestock owned; 13% had realised
increased incomes; 10% had benefited by learning new technologies; 8% had bought
household assets and 1% bought farm inputs (Concern Universal, 2010).
c) Support towards Council operation activities
The study noted that apart from training, NGOs were also providing resources to
facilitate meetings of the various district committees. For instance, FAIR provided
resources for VDC meetings in Rumphi. In Dedza, Concern Universal provided
allowances for Kachere and Kasumbu AECs in order to encourage the AECs to meet. As
such, areas with NGO activity registered more vibrant VDCs and ADCs than areas
without NGOs. This experience was noted in all the four districts that were visited.
Some organisations like Fair, CU, Oxfam and World Vision were also noted to fund the
monthly and other coordination meetings of the VDCs and ADCs. CU has also funded
study tours to other districts, fuel and motorcycle spares for sector workers working on
CU projects, regular coaching and mentoring, development of Village Action Plans
(VAPs), and Development of operational plans at District level (Disaster Preparedness
and Risk Management Plans), etc. This support has enabled the village committees to
have solid experience in participatory planning, monitoring and review of development
work.
In some districts such as Dedza, DEC meetings were also funded by NGOs in the district
on rotational basis. NSAs were also meeting the expenses of extra-ordinary meetings
organised by Council to discuss pertinent issues.
d) Challenges
While there is great potential for the NSAS to contribute to rural livelihoods through the
decentralisation process there is limited coordination of activities between many NGOs
and the Assembly. With limited coordination of NGOs by the Assemblies, there is a
danger of creating intra-district disparities because many NGOs usually operate within a
limited geographical area.
As mentioned in section 2.1.2, the decentralisation policy acknowledges that NSAs are a
potential source of funding assistance for District Council activities. The policy in
section 10.5 requires that for purposes of balancing development, the Ministry
responsible for Local Government should be informed of any assistance, intended for
development activities of District Assemblies. Currently, DEC and DCF serve as
coordination points. NSAs wishing to support the districts are cleared by DEC and DCF
members are also given information about the initiatives. However there are problems,
particularly with respect to directing some NGOs to work in areas that are needy and in
disclosing resources that the NSAs are bringing into the district. For example, the study
69
came across a case of an NGO in Mulanje that started operating in selected areas of the
district without prior discussion with DEC. Council officers indicated that „NGOs have a
tendency of giving narrative reports during DEC meetings of the interventions that have
no monetary value attached to those interventions‟.42
In Ntcheu District Council staff
indicated that, many NGOs are not transparent enough, they do not submit reports to the
district council and many are reluctant to release information on how much they are
bringing into the projects being implemented in the district. As a result it is difficult to get
a good idea of total resources flowing into the district and even compare this with the
projects being implemented in the district.43
The issue here is that it is not easy to make a
realistic assessment of the outputs without some idea of the inputs in terms of financial
resources that have been invested.
Beyond DEC, NGO coordination initiatives appear to depend very much on the calibre
and capacity of the District Commissioner, Director of Planning or the specific sector
where the project is working but there is nothing institutionalised to coordinate and guide
the operations of NGOs in the districts. Without clear institutionalised mechanisms it is
also difficult to ensure that NGO activities are synchronised with sector plans, and the
entire District Development Plan and the outputs are correctly captured within the
Council reporting system. For example, an evaluation of the CU Njala Yithe Food
Security Project in Dedza noted that „although the project involved district staff in
planning and implementation, there was no clear harmonisation between the project
work plan and district work plans. In the same way there was no proper integration of
outputs of the project into the district reports for planning as well as documenting
impact‟. There could be a missed opportunity here of leveraging district support provided
by NGOs.
These issues are not new. The 2004 review of the NDPI raised similar problems about the
operations of NGOs in the districts and recommended that all NGOs operating in the
districts should co-operate with their Councils. It also recommended that the Department
of Local Government (now MLGRD) should prepare appropriate guidelines for use by
NGOs and should establish a monitoring mechanism to ensure that guidelines are being
complied with. It also recommended that all donors supporting Malawi through NGOs
should declare resources to Treasury so that such support is captured in the system for the
information of government and other stakeholders. In the spirit of aid coordination and
harmonisation, the MLGRD should implement this recommendation.
There is also limited coordination and cooperation among the NGOs themselves. There
are attempts to initiate and enhance coordination among NSAs themselves through the
EU Non-State Actors project and GTZ. In the study districts NSAs networks exist in
Ntcheu and Rumphi but not any in Dedza and Mulanje. Where these networks exist they
can best be described as „ghost institutions‟ as they just exist on paper but very little is
done in practice. For instance, the last time the Rumphi NSA Network met was at the
time it was being formed in 2009. In addition not all NSAs are members of this network
42
DPD, Rumphi District Council. 43
Excerpt from meeting with District Council staff, Ntcheu district.
70
because big NGOs undermine this network saying „…it is too small for them and too
local for them‟.44
In all districts visited, it was only in Mulanje where we found an arrangement of
collaboration and cooperation- a project involving three NGOs that have pulled their
resources together and the assembly is involved as a policy direction institution and
trainer of communities. This is a USAID funded project where Concern Universal,
Wildlife and Environment Society of Malawi and Mount Mulanje Conservation Trust are
working together on one activity referred to as a MOBILISE Project. The project focuses
on livelihoods; agriculture, forestry, capacity building (governance and organisation
development for ADCs, VDCs, partner institutions like NGOs, CBOs, and FBOs).
There are also issues of sustainability. During FGDs with ADCs, VDCs and AECs in all
districts, it was pointed out that performance of NGO-funded ADCs, VDCs, and AECs
dwindles when the project phases out. „…athu samaona chifukwa chopitiranso ku ADCs,
VDCs, kapena AEC chifukwa chilembwe kumakhala kulibe. Meeting yopanda madzi
akumwa imavuta masiku ano kukapanga nawo‟ People do not see any reason why they
should to the ADC, VDC and AEC when the project phases because there is no incentive
to do so. These days it is difficult to have a meeting without any water.
In conclusion, the findings concerning support to the decentralisation process reveal that
that there are a variety of actors who are supporting the districts in many ways. There are
those who are supporting national level processes and systems that have a bearing on the
functionality of the districts. Others are supporting the demand side processes with the
aim of boosting citizen agency. Yet others are supporting actual service delivery,
implementation of projects and operational activities of Councils. In order to promote the
ideals of the decentralisation policy in Malawi in its quest for balanced development,
coordination, cooperation, and harmonisation are the key issues that have emerged as
requiring attention both at the national and district levels to ensure that the support being
provided does not lead to inter and intra district disparities.
44
Participant in NSAs FGD, Rumphi District Council
71
CHAPTER THREE
Conclusions and Recommendations
The study has found that decentralisation reforms that were introduced with the
Decentralisation Policy and Local Government Act of 1998 have led to important
institutional changes in government structures and decision-making processes at the local
level. District Councils were established in 28 districts as legitimate centres of
implementation of responsibilities for delivery of services at the local level, with the aim
of improving the efficiency, effectiveness of development interventions. Along with the
district structures, sub district structures were also implemented to facilitate bottom up
development planning and enhance a coordinated approach to local level development.
Evidence from the four districts studied suggests that not much service delivery could at
present be attributed to the decentralisation process itself. The potential for
decentralisation to contribute to improved service delivery and rural livelihoods very
much depends on the implementation status of decentralisation itself and the functionality
of the decentralised structures and systems that are meant to promote service delivery and
rural livelihoods.
The study noted that the implementation of decentralisation is still ongoing. Phase one
was done through the National Decentralisation Programme I (NDPI: 2001-2004) with a
focus on Legal Reforms, Institutional Development and Capacity Building, Building a
Democratic Culture, Fiscal Decentralisation, Accounting and Financial Management,
Sector Devolution, Local Development Planning and Financing Mechanisms. A review
of NDPI that took place in 2004 revealed a mixture of some successes and many
implementation failures. NDPII, a successor programme to NDPI, designed to deal with
problems identified in the review of NDPI, and facilitate the implementation of the
second phase from 2005-2009, was never brought to a round table meeting due to
postponement of local government elections. This affected the capability of the MLGRD
to mobilise funding for the implementation of NDPII. Except for very few development
partners who still supported some limited aspects of NDPII, there was no visible
commitment towards supporting decentralisation since 2005. This has greatly affected the
implementation of activities identified in NDPII and has in effect led to the stalling of
many activities meant to accelerate decentralisation both at the national and district level.
Since then the process of decentralisation has been experiencing considerable setbacks
which have constrained the performance and influence of District Councils to emerge as
sustainable, efficient, and accountable service providers. Some of them include, non-
functional nature of key institutions meant to drive the decentralisation process,
resistance to change, staffing problems at the district and sub-district levels, limited
discretionary and donor funding to finance the district development plans, limited
capacity of sub-district structures, weak M&E systems and practices, dwindling
knowledge and awareness of decentralisation among sector, district staff and political
leaders, limited dialogue on decentralisation, limited downward accountability, as well as
72
limited coordination of NSA support to the districts. These problems taken together have
curtailed the potential of the decentralisation process to institute District Councils as
integrated units at the local level with substantial capacity to deliver services effectively
and contribute towards improved rural livelihoods.
These factors notwithstanding, the study noted that there are also some opportunities and
other positive developments that are bringing fresh hope for a revitalised decentralisation
process. There is some enthusiasm and a widely held perception among many
stakeholders and local citizens interviewed that decentralisation is a useful and important
principle for local level development. Since 2009, a number of opportunities have
emerged. These include: the increase in the number development partners willing to
support district capacity building efforts and other areas at the national level that have
constrained the effectiveness of the decentralisation process, the introduction of the Local
Development Fund and the District Charters programme. The number of sectors
devolving their functions to the districts is growing and this is accompanied by an
increase in central government transfers flowing to the districts. More recently, the
announcement of local government elections to take place in April 2011, and the
commencement of voter registration and other related activities can be considered as a
key move towards unblocking the process. In the same way, efforts that have been taken
by the Ministry of Local Government and Rural Development to give attention to the
sector devolution process and resuscitate the key drivers of decentralisation at the
national level provide hope that a process of reviving activities that had almost stalled has
began in earnest.
