Document of The World Bank

Report No: 33856-TA

IMPLEMENTATION COMPLETION REPORT(IDA-34090 PPFI-Q1570)

ON A

CREDIT

IN THE AMOUNT OF US$ 60.0 MILLION

TO THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF

TANZANIA

FOR A

SOCIAL ACTION FUND PROJECT

March 30, 2006

Human Development 1Country Department 4Africa Regional Office

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS

(Exchange Rate Effective October 27, 2005)

Currency Unit = TSh Tsh1140 = US$ 1

US$ 1 = 1.44 SDR

FISCAL YEARJuly 1 - June 30

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

CAS Country Assistance Strategy M&E Monitoring and EvaluationCBOs Community Based Organizations MIS Management Information SystemCDD Community Demand-Driven MTR Mid-Term ReviewCDI Community Development Initiatives NBS National Bureau of StatisticsCNA Community Needs Assessment NGO Non-Governmental OrganizationCPC Community Project Committee PAD Project Appraisal DocumentCSDS Community Service Delivery Survey PDO Project Development ObjectiveCSO Civil Society Organization PPF Project Preparation FacilityCWIQ Core Welfare Indicators Questionnaire PRA Participatory Rural AppraisalDCA Development Credit Agreement PRS Poverty Reduction StrategyDMT District Management Team PSR Project Status ReportEOP End of Project PWP Public Works ProgramGOT Government of Tanzania SSP Social Support ProgramHIV/AIDS Human Immunodeficiency Virus/Acquired

Immune Deficiency SyndromeTASAF Tanzania Social Action Fund

ICRIDAIECIGAsKPILGA

Implementation Completion ReportInternational Development AssociationInformation, Education and CommunicationIncome Generating ActivitiesKey Performance IndicatorsLocal Government Authority

TASAF IITMU

Tanzania Second Social Action FundTASAF Management Unit

Vice President: Gobind NankaniCountry Director Judy O'ConnorSector Manager Dzingai Mutumbuka

Task Team Leader/Task Manager: Hope Phillips Volker

TANZANIASocial Action Fund Project

CONTENTS

Page No.1. Project Data 12. Principal Performance Ratings 13. Assessment of Development Objective and Design, and of Quality at Entry 24. Achievement of Objective and Outputs 45. Major Factors Affecting Implementation and Outcome 96. Sustainability 107. Bank and Borrower Performance 118. Lessons Learned 149. Partner Comments 1510. Additional Information 25Annex 1. Key Performance Indicators/Log Frame Matrix 26Annex 2. Project Costs and Financing 28Annex 3. Economic Costs and Benefits 30Annex 4. Bank Inputs 31Annex 5. Ratings for Achievement of Objectives/Outputs of Components 34Annex 6. Ratings of Bank and Borrower Performance 35Annex 7. List of Supporting Documents 36Annex 8. Borrower Implementation Completion Report 37Annex 9. Regional Poverty and Service Accessibility Ranking 81Annex 10. Data on indicators not reported on in Annex 1 83Annex 11. DCA-PAD editorial inconsistencies and DCA amendments 88

Project ID: P065372 Project Name: Social Action Fund ProjectTeam Leader: Hope C. Phillips TL Unit: EASHDICR Type: Core ICR Report Date: March 30, 2006

1. Project DataName: Social Action Fund Project L/C/TF Number: IDA-34090; PPFI-Q1570

Country/Department: TANZANIA Region: Africa Regional Office

Sector/subsector: Other social services (40%); Primary education (30%); Sub-national government administration (10%); General water, sanitation and flood protection sector (10%); Health (10%)

Theme: Participation and civic engagement (P); Other social protection and risk management (P); Social safety nets (P); Rural services and infrastructure (S)

KEY DATES Original Revised/ActualPCD: 03/23/1999 Effective: 12/01/2000 11/09/2000

Appraisal: 06/13/2000 MTR: 05/19/2003 06/09/2003Approval: 08/22/2000 Closing: 06/30/2005 06/30/2005

Borrower/Implementing Agency: GOT/GOT (PRESIDENT'S OFFICE)Other Partners:

STAFF Current At AppraisalVice President: Gobind Nankani Callisto E. MadavoCountry Director: Judy M. O'Connor James W. AdamsSector Manager: Dzingai B. Mutumbuka Dzingai B. MutumbukaTeam Leader at ICR: Hope Phillips Volker Norbert O. MugwagwaICR Primary Author: Ida Manjolo

2. Principal Performance Ratings

(HS=Highly Satisfactory, S=Satisfactory, U=Unsatisfactory, HL=Highly Likely, L=Likely, UN=Unlikely, HUN=Highly Unlikely, HU=Highly Unsatisfactory, H=High, SU=Substantial, M=Modest, N=Negligible)

Outcome: S

Sustainability: L

Institutional Development Impact: SU

Bank Performance: S

Borrower Performance: S

QAG (if available) ICRQuality at Entry: S

Project at Risk at Any Time: No

3. Assessment of Development Objective and Design, and of Quality at Entry

3.1 Original Objective:The Project Development Objective (PDO) was to enhance and sustain the provision and use of resource endowments by beneficiaries, which was to contribute to poverty reduction through (i) the improvement of socioeconomic infrastructure, and basic social and economic services; (ii) the increase in capacity and skills among rural and peri-urban communities; and (iii) the creation of temporary safety-net programs for the poorest and most vulnerable sections of the communities.

The PDO was clear and realistic and consistent with the Country Assistance Strategy (CAS), Report No. 16554-TA, June 15, 1997, whose objective included poverty reduction, growth, protecting vulnerable groups, and also focused on increasing and enhancing the capacities of the communities and stakeholders to undertake sustainable development initiatives and improve socio-economic services. The PDO was also in line with the Government of Tanzania’s Social Sector Strategy, October 1994, which viewed households as active participants in choosing and supporting services that offer them concrete benefits. The Project took into consideration the Borrower’s decentralization agenda, and was responsive to Government’s development priorities in that it was one of the major instruments of Government’s poverty reduction initiatives under the Poverty Reduction Strategy (PRS).

The Project was not national, and only covered the 2 islands and 40 districts on the mainland; however, it should be viewed as complex because of the number of institutions involved at the national, district and sub-district levels. There were no co-financiers to the Project. .It is noted that there are instances where the data provided in this Implementation Completion Report (ICR) is not consistent with Government’s ICR; this ICR is using the results of data made available more recently from the Project.

3.2 Revised Objective: The objective was not revised.

3.3 Original Components:The Tanzania Social Action Fund (TASAF) had three components which are described below.

Community Development Initiatives (CDI) would finance community demand-driven (CDD) initiatives to improve accessibility to, and delivery of, social and economic services, and to enhance capacities of the communities and local development partners. The community initiatives were to be generated through participatory rural appraisal (PRA) processes from a sub-project menu which included construction/rehabilitation of basic health care facilities, schools, boreholes, dams, latrines, shallow wells, and economic infrastructure. It was expected that special consideration would be given to vulnerable groups. Implementation would be by democratically elected community project committees (CPCs). The average cost of sub-projects was initially estimated at US$20,000; later it was changed to US$25,000, with a minimum community contribution in kind or cash of 20%. In order to respond to specific requests for support for activities to address human immunodeficiency virus/acquired immune deficiency syndrome (HIV/AIDS) during implementation, a window (Social Support Projects-SSP) was made available under the CDI component to pilot support for vulnerable individuals working with non-governmental organizations/civil society organizations (NGOs/CSOs). An amount of US$1

- 2 -

million was ear-marked for SSPs, with the expectation that each sub-project would cost approximately US$10,000.

Public Works Program (PWP) would finance labor-intensive public works as a safety net scheme in poor rural and urban areas. The objective was to provide cash income for the poor, especially women and the youth, during periods of seasonal food insecurity, by creating job opportunities while supporting community infrastructure construction or rehabilitation. This was a supply-driven component, with Districts selecting communities in which to work using criteria such as food insecurity, poverty and access to services. Sub-projects were selected from the District plans, and confirmed by the community during extended-PRAs, followed by the drawing up of implementation plans by District PWP teams. Beneficiaries were self-targeting through the adoption of a PWP wage rate set at 20% below the market. The average cost of a sub-project under this component was initially estimated at US$40,000; later it was changed to US$50,000, with no community contribution.

Institutional Development had four subcomponents as follows:

TASAF Management Unit (TMU) would provide day-to-day operational support to Districts responding to the community demands emanating from the participatory processes. Financing included incremental staff salaries, systems development, TMU operational costs, and later included costs of running the District level TASAF Offices.

Capacity Building-Information Education and Communication (IEC)/Training was to create a symmetrical information environment that was to enhance the potential democratic decentralization, transparency and accountability. The IEC would sensitize TASAF stakeholders on TASAF’s philosophy, methodology, the sub-project cycle, roles and responsibilities of the various actors; build a knowledge base of the lessons learnt from experiences; and build partnerships and strategic alliances amongst stakeholders. Training would (a) expose all stakeholders to the dynamics of community development and the TASAF approach; and (b) build the capacity of communities, CPCs, and District level staff to manage participatory development, including fiduciary aspects of sub-project implementation.

Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) (including Management Information System (MIS) was to make data available to assess the impact of sub-projects on vulnerable groups; institute a participatory M&E through a Community Service Delivery Survey (CSDS); and monitor improvements in the levels of beneficiaries’ use and satisfaction with TASAF services. The MIS was to be linked with the M&E and be a source of information for the overall M&E system: to collect, store, and generate information for use in measuring benefits accruing to recipient communities, in order to monitor the sustainability of the TASAF approach and community assets created with support from the Project.

National Poverty Monitoring and Analysis was expected to provide support for strengthening capacity at national, Local Government Authorities (LGAs or Districts) and community levels to monitor the effects of poverty alleviation policies by developing: (a) tools for rapid community and household surveys; (b) capacity in the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS) to plan and

- 3 -

implement such surveys and use of Optical Mark Reader technology (scanners) to speed-up data entry; (c) capacity in TASAF Districts to integrate execution of CSDS into CDI and PWPs; (d) an integrated annual indicators’ survey, using methodologies and approaches tested during the Core Welfare Indicators Questionnaire (CWIQ) pilot; and (e) progressively refined tools for the ranking process and creation of poverty maps using various data sources.

The components, as designed, were reasonably related to achieving the objective, and took into consideration the capacity of the implementing agency, including its administrative and financial management capacity. Lessons from a Community Needs Assessment (CNA) during the pilot of TASAF systems, emerging understanding of best practice in the design of social funds, and extensive stakeholder consultation during design stage informed the design of the components.

3.4 Revised Components:The project components were not revised.

3.5 Quality at Entry:

The Project was not subjected to a performance rating by the Quality Assurance Group review. The Project objective was relevant and within the Government’s overall PRS and the CAS. The environmental and social safeguards were considered, and communities were to be sensitized through the IEC strategy on how to screen sub-projects for positive and negative environmental effects of sub-project activities, and to determine and implement mitigation measures. The design identified the critical risks and mapped out minimization measures which were internalized into the Project activities and processes: for example, the emphasis on capacity building which strengthened partner institutions. There were editorial inconsistencies within the Project Appraisal Document (PAD) and with the Development Credit Agreement (DCA) following agreements reached during negotiations, but these did not affect implementation as they were remedied through a revision of the Operational Manual and amendments, and did not affect the outputs or Project development outcome (see Annex 11). On the whole, a rating of moderately satisfactory seems appropriate.

4. Achievement of Objective and Outputs

4.1 Outcome/achievement of objective:On the basis of relevance, efficacy, and efficiency, the overall rating for the achievement of objectives is satisfactory. The PDO continues to be consistent with current Government’s National Strategy for Growth and Reduction of Poverty, and is still relevant in terms of the most recent CAS covering 2001-2003 (Report No. 20728-TA). The Project supported (a) sustainable rural development to improve the livelihood of the majority of the poor who live in rural areas; and (b) improved social infrastructure, to improve social indicators and enhance access for the poor to essential public services. By working through Local Governments, TASAF remains aligned with the revised Local Government Act, No. 6, 1999.

Secondly, the rating is based on efficacy as the Project financed sub-projects which led to (a) improved socioeconomic infrastructure and basic services; (b) increased capacity and skills among rural and peri-urban communities; and (c) employment opportunities in a safety-nets program for

- 4 -

poor households. On average between CDI and PWP, 93% of sub-project requests were approved for funding, of which 81.9% were completed. All communities implementing sub-projects received efficient back-up services through support from LGAs during the sub-project cycle, and at the end of the Project, 90% of completed sub-projects had permanent maintenance mechanisms. The Project financed investments that created potential improved access to services for close to 2 million people. The percentage of population receiving services from constructed facilities is estimated at 89%; surpassing the target of 60% (the failure to attain 100% is because community investments in the health sector were not fully operational due to inadequate staffing and equipment – see Section 6.1). Community satisfaction with services available from all investments was 78.2%, when a rapid assessment was conducted in 2005, against a target of 80% set at Project design. A total of 2,700 vulnerable persons were reached through the SSPs, and beneficiaries reported positive changes in their well-being as well as increased economic activity in the rural economy (SSP Evaluation, 2004). Beneficiaries from the PWP safety-nets sub-projects were able to smooth consumption while some even invested in capital goods (Beneficiary Assessment, 2003).

Thirdly, the rating is based on efficiency, where preliminary data from an on-going cost-effective study shows that communities were able to construct infrastructure at savings of between 3% and 48% compared to alternative financiers for similar investments (see Annex 3). This finding, that communities using TASAF resources were able in most instances to build infrastructure at comparable or lower costs, is consistent with findings from other social funds in the Region.

Finally, the rating is based on capacity building efforts. Training for communities and stakeholders, and the funding of investments gave communities hands-on experience in planning and implementation. The IEC program gave communities information which paved the way for them to demand accountability from the implementers. The Project was targeted to the poorer regions in the country through ranking on the basis of poverty data from 1999. The 2005 update on poverty ranking of the same Regions showed changes that correlated with the number of Districts funded by TASAF in a given Region (see Annex 9); Regions with three TASAF-funded Districts did better than those with one or two Districts. While these changes in Regional poverty rankings cannot be attributed to TASAF, it is reasonable to assume that TASAF made a contribution since it provided significant resources for community investments in these Regions.

4.2 Outputs by components:CDI (IDA US$38.0 million; Government US$1.90 million; beneficiary communities US$8.62 million). The component is rated satisfactory. The CDI reached 1,482 communities where 1,399 sub-projects were financed, against a target of 2,212. Even though this target was not reached, from these sub-projects a total of 7,212 assets were created, surpassing the planned 3,906 by 3,306 (see Annex 1). This represents an over-achievement of the outputs produced by 84%, three-quarters of which were completed on time. The range of outputs included Out-Patient Departments, teachers' houses, health workers’ houses, and water points. These health outputs have resulted in over 1.7 million people having improved potential access to health services (this number has been reduced to 1 million due to inadequate staffing and supplies), over 116,000 children with improved access to learning environments, and over 2,000 teachers and health workers with improved accommodation, especially in the rural areas.

- 5 -

Many community sub-projects had to be given further funding to make them functional in line with sector norms, which often led to the provision of services to more people as the outputs were larger with more facilities (water, toilets, desks, etc.). The definition of “functionality” varied from District-to-District, resulting in some communities constructing five double classroom blocks, or whole primary and secondary schools. The average cost of a sub-project rose by an average of 31% as “functionality” led to bigger sub-projects, fewer communities being reached, and community contributions falling from 20% to 18%.

Women’s participation in CPCs met the target set at 50%. SSPs piloted under the CDI component responded to requests for income generating activities, vocational skills training, response to HIV/AIDS, and early childhood development. All SSPs were in the rural areas, while 87% of the other CDI sub-projects were rural and the balance urban. The time required to access safe water sources is reported to have been reduced from 3 hours to between 30-60 minutes, thereby making more productive time available to women and girls. Over 600 women from these water sub-projects were trained in operation and maintenance.

PWP (IDA US$15.0 million; Government US$0.75 million). The component is rated satisfactory. TASAF financed 305 sub-projects (94% in the rural areas) which covered 581 communities, surpassing the target by 77%, with 85% of the sub-projects completed on time against a target of 90%. Furthermore, a total of 113,646 direct beneficiaries were reached against a target of 32,800. The very high demand for unskilled work in areas targeted with PWP led community leaders to reduce the period of employment from 10 to 5 months – which produced many small sub-projects with more people being employed. Female beneficiaries accounted for 47% of the total (exceeding the target); the share of unskilled labor in the PWP funds disbursed was 41.3%, with 226,333 person-months of unskilled employment provided to the poor under this component.

Institutional Development (IDA US$7.0 million; Government US$0.50 million). The overall rating for the component is satisfactory. The component met its Key Performance Indicator (KPI) targets, except for the reports from the District and national level, which were typically available after two weeks, instead of one week; poor communication with remote Districts, inadequate equipment, and often unreliable electricity led to these delays. Six studies were carried out and disseminated to stakeholders.

TMU sub-component. The performance of TMU had mixed results. On the positive side, it supported participatory planning processes to facilitate linkages between local governments, NGOs/CSOs, and the private sector when responding to community demands. The TMU processed disbursements to 74.4% of the sub-projects on time. Districts were supported with a qualified TASAF accountant, and there were national-level program officers for backstopping. Against these accomplishments there were major short-comings: the TMU changed the approach after the Operational Manual was revised by insisting on the use of PAD indicative Project targets as annual caps on sub-projects which could be funded; inadequate review of sub-projects without always ensuring their compliance with sector norms, especially in education; resistance to purchase off-the-shelf software to improve data management; a case of mis-procurement; inability

- 6 -

to produce accurate cash flow projections; and accounting and internal control issues in 38% of the audit reports (which included ineligible expenditure against the DCA, and allowances not receipted by payees).

