Tanzania

Tanzania
(United Republic of)

Risk-sensitive Budget Review
UN Office for Disaster Risk Reduction

UNDRR Country Reports
on Public Investment Planning
for Disaster Risk Reduction
This series is designed to make available to a wider readership selected studies on public
investment planning for disaster risk reduction (DRR) in cooperation with Member States.
United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNDRR) Country Reports do not represent
the official views of UNDRR or of its member countries. The opinions expressed and arguments
employed are those of the author(s).
Country Reports describe preliminary results or research in progress by the author(s) and are
published to stimulate discussion on a broad range of issues on DRR.
Funded by the European Union
Front cover photo credit: Francis Dande, BCClimateChampions. A sea wall protects the harbour in Unguja Island.
Page i
Table of contents
List of figures.....................................................................................................................................ii
List of tables......................................................................................................................................iii
List of acronyms and abbreviations..................................................................................................iv
Acknowledgements............................................................................................................................v
Executive summary........................................................................................................................... 1
1. Introduction................................................................................................................................ 2
2. Tanzania at a glance.................................................................................................................. 3
3. Disaster risk reduction in Tanzania............................................................................................ 4
3.1. Past disasters and losses......................................................................................................................4
3.2. Disaster risk governance........................................................................................................................5
4. Risk-sensitive budget review..................................................................................................... 7
4.1. Methodology.............................................................................................................................................7
4.2. Scope of the analysis..............................................................................................................................8
4.3. Principal and significant DRR expenditures..................................................................................... 11
4.4. DRR budget by categories of the DRM cycle................................................................................... 20
5. Conclusion and recommendations.......................................................................................... 27
References...................................................................................................................................... 29
Annex 1: Risk-sensitive budget review methodology...................................................................... 31
Annex 2: Tanzania’s budget process................................................................................................ 34
Page ii
List of figures
Figure 1: Occurrence of disasters, deaths and number of
affected people, 1997–2017 (% of total).......................................................................................4
Figure 2: Frequency of occurrence of disasters, 1997–2017....................................................................5
Figure 3: Budget allocations to the NDMF, 2013/14–2019/20 ($ millions)............................................6
Figure 4: Disaster management governance structure in Tanzania.........................................................6
Figure 5: How scoring decisions are made using the OECD DAC DRR policy marker..........................8
Figure 6: Budget shares of principal and significant DRR components............................................... 17
Figure 7: Top institutions by highest share of total principal
DRR spending at the national level, 2016/17–2018/19.......................................................... 18
Figure 8: Top five institutions by highest share of total significant
DRR spending at the national level, 2016/17–2018/19.......................................................... 19
Figure 9: Principal DRR investment marked at country level by risk category.................................... 21
Figure 10: Sources of funding for principal DRR component by risk category...................................... 22
Figure 11: Significant DRR investment marked at country level by risk category................................. 23
Figure 12: Sources of financing for significant DRR component by risk category............................... 24
Figure 13: Sources of funding by DRR component ($ millions)................................................................ 25
Figure 14: Sources of resources by year and principal/significant component.................................... 25
Page iii
List of tables
Table 1: Number of marked projects/activities and institutions ............................................................9
Table 2: Marked institutions and activities with principal
DRR components, FY 2016/17–2018/19.....................................................................................9
Table 3: Marked institutions and activities with significant
DRR components, FY 2016/17–2018/19.................................................................................. 11
Table 4: Amount and share of principal and significant components
in total budget by year ($)............................................................................................................. 17
Table 5: Share of spending on principal DRR activities, by institution and year................................ 19
Table 6: Share of spending on significant DRR activities, by institution and year............................. 20
Table 7: Amount and share of risk categories of principal DRR investment...................................... 22
Table 8: Amount and share of risk categories of significant DRR investment.................................. 23
Table 9: Share of risk categories of total significant DRR investment at
national and Regional Secretaries levels................................................................................... 24
Page iv
List of acronyms and abbreviations

ASDP Agricultural Sector Development Programme
CFAST Catalysing the Future Agri-food System of Tanzania
DADP District Agriculture Development Programme
DMD Disaster Management Department
DRM Disaster risk management
DRR Disaster risk reduction
EAC East African Community
EM-DAT Emergency Events Database
FY Financial year
GDP Gross domestic product
HDI Human Development Index
LGA Local government authority
MDAs Ministries, departments and agencies
MoFP Ministry of Finance and Planning
NDMF National Disaster Management Fund
OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
OECD DAC OECD Development Assistance Committee
OPM Office of the Prime Minister
RSBR Risk-sensitive budget review
SAGCOT Southern Agricultural Corridor of Tanzania
UN United Nations
UNDRR UN Office for Disaster Risk Reduction
Page v
Acknowledgements
UNDRR wishes to express its profound appreciation for the support provided by the national
authorities for disaster risk reduction/disaster risk management and by the United Nations Country
Teams in the respective countries.
Coordinators: Jean-Marc Malambwe Kilolo (Economist) and Roberto Schiano Lomoriello (Associate
Expert DRR Economics). Under the overall supervision of Katarina Mouakkid Soltesova (Risk
Knowledge Programme Officer) and Luca Rossi (Deputy Chief of the Regional Office for Africa).
Analysts (authors): Belinda Kaimuri (Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Gambia (The), Ghana, Kenya, São
Tomé and Príncipe), Brais Álvarez Pereira and Tatiana Martinez Zavala (Angola, Guinea-Bissau),
Elvis Mtonga (Botswana, Cameroon, Eswatini (The Kingdom of), Namibia, Zambia), Jean-Claude
Koya (Côte d’Ivoire).
UNDRR particularly thanks the country experts and DRR specialists for their comments on and
review of two draft versions of the analysis, specifically: Edson Fernando (Angola), Nkosiyabo Moyo
(Botswana), Mariatou Yap and Celestin Kegne (Cameroon), Dr. Touré Kader and Paul Kaman (Côte
d’Ivoire), Gabriel Ngua Ayecaba (Equatorial Guinea), Russell Dlamini (Eswatini (The Kingdom of)),
Hortense Togo (Gabon), Sanna Dahaba and Kawsu Barrow (Gambia (The)), Koranteng Abrokwah
(Ghana), Alsau Sambu, Elisio Gomes Sá, Justino Fernandes and Domingos Gomes da Costa
(Guinea-Bissau), Charles Owino (Kenya), Japheth Litenge (Namibia), Jean-Baptiste Nsengiyumva
(Rwanda), Carlos Dias (São Tomé and Príncipe), Charles Msangi (Tanzania (United Republic of)),
Lengandji Sikaona (Zambia).
Produced with support from Development Initiatives.
Published in January 2020.

