National Budget Analysis 2014 CSO-SUN Alliance LH

8/11/2019 National Budget Analysis 2014 CSO-SUN Alliance LH

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/national-budget-analysis-2014-cso-sun-alliance-lh 1/28

NUTRITION IN THE 2014 NATIONAL BUDGET

A BUDGET ANALYSISBY

ZAMBIA CIVIL SOCIETY SCALING UP NUTRITION ALLIANCE(CSO-SUN)

0



Contnt!

List of Tables............................................................................................................................... .2

1. Introduction............................................................................................................................ 3

2. State of Malnutrition........................................................................................................... 3

3. Government Reaction to the Malnutrition Crisis...................................................... 4

4. Government Resonse To Malnutrition ! Throu"h #ational $ud"et................54.1 #utrition in the national bud"et allocations........................................................ 5

%. #utrition allocations in the Ministr& of 'ealth...........................................................5

Table 1 $ud"et #utritional allocations to Ministr& of 'ealth............................6

(. #utrition allocations to the Ministr& of Communit& )eveloment* Mother +Child 'ealth................................................................................................................................. 7

Table 2, $ud"et #utritional allocations to Ministr& of Communit&)eveloment* Mother and Child 'ealth................................................................... 7

-. #utritional allocations to Ministr& of "riculture and Livestoc/.........................9

Table 3, $ud"et #utritional allocations to Ministr& of "riculture andLivestoc/............................................................................................................................ .10

Table 3.1, $ud"et #utritional allocations Ministr& of "riculture andLivestoc/............................................................................................................................ .15

0ro"ramme 12%3 armer Inut Suort 0ro"ram............................................ 15

Table 3.2 0ro"ram 1%, Grants to Institutions, ood Reserve "enc&.....16

. #utrition allocations to Ministr& of ducation* Science* 5ocational Trainin"and arl& ducation............................................................................................................... 17

Table 4, $ud"et #utritional allocations Ministr& of ducation* Science*5ocational Trainin" and arl& ducation................................................................ 18

6.7ater and Sanitation......................................................................................................... 20

$ud"et llocation to 7ater and Sanitation........................................................... 20

1. Government 8enditure 0er Child 9nder 2 :ears ;the 1 Most Critical

)a&s<............................................................................................................................................ 211. 1 Methodolo"& used in calculatin"....................................................................... 21

11. Conclusion.......................................................................................................................... 23

1



L"!t o# T$%&!

Table 1 $ud"et #utritional allocations to Ministr& of 'ealth .......................................( Table 2, $ud"et #utritional allocations to Ministr& of Communit& )eveloment*Mother and Child 'ealth .............................................................................................-

Table 3, $ud"et #utritional allocations to Ministr& of "riculture and Livestoc/ .... ..1 Table 3.1, $ud"et #utritional allocations Ministr& of "riculture and Livestoc/,0ro"ramme 12%3 armer Inut Suort 0ro"ram ...................................................14

Table 3.2 0ro"ram 1%, Grants to Institutions, ood Reserve "enc& ....................1% Table 4, $ud"et #utritional allocations Ministr& of ducation* Science* 5ocational Trainin" and arl& ducation .................................................................................... 1(

2



1' Into*+t"on

=ambia CS>?S9# lliance brin"s to"ether CS>s to increase understandin" about

the crisis of undernutrition in earl& life and to elevate nutrition on the national

a"enda. 7e focus our attention on the critical 1* da& @indo@ of oortunit& fromre"nanc& until a childAs second birthda&* durin" @hich adeBuate nutrition has the

"reatest imact on savin" lives* develoin" a childAs co"nitive and h&sical

caacit&* and miti"atin" the ris/ of chronic diseases. 7e are @or/in" to@ards

=ambia @here ever& child is assured of suDcient nutrition throu"h stren"thened

olic&* Enancial commitment and adeBuate ro"ramme imlementationA.

2' St$t o# M$&n*t"t"on

Malnutrition is a $IG roblem in =ambia and the "overnment is a@are. The E"ht

a"ainst malnutrition demands the full involvement of Members of 0arliament. >ur

concern is that Malnutrition in all its forms ? under nutrition* micronutrient

deEciencies* over@ei"ht and obesit& imoses hi"h economic and social costs on

societ& at all income levels. The cost to the national econom& caused b&

malnutrition* due to lost roductivit& and direct health care costs* accounts for over

% ercent of G)0. lso* under?nutrition comromises h&sical and co"nitive

develoment of children. This is essentiall& the focus in this resentation* @ith the

hoe that @e could be"in to move to@ards a shared understandin" of the issues

involved and ho@ @e can combine our various s&ner"ies in an eFort to minimie or

eliminate it.