Capacity Building-IEC/Training sub-component. The number of people trained exceeded the KPI targets. The IEC Assessment (2004) indicated that there was 100% awareness about TASAF throughout the country. IEC also contributed towards the development of accountability by both the LGAs and the CPCs towards communities. M&E (including MIS) sub-component. Data was collected on KPIs, guidelines were issued on M&E report preparation, and quarterly and annual reports were produced. The project was able to collect information on KPIs (Annex 1) as well as information on other indicators (Annex 10) which formed the basis of an M&E system. The MIS for M&E was partially computerized, with data collected from the Districts being consolidated at TMU. The Financial Management Accounting System between Districts and TMU largely remained paper-based due to delays in the Government roll-out of ‘Platinum’ software to the Districts. This gave rise to difficulties in data capture, assessment of Project performance, and monitoring benchmarks in the sub-project cycle; all of which created uncertainties on the financial status of TASAF as it drew to a close.

National Poverty Monitoring and Analysis sub-component. Of the planned activities, only one was carried out with TASAF funding: creation of capacity in TASAF Districts for integrating participatory M&E through the CSDS into CDI and PWP components. Work on CSDS was done only as a pilot and it did not go beyond the training of trainers’ stage due to limitations in its application at the community level. The NBS did not implement its obligation under the Memorandum of Understanding to implement most of the activities under this sub-component. It is noted that shortly after TASAF effectiveness, the Government established a fairly elaborate poverty monitoring system under the Office of the Vice President; it is possible that this is the reason for NBS’s decision to pull out of the arrangement.

Ratings for the Achievement of objective/outputs of the components. The Project was not expected to contribute to macro, financial, sector policies, or public sector management. On the basis of the physical outputs under CDI and PWP, as well as unskilled wages paid out under sub-projects financed under the PWP, the physical outputs are rated substantial. Institutional development is also rated substantial (see Section 4.5 for the rationale). Achievements on poverty reduction and gender were substantial: the Project targeted communities in the poorer regions (see Annex 9 for positive changes in ranking for regions with TASAF-funded Districts), and female participation in CPCs was 50%, and 47% of the beneficiaries under PWP were female. On the basis of community interest in applying for, contributing to, and implementing sub-projects, participatory demand-driven development is rated high. Because of capacity building at central level, District level, and community level (where people were trained, communities implemented CDI sub-projects, and Districts managed the PWP), capacity building of stakeholders is rated substantial. Although the outputs of components did not specifically include measurements for achieving environmental or private sector development, there were modest contributions to both: over 20,000 private individuals participated in CPCs which procured goods and services from the private sector, and forms were available and communities

- 7 -

were trained in sub-project environmental impact assessments and formulation of mitigation measures; however their rigorous application was limited.

4.3 Net Present Value/Economic rate of return:An economic rate of return was not calculated at appraisal. An assumption was made that communities are rational economic actors and that their choices reflect the greatest return for their time, labor and materials. In addition, the CNA indicated community willingness to make cash and in-kind contributions to interventions that reflected their priorities. Sector distribution of sub-projects reflected community priorities and at the end of Project, 56% were in education, 23% in health, 15% in water, and 6% in socioeconomic infrastructure under the CDI component. Communities on average made a contribution of 18% towards CDI sub-projects. Communities were able to construct these facilities with savings of between 3 and 48% compared to infrastructure put up by other financing sources (Annex 3).

4.4 Financial rate of return: No financial rate of return was calculated for the project at appraisal.

4.5 Institutional development impact:The institutional development impact is rated substantial. At the community level, the Project contributed to empowering communities to realize their potential in harnessing available local human and material resources for their own development. A total of 22,687 CPC members were trained in sub-project implementation (procurement, financial management, environmental impact and mitigation, report-writing, reporting back, etc.). Communities also demonstrated their capacity to target the vulnerable with suitable interventions. Village Councils were trained on implementation, and IEC spelled out stakeholder roles during implementation, thereby enhancing accountability and transparency at the community level through regular reporting on activities (Beneficiary Assessment, 2003).

At the Local Government level, TASAF supported LGAs’ capacity enhancement activities to accompany funds disbursed to communities under CDI and to LGAs under PWP. A total of 732 implementers were trained in various fields. TASAF provided PRA training to LGA staff, which strengthened the District planning framework by including communities in the setting of priorities and in detailed costing of sub-projects.

At the national level, a TASAF National Steering Committee included civil society representatives, demonstrating Government’s willingness to work with civil society. The Project strengthened partnerships between LGAs, NGOs, communities and the private sector (as suppliers of goods and services), to improve service delivery. The institutional arrangements for TASAF were directly linked to the decentralization governance structure. The Project strengthened national and Local Government systems in Project implementation by using an Operational Manual that has been adopted by other Projects supporting activities at the District and community levels; this is part of mainstreaming TASAF approaches into Local Government systems. TASAF’s experience with sector norms and standards has demonstrated the importance of having well-developed bills of quantities for use at the District and community levels; a priority for effective sector devolution. Lessons from the Project were used by Government when preparing service guidelines for use by the stakeholders in the implementation of TASAF II.

- 8 -

5. Major Factors Affecting Implementation and Outcome

5.1 Factors outside the control of government or implementing agency:Material cost increases. Frequent price increases for construction materials and transportation costs affected sub-project budgets, which contributed to increased costs of sub-projects over and above the initial budget allocations. This had a negative impact on the number of sub-projects which could be financed. There is anecdotal evidence that the cost of materials also increased as a result of demand created by sub-project procurement activities, especially in communities where there was only one or two suppliers.

5.2 Factors generally subject to government control:Equipping and staffing health facilities. The Tanzania health sector has experienced difficulties staffing and/or equipping health facilities, including those built with TASAF support (see Section 6.1). Of the 328 health facilities supported by TASAF, 45% (149 facilities equivalent to 11% of total CDI sub-projects) have inadequate staff and/or supplies. This means that communities cannot access adequate services from facilities in which they have invested their money, time and labor. The short-term community planning horizon was initially poorly synchronized with medium-term district and national planning, leading to delayed provisions of recurrent funding for community-built health facilities when these were ready for commissioning. In response to this concern, the Ministry of Health has indicated that recurrent costs for all facilities are included in the 2005/06 budget.

Failure to expeditiously roll-out ‘Platinum’. Government insistence that TASAF use ‘Platinum’ (the software selected for financial management at District level), and the subsequent delays in its roll-out led to delays in receiving information which could have been used by TMU and IDA for decision making.

5.3 Factors generally subject to implementing agency control:Slow management response. TMU’s failure to take corrective action on findings from audit reports relating to inadequate internal controls and budgeting systems, as well as its refusal to use off-the-shelf software while waiting for the ‘Platinum’ rollout, affected the ability of the TMU to provide real time data on sub-project financing, which would have allowed the TMU to more accurately monitor its financial position. This unavailability of information was more apparent at Project closure than at the beginning (see Section 4.l).

5.4 Costs and financing:The Project was to be financed by US$60 million from IDA, US$3.15 from Government, and US$8.62 million from in kind or cash community contributions (community contribution is reported under co-financiers in Annex 2). A Project Preparation Facility (PPF), which utilized US$925,000 out of US$1.2 million allocated, financed a CNA and piloted sub-projects in 17 communities. Price and physical contingencies in the Project cost by component table in the PAD amounted to approximately 21% in recognition of the demand driven nature of the Project, and the difficulty in knowing a priori the exact split between the CDI and PWP components. As noted above, DCA amendments were required to more accurately reflect the anticipated expenditures. An amount of US$39,200 was cancelled as a result of mis-procurement at TMU, an exchange rate gain of US$1.69 million was realized, and at the end of the Project IDA disbursed US$61.69

- 9 -

million. The expenditures by disbursement categories were by and large in line with the original estimates. In analyzing the financing by components, the actuals in both CDI and PWP sub-projects were lower than the original estimates (by US$3.46 million and US$2.1 million respectively). Government contribution exceeded the original estimate as a result of the exchange rate gains. The Institutional Development component disbursed US$7.25 million above the original estimate; funds for this came from the CDI ($3.46 million), PWP ($2.1 million), and exchange rate gain ($1.69 million). The CDI and PWP amounts ($5.56 million) to cover the cost of six CDI/PWP Program Officers, 42 TASAF District Accountants and various sub-project supervision costs at District level, originally costed under the CDI and PWP components, were charged to the Institutional Development component on advice from Financial Management colleagues.

6. Sustainability

6.1 Rationale for sustainability rating:Sustainability is rated likely. TASAF enjoyed political support from the highest levels in Government as well as commitment from communities. As a consequence, a follow-on Project with national coverage (TASAF II) was requested and became effective in 2005. The Government’s National Strategy for Growth and Reduction of Poverty (June 2005) notes that TASAF is one of the major poverty reduction instruments supporting communities to participate in the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals. Two studies, an ‘Impact Evaluation of TASAF’ and an ‘Implementation and Cost Effectiveness Study under TASAF I’, are under way and will provide useful information on TASAF development impact.

TASAF operated within the decentralized structure of Local Governments and supported capacity building through training implementers at District and community levels, including CBOs/NGOs. Training of CPCs and PWP beneficiaries through hands-on experience enhanced community capacities’ beyond levels identified in the CNA. Community participation at all stages and levels engendered social cohesion and ownership of the development process; demonstrated by the level of community contribution and adherence to the sub-project cycle.

Since most of the infrastructure is constructed by the communities and then handed over to the sectors upon completion, responsibility for maintenance rests with the sectors; one would expect that these assets will be maintained to the same standard prevailing in a District. Health facilities constituted 23% of CDI sub-projects, with 45% of them not fully staffed and supplied at the close of TASAF. In recognition of the challenges facing community–funded health facilities, there was a slow-down in the approval of new health facilities after the mid-term review, and TASAF II will not finance any new health facilities. There are plans by LGAs to establish Community Health Funds, and, so far, 40 such funds exist to supplement Government recurrent funding for the health sector; but it is too early to judge their effectiveness. Most investments (56%) went to the education sector where School Parent-Teachers Committees have a long history of collecting funds from parents for school maintenance and to finance other running costs to supplement Government budgets. Some School Committees, having been trained in maintenance, can more effectively use the funds set aside in the capitation grant to the school from Central Government for maintenance. The water sector, in which Community Water Committees (responsible for

- 10 -

operation and maintenance of water assets) always set up a water fund before they can receive funds for water investments, received 15% of TASAF resources. Furthermore, 629 women in Community Water Committees were trained by the Project as caretakers for TASAF- funded water sub-projects. With respect to the transport sector, there are no formal mechanisms for community roads maintenance, but most TASAF roads link remote communities to markets; it is expected that these are likely to be maintained by communities and LGAs. The SSPs supported activities which communities would normally manage on their own, and members have been trained in business management and have savings accounts from which to draw funds if necessary.Environmental and social mitigation measures were implemented by communities. Continued capacity enhancement will take place at District level, and within TASAF, to facilitate communities with environmental and social aspects under TASAF II – where safeguards have been more fully integrated into the Operational Manual and the sub-project cycle processes.

6.2 Transition arrangement to regular operations:The design of TASAF II is based on the understanding that as more Districts meet fiduciary criteria set out under a national Local Government Reform Program, the management of TASAF funds will be taken over by LGAs, and future community financing will be through Government budget systems. Through TASAF II, Village Governments will receive development funds and lay the foundation for them to become more active service providers within a decentralized framework. An assessment of the convergence between TASAF II and the Bank-funded Local Government Support Project (LGSP) is planned for the TASAF II mid-term review.

7. Bank and Borrower Performance

Bank7.1 Lending:Bank’s lending performance is rated satisfactory. The Bank quickly responded to the Borrower’s request for a social fund, preparation was participatory, and piloting of activities provided valuable lessons for Project design. The Project design was coherent, in line with the CAS, and took into account the country’s National Poverty Reduction Strategy–itself based on a participatory approach to addressing poverty issues. The Project was identified in February 1999, pre-appraised in April 1999 and appraised in April 2000. A total of five missions were undertaken by Bank teams with a good skills mix. The Project was negotiated in June 2000, approved by the Board in August 2000, and became effective in November 2000. The Bank granted the Government’s request for a PPF to undertake a CNA, and to test out the proposed approach (processes, procedures and implementation arrangements), and community capacities in 17 communities. By appraisal, there was sufficient information from the pilots to glean lessons and to demonstrate how the proposed mechanisms were working. As part of the preparatory activities, the Bank also consulted widely with communities, stakeholders, and donors. A financial management analysis and procurement assessment of the implementing agency was carried out, risks were identified and appropriate mitigation measures were put in place. An environmental analysis was undertaken and recommendations with respect to mitigation measures were included in the sub-project cycle. Inconsistencies, presented previously, between PAD and the DCA were addressed in the Operational Manual and did not affect implementation or outcome.

- 11 -

7.2 Supervision:The rating for supervision was challenging, with satisfactory performance in most aspects, and better performance required in a few aspects; and as a consequence the rating given is moderately satisfactory. Between effectiveness and the closing date, 11 implementation reviews were undertaken. All reviews received input from procurement and financial management staff, whether their work was undertaken during or prior to the reviews. The reviews included the requisite skill mix except for the environmental and social safeguard specialists who were not included in the latter part of the Project life. In addition to the need for inclusion of the environmental specialist, the only other shortcoming was that challenges faced by the TMU with respect to financial management should have been detected earlier. The reviews were sufficiently resourced; documentation was comprehensive and appropriate guidance was provided to the client. Examples include (a) the provision of a window through which support to the vulnerable could be provided having noticed that HIV/AIDS requests were not getting support through the CDI component; (b) recommendation that a review of already funded sub-projects be undertaken to ensure that sector norms (functionality) were followed and ensure service delivery to the beneficiary communities; (c) emphasizing the need to track the use of environmental checklists, implementation of mitigation measures, and building capacity at community level; (d) supporting the establishment of a new directorate to ensure quality control of Project operations; and (e) supporting the redeployment of Program Officers to TMU after noticing that they were not being effectively used and supported at the regional level. The placement of a Bank staff in the Country Office during the final year of implementation enhanced the follow-up which the team was able to provide.

In 2003, TASAF was one of the Projects selected for an audit by the Bank Internal Audit Department, wherein weaknesses in procurement and financial management were identified. Records indicate that the team responded to these recommendations in subsequent missions. A thematic supervision mission on environment and social safeguards was carried out in March 2005, which recommended strengthening the review team to include an environmental and social safeguard specialist, and supervision of environmental and social safeguards through capacity enhancement of the TMU and District level staff. This recommendation is being implemented under TASAF II, and it is expected that having a Lead Environmental Specialist in the Bank Country Office will further enhance capacity building efforts.

7.3 Overall Bank performance:The overall Bank performance is considered satisfactory.

Borrower7.4 Preparation:Preparation by the Borrower is rated satisfactory. His Excellency, President Benjamin William Mkapa of the United Republic of Tanzania, visited Malawi in 1998 where he was impressed by the Malawi Social Action Fund which was financing communities to build schools and clinics, while providing cash transfers to the poor, and providing support to the vulnerable. As a consequence, the President requested the World Bank to send a team to design a similar fund in Tanzania. Government took the lead in preparing the Project concept, actively participating in all the stages of preparation, and producing all the required documentation from pre-appraisal

- 12 -

through to effectiveness in a timely manner. Government organized stakeholders’ workshops, meetings and study tours to existing social funds, which allowed for participatory consultations in the Project design process. A CNA was carried out to inform the Project design, and, as noted above, piloting took place to test out the procedures and process, which brought out lessons that fed into the Project design. An environmental analysis was carried out on the pilot sub-projects which met the Bank’s safeguard requirements and provided the basis for designing the processes to mitigate potential environmental impact. In order to complement the decentralization process which expected to lead to community empowerment, the proposed institutional arrangements for implementation by Government formed an integral part of the Local Government Reform Program because of its participatory nature.

7.5 Government implementation performance:Government implementation performance is rated satisfactory. Government continues to support the poverty alleviation agenda as articulated in its PRS, and its commitment was demonstrated through the provision of required counterpart funding. TASAF was an autonomous body under the oversight of the National Steering Committee which provided policy guidance to the TMU. Implementation of sub-projects was supported by the District, which, in addition to providing contributions directly for the sub-projects, also contributed to the Project by providing staff, transport, and office space. The one area where periodic conflicts arose was between the Village Council and the CPCs, since the implementation arrangements of the Project was silent on the role of village governments; this has been addressed in the design of TASAF II. Due to the geographic dispersion of the Project’s coverage, and the thoroughness of the auditors, delays were encountered in the provision of audit reports to the Bank.

7.6 Implementing Agency:The team also found this rating to be a challenge. If taken as a whole, the performance might be rated satisfactory; however, on the basis of fiduciary issues which surfaced toward the end of implementation, the implementing agency, is rated moderately satisfactory. TMU’s financial management got worse in the last nine months which led to both Project management and financial management being rated unsatisfactory by the Bank. There were challenges of internal controls. The Government integrated computerized financial management system only worked at the centre; Districts used a manual system which led to delays in financial reporting. The bulk of procurement was carried out satisfactorily at community level by CPCs, but the Bank declared mis-procurement in the amount of US$39,200 in one case at the TMU level. By not acting as a facilitator, who obtains norms and standards for use by Districts and communities, the TMU missed an opportunity to ensure sub-projects adhered to existing norms and standards. The TMU undertook a number of activities in order to improve quality, efficiency and effectiveness of the Project. These included: (a) setting up a Systems and Capacity Building Directorate after the mid-term review; and (b) carrying out studies in order to further improve delivery mechanisms. During implementation, the TMU was sufficiently staffed, with the initial Executive Director being in post until three months before the closing date; in the final year of the Project two Directors left the organization, and their positions were filled by staff from within the organization on an acting basis. As the senior staff focused on the preparation of TASAF II, their work was undertaken by acting staff who may not have received the requisite guidance from their colleagues. This state of affairs contributed to some of the challenges during the final year of implementation.

