Bottom Up

Double counting, hallmark of agriculture project implementation

With the blessing and under the total and incontestable direction of our indefatigable leader of our delegation, the Genuine Prof. Dr. Joyce Befu, Mega-1, last week we discussed at length why and how the Irrigation, Rural Livelihood and Agricultural Development Project (ILARDP) wasted money on a project that would otherwise have assured Malawians of nutritional and food security. We observed that IRLADP was an example of how not to design a project and a case study of implementing a project before planning it. No prior stakeholder analysis. No Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (Esia).  No Resettlement Action Plan (RAP).

This week we are discussing three sister projects that consumed large sums of money, by Malawian standards, that is $22.64 million, but whose impacts are nowhere to be seen and felt.  These are the Small Farms Irrigation Project (Phase 1), Small Farms Irrigation Project (Phase II), and the Stallholder Irrigation Project. The first two sister projects were implemented with money from the Arab Bank for Economic Development in Africa (Badea) in Nkhata Bay and Mangochi—$4.64 million of this total was contributed by us, tax-compliant Malawians of different political, tribal and religious persuasions.  

The third sister project was implemented in Thyolo, Mwanza, Neno, Blantyre, Chiradzulu, Chikwawa, and Nsanje with money from the African Development Bank (UA5.02 million), the Malawi Government, meaning us, the taxpayers (contributing UA770 thousand) and others, including the private sector.  Good targeting, you would exclaim.

The first phase of the of the Badea-funded project targeted drainage networks and other works on 1 600 hectares of land in Nkhata Bay and Mangochi.  Additionally, the first phase of the project also provided two trucks, eight trice threshers and eight flour mills.  The second phase also claims to have provided 8 flour mills and some (not quantified) rice threshers.  The third sister project also claims to have covered 1 407 hectares under treadle pumpe, motorised pump, gravity fed and sprinkler irrigation. These three sister projects were implemented during the period 2000 to 2018.

Now add 1407+1600+4047 hectares from ILRADP = 11 801 hectares of irrigated land with good infrastructure, trained human resources, modern seed, flour mills, transportation trucks and  rice threshers.  With all this land under irrigation and mechanisation, why does Malawi experience food shortages?  The answer is simple—the projects are successful on paper but not in reality.  Also, there is a lot of double counting of impacts and outcomes. Remember the IRLAD project targeted the same areas during almost the same period (2006-2014).

Double counting is one sure way project implementers make a financial kill.  With the Malawian population generally passive, disinterested in non-political matters,  unschooled in active citizenship,  and  lacking the art of social accountability, the unscrupulous double counters go on reaping where they ‘sowed’ the seeds of their double counting.

One of the challenges reported during the three sister projects related to land ownership disputes around the schemes. Which should have come first, implementing the project or settling land ownership disputes? But the projects were implemented all the same.

Unless we, rights holders, and in whose name projects are designed and implemented, stand up to demand accountability and transparency from duty-bearers about the manner projects are identified and implemented, we will always be short-changed and the unscrupulous double, if not triple, quad or quint counters will always go away with huge sums of money and equipment. Remember also that it was during the same period that Tractor-gate was taking place.

Aluta continua next week.

Related Articles

Check Also
Close
Back to top button