In =ambia* malnutrition underlies u to %2H of all under?Eve deaths. The stuntin"

rate in under?Eve children currentl& stands at 4%H* @ith %H bein" acutel&

malnourished ;@asted< and 1%H under@ei"ht. The rates of micronutrient

deEciencies are also hi"h* @ith %3H 5itamin deEcienc& and 4(H Iron deEcienc&

anaemia ;##C* 23<* @hile 4H of school a"ed children are at ris/ of mild to

severe iodine disorders deEcienc& ;##C* 22<. ! Z$,%"$n! .$/ "+*&t "n

$++!!"n oo n*t"t"on (3.t. * to $/$"&$%"&"t $5o$%"&"t o

$++6t$%"&"t o# n*t"t"o*! #oo!)' A! $ !*&t n$& .$&# o# Z$,%"$n

3



+."&n +$nt o3 no,$&& to 5+t"/& +ont"%*t to n$t"on$&

/&o6,nt 5ot!'

7' Go/n,nt R$+t"on to t. M$&n*t"t"on C"!"!

To combat the revailin" under?nutrition situation* the Government* throu"h the

#ational ood and #utrition Strate"ic 0lan ;##S0< for 211?21%* has committed

itself to 0revention of Stuntin" in Children 9nder?T@o :ears of "e. This is contained

in Strate"ic )irection 1 of the ##S0 @hich focuses rimaril& on the eriod of the

Erst 1* da&s that start @ith the be"innin" of re"nanc& throu"h the second &ear

of life.

urther to this* on une th 213 in London durin" the #utrition for Gro@th Summit*

=ambia throu"h the 5ice 0resident )r Gu& Scott made the follo@in" commitments,

• reducin" chronic undernutrition b& %H in the ne8t 1 &ears

• Resolvin" the human resource and Enancial "as in the % /e& line Ministries

;'ealthJ Communit& )eveloment* Mother and Child 'ealthJ Local

Government and 'ousin"J "riculture and Livestoc/J ducation* Science*

5ocational Trainin" and arl& ducation< resonsible for nutrition actions* at

rovincial* and district levels* includin" increasin" direct suort to

communitiesJ

• To increase Government e8enditure on nutrition to reach the estimated

additional 9SK3 er child under?Eve reBuired to scale u hi"h imact

nutrition interventions as calculated b& 7orld $an/J

• To ro"ressivel& match additional cooeratin" artnerAs resources throu"h

ne@ and e8istin" nutrition bud"et lines. It @ill aim to increase its Enancial

contributions b& at least 2H annuall& for the ne8t 1 &ears throu"h the

#ational $ud"et.

4



• 0ro"ressivel& encoura"e the involvement of the rivate sector to enable

access to aFordable and aroriate nutritious foods to mothers* children

and other vulnerable "rousJ

• Stren"then the "overnance and coordination mechanisms of the nutrition

sector

4' Go/n,nt R!6on! To M$&n*t"t"on 8 T.o*. N$t"on$& B*t

4'1 N*t"t"on "n t. n$t"on$& %*t $&&o+$t"on!

undin" to nutrition is sread?out alon" 4 main line ministriesJ namel& ;a< Ministr&

of Communit& )eveloment* Mother + Child 'ealth* ;b< Ministr& of 'ealth* ;c<Ministr& of ducation and ;d< the Ministr& of "riculture* Livestoc/* isheries and

Cooeratives.

In our anal&sis for this submission @e have directed our focus on bud"et lines that

directl& contribute to nutrition ;direct #utrition interventions < develoment in

=ambia. In summar&* @e End that the sie of the "rand total of the national bud"et

has increased b& aro8imatel& 24H from last &ear. >f this* onl& .3H constitutes

direct )irect #utrition interventions as a share of the national bud"et. Thisreresents no chan"e from 213 @hich reects the same ercenta"e share of the

bud"et.

9' N*t"t"on $&&o+$t"on! "n t. M"n"!t o# H$&t.