- 13 -

7.7 Overall Borrower performance:The overall performance of the Borrower is rated satisfactory.

8. Lessons Learned

IEC is a powerful tool: An effectively implemented IEC strategy facilitates communities to implement sub-projects successfully because they receive timely, consistent, and accurate information on Project processes and procedures. A strong IEC initiative also helps to improve mutual accountability between stakeholders and contributes to an improved governance structure that is a key to community empowerment. It stimulates latent community capacities by expanding the role of Village Governments. A nation-wide IEC program has been planned under TASAF II, with a greater use of the print media to provide community-level reference materials.

Field-based Norms and Standards are helpful: A Project like TASAF, with a CDD approach, involves many actors in implementation, which is greatly facilitated if norms and standards, including operational bills of quantities, are available at District and community levels. For TASAF II, Government has formulated Community Service Guidelines to assist Village Governments; it has created a Sector Experts' Team to provide technical guidance to Local Governments on sector norms and standards for community-level investments. The Team will also address the identified problem of inadequate consultation between TASAF and the sectors (i.e., health facilities established with inadequate staff and equipment).

Accountability is vital: Accountability of CPCs to the Village Government was strengthened; and elected Local Government machinery was made responsible for sub-project approvals upon advice from their technical staff. The Project strengthened village-level institutions, especially the Village Council, and created a better climate for Community Management Organizations to emerge. The community procurement process enabled communities to learn by doing while remaining accountable through established Project rules. Community Score Cards have been introduced into TASAF II as tools to systematically assess accountability trends at the community-Local Government interface.

Harmonize documentation: As with any project, harmonizing various documents reduces confusion. There is a tendency by implementers to rely heavily on the PAD as a guide, rather than using the legal agreement, which is binding. The team for TASAF II invested time in harmonizing the PAD with the DFA; and supported the TMU in harmonizing the OM with the DFA while incorporating lessons from the preparation of TASAF’s ICR.

Strengthening M&E system: The preparation of this ICR has generated lessons which have improved TASAF II organizational structure. The multiple points for production and distribution of information, with weak managerial oversight in TASAF, have been addressed by the creation of a Directorate of Operations and Systems. Under TASAF II, District Accountants from TMU will cover more than one District and have been given a capacity building role - with a greater focus on systems audit and monitoring.

- 14 -

Sustainability enhanced: Supply-driven targets in TASAF were removed in TASAF II by removing annual targets in the PAD, and giving Local Governments more responsibility to work with communities in the Project. Given the shortage of health manpower, the construction of new health facilities is on the negative list of community investments under TASAF II; emphasis has been put on activities that communities can undertake to increase service access and contribute to the attainment of specified Millennium Development Goal indicator targets rather than construct more physical assets.

TMU weaknesses addressed: Procurement was strengthened by putting a Specialist under the Executive Director, to work with a procurement committee. Financial management shortcomings were addressed by separating disbursement from management as a way of streamlining operations; and Internal Audit Unit was elevated to a Directorate level to improve the oversight function. By revisiting the design of the organization (i.e., reducing its operational role and strengthening its monitoring function while putting as much operational responsibility on Village and Local Governments as possible), TASAF II will continue to build capacities at the grass roots level. Local Government Reform Program fiduciary criteria were adopted as important criteria for the gradual transfer of resource management from TMU to Local Government Authorities as TASAF II is integrated into Local Government systems.

9. Partner Comments

(a) Borrower/implementing agency:

- 15 -

The United Republic of Tanzania / President's Office

TANZANIA SOCIAL ACTION FUND

Telephone: 255 022 2123S82-84 Far.. 255 022 2123582 ail: info@rasaf.org Website: WWW. tasaKoq

Old Kilwd Malit& Road P.O. Box 9381 Dar Es Salaam T'mia

In reply please quote:

Rej No: TSF/GEN/T/98/14

Country Director . The World Bank, DAR ES SALAAM,

Dear Madam,

Dafee: 22 March 2006

Re: OFFICIAL SUBMISSION OF ADDENDUM TO GOVERNMENT ICR--;4ND COMMENTS. TO IDA IMPLEMENTATION COMPLETION REPORT OCR)

Kindly refer to the above mentioned subject and your letter dated 30th December 2005 regarding the extension of period for which the Government was to submit comments regarding the IDA ICR.

The requested meeting was held between IDA Team and Government Team represented by TMU staff and discussed in line with &e proposed agenda. The Minutes of the Meeting are attached herewith for your reference.

With regard to the Addendum to the Government ICR, the Government does not see the reason for withdrawal of its ICR. The Addendum is attached and should replace Tables 1 to 5 of Annex 1. In this case, the Government ICR should be read dong with the submitted Addendum.

The comments to the IDA ICR are as they were submiped previously with amendments made after the meeting between the IDA and Govement Teams. They are attached herewith for your reference.

We anticipate continuous cooperation in poverty reduction efforts through the initiatives that directly target beneficiaries at grassroots level.

S. B. Likwelile EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

. ..

16-

17

Specific Comments to IDA ICR S/No Issue TMU Comments

1. Original Objective – (Section 3.1) – Two different Project Development Objectives are presented in the two documents; – PDO in the revised Operational Manual (OM) is the one which was addressed during implementation; which should therefore be the one to be referred to in the ICR

2.

Average cost of sub project – (Section 3.3)

– The indicated average cost of CDI and PWP sub projects, that is US$ 20,000 and US$40,000, respectively, was applicable before the OM was revised; – After revision of OM, ceiling of sub projects approved at district/island level were US$25,000 and US$50,000 for CDI and PWP, respectively. NSC was approving sub projects whose value exceeded that ceiling

3.

Inconsistencies within the Project Appraisal Document (PAD) and Development Credit Agreement (DCA) – (Section 3.5)

– The inconsistencies within the PAD and DCA cannot not be considered editorial, as it can be noted even Project Development Objectives presented in the two documents are different; – Revision of the OM departed from the design, for instance, number of outputs (communities to be reached) were changed. Aiming to meet earlier-on stipulated outputs was regarded as managing demand

4.

Functionality under CDI sub projects – (Section 4.2)

– Definition of ‘functionality’ was provided by respective sectors and not districts. – Due consideration was to be given to the role played by other partners in provision of similar assets/facilities was overlooked – In view of existence of many players in development including host LGA, other IDA projects, bilateral and multilateral agencies, NGOs and private sector, it was not expected that TASAF alone, certainly not within the spirit of community ownership and sustainability, would be able to finance everything to make all facilities functional, since such achievement would require much resources and more time

4. Functionality under CDI sub projects – (Section 4.2)

– Definition of ‘functionality’ was provided by respective sectors and not districts.– Due consideration was to be given to the role played by other partners in provision of similar assets/facilities; this was not to be overlooked– In view of existence of many players in development including host LGA, other IDA projects, bilateral and multilateral agencies, NGOs and private sector, it was not expected that TASAF alone, certainly not within the spirit of community ownership and sustainability, would be able to finance everything to make all facilities functional, since such achievement would require much resources and more time.

No further comment

5. PWP wages – (Section 4.2)

– The share of PWP unskilled labour in the PWP funds disbursed was 41.3% and not 36%. The percentage is calculated based on the amount disbursed to sub projects which was US$ 11,024,714.64 and not total disbursements spent under category 2 (PWP);– IDA contribution of US$ 12.9 mil. to PWP reported in Government ICR included disbursement to sub projects, cost of E- PRA and preparation of sub projects as well as contribution of 25% of TAOs salaries. The amount disbursed to sub projects was US$ 11,024,714.64 as reported in the April-June 2005 Quarterly Report

No further comment

- 18 -

S/No Issue TMU Comments IDA responses6. TMU

Sub-component: Use of PAD Project outputs – (Section 4.2)

– TASAF was designed to meet set outputs; TMU planning was aimed at achieving stated outputs;– Revision of OM departed to some extent from the earlier design, particularly on the number of outputs

See explanation in S/No 3. TASAF was a demand-driven operation and the supply of targets by TMU to Districts were turning it into a supply-driven operation; where the centre gave targets, districts applied them, and communities could not request for sub-projects above that target even if their needs were greater. There was concern that this supply-driven approach was just stretching the project to last the four years rather than respond to community demands. IDA team attempts to persuade TMU to change the approach failed.

7. TMU Sub-component: Approval of sub projects - (Section 4.2)

– District Steering Committees, Pemba and Unguja Steering Committees and National Steering Committee were responsible for approval of sub projects;– TMU was facilitating the process

No further comment

8. Purchasing of off-the-shelf software to improve data management – (Section 4.2 and Section 5.3)

– The Government decision was to use ‘Platinum’, TASAF being a Government Project was expected to use the same software;– Procedure for purchasing of off-the-shelf software is the same as when procuring other products; it also required customization and backlog data capture, hence its acquisition would not have solved the problem immediately;– Delay in acquiring ‘Platinum’ is largely attributable to time taken by IDA to give ‘No Objection’. TMU had to wait for about a year to get IDA’s No Objection for sole sourcing the software (request for No Objection was made in July 2001 while clearance to sign contract was provided in May 2002).– Then there was the task of capturing of backlog data, data cleaning and reconciliation.

The sole source was the problem our procurement team had with Platinum, hence it took the IDA team a long time to obtain the necessary clearance.

- 19 -

20

Specific Comments from TASAF with IDA responses S/No Issue TMU Comments IDA responses 1. Original

Objective – (Section 3.1)

– Two different Project Development Objectives (PDO) are presented in the two documents; – PDO in the revised Operational Manual (OM) of 2003, is the one which was addressed during implementation; which should therefore be the one to be referred to in the ICR

The PDO in the PAD (page 2) has different wording from that in the DCA (schedule 2, page 14). In revising the OM, the teams tried to harmonize the two by (a) stating the objective from the PAD, and (b) amplifying it with a definition of "resource endowments" and "socio-economic infrastructure" from the DCA.

2. Average cost of sub project – (Section 3.3)

– The indicated average cost of CDI and PWP sub projects, that is US$ 20,000 and US$40,000, respectively, was applicable before the OM was revised; – After revision of OM, ceiling of sub projects approved at district/island level were US$25,000 and US$50,000 for CDI and PWP, respectively. NSC was approving sub projects whose value exceeded that ceiling.

The US$25,000 for CDI and $50,000 for PWP were provided for in the DCA (Schedule 4 paras 8(a) and 11(a)). The OM was revised to bring it into line with the DCA since the PAD at negotiation had estimates of $20,000 and $40,000.

3. Inconsistencies within the Project Appraisal Document (PAD) and Development Credit Agreement (DCA) – (Section 3.5)

– The inconsistencies within the PAD and DCA cannot not be considered editorial, and as noted even the Project Development Objectives presented in the two documents are different; – Revision of the OM departed from the design, for instance, number of outputs (communities to be reached) were changed. Aiming to meet earlier-on stipulated outputs was regarded by IDA as managing demand

The revision of the OM and other handbooks was in the spirit of the DCA, which provides for their "amendment from time to time, in consultation with the Association, and such term includes any schedules of the Project Manuals" (para (p) page 3 of DCA referring to Manuals in Schedule 4 para 1(b)). Such consultations took place at a meeting held in Zanzibar between IDA team and TMU when implementation was being hampered by the many interpretations in TMU and Districts on what the OM provisions meant.

21

S/No Issue TMU Comments IDA responses

4. Functionality under CDI sub projects – (Section 4.2)

– Definition of ‘functionality’ was provided by respective sectors and not districts. – Due consideration was to be given to the role played by other partners in provision of similar assets/facilities; this was not to be overlooked – In view of existence of many players in development including host LGA, other IDA projects, bilateral and multilateral agencies, NGOs and private sector, it was not expected that TASAF alone, certainly not within the spirit of community ownership and sustainability, would be able to finance everything to make all facilities functional, since such achievement would require much resources and more time.

No further comment

5. PWP wages – (Section 4.2)

– The share of PWP unskilled labour in the PWP funds disbursed was 41.3% and not 36%. The percentage is calculated based on the amount disbursed to sub projects which was US$ 11,024,714.64 and not total disbursements spent under category 2 (PWP); – IDA contribution of US$ 12.9 mil. to PWP reported in Government ICR included disbursement to sub projects, cost of E- PRA and preparation of sub projects as well as contribution of 25% of TAOs salaries. The amount disbursed to sub projects was US$ 11,024,714.64 as reported in the April-June 2005 Quarterly Report

No further comment

22

S/No Issue TMU Comments IDA responses 6. TMU Sub-

component: Use of PAD Project outputs – (Section 4.2)

– TASAF was designed to meet set outputs; TMU planning was aimed at achieving stated outputs; – Revision of OM departed to some extent from the earlier design, particularly on the number of outputs

See explanation in S/No 3. TASAF was a demand-driven operation and the supply of targets by TMU to Districts were turning it into a supply-driven operation; where the centre gave targets, districts applied them, and communities could not request for sub-projects above that target even if their needs were greater. There was concern that this supply-driven approach was just stretching the project to last the four years rather than respond to community demands. IDA team attempts to persuade TMU to change the approach failed.

7. TMU Sub-component: Approval of sub projects - (Section 4.2)

– District Steering Committees, Pemba and Unguja Steering Committees and National Steering Committee were responsible for approval of sub projects; – TMU was facilitating the process

No further comment

8. Purchasing of off-the-shelf software to improve data management – (Section 4.2 and Section 5.3)

– The Government decision was to use ‘Platinum’, TASAF being a Government Project was expected to use the same software; – Procedure for purchasing of off-the-shelf software is the same as when procuring other products; it also required customization and backlog data capture, hence its acquisition would not have solved the problem immediately; – Delay in acquiring ‘Platinum’ is largely attributable to time taken by IDA to give ‘No Objection’. TMU had to wait for about a year to get IDA’s No Objection for sole sourcing the software (request for No Objection was made in July 2001 while clearance to sign contract was provided in May 2002). – Then there was the task of capturing of backlog data, data cleaning and reconciliation. – Reasons for the delay are clarified in Government ICR.

The sole source was the problem our procurement team had with Platinum, hence it took the IDA team a long time to obtain the necessary clearance.

23

S/No Issue TMU Comments IDA responses 9. NBS’s decision to pull

out: (Implementation of Core Welfare Indicator Questionnaire, CWIQ and Community Service Delivery Survey, CSDS) – (Section 4.2)

– There is no official communication that NBS pulled out; – NBS was expected to administer CWIQ for several stakeholders including TASAF. There was no adequate financial commitment to operationalize it. TASAF alone had no enough funds to operationalize it; – CSDS was piloted, IDA recommended a different tool known as Community Score Card (CSC) to be used during TASAF-II.

The Community Score Card was a recommendation when the NBS-TASAF collaboration was not forthcoming. The M&E specialist working on the NBS issue had a meeting with TMU and NBS early in the implementation of the project, and reported that the NBS was no longer able to: “MOU with National Bureau of Statistics. The NBS has not yet decided whether it will incorporate an annual monitoring survey into its household survey program. If it decides not to, TASAF will need to amend the current MOU accordingly (with its implications for the DCA)” - Aide memoire of July 2002

10. Borrower Performance: Implementing Agency – (Section 7.6)

- Senior staff focus on the Preparation of TASAF-II did not contribute to some challenges of final implementation; - Acting staff were provided with guidance were free to make consultations with senior staff.

No comments.

24

S/No Issue TMU Comments IDA responses 11.

Strengthening M&E System (creating Directorate of Operations and Systems) – Section 8

– The decision to create a Directorate of Operations and Systems is a controversial one which seems to have originated from TTL. The structure is different from the one that was negotiated and also different from the organigram presented in the PAD; – Revision of TASAF-II organigram was done after the Project was negotiated; – The structure is different from one which was the basis of the approved Procurement Plan; – Revision of the organigram was done without consulting the Government Project Preparation Team (PPT); – A few months experience of operationalizing the new structure has shown that the proposed structure creates unnecessary bureaucracy and affects the pace of implementation;– Accordingly, Executive Director and TTL agreed to split the Directorate as an interim measure.

The revision of the OM after negotiations was to make sure that it was aligned with the DFA and that it was taking on board lessons from the ICR (which was being prepared). The option had been to delay the design of TASAF II until the ICR was done, or to design TASAF II and take on board TASAF I lessons as these were learnt. The former Executive Director and the team revising the OM met with IDA team members and agreed that a Directorate of Operations and Systems would address many of the data management challenges that he had faced. When the new Executive Director came on board, he raised concerns, and the IDA team agreed that after trying to work with Managers instead of one Director for a six-month period, the Executive Director could propose to the IDA team a different configuration. The OM is considered a 'living document' to take on board any learning done by the team; hence the DFA provision that it " may be amended from time-to-time with the concurrence of the Association, and such term [of OM] includes any schedules thereto" (para (t) page 3). Schedule 4 para (1) extends the OM to specifically include the Service Guidelines in Community Participation (and the IDA team agreed with the TMU to allow UN agencies to make comments on these guidelines after negotiations as the OM was being finalized). It is not possible to have a final OM by negotiations without leading to major delays; and Government was very anxious that TASAF II be designed with speed - IDA responded, but it meant there were significant revisions to the OM as lessons from TASAF I became available.

(b) Cofinanciers:Not applicable

(c) Other partners (NGOs/private sector):Not applicable

10. Additional Information

None

- 25 -

Annex 1. Key Performance Indicators/Log Frame Matrix

Outcome / Impact Indicators:Indicator/Matrix Projected in last PSR1 Actual/Latest Estimate

Percentage of projects to have permanent maintenance mechanisms

100% 90%, the remaining 10% are health facilities not operational due to lack of staff and necessary equipment.

Percentage of communities provided with efficient back-up services

100% 100%

Percentage of population getting services from the constructed facilities

60% 89%

Percentage of communities satisfied by the available services

80% 78.2%

Output Indicators:Indicator/Matrix Projected in last PSR1 Actual/Latest Estimate

Community Development Initiatives No. of communities reached under community subprojects

2212 1,482 applications received, 1,399 funded and implemented. Assets created, 7,212, exceeded 3,906 planned by 3,306.

