Country programme evaluation

This Agreement at Completion Point (ACP) is an understanding among key partners¹ on the main insights and recommendations from the Tanzania Country Programme Evaluation (CPE)². The ACP will constitute a key building block in the formulation of the new Tanzania Country Strategy Opportunities Paper (COSOP)³ of IFAD, which will articulate the medium-term (3-5 years) strategic framework and investment options of the Fund in Tanzania.

The ACP builds on the discussions and recommendations that were formulated during the CPE National Roundtable Workshop held in Dar es Salaam on 18-19 November 2002 and draws upon the lessons contained in the CPE report, which highlighted the performance of IFAD-supported programmes that helped target groups in increasing production and access to social services. The ACP is also based on various elements included in the five issues papers that were prepared as background documentation for the above-mentioned workshop and on the closing statement of the Chairman of the CPE workshop. The ACP is organised according to the principal themes discussed during the CPE workshop.

Approaches to rural poverty alleviation & targeting

In the last decade, IFAD has pursued two different strategies in Tanzania, which are captured in the 1993 Country Strategy Report (CSR) and the 1998 COSOP. The former strategy targeted the poorest in marginal areas, supporting agricultural interventions that would enhance production and also respond to the social needs of the rural poor, for example in terms of providing drinking water and health services. On the other hand, the COSOP promotes a broad-based growth-oriented approach to rural poverty alleviation, with emphasis on those rural poor who are able to contribute to growth in the agriculture sector. Using the IFAD Strategic Framework 2002-2006 as an overall starting point, the alternative approaches to rural poverty alleviation and targeting in Tanzania were discussed during the workshop and the following recommendations were generated:

Issue 1: consistency with GOT policy framework. In the past few years, the Government of Tanzania (GOT) has developed key strategies for economic and social development, including the Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP), the Rural Development Strategy, the Agricultural Sector Development Strategy and the Agricultural Sector Development Programme (ASDP). These strategies, inter-alia, articulate GOT's vision, approaches and priority areas for rural poverty alleviation and rural and agriculture development.

Recommendations. Though IFAD's existing activities support the priorities of the GOT, there is need to further support the policy framework for rural poverty reduction in Tanzania. All future IFAD assistance should be provided within the existing pro-poor policy context of relevance to rural poverty reduction, in particular within the framework of the PRSP, Rural Development Programme (RDP) and ASDP. This will ensure greater synergies and co-ordination with other development interventions and contribute to better developmental results and help lower the transaction costs of aid.

Issue 2: approaches to rural poverty alleviation. There was a consensus that efforts should be made to include the poorest as beneficiaries of IFAD-assisted projects and programmes and that targeting mechanisms should be accordingly formulated.

Recommendations: IFAD interventions should have a clear strategy for including the rural poor and explicitly analyze the challenges and develop specific strategies of extending reach to the poorest. Project and programme design must entail added information on how to reach the poor and the extent to which the poorest are also among the intended beneficiaries. However, it was noted that extending reach to the poorest segments is challenging. Consequently, targeting should be examined from the perspective of its feasibility so that overall sustainability of the programme is not jeopardised. This will require a more detailed definition of targeting mechanisms during the programme development phases. During implementation, periodical reviews should be undertaken to determine how effective IFAD and other stakeholders are in reaching the poor. Finally, a close monitoring and review of the outcomes of the approach to rural poverty alleviation promoted by the 1998 COSOP would be useful, in that it could provide additional inputs for developing specific strategies and support interventions targeting different social groups and geographical areas in the country.

Issue 3: Target group definition. Overtime, the definitions of the poor and of the poorest during the project and programme design has been improved. However, there is still scope to ameliorate targeting definitions and mechanisms, in order to ensure that majority of the benefits reach the poorest.

