This feature argues that whereas the increase in the allocation of Constituency Development Fund (CDF) by the government has moved to support sub-national levels of government such as Ward Development Committee (WDCs) and CDF Committees is commendable, missing sub-national level capacity will continue to limit any transformative potential in rural geographies. The problem here is that the Government profoundly misunderstood what it takes to achieve rural and constituency development. Preliminary insights on the expressions of CDF reveal deep seated concerns, including governance inadequacies in local authorities. This is not always the fault of sub-national structures but is something reflective of how we as a country do our business – of not thinking through implications of legal and policy tools. The long history of rural development taught us that good intentions alone are never enough, but rather must be followed by a set of actions that can help actualise visions and shared aspirations. The current structure and organisation of CDF, including conceptualisation of projects, show more needs to be done.

At ZMK28.3 million, CDF has witnessed an unprecedented allocation in the history of Zambia Yet, early commentators that expressed opinions that increased CDF would make service delivery more responsive to public needs, strengthen decentralised local institutions, and promote economic development are already adjusting their stance, acknowledging that realities are more complicated than originally thought. So far so bad, with others commenting there is “nothing exciting about CDF increment, it’s just figures.”

Increased CDF reflects corruption and abuse of resources in local structures, including irregularities around procurement (inflated tenders). Meanwhile, the view of development and local transformation among local authorities is narrow as opposed to being broad based, with too many isolated and poorly linked projects being commissioned without much scrutiny. There are piecemeal and, in some cases, political projects that challenge any transformational value of CDF vis a vis regional impact. The Integrated Development Plans (IDPs) are one tool that can be used to drive regional development in Zambia, maximising CDF benefits to populations such as farmers or traders. There are joint IDPs: 1) Chasefu, Lumezi and Lundazi, 2) Lusangazi and Petauke, 3) Chipata, Chipangali and Kasenengwa. Currently these have not been deployed in such a way as to align development efforts. In fact, WDCs who are supposed to identify projects are not preview to IDPs. WDCs face logistical challenges, and in some cases are unaware of the existence of IDPs themselves, raising the need for enforcement and alignment. In any case, how can local structures such as WDCs monitor projects without technical knowledge and capacity?

A lack of reflection on this question means each constituency is buying Graders, building schools and clinics in isolation with little consideration of population dynamics, risking white elephants. The remarkable similarity in the CDF projects commissioned is reflective of the internal logics of the CDF Committee members and narrow perceptions of what development is and means. Even in cases where the cost of implementing certain projects is higher due to poor transport networks, the so-called ‘CDF big brains’ ignore these areas and focus on projects that offer quick fixes. Even where clinics and schools have been built, CDF projects fail to carry genuine development needs of a people, constituency, and region – in their broader sense.

Downward accountability and consultations remain problematic, with approval processes revolving around law makers as ‘new big men in town.’ Politicisation of CDF in processes that are supposed to be broad based and inclusive point to a significant portion of decision-making mandates left to Members of Parliament who nominate CDF Committee members alongside Provincial Local Government Officers. Yet, local structures exhibit skills and knowledge gaps on financial regulations, raising the need for basic training on financial management skills and management. Sub-national structures need capacity building for all works they are expected to perform. Interestingly, structures such as WDCs are voluntary.

Overall, the role and importance of CDF in transforming rural spaces looks minimal at the moment. CDF exposes weaknesses in the existing legal, policy, institutional, and legislative arrangements for local governance, presenting opportunities for reform. There is room to think more broadly, inclusively, and explore possibilities of joint operations to maximise regional impacts of CDF. Here, perceptions of success of CDF should not only be seen in completed single and isolated projects, but the extent to which majority of the population benefit from development interventions. This may mean going beyond geographical boundaries of constituencies and build on joint IDPs. Capacity building at all levels is urgently required. It is difficult to tell what CDF can realistically deliver in the current structure and organisation but suffice to say that there is greater room for improvement.

Dr Simon Manda

The Author is a Lecturer in International Development at the University of Leeds, UK, and a Director of the Centre for Global Development. He is also a Research Fellow at the Centre for Trade Policy and Development. For Comments: [email protected].