Page 1
Executive summary
This report analyses public investment planning for disaster risk reduction (DRR) in Tanzania and
highlights the level of public investment in DRR in the country. It does this through a risk-sensitive
budget review (RSBR), which uses the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
(OECD) Development Assistance Committee (DAC) DRR policy marker to evaluate and assess the
extent to which the government has budgeted for and/or has invested in DRR in the three financial
years between 2016/17 and 2018/19.
Key findings
• isaster risk management (DRM) is not explicitly documented in the programmes and activities of
D
the national budget. However, applying the OECD marker, the research found 226 activities and/or
projects relevant to DRR in 28 ministries, offices or commissions at national level and in 29
Regional Secretaries.
• cross the three financial years, an average of $381.3 million annually was earmarked for DRR
A
projects and activities. This represents 3% of the national budget. Investments directly targeting
DRR (“principal” DRR investments) amounted to $70.7 million per year, which is equivalent to 0.5%
of the country’s budget for these years. The bulk of the DRR investment is related to pro-poor
budgets that reduce vulnerability or improve resilience. Budgets targeting DRR implicitly but not
directly (“significant” DRR investments) amounted to $310.6 million a year on average.
• small number of institutions host the bulk of DRR investments. More than 80% of principal
A
DRR projects and/or activities are under the control of the Treasury, the Ministry of Natural
Resources and Tourism and the Ministry of Health, Community Development, Gender, Elderly and
Children. This latter ministry is responsible for more than two-thirds of DRR-related investment.
Similarly, close to 90% of “significant” DRR investment was allocated under three ministries: the
Ministry of Works, Transport and Communication, the Ministry of Water and Irrigation and the
Ministry of Health.
• here is a heavy reliance on donor funds for principal DRR investments. Donor funds account
T
for almost 75% of principal DRR investment, while domestic resources are mainly used to fund
significant DRR investments (78%).
•
More than 80% of DRR resources are spent on mitigation and prevention activities. Response and
relief activities are financed mainly through domestic resources, while mitigation and prevention
and preparedness activities are financed mostly by donors.
Page 2
1. Introduction
In 2013, the European Union (EU) and the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States (ACP)
signed an agreement focused on strengthening the ACP Member States’ regional integration and
inclusion in the global economy. Furthermore, the agreement addressed challenges related to
climate change, agriculture and rural development.
Under this agreement, a programme titled “Building Disaster Resilience to Natural Hazards in sub-
Saharan African Regions, Countries and Communities” was launched in July 2015. Its aim was to
provide a comprehensive framework for disaster risk reduction (DRR) and disaster risk management
(DRM), and their effective implementation across sub-Saharan Africa.
To support DRR in the region, the €80 million programme covered a period of five years and focused
on five key results: strengthening regional DRR monitoring and coordination; enhancing DRR
coordination, planning and policy advisory capacities of Regional Economic Communities; improving
the capacity of national and Regional Climate Centres for weather and climate services; improving
risk knowledge through disaster databases for future risk modelling; and developing disaster risk
financing policies, instruments and strategies at regional, national and local levels.
The programme contributed to broader efforts aiming to assist African countries in building capacity
in risk-sensitive investment planning and supporting initiatives to increase public investment in DRR.
Furthermore, referring to the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (2015–2030), the
programme sought to assist countries in estimating potential disaster impacts, including economic
losses. Subsequently, it provided tools for countries to optimize their investment plans in order to
address disaster risk and reduce future losses.
As part of the programme, UNDRR has developed risk-sensitive budget review reports for 16
countries in sub-Saharan Africa: Angola, Botswana, Cameroon, Côte d’Ivoire, Equatorial Guinea,
Eswatini (The Kingdom of), Gabon, Gambia (The), Ghana, Guinea-Bissau, Kenya, Namibia, Rwanda,
São Tomé and Príncipe, Tanzania (United Republic of) and Zambia.
The analysis uses the DRR policy marker, developed by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation
and Development (OECD) Development Assistance Committee (DAC). The methodology has been
used widely to provide information about DRR mainstreaming. Nevertheless, the tracking of planned
and actual expenditures related to DRR is an area that is still evolving.
This report provides information on public investment planning for DRR in Tanzania and presents
the findings of a RSBR analysis of the country’s budget from 2016/17 to 2018/19. The analysis
which follows was presented and discussed during a series of country-level workshops – conducted
in 2018, in each of the 16 countries – and additional feedback and input from country experts was
sought to improve the analysis.
The report is organized as follows: following this introductory section, section 2 presents Tanzania
at a glance (key statistics), while section 3 examines the country’s risk profile and the structure and
governance of its DRM institutions. Section 4 explains the methodological basis of the OECD DAC
DRR policy marker and its application by UNDRR across 16 country analyses, and then presents the
findings of the RSBR for Tanzania. The report concludes with a summary of the findings and
recommendations for further action.
Page 3 Sustainable 10
20
30
2. Tanzania at a glance
Stable 40
50
60
Warning 70
POPULATION GDP 80
90
Alert 100
110
120
2018 estimate 2018 estimate
54.2
(million people)
58
($ billions)
2050 projection 2050 projection
129.4 702.1
(million people) ($ billions)
Area: 947,300 km2 Services: 47.6% of GDP Source: Data from: African Development Bank
(2019); Central Intelligence Agency; International
Institute for Applied Analysis; United Nations,
Population density: Industry: 28.6% of GDP Department of Economic and Social Affairs;
57.2 people/km2 Population Division (2019); United Nations
Poverty rate Development Programme (2019); United Nations,
Human Development Index: 0.53 ($1.90 per day): 49.1% Statistics Division; and World Bank.
Agriculture: 23.4% of GDP
The United Republic of Tanzania is an East African nation state. Its population was estimated at 54.2
million in 2018, with the majority of people living in rural areas (68%). The annual population growth
rate has fluctuated at around 3% and the population is projected to grow further, reaching 129.4
million in 2050.
The services sector comprises the largest share of Tanzania’s economy (47.6%), followed by the
industry sector with 28.6%. The agricultural sector, with a share of 23.4%, however, absorbs most of
the labour force, accounting for nearly 67% of the total. Tanzania’s gross domestic product (GDP) for
2018 was $58.0 million and the economy has shown robust growth in recent decades, averaging
6.76% between 2002 and 2018 and continuing to grow solidly (5.4% in 2018).
Typically, fiscal revenues represent between 10% and 12% of national GDP. Budget deficits have been
decreasing in recent years, from -11.7% of GDP in 2010 to -3.9% in 2018 (averaging -6.11% of GDP
between 1998 and 2017). Public Investment has more than doubled over the years, from 4% of GDP
in 2000 to nearly 9% in 2011.
Poverty levels (under $1.90/day) are very high in Tanzania, with an estimated 49.1% of the population
below the poverty line in 2011. Although both poverty and inequality levels are high, there have been
significant improvements since 2000, when 86% of the population were living below the poverty line.
The proportion of the urban population living in slums has also seen a sharp decline, falling from
70% in 2000 to 50% in 2017. Tanzania’s Human Development Index (HDI) score at 0.53 is, however,
fairly similar to that of other African countries.
Page 4
3. Disaster risk reduction in Tanzania

3.1. Past disasters and losses
The Emergency Events Database (EM-DAT) calculates that, in the two decades between 1997 and
2017, Tanzania experienced 65 major, intensive events (low frequency and high severity) and a
total of 357 events of an extensive nature (frequent but of small to medium severity), as reported
by local administrative units and recorded in UNDRR’s Disaster Information Management System
(DesInventar) database.1
According to EM-DAT data, the primary natural hazard causes of major disasters over this 20-year
period were floods (40%), epidemics (34%), earthquakes (9%), droughts (6%) and storms (6%).
Epidemics have caused the great majority of disaster-related deaths (92%). Droughts, on the other
hand, have affected a larger number of people. In the past two decades, 91% of cases where people
required immediate assistance were as a result of drought (Figure 1).
Figure 1: Occurrence of disasters, deaths and number of affected people,

1997–2017 (% of total)
100
80
60
40
20
0
Flood Epidemic Earthquake Drought Storm Insect infestation Landslide Wildﬁre
Occurrence Deaths Affected
Source: EM-DAT: The Emergency Events Database – Université Catholique de Louvain – CRED (2018).
Data from the DesInventar database show a slightly upwards trend in disaster occurrence, with
peaks in certain years (Figure 2). These peaks are explained by the occurrence of heavy rains and
floods (1989, 2002–2003, 2011) and of droughts.2 Also in 2002, a train accident at Igandu, in the
central Dodoma region, killed at least 200 people.3
1 United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction. DesInvetar Sendai.

2 ReliefWeb.
3 BBC (2002).
Page 5
An earthquake was reported in the Lake Tanganyika region in late 2005. Drought in the Horn of Africa
in 2011–2012, floods (particularly in the Kilimanjaro, Arusha and Mbeya regions) and landslides in
late 2011 contributed to the high number of disasters reported during this period.4 In 2017, as well as
floods, an infestation of fall armyworm was the major natural hazard reported.5
Figure 2: Frequency of occurrence of disasters, 1997–2017

35
30
25
20
15
10
0
97
98
99
00
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
19
19
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
Source: UNDRR (2018). D/esInventar disaster database.
Droughts and outbreaks of disease are common in all of the country’s seven agro-ecological
zones, while regions bordered by inland lakes and the Indian Ocean are prone to floods. All seven
zones reported drought over the period, which was the main cause of hazard in four or them –
Northern Rift and Volcanic Highland; Inland Sedimentary, Ufipa Plateau and Western Highland;
Coastal Zone; and Central Plateau. All seven zones reported outbreaks of disease, and disease was
the most common hazard in the Rukwa-Ruaha rift zone, Southern Highlands, Central Plateau and
Eastern Plateau.
3.2. Disaster risk governance

Responsibility for DRM in mainland Tanzania lies with the Disaster Management Department (DMD),
under the Office of the Prime Minister (OPM). It is guided by the National Disaster Management
Policy of 2004, the Disaster Management Act No. 7 of 2015 and the Disaster Management
regulations of 2017. The Disaster Management Act established the Tanzania Disaster Management
Council to oversee the management and activities of the department (Figure 4). The council is
mandated to ensure that DRR is integrated into relevant government plans, policies and strategies.
The Act also established the National Disaster Management Fund (NDMF) to implement DRR and
humanitarian services.
The main source of funding for the NDMF is the government budget. Figure 3 shows the amounts
allocated for the period from 2013/14 to 2019/20. It can be seen that the budget allocation to NDMF
has declined over time; this might be associated with changes in government policies to respond to
the country’s economic conditions.
4 International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (2012).

5 Barza Wire (2017) and FAO (2018).
Page 6
Figure 3: Budget allocations to the NDMF, 2013/14–2019/20 ($ millions)

4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
$ millions
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
2014/2015 2015/2016 2016/2017 2017/2018 2018/2019 2019/2020
Financial Year
Source: Office of the Prime Minister (2019).
The Disaster Management Act also provided a legal framework for the establishment of the National
Platform for Disaster Risk Reduction and of disaster management committees from the regional
down to the village level. However, it is important to emphasize that, although it was introduced
in 2015, the Act is not yet fully operational. Inadequate resources mean that the government has
not been able to fulfil all the mandates of the Act, including the operation of functional disaster
management committees.
The DMD coordinates the National Platform for DRR, which was formed in November 2005. The
platform draws its membership from government ministries, departments and agencies (MDAs),
civil society, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), UN agencies and other stakeholders. Despite
the efforts of all stakeholders, there is still a need to improve DRM capacity and capabilities,
especially at the local level, which bears the greatest disaster risk.
A Regional Secretary, as established under the Regional Administration Act, acts as a
Regional Disaster Management Committee in its respective jurisdiction. Meanwhile the Council
Management Committees, as established under the local government acts (Urban Authorities
and District Authorities), are designated as District Disaster Management Committees in their
respective jurisdictions.
The governance of disaster at the grassroots level is extended through the Ward Management
Teams established under the Local Government (District Authorities) Act, acting as Ward
Disaster Management Committees, and Village Management Teams, acting as Village Disaster
Management Committees.
Figure 4: Disaster management governance structure in Tanzania

PRIME MINISTER
MINISTER OF STATE
TANZANIA DISASTER MANAGEMENT COUNCIL
DISASTER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NATIONAL PLATFORM FOR DISASTER MANAGEMENT
REGIONAL DISASTER MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE

UN, INTERNATIONAL
ORGANISATIONS, NGOs, DISTRICT DISASTER MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE
FBOs, PRIVATE SECTOR
WARD DISASTER MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE
VILLAGE DISASTER MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE
Source: Disaster Management Department, Government of Tanzania (2019).