Recommendations: Design documents need to distinguish between the ‘poor' and ‘poorest' and specify in detail the mechanisms to reach each group. This is best done at the design stage in a participatory manner with the rural poor and their communities. The practice of monitoring periodically the inclusion of identifiable groups of the poor in project activities during implementation should be intensified. Apart from using cost-effective participatory approaches such as wealth-ranking, the methodology could include sample surveys at the beginning, mid-point and conclusion of a project for assessing target group involvement and the corresponding poverty impacts.

Issue 4: thematic/sub-sectoral and geographic concentration. Clearly, the recent steps towards more thematic/sub-sectoral focus in the IFAD-supported portfolio (partly at the expense of area-based programmes) can improve programme coherence and deepen IFAD's competencies within these selected themes/sub-sectors. It will also enhance IFAD's opportunities to engage more actively in policy dialogue and advocacy in related sectoral and sub-sectoral platforms. Nevertheless, geographical concentration in areas with high incidence of poverty could complement thematic concentration and potentially produce more pro-poor outcomes. Moreover, geographical targeting does not involve substantial transaction cost and its administrative requirements are low.

Recommendations: The current trend towards thematic and sub-sectoral concentration needs to be strengthened in future programmes within the pro-poor policy framework of GOT. Opportunities for combining thematic approaches with a geographical concentration should be further explored in order to ensure the IFAD assistance is not diluted in terms of area and sectoral coverage. Existing practices of harmonising social activities (e.g., health services, water supply and sanitation) and economic (e.g., productive) components should be continued with added emphasis. A clear exit strategy needs to be formulated with all concerned stakeholders at least one year before the closing date of any project/programme to determine the financial and institutional roles and responsibilities to ensure the sustainability of investments.

Issue 5: policy dialogue. Tanzania receives considerable attention from both multilateral and bilateral aid agencies. Since the mid-1990s, many development co-operation institutions have decentralised their operations to the country level where major decisions related to development and resource allocations are now taken. Within the framework of the PRSP, the Government and donors are engaging in a continuous country-level dialogue to define sector and sub-sector strategies and decide on investment programmes and resource envelopes. IFAD has focused on supporting advocacy groups (e.g., NGOs, CBOs and private sector organisations) representing the interests of the poor, contributing towards their empowerment and participation in the policy dialogue activities in Tanzania.

Recommendations: Given IFAD's large portfolio in Tanzania and while recognising the its global approach to policy dialogue emphasises capacity development of the poorest representatives, IFAD should simultaneously enter into a comprehensive policy dialogue and further strengthen advocacy work at the national and local levels with GOT and other external development partners. This will require greater IFAD representation at the country level and pro-active participation in relevant platforms and discussion groups. In particular, the Fund should contribute to the work of various strategy and policy working groups and processes, such as the PRSP, UNDAF, Food and Agriculture Sector Working Group (FASWOG) and the ASDS. In addition, greater presence and participation would allow IFAD to engage other development institutions working in agriculture and rural development in Tanzania in priority-setting and resource allocation.

Issue 6: the new Tanzania COSOP. In the past, the Fund regarded the COSOP as an internal institutional process and management document. However, COSOPs have since become increasingly important instruments for IFAD, its partners at the country level and its governing bodies.

Recommendations: The COSOP formulation should be undertaken as a joint exercise between IFAD and GOT. In addition, IFAD and its partners should use the development of the new Tanzania COSOP as an opportunity to promote a participatory and inclusive process of policy dialogue with the concerned stakeholders. The COSOP would articulate the common IFAD-GOT strategy for rural poverty alleviation in the medium-term and consider various options to support Tanzania's national/sectoral strategies and development programmes. The new Tanzania COSOP should be discussed within the framework of the FASWOG and finalised by June 2003.

