The 2008 Annual Progress Report (APR) is the second of its kind to be prepared by the Municipal Assembly. The first was prepared in 2008 and covered activities/projects implemented in the year 2007. It is important to mention that the preparation of Annual Progress Report has become one of the tools used to facilitate the tracking of year by year projects/programmes implementation towards the achievement of objectives in the Assembly’s Medium Term Development Plan (MTDP) 2006-2009. This second APR focuses on projects implemented in the year 2008 and also assesses the over all performance of the Assembly and other departments in the implementation of the MTDP 2006-2009.
The twenty-three (23) monitoring and evaluation indicators which are stated in the Monitoring and Evaluation Plan form the basis for the assessment of the state of implementation of 2008 project activities. The assessment was under taken under the three pillars of the Growth and Poverty Reduction Strategy (GPRS II) which are Private Sector Competitiveness, Human Resource Development, Good Governance and Civic Responsibilities.
Key Monitoring and Evaluation Objectives for the year 2008
The specific objectives for the year 2008 as provided by the Assembly and the Decentralized departments are given under the three pillars of the GPRS as follows;
Private Sector Competitiveness
- To improve infrastructure in the education sector
- Train 10 farmers-based organization on safe use of agro-chemicals
- Facilitate gender training in 4 communities
- To set-up on farm demonstrations
- To train 12 farmer groups in alternatives livelihood programmes (158 farmers)
- Develop and improve urban roads in the municipality
- Re graveled and upgrade feeder roads
- Source funding for the completion of 3 markets in the municipality.
- To provide safe parking area for public transport
- To manage and improve the proportion of the road net work in good condition
- To reduce the occurrence of accidents and develop effective quality control Measures
This chapter outlines the monitoring of the implementation process. It also discusses issues like the status of 2008 projects and programmes, the funding of development interventions and the Municipal Assembly’s efforts at generating funds. The issues of fund disbursement and its associated challenges are also considered in this chapter.
Update of core indicators and other poverty reduction interventions in the Municipality are also considered.
Programme and Projects Status for the Year 2008
In line with the participatory approach adopted during the preparation of the MTDP, a mid-year review of the implementation of 2008 projects and programmes was organized by the MPCU in collaboration with the Development Planning Sub-committee of the Assembly in 2008. Participants included Assembly members, heads of Units and decentralized departments.
The Annual review was organized on the 17l and 18l February, 2009 respectively. The presentations by the various heads of departments form the bases for the over all status of implementation of 2008 projects and programmes. It was observed at the review that some projects has been completed, others were ongoing whiles some could not be implemented due to various challenges and constraints. The challenges that impeded implementation included but not limited to the under listed.
- Change in government policy
- Inadequate or lack of funds
- Non performing contractors
- Non availability of tractor services
- Lack of cooperation on the part of beneficiaries
The details of 2008 projects status are given in Annex A.
Report On Funding By Sources
In analyzing the sources of funding or revenue mobilization, a distinction is made between funds mobilized directly by the Assembly which is the IGF, and those from central government, donors and others. The reason for the distinction is based on the fact that the Assembly has control over the mobilization of IGF but does not have the same control over other sources of funding. The Municipal Assembly (MA) aims at 40% increase of IGF annually. It is however worth stating that the 40% increase was achieved neither in the year 2007 nor in the year under consideration. It can be deduced from table 3 that IGF fell in 2007 but rose sharply in fiscal year 2008. These variations reflect the revenue-raising capacity of the Assembly in terms of estimation procedures, changes in rate imposed and revenue collection efforts.
The inflow of the District Assembly Common Fund (DACF) has not been encouraging both in terms of quantum and time. Year by year analysis indicates a downward trend with a slight increase in 2008. Detailed comments on the sources of funding are given in subsequent pages. Table 2.1 gives details of the sources as well as the amount generated or received for the past three years.
In considering the three years, the DACF and the IGF has been the main sources of revenue to the Assembly which are accounting to 37% each within the same time period. Donor Grants is the second constituting 14%. The other sources HIPC Funds and GOG contributed 7% and 5% respectively. Refer to figure 2.2 above.
Cmments on Sources of Funding
Releases of Funds
Generally speaking the release of funds is not the best. The delays in the release of funds, especially the District Assembly Common Fund (DACF) have negative effect on the implementation of development projects and programmes. It has been observed that the staffs at the Common Fund Administrator’s office contribute greatly to the delays. For instance, advice to the Banks is sent weeks after they have been signed by the Administrator. Besides this, the schedule officers at the Bank also fail to credit the Assembly’s account when the advice gets to their desk.
In addition to these, there are times that the Regional Coordinating Council (RCC) instructs the DACF Administrator not to release funds to Assemblies until they are cleared. At the time of preparing this report the forth quarter allocation of the 2008 Common Fund is yet to be received.
Apart from the delays, shortages are encountered when the funds are released. At the beginning of the fiscal year Assemblies are given estimated amounts by the Common Fund Administrator with which the Development budgets are prepared. Ironically actual releases or receipts at the end of the year are not up to even fifty percent (50%) of the
estimated amount. This unfortunate situation makes the implementation of projects pretty difficult.
The HIPC fund that comes from the Ministry of Local Government and Rural Development suffer the same fate or is not released at all. Other Donor grants like the DANIDA water and sanitation projects funds are released on time.
Efforts to Generate Funds
The Assembly recognizes the need to mobilize internal funds to support its development efforts. To this end, the Municipal Assembly has been divided into divisions to enhance collection, supervision as well as monitoring. A number of revenue contractors have also been engaged to ensure that all rate payers are reached.
Other strategies adopted by the Assembly to ensure increased revenue mobilization are the organization of regular meetings with revenue collectors, contractors and the supervisors. Besides these, public education programmes are regularly organized in communities as well as the markets to educate rate payers. The public education programmes are implemented in collaboration with the Information Services Department and the National Commission on Civic Education (NCCE). In addition, the Assembly has identified easy collectable areas to be collected by the Assembly’s collectors to reduce the huge sums of moneys that go to contractors as commission.
As a long term strategy to increase internal revenue the Assembly in collaboration with JSA Consultants is undertaking a programme to develop and implement a revenue generation system. The exercise involves the numbering of houses, naming of streets and capturing socio-economic data on households and houses to be computerized for revenue generation and planning purposes.
Challenges with Regards to Generating Revenue
Despite the current efforts to increase revenue, there are challenges and difficulties that the Assembly has to deal with. These includes but not limited to the under listed.
- Inadequate data on properties for property rate billing
- It Inadequate data on business operating entities for BOP billing
- Leakages in revenue collection
- Too many contractors whose commission eats into the Assembly’s revenue
- Delays in banking revenue collected by Revenue Contractors/Collectors
- Diversion of penalties from building without permit by some officials of the Assembly
- Carbon shifting by revenue collectors
- Improper demarcation of boarders leading to cross boarder collection by sister or near by Assemblies
Refer to the pdf file below.
|
Check Mail
