Development Approved (FY)
15,215,588,724,000
Approved Allocation: approved estimates (development).
Development Actual Expenditure (FY)
13,824,459,046,207
Actual Expenditure: reported development spending (actual expenditure).
Execution Rate (FY)
90.86%
Execution rate: Actual ÷ Approved. Values above 100% indicate over-execution.
Local Execution (FY)
113.61%
Foreign Execution (FY)
8.12%
Local Share of Actual
98.07%
Variance (Actual−Approved)
-1,391,129,677,793
Variance: Actual − Approved. Positive = overspend; negative = underspend.
Foreign Gap (Unspent)
3,015,603,796,173
Foreign gap: Approved Foreign − Actual Foreign (values >0 are unspent foreign allocations).
Votes with Foreign Approved but 0 Foreign Actual
48
Foreign zero-spend: Approved Foreign > 0 but Actual Foreign = 0 (vote-level).
Approved vs Actual (Development) — FY 2023/24
In FY 2023/24, the development budget executed at 90.86%: actual expenditure was 13.824 T against an approved allocation of 15.216 T (an underspend of 1.391 T). This headline hides a major financing shift—local spending over-executed at 113.61% (13.558 T spent vs 11.934 T approved), while foreign spending executed at only 8.12% (0.266 T spent vs 3.282 T approved). As a result, local sources financed 98.07% of total development spending in the year.
Execution Rate — Local vs Foreign (FY)
FY 2023/24 shows a stark split in development execution: Local execution was 113.61%, while Foreign execution collapsed to 8.12%. In value terms, local expenditure exceeded plan by 1.624 T, while foreign expenditure fell short by 3.016 T. The pattern indicates projects continued mainly through domestic financing as foreign disbursements failed to materialise at scale.
Variance Decomposition — Local vs Foreign (FY)
The development budget closed FY 2023/24 with a total underspend of 1.391 T. This net position is the result of two opposing forces: Local variance was +1.624 T (spending above the approved local allocation), while Foreign variance was −3.016 T (spending far below approved foreign allocations). The implication is that the main driver of the underspend is not weak implementation across the board, but a specific failure of foreign-funded execution—paired with in-year substitution through local resources.
Top 10 Votes by Actual Development Expenditure (FY)
Development spending is highly concentrated in FY 2023/24: the Top 10 votes accounted for 10.569 T, equal to 76.45% of total actual development expenditure (13.824 T). The three largest spending votes were Vote 058 (2.154 T), Vote 062 (1.898 T), and Vote 057 (1.770 T). Within the Top 10, spending was overwhelmingly domestic—10.480 T (99.16%) was local, reflecting how development delivery relied on local financing in a year of weak foreign execution.
Top 10 comparison: Approved vs Actual (tables)
Top 10 by Actual
| # | Vote | Approved (T) | Actual (T) | Exec % | Variance (T) | Foreign 0? |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Vote 058 — Ministry of Energy | 2.961 T | 2.153 T | 72.71% | −0.808 T | Yes |
| 2 | Vote 062 — Ministry of Transport | 1.971 T | 2.149 T | 109.04% | +0.178 T | Yes |
| 3 | Vote 057 — Ministry of Defence and National Service | 0.160 T | 1.770 T | 1106.44% | +1.610 T | — |
| 4 | Vote 098 — Ministry of Works | 1.417 T | 1.250 T | 88.23% | −0.167 T | — |
| 5 | Vote 046 — Ministry of Education, Science and Technology | 1.138 T | 1.002 T | 88.06% | −0.136 T | Yes |