Page 7
4. Risk-sensitive budget review

4.1. Methodology
The OECD DAC DRR policy marker is a quantitative tool used to identify spending activities that
target DRR as a policy objective. An activity should be classified as linked to DRR if it promotes the
targets of the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030 to achieve “substantial
reduction of disaster risk and losses in lives, livelihoods and health and in the economic, physical,
social, cultural and environmental assets of persons, businesses, communities and countries”.6
According to the OECD DAC policy marker document,7 a DRR-related activity focuses on preventing
new risks, and/or reducing existing disaster risks and/or strengthening resilience through “the
implementation of … measures that prevent and reduce hazard exposure and vulnerability to disaster
and increase preparedness for response and recovery with the explicit purpose of increasing human
security, well-being, quality of life, resilience, and sustainable development”.
In addition, a DRR-related activity must meet at least one of the four priorities for action of the
Sendai Framework,8 namely: (1) understanding disaster risk; (2) strengthening disaster risk
governance to manage disaster risk; (3) investing in DRR for resilience; or (4) enhancing disaster
preparedness for effective response and to “Build Back Better” in recovery, rehabilitation
and reconstruction.9
The risk-sensitive budget review (RSBR) is simply the application of the OECD DAC DRR policy
marker to country budgets to identify and mark public expenditures that have a DRR objective. By
doing this, the extent to which the government has planned or invested implicitly or explicitly in DRR
can be identified. Spending activities targeting DRR are screened, marked and weighted as follows:
• Activities are marked as “principal” (marked as 2) when DRR is their principal objective and it is
fundamental in the design of and motivation for the activity. These budget activities are then
weighted as 100% of the planned or spent allocations which underpin them.
• Activities are marked as “significant” (marked as 1) when their DRR objective is explicitly stated
but is not a fundamental motivation for undertaking and designing the activity. These budget
activities are weighted as 40% of the planned or spent allocations which underpin them.
• Activities are not marked (marked as 0) when they have no DRR-related objective. These budget
activities are weighted as 0% of the planned or spent allocations which underpin them.10
The total of principal and significant marked budget allocations is counted as DRR-focused
planned or spent budgets or, put simply, DRR investments. Figure 5 illustrates the marking and
scoring procedure for the OECD DRR policy marker and how funding allocated to DRR objectives is
accounted for.
6 UNDRR (2015), p.12.

7 OECD (2017), p.8.
8 UNDRR (2015), p.14.
9 From this, a DRR-related activity can be located along the disaster management cycle: pre-disaster
(prevention, mitigation or preparedness) or post-disaster (response or mitigation).
10 Petri (2016); European Commission (2016).
Page 8
Figure 5: Scoring decision rule for the OECD DAC DRR policy marker
and Rio marking system
Do any objectives of the budget activity meet any “eligibility criteria” • D RR marker = 0 ~ Rio marker = 0
of the DRR marker? 0% of budget
• DRR marker = 1 ~ Rio marker = 1
YES NO 40% of budget
• DRR marker = 2 ~ Rio marker = 2
100% of budget
Would the budget activity have been
undertaken without that DRR objective?
NO YES
2 1 0
Principal Significant Not marked
Source: OECD (2017).
4.2. Scope of the analysis

To track DRR investment in Tanzania, this analysis reviewed budgets for 54 national institutions and
26 Regional Secretaries for three financial years (FYs). The budget document used for DRR marking
was Volume IV 2018_19,11 published by the Ministry of Finance and Planning. The FYs were 2016/17
(actual expenditure), 2017/18 (approved estimates) and 2018/19 (estimates).
All the budget figures tracked and analysed in this report are under the development budget and do
not include recurrent budget. The budget document does not contain budget breakdowns for the
DMD under the OPM, which made it impossible to identify recurrent budget for the department.
The theme of the 2017/18 and 2018/19 budget speeches for Tanzania, and all other East African
Community (EAC) countries, was related to reducing vulnerability and improving resilience under the
heading “Build an industrial economy that will stimulate employment and sustainable social welfare”.
In the 2018/19 budget speech, the Minister of Finance and Planning acknowledged the importance
of environmental sustainability while considering agricultural and industrial development.
Assessment of DRR spending using the OECD DAC DRR policy marker reveals that two institutions,
the Treasury and the OPM, explicitly budgeted for strengthening national disaster preparedness and
response in the FYs considered. There is no other budget item that explicitly mentions disaster in the
years reviewed.
Guided by the OECD DAC marker and complemented by the Sendai Framework for DRR, 226
activities and/or projects relevant to DRR were identified. These were managed by 176 departments
or divisions in 28 ministries, offices or commissions at national level and by 29 Regional Secretaries
(Table 1). Of the total projects/activities marked as relevant to DRR, about 13% were identified as
principal DRM investments and the rest as significant.
11 United Republic of Tanzania, Ministry of Finance and Planning.

Page 9
Table 1: Number of marked projects/activities and institutions

Component Level Institutions/Regional Departments/divisions Activities/projects
Secretaries
Principal National 13 15 27
Regional Secretary 3 3 3
Significant National 15 33 66
Regional Secretary 26 125 130
Source: calculations based on 2016/17–2018/19 budgets, Ministry of Finance and Planning, Government of Tanzania.
Principal DRR investment was earmarked in 16 institutions. Of these, three institutions with three
projects were at the Regional Secretary level. Table 2 presents projects or activities that were
primarily for DRR – what the OECD DAC marker identifies as having principal DRR components.
The Vice President’s Office was found to have the largest number of projects, mainly related
to climate change. The Sendai Framework acknowledges climate change, which is increasing
in frequency and intensity, as exacerbating disasters and impeding progress towards sustainable
development. The Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism and the ministry responsible
for public works (the Ministry of Works, Transport and Communication) were found to house
the next largest number of principal DRR projects, focused mainly on resource management
and road safety respectively.
Table 2: Marked institutions and activities with principal DRR components,

FY 2016/17–2018/19
Institution Department/division Number of Project/activity description
projects
Principal DRR projects/activities at national level
1 Fire and Rescue Force Fire and rescue services 1 • R
ehabilitation and expansion of fire
services
2 The Treasury Policy Analysis Division 1 • S
trengthen national disaster
preparedness and response
3 Vice President’s Office Policy and Planning 1 • The National Environment Trust Fund
Division
7 • Climate Change Adaptation Programme
• O-Zone Depleting Substance Project
Environment • Stockholm Convention Implementation
Project
• Strengthening climate change and early
warning systems
• Lake Tanganyika Environment
Management Project
• National Environment Trust Fund
• Environmental Management Act
Implementation Support Programme
4 Office of the Prime Minister Civil affairs and 2 • S trengthening climate change and early
contingencies warning systems
• Strengthening national disaster
preparedness and response
5 Ministry of Lands, Housing and Human Housing division 1 • P
romotion of appropriate technology for
Settlements Development affordable housing
Page 10
6 Ministry of Water and Irrigation Water laboratory 1 • W

ater quality and ecosystem
management
7 Ministry of Finance and Planning Millennium Challenge 1 • National Carbon Monitoring Centre
Corporation
8 Ministry of Health, Community Preventive services 1 • C
ontrol of communicable diseases/
Development, Gender, Elderly and vaccines
Children – Health
9 President’s Office – Regional Sector coordination 1 • Decentralizing Climate Financing Project
Administration and Local Government division
Authorities
10 Ministry of Energy Minerals 1 • S
ustainable management of mineral
resources
11 Ministry of Natural Resources and Wildlife 1 • S
ustainable management of natural
Tourism resources
Forestry and beekeeping • E nhancing the Forest Nature Reserves

Network for Biodiversity Conservation in
3 Tanzania
• Participatory forest management (REDD
and CCIP)
• Natural resources management – LED
12 Ministry of Works, Transport and Safety and environment 4 • Road safety activities
Communication – Works division • Institutional support to safety and
environment institutional support
• Institutional support
• Environmental Management Act
Implementation Support Programme
13 Ministry of Minerals Minerals division 1 • S
ustainable management of mineral
resources
Principal DRR projects/activities at Regional Secretary level
14 Katavi Higher education 1 • National carbon monitoring
15 Kigoma Transfers to local 1 • Natural resources management
government authorities
(LGAs) – natural
resources
16 Shinyanga Economic and 1 • Participatory forest management
productive sector
Source: Calculations based on 2016/17–2018/19 budgets, Ministry of Finance and Planning, Government of Tanzania.
Page 11
4.3. Principal and significant DRR expenditures