In light of this background, the study makes a number of recommendations on how
various actors can realistically support the growth of the process of decentralisation and
contribute to improving its effectiveness in terms of services delivery and rural
livelihoods. These recommendations are being made on the understanding that the
effectiveness of the process of decentralisation in the districts cannot be achieved, if other
wider systemic issues at the national level that have a bearing on the functioning of the
districts are not addressed:
Recommendations for Central Government
1. Holding of local government elections should be treated as a matter of priority in
order to unblock the processes that have stalled and deal with problems connected
to this, including some funding support from development partners. In the current
setup, the President of the country, who is in charge of all policy direction, holds
the key to this process and would be the most appropriate champion to lead the
way in promoting a right perception about decentralisation policy among cabinet
ministers, other politicians, and top government officials. This will ensure that
there is some unity of command concerning decentralisation matters.
2. The OPC in cooperation with the MLGRD and other relevant actors should
accelerate the sector devolution process that has already been initiated.
Decentralisation should be linked to other wider Public Sector Reforms that the
73
country is undertaking and OPC should take a leading role of enforcing the
necessary changes that sectors have to take with respect to the implementation of
the decentralisation policy.
a. As was the case previously, OPC‟s role would also to ensure that sectors
adhere to particular deadlines and time frames. This would ensure that the
districts are able to operate as an integrated unit that responsible to the
District Council.
b. To reduce the loss of institutional memory, mechanisms should be
developed to ensure that those that represent their ministries and
departments in various sector task meetings and groups should are
transmit relevant information about decentralisation to their ministries and
facilitate dialogue within the sector.
3. A key priority of the MLGRD should seek to accelerate the resuscitating of the
central coordinating mechanisms of decentralisation that has already been
initiated. This includes the Interministerial Technical Committee on
Decentralisation, the Cabinet Committee on decentralisation and Rural
Development and other coordinating bodies. Due to the changes that have taken
place since the last general election there is need for orientation of these
committees to ensure that they understand decentralisation and can lead the
process as the country prepares for the local government elections. The idea is to
prepare both political and technical leaders to drive the process.
4. The MLGRD together with other relevant sectors should develop and coordinate a
broad based IEC strategy on decentralisation. During NDPI, a strategy was
developed but it would need to be revised to take into account changing
circumstances. The strategy should seek to deal with the knowledge and
information gaps the report has identified and should seek to clarify roles of
various actors. In this regard, there is need to synchronise with the
communications strategy that LDF is currently developing to ensure a more
systematic approach to orientation and sensitisation so that the messages that
would be going out are concrete, uniform, integrated and address the needs of all
levels of Malawians.
5. Coordination, Cooperation, and harmonisation are the key issues that have
emerged as requiring attention both at the national and district levels to ensure
that the support being provided does not lead to inter and intra district disparities.
Therefore in order to promote the ideals of the decentralisation policy which
emphasises balance development, the MLGRD should coordinate and negotiate
with the Development partners around the implementation of NDPII to address
issues of geographical funding gaps that this report has identified, particularly the
seven remaining districts.
6. The MLGRD with the support of the development partners should pay particular
attention towards ensuring that once the councillors are in place, they should be
74
given appropriate training and support to enable them deliver on their mandates
within a multiparty environment that is characterised by dominance of traditional
authorities and has a history of competition and conflict between MPs and
Councillor. Training programmes for Councillors should be concrete, uniform,
integrated, and should go beyond an understanding of basic concepts to deal with
practical issues and promote cooperation among the various actors while
recognising the power relations among these local actors. Piecemeal and
fragmented approaches towards training of these key actors should be avoided at
all cost.
7. The MLGRD in cooperation with the Ministry of Economic Planning and
Development and relevant sector should work towards harmonising and
functioning district M&E system, ensuring that the district data banks systems are
functional and districts use the data in planning and decision making processes.
8. The Ministry of Finance in cooperation with the MLGRD and NLGFC should
ensure that districts are provided with adequate discretionary funding (GRF) in
accordance with the provisions of the Decentralisation and Local Government
Act.
9. The development funding modalities such as CDF and LDF need to be
harmonised in such a way that they promote effective decentralisation of power to
districts and community participation in planning processes.
10. Following from the recommendations of the NDPI review, and to ensure aid
coordination at the district level, The MLGRD in cooperation with relevant
sectors should prepare appropriate guidelines for use by NGOs and other NSAs
who wish to work in the districts in complementing the mandates of the District
Councils. It should also establish a monitoring mechanism to ensure that the
guidelines are being complied with.
11. To promote accountability and quality service delivery, District Councils should
be encouraged to develop strategic plans and the MLGRD should consider
instituting a performance management system for the Councils with clearly
defined standards of performance.
Recommendations for District Councils
12. To revive the defunct sub-district structures, and garner the commitment of AEC
members to do their work, District Councils should assume ownership and a
leading role in strengthening and supervising sub-district structures and their
actors. In this regard, the Council with the assistance of DEC should develop an
action plan of how the remaining untrained ADCs and VDCs will be handled.
This can be used by the DEC to proactively begin to mobilise funds for the
district while taking into account funding that has already been committed by
development partner programmes on such issues (see appendix 3).
75
13. To avoid ad-hoc activities and improve planning of activities, District Councils
should develop, implement, and monitor a district schedule of activities and
meetings to ensure that relevant activities of key committee such as DCC, DEC,
and other review meetings are planned and funds for such purposes are solicited
in a systematic manner.
14. District Development Plans should be monitored annually jointly by all
stakeholders including NSAs operating in the district through an annual
workshop. The annual gathering should be informed by progress papers from all
the sectors and NSAs on implementation status, issues arising, lessons for the
future and corrective action to be taken.
15. District Councils should prioritise support to front line operational staff such as
AEDOs, PEAs, CDAs and HSAs and should monitor and supervise their activities
to enhance service delivery at the local level.
16. To improve availability of information on key areas and indicators, District,
Councils should develop simple methods of record keeping and managing
information and should promote a culture of record keeping among all staff
among all sector staff. Emphasis should be placed on evidence based decision
making in order to improve the effectiveness of Council activities
17. NSAs main role is to support and complement the functions of the Council. Thus
Councils should have clear policies on food security and rural livelihoods that are
consistent with national policies and strategies.
a. To ensure that the outputs of NSA with respect to rural livelihoods are
captured in the District reporting system, District Councils should put in
place mechanisms of ensuring that NSA work plans and monitoring
indicators are harmonised with those of NSAs working in the same area.
b. The Councils should also ensure that there are joint monitoring exercises
and written monitoring reports are submitted to the relevant departments
and the M&E office on a regular basis.
c. To this end, the councils should carry out a mapping exercise of NSA
actors operating in the district in different priority areas including food
security and rural livelihoods,
d. The mapping exercise should identify the district priority gaps that exist,
enter into dialogue with the NSAs on how the implementation of activities
in these different areas can be harmonised. The result of the mapping
exercise can also be used by DEC as a tool to inform decision making on
new NSAs who wish to operate in the district.
Recommendations for Development Partners
18. Development Partners should seek to support the full implementation of NDPII
and the associated Capacity Building Development Programme that was
developed some few years ago.
76
19. To promote the ideals of the decentralisation policy in Malawi in its quest for
balanced development, and also the need for aid coordination, cooperation, and
harmonisation as required by the Paris Declaration, there is a greater need for
dialogue and coordination among Development partners and those supporting and
implementing the LDF around the implementation of NDPII to address issues of
geographical funding gaps that this study has identified, particularly the seven
remaining districts.
20. Immediate support should go towards the local government elections, building
and implementing a civic education strategy that is concrete, consistent, and
coherent to avoid voter apathy as was the case in 2010. This is an urgent matter.
21. Donor support would be crucial towards the systematic development and
implementation of orientation and training programmes for MPs, Councillors and
traditional chiefs. This should seek to complement what other development
partners and NSAs such as GTZ and IDASA have already included in their
programmes. Piece meal and fragmented capacity building approaches should be
avoided.
22. There is also an urgent need to build the capacity of the MLGRD, particularly to
increase the number of staff in the Directorate of Local Government to ensure that
the ministry can ably coordinate and drive the processes and support the districts
efficiently and effectively. Attention should also be given to supporting
institutions such as the NLGFC, MALGA and possibly creation of an inspectorate
department within the ministry to be responsible for monitoring and performance
assessment of districts.
23. On the demand side, there is need for support towards building a critical mass of
local civil society organisations (CSOs) with functional knowledge of local
government and decentralisation in order to deal with problems of limited
knowledge on local government by the CSOs and the Malawian public in general.
24. Accelerating the sector devolution process to ensure that districts are able to carry
the functions assigned to them. Sector working groups should in their strategies
include clear plans of how they can effectively support and promote sector
devolution processes to ensure that districts operate as an integrated unit.
25. The NDPII document states that The NDP II (and its supporting CDPD) should be
monitored annually jointly by all stakeholders, at an annual Round Table
Conference. This conference should be informed by a briefing paper from the
Inter-Ministerial Technical Committee on progress and issues arising, which
would have been scrutinized and approved by the Cabinet Committee on
Decentralisation. Donor support would be crucial toward the organisation of the
Round Table Conference.
77
26. To improve service delivery and rural livelihoods at the district level, support is
needed towards:
a. The rolling out and implementation of District Service Charters and
Institutional Integrity Communities. Some support towards the District
Charters is already being provided by Irish Aid and MGPDD but there has
been limited attention towards Integrity Committees.
b. Building the capacity of District Council staff for transformational
leadership.
c. Building the capacity of District Council staff, management systems,
strategic planning, monitoring and capacity for evidence based decision
making.
d. Strengthening the District Development Planning system and its links with
rural livelihood activities, including the revamping and training of sub
district structures such as Village and Area Development Committees as
well as the Area Executive Committee.
e. Building the district financial capacity, management, transparency and
accountability so that the districts can be able to finance and implement
services and demand driven rural livelihood activities.
Recommendations for Other Non- state Actors
27. NSAs operating in the districts should collaboratively continue to support capacity
building of sub-district structures and participatory planning in cooperation with
the Councils in such a manner that will not lead to significant intra-district
disparities.
28. NSAs operating in the districts should continue to complement District Council
efforts in implementation of District and Community priority investments as
identified in the District Development Plans.
29. NSAs should make provision and allow for joint monitoring of their projects with
Council members. NSAs should also support District joint review meetings,
promote dialogue, share lessons and best practices, and partner with other NSAs
working in the same fields in the district.
30. To avoid stifling District Council activities and to promote the effectiveness of
District Council staff and government systems, NSAs should synchronise their
work plans with those of the relevant sector and collaborate with the relevant
Council offices on the use of government staff such as extension workers,
community development assistants, primary education advisors and others for
NSA activities.