In the Table belo@ @e note an increase in fundin" to the #ational ood and #utrition

Commission b& 2(H* a ver& ositive ste "iven ##CAs /e& role in leadin" the

imlementation of the irst 1 Most Critical )a&s ro"ramme* and an increase@hich is more than the 2H #utrition for Gro@th Commitment. 7e further observe

that the line services Mana"ement of Malnutrition and Infant and :oun" Child

feedin"s* reviousl& under Po$,: 9104 N*t"t"on* have been moved to the

Ministr& of Communit& )eveloment Mother and Child 'ealth. s a result

5



e8enditure to@ards nutrition related interventions as a ercenta"e of 'ead Total

e8enditure in the Ministr& of 'ealth* stands at .31H.

6



T$%& 1 B*t N*t"t"on$& $&&o+$t"on! to M"n"!t o# H$&t.

2017 2014 +.$n(2017 to

2014)

;+.$n

N$t"on$& B*tE<6n"t* &"n!

A66o/ S*66&,nt$

A*t.o"= A66o/

#ational ood and#utritionCommission

(*%2*4%. (*%2*4%. *1-3*466. 2*121*46.

2(H

Po$,: 9104N*t"t"on

?

Mana"ement ofMalnutrition

24*13. ? 24*13. ? ?24*13.

Infant and :oun"Child eedin"

24*13. ? 4%*4%. ? ?4%*4%.

Po$, Tot$&:9104 N*t"t"on

4*2-(. 246*%. ?46*%.

H$ Tot$&-M"n"!t o#H$&t.

20972>72>?'00

- 20972>72>?'00

2?4?7@044?'00

9@7101?0'00

22;

E<6n"t* o#N*t"t"on "n t.M"n"!t

0'71;

7



?' N*t"t"on $&&o+$t"on! to t. M"n"!t o# Co,,*n"t D/&o6,nt Mot. C."& H$&t.

9nder the M"n"!t o# Co,,*n"t D/&o6,nt Mot. C."& H$&t.* our anal&sis is resented in the table

belo@,

T$%& 2: B*t N*t"t"on$& $&&o+$t"on! to M"n"!t o# Co,,*n"t D/&o6,nt Mot. $n C."& H$&t.

2017 2014 +.$n

(2017 to

2014)

;

+.$n

N$t"on$& B*t

E<6n"t* &"n!

A66o/ S*66&,n

t$

A*t.o"= A66o/

Po$,: 9104 N*t"t"on ?

M$n$,nt o#

M$&n*t"t"on

24*13. ? 24*13. 233*62. 26*-6. 13H

In#$nt $n Yo*n C."&"n

1(*%. ? 1(*%. 121*%2-. 1%*4--. 13H

Co,,*n"t B$!

Go3t. Mon"to"n

Po$,

11*. ? 11*. 11%*-4. 14*-4. 13H

M"+on*t"nt Po$, 1%1*%. ? 1%1*%. 1-3*(6. 22*16. 13H

8



Po$, Tot$&: 9104

N*t"t"on

%(2*(. %(2*(. (44*4. 2*11(. 13H

Po$, 901:

R6o*+t"/ H$&t.

?

o+*! Ant N$t$& C$

$n S$# Mot. Hoo

%(6*%22. ? %(6*%22. %*(%. 1*%43. 3H

Tot$& N*t"t"on R&$t

Int/nt"on!

1*132*21. 1*132*21. 1*232*(6. 1*(%6. H

H$ Tot$&-M"n"!t o#

CDMCH

1*%4(*((3*%4

1.

? 1*%4(*((3*%4

1.

1*6*332*%(

1.

343*((6*2

.

1H

E<6n"t* o#

N*t"t"on "n t. M"n"!t

0'0; 0'0;

rom Table 2 above @e ma/e the follo@in" observationsJ

7e note that the 0ro"ram, %14 #utrition @hich moved to this Ministr& from the Ministr& of 'ealth* has moved from

the )eartment of 0ublic 'ealth to the )eartment of Mother and Child 'ealth. 7ith re"ards to sendin" lines* there

is an avera"e increase in

9



allocation to this ro"ram b& 13H. That is* the activities fallin" under this ro"ram

namel&J Mana"ement of Malnutrition* Infant and Child eedin"* Communit& based

Gro@th Monitorin" 0ro"ram and Micronutrient 0ro"ram have each received an

avera"e of 13H increase in fundin" resectivel&. dditionall&* Government has

increased allocation to@ards the ocused nte #atal Care and Safe Motherhood

activit& under the 0ro"ram %-1, Reroductive 'ealth b& 3H. lthou"h Government

has increased total sendin" to@ards nutrition related interventions in this Ministr&

b& H* @e note that this translates to a mere .-H increase in total sendin"

to@ards nutritional interventions as a ercenta"e of 'ead Total sendin" in this

Ministr&. Considerin" that 'ead Total sendin" has increased b& 1H from last &ear*

@e feel that much more allocation can be made to direct #utrition interventions in

this Ministr&* articualrl& allocations to@ards /e& nutrition ro"rams such as the

Infant and :oun" Child feedin" counsellin"* Mana"ement of Malnutrition*

Communit& based Gro@th Monitorin" 0ro"ram and Micronutrient 0ro"ram.

videntl&* the allocation to these direct intervention is ver& lo@.