Participation and sustainability

Issues 1: subsidies and cost-sharing arrangements. Under exceptional circumstances, subsidies⁴ may be necessary in pursuance of critical short-term objectives, or occasioned by specific local circumstances. However, when a subsidy comes to an end, there are high chances that the activity being supported (for example, there have been instances when farmers who received free inputs from project authorities to produce seeds no longer undertook the task once the inputs were not made available). Subsidies may also not reach the most needy or deserving households. Instead, the relative benefits of cost-sharing schemes are clear enough. They tend to reduce the risk of the dependency syndrome, improve the prospects that services and amenities may be sustained after project closure, and contribute to a sense of ownership by beneficiaries. They also reduce the direct financial burden on government departments operating on a limited budget.

Recommendations: IFAD has promoted cost-sharing arrangements in Tanzania to ensure sustainability of activities. However, cost-sharing should be promoted in line with the Government policy (public & social sectors). Operationalization of cost-sharing should be determined by participatory approaches, particularly for establishing the level of beneficiary contribution and whether the cost-sharing should be in kind or financial contribution. Cost-sharing arrangements should be associated with high levels of social mobilisation and appropriate training, as promoted under the IFAD-BSF joint programme, so that the rural poor and their groups are aware of their roles and responsibilities particularly in terms of O&M of activities. Finally, there is need to develop a consistent approach to cost-sharing across IFAD-supported operations in Tanzania and to undertake advocacy with other donors to follow a similar approach. IFAD could take the lead in promoting a dialogue with various donors and GOT to develop a common framework for rationalising cost-sharing arrangements for rural poverty alleviation purposes in Tanzania.

Issue 2: participation. Up until about 1996, IFAD projects paid insufficient attention to beneficiary participation in project design and implementation. In fact, the 1998 COSOP states: "In earlier IFAD-designed projects the question of beneficiary ownership and the need for a participatory approach have not been considered as an instrument for project formulation, appraisal and implementation". Since 1998, however, IFAD has introduced mechanisms for enhanced participation in planning and implementation to ensure beneficiaries and other local stakeholders become accountable and responsible for operations. More recently, IFAD-supported operations have made efforts to involve beneficiaries, for instance, in planning and using the logical framework tool. However, a number of recommendations on the ways and means to enhance participation were discussed and agreed to during the CPE workshop.

Recommendations: (a) it is important to develop a common understanding at the outset among key stakeholders on the concept of participation, so that stakeholders have shared expectations and are cognisant of their specific roles and responsibilities; (b) it is essential that participation is not used as an instrument to achieve physical and financial project targets, but promoted as a process of empowerment to allow rural people to become decision-makers and owners of development activities. That is, participation should contribute to a transformation of the rural poor from being mere participants in development work to active agents of change; (c) participation should be used as an opportunity for developing an equal and transparent partnership among different actors;(d) projects/programmes should work through established institutions, including traditional structures, whenever appropriate, and the creation of new, parallel structures for building participation should be limited. Where institutions are not sufficiently oriented to promoting participatory approaches, staff training should be encouraged, specifically in interpersonal skills such as empathy, communication, group dynamics and facilitation, and motivational leadership; and (e) it is recommended to develop specific indicators to monitor qualitative aspects of participation, empowerment and capacity-building, for example in areas such as skills enhancement, training and the overall functioning and management of groups. This will allow implementation staff to monitor the involvement of the rural poor in crucial participatory processes related to decision-making and resource allocation.

Issue 3: project/programme design. IFAD-supported projects and programmes have broad development goals and include a variety of project objectives (‘purpose' level in the logical framework matrix). For example, a particular project's development goal in Tanzania is to rehabilitate and improve food security in one region, whereas its purpose is to: (a) improve household food production and incomes of smallholders; (b) contribute to improving natural resources through tree planting; (c) enhance access to drinking water, health services and sanitation, roads infrastructure; and (d) strengthen the capacity of relevant institutions. A variety of components and sub-components were included to accomplish the project's objectives, for which a range of institutions (for example, line departments, NGOs, CBOs and private sector) were involved to deliver the required expertise in different sub-sectors (e.g., water, infrastructure, irrigation, health, agriculture, etc.). Projects with such arrangements have posed a challenge in ensuring co-ordination among different partners and the timely implementation of activities. In addition, the multiplicity of activities undertaken in the context of one project poses greater demand in ensuring synergies and involves higher risks of overlaps with other development interventions that may be ongoing in the same region.