78
Appendix 1: Terms of Reference TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR A JOINT
MINISTRY OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT
AND CONCERN UNIVERSAL DECENTRALISATION STUDY
1. BACKGROUND
The Ministry of Local Government and Rural Development has over the last eleven years been
facilitating the implementation of decentralisation. Decentralisation in Malawi is guided by the
National Decentralisation Policy and the Local Government Act. Through this policy
Government has transferred some of its functions to local authorities. One such function is
development. Through decentralisation, local authorities have become important vehicles for
government aiming to improve people‟s welfare. The local authorities have been given the
mandate to do this through the Local Government Act, which specifies that they have to develop
local development plans (LDP).
To achieve this, a number of Non Governmental Organisations are supporting local authorities
through the implementation of various projects and programmes. One such organization is
Concern Universal. Concern Universal (CU) is an International Non-Governmental Organisation
(INGO) established in 1976. Its vision is „a world where justice, dignity and respect prevail for
all‟. Concern Universal‟s mission is to work in partnership to challenge poverty and inequality.
CU implements relief, rehabilitation and development projects in Africa, South America and
Asia. Among the programmes being implemented by CU in Malawi are sustainable livelihoods,
water and environmental sanitation, microfinance, local organisations capacity building and
emergency and rehabilitation. CU has been operating in Malawi since 1989.
CU has been partnering with Irish Aid in emergency, recovery, disaster risk reduction, HIV and
AIDS, targeted nutrition, food security, strengthening of decentralised local government
structures and other similar initiatives since 2002. As a continuation of the partnership, CU has
recently completed the design of a six-year integrated food security and sustainable livelihoods
programme to improve the quality of life of 32,000 households in Dedza and Ntcheu districts.
This programme entitled Local Development Support Programme (LDSP) commenced mid-2009.
The goal of the LDSP is to contribute to poverty and vulnerability reduction through local
development. The Programme‟s two specific objectives are:
1. To enhance capacity of local government to plan and provide effective services,
2. To improve food and nutrition security, health, income and access to services to 32,000
households in Chafumbwa EPA of TA Kachere in Dedza and TA Makwangwala in
Ntcheu.
Both the Ministry of Local Government and CU recognise that all levels of local government are
important partners in their development work and as such, they are committed to supporting them
to effectively perform their duties and responsibilities. This is particularly true of the LDSP
which has significant resources dedicated to building the capacity of the decentralised structures
to understand and assume their roles and responsibilities which will ultimately contribute to the
achievement of the specific objectives of enhancing capacity of local governments to plan and
provide effective services.
79
Two of the seven result areas for the LDSP i.e. result areas 6 and 7 specifically relate to the
building of capacity of and sharing of information on decentralized structures. Result area 6 aims
to „increased capacity and functionality of district, area and village level structures and extension
services‟ while result area 7 aims to „increase Concern Universal‟s capability to learn, document,
disseminate and influence‟. During the 6-year period under which LDSP will operate, 12 research
studies will be carried out.
One of the first studies to be conducted will be a review of the decentralisation process which the
Malawi Government has been implementing over the last 12 years. The study is expected to
address issues that are topical and relevant to the Government, Districts Authorities and their
partners e.g. NGO‟s, donors and other stakeholders.
2. CONTEXT OF DECENTRALISATION
The National Decentralisation Policy was approved by cabinet in October 1998 and is supported
by the Local Government Act (1998) which underpins the policy of decentralisation.
The policy:
(a) devolves administration and political authority to the district level;
(b) integrates governmental agencies at the district and local levels into one administrative unit,
through the process of institutional integration, manpower absorption, composite budgeting
and provision of funds for the decentralised services;
(c) diverts the centre of implementation responsibilities and transfers these to the districts;
(d) assigns, functions and responsibilities to the various levels of government; and
(e) promotes popular participation in the governance and development of districts.
http://www.mlgrd.gov.mw/030107.htm
The „Malawi Growth and Development Strategy 2006-2011‟ has decentralisation as a sub - theme
(sub-theme 3) with the objective of devolving powers, functions and resources from the central
government to local assemblies. Its long-term goal „is to improve the efficiency and effectiveness
of the public sector in service delivery to the communities in all local assemblies.
The Strategy expects local authorities to assume responsibility for; planning, enhancing
community participation, putting efficient accountability and governance systems in place and
ensuring an effective M&E system is implemented. The training of stakeholders and the
clarification of the roles of local authorities and local authorities‟ staff is expected to reduce
uncertainty and enhance the development process.
The strategy document also clearly outlines the constraints the decentralisation process faces:
“These include weak, poor and ineffective linkages between decentralization policy
and other public policy reforms, persistent power struggle and conflicts of roles
between elected members such as Members of Parliament and Councillors; and
Traditional Authorities, weak institutional capacity, high turn over of key staff like
accountants, economists and other specialists, ineffective participation of the local
communities due to lack of information, knowledge and skills, and inadequate
financial resources among others.” Malawi Growth and Development Strategy)
80
Recent amendments to the Local Government Act (1998) must be considered within the context
of this study along with the district level Service Charters and the formation of Institutional
Integrity Committees (IIC).
3. OBJECTIVES / SCOPE OF THE WORK
The overall objective of the study is to:
Determine the status of the Decentralisation process, assess its functionality,
effectiveness and potential contribution to improving rural livelihoods.
The scope of the study will be to:
1. Appraise to what extent district / community structures are established inline with the Act
and their functionality45
with respect to their contributions to the process;
2. Assess the effects/impacts of Decentralisation on food and nutrition security and access
to services at the community level
3. Identify key factors that enhance or inhibit the effectiveness of the decentralisation
process
4. Examine the support provided to districts by Donors and Non-State Actors (NSA) for the
Decentralisation process and its effectiveness
5. Make recommendations on how the Government, Concern Universal and other Non-State
Actors could realistically support and contribute to improving the effectiveness of the
Decentralisation process on rural livelihoods.
4. DESIGN / METHODOLOGY
The Consultant will be expected to develop a comprehensive and robust methodology which will
ensure the achievement of the research objectives. This will be expected to include qualitative
and where appropriate quantitative techniques during the study process.
This will be a participative, consultative, piece of research which will require broad primary and
secondary data collection. An extensive review of previous decentralisation studies within
Malawi will be expected as will reviews of the Decentralisation Policy and the Local Government
Act (1998).
The Consultant will be expected to interview and consult with a broad range of stakeholders such
as (but not exclusively) the Ministry of Local Government and Rural Development and other
relevant government Ministries and Departments, Donors who have supported the
decentralisation process, NGO‟s who have been actively involved in local government capacity
building, District Executive Committee (DEC) members, Area Executive Committees, District
Executive Committees, Ex-Councillors, Traditional Authorities, Area Development Committees
(ADCs) Village Development Committees (VDCs), Community Based Organisations and other
community groups and representatives as well as community members themselves. The Auditor
General‟s Office should also be consulted regarding audits of the local authorities.
45
Functionality in the context of this study refers to: 1. Fulfilling all administrative and legal requirements in
accordance with the Decentralisation act (1998), 2. Following prescribed guidelines on how the structures operationalise their roles and responsibilities, 3 People’s perceptions on how effective and efficient the structures are in undertaking their duties.
81
5. TASKS
The Consultant will be expected to;
Liaise with the Research Reference group which will be formed for this study comprising of
Concern Universal, Ministry of Local Government and Rural Development, local authorities‟
staff and external stakeholders
Prepare a detailed technical proposal which will clearly and systematically indicate how s/he
will achieve the objective and scope of the research study
Design a detailed work programme identifying clearly the activities to be undertaken during
the survey, what inputs (logistical and material) will be required
Review all Government Policies and Acts and other documentation produced by non-state
actors and research institutions specific to decentralisation in Malawi
Be familiar with relevant CU documents e.g. Country Strategic Plan, LDSP proposal, etc.
Develop the survey tools and questionnaires to be used in the research process
Identify and consult with a broad range of stakeholders
Undertake the research study as per the agreed proposal outline
Collect, enter and analyse data using clear, accurate, jargon free English.
6. FINAL OUTPUTS
The Consultant will produce a comprehensive research based report on his/her findings as per the
requirements of this ToR and in line with the terms and conditions of the research contract and
their technical proposal.
The final report, and any other correspondence, must be written in the English language using MS
Word compatible software and in font Times New Roman, size 12.
A draft report, which should include case studies, must be submitted to Concern Universal and
the Ministry of Local Government and Rural Development, to allow for comments at least five
days before the consultant‟s presentation to all partners and relevant stakeholders. The final report
is to be submitted following a debriefing and no later than 7 calendar days after receiving all
comments based on an agreed date.
The exact process for the submission and presentation of the reports shall be negotiated between
the Consultant, Concern Universal and the Ministry of Local Government and Rural
Development.
The report should be clear and easy to read with complementary graphics to enhance
understanding where appropriate. The consultant will be expected to meet the quality assurance
criteria as set out in the consultancy contract.
7. THE CONSULTANT
The Consultant will be expected to have, at the minimum, a Master‟s degree in Politics, Social
Science or another related discipline and must have extensive participatory-community oriented
82
research experience. S/he must have knowledge of participatory assessment skills and an
understanding of the structures and policies of the Government of Malawi. Experience of
conducting similar studies is highly desirable. As a representative of the Ministry of Local
Government and Rural Develop and Concern Universal the Consultant will be expected to behave
with the highest professional standards and discretion considering that they will be undertaking a
potentially highly sensitive study.
8. SCHEDULE
The process and schedule for completion of the study will be negotiated between CU and the
Consultant. The Consultant will include the steps and the timing of the implementation within
their technical proposal which will be incorporated into the Consultancy contract to be signed by
both parties before the commencement of the study.
9. WORKING LANGUAGES
The Consultant must be fluent in English and Chichewa with proven English writing and editing
skills.
10. LOCATION OF ASSIGNMENT
The research will take place in 4 Districts including Dedza and Ntcheu District Councils where
the LDSP is being implemented and Rumphi and Mulanje as control Councils. The last two
districts were selected by the Ministry of Local Government and Rural Development.