' N*t"t"on$& $&&o+$t"on! to M"n"!t o# A"+*&t* $n L"/!to+

In anal&in" $ud"et allocations to nutritional interventions in this Ministr& @e

considered* the nutrition section of the Ministr& and fundin" to the =ambia"riculture Research Institute ;=RI<. =RIs bud"et lines @ill lead to research into

ne@ methods of food reservation* rocessin" and stora"e* comonents that

suort imroved nutrition.

7e have artitioned our anal&sis of Government sendin" to@ards nutritional

interventions in this Ministr& into t@o main subsections, #utritional $ud"et

allocations to nutrition sections in the Ministr& of "riculture and Livestoc/ in"eneral on the one hand and $ud"et allocations to the armer Inut Suort

0ro"ram and ood Reserve "enc& on the other. 7e did this to better hi"hli"ht

allocations to@ards the IS0 and R resectivel&* in Endin" out to @hat e8tent the&

have been diversiEed for imroved nutrition.

10



T$%& 7: B*t N*t"t"on$& $&&o+$t"on! to M"n"!t o# A"+*&t* $n L"/!to+

2017 2014 +.$n (2017to 2014)

;+.$n

N$t"on$& B*tE<6n"t* &"n! A66o/ S*66&,nt$ A*t.o"= A66o/

AGRICULTUREDEPARTMENT

oo $n N*t"t"onPo$, 1007: C$6$+"t

B*"&"n

$ac/stoin" ood and#utrition 33*(-.

? 33*(-.

44*%-3. 1*6%. 24H

Po$, Tot$&77?>'00

77?>'00

4497'00

10>@9'00 24;

oo Con!/$t"onP!/$t"on $n

Sto$ Po$, 10>

?

ood Stora"e and0rocessin" Trainin" 4*--.

? 4*--.

12*.

-6*213. ((H

Po$, Tot$&40>'00

40>'00

120000'00

@217'00 ??;

11



oo Po+!!"n $nUt"&"=$t"on Po$,

10@

?

ood 0rocessin" and#utrition ssessment 24*%-.

? 24*%-.

(4*4. 4*3%1. (3H

Traditional Recie)eveloment 46*2.

? 46*2.

6*. 4*. 4%H

Po$, Tot$&729'00

729'00

19440>'00

>1191'00 97;

DEPARTMENT TOTAL1422'00

1422'00

71>@>1'00

1129@'00 97;

Un"t Tot$& 91@72@'00 91@72@'00

121124@'00

?@1@20'00 9;

N*t"t"on &$t<6n"t* $! $

6+nt$ o# Un"t tot$& 2>; 2?;

ZAMBIA AGRICULTURERESEARCH INSTITUTE

oo Con!/$t"on P!/$t"on $n Sto$Po$, 10>

?

)eveloment of imrovedstora"e structures 1*.

? 1*.

%*. 4*. H

ood Stora"e and 0rocessin" Trainin" 3*.

3*.

%*. 2*. 4H

12



Po$, Tot$&40000'00

40000'00

100000'00

?0000'00 ?0;

oo Po+!!"n $nUt"&"=$t"on Po$, 10@

-

)eveloment of Small scalerocessin" technolo"ies 1*.

? 1*.

%*. 4*. H

Po$, Tot$&

10000'00

10000'

00

90000'0

0

40000'00 >0;


90000'00

190000'00

100000'00 ?;

LIVESTOC DEVELOPMENTDEPARTMENT

?

R!$+. $n D/&o6,ntPo$, 1191

-

Livestoc/ #utritional Surve&s%*.

? %*.

%-%*1.

%2%*1. 61H

Po$, Tot$&90000'00

90000'00

99010'00

929010'00 @1;

R*&$t"on $n F*$&"tConto& Po$, 114@ ?

Inventor& and Re"istration of Livestoc/ 0rocessin" acilities 132*.

? 132*.

1*3%.

?31*(6%. ?32H

Monitorin" Nualit& of Livestoc/and Livestoc/ 0roducts 2*.