% sub-projects completed 90% 83.3%% of women on CPC 50% 50%

Public Works ProgramNo. of communities reached under safety net projects

328 581

No. of beneficiaries reached 32,800 113,646% of women benefiting 40% 47%% projects completed within budget and on time

90% 85.2%

- 26 -

Institutional DevelopmentNo. of implementers trained 840 732 at district and national levels

including NGOs and CBOs; and 22,687 CPC members at community level

No. of beneficiaries trained 40,000 113,646 PWP beneficiariesNo. women trained 50% 51% (of implementers trained)% of increase attendance at awareness meetings (annual)

30% 100%

% of women in CPCs 50% 50% % of population aware of TASAF (annual growth)

0% 100%

Days to produce reports after target date

7 15

Days within which to effect disbursement after application

30 15

- 27 -

Annex 2. Project Costs and Financing

Project Cost by Component (in US$ million equivalent)AppraisalEstimate

Actual/Latest Estimate

Percentage of Appraisal

Component US$ million US$ millionCommunity Development Initiatives (Sub-Projects) 38.81 44.47 114.5Public Works Program (Sub-Projects) 12.60 13.58 107.8Institutional Development 6.00 15.00 250

Total Baseline Cost 57.41 73.05 Physical Contingencies 3.59 Price Contingencies 10.76

Total Project Costs 71.76 73.05Total Financing Required 71.76 73.05

Project Costs by Procurement Arrangements (Appraisal Estimate)

Procurement MethodExpenditure Category ICB NCB Community

ParticipationOther N.B.F. Total Cost

Community Sub-Projects

34.5(34.5)

9.4 43.8(34.5)

Public Works 13.8(13.8)

0.4 14.1(13.8)

Equipment, furniture, supplies and vehicles

1.7(1.7)

0.6(0.6)

0.7(0.7)

3.0(3.0)

Consultant services, training, workshops, studies and audits

4.7(4.7)

0.8 5.5(4.7)

Operating Costs 4.1(4.1)

1.2 5.4(4.1)

Total 1.7 0.6 48.3 9.5 11.8 71.7(IDA Share) (1.7) (0.6) (48.3) (9.5) (60.0)

- 28 -

Project Costs by Procurement Arrangements (Actual/Latest Estimate)

Procurement MethodExpenditure Category

ICB NCB Community Participation

Other N.B.F. Total Cost

Community Sub-Projects

34.54(34.54)

9.93 44.47(34.54)

Public Works 12.90(12.90)

.68 13.58(12.90)

Equipment, furniture, supplies and vehicles

1.44(1.44)

0.96(0.96)

0.20(0.20)

.22 2.82(2.60)

Consultant services, training, workshops, studies and audits

6.88(6.88)

6.88(6.88)

Operating Costs 4.77(4.77)

.53 5.30(4.77)

Total 1.44 0.96 47.44 11.85 11.36 73.05(IDA Share) (1.44) (0.96) (47.44) (11.85) (61.69)

Project Financing by Component (in US$ million equivalent)

Component Appraisal Estimate Actual/Latest EstimatePercentage of Appraisal

IDA Govt. CoF. Bank Govt. CoF. IDA Govt. CoF.Community Development Initiatives (Sub-Projects)

38.00 1.90 8.62 34.54 1.81 8.12 90.9 95.3 94.2

Public Works (Sub-Projects)

15.00 0.75 0.00 12.90 0.68 0.00 86.0 90.7 0.0

Institutional Development 7.00 0.50 0.00 14.25 0.75 0.00 203.6 150.0 0.0TOTAL 60.00 3.15 8.62 61.69 3.24 8.12 102.8 102.9 94.2

- 29 -

Annex 3. Economic Costs and Benefits

Comparison of Construction Cost of TASAF with that of other Organizations

Project Donor Cost$’000

TASAFCost $’000

% TASAF Savings

Classroom PEDP 6,889 4,461 35Classroom AXIOS 5,920 4,461 25Teacher’s House AFRICARE 7,733 6,663 14Dispensary and Staff house AFRICARE 20,226 14,035 31Staff house AFRICARE 9,100 7,800 15Dispensary Japanese Embassy 61,000 32,000 48Water Borehole Ministry of Water 50,000 40,678 19Shallow Well RWSS 3,000 2,915 3Earth Road (Labor based) LDF/UNDP/

UNCDF8,319 4,500 46

Exchange Rate: US$1: Tsh1,100Source: November 2005, Preliminary data from the on-going “TASAF CDI and PWP Implementation and Cost Effectiveness Study”.

- 30 -

Annex 4. Bank Inputs

(a) Missions:Stage of Project Cycle Performance Rating No. of Persons and Specialty

(e.g. 2 Economists, 1 FMS, etc.)Month/Year Count Specialty

ImplementationProgress

DevelopmentObjective

Identification/Preparation2/9/1999 2 TEAM LEADER (1); SP SPEC

(1)4/28/1999 11 TEAM LEADER (1); OP

ANALYST (1); SR STATISTICIAN (1); COMMUNICATIONS SPECIALIST (1); INFO ANALYST (1); PROGRAM OFFICER-SOCIAL SECTORS (2); FMS (1); PROC ANALYST(1); PARTICIPATION/COMMUNITY BASED DEVELOPMENT SPECIALIST (1); SP SPECIALIST (1); CONSULTANT (1)

10/5/1999 2 TEAM LEADER (1); PARTICIPATION/COMMUNITY BASED DEVELOPMENT SPECIALIST (1)

12/8/1999 12 TEAM LEADER (1); PARTICIPATION/COMMUNITY BASED DEVELOPMENT SPECIALIST (2); OP ANALYST (1); KNOWLEDGE & LEARNING OFFICER (1); SP SPECIALIST (1); PROGRAM OFFICER-SOCIAL SECTORS (2); DISBURSEMENT (2); FMS (1); EDUCATION SPECIALIST (1)

Appraisal/Negotiation4/17/2000 14 TEAM LEADER (1);

PROGRAM OFFICERS-SOCIAL SECTOR (2); COMMUNICATIONS SPECIALIST (1); SR STATISTICIAN (1); INFORMATION ANALYST (1); OP ANALYST (1); ECONOMIST (1); SP SPECIALIST (1); PARTICIPATION/ COMMUNITY BASED

- 31 -

DEVELOPMENT SPECIALIST; PROC ANALYST (1); FMS (1); DISBURSEMENT (1)

Supervision11/27/2000 7 TEAM LEADER (1); IEC

SPECIALIST (1); INSTITUTIONAL DEV. (1); ECONOMIST, PWP (1); PUBLIC HEALTH (1); PROCUREMENT (1); DISBURSEMENT (1)

S S

03/09/2001 3 TEAM LEADER, SR. SP SPEC (1); LEAD STAT (1); SR. PH SPEC (1)

S S

09/14/2001 9 TTL/SP SPEC (1); COMMUNICATIONS SPEC (1); HEALTH SPECIALIST (1); OP OFFICER (1); PROC SPECIALIST (1); EDUCATION SPECIALIST (1); MANAGEMENT CONSULTANT (1); CONSULTANT (1); FMS (1)

S S

07/05/2002 5 TTL, SR. SP SPEC. (1); CO-TTL, SR. HEALTH SP. (1); SR. COMMUNICATIONS SPEC. (1); INFO OFFICER (1); OP OFFICER (1)

S S

10/18/2002 2 TEAM LEADER, SP SPEC (1); OP OFFICER (1)

S S

6/20/2003 10 TTL/SR. SP SPEC (1); SR. COMM SPEC (1); SR. INFO OFFICER (1); OP OFFICER (1); INDIG KNOWLEDGE (1); FMS (1); SR. PROC SPEC (1); EDUC SPEC (1); SR. PH SPEC (1); CONSULTANT (1)

S S

2/27/2004 5 TTL, OP. OFFICER (1); INSTITUTIONAL/POLICY(1); M&E, MIS (1); INFRASTRUCTURE (1); SSP (1)

S S

4/29/2004 1 SR. COMMUNIC SPEC (1) S S10/8/2004 8 TTL, SR.OPERATIONS OFF

(1); SR. SP SPEC. (1); SR. INFO OFFICER (1); PROC ANALYST (1); SR. PROC SPEC (1); SR. FMS. (1); PROG ASST (1); SR. PROG ASST (1)

S S

12/10/2004 6 SR SP SPEC (1); FMS (1); DISBURSEMENT (2): PROG

S S

- 32 -

ASST (1); CONSULTANT (1)

ICR04/08/05 6 TTL/SR. OP. OFFICER (1);

PROG ASST (1); SR. SP SPEC (1); SP SPEC (1): PROC ANALYST (1): FMS (1)

S S

(b) Staff:

Stage of Project Cycle Actual/Latest EstimateNo. Staff weeks US$ ('000)

Identification/Preparation N/A 125Appraisal/Negotiation 40.89 132Supervision 150.11 378ICR 7.13 12Total 198.13 647

- 33 -

Annex 5. Ratings for Achievement of Objectives/Outputs of Components(H=High, SU=Substantial, M=Modest, N=Negligible, NA=Not Applicable)

RatingMacro policies H SU M N NASector Policies H SU M N NAPhysical H SU M N NAFinancial H SU M N NAInstitutional Development H SU M N NAEnvironmental H SU M N NA

SocialPoverty Reduction H SU M N NAGender H SU M N NAOther (Please specify) H SU M N NA

Participatory Demand Drive Development

Private sector development H SU M N NAPublic sector management H SU M N NAOther (Please specify) H SU M N NA

Capacity building of stakeholders (community level; CPCs; LGAs; NGOs; CBOs; TMU

- 34 -

Annex 6. Ratings of Bank and Borrower Performance

(HS=Highly Satisfactory, S=Satisfactory, U=Unsatisfactory, HU=Highly Unsatisfactory)

6.1 Bank performance Rating

Lending HS S U HUSupervision HS S U HUOverall HS S U HU

6.2 Borrower performance Rating

Preparation HS S U HUGovernment implementation performance HS S U HUImplementation agency performance HS S U HUOverall HS S U HU

- 35 -

Annex 7. List of Supporting Documents

1. Project preparation documents2. TASAF I PAD3. Back to Office and Aide Memoires 4. Project Annual and Quarterly Reports5. “Evaluation of the Social Support Program in the Pilot Districts of Bukoba Rural, Kibaha,

Shinyanga Rural and Meatu” by Unique Consortium of Services Ltd. 20046. A Model for Determining a Self Targeting Wage Rate – final Report by Business Care

Services Ltd.7. Environmental Analysis of TASAF funded subprojects April-May 2000.8. Environmental Assessment of TASAF supported subprojects (June 2003) by EPCON

Biotech Consultants9. Impact Assessment of IEC in TASAF Operation Areas 200410. Assessment of Capacity Building Districts in Subprojects Management in the Context of

Norms and Standards APEX Engineering Co. Ltd.11. “Beneficiary Assessment in TASAF Operation Areas” 2003 by Data Vision International

(T) Ltd.

- 36 -

37

Additional Annex 8: Borrower’s Implementation Completion Report

UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA PRESIDENT’S OFFICE

IMPLEMENTATION COMPLETION REPORT (ICR)

For Tanzania Social Action Fund

(2000 to 2005) Dated June 16th 2005

38

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

BA - Beneficiary Assessment

CDI - Community Development Initiatives

CBO - Community Based Organisation

CMO - Community Management Organization

CPC - Community Project Committee

DCDI - Director of Community Development Initiatives

DF - Director of Finance

DPWP - Director of Public Works Programme

ECD - Early Child Development

ED - Executive Director

GOT - Government of Tanzania

ID - Institutional Development

IDA - International Development Association

IEC - Information Education and Communication

KPI - Key Performance Indicators

MIS - Management Information System

MOU - Memorandum of Understanding

M&E - Monitoring and Evaluation

NGO - Non Government Organisation

NSC - National Steering Committee

PDO - Project Development Objective

PIA - Project Implementation Agency

PO - Program Officer

PrO - Procurement Officer

PWP - Public Works Programme

SSP - Social Support Programme

TAO - TASAF Accounts Officer

TDA - TASAF District Accountant

TDO - TASAF District Officer

TASAF - Tanzania Social Action Fund

TMU - TASAF Management Unit

TPC - TASAF Project Coordinator

VPO - Vice President Office

WB - World Bank

39

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 BACKGROUND...................................................................................................................................... 40 2.0 TASAF I DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVE .......................................................................................... 40

2.1 INSTITUTIONAL SET UP AND PROJECT COMPONENTS 40 2.1.1 Community Development Initiatives (CDI)..................................................................................... 41 2.1.2 Public Works Program (PWP) ........................................................................................................ 41 2.1.3 Institutional Development (ID) ....................................................................................................... 41

3.0 ASSESSMENT OF THE PROJECT .................................................................................................... 42 3.1 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVE (PDO) 42 3.2 PROJECT DESIGN 42

4.0 ACHIEVEMENT OF THE OBJECTIVE............................................................................................ 42 4.1 COMPONENT SPECIFIC ACHIEVEMENT 43

4.1.1 CDI (including SSP Window) Achievement .................................................................................... 43 4.1.2 PWP Achievement............................................................................................................................ 44 4.1.3 Institution Development Achievement............................................................................................. 45

5.0 PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGES............................................................................ 45 5.1 OVERALL PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGES 45 5.2 COMPONENT SPECIFIC CHALLENGES 46

5.2.1 CDI (including SSP Window).......................................................................................................... 46 5.2.2 PWP.................................................................................................................................................. 47 5.2.3 Institutional Development Experience ............................................................................................ 48

6.0 OTHER CHALLENGES........................................................................................................................ 49 6.1 FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT ISSUES 49 6.2 PROCUREMENT ISSUES 49 6.3 SUSTAINABILITY 50

7.0 BANK AND BORROWERS PERFORMANCE ................................................................................. 50 7.1 BANK PERFORMANCE50 7.2 BORROWERS PERFORMANCE 50

8.0 LESSONS LEARNT ............................................................................................................................... 50 9.0 ANNEXES ................................................................................................................................................ 56

40

TANZANIA SOCIAL ACTION FUND (TASAF) I IMPLENTATION COMPLETION REPORT (ICR)

1.0 Background

The main development challenge of the United Republic of Tanzania is eradication of poverty, which is widespread among its population. According to the Household Budget Survey of 2000/01 the proportion of the population below the national food poverty line is 18.7 percent and that below the national basic needs poverty line is 35.7 percent. However, income poverty is still widespread both in rural and urban areas although poverty remains overwhelmingly in rural areas where 87 percent of the poor population live, and is highest among households who depend on agriculture. The Government of Tanzania has put in place many programs, policies, strategies and projects across the country to address this development challenge. The Tanzania Social Action Fund (TASAF I) was one of them. TASAF I assisted the United Republic of Tanzania to sustain its ongoing reforms through mainstreaming its activities into Local Government Authorities and facilitating improvements of socio-economic infrastructure, enhancing capacity and skills of implementers and stakeholders rural and peri-urban communities, local government, NGOs and CBOs.who are involved in the program. TASAF initiatives improved basic social and economic services and protected vulnerable groups, including women and children. Specific attention was given to the HIV/AIDS epidemic and the involvement of civil society and non-government organizations (NGOs/CBOs) in rural development issues.

2.0 TASAF I Development Objective The main objective of TASAF I was to increase and enhance the capacity of communities and stakeholders to prioritize, implement, and manage sustainable development initiatives and in the process improve socio-economic services and opportunities. The expected outputs of the Fund were: community sub-projects; safety net sub-projects, sub-projects identified and implemented for women and vulnerable groups; a functioning monitoring and evaluation system; better informed stakeholders; and improved capacity for facilitation. 2.1 Institutional Set Up and Project Components TASAF was located in the President’s Office and the President appointed the TASAF Executive Director and National Steering Committee (NSC) to manage TASAF initiatives. The NSC was chaired by the Permanent Secretary in the Vice President‘s Office. Other members of the NSC included one representative from Vice President’s Office, Ministry of Finance, Ministry of Community Development, Gender and Children, Ministry of Regional Administration and Local Government, Ministry of Labour and Youth Development, Presidential Trust Fund, National Income Generation Program, Research on Poverty Alleviation, Interfaith Forum and State House. A total of eleven members constituted the NSC. There was an autonomous TASAF Management Unit (TMU) that was comprised of the Executive Director (ED), Director of Public Works Programme (DPW), Director of Community Development Initiatives (DCDI) and Director of Finance (DF). The TMU was also supported by Internal Audit and four technical units, namely Information, Education and Communication (IEC), Training and Support, Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E), Management

41

Information System (MIS). Also there were five Program Officers (POs) for CDI and two Program Officers for PWP who were located to support the 42 operational areas. In the course of project implementation the Directorate of Finance was merged with Administration, the Procurement Office was moved to Executive Director’s Office, the Technical Support units were merged to form a directorate of Systems and Capacity Building. In the later stage the seven POs were moved to TASAF Headquarters and be assigned new duties at TMU. These changes were made to enhance efficiency in delivery of technical expertise to districts, based on the experiences gained during operations for two years. At the District/Island level TASAF operated through the Local Government machinery whereby the Steering Committee and Management Committee were overseers of TASAF supported activities in their areas of jurisdictions. At the Community/Shehia level a Community Project Committee (CPC) was formed to manage subproject implementation processes except for SSP sub projects where NGOs/CBOs were engaged as implementing agencies. According to the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) signed between the District Council and TMU, the District Council/Island appointed the TASAF Project Coordinator (TPC) and TASAF Management Unit appointed the TASAF Accounts Officer (TAO). The TPC and TAO were engaged to coordinate and supervise TASAF supported initiatives at the district/island and community levels. The CDI (including Social Support Program [SSP] window), PWP and Institution Development (ID) were the three Project Components through which TASAF I was to achieve the objective.