11. NUMBER OF REPORT COPIES
• The draft report: 3 hard copies and 3 electronic copies
• The final report: 3 hard copies and 3 electronic copies
83
Appendix 2: List of people Consulted
National Consultations Lilongwe (26 – 30 July 2010)
No Name Position Organization
1 Victor Mhoni Country Coordinator CISANET
2 Shenard Mazengera Advocacy Manager Oxfam
3 Wezi Mjojo Executive Director NLGFC
4 Issa Njauju Finance and Administration Manager NLGFC
5 Patrick Kabambe Principal Secretary MLGRD
6 Stewart Ligomeka Director, Local Government MLGRD
7 Keswell Dakamau Deputy Director, Local Government Services MLGRD
8 Hastings Bota
Dep. Director, Local Government-
Decentralization MLGRD
9 Gerald Chigona Programme Manager Norwegian Church Aid
10 Lugede Chiumia Programme Manager Danish Church Aid
11 Christine Kamwendo Operations Officer World Bank
12 Julia OJANEN
Programme Manager- Good Governance
Attach EU
13 Constance Mzungu Training and OD Coordinator Care International (Malawi
14 Lemekeza Mokiwa Assistant Programme Director Care International (Malawi
15 Monica Manda Programme Facilitator, Lilongwe Peri Urban Action AID
16 H. Mkandawire Programme Facilitator Ntchisi Action AID
17 Chris Mhoni Programme Coordinator, Lilongwe Peri Urban Action AID
18 Winston Mwamtowe Programme Coordinator Mzimba Action AID
19 Luck Sikwese Director Reforms, Public Sector Reforms Unit
Office of the President and
Cabinet
20 Mr Mkoka Programme Manager NICE
21 Bill Chanza UNCDF Programme Manager UNDP
22 Winston Khamula Deputy Team Leader/Chief Advisor GTZ/MGPDD
23 Bea Parkes Governance Adviser DFID
24 Alinafe Kasiya Governance Assistant DFID
25 Peter Msefula Director of Gender
Ministry of Women and Child
Devt
26 Abson Mpunga Chief Community Development Officer
Ministry of Women and Child
Devt
27 George Mkamanga Director Community Development
Ministry of Women and Child
Devt
28 Edson Mphande Director of Planning
Ministry of Women and Child
Devt
29 George Sakwiya Principal Human Resources and Mgt Officer
Ministry of Women and Child
Devt
30 Peter Dawa Chief Accountant Ministry of Women and Child
84
Devt
31 Simon Chisale
Ag Deputy Director Child Development
Affairs
Ministry of Women and Child
Devt
32 Z A K Mwandira Principal Community Development Officer
Ministry of Women and Child
Devt
33 Massimo Sichinga Economist
Ministry of Women and Child
Devt
34 S. Banda Deputy Director Planning Ministry of Agriculture
35 G. Kambauwa CLMTO/LRCO Ministry of Agriculture
36 J. Mvula Planning Ministry of Agriculture
37 G. Kandzu DARS Ministry of Agriculture
38 J.L. Banda
Dep. director, Land Resources Conservation
Dept Ministry of Agriculture
39 B.P. Chikabadwa CAEO
Ministry of Agriculture
0999302862
40 F. Masambuka Agriculture Community Officer Ministry of Agriculture
41 Mr Ching'oma CHRMD Ministry of Agriculture
42 Charles Mandala Ag Executive Director Local Development Fund- TST
43 Alifeyo Banda Director- Local Capacity Enhancement Local Development Fund- TST
44 Steven Mchenga Director Financial Management Services Local Development Fund- TST
45 Charity Kaunda M&E Specialist Local Development Fund- TST
46 Paul Chipeta Director of Operations Local Development Fund- TST
47 Robins Gausi Training Specialist Local Development Fund- TST
48 Ephraim Munthali
Public Relations Consultant/Devt
Communications Local Development Fund- TST
49 Mr Mandere Integrated Ministry Director World Vision International
50
Dr Blessings
Chinsinga Deputy Dean of Social Sciences Chancellor College
51 Mr Chiluzi Assistant Auditor General National Audit Office
52 Mr R. Kampanje Auditor General National Audit Office
53 Ms Chide Senior Planning Officer Ministry of Education
54 Mr Naunje SWAP Deputy Coordinator Ministry of Education
55 Mr Makalande Deputy Director Planning Ministry of Education
56 Mr Charles Kalemba Chief Executive Zomba Town Council
District Consultations Ntcheu (13 – 14 July 2010)
No Name Position Organisation
57 Inkosi Makwangwala Chief Ntcheu DCC Member
58 M.E. Kamenya Rep for TA Kwataine Ntcheu DCC Member
59 H. Madyaudzu Ag Chief Ntcheu DCC Member
60 B.S. Magombo (Inkosi Njolomole) Chief Ntcheu DCC Member
85
61 Inkosi Champiti Chief Ntcheu DCC Member
62 Inkosi Mpando Chief Ntcheu DCC Member
63 Mai Lenny Mmeta Pastor Ntcheu DCC Member
64 Philip Dzingwangwa Physically Challenged rep Ntcheu DCC Member
65 Sylvester Makhaza DCEO NICE
66 Jason Chikuse Coordinator COOM
67 Yona Kakundi Field Officer COOM
68 Sylvester Kamiza Project Supervisor CADECOM
69 Happy Jackson Youth Representative YANDO
70 John Mwandira Project Supervisor AFRICARE
71 Duncan Kamowa District School Meals Coordinator WFP
72 Elton Mahamba Supervisor SOM
73 Russell Kapito Project Officer Red Cross
74 Asaph Mvula Programme Manager WVI
75 Laston Kalionera Water Monitoring Assistant Tchauya AEC
76 Jackson Chithokonya Primary Education Advisor Tchauya AEC
77 Manuel D Dambo Health Surveillance Assistant Tchauya AEC
78 Charles HM Singano Health Surveillance Assistant Tchauya AEC
79 Marko Mndala Assistant Veterinary Officer Tchauya AEC
80 John Yotamu Health Surveillance Assistant Tchauya AEC
81 Davis Saidi Forestry Assistant Tchauya AEC
82 YP Mwandira Agriculture Ext Dev Officer Tchauya AEC
83 Getrude Kapota Member Tchauya ADC
84 Lester Zomba AEDO (Kandeu EPA) Tchauya AEC
No Name Position Organisation
85 Mr Mlima AEDC (Kandeu EPA) Tchauya AEC
86 Mdima Banda Primary Education Advisor Kwataine AEC
87 Shira Maimba Member Kwataine ADC
88 Lewis M Khonje AEDO Kwataine AEC
89 Mrs EO Banda AEDO Kwataine AEC
90
Huxrray
Chakuwamba Forestry Assistant Kwataine AEC
91
Kingston
Kaphirikwete Child Protection Worker Kwataine AEC
92 Wells Kalawang'oma Community Devt Assistant Kwataine AEC
93 Patrick W Mwenye Child Protection Worker Kwataine AEC
94 L R W Lingani AEDC Kwataine AEC
95 Bessy Ganda Member Kwataine ADC
96 Paul Kabwaibwai Member Kwataine ADC
97 Mrs Falesi Thomson Committee member Tchauya VDC
98 Blessings Paulo Committee member Tchauya VDC
99 Yohane Gogoda Rep Police Forum Tchauya VDC
86
100 Tony Kantwanje Chairman Community Policing Forum
101 Charles Kachimera Chairman Tchauya VDC
102 Cecillia Chilanda Secretary Tchauya VDC
103 Daina Wilo Committee member Fuko VDC
104 Nalesi Milikafu Committee member Fuko VDC
105 Enock Chilikutali Member Chitungu CBO
106 Joshua Chikoti Member Thipe CBO
107 Elson Chitsonga Member Limbikani Irrigation Scheme
108 James Chalira Member Limbikani Irrigation Scheme
109 Charles Tingodana Member Limbikani Irrigation Scheme
110 Fanny Chindodo Member Limbikani Irrigation Scheme
111 Mai L Kunkwezu Member Limbikani Irrigation Scheme
112 Mrs Feby Chibalo Member Limbikani Irrigation Scheme
113 Bertha Kanyama Member Limbikani Irrigation Scheme
No Name Position Organisation
114 Rose Chiunjiza Member Limbikani Irrigation Scheme
115 Eledasi Salanje Member Limbikani Irrigation Scheme
116 Lidiya Kalanga Member Limbikani Irrigation Scheme
117 Dorothy Chatuluka Member Chitungu CBO
118 Kesi Yohani Member Thipe CBO
119 Manesi Tsoyo Member Kaludzu CBO
120 Manesi Singano Member Kaludzu CBO
121 Getrude Chalowana Member Kaludzu CBO
122 Efelo Chilakalaka Member Tchauya CBO
123 Effe Chidati Member Tchauya CBO
124 Martha Kachikondo Member Tchauya CBO
125 Stella Kamchamba Member Tchauya CBO
126 Feli Jordan Member Mphepozinayi FBO
127 Efe Jolomos Member Mphepozinayi FBO
128 Veronica Dowa Member Mphepozinayi FBO
129 Rita Frackson Member Tchauya CBO
130 Esterer Zenengeya Member Tchauya CBO
131 Florida Piason Member Mponda CBO
132 Agnes Panogonu Member Tchauya CBO
133 Lefa Njiwa Member Tchauya CBO
134 Mafa Lemadi Member Tchauya CBO
135 Emma Kengelemu Member Tchauya CBO
136 Lefena Kaphangula Member Mponda CBO
137 Exton Matipwiri Member Tchauya CBO
138 Edwin Kakhome Member Tchauya CBO
139 Jimmy Siteva Member Tchauya CBO
87
140 Jacob Pondaponda Member Tchauya CBO
141 Frank Chinseu Member Mponda CBO
142 Olesi Chambala Member Mponda CBO
No Name Position Organisation
143 Elliot Chilanda Member Tchauya CBO
144 Essau Kafaulinji Member Tchauya CBO
145
Leonard
Dzinkambani Member Tchauya CBO
146 Eliah Lidson John Member Tchauya CBO
147 Stanoid Kaleke Member Kaludzu CBO
148 Simeon Kamba Member Kaludzu CBO
District Consultations Dedza (19 – 20 July 2010)
No Name Position Organisation
149 T/A. Kachindamoto Snr Chief Dedza DCC Member
150 T/A Kachere Chief Dedza DCC Member
151 T/A Kasumbu Chief Dedza DCC Member
152 GA Kampota Former Councilor Dedza DCC Member
153 FG Buleya Former Councilor, Magomero Ward Dedza DCC Member
154 E Kaphamthengo Former Councilor, Katewe, Ward Dedza DCC Member
155 JA Kamunga Former Councilor Dedza DCC Member
156 AJ Chidovu Former Councilor, Kapsa Ward Dedza DCC Member
157 Hon CC Mlombwa MP, Dedza S West Dedza DCC Member
158 G Fosa Chinawa Former Councilor, Msunduzu ward Dedza DCC Member
159 J. Chimangeni Director GASO
160 Phunziro Dula Chairman Misonde CBO