? 2*.

1%*16. ?4*2. ?32H

Revie@ Livestoc/ Grades andStandards 6(*.

? 6(*.

-2*64-. ?23*%3. ?32H

13



Sensitiation of 0rocessors onGood Manufacturin" 0ractices 1%*.

? 1%*.

11*36. ?3*(2. ?32H

Po$, Tot$&2?7000'00

2?7000'00

1@@>4>'00

-?7192'00 -72;


717000'00

4>9>'00

4?1>9>'00 ?0;

Tot$& 91022'00 91022'00

1247>7@'00

7711'00 9@;

E<6n"t* o# N*t"t"on "nt/nt"on $!6+nt$ o# H$ Tot$&

2>; 2?;

rom Table 3 above* @e observe the follo@in"sJ

• Government has increased overall allocations to nutritional related interventions in the A"+*&t*

D6$t,nt b& %(H. This deartment houses the follo@in" direct #utrition interventions and the& have

received increments in fundin" as described subseBuentl&. llocations to@ards, the $ac/stoin" ood and

#utrition activit& @hich is housed under ood and #utrition 0ro"ram 13, Caacit& $uildin" increased b&

24H* the ood Stora"e and 0rocessin" Trainin" activit& @hich is under the ood Conservation* 0reservation

and Stora"e 0ro"ram 1- increased b& ((H* and the ood 0rocessin" and #utrition ssessment* and

Traditional Recie )eveloment activities @hich both fall under ood 0rocessin" and 9tiliation 0ro"ram 1-6

received (3H and 4%H increments in fundin" resectivel&. 7e commend these increments in fundin"

to@ards these nutritional related interventions as a Erst ste for@ard for Government in /eein" to its

14



commitments in the E"ht a"ainst under?nutrition. 'o@ever @e note that #utrition related e8enditure as a

ercenta"e of the 9nit total for this deartment has droed b& 2H to 2(H from last &ear mainl& due to the

maOor increment in allocations to this Ministr& "oin" to R .

15



• 9nder the A"+*&t* R!$+. In!t"t*t* @e commend "overnment for

an overall (-H increase in allocation to@ards nutrition related activities.

llocations to@ards the follo@in" activities increased in the aroriations as

described, )eveloment of imroved stora"e structures activit& and ood

Stora"e and 0rocessin" Trainin" activit& hosted under ood Conservation*

0reservation and Stora"e 0ro"ram 1- increased b& H and 4H

resectivel& @hile )eveloment of Small scale rocessin" technolo"ies

activit& under ood 0rocessin" and 9tiliation 0ro"ram 1-6 increased b&

H. urthermore* @e note that #utrition related e8enditure as a

ercenta"e of the 9nit total for the Institute has increased b& 2.(H to 1%H

from last &ear.

•

9nder the L"/!to+ D/&o6,nt D6$t,nt* @e note the overall (Hincrease in allocations to@ards nutrition related interventions. llocations

to@ards Livestoc/ #utritional Surve&s activities housed under Research and

)eveloment 0ro"ram 11%1 increased 61H. 'o@ever* @e note that there @as

an avera"e 32H dro in allocations to@ards activities under the Re"ulation

and Nualit& Control 0ro"ram 1146.

• 7e note a %6H increase in allocations to@ards nutrition related interventions*

in "eneral* to the Ministr& of "riculture and Livestoc/.

16



T$%& 7'1: B*t N*t"t"on$& $&&o+$t"on! M"n"!t o# A"+*&t* $n L"/!to+

Po$,, 12970 $, In6*t S*66ot Po$,

2017 2014 +.$n (2017

to 2014)

;

+.$n


A66o/ S*66&,nt$

A*t.o"= A66o/

Co?ordinate0ro"ramImlementation

>19?@>4'00

- >19?@>4'00

?7?212'00

?1*-64*%-. ?2H

Conduct 0ro"rammonitorin"and insection

2*4(*14(.

? 2*4(*14(.

1*2-(*%3.

?-(6*(. ?(H

Conduct valuationandPor$eneEciar& Imactssessment

46*226. ? 46*226. 2%%*3-. ?1%3*622. ?(H

Conduct RevenueMonitorin"

1*4%. ? 1*4%. %1*(1%. ?3-*43. ?(H

0ilot stablishmentofInut 5oucherS&stem

11*461*%.

? 11*461*%.

? ?11*461*%.