Aggregate DRR marked budget
Of the total items tracked for disaster-related budget allocations, some were found to be relevant
to vulnerability reduction, preparation for disaster response or improving resilience. However, these
activities/projects were not necessarily designed with the primary intent of DRR. In other words, the
activities would have been undertaken without a DRM objective and hence are marked as significant
according to the OECD DAC marker.
Many of the projects marked as significant are related to pro-poor budgeting and are expected to
reduce vulnerabilities and improve resilience (Table 3). Some other projects are marked as relevant
to DRM because they assist in planning for DRM-related activities. For instance, the National Land
Use Commission is undertaking the Land Use Planning Project to guide on the use of land of
national concern such as for wetlands, agriculture, grazing and urban and rural settlement.
The Sendai Framework recognizes food security as being part of sustainable development. The
OECD DAC marker gives guidance that agricultural programmes particularly enhance the resilience
of smallholder producers, and these are marked as significant For this purpose, food security
programmes and projects, such as the District Agricultural Development Programme (DADP) and
the Agricultural Sector Development Programme (ASDP) have been included as part of enhancing
resilience through food security. The ASDP is designed to enable farmers to be more productive and
to enhance their incomes through improved access and use of agricultural knowledge, technologies,
marketing systems and infrastructure.
Significant DRR investments were marked in a total of 15 institutions at the national level and in all
26 Regional Secretary (Table 3). The institutions at the national level were running 66 significant
DRR investments under 33 institutions. The Ministry of Irrigation undertook the largest number of
DRR activities/projects (15), followed by the Ministry of Agriculture (14) and the National Irrigation
Commission. However, housing the largest number of projects/activities may not necessarily
translate into being the biggest spender in terms of total significant investment.
Slightly more than 60% of programmes at Regional Secretaries level are concerned with rural
water supply and sanitation, which falls under significant DRR investment since it reduces
disaster risks for vulnerable populations. The construction of hospitals, 24% of projects in Regional
Secretaries is identified as significant as they improve resilience to diseases as well as allowing
for disaster response.
Table 3: Marked institutions and activities with significant DRR components,

FY 2016/17–2018/19
Institution Department/Division Number of Project description
projects
Significant DRR projects/activities at national level
1 National Land Physical Planning Division 1 • Land Use Planning Project
Use Planning
Commission
2 National Irrigation Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation 2 • A gricultural Sector Development Programme
Commission (ASDP)
• Catalysing the Future Agri-food System of
Tanzania (CFAST)
Environmental and Social Management 1 • ASDP

Page 12
Irrigation, Planning, Design and Private 1 • ASDP

Irrigation Infrastructure Development 2 • ASDP
• Expanded Rice Production Project
Irrigation Research and Technology 1 • ASDP
Promotion
Irrigation Operations and Support Services 2 • ASDP
Irrigation Compliance and Quality 1 • ASDP
Assurance
3 The Treasury Government Budget Division 1 • Village Empowerment Fund
Poverty Eradication Department 1 • Poverty Monitoring Master Plan
4 Office of the Prime Coordination of Government Business 1 • M
arket infrastructure, value addition and
Minister rural financing
5 Ministry of Policy and Planning 4 • ASDP
Agriculture • CFAST
• Southern Agricultural Corridor of Tanzania
(SAGCOT)
Crop Development 3 • ASDP

• Comprehensive Agriculture Development
Lower Rufiji
Agricultural Mechanization 1 • ASDP
Agriculture Land Use Planning and 1 • ASDP
Management
National Food Security 5 • ASDP
• SAGCOT
• Storage Capacity Expansion Project
• Tanzania Initiative for Preventing Aflatoxin
Contamination
6 Ministry of Basic Education Development Office 1 • Rural water supply programme
Education,
Science and
Technology
7 Ministry of Water Urban Water Supply and Sanitation 10 • R
ehabilitation and expansion of urban
and Irrigation water supply
• Expansion of urban water supply
• Regional Head Quarter Water Project
• Masasi–Nachingwea Water Project
• Kahama–Nzega–Tabora Water Project
• Lake Victoria Shy/Kahama Water Supply
• Improvement of DAWASA Project
• Kidunda Dam Construction Project
• Kimbiji and Mpera Water Project
• Management support to urban utilities
Rural Water Supply 5 • E xpansion and rehabilitation of rural
water supply
• Borehole drilling and dam construction
• Rural water supply and sanitation programme
• Same-Mwanga-Korogwe Water Project
• Management support to LGAs
Page 13
8 Ministry of Health, Curative Services 2 • Support to maternal mortality reduction

Community • Strengthening of referral hospitals
Development,
Gender, Elderly
and Children –
Health
Pharmaceutical Services Unit 1 • Strengthening of referral hospitals
Preventive Services 4 • National Institute for Medical Research
• Strengthening of referral hospitals
• HIV and AIDS Control Programme
• Support to TB/Leprosy Control Programme
9 Ministry of Health, Gender Development 1 • Women’s economic empowerment
Community
Development,
Gender, Elderly
and Children
– Community
Development
Children Development 2 • Child survival and development
• Support to social welfare services
Social Welfare Division 1 • Support to social welfare services
10 President’s Sector Coordination Division 2 • Rural water supply and sanitation programme
Office – Regional • ASDP
Administration
and Local
Government
Authorities
11 Trade and Commodity Market Development Division 1 • ASDP
Investment
12 Ministry of Fisheries Development Division 1 • ASDP
Livestock
Development
and Fisheries –
Fisheries
Aquaculture Development 1 • ASDP
13 Office of the Productive Sector Cluster 1 • Pro-poor economic growth
Prime Minister
– Labour, Youth,
Employment and
Disabilities
14 Ministry of Works, Roads Development Division 3 • Isaka–Lusahunga Rehabilitation
Transport and • Regional roads rehabilitation
Communication – • Support for road maintenance and
Works rehabilitation
15 Ministry of Veterinary Services 1 • ASDP
Livestock
Development
and Fisheries –
Livestock
Livestock Production and Marketing 1 • ASDP
Significant DRR projects/activities at Regional Secretary level
1 Katavi Water Services 1 • Rural water supply and sanitation programme
Page 14
Regional Hospital 2 • Rural water supply and sanitation programme

• Construction of regional hospital
Transfers to LGAs – Public Health Services 1 • Construction of district hospital
Transfers to LGAs – Rural Water Supply 1 • Rural water supply and sanitation programme
2 Simiyu Economic and Productive Sector 2 • ASDP
• Livestock Development Fund
Water Sector 1 • Rural water supply and sanitation programme

Regional Hospital 1 • Construction of regional hospital
Transfers to LGAs – Works 1 • Construction of district hospital
Transfers to LGAs – Water Supply 1 • Rural water supply and sanitation programme
3 Njombe Social Sector 1 • Construction of regional hospital
Water Services 1 • Rural water supply programme
4 Geita Infrastructure Section 1 • Construction of regional hospital
5 Arusha Economic and Productive Sector 1 • D
istrict Agriculture Development Programme
(DADP)
Education Sector 1 • Rural water supply and sanitation programme
6 Pwani Economic and Productive Sector 1 • DADP
Infrastructure Sector 1 • Construction of regional hospital
7 Dodoma Water Sector 1 • Rural water supply and sanitation programme
Regional Hospital 1 • R
ural Water Supply and
Sanitation Programme
8 Iringa Economic and Productive Sector 1 • DADP
Social Sector 1 • Rural water supply and sanitation programme
Transfers to LGAs – Preventive Services 1 • Rural water supply and sanitation programme
Transfers to LGAs – Health Centres 1 • Construction of district hospital
Transfers to LGAs - Water Supply 1 • Rural water supply and sanitation programme
9 Kigoma Planning and Coordination 1 • Rural water supply and sanitation programme
Economic and Productive Sector 1 • DADP
Transfers to LGAs – Planning, Trade and 1 • Construction of district hospital
Economy
Page 15
10 Kilimanjaro Economic and Productive Sector 1 • DADP

11 Lindi Economic and Productive Sector 1 • DADP

Economy
12 Mara Economic and Productive Sector 1 • DADP
Transfers to LGAs – Administration and 1 • Rural water supply and sanitation programme
General
13 Mbeya Economic and Productive Sector 1 • ASDP
14 Morogoro Planning and Coordination 1 • DADP
Economic and Productive Sector 1 • DADP
15 Mtwara Water Sector 1 • Rural water supply and sanitation programme
Transfers to LGAs – Health Centres 1 • Construction of district hospital
16 Mwanza Economic and Productive Sector 1 • DADP
17 Ruvuma Social Sector 1 • Rural water supply and sanitation programme
Transfers to LGAs – Public Health Services 2 • R
ural water supply and sanitation programme
Construction of district hospital
Transfers to LGAs - Preventive Services 1 • Rural water supply and sanitation programme
Transfers to LGAs – Dispensaries 1 • Rural water supply and sanitation programme
• LGA Own Source Project
Economy
18 Shinyanga Economic and Productive Sector 1 • DADP
Infrastructure Sector 1 • Construction of regional hospital
Page 16
19 Singida Economic and Productive Sector 1 • DADP
20 Tabora Economic and Productive Sector 1 • DADP
Economy
Transfers to LGAs – Administration and 1 • Rural water supply and sanitation programme
General
21 Tanga Water Sector 1 • Rural water supply and sanitation programme
22 Kagera Economic and Productive Sector 1 • DADP
Transfers to LGAs – Public Health Services 1 • Rural water supply and sanitation programme
Transfers to LGAs – Preventive Services 1 • Rural water supply and sanitation programme
Transfers to LGAS – Works 1 • Construction of district hospital
23 Dar es Salaam Water Sector 1 • Rural water supply and sanitation programme
Transfers to LGAs - Public Health Services 1 • Construction of district hospital
Transfers to LGAs - Rural Water Supply 2 • R
ural water supply and sanitation programme
LGA Own Source Project
24 Rukwa Water Sector 1 • Rural water supply and sanitation programme
25 Songwe Infrastructure Sector 1 • Construction of regional hospital
Transfers to LGAs – Natural Resources 1 • Rural water supply and sanitation programme
Transfers to LGAs – Agriculture 1 • Rural water supply and sanitation programme
Transfers to LGAs – Water Supply 1 • Rural water supply
26 Manyara Social Sector 1 • Rural water supply and sanitation programme
Transfers to LGAs– Water Supply 1 • Rural water supply and sanitation programme
Between FY 2016/17 and FY 2018/19, Tanzania’s overall DRR investment amounted to $1.14 billion,
which is on average $381 million a year. Direct and indirect investment in DRR in the three years
considered constituted 3% of the total budget for the country over the three budget cycles.
Splitting the total amount spent on DRR into principal and significant investments reveals that the
country earmarked 0.5% of the overall budget for principal and 2.2% for significant components of
DRR investment (Figure 6a).
Page 17
Figure 6: Budget shares of principal and significant DRR components