2.1.1 Community Development Initiatives (CDI) CDI supported small demand-based Community Initiatives in the socio-economic sectors that improved the accessibility to, and delivery of social and economic services and enhance the capacity of communities and local development partners. The CDI Component total resource was US$38.00 million of IDA funding. The SSP was financed through CDI Component to pilot the program aimed at responding to the needs of vulnerable persons. Out of CDI resources, a total of US $ 1 million was allocated for SSP window implementation. 2.1.2 Public Works Program (PWP) Public Works Programme was a safety net scheme for targeted poor rural areas financing labour intensive works. The objective of PWP was to provide cash income for the poor, especially women and youth and particularly during periods of seasonal food shortage, through the promotion of job creation related to the construction and rehabilitation of infrastructure facilities. The PWP had been allocated US$ 15.00 million of IDA funding. 2.1.3 Institutional Development (ID) The Institutional Development Component was set to provide the day to day operational support that was needed for the districts to respond to the community demand-driven requests emanating from the participatory planning process. Institutional Development had been allocated US $ 7.00 million of IDA funding.

42

3.0 Assessment of the Project

3.1 Project Development Objective (PDO) The PDO and design principles are assessed under this section in the context of Government of Tanzania (GOT) development priorities as per appraised documents. The assessment looked on the achievement of Key Performance Indicators (KPI) agreed upon. Basing on the Project Appraisal Document of 27th July 2000 and the Project Operational Manual the project objective did not change. This was due to its relevance to the overall poverty alleviation strategy as the emphasis was to strengthen the capacities of the communities and increase community participation as well as giving more power to local government authorities in addressing poverty. Thus the shift of government from provider of services to become overseer and regulator of service providers necessitated the drive for more participation of communities. That could be achieved by enhancing their management capabilities in managing the development process for their betterment which was the main focus of TASAF interventions. However, in some cases strategies have been changing to suit the implementation environments and addressing some of the challenges encountered. 3.2 Project Design The Project design, which features the broad principles of TASAF did not change. The key principles that guided TASAF included:

i. Strengthening community empowerment through participatory project management and direct financing of demand driven subprojects;

ii. Enhancing community participation and contribution; iii. Promoting transparency and accountability among stakeholders at all levels of

TASAF operations; iv. Enhancing the capacities of implementers at all levels to provide effective

implementation management of sub projects within the context of decentralization; and

v. Promoting conformity to sector norms and standards in the process of sub project implementation.

The above principles were instrumental in bringing a sense of ownership, transparency and accountability across the TASAF actors. IEC campaigns and other capacity enhancement initiatives were used as instruments to disseminate these TASAF principles.

4.0 Achievement of the Objective Achievement of TASAF objective was assessed through tracking the Key Performance Indicators (KPI) agreed during project design. Table A provides the status of achievement as at May 31st 2005. A total of 1704 (1338 CDI, 61 SSP and 305 PWP) were funded of which 1,426 (1124 CDI, 42 SSP and 260 PWP) subprojects have been providing services to targeted communities and individual beneficiaries. The services provided make a difference to the lives of communities in which the sub projects were implemented as they have improved substantially. Assessment Achievement of the Project Objective was rated as satisfactory TASAF interventions have empowered communities in terms of ownership of both the development process and the facilities created. The beneficiaries saw TASAF approach as

43

the most appropriate for improving their standard of living. This had been made manifested by a Beneficiary Assessment carried out in 2003 which indicated that both communities as beneficiaries and local government staff as facilitators viewed the project as an instrument of poverty alleviation as it improved the service provision and enhanced transparency and accountability. Income transfer to rural population was an aspect that contributed to poverty alleviation since apart from addressing beneficiaries’ problems on temporary basis, it contributed to the creation of other economic activities by the beneficiaries which further generate income and make them self sufficient in terms of attaining the basic needs such as food, clothes and meeting the costs for education in terms of fees and uniforms. This is true particularly to safety net sub projects. The fact that implementation of sub projects did not look for big contractors gave community members within the communities who had skills in particular trade relevant to sub projects being implemented to make the benefits remain within the community. TASAF has benefited a total population of about 1.9 million direct beneficiaries for communities in 42 operating areas. Similarly, the expressed needs from non-TASAF areas, requesting for TASAF intervention in their areas have demonstrated the need of implementing development initiatives using the CDD approach. Some of the non-TASAF supported district councils have adopted the labour-based technologies in implementing some of their construction activities especially in road improvement, not only reducing implementation cost but also ensuring cash transfers to rural poor households and individuals. In this case, TASAF had been relevant to poverty alleviation in line with National Strategy for Growth and Reduction of Poverty (NSGRP). 4.1 Component Specific Achievement The component specific achievement was rated satisfactory. Sub projects implementation by communities created high quality assets, skills in implementation have been imparted to the communities and stakeholders to manage the sub projects and ability of poorest section of communities to cope with shortage of food was enhanced through cash transfer in form of wages paid to the same being temporarily employed in public works. Although the baseline information was missing to assess the specific component impacts, there is no doubt that there were a number of benefits accruing to communities in the subproject areas. These included the improved learning environment, reduced distance to water and health facilities as well as increased access to socio-economic services. 4.1.1 CDI (including SSP Window) Achievement The CDI Component including SSP window substantially achieved its objective by having the number of communities whose applications of subprojects were approved and supported reached 1399(1338 for CDI and 61 for SSP window). Out of these subprojects 1,178 subprojects have been completed and 149 of completed sub projects are not operating due to lack of staff and equipment. However, the government has included them in the 2005/06 budget so that they also can start providing the intended services to the beneficiaries. Through CDI component the following assets were created: Classrooms 2,586, Teachers’ offices 468, Teachers’ houses 335, Toilets 951, Secondary school laboratories 18, Schools administrative blocks 26, dormitories 13, OPD/MCH (dispensaries) 312, Clinical officers’/nurses’ houses 922, Out patient toilets 613, Incinerators 304, piped water systems 65 charco dams 2, earth dams 3, shallow wells 559, roads rehabilitated 5 (85 kms), small

44

irrigation schemes 2, Village markets 4, storage facility 1, and Village office 1. The breakdown is provided in Annex II

The 1338 CPCs formed were democratically elected by respective communities. The CPCs were comprised of 19,091 members of which 9,620 (50.4%) were men and 9,471 (49.6%) were women. The number of sub projects implemented fall short of the targeted 2,212. However, the number of assets created exceeds the number of targeted assets by 3,306 over and above the planned total of 3,906 assets Under SSP Window a total of 61 pilot sub projects, mostly Income Generating Activities (IGAs) have been funded benefiting a total of 2,737 vulnerable persons. Of these 875 were widows, 1,262 orphans, 472 elderly persons, 22 chronically ill persons (mostly HIV victims) and 106 people with disabilities. An Early Child Development (ECD) center was also constructed, serving a total of 57 children. A total of 30,015 people who have been reached by sub projects that had a component on awareness creation and education on HIV/AIDS. A total of 47 NGOs and CBOs were engaged as Project Implementing Agencies for the pilot SSP sub projects. Whereas in terms of sub projects the number of sub projects implemented is below the target, in reality the target has been surpassed under CDI component. This is due to the fact that implementation was done to attain functionality, thus implementing additional units to meet the sector requirements. 4.1.2 PWP Achievement The PWP component reached 581 communities and transferred US $ 4,263,253 in total to 113,646 beneficiaries who were temporarily employed in safety net subprojects, 47% of them were women, 7 percent above the target of 40 percent. The PWP Component achieved its objective by having 305 subproject approved and funded. The PWP sub projects were as follows: (i) 2173.6 kilometers of access roads, (ii) small earth dams of 300,037 cubic meters of storage capacity and water supply, (iii) 46,820 meters canals for small scale irrigation schemes, (iv) one footbridge (pedestrian) (v) 5,909,200 seedlings were raised for environment protection (community woodlots and rehabilitation of gullies) and 2,950 meters of storm water drainage ditches and (vi) village markets with floor area of 9157 square meters. Thus PWP impacts were based on cash transfer to the very poor individuals in the poor targeted households and an increase of access to economic services in remote villages. The Beneficiary Assessment (2003) revealed that income from wages paid were used by the beneficiaries for purchase of food, financing education such as payment of school fees and buying uniform for pupils as well as investing into agriculture and Income Generating Activities (IGA). Rural roads opened up many remote communities and enabled people to have access to other social services outside their communities such as markets for their agricultural produce and health services.

45

4.1.3 Institution Development Achievement The Institutional Development component achieved its objectives by having a total of 136,333 beneficiaries trained in sub-project implementation, supervision and management. This number includes 22, 687 CPC members who were trained on sub project management and 113,646 PWP beneficiaries who were trained on different skills in implementation of sub projects such as road excavation, tree planting and construction. Using the attained skills, some beneficiaries have been given other assignments similar to ones they were undertaking in the sub projects and earn income therefrom. Similarly, 732 staff from local governments and at national level was trained in various aspects of project management. The capacities of different beneficiaries at all levels involved in sub-project implementation and supervision and monitoring were improved. It was evidenced also that the pace of sub-project implementation and the speed of funds absorption capacities by LGA and communities were improved. These achievements strengthen the transparency and accountability of stakeholders which resulted in proper funds justification.

5.0 Project Implementation Challenges In the course of project implementation a number of challenges were met and they are grouped as follows: 5.1 Overall Project Implementation Challenges

i) Inadequate skills and technical capacity at district/island and community levels: There was limited capacity at the district/island level to respond to inadequate technical capacity and management skills on project planning, implementation, monitoring of progress both physical and financial aspects at the community level.

ii) Extreme poverty and hunger: It was difficult to facilitate sufficient

community participation due to severe poverty and hunger in communities; community members were more preoccupied with survival activities than participation in the implementation of their sub projects. This negatively affected community subprojects realization in some operational areas.

iii) Institutionalizing sector norms and standards:

In most districts/islands, timely operationalisation of sector norms and standards was lacking. While they are available at district levels, their application at community level was minimal. Through TASAF, communities were availed with sector norms and standards for use in sub projects implementation.

iv) Insufficient capacity and unavailability of NGOs and CBOs:

NGOs and CBOs were marginally utilized in facilitation of sub project implementation processes. This was due to organizations’ insufficient capacities and unavailability. Most NGOs and CBOs concentrate their activities in urban areas and in few places and capacities in terms of skills and personnel were also not adequate to efficiently support implementation. It was not easy to meet the design requirements of using Non Government

46

Organizations (NGOs) and Community Based Organizations (CBOs) in the implementation of TASAF supported activities.

v) Material Cost increases: Frequent price increase for construction materials

affected subproject budgets, which resulted to demand for additional funding over and above the initial budget.

vi) High community demand: Communities’ demands exceeded the available

financial resource. TASAF could only support subprojects based on the amount of funds available. A number of sub projects (510 applications) from the reached communities were not supported and hence demoralized the respective communities.

5.2 Component Specific Challenges 5.2.1 CDI (including SSP Window)

(i) Equipping and staffing of health facilities: A total of 149 health facilities funded by TASAF I did not start operating due to lack staff and health kits. This raised concern to the communities as they contributed a lot to such facilities so as to improve access to health facilities. The major reason was the unmatched budgeting period of Central Government and the CDD approach such that there was time lag between sub project completion and allocation of required health staff and equipment. The same have been submitted to the Ministry of Health to be budgeted for allocation of staff and equipment during the 2005/06 financial year.

(ii) Lack of experienced NGOs/CBOs at the community level: There were

difficulties in getting the experienced NGOs and CBOs in supporting communities to implement sub projects. That slowed down the pace of implementation as those identified had to undergo capacity enhancement and required frequent follow up.

. (iii) Competitive Market environment: Most of the SSP subprojects were

income generating activities. It was difficult for some beneficiaries’ products to be easily sold because market researches were not done prior to starting production. AS well, the quality of some products could not guarantee attractive price as the products could not compete with similar products of high quality.

(iv) Subprojects sustainability: Assurance of continuous follow-up of

sub projects implementation and support of extension services (e.g. livestock, agriculture, etc.) at the grassroots level was uncertain as the extension officers at the ward level are not adequately facilitated to reach the remote communities. Similarly, It was difficult to find suitable Community Management Organizations (CMOs) to take over management responsibilities of the subprojects from the PIAs. Even the PIAs normally reside in urban areas such that it is difficult to provide support to the community without having funds cover the costs for technical visits after the completion of sub projects. More time is therefore needed to build

47

capacities of CMOs to sustain their activities. Continuous follow up and technical support from LGAs are also needed.

(v) Unavailability of suppliers of specialized goods at the community level.

Suppliers for specialized goods for sub projects implementation such as building materials are normally established in the urban areas where they can better exposed to the market than at village level. Community Project Committees in most cases are required to travel away from their villages to the District and Regional H/quarters in search for project requirements. In some cases where the communities are situated far away from the District and regional headquarters this practice reduced the speed of implementation and was costly.

5.2.2 PWP Implementation of PWP subprojects faced the following challenges:

(i) Delayed Subprojects preparations and implementation

PWP subprojects were designed at the LGA/Island level due to high technical inputs required. However, the labour based technology is not being used frequently in other development projects, this caused delayed in the submissions of community applications for funding. Applications were deferred most of the time to obtain the minimum beneficiary wages requirement. To arrest this situation training was given to some technicians depending on each case and technical backstopping was enhanced.

(ii) Availability of simple and durable equipment for work execution

To get long lasting assets, some equipment were required to supplement some of the activities done by beneficiaries’ e.g. Pedestrian rollers for compaction of road formation or earth dam embankment. These types of equipment were not readily available and negatively affected implementation of sub projects.

(iii) Effects due to seasonality factor

PWP subprojects were supposed to have been carried out in the dry seasons so as to minimize disruptions of agricultural activities and get beneficiaries available to engage in safety nets. Delays caused by subproject preparation disrupted this arrangement.

(iv) Roles of LGA/Island staff created conflict of interest

The role played by the LGA/Island technical staff of being the designer, implementer and supervisor created conflict of interest. A pilot study was carried out in four LGAs whereby a local service provider was hired (small labour based contractor) to provide supervision instead of LGA as an alternative. More analytical work need to be done to assess the applicability of this procedure.

48

(v) The number of beneficiaries who needed intervention was very high

There were more beneficiaries expected to gain temporary employment than the subproject could take. Taking more beneficiaries to work, it reduces the available cash for individuals. The experience shows that in some areas, cash transfer was very minimal to individual beneficiaries.

5.2.3 Institutional Development Experience In the course of implementation of project, the Institutional Development

component faced a number of challenges which necessitated re-alignment in terms of Institutional set-up and organization. The key challenges were:

(i) Re - orientation at various levels of operations The re-sensitization and reorientation of LGA staff was experienced due to transfer of trained and oriented staff to non-TASAF supported LGAs. TASAF had to plan for training, sensitization and orientation of LGA staff transferred to TASAF supported districts so that they could render the required services in accordance with the principles and procedures of social fund. These programs were costly and slowed down the pace of implementation in many places.

(ii) Standard Operational Bills of Quantities Tracking of the sub-project physical and financial progress was made difficult as proper application systems to track OBOQs were not in place. However, OBOQs were prepared manually and district staff were trained to manage them. Nevertheless, the district based computerized MIS was lacking to be able to track inputs and outputs as subprojects were being implemented.

(iii) Technical Support to district technical staff Inadequacy of qualified technicians and sectors engineers slowed down the implementation pace. Therefore, technical support was necessary to those districts. In some cases technicians and engineers were hired from the market.

(iv) Provision of budgetary allocations to districts and Islands In order to give a proper support to LGA during sub-projects start up and implementation, it was necessary to provide budget allocations so as to support the communities. Failure in provision of the budgetary allocation some activities will have to stop as most of the LGA will not be able to finance.

49

6.0 Other Challenges

6.1 Financial Management issues

The TASAF I total project cost was estimated (as per Project Appraisal Document - PAD) at US $71.77 million. Contribution by IDA was US $ 60 million (SDR 45.5 million) and Government contribution was US $ 3.15 million.

The actual disbursements show that IDA funding to the project was US $ 62.63 million including PPF facility on historical base, equivalent to SDR 45.08 million representing 99% of the initial allocation. The Government of Tanzania contribution was US $ 3.06 million. At the beginning of the Project in November 2000, the special Account threshold was US$1 million however; later in January 2002 the IDA was requested to increase the threshold from US $ 1 million to 4 million. This was in response to cash flow constraints emanating from rapid increase in demands for cash to fund Community Subproject activities. During the implementation two DCA amendments were made, one was for the increasing of the special account threshold and the other was for reallocation of funds between the DCA categories. The reallocation between categories was essential for the following reasons: (i) Category I (CDI) needed more funds than initially allocated in the DCA due to

the fact that the communities came up with more demands for funds to finance approved projects to make them functional, and as a result the category was overdrawn;

(ii) Conducting and financing OPRA and training of Village Council members which were not earlier planned, had also affected TASAF I liquidity position.

(iii) Category 4 consultancy was also overdrawn due to the fact that initially

salaries for all staff including long term consultants were charged in category 5 - Operating costs although it was agreed during negotiations (Refer minutes of negotiations) that long – term consultants salaries should be under category 4. Unfortunately, the financing category schedule I in the Development Credit Agreement was not amended to reflect this agreed change.

Lack of a computerized financial management system for capturing financial data, processing them and producing monthly, quarterly and annual financial reports at earlier stage of start up was a constraint during implementation. It took too long to get a no objection from IDA to procure Epicor financial system and again it took sometime before the procurement aspect was cleared. This had a negative impact in the production of financial reports from a computerized system and hence monitoring of financial performance against actual progress was to be based on manually processed reports.

6.2 Procurement Issues

In TASAF I the major procurement was done in the second, and the third year of implementation. This included procurement of vehicles, computers and consultancy services. Procurement at the district and community level was done through the

50

Community Project Committee (CPC) who are democratically elected by their communities to manage the subproject funds in terms of financial accountability, procurement and reporting. The CPC received prior training from the district TASAF Office on simple record keeping accountability and procurement before they could start using the funds advanced for the subproject in line with the action plans.

6.3 Sustainability

The sustainability of created assets is rated satisfactory. Communities have developed strategies to make sure that the created assets are functioning. Communities have formed various community groups depending on the type of created asset. For example, there are water committees, school communities and health boards. The government also allocates funds to cater for repair of assets and they are channeled through the local government authorities. The local government authorities also provide expertise to communities. With increased revenue collection, the government is gradually increasing the allocation of resources to sectors to provide better services.