Conduct 0ro"ramccounts udit

46*226. ? 46*226. 2-2*--3. ?13(*4%(. ?%H

17



0rocurement and)istribution of Inuts

3--*226*2%.

? 3--*226*2%.

31-*2%*63.

?(*24*112. ?1H

Po$, Tot$& 4@@9?117?'00

4@@9?117?'00

729>>2497'00

-17?>?>7'0

0

-97;

Tot$& N*t"t"onR&$tInt/nt"on!

90001>9>'00

90001>9>'00

7212?2@2'00

-12@499??'0

0

-97;

H$ Tot$&- 14>001?'00

- 14>001?'00

7071?947>9'00

12>2@47?@'00

42;

T$%& 7'2 Po$, 1009: G$nt! to In!t"t*t"on!: oo R!/ An+


2017 2014+.$n (2017

to 2014)

;+.$n

A66o/S*66&,nt

$ A*t.o"= A66o/

0ro"ram 1%,Grants toInstitutions

3**1%.11

3**1%.11

**. -(*666*14.6 6(H

In our anal&sis @e are unable to see the e8tent to @hich 0ro"ramme 12%3 armer Inut Suort 0ro"ram and

0ro"ram 1% Grants to Instituitions, ood Reserve "enc& have been diversiEed for imroved nutrition. This is

because the E"ures indicative of allocations to@ards these institutions are not seciEc enou"h. urthermore* @e note

that @hile allocations to@ards R have increased b& 6(H* an allocation to@ards IS0 has droed b& %3H. 7e have

18



observed that there is a "eneral commitment to@ards increasin" resources to tr& and address some of the

challen"es facin" the sector. 'o@ever it has to be noted that even thou"h resources have been increased* the

comonent of the ersonal emolument and "eneral administrations have ta/en u much of the bud"et leavin"

relativel& mea"er resources for actual ro"rams.

19



The Table belo@ comares 'ead Total sendin" in R* IS0 and isheries

deartment in an eFort to sho@ Government riorit&.

Head Totals 213 214 H Chan"e

FISHERIES 13*2%2*-4 1*6-(*12( ?1-H

FISP 46*226. 2-2*--3. ?%H

FRA3**1%.11 **.

6(H

In a summar&* our anal&sis of fundin" to this Ministr& reveals that current

allocations to "riculture are li/el& not to deliver suDcient nutritious food to meet

the nutritional needs of @omen* infants and children. This is due to micronutrientmalnutrition and hidden hun"er @hich aQicts 4-H of =ambians* resultin" in oor

health* obesit&* increased rates of non?communicable diseases and lo@ @or/er

roductivit&. n a"riculture allocation as a share of the bud"et is resonsible for this

because it has never held nutrition as an e8licit obOective of its roduction

s&stems. "ricultural olicies* @hich have romoted non?diverse food securit& "oals*

have enabled the decline in micronutrient inta/e and eroded dietar& diversit& for

the oor. nd this is @hat @e see in the 214 bud"et.

>' N*t"t"on $&&o+$t"on! to M"n"!t o# E*+$t"on S+"n+ Vo+$t"on$&

T$"n"n $n E$& E*+$t"on

9nder the M"n"!t o# E*+$t"on* food is rocured for educational institutions to

suort learnin" and trainin" throu"h $asic schools* Secondar& ;'i"h< schools and

Teacher trainin" institutions. These activities are underta/en as School 'ealth and

#utrition ;S'#< interventions* usuall& as cross?cuttin" ro"rammes in suort of thecore business activities ;learnin" + trainin"< of this Ministr&. Table 4 belo@ illustrates

fundin" to@ards S'# ro"rams across re"ions.

20



T$%& 4: B*t N*t"t"on$& $&&o+$t"on! M"n"!t o# E*+$t"on S+"n+ Vo+$t"on$& T$"n"n $n E$&

E*+$t"on

2017 2014 +.$n(2017 to

2014)