Figure 6a: Share of component in Figure 6b: Share of component in
total country budget total DRR investment
Significant Significant
Principal Principal
2.2%
81%
0.5% 19%
The country budgeted, on average, $71 million per year for principal DRR. This amounts to 19%
of total DRR investment over the three budget cycles (Figure 6b).
Discounting significant DRR investments by 40% of the relevant budget items, the average annual
budget for significant DRR is $310 million a year. Of total DRR investment, the bulk of the allocations
(81%) were assigned for significant investment (Figure 6b). Consistent with the overall DRR
investment allocation, at national and Regional Secretaries levels the share of the total of significant
DRR investment is far bigger than the principal component. As shown in Table 4, the share of
principal DRR investment is consistently less than 1% of the total national budget and less than
a quarter of total marked DRR investment for the respective years at both levels of government.
Its share of marked DRR investment has also declined over the three financial years.
Table 4: Amount and share of principal and significant

components in total budget by year ($)
Description 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 Total three FYs Average per
year
Total country budget 13,491,171,823 14,144,009,134 14,258,308,933 41,893,489,890 13,964,496,630
Total principal 59,691,213 92,991,607 59,655,452 212,338,272 70,779,424
% share of DRR 23.2% 20.6% 13.7% 18.6% 18.6%
investment
% share of country 0.4% 0.7% 0.4% 0.5% 0.5%
budget
Total significant 197,989,395 358,035,021 374,755,345 930,779,761 310,259,920
(40% of budget)
% share of DRR 76.8% 79.4% 86.3% 81.4% 81.4%
investment
% share of country 1.5% 2.5% 2.6% 2.2% 2.2%
budget
National principal 59,121,179 92,319,464 58,156,899 209,597,542 69,865,847
% share of DRR 22.9% 20.5% 13.4% 18.3% 18.3%
investment
% share of country 0.4% 0.7% 0.4% 0.5% 0.5%
budget
National significant 196,078,120 354,965,441 338,255,232 889,298,794 296,432,931
(40% of budget)
% share of DRR 76.1% 78.7% 77.9% 77.8% 77.8%
investment
Page 18
% share of country 1.5% 2.5% 2.4% 2.1% 2.1%

budget
Regional Secretaries 570,034 672,144 1,498,553 2,740,730 913,577
principal
% share of DRR 0.2% 0.1% 0.3% 0.2% 0.2%
investment
% share of country 0.004% 0.005% 0.011% 0.007% 0.007%
budget
Regional Secretaries 1,911,275 3,069,580 36,500,113 41,480,968 13,826,989
significant
(40% of budget)
% share of DRR 0.7% 0.7% 8.4% 3.6% 3.6%
investment
% share of country 0.01% 0.03% 0.3% 0.1% 0.1%
budget
DRR investment 257,680,608 451,026,628 434,410,797 1,143,118,034 381,039,345
Distribution of DRR marked programmes across

ministries and Regional Secretaries
About 86% of spending on principal DRR activities was by just three offices – the Ministry of Health,
the Treasury and the Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism (Figure 7). Of these, the bulk of
the spending, more than two-thirds (72%), was by the Ministry of Health, Community Development,
Gender, Elderly and Children – Health (Table 5). In the three FYs considered, the ministry spent on
average $51 million per year. As shown in Table 2, the ministry’s activities marked as principal budget
fall under the “control of communicable diseases/vaccines” budget item. The Ministry of Water
and Irrigation makes it into the list of the top four institutions that have a share of more than 5%
of principal DRR investment at the national level. Despite housing the largest number of projects/
activities, the Vice President’s Office does not feature as the highest spender in terms of principal
DRR investments.
Figure 7: Top institutions by highest share pf total principal DRR spending at the
national level, 2016/17–2018/19
The Treasury
Ministry of Natural
Ministry of Health, Community Development, Gender, Elderly and Children – Health
Resources and Tourism
Ministry of Water
and Irrigation
Page 19
Table 5: Share of spending on principal DRR activities, by institution and year

Institution Share of total 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19
principal
spending
Domestic External Domestic External Domestic External
Ministry of Health, Community Development, 72.0% 84.7% 87.9% 61.8% 67.9% 49.6% 78.9%
Gender, Elderly and Children – Health
The Treasury 7.8% 0.0% 8.2% 0.9% 17.6% 0.0% 0.0%
Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism 6.5% 0.0% 1.7% 11.2% 3.7% 19.8% 6.7%
Ministry of Minerals 4.1% 14.0% 0.7% 4.7% 4.2% 5.0% 6.5%
Ministry of Water and Irrigation 1.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 10.9% 3.5%
Ministry of Energy 1.9% 0.0% 0.0% 6.0% 3.7% 0.0% 0.0%
Vice President’s Office 1.8% 0.3% 0.9% 3.6% 1.3% 2.4% 2.9%
Fire and Rescue Force 1.7% 1.0% 0.0% 6.6% 0.0% 7.4% 0.0%
Ministry of Works, Transport and 1.1% 0.0% 0.0% 4.7% 0.0% 4.1% 0.0%
Communication-Works
Office of the Prime Minister 0.5% 0.0% 0.3% 0.0% 1.0% 0.0% 0.6%
President’s Office – Regional Administration and 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.7% 0.0% 0.9%
Local Government Authorities
Ministry of Lands, Housing and Human 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.6% 0.0% 0.8% 0.0%
Settlements Development
Ministry of Finance and Planning 0.1% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
The two ministries that relied the most on local sources and consistently allocated budget through
the FYs considered were the Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism and the Ministry of Water
and Irrigation (Table 5).
Like spending on principal DRR investment, three institutions house the bulk of spending on
significant investment. The ministries responsible for public works, water and irrigation, and health
make up close to 89% of the total budget for significant DRR investment. Despite the number
of projects/activities marked as significant (Table 3) being highest in the Ministry of Water and
Irrigation (15), followed by the Ministry of Agriculture (14) and the National Irrigation Commission
(10), in terms of spending the Ministry of Works tops all, distantly followed by the Ministry of Water
and Irrigation (Figure 8). The Ministry of Works budgeted about $305 million per year for significant
investment in the three FYs considered.
Figure 8: Top five institutions by highest share of total significant

DRR spending at the national level, 2016/17–2018/19
Ministry of Health, Community

Development, Gender, Elderly and
Children – Health
Ministry Of Works, Transport and Communication-Works Ministry of Water and Irrigation
Prime
Ministry of Agriculture Minister’s
Office
Page 20
Increasingly, institutions have been funding significant DRR investments from domestic sources.
In the 2018/19 budget cycle, more than half of the institutions identified to have DRR investments
were expected to fund their activities through domestic resources. This is an improvement from the
previous FYs, with only 13% of the identified institutions in 2016/17 and 40% in 2017/18 funding their
significant DRR activities from local sources.
Table 6: Share of spending on significant DRR activities, by institution and year

Institution Share of total 2016/17 2018/19 2018/19
significant
spending
Domestic External Domestic External Domestic External
Ministry of Works, Transport and 41.0% 67.1% 0.0% 48.1% 0.0% 46.0% 5.5%
Communication-Works
Ministry of Water and Irrigation 26.6% 19.8% 16.5% 25.3% 31.3% 25.3% 48.9%
Ministry of Health, Community Development, 21.0% 12.4% 33.6% 17.8% 41.5% 18.6% 30.0%
Gender, Elderly and Children – Health
Ministry of Agriculture 4.7% 0.2% 2.3% 3.7% 16.4% 4.7% 3.9%
Office of the Prime Minister 2.5% 0.0% 43.2% 0.0% 7.7% 0.1% 6.4%
The Treasury 2.4% 0.0% 0.3% 4.2% 0.0% 3.9% 0.1%
National Irrigation Commission 0.7% 0.5% 2.9% 0.4% 2.6% 0.4% 0.0%
Ministry of Education, Science and Technology 0.4% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 4.2%
Ministry of Livestock Development 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.3% 0.0%
and Fisheries – Livestock
Ministry of Health, Community Development, Gender, 0.1% 0.0% 0.5% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0.7%
Elderly and Children – Community Development
National Land Use Planning Commission 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 0.0%
Trade and Investment 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0%
Ministry of Livestock Development 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0%
and Fisheries – Fisheries
President’s Office – Regional Administration 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.2%
and Local Government Authorities
Office of the Prime Minister – 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Labour, Youth, Employment and Disabilities
The Ministry of Public Works, which has been responsible for the largest share of significant DRR
investment, has been using domestic sources almost exclusively.
4.4. DRR budget by categories of the DRM cycle