161 Philemon Kavala Chairman Umodzi CBO
162 TA Chauma Chief Dedza DCC Member
163 TA Tambala Chief Dedza DCC Member
164 TA Kaphuka Chief Dedza DCC Member
165 H Chawinga Irrigation Officer Irrigation
166 BKB Joshua DFO Fisheries
167 AC Chekani ADFO Forestry
168 HAK Jere DOF Town Council
No Name Position Organisation
169 Mercilina Lwanda UNV Planner Dedza District Council
170 Fannie Msimuko HRMO Town Council
171 CB Naphiyo DRHO Rural Housing
172 Stalin Shaba M&EO District Council
173 Venon Makanjira AHRMO District Council
174 Nicholas Sichali District Irrigation Officer Irrigation
88
175 Lytton Nkata Advisor GTZ
176 Janet Mtoso M&EO WVI
177 Horaace Kasudze Programme Officer CCJP
178 Heston Nalikole Executive Director Pillars of Hope
179 Saidi Makande O/A NICE
180 Adrian Maseko Concern Universal
181 P Chadza DOF District Council
182 Jean Manjanja Secretary Chimbiya Piggery Cooperative
183 Gricylia Kalinde Livestock officer Madalitso CBO
184 Christina Andrew Secretary Youth Club
185 Tidziwenji Chimanga Member Herbalists Forum
186 Sieni Mazengera Member Tithandizane CBO
187 Eleminia Simbi Treasurer Nanchembo CBO
188 Fanesi Kalima Secretary Tithandizane CBO
189 Delina Mlenga Member Tithandizane CBO
190 Esther Chiweza Programme Manager Chimwemwe CBO
191 Emily Shaheed Chairperson Linthipe Cooperative
192 Jezina Hosten Chairman Kukada CBO
193 Martin Mitumba Chairman Mpumula CBO
194 Alifontina Esiwelo Member Somela CBO
195 Adora Salimu Member Denza CBO
196 Joana Chikuza Secretary Chisomo CBO
197 Joseph Phiri Treasurer FOCUD CBO
No Name Position Organisation
198 Matelina Seveliano Member Chisomo CBO
199 Davie Kafamveka Chairman Mzengereza CBO
200 Odeta Zeze Member Tiyese CBO
201 Agnes Chimangeni Member Kamtambe CBO
202 Lawrence Luciano Member Tikondane CBO
203 Jesilina Kalekeni Secretary Ndaulo CBO
204 Pitrosi Bisowasi Treasurer Talimbanazo Youth Club
205 Jikilani Pitilosi Chairperson Namitsitsi CBO
206 Kennedy Christopher Chairman Msinda Youth Club
207 Haswell Lameck Secretary Phatso CBO
208 Peter Kamba Chairman Chikuli CBO
209 Pascalina Spoon Vice Chairperson Chikombelo farmers coop
210 Esnart Maliselino Member Chinkombelo CBO
211 Eulita Chimpeni Treasurer Tigwirizane CBO
212 Patricia Minimbi Secretary Tigwirizane CBO
213 Evalister Chamthera Secretary Tiyanjane CBO
214 Richard Chikadza Chairman Chilungamo CBO
89
215 Henry Jeke Vice Chairperson Mkungumbe CBO
216 Godfrey Jelazi Chairman Tithetse CBO
217 Innocent Mathambo Treasurer Tithetse CBO
218 Wenord Jumbu Chairman Mkungumbe CBO
219 Anthony Mzambwe Secretary Kamgulitse Irrigation Scheme
220 Cyprian Gallion Chairman Chikondi CBO
221 Benjamin Kasiya Member Bua CCJP
222 Innocencia Kamwendo Treasurer Chikondi CBO
223 Efiteni Chiwambo Secretary Tsanjalare Scheme
224 Teza Kazembe Member Nancholi Club
225 EL Gwaza Chairman Kamenyagwaza Club
226 Lawrence Makawa Chairman Bembeke FBO
No Name Position Organisation
227 Siliaka Kankhwani Treasurer Bembeke FBO
228 R Chimbalanga Member Chilungamo CBO
229 Patrick Kamphanje Member Tsanjalare Scheme
230 Gerald Chimchere Member Area Stakeholder Committee
231 A Harry Chairman VNRMC
232 M Chimpikizo Chairman Kanye Irish Production Club
233 Tresford Pamonga Secretary Kanye Irish Production Club
234 Felix Damalankhunda Secretary Chisomo Cooperative
235 Mirriam Chienda Chairperson Kamgulitse Irrigation Scheme
236 Fortunate Chimonjo Member Area Stakeholder Committee
237 Kiliyona Nkhulanje Chairperson Mwaiwathu Cooperative
238 Tereza Njula Member Kamgulitse Irrigation Scheme
239 TA Kamenyagwaza TA Kamenyagwaza
240 SJ Chinyamula GVH Chinyamula
241 Eliasi Kantunda GVH Kantande
242 Clement Kafera GVH Katsekaminga
243 C. Tavekanji GVH Kamenyagwaza
244 Christopher Paul GVH Chimkombero
245 Delestina GVH Kapenuka
246 Peter Kademele GVH Lunguzi
247 Alexander Kasenga GVH Mkutu
248 Peter C Majiya GVH Ngonoonda
249 Ofilino Pofela GVH Mkungumbe
250 ED Kamngulitu GVH Kamgulitu
252 Genford German GVH Khanganya
253 Victor Nataniel GVH Marten
254 P. Mulanje GVH Kaliye Maonde
255 Deusidedi VH Sauka
90
256 E Mchochomo VH Mchochomo II
No Name Position Organisation
257 Lawrence Banda VH Yohane
258 Stivelio Storo VH Jowa
259 Martin Kaidi VH Chimkwita
260 Timothy Manzoni VH Bwanamakowa
261 GVH Katsache GVH Katsache
262 GVH Gome GVH Gome
263 GVH Chasokera GVH Chasokera
264 GVH Chimasula GVH Chimasula
265 GVH Mkopoka GVH Mkopoka
266 GVH Kakhome I GVH Kakhome I
267 GVH Chikwasa GVH Chikwasa
268 GVH Mkhutamowa GVH Mkhutamowa
269 GVH Dzoole GVH Dzoole
270 GVH Mgundadzuwa GVH Mgundadzuwa
271 GVH Mwanzimba GVH Mwanzimba
272 GVH Kwendekeza GVH Kwendekeza
273 GVH Chiwoza GVH Chiwoza
274 GVH Solowa GVH Solowa
275 GVH Ungwe GVH Ungwe
276 Fletcher Nold Chairman Kaphuka ADC
277 Beneti Boliyamu GVH Chipeni Kaphuka ADC
278 JG Mnjelema Secretary Kaphuka AEC
279 GVH Mazengera VDC Secretary Kaphuka ADC
280 VH Nampinga VDC Chairman Kaphuka ADC
281 Fransisca Kamowa VDC Chairperson Kaphuka ADC
282 Yembekeza Mussa VDC Secretary Kaphuka ADC
283 Moses Katengeza VDC Secretary Kaphuka ADC
284 Rodgers Mbiri Member Kaphuka ADC
285 Samuel Bweya Member Kaphuka ADC
No Name Position Organisation
286 Davide Chataika Member Kaphuka ADC
287 Tiwerengeni Banda Member Kaphuka ADC
288 JM Lemiton Health Surveillance Assistant Kaphuka AEC
289 Gwede Diziyala Member Kaphuka ADC
290 Meya Laiton Member Kaphuka ADC
291 Maxwell Lingison Member Kaphuka ADC
292 Harrison M Banda Member Kaphuka ADC
293 Alinafe Banda Member Kaphuka ADC
294 Gerald Chauwa Member Kaphuka ADC
91
295 Emamnuel Wilson Member Kaphuka ADC
296 MJ Njunga Chief's Clerk Kamenyagwaza ADC
297 VM Kalembelera Forest Officer Kamenyagwaza AEC
298 FK Chinkhande Veterinary Officer Kamenyagwaza AEC
299 L Kasaira Health Surveillance Assistant Kamenyagwaza AEC
300 S Alli UMO Kamenyagwaza AEC
301 Arnold Lufeo Member Kamenyagwaza AEC
302 P Zenasi Member Kamenyagwaza AEC
303 M Mbilizi Member Kamenyagwaza AEC
304 WIC Kadammanja Member Kamenyagwaza AEC
305 CP Tolokosi Member Kamenyagwaza AEC
306 Maxwell Njobvu Member Kamenyagwaza AEC
307 BJ Ngwemba AEDC Kamenyagwaza AEC
308 K Munthali Member Kamenyagwaza AEC
309 Raymond Phiri Chairman Kamenyagwaza ADC
310 Salatiel Chikadza Member Kamenyagwaza ADC
311 FL Mwenje Member Kamenyagwaza ADC
312 Chimbalanga Member Kamenyagwaza ADC
313 Alex Sukasuka Member Kamenyagwaza ADC
314 Pio Sunge Member Kamenyagwaza ADC
No Name Position Organisation
315 Anthony Sitolo Treasurer Kamenyagwaza ADC
316 Lezita Wamtsinje Member Kamenyagwaza ADC
317 BK Belekanyama Member Kamenyagwaza AEC
318 Blessings Mpinganjira Shadow Councilor Bembeke
319 Geruazio Chioko Area Stakeholder Committee Masula
320 Matiasi Golowa VDC Secretary Mkungumbe
321 Willy Pearson Member Mkungumbe
322 Benita Thala VDC Chairman Kamenyagwaza
323 Ellinet F Bauti VDC Member Katsekaminga
324 Christina Mdala VDC Member Katsekaminga
325 Polina Rabson VDC Member Katsekaminga
326 Ruth Dzinkambani VDC Treasurer Katsekaminga
327 Catherine Kwezani VDC Secretary Katsekaminga
328 Happy Dziko VDC Secretary Kamenyagwaza
330 Louis Saiwa VDC Secretary Chalokwa
331 Dennis Kalala VDC Secretary Siya
332 Alice Francisco VDC Member Nyangale
333 Anne Leonard VDC Member Mkungumbe
334 Prisca Semamani VDC Member Mkungumbe
335 Lucida Matias Rep of women Mkungumbe
92
336 Lucy Kaidi VDC Secretary Alberto 2
337 Lufina Kaidi VDC Member Mkungumbe
338 Suzen Zalipaiye VDC Member Chinyamula
339 Anne Gatoma VDC Secretary Kapenuka
340 Polina Makande VDC Secretary Kapenuka
341 Naomi Kalilombe VDC Secretary Kantande
342 Malita Kalipinde VDC Member Kantande
343 Prisca Kaiya VDC Secretary Kantande
344 Patricia Mzambwe VDC Member Mkungumbe
No Name Position Organisation
345 Stella Matias VDC Member Mkungumbe
346 Austin Mathews VDC Member Khanganya
347 Laizio Gulatikiti VDC Chairman Chimkombero
348 Mphatso Fedriko VDC Member Chimkombero
349 Froliano Nikazio VDC Secretary Mkhwamba
350 Tobias Masoausiku VDC Secretary Kaphulusa
351 Velano Kapolo VDC Chairman Lunguzi
352 Steven Liwamba VDC Secretary Biwi
353 McDonald Ligowe VDC Member Kagulitse
District Consultations Mulanje46
(22 – 23 July 2010)
No Name Position Organisation
354 M. Salimu M&EO District Council Secretariat
355 MMM Jamu DCDO Community Development
356 Gideon D.E Mothisa DLO Labour
357 Ellis Tembo DPW Works
358 F.W. Kaziputa MHC Officer Malawi Housing & Cooperation
359 DSC Chizizi HRMO District Council Secretariat
360 Nelia Kumalele ASWO Social Welfare
361 V Kaliwo DIO Information
362 Mercy Dulani SAA Tresury Cashier
363 Duncan Masonje DFO Forestry
364 Alfred Kankoma Fisheries Officer Fisheries
365 Vone P Mkandawire PVHO
366 Andrew Kandulu National Library
367 Fredrick Kapute Water
368 M Njoka Phiri OVOP
369 Gray Mkwanda DPD District Council Secretariat
46
Note: In Mulanje, CBOs, FBOs and Farmers clubs/cooperatives did not turn up to due to the Councils
logistical challenges.