;+.$n


A66o/ S*66&,nt$

A*t.o"= A66o/

Po$, 9021:E*"t S+.oo& H$&t. $n N*t"t"on

-

0L##I#G #)I#>RMTI># )IRCT>RT

1*6-6*2-1. 1*6-6*2-1. 3*612*(4. 1*633*3(6. 46H

RGI>#L 'N? L9S 11*-(3. ? 11*-(3. 12*3. 1*4. H

RGI>#L 'N? C>00R$LT 1-*461. 1-*461. 16*3-. 1*%4(. H

RGI>#L 'N? C#TRL 1*46. ? 1*46. 2*3-. 1*(2. H

RGI>#L 'N? #>RT'R# 32*441. ? 32*441. 3%*36. 2*(. H

RGI>#L 'N? 7STR# 42*13. ? 42*13. 4(*%6-. 3*-4. H

RGI#L 'N? STR# 16*3. ? 16*3. 21*(. 1*-(. H

RGI>#L 'N? L909L 1*434. ? 1*434. 2*(4. 1*(3. H

RGI>#L 'N? #>R'7STR#

2*--%. ? 2*--%. 22*(12. 1*3-. H

RGI>#L 'N? S>9T'R# 1*. ? 1*. 16*%62. 1*%62. H

21



RGI>#L 'N? M9C'I#G 16*(6. ? 16*(6. 21*426. 1*-4. H

Tot$& N*t"t"onR&$t Int/nt"on!

21>0>@9'00

21>0>@9'00

41720>@'00

1@911@4'00

4;

H$ Tot$& 9?1@22>94'00

- 9?1@22>94'00

>9@@1499'00

2@@@1@001'00

79;

E<6n"t* o#N*t"t"on "n t. M"n"!t

0'04; 0'09; 0'01;

rom the table above* @e observe GovernmentAs allocation to@ards School and 'ealth #utrition ;S'#< activities

@hich are housed under 0ro"ramme %21 Buit&. The& have been increased b& an avera"e of H each er Re"ional

'eadBuarters. In eFect* this has resulted in a 4-H overall increase in #utrition Related interventions in the Ministr&.

7e note ho@ever that e8enditure of #utrition in the Ministr& as a ercenta"e of 'ead Total e8enditure has onl&

increased b& .1H from 213 bud"et.

22



@'$t $n S$n"t$t"on

7e commend GovernmentAs commitment to increase rural access to clean and safe

drin/in" @ater from the current (1 ercent to (% ercent. This is ver& crucial in

stein" u the E"ht a"ainst Malnutrition because "ood @ater sul& and sanitation

are /e& to "ood nutrition. 'o@ever* @e note that the increment is not enou"h

because the roortion of the oulation @ithout access to imroved sanitation

facilities is not "ettin" an& better. >n the contrar&* it @orsened from 2( ercent in

1661 to (-.3 ercent in 21. =ambia is therefore @ell oF trac/ to achieve the M)G

tar"et of 13 ercent b& 21%. $elo@ is a tabulation of allocations to@ards 7ater and

Sanitation in the #ational $ud"et articularl& in infrastructure develoment.

B*t A&&o+$t"on to $t $n S$n"t$t"on

$t $n S$n"t$t"on "n

C."#o,!

%*.

%*.

S$n"t$t"on (Un

MLGH)

In#$!t*+t*

D/&o6,nt

%*.

(1*6%.

S$n"t$t"on (Un MAL)

In#$!t*+t*

D/&o6,nt

26*6%.-

(

42*.

Tot$&! 9@@>9

'?

7>@9

23



10' Go/n,nt E<6n"t* P C."& Un 2 Y$! (t. 1000 Mo!t

C"t"+$& D$!)

1. 1 Methodolo"& used in calculatin"

In estimatin" the annual cost for suDcient Scalin" 9 #utrition* the 7orld $an/

determined reBuisite sendin" at an avera"e of 9S) 3( ;=M7 1-.2< er child for

children under 2 &ears old for direct nutrition interventions. These include as

ac/a"ed b& the 7orld $an/J $reastfeedin" romotion included in communit&

nutrition ro"rammes* Comlementar& 'and?@ashin" sensitiation ro"rammes*

micronutrient* de?@ormin" and Treatment of severe malnutrition er eisode and

Cash transfer er ersons.

7hen calculatin" the amount that Government sends on direct #utrition

interventions directed at children under?t@o &ears old* @e adoted the follo@in"

methodolo"&,

• $earin" in mind that oulation E"ures stand at,

Po6*&$t"on o*6 P+nt$ Po6*&$t"on *!

#ational 0oulation 1H 13*2%-*

9nder?% 0oulation 2H 2*(%1*4

9nder 2 :ear oulation H 1*(*%(

Children (?24 months (H -6%*42Severe cute Malnutrition %H 132*%-

• 7e identiEed direct direct #utrition interventions as indicated in the 214

:ello@ $oo/. 7e did not consider the Social Cash Transfer activit& because its

desi"nation in the #ational $ud"et is too "eneric ;@hether it is allocated to

the oulation as a @hole or articularl& to children under the a"e of 2 is not

clear<.