Certain risk categories dominate DRR investments in Tanzania. For the analysis, budget lines
were further categorized into four distinct elements of the DRM cycle – mitigation and prevention,
preparedness, response and relief, and reconstruction and recovery. Of these four risk categories,
mitigation and prevention and preparedness overwhelmingly dominate in both the principal and
significant components. Mitigation and prevention accounts for 88% of principal and 86% of
significant DRR investment (Figure 9 and Table 7).
Page 21
Budget targeted directly to reduce disaster risk (principal component) responds both to pre-
disaster and post-disaster activities, albeit skewed very heavily towards pre-disaster (98%). Budget
earmarked for mitigation and prevention in the principal DRR component amounts to $62 million per
year on average (Table 7). This risk category accounts for 88% of total principal DRR investment, or
7% of total DRR investments.
Figure 9: Principal DRR investment marked at country level by risk category

Preventation Preparedness
and migration 10%
0%
Pre-disaster
investment
98%
Post-disaster
crisis investment
2%
Reconstruction Response
and recovery and relief
0% 2%
Preparedness is the risk category with the second highest investment, attracting $7 million per
year on average, and accounting for 10% of the total principal budget, but just 1% of the total
marked DRR budget.
Tanzania budgeted $1.4 million per year for response and relief on average over the three years. The
share for this risk category amounted to 2% of the total principal budget and 0.2% of the total budget
earmarked for DRR investment. The budget tracking assessment did not find any allocation for
reconstruction and recovery in the three budget cycles considered.
As shown above in Table 2, at the Regional Secretary level three activities were identified as principal
DRR investment, and these were all related to risk mitigation and prevention.
Page 22
Table 7: Amount and share of risk categories of principal DRR investment

Risk category 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 Total of risk Average per year
category
Mitigation and prevention 54,587,196 76,737,501 55,536,849 186,861,546 62,287,182
% share of total principal DRR 91.4% 82.7% 93.1% 88% 88%
investment
% share of total DRR investment 7% 7%
Preparedness 5,050,582 14,243,826 1,853,217 21,147,625 7,049,208
investment
% share of total DRR investment 1% 1%
Response and relief 53,435 2,010,281 2,265,386 4,329,102 1,443,034
investment
% share of total DRR investment 0.2% 0%
Source: calculations based on 2016/17–2018/19 budgets, Ministry of Finance and Planning, Government of Tanzania.
Breaking down the earmarked principal DRR investments by source shows that local sources are the
main financers of response and relief activities, while external sources are used for the mitigation
and prevention and preparedness risk categories (Figure 10).
Figure 10: Sources of funding for principal DRR component by risk category
External
2018/19
Domestic
External
2017/18
Domestic
External
2016/17
Domestic
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
$ millions
Response Preparedness Mitigation/prevention
The significant DRR budget in Tanzania responds exclusively to pre-disaster activities and has no
allocation for post-crisis activities. Unlike the principal DRR component, the significant DRR budget
responds to only two risk categories, mitigation and prevention and preparedness (Figure 11 and
Table 8). As with principal DRR investments, the country pays more attention to mitigation and
prevention than to preparedness for disaster.
Page 23
Figure 11: Significant DRR investment marked at country level by risk category
Preventation Preparedness
and migration 14%
86%
Pre-disaster
investment
100%
Post-disaster crisis
investment
0%
Reconstruction Response
and recovery and relief
0% 0%
On average over the three years, $670 million annually was earmarked for significant DRR activities
that can be traced to mitigation and prevention activities. The other risk category benefiting from
the earmarked DRR budget, preparedness, received $108 million per year on average. The share of
mitigation and prevention amounts to 86% of the total significant DRR budget and 70% of total DRR
investment, while preparedness accounts for 11% of the total budget for significant DRR investment
and 14% of total DRR investment.
Table 8: Amount and share of risk categories of significant DRR investment

Risk category 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 Total of risk category Average per year
Mitigation and prevention 175,019,863 312,234,085 316,455,330 803,709,277 267,903,092
% share of total 88% 87% 84% 86% 86%
significant DRR
investment
% share of total 70% 70%
DRR investment
Preparedness 23,116,097 46,508,070 60,638,807 130,262,974 43,420,991
% share of total 12% 13% 16% 14% 14%
significant DRR
investment
% share of total 11% 11%
DRR investment
Page 24
Further breaking down significant DRR investment by level of governance shows that both the
mitigation and prevention and preparedness risk categories benefited from remarkable nominal
increases in budget allocations in FY 2018/19 at Regional Secretary level (Table 9). Allocations
to activities related to mitigation and prevention increased by 19 times in nominal terms from the
previous budget cycle. However, at the national level allocations for the same risk category declined
during FY 2018/19.
Allocations to preparedness have been steadily increasing in nominal terms at the national level. At
Regional Secretary level, a remarkable increase is seen in the most recent FY for preparedness, with
allocations increasing by close to five times from FY 2017/18.
Table 9: Share of risk categories of total significant DRR investment at national and
Regional Secretariat levels
Risk category 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 Total risk category Average per year
Mitigation and prevention
Regional Secretary ($) 830,142 1,239,033 23,609,063 25,678,238 8,559,413
% share of significant DRR 0.4% 0.3% 6.3% 2.8% 2.8%
investment
National ($) 174,189,720 310,995,051 292,846,267 778,031,039 259,343,680
investment
Preparedness
Regional Secretary ($) 1,227,697 2,537,680 12,379,443 16,144,820 5,381,607
investment
National ($) 21,888,400 43,970,390 48,259,364 114,118,154 38,039,385
investment
As discussed above, external sources fund significant DRR investment to a lesser extent than local
sources. In this component, external financial resources are largely set aside to complement the
mitigation and prevention risk category.
Figure 12: Sources of financing for significant DRR component by risk category
External
2018/19
Domestic
External
2017/18
Domestic
External
2016/17
Domestic
0 50 100 150 200 250

$ millions
Preparedness Mitigation/prevention
Page 25
Domestic sources financed 67% of the total DRR investment budget over the three FYs.
However, breaking down DRR activities reveals that the main source of financing for principal DRR
investment was external sources, while significant DRR investment was financed mainly through
local sources (Figure 13).
Figure 13: Sources of funding by DRR component ($ millions)

900
800
700
600
500
$ millions
400
200
100
0
Principal Significant
Domestic External
While 74% of the budget earmarked for principal DRR investment was financed through externally
sourced resources, only 22% of external financing funded significant DRR investment – i.e. more
than three-quarters of significant DRR activities were funded through domestic resources.
Estimated external resources were higher in the budget cycle for 2017/18 and continue to dominate
as the main source of funding for the principal DRR component in the national budget (Figure
14a). Nonetheless, local sources for funding of the principal DRR component have been increasing
steadily in nominal terms throughout the three financial years.
Figure 14: Sources of resources by year and principal/significant component

Figure 14a: Sources of resources Figure 14b: Sources of resources
for principal DRR spending for significant DRR spending
70
60 300
50 250
$ in millions
$ in millions
40 200
30 150
20 100
10 50
0 0
2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19
Domestic External Domestic External
Page 26
Under sub-vote 6575, “strengthen national disaster preparedness and response” the Office of the
Prime Minister, under the Civil Affairs and Contingencies category, budgeted $110,124 per year on
average, all of which was reliant on external sources. For the same sub-vote, the Treasury, Policy
Analysis Division, sourced funds mainly from external financing sources, with only 1.3% through
mobilization of domestic resources.
Local resources are the main sources of finance for significant DRR investments. Allocations for
DRR-related activities, albeit not with the sole intent of reducing disaster risk, have been steadily
increasing in nominal terms in the FYs considered (Figure 14b).
Page 27
5. Conclusion and recommendations