Recommendations: Rationalise project/programme objectives to ensure enhanced efficiency in delivery and developmental results, while at the same time ensuring greater complementarity with other relevant projects and programmes supported by GOT and other development partners.

Issue 4: project management and implementation. The GOT, IFAD and the main development partners in Tanzania are working towards increasing accountability and transparency of external development assistance, accentuated by the adoption of the PRSP and, more specifically, the Tanzania Assistance Strategy. It is the intention to streamline donor support behind a single approach to management - where appropriate - to enhance consistency, reduce transaction costs and assist in developing national institutional capacity. Although specific Project facilitation/co-ordination units have been established in individual projects/programmes, GOT has increasingly made use of district administrative capacities for implementation purposes.

Recommendations: Project management and implementation arrangements could be further improved to ensure efficiency and effectiveness of the programme through the following procedures that were agreed upon during the CPE workshop: (a) operate within GOT policies and with involvement of a cross-section of institutions (public sector, private sector, civil society organisations and NGOs) according to their comparative advantage; (b) upon the completion of the review of the Regional Secretariat, there should be a GOT Facilitation Team in the office of the Regional Administrative Secretary, thereby eliminating the need for specialised IFAD-specific regional project co-ordination/facilitation units; (c) learn from the experience of MARA-FIP in promoting decentralised project management and ensure capacity building of local authorities and grassroots institutions to take up the tasks of project co-ordination/facilitation; (d) where existing, phase-out project co-ordination/facilitation units before the end of the concerned project; and (e) at the District Executive Office there is a facilitation unit responsible for overall co-ordination of project activities in the district that should be used in facilitating IFAD-supported interventions as well.

Agriculture technology

Issue: Among the major causes of poverty and low income in rural Tanzania are low farm productivity arising from: low input crop and livestock production and husbandry practices; use of low potential varieties and breeds; and limited use of improved and appropriate technology. These problems are compounded by a weak organisational and institutional structure of agricultural extension and research systems at the grassroots level, which could hinder realising the targets set under the PRSP and Agriculture Sector Development Strategy to reduce rural poverty and to ensure food security at the household levels.

Recommendations: (a) Knowledge generation - There is need to institutionalise client-oriented research and improve research-extension and farmer linkages, including taking stock of effective/appropriate technologies and involving poorest farmers in assessing current and new technologies. Farmers, civil society organisations and private sector should also be engaged in developing new technologies; (b) Knowledge dissemination - Promote dissemination of sustainable and environmentally friendly technologies, for example, by building information/communication systems (strengthen media such as radio, television and email/internet) and upscaling IPM/farmer field school approaches. Document and share good practices of low-cost technologies manageable by the rural poor (e.g., Mara bunds for small-scale irrigation); (c) Capacity building – empower participatory groups and co-operatives from the community level, ward, district, zonal research, regional and at national levels. Train farmer groups in PRA and logical framework planning and use. Reintroduce agricultural training in primary/secondary schools; (d) Local/indigenous knowledge systems – identify, document and promote traditional knowledge practices and farmer innovations; (e) Establish a sustainable funding mechanism for technology generation and dissemination (e.g., a Zonal Research Fund and Endowment Fund), which would benefit from contributions of the rural poor, local governments and international development partners.

Monitoring and evaluation

Issue: All IFAD-supported projects and programmes in Tanzania have included a Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) system. However, as reflected in the 1998 Country Strategy and Opportunities Paper (COSOP) for Tanzania, the functioning of M&E systems has traditionally been inadequate for multiple reasons that are fairly well know. Since 1998, various efforts have been made to improve the functioning of M&E systems with the participation of beneficiaries and the use of the logical framework to facilitate impact analysis. The CPE Workshop participants acknowledged the importance of M&E as a management tool and agreed on the below recommendations.