93
370 P.T Chirwa DRHO
No Name Position Organisation
371 T.G Sakwi Southern Region Water Board
372 Madalitso Chaphera DCEO NICE
373 Sella Chaphamtengo PO REFORD
374 Benjamin Kamanga CDF Plan Malawi
375 Henry Beni CO GAIA
376 Grant Chiotcha Coordinator CILIC
377 Godfrey Chinsunkha ICDF Africare
378 Arnold Kadziponye Capacity Building Officer MOBILISE
379 John Mthandi Executive Director MUREA
380 Andiyesa Mhango Project Manager ADRA
381 TA Njema Chief District Council
382 TA Chikumbu Chief District Council
383 GVH Chitambi GVH Chitambi
384 GVH Chinomba GVH Chinomba
385 GVH Mitumbila GVH Mitumbila
386 GVH Nyezelera GVH Nyezelera
387 GVH Chimwala GVH Chimwala
388 GVH Mbiza GVH Mbiza
389 GVH Namputu GVH Namputu
390 GVH Tambala GVH Tambala
391 GVH Kachingwe GVH Kachingwe
392 GVH Golowera GVH Golowera
393 GVH Njedza GVH Njedza
394 GVH Chisinkha GVH Chisinkha
395 GVH Tchete GVH Tchete
396 GVH Chimwaza GVH Chimwaza
397 GVH Tambala GVH Tambala
398 GVH Namazoma GVH Namazoma
399 GVH Sazola GVH Sazola
No Name Position Organisation
400 GVH Makupiza GVH Makupiza
301 GVH Mphusu GVH Mphusu
402 GVH Machokola GVH Machokola
403 GVH Misanjo GVH Misanjo
404 Rose Moison Vice Chairperson Chikumbu ADC
405 Jane Mwafulirwa Secretary Chikumbu ADC
406 Flora Basikolo Member Chikumbu AEC
407 Rome Mwale Vice Chairperson Chikumbu AEC
408 Branda Namitete Member Chikumbu ADC
94
409 Happy Nguleti Member Chikumbu AEC
410 Nicholas Njoloma Member Chikumbu AEC
411 Richard Chimtengo Chairman Chikumbu ADC
412 Alpheus T Mandala Member Chikumbu ADC
413 Clement Mweiwa Member Chikumbu ADC
414 Derrick Mangalusa Member Chikumbu AEC
415 Rajab Ahomad Vice Secretary Chikumbu ADC
416 Yohane Gray Youth representative Chikumbu ADC
417 Coster Mukhuna Member Chikumbu ADC
418 Jessie Mulenga Member Chikumbu AEC
419 Maicy Kaunda Vice Chair Nkhonya VDC
420 Luka Mathiya Member Chinomba VDC
421 Benedicto Mailosi Vice Chair Chinomba VDC
422 Febby Anord Member Kachingwe VDC
423 Andulo Changa Member Tambala VDC
424 Witinesi Munyowa Member Namputa VDC
425 Abdul Razak Ali Chairman Kachingwe VDC
426 Martina Lemusha Church secretary Mitumbila GVDC
427 Burton Jarden Chairman Mitumbila GVDC
428 Sumaili Chikonde GVDC Vice Chair Ngolowera
No Name Position Organisation
429 Tonnex Malata VDC Chairman Chimwala
430 James Dailesi VDC Chairman Mulasa
431 Kenneth Chakwala VDC Chairman Robeni
432 Austin Chikwawa Vice Chair Misanjo GVDC
433
Mrs Mervis
Kumwela Rep Chair Tambala GVDC
434 Stanley Mondiwa Treasurer Amachokola GVDC
435 Henry Black Chair Namazoma VDC
436 Jones Maseya Treasurer Chimwala GVDC
437 Amos Ligomeka Chair Makupiza GVDC
District Consultations Rumphi (3 – 4 August 2010)
No Name Position Organisation
438 Geomy Khosa Director PPM
439 Mr COY Chirambo
440 Afiki Mbewe MPs Representative DPP
441 Mrs Jeya Nyirenda Member DPP
442 Peter A Muyanga Representative Church of Christ
443 Kennedy H Mhango Representative DWOOM
444 Fr Andrew Manda Parish Priest Catholic Church
445 Christopher Elder Seventh Day Adventist Church
95
Musongole
446 Ali Omar Muhyuddin Sheikh QAM (Muslim Association)
447 Christopher Chavula Chairman Bolero ADC
448 Florence C Kalua Chairperson Mwankhunikira ADC
449 Themba Kachulu Chief District Council
450 Themba Chisovya Chief District Council
451 Themba Mwalweni Chief District Council
452 Themba Zolokeri Sub Chief District Council
453 Themba Mwamlowe Chief District Council
454
Rev Frackson
Kathumba Pastor Malawi Assemblies of God
No Name Position Organisation
455 Moses MH Ndhlovu Chairman NARC party
456 Annie Nyasulu Chairperson AFORD
457 Brenda Kafunda Chairperson UDF
458 Alice Mwanza Member RWF
459 Rev WJr Mtika Pastor CCAP
460 Bless Chirambo Chairperson MDP
461 Brighton Chiumia MCP
462
Themba
Mwankhunikira Chief District Council
463 Mr DCC Mwandira DOA District Council
464 Jacob Mkandawire DWO Water Development
465 Mr ACT Chima DCDO Community Development
466 Henry Nyaka DIO Information
467 Mr PW Mbale MIS Officer District Council
468 Victor Pindikani DSWO Social Welfare
469 Luke DZ Kamonde AGRESSO Agriculture
470 MR LC Mkandawire Ass. Labor Officer Labour
471 Alice Zgambo District Council
472 Bentry Mwagomba Field Officer OPC
473 Sweeney Msosa DTO Trade
474 MR WC Banda DFO Forestry
475 Mr Frank Mkandawire Ag DPD District Council
476 Freeman Ngoma OVOP Officer OVOP
477 Emmanuel Kalua Coordinator CCJP Primary Justice
478 Thinkho Mhango Director Gemaccadet
479 Lowani Kalua Program Coordinator REAP
480 Mr FM Mkinga Director DAMRA
481 Oscar Mkandawire MFO LISAP
482 Bonnie Soko Counselor PAMPHAM
483 Mr GD Simbeye Deputy Director RUFA
96
No Name Position Organisation
484 Mr C Luhanga FO Church and Society
485 Lena Lungu Project Officer Church and Society
486
Chimwemwe A
Liwewe Accountant Total Land Care
487 Onnis Kasambara Development Officer WVI
488 Chimwemwe Soko Project Coordinator FAIR
489 Mike Tembo Secretary Mwagomba VDC
490 Ali Ngala Chairman Mwagomba VDC
491 Kumbukani Nyirenda Treasurer Mwagomba VDC
492 Michael Nguluwe Lead Farmer Mwagomba
493 Fredrick Chinula Member Mwagomba VDC
494 Kenani Nyirenda Member Mwagomba VDC
495 Patrick Munthali Member Mwagomba VDC
496 Edward Mkandawire Secretary Mwagomba VDC
497 Redge Chavura Lead Farmer Mwagomba
498 Colida Mtegha Member Mwagomba VDC
499 Dorothy Mkandawire Member Mwagomba VDC
500 Goli Mhango Member Mwagomba VDC
501 Daughless Ngwira Vice Chairlady Mwagomba VDC
502 Anna Phiri Lead Farmer Mwagomba
503 Dyna Ngwira Treasurer Mwagomba VDC
504 Kettie Mhango Women's Representative Mwagomba VDC
505 Chiza Gondwe Member Mwagomba VDC
506 Lusungu Chirambo Member Mwagomba VDC
507 Judith Nyasulu A.S.P. Member Mwagomba
508 Kingsley Ngwira Member Mwagomba VDC
509 Valin Ngwira Lead Farmer Bolero VDC
510 Mama Gondwe Lead Farmer Bolero VDC
511 Staphel Chavula Lead Farmer Bolero VDC
512 Towera Chirambo Lead Farmer Bolero VDC
No Name Position Organisation
513 Chrissie Kamanga Lead Farmer Bolero VDC
514 Melayi Nyasulu Lead Farmer Bolero VDC
515 Regina Chirambo Lead Farmer Bolero VDC
516 Brown Bora Vice Chairperson Bolero VDC
517 Mavuto Nkwazi Chairperson Bolero VDC
518 Raymond Gondwe Village Representative Bolero VDC
519 Luka Nyirenda Village Secretary Bolero VDC
520 Brown Vice Secretary Bolero VDC
521 Medson. C. Gondwe Lead Farmer Bolero VDC
97
522 Maclean. K. Gondwe Chairman Bolero VDC
523 Pilate Luhanga Secretary Bolero VDC
524 Chiza. M. Gondwe Secretary Bolero VDC
525 George Kamsenda Secretary Bolero VDC
526 Simeon Kumwenda Chairman Bolero VDC
527 Clement. K. Lungu Secretary Bolero VDC
528 Justice. J.M. Nyirongo Lead Farmer Bolero VDC
529 Gift Gondwe Member VDC Bolero VDC
530 Kondwani Gondwe Lead Farmer Bolero VDC
531 Agness Nkhwazi Vice Chairperson Bolero VDC
532 Baxter Chigwani Secretary Bolero VDC
533 Benjamin Nyirongo Lead Farmer Bolero VDC
534 Christopher Chavula Chairperson Ng'onga ADC
535 Sella Ngulu Secretary Ng'onga ADC
536 JK Musukwa Vice Secretary Ng'onga ADC
537 MC Mkandawire Agriculture Ext worker Ng'onga AEC
538 Jomo Chikhutu Member Ng'onga ADC
539 Rose Munthali CBO Chairperson Fortiya VDC
540 Lucky Bunda Bera CBO Bera VDC
541 Saphel Moyo Member Ng'onga ADC
No Name Position Organisation