| 6 | Vote 056 — President Office - Regional Administration and Local Government Authorities | 0.979 T | 0.678 T | 69.19% | −0.302 T | Yes |
| 7 | Vote 049 — Ministry of Water | 0.696 T | 0.429 T | 61.67% | −0.267 T | Yes |
| 8 | Vote 021 — The Treasury | 0.491 T | 0.410 T | 83.47% | −0.081 T | Yes |
| 9 | Vote 043 — Ministry of Agriculture | 0.466 T | 0.373 T | 80.14% | −0.092 T | Yes |
| 10 | Vote 052 — Ministry of Health | 0.732 T | 0.355 T | 48.43% | −0.378 T | Yes |
Top 10 by Approved
Overlap with Top 10 by Actual: 9 / 10
| # | Vote | Approved (T) | Actual (T) | Exec % | Variance (T) | Foreign 0? |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Vote 058 — Ministry of Energy | 2.961 T | 2.153 T | 72.71% | −0.808 T | Yes |
| 2 | Vote 062 — Ministry of Transport | 1.971 T | 2.149 T | 109.04% | +0.178 T | Yes |
| 3 | Vote 098 — Ministry of Works | 1.417 T | 1.250 T | 88.23% | −0.167 T | — |
| 4 | Vote 046 — Ministry of Education, Science and Technology | 1.138 T | 1.002 T | 88.06% | −0.136 T | Yes |
| 5 | Vote 056 — President Office - Regional Administration and Local Government Authorities | 0.979 T | 0.678 T | 69.19% | −0.302 T | Yes |
| 6 | Vote 052 — Ministry of Health | 0.732 T | 0.355 T | 48.43% | −0.378 T | Yes |
| 7 | Vote 049 — Ministry of Water | 0.696 T | 0.429 T | 61.67% | −0.267 T | Yes |
| 8 | Vote 021 — The Treasury | 0.491 T | 0.410 T | 83.47% | −0.081 T | Yes |
| 9 | Vote 043 — Ministry of Agriculture | 0.466 T | 0.373 T | 80.14% | −0.092 T | Yes |
| 10 | Vote 005 — National Irrigation Commission | 0.300 T | 0.108 T | 36.12% | −0.192 T | Yes |
Planning and delivery were mostly aligned in FY 2023/24: 9 of the Top 10 votes by approved allocation also appear in the Top 10 by actual spending. The key ‘swap’ is Vote 057, which enters the Top 10 by actual (1.770 T) despite a much smaller approved allocation (0.160 T), indicating substantial in-year additions or reallocations; meanwhile Vote 005 remains in the Top 10 by approved (0.767 T) but falls out of the Top 10 by actual after executing only 0.277 T (36.15%). Foreign execution issues sit inside the biggest votes too—8 of the Top 10 by actual had foreign approvals but recorded zero foreign spending, covering 1.561 T of approved foreign funds that did not translate into expenditure.
Top Foreign Funding Sources by Unspent Foreign Gap (FY)
Unspent foreign development financing reached 3.016 T in FY 2023/24 (approved foreign allocations minus recorded foreign spending). The shortfall is concentrated by funding source: Donor 0WB accounts for 1.478 T of the foreign gap (49.00% of the total). The top three donors—0WB, 0AB, and 0GF—together account for 2.059 T, or 68.27% of the total foreign gap. This concentration suggests that restoring foreign execution depends heavily on resolving a small set of major funding pipelines rather than many small issues.
Approved vs Actual by Vote (FY)
Y: Actual expenditure (TZS, trillions) • X: Approved allocation (TZS, trillions)
Across FY 2023/24, execution performance is widely dispersed across votes rather than clustered near plan. Of the 84 votes with an approved development allocation, 55 votes executed below 80%, only 6 votes were near plan (95–105%), and 10 votes over-executed above 105%. Over-executing votes accounted for 4.667 T (33.76%) of total development spending, while votes executing below 80% accounted for 5.480 T (39.64%). This pattern is consistent with significant in-year reallocations and uneven cash/disbursement performance across the portfolio.