Recommendations: (a) There is need to promote a change in mind-sets of stakeholders from a supply-driven to demand-led M&E. In this regard, special efforts should be made to train communities to be involved in M&E activities and make them owners of M&E processes; (b) Implementing authorities need to enhance transparency in M&E data collection, analysis and reporting, in particular by keeping the rural poor and their institutions involved and informed. With regard to the latter point, specific feedback should be provided to the rural poor on a periodic basis; (c) Mainstream participation in projects to facilitate participatory M&E work; (d) The need to undertake external evaluation from time to time is essential for learning and building confidence among stakeholders. Beneficiary self-assessments should be undertaken as input for external evaluation exercises; (e) M&E Officers grade and motivation needs to be enhanced to enable an effective discharge of their duties; (f) Intense efforts need to be make to track, follow-up on and implement M&E recommendations; (g) The logical framework tool should be simplified and tailored to make it suitable for use with beneficiaries at the grassroots level; (h) Project objectives & activities should be simplified to facilitate M&E activities; (i) Future programmes should be designed within the ASDP to enhance M&E linkages to ADS, RDS, PRSP; and (j) Urgent exposure & training should be promoted in Tanzania in the approaches and principles contained in the new IFAD M&E Guide.

Gender issues

Issue: The notion and importance of getting the poor involved at the heart of the development process, not as mere participants, but as strategic partners lies also at the core of the recent and current IFAD approach and thinking. Following this framework, the more recent projects have been designed after the undertaking of gender assessments to understand the role of women in development, their interactions with other social groups and so on. However, there is room to define mechanisms to fruitfully enhance the involvement of women in general, and women headed households in particular, in the development process.

Recommendations: (a) Gender analysis and gender-focused targeting should be included in all programme design and M&E work; (b) Reporting to various stakeholders should include specific references to gender impact. In this regard, relevant gender monitoring indicators contained in the PRSP should be included in M&E work to measure the overall implication for women; (c) Adopt a GOT policy to introduce reservation for women in key decision-making and policy formulation positions in public institutions, as well as one which includes minimum criteria for participation of women in development activities; (d) In promoting women's development, the changing social and gender relations need to be assessed and necessary offset measures introduced (e.g., training for men); (e) Hold women-specific PRAs and LFA training; and (f) based on the experience of recent programmes in Tanzania, there is need to build a harmonised approach to gender mainstreaming and training among IFAD-supported projects in Tanzania.

---

1. The key partners include the Government of Tanzania (represented by the Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security, Prime Minister's Office, Ministry of Finance, the Ministry of Water and Livestock Development and the Vice President's Office), Regional and District Authorities (Dodoma, Kagera, Mara, Mbeya), IFAD-assisted projects (AMSDP, KAEMP, MARA-FIP, PIDP, RFSP and WSHPMA), the Co-operating Institution UNOPS, members of the civil society including NGO Pride, bi-lateral and multi-lateral development institutions including FAO, UNDP, WFP and World Bank, the Belgian Survival Fund and IFAD (represented by the Eastern & Southern Africa Division and the Office of Evaluation).

2. Undertaken by IFAD's Office of Evaluation in 2001/2002.

3. The preparation of the COSOP is the responsibility of IFAD's Eastern and Southern Africa Division.

4. "A payment by the government to producers or distributors in an industry to prevent the decline of that industry (e.g., as a result of continuous unprofitable operation)" – Todaro in Economic Development. In addition, "Subsidies may induce excessive or uneconomic use of inputs and benefits of subsidies are most frequently garnered by the larger and more prosperous producers. Subsidies can be a heavy burden on the public budget" – Baum and Tolbert in Investing in Development.