As the Constituency Development Fund (CDF) continues to expand, the Government must ensure that increased funding translates into greater development value rather than simply higher expenditure.
One of the issues that requires urgent attention is the cost of public infrastructure. Similar projects should not end up carrying significantly different price tags without clear, transparent and verifiable reasons for the differences.
If this is allowed to happen, CDF could gradually become a blank cheque for infrastructure, with taxpayers paying more for projects that should cost roughly the same.
Every excess Kwacha spent on one project is a Kwacha that could have been used to finance another school, clinic, police station, road, market or community development project.
The Government should therefore establish national cost benchmarks for commonly constructed CDF infrastructure, including police stations, schools, health facilities, markets and other public buildings.
The purpose of such benchmarks would not be to impose a rigid uniform price across the country. Construction costs inevitably vary according to local conditions.
Terrain, distance from suppliers, transportation costs, availability of labour, material prices and other factors can legitimately affect the final cost of a project.
What is important is that these variations should be measurable, reasonable and properly justified.
For example, if a standard 500-square-metre police station is benchmarked at K12,000 per square metre, its indicative construction cost would be K6 million.
If a constituency proposes to spend K8 million on a similar facility, the additional K2 million should not simply be accepted as a matter of routine.
The higher cost should trigger enhanced scrutiny. There should be a detailed explanation of the additional expenditure, supported by an independent technical assessment and appropriate documentation.
Where necessary, the justification should also be made publicly available before the project is approved.
Such a system would not prevent constituencies from undertaking projects that are more expensive because of genuine local circumstances.
Instead, it would ensure that higher costs are based on evidence rather than assumptions, weak planning or poor procurement practices.
Projects that exceed established benchmark thresholds should therefore be subjected to additional financial and technical scrutiny. Any variations from the benchmark should be recorded, explained and approved through a transparent process.
The same principle should apply across the entire CDF infrastructure programme. Whether the project is a classroom block, rural health facility, market shelter, police station or other community asset, there should be a reasonable basis for determining what it should cost.
This would also make it easier for communities to understand how public money is being spent and for oversight institutions to identify unusual variations in project costs.
The expansion of CDF presents an important opportunity to accelerate development at constituency level. But increased funding must be accompanied by stronger systems for planning, procurement, costing, monitoring and accountability.
CDF should not simply be judged by how much money is spent or how many projects are announced. It should be judged by the quality, usefulness and durability of the infrastructure delivered to communities.
The objective must therefore be straightforward: more infrastructure, better quality, greater transparency and maximum development value from every Kwacha.
CDF is public money. It must be treated not as a blank cheque for construction, but as a disciplined public investment programme designed to deliver lasting benefits to citizens.
By Kelvin Chisanga