Largest foreign gaps by Vote × Donor (Top 10)
| Vote | Donor | Appr. Foreign (T) | Act. Foreign (T) | Gap (T) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Vote 056 — President Office - Regional Administration and Local Government Authorities | 0WB | 0.200 T | 0.000 T | 0.200 T |
| Vote 098 — Ministry of Works | 0AB | 0.233 T | 0.043 T | 0.189 T |
| Vote 052 — Ministry of Health | 0GF | 0.125 T | 0.000 T | 0.125 T |
| Vote 046 — Ministry of Education, Science and Technology | 0WB | 0.117 T | 0.000 T | 0.117 T |
| Vote 062 — Ministry of Transport | 0WB | 0.106 T | 0.000 T | 0.106 T |
| Vote 058 — Ministry of Energy | 0AB | 0.105 T | 0.000 T | 0.105 T |
| Vote 049 — Ministry of Water | 0WB | 0.103 T | 0.000 T | 0.103 T |
| Vote 058 — Ministry of Energy | 0FR | 0.082 T | 0.000 T | 0.082 T |
| Vote 052 — Ministry of Health | 0GV | 0.076 T | 0.000 T | 0.076 T |
| Vote 043 — Ministry of Agriculture | 0AB | 0.067 T | 0.000 T | 0.067 T |
The foreign execution shortfall is highly concentrated at the vote–donor level. In FY 2023/24, the top 10 vote–donor pairs account for 1.170 T, which is 38.79% of the total unspent foreign gap (3.016 T). The largest single gap is Vote 056 with Donor 0WB (0.200 T), followed by Vote 098 with Donor 0AB (0.189 T) and Vote 052 with Donor 0GF (0.125 T). This view is useful for operational follow-up because it pinpoints where specific funding lines are approved but not converting into recorded foreign expenditure.
Foreign approved but zero foreign spending (Top 10 votes)
| Vote | Approved Foreign (T) | Foreign gap (T) |
|---|---|---|
| Vote 058 — Ministry of Energy | 0.352 T | 0.352 T |
| Vote 052 — Ministry of Health | 0.302 T | 0.302 T |
| Vote 049 — Ministry of Water | 0.289 T | 0.289 T |
| Vote 056 — President Office - Regional Administration and Local Government Authorities | 0.220 T | 0.220 T |
| Vote 046 — Ministry of Education, Science and Technology | 0.159 T | 0.159 T |
| Vote 062 — Ministry of Transport | 0.107 T | 0.107 T |
| Vote 043 — Ministry of Agriculture | 0.100 T | 0.100 T |
| Vote 048 — Ministry of Lands, Housing and Human Settlements Development | 0.068 T | 0.068 T |
| Vote 069 — Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism | 0.058 T | 0.058 T |
| Vote 074 — RAS Kigoma | 0.048 T | 0.048 T |
FY 2023/24 shows widespread ‘foreign zero-spend’ at vote level: 48 votes had approved foreign allocations but recorded zero foreign expenditure. Together these votes held 2.330 T in approved foreign funding that did not translate into spending. The top 10 zero-spend votes alone account for 1.702 T (56.45% of the total foreign gap of 3.016 T), led by Vote 058 (0.352 T), Vote 052 (0.302 T), and Vote 049 (0.289 T). The pattern signals that the foreign execution problem is not isolated—it affects a broad set of votes, including some of the largest portfolios.
FY 2023/24 Execution Summary (Development Budget)
- • FY 2023/24 development execution was 90.86%: 13.824 T actual expenditure against 15.216 T approved (an underspend of 1.391 T).
- • The year is defined by financing substitution: Local execution was 113.61% (13.558 T spent vs 11.934 T approved), while Foreign execution was only 8.12% (0.266 T spent vs 3.282 T approved). Local sources financed 98.07% of development spending.
- • Unspent foreign allocations totalled 3.016 T. Foreign non-execution is also widespread at vote level: 48 votes had foreign approvals but recorded zero foreign spending, covering 2.330 T of approved foreign funds.
- • Spending is concentrated: the Top 10 votes executed 10.569 T, equal to 76.45% of total development expenditure. The largest spending votes were Vote 058 (2.154 T), Vote 062 (1.898 T), and Vote 057 (1.770 T).
- • Planning and delivery alignment is relatively strong (9 of the Top 10 approved votes also appear in the Top 10 actual), but execution is distorted by in-year shifts—Vote 057 executed 1.770 T against only 0.160 T approved, while Vote 005 executed 0.277 T against 0.767 T approved (36.15%).