• 7e totaled allocations to@ards these interventions to End out sendin"

to@ards the entire oulation of children under 2 &ears old in the countr&.• To calculate @hat "overnment is sendin" er child under t@o &ears old* @e

divided the total sendin" on nutrition interventions aimed at children under

t@o b& the total oulation of children under t@o in the countr&* as tabulated,

Nutrition interventions 2014

24



directed

at under 2 year olds

Infant and Young Child Feeding 121*%2-.

Micronutrient rogra! 1-3*(6.

Focu"ed #nte $atal Care

and %afe Mother &ood

%*(%.

Manage!ent of Malnutrition 233*62.

Co!!unit' (a"ed )ro*thMonitoring rogra!

11%*-4.

+ater and %anitation in

Chiefdo!"

%*.

%anitation ,-nder M)&/ (1*6%.

%anitation ,-nder M#/ 42*.

#docac' and Co!!unication

,$F$C/

14(*24%.

e"earch ,$F$C/ 100 19?

$utrition )oernance 91?9@9

Total 3, 186, 11!""

S#endin$ #er %&ild under 2

years old

7'0

• 7e determined that "overnment is sendin" an avera"e of ZM 7'0 er

child under t@o &ears old on nutrition interventions. #ote that the

25



• This comares unfavorabl& @ith the estimated =M7 16 er child as

rescribed b& the 7orld $an/.

11' Con+&*!"on

It is a shared understandin" that the state of Malnutrition is in crisis in =ambia

toda&. 0oor nutrition aFects overall "ro@th in childhood and limits the develoment

of full intellectual and h&sical otential of children. In eFect* it devalues the

countr&s human caital. 7e commend the Goverment for be"innin" to meet* in

art* some of the commitments made durin" the #utrition for Gro@th in London.

In as much as @e note bud"et line increase* allocations on direct nutrition

intervention remain ver& lo@. Government has not increased allocation on direct

#utrition interventions b& 2H as committed. Instead* in li"ht of the overal increase

in the sie of the #ational $ud"et* there is no chan"e in rovision to direct #utrition

Interventions from last &ear. It still stands at .3H as a share of the #ational

$ud"et.

7e also ma/e the follo@in" conclusionsJ

• The focus on livestoc/ seems to be limited to cattle restoc/in" and E"htin" cattle

diseases. 7e @ould recommend that "overnment be"in to suort smalllivestoc/ farmin"* such us Goats* i"s* shee etc. These la& an imortant role@hen see/in" to imrove the nutrition status of the eole.

• 7e are ha& @ith "overnments focus on Esheries* but a"ain @e reiterate that

the focus should not onl& be about the economic "ains throu"h e8orts but alsostron"l& focus on imrovin" the diet of the eole.

• 7e con"ratulate the "overnment for rioritiation social rotection* as a ver&

imortant indirect intervention of E"htin" malnutrition. 'o@ever* a maOor

concern is that a hu"e ortion of the funds is "oin" to ensions ;-%4.2 Millionout of 1.1 $illion< the mone& that Government o@es to former emlo&ees.

5er& little is remainin" for E"htin" overt& amon" vulnerable households.

• 7e see a health focus of "overnment as that one of curative thin/in" and not

reventative. 7e @ould recommend that Government adot a more reventive

26



aroach in order to reduce its disease burden* investment in nutrition is best

@a& this can be achieved.

• )eferrin" ne@ recruitment is a blo@ to our ambitions of resolvin" the human

resource for nutrition* @here =ambia is in a crisis sta"e. Moreover* Government

committed itself to resolvin" the human resource "as in the Eve /e& line

ministries durin" the nutrition for "ro@th summit in London.

Lastl& @e AS our M,%! o# P$&"$,nt to contribute to nutrition develoment

throu"h toJ

• 'oldin" Government to account on the 1 da&s ro"ram and commitments

made thereof ;the ##C Strate"ic 0lan<.

• Raisin" #utrition issues in 0arliament as articulated in this 0resentation.

• nsurin" that the Minister of inance resents Social?conomic indicators in

the ne8t $ud"et. 0rovide clear data and information on the roblemJ

• nsurin" eFective hi"h level coordination of nutrition interventions

• Reform e8istin" ro"rammes that aFect nutrition outcomesJ

• nablin" rivate sector articiation in the roduction of aFordable nutritious

foods* this can be done @ith incentives from Government.

Documents

National Budget Analysis 2014 CSO-SUN Alliance LH