7.0 Bank and Borrowers performance 7.1 Bank Performance

The Bank’s performance is rated satisfactory. There was adequate technical advice and support from the Bank staff from the World Bank County Office and during the Supervision Missions throughout the project implementation period. The Bank addressed issues which were raised from time to time that needed action like DCA amendment to increase the special account threshold and to allow re allocation between categories. This has been one of the major contributions towards achievements of the TASAF objective.

7.2 Borrowers Performance

The Government of Tanzania performance is rated highly satisfactory. In the course of implementation of TASAF I, the Government of Tanzania demonstrated a great level of commitment to TASAF activities by offering office accommodation to TASAF MU and to the TASAF District Offices in all the 42 Operational Areas. TASAF District Staff who were dedicated full time to TASAF activities were employed and paid by the Government. These staff included TASAF Project Coordinator, the secretary, the driver and the Assistant TPC. The project had a very strong support from the National Audit Office as such always the Auditor General was on time for the audits as stipulated in the DCA. In terms of Counter part funding the Government of Tanzania contributed US $ 3.6 million against 3.1 million actual counter part funding spent to match the IDA funding.

8.0 Lessons Learnt

Lessons learnt are the product of TASAF I implementation experience. Most of them were encountered during TASAF periodic implementation reporting, studies, direct feedback from communities and other stakeholders.

(i) Direct Financing to Subprojects

51

This is the most appropriate approach when considering scale–up of TASAF operations. The approach enhanced transparency and accountability of the implementation and management of resources at the districts/islands, PIAs and Community levels.

(ii) Strong Sector Linkages Implementation of TASAF initiatives require strong team work between

the district and ward level staff who usually work with communities and sector ministries (Central Government Officials). This will enhance the institutionalization of the sector norms and standards. Although the immediate priority of the community was for example classroom, OPD or staff house, experience has shown that this resulted into low satisfaction of the facility by the beneficiaries. Therefore, there is a need to consider other elements of the service like staffing, water, desks to make it full functional. Functionality of the created facility was crucial.

(iii) Emphasis on Road Subprojects About 67 percent of all implemented safety net subprojects were related to

rehabilitate/construct access roads. This is because it was easily designed and could also meet the requirement of labour intensity in order to transfer substantial cash to beneficiaries. As well, that was an opportunity to open up the remote areas and contribute to improvement of living conditions of people in those areas by giving them accessibility to social services elsewhere. It is worth doing road works during dry season to tap the required beneficiaries (poor able bodied persons).

(iv) Strengthened Monitoring and Evaluation System While it was possible to track inputs and outputs during TASAF

implementation, lack of baseline data affected the assessment of TASAF impact to poverty alleviation as it was difficult to trace the change. There is a need of having baseline information to be able to qualify the TASAF achievements and contribution to national poverty reduction strategies.

(v) Strengthening Capacity Building of LGA and NGOs/CBOs Officials Implementation experience revealed inadequate LGA and NGOs/CBOs

capacity and skills to efficiently assess plan and implement processes of subprojects. There are number of cases identified where subprojects were deferred several times due to improper design and wrongly prepared project write-ups.

(vi) Gender balance in Subproject Implementations Experience Experience shows that women can perform just as men or better in public

works, financial management and subproject organization activities. Implementation of sub projects by communities and women’s inclusion in CPC provided a proof that women are more accountable in financial management activities compared to men. Even among pastoralists, women performed well in all aspects of sub projects management.

52

(vii) Sustainability and Scaling up of SSP Pilot a) Capacity of beneficiaries to manage subprojects

In order for the beneficiaries to manage their subprojects efficiently and sustainably after the initial training there is a need to strongly build the capacities of the leadership of their formal groups who will subsequent teach the rest of beneficiaries repeatedly.

b) Capacity of NGO/CBOs

Most of the NGO/CBO have low capacity in terms of resources to meet their own recurrent costs and cannot effectively and efficiently support implementation of subprojects.

c) Involvement of extension staff During project implementation, it was learnt that there were inadequate services of extension staff. Given the nature of IGA subprojects like livestock, agriculture etc, a continuous support and follow ups need to be done frequently by extension staff. Most of the NGOs/CBOs were based at district level or regional headquarters and therefore such that they do not make frequent visits to subprojects and provide the much needed support to the groups.

d) Sub- projects that require big infrastructure Given the nature of beneficiary groups (e.g. HIV/AIDS effected/affected) such type of big sub projects are costly and it takes too long to realize the benefit and sometimes the beneficiaries’ dies before benefiting from the intervention. There is a need to work on specific type of subprojects which yields fruits in a short possible time to the intended beneficiaries.

e) Subproject identification in relation to market acquisition

In the course of implementation of some IGA subprojects markets for the produce becomes an issue. It is therefore important during targeting of subprojects that the markets for the produce should be identified upfront to meet the competitive market environments and assure the producers of the continuous flow of income emanating from sales of their products.

(viii) Strategic Knowledge Management and Information sharing systems

a) Exchange visits It has been observed that exchange visits of district officials and CPCs has a positive impact in enhancing management of sub projects in their areas. Exchange visits conducted by CPCs and other decision makers made impressive improvement in terms of quality of work and in managing the subprojects. Some CPCs fired the contracted artisans and replaced them with the most competent ones. Districts are encouraged to facilitate community leaders and CPCs to make study visits to nearby communities within the districts which are successful so that they can learn the factors to success.

53

b) Having strategic plan and effective IEC programs in knowledge information sharing system

It was learned that those communities that implemented sub-projects successfully had a thorough understanding of the process and procedures through IEC compared to communities that had limited information and knowledge of the processes. There is a need therefore, to find new ways of increasing knowledge and information sharing including making interested messages through drama and tradition in order to deliberate create listeners for TASAF messages, with a view to increasing both the quality and levels of participation in TASAF funded activities.

(ix) The Need for Field based Standard Operational Bills Of Quantities

The implementation of CDD program such as TASAF where acquisition of goods and services for the delivery of sub-projects involves many actors and therefore the costs estimates needs to be accurately done. This will facilitate cost effective sub-projects and will give comparative analysis to other different geographical locations in requirements and literacy levels to implementing agents.

(x) Sub Project Cycle Management

The subproject cycle provides the implementers with project management tool that is adaptable to a variety of operations in the districts/islands. Districts/Islands Management teams and leadership can benefit from tailored capacity building in project management. Indeed further intervention in this regard is called for.

(xi) Community Empowerment

Community members have ability to prioritize and implement their social development activities when given the necessary support in the areas of planning, monitoring, supervision, implementation and financial management of resources.

(xii) Audit Activities

The audit activities whether internal or external have been important tool in enhancing capacity of implementers in terms of accountability and transparency.

(xiii) Orientation and sensitization

Re-orientation and sensitization of TASAF actors at all levels is very important because it develops capacity of actors as well as reviewing the processes for improving effectiveness of TASAF functions at all levels

(xiv) Significant role of IEC The experience gained from communities, LGA, NGOs, and other

stakeholders evidenced that it is useful to retain development communication as an integral element of project design. It is therefore important to start production and distribution of IEC materials at the beginning of the project in

54

order to avoid misinterpretation of information due to lack of reference materials.

(xv) Procurement

(a) Empowering Communities Improve Efficiency

In the procurement process communities are learning by doing particularly when performing procurement functions. This in turn builds capacity of carrying out development activities without a need for closer supervision from the district and regional authorities.

(b) Community Fast Learning Process

Speed and perfection of the sub-project implementation in TASAF supported sub-projects has been realized in areas where District Authorities have shown interest by providing uninterrupted technical support to the communities

(c) Local shopping enables greater saving

Communities buying decision is guided mainly by the cost factor. The lowest evaluated bidder in terms of price in principle is the successful bidder and is given first priority to supply the required goods and services. This environment create competition amongst suppliers who in turn get forced to lower down their prices at the advantage of the community budget saving.

(d) Force Account enables utilization of local resources

There is a problem of market for locally available resources in the communities. Designs of projects in the past were of supply driven nature managed by external experts favoring foreign inputs. Introduction of safety net sub-projects has helped in solving the problem of market for locally available resources such as materials and labour both skilled and unskilled.

(e) Small contractors are better than big contractors in the implementation

of Community Sub-projects

TASAF has experienced good quality products in the sub-projects where local contractors such as local artisans have been involved in construction work under the supervision of the Community Project Committees compared with other construction works which were supported and managed differently from TASAF approach. This implies that communities have better working relations with contractors they are used to than strangers and that those contractors are much cheaper and flexible compared to external contractors.

55

(f) Greater transparency and accountability enhances service delivery

Transparency in managing the project, and involvement of the community in procurement decision making builds confidence to the community, which in turn promote morale

56

9.0 Annexes

57

ANNEX I

TABLE 1: PROGRESS TOWARDS INDICATORS

TASAF achievement: Key Performance Indicators – Actual versus Target (June 15, 2005)

Objective Indicator Target Achievement Remarks Sector- related CAS Goal: To reduce poverty and promote sustainable development for the poor sections of the communities

Outcome/Impact indicators: Sector indicators: GDP increase from 4.75% in year 1 to 6.1% in year 4 Reduce % of the population below poverty line from 48% to 42% by year 4

GDP increase from 4.75% in year 1999 to 6.7% in year 20041 39% population living below basic needs poverty line; 19% population living below food poverty line (Household Budget Survey 2000/2001)

The successes gained are attributed to the economic reforms the government has instituted, implemented and coordinated for the last 10 years .

To increase and enhance the capacities of community and stakeholders to prioritize, implement and manage sustainable development initiatives and in the process improve social economic services and opportunities.

100% of projects to have permanent maintenance mechanisms

90 per cent of the completed sub projects have the permanent maintenance mechanism. The remaining 10 per cent belong to the health sector. They do not operate due to lack of staff and necessary

149 of the 1438 completed sub projects are currently not operating due to lack of staff and equipment. These fall under the health sector and could not get allocation of staff and equipment due to varying budget period between the Central and Local Governments. The same have been budgeted for by the Ministry of Health to be allocated staff and equipment during the 2005/2006 financial year so that they can start providing the intended services. Maintenance: The local government authorities bear responsibilities to ensure that the facilities are maintained.

1 URT (2005), Speech by the Minister of State, President’s Office, Planning and Privatization presenting to the National Assembly the Economic Survey for 2004 and proposal for the Medium Term Plan and Expenditure Framework for 2005/06 – 2007/08, Planning Commission, Government Printer, Dar Es Salaam.

58

Objective Indicator Target Achievement Remarks equipment. Health Sector: Ministry of Health provides funds through budget

allocation to local authorities for operation and maintenance. To guarantee ownership by communities, the local government authorities insist on community participation during rehabilitation through community contribution in kind and cash. The Community Health Fund (CHF) is being established in all Local Government Authorities which is intended to ensure that health services are provided in a sustainable manner. Education sector:, community is responsible for operation and maintenance of the facilities through school committees. The committees have been trained on their roles and responsibilities in the management of schools including operation and maintenance. Part of the capitation grant provided by the government to each school is used for repairs of school assets. Water sector: Beneficiaries form water user associations which are responsible for operation and maintenance of the facilities they get services from. Training are provided for facility care takers during implementation of sub projects. Social welfare: Beneficiaries of all sub projects for SSP have committees to oversee sustainability issues, have opened Bank accounts for depositing savings, and have been trained on skills such as business management.

Please see the Development Objective Statement above.

Efficient back-up services provided to 100% of the communities

100% The main provider of back up (technical) support is the Local government authorities and has been providing the required services to enhance management of sub projects along the sub project cycle. Deficiencies in basic skills in providing back up support have been mitigated through backstopping and provision of tailor-made training organized by TMU throughout the period of Project implementation.

Please see the Development Objective Statement above.

60% of population getting services from the constructed facilities

89 The facilities have reduced the distance for service availability, improved access to other social services through improved communication and improved learning environment. Sector distribution of assets is provided in Table 2, 3 and 4 below.

Please see the Development Objective Statement above.

80% of communities satisfied by the available services

The level of satisfaction for available services from

59

Objective Indicator Target Achievement Remarks the constructed facilities is 78.2%.

Project Outputs Output Indicators Output 1 Community Sub-project implemented

- No. of communities reached. - % sub-projects completed - % of women on CPC

2212 90% 50%

14822 83.3%3 50%

Number of sub projects implemented is lower than the target. However, the number of assets created exceeds the target. This is because initially, functionality was not considered but in the course of implementation, communities constructed additional 3,306 assets to complement the planned 3,906 assets so as to meet the standard sector requirements. See Table (1 in Annex II)

Output 2 Safety net to support Vulnerable groups are initiated and implemented

- No. of communities reached - % sub-projects completed within budget and time - Beneficiaries reached - % of women benefiting

328 90% 32,800 40%

5814 85.2% 113,646 47%

PWP serves more than one community.

Output 3 Capacity of Implementers and communities to manage projects is enhanced

- No. of implementers trained - No. of beneficiaries trained - % of women trained

840 40,000 50%

732 22,687 51%

The number of implementers trained refers to technical staff at district, NGOs, CBOs and national level including Management Unit staff. The number of beneficiaries trained were CPC members for each subprojects

2 This number refers to applications submitted to TMU (1408 CDI & 74 SSP) 3 This number has been derived using 1178 (1136 CDI and 42 SSP) completed sub-projects out of 1399 (1338 CDI and 61SSP) funded sub-projects. 4 Safety net subprojects involved more than one community (village).

60

Objective Indicator Target Achievement Remarks Output 4 Awareness and information to communities and stakeholders is improved

- % of increase attendance at awareness meetings (annual) - % of women in CPCs - % of population aware of TASAF (annual growth)

30% 50% 30%

- 50% -

The indicators set to measure awareness by considering 30 per cent increase annually are practically difficult to be computed.

Output 5 Institutional capacity to administer the fund is established

- Days to produce report after target date - Days within which to effect disbursement after application

7 30

15 15

Geographical locations of some districts make timely availability of reports difficult Good rapport with Commercial Banks made it easy for effecting disbursement.

NB: Community as used in this document refers to people in certain locality or localities with common needs. Thus community is need defined.

61

TABLE 2 PROJECT COSTS BY COMPONENT (IN MILLION EQUIVALENTS)

Appraisal

Estimate(US $ million)

Actual/Latest estimate(us million)

Percentage of Appraisal against actual

Components

Bank Community Development Initiatives

38.00

34.54 90.89.39Public Works Programme

15.00 12.90 86.00.71

Institutional Development

7.00 14.25 203.57

TOTAL 60.00 61.69 102.81.21 TABLE 3: PROJECT COSTS BY FINANCING (IN US $ MILLION

EQUIVALENTS)

Appraisal estimates Actual estimates Percentage of appraisal Component IDA GOT CoF IDA GOT CoF IDA GOT CoF

Community Development Initiatives

38.00 1.90 8.62 34.54 1.81

0.81

90.89 95.26 9.29.0Public Works Programme

1500 0.75 0.00 12.90 0.68

0.06

86.00 90.66

0.00

Institutional Development

7.00 0.50 0.00 14.25 0.57

0.12

203.57 114.00

0.00

TOTAL 60.00 3.15 8.62 61.69 3.06 0.99 102.81 97.14 9.29.2

62

TABLE 4: PROJECT COSTS BY PROCUREMENT ARRANGEMENT (US

$ MILLION EQUIVALENT) AT APPRAISAL

Procurement Method

Category ICB NCB Community

Participation Other N.B.F Total

1. Community Development Initiatives(CDI) (IDA Share)

34.50(34.50)

9.40 43.80(34.50)

2. Public Works (IDA Share)

13.80(13.80)

0.40 14.10(13.80)

3. Goods (IDA Share)

1.70(1.70)

0.60(0.60)

0.70 (0.70)

3.00(3.00)

4. Consultants TA/Workshop (IDA Share)

4.70

(4.70) 0.805.50

(4.70)5. Incremental

Operating Costs (IDA Share)

4.10

(4.10) 1.205.404.10

Total (IDA Share)

1.70(1.70)

0.60 (0.60)

48.30(48.30)

9.50 (9.50) 11.80

71.70(60.00)

TABLE 5: PROJECT COSTS BY PROCUREMENT ARRANGEMENT (US

$ MILLION EQUIVALENT) ACTUAL

Procurement Method

Category

ICB NCB Community

Participation Other N.B.F Total

1. Community Development Initiatives(CDI) (IDA Share)

36.35(34.54)

0.81 37.16(34.54)

2. Public Works (IDA Share)

13.58(12.90)

0.60 13.58(12.90)

3. Goods (IDA Share)

1.44 (1.44)

1.06(0.96)

0.10 0.22 (0.20)

2.82(2.60)

4. Consultants TA/Workshop (IDA Share)

6.88

(6.88) 6.88

(6.88)5. Incremental

Operating Costs (IDA Share)

5.30

(4.77) 5.30

(4.77)Total (IDA Share)

1.44(1.44)

1.06 (0.96)

50.03(47.44)

12.45 (11.85)

1.41 65.74(61.69)

Note: Numbers in brackets refer to the amount financed by International Development Association.