UNDRR has partnered with the EU, the African Union (AU) and the ACP to deliver a programme to
build the capacity of African countries in risk-sensitive investment planning and to increase public
investment in DRR. The intention is to assist countries to align their strategies with the targets
outlined in the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030. The analysis in this report
supports this aim by providing a risk-sensitive budget review analysis that evaluates and determines
the level of public investments in DRR in Tanzania.
The RSBR analysis found the following:
• Guided by the OECD DAC marker and complemented by the Sendai Framework, a total of
226 activities/projects managed by 176 departments or divisions in 31 ministries, offices or
commissions were identified at national level and in 26 Regional Secretaries.
• Between FY 2016/17 and FY 2018/19, the country allocated on average $381 million a year for
DRR investments. This is about 3% of the total budget over the three budget cycles.
• Of the total allocation for DRR, principal DRR investment was estimated to be on average $71
million per year or equal to a total of $212 million over the three FYs. This is equivalent to 0.5%
of the country’s budget during these three years.
• The share of principal DRR investment is consistently less than 1% of the total country budget
and less than a quarter of total DRR-marked investment for the respective years at both levels
of governance, national and regional.
• The annual budget for significant DRR investment was $311 million a year over the three budget
cycles. Of total marked DRR investment, the bulk of the allocation, 81%, was assigned for
significant DRR investment.
• Domestic sources financed 67% of the total DRR investment budget over the three FYs.
However, breaking down DRR activities into the two components reveals that the main sources
of financing for principal DRR activities are external (74% of the total principal budget),
while significant DRR investment is financed mainly through local sources (78% of the total
significant budget).
• A small number of institutions house the bulk of DRR investments. The Ministry of Health
makes 72% of total investments in the principal component of the DRR budget, and together
with two other institutions the share increases to 86%. Similarly, three institutions make close
to 89% of all investments in the significant component of DRR investment.
• Of the four risk categories, mitigation and prevention and preparedness overwhelmingly
dominate in both the principal and significant DRR investment components. Mitigation
and prevention accounts for an 88% share of principal DRR investment and 86% of
significant investment.
• Domestic sources are the main financers of response and relief activities, while external
sources fund the mitigation and prevention and preparedness risk categories.
• The principal component of the DRR budget is skewed heavily towards pre-disaster activities
(98%). The significant DRR budget, however, responds exclusively to disaster activities and has
no allocation for post-crisis activities.
Page 28
Recommendations
• To make DRR a development priority, Tanzania needs to increase investment for projects that
explicitly target DRR.
• Local resource mobilization efforts should be increased to fund DRR-specific projects, as the
current heavy reliance on external sources presents challenges regarding sustainability.
• The bulk of DRR-related investments is hosted by just a few institutions, suggesting that the
country needs to scale up DRR mainstreaming in more ministries, offices and commissions as
well as in Regional Secretaries.
Page 29
References
African Development Bank (2019). Countries. Available at https://www.afdb.org/en/countries.
Accessed on 15 January 2020.
Barza Wire (2017). Tanzania: Farmers and researchers scramble for solutions to Fall armyworm
ahead of maize season, 18 December. Available at http://wire.farmradio.fm/en/farmer-
stories/2017/12/tanzania-farmers-and-researchers-scramble-for-solutions-to-fall-armyworm-
aheadof-maize-season-16880.
BBC (2002). Hundreds killed in Tanzania train crash, 24 June. Available at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/
hi/world/africa/2063140.stm. Accessed 17 December 2019.
Central Intelligence Agency. The World Factbook. Available at https://www.cia.gov/library/
publications/the-world-factbook/geos/za.html. Accessed on 15 January 2020.
Climate & Development Knowledge Network (2014). The IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report: What’s in
it for Africa? Available at https://cdkn.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/AR5_IPCC_Whats_in_it_for_
Africa.pdf.
Disaster Management Department (2018). Profile of the Disaster Management Department. Prime
Minister’s Office, United Republic of Tanzania.
Division of Environment (2006). National Adaptation Programme of Action (NAPA) for Tanzania.
United Republic of Tanzania. Available at https://theredddesk.org/sites/default/files/tanzania_napa_
april_2006_2.pdf.
EM-DAT: The International Disaster Database – CRED. D. Guha-Sapir, Université Catholique de
Louvain (UCL), Brussels. Available at http://www.emdat.be. Accessed on 18 December 2019.
European Commission (2016). Guidelines No 6: Integrating the environment and climate change into
EU international cooperation and development. Available at https://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/sites/
devco/files/guidelines-env-climate-change-sust-dev-20160201_en.pdf.
FAO (2018). FAO, Tanzania sign agreement to respond to fall armyworm. Available at
http://www.fao.org/tanzania/news/detail-events/en/c/1104627.
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (2012). DREF Final Report.
Tanzania: Floods. Disaster Relief Emergency Fund. Available at https://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.
int/files/resources/MDRTZ013fr.pdf.
International Institute for Applied Analysis. Shared Socioeconomic Pathways Database.
Available at https://tntcat.iiasa.ac.at/SspDb/dsd?Action=htmlpage&page=welcome. Accessed
on 15 January 2020.
Irish Aid (2017). Tanzania Climate Action Report 2016. Resilience and Economic Inclusion Team.
Available at https://www.irishaid.ie/media/irishaid/allwebsitemedia/30whatwedo/climatechange/
Tanzania-Country-Climate-Action-Report-2016.pdf.
OECD (2017). Proposal to Establish a Policy Marker for Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) in the OECD
DAC Creditor Reporting System (CRS). Available at http://www.oecd.org/officialdocuments/
publicdisplaydocumentpdf/?cote=DCD/DAC/STAT(2017)26&docLanguage=En.
Page 30
President’s Office Public Service Management, United Republic of Tanzania (2015). Prime Minister’s
Office, Regional Administration and Local Government, 2015. The functions and organisation structure
of the prime minister’s office, regional administration and local government (PMORALG). Available at
http://www.tzdpg.or.tz/fileadmin/documents/dpg_internal/dpg_working_groups_clusters/cluster_2/
health/Key_Sector_Documents/Induction_Pack/PMO_RALG_Roles_and_Functions_approved_
February_2015.pdf.
ReliefWeb. Disasters. Available at https://reliefweb.int/disasters?country=244%20%E2%80%93%20
content. Accessed on 17 December 2019.
United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division (2019). World
Population Prospects 2019 database. Available at https://population.un.org/wpp/DataQuery/.
Accessed on 15 January 2020.
United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction. DesInvetar Sendai. United Republic of Tanzania.
Available at: https://www.desinventar.net/DesInventar/profiletab.jsp?countrycode=tza&continue=y.
Accessed 18 December 2019.
United Nations Development Programme (2018). Briefing note for countries on the 2018 Statistical
Update: Tanzania (United Republic of). Human Development Indices and Indicators: 2018 Statistical
Update. Available at http://hdr.undp.org/sites/all/themes/hdr_theme/country-notes/TZA.pdf.
United Republic of Tanzania (2015), The Disaster Management Act, 2015. No. 7. Available at
http://parliament.go.tz/polis/uploads/bills/acts/1452062258-ActNo-7-2015-Book-1-10.pdf.
United Republic of Tanzania, Ministry of Finance and Planning. Budget Books. Available at
https://mof.go.tz/index.php/budget/budget-books. Accessed on 18 December 2019.
World Bank. Data: GDP growth (annual %). Available at https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.
MKTP.KD.ZG. Accessed on 15 January 2020.
World Bank. Data: GDP per capita (current US$). Available at https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/
NY.GDP.PCAP.CD. Accessed on 15 January 2020.
Page 31
Annex 1: Risk-sensitive budget review

methodology
UNDRR’s application of the OECD DAC DRR policy marker:
an overview
Performing the RSBR for each country involved several steps, the first one being to access
programme-based budgets.12 For most countries (13 out of 16), the budget information was readily
available online (generally through the Ministry of Finance web portal).13 Budget information from
Cameroon and Côte d’Ivoire was shared by some participants during national DRR workshops
organized by UNDRR in Yaoundé and Abidjan, respectively, both in 2018. In the case of Guinea-
Bissau, consultants managed to gain access through their connection with the Ministry of Finance.
For a more detailed methodological note on UNDRR’s application of the RSBR, please consult the
companion document, “A methodological guidance note on risk-sensitive budget reviews”.
Once the budget data was secured, the OECD policy marker methodology was applied to identify
DRR components from the budgets. This involved reviewing the most recent national budgets
available (see Table A1) in several steps:
Step 1: Review of overall performance of each ministry/institution in its respective programmes.
Step 2: Review of targets and policy outcomes expected to be delivered for DRR elements. This
then guided the authors in reviewing budget allocations under each programme and
subprogramme.
Step 3: Analysing subprogramme activities that had DRR elements and categorizing them according
to the four key DRR categories – risk prevention and mitigation, preparedness, response and
relief, and reconstruction and recovery.
Step 4: The same subprogramme activities were further categorized according to DRR policy
objectives – principal, significant and not targeted – and were weighted using the OECD DAC
Rio marker weighting guidelines (principal = 100%, significant = 40% and non-DRR = 0%).
The policy marker relies on – and the quality of results therefore depends on – the availability
of documentation in relation to policy objectives and spending activities. In general, the more
disaggregated and documented the budget at the activity level, the more accurate the marking. In
reality, the level of disaggregation varies from one country to another.14
Although programme objectives were stated in 14 country budgets out of 16, Table A1 shows that
only half of the countries disaggregated activities. In most cases (13 out of 16), financial documents
available captured exclusively domestic budget resources; Angola,15 Côte d’Ivoire and Guinea-Bissau
were the exceptions (both domestic and foreign resources were presented in the budgets).
12 When budget data was not available (i.e. for Cameroon and Guinea-Bissau), public investment plans were used instead. Due to data
availability, the analysis is based on ‘planned’ rather than ‘executed’ expenditures.
13 Budget information for Gabon and São Tomé and Príncipe was retrieved from www.mays-mouissi.com and www.cabri-sbo.org,
respectively.
14 An interesting aspect of disaggregation is whether local government authorities have their own budgets, in addition to national budgets.
In 13 cases out of 16, countries have only national budgets (the exceptions are Angola, Rwanda and Tanzania (United Republic of)).
15 For example, the publicly available budgets for Angola do not separate domestic and external resources, making it impossible to take the
origin of resources into account into the analysis.
Page 32
The main challenge experienced during the RSBR was that programmes and activities are often
neither classified/coded for DRR nor sufficiently described. This makes it difficult to identify the full
range of activities that may be related to DRR in the budget. For some countries, such as Angola,
budget expenditures are simply not coded; this requires the titles of expenditures to be linked across
different years to perform the RSBR.
Considering these challenges and the 13 countries with national budgets only, the RSBR overview
shows that, on average, a country has 27 national ministries, departments and agencies, of which 11
have DRR expenditures (either principal or significant).
In addition, 9 out of 16 countries have a specific budget allocated to the administration in charge of
DRR. This specific budget always represents a small fraction of total DRR expenditures, given the
cross-cutting nature of DRM/DRR activities.
As climate change is an important underlying disaster risk driver, it is important to understand

