Govt’s unease over fertiliser bulk procurement is justified

By way of an image, administration or governance is like dipping a finger into water so that when one looks at it             from outside it looks like it is thicker than it actually is: that changing the bureaucracy’s attitudes is much like dipping a finger into the water.

While we all know that bulk procurement has ended in importing fertiliser, there were people in some quarters who may have been hedging their bets – to see if they would succeed.

That is what apparently irritated Agriculture minister Prof Adolph Mkenda, who has lately directed the Tanzania Fertiliser Regulatory Authority (TFRA) to instruct the head of the bulk procurement unit at the ministry to report to the head office for reassignment.

The procurement specialist has remained in the now defunct unit since the minister announced the decision to waive bulk procurement in favour of a competitive arrangement, allowing traders and wholesalers to import fertilizer and put it on the market.

This has of course cut into the TFRA’s prerogatives, as without bulk procurement its work is acutely altered.

So it is hardly surprising that there were indications of people dragging feet in implementing this change.

As expected, the government ought to remain resolute in the handling of problems or challenges – even if that is not to the liking of a few elements in the bureaucracy, including some regulators.

Minister Mkenda found himself talking quite frankly about the issue in an address at a fertiliser dealers’ meeting in Dar es Salaam: that sabotage explained failure of the bulk procurement modality.

The minister saw the manager concerned failing to perform his duties in accordance with the government’s expectations and ensure that farmers got adequate fertiliser and on time.

The good professor was unabashed in airing the view that fertiliser was being used as a pawn in bureaucratic dealings, which led to unnecessary hiccups as officials tuned deals to get the time right for handy picks.

Clearly irritated by the respective unit’s performance and how the procurement liberalisation directive was being taken up, he said that “to us, fertiliser is not an issue to be joked upon as he was doing”. Still, maybe it wasn’t about just one person but about some group interest.

Yet someone must always take the blame, as those above whoever is directly responsible think may think that he or she did little or nothing to correct those defects, even making them part of the regulatory workbook so that he or she now loses sympathy from the new reforming team.

The government, and indeed the public, would be justified losing sympathy with bureaucratic soft talk and backroom deals – just as they would be being impatient with methods employed by regulators going against the public good.