Tanzania Gender Networking Programme’s (TGNP) budget analysis task team consisting of TGNP staff and members of the weekly Gender and Development Seminar Series, GDSS, welcomes many aspects of the budget for 2009/10. We are pleased that the budget aims to increase domestic revenue so as to reduce dependency on foreign donors, and has allocated substantial resources to key social sectors such as education, agriculture, health, infrastructure and water. However, information is lacking on mechanisms to ensure that resources actually reach and benefit the end users, especially marginalised women, people living with HIV/AIDS, and the disabled.

We endorse the government’s plans to decrease expenditure by reducing travel costs, workshops, seminars and big four wheel cars costing Sh100million each – although this is not the first time that such pledges have been made – but what about reducing the size of the central government? With 26 ministries, the current government is unwieldy and often seems to be operating at cross purposes.

TGNP endorses government’s efforts to take advantage of opportunities arising from the global crisis such as production of surplus food to feed ourselves, regional and global markets, and capitalising on our position as a transportation and communications hub to support land locked countries. However, the bulk of the bail out package responds to the needs of big business. What kind of social protection will be provided to peasant producers who lose markets or suffer from lower prices for their goods? Or for workers who lose jobs when the same businesses downsize? Or for micro-small entrepreneurs who lack adequate resources to survive the crisis?

The global crisis also provides the government – and the Tanzanian people – with an opportunity to review the neo-liberal macro-economic framework that was imposed on us in the mid-1980s by the World Bank, IMF and other major donors, and develop a balanced economy which is more self reliant and less dependant on global markets for export and imports. Governments in the North have recognised the shortcomings of neo-liberalism which provoked the crisis in the first place, and have taken bold steps to intervene more strategically in both finance and the economy. We urge our government to do the same, in order to develop a sustainable development strategy which benefits all Tanzanians in both rural and urban areas.

We applaud efforts to strengthen the tracking of tax payments in order to enhance accountability, provide financial resources to retain staff in underserved areas and to broaden the tax base; and make specific mention here of the welcome reduction of taxes for women sanitary pads. In increasing the tax base, however, the burden should not be placed on micro/small scale entrepreneurs and poor Tanzanians. Focus should be placed on progressive taxation, whereby the top 5 percent of income earners pay at least 40 per cent income tax, including commercial corporations. Given the rising cost of living and the depreciation of the Tanzania shilling, the salary line for 30 per cent income tax should be raised from Sh720,000/ to Sh1,000,000/ or more, and the bottom line for income tax should be raised from Sh100,000/ to Sh150,000/ to provide relief for low income earners living close to the poverty line. We also question the government’s decision to reduce corporate tax rate from 30 per cent to 25 per cent for companies listed on the Dar es Salaam Stock Exchange with 30 per cent company shares issued to the public.

The abolition of blanket tax exemptions is welcome, but the government did not go far enough to include mining corporations registered before this year. And why give tax holidays to gem mining companies, instead of providing the necessary support for smallscale miners in gems and gold who will be better able to survive the global crisis? Our economy is being held hostage by multinational corporations whose profit calculations are entirely different from those of small national capital. Careful consideration must also be given to tax relief for genuine service delivery costs incurred by non-profit-making religious and non-governmental organisations, with appropriate safeguards to abolish misuse of this privilege.

In last year’s budget, the government tried to finance recurrent expenditure solely through domestic resources whereas this year donor funding will be relied upon for both the recurrent and development budget. The government dependency on external grants and concessional loans (33.7 per cent of total budget) increases Tanzania’s vulnerability – a good example is the 25 per cent reduction in the national budget for HIV/AIDS, largely due to reduced donor support coming from USA and elsewhere. Does this mean that our government does not prioritise the battle against HIV/AIDS and the lives of People Living with HIV/AIDS? Or the lives of pregnant women, given the high donor dependency in health as well? Who will fill this gap when the donors reduce their support?

We applaud the government’s other efforts to sustain social services but what about the particular needs of marginalised women? Building more classrooms, more water infrastructure, and more dispensaries is welcome – but what resources have been set aside to increase the quality of service delivery? For example, education receives the highest allocation, some 18.3 per cent of the budget, and the government has succeeded to increase enrollment at all levels of the public education system, but where are the measures needed to provide quality education, and retain students, especially female students, in school? How can the government stomach the fact that nearly 30 per cent of this year’s graduates from public primary schools are illiterate, while a small segment of our population is provided with top quality education in a few high cost private schools? Here we also want to question the government’s decision at the end of last year to abolish public boarding secondary schools for girls and demand that the government reverse its decision – all Tanzanian girls, and boys, have the right to quality education whether they are rich or poor.

In order to save the lives of pregnant women and their newborn infants, adequate resources and follow up are needed to ensure that every woman has access to free delivery kits as per policy, as well as quality referral services, trained health workers and emergency care and treatment when needed. The budget lines for reproductive and maternal health need to be clearly demarcated so that it is possible to track them properly and we expected more resources to go to the support of home-based care for people suffering from AIDS and other chronic diseases. We also expected serious steps to reach the Abuja Declaration goal of 15 per cent national budgetary resources to health and not a stagnant figure of 10.1 per cent.

We deplore the fact that the government has handed over responsibility to water provision to the private sector, as shown in the bill on water privatisation that was so hastily passed by parliament earlier this year, and the measly 3.7 per cent allocation to water in this year’s budget. Water is a basic human right and not a commodity. Without universal access to safe and clean water, it will be impossible to eradicate water borne parasites, malnutrition, and vulnerability to HIV and many other diseases. Moreover, forcing women and girls to spend countless hours each day toting water is unfair and unjust, it increases the burden of unpaid family labour, and reduces available time for education and economic activity.

The government’s prioritisation of large scale producers in its response to the economic crisis and in the overall 'Agriculture First Strategy' is misplaced. Where are the resources to support the revitalisation of the peasant sector on which the majority of rural people depend for their livelihoods and women in particular? Small scale farmers and livestock keepers need support in reaching the market, price support systems, accessible farm inputs and equipment. The total budget for agriculture (seven per cent) is small in comparison to the other sectors such as education and infrastructure (11.5 per cent), and less than the 10 per cent pledged under the Maputo Declaration of Agriculture and Food Security in 2003. We also believe that ‘agriculture first’ should be part of an overall rural development and diversification programme which promotes small scale industry, including agro-processing, in the countryside as well as urban areas. This will depend however on adequate resources for rural electrification – which are not found in this budget. Improved technology in small scale industries will also reduce the unfair burden of unpaid work on both rural and urban women in the home.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

In the midst of the challenges experienced due to the global economic crisis, we call for more measures to ensure that the budget adequately serves the majority of Tanzanians, especially poor and marginalised women, children, and the disabled. Government efforts to enhance participation in budget formulation and monitoring process are highly welcome. However, more space and resources are needed to reach the goal of fifty-fifty equality between women and men in elections to local government this year and national elections next year, and to expand citizen engagement with budget processes so as to enhance democracy and ensure accountability and transparency.

* Tanzania Gender Networking Programme is an activist organisation focusing on the practical promotion and application of gender equality, equity and women’s empowerment.
* Please send comments to [email protected] or comment online at http://www.pambazuka.org/.