63

ANNEX II

TABLE 1: CDI SUB PROJECTS IMPLEMENTED AND ASSETS CREATED

Assets Created Additional (Extra)

Sector Asset Name No. of Sub-

projects Planned Actual Classrooms 448 896 2,586

1,690

Teachers House 278 278 335 57 Teachers Office - 468 468 -VIP Latrines - 896 951 55 Water Points - - 20 20 Laboratories 18 18 18 Administration Block 26 26 26

Education

Dormitories 13 13 13 SUB TOTAL 783 2,595 4,417 1,822

OPD/MCH 312 312 312 Clinical Officers’ House 15 15 311 296 Nurses’ House - - 611 611 VIP Latrine 613 613

Health

Incinerator - - 304 304 SUB TOTAL 327 940 2,151 1,211

Rural Roads 5 5 5 Irrigation Schemes 2 2 2 Markets 4 4 4 Godowns 2 2 2 R/water harvest 1 1 1

Econ. Infrastr

V/G Office 1 1 1 SUB TOTAL 15 15 15

Water Systems/Dams 70 70 70

Water

Deep/Shallow Wells 143 286 559 273

SUB TOTAL 213 356 629 273GRAND TOTAL 1,338 3,906 7,212 3,306

64

TABLE 3: DISTRIBUTION OF CDI SUBPROJECTS AND ASSETS CREATED PER DISTRICT/ISLAND

S/N

Distr

ict

No.of

su

bpro

jects

Clas

sroom

s

Domi

tories

Laba

rator

ies

Teac

hers'

Of

fices

Wate

r poin

ts (R

ain w

ater

harve

sting

)

Admi

nistra

tive

Bloc

ks

Teac

hers'

ho

uses

Latrin

es (T

oilets

)

OPD/

MCH

Clini

cal O

fficer

s' ho

uses

Nurse

s' ho

uses

Latrin

es fo

r dis

pens

aries

Incen

erato

rs

Wate

r poin

ts (S

hallo

w/de

ep

wells

)

Econ

omic

Infra

struc

tures

1 Bagamoyo 31 22 5 7 4 19 19 28 36 19 2 Bariadi 34 72 5 1 6 21 23 15 15 30 30 15 35 3 Bukoba Rural 29 98 32 17 1 2 28 5 5 12 10 5 4 Bunda 29 67 3 7 4 24 3 2 2 4 4 2 4 5 Dodoma Rural

30 95 27 6 13 2 2 4 4 2 2 6 Iringa Rural 37 60 2 6 1 4 12 13 13 32 25 13 38 7 Kasulu 28 46 3 9 9 15 15 32 29 15 4 8 Kibaha 28 39 6 3 2 3 20 10 10 15 19 10 4 1 9 Kibondo

37 82 8 1 1 4 14 14 14 28 28 14 20 10 Kigoma Rural

28 45 5 2 6 15 11 11 24 21 11 1 11 Kilwa 30 65 13 11 30 5 5 10 10 2 1 12 Kiteto 36 52 3 11 1 2 17 19 4 4 8 8 4 9 13 Kondoa 26 26 4 11 3 6 6 12 12 6 10 14 Kwimba 29 115 24 1 3 27 4 4 8 8 4 15 Kyela 29 77 2 2 3 3 21 6 6 12 12 6 36 16 Lindi 29 28 3 7 21 12 12 24 24 12 22 17 Magu 29 93 4 3 4 8 58 8 8 16 16 8 18 Manyoni 30 34 2 3 17 14 14 28 28 14 14 19 Masasi 33 100 11 4 49 8 8 16 16 8 4

65

S/N

Distr

ict

No.of

su

bpro

jects

Clas

sroom

s

Domi

tories

Laba

rator

ies

Teac

hers'

Of

fices

Wate

r poin

ts (R

ain w

ater

harve

sting

)

Admi

nistra

tive

Bloc

ks

Teac

hers'

ho

uses

Latrin

es (T

oilets

)

OPD/

MCH

Clini

cal O

fficer

s' ho

uses

Nurse

s' ho

uses

Latrin

es fo

r dis

pens

aries

Incen

erato

rs

Wate

r poin

ts (S

hallo

w/de

ep

wells

)

Econ

omic

Infra

struc

tures

20 Mbulu 36 102 1 13 29 26 5 5 10 10 5 4

21 Meatu 38 57 4 22 35 4 5 10 7 4 19

22 Morogoro 28 27 3 14 16 13 13 26 26 13 24 23 Muheza 34 48 11 27 8 8 18 16 8 14 24 Muleba 34 108 23 3 44 3 4 8 5 3 25 Nachingwea 37 68 8 4 24 4 4 8 8 4 23 26 Ngara 25 47 6 23 24 1 2 4 1 1 1 27 Nkasi 34 62 25 5 2 4 4 8 8 4 28 28 Rombo 35 121 37 44 2 2 4 4 2 29 Rungwe 23 57 17 2 4 1 1 2 2 1 1 30 Shinyanga

33 27 8 4 2 10 10 20 20 10 9 31 Sikonge

32 47 14 4 24 8 10 20 14 8 5 32 Singida 43 97 19 28 36 8 9 18 16 8 9 33 Songea

38 57 21 17 34 10 10 20 20 10 58 2 34 Sumbawanga 35 57 3 5 20 8 8 16 16 8 28 35 Tabora 30 48 7 15 44 4 4 8 8 4 6 36 Tandahimba 32 56 20 1 40 8 8 16 16 8 3 4 37 Temeke 33 36 5 3 22 6 6 12 12 6 72 2 38 Tunduru 33 49 4 2 25 2 2 4 4 2 61 2 39 Unguja 33 54 2 6 17 8 9 4 4 18 4 23 40 Ulanga 30 87 9 4 32 3 3 6 6 3 22 1

66

S/N

Distr

ict

No.of

su

bpro

jects

Clas

sroom

s

Domi

tories

Laba

rator

ies

Teac

hers'

Of

fices

Wate

r poin

ts (R

ain w

ater

harve

sting

)

Admi

nistra

tive

Bloc

ks

Teac

hers'

ho

uses

Latrin

es (T

oilets

)

OPD/

MCH

Clini

cal O

fficer

s' ho

uses

Nurse

s' ho

uses

Latrin

es fo

r dis

pens

aries

Incen

erato

rs

Wate

r poin

ts (S

hallo

w/de

ep

wells

)

Econ

omic

Infra

struc

tures

41 Urambo 32 36 11 4 24 14 14 24 28 14 42 Pemba 28 22 2 1 8 4 2 2 8 4 15 3 1,338 2,586 13 18 468 20 26 335 951 312 311 611 613 304 629 15 TABLE 4: PUBLIC WORKS’ ASSETS

S/N TYPE OF SUB PROJECT TOTAL Remarks 1 Access road 204 2,173.6 km 2. Environmental Protection 29 5,909,200 seedlings and 2,950 storm

water drainage ditches 3. Water 41 300,037m3 storage capacity and

water supply 4 Markets 16 Floor area of 9,157m2 5 Bus Stand 3 6 Small Scale Irrigation 11 46,820m canals 7 Foot Bridge 1

67

TABLE 5: STRATEGIC AND TECHNICAL STUDIES CONDUCTED IN TASAF I (NOVEMBER 2000 – JUNE 2005)

DATE NO. STUDY/CONSULTANCY start end

DETAILS BY WHOM

1. Environmental analysis. 22/2/2000 21/3/2000 Preparation of checklist of Environmental analysis

M/s Epcon-Biotec of Dar-es-salaam

2. PWP Self-Targeting wage Rate.

3/4/2001 16/4/2001 Work out for determination of self targeting wage rate

M/s. Business care Services.

3. Testing and Fine-tuning Community service delivery survey

27/5/2001 3/7/2001 Establish methodology for participatory M&E and baseline study

M/s. Information training and agricultural development of England

4 Platinum software licenses(Epicor), customization, training, installation and implementation

2/5/2002 22/7/2002 Putting in place computer based TASAF Financial Management and Accounting System

M/s. SoftTech Consultants Ltd of Dar-es-salaam

5 Beneficiary assessment in TASAF operating areas.

25/2/2003 25/5/2003 Assessment of beneficiaries’ opinion on the design and services provided through TASAF

M/s. Data vision international Tanzania Ltd.

6 Review the community Service delivery survey.

6/4/2003 24/5/2003 Fine tuning the CSDS

M/s. Data vision international Tanzania Ltd.

7 Environmental impact assessment of TASAF supported sub-projects

9/5/2003 6/6/2003 Assessing the effects of TASAF supported sub projects implementation on environment

M/s Epcon-Biotec of Dar-es-salaam

8 Setting TASAF website and training.

10/1/2003 4/3/2003 To set up information centre and services for current and prospective stakeholders to share knowledge and information.

M/s E-Biz solution Ltd of Dar-es-salaam

9 Developing TASAF staff appraisal system and procedure

26/5/2003 16/6/2003 Putting in place detailed procedures of staff performance appraisal

M/s Bureau for Industrial cooperation. (BICO)

10. Prepare District Baseline data on selected MDG targets

24/5/2004 5/7/2004 Establishment of M/s Business care services

68

DATE NO. STUDY/CONSULTANCY start end

DETAILS BY WHOM

Baseline Data for TASAF II

11. IEC impact assessment in TASAF operating areas.

5/5/2004 6/7/2004 Assessment of effectiveness of IEC activities on TASAF implementation

M/s ST. Associates Ltd. Process consultants and facilitators

12. Assessment of capacity of Districts in sub-project management within the context of sector norms and standards.

24/5/2004 24/6/2004 Determine the existence, availability and use of sector norms and standards in districts.

M/s Apex Engineering co Ltd

13. Conduct review of status of participatory planning in Tanzania.

30/5/2004 15/7/2004 Facilitated development of the most appropriate framework to participatory process to be adopted by all districts during implementation of TASAF II

M/s HR Consult

14. Conduct information system strategy planning (ISSP)study for TASAF

20/4/2004 8/6/2004 To review the organizational strategy of TASAF in order to align systems objectives with the design of TASAF II

M/s MN Informatics Ltd of DSM

15. Conduct review of community saving practices

24/5/2004 12/6/2004 Facilitate the design of community savings schemes in the context of social protection

K-Rep Advisory services (T) Ltd

16. Evaluation of Social Support Program

24/5/2004 26/7/2004 Assess the effectiveness of SSP

M/s Unique consortium of consultancy services.

69

TABLE 6: TRAINING AND WORKSHOPS CONDUCTED 6A: TRAINING Activity No. of

Participants No. of Participants by Geographical Distribution

Duration

National District 1 Training in

Intergraded Financial Management and Accounting Systems using Platinum (Epicor) Financial systems

14 14 14 days

2 Training of TAOs to operate and manage computers, associated equipment and MSOffice application package

42 42 3 days

3 Orientation of Rombo District E-PRA Team to E-PRA for PWP

10 10 4 days

4 Orientation of Rombo DPT to TASAF and PWP operations

9 9 5 days

5 Training of District E-PRA teams in E-PRA for HIV/AIDS

39 39

6 Orientation of Uyui District E-PRA Team

10 10

7 Orientation of Pemba team to Labor based Technology

1 1

8 Orientation of newly appointed DCs, and DEDs and TPCs.

5 5 2 days

9 Training Course in Technical Audit

3 3 3 days

10 Training in Safety – net

6 6

11 Orientation of Muheza DPT to TASAF and PWP operations

6 6

12 Orientation of Manyoni District E-PRA Team

11 11 8 days

13 Orientation of E-PRA on HIV/AIDS

48 48 1 days

14 Orientation of District E-PRA

40 40 8days

70

Activity No. of Participants

No. of Participants by Geographical Distribution

Duration

National District Teams to subproject

15 Orientation of Sikonge District Project Team(DPT)

6 6 1 day

16 On the job training of Sikonge district technicians

10 10 2 days

17 Stock Exchange Markets Seminar

4 4 3 days

18 Training of Trainers (TOT)

10 10 2 weeks

19 Training in Value for Money Auditing

3 3 2 week

20 Orientation on labour- based technology

20 20 2 weeks

21 Orientation of DCs, DEDs and TPCs

30 30 2 days

22 Training of TAOs in Computer – Based FMAS

42 42 2 weeks

23 Training of District Personnel in CSDS

14 14 4 days

24 Training of TAOs in Financial Planning and Management

8 8 2 weeks

25 Re- orientation of Kibaha District Management Team

14 14 1 day

26 On the job training of Kibaha District Technical Committee

6 6 10 days

27 Labour Based Technologies Seminar

7 7 5 days

28 Orientation workshops on self-targeting wage rate determination

3 3 3 days

29 TOT Workshop on Training of Shehia Advisory Councils and Shehia Development Committees

3 3 6 days

30 Regional Training of Trainers Workshop on

3 3 5 days

71

Activity No. of Participants

No. of Participants by Geographical Distribution

Duration

National District CDD

31 Training of Engineers and technicians in Estimating Costs of Construction Works

14 14 6 days

32 Training of PIAs and PSCs in four SSP Pilot Districts

142 142

33 Training of trainers workshops on Business Management

28 28 3 days

34 Re-orientation Session for staff and Leaders of Lindi Region

35 Training in Computer –Based FMS (EPICOR) and PTS

116 32 84 3 days

36 Training in Design and Implementation of Effective Safety – nets

2 2 2 weeks

37 Training Course in Disbursement

5 5

38 Training in Protecting the Vulnerable: Deign and Implementation of Effective Social Safety-nets

3 3 2 weeks

39 Training of Cashier in Advanced Accounting

1 1 4 weeks

72

6B: STUDY VISITS/TOURS Activity No. of

Participants No. of Participants by Geographical

Distribution Duration

National District 1 Study Visit to

India and Srilanka

3 3

2 Study visit to Malawi

6 6

3 Study visit by members of TASAF-II PPT to districts

14 14 1 week

4 Study visit for newly appointed TPCs to other districts

3 3

5 Study visit by DCs, DEDs, TPCs, DIAs and TAOs

15 15

6 Study visit by DCs and DEDs to Pemba

5 5

7 Study visit by Members of Parliament

10 10 7days

73

6C: WORKSHOPS Activity No. of

Participants No. of Participants by

Geographical Distribution Duration

National District

1 Monitoring and Evaluation/Management Information Systems Workshop to Assess the M&E/MIS tools

26 18 8 4 days

2 TASAF Planning Workshop

30 22 8 4 days

3 Grant making Workshop

1 2 days

4 Workshop on Environmental Accounting

1 1 1 day

5

Professional forum on accounting

1 1 3 days

__ -.

The United Republic of Tanzania President’s Office

TANZANIA SOCIAL ACTION FUND.

Old Kilwd MaIina7 Road Telephone: 255 022 2123582-84 P.U. Box 9381 Fax: 255 022 2123582 Dar ,?G Salaam &Mail: info@tasa~org TanZania ,

@‘&&e: w~w.tasaforg

, .

In reply please quote:

Ref. No: EF/CEN/T/98/14 Duke: 22 March 2006

Country Director The World Bank, DAR ES SALAAM,

Dear Madam,

Re: OFFICIAL SUBMISSION OF ADDENDUM TO GOVERNMEEtT-jlCR AND . _-

COMMENTS TO IDA IMPLEMENTATION COMPLETION REPORT (ICR)

’ Kindly refer to the above mentioned subject and your letter dated 30* December 2005 regarding the extension of period for which the Government was to submit comments , regarding the IDA ICR.

The requested meeting was held between IDA Team and Government Team represented by TMU staff and discussed in line with the proposed agenda. The Minutes of the Meeting are attached herewith for your reference.

With regard to the Addendum b the Government ICR, the Government does not see the reason for withdrawal of its ICR. The Addendum is attached and should replace Tables 1 to 5 of Annex 1. In this case, the Government ICR should be read dong with the submitted Addendum.

The comments to the IDA ICR are as they were submi#ted previously with amendments made after the meeting between the IDA and Government Teams. They are attached herewith for your reference.

We anticipate continuous cooperation in poverty reduction efforts through the initiatives that directly target benefichies at grassroots level.

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR -74-

75

ANNEX I TABLE 1: PROGRESS TOWARDS INDICATORS TASAF achievement: Key Performance Indicators – Actual versus Target (June 15, 2005)

Objective Indicator Target Achievement Remarks Sector- related CAS Goal: To reduce poverty and promote sustainable development for the poor sections of the communities

Outcome/Impact indicators: Sector indicators: GDP increase from 4.75% in year 1 to 6.1% in year 4 Reduce % of the population below poverty line from 48% to 42% by year 4

GDP increase from 4.75% in year 1999 to 6.7% in year 20041 39% population living below basic needs poverty line; 19% population living below food poverty line (Household Budget Survey 2000/2001)

The successes gained are attributed to the economic reforms the government has instituted, implemented and coordinated for the last 10 years .

To increase and enhance the capacities of community and stakeholders to prioritize, implement and manage sustainable development initiatives and in the process improve social economic services and opportunities.

100% of projects to have permanent maintenance mechanisms

90 per cent of the completed sub projects have the permanent maintenance mechanism. The remaining 10 per cent belong to the health sector. They do not operate due to lack of staff and necessary equipment.

149 of the 1438 completed sub projects are currently not operating due to lack of staff and equipment. These fall under the health sector and could not get allocation of staff and equipment due to varying budget period between the Central and Local Governments. The same have been budgeted for by the Ministry of Health to be allocated staff and equipment during the 2005/2006 financial year so that they can start providing the intended services. Maintenance: The local government authorities bear responsibilities to ensure that the facilities are maintained. Health Sector: Ministry of Health provides funds through budget

1 URT (2005), Speech by the Minister of State, President’s Office, Planning and Privatization presenting to the National Assembly the Economic Survey for 2004 and proposal for the Medium Term Plan and Expenditure Framework for 2005/06 – 2007/08, Planning Commission, Government Printer, Dar Es Salaam.

76

Objective Indicator Target Achievement Remarks allocation to local authorities for operation and maintenance. To guarantee ownership by communities, the local government authorities insist on community participation during rehabilitation through community contribution in kind and cash. The Community Health Fund (CHF) is being established in all Local Government Authorities which is intended to ensure that health services are provided in a sustainable manner. Education sector:, community is responsible for operation and maintenance of the facilities through school committees. The committees have been trained on their roles and responsibilities in the management of schools including operation and maintenance. Part of the capitation grant provided by the government to each school is used for repairs of school assets. Water sector: Beneficiaries form water user associations which are responsible for operation and maintenance of the facilities they get services from. Training are provided for facility care takers during implementation of sub projects. Social welfare: Beneficiaries of all sub projects for SSP have committees to oversee sustainability issues, have opened Bank accounts for depositing savings, and have been trained on skills such as business management.

Please see the Development Objective Statement above.

Efficient back-up services provided to 100% of the communities

100% The main provider of back up (technical) support is the Local government authorities and has been providing the required services to enhance management of sub projects along the sub project cycle. Deficiencies in basic skills in providing back up support have been mitigated through backstopping and provision of tailor-made training organized by TMU throughout the period of Project implementation.