542 Frair Mhango Member Ng'onga ADC
543 Noyi Ngwira Vice Chairperson Ng'onga ADC
544 Mathews Nyasulu Member Ng'onga ADC
545 Timothy Kapira Member Ng'onga ADC
546 FM Phiri EE DNPW Ng'onga AEC
547 Ethel Mhango Treasurer Ng'onga ADC
548 Fishern Gondwe CBO Secretary Bera VDC
549 Duncan Munthali CBO Secretary Mwangonga
550 Moses Mkandawire Member Ng'onga ADC
551 Jonathan Zungu Member Ng'onga ADC
552 HL Mkandawire Member Ng'onga ADC
553 Laston K Nyasulu Member Ng'onga ADC
554
Chimwemwe
Mzumara Member Ng'onga ADC
555 Stanley Nyirenda Member Ng'onga ADC
556 Langston Zimba Forestry Assistant Ng'onga AEC
557 SS Harawa Vice Chairperson Bolero AEC
558 MD Mzunda Chairperson Bolero AEC
559 Rev DH Chaomba Monitor Bolero ADC
560 Gogo Mtampha Treasurer Bolero ADC
98
561 Austin Luhanga Chairman Bolero ADC
562 Patrick Swila Member Bolero ADC
563 Stowell BK Gondwe Member Bolero ADC
564 Donewell Chirambo Member Bolero ADC
565 Freedom Gondwe Member LHACAO
566 Stephen Mfune Vice Chairperson Bolero ADC
567 Leonard Chizala Member Bolero ADC
568 Osbert Gondwe Snr GVH Bolero ADC
569 Jean Mughogho Member Bolero COMSIP Cooperative
570 Rev Chizala Member Bolero ADC
No Name Position Organisation
580 Bonface Butao Youth Representative Bolero Youth
581 Loffus Nyasulu Member Vilimudongo Cooperative
582 RMDK Mwenitanga AEDC Bolero AEC
583 Joel Mkandawire Member Bolero ADC
584 Moreen Munthali Member Chirambo Radio Club
585 Martin Phiri Member Chirambo Radio Club
586 Judith Mkandawire Member Bolero ADC
587 Pyoka Mkandawire Disability Representative Bolero ADC
588 Fatia Mzumara Member Vilimudongo Cooperative
589 Kisty Mhango Member Bolero ADC
590 Bosco Zgambo Member Jalira CBO
591 Oliver Nthambo Treasurer Bolero COMSIP Cooperative
592 Agnes M Soko Member Luwinga CBO
Meeting with Rural Livelihood Support Programme (RLSP)
593 Mr Malembo Programme Manager Rural Livelihood Support Programme
594 Elida Ganda Community Development
Officer
Rural Livelihood Support Programme
595 Maurice
Kalimba
Business Development
Officer
Rural Livelihood Support Programme
99
Appendix 3: Mapping of support to the decentralisation process
Development
Partner/NGO
Type of Project Districts being served Period Amount Area of Support
Supply Side Demand Side 1.
UNDP/UNCDF
and GOM
Local Government
Strengthening and
Investment Programme
(MLOGSIP)
Nkhata Bay, Mzimba
Mchinji, Kasungu, Dedza
Ntcheu Thyolo,
Chiradzulu, Nsanje,
Chikwawa
Machinga,Mangochi
Zomba Phalombe
2010-
2013
US$10,943,000 Reactivating and supporting
national and local
mechanisms for driving 4
components of NDP II:
Sector Devolution,
Institutional Development
and Capacity Building,
Fiscal Devolution and
Financial Management,
Local Development Planning
and Financing Mechanisms.
Policy & Regulation-
Harmonizing statutes that
assist devolution
District Council-
Capacity building activities:
district & community levels
Supporting promotion of
trigger activities for local
economic development and
further investments in
service delivery:
Knowledge management
(M&E).
2.German GTZ- MGPDD Chitipa, Karonga, 2010- District Council capacity Support formation and
100
Development
Cooperation
(KFW, GTZ,
DED)
KFW
Mzuzu City, Nkhotakota,
Salima, Ntchisi, Kasungu
Municipality, Balaka,
Zomba City, Luchenza
Municipality
2014
EUR 18.5
million
EUR 11 million
building focusing on:
change management, team
building, local development
planning coordination, build
communities planning and
equipment supply
District Transparency and
accountability initiatives and
Capacity building for
councillors, ADCs and
VDCs
Urban window projects,
Service charter
implementation coordination
at central level and service
charter implementation at
district level
Decentralisation reform and
regulatory framework,
including the establishment
of the Local Development
Fund (LDF) – Support to
Formulation Sector
Devolution management
Guidelines
Design &and
Institutionalisation of
training for councils in
planning (Polytechnic and
Mzuni) Revenue
Enhancement ( SDI),
Change Management (MIM)
Improving capacities of the
training of community
facility oversight
committees in health
Creation of forums for
citizen state
engagement at district
and local level for
councillors to engage
with citizens
Provision of training
materials and capacity
building for CBOs,
DAC, VAC for
HIV/AIDs management
101
local assemblies and their
secretariats to manage
effectively their resources
and services (local level) as
well as the development of
sustainable infrastructure:
District Council capacity
building focusing on:
change management, team
building, local development
planning coordination, build
communities planning and
equipment supply
Strengthening councillors
and community
representatives to actively
participate in local
development while holding
local assemblies and their
secretariats accountable
Strengthening of civil
society, promotion of
democracy and anti-
corruption (e.g. through
NICE & AICC), gender
issues
3. Irish Aid Local Development
Support Programme
through Concern
Universal
Dedza, Ntcheu, Balaka
and Phalombe
2010-
2014
€1,064,082 Support to District
Management and Councils
4. Irish Aid and Joint learning on All districts 2010 €80,000 Train DCs and M&E officers
102
GTZ Managing for
Development Results
(JLE/MFDR)
in MFDR in accordance with
the Accra Principles in
preparation for the MGDS II
5.Irish Aid and
GTZ
Joint Capacity
Development Fund to
strengthen District level
public financial
management
All districts 2010-
2011
€350,000
Place qualified accountants
as Assistant Directors of
Finance, train financial
management teams in all
districts
6. Irish Aid, EU,
and GTZ
Strengthen District
Level Service Delivery
All districts 2010-
2014
€1,750,000 Design, develop, train,
increase capacity, publish,
communicate and integrate
Public Service Charter
programmes in all Districts
7.World Bank
and GOM
LDF All districts 2009-
2013
2009-
2010
WB-US $64
million
earmarked
GOM-
$16,000,000
Support to Community
window and Local
Authority window projects,
performance window and
national institutional
strengthening, building
district council capacity for
implementation of LDF,
LDF Communication
strategy
Involvement of
communities through
community monitoring
such as community
score cards and
budgeting
8. DFID Community Based
Monitoring Project-
implemented by Plan
International, Congoma
and Action Aid
Support towards LDF
Karonga, Nkhatabay,
Mzimba, Kasungu,
Lilongwe, Chikwawa,
2008-
2011
Design of the LDF
Performance window
Support to citizens to
participate in local
budgeting process
through Participatory
performance monitoring
and evaluation, Citizen
Score Card, Interface
meetings with service
providers
9. JICA Support for District
Education Plan (DEP)
Institutionalisation
All Districts- Education
sector alone
2006-
2010
US$ 0.99
million
Strengthening the
development, utilisation and
review of DEPs
10. OXFAM Governance Blantyre, Lilongwe,
Chiradzulu, Thyolo,
2007-
2010
GBP30,000 per
year
Strengthening Local
councils: Revamping and
Advocacy on Local
Government structures
103
Phalombe, Balaka training ADCs and VDCs through CSOs
11. African
Development
Bank
LDF Phalombe, Ntchisi.