whether governments are taking climate change adaptation (CCA) measures. Table A1 shows the
countries with expenditures related to CCA, marked either as principal (eight countries) or significant
DRR measures (two countries). It is worth noting that 6 countries out of the 16 have not planned for
CCA expenditures.
Table A1: UNDRR’s RSBR: an overview
Page 33
Country Coverage of RSBR analysis Source of Disaggregation level DRR agency Climate DRR marked sectors*
budget portfolio change
adaptation
(CCA)
Period # of MDAs # of Budget resources Are Are programme Was the How was Larger share Larger share Larger share of
(ministries, DRR considered in the programme objectives national climate of Agriculture of Health Infrastructure
departments, marked analysis^ objectives disaggregated DRR agency change marked DRR marked DRR marked DRR
agencies) MDAs stated in the to activities? budget marked in budget lies budget lies budget lies
budget? marked? budgets? under… under… under…
Angola 2017–2019 66 40 Domestic/foreign No No Yes* Principal Principal Significant Significant

Botswana 2014/15–2018/19 25 9 Domestic Yes Yes No NA Significant Significant Significant
Cameroon 2019 54 13 Domestic Yes Yes Yes Principal Significant Principal Significant
Côte d’Ivoire 2016–2018 38 29 Domestic/foreign Yes No No Principal Significant Significant Significant
Equatorial Guinea 2016–2018 21 5 Domestic Yes Yes Yes NA Significant Significant Significant
Eswatini 2014/15–2018/19 35 12 Domestic Yes Yes No Principal Principal Significant Significant
(The Kingdom of)
Gabon 2014–2017 21 9 Domestic Yes No Yes Significant Significant Significant Significant
Gambia (The) 2014–2017 19 5 Domestic Yes No Yes NA Significant Significant Significant
Ghana 2016–2018 29 8 Domestic Yes Yes Yes Principal Significant Significant Principal
Guinea-Bissau 2015–2018 23 7 Domestic/foreign No No No Principal Significant Significant None
Kenya 2013/14–2016/17 23 10 Domestic Yes Yes No Principal Principal Significant Principal

Namibia 2014/15–2018/19 35 8 Domestic Yes Yes Yes NA Significant Significant Significant
Rwanda 2016/17–2018/19 56 42 Domestic Yes No Yes Significant Significant Significant Significant
São Tomé 2014–2017 11 7 Domestic Yes No No NA Significant Significant Significant
and Príncipe
Tanzania 2016/17–2018/19 93 48 Domestic Yes No No Principal Significant Significant Significant
(United Republic of)
Zambia 2015–2017 27 21 Domestic Yes Yes Yes Principal Significant Significant Significant
Source: UNDRR (2019).
* These sectors were chosen due to their direct linkage to natural hazards; NA – No programmes for CCA were found in the RSBR analysis; ^ - All budgets analysed were planned budgets.
Page 34
Annex 2: Tanzania’s budget process

Tanzania’s budget process involves annual budget cycle events and activities and the determination
of resources and their uses for the attainment of government objectives. It serves as a tool for
economic and financial management and accountability and as a mechanism for the allocation of
resources to different needs and priorities, as well as encouraging economic stability and growth.
The process includes four distinct stages: budget formulation; scrutiny of budget proposals and
dialogue; budget execution; and budget monitoring and control. The following is a summary of the
cycle of events and activities performed each year under each stage of the budget process.
Budget formulation stage

• Second week of August: constitution of the National Plan and Budget Guidelines (PBGs)
Committee and its Secretariat.
• First week of September to fourth week of October: drafting and finalization of
PBG preparations.
• First week of November: approval of the PBGs by the Cabinet.
• Second week of November: PBGs adopted by Parliament.
• Third week of November: circulation of PBGs to MDAs, Regional Secretaries, LGAs and public
institutions.
• Fourth week of November to first week of February: issuance of ceilings and preparation of
MDAs, RS and LGA budget estimates.
• Second week of February to first week of March: detailed scrutiny of sectoral plans and
budget proposals by the Ministry of Finance and Planning (MoFP) together with ministries,
departments and agencies (MDAs), RASs, LGAs and public institutions; budget data entered into
Central Budget Management System (CBMS).
• Second week of March: budget estimates approval by Cabinet.
Budget authorization
• Second week of March to first week of April: detailed scrutiny and discussion of sectoral
plans and budget proposals by Sectoral Parliamentary Standing Committees and necessary
adjustments (if any).
• Second week of April to first week of June: parliamentary debates/discussions on votes
estimates submitted by each minister responsible.
• Third and fourth week of June: budget authorization by Parliament together with Finance and
Appropriation Bills.
Budget execution
1 July to 30 June: actual budget implementation which involves, among other elements:
• preparation of action and cash flow plans by MDAs, RSs and LGAs and submission to MoFP
• revenue collection
Page 35
• release of funds
• service delivery
• implementation of projects
• Budget monitoring and control.
1 July to 30 June: monitoring and control of budget implementation, including:

• internal auditing
• external auditing
• parliamentary oversight
• expenditure tracking and project inspection
• reporting of performance by MDAs, RSs and LGAS to the MoFP.
UN Office for Disaster Risk Reduction
www.preventionweb.net/resilient-africa
www.undrr.org
This publication has been produced with the assistance of the
European Union.
The contents of this publication are the sole responsibility of the

United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction and can in no
way be taken to reflect the views of the European Union..
The material in this document is subject to copyright. Because

UNDRR encourages dissemination of its knowledge, this work
may be reproduced, in whole or in part, for non-commercial
purposes as long as full attribution to this work is given.
Citation: UNDRR (2020). Tanzania: Risk-sensitive Budget Review.

Tanzania - Web

Uploaded by

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tanzania - Web

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tanzania - Web

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

(United Republic of)

UN Office for Disaster Risk Reduction

Funded by the European Union

List of acronyms and abbreviations

Produced with support from Development Initiatives.

Published in January 2020.

2018 estimate 2018 estimate

2050 projection 2050 projection

Agriculture: 23.4% of GDP

3. Disaster risk reduction in Tanzania

Figure 1: Occurrence of disasters, deaths and number of affected people,

Occurrence Deaths Affected

1 United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction. DesInvetar Sendai.

Figure 2: Frequency of occurrence of disasters, 1997–2017

Source: UNDRR (2018). D/esInventar disaster database.

3.2. Disaster risk governance

4 International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (2012).

Figure 3: Budget allocations to the NDMF, 2013/14–2019/20 ($ millions)

Figure 4: Disaster management governance structure in Tanzania

DISASTER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NATIONAL PLATFORM FOR DISASTER MANAGEMENT

REGIONAL DISASTER MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE

VILLAGE DISASTER MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE

Source: Disaster Management Department, Government of Tanzania (2019).

4. Risk-sensitive budget review

6 UNDRR (2015), p.12.

Source: OECD (2017).

4.2. Scope of the analysis

11 United Republic of Tanzania, Ministry of Finance and Planning.

Table 1: Number of marked projects/activities and institutions

Table 2: Marked institutions and activities with principal DRR components,

6 Ministry of Water and Irrigation Water laboratory 1 • W

Forestry and beekeeping • E nhancing the Forest Nature Reserves

4.3. Principal and significant DRR expenditures

Table 3: Marked institutions and activities with significant DRR components,

Environmental and Social Management 1 • ASDP

Irrigation, Planning, Design and Private 1 • ASDP

Crop Development 3 • ASDP

8 Ministry of Health, Curative Services 2 • Support to maternal mortality reduction

Regional Hospital 2 • Rural water supply and sanitation programme

Water Sector 1 • Rural water supply and sanitation programme

10 Kilimanjaro Economic and Productive Sector 1 • DADP

Transfers to LGAs – Public Health Services 1 • Construction of district hospital

Figure 6: Budget shares of principal and significant DRR components

Table 4: Amount and share of principal and significant

% share of country 1.5% 2.5% 2.4% 2.1% 2.1%

Distribution of DRR marked programmes across

Table 5: Share of spending on principal DRR activities, by institution and year

Figure 8: Top five institutions by highest share of total significant

Ministry of Health, Community

Table 6: Share of spending on significant DRR activities, by institution and year

4.4. DRR budget by categories of the DRM cycle

Figure 9: Principal DRR investment marked at country level by risk category

Table 7: Amount and share of risk categories of principal DRR investment

Response Preparedness Mitigation/prevention

Table 8: Amount and share of risk categories of significant DRR investment

0 50 100 150 200 250

Forestry and beekeeping • E nhancing the Forest Nature Reserves