Please see the Development Objective Statement above.

60% of population getting services from the constructed facilities

89 The facilities have reduced the distance for service availability, improved access to other social services through improved communication and improved learning environment. Sector distribution of assets is provided in Table 2, 3 and 4 below.

Please see the Development Objective Statement above.

80% of communities satisfied by the available services

The level of satisfaction for available services from the constructed facilities is 78.2%.

77

Objective Indicator Target Achievement Remarks Project Outputs Output Indicators

Output 1 Community Sub-project implemented

- No. of communities reached. - % sub-projects completed - % of women on CPC

2212 90% 50%

14822 83.3%3 50%

Number of sub projects implemented is lower than the target. However, the number of assets created exceeds the target. This is because initially, functionality was not considered but in the course of implementation, communities constructed additional 3,306 assets to complement the planned 3,906 assets so as to meet the standard sector requirements. See Table (1 in Annex II)

Output 2 Safety net to support Vulnerable groups are initiated and implemented

- No. of communities reached - % sub-projects completed within budget and time - Beneficiaries reached - % of women benefiting

328 90% 32,800 40%

5814 85.2% 113,646 47%

PWP serves more than one community.

Output 3 Capacity of Implementers and communities to manage projects is enhanced

- No. of implementers trained - No. of beneficiaries trained - % of women trained

840 40,000 50%

732 136,333 51%

The number of implementers trained refers to technical staff at district, NGOs, CBOs and national level including Management Unit staff. The number of beneficiaries trained were CPC members for each subprojects (22,686) and PWP beneficiaries (113,646)

2 This number refers to applications submitted to TMU (1408 CDI & 74 SSP) 3 This number has been derived using 1178 (1136 CDI and 42 SSP) completed sub-projects out of 1399 (1338 CDI and 61SSP) funded sub-projects. 4 Safety net subprojects involved more than one community (village).

78

Objective Indicator Target Achievement Remarks Output 4 Awareness and information to communities and stakeholders is improved

- % of increase attendance at awareness meetings (annual) - % of women in CPCs - % of population aware of TASAF (annual growth)

30% 50% 30%

100% 50% 100%

All planned awareness meetings for communities, local government authorities and other stakeholders were attended accordingly as per arrangements. They were effectively used to disseminate knowledge about TASAF principles and procedures and rules of access for support. The IEC impact Assessment (2004) and Beneficiary Assessment (2003) indicated that surveyed people were all aware of TASAF operations.

Output 5 Institutional capacity to administer the fund is established

- Days to produce report after target date - Days within which to effect disbursement after application

7 30

15 15

Geographical locations of some districts make timely availability of reports difficult Good rapport with Commercial Banks made it easy for effecting disbursement.

NB: Community as used in this document refers to people in certain locality or localities with common needs. Thus community is need defined.

79

TABLE 2: PROJECT COSTS BY COMPONENT (IN MILLION EQUIVALENTS)

Appraisal Estimate(US $

million)

Actual/Latest estimate(us million)

Percentage of Appraisal against actual

Components

Bank Community Development Initiatives

38.00 34.54 90.89Public Works Programme

15.00 12.90 86.00

Institutional Development

7.00 14.25 203.57

TOTAL 60.00 61.69 102.81

TABLE 3: PROJECT COSTS BY FINANCING (IN US $ MILLION EQUIVALENTS)

Appraisal estimates Actual estimates Percentage of appraisal Component IDA GOT CoF IDA GOT CoF IDA GOT CoF

Community Development Initiatives

38.00

1.90 8.62 34.54 1.81 8.12

90.89 95.26 23.5Public Works Programme

1500

0.75 0.00 12.90 0.68 0.00

86.00 90.66

0.00

Institutional Development

7.00

0.50 0.00 14.25 0.57 0.00

203.57 114.00

0.00

TOTAL 60.00 3.15 8.62 61.69 3.06 8.12 102.81 97.14 23.5

80

TABLE 4: PROJECT COSTS BY PROCUREMENT ARRANGEMENT (US $ MILLION EQUIVALENT) AT APPRAISAL

Procurement

Method Category

ICB NCB Community

Participation Other N.B.F Total

1. Community Development Initiatives(CDI) (IDA Share)

34.50(34.50)

9.40 43.80(34.50)

2. Public Works (IDA Share)

13.80(13.80)

0.40 14.10(13.80)

3. Goods (IDA Share)

1.70(1.70)

0.60(0.60)

0.70(0.70)

3.00(3.00)

4. Consultants TA/Workshop (IDA Share)

4.70

(4.70)

0.80 5.50

(4.70)5. Incremental

Operating Costs (IDA Share)

4.10

(4.10)

1.20 5.404.10

Total (IDA Share)

1.70(1.70)

0.60 (0.60)

48.30(48.30)

9.50(9.50)

11.80

71.70(60.00)

TABLE 5: PROJECT COSTS BY PROCUREMENT ARRANGEMENT (US $ MILLION EQUIVALENT) ACTUAL

Procurement

Method Category

ICB NCB Community

Participation Other N.B.F Total

1. Community Development Initiatives(CDI) (IDA Share)

36.35(34.54)

8.12 44.47(34.54)

2. Public Works (IDA Share)

13.58(12.90)

13.58(12.90)

3. Goods (IDA Share)

1.44 (1.44)

1.06(0.96)

0.10 0.22(0.20)

2.82(2.60)

4. Consultants TA/Workshop (IDA Share)

6.88

(6.88)

6.88

(6.88)5. Incremental

Operating Costs (IDA Share)

5.30

(4.77)

5.30

(4.77)Total (IDA Share)

1.44(1.44)

1.06 (0.96)

50.03(47.44)

12.40(11.85)

8.12 73.05(61.69)

Note: Numbers in brackets refer to the amount financed by International Development Association.

Additional Annex 9. Regional Poverty Ranking

At appraisal, the selection of Districts for TASAF interventions was done on the basis of regional poverty ranking that was based on selected indicators - poverty level, food insecurity, primary school gross enrolment ratio, access to safe water, access to health facility, AIDS case rates and road accessibility. The regions with low composite indices were allocated a maximum of three Districts whereas those with high composite indices were allocated with one District as they were considered well off. Regional ranking in year 2005 based on similar indicators gives a different picture with regions shifting positions as indicated in columns (f) and (h) in the table below:

S/N

(a)

Region

(b)

Composite Index2000

(c)

Rank 2000

(d)

Number of TASAF Districts

(e)

Composite Index2005

(f)

Rank 2005

(g)

Change in Ranking

(h)

1 Tabora 5.1 1 3 5.7 14 +132 Shinyanga 6.4 2 3 6.3 19 +173 Kagera 7.1 3 3 4.4 5 +24 Kigoma 7.5 4 3 3.6 1 -3

5 Lindi 7.7 5 3 4.5 7 +26 Morogoro 8.4 6 2 4.3 4 -27 Arusha

(Manyara)8.7 7 2 5.3 10 +3

8 Rukwa 9.4 8 2 4.7 8 09 Singida 9.9 9 2 5.3 11 +210 Dodoma 10.0 10 2 5.8 17 +511 Coast 10.2 11 2 4.2 2 -912 Mbeya 10.7 12 2 5.8 15 +313 Mwanza 10.8 13 2 8.0 20 +714 Ruvuma 12.0 14 2 4.5 6 -815 Mtwara 12.4 15 2 5.9 18 +316 Iringa 12.7 16 1 5.8 16 017 Tanga 12.8 17 1 4.2 3 -1418 Mara 14.4 18 1 5.6 12 -619 Kilimanjaro 16.2 19 1 5.6 13 -620 Dar Es

Salaam17.5 20 1 4.8 9 -11

21 Zanzibar n/a n/a 2 n/a n/a -Total 42

- 81 -

A recent ranking of the 20 Regions using recent data shows that TASAF, as well as other development partners, made a contribution to poverty reduction in some of the Regions. Five regions that were ranked as poorest each had three Districts supported by TASAF; and four have improved in the ranking while only Kagera Region is worse off. The reason for Kagera’s decline could perhaps be due to the influx into the Region of refugees from a neighboring country. Seven of the ten Regions that supported two Districts each have improved their position; two have seen a fall, while one has no change in ranking. A positive figure in column (h) indicates that there has been some economic growth in the Region; whereas a negative figure means that the Region had become worse in terms of poverty ranking. Regions with 1 District funded by TASAF declined in ranking by an average of 5; Regions with 2 Districts went up the scale by an average of 0.4; while those with 3 Districts went up by an average of 6 points. Tabora and Shinyanga, each with three TASAF supported Districts, registered high economic growth. Further research would be required to establish the reasons for the decline in the other Regions, particularly the two Regions along the coast. While it is difficult to attribute these positive changes in Regional poverty levels wholly to TASAF, it is reasonable to assume that TASAF made a significant contribution since it provided the resources for community investments and created economic opportunities.

Reference Data Sources:

Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security, Rapid Vulnerability Assessment (RVA) Report on 1.Drought Affected Areas in Tanzania for the 2005/06 Market Year, August 29, 2005The United Republic of Tanzania, Basic Statistics in Education, 2004, Regional Data2.Tanzania Mainland, HIV Indicator Survey, 2003-04, Key Findings3.The United Republic of Tanzania, Ministry of Health: Health Statistics Abstract 2002, Vol II. 4.Inventory StatisticsDistrict Baseline Data on Selected Millennium Development Goals Targets. Final Report, 5.2003, by Business Care Services Limited, commissioned by TASAF

- 82 -

Additional Annex 10. Data on indicators not reported on in Annex 1

(a) From PAD page 2

S/N Description AchievementInput Indicators (Monitored through the MIS)

1 TASAF support system at district level and national level (Number of fully staffed and functional district programs and level of development of MIS and accounting systems)

42 districts/islands fully staffed. MIS developed working at the national level, at district level it was paper based, Accounting systems developed and working at national and district level.

2 Mobilization of TASAF funds:Community (and total disbursements)

For CDI Community contribution: US$7,256,545.04District Councils/Islands: US$864,233.89

Government Contribution US$ 4,376,785.713 Overhead costs as percentage of project cost 11.7%

Output Indicators (Monitored though the MIS)4 TASAF staff trained 1475 Partners institutions trained 5856 Number sub-projects submitted,

appraised, accepted, completedCDI:Submitted: 1,482Appraised: 1,482Accepted: 1,399Completed: 1,136Health : 56%Education: 23% Water: 15%Socio-economic Infrastructure: 6%PWP:Submitted: 344Appraised: 305Accepted: 305Completed: 260

7 Percentage of sub-projects with 20% cost overrun over appraisal.

53% (906 sub-projects)

8 Average total community investment as percentage of sub-project costs

18.25%

- 83 -

9 Project processing time by type of project (standard schedule to be defined)- % of projects with 10% time overrun (submission to financing)

71%

- % of projects with 10% time overrun -(financing agreement to implementation)

72%

- % of project with 10% time overrun (implementation to completion)

74%

Outcome Indicators (Monitored at post completion)10 Number of beneficiaries reached 1.9 million11 % of sub-projects with satisfactory

maintenance rating by local authoritiesNot available

% of sub-projects with satisfactory utilization rating

91%

(b) Indicators from Schedule 6 of DCA

Indicator description StatusCDINumber of women trained in the operation and maintenance of water facilities

629

Access to safe water sources: distance to water points and time saving

200-400m (30 to 60 minutes from 3 to six hours)

PWPNumber persons/months of employment created by gender under the urban and rural sub-projects **

226,333:§ Female 106,377 § Male 119,956

Number of Households benefiting 113,646Labour intensity: Percentage of unskilled labour cost to total project cost

36%

Total Wage transferred in US$ $4,556,531

- 84 -

Institutional DevelopmentWorkshops/meetings/studies/field visit by type of training provided and number and type of participants

Workshops 5; 59 district and national level participantsStudy tours 7; 56 national and district level stakeholders

Number of people trained in project cycle management and basic bookkeeping

732 participants at district and national level implementers22,687 CPCs members

Number of strategic and technical studies, beneficiary and impact assessments carried out and disseminated

16

IEC Meetings Radio ProgramsNewslettersBrochures Leaflets Newspapers Articles T shirts

2,243 1,168500,00018,00058,0008438,000

** The person months relate to the total amount of money paid out as wages divided by the average wage to get person days of employment created, and then divide by the number of working days in a month (24).

- 85 -

S/N District No. of sub-projects

Classrooms Dormitories Laboratories Teachers' Offices

Water points (Rain water harvesting)

Administrative Blocks

Teachers' houses

Latrines (Toilets)

OPD/ MCH

Clinical Officers' houses

Nurses' houses

Latrines for dispensaries

Incinerators Water points (Shallow/ deep wells)

Economic Infrastructures

1 Bagamoyo 31 22 5 7 4 19 19 28 36 19

2 Bariadi 34 72 5 1 6 21 23 15 15 30 30 15 35 3 Bukoba

Rural 29 98 32 17 1 2 28 5 5 12 10 5

4 Bunda 29 67 3 7 4 24 3 2 2 4 4 2 4 5 Dodoma

Rural 30 95 27 6 13 2 2 4 4 2 2

6 Iringa Rural

37 60 2 6 1 4 12 13 13 32 25 13 38

7 Kasulu 28 46 3 9 9 15 15 32 29 15 4 8 Kibaha 28 39 6 3 2 3 20 10 10 15 19 10 4 19 Kibondo 37 82 8 1 1 4 14 14 14 28 28 14 20

10 Kigoma Rural

28 45 5 2 6 15 11 11 24 21 11 1

11 Kilwa 30 65 13 11 30 5 5 10 10 2 1 12 Kiteto 36 52 3 11 1 2 17 19 4 4 8 8 4 9 13 Kondoa 26 26 4 11 3 6 6 12 12 6 10 14 Kwimba 29 115 24 1 3 27 4 4 8 8 4 15 Kyela 29 77 2 2 3 3 21 6 6 12 12 6 36 16 Lindi 29 28 3 7 21 12 12 24 24 12 22 17 Magu 29 93 4 3 4 8 58 8 8 16 16 8 18 Manyoni 30 34 2 3 17 14 14 28 28 14 14 19 Masasi 33 100 11 4 49 8 8 16 16 8 4 20 Mbulu 36 102 1 13 29 26 5 5 10 10 5 4 21 Meatu 38 57 4 22 35 4 5 10 7 4 19 22 Morogoro 28 27 3 14 16 13 13 26 26 13 24

23 Muheza 34 48 11 27 8 8 18 16 8 14 24 Muleba 34 108 23 3 44 3 4 8 5 3 25 Nachingw

ea 37 68 8 4 24 4 4 8 8 4 23

26 Ngara 25 47 6 23 24 1 2 4 1 1 1 27 Nkasi 34 62 25 5 2 4 4 8 8 4 28 28 Rombo 35 121 37 44 2 2 4 4 2 29 Rungwe 23 57 17 2 4 1 1 2 2 1 1 30 Shinyanga 33 27 8 4 2 10 10 20 20 10 9

31 Sikonge 32 47 14 4 24 8 10 20 14 8 5 32 Singida 43 97 19 28 36 8 9 18 16 8 9 33 Songea 38 57 21 17 34 10 10 20 20 10 58 234 Sumbawa

nga 35 57 3 5 20 8 8 16 16 8 28

(c) Geographical Distribution of CDI Subprojects and assets created(Excluding the 61 SSPs)

86

S/N District No. of sub-projects

Classrooms Dormitories Laboratories Teachers' Offices

Water points (Rain water harvesting)

Administrative Blocks

Teachers' houses

Latrines (Toilets)

OPD/ MCH

Clinical Officers' houses

Nurses' houses

Latrines for dispensaries

Incinerators Water points (Shallow/ deep wells)

Economic Infrastructures

35 Tabora 30 48 7 15 44 4 4 8 8 4 6 36 Tandahim

ba 32 56 20 1 40 8 8 16 16 8 3 4

37 Temeke 33 36 5 3 22 6 6 12 12 6 72 238 Tunduru 33 49 4 2 25 2 2 4 4 2 61 239 Unguja 33 54 2 6 17 8 9 4 4 18 4 23 40 Ulanga 30 87 9 4 32 3 3 6 6 3 22 141 Urambo 32 36 11 4 24 14 14 24 28 14 42 Pemba 28 22 2 1 8 4 2 2 8 4 15 3

1,338 2,586 13 18 468 20 26 335 951 312 311 611 613 304 629 15

87

Additional Annex 11. DCA-PAD editorial inconsistencies and DCA amendments

DCA text and amendments PAD textPDO: “to enhance and sustain the provision and use of resource endowments by Beneficiaries, which will contribute to poverty reduction through……”

PDO: “to increase and enhance the capacities of communities and other stakeholders to prioritize, implement and manage sustainable development initiatives and in the process improve socio-economic services and opportunities”

Schedule 6, Performance Indicators includes indicators not in the PAD, i.e., “labor intensity: percentage of unskilled labor cost to total project cost, # of projects approved, funded and completed by sector and geographic distribution, # of households benefiting from employment, total wage income transferred in US dollar equivalent.”

Some Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) from main text are not in Annex 1, i.e., ratio of female to male beneficiaries; text indicates Annex 1 has a more complete list distinguishing between CDI and PWP components

Schedule 3 indicates first five contracts under CDI and PWP above $25,000 will be prior reviewed

Annex 6 prior review thresholds table indicates first five contracts under CDI and PWP below $25,000 will be prior reviewed

Schedule 1 indicates Operating Costs will be financed at 90%

Annex 6 Table C Allocation of Credit Proceeds indicates Operating Costs will be financed at 90% of local expenditure

August 2002: Amendment required to increase Special Account threshold, and to reflect agreements reached during negotiations: remove TASAF MU contract staff remuneration. April 2004: To allocate amounts required under Category 4 to reflect the change in operating cost definition, and increasing shopping aggregate.February 2005: Reallocation among categories to reflect anticipated expenditure to closing.

- 88 -