Mangochi, Mzimba
2009-
2013
US $22 million
earmarked
project support
Community Window,
Performance window, Urban
window and national
institutional strengthening
Harmonised monitoring and
evaluation framework
Implementation of
community
participatory processes-
score cards
12. European
Union
Support to NICE All districts MK72, 790,000
per year
including
elections;
MK20,790,000
per year
excluding
elections
Capacity building for ADCs
and VDS,
Training workshops for
District Assembly Officials
Holding public debates for
candidates contesting in the
LGEs
Conduct consultative
meetings with MPs,
assemblies and local
politicians on citizen
Participation;
Citizen Mobilisation
and Civic education for
participation in local
government elections
13. IDASA/NICE
with funding
from SDC
Local Governance
Capacity Support
Programme
Zomba, Mangochi, Neno,
Ntchisi, Dowa
2010-
2012
R3,772,293 District Local governance
assessment,
Improving Governance
capacities of local councils
Roll out of the service
charters programme
Integration of governance in
M&E
Councillor Curriculum
Development
CSO Capacity
enhancement
Building civic voice
Harmonisation and
standardisation of
citizen score card
104
Support to NICE
14. USAID and
Standard Bank
Support to strengthening
District Council
Financial Management
Karonga, Mzuzu,
Lilongwe,Nsanje,
Mwanza, Mangochi,
Phalombe, Ntchisi
Support to recruitment of
Financial Advisors for 9
months
15. UNDP and
Royal Norwegian
Embassy through
Democratic local
Governance (with
emphasis on Human
Rights) implemented by
Democracy
Consolidation
Programme (DCP)
All districts 2008-
2011
Capacity building to
promote participation
and citizen leader
engagement through
radio listening clubs at
village level & village
rights committees
(community based
forums)
16. Danish
Church Aid
Civic and Political Space Salima, Ntchisi,
Lilongwe, Mzimba,
Rumphi, Karonga
17. IFAD Rural Livelihoods
Sustainable Programme
(RLSP)
Empowering local
communities to manage
their socioeconomic
development and ensure
accountability within the
decentralised planning
system
Nsanje, Thyolo and
Chiradzulu
2004-
2014
IFAD US $14.8
million
GOM US $1.2
million
Capacity building at district,
area, and village level to
ensure local accountability,
operational transparency
Support to implementation
Participatory monitoring and
implementation
Support to implementation
of DDP through village
investments
Community planning
and implementation
Participatory
monitoring and
evaluation
105
Appendix 4: Area Development Committees in Practice
IDEAL PRACTICE ADC
VDC Chairpersons and
Vice-Chairpersons
Ward Representatives
Representatives of
religious faiths
Representatives of
youth and women
groups in the area
Representatives from
the business community
Chairperson of the AEC
Members of the ADC
should elect among
themselves a
Chairperson.
The TA/STA should not
chair the ADC but
supervises it and all
other committees within
his/her jurisdiction.
The ADC report to the
TA/ST A after every
meeting to keep him/her
informed of
development matters
discussed by the
committee and seek his
support when and
where needed.
The Chairperson of the
AEC shall be the
Secretary of the ADC. The term of office of
ADC members shall
be three years except
for Ward
Representatives who
TA is the chair
He appointed a Secretary who
deputises him when he is
absent.47
Committee members
appointed by the chiefs drawn
from the VDCs.
Treasurer is the chief
GVH are also members of
ADC.
AEC just called to comment
on specific issue but not
permanent members of ADC.
Thus, have no permanent
representation.
The hierarchy of the structures
is as follows:
DEC---ADC---VDC---CDC48
Kwataine ADC
(Ntcheu)
47
This Secretary is just a colleague of the TA. He is not from the royal family. 48
CDC means Community Development Committee. This committee is at the Village Level and chaired by
the Village Headman/woman. The Community Development Committee is composed of chairpersons of
committees (Agriculture, CBOs, Health, and Water among others) at the village level.
106
are permanent
members.
Fifty-one percent of
members shall
constitute a quorum
(Government of Malawi,
Development Planning
System Handbook for
District Assemblies, 2001,
Lilongwe)
TA is the advisor but with
much influence on the
deliberations of all two ADCs.
Thus the chairs are only
ceremonial/figure heads.
The Deputy Chairperson is a
GVH
The Secretary is a GVH.
GVHs are members of ADC
as well.
Chairpersons and deputy
chairpersons of VDCs are
members of ADCs.
The TA appointed one
individual who chairs the
upper ADC when he is not
there.
Chairperson of CBO Network
is also a member
Njolomole
(Upper) ADC-
Ntcheu
Chairpersons and Deputy
chairpersons of VDCs are
members of ADCs
A representative of the AEC
Representative of the Interest
groups
Have elected Chairperson who
has some effective powers as
compared to Njolomole and
Kwataine ADCs. The whole
leadership is elected.
The TA is an advisor
(umbrella)
The hierarchy of the
committees is as below:
Milonde ADC
(in TA
Mabuka) and
TA Chikumbu
ADC-Mulanje
107
DEC---ADC---GVDC---
VDC49
Chairpersons and deputy
chairpersons of ADCs are
members of ADC
Chairperson of AEC who is
the Secretary for ADC.
Elected chairperson.
TAs are only advisors
Representatives of interest
groups
Bolero and
Ng‟onga ADC-
Rumphi
49
The GVDCs at the GVH level whilst the VDC is at the VH level. The GVDCs is a legacy of Oxfam.
Oxfam established vibrant VDCs at the village level around 1997 in the area to the extent that it was
difficult to have VDCs at the GVH level when the decentralised structures were being established around
199/99. For the sake of not confusing people, the viable solution was to leave the Oxfam VDCs at the
village level intact and establish GVDCs at the GVH level. With time, the VDCs have become part of the
decentralised structures.
108
Appendix 5: Documents Consulted
Blair, H. (2000). Participation and accountability at the periphery: Democratic local
governance in six countries. World Development, 28(1), 21-39.
Boysen, T. & Chima, J. (2008). Final evaluation 2008: Malawi Germany Programme for
Democracy and Decentralization Malawi [Main Report]. [Lilongwe: GTZ].
Chiweza (2007), Democracy. Decentralisation and Development in Malawi, Unpublished
PhD Thesis, Curtin University: Perth, Australia.
Crook, R. C., and Manor, J. (1998). Democracy and decentralisation in South Asia and
West Africa. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cross, S., and Kutengule, M. (2001). Decentralisation and Rural Livelihoods in Malawi.
LADDER Working Paper: Department for International Development (DFID).
Dedza District Assembly. (1999). District Socio-Economic Profile. Blantyre: Blantyre
Print and Packaging.
Dedza District Assembly. (2002). District Development Plan 2002 – 2005. Lilongwe:
Department of Local Government, Office of the President and Cabinet.
Dedza District Assembly. (2007). District Socio-Economic Profile. Lilongwe: Venus
Printing Press.
DeGabriele, J. and Msukwa, CAPS. (2005). Mid Term Evaluation of Njala Yithe Food
Security Project. [Dedza: Concern Universal].
ECI (2008). Final Evaluation of the Malawi UNDP/UNCDF Local Development
Programme (MDGP). Final Report.
Hutcheson, M. A. (1998). Africa South of the Sahara: Physical and Social Geography of
Malawi. 27th ed. London: Europe Publications.
Kutengule, M. et al. (2004). Report on the review of the national decentralization
programme of Malawi 2001-2004. [Lilongwe]: Joint Government/Donor Review
Team.
Malawi Government (1995). Constitution of the Republic of Malawi. [Lilongwe].
Malawi Government (1996). Local Government Elections. [Zomba: National Assembly].
Malawi Government (1998). Local Government Act. [Lilongwe: National Assembly].
Malawi Government (1999). Local Government Elections [Act Amendment]. [Lilongwe:
National Assembly].
Malawi Government (2005). Malawi Poverty Reduction Strategy: [Final Draft].
[Lilongwe[.
Malawi Government (2006). Malawi growth and development strategy: from poverty to
prosperity 2006 – 2011. [Lilongwe].
Malawi Government (2009). National Decentralization Programme II 2008-2013.
Lilongwe: Ministry of Local Government and Rural Development.
Malawi Government, (2010). Local Development Fund: First joint annual review report.
Lilongwe: Technical Support Team, Local Development Fund.
Malawi Government, Decentralization Secretariat (1998) Malawi Decentralization
Policy. Lilongwe: Decentralization Secretariat.
Malawi Government, Department of Local Government. (2001). Developing Planning
Systems for District Assemblies. Lilongwe: Office of the President and Cabinet.
109
Malawi Government, Ministry of Gender & Community Services. (2003). Guidelines and
standards for the devolved functions to assemblies (July, 2003 – June, 2008).
Lilongwe: Ministry of Gender & Community Services.
Malawi Government, Ministry of Local Government and Rural Development. (2006).
Guidelines for the Constituency Development Fund. Lilongwe: Ministry of Local
Development and Rural Development.
Malawi Government, Ministry of Local Government and Rural Development. (2006).
2005/2006 Revised and 2006/2007 Malawi Local Authorities Budget Estimates.
Lilongwe: National Local Government Finance Committee.
Malawi Government, Ministry of Local Government and Rural Development. (2007).
Local Authorities: 2006/2007 Revised & 2007/2008 Budget estimates. Lilongwe:
National Local Government Finance Committee.
Malawi Government, Ministry of Local Government and Rural Development. (2008).
Local Authorities: 2008/2009 Budget estimates. Lilongwe: National Local
Government Finance Committee.
Malawi Government, Ministry of Local Government and Rural Development (2009).
Capacity development programme for decentralization: Support the national
decentralization programme II 2008 – 2013. [Final Draft]. Lilongwe: Ministry of
Local Government and Rural Development.
Malawi Government, Office of the President and Cabinet. (No date). Malawi Public
Service Charter Programme: Guidelines for developing and implementing service
charters. Lilongwe: Office of the President and Cabinet.
Malawi Government. (2002). The Constitution of the Republic of Malawi. Zomba: The
Government Press.
Malawi Government. (2000). Profile of poverty in Malawi, 1998: Poverty analysis of the
Malawi integrated household survey 1997-98, Lilongwe: NEC.
Malawi Government. (2002). Malawi Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper, Lilongwe:
Malawi Government.
Mbeye, J. (2003). Decentralisation policies in Malawi, Johannesburg: SURF, UNDP.
Mulanje District Assembly. (2002). Mulanje District Socio Economic Profile. Blantyre:
Marcia Industries.
National Statistical Office. (2000). Malawi Demographic and Health Survey 2000.
Zomba and Maryland: National Statistical Office and ORC Macro.
Ntcheu District Assembly. (2001). Ntcheu District Socio-Economic Profile. Blantyre:
Blantyre Print and Packaging.
Ntcheu District Assembly. (2008). Ntcheu District Socio-Economic Profile. [Ntcheu]:
Impressions Printers.
Ntcheu District Council. (2010). District Development Plan 2010 – 2013. [Ntcheu]:
Ntcheu District Council.
Nyasulu (2004).Decentralisation Rural Livelihoods and Poverty Reduction in Malawi.
Blantyre: USAID.
Poeschke, R., and Chirwa, W. C. (1998). The Challenge of democracy in Malawi: Socio-
anthropological conditions. A research report, Lilongwe and Bonn: GTZ.
110
Schou, A. (2002). Popular Participation in decentralised service and Social Funds.
NIBR Working paper, Oslo: Norwegian Institute for Urban and Regional
Research.
UNDP (2010) Human Development Report.
111