Saltar al contenido principal

Zambia: Risk-sensitive Budget Review

Fecha de publicación
Ver original

Executive summary

This report provides an analysis of public investment planning for disaster risk reduction (DRR) mainstreaming in Zambia. It employs a risk-sensitive budget review (RSBR) analysis, which uses the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Assistance Committee (OECD DAC) DRR policy marker to estimate the extent to which the government has budgeted for and/or invested in DRR between 2015 and 2017 financial years.

Key messages

• Disaster risk management (DRM) is not explicitly recorded in projects, functions and/or administrative activities of the national budget. Mainstreaming of DRR and DRM in the national budget is, therefore, very limited. However, the application of the OECD DAC marker found 52 projects, functions or administration activities related to DRR in 21 ministries, departments or agencies of the central government in the budgets for the budget cycles from 2015 to 2017.

• In the financial year periods from 2015 to 2017, the budget allocation for DRR-related projects/activities, the DRR investment, was estimated at $360.5 million per year, totalling $1,082 million over the three budget cycle years considered. This was equal to about 6.2% of the national budget.

• Of the total DRR investment budget, allocations directly targeting DRR activities, the “principal” investment, amounted to $18.3 million per year and totalled $54.9 million for the three budget cycle years. This translated into only 0.3% of the total national budget for the financial years considered.

• In contrast, the budget allocation for activities targeting DRR implicitly, the “significant” investment, represented a higher portion of both the total DRR budget and the national budget. These allocations amounted to $342.2 million per year or a total of $1,027 million for the three years considered, contributing 94.9% to the total DRR budget. This translated into 5.9% of the national budget for the three budget cycle years.

• A handful of institutions provided the bulk of the DRR investment. Three institutions (out of seven) – the Ministry of Finance, the Ministry of Fisheries and Livestock, and the Disaster Management and Mitigation Unit – were responsible for 96% of the principal category of the DRR investments. Likewise, one institution – the Ministry of Finance – represented 82% of the allocation for significant investment, despite the Ministry of Health housing the largest number of significant DRR projects/activities. This is unsurprising, as it stems from the nature of the activities funded – infrastructure development projects versus disease surveillance and training of health personnel.